Thai Int'l School Uk Vs Us Levels Of Education

[McMagus]

In my limited experience I find the ENC (primary education), being objectives based, tends to be 'tick a box n move on' style, they tend to skim across the top of the curriculum without going into great depth. You can go into any British curriculum school and they are all doing the same thing at the same time... a bit like education by numbers. So on any given day you will see displays of ... 'We are experiencing the art of Jackson Pollock'... and all the kids turn out the same stuff. I am not seeing a lot of enquiry based learning. Just my limited experience and limited point of view.

[Kilgore Trout]

As a teacher (an actual qualified one), I can tell you that what it all comes down to is the teacher in the classroom. This is true for any curriculum, US, UK, Australia, what have you.

Your child could go to the best school, with the most developed curriculum and the best materials and technology, but if they have a poor teacher, the child will get a poor education.

Conversely, a poorly run school with little resources that has a great teacher; the children in that class will be better off than above.

Unfortunately, it can be hit or miss.

I guess that's why Harvard is so cheap.

Thats a silly comment; I suggest discussing the matter further with people in the field of education.

Well I have an MA in education. Is that OK. Expensive schools have better teachers. Any other questions? But don't believe me. MBA Harvard how much on graduation? MBA Michigan State University how much on graduation? Great basketball players go to school at colleges with great basketball teams. Great teachers go to schools with great academic reputations.

The best schools try to get the best teachers, and may succeed with regard to the bigger picture, however, there are many factors to consider.

Many teachers look better on paper than in the classroom; how does a school find this out; by hiring them and giving them a contract. A poor teacher will most likely not be offered a contract after finishing the first one; but they can't outright fire the teacher without just cause (and in most cases, being a poor teacher doesn't qualify) so the teacher will most likely be there a couple of years and the students during that time will suffer.

For your example; many teachers at Harvard have acquired tenure and are impossible to fire, so although they may have been passionate early on, they can get lazy. Compare that to a teacher trying their best to get ahead and make a name for themselves at a less prestigious school; the latter may do a much better job.

I had a professor from Harvard during undergrad; this guy had an incredibly good reputation and had published a ton of material. He was the worst teacher I ever had; he didn't really care about the undergrads, was extremely boring and hard to follow, and would become incredibly frustrated when a class had trouble comprehending him.

You seem to see things in a very black and white way; I would go so far as to say you come across as a snob with regard to eonducati. Its a shame that people like you are in the field; imho.

[StreetCowboy]

In my limited experience I find the ENC (primary education), being objectives based, tends to be 'tick a box n move on' style, they tend to skim across the top of the curriculum without going into great depth. You can go into any British curriculum school and they are all doing the same thing at the same time... a bit like education by numbers. So on any given day you will see displays of ... 'We are experiencing the art of Jackson Pollock'... and all the kids turn out the same stuff. I am not seeing a lot of enquiry based learning. Just my limited experience and limited point of view.

The history and geography elements of the English National Curriculum are very parochial, I think. I'm not sure why, since I don't think that the learning objectives are based on specific factual retention, so really any 17th century disaster befalling a capital city would do as well as the Great Fire of London. On the other hand, because it is quite a perscriptive curriculum, there's a great deal of excellent supporting material for it.

SC

[chiangmaikelly]

I guess that's why Harvard is so cheap.

Thats a silly comment; I suggest discussing the matter further with people in the field of education.

Well I have an MA in education. Is that OK. Expensive schools have better teachers. Any other questions? But don't believe me. MBA Harvard how much on graduation? MBA Michigan State University how much on graduation? Great basketball players go to school at colleges with great basketball teams. Great teachers go to schools with great academic reputations.

The best schools try to get the best teachers, and may succeed with regard to the bigger picture, however, there are many factors to consider.

Many teachers look better on paper than in the classroom; how does a school find this out; by hiring them and giving them a contract. A poor teacher will most likely not be offered a contract after finishing the first one; but they can't outright fire the teacher without just cause (and in most cases, being a poor teacher doesn't qualify) so the teacher will most likely be there a couple of years and the students during that time will suffer.

For your example; many teachers at Harvard have acquired tenure and are impossible to fire, so although they may have been passionate early on, they can get lazy. Compare that to a teacher trying their best to get ahead and make a name for themselves at a less prestigious school; the latter may do a much better job.

