On that reasoning I would not now be a Maths teacher. I was bloody awful at maths until the christmas of my fifth form (15 to 16 year olds with the O levels taken in June(the British 16 year old qualification from the fifties until the eighties)) and then the penny dropped and I took off. I repeat 13 is too early!
WI: Education were a fundamental interest
- Thread starter Sevarics
- Start date
- Status
The Mahnovite
Banned
Wide education of high quality reduces crime rates. This POD may lead to a safer, calmer America.
I agree with this, some people may not be the able to handle normal education but funding and what you spend it on does matter.
Burton K Wheeler
Moderator
Genetics is not correlated nearly as much with academic success as socioeconomic background, and your comment about "ghetto bangers" ruining schools is a bit eyebrow-raising as well. I mean, academic streaming isn't necessarily a bad idea, but you probably shouldn't couch it in the most racist language possible when the objection is that it takes away the opportunities of kids from disadvantaged background.
@The Mahnovite - I couldn't agree more! Education is one thing IF it improves options and folks see some correlation between investing in oneself and success.
Also, how companies view and treat employees is important.
@Van555- No guarantees that even with the best pedagogy, cost controls, and support- some folks are gonna bilge it.
However, we're obliged to try and help folks see and pursue the options to benefit themselves and society most!
@Lindsayman
I had a similar experience to yours re: maths but at fifteen in my sophomore year of HS, I realized I wanted to do a technical degree (biochemistry) and I needed Calc III to be able to crack physical chemistry and I was in algebra I.
Cue me cramming like hell hitting summer school the next two years to get calc BC in before I graduated. If I'd been apprised of what I needed to have before I started high school at thirteen or so, I wouldn't have slacked so much in math during junior high and at least been in alg II or pre-calc when I started sophomore year.
MY proposal is just that kids get evaluated and told where they are and where they need to study if they want to do something particular. Lay out ALL the options. Get enough TA's and work with Khan Academy to hone students' chops in whatever subject(s).
IMO, it's up to the student and the parents to discuss with the school which program the student will pursue.
****************RANT WARNING!*****************************
I hate the intrinsic talent argument esp with math with the fury of a thousand Algols.
That's been the excuse for the vast majority of math instructors I've encountered to be lousy teachers for decades, expecting students to be curve-shattering savants. Otherwise, it's pearls before swine so why bother.
If everyone were Carl Friedrich Gauss, we could just code-surf the problems out of the book, tell you how to re-write the bloody thing, and wouldn't need your ass!
The other 99.999% of students need guidance and instruction to some degree or another. You weren't born knowing it either. Take us through it step by step.
English teachers are encouraged to make every one of their students master the material. No excuses. People may not wind up all being brilliant writers but most have sixth-to ninth-grade literacy.
OTOH the average level of numeracy re: statistics, algebra, and more advanced math is astonishingly bad for US baccalaureate grads, much less high school graduates in comparison to foreign graduates.
IMO there's no excuse for it and figure STEM education could be considerably improved across the board.
************************END RANT**************************
Also, how companies view and treat employees is important.
@Van555- No guarantees that even with the best pedagogy, cost controls, and support- some folks are gonna bilge it.
However, we're obliged to try and help folks see and pursue the options to benefit themselves and society most!
@Lindsayman
I had a similar experience to yours re: maths but at fifteen in my sophomore year of HS, I realized I wanted to do a technical degree (biochemistry) and I needed Calc III to be able to crack physical chemistry and I was in algebra I.
Cue me cramming like hell hitting summer school the next two years to get calc BC in before I graduated. If I'd been apprised of what I needed to have before I started high school at thirteen or so, I wouldn't have slacked so much in math during junior high and at least been in alg II or pre-calc when I started sophomore year.
MY proposal is just that kids get evaluated and told where they are and where they need to study if they want to do something particular. Lay out ALL the options. Get enough TA's and work with Khan Academy to hone students' chops in whatever subject(s).
