Google Groups no longer supports new Usenet posts or subscriptions. Historical content remains viewable.
Dismiss

Vouchers and privatization are the answer

0 views
Skip to first unread message

Owen Corpening

unread,
Mar 21, 2000, 3:00:00 AM3/21/00
to
At my daughter's school, the only requirement to become a teacher is that
you must have one of your own children attending the school. No degree
required, no experience necessary.

Guess what? The kids are reading by the time they start kindergarten,
diagramming sentences by the time they start first grade.

Of course, vouchers or not, I am going to find a way to get my kid a good
education. Even if there were vouchers I would never see one.

I see no reason to have public schools as long as the parents who are low in
income or high in the number-of-kids can afford to properly school their
children.

I think exit-testing at several grade levels would be wise. This would
identify low-performing private schools.

I could care less whether a school is public or private, except if it is
public and performing poorly I think that should be stopped. My daughter's
school is $200/month. 2/3 of what the vouchers are in florida.

owen

Bob LeChevalier

unread,
Mar 22, 2000, 3:00:00 AM3/22/00
to
"Owen Corpening" <owen.co...@tivoli.com> wrote:
>At my daughter's school, the only requirement to become a teacher is that
>you must have one of your own children attending the school. No degree
>required, no experience necessary.
>
>Guess what? The kids are reading by the time they start kindergarten,
>diagramming sentences by the time they start first grade.

Which means of course that it isn't the school but the parents. Obviously if
the kids are reading before they start kindergarten, their education can
progress much differently than in the public schools, where a high percentage
of kids have never even been read to, much less learned to read before
entering school. And here in Fairfax County VA, one of the top districts in
the country, over 30% of the kids entering kindergarten don't even speak
English fluently.

>I see no reason to have public schools as long as the parents who are low in
>income or high in the number-of-kids can afford to properly school their
>children.

But of course they cannot.

>I could care less whether a school is public or private, except if it is
>public and performing poorly I think that should be stopped. My daughter's
>school is $200/month. 2/3 of what the vouchers are in florida.

Since the teachers are parents of kids at the school, I'll bet they don't get
a fraction of a professional salary. So your "$200/mo" is really the parents
who are teaching subsidizing the rest of the parents.

Note that per student spending for non-special ed kids in the lower grades of
public schools is also much lower than the overall average. 25% of funding
goes for special education, and, of the rest, more money goes for high
schools which have to offer a variety of courses for the varying goals of
different groups of student.

lojbab
----
lojbab loj...@lojban.org
Bob LeChevalier, President, The Logical Language Group, Inc.
2904 Beau Lane, Fairfax VA 22031-1303 USA 703-385-0273
Artificial language Loglan/Lojban: http://www.lojban.org (newly updated!)

Herman Rubin

unread,
Mar 22, 2000, 3:00:00 AM3/22/00
to
In article <eirgdso4u5c5qba4v...@4ax.com>,

Bob LeChevalier <loj...@lojban.org> wrote:
>"Owen Corpening" <owen.co...@tivoli.com> wrote:
>>At my daughter's school, the only requirement to become a teacher is that
>>you must have one of your own children attending the school. No degree
>>required, no experience necessary.

>>Guess what? The kids are reading by the time they start kindergarten,
>>diagramming sentences by the time they start first grade.

>Which means of course that it isn't the school but the parents. Obviously if
>the kids are reading before they start kindergarten, their education can
>progress much differently than in the public schools, where a high percentage
>of kids have never even been read to, much less learned to read before
>entering school.

If a public school child is reading early, and the school does
not place accordingly, and not according to age, the entire
body of people responsible should provide education according
to the level of the individual child.

And here in Fairfax County VA, one of the top districts in
>the country, over 30% of the kids entering kindergarten don't even speak
>English fluently.

Is this necessarily a problem? Immigrants tend to do very
well, even if they start out farther back. They will have
lost time, but there should be no attempt to "correct" this
to make "everyone equal". Teach each child according to
his or her level, or provide the extorted money so it could
be used for that purpose.

>>I see no reason to have public schools as long as the parents who are low in
>>income or high in the number-of-kids can afford to properly school their
>>children.

>But of course they cannot.

The reason that this problem even occurs is that the
educationists foisted the social schools on the people
during the Depression.

--
This address is for information only. I do not claim that these views
are those of the Statistics Department or of Purdue University.
Herman Rubin, Dept. of Statistics, Purdue Univ., West Lafayette IN47907-1399
hru...@stat.purdue.edu Phone: (765)494-6054 FAX: (765)494-0558

Owen Corpening

unread,
Mar 22, 2000, 3:00:00 AM3/22/00
to

Bob LeChevalier wrote in message ...

>Which means of course that it isn't the school but the parents. Obviously
if
>the kids are reading before they start kindergarten, their education can
>progress much differently than in the public schools, where a high
percentage
>of kids have never even been read to, much less learned to read before
>entering school. And here in Fairfax County VA, one of the top districts

in
>the country, over 30% of the kids entering kindergarten don't even speak
>English fluently.

The pre-k is where reading is learned, allthough I would certainly imagine
we are all good parents :)

What is abundantly obvious, though not from your post, is that with the
ability to select a school it is possible to propel kids farther than public
school ever would. Are you arguing that nothing is right about my kid's
school, or that nothing is wrong with public schools in general? Are you
saying it is entirely a parent-student problem? The kids you referred to, if
enrolled at my kid's school, would no doubt be doing better than they are in
the public schools. Argue with that.

>But of course they cannot. [afford quality education]

What I am saying is that if they cannot, give them vouchers. Then they can.

>Since the teachers are parents of kids at the school, I'll bet they don't
get
>a fraction of a professional salary. So your "$200/mo" is really the
parents
>who are teaching subsidizing the rest of the parents.

Of course salaries are a secondary consideration for these teachers. All
these parents are glad to spend their time on these wonderful kids. My point
was not that this school is financially comparable to public school, it is
that our tax money can be used more wisely by allowing choice in the form of
either vouchers or privatization. Public school is not sacred, if there are
superior alternatives it is financially irresponsible to ignore them.

>Note that per student spending for non-special ed kids in the lower grades
of
>public schools is also much lower than the overall average. 25% of funding
>goes for special education, and, of the rest, more money goes for high
>schools which have to offer a variety of courses for the varying goals of
>different groups of student.

Your point? That public school is not really expensive by comparison? Who
cares? The crucial point is that we can improve education by allowing choice
in the form of vouchers and/or privatization. Regardless of how superior you
say public school is, if it were true then vouchers would be something you
would favor.

owen


Owen Corpening

unread,
Mar 22, 2000, 3:00:00 AM3/22/00
to

Herman Rubin wrote in message <8baqqr$1i...@odds.stat.purdue.edu>...

>If a public school child is reading early, and the school does
>not place accordingly, and not according to age, the entire
>body of people responsible should provide education according
>to the level of the individual child.

I was reluctant to emphasize this, since the guy didn't seem to remotely
"get it", but the term "lowest common denominator" comes to mind. I also
didn't mention the demographics of the school: supremely hard-working
middle-to-lower class types such as myself. In the morning I see trucks
dropping off kids with signs on the side saying "so-and-so roofing", or
"cable-tv guy", etc. These are not the idle rich here.

>Is this necessarily a problem? Immigrants tend to do very
>well, even if they start out farther back. They will have
>lost time, but there should be no attempt to "correct" this
>to make "everyone equal". Teach each child according to
>his or her level, or provide the extorted money so it could
>be used for that purpose.

Hooray! You should run for office! Herman for VP with Bush!

>The reason that this problem even occurs is that the
>educationists foisted the social schools on the people
>during the Depression.

social schools? what's that

owen

SLieber24

unread,
Mar 23, 2000, 3:00:00 AM3/23/00
to
In article <8bb6an$q5c$1...@news.tivoli.com>, "Owen Corpening"
<owen.co...@tivoli.com> writes:

>the country, over 30% of the kids entering kindergarten don't even speak
>>English fluently.
>
>The pre-k is where reading is learned, allthough I would certainly imagine
>we are all good parents :)
>
>What is abundantly obvious, though not from your post, is that with the
>ability to select a school it is possible to propel kids farther than public
>school ever would. Are you arguing that nothing is right about my kid's
>school, or that nothing is wrong with public schools in general?

Why is it an either/or situation? Why does it have to be an all or nothing
comparison? Surely if you looked deeper, you would find cracks in your school's
programs. Surely if you looked at all, you would find positives in the public
school programs.

> Are you
>saying it is entirely a parent-student problem? The kids you referred to, if
>enrolled at my kid's school, would no doubt be doing better than they are in
>the public schools. Argue with that.

I will. You have no proof they're doing better than they would at a public
school. You don't have a group from your parent set at the public school. You
are all at the private school. Since you don't have a control group, you cannot
claim they are doing any better than they would have at the public school.

>>But of course they cannot. [afford quality education]
>
>What I am saying is that if they cannot, give them vouchers. Then they can.

They still wouldn't be able to afford it.

>>Since the teachers are parents of kids at the school, I'll bet they don't
>get
>>a fraction of a professional salary. So your "$200/mo" is really the
>parents
>>who are teaching subsidizing the rest of the parents.
>
>Of course salaries are a secondary consideration for these teachers. All
>these parents are glad to spend their time on these wonderful kids. My point
>was not that this school is financially comparable to public school, it is
>that our tax money can be used more wisely by allowing choice in the form of
>either vouchers or privatization. Public school is not sacred, if there are
>superior alternatives it is financially irresponsible to ignore them.

Would be used more wisely? Florida's vouchers, shot down this week by the
courts, did not require the private school to prove that it was doing anything
to help the pupils. The kids still had to take the FCAT, but they didn't have
to show improvement, and the private school didn't have to prove they made an
improvement, in order to keep the vouchers going. Thank heaven it was shot
down! It's a very stupid way to run a program!!

>>Note that per student spending for non-special ed kids in the lower grades
>of
>>public schools is also much lower than the overall average. 25% of funding
>>goes for special education, and, of the rest, more money goes for high
>>schools which have to offer a variety of courses for the varying goals of
>>different groups of student.
>
>Your point? That public school is not really expensive by comparison? Who
>cares? The crucial point is that we can improve education by allowing choice
>in the form of vouchers and/or privatization. Regardless of how superior you
>say public school is, if it were true then vouchers would be something you
>would favor.

Can we really?

----------------------------------------------------
Sandi

Remove NoSpam to reply.

Alberto

unread,
Mar 23, 2000, 3:00:00 AM3/23/00
to

Owen Corpening wrote:

> I was reluctant to emphasize this, since the guy didn't seem to remotely
> "get it", but the term "lowest common denominator" comes to mind. I also
> didn't mention the demographics of the school: supremely hard-working
> middle-to-lower class types such as myself. In the morning I see trucks
> dropping off kids with signs on the side saying "so-and-so roofing", or
> "cable-tv guy", etc. These are not the idle rich here.

Hello ? Drop the stereotype.

I was not raised by "so-and-so roofing" parents, nor by "cable-tv guy"
parents either. And I challenge most out there to prove that they work more
than I do.

And it doesn't have to be peon's work to be work either.

In fact, if your "so-and-so roofing" guy has a job, thank the chemists who
create the roofing materials to begin with, the automotive engineers who
design that guy's truck, the construction engineers who design the buildings
and the roads, and so on. If your "cable-tv guy" has a job to begin with,
thank us the electrical and electronic engineers that created his tv, his
cable, and the very electricity that flows through it, the instruments that
are used in that job, and much more.

We the engineers, technologists and scientists aren't the idle rich either,
but we carry a dispropotionate amount of the world's burden on our backs.
And thank us for most the jobs that exist out there.

What matters in education isn't money, but intellectual work.


Alberto.


Alberto

unread,
Mar 23, 2000, 3:00:00 AM3/23/00
to

Owen Corpening wrote:

> What is abundantly obvious, though not from your post, is that with the
> ability to select a school it is possible to propel kids farther than public
> school ever would. Are you arguing that nothing is right about my kid's

> school, or that nothing is wrong with public schools in general? Are you


> saying it is entirely a parent-student problem? The kids you referred to, if
> enrolled at my kid's school, would no doubt be doing better than they are in
> the public schools. Argue with that.

My two kids graduated from the public system. One's doing a Ph.D. at Columbia,
the other's graduating from Amherst and moving up to some yet undecided but
prestigious grad school.

And yes, it's mostly a parent-student problem.

Before you can put a kid in a quality school, you must be willing to put up with
what's needed. Lots of homework. A twelve, fourteen hour work day. A fast paced
rhythm that would make many a parent cringe. Little if any time for anything
else during the week.

And so on. The problem isn't whether the school is private or public, the
problem is whether the kid, and the parents, are willing to put up what's needed
to get educated in the proper way. Choice helps nothing if it isn't accompanied
by the willingness of put up with what's needed to back up that choice with
deeds.

> Of course salaries are a secondary consideration for these teachers. All
> these parents are glad to spend their time on these wonderful kids. My point
> was not that this school is financially comparable to public school, it is
> that our tax money can be used more wisely by allowing choice in the form of
> either vouchers or privatization. Public school is not sacred, if there are
> superior alternatives it is financially irresponsible to ignore them.

Choice is good, but it's not a panacea. Choice must be backed up by work or it's
going to backfire. If my kid doesn't have the level to attend Andover or Groton,
it isn't vouchers that are going to make it possible.


Alberto.


David Catalano

unread,
Mar 23, 2000, 3:00:00 AM3/23/00
to
Schools where the instructors are not required to hold some formal
education can be a dangerous thing. In Owem's case it seems to be
working and I applaude that particular school. Most
state now require that there teachers to hold a certification to teach.
Here in Ohio even most private schools have this same requirement. As
far as vouchures go I am in favor of them. but not just to go to a
privete school, but to any school. This would create copetition between
schools and there for bring out excellence. As school systems are now
they have a captive audiance, and while excellence is the goal they
don't seem to try hard enough.
We have dummied down our standards so much that we are now graduating
(from high school) young adults who are functioally illiterate
Standards need to raised, children should be held to these higher
standards. as a result we will also impove our school systems as well as
individual schools.


Bob LeChevalier

unread,
Mar 23, 2000, 3:00:00 AM3/23/00
to
"Owen Corpening" <owen.co...@tivoli.com> wrote:
>Bob LeChevalier wrote in message ...
>>Which means of course that it isn't the school but the parents. Obviously if
>>the kids are reading before they start kindergarten, their education can
>>progress much differently than in the public schools, where a high percentage
>>of kids have never even been read to, much less learned to read before
>>entering school. And here in Fairfax County VA, one of the top districts in
>>the country, over 30% of the kids entering kindergarten don't even speak
>>English fluently.
>
>The pre-k is where reading is learned, allthough I would certainly imagine
>we are all good parents :)

That is not the norm in this country. Kindergarten does not presume reading
ability, and indeed usually does not try to teach kids to read, but rather to
ensure that all are at a minimum level of reading readiness. Reading itself
is taught in 1st grade. Whether it should be taught sooner is a VERY
controversial issue. Countries that start schooling later than the US often
progress faster than the US because the kids have greater attention spans and
maturity once they start, so a higher pace is established from the beginning.
Russia, for example, started kids at age 7 after 3 years of non-reading
kindergarten, but by 3rd grade the kids are reading selected "literature"
rather than "children's books" in school.

And I do not define "good parenting" as teaching your kid to read before
kindergarten. There are very good parents, including one very articulate
homeschooler, Beth Clarkson, who will tell you that some kids are better off
learning to read at 8 or 9 or even later. Yet one would hesitate to call
Beth anything other than a "good parent" based on her postings.

>What is abundantly obvious, though not from your post, is that with the
>ability to select a school it is possible to propel kids farther than public
>school ever would.

That assumes that it is a virtue to "propel" kids, which again is
controversial. In our society there is a majority that feel that "let kids
be kids" is an important principle. The public schools have to balance that
sentiment with teaching.

>Are you arguing that nothing is right about my kid's school,

Not at all. Obviously you are pleased. If it pleases you, fine, since it is
your money. Would it please all parents to have a school such as yours?
Unlikely.

>or that nothing is wrong with public schools in general?

In general, no. Public schools have problems that they have to solve, but
those are problems with society more than they are problems with public
schools per se.

>Are you saying it is entirely a parent-student problem?

Nothing is "entirely" anyone's problem. But the fact that kids have problems
does not mean that someone or some institution is "wrong". Problems are a
natural human occurance.

>The kids you referred to, if
>enrolled at my kid's school, would no doubt be doing better than they are in
>the public schools. Argue with that.

I daresay that neither you nor I could possibly know one way or the other.

>>But of course they cannot. [afford quality education]
>
>What I am saying is that if they cannot, give them vouchers. Then they can.

Not necessarily. The fact that in most parts of the country private schools
are not run on $200/mo shows this. If they were, there would be more private
schools. Around here it is more like $500/mo for a cheap private school, and
the top academic schools run more like $12-18K/year.

>>Since the teachers are parents of kids at the school, I'll bet they don't get
>>a fraction of a professional salary. So your "$200/mo" is really the parents
>>who are teaching subsidizing the rest of the parents.
>

>Of course salaries are a secondary consideration for these teachers.

I think you would find that only a small percentage of kids could be educated
by such altruists.

>All these parents are glad to spend their time on these wonderful kids.

Most people these days cannot afford to spend time with their own kids, much
less those of other parents. This is one of those "society problems" I was
mentioning above.

>My point
>was not that this school is financially comparable to public school, it is
>that our tax money can be used more wisely by allowing choice in the form of
>either vouchers or privatization.

Wisely by YOUR standards. But you are only 1 of tens of millions of
taxpayers, and they do not share your priorities, yet it is THEIR tax money
too.

>Public school is not sacred, if there are superior alternatives

Superior is in the eye of the beholder.

>it is financially irresponsible to ignore them.

Society does a lot of things that are by this standard "financially
irresponsible". One of our principles in this country is "equal protection
under the law", and that means that we treat everyone the same even if it
might be more financially sound to treat people differently. Thus a first
class letter costs the same whether you are sending it to/from your next door
neighbor in Manhattan or from 100 miles from nowhere in the Alaskan bush. It
is "financially irresponsible" to claim that the Alaskan bush letter can be
delivered for 33 cents or even 10 times that amount, but we still do it.

>>Note that per student spending for non-special ed kids in the lower grades of
>>public schools is also much lower than the overall average. 25% of funding
>>goes for special education, and, of the rest, more money goes for high
>>schools which have to offer a variety of courses for the varying goals of
>>different groups of student.
>
>Your point? That public school is not really expensive by comparison?

No. That kids like the early readers with involved parents who are getting
educated at your private school probably cost the public schools no more to
educate than that $200/mo either. It is the other kids that don't have
parental support, or who need special services that the parents cannot or do
not provide, or who have disabilities - these are the ones that increase the
costs.

>Who cares?

The taxpayers do.

>The crucial point is that we can improve education by allowing choice
>in the form of vouchers and/or privatization.

That depends on your definition of "improve". In terms of providing the
customers, who are the TAXPAYERS and not the PARENTS, with what they want,
the public schools are perhaps superior to any "choice" scheme.

>Regardless of how superior you
>say public school is, if it were true then vouchers would be something you
>would favor.

No. I cannot see any basis under which I would "favor" vouchers.

They would provide choice primarily to those with less need of choice, and
money to those with less need of money.

HushPuppy

unread,
Mar 23, 2000, 3:00:00 AM3/23/00
to
Here in CA, there has been a lot of hoopla caused by our class size
reduction programs (now at 20 kids/class in k-3).

Various major studies have been able to measure the key things responsible
for a child's success in school. At the top of the list is family support.
Next is qualification of teachers. In CA, class size reduction has had the
unintended consequence of pulling qualified teachers from poorer schools to
fill openings in more comfortable suburban schools.

In the face of the fact that schools can't much change the quality of
support kids get from their families, the next most important thing we *can*
do is to get qualified teachers to those students most in need...will we? I
doubt it.

Until we, as a society, are willing to pay the market rate to draw qualified
teachers to poorer schools, we can only expect to see some schools fall far
behind the best public and private schools.

Owen Corpening

unread,
Mar 23, 2000, 3:00:00 AM3/23/00
to
Alberto the weirdo,

Owen, P.E.
Professionally registered Engineer since 1995

Alberto wrote in message <38DA2A13...@moreira.mv.com>...

Owen Corpening

unread,
Mar 23, 2000, 3:00:00 AM3/23/00
to
fairly easy to do. The "control group" is the public school population, and
seeing my kid play with them at McDonald's is enough to prove who is farther
along educationally. My kid points to the sign and says "You can't climb the
poles, it says that's against the rules!"

The parents recognize the difference between children of the same age, only
you can't see it. Please don't waste people's lives while you wait for
evidence that is obvious to all who care.

And as for weaknesses in my school, there are plenty, duh. Like organized
sports. Public school excels at that in my opinion.

So there does need to be a situation that combines the two sets of
strengths.

owen

SLieber24 wrote in message <20000323001754...@nso-ff.aol.com>...


>In article <8bb6an$q5c$1...@news.tivoli.com>, "Owen Corpening"
><owen.co...@tivoli.com> writes:
>

>>the country, over 30% of the kids entering kindergarten don't even speak
>>>English fluently.
>>
>>The pre-k is where reading is learned, allthough I would certainly imagine
>>we are all good parents :)
>>

>>What is abundantly obvious, though not from your post, is that with the
>>ability to select a school it is possible to propel kids farther than
public

>>school ever would. Are you arguing that nothing is right about my kid's
>>school, or that nothing is wrong with public schools in general?
>
>Why is it an either/or situation? Why does it have to be an all or nothing
>comparison? Surely if you looked deeper, you would find cracks in your
school's
>programs. Surely if you looked at all, you would find positives in the
public
>school programs.
>

>> Are you
>>saying it is entirely a parent-student problem? The kids you referred to,


if
>>enrolled at my kid's school, would no doubt be doing better than they are
in
>>the public schools. Argue with that.
>

>I will. You have no proof they're doing better than they would at a public
>school. You don't have a group from your parent set at the public school.
You
>are all at the private school. Since you don't have a control group, you
cannot
>claim they are doing any better than they would have at the public school.
>

>>>But of course they cannot. [afford quality education]
>>
>>What I am saying is that if they cannot, give them vouchers. Then they
can.
>

>They still wouldn't be able to afford it.
>

>>>Since the teachers are parents of kids at the school, I'll bet they don't
>>get
>>>a fraction of a professional salary. So your "$200/mo" is really the
>>parents
>>>who are teaching subsidizing the rest of the parents.
>>

>>Of course salaries are a secondary consideration for these teachers. All
>>these parents are glad to spend their time on these wonderful kids. My


point
>>was not that this school is financially comparable to public school, it is
>>that our tax money can be used more wisely by allowing choice in the form
of

>>either vouchers or privatization. Public school is not sacred, if there
are


>>superior alternatives it is financially irresponsible to ignore them.
>
>Would be used more wisely? Florida's vouchers, shot down this week by the
>courts, did not require the private school to prove that it was doing
anything
>to help the pupils. The kids still had to take the FCAT, but they didn't
have
>to show improvement, and the private school didn't have to prove they made
an
>improvement, in order to keep the vouchers going. Thank heaven it was shot
>down! It's a very stupid way to run a program!!
>

>>>Note that per student spending for non-special ed kids in the lower
grades
>>of
>>>public schools is also much lower than the overall average. 25% of
funding
>>>goes for special education, and, of the rest, more money goes for high
>>>schools which have to offer a variety of courses for the varying goals of
>>>different groups of student.
>>

>>Your point? That public school is not really expensive by comparison? Who
>>cares? The crucial point is that we can improve education by allowing
choice
>>in the form of vouchers and/or privatization. Regardless of how superior


you
>>say public school is, if it were true then vouchers would be something you
>>would favor.
>

Owen Corpening

unread,
Mar 23, 2000, 3:00:00 AM3/23/00
to
To clear up the confusion: I failed to graduate from public school. Being a
national merit scholar, I quit and went to college. They admitted me on the
condition that I pass, which I did. Placed out of French, English, and
Calulus I.

However, I would venture to say that the public school system itself is
failing. If you dispute that, then we have a disagreement.

For 2% (or whatever, that's a made-up number) of the kids to do well does
not equal success. Hence your kid's and mmy own success do not demonstrate
strengths of the system, but anomalies.

I want all the kids to do well, and the best kids to do even better. Choice
IS a panacea, when compared with a lack of choice. At the worst it would
leave things the same (parents would not use the vouchers and kids would
stay where they are). At the best more bottom-end kids will move towards the
middle or the high end.

There will always be a bell curve of achievement. I want to enlarge the
middle of the curve, and extend the high end. The bulge is too close to the
bottom right now.

owen

Alberto wrote in message <38DA2B44...@moreira.mv.com>...


