And that's one more reason why 'choice in education' is a red herring, and why I was shocked that Mazzyx said earlier that you don't have a national curriculum for highschool.
In the US, high school curricula are standardized at the state level, for the most part, with some variations between districts. This alone does not generally give students or families any meaningful choices, however, since most students are assigned to a school by the geographic location of their primary residence.
This is why we have problems with, for example, Creationists, or book bannings. A sufficiently motivated group can often pressure a school district into skipping over evolution or other content that is offensive to religious fundamentalists.
Feral on
every person who doesn't like an acquired taste always seems to think everyone who likes it is faking it. it should be an official fallacy.
I'm pretty comfortable saying that the teachers at my charter school would hate working in the public system, so I guess that works out. I'm glad both of them exist, so that teachers can excel in an environment that suits their style.
I don't understand the logic that choice is bad, and the proof is in how I would hate to work in places catering to yours (even though they have excellent outcomes).
I mean, posh. Look at that website. You'd really hate working there?
I'm pretty comfortable saying that the teachers at my charter school would hate working in the public system, so I guess that works out. I'm glad both of them exist, so that teachers can excel in an environment that suits their style.
I don't understand the logic that choice is bad, and the proof is in how I would hate to work in places catering to yours (even though they have excellent outcomes).
I mean, posh. Look at that website. You'd really hate working there?
Choice is bad because kids all need to learn together, in the end, and cope with other situations such as college which are not designed in the same way. If a kid learns a different way, it adversely affects their future. Plus teaching is an academic field with no big controversies within it - most educational academics agree on the big points.
Plus it's a red herring put about by right wingers to cover up underfunding. I don't want to choose between schools, and hopefully find a good one. I want them all to be of an acceptable level. Equally there is no difference in style between teachers in the public and private sectors - they all went to the same colleges and learnt the same methodology, which is largely based on peer-reviewed doctoral research into educational outcomes. The public mostly believe teachers are just pulling this stuff out of their ass, which is another aspect of the endemic lack of respect for teaching in the US and UK.
As for your schools, I wouldn't want to work at a school with helicopter parents, and what you are saying implies the facilitating of those.
So your ideal school is a single methodology all kids learn, with no deviation from that system for different types of learning, and an administration that blocks parents from interacting with teachers unless the clear power balance favors the teacher. I guess the administration is also hostile to outside oversight or influence in your ideal setting.
You also believe most, or possibly all, teachers use the same teaching style, and that style has been subjected to rigorous science that has discovered and documented the best way to teach.
Is this an accurate depiction?
0
Options
MortiousThe Nightmare BeginsMove to New ZealandRegistered Userregular
Parental involvement = I'm going to sit down with my kid and teach them things and drive them places and share mentally stimulating activities with them and make sure they're doing their homework and help them with their homework (without doing it for them)
Parental involvement =/= Haranguing teachers that they're doing it wrong
Yeah I think the reason some of us were initially surprised that you hadn't realized that your kid didn't know his multiplication tables was that, at least in my experience, that's something I've realized after doing 15 minutes of homework with a kid. I should mention that it wasn't my kid, it was a friend's kid, and the kid had supposedly been doing his homework on the bus home from school every day and telling his parents that he was done by the time they got home, so there was never anything for them to do with him. Except he was actually trading his dessert to another friend who did his homework for him so that he could spend all day playing after school. Which was pretty ingenious -- at least he's learning the value of capitalism, right? But anyway, I had to watch this kid for 15 minutes while his dad ran to the store, and because we were both bored, I erased his answers to his previous day's math homework and asked him to do it again.
Awkward....
Why...why would you do that?
I mean, I guess the unintended result was good, but on the fun scale that seems rather low.
Plus it's a red herring put about by right wingers to cover up underfunding. I don't want to choose between schools, and hopefully find a good one. I want them all to be of an acceptable level. Equally there is no difference in style between teachers in the public and private sectors - they all went to the same colleges and learnt the same methodology, which is largely based on peer-reviewed doctoral research into educational outcomes. The public mostly believe teachers are just pulling this stuff out of their ass, which is another aspect of the endemic lack of respect for teaching in the US and UK.
I'm good with school choice in theory, but I agree with you that in the US, school choice initiatives are often put about by right wingers to cover up underfunding. Many reform attempts are, which is why when a right-winger whines (as one did to me recently) that "the teacher's unions block all attempts at school reform!" my response is "well, most of those attempts suck."
I don't agree with your characterization of teachers as largely homogenous, or even evidence-based. In the US, much of our evidence about teaching methods comes from studying schools that use different methods, so enforcing too much homogeneity may impede progress. At the very least, even if all teachers are using the same methods there may be valid reasons to have a choice between different curricula.
Ideally, school choice would involve a choice between two or more well-funded, healthy schools rather than a choice between an underfunded struggling school versus a religious private school.
Feral on
every person who doesn't like an acquired taste always seems to think everyone who likes it is faking it. it should be an official fallacy.
Parental involvement = I'm going to sit down with my kid and teach them things and drive them places and share mentally stimulating activities with them and make sure they're doing their homework and help them with their homework (without doing it for them)
Parental involvement =/= Haranguing teachers that they're doing it wrong
Yeah I think the reason some of us were initially surprised that you hadn't realized that your kid didn't know his multiplication tables was that, at least in my experience, that's something I've realized after doing 15 minutes of homework with a kid. I should mention that it wasn't my kid, it was a friend's kid, and the kid had supposedly been doing his homework on the bus home from school every day and telling his parents that he was done by the time they got home, so there was never anything for them to do with him. Except he was actually trading his dessert to another friend who did his homework for him so that he could spend all day playing after school. Which was pretty ingenious -- at least he's learning the value of capitalism, right? But anyway, I had to watch this kid for 15 minutes while his dad ran to the store, and because we were both bored, I erased his answers to his previous day's math homework and asked him to do it again.
Awkward....
Why...why would you do that?
I mean, I guess the unintended result was good, but on the fun scale that seems rather low.
There's a series of factors which influenced that decision:
A. I knew he was having trouble in school on math tests but no one could identify why.
B. My dad is a physicist, my mom is a doctor, and I have really weird ideas about what's fun as a consequence.
C. I also have no fucking idea what I'm supposed to do while hanging out with an eight year old boy who isn't related to me, so giving him some busy work seemed like the best option so I didn't have to talk to him* seemed like the best option. If I'd had a length of rope, I would have taught him how to tie a bowline and then had him do that for 15 minutes instead because everything I know about grown men awkwardly hanging around young boys I learned in the Boy Scouts of America. Instead, I had a text book.
