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.
Hmmm.....I am currently writing my Master's thesis on the over and underrepresentation of ELL students in Special Education across the U.S. The problem with NCLB is that it does not work for ALL students. Here's why:
Like it or not, the linguistic and cultural diversity of students in the U.S. is increasing greatly and currently ELL students make up just under 10% of the public school population in the United States today.
And for the record:
ELL = English Language Learner
ESL = English as a Second Language
If a kid's in school and is just learning English, unless he's disabled-- which isn't the topic-- English is his/her second language. Hence, ESL.
No law is perfect. That's the problem with government involvement, someone always loses in a compromise. However, saying that "NCLB is bad" and saying "NCLB needs adjustments in X, Y and Z" are two very different statements.
Eliminating stupidity would be even better than suppressing it, but unfortunately, what I've seen more with NCLB is that it's suppressing excellence.
Quote:
Originally Posted by OT
That's equality.
All students should be treated equally under the law, under the school policy, under the classroom regulations, but students are not equal in needs or in ability any more than feet are equal in size. Students cannot be forced to be equal regardless of whatever "equalizing" measures are applied to them like various Procrustean beds. Education works best when the shoe is made to fit the foot, not the foot the shoe.
That's sounds like a contradictions to me. The students should be treated equally but not equally? That's not equality.
However, I wasn't talking about the students. I was referring to the teachers. Equality requires that the better teachers are suppressed because the inferior teachers need a system in place that accomodates them. That's equality. Isn't equality good?
Quote:
Originally Posted by CW
Unfortunately, what NCLB has actually done is not just compel teachers to teach to a test, but compel them to do so at the expense of teaching other disciplines such as science and history.
Describe please.
Sure. If you'd like, I'd be happy to reference you to some news articles describing this situation, but in some districts, particularly the ones in lower socioeconomic brackets where the students test very low in reading and mathematics, schools have felt it necessary to reduce or eliminate science and history from their curricula in order to focus most of their time on teaching to the state tests. Obviously, reading and mathematics are of vital importance, and I'll even go so far as to say that it is more important to read and write and do mathematics than it is to understand science and history, which largely depend on a student's ability to do mathematics and read accurately in order to be understood, but I am seriously concerned that having (in some cases) NO understanding of science or history will hurt these students in their academic careers as they proceed through high school and college.
Yeah, that was my understanding of it.
If a school system is so inept that kids can't grasp basic math and reading, then I don't know if giving someone another bullet after they've already shot themselves in the foot is such a good idea.
I say baby steps. If the local government can't get rid of the trash at the front of the class, then you have to train them. Give them one subject to work on at a time... don't complicate it with anything but the fundamentals. If the inept teacher is unable to teach the most basics of basics, I don't think you're doing any kids a favor by letting them teach more subjects.
Quote:
Originally Posted by CW
Many parents of gifted students have turned to homeschooling or other educational alternatives since (and because of) NCLB.
Quote:
Originally Posted by OT
That's a positive. It's creating a demand for special schools. Just as W.Bloomfield, MI took all their dimwits and put them in a special school, so too must the exceptional be seperated.
My problem with this personally is that I believe that for profoundly gifted students, separate schools such as (for instance) IMSA in Illinois or the Davidson Academy in Reno, NV might be the best option besides homeschooling; however, many parents of gifted students whose needs cannot be met in the regular classroom (or, in some cases, the school as a whole) cannot afford to send their children to private school, nor can they afford to homeschool or move to Reno or Chicago. They're stuck with the school they've got, but the school they've got isn't appropriately accommodating their student.
I'm saying that if there are enough exceptional students, perhaps public schools dedicated to them will emerge.
However, I think you're too optimistic about what public school can do for the gifted. On the very best, most insightful day of someone with an average or slightly above IQ, the world they see has boundaries that will always prevent them from pointing an exceptional student toward a goal. Average people just can't see that far. A teacher's help, in the sense being discussed, is only a hindrance.
You can't make an argument against NCLB with these kids because public school is already incapable of delivering an education worthy of their potential (when the teachers are involved.)
