Academic Equity: Freedom of the Individual Versus the Needs of the Collective
"Resolved, that starting next year we at Foothill Technology High School will eradicate all 'tracking' in academic classes whereby 'advanced' and 'non-advanced' students attend different classes with different teachers with different academic goals. This change will help to reduce and eventually erase the racial, economic, and social inequalities that plague our schools and our entire society. 'Tracking,' indeed, is un-American. Next year, it will end at FTHS."
What would you think if you heard this news, my students? What would be your first gut reaction? Your later conclusion, after you had thought about it?
Think about these assumptions:
If the strongest students self-segregate themselves into separate classes, does this not simply reinforce the existing gaps in achievement in our schools? The intelligent and the ambitious move far forward in separent classes, while the other "non-advanced" classes (with at least some unambitious and unprepared students) get left behind? At any school how much does a motivated and focused student owe to those less strong academically and less motivated?
Our blogsite posting this time around will focus on this main question:
To what extent should we as a community minimize the FREEDOM of high achieving students to choose advanced classes in the name of equality of all students? Should we abolish Advanced Placement classes in the name of academic EQUALITY?What do you think? How much should school be about maximizing the unique potential of each individual student in their pursuit of book knowledge and academic excellence? How much should school be about looking after one’s neighbor and working for the good of ALL students, and especially the weakest students – focusing on others, instead of oneself? Can one have both? Yes? No? To what extent? Should school be about learning how to get along with others? Building equality and “democracy”? Struggling for social justice for all in the community? Or should school be primarily about each individual learning “reading, writing, and arithmetic”? Learning academic content? Acquiring the intellectual skills for success in school and adult life? Getting that letter of acceptance from that prestigious university your senior year? Why don’t we get rid of AP classes and academic “tracking” in schools? Should we integrate, by court order if necessary, high-achieving and low-achieving schools in neighboring communities? Should we bus kids from different socioeconomic backgrounds to other area school to ensure racial and ethnic diversity in school populations? Why should the quality of education one receives depend on one's zip code? Why don’t we force the most veteran and most highly qualified teachers to work in the lowest achieving and most difficult schools? Restrict the FREEDOM of those teachers to choose their schools in the name of EQUALITY of academic offerings? To ensure a measure of academic equity in ALL schools? Should we even go so far as to ban private schools in the name of equality and ensuring similar educational access? What do you think? What should be the policy for our community in these matters? Please publish your comments by 8:00 a.m. on Thursday March 24, 2005. This discussion will serve as preparation for the educational equity Socratic dialogue we will have on that day in class.
posted by 515guyforlife at 3/17/2005 08:38:00 PM
9 Comments:
My initial reaction to this news is that it is unfair to those students who are motivated to work hard and accomplish something to be proud of; that to force these stundents out of their more challenging course work would cause more problems than anything. If they are not being challenged or asked to work to their potential, they will become bored and indifferent. Some people are simply not cut out for helping other people either, as far as academics go, and are literally uncapable of explaining to other students how to do something. So what do they owe to the slackers who fail tech lit 1? I say nothing. This may seem harsh, but in today’s academic competition its survival of the fittest, figuratively speaking. Those who want to get into Harvard and MIT do not have time to waste with these misfits. You cannot teach someone who doesn’t want to be taught. I think it would be a detrimental mistake to take away AP and honor courses. It may be argued that by integrating different levels of intelligence and motivation into one class it will average out, and that the more ambitious students will rub some of their “smart juice” onto the indifferent ones. But who’s to say that it won’t be the other way around? What if this theory backfires and all you are left with is a class full of indifferent failures with no future? Or perhaps the lower level stundents will be intimidated by all the upper level students they’ve never had a class with in their life. I have a hunch that, given the two types of students are forced into one another’s company, they will naturally separate themselves out naturally.
If you want to install a mentoring program, by all means go right ahead. But unless it is voluntary, I wonder if it will have much success, or will it just be interpreted as another failed attempt of idealistic teachers trying to create a sense of unity and “family” in a school where it is already present? I say leave things the way they are. You asked if we should install this new system of equality to reflect the democratic ideals and values of this country, but I think it is best left alone. Our society is intolerant of inactivity or laziness; you must be active to reap any sort of reward, be it capital or otherwise.
