Hey Soy Boy, Deep State, China Paid, Antifa Libz...

[GMDino]

One thing I've been see get some traction is that Biden has not forgiven student debt yet.  That is riling up some of his supporters.

During his townhall he said something about not being sure he can do it with a EO which to me meant he was looking into it at least.  But his voters will hold him accountable I do believe.

[Sociopathicsteelerfan]

(02-21-2021, 11:33 AM)GMDino Wrote: One thing I've been see get some traction is that Biden has not forgiven student debt yet.  That is riling up some of his supporters.

During his townhall he said something about not being sure he can do it with a EO which to me meant he was looking into it at least.  But his voters will hold him accountable I do believe.

And he shouldn't  You willingly signed up for that debt, why the eff should I pay for it now?  You want to freeze interest or lower APR's?  I have zero issue with that.  Just giving people free money because they were too stupid to read the contract they signed, or now have buyer's remorse?  Hell to the no.

[Belsnickel]

(02-21-2021, 02:53 PM)Sociopathicsteelerfan Wrote: And he shouldn't  You willingly signed up for that debt, why the eff should I pay for it now?  You want to freeze interest or lower APR's?  I have zero issue with that.  Just giving people free money because they were too stupid to read the contract they signed, or now have buyer's remorse?  Hell to the no.

I honestly have mixed feelings on it all. Not having any student debt, myself, means I have been very fortunate. However, I have also seen the debt accumulated by students for education as someone that used to literally do the accounting for the student loan revenues at a university. I am the one who got the money, put the money in the bank, applied it to the students' accounts, gave them the extra for their living expenses (if applicable), and directed the funds paying charges to the university to the proper ledger accounts. I've seen the millions coming in and going out, so my perspective is a little different than most.

I say all this because even though I am not fully committed one way or the other, I disagree with your point. The reason is because for decades, now, the government has been selling young people a false narrative. The idea that going to college is necessary for a good job and that when you get out there will be some well paying employment waiting for you to pay off your student loans is foundational to the current student debt crisis. The federal government had a huge hand in this. Were it not for that, I'd be completely on your side with this. I have other debts that are completely from my own stupidity (well, I could argue that a bit), but I really do think that our government holds a good chunk of blame for how much student debt is hanging out there and the struggles of young people to pay it off.

[Sociopathicsteelerfan]

(02-21-2021, 06:08 PM)Belsnickel Wrote: I honestly have mixed feelings on it all. Not having any student debt, myself, means I have been very fortunate. However, I have also seen the debt accumulated by students for education as someone that used to literally do the accounting for the student loan revenues at a university. I am the one who got the money, put the money in the bank, applied it to the students' accounts, gave them the extra for their living expenses (if applicable), and directed the funds paying charges to the university to the proper ledger accounts. I've seen the millions coming in and going out, so my perspective is a little different than most.

I say all this because even though I am not fully committed one way or the other, I disagree with your point. The reason is because for decades, now, the government has been selling young people a false narrative. The idea that going to college is necessary for a good job and that when you get out there will be some well paying employment waiting for you to pay off your student loans is foundational to the current student debt crisis. The federal government had a huge hand in this. Were it not for that, I'd be completely on your side with this. I have other debts that are completely from my own stupidity (well, I could argue that a bit), but I really do think that our government holds a good chunk of blame for how much student debt is hanging out there and the struggles of young people to pay it off.

I agree with your general points, but at the end of the day I'm a huge fan of personal accountability.  You chose to put yourself in debt for "X" degree.  I did have student loan debt, which btw was from an NRA loan (this was from the mid 90's so way before the NRA schism, which I know you are aware of).  I paid the damned thing off.  That, coupled with my poor credit card decisions, meant I was in significant debt from eighteen to thirty-four.  I did get help from my parents a few times when I was short, but I never, ever, expected anyone to pay for a debt I willingly incurred.  Deception or self deception, you signed on to said debt willingly, own the god damned debt and stop looking for a handout from responsible people.  As I have said, I'm fine with an interest freeze, even permanently, or a lowering of the APR.  But paying it off for you?  Miss me with that bullshit entirely.