Quote:
Originally Posted by CW
I don't claim to know what's going on with every district. Can you give me an example of a smart district that's responding with decent effectiveness to the problems that NCLB is causing for gifted students? I'm willing to believe you; I just need to take a look at some evidence.
Sorry, I may have misphrased that. I'm saying that "if a district is smart, they'll make changes." Not, "smart districts have made changes."
I really think the only path for those students is to get out of the mainstream public school. If someone was to really do something for those kids, I imagine... Actually, I just can't imagine teachers bright enough to handle the task.
Good people and good intention doesn't make it happen. It takes a genius to teach a genius... and, although it'd be accurate to say that those lessons are carried through time via the great works, I've witnessed how average thinkers bastardize the ideas and render them useless.
Exceptional kids have to stay away from average people so that they're not tainted.
Exceptional kids have to stay away from average people so that they're not tainted.
You had me agreeing with most of what you were saying until I read the above quote. Public schools do not meet the needs of gifted students, at least where I live (Florida). Public schools do an ok job of meeting the needs of average students and focus most of their resources on getting the lower performing kids to pass the state tests.
I am in agreement that ignoring the best and brightest, and to a certain extent the average student will jeopardize our country's future. You need these folks to be well educated achievers so that we remain competitive with the rest of the world. These are our innovators, we need to cultivate their minds.
I believe in equal opportunity but equal opportunity does not mean equal outcomes. There will ALWAYS be slow learners and focusing all of our public resources on them is not wise. We shouldn't treat the slow learners like dirt, but our country's well being depends on our best and brightest, who we are leaving behind.
However, I do not believe our best and brightest are in any way tainted by being in school with some slower learners. We do not need to be elitist. We need a population that can deal with all sorts of people, regardless of cognitive ability.
All students should be treated equally under the law, under the school policy, under the classroom regulations, but students are not equal in needs or in ability any more than feet are equal in size. Students cannot be forced to be equal regardless of whatever "equalizing" measures are applied to them like various Procrustean beds. Education works best when the shoe is made to fit the foot, not the foot the shoe.
That's sounds like a contradictions to me. The students should be treated equally but not equally? That's not equality.
Please allow me to clarify, if I can.
Students should be treated equally under the law, including classroom "law" or rules of behavior. I should not (for instance) give a white student a higher grade than a black student for performance that is otherwise identical. I should not accept a late paper from an Asian student if I would not also accept a late paper from a Hispanic student.
Nevertheless, equal does not mean same. All students should be given an equal opportunity to receive an appropriate education -- but that education may not be identical for each and every student.
To extend my analogy, if we were speaking about shoes, all students should be given equal access to shoes. Each student should receive an equal number of shoes.
However, not everyone should receive the same shoes. A person whose feet are size 6 would be given an inappropriate pair of shoes if they received a pair that were size 1 or size 12.
Similarly, in education, a five-year-old may enter kindergarten with a greater or lesser base of knowledge and/or a greater or lesser capacity to learn.
A significantly learning-disabled student would not be served adequately or appropriately in a regular classroom and neither would a significantly gifted student. If they were given the same education as every other child of their age, it would not be right or fair or appropriate.
I hope this clarifies.
However, I wasn't talking about the students. I was referring to the teachers. Equality requires that the better teachers are suppressed because the inferior teachers need a system in place that accomodates them. That's equality. Isn't equality good?
Not in and of itself and with no other considerations in place, no.
If a school system is so inept that kids can't grasp basic math and reading, then I don't know if giving someone another bullet after they've already shot themselves in the foot is such a good idea.
I understand what you're saying, but I believe that the courses have been eliminated in those districts in order to work with greater intensity on the minority of kids who aren't passing the test, particularly if they belong to one of the identified subgroups.
If the inept teacher is unable to teach the most basics of basics, I don't think you're doing any kids a favor by letting them teach more subjects.
I'm not going to argue with that one in the slightest; I agree with you.
I'm saying that if there are enough exceptional students, perhaps public schools dedicated to them will emerge.
However, I think you're too optimistic about what public school can do for the gifted. On the very best, most insightful day of someone with an average or slightly above IQ, the world they see has boundaries that will always prevent them from pointing an exceptional student toward a goal. Average people just can't see that far. A teacher's help, in the sense being discussed, is only a hindrance.
