Jump to content

"Equity".....The dumbing down of 'Murica


Recommended Posts

The last paragraph in red is the most important and something I've been saying for years here.

Virginia Eliminates Accelerated Math Courses Because Equity

The Virginia Department of Education (VDOE) is eliminating accelerated math courses before 11th grade to “[i]mprove equity in mathematics learning opportunities.”

Loudoun County school board member Ian Serotkin announced Tuesday that the “Virginia Mathematics Pathways Initiative (VMPI),” is a “a sweeping initiative by the Virginia Department of Education to revamp the K-12 math curriculum statewide over the next few years” by “eliminat[ing] ALL math acceleration prior to 11th grade.”

 

“That is not an exaggeration, nor does there appear to be any discretion in how local districts implement this” Serotkin wrote. “All 6th graders will take Foundational Concepts 6. All 7th graders will take Foundational Concepts 7. All 10th graders will take Essential Concepts 10. Only in 11th and 12th grade is there any opportunity for choice in higher math courses.” 

The VDOE website says that in addition to improving equity, the change will “[e]mpower students to be active participants in a quantitative world.” 

However, a Loudon parent told Fox News Thursday that the initiative would actually “lower standards for all students in the name of equity.”

“These changes will have a profound impact on students who excel in STEM-related curriculum, weakening our country’s ability to compete in a global marketplace for years to come,” the parent said.

VDOE spokesperson Charles Pyle told Fox News the VMPI would “support increased differentiated learning opportunities within a heterogeneous learning environment.” 

Delegate candidate for Virginia’s 50th House District, Mike Allers, told The Federalist that VDOE “didn’t level the playing field —they destroyed it.” 

Oftentimes initiatives, like one created by the Virginia Department of Education, are pitched as a way of giving black and brown students a necessary leg up, but Allers said barring students from taking accelerated courses will have the opposite effect.

“This decision from the VDOE stunts natural growth, choice, and progression for students, and is incredibly belittling, arrogant, and racist in assuming that children of color cannot reach advanced classes in math,” he told The Federalist. 

“The racial achievement gap in schools will never be closed if higher opportunities are not provided for all students, while at the same time pushing common core and mediocrity,” Allers continued. “As long as Common Core and curriculum like it is pushed, civics isn’t taught at younger ages, and economic concepts aren’t introduced earlier, REAL actual non-political equity will not be achieved.”

“We need real solutions, such as investment in Pre-K , tackling discrepancies at the source and early, making sure there are more opportunities available — that is how you make education equitable,” he said. “If you are not solving the problem at the root, it’s window dressing.”  

https://thefederalist.com/2021/04/23/virginia-eliminates-accelerated-math-courses-because-equity/

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Replies 279
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Top Posters In This Topic

Popular Posts

I have two daughters who are both bright enough, but one has to work hard at getting good grades and the other is naturally smarter but has some mental health challenges.  I switched halfway thro

Or aging past 19.

I disagree - there are several absolute assholes here.

Posted Images

What a bogus source. 

No wonder you put up such bizarre posts 

  • Overall, we rate The Federalist Questionable and far-Right Biased based on story selection and editorial positions that always favor the right and promotion of propaganda, conspiracy theories, and numerous failed fact checks.
  • Like 2
Link to post
Share on other sites

This debate has been raging in the education community for years.  In my high school, we ultimately discouraged accelerated classes, and went instead with integrated curriculum classes (eg. Biology/English).  

The key issue with accelerated classes is that they extract the top students from the other classes.  The regular classes lose their peer role models for both math learning and often work ethic.  That makes those classes more difficult to teach.   I would commonly create seating plans that deliberately placing weaker students between stronger students.  The stronger students benefit too (see one, do one, teach one).

A good teacher can find ways to stimulate stronger students in a regular classroom, but really the solution is self-paced learning.  Toward the end of my 25 years of teaching I was getting better at this, and had converted all my IT and Robotics classes to self-paced.  Eventually I would have done this in Physics too.  

Are accelerated classes needed?  Not really, if the teacher is good.  

  • Like 3
Link to post
Share on other sites
8 minutes ago, Rain Man said:

This debate has been raging in the education community for years.  In my high school, we ultimately discouraged accelerated classes, and went instead with integrated curriculum classes (eg. Biology/English).  

The key issue with accelerated classes is that they extract the top students from the other classes.  The regular classes lose their peer role models for both math learning and often work ethic.  That makes those classes more difficult to teach.   I would commonly create seating plans that deliberately placing weaker students between stronger students.  The stronger students benefit too (see one, do one, teach one).

A good teacher can find ways to stimulate stronger students in a regular classroom, but really the solution is self-paced learning.  Toward the end of my 25 years of teaching I was getting better at this, and had converted all my IT and Robotics classes to self-paced.  Eventually I would have done this in Physics too.  

Are accelerated classes needed?  Not really, if the teacher is good.  

But, but white kids are being disadvantaged!

 

Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, Ease the sheet. said:

But, but white kids are being disadvantaged!

 

I sort of thought that the accelerated classes were more about parents egos than the kids' learning.  Parents would sign up kids for these classes who had no business being there.  

Going deeper into the curriculum is a better choice than going faster, IMHO.

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
19 minutes ago, Rain Man said:

This debate has been raging in the education community for years.  In my high school, we ultimately discouraged accelerated classes, and went instead with integrated curriculum classes (eg. Biology/English).  

The key issue with accelerated classes is that they extract the top students from the other classes.  The regular classes lose their peer role models for both math learning and often work ethic.  That makes those classes more difficult to teach.   I would commonly create seating plans that deliberately placing weaker students between stronger students.  The stronger students benefit too (see one, do one, teach one).

A good teacher can find ways to stimulate stronger students in a regular classroom, but really the solution is self-paced learning.  Toward the end of my 25 years of teaching I was getting better at this, and had converted all my IT and Robotics classes to self-paced.  Eventually I would have done this in Physics too.  

