Education Reform

[jmcslob]

Education Reform

It's been on the news again as it's election time so of course we have to pay attention to our failing education system once again.

And as usual it's a run to find a better standardized test that will more accurately show what the failings of our education system are.

On that note the Obama Administration is doing quite a good job as they are trying to bring forth a unified national standard to better show where our actual problems are in a more efficient manner.

But I can't help but think that we are missing the point as when each person is born they are a unique individual and not a Standardized model.

I don't think every person born has the potential to be a Doctor or an Accountant or a Musician and I don't believe that makes one any less intelligent than another.

So why do we insist upon trying to teach every student the same way.
Not only that but people learn at different paces and even by different means.

I can understand teaching everyone the same Basic skills such as reading writing and Arithmetic but from there I think Standards need to go away.

I can't express enough how much I feel how wasteful it is to try to teach someone with the aptitude of an engineer, literature, or someone with an aptitude towards music the science of physics.

In my opinion all that is going to do is take away the confidence that individual feels towards his education and show a deficiency to an education system that simply doesn't exist.


So what I'm asking is what do you think is wrong or right about our education system?

Some examples of what I think is wrong are:

1) Instead of grouping students together by the alphabetic order of their last names, we could group them together by types of learners.

For instance, Students that learn fast/slow should be grouped together by speed in which they learn a subject.

Students that excel in math should be grouped with other students that excel in math whereas the same students may not be grouped together in other subjects as they may learn those subjects at a different pace.

2) I think Standardized tests should be given in a manor that reflects each students progress.

For instance Students should be tested at the level at which they are at..

If a student is in 9th grade and in Algebra 2 he should be tested to gauge the level in which he is being taught for the classes in which he has been taught So the school system can be properly graded on how they are teaching a particular subject.

So what do you think?

[Wile E]

We have to teach everyone the same way because there is not enough time in the day to cater to each individual's needs. Tutors exist for those that can't learn via the standard methods. There is nothing wrong with that part of the system. It teaches children how to adapt or they fail. It's an important quality to learn.

And I think the last thing we need is more standardized tests. They are already part of the problem. All standardized testing does in encourage schools to cater to the lowest common denominator to raise their scores. The smarter children get screwed. No child left behind is a crock of shit.

[WhiteLotus]

heard on the radio just yesterday this study that two or three people did on what makes a good teacher. The number one thing was to set the goals high, so if the pupil was going to get a grade E, teach them grade C stuff and they end up getting grade D. When you think about it it's a simple way of teaching.

[FordGT90Concept]

Colin Powell says parents aren't doing a good enough job of schooling children before they enter the school system. I think he is right. Most students that drop out do so directly because of bad parenting before and during school but how do we, as society, fix that? I think there is no good answers.


Like Wile E said, it's time to burn standardized tests. They achieve nothing more than figuratively comparing who's dick is bigger. They are not productive. The goal of any education system is to raise the country's GDP. GDP is a direct indication of productivity and GDP is a universal way of comparing the countries success.


I think the public school system should stop somewhere in middle school (after grade 6 or 8). Most of the stuff taught in high school isn't very important and as a result, is mostly forgotten. It is a waste of taxpayer money.

Along those lines, we need public community colleges which has a two fold benefit: 1) help the unemployed change their line of work to something that is need (employers would work with the public colleges to train students in skills that are in demand locally) without incurring huge costs (like right now, that's nurses--some of which may go on to become doctors) and 2) provide an option for everyone to get an associates degree at little to not cost. This will make huge strides forward in making the American population productive and prosperpous.

Private colleges would still focus on bacheolors and masters degrees. By having public community colleges, it may also substantially reduce the number of drop outs.


We also need the return of the apprenticeship and employers need to recognize that apprenticeship is just as good if not better than having a formal education. Better yet, make an apprenticeship part of the public community college ciriculuum instead of internships.


I also think, like was suggested in another thread, we need to move towards technology and away from print material. Most jobs today involve a computer and the more experience students have with them, more productive they can be in the work force. It keeps the literature current and would allow students to keep ebooks of their former textbooks for future reference and provide pre-schooling education for their children, if they have them.


Do away with the grade system. Students only need to see the percentage correct--they don't need to be reminded they are a failure everyday. Focus on postive reenforcement.


Students, total for all their classes, should have no more than 1 hour worth of homework. Most adults don't bring work home so why should kids? They already put in close to 40 hours a week and they need time to unwind like the rest of us. The morale of kids everywhere would be much, much higher if there was no homework at all. High morale leads to happy students and happy students, most likely, means more effective learning. I would also stress that homework often cuts into the kids' sleeping time and sleep deprivation leads to poor memory and a reduced ability to focus--both hurt performance.

If students do their homework in school, they also have the teacher to help them should they run into problems. This puts the teacher in an excellent position to know which students are excelling and which are falling behind because they just aren't getting it. This should open the doors to jmcslob's point #1 where teachers can lump students together that need more time to learn the material. Doing so is bad for morale so basically, more reserach is needed into how to best bring struggling students back up to speed. It may be private tutors or it may simply be a different method of teaching. In any event, the teacher must witness where the problems are in order to rectify them and simple writing on a paper (homework, quizes, and tests) only show they "who" and "where," not the "why" and "how."

[Magibeg]

First i'd like to say ford has some good points but i have a few quips.

The goal of any education system is to raise the country's GDP. GDP is a direct indication of productivity and GDP is a universal way of comparing the countries success.


The goal of the education system is to educate people not to build a larger GDP. Measuring success by the amount of money you make is a poor way to do things. If anything education is to allow people to learn both about themselves and the world around them so they can live long happy lives with meaning.


I think the public school system should stop somewhere in middle school (after grade 6 or 8). Most of the stuff taught in high school isn't very important and as a result, is mostly forgotten. It is a waste of taxpayer money.


It's the thought processes that you learn which are important more than actually remembering every little formula and such. What you learn is the ability to properly think through things and come to logical decisions. America is already lagging behind in education, i don't think less would be positive. Would also create a massive knowledge rift between the rich and the poor (the poor can't afford to keep going through school normally).


We also need the return of the apprenticeship and employers need to recognize that apprenticeship is just as good if not better than having a formal education. Better yet, make an apprenticeship part of the public community college ciriculuum instead of internships.


When students in my program went for co-ops at various locations it's essentially an apprenticeship program. Typically speaking the person that is helping you learns a lot from you that they didn't know before because of how up to date your knowledge is on most matters. Not to say that the student knows nearly as much as the teacher but it would be a stretch to say an apprenticeship is not nearly the same level as a formal education.


Students, total for all their classes, should have no more than 1 hour worth of homework. Most adults don't bring work home so why should kids? They already put in close to 40 hours a week and they need time to unwind like the rest of us. The morale of kids everywhere would be much, much higher if there was no homework at all. High morale leads to happy students and happy students, most likely, means more effective learning. I would also stress that homework often cuts into the kids' sleeping time and sleep deprivation leads to poor memory and a reduced ability to focus--both hurt performance.


