|
|
Rank: Advanced Member
Groups: Member
Joined: 10/31/2009
Posts: 1,025
|
cuddles wrote:Nancy wrote:Happytransplant1 wrote:Nancy wrote:
Why does teaching all kids degrade education? What do hard to educate kids have to do with Everyday Math and the adoption of Whole Language to teach reading? Which kids do you think should be denied an education so we can boost the "overall quality?"
Do you remember tracking? A system of assigning kids to a classroom based on ability. They are many cons, but generally I think that it is beneficial for both high and low ability and/or quick or slow learners. (Noting that slower learners may not equate to low ability.) I do remember tracking. I think that mainstreaming was a mistake, but not the idea that every child should be educated.  How do we educate all children to basic proficiency levels with such limited resources? This weekend we were discussing the closure of Wing Academy. Those high needs (cognitive and physical) will be sent back to neighborhood schools. Of course, the kids already at those neighborhood schools will see a decline in their education. There just aren't enough resources to go around.
”Republicans…we work hard so you don’t have to”.
|
|
Rank: Advanced Member
Groups: Member
Joined: 6/11/2007
Posts: 3,071
|
cuddles wrote:How do we educate all children to basic proficiency levels with such limited resources? This weekend we were discussing the closure of Wing Academy. Those high needs (cognitive and physical) will be sent back to neighborhood schools. Of course, the kids already at those neighborhood schools will see a decline in their education. There just aren't enough resources to go around. Thanks cuddles. Nancy’s form of advocacy is interesting. I've said before it reminds me of how Belling argues. I take as a given that having a goal to educate every child will degrade the testing results of the entire group, compared to, let’s say, the universe of children who come from families with parents/advocates who would take some initiative to get them to school and educated. That doesn’t mean that I’m not in favor of universal education through whatever age the law mandates. It just means that I understand there may be compromise involved; that I’m dealing with reality, in this case that group test scores will probably drop if the measured group includes kids with no parental advocate, kids who would not be in school without the force of the law and social programs. Note to beck: fix your post with the graphic, please. It's screwing up the page. A little smaller would be nice.
In a completely rational society, the best of us would be teachers and the rest of us would have to settle for something less, because passing civilization along from one generation to the next ought to be the highest honor and the highest responsibility anyone could have. -Lee Iacocca
|
|
Rank: Advanced Member
Groups: Member
Joined: 4/13/2007
Posts: 10,911
Location: East Side Wauwatosa
|
My form of advocacy is that I think that all children should be educated. That's hardly radical. I'm well aware that we don't have the resources. I think we could and should have the resources. I've advocated more money for schools so that all children can be educated. Again...not radical and not Bellingesque at all.
If you're referring to my response to your video game post...you shouldn't have brought it into the discussion in the first place. It was a diversion from the main post and a subject about which you clearly know nothing.
Hitchens’ Razor: What can be asserted without evidence can be dismissed without evidence.
|
|
Rank: Advanced Member
Groups: Member
Joined: 6/11/2007
Posts: 3,071
|
Nancy wrote:a subject about which you clearly know nothing. Clearly. But, with Wikipedia, that's never stopped anybody from commenting on this site, as evidenced by the archives. This time, though, my expert adviser is a nephew who is not only a serious gamer, but also has books full of Yu-Gi-Oh! cards. I know you're surrounded by these types so I defer to your expertise.
