Quote:
Originally Posted by Pugchief
Can either of you articulate why you think think that's a good idea? I have several family members who are teachers and their experience is that "problem students" (which I assume you mean behavioral issues) are disruptive and ruin the learning environment for the non-problem students. I think children would thrive better in an optimum learning environment. I also believe that the level should be tailored as well, i.e., smarter kids should be in accelerated learning environments, average students in normal grade level, and struggling/learning disabled students in specially tailored programs with extra staff and extra educational help.
One of the craziest things I've seen lately in public education (and there are many) is the idea that since some kids can't read/math we should dumb down the curriculum so that the low kids don't feel bad. Some have removed honors and AP classes for this purpose. I don't see how removing a proper level of learning from the high kids helps the low kids. This reeks of the whole participation trophy nonsense and is turning our youth into a bunch of weak snowflakes.
What am I missing?
|
Perhaps I can explain why the playing field needs to be level. I’m PRO charter schools. However, when a public school district has greatly reduced funding due to charter school support and almost all the expensive, learning challenged students are in their classrooms, the equal education tips favorably for the charter schools.
To top it all off, parents of charter school students vote down necessary, basic funding of public schools. They can afford private and screw the rest of the students. I think if most people could witness the issues public schools deal with in their expenses for ALL students, they would wake up. The division of the classes of people is getting greater.