IMO, it's up to the student and the parents to discuss with the school which program the student will pursue.
****************RANT WARNING!*****************************
I hate the intrinsic talent argument esp with math with the fury of a thousand Algols.
That's been the excuse for the vast majority of math instructors I've encountered to be lousy teachers for decades, expecting students to be curve-shattering savants. Otherwise, it's pearls before swine so why bother.
If everyone were Carl Friedrich Gauss, we could just code-surf the problems out of the book, tell you how to re-write the bloody thing, and wouldn't need your ass!
The other 99.999% of students need guidance and instruction to some degree or another. You weren't born knowing it either. Take us through it step by step.
English teachers are encouraged to make every one of their students master the material. No excuses. People may not wind up all being brilliant writers but most have sixth-to ninth-grade literacy.
OTOH the average level of numeracy re: statistics, algebra, and more advanced math is astonishingly bad for US baccalaureate grads, much less high school graduates in comparison to foreign graduates.
IMO there's no excuse for it and figure STEM education could be considerably improved across the board.
************************END RANT**************************
You're kicked for a week for this bit of blatant racism.
Let's recap your opinions here, including the post you just praised. First, everything you say is clearly directed straight at black people. Second, you're saying that the reason black people do poorly in New York's schools is some combination of genetic inferiority plus the standard conservative racist crap about blacks having no family values and having too many babies.
The previous poster threw a racist remark into a post about IQ, but you're seizing the opportunity to escalate into the full right-wing racist attack on black culture.
Banned.
I see this comment a lot from conservative elitists who are in the process of arguing why poor people shouldn't get education money or why we shouldn't care that poor people don't do well in school.
I don't hear it from business leaders looking to hire people. They don't complain that people have no "trade skills", jobs these days don't HAVE "trade skills". They all have to train their workers, so they want workers who can be trained quickly. Who know how to learn quickly and effectively, especially from written material involving numbers and logical instructions.
In other words, basically what any good school these days teaches you.
When I was in university in Ontario I knew people in the auto industry and talked to them about this. Why is there a lot of auto industry in central Canada in the first place, you might ask? Well, labor costs are lower than most places in the US, except for the south. The auto companies preferred Canada to the south for two reasons. One reason was that Canadian policies such as universal health care lower their cost of doing business. The other was that lower middle class Canadians are well educated and easily trained, and lower middle class southerners pretty much needed instructions in pictures.
And yes, the reason for that isn't just quality schools, it's also because Canada isn't crippled by racism.
Far be it me to criticize Ian, but your bias is showing.
What tenthring and BW did was wrong and kickable/bannable, but to lump their comments into the usual old "conservatives are racist elites" cliche is really not necessary here. It just discourages other people from commenting on any issues relating to this site because there's just such a blatant bias among the mods and community against anyone who self-identifies as a "conservative" (which neither of these two individuals even claimed to be in this discussion If I recall correctly).
It gets tired after the 409871 time of people accusing you of being a "racist" or an "elite" or someone who wants "poor people/blacks/grandma/[insert group here] to die/fail/starve/go broke". It's a lousy lame attack on an ideology that +40% of Americans (who make up a large chunk of this site) subscribe to, and more importantly it's a cop out. If someone's being racist, ban them for racism. If someone's being a bone-head who isn't listening or even examining just what he's saying, call him out for it...but don't take some random person's comments and then use them as a blanket to cover an entire ideology that millions of people across the world subscribe to (and have varying opinions of what it even means). It just gets old seeing literally every racist comment on here be connected to "conservatism".
BTW, as someone who's family came from "lower middle class southerners" I'm extremely offended by your "they pretty much needed instructions in pictures" comment. That's so demeaning, derogatory, and frankly an unjust and absurd comment that does nothing save piss people off. If we're going to be playing that type of game, a comment like that would be worth a kick in of itself. I've seen people kicked for far less. If I posted in a thread that "black people pretty much need instructions in pictures" to do a job, what do you think would happen? Think about that for a second...
