Controversial Opinions: School & Education edition

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

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.

Well, no need for PP to worry. Her kids are not at risk of getting a good science and math education from most DC private schools.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

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.

If you are aware of the tech. advances happening around you, success in the future is going to be based on your aptitude in the hard sciences and math. Its going to be all STEM and even the management folks need to be good at STEM. WAKE UP.

Um, no

Soft skills are going to be more in demand. In a decade new technology will have made your "stem skills" obsolete.

And what if someone doesn't want a career in STEM? Or is that only the "unintelligent" kids? and why are you focused on careers anyway? Elementary school shouldn't be about career training.

This attitude is why we choose private too.

[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?

No it is not. Low income schools have shortages of money and staff and volunteers; “good schools” are too scarce to fit in all the kids who apply.
There needs to be a balance.

[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?

No it is not. Low income schools have shortages of money and staff and volunteers; “good schools” are too scarce to fit in all the kids who apply.
There needs to be a balance.

Also it is the desire to mix everyone together that creates schools that are not good for anyone really.
There need to be challenging curriculum schools with PBS, and schools with free everything.
It will sort itself out eventually.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:In general, Asians are better at parenting. I am basing this theory on years of experience in the classroom. I've had intelligent and not-so-intelligent Asian students, but ALL of them have been hard working, disciplined, polite kids who never cried, whined, or suffered bouts of inattentive antics in the classroom. I don't think this is due to genetics, but to whatever cultural mores and values these kids' parents instill in them. The parents are demanding of their children, and of the teachers, but they are respectful and don't tolerate nonsense, and their kids are a delight to teach.

Cute post. You like the end result, but the majority of posters here would balk at the idea of parenting the way Asians (and other high performing immigrant groups) do.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.

If you are aware of the tech. advances happening around you, success in the future is going to be based on your aptitude in the hard sciences and math. Its going to be all STEM and even the management folks need to be good at STEM. WAKE UP.

Um, no

Soft skills are going to be more in demand. In a decade new technology will have made your "stem skills" obsolete.

And what if someone doesn't want a career in STEM? Or is that only the "unintelligent" kids? and why are you focused on careers anyway? Elementary school shouldn't be about career training.

This attitude is why we choose private too.

Absolutely disagree. Its a myth that soft skills are the basis. Its the other way around. A hard science/math girl or guy with soft skills learned either through work or MBA is going to come out on top.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.

If you are aware of the tech. advances happening around you, success in the future is going to be based on your aptitude in the hard sciences and math. Its going to be all STEM and even the management folks need to be good at STEM. WAKE UP.

Um, no

Soft skills are going to be more in demand. In a decade new technology will have made your "stem skills" obsolete.

And what if someone doesn't want a career in STEM? Or is that only the "unintelligent" kids? and why are you focused on careers anyway? Elementary school shouldn't be about career training.

This attitude is why we choose private too.

Most jobs you are doing today are going to be obsolete anyways and STEM is going to be the be all and end all of the economy.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.

If you are aware of the tech. advances happening around you, success in the future is going to be based on your aptitude in the hard sciences and math. Its going to be all STEM and even the management folks need to be good at STEM. WAKE UP.

Um, no

Soft skills are going to be more in demand. In a decade new technology will have made your "stem skills" obsolete.

And what if someone doesn't want a career in STEM? Or is that only the "unintelligent" kids? and why are you focused on careers anyway? Elementary school shouldn't be about career training.

This attitude is why we choose private too.

Absolutely disagree. Its a myth that soft skills are the basis. Its the other way around. A hard science/math girl or guy with soft skills learned either through work or MBA is going to come out on top.

You really didn't learn critical thinking at your public school did you. What you "think" is irrelevant. Soft skills are top on the lists of what employers want from employees. It's a complicated, diverse world full of all kinds of people who think and understand in myriad different ways. The people who get that will come out on top. Not the people who's main skill is mathematics.

But I diegress,

Being the owner of the next big Silicon Valley startup is a completely legitimate career choice. But it's ok to be a college professor, a public interest lawyer or even *gasp* a teacher.

I doubt you and I will ever see eye to eye on this, luckily for me I don't have to

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.

If you are aware of the tech. advances happening around you, success in the future is going to be based on your aptitude in the hard sciences and math. Its going to be all STEM and even the management folks need to be good at STEM. WAKE UP.

Um, no

Soft skills are going to be more in demand. In a decade new technology will have made your "stem skills" obsolete.

And what if someone doesn't want a career in STEM? Or is that only the "unintelligent" kids? and why are you focused on careers anyway? Elementary school shouldn't be about career training.

This attitude is why we choose private too.

Most jobs you are doing today are going to be obsolete anyways and STEM is going to be the be all and end all of the economy.

I wouldn't be so smug

Eventually the robots will start programming themselves. I give you at most 10 years of smugness

[Anonymous]

MCPS is in a downward slide that colleges haven't yet figured out. The east county schools that always scream about equity get more resources (smaller class sizes at the title 1 and focus schools, social workers, health clinics, etc) and west county parents end up subsidizing their kids overcrowded schools for the lousy education (tutors). The smart and truly wealthy families send their kids to private school.

[Anonymous]

Genetics/IQ and sh*t parenting is the reason kids struggle — not poor schools, lack of opportunity, inequality or whatever other buzzword. Put a hungry Russian or Korean kid in an awful school and they’ll be valedictorian.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:A significant percentage of kids who go to academically rigorous/high pressure high schools struggle in college because they are already burned out and they have been overtrained and struggle to approach ideas/problems/projects creatively.

Being bilingual or multilingual and comfortable in multiracial/ethnic environments will be a key factor in the success of our kids.

First part is patently false.

[Anonymous]

GS ratings are a joke and not reflective of anything besides demographics.

[Anonymous]

Segregated "gifted" programs breed arrogance.

[Anonymous]

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.