75% of Oklahoma High School Students Can't Name First President of U.S.

[English Mobster]

Couldn't decide whether to put this in Off-topic or the Great Debate; put it in here just to be safe. Mods, feel free to move it if you deem it not debate-worthy enough.
http://www.globalone.tv/profiles/blogs/75-percent-of-oklahoma-high

OKLAHOMA CITY -- Only one in four Oklahoma public high school students can name the first President of the United States, according to a survey released today.

The survey was commissioned by the Oklahoma Council of Public Affairs in observance of Constitution Day on Thursday.

Brandon Dutcher is with the conservative think tank and said the group wanted to find out how much civic knowledge Oklahoma high school students know.

The Oklahoma City-based think tank enlisted national research firm, Strategic Vision, to access students' basic civic knowledge.

"They're questions taken from the actual exam that you have to take to become a U.S. citizen," Dutcher said.

A thousand students were given 10 questions drawn from the U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services item bank. Candidates for U.S. citizenship must answer six questions correctly in order to become citizens.

About 92 percent of the people who take the citizenship test pass on their first try, according to immigration service data. However, Oklahoma students did not fare as well. Only about 3 percent of the students surveyed would have passed the citizenship test.

Dutcher said this is not just a problem in Oklahoma. He said Arizona had similar results, which left him concerned for the entire country.

"Jefferson later said that a nation can't expect to be ignorant and free," Dutcher said. "It points to a real serious problem. We're not going to remain ignorant and free."Personally, I can't say I'm surprised. These are the same sorts of families who watch Glenn Beck religiously, who believe every word that comes out of Faux Noise, and who believe Obama is the antichrist.
E:
Perhaps my little bit here was a little far to the left and an extreme exaggeration (12% of Oklahoma is Atheist/Agnostic, not the 3% I had assumed). However, I am appalled at this. According to the most reliable resource on the internet (Wikipedia):

[T]he state of Oklahoma produces an average of 38,278 degree-holders per completions component (i.e. July 1, 2007-June 30, 2008). The national average is 68,322 total degrees awarded per completions component.
In English: The amount of people who graduated from High School and College is half the rate of the rest of the U.S., yet, when compared to the other Southern states, Oklahoma is the BEST out of the Deep South. That's terrifying.

[DarkHalo003]

You generalizations were extreme, not just overstatements. However, this does bother me quite a bit. You would normally think states like Alabama, Louisiana, and Mississippi would have more issues like this. It seems that the extent of education is greatly limited in more places than just the center of the South.

[Rentafence]

In other news, 75% of high School students fuck with surveys


These are the same sorts of families who watch Glenn Beck religiously, who believe every word that comes out of Faux Noise, and who believe Obama is the antichrist.

Where did this come from? O_o

[Bodzilla]

observed trends within far right communitys.

[Donut]

last i heard, here in rhode island we have a 70% failure rate in our city public schools.
E: i did some googling and found an official looking document. apparently as of 2000 rhode island came in dead last of the 50 states in the number of projected highschool graduates vs actual highschool graduates. and we were one of the few schools to have an INCREASE in graduates. idfk how that works.
you guys might check this out. its a 1.8 mb pdf of highschool related statistics for the 50 states.
http://www.ets.org/Media/Research/pdf/PICONETHIRD.pdf

[Kornman00]

Some more wood in the fire: America the Ignorant (http://www.newsweek.com/photo/2010/08/24/dumb-things-americans-believe.html).

Of course, I always take statistics of any form with a grain of salt.

[Phopojijo]

When you have so few graduates... it's easier to get more.

[English Mobster]

Some more wood in the fire: America the Ignorant (http://www.newsweek.com/photo/2010/08/24/dumb-things-americans-believe.html).

Of course, I always take statistics of any form with a grain of salt.
Oh, man. I'm going to go kill myself now, if you don't mind. :smithicide:

[Rook]

something about southern states you edited out


Generally speaking I'm pretty sure us hicks know more about history than most anyone else. Try again though. :)

[CrAsHOvErRide]

Even as a foreigner I could answer this question.

[Syuusuke]

You lived in the U.S. long enough to know the answer...cheater!

[Ifafudafi]

Yay, my field. Two big things here:

-Parents can condition their kids from an early age to believe unconditionally in anything they say; while the more modern tendency of kids to rebel more openly against their elders has mitigated this trend somewhat, there are still a ton of stupid, bull-headed parents passing on stupid, bull-headed things to their stupid, bull-headed kids. Teaching in a fairly redneck area of western Texas, I've seen quite a bit of this. The history & science teachers here are some of the unluckiest people in the world.

-Public education sucks. Everybody who controls curriculum, standards, laws, etc. is holding to this stupid ideal that if a student passes a class, the student is sufficiently comfortable with the material for the rest of their life. Most of my time isn't spent teaching new material; it's spent trying to get kids to start learning and applying things in context. That kind of developed understanding isn't very expident for either the students or the schools, though; blind, cram-heavy memorization is a quick way to get high grades and high test scores just long enough to squeeze through the class, and schools are just fine with this because they still pass state & national standards, intelligence be damned. It doesn't matter if you remember anything because you're not taking the class anymore, right?

