>
>
>
>The scenario described here is indeed a sad reality of
schooling. There
>are people in schools who take it upon themselves to limit the
horizons
>of students. But again, these school people have only so much
>influence. Members of this listserv who think that
corporations and
>school people have so much power over students should read
yesterday's
>NYTimes profile of the Portuguese Nobel literature laureate.
He was born
>a peasant. He was tracked into menial labor. But he loved to
read and
>he loved to write. He overcame the limitations of systems,
corporations,
>schools and the like. Also, I'm reminded of Kris Gutierrez'
work on the
>third space. People find a way to resist.
Louise,
Now, this appears to me to be the overly optimistic side of the
equation. While there will always be those who slip through the
cracks and succed against all odds this is not the norm.
American mythology in its quest for individualism is great at
taking the one exception to the rule and argueing its the norm.
Your argument takes us back to blaming the poor or the oppressed
for their lot in life. It is not the system that is bad because
one, Nobel literature laureate succeded. Therefore if one is
opressed and doesn't suceed it must be there fault.
>My point is that: Sure, there are abuses of any sound idea,
but that
>doesn't mean that the ideas to inject realism into schools and
to hold
>educators accountable for the performance of students on
general measures
>of competency in basic skills are completely evil and
regressive. For every
>example of a failure in these reform areas (and there are
many), you can
>find a success. For example, it's
>good to get a general indication of how one's child is doing
compared to
>others. It's good to know
>that if someone wants to learn a trade or get a better
understanding of
>corporate ethics (and this DOES exist, Prof. Goodman), there's
a place
>he/she can learn.
True, but you appear to be argueing for a closed rather than an
open system. You seem to be willing to accept the abuses in the
system which is something I am not willing to do. You argue its
good to get an indication of how a child is doing in reference
to others; while this is true we also need to be critical about
how this information is used. Is it used to meet the academic
needs of students or is it used for social tracking. Of course,
students should have ample opportunity to learn a trade and
school should have an active pedogogical role in this, but who
shouldn't decide are schools and corporations.
What I think is very important is that the system remains open.
Not everyone approaches Highschool from the middleclass ideal of
college being the next transition. I have deep concerns with
some of the programs that were mentioned because of their closed
nature. Using assessment type tests to put students on some
sort of track in which career choices are of the teacher or
school and not the student is not an open system.
Nate
>Louise
>
>-----------
>
>On Fri, 4 Dec 1998, George K. Cunningham wrote:
>
>> I think everyone realizes that there are many students in the
typical high
>> school who are not going to go to college. It seems to make
sense that
>> they would be better off if they were educated differently
from college
>> bound students. They should instead be prepared for careers,
which will
>> begin upon graduation. What wrong with that?
>>
>> It is has been tried and it didnt work. It is the way
schools were
>> day in local businesses. No one noticed, or if they did, was
much
>> concerned that those in the latter group seemed to come
mainly from the
>> lower socio-economic classes.
>
>
>>
>