*not having to talk to him here means not having to monitor every single word out of my mouth so I didn't let an f-bomb slip out because I write the same way I talk.
So your ideal school is a single methodology all kids learn, with no deviation from that system for different types of learning, and an administration that blocks parents from interacting with teachers unless the clear power balance favors the teacher. I guess the administration is also hostile to outside oversight or influence in your ideal setting.
You also believe most, or possibly all, teachers use the same teaching style, and that style has been subjected to rigorous science that has discovered and documented the best way to teach.
Is this an accurate depiction?
No. No it is not. Not even slightly. Stop doing that, it makes people want to shout at you.
Different kinds of learning should absolutely be supported, whether special needs or just individual variations.
The administration should welcome parent participation in those areas in which parent participation is constructive, and in which their abilities are useful. Parents know their kids very well, so a stereotypical parent-teacher 'Whats up with Timmy?' conference is great. Parents do not know anything very much about how to teach, and so their input is less useful there. This is as much about power as any interaction with a professional should be - namely that power can be used to cover up incompetence, but in the absence of evidence of such incompetence, a lay person should know what they don't know and approach the relationship with basic levels of trust. Imagine the difference between your interactions with doctors and plumbers over those with teachers. Are they similar? If not, why not?
The administration should be subject to professional oversight and have managed systems in place for allowing Interaction with parents when it is beneficial to the child.
Your last sentence is just too loaded to even bother with. Apply the same terminology to nursing and see how hostile and lacking in basic respect for academic research and teaching it is. I was trying to address your idea that different kinds of teacher work at public and private schools, with your implication being that the public ones aren't as good, of course.
My interactions are generally the same, but I'm not sure others in the thread would agree with that since in those other interactions I am a customer and approach the situation with that in mind.
I don't understand the logic that choice is bad...
I have spelled this out explicitly in at least one, and possibly two or more posts in this very thread. Posts that you actually responded to.
I'm pretty sure you can follow the logic, even if you don't agree with it, so please stop playing as if we all just irrationally oppose choice for no reason. It is rather irritating.
I submitted an entry to Lego Ideas, and if 10,000 people support me, it'll be turned into an actual Lego set!If you'd like to see and support my submission, follow this link.
"Choice" is bad because school choice produces worse results full stop.
That is a very broad proclamation given that many first world countries allow private schools.
Private schools are A-OK as long as selecting a private school doesn't mean you get to opt out of funding your neighborhood public school. In the parlance of our times, "school choice" means vouchers.
"Choice" is bad because school choice produces worse results full stop.
That is a very broad proclamation given that many first world countries allow private schools.
So what does that have to do with private schools/school choice producing a worse result on a social level? As an aside, lots of first world countries do not support private schools.
I'm pretty comfortable saying that the teachers at my charter school would hate working in the public system, so I guess that works out. I'm glad both of them exist, so that teachers can excel in an environment that suits their style.
I don't understand the logic that choice is bad, and the proof is in how I would hate to work in places catering to yours (even though they have excellent outcomes).
I mean, posh. Look at that website. You'd really hate working there?
How many charter school teachers have you asked that question to and they didn't feel force to answer that way?
Do they hate working in the public system because it's underfunded or what? Because Charter schools provide considerably less security for teachers than any public institution. I don't know about you, but job security usually ranks really high on the list of wants for jobs for most everyone else.
Of course I just think you're making shit up because you want to, but maybe you aren't and you're getting this comfort from some sort of evidence.
And while I alluded to it before, I will mention again explicitly because I find the claim so bizarre: we absolutely know what the problems are with our schools. It is not some great mystery. I challenge you to find someone who works at a shitty school who, when asked what the problems are, will just shrug and say, "Fuck if I know!" They are funding issues. The schools need certain things and they do not have the money to acquire these things. Well-performing schools tend to be the ones in wealthy neighborhoods with high property taxes that enrich local schools. Poor-performing schools tend to be the ones in crappy neighborhoods with low property taxes. Doesn't that sort of tell you something?
Interesting objective counterexample:
In the greater Memphis metro area, for a very long time now, there have essentially been two school systems: Memphis City and Shelby County. City schools deal with everything inside the actual incorporated Memphis city limits and county schools deal with suburbs and the outlying rural areas. The city school system is the worst in the state; the county system is one of the best. Both systems receive identical funding on a per-student basis. (Actually, the city gets more, because the city has a small additional tax to support education and the city system is bad enough that it qualifies for government grants and stuff.)
I am extraordinarily skeptical that the issue can be boiled down to "more funding, please."
I'm pretty comfortable saying that the teachers at my charter school would hate working in the public system, so I guess that works out. I'm glad both of them exist, so that teachers can excel in an environment that suits their style.
It's not like this in ALL charter schools. A lot of the people in my alternate route program had jobs in charter schools and they would've strongly preferred to work in a public school. As lilnoobs said above, they have less job security. Typically, they're also paid less and get worse benefits. Almost every charter school teacher I know is only working in one because they can't find a job in a public school right now. Turnover rates are pretty high, among both teachers and administration.
And while I alluded to it before, I will mention again explicitly because I find the claim so bizarre: we absolutely know what the problems are with our schools. It is not some great mystery. I challenge you to find someone who works at a shitty school who, when asked what the problems are, will just shrug and say, "Fuck if I know!" They are funding issues. The schools need certain things and they do not have the money to acquire these things. Well-performing schools tend to be the ones in wealthy neighborhoods with high property taxes that enrich local schools. Poor-performing schools tend to be the ones in crappy neighborhoods with low property taxes. Doesn't that sort of tell you something?
Interesting objective counterexample:
In the greater Memphis metro area, for a very long time now, there have essentially been two school systems: Memphis City and Shelby County. City schools deal with everything inside the actual incorporated Memphis city limits and county schools deal with suburbs and the outlying rural areas. The city school system is the worst in the state; the county system is one of the best. Both systems receive identical funding on a per-student basis. (Actually, the city gets more, because the city has a small additional tax to support education and the city system is bad enough that it qualifies for government grants and stuff.)
I am extraordinarily skeptical that the issue can be boiled down to "more funding, please."
I'm guessing the city kids have more diverse needs than their country folk counter parts. Do you think the country folk suffer from the same rates of poverty, crime, murder, and other social issues as their urban counter parts? Do you think that, maybe, just maybe, a student who has had his cousins murder each other might need a bit more help in order to keep track in school? That students from single parent homes or working jobs or being raised by their grandmother because his or her parents are crackheads might need a bit more assistance to keep on task?