I'm hoping that once we get the next generation into state legislatures and such there will be some bigger reform (public education is still a relatively recent thing in America). Here's what I keep trying to convince the adminstrators of the school: An idiot with a degree is still and idiot, except now they're in a position to do more harm.

[paladin]

Another example of why education needs to be privatized. Private school k-9 ftw.

[Phopojijo]

Another example of why education needs to be privatized. Private school k-9 ftw.Uh... your school system is much more privatized than Canada's... working out great for you?

Seriously... go look in to how your school system "works".

[paladin]

Only 11% of k-12 students attend private school. And how are publics schools more privatized?

[Phopojijo]

Your system is so private (not privately funded... privately administered -- *I* could make a school if I have enough money to... and ONLY if I had enough money to) and unregulated that the SATs needed to be created (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/SAT#Function) because the actual curriculum and grades were too unstandardized to even be considered valid criteria for college/university entrance.

The whole reason for the SATs were to shoe-horn in some standardization into your system because it's too privately administered.

(And even they're run from a private Non-Profit Organization).

If you have enough money, you can physically make a school in the States. That's it.

[paladin]

Education falls to the state. Every student in Washington state that attends a public school will *theoretically* learn the same thing. Even 'privately administered' schools have to follow a state curriculum.

Statistically, students that attend a private primary and secondary schools learn and retain knowledge better than those that attend public schools.

[Bodzilla]

You lived in the U.S. long enough to know the answer...cheater!
100 dollar bill ya'll HUNDRED DOLLAR BILL YAll

hundred dolla Bill Y'all.

[sleepy1212]

this has nothing to do with political ideology. most of these kids, ones that are so incredibly undereducated, don't give a shit, much less know anything about politics.

[CN3089]

100 dollar bill ya'll HUNDRED DOLLAR BILL YAll

hundred dolla Bill Y'all.

Benjamin Franklin's on the hundred dollar bill, not Washington; he's on the one. Hope this helps.

[CrAsHOvErRide]

Benjamin Franklin's on the hundred dollar bill, not Washington; he's on the one. Hope this helps.
Yeah xD was about to post that.

Bod...:cop:

[ICEE]

In all fairness, I would have NO IDEA who was on your country's money if you asked me :)

[Dwood]

In all fairness, I would have NO IDEA who was on your country's money if you asked me :)

Queen Elizabeth is on some coins somewhere right?

[thehoodedsmack]

She's on all current Canadian coins, and the $20 bill. She's probably on a lot of British and Australian money as well.

[CrAsHOvErRide]

I guess most foreigners wouldn't know this. But why should they...G. Washington was not very important to the world and Americans don't know anything about other presidents either. :P

[Bodzilla]

Benjamin Franklin's on the hundred dollar bill, not Washington; he's on the one. Hope this helps.

FUCK

lol

is he on the one?

[Phopojijo]

Education falls to the state. Every student in Washington state that attends a public school will *theoretically* learn the same thing. Even 'privately administered' schools have to follow a state curriculum.

Statistically, students that attend a private primary and secondary schools learn and retain knowledge better than those that attend public schools.Yeah it's easy to get higher levels of knowledge retention if you can expel students who have low aptitude and cause trouble.

Disagree? We had a case study in teacher's college last year of (I believe it was Alberta) a few decades ago. In their School Act there was a stipulation that you do not need to attend school if "the public system is not suitable to teach your children" (For homeschooled children) -- so some school boards were expelling students because "the public system was not suitable for them"

... that was shot down... but for that time it was equivalent to the private schools in Alberta.

[Heathen]

Senior year my graduating class didn't know who was on any US currency except for the 100 dollar bill.




I shit you not.

[Syuusuke]

Senior year of a graduating class, well none of them graduated!

I do shit you, however.

[Dwood]

Yeah it's easy to get higher levels of knowledge retention if you can expel students who have low aptitude and cause trouble.

Disagree? We had a case study in teacher's college last year of (I believe it was Alberta) a few decades ago. In their School Act there was a stipulation that you do not need to attend school if "the public system is not suitable to teach your children" (For homeschooled children) -- so some school boards were expelling students because "the public system was not suitable for them"

... that was shot down... but for that time it was equivalent to the private schools in Alberta.

What are Canada's laws on Homeschooling? Ours are basically "If you can pass the state exams/college entrance exams we don't really care"

[CN3089]

What are Canada's laws on Homeschooling? Ours are basically "If you can pass the state exams/college entrance exams we don't really care"
Education policy is in the jurisdiction of the provinces. Pretty sure it's legal in all of them, though.


