Tilted Forum Project Discussion Community - View Single Post

SecretMethod70 · 02-11-2006, 01:25 PM

Elphaba, the idea of splitting students up into "tracks" according to ability seems like it makes sense, and that's exactly what is done in most high schools in this area at least. However, what it effectively does is ensure that those who are better at reading stay better at reading and those who are behind stay and get further behind. It labels students as "slow" students and "fast" students according to their previous ability, and ensures that those labeled as "slow" both feel the stigma of not being as fast or as good of learners as their "fast" counterparts, and also that they continue to learn and be taught at the "slow" pace. Do this over four or more years, and you create a very tangible difference between two groups of students that didn't necessarily need to be there.

Contrast this to my experience in university, where the only segregation of students is in the existence of an "honors program" which requires application and is very selective. Most students, regardless of past ability, after having been accepted, choose from the same classes. The result is that the classes are populated with students of very high ability as well as students on the lower end of the spectrum. This does not "bring down" the students of high ability. Most of my classes are in political science, so they consist largely of discussion and debate, and the presence of less able students does not prevent those who are highly intelligent from participating in discussions at their own level. If anything, it forces those less able students to at least attempt to rise up to said level. Furthermore, it does so without putting a stigma on these students as "slow" learners or anything like that.

02-11-2006, 01:25 PM	#31 (permalink)
SecretMethod70 Human Administrator Location: Chicago	Elphaba, the idea of splitting students up into "tracks" according to ability seems like it makes sense, and that's exactly what is done in most high schools in this area at least. However, what it effectively does is ensure that those who are better at reading stay better at reading and those who are behind stay and get further behind. It labels students as "slow" students and "fast" students according to their previous ability, and ensures that those labeled as "slow" both feel the stigma of not being as fast or as good of learners as their "fast" counterparts, and also that they continue to learn and be taught at the "slow" pace. Do this over four or more years, and you create a very tangible difference between two groups of students that didn't necessarily need to be there. Contrast this to my experience in university, where the only segregation of students is in the existence of an "honors program" which requires application and is very selective. Most students, regardless of past ability, after having been accepted, choose from the same classes. The result is that the classes are populated with students of very high ability as well as students on the lower end of the spectrum. This does not "bring down" the students of high ability. Most of my classes are in political science, so they consist largely of discussion and debate, and the presence of less able students does not prevent those who are highly intelligent from participating in discussions at their own level. If anything, it forces those less able students to at least attempt to rise up to said level. Furthermore, it does so without putting a stigma on these students as "slow" learners or anything like that. __________________ Le temps détruit tout "Musicians are the carriers and communicators of spirit in the most immediate sense." - Kurt Elling Last edited by SecretMethod70; 02-11-2006 at 01:34 PM..