Talk Elections

Sponsor: Snowguy716

Finally!

Senators, I urge you to support this bill.  I left it open ended because I thought it should be more comprehensive but I thought everybody should have input.

And just so we're clear:  What I mean by the class size targets is that when a school district receives the money for the class size reduction program, they must start by hiring teachers at the lowest grade levels (in my bill, this is Kindergarten-2nd grade).  Once class sizes in these grades reach the target of 18 students per classroom teacher, then they can begin hiring teachers in grades 3-5.  Once those classes reach 21 students per classroom teacher, they can move onto the next 'cohort' and so on and so forth.

Since most larger school districts are set up with a middle school/high school (k-5/6-8/9-12) combination, I put those as the default.  In rural districts and very large districts that have a junior high/senior high make up either separately or in combination (7-12 in small districts), I am allowing adjustments for them since in those districts, 6th grade is still considered an elementary grade.

The separate sex classrooms are pretty self explanatory.  The focus will especially be on boys since girls tend to perform quite well under current curriculum strategies.  Boys, however, have been falling behind for some time now.  Studies show that if teachers change their teaching methods to focus on the ways that boys learn (by having shorter class periods, doing instead of listening or watching, having more classroom activities), I think boys' achievement will go up.

I am also contemplating adding an amendment that would offer grants, especially to inner city schools, that increase the length of the school day and increasing after school programs.  This keeps the kids off the streets in the afternoon.. especially when single parents are likely to be at work.  The longer day would also allow students to complete more work in class and reduce homework loads... students are much more likely to complete their work in school than in a home environment where there is little discipline and parents are either too busy or simply don't want to be involved in their child's academics.

Increasing the length of the school day is a no go for me. If you were to do that, you need to increase the salaries of the teachers and also it would result in higher utilities costs. I do not believe that local municipalities can afford that at the moment.

Pennywise, pound foolish, Rowan!  Refusing to reform the system in order to create better outcomes among students will only greatly increase the cost to society in the future through increased crime rates and reduced economic productivity.

And for that matter, you're unlikely to raise utility bills in the schools since schools are often active during the afternoons/early evenings with extracurricular activities as it is.  It's not as if we're pushing to keep school in session until 10 o clock.  



In any case, increasing the school day is going to cost money.  That is what the grant program would cover.  

Please, just have a little foresight.  

An interesting proposal.

One way to possibly combat high utility costs would be to give students a longer winter break and go into the summer more.

As far as increasing class time goes, I can see that resulting in students "burning out" faster.  You can get away with skipping in High School but for younger students that behavior can be academically devastating.

Not true. Air conditioning/heating is turned off in classrooms that aren't being used for afterschool activities.

As a high school student, I can confirm this.

Well, some schools have actually done this, drastically lengthening the school day until 5pm, so the school day is more than 8 hours long.  The results have been very good.

http://www.kipp.org/news/star-tribune-minneapolis-st-paul-mn-a-longer-school-day-a-smarter-kid-

As for the utility costs:  Again, that is the point of the grants.  If you don't support this, then don't.  But don't say you'd somehow support longer school days except that we have to do the obvious:  pay people more and heat the buildings longer.

Both of those things are part of the general operational budgets in schools, and these grants would pay for precisely that. 

And if you oppose paying for longer school days to keep kids off the streets in vulnerable inner city schools (that apply for the grants on a voluntary basis), are you also opposed to the rest of the bill?

Knowing this now will aid me greatly in deciding whether or not I should move forward or compromise.

Long school days? Separate sex classrooms? When I was in middle school, the girls were the only thing that kept me going! ;)

I don't support a longer school day at all, actually, and have never said that I did.

I agree with the long school days but not the gender seperation.  A critical part of school is learning social skills and I think keeping genders seperate can only hurt children's social skills.

HappyWarrior has a good point


Rebuttal, Snowguy? :P


lol, I have become the Moderator of a Presidential Penguin Show (also known as a debate).

