What Would You Do? (Education)

[rdean]

Ever thought that maybe it's not the school system but the kids themselves?

Actually not the kids, but specifically, the parents. Just because you can spawn a fuck-trophy doesn't make you a parent. Too many parents could give a flying f**k about how their children perform in school, or otherwise.

I agree, BUT ....

Does that make it the responsibility of the government to ensure that the student gets a quality education, no matter the parent's involvement?? Does that mean that the government should usurp the rights of the parent to be involved? Should we just take the responsibility for educating our children away from parents and get it over with?

I don't understand the question. It's not illegal to home school. If parents want to send their children to public schools, they don't have the right to tell the teachers to teach "Noah's Ark" as history and "Magical Creation" in place of evolution.

 

[Spare_change]

Right but your reason assumes equal results. If that were the only way to raise performance would you still oppose it?

Yes. Because I don't believe that is the "only way". If the private school model (and there isn't even just one) is the means to better performance - then let's shape our public schools to that model, not let them die. Personally, I think giving more community control, downsizing classroom size a great deal, and allowing teachers to be more innovative and creative is a far better idea.

That's the point. They have no reason to change. Give them a reason to change.

I think they have reason to change, but they are stifled in bureacracy. There have been good innovative ideas that are successful, like magnet schools. Funneling money into private education is not going to make them change, it will make it harder for them to change. I also don't think tax payers should fund religious enterprises.

How do you feel about vouchers? School choice? Parochial schools? Home schooling?

I feel that parents have every right to choose what ever accredited school they want. But I do not believe we, the taxpayers should pay for it. I oppose vouchers for a variety of reasons. People should not be forced to subsidize private for-profit or religious schools. Taking money away from the public school system only makes the problem worse and leaves those students stuck in the system worse off. Private schools don't have to take everyone - they can pick and choose from the best if they want. Vouchers also don't help many families - they don't pay for the entire cost, they don't cover transportation, they don't work when there are no private schools in a reasonable distance or for parents that don't have transport options where there might be a private school. It subsidizes a few at the expense of others.

But you can't have it both ways .... you can't say people have the freedom of school choice, but that they must subsidize substandard schools (through taxes) while paying for educational excellence (out of pocket).

If I remove 10 students from your school, why should you get money to teach those 10 students? Shouldn't the money dedicated to the education of the 10 students go with the 10 students?

 

[gallantwarrior]

I've heard Republicans go on and on about Common Core so I go look it up. This if from the Common Core website:

About the Standards | Common Core State Standards Initiative

Recognizing the value and need for consistent learning goals across states, in 2009 the state school chiefs and governors that comprise CCSSO and the NGA Center coordinated a state-led effort to develop the Common Core State Standards. Designed through collaboration among teachers, school chiefs, administrators, and other experts, the standards provide a clear and consistent framework for educators.

The Common Core is informed by the highest, most effective standards from states across the United States and countries around the world. The standards define the knowledge and skills students should gain throughout their K-12 education in order to graduate high school prepared to succeed in entry-level careers, introductory academic college courses, and workforce training programs.

The standards are:

1. Research- and evidence-based
2. Clear, understandable, and consistent
3. Aligned with college and career expectations
4. Based on rigorous content and application of knowledge through higher-order thinking skills
5. Built upon the strengths and lessons of current state standards
6. Informed by other top performing countries in order to prepare all students for success in our global economy and society

------------------------------------

So why are Republicans so against common core? One of the biggest reasons is ignorance. And that ignorance takes many forms.

For instance, here is a thread I started back on May 1st when a Republican congressman referred to algebra as "fuzzy math" for using letters.

Republican calls algebra "fuzzy math" for using letters with numbers.

How many Republicans have even read what Common Core is all about?

Ding wrote: Actually I don't know much about common core except my wife hates it so I must hate it too, lol.

The Iris Ram wrote: Go find the smartest kids in the world, and who is producing them, and copy their curriculum, plus college level classes in high school.

Which is pretty much what they did.

The problem is not with the baseline concept of Common Core.The problem is in the implementation.

Common Core is, now, nothing more than a naked power grab by the federal government to take over control of education at all levels. When they tried to make federal funding contingent on CC compliance, they completely corrupted the original intent.

Further, CC has focused pressure on teachers to perform to a pre-determined level. This, obviously, greatly offends teachers' unions, and threatens every teacher (no matter how good they are).

