Is accountability [part of] the problem?

Absolutely!! We do need some accountability, but certainly not at the expense of the kids we are trying to teach.

I have been a Special Ed teacher for many years. I spend a huge amount of time on paperwork and meetings, and it has become more and more time consuming every year.

Sped is notorious for the piles of paperwork and accountability for each child, each IEP, and each and every goal and objective. We take too much valuable teaching time away from our neediest students to constantly assess them to prove progress, and then fill out another form or two to report the progress.

Unfortunately this is not limited to Sped. General Ed classroom teachers are also facing a huge increase in paperwork along with more added to the curriculum to be accountable for.

I too, would love to have more time to teach.

0 Replies

Accountability is not "The Enemy", beaureaucratic gameplaying in lieu of actual accountability is the enemy. What is necessary is a single, unified, result-oriented, nation-wide core curriculum. On that basis alone may legitimate accountability be achieved - as it must be. If a given instructor's output fails to meet accountability standards, if that instructor's students as a demographic consistently fail to achieve satisfactory performance as measured by standardized national-level testing, the instructor has failed. If a school system's output consistently fails to meet minimum requirements, that school system's administration has failed. In either case, the entity proximately responsible for consistent failure of student performance needs to be replaced.

The importance of educating our youth adequately to permit them to compete effectively in the real world is far too vital an issue of national security to be left to the whims and wiles of individual state and/or community entities; it is a matter of overarching national interest no less important than are a competent military or an effective, efficient administration of interstate commerce. It is long past time to abandon our present patchwork of parochial hegemonies and federalize our education system.

0 Replies

Timber's got a point. We have no child left behind (NCLB), National strands, state standards and here, massachusetts state tests (MCAS). One major guideline would be good, with it's own testing. Then we could have some regional/state discretion. I, as a teacher-in-training, am learning about all this extra-curricular stuff as I learn about curriculum. It ain't a cake-walk. Who ever said teaching was easy?

No. I think, after considerable thought, that accountability is necessary. At least to some degree.

0 Replies

timberlandko wrote:

Accountability is not "The Enemy", beaureaucratic gameplaying in lieu of actual accountability is the enemy. What is necessary is a single, unified, result-oriented, nation-wide core curriculum. On that basis alone may legitimate accountability be achieved - as it must be.

AAAAARRRRRRRGGGGGGGHHHHHHHH!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Now, that I have demonstrated my level of frustration with this totally inane comment, let's discuss what is wrong with from two points of view, the philosophical and the practical.

The philosophical first. We all agree that timber espouses the conservative point of view. Supposedly, or so 'they' say, the foundation of contemporary, American conservatism is small government. Here, timber is calling for the implementation of the biggest boondoggle ever, the implementation of a curriculum under the direct control of the federal government. Apparently, he does not see the contradiction.

Another point to make under the aegis of philosophy is that if every community contributes to the stew that is American education, then the size of the pot and the richness of the ingredients will be more than they would be if there is a national curriculum.

Now, let's address this from a practical standpoint.

Let's look at our rich and varied stew with its complex layers of flavor not from philosopher's seat but from the magnifying glass of the pragmatist. I take the position of the English teacher, my own field. Does a national curriculum mean that every child in America reads exactly the same book at exactly the same time? If it does -- and, if you are thinking at all, you know this will be a consequence, intended or not -- then you will effectively reduce the cultural experience of all children in America, discourage reading and severely limit critical thinking. Of course, the latter is exactly what conservatives want.

Consider, too, that during the late 1950s, there was a dust up over Johnny who could not read. Ironically, or, perhaps not so ironically, this brush fire was ignited by a novelist, writing for a literary publication, who advocated the traditional phonics as championed by Rudolf Flesch (I believe that is correct). Flesch, who began writing during the 1930s, disliked the "see it-say it" or "whole word" method. While this tempest was brewing, I was in Catholic schools where the phonics method of reading was taught. Many other Boomers were taught in the same way. There followed wave upon wave of different ways of teaching reading and grammar. Some work well for most kids, while others work well for a few. There have always been people who can not learn to read well in terms of comprehension. How will a national curriculum address those who have always fallen through the cracks?

Now, each state is ranked according to how well the children learn and how effective the schools in that state are. Is the national curriculum to be based on Massachusetts schools or on Alabama schools? Guess what? These national movements generally gravitate toward the lowest common denominator. Those initial tests generated under NCLB were hokum. Should a national curriculum be developed, it, too, will be hokum.

