Not Everyone DESERVES Secondary School Education

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:IQ is very stable by the time kids are in middle school. It would make sense kick out everyone that scores below 85, if their grades are bad or they have behavioral issues. This group is exceedingly unlikely to benefit from further education if they are already struggling in school.

IQ is stable by 2nd grade, has zero to do with how much someone benefits from further education. People with any IQ level benefit from lifelong education. This is retrograde thinking.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:IQ is very stable by the time kids are in middle school. It would make sense kick out everyone that scores below 85, if their grades are bad or they have behavioral issues. This group is exceedingly unlikely to benefit from further education if they are already struggling in school.

IQ is stable by 2nd grade, has zero to do with how much someone benefits from further education. People with any IQ level benefit from lifelong education. This is retrograde thinking.

You mean: people with any IQ benefit from lifelong learning IF they show up ready to learn. If not, no one in that classroom of any IQ is getting an education! Please take a sub job & see what is happening.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:IQ is very stable by the time kids are in middle school. It would make sense kick out everyone that scores below 85, if their grades are bad or they have behavioral issues. This group is exceedingly unlikely to benefit from further education if they are already struggling in school.

IQ is stable by 2nd grade, has zero to do with how much someone benefits from further education. People with any IQ level benefit from lifelong education. This is retrograde thinking.

You mean: people with any IQ benefit from lifelong learning IF they show up ready to learn. If not, no one in that classroom of any IQ is getting an education! Please take a sub job & see what is happening.

I definitely do not want to live in a country where people decide who is deserving or not of a secondary school education based on their perceptions (valid or not) of who is showing up ready to learn and who is "deserving" of an education. There are a lot of potential consequences from this than are way worse than a percentage of the current high school population not engaging in education.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:IQ is very stable by the time kids are in middle school. It would make sense kick out everyone that scores below 85, if their grades are bad or they have behavioral issues. This group is exceedingly unlikely to benefit from further education if they are already struggling in school.

IQ is stable by 2nd grade, has zero to do with how much someone benefits from further education. People with any IQ level benefit from lifelong education. This is retrograde thinking.

You mean: people with any IQ benefit from lifelong learning IF they show up ready to learn. If not, no one in that classroom of any IQ is getting an education! Please take a sub job & see what is happening.

I definitely do not want to live in a country where people decide who is deserving or not of a secondary school education based on their perceptions (valid or not) of who is showing up ready to learn and who is "deserving" of an education. There are a lot of potential consequences from this than are way worse than a percentage of the current high school population not engaging in education.

It's easy to have this sentiment if one grew up in an almost exclusively middle class and up area, with little to no poverty in the suburbs in the 90s, where there wasn't a "significant" amount of deadbeats in high school and when standards were high and maintained. I would know, as that was my background and I had the same feelings as prior poster. I invite the prior poster to take a look at the ridiculous grading policies these days and the compositions of some of the high schools around here, and your opinion may change quite rapidly. These are kids that haven't "awakened their potential" or anything along those lines, they are disruptive and put little to no work in school.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:IQ is very stable by the time kids are in middle school. It would make sense kick out everyone that scores below 85, if their grades are bad or they have behavioral issues. This group is exceedingly unlikely to benefit from further education if they are already struggling in school.

IQ is stable by 2nd grade, has zero to do with how much someone benefits from further education. People with any IQ level benefit from lifelong education. This is retrograde thinking.

You mean: people with any IQ benefit from lifelong learning IF they show up ready to learn. If not, no one in that classroom of any IQ is getting an education! Please take a sub job & see what is happening.

I definitely do not want to live in a country where people decide who is deserving or not of a secondary school education based on their perceptions (valid or not) of who is showing up ready to learn and who is "deserving" of an education. There are a lot of potential consequences from this than are way worse than a percentage of the current high school population not engaging in education.

It's easy to have this sentiment if one grew up in an almost exclusively middle class and up area, with little to no poverty in the suburbs in the 90s, where there wasn't a "significant" amount of deadbeats in high school and when standards were high and maintained. I would know, as that was my background and I had the same feelings as prior poster. I invite the prior poster to take a look at the ridiculous grading policies these days and the compositions of some of the high schools around here, and your opinion may change quite rapidly. These are kids that haven't "awakened their potential" or anything along those lines, they are disruptive and put little to no work in school.

Well you'll be happy to know that I grew up in a city in a working class neighborhood with plenty of disruptive kids. Kids regularly got into major fights in the hallways, including using padlocks around their fingers. Classes were regularly out of control. I still think we all deserved an education. I am committed to democracy and education without exception.

[Anonymous]

Not everyone needs the same college prep education.
There is divere range of topics worth learning.

IQ has nothing to do with who deserves education or whose misbehavior is acceptable.

[Anonymous]

Yes, everyone should have an opportunity to pursue an education. But if they are continually disruptive and ruin the opportunity for others then they lose their opportunity.

