Reform of education-my solution:

[Jimmy Snyder]

A teacher's income will depend on how closely do the grades they assign match their students' performance on the exam.

You get what you pay for. If you pay for teachers that are really good at predicting the results of their students' tests, then that's what you'll get. I don't see how this improves education.

 

[Plastic Photon]

When I first walked into high school as a freshman I had no idea what I wanted to do, what classes I wanted to take. But there were many you had a very well predetermined regiment of what they wanted to achieve.

I think that we will begin to see more hs (at least) become academy oriented. This way a kid who wants to major in geology can take more math and science classes rather than a truck load of meaningless liberal art studies. There would also be offerings for general studies and required courses, such as maybe two english, two history, two math, two science and the rest elective. That way in your first year or two you will follow the same regiment as everyone else in your grade, but by your junior year you will have more elective classes focused on your intentions after high school to take.

I didn't know that I would be going to college to take chemistry until I actually arrived, but I can say I would have preferred less liberal arts and more science.

 

[franznietzsche]

That and the fact that'd you in reality hold up anywhere from 30-40% of the nation's students, depending on which standardized test you use. (NAEP) Focusing just on the 12th year students who would otherwise graduate, this would mean you'd have to increase the number or capacity of secondary schools by 10% over the summer; number of teachers too. And the labor market would experience a massive, sudden shortage of HS graduates. None of this is remotely reasonable.

Too bad. If you don't actually learn what you should in high school, you don't deserve a diploma. Period. End of discussion. You do not have the right to a High School diploma, you only have the right to opportunity to EARN one. If 40% of students can't cut it, then 40% of students can't cut it. Too bad.

 

[Rach3]

Too bad. If you don't actually learn what you should in high school, you don't deserve a diploma. Period. End of discussion. You do not have the right to a High School diploma, you only have the right to opportunity to EARN one. If 40% of students can't cut it, then 40% of students can't cut it. Too bad.

You misread my post. I was criticizing a proposal to hold back 40% of HS students, which would greatly increase the size of the school system for no good purpose. I have no problem with 40% not getting their diplomas. However, putting them all back into school is clearly unfeasible from an economic view, that was my point.

It's not slightly ironic that we're having difficulty reading correctly the posts in this particular thread.

 

[franznietzsche]

You misread my post. I was criticizing a proposal to hold back 40% of HS students, which would greatly increase the size of the school system for no good purpose. I have no problem with 40% not getting their diplomas. However, putting them all back into school is clearly unfeasible from an economic view, that was my point.

It's not slightly ironic that we're having difficulty reading correctly the posts in this particular thread.

You're right, I misunderstood you.

 

[Mk]

You get what you pay for. If you pay for teachers that are really good at predicting the results of their students' tests, then that's what you'll get. I don't see how this improves education.

But the teachers also have to teach their kids.

 

[bomba923]

Rach 3, I presume you are the former rachmaninoff?

You misread my post. I was criticizing a proposal to hold back 40% of HS students, which would greatly increase the size of the school system for no good purpose. I have no problem with 40% not getting their diplomas. However, putting them all back into school is clearly unfeasible from an economic view, that was my point.

It's not slightly ironic that we're having difficulty reading correctly the posts in this particular thread.

Where did you criticize any such proposal?? I never proposed to "hold back 40% of HS students."

If my proposal (i.e., my two-part plan) does somehow "hold back 40% of HS students", then you "have no problem" with it, as you clearly stated here in your post right here:

I have no problem with 40% not getting their diplomas.However, putting them all back into school is clearly unfeasible from an economic view, that was my point.

You must understand that:

1) Without a diploma, a student either stays in HS or drops out.

2) Therefore, if 40% of students don't earn a diploma
----and you've mentioned that you "have no problem" with that---
then you also would also "have no problem" with 40% of students deciding between staying in HS or dropping out.

In other words, "having no problem" with 40% not receiving a diploma is equivalent to "having no problem" with 40% deciding whether to stay in HS or drop out. Since you've mentioned that you don't want to (i.e., have a problem with) "put them all back into school", you're probably suggesting that most of that 40% of HS students drop out??

*Also, in any case, one can earn a GED; it is equivalent to a high school diploma.
(Perhaps, not for the top colleges/universities, but why should the top colleges/universities accept dropouts / students who did not earn diplomas?)

