|
On January 09 2014 10:13 SixStrings wrote:
Wow, this really blows my mind.
So his point is that when an educator raises children, does it right, and invests time and money into it, the kids can turn out alright?
He's right, what the hell do we need compulsory education and mandatory school attendance for?
Surely, those parents who are too poor, too lazy, too stupid or too apathetic to give their children a thorough home-schooling all by themselves, covering around twelve different topics at the high school level, are a negligible minority.
To play the devils advocate, I actually think its a majority. The issue is that for the kids that know exactly what they are doing, they still have to go to school, and all that does is hinder their success.
The people that are at the top are not generalists, they are the absolute experts of their field. Generalists fit into middle management, but the human race needs specialists to actually progress. Imagine if every doctor in the world had 10 years more education in their field, also add to the fact that children are much better learners than adults, its a big deal.
|
On January 09 2014 05:38 mizU wrote:
The whole idea of taking hundreds of kids and forcing them to learn the same things the same way is terrible.
That being said, no one seems interested in developing solutions for the kids that don't learn the way they're being taught, and are a lot more creative than schools will allow.
Doing such a thing is indeed terrible, but the past 50+ years of educational research have been specifically geared towards recognizing exactly this and working to develop solutions (contextualization of problems, representations of problems, problem solving, open-ended questions, collaborative learning, extensions and explorations, etc. etc. etc.)  A good teacher already recognizes and utilizes these applications, although teachers may be pressed for time because of curricular pressure, which may occasionally force direct instruction.
|
Holy copy pasta batman. Also this argument sounds like it was cooked up by a 15 year old who thought s/he was way too smart for school. There are a surprisingly large amount of people in the US that don't have basic literacy skills. If education wasn't compulsory, a far larger segment of the population would be that way. I think there is a decent argument to be made for there to be more options as far as technical high schools (someone who wants to be a plumber maybe doesn't need to learn world history), but it seems sort of silly to think that kindergarten through middle school could be easily ignored for most kids.
Also children are at a strange place when it comes to consenting to certain things. They're really too young to be making decisions about themselves and their future, but we also want to protect them from the potentially bad decisionmaking of their parents and guardians. Compulsory education ensures that kids don't get unduly screwed because their parent thinks that education isn't worth the effort.
|
On January 09 2014 06:40 Cheren wrote:
To me there's no shittier feeling in the world than being forced to try to teach an unmotivated student. I don't think it's realistic to let unmotivated students just not show up, but it would provide a much better experience for teachers and motivated students alike.
I agree, but I also think it's the job of the parents and teachers (working together) to find a way to generate interest in education for children.
|
On January 09 2014 07:03 sluggaslamoo wrote:
School was very detrimental to my career and a complete waste of time.
Everything that mattered to my career could not be learned at school, and I knew that and not even my parents respected that at the time.
I knew exactly what I wanted to to be from the age of 9 and what I needed to learn to get there. In the end I spent all my hours outside of school learning what I actually needed to learn to become successful. To the point of skipping classes to do so.
In the end, the only metric that mattered for my career was what I learned outside of school, and not in school.
If school is about learning social interaction then why isn't organisational behaviour being taught? let alone the tiny lunch breaks we get and the fact we aren't allowed to talk in class.
A high school teacher is not going to be able to show me the path to success, if they could, they wouldn't be high school teachers they would be entrepreneurs. Yet most teach as if what they know is valuable and worthwhile.
Thank god I was one of those "lazy" troublemakers who didn't turn up to class because if it wasn't for that I would be earning half of what I am now.
1. Out of curiosity, what's your profession?
2. Organizational behavior is often taught in schools, regardless of the class. Many teachers work to provide a collaborative learning environment for students to problem solve and work together.
3. If you honestly think that people become teachers because it was a second-choice profession because they failed at becoming entrepreneurs, then you have a lot to learn, and it's dismissive, toxic, and ignorant opinions like yours that's the reason why educators lack appreciation in some cultures (yet are revered in the ones where their hard work and passion is recognized).
|
On January 09 2014 07:50 Terranist wrote:
i don't think you should tell people you are red before they vote, it creates bias.
