|
Mercnbeth -> RE: Perhaps a Magic Act? (9/18/2008 5:01:00 PM)
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: philosophy
quote:
ORIGINAL: Mercnbeth
Don't you think it would serve them better to be told they can't functionally read, write, add, subtract in the 5th grade as apposed to their first job interview?
...i'd prefer that children aren't being written off at age 10 or 11. As someone who has worked in remedial education i know that there is a lot that can be done even if their education is sadly remiss up to that age. i've even seen kids catch up to the curve after that age.
This idea is an old and discredited one in the UK. We used to separate kids at age 11, based on exams, to grammar schools, secondary moderns or, basically, trade schools. It didn't work then and it wont work in the future.
philo,
Would be curious as to the reasons why the UK experiment with segragating by testing didn't work, however that is not what I'm pushing to see applied.
All can learn; however just as much focus should be on a 'child held back waiting' as there currently is on the child 'left behind'. If there is a problem filling the personnel requirements in business while enjoying a 99% literacy rate; something else must be the problem. I say its time we let children advance as quickly or as slowly as able.
The 'little red school-house' concept and association of grade to age is fundamentally flawed. The house must come down. If a 16 year old reads on a 1st grade level - that's the grade level he should be in for that particular subject; perhaps while simultaneously being in advanced calculus for his math skills. Why not provide opportunities from food service to car repair for those so inclined at the earliest age - no coercion only access. Crossing over from one to the other as currently you can cross over from one major to another in College.
What's the goal? Isn't it that each child in the system achieve all they can? It isn't happening now. Current curriculum is based upon what a long dead educator deemed important. A policy based upon age based education. Policy as basic as the calender has no application to modern society. For as long as schools have existed in the US they were operating on a calendar based upon the assumption that children went home to work on family farms and had 'chores' to do between 3-5PM. In most school districts the calender hasn't changed to mirror modern reality. Schools are more day-care centers today, down to the expectation of providing a 'free lunch'; another entitlement expectation impressed on our youth.
The problem isn't the kids, its the boxed in thinking of the educators and, worse, the teacher unions in the US that advocate for the status quo. Their only solution is throwing more money at the problem, curving the scores, or teaching to the testing requirement for certification. All policies, especially the money, contrary to the pragmatic quantified results; lowering the 'bar' produces lower achievement, learning for a test generates no long term benefits, and finally, more money does not produce better results.
However, try and get a teacher's union to consider any aspect of this and you're doomed to experience the same failure they currently teach.
The condition of unlimited resources no longer exists. It's time to reallocate the ones we have before asking for more. My policy would not exclude anyone nor would it doom anyone. It would enable them to achieve whatever they were capable - and yes it would - let them fail.
Our difference may be that you method makes the first time experience of failure an 'adult' experience. In my opinion that's too late and beyond the developmental stage where they can do something about it. Unless it is your belief that every child has the ability to be an Einstein if enough money is spent, it's better to help them get to the level they are most able to be successful adults, using the available resources, by failing them along the way as a child.
|
|
|
|