I had a professor from Harvard during undergrad; this guy had an incredibly good reputation and had published a ton of material. He was the worst teacher I ever had; he didn't really care about the undergrads, was extremely boring and hard to follow, and would become incredibly frustrated when a class had trouble comprehending him.

You seem to see things in a very black and white way; I would go so far as to say you come across as a snob with regard to eonducati. Its a shame that people like you are in the field; imho.

Sure, partly true but one of the advantages of going to a good school is good students go to good schools. Lets face it for the most part teachers are dummies. Good schools allow students to network and chat and hopefully learn from each other. Normal Supreme Court Justices don't go to Detroit College of Law.

See, I noticed you said you had a professor from Harvard. If you had said you had a professor at Harvard your opinion would be different. Saying, " it is a shame people like me are in the field" after reading a couple of post is a bit of a stretch eh? I think that line was designed to provoke me and start an arguement. Time for my meditation class, ooommmmm.

[Kilgore Trout]

Sure, partly true but one of the advantages of going to a good school is good students go to good schools. Lets face it for the most part teachers are dummies. Good schools allow students to network and chat and hopefully learn from each other. Normal Supreme Court Justices don't go to Detroit College of Law.

See, I noticed you said you had a professor from Harvard. If you had said you had a professor at Harvard your opinion would be different. Saying, " it is a shame people like me are in the field" after reading a couple of post is a bit of a stretch eh? I think that line was designed to provoke me and start an arguement. Time for my meditation class, ooommmmm.

There are plenty of supreme court justices who went to state universities. Look it up.

BTW, I would not have been able to afford Harvard if I had applied and was accepted, same as many of us common folk. Apparently you consider those of who became teachers to be dummies, as you mentioned in your post.

It seems that you believe that those of us who can't afford an ivy league school can't receive an education good enough to achieve the success that a Harvard graduate would. I happen to disagree with you.

You have certainly confirmed that you are a snob and I stand by my earlier comment that to know people like you work in the field of education is quite frightening.

[chiangmaikelly]

Sure, partly true but one of the advantages of going to a good school is good students go to good schools. Lets face it for the most part teachers are dummies. Good schools allow students to network and chat and hopefully learn from each other. Normal Supreme Court Justices don't go to Detroit College of Law.

See, I noticed you said you had a professor from Harvard. If you had said you had a professor at Harvard your opinion would be different. Saying, " it is a shame people like me are in the field" after reading a couple of post is a bit of a stretch eh? I think that line was designed to provoke me and start an arguement. Time for my meditation class, ooommmmm.

There are plenty of supreme court justices who went to state universities. Look it up.

BTW, I would not have been able to afford Harvard if I had applied and was accepted, same as many of us common folk. Apparently you consider those of who became teachers to be dummies, as you mentioned in your post.

It seems that you believe that those of us who can't afford an ivy league school can't receive an education good enough to achieve the success that a Harvard graduate would. I happen to disagree with you.

You have certainly confirmed that you are a snob and I stand by my earlier comment that to know people like you work in the field of education is quite frightening.

You are odd. Good schools cost more money because they are good. Good teachers, teach at good schools because they are better teachers. Good students go to good schools to get the best education they can. When you graduate from a good school you get a job that pays more money than when you graduate from a school with less of a reputation. I think not to understand the above as fact is rather naive. If it is more fun to attack the messenger than the message (As you posted above, "you are a snob and I stand by my earlier comment that to know people like you work in the field of education is quite frightening.") I believe there is a Latin phrase for that.

[Kilgore Trout]

Sure, partly true but one of the advantages of going to a good school is good students go to good schools. Lets face it for the most part teachers are dummies. Good schools allow students to network and chat and hopefully learn from each other. Normal Supreme Court Justices don't go to Detroit College of Law.

See, I noticed you said you had a professor from Harvard. If you had said you had a professor at Harvard your opinion would be different. Saying, " it is a shame people like me are in the field" after reading a couple of post is a bit of a stretch eh? I think that line was designed to provoke me and start an arguement. Time for my meditation class, ooommmmm.

There are plenty of supreme court justices who went to state universities. Look it up.

BTW, I would not have been able to afford Harvard if I had applied and was accepted, same as many of us common folk. Apparently you consider those of who became teachers to be dummies, as you mentioned in your post.