I thought about not explicitly saying what color I was, but then I realized it'd be hard to have a discussion afterwards... and pretty much anyone who's read my blogs (or my tagline below my posts) already know that I'm very passionate about education, being an educator, and possibly unmarried/ without kids. ::shrugs::
On January 09 2014 08:36 sths wrote:To Darkplasmaball. It's fantastic that a teacher like yourself is passionate and open minded enough about education to have a discussion with someone who has the position of Blue. If you would like to explore the issue of unschooling a bit more, I would recommend two authors John Holt and John Taylor Gatto. Both were school teachers for many decades so they speak from personal experience. I recommend Instead of Education from Holt and Dumbing us Down by John Gatto. Those two flesh out the arguments against compulsory education and I think it will give you a much better overview of what the opposite thinks.
Thanks for the recommendations! 
|
On January 09 2014 09:22 ninazerg wrote:
REALLY? People are picking RED?
I didn't go to school and have no formal education, and I'm doing just fine. Look, I can write and everything.
9 x 8 = 72
I can do arithmetic.
The capital of Bolivia is La Paz.
I know geography.
The Treaty of Ghent was signed in 1814.
I know history.
Blue is completely right about everything, and I don't think public education should be mandatory.
I can never tell when you're being sarcastic, because you're always so crass and clever.
On January 09 2014 10:13 SixStrings wrote:
Wow, this really blows my mind.
So his point is that when an educator raises children, does it right, and invests time and money into it, the kids can turn out alright?
He's right, what the hell do we need compulsory education and mandatory school attendance for?
Surely, those parents who are too poor, too lazy, too stupid or too apathetic to give their children a thorough home-schooling all by themselves, covering around twelve different topics at the high school level, are a negligible minority.
To be fair, I don't think he was saying that everyone should homeschool their children. He just said that schooling shouldn't be mandatory for all children (so those parents who are particularly intellectual and affluent may be successful in raising their kids on their own without the help of a school, according to him).
|
Well, but when schooling isn't mandatory, you will breed excellence in a select few who have brilliant, involved parents and millions of illiterate kids who are as educated as your average Dark Age peasant.
Think of the horrible emotional and intellectual damage abusive parents, completely indifferent parents or Christian parents inflict on their children just in their free time. Would you really want some moron who thinks the world is 8000 years old be solely in charge of a kid's education?
|
1001 YEARS KESPAJAIL22272 Posts
I made a lot of friends at school so it was 100% worth it
|
On January 09 2014 11:10 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:Show nested quote +On January 09 2014 07:03 sluggaslamoo wrote:
School was very detrimental to my career and a complete waste of time.
Everything that mattered to my career could not be learned at school, and I knew that and not even my parents respected that at the time.
I knew exactly what I wanted to to be from the age of 9 and what I needed to learn to get there. In the end I spent all my hours outside of school learning what I actually needed to learn to become successful. To the point of skipping classes to do so.
In the end, the only metric that mattered for my career was what I learned outside of school, and not in school.
If school is about learning social interaction then why isn't organisational behaviour being taught? let alone the tiny lunch breaks we get and the fact we aren't allowed to talk in class.
A high school teacher is not going to be able to show me the path to success, if they could, they wouldn't be high school teachers they would be entrepreneurs. Yet most teach as if what they know is valuable and worthwhile.
Thank god I was one of those "lazy" troublemakers who didn't turn up to class because if it wasn't for that I would be earning half of what I am now. 1. Out of curiosity, what's your profession? 2. Organizational behavior is often taught in schools, regardless of the class. Many teachers work to provide a collaborative learning environment for students to problem solve and work together. 3. If you honestly think that people become teachers because it was a second-choice profession because they failed at becoming entrepreneurs, then you have a lot to learn, and it's dismissive, toxic, and ignorant opinions like yours that's the reason why educators lack appreciation in some cultures (yet are revered in the ones where their hard work and passion is recognized).
1. Software Developer. I started learning programming at 9 years old and never looked back. Although my father gave me a programming CD at that point because I told him I wanted to learn it (my father has no expertise in programming or IT in general). I was still only allowed to use the computer on weekends, so I'd learn how to program without a computer on my off days. I would spend almost all my spare time on learning how to program, although I had a balanced lifestyle, I did a lot of sports when I wasn't programming.
At 13 he would tell me to stop playing games, I never told him I made them. At the same time, I had 0 interest in any of my classes, and would receive a lot of detentions for turning up late to school and whatnot. I also did the minimal amount of homework, got shouted at by teachers for drawing in my book instead of doing class work.
At 15 I told him I wanted to become a games developer, he got really angry and told me its too difficult, ill never achieve it (or something along those lines). I was doing badly at school and apparently this was the cause. He moved me to a different school. I ended up skipping classes even more.
