Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Throwing everyone into the same class together is not really fair, b/c it teaches to the dumbest kid there. So everyone else is just sol? And I'm sorry, as to the self-esteem issues - geezus, this is why we have the most selfish bunch of people running around society now. B/c so many parents are obsessed with their self-esteem and b/c they never learn about winning, losing, and real life.
I think it very inappropriate to call any kid "dumb".
Let's be honest. In most classes there is going to be a child that is the smartest and one that is the "dumbest". Now we use the term lowest, but it means the same thing. Facts are facts.
There is legitimate research on self-esteem and there is the watered-down, mass-produced, easy-to-digest crap where everybody walks around with a smiley face sticker that says "I Like ME!!!" - most people associate self-esteem programs with the latter, which is more common. That's too bad.
Regarding political correctness, I have to laugh when people say we have to 'get rid' of it. Argue, if you wish, over the degree to which it should be practiced, but political correctness is little more than another name for manners. Does anybody deny that manners have some value? In this case, one poster feels it's unfair to call kids dumb, and a second poster feels that's just pc nonsense. But would that second poster refer to a child with Down Syndrome as an idiot or retard or *****-for-brains? Probably not, but does that mean that s/he is being a pc weenie for not using those terms? Different line in the sand for different people, that's all - I don't think anybody would want to live in a society where nobody had any regard for anyone else.
Unfortunately, maf763, I have to spread the rep around before giving you some more. I do not like the sound of some inflammatory words, such as "dumb". In any class, yes, it's true, there will be a top student and a lowest student. That is any class, including TAG classes, AP, IB, etc.
I personally do not like the use of "retard" that I see on this forum quite frequently, usually directed at other posters.
I'm not saying that we should be calling kids dumb. I just don't find Stan4 use of the word offensive in the context that it was used. He meant the lowest performing student(s).
That's not PC. I'm not a big fan of the self-esteem movement, but I went to school when kids were labeled dumb and worse, and it was not good.
There are teachers who can teach to all ability levels and those who can't.
The problem is, Katiana, although what you say about "there are teachers who can teach to all ability levels" is true, those teachers usually can (and do) adjust the materials they teach. For example, if a teacher is teaching The Odyssey to lower-ability learners, she or he can begin with the miniseries or with one of the many adapted versions, maybe even stopping there without going on to, say, the Fitzgerald translation.
With the AP, by contrast, adjusting the materials down to the least able students in the class is essentially impossible.
Saying that there are teachers who can teach to all ability levels is not the same thing as saying that they can take the same difficult text (let's say Alexander Pope's "Essay on Criticism") and make it equally comprehensible to all learners.
Unfortunately, an AP teacher whose class has a disproportionately high levels of learners who are unable or unprepared or unwilling (or all three) can only manage to skim the surface of much of the more difficult material in order to make it reasonably comprehensible to the majority of the class. This means that, for example, the teacher must primarily focus on what the words mean -- the most fundamental level of understanding -- rather than on how the author used words, rhetorical strategies, structure, and argumentation to convey her point, which is the focus of the exam.
Let's look at it this way: if you were a high-school varsity basketball coach who had to admit any player at all onto the team who showed up, your ability to work with those players would be severely compromised. It's quite difficult to teach three-point shooting to players who are five foot six, who don't really want to learn basketball all that much, and who don't know much about the game.
^^^That did not seem to be the case with any of the AP courses my kids took, and the school did not have any official pre-reqs for these courses. The kids did have to attend an orientation before signing up for the courses that explained what would be required.
^^^That did not seem to be the case with any of the AP courses my kids took, and the school did not have any official pre-reqs for these courses. The kids did have to attend an orientation before signing up for the courses that explained what would be required.
That's great for your kids. Unfortunately, not all kids have your kids' experience, and I'm concerned that with the CB's pressure to include more and more students -- prepared or not -- in AP, the education given there will be more and more watered down.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
