Controversial Opinions: School & Education edition

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:My hot take: The long-term returns to taking above grade-level math (eventually going beyond calculus BC while in high school) are minimal relative to simply being good at math and taking whatever grade-level class the smart kids usually take. There simply aren't many college majors or career paths where it makes a difference. It's almost entirely a college application padding contest.

Agreed. I went to summer school during H.S. to get ahead in math and take AP calc. to look good on college apps. I have never once used calculus since.

I used to think this, but then realized it teaches complex problem solving.

DP. It does, but only for the kids who have done the complex problem solving along the way. Strong math teaching that helps kids understand math and numbers and critical thinking is much better than racing through a text book to be able to do well on a standardized test.

The problem though is that there are no metrics for really showing that this is being taught in other classrooms. I can barely get out of my child what they are doing in class much less whether my child is picking up on every lesson taught. Nothing comes home. No more homework, workbooks, or textbooks. Classes are entirely teacher dependent. So I support AP classes because I know they are challenging and at least require to some degree that a teacher make sure students are at least exposed to advanced topics. I also know the final goal of the class and can see if my child achieved the goals. Many of these other classes my child has taken have lofty goals but don't work in practice because of bad implementation, lack of materials, varied abilities from children, or lazy teaching.

Starting in 3rd grade, all schools have periodic testing to make sure kids are learning the curriculum, you might not see the scores, but administration does and it puts a lot of pressure on teachers. Trust me, classes are not entirely teacher dependent. They have to teach a certain curriculum (that you can see online) and if there students don't test well, they hear it from administration. And no, I'm not talking about the highly publicized tests like the SOLs, but end of unit tests that are computerized and make it possible for principals to easily compare each teacher's scores against anothers.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:My hot take: The long-term returns to taking above grade-level math (eventually going beyond calculus BC while in high school) are minimal relative to simply being good at math and taking whatever grade-level class the smart kids usually take. There simply aren't many college majors or career paths where it makes a difference. It's almost entirely a college application padding contest.

Agreed. I went to summer school during H.S. to get ahead in math and take AP calc. to look good on college apps. I have never once used calculus since.

I used to think this, but then realized it teaches complex problem solving.

DP. It does, but only for the kids who have done the complex problem solving along the way. Strong math teaching that helps kids understand math and numbers and critical thinking is much better than racing through a text book to be able to do well on a standardized test.

The problem though is that there are no metrics for really showing that this is being taught in other classrooms. I can barely get out of my child what they are doing in class much less whether my child is picking up on every lesson taught. Nothing comes home. No more homework, workbooks, or textbooks. Classes are entirely teacher dependent. So I support AP classes because I know they are challenging and at least require to some degree that a teacher make sure students are at least exposed to advanced topics. I also know the final goal of the class and can see if my child achieved the goals. Many of these other classes my child has taken have lofty goals but don't work in practice because of bad implementation, lack of materials, varied abilities from children, or lazy teaching.

Starting in 3rd grade, all schools have periodic testing to make sure kids are learning the curriculum, you might not see the scores, but administration does and it puts a lot of pressure on teachers. Trust me, classes are not entirely teacher dependent. They have to teach a certain curriculum (that you can see online) and if there students don't test well, they hear it from administration. And no, I'm not talking about the highly publicized tests like the SOLs, but end of unit tests that are computerized and make it possible for principals to easily compare each teacher's scores against anothers.

Where have you experienced this?

~Third Grade Teacher, FCPS

[Anonymous]

Secular, classical education is where it's at- we need educated, critical thinkers, armed with facts and humility-- not more iPads and 21st century "skills."

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Most accelerated kids are garden-variety bright, not gifted.

Is this ever true. I was recently invited in to a fb parents group for "gifted" kids and it is mostly filled with questions from parents with es aged students trying to figure out how to get into the accelerated programs.

In America, most success is from grit, not high IQ. So I'm not sure why you think this is a controversial or an especially keen insight.

American k-12 education is a joke, anyone with SOME motivation can ace all their high school classes. Over 50% of American high school seniors have an A average. All A's and a decent ACT/SAT score gets you into UMD/UVA. Grind a little harder and you're in top 20 private territory.

I disagree. I see a lot of people "succeed" in getting into good colleges and getting well-paying jobs as a result of being born to families with plenty of money and good connections. These are not necessarily the smartest people or the people who work the hardest; they are the people born into wealth and privilege. When they make mistakes, the consequences are muted by their family's money and prestige. They continually "fail upwards."

+100000

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Secular, classical education is where it's at- we need educated, critical thinkers, armed with facts and humility-- not more iPads and 21st century "skills."

I guess you don't want our kids to be ready for the 21st century job market where even many jobs without degree requirements require some computer skills. Lots of older workers now take computer classes because, yep, everything is moving online. You sound like my FIL who laments that that everything is now online and that typewriters are no longer used.

And the old fashioned way of teaching was rote. Today's curriculum involves more critical thinking.