It seems that you believe that those of us who can't afford an ivy league school can't receive an education good enough to achieve the success that a Harvard graduate would. I happen to disagree with you.

You have certainly confirmed that you are a snob and I stand by my earlier comment that to know people like you work in the field of education is quite frightening.

You are odd. Good schools cost more money because they are good. Good teachers, teach at good schools because they are better teachers. Good students go to good schools to get the best education they can. When you graduate from a good school you get a job that pays more money than when you graduate from a school with less of a reputation. I think not to understand the above as fact is rather naive. If it is more fun to attack the messenger than the message (As you posted above, "you are a snob and I stand by my earlier comment that to know people like you work in the field of education is quite frightening.") I believe there is a Latin phrase for that.

I think you are quite naive to believe that something is better just because it costs more.

Furthermore, it is ridiculous to compare Harvard law school to an elementary international school to get back on topic.

Again, it all comes down to the teacher in the classroom.

And yes, perhaps I am odd; eclectic and odd. And believe you me, there are plenty of odd, great, wonderful teachers who would prefer to teach in a low income neighborhood school to kids who really need a great teacher, than teach in some snooty private school with misguided people who think the way you do.

[StreetCowboy]

Sure, partly true but one of the advantages of going to a good school is good students go to good schools. Lets face it for the most part teachers are dummies. Good schools allow students to network and chat and hopefully learn from each other. Normal Supreme Court Justices don't go to Detroit College of Law.

See, I noticed you said you had a professor from Harvard. If you had said you had a professor at Harvard your opinion would be different. Saying, " it is a shame people like me are in the field" after reading a couple of post is a bit of a stretch eh? I think that line was designed to provoke me and start an arguement. Time for my meditation class, ooommmmm.

There are plenty of supreme court justices who went to state universities. Look it up.

BTW, I would not have been able to afford Harvard if I had applied and was accepted, same as many of us common folk. Apparently you consider those of who became teachers to be dummies, as you mentioned in your post.

It seems that you believe that those of us who can't afford an ivy league school can't receive an education good enough to achieve the success that a Harvard graduate would. I happen to disagree with you.

You have certainly confirmed that you are a snob and I stand by my earlier comment that to know people like you work in the field of education is quite frightening.

You are odd. Good schools cost more money because they are good. Good teachers, teach at good schools because they are better teachers. Good students go to good schools to get the best education they can. When you graduate from a good school you get a job that pays more money than when you graduate from a school with less of a reputation. I think not to understand the above as fact is rather naive. If it is more fun to attack the messenger than the message (As you posted above, "you are a snob and I stand by my earlier comment that to know people like you work in the field of education is quite frightening.") I believe there is a Latin phrase for that.

I think you are quite naive to believe that something is better just because it costs more.

Furthermore, it is ridiculous to compare Harvard law school to an elementary international school to get back on topic.

Again, it all comes down to the teacher in the classroom.

And yes, perhaps I am odd; eclectic and odd. And believe you me, there are plenty of odd, great, wonderful teachers who would prefer to teach in a low income neighborhood school to kids who really need a great teacher, than teach in some snooty private school with misguided people who think the way you do.

I could have taken a gamble and sent my kids to a school with the glue-sniffers and the deadwoods, in the hope that they would learn social responsibility from a dedicated and idealistic teacher. But my experience is that they would have been taught at best by a competent and professional teacher, and at worst, by a jaded cynic. So instead, I'd rather put my hand in my pocket and rely on the ability of a good school to deliver good results.

It could be that the school achieves great results because of the incoming material, in which case my children will gain benefits from having classmates who're all smarter than me; I had to struggle with more than half a class who were less academically inclined than I was. At first, I was a little nervous that they would lead too sheltered a life, but my daughter seems to be coping fine with the cursing and swearing; let's see how she gets on with drink and drugs in the next few years...

Academically, she is putting me to shame, and involved in more extracurricular activities than I ever was.

SC

[meatballs]

Education is stoopid and a waste of time and money.

[StreetCowboy]

Education is stoopid and a waste of time and money.

Top Troll! Good job - I bet some people respond to that.

