Please verify that you are not a bot to cast your vote.
Join the leading SMITE community.
Create and share God Guides and Builds.
Account Login
Create an MFN Account
Or
Smite is an online battleground between mythical gods. Players choose from a selection of gods, join session-based arena combat and use custom powers and team tactics against other players and minions. Smite is inspired by Defense of the Ancients (DotA) but instead of being above the action, the third-person camera brings you right into the combat. And, instead of clicking a map, you use WASD to move, dodge, and fight your way through the detailed graphics of SMITE's battlegrounds.
SMITEFire is the place to find the perfect build guide to take your game to the next level. Learn how to play a new god, or fine tune your favorite SMITE gods’s build and strategy.
Copyright © 2019 SMITEFire | All Rights Reserved
Thank you, we'll look into those changes for sure.
@Sub
It seems like you disagree with the premise of my argument more than how I actually present it, which, is fine, but doesn't really help us. I'll answer to you though.
You say we use a lot of generic buzzwords and that makes it over dramatic. You're absolutely correct. Our goal is to get students interested. 16 year old kids aren't going to be interested in sources. They don't care about that. They're selfish, they want to know why they should care. And we use over dramatic yet generic language to keep it simple for them, while still providing enough information that they understand the basics. Am I saying that we should use The Foundation as the basis of a new education system? No. It's just something that will get people thinking. We could go into plenty of specifics of how we want things changed, but we're trying to keep it short and simple, while still getting people interested.
If you have any more advice on how to further that goal, we'd greatly appreciate it. After school my friends and I are going to look through Janitsu's formatting and then we're going to go through your comment and see with what we agree or disagree.
Thank you.
Comments.
1: Who is your audience? You aren't going to grab attention by giving out a source-less pamphlet to random people on the street. The best way would be to bring it to some kind of authority figure who has the power to enact changes. Basically, narrow your audience. The average layperson? Your local governor? Congress? Etc.
2: Sources, sources, sources. From a scientific standpoint, sourceless social commentary is pretty much a personal anecdote, and practically worthless to those who don't already agree with you. Most people would think your ideas are "huh, I never thought of it like that" and move on and probably forget about it in a few days.
And no, blog posts and online newsletters are not proper sources. THIS is a proper source: http://www.hks.harvard.edu/pepg/PDF/Papers/PEPG11-03_GloballyChallenged.pdf
3: I honestly am baffled by some of these claims. School boards aren't made of 98% soccer moms. I don't know where you got this glorified idea of teachers, but it was never a "noble profession" - teachers and their historical impact have been very varied, but usually never positive.
Some places are literally getting past corporal punishment, for Christ's sake, like in the older boarding schools (more common in europe than the US).
In any case, you say that teachers have decayed into grumps that despise students who are utterly incompetent at their job, and speaking as someone who moved from county to county (sampling over a dozen different schools), I can say that is incorrect.
Teachers know the ****ing subject. You can't teach a subject without learning it. I've had mean teachers and blundering teachers but I can say with full confidence that all of them knew what they were doing.
Teaching what they knew is a different matter, but that comes from a variety of factors, not just the teacher's knowledge of his subject. Christ.
And for the record, if you're going to be asking all teachers to "be incredible with children," you might as well start trying to create an army of teacher-robots, or some other unobtainable fantasy.
Personally, I think your manifesto is mostly hogwash. You act like teaching is under the control of some corrupt, fat, immoral and nebulous government. In reality, like in a lot of things, the issues stem from money.
Schools just don't receive enough funding. One of my high schools (Troy), is widely considered one of the best schools in the state, and they're considering closing their library and they lost a lot of their electives a few years ago - stuff like soldering and woodworking.
I suggest doing more research. Thorough research. Not "find a source that verifies your claims," but "examine the last ten years of educations reforms, graduations rates, etc, in your district," because that is the kind of research you need to get anywhere.
It's exhausting, and honestly, probably unfufilling and unlikely to lead anywhere, and will probably take a long time, but that's just how the cookie crumbles.
I'll puncture your ego for a bit: You and your friends aren't "planting the seeds" of anything. Educational reform is a debate that has been going on for ages, and your ideas aren't new. In fact, your ideas are mostly generic criticisms with generic goals, without any real plan on how to go about things.
"Forget grades, go with personal evaluation." The entire reason why grades were invented was to prevent personal evaluation. There just isn't enough time and teachers to do this, and there is nothing wrong with grading itself, which has existed for centuries, all the way from 1785. If you have problems with the way grading works, name them, but don't blame grading as a whole.
"Be more selective with teachers and judge by merit?" *facepalm* Firstly, teachers are, in fact, judged by merit, in that if they can't do their job, they wouldn't be working at all. Have you even talked to your teachers about this, or is this some desperate narcissistic project from a group of bored schoolboys? Secondly, what the hell is "be more selective" supposed to mean? How selective is selective enough? You are just throwing out generic buzzwords without actually giving any ideas for change.
"Focus on depth" again, a generic tagline that doesn't actually suggest any changes. How, exactly? We've got math, science, english, history, etc. What do we cut out? Why? How will periods work? How will classes work? Will this apply to primary and secondary schools only, or all schools?
"Common core creates low standards" Then what, exactly, should be the standards? A ton of people have complained about the educational standard in the US compared to other countries - you're just one voice among hundreds of thousands who cry "raise standards!" without a clue how or what. Also, the tangent about technology is laughably absurd.
"Put more focus in STEM classes." What, beyond what they have already? I dunno where you're getting your info from, but this is already a thing.
"Decides to cut teachers, rather than increasing the cost of sports. Focus on education, not sports." Firstly, the two aren't mutually exclusive like you say, and second, this is nothing new - people have been blaming sports for the previously mentioned falling educational standards. People practically blame everything for the comparatively low educational output of the US. Thirdly, this is yet another generic statement when every school places a different emphasis on education-athletics, and Fourthly, some studies suggest that sports may not even have a negative impact on education at all - it could be another factor, which is why it's important to view this on a case-by-case basis.
tl;dr: "The Foundation" is overdramatic, overblown, and outdated, badly. It's like used mouthwash.