No child left Behind?
 

i have been thinking about the concept of not leaving children behind. i have decided that it isnt a good idea. lets face it: some kids cant handle the pressure of college or a collegebound public educational experience. if we dumb down schooling to the point that no child is left behind, then the education would be worthless.

on the other hand, if we set a standard for all students to strive for that is too high, we discourage those who find this standard unatainable, and they end up dropping out and receive no education at all. do we really need more uneducated voters out there? and at the same time, for those who can cut it and do, do we need mcdonalds workers with a masters in liberal arts?

if everyone goes to college, we will have an overeducated population.

just some random thoughts. discuss

I am completely against dumbing down the system. We'll not only be dumbing down college applicants, but the entire workforce as well. But, we don't need to increase standards either. What we need are teachers who do their job.

I like the changes I'm seeing in education. Teachers are being forced to do something they never did before...teach.

[Edit] And how can a population be "overeducated" exactly?

Exactly. We need teachers who do their job. NOT how the schools tell them to though -- the teaching method of lecturing is vastly outdated and can only inspire the kids who have a passion for learning. There is a large amount of kids now who could give less of a rat's ass about lectures. Personally I think it's time to bring teaching back up with the times, make it more interactive, more fun if you will. Entertain kids and you will capture them. Bore them, and they will shrug it off in search of something more interesting.

The only way to have no child left behind is to make sure all children want to learn. Currently they sure as hell don't. That much is proven by literacy rates and the ridiculous state of standardized testing, not to mention the fucking idiots who fail those disgustingly easy tests.

Yes, lecturing doesnt work at all for me, I just fall asleep. I need something to do, I cant sit in one place for too long. Which is why I enjoy classes like Building Trades, your always doing something and being productive.
Everyone has their own way of learning, if its something I have not interest in at all or I feel there is no way possible that ist going to help me in life my brain litteraly tunes it out. I look down at the work and -------------------------.

Well, when Harvard drops below the level of Tokyo University and Oxford, I'll be ticked. You can't take away prestig. but private colleges will have there way, as will private schools. Still, harder cousres will be made, and still, no matter how much, people just can't afford some colleges. even if you start out ina box factory, you could be making in the millions if you knwo how to work your way up. Not all people are created equally, but should all be treated equally as equals and humans, but education is different. No one is equal in talents. Everyone is special, and some it isn't education and book smarts. And shiney, that's why they invented video games, so we don't need to think :P

your special...just like everybody else...sorry, i had to throw that in.

as to having an overeducated population, what i mean is that if literally everyone has a college degree, who will be our garbage men? the college graduates. that would be a waste of an education, but someone has to do the job. if it doesnt get done, where would we be? so that hypothetical garbage man has wasted his time in getting a degree.

as to changing from the lecture format, i can see both sides of the issue. on the one hand, many people dont learn well that way and only a motivated student can show interest. on the other hand, is the unmotivated student worthy of learning what is being offered? if you dont really want to learn the material, why are you there in the first place? personally i find lectures to be greatly informative and perhaps my favorite mode of learning. and as to people falling asleep, a good teacher will interject some of his/her own personality to keep the interest of the audience. so that would deal with that problem.

as far as standardized tests...well the state of texas until last year had the Texas Assesment of Academic Skills (TAAS). they realized how pathetically easy this test was, so they replaced it last year with the Texas Assesment of Knowledge and Skills (TAKS), which failed to be any harder (except for the writing portion, which all of my class had trained for the TAAS style essay, and the TAKS called for something completely different...we had TAAS drilled into our brains since fourth grade).

but i actually like the format of the old SAT. i think that it is a good idea. i dont like that now they took the objectivism totally out of it by putting an essay in it.

teachers can't make kids want to learn. it's not teachers' fault they have to adopt a boring style to fit all the material in. if you want someone to burn at the stake, blame the boards of education and bureaucratic school administrators who set the amount of curriculum to be taught even though they are far removed from the "trenches" of classroom teaching. it is also those bureaucrats who decided to teach "politically correct" history and science, all the things you find out later were blatant LIES.


overeducating a society is a huge misallocation of resources, also known as a huge waste of money. here's an analogy. you have an army. you train all your soldiers how to hold and fire their rifle. you don;t give every single soldier enough training to be a general. the more training is needed, the more expensive that person is. you need a few generals, some officers, and a hell of a lot of grunts. there are far too many people i know who have gotten college degrees, only to work as waitresses or bar tenders. society told them to get an education, and now they are straddled with debt.

I think that not leaving anyone behind is an ideal we could only reach in a perfect world. Seeing as how we aren't living in a perfect world, it is impratical. I think they should set a standard, and expect kids to live up to it. They have those standards, they just keep lowering them for the one not-so-smart-kid, and making all the others suffer because of it.

Because we are forced to. Now, granted, I would be there anyway. But there are alot of kids that wouldn't be, except for laws that make kids go to school up until a certain age/grade(not sure) in highschool. At the college level, then this arguement makes sense. Anyone who sleeps though a college class because they don't want to learn is stupid, and wasting money.

See, what I bolded is the problem with that. Alot of teachers just aren't good at it. Or at least not good at lecturing. Sometimes its best to actually do something.

In classes like Social Studies, lecturing is the only way to go. Until they make a time machine, there isn't anything to do. That is why I consider it to be the most boring subject in history(tee hee). That said, my AP American History teacher is one of those "good lecturers". He has a good personality, and he uses it. I still fall asleep in the class. Sometimes, now matter how vibrant the teacher is, now matter how hard he tries, the material we are covering is so... coma inducing that you just can't help it.

But then there are classes like A+ or Cisco. These should be exclusively hands on. That is what you should be doing the entire time you are there. But in my classes, we sit there. And read. We're reading from a monitor instead of a textbook, but that's about as hands on as it gets. Can you say boring?

what's wrong with an overeducated population?

Nothing, unless you particulairly desire a heavy class difference - and from a societal pragmatic standpoint - you do need people to be labourers which is most easily fulfilled by those who are undereducated.

the "no child left behind" concept, shouldn't be about lessening standards in order to allow everyone to succeed, but should be about equally funding schools in economically disadvantaged areas - so someone from a place of high unemployment or underemployment - where they have limited funding because most tax money that goes to schools comes from property taxes, has an equal chance at a good education from a more well to do area. I honestly don't know what the "no child left behind" act entailed though.