-- Posted by The Last Magister at 10:08 pm on Dec. 3, 2008 By tracking, I mean specified courses based on your intellectual capacity. In other-words, special classes to attend special needs, normal classes for the standard student, and advanced classes for the gifted. The main argument against tracking is that it tends to discriminate against those with special needs, yet personally, my question is, "Even if you pump an obscene amount of funding(which will be detracted from the advanced courses) into the special education courses, such as what we are doing now, how much will they be able to contribute to society in the end anyway? Will it be the equivalent of what a gifted student would if they had courses with proper funding?" The obvious answer; no, they never could. As Mark Twain once said, "School is where pebbles are polished and diamonds are dimmed." It may seem elitist, and it may seem discriminatory, but understand, as Rousseau described, the concept of a "social contract" and perhaps read Hobbes's Leviathan, and understand that in the end it is all for the good of society, and will reflect upon all if the gifted are tended to and allowed to excel. Thoughts? -- Posted by maceyface at 10:13 pm on Dec. 3, 2008 i think it is ridiculous, absolutely. it has been proven that children will perform simply to the expectations of such a label. teachers also teach to such expectations, giving less attention to kids branded as low achieving. and overwhelmingly, this system plays against minorities if you look at the numbers. this system will obviously benefit those students labeled as gifted, but how about those that aren't? it does not benefit them at all and does not lead them to fulfilling future careers. a person who had followed a low track for their entire grade school career has very little chance of getting into the college of their choice, etc. -- Posted by gnr90 at 10:14 pm on Dec. 3, 2008 its because the damn people from Alabama just had to keep it in the family, and they're eleven-toed children spread across the country, particularly to Arkansas, the home of Bill Clinton, which is why they put so much funding into special education... Seriously, fucking get over it...the government doesn't have any idea how to manage money, so it is irrelevant whether or not they will contribute... -- Posted by The Last Magister at 10:15 pm on Dec. 3, 2008 Quote: from maceyface at 12:13 am on Dec. 4, 2008 i think it is ridiculous, absolutely. it has been proven that children will perform simply to the expectations of such a label. teachers also teach to such expectations, giving less attention to kids branded as low achieving. and overwhelmingly, this system plays against minorities if you look at the numbers. this system will obviously benefit those students labeled as gifted, but how about those that aren't? it does not benefit them at all and does not lead them to fulfilling future careers. a person who had followed a low track for their entire grade school career has very little chance of getting into the college of their choice, etc. I explained that in the bottom bit. There will always be a group who will suffer in any educational system, right now it's the gifted. I am saying, do we want the gifted to suffer it, or the less contributive members of society? -- Posted by matto at 10:17 pm on Dec. 3, 2008 I've gone through both in my schooling.  In middle school, they had a very clear-cut structure of honors, regular ed, and special ed.  I was in honors, and it effectively formed overarching exclusionary groups of people from their respective program (especially special ed).  It worked for me, though.  I certainly wouldn't have learned as much had I gone through the same curriculum the regular ed went through.  However, is it fair?  I don't know. When I went to high school, I attended a low-scoring school that was improving rapidly.  They had a very recently created honors program, a few AP classes (adding more every year), and some really dedicated teachers.  In middle school, I had two or maybe three actually dedicated teachers, compared to the dedication of some of the teachers at my current high school.  Anyway, my first two years were mostly honors courses, with a few non-academic required classes that were mixed.  However, come junior year, they have a pathway system that diversifies through the honors, non-honors barriers.  I feel like I'm learning less content, but the content that I do learn I learn more completely than when learning at a rapid rate.  That's just me, there could be a multitude of reasons why. But.... as far as my opinions... I think that neither a mixed nor exclusionary system really incorporates special ed into the community, first of all, which is kind of troubling... And I think that both systems can be functional, but that it ultimately depends on the teacher. -- Posted by maceyface at 10:19 pm on Dec. 3, 2008 Quote: from TheLastMagister at 10:15 pm on Dec. 3, 2008 Quote: from maceyface at 12:13 am on Dec. 4, 2008 i think it is ridiculous, absolutely.    it has been proven that children will perform simply to the expectations of such a label.    teachers also teach to such expectations, giving less attention to kids branded as low achieving.    and overwhelmingly, this system plays against minorities if you look at the numbers.    this system will obviously benefit those students labeled as gifted, but how about those that aren't? it does not benefit them at all and does not lead them to fulfilling future careers. a person who had followed a low track for their entire grade school career has very little chance of getting into the college of their choice, etc. I explained that in the bottom bit. There will always be a group who will suffer in any educational system, right now it's the gifted. I am saying, do we want the gifted to suffer it, or the less contributive members of society? this is all assuming that school will "dim diamonds." the gifted do not suffer because of this. they will be gifted regardless. you can't teach somebody to be gifted. i pose this question to you would you rather expand on the top 10%, or make the other 90% better in the first place? to me, this academic tracking is reminiscent of tax cuts for the rich. -- Posted by The Last Magister at 10:25 pm on Dec. 3, 2008 Gifted classes do suffer from lack of funding, recently it's all being diverted to special education classes, which is making harder for students in advanced classes, because the teachers are unable to supply ample materials, which means it's coming out of the students pockets, meaning gifted students have to pay more just to get a higher standard of education. It's the same as our colleges. But again, I'm saying that there are three levels, let me put it this way, you have A, B, and C students. Astudents are gifted, B students are normal, and C students have special needs. As it is, both A, and B classes have less funding than C classes. Does that make any sense? It doesn't to me, because most people aren't C students and those students in the C bracket are going to hit a barrier regardless of how much funding the school dumps on them. So why are we focusing on the least productive part of our educational system? -- Posted by maceyface at 10:29 pm on Dec. 3, 2008 Quote: from TheLastMagister at 10:25 pm on Dec. 3, 2008 Gifted classes do suffer from lack of funding, recently it's all being diverted to special education classes, which is making harder for students in advanced classes, because the teachers are unable to supply ample materials, which means it's coming out of the students pockets, meaning gifted students have to pay more just to get a higher standard of education. It's the same as our colleges.   