In a completely rational society, the best of us would be teachers and the rest of us would have to settle for something less, because passing civilization along from one generation to the next ought to be the highest honor and the highest responsibility anyone could have. -Lee Iacocca
|
|
Rank: Advanced Member
Groups: Member
Joined: 2/13/2007
Posts: 3,204
|
izzie wrote:cuddles wrote:How do we educate all children to basic proficiency levels with such limited resources? This weekend we were discussing the closure of Wing Academy. Those high needs (cognitive and physical) will be sent back to neighborhood schools. Of course, the kids already at those neighborhood schools will see a decline in their education. There just aren't enough resources to go around. Thanks cuddles. Nancy’s form of advocacy is interesting. I've said before it reminds me of how Belling argues. I take as a given that having a goal to educate every child will degrade the testing results of the entire group, compared to, let’s say, the universe of children who come from families with parents/advocates who would take some initiative to get them to school and educated.That doesn’t mean that I’m not in favor of universal education through whatever age the law mandates. It just means that I understand there may be compromise involved; that I’m dealing with reality, in this case that group test scores will probably drop if the measured group includes kids with no parental advocate, kids who would not be in school without the force of the law and social programs. Note to beck: fix your post with the graphic, please. It's screwing up the page. A little smaller would be nice. How many times have we heard all the yelling about test scores? Somehow as Americans we think we can have it all on a limited budget. It isn't going to happen.
Don't outsmart your common sense.
|
|
Rank: Advanced Member
Groups: Member
Joined: 8/14/2008
Posts: 431
Location: WI
|
Why are most other countries able to get results with more limited budgets? If it was all about how much money you spend, the US would have much higher test scores.
If there is any one secret of success, it lies in the ability to get the other person's point of view and see things from that person's angle as well as from your own. Henry Ford
|
|
Rank: Advanced Member
Groups: Member
Joined: 6/11/2007
Posts: 3,071
|
commonsense2008 wrote:Why are most other countries able to get results with more limited budgets? If it was all about how much money you spend, the US would have much higher test scores. Not always more limited. http://www.npr.org/2011/01/28/133301331/the-new-republic-the-u-s-could-learn-from-finland
In a completely rational society, the best of us would be teachers and the rest of us would have to settle for something less, because passing civilization along from one generation to the next ought to be the highest honor and the highest responsibility anyone could have. -Lee Iacocca
|
|
Rank: Advanced Member
Groups: Member
Joined: 8/14/2008
Posts: 431
Location: WI
|
I’m confused, I’m pretty sure Finland spends less money per student than the US. Here is a country that appears to be doing a good job for less money than we spend, so how is our problem budgetary.
If there is any one secret of success, it lies in the ability to get the other person's point of view and see things from that person's angle as well as from your own. Henry Ford
|
|
Rank: Advanced Member
Groups: Member
Joined: 2/13/2007
Posts: 3,204
|
commonsense2008 wrote:Why are most other countries able to get results with more limited budgets? If it was all about how much money you spend, the US would have much higher test scores. I agree. My husband is from Germany. They don't have extra-curriculars at school. No band, sports, student government, etc. They also track kids to vocational schools in middle school, so some are done with traditional school in 9th grade. The majority do not go on to college. Special needs children never make it into "regular" schools either. We could be like China and stop educating most females past 8th grade. Or we could be like Japan and test kids to get into high school. Some will make it, some will not. If you want to have to the top scores, like the other countries, focus ONLY on academics and nothing else at school. Leave sports and extras to private clubs. Only test the top half of the kids in school and weed out the rest.
Don't outsmart your common sense.
|
|
Rank: Advanced Member
Groups: Member
Joined: 2/13/2007
Posts: 3,204
|
commonsense2008 wrote:I’m confused, I’m pretty sure Finland spends less money per student than the US. Here is a country that appears to be doing a good job for less money than we spend, so how is our problem budgetary. What's the poverty rate in Finland? What's the poverty rate in America? What's the poverty rate in Milwaukee?
Don't outsmart your common sense.
|
|
Rank: Advanced Member
Groups: Member
Joined: 2/22/2007
Posts: 2,762
Location: wauwatosa
|
zephyr wrote:cuddles wrote:izzie wrote:Rick Perry famously wanted to eliminate the Department of Education (along with just about every other GOP candidate). I admit they’re on the right track with that one.
I agree with them and you, Izzie. In Wauwatosa, what say did parents have when the district decided on Everyday Math? If parents want to have a say in curriculum choices, they actually have to say something. They do to little or no action. More should become involved at the district level, call but follow through, attend School Board meetings where these programs are voted on.
TT
|
|
|
Guest |