NationStates Jolt Archive

Do they?

Currently my nearby Primary school takes kids in when there 4. Which is, in my view, far to early for them to begin learning in a classroom. They should be allowed outside to play out at that age and to learn for themselves. yet in our current culture with it's 'wrap everybody in cotton wool' mentality it's not going to happen. Heck they might have the million to 1 chance of being Kidnapped!

And then of course there's nursary, which takes kids from 1 and a half to 4 years old, from 8am to 4pm. This means kids spend time in eather a classroom or in a nursary for over 15 years.

This seems a little much dosn't it?

Do you know that Mozart was playing the piano and writing symphonies by the age of four? Not all children are perfect geniuses, but they can all do "amazing" things like Mozart did - if not in music, then maybe in something else, and also at an "extremely" early age - it's just that many times the parents are too ignorant (or just plain stupid) and don't place their children in an environment where their true genius can mature. Therefore, the child grows up being average - just an average Joe or Sally, nothing special like Mozart. That is the parents' fault for not giving constant attention to the child's learning.

no, no and again no

Why not?

Brief example: I learned how to play chess when I was 2 1/2 years old.

Disclaimer: My wife and I left the US because we did not want to place our children in US public schools. Therefore, my comments should be taken as a hostile witness. I believe the the only way to better the US public school system is to abolish it.

Qualifications: I have, despite my poor spelling, an earned Ph.D. in Educational Philosophy. I have worked as a teacher-librarian. a strength and fitness coach and a substitute science teacher.


Try living in Hong Kong

Kids as young as 5 (My neighbor's for instance) are already taking pre-SAT courses so that they have a better chance to get into university. We are talking about 5-YEAR-OLDS !!!!!!!!!!

Kindergartens (Age 5) Require children to know how to write their name and to be able to name 16 colors as ENTRANCE REQUIREMENTS!

I know of grade six student (11 years old) who in addition to her normal International School education which is easily twice to three times as demanding as the US public schools, take "enrichment" classes in ballett, English, Maths, drawing, and Mandarin, not to mention the obligatory piano lesson that every Asian girl takes and she plays a clarinet becasue her school requires band.

I teach at the 11-year-olds school and talked to her mother about the place of leaving time for a child to be a child. They complained about me to the school management committee. (School board) I felt vindicated when they looked at the family and said to the parents "You need to spend more time with your kids rather than sending them to so many activities."

The local schools here gie an average of 5 hours home work a night for high school students. Parents demand two or three hours of homework at the elementary level and will not sent their kids to a school that does not do that.

I see bunches of what can only be described as psychotic teenagers in Hong Kong and China. A lot of this has to do with the preasurecooker Asian schools. The rest is the fact that parents in Hong Kong often work (or claim they work) 95 to 120 hour a week. The kids are raised by Filipino maids who have no authority to discipline them. This also contributes to the behavior that you see in the kids. I know of children as young as 14 who are prescribed Valium.

In short. You are, in my opinion, kind of right. Kids need to develop their bodies and minds rather than being forced into academic areas. Not because they learn better that way but because they need to develop their personality, interest and bodies. One of the reasons we have so many fat kids is because they cannot play any more. unless they have a helmet, two gaurdians, a padded floor and a nurse near by. Learning academic matter is considered safer than playing. If you have to put a kid on a diet it is the parents fault.

If you do academics with young kids it should, if the research is right, be languages and music. Each of us has what linguist call a "Language Aquisition Device" in our heads. It turns off at about age 11. Beyond that point it becomes very difficult to learn a new language. Music is incidently a language as far as the brain is concerned. There is no excuse for everychild to not be a fluent speaker of three languages by age 11 and write their mother tounge well. Music is problimatic because most insturments are designed for adults. I believe that all math except for basic arithmatic should be posponed until then.

Thanks for reading the rant.

It's all a damned hard call. Kids here in the states need to have something change as it seems like our kids are falling behind the kids in other industrialized nations. But I'm not sure if the route described in the previous post by DaD is the right route either. look at the results he cites.

