APP - N1H1 - why is this a big deal?

[Thorn]

Thorn what do you think of the idea of kids staying in school longer and having less summer vacation such as the KIPP schools do in the U.S. and the schools in most Asian countries do?

Our current system was devised around an agricultural society, and children were needed to help on the farms during summer, the growing seasons. The extended leisure time they now enjoy has its benefits, providing forms of personal growth that simply isn't available in the classroom. I'd advocate keeping at least a part of that, perhaps a substantial part. This time also provides teachers time to regroup and pursue activities that they'd never be able to do during the school year. For instance, when I was at NIH, we had a program where science teachers could come in during the summer and work in some of the labs. It was invaluable for them as they could take what they'd learned, including the principles of scientific inquiry, back into the classroom. Often those teachers would bring their classes on a field trip for a couple of hours during the school term. They'd not have had the contacts or the opportunity to do so otherwise.

We do need breaks from the structured form of learning in classrooms, just to let the information digest, to think about what we're learning and come up with new ideas and questions about that. I think that the school system we have currently, by and large does not address this need. Perhaps shorter breaks would provide those times without ideas becoming lost in a longer hiatus from study. Kids should be encouraged to ask questions (I certainly did!) and come up with their own ideas based on their observations. At the same time they need some extended downtime to pursue other activities that will provide growth that the structured classroom cannot give.

 

[cawacko]

Our current system was devised around an agricultural society, and children were needed to help on the farms during summer, the growing seasons. The extended leisure time they now enjoy has its benefits, providing forms of personal growth that simply isn't available in the classroom. I'd advocate keeping at least a part of that, perhaps a substantial part. This time also provides teachers time to regroup and pursue activities that they'd never be able to do during the school year. For instance, when I was at NIH, we had a program where science teachers could come in during the summer and work in some of the labs. It was invaluable for them as they could take what they'd learned, including the principles of scientific inquiry, back into the classroom. Often those teachers would bring their classes on a field trip for a couple of hours during the school term. They'd not have had the contacts or the opportunity to do so otherwise.

We do need breaks from the structured form of learning in classrooms, just to let the information digest, to think about what we're learning and come up with new ideas and questions about that. I think that the school system we have currently, by and large does not address this need. Perhaps shorter breaks would provide those times without ideas becoming lost in a longer hiatus from study. Kids should be encouraged to ask questions (I certainly did!) and come up with their own ideas based on their observations. At the same time they need some extended downtime to pursue other activities that will provide growth that the structured classroom cannot give.

Yesterday I just finished reading Outliers by Malcom Gladwell and that's why its on the brain. So he argues that the difference between school (test) performance between poor and rich kids is the time away from school. For example those from well to do families can afford to send their kids to various summer camps where kids can learn and have books around the house for kids to read etc. Take a poor(er) kid who family can't afford to send them to any type of summer camp, doesn't really have books around the home. The kid just hangs out and watches TV. That exaserbates (sp) the divide between the kids.

What do you think of his theory?

 

[Cancel5]

Yesterday I just finished reading Outliers by Malcom Gladwell and that's why its on the brain. So he argues that the difference between school (test) performance between poor and rich kids is the time away from school. For example those from well to do families can afford to send their kids to various summer camps where kids can learn and have books around the house for kids to read etc. Take a poor(er) kid who family can't afford to send them to any type of summer camp, doesn't really have books around the home. The kid just hangs out and watches TV. That exaserbates (sp) the divide between the kids.

What do you think of his theory?

I think we went to the library. Played at the neighbors and on the school grounds near us.

I know it is tough getting kids to go to the library, but we were made to go. My mother did not drive. We walked, caught a ride or rode our bikes.

 

[FUCK THE POLICE]

Rahm Emanuel is on the record saying to, "Never let a good crisis go unused" (paraphrasing).

He was just joking.

 

[FUCK THE POLICE]

In order to make this a "crisis" that people got nervous about they used the power of the government. While they didn't make the flu, they created the "crisis" from what was at hand.

