The Math Forum



Search All of the Math Forum:

Views expressed in these public forums are not endorsed by NCTM or The Math Forum.


Math Forum » Discussions » Education » math-teach

Topic: Finland
Replies: 52   Last Post: Feb 20, 2012 3:22 PM

Advanced Search

Back to Topic List Back to Topic List Jump to Tree View Jump to Tree View   Messages: [ Previous | Next ]
Wayne Bishop

Posts: 5,420
Registered: 12/6/04
Re: Finland
Posted: Feb 18, 2012 9:26 PM
  Click to see the message monospaced in plain text Plain Text   Click to reply to this topic Reply

At 05:56 AM 2/18/2012, Robert Hansen wrote:
>Our two choice high schools do it by lottery but make it known that
>there will be (school) work required. Top SAT scores, AP classes
>with 100% passing rates, etc. Like Whitney (the high school you are
>talking about here) they are 7th to 12th grade. My problem with
>these methods is that there is only one narrow window into these
>schools at the end of 6th grade.


I think Whitney is 10% and quite a few who qualify pass up the
opportunity so it is not that tight. You are overlooking one
important component; parents who care work much harder at making sure
their children are getting a good K-6 education. That is good even
for those who don't make the cut. It is reminiscent of the 80s Jaime
Escalante era at Garfield High, our largest feeder high school. Lots
of families, far down in the grades, were working hard at making sure
that their kids were properly prepared to succeed in algebra,
geometry, etc., just so they could take, and be successful in, Jaime
Escalante's calculus class. My campus got few, if any, of the 3 or
better in AP Calculus coming out of Garfield (they were prized
affirmative-action recruits across the country) but the students we
did get were - by far - the best prepared students we ever got from
the school, both before and after. Beyond that, there are always
second, third, etc., opportunities to get back into real school later.

>They challenge them with the same math that they were supposed to
>pass anyways. I mean, getting a high score on the SAT is a good
>indicator, but continuing to do it over and over again is like
>playing a video game you have already beaten just to eek out a few
>more points. I am quite disappointed with the analytical skills
>represented in these schools.


Although some students take it both as juniors and seniors, that is
not the Whitney norm. It is even less the norm for the SAT II - Math
that stronger schools like to see.

Regarding your concern, "I am quite disappointed with the analytical
skills represented in these schools", how pleased are you with the
analytical skills represented in the other schools? Public schools
more generally? Beyond that, analytical skills are more than natural
product of solid computational and standard application preparation
than the result of overtly teaching such. Think of the teaching
"self-esteem" myth.

>But yes, I will be putting my son's name into the lottery.

That mammalian instinct is powerful. But why a lottery? Why not
serve all of those who have the ability and are prepared? What
percentage of the hard-working and talented football prospects get
turned away from those schools because they lost the lottery?

Wayne

>On Feb 18, 2012, at 12:34 AM, Wayne Bishop wrote:
>

> > Well, "as much as they could be developed" is an impossibly high
> standard. Doing the best we can with what we've got, is
> not. Simply advancing students who are well beyond the level of
> their class helps keep them challenged academically, an important
> facet of avoiding sheer boredom. That actually saves money because
> those students graduate earlier. A great solution used by the ABC
> Unified School District in my geographical area can be - and should
> be - widely implemented in districts with several high schools. I
> believe I described this earlier but just in case, their idea is to
> invite the top x% from each of the district's elementary schools at
> the end of 6th grade (thereby hitting all geographical areas no
> matter what the racial or socioeconomic makeup). Those who accept
> are tested and placed in their appropriate class; e.g., in
> mathematics, algebra for those who already, pre-algebra for those
> who are at that level, and even below if necessary. Once properly place!
>d to be both successful and challenged, the students are not
>prohibited from advancing more rapidly if they demonstrate proper
>mastery. Without being ridiculous about it (students do enjoy the
>experience), academic success is the focus. SAT scores are
>consistently among the top in the state and nearly 100% enter
>college without remediation, many to very prestigious ones. This
>from an ordinary, working-class region, not Palo Alto or La Jolla.

