Political Discussion

[jaycee]

This type of math requires good conceptual processing, or the ability to assemble, define and manipulate the boundaries of ideas using language to represent them. It’s a big ask for kids with Autism since abstract language is usually their deficit.

Are we teaching students in a one size fits all way? Why are we teaching things in a one size fits all way? People learn differently. In our adult lives, if we work with others and depend on any amount of collaboration we are required to accept there is more than one way to approach anything (tasks, problems, conceptual issues).

It seems like investing in the infrastructure (different curriculum, teachers, teaching resources, staff that support teachers and students) that we might build more capacity for children to learn, grow up with empathy for others, and be better prepared for the realities of working-life.

 

[RenegadeMonster]

Are we teaching students in a one size fits all way? Why are we teaching things in a one size fits all way? People learn differently. In our adult lives, if we work with others and depend on any amount of collaboration we are required to accept there is more than one way to approach anything (tasks, problems, conceptual issues).

It seems like investing in the infrastructure (different curriculum, teachers, teaching resources, staff that support teachers and students) that we might build more capacity for children to learn, grow up with empathy for others, and be better prepared for the realities of working-life.

To me, it very much does appear like we are teaching things in a one size fits all way. And that's before you hear stories of parents teaching kids how to do it the way they learned and then the kids getting their answers wrong or partial credit for not showing their work in the common core way as required.

 

[jaycee]

To me, it very much does appear like we are teaching things in a one size fits all way. And that's before you hear stories of parents teaching kids how to do it the way they learned and then the kids getting their answers wrong or partial credit for not showing their work in the common core way as required.

So to me the question is why? Is it because 'one-size fits all' is more straightforward, cheaper, and easier to implement? Is this simply a product of how public-systems tend to work?

I'm not advocating for dismantling the public education system. I firmly believe that much of the "uplifting of the masses" attributed to capitalism is better attributed to public education. However, if we choose not to properly invest in and evolve that public system then we are dismantling it in the most expensive and inefficient way.

 

[RenegadeMonster]

So to me the question is why? Is it because 'one-size fits all' is more straightforward, cheaper, and easier to implement? Is this simply a product of how public-systems tend to work?

From what I have read about common core, was that it was created to seek conformity. Teach all school children across the nation the same thing the same way.

The most common complaint about common core you can find online is that one size fits all approach does not work for all.

 

[Dtknuckles]

Are we teaching students in a one size fits all way? Why are we teaching things in a one size fits all way? People learn differently. In our adult lives, if we work with others and depend on any amount of collaboration we are required to accept there is more than one way to approach anything (tasks, problems, conceptual issues).

It seems like investing in the infrastructure (different curriculum, teachers, teaching resources, staff that support teachers and students) that we might build more capacity for children to learn, grow up with empathy for others, and be better prepared for the realities of working-life.

It’s hard to convince teachers to let kids out of class for counseling at my school and provide accommodations like added time for tests.

 

[jaycee]

It’s hard to convince teachers to let kids out of class for counseling at my school and provide accommodations like added time for tests.

So what's the answer? Is it the teachers limiting the ability of the students or is it the limitations that are put on the teachers? or something else?

 

[Dtknuckles]

So what's the answer? Is it the teachers limiting the ability of the students or is it the limitations that are put on the teachers? or something else?

There is a conceptual framework called the Multi tiered system of support. I’m my district at the elementary levels they test kids for basic reading skills. The majority will learn any way and the ones that don’t are supposed to get additional more individualized support. If the school is good about it they will buy and intervention teacher to teach all these kids in the school. If not they will put it on the classroom teacher. My kids Kinder class had over 20 students. This is normal. Reform needs to start with lowering class size and then we should start thinking about techniques and strategies.

 

[jaycee]

There is a conceptual framework called the Multi tiered system of support. I’m my district at the elementary levels they test kids for basic reading skills. The majority will learn any way and the ones that don’t are supposed to get additional more individualized support. If the school is good about it they will buy and intervention teacher to teach all these kids in the school. If not they will put it on the classroom teacher. My kids Kinder class had over 20 students. This is normal. Reform needs to start with lowering class size and then we should start thinking about techniques and strategies.