[akspace]

You are odd. Good schools cost more money because they are good. Good teachers, teach at good schools because they are better teachers. Good students go to good schools to get the best education they can. When you graduate from a good school you get a job that pays more money than when you graduate from a school with less of a reputation. I think not to understand the above as fact is rather naive. If it is more fun to attack the messenger than the message (As you posted above, "you are a snob and I stand by my earlier comment that to know people like you work in the field of education is quite frightening.") I believe there is a Latin phrase for that.

I'm a computer engineer and I work with a lot of people who graduated from Stanford, Berkeley, MIT, etc... These are the best schools in the world when it comes to computer science and engineering. I went to a no name state school and make just as much money as they do. In the end what really matters is how good you are, where you got your piece of paper may open a few doors, but it won't help you beyond that.

[asiaexpat]

Back to the OP's question: What is better for his child, UK or US based curriculum. Having educated four sons and currently with three grandchildren in international schools in Bangkok, we first determined where each child is most likely to enter university. US based international schools met our criteria primarily because our kids all intended to go to US universities and live in the US. The grandkids will be going to Australia or New Zealand for university, thus we selected international schools based on Australian curriculum. The US kids are all grown with successful careers, which is what it is all about. Education planning for international kids needs to be long term.

[JimShortz]

It is clearly difficult to compare the two systems as a whole, but I believe it is true to say that the A levels studied during the last two years of a UK education are much more rigorous than the last two years of a regular USA High school education. That being said, many USA curriculum schools offer AP (advanced placement) courses during these final years. These are more rigorous than regular US classes, but are still generally considered (and for university entrance value) to only be comparable to the British AS levels (the first year of the two year A level courses).

The implications of this are that the last two years of a UK education are very challenging (its a huge step from IGCSE to A levels), BUT do prepare you extremely well for university. This means there is no need for a foundation year at university if you have studied A levels, and hence a standard UK degree is only 3 years long. When thinking about where to send kids to university this can be a very important factor. UK university education is not cheap, but only being there for 3 years is a big saving.

There is also a misconception that UK A levels are only good for studying in the UK. This is far from the truth, and in fact for students heading for the USA they can often get course credit for their A levels (if they did well) worth up to a full year - hence only needing to do a 3 year degree (or three and a bit), even in the USA. This is surely clear recognition from some of the top USA universities that A levels are well above regular USA High school curriculum level.

For students from Thailand who want to head to some of the top universities in the region (e.g. Hong Kong or Singapore), A levels are also a good idea as these places much prefer them - as their own systems are more UK based anyway.

My last point, I think! The IGCSEs studied for the two years prior to A levels do now qualify you for entrance to all Thai universities (if you have 5 passes), and some other universities in the region. Frankly this is a joke and I can only hope is a mistake by the Thai education ministry that will soon be rectified.

Students at 15/16 years old, in the UK system, study 8 or 9 subjects to IGCSE. This is part of their broad education, before narrowing choices to A level for the last two years. They were never intended for university preparation, and anyone going at this level will certainly need a 4 year degree - or more!

It is a shame that Thai universities now readily accept 16 year old children from UK curriculum schools into the adult world of university with no accommodations for the fact that they are accepting children. These children are not ready for university. Fortunately, not too many are foolish enough to take up this option without at least waiting until 18 years old and having graduated High school, but I do know of students forced to do this at 16 by parents simply wanting to save money!

[JimShortz]

Aren't there any educators here on TV that could weigh in on the topic.

I'm really wondering about early years, foundation stuff, for 5 to 8 or 9 year olds. Are US Int'l schools as good as UK int'l schools in terms of providing math basics?

As earlier posters pointed out, it depends on the actual school your looking at. I can only really talk about the school that I work at, and have my Primary aged child attend (Lanna International School in Chiang Mai). I know that through our Primary School they follow the Cambridge Primary programme for Maths, Science and English throughout the Primary years.

For me this is very important. For my child I get to see his progression in the key subjects of Maths, Science and English through annual standardised international assessments where his progress is measured against those in other Cambridge centres throughout the world. At least it sets some proper external benchmarks, and is not just about the teacher's own internally set assessments. It also means there is a clear stepped curriculum building sensibly from year to year. My son is certainly doing very well within this system; if I wasn't happy I would be changing schools - for both of us.

At the end of Primary school the students all sit a bank of assessments called Primary checkpoint. Our students did outstandingly well in those this year, so I guess something must be going right in the Primary section - I hope my son goes on to do just as well and be well prepared for Secondary school. You can see the results on the school website, and find out about the Primary programme there too (or at the Cambridge International Examinations website).

