should education officials decide early in elementary school who should be put in low level classes or who should be placed in honors classess? Whats your view point?

11/4/2005 4:09:00 PM

This reeks of homework assignment.

11/4/2005 4:49:48 PM

it seemed to work fine for me and most people in my classes. it would seem (to me) that it would be generally obvious to teachers which students are excelling early on. you can test them and put them in special (in a positive way) classes to culture some of their gifts. when it comes time to seperate into higher and lower end math classes (or the like) you have your group of higher end people (supplemented with people who had done well, but were not obviously excelling as the others were). it isnt perfect, but it seemed to work fine (suck on my anecdotal evidence).

this is to say, iq is generally pretty static. if you have a good way to measure it and/or can identify possible candidates for higher end coursework, why not do it early on.

[Edited on November 4, 2005 at 5:04 PM. Reason : .]

11/4/2005 5:03:14 PM

actually this guy at my job says tat at the beginning of his son's fourth grade year they take a test to see which class they will bein. i do not know which school he goes to though.

11/4/2005 5:31:44 PM

if i would have been forced to go through regular classes in elementary school(i.e. if they wouldnt have decided to put me in advanced classes) my parents would have sent me to private school

11/4/2005 5:52:21 PM

im pretty sure they had a test to place me too. im just saying having that gifted program prior to seperated math/science classes is also beneficial (and then supplement with other kids with good test scores).

11/4/2005 6:17:11 PM

Yeah, I'm pretty sure it's standard (nationwide) for kids to be tested in the 3rd/4th grade and then placed in the appropriate classes.

They also decide who goes into AG programs, accelerated math programs, etc.

11/4/2005 10:09:24 PM

my problem with academic tracking is that education officials they try to determined the abilities of a student at an early age and if they don't perform well in those abilities instead of trying to improve those abilities students (like myself) are placed in lower level academic classes throughout grade school, junior high , and high school. While I believe some gifts are shown early in life and need to be fostered, I still believe that student who abilities are not expressed early on still needs to given the same opportunities as a gifted student. Some of those students who are deemed as "gifted" usually have rich parents to provide them the adequate resources , such as a tutor , after school program, etc.. they are almost gurantee to do well on a test while their are other students who do not have those resources are apted to perform badly.

Jaime Escalante , one of the greatest educators of all time, showed LA hispanic students from the slums with barely basic math skills that they can do calculus and they did exceptionally well. Einstein was classified as retarded by his teachers and doomed to never amount to anything , but he turned out to be a genius. Just because you are "gifted" does not make you gifted. I know a lot of dumbasses who were in those kinds of programs. They just know how to work the system.

I point is, that just because these so called "gifts" are not shown early in students , dosen't mean they should be cast off to lower level classes.

11/5/2005 11:38:56 AM

o snap, penzoates back!

11/5/2005 11:45:18 AM

Quote :

"my problem with academic tracking is that education officials they try to determined the abilities of a student at an early age and if they don't perform well in those abilities instead of trying to improve those abilities students (like myself) are placed in lower level academic classes throughout grade school, junior high , and high school. While I believe some gifts are shown early in life and need to be fostered, I still believe that student who abilities are not expressed early on still needs to given the same opportunities as a gifted student. Some of those students who are deemed as "gifted" usually have rich parents to provide them the adequate resources , such as a tutor , after school program, etc.. they are almost gurantee to do well on a test while their are other students who do not have those resources are apted to perform badly. Jaime Escalante , one of the greatest educators of all time, showed LA hispanic students from the slums with barely basic math skills that they can do calculus and they did exceptionally well. Einstein was classified as retarded by his teachers and doomed to never amount to anything , but he turned out to be a genius. Just because you are "gifted" does not make you gifted. I know a lot of dumbasses who were in those kinds of programs. They just know how to work the system. I point is, that just because these so called "gifts" are not shown early in students , dosen't mean they should be cast off to lower level classes."

wtf mate. heres a list of my problems with your entire post...

1. you can always request to be bumped up in math or whatever. if you are in high school and find that shit easy...catch up over summer (or jump up without if ur ballsy). people like to pretend they have 0 choice....you can always go to a lower course cant you? what makes you think it doesnt go the opposite way.

also some ppl suck at math, period, and as a result HATE doing it. they dont want to improve their skills or do more of it at an accelerated rate. if you want change, take that shit upon urself and quit blaming the system.

2. i've already said, iq is relatively static. testing for gifted programs is generally associated with iq. you wont be magically smarter next year.

3. rich kids have tutors for what....placement tests or IOWA or whatever...come the fuck on. i lived in a very affluent area growing up (thank god schoolwise) and i cant think of anyone who needed a tutor to pass that shit. those tests are very simple, you either get it or dont. the minority of people who utilize tutors to pass those easy-ass tests are gonna have a hard time keeping up in the classes they place into.

thats not to say rich people dont have the benefit on the SAT's or problematic subjects, but it really doesnt do you any service to make yourself out to be more intelligent on a placement test.

4. yes so poor kids arent necessarily dumb...we already knew that. their schools suck ass and theyve got a lot more on their mind than if they are gonna pass a test. its shitty, but not surprising. this is a relatively unrelated issue concerning placement and ranking WITHIN a school.

if you are talking about no child left behind crap, we've got another story, but it doesnt seem that way.

