Working thesis: Academic tracking and ability grouping may be used to make learning more accessible for all kids, when in fact it widens the gap between the different levels of learning ability.
Introduction/Thesis: Academic tracking or ability grouping is the practice of dividing students into separate groups based on their learning abilities. It is usually used for Math and English classes. More than 95%of middle and high schools in North America employ some form of academic tracking. Academic tracking and ability grouping may be used to make learning more accessible for all kids, when in fact it widens the gap between the different levels of learning ability.
Area of Support 1: Students placed in less academically rigorous courses lose the motivation to work harder and end up falling farther behind. One study showed that 95% of all gifted students ended up attending a college/university as opposed to 56% and 32% of those in regular and special education, respectively.
Area of Support 2: Tracking, especially when done at a younger age, facilitates teachers to practice "labeling" which could unfairly group students based on factors other than their learning ability. Schools tend to become more segregated when tracking is involved. High-track classrooms tend to have a higher rate of white students than black or other students of color, with the exception of Asian students.
Area of Support 3: The better teachers are usually given to the higher level classes, which means that the students that need more help are getting less experienced teachers and are not having their needs met. There are many factors that contribute to one's education and their ability to learn, including teacher competency. Students that are having more difficulty learning need more competent teachers in order to help them focus and learn.
Area of Support 4: Students will work harder if they see others become successful and will try to achieve their own success. Children that have similar ability levels and backgrounds become increasingly different in aspirations and achievements after they are placed in different track levels.
Conclusion: Ability grouping forces the school curriculum to focus more on the advanced learners, when their focus should be spent helping the students that struggle through school. This creates an even bigger gap between the different academic groups and allows for more children to slip through the cracks. Instead, we need to have more reasonable expectations for the students and provide a strong base from which they can learn.
Monday, August 9, 2010
Monday, August 2, 2010
Mask on the Face of Death
I loved reading this article because I felt that there were so many surprising facts that popped up as I kept reading. I was extremely confused at the beginning of the story, but I liked how Richard Selzer began the article in one of the main places where AIDS is spread. It is shocking that the brothels don’t get shut down and even more shocking that people continue to go to them. The prostitutes are clearly in denial because it would be bad for business, even though they are responsible for the deaths of hundreds of Haitian men. I was also surprised when I went back to the into and realized that this article was written in 1988. That was 22 years ago, and its shocking that AIDS was so rampant then, and disheartening once you realize that it is definitely more widely spread now.
I liked how this article was written because Selzer was not trying to scare people into avoiding AIDS, but was trying to educate people and get rid of widely-believed myths. When he described the patient’s diseases, he was being factual and was not overly gory like George Orwell was in Shooting an Elephant. The facts that he added in the end of the article were to clarify everything that he had said in the article to make sure that no one took away any false information. I liked that it raised AIDS awareness but did not force the reader to have to donate or scare them into it.
The usage of the Haitian language was also very interesting. Selzer did not make it difficult to understand, but its incorporation made it even clearer that AIDS is extremely prevalent in poorer countries. Some of their lifestyle choices were a little graphic and horrible. If there was more sex education in the country then there would be a smaller outbreak of the AIDS virus. But luckily articles like this make people more aware of dangerous viruses like AIDS.
I liked how this article was written because Selzer was not trying to scare people into avoiding AIDS, but was trying to educate people and get rid of widely-believed myths. When he described the patient’s diseases, he was being factual and was not overly gory like George Orwell was in Shooting an Elephant. The facts that he added in the end of the article were to clarify everything that he had said in the article to make sure that no one took away any false information. I liked that it raised AIDS awareness but did not force the reader to have to donate or scare them into it.
The usage of the Haitian language was also very interesting. Selzer did not make it difficult to understand, but its incorporation made it even clearer that AIDS is extremely prevalent in poorer countries. Some of their lifestyle choices were a little graphic and horrible. If there was more sex education in the country then there would be a smaller outbreak of the AIDS virus. But luckily articles like this make people more aware of dangerous viruses like AIDS.
