Almost 70% of 8th Grader are Stupid...

originally posted by: Aazadan

originally posted by: Nothin
a reply to: Aazadan

So are you suggesting : as long as we're indoctrinating the little buggers to become button-pushing sheep; might as well get them inculcated with some greed as well?
-
'Cause greed isn't useful in controlling folks at all in our society, right?

Well, my first question is to challenge your assertion that the school system is indoctrination.

Can we agree that the primary purpose of grade school it to create an adult who has basic life skills and knows how to behave in society? Which isn't to be confused with job skills.

If we can agree on that, then can we agree that there's certain behaviors that should be conformed to? That's not indoctrination, that's just getting people to meet a certain minimum standard.

Sorry: don't agree.
Could you show us even one public school curriculum, that indeed teaches "basic life skills", from any country?
Like: Critical thinking; balancing a budget; self defense; growing,catching and preparing food; first aid; natural medicines and healing; fair trading and bartering skills; respectfulness and kindness; spirituality unattatched to any dogma; etc...

originally posted by: Aazadan
a reply to: hopenotfeariswhatweneed

It is against a governments own self interest to want a dumbed down society. A dumbed down society means there are fewer thinkers in society to create taxable products, it reduces GDP and therefore reduces the governments income. Furthermore, it means there is a shortage of educated individuals to hold government positions.

I most definitely disagree.

A thinking populace is more likely to question government decisions and protest.

As far educated individuals to hold government positions, well that's easy there are very small circles those people work inland outsiders are generally not welcome.

originally posted by: Nothin
Sorry: don't agree.
Could you show us even one public school curriculum, that indeed teaches "basic life skills", from any country?
Like: Critical thinking; balancing a budget; self defense; growing,catching and preparing food; first aid; natural medicines and healing; fair trading and bartering skills; respectfulness and kindness; spirituality unattatched to any dogma; etc...

What you just mentioned are not basic life skills.

The only part of life that isn't optional is earning enough money to pay taxes, and afford food.

As far as your list though, I'll go through them one at a time.

Critial Thinking - How is this a necessity in life? Not everyone has to think, they only have to react. Just look at this website for an example, many preach critical thinking, but those same people are the first who will go look for an "alternative" viewpoint from some Russian backed website that has an agenda.

Budget - Again, not necessary. Having good financial management is helpful, and it would be nice if more schools taught this, but most already do have it as an elective.

Self defense - Why? Doesn't it make more sense to create a society that doesn't need to be violent?

Catching and preparing food - You mean, going to the grocery store and buying something like most sane people do? Most schools do offer cooking classes as well, and if they don't, they've presumably taught you how to read and reserach well enough to find a cookbook and use it.

First aid - This one would be useful to teach. So what do you propose we cut from the current schedule to make room for it?

Natural medicines - Why? Teaching about medicine would be lumped in with first aid, but why natural medicines specifically? Shouldn't people know how to use any basic medicine?

Trade and bartering? That's called contract negotiation, which is one that I think should be taught as it's the single highest value activity one will ever perform, and opportunities to practice are rare. It would result in much higher wages.

Respect - That's not a basic life skill, neither is kindness or spirituality.

originally posted by: hopenotfeariswhatweneed
I most definitely disagree.

A thinking populace is more likely to question government decisions and protest.

As far educated individuals to hold government positions, well that's easy there are very small circles those people work inland outsiders are generally not welcome.

No they aren't. Humans love groupthink, we have quite a bit of a herd mentality built in, especially when in large crowds.

Protests are nothing more than a team activity as long as the nation is divided into political parties.

And you cannot have educated officials without having an educated society to educate those officials.

It is not in a governments best interest to dumb people down. All forms of power (economic, military, political) thrive when people are at their best.

a reply to: Aazadan

What percentage of the population go to private Schools ? There is education then there is education, sadly there is a difference between the two, hence why I mentioned the small circles.

Can you really keep a straight face and tell me the general population is getting smarter?

originally posted by: hopenotfeariswhatweneed
a reply to: Aazadan

What percentage of the population go to private Schools ? There is education then there is education, sadly there is a difference between the two, hence why I mentioned the small circles.