While i like this idea in theory, there is sometimes just too much to learn in too little time in order to reduce homework by that much. Basically you would have to reduce the amount that the students are learning in order to reduce homework. America is already lagging quite a bit behind other nations at this point and that would probably be a poor choice. I'm obviously not a professional and have no idea how to fix your system but some of those ideas wouldn't educate so much as cut back what everyone learns.

[yogurt_21]

I think we're coming into an age where the only thign standarized about schools is bad parenting. There are literally night and day differences from the schools who buy my program as a way of augmenting their instructors abilities and those who buy it mere for "credit recover" aka "put these failing kids somewhere so we don't have to look at them"

but seriously there are tons of things that need to be taught at home before the kid arrives at school and it simply isn't being done. Both of my parents worked, sometime two jobs a piece and yet they still found time to teach us the basics and more. Yet we have the babyboomers and gen x'ers now puttign their kids in school so they can be babysat for a few hours a day while they work on their dreams of being a rock star, or winning the tour de france (tons of em out here, super annoying on the hwy's) or being the next motocross king, or the next real housewives of blank county, or etc.

it bugs the crap out of me to see parents with every oppurtunity drop the ball yet I get calls from working class parents who are fighting tooth and nail to keep their house who are sitting down next to their child trying to get them to get better grades and move up in the societal/economic ladder.

the failure starts at home and then is continued at schools who take the same attitude, students who get it naturally are hilighted while students who need extra help get ignored and thrown into an e2020 lab.

standardized testing needs to die, it basically has caused the major issues I see today, everyone spend 4months out of the school year teaching for the test and very few on the things they actually need to know to survive in the real world. Being able to read and write, necessary; being able to solve word problems on a moronic test, useless. Knowing how to measure, take something to scale, use basic geometry to calculate out areas and volumes, using basic physics to determine forces and weight loads, necessary; knowing how to find the negative inverse of pi, spending whole semesters on elipses, knowing every element of the periodic table, useless.

the basics need to be taught to everyone, then it needs to go on into the specialties. And seriously shop and home ec need to be taught as requirements as well as basic financial such as balancing a checkbook, doing you taxes, investing, saving, and etc. We have whole generations who can't fix a damned thing; can't cook, wash, or sew a damned thing; have no idea why their money's always gone; and go into shock mode when taxes are due.

but they sure as hell know the names of the luitenants who were below Genral Sherman in the Civil war, and that Helium is a noble gas, and how to calculate for the imaginary numbers as answers to equations, totally helpful for society...not






The goal of the education system is to educate people not to build a larger GDP. Measuring success by the amount of money you make is a poor way to do things. If anything education is to allow people to learn both about themselves and the world around them so they can live long happy lives with meaning.


the whole point is that IF we are educating people properly the gdp will go up due to the inguinity of that generation boosting production accross all fields.

It's the thought processes that you learn which are important more than actually remembering every little formula and such. What you learn is the ability to properly think through things and come to logical decisions. America is already lagging behind in education, i don't think less would be positive. Would also create a massive knowledge rift between the rich and the poor (the poor can't afford to keep going through school normally).

america isn't lagging behind in education compared to other countries, that's the myth of standarized tests. If you go off of actual numbers such as inventions, economy, production, college graduates and individuals with graduate school education, and etc. You will see America could not possibly be doing as bad as all other countries claim, otherwise why would so many foreigners come to America to get their full education, whereas Americans who study overseas typically only go a semester or 2 to get the "cultural" experience? If education was so bad here you'd see a mass exodus to the countries topping that list for students seeking their colledge education. After all when you're paying 20k plus a year for in state tuition, traveling abroad to study isn't that expensive.


When students in my program went for co-ops at various locations it's essentially an apprenticeship program. Typically speaking the person that is helping you learns a lot from you that they didn't know before because of how up to date your knowledge is on most matters. Not to say that the student knows nearly as much as the teacher but it would be a stretch to say an apprenticeship is not nearly the same level as a formal education.

we have those here, they just typically associated with trades rather than white collar positions. In fact students here have the option of taking half of their hgih school credits at a high school and the other at EVIT (East Valley Institute of Technology) where trades such as culinary, automotive, nursing, construction, manufacturing, audio/video, criminal justice, fire fighting, and etc.
Then upon their senior year they are setup with an internship at a place of their chosen field. When they graduate they already have a job. This is something trade schools offer for thousands of dollars and post high school training, yet is given for free while the student is in high school.

and you're telling me we're lagging? no we're just improperly tallied.


While i like this idea in theory, there is sometimes just too much to learn in too little time in order to reduce homework by that much. Basically you would have to reduce the amount that the students are learning in order to reduce homework. America is already lagging quite a bit behind other nations at this point and that would probably be a poor choice. I'm obviously not a professional and have no idea how to fix your system but some of those ideas wouldn't educate so much as cut back what everyone learns.

homework is necessary to see how much a child is able to do on their own before they asre given a test. It's purpose is then to see where a class isn't getting somethign and then rearrange lessons to fulfill that gap. Due to the standarized tests that your oh so awesome rankings are based on, it isn't happeneing and is merely being places as busy work.


american education isn't as good as it should be sure, but we're no where near as bad as other nations claim we are. A sense of nationalism clouds those numbers and the EU always bands together to make us look bad.

3 things need to be addressed

1. parent responsibility for the childs education and teaching children the basics before they arrive to school.

2. standarized testing needs to die.

3. basics for surviving in the real world need to be taught. If the student cannot graduate, get a basic job and love on their own without having to pay for non emerency services something is wrong with what we teach.

[Magibeg]

the whole point is that IF we are educating people properly the gdp will go up due to the inguinity of that generation boosting production accross all fields.


That's assuming the goal of smart people is to make money. Many of the smartest people in the world focus a lot more on humanitarian goals and improving life rather than building GDP but i see where you're getting at. It's just not the point of education.


america isn't lagging behind in education compared to other countries, that's the myth of standarized tests. If you go off of actual numbers such as inventions, economy, production, college graduates and individuals with graduate school education, and etc. You will see America could not possibly be doing as bad as all other countries claim, otherwise why would so many foreigners come to America to get their full education, whereas Americans who study overseas typically only go a semester or 2 to get the "cultural" experience? If education was so bad here you'd see a mass exodus to the countries topping that list for students seeking their colledge education. After all when you're paying 20k plus a year for in state tuition, traveling abroad to study isn't that expensive.