5. some ppl are smart but dont take school seriously, another unsurprising fact. so unless you know the intracacies of their test scores id mind you not to judge their abilities. they'll be in the same category as the tutor kids, having problems because of their lack of drive. if not, well good for them.

[Edited on November 5, 2005 at 10:17 PM. Reason : .]

11/5/2005 10:15:56 PM

"you can always request to be bumped up in math or whatever. if you are in high school and find that shit easy...catch up over summer (or jump up without if ur ballsy). people like to pretend they have 0 choice....you can always go to a lower course cant you? what makes you think it doesnt go the opposite way."

How can students request to be moved up to an upper level math class when all the math they have at their public high school is algebra 2 and trigonometry. When some kids request to be moved up to a higher level course, teachers reject those students who request to be move to an upper level class , because they fear students will not be able to handle the courseload. This isn't true. Jaime Escalante opened his calculus class to anyone who wanted to take it ,so their were no prerequisites. My math teacher did not persuade me to take the upper level math classes because she feared that I would not do well and them. I proved her wrong. Unfortunately , I am like the only person in my school who has done this, indicating that self-motivation dosen't work for some students, but they need external motivation from teachers.

I agree that some students suck at math. But students of different socioeconomic backgrounds have to suck at math at different levels. Can't we all despise math at the same level.

"some ppl are smart but dont take school seriously, another unsurprising fact. so unless you know the intracacies of their test scores id mind you not to judge their abilities. they'll be in the same category as the tutor kids, having problems because of their lack of drive. if not, well good for them. "

I think kids take school really seriously because they know slipoffs will cause them to get further and further behind. You cannot judge a student's academic abilities solely based off an IQ test from . National Center for Education statistics show the achievement level for primarily black and hispanic students are generally40 % lower than the achievement level of white students. Females tend to outscore males by 30 % . I agree with you that poor students and rich students are placed in the same category if you are talking about their abilities. I believe that everyone can achieved academically if they put their minds to it. But it take longer for certain students with the absence of basic resources to meet these goals. Sadly , top colleges usually want students who with a heavy academic course load. Poorer schools tend to offer a range of 0 - 4 AP classes, whereas a surbanite schools offers students 15-20 AP courses to take.

[Edited on November 7, 2005 at 4:25 PM. Reason : l]

11/7/2005 4:23:31 PM

Wealthy parents can and do have their kids retested, which can potentially get them into a highly gifted program. However, it's foolish to not give the smart kids more challenging coursework because it might magically pull up the level of work of others. More than likely, you'll just not challenge those kids and cultivate their gifts, and they may in fact become disruptive to average or above-average IQ kids that are honestly trying to learn.

Not everyone is going to be at the same level, and trying to teach at the same level doesn't help anyone. Kindergarden might be a stretch but 3rd grade is certainly normal.

11/7/2005 4:31:55 PM

^ again though...why does it matter? let them get retested. sure they'll have a nice academic route, but they're either going to have to work really hard or get bad grades. i see no issue as someone in a lower level can work hard and move up as i've said.

Quote :

"ow can students request to be moved up to an upper level math class when all the math they have at their public high school is algebra 2 and trigonometry. When some kids request to be moved up to a higher level course, teachers reject those students who request to be move to an upper level class , because they fear students will not be able to handle the courseload. This isn't true. Jaime Escalante opened his calculus class to anyone who wanted to take it ,so their were no prerequisites. My math teacher did not persuade me to take the upper level math classes because she feared that I would not do well and them. I proved her wrong. Unfortunately , I am like the only person in my school who has done this, indicating that self-motivation dosen't work for some students, but they need external motivation from teachers."

fair enough, i didnt take into consideration that some schools dont have higher level math offered. that, however, is a seperate issue (which i stated already in my first post). im all for putting more money into schools so they can offer more rigorous coursework if needed.

im skeptical on your teacher rejection theory. i've seen it happen, but if you REALLY want your kids to be in upper level math (and so does the kid) i dont think they can prevent you from being placed into it legally.

as for your anecdote on your success, bravo, but dont take your case to be representative of the average. i can guarantee you that most kids would rather dick around and be in the lower level math than do the work to catch up or excell in the upper program. math is a subject that many people struggle with and is probably better off being done at a slower pace for the average student.