Can you really keep a straight face and tell me the general population is getting smarter?

Why are private schools better? They often times operate on less funding than public schools. The only real difference is they have enterance exams so that only higher achieving students attend which gives them a natural test score advantage.

And yes, students are getting smarter if their parents are to be believed. Every parent likes to brag about how smart their kid is, just read this thread and several do it. If everyone thinks their kid is fine, but it's all the others that are the problem, maybe there isn't actually a problem because no one is seeing it in themselves.

a reply to: Aazadan

Entrance exams?

Not all of them. At most, they will screen to make sure the students aren't likely to be disruptive or that their families will fit in with the culture of the school (i.e a religious school isn't taking on a family who will decide to disagree with/flaunt the religious aims/ethic of the school whatever those are).

Some will, but we put our kid in a private school where the only real exam was the standard pre-K readiness exam every kid in every school takes and an interview with the headmaster.

a reply to: Aazadan

Society is based on worth. My statement has nothing to do with intelligence, more to do with circumstance.

a reply to: ketsuko

At the ones I attended, you had to score above the 90th percentile on the annual standardized test, in order to qualify for the admissions test (or be a current student). Then you had to score at least a 70% on the admissions test, take an additional admissions test each year, as well as maintain a 2.5 gpa on our "enhanced" grading scale where the cutoff for a d- was a 91%.

originally posted by: hopenotfeariswhatweneed
a reply to: Aazadan

Society is based on worth. My statement has nothing to do with intelligence, more to do with circumstance.

Then you should clarify because first you challenged the assertion that people are not getting smarter, and that the schools are to blame, and now you say your opinion has nothing to do with intelligence.

originally posted by: Aazadan

originally posted by: hopenotfeariswhatweneed
a reply to: Aazadan

What percentage of the population go to private Schools ? There is education then there is education, sadly there is a difference between the two, hence why I mentioned the small circles.

Can you really keep a straight face and tell me the general population is getting smarter?

Why are private schools better? They often times operate on less funding than public schools. The only real difference is they have enterance exams so that only higher achieving students attend which gives them a natural test score advantage.

And yes, students are getting smarter if their parents are to be believed. Every parent likes to brag about how smart their kid is, just read this thread and several do it. If everyone thinks their kid is fine, but it's all the others that are the problem, maybe there isn't actually a problem because no one is seeing it in themselves.

Private schools can screen their student body for kids who don't or can't perform to the standards of the school. Public schools have to serve the public which means they have to focus on the lowest common denominator. Private school are also not burdened by the teachers unions.

With that said, some public schools are just as good as private schools. However, those public schools are schools that serve primarily upper class students whose parents are invested in their educations and also have high standards. Of course, these schools are only public in the sense that if you can afford to live in the community, you can attend.

Private schools typically don't spend as much per student because they also don't have the administrative bloat that public schools do.

Private catholic schools here in Chicago are popular and educate students at like half the cost of the public schools.

a reply to: Edumakated

But does a private schools ability to reject students result in the students learning more, or does it just make their test numbers better because all of their students were performing well academically in the first place?

originally posted by: Aazadan
a reply to: Edumakated

But does a private schools ability to reject students result in the students learning more, or does it just make their test numbers better because all of their students were performing well academically in the first place?

yes, that is why the schools are good. They don't have to deal with the problem or low performing students. It is the same thing with public schools in wealthy neighborhoods. It isn't that the schools are good but that the students that attend are already high performers.

You can drop a brand new $100 million high school with the best teachers in the worst ghetto and it will still be a bad school. It will just be a shiny brand new bad school. The school is bad because the kids that attend are low performers coming from broken homes, etc.

With that said, I live in a wealthy area with relatively diverse population. The elementary school my kid will attend is highly rated. However, what is unique is that 30% of the student body qualifies for free lunch (i.e. poor kids). This school performs just as well as another elementary school in my town with less income diversity, so the school my kid will attend is doing something right. However, I don't know what the percentage is, but at some point when you start getting too many lower income kids attending a school, the test scores and performance starts to suffer.

a reply to: Edumakated

If the issue entirely has to do with a students peers then, doesn't it make sense that failing schools are really the fault of the parents who aren't spending the money to send their kids to a more exclusive school?

originally posted by: Aazadan
a reply to: Edumakated

If the issue entirely has to do with a students peers then, doesn't it make sense that failing schools are really the fault of the parents who aren't spending the money to send their kids to a more exclusive school?