Are accelerated classes needed?  Not really, if the teacher is good.  

Years ago we went the other way. 

You had to pass maths to get your "leaving certificate" end of year 10 age 16.. 

They were doing horrible things like quadratic trinomial equations by then and trigonometry . Ugh.

So, in recognition that some kids are somewhat Maths challenged even though they were perfectly competent or even brilliant in other subjects, they introduced a "practical maths' subject for those struggling . Calculate percentages, averages etc. Useful life stuff. I passed that :D

 

 

  

Link to post
Share on other sites
9 minutes ago, Shortforbob said:

Years ago we went the other way. 

You had to pass maths to get your "leaving certificate" end of year 10 age 16.. 

They were doing horrible things like quadratic trinomial equations by then and trigonometry . Ugh.

So, in recognition that some kids are somewhat Maths challenged even though they were perfectly competent or even brilliant in other subjects, they introduced a "practical maths' subject for those struggling . Calculate percentages, averages etc. Useful life stuff. I passed that :D

 

 

  

I think most of the world's education systems have realized that factoring trinomials and the quadratic equation are not useful things to learn unless pursuing a career in science or engineering, and have courses in math that people should actually know for real life.  The real battle is to get parents to let go of the idea that their kids are going down those career paths.  If you are giving your math teacher the finger in grade 8, you probably aren't going to be a nuclear physicist.

My favorite example in grade 9 math was showing kids how to calculate how much they were actually paying for their "free" cellphone through higher monthly rates compared to "bring your own device" cellphone plans.

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, Rain Man said:

I think most of the world's education systems have realized that factoring trinomials and the quadratic equation are not useful things to learn unless pursuing a career in science or engineering, and have courses in math that people should actually know for real life.  The real battle is to get parents to let go of the idea that their kids are going down those career paths.  If you are giving your math teacher the finger in grade 8, you probably aren't going to be a nuclear physicist.

Heh, we had one or two of those. One became a very good criminal Lawyer..

after a stint in Turana age 15.

so some obviously see the light after 6 months of harsh treatment and abuse. But Jeff was exceptionally intelligent.

Link to post
Share on other sites
58 minutes ago, Rain Man said:

Are accelerated classes needed?  Not really, if the teacher is good.  

If wishes were horses. 

Link to post
Share on other sites
23 minutes ago, Shortforbob said:

Heh, we had one or two of those. One became a very good criminal Lawyer..

after a stint in Turana age 15.

so some obviously see the light after 6 months of harsh treatment and abuse. But Jeff was exceptionally intelligent.

Some of us never got caught.

My school, year 12, almost as many ended up attending Long Bay as university. Most did neither of course, but I've always found that amusing.

FKT

Link to post
Share on other sites
5 minutes ago, Fah Kiew Tu said:

Some of us never got caught.

My school, year 12, almost as many ended up attending Long Bay as university. Most did neither of course, but I've always found that amusing.

FKT

You had criminal year 12 students in the early 1970's?

White collar criminals I assume?

(most kids that could make year 12 (or HSC) were too busy studying while looking after younger sibs, cooking dinner for working parents etc to get into serious mischief)

The "troubled" ones had already been weeded out end of year 10, even in state high schools

Link to post
Share on other sites

My kids college doesn’t accept High School AP classes for credit. If that was common, there’d be a lot less demand for those classes in HS.

Link to post
Share on other sites
8 hours ago, Shortforbob said:

"practical maths' subject for those struggling . Calculate percentages, averages etc. Useful life stuff. I passed that :D

As @Rain Man above sorta suggests, they should also teach personal finance: interest rates, Rule of 72, inflation, compounding, poverty stats for their own communities, and a whole host of predatory financial scams from loans on car titles, rent to own, reverse mortgagees, payday loans, tax preparer scams, for-profit universities, and college loans. 

The Wall Street financial engineers sneeringly refer to the US young folks and working poor as "low hanging fruit" and steal from them totally without mercy. 

And some of ya wonder why I am a democratic socialist. 

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
9 hours ago, Rain Man said:

The key issue with accelerated classes is that they extract the top students from the other classes.  The regular classes lose their peer role models for both math learning and often work ethic.  That makes those classes more difficult to teach.

Removing the smart kids turns the class into Sweathogs?

Link to post
Share on other sites
11 hours ago, Burning Man said:

“We need real solutions, such as investment in Pre-K , tackling discrepancies at the source and early, making sure there are more opportunities available — that is how you make education equitable,” he said. “If you are not solving the problem at the root, it’s window dressing.”  

The Federalist. What whiny garbage. You're not going to introduce Abelian group theory in pre-K. In fact, what is your great pre-K study plan? I would suggest mud. What sez you?

The state needs to provide a good education for everyone and equity is a concern. Parents need to provide a good education for their children. These are not the same thing and are often at odds. So outcomes will be different. Rich parents can afford great schools and even private tutors for academics and sports. We have great equalizers such as junior colleges. I had a wrong side of the tracks JC transfer buddy at Cal. Arrest record wrong side of the tracks. JC-Cal->Columbia grad school. He's a hedge fund manager in NY now.  Ritchie Rich gets a head start but we have multiple avenues for equalization. And for re-invention; bankruptcy is no different from lighting out for the territory.

Max chillage on the right wing SoCon whining.

Link to post
Share on other sites
10 minutes ago, Olsonist said:

He's a hedge fund manager in NY now.

His criminal background and proclivities were good preparation for that. (sorry, could not resist) 

One thing to say about the US is that (at one time anyway), people can get second chances. 

such as me. 

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
14 minutes ago, AJ Oliver said:

His criminal background and proclivities were good preparation for that. (sorry, could not resist) 

One thing to say about the US is that (at one time anyway), people can get second chances. 

such as me. 

