Re: Re: OT Egalitarianism (was Words again/Homeschool )

[Guest guest]

In a message dated 11/10/04 10:28:09 PM Eastern Standard Time, cah@...

writes:

> ~~~Similar situation. I really shouldn't have used the word " banned " .

That

> word was more extreme than the feeling I meant to convey. In the years

since

> I left school, however,the attitude seemed to become one of making a great

> effort not to stress achievement or intelligence, for fear of intimidating

> those who were not achievers or who were of more average intelligence. IQ

> tests began to be frowned upon to some degree. Children started being

> praised for nothing much at all. Gold stars began to be universally doled

> out. The children who made great strides were treated pretty much the same

> as the ones who did nothing special. Actually, I guess that didn't start

> until quite a while after I left school. I don't know if it's still like

> that or not.

______

~~~~> Some day they will ban thinking for its threat to equality-- good ideas

are as maldistributed as wealth, and those with a greater capacity to have

them have an unfair advantage, and government will need to step in to create

" fair competition. " It isn't right that one man should triumph over his brother

by having better ideas. Although, by the time they ban thinking, it will be

to naught, because they will realize everyone has stopped thinking already.

With egalitarianism comes the worship of mediocrity. The great worshippers

of the common man like Zinn in his revision of US History, where he

openly attempts to blot the hero from the page, diminish heroism, thereby

diminishing the hero-- and society follows suit and considers potential heros

among

our children to be dispensible objects who serve only to make our more noble and

mediocre children feel good. Alfie Kohn in _The Schools Our Children

Deserve_ praised the grouping of good readers with bad readers because it gave

the

bad readers more confidence and increased their ability to read, over classes

with separate groups for good and bad readers. He didn't mention how it

affected the good readers-- perhaps he didn't care. After all, who cares about

the

ones who have something to offer? They're just a threat to society anyway, and

are probably destined to accumulate an unfair amount of wealth from the

common man from whom it was stolen.

Chris

____

" What can one say of a soul, of a heart, filled with compassion? It is a

heart which burns with love for every creature: for human beings, birds, and

animals, for serpents and for demons. The thought of them and the sight of them

make the tears of the saint flow. And this immense and intense compassion,

which flows from the heart of the saints, makes them unable to bear the sight of

the smallest, most insignificant wound in any creature. Thus they pray

ceaselessly, with tears, even for animals, for enemies of the truth, and for

those

who do them wrong. "

--Saint Isaac the Syrian

[Guest guest]

In a message dated 11/14/04 1:28:22 AM Eastern Standard Time,

catzandturtles@... writes:

> If only this were true! For if it were, I wouldn't be living in the

> nastiest trailer, in the nastiest part of a nasty town, because it is

> all we can afford while I choose to stay home to raise and school my

> children!

_____

~~~~~~> Maybe when I come up with a good idea if I absent-mindedly report it

to the government they'll take 2/3 and give you half, and you can use your

half to get to a better part of town. ;-)

Chris

____

" What can one say of a soul, of a heart, filled with compassion? It is a

heart which burns with love for every creature: for human beings, birds, and

animals, for serpents and for demons. The thought of them and the sight of them

make the tears of the saint flow. And this immense and intense compassion,

which flows from the heart of the saints, makes them unable to bear the sight of

the smallest, most insignificant wound in any creature. Thus they pray

ceaselessly, with tears, even for animals, for enemies of the truth, and for

those

who do them wrong. "

--Saint Isaac the Syrian

[Guest guest]

If only this were true! For if it were, I wouldn't be living in the

nastiest trailer, in the nastiest part of a nasty town, because it is

all we can afford while I choose to stay home to raise and school my

children!

I thoroughly enjoyed the soliloquy!

L.

> After all, who cares

> about the

> ones who have something to offer? They're just a threat to society anyway,

> and

> are probably destined to accumulate an unfair amount of wealth from the

> common man from whom it was stolen.

>

> Chris

>

[Guest guest]

Or I can get this brain of mine to work again, and come up with that

good idea myself, and not share it with the govenrment! LOL Now to get

out of Idaho, and find some real food....

L.

>

> ~~~~~~> Maybe when I come up with a good idea if I absent-mindedly report it

> to the government they'll take 2/3 and give you half, and you can use your

> half to get to a better part of town. ;-)

>

>

>

> Chris

[Guest guest]

> With egalitarianism comes the worship of mediocrity. The great

worshippers

> of the common man like Zinn in his revision of US History, where he

> openly attempts to blot the hero from the page, diminish heroism, thereby

> diminishing the hero-- and society follows suit and considers potential

heros among

> our children to be dispensible objects who serve only to make our more

noble and

> mediocre children feel good. Alfie Kohn in _The Schools Our Children

> Deserve_ praised the grouping of good readers with bad readers because it

gave the

> bad readers more confidence and increased their ability to read, over

classes

> with separate groups for good and bad readers. He didn't mention how it

> affected the good readers-- perhaps he didn't care. After all, who cares

about the

> ones who have something to offer? They're just a threat to society

anyway, and

> are probably destined to accumulate an unfair amount of wealth from the

> common man from whom it was stolen.