America is lagging wayyy behind compared to other countries.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Programme_for_International_Student_Assessment

Also when you speak of high level areas of education as evidence that's a poor choice. That's like watching an NHL game and saying that because Canada has a lot of good players that all Canadians are good hockey players. Fact of the matter is that your average american scores very poorly next to other people from modern nations. That's poor education. The high-end is not the norm.

The top 10% students of the US score the same as the average Canadian. I know as people we're not different so it has to be the education system the US is using.




we have those here, they just typically associated with trades rather than white collar positions. In fact students here have the option of taking half of their hgih school credits at a high school and the other at EVIT (East Valley Institute of Technology) where trades such as culinary, automotive, nursing, construction, manufacturing, audio/video, criminal justice, fire fighting, and etc.
Then upon their senior year they are setup with an internship at a place of their chosen field. When they graduate they already have a job. This is something trade schools offer for thousands of dollars and post high school training, yet is given for free while the student is in high school.

and you're telling me we're lagging? no we're just improperly tallied.


I know you have them there. Most countries do. And yes you're lagging. We can do the exact same thing in Canada as well as other nations so it sort of cancels out.


homework is necessary to see how much a child is able to do on their own before they asre given a test. It's purpose is then to see where a class isn't getting somethign and then rearrange lessons to fulfill that gap. Due to the standarized tests that your oh so awesome rankings are based on, it isn't happeneing and is merely being places as busy work.


My rankings are based on international tests which have nothing to do with your US standard tests. No one prepares in advance for international standardized testing.


american education isn't as good as it should be sure, but we're no where near as bad as other nations claim we are. A sense of nationalism clouds those numbers and the EU always bands together to make us look bad.

3 things need to be addressed

1. parent responsibility for the childs education and teaching children the basics before they arrive to school.

2. standarized testing needs to die.

3. basics for surviving in the real world need to be taught. If the student cannot graduate, get a basic job and love on their own without having to pay for non emerency services something is wrong with what we teach.


I agree with your 3 points. I've heard much about how a lot of time is spent teaching for those standardized tests instead of actually teaching the students something. That's probably why Americans don't do well in standardized testing. It's not the test they've been studying for every day.

[DrPepper]

I found that the problem in our high school is that people didn't want to be their to learn, so they would be disruptive and not leave high school with anything. So why not get rid of them early on. If they don't want to be their then fuck them just let darwinism take care of them.

[FordGT90Concept]

The goal of the education system is to educate people not to build a larger GDP. Measuring success by the amount of money you make is a poor way to do things. If anything education is to allow people to learn both about themselves and the world around them so they can live long happy lives with meaning.
Then tell me why "education is a good investment." The reason why we put billions of dollars into education is because it has a good return on investment. The more educated the populous, the more valuable the goods and services it produces, and the more the GDP rises.

The money is the reason why education has become important for government. Governments can't function without an economy and education leads to a strong, (relatively) stable economy.



It's the thought processes that you learn which are important more than actually remembering every little formula and such. What you learn is the ability to properly think through things and come to logical decisions. America is already lagging behind in education, i don't think less would be positive. Would also create a massive knowledge rift between the rich and the poor (the poor can't afford to keep going through school normally).
That comes naturally during adolesencents. The most important focus in the high school years should be surrounding the student with ideas to explorer that fascinate them. Students won't evolve if they're bored out of their mind, uninterested, or not challenged. Most schools in Europe stop at about 10th grade in the US. If not 8th grade to move on to higher education, definitely 10th grade. This whole K-12 concept is older than the hills (back when colleges were rare and few could afford them) and no longer fulfills a useful purpose.



When students in my program went for co-ops at various locations it's essentially an apprenticeship program. Typically speaking the person that is helping you learns a lot from you that they didn't know before because of how up to date your knowledge is on most matters. Not to say that the student knows nearly as much as the teacher but it would be a stretch to say an apprenticeship is not nearly the same level as a formal education.
Co-ops (worksmanship programs) are optional and, in terms of school credit, very minimal (at least around here). They need a vastly greater emphasis. Nations only prosper on doers, not the thought of doing.



While i like this idea in theory, there is sometimes just too much to learn in too little time in order to reduce homework by that much. Basically you would have to reduce the amount that the students are learning in order to reduce homework. America is already lagging quite a bit behind other nations at this point and that would probably be a poor choice. I'm obviously not a professional and have no idea how to fix your system but some of those ideas wouldn't educate so much as cut back what everyone learns.
Which goes straight back to less general education and more specific education. Students forget most of the material taught to them because it is of no consequence. If the knowledge taught well is applied information, they will retain it, perhaps, for life. The point is: schools need to focus on what is important to the students and not idealogical generalities (like 12+ years of English FFS). Prioritize what information is important and what isn't for their goals in life.

Remember, rarely do the "book smart" contribute to society as much as the "street smart." Innovation is what drove America since its founding and innovation doesn't come from beating kids over the head with 10 year old books until they can practically recite it. Teachers and parents both must provide positive encouragement to explore ideas and notice his/her surroundings; not beat it out of them.


That's assuming the goal of smart people is to make money. Many of the smartest people in the world focus a lot more on humanitarian goals and improving life rather than building GDP but i see where you're getting at. It's just not the point of education.
Education doesn't help with "humanitarian goals." It maybe does when a prosperous nation like the USA assists other countries but that is not the purpose of the US educational system. It is all about employment and GDP growth.


America is lagging wayyy behind compared to other countries.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Programme_for_International_Student_Assessment

Also when you speak of high level areas of education as evidence that's a poor choice. That's like watching an NHL game and saying that because Canada has a lot of good players that all Canadians are good hockey players. Fact of the matter is that your average american scores very poorly next to other people from modern nations. That's poor education. The high-end is not the norm.

The top 10% students of the US score the same as the average Canadian. I know as people we're not different so it has to be the education system the US is using.
Yet, USA has $8,000 higher GDP per capita than Canada:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_GDP_(PPP)_per_capita

USA's public K-12 system is failing. Private K-12 is doing well and colleges are also doing very well (except having to sell a kidney to attend). Most of the GDP growth comes from the higher education (colleges and universities).


My rankings are based on international tests which have nothing to do with your US standard tests. No one prepares in advance for international standardized testing.
Sure they do but USA does not. We're too busy with our state and federal standized tests to worry about international tests (you know, the tests that impact their funding). I'd say we're doing pretty good considering there is virtually zero preparation for those international tests. (nutkick)

[yogurt_21]

snip.

if you're going to turn this into a "canada is awesome" thread I'm not wasting my time. I already reported that standarized testing is inaacurate why would you spend however much time then trying to post up the results I've already said are inaccurate? international, national, it doesn't matter.

and no canada's reason for less gdp per capita is NOT that most canadians are out being humanitarians.

[Magibeg]

Then tell me why "education is a good investment." The reason why we put billions of dollars into education is because it has a good return on investment. The more educated the populous, the more valuable the goods and services it produces, and the more the GDP rises.

