In response to Jamesburrow
Jamesburrow wrote:
So have I. It actually does teach some useful information. I only stayed with it for a few weeks before dropping it, but I learned some useful information. Then again, our health class focused on diseases and stuff, while I've heard of others thst basically just tell you to eat right and excersize.

No, seriously. The things I "learned" in Health were things I learned in 5th grade and 7th grade. It was a total snooze.

- Poetry class. Just plain useless.
Not to everyone. Some people like to write poetry and they love the fact that they have the option of taking classes for it.

But as a Class? I don't mind those of the artistic persuasion, but you've gotta write poetry (in my opinion) too much in English class. Sounds like a waste of money to me... Let me put it this way. I don't know, but tell me: is there a Poetry class in private schools?

- Something called "Fitness for life." It's a series of random games you play, which does include both active sports, board games, and everything in between, or so I'm told by my friend who had that last year.
So its sorta P.E. with other things thrown in? It keeps kids fit while they have fun. It doesn't sound too useless to me.

You haven't heard my friend's description. The teacher in his class ran out of ideas and let 'em watch movies the last 3 weeks of the semester. Anyway, school's (I hate to say it, but so true) not supposed to be fun. You're supposed to learn how to succeed in the free market. I for one haven't learned to do that at school. I learned how to succeed on my own time. Another waste of classtime and tax dollars.

and anything else like that. I'd say ome sports are too, primarily because sports are my #3 enemy. (Don't ask about 1 or 2) Don't take offense at that if you are the kind of persn who likes sports.
With all the sports scholarsjips available, you actually think that sports are useless?

Everyone of the classes you listed DO have a point.

You don't understand. I wasn't pointing out Completely useless classes, everything has some relevance. I'm pointing out things that are a waste of tax dollars and the time of the students. These are the ones schools shouldn't be teaching for a purely financial reason.

--Vito
In response to Leftley
Those are individual classes though, not subjects. The fact that you got stuck with a health class that had a poor teacher and curriculum doesn't mean all health classes should be abolished. I dunno about you, but my health class was something more along the lines of "preview for high school anatomy and physiology."

that's you're health class. Mine literally used a seventh grade level textbook that I had to use in PE/health in 7th grade... when textbooks are reused, you've got redundancy, and that wastes money.

Similarly, I don't know if you had a bad poetry class or if you just have a beef with the idea of a poetry class, but it's a subject of great importance to anyone who wants to be a writer (not just a poet, either--any writer. Sports journalists can benefit from poetry classes).

I said: Go ahead and get your writing skill beefed up on your own time if you think you need it. (Ironically, that's what English is for, in part) if you can't get your writing boost from English, that just goes to show how useless that has become too. (On that subject, I find it indicative of the quality of modern schools that the teacher of my English class last year had to correct the pronunciation of over half the class on words that are commonly found in 7th grade level reading) To summarize, if English doesn't cut it, and the student thinks he/she needs it, he/she should do the extra work on their own time. I suggest writing politically, that's what gets the fire burning, a least for me. The school doesn't need to baby the student until graduation. In the real world, sometimes you've gotta give up free time to get that bonus...


--Vito
In response to Vito Stolidus
Vito Stolidus wrote:
No, seriously. The things I "learned" in Health were things I learned in 5th grade and 7th grade. It was a total snooze.
Then obviously you did not have a good teacher. We were talking about real diseases and epidemics and how to prevent them.
In some schools they actually do teach you things that are worth knowing.

