The Conservative Cave
Current Events => General Discussion => Topic started by: b-ONE-b on January 29, 2014, 12:21:06 PM
-
The left talks about education and expects a non-stop money dump to make it better. I have a different perspective.
Tune the education system to the pupil. One size fits all education is stupid.
For example... in most schools, let's say 50-60% of the kids are "dead weight". Some may not go on to graduate, they won't go to college and they will end up as Union workers or tattoo artists or welfare parasites.
So WHY use valuable resources on them?
For example, for the kids who WANT TO and CAN learn give them a nice low 1:10 teacher to pupil ratio. Give them extra help, better resources, newer textbooks and more expensive hands-on education. For the other kids, put them in a large college-type hall room with 100-150 students and give them the same class through a streamlined, easier course with less homework. If they're going to end up as a Union longshoreman I don't think that the Biology II class will be of much value to them. Don't give them books. They can just learn from lecture.
The kids can be identified and categorized by testing or interviews. Identify the college potential kids and get them a quality education. The other kids, get them through the system quickly and efficiently with a streamlined program teaching lifetime fundamentals like budgeting and life planning.
Whatcha think?
-
Do the parents of the kids that you banish to the fast track get a letter from the school?
-
At what point do you decide to throw away the kid? And why the denigration of blue collar workers? Without them life would eventually come to a standstill. No plumbers, electricians, carpenters?
Do you really want the government picking who gets the better education chances?
Maybe it should be done the opposite of the way you're thinking. Put the kids that want to and can learn into larger classes, and give the less intelligent more personal instruction.
-
At what point do you decide to throw away the kid? And why the denigration of blue collar workers? Without them life would eventually come to a standstill. No plumbers, electricians, carpenters?
Do you really want the government picking who gets the better education chances?
Maybe it should be done the opposite of the way you're thinking. Put the kids that want to and can learn into larger classes, and give the less intelligent more personal instruction.
I'm one of the no-college crew!! They shoulda had me in welding classes at 16 y.o. or a military prep pathway or machinist or mechanic training. Some people may be glazed by Algebra but can weld the prettiest Tig welds on the planet. And an elite exotic gas welder can make 6 figures easy. But what he DOESN'T need is a hands-on English Lit class with visits to Poetry reading exhibitions.
It's the DUmbass liberals who say "Every child deserves the best education and to go to college" that's crap. I've been to back to school nights, I've seen my sons classmates. Half of them aren't going to college, no way.
-
I have a very negative opinion of how kids are taught today.
Young kids sitting in a classroom at a desk all day isn't my idea of an education, then they get sent home with 2 hours of homework on top of that. I always wonder how much of what they get in school is actually retained. Kids have a way of zoning out, even if they are staring at the black board.
It's no surprise to me that by the time they get to high school they are burned out and drop out.
-
I'm one of the no-college crew!! They shoulda had me in welding classes at 16 y.o. or a military prep pathway or machinist or mechanic training. Some people may be glazed by Algebra but can weld the prettiest Tig welds on the planet. And an elite exotic gas welder can make 6 figures easy. But what he DOESN'T need is a hands-on English Lit class with visits to Poetry reading exhibitions.
It's the DUmbass liberals who say "Every child deserves the best education and to go to college" that's crap. I've been to back to school nights, I've seen my sons classmates. Half of them aren't going to college, no way.
If you could do me a favor, could you sketch out what the letter that the parents get might look like.
-
I think all kids needs academics regardless of what their future occupation may be. But, they are not getting it.
When I hear young hands say their schooling was a waste, I start pointing out how they use some of what they learned everyday. It most likely bugs them, but hey, I'm probably about their moms' ages and I get to be like that. Hell, ranch hands and guys on the hay crew need algebra, without a calculator, and a high school diploma isn't required to get those jobs. I also tell them that if they hadn't been able to read, write, do basic math and algebra, they wouldn't have kept a job around here or for anyone else I know. To lapse into the vernacular of many of the kids "There ain't no school marm to baby your a$$ through the real world."
I'd like to see kids have to stick through at least 10th grade. And take a variety of subjects. Vocational training is great, too, and wish there were more programs. Wouldn't mind seeing a high school requirement that included a trades class.
-
If you could do me a favor, could you sketch out what the letter that the parents get might look like.
