NetNews Usenet Archive 1993 #3/NN_1993_3.iso/spool/misc/educatio/6116

Text File | 1993-01-25 | 3.8 KB | 66 lines

Newsgroups: misc.education
Path: sparky!uunet!gatech!enterpoop.mit.edu!bloom-beacon!bloom-picayune.mit.edu!athena.mit.edu!solman
From: [e-mail] (Jason W Solinsky)
Subject: Re: Branding kids, IQ tests, smart vs dumb (Was: Re: Seminar Program)
Message-ID: <[e-mail]>
Sender: [e-mail] (News system)
Nntp-Posting-Host: m4-035-6.mit.edu
Organization: Massachusetts Institute of Technology
References: <[e-mail]> <[e-mail]> <[e-mail]> <[e-mail]> <[e-mail]> <[e-mail]>
Date: Sun, 24 Jan 1993 16:23:08 GMT
Lines: 53

In article <[e-mail]>, [e-mail] (Lynn Robinson) writes:
|> In article <[e-mail]> Jason W Solinsky writes:
|>   > In article <[e-mail]>, Chris Malcolm writes:
|>     >> Why not allow the kids to decide how smart they are, simply by letting
|>     >> them go to whichever paced class they like? Most kids have a pretty good
|>     >> idea of where they fit in the scholastic pecking order in their various
|>     >> subjects. Of course some will choose low for an easy life, and some will
|>     >> ambitiously aim too high and struggle for a bit before dropping down.
|>     >> But it would probably work at least as well as grading done by tests or
|>     >> teachers, and would have the great advantage that nobody would feel
|>     >> unfairly done by.
|>   >
|>   > That would be nice. The problem is that at the ages that count, parents
|>   > are the overwhelming force behind such decisions. They always seem to
|>   > push their kids higher than they should be. The result is that kids that
|>   > should not be the "smart" classes are.  I have nothing against children
|>   > being able to choose their class. This is fair.  The problem is that in
|>   > a public school, the kids who belong in their class suffer because of an
|>   > influx of kids who don't. Your idea prevents discrimination
|>   > against the less intelligent by discriminating against the smart.
|>   >          Jason W. Solinsky
|>
|>   I do not see how Chris's idea discriminates against the "smart" people.
|> If you wanted to ensure that a student didn't get into a class that was too
|> advanced, you could require her to pass an exam testing for background or
|> prerequisite skills before admitting her to the class.

Because he is not allowing us to use tests to determine who gets in.

|> Alternatively,
|> a teacher could suggest to a student who is having trouble that he/she transfer
|> to another class (whereupon the student could choose to work harder to catch
|> up, transfer, or get a poor grade in the course.)  If students were not

If the student gets a poor grade and absorbs extra time from the teacher then
the students who belong are suffering. In real life, large numbers of students
that don't belong come in simultaneously. You either get very few or a whole
bunch. When teachers are suddenly faced with as much as 25% of their classes
not being able to handle the material, time and time again they slow down the
pace.

|> simply passed ahead without having the understanding, if they had to pass
|> entry exams to get into subsequent classes, and if they could attempt
|> the exam to get into any class at any level, you wouldn't have watered-down
|> classes and parents would not be able to control the level of the classes
|> that their children attend.

You act as though the level of the classes is fixed. It is not. The teachers
adjust it. My mother (a teacher) used to say that if a significant fraction
of the class failed, it was the teacher's fault. Teachers just slow the pace
to make sure that they are not at fault.

Jason W. Solinsky