Current Events > Parents voice concerns about the direction of the Princeton Public Schools

(+) Yeah! (+)

I don't even know what "Princeton Schools" are but it sounds like a shitton of resources went into making this decision. I don't think resources were the problem here. When resources are a problem, advanced students aren't what is at issue edit- except maybe for the cases where there are advanced students in disadcantaged neighbourhoods. That could be what this is, I guess.

In terms of whether advanced classes are good, they can be good for the individual student, which I think might be the perspective you are taking.

Wealthy students can move somewhere else or do private school, they have options.

I always prefer opening things up for the lower rung over giving advantages to people who are already ahead or advantaged, but that is a value bias.

joe40001 posted...

@Everybody, is this true? Is everyone in agreement that I have completely failed to answer shockthemonkey's question?

Your answer was pretty funny, but you never said what qualifies someone as an expert. You just listed a bunch of unrelated people you admire.

MedeaLysistrata posted...

Your answer was pretty funny, but you never said what qualifies someone as an expert. You just listed a bunch of unrelated people you admire.

This was thier question:
"Hey Joe, is there any expert you dont think youre smarter than in their field? Why dont you go to school for all these things and get paid good money to be smarter than all these people in all their fields?"

Sincere question: Is it your reading of that that they are asking me for what qualifies somebody as an "expert"?

joe40001 posted...

Because I feel some people do argue that the existence of advanced courses and advanced tracks necessarily harms those not in such courses. And I fundamentally disagree with that premise.

If you're going to have advanced courses and be a proponent for advanced courses, you should make sure your non advanced courses also have high quality. But I mean, having advanced courses that have higher amount of resources will probably mean less resources for non advanced classes. Especially since financial and labor resources can be fixed costs.

How much is that delta going to be though, and how accessible do we make it for non advanced course students to enter advanced courses

emblem boy posted...

If you're going to have advanced courses and be a proponent for advanced courses, you should make sure your non advanced courses also have high quality. But I mean, having advanced courses that have higher amount of resources will probably mean less resources for non advanced classes. Especially since financial and labor resources can be fixed costs.

How much is that delta going to be though, and how accessible do we make it for non advanced course students to enter advanced courses

I think pitting them against each other is an error. All too often I see wealthy people in power make it neighbor vs neighbor as the only reality when it's not.

There is absolutely the money out there, it just needs to be given to the right places. To say advanced courses harm non-advanced courses in any way is false. Limited resources harm both, so the solution is better and more resources, not even entertaining the idea of dissolving advanced courses IMO.

In short, the folks who push for anything that might result in the removal of calculus, even if that's not their explicit intent. Are doing a clear disservice, and IMO are clearly wrong.

It is more "equal" to harm the advanced students, but it isn't progress of any kind.

joe40001 posted...

To say advanced courses harm non-advanced courses in any way is false. Limited resources harm both, so the solution is better and more resources, not even entertaining the idea of dissolving advanced courses IMO.

If the priority is on advanced courses, limited resources will harm the non advanced courses. Not sure why you're saying there's no way it could harm non advanced courses. Could you organize it in a way to be very fair? Sure. But you also could not. So it's important to look into it and make sure it's being done right.

joe40001 posted...

In short, the folks who push for anything that might result in the removal of calculus, even if that's not their explicit intent. Are doing a clear disservice, and IMO are clearly wrong.

That might? What you and the letter, and what this consultant guy are saying are different. I'd like to see the specifics of what changes could be implemented instead of this letter trying to make me reactionary by creating fear about removal of calculus. The letter explicitly said something was being done, then we discover that's not even true.

ZMythos posted...

You can't copy/paste anything from that website, which is fucking bullshit >_>

As a hs math teacher, tracking is a bad practice and needs to be phased out if we ever want to be at the top of mathematics education.

At least I can still screencap. Here's the Dr. mentioned in the article defending his position in the comments. I agree 100%

https://gamefaqs.gamespot.com/a/user_image/5/8/9/AAaVCFAADYNV.png

Wow, I for one am SHOCKED that people are intentionally misconstruing and misrepresenting a new policy change in an attempt to bemoan and malign the education system

joe40001 posted...

