Back to School

[Marokai Backbeat]

Sexual education should not be taught in kindergarten.

Would that also exclude teaching small children how recognise (risk of) sexual abuse?

No I don't really consider that sexual education. I was more referring to sex positions, nerve endings, secretions, forms of protection, cross dressing, and homosexuality. It's always good to teach of abuse.

So what ages do you think should learn sex ed - after all, you only said kindergartners in your first post? I don't think kindergartners should be learning about sex positions and condoms and things, but I think older kids should be learning them. Also, why shouldn't kindergartners be taught about "cross dressing and homosexuality"? They exist and they're totally harmless.

Making sure people of reproducing age have a basic understanding of what the forms of birth control are, how they work and where they can be obtained is an integral part of any rational public health policy.

I'm not sure why anyone needs to learn about "sex positions" in school. I think that's more a matter of trial and error.

Some liberal teachers are already having their students pair up with the lights out and grading them on stamina.

And how does that make you feel, barfbag?

I'm pretty sure this book is basically barfbag's childhood.

[barfbag]

Sexual education should not be taught in kindergarten.

Would that also exclude teaching small children how recognise (risk of) sexual abuse?

No I don't really consider that sexual education. I was more referring to sex positions, nerve endings, secretions, forms of protection, cross dressing, and homosexuality. It's always good to teach of abuse.

So what ages do you think should learn sex ed - after all, you only said kindergartners in your first post? I don't think kindergartners should be learning about sex positions and condoms and things, but I think older kids should be learning them. Also, why shouldn't kindergartners be taught about "cross dressing and homosexuality"? They exist and they're totally harmless.

Making sure people of reproducing age have a basic understanding of what the forms of birth control are, how they work and where they can be obtained is an integral part of any rational public health policy.

I'm not sure why anyone needs to learn about "sex positions" in school. I think that's more a matter of trial and error.

Some liberal teachers are already having their students pair up with the lights out and grading them on stamina.

And how does that make you feel, barfbag?

Pretty nauseas actually. In fact, oh no wait. Ahh! Yep that did it to me. I was making a joke is all when I said about the health classes.

[MalaspinaGold]

Anyways, the problem with failing schools closing is that it reduces the quality of nearby schools. We both agree that higher class sizes means worse education, so if a city has three high schools each with 2000 kids, and one of them closes down to low-performance, that means that each of the other two schools must pick up an extra thousand kids. Now, we waste more money trying to upgrade the campus so it does not burst at the seams with students, and in the meantime class sizes go up by 150% assuming no more teachers are hired. This leads to other schools doing worse, simply because they don't have the textbooks, the teachers, the space, and ultimately the money for them.

And instead, of shutting down the school and building a new one a mile away, what about working to make the original school work? Sure, it requires money to do, but ultimately there is a better return-on-investment considering all the challenges I outlined in the first paragraph. And there are success stories.

Well, I'm pretty sure that schools that do not allow interdistrict transfers are a rarity, the main problem being the paperwork needed. If every student was REQUIRED to go to a failing school if they lived in that school's boundaries, then I would be on your side, but that's just not the case.

I remember reading a news story about a Santa Ana elementary school that dramatically improved its achievement mainly by connecting to the parent community. They did not shut down and reopen, just on-campus reforms. The schools scores are stellar by no means. But they are pretty good, a success story considering that 99 or so percent of students are latino and 56% of parents never received a high school diploma. That is what should be replicated across the country.

[barfbag]

Anyways, the problem with failing schools closing is that it reduces the quality of nearby schools. We both agree that higher class sizes means worse education, so if a city has three high schools each with 2000 kids, and one of them closes down to low-performance, that means that each of the other two schools must pick up an extra thousand kids. Now, we waste more money trying to upgrade the campus so it does not burst at the seams with students, and in the meantime class sizes go up by 150% assuming no more teachers are hired. This leads to other schools doing worse, simply because they don't have the textbooks, the teachers, the space, and ultimately the money for them.

And instead, of shutting down the school and building a new one a mile away, what about working to make the original school work? Sure, it requires money to do, but ultimately there is a better return-on-investment considering all the challenges I outlined in the first paragraph. And there are success stories.

Well, I'm pretty sure that schools that do not allow interdistrict transfers are a rarity, the main problem being the paperwork needed. If every student was REQUIRED to go to a failing school if they lived in that school's boundaries, then I would be on your side, but that's just not the case.

I remember reading a news story about a Santa Ana elementary school that dramatically improved its achievement mainly by connecting to the parent community. They did not shut down and reopen, just on-campus reforms. The schools scores are stellar by no means. But they are pretty good, a success story considering that 99 or so percent of students are latino and 56% of parents never received a high school diploma. That is what should be replicated across the country.

I keep proposing that we build more schools as part of this policy. We can't just shut down bad schools with nowhere for the students to go. I'd be against that as well. If the state were to implement a school voucher program, it must certainly coincide with the building of more schools. Where I went to school I had to go to the elementary school assigned to our area of the school district. We had 5 elementary schools and like most school districts only one Jr. High and one High School. If you were able to attend a different school district from the one you lived within, then that's great. I'm not sure what impression I'm giving either. It's not like we'd have standard tests and the schools who failed, would cease to operate. This would only happen in extreme cases. Again, we'd be building more schools in the mean time.

[MalaspinaGold]

Well, of course if a school was beyond all hope of repair, I guess, but I'm not sure what closing down the school and reopening another would do as opposed to removing the principal.
I guess we have different definitions of failure.  A failing school I have always felt is one that has a low graduation rate, high dropout rate, low test scores. You obviously can't close down a school simply for having low test scores; since a lot of that is accounted for by poverty, parent education, employment, and so forth. The only reason I could see for MAYBE closing down a school is if, for instance a wealthy suburban school is performing absolutely poorly on tests, on a level of poor urban schools, and schools experiencing corruption, both of which would indicate a problem with administration. Even then, I don't see why closing the school and building a new one is preferable to replacing the problem administrators.

What problems do you think warrant closing down a school? What is your definition of failing?

[barfbag]

Well, of course if a school was beyond all hope of repair, I guess, but I'm not sure what closing down the school and reopening another would do as opposed to removing the principal.
I guess we have different definitions of failure.  A failing school I have always felt is one that has a low graduation rate, high dropout rate, low test scores. You obviously can't close down a school simply for having low test scores; since a lot of that is accounted for by poverty, parent education, employment, and so forth. The only reason I could see for MAYBE closing down a school is if, for instance a wealthy suburban school is performing absolutely poorly on tests, on a level of poor urban schools, and schools experiencing corruption, both of which would indicate a problem with administration. Even then, I don't see why closing the school and building a new one is preferable to replacing the problem administrators.

What problems do you think warrant closing down a school? What is your definition of failing?

It's not always in the principal's reach to fix everything. The school district itself is more at fault. I thought I stated it wasn't as simple as test scores. I'm in favor of standards, but not based on test scores. Schools falling apart need to be closed, students repeatedly failing grades in large numbers, newsworthy behavioral issues, drug problems. For example, breaking up a school district or dissolving a district into other nearby districts could break up drugs from being so close to one area. Just beware not to spread the drug problem to other schools.