>

> Chris

That's your interpretation, Chris. To others true heroes teach only what to

do and the result of their action diminishes nothing. Everything is a

teacher and everything has something to offer. The only difference between

all the teachings and offerings is wheather they teach what to do or what

not to do. What any group, individual, nation, world throughout history puts

in the what to do and what not to do determines it's values. There is and

always has been wealth from natural abundance, what money can't buy or money

wasn't needed to buy. Most of that is wealth common to all and held in

common by all of it's inhabitants. There is only common man when common

wealth is diminished.

Wanita

[Guest guest]

Deanna wrote:

> You may not even be aware, but I take great offense at your choice of

> words " good " " bad " " noble " " mediocre " as judgments upon human beings.

> How about proficient readers and deficient readers.

_____

~~~~~> Unless you misunderstood my usage of the words, that seems silly. It

seems apparent to me from context that when I wrote " good readers, " I did not

mean readers who were good, but meant, rather, people who read well. That

someone is good or bad at reading has no bearing on whether she is a good or bad

person, obviously. Using " proficient " or " deficient " as a substitute for

" good " and " bad " in this context wouldn't affect the meaning significantly.

As to " noble " and " mediocre, " " noble " was used to express the irony of

egalitarian faith in the commoner over the unique contributor, and " mediocre "

was

not meant as an attack on people whose reading skills are deficient, but as an

attack on the generic philosophy of elevating that which is common and

diminishing that which is outstanding or unique. Unlike the other words you

objected

to, I can see how this could be perceived as an attack on the readers in the

way I used it, and apologize insofar as I appeared to be diminishing the

ability of a deficient reader to contribute something useful to the world (which

was

not my intent at all). However, I think my use of " mediocre " was

appropriate. My Webster's defines it as " of moderate or low quality " and uses

" ordinary "

as a synonym. With respect to reading skills, skills that are average or

somewhat low would be considered " mediocre. " Again, that shouldn't be confused

with referring the person herself as mediocre, as there are a lot of skills one

can have and contributions one can make that are unrelated to reading, or

that do not require excellence in reading skill.

______

> Or better yet, how

> about naming the reading and not identify the person directly with it?

> Children with age-appropriate reading skills, and those without

> age-appropriate reading skills.

______

~~~~~> Are you objecting to the fact that the word referring to the person

succeeded rather than preceded the adjectives? I can't understand how it could

not be obvious from context that the adjectives " good " and " bad " referred to

the reading skills and not the children. The precise sequence of the words

should have no affect on the perceived meaning in this case-- unless one is

using

one of those man-made algorithms for grammar!

______

> My son is considered disabled, yet he has much to offer (as many

> autistics do). It just might be that his offerings, with a healthy does

> of hard work thrown into his highly specialized skill set, might well

> promote him economically far above the intellectual snobs.

_____

~~~~~> My cousin is dyslexic, and through a lot of prayer, very hard work,

and extraordinary encouragement from my grandfather, he made it through

pharmaceutical school and now makes loads of money, owns some side business, has

a

health large family and big house.

Chris

[Guest guest]

In a message dated 11/14/04 2:38:32 PM Eastern Standard Time,

heidis@... writes:

> I have two thoughts on that: first, as one of the " good " readers who

> got put in such social experiments, I did not like it at the time! But

> as Deanna points out, the whole labelling thing at school affects

> the kids on both sides. The proficient folks get singled out, and

> either get swelled heads or get embarassed. The less proficient

> feel badly about themselves and act out in other ways to get social

> attention.

______

~~~~~~> But the above-average intelligence kids are going to get swelled

heads as much or MORE from being grouped up with the others than from being

singled out. If I was separated from the rest of the class, or ignoring class

and

reading novels in the back, my mind was on what I was doing. If I had to sit

and listen to kids read right through periods and paragraphs, stumble on words

I considered elementary, and pause in the middle of sentences as if there were

periods, my mind was on how irritating it was to listen to them read and how

incomprehensible it was that anyone could be so bad at reading.

Granted, that's a harsh and cruel way of perceiving someone else's attempt at

reading, but that's how I thought then. Being grouped with people of a

different skill level had no benefit to my humility (or lack thereof.)

