|
|
Re: Ability grouping (was:Re: Affective learning in mathematics; What is math?)
Posted:
Dec 19, 1996 2:15 AM
|
|
Carol <carolmc@earthlink.net> wrote in article
<32B8335C.19D2@earthlink.net>...
> > > > My concern is not so much in how "giftedness" is produced, but how
you
> > > are
> > > > going to identify it.
> > >
> > > First you define "giftedness" then you look for it. Kids who learn
quickly
> > > and easily would likely be the ones considered "gifted" while those
who
> > > learn slowly and with much difficulty would not be "gifted".
> >
> > There's a book called "Terman's Kids" which involved a study of
> > "gifted" children and how they grew up. Well apparently it ends up
that two children that did not "make it" into the "gifted" program, William
> Shockley
> > and Luis Alvarez grew up to be Nobel Prize winners. Unfortunately none
of
> > the "gifted" children grew up to become Nobel Laureates. So, is it
really so
> > simple to "define giftedness"?
Sounds like there's a problem with the definition. Like I said, if you
want to argue that IQ tests leave much to be desired, be my guest. But
that's not the issue at hand, the issue is whether it is advisable to put
students who have trouble learning a subject in the same classroom as
students who learn that subject easily.
> > >
> > > > Who are the "special" ones?
> > >
> > > See above.
> >
> > Yes, read it again.
You too.
> >
> > > > Who are the ones that are
> > > > "damaging" the the "special" ones?
> > >
> > > The ones who are preventing the gifted from having an opportunity to
learn
> > > at the highest pace of which they are capable.
> > > Yes, we'd better keep the gifted away from the future Nobel Prize
winners,
> > they may pick up some bad habits...like expanding the narrowmindness of
> > humanity.
Excuse me, but I fail to see how the suggestion that students who have
trouble with a particular subject should be placed in different classrooms
from students who do not have such difficulties has anything to do with
"narrowmindedness". This issue is not keeping students separate, the issue
is teaching them at the best pace they are capable of sustaining.
Heck, by your reasoning, we should not bother to teach "gifted" students at
all because they're never going to amount to anything.
> >
> > > > What should we do with the ones that are
> > > > "damaging" the "special" ones?
> > >
> > > Make them stop doing it of course.
> >
> > Sending them to gas chambers perhaps?
I think that removing the teachers and administrators in question from the
education system is quite adequate. There is no need to execute them.
Quite frankly, I find your suggestion that grouping students by ability is
somehow akin to the Nazi death camps to be highly offensive. I know people
who lost family members in those camps.
> > > > Think about it fully before you quickly
> > > > retort back that the "special" ones are special and the "damaging"
ones
> > > do
> > > > damage.
> > > >
> > > > Hilter and the nazis tried to define ways to identify who was
superior
> > > and
> > > > who wasn't.
> > >
> > > So? I believe that a fellow named Jesse Owens clearly demonstrated
that
> > > there was something wrong with the methodology they employed.
However I
> > > fail to see what the Nazis have to do with the notion that students
who are
> > > capable of learning rapidly should be taught at the highest pace they
are
> > > capable of sustaining. In fact your bringing Nazis into the
discussion
> > > looks to me more like an appeal to emotion.
> > >
> > > > There were studies done to "prove" that people of african
> > > > descent were not as intelligent as those of european descent based
on
> > > basic
> > > > genetic differences.
> > >
> > > And I believe that people like George Washington Carver demonstrated
pretty
> > > clearly the flaw in _that_ methodology. However, again, you seem to
be
> > > appealing to emotion rather than to reason.
> >
> > I think a combination of emotion and reason produces what people look
to as
> > greatness than either components standing alone.
I see. So are you now claiming to have achieved "greatness" by appealing
to emotion and reason?
> > > > It is important to know who exactly the "special" ones
> > > > are....you wouldn't want to leave them behind and have them
"damaged" by
> > > the
> > > > others would you?
> > >
> > > No, you wouldn't. But you seem to want to force that fate on
everyone.
> >
> > I do not want to force anything on anybody.
You don't? You mean you want to eliminate compulsory education?
> Obviously I am not the appropriate spokesperson for my point of view. I
> don't know how to make it any clearer. While it is important to know
what
> skills and concepts a child has mastered, and it is important to give
that
> child every resource to build on those skills, it is quite a different
matter
> than separating children on their AbILITY to learn skills....and
concepts.
> Who is going to make the judgement on which children are superior(my
question
> mark isn't working right now).
Teachers.
> Who are we to call any of our children
> "damaging"(question mark).
Who said that children were "damaging". It's the process that's damaging.
> I give up. Can't anyone see that there must be a
> better way(question mark).
We've been trying your "better way" for years and it has been failing
miserably.
--John
|
|