I think this is especially true for exceptionally gifted students; however, what I would say is that this problem could be minimized if grade acceleration were more encouraged. If you have a child who's 8 but capable of learning calculus, the calc teacher might have an average I.Q., but she can teach the child the fundamentals of calculus at the very least. This isn't a perfect solution -- you can still have a William Sidis type whose comprehension exceeds the teacher's -- but it's an improvement on the once-a-week pullout.
However, I do not believe our best and brightest are in any way tainted by being in school with some slower learners. We do not need to be elitist. We need a population that can deal with all sorts of people, regardless of cognitive ability.
I was referring to the teachers, not the students.
I think it'd be accurate to call my view libertarian; I recognize that some people have talents that should be free to flourish. Elitist, in my opinion, would acquiesce to the use of force (government) to attain a goal of division.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Charles Wallace
To extend my analogy, if we were speaking about shoes, all students should be given equal access to shoes. Each student should receive an equal number of shoes.
However, not everyone should receive the same shoes. A person whose feet are size 6 would be given an inappropriate pair of shoes if they received a pair that were size 1 or size 12.
I agree with you in principle. However, regrettably, in practice, people quickly move from giving everyone an equal boost up to a smaller boost for those more capable so that more energy can be spent boosting the lower... because most people are in love with equality...
Quote:
If a school system is so inept that kids can't grasp basic math and reading, then I don't know if giving someone another bullet after they've already shot themselves in the foot is such a good idea.
I understand what you're saying, but I believe that the courses have been eliminated in those districts in order to work with greater intensity on the minority of kids who aren't passing the test, particularly if they belong to one of the identified subgroups.
If you're saying that you disapprove of the failure of the school, I'm right there with you. However, I'm looking at it from the perspective that you have to do the best you can with what you've got... and if the best you can get out of those schools is two subjects relatively proficient, that's better than four incompentent... and it's more ideal, IMO, to have kids that can read and handle math.
Those are the subjects that will give them the opportunity to learn on their own in the future if they recognize the need for other subjects... whereas, sending a kid out in the world that can't read is a guaranteed failure. (Because of the embarassment of trying to find someone to teach you.)
Quote:
I'm saying that if there are enough exceptional students, perhaps public schools dedicated to them will emerge.
That's why they have to be kept away from average people. Average people are terribly jealous... Tragically, that includes teachers.
(I thought your examples were private schools.)
Quote:
However, I think you're too optimistic about what public school can do for the gifted. On the very best, most insightful day of someone with an average or slightly above IQ, the world they see has boundaries that will always prevent them from pointing an exceptional student toward a goal. Average people just can't see that far. A teacher's help, in the sense being discussed, is only a hindrance.
I think this is especially true for exceptionally gifted students; however, what I would say is that this problem could be minimized if grade acceleration were more encouraged. If you have a child who's 8 but capable of learning calculus, the calc teacher might have an average I.Q., but she can teach the child the fundamentals of calculus at the very least. This isn't a perfect solution -- you can still have a William Sidis type whose comprehension exceeds the teacher's -- but it's an improvement on the once-a-week pullout.
You feel that NCLB, instead of the culture within the profession, discourages such a change?
I think this is especially true for exceptionally gifted students; however, what I would say is that this problem could be minimized if grade acceleration were more encouraged. If you have a child who's 8 but capable of learning calculus, the calc teacher might have an average I.Q., but she can teach the child the fundamentals of calculus at the very least. This isn't a perfect solution -- you can still have a William Sidis type whose comprehension exceeds the teacher's -- but it's an improvement on the once-a-week pullout.
Quote:
Originally Posted by One Thousand
You feel that NCLB, instead of the culture within the profession, discourages such a change?
I don't feel it's an either/or choice; I feel NCLB and the culture within the profession both discourage such a change. Within the profession itself, I have witnessed a great deal of overt and not-so-overt prejudice against gifted students -- and some of these prejudices are embedded so deeply in the profession's practices that they're not even noticed or regarded AS prejudices, such as the oft-heard claim that "all children are gifted."