But as a Class? I don't mind those of the artistic persuasion, but you've gotta write poetry (in my opinion) too much in English class. Sounds like a waste of money to me... Let me put it this way. I don't know, but tell me: is there a Poetry class in private schools?
In some, yes. In fact, if I had my way I would be going to private school next year and the one i was supposed to be signing up for had a poetry class. They ahve 'Creative Writing' classes don't they? Just because you don't see the point nor like the class does not mean they are pointless.
You haven't heard my friend's description. The teacher in his class ran out of ideas and let 'em watch movies the last 3 weeks of the semester.
Eh....We do things like that in my school. After we had taken the Gateway, we were free to do anything in my Algebra I class (we could go to the computer lab, go to the gym, whatever). Then again, we were the Honors class.
Anyway, school's (I hate to say it, but so true) not supposed to be fun. You're supposed to learn how to succeed in the free market. I for one haven't learned to do that at school. I learned how to succeed on my own time. Another waste of classtime and tax dollars.
Why can't school be fun? If you learn what you need to learn, what does it matter if you have fun learning it?

You don't understand. I wasn't pointing out Completely useless classes, everything has some relevance. I'm pointing out things that are a waste of tax dollars and the time of the students. These are the ones schools shouldn't be teaching for a purely financial reason.
If the students want to take the class and the class could possibly keep the kids active (important in this day and age) or could prepare the kid for whatever career they plan on having (health=doctor;Poetry=writer), why should it not be taught? Isn't the point of school to help prepare you for your future career and to help you remain healthy?
In response to Vito Stolidus
Vito babbles:
I said: Go ahead and get your writing skill beefed up on your own time if you think you need it. (Ironically, that's what English is for, in part) if you can't get your writing boost from English, that just goes to show how useless that has become too. (On that subject, I find it indicative of the quality of modern schools that the teacher of my English class last year had to correct the pronunciation of over half the class on words that are commonly found in 7th grade level reading) To summarize, if English doesn't cut it, and the student thinks he/she needs it, he/she should do the extra work on their own time. I suggest writing politically, that's what gets the fire burning, a least for me. The school doesn't need to baby the student until graduation. In the real world, sometimes you've gotta give up free time to get that bonus...

School is there to help you prepare for whatever career you want to have. If you want to be a writer, shouldn't there be a class to help you do so?
Also, English is there to help you become better at the English language in general. Without it not one of us would be grammatically correct.
The way you are talking is like:
"Oh, you want to be scientist? Take chemistry on your own time, it isn't financially acceptable for schools to teach it"
In response to Jamesburrow
Then obviously you did not have a good teacher. We were talking about real diseases and epidemics and how to prevent them.

Okay, sometimes Health can be good, but at my school, might as well just stare at a wall silently for an hour as far as learning is concerned. We skipped all chapters on infectious diseases. We learned nothing useful.

In some schools they actually do teach you things that are worth knowing.

Do they? At my High school, "Useful" is illegal, hehe. (Of course, my advanced, accelerated program for Math, Science, and Technology (MST) is better, as they taught me how to program in C++ (similar to DM) and that led to me being here. They also taught me how to make soap (funnest project ever, but HARD) and many things of use. Then I go to the Highn school and sleep for 4 hours...


Eh....We do things like that in my school. After we had taken the Gateway, we were free to do anything in my Algebra I class (we could go to the computer lab, go to the gym, whatever). Then again, we were the Honors class.
Anyway, school's (I hate to say it, but so true) not supposed to be fun. You're supposed to learn how to succeed in the free market. I for one haven't learned to do that at school. I learned how to succeed on my own time. Another waste of classtime and tax dollars.
Why can't school be fun? If you learn what you need to learn, what does it matter if you have fun learning it?

If school is fun, noone will take it seriously. Succeeding isn't fun, it's Hard. School should emulate real life as much as possible. As it is, it emulates the Soviet Union*.

If the students want to take the class and the class could possibly keep the kids active (important in this day and age) or could prepare the kid for whatever career they plan on having (health=doctor;Poetry=writer), why should it not be taught? Isn't the point of school to help prepare you for your future career and to help you remain healthy?

It's not what the students Want, it's what they need. Students need preparation for real life, not more school.

