|
>You haven't even understood what I wrote
Then why have you been arguing that you need more information from me for you to understand what I've written if the problem is what you just claimed, that I don't understand what you wrote?
>If you say that what is currently done is wrong, you give the impression that you have alternatives - and that you have evidence they work.
An example, a hypothetical:
Let's say you build a small model rocket. Unfortunately, it goes up ten feet then travels horizontally for a moment then crashes, but the motor continues to burn for a time. A critic comes to you and says: It doesn't go up into the sky very high. Your response: How can I build it so it flies better? The critic says: I don't know, you built the rocket, you're the rocket scientist, why are you asking me? I simply noted it crashed. You say: Well, if you're going to note that it crashed, then surely you must know how to build a better rocket, one follows from the other. By stating the rocket crashes, you give the impression you have alternatives that work better, and that you have evidence that they work better. Critic says: No, I simply noted that your rocket crashed and burned. You say: You stated above that you had evidence on how to fix the rocket. Etc.... end example >You didn't say what your alternatives were in earlier posts, and now it seems that you're just guessing - you say some countries concentrate on a single topic for weeks at a time, but you haven't yet pointed to any results from this.
I previously wrote the following phrases, relating to alternatives and 1-hour blocks, and you just claimed I didn't say what my alternatives were:
1. "It was wrong for me, most of the time." 2. "I've read elsewhere in a variety of places that it doesn't work well for quite a large number of kids." 3. An educator once told me this back in the 8th grade, as well.
A. I also wrote about the bully problem, but you don't seem to understand reducing that problem as being an 'alternative,' except when you want to argue some other facet of bullies. B. I suggested paying students to attend. C. I suggested decreasing the bully problem in public schools. D. I suggested eliminating the compulsory element of schooling.
Yet, you claim, "You didn't say what your alternatives were."
I read in the newspaper back in the 80s about a country that taught single subjects for several weeks. I might be able to find that article on microfiche if I was willing to spend the necessary time and money for physical travel to a metropolitan library looking for it. I'm not willing.
>Yours was the narrow, limited view - you said "teaching them in little tiny 1-hour blocks of English broken up with 1-hour blocks of other subjects isn't real smart" - a simple statement that teaching in one hour blocks was wrong. I never said all was lost. I just said you must be able to tell us what the correct length of time is - because you told us that 1 hour was wrong.
If I state that a fixed amount of time is wrong, then you ask what fixed amount of time is right, the question doesn't include the possibility that it's the "fixed" amount of time that is the issue. My prior post said: "Perhaps there is no one correct length of time that works best for all individuals at all times."
Narrow means, generally, the opposite of wide or broad. I'm suggesting something broader than the limiting 1-hour blocks.
Think of the following hypothetical. Lets say there are two people: one is gifted in subject A, and challenged in subject Z; the other is gifted in subject Z, and challenged in subject A (opposites of each other). Further, we know the first person learns subject A in 10 hours, but subject Z takes them 20 hours to learn (how we know this is unimportant, it's hypotetical); with the second person the times for each subject are exactly reversed. Now, lets say the hypothetical school says each person can have 1 hour learning blocks in each subject, but only a total of fifteen such blocks of each subject, and further, only that one subject will be taught during those 1 hour blocks. The student will be tested on both subjects and will need to pass both to graduate at the end. The students are allowed no extra home study.
The hypothetical school structure is a system that will fail both students, neither will graduate. It allocated a 'fixed' amount of time for both subjects that will allow each student to learn the subject each is gifted at, but without giving enough time for the subject which challenges them.
Now imagine a broader, more flexible system where the 5 hours extra (not needed) from the time to learn the subject each student is gifted in can be applied to the subject each student is challenged in. This minor adjustment allows both students to pass both subjects under the hypothetical scenario. Since it allows both students to pass both subjects, it is broader than the narrow unadjusted hypothetical system that didn't allow either student to graduate.
(Yet you say, "Yours was the narrow, limited view")
Another way to fix the hypothetical is to increase the time both students sit in both classes. This will likely create boredom for the students in the classes they are gifted in, risking 'turning them off' from their gift. It increases expense, and it is inefficient and bloated.
>Your 'question' clearly implied that public schools let bullying happen on purpose: "Speaking of FREE public schools, why can't they get their bully problem under control? Perhaps because it serves some purpose they don't want the public to know?" That last question is rhetorical.
