From: led11@ccc.amdahl.com (Lynn Robinson)
Newsgroups: misc.education
Subject: Re: Branding kids, IQ tests, smart vs dumb (Was: Re: Seminar Program)
Date: 23 Jan 93 01:49:16 GMT
Reply-To: led11@JUTS.ccc.amdahl.com (Lynn Robinson)
Organization: Amdahl Corporation, Sunnyvale CA

In article <1993Jan20.111639.19304@athena.mit.edu> Jason W Solinsky writes:
  > In article <30330@castle.ed.ac.uk>, Chris Malcolm writes:
    >> Why not allow the kids to decide how smart they are, simply by letting
    >> them go to whichever paced class they like? Most kids have a pretty good
    >> idea of where they fit in the scholastic pecking order in their various
    >> subjects. Of course some will choose low for an easy life, and some will
    >> ambitiously aim too high and struggle for a bit before dropping down.
    >> But it would probably work at least as well as grading done by tests or
    >> teachers, and would have the great advantage that nobody would feel
    >> unfairly done by.
  >
  > That would be nice. The problem is that at the ages that count, parents 
  > are the overwhelming force behind such decisions. They always seem to 
  > push their kids higher than they should be. The result is that kids that 
  > should not be the "smart" classes are.  I have nothing against children 
  > being able to choose their class. This is fair.  The problem is that in 
  > a public school, the kids who belong in their class suffer because of an 
  > influx of kids who don't. Your idea prevents discrimination
  > against the less intelligent by discriminating against the smart.
  >          Jason W. Solinsky

  I do not see how Chris's idea discriminates against the "smart" people.  
If you wanted to ensure that a student didn't get into a class that was too
advanced, you could require her to pass an exam testing for background or
prerequisite skills before admitting her to the class.  Alternatively,
a teacher could suggest to a student who is having trouble that he/she transfer
to another class (whereupon the student could choose to work harder to catch
up, transfer, or get a poor grade in the course.)  If students were not
simply passed ahead without having the understanding, if they had to pass
entry exams to get into subsequent classes, and if they could attempt
the exam to get into any class at any level, you wouldn't have watered-down
classes and parents would not be able to control the level of the classes
that their children attend.  Perhaps it follows that children should also
have the right to choose not to take a course in a certain subject - i.e.
we adults don't have a right to control their minds.

  I think this proposal is a very good solution and I hope to see it
discussed more.  To me it seems like the obvious answer to many issues which
have been raised on this thread such as kids not being equally "gifted" 
in all areas (since students could choose to take higher or lower level 
courses in the different areas).  Moreover, if it became standard operating
procedure to have students of several different ages in a class, I don't think 
there would be nearly as much stigma about being different, e.g. labelling
people as "nerdy" or "dumb".  (At least I don't think there would be more
stigma than there is today.) 

  I wish things had been this way when I was in school - it would have 
been a huge motivator for me to see how quickly I could advance in 
my favorite subjects and to be with others who shared my
interests.  As it was, I skipped a grade and was given a hard time
because I was different and smaller than the others.  If I could have
chosen to take gym class with less athletic kids, it would have 
made my life easier since I suffered from the dreaded "always the last one 
picked for the team" syndrome.  I was also bored and unmotivated because
much of the material in most of my classes was too easy for me and I 
didn't have to work very hard in my classes until I entered college.   
I believe I could have mastered most of the required elementary and 
high school subjects in much less time than the 11 years for which 
I was sentenced to attend compulsory schools.  

  Thus I ask again:  why do we not simply allow students to move as 
fast as they can in any subject by allowing them access to more
advanced courses, allowing them to be with their intellectual peers,
and allowing them to study independently for credit?
The system of compulsory "grade levels" we have today is blatantly 
ageist.   Can anyone come up with a justification for
continuing this?   I don't even think "socialization" is a good one -
the grouping together of kids of *exactly* the same age for 12 years
doesn't seem necessary or natural and often has negative side effects.

   Lynn Robinson    lynn@ras.amdahl.com