[Anonymous]

The special education inclusion model doesn't work. SN kids have to fight for what they need and NT kids find their own education disrupted or poorly funded at the same time. I don't know what the solution is, but the current model doesn't seem to be good for anyone.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:The special education inclusion model doesn't work. SN kids have to fight for what they need and NT kids find their own education disrupted or poorly funded at the same time. I don't know what the solution is, but the current model doesn't seem to be good for anyone.

I think most SN kids need smaller classes and more individual attention. The GT/LD classes in MCPS are small. Agreed, when you mix those kids in a large class setting, all the kids suffer.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:My hot take: The long-term returns to taking above grade-level math (eventually going beyond calculus BC while in high school) are minimal relative to simply being good at math and taking whatever grade-level class the smart kids usually take. There simply aren't many college majors or career paths where it makes a difference. It's almost entirely a college application padding contest.

Agreed. I went to summer school during H.S. to get ahead in math and take AP calc. to look good on college apps. I have never once used calculus since.

I used to think this, but then realized it teaches complex problem solving.

DP. It does, but only for the kids who have done the complex problem solving along the way. Strong math teaching that helps kids understand math and numbers and critical thinking is much better than racing through a text book to be able to do well on a standardized test.

The problem though is that there are no metrics for really showing that this is being taught in other classrooms. I can barely get out of my child what they are doing in class much less whether my child is picking up on every lesson taught. Nothing comes home. No more homework, workbooks, or textbooks. Classes are entirely teacher dependent. So I support AP classes because I know they are challenging and at least require to some degree that a teacher make sure students are at least exposed to advanced topics. I also know the final goal of the class and can see if my child achieved the goals. Many of these other classes my child has taken have lofty goals but don't work in practice because of bad implementation, lack of materials, varied abilities from children, or lazy teaching.

Starting in 3rd grade, all schools have periodic testing to make sure kids are learning the curriculum, you might not see the scores, but administration does and it puts a lot of pressure on teachers. Trust me, classes are not entirely teacher dependent. They have to teach a certain curriculum (that you can see online) and if there students don't test well, they hear it from administration. And no, I'm not talking about the highly publicized tests like the SOLs, but end of unit tests that are computerized and make it possible for principals to easily compare each teacher's scores against anothers.

You act as thought all principals care. If their higher ups and the parents aren't complaining, most principals do not have the time to review individual test results in that much detail.

[Anonymous]

The profit motive in private schools is a fundamental impediment to teaching and learning. When families become “customers” you must work hard to attract and retain, you give up the ability to properly discipline their students, place them in the appropriate academic groupings, and give them difficult news. (Try being a math teacher in a school with ability groupings where the majority of parents just cannot stand for their child to be in the “lower” group.)

[Anonymous]

It frustrates me to no end that we look only to schools to equalize all members of society. Either support programs to reduce the income and access gap across all of society, or just admit we aren't willing to and be ok with poor kids having poor outcomes in life.

The idea that we look to a bunch of teachers to do what we as a society aren't willing to is futile and unfair.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:It frustrates me to no end that we look only to schools to equalize all members of society. Either support programs to reduce the income and access gap across all of society, or just admit we aren't willing to and be ok with poor kids having poor outcomes in life.

The idea that we look to a bunch of teachers to do what we as a society aren't willing to is futile and unfair.

Money isn't always the answer. Just look at lottery winners.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:It frustrates me to no end that we look only to schools to equalize all members of society. Either support programs to reduce the income and access gap across all of society, or just admit we aren't willing to and be ok with poor kids having poor outcomes in life.

The idea that we look to a bunch of teachers to do what we as a society aren't willing to is futile and unfair.

Agree.

[Anonymous]

The new Gilded Age (Education version) is going to remain in place for the foreseeable future. North Arlington and McLean will continue to prosper while S. Arl, Sleepy Hollow and Herndon will continue to decline on the VDOE school report cards and GreatSchools.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:The new Gilded Age (Education version) is going to remain in place for the foreseeable future. North Arlington and McLean will continue to prosper while S. Arl, Sleepy Hollow and Herndon will continue to decline on the VDOE school report cards and GreatSchools.

They will prosper because the majority of students come from UMC homes. Move them to S. Arlington, Sleepy Hollow and Herndon and they will prosper there too. This isn't rocket science. Students do well because of who they were born to for the most part. It is difficult to impossible to be born to people who don't give a crap about education and to go to college. I have taught quite a few intelligent students who have a lot of potential but they are growing up in an environment that is working against them. Many of their parents are MIA and will not talk to us about getting them into magnet middle and high schools. If they do come, they says things like, "I went to ____________ and I turned out fine." I never knew there were parents who didn't want the best for their kids until I started teaching. So the student goes to a crappy high school and is dragged down by their peers who don't care. It really is sad that who you are born to often dictates where you will end up. We have a few students each year test into top high schools and then by the middle of the year, they drop out and head to the local crappy high school. Why? Usually it is because their parents don't understand how important it is and don't encourage them. It is hard to take 2-3 buses a day to get to and from school and these kids need a lot of encouragement to keep them going. They don't get it at home and then they drop out.

[Anonymous]

PP this is so sad!
But I kind of get it. As a single mom with limited means it is hard to give encouragement when you don’t have too much resource; you yourself need to hear it to keep going, let alone encourage someone else.