What is best for education?

Uh, they're the ones that are usually poorer and have less access to the good schools. And live in areas where gangs are rampant. Race and class are pretty closely connected in America, to the point that they're effectively the same thing in many contexts. I didn't think it was all that much different where you live, given recent events like those riots. There's nothing inherent in being black or Mexican or some other Latino that makes them achieve less. They have far more obstacles in the way.

And we've got plenty of ideas about what makes a good school Greenmantle. Some states and districts are doing their level best to institute the good ideas. It's not like we're totally cut off from information provided by people who make their living studying this, either inside or outside our country. We just appear to have no federal oversight the way Britain does. It's handled at state and municipal levels.

edited 7th May '13 11:37:58 PM by AceofSpades

"something in the culture of Blacks and Hispanics" is a very loaded term. As Ace mentioned poverty is pretty much the root of the problem, as well as the crime and violence that stems from it. From what I understand, there's also the fact that for whatever reason poorer areas seem to have a lot of single parents, which combined with poverty means they have very little time to be involved with their children's education.

Yeah, the demographics of an area have a little bit too much influence on the quality of schools. The only real exception I've seen is the York Region school board here in Ontario. York Region has a ton of the rich people who commute to Toronto or Hamilton as well as several poorer areas, but the school board actually spreads the budget according to the number of students and what they need. Like, the one school I went to got more funding than the average because of a really high percentage of special needs kids.

However, that's only really possible because on average, York Region is a very rich area, it has its own school board, and the provincial government doesn't interfere very much. Hell, York Region dumped the standardized tests for a few years and the quality of the education went up. They also do a lot of fundraisers, like there's a flower sale at the beginning of spring at each school for example.

@Greenmantle: generally, its acvtually the opposite of what you're inferring.

Mexicans and blacks are at such systemic disadvantages in the system that it makes it hard for them to ever escape poverty, therefore they tend to end up trapped by the lack of oppportunities that middle-class kids see as their birthright,

http://www.philly.com/philly/blogs/school_files/No-seniority--No-water-fountains--More-on-the-contract-proposal.html

This is the kind of thing teachers have to deal with in this country. They're paid shit, and they're threatened with pay cuts! They don't get to keep any pay raises that come from having master's degrees or seniority! What the fuck was all that education for if they're just going to have that ignored? And from what I can tell, seniority tends to guarantee higher pay in most professions, simply because they've been doing for a long time.

And it's not just teachers, it's the counselors that help the students get their shit together. Librarians might end up fired because schools are no longer required to have them. Or even libraries. Or even just books, apparently. I don't understand that kind of thinking.

The library thing is happening in Canada too. It's a really stupid way for the school boards to say they're going green, but they won't refuse books if they are donated. So Chapters Indigo (the primary bookstore company in Canada, they're like Borders or Barnes and Noble but Chapters Indigo is doing just fine) set up a program where you can donate money and they'll use the money to give books to the schools.

I seriously don't understand why teachers don't get any respect anymore. It's one of those jobs that can be totally awesome, yes, but it can also be extremely horrible, depending on the kids. And seriously, people want to cut the salaries and belittle the people who are teaching their kids!. Oh yeah, there's no possible way that can backfire.

Just to be clear, I am not advocating that. It's just that teachers are extremely important. I'd like to see these people try to deal with their uneducated kids while trying to juggle their jobs at the same time.

The issue in Philadelphia isn't even about going green. They simply seem to be cutting off funding everywhere and covering it up with "not required" anymore. I mean, how the fuck do they expect these kids to learn without any sort of books or computers in the school? Magically?

Honest question for those who know: In the US, what we spend on education seems to be pretty much on par with most countries, if not more. Yet, every part of the system seems to be underfunded. Where is all the money going?

It goes to all the rich suburban schools, mostly.

Schools are funded mainly via 2 things. property taxes and number of students.

Guess who has the overwhelmingly higher property values.

It also gets siphoned to colleges and college/high school athletic departments, probably moreso than suburban schools. What little my high school got went right into our (extremely mediocre) football team.

edited 9th May '13 10:52:43 PM by Pykrete

Another set of ideas: Summer-born pupils 'should have exam scores boosted', Replace GCSE grades with scores, says exam board and...

...Tiverton school head tells parent birthday party plans 'risk exams'...for her younger sister.