It is unfair to merge high achieving schools with those of lesser standards. If a school has an impressive academic record, it reflects the hard work and dedication of its teachers. When you bring in students of a different background and culture into a school who already has its basic standards set, the task could be daunting for these enthusiastic teachers; it could break their spirits. I think that a school like ours owes nothing to other areas or communities with a lack of enthusiasm or academic expectation. We, the students and teachers, have worked hard to build up our reputation, and I’ll be damned (wow, I can’t believe that I, of all people, just said that!) if any state or federal legislation will take that away for the sake of feeling a sense of community. If the teachers stop caring, the students stop caring. That is what is so unique about our school. It is popular opinion that all the “smart kids” go to Foothill, but it is the atmosphere here that inspires us to succeed. The teachers look past the desktops and see real people with lives, ambitions, and commitments. The teachers believe in the students, and thus the students believe in themselves.
I understand that my argument is harsh and unforgiving, but its how I feel. I don’t want to waste my time with people who don’t care, and even make fun of me for caring so much. I want to be something in my life, to make a difference. But for me to make a difference, I need to be able to push myself, find my limits, and see if I can push farther. I am not a naturally talented person in any academic subject in particular. I have to work really hard for my grades, and I will not stand having anyone take away all I have worked for away from me and tell me that the community is important. Yes, I care about my fellow student, and I hope they succeed. And I love to help people with any assignment I can, but that is if they want help. If they don’t want help, I don’t force it. I want to help those who need it, not those who are too lazy to accept it and forced into it.
Wow, that went a lot longer that I thought it would, and I’m not sure I’ve answered the question completely. I sound really one-sided, and I guess I am. My answer in short: no AP/honors classes = bad idea.
Well so far everybody here seems to have posted some very interesting comments, and to a large degree I feel inclined to agree with each of them. With that said, I will now proceed to attempt to rip both arguments apart in the hopes of finding a middle ground which I would be able to agree with fully. =D
First of all, let me state that my major beef is not with either side of the argument, but with the system that seems to contain it. I don’t know how many other people read all the articles that Geib sensei (Said cause it sounds cooler than plain old “Mr. Geib”) linked to from his main site on the topic, but one major point that was made in many of them that I agree with is that the educational system seems to be too focused on credentialing students for college, and not focused enough on the actual “learning,” to the point where students (including myself) have periodic lapses into thinking that the real point of school is more about getting “A’s” than getting educated. When you think about it, the ultimate measure of student progress in the current system is how students compare to each other. An “A” technically stands for “above average,” and has since the foundation of the American educational system. The grading technique of “curving” reinforces this meaning, and is currently practiced by a large quantity of teachers throughout the country to conform to this principle. Now the main problem I have is that “A’s”, “B’s”, and “C’s” do not, in actuality describe the learning a student has achieved; they are decided purely on the basis of numerical comparisons between test and homework scores, and occasionally on “citizenship” during class. As such, the American system is not about learning so much as getting a better grade than everybody else in the hopes of ensuring one’s place in the increasingly competitive college system, with counselors and high school officials arbitrarily predicting the doom and industrial relegation of any child who loses the race; and hundreds of thousands lose it every year, despite the myriad of “no child left behind” style policies that politicians on both side of the political leylines introduce to Congress each year. This does not create an environment conducive to the original principles of the educational system as they were set forth by the founding fathers; that is, to become a pillar of democracy, allowing citizens to make informed governmental decisions and thereby advance society for all citizens. Furthermore, this distortion of principles is leading to a change in the entire societal perception of intelligence, making the image of a “smart person” societally equivalent to the image of an unambitious pencil pusher who shuns social skills to further his sad, isolated career in apathetic contemplation, and freetime dominated by solo indoor activities (read: the author of this post).
