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.
I have 6-8 kids who just don't care in each class. They disrupt learning for everyone else. IMO, that should not be tolerated.
And these are the kind of kids who, if I had my way, would essentially lose their "right" to a free public education...
Find something else for them to do during the day or send them to a vocational school or something, but don't allow these types of kids to hinder the learning of the others.
Do a Trading Places thing? Do we think a group of kindergartners taken from an elite suburb, place them in the inner city (to live) and let them go to school there for 13 years and they would all be valedictorians or even 75% college bound?
I guess I was thinking of doing this at the high school level but yes, I still think that if you take all the kids from an elite high school, move them into the worst high school in the state, keeping all the same teachers, administration, etc. and take the kids from that bad high school and put them into the elite high school that in one year, the elite high school will be the worst high school and the worst high school will be the 'best'. Best here is certainly not 75% college bound, that is a really bad high school here. Most high schools here have 90+% and most close to 98% college bound kids.
This is one of, perhaps THE, biggest issues in education. Our students don't have a vested interest in their own educations. It's someone elses responsibility to make sure they learn and they just don't care. In my lower level chem classes, I have 6-8 kids who just don't care in each class. They disrupt learning for everyone else. IMO, that should not be tolerated.
I just don't get why you think you work at a great school/high performing school when you post stuff like this. That is a LOT of kids in each class to not care for a "good" school.
Depends on the family. Look at immigrant families from many Asian or African countries - the ones that didn't come here with much prospered here and their children excel in school.
Quote:
Originally Posted by lkb0714
I also think it would decline drastically but not to the "worst" status. Too much money in the "best" school and the shock factor of being in a new school, new expectation, etc, would probably make some portion of students work harder.
The same "shock" factor would probably make a similar portion of the "best" kids work harder as well, raising their scores a bit too. Interesting idea all the way around.
Actually it's the opposite. Too much money thrown at the worst schools in the country and you still get no results. The per-student-spending at these schools is quite eye-popping.
Then why do some students who come from extreme poverty, with no parent involvement in their education, who go to terrible schools, do well and succeed in life and have a great career and make lots of money?
You have a strong point, I'm from the Mississippi Delta, I've known plenty of people from some of the most dangerous areas in the Delta, some places look like there's no hope! The Delta will humble you and make you appreciative of life, therefore a lot of people from those conditions are going to strive harder! The Delta has a different mind set! If you haven't been, go through Greenville and Jonestown or any town in the Delta!
No one wants to give "them" money. As for the quote is red, that is exactly what this thread is about. Thanks for agreeing!!
And I do not think that the HSLDA is completely non biased when it comes to being objective. Kind of like asking The Newt which political party best represents the country?
Perhaps I didn't make myself clear. You have to teach them when they are little means two and three years old. Before they get into school. I could read a newspaper by the time I entered first grade. As a child *most* of my birthday and other gifts were books.
If you start in 1st grade or kindergarten, you have waited too long. So money is irrelevant. It's TIME, the time that the parents spend with their child, teaching them the LOVE of learning that makes the difference for the REST OF THEIR LIFE.
Depends on the family. Look at immigrant families from many Asian or African countries - the ones that didn't come here with much prospered here and their children excel in school.
.
That's why I explained it as a tendency. Its not a rigid fact. Of course there are many exceptions and often times, like you did here, we find reasons or circumstances that allowed for some kids to transcend poverty and do well in school.
Point is that if the trend is that 20 out of 100 kids from poor neighborhoods excel, can we discount poverty as a major reason for the disparity in student achievement because "20 of those kids did well"?
Actually it's the opposite. Too much money thrown at the worst schools in the country and you still get no results. The per-student-spending at these schools is quite eye-popping.
Exactly. Excuse the vulgarity, but I think the old adage of "Polishing a turd." or "Putting lipstick on a pig." fits here...
Its not the machinery of the school that's broken, its the raw material being fed into it.
I guess I was thinking of doing this at the high school level but yes, I still think that if you take all the kids from an elite high school, move them into the worst high school in the state, keeping all the same teachers, administration, etc. and take the kids from that bad high school and put them into the elite high school that in one year, the elite high school will be the worst high school and the worst high school will be the 'best'. Best here is certainly not 75% college bound, that is a really bad high school here. Most high schools here have 90+% and most close to 98% college bound kids.
Indeed, my point is if these elite students moived to the inner city at age 5, NT even 75% would be college bound. This is a BAD school cause by a bad environment influenced greatly by poverty.
To take high school kids from one environment to another is not just a waste of resources, it is plain dumb.
While there are SOME who make it, just as here are SOME in the elite burbs that fail, the issue is the huge rate of failure in the high poverty areas.
The quetion is do we accept this and just throw these kids away? Bring out the street sweepers of Rio and start child-cide before they grow up to be prison inmates?
AL= Annual Leave. So, I get 208 hours paid leave a year. But, when I taught school, I earned 5 hours AL a pay period as well as summer off.
You can't really have a discussion about teacher pay and benefits that makes any sense, because it is so variable based on the area you teach, and the conditions of the school, the kids. For example, I taught in Palo Alto. I loved it. The kids were great, the school was great, and I felt like I made a good salary. Granted, that was 30 years ago. I did a consulting job at a district in Florida, the schools were ghetto, a majority of students did not speak English, they had major problems with racial and gang violence in the schools, and the teacher salary and benefits were a joke. I would have rather worked at Wal-Mart than taught school there.
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.