I don't know how this compares to USA schools, perhaps someone can step in and explain how this compares?

[Kilgore Trout]

I could have taken a gamble and sent my kids to a school with the glue-sniffers and the deadwoods, in the hope that they would learn social responsibility from a dedicated and idealistic teacher. But my experience is that they would have been taught at best by a competent and professional teacher, and at worst, by a jaded cynic. So instead, I'd rather put my hand in my pocket and rely on the ability of a good school to deliver good results.

It could be that the school achieves great results because of the incoming material, in which case my children will gain benefits from having classmates who're all smarter than me; I had to struggle with more than half a class who were less academically inclined than I was. At first, I was a little nervous that they would lead too sheltered a life, but my daughter seems to be coping fine with the cursing and swearing; let's see how she gets on with drink and drugs in the next few years...

Academically, she is putting me to shame, and involved in more extracurricular activities than I ever was.

SC

Many of these schools "achieve great results" through discrimination and doctoring of statistics; FYO.

If you are a good parent and know what your child is doing, and work with them at home etc., have high expectations etc, have a clear understanding of what is happening in the classroom and know the teacher well, your child will succeed.

Unfortunately, many parents think that sending them to an expensive school means they can then sit back and do nothing.

Success comes from within, and a child nurtured properly will succeed no matter where they went to school.

[chiangmaikelly]

You are odd. Good schools cost more money because they are good. Good teachers, teach at good schools because they are better teachers. Good students go to good schools to get the best education they can. When you graduate from a good school you get a job that pays more money than when you graduate from a school with less of a reputation. I think not to understand the above as fact is rather naive. If it is more fun to attack the messenger than the message (As you posted above, "you are a snob and I stand by my earlier comment that to know people like you work in the field of education is quite frightening.") I believe there is a Latin phrase for that.

I'm a computer engineer and I work with a lot of people who graduated from Stanford, Berkeley, MIT, etc... These are the best schools in the world when it comes to computer science and engineering. I went to a no name state school and make just as much money as they do. In the end what really matters is how good you are, where you got your piece of paper may open a few doors, but it won't help you beyond that.

The average Harvard MBA started at 4,200,000 baht last year. That was starting pay plus signing bonus.

Everybody likes Bill Clinton, right? Where did he go to school. One of those little British schools I think. And Hilly went to the Ivy league. See, you have a problem when you start to think your own little world of experience speaks for the rest of the world.

[chiangmaikelly]

I could have taken a gamble and sent my kids to a school with the glue-sniffers and the deadwoods, in the hope that they would learn social responsibility from a dedicated and idealistic teacher. But my experience is that they would have been taught at best by a competent and professional teacher, and at worst, by a jaded cynic. So instead, I'd rather put my hand in my pocket and rely on the ability of a good school to deliver good results.

It could be that the school achieves great results because of the incoming material, in which case my children will gain benefits from having classmates who're all smarter than me; I had to struggle with more than half a class who were less academically inclined than I was. At first, I was a little nervous that they would lead too sheltered a life, but my daughter seems to be coping fine with the cursing and swearing; let's see how she gets on with drink and drugs in the next few years...

Academically, she is putting me to shame, and involved in more extracurricular activities than I ever was.

SC

Many of these schools "achieve great results" through discrimination and doctoring of statistics; FYO.

If you are a good parent and know what your child is doing, and work with them at home etc., have high expectations etc, have a clear understanding of what is happening in the classroom and know the teacher well, your child will succeed.

Unfortunately, many parents think that sending them to an expensive school means they can then sit back and do nothing.

Success comes from within, and a child nurtured properly will succeed no matter where they went to school.

Obama, Bush, Clinton where did they go to school?

[kaspercat]

Have you consider IB schools?

I would rank them above UK or US schools. IB diplomas are accepted worldwide are often are used to waived many first year university classes.

[chiangmaikelly]

Have you consider IB schools?

I would rank them above UK or US schools. IB diplomas are accepted worldwide are often are used to waived many first year university classes.

How do they compare in price?