Quote :

"I think kids take school really seriously because they know slipoffs will cause them to get further and further behind. You cannot judge a student's academic abilities solely based off an IQ test from . National Center for Education statistics show the achievement level for primarily black and hispanic students are generally40 % lower than the achievement level of white students. Females tend to outscore males by 30 % . I agree with you that poor students and rich students are placed in the same category if you are talking about their abilities. I believe that everyone can achieved academically if they put their minds to it. But it take longer for certain students with the absence of basic resources to meet these goals. Sadly , top colleges usually want students who with a heavy academic course load. Poorer schools tend to offer a range of 0 - 4 AP classes, whereas a surbanite schools offers students 15-20 AP courses to take."

again i think you overestimate the average student. beyond that i never said (and it isnt done) that IQ be the only test administered. usually that is just to place into the gifted program. plenty of people that werent in the gifted program (in my school) were in higher level math. they have other placement tests that determine how well you grasp basic mathmatical principles from the first few years of schooling.

the stats you provide again are irrelevant to the discussion. it gets right back into poor schools versus rich schools. i thought you were takling about placement WITHIN a school. it is fair to evaluate you versus your own peers.

while it helps as well, i think it really varies where you apply as to what colleges are necessarily seeking. if you plan to go to a "top college" you can showcase your abilities other ways if unable to do so with your coursework (because it isnt offered). do (or tell your kids to do) volunteer work, start a club, etc. you can always write your essay about your hardships and the trouble of poor public schooling as well (har har). i think a truly intelligent individual with drive could get into at minimum a decent school (assuming they could afford it, but again...different topic).

11/7/2005 5:02:54 PM

Quote :

"should education officials decide early in elementary school who should be put in low level classes or who should be placed in honors classess? Whats your view point?"

Most of the industrialized world does this; from an early age, you're constantly being monitored and shifted to different schools based upon your performance. Screwing up one key exam, usually admissions exams for the foreign equivalents of middle school, high school, and college, can easily determine what sort of track you fall into: the top kids end up in University tracts while the less than stellar fall into vocational tracts. Kids with particular aptitude end up at science and math specializations, cultural specializations (performing arts in traditional music for example), or even physical education (for the nation's future Olympic athletes). It's not impossible to shift tracts, but your odds get progressively worse the further down you go.

I don't know if this is the best system; at very least, it goes against the basic education principles in the United States of all children having equal opportunity, etc. since it's a much harsher and less forgiving system.

My biggeset complaint about this system though is that it creates another layer of education; a para-education network of after school tutoring, prep, and cram schools where kids leave at 6am in the morning and return home 9pm. While these exams are egalitarian on paper, the kids who can afford these extras are the ones who stand a better chance of passing...

11/7/2005 5:19:11 PM

if you dont like it here, try japan.

11/7/2005 5:36:56 PM

I should clarify: my biggest complaint about the system used outside the United States, and I don't believe Americans will take to it because of its rigidity and harsh, unforgiving attitude. If we have as much difficulty as we do now pushing standardized exams, I can't even imagine the difficulty in admissions testing.

11/7/2005 5:50:58 PM

i agree, but their k-12 schools are regarded as better than ours by a mile so it must not be so bad.

11/7/2005 5:56:49 PM

it doesn't only take place in elementary school

NCSSM

what what

11/7/2005 6:05:52 PM

Honors classes = good

Tracking = bad

I don't see why we should seek to limit a student's mobility in regards to the standards they and/or their parents set for them.

11/7/2005 6:33:16 PM

Doesnt the system self regulate already? I wont say it's perfect but-

If you keep failing classes, you get held back and put in remedial grades.
If you excell, you get put ahead.

And i agree with the former poster, soemtimes teachers dont let students who can advance do so, mostly becuase of things like No Child Left Behind.

Realize, schools are under a *lot* of pressure here to have everyone make A's and get out on time, so they're more than willing in a lot of cases to place students ONLY where they know they'll excel- even if that's far below what they're capable.

As it is, parents or students wealthy or not can fight the system a bit to get things fixed. With another level of testing and standards and rules, i doubt that will remain true.

11/7/2005 7:12:02 PM

An accelerated school that can let someone graduate a year or two early would be nice. One that you must apply to.

11/7/2005 8:30:37 PM

meh, i see no need to graduate early. just let them learn more while they are there. 16 year olds, smart or not are often immature.

[Edited on November 7, 2005 at 8:42 PM. Reason : cant handle teh college.]

11/7/2005 8:42:12 PM

That would also be good. I would just prefer some way for the students who are advanced/want to achieve to separate themselves and progress further.

11/7/2005 9:03:40 PM

I think american public schools in general don't offer enough courses. american public schools should add philosophy, specialized sciences, and more foreign languages. I also think schools pet less emphasis the contributions non-european civilizations have made to our society . But then again , you can get all that good stuff at a Barnes and Noble or on the Internet .

11/7/2005 10:12:02 PM

seriously, penzoate. your schools should have put more emphasis on english grammar, spelling, and proofreading.

11/8/2005 10:21:21 AM

Quote :

"should education officials decide early in elementary school who should be put in low level classes or who should be placed in honors classess? Whats your view point? "

I fucking hated being moved from my friends.

I was pretty much forced into an upper level program due to my school and parents.

Based on that, i personally would never do it to a kid against his will.

Schooling in america is flawed in so many more ways then this though, maybe you should concentrate your efforts on something more worth a damn,

Quote :

"seriously, penzoate. your schools should have put more emphasis on english grammar, spelling, and proofreading. "

Have you even read your dear chuck letter before?



and before you proofread my post for me, i dont insult others on grammar, spelling or proofreading so go on and waste your time.

[Edited on November 8, 2005 at 7:01 PM. Reason : .]