Why can't we finds another way where kids strengths can be determined on a case by case basis? Some kids will probably thrive in the structure of a classroom setting at age four or even younger while others will never fit in with the structure (or lack thereof) in standardized US public schools. The whole idea of one-size fits all when it comes to education is just dumb. I've never been an A student, but my classmates often thought I was simply because I spoke up in class and answered the prof questions and debated what they were saying when I felt I had a valid arguement. Pissed a lot of profs off this way, but the hell with them. The girls liked it, and in college isn't that what it was all about? :fluffle: :D :fluffle:

If you do academics with young kids it should, if the research is right, be languages and music. Each of us has what linguist call a "Language Aquisition Device" in our heads. It turns off at about age 11. Beyond that point it becomes very difficult to learn a new language.

I remember reading/hearing that the prime time for this is before the age of six, right when kids start going to school up here. They started teaching english when I was seven, and my english is pretty good, better than average. I took up german three years later and kept up somewhat well (but dropped it later on). Compulsary swedish started when I was 12, and I've always had trouble learning it, and I got lousy scores on it.

So they should be teaching to some extent, but not full time. The scenario you explained sounds pretty hellish. :eek:
I know my childhood would've sucked if I wouldn't have had time for myself!

Linguisticly speaking, children should start learning languages other then their mother toungs before the age of 4, preferably as early as possible. That way they devlope the languages fluently, and their brains become more adept at patterns.
Of course, as far as I'm concerned, if I have a kid, I'm home schooling it.

In your case probably not, since even the thread subject was spelt wrong. ;-) I know it's pedantic, and maybe the evolution of the language will mean that we end up without 'too' and 'your' will be the replacement for you're. I'm sure grammer and spelling is going down hill, I blame computers ;-)

Linguisticly speaking, children should start learning languages other then their mother toungs before the age of 4, preferably as early as possible. That way they devlope the languages fluently, and their brains become more adept at patterns.
Of course, as far as I'm concerned, if I have a kid, I'm home schooling it.


I'm with you on that one. Home school sounds like a lot of work, but well worth it. And it's a viable and pretty accepted option, or so it seems.

Linguisticly speaking, children should start learning languages other then their mother toungs before the age of 4, preferably as early as possible. That way they devlope the languages fluently, and their brains become more adept at patterns.
Of course, as far as I'm concerned, if I have a kid, I'm home schooling it.

Get a dictionary though if you do, it's 'tongues'. I can see this thread getting quite flamed at this rate ;-)

In your case probably not, since even the thread subject was spelt wrong. ;-)

Nice flame. The cutsey face doesn't make it any less of one.

edit:

Both times. So far you're the only one doing the flaming. Makes me want to make some mistakes just to piss ya off. Ooh there's one! Quick! Call me on it!

Why not?

Brief example: I learned how to play chess when I was 2 1/2 years old.

Yes, but that learning probably took place without a formal, public education on the subject. There's a difference between offering resources for ambitious self-study, and mandating formal education. I personally feel that with the pressure of increased results mounting on students, education should err more toward the "lets let students make themselves excel" than the "you must get 1600 on the SAT by grade 5!"

Do you know that Mozart was playing the piano and writing symphonies by the age of four? Not all children are perfect geniuses, but they can all do "amazing" things like Mozart did - if not in music, then maybe in something else, and also at an "extremely" early age - it's just that many times the parents are too ignorant (or just plain stupid) and don't place their children in an environment where their true genius can mature. Therefore, the child grows up being average - just an average Joe or Sally, nothing special like Mozart. That is the parents' fault for not giving constant attention to the child's learning.

First off, Mozart is a very out-of-the ordinary case. He was a child prodigy with remarkable performing talent at an incredibly young age. While many parents might not give their children all the right tools to become similar geniuses, it isn't exactly likely that most children would be nearly as talented given Mozart's situation. To expect every child to become a supergenius in the ideal environment isn't fair to children. It only puts undo pressure on them.

Get a dictionary though if you do, it's 'tongues'. I can see this thread getting quite flamed at this rate ;-)

Don't worry, I have several. But since it's 6:37am, I'm not being pickey about spelling, or minor gramatical crap.

