> I personally believe people should play to their strengths. Academic >students >should be in academically rigorous schools, students with vocational >talents >should be in vocational schools, and artistically talented students >should be >in schools emphasizing the arts. The idea that ALL students should >receive >exactly the same kind of education or that ALL students should be in the >same heterogeneous class is a farce.
On 12/10 Kent Luteman wrote:
>This, of course is obvious, but you're going to get a lot flack from the >"everybody can learn" crowd. They'll tell you it's just a matter of >understanding learning styles, etc., etc.
I also believe "everybody can learn" but to what degree is my point. Some people cannot become Grand Masters in chess or Major League baseball players, *no matter how they are taught or how much time they put in*. If one agrees with this, then when should we as a society begin the process of directing our young people towards those endeavours in which they are best suited? My own feeling is that 16-18 years of age is too late. You don't completely abandone all academics for those who might be better suited in other areas but you don't teach material they have no interest in AND will have no use for in their profession.