This article tackles a pretty controversial topic, the idea of tracking and segregating groups of students based on ability. I don't think this a good idea and I do not agree with it. The fact that students that need more time to learn get less is to say the least, disappointing. The article also discusses the importance of an important environment.
The article claims that in the "less abled" classrooms teachers tend to be less encouraging and more punitive. I don't think punishment, or excessive punishment is what those students need. Sure, maybe some of them need some firm discipline but I think we've learned in this class that it is important to accompany discipline with some kind of positive reinforcement afterwards. This is true in any job.
I liked the line the "rich get richer and poor get poorer". In this interpretation, the smart kids get smarter and the slower learners get slower. This has to stop since it's more of the same, and the same thing over and over again often isn't good and in this case certainly isn't, it's not giving everyone the same chance.
I think it is important to track the alternative choices and figure out a abetter way so that everyone has a chance to come out the same.
When you say, "Sure, maybe some of them need some firm discipline but I think we've learned in this class that it is important to accompany discipline with some kind of positive reinforcement afterwards. This is true in any job." The one question I have is whether or not education should in any way be synthesized with labor? and if so what kind of occupational culture of power would be passed down? For me personally I don't think discipline is necessarily a factor in education, its an easy way out. When children act in ways we consider "misbehaving" its often just energy directed and focused in ways we don't consider socially acceptable. If we work towards understanding why the child is acting out in that way then we can re-focus that energy.
ReplyDeleteI most certainly agree. Well said.
ReplyDelete