That is how a society needs to function. But no that wouldn’t be equitable. Because society had different social constructs 300-400 years ago, kids can’t sit in a classroom and behave and be attentive today. Schools need to bring discipline and order back into the equation.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:And then you want those undereducated, undersocialized people voting? With exactly the same voting power as you?

They already are in the current system…… Whether you accept it or not. On the left you already have a large number of ghetto dumb inner city blacks and Hispanics voting. On the right you have Bible Belt Appalachian poor dumb whites.

…I never said otherwise, did I? But I hardly think the answer is “stop educating people.” I disagree with OP. I don’t know why you are arguing against a point I DID NOT make.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:IQ is very stable by the time kids are in middle school. It would make sense kick out everyone that scores below 85, if their grades are bad or they have behavioral issues. This group is exceedingly unlikely to benefit from further education if they are already struggling in school.

IQ is stable by 2nd grade, has zero to do with how much someone benefits from further education. People with any IQ level benefit from lifelong education. This is retrograde thinking.

You mean: people with any IQ benefit from lifelong learning IF they show up ready to learn. If not, no one in that classroom of any IQ is getting an education! Please take a sub job & see what is happening.

I definitely do not want to live in a country where people decide who is deserving or not of a secondary school education based on their perceptions (valid or not) of who is showing up ready to learn and who is "deserving" of an education. There are a lot of potential consequences from this than are way worse than a percentage of the current high school population not engaging in education.

It's easy to have this sentiment if one grew up in an almost exclusively middle class and up area, with little to no poverty in the suburbs in the 90s, where there wasn't a "significant" amount of deadbeats in high school and when standards were high and maintained. I would know, as that was my background and I had the same feelings as prior poster. I invite the prior poster to take a look at the ridiculous grading policies these days and the compositions of some of the high schools around here, and your opinion may change quite rapidly. These are kids that haven't "awakened their potential" or anything along those lines, they are disruptive and put little to no work in school.

Well you'll be happy to know that I grew up in a city in a working class neighborhood with plenty of disruptive kids. Kids regularly got into major fights in the hallways, including using padlocks around their fingers. Classes were regularly out of control. I still think we all deserved an education. I am committed to democracy and education without exception.

Wow - this is why there should be private school vouchers. No one should have to go to school in an unsafe environment. My daughter was getting pushed into lockers and called racial slurs at an FCPS school, and we moved. Now I never worry about safety. Luckily, we could afford to do that.

[Anonymous]

I’m an FCPS substitute. If we called parents and sent kids home for disrupting class in elementary school, that would go a long way towards solving the problem. In high school, it should be easier to send kids to an alternative school. There are kids that refuse to stay in class, when they are in class, they do their best to disrupt it, and do no work. FCPS is happy to graduate them. Fine but let them get their diploma from an alternative school.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:IQ is very stable by the time kids are in middle school. It would make sense kick out everyone that scores below 85, if their grades are bad or they have behavioral issues. This group is exceedingly unlikely to benefit from further education if they are already struggling in school.

IQ is stable by 2nd grade, has zero to do with how much someone benefits from further education. People with any IQ level benefit from lifelong education. This is retrograde thinking.

You mean: people with any IQ benefit from lifelong learning IF they show up ready to learn. If not, no one in that classroom of any IQ is getting an education! Please take a sub job & see what is happening.

I definitely do not want to live in a country where people decide who is deserving or not of a secondary school education based on their perceptions (valid or not) of who is showing up ready to learn and who is "deserving" of an education. There are a lot of potential consequences from this than are way worse than a percentage of the current high school population not engaging in education.

It's easy to have this sentiment if one grew up in an almost exclusively middle class and up area, with little to no poverty in the suburbs in the 90s, where there wasn't a "significant" amount of deadbeats in high school and when standards were high and maintained. I would know, as that was my background and I had the same feelings as prior poster. I invite the prior poster to take a look at the ridiculous grading policies these days and the compositions of some of the high schools around here, and your opinion may change quite rapidly. These are kids that haven't "awakened their potential" or anything along those lines, they are disruptive and put little to no work in school.

Well you'll be happy to know that I grew up in a city in a working class neighborhood with plenty of disruptive kids. Kids regularly got into major fights in the hallways, including using padlocks around their fingers. Classes were regularly out of control. I still think we all deserved an education. I am committed to democracy and education without exception.

Wow - this is why there should be private school vouchers. No one should have to go to school in an unsafe environment. My daughter was getting pushed into lockers and called racial slurs at an FCPS school, and we moved. Now I never worry about safety. Luckily, we could afford to do that.

Unfortunately private school vouchers just deplete the public funds and don't provide enough to actually afford private schools for the many children --and they decide who can attend. Many rural areas do not have private schools or only have religious schools catering to a particular religion. I firmly hold the opinion: everyone deserves a free public education through secondary school and that vouchers undermine public schools. If you want a private school, that's a private good in my opinion. Work to improve public schools, provide alternate approaches to education including career and technical education, but public schools are essential to democracy.

