|
Read the rules in the OP before posting, please.In order to ensure that this thread continues to meet TL standards and follows the proper guidelines, we will be enforcing the rules in the OP more strictly. Be sure to give them a re-read to refresh your memory! The vast majority of you are contributing in a healthy way, keep it up! NOTE: When providing a source, explain why you feel it is relevant and what purpose it adds to the discussion if it's not obvious. Also take note that unsubstantiated tweets/posts meant only to rekindle old arguments can result in a mod action. |
On March 13 2018 06:32 NewSunshine wrote:Show nested quote +On March 13 2018 06:28 Sadist wrote:On March 13 2018 06:22 ticklishmusic wrote:On March 13 2018 06:10 Sadist wrote:
I am all for adding money into education.
You are misunderstanding my argument entirely. Anyone who thinks family and home life can be solved by attacking teachers and the education system needs to get real.
I grew up in a neighborhood where only a handful of 20 or 30 kids went to college. My highschool had a 50%dropout rate.
Making the school "better" and attacking teachers wasnt going to solve that problem. Academic (and future) success is driven by both home life and schools. But those two things are separate. A good teacher can inspire a passion for learning, and extra curriculars can keep a kid more engaged and help them develop interests. There's a lot of impact that good schools can have on a kid's trajectory in life, regardless of their situation at home. A good school can't fix that home situation, but it can help the kid in a lot of ways. Yes it can help but you are implying its the 100% the schools responsibility if kids dont succeed. I think thats bs. It still also takes a choice from the kid to buy in. Especially as they get 9lder. The number of teachers who inspire kids is few n far between. Does that mean 95% of teachers are bad? Not one person in this thread ever said or implied such a thing. Fuck, the post you're quoting literally describes how they're both non-zero factors. Stop talking in absolutes and maybe you'll get into less stupid arguments like this one.
The implication was you cant fix home life so you have to fix schools.
Either way, the connotation that our schools are bad generally conjurs up the idea that our teachers and administrators are terrible. Its the same reason people like Devos rationalize closing "underperforming schools" as opposed to looking at other contributors.
Still though. The kids and families live with the consequences of their actions, not Betsy Devos. The sooner you empower people and tell them they are responsible for their own future the better imo.
|
On March 13 2018 06:50 Sadist wrote:Show nested quote +On March 13 2018 06:32 NewSunshine wrote:On March 13 2018 06:28 Sadist wrote:On March 13 2018 06:22 ticklishmusic wrote:On March 13 2018 06:10 Sadist wrote:
I am all for adding money into education.
You are misunderstanding my argument entirely. Anyone who thinks family and home life can be solved by attacking teachers and the education system needs to get real.
I grew up in a neighborhood where only a handful of 20 or 30 kids went to college. My highschool had a 50%dropout rate.
Making the school "better" and attacking teachers wasnt going to solve that problem. Academic (and future) success is driven by both home life and schools. But those two things are separate. A good teacher can inspire a passion for learning, and extra curriculars can keep a kid more engaged and help them develop interests. There's a lot of impact that good schools can have on a kid's trajectory in life, regardless of their situation at home. A good school can't fix that home situation, but it can help the kid in a lot of ways. Yes it can help but you are implying its the 100% the schools responsibility if kids dont succeed. I think thats bs. It still also takes a choice from the kid to buy in. Especially as they get 9lder. The number of teachers who inspire kids is few n far between. Does that mean 95% of teachers are bad? Not one person in this thread ever said or implied such a thing. Fuck, the post you're quoting literally describes how they're both non-zero factors. Stop talking in absolutes and maybe you'll get into less stupid arguments like this one. The implication was you cant fix home life so you have to fix schools. Either way, the connotation that our schools are bad generally conjurs up the idea that our teachers and administrators are terrible. Its the same reason people like Devos rationalize closing "underperforming schools" as opposed to looking at other contributors. Still though. The kids and families live with the consequences of their actions, not Betsy Devos. The sooner you empower people and tell them they are responsible for their own future the better imo.