The per student $ thing is nice in theory, but it totally disregards the real and different problems each group faces. It's a nice spreadsheet talking point, but it's lazy thinking.
edit: not calling you lazy, just that line of thought because I've heard it before. Please don't misread as a personal attack. It's late, I'm barely awake =p
I'm pretty comfortable saying that the teachers at my charter school would hate working in the public system, so I guess that works out. I'm glad both of them exist, so that teachers can excel in an environment that suits their style.
It's not like this in ALL charter schools. A lot of the people in my alternate route program had jobs in charter schools and they would've strongly preferred to work in a public school. As lilnoobs said above, they have less job security. Typically, they're also paid less and get worse benefits. Almost every charter school teacher I know is only working in one because they can't find a job in a public school right now. Turnover rates are pretty high, among both teachers and administration.
This is absolutely true. Most teachers prefer to work in traditional public schools. There are exceptions, of course. For instance, if a charter school has a strong orientation toward a particular educational approach, like the Montessori method, then it will attract teachers who are true believers of that program. Teachers with strong religious convictions will also tend toward private schools that share their beliefs. In general, though, public school teachers actually enjoy more autonomy in their classrooms than their charter- and private-school peers. And the pay and benefits often are not even comparable. In the public schools teaching is a relatively well-paying, secure union job. In charters schools it can easily be a deeply exploitative working environment, similar to that faced by childcare workers.
Speaking of childcare workers, the single best thing that the United States could do for its children is to establish free public preschools for all citizens. The state and federal governments spend an enormous amount of money on both K-12 and higher education, but almost nothing is spent on early childhood education. It is difficult to overstate how perverse this is. Early childhood education is extremely important, and policymakers have failed to recognize this for literally centuries. Kids who are immersed in an intellectually stimulating environment during their preschool years have an enormous advantage in the formal K-12 system compared to their peers who are not. If our goal is to make all students college-ready [a goal of questionable value, but let's accept it for the sake of argument] our first focus needs to be to make sure all children are kindergarten-ready.
0
Options
HachfaceNot the Minister Farrakhan you're thinking ofDammit, Shepard!Registered Userregular
"Choice" is bad because school choice produces worse results full stop.
Yes, magnet schools for Gifted, Learning Disable, IB programs and the option for duel enrollment at community colleges are horrible.
Again, in the contemporary policy debates surrounding education reform, "school choice" is a euphemism for vouchers. It is either gullible or dishonest to treat the term any other way.
Edit: That said, magnet schools are vulnerable to many of the same criticisms that can be levied against a voucher system. They often signify that a district is willing to try to save the best and brightest but has given up on the great majority of students.
I'm pretty comfortable saying that the teachers at my charter school would hate working in the public system, so I guess that works out. I'm glad both of them exist, so that teachers can excel in an environment that suits their style.
It's not like this in ALL charter schools. A lot of the people in my alternate route program had jobs in charter schools and they would've strongly preferred to work in a public school. As lilnoobs said above, they have less job security. Typically, they're also paid less and get worse benefits. Almost every charter school teacher I know is only working in one because they can't find a job in a public school right now. Turnover rates are pretty high, among both teachers and administration.
This is absolutely true. Most teachers prefer to work in traditional public schools. There are exceptions, of course. For instance, if a charter school has a strong orientation toward a particular educational approach, like the Montessori method, then it will attract teachers who are true believers of that program. Teachers with strong religious convictions will also tend toward private schools that share their beliefs. In general, though, public school teachers actually enjoy more autonomy in their classrooms than their charter- and private-school peers. And the pay and benefits often are not even comparable. In the public schools teaching is a relatively well-paying, secure union job. In charters schools it can easily be a deeply exploitative working environment, similar to that faced by childcare workers.
Speaking of childcare workers, the single best thing that the United States could do for its children is to establish free public preschools for all citizens. The state and federal governments spend an enormous amount of money on both K-12 and higher education, but almost nothing is spent on early childhood education. It is difficult to overstate how perverse this is. Early childhood education is extremely important, and policymakers have failed to recognize this for literally centuries. Kids who are immersed in an intellectually stimulating environment during their preschool years have an enormous advantage in the formal K-12 system compared to their peers who are not. If our goal is to make all students college-ready [a goal of questionable value, but let's accept it for the sake of argument] our first focus needs to be to make sure all children are kindergarten-ready.
I have to ask you to source this claim. Everything I've read on the subject says that the advantages are temporary and within a year or two, kids without this sort of preschool environment have caught up to their peers and perform at the same level.
And while I alluded to it before, I will mention again explicitly because I find the claim so bizarre: we absolutely know what the problems are with our schools. It is not some great mystery. I challenge you to find someone who works at a shitty school who, when asked what the problems are, will just shrug and say, "Fuck if I know!" They are funding issues. The schools need certain things and they do not have the money to acquire these things. Well-performing schools tend to be the ones in wealthy neighborhoods with high property taxes that enrich local schools. Poor-performing schools tend to be the ones in crappy neighborhoods with low property taxes. Doesn't that sort of tell you something?
Interesting objective counterexample:
In the greater Memphis metro area, for a very long time now, there have essentially been two school systems: Memphis City and Shelby County. City schools deal with everything inside the actual incorporated Memphis city limits and county schools deal with suburbs and the outlying rural areas. The city school system is the worst in the state; the county system is one of the best. Both systems receive identical funding on a per-student basis. (Actually, the city gets more, because the city has a small additional tax to support education and the city system is bad enough that it qualifies for government grants and stuff.)
I am extraordinarily skeptical that the issue can be boiled down to "more funding, please."
100% agree. More funding will not fix the Detroit system either.
Does it really come as a shock to anyone that union employees want more money and a more pleasant working environment for themselves and their fellow union employees? There isn't even anything wrong with that! I don't blame them in the slightest. If you ask any wage earner in any industry what they think should be done to make their work environment better and more effective, they're going to say better pay, more benefits, and more resources to do their jobs. Telling me that 'teachers say they need more funding' is no more informative than telling me 'nerdy teenage boys say they need more respect from girls'.
I don't understand the logic that choice is bad...
I have spelled this out explicitly in at least one, and possibly two or more posts in this very thread. Posts that you actually responded to.
I'm pretty sure you can follow the logic, even if you don't agree with it, so please stop playing as if we all just irrationally oppose choice for no reason. It is rather irritating.
I was responding to a specific argument, not the more general ones you and others have made that begin "choice is bad...". You can see it in the quote even. Come on, now.