Disagree. It was two questions, there was also a conditional such as "perhaps" in the second. I also gave my deductive reasoning for the question based upon my experience elsewhere in the text.
>You are saying that it is your opinion that they do want bullying - though you don't back it up with any details.
I do not know absolutely what the education establishment truly intends, nor do I trust those high up who do know to be honest and forthright, nor do I know whether the average dedicated teacher in the classroom would even know what those at the top intend.
>From my own experience in private schools, bullying happens there too. Private schools have the choice of expelling the worst bullies, throwing them into the public system. They also get the backing of the parents - parents who are paying for education will accept the decisions of the school (which they themselves chose as a good school), while some in the public system don't give a toss. Both of these might explain why bullying in public schools can be worse. Yet you have ignored these possibilities, and instead gone straight to an implication that public schools want bullying.
First, I want to congratulate you for writing something lacking duplicity.
I don't think your rationale explains what I experienced, though it certainly appears to explain a very real phenomenon at a different level than in the first few grades. I don't really want to share more anecdotes, otherwise I'd explain further.
What is the possible rationale for forcing bullies to attend only public schools, but not private ones? Is it to deliberately or even unitentionally create a two-tiered educational system, the American equivalent of People's Schools and Realschules?
>No, I'm not disrupting discussion; but I am challenging your assertion that schools are trying to destroy most children.
Fair enough. In addition to mentioned problems in the schools, 75% of high school students are later victimized by a financial system which pays them unfair wages compared to other more highly educated groups based upon a relative time-spent-in-a-classroom-seat model. I've posted on this before on DU, the math for this is simple, pretty much anyone with basic math skills can calculate it with Census data: take the average pay of HS graduates without higher education and divide by the amount of time spent in school, compare that to the average pay of professionals divided by the amount of time they've typically been in school.
Yet, all educators seems to be able to say to those HS graduates is to get more education and to pay outrageous sums to get it! (creating a 'feedback loop' supposedly justifying professional's higher wages, so they can pay back their college loans) Um, lets see, HS failed many of us, so we're supposed to go to more continuation of what failed us? Why would it ever make sense to keep trying what has proved overall (to those such as myself) to not work?
I have read that a schools have helped destroy the self-esteem of some students. Google 'self-esteem school' It looks like some groups are trying to fix some of the problems, unintentional or not.
>It's a stupid assertion, and highly insulting to teachers. I've never met a teacher who hates children - they all want their pupils to succeed, because they like them, as a whole, and it also reflects well on the teachers.
Your judgement of "stupid" in the first sentence is irrelevant. Is the "insulting" portion duplicity, or truthful? It's not possible for me to tell, but my guess is duplicity, due to your preponderant use of it.
My intent is not to insult all teachers, but simply to explain my perspective and experiences, and I get jumped on frequently by some here when I do (using all sorts of deceptive debate tactics). I also had some well-meaning teachers, who clearly liked their students, and appeared to want the best for them. Unfortunately, I also had some really bad ones, one I remember actually liked to tell the whole class they were "stupid" (sound familiar?) and "losers" everyday for several weeks at the start of the semester.
>You were admitting that you're just guessing about what would be better by your complete absence of evidence of what else has worked. When I asked you for specifics, you gave nothing.
Nope.
You simply didn't like the anecdotes and alternatives I did give you, so, it seems that you're suggesting that I didn't write something that I did, therefore there's more duplicity from you.
I offered at least several suggestions, one was minimize the bullying of kids, and further suggested that this could be done with the elimination of the compulsory element of education. Further, you claimed I had evidence, to please point to the data. Instead, I offered anecdotes to be understood, if not accepted, but they're apparently not good enough evidence. So be it.
Another place for the evidence you seem to seek would be the phrase 'Prussian school' at Google. You'll find a wealth of information on precisely what short broken up blocks of learning do, and possible rationales for why public and private schools have likely used this structure.
It would appear the Prussian School's methods were adopted here in the U.S., in a plan that is apparently designed to destroys children's desires, and therefore, happiness. What happened to the "inalienable" right of "pursuit of happiness"? If one takes away this right, does one destroy the child?
I think the named New York State Teacher of the Year, 1991, figures into this somehow.
Perhaps future schools can correct some of these errors; if so, it remains to be seen.
:hi:
|