The implication is that schools should be the place where driven kids with shit home lives can go to find structure, support and the skills their parents are not providing them. That is the job of public education. They will never have a 100% success rate, but that is the job teachers sign up for. And most of them are really pumped to do it and just want more resources.
|
On March 13 2018 06:50 Sadist wrote:Show nested quote +On March 13 2018 06:32 NewSunshine wrote:On March 13 2018 06:28 Sadist wrote:On March 13 2018 06:22 ticklishmusic wrote:On March 13 2018 06:10 Sadist wrote:
I am all for adding money into education.
You are misunderstanding my argument entirely. Anyone who thinks family and home life can be solved by attacking teachers and the education system needs to get real.
I grew up in a neighborhood where only a handful of 20 or 30 kids went to college. My highschool had a 50%dropout rate.
Making the school "better" and attacking teachers wasnt going to solve that problem. Academic (and future) success is driven by both home life and schools. But those two things are separate. A good teacher can inspire a passion for learning, and extra curriculars can keep a kid more engaged and help them develop interests. There's a lot of impact that good schools can have on a kid's trajectory in life, regardless of their situation at home. A good school can't fix that home situation, but it can help the kid in a lot of ways. Yes it can help but you are implying its the 100% the schools responsibility if kids dont succeed. I think thats bs. It still also takes a choice from the kid to buy in. Especially as they get 9lder. The number of teachers who inspire kids is few n far between. Does that mean 95% of teachers are bad? Not one person in this thread ever said or implied such a thing. Fuck, the post you're quoting literally describes how they're both non-zero factors. Stop talking in absolutes and maybe you'll get into less stupid arguments like this one. Either way, the connotation that our schools are bad generally conjurs up the idea that our teachers and administrators are terrible. Its the same reason people like Devos rationalize closing "underperforming schools" as opposed to looking at other contributors.
I don't think that's true, to me it conjurs up the idea that republican politicians are terrible, and to people who are a little less scottish than me in their diplomacy I guess they will single out a few names and policies. Most people understand that the problem is political in nature.
|
On March 13 2018 06:28 NewSunshine wrote:Show nested quote +On March 13 2018 06:25 Sadist wrote:On March 13 2018 06:21 Nebuchad wrote:On March 13 2018 06:19 Sadist wrote:On March 13 2018 06:15 Nebuchad wrote:On March 13 2018 06:10 Sadist wrote:
You are misunderstanding my argument entirely. Anyone who thinks family and home life can be solved by attacking teachers and the education system needs to get real.
That's very different from what you said earlier, which probably explains why you were "misunderstood"... No it isnt. Whether the school "sucks" or not at the end of the day the students and parents live with the results of their kid not knowing shit. It is their responsibility to learn material. So in what way was I misunderstanding you when I said that in that case, it's a huge waste of money to send your kids to private school, since the "suckage" of the school doesn't really matter that much? What do you think makes private schools better? Better teachers? Admins? What? Um, everything? They get all the money they want, so they don't have a shitty infrastructure, years-old textbooks, nonexistent extra-curriculars, etc. Is this a question?
Education and schooling, so I need to jump into the fray too  Private schools definitely have more potential for success/ higher success because they can be selective with which students are accepted, and they don't need to worry about extra crap that public schools need to do for public funding (e.g., standardized testing). Private schools can tinker more easily with new curricula and allocating funds to new projects too. Based on my experiences teaching both private and public schools, I'd say that a higher percentage of private school students and their parents place more emphasis on academic success and rigorous work too.
That being said, private schools definitely don't get "all the money they want"; they have to do an insane amount of fundraising because even crazy tuitions don't cover all costs. Furthermore, while private school administrations aren't as much at the mercy of the state/ federal governments, they're even more at the mercy of parents, for the same reason: they directly lose funding if the student leaves the school due to him (or the parents) being unhappy. Threats to leave the school go a long way.
|
On March 13 2018 05:38 Sadist wrote:
Nobody wants to admit that parenting is really the largest part of the problem and has a huge impact on how children view school and how well they do.