Unspeakable Conversations
I thought the topic of this essay was very interesting. I agreed with the author that handicapped babies should not be killed. Doing that makes it seem as unfeeling as returning a sweater. Of course I thought the author had some bias considering her position, but it would be completely impossible not to be. I was surprised that Peter Singer actually had that point of view, because he was very kind to Harriet McBryde Johnson the entire time and he seemed like a well-educated man; and that kind of thinking seems like it is for very ignorant people.
Although I felt bad for the author throughout the entire essay, I did not exactly like her. She was rude the entire time. I also felt as though she was trying to jam her opinion down everyone else’s throat the entire time. At one point, she even says, “In fact, no god put anyone anywhere for any reason, if you want to know.” She does not say, “This is my opinion…” but instead forces it onto the readers. She might even alienate some of her readers if they are super religious. However, I couldn’t say that if I was in her position that I wouldn’t be like that. I guess it’s difficult to blame her for being bitter or upset, because she has to deal with a lot to go through the most simple tasks.
I also liked her point that someone’s physical state does not mean that they have a better quality of life. There are plenty of people that are perfectly healthy, but waste their life away on drugs and do not do anything worthwhile. Even though Johnson was severely handicapped, she was a lawyer successful enough to work for an influential organization and lecture at Princeton University, which not many able-bodied people have done.
Although I felt bad for the author throughout the entire essay, I did not exactly like her. She was rude the entire time. I also felt as though she was trying to jam her opinion down everyone else’s throat the entire time. At one point, she even says, “In fact, no god put anyone anywhere for any reason, if you want to know.” She does not say, “This is my opinion…” but instead forces it onto the readers. She might even alienate some of her readers if they are super religious. However, I couldn’t say that if I was in her position that I wouldn’t be like that. I guess it’s difficult to blame her for being bitter or upset, because she has to deal with a lot to go through the most simple tasks.
I also liked her point that someone’s physical state does not mean that they have a better quality of life. There are plenty of people that are perfectly healthy, but waste their life away on drugs and do not do anything worthwhile. Even though Johnson was severely handicapped, she was a lawyer successful enough to work for an influential organization and lecture at Princeton University, which not many able-bodied people have done.
Thursday, July 29, 2010
What Did You Do in the War, Grandma?
This was an interesting passage to read, because I had learned about this in history class but not as in depth. I knew that women took over men’s jobs, but I had no idea that they were building the machinery that the men were using to fight the war. It was scary thinking that this woman was 18 but she was building such heavy duty machinery, and even helped create the planes that dropped the atom bomb. It was also a bit terrifying thinking that these women needed absolutely no prior experience in the trade. It seems like building these is so difficult that one would need at least some sort of training.
This reading was much different from the Atomic Bombing of Nagasaki essay. Although both were inside stories, they were different parts of the same journey of dropping the atomic bomb. Zoe Tracy Hardy had a personal connection to the atomic bomb because she had helped create it. However, she could not fathom how devastating the damage was because she was not physically there to witness it. William Laurence was just tagging along for the ride when they were dropping the bomb, and was not personally attached to it at first. But Laurence was able to witness its awesome power and understand how dangerous it was and how much of an impact it would have. Hardy also had a huge adjustment to make with her life when the war happened because she was doing a man’s job. Laurence’s life did not change that dramatically because he remained in his same occupation as a reporter.
This was an interesting passage to read, because I had learned about this in history class but not as in depth. I knew that women took over men’s jobs, but I had no idea that they were building the machinery that the men were using to fight the war. It was scary thinking that this woman was 18 but she was building such heavy duty machinery, and even helped create the planes that dropped the atom bomb. It was also a bit terrifying thinking that these women needed absolutely no prior experience in the trade. It seems like building these is so difficult that one would need at least some sort of training.
