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.
Yes, I think so too. They tend to teach to the common denominator, the average. But what else can they do.
When I went to school, there was tracking. I don't know if this is still done, but it's probably looked down upon now. It started in 7h grade and you might be in an "A" class for English, a "D" class in math, a "B" class in history/social studies, etc.
It worked that way all the way up through high school. The smarter kids were not held down by having to listen to the teacher explain things over and over so the slower kids could get it. The A class went really fast and had loads of homework and individual research papers and projects, the B class a little less so, the C class less so. I think the E class eventually developed into vocational and business (for which there were few teachers and offerings, unfortunately. Those kids didn't fit in with this competitive high school and the boys usually dropped out and joined the military.) So my school suited the smart and medium kids and didn't help the slower kids much.
I like the idea of tracking. I was no genius but being in with the really smart kids helped me because we had a lot of classroom discussions (in English and history mostly) and I paid attention and really listened when the future Harvard Law School graduates or future Dartmouth or Princeton kids got into debates with each other and with the teacher. I hated it when the bell rang and class was over. Hey--how are these Library Students ever going to get that sort of exposure? Maybe they'll have class discussions? There's no substitute for human interaction.
I find the bold rather shocking. My "Junior High" (grades 7-8-9) had an "A" track for grades 7-8, but all the rest of the tracks were the same. Unfortunately they named them A, B, C, etc rather than say, Red, Blue, Green, etc or even 1, 2, 3, so it gave the appearance of a graded scheme. Everyone went to all classes with their track. By 9th grade, which was the first year of high school even in a Jr. High, it was more individualized. I'm appalled there would be "D" and "E" tracks in freaking Jr. High! My own kids' middle school let kids work at their own level in math so all math classes beyond 6th grade (it was a grades 6-7-8 school) had kids of all grades in them; algebra I was offered for 8th graders; if a kid needed a higher level class s/he was bused to the high school. Science, Language Arts and Social Studies were pretty standard till 8th grade. Tracking has been implicated in racism because these tracks are always subjective.
Quote:
Originally Posted by MissTerri
. I think that’s why it’s important to explore alternatives.
Schools try to do “differentiation” these days which means they try to meet each child where they are at. I’m not sure how well they can really do it though, it’s a pretty impossible task when one has 25 to 30 kids to try to teach.
I don’t think we have to take the superlibrary ideas as presented and without tweaking it or even just taking bits and pieces of it and figuring out different ways of meetings kids educational needs. There’s no reason why you couldn’t use bits of the idea and also incorporate meaty discussions, debate opportunities, etc. The original idea did have classes as a component. There would be human interaction.
Of course alternatives should be explored. However, this particular alternative, like so many of these simple solutions to complex issues, does not sound like the way to go.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Eumaois
I am for having ways to improve our schooling and education systems, depending on what the ideas are. Realistically, how would we implement them? So many things seem or do better in theory than in actual practice.
Agreed. See my response above.
Quote:
Originally Posted by phetaroi
We didn't buy all new textbooks to support common core. When the life of texts books was over, then we switched to new textbooks.
I do support: "Perhaps if they passed laws that no educational dollars could flow to the private sector (meaning all texts and tests have to come from the public domain, etc)"...but I think that actually happens more than you realize.
I actually see this idea as aligning more with Libertarian values than Democrat. Yes, the whole cost thing is an issue in and of itself. The very nature of the question in the thread's title suggests the libraries would replace schools, not just add on to our existing obligations.
But the self-paced curriculum is strongly an "every man for himself" approach. Yes, there will be glaring holes in certain subjects based on a child's interest and parents' capabilities to assist and explain, but isn't that the case today with public, and even some good private schools?
Last things first "even good private schools"? Why is there such an assumption that private schools are better than public schools?
Secondly, by high school kids do have a lot of options, but the curriculum does require a certain number of credits in the four areas-math, science, language arts and social studies and there are some required courses. Some states have specific curricula, others are more "local control", but all attempt to provide a curriculum that prepare students for career or college post high school.
Last things first "even good private schools"? Why is there such an assumption that private schools are better than public schools?
Secondly, by high school kids do have a lot of options, but the curriculum does require a certain number of credits in the four areas-math, science, language arts and social studies and there are some required courses. Some states have specific curricula, others are more "local control", but all attempt to provide a curriculum that prepare students for career or college post high school.
When making that statement, it allows that:
1. Not all private schools are necessarily good
2. Even highly rated ones can have an imbalance in how holistic their academics are, however slight
3. Sure, public schools can be great. Whether charter, magnet, or none of the above
Private schools, by their very nature not being held to the state curriculum, may have greater deficiencies in science and math vs. public. I am absolutely aware of and do not deny this possibility.
2. Even highly rated ones can have an imbalance in how holistic their academics are, however slight
3. Sure, public schools can be great. Whether charter, magnet, or none of the above
Private schools, by their very nature not being held to the state curriculum, may have greater deficiencies in science and math vs. public. I am absolutely aware of and do not deny this possibility.
Regardless, you said "even some good private schools" implying they are better than public schools. (Emphasis mine)
Regardless, you said "even some good private schools" implying they are better than public schools. (Emphasis mine)
Yes. Some are private schools better than public schools. If all were worse, it would be a hard sell to pay for a less attractive option, over an already-funded, better education. Even up to the point of ranking dead-even with public schools, what benefit would we have going private? Primary, secondary, post-secondary. Any education level.
