I’ve got a kid in my second-grade class described by this. A morning math problem for my kids might be something like this:
Some kids will spend fifteen minutes answering the first two pairs of questions and be completely baffled by the third pair (not realizing that “no” is an acceptable answer). This kid, she’ll figure out the first three pairs in less than two minutes, and then open a book to read. If I push her, she can figure out the commutative property of multiplication from the challenge question; but if I don’t push her, she’ll happily continue reading, not working herself into a deep understanding of math available to few children her age.
NCLB strongly encourages me to pay attention to the struggling students and leave her to her book. I think this is a major mistake.
Agreed, Cisco. My complaint is that, if anything, NCLB makes this problem WORSE, by requiring schools to get something like 98% of students up to grade level. there are two ways to break a standard distribution: either place “grade level” about two or three standard deviations below what the average student can do, or focus nearly all your attention on those below grade level. Or you can do both, which is what most states appear to be doing.
I’d much rather have a law that uses complex algorithms to assess student progress in early grades, matching progress in early grades against demographic information to build a model of projected student success in later grades; schools should then be judged based on whether students meet or exceed their individual expected progress. This would give schools a little breathing room with their IQ 80 students, but would require them to get on their game for the IQ 120 students.
at the risk of totally hijacking my own thread, (and as a thanks to whatever poster turned me on to this) the US government needs to study up on W. Edwards Deming. Then before passing any new legislation they need to actually understand what they are getting into.
a kind of similar thing I deal with, I deal with the Washington state department of licensing on a regular basis. if I need to make a change to one of the forms I use all the time I have to send them a copy of the new form BEFORE I can use it…which means I basically have to send them the new form with new ideas, then get permission, THEN USE THE FUCKING FORM only to discover (shocking) that my changes werent perfect, at which point I make new changes and start the process over again.
the right way to do it is pretty simple, allow me to use the new form which is 90% identical to the old one, make my changes, make my changes to the new one, make changes to the new new one, then when I have a final version that works perfectly send them a copy. It is basic business 101 and the government is deliberately fucking with it.
no child left behind is a perfect example of this, to do this right the current NCLB would have been the first trial run, then when they discover they are fucking over smart kids they would make changes to the system to accommodate them, then after a trial run of that identify more problems and make another trial run…continuously until you reach perfection.
in short the American Government is pretty much retarded. (or Intellectually Disabled if you must)
If I had to form a stereotype of those kids…say one word?
LAZY!
The brighter they were, the lazier they were. When I taught college they would come into my classes all the time as Frosh…be lazy and get their ass kicked on the first test. Then I had to participate on a conversation that went something like this:
Lazyass student: I think the test that you just gave was too difficult.
Me: Why is that?
LAS: Stammer stammer…eventually comes out with that they got a C on it.
Me: Well, next time you need to study harder. Attend more classes.
LAS: urmmmm hummmm errmmmm…eventually comes up with "Does the administration approve of tests having a low average/most students failing?
Me: The average score was 82 (B).
LAS: No way…you lie! (well more diplomatic)
Me: gets out gradebook, covers names and shows scores to LAS.
LAS: leaves office.
====
I swear, you’d think they’d KNOW that they need to slack less but it still comes as a shock to them. Many of them really, truely have trouble. It is hard to help them because they’ve never needed help in their lives and so have a hard time taking it. They are so used to skating along.
I have no proof, but my observation was that the stellar students tended to be above average in intelligence (say 110-130 if such an IQ scale existed :D) and decided that they didn’t want to flip burgers their whole life.
====
I also FULLY disagree with not funding gifted programs. Those kids need a good butt kickin and it would be good for them and good for society in the long run.
What did you teach? Right through college I never had any problem with classes that were graded primarily by essays, or even multiple choice tests. It was just too easy to eliminate the wrong choices even if I didn’t have a clue as to what the right one was.
A minor point, but I think Jerry Lewis has worked more on behalf of physically handicapped kids. I don’t think “Jerry’s Kids” are anywhere on that particular treadmill.
Look, I don’t support politically correct language as a general rule. And as it goes mental retardation is a perfectly acceptable descriptive term.
That said, though, it is strange that on a board that is devoted (in theory) to fighting ignorance and that was rather intolerant of the use of slurs even before the new rule changes has never seen fit to rule on the use of this one. In addition, many posters here, an otherwise educated and worldly lot, somehow see fit to throw the word around with relative abandon - something I would guess they do not do IRL.
As for the OP - he is quite wrong. Retard is an insult and a slur, and has been for some time. Noninsulting use of this word has nearly vanished. Now, I will agree that it might seem a small distinction that retarded is OK and retard is not - but it really isn’t. Like the parsing of “black” above, using the word as a noun serves to dehumanize a person - using it as an adjective is descriptive.
Using it as an adjective to describe something or somebody not actually retarded is doubly insulting, as a second’s thought will show.
Now, we all have to choose whether we will use such language ourselves, and if so when. Certainly some in this thread have staked out their positions. Frankly I think it makes them sound like second-graders at best.
I don’t think it’s nearly as much as a problem if you accept words can have multiple meanings. I had a friend with a sister with some mid-range mental retardation, sweetest girl you’ll ever meet, I would never want to hurt her, however I have no problem using “retarded” as an insult to someone who’s not retarded (and neither did my friend for that matter), unless, of course, you’re actually using it to insult someone who actually is mentally retarded. I don’t mean any offense to anyone who actually has the conditions that qualify them for mental retardation when I say it, it’s just a descriptive word that happens to draw its roots from a condition. To draw a (probably equally heated) parallel is the word “gay,” I mean, I have gay friends who use “gay” as their default word for stupid/lame/cheap/not fair/unscrupulous etc, I highly doubt they mean offense to gay people unless I didn’t notice their seething self-hatred until now. To me it seems like complaining that using the word “sin” to describe a morally reprehensible action is offensive to left-handed people.
My whole beef with PC-ness is that humans are inclined to develop shorter and more concise terms over time to communicate a concept. Why does the correlation “# of syllables == sensitivity level” exist?
Every time a word gets shortened or acronymed, all of a sudden it is deemed offensive.
You make some good points, but I really believe hate and offense are in the heart, not the words we use to express what’s in our heart. I don’t even have a problem with nigger when a Chris Rock or Dave Chappelle or - to use an example of a white guy - Howard Stern uses it to make me laugh. It’s not hateful in that context. In a roundabout way, it’s beautiful, because its intent is so positive. And retard doesn’t have a fraction of the history that that word does. One of my best friends from 4th grade to 6th grade was slow/challenged/special/retarded/whatever you want to call it, and anytime someone called him a retard with hate or mockery in their intent, I was fiercely defensive of him. But if someone said it neutrally or in a friendly way, I didn’t care and neither did he. Words are just vibrations in our vocal chords; they only have the meaning that we give them.
Oh, well, “you’re a retard” is probably never going to be good. “Joe is mentally retarded” can be. Maybe even “Joe is retarded,” I dunno. It’s harder in text.