education

[pastelspectre]

i wasn't sure where to put this. if this goes in off topic i apologize. so i was wondering what you guys think about education. if you had children do you think they have a right to their own education? as in, choosing where they get to go? like public school, high school or private or even homeschooling? do you think that the parents have more than a say?

i ask this because my mom decided to put izzy, my little sister, in a magnet school without consulting with my sister (granted she is 11 but she is more mature than most 11 year olds). she was furious and said that she had a right to her own education an that she can decide where to go.

i personally think that children should have a right to their own education. i think they should decide to go where they are happiest or where they're most comfortable at.

so uh..just answer the questions above and see where it leads us :)

 

[Nah]

would much rather keep this here than move it to OT/Treehouse

But anyway, everyone should have the right to an education, since everyone who lives and will ever live in this world should be given the means to function well in the world.

The thing is though, I feel that, at least in the US, the education system does not do its job. To me, education should be about learning/gaining skills and knowledge useful for life after K-12 and learning to think critically and shit. But in my experience in the school system (and from bits and pieces I've heard from others), schools care more about money and status than actually educating the youth. It just cares about standardized test scores and graduation rates. "Oh, look how well our students score on this test, aren't we a great school? *pats self on back* Oh, look, we have a 97% graduation rate, we must be awesome, right?" That kind of shit. It gets them $$$$. All it ever really requires of you is to memorize information and then puke it back out on the test, write how they want. That's not learning. That's not education. In the age of the internet, literally anyone can accumulate knowledge. But what's more important is what you can do with it and not that your head is stuffed full of information.

But with my little rant over, I have a question: what is a magnet school, I don't really know what that is?

....ok I realized I typed "the youth", fuck it's like I'm getting old

 

[Somewhere_]

Children should not be deciding where they go to school. They are not mature enough and do not have the far-sightedness of an adult. 80% college students change their major, so even they dont know what is best for them between 18-24 or so. And this major is switched an average of 3 times.

Of course we have to draw the line somewhere, and I think this line should probably be drawn at 18. As a society, we consider 18 year olds adults; however, at the same time, I think parents should definitely have a hand or give guidance. They have more experience in the world.

So, in short, children do not have the far-sightedness to decide their education.

As to the "children have a right to education," where do we draw this line? "I have a right to education!" "I have a right to a private school education!" Well, these become financial decisions for the parents and private school is very expensive. The whole children have rights to decide their education makes little sense in practical terms.

Saying children have a right to decide their education is merely emotional mush that has no real bearing. Saying children have a right to an education, can at least be backed up with philosophical arguments.

I hope this makes sense xD

 

[gimmepie]

Children should not be deciding where they go to school. They are not mature enough and do not have the far-sightedness of an adult. 80% college students change their major, so even they dont know what is best for them between 18-24 or so. And this major is switched an average of 3 times.

Okay, here's the thing. You're not entirely wrong because, oddly enough, children do tend to be less mature but I really hate the "age equals maturity" line of thought. Age and maturity are not mutually inclusive and the same is true of age and immaturity. There are twelve-year-olds who have their whole lives rationally planned out as far as education and career and there are people in their are people in their forties who still can't stick to one job. You're right about the general trend, but this isn't a steadfast rule.

I don't think young children (talking primary school here) should have the 100% total say, but it's important to involve kids in decisions relating to their own lives. It teaches them important lessons about decision making and helps them mature - and ultimately they do know what is best for them and what will make them happiest. Even if you're making the final decision as a parent, you need to listen to what your child has to say. Give them some credit.

I know it's anecdotal evidence, but when I was moving from primary school to middle/high school I had the option given to me to go to the local public high school with people I knew or to a private school with a really good reputation. To this day I am glad that I chose the public school because I'd have been miserable at the private institution. I was encouraged to go to the private school, but I was given honest pros and cons for both and ultimately I made the right decision for myself. Similarly, I'm glad I didn't choose to take the academic extension program during middle school because I know it doesn't count for much here and would ultimately have hurt my grades because I wasn't prepared to put the extra work in... even if I did end up forcefully moved into the extension for high school but that's another story lmao. Hell, I'm still aiming for the same university qualification now as when I was twelve/thirteen. Kids need to be given more credit sometimes being young doesn't make you stupid.

