Controversial Opinions: School & Education edition

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:No. It had much more challenging STEM and smarter, more driven kids.

Class size wasn't smaller, I'll give you that.

We don't believe that STEM is the be all and end all or that elementary school children should be "driven" or that there are children (or people) who are not smart.

That is the exact attitude that I am glad to be away from.

[Anonymous]

Kids from low income low education level families would be better off in separate schools, where they would have their needs met (lots of basic enrichment, year round schooling, enough time for learning the basics in reading and math, free meals, outside time, character building).
Kids from UMC and MC home would be better off in more experiential schools with less time for direct instruction and more time for more advanced (possibly few based) enrichment and less strict attendance policies.

[Anonymous]

Fee based not few based!

[Anonymous]

I feel sorry for anyone who has been homeschooled.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:No. It had much more challenging STEM and smarter, more driven kids.

Class size wasn't smaller, I'll give you that.

We don't believe that STEM is the be all and end all or that elementary school children should be "driven" or that there are children (or people) who are not smart.

That is the exact attitude that I am glad to be away from.

+1

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:No. It had much more challenging STEM and smarter, more driven kids.

Class size wasn't smaller, I'll give you that.

We don't believe that STEM is the be all and end all or that elementary school children should be "driven" or that there are children (or people) who are not smart.

That is the exact attitude that I am glad to be away from.

DP. The STEM that PP mentioned is presumably high school.

However, even in grade school, a smart, motivated cohort is good. And apparently lacking in private school, by your post and my experience.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Kids from low income low education level families would be better off in separate schools, where they would have their needs met (lots of basic enrichment, year round schooling, enough time for learning the basics in reading and math, free meals, outside time, character building).
Kids from UMC and MC home would be better off in more experiential schools with less time for direct instruction and more time for more advanced (possibly few based) enrichment and less strict attendance policies.

This is the way it is now. It works well for the UMC kids so that's all that matters, right?

[Anonymous]

I teach in a private high school school now, but much of my experience has been in public schools.

It’s a HUGE disservice to private school students to a) have so many uncertified teachers, and b) to have such a lack of standardization across courses (ie all teachers teaching the same course do it however they want and do not align with other teachers at all). This results in HUGE gaps in student achievement.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Kids from low income low education level families would be better off in separate schools, where they would have their needs met (lots of basic enrichment, year round schooling, enough time for learning the basics in reading and math, free meals, outside time, character building).
Kids from UMC and MC home would be better off in more experiential schools with less time for direct instruction and more time for more advanced (possibly few based) enrichment and less strict attendance policies.

This is the way it is now. It works well for the UMC kids so that's all that matters, right?[/quote
You are referring to school pyramids that have only rich people?

Those are pretty rare. But yes there are a good amount of schools with only poor people.

But for everyone else, it's everyone all mixed together.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Kids from low income low education level families would be better off in separate schools, where they would have their needs met (lots of basic enrichment, year round schooling, enough time for learning the basics in reading and math, free meals, outside time, character building).
Kids from UMC and MC home would be better off in more experiential schools with less time for direct instruction and more time for more advanced (possibly few based) enrichment and less strict attendance policies.

This is the way it is now. It works well for the UMC kids so that's all that matters, right?[/quote
You are referring to school pyramids that have only rich people?

Those are pretty rare. But yes there are a good amount of schools with only poor people.

But for everyone else, it's everyone all mixed together.

Well, which one is it?

[Anonymous]

PP says it is already divided into all rich and high achieving and all poor and low achieving

I'm saying the first category is tiny, the second category is significant, and the biggest category is schools with people of different levels and advantages all mixed together

[Anonymous]

Maybe the PPs should read this book. There is much more economic segregation in US public schools now than in the past. This book addresses this issue:


https://www.amazon.com/Our-Kids-American-Dream-Crisis/dp/1476769907

[Anonymous]

The majority of kids diagnosed with ADHD don't have ADHD. Their true issue is that they just aren't very bright.

Also, future generations will look back at the ADHD and other stimulant meds given so freely to out children, and they will be amazed that we did not realize how tremendously harmful these drugs are. Sort of the way we look back at Victorians who used to dose up on laudanum, unaware of the terrible consequences to their health.

[Anonymous]

Private schools catering to the rich is against everything they supposedly stand for. Old money is seeing this (hence private alums going public with their kids).

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Private schools catering to the rich is against everything they supposedly stand for. Old money is seeing this (hence private alums going public with their kids).

By the very nature of private school, how can they cater to any other group than the rich? All their money comes from the rich. The only question is what percentage of that money they give away in need based aid or merit/athletic scholarships