First off, Mozart is a very out-of-the ordinary case. He was a child prodigy with remarkable performing talent at an incredibly young age. While many parents might not give their children all the right tools to become similar geniuses, it isn't exactly likely that most children would be nearly as talented given Mozart's situation. To expect every child to become a supergenius in the ideal environment isn't fair to children. It only puts undo pressure on them.

That coupled with the fact that if a child is going to be a genius in a particular subject, then the resources that child is likely to have nowadays to that subject is enough.
But of course, to not allow the child access to said resources is the bad thing. For instance, just because you can do something, does not mean your parents will let you.
Alas, I remember being young and wanting to learn to play the Guitar.. no longer do I want to, but I did then. And I never got lessons, my younger brother over the past 2 years has gotten a brand new Bass, and lessons. My parents tell me "We'll fund anything with a creative context like that" when I ask why my hobbies don't, or rather didn't, get the same attention, and I merely remind them of my wish to learn Guitar, and how they always said "no".
Being the middle child sucks.
But, as I said, it's the parents who should allow the kids access to such resources. I had access to books and plastic toy soldiers, now I'm quite the little tactition, and seem to know more then my History professors know about certian subjects I take great interest in.
Intellegence flourishes with the resources at hand and the encouragment to do so.

In your case probably not, since even the thread subject was spelt wrong. ;-) I know it's pedantic, and maybe the evolution of the language will mean that we end up without 'too' and 'your' will be the replacement for you're. I'm sure grammer and spelling is going down hill, I blame computers ;-)
Dislexia, if you have a magic cure then please give me it. And don't flame, please, it's not big and it's not clever. Oh and most people use :) to make a smilly face, or ;).

Anyway, it sounds pritty hellish Dopers and drunks where you are, people just don't develop like that, yes I could write my name by the time I was 4 and could name all the colours, but most people couldn't, in the same way by the time I was 7 I couldn't get half marks on any spelling test yet i coud read at year 6/7 level. people are all diffrent and have diffrent skills and abiltiys, a one size fits all education system dosn't suit everyone. I balive that theres no point in sending a kid at age 12 with servere learning difficutys to secondary school if he's odviusly going to become a farmer, you be better off sending him to a agracultural collage.

i guess it really depends on the environment and culture.

If I would like to see a kind of pre-primary from the age of 5-6 school where kids only go in for half a week or so, but where does this leave the parents?? its a pretty tough call although i don't feel deprived because i went to kindergarten etc.

As for asian schools, were lucky here in NZ that were not nearly as competitive as that, if you fail in Japan there's no welfare system to fall back on if times get tough, which is one of the reasons why it has such low unemployment. Coming from NZ we have a large number of Asian students comign from overseas and I don't feel that non-asian students perform any better or worse so its debatable that all that extra schooling has done much.

Dislexia
dyslexia* lol, u probly didn't want that

I think that until a certain age schooling should be centered around play, and making it seem as natural as possible to the child so they don't hate the idea of school. Also a wider variety of enrichment activities should be more easily available for younger children, and more vocational subjects for older pupils especially those who have more idea what they want to do, with more traditional subjects for those who don't.

I think that until a certain age schooling should be centered around play, and making it seem as natural as possible to the child so they don't hate the idea of school. Also a wider variety of enrichment activities should be more easily available for younger children, and more vocational subjects for older pupils especially those who have more idea what they want to do, with more traditional subjects for those who don't.
Damm you St Heliers. :D

This is the sort of thing I think should happen in schools instead of LEague tables and sats (From year 2!) ect.

Yes, boys certainly are put into the school system too early. All studies show that boys develop much later than do girls and have a much more difficult time sitting still or even holding a pencil correctly.

There is also the larger question of just what schools do for, or are doing to, children. Increasingly schools are institutions for creating conformity and standardized behavior and thinking. Rather that developing talents and skills, or fostering creativity and a love for learning, school are more likely to encourage rote memorization, squash independent thinking and dissent, and promote a culture of nice little boys and girls who sit up straight, bubble in answers neatly, and never, ever challenge authority.

I say this as a public school teacher.

Yes, boys certainly are put into the school system too early. All studies show that boys develop much later than do girls and have a much more difficult time sitting still or even holding a pencil correctly.

