Warning: The next generation might just be the biggest pile of idiots in U.S. history

[DSTCHAOS]

Originally Posted by Taualumna

Well, 33girl didn't think putting 11/12 year olds with 15/16 year olds was such a good idea. I was trying to say that it works in some parts of the world, including in North America. Like I said, many schools, especially private schools, house their middle and senior divisions in the same premises, even if the middle division has its own wing. Usually, they will share the caf, auditorium, gym and perhaps arts based classrooms as well.

So they don't share REAL classes together. That isn't really sharing to me because there's no learning process that is geared toward all the different age groups in one REAL class.

Superficially mingling with older and younger people is supposed to do what, exactly?

[Taualumna]

Originally Posted by DSTCHAOS

So they don't share REAL classes together. That isn't really sharing to me because there's no learning process that is geared toward all the different age groups in one REAL class.

Superficially mingling with older and younger people is supposed to do what, exactly?

Some people feel that putting older teens with tweens can be harmful to the younger set. Some parents don't want their 10 year olds exposed to things that they don't think they need to know at that age (but usually, these kids already know about it!), such as sex, drugs, etc...

[DaemonSeid]

Originally Posted by Taualumna

Some people feel that putting older teens with tweens can be harmful to the younger set. Some parents don't want their 10 year olds exposed to things that they don't think they need to know at that age (but usually, these kids already know about it!), such as sex, drugs, etc...

what she is saying is...I believe...what does it matter unless they are taking classes with upperclassmen and vice versa?

If they are all housed in the same facility... and still separate...it doesn't mean much.

[DSTCHAOS]

Originally Posted by DaemonSeid

what she is saying is...I believe...what does it matter unless they are taking classes with upperclassmen and vice versa?

If they are all housed in the same facility... and still separate...it doesn't mean much.

Exactly.

When my parents were little, country schools had one or two rooms where all the children learned basic reading, writing, and arithmetic. I don't know how they separated the different ages from that point on but they didn't have many resources. Now that our society has changed and there are more resources (and all schools are "supposed to" have access to the resources), there's no research-based justification for overcrowding our schools like that.

[sunnyhibiscus]

I know this may be off the subject, but I'm scared what our language is going to be in 50 years with text speak ruling the message baords. It's fine to do that on phones, but when someone text speak their post on message boards it's annoying and it gives me a headache. I'm scared that people will start writing text speak language on their papers.

Let's learn proper English, people!

Another thing, in the beginning of the 1980s, we were ranked 3rd in math and sciences (behing China and I believe Japan). Now we are almost out of the top 20 when it comes to that, and Mexico is right behind us. If we don't shape up, then Mexico will pass us.

[PM_Mama00]

Originally Posted by sunnyhibiscus

I know this may be off the subject, but I'm scared what our language is going to be in 50 years with text speak ruling the message baords. It's fine to do that on phones, but when someone text speak their post on message boards it's annoying and it gives me a headache. I'm scared that people will start writing text speak language on their papers.

Let's learn proper English, people!

Another thing, in the beginning of the 1980s, we were ranked 3rd in math and sciences (behing China and I believe Japan). Now we are almost out of the top 20 when it comes to that, and Mexico is right behind us. If we don't shape up, then Mexico will pass us.

OMG ur soOoOoOo rite! LWTFOMG whut would we do if Mxco wuz ahed of us? LMFAO wOw!

[REE1993]

Here's my take on what's going on.

When I was in HS (private, Catholic), I was on the honors track. The honors kids were required to take a language for 2 years, PLUS Latin for 2 years. We also took one semester of a class called "Study Skills".

Everything I ever needed to know about note taking, reading comprehension, daily studying for material, studying for test taking, and paper preparation/writing, I learned in this class. We also learned about time management, balancing activities (which were required of honors students), etc.

The amount and depth of academic work I did in HS prepared me for the level of personal time and effort of work expected of me in my college courses. What did not help me, however, was the complete lack of non-academic electives (with the exeption of "choose one" - Art (painting or drawing), Choir, or Typing).

An example of our electives (only in Junior or Senior year):
European Lit, Physics, Analysis, Advanced Calc, 3rd & 4th year language, AP classes.

The honors classes also provided opportunity/required thinking out of the box. We had different types of projects we worked on, as opposed to just papers or tests. We had also academic field trips, which included Shakespearean plays, trips to the Museum, etc., after which a project/test based on the content of the trip was usually required.

Lastly, the school REQUIRED parental participation, at 2 parent-teacher conferences, at least one fundraiser per year, signing off on any paper/test below a 70, or any detention.

Why were only the honors kids taking Study Skills class? Why didn't they have the opportunity to take advanced academic classes, work on creative projects, or see Literature come alive or stand face-to-face with a Degas or Monet?

In my book, my school did a great disservice to those other students, espcially because our school was a (college) prep school, where 97% of all graduating classes went straight to a 4-year college?

In most public schools, kids don't have any of those opportunites (and if so, they are rare).