If they continue to exist, generation after generation of students, there must be enough private schools offering an advantage over their local, public counterparts that enough parents see the value in sending their children to one to keep them open. Not sure what is wrong with this, or why an assumption of superiority seems so far-fetched.
In fact, ALL political backgrounds at higher income levels disproportionately utilize similar exclusive, fee-based education for their children in the name of smaller classes and more resources.
Yes. Some are private schools better than public schools. If all were worse, it would be a hard sell to pay for a less attractive option, over an already-funded, better education. Even up to the point of ranking dead-even with public schools, what benefit would we have going private? Primary, secondary, post-secondary. Any education level.
If they continue to exist, generation after generation of students, there must be enough private schools offering an advantage over their local, public counterparts that enough parents see the value in sending their children to one to keep them open. Not sure what is wrong with this, or why an assumption of superiority seems so far-fetched.
In fact, ALL political backgrounds at higher income levels disproportionately utilize similar exclusive, fee-based education for their children in the name of smaller classes and more resources.
https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/...study-matters/
"No, private schools aren’t better at educating kids than public schools. Why this new study matters." "Despite evidence showing otherwise, it remains conventional wisdom in many parts of the education world that private schools do a better job of educating students, with superior standardized test scores and outcomes. It is one of the claims that some supporters of school choice make in arguing that the public should pay for private school education.
The only problem? It isn’t true, a new study confirms.
University of Virginia researchers who looked at data from more than 1,000 students found that all of the advantages supposedly conferred by private education evaporate when socio-demographic characteristics are factored in. There was also no evidence found to suggest that low-income children or children enrolled in urban schools benefit more from private school enrollment."
https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/...study-matters/
"No, private schools aren’t better at educating kids than public schools. Why this new study matters." "Despite evidence showing otherwise, it remains conventional wisdom in many parts of the education world that private schools do a better job of educating students, with superior standardized test scores and outcomes. It is one of the claims that some supporters of school choice make in arguing that the public should pay for private school education.
The only problem? It isn’t true, a new study confirms.
University of Virginia researchers who looked at data from more than 1,000 students found that all of the advantages supposedly conferred by private education evaporate when socio-demographic characteristics are factored in. There was also no evidence found to suggest that low-income children or children enrolled in urban schools benefit more from private school enrollment."
All that needs to be present to create demand for something is a perceived advantage. It may be only marketing or association with the rich or "belonging" that accomplish this. In the eyes of those holding the tuition dollars, perception is reality, and that, for them, is good enough.
And yes, classism transcends most all other -isms.
Yes. Some are private schools better than public schools. If all were worse, it would be a hard sell to pay for a less attractive option, over an already-funded, better education. Even up to the point of ranking dead-even with public schools, what benefit would we have going private? Primary, secondary, post-secondary. Any education level.
If they continue to exist, generation after generation of students, there must be enough private schools offering an advantage over their local, public counterparts that enough parents see the value in sending their children to one to keep them open. Not sure what is wrong with this, or why an assumption of superiority seems so far-fetched.
In fact, ALL political backgrounds at higher income levels disproportionately utilize similar exclusive, fee-based education for their children in the name of smaller classes and more resources.
In my state even the worst private schools offer parents what they want most--no black children in their children's school. A few schools have begun admitting black athletes so that their schools will be more competitive, but in general and outside a few rather progressive academies, Mississippi private schools are lily white. Most of them were founded as segregation academies and they are still serving that purpose. The only white students who attend public schools in many areas of the state come from families that can't scrape together the relatively low tuition for the schools where all the other white children attend.
1. The quality of private schools is pretty much just as hit and miss and public schools...and with less data to support their claims of quality.
2. You think not paying professionals beans is a good thing that is likely to attract the best talent?
3. A few of the "mid-career" people you described we hired. A few were good. More didn't work out at all.
4. Considering that most mid-career people earn more than teachers, it's not likely many will want to move into teaching. We had such applicants. And usually when they heard where they'd be on salary scale they turned down offers.
1. In my experience private schools are on an different wavelength than public schools. Saint Marks down the street, which was unfortunately significantly damaged by last night's tornado, sports ~25% of this year's seniors as NMSFs.
2. My point was that most times private school teachers make less than their public school brother and sisters.
3. Forgive me if I'm not particularly consumed by your thoughts on hiring mid-career professionals.
2. Even highly rated ones can have an imbalance in how holistic their academics are, however slight
3. Sure, public schools can be great. Whether charter, magnet, or none of the above
Private schools, by their very nature not being held to the state curriculum, may have greater deficiencies in science and math vs. public. I am absolutely aware of and do not deny this possibility.
Which private schools would those be?
Everything is specific to the state, county town/district.
You don't send your kid to the public schools in my town or the towns surrounding my town.
Not if you care about your child's education.
You have to move to a town where the property taxes fall more in to the $50K-$150 range (and your house cost you at the very least $1.5M) - to get a public school worth it's tax payer dollars.
The worst districts in NJ get the most spent on them because they have been "ruled" Abbot districts.
Millions upon millions go in to these districts every year and NOTHING changes. Never has, never will.
You can't fix generational stupid in any state.
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.
