Not Everyone DESERVES Secondary School Education

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I am believer that everyone should have access to a K-8 education and this benefits the kids who have an opportunity to explore academics of interest and strength, and allows society to give a rough measurement of the intellectual capability of each student. However, education is an investment, and a very costly one at that.

At some point we should ask is spending $15,000 per pupil on so many students who sleep through class, generally lazy, and have limited academic aptitude the right move? These kids could be better served by working a full time job or learning a trade building up their financial net worth rather than attend high school, but instead these masses proliferate the classrooms with distractions and negatively impact the reputation standings of many high schools. Say top 70% make the cut to be able to attend high school.


Since FCPS has all but made it exceedingly painful to fail any single student, under the disguise of equity of promoting equal outcomes, which lead to too many bad apples being a classroom that they shouldn’t, that further increase costs. Other countries, that don’t automatically give everyone a secondary school education such as Germany and Netherlands seem to do well. It would solve many complaints of parents afraid of their kids attending schools with too many rotten apples, so why not remove them? But alas this school board will never do such a thing. They will call you racist.m

Let me guess- you think America was at its best when kids worked in mines and factories, right?

OP. Yes and No. Only 2.5 percent of this graduating class will receive an engineering degree, 1 percent for a doctorate in medical/pharmacy/dental education and a further 1.5 percent of the population a degree in a physical science.

Yet, the current educational system seeks to subject the other 95 percent of the population to post basic algebra math, along with physics, physics, chemistry, biology, in the educational curriculum. Some would add what is the practical usage of reading Charles Dickens and Scott Fitzgerald. Is this not possibly a waste of resources?

Children should be able to pursue educational opportunities that are both more practical and aligns with their interests even starting post middle school. That is my belief.

You say that I believe children should be working what amounts to menial jobs and take that as a bad outcome. But at the end of the day SOMEONE has to be working those jobs. Whether that is Jose, the illegal immigrant who can’t speak English picking up fruit on a farm or Nick, the pampered kid who slept his way through class to become a waiter. Even under the current system there are a large number of Nicks.

I’m just saying maybe those Nicks should be able to start working earlier and be able to earn and put more wages towards retirement earlier and in greater value, instead of failing upwards until they become a college dropout and wasted all their time. And, to add the significant savings that would have on an ever constrained and tighter educational budget, that could be returned to the hardworking taxpayers or for other social programs.

You always will have your Nicks under a free system whether you wish it or not, I’m not an idealist, I see reality.

I largely agree with you. But if your argument is with FCPS then it is misdirected. FCPS does indeed offer multiple types of alternative programs like NCRA and ISAEP focusing on getting kids their GED and taking CTE courses. But, enrolling into these programs must be approved by the parent and of course the kid. Very few parents want "Nick" to drop out of their base school so they can get a GED, especially when those parents think they attend an excellent school and are completely in denial about their kid's abilities.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:The question is not whether the per student cost is wasted on some kids, the question is how can we best spend the money to benefit all kids and society as a whole?

Every kid deserves a chance and support - but not every kid is college bound. The kids who sleep through class and do the minimum are getting some exposure to adults who care and a structured environment. If you let them drop out at age 13, you might as well just send a lot of them work dead end jobs with their parents or straight to jail. That costs society so much more in the long run.

Kids with learning disabilities, mental health challenges, and neurodivergent conditions deserve the opportunity to learn the skills needed to live independently and function in society. School is well organized to provide those services - it’s just that schools are underfunded and understaffed. Again, I see special education as an investment that saves money in the long run. Some citizens will always need services, but others will have a reduced need for social services if they have a solid start.

I grew up in a semi-rural community where it was not considered shameful to not be college-bound. My HS had programs that allowed students to opt in for junior and senior year so they could graduate with their cosmetology license, or basic training in auto repair, heating and A/C repair, or ready to enter an apprenticeship to be an electrician, plumber, or carpenter. We need skilled tradespeople and a kid who acts out or blows off Biology or Physics might really thrive in a hands-on vocational program.

Is this Rachna?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:I am believer that everyone should have access to a K-8 education and this benefits the kids who have an opportunity to explore academics of interest and strength, and allows society to give a rough measurement of the intellectual capability of each student. However, education is an investment, and a very costly one at that.