There is also the larger question of just what schools do for, or are doing to, children. Increasingly schools are institutions for creating conformity and standardized behavior and thinking. Rather that developing talents and skills, or fostering creativity and a love for learning, school are more likely to encourage rote memorization, squash independent thinking and dissent, and promote a culture of nice little boys and girls who sit up straight, bubble in answers neatly, and never, ever challenge authority.

I say this as a public school teacher.
Agreed

In your case probably not, since even the thread subject was spelt wrong. ;-) I know it's pedantic, and maybe the evolution of the language will mean that we end up without 'too' and 'your' will be the replacement for you're. I'm sure grammer and spelling is going down hill, I blame computers ;-)


These are my favorite posts.....you know, the one's where someone tries to spell check someone else and ends up misspelling something themselves?

There's no such word as "spelt". It's "spelled". Who cares if people spell incorrectly or not sometimes. :rolleyes:

Edukashun rox!

These are my favorite posts.....you know, the one's where someone tries to spell check someone else and ends up misspelling something themselves?

There's no such word as "spelt". It's "spelled". Who cares if people spell incorrectly or not sometimes. :rolleyes:

Edukashun rox!

Hear, hear!

From Niall McLeod Waldman, author of Spelling Dearest:

"English spelling is by far the worst alphabetical spelling system in the world. Perfectly normal people who learn English as a second language think they have suddenly developed dyslexia when they first try to read in English. All the letters seem to be rearranged in places they shouldn't be. Our spelling is so illogical that new learners can't even find some of the words they are looking for in the dictionary. They think it ludicrous that we have special bad-speller's dictionaries that tell us the correct spellings so we can then look up the meanings in the real dictionaries. The English spelling system should be ridiculed. It's an embarrassment to us all. It is the alcoholic, butt-scratching brother of the otherwise universally admired English language."

"In Finland, Germany, Spain, and many other countries, they don't even have spelling books in school because their spelling systems are so easy to learn, yet in English-speaking counties we still teach spelling at university! If you rounded up a bunch of Finnish people and told them they were going to be tested on their Finnish-spelling ability, they would laugh. It is almost impossible to spell a word wrongly in that language once you learn the simple spelling of each sound. Round up a bunch of English-speaking people, take away their computer spell-checkers and their Franklin electronic dictionaries, and tell them they are going to be tested on their English-spelling ability, and they will quickly have an urgent meeting to go to. That meeting, by the way, will have a secretary — sworn to secrecy — who deciphers the minutes."

Yes, boys certainly are put into the school system too early. All studies show that boys develop much later than do girls and have a much more difficult time sitting still or even holding a pencil correctly.
Indeed, boys seem to develop after the age of 20, if even then! ;)

I don't think there's any other (trustworthy) way of learning english spelling but to just memorize each word separately.

Indeed, boys seem to develop after the age of 20, if even then! ;)

I don't think there's any other (trustworthy) way of learning english spelling but to just memorize each word separately.
Theres supposed to be rules for it, but then you get exceptions, and homophones...

Disclaimer: My wife and I left the US because we did not want to place our children in US public schools. Therefore, my comments should be taken as a hostile witness. I believe the the only way to better the US public school system is to abolish it.

Qualifications: I have, despite my poor spelling, an earned Ph.D. in Educational Philosophy. I have worked as a teacher-librarian. a strength and fitness coach and a substitute science teacher.


Try living in Hong Kong

Kids as young as 5 (My neighbor's for instance) are already taking pre-SAT courses so that they have a better chance to get into university. We are talking about 5-YEAR-OLDS !!!!!!!!!!

Kindergartens (Age 5) Require children to know how to write their name and to be able to name 16 colors as ENTRANCE REQUIREMENTS!

I know of grade six student (11 years old) who in addition to her normal International School education which is easily twice to three times as demanding as the US public schools, take "enrichment" classes in ballett, English, Maths, drawing, and Mandarin, not to mention the obligatory piano lesson that every Asian girl takes and she plays a clarinet becasue her school requires band.

I teach at the 11-year-olds school and talked to her mother about the place of leaving time for a child to be a child. They complained about me to the school management committee. (School board) I felt vindicated when they looked at the family and said to the parents "You need to spend more time with your kids rather than sending them to so many activities."