>
>
>Owen Corpening wrote:
>
>> What is abundantly obvious, though not from your post, is that with the
>> ability to select a school it is possible to propel kids farther than
public
>> school ever would. Are you arguing that nothing is right about my kid's

>> school, or that nothing is wrong with public schools in general? Are you


>> saying it is entirely a parent-student problem? The kids you referred to,
if
>> enrolled at my kid's school, would no doubt be doing better than they are
in
>> the public schools. Argue with that.
>

>My two kids graduated from the public system. One's doing a Ph.D. at
Columbia,
>the other's graduating from Amherst and moving up to some yet undecided but
>prestigious grad school.
>
>And yes, it's mostly a parent-student problem.
>
>Before you can put a kid in a quality school, you must be willing to put up
with
>what's needed. Lots of homework. A twelve, fourteen hour work day. A fast
paced
>rhythm that would make many a parent cringe. Little if any time for
anything
>else during the week.
>
>And so on. The problem isn't whether the school is private or public, the
>problem is whether the kid, and the parents, are willing to put up what's
needed
>to get educated in the proper way. Choice helps nothing if it isn't
accompanied
>by the willingness of put up with what's needed to back up that choice with
>deeds.
>

>> Of course salaries are a secondary consideration for these teachers. All
>> these parents are glad to spend their time on these wonderful kids. My
point
>> was not that this school is financially comparable to public school, it
is
>> that our tax money can be used more wisely by allowing choice in the form
of
>> either vouchers or privatization. Public school is not sacred, if there
are
>> superior alternatives it is financially irresponsible to ignore them.
>

SLieber24

unread,
Mar 23, 2000, 3:00:00 AM3/23/00
to
In article <8bdenb$dhh$1...@news.tivoli.com>, "Owen Corpening"
<owen.co...@tivoli.com> writes:

>fairly easy to do. The "control group" is the public school population, and
>seeing my kid play with them at McDonald's is enough to prove who is farther
>along educationally. My kid points to the sign and says "You can't climb the
>poles, it says that's against the rules!"

Not so. The control group would have to be from the exact same population, with
the same level of parental input as you, but the children would be in public
school instead of your private one.

Sorry - even the Wisconsin voucher program has shown no significant differences
in achievement when comparing like populations.

>The parents recognize the difference between children of the same age, only
>you can't see it. Please don't waste people's lives while you wait for
>evidence that is obvious to all who care.

There will always be differences - even in children from the same school, in
the same age group, in the same class. It's called "being human."

>And as for weaknesses in my school, there are plenty, duh. Like organized
>sports. Public school excels at that in my opinion.

A high priority for you?

>So there does need to be a situation that combines the two sets of
>strengths.

And....?

Herman Rubin

unread,
Mar 23, 2000, 3:00:00 AM3/23/00
to
In article <8bb7b4$qd5$1...@news.tivoli.com>,
Owen Corpening <owen.co...@tivoli.com> wrote:

>Herman Rubin wrote in message <8baqqr$1i...@odds.stat.purdue.edu>...
>>If a public school child is reading early, and the school does
>>not place accordingly, and not according to age, the entire
>>body of people responsible should provide education according
>>to the level of the individual child.

>I was reluctant to emphasize this, since the guy didn't seem to remotely


>"get it", but the term "lowest common denominator" comes to mind. I also
>didn't mention the demographics of the school: supremely hard-working
>middle-to-lower class types such as myself. In the morning I see trucks
>dropping off kids with signs on the side saying "so-and-so roofing", or
>"cable-tv guy", etc. These are not the idle rich here.

What "class" do you think I come from? My parents were
uneducated immigrants. Even without "advantages", I was
reading early, and rarely had a class which required much
of the time I was there. I did NOT have education according
to my individual level, except what I managed to stumble
into; no guidance whatever, and lots of time wasted.

My siblings could not in any way do this. Individual
differences are GREAT.

>>Is this necessarily a problem? Immigrants tend to do very
>>well, even if they start out farther back. They will have
>>lost time, but there should be no attempt to "correct" this
>>to make "everyone equal". Teach each child according to
>>his or her level, or provide the extorted money so it could
>>be used for that purpose.

>Hooray! You should run for office! Herman for VP with Bush!

I do not think that Bush is quite up to this. His record
with the Texas schools is not great, but then, could he
have done better? It seems clear that the Texas voters
consider the quality of their athletic teams to be of much
greater importance than what their children learn.

>>The reason that this problem even occurs is that the
>>educationists foisted the social schools on the people
>>during the Depression.

>social schools? what's that

Schools which demand that children be with their age
groups, rather than being allowed to progress at their
individual rates. The process of adjusting the curriculum
to what essentially all in the classroom (and the teacher)
could do, rather than maintaining a curriculum. It MIGHT
have been possible to reverse this after Sputnik, as the
emphasis on elementary school children not even discussing
what they were studying with their parents (this is in no
way an exaggeration) was reversed.

Grammar used to be taught (surprise!) in grammar school.
Now, I wonder what proportion of elementary school
teachers understand English grammar. Geography used
to be taught, and then history using it. Now they are
muddled together in "social studies", and even then
the material is trivialized.

Owen Corpening

unread,
Mar 23, 2000, 3:00:00 AM3/23/00
to
Thanks Herman. BTW, I am from Austin, Tx, so I assure you not all Texans are
alike.

owen

Herman Rubin wrote in message <8be6c0$12...@odds.stat.purdue.edu>...

Owen Corpening

unread,
Mar 23, 2000, 3:00:00 AM3/23/00
to
Completely wrong Bob. If vouchers were available but public schools were
preferable then the parents would choose to remain in public school.

Only poor people would get vouchers, they are means tested, so most of your
entire argument is a mistake.

And what you refer to as a majority, it just sounds like you are part of the
school establishment and are arguing anything that means its continuation.

I have not run across the majority that favors beginning reading at age 9,
all I know of is parents, teachers, and others who believe firmly in reading
as early as possible. You are alone on this Bob. You and Russia.

And I am afraid that measurements indicate something is indeed wrong with
the system. The problem for many parents is precisely this lack of choice.

owen

Owen Corpening

unread,
Mar 23, 2000, 3:00:00 AM3/23/00
to
Turns out other factors can be more important than credentials. At my
daughters school character is key, and everyone is proud to obey the
teachers and follow the rules. Much of this is "follow the example set by
the teachers".

Amazingly, this works! Plus the curriculum is super, they use phonics. My
baby turned 6 yesterday and she does 50 addition problems in 90 seconds
every day (tries to, has made it before ...). It's quite a kindergarten
class, very impressive.

owen

David Catalano wrote in message
<28036-38...@storefull-133.iap.bryant.webtv.net>...

Alberto

unread,
Mar 23, 2000, 3:00:00 AM3/23/00
to

Owen Corpening wrote:

> Owen, P.E.
> Professionally registered Engineer since 1995

The more reason you should be able to see where things come from, and who does
what or how much. Like I said before, it helps to drop the stereotype.


Alberto.


HushPuppy

unread,
Mar 23, 2000, 3:00:00 AM3/23/00
to

"Owen Corpening" <owen.co...@tivoli.com> wrote in message
news:8bedbj$rl7$1...@news.tivoli.com...

> Turns out other factors can be more important than credentials. At my
> daughters school character is key, and everyone is proud to obey the
> teachers and follow the rules. Much of this is "follow the example set by
> the teachers".

Nice anecdote - at least you can feel good about yourself when the data
doesn't seem to support you. We all know how important self esteem is these
days.

Bob LeChevalier

unread,
Mar 24, 2000, 3:00:00 AM3/24/00
to
"Owen Corpening" <owen.co...@tivoli.com> wrote:
>fairly easy to do. The "control group" is the public school population, and
>seeing my kid play with them at McDonald's is enough to prove who is farther
>along educationally. My kid points to the sign and says "You can't climb the
>poles, it says that's against the rules!"

So does this indicate that the kids can't read, or merely that they don't
follow rules. The latter is of course an American tradition, as you will
notice by looking at all the people who obey speed limits, and not an
"education problem". Children learn as their parents do.

>The parents recognize the difference between children of the same age, only
>you can't see it.

Then why do most parents have their kids go to public school and not to your
heaven-on-earth school? After all, your school is half the cost of
non-educational day care, and most parents can afford it.

>Please don't waste people's lives while you wait for
>evidence that is obvious to all who care.

"All who care" = "people who think like me", apparently.

Bob LeChevalier

unread,
Mar 24, 2000, 3:00:00 AM3/24/00
to
"Owen Corpening" <owen.co...@tivoli.com> wrote:
>I want all the kids to do well, and the best kids to do even better. Choice
>IS a panacea, when compared with a lack of choice. At the worst it would
>leave things the same (parents would not use the vouchers and kids would
>stay where they are). At the best more bottom-end kids will move towards the
>middle or the high end.

The flaw in your logic is that most Americans have would have no idea how to
pick a school, and would choose based on the best marketing strategy, not the
best education (indeed, how would they know until the school established a
track record). The public schools do not market themselves well at all
(indeed they hardly try to market themselves), so parents would choose
alternatives. And they would get screwed (or at least their kids would),
because where there is government largesse, there are unscrupulous people
willing to try to get that money by whatever means are legal.

Herman Rubin

unread,
Mar 24, 2000, 3:00:00 AM3/24/00
to
In article <20000323001754...@nso-ff.aol.com>,
SLieber24 <slie...@aol.comNoSpam> wrote:
>In article <8bb6an$q5c$1...@news.tivoli.com>, "Owen Corpening"
><owen.co...@tivoli.com> writes:

>>the country, over 30% of the kids entering kindergarten don't even speak
>>>English fluently.

>>The pre-k is where reading is learned, allthough I would certainly imagine
>>we are all good parents :)

Going back to what the educationists introduced, in the
period from the mid to late 30s (somewhat later, or maybe
never in some "unenlightened" school districts) to Sputnik,
the official policy was to do nothing about reading until
first grade, and in fact to berate parents for teaching
their children anything; it was important "not to confuse
children" by having them see anything which would contradict
the teacher.

>>What is abundantly obvious, though not from your post, is that with the
>>ability to select a school it is possible to propel kids farther than public
>>school ever would. Are you arguing that nothing is right about my kid's
>>school, or that nothing is wrong with public schools in general?

>Why is it an either/or situation? Why does it have to be an all or nothing


>comparison? Surely if you looked deeper, you would find cracks in your school's
>programs. Surely if you looked at all, you would find positives in the public
>school programs.

The public schools could make a great step by immediately
considering academic learning at the pace a student can
handle to be their real job. They still REFUSE to do this.

>> Are you
>>saying it is entirely a parent-student problem? The kids you referred to, if
>>enrolled at my kid's school, would no doubt be doing better than they are in
>>the public schools. Argue with that.

>I will. You have no proof they're doing better than they would at a public


>school. You don't have a group from your parent set at the public school. You
>are all at the private school. Since you don't have a control group, you cannot
>claim they are doing any better than they would have at the public school.

This is not a situation for a control group. This would
mandate that children are put at random into groups, one
being taught in one way, and one in another. We have far
too much of this in medicine; one can get information more
easily this way, but at the cost of much harm.

And do not say that we should not experiment with our
children. The public schools have been doing this from
ancient times. They did not use controlled studies when
they decided to ban skipping, to reduce the level of the
curriculum to what essentially all in the class could
accomplish, to drop separate history and geography in favor
of social studies, to throw out phonics in favor of the
whole word method, to open the algebra and geometry courses
for all (they were open before, but not dumbed down) and
adjust to the level of those in the class. The present
public schools are the result of these and other
uncontrolled experiments. This is not ancient history
to me.

>>>But of course they cannot. [afford quality education]

>>What I am saying is that if they cannot, give them vouchers. Then they can.

>They still wouldn't be able to afford it.

More would be able to afford it, and it would become even
more affordable. With vouchers, the number of academic
private schools in poor neighborhoods would more than
double in the first year. The number of schools for the
bright and gifted would probably grow faster. And other
means of good education would emerge.

>>>Since the teachers are parents of kids at the school, I'll bet they don't
>>get
>>>a fraction of a professional salary. So your "$200/mo" is really the
>>parents
>>>who are teaching subsidizing the rest of the parents.

>>Of course salaries are a secondary consideration for these teachers. All


>>these parents are glad to spend their time on these wonderful kids. My point
>>was not that this school is financially comparable to public school, it is
>>that our tax money can be used more wisely by allowing choice in the form of
>>either vouchers or privatization. Public school is not sacred, if there are
>>superior alternatives it is financially irresponsible to ignore them.

>Would be used more wisely? Florida's vouchers, shot down this week by the


>courts, did not require the private school to prove that it was doing anything
>to help the pupils.

The legality of Florida's vouchers was denied on the
grounds of supporting religion, not on educational issues.
I do not support religious schools, but the public schools
teach Political Correctness, much harder to counter than
religion which the parents do not believe.

Herman Rubin

unread,
Mar 24, 2000, 3:00:00 AM3/24/00
to
In article <38DA2B44...@moreira.mv.com>,
Alberto <junk...@moreira.mv.com> wrote:


>Owen Corpening wrote:

>> What is abundantly obvious, though not from your post, is that with the
>> ability to select a school it is possible to propel kids farther than public
>> school ever would. Are you arguing that nothing is right about my kid's

>> school, or that nothing is wrong with public schools in general? Are you


>> saying it is entirely a parent-student problem? The kids you referred to, if
>> enrolled at my kid's school, would no doubt be doing better than they are in
>> the public schools. Argue with that.

>My two kids graduated from the public system. One's doing a Ph.D. at Columbia,


>the other's graduating from Amherst and moving up to some yet undecided but
>prestigious grad school.

They could have graduated several years earlier, and should
have. And without working that hard.

>And yes, it's mostly a parent-student problem.

>Before you can put a kid in a quality school, you must be willing to put up with
>what's needed. Lots of homework. A twelve, fourteen hour work day. A fast paced
>rhythm that would make many a parent cringe. Little if any time for anything
>else during the week.

This is neither necessary nor sufficient. It is not
necessary to do lots of simple exercises; given a list of
problems, those interested in learning will do too many,
but they are not likely to be the trivia assigned as
homework. I did learn while going to public school, and
easily what was taught, but I spent far more time on
academic learning not related to schoolwork, and I was
still not working anywhere near that hard.

Nor did my children work that hard, and they also learned,
more out of school than in.

It is possible to get a far better education than what
is allowed by the public schools and not spend that much
time. There is little accomplished by working routine
problems without letting the ideas "ripen".

>And so on. The problem isn't whether the school is private or public, the
>problem is whether the kid, and the parents, are willing to put up what's needed
>to get educated in the proper way. Choice helps nothing if it isn't accompanied
>by the willingness of put up with what's needed to back up that choice with
>deeds.

My parents could not put up more than a beginning level and
the desire to learn. With guidance, mostly about what not
to waste time on, and where to get the more conceptual
material, I could have learned far more in less time with
less effort. My children had the guidance my wife and I
could give, and also what we could teach them, but were
wasting their time in school, as I was.

Herman Rubin

unread,
Mar 24, 2000, 3:00:00 AM3/24/00
to
In article <28036-38...@storefull-133.iap.bryant.webtv.net>,

David Catalano <dpcat...@webtv.net> wrote:
>Schools where the instructors are not required to hold some formal
>education can be a dangerous thing.

Formal education, as such, is useless. It is knowledge and
ability which counts. We need to replace all such requirements
with evidence of the knowledge and ability; grades and credits
are very definitely NOT included.

In Owem's case it seems to be
>working and I applaude that particular school. Most
>state now require that there teachers to hold a certification to teach.
>Here in Ohio even most private schools have this same requirement.

You will find that many subject matter scholars even
consider this to be undesirable. Considering what is
taught in the schools of education, we would be well served
by having instead those who believe in children learning as
fast and as well as they can, instead of being kept in
grades because of age. They should proceed at different
rates in different subjects, and often much different.

As
>far as vouchures go I am in favor of them. but not just to go to a
>privete school, but to any school.

The California proposal allowed this.

This would create competition between


>schools and there for bring out excellence. As school systems are now
>they have a captive audiance, and while excellence is the goal they
>don't seem to try hard enough.

Excellence is NOT the goal. It does not even seem to be
considered. Keeping children bored in dumbed down classes
because of a supposed lack of maturity should be enough to
turn off anyone who believes in education. Not teaching
concepts because the teachers do not understand them should
cause us to look for teachers who understand the concepts,
but do not have education courses.

> We have dummied down our standards so much that we are now graduating
>(from high school) young adults who are functioally illiterate
>Standards need to raised, children should be held to these higher
>standards. as a result we will also impove our school systems as well as
>individual schools.

--

Owen Corpening

unread,
Mar 24, 2000, 3:00:00 AM3/24/00
to
>The legality of Florida's vouchers was denied on the
>grounds of supporting religion, not on educational issues.
>I do not support religious schools, but the public schools
>teach Political Correctness, much harder to counter than
>religion which the parents do not believe.

You are completely correct again Herman, but I hold a somewhat different
view about "supporting religious schools". I don't advocate any policy
whatsoever towards a schools nature, but rather allow parents to affect this
situation through choice and direct input.

So If some of the academically oriented private schools we assume will
appear in a voucher or privatiaztion situation are religious, or not,
parents will vote with their feet, and the schools will succeed or fail. I
really don't care.

I know where my kid will be regardless. I have gone to great lengths to
affect THAT.

Certainly parents should have the option of putting their children in a
school that is religious, anti-religious, non-denominational,
denominational, or Montessorial, or whatever. THAT sounds like my kind of
country.

owen

Owen Corpening

unread,
Mar 24, 2000, 3:00:00 AM3/24/00
to
I work with data for a living, watch out relying on it to heavily at the
expense of your own observations.

The pre-k teacher my daughter had was an accountant who had just wuit to
become a teacher because her child turned 4 and she wanted to be a prt of
her life. My wife and I met her, gave her a chance, and she was super! You
have to see it to believe/understand it.

Her kindergarten teacher was a stay-at-home mom, and while her skills in
teaching reading, writing and writhmatic are strong, she excels at
controlling the class, getting good behavior thru setting expectations,
keeping the kids informed of what is coming and how they are expected to
behave.

She teaches songs very well also, as well as memory verses. The kids are SO
proud that it shows in all they do!

I think there is a difference between "qualified" and "credentialed". At the
level of pre-k and kindergarten I go for "qualified", in my experience it
works well.

btw, there was one boy who was sortuv the ADD type kid. His mother had him
repeat pre-k (his birthday made it reasonable, he was only slightly the
oldest kid the second time around). Guess what? He's doing super, no
medication ...

HushPuppy wrote in message ...

Herman Rubin

unread,
Mar 24, 2000, 3:00:00 AM3/24/00
to
In article <0glmds4487cbcg0dr...@4ax.com>,

Bob LeChevalier <loj...@lojban.org> wrote:
>"Owen Corpening" <owen.co...@tivoli.com> wrote:
>>fairly easy to do. The "control group" is the public school population, and
>>seeing my kid play with them at McDonald's is enough to prove who is farther
>>along educationally. My kid points to the sign and says "You can't climb the
>>poles, it says that's against the rules!"

>So does this indicate that the kids can't read, or merely that they don't
>follow rules. The latter is of course an American tradition, as you will
>notice by looking at all the people who obey speed limits, and not an
>"education problem". Children learn as their parents do.

>>The parents recognize the difference between children of the same age, only
>>you can't see it.

>Then why do most parents have their kids go to public school and not to your
>heaven-on-earth school? After all, your school is half the cost of
>non-educational day care, and most parents can afford it.

Find these "heaven-on-earth" schools. There are not many
more than when the school which realized that they could
not do much for my son suggested such. Vouchers would
produce them, in one way or another, possibly
electronically.

>>Please don't waste people's lives while you wait for
>>evidence that is obvious to all who care.

>"All who care" = "people who think like me", apparently.

What makes voucher schools feasible is that there are not
too many who think as he and I do. The parents who only
want their children to learn as little as they learned, or
would rather have them play high school varsity sports than
learn, are welcome to their schools.

Herman Rubin

unread,
Mar 24, 2000, 3:00:00 AM3/24/00
to
In article <5plmds0mfbalafib2...@4ax.com>,

Bob LeChevalier <loj...@lojban.org> wrote:
>"Owen Corpening" <owen.co...@tivoli.com> wrote:
>>I want all the kids to do well, and the best kids to do even better. Choice
>>IS a panacea, when compared with a lack of choice. At the worst it would
>>leave things the same (parents would not use the vouchers and kids would
>>stay where they are). At the best more bottom-end kids will move towards the
>>middle or the high end.

>The flaw in your logic is that most Americans have would have no idea how to
>pick a school, and would choose based on the best marketing strategy, not the
>best education (indeed, how would they know until the school established a
>track record). The public schools do not market themselves well at all
>(indeed they hardly try to market themselves), so parents would choose
>alternatives. And they would get screwed (or at least their kids would),
>because where there is government largesse, there are unscrupulous people
>willing to try to get that money by whatever means are legal.

Ignorance can be cured by providing information; as for
protecting people from their stupidity, it is the stupidity
of those trying to do the protecting from which we need
protection.

Most private schools will continue to be non-profit,
because of the tax and other advantages. Contributions to
a non-profit school are tax deductible, and having lower
tuition and voluntary contributions is a way to increase
income. Relatives will get $1.50 or more on the dollar
in supporting children this way.

If one does not like a school, one can change. With
public schools, this is more likely to be a problem.
The few public schools which can and will become
academic can compete for the good students. The ones
which cannot or will not should not do harm to the
good students, and they will not do worse for the
weak ones if the good ones leave.

Owen Corpening

unread,
Mar 24, 2000, 3:00:00 AM3/24/00
to
>So does this indicate that the kids can't read, or merely that they don't
>follow rules. The latter is of course an American tradition, as you will
>notice by looking at all the people who obey speed limits, and not an
>"education problem". Children learn as their parents do.

Sounds like you are not trying to understand, but trying to argue. I was
completely clear, if you want to play dumb, go ahead, I hope you enjoy it.

>Then why do most parents have their kids go to public school and not to
your
>heaven-on-earth school? After all, your school is half the cost of
>non-educational day care, and most parents can afford it.

There is a waiting list, duh. And day care here is $180-350. This school is
described as "the best kept secret" by everyone I have met who didn't know
about it. Again, are you sticking up for public school? Why? At least people
have a choice about whether to send their children to my daughter's school.
That means everyone who is there wants to be there (at least their parents
want them to be). I see no downside to letting people place their kids where
they want.

If that leaves public school with a different problem than it has now, fine.
I say privatize it.

>"All who care" = "people who think like me", apparently.

No bob, it means "people who think", which may mean almost everyone except
for you. It really seems like the only thing you care about is defending
public schools, regardless of the outcome for the kids.

owen


Owen Corpening

unread,
Mar 24, 2000, 3:00:00 AM3/24/00
to
Excellent reasoning Bob. We're restricting people's freedom for their own
good, they 're too stupid to better themselves anyway.

You should be Algore's VP.

owen

Bob LeChevalier wrote in message

<5plmds0mfbalafib2...@4ax.com>...


>"Owen Corpening" <owen.co...@tivoli.com> wrote:
>>I want all the kids to do well, and the best kids to do even better.
Choice
>>IS a panacea, when compared with a lack of choice. At the worst it would
>>leave things the same (parents would not use the vouchers and kids would
>>stay where they are). At the best more bottom-end kids will move towards
the
>>middle or the high end.
>
>The flaw in your logic is that most Americans have would have no idea how
to
>pick a school, and would choose based on the best marketing strategy, not
the
>best education (indeed, how would they know until the school established a
>track record). The public schools do not market themselves well at all
>(indeed they hardly try to market themselves), so parents would choose
>alternatives. And they would get screwed (or at least their kids would),
>because where there is government largesse, there are unscrupulous people
>willing to try to get that money by whatever means are legal.
>

Ron McDermott

unread,
Mar 24, 2000, 3:00:00 AM3/24/00
to
On Thu, 23 Mar 2000 23:11:18, "Owen Corpening"
<owen.co...@tivoli.com> wrote:

> Only poor people would get vouchers,

What proposal is this, and will this continue to be limited in this
way?

SLieber24

unread,
Mar 25, 2000, 3:00:00 AM3/25/00
to
In article <8bfmfs$19...@odds.stat.purdue.edu>, hru...@odds.stat.purdue.edu
(Herman Rubin) writes:

>>Why is it an either/or situation? Why does it have to be an all or nothing
>>comparison? Surely if you looked deeper, you would find cracks in your
>school's
>>programs. Surely if you looked at all, you would find positives in the
>public
>>school programs.
>
>The public schools could make a great step by immediately
>considering academic learning at the pace a student can
>handle to be their real job. They still REFUSE to do this.

You know, Herman, I'm still awaiting after all these years your proof that this
is true. OTOH, Kappen, Journal of Remedial and Special Education, and a few
others have shown that this is the opposite. And Teacher Magazine (a
semi-journal - not research, but news) has also published articles that show
the opposite of your pet claim.

Cite some sources, for once!

>>> Are you
>>>saying it is entirely a parent-student problem? The kids you referred to,
>if
>>>enrolled at my kid's school, would no doubt be doing better than they are
>in
>>>the public schools. Argue with that.
>
>>I will. You have no proof they're doing better than they would at a public
>>school. You don't have a group from your parent set at the public school.
>You
>>are all at the private school. Since you don't have a control group, you
>cannot
>>claim they are doing any better than they would have at the public school.
>
>This is not a situation for a control group. This would
>mandate that children are put at random into groups, one
>being taught in one way, and one in another. We have far
>too much of this in medicine; one can get information more
>easily this way, but at the cost of much harm.

