- This topic has 200 replies, 11 voices, and was last updated 15 years ago by
Coronita.
-
AuthorPosts
-
June 11, 2009 at 3:18 PM #414734June 11, 2009 at 3:19 PM #414029
an
Participant[quote=flu]
I was thinking more starting Jr High to High school. Elementary is still elementary, and I’m really not convinced the disparity at the elementary level is that much of a big deal.[/quote]
I don’t think there’s much disparity in the first 3 years of school, but I think maybe from 3rd grade on, the disparity starts to amplify based on students’ capability and parents’ involvement. That’s why the GATE program start testing at 3rd grade. There are exception to to rule as well, w/ kids knowing how to read and do addition/subtraction at age 2-3.June 11, 2009 at 3:19 PM #414267Participant[quote=flu]
I was thinking more starting Jr High to High school. Elementary is still elementary, and I’m really not convinced the disparity at the elementary level is that much of a big deal.[/quote]
I don’t think there’s much disparity in the first 3 years of school, but I think maybe from 3rd grade on, the disparity starts to amplify based on students’ capability and parents’ involvement. That’s why the GATE program start testing at 3rd grade. There are exception to to rule as well, w/ kids knowing how to read and do addition/subtraction at age 2-3.June 11, 2009 at 3:19 PM #414521Participant[quote=flu]
I was thinking more starting Jr High to High school. Elementary is still elementary, and I’m really not convinced the disparity at the elementary level is that much of a big deal.[/quote]
I don’t think there’s much disparity in the first 3 years of school, but I think maybe from 3rd grade on, the disparity starts to amplify based on students’ capability and parents’ involvement. That’s why the GATE program start testing at 3rd grade. There are exception to to rule as well, w/ kids knowing how to read and do addition/subtraction at age 2-3.June 11, 2009 at 3:19 PM #414588Participant[quote=flu]
I was thinking more starting Jr High to High school. Elementary is still elementary, and I’m really not convinced the disparity at the elementary level is that much of a big deal.[/quote]
I don’t think there’s much disparity in the first 3 years of school, but I think maybe from 3rd grade on, the disparity starts to amplify based on students’ capability and parents’ involvement. That’s why the GATE program start testing at 3rd grade. There are exception to to rule as well, w/ kids knowing how to read and do addition/subtraction at age 2-3.June 11, 2009 at 3:19 PM #414744Participant[quote=flu]
I was thinking more starting Jr High to High school. Elementary is still elementary, and I’m really not convinced the disparity at the elementary level is that much of a big deal.[/quote]
I don’t think there’s much disparity in the first 3 years of school, but I think maybe from 3rd grade on, the disparity starts to amplify based on students’ capability and parents’ involvement. That’s why the GATE program start testing at 3rd grade. There are exception to to rule as well, w/ kids knowing how to read and do addition/subtraction at age 2-3.June 11, 2009 at 3:23 PM #414039CoronitaParticipant[quote=AN][quote=flu]
I was thinking more starting Jr High to High school. Elementary is still elementary, and I’m really not convinced the disparity at the elementary level is that much of a big deal.[/quote]
I don’t think there’s much disparity in the first 3 years of school, but I think maybe from 3rd grade on, the disparity starts to amplify based on students’ capability and parents’ involvement. That’s why the GATE program start testing at 3rd grade. There are exception to to rule as well, w/ kids knowing how to read and do addition/subtraction at age 2-3.[/quote]Well to be honest, I sort of was an underachiever in elementary in some areas (though somehow I managed to slip through into GATE..didn’t really help though)…And was sort of an overachiever starting jr high. So I don’t think that the elementary is entirely accurate, since it seems like concepts of work ethics come into a much bigger play starting around the 6th grade (for me at least)
June 11, 2009 at 3:23 PM #414277CoronitaParticipant[quote=AN][quote=flu]
I was thinking more starting Jr High to High school. Elementary is still elementary, and I’m really not convinced the disparity at the elementary level is that much of a big deal.[/quote]