Bonus Fun Fact: Private schools were outlawed in some of the prairie provinces until the 90s :eng101:

[Phopojijo]

It technically depends on the province since (like Health Care) -- Education is relegated to the provinces. The Federal Government has no legal control over schooling (minus of course the Charter of Rights and Freedoms). When the Federal Government wants a program implemented in the province -- they tie the program with some amount of money and say "Take both or leave both"... the same is true for Medicare (so ironically it would completely follow the US constitution if it were in the USA). {Quebec tends to take the money and ignore the program... because they're Quebec}.

Long story short -- it depends on the province... that said -- Ontario's policy is:


S21(2) A child is excused from attendance at school if,
(a) the child is receiving satisfactory instruction at home or elsewhere;

And I think every other province agrees in their own education or school acts.

[TeeKup]

Oklahoma isn't in the South. Oklahoma is in the mid west.

http://www.atwoodvacations.com/images/Southern-States2.gif

This is the South.

Also this doesn't surprise me. In my US History class in high school, no one could name the author of the Declaration of Independence. After about 5 minutes of guessing every single founding father I finally shouted:

"Jesus christ you idiots, Thomas Jefferson.:

[Timo]

She's on all current Canadian coins, and the $20 bill. She's probably on a lot of British and Australian money as well.

Yeah, she's on all the coins and the $20 here too.

[iizahsum]

Quarters.... Quarters everywhere...

[Spartan094]

For some reason I didn't see this 3 days ago, when I saw the title of this thread just right now I went.
http://i214.photobucket.com/albums/cc286/Brandon094/dearpfest.png

[DarkHalo003]

Generally speaking I'm pretty sure us hicks know more about history than most anyone else. Try again though. :)
We also truly have some of the best overall test scores when it comes to the SAT. Notice how i said "truly." That's because most schools in other places tell their remedial or non-honors kids to not take SAT. So basically, the averages are all based on the best of the best instead of the state's actual students. Kind of ridiculous right?

[Phopojijo]

Yeah, just as ridiculous as private schools expelling the students who actually would benefit most from the structured environment of school... because they're in the 10% of students that use 90% of resources.

[Dwood]

Yeah, just as ridiculous as private schools expelling the students who actually would benefit most from the structured environment of school... because they're in the 10% of students that use 90% of resources.

It takes a LOT to just "expel" a kid from a private school... Especially while considering that said schools operate off the money that the parents literally pay them... Those schools only expel the worst of the worst, not just the rowdy ones... Note that "the worst of the worst" changes based on what kind of private school it is and what kind of kids/families it's geared towards. If it's a typical private school then they are (typically) keeping in full contact with the parents of the kids that are problematic, being sure that the parents are aware of the bad situations, and usually given permission to take paddles with holes in them to the rears of the kids. They don't just expel the kids that can't learn.

[Dwood]

Long story short -- it depends on the province... that said -- Ontario's policy is:



And I think every other province agrees in their own education or school acts.


Is there a way to quantify a "satisfactory" education? Like a provincial state test? Also, neat fact Kyon CN3809.

[Limited]

Aren't the questionnaires multiple choice as well? Off the top of my head I probably wouldnt have known, but given a much of names, I could easily pick it out.

Ridiculous how they don't know, fuck me the history of America is just a bit over 300 years. Thats nothing compared to the English. We have to learn a shit-ton more.

[sevlag]

20 percent of Americans were still sure (http://www.gallup.com/poll/3742/new-poll-gauges-americans-general-knowledge-levels.aspx) in 1999 that the sun revolved around the Earth.
THE FUCK IS WRONG WITH PEOPLE?! im reading this and becoming more ashamed of living in this damn country

[paladin]

Yeah, just as ridiculous as private schools expelling the students who actually would benefit most from the structured environment of school... because they're in the 10% of students that use 90% of resources.

It takes a lot more than a bad grade to expel a kid. I had friends that continuously struggled during certain years and they weren't kicked out. Your taking isolated incidents and using them as an example for a majority. It would not surprise me if you said all priests were pedophiles.

[Futzy]

THE FUCK IS WRONG WITH PEOPLE?! im reading this and becoming more ashamed of living in this damn country
I'm ashamed of most of the people on this planet.

[sleepy1212]

Yeah, just as ridiculous as private schools expelling the students who actually would benefit most from the structured environment of school... because they're in the 10% of students that use 90% of resources.

Are you sure you're not talking about public schools? Most private schools are profit based so it doesn't pay to boot customers. It may have changed but when I was in school kids who got expelled from public had to go to private. anyway, i'm sensing an irrational fear of private education.

[paladin]

anyway, i'm sensing an irrational fear of private education.

Irrational fear of free enterprise.

[Phopojijo]

It would not surprise me if you said all priests were pedophiles.I'm Roman Catholic.


Are you sure you're not talking about public schools?I'm a teacher. ((Highschool Physics/Integrated Science/Math))


Irrational fear of free enterprise.The point of school is to allow the lowest barrier of entry to the free market... so not there either.

Do your homework guys o.O (Semi-pun semi-intended)

[paladin]

Now the source of your hatred of private education is revealed.

[Dwood]

The point of school is to allow the lowest barrier of entry to the free market... so not there either.


