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.
Ironically its the lack of investment in the best and brightest that does the most to create inequality, because having more people stuck underperforming relative to their inherent ability and potential means those people will never have the earning power or income of the top producers.
Meanwhile the system over-invests in the worst segment of students - the mostly hopeless cases, for whom employment is unlikely no matter how many educational resources they consume (just based on IQ...that bottom 10-12% ...there aren't ANY jobs that they can do, and that's something that is IGNORED by the educational policy makers).
The most successful, for students, schools that I know of have integrated curriculum.
Language arts, math and science are easier for the administrators and faculty in most public schools. But the kids never see how they work together to inform. It is hard for them to relate it to their own lives or what they know.
In schools with integrated curriculums elementary students learn how to figure the amount of space needed to grow crops for sustaining life, a better understanding can develop. What crops require what amount of water, air, temperature, etc. to grow.
They can also provide first through third grades together, then upper elementary, and the entire middle school together. No grades or grading.
Smaller classes would be required. Administrators cannot make a ton of money with small schools.
Ironically its the lack of investment in the best and brightest that does the most to create inequality, because having more people stuck underperforming relative to their inherent ability and potential means those people will never have the earning power or income of the top producers.
Meanwhile the system over-invests in the worst segment of students - the mostly hopeless cases, for whom employment is unlikely no matter how many educational resources they consume (just based on IQ...that bottom 10-12% ...there aren't ANY jobs that they can do, and that's something that is IGNORED by the educational policy makers).
Our district puts a ton of money into the best and brightest while often times giving short shrift to the middle performers, which is not a good situation either. I'm watching it happen to my youngest right now. He's smart but not AP Chem material, and this year's class is failing to impress me. The curriculum is not challenging enough, and the other students are unmotivated and disruptive. He's having the same issue with classmates in his English course. Even the teachers, who I know personally, are at their wit's end. They sympathize and are trying to make things better for him, but there's not a whole lot they can do. Group projects are a flippin' nightmare, as I'm sure you can imagine.
I find it funny that some of the best public school systems in the country are in states like IA and KS (aka fly over country).
While many of the worst are in the coastal urban areas and are in such shape because of the prevalence of private and magnet schools that create class based tiers for education.
My kids schools had a rich diversity of racial, economic and social classes all with equal access to coursework and a great education....without having to qualify or have the $$$$.
Public education had a huge effect on raising up the middle class from about 1900 until the 60s. The middle class heyday in the midcentury corresponded with the heyday of public education. Go figure.
The reasons for the decline of public education are legion and I don't want to rehash that debate. I'm more concerned with why we rarely hear about this decline as a driver of inequality. Wage stagnation is blamed on outsourcing, union busting, technology, etc. Underlying wage stagnation is productivity stagnation. And productivity stagnates when people stop becoming more educated.
Is it possible that the middle class is disappearing because the middle class is losing skills due to the decline of public education? I think it's very possible.
It's certainly a piece of the puzzle. The liberal will merely say that we need to spend more money, but it seems to me that we've already tried that. The solution must lie elsewhere.
Our district puts a ton of money into the best and brightest while often times giving short shrift to the middle performers, which is not a good situation either. I'm watching it happen to my youngest right now. He's smart but not AP Chem material, and this year's class is failing to impress me. The curriculum is not challenging enough, and the other students are unmotivated and disruptive. He's having the same issue with classmates in his English course. Even the teachers, who I know personally, are at their wit's end. They sympathize and are trying to make things better for him, but there's not a whole lot they can do. Group projects are a flippin' nightmare, as I'm sure you can imagine.
Unless they have GATE programs that build on any accelerated higher level curriculum, then its not the right investment. AP classes are not necessarily enough to accomplish it - When I was a child we had a separate CAMPUS, and so there was true enrichment and nurture for the GATE students - outside of the academic curriculum.
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.