Too bad, so sad. Then the claim cannot be justified. As well, as long as the
child is being taught, there is no harm. Right now, I'm doing my own study. Two
of the Y5 teachers decided to scrap the reading program which sped my kids to
the top (I am a Y6 teacher - we're continuing it). One teacher is pissed off
because his pupil really needs it. So he's going to have the boy given the next
level in the afternoon. We'll then see how that boy does in relation to the
other pupils in the group. Is it harmful? Nope. Not for any of them, IMO. The
teachers believe that their kids can do without it. We shall see...

Then, I'm also comparing my pupils to pupils at the two other schools in the
area. The kids in my group are doing this special program. The kids in the
other schools are doing the gov't's required program. I am asking them for the
reading scores of their Y6 pupils to compare - starting with Y3 and going on
up. Don't need names, just scores. If my kids show greater progress, then my
program can be shown to have significant effects. If not, then it doesn't
matter what one does.

Are they being harmed? Nope. The teachers are doing what the gov't requires.
I'm not. We'll see how it comes out...

>And do not say that we should not experiment with our
>children. The public schools have been doing this from
>ancient times. They did not use controlled studies when
>they decided to ban skipping, to reduce the level of the
>curriculum to what essentially all in the class could
>accomplish, to drop separate history and geography in favor
>of social studies, to throw out phonics in favor of the
>whole word method, to open the algebra and geometry courses
>for all (they were open before, but not dumbed down) and
>adjust to the level of those in the class. The present
>public schools are the result of these and other
>uncontrolled experiments. This is not ancient history
>to me.

Skipping was never banned. Cite your source for this, or else stop the lie.

>>>>But of course they cannot. [afford quality education]
>
>>>What I am saying is that if they cannot, give them vouchers. Then they can.
>
>>They still wouldn't be able to afford it.
>
>More would be able to afford it, and it would become even
>more affordable. With vouchers, the number of academic
>private schools in poor neighborhoods would more than
>double in the first year. The number of schools for the
>bright and gifted would probably grow faster. And other
>means of good education would emerge.

Except that vouchers don't guarantee a thing. Witness requirements for
Florida's. The kids in the voucher schools don't have to show ANY progress.
(Moot point since Florida courts just ruled them unconstitutional, anyway).

>>>>Since the teachers are parents of kids at the school, I'll bet they don't
>>>get
>>>>a fraction of a professional salary. So your "$200/mo" is really the
>>>parents
>>>>who are teaching subsidizing the rest of the parents.
>
>>>Of course salaries are a secondary consideration for these teachers. All
>>>these parents are glad to spend their time on these wonderful kids. My
>point
>>>was not that this school is financially comparable to public school, it is
>>>that our tax money can be used more wisely by allowing choice in the form
>of
>>>either vouchers or privatization. Public school is not sacred, if there
>are
>>>superior alternatives it is financially irresponsible to ignore them.
>
>>Would be used more wisely? Florida's vouchers, shot down this week by the
>>courts, did not require the private school to prove that it was doing
>anything
>>to help the pupils.
>
>The legality of Florida's vouchers was denied on the
>grounds of supporting religion, not on educational issues.
>I do not support religious schools, but the public schools
>teach Political Correctness, much harder to counter than
>religion which the parents do not believe.

Not an issue. What do you think about the fact that a child can warm a chair at
a private school on taxpayer money? What do you think about the fact that a
private school can use taxpayer money and not teach the pupil at all?

Answer that one. At least public schools must show some form of progress.

Alberto

unread,
Mar 25, 2000, 3:00:00 AM3/25/00
to

Owen Corpening wrote:

> No bob, it means "people who think", which may mean almost everyone except
> for you. It really seems like the only thing you care about is defending
> public schools, regardless of the outcome for the kids.

A little school hidden somewhere doesn't replace a system. Give me a system that
replaces the public school system, and I may start looking seriously at what you
seem to be proposing. Meanwhile, there is no feasible alternative on sight to
the public system.

And the outcome for the kids depends a lot more on the family than on the public
system. My kids, for example, graduated from the public system, and they're
going places. The issue isn't the little private school against the public
system, the issue is personal attitude and responsibility.


Alberto.


Alberto

unread,
Mar 25, 2000, 3:00:00 AM3/25/00
to

SLieber24 wrote:

> You know, Herman, I'm still awaiting after all these years your proof that this
> is true. OTOH, Kappen, Journal of Remedial and Special Education, and a few
> others have shown that this is the opposite. And Teacher Magazine (a
> semi-journal - not research, but news) has also published articles that show
> the opposite of your pet claim.

Sandi, the ball is on the other side of the court. It's up to those studymakers to
prove that their studies match reality. That reality can be felt in any college
class in this country, by anyone who cares to look at it coldly, and who knows
enough about teaching what matters - *real* real-life skills, here - to figure out
what's required.

There is no competence in the education camp - none - to tackle this sort of issue.
An educator would have to be a scientist or a technologist too, before he or she
could tackle the issue of to what extent public schools do or do not prepare their
kids to face a complex career-building environment such as what's found in your
typical American college. Show me studies in an ACS magazine, on an IEEE journal,
and maybe - just maybe, because they too have their limitations - I'll start to
believe. But in the circles of people who actually *know* what's going on in
college classes, the perception is totally different from that which comes from
education circles.

My experience - and I haven't heard one college or grad teacher in the math or
science camp that doesn't think more or less the same way - is that a solid amount
of our classrooms are not prepared enough to be there. I don't go as far as to
attribute causes, or to blame some sort of attitudinal "conspiracy" by teachers or
by the system, and so on. But the problem exists, and it is a serious one.

> Cite some sources, for once!

Sandi, when sources don't match reality, it's the sources that are at fault. Try
teaching college physics, for example, anywhere in this country, and then come back
and tell me what you have found about student mathematical readiness. Worse, try
teaching computer science and depending on set theory and logic to make a point,
look at the blank stares.

My teaching experience is my source, and no one will prove my experience wrong or
atypical unless that person comes to my world, and analyzes the students I handled.


Alberto

unread,
Mar 25, 2000, 3:00:00 AM3/25/00
to

Owen Corpening wrote:

> Excellent reasoning Bob. We're restricting people's freedom for their own
> good, they 're too stupid to better themselves anyway.
>
> You should be Algore's VP.


Already running out of argument, eh ?


SLieber24

unread,
Mar 25, 2000, 3:00:00 AM3/25/00
to
In article <38DCBC51...@moreira.mv.com>, Alberto
<junk...@moreira.mv.com> writes:

>> You know, Herman, I'm still awaiting after all these years your proof that
>this
>> is true. OTOH, Kappen, Journal of Remedial and Special Education, and a few
>> others have shown that this is the opposite. And Teacher Magazine (a
>> semi-journal - not research, but news) has also published articles that
>show
>> the opposite of your pet claim.
>
>Sandi, the ball is on the other side of the court. It's up to those
>studymakers to
>prove that their studies match reality. That reality can be felt in any
>college
>class in this country, by anyone who cares to look at it coldly, and who
>knows
>enough about teaching what matters - *real* real-life skills, here - to
>figure out
>what's required.

The claim by Herman was that schools deliberately prevent advancement of
pupils. Key word: Deliberately. Your response, in this case, doesn't make
sense. I've been in a number of schools now, in different areas, and none have
prevented advancement. It's common for pupils to exchange classes for reading
and math, for example - some going up grade levels for such work.

>There is no competence in the education camp - none - to tackle this sort of
>issue.

Prove it.

>An educator would have to be a scientist or a technologist too, before he or
>she
>could tackle the issue of to what extent public schools do or do not prepare
>their
>kids to face a complex career-building environment such as what's found in
>your
>typical American college. Show me studies in an ACS magazine, on an IEEE
>journal,
>and maybe - just maybe, because they too have their limitations - I'll start
>to
>believe. But in the circles of people who actually *know* what's going on in
>college classes, the perception is totally different from that which comes
>from
>education circles.

But this wasn't what I was arguing.

>My experience - and I haven't heard one college or grad teacher in the math
>or
>science camp that doesn't think more or less the same way - is that a solid
>amount
>of our classrooms are not prepared enough to be there. I don't go as far as
>to
>attribute causes, or to blame some sort of attitudinal "conspiracy" by
>teachers or
>by the system, and so on. But the problem exists, and it is a serious one.
>
>> Cite some sources, for once!
>
>Sandi, when sources don't match reality, it's the sources that are at fault.
>Try
>teaching college physics, for example, anywhere in this country, and then
>come back
>and tell me what you have found about student mathematical readiness. Worse,
>try
>teaching computer science and depending on set theory and logic to make a
>point,
>look at the blank stares.
>
>My teaching experience is my source, and no one will prove my experience
>wrong or
>atypical unless that person comes to my world, and analyzes the students I
>handled.
>

This is a complete non-answer to the issue I was addressing. The issue I was
addressing was Herman's mantra of schools deliberately and calculatedly holding
pupils back. Studies and observations from many fronts have shown that to be
false.

Alberto

unread,
Mar 25, 2000, 3:00:00 AM3/25/00
to

SLieber24 wrote:

> The claim by Herman was that schools deliberately prevent advancement of
> pupils. Key word: Deliberately. Your response, in this case, doesn't make
> sense. I've been in a number of schools now, in different areas, and none have
> prevented advancement. It's common for pupils to exchange classes for reading
> and math, for example - some going up grade levels for such work.

I could be a bit of a devil's advocate here, and I already said I don't quite agree
with Herman's assessment. However, what's 'deliberately' ? Something can, for
example, be deliberate even though it's done with a lot of good intention. For
example, a math curriculum that doesn't cut and doesn't address the need. Some of
these curricula are put up with the best of intentions, yet they are put in
deliberately, and I could say that, in this case, kids are being deliberately
pushed back. When a teacher decides to put a fast student together with a slower
one, I could claim that kid is being deliberately pushed back.

You see, this is such a relative measure. By my personal standards, for example,
both my daughters were deliberately pushed back at their schools, even though that
happened because of teachers' best intentions.

> >There is no competence in the education camp - none - to tackle this sort of
> >issue.
>
> Prove it.

Sandi, knowing and measuring effectiveness of learning math requires knowing math.
You cannot assess effectiveness of teaching anything if you yourself aren't a
specialist in that thing you're assessing - otherwise how can you assess anything,
by hearsay ? How do you know what measures an adequate level of math learning
unless you know enough about those sciences and disciplines where that math is
going to be used ? Unless you do, you can't even ask the right questions, let alone
come up with any sort of meaningful measurement.

It's not I who have to prove anything, it's them.

> But this wasn't what I was arguing.

But that's what it boils down to: credibility of a measurement. Sandi, move up one
level. What's a study ?

First one establishes some objectives, some target pieces of knowledge one wants to
verify. Second, one establishes a set of measurements which will contribute to
increasing or verify that knowledge. Third, one selects a target population to
perform those measurements. Fourth, one collects measurement data and munges them
through some mathematical model. Fifth, one analyzes the results and extrapolates
them to fit the issues to be verified.

Now, let's see. I claim I cannot know what I want to verify unless I'm an expert in
that very field: you can't, for example, ask the right questions about music unless
you yourself are a musician.

Then, item two is a hairy one. Even assuming I know the questions, how do I
generate measurements from questions ? How do I know the answer to my measurements
will shed any light on the issue ? I can't, unless I'm an expert on the issue.
Then, how do I know that my measurements will lead to the results I want ? Are the
results of my measurement meaningful ? Reliable ? Precise enough ? Well calibrated
? What about Heisenberg's principle ? What about my measurement tools, are they up
to snuff ? How can I know any of that, unless I'm an expert on the thing I'm trying
to measure ?

You see, we didn't even start the experiment yet and I already doubt that it can be
done except by expert professionals on the field we're trying to assess.

Then, the population. How do I know the population is representative if I don't
know what I'm measuring, if I don't know what questions to ask, if I don't have
enough knowledge to assess the relationships between knowledge and learning, cause
and effect ?

So, up to here, we have three things that can only be meaningfully done by
specialists in the field being assessed: chemistry is for Chemists, computer
science for computer scientists, and so on.

Now, we have measured it. We have all these number which, barred all what I have
written above, could be used to shed some light on things. Then the question is,
how can I apply a mathematical model to it if I myself don't know enough math to
understand, in a real way, where the limits of the model are ? How can I know I'm
not out of the boundaries of applicability of the mathematical process to the
specific item I'm measuring ? I don't think I can, and I don't think anyone can
either. So, here again, we bump into things that only knowledgeable professionals
in the field can handle.

So, by the time we get to the interpretation of the results, there have been so
many occasions where things will have gone wrong, that whatever comes out of it is
pretty much irrelevant - if it matches any reality, it will be by sheer luck and
coincidence.

When someone comes with such a study and proves that all my upfront requirements
are satisfied, then maybe, just maybe, I'll give it some credibility. Meanwhile,
I'll stick to my guns, an ounce of real experience is worth all the studies in the
planet's

> This is a complete non-answer to the issue I was addressing. The issue I was
> addressing was Herman's mantra of schools deliberately and calculatedly holding
> pupils back. Studies and observations from many fronts have shown that to be
> false.

See the answer to this in another post, but summarizing, yes, I see deliberate
pushing of good students back. In the name of all sorts of good-sounding
intentions, with all sorts of good reasons behind it, but yes, good students are
pushed back, and it cannot be anything but deliberate. I personally haven't been in
contact with one institution of learning, even one, where this doesn't happen to a
certain degree. The sacred cows in which name this is done vary, but done it is,
and it's deliberate also.

But the specific point I'm trying to point out is that I don't believe that studies
from the education camp are a relevant source of knowledge on this sort of issue.
The answer lies in the colleges and in the professions, and requires a lot more
specialized knowledge than what's possessed by lay people.


Alberto.


Herman Rubin

unread,
Mar 25, 2000, 3:00:00 AM3/25/00
to
In article <20000325055539...@nso-fl.aol.com>,

SLieber24 <slie...@aol.comNoSpam> wrote:
>In article <8bfmfs$19...@odds.stat.purdue.edu>, hru...@odds.stat.purdue.edu
>(Herman Rubin) writes:

>>>Why is it an either/or situation? Why does it have to be an all or nothing
>>>comparison? Surely if you looked deeper, you would find cracks in your
>>school's
>>>programs. Surely if you looked at all, you would find positives in the
>>public
>>>school programs.

>>The public schools could make a great step by immediately
>>considering academic learning at the pace a student can
>>handle to be their real job. They still REFUSE to do this.

>You know, Herman, I'm still awaiting after all these years your proof that this
>is true. OTOH, Kappen, Journal of Remedial and Special Education, and a few
>others have shown that this is the opposite. And Teacher Magazine (a
>semi-journal - not research, but news) has also published articles that show
>the opposite of your pet claim.

How many schools have their gifted children routinely finishing
years ahead? Or even allowing them routinely to do this? The
so-called enrichment is a device to slow them down.

How many school districts consider having different children
proceed at different rates in different subjects, and do it,
starting at the earliest level?

How many will discipline or fire a teacher for lowering the
level of a class?

Unless you can cite lots of these, the schools are deliberately
failing to attempt to have children proceed at their pace.

.................

>Then, I'm also comparing my pupils to pupils at the two other schools in the
>area. The kids in my group are doing this special program. The kids in the
>other schools are doing the gov't's required program. I am asking them for the
>reading scores of their Y6 pupils to compare - starting with Y3 and going on
>up. Don't need names, just scores. If my kids show greater progress, then my
>program can be shown to have significant effects. If not, then it doesn't
>matter what one does.

If they can do more, they should proceed more quickly. None
of this "teaching to more depth"; until one gets to the research
level, this "depth" does not exist.

>Are they being harmed? Nope. The teachers are doing what the gov't requires.
>I'm not. We'll see how it comes out...

Harmed compared to what? You have avoided teaching the ones
who can do years of work in weeks or months. They are harmed
compared to being given better learning and better understanding
in much less time.

...................

>Skipping was never banned. Cite your source for this, or else stop the lie.

It may not have been formally banned, but at best my
skipping was reduced far below what it should have been.
Possibly if my parents knew more, they could have done
more, but the schools were extremely strongly against it.

We have had postings of teachers and administrators who
refused children advancement because of age, or even
reversed this. Are you willing to require such teachers
and administrators to at least pay for the lost time?

...............

>>The legality of Florida's vouchers was denied on the
>>grounds of supporting religion, not on educational issues.
>>I do not support religious schools, but the public schools
>>teach Political Correctness, much harder to counter than
>>religion which the parents do not believe.

>Not an issue. What do you think about the fact that a child can warm a chair at
>a private school on taxpayer money? What do you think about the fact that a
>private school can use taxpayer money and not teach the pupil at all?

>Answer that one. At least public schools must show some form of progress.

Public schools do not need to show this. And "progress" must
not be geared to age; background and ability are far more
important.

Herman Rubin

unread,
Mar 25, 2000, 3:00:00 AM3/25/00
to
In article <38DCB96F...@moreira.mv.com>,
Alberto <junk...@moreira.mv.com> wrote:


>Owen Corpening wrote:

>> No bob, it means "people who think", which may mean almost everyone except
>> for you. It really seems like the only thing you care about is defending
>> public schools, regardless of the outcome for the kids.

>A little school hidden somewhere doesn't replace a system. Give me a system that
>replaces the public school system, and I may start looking seriously at what you
>seem to be proposing. Meanwhile, there is no feasible alternative on sight to
>the public system.

No, allowing education to be arranged according to the individual
child IS possible, but may require teachers who at least loath
what the schools of education have taught them. In the poor
districts of Chicago, there are "store front" schools. There is
no need for a system. There is need NOT to have a system.

>And the outcome for the kids depends a lot more on the family than on the public
>system. My kids, for example, graduated from the public system, and they're
>going places. The issue isn't the little private school against the public
>system, the issue is personal attitude and responsibility.

Your kids had fair schools to go to, and parents who could
overcome some of the weaknesses. The present inner city
children who can do better have neither parents who can help
them, although they can try to inspire them, and they cannot
learn when forced to be with children who cannot or will not
learn, and who even despise academics. The schools are the
problem; they could do much better with just the books, tests,
and once a week contact with people who can help them.

Ron McDermott

unread,
Mar 25, 2000, 3:00:00 AM3/25/00
to
On Sat, 25 Mar 2000 13:17:05, Alberto <junk...@moreira.mv.com> wrote:

> My experience - and I haven't heard one college or grad teacher in the math or
> science camp that doesn't think more or less the same way - is that a solid amount
> of our classrooms are not prepared enough to be there. I don't go as far as to
> attribute causes, or to blame some sort of attitudinal "conspiracy" by teachers or
> by the system, and so on. But the problem exists, and it is a serious one.

And I'm inclined to agree with you. I also applaud your willingness
to be a little circumspect as to the "cause" of this problem. I think
part of the problem is an inability of education to draw highly
competent teachers in their subject areas (a money and working
conditions issue). I think part of the problem is the willingness of
colleges to accept people who have "skated" prior to college (why work
if you get the gold ring anyway?). Part of the problem is the
philosophy that every kid is entitled to an education even if s/he
doesn't want it and just raises hell all day long. Part of the
problem is social promotion (which is simply a means of avoiding
parental displeasure). Ditto for grade inflation (at ALL levels of
schooling). Part of the problem is the lack of a national criteria
for graduation (exit exams). I could go on, but why bother; some of
these things aren't going to change, and unless we change them all (or
most of them), we aren't going to get very far.

SLieber24

unread,
Mar 26, 2000, 3:00:00 AM3/26/00
to
In article <8bjdri$b...@odds.stat.purdue.edu>, hru...@odds.stat.purdue.edu
(Herman Rubin) writes:

>>>The public schools could make a great step by immediately
>>>considering academic learning at the pace a student can
>>>handle to be their real job. They still REFUSE to do this.
>
>>You know, Herman, I'm still awaiting after all these years your proof that
>this
>>is true. OTOH, Kappen, Journal of Remedial and Special Education, and a few
>>others have shown that this is the opposite. And Teacher Magazine (a
>>semi-journal - not research, but news) has also published articles that show
>>the opposite of your pet claim.
>
>How many schools have their gifted children routinely finishing
>years ahead? Or even allowing them routinely to do this? The
>so-called enrichment is a device to slow them down.

Many. There are those which have "early to college" programs - even in my home
state, one of the lowest in the country in achievement, has early to college
programs. When I was in school, a number of my friends took that option.

Those who don't have access to college level programs (AP).

>How many school districts consider having different children
>proceed at different rates in different subjects, and do it,
>starting at the earliest level?

A hell of a lot more than you know. ALL the schools I taught in did it for
reading and math.

>How many will discipline or fire a teacher for lowering the
>level of a class?

Irrelevant. And not appropriate to this discussion.

>Unless you can cite lots of these, the schools are deliberately
>failing to attempt to have children proceed at their pace.

Buffalo Public Schools, Miami-Dade Public Schools, Broward Public Schools, West
Palm Beach Public Schools....(and the ones here in England).

>>Then, I'm also comparing my pupils to pupils at the two other schools in the
>>area. The kids in my group are doing this special program. The kids in the
>>other schools are doing the gov't's required program. I am asking them for
>the
>>reading scores of their Y6 pupils to compare - starting with Y3 and going on
>>up. Don't need names, just scores. If my kids show greater progress, then my
>>program can be shown to have significant effects. If not, then it doesn't
>>matter what one does.
>
>If they can do more, they should proceed more quickly. None
>of this "teaching to more depth"; until one gets to the research
>level, this "depth" does not exist.

What's that got to do with anything?

>>Are they being harmed? Nope. The teachers are doing what the gov't requires.
>>I'm not. We'll see how it comes out...
>
>Harmed compared to what? You have avoided teaching the ones
>who can do years of work in weeks or months. They are harmed
>compared to being given better learning and better understanding
>in much less time.

Have I? How

Are you now attempting to prove yourself a seer, that you see all and know all
even from another country? What powers you must have!!

>>Skipping was never banned. Cite your source for this, or else stop the lie.
>
>It may not have been formally banned, but at best my
>skipping was reduced far below what it should have been.
>Possibly if my parents knew more, they could have done
>more, but the schools were extremely strongly against it.

For good reason. As one who has taught multi-aged groups of similar ability
levels, I do have to say there is a developmental difference between a 7 year
old and an 11 year old. They learn at different rates and on different levels.

>We have had postings of teachers and administrators who
>refused children advancement because of age, or even
>reversed this. Are you willing to require such teachers
>and administrators to at least pay for the lost time?

Nope. Why should I? We have a little girl in our school, currently, whose
parents are pushing her beyond her limits. They've insisted that she is bored
with the math that she's in (the next to the top set) and that she should be in
the very top group - the ones who are working on GCSE math (secondary level
testing program). She's there now - and out of her depth. She has no life, no
friends, no fun. She SAID she was bored, but she didn't produce any proof that
she could do the math in the class she had been in before she was moved. The
poor kid...

Parents can push all they want, schools can push all they want, but in the end
nature will go at its own rate.


...............
>
>>>The legality of Florida's vouchers was denied on the
>>>grounds of supporting religion, not on educational issues.
>>>I do not support religious schools, but the public schools
>>>teach Political Correctness, much harder to counter than
>>>religion which the parents do not believe.
>
>>Not an issue. What do you think about the fact that a child can warm a chair
>at
>>a private school on taxpayer money? What do you think about the fact that a
>>private school can use taxpayer money and not teach the pupil at all?
>
>>Answer that one. At least public schools must show some form of progress.
>
>Public schools do not need to show this. And "progress" must
>not be geared to age; background and ability are far more
>important.

Hell they DO have to show it! Read about Bush's grade scale for schools. And
Florida isn't the only state to have this.

Progress should be gauged to ability (background? how so?). But the gods we
call gov't don't see it that way. So a kid at fourth grade who doesn't pass the
FCAT remains in 4th grade. That's fair, ain't it?

SLieber24

unread,
Mar 26, 2000, 3:00:00 AM3/26/00
to
In article <38DCFA80...@moreira.mv.com>, Alberto
<junk...@moreira.mv.com> writes:

But, Herman doesn't mean that. He has stated several times that the goal of
schools is to keep pupils from reaching their potential. That is not the goal
of schools and, as such, is a complete lie.

>> >There is no competence in the education camp - none - to tackle this sort
>of
>> >issue.
>>
>> Prove it.
>
>Sandi, knowing and measuring effectiveness of learning math requires knowing
>math.
>You cannot assess effectiveness of teaching anything if you yourself aren't a
>specialist in that thing you're assessing - otherwise how can you assess
>anything,
>by hearsay ? How do you know what measures an adequate level of math learning
>unless you know enough about those sciences and disciplines where that math
>is
>going to be used ? Unless you do, you can't even ask the right questions, let
>alone
>come up with any sort of meaningful measurement.