If that is the case then School has failed, miserably.

[sleepy1212]

The point of PUBLIC school is to allow the lowest barrier of entry to the free market... so not there either.

dunno about Canada but private schools aren't meant to offer the "lowest barrier". They provide an accelerated or advantaged placement into the free market relative to their tuition. Public schools (in bold) on the other hand, are meant to be free (minus taxes) and do provide less of a barrier. Unfortunately you get what you pay for (hence this thread).

[paladin]

The government should subsidize those who cant afford education, and just privatize it. (Wa. State pays around $7600 a year per student. Use programs like GET, only on primary and secondary schools)

[CN3089]

Now the source of your hatred of private education is revealed.

That it provides an innately inequal advantage to the privileged at the expense of the unprivileged?

[paladin]

hows private education at the expense of underprivileged? They didnt pay for my school. My parents working hard and realizing the failures of public education allowed me to go to private school pk-9.

[Bodzilla]

That it provides an innately inequal advantage to the privileged at the expense of the unprivileged?

you keep forgetting he's the worst person on the planet CN

got mine, fuck you

[Phopojijo]

hows private education at the expense of underprivileged? They didnt pay for my school. My parents working hard and realizing the failures of public education allowed me to go to private school pk-9.Because the mistakes or circumstances of your ancestors should determine your status in life.

Er... wait... doesn't anyone who works hard enough get to do what they want? I'm confused -- because it seems to me like you consider this tiered system actually allows you to have more success in the future because of the success you had. You know, if I wasn't paying close attention... I'd almost go to the length to say that you're suggesting that you had an unfair advantage.

...

...

Here's the problem Paladin.

Education is an investment... the more people can be given higher levels of education... the higher your country's average level of income... which provides more taxable income for a lower tax percentage... fueling the cycle again. (Not to mention reduced crime and unemployment rates)

Bad public education, however, is something that needs to be fixed. No-one really has the system down pat yet... but at least identifying the goal of education and striving toward it is a first step -- and frankly very few people even are at that stage yet.

It's like people who think that the CORRECTIONAL system is designed to give the victims payback for their troubles. The Government is not your fucking hitman.

[Dwood]

I don't call it the "Correctional" system, I call it the Justice system.

[Phopojijo]

Yeah I can sense that I opened up an off-topic can of worms -- never mind on the Correctional comment.

Back to my point -- identifying the reason for education... and that is to increase the average income of your citizens (as well as lower crime rate, etc) to be competitive on the international free market.

[Bodzilla]

Because the mistakes or circumstances of your ancestors should determine your status in life.
Most important thing you nay-sayers should ever fucking read.

Because no matter how you spin it, that is your argument.

[paladin]

Yeah I can sense that I opened up an off-topic can of worms -- never mind on the Correctional comment.

Back to my point -- identifying the reason for education... and that is to increase the average income of your citizens (as well as lower crime rate, etc) to be competitive on the international free market.

And you think that this cannot be achieved if students attend private school?

[Bodzilla]

Fuck your dense.

seriously.

[sleepy1212]

I really like the logic on this page.

It basically goes like this:
I (literally) drive a $500 car, everyone else should drive a $500 car. Anyone who drives a $1000 car is "Fuck you, got mine".

Let me translate this into your education arguments:
I can't afford to go to Harvard. No one should be allowed to go to Harvard.

This very accurately represents the whole problem with redistrubitionist ideology. Forcing equality by making all the strong links as weak as the weakest link rather than making all the weak links as strong as the strongest link.


Bad public education, however, is something that needs to be fixed.

Could it possibly be that private schools are not the problem!? :allears:

[TeeKup]

I tend to not get involved in these threads, I just stop by now and then; That vaguely sounds like communism, correct me if I'm mistaken.

[paladin]

Fuck your dense.

seriously.

How? Your trying to implemet your holy crusade against private {insert here} on private education. You guys say public education is fucked up. I say private education isnt. Then you guys say private education is the problem. If im dense, your ignorant.

Also, you should refresh yourself on the rules for this section (http://www.modacity.net/forums/showthread.php?21000-On-Debates-and-Debating). Your break one in almost every post, or are you too good for those aswell?

[Phopojijo]

I really like the logic on this page.

It basically goes like this:
I (literally) drive a $500 car, everyone else should drive a $500 car. Anyone who drives a $1000 car is "Fuck you, got mine".

Let me translate this into your education arguments:
I can't afford to go to Harvard. No one should be allowed to go to Harvard.

This very accurately represents the whole problem with redistrubitionist ideology. Forcing equality by making all the strong links as weak as the weakest link rather than making all the weak links as strong as the strongest link.



Could it possibly be that private schools are not the problem!? :allears:Yeah there's a few logical leaps that you're making.

Firstly -- this isn't redistribution... this is investment. The average income raises with education (and crime rates drop, etc.)

Secondly -- in your system there are many schools which do not teach the entrance requirements for a University like Queen's, Harvard, etc.

