Problem in education

[disneyjunkie]

I still do not understand - in a previous example if a student is working at a 2nd grade level then what are they doing in the 7th grade. Why not stay in the 2nd grade?

Would you want your 7 or 8 year old to have a 13 or 14 year old classmate?

Would you want your 13 or 14 year old to be in a class full of 7 or 8 year olds?

We have parents complaining when a middle and elementary school shares a building. Can you imagine the outcry if they kids had to share a classroom?

 

[gottaluvPluto]

How do people feel about an education system that teaches to a child's grade level in subject matter? For example, if a child is in the 2nd grade and reads at a 4th grade level, then she/he could go into a 4th grade classroom for reading. If the child reads on a 1st grade level then she/he can go into a 1st grade classroom.

 

[TheZue]

I agree with Bill Gates when he said that we are teaching Twenty First century kids with Twentith Century ideas. We need to change the basic structure of the education system and utilize the internet and virtual classrooms that are available.

He's right, but in some cases it's worse than that. Oprah had a show on this last year and it was honestly a little shocking. There was one girl who graduated from her rural school with honors and scholarships to a University. But when she got there she discovered she was actually about 2-3 years behind what the other kids had been taught, and this was the part that shocked me...she had never even seen a microscope or a science lab...her school just didn't have that sort of equipment and was teaching on theory alone. So of course she was soon massively behind and failing. 21st equipment would be good, but make sure the schools at least have the 20th century equipment first.

 

[edwardsfire]

edwardsfire, you just don't quit, do you? You have an opinion, however unsubstantiated and unsupported it may be, and you're just sticking to it. Good for you, there's aren't nearly enough opinionated people out there who are able to blindly disregard all evidence that contradicts them. Being able to stamp your foot and re-state your opinion every opportunity is definitely convincing people that you're right.

An you are different how?
Only your opinion is acceptable?
Why do you think you are correct?

 

[crashbb]

Edward - I'm still waiting for you to tell me how my father could have supported my "need" for two parents.

 

[chrisw127]

Funny that someone brought up Bill Gates whom, I'm sure many of you know, has been widely rumored to have aspergers. Should a talented but different kid, a future Bill Gates possibly, be kept out of the regular classroom because he doesn't quite fit in? I'm sure everyone here would say no.

 

[luvmy3]

You cannot hold a child in a specific grade forever.

Please don't take this the wrong way I'm not being snarky, but why not?
If a student, special ed or not isn't learning the material to move up then why should he/she be allowed to? Moving them foward isn't doing them any favors and it certainly doesn't do any for the kids who are learning what they need to in order to progress. I mean for ANY child that does not meet the requirements, not only special ed students.

 

[edwardsfire]

What about same sex couples? What if there is no father?

Ok, i'll bite.
In the case of same sex couples, even if they both are females (no father)
then i can assume one of the parents has sort of a "fatherly" nature.
I know of a physician that is a male, he is married to a male.
They donated sperm and now have 2 little boys.
The physician from my viewpoint is the "fatherly" one.
He just comes across that way to me.
Out of all the Families in America, the above mentioned is represented by an extreme minority.
I can look at that scenario as an exception to the rule.
But, for heterosexual parents, Every kids needs a father. (literally)
IMHO, mommies and daddies are different. Kids need both. One cant be both.

 

[gottaluvPluto]

Please don't take this the wrong way I'm not being snarky, but why not?
If a student, special ed or not isn't learning the material to move up then why should he/she be allowed to? Moving them foward isn't doing them any favors and it certainly doesn't do any for the kids who are learning what they need to in order to progress. I mean for ANY child that does not meet the requirements, not only special ed students.

Children can actually hate school because they are unable to do their classwork and then they will give up or drop out. I agree Children should not be able to move up if they can't do the work, but we need to have a system for them to achieve and become productive citizens.

 

[Feralpeg]

An you are different how?
Only your opinion is acceptable?
Why do you think you are correct?

In a perfect world, every child would have two loving parents. Sadly, it isn't a perfect world. A parent dies. A couple gets a divorce. A single parent is left alone to raise a child. While not necessarily ideal, it doesn't mean that the child is going to have a terrible life or end up a loser. Many single parents are more loving and involved with their children than many parents in two parent households.