Learning is ones own responsibility. Even if a teacher is shitty it is still the responsibility of the parent and student to learn the material. No one is going to give you a break later because you dont know shit and say it was because you had shitty teachers. The end result is still you not "knowing" anything.
I like this first post of yours, before further comments you and others made obfuscated your point. I'd like to take it a bit further though, because I don't mind taking some responsibility as a teacher. The trope of it taking a village to raise a child isn't false per se, and parents and teachers working together and reinforcing good habits and behaviors both at home and in school is a solid recipe for a successful child.
I just hate it when the parents don't pull their own weight.
|
Parental involvement in education is a huge cultural issue in our country. It's really bad. Even in well educated communities. 100x better in educated communities, but parents still fundamentally see education as the responsibility of the teacher and child. That is super fucked up.
This is one thing Asian parents get very right. They play an active, perhaps too active, role.
|
With regards to what effects the teaching results of a pupil, that is not something that you need to discuss in a vacuum based on feelings. There are loads of studies for this. Especially prominent is the Hattie-metastudy "Visible learning"
The main takeaway is that many things influence the learning outcome of a student. This is not especially surprising.
About 50% of the learning result is explained by stuff that is inherent to the student. It is important to note that this is not only views on education and motivational aspects, but also stuff like previous knowledge, intelligence, learning patterns, etc...A lot of home effects also fall into this category.
About 30% is based on the things that the teacher does.
The remaining 20% split about evenly onto school, principal, home and peers. source
This means multiple things. Teacher matter, but even the best teacher can not teach every student everything. A lot of the educational reforms, if they don't try to influence the teachers, are mostly for show and don't have enormous effects.
Firing teachers and other pressure onto teachers mostly makes it less desirable to become a teacher in the first place. So while you might have some positive effects in the short term, in the long term you are going to get sucky teachers because noone wants to be a teacher under those circumstances. What you need to do is make it attractive to become a teacher, and teach your teachers how to teach effectively.
However, there are other studies which show a very strong correlation between socioeconomical status of the parents and education results of the children. This differs based on what country you are looking at. If you want to take a closer look at this, the PISA study describes this pretty well. I mostly know about the results for Germany, and in that case, we are at the bottom average with regards to this specific statistic, but we have been getting better since the first PISA study.
This is especially not only linked to the quality of the school itself, as most people in Germany visit the same public schools. The socioeconomic factor is often based on stuff like having peace of mind with regards to basic necessities or having more educational possibilites at home (Things like having books at home, higher average intellectual quality of discussions, etc...)
|
On March 13 2018 06:54 Plansix wrote:Show nested quote +On March 13 2018 06:50 Sadist wrote:On March 13 2018 06:32 NewSunshine wrote:On March 13 2018 06:28 Sadist wrote:On March 13 2018 06:22 ticklishmusic wrote:On March 13 2018 06:10 Sadist wrote:
I am all for adding money into education.
You are misunderstanding my argument entirely. Anyone who thinks family and home life can be solved by attacking teachers and the education system needs to get real.
I grew up in a neighborhood where only a handful of 20 or 30 kids went to college. My highschool had a 50%dropout rate.
Making the school "better" and attacking teachers wasnt going to solve that problem. Academic (and future) success is driven by both home life and schools. But those two things are separate. A good teacher can inspire a passion for learning, and extra curriculars can keep a kid more engaged and help them develop interests. There's a lot of impact that good schools can have on a kid's trajectory in life, regardless of their situation at home. A good school can't fix that home situation, but it can help the kid in a lot of ways. Yes it can help but you are implying its the 100% the schools responsibility if kids dont succeed. I think thats bs. It still also takes a choice from the kid to buy in. Especially as they get 9lder. The number of teachers who inspire kids is few n far between. Does that mean 95% of teachers are bad? Not one person in this thread ever said or implied such a thing. Fuck, the post you're quoting literally describes how they're both non-zero factors. Stop talking in absolutes and maybe you'll get into less stupid arguments like this one. The implication was you cant fix home life so you have to fix schools. Either way, the connotation that our schools are bad generally conjurs up the idea that our teachers and administrators are terrible. Its the same reason people like Devos rationalize closing "underperforming schools" as opposed to looking at other contributors. Still though. The kids and families live with the consequences of their actions, not Betsy Devos. The sooner you empower people and tell them they are responsible for their own future the better imo. The implication is that schools should be the place where driven kids with shit home lives can go to find structure, support and the skills their parents are not providing them. That is the job of public education. They will never have a 100% success rate, but that is the job teachers sign up for. And most of them are really pumped to do it and just want more resources.
