Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Because grammatical snafus are a part of netspeak as one isn't trying to write perfectly ... spelling errors/gramatical snafus.. lack of punctuation... etc
I'd be happy to give you a tutorial if you'd like.. and why correct all my mistakes when there are trolls awaiting my every post to auto-correct for me?
Back on topic.
Pretty loose interpretation that misses the mark a bit, but sure, why not.
Multilingualism has been proven a great advantage in children so raised.
There have been a very great many studies, virtually all of which now point to distinct cognitive and intellectual advantages.
Absolutely and many countries actively encourage instruction in foreign languages in specific classes for that language. That doesn't mean (and shouldn't mean) that secondary or foreign languages are given equal status as the primary language of the country in general instruction.
California gives a great big open invitation to those of the quality that are deteriorating its education schools.. A problem born on itself and liberal mindset. 40% of costs go to education... dam laughable...
With all due respect, why do you stay here? You seem to detest everything about this state.
It has nothing to do with language and everything to do with culture.
Especially institutional culture.
Change the institutional culture and the results will change.
Look at American Indian Charter in Oakland, which is one of the top schools in the state and whose student body contains practically zero non-Hispanic whites and is overwhelmingly, overwhelmingly poor.
The culture of the institutions shapes the culture of the students.
Especially institutional culture.
Change the institutional culture and the results will change.
Look at American Indian Charter in Oakland, which is one of the top schools in the state and whose student body contains practically zero non-Hispanic whites and is overwhelmingly, overwhelmingly poor.
The culture of the institutions shapes the culture of the students.
Many types of societal and institutional cultures need adjustment to fix this problem.
It has nothing to do with language and everything to do with culture.
Change the culture change the results.
Thank goodness for private schools.
While you don't specify which culture needs changing, I suspect you were referring to the culture of the families.
I do not disagree - but I don't think that is the only culture that must change.
I argue that it is also the culture of the employees of the schools and school districts that must change. It is pretty clear that the mission of the teachers unions is to protect teachers jobs, pay, pension, health care, tenure and concomitant benefits. There is no parallel organization that lobbies for the children themselves.
It is exceedingly difficult to change the culture of a large complex organization. Examples of people who can do this include the likes of Steve Jobs -- the point is they are exceedingly rare. Given how rare this talent is, it is not surprising that school districts by and large do not change. There is little positive incentive to change, and essentially no punishment when the status-quo is maintained.
There have been a handful of great outcomes with charter schools. While it is out-of-state, The Andre Agassi College Preparatory Academy is one example. Agassi Prep. This is a charter school in a community characterized as "disadvantaged", "low-income", "economically deprived", "broken households", "ghetto", "high crime" area in urban Las Vegas.
Because of Andre Agassi's personal charisma, financial backing, life story (he dropped out of school in Las Vegas in 9th grade to play tennis full-time), and fund-raising talents, the school has financial resources most other charter schools can't match. It isn't the money, though - it is the culture they've created that enables their success.
I visited the school last week, participating in various fundraising activities of the Andre Agassi Foundation for Education Children's Educational Foundation | Andre Agassi Foundation. The students I saw & with whom I interacted were almost all people-of-color. Almost all were African-American or multi-racial. All were poor. All spoke English without any grammatical errors. Some students homes are non-English speaking households. All wore school uniforms that were clean & pressed.
All of these disadvantaged kids had positive attitudes. Every single student was able to articulate goals and hopes and dreams -- throughout the middle-school and high-school kids, I heard objectives such as "I want to attend West Point and go on to become a General Officer of the US Army" or "I want to attend Julliard, major in vocals & opera" or "I want to go to Stanford and major in neuroscience" or "I plan to attend the University of Chicago and major in Classics" or "I want to go to Duke, major in zoology, go to Law School and become an environmental law attorney."
Clearly, this is very different from typical middle and high schools serving a similar low-income disadvantaged community.
The faculty and administration were exceedingly positive and hopeful. They talk about a culture of extreme intervention - they refuse to let any student fail. This phrase -- "refuse to let any student fail" does not mean social promotion. The students succeed based on their own hard work - and plenty of help to make it happen.
The school has, in a few short years, achieved a remarkable goal: 100% of their graduates matriculate at a college or university (60 percent at 4-year schools).