I live in Alaska where the implementation of CC is absolutely untenable. Every community should determine what is best to accomplish the educational needs of that community. Allowing the feds to determine what constitutes an appropriate education ignores local needs and desires.

 

[Wyatt earp]

Scrap Common Core immediately. Go find the smartest kids in the world, and who is producing them, and copy their curriculum, plus college level classes in high school. What ever the smartest are doing we need to one up them. We need to be the smartest, the strongest, the fastest, the most courageous, the most compassionate, the best this world has ever seen.

You're right .... but, are we willing to have our kids go to school 10 hours a day, all year long? Are we willing to give our students a test in the 6th grade, and tell some that they are not going to be allowed into college, but rather have to learn a vocational skill? Are we willing to scrap the 'feel good' classes and concentrate our funding, and talent, on the core curriculum? Are you willing to tell your daughter she isn't smart enough to be a ballerina, or a rocket scientist?

How do we standardize schools so everyone gets an equal opportunity?

Not a bad idea. Not every child is meant to be a doctor. Some are meant to be bakers, plumbers, etc. Being a ballerina doesn't require a lot of intelligence, but talent in an entirely different, physical way. One-sized-fits-all education is a losing proposition for everyone.

Which is what Obama proposed. He talked about the benefits for education and went on to great lengths to explain training as a machinist which is the purpose of an apprenticeship and other apprenticeships includes plumbers and carpenters and so on. Any of those can be a great living.

So what did Republicans do?



For the record, Obama said he wanted everyone in America to have an education.

Hillary and Bernie ran on making college affordable. Bernie kept saying "free" which is unrealistic. Hillary outlined many ways to pay that wouldn't leave you in debt for decades. Any of those can make a great living.

So what did Republicans do? They gave us Trump. What is Trump's college plan? He knew better than run on anything college because we know what Republicans think of college. Listen to Santorum.

Why would promote having apprentices in carpentry or plumbing? Heck all the illegals your ilk let in squashed those wages to $14bucks an hour on average.

Those skills in the 80s and before would pay around an average of $20 bucks an hour in today's money with benefits.

Another reason why democrats lost being so out of touch with today's workers
.

 

[rdean]

Ever wonder why foreign students, at great cost flock to US schools?

Number Of International Students In The US Up Nearly 10 Percent In 2015

Record number of international students studying in U.S.

Republicans think US schools are the worst in the world. The rest of the world thinks US schools are the best in the world. Come on. In the last 40 years, what have Republicans ever been right about? I'm talking policies they have passed that affects the country. Not "talking points".

Believe it or not, many foreigners send their kids here for High School, not just college:

http://www.usnews.com/education/hig...for-international-students-at-us-high-schools

Hilarious. It almost looks like our election map. Gee. I wonder why?

Republicans constantly down US education, but will never, ever answer the question about why foreign students flock here for American Education. Considered the best in the world by the rest of the world. The people in the grey states insist education is no good. The other states? Not so much. Why is that? How come they won't answer this question?

 

[Spare_change]

We need waaaaaaayyyy more technical high schools...


.

Do you believe in dual tracking (one for college and one for vocational school)? When should the split happen? How would you feel if your child was told they aren't smart enough for college?

First, we have to eliminate the "smart enough for college" bullshit. Loads of college educated morons would be completely incapable of doing trade-related jobs. So telling children they are "not smart enough for college" is a disservice to most people who are better suited to trade-related professions. In Europe, the split occurs at about 14 yrs old, or where Jr. High splits into High School. At that point, children (or their families) decide a child should pursue a trade-related profession or pursue academic interests. Too bad that we have decided here (the US) that no one has a future unless they have a college (university) degree. Of course, unions have a very different role across the water, too.

I use the term "not smart enough for college" not to demean those who shouldn't attend college, but rather simply to differentiate between the two classes of students. No offense was meant.

"In Europe, the split occurs at about 14 years old ... " Who makes the determination? Who decides which path? Do they allow the government to determine the child's future? Or, as we do here, do they allow misinformed, misled parents to decide?

So, you agree? Making college "more affordable" will only result in burger flippers with college degrees?