So are charter schools taking away funding and teaching talent (and other resources) from public schools?

It seems like more and more public schools are being closed in my area and there is more reliance on these charter schools. Basically, the public schools that don't do well keep losing resources and students and a vicious positive feedback loop occurs.

 

[RenegadeMonster]

A trending topic on Reddit today is "Men in their twenties who make over $100,000, what do you do".

I have been reading through the discussion and there is one very obvious trend.

Virtually all those who make over $100,000 a year who are in their 20's all have union jobs. They are either in construction or a tradesman such as in manufacturing or services such as being a plumber.

And that is for people in the United States. People in Europe or Australia were more likely to make $100,000k with a university degree. For example, a teacher in New South Wales will make $100,000 in less than 5 years. So it's very easy to make the 100k mark in your 20's. Where as in America, in some states a teacher is only paid $35,000 a year.

This lead down the road to a discussion about how in America, workers who got an education are severely underpaid.

I guess this goes along with people saying "That unskilled labor got paid exactly what they were owed" to Bernie Sanders last year. There is no real value in education. It's the union jobs with skilled manual labor that pay the best. Well, that is if you are not well connected.


Others chimed in and said they graduated with a masters degree and accepted a job around the 70k mark. They don't see any feasibility of being able to hit the 100k mark in their 20's. It's in their career trajectory, but will likely take them until their mid to late 30's to have enough experience and being promoted to a senior level to make that kind of money.

One comment that really stood out to me was one from a young woman. She said her older co-workers were telling to a doctor or a lawyer to fall in love with an marry. They make good money. She was like I know better. A Tradesmen who works in a union makes good money, has a pension and the best benefits and best of all, have no student loan debt. Of the men she graduated high school with, only tradesmen were homeowners. Not the men who went to college and were buried in debt.

 

[Dtknuckles]

So are charter schools taking away funding and teaching talent (and other resources) from public schools?

It seems like more and more public schools are being closed in my area and there is more reliance on these charter schools. Basically, the public schools that don't do well keep losing resources and students and a vicious positive feedback loop occurs.

It’s complicated. I’ll get back to about this.

 

[nolalady]

So to me the question is why? Is it because 'one-size fits all' is more straightforward, cheaper, and easier to implement? Is this simply a product of how public-systems tend to work?

I'm not advocating for dismantling the public education system. I firmly believe that much of the "uplifting of the masses" attributed to capitalism is better attributed to public education. However, if we choose not to properly invest in and evolve that public system then we are dismantling it in the most expensive and inefficient way.

The curriculum shows different ways to do things, but for the most part, they really do want the kids to know the theory behind it, which tends to confuse kids without "math brains". They really want everyone to be on the same page. And they figure that if all the teachers were teaching all the same lessons, all over the nation, that we could have scaled results that would converge to one great national educational strategy. It's not a bad idea, but if your kids aren't moving fast enough, the curriculum really doesn't allow for teachers to stop and remediate. So with an external force driving the pace of the classroom, instead of it being led by student progress and understanding, it leaves a lot of kids with cognitive issues in the dust.

Why did they do it this way? The most altruistic reasoning would be to make sure that we, as a nation, have a national education strategy and we are all on the same page regardless of whether we are in California or Florida, New Jersey or Ohio. The most cynical answer is because these curriculum writers, educational materials makers, and educational testing materials makers wanted to sell more stuff but it's easier if the entire nation is standardized, so they don't have to put out 50 different sets of materials. I think the answer is somewhere in between. I think this was done to try to catch students up from poorly performing states, and with our meritocracy being what it is, test makers are making a lot of money, especially if they only need to produce one version of everything.