Okay, the birthday party thing is bullshit. The school is there to teach the children, not micromanage their off campus lives. That was uncalled for.

I also don't understand the "boosting scores" thing. If it's that big a deal, they can start putting the kids of those particular ages in the lower grades when they start school. Otherwise they need to do their jobs. This research seems incredibly iffy to me. Course, they could also stop making their academic lives depend on tests at that young an age.

that too. And it doesnt help that colleges themselves have to dance around their football team, or whatever degrees they have the highest rep for and shower them with money to keep up the appearance to incoming students (and parents) just what an amazing school this will be for their kid,.

In short, Topazan. The big issue is that on average, funding is about equal to other countries. The problem is the vast majority of said funding gets shunted either to suburban schools or popping up the local college to attract businesses and college students/young families

edited 10th May '13 12:09:15 AM by Midgetsnowman

That first article was so ridiculous. I entered kindergarten at age 4 in New York, and continued to be one of the youngest kids in my grade until now. Heck, when I moved ot Texas, I was always at least one year below the other kids. I took tests just as well as everyone else. As long as you try, you should get just as much education as the older kids if you take the same classes. One month younger is literally nothing.

That may be true on an individual basis, but you're generalizing based on your own experience. If you want to make that claim, you're going to have to back yourself up with something more solid.

It's not a difference of one month, it's a difference of 11 months. If a kid was born in August 2008, he'd have to start school this year, but if he were born in September, he could wait till 2014 even though they're practically the same age. He'd (the 2014 kid) be almost a year older than the August July, June, May, etc... kids born in 2009 that would have to start the same year as him. Puts him at a bit of an advantage.

edited 11th May '13 7:07:41 PM by Wulf

I was definitely not the only kid to be a year behind. By the time you hit third or fourth grade, it no longer matters. Being physically older than someone else does not make you slighty better in academics if you all take the same class anyway. Especially in elementary school.

I literally believe you're the only person on the Internet to realise that.

The age difference itself probably doesn't matter by about 4th grade, but in K-2, I could see it making a big difference. Having a year's head start on learning how to read, count, and write is a great advantage when that's the only thing you're being taught. Or rather, not having that extra year is a big disadvantage for the August kids. For the bottom-of-the-class kids who'd be struggling anyway, I could easily see this affecting them throughout elementary school.

If they're all learning the same thing, ideally it doesn't matter, but having a head start (or lack thereof) can make a big difference. Having a year to have learned the first thing means you you can build on it more easily.

Well, they could always change the age requirements for kids starting school.

Personally, I think they should insist on a skills checklist for school starts, rather than using age as a benchmark. Yes, it would be more time-consuming to do it this way, but...

Such a check-list system might also point towards which children need more help from the get-go (for whatever reason: be it a congenital thing... or a family issue). It might also help catch a propensity for dyslexia and other cognitive variances much earlier (but, there would have to be some investigation into the non-lexical cues for that, of course).

I think such tests should occur throughout primary school as a compulsory thing. <_< If only so children can be given the educational input that best suits their learning style. I remember compulsory (and, totally flimsy: seriously — the methodology was pathetic) IQ tests while I was at school: pitiful things, only given so the school could get extra money from the apartheid school system for finding those with a high IQ for a weird eugenics-based... thing... involving giving them better teaching (and, really nifty school trips the rest of use could only dream about).

Although that system was a steaming pile of crap, extending something like that for real use? Would have a point.

edited 12th May '13 1:55:26 AM by Euodiachloris

You guys might be underestimating how fast kids learn at a young age. It's perfectly possible to be able to read a simple book at age three if encouraged to do so. Almost all the stuff learned in Kindergarten can be taught in Pre-school. (colors, numbers, seasons, letters, telling time...) I think I had homework in pre-school actually. We really do need to start teaching earlier though.

It depends wildly on the kid. And, socialisation and physical skills aren't so quickly learnt, thanks to various developmental benchmarks that can't be rushed.

Knowledge isn't the whole of the package.

edited 12th May '13 2:47:40 PM by Euodiachloris

I agree with the lower socialization and Physical skills, but that has nothing to do with academics tests like the article claimed.

This RSA Animate video has been posted elsewhere. I recommend viewing it if you haven't already, especially since people have echoed some of the ideas espoused in it.

edited 12th May '13 11:03:11 PM by Aprilla