I guess I should have been more clear in my bill.  The only classes separated are the four basic subjects:  language arts, science, math, and social studies.  Boys and girls would be together in PE, music, technology, art, recess, lunch time, any field trips or all school activities, and in the classroom during times when they aren't working on the 4 subjects.  Teachers would have a mixed classroom.. and then during the 4 subjects, the boys from one room would team up with the boys from the "buddy" classroom and the girls from that room would come over to buddy up.

The parts of the school day where most socialization occurs... during the classes and activities I mentioned above... students would be mixed.

Socialization is just as important as academics... but I think my proposal would increase academic performance without hurting socialization.

How does it improve academics?

ugh...

Read what I've already written in this thread.

http://www.nytimes.com/2009/03/11/education/11gender.html

There are arguments for and against in this article.  But these also only take into account schools where classrooms are completely separated all day.  I think having together-time and separate-time would be even more beneficial as it would allow more open discussion of problems that students might otherwise feel uncomfortable talking about in front of boys or girls.

ANd keep in mind this is a small pilot program... not a full implementation across all schools.

I have a concern on this for smaller schools. In my grade, there are only about 25 boys. Under this law, we'd all likely be placed in the same class. If that were to happen, someone like me on the higher end, intelligence-wise, would be slowed down.

It would be extraordinarily difficult for small schools to be able to keep honor classes and still separate boys and girls. Because in my school, if you had an honors English class for boys only, there'd be 5 students in it.

The vast majority of these programs are for elementary grades.  And right now this is on a "first come, first serve" basis among schools that voluntarily apply for the program.  Small districts with concerns like yours likely will not apply.

I have made no commitments to universal implementation whatsoever.  The only large-scale project in this bill is money for hiring teachers for class size reduction.

I a.ways favor smaller classes. We'd need more teachers in the workforce and proper funding to ensure that could be achieved.

I still can't support separate sex classrooms. School isn't only a place to learn, but a place to develop social skills (hence my intense opposition to home schooling), and single sex classrooms, especially in elementary school, despite what studies in Minnesota (a limited sample) say, I'm going to be stubborn.

What.... The.... Fyck ? ???

I just realized my post above didn't make sense. Anyway, I oppose splitting the sexes and I always will for the reasons incoherently stated above.

There are some advantages to same-sex education. Girls tend to excel more in math and science with it.  Maybe there would be some advantage in reading for boys in classes tailored more to them but I don't know if this has been demonstrated. I tend to think literature and social studies/history benefits from having points of view discussed from both genders.  It's tricky but maybe a pilot program would not be a bad idea to see if it provides any results schools would want to adopt, but I am very much against the idea that the government would consider adopting as standard one way or another.

Smaller class size is a great thing to aspire to. It is the bulk of the money here, I'm not sure where the funds are coming from, and I don't know if there are enough people who would make good teachers and want to be hired for this to work.

Girls and boys are born with the exact same brain, and there is nothing in biological differences that affects one's predisposition to one discipline or another. Maybe there are differences in education or social incitations, but making separate classes would only accentuate the problem.

This is discrimination. This is like saying black people are better at sports and worse at intellectual works (that might be factually true, simply because 1. blacks are poorer and can study less ; 2. the society's stereotypes orient blacks toward less intellectual jobs. Anyways there's nothing natural in these differences). It offends my deepest values as a humanist and a universalist. It should offend the values of you all.

race and sex are not really comparable, since sex is a universal and biologically valid concept. whether or not there are inborn differences, the point is that by the time kids reach school, and especially middle and high school, there are different tendencies (not absolute), so the question is how you approach the different tendencies in learning styles.  it's not as though boys or girls are worse intellectually, just trying to see if there are different styles which help them learn. 

Boys and girls are not born with the same brains.  It is absolutely ridiculous to pretend that they are. 

It is people like you that will be the downfall of boys and men as you will scream "total, rigid equality NO MATTER WHAT!" as boys continue to fall further and further behind in every metric.  Instead you will claim they are simply lazy because they have less patience in an educational delivery that clearly favors girls.

