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.
Thematic schools tend to have more buy in, but they typically are only available to kids at the very top or very bottom. If schools are organized along county rather than town lines, the pooling of resources allows schools to begin to make themes. Some could be specific STEM themes, others language immersion or the communication arts, and so on. Some should remain typical college prep of course. But right now areas that do have themed programs typically turn away more kids than they can take in.
I certainly do agree with you about county, rather than town by town. Although I think the biggest benefit for that is savings due to scale. Larger systems, like Fairfax County, have multiple assistant superintendents, but they only need one primary superintendent. Being able to buy in bulk is productive. Larger systems have more influence on curriculum materials and can often get discounts on bigger orders than a smaller system can get.
Children can't make choices properly. A childs reasoning is flawed they need to be steered in the right direction. If we catered to the whims of children nothing would get done.
You're being more than slightly hyperbolic.
There is a vast difference between letting a child choose between a high tech STEM program or regular college prep and the bolded.
Not for nothing the most successful programs in the country, are frequently thematic ones, where children have chosen to participate.
The difference is parents, a book or online lecture, etc. can give someone a strong enough background as to be able to meet the typical financial needs. The same cannot be said for being scientifically literate. There is no way that a 6th grader is developmentally able to critically evaluate the types of scientific info most people need to get by.
And I have zero interest in dictating which science classes are required, but high schools should offer more than bio, chem and physics. Maybe a life sciences or chemcom class.
According to Forbes, up to 66% of American adults failed a test on BASIC financial literacy, I'd say leaving it to parents, books, or online classes is already a complete failure, no? If people had basic financial literacy skills, I bet we would have seen a big difference in the housing crisis as well as a big difference in how many people are nowhere near ready or on track for retirement.
When I was in school, the science classes were offered in about a 6:1 ratio compared to business or finance classes. Science is overkill in public schools compared to other areas. Not saying science isn't important, but only up to a certain extent, and not at the cost of other critical areas. I'd rather see more well rounded kids as opposed to kids being overly exposed to just a small handful of areas.
If you think financial literacy can be taught online or through some books, why not sciences too?
I had a long post about the personal finance issue, but the computer ate it. Anyway, my opinions on this are well known. I honestly think it's kind of useless. I do think interest, mortgages, stuff like that should be taught in math class somewhere along the line. I recall learning it in about 8th grade, old enough to understand it. There's no point in teaching it in elementary school. Kids there barely understand what money means. Investing? I don't think so. Kids should spend what money they earn in jobs paying minimum wage or barely above for things they need right now, gas, entertainment, clothes their parents don't want to buy them, etc. Any principles of investing will change by the time they have any money to invest. When I was in HS, people had savings accounts, bought savings bonds, stuff like that. Now it's CDs, money market funds, IRAs (back when I was in high school that stood for Irish Republican Army), 401ks (had not yet been "invented"), etc.
There is a vast difference between letting a child choose between a high tech STEM program or regular college prep and the bolded.
Not for nothing the most successful programs in the country, are frequently thematic ones, where children have chosen to participate.
Choice is an illusion those children likely had a good upbringing for them to even to even consider choosing such a path. If we want a good education system we need to not cater to anti intellectuals or children.
According to Forbes, up to 66% of American adults failed a test on BASIC financial literacy, I'd say leaving it to parents, books, or online classes is already a complete failure, no? If people had basic financial literacy skills, I bet we would have seen a big difference in the housing crisis as well as a big difference in how many people are nowhere near ready or on track for retirement.
When I was in school, the science classes were offered in about a 6:1 ratio compared to business or finance classes. Science is overkill in public schools compared to other areas. Not saying science isn't important, but only up to a certain extent, and not at the cost of other critical areas. I'd rather see more well rounded kids as opposed to kids being overly exposed to just a small handful of areas.
If you think financial literacy can be taught online or through some books, why not sciences too?
So? Then if you can't pass the test, you take the class. As I stated before. That is sort of what the term "test out" means.
A can see you are winding up to grind your axe, but it is beyond silly to pretend, 2 science classes of a students choice (as I suggested) is "overkill".
And my final point, is that who cares what you would rather see? If we are going to base what kids take on what people want to see, it should be college admissions. But as I have already suggested, we should base education primarily on student interest with broad, minimum requirements, and many opportunities to test out, particularly of things which are easy enough to learn on your own, like personal finance.
Choice is an illusion those children likely had a good upbringing for them to even to even consider choosing such a path. If we want a good education system we need to not cater to anti intellectuals or children.
You do realize the last sentence is a double negative which when you correct means, you think we should cater to intellectuals, right?
Anyway, as someone who teaches in a thematic setting for only gifted students, it is grossly unfair that only gifted students have access to the opportunities my students have. All students should have the opportunity to meet guidelines for graduation that allow for differentiation or topic, level and interest.
So? Then if you can't pass the test, you take the class. As I stated before. That is sort of what term "test out" means.
A cab see you are winding up to grind your axe, but it is beyond silly to pretend, 2 science classes of a students choice (as I suggested) is "overkill".
And my final point, is that who cares what you would rather see? If we are going to base what kids take on what people want to see, it should be college admissions. But as I have already suggested, we should base education primarily on student interest with broad, minimum requirements, and many opportunities to test out, particularly of things which are easy enough to learn on your own, like personal finance.
I'll just respectfully agree to disagree if you want to essentially state that my opinion doesnt matter in a thread that asks for ideas, then you go on with your opinion which you somehow think holds more weight, simply because its yours. Either neither of our opinions matter and we should both shut up, or both of our opinions hold weight and are worth discussing, but as I said, I'm done "discussing" with you because that seems to be a one way street with you.
You do realize the last sentence is a double negative which when you correct means, you think we should cater to intellectuals, right?
Anyway, as someone who teaches in a thematic setting for only gifted students, it is grossly unfair that only gifted students have access to the opportunities my students have. All students should have the opportunity to meet guidelines for graduation that allow for differentiation or topic, level and interest.
Some people are naturally superior if we want to have a good education system we also need to acknowledge this fact.
Some people are naturally superior if we want to have a good education system we also need to acknowledge this fact.
I would agree that intelligence and work ethic occur along a spectrum. That being said, there are already programs for those kids (like mine). But everyone benefits from options. Pretending otherwise is supported by nothing beyond your opinion.
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.