As for the broader topic of education. I advocate highly for socialised education. I think everyone is entitled to a "free", quality education at the primary, secondary and tertiary levels payed for by taxes. At the very least I think education needs to be cheap and accessible.

I'd like to emphasise the word quality by the way. That means a unified nation curriculum (Australia has finally gotten one in recent years), content that is actually useful and relevant to life (we don't have that yet) and teaching that doesn't just teach you to memorise answers but to actively think creatively and makes you problem solve (definitely need to work on this too). From my understanding, education in the US is in an even worse state being of a poor quality in the public sector, with each state having different rules and regulations, with pressure groups having too much influence and with access to quality education being exceptionally low.

A good education is one of the most important things we can have in this world and far too few people have access to one.

 

[Somewhere_]

Okay, here's the thing. You're not entirely wrong because, oddly enough, children do tend to be less mature but I really hate the "age equals maturity" line of thought. Age and maturity are not mutually inclusive and the same is true of age and immaturity. There are twelve-year-olds who have their whole lives rationally planned out as far as education and career and there are people in their are people in their forties who still can't stick to one job. You're right about the general trend, but this isn't a steadfast rule.

I don't think young children (talking primary school here) should have the 100% total say, but it's important to involve kids in decisions relating to their own lives. It teaches them important lessons about decision making and helps them mature - and ultimately they do know what is best for them and what will make them happiest. Even if you're making the final decision as a parent, you need to listen to what your child has to say. Give them some credit.

I know it's anecdotal evidence, but when I was moving from primary school to middle/high school I had the option given to me to go to the local public high school with people I knew or to a private school with a really good reputation. To this day I am glad that I chose the public school because I'd have been miserable at the private institution. I was encouraged to go to the private school, but I was given honest pros and cons for both and ultimately I made the right decision for myself. Similarly, I'm glad I didn't choose to take the academic extension program during middle school because I know it doesn't count for much here and would ultimately have hurt my grades because I wasn't prepared to put the extra work in... even if I did end up forcefully moved into the extension for high school but that's another story lmao. Hell, I'm still aiming for the same university qualification now as when I was twelve/thirteen. Kids need to be given more credit sometimes being young doesn't make you stupid.

Sure, children should at least be able to voice their opinion. I mean, they are themselves. But the final say should definitely be the parents. But I am glad it worked out for you!

 

[Frozocrone]

The problem with education here in the UK is that they seem to push you to memorize answers to make the school look good and not prepare you for life.

Only two establishments I've been to (one being University) have actually had lessons on thinking critically, reading literature and making your own assumptions/interpretations as well as provide help to do well in jobs, including CV checking, mock interviews, mock applications and everything that goes with it.

My favourite teachers were the ones that believed in me beyond the walls of the classroom. The ones that push me to be a better person, not a better parrot.

That said, I think your sister has every right to be angry. While parents are generally interested in the wellbeing of their children, I feel children should have a part, if only involved in discussion about what options there are and how it will affect them. That way, the child can go to the school that makes them happy, not makes the parent look good.

 

[pastelspectre]

ah such good replies!! thank you all for providing a good discussion <3 i'm glad we're having a good discussion in my topic

as for the crappy US education system, i can agree. for elementary school, i mean i moved around a lot but it was essentially the same. i think i went to.. 4 schools total for elementary in the years that i had it. they were all pretty much the same. memorize information, take tests, schools priding themselves on their stupid test scores.

middle school, i went to two middle school total. one for 6th and one for both 7th and 8th. that time was a bit uh, horrid. it was mostly sort of my fault? in 6th grade i got bullied a fuck load and didn't really try on my homework and school work and even when i did, i still got bad grades bc my information was usually wrong even when i tried. however the school education stuff was still the same, memorize information, spit it out on tests, take stupid important tests that will determine your life, yadda yadda. 7th grade was also bad. i was sort of going through a rebel stage then i guess. i would lash out at my parents sometimes and i wouldn't dress out for gym. doesn't help i also got bullied in 7th, i would get called terrible names like..the w word and the s word (the..other one, not the one everyone uses) and no one really liked me bc i was sort of a bitch to the girls that were friends with the ones that bullied me, but what did they expect? it was hard to trust anybody. education wise, i didn't do too well. i would slack off on my homework and always go to the counselor to skip class. however, the tests still stressed me out and were the same, memorize info and spit it back out. take important life determining tests, or at least they seemed that way to me. anyways, 8th grade. mmmmm 8th grade ha..what a good year.