If there is a good reason to oppose my small pilot program in this thread, your's, good sir, is not one of them.  At least Duke makes a valid point regarding socialization rather than making a ridiculous claim that BOYS AND GIRLS ARE EXACTLY 100% THE SAME.  I could start a list of differences if I thought it'd make a damn bit of difference.

Wow, some "interesting" views have been described here. :P

Though I am skeptical of separating the sexes and would generally prefer to oppose such a measure, I find Snowguy's little pilot project maybe a worthwhile endeavour. In a few months we can force the GM/SoIA to say what the results are.

My 2nd grade teacher separated students in the class based on what she observed where their favored learning techniques:  visual, auditory, and tactile.  The tactile group was dominated by boys and the auditory group by girls.  But she based her math lessons around these differences.  The visual group watched demonstrations where applicable, while the auditory group did story problems.  The tactile groups demonstrated the problems themselves using counting blocks or by manipulating objects to reach the correct answer.

I was in the tactile group.  In her assessments, she told the parents that students that excel with tactile learning, mostly boys, often have the most difficult time in the classroom where larger class sizes permit only visual or auditory teaching methods.

She's now the head of the elementary education department and a professor of pedagogy at the local university.  After falling behind in 1st grade in both math and reading, I leapt ahead in 2nd grade and was put in advanced groups that were learning advanced math and doing advanced reading.  It didn't happen by accident... which is why I am so adamant about this.

Is there a way to separate based on those groups rather then sex? I mean, "dominate" isn't the same as "completely comprised of", as such what do you think would be the practicality (especially measuring accurately who is auditory, who is visual and who is tactile etc) of using that instead, as the most effective way to achieve the best learning environment?

Well, the point is that while the sexes tended to separate out some... if you split it up that way, then your'e talking about splitting 3 ways, which is logistically much harder.  On top of that, you'd need assessments to determine the exact learning styles of each student.

By separating boys and girls you can put an emphasis on various learning styles that boys do better without those rigid differences... which is important since even a tactile learner must still be able to glean information through visual or auditory means and so on.

sigh...

Whether or not the "learning differences" are scientifically documented, deducing that these differences are a direct consequence of gender is silly. Instead of trying to fight agains the social processes that encourage different attitudes between boys and girls, you prefer to officialize this discrimination in the law ?

To be fair, I don't think you can compare (as seems to be the analogy you're hinting at) this to racially-based discrimination. Sex [1] is a scientific, objective concept. Race is a vague social construct. There are real, physical differences between male and female brains, that have been scientifically documented. I could dig up the relevant references - and will, if need be - but IIRC the differences start appearing after three or four years of age. So your point that males and females are born with the same brains is (almost) true, but irrelevant.

I would agree with your post if what you were saying was true - that the suggestion of the bill merely enforces preconceived discrimination and prejudices. I don't think that is the case, though.

More to the point, it's a pilot project, and surely worth trying. Let's give it a shot and see the results, then we can argue some more. :P

[1] Is this basically a debate about sex versus gender?

Of course there might be some differences in brains. Does that mean girls and boys think differently ? For this program to be legitimate, you need to provide the irrefutable proof that the differences in learning between boys and girls have a biological origin.

I know I have a very principled (call it hackish) position there, but for my entire life I've learnt to instinctively reject any argument based on the idea of "natural differences" between human beings.

My brain is confused. Me is excluding myself from any debate.

/reset/

Why do you think we're doing the pilot program?

A pilot program is basically an experiment or test to see if implementing a certain program on a wider scale is worth the cost.

There is a very small chance that this will have a negative impact on either boys or girls since they would still be together at crucial socializing times of the school day (like recess or lunch time, or in non-basic classes like art, music, and phy ed... or story time, or various other subjects in the classroom that aren't specifically the four basics).

The point is to think outside of the box.  You are not reinforcing gender roles by delivering the exact same educational content in ways that might be more universally suited to one sex or the other.  It's not as if we're separating the boys and girls and then saying "now boys, remember that girls are inferior and should be beaten into submission!" or "now girls, remember that women are meant to be seen and not heard!  Not to speak unless spoken to!  And by all means, in the kitchen, barefoot and pregnant... cooking dinner for your husband!"

