This is hilarious. In Cambridge MA, host city to Harvard University, Massachusetts Institute of Technology, and Lesley University, residents believe they are superior to anyone who disagrees with them. Diverse opinions are not tolerated. The Cambridge School Committee approved eliminating special advance classes in the middle schools. Mindless zombie elitists demand everyone learn at the same speed. Duh! Are students encouraged to weigh more or less than others in the name of diversity too? Quick learners will be forced to waste time and alienated from the learning process. Slow learners will harass classmates because, "You're smart." One student noted they will be forced to help their slower classmates. It is one more example of how the beasts in Cambridge drag everyone down to their level. In this misguided elitist city residents are pressured to become as corrupt as the police and the politicians or they are attacked. In the name of diversity useful idiots make everyone the same. How charming to twist language to implement Communism where some are more equal and more diverse than others. Only Patti Nolan opposed this twisted corruption of the learning process.
[From article]
“We need the diversity of our student body to be present at every level,” said Cambridgeport School English teacher Katie Gribben. “My classroom shows that a diverse student group can be incredibly successful.”
[. . .]
“We are trying to build something new in this city and we need everybody to come together,” Young said before the School Committee voted 6 - 1 to support Young’s Academic Challenge Policy, which eliminates “separate challenge programs,”
http://www.wickedlocal.com/cambridge/news/x392617482/Cambridge-School-Committee-passes-Academic-Challenge-axes-Intensive-Studies#axzz1lf1vwk6z
Cambridge School Committee passes Academic Challenge, axes Intensive Studies
By Andy Metzger/ametzger (at) wickedlocal.com
Cambridge Chronicle
Posted Feb 08, 2012 @ 07:59 AM
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
4 comments:
Clearly you have your opinion. I'm not sure if you were at the school committee meeting but certainly people were allowed to voice quite diverse opinions (i.e. diverse opinions ARE tolerated) and I'm not sure anyone thought this was a black and white decision, as you seem to think it is. At some point the committee had to make a decision whether to keep the ISP or not, and they made the difficult choice to eliminate it. It doesn't mean they feel they are superior to others. It means they believe that this is the best decision for the district and for all children - including those that are more academically inclined.
The teacher you quote from the article, also said in her statement, that her lowest achieving students made more gains last year than 75% of their peers in the state, while her highest achieving students - those that might have left for the ISP - made more gains than 95% of their peers in the state (this is on the state standardized tests). Her argument is that part of the reason her highest achieving students had such enormous gains was due to the diversity in the classroom.
Is this type of success happening in every classroom in Cambridge right now - no. Absolutely, not. But they have teachers who are doing this and understanding what these teachers are doing and translating it across the district could have a huge impact for all students - including those at the top.
No one wants to make everyone the same. What they want is a district where the privileged children learn important lessons and hear perspectives from those children that are more disadvantaged. It may actually HELP these higher students overall educational experience, as is suggested from Ms. Gribben's comments. And they want children from more disadvantageous backgrounds to learn from and hear from more privileged kids.
This is about educational policy that doesn't punish anyone but rather increases education for all. Maybe it's a lofty goal. Maybe it's unachievable. But the fact is, it's happening in some classrooms and it certainly seems possible that it could happen across the entire district.
Following up on my previous comment - assuming you will post it and, practice what you preach ("tolerate diverse opinions") - much of the learning at Cambridge - especially in reading and writing - is individuated. Meaning, rather than reading a class book, each student reads a book at their level. Teachers give lessons on a certain subject - say theme - and then students are required to apply and discuss that topic within their own book. Again, this is a system that embraces diversity but in doing so attempts to meet children where they are and have them grow from there rather than dragging them down to the lowest common denominator.
Anonymous said, "I'm not sure anyone thought this was a black and white decision, as you seem to think it is." Here is an example of what psychologists call projection. No where in my comments is the issue of black and white mentioned. But since you raise it the pervasive belief in Cambridge is that all black students are poor and lack support for learning. This is as nonsensical as thinking that all white students thrive in a classroom. There are far more poor white students in this country than poor black students. So it is not a black white issue except in your mind thinking that it is in my mind.
Sorry. You misunderstood what I meant by black and white. I was not referring to race. A black and white issue is a issue that is clearly defined by right and wrong. For example, child abuse is a black and white issue. There are tons of reasons against it and not one good reason for it. It is clearly wrong. What I was saying was that this issue - to retain or eliminate the ISP program - is not a black and white issue - it is not clearly defined by right and wrong. Rather there are advantages and disadvantages to keeping or eliminating the program. And in most people's mind it's a very close call. That's why I said,
"I'm not sure anyone thought this was a black and white decision, as you seem to think it is. At some point the committee had to make a decision whether to keep the ISP or not, and they made the difficult choice to eliminate it."
Make sense?
I said that you characterized the issue as a black and white issue (a right versus wrong issue) because you seem to say that due to their "superiority" people in Cambridge did not consider the other side or alternative perspectives from their own. I don't think this is true. I think it is clear what the advantages of keeping the ISP program are and for this reason removing it was a very difficult decision but, despite this difficult decision, people thought that have more inclusive classrooms was better. Maybe only slightly better and maybe better for the long run rather than for right now. But they weighed each side and decided for what they thought was best.
I also thought you characterized it as a black and white issue b/c - and here I could be projecting but I didn't see anything to the contrary in your post - that you believe that the decision to remove the ISP program was wrong, without any possible advantages. Again, I would just reiterate that in most peoples mind - including, I would guess the committee members (although obviously I cannot be sure) - there were clear advantages to keeping the ISP program and they are still considering having honors programs.
Sorry if you misunderstood.
Post a Comment