BF2S Forums Schools to increase school year by 300 hours

I remember 2.5 hours classes being an absolute fucking drag, and so did most my peers. Unless you're really into the subject a 6 hour class is the one I would wag the most.

I don't think it's a cover-all solution. There's only so much you can do in a day with basic courses, but there are plenty of subjects an immersion day would be useful for, even if some of them were split into half-days. AP sciences come to mind.

source: component level electronics theory/engineering and computer networking classes from microsoft to cisco

Jaekus wrote:

With the amount of research done into things like attention spans and the average ability to absorb and apply information, I'm sure if it were a good idea compared to watch is conventional it would've been implemented by now.

You're saying...that everything that's a good idea has already been long since implemented by public school?

ha.

hahaha.

AH HAHAHA-eh.

Jaekus wrote:

Reading into things too much again? Seems a bad habit you have there.

There's also the consideration that taking a 6 hour block of one class a week is not as beneficial as taking it spread out numerous times over the week. From personal and nine years music teaching experience, if a student were to practice once a week or spread out the same time over the course of a week their ability to retain and improve upon skills and knowledge is in every case better.

Reading too much into what? I'm juggling two threads of people who are jumping to conclusions. I certainly have the right to do the same if that's how you see it.

The most beneficial way would be to take a session that long (with the associated breaks and shit) five days a week. But with academic focus, that simply isn't viable. I've helped people with subjects they were struggling with on weekends. Being patient, poking around for ways they learn best, taking a break if they start to look distracted did more for their long term memory on a subject than the fifteen-to-thirty minutes per day they actually settled down to pay attention to it in class.

I'm not a professional teacher, but I've got practical experience under my belt.

unnamednewbie13 wrote:

Jaekus wrote:

Reading into things too much again? Seems a bad habit you have there.

There's also the consideration that taking a 6 hour block of one class a week is not as beneficial as taking it spread out numerous times over the week. From personal and nine years music teaching experience, if a student were to practice once a week or spread out the same time over the course of a week their ability to retain and improve upon skills and knowledge is in every case better.

Reading too much into what? I'm juggling two threads of people who are jumping to conclusions. I certainly have the right to do the same if that's how you see it.

The most beneficial way would be to take a session that long (with the associated breaks and shit) five days a week. But with academic focus, that simply isn't viable. I've helped people with subjects they were struggling with on weekends. Being patient, poking around for ways they learn best, taking a break if they start to look distracted did more for their long term memory on a subject than the fifteen-to-thirty minutes per day they actually settled down to pay attention to it in class.

I'm not a professional teacher, but I've got practical experience under my belt.

You're implying you're having difficulty "juggling" two threads when the posting has been going for around half an hour, yet a classroom of 30 teenagers is somehow meant to focus on a topic they may not like for six hours and stay well behaved? That's idealistic in the extreme.

Nice dodge.

it creates jobs I guess

my lectures / workshops are 1hr45 mins each with a 10-15 min break.

Last edited by Shocking (2012-12-03 14:13:26)

Such a waste of money. This is what the teachers are going to be doing with their extra time and pay

Messing with school hours won't improve our international test score ranking. The school format we have is fine. No need to change a thing.

We have never done well on the international test we all wringe our hands over. We came in last the first time we did the test back in the 60's. We have actually improved in ranking placement.

The problem with our schools is the amount of poverty we have. 25% of American children live in poverty. That is more than any county in Europe. The poor bring the scores down. On a dollar to dollar ranking our students out perform most of Europe. People who show up wanting to learn AND have the support network do fine enough to compete internationally.

If you want to improve our country's education system work To stop poverty

It pulled you out didn't it. Unless Pell stopped being a government program.

Narupug wrote:

Jay wrote:

That's nice, now explain to the class how the government can, in any way shape or form, pull people out of poverty. Hint: it can't.

You can reduce poverty, probably can't eliminate it, but you can certainly reduce it.  Most government transfer payments do that to some extent.  If we didn't have unemployment benefits or social security, I think most people would agree more people would be in poverty.

Nope. Government transfers actually increase poverty.

Say you have a spread of ten workers making different wages from 1 to 10 coins per hour. The people at the very bottom, their life sucks. They barely make enough money to pay their rent and they more than likely have to work multiple jobs just to get by. The people above them making 2 coins per hour have life slightly better. Life is still hard but they're making twice what the people on the bottom do per hour so perhaps they only have to work one job to scrape by. Well, some do-gooder comes along, completely disconnected from reality but sensing an injustice, and they decide to set the poverty line at anything income below 2 coins per hour. They raise the minimum wage to 2 coins per hour and shower those below with money in order to alleviate their suffering. Awesome, right? Well, now that you've dumped a bunch of new money into the hands of people that were formerly working their ass off, they spend it. This in turn causes prices to rise, rent to rise etc. Merchants realize they can charge more money now for products than they used to because there is more money available. Your poverty line now has to move because not only are the people who formerly made only 1 coin per hour poor and suffering again, you've added the guy that was making 2 coins per hour to the rolls of the poor. The cycle repeats when you move the bar up to 3 coins per hour. Wealth transfers do nothing but cause inflation. They don't make peoples lives better.

And yes, that goes for PELL grants too. They're the primary driver in the skyrocketing cost of college educations today. Every time the government raises the subsidy, colleges raise their tuition.

Jay, does it ever sadden you that you never received your Chicago Boyz club hoodie? Christ, even those guys don't deny government's role in reducing poverty nowadays...

Cybargs wrote:

Macbeth wrote:

The problem with our schools is the amount of poverty we have. 25% of American children live in poverty.

1 in 8 Australians live in poverty too. Yet it's the second best place to be born in the world. You see the issue with those numbers?

How is it that dirt poor vietnamese, chinese, indian, bangladeshi and other immigrants can do MUCH better than everyone else despite being in the same social class? It's the value of education their parents hold. You change parenting attitude towards education, you'll see higher test scores.

I do not understand the point of this post.
http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Culture_of_poverty
???

Yellow power or something?