--Vito
In response to Jamesburrow
Jamesburrow blindly misenterprets:

School is there to help you prepare for whatever career you want to have. If you want to be a writer, shouldn't there be a class to help you do so?
Also, English is there to help you become better at the English language in general. Without it not one of us would be grammatically correct.
The way you are talking is like:
"Oh, you want to be scientist? Take chemistry on your own time, it isn't financially acceptable for schools to teach it"

NO NO NO NO NO! School is to prepare you for basic jobs (garbageman, construction worker, etc). College is to prepare you for careers (Writer, chemist, lawyer, physicist, engineer). Colleges should teach the really specialized stuff, not High School. That's somewhere else I take issue with my distrct, UCS: there are too many classes that center on one career, which should be taught in college, in High School. We could have more time for PE and stuff like that if they took out these classes. Poetry/Meta Shop/Woodshop are examples. I don't think a chemist needs to know how to fabicate parts, and everyone takes the classes for an easy "A". (for those of you in florida, that's a good grade) Now do you get it?

--Vito
In response to Vito Stolidus
Vito Stolidus wrote:
If school is fun, noone will take it seriously. Succeeding isn't fun, it's Hard. School should emulate real life as much as possible. As it is, it emulates the Soviet Union*.
Let me weave a little story.
A Tale of Two High Schools
School A had high test scores and the students learned what they were supposed to and turned there homework in on time, but they were having fun doing it.
They then took this fun approach towards life and people loved being around them and they led succesfull businesses.
They chose jobs they could have fun doing, not the ones they felt obligated to do.
They had kids who also kept good grades because their parents were fun to be around and their parents valued education.
School B had high test scores and the students leanred what they were supposed to, but the students tended to procrastinate as long as possible before starting on their homework. At this school the teacher believed that youc ould not possibly be learning if you were having fun, so the kids had to have fun when they otherwise would be doping homework.
They took this antifun view on life, and, even though they also became successful businessmen/women they employees hated them.
The jobs they chose were ones they disliked, but their schools only taught classes that would apply to these jobs.
When they had kids their kids were the rebellious kind that grew to hate their parents harsh superiority. They began doing drugs and eventually flunked out of school.
END

Hmmm, both schools taught what needed to be leanred and the students were successful, but which do you think was the better school?

It's not what the students Want, it's what they need. Students need preparation for real life, not more school.
some kids want to take poetry classes. If they plan on growing up to be a poet/writer, don't they need as much help as possible to ensure they are good writers?
In response to Vito Stolidus
Vito stupidly assumes:
NO NO NO NO NO! School is to prepare you for basic jobs (garbageman, construction worker, etc). College is to prepare you for careers (Writer, chemist, lawyer, physicist, engineer). Colleges should teach the really specialized stuff, not High School. That's somewhere else I take issue with my distrct, UCS: there are too many classes that center on one career, which should be taught in college, in High School. We could have more time for PE and stuff like that if they took out these classes.

School is there to help prepare you for what you need to take in college.
Why do you think the guidance councilors normally start talking to you about your career plans?
These classes are there to help you prepare yourself for the classes you will take in college.
High School (and sometimes even middle school) is the foundation of what you are building to prepare yourself for your future. Without a solid foundation, the building will fall.

Poetry/Meta Shop/Woodshop are examples. I don't think a chemist needs to know how to fabicate parts, and everyone takes the classes for an easy "A". (for those of you in florida, that's a good grade) Now do you get it?
No. You are still assuming that just because those classes aren't needed for any profession whatsoever, they are pointless.
In response to Jamesburrow
Let me weave a little story.
A Tale of Two High Schools
School A had high test scores and the students learned what they were supposed to and turned there homework in on time, but they were having fun doing it.
They then took this fun approach towards life and people loved being around them and they led succesfull businesses.
They chose jobs they could have fun doing, not the ones they felt obligated to do.
They had kids who also kept good grades because their parents were fun to be around and their parents valued education.
School B had high test scores and the students leanred what they were supposed to, but the students tended to procrastinate as long as possible before starting on their homework. At this school the teacher believed that youc ould not possibly be learning if you were having fun, so the kids had to have fun when they otherwise would be doping homework.
They took this antifun view on life, and, even though they also became successful businessmen/women they employees hated them.
The jobs they chose were ones they disliked, but their schools only taught classes that would apply to these jobs.
When they had kids their kids were the rebellious kind that grew to hate their parents harsh superiority. They began doing drugs and eventually flunked out of school.
END

Hmmm, both schools taught what needed to be leanred and the students were successful, but which do you think was the better school?