The difference is that you realize and more importantly, appreciate that fact. The United States of America really should be renamed the United States of Second Chances. What the fuck are immigrants anyways? Jeff's right wing SoCon nonsense is just a Marlboro ad.

Give me your tired, your poor,
Your huddled masses yearning to breathe free,
The wretched refuse of your teeming shore.
Send these, the homeless, tempest-tost to me,
I lift my lamp beside the golden door!"

Link to post
Share on other sites

I disagree with presenting this decision to remove all advanced courses as striving for “equity.”

“Equity” could be better achieved by presenting appropriate material to students rather than giving them all the same material.

It seems this change is being made to make education standardized and homogeneous. Probably a cost-cutting motive paired with use of the word “equity” as packaging verbiage to try to win a supportive parent group. 

Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, El Mariachi said:

You do know, doncha, that the Statue of Liberty chick was suffering from copper poisoning when she wrote that?.......

There's a delicious irony hearing that nonsense from an expat.

Link to post
Share on other sites
12 hours ago, AJ Oliver said:

What a bogus source. 

No wonder you put up such bizarre posts 

  • Overall, we rate The Federalist Questionable and far-Right Biased based on story selection and editorial positions that always favor the right and promotion of propaganda, conspiracy theories, and numerous failed fact checks.

Do you disagree with the content of the story?  If so, feel free to refute its veracity with some facts.

 

Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Olsonist said:
12 hours ago, Burning Man said:

“We need real solutions, such as investment in Pre-K , tackling discrepancies at the source and early, making sure there are more opportunities available — that is how you make education equitable,” he said. “If you are not solving the problem at the root, it’s window dressing.”  

The Federalist. What whiny garbage. You're not going to introduce Abelian group theory in pre-K. In fact, what is your great pre-K study plan? I would suggest mud. What sez you?

The state needs to provide a good education for everyone and equity is a concern. Parents need to provide a good education for their children. These are not the same thing and are often at odds. So outcomes will be different. Rich parents can afford great schools and even private tutors for academics and sports. We have great equalizers such as junior colleges. I had a wrong side of the tracks JC transfer buddy at Cal. Arrest record wrong side of the tracks. JC-Cal->Columbia grad school. He's a hedge fund manager in NY now.  Ritchie Rich gets a head start but we have multiple avenues for equalization. And for re-invention; bankruptcy is no different from lighting out for the territory.

Max chillage on the right wing SoCon whining.

Not whining, I think that bolded part is spot fucking on.  What that means is that we need investment in children AND PARENTS at the earliest ages.  I am firmly convinced that success or failure in school starts at birth or even before.  If parents have no idea how to nurture their child both physically and mentally, then they will be behind from the get go.  It's not all about $$.  If we can teach poor people the value of reading to their infant or toddler AND give them the resources to do so, and so on - then we won't have to struggle with "equity" quite so much by 11th grade.  

That is what I have a problem with with these "level the playing field equity" BS pushes.  All you're doing is lowering the bar rather than trying to get everyone to meet meet the standard or to excel.  Equity should be addressed at much earlier stages and we need the backbone to look at parents of color and tell them they are doing a shit job of raising their children and here's some better ways to do it and here's some better resource$ to help you achieve that - such as day care for working parents, and so forth.  As well as both carrots and sticks to keep them from continuing to pop out kids that they can't afford or are equipped to raise. 

But that last bit is FAR too un-PC and SJWNJ would have a meltdown at even the suggestion of such things.  Just saying.

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

guess the facts are opinions are like assholes and there's many shades of grey, there's no absolutes here.

other than that, fascinating shit in a point in world history where triage will increasingly dictate policy.

Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, 3to1 said:

guess the facts are opinions are like assholes and there's many shades of grey, there's no absolutes here.

other than that, fascinating shit in a point in world history where triage will increasingly dictate policy.

Can you translate that into Engrish please???  Seems like you were one of those "equity" cases in grammar and language.  Just saying.....  

Link to post
Share on other sites

guess I'm saying, there's bigger fish to fry and all I see are 6 inch pans.

Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Burning Man said:

...  Equity should be addressed at much earlier stages and we need the backbone to look at parents of color and tell them they are doing a shit job of raising their children and here's some better ways to do it and here's some better resource$ to help you achieve that - such as day care for working parents, and so forth.  As well as both carrots and sticks to keep them from continuing to pop out kids that they can't afford or are equipped to raise. 

But that last bit is FAR too un-PC and SJWNJ would have a meltdown at even the suggestion of such things.  Just saying.

Jeff, if you only present an actionable idea without resorting to SoCon nonsense it would be a mitzvah. BTW, my boy Biden just unveiled the American Families Plan which calls for devoting hundreds of billions of dollars to national child care, prekindergarten, paid family leave and tuition-free community college, among other domestic priorities. SoCon incoming in 3, 2, 1 ....

Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, 3to1 said:

guess the facts are opinions are like assholes and there's many shades of grey, there's no absolutes here.

I disagree - there are several absolute assholes here.

  • Like 3
Link to post
Share on other sites
9 minutes ago, El Mariachi said:

1). Home made, authentic Italian lasagne is the best lasagne on the planet.

Homemade, one word Einstein.  Also, please look up ellipsis (ellipses), because you are fucking those up too.    

Link to post
Share on other sites

It isn’t just unfair. It is SO Unfair. 
 

Johnny One-Tooth is gonna be irate that little Johnny Jr. won’t get the chance to follow the family tradition in AP Calculus. Goll Durn  it, hay knows his rats!

Link to post
Share on other sites
5 hours ago, SloopJonB said:

Removing the smart kids turns the class into Sweathogs?

Not really, but having kids with enthusiasm for math in the class improves the atmosphere and lifts the whole class up.

Some think removing accelerated classes is dumbing down the system, but I disagree.  Dumbing down the system is happening in other ways, such as allowing students to progress without demonstrating sufficient learning to support their progression, and making graduation easier.   I used to joke that, if I had seen the changes coming, I could have registered my dog in distance learning/home schooling and gotten her a BC high school graduation without too much effort.  It is closer to the truth than it should be.