I don’t think there’s much disparity in the first 3 years of school, but I think maybe from 3rd grade on, the disparity starts to amplify based on students’ capability and parents’ involvement. That’s why the GATE program start testing at 3rd grade. There are exception to to rule as well, w/ kids knowing how to read and do addition/subtraction at age 2-3.[/quote]Well to be honest, I sort of was an underachiever in elementary in some areas (though somehow I managed to slip through into GATE..didn’t really help though)…And was sort of an overachiever starting jr high. So I don’t think that the elementary is entirely accurate, since it seems like concepts of work ethics come into a much bigger play starting around the 6th grade (for me at least)
June 11, 2009 at 3:23 PM #414531CoronitaParticipant[quote=AN][quote=flu]
I was thinking more starting Jr High to High school. Elementary is still elementary, and I’m really not convinced the disparity at the elementary level is that much of a big deal.[/quote]
I don’t think there’s much disparity in the first 3 years of school, but I think maybe from 3rd grade on, the disparity starts to amplify based on students’ capability and parents’ involvement. That’s why the GATE program start testing at 3rd grade. There are exception to to rule as well, w/ kids knowing how to read and do addition/subtraction at age 2-3.[/quote]Well to be honest, I sort of was an underachiever in elementary in some areas (though somehow I managed to slip through into GATE..didn’t really help though)…And was sort of an overachiever starting jr high. So I don’t think that the elementary is entirely accurate, since it seems like concepts of work ethics come into a much bigger play starting around the 6th grade (for me at least)
June 11, 2009 at 3:23 PM #414598CoronitaParticipant[quote=AN][quote=flu]
I was thinking more starting Jr High to High school. Elementary is still elementary, and I’m really not convinced the disparity at the elementary level is that much of a big deal.[/quote]
I don’t think there’s much disparity in the first 3 years of school, but I think maybe from 3rd grade on, the disparity starts to amplify based on students’ capability and parents’ involvement. That’s why the GATE program start testing at 3rd grade. There are exception to to rule as well, w/ kids knowing how to read and do addition/subtraction at age 2-3.[/quote]Well to be honest, I sort of was an underachiever in elementary in some areas (though somehow I managed to slip through into GATE..didn’t really help though)…And was sort of an overachiever starting jr high. So I don’t think that the elementary is entirely accurate, since it seems like concepts of work ethics come into a much bigger play starting around the 6th grade (for me at least)
June 11, 2009 at 3:23 PM #414753CoronitaParticipant[quote=AN][quote=flu]
I was thinking more starting Jr High to High school. Elementary is still elementary, and I’m really not convinced the disparity at the elementary level is that much of a big deal.[/quote]
I don’t think there’s much disparity in the first 3 years of school, but I think maybe from 3rd grade on, the disparity starts to amplify based on students’ capability and parents’ involvement. That’s why the GATE program start testing at 3rd grade. There are exception to to rule as well, w/ kids knowing how to read and do addition/subtraction at age 2-3.[/quote]Well to be honest, I sort of was an underachiever in elementary in some areas (though somehow I managed to slip through into GATE..didn’t really help though)…And was sort of an overachiever starting jr high. So I don’t think that the elementary is entirely accurate, since it seems like concepts of work ethics come into a much bigger play starting around the 6th grade (for me at least)
June 11, 2009 at 3:27 PM #414044Eugene
Participant[quote=AN]
I’m thinking a long the line of your second option, which is a lottery. Do you think parents who do not care about their kids’ education would take advantage of the voucher system? I personally think it would be the parents who do care that will take full advantage of it.[/quote]I think that virtually all parents care enough about their kids’ education to put highest-ranked schools on their kids’ enrollment applications. So I would not be the least bit surprised if everyone, and I mean EVERYONE (except the laziest bums) attempts to send their kids to TPHS, Westview, SRHS, LJHS, RBHS, though not necessarily in that order.
