Register a SA Forums Account here!
JOINING THE SA FORUMS WILL REMOVE THIS BIG AD, THE ANNOYING UNDERLINED ADS, AND STUPID INTERSTITIAL ADS!!!

You can: log in, read the tech support FAQ, or request your lost password. This dumb message (and those ads) will appear on every screen until you register! Get rid of this crap by registering your own SA Forums Account and joining roughly 150,000 Goons, for the one-time price of $9.95! We charge money because it costs us money per month for bills, and since we don't believe in showing ads to our users, we try to make the money back through forum registrations.
I believe the state of US education is...
Doing very well...
Could be better...
Horrendously hosed...
I have no idea because I only watch Fox News...
View Results
 
  • Locked thread
Oxphocker
Aug 17, 2005

PLEASE DO NOT BACKSEAT MODERATE
First off, hate to burst your anecdotal bubble...but I'm in rural MN. I also taught in IL, MI, WI, NM, and New Zealand... I've been in urban, rural, and suburban schools. I've been in private, public, and charter. In all those different environments, I've learned just how much socio-economics really shape an area.

Try reading Ruby Payne's A Framework for Understanding Poverty. Probably one the best books on the topic and she even explores the roots of motivation in a socio-economic context. Long story short...a significant section of US society doesn't value education at all and it's reflected in the values and attitudes displayed in schools across the country. Until we start to change that mindset, things won't get better on the larger scale because we will keep going through ten rounds of, 'teachers just need to be less lazy in their cush jobs' until people realize that sitting in a desk as a student is nothing like actually teaching.

Adbot
ADBOT LOVES YOU

litany of gulps
Jun 11, 2001

Fun Shoe

Hastings posted:

Just want to say I would actually be willing to meet halfway and be okay with one assignment a week. If that is your protocol, that is awesome and shows just how different school systems are because IL and MN still adhere to daily work in virtually all schooling options. It's really to see a lack of motivation in your students though, because children really need to be learning self motivation. Having an intrinsic understanding of rewards is vital.

"You know, I don't believe in homework because teachers are lovely, and I accept that you students will just work 20% of the time. I don't really understand why anyone would expect you to work every day while you're at work. Kind of surprised that these kids don't understand motivation, though. It should be something internal that they have."

-Insert Signature Noun Here

Timeless Appeal
May 28, 2006

Owlofcreamcheese posted:

Teachers have really strong unions and probably the best nominal work hours of any profession. But then an expectation to do 50% or more of their work "on their own time" and to spend a ton of their own money on work. And it always feels like attitudes on homework by teachers is informed by teacher's own really weird work situation. Like if teaching somehow in the future settled on being an 8 hour a day and then go home job I bet attitudes on homework would quickly mirror that idea. =0
It depends. I honestly don't think anyone can stick with teaching without learning to not take work home with you. Part of the problem with teaching, a problem heightened with charters and TFA, is that it gets a lot of kids right out of college. When I first started, I was fine doing deep dives into kids writing with a glass of bourbon, staying up to 1 AM, lesson planning at bars with friends. I was basically treating teaching like college.

Now all the necessary stuff gets done at school. Having concise and efficient feedback isn't just good for you, but for the kids. You learn to train kids to grade. You learn what work can be marked for completion for the sake of investing kids in class, and what work needs to be leveraged. And you build an instinct that is stronger than the longer preparation you used to do.

Right now my school forces us to stay till 4:30 with the kids leaving at 3:50. And I almost never take work home. It's become so rare that I don't even mind when I do because it makes me nostalgic for when I was a young and an idiot.

For me, it's not about the work you're doing at home. It's just that it's an incredibly and uniquely mentally taxing job.

Hastings
Dec 30, 2008

litany of gulps posted:

"You know, I don't believe in homework because teachers are lovely, and I accept that you students will just work 20% of the time. I don't really understand why anyone would expect you to work every day while you're at work. Kind of surprised that these kids don't understand motivation, though. It should be something internal that they have."

