School Divides Students Based on Race, Gender

[JohnOfSheffield]

They have done studies that show boys and girls learn differently at younger ages.

And so do individuals, social skills is more important than any individuals need for a separate teacher though.

Most people understand that.

 

[classy]

I don't get how seperating kids just in homeroom helps?

 

[dmcowen674]

Northern state just trying to catch up to the south.

 

[Brainonska511]

Can someone please point to where it says they are splitting them up for classes by race and gender?

The article only says homeroom, which when I was in middle school (no homeroom in HS), was 5 minute time at the very beginning of the day where attendance was taken.

I don't get how seperating kids just in homeroom helps?

Role model (as suggested)? Maybe a lot of people in the school self-identify by race.

 

[JS80]

No, Asian kids are better used in sweatshops.

Only in Asia. In first world countries they are over-achievers. Unfortunately it doesn't necessarily translate to success in life. It just means they are good at taking tests.

But my point was that doing what he suggested would result in the same end.

 

[nonlnear]

Uhhh most teachers worth their salt know which kids get it and which need more help. They also know which kids which are becoming bored and need some higher level teaching.

The bolded is true enough. Unfortunately within an American public bureaucracy it's pretty much impossible to empower teachers to make any judgment calls about what happens to a kid after they leave their own classroom. Private schools have a better shot at making useful classifications of students using a heavier weight on classroom experience as they aren't obligated to pander to the parents to the same extent. Within the public system a teacher or principal needs a sheet with a number on it to have a hope of telling a parent "no" - and even then it's a long shot if the parent is determined to destroy theior child for their vicarious vanity.

Unfortunately in our current system the goal seems to be mediocrity.

This is the crux of the matter. Many school systems even state that one of their primary goals is to "close the achievement gap". It's tragic that we fall that far short of the much more laudable (but politically taboo) goal of maximizing outcomes for everybody.

 

[JohnOfSheffield]

Only in Asia. In first world countries they are over-achievers. Unfortunately it doesn't necessarily translate to success in life. It just means they are good at taking tests.

But my point was that doing what he suggested would result in the same end.

Actually, my point was that it would be worse for some and better for others, which it surely would be.

In reality, i doubt you can further a society by treating some like elite and others like worthless or average and not build a hellhole like every other nation who tried to do this but then again... lol, retarded people like CsG don't understand that their kids would never get into the elite classes.

 

[nonlnear]

The ones who mature later will be put in one class for life, this is EXACTLY how the school system worked in the Soviet Union and how it works in NK and China today, the elite in every category is separated and the "useless" are the ones who get the jobs that require very little talent to do and get paid next to nothing for it.

I don't think it will even work outside a Communistic dictatorship since it isn't suggested in ANY science that the kids who are the rowdiest are the worst students when they mature, people like Einstein would have gotten a crappy education with this proposal.

I have to admit I didn't read every detail of drebo's post. I agree that behavior (especially in terms of obedience, i.e. "wanting to learn" - which is actually about submissiveness and nothing at all to do with learning) is a poor criterion. However education psychology has come far enough that I don't think Einstein would have been lumped in with the "dimwits", his social quirks and unique development notwithstanding.

Equal opportunity is something that EVERY western nation preaches, it seems like it's working better than the old Soviet Union style with elite classes that you are advocating.

Equal opportunity means a lot of different things to different people. Ensuring a uniform classroom experience has very little to do with equalizing opportunity. I would have dug into my objections to "equal opportunity" in education, but I think it's only fair to ask you more precisely what you mean by the term when applied to K-12 education.

 

[JohnOfSheffield]

The bolded is true enough. Unfortunately within an American public bureaucracy it's pretty much impossible to empower teachers to make any judgment calls about what happens to a kid after they leave their own classroom. Private schools have a better shot at making useful classifications of students using a heavier weight on classroom experience as they aren't obligated to pander to the parents to the same extent. Within the public system a teacher or principal needs a sheet with a number on it to have a hope of telling a parent "no" - and even then it's a long shot if the parent is determined to destroy theior child for their vicarious vanity.
This is the crux of the matter. Many school systems even state that one of their primary goals is to "close the achievement gap". It's tragic that we fall that far short of the much more laudable (but politically taboo) goal of maximizing outcomes for everybody.

NK is the answer i tell ya, look at their school system, they weed out the elite depending on what they are good at at a very young age and then they drill them with that and ONLY that until they become average at it... because that is the end result when they lose interest with the drill instructor.

The primary goal should be to help everyone achieve the same goals, it's been like that in schools in the west for a long time and obviously they have accomplished more because of it.

But hey, fuck reality, right? Let's make theoretical assumptions on issues where we KNOW they have failed when put into practice and call that a good choice, shall we?