I agree with your implication comment, and I also agree with Sadist's point that the kids and families are the ones getting screwed, not Betsy DeVos. She doesn't care at all and has no experience as an educator or even being in the public school system as a parent. Her apathy + ignorance combination really stings, because we need experts fixing our educational system.
|
On March 13 2018 06:54 Plansix wrote:Show nested quote +On March 13 2018 06:50 Sadist wrote:On March 13 2018 06:32 NewSunshine wrote:On March 13 2018 06:28 Sadist wrote:On March 13 2018 06:22 ticklishmusic wrote:On March 13 2018 06:10 Sadist wrote:
I am all for adding money into education.
You are misunderstanding my argument entirely. Anyone who thinks family and home life can be solved by attacking teachers and the education system needs to get real.
I grew up in a neighborhood where only a handful of 20 or 30 kids went to college. My highschool had a 50%dropout rate.
Making the school "better" and attacking teachers wasnt going to solve that problem. Academic (and future) success is driven by both home life and schools. But those two things are separate. A good teacher can inspire a passion for learning, and extra curriculars can keep a kid more engaged and help them develop interests. There's a lot of impact that good schools can have on a kid's trajectory in life, regardless of their situation at home. A good school can't fix that home situation, but it can help the kid in a lot of ways. Yes it can help but you are implying its the 100% the schools responsibility if kids dont succeed. I think thats bs. It still also takes a choice from the kid to buy in. Especially as they get 9lder. The number of teachers who inspire kids is few n far between. Does that mean 95% of teachers are bad? Not one person in this thread ever said or implied such a thing. Fuck, the post you're quoting literally describes how they're both non-zero factors. Stop talking in absolutes and maybe you'll get into less stupid arguments like this one. The implication was you cant fix home life so you have to fix schools. Either way, the connotation that our schools are bad generally conjurs up the idea that our teachers and administrators are terrible. Its the same reason people like Devos rationalize closing "underperforming schools" as opposed to looking at other contributors. Still though. The kids and families live with the consequences of their actions, not Betsy Devos. The sooner you empower people and tell them they are responsible for their own future the better imo. The implication is that schools should be the place where driven kids with shit home lives can go to find structure, support and the skills their parents are not providing them. That is the job of public education. They will never have a 100% success rate, but that is the job teachers sign up for. And most of them are really pumped to do it and just want more resources.
I think this is all well and good and but it just sounds like a talking point. When you delve deeper it doesn't really mean much.
Right now you have huge portions of the country going in the exact opposite direction you are talking about. You have an increasing number of places that want critical metrics of teachers based upon their students success, nevermind the fact that it takes some effort & willpower from the student to actually learn the material.
My criticism of parents isn't even aimed entirely at the ones in "poor performing" schools. You have helicopter parents who won't accept that their kid is fucking up and it must be the teachers fault. There are snot nosed little shits in every socioeconomic background. The sooner those kids realized they need to get their act together the better for them too.
A lack of respect for teachers is a huge problem and its mostly driven by parents who either A) Don't give two shits about their kids wellbeing & education or B) "Not my child" type parents who believe their kid is an angel and can never do wrong.
As far as improving the education system goes, I would argue raising standards and holding people back a few times would help. Additionally, sometimes people just aren't going to get it for their age range and you can't let them poison the school system for the rest of the kids. Sometimes, people just gotta be kicked out and figure things out on their own.