At 19 I pushed and pushed until finally he accepted it and now is very happy that I did it. Unfortunately Australia is a pretty bad place for doing games development, but I'm doing pretty well as a Ruby developer, its still my dream and slowly working towards getting there without having to work in a shitty environment like Activision's.
2. Can you give me an example of this? "Many teachers work to provide a collaborative learning environment for students to problem solve and work together. " isn't really teaching organisation behaviour. If you've done organisational behaviour at university that is what I'm talking about. It has to be structured, group work doesn't really help in actually developing communication skills unless the participants are very mature.
3. I think you missed the point although it was dismissive, sorry. If I am taught by a maths teacher, I come to expect to be taught maths, not to be taught that I will fail in life if I don't learn it. I should be allowed to by choice, not partake in a class I have no interest in, if I can prove that I'm doing something worthwhile.
This choice wasn't given to me, instead of trying to find alternate strategies, instead I was treated as if there was something wrong with me. I don't need school teachers who don't have industry experience to teach me how my career is going to end up.
My friend had a similar experience who was a bit of a dropout, was told he would never amount to anything. Ended up becoming a fisherman and doing well for himself. This happens far too often when a teacher judges a student by his grades, and this only happens because the teacher has no real world experience and doesn't know any better himself.
Most teachers feel threatened when their students don't participate, and feel a need for "tough love" I guess, but what they are actually doing is getting revenge, and justifying it by feeling as if they are setting the student straight. I have barely met any teachers that haven't acted in this way.
|
Blazinghand
United States25562 Posts
I have plenty of anecdotes about awesome teachers, but that doesn't make me right; just as your anecdotes about shitty teachers don't make you right. It's just anecdotal. Now you're right it didn't work for you but does it scale?
|
On January 09 2014 11:41 Blazinghand wrote:
I have plenty of anecdotes about awesome teachers, but that doesn't make me right; just as your anecdotes about shitty teachers don't make you right. It's just anecdotal. Now you're right it didn't work for you but does it scale?
What would your awesome teachers have done if you were a bad student who didn't give a shit?
The only way I can prove a point is through anecdotes though, that's the trouble. You can't discuss this issue with statistics, only from experiences.
You're right in that it doesn't mean I'm right, but what's right and wrong doesn't concern this debate, its about stating a case.
|
Blazinghand
United States25562 Posts
From what I can tell, there weren't any bad students who didn't give a shit. We had all kinds of sweet options so you could basically do whatever you want. It was an amazing school, really. I definitely knew a guy who didn't give a shit about the normal math, science etc offerings, so he sort of muddled through things for his core classes, and he took electives in robotics and programming that he really loved. The teachers were always pretty awesome and excited about the material, even when the students would be subpar (which happened at times). He ended up making friends on our robotics team that included my friends, which is how we came to know each other. We both work at start-ups now and are living the dream.
But again, anecdotes. For all I know, my school is the exception rather than the rule.
This isn't to say that the school didn't have bad teachers, but usually they only lasted for a year or so before they got removed, or moved on, or whatever.
|
On January 09 2014 11:32 sluggaslamoo wrote:Show nested quote +On January 09 2014 11:10 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:On January 09 2014 07:03 sluggaslamoo wrote:
School was very detrimental to my career and a complete waste of time.
Everything that mattered to my career could not be learned at school, and I knew that and not even my parents respected that at the time.
I knew exactly what I wanted to to be from the age of 9 and what I needed to learn to get there. In the end I spent all my hours outside of school learning what I actually needed to learn to become successful. To the point of skipping classes to do so.
In the end, the only metric that mattered for my career was what I learned outside of school, and not in school.
If school is about learning social interaction then why isn't organisational behaviour being taught? let alone the tiny lunch breaks we get and the fact we aren't allowed to talk in class.
A high school teacher is not going to be able to show me the path to success, if they could, they wouldn't be high school teachers they would be entrepreneurs. Yet most teach as if what they know is valuable and worthwhile.