You are getting to conspiracy theory type thinking here. The media mostly talked about N1H1. I haven't heard Obama talk about it at all.

There is just nothing in your mind too terrible for Obama to not have done.

 

[FUCK THE POLICE]

Doooood, Wrong Emmanuel stated your side's tactic.

1. He was joking about a real thing that politicians do all the time.

2. It's every sides tactics. 9/11.

 

[DamnYankee]

Yesterday I just finished reading Outliers by Malcom Gladwell and that's why its on the brain. So he argues that the difference between school (test) performance between poor and rich kids is the time away from school. For example those from well to do families can afford to send their kids to various summer camps where kids can learn and have books around the house for kids to read etc. Take a poor(er) kid who family can't afford to send them to any type of summer camp, doesn't really have books around the home. The kid just hangs out and watches TV. That exaserbates (sp) the divide between the kids.

What do you think of his theory?

Parents are rich because they have work ethic, and they instill those values on their kids; poor parents, not so much. Camps and books have almost nothing to do with it.

 

[FUCK THE POLICE]

I read this morning that it's possible that there could be 90k deaths from this flu in the US. I don't know if it's an accurate or semi-accurate prediction or not; too many factors depend on the actual spread and virlulence of the disease.

Hopefully the estimation is way off.

 

[Thorn]

Yesterday I just finished reading Outliers by Malcom Gladwell and that's why its on the brain. So he argues that the difference between school (test) performance between poor and rich kids is the time away from school. For example those from well to do families can afford to send their kids to various summer camps where kids can learn and have books around the house for kids to read etc. Take a poor(er) kid who family can't afford to send them to any type of summer camp, doesn't really have books around the home. The kid just hangs out and watches TV. That exacerbates (sp) the divide between the kids.

What do you think of his theory?

There's something to it. I'm hazy on the details, but there was a recent study, reported in the news a couple of weeks ago, showing the negative effects that too much TV and video games are having on kids' learning abilities. I didn't see anything in the article that looked at this specifically, but my first thought was that TV and video games both are just too passive and too remote from the children's lives to have any real meaning or challenge. It may also be that kids in poorer families have no parent at home during the day, so the TV becomes a sitter/companion and there's no interaction. As to books, if the parents don't value reading they're unlikely to encourage it in their children and won't be providing an example by reading themselves.

I'd agree that discrepancies between the two groups of children would likely be widened in such a scenario. Community organizations that provide activities are generally run by volunteers and aren't open/available all day every day, so although that may be helpful it isn't an answer beyond what they can provide.

 

[SmarterthanYou]

Hopefully the estimation is way off.

seriously, because there are more than 90k liberals on this earth.

 

[cawacko]

Parents are rich because they have work ethic, and they instill those values on their kids; poor parents, not so much. Camps and books have almost nothing to do with it.

The suggestion was keeping kids in school longer. An example is the KIPP program which operates across various inner-cities in the U.S. where the students all come from low income families, many with a single parent, and a large majority of the kids from the KIPP middle school programs eventually go on to college. The KIPP schools have longer hours than most public schools, have to come in on Saturdays and have shorter summer breaks. These kids have to work hard. It is a great model.

 

[Thorn]

The suggestion was keeping kids in school longer. An example is the KIPP program which operates across various inner-cities in the U.S. where the students all come from low income families, many with a single parent, and a large majority of the kids from the KIPP middle school programs eventually go on to college. The KIPP schools have longer hours than most public schools, have to come in on Saturdays and have shorter summer breaks. These kids have to work hard. It is a great model.

It sounds like it.

