|
DesideriScuri -> RE: Does Multiculturalism work? (7/26/2017 2:23:40 PM)
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: vincentML
quote:
Well, you making such an incredibly ridiculous comparison compelled me, and my comment was about the comparison being ridiculous.
Not ridiculous at all. Neither the child with Down's Syndrome nor the immigrant child has choice or control over their physical circumstances.
Yet, the parent(s) of the immigrant child has choice and control that the parent(s) of a child with Down's Syndrome don't. You forget about that, apparently.
quote:
quote:
" how is the teacher going to teach them anything at all? Please note the part in quotation marks is exactly what I said before. Verbatim. How you leap from "enough of a grasp of the English language to be able to understand their teachers and their schoolwork" to "children ages 4-6 are prepared in English language skills,"
You are misquoting me. If you think children ages 4-6 are prepared in English language skills you have little understanding of language development in kids. Please notice the qualifier "IF" which you cut off. It changes the meaning of what was said.
I didn't misquote you, and your correction changes nothing, Vincent. Your bringing up the fact that English continued to be taught into or through 12th grade has nothing to do with what I said. Your saying "if you think" is a great way to imply that I do think that way, else why would you even say it?
You also didn't answer my question.
quote:
quote:
I won't bitch they aren't trying hard enough. I think they are already trying too hard to effect changes that are outside 1. their purview, and 2. that even society, in general, doesn't really have the tools to do.
Who said anything about "trying to effect changes that are outside their purview or that society in general doesn't have the tools to do?" You speak in sadly ill-defined and wildly general terms.
That's the reality of the teaching profession, Vincent. I know you know it. I can only assume you're just not connecting the dots at the moment.
quote:
Most school teachers know what their missions are and given the proper circumstances of well lighted classrooms, proper textbooks and other pertinent materials, they accomplish their missions with a pretty high degree of success. All they ask is that the state provide sufficient finances for materials and reasonable class sizes so they can effectively reach out to the children and have them all feel important.
Problems arise when political ideologues interfere with sufficient funding or wish to dictate what and to which children we should teach.
Teachers don't just teach, and that's the part that really bugs me. Teachers, and school districts, are, in many cases, also the parents, the disciplinarians, and the nurturers. If kids got those things at home, teachers would be able to devote more time to their actual mission - teaching. Society has yet to figure out how to get the all parent(s) of kids - across all socioeconomic divisions - to provide a nurturing and academically supportive home environment. That is one of the biggest factors in academic success, isn't it? Unfortunately, in poorer socioeconomic areas, the concentration of nurturing and academically supportive home environments is much lower than in higher socioeconomic areas.
You want the state to spend the dollars to get school supplies, etc.? Relying on data from last year (Ohio school report cards; only because I'm not going to take the time to look up the exact figures for 2016/17 academic year), the school with the highest $/pupil spending (Ottawa Hills) also had the highest rate of academic achievement. The school with the second highest $/pupil spending (Toledo Public) had the lowest rate of academic achievement. IIRC, Anthony Wayne schools (a suburb) had the second or third highest rate of academic achievement, and the second or third lowest $/pupil spending.
Why does Toledo Public spend more than other schools, but can't out-succeed the rest of the schools?
|
|
|
|
