Eliminate high school honors classes to increase diversity?

I, personally, don't think there's a thing wrong with training kids to become plumbers and electricians.
I think there's a certain snobbism - and yes - paternalistic attitude as it applies to different races- in that sometimes very well-meaning people who think that they are truly liberal and accepting of everyone can't understand that everyone doesn't want for themselves exactly what they wanted.

In other words - if they've been raised in a home or culture that values a certain aspect of education or level of achievement and they want that for themselves - they automatically assume that EVERYONE must want the same for their children and themselves.

And that's just not true.
Because everyone doesn't believe that formal education in a university setting is the only and best way to become an educated and functioning member of society. A lot of middle class white folks do - but does everyone have to live the life that middle class white folks live?
How boring would that be?

You know - I think we would increase and show that we value diversity if we could accept that there are all sorts of people in the world with different skills and that all are useful.
If someone wants to be a mechanic - thank you lord - that's someone who can provide a valuable skill that I certainly can't provide.
Why do we have to make that student feel that they are choosing the less challenging or useful or valued path?
Honestly, I will use the services of a skilled mechanic about a thousand times more often than I will need or use the services of a PhD in comparative literature.

and the skilled mechanic is going to end up better economically compensated than are the majority of those who set out to become a PHD in comparative lit.....more than a few of whom will prob end up asking me if I want fries with my Big Mac...

Yeah - especially right now- in this economic climate.
And the skilled mechanic can still read all the literature he or she wants to read - on his or her own terms.

According to u,
a kid that cannot learn the alphabet nor to count to ten is NOT "substandard" ????





David

Just a reminder here, bright boy. It was the school district in Evanston, Illinois that as looking at the mix in the student body, not me. I was responding to the article orignally posted. I haven't demanded that "the racial mix" be changed--in fact, i haven't demanded anything. I have suggested that the means by which students are chosen for honors classes be reviewed. And that is because i care about the pursuit of academic excellence.

It's you, clown, and your conservative buddies who want to make this a political issue.

POlitices either are or are not intruding into education in this district. If you want to claim that politics is not then I think you need to come up with a non political justification for tracking the racial make up of the honors classes. The political reason for doing so is obvious, as social engineering is by definition political, so I dont need to prove that. I think with the admission of the district that they are already trying to change the racial demographics of the honors classes that I have already won this point, as their is no denying that politics are going on when then district admits to attempting to engage in social engineering, but I want to give you a shot at making your argument...

No, i don't have to come up with anything, because i'm not responsible for what the Evanston district does, and i've made no decisions for or about them. This is an example of your attempt to make this a political issue. It's ironic that you use the term tracking--because it is my opinion, which i've stated from the outset, that tracking and standardized testing result in situations such as are alleged to obtain in Evanston.

What did you win, Clown? How many beers are you going to buy with your prize money?

You haven't demonstrated that there is any social engineering going on. If Evanston ends its honors courses, how does that qualify as social engineering? I don't have to make an argument, because i'm not involved in any political discussion here--that's your game. If you want to natter on about "social engineering" and political motives, help yourself. That's no part of what i have been talking about in this thread (other than to point out the idiot-child attempt by conservatives to make this a political issue).

No. He may learn differently or have an organic barrier to thinking - but his value equals mine. I don't know how a person can even type the words "substandard kid."

well, if one does, as does the bulk of western civilization, accept the writings of both Plato and Aristotle all children and adults not of the philosopher kings are "pathological" and therefor substandard.

aidan said

I agree. This is why I ensure they all get the best education I can offer - so they can choose from a position of strength, rather than ignorance.

Wouldn't you say that a sous chef or an auto mechanic who has a working grasp of finance, why things have happened in the world up to this point, the processes of food decay and contamination, and who derives real pleasure from analyzing poetry can enjoy his time here at a deeper level - and that the change produced in him can and likely will translate in some way to people around him?

Not even the chronically malicious and persistently violent ones ?

not substandard ?

what is the standard ?

Umm, you eliminate the standard, and then no kid will be sub standard see? It also means that no kids will be exceptional, which tends to piss off and discourage the geniuses. My daughter was pissed that being number one in her high school class did not even get her a mention, much less a speech. Her school does not believe in letting the dumb lazy kids know that they are dumb and lazy, so much so that pointing out the best of the best is considered offensive.

I think attitude really shows in this conversation. If your daughter is as smart as you say - she has a lovely future in store for her. I doubt she worked like a trooper her entire school career for a mention in a speech - or to impress other people.

By the same token, her intelligence isn't negatively impacted if teachers stop treating a certain segment of the student body as if they're a waste of time. Teaching ALL children well doesn't take anything away from the children who learn easier. It's like you want to reserve a good, fair education to a select few... I find it difficult to understand your motivations.

I guess we all have standards...and various ways to look at things. I think children should be treated like children until they graduate from high school. I feel it is incumbent on a decent society to make their best effort to educate children and care for them during these years. Some of them make serious mistakes during this time - but we should never throw in the towel on these kids as long as they're school aged.

Perhaps so. However learning is an active verb. With no effort or committment on the part of the student, even the best teaching won't produce much.

I believe the essential issue here is what appears to be a reluctance on the part of the school board in question to endorse academic achievement if the consequence of doing so is an unequal statistical distribution of politically favored minorities. This, of course, is a serious disservice to everyone. The group whose behavioral and social shortcomings are, in effect denied and hidden, is deprived of the feedback needed to motivate them - whether as individuals or as a group - to do what it takes to meet their real potential, and harmful perceptions of them are reinforced among others. The competitive element necessary for excellence in education is suppressed and everyone suffers as a result. I suspect this also saps the motivation of the best teachers who cannot miss the real message about the importance of real education to the institutions they serve.

I guess I get our difference, G. I don't think there is any reason for competition in learning. I use it in games to enhance interest once in a while, but as far as people feeling competitive against their peers: that bothers me.

This sets up hierarchies and leads to the teasing of reticent students for trying an answer in class. This is how you get in serious trouble in my class.
__________________________

General comment

We're a community of learners who understand that we each learn at an individual pace - I don't care who gets it first - as long as everybody gets it. Many of our kids have a choking home life or other things they aren't responsible for that make school harder for them. They may have given up due to teasing, or teachers who let them know they weren't expected to succeed...these kids are just taking up desk space, biding their time. These are the ones who blossom so beautifully when a teacher gets in their face and welcomes them back to possibility. Please try to shut one of these kids down in my class when he finally believes he has a place in the American educational system, and hazards an attempt to participate in what has always been a threatening environment... You may as well slap my face.

I've seen startling differences in the academic performance of kids who started believing in themselves. It's worth the patience and the trouble.

Very different perspectives. All of my educational experience after grade school was intensely competitive. It wasn't focused so much on winning or the ranking of students as it was in honoring understanding and achievement. That continued from a Jesuit high school to the Naval Academy and later in flight training; Graduate school at Cal Tech; and Navy Nuclear Power school. Failure was always a possibility and many were weeded out.

I think I love you.

Binet's research lead him to the conclusion that individuals learn at different rates at different times in their lives, that their learning is contingent on the enviroment in which they live, as well as the environment in which they learn, and that the one certainty is that there really are no certainties about learning, and no valid generalizations which can be made. Essentially, having carefully studied how children learn, he came to the conclusion that each child is a unique example.

kids that are taught to not be competitive might fair ok if another Maoist or Lenist society is formed, but in the dog eat dog US of A these deluded kids are ill served.