Isn't being intolerant of intolerance intolerant?

smileynev said:
You asked and I answered.

Curriculums could be developed by teachers with proven track records of producing smarter then average students. Teacher performance would be based on how well their students perform on standardized tests as well as the length of time it takes their students to move on and graduate. Standardized testing based on teacher feedback would determine how and when a student graduates. And I'm not talking a test a year kind of stuff. I'm talking weekly and monthly testing.

As opposed to current classroom conditions where you have 30 plus students per teacher, you pair it down to 10 students or so. And instead of moving from one grade to the next, you create levels of education, say 3. A teacher is responsible for that level for however long it takes her students to move onto the next, usually a span of 3-5 years.

How do you measure whether a student is smarter than average? How do you decide which teachers were apparently responsible for this student being smarter than average? How do you get your baseline information? At what level would these standards be applied? Local? State? National?

How would these "levels" be any different from the current grade system?
 
itburnswhenipee said:
How do you measure whether a student is smarter than average? How do you decide which teachers were apparently responsible for this student being smarter than average? How do you get your baseline information? At what level would these standards be applied? Local? State? National?

How would these "levels" be any different from the current grade system?

students today are passed from teacher to teacher each year. Having one teacher for a longer period of time would be beneficial to the student.

Students who score higher, on average, then their counterparts consistently would probably have a better teacher or teachers then those counterparts.

Standards would be national.

Any other questions.
 
smileynev said:
students today are passed from teacher to teacher each year. Having one teacher for a longer period of time would be beneficial to the student.

Students who score higher, on average, then their counterparts consistently would probably have a better teacher or teachers then those counterparts.

Standards would be national.

Any other questions.

So really it'd be a comparison of the average scores of each class that are used to determing teacher efficacy. What's to stop them from teaching the test, which is what I understand is the result of the standardized testing implemented by the no child left behind policy?

You also never explained what level of reading or math are required for schools to get back to basics. Also, factual history can be a more slippery thing than you think. History is all about perspective.
 
fly said:
nev went to lunch.

Just as well... this rhetorical exercise is getting old.

If he actually believes any of the things he's saying he should probably try to get a job from which he can influence public policy instead of arguing with some clock-riding bum on the internet.
 
itburnswhenipee said:
Just as well... this rhetorical exercise is getting old.

If he actually believes any of the things he's saying he should probably try to get a job from which he can influence public policy instead of arguing with some clock-riding bum on the internet.
cockriding? :hi2u:
 
fly said:
cockriding? :hi2u:

Yes. Cockriding. You see, I work for a genetic engineer who set up his laboratory next to a chicken farm. Every morning I have to sneak onto the farm and abscond with one or more birds. In order to make this task easier the scientist has twisted the laws of nature to produce, and you'll excuse me if I don't get too technical here, a giant fucking chicken. Rooster, actually, which we all know are also called cocks. So, thanks to the efforts of my employer, every morning I mount the giant cock and ride it furiously across the rough terrain seperating the lab from the nearest henhouse, fishing net in hand, hoping to bag a couple of old hens.

It's a living...
 
itburnswhenipee said:
Yes. Cockriding. You see, I work for a genetic engineer who set up his laboratory next to a chicken farm. Every morning I have to sneak onto the farm and abscond with one or more birds. In order to make this task easier the scientist has twisted the laws of nature to produce, and you'll excuse me if I don't get too technical here, a giant fucking chicken. Rooster, actually, which we all know are also called cocks. So, thanks to the efforts of my employer, every morning I mount the giant cock and ride it furiously across the rough terrain seperating the lab from the nearest henhouse, fishing net in hand, hoping to bag a couple of old hens.

It's a living...


Awesome!! :fly:
 
itburnswhenipee said:
So really it'd be a comparison of the average scores of each class that are used to determing teacher efficacy. What's to stop them from teaching the test, which is what I understand is the result of the standardized testing implemented by the no child left behind policy?

You also never explained what level of reading or math are required for schools to get back to basics. Also, factual history can be a more slippery thing than you think. History is all about perspective.

Now you're just playing devil's advocate. History is history. Yes there are perspectives, and the "winning side" gets to tell it. But some things cannot be disputed.

Giving tests on a more regular basis ensures that a broader range of items are studied. Giving them sequentially so that the items learned for previous tests must be used to pass later tests would force students to retain the knowledge.

I am unsure what the standard would be for reading levels. It would more then likely be comprehension based system where a student would need to understand what they are reading and demonstrate that understanding. Math would be easy to test, obviously, with preset levels of advancement related to such things as addition/subtraction, multiplication/division, geometry, algebra, etc.
 
smileynev said:
Now you're just playing devil's advocate. History is history. Yes there are perspectives, and the "winning side" gets to tell it. But some things cannot be disputed.

Giving tests on a more regular basis ensures that a broader range of items are studied. Giving them sequentially so that the items learned for previous tests must be used to pass later tests would force students to retain the knowledge.

I am unsure what the standard would be for reading levels. It would more then likely be comprehension based system where a student would need to understand what they are reading and demonstrate that understanding. Math would be easy to test, obviously, with preset levels of advancement related to such things as addition/subtraction, multiplication/division, geometry, algebra, etc.

Dude, I've been arguing for the sake of arguing the whole time, and I suspect you have been too. I will say this though:

Every time I hear someone propose a big change to correct some social problem I find myself wondering if the flaws are with the design of the system, or merely the implementation. It's this kind of mentality that drives legislatures to continually churn out laws in an attempt to handle situations caused by the non-enforcement of existing ones.
 
itburnswhenipee said:
Dude, I've been arguing for the sake of arguing the whole time, and I suspect you have been too. I will say this though:

Every time I hear someone propose a big change to correct some social problem I find myself wondering if the flaws are with the design of the system, or merely the implementation. It's this kind of mentality that drives legislatures to continually churn out laws in an attempt to handle situations caused by the non-enforcement of existing ones.

You suck

I WIN!
 
arguing.jpg