 

[gallantwarrior]

Scrap Common Core immediately. Go find the smartest kids in the world, and who is producing them, and copy their curriculum, plus college level classes in high school. What ever the smartest are doing we need to one up them. We need to be the smartest, the strongest, the fastest, the most courageous, the most compassionate, the best this world has ever seen.

You're right .... but, are we willing to have our kids go to school 10 hours a day, all year long? Are we willing to give our students a test in the 6th grade, and tell some that they are not going to be allowed into college, but rather have to learn a vocational skill? Are we willing to scrap the 'feel good' classes and concentrate our funding, and talent, on the core curriculum? Are you willing to tell your daughter she isn't smart enough to be a ballerina, or a rocket scientist?

How do we standardize schools so everyone gets an equal opportunity?

Not a bad idea. Not every child is meant to be a doctor. Some are meant to be bakers, plumbers, etc. Being a ballerina doesn't require a lot of intelligence, but talent in an entirely different, physical way. One-sized-fits-all education is a losing proposition for everyone.

Which is what Obama proposed. He talked about the benefits for education and went on to great lengths to explain training as a machinist which is the purpose of an apprenticeship and other apprenticeships includes plumbers and carpenters and so on. Any of those can be a great living.

So what did Republicans do?



For the record, Obama said he wanted everyone in America to have an education.

Hillary and Bernie ran on making college affordable. Bernie kept saying "free" which is unrealistic. Hillary outlined many ways to pay that wouldn't leave you in debt for decades. Any of those can make a great living.

So what did Republicans do? They gave us Trump. What is Trump's college plan? He knew better than run on anything college because we know what Republicans think of college. Listen to Santorum.

Why would promote having apprentices in carpentry or plumbing? Heck all the illegals your ilk let in squashed those wages to $14bucks an hour on average.

Those skills in the 80s and before would pay around an average of $20 bucks an hour in today's money with benefits.

Another reason why democrats lost being so out of touch with today's workers
.

Would you translate that into proper English, please?

 

[Wyatt earp]

Scrap Common Core immediately. Go find the smartest kids in the world, and who is producing them, and copy their curriculum, plus college level classes in high school. What ever the smartest are doing we need to one up them. We need to be the smartest, the strongest, the fastest, the most courageous, the most compassionate, the best this world has ever seen.

You're right .... but, are we willing to have our kids go to school 10 hours a day, all year long? Are we willing to give our students a test in the 6th grade, and tell some that they are not going to be allowed into college, but rather have to learn a vocational skill? Are we willing to scrap the 'feel good' classes and concentrate our funding, and talent, on the core curriculum? Are you willing to tell your daughter she isn't smart enough to be a ballerina, or a rocket scientist?

How do we standardize schools so everyone gets an equal opportunity?

Not a bad idea. Not every child is meant to be a doctor. Some are meant to be bakers, plumbers, etc. Being a ballerina doesn't require a lot of intelligence, but talent in an entirely different, physical way. One-sized-fits-all education is a losing proposition for everyone.

Which is what Obama proposed. He talked about the benefits for education and went on to great lengths to explain training as a machinist which is the purpose of an apprenticeship and other apprenticeships includes plumbers and carpenters and so on. Any of those can be a great living.

So what did Republicans do?



For the record, Obama said he wanted everyone in America to have an education.

Hillary and Bernie ran on making college affordable. Bernie kept saying "free" which is unrealistic. Hillary outlined many ways to pay that wouldn't leave you in debt for decades. Any of those can make a great living.

So what did Republicans do? They gave us Trump. What is Trump's college plan? He knew better than run on anything college because we know what Republicans think of college. Listen to Santorum.

Why would promote having apprentices in carpentry or plumbing? Heck all the illegals your ilk let in squashed those wages to $14bucks an hour on average.

Those skills in the 80s and before would pay around an average of $20 bucks an hour in today's money with benefits.

Another reason why democrats lost being so out of touch with today's workers
.

Would you translate that into proper English, please?

How much you going to pay me?

BTW get a fucking job , you have waaaayyy to much time on your hands nit picking spelling and grammar


.

 

[Spare_change]

Ever thought that maybe it's not the school system but the kids themselves?

Actually not the kids, but specifically, the parents. Just because you can spawn a fuck-trophy doesn't make you a parent. Too many parents could give a flying f**k about how their children perform in school, or otherwise.

I agree, BUT ....