More importantly, what is the point of being in school if you learn nothing

and are never challenged? It just leads to resentment of the entire system,

and often withdrawal. Additionally, it wastes years of time that could be spent

learning. So many kids including myself could have advanced vastly beyond

what we were able, given the system we were in, if we'd been truly challenged

consistently throughout our schooling.

It's a GOOD thing to give people with below-average reading skills confidence

and help them to read, but NOT at the expense of people with above-average

skills! People with good skills should not be punished and brought down below

their abilities just to make other people with average or below-average skills

feel good.

______

> A better model to my mind is your average programming group ... some

> programmers are really experts at some thing, and everyone goes to

> them for help. They are called " gurus " . Eact person might be a guru in

> a different area ... one for operating systems, one for installations,

> one for networking, for instance. But everyone in the group is " good "

> by definition. If a classroom has that kind of group dynamic, all the

> kids will feel better about being part of the group, and comfortable

> with their own skill levels. Left to their own devices, your average

> programming group will " self elect " the " best " person to do any given

> job by consensus, I suspect kids can do the same.

_______

~~~~~> How would you institute this in the classroom, where, traditionally,

there are really only two roles? (Teacher, and student.) In other words, in a

reading class, say the people good at reading take on the role of reading

guru. What do the other kids do?

Chris

____

" What can one say of a soul, of a heart, filled with compassion? It is a

heart which burns with love for every creature: for human beings, birds, and

animals, for serpents and for demons. The thought of them and the sight of them

make the tears of the saint flow. And this immense and intense compassion,

which flows from the heart of the saints, makes them unable to bear the sight of

the smallest, most insignificant wound in any creature. Thus they pray

ceaselessly, with tears, even for animals, for enemies of the truth, and for

those

who do them wrong. "

--Saint Isaac the Syrian

[Guest guest]

> They're just a threat to society anyway, and are probably destined

> to accumulate an unfair amount of wealth from the common man from whom

> it was stolen. - Chris

Sounds like Microsoft to me. The brightest and best don't always rise

economically in proportion to their " offerings. " Kismet, luck or

whathaveyou factors in here as well. But having said that, I believe

the best chance for economic success lies in running your own business.

>

> That's your interpretation, Chris. To others true heroes teach only

> what to

> do and the result of their action diminishes nothing. Everything is a

> teacher and everything has something to offer. The only difference between

> all the teachings and offerings is wheather they teach what to do or what

> not to do. What any group, individual, nation, world throughout

> history puts

> in the what to do and what not to do determines it's values. There is and

> always has been wealth from natural abundance, what money can't buy or

> money

> wasn't needed to buy. Most of that is wealth common to all and held in

> common by all of it's inhabitants. There is only common man when common

> wealth is diminished. - Wanita

>

Wanita, you might enjoy reading this thought-provoking article, if you

haven't already. Eisenstein is very circumspect in his approach

and does a fine job of describing our present situation.

http://www.yogaofeating.com/mon_prop.html

He is quite active in the WAPF and was a presenter at the 2004 conference.

Deanna

[Guest guest]

.... and society follows suit and considers potential heros among our

children to be dispensible objects who serve only to make our more noble

and mediocre children feel good. Alfie Kohn in _The Schools Our

Children Deserve_ praised the grouping of good readers with bad readers

because it gave the bad readers more confidence and increased their

ability to read, over classes with separate groups for good and bad

readers. He didn't mention how it affected the good readers-- perhaps

he didn't care. After all, who cares about the ones who have something

to offer? They're just a threat to society anyway, and are probably

destined to accumulate an unfair amount of wealth from the common man

from whom it was stolen. - Chris

______________________

You may not even be aware, but I take great offense at your choice of

words " good " " bad " " noble " " mediocre " as judgments upon human beings.

How about proficient readers and deficient readers. Or better yet, how

about naming the reading and not identify the person directly with it?

Children with age-appropriate reading skills, and those without

age-appropriate reading skills.

My son is considered disabled, yet he has much to offer (as many

autistics do). It just might be that his offerings, with a healthy does

of hard work thrown into his highly specialized skill set, might well

promote him economically far above the intellectual snobs. For

instance, Temple Grandin, Ph.D, patented an animal restraint system that

is presently in use at over 1/3 the slaughter houses in the US. She has

autism. Moreover, this is the case with a friend of mine from years

past. Brett is mentally retarded, but he had a great paying job at

Rockwell International when I knew him and drove a fancy sports car.

Not that money is all that matters.

Peace,

Deanna

[Guest guest]

Masterjohn writes:

> ______

>

> ~~~~> Some day they will ban thinking for its threat to equality-- good ideas

> are as maldistributed as wealth, and those with a greater capacity to have

> them have an unfair advantage, and government will need to step in to create

> " fair competition. " It isn't right that one man should triumph over his

> brother

> by having better ideas. Although, by the time they ban thinking, it will be

> to naught, because they will realize everyone has stopped thinking already.

>

> With egalitarianism comes the worship of mediocrity. The great worshippers

> of the common man like Zinn in his revision of US History, where he

> openly attempts to blot the hero from the page, diminish heroism, thereby

> diminishing the hero--

