Or they could work on policies that reward significant improvement throughout the year. A rough start can be just that. Mandating that everything is at least 50%, even when a student gets a 0%, is a terrible idea.
Really, I have no problem with a "lousy start" policy of some sort, but to guarantee 50% while other students are giving and earning 100% annoys me to no end. How about simply this, guarantee that all quizzes and tests can be made up after hours (before/after class) that were taken in the first half of the semester for a maximum score of 80% of the total points awarded (gotta at least give a small late bloomer penalty)? Higher of the 2 scores will apply. Thoughts there?
Cool, now if I'm really good in that subject (math comes to mind), I can just skip the entire first half of each semester and still get a B in the class!
Ever taken a math class... generally you can't skip the first half (fundamentals) and pass the second half (more advanced stuff). And while that might not motivate students to "be your best!", if the student is smart enough to pull that off... well I guess being smart does have benefits!
In my high school, there was a kid in the class that graduated the year before my class came in as freshman who only showed up to classes for quizes and tests all four years. He graduated with a B or B- average.
After he graduated and it was brought to the attention of parents and school administrators, a new rule was put in place that any student absent from a class more than a certain number of days during the year (I think it was 20 or so) for any reason could (at the discretion of the teacher) be failed.
If the kid can pass the class without being in it, why are we forcing them to take it anyway?
The idea of our education system should be to make the smartest members of society that we can. It doesn't make any sense to have them take that class, they have already mastered it. It makes sense to have them take a more advanced class and keep them learning. The policy of letting them just skip it drives those kids back the the average rather than providing for them to excel.
Obviously "No Child Left Behind" simply means "Lower the standards so everyone passes". The combination of these two policies just produces kids with ever less education.
We have to raise them to be completely dependent on the government to do everything for them. Them not attending is showing independence and we can't have that when we're trying to raise Democ^h^h^h^h^h future voters.
Them being able to pull a B without attending shows any onlookers that their needs are not being served. They MUST attend the class so as to hide the fact that their needs are not being served by the class. If they leave the class then so does their portion of the money allocated for them.
If a student can pass a class without being in it, then that demonstrates that the kid has the potential to become a smarter individual. If a student is too smart for a class they should be pushed harder to expand their minds. People wonder why America has a lack of Engineers, Scientists, and generally smart people. Its because way too young in their educational career smart kids learn to coast through things. Instead of being challenged they are ignored by teachers to assist those who are falling behin
The point of having the smart children in the same classes as the regular children is peer interaction. Just a couple of very talented students can raise the level of achievement for the entire class. There is a point for having honors and AP classes in high school. But every class and subject does not have to be separated. I did not require honors typing or even honors computer literature to get the basics.
Why is it the "smart kid" 's responsibility to help the rest of the class?
When they get a job, and there's no "smart kid" there helping them along, how does that work?
How about actually teaching the "smart kid" something, instead of drafting him as a supplementary teacher?
The "smart kid" will be asking probing questions and challenging the teacher to provide more information. The experience is shared by the whole class, or at least the portion paying attention. Teachers learn from the experience as well.
I ahve notice that there are a group of kids that take classes below there abilities and then whine about school not being challenging. These kids are pushing themselves. Are they taking the hardest math? English? Science? If they are and it is easy fro them they can talk to their school; counciler and/or a college counselor about getting college classes. If school is 'too easy' for you and you aren't taking the hardest of everything , it's just an excuse to be lazy.
Or more reasonable policies (Score:5, Insightful)
Or they could work on policies that reward significant improvement throughout the year. A rough start can be just that. Mandating that everything is at least 50%, even when a student gets a 0%, is a terrible idea.
Re: (Score:5, Interesting)
Re: (Score:4, Insightful)
Cool, now if I'm really good in that subject (math comes to mind), I can just skip the entire first half of each semester and still get a B in the class!
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:5, Insightful)
In my high school, there was a kid in the class that graduated the year before my class came in as freshman who only showed up to classes for quizes and tests all four years. He graduated with a B or B- average.
After he graduated and it was brought to the attention of parents and school administrators, a new rule was put in place that any student absent from a class more than a certain number of days during the year (I think it was 20 or so) for any reason could (at the discretion of the teacher) be failed.
Re:Or more reasonable policies (Score:5, Interesting)
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
Of course it seems the US high school culture is mostly crap. So probably that's not a good idea.
Quite a waste. Just like you need to domesticate dogs so that they can live usefully in modern society, you also need to domesticate humans.
They don't just pop out of their mom's ready to go.
Re:Or more reasonable policies (Score:4, Insightful)
If the kid can pass the class without being in it, why are we forcing them to take it anyway?
The idea of our education system should be to make the smartest members of society that we can. It doesn't make any sense to have them take that class, they have already mastered it. It makes sense to have them take a more advanced class and keep them learning. The policy of letting them just skip it drives those kids back the the average rather than providing for them to excel.
Obviously "No Child Left Behind" simply means "Lower the standards so everyone passes". The combination of these two policies just produces kids with ever less education.
Re: (Score:1)
Re: (Score:1)
Re: (Score:1)
Smart kids in regular/easy classes (Score:2)
The point of having the smart children in the same classes as the regular children is peer interaction. Just a couple of very talented students can raise the level of achievement for the entire class. There is a point for having honors and AP classes in high school. But every class and subject does not have to be separated. I did not require honors typing or even honors computer literature to get the basics.
Re: (Score:1)
Re: (Score:2)
The "smart kid" will be asking probing questions and challenging the teacher to provide more information. The experience is shared by the whole class, or at least the portion paying attention. Teachers learn from the experience as well.
Re: (Score:2)
I ahve notice that there are a group of kids that take classes below there abilities and then whine about school not being challenging.
These kids are pushing themselves. Are they taking the hardest math? English? Science? If they are and it is easy fro them they can talk to their school; counciler and/or a college counselor about getting college classes.
If school is 'too easy' for you and you aren't taking the hardest of everything , it's just an excuse to be lazy.
Re: (Score:2)
If the kid can pass the class without being in it, why are we forcing them to take it anyway?
Because there's more to a class than just what's on the test?