The world isn't black and white. You can't say that a two parent household will produce successful, well-rounded children while a single parent household will produce losers. It just isn't true. It's about individuals, not stereotypes.

 

[edwardsfire]

So, please "oh wise one" tell me what my father should have done when my mother died?

Given me up for adoption to a 2 couple family?
Found the first woman he could find and marry her? If so, should he have been allowed to wait until after the funeral?

You've yet to explain how he could have filled this "need". And clearly, since it is a NEED, I would have died without it.

Perhaps you have a different definition of "need" than the rest of us, but a "need" is something you cannot survive without (food, shelter). Having both parents at home, though it is, in most cases, a good thing, is not a need.

You know exactly what i was talking about (if you read all my comments)
Your situation has nothing to do with my comments or point.
Dont go somewhere that you dont need to be.
You know darn well this thread and my comments werent directed at kids (or when you were a kid) in your situation.
Dont go down to that level, i assume you are better than that.

 

[luvmy3]

Children can actually hate school because they are unable to do their classwork and then they will give up or drop out. I agree Children should not be able to move up if they can't do the work, but we need to have a system for them to achieve and become productive citizens.

I think so too but sometimes that may mean that they don't belong with the general school population. They shouldn't be denied an education but it doesn't have to be in a school setting.

 

[edwardsfire]

In a perfect world, every child would have two loving parents. Sadly, it isn't a perfect world. A parent dies. A couple gets a divorce. A single parent is left alone to raise a child. While not necessarily ideal, it doesn't mean that the child is going to have a terrible life or end up a loser. Many single parents are more loving and involved with their children than many parents in two parent households.

The world isn't black and white. You can't say that a two parent household will produce successful, well-rounded children while a single parent household will produce losers. It just isn't true. It's about individuals, not stereotypes.

I never said a child from a single parent home cant have a good life.
I never said this world is perfect, although wouldnt it be nice if all kids DID have both parents?
That IS my point.
It is no secret that especially poor minority kids only have one parent. Most of the time, its the mom.
These kids, and stats show it, have a very very little chance in success in life. The odds are against them.
However, stats show that minority kids that have both parents at home-
have a huge advantage in life.

 

[crashbb]

I never said a child from a single parent home cant have a good life.

Actually, you said EXACTLY that. By saying that children NEED two parents, you are saying that children in one parent homes cannot succeed. If they can, they clearly didn't need two parents.

 

[edwardsfire]

Actually, you said EXACTLY that. By saying that children NEED two parents, you are saying that children in one parent homes cannot succeed. If they can, they clearly didn't need two parents.

Are you denying that kids DONT need two parents?
Do you REALLY believe that?
Think about it, do you REALLY believe that?
I stated that kids with 2 parent homes have a much BETTER chance at success.
They get a better shot at a good life.
You are throwing rocks at me with no merit nor aim.
There isnt one post here that i gave that stated kids with one parent CANT succeed.
But if you think its BETTER that kids only have one parent, then you either
1. Dont have kids
2. Dont WANT to see the truth.

 

[Bluestars]

I think so too but sometimes that may mean that they don't belong with the general school population. They shouldn't be denied an education but it doesn't have to be in a school setting.

I agree with this. Where I live they have a special school for special needs children. It would be nice if they were able to do that in other areas.

 

[Goofyluver]

Please don't take this the wrong way I'm not being snarky, but why not?
If a student, special ed or not isn't learning the material to move up then why should he/she be allowed to? Moving them foward isn't doing them any favors and it certainly doesn't do any for the kids who are learning what they need to in order to progress. I mean for ANY child that does not meet the requirements, not only special ed students.

No problem. Honest question deserves an honest answer. And I am able to answer as both a special educator and as a parent.

I'll keep it short and to the point.

Although my child is in 7th grade, he does not DO 7th grade work.

