What were we doing right, education-wise, in the 80s and 90s?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:This is why we chose what is now called a "traditional" education for DC. By that I mean: recess, p.e., music, art, phonics (and more phonics), handwriting, and math literacy. Worked for me, working for the kid.

This is default, not choice. Except phonics, which is stupid and for dummies.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Unpopular answer: Any kid with SN severe enough to keep them below grade level and/or disruptive behaviors was not mainstreamed. There were plenty of latchkey kids, for sure, but most parents who were at least middle class made it pretty clear that 1. College was NOT optional and 2. Good grades were expected, and had to be earned.

Boom. Agree.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Unpopular answer: Any kid with SN severe enough to keep them below grade level and/or disruptive behaviors was not mainstreamed. There were plenty of latchkey kids, for sure, but most parents who were at least middle class made it pretty clear that 1. College was NOT optional and 2. Good grades were expected, and had to be earned.

Actually, I’d say the opposite of that. It’s only been in the past two decades that we’ve pushed this whole “college for all” thing.

No way. I grew up locally and graduated HS in 1996. Not joking when I say that 85% of my graduating class went to college, and most of those people went to a four-year university. I would say this had a lot to do with the economy at the time, too.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Unpopular answer: Any kid with SN severe enough to keep them below grade level and/or disruptive behaviors was not mainstreamed. There were plenty of latchkey kids, for sure, but most parents who were at least middle class made it pretty clear that 1. College was NOT optional and 2. Good grades were expected, and had to be earned.

Actually, I’d say the opposite of that. It’s only been in the past two decades that we’ve pushed this whole “college for all” thing.

No way. I grew up locally and graduated HS in 1996. Not joking when I say that 85% of my graduating class went to college, and most of those people went to a four-year university. I would say this had a lot to do with the economy at the time, too.

Where did you go to high school?

[Anonymous]

We weren’t taught to a test like today.

Everything is about the SOLs.

Also, there was no shame attached with not going to college. Vocational programs were more popular. We didn’t stick those who weren’t academically talented into smaller classes, we found what their other strengths were and guided them to options that fit.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Unpopular answer: Any kid with SN severe enough to keep them below grade level and/or disruptive behaviors was not mainstreamed. There were plenty of latchkey kids, for sure, but most parents who were at least middle class made it pretty clear that 1. College was NOT optional and 2. Good grades were expected, and had to be earned.

Boom. Agree.

+1. And they beat us.


-81 baby

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Unpopular answer: Any kid with SN severe enough to keep them below grade level and/or disruptive behaviors was not mainstreamed. There were plenty of latchkey kids, for sure, but most parents who were at least middle class made it pretty clear that 1. College was NOT optional and 2. Good grades were expected, and had to be earned.

Boom. Agree.

Most people in this country don’t go to college.

Most kids with SNs weren’t mainstreamed during that time. They might have had specials/electives and lunch but most sn kids were lumped together in separate classrooms. Plus the high school drop rate was much higher because we didn’t differentiate education for sn kids.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Unpopular answer: Any kid with SN severe enough to keep them below grade level and/or disruptive behaviors was not mainstreamed. There were plenty of latchkey kids, for sure, but most parents who were at least middle class made it pretty clear that 1. College was NOT optional and 2. Good grades were expected, and had to be earned.

Actually, I’d say the opposite of that. It’s only been in the past two decades that we’ve pushed this whole “college for all” thing.

No way. I grew up locally and graduated HS in 1996. Not joking when I say that 85% of my graduating class went to college, and most of those people went to a four-year university. I would say this had a lot to do with the economy at the time, too.

Where did you go to high school?

I'll keep it a bit vague but it was in the DC/MD/VA area, in a school district that was affluent at the time (and the HS in question still is).

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Unpopular answer: Any kid with SN severe enough to keep them below grade level and/or disruptive behaviors was not mainstreamed. There were plenty of latchkey kids, for sure, but most parents who were at least middle class made it pretty clear that 1. College was NOT optional and 2. Good grades were expected, and had to be earned.

Boom. Agree.

I disagree completely. Sure, affluent families have always expected college, but there has been a huge shift in the past 20 years into pushing all students to college, regardless of whether they have the academic aptitude for it or are even interested. I graduated from a high school in a very economically diverse area in 1992 and there was no shame in going to trade school. We didn’t have this huge emphasis on “COLLEGE READINESS” that I see now.

We need to bring back vo-tech training! There is a lot of money in the trades. We need to stop the madness of trying to get everyone “college ready” because not everyone should be going to college in the first place.

[Anonymous]

Phonetics was taught instead of the whole language approach to reading

[Anonymous]

Schools taught serious history, and how to critique, think and write about it.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:This is why we chose what is now called a "traditional" education for DC. By that I mean: recess, p.e., music, art, phonics (and more phonics), handwriting, and math literacy. Worked for me, working for the kid.

This.

I was born in 1977. I had a “traditional” eduction, which means basic fundamentals: grammar, spelling, vocabulary, and of traditional math.

We also had a lot of social studies! Schools do very little of this now, and many elementary kids have hardly any knowledge of geography and civics.

There are massive gaps.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Unpopular answer: Any kid with SN severe enough to keep them below grade level and/or disruptive behaviors was not mainstreamed. There were plenty of latchkey kids, for sure, but most parents who were at least middle class made it pretty clear that 1. College was NOT optional and 2. Good grades were expected, and had to be earned.

Actually, I’d say the opposite of that. It’s only been in the past two decades that we’ve pushed this whole “college for all” thing.

No way. I grew up locally and graduated HS in 1996. Not joking when I say that 85% of my graduating class went to college, and most of those people went to a four-year university. I would say this had a lot to do with the economy at the time, too.

Where did you go to high school?

Yes. This was how it was in my NJ high school as well.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Unpopular answer: Any kid with SN severe enough to keep them below grade level and/or disruptive behaviors was not mainstreamed. There were plenty of latchkey kids, for sure, but most parents who were at least middle class made it pretty clear that 1. College was NOT optional and 2. Good grades were expected, and had to be earned.

Actually, I’d say the opposite of that. It’s only been in the past two decades that we’ve pushed this whole “college for all” thing.

No way. I grew up locally and graduated HS in 1996. Not joking when I say that 85% of my graduating class went to college, and most of those people went to a four-year university. I would say this had a lot to do with the economy at the time, too.

Where did you go to high school?

Yes. This was how it was in my NJ high school as well.

I assume you went to high school in an affluent area.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:We weren’t taught to a test like today.

Everything is about the SOLs.

Also, there was no shame attached with not going to college. Vocational programs were more popular. We didn’t stick those who weren’t academically talented into smaller classes, we found what their other strengths were and guided them to options that fit.

I think that depends on where you grew up. It was very looked down upon when I was in high school.