Link to post
Share on other sites
4 hours ago, Olsonist said:

Jeff, if you only present an actionable idea without resorting to SoCon nonsense it would be a mitzvah. BTW, my boy Biden just unveiled the American Families Plan which calls for devoting hundreds of billions of dollars to national child care, prekindergarten, paid family leave and tuition-free community college, among other domestic priorities. SoCon incoming in 3, 2, 1 ....

Good. It’s about time he listened to me. I’ve only been saying that since Before Obama was elected as a means to level the playing field. 
 

Joes going: “it’s about time I had the power to implement my Boy Jeff’s ideas.”

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, Rain Man said:

Not really, but having kids with enthusiasm for math in the class improves the atmosphere and lifts the whole class up.

Some think removing accelerated classes is dumbing down the system, but I disagree.  Dumbing down the system is happening in other ways, such as allowing students to progress without demonstrating sufficient learning to support their progression, and making graduation easier.   I used to joke that, if I had seen the changes coming, I could have registered my dog in distance learning/home schooling and gotten her a BC high school graduation without too much effort.  It is closer to the truth than it should be.

What you claim might have some validity *if* the class' fellow students actually recognised and supported the bright kids. And the teacher actually gave extra, challenging work to those kids.

In my personal experience, neither actually happens. The bright kid gets bullied and stops trying. The bright kid can coast and as life is easier all round, does so. And then gets very, very bored.

I got through high school on memory and assiduous use of the local (not school) library where I found other kids from different schools with the same interests and issues. With 2 exceptions, the teachers and actual class attendance were a waste of my time. English was a classic example; I'd read Bleak House in less than a week and it was the assigned book for the entire term. The teacher suggested I read my way through the rest of Dickens and then start on Victor Hugo.

So I support streaming and so did my wife, who was Dux of her school. Our kids *didn't* go to State run schools because we had no faith that the teaching philosophy would do them any good. 2 of them now are employed by universities and the eldest used to be until he went into private IT.

If you think teaching to the median or lower is a good thing and retaining bright kids in the class rather than allowing them freedom to push their curiosity with their intellectual peers is a good thing, I disagree with you.

FKT

Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Fah Kiew Tu said:

 

If you think teaching to the median or lower is a good thing and retaining bright kids in the class rather than allowing them freedom to push their curiosity with their intellectual peers is a good thing, I disagree with you.

FKT

Those two things are not mutually exclusive.  Research has shown that having bright kids in a class where there is a lot of review and re-teaching of material to help the weaker kids benefits the bright kids as well.  

Bright kids finish their work early.  Once a teacher is comfortable teaching a subject, it doesn't take a lot of brilliance on the teacher's part to find interesting things for them to do.   For me, the dividing line was kids who though the extra exploration was "extra work" in which case I stopped giving them deeper material and instead let them work at their own pace through the regular material.  Kids who didn't see it as extra work were often asking very interesting questions and exploring the answers in their spare time.  You would be surprised what I found kids doing in class who were interested in a topic.  

I don't think teaching to the median or lower is a good thing either.  I did my best not to lower the bar no matter what the subject was, and in spite of the constant pressure from the kids and the admin to drop standards.  Kids sometimes complained that I was pushing them too hard and had unrealistic expectations.  To me that meant I was probably getting close to the right pace.  Real life teaching isn't always pretty but it is what it is.

 

 

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
19 hours ago, Rain Man said:

I sort of thought that the accelerated classes were more about parents egos than the kids' learning.  Parents would sign up kids for these classes who had no business being there.  

Going deeper into the curriculum is a better choice than going faster, IMHO.

Completely disagree as a parent of kids in accelerated classes.  I can't put them in anything, it's up to the teachers and schools, at least here.  And college credits for advanced classes is all about money and college applications in the very near future.

Link to post
Share on other sites
10 minutes ago, roundthebuoys said:

Completely disagree as a parent of kids in accelerated classes.  I can't put them in anything, it's up to the teachers and schools, at least here.  And college credits for advanced classes is all about money and college applications in the very near future.

That's strange.  Here there is a registration process in the latter part of the school year where kids sign up for their courses for the following year.  They have to get their parent's signature on their registration forms.  It has gone to on-line registration only in the last year.  How does it work where you are?  Surely teachers are not selecting electives for the kids.

I had kids trying to register in Physics 12 at the same time they were registered in Physics 11, the pre-requisite.  They and their parents wanted them to give it a try.

I taught AP courses for a few years - mostly at lunchtime on my own time.  Generally I found that there was a very low subscription and a very high amount of effort on my part, and the kids would often drop out when they found out how much work it was.  The stakes for college and university aren't as high in Canada, as post-secondary is affordable for middle-class families.  I don't think that is true in the US.

Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, Rain Man said:

That's strange.  Here there is a registration process in the latter part of the school year where kids sign up for their courses for the following year.  They have to get their parent's signature on their registration forms.  It has gone to on-line registration only in the last year.  How does it work where you are?  Surely teachers are not selecting electives for the kids.

Maybe not electives, but teachers are telling us, and always have, GATE for example, whether our kids should move up.  We basically talked to the counselor and said "what do they have to do to get into Stanford"  If they don't, no biggie, but it's a solid goal to get into other colleges.  And the kids are totally onboard.

Link to post
Share on other sites
3 minutes ago, roundthebuoys said:

Maybe not electives, but teachers are telling us, and always have, GATE for example, whether our kids should move up.  We basically talked to the counselor and said "what do they have to do to get into Stanford"  If they don't, no biggie, but it's a solid goal to get into other colleges.  And the kids are totally onboard.

My guess is that you have exceptionally bright kids.  I would do the same for kids like that.  I don't think that is generally the approach though.