The problem with "school choice" is that sometimes people choose bad schools, for bad reasons. In my opinion the solution to that is not to remove all the choices! It's to make the standards more rigorous and the penalties for failure more harsh.
The solution is to remove the bad schools, district and charter both, and find ways to improve the rest. I have never set myself as being against public schools, supporting complete or even substantial privatization, or anything of the sort. I've said a number of times that I think charter programs are important because they offer an escape route for motivates kids and parents who can't make a change in their local public districts. You can add to that parents who think the changes the district have made are terrible.
I see an undercurrent here, and please tell me if I'm off the mark: there are negative consequences for charter schools existing, so we should get rid of them. But there are negative consequences for the current system, so we should centralize it at the federal level and take control away from the localities. This seems to set up a situation where large swaths of people are going to disagree with what their kids are being taught (for good and bad reasons) and will have little ability to make any changes. In addition, we should foster an environment where parents have great difficulty, or possibly cannot at all, request policy changes or drive improvement in systems or procedure at their local schools because they generally don't know what they're talking about. Their role should be limited to volunteer work and acting as an asymmetric information provider (what's up with Timmy?). When things go wrong we should give more money , but we should not require more oversight or more sunlight and the best people to determine how to spend that money are sometimes the people involved in what's wrong.
I know you haven't said all this yourself, but all these things have been said and defended in the thread. Taken together, I don't think that's a very good model for how to remake our school system.
I've seen a lot of criticism of the charter idea, but not many options for what to do instead. I've offered a lot of specific examples of how I think public school is lacking, particularly in the communication and oversight areas and I'd like to hear what others think we should do in a system with no charters available, in more detail than "mo' money mo' teachers *drops mic*".
Edit: I just want to reiterate in case I haven't been clear in the course of taking "my side" of this discussion: I think it's important to improve the public system, and I think universally available good education for children is the foundation of a modern society. I would not support privatization of the school system and I think we should be trying all sorts of things to improve it. If I had a fantastic public school available to me, my kids would be in it today. I'd like that opportunity for every kid in the country, but I don't think we can give that opportunity to them with the current system and I think it's important we create and encourage alternatives alongside our efforts to fix the public schools, for a lot of reasons but for one in particular: it lets us have our cake and eat at least some of it it too, providing opportunities for kids who otherwise wouldn't have them today, while we also try to make schools better for kids 5-10 years down the road.
Edit #2: even a public school teacher would think that last sentence was terrible.
Schools getting more funding does not equal the teachers being paid more or getting better benefits. Schools getting more funding = hiring more teachers, getting actual supplies rather than the teachers paying for them on their own, and being able to run extracurricular programs.
More money to schools does not equal more money in a teacher's paycheck or better benefits.
"Choice" is bad because school choice produces worse results full stop.
Yes, magnet schools for Gifted, Learning Disable, IB programs and the option for duel enrollment at community colleges are horrible.
Again, in the contemporary policy debates surrounding education reform, "school choice" is a euphemism for vouchers. It is either gullible or dishonest to treat the term any other way.
Edit: That said, magnet schools are vulnerable to many of the same criticisms that can be levied against a voucher system. They often signify that a district is willing to try to save the best and brightest but has given up on the great majority of students.
I think that's an extremely dim view of magnets. It's certainly the case that in a system aimed at the average student, you will lose both the challenged and the brilliant without some special effort. Drawing high performers together into an environment where the standard is by default very difficult for the average student to meet doesn't mean you've given up on those average kids.
What would your alternative be for groups of obviously brilliant children scattered throughout a district in pockets of 20-30 or so? Break them out into a different track within their local school?
I'm pretty comfortable saying that the teachers at my charter school would hate working in the public system, so I guess that works out. I'm glad both of them exist, so that teachers can excel in an environment that suits their style.
I don't understand the logic that choice is bad, and the proof is in how I would hate to work in places catering to yours (even though they have excellent outcomes).
I mean, posh. Look at that website. You'd really hate working there?
How many charter school teachers have you asked that question to and they didn't feel force to answer that way?
Do they hate working in the public system because it's underfunded or what? Because Charter schools provide considerably less security for teachers than any public institution. I don't know about you, but job security usually ranks really high on the list of wants for jobs for most everyone else.
Of course I just think you're making shit up because you want to, but maybe you aren't and you're getting this comfort from some sort of evidence.
Teachers at my school have a small student-teacher ratio, are able to teach the subjects they studied in school, are able to shape their curriculum without "teaching the test", and are surrounded by kids who, by and large, want to be at school learning things. It's diverse, it's challenging, it's well funded, and it offers opportunities for initiative and creativity not available in the public system.
I don't know how well they're paid, and I'm sure some of them would rather have a union job they can't get fired from if they fuck up a bunch. I do know they're a nationally recognized top-performing school consistently delivering better outcomes than most of the public (and charter, and private) schools in the country, particularly for kids in traditionally underperforming and disadvantaged groups. So I have to assume something is going right! Maybe they value an opportunity to work in an great environment teaching poor kids and helping them be awesome more than they value a union rep and a pension.
I guess you're free to assume I'm just making things up in the thread. I mean, it's cool if you want to approach this like you've got the revealed truth and you're here to expose my bullshit, forum superhero style. I won't be answering any more of those kinds of comments from you, though.
The rest of us are trying to have a good-faith discussion!
Schools getting more funding does not equal the teachers being paid more or getting better benefits. Schools getting more funding = hiring more teachers, getting actual supplies rather than the teachers paying for them on their own, and being able to run extracurricular programs.
More money to schools does not equal more money in a teacher's paycheck or better benefits.
Sometimes it does. I've read a few reports of stimulus money paying for teacher raises, rather than more teachers or better facilities.
The problem is that Schools Getting More Funding = ??????????? because there's no oversight and in some (not all by any means, but some) cases the inmates are running the asylum. Hell, more money for schools sometimes = new football helmets and a weight room.
0
Options
mrt144King of the NumbernamesRegistered Userregular
"Choice" is bad because school choice produces worse results full stop.
Yes, magnet schools for Gifted, Learning Disable, IB programs and the option for duel enrollment at community colleges are horrible.
Again, in the contemporary policy debates surrounding education reform, "school choice" is a euphemism for vouchers. It is either gullible or dishonest to treat the term any other way.
Edit: That said, magnet schools are vulnerable to many of the same criticisms that can be levied against a voucher system. They often signify that a district is willing to try to save the best and brightest but has given up on the great majority of students.
And we all know the best and brightest are the most harmed by our school system...