This reading was much different from the Atomic Bombing of Nagasaki essay. Although both were inside stories, they were different parts of the same journey of dropping the atomic bomb. Zoe Tracy Hardy had a personal connection to the atomic bomb because she had helped create it. However, she could not fathom how devastating the damage was because she was not physically there to witness it. William Laurence was just tagging along for the ride when they were dropping the bomb, and was not personally attached to it at first. But Laurence was able to witness its awesome power and understand how dangerous it was and how much of an impact it would have. Hardy also had a huge adjustment to make with her life when the war happened because she was doing a man’s job. Laurence’s life did not change that dramatically because he remained in his same occupation as a reporter.
This reading was much different from the Atomic Bombing of Nagasaki essay. Although both were inside stories, they were different parts of the same journey of dropping the atomic bomb. Zoe Tracy Hardy had a personal connection to the atomic bomb because she had helped create it. However, she could not fathom how devastating the damage was because she was not physically there to witness it. William Laurence was just tagging along for the ride when they were dropping the bomb, and was not personally attached to it at first. But Laurence was able to witness its awesome power and understand how dangerous it was and how much of an impact it would have. Hardy also had a huge adjustment to make with her life when the war happened because she was doing a man’s job. Laurence’s life did not change that dramatically because he remained in his same occupation as a reporter.
This was an interesting passage to read, because I had learned about this in history class but not as in depth. I knew that women took over men’s jobs, but I had no idea that they were building the machinery that the men were using to fight the war. It was scary thinking that this woman was 18 but she was building such heavy duty machinery, and even helped create the planes that dropped the atom bomb. It was also a bit terrifying thinking that these women needed absolutely no prior experience in the trade. It seems like building these is so difficult that one would need at least some sort of training.
This reading was much different from the Atomic Bombing of Nagasaki essay. Although both were inside stories, they were different parts of the same journey of dropping the atomic bomb. Zoe Tracy Hardy had a personal connection to the atomic bomb because she had helped create it. However, she could not fathom how devastating the damage was because she was not physically there to witness it. William Laurence was just tagging along for the ride when they were dropping the bomb, and was not personally attached to it at first. But Laurence was able to witness its awesome power and understand how dangerous it was and how much of an impact it would have. Hardy also had a huge adjustment to make with her life when the war happened because she was doing a man’s job. Laurence’s life did not change that dramatically because he remained in his same occupation as a reporter.
Saturday, July 24, 2010
Atomic Bombing of Nagasaki Told by Flight Member
This was probably my favorite of the readings we've had to do so far. I think it was very well written, and had an extremely interesting subject matter. I liked how William Laurence wrote about it, because he did not confuse the reader by going to far into the scientific aspect of it, but wrote in a way that we could all understand the power of the bomb. It was also entertaining because I’ve learned about it a lot at school, but have never heard an inside account of it. It was kind of funny reading it and knowing the outcome when the writer in that moment didn’t. However I didn’t get a grasp of how many people the bomb had killed in Nagasaki just by reading it, because he didn’t focus too much on its destructive nature.
Throughout the article, Laurence never really states his opinion. When Sergeant Curry asks him if he thinks this bomb will stop the war, he says “There is a very good chance that this one may do the trick. But if not, then the next one or two surely will. Its power is such that no nation can stand up against it very long.” This was not his opinion, but merely him regurgitating everyone else’s thoughts. He also stated later that this view was not overly optimistic to those who had seen the first bomb. I personally thought it sounded optimistic because he was saying it probably will end the war, maybe it was because the first bomb was so devastating but didn’t end the war. He also mentions that most people don’t feel pity for the Japanese after Pearl Harbor and the Death March on Bataan. Laurence does not include himself in on this statement, and probably does not have the same “eye for an eye” mentality that most people have when it comes to war. Laurence probably has a less aggressive opinion when it comes to war.