11/8/2005 6:58:54 PM

Thank you Quinn. Overall , school officials should not determined what classes a student should take. The student should pick the classes that interests him/her. It worked for me. Teachers should help the student whatever their goal is , to informed the student what she will have to confront in order to obtained that goal .

[Edited on November 8, 2005 at 8:36 PM. Reason : :]

11/8/2005 8:32:08 PM

"meh, i see no need to graduate early. just let them learn more while they are there. 16 year olds, smart or not are often immature."

Good grief, how many freshman at NCSU are mature? Age is not the problem.

Anyway, it would be stupid to discourage those students who somehow still have the intiative to excell in our culture. Let them graduate early, let them go to college, those are the people who make this country great. Education should be about learning not about filling a seat. All people are not the same, duh. If we force everyone to have the same education it only serves to make everyone stupid. As is commonly said in discussions such as this

" communism did not work as a system of government why should it work as a system of education?"

Life is not fair. Everyone does not get the same opportunity, nor should they.
If you want to learn, if you want to excel it ought to be your responsiblity to secure that goal. Not the government.

From a soceital standpoint the best thing that we could do for education is to eradicate the failed public shool system. Let people choose there own schools, and deregulate education so that maintaining a school wouldn't involve so much red-tape ( for example let people who know things teach as opposed to just letting "certified" teachers teach ). Then we would regulate schools as a soceity locally, if a school was no good then people wouldn't send their kids there. If the school was doing its job then it lives, just that simple. It's called the free market.

Oh, but then how would we create all the little socialists to suck the government teat? My bad.

11/8/2005 9:19:48 PM

^

1. exactly, (many) freshman are immature. now subtract another couple years of growing and you've got (on average) even more immature kids.

i'm saying why not make our system more dynamic and offer classes where kids could culture their gifts further. perhaps they could focus more on things that interest them through free study with presentations involved or devote time to helping others in their school. let them participate in debate or religious study if they so choose. i see no reason to rush kids towards the "goal" of finishing college and getting a job. many would argue we already have a problem with 18 year olds being pressured into chosing a career path so early.

2. that sounds like a great idea...for the poor

if you cant afford a better school, you have to take what the cheap one (or one covered by your voucher) will give you. thats the argument against vouchers, the rich get a discount on nice private schools while the poor get essentially the same education as before, but in a crappy/mediocre private school.

11/8/2005 10:14:15 PM

Quote :

"Have you even read your dear chuck letter before?"

yep. and I still find mine to be massively more readable than the shit penzoate is spewing.

11/8/2005 10:55:01 PM

"1. exactly, (many) freshman are immature. now subtract another couple years of growing and you've got (on average) even more immature kids."

No, not if the kid wants to go to college. That kid is not immature in all likelyhood. That kid will do just fine, he'll set the curve in college. It would be a waste of potential to leave him the majority of public schools. Let him go on, let him pursue his goals. He does not need to teach others in his school... you just want to waste his time. In fact, such students if not allowed to go on often end up with very negative attitudes about learning. Life is short, let people choose their own path.

Exceptional students aside, on the average people can do alot more at earlier ages. We are coddled to much in this country. We ought to expect much more in highschool and on down. People will rise to the level that is expected, conversely people will do less if we allow that. We do not have a problem with 18year olds choosing a career path... if anything we have a problem with people lacking any sort of work-ethic in life. For now it is school, later the job... whichever stage of life they feel entitled to their status all to often. We need ask more of people, we need to shock soceity from it's apathetic addiction to mediocrity.

"2. that sounds like a great idea...for the poor
if you cant afford a better school, you have to take what the cheap one (or one covered by your voucher) will give you. thats the argument against vouchers, the rich get a discount on nice private schools while the poor get essentially the same education as before, but in a crappy/mediocre private school."

Yes, that is right the rich get nicer things and the poor do not. Is it really any different right now?
Like you say the poor would get essentially the same education as before, so you just object to some people's sucess? Why do you hate the rich, are they wrong to suceed? Anyway, if we did away with public schools then everyone would be forced to see school as a privilige rather than a right. Students at every level of soceity would be forced to take school more seriously. Will some schools be better than others? Sure, but overall everyone will do better. I would rather have a system with more excellence than a system with lots of poor to average schools that enforce some socialist notion of "fairness". We are created equal, but we do not have equal opportunities. Nor should we try to make that the case. As nice as it sounds, it doesn't work. In the end it hurts, just look at the schools now. The poor are still uneducated by in large and the middle-class has a poorer education than they would otherwise. So everyone suffers for the sake of a socialist ideal.

11/8/2005 11:14:49 PM

^ do you have any reasoning to beleive that kids, at 16, are mature enough. i mean i think that the increasing average time to obtain a degree and the average number of major-changing would be indicative that an average student doesnt know what they want to do.

just because someone is intelligent doesnt mean they know exactly what they want to do. i think my proposition would help them explore the possibilities.

Quote :

"Exceptional students aside, on the average people can do alot more at earlier ages. We are coddled to much in this country. We ought to expect much more in highschool and on down. People will rise to the level that is expected, conversely people will do less if we allow that."

again do you have any reason to beleive this. i mean it is convenient to blame our poor educational system on everyone's poor work ethic, but i dont see how you can support that. perhaps the intelligent kids are doing less than they could, but i think on average that isnt fair to say.