Seriously, every time someone complains about a lack of options for the best students I just imagine a lobster that got out of the pot lecturing all the other lobsters about how tough they have it, not being boiled alive and all.
mrt144 I'm gonna take issue with your terminology and I hope you don't feel like I'm cherry picking - I think it serves to highlight something I think you missed.
The 'best students' are often not the most intelligent or the ones with the most potential - they're the ones who most successfully know how to navigate the system to maximum effect. We all know the slackers who were brilliant but bored and unmotivated, the outcast geeks who did the minimum because straight As got them beat up, and so on. These are archetypes because they're super common.
spool32 on
0
Options
mrt144King of the NumbernamesRegistered Userregular
mrt144 I'm gonna take issue with your terminology and I hope you don't feel like I'm cherry picking - I think it serves to highlight something I think you missed.
The 'best students' are often not the most intelligent or the ones with the most potential - they're the ones who most successfully know how to navigate the system to maximum effect. We all know the slackers who were brilliant but bored and unmotivated, the outcast geeks who did the minimum because straight As got them beat up, and so on. These are archetypes because they're super common.
And then there are twice as many kids that are illiterate. I would worry about the illiterates before the tortured aloof zack morris types of the world, not only because of sheer numbers but also because of the impact that group has on society. This focus on lost brilliance is just so goddamn ridiculous to me because it seems like a way to focus on something so you don't have to worry about bigger issues, that may not affect you directly.
mrt144 I'm gonna take issue with your terminology and I hope you don't feel like I'm cherry picking - I think it serves to highlight something I think you missed.
The 'best students' are often not the most intelligent or the ones with the most potential - they're the ones who most successfully know how to navigate the system to maximum effect. We all know the slackers who were brilliant but bored and unmotivated, the outcast geeks who did the minimum because straight As got them beat up, and so on. These are archetypes because they're super common.
And then there are twice as many kids that are illiterate. I would worry about the illiterates before the tortured aloof zack morris types of the world, not only because of sheer numbers but also because of the impact that group has on society. This focus on lost brilliance is just so goddamn ridiculous to me because it seems like a way to focus on something so you don't have to worry about bigger issues, that may not affect you directly.
Maybe there should be some sort of option where those kids who have difficulty reading could be sent to schools with specialized teachers who can use alternate approaches to instruct them. Maybe, because they need more attention, the government should provide some extra funds for their education as well. By separating them out for the average students(at least for those subjects where they are challenged), those typical kids could be in classes with higher learning expectations and their mainstream teachers would not have their performance dragged down by students how need more time and different methods which they are not able to provide.
I don't see why we can't do both, folks. One magnet for the brilliant kids, one for the kids who are struggling with basic skills.
What would you rather do, mrt? Set average as our target, and tell everyone to shoot for that? "Kids, the lesson from 14 years of school is that the minimum is all you really need, and definitely all we're going to ask of you. More than that is up to you and your bootstraps."
That seems a strange sentiment around here, and not one I'd expect to see much support for. Yeah, I'm being a little flippant, but the question is honest: what would you have us do with this cohort of kids who are obviously intelligent and for whom the standard curriculum is clearly insufficient?
Redx makes another good point - setting up a dual, or triple track system lets teachers focus on the needs of a more closely aligned group of students in each class, which seems like it ought to have better results than chucking everyone together in a room and asking the teacher to deliver the same lesson to kids who can't read and kids who read the whole textbook in the first week of school.
mrt144 I'm gonna take issue with your terminology and I hope you don't feel like I'm cherry picking - I think it serves to highlight something I think you missed.
The 'best students' are often not the most intelligent or the ones with the most potential - they're the ones who most successfully know how to navigate the system to maximum effect. We all know the slackers who were brilliant but bored and unmotivated, the outcast geeks who did the minimum because straight As got them beat up, and so on. These are archetypes because they're super common.
And then there are twice as many kids that are illiterate. I would worry about the illiterates before the tortured aloof zack morris types of the world, not only because of sheer numbers but also because of the impact that group has on society. This focus on lost brilliance is just so goddamn ridiculous to me because it seems like a way to focus on something so you don't have to worry about bigger issues, that may not affect you directly.
Maybe there should be some sort of option where those kids who have difficulty reading could be sent to schools with specialized teachers who can use alternate approaches to instruct them. Maybe, because they need more attention, the government should provide some extra funds for their education as well. By separating them out for the average students(at least for those subjects where they are challenged), those typical kids could be in classes with higher learning expectations and their mainstream teachers would not have their performance dragged down by students how need more time and different methods which they are not able to provide.
Good idea, but... Parents just hate being told there kids need to be in a special class and will fight it tooth and nail. At the private school my little brothers go to my mom has gotten teachers to pass them when they clearly do not deserve it. The kids found out they won't be held back so now they don't do their homework.
I think we should do it anyways. Thing is, we as a society are really bad at telling people that they are wrong/not exceptional and that they need to do XYZ thing to rectify it. There are a lot of issues where its understood by professionals and academics that certain actions or ways of doing things improve the lives of everyone, but the general public who does not have a good understanding of the issue has a totally different perspective that is not shaped by the realities of the situation, and so the public is against a lot of things that are in everyone's bests interests,
0
Options
AManFromEarthLet's get to twerk!The King in the SwampRegistered Userregular
I don't see why we can't do both, folks. One magnet for the brilliant kids, one for the kids who are struggling with basic skills.
What would you rather do, mrt? Set average as our target, and tell everyone to shoot for that? "Kids, the lesson from 14 years of school is that the minimum is all you really need, and definitely all we're going to ask of you. More than that is up to you and your bootstraps."
That seems a strange sentiment around here, and not one I'd expect to see much support for. Yeah, I'm being a little flippant, but the question is honest: what would you have us do with this cohort of kids who are obviously intelligent and for whom the standard curriculum is clearly insufficient?
That's because that's not the sentiment.
And I for one am not willing to engage you if you're going to keep doing this.
So address the question instead. I admitted I was being a little bit snide but he's apparently against magnet schools and thinks it's foolish to spend extra time and effort on high-potential kids. That was clear from his post. It seems to me that his answer for what we should do for this group of kids is "we should do nothing for them beyond what we do for everyone else, because resources should go to low performers instead".
What's your answer?
0
Options
mrt144King of the NumbernamesRegistered Userregular
I don't see why we can't do both, folks. One magnet for the brilliant kids, one for the kids who are struggling with basic skills.
What would you rather do, mrt? Set average as our target, and tell everyone to shoot for that? "Kids, the lesson from 14 years of school is that the minimum is all you really need, and definitely all we're going to ask of you. More than that is up to you and your bootstraps."
