That doesn't really have anything to do with anything.
I never actually finished that argument though, I just stopped replying. I was going to say something about how the EPA changes its mission with each presidential administration so it's only ideal when there isn't a Republican in office.
There is a correlation between poor performance at school and wealth disparity though, so I'll have to respectively disagree with you there. While something definitely needs to be done about encouraging children from low income backgrounds to perform better at school, whether NUT is the solution for that is up for debate. I wouldn't be so quick to cast aspersions given the good intention behind it.
Ah I suppose <.<I just hated the mixed ability classes that I had because it was invariably full of idiots, Science and Maths were segregated on ability but English wasn't. Aaand guess which one was full of trogs ._.I just don't like how the high achievers are held back by homogenising the classroom to bring up the averages.
In general, those born with more wealth usually get better grades than those with less wealth according to years of research, so it's really not true that there isn't a correlation between wealth and success. I'm going to guess that NUT's reasoning in eliminating skill level separation is so that it forces the lowest/easiest curriculum to be taught meaning that least intelligent students benefit the most and the most intelligent students to benefit the least, thus closing the 'knowledge gap.' Or maybe they're just looking out for themselves and they don't want to be bothered with higher curriculum and having to teach multiple different skill levels.
I agree with you there. The way group-work was focused often left me doing all the work.
Ehh... I didn't read the article so I'm not sure what stance they're arguing from, but tracking can lead to some real discrimination problems as grades aren't always an indicator of intelligence and you have many instances where a student may have the intelligence yet lack the resources and proper environment to cultivate it.A woman I work with was born and raised in the Philippines where tracking in education is a thing. While she was in the top tier for her schooling system she saw how awful people in the lower tiers were treated by both her peers and staff even though in many cases it wasn't that these kids were stupid it's just that they didn't grow up in an environment conducive to learning.
I have to ask, even if there is a correlation with wealth - who cares? I agree with Commissar that poorer kids can grow up in an environment not conducive to learning, but the solution is never to punish the children doing well, even if the majority of them come from affluent background.
I'm glad that you weren't affected by it, but there's definitely a relationship between wealth/background and educational prowess. Richer parents are also usually the higher educated ones, so they are a lot more likely to stimulate their child intellectually, be more invested in their education and have their child aim "higher" for a future with a higher end college degree.I'm not saying that programs like the US Common Core or "no child left behind" are the right way of going about this, but it's hard to deny that there is a problem here.
Whilst I'm not generally of the capitalist mindset for things, I am inclined that way over education.Some people are born bright and should be allowed to burn at their full potential, some people are born blunt and should still be given the opportunity to flourish but not at the cost of the most able. So something along the lines of a meritocracy >.>
I completely agree. I think too much emphasis is placed on higher education, too. It's being turned into an extension of college, pretty much. To much credentialism and too high prices are going to force universities to start offering services commensurate with the price. People of lower intelligence aren't, as many of us assume, placed in a position of a net negative outcome. People like that are the apprentices and the labourers of our society. The plumbers and the electricians - people who find their calling in more vocational work.
i'm in the top 1%
lol
Actually, I read a paper in my AP Lang class about how the U.S. education system was based on Prussia's and that sepaying individuals based on ability was one of the things they did. IMO: yeah it's great not to deal with stupid people in class, but the long term effects of separating the stupid from the smart might create a class system where those who are smart look down upon those who aren't. Heck, it might even make it so that people who are born to those that are in the lowest section will stay in the lowest section.
Yeah, in America they're called "tracks", and we got rid of them a long time ago for good reason. It fucks with kids' minds, makes them start getting superiority and inferiority complexes early in life.
Seperating pupils on ability... is a bad thing? LolNUT