I can tell you from my neighborhood experience, none of the kids who fucked up in school were dumb. They had shitty peer influences, shitty parental influences, and just an overall lack of respect for themselves and others. Once they grew up and realized how their choices have affected their current situation I can guarantee they wish they could go back and change things. If the school failed them in anything, it was not giving them a reality check long before they made it through the system as opposed to coddling them.
|
On March 13 2018 07:16 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:Show nested quote +On March 13 2018 06:28 NewSunshine wrote:On March 13 2018 06:25 Sadist wrote:On March 13 2018 06:21 Nebuchad wrote:On March 13 2018 06:19 Sadist wrote:On March 13 2018 06:15 Nebuchad wrote:On March 13 2018 06:10 Sadist wrote:
You are misunderstanding my argument entirely. Anyone who thinks family and home life can be solved by attacking teachers and the education system needs to get real.
That's very different from what you said earlier, which probably explains why you were "misunderstood"... No it isnt. Whether the school "sucks" or not at the end of the day the students and parents live with the results of their kid not knowing shit. It is their responsibility to learn material. So in what way was I misunderstanding you when I said that in that case, it's a huge waste of money to send your kids to private school, since the "suckage" of the school doesn't really matter that much? What do you think makes private schools better? Better teachers? Admins? What? Um, everything? They get all the money they want, so they don't have a shitty infrastructure, years-old textbooks, nonexistent extra-curriculars, etc. Is this a question? Education and schooling, so I need to jump into the fray too Private schools definitely have more potential for success/ higher success because they can be selective with which students are accepted, and they don't need to worry about extra crap that public schools need to do for public funding (e.g., standardized testing). Private schools can tinker more easily with new curricula and allocating funds to new projects too. Based on my experiences teaching both private and public schools, I'd say that a higher percentage of private school students and their parents place more emphasis on academic success and rigorous work too. That being said, private schools definitely don't get "all the money they want"; they have to do an insane amount of fundraising because even crazy tuitions don't cover all costs. Furthermore, while private school administrations aren't as much at the mercy of the state/ federal governments, they're even more at the mercy of parents, for the same reason: they directly lose funding if the student leaves the school due to him (or the parents) being unhappy. Threats to leave the school go a long way.
generally only the biggest public schools can afford to pay the brightest teachers to teach. Many private schools can do the things that only a few highly rated public school systems are able to do in the US
|
On March 13 2018 07:44 Mohdoo wrote:
Parental involvement in education is a huge cultural issue in our country. It's really bad. Even in well educated communities. 100x better in educated communities, but parents still fundamentally see education as the responsibility of the teacher and child. That is super fucked up.
This is one thing Asian parents get very right. They play an active, perhaps too active, role.
Agreed. We call them tiger parents or helicopter parents, yet I'd much rather have parents who are too invested than parents who don't care at all*. Why bother having/ raising kids if you're not going to care for them x.x
*Overly invested parents are a huge pain in the ass, because they need to allow for some independence and autonomy and responsibility and maturity from the student. That being said, I still prefer them over parents who do nothing.
|
"I would argue raising standards and holding people back a few times would help."
I would like to mention that this is in no way supported by empirical evidence. Holding people back a grade actually reduces the amount of stuff they learn during their next year. Retention is roughly as bad as corporal punishment (very bad) at home with regards to its effect on learning, and way worse than for example television at home.
|
On March 13 2018 07:48 A3th3r wrote:Show nested quote +On March 13 2018 07:16 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:On March 13 2018 06:28 NewSunshine wrote:On March 13 2018 06:25 Sadist wrote:On March 13 2018 06:21 Nebuchad wrote:On March 13 2018 06:19 Sadist wrote:On March 13 2018 06:15 Nebuchad wrote:On March 13 2018 06:10 Sadist wrote:
You are misunderstanding my argument entirely. Anyone who thinks family and home life can be solved by attacking teachers and the education system needs to get real.