That seems a strange sentiment around here, and not one I'd expect to see much support for. Yeah, I'm being a little flippant, but the question is honest: what would you have us do with this cohort of kids who are obviously intelligent and for whom the standard curriculum is clearly insufficient?
I'd tell them and their parents to go fuck themselves for taking resources away from children who clearly need more help than their motivational problems, they'll wind up fine and they could maybe apply themselves in helping the less intelligent and struggling children do better, and if they don't accept that challenge, then good riddance to societal rubbish.
You hate the idea of giving more money to schools and then you propose that we do things that cost more money than the status quo. It's just so hard to watch you post these things.
mrt144 I'm gonna take issue with your terminology and I hope you don't feel like I'm cherry picking - I think it serves to highlight something I think you missed.
The 'best students' are often not the most intelligent or the ones with the most potential - they're the ones who most successfully know how to navigate the system to maximum effect. We all know the slackers who were brilliant but bored and unmotivated, the outcast geeks who did the minimum because straight As got them beat up, and so on. These are archetypes because they're super common.
And then there are twice as many kids that are illiterate. I would worry about the illiterates before the tortured aloof zack morris types of the world, not only because of sheer numbers but also because of the impact that group has on society. This focus on lost brilliance is just so goddamn ridiculous to me because it seems like a way to focus on something so you don't have to worry about bigger issues, that may not affect you directly.
Maybe there should be some sort of option where those kids who have difficulty reading could be sent to schools with specialized teachers who can use alternate approaches to instruct them. Maybe, because they need more attention, the government should provide some extra funds for their education as well. By separating them out for the average students(at least for those subjects where they are challenged), those typical kids could be in classes with higher learning expectations and their mainstream teachers would not have their performance dragged down by students how need more time and different methods which they are not able to provide.
Good idea, but... Parents just hate being told there kids need to be in a special class and will fight it tooth and nail. At the private school my little brothers go to my mom has gotten teachers to pass them when they clearly do not deserve it. The kids found out they won't be held back so now they don't do their homework.
I think we should do it anyways. Thing is, we as a society are really bad at telling people that they are wrong/not exceptional and that they need to do XYZ thing to rectify it. There are a lot of issues where its understood by professionals and academics that certain actions or ways of doing things improve the lives of everyone, but the general public who does not have a good understanding of the issue has a totally different perspective that is not shaped by the realities of the situation, and so the public is against a lot of things that are in everyone's bests interests,
It's not about "you aren't exceptional".
It's the fact that any of these things mentioned (being held back a grade or being streamed into the "dumber" class) are incredibly stigmatized and insulting and socially crippling. You are literally telling the kid and their parents "You are stupid". No one takes that well and no one ever has.
I realize that wasn't directed at me, but my solution would be to have a standardized test for finishing every grade, and every class, and if a student doesn't feel like a class is challenging enough they can opt to test out of the class. Alternatively a big assignment where you demonstrate your knowledge on the subject by writing a 10ish page research paper wherein you distill the subject matter into several core points.
Posts
In the US, high school curricula are standardized at the state level, for the most part, with some variations between districts. This alone does not generally give students or families any meaningful choices, however, since most students are assigned to a school by the geographic location of their primary residence.
This is why we have problems with, for example, Creationists, or book bannings. A sufficiently motivated group can often pressure a school district into skipping over evolution or other content that is offensive to religious fundamentalists.
the "no true scotch man" fallacy.
I don't understand the logic that choice is bad, and the proof is in how I would hate to work in places catering to yours (even though they have excellent outcomes).
I mean, posh. Look at that website. You'd really hate working there?
Choice is bad because kids all need to learn together, in the end, and cope with other situations such as college which are not designed in the same way. If a kid learns a different way, it adversely affects their future. Plus teaching is an academic field with no big controversies within it - most educational academics agree on the big points.
Plus it's a red herring put about by right wingers to cover up underfunding. I don't want to choose between schools, and hopefully find a good one. I want them all to be of an acceptable level. Equally there is no difference in style between teachers in the public and private sectors - they all went to the same colleges and learnt the same methodology, which is largely based on peer-reviewed doctoral research into educational outcomes. The public mostly believe teachers are just pulling this stuff out of their ass, which is another aspect of the endemic lack of respect for teaching in the US and UK.
As for your schools, I wouldn't want to work at a school with helicopter parents, and what you are saying implies the facilitating of those.
You also believe most, or possibly all, teachers use the same teaching style, and that style has been subjected to rigorous science that has discovered and documented the best way to teach.
Is this an accurate depiction?
Why...why would you do that?
I mean, I guess the unintended result was good, but on the fun scale that seems rather low.
It’s not a very important country most of the time
http://steamcommunity.com/id/mortious
I'm good with school choice in theory, but I agree with you that in the US, school choice initiatives are often put about by right wingers to cover up underfunding. Many reform attempts are, which is why when a right-winger whines (as one did to me recently) that "the teacher's unions block all attempts at school reform!" my response is "well, most of those attempts suck."
I don't agree with your characterization of teachers as largely homogenous, or even evidence-based. In the US, much of our evidence about teaching methods comes from studying schools that use different methods, so enforcing too much homogeneity may impede progress. At the very least, even if all teachers are using the same methods there may be valid reasons to have a choice between different curricula.
Ideally, school choice would involve a choice between two or more well-funded, healthy schools rather than a choice between an underfunded struggling school versus a religious private school.
the "no true scotch man" fallacy.
There's a series of factors which influenced that decision:
A. I knew he was having trouble in school on math tests but no one could identify why.
B. My dad is a physicist, my mom is a doctor, and I have really weird ideas about what's fun as a consequence.
C. I also have no fucking idea what I'm supposed to do while hanging out with an eight year old boy who isn't related to me, so giving him some busy work seemed like the best option so I didn't have to talk to him* seemed like the best option. If I'd had a length of rope, I would have taught him how to tie a bowline and then had him do that for 15 minutes instead because everything I know about grown men awkwardly hanging around young boys I learned in the Boy Scouts of America. Instead, I had a text book.
*not having to talk to him here means not having to monitor every single word out of my mouth so I didn't let an f-bomb slip out because I write the same way I talk.
No. No it is not. Not even slightly. Stop doing that, it makes people want to shout at you.
Different kinds of learning should absolutely be supported, whether special needs or just individual variations.
