 |
|
MRT144
|
|
Seattle Washington
Oct 2002
time: 21:17
|
|
id make them play civ all day
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Kuciwalker
|
 |
of Schmooism
Feb 2001
time: 00:17
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by aneeshm
@ Sava -
Everyone supporting seperation has provided anecdotal evidence of their experiences , while those opposing it have mostly theorised . Make your own deductions .
If still you remain unconvinced , then I have a great example - the IITs ( Indian Institute of Technology ) . Getting into them is tough as hell ( only 3,500 out of more than 150,000 make it ) , thus all who reach that place have a certain academic and intellectual level , far above the rest of the pack . What that place does is to bring it together , leading to what can only be called an explosion of creativity . Any student coming out of those institutes is guaranteed a great future - not because of a great resume , but because of a his fantastic exposure and ability to apply himself in whatever he does - which has seeped in thanks to the culture he liven in for that crucial four years of their lives .
There have been many students who have graduated from the IIT in some technical branch , taken up a completely dofferent job for which they may not even be fully qualified ( like banking ) , and done fantastically well . |
No segregation system I've seen has been based purely on grades. The most I've seen is 50/50.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Sikander
|
 |
Boulder, Colorado, United Snakes of America
Jan 2000
time: 22:17
|
|
When I was in elementary school "tracking" students was very popular. Three of my first six years of school were spent in the advanced class, which was a mix of the most gifted students from two grades. As luck would have it I ended up being from the younger grade level each time. These classes were great for me, and were the only time that I ever felt completely engaged in my twelve years of public school. The rest of the time my classes progressed at the rate of the slightly lower than average students. I was bored to tears most of the time and acted out in various ways sometimes. If the teachers were cool I was allowed to study things on my own as the general class ponderously went over the material I mastered in a few minutes.
I wasn't well-served when I was in the general population. I realize that my IQ puts me easily in the top 1% but I feel that a much larger group of students felt the same way. I ended up disliking school except for perhaps one or two classes a semester. I developed bad study habits because of the slow pace, habits which came back to haunt me later in my education as the wheat was slowly seperated from the chaff.
To my mind we need to group students by type. It isn't simply a question of intelligence, discipline or special aptitudes, but also one of learning styles, cultures and special needs. I know for a fact that the students at the bottom suffered more than I did from their distance from the class' pace. Dyslexic students and students suffering from ADHD etc. were taught no differently than anyone else for instance.
I think we need to make the high school diploma valuable once again in and of itself, rather than a ticket to a wasted college education as it has become for too many. In my ideal world only perhaps half of the students who currently enroll in college right after high school would do so. The rest would be well-educated enough to go right into the work force where they would be trained on the job. I'd take half of the money saved and plow it back into K-12 education. I'd use the other half to improve / expand the community college system so that people who had a little life experience under their belt could continue their educations as they saw fit, whether they wanted to work towards a broader education and an eventual four year degree, or chose instead to learn individual skills to improve their value as workers or to improve themselves personally as they see fit. Even a little work experience will markedly improve people's educational choices and achievements.
|
|
| |
|
| |
|
|
|
Immortal Wombat
|
 |
in perpetuity
Dec 2000
time: 05:17
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by Barinthus
sorry, Kid I have to disagree with you there. Arranging students seating by their grades is just horrible. It doesn't help lower performing students at all and probably encourage them just to give up. |
When I was in primary school, my teacher did this. It was rather subtly done actually: because of the way friendships had fallen out, it looked like we were seated with our friends, but as you travelled around the classroom, you went from the smartest table (rather blatently called Table A) past B, C, D, E to F where the thickies were sat.
The interesting thing was that AFAIK, only tables A B and C ever actually realised that this is how it was arranged. In an argument with one particularly arrogant and deluded denizen of table E, I rather cruelly informed him of this fact, and the look of surprise on his face was golden. His spirit was utterly crushed. It was hard to feel sorry for him, cos he was as irritating as an improperly wiped arse, but it did amaze me that genuinely didn't realise.
Anyway. I think it did help the much lower performing students (E and F). They all sat together, there was no smart kid next to them outperforming them at everything, and it meant that the teacher could deal with them as a group if they were having difficulties, and so spend less time repeating himself and more time teaching.
