Web lists-archives.com

Re: King Donald

On 2/5/2017, 3:21:39 PM, Wolf K. <wolfmac@xxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> On 2017-02-05 15:01, Sailfish wrote:
>> My bloviated meandering follows what Disaster Master graced us with on
>> 2/5/2017 10:48 AM:
>>> On 2/4/2017, 4:17:46 AM, Ron Hunter <rphunter@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>>>> In my limited experience, larger classrooms generate poorer results.
>>>> Ideal class size is 12 to 15.  I have had as many as 48!  Unmanageable!
>>> I think such a blanket statement belies erroneous thinking.
> Ooops, DM is saying the opposite of what he means.

No clue what you mean by that.

>>> Different people learn differently, and 'modern' educational systems
>>> simply cannot take this into account.
> The reason this fact of life is not taken into account is that dealing 
> with students in terms of their differences is damn expensive. That's 
> why private schools that offer such individualised learning cost more.

And again, you are trying to compare the existing systems to what I'm
talking about - developing entirely new systems.

Garsh, maybe it would result in something even your obviously keen
intellect hasn't thought of yet.

> BTW, Dear Disaster Master, Finland (like all Scandinavian countries) 
> solves a major difference by assessing all children starting at around 
> age 3-4, and admitting them to school when they are ready for it. They 
> have staggered intake to make that possible.

Sounds like an interesting idea worth pursuing, and one that I think
would be naturally discovered if it wasn't already there to be emulated.

> In the typical US 1st grade 
> you have as much as one year chronological age differences, and often 
> double that in developmental differences. IOW, a 15% to 30% difference 
> in readiness to learn. But of course you wouldn't waste your time 
> finding that out. You already know all you need to know.

Where, dear Wolf, have I ever said I know everything about the subject
matter? All I've been saying is that we need to free up the system and
allow it to develop new systems based on trial and error, with the
understanding that while many experiments will be failures, fantastic
new systems will be developed, as long as the systems have the power to
quickly self-correct.

Also, while I haven't said it (as I thought it went without saying), we
wouldn't be starting from a blank slate. As you have pointed out, there
are already vastly better systems out there that we could use as
starting points.

The main points I'm making are, the entire concept that these systems
need to be imposed from on high at gun point needs to be abolished, shot
in the head, dead and buried forever.
general mailing list