Finally, timber decries "bureaucratic gameplaying" but fails to see what level of gameplaying he invites by proposing a national curriculum. One of the problems in education today is the for-profit companies that are behind the tests and NCLB. There are also corporate schools taking over some communities and just ask the people who kicked them out of a charter school in Lowell, MA about the damage one corporation did there.

What timber fails to realize that it takes years to assess the effectiveness of any educational system. My former husband, raised in a Republican family, thought looking at the per capita expenditure was a measure of a school system but that might tell you how high their heating bills are and what their construction costs are. To judge a school system, you have to look at what colleges accept what percentage of its graduates and how many go on to study math, engineering, science and medicine.

0 Replies

Stormwatch -- Less paperwork, more classwork, I say. BTW, I think there should be fewer psychotropic drugs given kids and kids with normal range IQs should not be placed in isolating SPED classes.

0 Replies

Question to both stormwatch and plainoldme:

In concrete terms, how would each of you gage, mark, record the progress of your students, special ed or not?

Not interested in reading how bad it is now. Complaints are a dime a dozen.

Am interested in reading well thought out plan and how exactly it would be implemented, what results would be anticipated, and how success would be measured.

What would you do if you were in charge?

0 Replies

plainoldme wrote:

timberlandko wrote:
Accountability is not "The Enemy", beaureaucratic gameplaying in lieu of actual accountability is the enemy. What is necessary is a single, unified, result-oriented, nation-wide core curriculum. On that basis alone may legitimate accountability be achieved - as it must be.

AAAAARRRRRRRGGGGGGGHHHHHHHH!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Now, that I have demonstrated my level of frustration with this totally inane comment, let's discuss what is wrong with from two points of view, the philosophical and the practical.

The philosophical first. We all agree that timber espouses the conservative point of view. Supposedly, or so 'they' say, the foundation of contemporary, American conservatism is small government. Here, timber is calling for the implementation of the biggest boondoggle ever, the implementation of a curriculum under the direct control of the federal government. Apparently, he does not see the contradiction.

Straw man and red herring - there is no requirement that I - or my philosophy - need fit into some pocket constructed to suit your convenience, and there is no reason an effective national education system need be or even might be any less achievable here in the US than such have been shown to be in the nations having such, nations the students of which consistently are outperforming the products of the antiquated, patchwork, inefficient, ineffective, culkturally entrenched boondoggle which is the current US education system. Again - the matter of educating a nation's youth to permit effective competition and achievement in the real world is every bit as mach a matter of overarching national importance, and responsibility, as are national defense and national commerce. There are some things best done at a national level, and standard education is one of those things. Effective performance - achievement monitored and assured by strict accountability, as in any good quality control process, is what is needed, and the only way to get that dome at a national level is to establish a system of national standdards, national rewards, and national sanctions. Perform to standard or above, and benefit thereby, fail to perform to standard, pay the price ... not beaureaucracy, not boondogle, but actual achievement through rigorous, objective accountablity. The beginning of your argument collapses.

Quote:

Another point to make under the aegis of philosophy is that if every community contributes to the stew that is American education, then the size of the pot and the richness of the ingredients will be more than they would be if there is a national curriculum.

More bullshit - we've seen the results of that, and its a huge part of what's gotten us into the mess we're in. That approach denies the existence of the problem and argues for nothing more, less, or other than doing it the same old way.

Quote:

Now, let's address this from a practical standpoint.

That, from one given to the nonsense you appear to endorse, would be refreshing.

Quote:

Let's look at our rich and varied stew with its complex layers of flavor not from philosopher's seat but from the magnifying glass of the pragmatist. I take the position of the English teacher, my own field. Does a national curriculum mean that every child in America reads exactly the same book at exactly the same time? If it does -- and, if you are thinking at all, you know this will be a consequence, intended or not -- then you will effectively reduce the cultural experience of all children in America, discourage reading and severely limit critical thinking. Of course, the latter is exactly what conservatives want.

Straw man - first, that is not, and cannot be demonstrated to be, "what conservatives want", it is a red herring argument, a falsehood, a lie. A national curriculum would include both a core of minimum requirements - which all should master - and a broad assortment of electives, allowing for diversity, different intrerest and ability tracks, and a rounded, well-founded, solid education.