Now, the proposal that seems to help alleviate both sides of the issue to me is to allow more academically challenging courses in schools for more advanced students who would be bored in less challenging courses, but not discriminate towards AP and honors students or against the students of “normal” classes in terms of college admissions, or on the basis of “grades,” but by a student portfolio of compiled classwork and teacher input. That way, curious students who don’t feel challenged in school can go to AP and Honors courses without having to feel strongly pressured to, or being in a “minority” by not entering; and since an “A, B, C” grading system won’t be in effect, there won’t be any reason for the curious to bow out of higher courses for fear of repercussions in the arbitrary grading system. This would also encourage teacher participation and attention to individual student needs, since the teachers would be charged with annotating a student portfolio and pointing out their strengths and weaknesses. Now I can already hear the people lining up in my head, saying “Adam, if there’s no academic differentiation for Honors and AP students in terms of college admissions then what’s the point of even entering the program?” To them I reply simply, “Non schola sed vita decimos.” (God I hope I spelled that right… =D) The academic system should not be about qualifications or exams, but about learning; therefore, for AP and Honors students bored in “normal” classes, learning should be its own reward. If they can’t accept that principle, then they don’t belong in higher level courses in the first place, irregardless of any academic talents that they may possess. Limp knowledge without application or thought is the only consideration that would make history, as Henry Ford put it, “bunk.”
I also would like to express my agreement with Cheyanne's previous point. Motivation is not the be all and end all of AP and other higher level classes, and some of the coolest people I know struggle in school, and I believe that they deserve more respect than an AP student who gets A's without trying. And I'm not just saying that because Kirby's follow up made it the "cool" thing to do. =D Also, I'm wondering why Clayton took down his previous post, 'cause it was very funny and also brought up some great points in my opinion. Anyway, cya later fellow AP masachists!
I've kinda been watching the flow of this blog, and it seems to me that it's beginning to center on a vision of some sort of primordial struggle between the "smart" and "stupid" people; both of which terms I tend to find arbitrary differenciations based on false measuring sticks set up by society to try and "tag" which students society should pay attention to. I would like to state my belief (as I probably didn't do enough in my first article since it was a different approach than the traditional articles I'm reading now) that it can never be that simple. Many of the students who I've heard lambasted for sleeping in class or talking about other things have justifiable reasons for doing so. For people whose families experience discord, tension, or illness (such as my mother, who has about three potentially terminal illnesses all at the same time), it's not so simple to say that the reason that they're late is always because they "don't care," or that they're "stupid." Sometimes the only responsible action to do within the context of one's family or social life is to abandon schoolwork to help other concerns, and frankly I often feel that I'm the morally reprehensible or "stupid" one for not helping more around the house, instead focusing on schoolwork for my AP and Honors courses. Sometimes I come to school late because I was up until 3AM studying and doing homework, and sometimes I can't get transportation to school and have to walk there without any real hope of arriving on time. The real world is not defined by academic considerations that some posters seem to regard as the things of paramount importance in life.
Furthermore, I'm beginning to see an opinion that if a person doesn't find all of their subjects fasinating and interesting, then they lack intelligence and are only fit to be "gardeners" or "drug dealers." (as if the two were in the same category...) I, however in the minority I may be, believe that it's OK not to like some of your subjects. Many subjects are forced upon students by the colleges and the school system in the first place, and though they may be essential skills to have in the world, one is not required to enjoy EVERYTHING somebody does in school, though it's easier for them when they do. People have interests outside of acedemia and that's the way it should be; and just because somebody's interests are not in the range of school sanctioned activities does not nesisarily mean that they are "stupid."
I guess to relate it back to the topic, I would have to say that while I don't support the dissolution of the AP and Honors programs, I also feel that many posters are not considering the social equality side of the equation as much as it merrits.
But I guess maybe my opinion on this matter isn't very credible. After all, if there's one thing I've learned in my lifetime, it's that the only person in the world who is really stupid is me; so I guess I may have a "bias" in favor of that side of the fence I guess. <=)
-Adam "The Yellow Dart" Hall
Actually, I just thought of this now: If my previous post seemed overly harsh, I didn't mean it to offend anybody. I just felt very strongly about this topic, and I probly expressed myself a little too satirically without realizing it. Be warned!! That's what reading "Dilbert" obsesively in middle school can do to you!!! ;-)
once again i shall answer the questions given cause im too lazy to write essay form...