The money is the reason why education has become important for government. Governments can't function without an economy and education leads to a strong, (relatively) stable economy.


GDP is just a bi-product of good education. The purpose of an education is to allow people to make good decisions in their life. It helps GDP but that is not the primary purpose.


Education doesn't help with "humanitarian goals." It maybe does when a prosperous nation like the USA assists other countries but that is not the purpose of the US educational system. It is all about employment and GDP growth.


It was more a point that the smartest people in the world are generally not driven by money, they are driven by knowledge. Professors and scientists are extremely smart people working for comparably less money than which they could be making in the private sector because many of them are striving for a better world as opposed to big numbers in the bank, but that's an entire other discussion entirely.


Yet, USA has $8,000 higher GDP per capita than Canada:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_GDP_(PPP)_per_capita

USA's public K-12 system is failing. Private K-12 is doing well and colleges are also doing very well (except having to sell a kidney to attend). Most of the GDP growth comes from the higher education (colleges and universities).


There are a lot more factors to this than GDP. Does that mean that Qatar is a superior country education wise compared to the US? They are $37,000 higher in GDP after all. Regardless the purpose of education isn't just to increase GDP. In fact if you can find sources saying that it would probably strengthen your argument.


Sure they do but USA does not. We're too busy with our state and federal standized tests to worry about international tests (you know, the tests that impact their funding). I'd say we're doing pretty good considering there is virtually zero preparation for those international tests. (nutkick)

Canada also doesn't prepare for those tests and neither do most of the other nations either. So given that all the other countries have near zero preparation I'd say the US is doing extremely poorly compared to the other developed nations.

if you're going to turn this into a "canada is awesome" thread I'm not wasting my time. I already reported that standarized testing is inaacurate why would you spend however much time then trying to post up the results I've already said are inaccurate? international, national, it doesn't matter.

and no canada's reason for less gdp per capita is NOT that most canadians are out being humanitarians.


I'm not turning this into a "Canada is awesome" thread. I used Canada because it has a similar culture to the US and would make for a more accurate comparison when comparing 2 different education systems.

Also I'm sure there's hundreds of reasons why Canadians have a lower GDP so don't try to simplify it. GDP is simply a very poor metric for education.

[jmcslob]

I don't think Standardized Tests need to go away I think they need to be Completely refocused and redone.

I think their should be National Standards for subjects like Math, English and Sciences but they should be per course taught...

If a student takes Algebra they should take a Test at the end of the year to gauge what they learned in Algebra and Algebra alone so we can properly gauge how effective that Teacher was able to Teach Algebra to their Students.

In essence What I believe the Tests should accomplish is a Grading system for Teachers alone So we can weed out those teachers that are simply ineffective.

I do feel that only the Basics should be taught to every Student, from there education should be more on an individual basis.

Like Ford said traditional school would likely end around 8th grade.

And Yes!! i do believe schools should separate Fast learners from Slow learners because it leads to Fast learners becoming bored as the subject is repeated again and again thus leading to a loss of interest for someone who would likely excel.

And for Fuck sakes Schools need to help students learn to think for themselves rather than in a group mentality...

And all this Blame the Parents is BULLSHIT!!
When a Child is out of school they should be a child When they are in school they should be a Student..

The school needs to take responsibility for the time they have that child and do what they need to do to teach that child.

When that child is at home they should be spending time with their friends and Family doing what they enjoy doing.

The whole Idea that a childs education starts at home ends the day that the school accepts that child as a student...

The only education a child should learn from that point at home is how to be a member of a Family and community.

[Deusxmachina]

I can't express enough how much I feel how wasteful it is to try to teach someone with the aptitude of an engineer, literature, or someone with an aptitude towards music the science of physics.

1) Instead of grouping students together by the alphabetic order of their last names, we could group them together by types of learners.

Students that excel in math should be grouped with other students that excel in math whereas the same students may not be grouped together in other subjects as they may learn those subjects at a different pace.

2) I think Standardized tests should be given in a manor that reflects each students progress.

For instance Students should be tested at the level at which they are at..

If a student is in 9th grade and in Algebra 2 he should be tested to gauge the level in which he is being taught for the classes in which he has been taught So the school system can be properly graded on how they are teaching a particular subject.

So what do you think?

Maybe teaching someone science who is better at math is partially "wasted," but, then again, maybe the kid likes math more.

I'd have a hard time getting on the "put them into groups and test them at that level" stuff if grading and the results of grading remain the same. For instance, I was qualified to take Honors: Composition in place of English 101. I think I took it because 101 was full, but, regardless, guess what happened? That's right, instead of getting an easy A in English 101, I got less than an A in H:C because it was a pain in the ass. End result: a lower GPA.

I had a couple years of high school Spanish since I got tricked into believing it was required for college. I decided to take a language anyway and chose harder-than-Spanish Japanese since it was interesting to me. End result: a lower GPA.

Am I a more "well-rounded" person and probably a little smarter overall or whatever for going those routes? Most likely, yes. Did my GPA, which can be the difference between someone being a front-runner and an also-ran get screwed over for going those routes? Yep.

If there is to be education reform, I'll be happy to start with small goals. For starters, like making sure people who graduate high school know how to f'n read.

[Deusxmachina]

And all this Blame the Parents is BULLSHIT!!
When a Child is out of school they should be a child When they are in school they should be a Student..

The school needs to take responsibility for the time they have that child and do what they need to do to teach that child.

When that child is at home they should be spending time with their friends and Family doing what they enjoy doing.

The whole Idea that a childs education starts at home ends the day that the school accepts that child as a student...

The only education a child should learn from that point at home is how to be a member of a Family and community.

Kids might learn more in school if the teachers wouldn't have to waste time teaching them right from wrong, respect, courtesy, manners, etc, like their crap-ass parents should have taught them at home. Schools are just free daycare for many parents.

Why can't Johnny read? Because he has no respect for the teacher or for learning. If parents aren't teaching their kids not only manners, etc, but also teaching them "educational" things, then they're doing it wrong. "Why should I get my kid to read or watch something educational? That's the school's job." No, it's not. School may be your assistant for your kid's learning, but you're the General Manager of his learning. So do your job.

[FordGT90Concept]

GDP is just a bi-product of good education. The purpose of an education is to allow people to make good decisions in their life. It helps GDP but that is not the primary purpose.
You mean biased decisions. Even the most highly educated people still make bad decisions (e.g. the Dr. Murray whom got slapped with manslaughter charges for Michael Jackson). Good decisions are based on morales and intuition more so than education.



It was more a point that the smartest people in the world are generally not driven by money, they are driven by knowledge. Professors and scientists are extremely smart people working for comparably less money than which they could be making in the private sector because many of them are striving for a better world as opposed to big numbers in the bank, but that's an entire other discussion entirely.
Again, there is little connection between intelligence and morale fiber. For example, I haven't heard of the Mexican tycoon that took over the World's Wealthiest title from Gates and Buffet giving away billions of dollars to charities.