That's very different from what you said earlier, which probably explains why you were "misunderstood"... No it isnt. Whether the school "sucks" or not at the end of the day the students and parents live with the results of their kid not knowing shit. It is their responsibility to learn material. So in what way was I misunderstanding you when I said that in that case, it's a huge waste of money to send your kids to private school, since the "suckage" of the school doesn't really matter that much? What do you think makes private schools better? Better teachers? Admins? What? Um, everything? They get all the money they want, so they don't have a shitty infrastructure, years-old textbooks, nonexistent extra-curriculars, etc. Is this a question? Education and schooling, so I need to jump into the fray too Private schools definitely have more potential for success/ higher success because they can be selective with which students are accepted, and they don't need to worry about extra crap that public schools need to do for public funding (e.g., standardized testing). Private schools can tinker more easily with new curricula and allocating funds to new projects too. Based on my experiences teaching both private and public schools, I'd say that a higher percentage of private school students and their parents place more emphasis on academic success and rigorous work too. That being said, private schools definitely don't get "all the money they want"; they have to do an insane amount of fundraising because even crazy tuitions don't cover all costs. Furthermore, while private school administrations aren't as much at the mercy of the state/ federal governments, they're even more at the mercy of parents, for the same reason: they directly lose funding if the student leaves the school due to him (or the parents) being unhappy. Threats to leave the school go a long way. generally only the biggest public schools can afford to pay the brightest teachers to teach. Many private schools can do the things that only a few highly rated public school systems are able to do in the US
Well, private schools pay less than public schools do, in terms of teachers' salary. Furthermore, private schools often times don't require teaching certifications like public schools do.
|
On March 13 2018 07:52 Simberto wrote:
"I would argue raising standards and holding people back a few times would help."
I would like to mention that this is in no way supported by empirical evidence. Holding people back a grade actually reduces the amount of stuff they learn during their next year. Retention is roughly as bad as corporal punishment (very bad) at home with regards to its effect on learning, and way worse than for example television at home.
You don't think a reality check that they can't coast along is a good thing?
I don't dispute it may not work in every persons circumstance but I think it can go a long way into getting to see the mistakes they are making.
I feel like its better to give them a reality check when they are young as opposed to waiting until they enter the workforce and realize they made their life 10x harder on themselves than it could have been had they even remotely tried.
|
On March 13 2018 07:54 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:Show nested quote +On March 13 2018 07:48 A3th3r wrote:On March 13 2018 07:16 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:On March 13 2018 06:28 NewSunshine wrote:On March 13 2018 06:25 Sadist wrote:On March 13 2018 06:21 Nebuchad wrote:On March 13 2018 06:19 Sadist wrote:On March 13 2018 06:15 Nebuchad wrote:On March 13 2018 06:10 Sadist wrote:
You are misunderstanding my argument entirely. Anyone who thinks family and home life can be solved by attacking teachers and the education system needs to get real.
That's very different from what you said earlier, which probably explains why you were "misunderstood"... No it isnt. Whether the school "sucks" or not at the end of the day the students and parents live with the results of their kid not knowing shit. It is their responsibility to learn material. So in what way was I misunderstanding you when I said that in that case, it's a huge waste of money to send your kids to private school, since the "suckage" of the school doesn't really matter that much? What do you think makes private schools better? Better teachers? Admins? What? Um, everything? They get all the money they want, so they don't have a shitty infrastructure, years-old textbooks, nonexistent extra-curriculars, etc. Is this a question? Education and schooling, so I need to jump into the fray too Private schools definitely have more potential for success/ higher success because they can be selective with which students are accepted, and they don't need to worry about extra crap that public schools need to do for public funding (e.g., standardized testing). Private schools can tinker more easily with new curricula and allocating funds to new projects too. Based on my experiences teaching both private and public schools, I'd say that a higher percentage of private school students and their parents place more emphasis on academic success and rigorous work too. That being said, private schools definitely don't get "all the money they want"; they have to do an insane amount of fundraising because even crazy tuitions don't cover all costs. Furthermore, while private school administrations aren't as much at the mercy of the state/ federal governments, they're even more at the mercy of parents, for the same reason: they directly lose funding if the student leaves the school due to him (or the parents) being unhappy. Threats to leave the school go a long way. generally only the biggest public schools can afford to pay the brightest teachers to teach. Many private schools can do the things that only a few highly rated public school systems are able to do in the US Well, private schools pay less than public schools do, in terms of teachers' salary. Furthermore, private schools often times don't require teaching certifications like public schools do.