Thirdly -- "No one should be allowed to go to Harvard" -- Everyone should be able to go to Harvard if they work for it -- big difference.

Fourthly -- "This very accurately represents the whole problem with redistrubitionist ideology. Forcing equality by making all the strong links as weak as the weakest link rather than making all the weak links as strong as the strongest link." While not redistribution... even if it was -- people who take money from the rich don't destroy the money... they share it with the poor... so they'd be neither making the weak links as strong as the strong links nor making the strong links as weak as the weak links.

I mean if you want to firm your beliefs against redistribution (even though it's not even being suggested) by flat-out lying to yourself about what it is -- then I guess ignorance is bliss -- but it's also ignorance.

---------
edit:
And I guess I'll address this in this post... I was afraid of a tl;dr. but whatever. Read the whole post, it's good stuff.

Private education isn't a problem... public education isn't a problem... poor education is a problem... lack of understanding of the point of education is a problem.

Private education dodges the issue for those who can afford it -- unless they're affected by others who came from the public sector (mugged, paying extra taxes for needless welfare/police coverage, losing out on the innovation and work that people who were stuck in the public sector would otherwise contribute, etc.)

The problem still exists either way...

... since you are pushing for private education -- you acknowledge there's a problem that still exists -- otherwise, what would you be avoiding?

[CN3089]

Education isn't screwed up in the United States because of private schools, it's because of widespread anti-intellectualism and worship of ignorance and ignoramuses. The problem with private education is that it provides an unfair advantage for children of wealthy parents. Well, cya.



ps I should point out that the United States isn't really that terrible when it comes to education, it's just not as good as you would expect given the strength of its economy and the funding it puts into its system.

[paladin]

The problem with private education is that it provides an unfair advantage for children of wealthy parents. Well, cya.


Well if you consider my parents, at the time a middle school teacher and a Boeing machinist, wealthy, Id hate to live in the world you live in.

[Phopojijo]

... congratulations?

[SnaFuBAR]

The post didn't exactly address the levels of wealth in your home, paladin.

[Bodzilla]

How? Your trying to implemet your holy crusade against private {insert here} on private education. You guys say public education is fucked up. I say private education isnt. Then you guys say private education is the problem. If im dense, your ignorant.

Also, you should refresh yourself on the rules for this section (http://www.modacity.net/forums/showthread.php?21000-On-Debates-and-Debating). Your break one in almost every post, or are you too good for those aswell?
no it's not because you have a different opinion that your dense, it's because when it comes to reading comprehension and following the arguments people are making, your simply hopeless.
seriously. if we where talking about REVOLUTIONARY technology i'd be calling you steve jobs.

[paladin]

The post didn't exactly address the levels of wealth in your home, paladin.

I was addressing the fact that he said 'children of wealthy parents'. A majority of private school students may be in high income families, but not all of them. That was my point.

[Bodzilla]

ahhh so a majority of people with rich family backrounds have a better shot at life, education, health, and employment?
Cheers man good to know, it's always fascinating to find new evidence on this.

[Phopojijo]

I was addressing the fact that he said 'children of wealthy parents'. A majority of private school students may be in high income families, but not all of them. That was my point.But almost none of the low income families and other categories of Youth at Risk {my program focus for my Bachelor of Education}... the ones who need the structured environment of the education system the most. The ones who could end up costing you money for welfare... the ones who could have done something innovative and create a new industry... the ones who could have contributed to society had they been given proper education from a young age.

But hey, why put tax money into education (increasing your average income, decreasing your crime rate, etc) when you can put it into welfare and law enforcement?

[sleepy1212]

Yeah there's a few logical leaps that you're making.

Firstly -- this isn't redistribution... this is investment. The average income raises with education (and crime rates drop, etc.)

If you take money from the private school to "invest" in public school it is redistribution.

Secondly -- in your system there are many schools which do not teach the entrance requirements for a University like Queen's, Harvard, etc.

a serious problem with public schools, not so much with those "unfair" private schools

Thirdly -- "No one should be allowed to go to Harvard" -- Everyone should be able to go to Harvard if they work for it -- big difference.

I almost shit myself when someone in TGD said people should actually work for something

Fourthly -- "This very accurately represents the whole problem with redistrubitionist ideology. Forcing equality by making all the strong links as weak as the weakest link rather than making all the weak links as strong as the strongest link." While not redistribution... even if it was -- people who take money from the rich don't destroy the money... they share it with the poor... so they'd be neither making the weak links as strong as the strong links nor making the strong links as weak as the weak links.

Again, if you take money from private school and give it to public school it is redistribution. If the motivation for doing so also claims that private schooling is "unfair" (your words pg6) then my analogy is correct. You would weaken private education in order to raise public education effectively drawing everyone closer to mediocrity.

Private education isn't a problem... public education isn't a problem... poor education is a problem... lack of understanding of the point of education is a problem.

Private education dodges the issue for those who can afford it -- unless they're affected by others who came from the public sector (mugged, paying extra taxes for needless welfare/police coverage, losing out on the innovation and work that people who were stuck in the public sector would otherwise contribute, etc.)