Kim Jong Il would love to hear your praise, you should write him a letter.

 

[AzN]

Only in Asia. In first world countries they are over-achievers. Unfortunately it doesn't necessarily translate to success in life. It just means they are good at taking tests.

But my point was that doing what he suggested would result in the same end.

He just made a racist remark based on American stereotypes about all Asian kids working in sweat shops and you agreed. Only in Asia.

Do you bend over and bow to them too?

 

[AzN]

NK is the answer i tell ya, look at their school system, they weed out the elite depending on what they are good at at a very young age and then they drill them with that and ONLY that until they become average at it... because that is the end result when they lose interest with the drill instructor.

The primary goal should be to help everyone achieve the same goals, it's been like that in schools in the west for a long time and obviously they have accomplished more because of it.

But hey, fuck reality, right? Let's make theoretical assumptions on issues where we KNOW they have failed when put into practice and call that a good choice, shall we?

Kim Jong Il would love to hear your praise, you should write him a letter.

This is why Americans have a drug problem. They can't tell reality from fiction.

 

[JohnOfSheffield]

I have to admit I didn't read every detail of drebo's post. I agree that behavior (especially in terms of obedience, i.e. "wanting to learn" - which is actually about submissiveness and nothing at all to do with learning) is a poor criterion. However education psychology has come far enough that I don't think Einstein would have been lumped in with the "dimwits", his social quirks and unique development notwithstanding.
Equal opportunity means a lot of different things to different people. Ensuring a uniform classroom experience has very little to do with equalizing opportunity. I would have dug into my objections to "equal opportunity" in education, but I think it's only fair to ask you more precisely what you mean by the term when applied to K-12 education.

*sigh*

Reality says you are wrong. Western education is the best in the entire world because it attempts to achieve the goal where everyone learns what they are supposed to know based on what grade they are in.

Einstein would have been classified as a dimwit in grade school, written off as an underachiever and in your proposed system he would never have been known to anyone more than his closest friends. He was allowed to thrive on the higher knowledge later in life but he was not paying much attention in school.

Anyone who thinks that anyone who achieves more than their grade says they should in grade school will become better when it comes to higher education is a fool, it's rarely the case while the opposite is often true.

 

[JohnOfSheffield]

This is why Americans have a drug problem. They can't tell reality from fiction.

Learn geography, look up the UK on a map, that is where i am from, i'm not American you daft twat.

 

[nonlnear]

*sigh*

Reality says you are wrong.

Very compelling argument.

Western education is the best in the entire world because it attempts to achieve the goal where everyone learns what they are supposed to know based on what grade they are in.

Einstein would have been classified as a dimwit in grade school, written off as an underachiever

With apathetic parents and nobody in the system taking an interest in him, probably. However that wasn't the case. Einstein gained little from his formal education anyways, as is so often the case with exceptionally intelligent folk.

and in your proposed system he would never have been known to anyone more than his closest friends.

I didn't propose a system; I made a few passing comments.

He was allowed to thrive on the higher knowledge later in life but he was not paying much attention in school.

Which begs the question what exactly you think he had to gain... But focusing on extreme outliers is a good way to make terrible policy, so let's drop the Einstein thing if you don't mind. I almost feel like it's a reverse analog of Godwin's Law in that talking about Einstein in an education policy discussion is almost guaranteed to bury any profitable conclusions in a heap of bullshit.

Anyone who thinks that anyone who achieves more than their grade says they should in grade school will become better when it comes to higher education is a fool, it's rarely the case while the opposite is often true.

Link? Or is this another invocation of "reality"?

 

[JohnOfSheffield]

Very compelling argument.

Western education is the best in the entire world because it attempts to achieve the goal where everyone learns what they are supposed to know based on what grade they are in.

With apathetic parents and nobody in the system taking an interest in him, probably. However that wasn't the case. Einstein gained little from his formal education anyways, as is so often the case with exceptionally intelligent folk.

I didn't propose a system; I made a few passing comments.
Which begs the question what exactly you think he had to gain... But focusing on extreme outliers is a good way to make terrible policy, so let's drop the Einstein thing if you don't mind. I almost feel like it's a reverse analog of Godwin's Law in that talking about Einstein in an education policy discussion is almost guaranteed to bury any profitable conclusions in a heap of bullshit.
Link? Or is this another invocation of "reality"?

It's fairly well known that most of those we refer to as geniouses today did poorly in grade school, i can't search but since you can (i assume) just enter a search phrase into google and you'll find what you are looking for.

And before you ask, i can't search because all search engine code is blocked for access for me, i don't know why but that's the way it is, i don't know if it has to do with some firewall rule or the TOR network.