There are a lot more factors to this than GDP. Does that mean that Qatar is a superior country education wise compared to the US? They are $37,000 higher in GDP after all. Regardless the purpose of education isn't just to increase GDP. In fact if you can find sources saying that it would probably strengthen your argument.
Qatar has oil: nuff' said (also note that only one list ranks it that high because that money ends up in government coffers and not the people's). Education is a good measure of nations with little noteworthy in natural resources.



Canada also doesn't prepare for those tests and neither do most of the other nations either. So given that all the other countries have near zero preparation I'd say the US is doing extremely poorly compared to the other developed nations.
13th out of almost 200 nations? That's not "poor" but could be better.



Also I'm sure there's hundreds of reasons why Canadians have a lower GDP so don't try to simplify it. GDP is simply a very poor metric for education.
It plays a big role through cause and effect.

[Deusxmachina]

Also I'm sure there's hundreds of reasons why Canadians have a lower GDP so don't try to simplify it. GDP is simply a very poor metric for education.

Well, for one, there's that GDP includes government spending. I think I'd choose to be Canadian on that one.

[jmcslob]

Kids might learn more in school if the teachers wouldn't have to waste time teaching them right from wrong, respect, courtesy, manners, etc, like their crap-ass parents should have taught them at home. Schools are just free daycare for many parents.

Why can't Johnny read? Because he has no respect for the teacher or for learning. If parents aren't teaching their kids not only manners, etc, but also teaching them "educational" things, then they're doing it wrong. "Why should I get my kid to read or watch something educational? That's the school's job." No, it's not. School may be your assistant for your kid's learning, but you're the General Manager of his learning. So do your job.

i wont in any way argue to the Fact Parents do need to teach Kids respect and to make them understand right from wrong.

But most of the time that's not what school systems are referring to when they blame the parents..

What they are doing is trying to pass the blame due to poorly performing personal.


Imo when they say Parents need to get involved in their childs education that means to ensure School faculty are doing their jobs properly.

I'm one of those Parents the school makes all attempts at avoiding by making sure my daughter is getting needs met and my daughters teachers are well aware of the fact that she will only spend a total of 8 minutes per grade of her home time for homework for all subjects...as she is in 5th grade that now equals 40 minutes.. If she can't get it done in that amount of time I need to contact her teacher to find out why she is not getting the explanation she needs while at school..

[Magibeg]

You mean biased decisions. Even the most highly educated people still make bad decisions (e.g. the Dr. Murray whom got slapped with manslaughter charges for Michael Jackson). Good decisions are based on morales and intuition more so than education.


So you're actually going to say in all seriousness that education leads to less morals? People learn things like empathy and build their moral fiber on education. There's got to be hundreds of papers on this. Yes highly educated people still make bad decisions, everyone does. But i'd argue an educated person would make less.


Again, there is little connection between intelligence and morale fiber. For example, I haven't heard of the Mexican tycoon that took over the World's Wealthiest title from Gates and Buffet giving away billions of dollars to charities.


Who says rich people are automatically smart people? You seem to have some deep rooted confusion. That being said i'll say it again, generally speaking those with high IQ's take more research jobs and jobs that help people.

http://www.mwilliams.info/archive/2007/12/jobs-by-iq-distribution.php



Qatar has oil: nuff' said (also note that only one list ranks it that high because that money ends up in government coffers and not the people's). Education is a good measure of nations with little noteworthy in natural resources.


So would you say the US is or isn't noteworthy in natural resources? And of course GDP is also much more complicated than that. Although i don't see how international testing which actually tests students ability has less importance for what they've learned than GDP which has hundreds of other factors to it.


13th out of almost 200 nations? That's not "poor" but could be better.


In 2006 you were 21 of 30. Don't measure all nations, just the participating 30 or so. You're right around Slovakia level.


It plays a big role through cause and effect.

Education does effect GDP but there is so many other factors. I don't see how you can discard a literal test of knowledge for some stretch of the imagination on your part.

[jmcslob]

I'm really about to sound like an ass and I except that...

The problem here in the US with education is every Parent believes that their child has the potential to be a Dr. or a Lawyer or even the President..

They believe that everyone will be able to achieve greatness when the sad fact is they are stupid and so are their kids...

Not everyone is gonna be rich and not everyone is gonna be successful and it's incredibly wasteful to expect that every child is gonna be a total success..

Sorry but that's just REALITY..

And imo we spend entirely to much money and resources on trying to educate the less intelligent..

I do believe we should educate every student to their potential but people need to understand that their kids potentials may not be as high as they would like.

[FordGT90Concept]

So you're actually going to say in all seriousness that education leads to less morals? People learn things like empathy and build their moral fiber on education. There's got to be hundreds of papers on this. Yes highly educated people still make bad decisions, everyone does. But i'd argue an educated person would make less.
Little to no impact. Mores are mostly learned from parents. Empathy, too, comes naturally during adolecenents. It has nothing to do with education systems.



Who says rich people are automatically smart people? You seem to have some deep rooted confusion. That being said i'll say it again, generally speaking those with high IQ's take more research jobs and jobs that help people.

http://www.mwilliams.info/archive/2007/12/jobs-by-iq-distribution.php
Again, no connection. Natural sciences, for example, could be used as instruments of destruction as much as they can be used for instruments of creation. Legal occuptions, for example, there's always a complaintent and defense--morally they think they are doing the right thing but truthfully, one side is most likely inflicting damage. Hell, even a soldier can be helpful or hurtful, depending on who's side you are on. There's no connection.




So would you say the US is or isn't noteworthy in natural resources? And of course GDP is also much more complicated than that. Although i don't see how international testing which actually tests students ability has less importance for what they've learned than GDP which has hundreds of other factors to it.
USA exports very little in natural resources except food which doesn't amount to much towards GDP. Education is the reason why "third world nations" rate as low as they do.



In 2006 you were 21 of 30. Don't measure all nations, just the participating 30 or so. You're right around Slovakia level.
And as previously stated, it is misleading because schools have been focused on federal/state standardized tests since at least 2001 (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/No_Child_Left_Behind_Act). Everything that isn't in the federal/state tests that is in the interational test will most likely result in a wrong answer.

[MT Alex]

Exploitation is the reason why "third world nations" rate as low as they do.

Fixed. :D Not that I'm against it.

[FordGT90Concept]

China wouldn't a be a growing threat if it weren't for the USA exploiting them.

[Magibeg]

Little to no impact. Mores are mostly learned from parents. Empathy, too, comes naturally during adolecenents. It has nothing to do with education systems.