LOL! I'm not laughing at your statements, just at things that are happening
here in the UK. We have people judging us who are not only NOT experts in their
fields, but are sometimes not even aware of what's involved in teaching. They
assess and grade teachers and schools without having adequate knowledge. Sorry
- I know it's a bit off the topic - just ironic is all...

>It's not I who have to prove anything, it's them.

Is it?

And how do you know the teachers do not have adequate knowledge? Most high
school teachers must be math majors before getting the certification. I know
when I went in for math certification, I was required to take courses through
to calculus. That would have been a couple of years' worth because I hadn't
taken anything past trig in high school.

No study is perfect. That's a given. But when a bunch of them all pretty much
point to more or less the same thing, then I would take it as credible. But
Herman's assertions do not hold water and he has yet to provide any links to
prove his assertions.

Studies haven't been done just from education - they're done by sociologists
and psychologists, as well, from outside education.

Herman Rubin

unread,
Mar 26, 2000, 3:00:00 AM3/26/00
to
In article <20000325190904...@nso-cb.aol.com>,

SLieber24 <slie...@aol.comNoSpam> wrote:
>In article <8bjdri$b...@odds.stat.purdue.edu>, hru...@odds.stat.purdue.edu
>(Herman Rubin) writes:

>>>>The public schools could make a great step by immediately
>>>>considering academic learning at the pace a student can
>>>>handle to be their real job. They still REFUSE to do this.

>>>You know, Herman, I'm still awaiting after all these years your proof that
>>this
>>>is true. OTOH, Kappen, Journal of Remedial and Special Education, and a few
>>>others have shown that this is the opposite. And Teacher Magazine (a
>>>semi-journal - not research, but news) has also published articles that show
>>>the opposite of your pet claim.

>>How many schools have their gifted children routinely finishing
>>years ahead? Or even allowing them routinely to do this? The
>>so-called enrichment is a device to slow them down.

>Many. There are those which have "early to college" programs - even in my home
>state, one of the lowest in the country in achievement, has early to college
>programs. When I was in school, a number of my friends took that option.

These are so little and so late. Cut out the huge amount
of garbage, and teach the "little kids" who can do it now
what they will actually find harder to learn later.

>Those who don't have access to college level programs (AP).

These range from reasonable to atrocious. You need subject
matter scholars teaching the subjects, not high school teachers
who have gone through teacher training. AP calculus classes
seem to be typically manipulation; this does make it harder
to understand the concepts, which should be taught first,
later. But some of those concepts are needed when decimals
are introduced, and they are not understood by the teachers.

>>How many school districts consider having different children
>>proceed at different rates in different subjects, and do it,
>>starting at the earliest level?

>A hell of a lot more than you know. ALL the schools I taught in did it for
>reading and math.

Do you routinely have 7 year olds doing their academic work
in "middle school"? At least 15% are quite capable of this.

>>How many will discipline or fire a teacher for lowering the
>>level of a class?

>Irrelevant. And not appropriate to this discussion.

This is NOT irrelevant, and is appropriate. Those who
believe in subject matter learning should not have to put
up with dumbing down. Lowering the level of a class
destroys the idea of a good curriculum.

>>Unless you can cite lots of these, the schools are deliberately
>>failing to attempt to have children proceed at their pace.

>Buffalo Public Schools, Miami-Dade Public Schools, Broward Public Schools, West
>Palm Beach Public Schools....(and the ones here in England).

How much? Two typical classes will average about one
Mensa-level child. Since abilities in different subjects
are not equal, the misplacement is much greater. A child
of "first grade age" of this mental level has been
retarded, using the literal meaning of the word, if not at
least at the third grade academic level, with additional
acceleration to follow.

..............

>>>Skipping was never banned. Cite your source for this, or else stop the lie.

>>It may not have been formally banned, but at best my
>>skipping was reduced far below what it should have been.
>>Possibly if my parents knew more, they could have done
>>more, but the schools were extremely strongly against it.

>For good reason. As one who has taught multi-aged groups of similar ability
>levels, I do have to say there is a developmental difference between a 7 year
>old and an 11 year old. They learn at different rates and on different levels.

Yes, the 7 year old at this level learns FASTER and is more
capable of understanding the abstract concepts.

>>We have had postings of teachers and administrators who
>>refused children advancement because of age, or even
>>reversed this. Are you willing to require such teachers
>>and administrators to at least pay for the lost time?

>Nope. Why should I?

Because they are causing that much monetary harm.

We have a little girl in our school, currently, whose
>parents are pushing her beyond her limits. They've insisted that she is bored
>with the math that she's in (the next to the top set) and that she should be in
>the very top group - the ones who are working on GCSE math (secondary level
>testing program). She's there now - and out of her depth. She has no life, no
>friends, no fun. She SAID she was bored, but she didn't produce any proof that
>she could do the math in the class she had been in before she was moved. The
>poor kid...

Any judgment can be wrong. It is those who make the
incorrect judgment who are responsible. Those who even
want to protect people from themselves are automatically
opposed to freedom.

Socialization may have to be removed from the schools.
But my son never had problems with classes in which he
was far younger than the others.

The schools should encourage trying, with no guarantees of
success. As I have stated before, if we have an adequate
program, there should be D's and F's and W's, but few A's,
even for the bright students. An 'A' should indicate too
easy a course. And none of these grades should count for
anything other than internal advice.

>Parents can push all they want, schools can push all they want, but in the end
>nature will go at its own rate.

How? I was quite willing and able to learn far faster than
the opportunities I had. I was not allowed to go even at an
easy rate.

You cannot push forward much more than can be done, but it
is not that hard to hold back.

...............

>>>>The legality of Florida's vouchers was denied on the
>>>>grounds of supporting religion, not on educational issues.
>>>>I do not support religious schools, but the public schools
>>>>teach Political Correctness, much harder to counter than
>>>>religion which the parents do not believe.

>>>Not an issue. What do you think about the fact that a child can warm a chair
>>at
>>>a private school on taxpayer money? What do you think about the fact that a
>>>private school can use taxpayer money and not teach the pupil at all?

>>>Answer that one. At least public schools must show some form of progress.

>>Public schools do not need to show this. And "progress" must
>>not be geared to age; background and ability are far more
>>important.

>Hell they DO have to show it! Read about Bush's grade scale for schools. And
>Florida isn't the only state to have this.

It would probably change quickly if the educationists proposed
treating children as individuals.

>Progress should be gauged to ability (background? how so?). But the gods we
>call gov't don't see it that way. So a kid at fourth grade who doesn't pass the
>FCAT remains in 4th grade. That's fair, ain't it?

The governments have been believing the educationists. Now
the one who does not pass that test should be given appropriate
education; repeating 4th grade is NOT the answer. That test
is a poor test, but it is the educationists who have set up
the problem, and it is also educationists who have (reluctantly)
designed and produced the test. Those who believe in teaching
subject matter as quickly and as well as it can be done are
still largely out of the loop.

When you tell everyone that children of a given age should
all be learning roughly the same material, you create this
problem. You have given us this tar baby; let those of us
who do not want to get stuck to it to have reasonably
affordable educational institutions.

Alberto

unread,
Mar 26, 2000, 3:00:00 AM3/26/00
to

Herman Rubin wrote:

> Your kids had fair schools to go to, and parents who could
> overcome some of the weaknesses.

And these are a few of the really important problems. The solution is in creating
fair schools and in encouraging parents to be supporting, not destroying the system.

> The present inner city
> children who can do better have neither parents who can help
> them, although they can try to inspire them, and they cannot
> learn when forced to be with children who cannot or will not
> learn, and who even despise academics. The schools are the
> problem; they could do much better with just the books, tests,
> and once a week contact with people who can help them.

Inner city is the problem, not the school. The schools are just a reflection of the
problem. But not every school out there is an inner city school, and one doesn't need
to live in an inner city to be poor or to need a public system.


Alberto.


Alberto

unread,
Mar 26, 2000, 3:00:00 AM3/26/00
to

SLieber24 wrote:

> But, Herman doesn't mean that. He has stated several times that the goal of
> schools is to keep pupils from reaching their potential. That is not the goal
> of schools and, as such, is a complete lie.

But is it, Sandy ? Look at it coldly, what are some of the mainline pushes in
education today ? Mainstreaming. Special Ed. Cooperative learning. Good students
teaching others instead of learning more. A "real life" view of learning that
doesn't go beyond burger flipping. A one-fits-all approach. Strong resistance to
tracking. Emphasis on minorities. Demise of personal choice in the name of
diversity. Avoiding public grading and recognition of academic achievement in the
name of equality.

I could go on. This is all a deliberate push towards a certain agenda. None of that
emphasizes pushing each student to reach his or her potential. Much the contrary,
it emphasizes a uniformizing, egalitarian, way of being, where it is not good to be
good, and even worse to be better.

Maybe Herman states it in a slightly inflammatory way, and maybe those educators
don't know the harm they're doing. But I cannot believe that the goal of schools
today is to push students to reach their full potential, and that is nothing but
deliberate.

> And how do you know the teachers do not have adequate knowledge? Most high
> school teachers must be math majors before getting the certification. I know
> when I went in for math certification, I was required to take courses through
> to calculus. That would have been a couple of years' worth because I hadn't
> taken anything past trig in high school.

They should prove that they do, and I don't think they can. Sandi, calculus is a
freshman discipline in any serious mathematical science course, nobody is anything
without going through a whole lot more math than that. Your average K12 teacher
must not be evaluated on how much he or she knows calculus, that's not enough; a
math teacher must know enough to know where it feeds into science and technology,
and how; you can't build a basis if you don't know what that basis is going to need
to support.

So, how many teachers out there have the mathematical knowledge equivalent to an
electrical engineer, or to a computer science major ? That's the level that's going
to be needed to anyone who wants to do a good job teaching K12 math. How many
teachers can you say have that level ? Maybe physics and chemistry teachers know
that much - maybe. Others, I'm not sure.

> No study is perfect. That's a given. But when a bunch of them all pretty much
> point to more or less the same thing, then I would take it as credible. But
> Herman's assertions do not hold water and he has yet to provide any links to
> prove his assertions.

Quantity is no argument, and it only takes one paper to topple a big mountain; look
at Godel's theorem, for example, or to Einstein's paper on relativity. I'm not
totally in agreement with Herman either, but I cannot ignore the telltales, and
they're abundantly clear to anyone who cares to look.

> Studies haven't been done just from education - they're done by sociologists
> and psychologists, as well, from outside education.

I have a deep problem with any student that uses this sort of methodology; I
believe the basic method some of these sciences use is inadequate, and I'm not
alone in thinking that way. If you go into mathematical science circles, there's a
kind of a "ho-hum" factor attached to disciplines that approach things in this
general fashion, and I believe the reputation is well earned. I believe physics has
the right approach: you build all sorts of models, collect all sorts of data, use
all sorts of statistics, but when you hit an experiment that disagrees with the
theory - and only one significant experiment is enough - you either update the
theory or toss it for a better one. What is NOT cool, absolutely not, is to chuck
the experiment because somebody's theory doesn't agree with it.

And somebody's experience is a series of experiments, as valid as any other.


Alberto.

Alberto

unread,
Mar 26, 2000, 3:00:00 AM3/26/00
to

Ron McDermott wrote:

> And I'm inclined to agree with you. I also applaud your willingness
> to be a little circumspect as to the "cause" of this problem. I think
> part of the problem is an inability of education to draw highly
> competent teachers in their subject areas (a money and working
> conditions issue). I think part of the problem is the willingness of
> colleges to accept people who have "skated" prior to college (why work
> if you get the gold ring anyway?). Part of the problem is the
> philosophy that every kid is entitled to an education even if s/he
> doesn't want it and just raises hell all day long. Part of the
> problem is social promotion (which is simply a means of avoiding
> parental displeasure). Ditto for grade inflation (at ALL levels of
> schooling). Part of the problem is the lack of a national criteria
> for graduation (exit exams). I could go on, but why bother; some of
> these things aren't going to change, and unless we change them all (or
> most of them), we aren't going to get very far.

Some professions have exit exams, or entrance exams to the profession, for example,
doctors or lawyers. Engineering requires certification in some circumstances. Maybe it
would be a good idea to put up a graduation exam for K12, but heck, that would be hard
to pass political muster.

Alberto.


Alan Lichtenstein

unread,
Mar 26, 2000, 3:00:00 AM3/26/00
to
Alberto wrote:

>
> SLieber24 wrote:
>
> > But, Herman doesn't mean that. He has stated several times that the goal of
> > schools is to keep pupils from reaching their potential. That is not the goal
> > of schools and, as such, is a complete lie.
>
> But is it, Sandy ? Look at it coldly, what are some of the mainline pushes in
> education today ? Mainstreaming. Special Ed. Cooperative learning. Good students
> teaching others instead of learning more. A "real life" view of learning that
> doesn't go beyond burger flipping. A one-fits-all approach. Strong resistance to
> tracking. Emphasis on minorities. Demise of personal choice in the name of
> diversity. Avoiding public grading and recognition of academic achievement in the
> name of equality.

There is absolutely no arguement with what you say. But the question is
one of intent. Herman appears to believe( as his posts clearly indicate
over a number of years ), that this is a deliberate agenda of public
schools. As such, it would qualify as a conspiracy.

I think that the motivation is not to deliberately prevent children(
especially children in the upper IQ regions ) from reaching their full
potential, but application of the well-meaning( but quite discredited )
politically correct desire for all individuals to perform equally.
Educators have held these well-meaning but inaccurate positions for a
number of years, the implementation of which leads to the current
educational morass.

Is this intentional? I think not. But the effect is the same, which
you clearly point out.



> I could go on. This is all a deliberate push towards a certain agenda. None of that
> emphasizes pushing each student to reach his or her potential. Much the contrary,
> it emphasizes a uniformizing, egalitarian, way of being, where it is not good to be
> good, and even worse to be better.

Here the effect is indeed wasyou state. But are the goals of educators
to deliberately and knowlingly prevent this as a conspiracy against
education, or is it merely stupidity of not being confused by the
facts? I think the latter is the rationale.



> Maybe Herman states it in a slightly inflammatory way, and maybe those educators
> don't know the harm they're doing. But I cannot believe that the goal of schools
> today is to push students to reach their full potential, and that is nothing but
> deliberate.

I disagree; I think the overriding rationale is for educators to appear
to be politically correct.

Stupid, and flying in the face of common sense, but not deliberate from
a conspiratorial point of view, as Herman would advocate.



> > And how do you know the teachers do not have adequate knowledge? Most high
> > school teachers must be math majors before getting the certification. I know
> > when I went in for math certification, I was required to take courses through
> > to calculus. That would have been a couple of years' worth because I hadn't
> > taken anything past trig in high school.
>

> They should prove that they do, and I don't think they can. Sandi, calculus is a
> freshman discipline in any serious mathematical science course, nobody is anything
> without going through a whole lot more math than that. Your average K12 teacher
> must not be evaluated on how much he or she knows calculus, that's not enough; a
> math teacher must know enough to know where it feeds into science and technology,
> and how; you can't build a basis if you don't know what that basis is going to need
> to support.

Most State Certification agencies require students seeking certification
in a teaching discipline to have a reasonable number of college credits
in that discipline. Up until a few years ago, NYC even gave merit
examinations prior to issuing a teaching license.



> So, how many teachers out there have the mathematical knowledge equivalent to an
> electrical engineer, or to a computer science major ? That's the level that's going
> to be needed to anyone who wants to do a good job teaching K12 math. How many
> teachers can you say have that level ? Maybe physics and chemistry teachers know
> that much - maybe. Others, I'm not sure.

Such extensive knowledge is not necessary for a K-6 teacher.



> > No study is perfect. That's a given. But when a bunch of them all pretty much
> > point to more or less the same thing, then I would take it as credible. But
> > Herman's assertions do not hold water and he has yet to provide any links to
> > prove his assertions.

Herman has never, and will never provide any documentation for his
positions. Simply because he cannot, as they do not exist, yet he
continues to stand on his soapbox and pontificate for all those in the
park to hear.



> Quantity is no argument, and it only takes one paper to topple a big mountain; look
> at Godel's theorem, for example, or to Einstein's paper on relativity. I'm not
> totally in agreement with Herman either, but I cannot ignore the telltales, and
> they're abundantly clear to anyone who cares to look.
>

> > Studies haven't been done just from education - they're done by sociologists
> > and psychologists, as well, from outside education.
>

> I have a deep problem with any student that uses this sort of methodology; I
> believe the basic method some of these sciences use is inadequate, and I'm not
> alone in thinking that way. If you go into mathematical science circles, there's a
> kind of a "ho-hum" factor attached to disciplines that approach things in this
> general fashion, and I believe the reputation is well earned. I believe physics has
> the right approach: you build all sorts of models, collect all sorts of data, use
> all sorts of statistics, but when you hit an experiment that disagrees with the
> theory - and only one significant experiment is enough - you either update the
> theory or toss it for a better one. What is NOT cool, absolutely not, is to chuck
> the experiment because somebody's theory doesn't agree with it.

The simple problem with studies done by sociologists and researchers in
education is that they do not control all the variables which contribute
to the factor under study. As a consequence, their results are flawed
and usually invalid, giving rise to the quite accurate parabole, figures
don't lie, but liars can figure.

Alan

Alberto

unread,
Mar 26, 2000, 3:00:00 AM3/26/00
to

Alan Lichtenstein wrote:

> There is absolutely no arguement with what you say. But the question is
> one of intent. Herman appears to believe( as his posts clearly indicate
> over a number of years ), that this is a deliberate agenda of public
> schools. As such, it would qualify as a conspiracy.

I know, and that's where I and Herman part ways. I do not believe there's intent to harm,
although there is a clear intent to push an agenda that deemphasizes personal quality and
emphasizes a certain kind of uniformity.

[snip...]

> I disagree; I think the overriding rationale is for educators to appear
> to be politically correct.

I don't know, I find some teachers actually believe in the stuff.

> Stupid, and flying in the face of common sense, but not deliberate from
> a conspiratorial point of view, as Herman would advocate.

Agreed.

> Most State Certification agencies require students seeking certification
> in a teaching discipline to have a reasonable number of college credits
> in that discipline. Up until a few years ago, NYC even gave merit
> examinations prior to issuing a teaching license.

This isn't just an introductory thing to new teachers, it must also be a global concern,
careerwise, that relates to all teachers. I don't know how it goes in NYC, but up here in
Massachusetts and NH, the certification process has a bit of a contradictory factor in
it. On one hand, they demand so many hours of courses every semester, and so on, while on
the other any course goes, they hardly check anything. So, a teacher can get away doing
all sorts of activities that have little to do with the teaching mainstream, and still
get away with amassing the appropriate number of hours.

> Such extensive knowledge is not necessary for a K-6 teacher.

I believe it is. I am of the opinion that the teacher must know a whole lot more than
what he or she is required to teach in the classroom. That knowledge is necessary to deal
with curricular issues, and to tone the class to a rhythm and emphasis that's adequate to
future need and that doesn't hamper future demands on the student.

> Herman has never, and will never provide any documentation for his
> positions. Simply because he cannot, as they do not exist, yet he
> continues to stand on his soapbox and pontificate for all those in the
> park to hear.

I believe there's a lot of experience behind what Herman says, it's just that some of
that experience doesn't come out when he writes. I have a lot of colleagues like that, so
I'm maybe more prepared to take what they say and translate it into the appropriate
context. Sometimes there are deep utterances in the middle of what he writes, and nobody
notices! On the other hand, I'm not a libertarian, not even close, so I find myself more
than often in disagreement with his positions. Yet I keep hammering on my personal peeve,
which is, confronting Herman's opinions with educational studies doesn't make any more
sense than doing the reverse!

> The simple problem with studies done by sociologists and researchers in
> education is that they do not control all the variables which contribute
> to the factor under study. As a consequence, their results are flawed
> and usually invalid, giving rise to the quite accurate parabole, figures
> don't lie, but liars can figure.

Actually, figures lie, and therein lies the problem. Figures are only as good as the
measurement that extracted them. And yes, one of the problems with dealing with natural
forces is that there are too many variables, and that alone tends to invalidate many of
the models we'd like to be able to use. It may be my professional bias, but I require a
whole lot more evidence to buy a study than a lot of people present in their studies.


Alberto.

Herman Rubin

unread,
Mar 26, 2000, 3:00:00 AM3/26/00
to
In article <87XdtVqF0GQ7-p...@1Cust6.tnt8.poughkeepsie.ny.da.uu.net>,

Ron McDermott <rmc...@nospam.peoplepc.com> wrote:
>On Sat, 25 Mar 2000 13:17:05, Alberto <junk...@moreira.mv.com> wrote:

>>My experience - and I haven't heard one college or grad teacher in the

>>math or science camp that doesn't think more or less the same way - is


>>that a solid amount of our classrooms are not prepared enough to be
>>there. I don't go as far as to attribute causes, or to blame some sort
>>of attitudinal "conspiracy" by teachers or by the system, and so on.
>>But the problem exists, and it is a serious one.

>And I'm inclined to agree with you. I also applaud your willingness

>to be a little circumspect as to the "cause" of this problem. I think
>part of the problem is an inability of education to draw highly
>competent teachers in their subject areas (a money and working
>conditions issue).

This is less of a problem than the problem of being able to
insist on competence in the "training". No state college
can impose such standards and continue to have a reasonable
number of candidates without an external requirement of
them; the students would just go elsewhere. No academic
department can do this, either; the result would be that
either the students would go elsewhere, or the job would be
given to the schools of education. Nor can a professor do
this; at the least, he or she would never teach the course
again, and the results can be worse.

I think part of the problem is the willingness of
>colleges to accept people who have "skated" prior to college (why work
>if you get the gold ring anyway?).

Now how do you know if this is the case? You do not know
what alternatives they were given, or how much they knew
about the quality of their courses. They were told that
most colleges worship the almighty GPA, or go heavily on
class rank.

Part of the problem is the
>philosophy that every kid is entitled to an education even if s/he
>doesn't want it and just raises hell all day long. Part of the
>problem is social promotion (which is simply a means of avoiding
>parental displeasure). Ditto for grade inflation (at ALL levels of
>schooling).

I agree with all of this. I also know enough about how
it started to put at least much of the blame on those who
are educational philosophers. Teaching to the level of
those in the classroom, and grouping by age, forces most
of this.

Part of the problem is the lack of a national criteria
>for graduation (exit exams).

I do not think that, at this time, we should let the
government get into exit exams; the bureaucrats, and the
political problems, will force them down. But we can go
to exit exams for all degrees and diplomas, with no regard
for credits or previous performance. But if we make the
exams multiple choice, they will not accomplish much.

If the grade a student receives in a course is advisory
only, the pressure to give high grades is largely gone.

Dan Quayle was qualified for law school; he passed, and
passed the bar exams. That he had low grades in college
is completely irrelevant, and tells nothing about his
academic abilities.

I could go on, but why bother; some of
>these things aren't going to change, and unless we change them all (or
>most of them), we aren't going to get very far.

We can do this on an individual school basis, with schools
not politically controlled. The university can also ask
to see the examination questions, so it will know what is
expected of the students.

Herman Rubin

unread,
Mar 26, 2000, 3:00:00 AM3/26/00
to
In article <20000325190907...@nso-cb.aol.com>,

SLieber24 <slie...@aol.comNoSpam> wrote:
>In article <38DCFA80...@moreira.mv.com>, Alberto
><junk...@moreira.mv.com> writes:

............

>And how do you know the teachers do not have adequate knowledge? Most high
>school teachers must be math majors before getting the certification. I know
>when I went in for math certification, I was required to take courses through
>to calculus. That would have been a couple of years' worth because I hadn't
>taken anything past trig in high school.

Gee whiz! This is computation, not mathematics. It used to
be that the high school geometry course was a mathematics
course, not because it taught facts, but because it taught
proof. The college algebra course used to have induction,
but this seems to have fallen by the wayside. Anyone who
does not understand induction does not understand the
integers. Anyone who does not understand proofs does not
understand mathematics. This applies in calculus as well.

................

>>So, up to here, we have three things that can only be meaningfully done by
>>specialists in the field being assessed: chemistry is for Chemists, computer
>>science for computer scientists, and so on.

The conceptual part of mathematics is for all of these; it
is as fundamental for precise communication as reading and
writing is for communication.

toto

unread,
Mar 26, 2000, 3:00:00 AM3/26/00
to
On Sun, 26 Mar 2000 09:13:38 -0500, Alberto <junk...@moreira.mv.com>
wrote:

<snip>


>
>I could go on. This is all a deliberate push towards a certain agenda. None of that
>emphasizes pushing each student to reach his or her potential. Much the contrary,
>it emphasizes a uniformizing, egalitarian, way of being, where it is not good to be
>good, and even worse to be better.
>

If you think that schools can ever stop having a social agenda, you
are fooling yourself unless you go with no government intervention in
education at all. If you want that then this means not only no public
schools, but no subsidies for anyone in terms of educating those who
cannot pay for their own schooling, imho. If the government pays,
then there will be a social agenda included.

