It was assigned but I didn't read it. Just listened enough in class to pass the test. Except for the Julius Caesar part we had to memorize. I am thankful I learned that because I would never know my true self without Friends, Romans, Countrymen, I come hear not to bury Caesar but to praise him, or something like that.:D

 

 

I'm sorry, LBBC, but I'd have to say that unless you gave an honest effort to read the literature I can't hold your opinion valid that it's not valuable. Literature, the study of literature, and all the writing involved, is about more than just words.

I'm sorry, LBBC, but I'd have to say that unless you gave an honest effort to read the literature I can't hold your opinion valid that it's not valuable. Literature, the study of literature, and all the writing involved, is about more than just words.

 

Again, I am addressing how we are taking students WHO CANNOT read and making them read Shakespaere.

 

For those kids going to college and the top students, I have no problem with it and why my kids will be doing it.

 

What I am complaining about is those kids who are reading on a 1st/2nd grade level and we are shoving them in the same box with the kids above.

 

And you are missing my point. I was that kid not motivated about it and what do you want to do with me then, just let me fail and leave school without that motivation to learn.

 

There are hundreds and thousands of kids that were just like me. We just discount them and what could make them learn because they aren't motivated by classics.

 

The mindset of this is great stuff and you MUST learn it, just leads to kids NOT learning anything.

 

Could they not learn those things you talk about by reading things that they might actually be interested in reading?

Again, I am addressing how we are taking students WHO CANNOT read and making them read Shakespaere.

 

For those kids going to college and the top students, I have no problem with it and why my kids will be doing it.

 

What I am complaining about is those kids who are reading on a 1st/2nd grade level and we are shoving them in the same box with the kids above.

 

And you are missing my point. I was that kid not motivated about it and what do you want to do with me then, just let me fail and leave school without that motivation to learn.

 

There are hundreds and thousands of kids that were just like me. We just discount them and what could make them learn because they aren't motivated by classics.

 

The mindset of this is great stuff and you MUST learn it, just leads to kids NOT learning anything.

 

Could they not learn those things you talk about by reading things that they might actually be interested in reading?

 

In the beginning, we were talking about your daughter, who is an AP student. So, you've switched gears from the post that my orginal reply applied to.

In the beginning, we were talking about your daughter, who is an AP student. So, you've switched gears from the post that my orginal reply applied to.

 

I switched a bunch of gears when I got on here.

Now, I have had a nap and I am much more reasonable.

cch5432 and RM have hit it right on the head. Sometimes it's not the content itself, but the learning mechanism that becomes useful. I fully value Calculus and Shakespeare for that, amongst many other studies.

 

Basics are important for those that lack them. However, the original discussion on these issues was with the AP track kids, whom I assume CAN read, write and do basic math. These students need to continue to be challenged.

I think we try and shove every kid in the same box, cookie cutter or whatever analogy you want to use so that we can feel good about ourselves as a society and we are losing kid after kid after kid to any type of education and creating a society that can't do the things necessary for life survival because we want to tell ourselves how good we are doing by having a kid take Algebra II that can't make correct change.

 

We are losing handfuls of kids every single day who can't possibly do Geometry and Algebra II because they can't add, subtract, handle fractions, percents, etc, etc, but we CAN'T teach them that stuff in HS because we are required to have them in Algebra I, Algebra II and Geometry. Every single cotton picking kid whether they can do it or not.

 

It breaks my heart to see us putting kids out in the world because they don't have the basic skills they need but we want to pat ourselves on the back that they studied matrices.

 

Well said. Why can't the powers that be understand this. It seems so simple.

We were told by our college advisor that there is a strong push to make KEES money need-based instead of performance-based. If so, then only those that score well AND demonstrate a need would receive it. Nothing like taking away an important motivational tool for the students to take their studies seriously and do well.

 

Seems to be the trend in our society.

Question for lbbc: How do you motivate children without challenging them? How do you find out if you CAN motivate them, or they ARE receptive to a particular motivator, if you don't present the challenge? To pigeonhole kids at an early age as non-motivated, or unable to rise to a challenge is a dangerous practice, IMO. Kids are so easily influenced. I can't fathom that by deciding they SHOULDN'T be given the challenge is in anyway doing them a favor. I disagree that setting high standards and giving all students the opportunity to meet the challenge is a bad thing. There is simply no way to know when a light bulb may come on for some of these kids.