Maybe girls have a better time learning about insects by studying an ant farm while boys have a better time by taking a hike in the woods and finding ants under a rock.  That is the point of this experiment.

On the other end of the spectrum, mixed age classrooms have been shown to be a great success.  My first grade teacher did this for several years not long ago with a veteran 2nd grade teacher (actually my sister's first grade teacher).  They were separated for some subjects like spelling or math, but were mixed together for science and social studies.  The two classes were then mixed together in order to allow the 2nd graders to help the 1st graders with math and reading.  Having the 2nd graders help the 1st graders didn't lower them to the 1st grade level like Antonio might suggest... but actually improved their learning ability and helped them move faster at the more advanced 2nd grade curriculum.  It also greatly aided 1st graders in moving through the 1st grade material.  Like trade, there were benefits to both sides with almost no drawbacks.

Again.. simple thinking outside the box.

Because with these rigid 19th century teaching/learning styles... we really have to ask ourselves "is our children learning?"

Do you really think a pilot program can help us discover natural differences in processes of thought between boys and girls ? I personally don't see how they could : what they can instead is favoring different methods of teaching/learning based on gender stereotypes. Teacher will adopt a different behaviour based on sex of their students (they probably already do, but this can only reinforce differentiation), students will be incited to act in a way conform to their gender, etc...

I wasn't aware we were trying to raise a generation of Pats and Sams.  You're just being blind in this issue.  You are basically cutting off your nose to spite your face.  You would rather see lower academic performance by all and ensure some fantastical notion of complete gender neutrality.  It's pretty ridiculous.  How dare a girl learn like a girl!

The alternative is one-size-fits-all... when you pack 25-35 kids in a classroom with one teacher... there is nothing you can do.  At least by separating boys and girls for part of the day, the teachers can offer a limited amount of personal attention to more specific learning styles.

And again:  The entire point of a pilot program is precisely to measure whether this is worth implementing on a wider scale.  There would be reviewal of test scores and academic achievement to look for improvement.

And the purpose has never been to discover natural differences in the processes of thought between boys and girls.  It is to improve academic achievement.  Hillary Clinton, of all people, has praised the merits of separate sex classrooms.  I wouldn't exactly call Hillary a meek, submissive housewife.

And yet, what about this program actually encouraging discriminations ? You can't dismiss this possibility.

And what is "academic achievement" for you ? Yeah, maybe with this system students will get better marks (since they will be taught things they are more "conform to their nature"), and then ?

We just can't have a men's education and a women's education, that's all. School is the place where equality should be the most sacrosanct.

Not that it would be considered scientific, but I went to an all male school and my sisters to all female.  It worked out pretty well.  However, after two years, we moved and the new schools were co-ed.  Once I got into a school with girls, I can tell you, my studies went way down.  I also noticed, for the first time, the rigid social structure of high school.  At the all-male school, while not everybody was friends, there was not the drama associated with "coolness" that I saw later.

On the flip side, my friends from the co-ed school, I believe were a little better prepared for the experience of college with girls than my first school.

Exactly. School isn't just for education, but it's for the social aspect. Life isn't separated by sexes, so I find it hard to believe separating sexes at schools is beneficial in the long run.

Would you be more supportive of having mixed age classrooms in a pilot program?  Many school districts do this out of necessity because of a lack of students in any one grade to justify having its own teacher.
I think this more than answers your concerns about socialization because it is very important that children have contact with other children that are at a different academic/maturity level.  It teaches them to work with others better.

I will write up an amendment to the bill tomorrow.

Also, I left the bill open ended if you guys had your own ideas.  The idea is to try new methods at improving academic performance.

My head is literally spinning. I will say I support mixed age classrooms over dividing the sexes. I don't know a lot about school reforms because I went to a traditional private school, but I still feel strongly about splitting up sexes. Ages I can compromise on, but I don't understand how the curriculum works on that case.

