Re: OT: "Special needs" (Was Michael Adams/Abrigon (Was [OT] Books for sanskrit self-study))
|From:||Tristan Alexander McLeay <conlang@...>|
|Date:||Tuesday, July 18, 2006, 1:31|
If you/anyone must continue this discussion, please do so offlist ---
and *don't* cc me.
On 18/07/06, Sai Emrys <sai@...> wrote:
> On 7/17/06, Mark J. Reed <markjreed@...> wrote:
> > On 7/17/06, Henrik Theiling <theiling@...> wrote:
> > > Is this a serious question?
> > Yes.
> What he said.
> > > You would probably find it strange to collect money for the rich.
> > What I find is that you are using an extremely inapplicable and
> > offensive analogy.
> > > If the challenged are well-supported, the smart ones should have
> > > access to enough books, though, for feeding any interest and keeping
> > > them from getting bored.
> > Once they're old enough, sure - assuming that their experiences within
> > the educational system haven't destroyed their desire to learn
> > altogether.
> > There's a reason many school systems have a special program for
> > "gifted" children. Assuming that your goal is to educate the
> > students, then dealing with them is as serious a problem as reaching
> > the children who are slower than normal for whatever reason.
> To elaborate on that somewhat: I don't want to touch the subject of
> *priority* - as noted by Christian, that's a 'social justice' sort of
> sensitive question that I don't think really applies.
> But to answer to the point... Sure, now that I am an adult and have
> access to a world of information, classes, college textbooks, etc etc
> on my own time, the "you're smart enough, teach yourself" argument
> But when I was a kid, I didn't. I was by law required to go to school,
> an institution that did very little to educate me, and whose social
> "education" would only prepare one for life in prison, not the real
> world (where we have things like laws, and meritocracies, and real
> lives that we engage in because we want to). It's a mistake to assume
> that a kid, even a hyperintelligent one, is any more developed in the
> aspect of being able to teach themselves than others are; that's a
> skill. One that takes time to learn, and one that (if anything) school
> teaches you NOT to learn.
> And y'know - I read lots and lots of books when I was a kid. Literally
> you could not find me without three in my posession, and one in front
> of my nose, if I was awake (and possibly when I was asleep too :-P).
> But that's hardly the same thing as an education; hardly the same
> thing as being taught properly. I didn't really educate myself; I read
> for fun, not so much for knowledge - because I didn't know what
> knowledge *would* be fun.
> IMHO as someone who's been there, the "let smart kids figure things
> out themselves despite the system" is a terrible disservice.
> - Sai