The local schools here gie an average of 5 hours home work a night for high school students. Parents demand two or three hours of homework at the elementary level and will not sent their kids to a school that does not do that.

I see bunches of what can only be described as psychotic teenagers in Hong Kong and China. A lot of this has to do with the preasurecooker Asian schools. The rest is the fact that parents in Hong Kong often work (or claim they work) 95 to 120 hour a week. The kids are raised by Filipino maids who have no authority to discipline them. This also contributes to the behavior that you see in the kids. I know of children as young as 14 who are prescribed Valium.

In short. You are, in my opinion, kind of right. Kids need to develop their bodies and minds rather than being forced into academic areas. Not because they learn better that way but because they need to develop their personality, interest and bodies. One of the reasons we have so many fat kids is because they cannot play any more. unless they have a helmet, two gaurdians, a padded floor and a nurse near by. Learning academic matter is considered safer than playing. If you have to put a kid on a diet it is the parents fault.

If you do academics with young kids it should, if the research is right, be languages and music. Each of us has what linguist call a "Language Aquisition Device" in our heads. It turns off at about age 11. Beyond that point it becomes very difficult to learn a new language. Music is incidently a language as far as the brain is concerned. There is no excuse for everychild to not be a fluent speaker of three languages by age 11 and write their mother tounge well. Music is problimatic because most insturments are designed for adults. I believe that all math except for basic arithmatic should be posponed until then.

Thanks for reading the rant.


I am a fan for learning but wow learning goes on beyond school. (not saying we are in school too much) just that wow I personally would feel sorry being your son (well not him specifically but anyone in that situation) really what is the point to life. At some point how much is too much.
So much stress in that and so many other kids. Their whole life being measured and weighed.

Gahhh un appetizing

I don't think the kids are going to school too early, although I can see how some might feel that way. What's of greater concern for me is whether they are receiving enough of an actual education during their primary school years.

I don't think the kids are going to school too early, although I can see how some might feel that way. What's of greater concern for me is whether they are receiving enough of an actual education during their primary school years.
I don't think so, children will only learn things when there mature enough.

Children being put into full-time education at age 4 is to early, IMHO. But whats worse is the way they are being placed into the schooling environment. Children (in the UK) move into school in September (the start of the school year). If you are aged 4 before September 1st you go into school. If you are 4 on September 1st or later you stay in Nursery until the next year. This means that children aged 4 are competing directly against children aged 5.
So whats the big deal? Well, a years difference at that age makes it very difficult to compete. It used to be that there were three times that children could be sent up to school (September, January, Easter), but its now limited to one. Though it could be argued that the children who went up to school in January or Easter were at a disadvantage, this is untrue as it gave the child time to (for want of a better word) 'grow up'.

Children being put into full-time education at age 4 is to early, IMHO. But whats worse is the way they are being placed into the schooling environment. Children (in the UK) move into school in September (the start of the school year). If you are aged 4 before September 1st you go into school. If you are 4 on September 1st or later you stay in Nursery until the next year. This means that children aged 4 are competing directly against children aged 5.
So whats the big deal? Well, a years difference at that age makes it very difficult to compete. It used to be that there were three times that children could be sent up to school (September, January, Easter), but its now limited to one. Though it could be argued that the children who went up to school in January or Easter were at a disadvantage, this is untrue as it gave the child time to (for want of a better word) 'grow up'.
Your right, I was sent to school in easter, and I'm fine, I was as mature as the others then.

Hear, hear!

From Niall McLeod Waldman, author of Spelling Dearest:

"English spelling is by far the worst alphabetical spelling system in the world. Perfectly normal people who learn English as a second language think they have suddenly developed dyslexia when they first try to read in English. All the letters seem to be rearranged in places they shouldn't be. Our spelling is so illogical that new learners can't even find some of the words they are looking for in the dictionary. They think it ludicrous that we have special bad-speller's dictionaries that tell us the correct spellings so we can then look up the meanings in the real dictionaries. The English spelling system should be ridiculed. It's an embarrassment to us all. It is the alcoholic, butt-scratching brother of the otherwise universally admired English language."