Dorothy

There is no sound, no cry in all the world
that can be heard unless someone listens ..
source unknown

Herman Rubin

unread,
Mar 26, 2000, 3:00:00 AM3/26/00
to
In article <38DE3304...@moreira.mv.com>,
Alberto <junk...@moreira.mv.com> wrote:


>Alan Lichtenstein wrote:

>> There is absolutely no arguement with what you say. But the question is
>> one of intent. Herman appears to believe( as his posts clearly indicate
>> over a number of years ), that this is a deliberate agenda of public
>> schools. As such, it would qualify as a conspiracy.

>I know, and that's where I and Herman part ways. I do not believe there's intent to harm,


>although there is a clear intent to push an agenda that deemphasizes personal quality and
>emphasizes a certain kind of uniformity.

I do not believe that there is an intent to harm, but there
is an intent to force practices which do the harm. It is
not a conspiracy, but it is deliberate. Those who insisted
on teaching reading by the whole word method were not part
of a conspiracy, but the lack of reading ability in their
victims was just the same.

Those who keep children from advancing because they do not
believe that children should be with their peers do just as
much damage as if they were an organized conspiracy.

SLieber24

unread,
Mar 26, 2000, 3:00:00 AM3/26/00
to
In article <38DE21...@erols.com>, Alan Lichtenstein
<alicht...@erols.com> writes:

>Most State Certification agencies require students seeking certification
>in a teaching discipline to have a reasonable number of college credits
>in that discipline. Up until a few years ago, NYC even gave merit
>examinations prior to issuing a teaching license.
>

They still do.

SLieber24

unread,
Mar 26, 2000, 3:00:00 AM3/26/00
to
In article <38DE1B9A...@moreira.mv.com>, Alberto
<junk...@moreira.mv.com> writes:

>> And I'm inclined to agree with you. I also applaud your willingness
>> to be a little circumspect as to the "cause" of this problem. I think
>> part of the problem is an inability of education to draw highly
>> competent teachers in their subject areas (a money and working

>> conditions issue). I think part of the problem is the willingness of


>> colleges to accept people who have "skated" prior to college (why work

>> if you get the gold ring anyway?). Part of the problem is the


>> philosophy that every kid is entitled to an education even if s/he
>> doesn't want it and just raises hell all day long. Part of the
>> problem is social promotion (which is simply a means of avoiding
>> parental displeasure). Ditto for grade inflation (at ALL levels of

>> schooling). Part of the problem is the lack of a national criteria
>> for graduation (exit exams). I could go on, but why bother; some of


>> these things aren't going to change, and unless we change them all (or
>> most of them), we aren't going to get very far.
>

>Some professions have exit exams, or entrance exams to the profession, for
>example,
>doctors or lawyers. Engineering requires certification in some circumstances.
>Maybe it
>would be a good idea to put up a graduation exam for K12, but heck, that
>would be hard
>to pass political muster.
>

Then why do so many states have them?

SLieber24

unread,
Mar 26, 2000, 3:00:00 AM3/26/00
to
In article <38DE1B12...@moreira.mv.com>, Alberto
<junk...@moreira.mv.com> writes:

>> But, Herman doesn't mean that. He has stated several times that the goal of
>> schools is to keep pupils from reaching their potential. That is not the
>goal
>> of schools and, as such, is a complete lie.
>
>But is it, Sandy ? Look at it coldly, what are some of the mainline pushes in
>education today ? Mainstreaming. Special Ed. Cooperative learning. Good
>students
>teaching others instead of learning more. A "real life" view of learning that
>doesn't go beyond burger flipping. A one-fits-all approach. Strong resistance
>to
>tracking. Emphasis on minorities. Demise of personal choice in the name of
>diversity. Avoiding public grading and recognition of academic achievement in
>the
>name of equality.

>I could go on. This is all a deliberate push towards a certain agenda. None


>of that
>emphasizes pushing each student to reach his or her potential. Much the
>contrary,
>it emphasizes a uniformizing, egalitarian, way of being, where it is not good
>to be
>good, and even worse to be better.

And you're blaming the education establishment for that? You should try coming
onto AOL long enough to read what teachers in the field say about all those
loverly initiatives (which the Blair gov't is trying to push here, as well, btw
- and more successfully because the UK really isn't a free country). We
educators DON'T want these things but your elected officials do.

>Maybe Herman states it in a slightly inflammatory way, and maybe those
>educators
>don't know the harm they're doing. But I cannot believe that the goal of
>schools
>today is to push students to reach their full potential, and that is nothing
>but
>deliberate.

Maybe the educators don't buck the system as often as they'd like to do,
because the result could be a loss of job. We don't want mainstreaming.
Cooperative learning should be the teacher's choice - if it works, do it. It
rarely works for me or for the populations I tend to teach.

>> And how do you know the teachers do not have adequate knowledge? Most high
>> school teachers must be math majors before getting the certification. I
>know
>> when I went in for math certification, I was required to take courses
>through
>> to calculus. That would have been a couple of years' worth because I hadn't
>> taken anything past trig in high school.
>

>They should prove that they do, and I don't think they can. Sandi, calculus
>is a
>freshman discipline in any serious mathematical science course, nobody is
>anything
>without going through a whole lot more math than that. Your average K12
>teacher
>must not be evaluated on how much he or she knows calculus, that's not
>enough; a
>math teacher must know enough to know where it feeds into science and
>technology,
>and how; you can't build a basis if you don't know what that basis is going
>to need
>to support.

I agree. (Side note: I'm planning to keep my kids interested after their exams
by teaching them to design and build model rockets. Can I come to you for any
pointers?)

>So, how many teachers out there have the mathematical knowledge equivalent to
>an
>electrical engineer, or to a computer science major ? That's the level that's
>going
>to be needed to anyone who wants to do a good job teaching K12 math. How many
>teachers can you say have that level ? Maybe physics and chemistry teachers
>know
>that much - maybe. Others, I'm not sure.

I know the ones at my middle school in Florida have as much knowledge - one
even left to work in industry. Many math teachers also teach a science -at
least in my experience.

>> No study is perfect. That's a given. But when a bunch of them all pretty
>much
>> point to more or less the same thing, then I would take it as credible. But
>> Herman's assertions do not hold water and he has yet to provide any links
>to
>> prove his assertions.
>

>Quantity is no argument, and it only takes one paper to topple a big
>mountain; look
>at Godel's theorem, for example, or to Einstein's paper on relativity. I'm
>not
>totally in agreement with Herman either, but I cannot ignore the telltales,
>and
>they're abundantly clear to anyone who cares to look.

I don't believe there's an educational conspiracy to keep kids from learning.

>> Studies haven't been done just from education - they're done by
>sociologists
>> and psychologists, as well, from outside education.
>
>I have a deep problem with any student that uses this sort of methodology; I
>believe the basic method some of these sciences use is inadequate, and I'm
>not
>alone in thinking that way.

In what way? What is wrong with the basic method? Do you know what "the basic
method" even is?

> If you go into mathematical science circles,
>there's a
>kind of a "ho-hum" factor attached to disciplines that approach things in
>this
>general fashion, and I believe the reputation is well earned. I believe
>physics has
>the right approach: you build all sorts of models, collect all sorts of data,
>use
>all sorts of statistics, but when you hit an experiment that disagrees with
>the
>theory - and only one significant experiment is enough - you either update
>the
>theory or toss it for a better one. What is NOT cool, absolutely not, is to
>chuck
>the experiment because somebody's theory doesn't agree with it.

And why do you believe that that is what happens? Sounds like very fuzzy
thinking to me...

Define "the method" then.

>And somebody's experience is a series of experiments, as valid as any other.

I thought anecdotals were poor research. You have often said so...or am I
confusing your statements with a real theoretician's?

SLieber24

unread,
Mar 26, 2000, 3:00:00 AM3/26/00
to
In article <8bktn9$2e...@odds.stat.purdue.edu>, hru...@odds.stat.purdue.edu
(Herman Rubin) writes:

>>>>>The public schools could make a great step by immediately
>>>>>considering academic learning at the pace a student can
>>>>>handle to be their real job. They still REFUSE to do this.
>
>>>>You know, Herman, I'm still awaiting after all these years your proof that
>>>this
>>>>is true. OTOH, Kappen, Journal of Remedial and Special Education, and a
>few
>>>>others have shown that this is the opposite. And Teacher Magazine (a
>>>>semi-journal - not research, but news) has also published articles that
>show
>>>>the opposite of your pet claim.
>
>>>How many schools have their gifted children routinely finishing
>>>years ahead? Or even allowing them routinely to do this? The
>>>so-called enrichment is a device to slow them down.
>
>>Many. There are those which have "early to college" programs - even in my
>home
>>state, one of the lowest in the country in achievement, has early to college
>>programs. When I was in school, a number of my friends took that option.
>
>These are so little and so late. Cut out the huge amount
>of garbage, and teach the "little kids" who can do it now
>what they will actually find harder to learn later.

And we're back to Herman's usual litany of "screw the rest" in favor of the
1%...

>>Those who don't have access to college level programs (AP).
>
>These range from reasonable to atrocious.

You wouldn't know. You've never met any or observed in any classes.

>You need subject
>matter scholars teaching the subjects, not high school teachers
>who have gone through teacher training. AP calculus classes
>seem to be typically manipulation; this does make it harder
>to understand the concepts, which should be taught first,
>later. But some of those concepts are needed when decimals
>are introduced, and they are not understood by the teachers.

There are subject matter scholars teaching these courses. That they also happen
to have certification is a by-the-way fact. Yadda-yadda-yadda....

>>>How many school districts consider having different children
>>>proceed at different rates in different subjects, and do it,
>>>starting at the earliest level?
>
>>A hell of a lot more than you know. ALL the schools I taught in did it for
>>reading and math.
>
>Do you routinely have 7 year olds doing their academic work
>in "middle school"? At least 15% are quite capable of this.

Bull. 15% are not. Where's your source for this statistic? (One friend's sig
line says "49% of all statistics are made up on the spot - oops! I meant 47%")

And, yes, some do middle school math - just not with middle schoolers...

>>>How many will discipline or fire a teacher for lowering the
>>>level of a class?
>
>>Irrelevant. And not appropriate to this discussion.
>
>This is NOT irrelevant, and is appropriate. Those who
>believe in subject matter learning should not have to put
>up with dumbing down. Lowering the level of a class
>destroys the idea of a good curriculum.

It is irrelevant to the discussion. You are trying to change the subject.

>>>Unless you can cite lots of these, the schools are deliberately
>>>failing to attempt to have children proceed at their pace.
>
>>Buffalo Public Schools, Miami-Dade Public Schools, Broward Public Schools,
>West
>>Palm Beach Public Schools....(and the ones here in England).
>
>How much? Two typical classes will average about one
>Mensa-level child. Since abilities in different subjects
>are not equal, the misplacement is much greater. A child
>of "first grade age" of this mental level has been
>retarded, using the literal meaning of the word, if not at
>least at the third grade academic level, with additional
>acceleration to follow.

MENSA means nothing without hard work. If the kid's not willing to work, no IQ
will help much. I refused to recommend such a child - a first grader - because
he was just too damned lazy to even try what I was teaching (and I stretch my
kids far beyond the requirements).

>>>>Skipping was never banned. Cite your source for this, or else stop the
>lie.
>
>>>It may not have been formally banned, but at best my
>>>skipping was reduced far below what it should have been.
>>>Possibly if my parents knew more, they could have done
>>>more, but the schools were extremely strongly against it.
>
>>For good reason. As one who has taught multi-aged groups of similar ability
>>levels, I do have to say there is a developmental difference between a 7
>year
>>old and an 11 year old. They learn at different rates and on different
>levels.
>
>Yes, the 7 year old at this level learns FASTER and is more
>capable of understanding the abstract concepts.

Wrong. A 7 year old learns slower - well, differently. What I can present in a
single lesson to an 11 year old takes a 7 year old about 3 lessons to absorb.
You have no fucking idea of what you're talking about. Why don't you actually
TRY it yourself?

>>>We have had postings of teachers and administrators who
>>>refused children advancement because of age, or even
>>>reversed this. Are you willing to require such teachers
>>>and administrators to at least pay for the lost time?
>
>>Nope. Why should I?
>
>Because they are causing that much monetary harm.

Bullshit.

> We have a little girl in our school, currently, whose
>>parents are pushing her beyond her limits. They've insisted that she is
>bored
>>with the math that she's in (the next to the top set) and that she should be
>in
>>the very top group - the ones who are working on GCSE math (secondary level
>>testing program). She's there now - and out of her depth. She has no life,
>no
>>friends, no fun. She SAID she was bored, but she didn't produce any proof
>that
>>she could do the math in the class she had been in before she was moved. The
>>poor kid...
>
>Any judgment can be wrong. It is those who make the
>incorrect judgment who are responsible. Those who even
>want to protect people from themselves are automatically
>opposed to freedom.

Well, hey! It's the teachers holding her back, innit? It's OUR fault - as you
like to harp on.

>Socialization may have to be removed from the schools.
>But my son never had problems with classes in which he
>was far younger than the others.

You raised your son differently than most pupils are raised. Even in the UK,
where kids mix at playtimes and lunchtimes (unlike US schools), there are
problems between older and younger children.

>The schools should encourage trying, with no guarantees of
>success. As I have stated before, if we have an adequate
>program, there should be D's and F's and W's, but few A's,
>even for the bright students. An 'A' should indicate too
>easy a course. And none of these grades should count for
>anything other than internal advice.

Off-topic.

>>Parents can push all they want, schools can push all they want, but in the
>end
>>nature will go at its own rate.
>
>How? I was quite willing and able to learn far faster than
>the opportunities I had. I was not allowed to go even at an
>easy rate.

So was I. I was given plenty of opportunities. But nature will still stop you
if you try to push a child too hard.

>You cannot push forward much more than can be done, but it
>is not that hard to hold back.

Oh yes it is! You have never worked with a class full of children. Kids will go
as fast or as slow as they want to, regardless of the teacher. A pupil who is
hungry for knowledge will learn regardless of the teacher. I just wish I met
more pupils who wanted to.

> ...............
>
>>>>>The legality of Florida's vouchers was denied on the
>>>>>grounds of supporting religion, not on educational issues.
>>>>>I do not support religious schools, but the public schools
>>>>>teach Political Correctness, much harder to counter than
>>>>>religion which the parents do not believe.
>
>>>>Not an issue. What do you think about the fact that a child can warm a
>chair
>>>at
>>>>a private school on taxpayer money? What do you think about the fact that
>a
>>>>private school can use taxpayer money and not teach the pupil at all?
>
>>>>Answer that one. At least public schools must show some form of progress.
>
>
>>>Public schools do not need to show this. And "progress" must
>>>not be geared to age; background and ability are far more
>>>important.
>
>>Hell they DO have to show it! Read about Bush's grade scale for schools. And
>>Florida isn't the only state to have this.
>
>It would probably change quickly if the educationists proposed
>treating children as individuals.

Nope. The gov't can't afford to do that. And educators DO propose treating
children as individuals. We are ignored.

>>Progress should be gauged to ability (background? how so?). But the gods we
>>call gov't don't see it that way. So a kid at fourth grade who doesn't pass
>the
>>FCAT remains in 4th grade. That's fair, ain't it?
>
>The governments have been believing the educationists.

I fucking wish they WOULD believe the educators - then we wouldn't have these
stupid "pass this test or fail the grade" garbage. No - they listen to the
voters, many of whom have no idea what's needed. Or they make those lovely
sound bites because it makes THEM look good on TV.

>Now
>the one who does not pass that test should be given appropriate
>education; repeating 4th grade is NOT the answer. That test
>is a poor test, but it is the educationists who have set up
>the problem, and it is also educationists who have (reluctantly)
>designed and produced the test. Those who believe in teaching
>subject matter as quickly and as well as it can be done are
>still largely out of the loop.

Wrong. The test MAY be a poor test (it requires children to justify answers on
the math section, writing out what they did, how they did it, etc. and they get
credit for it even if the answer itself is wrong), but educators didn't set up
the problem. The politicians did.

>When you tell everyone that children of a given age should
>all be learning roughly the same material, you create this
>problem. You have given us this tar baby; let those of us
>who do not want to get stuck to it to have reasonably
>affordable educational institutions.

It's called standards. You know, the UK used to have a system whereby teachers
could teach anything they liked, in addition to reading and writing and math.
No tests were given. Pupils educations were very uneven. Then the national
curriculum came in with a benchmark for every age group. Now most pupils learn
to a certain level. But the UK is now going overboard with the testing (as in
the US) - testing until the kids do nothing BUT testing. It was good for a
while...and at least all pupils were exposed to the same things.

But hothousing pupils (as this little 8 year old's parents want to do) is
harmful.

Bob LeChevalier

unread,
Mar 26, 2000, 3:00:00 AM3/26/00
to
>In article <38DCBC51...@moreira.mv.com>, Alberto
><junk...@moreira.mv.com> writes:
>>But in the circles of people who actually *know* what's going on in
>>college classes, the perception is totally different from that which comes from
>>education circles.
>
>But this wasn't what I was arguing.
>
>>My experience - and I haven't heard one college or grad teacher in the math or
>>science camp that doesn't think more or less the same way - is that a solid amount
>>of our classrooms are not prepared enough to be there. I don't go as far as to
>>attribute causes, or to blame some sort of attitudinal "conspiracy" by teachers or
>>by the system, and so on. But the problem exists, and it is a serious one.
>>
>>> Cite some sources, for once!
>>
>>Sandi, when sources don't match reality, it's the sources that are at fault. Try
>>teaching college physics, for example, anywhere in this country, and then come back
>>and tell me what you have found about student mathematical readiness. Worse, try
>>teaching computer science and depending on set theory and logic to make a point,
>>look at the blank stares.

The bottom line, Alberto, is that even in your field where international
immigrants seem to dominate, there ARE Americans that meet your
qualifications, and they by and large got those qualifications in American
schools. That there are not enough of them therefore does not prove that
American schools are not good enough, but rather that they do not manage to
inspire enough kids to attain that self-discipline that you demand. But then
you have said that this is not for the schools to do - schools are for
academics and not for character molding - so even there you cannot criticize
the schools but rather American parents and American culture.

One possible counterargument would be if for some reason the few Americans
who managed to achieve high levels in math were in some way superior to their
foreign counterparts in intelligence or work ethic or something, so as to
make up for the supposed handicap that they get from American schools.

Yet I do not see any claim that the Americans who are in comp. sci. grad
school are an especial breed. Indeed I suspect that the foriegn students who
are in the classroom are actually smarter and harder workers than their
American counterparts, since they had to do everything that the Americans had
to do and do it in a foriegn language as well, and make it through a weeding
out program that discriminates against foreigners.

So what all this tells me is NOT necessarily that American schools do a bad
job, but simply that what you demand in your profession is so uninteresting
for American students, that even the relatively high salaries for top tier
computer scientists are not enough to make it worth all the work that you
demand, at least for Americans who can find a lot of better opportunities
that demand less.

And it still says nothing good or bad about the schools.

lojbab
----
lojbab loj...@lojban.org
Bob LeChevalier, President, The Logical Language Group, Inc.
2904 Beau Lane, Fairfax VA 22031-1303 USA 703-385-0273
Artificial language Loglan/Lojban: http://www.lojban.org (newly updated!)

Herman Rubin

unread,
Mar 26, 2000, 3:00:00 AM3/26/00
to
In article <eresdso3krp7gmvd3...@4ax.com>,

toto <tot...@my-deja.com> wrote:
>On Sun, 26 Mar 2000 09:13:38 -0500, Alberto <junk...@moreira.mv.com>
>wrote:

><snip>

>>I could go on. This is all a deliberate push towards a certain agenda. None of that


>>emphasizes pushing each student to reach his or her potential. Much the contrary,
>>it emphasizes a uniformizing, egalitarian, way of being, where it is not good to be
>>good, and even worse to be better.

>If you think that schools can ever stop having a social agenda, you


>are fooling yourself unless you go with no government intervention in
>education at all. If you want that then this means not only no public
>schools, but no subsidies for anyone in terms of educating those who
>cannot pay for their own schooling, imho. If the government pays,
>then there will be a social agenda included.

It CAN be done, by putting the prohibition of control as a
Constitutional item, rather than legislation.

It you look at it rationally, social control is a form of
state religion, and should be seen as such.

Herman Rubin

unread,
Mar 26, 2000, 3:00:00 AM3/26/00
to
In article <20000326122151...@nso-ff.aol.com>,

They are not graduation exams in the above sense, in that
graduation is not assured by passing them. They are in
addition to the grades and credits. They are minimalistic,
rather than being taken as the major source of evidence of
quality. They are in the class of literacy exams.

Herman Rubin

unread,
Mar 26, 2000, 3:00:00 AM3/26/00
to
In article <20000326122153...@nso-ff.aol.com>,

SLieber24 <slie...@aol.comNoSpam> wrote:
>In article <38DE1B12...@moreira.mv.com>, Alberto
><junk...@moreira.mv.com> writes:

................

>Maybe the educators don't buck the system as often as they'd like to do,
>because the result could be a loss of job. We don't want mainstreaming.
>Cooperative learning should be the teacher's choice - if it works, do it. It
>rarely works for me or for the populations I tend to teach.

Who introduced these in the first place? It was the educationists.

I saw these changes myself, and the educationists made no secret
about it. The ideas of considering being with one's age group
as more important than how much is learned, and the consequent
adjusting the level of the course to what the students can handle,
instead of maintaining a fixed curriculum, came from the schools
of education. Children were asked not to discuss anything with
their parents, as "their parents might confuse them". This was
openly stated.

Sputnik changed some of this, but not that much. Homework, and
bringing the parents in, was restored. Then everything was
blamed on the parents.

Owen Corpening

unread,
Mar 26, 2000, 3:00:00 AM3/26/00
to
I think you have shown your true colors, alberto. You really don't care
about the kids, only whether the "system" is kept intact.

I say "who cares about the system as long as the kids get a decent
opportunity to get educated."

Private schools, whether large or small, are of course a fine replacement
for public schools. As for "tearing apart" some existing system, I am
confidant that public schools would improve dramatically in a very short
time frame if kids had a choice whether to attend them or not.

Of course you aren't going to consider what any of this is about until a
"replacement system" is proposed. You just aren't thinking at all.

owen

Alberto wrote in message <38DE16DC...@moreira.mv.com>...

Owen Corpening

unread,
Mar 26, 2000, 3:00:00 AM3/26/00
to
Bonk! If the gov't provides vouchers and the parents can pick the school,
the parents pick the social agenda!!!!

Jeez-louweeze

My kid had her 6-year-old birthday party at the zoo yesterday. I took 20
kids across the zoo to the train for a ride. I said "OK, lets form a line,
birthday girl is the line leader, you are the caboose, now let's sound like
a train!" I had the most perfect line you ever saw, and with no more
instruction than that!

Everybody was staring with amazement at how a single adult could have 20
kids behaving better that most families could control a single kid. That
because the kids were from her class, and the school emphasizes obedience
and other social traits that wind up being quite handy.

You never saw so many adults drop their jaws ... same thing when we walked
back to the picnic table, they didn't break the line and start running until
we were almost there. Good kids.

owen

Owen Corpening

unread,
Mar 26, 2000, 3:00:00 AM3/26/00
to
Uh, Alberto is right Slieber is wrong.

For what it's worth, whether schools hold kids back due to a policy or a
lack of aq policy is irrelevant. The fact is they are held back.

Case study: I did 4 years in a certain private school, and in 9th grade my
class and teacher were unussually dedicated and fast, a lucky grouping it
turns out. The troublemakers were in another time period. We finished
Algebra one in february and I remember the teacher saying "Well, do you want
to go back and do more of this, do Algebra 2 (an 11th-grade subject), or do
analytical geometry (a tenth-grade subject)?"

We elected democratically to do geometry. The tenth graders were miffed that
"kids" were doing the same work the sophomores were doing. We didn't quite
finish. Then in tenth grade the curriculum was modified, our class was kept
together, and we did analytical geometry and algebra 2 in one year. They
were talking about having to add a calculus 2 elective for 12th grade
because we were all going to be in the regular 12th grade calculus classes
when we got to eleventh grade.

I left the private school for public at that point to get more girls. There
were not many at the private school, and I just wanted to have more social
life, so I quit. I did the 12th grade calculus they had at the public school
when I was in eleventh grade (700 seniors and only 20 took calculus). Got
bored in 12th grade and quit and started college on the condition that I had
to pass, which I did.

No one held me back, allthough it took an act of congress to get into that
12th grade calc. class.

Way to go Alberto!

owen

Owen Corpening

unread,
Mar 26, 2000, 3:00:00 AM3/26/00
to
Precisely! Btw Bush is for ending social promotion, hooray!

If we had vouchers we could affect all these changes! My kid can't start 1st
grade unless she can do 50 addition problems involving adding 2 numbers that
are less than 10. In 90 seconds. That's the rule, and it takes parents,
practice, and serious schooling to get there. She'll be one smart first
grader.

