|
|
Re: Only 45% of the students were prepared for math
Posted:
Mar 26, 2006 10:17 AM
|
|
On Sun, 26 Mar 2006 08:37:04 -0600, Serial Killfiler
<alXXhuriyeh@NOSPAMyahoo.com> wrote:
>On Fri, 24 Mar 2006 16:16:42 -0500, Guess who
><notreally.here@here.com> wrote:
>
>>On 24 Mar 2006 12:37:28 -0500, hrubin@odds.stat.purdue.edu (Herman
>>Rubin) wrote:
>>
>>>The elementary and high school
>>>curricula are designed not to give the appropriate positive
>>>or negative feedbacks.
>>
>>You are being purely argumentative. That is pure rubbish.
>
>It's not rubbish at all. We mere high school teachers would never be
>trusted to grade kids strictly upon what they know. Therefore, their
>grades do not really measure their aptitudes as they should.
I am a high school teacher retired, and dialogue with students was an
intricate and necessary part of the teaching process. In fact, that
was one of the reasons that parents and students of absentees could
never understand. When a child missed a class, he did not miss just
the material content, but the dialogue surrounding it by both teacher
and students. What IS digusting in general is the feedback required
which is entirely meaningless, such as "eraly warning reports' which
here at least were based upon past material bieng "reviewed",rather
than new, which would be much more descriptive.
Aptitude? That lies in the realm of psychology in general, and why in
industry there are, at least for positions of management, some hefty
psychological testing procedures. However, I am definitely in favour
of the teacher [who has been already tested to death in order to gain
the position in the first place] being able to decide the rightness or
wrongness of student placement within any given course of study.
Reasons for that require lengthy discussion, but basically, anyone who
has worked at anything for a lifetime should have some intuitive idea
of rightness and wrongness that can later be detailed. Mind, some
students make it simple to make such decisions about aptitude
|
|