Link to post
Share on other sites
15 minutes ago, Rain Man said:

Those two things are not mutually exclusive.  Research has shown that having bright kids in a class where there is a lot of review and re-teaching of material to help the weaker kids benefits the bright kids as well.  

Bright kids finish their work early.  Once a teacher is comfortable teaching a subject, it doesn't take a lot of brilliance on the teacher's part to find interesting things for them to do.   For me, the dividing line was kids who though the extra exploration was "extra work" in which case I stopped giving them deeper material and instead let them work at their own pace through the regular material.  Kids who didn't see it as extra work were often asking very interesting questions and exploring the answers in their spare time.  You would be surprised what I found kids doing in class who were interested in a topic.  

I don't think teaching to the median or lower is a good thing either.  I did my best not to lower the bar no matter what the subject was, and in spite of the constant pressure from the kids and the admin to drop standards.  Kids sometimes complained that I was pushing them too hard and had unrealistic expectations.  To me that meant I was probably getting close to the right pace.  Real life teaching isn't always pretty but it is what it is.

 

 

I'll agree that in theory the things aren't mutually exclusive. And a good teacher makes a world of difference. My English teacher for example. I'd just sit in class and read whatever I wanted, having already read all the assigned books and had no problems remembering them.

However you haven't addressed the other issue - bullying by peers who don't want to be shown up by the bright kid and teachers who make this worse by holding up the bright kid as someone to be admired. My Latin teacher did that and to this day one of my fellow students is convinced I got favoured by getting asked questions that were 'easy'. The fact that I always came first and him second rankled.

One of my GF's grand-nephews got labeled as someone in need of remedial work and possibly ADHD. The real problem was, he was bored shitless and totally disengaged. That was a *teaching* problem. He was put in a different school where they streamed bright kids and problem went away.

What you're saying serves the needs of the median and maybe one SD either side. But low achieving kids in with bright kids far too often resent them and try to drag them down. Look at the whole dysfunctional 'nerd' thing compared to the 'sports hero' culture prevalent and the bullying that goes with it.

What do you do about that?

FKT

Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, Rain Man said:

My guess is that you have exceptionally bright kids.  I would do the same for kids like that.  I don't think that is generally the approach though.

Thank you.  Bright for a relatively small Idaho high school, , albeit in a high end area and our kids coming from California.  Seems to be working out quite well.

Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, roundthebuoys said:

Sports

Fuck sports, I never ever saw a team sport that was worth the bother of playing. Watching is even more painful.

At university I did fencing with foil and epee and went SCUBA diving & spearfishing.

Some of us have absolutely zero interest in organised team sports.

FKT

  • Like 2
Link to post
Share on other sites
5 hours ago, Cal20sailor said:

Homemade, one word Einstein.  Also, please look up ellipsis (ellipses), because you are fucking those up too.    

 

4FC865D9-E340-4F30-8F60-368D5052F38E.jpeg

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, Fah Kiew Tu said:

Fuck sports, I never ever saw a team sport that was worth the bother of playing. Watching is even more painful.

At university I did fencing with foil and epee and went SCUBA diving & spearfishing.

Some of us have absolutely zero interest in organised team sports.

FKT

Then you accept the kids not being around other people.  I've watched the most boring games ever but they engage each other, make friends and eliminate idle hands.  It doesn't matter if they win or lose.  I Scuba dive too, what does that have to do with anything?

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, roundthebuoys said:

Then you accept the kids not being around other people.  I've watched the most boring games ever but they engage each other, make friends and eliminate idle hands.  It doesn't matter if they win or lose.  I Scuba dive too, what does that have to do with anything?

Just that I'm not totally against sports, I simply have no interest in organised ones.

Though you could argue that fencing was organised in that it had rules, but it wasn't a team sport. And the reason I preferred epee to foil was because there were less rules...

Anyway your argument reduces to, fit in or get bullied.

Which was my point, so it's interesting that you think this is reasonable.

FKT

Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, Fah Kiew Tu said:

Just that I'm not totally against sports, I simply have no interest in organised ones.

Though you could argue that fencing was organised in that it had rules, but it wasn't a team sport. And the reason I preferred epee to foil was because there were less rules...

Anyway your argument reduces to, fit in or get bullied.

Which was my point, so it's interesting that you think this is reasonable.

FKT

It's not "fit in", it's find your tribe and your tribe will protect.  Whatever it is.

Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, roundthebuoys said:

It's not "fit in", it's find your tribe and your tribe will protect.  Whatever it is.

Now explain to me just *why* someone needs to find their tribe so as to gain its protection. You've implicitly given a pass to persecuting anyone who isn't a member of a group that can provide mutual protection.

FKT

Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, Fah Kiew Tu said:

Now explain to me just *why* someone needs to find their tribe so as to gain its protection. You've implicitly given a pass to persecuting anyone who isn't a member of a group that can provide mutual protection.

FKT

Jesus Christ, kids are the Lord of the Flies sometimes.  And in real life, unless you are a farmer or hermit, having social skills is important.

Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, roundthebuoys said:

Jesus Christ, kids are the Lord of the Flies sometimes.  And in real life, unless you are a farmer or hermit, having social skills is important.

Which is why I spent a lot of time at my local library and learned to fence for sport... and had a bunch of friends from other places.

You're conflating 'social skills' with team sports which I think is bullshit on 2 fronts. First, you can have plenty of social skills without participating in or following team sports, and second, there are endless examples of members of sports teams who are abusive.

Agree about the 'Lord of the Flies' bit. I found a solution to that in time.

FKT

Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, Fah Kiew Tu said:

Which is why I spent a lot of time at my local library and learned to fence for sport... and had a bunch of friends from other places.

You're conflating 'social skills' with team sports which I think is bullshit on 2 fronts. First, you can have plenty of social skills without participating in or following team sports, and second, there are endless examples of members of sports teams who are abusive.