Dear CrackMaster J and Latisha,
Your son Alfonso Kazaam Jackson received a 631 in his annual scholastic testing and we feel would do better in a fast track program to take advantage of Alfonso's artistic talents. Alfonso will be entered into the Graphics Design program and will be transferred into more efficient English, Math and History classes.
Principal
-
I think all kids needs academics regardless of what their future occupation may be. But, they are not getting it.
When I hear young hands say their schooling was a waste, I start pointing out how they use some of what they learned everyday. It most likely bugs them, but hey, I'm probably about their moms' ages and I get to be like that. Hell, ranch hands and guys on the hay crew need algebra, without a calculator, and a high school diploma isn't required to get those jobs. I also tell them that if they hadn't been able to read, write, do basic math and algebra, they wouldn't have kept a job around here or for anyone else I know. To lapse into the vernacular of many of the kids "There ain't no school marm to baby your a$$ through the real world."
I'd like to see kids have to stick through at least 10th grade. And take a variety of subjects. Vocational training is great, too, and wish there were more programs. Wouldn't mind seeing a high school requirement that included a trades class.
I think kids learn (really learn) when they have to apply what they learn. I remember a geometry/algebra class I had where the teacher gave us assignments like measuring the shadow of a telephone pole and the angle to figure out how tall it was. He made learning fun and it made a lot more sense.
I also agree with trades classes and practical classes like cooking, budgeting, how a small business operates etc.
-
I think kids learn (really learn) when they have to apply what they learn. I remember a geometry/algebra class I had where the teacher gave us assignments like measuring the shadow of a telephone pole and the angle to figure out how tall it was. He made learning fun and it made a lot more sense.
I also agree with trades classes and practical classes like cooking, budgeting, how a small business operates etc.
I did some side work for a guy a couple years ago who has always owned small businesses in small towns. I told him, "I don't think I could ever run a business." He kind of snorted and replied, "That's the wrong attitude and where most people screw up. Everyone has a small business. It's their personal finances and you better pay attention to them." Changed my world. I wish I had received more education in that area.
-
I did some side work for a guy a couple years ago who has always owned small businesses in small towns. I told him, "I don't think I could ever run a business." He kind of snorted and replied, "That's the wrong attitude and where most people screw up. Everyone has a small business. It's their personal finances and you better pay attention to them." Changed my world.
Personal finances and budgeting should be a requirement for graduation. But learning the operations of what is required to run a small business would give a lot of adults a better understanding of how their world works.
Just like all the stupidity you read on the DUmp. They are so clueless about labor and how their own lively hoods figure into the big picture. They get fed this crap about evil corporations, yet they have no idea why things are they way they are.
-
Dear CrackMaster J and Latisha,
Your son Alfonso Kazaam Jackson received a 631 in his annual scholastic testing and we feel would do better in a fast track program to take advantage of Alfonso's artistic talents. Alfonso will be entered into the Graphics Design program and will be transferred into more efficient English, Math and History classes.
Principal
Thanks for that effort, I appreciate it
I couldn't help but wonder though, what are "more efficient English, Math and History classes"? I have to imagine that by "efficient" you mean, maybe, a little more intensive(?) classes to help them catch up. Honestly, if I understand the OP, these kids are not considered developmentally disabled so they don't rate the short bus, right?
-
Since we're talking education, this was posted this on DU by what I assume to be a mole. It didn't get much of a response.
http://www.democraticunderground.com/101683796
Tue Jan 28, 2014, 12:08 AM
villager (20,091 posts)
School ditches rules and loses bullies
Ripping up the playground rulebook is having incredible effects on children at an Auckland school.
Chaos may reign at Swanson Primary School with children climbing trees, riding skateboards and playing bullrush during playtime, but surprisingly the students don't cause bedlam, the principal says.
The school is actually seeing a drop in bullying, serious injuries and vandalism, while concentration levels in class are increasing. Principal Bruce McLachlan rid the school of playtime rules as part of a successful university experiment.
"We want kids to be safe and to look after them, but we end up wrapping them in cotton wool when in fact they should be able to fall over."
Letting children test themselves on a scooter during playtime could make them more aware of the dangers when getting behind the wheel of a car in high school, he said. "When you look at our playground it looks chaotic. From an adult's perspective, it looks like kids might get hurt, but they don't."