The problem still exists either way...

... since you are pushing for private education -- you acknowledge there's a problem that still exists -- otherwise, what would you be avoiding?

The rest of this post is just you changing your argument against private schools. Still, i totally agree with most of what you say is the real problem, i just don't view private education as a threat to public education nor do i view it as unfair. Many people attending private schools have parents who worked very hard to get them there. Maybe some of these people are the ones who worked hard to get into Harvard.



Let's move on....


I have some ideas, let's see what everyone thinks

1) Pay teachers more
2) Make teachers and schools accountable for the education they provide (some problems here see#3, 5, 6)
3) Make students accountable for the grades they get. No one should be passed if they have not mastered the material. High School seniors should not be illiterate (you should see the kids around where i live now). Those who fall behind will either catch up or repeat the year.
4) DOE (Dept. of Education) should be run by parents and educators, not politicians. Period. you eligibility for office ends when you no longer have kids attending public school
5) The current District-Tax relationship should be abolished. Taxes should be higher (for education only) but people should not be limited by the district they live in. Schools should not be payed by the amount of people in their district. Rather, parents and students should have a choice of which school to go to and schools will be payed relative to enrollment. This encourages competition while maintaining a public source of education.
6) Standardized testing should return and the SAT should be revised and made far more difficult. Right now, with the exception of algebra, a third grader could ace the SAT. There is no reason a high school senior should have to study for the SAT.
7) K-12 should be condensed into K-8. Too many years are wasted by teaching the same material year after year. The remaining 4 years should be replaced either trade school (more intense than current<2yr vocational schools) and/or pursuit of bachelor degrees. Students will be required to complete one.
8) Math is not racist. History isn't about social justice, it's about wars, economies, things that happened, etc... the classroom is not a forum for political agendas. Science class teaches evolution, church teaches creation. deal with it. The two subjects are not mutually exclusive, get over it Texas.

[Phopojijo]

1) You do realize it's necessary to teach the same material multiple times, correct? The vast majority of students do not attain the vast majority of concepts the first time through unless tutored one-on-one.

2) I disagree with the trade vs bachelor route. Grade 9 is too early for a student to decide what route to take with their life -- especially if they had one or more bad teachers early on in their schooling. I only decided to take a physics degree late grade 11, early grade 12.

... I realize that you intend to be done with Grade 12 by the time Grade 8 rolls around... but that's simply impossible. There's a lot of concepts that are actually REMOVED from Math and Science (math especially) that should be in the public system because there's NOT ENOUGH time... and UNIVERSITIES are pushing for a rank-ordered curriculum based on what they consider important for their program.

A good example is the removal of discrete mathematics to add extra calculus-based math.

3) Standardized testing is a mixed bag. The SATs are a gong-show because of how disconnected your schooling system is.

3.5) Paying teachers according to their results on standardized testing is already in the States, and is the worst idea ever (they even extend it to firing teachers with too-low test scores). I don't just mean in its premise... literally the empirical results from it show that it is a terrible terrible idea that causes pretty much exclusively harm and little-to-no good.

...

All that ends up happening is the youth who are at-risk get neglected further.

4) "Pushing kids through" is a difficult line to walk... school (especially math and science) are cumulative... and most kids who have trouble are generally only stuck on a couple of concepts. Failing kids, however, re-enforces their negative self-image and makes them less likely to succeed.

That said -- so does adding more material before they master the prerequisites.

There's no real answer for it now... but "student success" rooms that's being implemented in Ontario seems to be quite helpful... where students can occasionally (some more frequent than others) get one-on-one tutoring during the portions of the classes deemed "seat-work".

But that is one of the hundreds of areas that can be improved by trying out new ways of approaching the problem. So it's not so black-and-white.

---------------------

Also, I never changed my opinion on private and public education. Simply put -- neither of them are problems... they're solutions to problems. One, however, is an ignorant and short-sighted solution...

It's never about giving people free rides... it's about minimizing the number of people who cannot succeed due to reasons outside of their control. You don't weaken the high-end to level out the playing field like so many people justify their ignorance by saying... you remove the barriers from everyone -- regardless of demographic -- and allow them to succeed by their own merits.

Just think about it for a second... if the Government was honestly in the business of reducing everyone to the lowest common denominator... there'd be less and less taxable income and the institution itself would collapse.

In closing

FOR THE LOVE OF GOD THIS IS NOT A ZERO SUM GAME!

[Bodzilla]

get out of here with your well educated opinions and experiences!

cant you see we're speculating and running in circles here!

Listen to phopo

[sleepy1212]

1) You do realize it's necessary to teach the same material multiple times, correct? The vast majority of students do not attain the vast majority of concepts the first time through unless tutored one-on-one.