> >
> > Predictably, the ed schools consider this to be a violation of

> their perception of equality for all and the school has had to
> regularly fight for continued existence. When I inquired about
> arranging to place student teachers there, the chair of their
> mathematics department told me that they had already inquired but
> our university had refused their invitation because it was not the
> kind of experience that they wanted our students to have. Teaching
> mathematics to students who pay attention and do the homework was
> beyond the pale.

> >
> > Wayne
> >
> > At 11:56 AM 2/17/2012, Paul Tanner wrote:

> >> I agree that "developing the most talented academically at state
> >> expense (that costs no more than current expenditure - can actually
> >> save money) is every bit as important as basketball and other stuff
> >> where the color of one's skin and natural talent for the activity
> >> doesn't matter."
> >>
> >> But I would also agree with undoubtedly many parents of the gifted
> >> that refusing to spend more than current expenditure is not consistent
> >> with developing the most talented academically as much as they could
> >> be developed.
> >>
> >> On Fri, Feb 17, 2012 at 2:12 AM, Wayne Bishop

> <wbishop@calstatela.edu> wrote:
> >> > * Has = As. Yet again, thank my voice recognition software
> (that I could
> >> > not survive without).
> >> >
> >> > Forget the mandate stuff, at least for me; I was talking about

> ed industry
> >> > mandate, nothing one could take to court. Some of us believe that
> >> > developing the most talented academically at state expense

> (that costs no
> >> > more than current expenditure - can actually save money) is every bit as
> >> > important as basketball and other stuff where the color of

> one's skin and
> >> > natural talent for the activity doesn't matter. Willpower is
> the only thing
> >> > that matters; it is not irrelevant.
> >> >
> >> > Wayne
> >> >
> >> >
> >> > At 09:52 PM 2/16/2012, Paul Tanner wrote:

> >> >>
> >> >> And I have already states that willpower is irrelevant, since
> >> >> willpower cannot resist without going to prison legal mandates from
> >> >> federal judges if those mandates were to ever come.
> >> >>
> >> >> On Thu, Feb 16, 2012 at 1:01 PM, Wayne Bishop <wbishop@calstatela.edu>
> >> >> wrote:

> >> >> > Has* Haim has already implied (or maybe stated outright), it takes no
> >> >> > more

> >> >>
> >> >> > money, just the will to do it. Actually, and more
> importantly, the will
> >> >> > NOT
> >> >> > to do it.
> >> >> >
> >> >> > Wayne
> >> >> >
> >> >> > At 06:37 AM 2/16/2012, Paul Tanner wrote:

> >> >> >>
> >> >> >> On Thu, Feb 16, 2012 at 12:01 AM, Haim <hpipik@netzero.com> wrote:

> >> >> >> > Robert Hansen Posted: Feb 15, 2012 10:14 PM
> >> >> >> >

> >> >> >> >> I have to admit, Paul is right.
> >> >> >> >
> >> >> >> > He is not even close to right. He has put the legal cart before
> >> >> >> > the
> >> >> >> > judicial horse and come to a meaningless conclusion.
> >> >> >> >
> >> >> >> > Paul's initial claim, that special education is

> expensive because
> >> >> >> > the
> >> >> >> > schools are legally mandated, is certainly correct, but the legal
> >> >> >> > mandates
> >> >> >> > did not start with aggrieved parents suing in court, as he states.
> >> >> >> > No one
> >> >> >> > can start a legal action simply because he feels aggrieved.
> >> >> >> >
> >> >> >> > A legal action must first have some basis in

> law. First there was
> >> >> >> > a
> >> >> >> > law on special education, then aggrieved parents could

> sue, based on
> >> >> >> > that
> >> >> >> > law. As with all laws, over time case law shaped

> statute, but there
> >> >> >> > had to
> >> >> >> > be some initial basis in statute for the initial actions.
> >> >> >> >
> >> >> >> > In other words, the sped cart first got rolling when somebody
> >> >> >> > lobbied
> >> >> >> > state governments for sped law. Take a guess who that "somebody"
> >> >> >> > was. (Oh,
> >> >> >> > go on, guess.)
> >> >> >> >
> >> >> >> > If all it takes to get the legal cart rolling is an aggrieved
> >> >> >> > parent
> >> >> >> > to sue the schools in court, then why has the same thing