[quote]Schools are not to blame? How very convenient. How about everyone is to blame. Parents and schools. We’re not Finland and we are more diverse, but please tell me what incentive does a teacher/school have in improving and helping good students excel instead of just bringing up the median and neglecting the smart kids. [/quote]
And the voucher system as you described will achieve the exact opposite, by mixing kids with different skills and socioeconomic backgrounds even further.
[quote]There are many things wrong with our school system. If you don’t think it’s a problem, then there should be no reason to fix it. That would mean you’re happy with the current result of the schools in SDUSD? I’m not, and I think many are not too, that’s why they move to other districts so they don’t have to send their kids to SDUSD.[/quote]
The biggest problem people have with SDUSD is that there are too many low-income disadvantaged kids with uneducated parents in the district.
Show me one bit of evidence that proves that SDUSD does a worse job teaching kids than Poway or San Dieguito, controlling for socioeconomic status.
[quote=Eugene]You’re assuming we have to run the school at full capacity? Why can’t we not just not use 1/3 of those class rooms or find better use for them? Why not expand the schools that keep more capacity and downsize the schools that don’t need that capacity anymore? IIRC, Lincoln was a complete tear down and rebuilt, right? Not just expansion?[/quote]
Yeah, we could cut the district, find some use for all the empty rooms in Madison and LJ High, and somehow find money to build two or three new high schools south of the 8, to accommodate all kids that can’t be shipped off to UCHS and LJHS any more (Fat chance of that happening, given the state of CA economy!) Or we could just keep the status quo.
June 11, 2009 at 3:27 PM #414282Participant[quote=AN]
I’m thinking a long the line of your second option, which is a lottery. Do you think parents who do not care about their kids’ education would take advantage of the voucher system? I personally think it would be the parents who do care that will take full advantage of it.[/quote]I think that virtually all parents care enough about their kids’ education to put highest-ranked schools on their kids’ enrollment applications. So I would not be the least bit surprised if everyone, and I mean EVERYONE (except the laziest bums) attempts to send their kids to TPHS, Westview, SRHS, LJHS, RBHS, though not necessarily in that order.
[quote]Schools are not to blame? How very convenient. How about everyone is to blame. Parents and schools. We’re not Finland and we are more diverse, but please tell me what incentive does a teacher/school have in improving and helping good students excel instead of just bringing up the median and neglecting the smart kids. [/quote]
And the voucher system as you described will achieve the exact opposite, by mixing kids with different skills and socioeconomic backgrounds even further.
[quote]There are many things wrong with our school system. If you don’t think it’s a problem, then there should be no reason to fix it. That would mean you’re happy with the current result of the schools in SDUSD? I’m not, and I think many are not too, that’s why they move to other districts so they don’t have to send their kids to SDUSD.[/quote]
The biggest problem people have with SDUSD is that there are too many low-income disadvantaged kids with uneducated parents in the district.
Show me one bit of evidence that proves that SDUSD does a worse job teaching kids than Poway or San Dieguito, controlling for socioeconomic status.
[quote=Eugene]You’re assuming we have to run the school at full capacity? Why can’t we not just not use 1/3 of those class rooms or find better use for them? Why not expand the schools that keep more capacity and downsize the schools that don’t need that capacity anymore? IIRC, Lincoln was a complete tear down and rebuilt, right? Not just expansion?[/quote]
Yeah, we could cut the district, find some use for all the empty rooms in Madison and LJ High, and somehow find money to build two or three new high schools south of the 8, to accommodate all kids that can’t be shipped off to UCHS and LJHS any more (Fat chance of that happening, given the state of CA economy!) Or we could just keep the status quo.
June 11, 2009 at 3:27 PM #414536Participant[quote=AN]
I’m thinking a long the line of your second option, which is a lottery. Do you think parents who do not care about their kids’ education would take advantage of the voucher system? I personally think it would be the parents who do care that will take full advantage of it.[/quote]I think that virtually all parents care enough about their kids’ education to put highest-ranked schools on their kids’ enrollment applications. So I would not be the least bit surprised if everyone, and I mean EVERYONE (except the laziest bums) attempts to send their kids to TPHS, Westview, SRHS, LJHS, RBHS, though not necessarily in that order.