[fredtoast]

(02-21-2021, 11:33 AM)GMDino Wrote: One thing I've been see get some traction is that Biden has not forgiven student debt yet.  That is riling up some of his supporters.

During his townhall he said something about not being sure he can do it with a EO which to me meant he was looking into it at least.  But his voters will hold him accountable I do believe.

As others have said I have mixed feelings on this.

I would only really support a low level like $10K.  The people who need it the most are the ones who ran up some debt but never graduated.  I think I read somewhere that half of the people in this situation owe less than $10K.

[Dill]

(02-21-2021, 06:08 PM)Belsnickel Wrote: I say all this because even though I am not fully committed one way or the other, I disagree with your point. The reason is because for decades, now, the government has been selling young people a false narrative. The idea that going to college is necessary for a good job and that when you get out there will be some well paying employment waiting for you to pay off your student loans is foundational to the current student debt crisis. The federal government had a huge hand in this. Were it not for that, I'd be completely on your side with this. I have other debts that are completely from my own stupidity (well, I could argue that a bit), but I really do think that our government holds a good chunk of blame for how much student debt is hanging out there and the struggles of young people to pay it off.

Back in my teen years, there were still a considerable number of people who thought that college was about education as much or more as vocational training. Five of my mother's six brothers went to college because people in her family saw it as "bettering" themselves, but not only financially. They had a very protestant obligation to develop all their talents. The whole person.

It seems that rationale disappeared during the '70s, in part as educators at the tertiary level began to meet demand from employers and students to make education more "relevant"--i.e., in practice more useful to employers and less likely to produce civil disruption. By "disappeared" I mean that one began to hear the education rationale pushed less and less among family and educators and the "good job" rationale more.  This was still before students became education "consumers" and "customers" for whom colleges had to compete via spiffy facilities like dorm "suites" and leisure gyms.

I had some Pell Grants and federally insured loans, but they were never "sold" as part of some narrative, at least on the government's part. I just remember that when I began researching how to pay for college, college officers presented me with government-funded "options." There might have been some literature at the Post Office or County building, as well.  In my world, it was mostly parents and peers who boosted college.  And for those primarily focused on "good jobs," one only had to look around town to see who did and didn't have them--the college grads or those who had no time for it.

So to my question: Of course the government has to make options for education funding known to the citizens it serves. That requires some level of advertising. But when you worked in loan accounting, did you actually see government advertising that strove to "sell" education beyond any informative purpose? E.g., were there brochures which featured tables showing income of college and non-college educated earners over decades? Visual advertising to help students imagine themselves into "successful" post-degree lives and the like?

I am aware that many educational institutions--especially for-profit ones--have sought to increase enrollment by presenting education as road to employment. I remember several for-profit scandals involving military tuition assistance, which did exactly that, angling their pitch to military members who needed it for promotion points. But it was not the government selling a narrative there.

I am asking this question because because I am curious as to whether and when the government became so implicated in market logic that it began behaving like a player with its own private interests, and something to buy or sell, and profit from. Were you working on loans before 2010, before the Healthcare and Education Reconciliation Act eliminated private lenders from the student loan game? Or were you working after 2010, observing the government behaving more and more like a private lender--but with infinitely vaster collection power?

[Belsnickel]

(02-22-2021, 01:23 PM)Dill Wrote: Back in my teen years, there were still a considerable number of people who thought that college was about education as much or more as vocational training. Five of my mother's six brothers went to college because people in her family saw it as "bettering" themselves, but not only financially. They had a very protestant obligation to develop all their talents. The whole person.

It seems that rationale disappeared during the '70s, in part as educators at the tertiary level began to meet demand from employers and students to make education more "relevant"--i.e., in practice more useful to employers and less likely to produce civil disruption. By "disappeared" I mean that one began to hear the education rationale pushed less and less among family and educators and the "good job" rationale more.  This was still before students became education "consumers" and "customers" for whom colleges had to compete via spiffy facilities like dorm "suites" and leisure gyms.