> not already
> >> >> >> > happened wrt TAG education? I can tell you, as a matter of fact,
> >> >> >> > that lots
> >> >> >> > of parents have tried to do just that. They failed

> because they have
> >> >> >> > no
> >> >> >> > basis in law. In fact, general education law is written

> so that the
> >> >> >> > schools
> >> >> >> > have pretty much a free hand to run themselves as they

> see fit. Law
> >> >> >> > suits
> >> >> >> > on behalf of TAG children have failed uniformly and

> comprehensively,
> >> >> >> > for
> >> >> >> > that reason. Because "there is no controlling legal

> authority", ie,
> >> >> >> > because
> >> >> >> > there is no TAG equivalent to sped law, the schools are the final
> >> >> >> > arbiters
> >> >> >> > of what is proper accommodation of TAG children.
> >> >> >> >
> >> >> >> > Unless you have some statutory basis, you cannot just sue a
> >> >> >> > principal
> >> >> >> > or a superintendent into running his school the way you

> see fit. Can
> >> >> >> > you
> >> >> >> > imagine the chaos, if that were possible? Just forget

> it; it is not
> >> >> >> > possible and never has been.
> >> >> >> >
> >> >> >> > Sped laws were enacted because the Education Mafia wanted them.
> >> >> >> > Either they did the initial lobbying or they joined the initial
> >> >> >> > lobbyists
> >> >> >> > (possibly some parents).
> >> >> >> >
> >> >> >> > Consider the other case. There is a lot of activity around the
> >> >> >> > issues
> >> >> >> > of TAG education. Paul himself cited the Davidson

> Institute, which
> >> >> >> > is only
> >> >> >> > one of many groups active in TAG education. However,

> the Education
> >> >> >> > Mafia do
> >> >> >> > not want the TAG equivalent of sped, so even though lots of people
> >> >> >> > (including the NEA, the AFT, and ed school professors)

> testify before
> >> >> >> > congress all the time on the subject of TAG education, there is no
> >> >> >> > TAG
> >> >> >> > equivalent to sped law.
> >> >> >> >
> >> >> >> > No statutes, no court cases. End of story.
> >> >> >> >
> >> >> >> > Why? Why do the Education Mafia want sped law and not

> TAG law? Do
> >> >> >> > I
> >> >> >> > really have to spell this out? Oh, OK.
> >> >> >> >
> >> >> >> > Sped kids need services. Who is providing these

> services? Why, it
> >> >> >> > is
> >> >> >> > the Education Mafia, at great expense to the public

> purse. The key
> >> >> >> > to
> >> >> >> > understanding this is that taking the schools to court, for sped
> >> >> >> > services,
> >> >> >> > is not like you being taken to court because you drove

> your car into
> >> >> >> > your
> >> >> >> > neighbors house, one drunken night.
> >> >> >> >
> >> >> >> > School districts have budgets. If you demand a

> service for which
> >> >> >> > the
> >> >> >> > school does not have the money, they are bound to say

> "no", however
> >> >> >> > much
> >> >> >> > they really want to provide the service. The point of taking the
> >> >> >> > school to
> >> >> >> > court is that you are really taking the state to

> court. On the basis
> >> >> >> > of
> >> >> >> > sped law, the judge then forces the state to cough up the extra
> >> >> >> > money.
> >> >> >> > Brilliant, no? It is not that the Education Mafia are

> so brilliant,
> >> >> >> > but
> >> >> >> > they have had a lot of time to work things out.
> >> >> >> >
> >> >> >> > TAG education would not work like this. If the schools were
> >> >> >> > legally
> >> >> >> > mandated to provide services to the satisfaction of TAG

> children and
> >> >> >> > their
> >> >> >> > parents, it would mean less money for the Education