Agree about the 'Lord of the Flies' bit. I found a solution to that in time.

FKT

Fencing is a sport

Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, roundthebuoys said:

Fencing is a sport

I already stipulated that. What I said was, it isn't a *team* sport. Is that your only response?

I'm done with this. You seem to have the attitude that unless you're a member of a group you're fair game and if you're a sports team member you get special rights to make others miserable if they can't defend themselves.

That really is 'Lord of the Flies' stuff and you implicitly accept it rather than saying it should be suppressed as fast as possible.

Rain Man has nothing to say on the subject of bright kids in a mixed class getting bullied.

Pretty pointless commenting further.

FKT

Link to post
Share on other sites
12 hours ago, Raz'r said:

My kids college doesn’t accept High School AP classes for credit. If that was common, there’d be a lot less demand for those classes in HS.

That hasn't been way for a long time, it depends on the school. I had AP 5s going into college back in 1984, but I got no credit for it. But I did get some prerequisites waived, so I didn't have to take things like introductory calculus, introductory college level biology, or any English/writing stuff. But it didn't help me graduate any quicker, and it didn't even count towards meeting my major requirements.

It did get me to cooler courses quickly, so I could take 4 or 5 other courses instead of low level introductory courses. But I still needed the same number of tuition and course credits taken at school to graduate.

Link to post
Share on other sites
19 hours ago, Shortforbob said:

You had criminal year 12 students in the early 1970's?

White collar criminals I assume?

(most kids that could make year 12 (or HSC) were too busy studying while looking after younger sibs, cooking dinner for working parents etc to get into serious mischief)

The "troubled" ones had already been weeded out end of year 10, even in state high schools

No.....

Link to post
Share on other sites
4 minutes ago, Fah Kiew Tu said:

I already stipulated that. What I said was, it isn't a *team* sport. Is that your only response?

I'm done with this. You seem to have the attitude that unless you're a member of a group you're fair game and if you're a sports team member you get special rights to make others miserable if they can't defend themselves.

That really is 'Lord of the Flies' stuff and you implicitly accept it rather than saying it should be suppressed as fast as possible.

Rain Man has nothing to say on the subject of bright kids in a mixed class getting bullied.

Pretty pointless commenting further.

FKT

You seem "grumpy"  Fuck off, it was a civil conversation until you became you again.

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, Fah Kiew Tu said:

What you claim might have some validity *if* the class' fellow students actually recognised and supported the bright kids. And the teacher actually gave extra, challenging work to those kids.

In my personal experience, neither actually happens. The bright kid gets bullied and stops trying. The bright kid can coast and as life is easier all round, does so. And then gets very, very bored.

I got through high school on memory and assiduous use of the local (not school) library where I found other kids from different schools with the same interests and issues. With 2 exceptions, the teachers and actual class attendance were a waste of my time. English was a classic example; I'd read Bleak House in less than a week and it was the assigned book for the entire term. The teacher suggested I read my way through the rest of Dickens and then start on Victor Hugo.

So I support streaming and so did my wife, who was Dux of her school. Our kids *didn't* go to State run schools because we had no faith that the teaching philosophy would do them any good. 2 of them now are employed by universities and the eldest used to be until he went into private IT.

If you think teaching to the median or lower is a good thing and retaining bright kids in the class rather than allowing them freedom to push their curiosity with their intellectual peers is a good thing, I disagree with you.

FKT

Yup.

It should not be the burden of the bright kids to carry the slugs along.  That's the teacher's and the parent's jobs.  

Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, Ease the sheet. said:

No.....

You're too young to recall the days of the Technical Collage and streaming. Et in Arcadia Ego.

I went the Cheltenham High. A normal High School in a normal "upper" working class area.

The Skinheads, Thugs and their hangers on were all gone by year 10 either off to some unskilled job, unemployment, Turana or the girls equivalent or of to lean a trade. . That's why achieving the Leaving Certificate was so important.

Those that achieved HSC AKA six formers circa 1977? Most went on to Uni as it had just been made equitable. Thanks Gough.

Link to post
Share on other sites
8 minutes ago, Burning Man said:

Yup.

It should not be the burden of the bright kids to carry the slugs along.  That's the teacher's and the parent's jobs.  

Except when part of the school program is that the smart kids teach the dumb kids.

The value for the smarter kids is it teaches them how silly mistakes get made and the importance of checking.

Teaching is complicated. So much more than when we went to school.

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
5 minutes ago, Burning Man said:

Yup.

It should not be the burden of the bright kids to carry the slugs along.  That's the teacher's and the parent's jobs.  

sigh, like everywhere it depends on the kids and the School.

No one is sugesting that you team Garry the Geek up with Slasher Morgan. 

But it's pretty well established even in late primary school that you pair the more able with the less able.

It actually is of huge benefit for the geeks to adopt a mentor/teaching role. Good for their social skills and their accademic skills. Learning how to communicate and share knowledge is a life skill that many of the brightest fail at abysmally.

The kid who may be struggling also benefits from lack of embarrassment and hiding in the back and their self esteem and learning improves.

I understand that the concept of sharing knowledge and helping the kid who may then beat you in the great race is frightening for you and your aspirations for your children.

We wouldn't want to level that playing field would we?

Link to post
Share on other sites
7 minutes ago, Shortforbob said:

You're too young to recall the days of the Technical Collage and streaming. Et in Arcadia Ego.

I went the Cheltenham High. A normal High School in a normal "upper" working class area.

The Skinheads, Thugs and their hangers on were all gone by year 10 either off to some unskilled job, unemployment, Turana or the girls equivalent or of to lean a trade. . That's why achieving the Leaving Certificate was so important.

Those that achieved HSC AKA six formers circa 1977? Most went on to Uni as it had just been made equitable. Thanks Gough.

If you think secondary school was magically different 5 years after you left, you're mistaken.