You know what - it's reached the point where I really don't care if I'm

banned from this list. I think you're a pig and totally full of shit most of

the time. First you slam Chomsky, eventually admitting after much

argumentation that you were full of it, and now you decide to go after

Zinn, a great man in my opinion.

Of course, Zinn does not " blot the hero from the page " as you say so

eloquently in your usual pseudo poetical hysterics. He just finds heroism in

different places than elitists like yourself. And as usual, you distort the

points of the opposition (as you did with Chomsky) to make your point.

I appreciate that you learned to read at 1 (or whenever it was) and also

appreciated the subtext which is 'Masterjohn is just SOOOO smart.

Aren't you all impressed... "

and society follows suit and considers potential heros

> among

> our children to be dispensible objects who serve only to make our more noble

> and

> mediocre children feel good. Alfie Kohn in _The Schools Our Children

> Deserve_ praised the grouping of good readers with bad readers because it gave

> the

> bad readers more confidence and increased their ability to read, over classes

> with separate groups for good and bad readers. He didn't mention how it

> affected the good readers-- perhaps he didn't care. After all, who cares

> about the

> ones who have something to offer? They're just a threat to society anyway,

> and

> are probably destined to accumulate an unfair amount of wealth from the

> common man from whom it was stolen.

>

> Chris

>

> ____

>

> " What can one say of a soul, of a heart, filled with compassion? It is a

> heart which burns with love for every creature: for human beings, birds, and

> animals, for serpents and for demons. The thought of them and the sight of

> them

> make the tears of the saint flow. And this immense and intense compassion,

> which flows from the heart of the saints, makes them unable to bear the sight

> of

> the smallest, most insignificant wound in any creature. Thus they pray

> ceaselessly, with tears, even for animals, for enemies of the truth, and for

> those

> who do them wrong. "

>

> --Saint Isaac the Syrian

>

>

>

>

[Guest guest]

> -----Original Message-----

> From: Gene Schwartz [mailto:implode7@...]

>

> Of course, Zinn does not " blot the hero from the page "

> as you say so eloquently in your usual pseudo poetical

> hysterics. He just finds heroism in different places than

> elitists like yourself.

Here's Zinn's response to similar criticisms:

http://www.thirdworldtraveler.com/Zinn/Unsung_Heroes.html

I wouldn't call him a great man--given his affliction with the economic

naivete characteristic of leftists--but no one who wants to elevate

Shays above Woodrow and Abraham Lincoln can be all bad.

[Guest guest]

>He didn't mention how it affected the good readers-- perhaps

>he didn't care. After all, who cares about the ones who have something

>to offer? They're just a threat to society anyway, and are probably

>destined to accumulate an unfair amount of wealth from the common man

>from whom it was stolen. - Chris

I have two thoughts on that: first, as one of the " good " readers who

got put in such social experiments, I did not like it at the time! But

as Deanna points out, the whole labelling thing at school affects

the kids on both sides. The proficient folks get singled out, and

either get swelled heads or get embarassed. The less proficient

feel badly about themselves and act out in other ways to get social

attention.

A better model to my mind is your average programming group ... some

programmers are really experts at some thing, and everyone goes to

them for help. They are called " gurus " . Eact person might be a guru in

a different area ... one for operating systems, one for installations,

one for networking, for instance. But everyone in the group is " good "

by definition. If a classroom has that kind of group dynamic, all the

kids will feel better about being part of the group, and comfortable

with their own skill levels. Left to their own devices, your average

programming group will " self elect " the " best " person to do any given

job by consensus, I suspect kids can do the same.

Heidi Jean

[Guest guest]

>~~~~~> How would you institute this in the classroom, where, traditionally,

>there are really only two roles? (Teacher, and student.) In other words, in a

>reading class, say the people good at reading take on the role of reading

>guru. What do the other kids do?

>

>Chris

What they do with my son, who can outread anyone in the class, is

to take him out of class at " reading time " and have him read with a 5th

grader or with other kids who are super-readers. The rest of the

time he's with his peers ... he really identifies with his classmates

and they do all kinds of stuff together, but kids are taken out

all the time for this or that, either for remedial help OR advanced

help and no one thinks much of it. The whole school is scheduled

so that the kids can migrate at " math time " or " reading time " etc. He

loves his " reading buddy " too. Interestingly the kids who are " taken

out " are all looked at enviously, whether the help is remedial or advanced,

and in fact the kids don't seem to know the difference, they just

like the one-on-one time.

Of course this same school did NOT work for my daughter, who

is now homeschooled. So I don't know that there is one answer

for everyone. Any answer has to address the social needs

of kids and how kids work in groups though.

Heidi Jean

[Guest guest]

> -----Original Message-----

> From: Heidi Schuppenhauer [mailto:heidis@...]

>

> I have two thoughts on that: first, as one of the " good "

> readers who got put in such social experiments, I did not

> like it at the time! But as Deanna points out, the whole

> labelling thing at school affects the kids on both sides. The

> proficient folks get singled out, and either get swelled

> heads or get embarassed. The less proficient feel badly about

> themselves and act out in other ways to get social attention.

I agree with on this point. My perception of my own intelligence tends

to be highest when I'm dealing with people of average intelligence,

particularly in an academic setting. At work I'm surrounded by people who

are extremely intelligent, and it's quite humbling.

> A better model to my mind is your average programming group

> ... some programmers are really experts at some thing, and

