LogFAQs > #966079888

Jabodie posted...

I'll warn you right now that I wrote a bunch of shit that doesn't have any real point. It's just me reflecting on my grade school education:

In some ways. During my first two years of high school, I had a mix of advanced and "regular" level classes and the difference in rigor and level of care was pretty large (one reason is that I was two years "ahead" in math/language, but placed into the regular curriculum). But I also had an issue of being extremely bored in school until I went into the full IB curriculum in my junior and senior years, so I understand the feeling of listlessness as you easily perform well in classes that seem to ask very little of you.

When I did shift into the IB curriculum, the rigor and level of stimulation increased immensely, and some of the questions and challenges that were posed to me were very important in forming who I am today and how I perceive the world. Success and understanding took a lot more effort and were, therefore, more gratifying. But at the same time, I knew that most of the school was basically being babysat and fed test prep for state education exams so the school can maintain its funding.

But at the same time, what can you do if a student simply needs extra resources and time to grasp the same concepts as another student? What can you, as the educator, really do if some students have parents that have time or resources for tutoring and some need to work part-time outside of school? What can you do to help a student that may be depressed or otherwise unmotivated to perform in school? Do you want to invest your time and effort into helping your best student really excel, or helping your struggling students better understand the material offered to them?

But it is natural for these teachers to want to put extra resources into helping their best students succeed. Being there to give advice on college applications, extracurriculars, career paths etc. And, when you enter into an accelerated education path, you will typically be around kids who have parents that are better off and can get good advice by osmosis.

Was it predicated on others receiving worse education? My personal experience comes from receiving a lot of extra attention and encouragement from my teacher throughout my life which has led me to almost never doubt my intelligence in any situation (but I quite often doubt my knowledge or understanding). That comes off as pretty douchey, and it is, but hey what can I say. And I know many, many people can't say the same simply by having less natural talent at the particular set of skills schools ask of you (which may or may not be representative of intelligence). I once had one of my teachers boldly tell me many students simply could not perform the way I do academically, an idea I was very averse to back in high school (and I was arguing with her about it).

My success in school was in no small part thanks to the support and attention I got from my teachers, which in turn helped me develop my skills to achieve my goals to this day. But what does my performance in school really say about me as an individual? I'm not really sure to this day.

What I gather from this experience is that this whole issue revolved around utilitarian value calculations. So it's hard to really ground the debate in objectivity, and Joe can't show how this can possibly go beyond who values placing resources where.