I agree with you!

Give students the ability to test out of classes and/or dual enroll in community colleges, BUT make sure they are all still in the same school meeting and greeting and bumping into each other.

Dumbing down curricula is a bad move, and preventing students from being able to test out or take classes earlier is also a bad move. But segregating students into different schools based on academic ability is equally as bad.

> Grade school - in San Jose - gifted and talented classes were classes at the school not a separate school

Yep. This is a model I agree with, and am a product of as well being a fellow Bay Area native

▲

jmspring 5 days ago | parent [-]

The funny thing, I went to five schools, 3 different districts across Bay Area cities. All had accommodations for different levels. High school, I ended up at UCSC my freshman year with enough credits from transfer in (from high school school) and my first quarter as a junior. Most were community college courses friends and I were interested in separate from school.

My step daughter, I hear her curriculum and shake my head (my BS was in computer engineering and computational chemistry), I could not help with the bs “common core” forced on her.

Thankfully she settled into the ability to have college courses in her last year.

It’s ridiculous how much of a push there is “standardizing” the skills of individuals. When their strengths should be encouraged.

	▲	alephnerd 4 days ago \| parent [-]
		Not to be that guy, but in my parent's old country - someone like your daughter would not have been given a chance to even get a bachelors degree. And we're from a country with the same tracked educational system as Romania. I agree that "common core" is bulls** (I'm part of that generation as well, but my Asian parents made me take Kumon and taught me personally, but I was also lucky/blessed that my mother was a teacher in the old country), but the motivation wasn't wrong. And this is what pains me about American educational reform. It has become ideological, instead of outcome driven. Personally, our outcomes should be 1. Building a talented workforce (we need more October Skys) 2. Giving space for creativity (we need more Darias) 3. Building physical fitness (we need more Currahee Hill montages, as an ex-ROTC [found out I'd lose my OCI if I commissioned]) And this requires giving students autonomy to explore their limits mentally and physically. If peeps don't want to learn, nbd, but why should we limit access to students who want to but didn't initially build the fundamentals. We also need to decouple emotion from education - no major or degree is better or worse than others. We should treat a HS grad, an AA/AS grad, a BA/BS/BE grad, andn a grad school grad the same. Let's be a "Great Society" [0] again. [0] - https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=KuuEFTgodc8