[Kilgore Trout]

I could have taken a gamble and sent my kids to a school with the glue-sniffers and the deadwoods, in the hope that they would learn social responsibility from a dedicated and idealistic teacher. But my experience is that they would have been taught at best by a competent and professional teacher, and at worst, by a jaded cynic. So instead, I'd rather put my hand in my pocket and rely on the ability of a good school to deliver good results.

It could be that the school achieves great results because of the incoming material, in which case my children will gain benefits from having classmates who're all smarter than me; I had to struggle with more than half a class who were less academically inclined than I was. At first, I was a little nervous that they would lead too sheltered a life, but my daughter seems to be coping fine with the cursing and swearing; let's see how she gets on with drink and drugs in the next few years...

Academically, she is putting me to shame, and involved in more extracurricular activities than I ever was.

SC

Many of these schools "achieve great results" through discrimination and doctoring of statistics; FYO.

If you are a good parent and know what your child is doing, and work with them at home etc., have high expectations etc, have a clear understanding of what is happening in the classroom and know the teacher well, your child will succeed.

Unfortunately, many parents think that sending them to an expensive school means they can then sit back and do nothing.

Success comes from within, and a child nurtured properly will succeed no matter where they went to school.

Obama, Bush, Clinton where did they go to school?

When your child grows up to be POTUS then you can come back and argue your point

[StreetCowboy]

I'm surprised that

I could have taken a gamble and sent my kids to a school with the glue-sniffers and the deadwoods, in the hope that they would learn social responsibility from a dedicated and idealistic teacher. But my experience is that they would have been taught at best by a competent and professional teacher, and at worst, by a jaded cynic. So instead, I'd rather put my hand in my pocket and rely on the ability of a good school to deliver good results.

It could be that the school achieves great results because of the incoming material, in which case my children will gain benefits from having classmates who're all smarter than me; I had to struggle with more than half a class who were less academically inclined than I was. At first, I was a little nervous that they would lead too sheltered a life, but my daughter seems to be coping fine with the cursing and swearing; let's see how she gets on with drink and drugs in the next few years...

Academically, she is putting me to shame, and involved in more extracurricular activities than I ever was.

SC

Many of these schools "achieve great results" through discrimination and doctoring of statistics; FYO.

If you are a good parent and know what your child is doing, and work with them at home etc., have high expectations etc, have a clear understanding of what is happening in the classroom and know the teacher well, your child will succeed.

Unfortunately, many parents think that sending them to an expensive school means they can then sit back and do nothing.

Success comes from within, and a child nurtured properly will succeed no matter where they went to school.

You must know different parents than I do. Having said that, if you're going to let your children fend for themselves, I'm sure they'll do better at a good school...

Getting back closer to topic, the International Baccalaureate seems like a good qualification with breadth and depth - I think better than A-levels, which drive a student to premature specialisation, in my opinion.

SC

[chiangmaikelly]

I could have taken a gamble and sent my kids to a school with the glue-sniffers and the deadwoods, in the hope that they would learn social responsibility from a dedicated and idealistic teacher. But my experience is that they would have been taught at best by a competent and professional teacher, and at worst, by a jaded cynic. So instead, I'd rather put my hand in my pocket and rely on the ability of a good school to deliver good results.

It could be that the school achieves great results because of the incoming material, in which case my children will gain benefits from having classmates who're all smarter than me; I had to struggle with more than half a class who were less academically inclined than I was. At first, I was a little nervous that they would lead too sheltered a life, but my daughter seems to be coping fine with the cursing and swearing; let's see how she gets on with drink and drugs in the next few years...

Academically, she is putting me to shame, and involved in more extracurricular activities than I ever was.

SC

Many of these schools "achieve great results" through discrimination and doctoring of statistics; FYO.

If you are a good parent and know what your child is doing, and work with them at home etc., have high expectations etc, have a clear understanding of what is happening in the classroom and know the teacher well, your child will succeed.

Unfortunately, many parents think that sending them to an expensive school means they can then sit back and do nothing.

Success comes from within, and a child nurtured properly will succeed no matter where they went to school.

Obama, Bush, Clinton where did they go to school?

When your child grows up to be POTUS then you can come back and argue your point

So you should strive to give your child a poor education based on the fact he or she may never be POTUS? If you looked at Obama or Clinton as children, no way would anyone think they would grow up to be POTUS. I know Hot Springs Arkansas and it was almost a double for Pattaya with hookers, gambling and the mob. Al Capone even had a house there.

