Xref: utzoo comp.edu:1611 sci.math:5181 sci.physics:5235
Path: utzoo!attcan!uunet!lll-winken!lll-lcc!ames!think!husc6!rutgers!njin!princeton!phoenix!dykimber
From: dykimber@phoenix.Princeton.EDU (Daniel Yaron Kimberg)
Newsgroups: comp.edu,sci.math,sci.physics
Subject: Re: Student preparedness (was Re: [lots of things])
Message-ID: <4917@phoenix.Princeton.EDU>
Date: 16 Dec 88 08:58:55 GMT
References: <1131@osupyr.mast.ohio-state.edu> <1887@sun.soe.clarkson.edu> <1057@l.cc.purdue.edu> <776@afit-ab.arpa> <4893@phoenix.Princeton.EDU> <608@wuphys.UUCP>
Reply-To: dykimber@phoenix.Princeton.EDU (Daniel Yaron Kimberg)
Distribution: na
Organization: Princeton University, NJ
Lines: 43

In article <608@wuphys.UUCP> mrk@wuphys.UUCP (Mark R. Kaufmann) writes:
>...
>The major difference I see between these is that in the first case
>there was a lot of, for lack of a better phrase, "dead weight."
[description of what dead weight is]
>The way I see it, a teacher simply cannot conduct a course when
>there are both "geniuses" and "dead weight" in the same classroom.
>What is called for, in my opinion, is segregation of students from day one
>according to their ability AND WILLINGNESS (VERY important) to learn.
>The latter seems much easier to guage than the former, though.
>Those who are able, willing, and ready to learn should not have to be
>dragged down by those who simply need a babysitter during the day.
>My classes were segregated in grades 1-3 (somehow--I didn't pay much
>attention to the methods used at the time!).
>But teaching children who were able and willing to learn in separate classrooms
>and at a faster speed than those who were either unable or unwilling (or both)
>then became unfashionable and "elitist," and from then on, except for
>_ADVANCED_ elective classes in high school, there was almost always
>"dead weight" in my classes--and of course, the rate of learning
>was determined by the slowest student(s) in the classroom. Comments/criticisms?

I agree with the spirit of your message, and some of the specifics.  I do
think, though, that it's not as simple as apptitude and willingness-to-learn
scales - there are also individual differences.  Someone who seems to be dead
weight might actually be better characterized among the geniuses, but is
violently in disaccord with the educational strategy.  People can't only be
taught according to their level, but should also be taught in the way that's
best suited to them.  Much easier said than done!
    I've spent a lot of time held back by dead weight, and I find it extremely
frustrating that people would find the idea of separate tracks unfashionable
and/or elitist.  These are the sorts of people who know nothing about education
but are running huge educational systems.  Or are senators.  Or whatever.
On the one hand, there are tons of reasons why the ideal system is unattainable
and why wholesale changes would be logistically impossible.  But people are
unwilling even to make the small changes that would help alleviate the problem.
I don't think I should start to go into this right now.  It's just too tangled
an issue.  But I think that to even approximate a reasonable educational
system, as opposed to what's in place in the united states right now, the
entire thing would have to be gutted and rebuilt.  As things stand, almost no
one is getting the education they deserve, except for that tiny percentage of
the population just above the average (I think this is the sector that most
teachers teach to, but I might be mistaken).

                                                     -Dan