Yes. I've never really argued otherwise. I've always maintained that schools reflect the community they serve. Bad public schools are bad because the students who attend are bad.

a reply to: Edumakated

I get where you're coming from, but it's not a premise I agree with. This premise writes off too many kids, it's essentially segregation and ensures that only a handful of students can succeed. We need classrooms that are more diverse in ability and attitude so that no single class gets overwhelmed with any particular culture.

a reply to: Aazadan

Only to a point.

For education to be worth a damn, past the basics, you have to want to learn. That's all on the kids in question. We can rail on and on about the benefits of education, but beyond a certain point, it becomes useless noise.

It wasn't all that long ago that most people didn't go to college, they joined the workforce and learned trades. Education was, for most, the very basics. Reading. Writing. Basic Arithmetic. Everything else was learned on the job.

Certainly times require us to change with them, but one basic fact remains that many do not require further education past a certain point.

When did it become a necessity to have to go to college, and sit through classes that are of absolutely no use to someone who wants to be a carpenter? Or a heavy machine operator? Or an auto mechanic?

No. Past a certain point, forcing someone to go to school is, quite possibly, harmful. Not just to that student, either. Using myself as an example, I was, for the last four, almost five, years of public schooling bored out of my ever-lovin' mind, because too many of the classes, even the supposed advanced classes, catered to the lowest and slowest among us.

If the kids don't want to learn, let them go. The kids who want to learn need the education more, obviously. It's cold, I'll be the first to admit that, but there is a limited amount of time, and money, not to mention teachers to go around, spend it on the kids who are going to get something out of it. They'll be the doctors, scientists, etc... There's no shame in being a carpenter, or a bricklayer, despite opinions to the contrary.

originally posted by: Aazadan
a reply to: Edumakated

I get where you're coming from, but it's not a premise I agree with. This premise writes off too many kids, it's essentially segregation and ensures that only a handful of students can succeed. We need classrooms that are more diverse in ability and attitude so that no single class gets overwhelmed with any particular culture.

Diverse in ability?

So ... you want kids with IQs in the 80s sharing the classroom with kids whose IQs are in the 130s and up? and everyone in between ... and served appropriately by one teacher?

Basically, kids *will* be underserved by that. There is no way one teacher can offer appropriate differentiation and pay adequate attention to all her learners and make sure they all succeed in that classroom, especially not if she's serving between 15 and 20 kids.

You are talking about kids who either already know what she will be teaching or will only take one demonstration to get mixed with kids who may take 6 or 7 lessons (average IQ) to the kid with the 80 who may take another 2 to 3 or more lessons after that to master the new concept.

What do you do with the quickest learner while the others are learning? What do you do with the average learners while everyone waits for the slowest? Or do you leave the slow ones behind? Or do you simply ignore the fastest and let their talents languish, ignore the slowest, and teach to the middle which is generally what happens today, and our best are frustrated as much as our worst.

Sometimes, the top and bottom end up being the juvenile delinquents together.

But hey! At least the classroom is diverse and diversely disrupted so no one gets much of anything done.

originally posted by: seagull
There's no shame in being a carpenter, or a bricklayer, despite opinions to the contrary.

No, but there's also no job security in it either. People (especially on the right) like to mention that actions have consequences. One of the consequences of choosing to not excel is that work is going to be harder. Why should we go out of our way to help those people?

originally posted by: ketsuko
So ... you want kids with IQs in the 80s sharing the classroom with kids whose IQs are in the 130s and up? and everyone in between ... and served appropriately by one teacher?

Well, IQ is a useless measurement to begin with, but I assume you're just saying that the smart kids and the dumb kids can't be taught together. That's a premise I would disagree with. Some kids just need to put in more work at home to keep up, and if they can't do it, their parents need to step in and help teach as well.

Once kids hit middle school and pick their own classes, this is even less of an issue because students already have the ability to challenge themselves more or less.