Maybe you could explain your reasoning in saying sending kids to learn separate things at separate schools is fine, but having them take some subjects separately in the same school isn’t? Because it makes no sense so far.
Because, unlike you, I don’t view Gymnasium education as better than vocational education streams, or the other 3 German education streams, just different.
Tell you what, you get your fellow travellers to couch it in non-shithead terms, and I might be persuaded that it isn’t all just elitism.
Hell, just raise your fucking voice against the way they talk about children, and I might give a fuck what you think.
OK, so Vancouver went from regular, accelerated, and AP classes to just regular and AP classes. My kids’ school has CPB, CPA, accelerated, and AP classes. Is four tiers too many? Too few? If they had vocational classes and dropped those would that be a terrible thing? Is it terrible that Vancouver only had three tiers instead of four or five? What’s the right number of gradations and why?
Once again, the idea that anyone can or should be “persuaded” that some children are not in fact more “elite” than others at mathematical aptitude or anything else is simply a request to participate in your 24/7 war on reality. It’s not a reasonable precondition for engagement and it’s certainly not a rational basis for educational policymaking.
It has all the same problems of elitism, and of kids who get assigned to the ‘lower’ stream finding it difficult or impossible to catch up later. And it has the same advantage for the more academic kids; they get to progress faster when students who struggle with the work or just aren’t interested in learning aren’t in the class. The latter especially makes a huge difference.
You still haven’t come up with a reason why separate schools are okay but separate classes within the same school are not.
‘fellow travellers’? I’m not responsible for anyone else’s posts or for persuading you to think differently about them.
I think kids deserve the chance to develop their talents, and that this benefits society, too. A standard education aimed at the average student is not an effective way to do this for kids at either extreme of ability, so they should get special provision. And I don’t think we should be making kids suffer unnecessarily, either, which can easily happen to those outside the norm.
It might be tempting to cut provision for smart kids on the basis that they’ll probably do okay anyway, but they have as much right to a good education as other kids, and probably have the potential to provide more benefit to society if well educated. If that’s elitist, then too bad.
Let’s remember: Observing the plain fact that some kids are elite and some are slow-witted regarding math ability is what “shitheads” do, but this is perfectly acceptable:
Because I was a kid, I’ve taught kids, and I have kids. Absent adult encouragement , what normal kid prefers extra calculus lessons over socializing?
I will grant that there are kids who would, but I think they would strongly skew to those having some kind of social disorder. And I’m only talking about normal kids.
The fact this self-proclaimed parent and connoisseur of alternative schooling methods has never met a child who is interested in learning math without a “social disorder” speaks volumes about the kinds of attitudes inculcated by these schools he prefers. We can all be slow-witted together and go chew our cud in the field, achieving equity.
No it doesn’t. Vocation is not a “lower” stream. Academics is not the only fruit.
But you are responsible for the complicit silence you give to their posts.
Something they will still be able to do within their classes
I think the benefit of better socialized kids and reduction in elitism outweighs the supposed benefits of some kids doing some of the maths that they’ll do anyway in a separate classroom.
Only an elitist thinks of having to go to class with a broad range of kids as “suffering”.
a) These kids are still going to be well-educated
b) I don’t agree that elitist education = benefit to society.
I’d wager long odds he was one of those gifted kids interested in learning maths himself.
But it’s a non sequitur. No one was suggesting kids would prefer extra calculus over socialising, we were saying they’d prefer extra calculus over doing make-work, or twiddling their thumbs because they’ve finished the lesson early. And the kind of kids who want to learn calculus are likely to find better socialising opportunities in the calculus class anyway.
Or someone with a social disorder, huh?
There’s a lot of pulling-up-the-ladder involved in the current anti-excellence movement in education. I see alums of challenging programs leading the claim that those programs are racist or need to be dissolved for some other reason. How they got in if the criteria were so racist or when they plan to give back the earnings they’ve accumulated as a result of their educational credentials never seems to get addressed.
It’s a subset of a larger left-wing hypocrisy where people who ultimately landed in influential jobs where they have a voice in national policy want to deny the things that greatly increase the chance of success in life (two-parent households, stable homes without abuse, rigorous schools, the inculcation of self-discipline, avoiding criminal behavior and drug abuse) to others, most especially to the minorities they claim to be interested in helping.
Wow, you’re so right! The scales have fallen from my eyes and now I see that what the left wants is to deny two-parent households and abuse-free homes and other things to the American people. How could I have been so blind!?!?
Nope, I was an English and earth sciences geek at school. I was friends with the maths nerds, though. Because …
…we were never into creating nerd ghettoes.
I’m sure the actual social disorders in the honours group are as common as actual celiac disease in the same set.
Like I said, at my daughter’s school, kids with various challenges, including strong SAD, are streamed with the other kids. They have special classes, as well, but that’s based on their needs, not their (parent’s) wants. And the special classes are related to their conditions, not their supposed superiority. Big difference. And what about the maths nerd without SAD? Or the non-nerd with it?
Gosh, what a familiar laundry list… if only those “slow-witted” kids had more self-discipline, right? Preferably flogged into them, no doubt.
You got “we should flog kids” out of “child abuse is a problem and there should be less of it?”
I guess you were in the slow-witted reading group once upon a time.
Yes, yes, you’re so superior because you were friends with nerds in other subjects. 
Not sure it’s got much to do with the honours group, since you came out with that charming statement right after about 5 different Dopers said they wanted to learn Calculus at school.
SAD?
You seem to think it’s being in a class with a wide range of kids that causes suffering. That was not what I was saying at all. I’m saying being in a class where the pace is far too slow and you’re bored all the time causes suffering. Bullying is also a problem, but not only or mainly for gifted kids.
a) Not as well as they could have been.
b) Apparently you agree with it when it’s the gymnasium system.
You’re quoting yourself (or paraphrase-quoting), but when the post you’re referencing is right there it’s baffling that you are either so willing to lie about what you said, or are so unconnected to your own meaning that you just say things without understanding them.
The point you actually made there was not that “there should be less child abuse” but rather the non sequitur “left-wing policy makers want there to be fewer homes without abuse”:
It was clear that he disapproves of these supposed left-wing goals.
Well, certainly superior to the one who wants to practice nerd segregation, yes.
…in response to my observation that normal kids don’t pile on extra work when they could be chilling. Which I stand by.
And I’ve gotten nothing but pushback for a proven solution to that issue.
Sure, nobody ever bullies the minority kid, or the “slow-witted” kid
Excuse me if I don’t take the word on pedagogy of someone who thinks “slow-witted” is a fine thing to call kids.
No, I don’t, because unlike your bitter never-got-to-be-elitist-until-later ass, I don’t consider vocational school to be “lesser”. So fuck off with the strawman.
No, I got “we should flog Black kids” out of you reciting a playlist of “Racist Hits: The Reagan Years”
Why have “regular” versus “accelerated” classes at all? The norm has been/should be to let students have some choice in the classes they take, in which case you would expect students interested in studying mathematics at university to take more high-level mathematics classes for their high-school diploma, and students interested in literature to study more advanced classical Greek.
No need to offer segregated versions of the same exact coursework or the same exact classes or modules.
I think you and I are agreeing. This whole thread is bemoaning that Vancouver schools are going from three to two, and how that will somehow destroy the kids’ future. No one has said why three was the right number. My kids had four tiers – would it be destroying their future if they went from 4 to 3? Should there be 10 tiers? Or, maybe, as you say, kids with the same coursework can be in the same class.
I can see a real use for AP classes, though, since kids can actually place out of college classes and spend more time focusing on their major in college.