Do you support grade/discipline based segregation in schools ?

[Mrs. Tuberski]

Originally posted by Odin


Your kid with ADHD shows another flaw in our education system, it makes the assumption that all kids learn in a similar way, which I, as a person with ADHD, can tell you, is utter crap. People with ADHD tend to be somewhat smarter than average, but because our schools emphasize conformity, a smart kid with ADHD, like I was, sucks in school because it is too monotonous ( I am opposed to medicating people with ADHD with drugs like Ritalin, which are way overprescribed).

Your kid has the potential to be a good student, but the educational reforms needed will never happen unless we give our schools enough money to pay for programs for people with ADHD and Asperger's that are smart; not just relagating them to "Special Education", which in my experience is just a nice, politically correct way of saying "the place for retards."

Which is why i did not put him in special education. Which is what the teachers are recommending now.
I do have him taking meds but not ritilan he takes concerta but only once a day. I ride him every day beause I know he lazy. Hes very smart but refuses to let any one know it cause now days it aint cool.

[Kidlicious]

Originally posted by Mrs. Tuberski
My point was and is if you make a kid feel stupid he will start to believe it. Why do that to any kid.
@flubber
why seperate the smart kids that dont want to be seperated?

But if you put the students with propensity for good work in with the losers they will start to feel like losers. There are a **** load of students who have no one at home to kick them in the ass and who wont kick themselves in the ass. You can give them all the opportunity in the world, but they aren't going to be motivated to do anything until they see the consequences of not doing anything.

[Mrs. Tuberski]

Kid dont know about that. the motaviated kids are always motivated. They know they arent stupid. I say give the kids a choice.

[Odin]

Originally posted by Kidicious


But if you put the students with propensity for good work in with the losers they will start to feel like losers. There are a **** load of students who have no one at home to kick them in the ass and who wont kick themselves in the ass. You can give them all the opportunity in the world, but they aren't going to be motivated to do anything until they see the consequences of not doing anything.

As said before, BAD IDEA! I am against seperating students before Sr. High, doing poorly in lower grades doesn't mean **** because many of those kids do poorly because of socioeconomic reasons (50% of your intelligence comes from your enviroment, which is why kids of poor people have a lower IQ on average than kids of middle class or rich people) and often become late bloomers.

[Kuciwalker]

No, the problem isn't the reasons for doing poorly, the problem is the rubric with which we are measuring performance. Grades don't work to measure intelligence and willingness to learn. Find an accurate rubric and I'd support segregation (and mobility) all the way to kindegarten. As it is, segregation should be introduced gradually (with greater differences culminating in magnet Jr. and Sr. high schools), though of course much faster in math. If people with less money end up being less interested in learning that those with more, well, TOO BAD. They're still less interested in learning, and faster kids shouldn't be held back by them.

[Kuciwalker]

Originally posted by GePap
Class segregation is a matter of values- in the system I went into, the kids on top benefit, the ones on the bottom don't. So the question is, is it better to make sure those than in theory can succeed succeed at the cost of others, or do we want a bit more equality?

Why water a flower that's not gonna grow much anyway?

[Wycoff]

Originally posted by Immortal Wombat

Doesn't placing children with lower academic achievement in the same class make it more likely that the teacher will then pitch the lesson at their level, and ensure than everyone gets taught, rather than only the top 25% of the class? Taking out the 'smart kids' drops the whole thing a notch, so everyone has a chance to get something out of lessons rather than thinking that the teacher only cares about the kids at the top.

I'm afraid that you have things backwards. It has been my experience that American public schools cater to the bottom half of the class rather than the top half. After all, all schools are teaching to meet standardized tests. The better students won't have nearly as much trouble passing the tests as the lesser students. Since those tests are almost the sole measurement of a school's value, often determining funding levels, the schools have the incentive to focus their resources on ensuring that the lesser students pass the tests. A disproportionate amount of funding goes to the lesser students, while the top students are often left to fend for themselves.

Our public school system isn't designed to encourage the top 10% to excel, its designed to pump out a large number of mediocre students with merely a functional grasp of reading, science, and math. IMO, it's the "gifted" students that get the shaft. They're the ones who would do the most with extra funding, and would provide the govt. with the best investment of their funds.

[Wycoff]

Originally posted by Dissident
I don't have much more to add, but I just read that teachers in the U.S. now have SAT scores less than 800

You can seperate them all you want, but you still need quality teachers.

I do agree with some minor seperation as I said earlier, and maybe even seperating boys and girls (we can teach them to interact during non academic classes), but that can only do so much.

And I don't agree with ther teacher/pupil ratio the liberals keep *****ing about. That again means nothing when teachers have SAT scores lower than 800.

I don't find this surprising. No offense intended, but most of the people who I know that ended up becoming teachers were those who intially entered college with the goal of becoming a doctor, lawyer, engineer, or businessman. They found out that they weren't good enough students to effectively pursue those careers once in college, they found that getting a teaching degree was easier and allowed for more time to party, and then they ultimately ended up becoming teachers. Thus, the people who eventually become teachers are generally from the lower part of their college class.