That seems doubtful, but I'd get to an emergency room ASAP, just in case.

http://media.education.gov.uk/assets/files/pdf/8/8311dcsfgender%20what%20works%20bmkpdf.pdf (http://media.education.gov.uk/assets/files/pdf/8/8311dcsfgender%20what%20works%20bmkpdf.pdf)

Snowguy is raising some good points, I am going to see if a regional level pilot program would work.
Antonio, you sound like the little kid with fingers in his years afraid to hear something he already knows is true.
If you really believe school is the place where equality should be most sacrosanct, you'll want to try out programs that could potentially eliminate the gender gap.

Napoleon, best of luck with your regional efforts on that. To my mind that's really a much better level at which to deal with this issue.

OK... ::)

So you guys want to reduce the gender gap through segregation ? Sorry, but no matter the "evidence" you can present me to show the marvels of division by sex, it will never make it legitimate. That's not denial, just a matter of principles.

If the school teaching methods were biased in favor of boys and girls were consistently underperforming, would you tell them to go shove it? You're really the one being discriminatory here despite your narrow preconceived worldview. In fact you sound much the like the same kind of moralistic conservative that impedes progress. Since segregation (a nice, loaded term you picked) is so inherently evil, perhaps considering integrated locker rooms is next in order? There's no natural difference to account for, after all.

Do you really think separating groups is a solution to solve an inequality ? This is a mistake that has often been made, with dramatic consequences. Just like those who thought imposing racial quotas to universities would have solved the problem of racial inequalities... I staunchly oppose any form of "positive discrimination", and I believe I have some reasons to.

And also, you can always make a big deal of boys underperforming girls at school (of course I also wish to fix this problem), but considering that, despite this, women still end up having lower jobs than men and get paid less for the same job, maybe this isn't exactly the most important problem of gender inequalities.

Unless you are suggesting that it is acceptable for boys to perform worse in school due to methods used having a bias in favor girls because women and men work different jobs and receive different pay than men, I believe that is best addressed in another discussion with another bill. Should boys and girls be required to meet the same standards on physical education testing, or is that a form of "positive discrimination" you want to eliminate? Instead of a small pilot program to have a trial separation limited to a few subjects, would you prefer to overhaul the entire system to one where girls are consistently underperforming and we will just call it fair? I'm not willing to throw an entire gender under the bus to fit an irrational PC worldview when there are fair and reasonable solutions we could try on for size.
This isn't at all analogous to racial quotas...this is more similar to improving inner city schools so that quotas aren't needed in the future.

This is correct for sure.


I for one, don't have a problem with seperating genders for the sake of a pilot project just to test what impact it would have.

Since the includes an experimentation with an alternative learning environment, are there any other such experiments that could be included as well, as either pilot projects or studies or what not for the sake of testing a broader ranger of alternative environments?

It would be fruitful to provide a level of federal fundding if the Northeast adopts a pilot program, as the results of such could be beneficial nationwide. :)

Then I invite you to write a bill that seeks to close the pay and achievement gap in the work force.

This bill has to do with education.  Right now, we are failing boys.  Girls excel in the current setup because they are more patient and diligent in getting things done on their own.  And it's precisely because they are girls that that is the case.  Does it mean I think one sex is better than the other?  No.

But I obviously stopped trying to appeal to you a while ago, Antonio.  You've been nothing but obstinate and incredulous throughout this whole debate.  I'm instead trying to work out a compromise with our conservative colleagues that actually embrace reform as a necessary part of improving education.

And to my conservative colleagues:  As I have opined before, I believe that the federal role in education should be limited.  That is why the pilot program I proposed is just that.  I want the bulk of the bill to be for reducing class size, which I believe is an appropriate federal intervention in the classroom.

I think we all agree on reducing class sizes, and I'm fully open to supporting that measure.

If it's just a pilot, then I don't think we should worry about gender separation so much. If it proves to be undesirable, then it was only a pilot and will not be expanded to other schools...

I second bgwah's comment - there's really no point in getting worked up over a small-scale pilot program. Let's try this experiment, see the results, and then get into the ethics of it...

Also, yeah, I doubt anyone will have a problem with reducing class sizes. It's a no-brainer.

