Do you support grade/discipline based segregation in schools ?

[Immortal Wombat]

Originally posted by Urban Ranger
I disgree. Education is not about producing cogs for companies, it is about bring out the full potentials in each and every individual.

It is better to find out why these "disruptive idiots" are disrupting, instead of banishing them to a downward spiral.

Doesn't placing children with lower academic achievement in the same class make it more likely that the teacher will then pitch the lesson at their level, and ensure than everyone gets taught, rather than only the top 25% of the class? Taking out the 'smart kids' drops the whole thing a notch, so everyone has a chance to get something out of lessons rather than thinking that the teacher only cares about the kids at the top.

If it's a discipline issue as well, then grouping them all together can be counterproductive if the teacher can't control the situation, but I think in general it works for the majority of people.

[Dis]

Originally posted by Kropotkin

Yes, having the school decide for you if you're a loser or not is surely the best way to go!

you snooze you lose. How hard is it to do well on a standardized test?

[MarkG]

Originally posted by Dissident
Are there disruptive idiots at your work?

i said "life", not "work"

[aneeshm]

@LoA

You were disruptive , but not an idiot . That is why I said two criterion - the first is grades , the second discipline .

@ UR

The biggest reason(s) disruptive idiots disrupt are two-fold .

The first is because they don't want to be in school , yet the nanny state forces them to go there .

The second is because , in general , they are ***** , and disrupt just because they can .

There is nothing you can do to improve the situation , short of allowing kids to leave school when they wish and making state education non-compulsory , or by implementing my idea . What do you choose ?

@ Kropotkin

Ah yes , I was expecting this . The guy afraid of honest assesment . Why are you afraid of telling children how well they do on the academic scale ?

Note that I never said that kids with disciplinary problems are to be put in a certain place . I said students who are the bottom , middle , and top third in both discipline and grades are to be taught seperately . This is not meant to put geniuses in one batch , normals in the second , and retards in the third . It is meant to divide normals into three categories - the geniuses and retards can continue to go to their special classes .

"Why don't you put them in prison ? "

Becuase I don't need to . They manage it eventually anyway .

@ Asmodean

Wow , what an articulate argument ! I am speeechless with wonder at your elite debating skills . I have decided to follow your greatness . I say -




@ Dissident



@ all

About the downward spiral arguments - utter BS . The people who have a penchant for messing up their own life wil continue to do it wherever they are . The people who , on the other hand , are self-motivated and want to improve themselves will do it , again , irrespective of the situation .

I have seen people who got bad grades and were total losers snap out of it , and I have also seen people with good grades unable to cope with even slight changes of circumstances .

[Kropotkin]

Originally posted by Dissident
you snooze you lose. How hard is it to do well on a standardized test?

It depends on the test and what 'do well' means. The original idea from the opening post is that 1/3 would end up in the lower class anyhow. I was aiming more against the idea of sorting out kids on their diciplinary records in my critizism though.

[aneeshm]

Originally posted by Kropotkin

Yes, having the school decide for you if you're a loser or not is surely the best way to go!

There is this thing called intelligence , and it can be used to reject the school's analysis if you so decide .

[Kropotkin]

Ah yes , I was expecting this . The guy afraid of honest assesment . Why are you afraid of telling children how well they do on the academic scale ?

I'm not affraid of honest assesment. However, I question the school's ability to make such an assesment. I have nothing against advanced classes or flexibility, but I don't agree with the idea of sorting up kids in three seperate classes based on some general assesment made by some teacher.

[aneeshm]

Originally posted by Kropotkin

It depends on the test and what 'do well' means. The original idea from the opening post is that 1/3 would end up in the lower class anyhow. I was aiming more against the idea of sorting out kids on their diciplinary records in my critizism though.

Do well means get marks above a certain percentage , depending on the test and the examiner .

If you do not sort on the basis of disciplinary records , then the kids who disrupt totally ruin education for those who are serious . If you sort , then a stricter poliry WRT offenders can be applied . Imposition of strict , lamost zero tolerance discipline is necessary to bring disruptive idiots in line .

And the competitive spirit this encourages is very good . If the thing is evaluated every month , on the basis of the record of the past six months , then the academic boundaries become permeable and fluid , thus not forcing anyone to be anywhere except where they deserve . Monthly re-appraisals on the basis of the past record of six months is necessary for the system to work and for the three classes not to stratify .

[Dis]

it doesn't take a brain surgeon to figure these kids out. Hell, I could do it when I was a kid.

Though further segregation may be in order. Because you have 2 classes of low performers. You have those that are earnestly trying, but just can't do well in school. And then you have those who just **** off in class and that's why they don't do well. Just send the second group to a trade school or military camp. .

[Urban Ranger]

Originally posted by Immortal Wombat
Doesn't placing children with lower academic achievement in the same class make it more likely that the teacher will then pitch the lesson at their level, and ensure than everyone gets taught, rather than only the top 25% of the class?

Possibly, though I think a better idea is to give the kids having problems with classwork extra help.

Originally posted by Immortal Wombat
Taking out the 'smart kids' drops the whole thing a notch, so everyone has a chance to get something out of lessons rather than thinking that the teacher only cares about the kids at the top.

You also run the risk of kids in such a class get labelled "idiots" or some such and hazed.

Originally posted by Immortal Wombat
If it's a discipline issue as well, then grouping them all together can be counterproductive if the teacher can't control the situation, but I think in general it works for the majority of people.

If it is a discipline issue, it is paramount to find out what the problem is. There are various causes, one of them is the kid is too gifted for the class, so she gets bored, and start causing trouble. Or maybe she doesn't like regular education because she loves music or painting?

[aneeshm]

Originally posted by Kropotkin

I'm not affraid of honest assesment. However, I question the school's ability to make such an assesment. I have nothing against advanced classes or flexibility, but I don't agree with the idea of sorting up kids in three seperate classes based on some general assesment made by some teacher.

If you doubt the ability of the school to make such an assessment , then let the experts do it . Introduce monthly standardised testing .

I have nothing against special classes for extreme cases , but I think the variation in even so-called average or normal students is too high to be ignored .

[Buck Birdseed]

It's a system that, like all similar right-wing policies, seems willfully designed to increase social segregation and cement class structures. When there's ample sociological evidence that (a) children from underpriviledged backgrounds with no tradition of study do worse at school and that (b) teachers have a tendency to categorise working-class children as weak early on, this policy seems designed to keep the under-class dregs from sullying our fine institutions. In other words, it's just conservatism as usual.

[Dis]

but seriously (I am serious above, but I'm still wary of that much segregation), I would rather see boys and girls seperated during class time (they can intermingle during recess and periods between class).

[Urban Ranger]

Originally posted by aneeshm
About the downward spiral arguments - utter BS . The people who have a penchant for messing up their own life wil continue to do it wherever they are .

How lovely it is to pass a judgemental statement such as this one when you don't even fully comprehend the issue.

Originally posted by aneeshm
The people who , on the other hand , are self-motivated and want to improve themselves will do it , again , irrespective of the situation.

The society should not just pamper those who are fortunate enough.

Originally posted by aneeshm
I have seen people who got bad grades and were total losers snap out of it

I am glad you realise that there isn't such a thing as a "born loser."

[Urban Ranger]

Originally posted by Dissident
but seriously (I am serious above, but I'm still wary of that much segregation), I would rather see boys and girls seperated during class time (they can intermingle during recess and periods between class).

You just get boys with no skills when it comes to interacting with girls.