I think that while it's a great goal to aim for, my 11 year old has trouble reading and doing simple math equations, and we are finally at the point educationally where we are allowed to step him down to a remedial class that does not have the common core schedule attached to it. He was unable to keep up with that schedule as were a lot of the kids in his class. The teacher resorts to reading books out loud to the kids because none of the kids are good enough readers to read through the passage in the time that common core gives. While the teachers are able to change some of the materials to reflect the student's current achievement level, they cannot change the standards which are very specific--e.g. Explain the meaning of simple similes and metaphors (e.g., as pretty as a picture) in context. So if a student is unable to understand similes, it's hard for them to explain them, etc. The classes move too fast, because they are required to keep up with the neurotypical students, but these kids need more time and need it presented more simply. The teacher is very limited in what she can change and she cannot change the pace of the class. It does not allow for any flexibility in teaching, which isn't good for non typical students.

 

[Dtknuckles]

So are charter schools taking away funding and teaching talent (and other resources) from public schools?

It seems like more and more public schools are being closed in my area and there is more reliance on these charter schools. Basically, the public schools that don't do well keep losing resources and students and a vicious positive feedback loop occurs.

School Data Nerd

A data-based look at Los Angeles Schools from a teacher with experience in LAUSD and Charter Schools

schooldatanerd.wordpress.com

This guy is a math teacher in my district. This is a good place to start when looking at data from both charter schools and public schools in our area.

 

[TenderLovingKiller®]

And if he did, I trust him to lead our country just as much as Trump, so it's not really an improvement.

A few things, pretty much anyone GOP with a pulse is considering running at this point though that all changes the second when/if Trump decides to run. They will all back out and acquiesce. TBH though, I don’t think Trump will end up running again. It think he will enjoy remaining the quasi leader of the party and having all the candidates come kiss his ring while courting his support. DeSantis is “better” than Trump in a sense that he is pretty much your cookie cutter hyper conservative Republican who does what he needs to do to get in power. Recently, that’s meant being a MAGA populist rude dude with an attitude. If after the 2022 midterm it looks like the MAGA appeal has faded he will lean into whatever the cause celeb of that time. Unlike Trump, I don’t think DeSantis is the clown show that Trump was and I doubt he would take joy in the idea authoritarianism the way Trump did. So in that regard I think the DeSantis is safe at maintaining the “status quo” as opposed to burning the democracy to the ground. Although, he is much more adept and assume would place more competent people around him so theoretically if he decided to become an authoritarian he would be much more likely to succeed than Trump. All in all if DeSantis were to become President that would be your “run-of-the-mill” terrible GOP Presidents that would surely hurt the country over all similar to the Bushes or Reagan. I am not saying that is a good thing but at least you can look at history at some of the shittiness you’d have in store.

Also, with the exception of our current President, being the consensus favorite at the start of a Presidential election cycle rarely ever a good position to be in.

 

[TenderLovingKiller®]

I had a geography teacher in HS who was still using a map with the USSR on it in 2002 because he didn’t feel like we needed to learn all these “new made up countries.” That, but with teaching little kids subtraction.

Ah, the joys of a public school education. We had a teacher give us a “map key” so we could determine whether a map or atlas or globe in our school was relatively up to date based on if certain countries were present or not. Because that was easier than just updating all the maps within the school.

 

[RenegadeMonster]

A few things, pretty much anyone GOP with a pulse is considering running at this point though that all changes the second when/if Trump decides to run. They will all back out and acquiesce. TBH though, I don’t think Trump will end up running again. It think he will enjoy remaining the quasi leader of the party and having all the candidates come kiss his ring while courting his support. DeSantis is “better” than Trump in a sense that he is pretty much your cookie cutter hyper conservative Republican who does what he needs to do to get in power. Recently, that’s meant being a MAGA populist rude dude with an attitude. If after the 2022 midterm it looks like the MAGA appeal has faded he will lean into whatever the cause celeb of that time. Unlike Trump, I don’t think DeSantis is the clown show that Trump was and I doubt he would take joy in the idea authoritarianism the way Trump did. So in that regard I think the DeSantis is safe at maintaining the “status quo” as opposed to burning the democracy to the ground. Although, he is much more adept and assume would place more competent people around him so theoretically if he decided to become an authoritarian he would be much more likely to succeed than Trump. All in all if DeSantis were to become President that would be your “run-of-the-mill” terrible GOP Presidents that would surely hurt the country over all similar to the Bushes or Reagan. I am not saying that is a good thing but at least you can look at history at some of the shittiness you’d have in store.