Well, NCLB was a desperation move, chiefly because education is utterly dysfunctional in this country.
Think about it for a second. Education consumes more and more of our GNP, and yet continues to deliver the same mediocre results year after year. In 1964, the highwater mark of American education as far as test results are concerned, education spending was 4.64% of the GDP. In 2012, it's slated to reach 6.678%. And, in 1964, this was with the Baby Boomers winding their way through the educational system. As a result today, we're throwing more money at fewer students.
So NCLB was designed as Hail Mary to actually make educators accountable for the enormous mess of our own making. And, as all educational reform has proven over the past 40 years, it has been a gigantic bust.
Why? Because the problem with education is systemic. Instead of attacking the core problem of education, we're fooling around on the periphery of the issue, doing what is akin to moving around the place setting cards in the ship's dining room as the Titanic merrily steams towards its destiny with an iceberg.
And the problem is this: Education today is supposed to be about imparting knowledge and helping children learn the valuable skills to help them be independent thinkers in society, right? Instead, it is the least creative enterprise in American life today. Look at just about any other institution in America. Business, the arts, the media, even religion have all innovated and adapted.
Yet education has not. Case in point? We live in an age of ubiquitous knowledge, where four words typed into a search engine yields an overwhelming amount of information on any subject, no matter how obscure it may be. With the innovation of software design, just about any curriculum can be taught at a computer, supplemented by the irreplaceable help of a teacher.
But with all this, schools continue to function along the lines of an 18th Century textile mill, with kids continuing to learn and work in the same basic way as their grandparents, through memorization and endless busywork.
Why is it this way? Why must bright and motivated children march in lockstep with the dumb and lazy? Why does a child have to endure 12 years worth of 180-day school years to enter college? Why does a sixth grader who reads on twelfth-grade level have to read books that are written to an audience with a fifth-grade reading level?
Does anybody have a good answer? Of course not. Because the apparent role of schools today is to create paperwork, employ legions of civil servants, and crush the souls of children. Anybody who has dropped off an enthusiastic six-year-old at school and watched them devolve to a cynical drone by the time he reaches thirteen will know exactly what I mean.
That's because the role of schools is no longer about education. It's about creating docile little taxpayers in the form of factory workers, lawyers, and soldiers. It's about turning in assignments and completing busywork than actually mastering the material. After all, how many times has one of your children ace his exams in a subject, yet receive a lower grade because he didn't turn in homework? That my friends, is a perfect example of socialization taking precedent over actual learning, where the means become the ends unto itself. It also explains why schools have begun to emphasize athletics over academic achievement for the purposes of developing the qualities of teamwork and discipline. After all, individual achievement has been relegated to a lower rung on the list of priorities.
So who are we to blame for all this?
First, are the educators themselves, a notoriously easy target. The last two outposts of Stalinism on the planet are North Korea and our schools. Absolute conformity in curriculum is the byword, with excessive rules, regulations, and programmed activity. Small wonder that school uniforms have gained popularity. It underscores uniform behavior and squashes the last bit on individualism. Personally, I'm waiting for some school to start their day by assembling on the front lawn everyday and forcing everybody to sing the school song. That would complete my analogy nicely.
I would like to note one thing, however. By Educators, I DO NOT mean the teachers, a heroic bunch. Instead, I am referring to the strata after strata of school administrators and theorists, one of the most parasitic, unimaginative broods ever encountered. These are the people who rebel against legislation such as NCLB. Why? They cannot abide accountability, for it shows what an awful job they're doing with the public money and the trust of the Republic.
The second group to blame are the politicians. Why? Because every time some social ill arises, whether it's a couple of brats shooting up a school in Colorado or some indigent child not getting breakfast at home, the schools are chosen as the bully pulpit, the delivery vehicle of choice for sweeping social change. In World War I, the nation was scandalized by the physical condition of army recruits, so PE became mandated in every school. Yet, today's kids are fatter than ever.