But you're Ian the Admin, you can't be kicked....you started this site in the first place (for which I'm very grateful!). So rather than demand you be kicked, I'd like to ask that you, all the mods, and the community as a whole pay attention to their own words as well. Wanna call out a "conservative" for a racist comment? Feel free...but you better be just as willing to have people call you out for hypocrisy at its finest.
What tenthring and BW did was wrong and kickable/bannable, but to lump their comments into the usual old "conservatives are racist elites" cliche is really not necessary here. It just discourages other people from commenting on any issues relating to this site because there's just such a blatant bias among the mods and community against anyone who self-identifies as a "conservative" (which neither of these two individuals even claimed to be in this discussion If I recall correctly).
It gets tired after the 409871 time of people accusing you of being a "racist" or an "elite" or someone who wants "poor people/blacks/grandma/[insert group here] to die/fail/starve/go broke". It's a lousy lame attack on an ideology that +40% of Americans (who make up a large chunk of this site) subscribe to, and more importantly it's a cop out. If someone's being racist, ban them for racism. If someone's being a bone-head who isn't listening or even examining just what he's saying, call him out for it...but don't take some random person's comments and then use them as a blanket to cover an entire ideology that millions of people across the world subscribe to (and have varying opinions of what it even means). It just gets old seeing literally every racist comment on here be connected to "conservatism".
BTW, as someone who's family came from "lower middle class southerners" I'm extremely offended by your "they pretty much needed instructions in pictures" comment. That's so demeaning, derogatory, and frankly an unjust and absurd comment that does nothing save piss people off. If we're going to be playing that type of game, a comment like that would be worth a kick in of itself. I've seen people kicked for far less. If I posted in a thread that "black people pretty much need instructions in pictures" to do a job, what do you think would happen? Think about that for a second...
But you're Ian the Admin, you can't be kicked....you started this site in the first place (for which I'm very grateful!). So rather than demand you be kicked, I'd like to ask that you, all the mods, and the community as a whole pay attention to their own words as well. Wanna call out a "conservative" for a racist comment? Feel free...but you better be just as willing to have people call you out for hypocrisy at its finest.
Last edited:
I think the problem with technical training tracks versus a STEM track, if it existed, would be: You're kid first bro. My Timmy is a unique and delicate snowflake whose brilliance will shine through the ages while your Bobby is fine playing with nuts and bolts.
Parents see their children with understandable bias.
Parents see their children with understandable bias.
The specific kind of racism that BlairWitch was banned for, basically a "black people are poor because black culture sucks" argument has been heard very often from prominent conservative figures and politicians, and very seldom from liberals. It's a highly partisan opinion. Calling it conservative is simply accurate.
I understand that American conservatives don't like people associating their movement with racism, but the reason people say that is because their movement is in fact packed with racists and racist opinions, and everyone can see that those people are tolerated by (and voted for by) other conservatives.
That was the literal truth. Many unskilled and low-skilled jobs use as many pictures as possible in their instructions, because the employees may not have great reading skills (or great English language reading skills). I was told by someone who worked in the auto industry that they found that functional literacy among the workforce in the American South was considerably less than that in central Canada (not exactly shocking), and that the way to deal with this did include more pictorial instructions.
Most of those poorly educated southern auto workers probably were black. Low literacy skills are the result of poverty and poor education.
That entire post really just proves my point. You can't even see what you did wrong, and I know from prior experience that nothing's going to change either.
Note to self: Don't bother pointing out hypocrisy among board members again. They don't care as long as it justifies their political predispositions.
Note to self: Don't bother pointing out hypocrisy among board members again. They don't care as long as it justifies their political predispositions.