Does that make it the responsibility of the government to ensure that the student gets a quality education, no matter the parent's involvement?? Does that mean that the government should usurp the rights of the parent to be involved? Should we just take the responsibility for educating our children away from parents and get it over with?

My initial response is, the parents are responsible. But if the government assumes such responsibility, shouldn't there be government sponsored, and funded, facilities to house and educate those children whose parents prove incapable of supporting education?

Mighty dangerous road you're suggesting there ....

That is my point --- at what point does the parent lose his right to determine the quality and quantity of education for his/her child? At what point does the government "know best"?

Seriously, though, don't you think that the government has already assumed such responsibility, that the schools have usurped the responsibility of the parents, not only to define the type and methodology by which the children will be taught, but also to what level, and even to the point of educating social mores, etc?

That sounds mightily like surrogate parenting to me.

 

[Spare_change]

Ever wonder why foreign students, at great cost flock to US schools?

Number Of International Students In The US Up Nearly 10 Percent In 2015

Record number of international students studying in U.S.

Republicans think US schools are the worst in the world. The rest of the world thinks US schools are the best in the world. Come on. In the last 40 years, what have Republicans ever been right about? I'm talking policies they have passed that affects the country. Not "talking points".

Believe it or not, many foreigners send their kids here for High School, not just college:

http://www.usnews.com/education/hig...for-international-students-at-us-high-schools

Hilarious. It almost looks like our election map. Gee. I wonder why?

Republicans constantly down US education, but will never, ever answer the question about why foreign students flock here for American Education. Considered the best in the world by the rest of the world. The people in the grey states insist education is no good. The other states? Not so much. Why is that? How come they won't answer this question?

I think you're avoiding the socioeconomic advantages of an American education. They come here, not because the quality of education is better, but because it gives their children entree into the driving forces of economy, connects them with the inner circle of movers and shakers.

 

[rdean]

Scrap Common Core immediately. Go find the smartest kids in the world, and who is producing them, and copy their curriculum, plus college level classes in high school. What ever the smartest are doing we need to one up them. We need to be the smartest, the strongest, the fastest, the most courageous, the most compassionate, the best this world has ever seen.

You're right .... but, are we willing to have our kids go to school 10 hours a day, all year long? Are we willing to give our students a test in the 6th grade, and tell some that they are not going to be allowed into college, but rather have to learn a vocational skill? Are we willing to scrap the 'feel good' classes and concentrate our funding, and talent, on the core curriculum? Are you willing to tell your daughter she isn't smart enough to be a ballerina, or a rocket scientist?

How do we standardize schools so everyone gets an equal opportunity?

Not a bad idea. Not every child is meant to be a doctor. Some are meant to be bakers, plumbers, etc. Being a ballerina doesn't require a lot of intelligence, but talent in an entirely different, physical way. One-sized-fits-all education is a losing proposition for everyone.

Which is what Obama proposed. He talked about the benefits for education and went on to great lengths to explain training as a machinist which is the purpose of an apprenticeship and other apprenticeships includes plumbers and carpenters and so on. Any of those can be a great living.

So what did Republicans do?



For the record, Obama said he wanted everyone in America to have an education.

Hillary and Bernie ran on making college affordable. Bernie kept saying "free" which is unrealistic. Hillary outlined many ways to pay that wouldn't leave you in debt for decades. Any of those can make a great living.

So what did Republicans do? They gave us Trump. What is Trump's college plan? He knew better than run on anything college because we know what Republicans think of college. Listen to Santorum.

Why would promote having apprentices in carpentry or plumbing? Heck all the illegals your ilk let in squashed those wages to $14bucks an hour on average.

Those skills in the 80s and before would pay around an average of $20 bucks an hour in today's money with benefits.

Another reason why democrats lost being so out of touch with today's workers
.

Depends on where. When I hire a plumber, I go to a company where the work is guaranteed. The only time I hired people that were possibly not legal was the cement poured in my back yard. I contacted three or four companies. The job was too small. They wouldn't even come out and look. I was walking down the street and there were some Hispanics putting in a walkway. I asked for their card. They showed up the next day and gave an estimate. Three days later I had my patio. True story.

I had two furnaces installed. I would never, ever ask anyone but the qualified. The only issues I had was one of the guys backed into my fence gate and broke a hinge. He was a white American guy. They fixed it.