Quote:

Consider, too, that during the late 1950s, there was a dust up over Johnny who could not read. Ironically, or, perhaps not so ironically, this brush fire was ignited by a novelist, writing for a literary publication, who advocated the traditional phonics as championed by Rudolf Flesch (I believe that is correct). Flesch, who began writing during the 1930s, disliked the "see it-say it" or "whole word" method. While this tempest was brewing, I was in Catholic schools where the phonics method of reading was taught. Many other Boomers were taught in the same way. There followed wave upon wave of different ways of teaching reading and grammar. Some work well for most kids, while others work well for a few. There have always been people who can not learn to read well in terms of comprehension. How will a national curriculum address those who have always fallen through the cracks?

More straw; "the cracks" are simply a crackpot "it isn't my fault" excuse construct. Certainly a proportion of those to be educated will have legitimate special needs, and for those, there must be effective special considerations. However, statistically the greatest proportion of the entire youth demographic is mentally competent to learn the basics of reading, writing, arithmetic, geography, history, and civil responsibility. Some will excell, and for them too there must be special accommodation, allowing their individual superiorities to be developed to the fullest. None the less, the thing about averages among very large samples (such as the youth of a nation of 300 Million) is that the average is a very large group. Minimum requirements structured to challenge and encourage the average student while allowing for appropriate special considerations pertaining to both abovew and below average students simply is what - and only what - makes sense.

Quote:

Now, each state is ranked according to how well the children learn and how effective the schools in that state are. Is the national curriculum to be based on Massachusetts schools or on Alabama schools? Guess what? These national movements generally gravitate toward the lowest common denominator. Those initial tests generated under NCLB were hokum. Should a national curriculum be developed, it, too, will be hokum.

Straw man - you assert that any future paradigm be congruent with, developed from, demonstrably failed past paradigms. Such simply is not the case, and "lowest common denominator" does not apply. What is necessary is an overall overhaul of the educational system and its institutions. A minimum curriculum should be based on that which is required to permit the student to compete and achieve effectively in the real world - the real whole world - regardless how it might in the past have been done in which state or what district. Again, what has been done hasn't worked, and our students are falling further and further behind students from nations with rigorous, accountable, responsible, well developed, national standard curriculae

Quote:

Finally, timber decries "bureaucratic gameplaying" but fails to see what level of gameplaying he invites by proposing a national curriculum. One of the problems in education today is the for-profit companies that are behind the tests and NCLB. There are also corporate schools taking over some communities and just ask the people who kicked them out of a charter school in Lowell, MA about the damage one corporation did there.

More straw - you merely point to examples of the beaureaucratic gameplaying which is at the core of the problem and which must be eradicated. There must be no room for games, period; strict standards and absolute accountability, not half measures and accommodations, are called for.

Quote:

What timber fails to realize that it takes years to assess the effectiveness of any educational system. My former husband, raised in a Republican family, thought looking at the per capita expenditure was a measure of a school system but that might tell you how high their heating bills are and what their construction costs are. To judge a school system, you have to look at what colleges accept what percentage of its graduates and how many go on to study math, engineering, science and medicine.

More straw; I don't "fail to realize" anything - I know it will take years to determine, develop, and bring about the required changes, and I know the sooner we get to it the sooner we'll get it done. I know also that the first and most critical measure of a school system is the number of its graduates able to function effectively in the real in the world of commerce, industry, and technology, and I know our current system of public education is failing by that measure.

0 Replies

timber -- Stop using the phrases strawman and red herring until you can use them correctly.

0 Replies

Demonstrate that as used above ewither was employed incorrectly.

0 Replies

Chai -- Have you any idea how many tests kids take? Several years ago, an English teacher wrote a satirical piece for the journal for the national association of English teachers which claimed one day of actual instruction for the entire year.

These clumsy tests that came into vogue about a decade or so ago were initially created by for profit corporations who recent college graduates who had yet to find their first "adult/real/professional" jobs. These kids were given text books and told to make up tests. What sort of measure is that?

I have argued that the SAT is an adequate and sufficient gage of the nation's teaching. The counter argument is that not all kids take this test. Well, the one's who do not take are the ones who do not plan to go to college.

I have also argued for the sort of test given by the Archdiocese of Detroit to its schools during the late 50s and at least until 1961, the year I left elementary school after completing the 8th grade. Our reading comprehension level was tested every January and June with machine scored tests (back then!). Other factors were tested as well. Students were given a small bar graph to take home to show their parents. One access was the subject of the examination and the other was the grade level. While these graphs were supposed to be confidential -- for the student, the teacher and the parents -- we shared them because those who were at or above grade level, were contented and proud.