I had some Pell Grants and federally insured loans, but they were never "sold" as part of some narrative, at least on the government's part. I just remember that when I began researching how to pay for college, college officers presented me with government-funded "options." There might have been some literature at the Post Office or County building, as well.  In my world, it was mostly parents and peers who boosted college.  And for those primarily focused on "good jobs," one only had to look around town to see who did and didn't have them--the college grads or those who had no time for it.

So to my question: Of course the government has to make options for education funding known to the citizens it serves. That requires some level of advertising. But when you worked in loan accounting, did you actually see government advertising that strove to "sell" education beyond any informative purpose? E.g., were there brochures which featured tables showing income of college and non-college educated earners over decades? Visual advertising to help students imagine themselves into "successful" post-degree lives and the like?

I am aware that many educational institutions--especially for-profit ones--have sought to increase enrollment by presenting education as road to employment. I remember several for-profit scandals involving military tuition assistance, which did exactly that, angling their pitch to military members who needed it for promotion points. But it was not the government selling a narrative there.

I am asking this question because because I am curious as to whether and when the government became so implicated in market logic that it began behaving like a player with its own private interests, and something to buy or sell, and profit from. Were you working on loans before 2010, before the Healthcare and Education Reconciliation Act eliminated private lenders from the student loan game? Or were you working after 2010, observing the government behaving more and more like a private lender--but with infinitely vaster collection power?

It really picked up with the Clinton years, which is when we saw such a push for people to go to college. I've definitely seen a lot of material from the Department of Ed talking up college and showing those sorts of tables.

Now, specifically to your last section, why do you think there are no longer private lenders? I started working in the field in 2012 and stopped that role in 2019 when I became an auditor. During that time frame, not only were private loans a regular part of the process, but they were growing in their proportion of the loan funds the university took in.

[GMDino]

(02-22-2021, 01:23 PM)Dill Wrote: Back in my teen years, there were still a considerable number of people who thought that college was about education as much or more as vocational training. Five of my mother's six brothers went to college because people in her family saw it as "bettering" themselves, but not only financially. They had a very protestant obligation to develop all their talents. The whole person.

It seems that rationale disappeared during the '70s, in part as educators at the tertiary level began to meet demand from employers and students to make education more "relevant"--i.e., in practice more useful to employers and less likely to produce civil disruption. By "disappeared" I mean that one began to hear the education rationale pushed less and less among family and educators and the "good job" rationale more.  This was still before students became education "consumers" and "customers" for whom colleges had to compete via spiffy facilities like dorm "suites" and leisure gyms.

(02-22-2021, 02:42 PM)Belsnickel Wrote: It really picked up with the Clinton years, which is when we saw such a push for people to go to college. I've definitely seen a lot of material from the Department of Ed talking up college and showing those sorts of tables.

Now, specifically to your last section, why do you think there are no longer private lenders? I started working in the field in 2012 and stopped that role in 2019 when I became an auditor. During that time frame, not only were private loans a regular part of the process, but they were growing in their proportion of the loan funds the university took in.

When I went to college in 1987 there was that same "push" that you *had* to have a BA/BS in order to get a "good" job.  When I was graduating four years later we were being told that you REALLY need a Masters to get a good job.

My field barely required a degree in the first place so I passed on that.

And I paid my $160 a month every month for ten years.  Plus $90 ever three months for three years for a second loan.

That was it.

My wife went back to college after we were married (2001).  Took her six plus years to get her BS because of going part-time and raising the kids (she got pregnant with out second child right before her first semester!) and we are still paying those loans off.  We did a refinancing on them and despite her being in a field where they would be forgiven after paying for ten years it was denied because we didn't make large enough payments.  Had we could have afforded to  have made those payments we wouldn't need it forgiven, but I digress.