 

 

Link to post
Share on other sites

It’s been so long since my 35 year old children were in school BUT 30 years ago and most likely forever there’s just a lot of parents that our profoundly not able to assist there children to make a good start in life 

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, Ease the sheet. said:

If you think secondary school was magically different 5 years after you left, you're mistaken.

 

 

Um, I have siblings that followed five years behind me at the same school.

You wouldn't believe how "magically different" is was.

Girls were even allowed to do woodwork, metalwork and the careers advisors stopped suggesting all the smaert girls do teaching and nursing and the less academic become hairdressers or typists.

I'm not kidding. they were exactly the 4 career options offered to the girls at my high school in 1975.

 

Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, tommays said:

It’s been so long since my 35 year old children were in school BUT 30 years ago and most likely forever there’s just a lot of parents that our profoundly not able to assist there children to make a good start in life 

sure. we're all a lot poorer and having one parent stay home and do the homework drill with home baked cookies and milk is a Brady Bunch fantasy.

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
9 hours ago, Burning Man said:

Not whining, I think that bolded part is spot fucking on.  What that means is that we need investment in children AND PARENTS at the earliest ages.  I am firmly convinced that success or failure in school starts at birth or even before.  If parents have no idea how to nurture their child both physically and mentally, then they will be behind from the get go.  It's not all about $$.  If we can teach poor people the value of reading to their infant or toddler AND give them the resources to do so, and so on - then we won't have to struggle with "equity" quite so much by 11th grade.  

That is what I have a problem with with these "level the playing field equity" BS pushes.  All you're doing is lowering the bar rather than trying to get everyone to meet meet the standard or to excel.  Equity should be addressed at much earlier stages and we need the backbone to look at parents of color and tell them they are doing a shit job of raising their children and here's some better ways to do it and here's some better resource$ to help you achieve that - such as day care for working parents, and so forth.  As well as both carrots and sticks to keep them from continuing to pop out kids that they can't afford or are equipped to raise. 

But that last bit is FAR too un-PC and SJWNJ would have a meltdown at even the suggestion of such things.  Just saying.

Meh.

just sayin

Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Fah Kiew Tu said:

...

What do you do about that?

FKT

Tall poppy syndrome?  If a teacher shows respect for all the kids in the class this won't normally be an issue.   I spent a lot more time one-on-one with the weaker kids and tended to leave the brighter kids to their own devices once they had their marching orders.  The weaker kids felt supported, and that makes all the difference.

I did have one case in my last year of an exceptionally bright female robotics student who was targetted by some of the less socially mature boys in the class.  I ended up clamping down on movement in the classroom, stopping the class for a classroom meeting/discussion/brainstorming session on behaviour, putting some of the kids on behaviour contracts, re-arranging the groups, allowing the group the girl was in a separate space, putting the troublesome kids together in a group in a corner on the opposite side of the room and not allowed to leave their space without permission.  Ultimately I asked the principal to remove one boy who just didn't get the message from the class, and she was supportive and made it happen.   

Solving that one required reaching deep into the bag of tricks.  Fortunately those cases were very rare in my classes - I mostly taught Physics and senior math classes, and those issues don't normally show up in those.

I want to add that the kids in my school always impressed me with their tolerance of kids with behavioural and other issues.  They were empathetic with these kids, and knew when to bring issues to their teachers when they couldn't solve them without help.  I miss those kids.

Link to post
Share on other sites
9 hours ago, Burning Man said:

Not whining, I think that bolded part is spot fucking on.  What that means is that we need investment in children AND PARENTS at the earliest ages.  I am firmly convinced that success or failure in school starts at birth or even before.  If parents have no idea how to nurture their child both physically and mentally, then they will be behind from the get go.  It's not all about $$.  If we can teach poor people the value of reading to their infant or toddler AND give them the resources to do so, and so on - then we won't have to struggle with "equity" quite so much by 11th grade.  

So far so good

That is what I have a problem with with these "level the playing field equity" BS pushes.  All you're doing is lowering the bar rather than trying to get everyone to meet meet the standard or to excel.  Equity should be addressed at much earlier stages and we need the backbone to look at parents of color and tell them they are doing a shit job of raising their children and here's some better ways to do it and here's some better resource$ to help you achieve that - such as day care for working parents, and so forth.  As well as both carrots and sticks to keep them from continuing to pop out kids that they can't afford or are equipped to raise. 

But that last bit is FAR too un-PC and SJWNJ would have a meltdown at even the suggestion of such things.  Just saying.

And wham.

we need the backbone to look at parents of color and tell them they are doing a shit job of raising their children 

You really just can't help yourself can you?

Every fucking time. 

Poverty? tick

Colour? big fail.

It's not the colour it's the culture of poverty.

If your poorest area's happen to be black demographics. Can you seriously look anyone in the eye and say things would be better for people if they were not black?

where there's a top ten percent there has to be a bottom 10 percent. even in places where they are all white.

Try your colour arguement in Glasgow.

Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Fah Kiew Tu said:

You're conflating 'social skills' with team sports which I think is bullshit on 2 fronts. First, you can have plenty of social skills without participating in or following team sports, and second, there are endless examples of members of sports teams who are abusive.

I did not do high school sports either . . 

But it should be understood that Title IX and women's hs and uni sports has resulted in a cultural sea change in the US. 

They have advanced the lives and opportunities for US women immeasurably. 

They now do team work and leadership - and a lot less arm candying 

So much so that the (normally less rapidly maturing) young males really struggle to keep up. 

Link to post
Share on other sites
9 minutes ago, Ishmael said:

Music.

And art, and languages. 

That STEM stuff really frosts my ol' lefty keister. 

HS music was the salvation of someone near to me. 

Link to post
Share on other sites
7 hours ago, Rain Man said:

Not really, but having kids with enthusiasm for math in the class improves the atmosphere and lifts the whole class up.

