>I firmly believe that any student who wants to learn will learn.
Well sure; people overcome all types of adversity to learn, produce, and excel in the world. A child from the ghetto may strive to succeed and go on to be a chess grand master, this does not mean that we should go building more ghettos to produce chess grandmasters.
Learning despite misguided education policies will occur, but it's not a legitimate defense against criticism of the policies.
So some kids don't have adequate "drive" or motivation. Should they be dismissed because of it? They are kids! Some kids need more encouragement and support, and we should be helping them succeed (truly succeed, not be socially promoted), not saying "well you aren't trying hard enough, you deserve to fail." Do not worry- they will get that plenty as an adult. The purpose of school is to prepare kids for adulthood, we shouldn't be dismissing them because they aren't prepared already.
Another bone I must pick with your 'they they don't want to learn' argument comes in the form of an experience I had repeatedly while in school:
Sequoia: I understand and have memorized the formula, but WHY does theorem XYZ behave thus?
Teacher: Sequoia, that's a great question, but I've got 30 other students I'm trying to just get to the baseline- I really can't devote time to advanced discussion of this topic when some kids are struggling to just pass the test.
Nowadays there are lots of highly accessible/usable online resources to address such students and I hope teachers are employing them, but the fact is that was not an environment that was conducive to learning regardless of the fact that I wished to learn more.
Yes, I could have looked it up on my own but that's not an argument for school- I could look it up on my own without school. Saying "go learn it yourself" is tantamount to saying we don't need schools.
EDIT: Changed double quotes to single to make clear that I'm paraphrasing "...any student who wants to learn will learn. Students have to WANT to do well ...over the last few decades this drive to do well has pretty much evaporated." with 'they they don't want to learn', not quoting directly. Sorry jug! The other uses of double quotes are legitimate: I'm not ascribing the statements to anyone in particular.
Basically, rote learning is undervalued by a lot of education experts. It's a great foundation for higher-order learning. The problem is, when you learn by rote you don't really learn why. It's a good hack to build a foundation, but it isn't worth much by itself.
If No Child was getting kids up to a baseline, which created a foundation for later learning, it would be OK. They'd be able to read, write, and do arithmetic, which would let them tackle the big questions later on. Unfortunately, it's just a stepping stone for more rote learning. Most of them are never going to learn to use their knowledge in a flexible way (solving difficult unseen problems with it), they are just going to memorise the basic steps required to pass the test.
It's like trying to build a house out of nothing but a foundation.
You definitely have a bone to pick with someone but it doesn't seem that you even read my post.
"Well sure; people overcome all types of adversity to learn"
My post does not even remotely touch on diversity, not that its not a worthy discussion as far as education goes its not what i am speaking about.
"Learning despite misguided education policies will occur, but it's not a legitimate defense against criticism of the policies."
I never once defended the current policies, in fact i specifically said "Our schooling systems have there faults, large ones"
This I have the most issues with, you even made up a quote about me.
"So some kids don't have adequate "drive" or motivation. Should they be dismissed because of it? They are kids! Some kids need more encouragement and support, and we should be helping them succeed (truly succeed, not be socially promoted), not saying "well you aren't trying hard enough, you deserve to fail." Do not worry- they will get that plenty as an adult. The purpose of school is to prepare kids for adulthood, we shouldn't be dismissing them because they aren't prepared already."
We SHOULD encourage our kids and we SHOULD support them, thats my whole point. You mis quoted me saying "well you aren't trying hard enough, you deserve to fail.". This could not be further from what my whole post was about. My post had nothing to do with trying, it has to do with wanting. I also NEVER said that anyone "deserve to fail", what im saying is that our kids should be allowed to fail, to know what its like to fail.
"The purpose of school is to prepare kids for adulthood, we shouldn't be dismissing them because they aren't prepared already."
Passing students who have not learned what they need to is not preparing them for adulthood, its doing them a disservice by putting them into a situation they are equipped to handle all in the name of being politically correct.
"Another bone I must pick with your "they they don't want to learn""
Again you miss quote, miss represent and say exactly opposite of what im trying to say. So i will ignore the entire rest of your argument.
Well sure; people overcome all types of adversity to learn, produce, and excel in the world. A child from the ghetto may strive to succeed and go on to be a chess grand master, this does not mean that we should go building more ghettos to produce chess grandmasters.
Learning despite misguided education policies will occur, but it's not a legitimate defense against criticism of the policies.
So some kids don't have adequate "drive" or motivation. Should they be dismissed because of it? They are kids! Some kids need more encouragement and support, and we should be helping them succeed (truly succeed, not be socially promoted), not saying "well you aren't trying hard enough, you deserve to fail." Do not worry- they will get that plenty as an adult. The purpose of school is to prepare kids for adulthood, we shouldn't be dismissing them because they aren't prepared already.
Another bone I must pick with your 'they they don't want to learn' argument comes in the form of an experience I had repeatedly while in school:
Nowadays there are lots of highly accessible/usable online resources to address such students and I hope teachers are employing them, but the fact is that was not an environment that was conducive to learning regardless of the fact that I wished to learn more.Yes, I could have looked it up on my own but that's not an argument for school- I could look it up on my own without school. Saying "go learn it yourself" is tantamount to saying we don't need schools.
EDIT: Changed double quotes to single to make clear that I'm paraphrasing "...any student who wants to learn will learn. Students have to WANT to do well ...over the last few decades this drive to do well has pretty much evaporated." with 'they they don't want to learn', not quoting directly. Sorry jug! The other uses of double quotes are legitimate: I'm not ascribing the statements to anyone in particular.