Now our son is in his first year of college.  So far he hasn't needed a supplemental loan but he will, probably next year.  His four years at a state university will actually cost about as much as mine did at a private school 30 years ago when it is all said and done.  Books are more and he doesn't live on campus.  

It's just a crazy game and you have to choose how you are going to play it.

[BmorePat87]

The issue is that we have a system that tells children without financial literacy skills that the best thing they can do is take tens of thousands in loans to go to college with every year that burden getting higher and higher relative to inflation, tuition, and wages.

Neither of my parents went to college. Neither was in a stable financial situation. One was and still is in debt. They told me to open a credit card to pay $2k I owed a college rather than seeking a loan. I wish I had one adult in my life to tell me that I should go to community college for 2 years or who understood finances. I don't expect anyone to pay my debts now, but the idea that children should understand the consequences of this shitty system that was built and pushed on them is unrealistic.

[Dill]

(02-22-2021, 02:42 PM)Belsnickel Wrote: It really picked up with the Clinton years, which is when we saw such a push for people to go to college. I've definitely seen a lot of material from the Department of Ed talking up college and showing those sorts of tables.

Now, specifically to your last section, why do you think there are no longer private lenders? I started working in the field in 2012 and stopped that role in 2019 when I became an auditor. During that time frame, not only were private loans a regular part of the process, but they were growing in their proportion of the loan funds the university took in.

I shouldn't have said "eliminated private lenders from the student loan game" without specifying that I meant gov. guaranteed loans. At least that is how I understood the purport of the HCER Act.  The government supposedly stopped subsidizing guaranteed loans from private lenders because banks were making obscene profits on student debt.

That wouldn't affect myriad private loans with no gov. mediation.

I'm pursuing these questions because I'm curious about the degree to which gov., or gov. policies, have adopted free-market or profit oriented principles displacing the ethic and goals of non-profit service. Universities have been heading that direction for some time now. In the '60s-'70s people outside universities were arguing that universities should be run more like businesses to make them more efficient and competitive.  In the '80s universities began taking that advice, or had it forced on them in the case of many public institutions, a factor in driving up operational and tuition costs.

If government is doing that too then that's one less sector of society to resist total social domination of that market logic which neoliberals would like to see mediating all social relations. 

[Dill]

(02-22-2021, 05:00 PM)BmorePat87 Wrote: I don't expect anyone to pay my debts now, but the idea that children should understand the consequences of this shitty system that was built and pushed on them is unrealistic.

One problem with college loans over the last few decades has been the increasing degree to which lenders (with collusion of colleges in many cases) have acted like credit card companies, working out innovative ways to lock people into a cycle of perpetual payment. So it's no surprise that 18-19 year olds are a prime target. That was one motivation for the HCER Act.

And college degrees are still the entry ticket to most good paying jobs, if the data on correlation between lifetime earnings and education are to be trusted. That a degree is no guarantee of a job doesn't change that.

If the victims are to be believed, many are making monthly payments on interest which don't drive down the principle at all. We are talking about massive amounts, some in the six-figure range, and the debtors cannot get out of government loans by declaring bankruptcy.

The first and biggest problem is still, I think, why tuition has become so high. The PASSHE system is retrenching right now, because tuition (only with other income sources) cannot cover operations and salaries at many institutions. IUP just lost its journalism dept. 74 tenured faculty have been canned, and depts. and programs merged into strange amalgams (e.g. college of fine arts and the already previously merged colleges of humanities and social sciences). The new university is going to specialize in STEM.

[Sociopathicsteelerfan]

(02-22-2021, 05:00 PM)BmorePat87 Wrote: The issue is that we have a system that tells children without financial literacy skills that the best thing they can do is take tens of thousands in loans to go to college with every year that burden getting higher and higher relative to inflation, tuition, and wages.

Neither of my parents went to college. Neither was in a stable financial situation. One was and still is in debt. They told me to open a credit card to pay $2k I owed a college rather than seeking a loan. I wish I had one adult in my life to tell me that I should go to community college for 2 years or who understood finances. I don't expect anyone to pay my debts now, but the idea that children should understand the consequences of this shitty system that was built and pushed on them is unrealistic.