8th grade was probably the. worst. year. ever. for my education. i got bullied relentlessly by these group of girls. they always told me they wanted to beat me up or punch me in the fucking face. they would push me and harass me. it was awful. it got so bad i started self harming. anyways, about the education system there. it was the same school for 7th grade. i did a little better that year though, despite my awful bullying experience and my self harm.. tests were still the same, though a bit more stressful since i was "graduating" from middle school. we had all these dumb important tests that determined whether you passed the year or class or not.

9th grade, was okay? i went to a public school that year. i still suffered with my depression and other issues. it was pretty stressful though, especially near the end of the year where we had regents (do you guys have that in the uk? idk). basically they are very important tests you take that have a bunch of sections to them. they determine whether you pass the class or not. if you fail the regents, you fail the class and have to take it again, even if you got good grades all throughout the whole year. it was quite shit if you ask me. so naturally it was very stress inducing. 10th grade was surprisingly a lot better despite me getting suspended for stupid shit. i was in public school for the first half of the year. but then when i got suspended and they decided they couldn't deal with my massive mental health issues anymore, they wanted to place me in an alternative school system, so i decided to go to a private school for people with mental health issues. and i stayed there for the second half of 10th grade, and all of 11th grade and 12th. it wasn't too bad actually. i got more support there than i would in a public school of course. we still had regents and whatnot of course, but the teachers were more one on one than a public school bc, my private school was a lot smaller than public. only 30 or 40 students total probably. i enjoyed it. it was less stressful. i wish public school had an environment like that. like, a more one on one approach or would actually try to help students with their work instead of setting them off to the side or telling them they should already know this. oh well.

sorry for this awfully long chunk of text. tldr; the educational school system in general sucks ass. it's all about getting good presentation on test grades and good attendance. my private school, i was lucky enough to get to go to the school i actually wanted to for the last 2 and a half (i think?) years of high school. not all private schools are like mine ofc, if it's like magnet school, which is basically an advanced school program i think for really smart kids, it's super stressful and there's no point because you do extra work only to get the same sort of high school diploma as everyone else so. eh.

sorry for all this text.

 

[Esper]

To me, education should be about learning/gaining skills and knowledge useful for life after K-12 and learning to think critically and ****. But in my experience in the school system (and from bits and pieces I've heard from others), schools care more about money and status than actually educating the youth. It just cares about standardized test scores and graduation rates.

(sorry but this will be long and full of education policy stuff)

That goes to the Growth vs. Proficiency argument. Lots of public schools opt for proficiency instead of growth because it's easier to measure and measurements (like, for instance, graduation rates and class attendance) are how public schools traditionally get funded.

The tl;dr of growth vs. proficiency is that that proficiency sets a single standard and measures how many students meet it. For instance, how many students can pass Algebra 1 by the last year of high school. Growth measures a student against their previous abilities. For instance, how many Algebra 1 students move on to Algebra 2 regardless of what grade level they are in high school.

The trouble with proficiency-based education is that if you're at the top or the bottom of your class you get no help. The top stroll through and don't improve. The bottom are given up as lost causes. Not always, of course, but that system allows or encourages that kind of mindset.

The trouble with growth-based education is that people aren't that used to it and think it's not "real" education and is just babying kids. It also means you have to give attention to all the kids and help each of them grow. That takes more time and money.

The money thing is also pretty key when talking about the American education system.

Public schools (the American definition, that is, ones paid for with taxes and set up by local governments and which are free to residents within the school's district) rely on funding from a variety of sources, but a lot of it comes down to attendance. The more attendance the more money the school gets. The problem with that is that now with our newly minted Secretary of Education the push for school vouchers (some amount of government money taken away from public schools and given to parents who may opt to use it on private, religious, and/or charter schools) will get a lot more muscle. That would take away money from public schools because many parents will "want their kids to have the best education" and will try to shop around for something besides the default public school. Why this matters is that it lowers the attendance of public schools, which lowers the funding they get, and that lowers the quality of those schools. And maybe you might think that's not so bad, but the other options aren't really all that better. Charter schools are often for-profit and don't have the same rules to follow. They could, for instance, kick a student out more easily and still keep voucher money. They also share a similar problem with religious and private schools which is that they lack oversight and could, for instance, teach creationism to kids as fact. Charter schools are also not likely to be set up in rural areas where there is no incentive for them to set up shop (a.k.a no money). Private and religious schools are also still going to be too expensive for a lot of people because voucher programs won't be enough to cover the full costs, so all it would do is allow a few who are economically on the cusp of being able to attend while subsidizing families who already have means, leaving only even-less-funded public schools and charter schools, and charter school students do no better than public school kids and sometimes do worse.