My favorite part was the description of the mushroom at the end. He described it all so vividly, and let readers know how horrible it was. I liked how this article was well-written, had an interesting subject, and was descriptive without going over the top or boring the readers.
Throughout the article, Laurence never really states his opinion. When Sergeant Curry asks him if he thinks this bomb will stop the war, he says “There is a very good chance that this one may do the trick. But if not, then the next one or two surely will. Its power is such that no nation can stand up against it very long.” This was not his opinion, but merely him regurgitating everyone else’s thoughts. He also stated later that this view was not overly optimistic to those who had seen the first bomb. I personally thought it sounded optimistic because he was saying it probably will end the war, maybe it was because the first bomb was so devastating but didn’t end the war. He also mentions that most people don’t feel pity for the Japanese after Pearl Harbor and the Death March on Bataan. Laurence does not include himself in on this statement, and probably does not have the same “eye for an eye” mentality that most people have when it comes to war. Laurence probably has a less aggressive opinion when it comes to war.
My favorite part was the description of the mushroom at the end. He described it all so vividly, and let readers know how horrible it was. I liked how this article was well-written, had an interesting subject, and was descriptive without going over the top or boring the readers.
Wednesday, July 21, 2010
Graduation
This passage was about Maya Angelou’s eighth grade graduation. Out of all the excerpts we have read, I think this one was the most well-written. Angelou uses a lot of figurative language throughout the passage. It is pretty evident to the reader that she is a poet because of the way she writes and describes the setting and the people. Although it was much more well-written than the others, I don’t think it was as interesting to read as some of the other passages. The subject matter itself wasn’t that interesting compared to the other passages. It also required the reader to pay more attention because she went into such intricate details.
Graduation reminded me a lot of Beauty: When the Other Dancer is the Self because they both felt dehumanized by an obstacle (Alice Walker’s injury and Edward Donleavy’s speech), but eventually overcame it and learned to embrace themselves. Both are very successful black women that do not let race, or other people get in the way of their success. Walker and Angelou turned out to both be successful in school and pushed themselves to be in the top of their class.
Although Mr. Donleavy’s condescending speech was directed specifically at the black community, people of every race have felt the way Angelou did at her graduation. Before the passage, Angelou says, “I speak to the Black experience, but I am always talking about the human condition.” This was a very important quote, because it allowed people to easily locate the theme in the rest of the passage. People face bigotry everyday, and it is not always racially inspired. I think it was important that Angelou said this because it allows for all her readers to connect to the text.
Graduation reminded me a lot of Beauty: When the Other Dancer is the Self because they both felt dehumanized by an obstacle (Alice Walker’s injury and Edward Donleavy’s speech), but eventually overcame it and learned to embrace themselves. Both are very successful black women that do not let race, or other people get in the way of their success. Walker and Angelou turned out to both be successful in school and pushed themselves to be in the top of their class.
Although Mr. Donleavy’s condescending speech was directed specifically at the black community, people of every race have felt the way Angelou did at her graduation. Before the passage, Angelou says, “I speak to the Black experience, but I am always talking about the human condition.” This was a very important quote, because it allowed people to easily locate the theme in the rest of the passage. People face bigotry everyday, and it is not always racially inspired. I think it was important that Angelou said this because it allows for all her readers to connect to the text.
Monday, July 19, 2010
Shooting an Elephant Freewrite
George Orwell’s writing in this passage seemed pretty straightforward. He tended to tell the audience exactly what was happening instead of relying solely on details. Overall I thought the passage was interesting and a pretty good read. I was disturbed by the his killing the elephant and the way it died. It seemed almost unnecessary to describe it in such vivid detail, especially considering the nature of the kill. In a way, his description of the event disconnected him from it and allowed him to not feel guilt; he described killing an animal the way most people would describe getting a cup of coffee. After reading this I did not particularly like Orwell as a person, but I would most likely read other works of his because I thought it was interesting.