Where will the pilots be employed? I'm on my phone so if it's in the bill, my apologies.

c:/KALBOT/Programs/SenateHardware/Analysing_projects.exe

U-n-d-e-c-i-d-e-d-  y-e-t

c:/KALBOT/Programs/Games/OperationFlashpoint/Flashpoint.exe

*choosing single mission*

And for you, this is enough to deduce a natural difference. This is the problem.

Girls tend (and this word is important) to be more partient and diligent in getting things done on their own. This might be due to a difference in their brain, or simply to the fact that they receive a different education from the society. Boys are taught to "affirm themselves", to show the "have balls", to get what they want. Girls, instead, are taught to be modest, to do their best to please other people, to be patient, etc. That's just the projection of our social stereotypes on school.

And instead of trying to fight those stereotypes, you instead try to adapt school to them. You officialize them. You "naturalize" them. This is a colossal regression, a vision every progressive (every liberal in the true sense of the word) must fight against in order to reach a society where every person is born equal. I'm fed up of all these "pragmatists", who constantly appeal to "common sense" and are unable to see the social (moral) consequences of their actions.

What is that exactly, I am afraid I am not familiar with that?

Was supposed to say pilot..um, I have no idea how in the heck that happened.

I was gonna say.. a eucharistic program?  Are we now offering the blood of Christ after PE?  :P

Anything for the children, Senator.

While I would never support a full on implementation of separating boys and girls, running it as a pilot program would certainly be interesting.

Any other ideas to include in this bill. The Senator did say it was open ended?


This is like talking to a wall. The only response I get back are the crickets and other sounds of the night. :P

I feel like everyone here supports smaller classes and most have reservations separating the sexes. We might as well vote on it now instead of talking to a wall, yank. :P

I would still like to know how we pay for this.

Well Shua knows what to ask atleast. :P


When I said other ideas I mean "OTHER IDEAS". Think beyond the current contents and think of other improvements or experiements to be included. A bill can't be open ended if nothing is added to it in the course of the debate.

I am very displeased this has languished for so long.


So I will ask again (and trust to good faith that someone actually understands it), is there any other "alternative classroom environments" that could be put into the bill in similar fashion as a test or experiment to measure its potential.


And finally I would like an answer to shua's question.

I am absolutely in favor of reducing class sizes, but I'm still not sure about gender segregation.

Again, I think it's crucial to note that this is only a pilot program - there's really no harm in seeing how the ideas presented in the bill work on a small scale.

Well, I'll definitively vote aye. Just saying about gender thing :P

Are there any pilot programs that should be included for the sake of experimenting with various technologies that might aid the learning environment?

Laptops! Laptops!

[/geek]

Oakvale seeks redemption for innactivity, by being first to actually do what I command of you.


T H I N K  


Though, I do think laptops are already being experimented with most likely. :P

Seriously people, start throwing stuff out there.

I'm returning from the wilderness.

I have asked it as many ways I can think of so, 

final vote soon.

I would offer an Amendment striking section 2 from the bill, but since it would certainly fail I don't see the need to lengthen the procedure fro no reason. This is just to let you know that, despite my respect for the purpose of this bill and the intentions of its drafter, I can't support it in its current form.

And I'm going to vote "aye" exactly because of this. We wasted so much time for an endless bitching about a pilot program so we better pass it to open this slot free. We can eventually work on details to amend later.

This bill is now at final vote, please vote Aye, Nay, or Abstain.

Aye

An enthusiastic aye.

Nay

Nay

Aye - we'll give it a shot.

Aye

aye

Aye

Aye!

This bill has enough to pass, 24 hours to change votes.

This seems reasonable. Aye.

Vote on Final Passage of the 2011 Education Act:

Aye (7): AHDuke99, bgwah, HappyWarrior, Kalwejt, NC Yankee, Oakvale, and Snowguy716
Nay (2): Antonio V and Shua
Abstained (0):

Abstained by not voting (1): RowanBrandon
FSFWS (1): Meeker


This bill has enough votes to pass and is presented to the President for executive action.

Depressing.