Thomas Swift wrote:
"An obvious answer is to incorporate schools that are
designed specifically to meet the needs of
disadvantaged kids. Grouping kids allows us to put
resources directly where they are needed, and just as
important, would allow for a closer accounting of how
the money is spent."
Did separate but equal begin to work recently without
someone letting me know? Grouping learners in different facilities based on
ability is necessarily divisive. The same friendly, polite parental
advocacy for funds to be dedicated to one's own child we've seen on this
list will become full-fledged competition in the electoral process between
the interests of upper- and lower-level learners. I don't believe this form
of competition will be healthy or constructive. Given the strong
correlation between income and academic achievement, and the parallel link
between income and political clout, which group do you suppose will come out
on top in such a funding fight? And what will the effects of such an
outcome be on the disadvantaged kids we're all concerned about?
Condensing "disadvantaged kids" gives a wonderful
opportunity for a district to excuse low student achievement in the special
schools concerned, and raise the graduation rates and test scores in the
other, "normal" schools. A method of looking better without really
accomplishing anything.
And really. Is there nothing a special needs student can
teach an above-average student? Do homogenous schools create well-balanced,
tolerant people? Can't upper-level kids be a resource to help their peers
succeed?
Robin Garwood
Marcy Holmes
_______________________________________
Minneapolis Issues Forum - A Civil City Civic Discussion - Mn E-Democracy
Post messages to: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subscribe, Unsubscribe, Digest option, and more:
http://e-democracy.org/mpls