At some point we should ask is spending $15,000 per pupil on so many students who sleep through class, generally lazy, and have limited academic aptitude the right move? These kids could be better served by working a full time job or learning a trade building up their financial net worth rather than attend high school, but instead these masses proliferate the classrooms with distractions and negatively impact the reputation standings of many high schools. Say top 70% make the cut to be able to attend high school.


Since FCPS has all but made it exceedingly painful to fail any single student, under the disguise of equity of promoting equal outcomes, which lead to too many bad apples being a classroom that they shouldn’t, that further increase costs. Other countries, that don’t automatically give everyone a secondary school education such as Germany and Netherlands seem to do well. It would solve many complaints of parents afraid of their kids attending schools with too many rotten apples, so why not remove them? But alas this school board will never do such a thing. They will call you racist.m

If you don't like public school, send your kid to private and stop being a tool.

[Anonymous]

I mostly disagree. 10 - 12 doesn't have to be algebra and chemistry for everyone. It could be trades. But it should be something.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:No. Everyone needs k-12. But it doesnt have to be college track for everyone. There is a lot of practical knowledge (like taxes and how govt works) that we need for people to know. All these people will be able to vote for people and policies, they need to know what they are choosing.

I would agree with you if it weren’t for the fact that so many college students are taking and paying for remedial classes bc kids are graduating with sufficient skills. Watched one program on a student who graduated from top of her class and went to the Air Force academy. There she learned how far behind she was when she was put on academic probation there. This student was robbed IMO by her public school system. Shame, shame, shame.

+1 I read a similar story where a girl with straight As graduated from city of Baltimore high school and went college. Her father was so proud but she nearly flunked out due to her lousy HS education.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I am believer that everyone should have access to a K-8 education and this benefits the kids who have an opportunity to explore academics of interest and strength, and allows society to give a rough measurement of the intellectual capability of each student. However, education is an investment, and a very costly one at that.

At some point we should ask is spending $15,000 per pupil on so many students who sleep through class, generally lazy, and have limited academic aptitude the right move? These kids could be better served by working a full time job or learning a trade building up their financial net worth rather than attend high school, but instead these masses proliferate the classrooms with distractions and negatively impact the reputation standings of many high schools. Say top 70% make the cut to be able to attend high school.


Since FCPS has all but made it exceedingly painful to fail any single student, under the disguise of equity of promoting equal outcomes, which lead to too many bad apples being a classroom that they shouldn’t, that further increase costs. Other countries, that don’t automatically give everyone a secondary school education such as Germany and Netherlands seem to do well. It would solve many complaints of parents afraid of their kids attending schools with too many rotten apples, so why not remove them? But alas this school board will never do such a thing. They will call you racist.m

Let me guess- you think America was at its best when kids worked in mines and factories, right?

OP. Yes and No. Only 2.5 percent of this graduating class will receive an engineering degree, 1 percent for a doctorate in medical/pharmacy/dental education and a further 1.5 percent of the population a degree in a physical science.

Yet, the current educational system seeks to subject the other 95 percent of the population to post basic algebra math, along with physics, physics, chemistry, biology, in the educational curriculum. Some would add what is the practical usage of reading Charles Dickens and Scott Fitzgerald. Is this not possibly a waste of resources?

Children should be able to pursue educational opportunities that are both more practical and aligns with their interests even starting post middle school. That is my belief.

You say that I believe children should be working what amounts to menial jobs and take that as a bad outcome. But at the end of the day SOMEONE has to be working those jobs. Whether that is Jose, the illegal immigrant who can’t speak English picking up fruit on a farm or Nick, the pampered kid who slept his way through class to become a waiter. Even under the current system there are a large number of Nicks.

I’m just saying maybe those Nicks should be able to start working earlier and be able to earn and put more wages towards retirement earlier and in greater value, instead of failing upwards until they become a college dropout and wasted all their time. And, to add the significant savings that would have on an ever constrained and tighter educational budget, that could be returned to the hardworking taxpayers or for other social programs.

You always will have your Nicks under a free system whether you wish it or not, I’m not an idealist, I see reality.

