Xref: utzoo comp.edu:1678 sci.math:5239 sci.physics:5310 Path: utzoo!attcan!uunet!wucs1!wuphys!mrk From: mrk@wuphys.UUCP (Mark R. Kaufmann) Newsgroups: comp.edu,sci.math,sci.physics Subject: Re: Student preparedness (you know...) Message-ID: <611@wuphys.UUCP> Date: 22 Dec 88 22:02:08 GMT References: <15895@iuvax.cs.indiana.edu> Reply-To: mrk@wuphys.UUCP (Mark R. Kaufmann) Followup-To: comp.edu Organization: Dept. of Physics, Washington Univ., St. Louis Lines: 109 In article <15895@iuvax.cs.indiana.edu> bobmon@iuvax.UUCP (RAMontante) writes: >In article I write: >>The way I see it, a teacher simply cannot conduct a course when >>there are both "geniuses" and "dead weight" in the same classroom. > >Without getting too deeply into the current discussion, I think I must >object to the label "dead weight". They AREN'T "dead weight", they're >the ones who learn the most slowly. They're the ones who need the >*best* teaching. I must insist that there were many children (I shouldn't use the word "students"--I would be insulting anyone who has ever been interested in learning anything) in all of the required "core" classes and almost all of the introductory-level elective classes at my "modern, high-quality" suburban public high "school" (and elementary "school") which were indeed nothing more than dead weight in the classroom. I am not speaking of children who are willing to learn but are not particularly able, but rather of children who, for whatever reasons, are NOT WILLING to learn, regardless of whether or not they are able. In my experience, their ONLY contributions to the classroom were negative, in the form of disrupting it with their behavior. Only at the level of ADVANCED elective courses were the true students actually schooled in a reasonably effective manner, because there was no longer any dead weight to hold the class back. >The "geniuses" may benefit more from good teaching, >but they don't need it -- they'll learn without being taught, they'll >learn even in the face of active opposition. Here is where I disagree most strongly. It is just one more case of the deserving paying penalties for the non-deserving, while the non-deserving are treated to a country club, thereby reinforcing their behavior. If I'm not mistaken, you are essentially stating that an intelligent child whose parents do not possess the wealth to send him or her to a finer private school should not enjoy the privilege (or is it a right?) of being educated at anything approaching his or her own level. The bright students should be dumped into the gutter and forgotten while our tax-supported schools try to resurrect children who are already YEARS behind in their studies and make worthwhile, contributing individuals (maybe even Nobel laureates :-) ) out of them. Horseshit. The "geniuses" may not be the ones who NEED teaching the most, but clearly they are the ones who DESERVE it the most, and clearly they will be the ones who will CONTRIBUTE the most if they are ever allowed to receive it! >The academically weak students may grow up to be societal "dead weight".... To clarify again, my biggest concern is not academically weak students, but rather totally incorrigible individuals who refuse to be taught anything, anytime. Of COURSE any student who is willing to learn should have all the help it is possible to give, within realistic constraints. The best way to do that, as I see it, is to group the children according to their ability to learn, as perceived in kindergarten or first grade. In the public elementary school I attended, there were enough students to fill four classrooms, and there were four levels from brightest to slowest. Sure, even then, not every student gets the attention he should receive in an IDEAL situation, but it sure seems better than lumping all children together without any regard to their abilities or willingnesses to learn (much as one's stomach churns up its contents without regard to their characteristics). If some errors are made in placement, then some students may be short-changed. Should avoiding this possibility be so important that no bright students are educated at a speed reasonably close to their level? (No!) And of course, such placements should be flexible--a child could move up or down as the individual circumstances warranted. Someone mentioned the fact that he experienced peer pressures NOT to do well in school. Whew, was that ever the case during most of my public school education! I was looked upon as some kind of undesirable freak, not only by peers, but also by some "teachers"! With bright students separated out, I think this problem would disappear. As far as the absolutely incorrigible individuals who positively refuse to behave in such a manner as to facilitate any learning at all (or don't you believe that such a person can exist?), I think they should literally be placed into a playroom, and not one additional dollar of public resources should be wasted on them. (For that matter, contracting out to a commercial day-care center may actually be cheaper than the present attempts to teach them something.) >Society needs to teach them as well as possible, as young as possible, >precisely to avoid this--so that they grow up to be useful, >contributing members of society, not written-off "dead weight". Well, if you substitute the word "Individuals" for the word "Society" then I agree 100%. ("Society" can never do anything to anyone. Only individuals can. I'm being picky, I guess.) Just segregate from them the students who can and will learn faster. My whole point is, it seems ludicrous to allow children who are unwilling to learn to hinder or actually drag down those who are willing to learn (and worse, those who are both able and willing to learn quickly); yet, it seems to be the standard procedure! And then some people wonder why even brighter students aren't motivated, aren't prepared for college, etc.! Sorry this has been so long. It didn't start out that way. NOTE the "followup-to" line (comp.edu only)! ======================================= Mark R. Kaufmann UUCP: ...!uunet!wucs1!wucfua!wuphys!mrk wuphys!mrk@uunet.uu.net Internet: mrk@wuphys.wustl.edu =======================================