 

[FUCK THE POLICE]

Our current system was devised around an agricultural society, and children were needed to help on the farms during summer, the growing seasons. The extended leisure time they now enjoy has its benefits, providing forms of personal growth that simply isn't available in the classroom. I'd advocate keeping at least a part of that, perhaps a substantial part. This time also provides teachers time to regroup and pursue activities that they'd never be able to do during the school year. For instance, when I was at NIH, we had a program where science teachers could come in during the summer and work in some of the labs. It was invaluable for them as they could take what they'd learned, including the principles of scientific inquiry, back into the classroom. Often those teachers would bring their classes on a field trip for a couple of hours during the school term. They'd not have had the contacts or the opportunity to do so otherwise.

We do need breaks from the structured form of learning in classrooms, just to let the information digest, to think about what we're learning and come up with new ideas and questions about that. I think that the school system we have currently, by and large does not address this need. Perhaps shorter breaks would provide those times without ideas becoming lost in a longer hiatus from study. Kids should be encouraged to ask questions (I certainly did!) and come up with their own ideas based on their observations. At the same time they need some extended downtime to pursue other activities that will provide growth that the structured classroom cannot give.

I think an ideal* schooling situation would be one where each kid could work on each major idea in the class at their own time. They would advance when they could complete a randomized test on the concept with an A or B. Kids who are smarter could advance faster, and completing the courses really fast and getting up to the advanced subjects during the time at school would be the hallmark of a smart kid, rather than having a 3.5 or higher GPA (which honestly anyone can do easily if they just spend enough time studying, which is why we have such massive grade inflation).

But such an individualized study system would be expensive and difficult to manage.


*"ideal" in this context meaning something I pulled out of my ass one day.

 

[DamnYankee]

The suggestion was keeping kids in school longer. An example is the KIPP program which operates across various inner-cities in the U.S. where the students all come from low income families, many with a single parent, and a large majority of the kids from the KIPP middle school programs eventually go on to college. The KIPP schools have longer hours than most public schools, have to come in on Saturdays and have shorter summer breaks. These kids have to work hard. It is a great model.

We have a similar program here. When the parents are failures it can help their kids.

 

[Thorn]

I think an ideal* schooling situation would be one where each kid could work on each major idea in the class at their own time. They would advance when they could complete a randomized test on the concept with an A or B. Kids who are smarter could advance faster, and completing the courses really fast and getting up to the advanced subjects during the time at school would be the hallmark of a smart kid, rather than having a 3.5 or higher GPA (which honestly anyone can do easily if they just spend enough time studying, which is why we have such massive grade inflation).

But such an individualized study system would be expensive and difficult to manage.


*"ideal" in this context meaning something I pulled out of my ass one day.

Some kids would thrive in such a system, it's true. But as you've pointed out, the logistics in a public school system would be daunting at best, and realistically insurmountable given the resources available.

 

[uscitizen]

Some kids would thrive in such a system, it's true. But as you've pointed out, the logistics in a public school system would be daunting at best, and realistically insurmountable given the resources available.

imho the larger the school the poorer the education.
This concept would work best in smaller schools.
Mass produced eudcation sucks. One size does not fit all. I excelled in a small environment and was double promoted. Who else here can say that truthfully?
My education went downhill once I got pulled into the larger consolidated school.

 

[Damocles]

Geebus... We don't need to rotate classes to protect people. Why should we do anything differently than we do for any other flu bug? This one is no worse than any normal flu bug.

 

[uscitizen]

We should always work to minimize the spread of all diseases thru our schools.

 

[Damocles]

It is silly to give this one any special consideration and to pretend it is any more dangerous than any of the others. Give the shots to the people who want them and call it flu season like we do every year.

If we got all paranoid every time flu season rolled around I can see us acting the same now, but acing paranoid for this flu and not for others is just fear mongering.

 

[FUCK THE POLICE]

Some kids would thrive in such a system, it's true. But as you've pointed out, the logistics in a public school system would be daunting at best, and realistically insurmountable given the resources available.

Well, I was thinking about it one day because, for instance, most math classes are cumulative. If a kid fails a test and doesn't understand a concept, he will be crippled for the rest of the class. Does it really make sense to just continue as if this never happened?