Thank god I was one of those "lazy" troublemakers who didn't turn up to class because if it wasn't for that I would be earning half of what I am now. 1. Out of curiosity, what's your profession? 2. Organizational behavior is often taught in schools, regardless of the class. Many teachers work to provide a collaborative learning environment for students to problem solve and work together. 3. If you honestly think that people become teachers because it was a second-choice profession because they failed at becoming entrepreneurs, then you have a lot to learn, and it's dismissive, toxic, and ignorant opinions like yours that's the reason why educators lack appreciation in some cultures (yet are revered in the ones where their hard work and passion is recognized). 1. Software Developer. I started learning programming at 9 years old and never looked back. Although my father gave me a programming CD at that point because I told him I wanted to learn it (my father has no expertise in programming or IT in general). I was still only allowed to use the computer on weekends, so I'd learn how to program without a computer on my off days. I would spend almost all my spare time on learning how to program, although I had a balanced lifestyle, I did a lot of sports when I wasn't programming. At 13 he would tell me to stop playing games, I never told him I made them. At the same time, I had 0 interest in any of my classes, and would receive a lot of detentions for turning up late to school and whatnot. I also did the minimal amount of homework, got shouted at by teachers for drawing in my book instead of doing class work. At 15 I told him I wanted to become a games developer, he got really angry and told me its too difficult, ill never achieve it (or something along those lines). I was doing badly at school and apparently this was the cause. He moved me to a different school. I ended up skipping classes even more. At 19 I pushed and pushed until finally he accepted it and now is very happy that I did it. Unfortunately Australia is a pretty bad place for doing games development, but I'm doing pretty well as a Ruby developer, its still my dream and slowly working towards getting there without having to work in a shitty environment like Activision's. 2. Can you give me an example of this? "Many teachers work to provide a collaborative learning environment for students to problem solve and work together. " isn't really teaching organisation behaviour. If you've done organisational behaviour at university that is what I'm talking about. It has to be structured, group work doesn't really help in actually developing communication skills unless the participants are very mature. 3. I think you missed the point although it was dismissive, sorry. If I am taught by a maths teacher, I come to expect to be taught maths, not to be taught that I will fail in life if I don't learn it. I should be allowed to by choice, not partake in a class I have no interest in, if I can prove that I'm doing something worthwhile. This choice wasn't given to me, instead of trying to find alternate strategies, instead I was treated as if there was something wrong with me. I don't need school teachers who don't have industry experience to teach me how my career is going to end up. My friend had a similar experience who was a bit of a dropout, was told he would never amount to anything. Ended up becoming a fisherman and doing well for himself. This happens far too often when a teacher judges a student by his grades, and this only happens because the teacher has no real world experience and doesn't know any better himself.
1. I think that's fantastic that things worked out for you and your programming career. It sounds like you achieved your dream and can comfortably say "I told you so" to anyone who doubted you. That being said, I think that for every successful one-track-mind-that-hates-school-but-still-makes-it-big-in-life, there are hundreds of one-track-minds-that-hate-school-and-go-nowhere-in-life. And obviously at age 9 you didn't really know what your future job would entail, but you were starting to develop the passion and that's what's important.
As far as school not helping you is concerned, I'm surprised that your school didn't offer any computer science, programming, or technology courses, as there have been even Advanced Placement courses aimed towards programming and computer science. And, obviously, majoring in these focuses in college could have helped you as well. You obviously got started on this at an age earlier than most, which is why I suppose taking relevant classes in school appeal to others even if you think you wouldn't have learned anything from taking them.
2. Understanding the psychological and sociological aspects of students in a classroom is a pretty big part of being a successful teacher. All educators end up taking a class or two on educational psychology, and we end up reading plenty of research on sociocultural and constructivist approaches to teaching. Utilizing these perspectives tends to help not only with classroom management, but also making sure that the students become as successful as possible (by learning from both the teacher and from peers because the classroom is set up in a structured way that's receptive to optimizing educational experiences). Obviously, as you pointed out, student maturity is desired, but that's going to be regardless of how the class is set up.
3. I agree with you that teachers should not be saying you'll fail in life if you don't ace their course, or that something's wrong with you. It's a silly thing for them to say, and I'm sure most teachers don't say this. It's unfortunate that your father and apparently some of your teachers rejected your passion for programming, although to be fair, a responsible teacher isn't going to tell you "Don't worry about trying in my class; I see your irrelevant passion is important to you so don't feel the need to complete any of my assignments" either. Keep in mind you were a kid who turned out to be an exception to the rule, and it's not a bad idea to still be well-rounded academically anyway. And if you don't want to be, that's fine too... but your teachers still have a job to do, and that involves trying to make their students competent in their subject matter.
|
I think school is more about learning to sit on a chair and be quiet for 7 hours every day. It's the basis for a coherent society. Children learning stuff is just a plus
|
Your friend is right and it's not even close. Worse, I almost couldn't get to the end because I felt like you weren't fully engaging with what he was saying and it was getting incredibly frustrating.