The administration should welcome parent participation in those areas in which parent participation is constructive, and in which their abilities are useful. Parents know their kids very well, so a stereotypical parent-teacher 'Whats up with Timmy?' conference is great. Parents do not know anything very much about how to teach, and so their input is less useful there. This is as much about power as any interaction with a professional should be - namely that power can be used to cover up incompetence, but in the absence of evidence of such incompetence, a lay person should know what they don't know and approach the relationship with basic levels of trust. Imagine the difference between your interactions with doctors and plumbers over those with teachers. Are they similar? If not, why not?
The administration should be subject to professional oversight and have managed systems in place for allowing Interaction with parents when it is beneficial to the child.
Your last sentence is just too loaded to even bother with. Apply the same terminology to nursing and see how hostile and lacking in basic respect for academic research and teaching it is. I was trying to address your idea that different kinds of teacher work at public and private schools, with your implication being that the public ones aren't as good, of course.
More later, gotta eat dinner...
I have spelled this out explicitly in at least one, and possibly two or more posts in this very thread. Posts that you actually responded to.
I'm pretty sure you can follow the logic, even if you don't agree with it, so please stop playing as if we all just irrationally oppose choice for no reason. It is rather irritating.
That is a very broad proclamation given that many first world countries allow private schools.
the "no true scotch man" fallacy.
Private schools are A-OK as long as selecting a private school doesn't mean you get to opt out of funding your neighborhood public school. In the parlance of our times, "school choice" means vouchers.
So what does that have to do with private schools/school choice producing a worse result on a social level? As an aside, lots of first world countries do not support private schools.
How many charter school teachers have you asked that question to and they didn't feel force to answer that way?
Do they hate working in the public system because it's underfunded or what? Because Charter schools provide considerably less security for teachers than any public institution. I don't know about you, but job security usually ranks really high on the list of wants for jobs for most everyone else.
Of course I just think you're making shit up because you want to, but maybe you aren't and you're getting this comfort from some sort of evidence.
Interesting objective counterexample:
In the greater Memphis metro area, for a very long time now, there have essentially been two school systems: Memphis City and Shelby County. City schools deal with everything inside the actual incorporated Memphis city limits and county schools deal with suburbs and the outlying rural areas. The city school system is the worst in the state; the county system is one of the best. Both systems receive identical funding on a per-student basis. (Actually, the city gets more, because the city has a small additional tax to support education and the city system is bad enough that it qualifies for government grants and stuff.)
I am extraordinarily skeptical that the issue can be boiled down to "more funding, please."
It's not like this in ALL charter schools. A lot of the people in my alternate route program had jobs in charter schools and they would've strongly preferred to work in a public school. As lilnoobs said above, they have less job security. Typically, they're also paid less and get worse benefits. Almost every charter school teacher I know is only working in one because they can't find a job in a public school right now. Turnover rates are pretty high, among both teachers and administration.
I'm guessing the city kids have more diverse needs than their country folk counter parts. Do you think the country folk suffer from the same rates of poverty, crime, murder, and other social issues as their urban counter parts? Do you think that, maybe, just maybe, a student who has had his cousins murder each other might need a bit more help in order to keep track in school? That students from single parent homes or working jobs or being raised by their grandmother because his or her parents are crackheads might need a bit more assistance to keep on task?
The per student $ thing is nice in theory, but it totally disregards the real and different problems each group faces. It's a nice spreadsheet talking point, but it's lazy thinking.
edit: not calling you lazy, just that line of thought because I've heard it before. Please don't misread as a personal attack. It's late, I'm barely awake =p
Yes, magnet schools for Gifted, Learning Disable, IB programs and the option for duel enrollment at community colleges are horrible.
This is absolutely true. Most teachers prefer to work in traditional public schools. There are exceptions, of course. For instance, if a charter school has a strong orientation toward a particular educational approach, like the Montessori method, then it will attract teachers who are true believers of that program. Teachers with strong religious convictions will also tend toward private schools that share their beliefs. In general, though, public school teachers actually enjoy more autonomy in their classrooms than their charter- and private-school peers. And the pay and benefits often are not even comparable. In the public schools teaching is a relatively well-paying, secure union job. In charters schools it can easily be a deeply exploitative working environment, similar to that faced by childcare workers.
Speaking of childcare workers, the single best thing that the United States could do for its children is to establish free public preschools for all citizens. The state and federal governments spend an enormous amount of money on both K-12 and higher education, but almost nothing is spent on early childhood education. It is difficult to overstate how perverse this is. Early childhood education is extremely important, and policymakers have failed to recognize this for literally centuries. Kids who are immersed in an intellectually stimulating environment during their preschool years have an enormous advantage in the formal K-12 system compared to their peers who are not. If our goal is to make all students college-ready [a goal of questionable value, but let's accept it for the sake of argument] our first focus needs to be to make sure all children are kindergarten-ready.
Again, in the contemporary policy debates surrounding education reform, "school choice" is a euphemism for vouchers. It is either gullible or dishonest to treat the term any other way.
Edit: That said, magnet schools are vulnerable to many of the same criticisms that can be levied against a voucher system. They often signify that a district is willing to try to save the best and brightest but has given up on the great majority of students.
I have to ask you to source this claim. Everything I've read on the subject says that the advantages are temporary and within a year or two, kids without this sort of preschool environment have caught up to their peers and perform at the same level.
100% agree. More funding will not fix the Detroit system either.
Does it really come as a shock to anyone that union employees want more money and a more pleasant working environment for themselves and their fellow union employees? There isn't even anything wrong with that! I don't blame them in the slightest. If you ask any wage earner in any industry what they think should be done to make their work environment better and more effective, they're going to say better pay, more benefits, and more resources to do their jobs. Telling me that 'teachers say they need more funding' is no more informative than telling me 'nerdy teenage boys say they need more respect from girls'.
I was responding to a specific argument, not the more general ones you and others have made that begin "choice is bad...". You can see it in the quote even. Come on, now.
The problem with "school choice" is that sometimes people choose bad schools, for bad reasons. In my opinion the solution to that is not to remove all the choices! It's to make the standards more rigorous and the penalties for failure more harsh.
The solution is to remove the bad schools, district and charter both, and find ways to improve the rest. I have never set myself as being against public schools, supporting complete or even substantial privatization, or anything of the sort. I've said a number of times that I think charter programs are important because they offer an escape route for motivates kids and parents who can't make a change in their local public districts. You can add to that parents who think the changes the district have made are terrible.
