Reform of education-my solution:

[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 ).