Yes I think that people in this thread really don't understand the education system in the US at all.
Private schools can pick & choose their students and kick out poor performing kids. This has positive & negative affects.
Additionally, if the kids parent's are paying for private schooling they likley care about the kids education and will intervene when things start going sideways. Again, this is all generalities and there are always exceptions but its not as if Private schools have some magical secret teaching method that if only public schools knew they would be successful.
|
|
|
On March 13 2018 07:55 Sadist wrote:Show nested quote +On March 13 2018 07:52 Simberto wrote:
"I would argue raising standards and holding people back a few times would help."
I would like to mention that this is in no way supported by empirical evidence. Holding people back a grade actually reduces the amount of stuff they learn during their next year. Retention is roughly as bad as corporal punishment (very bad) at home with regards to its effect on learning, and way worse than for example television at home. You don't think a reality check that they can't coast along is a good thing? I don't dispute it may not work in every persons circumstance but I think it can go a long way into getting to see the mistakes they are making. I feel like its better to give them a reality check when they are young as opposed to waiting until they enter the workforce and realize they made their life 10x harder on themselves than it could have been had they even remotely tried.
This is arguing based on feeling, not based on evidence. A lot of things sound like that is how stuff should work, but they don't actually work like that. What i think is not especially relevant. What empirical evidence shows is that after being held back a year, students learn less in the next year than if they had not been held back.
My guess is that you make the logical mistake of comparing the student based on school grade. A student might have better grades in the year after being held back, but that is not based on them learning more during that year, but on having two years to learn the stuff they need to learn in one year. So even if they don't really learn a lot during the second time in that grade, they still get better grades.
What you should compare is students of the same age. And holding them back is not something that makes them learn more in the next year.
You also argue from a base of "teaching them a lesson", which is not how education works. The goal should be an optimal education result for them, not punishing them for not living up to your expectations.
|
United States24734 Posts
On March 13 2018 07:55 Sadist wrote:Show nested quote +On March 13 2018 07:52 Simberto wrote:
"I would argue raising standards and holding people back a few times would help."
I would like to mention that this is in no way supported by empirical evidence. Holding people back a grade actually reduces the amount of stuff they learn during their next year. Retention is roughly as bad as corporal punishment (very bad) at home with regards to its effect on learning, and way worse than for example television at home. You don't think a reality check that they can't coast along is a good thing? I don't dispute it may not work in every persons circumstance but I think it can go a long way into getting to see the mistakes they are making. I feel like its better to give them a reality check when they are young as opposed to waiting until they enter the workforce and realize they made their life 10x harder on themselves than it could have been had they even remotely tried.
Your post is basically, "Why listen to empirical evidence when I can just go with my gut? After all, all that is needed to know what will work in the public education system is to trust that you know what is right and that others who are disagreeing with me simply don't understand the system like I do."