[UGAalum94]

I agree that there have always been levels and tiers, but I think that more kids are performing at the low tier level and the gap between tiers has grown. In the olden days when I went to school, I think the average graduate, even from the dumber tracks, was basically employable in a non-intellectual job upon graduation (at least in part because kids would quit school when they couldn't hack the work so the "worst" students never graduated).

Now, we've lowered the expectations for graduation to such a low level that a low tier students might not even understand that he or she needs to show up to work daily and complete the tasks assigned if they want to stay employed. (I'm not saying all low level kids are this way, but school certainly doesn't require many lower level kids to be responsible for much.)

But weirdly, in contrast to what some of you have said, I think I'd go the other direction and encourage students to track themselves more as a method of fixing it. What I see happening when we try to push everyone through the same material is that the standards get lowered to the lowest group. If we allowed student and parents to select classes for kids, but held the standards in those classes pretty rigid, I think we'd end up with better education overall because no one would be kidding themselves about what the present level of performance meant or what it would allow kids to do next.

At the school where I teach, kids are either in resource special education, college prep, or AP by the time they are juniors. College prep can't really be college prep if it's the lowest level class offered to any kids who doesn't qualify to be in a special education class, can it? (Do you imagine that our school is prepared to flunk anyone who can't really do the work? The answer from the administration is no. Teachers are expected to "differentiate instruction" for low and high level learners. )

And yet, there's no indication to the kid or the parents that they aren't really getting truly college prep level classes and that if they really want that, they need to be in AP.

So, if we made college prep really college prep, but offered general level or vocational level as an option for the kids who serious couldn't or wouldn't do college prep work, they we could have some true standards for performance.

And if the kids change their minds about the track later, let them stay longer taking the new classes or offer more junior college or vocation school training for kids after they finish one track.

But pretending to be all things to all people when we're really focused on getting the low end through does a disservice to everyone.

[REE1993]

Originally Posted by UGAalum94

I agree that there have always been levels and tiers, but I think that more kids are performing at the low tier level and the gap between tiers has grown. In the olden days when I went to school, I think the average graduate, even from the dumber tracks, was basically employable in a non-intellectual job upon graduation (at least in part because kids would quit school when they couldn't hack the work so the "worst" students never graduated).

Now, we've lowered the expectations for graduation to such a low level that a low tier students might not even understand that he or she needs to show up to work daily and complete the tasks assigned if they want to stay employed. (I'm not saying all low level kids are this way, but school certainly doesn't require many lower level kids to be responsible for much.)

But weirdly, in contrast to what some of you have said, I think I'd go the other direction and encourage students to track themselves more as a method of fixing it. What I see happening when we try to push everyone through the same material is that the standards get lowered to the lowest group. If we allowed student and parents to select classes for kids, but held the standards in those classes pretty rigid, I think we'd end up with better education overall because no one would be kidding themselves about what the present level of performance meant or what it would allow kids to do next.

At the school where I teach, kids are either in resource special education, college prep, or AP by the time they are juniors. College prep can't really be college prep if it's the lowest level class offered to any kids who doesn't qualify to be in a special education class, can it? (Do you imagine that our school is prepared to flunk anyone who can't really do the work? The answer from the administration is no. Teachers are expected to "differentiate instruction" for low and high level learners. )

And yet, there's no indication to the kid or the parents that they aren't really getting truly college prep level classes and that if they really want that, they need to be in AP.

So, if we made college prep really college prep, but offered general level or vocational level as an option for the kids who serious couldn't or wouldn't do college prep work, they we could have some true standards for performance.

And if the kids change their minds about the track later, let them stay longer taking the new classes or offer more junior college or vocation school training for kids after they finish one track.

But pretending to be all things to all people when we're really focused on getting the low end through does a disservice to everyone.

You nicely described a possible solution for the problem(s) I presented in my email. Great analytical skills and ideas!

At my school, you either passed or were flunked/expelled, but there was no alternative for those who may not be suited for four+ years of academia, and who would excel and grow at a practical learning/training institution.

[Taualumna]

The only problem with offering vocational programs is that they can cost a lot of money. College prep and remedial programs (other than computer courses) generally require a regular classroom or lab setting only. Vocational programs may require studios, workshops, etc...and thanks to budget cuts, not all public schools can offer these things. Of course, there are always seperate schools or apprenticeship/co-op programs...

[bejazd]

I agree there's too much emphasis placed on standardized testing. I'd like to see more balance: the best part of standardized testing is that it does hold schools and teachers accountable for producing results. The worst part is spending so much time "teaching to the test" and not really instructing students to think or learn how to learn.

At the HS level, the students pretty much blow off the standardized tests because they know it's not important to them personally in the way that their GPA or SAT/ACT scores are. So while the elem and middle schools in my area have very high test scores, the HS is pretty dismal by comparison. Our HS principal recently propsed bumping up borderline grades in English or math (i.e. changing a B to an A) if a student had a very high score on the standardized test. THat did not go over well with teachers at all!