Swanson School signed up to the study by AUT and Otago University just over two years ago, with the aim of encouraging active play. However, the school took the experiment a step further by abandoning the rules completely, much to the horror of some teachers at the time, he said.
When the university study wrapped up at the end of last year the school and researchers were amazed by the results.
Mudslides, skateboarding, bullrush and tree climbing kept the children so occupied the school no longer needed a timeout area or as many teachers on patrol. Instead of a playground, children used their imagination to play in a "loose parts pit" which contained junk such as wood, tyres and an old fire hose.
"The kids were motivated, busy and engaged. In my experience, the time children get into trouble is when they are not busy, motivated and engaged. It's during that time they bully other kids, graffiti or wreck things around the school."
Parents were happy too because their children were happy, he said. But this wasn't a playtime revolution, it was just a return to the days before health and safety policies came to rule. AUT professor of public health Grant Schofield, who worked on the research project, said there are too many rules in modern playgrounds.
"The great paradox of cotton-woolling children is it's more dangerous in the long-run." Society's obsession with protecting children ignores the benefits of risk-taking, he said.
<snip>
http://tvnz.co.nz/national-news/school-ditches-rules-and-loses-bullies-5807957
-
Interesting article, but I think you are convoluting life lessons with education.
At least in my opinion.
-
The college I work for was told by the state accreditation team told us we need to develop more tech/vocational programs and to include dual enrolled high school students in them. We are working towards having programs for high school juniors and seniors that either gets them college college credits, for those moving on to universities, or a vocational certification by the time they graduate high school (CNA, welding, etc). Even where I work in the tutoring program, we are trying to incorporate the high school programs through the Future Teachers of America club.
-
The left talks about education and expects a non-stop money dump to make it better. I have a different perspective.
Tune the education system to the pupil. One size fits all education is stupid.
For example... in most schools, let's say 50-60% of the kids are "dead weight". Some may not go on to graduate, they won't go to college and they will end up as Union workers or tattoo artists or welfare parasites.
So WHY use valuable resources on them?
For example, for the kids who WANT TO and CAN learn give them a nice low 1:10 teacher to pupil ratio. Give them extra help, better resources, newer textbooks and more expensive hands-on education. For the other kids, put them in a large college-type hall room with 100-150 students and give them the same class through a streamlined, easier course with less homework. If they're going to end up as a Union longshoreman I don't think that the Biology II class will be of much value to them. Don't give them books. They can just learn from lecture.
The kids can be identified and categorized by testing or interviews. Identify the college potential kids and get them a quality education. The other kids, get them through the system quickly and efficiently with a streamlined program teaching lifetime fundamentals like budgeting and life planning.
Whatcha think?
I'm a high school teacher. I've taught English on the middle school and high school level for about 20 years, both public and private Catholic.
I love your third sentence:
Tune the education system to the pupil. One size fits all education is stupid.
I hate every word you write after that.
Where is your proof that more than half our kids are "dead weight"? Where do you get off making a judgment like that? Why not just abort the kids in the womb before they get to school? Why not napalm the underachieving schools?
Let's go back to that one good sentence of yours. I'm working right now with a relatively new concept in education called "flipping the classroom." What that means is that my kids are doing the "homework" in class and the traditional "classwork" at home. I present the problem to my students in class, where they can find many different ways at home to learn it. They come into class and do the reading or whatever, and I can help them with problems.
In a math class, rather than the teacher repeating the quadratic equation six times to six different classes, he or she will find a way to present the idea for homework. Then, the kids work in class on problems. The teacher can address those kids who are having the most problems. The advanced students get to move on, or maybe even help the kids having a tougher time (for extra credit.)
I teach English. I'm teaching Tolkien's The Hobbit to 10th graders. In the past, I would assign a chapter, hope the kids read the chapter and discuss the chapter after a quiz. In my "flipped" model, I assign the reading in class. Kids read in small groups on their iPads, or listen to the audiobook, or talk about the book. I walk around the class, visiting every kid, and making sure he gets the major points. For "homework," the students have to make an intelligent post on a discussion board. Every kid participates, and I can monitor the discussions to make sure the students are getting the major themes. When they're ready to take a quiz, they take it. Faster kids can read ahead or volunteer to help other kids for extra credit.