This makes much more sense than the current system does.

Frankly, why test at all? Testing doesn't make the "Sweat Hogs" work harder.

0 Replies

Just skimmed Timber's answer to my post. For someone who recklessly throws around the word strawman, his post was laugable. It was 100% bluster, totally lacking in content. One can not answer a void.

However, as I am the aide in a "CPII" science class (there is no "business" or "general" education track, I suspect because the parents of dummies do not want their kids "labeled," so the lowest level is "college prep two), I know that today's 9th grade science class is more advanced than mine, academic 1961-62. I mentioned this to my daughter, who graduated from high school in 1996 and she said today's science classes are more advanced than her's.
So, I suggest timber's complaints are either pure conjecture or he simply is following the script of his local party chair.

0 Replies

plainoldme wrote:

However, as I am the aide in a "CPII" science class (there is no "business" or "general" education track, I suspect because the parents of dummies do not want their kids "labeled," so the lowest level is "college prep two), I know that today's 9th grade science class is more advanced than mine, academic 1961-62. I mentioned this to my daughter, who graduated from high school in 1996 and she said today's science classes are more advanced than her's.
So, I suggest timber's complaints are either pure conjecture or he simply is following the script of his local party chair.

Speaking of bluster - how is it that you've been both here on A2K and previously on Abuzz for some 7+ years now bragging about your qualifications, teaching abilities and vast knowledge of how the eductaion system should work (as well as how everyone else is ruining it) and yet the best job you can find is as a part time teachers aide? And why did landing that job take you some 6+ years before someone finally broke down and hired you?

Apparently the places you've applied to over the years think significantly less of your credentials and qualifications than you do. I suspect your current employer wouldn't be very fond of you referring to students as "dummies" as well.

But hey, what the hell do I know? I'm just a parent who's kid never had you for a teacher. (thank you very much!) I suggest your complaints are pure drivel.

0 Replies

plainoldme wrote:

Just skimmed Timber's answer to my post. For someone who recklessly throws around the word strawman, his post was laugable. It was 100% bluster, totally lacking in content. One can not answer a void.

Bullshit. Your employment of classical Aristotelian Ignorentio Elenchi was demonstrated clearly, and you were challenged to demonstrate otherwise. That you fail to do. That you do not assay to address, rebut and refute the charges laid to your post, but rather you dismiss and avoid those detailed and specific charges amounts to tacit concession of the point at dispute (that point being your forensic practice and, by extension, crediblitlity)

Quote:

However, as I am the aide in a "CPII" science class (there is no "business" or "general" education track, I suspect because the parents of dummies do not want their kids "labeled," so the lowest level is "college prep two), I know that today's 9th grade science class is more advanced than mine, academic 1961-62. I mentioned this to my daughter, who graduated from high school in 1996 and she said today's science classes are more advanced than her's.
So, I suggest timber's complaints are either pure conjecture or he simply is following the script of his local party chair.

You may suggest whatever you wish - within the bounds of adult, civil duscussion, of course - and you may expect your suggestions will recieve such consideration and respect as they merit. I submit that regardless whatever personal anecdotes you bring to the table, the fact remains US students as a demographic academically underperform their contemporaries elsewhere in the Developed World. I submit this is so because of the systemic failure of the entrenched, traditional, community-based patchwork of our educatiuon system. I submit a national curriculum , with stricxt accountability, is the only feasible remedy to the current sorry state of affairs. I submit finally, POM, that as one may be either part of the problem or part of the solution, your partisanship in such regard is demonstrated unambiguously.

0 Replies

I just remember being appalled that my 12-13 year old neighbor couldn't multiply.

I don't know so much about the venom furling, the explanations of it.
while I'm appalled my neighbor's daughter's total confusion...
yet,
I get at least some of the complaints about rote education.

This all seems ridiculous. I have the textbooks of my uncle a century ago in indiana. Would that anyone in fourth grade could decipher those now.

0 Replies

Part of the reason children today are less likely to have memorized their multiplication tables is because they have machines to do it for them. Believe me, you'd be appalled at the handwriting of most of them too. Cursive writing is becoming a lost art- simply because so many people type instead of write.

