Once or twice?

[Aimless]

Good to see that your dedication to socialism isn't limited to economic equality but intellectual equality as well. God forbid some people are more interested in school than others or smarter than others and don't want to spend a year learning material they already know.

the funny thing is i've always been ahead of my age group at school, right up until uni

man if i want to spend money on schools i want it spent first and foremost on ensuring their health and wellbeing. perhaps that's my dedication to socialism, perhaps it's just my notions of what's most valuable and rewarding during childhood.

wow here's a thought if everyone in school knew more and were happier and were thoroughly stimulated then you wouldn't have kids going around being bored and unhappy at school!!

but let's face it this isn't about keeping kids from being unhappy, this is about giving kids some people perceive as being more worthy some extra boosts over their peers. parents are selfish, greedy, uncaring creatures.

[littlelolligagged]

ahh here i thought it was about giving those kids a competitive edge, you know merit padding, looking good when it's time for uni applications, etc. never in my life did i imagine it was about keeping kids from being bored. i thought that if people cared about keeping kids from being bored they would simply make school more interesting, maybe have more singing and dancing and trips and stimulating even the "mediocre" kids instead of focusing on getting them to serve their time and hopefully pass standardised tests.

i'm all for stimulating kids of course, gifted and otherwise!!

It doesn't really give that much of an advantage, application wise. They tend not to look back to elementary and junior high - and in high school classes are sorted by ability - and the "gifted classes" would more than likely be AP, or random electives. Being smart is no guarantee of having an advantage, anyway. And do you really think that my son needed to spend his first three years of school learning phonics so he could learn to read? Or that spelling tests with such difficult words as "will" (that during the work he has had to write 3 times each, even) could ever come close to challenging him? Unfortunately, in his case, it is more important to focus on socialization than actually giving him opportunities to use his mind.

For anyone who doesn't know this already, my son has Asperger's - and after you look it up and determine that people with it have relatively high IQs, you should also know that his even exceeds the typical range for that.

Good to see that your dedication to socialism isn't limited to economic equality but intellectual equality as well. God forbid some people are more interested in school than others or smarter than others and don't want to spend a year learning material they already know.

I have never understood why anyone would think that. The best chance for success is for everyone to be with people close to their level. The less intelligent kid is going to be frustrated if the smarter ones know everything, while the more intelligent one will be bored with the material.

[Ominous Gamer]

the funny thing is i've always been ahead of my age group at school, right up until uni

man if i want to spend money on schools i want it spent first and foremost on ensuring their health and wellbeing. perhaps that's my dedication to socialism, perhaps it's just my notions of what's most valuable and rewarding during childhood.

wow here's a thought if everyone in school knew more and were happier and were thoroughly stimulated then you wouldn't have kids going around being bored and unhappy at school!!

but let's face it this isn't about keeping kids from being unhappy, this is about giving kids some people perceive as being more worthy some extra boosts over their peers. parents are selfish, greedy, uncaring creatures.

I was tested because I was getting bored in class and stopped doing mindless work. The teacher would allow us to grade our own work and I would just pretend to be checking or Xing a blank piece of paper. When she asked for grades I would ring off a low A or high B. Started around 3rd grade. My parents didn't have any involvement in the process.

[Aimless]

I have never understood why anyone would think that. The best chance for success is for everyone to be with people close to their level. The less intelligent kid is going to be frustrated if the smarter ones know everything, while the more intelligent one will be bored with the material.

bizarre, in my classes we've mostly benefitted from the diversity, maybe because we were good at being inclusive and looking after one another, as were our teachers, maybe because our lessons weren't focused exclusively on learning assigned material and being smart!!

pff, what's so awesome about IQ anyway




but i'll concede that "teaching to the lowest common denominator" in many US schools may entail far more crazy-boring work than it did in my own classes

[Loki]

I have never understood why anyone would think that. The best chance for success is for everyone to be with people close to their level. The less intelligent kid is going to be frustrated if the smarter ones know everything, while the more intelligent one will be bored with the material.

Because people like Minx care more about creating an equal society than they do about the well-being of each member of that society. There's absolutely no excuse for not teaching each child at their level (as far as resources permit anyway). I really fail to see how anyone can think that it's possible to keep kids interested through some gimmicks when they're learning material they already know.

bizarre, in my classes we've mostly benefitted from the diversity, maybe because we were good at being inclusive and looking after one another, as were our teachers, maybe because our lessons weren't focused exclusively on learning assigned material and being smart!!