And one final comment,
Just to remove any final doubts here:

~If you've read the beginning of the post, I merely assumed that your 40% was accurate for the sake of argument.

And---No, my plan is NOT going to hold back (from a diploma) anywhere near 40% of HS students. Unless you also wish to imply that 40% of HS students about to graduate severely lack skills in basic mathematics, reading, and writing.

Realistically, I would expect only around 5-20% of HS students actually "held back" from diplomas under my plan. (Then again, remember how inaccurate any such national percent measure would be, considering how much variance and/or deviation in students achievement exists across regions, cities, and even individual school districts. Not to completely discourage speculation, but just a consideration).

As franznietzsche added,

Too bad. If you don't actually learn what you should in high school, you don't deserve a diploma. Period. End of discussion. You do not have the right to a High School diploma, you only have the right to opportunity to EARN one.

That's right.

You're right, I misunderstood you.

No, you understood Rach3 correctly the first time.

 

[Rach3]

Where did you criticize any such proposal?? I never proposed to "hold back 40% of HS students."...

Realistically, I would expect only around 5-20% of HS students actually "held back" from diplomas under my plan...

No, you understood Rach3 correctly the first time.

An additional 20% of seniors being re-enrolled into school, i.e. somewhere ~1.4million extra students materializing, is vastly impractical for the very same logistical reasons as a 40%. I frankly have no more interest in this scenario - my only beef with FN was that he misread me as being critical of a 40% (20%) of graduating seniors not receiving diplomas due to incompetence, independent of the question of re-enrollment. This was clarified between me and FN, I don't understand why you want to get involved.

I have no intention to argue with you about this thread or your ideas, I am only posting here to defend some old posts from misinterpretation.

 

[Mk]

AMAZING POST bomba! Remincent of Danger's posts in the thread killers thread when he would leave for a few weeks and come back to respond to nearly everything said.

I'm in progress reading this thread, and I like the idea a lot.

 

[bomba923]

An additional 20% of seniors being re-enrolled into school, i.e. somewhere ~1.4million extra students materializing, is vastly impractical for the very same logistical reasons as a 40%.

20% "re-enrolled" into high school?" If you're referring to "holding back a portion of the graduating class (senior)"

~First of all, why would seniors have to "re-enroll?"

~Secondly, where do you get such numbers as "20%"// "40%" etc??

My only beef with FN was that he misread me as being critical of a 40% (20%) of graduating seniors not receiving diplomas due to incompetence, independent of the question of re-enrollment.

Again, FN understood quite well the first time.

*For what reason OTHER THAN "incompetence" would seniors have to "re-enroll?"

I am only posting here to defend some old posts from misinterpretation.

And in the spirit of old posts, you misinterpret my plan.

Why do fixate solely on seniors? Moreover, why do you focus on grades of students (e.g., 12th grade)?

1) Remember that testing, as explained in Part I of my plan, involves ALL HS grades 9-12. Whatever impact we might have of "re-enrolling" seniors would be mitigated by the "re-enrollment" of juniors, sophomores, and freshman

2) Again, your 20% is quite inflated. If you've read Part I, you would realize that the exam does not hold people back on GRADES. Rather, students are held back by COURSES.

-An example: An algebra teacher assigns a "B" to a student who fails the exam's algrebra section, but passes well in English and history. The student will be held back a semester/year in math...but will nevertheless move on towards the next level English & history courses.

I thought I made this point quite clear in the original post?

How can "re-enrollment" even pose a significant problem under that system?
Even in the case of seniors, one or two classes at a local college or some time with a tutor is all that would be needed to help the student acquire the competence mandated by that basic course.

Whatever small percent seniors might have to "re-enroll" (maybe around 5 to 7%) would likely be ones most needy of the extra year, as their incompetence would be most extensive (spanning several subjects).

Honestly, where do you get these numbers? ("20%"/"40%"?)

 

[Rach3]

Why do fixate solely on seniors? Moreover, why do you focus on grades of students (e.g., 12th grade)?

1) Remember that testing, as explained in Part I of my plan, involves ALL HS grades 9-12. Whatever impact we might have of "re-enrolling" seniors would be mitigated by the "re-enrollment" of juniors, sophomores, and freshman

The logic of this is breathtaking.