I think accountability is important. But I think it should be a more global sense of accountability- in that students, educators, and parents form a team and work together to educate the student. Actually, I think the one aspect of that trio whose accountability is most important to the ultimate success or failure is the learner or student. The parent and student can do it without the teacher if they have to and the teacher and student can do it without the parent if they have to, but the teacher and parent cannot do it without the motivation and diligence of the student. So it's ridiculous to even talk about accountability without assigning the majority of the onus for that to the learner.

I think testing for diagnostic purposes is beneficial. Whether you are diagnosing the deficits of the student to determine where best to focus your efforts, or the deficits of the school system- again to determine where best to focus your efforts- I, personally, glean a lot of information from tests.
But I don't really understand why anyone feels it would take years to assess what works educationally and what doesn't. There are models of that world-wide. All it would take is swallowing a little pride and adopting some of the methods that have proven more successful in other countries.
Of course it's not just an educational model we would have to adopt- it'd be some of the cultural mores as well - and I think that's where the sticking point would come in, and that would be moreso among the students and parents than among the teachers, I'd bet.

But in terms of solutions and methods, I have found a great reading program POM. It's called "Toe by Toe" and it was developed by Keda and Harry Cowling. It's a "highly structured Multi-Sensory Reading Manual for Teachers AND Parents". It's phonics based and was developed by a set of parents to help teach their son (who is dyslexic) to read when school, teachers, and all else seemed to fail for him. It's called Toe by Toe, because it uses reading mentors (who sit across a table from the reader- get it- toe by toe), whether they be another student, parent or teacher- ideally the program would be done both at school and at home in twenty minute sessions- the more practice, the faster the progress.

I'm using it with students who have never learned to read- due to lack of access to school or learning disabilities- and I'm telling you that within a week- these people who are total non-readers- some of whom don't even know the names of the letters of the alphabet, much less the sounds they make when we start- are sounding out words and identifying high frequency sight words. You should check it out.
Of course, the learners I'm working with are very, very motivated to learn to read. They ask me to do the sessions with them- I don't have to ask them. But Fishin's right. It's not the sort of thing people are going to want to do with someone who thinks they're "dumbies" because they can't read. It calls for putting your pride aside, (in the beginning, some of the practice "words" are not real words- they're just letter sounds strung together- so it takes a trusting relationship between learner and mentor to be successful) as I think all successful education does.

0 Replies

plainoldme wrote:

I have argued that the SAT is an adequate and sufficient gage of the nation's teaching. The counter argument is that not all kids take this test. Well, the one's who do not take are the ones who do not plan to go to college.

I have also argued for the sort of test given by the Archdiocese of Detroit to its schools during the late 50s and at least until 1961, the year I left elementary school after completing the 8th grade. Our reading comprehension level was tested every January and June with machine scored tests (back then!). Other factors were tested as well.

Frankly, why test at all? Testing doesn't make the "Sweat Hogs" work harder.

okay, so cutting to the case, in answer to my question "WWPOM do?" You would give students the SATs and a version of the test where you spend the day filling in the bubbles with a #2 pencil.

Caveat, those who do not intend (for whatever reason) not to attend college (at least at this time) shouldn't even be required to take tests like SATs since they are "dummies" and "sweat hogs" and won't learn anything anyway, so why measure their progress? In addition, since all of those not attending college are epsilon minuses, they won't be contributing anything worthwhile to society anyway. It is of course a well established fact that every person who "only" graduated high scholl is a drooling idiot.

Why exactly did you enter the teaching profession plainoldme?

You obviously loathe your students, their parents, and the entire education system.

Since this is how you obviously feel about your charges, do you think they are not picking up on your attitude toward them?

Actually, I have never read anything written by you that indicates believe you are accountable for anything that goes on in the world. It's always someone else's fault. So, it's no surprise that you cannot even see that your attitude that the students are lazy, stupid and worthless obviously must effect their learning from you.

I can't believe some parent hasn't reported you for your lack of compassion and obvious distaste for having to lower yourself to deal with their kids.

I'd like to hear some answers for possible solutions from some teachers who don't hate their students for one, and can actually relate some strategies that have some sort of concrete plan involved.

Aidan?
littlek?
Others?

0 Replies

One thing that I think has gotten us into the mess we're in with kids who are reaching graduation age without the ability to read and lacking other basic skills such as the ability to write coherently and do number calculations, is social promotion- promoting children to the next grade whether or not they are able to function on grade level.
I understand the concept- that it's embarrassing and humiliating to a child to be left back behind his or her peers, etc., and I can sympathize with that- but it's also embarrassing and humiliating to sit in a classroom with your friends who can do the work when you can't. And every year the work load intensifies and gets more difficult so every year the gap or deficit widens for these kids.

