At 5/31/2007 10:44 AM, Christopher Smith wrote:
>On May 31, 2007, at 10:08 AM, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
>> Later on when we'd grown up we used one lad as a dartboard, another we
>> tortured over a heating radiator and with lighted matches and the
>> real highlight
>> of my school career was hanging a lad from the classroom girders
>> (yes, really
>> hanging with a rope round his neck - we got into trouble for that
>> one!)
>>
>> It was a good school though.
>
>Wow.
>
>By what criteria was it a good school?
I believe it produced a lot of college graduates.
I think there are 2 points of thought on this issue.
1. The old school was good enough and produced a lot of well educated people.
2. The old school had a lot of "personal" problems like bullying and
self-esteem.
I think the problem with the new school approach (ie. no grading because it
causes students who don't get good grades "self-esteem" issues) are out to
lunch.
Also, I think mainstreaming is OK, provided that the students who need
extra help have "individual attendants". But, giving them the same grades
and promotions is beyond stupid.
And, now, they wonder why high school graduates can't read or do math?
Phil Daley < AutoDesk >
http://www.conknet.com/~p_daley
_______________________________________________
Finale mailing list
Finale@shsu.edu
http://lists.shsu.edu/mailman/listinfo/finale
