No Academic Levels

Con: Intelligent students are being kept from achieving their full potential.

Pro: The average score on the standardized testing might go up slightly causing the school to get more money.

Pro: The school is better conforming to President Bush's failed "No Child Left Behind" act.

Con: The idiot students may become frustrated by the increased expectations of them causing them to take out their frustration on the intelligent students which then causes an increase in school violence and/or bullying. (I've seen this one in action in my school.)

EPIC FAIL. Colleges can't see the students that of higher acedemic achievement through the courses they take, causing students at your school to all go to shitty colleges and have shitty lives and be failures and beggars on the streets of New York City.

ok jk but seriously thats just absolutally dumb. Higher levels students, as dragon said, wont be able to reach their full potential and will quickly get bored in a school where they cannot be challenged.

That's two more cons. You don't have to be joking about the first one, it's absolutely true.

I'm merely going to take the positive because I feel like it, and don't have an actual opinion on this subject as of yet.

Quote :

Intelligent students are being kept from achieving their full potential.

Citation? Proof? Evidence? Studies show that the highest level of learning is teaching. If you're able to teach someone else - then you have to fully understand it to be able to put it into your own words and be able to change those words to explain it to different people. By being in the same class as people who may need help - they then are able to help teach others and are in fact learning the material BETTER.

Quote :

The idiot students may become frustrated by the increased expectations of them causing them to take out their frustration on the intelligent students which then causes an increase in school violence and/or bullying. (I've seen this one in action in my school.)

More expectations, leads to more success. When you aim for the stars, you're at least going to make it to the moon. If you aim for just the moon, you might not make it there. Although the students GRADES might suffer, the actual quality of their education increases. Though they might not realize the benefit of having more difficult courses at first - in the long run they will become more intelligent overall. Small sacrifices must be made to achieve greater goods. Bullying programs can also be implemented, and small negatives should not be reason to stop the program. Take care of the problems, not the source - at least not when the source has other benefits.

Quote :

Colleges can't see the students that of higher acedemic achievement through the courses they take

But they can see the GRADES which are a better than just the course level. It also allows a universal (Within the USA) standard of course which can be overall better, as you're only as strong as your weakest link. Also other means, such as interviews, standardized tests etc. are generally better means of grading than what course levels you take.

Jay.J wrote:

Citation? Proof? Evidence? Studies show that the highest level of learning is teaching. If you're able to teach someone else - then you have to fully understand it to be able to put it into your own words and be able to change those words to explain it to different people. By being in the same class as people who may need help - they then are able to help teach others and are in fact learning the material BETTER.

I don't think you understood. The intelligent students are being put into a lower class where they already know and understand all of the work. They don't need to learn more effectively, they need something more challenging to learn. They KNOW the material already.

Jay.J wrote:

More expectations, leads to more success. When you aim for the stars, you're at least going to make it to the moon. If you aim for just the moon, you might not make it there. Although the students GRADES might suffer, the actual quality of their education increases. Though they might not realize the benefit of having more difficult courses at first - in the long run they will become more intelligent overall. Small sacrifices must be made to achieve greater goods. Bullying programs can also be implemented, and small negatives should not be reason to stop the program. Take care of the problems, not the source - at least not when the source has other benefits.

Do you go to an American school? The stupid students aren't actually stupid, they just don't care. Expecting more of them just causes frustration and/or a higher amount of drop-outs. Not only will they not realize the benefit of difficult classes, they will probably blatantly refuse to do them. Bullying programs all fail in my experience. In fact, many of them backfire.

Also, nothing here intends to put the stupid kids into harder classes. It is simply eliminating all of the advanced classes and putting them with the lowest common denominator.

Jay.J wrote:

But they can see the GRADES which are a better than just the course level. It also allows a universal (Within the USA) standard of course which can be overall better, as you're only as strong as your weakest link. Also other means, such as interviews, standardized tests etc. are generally better means of grading than what course levels you take.