Empathy comes with experience and knowledge of what other people go through. Education is supposed to give you those things. Also there is a lot of cultural ground to cover there too.


Again, no connection. Natural sciences, for example, could be used as instruments of destruction as much as they can be used for instruments of creation. Legal occuptions, for example, there's always a complaintent and defense--morally they think they are doing the right thing but truthfully, one side is most likely inflicting damage. Hell, even a soldier can be helpful or hurtful, depending on who's side you are on. There's no connection.


Out of the top 6 jobs by IQ 4 of them would be consider more humanistic professions. It doesn't matter what your interpretation is. You're wrong. There's always going to be exceptions to the rules where mathematicians get into what they do to make improved weapons systems but they're a minority. Those jobs focus on the pursuit of knowledge and helping people rather than making the most possible money. Exceptions are not the rule.


USA exports very little in natural resources except food which doesn't amount to much towards GDP. Education is the reason why "third world nations" rate as low as they do.


There is more to this than natural resources. The US does a lot of manufacturing. It doesn't take smart or educated people to work on an assembly line. There are too many wildcard factors to claim that GDP is that integrated into education (not to say of course it doesn't help but it's a very poor metric to measure it).


And as previously stated, it is misleading because schools have been focused on federal/state standardized tests since at least 2001 (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/No_Child_Left_Behind_Act). Everything that isn't in the federal/state tests that is in the interational test will most likely result in a wrong answer.

So basically they're not getting a good education. That's all there is to it and all I've been saying. US students rank poorly compared to other industrialized nations. You can try to link education to GDP or magical fairy dust but all it comes down to is that the US education system isn't working very well.

[FordGT90Concept]

Empathy comes with experience and knowledge of what other people go through. Education is supposed to give you those things. Also there is a lot of cultural ground to cover there too.
How adolescent empathy and prosocial behavior change in the context of school culture: a two-year longitudinal study (http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_m2248/is_176_44/ai_n48846243/)

You catch that? Adolescent empathy causes a change in school culture, not the other way around. Middle-school teachers (6-8) are special breed for a reason. I actually had the same teacher twice--once in 6th grade and again in 10th. She moved because they're like two different animals dispite being the same kids. 10th graders are much more docile and predictable than 6th graders under the rage of hormones.

Seriously, this is basic psychology stuff here--the education system must adapt to the animal, not the other way around.



Out of the top 6 jobs by IQ 4 of them would be consider more humanistic professions. It doesn't matter what your interpretation is. You're wrong. There's always going to be exceptions to the rules where mathematicians get into what they do to make improved weapons systems but they're a minority. Those jobs focus on the pursuit of knowledge and helping people rather than making the most possible money. Exceptions are not the rule.
Only MD is almost purely humanistic. The number of sadistic MDs are low (get an MD to better know how to take life away rather than save it). There are a few (like the infamous "Dr. Death") which are borderline.

No, you are wrong. You're trying to make connections where none exist. You have to be a realist to see how there is two sides to every coin. Whenever there's someone that says someone is doing good by something, there's 10 others that see the opposite. For example, the Bill and Melinda Gates' Foundation pumps billions of dollars into Haiti and Africa for humanitarian aide. That's great, but what about the homeless and starving here in America? Are they not worth helping too? There is at least one loser for every winner.



There is more to this than natural resources. The US does a lot of manufacturing. It doesn't take smart or educated people to work on an assembly line. There are too many wildcard factors to claim that GDP is that integrated into education (not to say of course it doesn't help but it's a very poor metric to measure it).
Oh really? Explain why Detroit is practically dead then. US manufacturing has moved to East Asia. Seriously, have you been asleep the last 5 years?



So basically they're not getting a good education. That's all there is to it and all I've been saying. US students rank poorly compared to other industrialized nations. You can try to link education to GDP or magical fairy dust but all it comes down to is that the US education system isn't working very well.
And we (jmcslob, yogurt_21, and I) are saying standardized testing proves nothing except you did or did not prepare for that test and how good your memory retention is.


USA ranks poor on the WHO's list of healthcare too but people overseas flock here for the best treatment in the world. The same is true of foreign exchange students and USA colleges. The USA does not fit the glove the world tries to put on it and it's about time they accept that.

[jmcslob]

Just saying

I'm saying the standardized tests we use are useless...
Subject appropriate tests like finals would serve better to see where we are..
Except those finals should have a national standard that we could use to grade the school faculty on.

Hope that clears up my view

Again Blanketed Standardized testing is pointless... They do nothing imo

[FordGT90Concept]

The country is too big to have national standards for education. For example, states that border with Mexico need about as much spanish education as english. Likewise, New Yorkers have little use for animal sciences (biology) that is required out here in Iowa. States should be able to set the curriculum and the federal government, like most things, needs to GTFO. The purpose of states investing so much money into education is to get kids to stay when they leave the school system. Nationalizing the education system means the federal government calls the shots while the states pay for it--that's not right. Testing, of any kind, dictates the cirriculum the school will teach.

[jmcslob]

I'm not referring to national standards across the board I'm referring to the subjects that are being taught.....

Such as a national standard for Algebra...or Earth science 1 etc...

Like their should be a Standard for each subject...Not saying every school has to teach every subject But they should meet a standard for the subjects they are teaching..

Like if they teach Spanish, English and Physics they should meet a National standard for those Subjects alone... and not for subjects they are not teaching and the tests given should be like a Final so we can gauge how good of a job the faculty is doing educating on those subjects

[FordGT90Concept]

Why not let schools set their own standards which they enforce?

[jmcslob]

Why not let schools set their own standards which they enforce?

I would say they should and make that National a Minimum standard to educate to..

Algebra2 should be Algebra2 no matter where you learn it from...

[DaMulta]

How much money would we save in education if you had to serve one year for free in military for your senior year. This would also set apart GED, and HS diplomas from one another big time.

You don't have to go, but if you don't you can't get a HS diploma without going.

[jmcslob]

Again I think schools should get to choose what subjects they teach..
But those subjects should meet a National standard..

A minimum Standard that is...Then they should meet or exceed those standards by importance to their area..

But Yeah I'm totally against the Federal Govt setting any standard above reading/writing and basic Math from there the school district should decide what needs taught...But those subjects should meet a Standard.

[yogurt_21]

Again I think schools should get to choose what subjects they teach..
But those subjects should meet a National standard..

A minimum Standard that is...Then they should meet or exceed those standards by importance to their area..

But Yeah I'm totally against the Federal Govt setting any standard above reading/writing and basic Math from there the school district should decide what needs taught...But those subjects should meet a Standard.

make funding meet a standard and the kids will meet a standard. We;ve sent our reps out to compton schools, they literally have no fundign other than nclb funding that is used to purchase our program.
Then you have Grand rapids michigan where their annual bill from their ISP exceeds our companies total revenue for that same period.