I sent my children to the best schools I could afford. Better actually than I could afford. Better certainly than I went to.

Edited September 30, 2012 by chiangmaikelly

[StreetCowboy]

...

So you should strive to give your child a poor education based on the fact he or she may never be POTUS? If you looked at Obama or Clinton as children, no way would anyone think they would grow up to be POTUS. I know Hot Springs Arkansas and it was almost a double for Pattaya with hookers, gambling and the mob. Al Capone even had a house there.

I sent my children to the best schools I could afford. Better actually than I could afford. Better certainly than I went to.

I suppose the mark of a good education is the value you place on it, and your ability to do better for your children

SC

[Kilgore Trout]

So you should strive to give your child a poor education based on the fact he or she may never be POTUS? If you looked at Obama or Clinton as children, no way would anyone think they would grow up to be POTUS. I know Hot Springs Arkansas and it was almost a double for Pattaya with hookers, gambling and the mob. Al Capone even had a house there.

I sent my children to the best schools I could afford. Better actually than I could afford. Better certainly than I went to.

Your misunderstanding of the issue contines to no end.....

My point is that the defining factor in the classroom is the teacher; not the program. Judge a school by the quality of its teachers and practices; not the name or curriculum it espouses.

A point illustrated in this excerpt from a paper by Harry Wong (a leading voice in modern education theory);

The major difference between successful and unsuccessful schools is that

• Unsuccessful schools stress programs. They spend

millions of dollars adopting programs, fads-of-the-year, in

constant pursuit of the quick fix on the white horse.

• Successful schools stress practices. They wisely invest

in their teachers and the effectiveness of their teachers.

They don’t teach programs; they teach basic, traditional

academic content—and they work at improving the pedagogical practices of

their teachers.

Source: http://www.newteache...df/only1way.pdf

Edited September 30, 2012 by Kilgore Trout

[chiangmaikelly]

So you should strive to give your child a poor education based on the fact he or she may never be POTUS? If you looked at Obama or Clinton as children, no way would anyone think they would grow up to be POTUS. I know Hot Springs Arkansas and it was almost a double for Pattaya with hookers, gambling and the mob. Al Capone even had a house there.

I sent my children to the best schools I could afford. Better actually than I could afford. Better certainly than I went to.

Your misunderstanding of the issue contines to no end.....

My point is that the defining factor in the classroom is the teacher; not the program. Judge a school by the quality of its teachers and practices; not the name or curriculum it espouses.

A point illustrated in this excerpt from a paper by Harry Wong (a leading voice in modern education theory);

The major difference between successful and unsuccessful schools is that

• Unsuccessful schools stress programs. They spend

millions of dollars adopting programs, fads-of-the-year, in

constant pursuit of the quick fix on the white horse.

• Successful schools stress practices. They wisely invest

in their teachers and the effectiveness of their teachers.

They don’t teach programs; they teach basic, traditional

academic content—and they work at improving the pedagogical practices of

their teachers.

Source: http://www.newteache...df/only1way.pdf

I know Wong. He has a book store that I use,

[culicine]

Sure, partly true but one of the advantages of going to a good school is good students go to good schools. Lets face it for the most part teachers are dummies. Good schools allow students to network and chat and hopefully learn from each other. Normal Supreme Court Justices don't go to Detroit College of Law.

See, I noticed you said you had a professor from Harvard. If you had said you had a professor at Harvard your opinion would be different. Saying, " it is a shame people like me are in the field" after reading a couple of post is a bit of a stretch eh? I think that line was designed to provoke me and start an arguement. Time for my meditation class, ooommmmm.

There are plenty of supreme court justices who went to state universities. Look it up.

BTW, I would not have been able to afford Harvard if I had applied and was accepted, same as many of us common folk. Apparently you consider those of who became teachers to be dummies, as you mentioned in your post.

It seems that you believe that those of us who can't afford an ivy league school can't receive an education good enough to achieve the success that a Harvard graduate would. I happen to disagree with you.

You have certainly confirmed that you are a snob and I stand by my earlier comment that to know people like you work in the field of education is quite frightening.