So while we might all not be happy with the school system we have now, it could be a lot worse in the near future. The public schools which only teach to the book will have even fewer resources to focus on helping each kid learn. The less-regulated private, religious, and charter schools could be teaching kids not to think critically while feeding them misinformation or religious dogma - if you can even afford to go to one. There will probably be a few places that rise above this - good, affordable schools that give students attention and instill in them the drive to succeed and learn - but they'll be pretty few, and parents will savagely tear into other parents to make sure their kid gets the chance.

Race to the bottom.

tl;dr public schools have lots of problems but if we funded them well and didn't demonize them and teachers we might have better schools instead of this push to take your tax money and give it to religious schools

 

[Hermione Granger]

(sorry but this will be long and full of education policy stuff)

That goes to the Growth vs. Proficiency argument. Lots of public schools opt for proficiency instead of growth because it's easier to measure and measurements (like, for instance, graduation rates and class attendance) are how public schools traditionally get funded.

The tl;dr of growth vs. proficiency is that that proficiency sets a single standard and measures how many students meet it. For instance, how many students can pass Algebra 1 by the last year of high school. Growth measures a student against their previous abilities. For instance, how many Algebra 1 students move on to Algebra 2 regardless of what grade level they are in high school.

The trouble with proficiency-based education is that if you're at the top or the bottom of your class you get no help. The top stroll through and don't improve. The bottom are given up as lost causes. Not always, of course, but that system allows or encourages that kind of mindset.

The trouble with growth-based education is that people aren't that used to it and think it's not "real" education and is just babying kids. It also means you have to give attention to all the kids and help each of them grow. That takes more time and money.

The money thing is also pretty key when talking about the American education system.

Public schools (the American definition, that is, ones paid for with taxes and set up by local governments and which are free to residents within the school's district) rely on funding from a variety of sources, but a lot of it comes down to attendance. The more attendance the more money the school gets. The problem with that is that now with our newly minted Secretary of Education the push for school vouchers (some amount of government money taken away from public schools and given to parents who may opt to use it on private, religious, and/or charter schools) will get a lot more muscle. That would take away money from public schools because many parents will "want their kids to have the best education" and will try to shop around for something besides the default public school. Why this matters is that it lowers the attendance of public schools, which lowers the funding they get, and that lowers the quality of those schools. And maybe you might think that's not so bad, but the other options aren't really all that better. Charter schools are often for-profit and don't have the same rules to follow. They could, for instance, kick a student out more easily and still keep voucher money. They also share a similar problem with religious and private schools which is that they lack oversight and could, for instance, teach creationism to kids as fact. Charter schools are also not likely to be set up in rural areas where there is no incentive for them to set up shop (a.k.a no money). Private and religious schools are also still going to be too expensive for a lot of people because voucher programs won't be enough to cover the full costs, so all it would do is allow a few who are economically on the cusp of being able to attend while subsidizing families who already have means, leaving only even-less-funded public schools and charter schools, and charter school students do no better than public school kids and sometimes do worse.

So while we might all not be happy with the school system we have now, it could be a lot worse in the near future. The public schools which only teach to the book will have even fewer resources to focus on helping each kid learn. The less-regulated private, religious, and charter schools could be teaching kids not to think critically while feeding them misinformation or religious dogma - if you can even afford to go to one. There will probably be a few places that rise above this - good, affordable schools that give students attention and instill in them the drive to succeed and learn - but they'll be pretty few, and parents will savagely tear into other parents to make sure their kid gets the chance.

Race to the bottom.

tl;dr public schools have lots of problems but if we funded them well and didn't demonize them and teachers we might have better schools instead of this push to take your tax money and give it to religious schools

I think talk of religion has no place in a discussion like this, just because you don't believe in religion doesn't give you a right to attack religious schools.

 

[Thepowaofhax]

I think talk of religion has no place in a discussion like this, just because you don't believe in religion doesn't give you a right to attack religious schools.