 

[rdean]

Ever wonder why foreign students, at great cost flock to US schools?

Number Of International Students In The US Up Nearly 10 Percent In 2015

Record number of international students studying in U.S.

Republicans think US schools are the worst in the world. The rest of the world thinks US schools are the best in the world. Come on. In the last 40 years, what have Republicans ever been right about? I'm talking policies they have passed that affects the country. Not "talking points".

Believe it or not, many foreigners send their kids here for High School, not just college:

http://www.usnews.com/education/hig...for-international-students-at-us-high-schools

Hilarious. It almost looks like our election map. Gee. I wonder why?

Republicans constantly down US education, but will never, ever answer the question about why foreign students flock here for American Education. Considered the best in the world by the rest of the world. The people in the grey states insist education is no good. The other states? Not so much. Why is that? How come they won't answer this question?

I think you're avoiding the socioeconomic advantages of an American education. They come here, not because the quality of education is better, but because it gives their children entree into the driving forces of economy, connects them with the inner circle of movers and shakers.

So they come here for a crappy education but make connections?

That sounds seriously crazy to me.

 

[Spare_change]

Ever thought that maybe it's not the school system but the kids themselves?

Actually not the kids, but specifically, the parents. Just because you can spawn a fuck-trophy doesn't make you a parent. Too many parents could give a flying f**k about how their children perform in school, or otherwise.

I agree, BUT ....

Does that make it the responsibility of the government to ensure that the student gets a quality education, no matter the parent's involvement?? Does that mean that the government should usurp the rights of the parent to be involved? Should we just take the responsibility for educating our children away from parents and get it over with?

I don't understand the question. It's not illegal to home school. If parents want to send their children to public schools, they don't have the right to tell the teachers to teach "Noah's Ark" as history and "Magical Creation" in place of evolution.

Why not? If we are going to make parents responsible for the education of their children, why don't they get to define what the child learns? If the public school isn't going to educate the child in the manner the parent wants, doesn't he have a right to withdraw both his student AND his tax support?

 

[gallantwarrior]

We need waaaaaaayyyy more technical high schools...


.

Do you believe in dual tracking (one for college and one for vocational school)? When should the split happen? How would you feel if your child was told they aren't smart enough for college?

First, we have to eliminate the "smart enough for college" bullshit. Loads of college educated morons would be completely incapable of doing trade-related jobs. So telling children they are "not smart enough for college" is a disservice to most people who are better suited to trade-related professions. In Europe, the split occurs at about 14 yrs old, or where Jr. High splits into High School. At that point, children (or their families) decide a child should pursue a trade-related profession or pursue academic interests. Too bad that we have decided here (the US) that no one has a future unless they have a college (university) degree. Of course, unions have a very different role across the water, too.

I use the term "not smart enough for college" not to demean those who shouldn't attend college, but rather simply to differentiate between the two classes of students. No offense was meant.

"In Europe, the split occurs at about 14 years old ... " Who makes the determination? Who decides which path? Do they allow the government to determine the child's future? Or, as we do here, do they allow misinformed, misled parents to decide?

So, you agree? Making college "more affordable" will only result in burger flippers with college degrees?

I'm not sure why the split occurs at that age. Perhaps the end of primary education? Those who chose academia continue so, those who chose a trade move on in that direction. Most trades provide both trade-specific academics and practical training. The conclusion of apprenticeship training results in a tradesman certification which may proceed to a master's certification, eventually. Many jobs lend themselves to such development rather than college education. The schism should be considered in this country, too.

 

[Spare_change]

Ever wonder why foreign students, at great cost flock to US schools?

Number Of International Students In The US Up Nearly 10 Percent In 2015

Record number of international students studying in U.S.

Republicans think US schools are the worst in the world. The rest of the world thinks US schools are the best in the world. Come on. In the last 40 years, what have Republicans ever been right about? I'm talking policies they have passed that affects the country. Not "talking points".

Believe it or not, many foreigners send their kids here for High School, not just college:

http://www.usnews.com/education/hig...for-international-students-at-us-high-schools

Hilarious. It almost looks like our election map. Gee. I wonder why?

Republicans constantly down US education, but will never, ever answer the question about why foreign students flock here for American Education. Considered the best in the world by the rest of the world. The people in the grey states insist education is no good. The other states? Not so much. Why is that? How come they won't answer this question?

