States with High Taxes vs. States with Low Taxes

The public school teachers would benefit from having the private school teachers around, who would set a precendant kinda. The public school teachers would hopefully learn their way of teaching and improve on their teaching. And not all public school teachers are bad, not even the majority.

Having a few intelligent students in the class benefits the rest of the students, because the intelligent students will add input and get paired with them on projects etc. And those cases are far and few between.

Hai guis, I have 2 questions. 1, how does an intelligent kid benefit a not-intelligent kid? 2, define intelligence.

Just by being in the class. For example, if 3 intelligent kids are in a class with a bunch of average kids, the average kids will benefit because the intelligent kids will add things that the teacher missed, help them out on projects if they are paired together, among other things. ( i know i am explaining this terribly)


For example, a history class. The teacher says The romans fought in a formation called the testudo. One of the history buffs raises his hand and says "It's kinda like a tourtoiuse"The average kids who otherwise on the test would not have memorized and remembered that, can now more easily remember it by relating it to a turtle.

Help them out= average kid takes advantage of them.

In my experience the "average kid" would not be paying attention, that's why he's "average".

Leaving aside Gardner theorys, I think that intelligent is equivalent to being quick minded , not "knowing stuff".

All your arguments are is that the private school students and teachers, which you have admitted to being better, would be a good influence on public school students and teachers, while ignoring the fact that the opposite is also true. They can be bad influences on the good kids.

You seem to acknowledge that private schools are usually better than their public school counterparts. If that's the case, why do you want to get rid of them? Private schools aren't better for no reason, it's because their very nature encourages better results. Getting rid of that will only hurt society. You might get better results during the first generation where the better private school kids are forcibly, and let's not mention illegally, absorbed into public schools, but after they graduate it's the same public schools we had before, except now no one has the benefits of private schools.

We're probably talking about test scores.

I don't want to get rid of them. I was talking about if we were to get rid of them. This all started because I said something like taxes=funding for public schools which =better public schools, and then you said something about abolishing public schools and then we ended up here.

You mean IQ tests?

From the articles you posted, that's what you seemed to advocate.

More like normal tests taken in school like standardized testing.

Good or bad marks doesn't talk about your intelligence, it only says that you study or not. Of course, if you DO study you will know more things, but the common thing is that you will forget them in the future. That's why I defined "intelligen/smart" as someone quick minded instead of "wise".

I know and I agree, but for public schools it's what they use to determine whether you're put into advanced classes, normal classes, or remedial classes. I don't know if private schools do the same thing or not.

I think I would have more say in the matter if it wasn't because our educational systems are different

Intelligent kids don't benefit less intelligent children. I know from experience.

Also, I'm not certain either one of the options, private or public, can make the schools 'better'. From my knowledge, the sucess of a school is dependant almost entirely on having good students and good teachers, so I'm not sure changing the system either way would do much to change this, the main arguments lie in other areas, such as availibility of resources and affordability.

I also don't think you can, or should, abolish private schools, but I do believe there should be a reasonable standard of education availible to everybody, paid through taxes, to allow all members of society to have access to the same opportunities.

I know from experience as well just the oppposite.

Really?
Either what happens is the clever child does all the work, while the other messes around, or neither of them do any work.
Even when the less intelligent child wants to learn, they can't, because the intelligent child knows all the answers, so they don't get a chance to learn them and work them out for themselves.

What an incredibly narrowminded view you have on education. I'm simply dumbstruck by the level of ignorance and arrogance you display.

I'm sorry, but that is the truth of what I have seen. It is not opinion, so I don't know how you can draw any conclusions about me from it.
I am sorry if the post appeared arrogant, but that is not what was intended, I was simply disputing slydessertfox's assertion that having a wide range of abilities working together is beneficial for all involved, which I simply do not believe to be true.

It damn well is and you know it. That was just subjective bullshit without any facts, and I really didn't expect that from you.

People don't usually want to appear arrogant, but statements like:

Make you appear very arrogant.

And you are only using personal experiences to back up your belief which, if I may add, is contested by most experts on education.
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/education/6617251/All-pupils-should-be-in-mixed-ability-classes.html
http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2007/09/070915104849.htm
http://www.languageswithoutlimits.co.uk/resources/SBremner.pdf

I didn't expect such anger on this issue, I'm sure there are different viewpoint on this, and different experiences and observations.
I am unsure how to continue, as you seem to feel exceptionally strongly on this issue.

However, I would say that you seem to think 'personal experience' is not very important, which I would disagree with. I do not see what better way of judging what works and what doesn't in a classroom than a student, whose experience is the most fundametally important part of the education system.

I also respect the view of educational experts, and if they can find a way to make all-ability teaching work, then I would congratulate them, as it is something I'm sure many of us would like to see.
Perhaps I have been generalising, and yes, I can only speak from my own experience, but I cannot be the only one to feel this way, which surely deserves some sort of weight in this argument.

Not really, it's more your attitude.

Well objectively, your personal experience shouldn't matter, only the overall statistics. I've had the same experience as you, but I've also seen it reversed.

They have made it work, but some teachers are still old school or don't understand the techniques, and this often leads to mistakes made by the teacher. There's also the whole issue about the teacher education being to focused on theory in many countries, but I wont go into that.

Of course ideally it should, but on something such as education, statistics are not easy to find or to use to prove a point.

Perhaps, but it is truly difficult to make such a system work, and I already have great respect for teachers, as their job is extremely difficult.
I do have one teacher who has managed an all-ability class, but I would not say it's any better than classes which have been set according to ability, simply around the same.