philosophy
Posts: 5284
Joined: 2/15/2004
Status: offline
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: Mercnbeth
Would be curious as to the reasons why the UK experiment with segragating by testing didn't work, however that is not what I'm pushing to see applied.
....because intellectual development isn't necessarily fixed at age 10 or 11. Although i am finding it hard to reconcile you saying thats not what you're driving at when you suggest that 5th graders ought to be told then if they're going to be functionally illiterate.
quote:
All can learn; however just as much focus should be on a 'child held back waiting' as there currently is on the child 'left behind'. If there is a problem filling the personnel requirements in business while enjoying a 99% literacy rate; something else must be the problem. I say its time we let children advance as quickly or as slowly as able.
..on this point we agree. The grade system is too clumsy. It doesn't allow a child with a particular talent to have that talent nurtured. i am, andhave always been, firmly of the opinion that those with a rare talent are just as discriminated against as those who find school difficult. In short, exceptional ability (as far as western education systems go) is a learning disability.
quote:
The 'little red school-house' concept and association of grade to age is fundamentally flawed. The house must come down. If a 16 year old reads on a 1st grade level - that's the grade level he should be in for that particular subject; perhaps while simultaneously being in advanced calculus for his math skills. Why not provide opportunities from food service to car repair for those so inclined at the earliest age - no coercion only access. Crossing over from one to the other as currently you can cross over from one major to another in College.
...well, i'm afraid i don't know what you mean by the 'little red school house', cultural thing i guess. however i also agree with the substantive point. i see no fundamental value difference between a motor mechanic and a quantum mechanic. Assuming they are equally good at their job then they're both equally deserving of respect. Western education tends not to recognise this, although i was pleased to see as i was leaving the UK a couple of years back that this was changing. Schools were starting to be encouraged to offer NVQ's (non vocational qualifications.....essentially skill based learning) alongside GCSE's (general certificate of secondary eduacation, knowledge based learning).
quote:
What's the goal? Isn't it that each child in the system achieve all they can? It isn't happening now. Current curriculum is based upon what a long dead educator deemed important. A policy based upon age based education. Policy as basic as the calender has no application to modern society. For as long as schools have existed in the US they were operating on a calendar based upon the assumption that children went home to work on family farms and had 'chores' to do between 3-5PM. In most school districts the calender hasn't changed to mirror modern reality.
........i'll take your word on that. My knowledge of the US system isn't that extensive.
quote:
Schools are more day-care centers today, down to the expectation of providing a 'free lunch'; another entitlement expectation impressed on our youth.
....study after study shows that those from low income families benefit from this practise in that they achieve far more both academically and in general education. It's not entitlement...it's a fair investment in the educational possibilities of kids. The benefits have been proven time and time again. i know you're ideologically opposed to people getting things free at the point if delivery.....but this practise pays back to society in that those who recieve this benefit are far more capable of giving back to society later on. i'm afraid your position on this suggests you haven't researched this issue properly.
quote:
The problem isn't the kids, its the boxed in thinking of the educators and, worse, the teacher unions in the US that advocate for the status quo. Their only solution is throwing more money at the problem, curving the scores, or teaching to the testing requirement for certification. All policies, especially the money, contrary to the pragmatic quantified results; lowering the 'bar' produces lower achievement, learning for a test generates no long term benefits, and finally, more money does not produce better results.
.....is it only the unions? what about parents? Don't they also have to shoulder some responsibility for this?
quote:
However, try and get a teacher's union to consider any aspect of this and you're doomed to experience the same failure they currently teach.
......parents are just as resistent to change as unions.
quote:
The condition of unlimited resources no longer exists. It's time to reallocate the ones we have before asking for more. My policy would not exclude anyone nor would it doom anyone. It would enable them to achieve whatever they were capable - and yes it would - let them fail.
.......failure is not the only issue here. Long term societal benefits are also in play. While a certain amount of failure is character building, too much tends to make young people feel that they are doomed to it, creating an underclass that feels it has no stake in society.
quote:
Our difference may be that you method makes the first time experience of failure an 'adult' experience. In my opinion that's too late and beyond the developmental stage where they can do something about it. Unless it is your belief that every child has the ability to be an Einstein if enough money is spent, it's better to help them get to the level they are most able to be successful adults, using the available resources, by failing them along the way as a child.
........you assume that my position is that of a typical right wingers view of a liberal. It is more complex than that. i do agree that not every child will grow up to be able to do high grade math. i absolutely do not agree that that determination can always be made at grade 5. Free market economics have a major role in society at large, but not in education. Every stakeholder in education; parents, teachers, employers and the state need to re-examine what education ought to be for. i do agree it needs to be re-engineered......but not in such a way that bottom line economics becomes the touchstone, and not in such a way that children are written off or prevented from certain career paths at age 10.
|
RE: Perhaps a Magic Act? - 
. 
Profile
New Messages
No New Messages
Hot Topic w/ New Messages
Hot Topic w/o New Messages
Locked w/ New Messages
Locked w/o New Messages
Post New Thread