> everyone goes to them for help. They are called " gurus " . Eact

> person might be a guru in a different area ... one for

> operating systems, one for installations, one for networking,

> for instance. But everyone in the group is " good "

> by definition. If a classroom has that kind of group dynamic,

> all the kids will feel better about being part of the group,

> and comfortable with their own skill levels. Left to their

> own devices, your average programming group will " self elect "

> the " best " person to do any given job by consensus, I suspect

> kids can do the same.

This is a flawed analogy, partly for the reason stated (children are

there to learn, not to build software), and also because professional

programmers are a highly selective group. People below a certain level of

aptitude usually don't even try to learn how to program computers. Of those

who do, only a fraction will become good enough to do it professionally. But

schools have to take everyone (one could argue that they shouldn't, but we

can save that for another time). Forcing more intelligent children to work

at the same pace as their more average classmates does often irreparable

damage. When I look back at the years I wasted going over the same basic

material over and over again, I consider it an absolute outrage.

[Guest guest]

I LOVE reading this thread! You guys are so amusing! (Yes, I find a

good debate amusing.)

And for my own two cents....

You can't have one model of classic classroom learning that will work

for everyone, because everyone does NOT learn in the same way. (Which

I believe we covered at an earlier point.) So, the best " system " to

use is homeschooling, provided that the parents are intelligent enough

to look for knowledge to help their child(ren) learn in the best

way(s) for them. (Which in a family with more than one child will

probably include more than one way of learning.) But, so much of

helping children find their learning style(s) is done intuitively by

their parent(s) (or other adults in their life) that take a close

interest in them, so it really has nothing to do with the adult's

" learning " .

Or do other people not pay attention to everything around them like I do?

> When I look back at the years I wasted going over the same basic

> material over and over again, I consider it an absolute outrage.

>

>

I agree with you . So most of my life had been an outrage.... I

guess I'll move on and do better than that for the people in my life

now.

L.

[Guest guest]

I agree that kids who can read more proficiently, will do much better grouped

with other kids who read more proficiently. (Or even if they're left to learn

on their own.) The years I was in an isolated group with other kids of about my

learning level, I never once got a swelled head. I was too busy loving the

situation of being able to learn at my speed that I didn't even think about the

other kids in the other group. Besides that, the kids I was learning with were

more equal to my level, so there was no reason to have a swelled head with them

either. Any initial head swelling by the over achieving readers, and any

feeling of insignificance by the less skilled readers, will only be momentary if

they are separated. Whereas, if it is continually thrown in their face that

they are poor readers, compared to superlative readers, I would think that would

be even more limiting to the poor readers. I know when I was in a class that

was mixed, it appeared to me the fact that we good readers were listening to

every stumble uttered by the poor readers, only made them stumble worse and

sometimes become totally frozen and unable to read at all to the class.

There is also the situation when a teacher reads a child's paper to the class as

an example of good writing. That was the worst, in my opinion. It sort of

swells that kid's head and embarrasses him/her at the same time. If that child

had been in an accelerated class, that wouldn't have happened. And the kids in

the class who weren't as good at writing may have felt more competent when not

constantly compared to what the teacher considered to be better writing. (A

professional writer could have been used as an example instead.)

On the other hand, when I was in physics class in high school, it turned out

just as Heidi said. Kids gravitated to me as the guru in physics. The only

problem with that was that they really only wanted to 'copy my homework', so to

speak. I'm not at all sure it did them any good.

As I've written this, I've kind of changed my own mind, I think, because when I

started I thought I was more 'middle of the road'. Maybe the difference

between adults having gurus, as in the computer guru scenario, is that children

don't have the maturity to use gurus the way adults do. Kids can be 'mean' as

we all know. They DO tend to do as said he did - listen to the slow

readers and feel frustrated by their apparent ineptitude and wonder what's wrong

with them. While the other kids just get more chagrined over their own

seemingly poor performance. I think it's difficult for kids to bury all these

feelings and look to another kid as a guru. Maybe that's why the kids in school

who are the best academically, so often are thought of as 'nerds' and avoided by

all the rest. Usually, they're not looked up to, they're disdained and avoided,

unlike the respect that adult gurus receive. (Or simply used when necessary to

pass a test or assignment.)

I don't know what the answer is. I think it's just one of those facts of life

that academia will not be able to solve in such a way to be totally satisfactory

to everyone. Competition seems to be inherent in the human psyche. If it

wasn't, kids wouldn't react the way they always have to other kids who appear to

be 'smarter' or less 'smart' than they are. Maybe it's just better to have that

competition be between competitors who are more equal in their abilities.

Carol

In a message dated 11/14/04 2:38:32 PM Eastern Standard Time,

heidis@... writes:

> I have two thoughts on that: first, as one of the " good " readers who

> got put in such social experiments, I did not like it at the time! But

> as Deanna points out, the whole labelling thing at school affects

> the kids on both sides. The proficient folks get singled out, and

> either get swelled heads or get embarassed. The less proficient

> feel badly about themselves and act out in other ways to get social

> attention.

______