In the past, kids could could just read cliffs notes or spark notes, listen to my lectures, and never read the book. Most of you have done that. Hell...I'VE done that. In this model, they're reading the book and making intelligent comments. They're developing critical thinking skills and learning to parse what they're learning into relatively intelligent comments. It doesn't "look" like a normal class, but man the results so far have been great.
Hire great people. Let them do their jobs. Fire the lazy ones.
George S. Patton said, "Never tell people how to do things. Tell them what to do, and they will surprise you with their ingenuity."
-
I'm a high school teacher. I've taught English on the middle school and high school level for about 20 years, both public and private Catholic.
I love your third sentence:
I hate every word you write after that.
Where is your proof that more than half our kids are "dead weight"? Where do you get off making a judgment like that? Why not just abort the kids in the womb before they get to school? Why not napalm the underachieving schools?
Let's go back to that one good sentence of yours. I'm working right now with a relatively new concept in education called "flipping the classroom." What that means is that my kids are doing the "homework" in class and the traditional "classwork" at home. I present the problem to my students in class, where they can find many different ways at home to learn it. They come into class and do the reading or whatever, and I can help them with problems.
In a math class, rather than the teacher repeating the quadratic equation six times to six different classes, he or she will find a way to present the idea for homework. Then, the kids work in class on problems. The teacher can address those kids who are having the most problems. The advanced students get to move on, or maybe even help the kids having a tougher time (for extra credit.)
I teach English. I'm teaching Tolkien's The Hobbit to 10th graders. In the past, I would assign a chapter, hope the kids read the chapter and discuss the chapter after a quiz. In my "flipped" model, I assign the reading in class. Kids read in small groups on their iPads, or listen to the audiobook, or talk about the book. I walk around the class, visiting every kid, and making sure he gets the major points. For "homework," the students have to make an intelligent post on a discussion board. Every kid participates, and I can monitor the discussions to make sure the students are getting the major themes. When they're ready to take a quiz, they take it. Faster kids can read ahead or volunteer to help other kids for extra credit.
In the past, kids could could just read cliffs notes or spark notes, listen to my lectures, and never read the book. Most of you have done that. Hell...I'VE done that. In this model, they're reading the book and making intelligent comments. They're developing critical thinking skills and learning to parse what they're learning into relatively intelligent comments. It doesn't "look" like a normal class, but man the results so far have been great.
Hire great people. Let them do their jobs. Fire the lazy ones.
George S. Patton said, "Never tell people how to do things. Tell them what to do, and they will surprise you with their ingenuity."
well yeah, make me feel like a do-do lol...
I guess I was just trying to make the point that we need to identify gifted kids better and make a better experience for them. I've been in 21st Century STEM classes and seen the lack of AMERICAN kids.
The left has taught the kids that a BA/MA degree in some idiotic field is the road to lifelong earning. It's NOT!! Go to UT for a Petroleum Engineering degree, you will work the next 40+ years!!
Can you at least agree that a percentage of kids have no use for college, don't WANT to be in school and won't EVER need/use a college education? Why not put them in a fast-track efficient class? 150 students, instruction from multi-media and move them on to a subject they like or need?
-
Can you at least agree that a percentage of kids have no use for college, don't WANT to be in school and won't EVER need/use a college education? Why not put them in a fast-track efficient class? 150 students, instruction from multi-media and move them on to a subject they like or need?
I can agree with that. http://www.mikeroweworks.com/mikes-office/
I pretty much breezed through high school, but my one year of college was a bust because I didn't have the self discipline. Also, I didn't see the need for the elective classes that weren't relative to electrical engineering.
-
well yeah, make me feel like a do-do lol...
I guess I was just trying to make the point that we need to identify gifted kids better and make a better experience for them. I've been in 21st Century STEM classes and seen the lack of AMERICAN kids.
The left has taught the kids that a BA/MA degree in some idiotic field is the road to lifelong earning. It's NOT!! Go to UT for a Petroleum Engineering degree, you will work the next 40+ years!!
Can you at least agree that a percentage of kids have no use for college, don't WANT to be in school and won't EVER need/use a college education? Why not put them in a fast-track efficient class? 150 students, instruction from multi-media and move them on to a subject they like or need?
Can you remind me what your estimated throwaway percentage is?
-
well yeah, make me feel like a do-do lol...