A graduation requirement: each student must pass 2 AP tests. Next year the requirement goes up to passing 3 AP tests. The following year the requirement goes up to 4 -- then to 5.
But the administration isn't just writing these requirements down on a piece of paper & posting it.
The administration articulates exactly how the school puts in place programs starting as early as Kindergarten so that by the time the student is in high school she or he will ace AP Spanish. Ditto for programs to ensure the students master AP Chemistry, AP Calculus, AP English, etc.
Some of these kids are sponsored to attend summer programs at elite universities such as Columbia, Cornell, Princeton etc. The kids come back with a vision of what success might look like - and who their competition is. They double-down and work even harder to achieve their dreams.
Clearly, this kind of intervention is unique. And, of course, there are many criticisms of Charter Schools that are quite valid.
But at the end of the day, if it can be done in Las Vegas, it can be done in Los Angeles or San Deigo or San Jose.
It won't work for every student; it might not work for most. But it can work for some.
While you don't specify which culture needs changing, I suspect you were referring to the culture of the families.
I do not disagree - but I don't think that is the only culture that must change.
I argue that it is also the culture of the employees of the schools and school districts that must change. It is pretty clear that the mission of the teachers unions is to protect teachers jobs, pay, pension, health care, tenure and concomitant benefits. There is no parallel organization that lobbies for the children themselves.
It is exceedingly difficult to change the culture of a large complex organization. Examples of people who can do this include the likes of Steve Jobs -- the point is they are exceedingly rare. Given how rare this talent is, it is not surprising that school districts by and large do not change. There is little positive incentive to change, and essentially no punishment when the status-quo is maintained.
There have been a handful of great outcomes with charter schools. While it is out-of-state, The Andre Agassi College Preparatory Academy is one example. Agassi Prep. This is a charter school in a community characterized as "disadvantaged", "low-income", "economically deprived", "broken households", "ghetto", "high crime" area in urban Las Vegas.
Because of Andre Agassi's personal charisma, financial backing, life story (he dropped out of school in Las Vegas in 9th grade to play tennis full-time), and fund-raising talents, the school has financial resources most other charter schools can't match. It isn't the money, though - it is the culture they've created that enables their success.
I visited the school last week, participating in various fundraising activities of the Andre Agassi Foundation for Education Children's Educational Foundation | Andre Agassi Foundation. The students I saw & with whom I interacted were almost all people-of-color. Almost all were African-American or multi-racial. All were poor. All spoke English without any grammatical errors. Some students homes are non-English speaking households. All wore school uniforms that were clean & pressed.
All of these disadvantaged kids had positive attitudes. Every single student was able to articulate goals and hopes and dreams -- throughout the middle-school and high-school kids, I heard objectives such as "I want to attend West Point and go on to become a General Officer of the US Army" or "I want to attend Julliard, major in vocals & opera" or "I want to go to Stanford and major in neuroscience" or "I plan to attend the University of Chicago and major in Classics" or "I want to go to Duke, major in zoology, go to Law School and become an environmental law attorney."
Clearly, this is very different from typical middle and high schools serving a similar low-income disadvantaged community.
The faculty and administration were exceedingly positive and hopeful. They talk about a culture of extreme intervention - they refuse to let any student fail. This phrase -- "refuse to let any student fail" does not mean social promotion. The students succeed based on their own hard work - and plenty of help to make it happen.
The school has, in a few short years, achieved a remarkable goal: 100% of their graduates matriculate at a college or university (60 percent at 4-year schools).
A graduation requirement: each student must pass 2 AP tests. Next year the requirement goes up to passing 3 AP tests. The following year the requirement goes up to 4 -- then to 5.
But the administration isn't just writing these requirements down on a piece of paper & posting it.
The administration articulates exactly how the school puts in place programs starting as early as Kindergarten so that by the time the student is in high school she or he will ace AP Spanish. Ditto for programs to ensure the students master AP Chemistry, AP Calculus, AP English, etc.
Some of these kids are sponsored to attend summer programs at elite universities such as Columbia, Cornell, Princeton etc. The kids come back with a vision of what success might look like - and who their competition is. They double-down and work even harder to achieve their dreams.
Clearly, this kind of intervention is unique. And, of course, there are many criticisms of Charter Schools that are quite valid.
But at the end of the day, if it can be done in Las Vegas, it can be done in Los Angeles or San Deigo or San Jose.
It won't work for every student; it might not work for most. But it can work for some.