~~~~~~> But the above-average intelligence kids are going to get swelled

heads as much or MORE from being grouped up with the others than from being

singled out. If I was separated from the rest of the class, or ignoring class

and

reading novels in the back, my mind was on what I was doing. If I had to sit

and listen to kids read right through periods and paragraphs, stumble on words

I considered elementary, and pause in the middle of sentences as if there were

periods, my mind was on how irritating it was to listen to them read and how

incomprehensible it was that anyone could be so bad at reading.

Chris

____

[Guest guest]

I'm not sure I would say " disdained and avoided " .... I was more of

disdained and persecuted. And I learned early on that lesson of being

used to pass a test, I believe it was in fourth grade that I was told

that I could be part of the " in " crowd if I let everyone copy off of

me...maybe that is why I don't trust people very easily.

Being " ahead " of the class can be very hard, especially when you are a

teeny, tiny " goodie tu-shoes " of a girl. And as an adult, I still get

treated the same way. (Computers are my friend... nobody can see what

I look like... LOL) It doesn't help that I have Mormon friends, or

live in an area where religion is prevelant... and I just do not make

a " good " wife... I am too smart to be a " good " wife. And so I think

" disdained and persecuted " is a much more accurate phrase.

L.

> I think it's difficult

> for kids to bury all these feelings and look to another kid as a guru.

> Maybe that's why the kids in school who are the best academically, so often

> are thought of as 'nerds' and avoided by all the rest. Usually, they're not

> looked up to, they're disdained and avoided, unlike the respect that adult

> gurus receive. (Or simply used when necessary to pass a test or

> assignment.)

> Carol

[Guest guest]

ChrisMasterjohn@... wrote:

>

> ~~~~~> Unless you misunderstood my usage of the words, that seems

> silly. It

> seems apparent to me from context that when I wrote " good readers, " I

> did not

> mean readers who were good, but meant, rather, people who read well.

> That

> someone is good or bad at reading has no bearing on whether she is a

> good or bad

> person, obviously. Using " proficient " or " deficient " as a substitute for

> " good " and " bad " in this context wouldn't affect the meaning

> significantly.

No offense intended, but you take forever to say the simplest things.

Concise writing is more proficient than beating around the bush ad

nauseam. I learned that back in high school.

>

> As to " noble " and " mediocre, " " noble " was used to express the irony of

> egalitarian faith in the commoner over the unique contributor, and

> " mediocre " was not meant as an attack on people whose reading skills

> are deficient, but as an attack on the generic philosophy of elevating

> that which is common and

> diminishing that which is outstanding or unique.... However, I think

> my use of " mediocre " was appropriate. My Webster's defines it as " of

> moderate or low quality " and uses " ordinary " as a synonym. With

> respect to reading skills, skills that are average or somewhat low

> would be considered " mediocre. " Again, that shouldn't be confused

> with referring the person herself as mediocre, as there are a lot of

> skills one can have and contributions one can make that are unrelated

> to reading, or that do not require excellence in reading skill.

Wrong. You said in the mail to which I responded, " ...who serve only to

make our more noble and mediocre children feel good. " You labeled

people, not skills. So are you saying, by Webster's definition " low

quality people? " That is bigotry, among other things.

