Re: study of red****rting (late entrance to kndergarten)

hrubin@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
 (Herman Rubin) wrote:
>In article <8udg845cun7po5t63gdahl75n08r694njo@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
>,
>Bob LeChevalier  <lojbab@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> wrote:
>>hrubin@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
 (Herman Rubin) wrote:
>>>Why should a child be at the same stage in all subjects?
>
>>Habit, and the expense required to do something different, and to do
>>so systematically and fairly to ALL kids,
>
>>>We need to get rid of the idea of a "grade"; not just in
>>>elementary school, but even at the graduate level.
>
>>Ain't gonna happen.  Too much desire to define "normal" and then to
>>compare kids to that "normal".
>
>"Normal" kids are not going to be anything but cogs in
>improving our society.

Without the cogs, society breaks down real quick.  And "improving
society" is not something that everyone wants, especially if it means
putting an elite above everyone else. 

Egalitarianism, and tearing down elites is part of our culture, and
has been since the 1620s.

>Do you think this does not happen in the imposed boredom in
>the schools?  

Do you think that 90% of the people who aren't gifted give a damn?

>Children are different, and treating them all
>the same causes real abuse to the ones who do not fit.

Doing anything else costs more money.

>>Flexibility and choice cost money.  Treating all kids alike is much
>>cheaper and doesn't lead to as many accusations of unfairness (which
>>in a litigious society is very expensive).
>
>Not with modern technology.

Yes with modern technology (which costs money, and seldom saves it).

>>>This is true to some extent.  Rigid tracks are not
>>>the answer.  However, a bright kid, given the op****tunity,
>>>will show up, apparently to everyone except teachers, and
>>>often even then.  Why can we not use placement tests often?
>
>>Cost, and insufficient capacity to deal with the results.
>
>Not with modern technology.  Stop thinking in terms of school
>buildings with inmates crammed in a cell all getting the same
>catechism.  Maybe we need it for some, but especially at the
>lower socio-economic cl***** the homogenization keeps the
>cream from rising.

Kids are required BY LAW to have adult supervision.  If they aren't
all doing the same thing, then there needs to be more adults rather
than fewer.  Non-special-ed services in public schools don't cost much
more than day-care.

>Improvements will be made by the cream.

Many of not most people would rather do without the "improvements", if
it requires setting an elite over the common people.

>>>>There is a reason why GT programs tend to not kick in until 3rd or 4th
>>>>grade, and then only for kids much higher than 1 year ahead in "mental
>>>>age".
>
>>>At third grade, one year ahead is an IQ of 112, which 20% have.
>>>About 5% are 2 years ahead in mental age.
>
>>Except that an IQ of 112 does NOT in fact mean that they are "a year
>>ahead" in academic achievement.
>
>No, because they have been deprived.

No, because IQ doesn't measure academic potential.

>			 All of those other variables like
>>mental stimulation, attention span, fine motor skills, and
>>differential rates of development in different subjects, can have at
>>least as large an effect on achievement.
>
>They do and they don't.  I have addressed different rates
>of development in different subjects; get rid of the idea
>that a child should be in the same "grade" for all subjects.

Wishful thinking.

>It gets harder and harder to overcome the dumbing down,
>and the refusal to allow children to think for themselves
>in the academic subjects. 

Correct.  That is because they are CHILDREN and our society does not
want CHILDREN to think for themselves, but to do what the adults tell
them to do.

And that isn't about to change.

>One cannot intelligently debate
>energy policy without knowing the requisite status of our
>science and engineering.

Since universal suffrage isn't going away any time soon, maybe we need
to find a way.

>>Our society is not going to treat kids as anything other than kids
>>based on an IQ test.
>
>Are we going to treat all kids like dumbkopfs? 

No.  Like immature kids, because they are, by definition, immature
kids, until they hit the magic 18, regardless of how intelligent they
are, and then suddenly they are full and mature adults, regardless of
reality, except when it comes to alcohol use.

>Bright kids are kids, not adults, but are not the same as the "typical"
>ones in anything im****tant.

The fact that they aren't adults is the ONLY thing that is im****tant.

>>>as well as the harm done by dumbing down and praising performance at
the dumbed down level. 
>
>>as opposed to the harm caused by pu****ng kids to overachieve?
>
>I did not say to OVERachieve,

I did.  Achieving more than the average, is to many people, already
overachieving.

>>>This harm is at least an appreciable fraction of what the
>>>educationists are being paid.
>
>>Not relevant.  You have to weigh the total costs of change, the
>>possibility of some being harmed by any given change, and the risk
>>that the change will not actually accomplish the goal, and not just
>>the cost of the status quo (which is more than mere salaries). 
>
>>I believe that you have made a similar argument regarding statistical
>>reasoning that you are ignoring here.  You have to know all the
>>possible states in order to make the sort of predictions you are
>>making and we don't know them. 
>
>I said you have to CONSIDER all possible states, not know them.

If you don't know them, it is pretty hard to consider them.

>>>Why not?  Schools should be for "book larnin'", not for
>>>socialization.
>
>>They aren't merely for "book larnin'", never were, and never will be.
>>If there was agreement that they "should be" that is probably what
>>they "would be".
>
>They were before the Deepression.

You keep saying it, but all the evidence I have seen contradicts that
claim.

>>>>The bottom line is that half the people in the country have below
>>>>average intelligence, but they still get to vote, and they aren't
>>>>going to vote for something that is likely to handicap their kids even
>>>>more than the existing system does.
>
>The Founding Fathers were scared stiff of democracy, and
>for excellent reason.  Why should 50.01% of the population
>keep even 5% from using their resources for advancement?

The Founding Fathers lost that battle relatively early on.

>>We have private schools.  You pay for them yourself.  That is why they
>>are called "private".
>
>But we are also required to sup****t the public JUNK.

Because that is what all the rest of "we the people" want.

>>Yes they did.  Public school financing in the early 19th century was a
>>rather dicey prospect.  It is quite arguable that ONLY universal
>>public schooling created the political will for the public to pay for
>>that education.  Similarly, increased funding for higher education has
>>only come with increased rates of college attendance.
>
>No, it was universal op****tunity.

Not even close.  You couldn't be female; you couldn't be black or
native American.  You couldn't be south of Virginia, where higher
education was almost non-existent.  You couldn't be rural, because no
one would find out your capabilities, including you.  And of course
you couldn't be poor, because there weren't scholar****ps.

>>That has been one of the fears of vouchers - that if a certain
>>critical mass of students leave the public school system, that the
>>will to improve them for the other kids (or even to maintain them at
>>their current level) will go away.
>
>As the amount for vouchers is set at less than the
>amount for public school students, I do not see this.

It doesn't matter what the amount is.  It is the fact that most of the
public knows that their kids will be attending public schools that
causes them to want the public schools to be as good as possible.

>>"We're all in this together" is a great motivator for sup****ting a
>>high cost activity, and the costs of education are unlikely to drop.
>
>Again, use technology.

The costs of education are unlikely to drop.

>Much of the cost can be eliminated,

Nope  It will just be replaced by a different cost.

lojbab
Bob LeChevalier - artificial linguist; genealogist
lojbab@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
   Lojban language www.lojban.org