Religion has no place in our school system, and considering we are getting someone in the Department of Education who would much rather force us into private schools via the voucher system, I'd be worried considering that a huge bit of private schools in America are religious. I don't know about other countries such as in Europe, but it still doesn't change the fact that a lot of American children are going to be forced into a curriculum in which dogmatic fundamentalists will shove anything "Christian" such as Creationism and remove actual theories that should be taught, such as the Theory of Evolution because of the voucher system.

Even though I agree with the voucher system myself, I do not agree with it when all our private institutions aren't regulated and still have religion as their back bone for a good bit of them.

 

[Hermione Granger]

Religion has no place in our school system, and considering we are getting someone in the Department of Education who would much rather force us into private schools via the voucher system, I'd be worried considering that a huge bit of private schools in America are religious. I don't know about other countries such as in Europe, but it still doesn't change the fact that a lot of American children are going to be forced into a curriculum in which dogmatic fundamentalists will shove anything "Christian" things such as Creationism and remove actual theories that should be taught, such as the Theory of Evolution because of the voucher system.

Even though I agree with the voucher system myself, I do not agree with it when all our private institutions aren't regulated and still have religion as their back bone for a good bit of them.

Theory of Evolution is nothing but a lie, anyone who attacks religion based schools are people who are against the truth. I feel bad for people like you who doesn't want people to learn the truth.

 

[Thepowaofhax]

Theory of Evolution is nothing but a lie, anyone who attacks religion based schools are people who are against the truth. I feel bad for people like you who doesn't want people to learn the truth.

Kind of hard to call it a lie considering it's backed by the Scientific community, but you keep on with your delusions.

 

[Hermione Granger]

Kind of hard to call it a lie considering it's back by the Scientific community, but you keep on with your delusions.

Scientists do have a tendencie to lie at times and manipulate things to try to prove things and the Theory of Evolution is not universally accepted by all scientists, I've seen lots of shows on it and not everyone supports it. I'm not delusional anyways, just because I know the truth doesn't give you a right to harrass me.

 

[Thepowaofhax]

Scientists do have a tendencie to lie and manipulate things to try to prove things and the Theory of Evolution is not universally accepted by all scientists, I've seen lots of shows on it and not everyone supports it. I'm not delutional anyways, just because I know the truth doesn't give you a right to harrass me.

How many of those "scientists" are qualified in Biology? After all, it is a scientific theory in which, by this definition, it has been observed. Natural selection is real and we have witnessed the change in animals, such as in breeding with domestic animals. Just because you seen some shows does not discredit this theory, and unless another theory shows up that makes more sense or practically disproves it, it is most likely factual. Just because a bunch of rogue scientists decide to twist cigarette statistics does not mean that, as a whole, a theory is disproven.

And no, I am not "harassing" you, nor am I going to lecture you on religion.

 

[Hermione Granger]

How many of those "scientists" are qualified in Biology? After all, it is a scientific theory in which, by this definition, it has been observed. Natural selection is real and we have witnessed the change in animals, such as in breeding with domestic animals. Just because you seen some shows does not discredit this theory, and unless another theory shows up that makes more sense or practically disproves it, it is most likely factual. Just because a bunch of rogue scientists decide to twist cigarette statistics does not mean that, as a whole, a theory is disproven.

And no, I am not "harassing" you, nor am I going to lecture you on religion.

I don't really trust scientists every word and after doing some digging I could say both creationism and evolution can be fact even if I don't support Evolution.

 

[gimmepie]

If you want to debate evolution itself, take it to the Science & Technology section. This is a thread specifically for education and with a focus on children having a right to a say in how they are educated.

 

[Nihilego]

Funnily enough, regardless of the conclusions that she's arrived at (which I certainly don't agree with), Paige is demonstrating something which is horribly deficient in education (at least, in my country): critical thinking.

I think one of the biggest shortcomings of the UK's education system, and likely other systems, is that over anything else it teaches you to simply repeat what people in influential positions say to you. When you're at school you think that teachers know everything since... they're teachers, right? They're the ones teaching you, so they have[/I ]to know everything, right?? When you get older you realise that this isn't true but what a lot of people retain from school is the idea that, just because someone knows more than you, they know everything and must be right. We forget that we can form our own ideas about things and we don't consider the possibility that, unlike most teachers, lots of the people in positions of "authority" who we listen to and whose words we accept are more intent on pushing their own agenda than relaying genuine, unbiased information. And honestly, this is a pretty easily-fixed issue; all teachers and parents need to do is to encourage kids to think for themselves rather than to just listen and accept. It's not that hard, and although I think it's a major issue in our education system I also think it's pretty easy to solve.