> ~~~~~> Are you objecting to the fact that the word referring to the

> person

> succeeded rather than preceded the adjectives? I can't understand how

> it could not be obvious from context that the adjectives " good " and

> " bad " referred to

> the reading skills and not the children. The precise sequence of the

> words

> should have no affect on the perceived meaning in this case-- unless

> one is using one of those man-made algorithms for grammar!

Oh puh-leaze. No, I am not so stupid as to not know what word a

modifier is modifying. I gave examples of adjectives modifying skills

(which are attributes), you gave examples of adjectives modifying people

(which blankets them with labels well beyond the skill in question).

Period. Furthermore, reading is not a group activity. Geeze, read and

get over it. Did the " bad " readers make you get a flimsy art degree

that has no job potential? Yeah, science requires more time doesn't

it? Not more money though for the same education. Basic common sense.

Deanna

[Guest guest]

,

I empathize, as I have been in a similar situation. I never felt persecuted

however. I really was more avoided, and I liked that, because I was very shy.

I also like my computer, because no one can see me. I lose my shyness here.

:-) (Although, in these later years I'm not really so shy anymore.)

I was so much " not a good wife " , that I've been divorced twice, and have now

been happily single for almost 20 years! :-) (Managed to get two really great

kids out of the deal too!)

Carol

I'm not sure I would say " disdained and avoided " .... I was more of

disdained and persecuted. And I learned early on that lesson of being

used to pass a test, I believe it was in fourth grade that I was told

that I could be part of the " in " crowd if I let everyone copy off of

me...maybe that is why I don't trust people very easily.

Being " ahead " of the class can be very hard, especially when you are a

teeny, tiny " goodie tu-shoes " of a girl. And as an adult, I still get

treated the same way. (Computers are my friend... nobody can see what

I look like... LOL) It doesn't help that I have Mormon friends, or

live in an area where religion is prevelant... and I just do not make

a " good " wife... I am too smart to be a " good " wife. And so I think

" disdained and persecuted " is a much more accurate phrase.

L.

[Guest guest]

>I don't know what the answer is. I think it's just one of those facts of life

that academia will not be able to solve in such a way to be totally satisfactory

to everyone. Competition seems to be inherent in the human psyche. If it

wasn't, kids wouldn't react the way they always have to other kids who appear to

be 'smarter' or less 'smart' than they are. Maybe it's just better to have that

competition be between competitors who are more equal in their abilities.

>Carol

I'm not sure either, like I said I'm of two minds. I like that my son DOES

get along well with " average " kids ... and I also like that he gets tutoring

on his own about reading so he doesn't fall behind. It's kind of a mid road ...

not isolating the faster learners but not ignoring them either. The danger

of having all the smart kids on one class, as is the case in college or

in homeschooling, is that you never do learn how to relate to the rest

of the world. The nation is getting very Balkanized ... personally I like

hanging out with other programmers because I don't have to work

very hard to be with them, but I'm not sure that is a good paradigm

for the world.

Heidi Jean

[Guest guest]

Carol wrote:

> I agree that kids who can read more proficiently, will do much better

> grouped with other kids who read more proficiently. (Or even if

> they're left to learn on their own.) The years I was in an isolated

> group with other kids of about my learning level, I never once got a

> swelled head. I was too busy loving the situation of being able to

> learn at my speed that I didn't even think about the other kids in the

> other group.

Going to school in CA, the answer to a gifted program was the

combination class. I was in one for 2 different years. Basically it

grouped two grades together. I was in a 2nd/3rd grade class as a second

grader. There was no ego problems. The slow-learning third graders and

the quick-learning second graders spent the whole year together. I

haven't read of anyone else having this set up. I don't think they do

it anymore. Must be the age peer hangup the schools have now. Or

perhaps the leap up to the next grade wasn't successful for the

slow-learning group.

>

> There is also the situation when a teacher reads a child's paper to

> the class as an example of good writing. That was the worst, in my

> opinion.

My college composition teacher did this to me. No, it was worse. He

copied my work and passed it around for everyone in the class to read.

He copied MY work, without MY consent, about a high school theater

teacher of mine who passed away while I was his student. It just ruined

the whole experience for me and I didn't care to have it repeated, so

subsequently I wrote technical papers on fluid flow.

:-)

Deanna

[Guest guest]

> -----Original Message-----

> From: Deanna [mailto:hl@...]

>

> Going to school in CA, the answer to a gifted program was the

> combination class. I was in one for 2 different years.

> Basically it grouped two grades together. I was in a 2nd/3rd

> grade class as a second grader. There was no ego problems.

> The slow-learning third graders and the quick-learning second

> graders spent the whole year together. I haven't read of

> anyone else having this set up. I don't think they do it

> anymore. Must be the age peer hangup the schools have now.