I am a teacher and 100 percent agree. I think high school should be set up like college. Kids need Gen ED requirements but kids can choose electives to meet those requirements based off interest. Vocational opportunities should start in middle school so kids who are at risk see a pathway for them.

[Anonymous]

They should have cut your education to 8th grade along with your siblings

[Anonymous]

Brain development happens through age 25, with some of the most significant time for learning being adolescence. If you cut someone off from formalized learning in adolescence they are not going to be able to 'get back to it' later when they meet your standard for "deserving it." This is why we have invested in secondary education for all--and are better for it. Will there be some kids that don't use it to its greatest degree? Sure. But better than creating a system that would pressure low income students with potential even more to quit school and start working.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:This sounds like someone from flyover who wants cheap labor for their meatpacking plant.

In order to have educated voters, everyone needs to study American government. Trades people create jobs because many run their own businesses. They need secondary math. Geometry proofs help people learn logic an reasoning skills. Literature helps people to empathize with others from different walks of life. Half of the recent innovations in tech started life on sci-fi shows.

European countries silo their kids early. It's not good preparation for the more flexible US job market. It also means that a lot of voters in Europe are low info; a lot of these countries have fascist parties and vote for insane GDP-wreckers like Brexit.

Yes, unlike the like wise voters in FCPS who elect wacko school boards that hire progressively worse superintendents to lead FCPS.

[Anonymous]

US education system has gone off the rails. Focus K-8 should be on the 3 Rs, science and history. High school should allow for academic and trade tracks.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:US education system has gone off the rails. Focus K-8 should be on the 3 Rs, science and history. High school should allow for academic and trade tracks.

Those are the focus in K-8, along with art/music/PE. High school has a core academic track that you can either go towards a college focus or vocational focus through a lot of programs. I think that's the most sensible approach--though many parents don't want their kids to go on the vocational track--they often just want other people's kids to do it. IMO though FCPS does excellent in this regard--with attracting both academically strong and weak students to its various vocational academies and programs--because they offer a range from limited to intensive focus in vocational specialties--as well as enrichment vocational opportunities in the summer.

I'm not at all for totally putting someone toward a trade at age 14 though--too many trades have become obsolete and it's too young to narrowly limit options. I'm especially against a tracking system where it's decided through tests etc. who gets access to academics and who gets put into a trade. I don't trust that kind of gatekeeping and it seems contrary to US historical values for freedom of opportunity.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:[code]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:This sounds like someone from flyover who wants cheap labor for their meatpacking plant.

In order to have educated voters, everyone needs to study American government. Trades people create jobs because many run their own businesses. They need secondary math. Geometry proofs help people learn logic an reasoning skills. Literature helps people to empathize with others from different walks of life. Half of the recent innovations in tech started life on sci-fi shows.

European countries silo their kids early. It's not good preparation for the more flexible US job market. It also means that a lot of voters in Europe are low info; a lot of these countries have fascist parties and vote for insane GDP-wreckers like Brexit.

Looking at the composition it reads like a well-educated immigrant who can’t afford a high performing pyramid and resents FCPS for not getting the “ bad kids” out so that their child can have a different high school experience.

Right about immigration status and relative pyramid status as one of a Westfield, Herndon, South Lakes, West Potomac. But upper quartile income. Many in the same income range cannot fathom how rapidly how down the road how heavily impoverished certain school pyramid la have become.

Presumably you are now an American, and you ought to embrace our values of equality and freedom.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:“Other countries, that don’t automatically give everyone a secondary school education such as Germany and Netherlands seem to do well.”

What do you mean by not automatically give everyone secondary school education? Kids in at least one of the two countries you mention have to go to school until 16 by law.

16 is not 18.

[Anonymous]

OMG, OP. I hope you don't have kids, don't work with kids, are not involved in any way with kids and teens.

Would you have been in the bin that gets the education? With these analytical skills on display, I doubt it.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:There was a time when vocational training was part of a high school curriculum. There was shop class, automotive class, etc... It's too bad those were phased out because I think there are lots of kids who are attracted to that sort of hands on learning.
I agree that the Great Gatsby isn't for everyone.

Those classes still exist.

Yep, in HS. OP wants a nation of High schools drop-outs because he thinks it's wise to take money AWAY from education.