Also, with the exception of our current President, being the consensus favorite at the start of a Presidential election cycle rarely ever a good position to be in.

The part that worries me about DeSantis is his management of COVID-19. Hiding data, not issuing mask mandates and now treating unvaccinated like a protective status you can't discriminate against. Not to mention he continues to say Biden and the democrats agenda is extreme and radical.

I feel like he is much more hyper conservative than Bush or Reagan ever was. Not much more likely to not recognize the other party as legitimate or work with them. I mean, you even have Bush saying that he would be considered unelectable as a republican in today's political environment. I don't see DeSantis as status Quo. I see him as the continuation of the republican party moving further right. I also see him embracing nationalism.

 

[jaycee]

The curriculum shows different ways to do things, but for the most part, they really do want the kids to know the theory behind it, which tends to confuse kids without "math brains". They really want everyone to be on the same page. And they figure that if all the teachers were teaching all the same lessons, all over the nation, that we could have scaled results that would converge to one great national educational strategy. It's not a bad idea, but if your kids aren't moving fast enough, the curriculum really doesn't allow for teachers to stop and remediate. So with an external force driving the pace of the classroom, instead of it being led by student progress and understanding, it leaves a lot of kids with cognitive issues in the dust.

Why did they do it this way? The most altruistic reasoning would be to make sure that we, as a nation, have a national education strategy and we are all on the same page regardless of whether we are in California or Florida, New Jersey or Ohio. The most cynical answer is because these curriculum writers, educational materials makers, and educational testing materials makers wanted to sell more stuff but it's easier if the entire nation is standardized, so they don't have to put out 50 different sets of materials. I think the answer is somewhere in between. I think this was done to try to catch students up from poorly performing states, and with our meritocracy being what it is, test makers are making a lot of money, especially if they only need to produce one version of everything.

I think that while it's a great goal to aim for, my 11 year old has trouble reading and doing simple math equations, and we are finally at the point educationally where we are allowed to step him down to a remedial class that does not have the common core schedule attached to it. He was unable to keep up with that schedule as were a lot of the kids in his class. The teacher resorts to reading books out loud to the kids because none of the kids are good enough readers to read through the passage in the time that common core gives. While the teachers are able to change some of the materials to reflect the student's current achievement level, they cannot change the standards which are very specific--e.g. Explain the meaning of simple similes and metaphors (e.g., as pretty as a picture) in context. So if a student is unable to understand similes, it's hard for them to explain them, etc. The classes move too fast, because they are required to keep up with the neurotypical students, but these kids need more time and need it presented more simply. The teacher is very limited in what she can change and she cannot change the pace of the class. It does not allow for any flexibility in teaching, which isn't good for non typical students.

Y - I mean standardization doesn't equal equity in math or anything else. Standardization is important but impossible w/o equitable learning, resources, teaching techniques, funding, etc.

I'm interested in how the problem/s are addressed and by whom. It takes a village (rules and standards, help from parents, resources for teachers) but how is the village created and how is it currently being undermined?

 

[GritNGlitter]

McConnell says 'highly unlikely' he would let Biden fill a Supreme Court vacancy in 2024 if GOP wins back Senate | CNN Politics

Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell said on Monday that if his party regains the majority in 2022 it's "highly unlikely" he would let President Joe Biden confirm a Supreme Court vacancy if one opened up in 2024, and was non-committal when asked about an opening at the end of 2023.

www.cnn.com

So, I guess a new precedent has been set. If the GOP wins back the senate majority in 2022 they will not let Biden fill a SCOTUS seat in 2024 deferring the vote until after the election.

This is why I support expanding the Supreme Court. If we're being held hostage by the right, we must act accordingly.

Everything has lifted in CA, but I feel like if the staff have masks on I should.