Table C I didn't speak to much, but I think they always enjoyed beating table B on tests and so on. They had some directed motivation to do well. The only group who I think found it a bad thing were table D, who were smart enough to know they weren't very smart and that they were being treated as not very smart. I'm not really sure, since they all hated me anyway.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Flubber
|
|
With a view of the Rockies
Aug 2000
time: 22:17
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by Barinthus
sorry, Kid I have to disagree with you there. Arranging students seating by their grades is just horrible. It doesn't help lower performing students at all and probably encourage them just to give up. |
I agree. I thought the idea of arranging seating by grades was the worst I have ever heard. In my school I always got the best grades but I didn't need a big bullseye painted on me every day by virtue of the seating arrangement.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Flubber
|
|
With a view of the Rockies
Aug 2000
time: 22:17
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by Ramo
I'll give you an example. There were two (single-variable) calculus classes in my high school, represented by two AP tests (the easier "AB" and the more difficult "BC"). The AB class was taught by a relatively inexperienced teacher who graded very generously, paced the class slowly, etc. The BC class was taught by a good teacher who graded harshly, paced the class quickly, etc. Nearly everyone in the AB class bombed their relatively easy AP test, while nearly everyone in the BC class got a 4 or 5 (the two highest grades) on their relatively difficult AP test. While the BC class was smarter than the AB class, they were not that much smarter (generally coming from the same previous classes).
|
This is more about teaching expectations and standards than anything. I had a similar experience in university calculus. My girlfriend and I took the same university calc. course from different professors. I "struggled" all year long to score 60s or 70s while my girlfriend was easily making higher grades. It made no sense to me as I was always better at math than her. It made sense when we sat down to study for the common final and she looked at my tests and had no idea how to do the problems. Result was that I found the common final a breeze while she and her classmates struggled.
Was my prof "better"? Depends what you think . . . She had the highest passing rate of anyone in the math faculty. She also had the highest rate of people dropping the course . . . maybe because she brought a stack of drop forms on the day she passed back the first quiz and stated "If you did not pass this quiz you should consider using one of these"
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Spiffor
|
 |
CPA - Evil Clone brigade
Nov 2001
time: 06:17
|
|
Aneeshm
I onlky read the first posts, but I think there is a fundamental problem with your perception:
You seem to believe that indiscipline has strictly individual sources: Some people are just made so that they'll wreck havoc in school, while some others will behave. You completely disregard the fact that indiscipline also has strong social causes. If you hang out with anti-school kids, if the values of your peer group are to ridicule anybody that performs well, while encouraging those who make a mess at school, you're far more prone to become undisciplined than if you were in a studious peer group.
In France, this effect is blatant, as rich/educated cities have very little serious indiscipline, compared to poor/uneducated neighborhoods. I'd imagine the same happens pretty much everywhere an uneducated counter-culture exists.
(Note that I am not saying the causes of indiscipline are exclusively social. I'm pointing out, however, that it is a very important factor you seem not to have taken into account at all - at least on page 1)
What you are advocating is to make these ignorant gangs much more tight-knit. You basically doom to indiscipline (and probably to school failure and later failure in life) the many normal kids who have followed some hellraiser because they found him cool. These "followers" are actually the bulk of the indisciplined (at least over here), and they can change their ways. Actually, most do later in life when they have to pay the bills, but when it's already too late to have grand ambitions.
The real problem is not to isolate all the indisciplined, because most of them are actually soft, and could be rehabilitated fairly easily. The real problem is actually to isolate the hardcore hellraisers, especially the ones who also manage to convince others to follow their ways.
These few people are the actual threat to everybody's quality of education, and these ones should be sent where they cannot do their damage. A soft version is to orient them to teachings that actually interest them (and yes it can work). The hard version is to put them in special schools where they'll hang out with the same kind of irrecuperable ones. I think both methods should be used, because there is indeed a very small core of people who'll spit on any education they'll be provided with. However, these people are far, far less numerous than the indisciplined you want to segregate.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Flubber
|
|
With a view of the Rockies
Aug 2000
time: 22:17
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by Spiffor
Aneeshm
You seem to believe that indiscipline has strictly individual sources: Some people are just made so that they'll wreck havoc in school, while some others will behave. You completely disregard the fact that indiscipline also has strong social causes. If you hang out with anti-school kids, if the values of your peer group are to ridicule anybody that performs well, while encouraging those who make a mess at school, you're far more prone to become undisciplined than if you were in a studious peer group.
|
You discount the ability of a teacher to control the room. Consider substitutes . . we had one that ended up leaving in tears pretty much every time she subbed. Obviously we were an undisciplined rabble right ??? Yet other substitutes had control of the room within 1 minute of the first time they encountered us.
My dad ( a teacher for 30 years) claimed that his education was almost irrelevant to his ability to control the room. he thought we would be much better served if prospective teachers were given a short 6 week training program and then tossed in the classroom ( WITHOUT the regular teacher there)-- He believed that those that could not control the room in that situation were unlikely to ever be in control of their classroom. Those that could convey or teach something would make the good teachers and should be the ones that would learn all the proper methods.
|
|
| |
|
| |
All times are GMT. The time now is 05:17.
Apolyton Time is 00:17. |
top of page
|
|
|
Forum Rules:
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts
|
HTML code is ON
vB code is ON
Smilies are ON
[IMG] code is ON
|
|
|
|
|
|
16-03-2005 12:13
ACK! 
|