That kind of logic is what is going to keep any of the intelligent children from actually learning anything or getting into a good college. I read that as "Since the colleges don't have any good choices, they will just accept anyone." And that is not good for the education system either.

Also, standardized tests are a HORRIBLE means of measuring a students capabilities. There are a huge variety of factors that can skew those statistics. On the other hand, what classes a student takes shows their initiative and what grades they get in the advanced classes shows more precisely their dedication/intelligence.

Quote :

I don't think you understood. The intelligent students are being put into a lower class where they already know and understand all of the work. They don't need to learn more effectively, they need something more challenging to learn. They KNOW the material already.

It's intellectual communism. The kids who don't care/less intelligent go to "higher" classes, the smarter kids/those who care more are going to "lower". Everyone is in a "middle" class. Extracurricular activities etc. can still be a means to challenge them selves, as can skipping grades. Understanding the material better is definitely not a negative, nor even neutral. It's definitely a positive - and it boosts the confidence of smarter kids as well.

Quote :

Do you go to an American school? The stupid students aren't actually stupid, they just don't care. Expecting more of them just causes frustration and/or a higher amount of drop-outs. Not only will they not realize the benefit of difficult classes, they will probably blatantly refuse to do them. Bullying programs all fail in my experience. In fact, many of them backfire.

Nope. Canadian schooling. Most people aren't actually stupid, and making them care is what needs to be done. One method is by increasing the level of difficulty for them, by making it more competitive. People are driven by competition. By being forced into class with people who are smarter, they have to try harder. Those who don't care about school at ALL, won't be successful either way (In the current program, or the proposed one) - but it does boost those who just aren't motivated.

More drop outs isn't a problem. The whole education system is merely a filter anyway. You don't truly need what you learn, in many of the classes and they're just padding. They are there to control the job market. People who drop out are needed for the capitalist system to work.

Bullying problems may fail currently - but that's no reason to not use them. Make them better.

Quote :

Also, nothing here intends to put the stupid kids into harder classes. It is simply eliminating all of the advanced classes and putting them with the lowest common denominator.

Hmm, that could be a problem. It should be like my first paragraph and be intellectual communism...Otherwise, it's hard to justify. In the case that there is no middle ground, but just a lowest common denominator, then it becomes very difficult to be Devils Advocate. I said before you're only as strong as the weakest link - but if every link sucks, then the chain sucks.

Quote :

That kind of logic is what is going to keep any of the intelligent children from actually learning anything or getting into a good college. I read that as "Since the colleges don't have any good choices, they will just accept anyone." And that is not good for the education system either.

That's their choice. They could very well just have a lot lower amount of students. Instead, they want a certain number of students because of MONEY. That's not the fault of the education system, but instead that of greed.

Quote :

Also, standardized tests are a HORRIBLE means of measuring a students capabilities. There are a huge variety of factors that can skew those statistics. On the other hand, what classes a student takes shows their initiative and what grades they get in the advanced classes shows more precisely their dedication/intelligence.

I concede that standardized testings aren't the best, however things like interviews and actual grades are still means of evaluating people. As are recommendations, community involvement, work experience etc.

(Again, no actual opinion on the subject, purely devils advocate here. Don't know enough to make an informed opinion - just debating to gain the knowledge of both sides )

This post is a spaceholder for when I finally refute all of Jay's arguments again. I've experienced this system first-hand, and it fails miserably in every possible capacity. (Hence why I'm homeschooled now.) Ok, real post to follow.

Jay.J wrote:

It's intellectual communism. The kids who don't care/less intelligent go to "higher" classes, the smarter kids/those who care more are going to "lower". Everyone is in a "middle" class. Extracurricular activities etc. can still be a means to challenge them selves, as can skipping grades. Understanding the material better is definitely not a negative, nor even neutral. It's definitely a positive - and it boosts the confidence of smarter kids as well.