While you don't specify which culture needs changing, I suspect you were referring to the culture of the families.
I do not disagree - but I don't think that is the only culture that must change.
I argue that it is also the culture of the employees of the schools and school districts that must change. It is pretty clear that the mission of the teachers unions is to protect teachers jobs, pay, pension, health care, tenure and concomitant benefits. There is no parallel organization that lobbies for the children themselves.
It is exceedingly difficult to change the culture of a large complex organization. Examples of people who can do this include the likes of Steve Jobs -- the point is they are exceedingly rare. Given how rare this talent is, it is not surprising that school districts by and large do not change. There is little positive incentive to change, and essentially no punishment when the status-quo is maintained.
There have been a handful of great outcomes with charter schools. While it is out-of-state, The Andre Agassi College Preparatory Academy is one example. Agassi Prep. This is a charter school in a community characterized as "disadvantaged", "low-income", "economically deprived", "broken households", "ghetto", "high crime" area in urban Las Vegas.
Because of Andre Agassi's personal charisma, financial backing, life story (he dropped out of school in Las Vegas in 9th grade to play tennis full-time), and fund-raising talents, the school has financial resources most other charter schools can't match. It isn't the money, though - it is the culture they've created that enables their success.
I visited the school last week, participating in various fundraising activities of the Andre Agassi Foundation for Education Children's Educational Foundation | Andre Agassi Foundation. The students I saw & with whom I interacted were almost all people-of-color. Almost all were African-American or multi-racial. All were poor. All spoke English without any grammatical errors. Some students homes are non-English speaking households. All wore school uniforms that were clean & pressed.
All of these disadvantaged kids had positive attitudes. Every single student was able to articulate goals and hopes and dreams -- throughout the middle-school and high-school kids, I heard objectives such as "I want to attend West Point and go on to become a General Officer of the US Army" or "I want to attend Julliard, major in vocals & opera" or "I want to go to Stanford and major in neuroscience" or "I plan to attend the University of Chicago and major in Classics" or "I want to go to Duke, major in zoology, go to Law School and become an environmental law attorney."
Clearly, this is very different from typical middle and high schools serving a similar low-income disadvantaged community.
The faculty and administration were exceedingly positive and hopeful. They talk about a culture of extreme intervention - they refuse to let any student fail. This phrase -- "refuse to let any student fail" does not mean social promotion. The students succeed based on their own hard work - and plenty of help to make it happen.
The school has, in a few short years, achieved a remarkable goal: 100% of their graduates matriculate at a college or university (60 percent at 4-year schools).
A graduation requirement: each student must pass 2 AP tests. Next year the requirement goes up to passing 3 AP tests. The following year the requirement goes up to 4 -- then to 5.
But the administration isn't just writing these requirements down on a piece of paper & posting it.
The administration articulates exactly how the school puts in place programs starting as early as Kindergarten so that by the time the student is in high school she or he will ace AP Spanish. Ditto for programs to ensure the students master AP Chemistry, AP Calculus, AP English, etc.
Some of these kids are sponsored to attend summer programs at elite universities such as Columbia, Cornell, Princeton etc. The kids come back with a vision of what success might look like - and who their competition is. They double-down and work even harder to achieve their dreams.
Clearly, this kind of intervention is unique. And, of course, there are many criticisms of Charter Schools that are quite valid.
But at the end of the day, if it can be done in Las Vegas, it can be done in Los Angeles or San Deigo or San Jose.
It won't work for every student; it might not work for most. But it can work for some.
Although I don't doubt the quality of the school you mentioned - aren't the students self-selected for that school? The demographics of the student body include more than socio-economic or ethnic status. It includes their outlook and desire for education. So even if these students at first glance look like they might not be good students - they and their parents wanted a great education. So they chose the Agassi school.
LAUSD and SDUSD, being the only districts in the state with over 200K kids, skew the numbers downward from what they'd otherwise be.
That's why there should be a cap on how many kids a school district has before it would be broken up. 100K maximum. Only 3 districts in the entire state would be affected: LAUSD, SDUSD, and LBUSD.
Why are you so sure that smaller school districts would change this? LAUSD has clearly wasted some heroic amounts of money in recent history. But if it were broken up in two or three parts, I think you would see some portions improve, while others looked terrible. And it would all be a result of data segregation, not actual improvements.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
