 |
|
MRT144
|
|
Seattle Washington
Oct 2002
time: 21:17
|
|
it doesnt matter sometimes how hard they bust your ass, the kid will fight it.
i guess my question is, if you dont think the kids should be there, why have compulsry education for them anyway. if they are poor students when they are 5 years old, lets not waste anymore time on them when they are 15
|
|
| |
|
| |
|
|
|
Flubber
|
|
With a view of the Rockies
Aug 2000
time: 22:17
|
|
I agree with Mrs Tubes that the best teacher , lawyer doctor are not necessarily those that get the highest grades and they are definitely not necessarily those that scored highest on some standardized test.
But Mrs Tubes I think you overstate the negative impacts of some separation based on ability if its mixed with some random separation as well. In my conceptualization, 5 of 7 periods would be spent in a class of mixed abilities and 2 of 7 ( the most difficult subjects) would be mixed based on ability.
You don't even have to explicitly tell the kids and in some cases it might take them a while to figure it out ( since the best and worst kids in the two subjects will differ somewhat and there may be a good chunk of kids not where their peers would perceive them to be-- Some children are unexpectedly good or bad at a subject).
Ohh and Mrs Tubes, earlier you mentioned the average child and wondered who was looking out for them. The answer is EVERYBODY -- The typical teaching in a classroom of very mixed abilities is aimed just at or slightly below the abilities of the average student. The reality is that the education speed and level is probably ok for the 70-80% of students in the middle. It is reaching and challenging the top and bottom 10-15% which is the real difficult thing to do
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Flubber
|
|
With a view of the Rockies
Aug 2000
time: 22:17
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by Mrs. Tuberski
I enjoyed the smarter kids in class because they more then not stated their ideas and by doing that they helped me learn. |
that has value . . . but you should be fair to the better students and give them a class or too that truly challenges them as well. Tutoring is fine and good but a class of the brightest can be awesome.
I had it in university once-- A 12 student seminar where by chance ( well not so much by chance since the prof was well liked) almost every student there was a dean's list student. . . It was amazing -- the level of debate and interaction was the best I ever saw and it was fun. I was less lazy than usual since I wanted to keep up wheras usually I would do just enough to have a credible shot at an A.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Flubber
|
|
With a view of the Rockies
Aug 2000
time: 22:17
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by Mrs. Tuberski
University is different then Hi school and those schools under them. i say this cause at this point your now paying for your education. In regular public schools I dont think the kids need to be seperated. Im all for an honors class for the very smart kids that dont want to be in with the other students. |
You see and I'm not quite for that . . I'm more for seperating students in ways that allows them all to get the best education. I just happen to think for the more difficult subjects, that is accomplished by separating by ability.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Flubber
|
|
With a view of the Rockies
Aug 2000
time: 22:17
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by Mrs. Tuberski
@flubber
why seperate the smart kids that dont want to be seperated? |
To challenge them at an appropriate level.
Remember I'm only talking a class or two and the separation would be no different than the random mixing of the other classes. So its not like they don't get to socialize with their friends.
The fact that its not cool to be smart shouldn't mean we encourage kids to underachieve
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Odin
|
 |
Biology Nerd at Minnesota State University Moorhead
Sep 2000
time: 23:17
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by Mrs. Tuberski
What are you gonna bust his ass for not beings as smart as the other kids? I have to ride my oldest kid everyday he is adhd but still hes lazy to, cause to many people have told him hes dumb. |
Your kid with ADHD shows another flaw in our education system, it makes the assumption that all kids learn in a similar way, which I, as a person with ADHD, can tell you, is utter crap. People with ADHD tend to be somewhat smarter than average, but because our schools emphasize conformity, a smart kid with ADHD, like I was, sucks in school because it is too monotonous ( I am opposed to medicating people with ADHD with drugs like Ritalin, which are way overprescribed).
Your kid has the potential to be a good student, but the educational reforms needed will never happen unless we give our schools enough money to pay for programs for people with ADHD and Asperger's that are smart; not just relagating them to "Special Education", which in my experience is just a nice, politically correct way of saying "the place for retards." 
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Mrs. Tuberski
|
 |
universal city tx
Jan 2005
time: 23:17
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by Odin
Your kid with ADHD shows another flaw in our education system, it makes the assumption that all kids learn in a similar way, which I, as a person with ADHD, can tell you, is utter crap. People with ADHD tend to be somewhat smarter than average, but because our schools emphasize conformity, a smart kid with ADHD, like I was, sucks in school because it is too monotonous ( I am opposed to medicating people with ADHD with drugs like Ritalin, which are way overprescribed).
Your kid has the potential to be a good student, but the educational reforms needed will never happen unless we give our schools enough money to pay for programs for people with ADHD and Asperger's that are smart; not just relagating them to "Special Education", which in my experience is just a nice, politically correct way of saying "the place for retards." |
Which is why i did not put him in special education. Which is what the teachers are recommending now.
I do have him taking meds but not ritilan he takes concerta but only once a day. I ride him every day beause I know he lazy. Hes very smart but refuses to let any one know it cause now days it aint cool.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Wycoff
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by Immortal Wombat
Doesn't placing children with lower academic achievement in the same class make it more likely that the teacher will then pitch the lesson at their level, and ensure than everyone gets taught, rather than only the top 25% of the class? Taking out the 'smart kids' drops the whole thing a notch, so everyone has a chance to get something out of lessons rather than thinking that the teacher only cares about the kids at the top.
|
I'm afraid that you have things backwards. It has been my experience that American public schools cater to the bottom half of the class rather than the top half. After all, all schools are teaching to meet standardized tests. The better students won't have nearly as much trouble passing the tests as the lesser students. Since those tests are almost the sole measurement of a school's value, often determining funding levels, the schools have the incentive to focus their resources on ensuring that the lesser students pass the tests. A disproportionate amount of funding goes to the lesser students, while the top students are often left to fend for themselves.