You are odd. Good schools cost more money because they are good. Good teachers, teach at good schools because they are better teachers. Good students go to good schools to get the best education they can. When you graduate from a good school you get a job that pays more money than when you graduate from a school with less of a reputation. I think not to understand the above as fact is rather naive. If it is more fun to attack the messenger than the message (As you posted above, "you are a snob and I stand by my earlier comment that to know people like you work in the field of education is quite frightening.") I believe there is a Latin phrase for that.

I think you are quite naive to believe that something is better just because it costs more.

Furthermore, it is ridiculous to compare Harvard law school to an elementary international school to get back on topic.

Again, it all comes down to the teacher in the classroom.

And yes, perhaps I am odd; eclectic and odd. And believe you me, there are plenty of odd, great, wonderful teachers who would prefer to teach in a low income neighborhood school to kids who really need a great teacher, than teach in some snooty private school with misguided people who think the way you do.

Oh how I wish it were true that "good students go to "good" read: expensive schools....certainly in Thailand, only the most wealthy can hope to go to the most expensive schools here. And these are certainly not the best students in the country.

[Kilgore Trout]

So you should strive to give your child a poor education based on the fact he or she may never be POTUS? If you looked at Obama or Clinton as children, no way would anyone think they would grow up to be POTUS. I know Hot Springs Arkansas and it was almost a double for Pattaya with hookers, gambling and the mob. Al Capone even had a house there.

I sent my children to the best schools I could afford. Better actually than I could afford. Better certainly than I went to.

Your misunderstanding of the issue contines to no end.....

My point is that the defining factor in the classroom is the teacher; not the program. Judge a school by the quality of its teachers and practices; not the name or curriculum it espouses.

A point illustrated in this excerpt from a paper by Harry Wong (a leading voice in modern education theory);

The major difference between successful and unsuccessful schools is that

• Unsuccessful schools stress programs. They spend

millions of dollars adopting programs, fads-of-the-year, in

constant pursuit of the quick fix on the white horse.

• Successful schools stress practices. They wisely invest

in their teachers and the effectiveness of their teachers.

They don’t teach programs; they teach basic, traditional

academic content—and they work at improving the pedagogical practices of

their teachers.

Source: http://www.newteache...df/only1way.pdf

I know Wong. He has a book store that I use,

Were you trolling from the beginning or is it just a knee jerk reaction when presented with sound, reasonable statements?

[chiangmaikelly]

So you should strive to give your child a poor education based on the fact he or she may never be POTUS? If you looked at Obama or Clinton as children, no way would anyone think they would grow up to be POTUS. I know Hot Springs Arkansas and it was almost a double for Pattaya with hookers, gambling and the mob. Al Capone even had a house there.

I sent my children to the best schools I could afford. Better actually than I could afford. Better certainly than I went to.

Your misunderstanding of the issue contines to no end.....

My point is that the defining factor in the classroom is the teacher; not the program. Judge a school by the quality of its teachers and practices; not the name or curriculum it espouses.

A point illustrated in this excerpt from a paper by Harry Wong (a leading voice in modern education theory);

The major difference between successful and unsuccessful schools is that

• Unsuccessful schools stress programs. They spend

millions of dollars adopting programs, fads-of-the-year, in

constant pursuit of the quick fix on the white horse.

• Successful schools stress practices. They wisely invest

in their teachers and the effectiveness of their teachers.

They don’t teach programs; they teach basic, traditional

academic content—and they work at improving the pedagogical practices of

their teachers.

Source: http://www.newteache...df/only1way.pdf

I know Wong. He has a book store that I use,

Were you trolling from the beginning or is it just a knee jerk reaction when presented with sound, reasonable statements?

No, I have had that photo on my computer for years just waiting for you. Since you don't respond to common sense I thought I would try humor. Poor kids get poor educations sorry did you want me to say that again?

Edited September 30, 2012 by chiangmaikelly

[Kilgore Trout]

Poor kids get poor educations sorry did you want me to say that again?

You miss the point so far from the mark it leaves me stunned. Clearly you are an elitist. I feel sorry for your children.

[Nepal4me]

Oh how I wish it were true that "good students go to "good" read: expensive schools....certainly in Thailand, only the most wealthy can hope to go to the most expensive schools here. And these are certainly not the best students in the country.

Is this true? ISB and Bangkok Pattana are 2 of the most expensive schools in Bangkok and the general (true or not?) impression is that they are in fact the best 2 schools here.