 

You present the worst case scenario, and then make a blanket statement denouncing the value of challenging courses. We can't "dumb down" education for all, to make sure that the least motivated are succeeding at the same level as the most motivated. It's not an easy task to find the balance, but the opportunity HAS to be presented. Simply presenting the opportunities for an easy A to everyone is not in any way preparation for "real life", any more than overwhelming courses presented to those unable or unwilling to meet the challenge is. But when you say that a kid is unmotivated, and channel them into programs that present the least expections, you actually enable them, if not make them give up on themselves. If no one else believes in them, how will they believe they can do it themselves?

Question for lbbc: How do you motivate children without challenging them? How do you find out if you CAN motivate them, or they ARE receptive to a particular motivator, if you don't present the challenge? To pigeonhole kids at an early age as non-motivated, or unable to rise to a challenge is a dangerous practice, IMO. Kids are so easily influenced. I can't fathom that by deciding they SHOULDN'T be given the challenge is in anyway doing them a favor. I disagree that setting high standards and giving all students the opportunity to meet the challenge is a bad thing. There is simply no way to know when a light bulb may come on for some of these kids.

 

You present the worst case scenario, and then make a blanket statement denouncing the value of challenging courses. We can't "dumb down" education for all, to make sure that the least motivated are succeeding at the same level as the most motivated. It's not an easy task to find the balance, but the opportunity HAS to be presented. Simply presenting the opportunities for an easy A to everyone is not in any way preparation for "real life", any more than overwhelming courses presented to those unable or unwilling to meet the challenge is. But when you say that a kid is unmotivated, and channel them into programs that present the least expections, you actually enable them, if not make them give up on themselves. If no one else believes in them, how will they believe they can do it themselves?

 

I agree with all you say but again go back to my complaint of putting all kids in the same cookie cutter and expecting them all to be the same.

 

What motivates you very well may not motivate me. But yet that is what is happening.

 

I could learn about literature style, classic writing, etc, etc from a great Stephen King, Frank Peretti, Ted Dekker, Tom Clancy book. And for a male, that would sure keep my interest and encourage me to read over a Jane Austen novel.

 

I could not disagree MORE that the programs that I am alluding to our easy and have less expectations.

 

Vocational programs can be as challenging to AP students as AP classes might be to vocational students.

 

I had a 4.0 student once in Advertising and Promotion class who said my class was the hardest she ever had. Even over all the AP classes and such. Because she had to be creative and devise and advertising and promotional plan. She hated my class because I wouldn't tell her the exact thing to say and do to get her A. I expected her to be creative and create.

 

Somehow it seems in this educational system of ours that it is looked down upon to be a plumber, electrician, HVAC, auto mechanic, bricklayer, welder, etc, etc, etc.

Question for lbbc: How do you motivate children without challenging them? How do you find out if you CAN motivate them, or they ARE receptive to a particular motivator, if you don't present the challenge? To pigeonhole kids at an early age as non-motivated, or unable to rise to a challenge is a dangerous practice, IMO. Kids are so easily influenced. I can't fathom that by deciding they SHOULDN'T be given the challenge is in anyway doing them a favor. I disagree that setting high standards and giving all students the opportunity to meet the challenge is a bad thing. There is simply no way to know when a light bulb may come on for some of these kids.

 

You present the worst case scenario, and then make a blanket statement denouncing the value of challenging courses. We can't "dumb down" education for all, to make sure that the least motivated are succeeding at the same level as the most motivated. It's not an easy task to find the balance, but the opportunity HAS to be presented. Simply presenting the opportunities for an easy A to everyone is not in any way preparation for "real life", any more than overwhelming courses presented to those unable or unwilling to meet the challenge is. But when you say that a kid is unmotivated, and channel them into programs that present the least expections, you actually enable them, if not make them give up on themselves. If no one else believes in them, how will they believe they can do it themselves?

 

RM, I put you in a welding class and expect you to study and know all the regulations, guidelines, and procedures to weld different types of material to different things and you really think it is..and I quote you...

 

We can't "dumb down" education for all, to make sure that the least motivated are succeeding at the same level as the most motivated. It's not an easy task to find the balance, but the opportunity HAS to be presented. Simply presenting the opportunities for an easy A to everyone is not in any way preparation for "real life",

 

My point is that we have to get off the mindset in this country THAT THE ONLY AND BEST PATH is what is "called" higher level thinking for all.

 

I contend that just because someone can be book smart in geometry, they are no more "higher level thinking" than the construction worker who actually USES geometry and puts it to use every single day. And yet, our society would look at the geometry professor and label them as so much smarter than the construction worker.