Our public school system isn't designed to encourage the top 10% to excel, its designed to pump out a large number of mediocre students with merely a functional grasp of reading, science, and math. IMO, it's the "gifted" students that get the shaft. They're the ones who would do the most with extra funding, and would provide the govt. with the best investment of their funds.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Wycoff
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by Dissident
I don't have much more to add, but I just read that teachers in the U.S. now have SAT scores less than 800 
You can seperate them all you want, but you still need quality teachers.
I do agree with some minor seperation as I said earlier, and maybe even seperating boys and girls (we can teach them to interact during non academic classes), but that can only do so much.
And I don't agree with ther teacher/pupil ratio the liberals keep *****ing about. That again means nothing when teachers have SAT scores lower than 800. |
I don't find this surprising. No offense intended, but most of the people who I know that ended up becoming teachers were those who intially entered college with the goal of becoming a doctor, lawyer, engineer, or businessman. They found out that they weren't good enough students to effectively pursue those careers once in college, they found that getting a teaching degree was easier and allowed for more time to party, and then they ultimately ended up becoming teachers. Thus, the people who eventually become teachers are generally from the lower part of their college class.
I know that this assessment is unfair to some people, and that some teachers were dedicated students who dreamt of becoming teachers. Those people are most likely the good teachers. However, I fear that most teachers fall into the category that I described above, and that's why our country has such poor quality teachers. The only solution seems to be raising the average wage of a teacher to a level that makes teaching a profession that can compete with medicine, engineering, law, or business.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Wycoff
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by Shi Huangdi
In my experience back when I was in school, it seems that the discipline problems caused in a classroom was usually caused by one or two individuals who would repeatedly disrupt class or harass other students, and it made it much more difficult for the teacher to managet his class. I think if you just segregated out the worst of the worst who repeatedly show they won't follow the rules, it would become much easier to teach a class.
Widespread discrimination based on behavior level would create a situation where it is difficult for those at the bottom to improve themselves. But for the few problem individuals out there, if they have no interest in learning, why should they just be allowed to continue to come to class and disrupt everyone else from learning? |
I feel exactly the same way. In High School it was always the same 5 or 6 kids ruining every class because they couldn't and wouldn't shut their mouths and learn. This happened in the high level class. Eventually the teachers would get frustrated and basically give up. The educational experience of every kid in the class was devalued because of those 5 or 6 jerk-offs. I always wishjed that teachers could have had tasers to blast those *******s when they got out of hand.
The biggest difference between high school and college was that, in college, people actually shut up and allowed the professor to teach. That rarely happened in high school.
Last edited by Wycoff on 16-03-2005 at 08:06
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Odin
|
|
Biology Nerd at Minnesota State University Moorhead
Sep 2000
time: 23:17
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by Wycoff
I don't find this surprising. No offense intended, but most of the people who I know that ended up becoming teachers were those who intially entered college with the goal of becoming a doctor, lawyer, engineer, or businessman. They found out that they weren't good enough students to effectively pursue those careers once in college, they found that getting a teaching degree was easier and allowed for more time to party, and then they ultimately ended up becoming teachers. Thus, the people who eventually become teachers are generally from the lower part of their college class.
I know that this assessment is unfair to some people, and that some teachers were dedicated students who dreamt of becoming teachers. Those people are most likely the good teachers. However, I fear that most teachers fall into the category that I described above, and that's why our country has such poor quality teachers. The only solution seems to be raising the average wage of a teacher to a level that makes teaching a profession that can compete with medicine, engineering, law, or business. |
Standardized Tests: 
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Kidicious
|
 |
Diety of Kidiverse
Mar 2003
time: 21:17
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by Wycoff
I don't find this surprising. No offense intended, but most of the people who I know that ended up becoming teachers were those who intially entered college with the goal of becoming a doctor, lawyer, engineer, or businessman. They found out that they weren't good enough students to effectively pursue those careers once in college, they found that getting a teaching degree was easier and allowed for more time to party, and then they ultimately ended up becoming teachers. Thus, the people who eventually become teachers are generally from the lower part of their college class.
I know that this assessment is unfair to some people, and that some teachers were dedicated students who dreamt of becoming teachers. Those people are most likely the good teachers. However, I fear that most teachers fall into the category that I described above, and that's why our country has such poor quality teachers. The only solution seems to be raising the average wage of a teacher to a level that makes teaching a profession that can compete with medicine, engineering, law, or business. |
The problem and/or the solution is not the teachers, it's the students. Teachers in the US are already very well trained and their pay really isn't that bad especially for experienced teachers. And increasing their pay really doesn't make teachers better. The great teachers teach because they have a specific talent to teach and it's what they love to do. There is a shortage of teachers like that, but there's nothing you can do to fill that shortage.
|
|
| |
|
| |
All times are GMT. The time now is 05:17.
Apolyton Time is 00:17. |
top of page
|
|
|
Forum Rules:
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts
|
HTML code is ON
vB code is ON
Smilies are ON
[IMG] code is ON
|
|
|
|
|
|
16-03-2005 02:13
|