-Insert Signature Noun Here

I don't think teachers are lovely, if that is what you think. What I think is that educators need to stop buying in to the idea that they are the ones that need to be propping up the education system all by themselves. I understand that education and poverty are intertwined, and that educators are doing all they can to help kids, I get it. But speaking as someone in child development, kids do need to learn about intrinsic motivation. It's a necessary human skill that creates stability in sense of self and identity. Having a inner motivation or purpose minimizes things like anxiety and behaviors.

litany of gulps
Jun 11, 2001

Fun Shoe

Timeless Appeal posted:

It depends. I honestly don't think anyone can stick with teaching without learning to not take work home with you. Part of the problem with teaching, a problem heightened with charters and TFA, is that it gets a lot of kids right out of college. When I first started, I was fine doing deep dives into kids writing with a glass of bourbon, staying up to 1 AM, lesson planning at bars with friends. I was basically treating teaching like college.

Now all the necessary stuff gets done at school. Having concise and efficient feedback isn't just good for you, but for the kids. You learn to train kids to grade. You learn what work can be marked for completion for the sake of investing kids in class, and what work needs to be leveraged. And you build an instinct that is stronger than the longer preparation you used to do.

It's more complicated than this, though, isn't it? There are some grade levels where I don't have to prep much at all, because I've done it before. But I don't like staying in the same place, and that complicates things. I have a dozen resources and readings and plans for the British Industrial Revolution. I hit a stumbling block when approaching it from the American perspective. It's the same thing, the questions and presentations aren't much different, but a new perspective is a complication and adds planning time.

I'm experienced enough that with no preparation I can execute a reasonable enough lesson. I say no preparation, but I find the readings and think about the arc of the lesson in advance. I prep it all in the morning. It's more complicated than that, though. If I'm teaching AP Literature, these are 18 year old kids about to go on to college. I can't have them grade each other. They need individual feedback. I have 120 essays of 3-5 pages each, and I may have a bunch of those. It's complicated.

I can build a solid lesson in 30-45 minutes. I have a tremendous amount of background knowledge and context and experience. I know how to ask the right questions. I know how to present the right texts. I know how to balance lecture and independent and group work.

Next year I'll have 4 preps, as I understand it. I'll have one period off every other day. I'll have nearly 200 students. It's complicated. There's no escaping some of those basic facts, no strategy or work-hack or whatever that turns them into a non-issue. I'm not fresh off of the assembly line.

litany of gulps fucked around with this message at 03:38 on May 3, 2017

litany of gulps
Jun 11, 2001

Fun Shoe

Hastings posted:

I don't think teachers are lovely, if that is what you think. What I think is that educators need to stop buying in to the idea that they are the ones that need to be propping up the education system all by themselves. I understand that education and poverty are intertwined, and that educators are doing all they can to help kids, I get it. But speaking as someone in child development, kids do need to learn about intrinsic motivation. It's a necessary human skill that creates stability in sense of self and identity. Having a inner motivation or purpose minimizes things like anxiety and behaviors.

This is mealy-mouthed platitude. You yourself are selling the idea that homework is worthless because teachers do it wrong, and you yourself are selling the idea that one day of work is enough for a student. In the next breath you mouth this nonsense about intrinsic motivation. What are you? How do you build intrinsic motivation in a young person if you don't require them to do anything?

"Having a inner motivation or purpose minimizes things like anxiety and behaviors."

Seriously, read this sentence that you just typed out. We provide inner motivation by not requiring anything difficult of a person in order to minimize their anxiety and behavior? That's your philosophy?

litany of gulps fucked around with this message at 03:35 on May 3, 2017

Hastings
Dec 30, 2008

litany of gulps posted:

This is mealy-mouthed platitude. You yourself are selling the idea that homework is worthless because teachers do it wrong, and you yourself are selling the idea that one day of work is enough for a student. In the next breath you mouth this nonsense about intrinsic motivation. What are you? How do you build intrinsic motivation in a young person if you don't require them to do anything?

"Having a inner motivation or purpose minimizes things like anxiety and behaviors."

Seriously, read this sentence that you just typed out. We provide inner motivation by not requiring anything difficult of a person in order to minimize their anxiety and behavior? That's your philosophy?