|
On March 12 2018 13:26 ChristianS wrote:Show nested quote +On March 12 2018 12:45 Ayaz2810 wrote:On March 12 2018 12:05 ChristianS wrote:On March 12 2018 07:21 Doodsmack wrote:
So Trump's rally yesterday confirmed again that he's an old-fashioned flaming racist. Any denial of this fact is intellectual dishonesty. There's too many correlations for a half intelligent person to deny. For the sake of discussion, would you mind enumerating some of the parts that you think prove his racism beyond the point of intellectually honest denial? I heard he called Maxine Waters "low IQ," anything else? Pretty easy to find. https://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2018/01/15/opinion/leonhardt-trump-racist.html Yeah, I more meant from the rally speech yesterday, and was hoping for specifics so we could talk in the forum about whether the statement is racist, and if so what makes it so. For all the times we've had the "definition of racism" discussion in this thread, I'm not sure we've actually had much back-and-forth on the specific statements that are racist, why they're racist, what type of racism they are, etc. For instance, on the Maxine Waters "low IQ" remark, I think there's a discussion to be had about whether it's racist and if so, why. Of course, intelligence testing (especially the SAT, I don't know about IQ) has a rather checkered past with regards to race, often being designed to try to prove the superior intelligence of the white race. There's the classic scientific racism position which holds that blacks are universally less intelligent, arguably subhuman, which would probably tout imperfect measures of intelligence like IQ as evidence. But you could argue Trump isn't really talking about any of that. He's just saying he thinks this one person isn't smart. It's not surprising for a Republican to think a Democrat is stupid, or vice versa, and it doesn't automatically make it racist because the Democrat is black, just like it wouldn't necessarily be racist for me to say Ben Carson is an idiot. That said, it's interesting he puts it in terms of IQ for her specifically. Schumer, Pelosi, Warren, Clinton, and many others get all kinds of insults thrown at them by Trump, but he never goes after IQ to my recollection. Same for all the Republicans he went after in the primary. Why, with this one Congressman (Edit: Congresswoman) specifically, does he go after intelligence? And why is it specifically "low IQ" rather than just "stupid"? It might be weak evidence of Trump's racism, but I think there's a lot stronger evidence out there. Doodsmack seems to think there was particularly blatant stuff in the most recent rally speech, though, so I thought it would be better for discussion if he mentioned what specifically he thought was so clearly racist. Sorry if my request was unclear.
I don’t think Trump really says anything that is overtly, blatantly racist in itself. The issue is at what point is there such a mountain of statements that are halfway there, that you can tell that Trumps statements correlate strongly with what people who are blatant, flaming racists (in the old fashioned sense) would say. At this point you just can’t deny it anymore unless you’re plugging your ears and saying “But liberals say racist too much.” Birtherism would be a big example. So from that rally you have him saying that 52% of women supported him, when it was actually 52% of white women. And saying that you can tell Maxine Waters is a low IQ person by looking at her.
|
On March 13 2018 07:16 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:Show nested quote +On March 13 2018 06:28 NewSunshine wrote:On March 13 2018 06:25 Sadist wrote:On March 13 2018 06:21 Nebuchad wrote:On March 13 2018 06:19 Sadist wrote:On March 13 2018 06:15 Nebuchad wrote:On March 13 2018 06:10 Sadist wrote:
You are misunderstanding my argument entirely. Anyone who thinks family and home life can be solved by attacking teachers and the education system needs to get real.
That's very different from what you said earlier, which probably explains why you were "misunderstood"... No it isnt. Whether the school "sucks" or not at the end of the day the students and parents live with the results of their kid not knowing shit. It is their responsibility to learn material. So in what way was I misunderstanding you when I said that in that case, it's a huge waste of money to send your kids to private school, since the "suckage" of the school doesn't really matter that much? What do you think makes private schools better? Better teachers? Admins? What? Um, everything? They get all the money they want, so they don't have a shitty infrastructure, years-old textbooks, nonexistent extra-curriculars, etc. Is this a question? Education and schooling, so I need to jump into the fray too Private schools definitely have more potential for success/ higher success because they can be selective with which students are accepted, and they don't need to worry about extra crap that public schools need to do for public funding (e.g., standardized testing). Private schools can tinker more easily with new curricula and allocating funds to new projects too. Based on my experiences teaching both private and public schools, I'd say that a higher percentage of private school students and their parents place more emphasis on academic success and rigorous work too. That being said, private schools definitely don't get "all the money they want"; they have to do an insane amount of fundraising because even crazy tuitions don't cover all costs. Furthermore, while private school administrations aren't as much at the mercy of the state/ federal governments, they're even more at the mercy of parents, for the same reason: they directly lose funding if the student leaves the school due to him (or the parents) being unhappy. Threats to leave the school go a long way.
I appreciate the correction, you'd certainly know better than I do.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