-------------------------------
How is it possible, in a country dedicated to equality, that students can attend a high-achieving public school in one area while those in the next neighborhood over go to a low-achieving school?
**
I was in a situation like this, I used to live in the mid Oxnard upper scale Vineyard Suburbs and before my life skewed dramatically out of proportion I was just a normal middle school kid, here in lies the problem, I had been going to a private middle and grade school that was supposedly “advanced” once I was out of this school I fortunately had the option to go to Foothill tech (but at the time Foothill had not been built yet), so as we researched high schools in the area, we found out that because we lived around 25 FEET from one side of the road I would have had to go to a school 25 miles away, instead of the brand new school just a mile and a half down the road, the school had just been built but because of a few feet I would have had to go to an old washed out school the size of my thumb, fortunate for me foothill was built and I moved.
---------------------------------
Why should a slight change in your zip code mean either attendance in a school with high-academic achievement or relegation to a struggling one. And why should you enter into an individual school and encounter many of the "best and brightest" in advanced placement and honor's classes, with the regular classes starved of their contributions?
**
It shouldn’t, one should have the option to attend any school that they want, but they have to have the grades to qualify for it, like Foothill Tech, we are a good school because we had the grades to get in. we did what was and if not more than what was required to gain access to this school of academic competitive prominence.
-------------------------------
Do those already doing well do even better in separate "elite" classes, while those struggling often suffer in isolation from them? Is it the role of high-achieving students to further their own individual success, or should they strive to bring their peers up to the same level?
**
Big question, because breaking down the human diligence is a tricky case, one defiantly hard to build. Sure our Valedictorians are doing the best in the school, sure the alumni of our classes proceed with academic valor, and its thanks to these “elite” classes that each school can confidently rate their students and their teaching methods.
In regular classes, average students do average work according to the average standards, and due to these elected standards by the state board, every student has to pass with at least a c or better in order to get into college and this is what every teenager should hope to accomplish.
so as im rounding out an answer, what Im trying to say is, it is not the fault of those who excel at a subject, so why should you penalize them by sticking them in a class where they are not challenged, and taught pieces of information that tries to flamboyantly keep the attention of the delinquents of the class and further hinders those who already get it or those who don’t really get it.
Also I believe it is the fault of the teacher if the kids in their classes don’t understand something not the fault of the student, the teacher has the personality that drives the class. For instance, one of my current teachers that I had for a freshman class, (he took over half year for another teacher because the teacher that originally taught got pissed off and left school but that’s another story) did not drive the class, he didn’t know what was required in order to effectively teach us, time and time again id see the Cro-Magnon look upon his face that meant he did not know how or in what way to solve the problem given, he did not know how to teach, and because of that, rumor has it (rumor based on fact), out of 36 kids in the class only 5 passed with D-‘s to D’s. This is a chilling number because it is not the fault of the student if the teacher is incompetent,
In another account of one of the classes I’m in currently the Teacher is more concerned about keeping juvenile delinquents in the back of the classroom quiet than teaching us what we need to know. Often in his class he will go at light speed matched by calculators and those who didn’t get into honors, he stops for questions every once in a while, but still the blank stare ensues of a cow looking at an oncoming train whenever he hands back the tests or asks a question on the board. Time and time again has he scolded us for being noisy even though the good majority of us were discussing the topic and why we didn’t get it. Its not a matter of juvenile delinquency if one cannot pay attention to the teacher because the teacher does not know how to teach. This is just ridiculous, I who was never the best at this subject and who is completely stripped naked in this field am one of the ones who needs the teacher to stop and say, hey, what’s wrong, well here is how you do it, step by step instead of the later. Just a fun example yesterday, he stopped the class barely quarter of his lecture and yelled at us saying we were being ridiculously loud and said im not going to teach any of you this if you do not wish to learn it… and had us read from our books silently and independently for fear of a detention and try to accomplish the nights homework in class though we could not ask him or anyone else for help… that is unfair…
Rounding out this answer segregation of intelligence into class structures would benefit because, 1 those who excel at the field being taught should be given to a better teacher because they will be able to prosper and take in much more of what can be taught, and 2 those who do not excel will have more time to talk with the teacher who can explain it to them in basic step by step terms and then at least these kids will have a better grasp of the basic standards.