In one job I had, I was tutoring 9-12 graders (who couldn't read beyond a fourth grade level) in subjects like Biology and World History. They couldn't even read the text books. I essentially had to rewrite the texts with the help of the content area teacher and modify every test and assignment and then retype them in language these specific kids could read and comprehend.
And then there were those who couldn't multiply and divide, but were expected to pass algebra and geometry. Try to solve an algebraic equation without using and understanding the concepts of multiplication and division. You can't. And if you can't understand concrete mathematical concepts such as multiplication and division- just picture trying to grasp the more abstract mathematical concepts that are integral to algebra ...it was absolutely ludicrous. And to a girl and boy, none of these kids had never been retained- not even in kindergarten.

One program I'd implement is a supplemental year, after either second or third grade, for kids who showed real difficulty with and deficits in basic skills (reading, writing, number manipulation). If at that point, they weren't able to keep up, I'd pull them out of the fast track and give them a year of really intensive reinforcemnt in a small-group setting (maybe eight to ten kids in a classroom) and focus only on those specific areas. I'd let all the extras go until they showed mastery of these basic foundational skills. I wouldn't send them on to fourth grade without them. Because that's when the content areas start- science, social studies- all the extras in which reading is absolutely essential, as well as the more abstract and difficult math concepts.

If after this year they still couldn't function (some kids just can't learn what most kids can) I'd make sure there was some sort of program available to them in which they could learn some sort of useful and marketable skill that would afford them the dignity of a job and the ability to make a living. In the school system I worked in, if you weren't on your way to college or university- you might as well not have existed- there was no other option. That's elitist as well as short-sighted and ridiculous.

I'd also like to see music instruction funded in all elementary schools. I think that'd make a huge impact on a child's commitment to and interest in school, as well as to their sense of confidence and self-esteem. It'd be a positive focus- particularly for children who don't have very much that is positive in their lives to focus upon.

0 Replies

Thanks Aidan, thoughtful response.

You're right. Thinking back, I remember some sort of quantum leap between 3rd and 4th grade. May have been the teacher/different personality, but, yeah, the material....

Also, we have to remember that just because a child/person isn't good at one subject, doesn't mean they aren't extremely talented in some other area.

True for adults too.

Back to testing....I don't know the situation with how often kids are tested today. What is the schedule?

To go back to the age of dinosaurs, when I was in 1st through 8th grade, we had, besides the twice a year fill in the bubble tests, weekly spelling, math tests, spelling bees, pop quizzes, etc. It seemed almost every day we had some sort of quiz/test or something to demonstate that we'd learned. This was in the 60's.

Now, I don't know how/if the teachers had to report all these marks to someone, but I know the results of our tests were recorded and added up to equal our final grade. Maybe I'm out of sync, but I remember the teachers doing grading while we were having reading time or doing other course work, and them being able to show me at any given time my marks on all those quizzes.

The world is a lot bigger today, but if we're talking about the basics, I don't see how learning to read today or learning to perform basic math functions is any more complicated.

Educate me on the difference in material being learned as basics please.

0 Replies

Good points all, aidan. To your recommendation music instruction be included within the core curriculum, I'd go a bit further, lobbying for "Arts" in general, allowing for any individual student to be grounded broadly in the "Arts" - permitting reasoned appreciation - while providing for more specific focus individually on any area of the "Arts" as may be warranted by a student's particular demonstrated interest and aptitude. Ability and achievement must be not only expected but also must be recognized, encouraged, and rewarded. The basics are minimum requirements, from which can be developed and expanded education tracks designed to effectively permit each individual to realize full potential. In some instances, it will be that an individual is incapable of adequate grasp of even the basics; that individual none the less must not be restricted from achieving such potential as is there but rather must be encouraged and rewarded for such achievement as may be obtained, while in other instances, it will be that other individuals will evidence extraordinary potential in some given area or another and likewise must not be restricted from achieving such potential as is there, and must be encouraged and rewarded for such achievement as may be obtained.

As the aphorism has it, "If the student hasn't learned, the teacher hasn't taught". Its as simple as that.

0 Replies

Is accountability [part of] the problem?

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know