Yes, I consider it solidarity with the workers.

The housing market is on fire. The Fed keeps adding gasoline | CNN Business

Bidding wars. All-cash offers. Homes selling for $1 million over asking. The housing boom has officially reached the ridiculous stage.

www.cnn.com

The related video is worth a watch as well.

It covers a couples story from Austin, TX who sold their house because it's no longer working for them and they are looking for a new home.

The quickly discovered they can not afford any home in or near Austin with Today's housing market. Austin is a popular city people migrate too, and often have budgets of $800,000 or more. Locals budgets are 30% less and are effectively priced out of the market to stay in the area they grew up in.


To find listings within their budget they have to look 40 minutes outside of Austin. Something they did not want to do and will have to change their whole lifestyle. Even then, they are finding Bidding wars.

They find a house they love and the listing price is right that just went on the market that day, only to find there are several other offers already on the house. All offers due by 10:00am the next morning. Only to find out that to make a competitive offer in the bidding war they are above their budget and have to drop out because they can't afford the house.

It's truly terrible and I believe housing should be a right, and I haaaate housing for profit and all that, but I'm still a little shocked to see people up and sell their house without checking the prices for what they're hoping to get into.

I wonder how many people are upset/bothered/angry with common core or any other change just because it isn't what they did in the past? The "it was good enough for me" and "I suffered so it's OK if you do too" syndromes are strong in our society.

I learned old math, but the common core version in the video makes equally as much sense and I can see it being more straightforward for people.

Part of the problem with how we teach anything is that it isn't experiential. I find the amount of memorization that is done just to pass exams is an issue. Maybe it's better now but my experience, both as a student and a teacher of college students, was that students have trouble expressing their thoughts, forming arguments, making judgements, doing anything that has to do with writing, but can memorize to make sure they get a grade.

The weight we put on grades is also problematic, but maybe that's another discussion.

My parental observation is that it’s important to remember the new/CC math isn’t meant to replace old math. It’s meant to give students a better foundation for visualizing numbers and understanding concepts *before* introducing arbitrary algorithms. The idea is to understand the concept of numbers before you teach the shortcut formula for arriving at the right answer. I can do a lot of math in my head based on formulas I remember, but it doesn’t mean I have a good head for math or a strong understanding of math concepts.

I witnessed a lot a lot a LOT of tears over these CC principles when my older one was in first grade. We didn’t understand the lessons or how the work was supposed to be done, which frustrated us as parents. The teacher was new to a curriculum that had been handed down from on high, which frustrated her. And the kiddos didn’t know why everyone kept saying “I DON’T KNOW WHY WE HAVE TO TEACH YOU THE WAY THAT SUCKS,” which frustrated them especially.

And now she does geometry in her head.

All of which is to say, I don’t like it either, and I wouldn’t want to be made to use it at this point in my life, and I’m dreading doing it again with the next kid.

But when THESE kids, who grew up learning it this way, grow into the parents and teachers who are passing this down like it’s second nature, will our feelings about it be outdated?

One of the biggest issues with Common Core has been the reliance on homework. Parent attitudes wouldn't matter if they weren't the ones tasked with relearning math to teach their children at home. Homework should be abolished for elementary school age children, and in many other subjects and grade levels as well.

Are we teaching students in a one size fits all way? Why are we teaching things in a one size fits all way? People learn differently. In our adult lives, if we work with others and depend on any amount of collaboration we are required to accept there is more than one way to approach anything (tasks, problems, conceptual issues).

It seems like investing in the infrastructure (different curriculum, teachers, teaching resources, staff that support teachers and students) that we might build more capacity for children to learn, grow up with empathy for others, and be better prepared for the realities of working-life.

So to me the question is why? Is it because 'one-size fits all' is more straightforward, cheaper, and easier to implement? Is this simply a product of how public-systems tend to work?

I'm not advocating for dismantling the public education system. I firmly believe that much of the "uplifting of the masses" attributed to capitalism is better attributed to public education. However, if we choose not to properly invest in and evolve that public system then we are dismantling it in the most expensive and inefficient way.