She is already diagramming sentences, knows about nouns and verbs. She can
read the newspaper (some), and you can open the King James and ask her to
read it, just pick a verse. ("Say ok, Romans 20 12", hand it to her opened
up to romans 20, she'll figure it out.)

owen

Owen Corpening

unread,
Mar 26, 2000, 3:00:00 AM3/26/00
to
I had to pass a 8 hour open book test, people wheeled in grocery carts full
of books and cheat sheets. The pass rate is very low, but you can take it 3
times.

I passed the first time. Then you get 4 years experience working for a
registered professional engineer, and you take another test, harder still.
All written stuff this time, zero multiple choice. Bet it's a bitch to
grade.

owen, p.e.

Alberto wrote in message <38DE1B9A...@moreira.mv.com>...


>
>
>Ron McDermott wrote:
>
>> And I'm inclined to agree with you. I also applaud your willingness
>> to be a little circumspect as to the "cause" of this problem. I think
>> part of the problem is an inability of education to draw highly
>> competent teachers in their subject areas (a money and working
>> conditions issue). I think part of the problem is the willingness of
>> colleges to accept people who have "skated" prior to college (why work
>> if you get the gold ring anyway?). Part of the problem is the
>> philosophy that every kid is entitled to an education even if s/he
>> doesn't want it and just raises hell all day long. Part of the
>> problem is social promotion (which is simply a means of avoiding
>> parental displeasure). Ditto for grade inflation (at ALL levels of
>> schooling). Part of the problem is the lack of a national criteria
>> for graduation (exit exams). I could go on, but why bother; some of
>> these things aren't going to change, and unless we change them all (or
>> most of them), we aren't going to get very far.
>
>Some professions have exit exams, or entrance exams to the profession, for
example,
>doctors or lawyers. Engineering requires certification in some
circumstances. Maybe it
>would be a good idea to put up a graduation exam for K12, but heck, that
would be hard
>to pass political muster.
>

>Alberto.
>
>
>

Herman Rubin

unread,
Mar 26, 2000, 3:00:00 AM3/26/00
to
In article <20000326122157...@nso-ff.aol.com>,

SLieber24 <slie...@aol.comNoSpam> wrote:
>In article <8bktn9$2e...@odds.stat.purdue.edu>, hru...@odds.stat.purdue.edu
>(Herman Rubin) writes:

>>>>>>The public schools could make a great step by immediately
>>>>>>considering academic learning at the pace a student can
>>>>>>handle to be their real job. They still REFUSE to do this.

...................

>>Do you routinely have 7 year olds doing their academic work
>>in "middle school"? At least 15% are quite capable of this.

>Bull. 15% are not. Where's your source for this statistic? (One friend's sig
>line says "49% of all statistics are made up on the spot - oops! I meant 47%")

The 15% is one standard deviation above the mean. These can
go that much faster and leave out the unnecessary repetition.

>>>>How many will discipline or fire a teacher for lowering the
>>>>level of a class?

>>>Irrelevant. And not appropriate to this discussion.

>>This is NOT irrelevant, and is appropriate. Those who
>>believe in subject matter learning should not have to put
>>up with dumbing down. Lowering the level of a class
>>destroys the idea of a good curriculum.

>It is irrelevant to the discussion. You are trying to change the subject.

No, I am sticking to the subject that children should be
taught according to their individual capabilities. If the
schools are not willing to do this, they should directly
admit to it, and should at least assist in allowing this
to be done at reasonable cost, instead of insisting that
they are giving children a good education.

...................

>>>For good reason. As one who has taught multi-aged groups of similar ability
>>>levels, I do have to say there is a developmental difference between a 7
>>year
>>>old and an 11 year old. They learn at different rates and on different
>>levels.

>>Yes, the 7 year old at this level learns FASTER and is more
>>capable of understanding the abstract concepts.

>Wrong. A 7 year old learns slower - well, differently. What I can present in a
>single lesson to an 11 year old takes a 7 year old about 3 lessons to absorb.
>You have no fucking idea of what you're talking about. Why don't you actually
>TRY it yourself?

When my son was 7, he was learning stronger mathematics than
the public schools teach. I am assuming that the 7 year old
has the mental ability to be at the academic level of the 11
year old. A 7 year old at that mental level is definitely
considered strongly gifted, and the gifted, or even the just
bright, need far less repetition, at any age.

It may be that an 11 year old who has been retarded in one
subject, not because of mental ability, may be able to pick
it up faster than a normal 7 year old, because of development
of other mental faculties.


...............

>>You cannot push forward much more than can be done, but it
>>is not that hard to hold back.

>Oh yes it is! You have never worked with a class full of children. Kids will go
>as fast or as slow as they want to, regardless of the teacher. A pupil who is
>hungry for knowledge will learn regardless of the teacher. I just wish I met
>more pupils who wanted to.

This is possible IF the pupil has access to the material, and
the time is not taken up by the demands of the school for trivia.
Having a child read and report on "age-appropriate" fiction, or
do thousands of arithmetic problems, instead of advancing, will
hold them back. One cannot read if one is illiterate, OR if one
cannot find the books. One cannot read if one is forced to pay
attention to classes which one already knows.

...............

>>>>Public schools do not need to show this. And "progress" must
>>>>not be geared to age; background and ability are far more
>>>>important.

>>>Hell they DO have to show it! Read about Bush's grade scale for schools. And
>>>Florida isn't the only state to have this.

>>It would probably change quickly if the educationists proposed
>>treating children as individuals.

>Nope. The gov't can't afford to do that. And educators DO propose treating
>children as individuals. We are ignored.

How have educators proposed treating children as individuals?
Have they proposed allowing and even encouraging gifted 10 year
olds to graduate high school and proceed to college? Some have
proposed tracking, but this still keeps them in grade levels.

Have they proposed speeding up the pace, but allowing slower
progress for the ones who cannot keep up? Where are these
proposals for doing things differently?

>>>Progress should be gauged to ability (background? how so?). But the gods we
>>>call gov't don't see it that way. So a kid at fourth grade who doesn't pass
>>the
>>>FCAT remains in 4th grade. That's fair, ain't it?

>>The governments have been believing the educationists.

>I fucking wish they WOULD believe the educators - then we wouldn't have these
>stupid "pass this test or fail the grade" garbage. No - they listen to the
>voters, many of whom have no idea what's needed. Or they make those lovely
>sound bites because it makes THEM look good on TV.

As I have stated, I do not believe that repeating the grade
is likely to be a solution, except possibly for the ones on
the borderline.

But what have the "educators" proposed instead? I have not
seen any public proposals for them to have alternate curricula.
I have seen proposals that they go to summer school to make
it up, but again, that is only going to work for those near
the borderline.

>>Now
>>the one who does not pass that test should be given appropriate
>>education; repeating 4th grade is NOT the answer. That test
>>is a poor test, but it is the educationists who have set up
>>the problem, and it is also educationists who have (reluctantly)
>>designed and produced the test. Those who believe in teaching
>>subject matter as quickly and as well as it can be done are
>>still largely out of the loop.

>Wrong. The test MAY be a poor test (it requires children to justify answers on
>the math section, writing out what they did, how they did it, etc. and they get
>credit for it even if the answer itself is wrong), but educators didn't set up
>the problem. The politicians did.

The ISTEP math tests are multiple choice.

>>When you tell everyone that children of a given age should
>>all be learning roughly the same material, you create this
>>problem. You have given us this tar baby; let those of us
>>who do not want to get stuck to it to have reasonably
>>affordable educational institutions.

>It's called standards. You know, the UK used to have a system whereby teachers
>could teach anything they liked, in addition to reading and writing and math.
>No tests were given. Pupils educations were very uneven. Then the national
>curriculum came in with a benchmark for every age group. Now most pupils learn
>to a certain level.

There is a point in benchmarks for grade levels, but not
for age groups. Without acknowledging this, no real
progress can be made.

But the UK is now going overboard with the testing (as in
>the US) - testing until the kids do nothing BUT testing. It was good for a
>while...and at least all pupils were exposed to the same things.

>But hothousing pupils (as this little 8 year old's parents want to do) is
>harmful.

And not allowing the bright to progress MUCH faster, as
happens in most places, is at least costing them many tens
of thousands in lost time, and may well be making it much
harder for them to get the understanding they are capable
of. The new math was introduced by the father of a girl
whose mathematical reasoning had been at least hindered
by the deliberate, NOT conspiratorial, refusal to teach
mathematical concepts instead of manipulation. While it
might not have been the best way to do it, those teachers
who could not handle it should be considered incapable of
teaching mathematics. What could have been done about the
problem is another matter, but finding solutions to wrong
problems is not the way to proceed.

Alberto

unread,
Mar 26, 2000, 3:00:00 AM3/26/00
to

Owen Corpening wrote:

> I think you have shown your true colors, alberto. You really don't care
> about the kids, only whether the "system" is kept intact.
>
> I say "who cares about the system as long as the kids get a decent
> opportunity to get educated."

You can say whatever you want, it's going to take it make a lot more sense
before I give it any credibility.

> Private schools, whether large or small, are of course a fine replacement
> for public schools.

Only for those who can pay.

> As for "tearing apart" some existing system, I am
> confidant that public schools would improve dramatically in a very short
> time frame if kids had a choice whether to attend them or not.

Yes. Let me repeat your own words because I don't think their real meaning
has sunk in in your own mind:

"IF KIDS HAD A CHOICE..."

And that's the sore point. As far as the public system goes, it is not a
choice if it isn't the same size of the public system. Do you have such a
choice ? Do we ? Does America ? I sincerely doubt it.

So, here you have it in a nutshell, you said it yourself: there is NO CHOICE,
no alternative to the public system today.

Care to build one ? Meanwhile, let's carry on fixing what we can in the
current system, because it's the only thing we have.

> Of course you aren't going to consider what any of this is about until a
> "replacement system" is proposed. You just aren't thinking at all.

Are you ? Words are cheap. Where's the replacement system ? There aren't
enough private schools in this country to make a dent in the need of the
people.


Alberto.

Alberto

unread,
Mar 26, 2000, 3:00:00 AM3/26/00
to

toto wrote:

> If you think that schools can ever stop having a social agenda, you
> are fooling yourself unless you go with no government intervention in
> education at all. If you want that then this means not only no public
> schools, but no subsidies for anyone in terms of educating those who
> cannot pay for their own schooling, imho. If the government pays,
> then there will be a social agenda included.

Having a social agenda is not a problem. Applying it in such a way that it precludes the
advancement of students can be a problem. And if not being able to pay for one's own
schooling means an implied right to be stifled, good Lord, we really have a problem.


Alberto.

Alberto

unread,
Mar 26, 2000, 3:00:00 AM3/26/00
to

SLieber24 wrote:

> And you're blaming the education establishment for that? You should try coming
> onto AOL long enough to read what teachers in the field say about all those
> loverly initiatives (which the Blair gov't is trying to push here, as well, btw
> - and more successfully because the UK really isn't a free country). We
> educators DON'T want these things but your elected officials do.

I'm not blaming anyone. I'm just pointing out my perception of reality. The way I
see it, a lot of people share responsibility for the problem, a large system like
this cannot be brought down by an odd teacher or two. It takes a pervasive
attitude, or lack thereof.

> Maybe the educators don't buck the system as often as they'd like to do,
> because the result could be a loss of job. We don't want mainstreaming.
> Cooperative learning should be the teacher's choice - if it works, do it. It
> rarely works for me or for the populations I tend to teach.

Again, I don't know where to put the blame, although I know what I'd do if I was in
a position of responsibility, even while realizing that I'd probably not last long
in that position depending on how strong the political winds blew.

> I agree. (Side note: I'm planning to keep my kids interested after their exams
> by teaching them to design and build model rockets. Can I come to you for any
> pointers?)

This isn't quite in my line, but try the National Association of Rocketry:
http://www.nar.org. You can also try the rec.models.rockets newsgroup, and its FAQ
at http://www.ninfinger.org/~sven/rockets/rmrfaq.toc.html.

> I don't believe there's an educational conspiracy to keep kids from learning.

I don't believe it either. But that doesn't mean the problem isn't there.

> In what way? What is wrong with the basic method? Do you know what "the basic
> method" even is?

I've posted over and again what I think is wrong with this kind of approach.
Worse, I often find that the population they apply the methods to hardly qualifies
as far as what I'd call a "large" number. I don't know, Herman notwithstanding, I
am exceedingly skeptical of anything that uses statistics to draw conclusions,
unless of course we're talking about LARGE numbers - something like 10^20, for
example, the sort of numbers people bump into when they're doing physics and
chemistry. I am sorry, I don't believe in data unless it is being used to say "no",
because all the data in the world is insufficient to say "yes". The only thing that
can say "yes" is proof, and that only exists in mathematics. Outside the bounds of
a formal mathematical model, there ain't no such thing as "yes" or "it is" in
science. There's a basic issue of philosophy of knowledge here that must be
overcome, and I don't think it has, not quite, not yet.

> And why do you believe that that is what happens? Sounds like very fuzzy
> thinking to me...

Whenever someone comes to me and calls my experience "anedoctal", it's happening.
It does happen, over and again. Outside mathematical science, one can usually rub
counterexamples onto people's very noses, and nothing changes.

> I thought anecdotals were poor research. You have often said so...or am I
> confusing your statements with a real theoretician's?

I never, ever said that, or at least I hope I didn't, because I don't believe in
that statement. To me, one man's anedocte may be another man's theory's demise; and
a theory that doesn't explain reality cannot be taken seriously, even if that
reality only comes through someone else's anedocte. Besides, one or two anedoctes
may be hearsay; but a few become significant noise; and enough of them, it's a
factor that cannot be ignored and must be factored in. The way I see it, dropping a
mass of personal experience because it's "anedoctal" is one of the worse sins a
researcher can commit: one of the fundamental rules of research, as I see it, is to
leave no stone unturned. Let me repeat: NO stone unturned. And when the label
"anedoctal" is tagged left and right onto anything "Not Invented Here", Lord do we
have a problem.

Furthermore, it is often the case that what happens in the real world cannot be
duplicated in the lab. Does someone's personal approach make any difference to
plate tectonics, for example ? It is there, happening under our very noses, no
matter what we do and no matter what we think "poor research" is. Can we measure it
? Not quite, not really, just a tiny bit, the rest must be educated guess and
qualified thinking, mostly based on accumulated experience. We look at a large set
of reports by a large set of people and try to fit it all - ALL, mind you - inside
the model. A theory that drops x percent of the universe because of some kind of
bell curve isn't worth its salt, or at least I think so.

But to me, research isn't about data, it's not about going out trying to
laboratorize something; research is diving deep inside one's own brain processes in
search of something new. Sometimes data helps, many times it doesn't, and sometimes
it hinders. Incomplete data points in the wrong direction; out of focus data builds
an inexact picture; imprecise data leads us to the wrong model; and so on.

So, before one uses data, one must vouch for its quality. But that's not quite
possible to be done, if nothing else Heisenberg's principle strongly contributes to
make it difficult. Nah, data is secondary at best, there's a lot other ways to draw
conclusions about the universe around us, and that includes education.

I am very, very skeptical, by nature, of any conclusion drawn on data alone,
specially data collected out of context. I need a lot more than that.


Alberto.


Alberto

unread,
Mar 26, 2000, 3:00:00 AM3/26/00
to

Bob LeChevalier wrote:

> The bottom line, Alberto, is that even in your field where international
> immigrants seem to dominate, there ARE Americans that meet your
> qualifications, and they by and large got those qualifications in American
> schools. That there are not enough of them therefore does not prove that
> American schools are not good enough, but rather that they do not manage to
> inspire enough kids to attain that self-discipline that you demand. But then
> you have said that this is not for the schools to do - schools are for
> academics and not for character molding - so even there you cannot criticize
> the schools but rather American parents and American culture.

I am criticizing the American public school system, because if it worked the way it is
supposed to, my field wouldn't be dominated by immigrants educated elsewhere. I can't get
myself to criticize people who have to fight hard to make ends meet, who can't afford
anything better than the public system, and who are routinely stifled by it.

> One possible counterargument would be if for some reason the few Americans
> who managed to achieve high levels in math were in some way superior to their
> foreign counterparts in intelligence or work ethic or something, so as to
> make up for the supposed handicap that they get from American schools.
>
> Yet I do not see any claim that the Americans who are in comp. sci. grad
> school are an especial breed. Indeed I suspect that the foriegn students who
> are in the classroom are actually smarter and harder workers than their
> American counterparts, since they had to do everything that the Americans had
> to do and do it in a foriegn language as well, and make it through a weeding
> out program that discriminates against foreigners.
>
> So what all this tells me is NOT necessarily that American schools do a bad
> job, but simply that what you demand in your profession is so uninteresting
> for American students, that even the relatively high salaries for top tier
> computer scientists are not enough to make it worth all the work that you
> demand, at least for Americans who can find a lot of better opportunities
> that demand less.

That interpretation doesn't hold water, because my profession is one of the most dynamic
today, with a high level of challenge but a corresponding high level of professional
satisfaction and individual freedom. What does happen is that a lot of students go to
courses that are no less demanding but a lot duller and with a lot less future, and not
because they choose to, but because they're corralled into it: by the time they get to
the age to choose, there's no choice because they haven't been taught what it takes to
build up a meaningful choice.

> And it still says nothing good or bad about the schools.

But it does. When a substantial proportion of highly paid jobs go to foreigners, while
nationals are flipping burgers to make ends meet, we cannot avoid to think that we have a
problem.


Alberto.

Ron McDermott

unread,
Mar 26, 2000, 3:00:00 AM3/26/00
to

> >Those who don't have access to college level programs (AP).

On Sun, 26 Mar 2000 11:53:13, hru...@odds.stat.purdue.edu (Herman
Rubin) wrote:
>
> These range from reasonable to atrocious. You need subject


> matter scholars teaching the subjects, not high school teachers
> who have gone through teacher training.

"Subject matter scholars", as you define them, do not WISH to be
teaching the subjects in high school, middle school, or elementary
school, and YOU don't wish to teach them either. The choice then is
moot; we can either wait until Hell freezes over to get what YOU want,
we can do the best we can with those who are WILLING to teach, or we
can NOT teach math at all. Doesn't seem like there's much choice
there, but it leaves you free to bitch and castigate those who are
trying to do a job you yourself are unwilling to attempt.


Ron McDermott

unread,
Mar 26, 2000, 3:00:00 AM3/26/00
to
On Sun, 26 Mar 2000 15:58:48, hru...@odds.stat.purdue.edu (Herman
Rubin) wrote:

> >I think part of the problem is the willingness of colleges to
> >accept people who have "skated" prior to college (why work
> >if you get the gold ring anyway?).
>

> Now how do you know if this is the case?

Please, Herman, let's not be deliberately obtuse here. I don't think
I've ever had a kid come back to me from college and tell me s/he was
working as hard now as s/he did in high school. The reason for that
is that anyone decent is going to be accepted into college if s/he can
pay the freight. The vast majority of students do not knock
themselves out in school because there are no real consequences
involved in NOT working. You choose to lay the blame for that on
everyone else, but let me tell you that if colleges demanded more,
teachers like me could demand more also (and get it).

> They were told that most colleges worship the almighty GPA,
> or go heavily on class rank.

And you're seriously claiming otherwise? LOL!

> >Part of the problem is the lack of a national criteria
> >for graduation (exit exams).
>

> I do not think that, at this time, we should let the
> government get into exit exams; the bureaucrats, and the
> political problems, will force them down.

So after crying about how colleges cannot enforce requirements absent
outside standards, you see no need for them at my level except as
imposed by individual schools, etc, and this can't be done by colleges
because that'll make people unhappy and they might not contribute to
the college's coffers. Your consistency is something to behold.

> But we can go to exit exams for all degrees and diplomas,
> with no regard for credits or previous performance.

The way colleges do it, right?

> But if we make the exams multiple choice, they will not
> accomplish much.

Without standards for acceptance into college, what point would these
serve? Tell you what; since the timing is almost the same, how about
WE skip the exit exams and YOU impose entrance exams instead? Serves
the same purpose, right?

> If the grade a student receives in a course is advisory
> only, the pressure to give high grades is largely gone.

The way colleges do it, right?

> >I could go on, but why bother; some of these things aren't going
> >to change, and unless we change them all (or most of them), we
> >aren't going to get very far.
>

> We can do this on an individual school basis, with schools
> not politically controlled.

No we can't, Herman, because parents won't allow it. Parents don't
want to hear that their kid isn't smart, or isn't trying, or isn't
passing, or isn't going to graduate, and they bring pressure, through
administration, to harass teachers who try to do this. It has to be
imposed at a greater authority level, just as you recognize that it
must on the COLLEGE level.

> The university can also ask to see the examination questions,
> so it will know what is expected of the students.

Or the university can get some guts and impose decent entrance
standards of its own and stop accepting students they KNOW cannot
function at a college level (while taking their tuition and having
them take high school material - which they usually fail AGAIN despite
those "subject matter scholars" who clamor to take on the remedial
classes and show us poor teachers how it's done). You are SUCH a
hypocrite.

Herman Rubin

unread,
Mar 26, 2000, 3:00:00 AM3/26/00
to
In article <38DE8864...@moreira.mv.com>,
Alberto <junk...@moreira.mv.com> wrote:


>Owen Corpening wrote:

>> I think you have shown your true colors, alberto. You really don't care
>> about the kids, only whether the "system" is kept intact.

>> I say "who cares about the system as long as the kids get a decent
>> opportunity to get educated."

And with this I agree. This is now denied, to both the
rich and poor in differing degrees, mostly to the poor.

>You can say whatever you want, it's going to take it make a lot more sense
>before I give it any credibility.

>> Private schools, whether large or small, are of course a fine replacement
>> for public schools.

>Only for those who can pay.

Vouchers will make it easier to pay. I believe that,
with vouchers up to an appreciable part of what is now
mandated for public schools, private schools or a good
alternative to a child attending one school will arise,
and quickly.

>> As for "tearing apart" some existing system, I am
>> confidant that public schools would improve dramatically in a very short
>> time frame if kids had a choice whether to attend them or not.

I will make it stronger; we do not need a "system".
That we have a system makes it difficult to have the
necessary alternatives.

>Yes. Let me repeat your own words because I don't think their real meaning
>has sunk in in your own mind:

> "IF KIDS HAD A CHOICE..."

>And that's the sore point. As far as the public system goes, it is not a
>choice if it isn't the same size of the public system. Do you have such a
>choice ? Do we ? Does America ? I sincerely doubt it.

Who cares what size it is? Alchemy had a "system".
With one experiment, it was overthrown, and chemistry
was built on the few facts of alchemy.

Similarly, Vesalius (I believe) overthrew the system
of classical medicine from ancient times to the
middle ages. A new system was not there at the time
to replace it.

Copernicus did not have a system which could predict
the positions of the planets in place when he argued
against the Ptolemaic system.

>So, here you have it in a nutshell, you said it yourself: there is NO CHOICE,
>no alternative to the public system today.

There is a choice. Let parents educate their children
in whatever manner is appropriate and available. We
just make more methods available. We do not need the
elaborate setup of grade levels, etc. Homeschoolers
do a good job without it.

>Care to build one ? Meanwhile, let's carry on fixing what we can in the
>current system, because it's the only thing we have.

The current system is essentially unfixable. The type
of teacher you would like cannot be produced in sufficient
numbers. Allowing children to be in different classes for
different subjects requires individual flexibility.

>> Of course you aren't going to consider what any of this is about until a
>> "replacement system" is proposed. You just aren't thinking at all.

>Are you ? Words are cheap. Where's the replacement system ? There aren't
>enough private schools in this country to make a dent in the need of the
>people.


I agree. Put in vouchers, and they will spring up.

If we had them before the educationist takeover, there
would have been an immediate move to keep the older
curriculum oriented, but not age oriented, program
available for far more, and the results would have
become apparent. There would not have been teachers
forcing children who know how to read to be in classes
where the alphabet was being taught; the 10% in that
situation would have had an alternative. What we do
not need, and must not have, is a "system".

SLieber24

unread,
Mar 27, 2000, 3:00:00 AM3/27/00
to
In article <8bliq4$b...@odds.stat.purdue.edu>, hru...@odds.stat.purdue.edu
(Herman Rubin) writes:

>>>Some professions have exit exams, or entrance exams to the profession, for
>>>example,
>>>doctors or lawyers. Engineering requires certification in some
>circumstances.
>>>Maybe it
>>>would be a good idea to put up a graduation exam for K12, but heck, that
>>>would be hard
>>>to pass political muster.
>
>

>>Then why do so many states have them?
>
>They are not graduation exams in the above sense, in that
>graduation is not assured by passing them. They are in
>addition to the grades and credits. They are minimalistic,
>rather than being taken as the major source of evidence of
>quality. They are in the class of literacy exams.
>

I would bet you couldn't pass them -especially the NY Regents.

SLieber24

unread,
Mar 27, 2000, 3:00:00 AM3/27/00
to
In article <8bllqk$1k...@odds.stat.purdue.edu>, hru...@odds.stat.purdue.edu
(Herman Rubin) writes:

>>>>>>>The public schools could make a great step by immediately
>>>>>>>considering academic learning at the pace a student can
>>>>>>>handle to be their real job. They still REFUSE to do this.
>
> ...................
>
>>>Do you routinely have 7 year olds doing their academic work
>>>in "middle school"? At least 15% are quite capable of this.
>
>>Bull. 15% are not. Where's your source for this statistic? (One friend's sig
>>line says "49% of all statistics are made up on the spot - oops! I meant
>47%")
>
>The 15% is one standard deviation above the mean. These can
>go that much faster and leave out the unnecessary repetition.
>

By your words, 15% have the capability of going faster. But do that 15% really
want to? Will they work that hard? Doubt it.

