Quote:
Originally Posted by DrPhil
If it was as easy as telling the "have nots" to step their game up, this would have been accomplished years ago and without a merger. The problem is access to resources and essentially re-socializing the students. Throwing "have nots" in an environment with more resources and telling them "DO BETTER," as though it was only their fault they weren't achieving, will have a horrendous outcome. The school district reps, staff and teachers need to prepare the students for the new environment that is much different than what they are accustomed to.
As for the bolded, many aspects of intelligence are not inherent. If intelligence is lower it is also a result of access to resources in the home, school, and other environments. If this is caught early enough, intelligence can be shaped. If it is not caught early enough, the average low performing student will be considered less intelligent, by many standards of intelligence, and will therefore not perfom well in excelled environments if there is nothing to buffer the previous lack of access to resources.
|
Of course. As part of the negotiations, the powers-that-be would have to do more than what has previously been done. This may mean additional course levels to give the have nots an opportunity to build the core knowledge and skills they may be missing, among other things.
I wasn't suggesting that the merger move forward without a game plan!
Quote:
|
It has been a factor in the decision-making process for over a generation. That doesn't end just because some people are finally doing something about it.
|
Of course it has. However, this argument should not be the basis for legal intervention (nor is it a valid "con" imo).
Threaded Mode