From what I have read about common core, was that it was created to seek conformity. Teach all school children across the nation the same thing the same way.

The most common complaint about common core you can find online is that one size fits all approach does not work for all.

Our school system was founded on the assembly line model. Grouping children by age, teaching them all the same things, and moving them along. One-size-fits-all has always been our educational approach. This has not changed significantly in 100 years.

Personally, I think we should abolish the age/grade level model. School should last as long a the average workday (8 to 5), include breakfast and lunch, and be year-round (with breaks). Children should work to mastery, and then be promoted by subject, not by age group/grade level. The curriculum should include art, music, "shop" classes, and every day should have lots of time for free play and schoolwork. No homework should be necessary, aside from perhaps some papers in high level literature and history classes. Teachers should also be able to complete grading during school hours. This would, of course, require appropriate staff and funding, but it would also eliminate childcare costs for many or most working parents. We could build a better, more effective, and more equitable school system if we wanted to.

So are charter schools taking away funding and teaching talent (and other resources) from public schools?

It seems like more and more public schools are being closed in my area and there is more reliance on these charter schools. Basically, the public schools that don't do well keep losing resources and students and a vicious positive feedback loop occurs.

Yes. I mean, this can be complicated depending where you look, but investigate what the charter system has done to Detroit's schools.

 

[TenderLovingKiller®]

The part that worries me about DeSantis is his management of COVID-19. Hiding data, not issuing mask mandates and now treating unvaccinated like a protective status you can't discriminate against. Not to mention he continues to say Biden and the democrats agenda is extreme and radical.

I feel like he is much more hyper conservative than Bush or Reagan ever was. Not much more likely to not recognize the other party as legitimate or work with them. I mean, you even have Bush saying that he would be considered unelectable as a republican in today's political environment. I don't see DeSantis as status Quo. I see him as the continuation of the republican party moving further right. I also see him embracing nationalism.

Right now, to be a GOP favorite you have to be seen as hyper conservative and not the status quo and speak in the Fox News vernacular. He does all that, as will any other politician that is even toying with the idea of running for the presidency but I f you look beyond the political rhetoric and look at how he has actually governed in Florida you would see he is your typical GOP governor. He has just been more abrasive and shouty than others which is again a political style that speaks to the MAGA base. point being the f you as a liberal voter are worried that the next GOP Prez is gonna be Trump 2.0 whomever it ends up being then the Democrats are doing their job. Conversely, if the media and others are painting a GOP candidate as the successor to the MAGA crown then DeSantis is doing his job. Unlike Trump DeSantis has been Governor of a very large state for almost a full term and while I do not prescribe to his conservative ideals Florida is still Florida, better or worse. It’s hard to imagine him becoming something completely different despite what he and others would claim, flic he were to win the Presidency. The proof is in the swampy humid mosquitoes infested pudding.

 

[TenderLovingKiller®]

I didn’t know much about DeSantis outside of his headlines as FL governor until I googled him recently and I was stunned, STUNNED, to learn that he is a Yale & Harvard Law alum who served as a Navy JAG. Stunned.

I mean Tom Cotton and Josh Hawley have similar bona fides if I am not mistaken. DeSantis just does a better job of feigning “Everyman” rage than the other two who usually just come off as phonies.

 

[jaycee]

Personally, I think we should abolish the age/grade level model. School should last as long a the average workday (8 to 5), include breakfast and lunch, and be year-round (with breaks). Children should work to mastery, and then be promoted by subject, not by age group/grade level. The curriculum should include art, music, "shop" classes, and every day should have lots of time for free play and schoolwork. No homework should be necessary, aside from perhaps some papers in high level literature and history classes. Teachers should also be able to complete grading during school hours. This would, of course, require appropriate staff and funding, but it would also eliminate childcare costs for many or most working parents. We could build a better, more effective, and more equitable school system if we wanted to.

This is a proposal I can get behind. Grading as judgement needs to be unlearned and schooling should be more about learning and mastery.