>>>>>How many will discipline or fire a teacher for lowering the
>>>>>level of a class?
>
>>>>Irrelevant. And not appropriate to this discussion.
>
>>>This is NOT irrelevant, and is appropriate. Those who
>>>believe in subject matter learning should not have to put
>>>up with dumbing down. Lowering the level of a class
>>>destroys the idea of a good curriculum.
>
>>It is irrelevant to the discussion. You are trying to change the subject.
>
>No, I am sticking to the subject that children should be
>taught according to their individual capabilities. If the
>schools are not willing to do this, they should directly
>admit to it, and should at least assist in allowing this
>to be done at reasonable cost, instead of insisting that
>they are giving children a good education.

You are introducing your pet mantra into yet another discussion. Congrats.
Don't know how you always find a way to put it into every single discussion, no
matter how far off the topic it may be.

>>>>For good reason. As one who has taught multi-aged groups of similar
>ability
>>>>levels, I do have to say there is a developmental difference between a 7
>>>year
>>>>old and an 11 year old. They learn at different rates and on different
>>>levels.
>
>>>Yes, the 7 year old at this level learns FASTER and is more
>>>capable of understanding the abstract concepts.
>
>>Wrong. A 7 year old learns slower - well, differently. What I can present in
>a
>>single lesson to an 11 year old takes a 7 year old about 3 lessons to
>absorb.
>>You have no fucking idea of what you're talking about. Why don't you
>actually
>>TRY it yourself?
>
>When my son was 7, he was learning stronger mathematics than
>the public schools teach. I am assuming that the 7 year old
>has the mental ability to be at the academic level of the 11
>year old. A 7 year old at that mental level is definitely
>considered strongly gifted, and the gifted, or even the just
>bright, need far less repetition, at any age.

7 YOs certainly have the same potential ability as the 11YO. What they don't
have is the experience, or the brain development. They cannot simply visualize
things. You and I can "see" numbers in our heads - we can visualize situations
in which to use those numbers. Little ones can't.

>It may be that an 11 year old who has been retarded in one
>subject, not because of mental ability, may be able to pick
>it up faster than a normal 7 year old, because of development
>of other mental faculties.

May be, should be, could be, has to be....anything to keep your pet mantra
alive. You have NO experience with large numbers of children and your trying
desperately to think of reasons why your mantra wouldn't work.

Got news for you: 85% of the population isn't as brain dead as you would like
them to be.

...............
>
>>>You cannot push forward much more than can be done, but it
>>>is not that hard to hold back.
>
>>Oh yes it is! You have never worked with a class full of children. Kids will
>go
>>as fast or as slow as they want to, regardless of the teacher. A pupil who
>is
>>hungry for knowledge will learn regardless of the teacher. I just wish I met
>>more pupils who wanted to.
>
>This is possible IF the pupil has access to the material, and
>the time is not taken up by the demands of the school for trivia.
>Having a child read and report on "age-appropriate" fiction, or
>do thousands of arithmetic problems, instead of advancing, will
>hold them back. One cannot read if one is illiterate, OR if one
>cannot find the books. One cannot read if one is forced to pay
>attention to classes which one already knows.

Books are everywhere - not just in a classroom. When I finally learned to read,
wild horses couldn't drag me away from a library. What teachers have a hard
time getting kids to do IS read books above their levels. My kids love to
choose the easier books.


...............
>
>>>>>Public schools do not need to show this. And "progress" must
>>>>>not be geared to age; background and ability are far more
>>>>>important.
>
>>>>Hell they DO have to show it! Read about Bush's grade scale for schools.
>And
>>>>Florida isn't the only state to have this.
>
>>>It would probably change quickly if the educationists proposed
>>>treating children as individuals.
>
>>Nope. The gov't can't afford to do that. And educators DO propose treating
>>children as individuals. We are ignored.
>
>How have educators proposed treating children as individuals?
>Have they proposed allowing and even encouraging gifted 10 year
>olds to graduate high school and proceed to college?

Yes. It's called an IEP.

>Some have
>proposed tracking, but this still keeps them in grade levels.

Yes and no. In high school, it's not grade levelled. It's coursework.

>Have they proposed speeding up the pace, but allowing slower
>progress for the ones who cannot keep up? Where are these
>proposals for doing things differently?

It's already in place. Was 20 years ago, in fact. You just like to ignore it,
as you will ignore this statement.

>>>>Progress should be gauged to ability (background? how so?). But the gods
>we
>>>>call gov't don't see it that way. So a kid at fourth grade who doesn't
>pass
>>>the
>>>>FCAT remains in 4th grade. That's fair, ain't it?
>
>>>The governments have been believing the educationists.
>
>>I fucking wish they WOULD believe the educators - then we wouldn't have
>these
>>stupid "pass this test or fail the grade" garbage. No - they listen to the
>>voters, many of whom have no idea what's needed. Or they make those lovely
>>sound bites because it makes THEM look good on TV.
>
>As I have stated, I do not believe that repeating the grade
>is likely to be a solution, except possibly for the ones on
>the borderline.
>
>But what have the "educators" proposed instead? I have not
>seen any public proposals for them to have alternate curricula.
>I have seen proposals that they go to summer school to make
>it up, but again, that is only going to work for those near
>the borderline.

I don't know what's been proposed as I have been out of the loop for a couple
of years (in the UK). I'm sure I'll find out in August, when I return to the
States.

>>>Now
>>>the one who does not pass that test should be given appropriate
>>>education; repeating 4th grade is NOT the answer. That test
>>>is a poor test, but it is the educationists who have set up
>>>the problem, and it is also educationists who have (reluctantly)
>>>designed and produced the test. Those who believe in teaching
>>>subject matter as quickly and as well as it can be done are
>>>still largely out of the loop.
>
>>Wrong. The test MAY be a poor test (it requires children to justify answers
>on
>>the math section, writing out what they did, how they did it, etc. and they
>get
>>credit for it even if the answer itself is wrong), but educators didn't set
>up
>>the problem. The politicians did.
>
>The ISTEP math tests are multiple choice.

We don't take the ISTEP. Ours are all written answer - even the Reading tests.

But, and you forget this one, they must WANT to be hothoused....

>The new math was introduced by the father of a girl
>whose mathematical reasoning had been at least hindered
>by the deliberate, NOT conspiratorial, refusal to teach
>mathematical concepts instead of manipulation. While it
>might not have been the best way to do it, those teachers
>who could not handle it should be considered incapable of
>teaching mathematics. What could have been done about the
>problem is another matter, but finding solutions to wrong
>problems is not the way to proceed.
>--

Mantra of new math introduced....you're really predictable, Herman.

SLieber24

unread,
Mar 27, 2000, 3:00:00 AM3/27/00
to
Uh, case study. Although I didn't do early to college from my very large public
school, many of my friends did. While in 11th grade, about 100 kids were
already taking differential equations. The kids went on to Penn State
university instead of going to 12th grade at our school. They finished their
freshman year and received their high school diplomas at the same time.

The school didn't hold them back. And it weren't even no private thingy...

In article <8blhcu$8vd$1...@news.tivoli.com>, "Owen Corpening"
<owen.co...@tivoli.com> writes:

----------------------------------------------------

SLieber24

unread,
Mar 27, 2000, 3:00:00 AM3/27/00
to
Bonk! I teach exactly the opposite types of kids - the ones whose parents
couldn't give a fig's ass about their education, the ones who were destined to
be expelled. And the behave exactly the same way for me as your kids did for
you. Oh! And I have 25 of them, near teenage level, 2 of whom are clinically
bonkers.

Obedience is not that hard to come by.

In article <8blhvg$930$1...@news.tivoli.com>, "Owen Corpening"
<owen.co...@tivoli.com> writes:

----------------------------------------------------

SLieber24

unread,
Mar 27, 2000, 3:00:00 AM3/27/00
to
In article <8blg8h$8nn$1...@news.tivoli.com>, "Owen Corpening"
<owen.co...@tivoli.com> writes:

>I think you have shown your true colors, alberto. You really don't care
>about the kids, only whether the "system" is kept intact.
>
>I say "who cares about the system as long as the kids get a decent
>opportunity to get educated."
>

>Private schools, whether large or small, are of course a fine replacement
>for public schools.

By what measure?

>As for "tearing apart" some existing system, I am
>confidant that public schools would improve dramatically in a very short
>time frame if kids had a choice whether to attend them or not.

By what measure?

>Of course you aren't going to consider what any of this is about until a
>"replacement system" is proposed. You just aren't thinking at all.
>

There has to be. Otherwise, you'll have what we had in the early industrial
days - kids going to work at the age of 4 and not being educated because
parents have no money.

SLieber24

unread,
Mar 27, 2000, 3:00:00 AM3/27/00
to
In article <8bljgc$24...@odds.stat.purdue.edu>, hru...@odds.stat.purdue.edu
(Herman Rubin) writes:

>>Maybe the educators don't buck the system as often as they'd like to do,
>>because the result could be a loss of job. We don't want mainstreaming.
>>Cooperative learning should be the teacher's choice - if it works, do it. It
>>rarely works for me or for the populations I tend to teach.
>

>Who introduced these in the first place? It was the educationists.
>
>I saw these changes myself, and the educationists made no secret
>about it. The ideas of considering being with one's age group
>as more important than how much is learned, and the consequent
>adjusting the level of the course to what the students can handle,
>instead of maintaining a fixed curriculum, came from the schools
>of education.

Cost effective, darling, cost effective. And since you've never taught children
of varying ages in one class (I have), I do have to say that it is extremely
difficult. Children DO see things differently at different ages. You have no
clue, Herman, so why perpetuate this myth of yours that children can be
hothoused so easily?

> Children were asked not to discuss anything with
>their parents, as "their parents might confuse them". This was
>openly stated.

Bullshit.

>Sputnik changed some of this, but not that much. Homework, and
>bringing the parents in, was restored. Then everything was
>blamed on the parents.

Sputnik didn't change much. Parents used to be very involved, now they aren't.
I think it's gone the other way, in my experience.

Herman Rubin

unread,
Mar 27, 2000, 3:00:00 AM3/27/00
to
In article <20000327002234...@nso-fc.aol.com>,

SLieber24 <slie...@aol.comNoSpam> wrote:
>In article <8bllqk$1k...@odds.stat.purdue.edu>, hru...@odds.stat.purdue.edu
>(Herman Rubin) writes:

>>>>>>>>The public schools could make a great step by immediately
>>>>>>>>considering academic learning at the pace a student can
>>>>>>>>handle to be their real job. They still REFUSE to do this.

...................

>>>>Do you routinely have 7 year olds doing their academic work
>>>>in "middle school"? At least 15% are quite capable of this.

>>>Bull. 15% are not. Where's your source for this statistic? (One friend's sig
>>>line says "49% of all statistics are made up on the spot - oops! I meant
>>47%")

>>The 15% is one standard deviation above the mean. These can
>>go that much faster and leave out the unnecessary repetition.

>By your words, 15% have the capability of going faster. But do that 15% really
>want to? Will they work that hard? Doubt it.

Will they have to "work that hard"? Or will they find that
the opportunity to learn more is enjoyable, and want even
more of it? Leave out the busy work, and let them think
harder, and the results will show what can be done. If they
do not know it is available, they cannot even try.

Show them what is behind the door, and let them enter. At
this time, the only way they can find the door is for some
outside source to batter down the walls to get at it for them.

................

>>When my son was 7, he was learning stronger mathematics than
>>the public schools teach. I am assuming that the 7 year old
>>has the mental ability to be at the academic level of the 11
>>year old. A 7 year old at that mental level is definitely
>>considered strongly gifted, and the gifted, or even the just
>>bright, need far less repetition, at any age.

>7 YOs certainly have the same potential ability as the 11YO. What they don't
>have is the experience, or the brain development. They cannot simply visualize
>things. You and I can "see" numbers in our heads - we can visualize situations
>in which to use those numbers. Little ones can't.

You have greatly overrated visualization. When I first got
into serious mathematics, I kept hearing about "geometric
intuition". SOME visualization MAY be helpful, but it can
also get into the way. Logical reasoning is far more powerful,
and also easier to teach early, before they are overloaded
with unstructured facts.

A 7 year old at that level will generally be able to learn
more quickly than one who could not get to it before 11.

>>It may be that an 11 year old who has been retarded in one
>>subject, not because of mental ability, may be able to pick
>>it up faster than a normal 7 year old, because of development
>>of other mental faculties.

>May be, should be, could be, has to be....anything to keep your pet mantra
>alive. You have NO experience with large numbers of children and your trying
>desperately to think of reasons why your mantra wouldn't work.


...............

>>>>You cannot push forward much more than can be done, but it
>>>>is not that hard to hold back.

>>>Oh yes it is! You have never worked with a class full of children. Kids will
>>go
>>>as fast or as slow as they want to, regardless of the teacher. A pupil who
>>is
>>>hungry for knowledge will learn regardless of the teacher. I just wish I met
>>>more pupils who wanted to.

>>This is possible IF the pupil has access to the material, and
>>the time is not taken up by the demands of the school for trivia.
>>Having a child read and report on "age-appropriate" fiction, or
>>do thousands of arithmetic problems, instead of advancing, will
>>hold them back. One cannot read if one is illiterate, OR if one
>>cannot find the books. One cannot read if one is forced to pay
>>attention to classes which one already knows.

>Books are everywhere - not just in a classroom. When I finally learned to read,
>wild horses couldn't drag me away from a library. What teachers have a hard
>time getting kids to do IS read books above their levels. My kids love to
>choose the easier books.

You would never had that problem with me, or with my children.
Maybe they are being taught this way. And I mean non-fiction;
fiction is not academic matter.

...............

>>>>>>Public schools do not need to show this. And "progress" must
>>>>>>not be geared to age; background and ability are far more
>>>>>>important.

>>>>>Hell they DO have to show it! Read about Bush's grade scale for schools.
>>And
>>>>>Florida isn't the only state to have this.

>>>>It would probably change quickly if the educationists proposed
>>>>treating children as individuals.

>>>Nope. The gov't can't afford to do that. And educators DO propose treating
>>>children as individuals. We are ignored.

>>How have educators proposed treating children as individuals?
>>Have they proposed allowing and even encouraging gifted 10 year
>>olds to graduate high school and proceed to college?

>Yes. It's called an IEP.

But are IEPs proposed except for the ones who cannot keep
up with the so-called age levels? Are they provided for
any significant number of the ones who can avoid the years
of tedium and imprisonment in the public schools? Those
posting on the gifted mailing list do not seem to think
their children are getting anything worthwhile out of the
public schools. And there are few places with any
reasonable alternatives.

>>Some have
>>proposed tracking, but this still keeps them in grade levels.

>Yes and no. In high school, it's not grade levelled. It's coursework.

But the bright should be doing this earlier, often before
middle school "age". And the gifted should be doing this
even earlier. High school classes for them should start
before they are around long enough to get turned off.

Herman Rubin

unread,
Mar 27, 2000, 3:00:00 AM3/27/00
to
In article <20000327002235...@nso-fc.aol.com>,

SLieber24 <slie...@aol.comNoSpam> wrote:
>Uh, case study. Although I didn't do early to college from my very large public
>school, many of my friends did. While in 11th grade, about 100 kids were
>already taking differential equations. The kids went on to Penn State
>university instead of going to 12th grade at our school. They finished their
>freshman year and received their high school diplomas at the same time.

>The school didn't hold them back. And it weren't even no private thingy...

They could have finished their freshman year several years
earlier. Learning how to solve differential equations is
a snap for anyone who understands mathematics and can
calculate to a fair extent. Learning to formulate
differential equations, the more important part, requires
understanding calculus (not being able to "do" calculus),
and learning the differential notation, also usually not
emphasized. I shudder at turning out engineers who know
how to solve differential equations in closed form; they
formulate problems in equations they know how to solve.

Going to Penn State is more difficult than one might think;
it is stated that it is "equally inaccessible from all parts
of the state". I am sufficiently familiar with the geography
of the region to agree.

What is needed is to make the academic material accessible
to those you call "little kids". It can be done.

Alan Lichtenstein

unread,
Mar 27, 2000, 3:00:00 AM3/27/00
to
Herman Rubin wrote:
>
> In article <38DE3304...@moreira.mv.com>,
> Alberto <junk...@moreira.mv.com> wrote:
>
> >Alan Lichtenstein wrote:
>
> >> There is absolutely no arguement with what you say. But the question is
> >> one of intent. Herman appears to believe( as his posts clearly indicate
> >> over a number of years ), that this is a deliberate agenda of public
> >> schools. As such, it would qualify as a conspiracy.
>
> >I know, and that's where I and Herman part ways. I do not believe there's intent to harm,
> >although there is a clear intent to push an agenda that deemphasizes personal quality and
> >emphasizes a certain kind of uniformity.
>
> I do not believe that there is an intent to harm, but there
> is an intent to force practices which do the harm. It is
> not a conspiracy, but it is deliberate. Those who insisted
> on teaching reading by the whole word method were not part
> of a conspiracy, but the lack of reading ability in their
> victims was just the same.

Herman, you are dishonest. You have repeatedly, over the years, used
the terms educationists and education establishment as universal objects
of your scorn. Since you treat them as universals, and obviously, they
do not consist of one individual but many, to apply universal negative
attirbutes to them can only be made as a result of collaboration. That,
Herman, is conspiracy.

Now, you back away from that. If you continue to speak and use the
terms that you do, then you imply conspiracy, regardless of what you
say. If you want to speak of a few misguided indivudals, as Alberto and
I have elected to do, then you are on firmer ground. Until you clarify
your usage, you are in fact, accusing the education establishment of
conspiracy.

> Those who keep children from advancing because they do not
> believe that children should be with their peers do just as
> much damage as if they were an organized conspiracy.

but your terminology over the years of your posts has clearly treated
the establishiment as a universal entity. And that can only be
conspiratorial.

Trapped by your own inflamatory comments.

Alan

Ron McDermott

unread,
Mar 27, 2000, 3:00:00 AM3/27/00
to
On Sun, 26 Mar 2000 22:49:24, Alberto <junk...@moreira.mv.com> wrote:

> Bob LeChevalier wrote:
>
> > The bottom line, Alberto, is that even in your field where international
> > immigrants seem to dominate, there ARE Americans that meet your
> > qualifications, and they by and large got those qualifications in American
> > schools. That there are not enough of them therefore does not prove that
> > American schools are not good enough, but rather that they do not manage to
> > inspire enough kids to attain that self-discipline that you demand. But then
> > you have said that this is not for the schools to do - schools are for
> > academics and not for character molding - so even there you cannot criticize
> > the schools but rather American parents and American culture.
>
> I am criticizing the American public school system, because if it worked the way it is
> supposed to, my field wouldn't be dominated by immigrants educated elsewhere.

Allow me to interject a consideration here.. I'm not current, but the
population of the USA is somewhere between 250 and 300 million?
Unfortunately, we know that a sizeable portion of our population
simply isn't going to become technically proficient because of their
background, whether that be due to economic, emotional, or social
pressures. The WORLD, on the other hand, contains billions of people,
and the most proficient of them tend to come to the USA where
remuneration is generally higher than "at home". Of course this
doesn't hold for ALL the world, but a sufficient part of it to serve
as a generalization. HOWEVER good the educational system in the US
might be, and given that "we" have never been particularly
paternalistic to our own population, why would you expect that
"foreigners" WOULDN'T dominate the ranks of the technical fields? And
this totally ignores the issue of motivation. For much of the world,
education, particularly technical, is the pathway to a "good life".
In the US, BUSINESS is the pathway to a "good life", with doctors and
lawyers probably coming in right behind. I don't discount your
observation, but I think there are very understandable explanations
for what you observe BEYOND a simple "the schools don't work"
argument.


Ron McDermott

unread,
Mar 27, 2000, 3:00:00 AM3/27/00
to
On Sun, 26 Mar 2000 17:37:41, "Owen Corpening"
<owen.co...@tivoli.com> wrote:

> Precisely! Btw Bush is for ending social promotion, hooray!
>
> If we had vouchers we could affect all these changes!

No we couldn't, Owen. IF private schools retained their independence
under a voucher system (and I don't think they would), THEY could
institute whatever they wanted, but there would remain a FAR larger
population in public schools who continue under the "old rules".
Until we fix our public schools, the problem will continue. Vouchers
will do nothing more than allow SOME to avoid the problems, with the
added result of making things worse in the public schools (which WILL
remain in place).

> My kid can't start 1st
> grade unless she can do 50 addition problems involving adding 2 numbers that
> are less than 10. In 90 seconds. That's the rule, and it takes parents,
> practice, and serious schooling to get there. She'll be one smart first
> grader.

I'll leave this one for Herman to take issue with, but he won't since
you agree with his agenda. If anyone ELSE had said this, Herman would
have been on them immediately.

> She is already diagramming sentences, knows about nouns and verbs. She can
> read the newspaper (some), and you can open the King James and ask her to
> read it, just pick a verse. ("Say ok, Romans 20 12", hand it to her opened
> up to romans 20, she'll figure it out.)

And any teacher will tell you there is NO substitute for an involved,
caring parent. Unfortunately, there are a lot of parents who aren't
either of these.

Owen Corpening

unread,
Mar 27, 2000, 3:00:00 AM3/27/00
to
what a nut! watch out for the black helicopters ...

Bob LeChevalier

unread,
Mar 27, 2000, 3:00:00 AM3/27/00
to
My pardon for this not being threaded properly. I am having to use deja to
read news, while mey server seems to be belly up again.

Alberto <junk...@moreira.mv.com> wrote:
>Bob LeChevalier wrote:
>
>> The bottom line, Alberto, is that even in your field where international
>> immigrants seem to dominate, there ARE Americans that meet your
>> qualifications, and they by and large got those qualifications in American
>> schools. That there are not enough of them therefore does not prove that
>> American schools are not good enough, but rather that they do not manage to
>> inspire enough kids to attain that self-discipline that you demand. But then
>> you have said that this is not for the schools to do - schools are for
>> academics and not for character molding - so even there you cannot criticize
>> the schools but rather American parents and American culture.
>
>I am criticizing the American public school system, because if it worked the way
>it is supposed to, my field wouldn't be dominated by immigrants educated elsewhere.

Why wouldn't it? If American school produced twice as many qualified people
as you need, then you would simply need more.



>> One possible counterargument would be if for some reason the few Americans
>> who managed to achieve high levels in math were in some way superior to their
>> foreign counterparts in intelligence or work ethic or something, so as to
>> make up for the supposed handicap that they get from American schools.
>>
>> Yet I do not see any claim that the Americans who are in comp. sci. grad
>> school are an especial breed. Indeed I suspect that the foriegn students who
>> are in the classroom are actually smarter and harder workers than their
>> American counterparts, since they had to do everything that the Americans had
>> to do and do it in a foriegn language as well, and make it through a weeding
>> out program that discriminates against foreigners.
>>
>> So what all this tells me is NOT necessarily that American schools do a bad
>> job, but simply that what you demand in your profession is so uninteresting
>> for American students, that even the relatively high salaries for top tier
>> computer scientists are not enough to make it worth all the work that you
>> demand, at least for Americans who can find a lot of better opportunities
>> that demand less.
>
>That interpretation doesn't hold water, because my profession is one of the most
>dynamic today, with a high level of challenge but a corresponding high level of
>professional satisfaction and individual freedom.

"Dynamic" and "challenge" and "professional satisfaction" sound like the
types of things that motivate 40 year olds. The average teen choosing a
major wants to make money, have fun, and do something interesting, meanwhile
while having lots of time for enjoying the opposite sex. Hard work CAN be
fun, but you talk 12 to 14 hour days, and that is not fun for anyone. Nor
does it fit most people's idea of "individual freedom".

Meanwhile, they can make just as much money as a systems programmer, and
almost as much as a COBOL programmer, and they don't need to work nearly as
hard in college to get there. After all, there is a shortage in the field,
and most of the computing profession doesn't need programming theory or
higher math.

What you describe in your statements about work ethic is an attitude and an
academic bent that is generally associated with medical school. The training
is extremely demanding to get an MD, and the result is that doctors are paid
a helluva lot more than computer people. The people who want to work that
hard generally are going to med school, which also offers dynamic challenge,
professional satisfaction, and personal freedom, plus more money and public
respect.

What does happen is that a lot
>of students go to courses that are no less demanding but a lot duller and with a
>lot less future, and not because they choose to, but because they're corralled
>into it: by the time they get to the age to choose, there's no choice because
>they haven't been taught what it takes to build up a meaningful choice.
>
>> And it still says nothing good or bad about the schools.
>
>But it does. When a substantial proportion of highly paid jobs go to foreigners,
>while nationals are flipping burgers to make ends meet, we cannot avoid to think
>that we have a problem.