I think you're avoiding the socioeconomic advantages of an American education. They come here, not because the quality of education is better, but because it gives their children entree into the driving forces of economy, connects them with the inner circle of movers and shakers.

So they come here for a crappy education but make connections?

That sounds seriously crazy to me.

I would think you've been around long enough to know that "it's not WHAT you know, it's WHO you know."

Couple that excellent education they got back in their home country (where they are undoubtedly advanced over ours) with the quality of connectivity, and you have a recipe for success (and it certainly seems to be working for them, doesn't it?)

 

[gallantwarrior]

You're right .... but, are we willing to have our kids go to school 10 hours a day, all year long? Are we willing to give our students a test in the 6th grade, and tell some that they are not going to be allowed into college, but rather have to learn a vocational skill? Are we willing to scrap the 'feel good' classes and concentrate our funding, and talent, on the core curriculum? Are you willing to tell your daughter she isn't smart enough to be a ballerina, or a rocket scientist?

How do we standardize schools so everyone gets an equal opportunity?

Not a bad idea. Not every child is meant to be a doctor. Some are meant to be bakers, plumbers, etc. Being a ballerina doesn't require a lot of intelligence, but talent in an entirely different, physical way. One-sized-fits-all education is a losing proposition for everyone.

Which is what Obama proposed. He talked about the benefits for education and went on to great lengths to explain training as a machinist which is the purpose of an apprenticeship and other apprenticeships includes plumbers and carpenters and so on. Any of those can be a great living.

So what did Republicans do?



For the record, Obama said he wanted everyone in America to have an education.

Hillary and Bernie ran on making college affordable. Bernie kept saying "free" which is unrealistic. Hillary outlined many ways to pay that wouldn't leave you in debt for decades. Any of those can make a great living.

So what did Republicans do? They gave us Trump. What is Trump's college plan? He knew better than run on anything college because we know what Republicans think of college. Listen to Santorum.

Why would promote having apprentices in carpentry or plumbing? Heck all the illegals your ilk let in squashed those wages to $14bucks an hour on average.

Those skills in the 80s and before would pay around an average of $20 bucks an hour in today's money with benefits.

Another reason why democrats lost being so out of touch with today's workers
.

Would you translate that into proper English, please?

How much you going to pay me?

BTW get a fucking job , you have waaaayyy to much time on your hands nit picking spelling and grammar


.

Pay you? What are you worth? Get a fucking job? I have three. Full-time as a highly-paid mechanic, part-time as a university professor, and full-time, self-employed artisan.

 

[Spare_change]

We need waaaaaaayyyy more technical high schools...


.

Do you believe in dual tracking (one for college and one for vocational school)? When should the split happen? How would you feel if your child was told they aren't smart enough for college?

First, we have to eliminate the "smart enough for college" bullshit. Loads of college educated morons would be completely incapable of doing trade-related jobs. So telling children they are "not smart enough for college" is a disservice to most people who are better suited to trade-related professions. In Europe, the split occurs at about 14 yrs old, or where Jr. High splits into High School. At that point, children (or their families) decide a child should pursue a trade-related profession or pursue academic interests. Too bad that we have decided here (the US) that no one has a future unless they have a college (university) degree. Of course, unions have a very different role across the water, too.

I use the term "not smart enough for college" not to demean those who shouldn't attend college, but rather simply to differentiate between the two classes of students. No offense was meant.

"In Europe, the split occurs at about 14 years old ... " Who makes the determination? Who decides which path? Do they allow the government to determine the child's future? Or, as we do here, do they allow misinformed, misled parents to decide?

So, you agree? Making college "more affordable" will only result in burger flippers with college degrees?

I'm not sure why the split occurs at that age. Perhaps the end of primary education? Those who chose academia continue so, those who chose a trade move on in that direction. Most trades provide both trade-specific academics and practical training. The conclusion of apprenticeship training results in a tradesman certification which may proceed to a master's certification, eventually. Many jobs lend themselves to such development rather than college education. The schism should be considered in this country, too.

But, who chooses? The student? The parent? The state?

You're right --- it typically happens at the end of primary education (though, let's be fair - their level of primary education greatly exceeds ours)

I am a big proponent of vocational education. i think we do a lot of students a great disservice by supposedly trying to put all of them on a pre-college track.