Last edited:
Clearly, things aren't as obvious as you think they are. Ian's issue with BWs idea are, if I get them correct, that BW's theory doesn't include a way for poor and poorly educated black people to stop being poor, as if poverty and stupidity are an innate quality of their group; the only option is to not bother at all. Other people's views (including Ian's, presumable) on the other hand, do not consider those issues unsolvable.
I hope you see why the former issue is more problematic than the latter.
What purpose does this serve beyond venting passive aggression?
"You don't see the problem in what you're doing so clearly you're the one who's wrong" is an argumentative cop out and you should know that. If you think he's wrong you have to explain why, not just say he's incapable of getting it.
The problem here is that this is the point here depends entirely on how effective more money put into the education system is. That's why it so quickly got turned into a political argument.
If I may state my position on more $$$ in education- eliphas- it's a matter of who gets it when, getting parents, students, educators and administrators on the same page about priorities and what pathways are favored that matters.
Also funding the support staff, (TA's. counselors, and IT) so teachers can focus on teaching, tweaking curricula, etc instead of administrative donkey work, classroom set-up, and the endless collateral duties sucking time and focus away from teaching.
Study after study has shown that Head Start (pre-school) works wonders, but the effects fade b/c if the environments sucks badly enough, the kids realize school isn't teaching them what they need to know.
A buck invested then yields twenty in better outcomes AFAIC.
Doing primary school right- IMO if primary school's done its job, you've got kids who can read and write well enough to construct a sentence and maybe do simple algebra, do homework assignments and projects with only a little help from mom/dad.
A buck invested there yields ten in better outcomes. Basically, if you get a kid and give them a good foundation in primary school, they do extremely well later, even once the evil hormones kick in.
I vividly recall what a waste junior high school (grades 7 and 8) were as far as learning went. I got the mistaken impression that choosing my classes didn't matter and the real work would start in ninth grade.
My parents, counselors, and teachers would say different, but there was no real track for me to pursue until HS.
THEN the 40W bulb came on I had to pay attention and prioritize.
Trying to fix kids whose primary education sucked or was based on social promotion w/o any real education at the secondary level is where it gets expensive and frustrating even for students w/o LD's such as autism, dyslexia, and so on. With LD's, it takes a 5-10X the work to get the kid up to speed with their peers.
That's why to that extent class size matters. Some kids need very little guidance and feedback, but others need a lot more attention and coaching. There's no magic formula that will get you great results with every student.
That's why study after study has shown trying to intervene with HS dropouts w or w/o LD's is expensive and frustrating for all concerned and seems like a bottomless pit with shit outcomes.
Still, education from grades K-12 IMO needs a thorough reboot.
For kids of average or better intelligence, there's no reason they couldn't have an associates' degree at eighteen w/o killing themselves.
That's IF primary education's squared away, you can bridge pubertal onset and make academic progress, and give everyone a clear idea what's on the table soon enough to plan accordingly so secondary education is a worthwhile endeavor.
You can choose a practical track or academic track or a combination of both. Just let people know the required courses and we'll fund seven courses a six weeks.
It might be dreaming, but I think the feds and states should budget for lifelong retraining throughout their working lives b/c whatever was world-class in 1988 is either dated or irrelevant.
I've been fortunate that I've kept learning and going back to school every few years to stay sharp.
Also funding the support staff, (TA's. counselors, and IT) so teachers can focus on teaching, tweaking curricula, etc instead of administrative donkey work, classroom set-up, and the endless collateral duties sucking time and focus away from teaching.
Study after study has shown that Head Start (pre-school) works wonders, but the effects fade b/c if the environments sucks badly enough, the kids realize school isn't teaching them what they need to know.
A buck invested then yields twenty in better outcomes AFAIC.
Doing primary school right- IMO if primary school's done its job, you've got kids who can read and write well enough to construct a sentence and maybe do simple algebra, do homework assignments and projects with only a little help from mom/dad.
A buck invested there yields ten in better outcomes. Basically, if you get a kid and give them a good foundation in primary school, they do extremely well later, even once the evil hormones kick in.