We've already agreed that education has problems, if we could advance teaching methods and education practices wouldn't it be reasonable to assume they could move through the material faster? Or while still maintaining some state standard some schools could cover more material than others. With this, slower schools would likely be the ones to offer the trade option. Basically a student could choose a slower or faster school (#5)

2) I disagree with the trade vs bachelor route. Grade 9 is too early for a student to decide what route to take with their life -- especially if they had one or more bad teachers early on in their schooling. I only decided to take a physics degree late grade 11, early grade 12.

When did you get the chance to take physics as part of your curricula? Our schools typically offer it at Jr and Sr levels (gr 11, 12 i.e., gr 7, 8). Also, i think it's a great idea to allow younger people to choose. I think younger students are more likely to follow their dreams rather than a practical career path. Plus we elliminate the undergrad debt associated with present day colleges (who's new role would be to provide graduate ed).

... I realize that you intend to be done with Grade 12 by the time Grade 8 rolls around... but that's simply impossible. There's a lot of concepts that are actually REMOVED from Math and Science (math especially) that should be in the public system because there's NOT ENOUGH time... and UNIVERSITIES are pushing for a rank-ordered curriculum based on what they consider important for their program.

A good example is the removal of discrete mathematics to add extra calculus-based math.

The whole system is based on the diploma-mill. Which is a serious problem today. But I'd like to refer back to the "school-choice" option and remind you that our current system passes high school seniors who are nearly illiterate. When I graduated in 1999 this was largely unheard of but the trend is growing.

3) Standardized testing is a mixed bag. The SATs are a gong-show because of how disconnected your schooling system is.

yeah, i know. we do, however, need a test of some sort to evaluate the success of students, teachers, and schools.

3.5) Paying teachers according to their results on standardized testing is already in the States, and is the worst idea ever (they even extend it to firing teachers with too-low test scores). I don't just mean in its premise... literally the empirical results from it show that it is a terrible terrible idea that causes pretty much exclusively harm and little-to-no good.

Paying them purely on the results of their students is a terrible idea (i hinted at this in #2). Right now we have a problem. Our Union system, which covers most teachers, essentially benefits the weakest performers. while it does provide them with security, it encourages apathy to the material and students. What I'm really trying to address by making teachers responsible is bad teachers.

...

All that ends up happening is the youth who are at-risk get neglected further.

4) "Pushing kids through" is a difficult line to walk... school (especially math and science) are cumulative... and most kids who have trouble are generally only stuck on a couple of concepts. Failing kids, however, re-enforces their negative self-image and makes them less likely to succeed.

negative self-image? oh christ your one of those 'purple-pen' teachers aren't you? lol

Staying on track in a diploma-mill creates an environment of completion rather than learning. Students are judged based on their ability to 'eat and get out'. They should be mastering the material first. Right now, instead of making sure kids learn, they pass them anyway just to keep them moving along. It's a big LOSE for the student. I remind you, I've already proposed taking some of the weight off the students by making teachers more responsible. In short, some issues are alleviated, although not cured, by implementing other practices.

in bold :eng101:

[Phopojijo]

1) Be careful in your statement of "Test" -- a test and an assessment are two different things that are often confused as the same. A "test" might not be the best form of standardization assessment (it might be, but don't limit yourself to that).

2) The student wouldn't be choosing a slower or faster school, their parents would be... and neither parent nor student honestly knows the best method to teach concepts. (Neither may the teacher, but that's a different problem).

3) Just because the course is not labelled "Physics" doesn't mean that it's not physics. But to answer your question (#2)... modules of integrated science courses were called "Physics" since like, grade 7.

4) It's not about being purple pen or anything like that... it's about doing what's best for the child and his/her learning.

If failing a student will make them less likely to succeed -- then why fail them? Because they couldn't reach an arbitrary level of criteria for a given school year? Likewise -- if passing a student will make them less likely to succeed -- then why pass them?

Unfortunately for a bureaucracy... students are not identical "products"... which is NOT what bureaucracies are designed for... or even remotely good at. So this problem (among many others) goes well beyond a finite number of rules... it's a problem with the whole system from design.

[sleepy1212]

1) Be careful in your statement of "Test" -- a test and an assessment are two different things that are often confused as the same. A "test" might not be the best form of standardization assessment (it might be, but don't limit yourself to that).

They're somewhat synonymous but either could be used to serve the purpose i'm describing. good point.

2) The student wouldn't be choosing a slower or faster school, their parents would be... and neither parent nor student honestly knows the best method to teach concepts. (Neither may the teacher, but that's a different problem).

More some parents than others. I made the choice to join the Gifted Studies Program in the 3rd grade with encouragement from my parents. I know several of my classmates' parents made them join and others who were later made to enter the IB program when it started (mid 90's?) and others who simply wanted to. Best case scenario both parent and student with the help of a teacher would be making that decision.

Also here is a good time to point out that schools that develop methods to cater to students' learning needs will be able to attract those students when "school choice" is allowed. For example, a kid I grew up with had a learning disability. His parents found out there was a teacher at a local private school working on ways to help kids like him so he switched schools and the result was fantastic.

3) Just because the course is not labelled "Physics" doesn't mean that it's not physics. But to answer your question (#2)... modules of integrated science courses were called "Physics" since like, grade 7.

