jon kelland wrote:
> --- Michael Atherton <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> > Diversity in this context does not mean being "made
> > up of distinct characteristics,
> > qualities, or elements." Rather, it is a social
> > agenda with a proscribed set of attitudes
> > and behaviors. What we should strive for is not
> > conformity to a trendy collection of
> > buzz words, but respect for the fundamental right of
> > an individual to be different from
> > the norm. A right that proponents of "diversity"
> > often fail to recognize.
>
> I fully agree with Michael that our educational system
> must promote diversity by allowing for the interests
> and abilities of each individual.
Interesting, I don't think that I ever stated that the education
system should promote diversity. I stated that individuals
should be allowed to be different from the norm, not
that a high degree of variability would necessarily be good
for education. Greater diversity actually makes the educational
process more difficult.
> What Michael fails to realize, is that by calling "for
> the fundamental right of an individual to be different
> from the norm" we need radical reform (not very
> radical in itself, but radical because the powers that
> be would be hard pressed to see it happen).
I had to think about this for a long time, because Mr. Kelland
has adroitly used my premise to draw conclusions that
I don't agree with. First off, the right of a individual
to be different does not disallow the society from setting
norms and standards of behavior. Secondly, although
individuals should be allowed to vary from norms, the
society always has the right to set limits on behavior. Lastly,
children are not afforded all of the rights granted to
adults.
> We need to get rid of grades and standardized tests -
> they are nothing more than tools to produce "a good
> student". What "good student" means is having a
> certain set of beliefs, a certain set of relationships
> to authority, a hard and fast role that makes it
> necessary for each student to fall in line. The "good
> student" code really means that we want to set up our
> system so that there are winners and losers - the
> winners play by the rules and turn out how we engineer
> them, and the losers are individuals that resist our
> engineering. Students are not stupid. They realize
> there is a set of expectations for their actions, for
> what they should learn, how they should answer
> (think), how they should interact with other students
> and teachers, what they should feel. Staying in line
> is internalized and any individualness is watered
> down, and spirit squashed. This is why students drop
> out - they are tired of playing the game and they see
> that even if they do play, it does not guarantee any
> results.
I don't believe that the schools should be in the business
of indoctrinating children in social mores, but they do need
to be able to require children to conform to behavioral
standards that are directly related to the educational
process. Testing is one standard that I feel is absolutely
essential to the educational process. You cannot function
effectively as a teacher unless you know that students
are comprehending and retaining what you are trying
to teach. Schools and the society cannot know if teaching
is effective without testing. The "game" as Mr. Kelland calls it
has much the same character in the society as it does in
the schools: you conform to certain standards or your
drop out. I dropped out.
> Reform also requires setting up schools so that they
> are not only responsive to the needs and interests of
> students, but they are also set up to allow students
> to have actual power. This would allow for Michael's
> "fundamental right of an individual". Until we see
> these reforms, students will (largely) continue to be
> uninterested in learning and school; unable to realize
> their individuality or potential; and most of all, we
> will continue to see the great disparity of students
> we allow (cause) to fail and those that happen to
> succeed.
As an instructor I believe that you have multiple responsibilities.
You are responsible for insuring that students learn the material
in your course. You are also responsible for maintaining the
standards of the institution that you are teaching for. And lastly,
you have a responsibility to the society to insure that the larger
goals of the educational process are met. Student centered
approaches focus only on one of these responsibilities. I
strongly support giving students power over decisions as
long as they don't limit my ability to fulfill my other responsibilities.
After teaching for several years it dawned on me that I am
not solely responsible for making my courses interesting.
It is also the responsibility of students to bring interest to
the classroom, and if they cannot they need bring the
determination to work through the material. Not everything
of value is interesting and enjoyable.
Michael Atherton
Prospect Park
_______________________________________
Minneapolis Issues Forum - Minnesota E-Democracy
Post messages to: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subscribe, Unsubscribe, Digest option, and more:
http://e-democracy.org/mpls
