On Wed, 17 Jun 2009 12:56:26 -0500, Omelet wrote:

> In article >,
> blake murphy > wrote:
>
>> On Wed, 17 Jun 2009 13:33:46 +0000 (UTC), enigma wrote:
>>
>>> "Jean B." > wrote in
>>> :
>>>
>>>> OH....... I do SO understand this. (I am sorry that I do,
>>>> though.)
>>>
>>> yeah, i'm sorry that you do too, because it means that schools still
>>> only serve the lowest common denomenator
>>> school should not be one size fits all, because kids are all
>>> different, with different strengths & weaknesses, different interests
>>> & different learning styles. do we really need to still be producing
>>> more generations of little robots to serve as worker bees? sheesh.
>>> lee
>>
>> well, that's still one of the unspoken aims. but i would be very much
>> surprised if modern schools actually stomped on the gifted as you and jean
>> describe. they might not *help* them much, but i don't think they actually
>> get in their way.
>>
>> your pal,
>> blake
>
> You'd argue with a brick wall just to be contrary wouldn't you?
>
> <sigh>

no. i just think school has changed in the last forty-odd years. hell,
when *i* was in elementary school, when it came to reading they told one
girl to sit in the back and read whatever she wanted to while the teacher
dealt with the rest of us.

your pal,
blake