[quote]Schools are not to blame? How very convenient. How about everyone is to blame. Parents and schools. We’re not Finland and we are more diverse, but please tell me what incentive does a teacher/school have in improving and helping good students excel instead of just bringing up the median and neglecting the smart kids. [/quote]
And the voucher system as you described will achieve the exact opposite, by mixing kids with different skills and socioeconomic backgrounds even further.
[quote]There are many things wrong with our school system. If you don’t think it’s a problem, then there should be no reason to fix it. That would mean you’re happy with the current result of the schools in SDUSD? I’m not, and I think many are not too, that’s why they move to other districts so they don’t have to send their kids to SDUSD.[/quote]
The biggest problem people have with SDUSD is that there are too many low-income disadvantaged kids with uneducated parents in the district.
Show me one bit of evidence that proves that SDUSD does a worse job teaching kids than Poway or San Dieguito, controlling for socioeconomic status.
[quote=Eugene]You’re assuming we have to run the school at full capacity? Why can’t we not just not use 1/3 of those class rooms or find better use for them? Why not expand the schools that keep more capacity and downsize the schools that don’t need that capacity anymore? IIRC, Lincoln was a complete tear down and rebuilt, right? Not just expansion?[/quote]
Yeah, we could cut the district, find some use for all the empty rooms in Madison and LJ High, and somehow find money to build two or three new high schools south of the 8, to accommodate all kids that can’t be shipped off to UCHS and LJHS any more (Fat chance of that happening, given the state of CA economy!) Or we could just keep the status quo.
June 11, 2009 at 3:27 PM #414603Participant[quote=AN]
I’m thinking a long the line of your second option, which is a lottery. Do you think parents who do not care about their kids’ education would take advantage of the voucher system? I personally think it would be the parents who do care that will take full advantage of it.[/quote]I think that virtually all parents care enough about their kids’ education to put highest-ranked schools on their kids’ enrollment applications. So I would not be the least bit surprised if everyone, and I mean EVERYONE (except the laziest bums) attempts to send their kids to TPHS, Westview, SRHS, LJHS, RBHS, though not necessarily in that order.
[quote]Schools are not to blame? How very convenient. How about everyone is to blame. Parents and schools. We’re not Finland and we are more diverse, but please tell me what incentive does a teacher/school have in improving and helping good students excel instead of just bringing up the median and neglecting the smart kids. [/quote]
And the voucher system as you described will achieve the exact opposite, by mixing kids with different skills and socioeconomic backgrounds even further.
[quote]There are many things wrong with our school system. If you don’t think it’s a problem, then there should be no reason to fix it. That would mean you’re happy with the current result of the schools in SDUSD? I’m not, and I think many are not too, that’s why they move to other districts so they don’t have to send their kids to SDUSD.[/quote]
The biggest problem people have with SDUSD is that there are too many low-income disadvantaged kids with uneducated parents in the district.
Show me one bit of evidence that proves that SDUSD does a worse job teaching kids than Poway or San Dieguito, controlling for socioeconomic status.
[quote=Eugene]You’re assuming we have to run the school at full capacity? Why can’t we not just not use 1/3 of those class rooms or find better use for them? Why not expand the schools that keep more capacity and downsize the schools that don’t need that capacity anymore? IIRC, Lincoln was a complete tear down and rebuilt, right? Not just expansion?[/quote]
Yeah, we could cut the district, find some use for all the empty rooms in Madison and LJ High, and somehow find money to build two or three new high schools south of the 8, to accommodate all kids that can’t be shipped off to UCHS and LJHS any more (Fat chance of that happening, given the state of CA economy!) Or we could just keep the status quo.
-
AuthorPosts
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.