Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
That abuse and neglect is a direct result of the Great Society's "war on poverty"....which we have certainly not won. We have to hold parents accountable for their kids' education.
Oh, baloney! Are you saying there was no abuse and neglect before the 1960s?
I agree there is only so much the teacher can be responsible for.
Charter schools do not have to take a student or if they do, they don't have to keep them. The contract says the charter school can expel the student for certain infraction. The public school becomes the school of last resort. Their only option for problem students are alternative programs and schools. My local district has at least four different options for alternative programs.
Agreed on all points. Maybe if regular public schools were given the same flexibility, legally, in getting rid of problem students, that might be one way of holding parents accountable. If by a certain age little Johnny isn't doing what he's supposed to be doing or behaving how he should, he's sent to an alternative school whether you like it or not.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Katiana
I don't know what you mean by the bold, particularly in regards to science. Are the laws of science different in different locales? If you're referring to evolution, IIRC, it wasn't really discussed when my kids took science classes in high school. Is history different in different places?
There are many interpretations of history and science, even if there is really only one truth for both disciplines. However both subjects have become incredibly politicized in recent years and I think you can forget about reaching any kind of national consensus. Just my opinion, though.
With my background in special education as well as general ed, and having worked with disabled learners of extreme intellectual diversity, I'm fairly skeptical of any one-size-fits-all approach, and the implicit agendas therein.
Like you, I see this one-size-fits-all approach as simply the cheapest approach to processing mass quatities of students, not an effective method of educating.
That would not work in most large cities. Denver has 22 high schools all of which have 400-500 students, plus some charters. It would also not work well in many rural areas, particularly in the spread out western US. In the metro Denver area, Douglas County and Jefferson County have county-wide school districts. While both are more suburban than rural now, they began as rural districts that could combine resources better as single districts, rather than a bunch of small districts.
Each high school is 400-500 students? (Did I misunderstand?) Where I live, high schools are 2000-3000 students and up.
I suggest we look at Asian and European models of education, testing, and tracking. Students are tested, and tracked based on the results of the test scores. Starting as young as age 5. Parents are the ones who hold students accountable for success, and failure. And themselves.
I'm completely against national standards. Education should be responsive to parents, and parents are local. The federal government has never helped or fixed anything. Quite the contrary.
As a theory Common Core is isn't necessarily a bad idea.
Yes education is local but here's the rub: school systems/State Departments of Education are so addicted to grants now that they can't wean themselves and with grants come requirements. Common Core is one of those for Race To The Top money along with enhanced teacher evaluation standards.
Additionally, grants just don't come from the USDofEd, they also come from foundations such as Gates and Broad. Those have requirements, also, and in my opinion those requirements are way more nefarious than anything from the Feds. The Feds give systems some latitude to design programs, the foundations tell systems exactly what has to be taught.
Additionally, grants just don't come from the USDofEd, they also come from foundations such as Gates and Broad. Those have requirements, also, and in my opinion those requirements are way more nefarious than anything from the Feds. The Feds give systems some latitude to design programs, the foundations tell systems exactly what has to be taught.
Yeah that's another good point. The goals of these foundations aren't always altruistic. In fact I strongly suspect that many of them are looking for ways to increase the privatization of public education, which in turn could potentially pad their bottom line (or the bottom line of their partners).
It's also worth noting that some of these foundations were behind the push for and creation of the Common Core, which makes me very skeptical.
If a parent is breaking the law (abuse, abandonment, etc), there are laws for that.
Parents are responsible for their own children. I'm responsible for mine and you are responsible for yours. If a parent is following an educational model that differs from yours, that is really none of your business.
That abuse and neglect is a direct result of the Great Society's "war on poverty"....which we have certainly not won. We have to hold parents accountable for their kids' education.
Quote:
Originally Posted by villageidiot1
And if they are not accountable, what happens?
Quote:
Originally Posted by mimimomx3
If a parent is breaking the law (abuse, abandonment, etc), there are laws for that.
Parents are responsible for their own children. I'm responsible for mine and you are responsible for yours. If a parent is following an educational model that differs from yours, that is really none of your business.
Parents are legally responsible to send their children to school until they are 16 or 17 depending on the state. They are not legally accountable for education beyond that. You stated that, "We have to hold parents accountable for their kids' education." We have public education because most parents are not capable or do not want the responsiblity of educating their children.
No one mentioned parents who are following a different educational model. You argued that, "Education should be responsive to parents," but what does that mean? Responsive how? What if I think math is stupid and I don't want my little Johnny to have to learn math in school because it makes him irritated? So according to your logic, Johnny should be exempt from math class and have the option to play with his Legos or computer games during math class.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