[Anonymous]

At the other end of the spectrum I sure would like to see more gatekeeping with regard to advanced classes.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

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.

Correct in both countries students must attend “school” to that age. But the thing is that ”school” there encompasses apprenticeships and vocational training. They take exams in middle school to determine if the “school” to they will attend is STEM, vocational, business, etc.

Switzerland does the same thing. We have a niece that got tracked to vocational training and a nephew that got to go on to continue classes.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:IQ is very stable by the time kids are in middle school. It would make sense kick out everyone that scores below 85, if their grades are bad or they have behavioral issues. This group is exceedingly unlikely to benefit from further education if they are already struggling in school.

IQ is stable by 2nd grade, has zero to do with how much someone benefits from further education. People with any IQ level benefit from lifelong education. This is retrograde thinking.

You mean: people with any IQ benefit from lifelong learning IF they show up ready to learn. If not, no one in that classroom of any IQ is getting an education! Please take a sub job & see what is happening.

I definitely do not want to live in a country where people decide who is deserving or not of a secondary school education based on their perceptions (valid or not) of who is showing up ready to learn and who is "deserving" of an education. There are a lot of potential consequences from this than are way worse than a percentage of the current high school population not engaging in education.

It's easy to have this sentiment if one grew up in an almost exclusively middle class and up area, with little to no poverty in the suburbs in the 90s, where there wasn't a "significant" amount of deadbeats in high school and when standards were high and maintained. I would know, as that was my background and I had the same feelings as prior poster. I invite the prior poster to take a look at the ridiculous grading policies these days and the compositions of some of the high schools around here, and your opinion may change quite rapidly. These are kids that haven't "awakened their potential" or anything along those lines, they are disruptive and put little to no work in school.

Well you'll be happy to know that I grew up in a city in a working class neighborhood with plenty of disruptive kids. Kids regularly got into major fights in the hallways, including using padlocks around their fingers. Classes were regularly out of control. I still think we all deserved an education. I am committed to democracy and education without exception.

Wow - this is why there should be private school vouchers. No one should have to go to school in an unsafe environment. My daughter was getting pushed into lockers and called racial slurs at an FCPS school, and we moved. Now I never worry about safety. Luckily, we could afford to do that.

Unfortunately private school vouchers just deplete the public funds and don't provide enough to actually afford private schools for the many children --and they decide who can attend. Many rural areas do not have private schools or only have religious schools catering to a particular religion. I firmly hold the opinion: everyone deserves a free public education through secondary school and that vouchers undermine public schools. If you want a private school, that's a private good in my opinion. Work to improve public schools, provide alternate approaches to education including career and technical education, but public schools are essential to democracy.

Already lots of examples of corruption around vouchers. Definitely not the way to go.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:IQ is very stable by the time kids are in middle school. It would make sense kick out everyone that scores below 85, if their grades are bad or they have behavioral issues. This group is exceedingly unlikely to benefit from further education if they are already struggling in school.

IQ is stable by 2nd grade, has zero to do with how much someone benefits from further education. People with any IQ level benefit from lifelong education. This is retrograde thinking.

You mean: people with any IQ benefit from lifelong learning IF they show up ready to learn. If not, no one in that classroom of any IQ is getting an education! Please take a sub job & see what is happening.

I definitely do not want to live in a country where people decide who is deserving or not of a secondary school education based on their perceptions (valid or not) of who is showing up ready to learn and who is "deserving" of an education. There are a lot of potential consequences from this than are way worse than a percentage of the current high school population not engaging in education.

It's easy to have this sentiment if one grew up in an almost exclusively middle class and up area, with little to no poverty in the suburbs in the 90s, where there wasn't a "significant" amount of deadbeats in high school and when standards were high and maintained. I would know, as that was my background and I had the same feelings as prior poster. I invite the prior poster to take a look at the ridiculous grading policies these days and the compositions of some of the high schools around here, and your opinion may change quite rapidly. These are kids that haven't "awakened their potential" or anything along those lines, they are disruptive and put little to no work in school.

Well you'll be happy to know that I grew up in a city in a working class neighborhood with plenty of disruptive kids. Kids regularly got into major fights in the hallways, including using padlocks around their fingers. Classes were regularly out of control. I still think we all deserved an education. I am committed to democracy and education without exception.

Wow - this is why there should be private school vouchers. No one should have to go to school in an unsafe environment. My daughter was getting pushed into lockers and called racial slurs at an FCPS school, and we moved. Now I never worry about safety. Luckily, we could afford to do that.

Unfortunately private school vouchers just deplete the public funds and don't provide enough to actually afford private schools for the many children --and they decide who can attend. Many rural areas do not have private schools or only have religious schools catering to a particular religion. I firmly hold the opinion: everyone deserves a free public education through secondary school and that vouchers undermine public schools. If you want a private school, that's a private good in my opinion. Work to improve public schools, provide alternate approaches to education including career and technical education, but public schools are essential to democracy.

School choice is for the rich.