This is an excellent post.  Maybe public education could have a financial literacy class that was mandatory for their senior year?  It is absolutely true  that if you don't have a smart adult in your life you really start behind the eight ball on things like this.

[Dill]

(02-22-2021, 03:08 PM)GMDino Wrote: Now our son is in his first year of college.  So far he hasn't needed a supplemental loan but he will, probably next year.  His four years at a state university will actually cost about as much as mine did at a private school 30 years ago when it is all said and done.  Books are more and he doesn't live on campus.  

It's just a crazy game and you have to choose how you are going to play it.

My daughter was saddled with $70,000 in debt for her MA.*

She's been earning more than here parents, though, so I am not especially worried.

Still, something is very wrong. I remember working on crew laying irrigation ditches one summer,
and the income tax return from that (about $440) was enough to pay my sprint tuition.

*The degree was in Opera Performance. And yet she got a good paying job with increasing managerial responsibility at
Korn Ferry in NY.  She was laid off last spring, when COVID hit, spent the summer learning coding, and landed another
good job by Sept. She could not have applied for any of these jobs without some kind of degree.

[BmorePat87]

(02-22-2021, 06:48 PM)Sociopathicsteelerfan Wrote: This is an excellent post.  Maybe public education could have a financial literacy class that was mandatory for their senior year?  It is absolutely true  that if you don't have a smart adult in your life you really start behind the eight ball on things like this.

Don’t get me started. The last 1.5-2 weeks of my govt class is the county’s financial literacy education as mandated by the state.

We have a great fin lit class in the county course catalog but, despite being able to, the county refuses to count it as a math credit. With the state now requiring math all 4 years (only need to pass 3 years worth) students have to take algebra II (which is 80% functions) and another advanced algebra class that isn’t applicable to their life.

Now I spend part of those 2 weeks teaching about trades and non college options because no one else will.

[BmorePat87]

(02-22-2021, 06:43 PM)Dill Wrote: One problem with college loans over the last few decades has been the increasing degree to which lenders (with collusion of colleges in many cases) have acted like credit card companies, working out innovative ways to lock people into a cycle of perpetual payment. So it's no surprise that 18-19 year olds are a prime target. That was one motivation for the HCER Act.

And college degrees are still the entry ticket to most good paying jobs, if the data on correlation between lifetime earnings and education are to be trusted. That a degree is no guarantee of a job doesn't change that.

If the victims are to be believed, many are making monthly payments on interest which don't drive down the principle at all. We are talking about massive amounts, some in the six-figure range, and the debtors cannot get out of government loans by declaring bankruptcy.

The first and biggest problem is still, I think, why tuition has become so high. The PASSHE system is retrenching right now, because tuition (only with other income sources) cannot cover operations and salaries at many institutions. IUP just lost its journalism dept. 74 tenured faculty have been canned, and depts. and programs merged into strange amalgams (e.g. college of fine arts and the already previously merged colleges of humanities and social sciences). The new university is going to specialize in STEM.

Still the best investment for someone who can achieve in that setting, but not the best option for all. Also, it makes sense to guide students to cheaper post secondary education options rather than believing you need to go to an expensive university.

Like you said, tuition has become stupid high

[GMDino]

(02-22-2021, 07:34 PM)BmorePat87 Wrote: Still the best investment for someone who can achieve in that setting, but not the best option for all. Also, it makes sense to guide students to cheaper post secondary education options rather than believing you need to go to an expensive university.

Like you said, tuition has become stupid high

This is where I come in with college should be available for everyone but college is not for everyone.

I had no skills.  I am not a person who is good with tools.  I needed to find a career.  30 years later I am NOT in that career but my college experience prepared me for where I am now.

I had one good friend who went from culinary school, to a seminary to who knows what else when we lost touch and never found his calling.  Bu anyone who knew him knew college wasn't for him either.