Today, the current theme is mainstreaming the learning disabled into regular classrooms. Not because this makes any sense from a teaching standpoint. For, sad and unfair as life may be, those kids will suck up a disproportionate amount of any teacher's time. Instead, mainstreaming is being pushed to fulfill a social agenda completely unrelated to the mission of education. It was blithely pushed onto the schools by the politicians and social engineers, without a thought to how this would affect overall classroom performance. Of course, additional blame needs to be thrown at the educators at this point. For every time one of these new programs gets proposed by some political hack, educators should be standing atop their chairs screaming, "No more!" But, because there's money attached, they remain silent and dilute their mission a little bit more.
And, finally, there are the parents. Yep. The #1 offenders. Have you ever sat in a school board meeting? Have you ever gone to a school open house? If you have, then you're one of the few. That's because parents have begun taking a client mentality, rather than viewing themselves as full participants in their children's education. You don't need me to elaborate here. You already know the types. The ones that let their ten-year-old play basketball until 10:00 at night. The ones that fight tooth-and-nail whenever their child gets punished for disrupting the classroom. The ones that allow their kids to come home from school and play video games until their eyes glaze over, and then wonder why the kids GPA is so low.
I know this has been a long post. But, rather than point out the flaws of NCLB, it's important to recognize why it exists in the first place: To reverse the wholesale failure of schools in our society and to restore them to a position of competency and respect in community. However, the tragedy of it all is that it will fail as a reform, the educational theorists will gloat, and schools will continue their dumbing down of America.
I agree with much of what you've said, cpg. I would like to add comments to a few of your points...
Quote:
Originally Posted by cpg35223
Why is it this way? Why must bright and motivated children march in lockstep with the dumb and lazy?
Social engineers and education theorists have conspired toward the goal of equal educational outcomes in an attempt to reform society's ills and to right perceived injustices. That's why we have, for example, kids ranging anywhere from 1st grade-level functioning to 12th+ grade-level functioning in the same 6th grade classroom, learning the same dumbed down curriculum (targeted to be understantable to the majority of this wide range of students, which by definition has to be below 6th grade-level so that the majority can reach the curriculum's objectives) and being expected to complete the same dumbed down classwork/homework assignments.
Quote:
Why does a sixth grader who reads on twelfth-grade level have to read books that are written to an audience with a fifth-grade reading level?
Because the social engineers' and education theorists' objective is the 'social justice' of equal outcomes, not equal opportunity to learn to the best of one's ability/effort.
Quote:
After all, individual achievement has been relegated to a lower rung on the list of priorities.
Actually, the social engineers and education theorists are trying to abolish individual achievement altogether and replace it with collective achievement so that no one achieves any more or any less than anyone else - again in the name of social justice and forcing their version of equal outcomes and an 'improved society' on the general public, especially those who do not have the financial means to escape the dysfunctional public school systems.
Thomas Sowell has an expression for this... "Vision of the Anointed: Self-Congratulation as the Basis for Social Policy." This 'vision' of the self-anointed is that the problems that we have in education (and other areas) are due to the fact that other people are just not as bright or as compassionate as they are, and that they have the solutions to these problems which are to be imposed upon the unenlightened (which means everyone else other than the self-anointed) by the power of government.
Quote:
And, finally, there are the parents. Yep. The #1 offenders. Have you ever sat in a school board meeting? Have you ever gone to a school open house? If you have, then you're one of the few. That's because parents have begun taking a client mentality, rather than viewing themselves as full participants in their children's education.
My experience, and that of many people I know, is that schools/educators, etc., have forced parents out by, time and time again, responding to parents' concerns by saying something along the lines of... 'We're the professionals; we know what's best.' They actively discourage informed, involved parents because they don't want any interference. The only parents that are welcomed are those who mindlessly go along with everything the schools/educators want.
Quote:
However, the tragedy of it all is that it (NCLB) will fail as a reform, the educational theorists will gloat, and schools will continue their dumbing down of America.
Yes. But how many people will understand that it was the social engineers and education theorists themselves who caused NCLB to fail so that they can continue to pursue their self-anointed 'vision' at the expense of our country's children and our future?
Last edited by InformedConsent; 04-25-2008 at 09:03 PM..