You just don't get it do you? The teachers can't change the personalities of the students. Some will look at life positively, others negatively. The fun/no-fun classes won't either. About family life: school can't change it either. Fathers/mothers learn how to parent from their parents, not from their teachers. (despite parenting class, another UCS moneypit)

Schools aren't supposed to do any of that. They aren't supposed to influence the personality or decisions of the students. The aren't supposed to change how the students treat their employees in the future or how they treat their kids. They're supposed to teach the students how to get their dream job. That's it. No more. Slowly, though, the schools have tried to influence the minds, hearts, and souls of the students (henceforward "Inmates"). Teachers are trying to bend the personalities, political views, and ethics of the students to their own. This bending is what makes Me hate school. I can't speak for others, but this, as well as the droning monotones of my High School's teachers, make me hate it. No amount of fun can fix those two things.

It's not what the students Want, it's what they need. Students need preparation for real life, not more school.
some kids want to take poetry classes. If they plan on growing up to be a poet/writer, don't they need as much help as possible to ensure they are good writers?

If they're desperate enough to get help from a high school teacher, they sholdn't bother with the writing career. That's all I'm saying.

We seem to be off topic a lot. Please go back to the main thing: Funding. I like a good debate, but we'll get a massive, 300+ item thread if we leave topic.

--Vito
In response to Vito Stolidus
Vito Stolidus wrote:
You just don't get it do you? The teachers can't change the personalities of the students. Some will look at life positively, others negatively. The fun/no-fun classes won't either. About family life: school can't change it either. Fathers/mothers learn how to parent from their parents, not from their teachers. (despite parenting class, another UCS moneypit)
Perhaps, but if they go through life having fun while doing what they are supposed to, don't you think they will keep on having fun and doing what they're supposed to? And vice-versa?

They're supposed to teach the students how to get their dream job. That's it. No more.
Hmmm....So they are not supposed to teach discipline and how to be a good citizen that treats people descently?
Anyway, at least you finlly agree that the point of high school is to help students prepare for their careers. (this is in reply to the poetry/woodshot/meta shop/whatever)

If they're desperate enough to get help from a high school teacher, they sholdn't bother with the writing career. That's all I'm saying.
Wait, so they seak help from someone who has already been through college and was hired specifically to teach these kids how to do this? How is that 'desperate'

We seem to be off topic a lot. Please go back to the main thing: Funding. I like a good debate, but we'll get a massive, 300+ item thread if we leave topic.
I also like a good debate....
Fine, I'm moving this to my blog. Non-members can post on my blog, so there's nothing stopping you from enjoying this debate to its fullest.
In response to Jamesburrow
Jamesburrow forgot to read my post and then replied:

School is there to help prepare you for what you need to take in college.
Why do you think the guidance councilors normally start talking to you about your career plans?
These classes are there to help you prepare yourself for the classes you will take in college.
High School (and sometimes even middle school) is the foundation of what you are building to prepare yourself for your future. Without a solid foundation, the building will fall.

Like I said before: School is moving from preparing students for their lives (where they should be) to preparing them for more school. I'm not disagreeing about the foundation thing, but you can't keep making foundations atop foundations and get a building.

Poetry/Meta Shop/Woodshop are examples. I don't think a chemist needs to know how to fabicate parts, and everyone takes the classes for an easy "A". (for those of you in florida, that's a good grade) Now do you get it?


