You care about your education. It is not only your education at hand. The only thing I would do in that position is offer my assistance to whoever needs assistance, or learn at the place the class is going. Furthermore, not try to hurt other people for my benifit.
The point is that it is not any student's fault that a class is slowing down. A teacher much teach at a specific pace. The teacher must ensure the the students are learning at the set pace. You are attempting to hold students responsible by having them thrown out of the class. Nobody should be thrown out of any class. It is the teacher's responsibiliy along with the school to make sure every student in the class is learning at the set pace. If the class is not functioning at top pace, the teacher/school must be held responsible. If any student is not learning at that pace. The teacher is to blame. Assuming of course everybody is in the same age group, and suffers from no medical disability. Even with most medical disabilities, a proper teacher can teach a class that caters to all simultaneously according to the cirriculum.
Who is hurting other people? Besides, anyone else is either: 1. Entitled to the best education they can receive, pending they are not harming other students 2. Obligated to be providing the best education possible, without favoritism to an single student
Throwing any student out of class is not entitling them the best education they can receive. Throwing students out of a class in favor of certain students that stay is favoritism. What are you getting at?
The fact that, at least in my case there are lower level classes in which some students can be moved to, in order to maintain the proposed speed/depth of the original class. It's not fair to students who were ensured a certain level to be slowed down by individuals that can't keep up. Sink or swim. They can stay in the class as well, only, they will be accountable for their grades, or they can choose to leave. The fact of the matter is, the class should maintain it's pace as long as the majority are doing well, the others can seek help or work harder or move classes.
Why not take it upon yourself to tend to your problem by either helping them (speeding the class up for yourself) or educating yourself in your spare time (keeping the class at its speed but coping with it). (Snide remark: I am surprised that you should be the one complaining about a class not moving quickly enough for you, considering your mix-up re: its vs. it's.)
Oh, don't patronize me, please. And I believe that a person taking any class should get what is promised at the outset. That's why they are taking the class in the first place, to be educated.
Wrong. Theya are not teaching the class. They are students. Furthermore, there is no logic in the sink or swim fallacy. A curriculum pace should already be set. Claiming that as long as the majority are doing well is not practical either. It is the teacher's responsibility to make sure not the majority, but all are doing well according to the pace of the cirriculum. If any student is not doing well, a teacher should be held accountable. Students have not broken any rules. And you are claiming they should suffer the consequences because the teacher is not doing the proper job.
You obviously do not believe that because removing a person from the class is not what a person is promised from the outset.
I didn't say the person had to be removed. If you'll note, above, that they can stay or leave at their discretion. Only, the curriculum should not be changed for such people.
Should the teacher be accountable for someone who is putting no effort into the class? What about that little scenario? There will always be failing students, that is not the teacher's fault. As long as he/she makes the effort to have all students learn, and there is tutoring available to them, what more can a school do?
Yeah, and what's education? Why shouldn't this be included in your education? I would consider your having to deal with this class for its duration an important part of your education, probably more useful than many of the actual lectures. And, erm, why not? Where is the inherent value in retaining a certain curriculum? I have never had a teacher not change the curriculum for certain individuals: it has not always been for the worse of the class, either. The teacher's effort includes revising the curriculum. Do you still believe this?
This isn't entailed in any syllabus. The value is that people take the class on the premise that they will receive an education in certain areas, covering certain materials. It's like a breach of contract not to attempt to provide such an education. And favoritism isn't arguable. Who do you care more about? The slow few, or the people who are holding their own, in the majority? Neither...you stick to plan, unless too many people fall into the slower category. Revising to an extent, not slowing down for students, that is not included. That affects all of the students.
I'm sorry (and surprised) that you feel your education must be entirely entailed in a syllabus to be valid. Speeding the class to a point where some people can't properly learn would be a breach of contract, in that case. Where is the extent? Where is the line drawn?
If there is students in the class that are not keeping up to the set pace of the curriculum, there is something wrong with either the curriculum or the teacher. This should not be happening. Assuming that the curriculum is correct, and the student is not breaching any code of conduct, the teacher is and must be always accountable for the success of his/her student. This is a complete joke right? I would love to see you attempt to prove this. A responsible school is just that. A responsible school. It takes responsibility. It takes responsibility for its own curriculum. It takes responsibility for the ability of the teachers. It takes responsibility for the success of the students. Irresponsible cop out. Completely false. There will always be X. There is nothing I can do to change this. Therefore, it is not my responsibility.
"The slow few, or the people who are holding their own, in the majority? Neither " ********** Right. "you stick to plan, unless too many people fall into the slower category." ********** This poses dillema. You are asserting that as long as the majority do not fall slow, you should adhere to the plan. If any single person is falling slow through no fault of their own, there is a problem with the plan. A person falling slow is by definition proof that there is a problem with the plan. A proper plan involves ensuring everybody not the majority is adhering to the cirriculum at the set pace. A single person falling slow reveals a flaw in the plan.
I didn't say that, you are misusing my words. Don't try to knock down some position you've pretended that I have. No, the class has a set curriculum, there is no speeding, only maintaining pace. We've both committed fallacy of the heap. At least I have with your reading of my words.
There is something wrong with the curriculum, it is not fit for the student, hence gradation of classes for difficulty. Excuse me, there most certainly are students that don't make an effort toward the class, and the teacher is not responsible for this individual. How much 'spoon-feeding' would you like a teacher to do? Do your homework, read, study. This is not the teacher's responsibility. Yes, by having classes that are based on the abilities of the students. I certainly didn't say that we shouldn't attempt to help these people. By providing lower level classes, tutoring and whatnot we are giving them options. No one wants to see someone left behind. But that's just as bad as holding someone down for another student. Look, I'm not saying, play favorites in the opposite direction and speed up the class. I'm just saying, provide what you agree to at the outset of the class. Along with tutoring and lower level classes, no one is left behind. You certainly wouldn't be responsible for the dumbing down of America by holding back able-bodied students, now would you?
Coolskill goez: Exhibit A: The shrinking mind is intrinsically linked with the shrinking vocab. My only guess is that 'np' stands for no problem, maybe? Darkeyed: When you stop bullshitting. "Bullshitting" is the expanding on substance with no substance at all. The best place to find bullshitting is among those whose obligation to speak exceeds their knowledge. Like on dates. Where dude tries to impress you with a fact about cars, you’ll ask a question about diesel engines, and dude will reply with bullshit because all he knows is gas. Nice pun. He’s expanding on substance (a simple fact about gas engines) with no substance at all (diesel bullshit) in order to squeak by unnoticed because he feels obligated to reply. You get bullshit. You see this in politics (Matt Drudge recently accused the left of celebrating U.S casualties, Alan Colmes calls him on it and demands he name just one person ‘celebrating’ U.S soldiers getting killed and right away you saw Drudge’s knowledge crumble into bullshit because he couldn’t even name one) You see it in classrooms. Talk shows. Radio shows. In short, anywhere where people are obligated to speak beyond their knowledge. Like when teacher demands an essay on something you barely know about.