I know that this assessment is unfair to some people, and that some teachers were dedicated students who dreamt of becoming teachers. Those people are most likely the good teachers. However, I fear that most teachers fall into the category that I described above, and that's why our country has such poor quality teachers. The only solution seems to be raising the average wage of a teacher to a level that makes teaching a profession that can compete with medicine, engineering, law, or business.

[aneeshm]

Originally posted by Mrs. Tuberski
Well put japher. I couldnt have said it better myself. Schools arent there just for studies they are there i believe for social structure as well.

Is seems you have forgotten the fact that for a long time , schools have been for studies , and will continue to be about studies ( at least the successful ones ) , with social skills being only a by-product , and a rather insignificant one at that . And social structuring inside school is nothing like social structuring outside it .

[Wycoff]

Originally posted by Shi Huangdi
In my experience back when I was in school, it seems that the discipline problems caused in a classroom was usually caused by one or two individuals who would repeatedly disrupt class or harass other students, and it made it much more difficult for the teacher to managet his class. I think if you just segregated out the worst of the worst who repeatedly show they won't follow the rules, it would become much easier to teach a class.

Widespread discrimination based on behavior level would create a situation where it is difficult for those at the bottom to improve themselves. But for the few problem individuals out there, if they have no interest in learning, why should they just be allowed to continue to come to class and disrupt everyone else from learning?

I feel exactly the same way. In High School it was always the same 5 or 6 kids ruining every class because they couldn't and wouldn't shut their mouths and learn. This happened in the high level class. Eventually the teachers would get frustrated and basically give up. The educational experience of every kid in the class was devalued because of those 5 or 6 jerk-offs. I always wishjed that teachers could have had tasers to blast those *******s when they got out of hand.

The biggest difference between high school and college was that, in college, people actually shut up and allowed the professor to teach. That rarely happened in high school.

[aneeshm]

Originally posted by Mrs. Tuberski
I must add that it was in a class were I had clowns and Geeks as you call them that I learned that all these kids had feelings and on more then one occasion stood in the way of letting a smart geek get his ass kicked. Had I never had that experience i would never got involved and the geek would have gotten the **** kicked out of him.

Uh , had the classes been segregated , the smart geek would have been with other smart geeks , thus almost no chance of him getting his *** kicked .

[Odin]

Originally posted by Wycoff


I don't find this surprising. No offense intended, but most of the people who I know that ended up becoming teachers were those who intially entered college with the goal of becoming a doctor, lawyer, engineer, or businessman. They found out that they weren't good enough students to effectively pursue those careers once in college, they found that getting a teaching degree was easier and allowed for more time to party, and then they ultimately ended up becoming teachers. Thus, the people who eventually become teachers are generally from the lower part of their college class.

I know that this assessment is unfair to some people, and that some teachers were dedicated students who dreamt of becoming teachers. Those people are most likely the good teachers. However, I fear that most teachers fall into the category that I described above, and that's why our country has such poor quality teachers. The only solution seems to be raising the average wage of a teacher to a level that makes teaching a profession that can compete with medicine, engineering, law, or business.

Standardized Tests:

[Sava]

I support whatever method of education is most efficient and helps both the intelligent and slower learning students. If I see evidence that seperated education is better than a single group, then I'll support it.

I've read this thread and so far nobody has posted anything much in the way of studies or other information that leads me to support any single method of education.

[Kidlicious]

Originally posted by Mrs. Tuberski
Kid dont know about that. the motaviated kids are always motivated. They know they arent stupid. I say give the kids a choice.

I say give them a choice too. Every kid should have the opportunity to do well in school. However, if they show no willingness to put in the effort necessary to reach their potential then you can't learn it for them. They are only going to be a liability on the system if we try to do the impossible with them.

Schools are always going to be mediocre. Only about 20% of teachers are good. The rest are mostly adequate, but it really doesn't matter. If the students won't learn you can't make them. Even if they have some great teachers to motivate them they are still going to perform poorly in their other classes.

We need to drop all this nonsense about every kid going to college. It's never going to happen. The purpose of schools can't be to give every kid a great education. It should be to educate as much kids as possible and to provide an environment for those kids who are motivated to learn as much as possible. That means seperating the students who are motivated from those who are not.

[Kidlicious]

Originally posted by Wycoff
I don't find this surprising. No offense intended, but most of the people who I know that ended up becoming teachers were those who intially entered college with the goal of becoming a doctor, lawyer, engineer, or businessman. They found out that they weren't good enough students to effectively pursue those careers once in college, they found that getting a teaching degree was easier and allowed for more time to party, and then they ultimately ended up becoming teachers. Thus, the people who eventually become teachers are generally from the lower part of their college class.

I know that this assessment is unfair to some people, and that some teachers were dedicated students who dreamt of becoming teachers. Those people are most likely the good teachers. However, I fear that most teachers fall into the category that I described above, and that's why our country has such poor quality teachers. The only solution seems to be raising the average wage of a teacher to a level that makes teaching a profession that can compete with medicine, engineering, law, or business.

The problem and/or the solution is not the teachers, it's the students. Teachers in the US are already very well trained and their pay really isn't that bad especially for experienced teachers. And increasing their pay really doesn't make teachers better. The great teachers teach because they have a specific talent to teach and it's what they love to do. There is a shortage of teachers like that, but there's nothing you can do to fill that shortage.