The ones who flip burgers do so because they don't want to work any harder
than burger flipping requires. They get what they want. Besides, someone
has to flip burgers, otherwise all the workaholic programmers would never be
able to eat. %^)

lojbab
----
lojbab loj...@lojban.org
Bob LeChevalier, President, The Logical Language Group, Inc.
2904 Beau Lane, Fairfax VA 22031-1303 USA 703-385-0273
Artificial language Loglan/Lojban: http://www.lojban.org (newly updated!)

Bob LeChevalier

unread,
Mar 27, 2000, 3:00:00 AM3/27/00
to
Herman Rubin, replying to Sandy:

>>>Do you routinely have 7 year olds doing their academic work
>>>in "middle school"? At least 15% are quite capable of this.
>
>>Bull. 15% are not. Where's your source for this statistic? (One friend's sig
>>line says "49% of all statistics are made up on the spot - oops! I meant 47%")
>
>The 15% is one standard deviation above the mean. These can
>go that much faster and leave out the unnecessary repetition.

Given the old definition of IQ, one standard deviation above the mean 100
would be an IQ of 115, and a mental age for a 7 year old of 8. That means at
most one grade ahead, and presumes that their maturity level has kept up with
their intellectual level (which it usually hasn't). For a 7 year old to be
doing 7th grade (12 year old work) that would correspond to a 170 IQ, more
than 4 standard deviations above the mean. Far less than 15%.

But of course that would also presume middle school level independence and
maturity, and also that the parents had supported the child learning at an
accelerated rate from birth. The 170 IQ kid who has not been exposed to
books until they hit kindergarten would probably not be all that far ahead of
his peers in 2 years. 1-2 years at most.

I have an IQ measured over 160, and my parents decided not to let me skip -
the schools would have allowed it (thereby proving Herman wrong). may
parents felt that since I could deal with kids my own age, I was not going to
be able to handle kids even older. They were right - I never learned to get
along with kids older than me until I got to high school.

Academically, I was allowed to work at my own pace in reading, and I was
reading 6th grade material in kindergarten according to my aunt. But I never
was motivated to read college level material until I was well into high
school.

>>>>>How many will discipline or fire a teacher for lowering the
>>>>>level of a class?
>
>>>>Irrelevant. And not appropriate to this discussion.
>
>>>This is NOT irrelevant, and is appropriate. Those who
>>>believe in subject matter learning should not have to put
>>>up with dumbing down. Lowering the level of a class
>>>destroys the idea of a good curriculum.
>
>>It is irrelevant to the discussion. You are trying to change the subject.
>
>No, I am sticking to the subject that children should be
>taught according to their individual capabilities. If the
>schools are not willing to do this, they should directly
>admit to it, and should at least assist in allowing this
>to be done at reasonable cost, instead of insisting that
>they are giving children a good education.

What you describe is not the mission or mandate of the public schools.
Therefore they DO "admit to it" in that there is no pretense that they are
trying to do what you wish them to do.

There is a mandate for a "free and appropriate public education in the least
restrictive environment" that is applicable to special ed students, but that
buzz phrase means that kids are kept with their peers at their neighborhood
school as much as possible. In short, a mandate to do exactly what you say
that the schools should not do. But that is what the parents want, for the
most part.

>>Nope. The gov't can't afford to do that. And educators DO propose treating
>>children as individuals. We are ignored.
>
>How have educators proposed treating children as individuals?
>Have they proposed allowing and even encouraging gifted 10 year

>olds to graduate high school and proceed to college? Some have


>proposed tracking, but this still keeps them in grade levels.

If they cannot get approval to have many more gifted 10 year olds to get
middle school education, why would they bother to propose that they go to
high school and college? There is no money for gifted individual education;
there isn't usually even enough money for the non-individualized gifted
education that is now provided.

SLieber24

unread,
Mar 28, 2000, 3:00:00 AM3/28/00
to
In article <38DE93F4...@moreira.mv.com>, Alberto
<junk...@moreira.mv.com> writes:

>> The bottom line, Alberto, is that even in your field where international
>> immigrants seem to dominate, there ARE Americans that meet your
>> qualifications, and they by and large got those qualifications in American
>> schools. That there are not enough of them therefore does not prove that
>> American schools are not good enough, but rather that they do not manage to
>> inspire enough kids to attain that self-discipline that you demand. But
>then
>> you have said that this is not for the schools to do - schools are for
>> academics and not for character molding - so even there you cannot
>criticize
>> the schools but rather American parents and American culture.
>
>I am criticizing the American public school system, because if it worked the
>way it is
>supposed to, my field wouldn't be dominated by immigrants educated elsewhere.

>I can't get
>myself to criticize people who have to fight hard to make ends meet, who
>can't afford
>anything better than the public system, and who are routinely stifled by it.
>

Sorry? The American system is responsible for pupils whose parents do not
require them to do even minimal effort to keep up in class? Because parents
hand everything to their child gratis and then are shocked when the kid expects
to be handed everything for the rest of his/her life? Come on! It takes more
than the ed. system to bring a kid down - usually it starts at home.

Alan Lichtenstein

unread,
Mar 28, 2000, 3:00:00 AM3/28/00
to
Owen Corpening wrote:
>
> what a nut! watch out for the black helicopters ...

We assume you are referring to Herman.

Owen Corpening

unread,
Mar 28, 2000, 3:00:00 AM3/28/00
to
he did, privately. He said "The only problem I have with this is the time:
it is not important." I think he may be right, but I commented back that
there is a competition thing that seems to motivate them.


Ron McDermott wrote in message
<87XdtVqF0GQ7-p...@1Cust250.tnt4.poughkeepsie.ny.da.uu.net>...

Herman Rubin

unread,
Mar 28, 2000, 3:00:00 AM3/28/00
to
In article <38DFE1...@erols.com>,

Alan Lichtenstein <alicht...@erols.com> wrote:
>Herman Rubin wrote:

>> In article <38DE3304...@moreira.mv.com>,
>> Alberto <junk...@moreira.mv.com> wrote:

>> >Alan Lichtenstein wrote:

................

>Herman, you are dishonest. You have repeatedly, over the years, used
>the terms educationists and education establishment as universal objects
>of your scorn. Since you treat them as universals, and obviously, they
>do not consist of one individual but many, to apply universal negative
>attirbutes to them can only be made as a result of collaboration. That,
>Herman, is conspiracy.

This is very definitely not required for them to conspire to
act in the same manner. They do not even have to collaborate.

Were the physicians in Vienna who were killing women
giving birth by not washing their hands in a conspiracy?
Not at all; they actually believed that this had nothing
to do with any results, and that thorough hand washing
would lower their effectiveness by reducing the number of
patients they could see.

Were the medieval physicians who used bloodletting, which
probably killed more than it helped, in a conspiracy?

One could even question whether those who burned suspected
witches at the stake were in a conspiracy. They did act
together, but they believed in the rightness of their actions.

One could just as easily state that all those who vote for
a particular candidate are in a conspiracy.

Your terminology would call every government a conspiracy.
This is not the customary use of the term.

Herman Rubin

unread,
Mar 28, 2000, 3:00:00 AM3/28/00
to
In article <87XdtVqF0GQ7-p...@1Cust250.tnt4.poughkeepsie.ny.da.uu.net>,

Ron McDermott <rmc...@nospam.peoplepc.com> wrote:
>On Sun, 26 Mar 2000 17:37:41, "Owen Corpening"
><owen.co...@tivoli.com> wrote:

>> Precisely! Btw Bush is for ending social promotion, hooray!

>> If we had vouchers we could affect all these changes!

>No we couldn't, Owen. IF private schools retained their independence
>under a voucher system (and I don't think they would), THEY could
>institute whatever they wanted, but there would remain a FAR larger
>population in public schools who continue under the "old rules".
>Until we fix our public schools, the problem will continue. Vouchers
>will do nothing more than allow SOME to avoid the problems, with the
>added result of making things worse in the public schools (which WILL
>remain in place).

As I stated before, IF I were given unlimited money and
unlimited authority, and asked to fix the public schools in
10 years, I would have to turn it down as impossible. The
present public schools are unfixable in the medium run, and
possibly not in the long run.

We can have schools which teach those willing and able to
get a quality education, but only if we get them out of
the present public schools.

>> My kid can't start 1st
>> grade unless she can do 50 addition problems involving adding 2 numbers that
>> are less than 10. In 90 seconds. That's the rule, and it takes parents,
>> practice, and serious schooling to get there. She'll be one smart first
>> grader.

>I'll leave this one for Herman to take issue with, but he won't since
>you agree with his agenda. If anyone ELSE had said this, Herman would
>have been on them immediately.

I have taken issue with it in private email. I do not
think it is a good idea, and it will eliminate many who
know what addition means, but have not memorized the
table. That someone could do this, or the arithmetic
asked for on the standardized fourth grade tests, is no
evidence whatever that addition is other than formalism.
It is a historical fact that this only apparent paradox
started the new math.

>> She is already diagramming sentences, knows about nouns and verbs. She can
>> read the newspaper (some), and you can open the King James and ask her to
>> read it, just pick a verse. ("Say ok, Romans 20 12", hand it to her opened
>> up to romans 20, she'll figure it out.)

She would be out of place in a public school first grade,
at least for reading, and certainly for grammar.

>And any teacher will tell you there is NO substitute for an involved,
>caring parent. Unfortunately, there are a lot of parents who aren't
>either of these.

There are many caring parents who would not teach subject
matter this early; it would be questionable if someone who
believes in age-appropriate education would do so, and many
caring parents would not know the structure of the English
language well enough to teach grammar. Many high school
graduates do not know what nouns and verbs are.

Children who can learn faster should be doing this from the
very beginning. This is likely to mean separate schools,
at least to some extent. The performance of a school
cannot be deduced from that of its students, as genetics,
home teaching, whether parents care, and also whether the
other students will beat up the child who is willing and
able to progress in subject matter, all make a difference.

If the public schools insist on holding progress to one
grade a year, they should not be teaching students who
can do 1.5 to 3 or more grades a year. The value of the
more rapid development of those children exceeds the
cost of the educational "system", as they can be productive
at 20 instead of 25 to 30, and they will be able to fill
the positions for which we now have to import people.

Herman Rubin

unread,
Mar 28, 2000, 3:00:00 AM3/28/00
to
In article <506uds08agtd35vlt...@4ax.com>,

Bob LeChevalier <loj...@lojban.org> wrote:
>Herman Rubin, replying to Sandy:
>>>>Do you routinely have 7 year olds doing their academic work
>>>>in "middle school"? At least 15% are quite capable of this.

>>>Bull. 15% are not. Where's your source for this statistic? (One friend's sig
>>>line says "49% of all statistics are made up on the spot - oops! I meant 47%")

>>The 15% is one standard deviation above the mean. These can
>>go that much faster and leave out the unnecessary repetition.

>Given the old definition of IQ, one standard deviation above the mean 100
>would be an IQ of 115, and a mental age for a 7 year old of 8. That means at
>most one grade ahead, and presumes that their maturity level has kept up with
>their intellectual level (which it usually hasn't). For a 7 year old to be
>doing 7th grade (12 year old work) that would correspond to a 170 IQ, more
>than 4 standard deviations above the mean. Far less than 15%.

The lack of repetition needed reduces the time needed, so the
effect would be more than 15%. Now squeeze out the other time
wasting aspects, and that 7 year old gets up to at least 10.
There are schools which start middle school at 5th grade.

>But of course that would also presume middle school level independence and
>maturity, and also that the parents had supported the child learning at an
>accelerated rate from birth. The 170 IQ kid who has not been exposed to
>books until they hit kindergarten would probably not be all that far ahead of
>his peers in 2 years. 1-2 years at most.

More than that. In reading, one should essentially complete the
tutelage in the primary grades, as used to be the case. The 130
IQ child can do that by age 6 or 7 at the latest. My son was at
that point at age 5.

>I have an IQ measured over 160, and my parents decided not to let me skip -
>the schools would have allowed it (thereby proving Herman wrong). may
>parents felt that since I could deal with kids my own age, I was not going to
>be able to handle kids even older. They were right - I never learned to get
>along with kids older than me until I got to high school.

It is quite common for gifted children to have far more difficulty
in getting along with others their age than with older children
and with adults. We do have educationists who claim that those
who do not get along well with their age group are not gifted;
advancement is not uniform in all areas, and it seems, from the
discussions in the gifted mailing list, that most of the teachers
seem to be incapable of recognizing the gifted, and even more so
are opposed to advancing them.

>Academically, I was allowed to work at my own pace in reading, and I was
>reading 6th grade material in kindergarten according to my aunt. But I never
>was motivated to read college level material until I was well into high
>school.

One who can read at this level should be using reading for
learning subjects, not "literature". Did you know about
the college material, and did you have the background to
understand it? Mathematics (not arithmetic) is somewhat
similar to reading in this matter; we should use it in all
fields where precision is needed, and thus it has to be
developed early. Mathematical expression, "grammar", and
proof belong in the primary grades, or shortly afterward,
and "college level" science can then be taught in middle
school. Those who do not get it early are likely to have
trouble with the general concepts later.

.............

>What you describe is not the mission or mandate of the public schools.
>Therefore they DO "admit to it" in that there is no pretense that they are
>trying to do what you wish them to do.

>There is a mandate for a "free and appropriate public education in the least
>restrictive environment" that is applicable to special ed students, but that
>buzz phrase means that kids are kept with their peers at their neighborhood
>school as much as possible. In short, a mandate to do exactly what you say
>that the schools should not do. But that is what the parents want, for the
>most part.

Is it? Let the educationists state OPENLY that they oppose
letting bright children proceed more rapidly, and there will
be enough of a public scream to show displeasure. We need
freedom, not democracy; democracy is two wolves and a sheep
discussing the dinner menu.

This will be even more so when it is pointed out that we cannot
get Americans even to learn enough about the basics of "high tech"
to fill the positions.

Most parents still will not want real education, but I believe
that there will be enough noise.

Herman Rubin

unread,
Mar 28, 2000, 3:00:00 AM3/28/00
to
In article <20000327231539...@nso-cr.aol.com>,

SLieber24 <slie...@aol.comNoSpam> wrote:
>In article <38DE93F4...@moreira.mv.com>, Alberto
><junk...@moreira.mv.com> writes:

.................

>>I am criticizing the American public school system, because if it worked the
>>way it is
>>supposed to, my field wouldn't be dominated by immigrants educated elsewhere.
>>I can't get
>>myself to criticize people who have to fight hard to make ends meet, who
>>can't afford
>>anything better than the public system, and who are routinely stifled by it.


>Sorry? The American system is responsible for pupils whose parents do not
>require them to do even minimal effort to keep up in class? Because parents
>hand everything to their child gratis and then are shocked when the kid expects
>to be handed everything for the rest of his/her life? Come on! It takes more
>than the ed. system to bring a kid down - usually it starts at home.

If the American schools would allow those willing and able to
learn to do so, Alberto's field would not be dominated by
immigrants educated elsewhere.

It is not providing the substantially stronger educational
system which those who want an education and have the mental
ability to achieve it which is the failure. It is these
who are being mentally retarded by being held back by those
who cannot or will not learn, and by teachers and administrators
who do not or will not recognize this, or possibly even know
the subject beyond the pitiful level being presented.

Alberto

unread,
Mar 28, 2000, 3:00:00 AM3/28/00
to

Herman Rubin wrote:

> >And that's the sore point. As far as the public system goes, it is not a
> >choice if it isn't the same size of the public system. Do you have such a
> >choice ? Do we ? Does America ? I sincerely doubt it.
>
> Who cares what size it is? Alchemy had a "system".
> With one experiment, it was overthrown, and chemistry
> was built on the few facts of alchemy.

Herman, this is here and now. What's the good of vouchers if there aren't enough
school seats to absorb the kids who receive them ? Increasing the amount of money
available to match a fixed amount of goods is called inflation.


Alberto.

Alberto

unread,
Mar 28, 2000, 3:00:00 AM3/28/00
to

Bob LeChevalier wrote:

> Why wouldn't it? If American school produced twice as many qualified people
> as you need, then you would simply need more.

You don't know that. I don't know that. No one knows that. All we can say is, we need
more than we're producing.

> "Dynamic" and "challenge" and "professional satisfaction" sound like the
> types of things that motivate 40 year olds. The average teen choosing a
> major wants to make money, have fun, and do something interesting, meanwhile
> while having lots of time for enjoying the opposite sex. Hard work CAN be
> fun, but you talk 12 to 14 hour days, and that is not fun for anyone. Nor
> does it fit most people's idea of "individual freedom".

Tell me, then, why computing is a predominantly young profession.


> Meanwhile, they can make just as much money as a systems programmer, and
> almost as much as a COBOL programmer, and they don't need to work nearly as
> hard in college to get there. After all, there is a shortage in the field,
> and most of the computing profession doesn't need programming theory or
> higher math.

No, they cannot make nearly as much money programming in Cobol. And there's a shortage
of good people. The issue isn't whether you know this or that - including not only
programming theory or higher math, but just about anything I can think of, including
Cobol programming - the issue is being able to learn what's needed in a jiffy. Chances
are that whatever you know is going to be obsolete within the next five to ten years, if
not earlier; what we're looking for isn't people who know, but people who can learn.
Come back in 10 years, and I bet Java, HTML, and all the buzzwords of today, will have
been; but the basics will still be there. That's why we learn programming theory and
higher math: not because we need to know them, but because they feed into our learning
processes and allow us to learn more, faster, and deeper.

> What you describe in your statements about work ethic is an attitude and an
> academic bent that is generally associated with medical school. The training
> is extremely demanding to get an MD, and the result is that doctors are paid
> a helluva lot more than computer people. The people who want to work that
> hard generally are going to med school, which also offers dynamic challenge,
> professional satisfaction, and personal freedom, plus more money and public
> respect.

Actually no, if you tally revenue and expense out, I believe we're better off. I don't
pay one hundred grand a year worth of liability insurance!

> The ones who flip burgers do so because they don't want to work any harder
> than burger flipping requires. They get what they want. Besides, someone
> has to flip burgers, otherwise all the workaholic programmers would never be
> able to eat. %^)

No, I don't think so. I see it every day, someone from my daughter's high school class,
flipping burgers because they desperately need that income. And the day we can't find
burger flippers, we'll have machines doing that for us. It's the other way around, we
flip burgers by hand because we have hands to flip burgers.

It's called "Parkinson's Law", you know. It never fails. C. Northcote Parkinson hit it
round on the head.


Alberto.


>


SLieber24

unread,
Mar 29, 2000, 3:00:00 AM3/29/00
to
In article <8bqsct$1h...@odds.stat.purdue.edu>, hru...@odds.stat.purdue.edu
(Herman Rubin) writes:

>>>>Bull. 15% are not. Where's your source for this statistic? (One friend's
>sig
>>>>line says "49% of all statistics are made up on the spot - oops! I meant
>47%")
>
>>>The 15% is one standard deviation above the mean. These can
>>>go that much faster and leave out the unnecessary repetition.
>
>>Given the old definition of IQ, one standard deviation above the mean 100
>>would be an IQ of 115, and a mental age for a 7 year old of 8. That means
>at
>>most one grade ahead, and presumes that their maturity level has kept up
>with
>>their intellectual level (which it usually hasn't). For a 7 year old to be
>>doing 7th grade (12 year old work) that would correspond to a 170 IQ, more
>>than 4 standard deviations above the mean. Far less than 15%.
>
>The lack of repetition needed reduces the time needed, so the
>effect would be more than 15%. Now squeeze out the other time
>wasting aspects, and that 7 year old gets up to at least 10.
>There are schools which start middle school at 5th grade.

Provided that 7-year-old doesn't need the repetition. Very few of those are in
that category - IQ or no. I have a 150 +/- IQ, and I still need repetition in
some areas. And I did as a child, as well.

>>But of course that would also presume middle school level independence and
>>maturity, and also that the parents had supported the child learning at an
>>accelerated rate from birth. The 170 IQ kid who has not been exposed to
>>books until they hit kindergarten would probably not be all that far ahead
>of
>>his peers in 2 years. 1-2 years at most.
>
>More than that. In reading, one should essentially complete the
>tutelage in the primary grades, as used to be the case. The 130
>IQ child can do that by age 6 or 7 at the latest. My son was at
>that point at age 5.

You confuse IQ with "I will." I suggest you try out your theories in a real
school or with pupils who are not subject to your personal coersion (like your
son was) and see how far you get.

>>I have an IQ measured over 160, and my parents decided not to let me skip -
>>the schools would have allowed it (thereby proving Herman wrong). may
>>parents felt that since I could deal with kids my own age, I was not going
>to
>>be able to handle kids even older. They were right - I never learned to get
>>along with kids older than me until I got to high school.
>
>It is quite common for gifted children to have far more difficulty
>in getting along with others their age than with older children
>and with adults. We do have educationists who claim that those
>who do not get along well with their age group are not gifted;
>advancement is not uniform in all areas, and it seems, from the
>discussions in the gifted mailing list, that most of the teachers
>seem to be incapable of recognizing the gifted, and even more so
>are opposed to advancing them.

It's quite common for many gifted children to have trouble getting along with
anyone. This doesn't do them a service in real life.

>>Academically, I was allowed to work at my own pace in reading, and I was
>>reading 6th grade material in kindergarten according to my aunt. But I
>never
>>was motivated to read college level material until I was well into high
>>school.
>
>One who can read at this level should be using reading for
>learning subjects, not "literature". Did you know about
>the college material, and did you have the background to
>understand it? Mathematics (not arithmetic) is somewhat
>similar to reading in this matter; we should use it in all
>fields where precision is needed, and thus it has to be
>developed early. Mathematical expression, "grammar", and
>proof belong in the primary grades, or shortly afterward,
>and "college level" science can then be taught in middle
>school. Those who do not get it early are likely to have
>trouble with the general concepts later.

I knew about it. I tried to read a calculus text when I was 13. Boring. Kids
don't WANT what you think they need. Remember, choice isn't just for the adults
- kids can choose NOT to conform to your requirements.

> .............
>>What you describe is not the mission or mandate of the public schools.
>>Therefore they DO "admit to it" in that there is no pretense that they are
>>trying to do what you wish them to do.
>
>>There is a mandate for a "free and appropriate public education in the least
>>restrictive environment" that is applicable to special ed students, but that
>>buzz phrase means that kids are kept with their peers at their neighborhood
>>school as much as possible. In short, a mandate to do exactly what you say
>>that the schools should not do. But that is what the parents want, for the
>>most part.
>
>Is it? Let the educationists state OPENLY that they oppose
>letting bright children proceed more rapidly, and there will
>be enough of a public scream to show displeasure. We need
>freedom, not democracy; democracy is two wolves and a sheep
>discussing the dinner menu.

But educationists, as you call them, DON'T oppose letting bright children
proceed more rapidly.

>This will be even more so when it is pointed out that we cannot
>get Americans even to learn enough about the basics of "high tech"
>to fill the positions.
>
>Most parents still will not want real education, but I believe
>that there will be enough noise.
>--

Why hasn't there been, then?

gabor

unread,
Mar 29, 2000, 3:00:00 AM3/29/00
to
In article <20000329004226...@nso-cc.aol.com>,

slie...@aol.comNoSpam (SLieber24) wrote:
> In article <8bqsct$1h...@odds.stat.purdue.edu>,
hru...@odds.stat.purdue.edu
> (Herman Rubin) writes:
>

>
> >>I have an IQ measured over 160, and my parents decided not to let
me skip -
> >>the schools would have allowed it (thereby proving Herman wrong).
may
> >>parents felt that since I could deal with kids my own age, I was
not going
> >to
> >>be able to handle kids even older. They were right - I never
learned to get
> >>along with kids older than me until I got to high school.
> >
> >It is quite common for gifted children to have far more difficulty
> >in getting along with others their age than with older children
> >and with adults. We do have educationists who claim that those
> >who do not get along well with their age group are not gifted;
> >advancement is not uniform in all areas, and it seems, from the
> >discussions in the gifted mailing list, that most of the teachers
> >seem to be incapable of recognizing the gifted, and even more so
> >are opposed to advancing them.
>
> It's quite common for many gifted children to have trouble getting
along with anyone. This doesn't do them a service in real life.
>

Sandi, this is where the "generally prevailing attitudes" in education
do so much damage. You find that some bright kids do not fit in easily,
start labelling them as "gifted", and blame them for their disability
to make friends. Maybe they have no one to make friends with? Some
children figure out pretty quickly that being good in school does not
necessarily make them popular, other do not. Kids are not in your
school out of their free will, and they are under no obligation to fit
into a social environment that is to their distaste. If they are not
able to fit in socially, and there is no easy way to shift them to
another educational environment, the best thing to do for them is to
get them through school as quickly as possible.

"Real life", as you call it, is a lot more interesting than school.
These days it should be possible for most people (particularly if they
are intelligent) to find a work environment where they can be with
their peers. It's amazing how life can improve if you can spend it with
people you can talk with.

All the best,

Gabor


Sent via Deja.com http://www.deja.com/
Before you buy.

It is loading more messages.
0 new messages