I see an undercurrent here, and please tell me if I'm off the mark: there are negative consequences for charter schools existing, so we should get rid of them. But there are negative consequences for the current system, so we should centralize it at the federal level and take control away from the localities. This seems to set up a situation where large swaths of people are going to disagree with what their kids are being taught (for good and bad reasons) and will have little ability to make any changes. In addition, we should foster an environment where parents have great difficulty, or possibly cannot at all, request policy changes or drive improvement in systems or procedure at their local schools because they generally don't know what they're talking about. Their role should be limited to volunteer work and acting as an asymmetric information provider (what's up with Timmy?). When things go wrong we should give more money , but we should not require more oversight or more sunlight and the best people to determine how to spend that money are sometimes the people involved in what's wrong.
I know you haven't said all this yourself, but all these things have been said and defended in the thread. Taken together, I don't think that's a very good model for how to remake our school system.
I've seen a lot of criticism of the charter idea, but not many options for what to do instead. I've offered a lot of specific examples of how I think public school is lacking, particularly in the communication and oversight areas and I'd like to hear what others think we should do in a system with no charters available, in more detail than "mo' money mo' teachers *drops mic*".
Edit: I just want to reiterate in case I haven't been clear in the course of taking "my side" of this discussion: I think it's important to improve the public system, and I think universally available good education for children is the foundation of a modern society. I would not support privatization of the school system and I think we should be trying all sorts of things to improve it. If I had a fantastic public school available to me, my kids would be in it today. I'd like that opportunity for every kid in the country, but I don't think we can give that opportunity to them with the current system and I think it's important we create and encourage alternatives alongside our efforts to fix the public schools, for a lot of reasons but for one in particular: it lets us have our cake and eat at least some of it it too, providing opportunities for kids who otherwise wouldn't have them today, while we also try to make schools better for kids 5-10 years down the road.
Edit #2: even a public school teacher would think that last sentence was terrible.
More money to schools does not equal more money in a teacher's paycheck or better benefits.
I think that's an extremely dim view of magnets. It's certainly the case that in a system aimed at the average student, you will lose both the challenged and the brilliant without some special effort. Drawing high performers together into an environment where the standard is by default very difficult for the average student to meet doesn't mean you've given up on those average kids.
What would your alternative be for groups of obviously brilliant children scattered throughout a district in pockets of 20-30 or so? Break them out into a different track within their local school?
Teachers at my school have a small student-teacher ratio, are able to teach the subjects they studied in school, are able to shape their curriculum without "teaching the test", and are surrounded by kids who, by and large, want to be at school learning things. It's diverse, it's challenging, it's well funded, and it offers opportunities for initiative and creativity not available in the public system.
I don't know how well they're paid, and I'm sure some of them would rather have a union job they can't get fired from if they fuck up a bunch. I do know they're a nationally recognized top-performing school consistently delivering better outcomes than most of the public (and charter, and private) schools in the country, particularly for kids in traditionally underperforming and disadvantaged groups. So I have to assume something is going right! Maybe they value an opportunity to work in an great environment teaching poor kids and helping them be awesome more than they value a union rep and a pension.
I guess you're free to assume I'm just making things up in the thread. I mean, it's cool if you want to approach this like you've got the revealed truth and you're here to expose my bullshit, forum superhero style. I won't be answering any more of those kinds of comments from you, though.
The rest of us are trying to have a good-faith discussion!
Sometimes it does. I've read a few reports of stimulus money paying for teacher raises, rather than more teachers or better facilities.
The problem is that Schools Getting More Funding = ??????????? because there's no oversight and in some (not all by any means, but some) cases the inmates are running the asylum. Hell, more money for schools sometimes = new football helmets and a weight room.
And we all know the best and brightest are the most harmed by our school system...
Seriously, every time someone complains about a lack of options for the best students I just imagine a lobster that got out of the pot lecturing all the other lobsters about how tough they have it, not being boiled alive and all.
The 'best students' are often not the most intelligent or the ones with the most potential - they're the ones who most successfully know how to navigate the system to maximum effect. We all know the slackers who were brilliant but bored and unmotivated, the outcast geeks who did the minimum because straight As got them beat up, and so on. These are archetypes because they're super common.
And then there are twice as many kids that are illiterate. I would worry about the illiterates before the tortured aloof zack morris types of the world, not only because of sheer numbers but also because of the impact that group has on society. This focus on lost brilliance is just so goddamn ridiculous to me because it seems like a way to focus on something so you don't have to worry about bigger issues, that may not affect you directly.
Maybe there should be some sort of option where those kids who have difficulty reading could be sent to schools with specialized teachers who can use alternate approaches to instruct them. Maybe, because they need more attention, the government should provide some extra funds for their education as well. By separating them out for the average students(at least for those subjects where they are challenged), those typical kids could be in classes with higher learning expectations and their mainstream teachers would not have their performance dragged down by students how need more time and different methods which they are not able to provide.
What would you rather do, mrt? Set average as our target, and tell everyone to shoot for that? "Kids, the lesson from 14 years of school is that the minimum is all you really need, and definitely all we're going to ask of you. More than that is up to you and your bootstraps."
That seems a strange sentiment around here, and not one I'd expect to see much support for. Yeah, I'm being a little flippant, but the question is honest: what would you have us do with this cohort of kids who are obviously intelligent and for whom the standard curriculum is clearly insufficient?
Good idea, but... Parents just hate being told there kids need to be in a special class and will fight it tooth and nail. At the private school my little brothers go to my mom has gotten teachers to pass them when they clearly do not deserve it. The kids found out they won't be held back so now they don't do their homework.
I think we should do it anyways. Thing is, we as a society are really bad at telling people that they are wrong/not exceptional and that they need to do XYZ thing to rectify it. There are a lot of issues where its understood by professionals and academics that certain actions or ways of doing things improve the lives of everyone, but the general public who does not have a good understanding of the issue has a totally different perspective that is not shaped by the realities of the situation, and so the public is against a lot of things that are in everyone's bests interests,
That's because that's not the sentiment.
And I for one am not willing to engage you if you're going to keep doing this.
What's your answer?
I'd tell them and their parents to go fuck themselves for taking resources away from children who clearly need more help than their motivational problems, they'll wind up fine and they could maybe apply themselves in helping the less intelligent and struggling children do better, and if they don't accept that challenge, then good riddance to societal rubbish.
You hate the idea of giving more money to schools and then you propose that we do things that cost more money than the status quo. It's just so hard to watch you post these things.
It's not about "you aren't exceptional".
It's the fact that any of these things mentioned (being held back a grade or being streamed into the "dumber" class) are incredibly stigmatized and insulting and socially crippling. You are literally telling the kid and their parents "You are stupid". No one takes that well and no one ever has.