Are you trolling? Re-enrolling seniors is a bottleneck which must significantly increase the size of schools. You no longer have four incoming classes, but five; the former 8th graders, 9th...11th, PLUS a fraction of the 12th graders which did not graduate. In other words; the mean length of time in HS increases from ~four years to ~four-years-and-some-fraction, because of incompetents re-enrolling themselves in the same year. Thus schools must significantly grow to accommodate.

 

[franznietzsche]

The logic of this is breathtaking.

Are you trolling? Re-enrolling seniors is a bottleneck which must significantly increase the size of schools. You no longer have four incoming classes, but five; the former 8th graders, 9th...11th, PLUS a fraction of the 12th graders which did not graduate. In other words; the mean length of time in HS increases from ~four years to ~four-years-and-some-fraction, because of incompetents re-enrolling themselves in the same year. Thus schools must significantly grow to accommodate.

Then schools have to grow, fine.

Bomba:

No, I misunderstood. I thought Rach3's objection was to the idea of failing those who did not meet the requirement, which was incorrect. His (her?) point is the logistical problem of the larger number of students in school at any given time due to some people being there longer. I'm of the opinion that if we then need larger schools, then we need larger schools. Space consideration is not a relevant factor in determining academic standards.

 

[Rach3]

His (her?) point

His.

...is the logistical problem of the larger number of students in school at any given time due to some people being there longer. I'm of the opinion that if we then need larger schools, then we need larger schools. Space consideration is not a relevant factor in determining academic standards.

I agree in principle. Though, in practice I don't see anyone coughing up the money for hundreds of new schools; I'd suspect the real result would be that nothing actually gets expanded, so additional students would all get squished into existing schools, larger classes, fewer resources, etc. It's not new to see a massive, visionary project go without funding.

 

[bomba923]

The logic of this is breathtaking.

Are you trolling? Re-enrolling seniors is a bottleneck which must significantly increase the size of schools. You no longer have four incoming classes, but five; the former 8th graders, 9th...11th, PLUS a fraction of the 12th graders which did not graduate.

Read my previous post again. The logic in it is quite valid:

1) Some seniors might have to "re-enroll". Meaning, they won't graduate and thus will not give up their place in the class.

2) However, because testing affects all grades 9-12, some juniors will be retained as well! Thus, less juniors enter the senior class. And thus, space in the prospective senior class not a problem. The "decrease in space in the senior class" is offset by "decreasing in the quantity of juniors that may enter the senior class". Oh, and the same applies for freshmen entering sophomore class and sopohomores entering junior class. >Understand?

(And perhaps, more importantly,)
Again, remember that re-enrollment is only for students whose academic incompetence is so extensive (i.e., not just in one/two subjects) that it cannot be managed by tutors, summerschool, or one/two courses at some local college. And remember that testing affects placement into COURSES, not "GRADES".

In other words; the mean length of time in HS increases from ~four years to ~four-years-and-some-fraction, because of incompetents re-enrolling themselves in the same year. Thus schools must significantly grow to accommodate.

Let's be more specific:

-Do you mean "mean length of time" for competent students? Or for incompetent students?
~Because competent students have little use for (and are, by the way, not really affected by ) statistics involving their incompetent peers.

Regarding "re-enrollment," alright then: we'll allow students to re-enroll only ONCE.

His (her?) point is the logistical problem of the larger number of students in school at any given time due to some people being there longer. I'm of the opinion that if we then need larger schools, then we need larger schools. Space consideration is not a relevant factor in determining academic standards.

Given the offsetting factors I previously mentioned (in this post and my previous one), perhaps you are referring to the influx of prospective HS freshmen?

*Franznietschze, if a freshman is accepted to a public high school, then the high school must allow that freshman to advance to sophomore, junior, and senior in THAT VERY school.
*However, if there wouldn't be enough space (however unprobable this scenario might be ) for ALL the 8th grade students who apply to that school for freshman positions, the school does NOT have to grant entrance to all of those applying for freshman positions.

~>In fact, that's a general policy schools use today! (and have used in the past)

 

[Rach3]

Read it again. The logic is quite valid:

1) Some seniors might have to "re-enroll". Meaning, they won't graduate and thus will not give up their place in the class.