Quote :

"Like you say the poor would get essentially the same education as before, so you just object to some people's sucess? Why do you hate the rich, are they wrong to suceed?"

no, i dont. rich people already get the benefits of having extra money though (such as private schooling and more/better college opportunities). instituting what you propose gives FAVOR to them though. everyone SHOULD have a basic equal opportunity at education whether poor or rich. if someone has more they can choose to take a route they see as more desirable, that is their right for having success.

Quote :

"Students at every level of soceity would be forced to take school more seriously."

if the lower forms of private schools were just like public school it would not be any different. why would kids take it any more seriously if instead of being free they had to pay a government check to the school? or do you just want everyone to pay for school, which would really screw over the poor.

Quote :

"Sure, but overall everyone will do better."

again, if the low-end schools are the same...how do they poorer kids do any better?

Quote :

"We are created equal, but we do not have equal opportunities. Nor should we try to make that the case. As nice as it sounds, it doesn't work."

yeah, i see why trying to have an educated public at all levels of economic means is a waste of time...

Quote :

"The poor are still uneducated by in large and the middle-class has a poorer education than they would otherwise. So everyone suffers for the sake of a socialist ideal."

there are flaws in the system, but that doesnt mean we should abandon it in favor of a system that does nothing to help over half of its members and give favor to a very small percentage.








EITHER WAY... all of that has nothing to do with the topic of academic tracking, beyond the fact that you want rich/smart people to be able to flourish more than they would in todays schools.

11/9/2005 9:35:09 AM

quote :

"EITHER WAY... all of that has nothing to do with the topic of academic tracking, beyond the fact that you want rich/smart people to be able to flourish more than they would in todays schools."

Just because a person is wealthy, does not always mean they are smart. George Bush went to Yale and came from a wealthy family, but he's dumb as a doorknob.

Quote :
"We are created equal, but we do not have equal opportunities. Nor should we try to make that the case. As nice as it sounds, it doesn't work."

I agree with you that not everybody will have the same equal opportunities as others, because that is never going to happen. But their should be changes brought among the community with less advantages because it isn't fair. We are playing into Social Darwinism , that states that the rich become richer and the poor becomes poorer. If you are talking about levels of learning , thats a different story. I want to see proof that demonstrating why providing public education at the same level would not work. that dosen't make any sense. Resources provided to a destitute community should pulled those people up on their feet. I you suggesting people in a destitute area should not have the same opportunities as a student with an infinite number of resources that will accelerate that student higher on the academic ladder?

quote

again do you have any reason to beleive this. i mean it is convenient to blame our poor educational system on everyone's poor work ethic, but i dont see how you can support that. perhaps the intelligent kids are doing less than they could, but i think on average that isnt fair to say.

I think that the intelligent kids tend forget what they've learned in the classroom , once they've completed that course. Our kids want good grades in order to get into a good school , thus their extrinsic goal would be to make money . Kids today focus more on extrinsic materials more so than intrinsic material. When I mean intrinsic material, I mean philosophical ideas such as whether drugs should be legalized , scientific concepts about the possibility of time travel , etc.

11/9/2005 1:27:09 PM

We were just talking the other day in class about a study that basically said when you randomly selected kids out of a class and told them they were gifted, they did better on everything, and if you told them they were remedial, they did worse. It's a self-fulfilling prophecy, which is why I don't like tracking.

11/9/2005 1:41:46 PM

Quote :

"Just because a person is wealthy, does not always mean they are smart. George Bush went to Yale and came from a wealthy family, but he's dumb as a doorknob."

i am not dumb enough to mean that, i simply meant rich AND smart. perhaps i should have used a comma instead, but i figured no one would make that mistake...i was wrong.

Quote :

"I think that the intelligent kids tend forget what they've learned in the classroom , once they've completed that course. Our kids want good grades in order to get into a good school , thus their extrinsic goal would be to make money . Kids today focus more on extrinsic materials more so than intrinsic material. When I mean intrinsic material, I mean philosophical ideas such as whether drugs should be legalized , scientific concepts about the possibility of time travel , etc."

maybe, maybe not. i think that really depends on who you are and how you were raised. generally the lower middle class and the like would definately be focused mostly on getting a good job, but i dont think that both goals are mutually exclusive.

Quote :

"We were just talking the other day in class about a study that basically said when you randomly selected kids out of a class and told them they were gifted, they did better on everything, and if you told them they were remedial, they did worse. It's a self-fulfilling prophecy, which is why I don't like tracking."

somehow that doesnt surprise me based on the way a lot of people work. a happy worker is an efficient worker (well to a degree, but lets save the industrial psychology for elsewhere).

what was their start point and how much improvement did they make though? increasing grades by half a letter grade or whatnot would be a great improvement, but is in no way equivalent to giving these kids a harder workload. same goes for the negative view, i just want to know what how large the difference was and how they measured performance.

i think the problem is that if we want to foster some people gifts over the average person you are going to have to (whether intentional or not) classify students. even if you avoid harsh wording, kids will know that they are in the "dumb" class. perhaps the best way would be to avoid remedial classes all together and have regular and honors. the students who have problems with regular classes could be offered student tutors or the like.