[*Nately120*]

(02-21-2021, 06:08 PM)Belsnickel Wrote: I honestly have mixed feelings on it all. Not having any student debt, myself, means I have been very fortunate. However, I have also seen the debt accumulated by students for education as someone that used to literally do the accounting for the student loan revenues at a university. I am the one who got the money, put the money in the bank, applied it to the students' accounts, gave them the extra for their living expenses (if applicable), and directed the funds paying charges to the university to the proper ledger accounts. I've seen the millions coming in and going out, so my perspective is a little different than most.

I say all this because even though I am not fully committed one way or the other, I disagree with your point. The reason is because for decades, now, the government has been selling young people a false narrative. The idea that going to college is necessary for a good job and that when you get out there will be some well paying employment waiting for you to pay off your student loans is foundational to the current student debt crisis. The federal government had a huge hand in this. Were it not for that, I'd be completely on your side with this. I have other debts that are completely from my own stupidity (well, I could argue that a bit), but I really do think that our government holds a good chunk of blame for how much student debt is hanging out there and the struggles of young people to pay it off.

I hear ya...I mean, I'll pay my student loans off because I don't care and when I'm dust they're dust with me so nuts to it all.  With that being said, I work a defense-related job that requires a decent level of security clearance and a BA and I make less than $15 an hour.  I'd make double what I make if I had a job that involved talking teens into going into massive debt to get degrees, that's for sure!

Now that everyone is too smart to get a job that requires a college degree the financial predators are going to swoop in and take advantage of the next obvious career path.  No one should go to college now, they should all go to trade school and spend 6 months studying to get a 6 figure job...that won't last though.  The people who got rich putting degree seekers in debt aren't just going to sit by and watch people make a killing by going to trade school.

Predatory lending will never die, it'll just change forms. 

[Dill]

(02-22-2021, 07:34 PM)BmorePat87 Wrote: Still the best investment for someone who can achieve in that setting, but not the best option for all. Also, it makes sense to guide students to cheaper post secondary education options rather than believing you need to go to an expensive university.

Like you said, tuition has become stupid high

Just curious.  

Whom or what do you think mostly controls the curriculum in your school or in the state in general--employer demand, national/regional/state boards setting standards, teachers unions, parents, students, district superintendents and principals?

Are courses/curricula constructed to prep for and mesh with university curricula? Or are they to some degree out of date, meeting standards set years or decades ago? Have you some thoughts on this might be exemplified in the disciplines you teach, at least?

[BmorePat87]

(02-23-2021, 11:03 PM)Dill Wrote: Just curious.  

Whom or what do you think mostly controls the curriculum in your school or in the state in general--employer demand, national/regional/state boards setting standards, teachers unions, parents, students, district superintendents and principals?

Are courses/curricula constructed to prep for and mesh with university curricula? Or are they to some degree out of date, meeting standards set years or decades ago? Have you some thoughts on this might be exemplified in the disciplines you teach, at least?

Our county curriculum is developed by the individual departments at central office with the help of teachers recruited to write it during the summer. It's based on state standards and assessments developed by the state dept of education by a mix of political appointees and bureaucrats with influence from the state legislature and governor, as well as testing companies who design the assessments. 

I would say that, outside of the state standards (which are mostly based on what people far from the classroom think are relevant, with little corporate or union influence), the teachers most involved with their departments at the county level have the most control over the curriculum itself, with little influence from administrators at the school level. Like most things, the public can review it and complain the board prior to it being adopted, though that's not likely to change anything drastically. 

We're slow to enact major changes that relate to career prep because the emphasis is still college, college, college. There's a set of metrics from the state used to determine if students are "college and career ready" that include things like taking AP courses, scoring a certain level on the SATs, and other things associated with college. Taking work study isn't included, but that's far more relevant for being "career ready", so we get dinged if a student who takes career research classes but not the SAT. Testing matters far too much.