Some think removing accelerated classes is dumbing down the system, but I disagree.  Dumbing down the system is happening in other ways, such as allowing students to progress without demonstrating sufficient learning to support their progression, and making graduation easier.   I used to joke that, if I had seen the changes coming, I could have registered my dog in distance learning/home schooling and gotten her a BC high school graduation without too much effort.  It is closer to the truth than it should be.

But... But... But... Self esteem!

Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Shortforbob said:

And wham.

we need the backbone to look at parents of color and tell them they are doing a shit job of raising their children 

You really just can't help yourself can you?

Hey, he is the voice of experience.

Look at the job his parents did.

Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, Ease the sheet. said:

Teaching is complicated. So much more than when we went to school.

Why?  Are newer generation kid's genetics different?  Are their brains wired differently?  

Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, roundthebuoys said:
2 hours ago, Fah Kiew Tu said:

Now explain to me just *why* someone needs to find their tribe so as to gain its protection. You've implicitly given a pass to persecuting anyone who isn't a member of a group that can provide mutual protection.

FKT

Jesus Christ, kids are the Lord of the Flies sometimes.  And in real life, unless you are a farmer or hermit, having social skills is important.

I agree with FKT on this.  Sports are not the only way to learn social skills.  Most schools have a plethora of other activities.  Band, cheer, drama, debate, and yes even the chess club.  And some kids just don't alway fit into anything.  Sports saved my life in HS, literally.  But even I recognize that sports is not for everyone and to suggest that sports is all it takes, is BS.  The troubled teens who pick up AR-15s and shoot their classmates before killing themselves are the ones who should have been protected from the "tribes" by the adults rather than letting the "Lord of the Flies" atmosphere reign in the school and online.   

Link to post
Share on other sites
20 minutes ago, SloopJonB said:
1 hour ago, Shortforbob said:

And wham.

we need the backbone to look at parents of color and tell them they are doing a shit job of raising their children 

You really just can't help yourself can you?

Hey, he is the voice of experience.

Look at the job his parents did.

Thank you!  They did a fantastic job, and for which I am eternally grateful.  My father passed on several years ago, but I still regularly tell my mom thanks for being a great parent and making the sacrifices she did to make sure I was well prepared for the world. 

I really appreciate you recognizing that.  

Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, Ease the sheet. said:

No.

Are you suggesting that knowledge of the brain, how it works, hasn't advanced?

I agree it has, of course.  That should make it easier then, no?

Link to post
Share on other sites
5 minutes ago, Ease the sheet. said:
8 minutes ago, Burning Man said:

I agree it has, of course.  That should make it easier then, no?

No. That should make it obvious that our way wasn't better.

Dunno.  It seemed like we had a LOT more well adjusted kids back then who didn't commit suicide at the rates they do now or murder their classmates at the rate they do now.  And before you try to make this into a gun thread, there were more guns easily accessible to kids back then.  So that ain't it.

What we didn't have back then was the level of violence in media and games.  About the most violent game I played as a kid was "Battleship".  

We also didn't have social media where the bullying continues 24/7.  At least if you got bullied at school, you could leave it every day and find sanctuary at home until the next morning.  No so with cyberbullying.  It follows you wherever you go.  

We also didn't have a 24/7 news cycle where an event in one part of the country is played over and over like a drum beat and it then caused 2-3 or more copy cat mass murders on the other side of the country within a week.  

And so on........  

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
45 minutes ago, Burning Man said:

Dunno.  It seemed like we had a LOT more well adjusted kids back then who didn't commit suicide at the rates they do now or murder their classmates at the rate they do now.  And before you try to make this into a gun thread, there were more guns easily accessible to kids back then.  So that ain't it.

What we didn't have back then was the level of violence in media and games.  About the most violent game I played as a kid was "Battleship".  

We also didn't have social media where the bullying continues 24/7.  At least if you got bullied at school, you could leave it every day and find sanctuary at home until the next morning.  No so with cyberbullying.  It follows you wherever you go.  

We also didn't have a 24/7 news cycle where an event in one part of the country is played over and over like a drum beat and it then caused 2-3 or more copy cat mass murders on the other side of the country within a week.  

And so on........  

Seems like you just think all that stuff is relevant.

 

Maybe it's just the fact that people are fed up with unfairness?

 

Isn't that what drove your war of independence?

Now, you have 1 side sounding like arrogant kings while the suppressed revolt.

 

 

Link to post
Share on other sites
11 hours ago, Fah Kiew Tu said:

Now explain to me just *why* someone needs to find their tribe so as to gain its protection. You've implicitly given a pass to persecuting anyone who isn't a member of a group that can provide mutual protection.

FKT

Sadly that is how it works. The bullies have an amazing 6th sense for finding kids that do not have a tribe. You can talk all you want about how if you just punch a bully in the nose they are all cowards and leave you alone, but that really doesn't work when it is 3-4-5-6 or more to 1 and they know absolutely no one has your back or cares what happens to you, which in many cases includes the teachers.

When I went from a small tight-knit elementary school to big junior high, it was kind of like going from a country club to a medium-security prison. We quickly learned to move as a group. Academically it was a disaster too. Our elementary school was pioneering some "gifted and talented" stuff back then and pretty much nothing in jr. high was anything but boring because we were past that in 5th grade. Bored kids are not a good thing. You also learned being the smartest kids in the class SUCKED BALLS, the preferred thing to do was sit in the back and not say one word ever.

Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, kent_island_sailor said:

 You also learned being the smartest kids in the class SUCKED BALLS, the preferred thing to do was sit in the back and not say one word ever.

In every school class I was ever in the back rows were filled with the no-hopers.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Half of the secondary school yoot in Germany and France study calculous. 

In the US it's about 5 percent. 

Personally, I favor its inclusion in the curricula. 

It's is great mental exercise, and leads one to look at the world in new ways. 

That being said, it is true that few US engineers use calculous in their work. 

Double E's likely the most. 

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites