3 ms·
> Looking at the problem another way, we could just fund education properly and provide a better social safety net. You missed the point. More funding won't he
by pathseeker 8y ago
> Looking at the problem another way, we could just fund education properly and provide a better social safety net.
You missed the point. More funding won't help if you're placed with kids that do not want to learn. A perfectly reasonable solution is exactly like OP said, separate out at sophomore year the people who GAF. Germany does this, it works well, and it doesn't cost a fortune to try to give students a Stanford level education who just want to do nothing.
- jorblumesea 8y agoKids don't want to learn because they see no benefit in learning due to a cycle of poverty, a complete mess of a home life and parents that are probably uneducated as well. They have also been indoctrinated from an early age that "school isn't for them". It starts way younger than high school. Dropouts actually start dropping our during middle school or even earlier. If you think that kids tune out at 17 because they are bored, you are missing a lot to the debate here. While I agree that alternative programs should be available, it's a bit silly to chalk up most educational problems to "kids don't want to learn". Germany doesn't have the scale of inequality the US has and shouldn't be compared strongly to our situation. We have bigger fish to fry.
- dragonwriter 8y ago> More funding won't help if you're placed with kids that do not want to learn. There is very little kids inherently want more than to learn—if they've learned not to want to learn, either in general or in the particular venue of the school system, that's a failing of the school system or society more generally that needs to stop happening, rather than writing off those who have been failed.