"In Finland, Germany, Spain, and many other countries, they don't even have spelling books in school because their spelling systems are so easy to learn, yet in English-speaking counties we still teach spelling at university! If you rounded up a bunch of Finnish people and told them they were going to be tested on their Finnish-spelling ability, they would laugh. It is almost impossible to spell a word wrongly in that language once you learn the simple spelling of each sound. Round up a bunch of English-speaking people, take away their computer spell-checkers and their Franklin electronic dictionaries, and tell them they are going to be tested on their English-spelling ability, and they will quickly have an urgent meeting to go to. That meeting, by the way, will have a secretary — sworn to secrecy — who deciphers the minutes."


THIS is why we need to use a syllabic writing/language system. They're much nicer.

Yes, boys certainly are put into the school system too early. All studies show that boys develop much later than do girls and have a much more difficult time sitting still or even holding a pencil correctly.

Er...isn't the idea of sending girls to public school without sending boys a little...sexist?

These are my favorite posts.....you know, the one's where someone tries to spell check someone else and ends up misspelling something themselves?

There's no such word as "spelt". It's "spelled". Who cares if people spell incorrectly or not sometimes.

Actually, I believe "spelt" is acceptable in more world-wide english spellings.

Er...isn't the idea of sending girls to public school without sending boys a little...sexist?

It may be, and it may not be. Personally, I think that parents should actually spend time with their children and have an active part in preparing them for school. Too many parents today view school as free day care and simply send their children off to get rid of them.

As someone who has done a Bachelor of Education the answer is no. Kindgarden is about so much more than learning how to count and the alphabet and your colours and such. More importantly kinder. is about the development of social skills. I've worked with kids that did not attend kinder. or any other early years program and for the majority they do not have the same social skills as those who did. They also lacked the foundations for learning that the others had. I have a friend who teaches kinder. and the program is so much different from the program in the primary years.

The UK system of enrollment for children at 4 is silly. Here in Canada it is based on the birth year not the school year. However if your child is born late in the year (i.e. last two weeks of dec.) you can choose to not put them in until the next year. I beleive the same is true if your child is born very early in the year - they can be put in the year before.

Er...isn't the idea of sending girls to public school without sending boys a little...sexist?



Actually, I believe "spelt" is acceptable in more world-wide english spellings.

Its slang at best. Use it in a college paper and see what your professor does. Its a word.....its a kind of wheat grown in Europe and has recently been accepted ( not preferred) as a past tense of spell . But not in formal writings or speech. I dont spell check others because I think its tacky, but this person spell checked someone else and then didnt spell spelled correctly. Its just a lame ass thing to do. So now Ive wasted a good 3 minutes on this. I just didnt like the smart ass response that person gave to the thread starter (Aust). So use spelt if you want. I'd rather used spelled.

Its slang at best. Use it in a college paper and see what your professor does. Its a word.....its a kind of wheat grown in Europe and has recently been accepted ( not preferred) as a past tense of spell . But not in formal writings or speech. I dont spell check others because I think its tacky, but this person spell checked someone else and then didnt spell spelled correctly. Its just a lame ass thing to do. So now Ive wasted a good 3 minutes on this. I just didnt like the smart ass response that person gave to the thread starter (Aust). So use spelt if you want. I'd rather used spelled.

Oooh, brains, looks AND she's dominant.... grrr :)

yes kids go into full time education too early

4 year old full day kindergarten is a terrible idea! kids should be playing all day. no school, no tv, no mommy hovering over them. just an enriched safe environment where they can learn about the world.

of course the real question is, that since half of all kids are in day care or being watched by babysitters anyway, (and that percent goes up as they get closer to school age) what SHOULD they be doing?

being warehoused in inferior daycare is worse than pre-school. being left in front of the TV all day while the babysitter is passed out on the couch is worse than pre-school. being taken care of full time by your 14 year old mother who doesnt even know how often to change your diaper let alone the location of the library is worse than pre-school

so we offer better quality time for our 3+ year old citizens by having pre-school, pre-kindergarten, full day kindergarten and so on. safe, enriched environments staffed by professionals who (in theory) are better paid than babysitters so they will stay in the job longer.

the better programs focus on educational play rather than sitting at desks learning to write your name. the lesser programs expect 4 year olds to be able to sit still and pay attention. the worst ones keep kids in unorganized, unclean, noneducational chaos all day.

its modern life and each family has to do what they find to be best for their own kids.