I think this is especially true for exceptionally gifted students; however, what I would say is that this problem could be minimized if grade acceleration were more encouraged. If you have a child who's 8 but capable of learning calculus, the calc teacher might have an average I.Q., but she can teach the child the fundamentals of calculus at the very least. This isn't a perfect solution -- you can still have a William Sidis type whose comprehension exceeds the teacher's -- but it's an improvement on the once-a-week pullout.
Quote:
Originally Posted by OT
You feel that NCLB, instead of the culture within the profession, discourages such a change?
I don't feel it's an either/or choice; I feel NCLB and the culture within the profession both discourage such a change. Within the profession itself, I have witnessed a great deal of overt and not-so-overt prejudice against gifted students -- and some of these prejudices are embedded so deeply in the profession's practices that they're not even noticed or regarded AS prejudices, such as the oft-heard claim that "all children are gifted."
Yup... equality...
Your side of the exchange began with "I believe in improving the quality of education, but I don't think NCLB's the right tool for the job."
You've witnessed under normal circumstances that educators fail to meet the needs of the gifted. (Maliciously, I might add... )
We've witnessed that school districts can group their underachievers together to specialize in helping those kids and protecting the average and this was motivated by NCLB. (West Bloomfield, MI. By the way, that's who I was referring to as "smart districts." I wasn't talking about gifted programs. I was mixed up.)
We've witnessed that NCLB has prevented instructors shooting students in both feet by encouraging them to only work on one foot. (Limiting subjects by teaching to the test.)
I understand that your position is that education needs to improve further, but you really sound like a fan of what NCLB is accomplishing... You just wish more were being done. Would that be an accurate statement?
If that is an accurate statement, do you think, when you've acknowledged that the profession's culture will not accomodate change, that it's really not possible for a law to move the whole nation's education system in a direction in a single swipe? Would it be more accurate to say "NCLB started the movement. However, we have to continue it?"
To the other poster yesterday regarding segregating the gifted from the average: I thought about it some more and, yes, I do think the gifted should be kept away from the average-- or atleast the circumstances controlled until the gifted has a clear understanding of the irrational thinking processees of the average and the false premissees the average frequently base their life philosophies on.
As with anything else, people are drawn to others who are similar. Real giftedness is so unusual that a gifted kid will be lucky to have one other real gifted person in the same grade in an average sized school. ("real" as in "not just a kid who studies a lot and tests well.) In fact, there's literature out there examing the psychological effect and underachievement when these exceptional kids are exposed to the average.
Controlled exposure until suitable emotional maturity has developed... then, the gifted probably will not want to associate with the average if other gifteds are an option.
Just my opinion.
Last edited by One Thousand; 04-25-2008 at 09:01 PM..
My experience, and that of many people I know, is that schools/educators, etc., have forced parents out by, time and time again, responding to parents' concerns by saying something along the lines of... 'We're the professionals; we know what's best.' They actively discourage informed, involved parents because they don't want any interference. The only parents that are welcomed are those who mindlessly go along with everything the schools/educators want.
This rings true for me. When it became obvious to us as parents that there was a significant disparity between our child's age and ability, one that could not effectively be dealt with (we believed) in the classroom, I spoke to a special ed. person, the school psych., and one administrator at the school for which we were zoned to find out in advance how they would normally approach this issue. I didn't reveal that I was a teacher.
They spoke to me very cavalierly, dismissing my concerns in a tone that I think the most tolerant of people would characterize as condescending, and it was clear from the casual, "don't-you-worry" delivery and the vagueness of their suggestions that they had no actual plan and had no intention of developing one. To them, I was just another parent from a lower socioeconomic-level school who could be treated basically like an ignorant yutz.
Even if I were an ignorant yutz, there's no excuse to treat any parent in that manner when they're calling up with reasonable concerns about their child. It was that conversation that genuinely locked the door on any other option besides homeschooling for elementary school at the very least.
Your side of the exchange began with "I believe in improving the quality of education, but I don't think NCLB's the right tool for the job."
I understand that your position is that education needs to improve further, but you really sound like a fan of what NCLB is accomplishing... You just wish more were being done. Would that be an accurate statement?
No, it would not. "More" is not necessarily "better," as I think you might agree.