11/9/2005 2:54:14 PM

If memory serves the change was pretty substantial, but I'll have to get my book back later tonight to find the actual numbers.

At least through elementary school, everyone should be in the same classes. If you're a smart kid, you'll get an A. If you're dumb, you won't. Then from Middle School on, let kids pick for themselves what class they want to be in. If they join an honors class and fail it, too fucking bad. If they're a genius who coasts through a low-level class, well, that's their deal. Obviously parents would have to have the final say at least through High School.

11/9/2005 3:04:47 PM

My biggest beef with tracking is the backlash it's causing amongst educators.

Now there's a movement to get rid of honors classes. Which, as someone currently teaching standard classes, is total bullshit.

11/9/2005 3:10:11 PM

i guess grumpy's suggestion is the most reasonable if you dont want testing. i personally could go either way, but i dont see a major problem with the current testing situation.

11/9/2005 3:21:29 PM

because those tests are favoring one side, and you are on that side apparently

11/9/2005 3:55:16 PM

Anybody have a problem with the eurocentric view of where science orginated? IF you think about it, you never hear any of the contributions asian , native american , and African civilizations have made to science.

11/9/2005 4:08:21 PM

im still not convinced that they favor the intelligent as much as you claim. i dont think they favor the rich in the ways you claim. ive been given no reason to think otherwise either.

history is the same way as far as eurocentricism (or whatever). i've seen at least a push to change that though.

11/9/2005 4:13:41 PM

But they don't mention in high school textbooks that the first astronomy observatory was in Kenya , or that Ancient India knew the heavens and the starts revolved around the sun way before medieval Europe. Nor do they mentioned that Greeks like Aristotle and Socrates went to Egpyt to learn philosophy and Geometry. The Dogon Mali tribe in western Africa were performing surgeries on people way before Western Doctors.

11/9/2005 4:20:56 PM

question then is, are there good quality (and well priced) textbooks that cover this in the way it should be covered? are they written well, credible, and made for high school students?

what boggles my mind is you answer 1 assertion about testing or whatnot and then go on some complete tangent about innercity schools, eurocentric science, or something else.

11/9/2005 5:07:24 PM

I wasn't just talking about inner city schools , I was talking about poor schools in general, including rural schools. I talk about the schools in particular because for some reason, a quality education seems to correlate with the socioeconomic class of that student. I wanted to bring attention to that situation.

Don't you think the textbooks that credit to scientists who made discoveries in the physical and medical sciences favors the Eurocentric view a little too much?

11/9/2005 5:33:24 PM

"^ do you have any reasoning to beleive that kids, at 16, are mature enough. "

I know from personal experience that there are many intelligent kids who know what they want to do by that age. For example, my brother took college classes at the age of 15, and was a graduate student by the age of 19. Now he has a Phd and a respectable academic career. In the past people were functioning adults at a much earlier age, it is the norm that has changed, not the inate abilities of people. ( of course some other people never grow up...)

"i mean i think that the increasing average time to obtain a degree and the average number of major-changing would be indicative that an average student doesnt know what they want to do
just because someone is intelligent doesnt mean they know exactly what they want to do. i think my proposition would help them explore the possibilities."

Frankly, the average student does not belong in college precisely for that fact. That's just my oppinion, I think it is rather stupid to spend 10's of thousands of dollars trying to make up your mind. If in the end your going to get some bogus easy major you might as well never go to college and invest the money... But, if people want to waste their parents money or put themsleves under a mountain of debt I'm not going to stop them. I'll give them advice, but it's their prerogative. After all this is a free country. Or at least I'd like it to be one. So all I'm saying is give people the chance to escape the failing public schools when they do so desire.

"again do you have any reason to beleive this. i mean it is convenient to blame our poor educational system on everyone's poor work ethic, but i dont see how you can support that. perhaps the intelligent kids are doing less than they could, but i think on average that isnt fair to say."

Work-ethic is definitely part of the problem, but it is more a problem of standards I think ( it seems they are related, but upgrading the standards would necessitate a change in the work-ethic of most students, provided we would stand by our postion that people learn more... ). I know many students from other countries where the education is advanced at all levels compared to ours.
Everyone learns calculus, chemistry and physics and more in highschool. Algebra is taught several years before and so on. People have the ability, we are just afraid some students will have trouble with the more advanced materials. We might hurt someone's self-esteem, oh no.

This extends to the university education, we don't really focus on the material relevant to our eventual careers as we ought. When I got to graduate school (not here) I met students from a variety of countries. Their "undergraduate" education was easily twice as sophisticated as my training. Compared to other domestic students my training was as good or better than any of my peers, but that was not enough. I had to compete with foreign students, they had the benefit of suffering under higher standards their whole academic life. They also were not burdened with the liberal arts core course load that universities in this country insist on shoving down our throats.
So, it put me at a disadvantage relative to those students. They were ready to begin research and a professor would be foolish to wait for me to catch up. Few american students make it to the more advanced research topics. I believe it is due to the fact that our undergraduate educations are quite mickey-mouse compared to alot of other countries. We have dumbed down the university to get more students in, and those students don't know what they should from highschool. Consequently, we end up teaching highschool in college. We could do better, I know it. I've met plenty of students from other countries who are not so much smarter than I am, they just had more required of them.
So yeah, I have a reason.