It's not about whether teachers do a good job or not. The organizational constraints are such that a kid under the supervision of caring and responsible parents will almost always do better than one who goes to school.
I mean, you are a teacher. You could probably list plenty of ways how schools are failing students or at least not enabling them to make the most of their potential. Just think of how you would tutor someone one on one in a subject they had a natural interest in. Then think how you would teach the same thing in a high-school setting to a class of 20. Think about the difference in learning outcomes. That difference is how much the school system is failing the students.*
*Academically. I would argue most school systems fail them even more socially and emotionally. How many kids miss school because they fear for their safety (unsourced google search turns up 160,000 per day in the US).
The idea that kids should be forced to go to a place where their physical safety isn't guaranteed is perverse.
|
On January 09 2014 12:15 hypercube wrote:
Your friend is right and it's not even close. Worse, I almost couldn't get to the end because I felt like you weren't fully engaging with what he was saying and it was getting incredibly frustrating.
It's not about whether teachers do a good job or not. The organizational constraints are such that a kid under the supervision of caring and responsible parents will almost always do better than one who goes to school.
Why do you think this is the case? I tried to explain during my conversation with him why I disagree with that conjecture, when talking about how there are far more opportunities academically and socially if a child is allowed to go to school, especially since they can still come home to "caring and responsible parents" even if they spent time in school. Having good parents and having a good school experience are not dichotomous situations.
I mean, you are a teacher. You could probably list plenty of ways how schools are failing students or at least not enabling them to make the most of their potential. Just think of how you would tutor someone one on one in a subject they had a natural interest in. Then think how you would teach the same thing in a high-school setting to a class of 20. Think about the difference in learning outcomes. That difference is how much the school system is failing the students.*
I know plenty of ways that politics and schools are failing students' educational experiences, but I know many more ways that students are actually learning (not just content and procedural knowledge, but also reinforcing problem solving abilities and having collaborative social experiences), and I think we'd be throwing the baby out with the bathwater to say we shouldn't send our kids to school because of the occasional bullshit that appears (welcome to the real world, although schools are still much more cushioned than adulthood). As Salazarz said, schools need to be improved, not removed.
*Academically. I would argue most school systems fail them even more socially and emotionally. How many kids miss school because they fear for their safety (unsourced google search turns up 160,000 per day in the US).
The idea that kids should be forced to go to a place where their physical safety isn't guaranteed is perverse.
And I'm sure that 95% of those kids live in poor, urban districts where the gangs and violent kids they fear are only slightly less likely to show up at their broken home and shank them. Schools should be safe havens for children, but if a school is situated in an already unfortunate environment, it's pretty hard to make safety a sure thing. Most teachers aren't ninjas
|
On January 09 2014 12:15 hypercube wrote:
I mean, you are a teacher. You could probably list plenty of ways how schools are failing students or at least not enabling them to make the most of their potential. Just think of how you would tutor someone one on one in a subject they had a natural interest in. Then think how you would teach the same thing in a high-school setting to a class of 20. Think about the difference in learning outcomes. That difference is how much the school system is failing the students.*
Education is failing to be perfect, but that doesn't mean that it's ok not to send kids to school. Everything is imperfect, and the existence of theoretical models which might be superior (although probably too expensive) is largely irrelevant because if you compare it to the lack of education
*Academically. I would argue most school systems fail them even more socially and emotionally. How many kids miss school because they fear for their safety (unsourced google search turns up 160,000 per day in the US).
The idea that kids should be forced to go to a place where their physical safety isn't guaranteed is perverse.
Where the fuck is a child's safety guaranteed? Be serious man.
People have this insane rhetoric that since the centrally controlled education systems all over the world are failing to be adapted to every single specific child's particular needs, which from a practical standpoint is fucking hilarious by all standards. Do you know who gets to have stuff tailored to their specific needs? Rich folks.
So it's perfectly normal that, until we manage to become a space-age civilization with abundant wealth and resources, we'll have teachers giving a standardized curriculum to a bunch of more-or-less interested kids. If you want the State to provide personalized education to some poor sap in buttfuck nowhere Kansas, you're crazy. And if you then complain that this kid's inability to get the specific class he needs means the education system has failed, then you're also a moron.
We do what we can with the resources that we have. State-run things like education have to be modest. Private education is expensive. So bitching incessantly is ridiculous.