IEPs, which are created for every child receiving any special education service, including academics, include goals specifically geared towards the child. So, for instance, my child qualifies for services in all academic areas. He receives math, reading, writing, science, and social studies in the special education classroom...where he works on HIS level. He would not be able to participate in grade-level classrooms in these courses. IEPs allow him to have goals set specifically for his learning disabilities. He progresses only as quickly as he is able...and accomodations are made for him that ensure that he is learning on his level.

However, for his elective courses, he particiaptes with his grade level peers. Which, is sooooo important for kiddos like my child. They learn appropriate social and emotional cues, develop friendships, etc.

If we were to say, keep him in his grade of achievement and not place him in the same grade with his age-peers, he may never finish school. Does that make sense?

IEPs place individual goals on these students that they must meet before moving on on the scale of academic learning. Their learning, although most certainly different and on a much more shallow curve, does progress. It's more a matter of keeping these children with age-peers and developing individual programs for each child so that they may finish school after achieving at the top of their potential.

 

[FSUDisneyGirl]

Money.

Parent Accountability.

NCLB.

Any questions?

 

[Goofyluver]

Ok, i'll bite.
In the case of same sex couples, even if they both are females (no father)
then i can assume one of the parents has sort of a "fatherly" nature.
I know of a physician that is a male, he is married to a male.
They donated sperm and now have 2 little boys.
The physician from my viewpoint is the "fatherly" one.
He just comes across that way to me.
Out of all the Families in America, the above mentioned is represented by an extreme minority.
I can look at that scenario as an exception to the rule.
But, for heterosexual parents, Every kids needs a father. (literally)
IMHO, mommies and daddies are different. Kids need both. One cant be both.

What the hell is a "fatherly" nature? I'm not being rude...I'd just like to know.

And I'll disagree with you.

There's no different requirement for children of heterosexual versus homosexual couples. It doesn't matter if a child has two mommies, two daddies, a mommy and a daddy, or a single parent of some sort.

Kids need a stable environment and loving home. Ideally, sure...let's say every kiddo has 2 parents.

Children can get everything they NEED from a strong, stable, loving parent.

By myself, I assure you, I am everything my child needs. I don't need a partner to parent my child. I'm perfectly capable.

Shocking, I know. But true.

 

[Ember]

An you are different how?
Only your opinion is acceptable?
Why do you think you are correct?

From the UK Telegraph Children living with one parent 'no worse off'

"Children who live with a single parent or a step-parent are no worse off emotionally or psychologically than children whose parents are not divorced, according to a new study.

As part of the Swedish study, researchers questioned 1,300 children aged 10 to 18.

They found that divorce was not the root of the problem, although acrimony during the breakdown of a marriage was harmful. "But in the long term we found no statistical differences between the well-being of children who lived with both their parents and those who lived with step-parents or a single parent," said Viveca Oestberg, one of the co-authors.

One study conducted by Miss Oestberg showed that one in three children complained of stomach aches and had difficulty sleeping, one in four was tense and nervous, and one in six often felt sad.

But Miss Oestberg said the wellbeing of children was more influenced by the quality of the relationships they had with the adults in their home than by whether they lived with both their parents.

The most important factor was whether children, particularly older teenagers, felt that they had a supportive family and someone they could turn to in times of need.

Children who lived in homes where conflict was rampant more frequently reported that they felt poorly."

Source: www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/1460548/Children-living-with-one-parent-no-worse-off.html

Also, the U.S. National Institutes of Health released a study called Family structure, socioeconomic status, and access to health care for children. It stated that economic status and parental education has more to do with access to things like health care then being a simply a single parent. (Source: Abstr Book Assoc Health Serv Res Meet. 1999; 16: 400.)

The US Department of Commerce Economics and Satistics Administration also released similar information. A census brief called Children with single parents - how they fare indicates that the education level of the parent and their economic status is what seems to matter when it come to the welfare of a children of single parents. Guess we better blame poor people for all the problems in our schools.

So while in general I do actually agree that it is preferable to have two involved and caring parents, I don't think children NEED this situation to be happy or successful as you seem to be repeating over and over. Having an advantage is great, but not having it doesn't spell instant doom. I also don't think the benefit of two parents living at home is realized if you have an absentee parent who ignores the child or a household that "stays together for the children" where the family is full of anger and tension.