They clearly failed at teaching your class analytical reasoning, though they did quite brilliantly at spoon-feeding you propaganda.

[Aimless]

I was tested because I was getting bored in class and stopped doing mindless work. The teacher would allow us to grade our own work and I would just pretend to be checking or Xing a blank piece of paper. When she asked for grades I would ring off a low A or high B. Started around 3rd grade. My parents didn't have any involvement in the process.

okay but check this out though... ominous was tested and was obviously a bright lad but look where he is now!

proof positive that testing for such things is just to have an excuse to reward a few kids that some delusional people care more about

[Ominous Gamer]

Where exactly is that aimless?

Are you claiming that my currently chosen financial position some how suggests I've become dumber? I've never been one to chase the money, one reason public education was my first career choice.

[littlelolligagged]

but i'll concede that "teaching to the lowest common denominator" in many US schools may entail far more crazy-boring work than it did in my own classes

It probably does.

Also, repetition. My daughter and my son both had the same page of math homework, from the same math textbook one day last week.

1/4 + 2/4 = ???

[Aimless]

Because people like Minx care more about creating an equal society than they do about the well-being of each member of that society.

ha ha that's rich coming from you! but i'll concede that ensuring the wellbeing of each member of society depends on having programmes for the gifted

no, wait, i won't because it's nonsense

[Loki]

It probably does.

Also, repetition. My daughter and my son both had the same page of math homework, from the same math textbook one day last week.

1/4 + 2/4 = ???

Presumably they'll keep on repeating it until a sufficient number of students in the class get it right, even if that means forcing that problem down the throats of students who've figured out the answer years ago.

ha ha that's rich coming from you! but i'll concede that ensuring the wellbeing of each member of society depends on having programmes for the gifted

no, wait, i won't because it's nonsense

Because we all know that all students are identical and should therefore be told the same information at the same pace. Do you realize that your strategy would probably kill off the sciences within a generation?

[Aimless]

It probably does.

Also, repetition. My daughter and my son both had the same page of math homework, from the same math textbook one day last week.

1/4 + 2/4 = ???

fractions seems to be one of the more challenging things to teach in maths at an early age... don't they have a structured series of problems that gradually develop kids' understanding of how fractions behave??

[Aimless]

Because we all know that all students are identical and should therefore be told the same information at the same pace.

maybe we're talking past one another

you're obsessed with the maths homework

i am obsessed with school as a package

Do you realize that your strategy would probably kill off the sciences within a generation?

why because happy confident social people who don't go into gifted programmes don't become scientists??

perhaps they don't become political "scientists" but they are quite capable of becoming other kinds of scientists, provided your basic education rewards an interest in science just as it might reward being nice to your peers.

[littlelolligagged]

fractions seems to be one of the more challenging things to teach in maths at an early age... don't they have a structured series of problems that gradually develop kids' understanding of how fractions behave??

I don't know how it works for kids that are actually challenged by it, but I don't think it gets much easier than that. From looking at Buddy Boy's worksheets when his class first started fractions, though, it seems to involve a lot of drawings.

They separate kids into "reading groups" based on reading level in their classrooms, I honestly don't see why they don't do the same thing with math.

[Aimless]

weird... when i referred to the rewards of diversity i was thinking mostly of our english classes, indeed, all our reading-centered classes!



when it came to maths we were free to zoom ahead if we liked, there were no special programmes necessary.

[Loki]

weird... when i referred to the rewards of diversity i was thinking mostly of our english classes, indeed, all our reading-centered classes!

when it came to maths we were free to zoom ahead if we liked, there were no special programmes necessary.

And what happens when some kids read much quicker (or slower) than others? What if some are able to understand the material much faster (or slower) than others? Do you go for the lowest common denominator? Leave the slow kids behind?

[Aimless]

And what happens when some kids read much quicker (or slower) than others? What if some are able to understand the material much faster (or slower) than others? Do you go for the lowest common denominator? Leave the slow kids behind?

you keep referring to "the lowest common denominator", a term dripping with scorn and derision. tsk tsk tsk




when it came to reading books and other texts we'd usually get some time to read it, either in class or at home, but a reasonable amount of time for all of us. we'd then have discussions in class, and these discussions were an opportunity to share our thoughts, our interpretations, our questions, and to learn from each other as well as from the teacher. not just an opportunity to be evaluated

even the "slow kids" contributed to those wonderful discussions

and those of us who finished reading our books hella quick, why, we had more time to read fantasy! or surf cc

some others got more time to eg play football, what dorks

[Loki]

Forcing gifted kids to read basic material just so the "slow" kids won't be left behind is a great way of encouraging enthusiasm toward the subject. How you can possibly think this is a good idea is beyond me.