You seem to confuse positions of authority with expertise. Do you truly believe just because somebody got themselves into a position of power they are necessarily knowledgeable?

joe40001 posted...

There's countless experts in every field who are far smarter than me in that field or in general.

Adam Savage, Quinton Tarantino, Penn and Teller, John McWhorter, Dave Filoni, Vince Gilligan, almost all career musicians, I mean I can list names of experts all day but I doubt you'll concede anything.

Lmao fucking hell the absolute shit I read on this board.

I think this is one of the funniest exchanges I've ever seen here. Comedy writers couldn't make this shit up.

ZMythos posted...

Students on low tracks are substantially more likely to stay on those low tracks and never get high quality math education.

i think the key point to make here is that the quality of education stems from the instruction and associated funding, and not the level of difficulty/advancement of the class

when you have a tracking system, you put your best teachers in charge of AP calculus and your worst in charge of senior precalc

resulting in the senior precalc class being quite awful

it's important to understand that de-tracking necessarily puts all/the vast majority of students on the lowest track, and the intent then is to make the lowest track actually taught well

emblem boy posted...

Yep. Tracking seems like a bad thing since it essentially picks out kids at a young age and starts them in that track. If you're weren't lucky enough to be chosen early on in your schooling, you're kinda out of luck .

Is that correct?

I'm sure it's different district to district, but my older kid was put into a math track that was two-years ahead of the "normal" track (i.e. she was taking geometry in 8th grade while most kids take it in 10th). My younger kid (who is just as smart) was put into the normal track. Neither of them want to do anything STEM related, so at the end of the day it doesn't matter, but as a parent, it seemed arbitrary

I took Calc in HS and haven't used it since. Joke field!

I didn't like pre calc so I took stats my senior year. Stats seems to have more practical application in my everyday life too

Background_Guy posted...

I don't go to the doctor and tell him I know more about medicine than him

No but someone in this topic does

I should point out that we don't track any other high school subject to nearly the same degree as we do mathematics.

I took AP Calc, I dont think my school had tracks though.

You just had to take the class before, many of them being elective.

There was no AP Calc, but my school had tracks

Pick your poison

With track systems can't you track up or track down depending on how well you do? I thought the whole point was that if you got put in a normal track and aced it you could bump up to the more difficult track and vice versa.

s0nicfan posted...

With track systems can't you track up or track down depending on how well you do? I thought the whole point was that if you got put in a normal track and aced it you could bump up to the more difficult track and vice versa.

You can, yeah. I did grade 9 in the university track (they told me to do the CC track but I ignored them), 10 and 11 in the CC track and then 12 in the uni track again. But not a lot of students really seemed to even bother with that.

The split was also pretty even, believe it or not. There was also a 3rd track for trades that was obviously less popular.

s0nicfan posted...

With track systems can't you track up or track down depending on how well you do? I thought the whole point was that if you got put in a normal track and aced it you could bump up to the more difficult track and vice versa.

As I've previously said, upward mobility between tracks is seldom accessible, especially to marginalized groups, and does more to hinder student self esteem than incentivize moving up.

ZMythos posted...

As I've previously said, upward mobility between tracks is seldom accessible, especially to marginalized groups, and does more to hinder student self esteem than incentivize moving up.

But as long as the top performs do well... that's all that matters to some people

ZMythos posted...

As I've previously said, upward mobility between tracks is seldom accessible, especially to marginalized groups, and does more to hinder student self esteem than incentivize moving up.

What would you propose as an alternative?

MedeaLysistrata posted...

But as long as the top performs do well... that's all that matters to some people

Nope, but burning down the top doesn't help anybody.

PS: I strongly dislike the implication others are putting forward that "the top" of any academic hierarchy is solely occupied by any given race or class. You take out Calc you are going to hurt many people from all backgrounds who busted ass to get there.