No. You are still assuming that just because those classes aren't needed for any profession whatsoever, they are pointless.

umm, I said the classes were too specific... not that they're useless. I know woodshop and metal shop have existed for many years, but they're only useful if you want to be a woodworker or welder.

Please read what I write in the future. I, at least, grant you that dignity. return the favor.

--Vito
In response to Jamesburrow
that's smart. Thanks. Start us up there.

I'll reply there.

--Vito
In response to Vito Stolidus
Vito Stolidus wrote:
that's smart. Thanks. Start us up there.

I'll reply there.

--Vito

OK, its there.
In response to Jamesburrow
So many below average scores... tsk tsk

Hiead
I found mine.

http://www.greatschools.net/modperl/browse_school/me/16/

WOW. Is this site wrong.

"A large school in a mill town area. Our son struggled because it was too disciplined. The gifted program is not very good and outdated. The principal was very helpful and supportive. You can get good teachers if you get involved! Go straight to the principal for help! Not a liberal-thinking school... Our son took college classes and did great! he also went on to an excellent college....but as parents we did all of the work ourself! "


Soooo True!

almost all the Computer sciences classes, we must use Macs. I hate macs!
In response to Hiead
Yep.
But overall we're okay.
We do have the best computer program in the city.
And one of the largest ROTC programs in ther country.
And the students are cool.....

anyway, just look at the bright side of things:your classmates won't be overly stupid!
In response to Jamesburrow
Isn't Army ROTC for like every school?? Our high school has a program
In response to Soccerking
Yeah, but ours is one of the largest (meaning we have more students enrolled than most other schools and the students gain ranks faster)
You live real close to me. BTW, I've had several friends who left to Butler Tech as soon as they could, just because they didn't like Edgewood. I come from New Miami, which is a joke of a High school, and also went to Butler Tech because of a bad education at New Miami. Another thing, you really shouldn't call Edgewood bad. Edgewood is a MUCH better school compared to New Miami. Your education won't be as good as Hamilton's, but it won't be terrible. New Miami was nearly shut down because of the poor academic performance in the school.

Another thing, edgewood is a very uptight school. There are a lot of snobs that go there, but that's not saying you couldn't find people who aren't. Also, don't worry about sports, edgewood is a pretty good school in their division. Plus, if you're looking for a computer science education, go to Butler Tech during your junior and senior year. The instructor isn't the best, and there is no programming teachers, but during your senior year, you can have the entire year to study whatever you want, and he'll make a big effort to get you what you need to do that study. For me, Mr. Newman got Microsoft's Visual C++ and a programming book. I ended up not using either one of them (too advanced of a book, and MVC++ was only allowed on one machine, which wasn't mine, and I didn't want to have to move to it), but I still studied programming. And he didn't even care that I didn't use them, he was just happy that I made some progress.

P_S
In response to Vito Stolidus
You are correct in asserting that redundancy is the great bane of our schools. We have at best a mediocre public education, and the primary culprit is the abundance of lazy curricula that rehash the previous year's lessons and no more, resulting in under-educated students. You seem to be looking at this mess and saying "Well, we can aspire to no better--chop off the crud and call it good." But if we worked to fix these classes rather than simply discarding them and cutting everyone's education short in the pursuit of budget surpluses, we could be getting a couple years' worth of college-level courses (or at least what is now considered college-level, due to our inadequate educational system) for every student in the country at no additional cost. Offering aggressive curricula that ramp up into high-level specialty courses is not a matter of "babying" students; it's a matter of making sure our country has the best-educated populace possible (to preempt an argument I see coming: no, school is not a replacement for life experience--but neither is life experience a replacement for school. They are supplements to each other). Every year our graduates are becoming dumber and dumber in comparison to their competition overseas, and you want to cut out what science schools already have in favor of "more PE and stuff"? Well, getting kids back into shape is an admirable goal--I'm sure our children's physical fitness will serve them well when they're laboring in a sweatshop to produce cheap materials for their masters in China and India.
Page: 1 2 3