 

[nonlnear]

It's fairly well known that most of those we refer to as geniouses today did poorly in grade school, i can't search but since you can (i assume) just enter a search phrase into google and you'll find what you are looking for.

I'll give the benefit of the doubt on this one (because it doesn't actually cut against what I would propose if I could make a comprehensive proposal - although come to think of it,. that's a really good reason to double check it to make sure I'm not using a false assumption). The thing is I would strongly oppose tracking students based strictly upon their progress through the curriculum. That's what grades are for. If progress through the curriculum were the only point of differentiation between students, then perhaps higher temporal resolution would be a better solution. i.e. "grades" are smaller - say 4 or 6 months - with smaller objectives, and there is more flexibility to advance or slow down as need be. However I don't see that as the most compelling institutional need.

What I would advocate is a diversity of educational styles and objectives. Use evaluation instruments that have a good chance of detecting the "behaviorally unique" geniuses (yes, they do exist and yes, they are far from perfect) and rescue them from the drudgery - if they and their parents so choose. Give students an environment that fits their needs rather than attempting to keep the experience uniform in the name of "equality".

And before you ask, i can't search because all search engine code is blocked for access for me, i don't know why but that's the way it is, i don't know if it has to do with some firewall rule or the TOR network.

That's fine. I asked for a source because I really do like to read these things, not just as a debate trump card.

I would like to know exactly what you mean by equality of opportunity when it comes to education though. Equality means different things to different people, and also in different policy areas. I didn't want to attack straw men if I could avoid it.

 

[drebo]

They have done studies that show boys and girls learn differently at younger ages.

That may be true. Although I recall a roughly equal number of boys and girls in all of the classes I was in in elementary school, as well as junior high.

At the highschool level, though, I doubt that there is a significantly quantifiable difference. College-bound students can be easily identified and kept in general education. Students who are not fit for college usually show themselves by the age of 12 and should be sent to trade schools.

We need tradesmen just as much as we need college educated white collar professionals, and there is no harm or dishonor in being a tradesman.

 

[drebo]

Actually, my point was that it would be worse for some and better for others, which it surely would be.

In reality, i doubt you can further a society by treating some like elite and others like worthless or average and not build a hellhole like every other nation who tried to do this but then again... lol, retarded people like CsG don't understand that their kids would never get into the elite classes.

Bullshit. There are plenty of underacheiving Asians in America. They gang-bang just like the Latinos and other "minorities". As a whole, I don't think that they are any smarter.

There are two groups of kids in the "smart" classes: the ones that stay there because they work hard, and the ones that are just smart. My classes all through highschool had both kinds in it. Overwhelmingly, in my experience, Asians fall in the former group. But it's not all Asians. Singaporeans and urban Japanese seem to be the hardest workers and the smartest. The Chinese and south-east Asians (Cambodian, Vietnamese, etc) and rural Japanese didn't have nearly the work ethic or intellect.

It is very easy for a teacher or school system to recognize which group a student falls into, and race has absolutely nothing to do with it. If a student works hard, they'll make it to whatever stage in life they want to. I rode my bike 6 miles every day as a junior in highschool to take calculus 2 at the local junior college. There were no Asians coming along with me, and we had plenty at our school.

Anecdotally, living in California, your comments carry no weight. Race has nothing to do with a particular person's aptitude or drive for knowledge.

As stated before, CULTURE has a lot to do with it. Singaporeans have a very strict culture, and thus every Singaporean I knew in school worked very, very hard. But I knew plento of kids of European descent that were smarter and didn't apply themselves. I knew a few black kids that were just as smart and worked just as hard as everyone else. Heck, there were even Mexicans in my AP classes. And women, too! Race and gender had nothing to do with how the students performed in school. But culture sure as hell did.

If a kid is brought up by his parents with the idea that he'll quit school and work in the fields at 16, he's not going to put much stock in his studies. When that family immigrates and the kid goes to a normal highschool with graduation at 18, he's already been trained that his education isn't important and he's not likely to apply himself any more. My wife sees it quite often as an elementary school teacher. First and second generation immigrant kids have no desire to learn. Third and forth (and beyond) have been here long enough that they know that education is important to succeed, and thus the kids have much more desire to learn. This is true of Mexican and Indian (red dot) and European and black and women and men.

Biggotry is characterizing a person based on preconceived notions of those like him who came before him. Seeing the color of a man and making a judgement, instead of basing it on the character of that man. Culture is what defines a person, not the color of his skin or the presence of a Y chromosome.

 

[AzN]

Learn geography, look up the UK on a map, that is where i am from, i'm not American you daft twat.

Big difference