> Or perhaps the leap up to the next grade wasn't successful

> for the slow-learning group.

We did that at my elementary school. When I was in fifth grade, I picked up

an extra year of math by listening to the sixth-grade lesson when I was

supposed to be working.

[Guest guest]

They still have combo classes in the district my son goes to. in Northern Ca.

I think it depends on the district. Each is run quite independently of the

others.

Jafa

Berg <bberg@...> wrote:

> -----Original Message-----

> From: Deanna [mailto:hl@...]

>

> Going to school in CA, the answer to a gifted program was the

> combination class. I was in one for 2 different years.

> Basically it grouped two grades together. I was in a 2nd/3rd

> grade class as a second grader. There was no ego problems.

> The slow-learning third graders and the quick-learning second

> graders spent the whole year together. I haven't read of

> anyone else having this set up. I don't think they do it

> anymore. Must be the age peer hangup the schools have now.

> Or perhaps the leap up to the next grade wasn't successful

> for the slow-learning group.

We did that at my elementary school. When I was in fifth grade, I picked up

an extra year of math by listening to the sixth-grade lesson when I was

supposed to be working.

[Guest guest]

In a message dated 11/14/04 9:18:54 PM Eastern Standard Time, hl@...

writes:

> No offense intended, but you take forever to say the simplest things.

> Concise writing is more proficient than beating around the bush ad

> nauseam. I learned that back in high school.

_____

~~~~~~> None taken. But isn't " good readers " " bad readers " a pretty succinct

way to say " students with proficient reading skills " etc? It seemed to me

that you made a pretty lengthy email out of something pretty simple to begin

with.

_____

> Wrong. You said in the mail to which I responded, " ...who serve only to

> make our more noble and mediocre children feel good. " You labeled

> people, not skills. So are you saying, by Webster's definition " low

> quality people? " That is bigotry, among other things.

_____

~~~~~> I'll take your word for the quote; I didn't realize I wrote that. I

apologize for implying that children who have trouble reading are " mediocre "

people. I had an honest point buried somewhere in there, that, generically,

egalitarianism sacrifices the excellent and proficient for the mediocre.

Unfortunately, I was mixing two points, conflating my general philosophical

point

with my specific point about its application to the reading situation. I

retract

anything I said to imply that people who have difficulty reading are

deficient personally.

_______

> Oh puh-leaze. No, I am not so stupid as to not know what word a

> modifier is modifying. I gave examples of adjectives modifying skills

> (which are attributes), you gave examples of adjectives modifying people

> (which blankets them with labels well beyond the skill in question).

> Period.

_____

~~~~~> I don't know if there is a technical explanation of the grammar that

agrees with your position, but that position is in conflict with the way

language is commonly used. Someone, for example, might make the statement " Bill

Clinton was immoral in his personal life, but he was a good president, " or,

during his time in office, " Bill Clinton is immoral in his personal life, but he

is

a good president. " The noun " President " refers to Clinton, like " readers "

refers to the person reading, but clearly the person would be using it to refer

to him in his capacity as a president, and " good " would refer to his

capabilities and behaviors with respect to that office, and not to Bill Clinton

personally.

Likwise, if I say " I am a good reader, " I wouldn't mean that I am a reader

who is a good person, I would mean that I am good at reading. Taken

superficially without regard for context, it could yield the meaning your

attaching to

such phrases, but if the context is regarded, it is implicit that the adjective

refers to the ability of the person to read rather than the person in general.

_____

>Furthermore, reading is not a group activity.

____

~~~~> I'm not sure what you're saying, but reading was always a group

activity in my public school education.

______

Geeze, read and

> get over it. Did the " bad " readers make you get a flimsy art degree

> that has no job potential?

_____

~~~~> No, did I suggest so? (I don't have an art degree, but your criticism

is valid anyway.)

_____

> Yeah, science requires more time doesn't

> it?

______

~~~~~> No, History required a tremendous amount of time-consuming reading

compared to science classes, although the latter required more class time

(because of labs). Also, a lot of math and science classes don't require

attendance

(except in labs), whereas History had " class participation " grades that made

up to 35% of the final grade. So I find that, even with upper level science

classes, I can spend less time, less effort, and get better grades. I'm not

sure why we're discussing this. (?)

_______

Not more money though for the same education. Basic common sense.

_____

~~~~~> The relevance eludes me.

Chris

[Guest guest]

Geeze, read and

> get over it. Did the " bad " readers make you get a flimsy art degree

> that has no job potential?

_____

~~~~> No, did I suggest so? (I don't have an art degree, but your

criticism

is valid anyway.)

____

No it was below the belt criticism and I apologize. I am

thankful that you replied so that I express it.

I think we've beaten this dead horse long enough.

In peace,

Deanna