Originally posted by Peach
Also, why are you assuming that "working hard" and "having fun" are mutually exclusive?I'm excited about my classes I'm taking because I'm studying something I love, to get a career doing something I like to do. I enjoyed a lot of the classes I did in high school. I enjoy my job I have now. Yes, it's work, but it can also be enjoyable. A lot of it has to do with the attitude that you go into it with.
Welcome to reality.
Originally posted by Symmetric Chaos
Americans are dumb because of their impure genetic stock. Longer school years could be helpful.
I lived under the American school system, and I can tell you, longer school hours would be beneficial only if 2 things were to happen (1) we had a decent public educational system and (2) if atleast 70% of the students really cared their education. Untill those two things happen, all extra time in school will do is increase the drop-out rate.
Originally posted by Nemesis X
Yeah you love supporting a president who supports gays don't you?
I really don't see how that is relevent here...
Originally posted by General Kaliero
The system would also have to realize that gearing education towards the least intelligent kids results in the entire class learning less.
Exactly.
NCLB, in theroy, is not a bad system. The only problem is that to work it requires kids to actually want to learn. The problem is that the majority in America, now don't care about education and did the minimum to pass, therefore the kids who don't care hold the entire class back. What needs to happen is that the system returns to teaching those who do care, and the ones who don't are SOL.
Originally posted by Mandrag Ganon
I lived under the American school system, and I can tell you, longer school hours would be beneficial only if 2 things were to happen (1) we had a decent public educational system and (2) if atleast 70% of the students really cared their education. Untill those two things happen, all extra time in school will do is increase the drop-out rate.
I'd say it's a more serious problem that the best teachers want to work with the best kids (no matter what Lifetime says) and so the kids that don't do well fall further and further behind.
Originally posted by General Kaliero
The system would also have to realize that gearing education towards the least intelligent kids results in the entire class learning less.
Gearing education toward the most intelligent kids leads to about three people learning anything at all. A lot of schools just have classes for different academic levels now.
Originally posted by Symmetric Chaos
I'd say it's a more serious problem that the best teachers want to work with the best kids (no matter what Lifetime says) and so the kids that don't do well fall further and further behind.Gearing education toward the most intelligent kids leads to about three people learning anything at all. A lot of schools just have classes for different academic levels now.
The only problem is that alot of the kids who don't do well, can do beter, but choose not to.
Originally posted by Symmetric Chaos
I'd say it's a more serious problem that the best teachers want to work with the best kids (no matter what Lifetime says) and so the kids that don't do well fall further and further behind.Gearing education toward the most intelligent kids leads to about three people learning anything at all. A lot of schools just have classes for different academic levels now.
Originally posted by General Kaliero
I didn't say to gear it toward the most intelligent kids. Education ought to be taught along the average, and the less intelligent kids don't need to be given the impression that a below-average IQ is just fine and won't hurt them at all.
Have you really met teacher that tell the stupid kids they're going to grow up and get awesome jobs? Also, if the kids don't understand something when you teach it at their level it's going to be counter productive to teach it in a way that's beyond it; positive reinforcement is way more effective than pointlessly confusing people.
Originally posted by Symmetric Chaos
Have you really met teacher that tell the stupid kids they're going to grow up and get awesome jobs? Also, if the kids don't understand something when you teach it at their level it's going to be counter productive to teach it in a way that's beyond it; positive reinforcement is way more effective than pointlessly confusing people.
And kids should be given the chance to push for something. Teaching at a higher level is an opportunity for kids to strive to understand, and it's that act of working harder for reward instead of having it handed to you that makes one enjoy learning new things. It's goal and victory.
Positive reinforcement is only good when the praise is deserved. Praising mediocrity makes people complacent; and settling for okay makes culture stagnate.
Originally posted by Symmetric Chaos
Have you really met teacher that tell the stupid kids they're going to grow up and get awesome jobs? Also, if the kids don't understand something when you teach it at their level it's going to be counter productive to teach it in a way that's beyond it; positive reinforcement is way more effective than pointlessly confusing people.
If you always teach to a lower level, you will never truly give kids the chance to grow beyond that. Yea, they may understand the small nugget you are trying to teach, but you never have the chance to show them the entire gold mine of information just behind it. Yea, I know, that was not my best metaphore...
Originally posted by General Kaliero
Um, yes, actually. I was pulled out of public school in 8th grade because the school system decided to teach on the lowest level of the class, and insist that everyone there could do whatever they wanted to, as long as they tried. It was vapid and insulting, but they were actively preventing their audience from being able to understand that.
Wow, that's awful. Did they not have the budget to divide classes into low, middle and high?
Originally posted by General Kaliero
And kids should be given the chance to push for something. Teaching at a higher level is an opportunity for kids to strive to understand, and it's that act of working harder for reward instead of having it handed to you that makes one enjoy learning new things. It's goal and victory.Positive reinforcement is only good when the praise is deserved. Praising mediocrity makes people complacent; and settling for okay makes culture stagnate.
Good, then you should support teaching for the best kid in the class. That way everyone will catch up, right?
Originally posted by General Kaliero
Positive reinforcement is only good when the praise is deserved. Praising mediocrity makes people complacent; and settling for okay makes culture stagnate.
Indeed. The school system now is like the parent who tells their kid not to lie, yet gives them a penny every time they do just that. The schools say to strive to be greater, and yet reward the substandard.
Originally posted by Symmetric Chaos
Good, then you should support teaching for the best kid in the class. That way everyone will catch up, right?
And from that line of logic, you are for teaching the worst kid in class so that every one passes on a substandard level, right?
Originally posted by Mandrag Ganon
If you always teach to a lower level, you will never truly give kids the chance to grow beyond that. Yea, they may understand the small nugget you are trying to teach, but you never have the chance to show them the entire gold mine of information just behind it. Yea, I know, that was not my best metaphore...
No, that's a terrible metaphor. You can't teach that way, we don't start kindergartners on calculus for a reason. You should aim for what will move the student forward, their level of functioning must inform how they are taught or they end up either bored or overwhelmed.
In psychology there's a term called "flow", the level at which you are stressed enough to be challenged but not stressed in a way that makes you shut down. What that is varies from person to person and in education based on how they already know.
Yes, a school with a low budget probably should aim to teach the middle students rather than high or low. But any school that can afford it is somewhat obligated to separate the classes based on how smart the kids are.
/rant
Originally posted by Mandrag Ganon
And from that line of logic, you are for teaching the worst kid in class so that every one passes on a substandard level, right?
Originally posted by Mandrag Ganon
And from that line of logic, you are for teaching the worst kid in class so that every one passes on a substandard level, right?
I think her reasoning is ridiculous so you assume that I am the type of person that would use that exact pattern of reasoning?
. . .
Public school right?
Originally posted by Symmetric Chaos
No, that's a terrible metaphor. You can't teach that way, we don't start kindergartners on calculus for a reason. You should aim for what will move the student forward, their level of functioning must inform how they are taught or they end up either bored or overwhelmed.
/rant
Ofcourse you don't start kindergardeners on Calculus, but you also don't teach the entire 3rd grade class simple addition and subtraction because one kid didn't learn it when they should have.