"no, i dont. rich people already get the benefits of having extra money though (such as private schooling and more/better college opportunities). instituting what you propose gives FAVOR to them though. everyone SHOULD have a basic equal opportunity at education whether poor or rich. if someone has more they can choose to take a route they see as more desirable, that is their right for having success."

I agree, I just think that people should be free to choose how to do that. I'm pro-choice for schools.
I don't think that the government should steal money from people not using the schools. Poor or rich it shouldn't matter. If you don't use something you ought not pay for it. Especially when schools are being forced to teach material which many parents disagree with. It is maddening we should have to may money to poorly managed schools which corrupt our children! Besides, private schools would be cheaper and people would have more money to spend on them in the absense of public schools.

"if the lower forms of private schools were just like public school it would not be any different. why would kids take it any more seriously if instead of being free they had to pay a government check to the school? or do you just want everyone to pay for school, which would really screw over the poor.
... again, if the low-end schools are the same...how do they poorer kids do any better?"

The schools are not free. We pay oodles of taxes to keep them not working. It is this idea that they are "free" that makes us take them for granted. If you pay for a service directly you tend to care alot more about the service recieved. Basic human nature. Of course I want everyone to pay for school. As far as the poor go, I think that charity and churches and so on should fill the void. If a poor person knew that the education they were receiving was the direct consequence of the kindness of some nearby individual/church then it would be much more likely for that poor student to take school seriously. But hey, school is free. Additionally, in a purely private educational system the better schools would grant scholarships to gifted poor students. I again remind you the current system is clearly failing the poor, and it is not just a question of throwing more $$ at it.

"yeah, i see why trying to have an educated public at all levels of economic means is a waste of time..."

Hmmm, sarcasm? Of course I also want soceity to be educated. I just don't think the government should do it. It gives the government to much control. You know, just because the government doesn't do something that doesn't mean it isn't done. There is this thing called the private-sector, granted it seems to shrink with every year.

"there are flaws in the system, but that doesnt mean we should abandon it in favor of a system that does nothing to help over half of its members and give favor to a very small percentage."

It is not such a small portion of people who would like their children out of public schools. For example, take the explosive growth of homeshooling in this country.

"EITHER WAY... all of that has nothing to do with the topic of academic tracking, beyond the fact that you want rich/smart people to be able to flourish more than they would in todays schools."

Rich or poor is not the issue for me. I just think the government should stop imposing itself on education. I think we the people should have the freedom to spend our educational $$ how we so desire. It is our money not the state's. Personally, I would advocate helping the poor at a local level in this new system. I don't want to crush them, I just don't want them to feel entitled to a "right" of education. It should be a privilige so that everyone takes it more seriously. Seperate from that, I think gifted students should be encouraged to be all they can be. ( I don't dispute that there is some possibility of that in the current system, provides he/she ignores the typically bad-advice of highschool guidance councelors)

I grant you this has little to do with "academic tracking", sorry. Well not really.

11/10/2005 1:08:14 AM

Quote :

" If you don't use something you ought not pay for it."

heh i guess you are definately against welfare and whatnot, but thats another topic.

Quote :

" I think that charity and churches and so on should fill the void."

while the scholorship idea might work, im not so sure about the rest of the kids in your scenario. this doesnt seem feasible to me.



im interested to see exactly how some of the public/private schools in other nations work. do none of them have government control? im asking simply because i do not know (my failing public education hasnt taught me so). seems like you use them as a comparison and then provide the solution of private schools...are they all?

also your entire first half was anecdotal albeit reasonable. i dont think your brother becomming a graduate student at 19 is representative of all intelligent kids, especially in our current system. if we want to go with anecdotes, i personally consider myself to be an intelligent individual (i would provide you with reasons, but i hate ppl who spout off scores, iq's, grades, etc as if anyone on here cared), but wasnt overly sure what i wanted to do. in fact i considered changing my major a few times throughout my undergraduate work. i never did because i was too far along and i wasnt about to waste the time and money, but im not overly happy with my career path (but hey thats a boon of graduate work).

the same goes for the foreign students. it is quite possible that you have met (and are competing with) the best and brightest who have come here to study. after all we do like to fancy ourselves as having a great set of universities.

i personally agree, however, that college work could be a little more rigorous. i found it only a bit harder than high school (more work, but difficulty wise...not so much save for a few classes).

11/10/2005 9:49:54 AM

Quote :

"heh i guess you are definately against welfare and whatnot, but thats another topic."

yep. generally speaking I yearn for the return of the minimalist government our founding fathers so wisely created...

Quote :

"im interested to see exactly how some of the public/private schools in other nations work. do none of them have government control? im asking simply because i do not know (my failing public education hasnt taught me so). seems like you use them as a comparison and then provide the solution of private schools...are they all?"

