<p>
</p>
<p>A student can try and fail. What do we do with these students? How about the ones who don’t try at all and fail? </p>
<p>z8I’m just not sure how harder tests would actually “force” students to do something they weren’t before.* How will we know the teacher would truly be teaching differently–and what would these new practices entail?</p>
<p>Well, regardless they’re going to be screwed whether they move up or not, may as well keep them there until they get it right. We can’t let students drop out of school until 16. If they’re still in the same bind until 16, then they can give up and go find a job. That’s not how it’s supposed to work, but that seems to happens anyway. That sounds like life for some people.</p>
<p>^Many kids drop out before 16.</p>
<p>So we just stick with the notion that “they’re going to be screwed” without trying to do anything about it?</p>
<p>That seems like a defeated attitude and somewhat cynical.</p>
<p>
I am not opposed to increased school funding, although some of the waste in public schools systems (shiny new textbooks that are no different from the old ones, etc.) is appalling. But funding a school does not make its students wealthier.
As I said, I’m not convinced that harder tests would increase failure rates. But if the answer is holding someone back until they learn the material, then so be it. Letting them graduate without sufficient education is not doing them a favor.
This is a question I can’t answer off the top of my head. In general, I would say that questions requiring students to answer the questions “why?” and “how?” are better than “what?”. And yes, that can be done with multiple choice.
I don’t necessarily feel that tracking is a good idea. However, making whatever tracking programs exist more accurate and efficient is a good thing.</p>
<p>I disagree with the writer of the article on many points. One point I agree with is that teachers should explain why something works the way it does. Understanding the intuition behind the process can improve rational thinking.</p>
<p>The rest, however, is baloney.</p>
<p>The American school system overhauled? That immediately loses the author some credit. What really caught my eye are those last few paragraphs. I am against teachers getting more freedom. Imagine the disparity among classrooms nationwide if teachers do whatever they please. I already see a problem in English classes; because there are no strict outline, students in different English classes are receiving vastly different instructions. I really want to remind people that a teacher is just another human. What they want to teach may not reflect what the students need. “Teachers who understand the material” is way too vague, and thus will cause many problems.</p>
<p>I think most of the current system is fine. There should be standards in high school. Freedom in teaching should exist in college, and it does. This is the way it should be: students get similar education in high school but they can choose which college, therefore what kinds of education to receive, to attend.</p>
<p>I think the part about teachers who do not know what they’re teaching is exaggerated. Teachers may be lazy, but most of them have a degree in their field of teaching. I support the requirement of making harsher requirement to be a teacher. </p>
<p>I’m sure most of you have noticed this- the tone in the article is too idealistic. S/he is wanting results that will probably never occur.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Did I say this? But on a cheesy note, it can cause more wealth of opportunities…?</p>
<p>I’m for equal (if not equitable) funding for schools. Right now there are huge disparities.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>But kids won’t always be held back (especially in less-funded schools!!!, less resources and all). Social Promotion. I guess research would have to be done to see if it would increase, decrease, or remain the same, in terms of failure rates.</p>
<p>^ You discussed increased funding in response to my point about students in poverty having difficulties.</p>
<p>I’m discussing standardized tests integrated into the curriculum - in other words, students who fail are held back.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>I don’t disagree. Personally, I love the “why” and “how.” I just think it’s easy to say this abstractly, but much much harder to put into practice. And it can obviously be done with multiple choice, but I don’t think that’s the issue.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>I still didn’t imply (let alone state) that funding schools better would make kids richer!!</p>
<p>Also, I think these issues can be discussed at the same time. They are clearly related.</p>
<p>
I know. I was just making it clear that increased school funding does not solve for all the educational harms associated with poverty.</p>
<p>^Of course not, but it certainly helps. And that is dangerous–that seems to be an argument people use against equal school funding. I am so for equal funding and really want to see it happen, but I don’t know…</p>
<p>
Equal school funding is a good thing. It is not enough.</p>
<p>I don’t see why the government can’t just make a knowledge based version of the SAT (AKA THE ACT???) for the whole country and see how certain states, cities, backgrounds do, and cater to a certain area based on how they performed… that seems like it would help as long as they’re learning properly. Then we would make that for everyone instead of just for North Carolina where 5 or 10 cities in 100+ Counties show immediate success and show skill and talent within the community.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Once again, I don’t disagree!!! I thought I made that clear. But I think equal educational opportunities should be provided to all children.</p>
<p>The question is: what is enough? I don’t think we will ever truly reach that point. I have more I can go into about this, but I think it might be too much of a digression…</p>
<p>I’m interested to hear what you have to say ChocolateBanana. And has anyone realized the drastic difference between state-to-state education standards? what’s up with that?</p>
<p>^Well, it’s the way funding is set up…to me, the more crazy stuff is the drastic difference within states, between a city and a suburb right next to each other (although there are also disparities within that suburb and within that city).</p>
<p>Although state-to-state is clearly different too…</p>
<p>Even two schools right by each other could have a dramatic difference!</p>
<p>^Could and does.</p>
<p>Yes, no kidding. :)</p>