 

[gallantwarrior]

Ever thought that maybe it's not the school system but the kids themselves?

Actually not the kids, but specifically, the parents. Just because you can spawn a fuck-trophy doesn't make you a parent. Too many parents could give a flying f**k about how their children perform in school, or otherwise.

I agree, BUT ....

Does that make it the responsibility of the government to ensure that the student gets a quality education, no matter the parent's involvement?? Does that mean that the government should usurp the rights of the parent to be involved? Should we just take the responsibility for educating our children away from parents and get it over with?

My initial response is, the parents are responsible. But if the government assumes such responsibility, shouldn't there be government sponsored, and funded, facilities to house and educate those children whose parents prove incapable of supporting education?

Mighty dangerous road you're suggesting there ....

That is my point --- at what point does the parent lose his right to determine the quality and quantity of education for his/her child? At what point does the government "know best"?

Seriously, though, don't you think that the government has already assumed such responsibility, that the schools have usurped the responsibility of the parents, not only to define the type and methodology by which the children will be taught, but also to what level, and even to the point of educating social mores, etc?

That sounds mightily like surrogate parenting to me.

Agreed. But who do we assign the consequences to? Personally, parents should be the ultimate arbiter concerning their children's' education. But how should educational standards be implemented, locally, or nationally?

 

[Spare_change]

Ever thought that maybe it's not the school system but the kids themselves?

Actually not the kids, but specifically, the parents. Just because you can spawn a fuck-trophy doesn't make you a parent. Too many parents could give a flying f**k about how their children perform in school, or otherwise.

I agree, BUT ....

Does that make it the responsibility of the government to ensure that the student gets a quality education, no matter the parent's involvement?? Does that mean that the government should usurp the rights of the parent to be involved? Should we just take the responsibility for educating our children away from parents and get it over with?

My initial response is, the parents are responsible. But if the government assumes such responsibility, shouldn't there be government sponsored, and funded, facilities to house and educate those children whose parents prove incapable of supporting education?

Mighty dangerous road you're suggesting there ....

That is my point --- at what point does the parent lose his right to determine the quality and quantity of education for his/her child? At what point does the government "know best"?

Seriously, though, don't you think that the government has already assumed such responsibility, that the schools have usurped the responsibility of the parents, not only to define the type and methodology by which the children will be taught, but also to what level, and even to the point of educating social mores, etc?

That sounds mightily like surrogate parenting to me.

Agreed. But who do we assign the consequences to? Personally, parents should be the ultimate arbiter concerning their children's' education. But how should educational standards be implemented, locally, or nationally?

FINALLY!! (I've been waiting 8 pages for somebody to ask my opinion - lol)

I believe the basic education model is flawed. That which might have worked in the 1930s and 1940s no longer works for us.

Today's education model is based on age - not education. If you are 8, you're in the third grade. If you are 9, you're in the 4th grade. WE suspend their educational growth in favor of social context.

Instead, we need to take a more scientific approach to providing quality education to our students.

We have the capability to explicitly measure the level of a student's knowledge on any subject. We know if he can read at the 3rd grade level - we know if he can do 6th grade math, and we know if he can write at the 10th grade level. Most schools do these measurements today, and then throw them in a file somewhere.

Instead, I propose that we use those measurements to determine not only the level of education the student has already received, but also to determine the level of education the student needs.

For example, let's talk about reading level. Arbitrarily, we plot reading grade level on a 1000 point continuum. If you can read at the first grade level, you get 125 points (remember, testing is going to determine his ability). If he reads at a 4th grade level, he gets 395 points.

So, we plot each student on this continuum (let's call it a graduation yardstick). Where is he placed decides, not only his accomplishments, but the next level he needs to attain. If he scores 395 points, he placed in a "5th grade level" reading class. If he scores 800 points, he is placed in a 10th grade reading class.

Easy to do -- we have all the tools available to us today. BUT - he is placed in that class, no matter his age. If he is 17, and reading at a third grade level, he sits in a class of other students learning at that level. If he is 9, and reading at a 10th grade level, he is placed in that class.

There is NOTHING more damaging to a student than being left behind. Asking a third grade reader to interpret Macbeth is a recipe for instant failure, destroying a student's hunger to learn, and losing a student.