Two ideas. One I'm discussing how a simple modification of standards would help public schools become better. Two, I generally think that overall many students would benefit from going to non-government schools. I brought up the example of other nations merely to point out that people can do more than our current system expects of them, that is not to say I endorse government schools in other countries. Many of those countries are "progressive" and I whole-heartly disagree with that general system of government as is obvious by now. It is possible that government schools could educate some citizens in an adequate manner, but the free-market would do a better job. My friends mentioned to me that the schools in their country were lowering their standards and we generally declining in quality. Who knows, maybe all countries will get slack so we'll be fine

Quote :

"also your entire first half was anecdotal albeit reasonable. i dont think your brother becomming a graduate student at 19 is representative of all intelligent kids, especially in our current system. if we want to go with anecdotes, i personally consider myself to be an intelligent individual (i would provide you with reasons, but i hate ppl who spout off scores, iq's, grades, etc as if anyone on here cared), but wasnt overly sure what i wanted to do. in fact i considered changing my major a few times throughout my undergraduate work. i never did because i was too far along and i wasnt about to waste the time and money, but im not overly happy with my career path (but hey thats a boon of graduate work)."

agreed, but you asked if I had any reasoning, any includes anecdotes. But my brother is just an example I've met many students like my brother since I've been in academia. Usually those people are quite exceptional, of course most 16 yr olds are not ready for choosing a career. But, that is afterall what we were talking about( I thought), wether or not advanced students should be allowed to advance. I'm sorry you chose poorly, but if its graduate school thats got you down, well maybe you just don't like grad-school. I know it has demoralized most of my friends, despite the fact they love their subject. That aside, there is already plenty of room to change your mind in university studies. Even at the graduate level.

Quote :

"the same goes for the foreign students. it is quite possible that you have met (and are competing with) the best and brightest who have come here to study. after all we do like to fancy ourselves as having a great set of universities."

No doubt, some of my friends are really phenomenal. But, what I neglected to emphasize is that the highschool education they were subjected to was not just for them. Even the english-lit type folks in their countries had to take hard science and maths in highschool. The majority of people in their country had to learn more.

Quote :

"i personally agree, however, that college work could be a little more rigorous. i found it only a bit harder than high school (more work, but difficulty wise...not so much save for a few classes)."

Exactly, I guess you went to NCSU here for your undergrad, so did I. Other schools in the US are a bit harder, or alot easier.

I simply argue that on the average the colleges could all be better if we just increased our expectations of what is taught in highschool. If tracking encouraged students to compete for postions in more advanced or prestigious classes I think that would help push the general population of students towards studying more.

I also think privatizing education would in general help, but I know that is not likely to happen. A person can dream.

[Edited on November 10, 2005 at 10:48 PM. Reason : \ is not/]

11/10/2005 10:45:11 PM

Quote :

"generally speaking I yearn for the return of the minimalist government our founding fathers so wisely created..."

I always love hearing this and other libertarian humor.

Our government went from supposedly "minimalist" to being anything but under the reign of our Founding Fathers. Even your poster child Jefferson took a pretty liberal view of his powers as President.

11/10/2005 11:18:05 PM

^^ to note, i meant my graduate work will be focused elsewhere (thank god). i did graduate at ncsu and will be going to uf in the spring.

as far as the talk concerning your brother, we were talking about intelligent students but i was thinking more along the lines of top 10-15% instead of exceptional 1% (which i will assume he is given our current system).

you also note that the english-lit people were forced to take harder maths and sciences in foreign countries. i think a fair question would be, why bother if they never plan to use them? i understand that for quality/standards sake it is important, but if they arent particularly good at math, dont enjoy it, and do not plan to go into a related field, i dont see the point in forcing them to take said classes.

either way, you say we could just raise the bar by upping highschool standards. why not just up the college standards? if kids then wanted to go to college they'd pretty much have to take the harder classes or play A LOT of catch up when they got here. this obviously would be a bit more troublesome considering the lack of equity in our public schools, but it seems equally likely to bring up standards.

id also like to note that we have tons of kids dropping out of high school today. i worry that if we make standards higher our graduation rate will be even lower, despite the diploma meaning more.

11/11/2005 10:39:27 AM

Quote :

"Let them graduate early, let them go to college"

The issue with this is that the school "experience" in the US plays a huge role in socialization as well as just academics. Whether it should be responsible for that is of course a different issue...

Just based on personal experience, I was probably ready for college coursework by the time I was 16, but I certainly hadn't developed enough as a person--I changed a lot over the next two or three years, and that ended up changing my career goals as well. I don't personally see an advantage to rushing through school/college anyway (although of course some will disagree with me); as the average lifespan has increased, there's plenty of time to work later. Having those extra few years to gradually adjust to increasing responsibility is a good thing--although, admittedly, it may not quite be working out as well as it has in the past, as there are more 20-30 year olds living with their parents these days after college.

As for the educational standards of colleges, I'd agree that they've been significantly lowered over the years. However, a college education has become the norm. The availability of unskilled labor positions in the US has drastically declined, and many employers want applicants to have a degree even if the job itself doesn't need any knowledge beyond a high school education. Vocational education is picking up a lot of steam these days precisely because the traditional liberal arts education viewpoint doesn't really teach employment skills.

11/11/2005 11:05:52 AM