This is where Biden criticism comes in. His DOE pushing for all students to take assessments this year is asinine. Beyond the fact that assessments are far less valuable than we treat them and handcuff teachers, requiring it as many people are going hybrid eats up a ton of time and poses so many problems. 

There are some classes aligned to the local community college, primarily math. Two of our college algebra classes use a midterm and final create with the community college. Passing them with a B or higher gives you credit for two math classes there. You can also take classes at the community college while enrolled in high school. Unless we're referring to AP classes, there isn't an aim is to model higher education standards of curricula because that's a completely different format for education. As my advisor told me my first year, "professor lecture and teachers teach". We're task with ensuring that every student's diverse needs and learning styles are meet and are held accountable for failures. 

I'm teaching Sociology, Psychology, and Law and Citizen this year in addition to Government reg and honors. With 5 preps, I've changed my attitude towards the electives, especially since we're using a weird schedule with online learning. I'm pushing for them to be more of open discussion classes. We'll go through daily topics with notes, but there's a lot of breaks and discussion points added in so that we can go off on tangents if that's where the students take us. The assessments are a journal students keep that requires them to reflect on a weekly topic and how it applies to their life, with the endgame being a student create portfolio as the final where they reflect on how specific journal entries demonstrate their mastery of curriculum standards. We also mix in group activities. I want them to experience college level topics with college level dialogue without bogging them down with tests and busy work since many are taking honors or AP classes.

[Sociopathicsteelerfan]

(02-24-2021, 02:30 AM)BmorePat87 Wrote: Our county curriculum is developed by the individual departments at central office with the help of teachers recruited to write it during the summer. It's based on state standards and assessments developed by the state dept of education by a mix of political appointees and bureaucrats with influence from the state legislature and governor, as well as testing companies who design the assessments. 

I would say that, outside of the state standards (which are mostly based on what people far from the classroom think are relevant, with little corporate or union influence), the teachers most involved with their departments at the county level have the most control over the curriculum itself, with little influence from administrators at the school level. Like most things, the public can review it and complain the board prior to it being adopted, though that's not likely to change anything drastically. 

We're slow to enact major changes that relate to career prep because the emphasis is still college, college, college. There's a set of metrics from the state used to determine if students are "college and career ready" that include things like taking AP courses, scoring a certain level on the SATs, and other things associated with college. Taking work study isn't included, but that's far more relevant for being "career ready", so we get dinged if a student who takes career research classes but not the SAT. Testing matters far too much.

This is where Biden criticism comes in. His DOE pushing for all students to take assessments this year is asinine. Beyond the fact that assessments are far less valuable than we treat them and handcuff teachers, requiring it as many people are going hybrid eats up a ton of time and poses so many problems. 

There are some classes aligned to the local community college, primarily math. Two of our college algebra classes use a midterm and final create with the community college. Passing them with a B or higher gives you credit for two math classes there. You can also take classes at the community college while enrolled in high school. Unless we're referring to AP classes, there isn't an aim is to model higher education standards of curricula because that's a completely different format for education. As my advisor told me my first year, "professor lecture and teachers teach". We're task with ensuring that every student's diverse needs and learning styles are meet and are held accountable for failures. 

I'm teaching Sociology, Psychology, and Law and Citizen this year in addition to Government reg and honors. With 5 preps, I've changed my attitude towards the electives, especially since we're using a weird schedule with online learning. I'm pushing for them to be more of open discussion classes. We'll go through daily topics with notes, but there's a lot of breaks and discussion points added in so that we can go off on tangents if that's where the students take us. The assessments are a journal students keep that requires them to reflect on a weekly topic and how it applies to their life, with the endgame being a student create portfolio as the final where they reflect on how specific journal entries demonstrate their mastery of curriculum standards. We also mix in group activities. I want them to experience college level topics with college level dialogue without bogging them down with tests and busy work since many are taking honors or AP classes.

Good to see that the criminal justice system isn't the only area in which bureaucrats with no experience in the field thrown up insane amounts of obstacles to actually getting the job done.