[Magibeg]

How adolescent empathy and prosocial behavior change in the context of school culture: a two-year longitudinal study (http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_m2248/is_176_44/ai_n48846243/)

You catch that? Adolescent empathy causes a change in school culture, not the other way around. Middle-school teachers (6-8) are special breed for a reason. I actually had the same teacher twice--once in 6th grade and again in 10th. She moved because they're like two different animals dispite being the same kids. 10th graders are much more docile and predictable than 6th graders under the rage of hormones.

Seriously, this is basic psychology stuff here--the education system must adapt to the animal, not the other way around.


The first stage of empathy is understanding. You can't understand without knowledge. This is basic psychology indeed. Infact, google how to increase empathy and it usually has to do with learning new information about the subject to better understand other points of view.


Only MD is almost purely humanistic. The number of sadistic MDs are low (get an MD to better know how to take life away rather than save it). There are a few (like the infamous "Dr. Death") which are borderline.

No, you are wrong. You're trying to make connections where none exist. You have to be a realist to see how there is two sides to every coin. Whenever there's someone that says someone is doing good by something, there's 10 others that see the opposite. For example, the Bill and Melinda Gates' Foundation pumps billions of dollars into Haiti and Africa for humanitarian aide. That's great, but what about the homeless and starving here in America? Are they not worth helping too? There is at least one loser for every winner.


I'm not trying to make false connections. Generally speaking as people get smarter they think less about money and more about life. But we're getting too far off topic to continue along this stream.



Oh really? Explain why Detroit is practically dead then. US manufacturing has moved to East Asia. Seriously, have you been asleep the last 5 years?


http://www.ritholtz.com/blog/2009/02/us-remains-worlds-leading-manufacturer/

Not asleep, just resting and keeping my facts straight.



And we (jmcslob, yogurt_21, and I) are saying standardized testing proves nothing except you did or did not prepare for that test and how good your memory retention is.


If there is a general test made on sciences that no one prepares for anywhere and you have people from all over the world take the test they are on equal ground. Maybe the issue is that your education doesn't teach knowledge and instead teaches you to tests they will be taking in the future. That is the problem. You don't have any disadvantages compared to anyone else. You just learn less with the current system in place.



USA ranks poor on the WHO's list of healthcare too but people overseas flock here for the best treatment in the world. The same is true of foreign exchange students and USA colleges. The USA does not fit the glove the world tries to put on it and it's about time they accept that.

USA ranks poor for a reason. Expensive care that many cannot afford, shorter lifespans, higher infant mortality rates. Cherry picking things like "we have the best schools" or "people come here for healthcare" are not accurate representations of the general situation for the average. There is no worldwide conspiracy or misunderstanding. The US is not some special maverick breaking all the rules. This is going way off topic though.

[FordGT90Concept]

How much money would we save in education if you had to serve one year for free in military for your senior year. This would also set apart GED, and HS diplomas from one another big time.

You don't have to go, but if you don't you can't get a HS diploma without going.
It would cost more because military includes shelter, clothing, weaponry, and everything else. It would simply be displacement of costs--instead of the money coming from the states and Department of Education, it would come from the Department of Defense.

There's also a huge group of people that don't belong in the military like the super-intelligent that are best designing new weaponry and those that have disabilities.

Utlimately, doing so would cripple the country more than it already is.


http://www.ritholtz.com/blog/2009/02/us-remains-worlds-leading-manufacturer/

Not asleep, just resting and keeping my facts straight.
a) That's a blog.
b) Most manufacturing in the USA is performed by robots (IBM and GM included) which do require at least an associates degree (so called high-tech manufacuturing); however, high-tech employs few people.
c) "Less 'made in USA'... (http://www.cnn.com/2010/US/09/21/manufacturing.security/?hpt=C2)"

[yogurt_21]

If there is a general test made on sciences that no one prepares for anywhere and you have people from all over the world take the test they are on equal ground. Maybe the issue is that your education doesn't teach knowledge and instead teaches you to tests they will be taking in the future. That is the problem. You don't have any disadvantages compared to anyone else. You just learn less with the current system in place.



1. I work in education and we spend millions on determining the best way to deliver a curriculum, the fact is some kids are good test takes some aren't. These types of assessments have no bearing on inteligence or actual education levels.

2. America doesn't teach facts, we teach problem solving and I take issue with you being in this thread at all if you aren't aware of that fact. This is why we are ranked as a nation where we are, if our education was so bad why aren't we at the same technological, economical, and social level as slovakia then?

3. your phrasing acts as if you understand the american education system, you don't, so don't try. If understanding our system was so easy my company would not be wasting millions studying it. I'll be sure to inform them that some dude in canada whose never been part of that system has all the answers to its problems. :rolleyes: I'm not sure what your purpose in this thread is other than trying to act as if Americans are slobbering uneducated idiots while Canadians are on their way to enlightenment. If the reasoning is different, please enlighten me. lol

[jmcslob]

make funding meet a standard and the kids will meet a standard. We;ve sent our reps out to compton schools, they literally have no fundign other than nclb funding that is used to purchase our program.
Then you have Grand rapids michigan where their annual bill from their ISP exceeds our companies total revenue for that same period.

That's the problem isn't it..

Funding doesn't need a Standard as costs vary from location to location..

Such as transportation, Heating/cooling and Faculty wages
That needs to be determined by the district.

Once those costs are considered the other costs should be equal tho..

[jmcslob]

WASHINGTON – Barely into the new school year, President Barack Obama issued a tough-love message to students and teachers on Monday: Their year in the classroom should be longer, and poorly performing teachers should get out.

American students are falling behind their foreign counterparts, especially in math and science, and that's got to change, Obama said. Seeking to revive a sense of urgency that education reform may have lost amid the recession's focus on the economy, Obama declared that the future of the country is at stake.

"Whether jobs are created here, high-end jobs that support families and support the future of the American people, is going to depend on whether or not we can do something about these schools," the president said in an interview on NBC's "Today" show.

U.S. schools through high school offer an average of 180 instruction days per year, according to the Education Commission of the States, compared to an average of 197 days for lower grades and 196 days for upper grades in countries with the best student achievement levels, including Japan, South Korea, Germany and New Zealand.

"That month makes a difference," the president said. "It means that kids are losing a lot of what they learn during the school year during the summer. It's especially severe for poorer kids who may not see as many books in the house during the summers, aren't getting as many educational opportunities."

Obama said teachers and their profession should be more highly honored — as in China and some other countries, he said — and he said he wanted to work with the teachers' unions. But he also said that unions should not defend a status quo in which one-third of children are dropping out. He challenged them not to be resistant to change.

And the president endorsed the firing of teachers who, once given the chance and the help to improve, are still falling short.

"We have got to identify teachers who are doing well. Teachers who are not doing well, we have got to give them the support and the training to do well. And if some teachers aren't doing a good job, they've got to go," Obama said.