-----------------------------
If education is not a preparation for life but is life itself, are we not training young people that inequality is natural and acceptable?
**
No we are not training our younguns that inequality is acceptable by having AP classes and curriculum. Everybody has their own niche unique to them more or less and what they strive at should be emphasized on and by what they learn. They should be encouraged by the advanced system, because it is what will train them for what they will need to know in this competitive world
Often race issues revolving around the intelligence and inhibition of opportunity of minorities to participate in such advanced classes, and it’s a load of crap… there is no going around it ITS UTTER BULL, if one has the Diligence and the Intelligence then there is no direct academic harness placed upon the boundaries of his existence (academically circumstantial though)
-----------------------------------
Have we already paid too little attention to the needs and capabilities of talented students? Perhaps we should have MORE funding and MORE attention paid to those advanced students who will lead this country in the future and provide scientific breakthroughs?
**
This question refers to students in general, I believe that every student has potential in some way of life and because of this potential they should strive to improve it, and not be held back by the common indolence caused by the fields they are not so great in. if anything we are currently hindering our Einstein’s, as most would know he was not a scholar in school, but his later ideas were proved to be fact and he became as famous as Scientists can become, his ideas were breakthroughs marveling the scientific world, and even he himself couldn’t do the math needed to prove his theories. In our modern education system, if one does not do well academically society will forever frown upon their academic record, they will go nowhere in life and most likely live an unstable life doing mindless drone work for some giant corporation founded by those who were academically competitive enough to sneak to the top of society.
----------------------------
And yet Foothill and Berendo are both California public schools in a United States of America that supposedly offers equal opportunity for advancement towards "the pursuit of life, liberty, and happiness." But is this so? Some have observed an almost re-segregation of the public schools, according to home prices and social class, in America over the last thirty years. Should this be allowed to stand? Some call this nothing less than a "civil rights" issue. Is it?
**
This is a load of crap, I say this because I have taken classes at ventura high school, Buena highschool and have friends that have gone to berendo, el camino, and pacific and at each of these people, each of these classes were the most ridiculous insult to the word Lesson Plan I have ever experienced. My point is, for what we at Foothill Tech do for an F, you can get at least a C or better at these other schools, as I attended summer school I talked with the staff and they said the curriculum did NOT change when it was being taught in the year as apposed to being taught in summer school, only difference is more condensed. The sad thing is I received a D in 9th grade English for who knows what reason, my life was horrible that year, lots of outside difficulties that did have an impact on me academically, but the worst aspect was when I got into summer school I was downright embarrassed, because at the beginning of every day i completely finished all of the homework by the first 10 minutes into class, and immediately there after I would either A Sleep or B draw, and I got an A in the class, where as with Foothill tech the teachers demand more of the student, and they demand more diligence and respect.
When I talk to other friends at other schools, they call my school a bunch of nerds and “fags,” and I ask them why they didn’t go and they say they didn’t have the work ethic…
So as I analyze this question im trying to say, Teachers Drive the classrooms, Teenagers go to learn, it’s the schools problem if Teachers do not do their job in order to captivate students and teach them the standards, just because someone lives in a different area code, it doesn’t mean the local schools destroy a kids future, if anything it’s the local schools staff who is destroying a childs future, and they don’t care, they go for tenure and a paycheck…
------------------
What would you think if you heard this news, my students? What would be your first gut reaction? Your later conclusion, after you had thought about it?
Abolish advanced placement and honor's classes and have all academic classes heterogeneously mixed? Mandatory, court-ordered full integration of Oxnard and Foothill Technology and High School student bodies?
The mandatory, court-ordered transfer of the teaching staff of Foothill Technology High School from the suburbs of Ventura to inner-city LA Berendo Middle School and vice versa?