Exactly why do you believe homework is the only way to teach motivation or hard work? Note that at no point have I ever said I don't want to require kids to do anything or at least nothing difficult. And I never said homework is worthless because teachers do it wrong. Look at my response to Oracle, my complaint against homework is that it is not beneficial for young kids and goes against their neurological development and processing abilities. I absolutely believe we should require students to do things, I just don't agree that regular homework is the way to go about it.

litany of gulps
Jun 11, 2001

Fun Shoe

Hastings posted:

Exactly why do you believe homework is the only way to teach motivation or hard work? Note that at no point have I ever said I don't want to require kids to do anything or at least nothing difficult. And I never said homework is worthless because teachers do it wrong. Look at my response to Oracle, my complaint against homework is that it is not beneficial for young kids and goes against their neurological development and processing abilities. I absolutely believe we should require students to do things, I just don't agree that regular homework is the way to go about it.

Then explain what is the way to go about it. Nobody anywhere is arguing for homework for really young kids, but you are vehemently attacking the concept as a whole without much context, while attempting to sell a philosophy that does not at all align with the ideas you are attacking. What do you think a student should do? You certainly can talk about what teachers shouldn't do and what students shouldn't do, can you do the same for what they should?

Hawkperson
Jun 20, 2003

Yeah this discussion is kind of weird. You teach kids intrinsic motivation by giving them an age-appropriate task they can achieve, and then let them bask in the glory of completing it. One of the tasks we can give kids (that is super important for their adult life!) is "hey, I'm trusting you to finish this assignment out of my sight in a timely manner."

Hastings
Dec 30, 2008

litany of gulps posted:

Then explain what is the way to go about it. Nobody anywhere is arguing for homework for really young kids, but you are vehemently attacking the concept as a whole without much context, while attempting to sell a philosophy that does not at all align with the ideas you are attacking. What do you think a student should do? You certainly can talk about what teachers shouldn't do and what students shouldn't do, can you do the same for what they should?

As I said before, and some would disagree, I think we should be moving towards having students consistently be working on individual projects. There could be regular check ins with the teacher to make sure the student is on task and able to apply their knowledge. Maybe by altering on and off between a teacher led day and an independent work day throughout the week, with supplemental information on the class side or in a packet at the beginning of the term for those with no computer access. I'm sure there would be bumps in the road towards implementing it. But after some time I believe that kind of model would put more responsibility on the student for their education and force them to find something to work for.

Accretionist
Nov 7, 2012
I BELIEVE IN STUPID CONSPIRACY THEORIES
Any research or personal comments on barring low-performing students from extra-curriculars?

I just googled a couple articles and it looks ambiguous.

My childhood was terrible and it affected my grades. Access to after-school activities would've been a god send.

Consequently, I'm biased toward eliminating academic requirements for sports, drama, chess clubs, etc. and it looks like participation in such activities is generally neutral or contributive to student performance.

Hawkperson
Jun 20, 2003

How big of a class are you thinking for this? 20 kids per teacher? Edit: asking Hastings I mean

To Accretionist: gently caress YEAH I hate it when kids are pulled from my class because they suck at math. What the gently caress is that teaching them. Honestly I'd fully support cutting all "intervention" classes that replace a kid's elective. But then, of course I would, so no one wants to listen about it. :/

Hawkperson fucked around with this message at 05:09 on May 3, 2017

Okuteru
Nov 10, 2007

Choose this life you're on your own

Accretionist posted:

Any research or personal comments on barring low-performing students from extra-curriculars?

I just googled a couple articles and it looks ambiguous.

My childhood was terrible and it affected my grades. Access to after-school activities would've been a god send.

Consequently, I'm biased toward eliminating academic requirements for sports, drama, chess clubs, etc. and it looks like participation in such activities is generally neutral or contributive to student performance.

Eh, After-School programs vary greatly as well. I work for one for a Middle School in a Minority Majority area and getting these kids to participate in any of the activities my group had planned is like pulling teeth. At times, it feels more like daycare where students threaten to get me fired for daring to ask them to put their phone away. I feel for you teachers. I really do.

Okuteru fucked around with this message at 11:42 on May 3, 2017

Ogmius815
Aug 25, 2005
centrism is a hell of a drug

I don't understand homework outside of math. Math homework is obviously important (or at least it was for me) because repetition is the way to build that skill. For other subjects homework other than reading and the occasional writing assignment always seems like a waste of time. The amount of work assigned in college always seemed more sensible, and outside of math and science it was almost always just reading.