> Mafia, not more.
> >> >> >> > Furthermore, true TAG education would play Hell with The Prime
> >> >> >> > Directive
> >> >> >> > (Reduce The Gap!). True TAG education is everything the Education
> >> >> >> > Mafia
> >> >> >> > abhors. Oddly, we have no TAG education laws.
> >> >> >> >
> >> >> >> > Paul's final observation, that the schools themselves

> want to avoid
> >> >> >> > doing anything for TAG children lest they get the legal
> cart rolling
> >> >> >> > by
> >> >> >> > their actions, is completely at odds with the observable evidence.
> >> >> >> > General
> >> >> >> > education law is written so that the schools can do pretty much
> >> >> >> > whatever
> >> >> >> > they want to do. That is why some schools accommodate

> TAG children
> >> >> >> > (sometimes rather well) while most schools do not. That is why a
> >> >> >> > school
> >> >> >> > that used to accommodate TAG children might cease doing

> so with the
> >> >> >> > advent
> >> >> >> > of a new principal or a new superintendent.
> >> >> >> >
> >> >> >> > TAG education comes and goes all the time. Sped education is
> >> >> >> > forever.
> >> >> >> > That is the way the law works. And if you want it to work
> >> >> >> > differently,
> >> >> >> > start flexing your political lobbying muscles (and good luck with
> >> >> >> > that).
> >> >> >> >
> >> >> >> > Haim
> >> >> >> > Shovel ready? What shovel ready?

> >> >> >>
> >> >> >> The above is false for a very simple reason:
> >> >> >>
> >> >> >> The above is true only if what conservatives call "legislating from
> >> >> >> the bench" in civil law does not exist.
> >> >> >>
> >> >> >> But it does exist.
> >> >> >>
> >> >> >> That is, Haim argues as if there has never been any such thing in
> >> >> >> civil law as very creative lawyers arguing very creatively by trying
> >> >> >> to apply some statute somewhere that has never been applied that way
> >> >> >> before in front of one or more very creative judges that

> happen to end
> >> >> >> up agreeing with said very creative lawyer. And he argues
> as if there
> >> >> >> has never been any such thing even though as everyone should know,
> >> >> >> there has been such a thing very, very often and where conservatives
> >> >> >> like him derisively call this sort of thing "legislating from the
> >> >> >> bench".
> >> >> >>
> >> >> >> (And of course there is this saying, "If at first you don't succeed,
> >> >> >> try, try again." This applies to this sort of creative

> application of
> >> >> >> statute in civil law absolutely - there are many examples
> where there
> >> >> >> are many failures in court until finally some lawyer somewhere gets
> >> >> >> some judge to agree. And then another. And so on. Just think of all
> >> >> >> those failed lawsuits against the tobacco companies. That

> didn't stop
> >> >> >> lawyers from trying again and again, while using more and more
> >> >> >> research as it kept piling up, trying to become more and more
> >> >> >> creative, until it finally worked.)
> >> >> >>
> >> >> >> In fact, the laying of the groundwork for such a creative use of law
> >> >> >> with respect to gifted children seems to be in progress,

> and seems to
> >> >> >> have started many years ago, in that more and more research keeps
> >> >> >> piling up as to the negative consequences of not fully meeting the
> >> >> >> needs of gifted children, research that said creative lawyers could
> >> >> >> try to use:
> >> >> >>
> >> >> >> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gifted_education
> >> >> >>
> >> >> >> Quote:
> >> >> >>
> >> >> >> "The notion that gifted children are "at-risk" was publicly declared
> >> >> >> in the Marland Report in 1972:
> >> >> >> Gifted and Talented children are, in fact, deprived and can suffer
> >> >> >> psychological damage and permanent impairment of their abilities to
> >> >> >> function well which is equal to or greater than the similar
> >> >> >> deprivation suffered by any other population with special

> needs served
> >> >> >> by the Office of Education. (pp. xi-xii)[15]
> >> >> >>
> >> >> >> Three decades later, a similar statement was made by

> researchers in the
> >> >> >> field:
> >> >> >> National efforts to increase the availability of a variety of
> >> >> >> appropriate instructional and out-of-school provisions

