blake murphy wrote:
> On Thu, 18 Jun 2009 08:38:36 -0400, Jean B. wrote:
>
>> 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
>> Well, what do you call it when a kid is forced to work at grade level?
>
> i'm questioning whether that happens that much anymore. if it does, you
> might request (in the u.s.) an informal individual instruction plan.
>
> your pal,
> blake

Oh we tried that. Of course, schools don't like it because it
costs them money. I could tell even worse stories about my
daughter's brilliant friend.

--
Jean B.