The first thing that struck me as odd was the fact that George Orwell was so against imperialism and everything that it stood for, yet he was working for them. I later realized that this entire essay was riddled with hypocrisies: Orwell working for the British, the Buddhist priests being the most hostile towards the British officers, and the entire shooting of the elephant. I did not feel happy, or sad after reading this. I pretty much felt disgusted by the way the animal died, and the way everyone behaved throughout the passage. I didn’t sympathize with the Burmese people because they were extremely hostile towards the British, and skinned an elephant that was still alive. I didn’t sympathize with Orwell at all because he had killed an innocent creature. Other than that, the only people left are the British, who also don’t deserve any sympathy because they are controlling India and Burma against their will and are reaping the benefit. I kept expecting some overall theme, or big confession to be brought to the readers attention at the end of the passage, but obviously that did not happen.
The shooting of the elephant was the biggest hypocrisy in the passage. In the beginning he mentions how he was secretly in full support of the Burmese and completely against the British. But, after reading the passage it is easy to connect the elephant to the Burmese. Neither were doing anything wrong (at least at that moment), yet both were being penalized for being who they were. The British easily overtook India and Burma even though it was absolutely necessary. Orwell did not have to shoot the elephant because it had calmed down and was not hurting anyone. However, he shot the elephant to assert his position of power, much like the British did. After he had shot the elephant multiple times and the elephant had been essentially tortured by the Burmans, he did not admit to feeling any guilt or regret. In fact, he continued to make excuses for his actions and even admitted that he was glad the coolie had died because it justified everything. Orwell must be in some sense of denial because he is both working for people he despises and emulating their actions, but does not seem to recognize it.
George Orwell’s writing in this passage seemed pretty straightforward. He tended to tell the audience exactly what was happening instead of relying solely on details. Overall I thought the passage was interesting and a pretty good read. I was disturbed by the his killing the elephant and the way it died. It seemed almost unnecessary to describe it in such vivid detail, especially considering the nature of the kill. In a way, his description of the event disconnected him from it and allowed him to not feel guilt; he described killing an animal the way most people would describe getting a cup of coffee. After reading this I did not particularly like Orwell as a person, but I would most likely read other works of his because I thought it was interesting.
The first thing that struck me as odd was the fact that George Orwell was so against imperialism and everything that it stood for, yet he was working for them. I later realized that this entire essay was riddled with hypocrisies: Orwell working for the British, the Buddhist priests being the most hostile towards the British officers, and the entire shooting of the elephant. I did not feel happy, or sad after reading this. I pretty much felt disgusted by the way the animal died, and the way everyone behaved throughout the passage. I didn’t sympathize with the Burmese people because they were extremely hostile towards the British, and skinned an elephant that was still alive. I didn’t sympathize with Orwell at all because he had killed an innocent creature. Other than that, the only people left are the British, who also don’t deserve any sympathy because they are controlling India and Burma against their will and are reaping the benefit. I kept expecting some overall theme, or big confession to be brought to the readers attention at the end of the passage, but obviously that did not happen.
The shooting of the elephant was the biggest hypocrisy in the passage. In the beginning he mentions how he was secretly in full support of the Burmese and completely against the British. But, after reading the passage it is easy to connect the elephant to the Burmese. Neither were doing anything wrong (at least at that moment), yet both were being penalized for being who they were. The British easily overtook India and Burma even though it was absolutely necessary. Orwell did not have to shoot the elephant because it had calmed down and was not hurting anyone. However, he shot the elephant to assert his position of power, much like the British did. After he had shot the elephant multiple times and the elephant had been essentially tortured by the Burmans, he did not admit to feeling any guilt or regret. In fact, he continued to make excuses for his actions and even admitted that he was glad the coolie had died because it justified everything. Orwell must be in some sense of denial because he is both working for people he despises and emulating their actions, but does not seem to recognize it.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)