I guess I was just trying to make the point that we need to identify gifted kids better and make a better experience for them. I've been in 21st Century STEM classes and seen the lack of AMERICAN kids.
The left has taught the kids that a BA/MA degree in some idiotic field is the road to lifelong earning. It's NOT!! Go to UT for a Petroleum Engineering degree, you will work the next 40+ years!!
Can you at least agree that a percentage of kids have no use for college, don't WANT to be in school and won't EVER need/use a college education? Why not put them in a fast-track efficient class? 150 students, instruction from multi-media and move them on to a subject they like or need?
I get passionate about kids/teaching. There are many gifts, and not every kid can be a theoretical physicist. I get my hackles up when we start talking about pigeonholing kids, though.
-
I get my hackles up when we start talking about pigeonholing kids, though.
Okay, I know I'm an exceptional case here, a deaf person educated in a hearing school, no special "aids."
From the beginning of life, I was charged by the parents, "sink or swim," and deafness wasn't an excuse.
(By the way, I have no criticism of the parents' attitude.)
Sometimes I wonder if being "pigeonholed" isn't such a bad idea.
I was taken in by this insistence that I could do anything and everything a hearing person could do.
Uh, no.
In addition to being deaf, I was not academically-inclined, the "black sheep" of the family, I guess, in this one respect, as everybody else was.
It was a big mistake, convincing me that I could do anything and everything; I estimate that I've spent 90% of my life struggling for things that I wasn't ever going to get. If God rewards "effort," I'm going to Heaven, for sure. If God rewards "results," I'm going to Hell, for sure.
Laboring a mountain to bring forth a mouse is no experience unusual to me; in fact, it's usually to be expected.
I think I should've been at least a little bit "pigeonholed" like most deaf children of the time, directed towards manual skills rather than intellectual ones.
But, well, excresence happens, and one can't undo the past.
While I don't think young children should be rigidly put into a particular slot, I think they should at least be put vaguely into certain academic and manual categories.
-
Okay, I know I'm an exceptional case here, a deaf person educated in a hearing school, no special "aids."
From the beginning of life, I was charged by the parents, "sink or swim," and deafness wasn't an excuse.
(By the way, I have no criticism of the parents' attitude.)
Sometimes I wonder if being "pigeonholed" isn't such a bad idea.
I was taken in by this insistence that I could do anything and everything a hearing person could do.
Uh, no.
In addition to being deaf, I was not academically-inclined, the "black sheep" of the family, I guess, in this one respect, as everybody else was.
It was a big mistake, convincing me that I could do anything and everything; I estimate that I've spent 90% of my life struggling for things that I wasn't ever going to get. If God rewards "effort," I'm going to Heaven, for sure. If God rewards "results," I'm going to Hell, for sure.
Laboring a mountain to bring forth a mouse is no experience unusual to me; in fact, it's usually to be expected.
I think I should've been at least a little bit "pigeonholed" like most deaf children of the time, directed towards manual skills rather than intellectual ones.
But, well, excresence happens, and one can't undo the past.
While I don't think young children should be rigidly put into a particular slot, I think they should at least be put vaguely into certain academic and manual categories.
I guess it irks me because I've seen kids "get it." I've seen kids go from low "tracks" to AP and beyond.
The idea of putting young kids into slots conjures visions of social engineering to me.
-
Okay, personal experience here.
I was one of those "gifted" kids. All my life I was told how I was destined for a top-tier university: Caltech, Harvard, MIT, UC Berkeley, etc.
And I bought every bit of it. Ate that shit with a spoon, because they were right. In four years of high school, I took SIX years of science (two years each of Physics and Chemistry, along with Biology and 9th grade science) as well as four years of math, including Calculus. I had SAT scores in excess of 1400, ACT composite of 32, GPA of over 3.5.
Then came the reality. I wasn't ready for college. Financially, emotionally, mentally. Oh sure, academically I was all there on paper, and got into an excellent Engineering program. But I was on my own, no support.
In retrospect, that was the best thing I could have hoped for. Because while I knew I could handle the course load, even at 18-20 hours a semester, I wasn't mature enough to LEARN.
