Grade Advancement is Overrated

[liberalogic]

Whoa, here we part ways. There are so many 'gifted' but unidentified kids in middle school, (6th-9th), that for a host of reasons may be 'underachieving.' I'm against putting them in 'gifted' when they do not do the minimums expected in a regular classroom, but think they need the time and attention that may well turn them into the adults they are capable of being-including lawyers, and doctors and perhaps even accountants. The right teachers/mentors/coaches can make a HUGE difference in the life of a 9th-12th grader. Unlike the Euros, I would not write them off, by handing them off to shop/auto/business courses.

The system that you disagree with sounds a lot like Plato's state, which would've been an interesting experiment. This whole issue really tears me apart...I had a friend who was a genius-- incredible SAT scores, could write beautifully, and was just brilliant. He prospered in elementary school, but when HS came around, he completely slacked off. The reason for this was not his intelligence, but his desire. He had no desire to do chem, bio, calc, (or precalc) for that matter. It wasn't just laziness...it was a genuine claim that he would never need this stuff and had no interest in it. He didn't go to college, but earns a moderately successful income presently doing something the subjects i mentioned did not teach him. So should he be required and why? I can't really go either way, maybe you can help me look at it differently.

 

[Nienna]

One more thing I think needs to be added, uniforms. Children are typically hostile to the idea at first, since they think of uniforms as 'stuffy,' but what surprises me are the parents.

I LOVE the idea of school uniforms! I went to Catholic school 2-12th grade, so the idea seems natural to me. The showdowns I have to deal with every morning are ridiculous! I have one girl who wants to wear the most wacky, trendy, mismatched outfits, and another girl who LITERALLY wants to wear rags to school. I have approached my MIL, who(m) is on the school board. She is very opposed to the idea. (Of course, you should see her closet; she is a clothes-hoard.) She says she thinks it's good for kids to "express themselves." (She also votes Dem every time ) Some of the things I see middle/high school girls wearing... I don't think they should be "expressing" that in public! :shocked:

 

[Nienna]

We need to stop trying to force everyone into the academic higher-education mold. God made us all with different strengths and abilities, and there should be no shame in that.

I really, really like you, Abbey... but stay away from my husband with these ideas!

I agree that mechanics/ skilled tradesmen are perfectly acceptable and definitely not any less "worthy" people. Some people do not need college to have a career. This area is full of blue-collar workers and farmers. I don't see how college would have helped them.

My husband is a different story. He is a white-collar worker, and he is dragging his heels about completing his degree, even though they have tuition reimbursement at his company. He was raised in this area, where a college education was not only seen as "unnecessary," but if you aspired to one, you could be branded "a snob."

I think the best thing to do would be to focus on helping kids select a career path, and then discussing the level of education needed to achieve that career. However, I don't think that tracking should be so strict as to keep kids from trading paths, especially at the middle-school grade level. You're right, not everyone needs college. But how many young kids would actually CHOOSE to go to scool for 4-10 more years? That's why college education may need a little more "push" than trade school.

 

[Abbey Normal]

I really, really like you, Abbey... but stay away from my husband with these ideas!

I agree that mechanics/ skilled tradesmen are perfectly acceptable and definitely not any less "worthy" people. Some people do not need college to have a career. This area is full of blue-collar workers and farmers. I don't see how college would have helped them.

My husband is a different story. He is a white-collar worker, and he is dragging his heels about completing his degree, even though they have tuition reimbursement at his company. He was raised in this area, where a college education was not only seen as "unnecessary," but if you aspired to one, you could be branded "a snob."

I think the best thing to do would be to focus on helping kids select a career path, and then discussing the level of education needed to achieve that career. However, I don't think that tracking should be so strict as to keep kids from trading paths, especially at the middle-school grade level. You're right, not everyone needs college. But how many young kids would actually CHOOSE to go to scool for 4-10 more years? That's why college education may need a little more "push" than trade school.

I like the bolded part, Mom. It seems reasonable to me.
(And the part where you say you like me is cool, too )

I promise not to tell your husband anything!

 

[Unkotare]

... it is, in fact, easier for children to learn foreign languages the younger they are. ...

That's not true.

 

[Delldude]

That's not true.

Research............