 

Knowledge that a person cannot use is wasteful knowledge. And we are teaching a bunch of it in public and private schools.

I am not for dumbing down the AP classes and the like, I do realize that there is knowledge in there that my children will never ever use in their life basically, but it is the nature of the beast.

 

RM--If a child shows up as a freshmen and cannot do percents, fractions, 3 digit multiplication or even know all of their basic mulitiplication tables, should we be putting him into Geometry? Is that the best place for him to be a successful person in life? And yet that is the box we are required to shove him in.

 

If a child shows up with a 2nd grade reading level, should we be handing him a Shakesparean novel and telling to read and study it to pass and challenge him? And yet that is the box we are required to shove him in.

 

School used to be about what was best for each individual kid. Like the old days when a master builder would hand build something. Now it is an assembly line where we are to produce the same looking item and turn out products.

 

And that kid is slipping through the cracks. And it is why I chose to be where I am.

I agree with all you say but again go back to my complaint of putting all kids in the same cookie cutter and expecting them all to be the same.

 

What motivates you very well may not motivate me. But yet that is what is happening.

 

I could learn about literature style, classic writing, etc, etc from a great Stephen King, Frank Peretti, Ted Dekker, Tom Clancy book. And for a male, that would sure keep my interest and encourage me to read over a Jane Austen novel.

 

I could not disagree MORE that the programs that I am alluding to our easy and have less expectations.

 

Vocational programs can be as challenging to AP students as AP classes might be to vocational students.

 

I had a 4.0 student once in Advertising and Promotion class who said my class was the hardest she ever had. Even over all the AP classes and such. Because she had to be creative and devise and advertising and promotional plan. She hated my class because I wouldn't tell her the exact thing to say and do to get her A. I expected her to be creative and create.

 

Somehow it seems in this educational system of ours that it is looked down upon to be a plumber, electrician, HVAC, auto mechanic, bricklayer, welder, etc, etc, etc.

 

I say you're pigeon holing males as not capable of appreciating Shakespeare. The goal of literature classes is to expose kids to a VARIETY of literary styles. Unless the class is strictly a class on Shakespeare, it's not likely that's the only literature you'll read. It's a broad spectrum. The same thing you require in your A&P class is what is expected in literature classes. Creativity.

 

There's nothing wrong at all in being a plumber, et al. But even a plumber can appreciate Shakespeare. Your comments lead me to believe that you don't think people who work with their hands have the capability or desire to understand and appreciate such things as classical literature.

RM, I put you in a welding class and expect you to study and know all the regulations, guidelines, and procedures to weld different types of material to different things and you really think it is..and I quote you...

 

We can't "dumb down" education for all, to make sure that the least motivated are succeeding at the same level as the most motivated. It's not an easy task to find the balance, but the opportunity HAS to be presented. Simply presenting the opportunities for an easy A to everyone is not in any way preparation for "real life",

 

My point is that we have to get off the mindset in this country THAT THE ONLY AND BEST PATH is what is "called" higher level thinking for all.

 

I contend that just because someone can be book smart in geometry, they are no more "higher level thinking" than the construction worker who actually USES geometry and puts it to use every single day. And yet, our society would look at the geometry professor and label them as so much smarter than the construction worker.

 

Knowledge that a person cannot use is wasteful knowledge. And we are teaching a bunch of it in public and private schools.

 

Dang straight I should know those things. No one is saying an academic is smarter than a laborer. But what you're advocating is not even exposing a segment of the school population to academia, because they're not going to use it. There is value in ALL learning. One can be an academic who appreciates the falue of vocational training, as well as a laborer who appreciates classical literature.

 

You are perpetuating a persecution complex.

lbbc, read this, or watch the video. These people are homeless, yet through reading, one has kicked his addicitons. In literature, especially classic literature, people CAN learn about themselves. Denying kids this exposure is a huge disservice, IMO. They should be exposed at the minimum. The aren't forced to pursue it, but it's just plain wrong not to give them the opportunity. And they should be encouraged. It kills me the prevalence of the perception that classic literature, or even reading anything other than what is absolutely necessary, is wasteful. Who are we? Puritans?

As I taught today finding the Greatest Common Factor, my student looked at me and said "why I am wasting my time doing this when I will never ever use it?" Ummm, Ohhh, Ewww, Squirrel.

 

Let's get this problem done.