Hastings
Dec 30, 2008

Hawkgirl posted:

How big of a class are you thinking for this? 20 kids per teacher? Edit: asking Hastings I mean

To Accretionist: gently caress YEAH I hate it when kids are pulled from my class because they suck at math. What the gently caress is that teaching them. Honestly I'd fully support cutting all "intervention" classes that replace a kid's elective. But then, of course I would, so no one wants to listen about it. :/

I would be okay with up to 30 kids, but preferably 20-25. The "check in" days could have the first 15 meet with the teacher and the second group the next day. Also then, you'd have to consider setting aside certain days for the kids to show final presentations and such.

Hastings fucked around with this message at 06:08 on May 3, 2017

Quidthulhu
Dec 17, 2003

Stand down, men! It's only smooching!

So this is all they would do? Because you just took up two entire class periods at the very least for conferences with 15 kids and nothing else why they worked indoendently. When would they learn how to do the tasks necessary for this project?

Oxphocker
Aug 17, 2005

PLEASE DO NOT BACKSEAT MODERATE

Hastings posted:

I would be okay with up to 30 kids, but preferably 20-25. The "check in" days could have the first 15 meet with the teacher and the second group the next day. Also then, you'd have to consider setting aside certain days for the kids to show final presentations and such.

Having been in that situation for 2 years, I can say that anything more than 15-20 is unmanageable. Also it's incredibly difficult where you have to be an expert in everything and you're essentially leading 20 separate lessons all day long. It's really hard to teach the basic skills everyone needs and if anyone comes in less than grade level, it's incredibly difficult. You're describing the basis of a lot of Project Based Learning methods. At the secondary level, it's a lot like being an elementary teacher for secondary students. It also doesn't line up very well with the modern standardized movement and testing...we end up with a lot of seniors who have gaps because their projects don't hit everything.

Owlofcreamcheese
May 22, 2005
Probation
Can't post for 9 years!
Buglord

Oxphocker posted:

First off... gently caress you. You're exactly part of the problem when it comes to the education system right now. "omg, teachers have it sooo easy, lol" Get bent is what I say. Best nominal hours? Have you ever actually taught a class in your life? Imagine going the majority of the day where you can't even take a bathroom break because you can't leave the room or the kids alone. Imagine coming in early to prep and leaving late to grade and using your prep for meetings and whatever else you can do so you don't have to take it home until 10pm each night. Imagine a profession where you have to keep going back year after year for additional education just to keep your job and your work doesn't pay for the costs but you do out of your own pocket. Imagine having to buy all your supplies out of your own pocket because the district doesn't have the funds for it. Anyone who wants to say teaching in the US is a cush job can go suck a dick. The only teachers in the US that have it good are the ones in really well off public and private schools where they can actually afford poo poo. It pisses me off to no end, the number of people who have ZERO loving CLUE what it's actually like to teach day after day...dealing with whiney overmedicated, phone addicted, bitchy kids who are only looking for the path of least resistance and their loving clueless enabling parents who think they know what teachers are supposed to be doing when they've never taught a day in their life...but OH NO! I know MY kid! Bullshit...your kid acts completely differently around you and when you aren't there and I wish everyday I could just film them and show it to you like an episode of cops so you could see the actual reality. So again, gently caress you. :commissar:

...that being said, I think a lot of the reality regarding the problem is that we have completely removed any sort of accountability/responsibility from students and parents in the educational system. Teachers are expected to be miracle workers and 100% responsible for a lifetime of setbacks, poverty, etc when in reality many times we are busting our asses daily trying to make even the smallest impact for some of these kids. I would love to have a flipped classroom design for my social studies classes...but I can't get the kids to do the basic prep work needed in order for that to work out. I've been working at a charter school the last three years where we started out completely 100% project based on the student interests...for the majority of kids, nothing got done. If students don't have an innate drive to want to pursue educational projects, even with staff there helping and guiding them...your only alternative is a more traditional model. We tried scaffolding, creating pre-made projects that were just plug and play, even walking groups through a single project and it was like pulling teeth to just get the smallest amount of work from students even when they had all that choice. Most just choose to opt-out and not do anything. We had a few exceptions, but by far the majority were failing badly. Then we stated some more traditional teaching to get them caught up on credits and now our scores are going up and kids are getting closer to meeting credits for the year. Are they as happy about it? No of course not...we're actually forcing them to do more work now which in their eyes is horrible because something is actually being expected of them. The learned helplessness, lack of coping skills, lack of social skills, reliance on technology, and enabling parents/society are killing US education and making it's impossible for teachers to make progress in a lot of schools right now. I teach 7-12th grade right now and in my classes, they have 1 assignment per WEEK on average and I have trouble getting that from them. They can use their notes on the tests and yet average like 70% at best. In my classes, if you turn in all the work...even it's not all the best, you'll probably still pass and I have kids fail even that because they can't be bothered to turn it in despite in class time, everything being accessible on drive 24/7, my being available throughout the day, and basically doing everything except moving the pencil myself. I'm extremely lenient on grading and even accept work from the whole block all the way up to the last day. I modify heavily for SpEd students on top of all of that. Yet, I still get people like you who think I'm not doing enough...

Yeah....teachers are the ones at fault here :allears:

Okay, this whole rant seems like you are just exploding then saying back the same thing I said. That teachers have the most off the clock work of any profession despite having relatively good on the clock hours.

Hawkperson
Jun 20, 2003

Hastings posted:

I would be okay with up to 30 kids, but preferably 20-25. The "check in" days could have the first 15 meet with the teacher and the second group the next day. Also then, you'd have to consider setting aside certain days for the kids to show final presentations and such.

Yeah, all I can think of is "ok, but what about the 5 kids who see an opening when the teacher's working with the other 15 students and take that opportunity to start bullying the other kids." Like I think you're advocating for a much bigger revolution in how we teach in the US than you realize.

The class sizes at my MS are required to be 37 or lower, which means they are 35-37 kids. Class size reduction has been a big issue in education (and gently caress yeah, smaller classes for everyone else would be great. Give me all the leftovers) but it is incredibly difficult to fund. To implement your idea at my school we'd need to almost double the number of teachers at our school, or actually, just halve the number of kids, because we do not have any more classrooms for more teachers. We would have to build a second middle school to accommodate all the students in our district.

This is all as an aside to your core idea, I know, but I am curious to know your thoughts on the logistics. Is it your opinion that we should basically scrap our schools as is to implement smaller class sizes/more teachers for project based learning? And if yeah, what does your ideal school look like as far as schedule, classes offered, and layout? Sounds like you might want some team teaching going on as well (solves the bullying issue at least, and doesn't waste the 15/30 kids' time that aren't starting their project).

Timeless Appeal
May 28, 2006

litany of gulps posted:

It's more complicated than this, though, isn't it? There are some grade levels where I don't have to prep much at all, because I've done it before. But I don't like staying in the same place, and that complicates things. I have a dozen resources and readings and plans for the British Industrial Revolution. I hit a stumbling block when approaching it from the American perspective. It's the same thing, the questions and presentations aren't much different, but a new perspective is a complication and adds planning time.

I'm experienced enough that with no preparation I can execute a reasonable enough lesson. I say no preparation, but I find the readings and think about the arc of the lesson in advance. I prep it all in the morning. It's more complicated than that, though. If I'm teaching AP Literature, these are 18 year old kids about to go on to college. I can't have them grade each other. They need individual feedback. I have 120 essays of 3-5 pages each, and I may have a bunch of those. It's complicated.

I can build a solid lesson in 30-45 minutes. I have a tremendous amount of background knowledge and context and experience. I know how to ask the right questions. I know how to present the right texts. I know how to balance lecture and independent and group work.

Next year I'll have 4 preps, as I understand it. I'll have one period off every other day. I'll have nearly 200 students. It's complicated. There's no escaping some of those basic facts, no strategy or work-hack or whatever that turns them into a non-issue. I'm not fresh off of the assembly line.
I'm sorry, my post was speaking from narrow experience, but I think the bigger point I wanted to get across is that it's not really the amount of work. Even if you get it to what is essentially a 9-5 schedule and hardly do work at home, it's still an uniquely demanding and draining experience. Trying to quantify it in terms of hours isn't really doing it justice. But I definitely wrote way too broadly.