Regarding the point of how much say kids should get in their education: as the people who've been through it all already, know people who have been through it, and know what they think is best, the parents should make the decision. Absolutely. I know already that my future kids are going to state schools (we have weird nomenclature on schools in the UK - state school is what an American would call "public school", while for us "public school" and "private school" are the same thing and we don't even have states in the first place, so god knows what happened there, haha), and they're not getting a say in that. I think it's unusual, when I do have kids, that I'll ever take such a firm stance on things but I thoroughly believe that state education is best for the vast majority of kids, and that the downsides to alternatives like private or homeschooling drastically outweigh the positives.

I don't know about other countries such as in Europe

So I'm gonna assume that this was poorly worded, but just in case you don't know: Europe isn't a country and everything is done differently in each of Europe's individual countries, so it's neither possible nor valid to draw comparisons between Europe and the USA.

 

[Esper]

I think one of the biggest shortcomings of the UK's education system, and likely other systems, is that over anything else it teaches you to simply repeat what people in influential positions say to you. When you're at school you think that teachers know everything since... they're teachers, right? They're the ones teaching you, so they have[/I ]to know everything, right?? When you get older you realise that this isn't true but what a lot of people retain from school is the idea that, just because someone knows more than you, they know everything and must be right. We forget that we can form our own ideas about things and we don't consider the possibility that, unlike most teachers, lots of the people in positions of "authority" who we listen to and whose words we accept are more intent on pushing their own agenda than relaying genuine, unbiased information. And honestly, this is a pretty easily-fixed issue; all teachers and parents need to do is to encourage kids to think for themselves rather than to just listen and accept. It's not that hard, and although I think it's a major issue in our education system I also think it's pretty easy to solve.

Maybe it's just my experience (my neighbor was a grade school teacher, two friends I made while overseas had taught high school science and English, my friend's step-mother is a grade school teacher, and you get the point) but I think that there aren't as many people with agendas as it seems as you're saying there are. I think there are a lot of overworked people / people lacking support who can fall back on textbooks and other crutches. I'm 100% with you on the need for more critical thinking in school, but I think it's less malicious most of the time. Most of the time. We've all had that one teacher who was obviously pushing one viewpoint. I think that might be one of the reasons that lots of parents (and students, for slightly different reasons) get upset with the schools they've been in and want to have a different environment. Some parents want to control all that their kids are exposed to and some kids don't want the challenge of a teacher who sees things differently from how they do. I hope I'm wrong about this though. I don't like believing that adults and kids alike are actively avoiding being exposed to new ideas and being forced to use their critical thinking skills, but my experiences tell me a good number of people do that.

 

[Corrin]

Honestly, I always found it strange that people don't get to choose where they send their kids to school in the states, here you can.
Why can't people just choose?

 

[gimmepie]

Maybe it's just my experience (my neighbor was a grade school teacher, two friends I made while overseas had taught high school science and English, my friend's step-mother is a grade school teacher, and you get the point) but I think that there aren't as many people with agendas as it seems as you're saying there are. I think there are a lot of overworked people / people lacking support who can fall back on textbooks and other crutches. I'm 100% with you on the need for more critical thinking in school, but I think it's less malicious most of the time. Most of the time. We've all had that one teacher who was obviously pushing one viewpoint. I think that might be one of the reasons that lots of parents (and students, for slightly different reasons) get upset with the schools they've been in and want to have a different environment. Some parents want to control all that their kids are exposed to and some kids don't want the challenge of a teacher who sees things differently from how they do. I hope I'm wrong about this though. I don't like believing that adults and kids alike are actively avoiding being exposed to new ideas and being forced to use their critical thinking skills, but my experiences tell me a good number of people do that.

I think the problem is the system more than individual people with agendas. It's hard to keep bias out of things but the average teacher probably isn't going to hammer a specific view into their students. The problem is that bias is impossible to completely move and nobody is giving kids the skills to work around it because we don't teach critical thinking.