Furthermore, even children who hate school and feel don't belong there tend to see their life improved by general knowledge and stuff. Now, given the scale of the US, you can cite large numbers of kids who dislike school, which for one doesn't mean that they don't benefit from it, but statistically speaking, education gives people a purely pragmatic competitive advantage.
Now, I don't know if I would support a parent's right not to send their kids to school. I'm in favor of liberty and freedom. However, I'd consider that depriving a kid from a basic education is child abuse and I'd arguing that it's an affront to the child's liberty and their odds of succeeding in life. Even if the education system is indeed imperfect and faulty, it's very much better than nothing, statistically.
And now I'm making the argument from an individualist perspective but universal education is even easier to argue for from a collectivist's perspective. It's beneficial to have an educated society. But we vaguely already have that already. Being completely uneducated in an educated society is fucking hell.
|
On January 09 2014 13:00 Djzapz wrote:
I'd consider that depriving a kid from a basic education is child abuse and I'd arguing that it's an affront to the child's liberty and their odds of succeeding in life. Even if the education system is indeed imperfect and faulty, it's very much better than nothing, statistically.
Well said. I was also thinking "child abuse" would be an appropriate term to refer to parents who willfully prevent their children from getting an education, although I didn't want to use that term when talking with Blue because I wasn't sure if that would cut our conversation short.
|
On January 09 2014 12:36 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:Show nested quote +On January 09 2014 12:15 hypercube wrote:
Your friend is right and it's not even close. Worse, I almost couldn't get to the end because I felt like you weren't fully engaging with what he was saying and it was getting incredibly frustrating.
It's not about whether teachers do a good job or not. The organizational constraints are such that a kid under the supervision of caring and responsible parents will almost always do better than one who goes to school. Why do you think this is the case? I tried to explain during my conversation with him why I disagree with that conjecture, when talking about how there are far more opportunities academically and socially if a child is allowed to go to school,
Sure, he would have extra experiences in school. It would also take up a massive amount of time, so of course he would get something out of it. The question is, is that something more valuable than how he spends his time now. Indeed, the first part of the conversation should have been about trying to understand how those kids spend their time now, what kind of interactions they have, what they do or do not learn, etc.
You can't compare a known experience (going to school) to one you don't understand very well.
Show nested quote +I mean, you are a teacher. You could probably list plenty of ways how schools are failing students or at least not enabling them to make the most of their potential. Just think of how you would tutor someone one on one in a subject they had a natural interest in. Then think how you would teach the same thing in a high-school setting to a class of 20. Think about the difference in learning outcomes. That difference is how much the school system is failing the students.* I know plenty of ways that politics and schools are failing students' educational experiences, but I know many more ways that students are actually learning (not just content and procedural knowledge, but also reinforcing problem solving abilities and having collaborative social experiences), and I think we'd be throwing the baby out with the bathwater to say we shouldn't send our kids to school because of the occasional bullshit that appears (welcome to the real world, although schools are still much more cushioned than adulthood). As Salazarz said, schools need to be improved, not removed.
As I said, for the amount of time they spend there they'd better be learning something. You should compare schools to the alternative, in this case the parent acting as sort of a mentor.
In any case the debate was whether not going to school was better for some kids, not whether we should get rid of schools altogether. I don't think we should get rid of schools at this time. But yeah, skipping school would be better for plenty of kids.
BTW, I think you are overestimating the amount of learning that takes place. Take a look at PISA results. Not the rankings, but the actual questions. In math proficiency (for 15 year olds) meant solving a word problem requiring some algebra. It had a little more extraneous information and didn't follow the typical pattern but it was a simple word problem. In the US maybe 5% of students were proficient. Even in countries like Korea or Singapore it was less than 50%.
Remember "proficient" just means: "Can use the most basic stuff we teach, in unfamiliar real life situations".
Show nested quote +*Academically. I would argue most school systems fail them even more socially and emotionally. How many kids miss school because they fear for their safety (unsourced google search turns up 160,000 per day in the US).
The idea that kids should be forced to go to a place where their physical safety isn't guaranteed is perverse. And I'm sure that 95% of those kids live in poor, urban districts where the gangs and violent kids they fear are only slightly less likely to show up at their broken home and shank them. Schools should be safe havens for children, but if a school is situated in an already unfortunate environment, it's pretty hard to make safety a sure thing. Most teachers aren't ninjas
The teachers are not on trial here. The school system is.
And these kids skipped school because of fear. So they thought it was worse than the alternative. Which, as you said can be pretty bad. But for these kids school was seen to be worse than even that. 
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