I vividly recall what a waste junior high school (grades 7 and 8) were as far as learning went. I got the mistaken impression that choosing my classes didn't matter and the real work would start in ninth grade.
My parents, counselors, and teachers would say different, but there was no real track for me to pursue until HS.
THEN the 40W bulb came on I had to pay attention and prioritize.
Trying to fix kids whose primary education sucked or was based on social promotion w/o any real education at the secondary level is where it gets expensive and frustrating even for students w/o LD's such as autism, dyslexia, and so on. With LD's, it takes a 5-10X the work to get the kid up to speed with their peers.
That's why to that extent class size matters. Some kids need very little guidance and feedback, but others need a lot more attention and coaching. There's no magic formula that will get you great results with every student.
That's why study after study has shown trying to intervene with HS dropouts w or w/o LD's is expensive and frustrating for all concerned and seems like a bottomless pit with shit outcomes.
Still, education from grades K-12 IMO needs a thorough reboot.
For kids of average or better intelligence, there's no reason they couldn't have an associates' degree at eighteen w/o killing themselves.
That's IF primary education's squared away, you can bridge pubertal onset and make academic progress, and give everyone a clear idea what's on the table soon enough to plan accordingly so secondary education is a worthwhile endeavor.
You can choose a practical track or academic track or a combination of both. Just let people know the required courses and we'll fund seven courses a six weeks.
It might be dreaming, but I think the feds and states should budget for lifelong retraining throughout their working lives b/c whatever was world-class in 1988 is either dated or irrelevant.
I've been fortunate that I've kept learning and going back to school every few years to stay sharp.
The POD is more than just about purse strings here. We're talking about priorities and who gets to set them. We're talking about the potential to set national standards and determine how they're met.
And it is a double-edged sword, at every turn. The hope is that national standards and guaranteed funding raise more boats than OTL. But it's also basically certain that rich jurisdictions are going to provide any advantage money can buy. The question is, how much of an advantage will that be?
Those arguing that throwing money at education is a waste might have to admit that the rich then receive little or no added advantage, if more money is all they bring to the table.
I do wonder how far we could take this ruling and use it to enact further legislation that is seemingly unrelated. If education is a fundamental interest, what steps can be taken to correct factors that impede education? Two that spring to mind: bad living situations, and lack of health care.
And it is a double-edged sword, at every turn. The hope is that national standards and guaranteed funding raise more boats than OTL. But it's also basically certain that rich jurisdictions are going to provide any advantage money can buy. The question is, how much of an advantage will that be?
Those arguing that throwing money at education is a waste might have to admit that the rich then receive little or no added advantage, if more money is all they bring to the table.
I do wonder how far we could take this ruling and use it to enact further legislation that is seemingly unrelated. If education is a fundamental interest, what steps can be taken to correct factors that impede education? Two that spring to mind: bad living situations, and lack of health care.
The ruling also had the effect of stoping any new rights from being found in the equal protections clause. With if still open, there's the chance that other rights are found in it as a result of income inequalities.
Fair points Expat and Sevarics!
Much as I find Nixon deeply troubling- IF he could've gotten UHC and GMI off the ground in a grand bargain with Congress as well as having education suddenly the feds' bailiwick to establish and maintain educational standards- you could slice a bunch of Gordian knots in dealing with poverty.
1965-1975 was where the USA could have done a lot to avoid the craziness of the 1980's that led to a lot of our current social and economic ills.
YMMDV.
Much as I find Nixon deeply troubling- IF he could've gotten UHC and GMI off the ground in a grand bargain with Congress as well as having education suddenly the feds' bailiwick to establish and maintain educational standards- you could slice a bunch of Gordian knots in dealing with poverty.
1965-1975 was where the USA could have done a lot to avoid the craziness of the 1980's that led to a lot of our current social and economic ills.
YMMDV.
- Status