 

[Unkotare]

Research............

I’ve done a great deal of it.

 

[Delldude]

I’ve done a great deal of it.

Missed a few articles I see.

 

[Unkotare]

Missed a few articles I see.

Nope. You’re just parroting what you’ve “heard people say” without really knowing anything about it.

 

[Delldude]

Nope. You’re just parroting what you’ve “heard people say” without really knowing anything about it.

UN doesn't think like that.

 

[Unkotare]

The fact is that adults are much better at learning additional languages than children.

 

[Delldude]

The fact is that adults are much better at learning additional languages than children.

Randy Weingarten tell you that?

 

[Unkotare]

Randy Weingarten tell you that?

ALL of the research to my masters degree in linguistics and my 30 years of experience with second language acquisition tells me that.

 

[braalian]

From what I’ve gathered, it isn’t so much that children will “pick up” a foreign language faster than an adult. In fact, most studies show they learn new languages slower than adults.

But the studies also show that, after a certain age, it is difficult-to-impossible for most people to learn a foreign language without a noticeable accent.

This doesn’t mean one isn’t fluent, it just means that if someone is to learn a foreign language and speak it sounding 100% like a native speaker, they need to learn it at a young age.

 

[Delldude]

ALL of the research to my masters degree in linguistics and my 30 years of experience with second language acquisition tells me that.

This one's smarter than you.

Dr. Eleonore Smalle

 

[Woodznutz]

Ok, right now, everybody spends exactly 13 years in school, unless they're stupid and live in a district that allows you to fail a grade. You start in Kindergarten and work your way up to and through high school one year at a time, and until high school, everyone advances at the same rate, learning addition and subtraction in the first grade, cursive in either the third or fouth, etc., etc. This system sucks donkey balls. It's estimated that while certain brain developments are required for deeper language learning, meaning English can stay where it is, many children are capable of learning multivariable calculus before puberty and it is, in fact, easier for children to learn foreign languages the younger they are. So, if these 'genius children' are capable of this, why don't we hear about them? Well, chances are, you do, but in a bad way. These kids account for over half the kids with disciplinary problems in elementary school, since they've already passed what's being taught and are incredibly bored with it, but have to wait for the slower kids to catch up. The whole system is retarded, which is why I propose we change it to the following, which I wish we'd had when I was a kid.

All kids go through Kindergarten to learn writing basics and fun little things like tying your shoes. At the end of the year, they're given a placement test, and all children are placed in a class that fits their placement level. They take another test at the end of every year. A class would consist of all those of the same achievement level, regardless of age. Strangely enough, mixed classes like this behave better, for reasons I am unsure of. Those who advance quickly will learn highly advanced math and possibly multiple foreign languages, and to accomadate those who advance differently in each subject, they'll have a seperate class for each, meaning some children may be in remedial English and advanced physics at the same time. Once they have placed well enough in their poorest subject on the test, they may advance to high school, or, if the parents think they're a little young, they may stay at the elementary level a little longer, provided they haven't "capped out" any one subject (but they could then opt to take that subject at high school while everything else is at the elementary). Once in high school, you choose a vocational or college prep track, with requirements for graduation as they are now.

Now, this system may sound a bit crazy, but that's because the grade advancement system has been the only one for decades. However, if this system was adopted, children could truly advance as fast as they could in any subject. It wouldn't be uncommon for 12 year olds to be doing triple integration, and stories of 16 year olds going to college wouldn't be so rare and exotic.

Final credit, however, must be given to my mom, who came up with most of this while we were talking one day.

The peer/age group is the most important thing, regardless of achievement within the group. Overachieving kids should mentor others in their group.

 

[Resnic]

America went from nothing to being a major world super power in record times. During our the times we grew the fastest, advanced technology the fastest, grew our military, grew our industrial strength, became a engager in other countries, our economy was growing by leaps and bounds, Americans were all living good lives for the most part, we went into space, won wars, and so on was all during a time when our school system didn't change very much.

There is no need to over complicate a school system when our society is raising children with morals, values, standards, pride, strength, personal responsibility and ambition.

Changing an already prove system only means one thing, it's not working because the children aren't up to snuff. They can't handle it because they are raised to have a lower level of potential.