Ogmius815 posted:

I don't understand homework outside of math. Math homework is obviously important (or at least it was for me) because repetition is the way to build that skill. For other subjects homework other than reading and the occasional writing assignment always seems like a waste of time. The amount of work assigned in college always seemed more sensible, and outside of math and science it was almost always just reading.
Here's the thing though, kids need models for how to do a lot of poo poo. The kids I teach don't know how to read meaningfully and don't have people at home to guide them to do that. So giving a five to fifteen minute writing assignment that they do after the reading isn't intended to police their reading but rather guide it. A lot of kids have an easier time if they have a question in their head that is jumpstarting their brain and acting as a guide through the text.

litany of gulps
Jun 11, 2001

Fun Shoe

Hawkgirl posted:

Honestly I'd fully support cutting all "intervention" classes that replace a kid's elective. But then, of course I would, so no one wants to listen about it. :/

Intervention classes are pretty hosed up, from my experience. If they aren't very thoughtfully made, they just end up as a mess.

"Yeah kid, you get an extra English class, with all the dumb kids. You know, the dumb kid class, where you belong. Welcome home."

Then you get a lovely blend of ESL kids, kids with behavior problems due to poverty and home life, and burnouts - all lumped together and implicitly told that they're stupid as a premise for being there. The ESL kids are usually sort of upset about the injustice of it all, the kids with behavior problems feed off of a desire to show how much of a gently caress up they can be to the other gently caress ups, and the burnouts use the distraction caused by the behavior problem kids to take a nap.

Oracle
Oct 9, 2004

Just a heads up for those in/with ties to Illinois, but the Assembly is attempting to pass Bill 213: The 'School Choice' Act, which is another attempt at getting school vouchers through. Find your state senator and tell them to oppose this bill.

Accretionist
Nov 7, 2012
I BELIEVE IN STUPID CONSPIRACY THEORIES
Any strong opinions on relaxing GED test-eligibility requirements? The program requires you to be 16+ and not enrolled in high school with states being able to add restrictions.

The utility would providing an early exit for students who are serious or in bad schools.

PT6A
Jan 5, 2006

Public school teachers are callous dictators who won't lift a finger to stop children from peeing in my plane

Accretionist posted:

Any strong opinions on relaxing GED test-eligibility requirements? The program requires you to be 16+ and not enrolled in high school with states being able to add restrictions.

The utility would providing an early exit for students who are serious or in bad schools.

Assuming students under 16 would take advantage of this path in large numbers, you'd then have the problem of what to do with a bunch of 15-16 year-olds (let's say) that don't really have the capability to work full-time, live independently, and often would not have the financial means for higher education or even the ability to obtain student loans.

Passing high school is basically a piece of cake for any motivated person, the reason it takes so long is because society deems it attractive to not have a bunch of teenagers looking for something to fill their time. Hell, my school wouldn't let me take additional spare periods even though I graduated with more than a semester's worth of extra credits.

Hawkperson
Jun 20, 2003

Accretionist posted:

Any strong opinions on relaxing GED test-eligibility requirements? The program requires you to be 16+ and not enrolled in high school with states being able to add restrictions.

The utility would providing an early exit for students who are serious or in bad schools.

How many bad schools do you think there are in the US? And why do you thinking fixing them involves encouraging certain students to abandon them? This is basically the issue with charter schools/vouchers. Why do you feel like the GED is better than a HS education?

Oxphocker
Aug 17, 2005

PLEASE DO NOT BACKSEAT MODERATE

Accretionist posted:

Any strong opinions on relaxing GED test-eligibility requirements? The program requires you to be 16+ and not enrolled in high school with states being able to add restrictions.

The utility would providing an early exit for students who are serious or in bad schools.