> must be a high
> >> >> >> priority since research indicates that many of the
> emotional or social
> >> >> >> difficulties gifted students experience disappear when their
> >> >> >> educational climates are adapted to their level and pace

> of learning."
> >> >> >> [emphasis added][16]"
> >> >> >>
> >> >> >> In other words, there are claiming that gifted kids are just as
> >> >> >> special as any other kid deemed worthy of special consideration in
> >> >> >> special education, and it seems that they are laying the groundwork
> >> >> >> for the legal claim that gifted education should be

> legally defined as
> >> >> >> a subset of special education, based on creative applications of
> >> >> >> existing law with respect to who gets to be defined as special and
> >> >> >> therefore legally entitled to the extra attention and

> money. That is,
> >> >> >> note specifically the part containing the phrase "special needs" in
> >> >> >> the above.
> >> >> >>
> >> >> >> And see this:
> >> >> >>
> >> >> >> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gifted_At-Risk



Date Subject Author
2/12/12
Read Re: Finland
Paul A. Tanner III
2/13/12
Read Re: Finland
Robert Hansen
2/13/12
Read Re: Finland
Wayne Bishop
2/13/12
Read Re: Finland
Haim
2/13/12
Read Re: Finland
Robert Hansen
2/15/12
Read Re: Finland
Paul A. Tanner III
2/13/12
Read Re: Finland
Haim
2/14/12
Read Re: Finland
Robert Hansen
2/15/12
Read Re: Finland
Haim
2/15/12
Read Re: Finland
Robert Hansen
2/16/12
Read Re: Finland
Wayne Bishop
2/15/12
Read Re: Finland
Richard Strausz
2/15/12
Read Re: Finland
Robert Hansen
2/15/12
Read Re: Finland
Haim
2/15/12
Read Re: Finland
Haim
2/15/12
Read Re: Finland
Richard Strausz
2/15/12
Read Re: Finland
Robert Hansen
2/15/12
Read Re: Finland
Richard Strausz
2/15/12
Read Re: Finland
Haim
2/15/12
Read Re: Finland
Paul A. Tanner III
2/15/12
Read Re: Finland
Robert Hansen
2/15/12
Read Re: Finland
Robert Hansen
2/15/12
Read Re: Finland
Haim
2/15/12
Read Re: Finland
Haim
2/16/12
Read Re: Finland
Haim
2/16/12
Read Re: Finland
Paul A. Tanner III
2/16/12
Read Re: Finland
Wayne Bishop
2/17/12
Read Re: Finland
Paul A. Tanner III
2/17/12
Read Re: Finland
Wayne Bishop
2/17/12
Read Re: Finland
Paul A. Tanner III
2/18/12
Read Re: Finland
Wayne Bishop
2/18/12
Read Re: Finland
Robert Hansen
2/18/12
Read Re: Finland
Wayne Bishop
2/18/12
Read Re: Finland
Paul A. Tanner III
2/18/12
Read Re: Finland
Wayne Bishop
2/16/12
Read Re: Finland
Haim
2/16/12
Read Re: Finland
Stephanie Epifanio
2/17/12
Read Re: Finland
Paul A. Tanner III
2/17/12
Read Re: Finland
Haim
2/17/12
Read Re: Finland
Paul A. Tanner III
2/17/12
Read Re: Finland
Haim
2/17/12
Read Re: Finland
Haim
2/18/12
Read Re: Finland
Haim
2/18/12
Read Re: Finland
Wayne Bishop
2/18/12
Read Re: Finland
Wayne Bishop
2/18/12
Read Re: Finland
Haim
2/18/12
Read Re: Finland
Haim
2/18/12
Read TAG Education
Robert Hansen
2/18/12
Read Re: Finland
Robert Hansen
2/19/12
Read Re: Finland
Paul A. Tanner III
2/19/12
Read Re: Finland
Wayne Bishop
2/20/12
Read Re: Finland
Paul A. Tanner III

Point your RSS reader here for a feed of the latest messages in this topic.

[Privacy Policy] [Terms of Use]

© The Math Forum at NCTM 1994-2017. All Rights Reserved.