Do you know that Mozart was playing the piano and writing symphonies by the age of four? Not all children are perfect geniuses, but they can all do "amazing" things like Mozart did - if not in music, then maybe in something else, and also at an "extremely" early age - it's just that many times the parents are too ignorant (or just plain stupid) and don't place their children in an environment where their true genius can mature. Therefore, the child grows up being average - just an average Joe or Sally, nothing special like Mozart. That is the parents' fault for not giving constant attention to the child's learning.
no one is teaching tehm specialisation in anything, they odnt learn anything but basics, they will never be a prodigy in anything, and if they were it will be droned out of them

Er...isn't the idea of sending girls to public school without sending boys a little...sexist?

No.

Er...isn't the idea of sending girls to public school without sending boys a little...sexist?

I wouldn't think so, it is what's best for the actual child, not a deliberate act of discrimination.

These are my favorite posts.....you know, the one's where someone tries to spell check someone else and ends up misspelling something themselves?

There's no such word as "spelt". It's "spelled". Who cares if people spell incorrectly or not sometimes. :rolleyes:

Edukashun rox!

spell1 ( P ) Pronunciation Key (spl)
v. spelled, or spelt (splt) spell·ing, spells

Even if I am wrong, I was just trying to point out the irony of a thread about edukashun being so full of pretty basic errors. Yes it's flaming, blah blah blah!

PS - I am English(so may use words different from American English). I have seen the help of computers have a bad impact on my spelling over the years, that's an observation nothing more. No, I do not use spell checks on posts to forums! Whether you choose to beleive that or not is entirely up to you!
PPS - I can use text based smilies if I like ;-)

[EDIT] as if to prove a point I've just corrected a couple of stupid typos.

These are my favorite posts.....you know, the one's where someone tries to spell check someone else and ends up misspelling something themselves?

There's no such word as "spelt". It's "spelled". Who cares if people spell incorrectly or not sometimes. :rolleyes:

Edukashun rox!
There is. It's just archaic.
Also:
In your case probably not, since even the thread subject was spelt wrong. ;-) I know it's pedantic, and maybe the evolution of the language will mean that we end up without 'too' and 'your' will be the replacement for you're. I'm sure grammer and spelling is going down hill, I blame computers ;-)

Gramma r

Whether you choose to beleive that or not is entirely up to you!
believe.

...you know, the one's where someone tries to spell check...
No apostrophe in plurals.

There is. It's just archaic.
Also:


Gramma r

believe.

:)

Will attempt to correct my memory on those ones!

:) Bump

I wouldn't think so, it is what's best for the actual child, not a deliberate act of discrimination.

Well, I would think it to be. Imagine there is research done proving that black children usually aren't ready for early schooling, and get less out of it. Imagine they have higher failure rates and lower test scores. Imagine they had more trouble, according to studies, sitting still and paying attention. Would it be justified to withhold black children from early schooling? Would it be tolerated by the community at large?

What would be said if it were girls who had more trouble with early school? Would it be tolerated to suggest they not receive early schooling, or would the proposer of such an action be labeled a chauvinist pig and be chased from the forum by scratch and barbs?

No apostrophe in plurals.
Yeah actually there is. To show the possessive form of a plural. I misplaced my apostrophe. Should have been ones'. But thanks for noticing.

Now run along and get a life....

Well, I would think it to be. Imagine there is research done proving that black children usually aren't ready for early schooling, and get less out of it. Imagine they have higher failure rates and lower test scores. Imagine they had more trouble, according to studies, sitting still and paying attention. Would it be justified to withhold black children from early schooling? Would it be tolerated by the community at large?

What would be said if it were girls who had more trouble with early school? Would it be tolerated to suggest they not receive early schooling, or would the proposer of such an action be labeled a chauvinist pig and be chased from the forum by scratch and barbs?
I don't balive that until a child is 6 or so they are truely ready for a full time education. If a child is ready, mentally then they should go, if they are not then they should wait until they are.

Sex, and race don't come into it.