2) However, because testing affects all grades 9-12, some juniors will be retained as well! Thus, less juniors enter the senior class. And thus, space in the prospective senior class not a problem. The "decrease in space in the senior class" is offset by "decreasing in the quantity of juniors that may enter the senior class". Oh, and the same applies for freshmen entering sophomore class and sopohomores entering junior class. Understand?

Are 5-year-olds entering school for their very first time, being prevented from entering because of their "previous academic performance"? No? Well if they go in, and not all of them come out, then there is obviously a bottleneck somewhere, no?

 

[Rach3]

It is supremely obvious that if the average student goes from spending 4.0 years in HS, to 4.2 years (or whatever), then when things balance out there will be more students in HS at any given time.

 

[bomba923]

Are 5-year-olds entering school for their very first time, being prevented from entering because of their "previous academic performance"? No?

Here's an idea: Find some qualified 5-year-olds applying to be HS freshman.

-Honestly, must you really involve 5-year-olds? You know, age groups that aren't even closely affect by my plan? -Must you really equate HS enrollment with entrance into kindgarten? I pity such arguments.
(are you really that desperate?)

Well if they go in, and not all of them come out, then there is obviously a bottleneck somewhere, no?

Yes. A bottleneck called incompetence.
~In fact, this bottleneck goes WAY back when schools first came into service!

Honestly, do you really think that EVERYBODY--regardless of attendance, competence, and ability---graduates from high school?

--As though...being 17/18 years old somehow "entitles" you to a diploma?

Recall what franznietschze has mentioned:

Too bad. If you don't actually learn what you should in high school, you don't deserve a diploma. Period. End of discussion. You do not have the right to a High School diploma, you only have the right to opportunity to EARN one.

Hey Rach3, another "bottleneck" to graduation right there!

Also, as Rach3 mentioned:

It is supremely obvious that if the average student goes from spending 4.0 years in HS, to 4.2 years (or whatever), then when things balance out there will be more students in HS at any given time.

No, the only thing supremely obvious when

average student goes from spending 4.0 years in HS, to 4.2 years (or whatever)

is that "when things balance out", there will be more students DENIED admission FROM a given HS. Space, Rach3, is conserved

What "things will balance out"? Simply the
amount of students who must re-enroll (only a minor 1 or 2%) with the amount of new students admitted to that HS (for the first time).

 

[Rach3]

You've changed your story! Now you're talking about public schools granting/denying admission! Slippery, slippery eels.

Fact is, your scenario as it was up until your last post and its ad-hoc modifications, involved lengthening the average time spent in schools, hence increasing their size.

edit: For reference, bomba's original line of reasoning I refer to, is the one in post #64.

(edit for emphasis)

 

[Rach3]

I'm not going to comment on your new proposal, or any other proposal you might think up. I'm out of this thread.

(edited for emphasis)

 

[bomba923]

You've changed your story!

No I haven't. Just added some clarification to your senseless complaints~

Now you're talking about public schools granting/denying admission! Slippery, slippery eels.

Yes...those "slippery, slippery eels!" (like me) that have always found class size an important factor in academically-conducive environments! And just look how even universities deny admissions when a class is overcrowded!

Hey...in case you didn't know, those "slippery, slippery eel" policies (denying admissions due to space concerns) were always there! Perhaps you need to trip on your logic a few more times to realize how "slippery" your reasoning truly is!

Fact is, your scenario as it was up until your last post and its ad-hoc modifications, involved lengthening the average time spent in schools, hence increasing their size.

Fact is, I have not made any modifications.

Fact is, I have only clarified some inapt concern regarding "increasing HS size". Look closely: I have not added any details.

Fact is, this involved showing why "increasing average time spent in schools" and "increasing size of schools" do not effectively relate to one another! And that involved introducing that obvious factor "denying admission to due lack of space". Say Rach3, was your college the type that let's EVERYONE in?

edit: For reference, bomba's original line of reasoning I refer to, is the one in post #64.

No, "bomba's original line of reasoning" is my very first post---post#1--- in this thread .

>"Post #64" is where I address some undue concern regarding "school size"

I'm not going to comment on your new proposal, or any other proposal you might think up. I'm out of this thread.

Good for you. Now we'll have room for intelligent criticism.
(by the way, my plan is now four months old, nothing "new" at all ).