Hell no. If anything it should be hard to pass. Way too often we see people choosing the path of least resistance and being able to just test out of school is a terrible idea because while someone might be intellectually capable of cramming for a test, it doesn't mean that have the emotional/mental maturity or life skills to be successful out in the adult world. Sadly, people rarely realize that schools are more than just math, English, social studies, science, etc...it's also about learning social skills and life skills to be a productive member of society.

BigFactory
Sep 17, 2002
Wouldn't it be different if we had a more robust junior college system in the us?

Okuteru
Nov 10, 2007

Choose this life you're on your own

BigFactory posted:

Wouldn't it be different if we had a more robust junior college system in the us?

That would require a change in the public mindset of seeing Junior colleges as more than backup plans for students too poor or dumb to attend "real" college.

BigFactory
Sep 17, 2002
Yeah, that's what I said.

PT6A
Jan 5, 2006

Public school teachers are callous dictators who won't lift a finger to stop children from peeing in my plane
It would be different, but it wouldn't really fix the problem of good students in bad schools (because presumably the junior colleges would be just as bad/underfunded), and it could only be a get-ahead plan for motivated students until you run up against the issue of simply needing a certain amount of life experience and maturity to handle and/or benefit from some parts of an actual university education (frankly, even 18 is too young in a lot of ways).

I'm starting to understand why 80% of the gifted program I was in was coming up with ways to keep us from being bored out of our minds and going deeper into the material rather than simply trying to cover more of it.

Accretionist
Nov 7, 2012
I BELIEVE IN STUPID CONSPIRACY THEORIES
I find the maturity/socialization angle persuasive. Although if testing out of classes meant taking more electives, I'd be inclined to see value in that.

Also, community colleges rule. They're purposeful and (comparatively) cheap.

Hawkgirl posted:

How many bad schools do you think there are in the US? And why do you thinking fixing them involves encouraging certain students to abandon them? This is basically the issue with charter schools/vouchers. Why do you feel like the GED is better than a HS education?

You've listed a series of accusations in the form of baseless questions. The upside is time-saved and it helps the students, who are the limiting factors.

Arglebargle III
Feb 21, 2006

What better way to socialize children than to put them in a room with 30 people 8 hours a day for 12 years with no escape? That's an accurate model of society.

Hawkperson
Jun 20, 2003

Accretionist posted:

I find the maturity/socialization angle persuasive. Although if testing out of classes meant taking more electives, I'd be inclined to see value in that.

Also, community colleges rule. They're purposeful and (comparatively) cheap.


You've listed a series of accusations in the form of baseless questions. The upside is time-saved and it helps the students, who are the limiting factors.

Nah, I see why you're saying that, but it's not the intent. My basic question is, why is this a thing that needs fixing? You assert that this would help students, I'd like to see some support for that.

Hastings
Dec 30, 2008

Accretionist posted:

I find the maturity/socialization angle persuasive. Although if testing out of classes meant taking more electives, I'd be inclined to see value in that.

Also, community colleges rule. They're purposeful and (comparatively) cheap.


You've listed a series of accusations in the form of baseless questions. The upside is time-saved and it helps the students, who are the limiting factors.

Another point in your favor: community/junior colleges also have access to lots of clubs and events, all filled with a variety of age groups. So there is that socialization and diversity practice built in. With school, it is only peers. I think testing out and gaining early college experience can be great for certain kids. Certainly not every teenager can handle it, but it should be an option. I remember we did the same kind of program during my high school years and it was a life saver when it came to college loans.

Hawkperson
Jun 20, 2003

There's a couple of places that do a "middle college" program, like this: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Middle_College_Program which seems like it might be the kind of solution you're looking for.

Adbot
ADBOT LOVES YOU

PT6A
Jan 5, 2006

Public school teachers are callous dictators who won't lift a finger to stop children from peeing in my plane

Accretionist posted:

I find the maturity/socialization angle persuasive. Although if testing out of classes meant taking more electives, I'd be inclined to see value in that.

Also, community colleges rule. They're purposeful and (comparatively) cheap.


You've listed a series of accusations in the form of baseless questions. The upside is time-saved and it helps the students, who are the limiting factors.

You need qualified teachers and facilities for electives, some may require very expensive equipment, and some might not be popular enough to justify using a teacher's time unless you have an extremely large student base like universities do.

  • Locked thread