They're goals the president has articulated in the past, but his ability to see them realized is limited. States set the minimum length of school years, and although there's experimentation in some places, there's not been wholesale change since Obama issued the same challenge for more classroom time at the start of the past school year.

One issue is money, and although the president said that lengthening school years would be "money well spent," that doesn't mean cash-strapped states and districts can afford it.

"It comes down to the old bugaboo, resources. It costs money to keep kids in school," said Mayor Scott Smith of Mesa, Ariz. "Everyone believes we can achieve greater things if we have a longer school year. The question is how do you pay for it."

One model is Massachusetts, where the state issues grants to districts that set out clear plans on how they would use the money to constructively lengthen instructional class time, said Kathy Christie, chief of staff at the Education Commission of the States. Obama's Education Department already is using competitions among states for curriculum grant money through its "Race to the Top" initiative.

"The federal carrots of additional money would help more states do it or schools do it in states where they don't have a state grant process," Christie said.

But the federal budget is hard-up, too. And while many educators believe students would benefit from more quality learning time, the idea is not universally popular.

In Kansas, sporadic efforts by local districts to extend the school year at even a few schools have been met by parental resistance, said state education commissioner Diane DeBacker.

"It's been tried," she said, describing one instance of a Topeka-area elementary school that scrapped year-round schooling after just one year. "The community was just not ready for kids to be in school all summer long. Kids wanted to go swimming. Their families wanted to go on vacation."

Teachers' unions say they're open to the discussion of longer classroom time, but they also say that pay needs to be part of the conversation. As for Obama's call for ousting underperforming teachers, National Education Association President Dennis Van Roekel said unions weren't the main stumbling block there, as many education reformers assert.

"No one wants an incompetent teacher in the classroom," Van Roekel said. "It's in the hiring, and in those first three to five years no teacher has the right to due process."



http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20100927/ap_on_bi_ge/us_obama

[yogurt_21]

WASHINGTON – Barely into the new school year, President Barack Obama issued a tough-love message to students and teachers on Monday: Their year in the classroom should be longer, and poorly performing teachers should get out.

American students are falling behind their foreign counterparts, especially in math and science, and that's got to change, Obama said. Seeking to revive a sense of urgency that education reform may have lost amid the recession's focus on the economy, Obama declared that the future of the country is at stake.

"Whether jobs are created here, high-end jobs that support families and support the future of the American people, is going to depend on whether or not we can do something about these schools," the president said in an interview on NBC's "Today" show.

U.S. schools through high school offer an average of 180 instruction days per year, according to the Education Commission of the States, compared to an average of 197 days for lower grades and 196 days for upper grades in countries with the best student achievement levels, including Japan, South Korea, Germany and New Zealand.

"That month makes a difference," the president said. "It means that kids are losing a lot of what they learn during the school year during the summer. It's especially severe for poorer kids who may not see as many books in the house during the summers, aren't getting as many educational opportunities."

Obama said teachers and their profession should be more highly honored — as in China and some other countries, he said — and he said he wanted to work with the teachers' unions. But he also said that unions should not defend a status quo in which one-third of children are dropping out. He challenged them not to be resistant to change.

And the president endorsed the firing of teachers who, once given the chance and the help to improve, are still falling short.

"We have got to identify teachers who are doing well. Teachers who are not doing well, we have got to give them the support and the training to do well. And if some teachers aren't doing a good job, they've got to go," Obama said.

They're goals the president has articulated in the past, but his ability to see them realized is limited. States set the minimum length of school years, and although there's experimentation in some places, there's not been wholesale change since Obama issued the same challenge for more classroom time at the start of the past school year.

One issue is money, and although the president said that lengthening school years would be "money well spent," that doesn't mean cash-strapped states and districts can afford it.

"It comes down to the old bugaboo, resources. It costs money to keep kids in school," said Mayor Scott Smith of Mesa, Ariz. "Everyone believes we can achieve greater things if we have a longer school year. The question is how do you pay for it."

One model is Massachusetts, where the state issues grants to districts that set out clear plans on how they would use the money to constructively lengthen instructional class time, said Kathy Christie, chief of staff at the Education Commission of the States. Obama's Education Department already is using competitions among states for curriculum grant money through its "Race to the Top" initiative.

"The federal carrots of additional money would help more states do it or schools do it in states where they don't have a state grant process," Christie said.

But the federal budget is hard-up, too. And while many educators believe students would benefit from more quality learning time, the idea is not universally popular.

In Kansas, sporadic efforts by local districts to extend the school year at even a few schools have been met by parental resistance, said state education commissioner Diane DeBacker.

"It's been tried," she said, describing one instance of a Topeka-area elementary school that scrapped year-round schooling after just one year. "The community was just not ready for kids to be in school all summer long. Kids wanted to go swimming. Their families wanted to go on vacation."

Teachers' unions say they're open to the discussion of longer classroom time, but they also say that pay needs to be part of the conversation. As for Obama's call for ousting underperforming teachers, National Education Association President Dennis Van Roekel said unions weren't the main stumbling block there, as many education reformers assert.

"No one wants an incompetent teacher in the classroom," Van Roekel said. "It's in the hiring, and in those first three to five years no teacher has the right to due process."



http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20100927/ap_on_bi_ge/us_obama

same approach he (and bush) took to the economy, find failing busniness who can't manage money and give them more of it, cause with more of what they couldn't handle in the first place they'll do better....not

in the same fashion find failign schools who can't teach kids in the 36weeks they have and give them more time to do so. On paper it looks good, teachers are cramming in more and more trying to prepare for the aims, stanford, and their own finals so giving them more time might help do so.

trouble is it's a complete failure at understanding how students operate. If a student isn't learning in the time alloted more time isn't going to help. Most students can only focus for 5 minutes straight meaning that shorter more targeted lessons, followed by self or group participation activites has been proven more effective than lengthening existing lessons.

Despite the economical gains for parents (less day care cost) it isn't a good idea to continue to push for year round schooling. This leaves off the summer months when teachers prep their lessons for the fall and go through the arduous state alignment process to make sure their curriculum matches the latest standards. Going to year round schooling would severly cripple any advancement in education as there would be no curriculum review time. It also prevent struggling children from doing catch up courses in the summer so that they can graduate on time and along side their friends. Stats have proven those who graduate on time along with their freinds are 5 times more likly to go to college than those who had to be left behind and graduate a year later. If the purpose of leaving the child back a grade was to make sure they were well educated they failed at that task. The freidn issue is important as students who ahve freinds going to college are 10 times more likley to attend themselves than those who don't.


this again is a complicated issue that the president has given less than a moments thought in comparison with the research that's out there. As always education should be regulated by the states and not the national governement as the issues affecting south dakota are going to be different from those affecting california.