This is confusing. I know physics is part of all science but we don't call biology or chemistry "intregrated physics". Are you maybe referring to general science courses as opposed to pure physics courses? To clarify when you say "Physics" I think freefall, ideal gas law, etc...

4) It's not about being purple pen or anything like that... it's about doing what's best for the child and his/her learning.

If failing a student will make them less likely to succeed -- then why fail them? Because they couldn't reach an arbitrary level of criteria for a given school year? Likewise -- if passing a student will make them less likely to succeed -- then why pass them?

"likely to succeed" is a prediction. be careful making predictions like that when it's based on a pseudo-science like child-psychology. Remember, those are the same people who said that rowdy active inattentive boys need ritalin.

Unfortunately for a bureaucracy... students are not identical "products"... which is NOT what bureaucracies are designed for... or even remotely good at. So this problem (among many others) goes well beyond a finite number of rules... it's a problem with the whole system from design.

This is my major beef with bureaucracies in general and why many spublic programs should not be managed by the state or the federal government. Schools are a perfect example and, like you said, they're more like cookie-cutting programs. This is where most of my initial list comes into play: below

If you pay teachers enough to take the issue of money off the table they will be more likely to innovate. If you allow them to take the reigns in designing appropriate curricula they will be able to tailor the material to the class. However they must be responsible for teaching at least a broad accepted minimum and they must be accountable to that end. So should the students.

By instituting school choice you allow educators of like-mind to assemble in the same school, providing a specialized education to students who may need/want it. This way schools form niches in the education system tailored to the needs of students. The students, in turn, are given the choice to attend any school they want. Their enrollment and subsequent matriculation contributes to the success of the school by increasing funding according to those factors and on the basis that graduates are receiving a quality education (testing, assessment). In theory successful schools will attract more students while failing schools lose students, raising and lowering their funding respectively (competition).

All this allows for the evolution of a learning environment where my K-8 plan is a possibility. Schools will eventually develop the systems by which the students achieve an accelerated education regardless of their learning idiosyncrasies.

[Phopojijo]

1) Yeah be careful with ADHD... it's a legitimate disorder that many people have and would benefit from medication.

... it's been terribly over-diagnosed and otherwise misdiagnosed... but is legitimate and important.

The same thing happened with Antibiotics... although bacterial infections are easier to understand.

2) I didn't say "Integrated Physics" -- I said "Integrated Science"... it's a general science course for younger grades that often have ~4 subcourses... one of which is usually physics, another chemistry, then usually like astronomy, biology, environment, etc. (depending on the year).

3) I made the distinction between test and assessment because an assessment could even be like -- year-end random audits of all summative assessments (tests, projects, etc.)... etc. It doesn't have to be a written, oral, etc. tests.

4) One of the many problems with private education is that parents and students don't understand education.

Routinely I get people telling me that math teachers need to ignore math theory and teach repetition and mental algebra because students are too reliant on calculators.

I basically lose my mind...

"So you want to ignore the purpose for using math and high-level math concepts... because they're too reliant on calculators. You want to focus on topics that can be solved using calculators and ignore topics that cannot be solved using calculators or any other mechanical device... and also not realize WHY they are using calculators?"

Sure, it's important that the student understands the basic operations, of course -- but you're REALLY up shit-creek if people cannot formulate the problem TO do mental math with.

Misunderstanding (which leads to apathy) of math is basically the entire reason why I went to teacher's college to teach Math and Physics. "It's just math" is like nails on a chalkboard to me.

[sleepy1212]

1.) That's what the friend i mentioned had; we're pretty much agreeing here

2.) Whoops, that's what i meant "integrated science", sorry. The original question i was asking was when you first took a pure physics course.

3.) You've explained what I meant by test, I like this. It serves exactly the purpose I intended.

4.) explain how that's a problem with private school and not public school.



"So you want to ignore the purpose for using math and high-level math concepts... because they're too reliant on calculators. You want to focus on topics that can be solved using calculators and ignore topics that cannot be solved using calculators or any other mechanical device... and also not realize WHY they are using calculators?"

Sure, it's important that the student understands the basic operations, of course -- but you're REALLY up shit-creek if people cannot formulate the problem TO do mental math with.

Misunderstanding (which leads to apathy) of math is basically the entire reason why I went to teacher's college to teach Math and Physics. "It's just math" is like nails on a chalkboard to me.

What's funny here, I finally got around to taking Physics, one of the few courses i need to finish my degree. You would hate my professor. I'm a "why" learner. I can remember all the "how" you can teach, and you can teach it till you're blue in the face but i still won't get it unless you serve up a big helping of "why". I've had two courses involving some basic physics ( chemistry 1&2 and hydrology) and still have no idea why acceleration is measured in sec^2; i mean, i get it algebraically but why? So yea, i here ya there.

Anyway, we've gone back and forth here a little bit on this so I'd like to know how you would change my plan, what you would discard/keep, and why.