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.
Would you recommend it be done everywhere at once, or with trials in one city or a city and its suburbs?
You'd have to do it at the very least at the county level but ideally at the state level. You can't have both systems running. You can't just do it with a few schools, in fact at least to some degree this has been tried (e.g., the Philly case) Although, they never fired any teachers or even dropped the unions.
Just taking a public school and selling it off to a private company and then forcing all same kids to go to that school is unlikely to yield much improvement. Each time they experiment with this stuff this is what they do, yet it completely misses the point. Privatizing an individual school isn't going to make it magically better. If people are forced to consume a particular product there is no motivation for the company to improve the product, it is only under the thread of losing business (to a competitor) that a company will improve its product. Hence, for this to work there needs to be a voucher system where parents have a variety of schools to pick from. The bad schools will simply go out of business either due to bankruptcy or being forced to close by educational regulators.
I have believed this for a long time. Not enough emphasis is put into the sciences and mathematics in grade school, which completely messes people up for high school. Too much emphasis on English, which isn't a bad thing but more needs to be placed onto other subjects.
Shoot, I don't even know where to begin on how we could remodel our education system. Maybe it is time the United States starts to take a look at other countries, and model off of them.
WoW, you said a mouthful. Our Academic field is very weak. Oh but the sports are very strong. What is wrong with this picture?? I am in agreeance with cpg35223, there is WAY TOO MUCH emphasis on sports in the k-12 public schools. Afterall, every tax payer is paying into schools for Educations, but all we get is a couple of good Academic students and a whole host of teams (the chosen few to definately succeed)of sports teams. This is the top priority with Administration in k-12 public schools everywhere. If it wasn't than they wouldn't be so accurately organized?? Is the Academic Education accurately organized?? Not by a far cry. We need to help improve the overall Academic scores and Well Betterment of the students by moving the sports into the communities. Get the coaches out of the Academic classrooms so that we can hire experienced or new ACADEMIC TEACHERS. Coaches chose their career. That is their passion. I don't care what class they teach, a coach's passion is in the sports fields.They will tell you that themselves.
The Academics,Arts and Music, Survival classes, Health, and yes, Rocket SCientists needs room to grow in the schools. THat will never happen for the majority of students unless the sports are moved out of the way. So yes, AaronK, I do agree with you, let's revamp the whole thing.
At least in Los Angeles were I grew up there wasn't much focus on sports. You had to take PE in JR high and in some sense its a waste of time and then 2 years in high school. I don't even think I knew who was on the football team, most kids didn't.
But people in general don't really care about football etc much here. But when I was living in PA....man totally different story. People would always ask "think the Steelers are going to win" the news would not shut up about the steelers or whoever else. The community really got behind their sports teams and I can see how this sort of attitude can easily flow into the education system.
Our Educational System Has Not Adapted With The Times.
I'm still amazed that we continue to cling to this antiquated system.
30 years ago, it was a reasonable expectation that one could complete 12.5 years of public ed., and then obtain a job that would allow them to live independently and support a family. Today, a H.S. diploma doesn't guarantee much beyond minimum wage for a new graduate. But, we can take solace in the fact that class sizes are much smaller than they were back in those days.
Whenever there is discussion about education, it's always the same refrain from big business and colleges: The students lack the skills/ability to complete the tasks. In contrast to this mindset, parents continually marvel at how their children are more perceptive/knowledgeable than the parent was when he/she was a child. The 64K Question: Who's truly correct on this, the parents, or the academi(?) and business professionals? From my personal non-parental, non-academic perspective, the kids today are definitely more advanced than they were 20 years ago. There's a major disconnect here.
I wouldn't know where to begin with regard to implimenting curriculum reform, but i do feel that the system of public education should be reduced from 13 years down to 11 or 12 years. I feel that eliminating 1-2 years would yield numerous benefits. At the high school level, it would essentially remove the distractions that come with students obtaining their drivers' license. At the collegiate level, it would dramatically curtail the issues associated with alcohol. At the local level, it would cost less to operate the schools.
The bottom line is: After 12.5yrs., a kid was prepared to be self-sufficient. Now, after a year or two of pre-school, 13 years of public ed., and 4 years of college, far too many are still ill-prepared. So why not eliminate some of these years of public education?
The biggest obstacle to overcome would be that the federal government would have to mandate this new structure, and it would only be possible to impliment it with newly enrolled students.
The biggest obstacle to overcome would be that the federal government would have to mandate this new structure, and it would only be possible to impliment it with newly enrolled students.
How would they do that? Education is a state's right. The federal government talks big and pushes yoyo programs like No Child Left Behind...grandiose idea with very little funding. It has fallen flat on its expensive face.
The feds fund about 8% of public education. They can't mandate a helluva lot. Federal credibility as it applies to public education has been lost under the Bush Presidency.
2) Not everybody is going to college. Heck, most people won't go to college. When a kid hits 14 and doesn't show academic promise, why not give him/her the option to learn a trade such as plumbing, electrical work, or any number of other well-paying professions? Instead, in the average 11th and 12th grade English class, you have 25% of the students actually interested in the books they're reading, while the rest will stay up the night before reading the Cliff's Notes.
I have a really hard time with the idea that a child, and I emphasize child, of 14 should be pigeon-holed into a career they will have to work in for the next 50+ years.
