CHARLES BEAMS spoke of The Real Story 2 to DAN TRIPLETT on 09-02-96
CB>DT>Charles, you are talking apples and I am talking oranges.  If we
CB>DT>can  make learning more meaningful and get more kids engaged in
CB>DT>their own  learning don't you think they will be more excited
CB>DT>about school?
CB>Yes, but teaching only things that are fun should not be our
CB>motivating  force.  If anything, it is just this philosophy about
CB>education that has  put the U.S. so far behind other nations - we've
CB>lowered our standards  so as not to "tax" our children by teaching
CB>them things that are  difficult to learn or that they aren't properly
CB>motivated to learn.  We  must determine, as a nation, what we want
CB>our kids to know, when we want  them to know it, teach it to them,
CB>then test them on it. 
Actually I don't buy the idea that we are behind other nations.  I think 
that if one carefully dissects the data, we are ahead of other nations.  
We are graduating more students than ever before.  When one looks at 
test results from year to year for a comparison, all factors must be 
considered.  We have more students in the lower 60% taking tests and 
thus driving down the results.  I am not looking at any data in front of 
me but I'm willing to bet our results are much better when we take a 
second look at _all_ contribution factors.  
Research has shown that when learning is made meaningful, children want 
to learn and learn better.  The same concepts can be taught in boring 
fashion or in ways that engage and challenge the learner.  Sounds like 
you opt for boring while I opt for engaging learning through meaningful 
activities.  I really don't think you understand young children.  You 
are a high-school teacher right?  
As for lowering our standards, I don't know if this is true or not.  I 
know that it is what many people say and think is true but I don't 
believe it to be true everywhere.  Perhaps another good debatable 
thread.
CB>DT>You really think a kindergartner or 1st or 2nd grade kid cares
CB>DT>that some  things in life are boring?  The fact that some things
CB>DT>in life may be  boring seems a poor excuse to pass off boring
CB>DT>worksheets as a  legitimate way to teach kids.  (I said boring
CB>DT>worksheets....we have  already established that some WS are
CB>DT>good.)
CB>I'm afraid I don't follow this.  My point is this...if we establish
CB>that  we want all 3rd graders in this country to be able to read at a
CB>3rd  grade level on the XYZ Exam, then I don't care *what* the kids
CB>think is  boring, we teach them to read at the proper level by the
CB>3rd grade.  The  adults are in charge, not the kids.
If you want a child to learn 3 digit adding before they are 
developmentally ready it doesn't matter one bit who is in charge.  Kids 
can only learn what they are able to comprehend developmentally.  I 
again refer to Piaget (as well as many others who have contributed to 
the idea of cognitive development).
I agree with you that we should not lower standards.  Standards should 
be set that are appropriate.  One questions that I have pondered is 
whether we should design curriculum bottom up or top down.  What do you 
think?
I've fixed the above because my spell checker fixed words and changed 
the meaning of the text.
Dan
CMPQwk 1.42 445p
MONEY IS THE ROOT OF ALL EVIL. Send $20 for more info.
* ++++++  *
     _   /|    ACK!
     \'o.O'   /
     =(__)+
       U
 
--- WILDMAIL!/WC v4.12 
---------------