Irena wrote:@Cainntear
Please remember that "@Cainntear" doesn't count as tagging me on phpBB -- here you have to use the quote mechanism for me to be tagged.
Oh, the father could certainly lie.
Which then takes us back to the point I made earlier that a direct response to a direct question doesn't prove anything.
But even then, it probably means "please don't bother me with this again." If you choose to bother him with it again, then tread lightly, and understand that you're running the risk of damaging your relationship with him by refusing to drop the matter.
Which is a different matter from what you were talking about. This is brings us back to ineffective or poorly planned teaching, and whether it's proven or not, the possibility that teaching is to blame is justification enough for the teacher to try to improve.
And as for those crying students: if they were being graded on their performance, it's perfectly possible that they were crying because they were about to get a bad grade.
Did you meet these people or did I meet them? Have you made any probing questions to attempt to understand the situation better or have you simply made blanket statements that ignore the fact that I knew them personally.
In that case, there are various possible explanations for their lack of progress. Teaching methodology is one possible explanation. Lack of brain power is another.
Should lack of brainpower be the default assumption with lack of evidence, or should teachers be trying to improve their methods so that their students learn better?
I am in the latter camp, because I believe that assuming the student is stupid is blaming the student and is not fair. Consider that ethnic minorities generally do worse in school than majorities. A default assumption of "the student is stupid" then leads to a situation where the overall statistics justify racism. Think about the chain of logic:
people who do bad in school are stupid;
people with purple skin do worse in school on average than people with green skin;
=>therefore people with purple skin are more stupid than people with green skin.
Your argument tacitly accepts racism. Given the prejudice against slavs in western Europe, I find that worrying.
Seriously, why do you think states give citizenship to immigrants who only managed to reach the measly B1 level in the language of their adopted country? Because it would appear that for a great many otherwise competent human adults, it is extremely difficult to reach a higher level, even after a decade of residing in a country in which their target language is spoken.
No. It's not an intelligence test, it's realism: people who don't have the language will have difficulty integrating.
The problem is, though, that this doesn't result in bettering the language tuition.
For example, if you are an adult native English speaker, it might not be the best idea to go for Scottish Gaelic first. Try Italian first, and then Scottish Gaelic. Still too hard? Then try Esperanto first. Still too hard? Then it's probably hopeless.
If someone can learn Esperanto but not Italian, that's because their Italian teacher is rubbish, as far as I can see. Being a better teacher (in my opinion) means you can teach more people.