5) De-Emphasize sports. Hey, I played sports. But I also recognize that high school sports have become the tail that wags the dog. When you make sports the central source of pride in a school, you inevitably downplay everything else.
I think sports have their place. UNITE has some major beef with sports in schools.
How would they do that? Education is a state's right. The federal government talks big and pushes yoyo programs like No Child Left Behind...grandiose idea with very little funding. It has fallen flat on its expensive face.
The feds fund about 8% of public education. They can't mandate a helluva lot. Federal credibility as it applies to public education has been lost under the Bush Presidency.
In Colorado, people are fiercely protective of "local control" of schools.
I'm still amazed that we continue to cling to this antiquated system.
30 years ago, it was a reasonable expectation that one could complete 12.5 years of public ed., and then obtain a job that would allow them to live independently and support a family. Today, a H.S. diploma doesn't guarantee much beyond minimum wage for a new graduate. But, we can take solace in the fact that class sizes are much smaller than they were back in those days.
Whenever there is discussion about education, it's always the same refrain from big business and colleges: The students lack the skills/ability to complete the tasks. In contrast to this mindset, parents continually marvel at how their children are more perceptive/knowledgeable than the parent was when he/she was a child. The 64K Question: Who's truly correct on this, the parents, or the academi(?) and business professionals? From my personal non-parental, non-academic perspective, the kids today are definitely more advanced than they were 20 years ago. There's a major disconnect here.
I wouldn't know where to begin with regard to implimenting curriculum reform, but i do feel that the system of public education should be reduced from 13 years down to 11 or 12 years. I feel that eliminating 1-2 years would yield numerous benefits. At the high school level, it would essentially remove the distractions that come with students obtaining their drivers' license. At the collegiate level, it would dramatically curtail the issues associated with alcohol. At the local level, it would cost less to operate the schools.
The bottom line is: After 12.5yrs., a kid was prepared to be self-sufficient. Now, after a year or two of pre-school, 13 years of public ed., and 4 years of college, far too many are still ill-prepared. So why not eliminate some of these years of public education?
The biggest obstacle to overcome would be that the federal government would have to mandate this new structure, and it would only be possible to impliment it with newly enrolled students.
A few observations:
We (humans) tend to hang onto our social constructs more tightly than almost anything else. I don't find it even slightly surprising. Sad? Sure.
Class sizes are not, in fact, lower than they were in 1978, I don't believe - with some exceptions in some states. Got tired of bumping into archived, unavailable ERIC papers, or I would give you data. (Note that teacher/student ratios are not the same.)
I think the kids today know different things, whether or not they know more things. There is a greater degree of jadedness but I am not at all sure that turns into sophistication. I think the world is sufficiently different now that our kids may be less equipped for ours than they (we) were for theirs (ours).
In terms of eliminating years from high school, read the 50 year old experiment, They Went To College Early, from the Ford Foundation:
They Went to College Early | Archives | Ford Foundation (http://www.fordfound.org/archives/item/0336 - broken link)
I have a really hard time with the idea that a child, and I emphasize child, of 14 should be pigeon-holed into a career they will have to work in for the next 50+ years.
I could be mistaken about whose this is - if so, I apologize.
Given that well over half of the people with a BA/BS (and many many with higher degrees) are not pigeonholed for the remainder of their lives, I see no particular reason to think that the 14 year olds would be more pigeon-holed!
Not everybody is going to college. Heck, most people won't go to college. When a kid hits 14 and doesn't show academic promise, why not give him/her the option to learn a trade such as plumbing, electrical work, or any number of other well-paying professions?
That would certainly pigeon-hole a person as a plumber, etc, for the rest of their life, unless they went back and finished high school, then went to college. That could be done, but why not let this person finish high school and go to community college, which usually has an open-admission policy? It's not that I don't think plumbing, etc is honorable work, I just think the decision to become one (or an electrician or other trade-professional) should be made later in life. A person with a BA/BS has a lot more options available to them than one w/o a high school diploma who has training as a plumber.
That would certainly pigeon-hole a person as a plumber, etc, for the rest of their life, unless they went back and finished high school, then went to college. That could be done, but why not let this person finish high school and go to community college, which usually has an open-admission policy? It's not that I don't think plumbing, etc is honorable work, I just think the decision to become one (or an electrician or other trade-professional) should be made later in life. A person with a BA/BS has a lot more options available to them than one w/o a high school diploma who has training as a plumber.
A reason to consider the other option is that for certain kinds of learners, it is not until they are older that they can MAKE themselves do the standard academic grind even slightly.
Leaving that sort of student in a standard high school often just breeds frustration and despair - which cuts down on later options, rather than the increasing effect you have in mind.
Also - in many communities, we already have that decision-point at 14 or so, through the vocational education high schools. They try to balance some academics with a lot more hands-on learning that lends itself to trade development.
Oh - I also disagree about the options for the BA/BS vs. plumber, as the plumber has the option to go back and get a BA/BS. The option has not disappeared. Similarly, the degree recipient could go become a plumber.
Last edited by jps-teacher; 08-23-2008 at 11:26 PM..
Reason: typo and an addiitinal thought
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.
Totally
Our Educational System Has Not Adapted With The Times.