[littlelolligagged]

That's not exactly how it works here, at least not in the age level I am talking about.

They learn basic grammar rules, how to write and whatnot in "language arts" (English class). Reading groups are essentially learning "how" to read - you know, picking out important details from a text, learning how to tell what the main idea of a passage is. No where in here is discussions of what you read.

[Loki]

If your education system is anything like New York's, that will start toward junior high. It's kind of necessary when you have 5th graders who still can't read properly.

[Aimless]

Forcing gifted kids to read basic material just so the "slow" kids won't be left behind is a great way of encouraging enthusiasm toward the subject. How you can possibly think this is a good idea is beyond me.

pfff there are a lot of novels that are at a "basic" level in terms of language but still lend themselves to great discussions, if you have a teacher that has the good sense and the not-so-rare ability to tie them to the experiences and the insights of the readers.

i'll admit i very much enjoyed the many opportunities we were given to read whatever books we liked provided we wrote short reports about them or talked about them in class

[coinich]

It doesn't matter how good the novels are, the differences in students makes it a bad idea. If you'll permit the anecdote, I had to read the Odyssey in the 9th grade. Whereas the teacher had alloted a few weeks for the class to get through the book, I finished in 2 days with minor effort. Knew and understood the material as well. Instead, I got alternate assignments that still challenged me but allowed the class to go along its normal path. She was damn near the best English teacher I ever had. Even when it came to math, the assignments that were open ended and done with teacher guidance and my learning went far smoother than any of the other work. You can't possibly expect to teach all students on the same level and get anywhere near good results.

[Loki]

You assume Minx cares nearly as much about good results as he does about creating a society made up of equally-mediocre clones.

[Aimless]

That's not exactly how it works here, at least not in the age level I am talking about.

They learn basic grammar rules, how to write and whatnot in "language arts" (English class). Reading groups are essentially learning "how" to read - you know, picking out important details from a text, learning how to tell what the main idea of a passage is. No where in here is discussions of what you read.

we had formal, structured lessons in grammar, but the emphasis has always primarily been on reading and discussing everything we read, in class and iin writing. a practical approach to acquiring grammar as well as to developing skills in analysis and comprehension that worked well for us, perhaps because it was far more fun and rewarding than slogging through grammar exercises =P

that's how it was in my classes from 1st grade through to the end of highschool.

[Aimless]

It doesn't matter how good the novels are, the differences in students makes it a bad idea. If you'll permit the anecdote, I had to read the Odyssey in the 9th grade. Whereas the teacher had alloted a few weeks for the class to get through the book, I finished in 2 days with minor effort. Knew and understood the material as well.

Yeah, the hell you did anyway, how does this anecdote show my approach to be a bad one? you finished quickly, that's great for you, the others finished in the allotted time, which was great for them. if at some point after the allotted time you all had a few great discussions about it it would have been even greater for all of you.

when we tackled the works of the ancient greeks we took our time, splitting it up into parts and discussing each.

[Aimless]

You assume Minx cares nearly as much about good results as he does about creating a society made up of equally-mediocre clones.

"mediocre" clones? loki our clones are far better than almost everyone in your society, and sexier to boot

[']['ear]

So people get taught to their skill level, instead of forcing teachers to teach to the lowest common denominator?

pff why's that such a great thing? such a damn' rush just to get to uni a couple of years ahead of your mates from kindergarten, sheesh

Are you serious, aimless? How can you maintain this is about rates?

I'm with Loki. If you teach to the lowest common denominator, then you are making a great commitment to mediocrity. Bright kids need to be given every possible educational opportunity, because those are the ones who will move us forwards. Holding the bright ones back sop that the future burger flippers can read a better grade of newspaper hardly makes sense.

[Aimless]

false dilemma

EDIT: or is it a strawman, i am not sure

it's on the list certainly

[Aimless]

ps. a publicly funded school has an obligation to ensure the well-being of all its students, not just the ones the teachers or some arbitrary tests bring to the fore

your society's sole hope doesn't lie exclusively with the few kids who'll grow up to clone kidneys.

[Khendraja'aro]

Your idea is impractical because it would double the requirements for schools. You'd need double the rooms, double the equipment, double the teachers.

Wouldn't work.

[Aimless]

the classes would be smaller so you could just put in a wall in the middle of every classroom

+ better scheduling