I ended up dropping out. I joined the Navy. And there I DID get into a program in which I DID learn, USED what I learned, which included far more than just what was taught inside a classroom. And after I got out, I found out I was in demand not so much for what I knew, but for my ability to learn and apply what was taught to me. I could adapt myself, and I wasn't too proud to start at the bottom again, figuratively speaking, although you'd never know that by looking at my paycheck.
Bottom line--most kids are sharp, and want to do well, but not all can (or should) sit in a classroom for 4-5 (or more) years getting a degree they neither want nor will use. I see folks doing the 2-year vo-tech degrees and doing well enough in their careers as electricians, plumbers, etc., and more importantly, they're HAPPY with what they do.
And isn't that the most important thing?
-
The left talks about education and expects a non-stop money dump to make it better. I have a different perspective.
Tune the education system to the pupil. One size fits all education is stupid.
For example... in most schools, let's say 50-60% of the kids are "dead weight". Some may not go on to graduate, they won't go to college and they will end up as Union workers or tattoo artists or welfare parasites.
So WHY use valuable resources on them?
For example, for the kids who WANT TO and CAN learn give them a nice low 1:10 teacher to pupil ratio. Give them extra help, better resources, newer textbooks and more expensive hands-on education. For the other kids, put them in a large college-type hall room with 100-150 students and give them the same class through a streamlined, easier course with less homework. If they're going to end up as a Union longshoreman I don't think that the Biology II class will be of much value to them. Don't give them books. They can just learn from lecture.
The kids can be identified and categorized by testing or interviews. Identify the college potential kids and get them a quality education. The other kids, get them through the system quickly and efficiently with a streamlined program teaching lifetime fundamentals like budgeting and life planning.
Whatcha think?
You mean like China?
[Rolling eyes into the back of my head].
-
You mean like China?
[Rolling eyes into the back of my head].
Or Japan.
Google the phrase, "Pass with four, fail with five." It refers to the hours of sleep per night kids there get. JUNIOR high school kids. Because at that point it determines what kind of high school one gets into--be it one with a university track, or one that shuttles the kids more towards a vo-tech or office environment.
-
Kinda goes against that whole "pursuit of happiness" promise, doesn't it? If we don't have freedom to fail, we don't have freedom.
-
I'm going to stick by my opinion.
Identify the students who not only have an aptitude for learning but those who like the learning experience.
Let me use my son as an example. From day one he was on the College fast-track. We read with him from a young age, he was encouraged to read as much as he wanted. He was an advanced reader in every grade level.
From first grade we followed along closely with the school and teacher, always knowing the class curriculum and activities. We attended open houses and helped daily with homework. I was honestly of the opinion that a child was a piece of clay waiting to be turned into a sculpture or a dinner plate.
20 years later... it didn't work that way. He worked against us at every possible turn NOT to be interested in school lol. He couldn't stand it. No matter the reward OR the punishment he just couldn't perform. So we spotted his natural aptitude to take things apart and observe how things work. After high school he went into the Air Force and now has a great start to a career in Munitions.
So yeah... identify strengths and weaknesses of kids early and suit their education to their strengths.
-
I'm going to stick by my opinion.
Identify the students who not only have an aptitude for learning but those who like the learning experience.
Let me use my son as an example. From day one he was on the College fast-track. We read with him from a young age, he was encouraged to read as much as he wanted. He was an advanced reader in every grade level.
From first grade we followed along closely with the school and teacher, always knowing the class curriculum and activities. We attended open houses and helped daily with homework. I was honestly of the opinion that a child was a piece of clay waiting to be turned into a sculpture or a dinner plate.
20 years later... it didn't work that way. He worked against us at every possible turn NOT to be interested in school lol. He couldn't stand it. No matter the reward OR the punishment he just couldn't perform. So we spotted his natural aptitude to take things apart and observe how things work. After high school he went into the Air Force and now has a great start to a career in Munitions.
So yeah... identify strengths and weaknesses of kids early and suit their education to their strengths.
I don't know if you noticed this but it was you and your son that made this choice, not the state or the school.
-
Kinda goes against that whole "pursuit of happiness" promise, doesn't it? If we don't have freedom to fail, we don't have freedom.
:clap: :clap: :clap:
-
What you're really saying is...
I'm going to stick by my opinion.
The State should identify the students who not only have an aptitude for learning but those who like the learning experience.
(snip)
So yeah... The State should identify strengths and weaknesses of kids early and suit their education to their strengths.