Abolish all private "prep schools" and make attendance mandatory for their students in fully-integrated, diverse public schools?
**
First off id laugh, then id climb a clock tower push a giant magnifying glass at the person who said it and allowed it to pass and nuke them like the socialist ANT they are…. Nuff said!
--------------------------
If the strongest students self-segregate themselves into separate classes, does this not simply reinforce the existing gaps in achievement in our schools? The intelligent and the ambitious move far forward in separent classes, while the other "non-advanced" classes (with at least some unambitious and unprepared students) get left behind? At any school how much does a motivated and focused student owe to those less strong academically and less motivated?
**
ITS NOT THE JOB OF THE STUDENT TO TEACH THE STUDENT…
-------------------
To what extent should we as a community minimize the FREEDOM of high achieving students to choose advanced classes in the name of equality of all students? Should we abolish Advanced Placement classes in the name of academic EQUALITY?
**
To the extent that students can understand and prosper from them not to be dragged down by it.
-------------
How much should school be about maximizing the unique potential of each individual student in their pursuit of book knowledge and academic excellence?
**
Every school should capitalize on the individualistic needs of society, say one kid gets beaten up every night by someone at his house and has no connection to the internet, and tomorrow a big term paper is due, is this fair to the student, no, but does society allow it, yes…
-----------------
How much should school be about looking after one’s neighbor and working for the good of ALL students, and especially the weakest students – focusing on others, instead of oneself? Can one have both? Yes? No? To what extent?
**
To the extent that we all work together in order to accomplish a feat, the moment the feat is accomplished the comrodory that arose will simply die out
-------------------------
Should school be about learning how to get along with others?
**
It already is… in every aspect in the daily life of a student we learn from our piers what is right and what is wrong by our own ethical and moral standards.
---------------------
Building equality and “democracy”? Struggling for social justice for all in the community? Or should school be primarily about each individual learning “reading, writing, and arithmetic”? Learning academic content? Acquiring the intellectual skills for success in school and adult life? Getting that letter of acceptance from that prestigious university your senior year?
**
Schools should be where one who wishes to learn may learn and prosper academically… and schools should encourage this with better teachers, standards and facts that matter
-------------------
Why don’t we get rid of AP classes and academic “tracking” in schools?
**
Because God would kill you… (awkward stare) What!?!
---------------------
Should we integrate, by court order if necessary, high-achieving and low-achieving schools in neighboring communities? Should we bus kids from different socioeconomic backgrounds to other area school to ensure racial and ethnic diversity in school populations? Does it Restrict the FREEDOM of those teachers to choose their schools in the name of EQUALITY of academic offerings? To ensure a measure of academic equity in ALL schools? Should we even go so far as to ban private schools in the name of equality and ensuring similar educational access?
**
No… No… NO… NO… NO…
I say no because if every school has qualified teachers that can teach and cause students to care about academic life rather than lament it… then there would be no difference and the only way to do that is to not put a harness on the students
-------------------
the end
Wow Leslie, you sure are thorough!
Not one other person decided to try and characterize the maximum capability of lower performing students with a logarithmic equation... =D
ME write a book on views... tempting lol... but im lathargic and time is too sparse for my rants, perhaps one day with much time set aside for a situation i would probably do so, but im more interested in writing sci fi at the moment--
-- GEOF DJERNAES --
thats right it was me all along
(what you dont know me... damn)
*im the guy mr Geib always reminds to flip the lights...*
another thing i wanted to rant about was that those who cry the loudest about this social inequality are those who have obviously not taken AP classes of ANY sort, in fact they are usually the people who sit in back of the class and do absolutley nothing the teacher instructs them to.
not only that but these people usually say that by us being in AP classes we have a better chance of going to college and doing well on Exams, well here is a wake up call for them, The rest of the world is advancing without stop, the Japanese work 10 times more diligently than most of us here in america, in china there are a billion people and out of that billion a god 30-60% are striving harder than ever to become scholars in their fields, the rest of the world is not only advancing, but if we were to give up our opportunity to excel, they would pass us up and soon we would be no better than that waste of a country with a large mouth and no power france....
Post a Comment
<< Home