And since when do we support Communism in any form? You also seem to have missed my point that you can't understand material better once you know it. That is like me saying that you need to be taught how to add 2+2 every day because you can obviously find some better understanding of it if you keep learning it over and over.

Jay.J wrote:

Nope. Canadian schooling. Most people aren't actually stupid, and making them care is what needs to be done. One method is by increasing the level of difficulty for them, by making it more competitive. People are driven by competition. By being forced into class with people who are smarter, they have to try harder. Those who don't care about school at ALL, won't be successful either way (In the current program, or the proposed one) - but it does boost those who just aren't motivated.

More drop outs isn't a problem. The whole education system is merely a filter anyway. You don't truly need what you learn, in many of the classes and they're just padding. They are there to control the job market. People who drop out are needed for the capitalist system to work.

Bullying problems may fail currently - but that's no reason to not use them. Make them better.

I'm not sure there is anything you can do to make lazy American kids care. If there was a way to motivate them, I think we would have found it by now. I support just finding a better way to "weed out" the nonchalant people.

Jay.J wrote:

Hmm, that could be a problem. It should be like my first paragraph and be intellectual communism...Otherwise, it's hard to justify. In the case that there is no middle ground, but just a lowest common denominator, then it becomes very difficult to be Devils Advocate. I said before you're only as strong as the weakest link - but if every link sucks, then the chain sucks.

That is essentially my point. "No Child Left Behind" actually means "Since we can't make the stupid kids smart, we have to make the smart kids stupid so that they are all equal."

Jay.J wrote:

That's their choice. They could very well just have a lot lower amount of students. Instead, they want a certain number of students because of MONEY. That's not the fault of the education system, but instead that of greed.

Point taken, but again, you can't do anything about greed. You CAN however do something about education systems.

Jay.J wrote:

I concede that standardized testings aren't the best, however things like interviews and actual grades are still means of evaluating people. As are recommendations, community involvement, work experience etc.

Yes, there are other methods, but none of those can so clearly show initiative and dedication as looking at what the classes the students take and/or their class rank.


P.S. Maybe we should cool this down a bit or take it to another thread. We are about to have page-spanning posts.

Quote :

And since when do we support Communism in any form? You also seem to have missed my point that you can't understand material better once you know it. That is like me saying that you need to be taught how to add 2+2 every day because you can obviously find some better understanding of it if you keep learning it over and over.

What's wrong with communism? It would definitely take a whole other thread to discuss that, so I'll drop that point. And you seem to really dumb it down. It's not understanding 2 + 2. It;s like the kids who are getting 80% and learning 80% of the material, will now understand and be able to achieve 100%. Maybe it's not efficient - but they do get that.

Quote :

I'm not sure there is anything you can do to make lazy American kids care. If there was a way to motivate them, I think we would have found it by now. I support just finding a better way to "weed out" the nonchalant people.

That's the kind of thinking that leads to elitism, in the sense that some kids are definitely better than others. Saying "O we can't do anything about THAT kid because he doesn't care" is part of the problem. Elitism isn't bad when the people who are "Elitist" prove themselves to be better than others - however by incorporating it in to the systems you're creating a serious flaw. Why think you can't do something about it? At least, why not even try to help them?

Quote :

That is essentially my point. "No Child Left Behind" actually means "Since we can't make the stupid kids smart, we have to make the smart kids stupid so that they are all equal."

Which is why I would prefer it to be my version of "Intellectual Communism" instead of, everyone just does the easiest thing possible.

Quote :

Point taken, but again, you can't do anything about greed. You CAN however do something about education systems.

Who's to say you can't do anything about greed? You could make the education completely socialized (Yes more communism). Which would kill the greed, and also make the education system better since it's no longer about money but about the actual education system now.

Quote :

Yes, there are other methods, but none of those can so clearly show initiative and dedication as looking at what the classes the students take and/or their class rank.

But the same things are shown by extracurricular activity - even more so than which classes they take. They're also more beneficial and helpful, to not only the students but the community and the universities in making decisions about people. Interviews are also one of the best methods because you can actually see them and meet them, although they might not be efficient they're the best method assuming you have a good interviewer.