But again, I'm saying that there are three levels, let me put it this way, you have A, B, and C students. Astudents are gifted, B students are normal, and C students have special needs. As it is, both A, and B classes have less funding than C classes. Does that make any sense? It doesn't to me, because most people aren't C students and those students in the C bracket are going to hit a barrier regardless of how much funding the school dumps on them. So why are we focusing on the least productive part of our educational system? because its the least productive part of our educational system, obviously. reform happens from the ground up bro. -- Posted by The Last Magister at 10:31 pm on Dec. 3, 2008 But again, that's going to get us nowhere, because no matter what you do, they will always be the least productive part of society. So would you rather have a society of collective mediocrity with no exceptional individuals? -- Posted by airemaye at 11:06 pm on Dec. 3, 2008 I have noticed a certain degree of unfairness about the system. I'm what the government calls "gifted," so I'm in things like QUEST and AP/advanced classes. I'm also in a program called Distinguished Scholars which gets a ton of money from the district and state. The "gifted" people in my school have kind of formed a clique, of which I'm a part. There's a stereotype, I guess, that gifted kids are kind of elitist, and with us, that's somewhat true. We're hardly in "normal" classes, so we don't spend a lot of time with "normal" kids. We kind of live in our own little world, I guess. The district seems to shower us with money and attention. Sometimes it seems like the admins think that we can't do anything wrong. It's gotten to the point that we can do lots of things that "normal" kids would get in trouble for and get off scot-free. I can attest to that happening many times. And we get the best teachers, while the other kids have the ineffective nutcases, even though they're the ones who need the better teachers. I don't know. Some things just seem unfair about the whole deal. -- Posted by The Last Magister at 11:07 pm on Dec. 3, 2008 Quote: from airemaye at 1:06 am on Dec. 4, 2008 I have noticed a certain degree of unfairness about the system.   I'm what the government calls "gifted," so I'm in things like QUEST and AP/advanced classes. I'm also in a program called Distinguished Scholars which gets a ton of money from the district and state. The "gifted" people in my school have kind of formed a clique, of which I'm a part. There's a stereotype, I guess, that gifted kids are kind of elitist, and with us, that's somewhat true. We're hardly in "normal" classes, so we don't spend a lot of time with "normal" kids. We kind of live in our own little world, I guess. The district seems to shower us with money and attention. Sometimes it seems like the admins think that we can't do anything wrong. It's gotten to the point that we can do lots of things that "normal" kids would get in trouble for and get off scot-free. I can attest to that happening many times. And we get the best teachers, while the other kids have the ineffective nutcases, even though they're the ones who need the better teachers. I don't know. Some things just seem unfair about the whole deal. Tell me, what kind of income is the standard of the district you live in? -- Posted by airemaye at 11:10 pm on Dec. 3, 2008 Quote: from TheLastMagister at 1:07 am on Dec. 4, 2008 Quote: from airemaye at 1:06 am on Dec. 4, 2008 I have noticed a certain degree of unfairness about the system.  I'm what the government calls "gifted," so I'm in things like QUEST and AP/advanced classes. I'm also in a program called Distinguished Scholars which gets a ton of money from the district and state. The "gifted" people in my school have kind of formed a clique, of which I'm a part. There's a stereotype, I guess, that gifted kids are kind of elitist, and with us, that's somewhat true. We're hardly in "normal" classes, so we don't spend a lot of time with "normal" kids. We kind of live in our own little world, I guess. The district seems to shower us with money and attention. Sometimes it seems like the admins think that we can't do anything wrong. It's gotten to the point that we can do lots of things that "normal" kids would get in trouble for and get off scot-free. I can attest to that happening many times.    And we get the best teachers, while the other kids have the ineffective nutcases, even though they're the ones who need the better teachers.    I don't know. Some things just seem unfair about the whole deal. Tell me, what kind of income is the standard of the district you live in? We're like, the 48th richest county in the nation. So yeah...bad example, eh? -- Posted by The Last Magister at 11:16 pm on Dec. 3, 2008 Quote: from airemaye at 1:10 am on Dec. 4, 2008 Quote: from TheLastMagister at 1:07 am on Dec. 4, 2008 Quote: from airemaye at 1:06 am on Dec. 4, 2008 I have noticed a certain degree of unfairness about the system.       I'm what the government calls "gifted," so I'm in things like QUEST and AP/advanced classes. I'm also in a program called Distinguished Scholars which gets a ton of money from the district and state. The "gifted" people in my school have kind of formed a clique, of which I'm a part. There's a stereotype, I guess, that gifted kids are kind of elitist, and with us, that's somewhat true. We're hardly in "normal" classes, so we don't spend a lot of time with "normal" kids. We kind of live in our own little world, I guess. The district seems to shower us with money and attention. Sometimes it seems like the admins think that we can't do anything wrong. It's gotten to the point that we can do lots of things that "normal" kids would get in trouble for and get off scot-free. I can attest to that happening many times.   And we get the best teachers, while the other kids have the ineffective nutcases, even though they're the ones who need the better teachers.   I don't know. Some things just seem unfair about the whole deal.    Tell me, what kind of income is the standard of the district you live in?     We're like, the 48th richest county in the nation. So yeah...bad example, eh? Lol, yeah, just a bit.