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.
And you completely missed the point of my post. In my post, I accepted that there is no completely "fair" way to determine who gets into an honors class and who doesn't. My point was that they need to somehow accommodate the "losers" who really should be in an honors class but aren't in it for whatever reason. Telling us to just shut up so they can focus on those who are more worthy of an education is not the answer.
True, but irrelevant.
True, but irrelevant.
If they were irrelevant why did you include them as examples?
You really need to let go of what happened, if it actually did, in a 7th Grade class over thirty years ago. You'll have much more to agonize over as you get older.
Skimming this thread has been generally depressing.
Just some points....
1. I think we can stipulated that many US K-12 parents are losers vis a vis kid's educational journeys.
2. It's tiresome to read from the teaching side that US K-12 is somehow dramatically underfunded. Most years The US is 3rd or 4th in K-12 per pupil funding across The OECD. And we consistently get our butts kicked by teachers/kids from countries that spend less and far less.
2.1. Beyond fairly middling numbers the money = K-12 success mantra falls apart in The US. If money ran supreme NY, WY, AK and IL would be lapping the field.
3. As noted above a couple of times teachers spending more than proportionally representative time and effort with bottom 1/3 or 1/5 kids may be noble in one sense but it's irrational from a national progress perspective. Let's be real.....bottom 1/3 scholastic performers do not and will not drive productivity enhancing medical, technological, business side or other developments etc.
3.1. I will add that some school districts do not over-cater to the bottom so to speak. A large DFW suburban district made the call years ago to more or less support those with special needs significantly but other than that direct much focus on the top, let's call it the the top 30%. The results are impressive to my way of thinking.
3.2. The current irrational drive attempting to force largely equitable outcomes across kids of widely varying abilities and talents worsens the above........anti-testing, expecting correct math answers is racist etc.
3.3. Excepting our son's first 1.5 years of disastrous public schooling our kids attended private K-12. Given current circumstances expect private and choice K-12 demand to spike. We have an 18 month old grandkid....I'm guessing he'll never attend public K-12.
Finally, I really wish people would stop acting surprised that test scores, grades, educational attainment levels, IQ etc. track parental income........does it not make perfect sense that the kids of say doctors, teachers, lawyers, MBAs etc. are going to face higher educational expectations and receive more parental support than the kids of parents who achieved less? We have mountains of data and studies going back several decades underscoring that kid's IQ, future educational attainment, income, life span and other things track that of parents closely.
To the doubters, I would suggest that we hand 100 randomly selected Americans two things. First, a map of the United States with the states outlined...but not labeled. Second, a map of the world with the countries outlined...but not labeled. Assignment -- based on what they had learned in school, label all the states and all the nations. Predicted average grade = F.
If they were irrelevant why did you include them as examples?
I did not include them as examples, and you completely missed the point of my post.
Quote:
You really need to let go of what happened, if it actually did, in a 7th Grade class over thirty years ago. You'll have much more to agonize over as you get older.
You are completely missing the point.
And, why is it that you feel the need to attack me, when you've never even met me? I know you are used to people worshipping the ground you walk on since you are a teacher, and you have a hard time with somebody like myself who has no reason to worship teachers.
The elementary years are key. That is where the greatest investment in funds and resources should be allocated. However, I do not believe that reading and math objectives should be pushed down to kindergarten or earlier. Kindergarten and preschool programs should focus on developing social skills, listening skills, and helping students learn self-regulation as well as numerous opportunities for play and interaction with nature. These are the skills and experiences that help the child develop readiness and a love for learning.
And telling students to shut up so that they can focus on others, more worthy of an education, is not the way to help a student develop a "love of learning".
-today's curriculums fail to teach real life skills like computers (1 class is a joke), money management, & how to secure employment, or start a business.
There was a thread about that a few years ago. Not surprisingly, the teachers who dominate this forum defended the status quo.
In particular, schools do not want students to understand money, or else fewer would take student loans. I fail to understand why a student who is smart enough to get into AP classes would be stupid enough to believe that loans are free money. Yet my high school was full of such students.
By your own admission you care more about lowest performers than the high performers. This seems to be a common thread with teachers and that's part of the problem some of use are concerned with. Why hold them back. In PE some kids are faster than others. I was among the slower kids in the class. Funny, no one ever suggested the fastest kids needed to be tied down or carry extra weight to limit their speed to mine. Why is it good to celebrate performance in athletics, but hold it back in academics? That's what schools should be for.
Good analogy.
Quote:
I'm curious as to your choice of words "to show off." I understand this is a common belief, but why? I know that when I asked questions, it wasn't because I was showing off, but because I was truly, deeply, interested in the question and answer. I've always been driven by a deep thirst for knowledge, a hunger to know. Which, even though that is what a school is for, seemed to irritate most teachers. I'd love to understand why.
Same here. I was genuinely curious about the things I asked questions about. But at least one teacher in this forum who has never been inside a classroom with me insists that I was showing off.
That would be good, but even that is quite abstract for a lot of kids. A lot of stuff has to be taught and retaught at different levels until the kids figure it out. Some kids (including many smart ones) don't even figure out how the three branches of the government work, or how a bill becomes a law, until college.
Again, it needs to be done in terms a kid can understand. Maybe show an example, such as a law increasing the amount of recess time, and have a simulation of it going through various branches of government. It can be done in terms that kids can understand.
Quote:
Perhaps even more abstract is financial stuff--compound interest, budgeting, etc. As a kid (in the 70s) I remember lessons on finances and the legal system, yet terms such as "mortgage" and "arraignment" were beyond my grasp. I had no personal context for them.
Again, it needs to be done in terms that kids can understand. Kids who have never worked don't quite understand the value of money.
Critical race theory, are you kidding me?.
Time to teach kids about the one subject they don't want us to know about...money.
Time to teach kids a lot more than just reading and math. Useful things, like anatomy/physiology and earth sciences, so they won't grow into adults who can't tell pseudoscience from real science, and react to discussions about real science calling it "woo-woo".
I don't understand why European countries manage to include a lot more material in their curricula than the US does. Why are their students better able to juggle multiple subjects, including tougher ones like various sciences, than even the best of our students? They get a much more well-rounded education, as a result. Even though their history courses include years of dry slogs through royal dynasties going back a lot longer than a mere 3-400 years, like ours.
Time to teach kids a lot more than just reading and math. Useful things, like anatomy/physiology and earth sciences, so they won't grow into adults who can't tell pseudoscience from real science, and react to discussions about real science calling it "woo-woo".
I don't understand why European countries manage to include a lot more material in their curricula than the US does. Why are their students better able to juggle multiple subjects, including tougher ones like various sciences, than even the best of our students? They get a much more well-rounded education, as a result. Even though their history courses include years of dry slogs through royal dynasties going back a lot longer than a mere 3-400 years, like ours.
Do you have anything to back up the Euro vs. US kids claims?
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.