Do you trust the State to determine your child's education, and by extension, the path of his life?
I think I have a copy of Brave New World lying around somewhere...
Hey, I have a crazy idea. Let's keep the decisions on which education track a kid follows, with the parents and the student!
-
I don't know if you noticed this but it was you and your son that made this choice, not the state or the school.
What he said.
-
I don't know if you noticed this but it was you and your son that made this choice, not the state or the school.
All I'm saying is... a certain group of kids have little need for an "in-depth" Biology class. They can learn the basics in a 100+ seat lecture hall from a multi-media source. The students who enjoy and are proficient in BIOLOGY can be in a specialized class and with the money saved maybe they can buy an electron scanning microscope or something. Kids can move back and forth at any time depending on their interest level or performance.
-
All I'm saying is... a certain group of kids have little need for an "in-depth" Biology class. They can learn the basics in a 100+ seat lecture hall from a multi-media source. The students who enjoy and are proficient in BIOLOGY can be in a specialized class and with the money saved maybe they can buy an electron scanning microscope or something. Kids can move back and forth at any time depending on their interest level or performance.
Think this through.
If the student is routed to the "shallow end" biology classes for two or three years, how can he take the "in depth" classes the last one or two years? The school would have to offer a remedial biology class at each level so the students who did will at Shallow End Biology could learn the additional information to move up to Deep End Biology.
It would be the same with math, English, History, etc.
But you didn't answer the question: Do you support the State choosing which student receives a complete high school education, and which student gets half a loaf?
-
What you're really saying is...
Do you trust the State to determine your child's education, and by extension, the path of his life?
I think I have a copy of Brave New World lying around somewhere...
Hey, I have a crazy idea. Let's keep the decisions on which education track a kid follows, with the parents and the student!
Problem is, "the State" has now lowered the choices kids have to one--college. That way, we get a bunch of "yutes" who end up with a useless degree and a six-figure loan debt, which creates an entire generation who are slaves to "the State."
Ain't it wonderful?
-
I'm going to stick by my opinion.
Identify the students who not only have an aptitude for learning but those who like the learning experience.
Uh, just who is responsible for the "identify" part - the government?
How truly socialist of you.
-
Problem is, "the State" has now lowered the choices kids have to one--college. That way, we get a bunch of "yutes" who end up with a useless degree and a six-figure loan debt, which creates an entire generation who are slaves to "the State."
Ain't it wonderful?
Yes and no. If you are referring to vocational high schools, then yes. They moved away from vocational curriculum and have been hard pushing academics for a decade or so now. That would be due to NCLB (which has it's credits, this isn't one of them).
To fix it - say hell no to Common Core. Open more vocational schools (with lottery system of enrollment and not the current admissions process where they get to cherry pick the academic students). More local funding priorities for arts and music (which are pretty much decimated nationwide as they are viewed as non-essential learning). Expand on STEAM curriculum, heavily.
Public employee unions have completed destroyed public education - there is just no getting around that. Every fantastic idea one can dream up will get shot down immediately because of the unbelievable constraints placed on change by unions.
This will only change with local legislation (state level) making it so. You see some states pushing back hard on Common Core and I applaud them. These states are fighting for the future of their children - God bless them for recognizing the crisis we are all in.
-
Kinda goes against that whole "pursuit of happiness" promise, doesn't it? If we don't have freedom to fail, we don't have freedom.
Brilliantly stated. H5.
-
All I'm saying is... a certain group of kids have little need for an "in-depth" Biology class. They can learn the basics in a 100+ seat lecture hall from a multi-media source. The students who enjoy and are proficient in BIOLOGY can be in a specialized class and with the money saved maybe they can buy an electron scanning microscope or something. Kids can move back and forth at any time depending on their interest level or performance.
This is in place now, you have general Biology and AP Biology offerings in most high schools.
Education, by the way, is a life long journey. It's not just a K-12 thing. :)
-
Problem is, "the State" has now lowered the choices kids have to one--college. That way, we get a bunch of "yutes" who end up with a useless degree and a six-figure loan debt, which creates an entire generation who are slaves to "the State."
Ain't it wonderful?
Public education isn't filling out college applications. That would be the students, with heavy parental influence.
Public education's curriculum goal is college ready. Whether they choose to go to college? that is for junior to decide.
