Newsgroups: misc.education

>> enhance that enjoyment.  Wholly absent from my view is any desire to
>> target the institutions _specifically_ toward the optimization of
>> geniuses, or toward the production of scientists and technologists for
>> the material betterment of "society" through increased economic
>> product, or even the advancement of our knowledge of the universe.  I
>> don't think these are goals which matter much, and I think that those
>> people (the "geniuses") are very much the ones who can take care of
>> themselves---by definition!

Surely the only thing educational institutions should be targetted
_specifically_ towards, is helping each student achieve his full
potential?  As Prof. Rubin rightly points out, the very bright student
is not merely ignored (ie left to take care of herself) but often
actively hindered in getting an appropriate education. As a scientist
myself, I strongly object to the above characterization of advancement
of knowledge as "not mattering much". Plainly, to the poster it does
not, but to me and many others, it does matter a great deal. Our love
of the subject, and natural curiosity, are what led us to the study of
Science in the first place.

The above attitudes towards the study of Science (or to *any* other
subject, actually) are at the heart of the current malaise in public
education. I would not want my children in any class where advancement
of knowledge, and by implication, personal educational discovery, were
so lightly dismissed. The earlier assertions by Mr. Green that helping
others is in itself good educational experience, seems valid on its
face; but the cost of missed oppurtunity for the smart student is too
readily dismissed. In mathematics at least, the gifted are so
superior to the average student that in an average high school class
they will be denied access to a whole universe of fascination. The
appropriate analogy would be: having first graders who are ready to
read, concentrate instead on helping other students with alphabet
blocks *for eight years*. The skills that Mr. Green feels are so
unimportant, are merely tools that we use to explore mathematics and
the sciences, and yet the average high school education denies them to
the bright students!

Mr.  Green may be perfectly correct in his assertion that the schools
are there, after all, not only to meet the needs of individual students,
but also to serve some other broad purpose for society.  This is all
well and good, but for me and many others the education of our own
children is of primary importance, and if the public schools ar unable
to do the best they can for our individual children, then we shall
desert them.

Finally I object also to the way Mr. Green picks out the bright kids
as being somehow unworthy of being presented with the same level of
personal intellectual challenge, as the other students.  I feel that,
despite the cloaking of the opinion in "advancement of knowledge does
not matter much", or "well it's only because Society needs more
engineers", it's just typical (unfortunately) public education
anti-intellectualism. Mr. Green needs to wise up: smart students take
advanced courses out of curiosity, the joy of discovery, and the
excitement of challenge, and not, as he seems to think, out of a duty
to society to become an engineer, or to advance the frontiers of
knowledge.

Unfortunately, the above mentioned "curiosity, joy of discovery, and
excitement of challenge" are easily extinguished in the mind-numbing
environment of a public high school science and mathematics education.

Perhaps the above is a little intense, but frankly I was pretty put
out by the "advancement of knowledge not mattering much" quote. My
apologies if I've over reacted.

regards,

don pettengill
Newsgroups: misc.education