Quote :

P.S. Maybe we should cool this down a bit or take it to another thread. We are about to have page-spanning posts

.

O well. If you want to take the debate of communism into another thread alright (Which is something I can actually debate without not having a real opinion).

Lol, it is becoming constantly more obvious that your not an American. You don't even think like one. (Not that you ever pretended to be.)

The whole concept of Communism and/or Socialism is essentially unpatriotic for Americans.

O I know. I watch CNN, it's funny how they're all like ZOMG COMMUNISM with Obama, but if you think about it, they already have socialism. It's socialism for the rich, and capitalism for the poor. You guys are also already socialist in so many aspects but just don't consider it socialist.

Socialism is actually really good, I just don't think it would be doable unless a disaster happened (Universal) like a nuclear war. Regardless - most Canadians are also against COMPLETE socialism, but in respects to health care and stuff not really.

I just think, I would rather have 360million people taking care of me, then just taking care of myself. Everything always works better as a team...

Regardless.

Socialism wont work in this country b/c we are greedy
Socialism=sharing everything

Tank, that's a HUGE oversimplification of what socialism is. The U.S. Military is highly socialistic. It's not that they share everything, but that there's a brotherhood and camaraderie in the military where everyone tries to help everyone else. I think the military health care system is one of the best in the world and it's highly socialistic.

I don't think socialism would work in this country because people are misinformed, not greedy. When you hear socialism, you probably think communism, and that leads to terrifying thoughts of the "red menace" or Joseph Stalin. Socialism, in truth, has some of the same principles as communism, but it's a working system rather than simply a theory as communism is. Socialism can and does work for several nations. Communism simply can't. Okay, but about the whole school thing.

Teaching *is* one of the best ways to learn material and get a mastery of it. However, children should not be expected to help teach other children all the time because that can lead to a neglect of one's own education. For example, I have taken martial arts for about 8 years, soon to be 9. I can honestly say that teaching it for a couple of years really helped me to master what I had already learned; however, it did not allow me to learn new things. I.e. I got really good at what I knew already but wasn't learning anything new. Therefore, I think that a better system would be to have a mix between the "middle ground" and the current system. Yes, allow students to help teach other students, but don't take those kids out of their higher level classes as well. The benefit to having low and high level students together could possibly be great, but the negative of it is too great to justify that benefit. Kids need to be taught and teach as they used to do in martial arts: you learn for awhile, then after a long time you can pass that knowledge on, but you don't stop learning as you become a teacher. I guess what I mean is there should be AP type classes for the smart kids still, and then those kids could come in to the "remedial" classes and help out that way both the "smart" and "dumb" kids are being challenged.

Hrmmm, sorry for the rambling nature of that post.

I think I got convinced by Jay.J that having no academic levels would be a smarter idea.

I like Aquas idea. Where you have "divided" classes, but the smarter kids and dumber kids would be united with the smarter kids helping the dumber ones every now and then or for a few classes. Like tutoring for credits...everyone benefits.

something i dont like about having advanced kids being grouped with slower kids is that a smarter kid will be like "e=mc^2," and a slower kid is like "ooooo smarty-pants..."

but if all the smarties were in one group then nobody would 'put down' other people with such negative comments.

but, even so, advanced students with slow students has its pros... like new ways to solve problems in the math classroom if some of the other people cant figure out a problem, and also the smarter kids having to explain things more means that they will learn 'why' and have a deeper understanding of their classwork.

thing is, with more advanced students in a slower class, they will be 'held back' as sin said it... they wont be learning anything new.

and if the mixed class is TOO advanced, the slower students would fail to comprehend anything.

actually RIT does workshops where students make up groups and work on a worksheet together for about an hour, and I've learned almost everything I know of calculus because of the workshops. Teacher normally makes it a point to make the worksheet like 4 dick problems so you have to work together to solve them.