-
Public education isn't filling out college applications. That would be the students, with heavy parental influence.
Public education's curriculum goal is college ready. Whether they choose to go to college? that is for junior to decide.
There's a lot more to it than just parental influence--that's ALL the schools have been pushing for 30-plus years, when I was in HS. I don't know how many times as a recruiter I had counselors and administrators refuse to let me in, saying that 98 percent of their kids went to college and I was wasting my time.
Of course, none of them ever said how many of those kids were still in college at the end of their freshman year, or how many of them had to take remedial coursework just to get up to speed.
Frankly, public education's goal should be not "college ready" but "real world ready", be that going to college, vo-tech, or straight to work. THEN you'll see parents and students given a true choice and not some piss-poor one-size fits all system.
YMMV.
-
There's a lot more to it than just parental influence--that's ALL the schools have been pushing for 30-plus years, when I was in HS. I don't know how many times as a recruiter I had counselors and administrators refuse to let me in, saying that 98 percent of their kids went to college and I was wasting my time.
Of course, none of them ever said how many of those kids were still in college at the end of their freshman year, or how many of them had to take remedial coursework just to get up to speed.
Frankly, public education's goal should be not "college ready" but "real world ready", be that going to college, vo-tech, or straight to work. THEN you'll see parents and students given a true choice and not some piss-poor one-size fits all system.
YMMV.
STEAM is more about the world ready theme. College ready simply means you can read to learn and do math. Really isn't much more of an expectation than that.
-
College ready simply means you can read to learn and do math.
And judging by the number of freshmen who are required to take remedial math and/or English, our public schools suck at that too.
-
And judging by the number of freshmen who are required to take remedial math and/or English, our public schools suck at that too.
Yes, yes they do. THANK YOU PUBLIC EMPLOYEE UNIONS!!!
-
And judging by the number of freshmen who are required to take remedial math and/or English, our public schools suck at that too.
Almost a third of this year's high school graduates who took the ACT tests are not prepared for college-level writing, biology, algebra or social science classes, according to data the testing company released Wednesday.
The company's annual report also found a gap between students' interests now and projected job opportunities when they graduate, adding to the dire outlook for the class of 2013. "The readiness of students leaves a lot to be desired," said Jon Erickson, president of the Iowa-based company's education division.
The ACT reported that 31 percent of all high school graduates tested were not ready for any college coursework requiring English, science, math or reading skills. The other 69 percent of test takers met at least one of the four subject-area standards. Just a quarter of this year's high school graduates cleared the bar in all four subjects, demonstrating the skills they'll need for college or a career, according to company data.
***
The numbers are even worse for black high school graduates: Only 5 percent were deemed fully ready for life after high school. The report's findings suggest that many students will struggle when they arrive on campus or they'll be forced to take remedial courses — often without earning credits — to catch their peers.
The data reveal a downturn in overall student scores since 2009. Company officials attribute the slide to updated standards and more students taking the exams — including many with no intention of attending two- or four-year colleges. -
See more at: http://cnsnews.com/news/article/act-third-high-school-grads-not-college-ready#sthash.Nthfc3Q1.dpuf
-
And judging by the number of freshmen who are required to take remedial math and/or English, our public schools suck at that too.
There's the problem.
Trust me when I say it's not the teachers. I know plenty of great in-the-trenches public school teachers. They HATE the bureaucracy. They LIVE FOR May and June, when they can teach students, not teach to the "test," whatever the hell test it is. The public school system has so hogtied the teachers, that they can't do what they actually trained to do, teach your kids. Teacher turnover during the first three years is horrendous.
The public school system sucks. Of course, just about every teacher keeps voting Democrat, for some damn reason, so I guess they're part of the problem, as well.
-
All I'm saying is... a certain group of kids have little need for an "in-depth" Biology class. They can learn the basics in a 100+ seat lecture hall from a multi-media source. The students who enjoy and are proficient in BIOLOGY can be in a specialized class and with the money saved maybe they can buy an electron scanning microscope or something. Kids can move back and forth at any time depending on their interest level or performance.
Who makes that call? Are YOU qualified to tell MY kids what they can or can't take in school? Can you explain the size/makeup of this "certain group"? Why do you want to give bureaucracies MORE power?
-
(http://i.imgur.com/NON5vBJ.jpg)