Quote:
If that is an accurate statement, do you think, when you've acknowledged that the profession's culture will not accomodate change, that it's really not possible for a law to move the whole nation's education system in a direction in a single swipe? Would it be more accurate to say "NCLB started the movement. However, we have to continue it?"
I don't think it's possible for one law to change everything.
Okay, if you're asking for the Charles Wallace Law, or how I would change public education, here's what I would propose:
1. Make school compulsory only through age fifteen. Following that point, students should be asked to choose among these options: full-time employment at a job appropriate for a fifteen-year-old, apprenticeship in a trade and/or trade school, premilitary ROTC-style training, magnet school for a career choice (such as medicine, computer science, or law), or an intensive college-preparatory education such as that offered by the International Baccalaureate Program. Students should be allowed to switch one time if they choose, with the understanding that such a switch, just like a switch of majors in college, will delay their graduation. Classes will be of mixed ages, just as they are in college.
2. Choice schools (as described above) should not be compelled to retain habitual discipline problems. Should a student prove to be a habitual discipline problem, the school should attempt to work with the student, but only up to a certain point. If improvements are not made, s/he should be removed from the choice school and it should be the parents' sole economic responsibility to have her/him educated at a private school or elsewhere.
3. Homeschooling and private schooling for lower-income families should be subsidized to a certain extent to make these choices more possible for families who might otherwise not be able to afford it.
4. Upon entering kindergarten, children should be tested and placed in core classes according to their ability, not their ages. For example, if Child A tests at a fifth-grade level of reading and a kindergarten-level of mathematics, he should be placed in a class reading at the fifth grade and another one doing math at the kindergarten level -- classes which will have a mixture of ages, as all core classes will. S/he can return to the "homeroom" classes that are less dependent on sequential presentation such as music, art, history, or science. Testing should occur each year and the students re-placed in core classes each year. For example, if Child A enters kindergarten testing at a kindy level in math, but he moves to the third-grade level at the end of the year, he should be put into the fourth-grade class at the beginning of the following year.
5. Achievement tests need to be national, not local, and they need to measure specific skills and concepts (i.e., "the structure and function of plant and animal cells," or "metaphor"), or even a core of specific texts that most children should read in order to be considered reasonably culturally literate. I don't think those specific texts should take all year to teach because I believe that teachers' freedom to choose texts is crucial, but I believe there should be certain texts all students, regardless of whether they went to school in Portland, OR or Portland, ME, should've read. Among them: Greek myths, stories from the Odyssey and Iliad, at least one Shakespeare comedy, at least one Shakespeare tragedy, the Declaration of Independence, and so on.
6. Social promotion needs to be eliminated. If a child is failing to understand the material, tutoring needs to be provided, but it needs to be mandatory until the compulsory age is reached. It should be paid for, but paid for on a sliding scale according to the annual income of the parents. There should not be a need for many "remedial" classes if core content classes are mixed-age and placed according to ability. Tutoring would primarily serve students who were not making reasonable or appropriate progress in their grade or were not learning the skills necessary for promotion to the next level.
7. Teachers need to have majored in a core content area, not "education." Teacher education colleges should largely be eliminated in favor of (basically) a career placement program in which would-be teachers apprentice for at least three semesters with at least three different master teachers in three different types of school. Workshops on classroom management, learning styles, lesson planning, meeting state standards, and most effective practices as demonstrated by reliable, peer-reviewed research could be taught at the same time as the apprenticeships -- and taught by retired or currently practicing classroom teachers, not professors of education.
8. Students at the extreme ends of the academic spectrum need to be grouped homogeneously and taught by teachers specializing in the different needs of those students. Students who have extreme difficulties with behavior disorders should also not be mainstreamed, but taught by specialists in smaller classrooms. Reasonable efforts should be made to accommodate students with mild learning disorders by placing them in core classes according to ability, providing tutoring as needed, and (in some cases) providing further accommodations on an IEP; however, if their needs begin to affect the quality of learning for other students, their placement needs to be changed.
Okay, those are some of my ideas. Feel free to pick them apart, because of course, like any ideas for reform, they're not perfect.
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.