If you've been in education for more than a month, though, you have seen what happens when a student catches fire - when he gets it, when he's excited about it, when he's motivated about it. That 17 year old, reading at a third grade level, will have his eyes opened - he will excel, and he will accelerate.

Why don't we do that? Simple - we have created a false social model that guarantees a certain failure rate. If you can't read in the 6th grade, you still won't be able to read in the 10th grade. If you have to go back to the 3rd grade, obviously, you're a failure and everyone knows it.

So --- eliminate grade levels. Acknowledge performance by scores. Students will be encouraged to perform, and teachers will be mandated to teach. School boards set a minimum set of scores to graduate, and parents have complete visibility into the process.

Piece of cake, huh?

 

[gallantwarrior]

Actually not the kids, but specifically, the parents. Just because you can spawn a fuck-trophy doesn't make you a parent. Too many parents could give a flying f**k about how their children perform in school, or otherwise.

I agree, BUT ....

Does that make it the responsibility of the government to ensure that the student gets a quality education, no matter the parent's involvement?? Does that mean that the government should usurp the rights of the parent to be involved? Should we just take the responsibility for educating our children away from parents and get it over with?

My initial response is, the parents are responsible. But if the government assumes such responsibility, shouldn't there be government sponsored, and funded, facilities to house and educate those children whose parents prove incapable of supporting education?

Mighty dangerous road you're suggesting there ....

That is my point --- at what point does the parent lose his right to determine the quality and quantity of education for his/her child? At what point does the government "know best"?

Seriously, though, don't you think that the government has already assumed such responsibility, that the schools have usurped the responsibility of the parents, not only to define the type and methodology by which the children will be taught, but also to what level, and even to the point of educating social mores, etc?

That sounds mightily like surrogate parenting to me.

Agreed. But who do we assign the consequences to? Personally, parents should be the ultimate arbiter concerning their children's' education. But how should educational standards be implemented, locally, or nationally?

FINALLY!! (I've been waiting 8 pages for somebody to ask my opinion - lol)

I believe the basic education model is flawed. That which might have worked in the 1930s and 1940s no longer works for us.

Today's education model is based on age - not education. If you are 8, you're in the third grade. If you are 9, you're in the 4th grade. WE suspend their educational growth in favor of social context.

Instead, we need to take a more scientific approach to providing quality education to our students.

We have the capability to explicitly measure the level of a student's knowledge on any subject. We know if he can read at the 3rd grade level - we know if he can do 6th grade math, and we know if he can write at the 10th grade level. Most schools do these measurements today, and then throw them in a file somewhere.

Instead, I propose that we use those measurements to determine not only the level of education the student has already received, but also to determine the level of education the student needs.

For example, let's talk about reading level. Arbitrarily, we plot reading grade level on a 1000 point continuum. If you can read at the first grade level, you get 125 points (remember, testing is going to determine his ability). If he reads at a 4th grade level, he gets 395 points.

So, we plot each student on this continuum (let's call it a graduation yardstick). Where is he placed decides, not only his accomplishments, but the next level he needs to attain. If he scores 395 points, he placed in a "5th grade level" reading class. If he scores 800 points, he is placed in a 10th grade reading class.

Easy to do -- we have all the tools available to us today. BUT - he is placed in that class, no matter his age. If he is 17, and reading at a third grade level, he sits in a class of other students learning at that level. If he is 9, and reading at a 10th grade level, he is placed in that class.

There is NOTHING more damaging to a student than being left behind. Asking a third grade reader to interpret Macbeth is a recipe for instant failure, and losing a student.

If you've been in education for more than a month, though, you have seen what happens when a student catches fire - when he gets it, when he's excited about it, when he's motivated about it. That 17 year old, reading at a third grade level, will have his eyes opened - he will excel, and he will accelerate.

Why don't we do that? Simple - we have created a false social model that guarantees a certain failure rate. If you can't read in the 6th grade, you still won't be able to read in the 10th grade. If you have to go back to the 3rd grade, obviously, you're a failure and everyone knows it.

So --- eliminate grade levels. Acknowledge performance by scores. Students will be encouraged to perform, and teachers will be mandated to teach. School boards set a minimum set of scores to graduate, and parents have complete visibility into the process.

Piece of cake, huh?

No argument...100% agreement. We have the tools, and not every student is college/university material. But some may absolutely be more competent for many trades, regardless of academic accomplishments.