here before the 6-3
This just means I get to start my The Satanic Academy for Witchcraft. Our homeroom has us learn the Tenets from the Satanic Temple. The classes are dynamic, so if you excel in mathematics, your assigned to an advancement class that eventually moves you up to the next level. You don’t automatically make it to the next class either, it’s dependent on a grades, efficiency, and quality of your work - this drives students to apply themselves rather than just ride it out. The more advanced classes have more dynamic projects that are practical and useful. There is no “busy work”, and classes tend to apply an open learning / study portion to the class as well. If your not applying yourself, you’ll be downgraded or removed from your classes to make room for others. It’s competitive, but practical, affordable, and efficient.
The school has a heavy focus on critical reasoning (ethics and philosophy), mathematics, science, and history.
How do you account for kids who are seen as “not taking initiative” or “unmotivated” that don’t have the proper support at home? Who can’t afford tutors that other kids struggling can? Some can’t even get reliable meals.
Your school sounds like a really great way to sort out who has money/stability and who doesn’t.
The goal of this approach isn’t to create a cutthroat environment, but rather to allow students to progress at a pace that best matches their learning abilities, rewarding their effort and growth rather than enforcing rigid timelines (i.e. your stuck in this class for the rest of the year).
For students who need additional support or who may lack external resources like tutoring, this hypothetical school would prioritize offering some sort of internal support system. For example, a dedicated study period could be set aside for tutoring, where teachers or advanced students volunteer their time to help others catch up or solidify their understanding of challenging material. This ‘office hours’ approach would ensure that all students, regardless of background, have access to the tools they need to succeed.
The goal is to meet students where they are and to help them build confidence in their abilities. By developing a more dynamic system, we can nurture each student’s strengths and provide tailored assistance where it’s most needed. If you have any suggestions on how to address disparities in motivation or resources, I’m game to talk about them.
It’s just a fun thought experiment. Purely hypothetical, but I love conversations like these.
It is a fun thought experiment! I just always feel it behooves us to consider the unintended consequences of “merit-based” systems that reward “hard work and effort.”
so if you excel in mathematics, your assigned to an advancement class
Someone isn’t doing that in English class…
I mean, if your reading at an 11th grade level while in 5th grade, why should you be forced to stay in a 5th grade level class? It becomes boring and students stop applying themselves. I was reading things in 5th grade that most of my peers would have never read. I would destroy an 600+ page book in a week. I understand that there are foundations that need to be built, but having a one size fits all method of education I worry does more harm than good. I honestly feel that a school of this style would have allowed me to truly excel, instead…I never even got to really apply myself. I got through school fine, but it just felt like a waste of time. I almost didn’t even go to college - felt like it was going to be a waste of time. It wasn’t until I actually got into college that I realized education gives you back what you put into it…It was the first time I was ever truly challenged, and good lord that woke me up.
See above, re English class.
We can start with this:
Then maybe think about whether or not you are the best person to come up with ideas regarding other people’s education.
Ha 😂. Sorry. Yeah, typing on a phone is difficult at times. It’s just a hypothetical. A thought experiment. It’s also 4am, cut me just a little slack. Have a good night/morning!
Gee I wonder what the stacked deck is going to decide /s
I’m enthralled by the deftness with which the Catholic Church, summarily reviled for most of its existence in these Protestant United States, has managed to put itself at the forefront of receiving government largesse to improve its situation (and I’m looking at you, Steve Bannon).
The fact that the first Catholic President was JFK and the second was Joe Biden serves to demonstrate that Catholicism has (historically) had a pretty hard road of it in America.
But that was then, this is now. Religion is actually dying and because of this, the distinctions between denominations are increasingly not understood. The struggle of the new (conspicuously religious) Nazi proletariat only require the trappings of religion (because actual belief is beyond passe - love thy neighbor? please) and therefore all religion is acceptable.
Until it isn’t. And it won’t be secular forces that make it so. Catholicism has not (for several thousand years) been in the business of playing nice with competitors.
Keep in mind that the American side of the Catholic Church is almost at right angles to the RCC nowadays, to the point where some in the Church hierarchy are starting to see it as a schism.
Since it aligns with the interests of the oligarchy in at least two different ways - the promotion of narrow religious orthodoxy to foster subservience and homogeneity, and the “privatization” of public services to funnel more wealth into fewer private hands (and particularly to create more sources for bribes and kickbacks for officials) - I’d say the only real question one might have about this ruling is the purely academic one of what particular specious arguments the corrupt majority will use to colorably justify inevitably ruling in favor of killing church/state separation.
