Political Crossfire Forums

[StrawHat]

What do you guys think about the perception of education in the United States. It has been well documented, and often publicized that the American education system (especially high school) has been losing ground to many other countries around the world, specfically in Asian and European countries. This is particularly true in math and science, as shown by the International Test of Mathematics and Science Study (TIMSS). American students fall in international ranking as they get older.
This is even true of literacy. The deterioration of human capital in the US will eventually affect the economy in a negative way.

Why is this the case? I don't think that American children are innately less intelligent than children in other countries. I believe that the educational system is partly to blame, and needs to be updated in order to remain competitive. However, I think that the biggest problem is the perception of education in the United States. Education is not highly respected in many segments of American culture, nor is discipline and legitimate achievment. Students are unwilling to devote time and energy to educaiton as it is not deemed as worthwhile an endevor as, say, gaining the acceptance of one's peers through inane activities (in other words, the all-consuming desire to be viewed as "cool").

Thoughts?

[TNBiologist]

Reasons I think US educational system is struggling.

1. Low pay for teachers. You want bright motivated people teaching your children but if you refuse to pay them well they will go into private sector jobs and make twice what they could as a teacher.

2. Lack of disipline in schools. Schools can not longer disipline students properly. Suspention is veiwed a holiday away from school by some students. Re-enforce disipline in the form of detention after school, very restricted paddleling in some grades and maybe add in a community service punishment such as you get caught destoying school property you have to spend 8 hours cleaning the local city park on the weekend.

3. Ciriculum. Most schools require students to select a career path (college prep or vocational) and allow for no room for extra courses. Give the students some leeway in choosing classes. Math and english are important but if you also let college bound Bobby take a class that really interest him that may be a vocational class, I think it would motivate him to come to school and be active in the rest of his classes.

4. Parental envolvement. Some parents don't care what their kid does in school. I really don't have an idea how to solve this.

5. Re-instate Physical education as mandatory. You can only sit and focus for so long. If every student is required to go pay basketball or soccor or even walk around the track for 30 or 45 minutes a day it would help. It breaks up the day and gives most people sometihng to look forward to.

[StrawHat]

All really good points. But higher paid (and thus presumably more qualified) teachers can only do so much with unmotivated/uninterested students in my opinion. I also agree with the need for discipline and parental involvement. One thing that I am not sure that I agree with is making physical education mandatory. I think that it would be a good thing, and would help with America's obesity problem, however, as an end to improving classroom education, I don't think it should be viewed as a necessity at all. Also, it would either take away from time in the classroom or make the school day longer. The first thing is bad for obvious reasons, and the second because it would require more funding for schools, which makes it unlikely to secure higher pay for teachers.

[TNBiologist]

StrawHat wrote: All really good points. But higher paid (and thus presumably more qualified) teachers can only do so much with unmotivated/uninterested students in my opinion. I also agree with the need for discipline and parental involvement. One thing that I am not sure that I agree with is making physical education mandatory. I think that it would be a good thing, and would help with America's obesity problem, however, as an end to improving classroom education, I don't think it should be viewed as a necessity at all. Also, it would either take away from time in the classroom or make the school day longer. The first thing is bad for obvious reasons, and the second because it would require more funding for schools, which makes it unlikely to secure higher pay for teachers.

I would be willing to sacrifise 30 or 40 minutes of classroomtime in order to give students a break. i think that it would improve the time actually spent in the classroom. How long can a person sit and listen to someone lecture about math,english or history without a break longer than teh 5-10 minutes to change classrooms? Give the students a break, let their mind relax and let them get some physical activity whiel they are it and they might absorb more of the educational material while in the classroom.

[perdidochas]

StrawHat wrote: What do you guys think about the perception of education in the United States. It has been well documented, and often publicized that the American education system (especially high school) has been losing ground to many other countries around the world, specfically in Asian and European countries. This is particularly true in math and science, as shown by the International Test of Mathematics and Science Study (TIMSS). American students fall in international ranking as they get older.
This is even true of literacy. The deterioration of human capital in the US will eventually affect the economy in a negative way.

Why is this the case? I don't think that American children are innately less intelligent than children in other countries. I believe that the educational system is partly to blame, and needs to be updated in order to remain competitive. However, I think that the biggest problem is the perception of education in the United States. Education is not highly respected in many segments of American culture, nor is discipline and legitimate achievment. Students are unwilling to devote time and energy to educaiton as it is not deemed as worthwhile an endevor as, say, gaining the acceptance of one's peers through inane activities (in other words, the all-consuming desire to be viewed as "cool").

Here's what I see as problems:

1) Middle schools don't challenge much. Most of the international measure of progress are done at 4th and 8th grade. We are pretty much with the rest of the world at 4th grade. We are behind at 8th grade. We lose something between those grades--I think we overemphathize with teenagers (their rebellion, hormones, etc.) that we dont' hold their feet to the fire.

2) We have this idea that kids should be able to change their career track at will.

3) Our curriculum is college prep, and doesn't meet the needs for about half our population, who should be in some sort of voc. prep.

[Aqualung]

Most schools are government things. It's not in their best interest to teach kids to think for themselves. It is in their best interest to teach kids to be good citizens. History and government classes are the best example. They whitewash history to make America seem like an angellic nation. They justify America's actions around the world. They don't teach the constitution, but rather to be good little citizens and vote. They teach that voting is the only way you should change your world. THIS is the problem with schools.

Another problem is the number of things a school is required to do. They are not just required to teach, but to provide social services, after school activities, insurance, health care, and a miriad of other things to students and teachers. The government, generally at the state level but also at the nation level (national testing, eg), is forcing them to implement and maintain all these different things, but doesn't realise that to do so needs money, and the money will have to come from cutting programs.

The third, is that government run things tend to have a really poor ability to spend money effectively.

[Aqualung]

I came across this quote just now that is a much better explanation of my perception than I could have come up with on my own. :lol:

The aim of public education is not to spread enlightenment at all, it is simply to reduce as many individuals as possible to the same safe level, to breed and train a standardized citizenry, to put down dissent and originality. – H L. Mencken

[The Z]

Most of the main reasons have been stated already. However, one big one is that today's generation is growing up in a world where they are never exposed to true poverty - the vast majority of American children have parents who can easily provide a very comfortable lifestyle for their children. Even families that are "poor" by our standards would be considered wealthy in other nations. The result is a generation who, on the average, are less motivated to succeed vocationally. It is only the smartest who are wise enough to take control over their destinies.

[Izzibeth]

we live in a capitalist society. education is not necessary because it is not necessary to get an education in order to get a mediocre job that will provide with enough money to spend, spend, spend. it may be a cynical view, but i believe it is pretty accurate. if this society was interested in educating people so that they could better provide for the country, then it would happen... if this society is more interested in getting people to work as soon as possible so that they can spend their money on the next electronic trinket, then that is what would happen (and is happening). this country is run on money and there are plenty of people to look up to (Bill Gates, for example) who dropped out of school and "look! he's the richest man ever! omg! look at how much cool stuff he can buy! buy! buy!" this is what this country has basically become. if educating the populace was important, more money would be spent on it. but it's not. getting the populace to buy a $500 iPod is what is important. that is capitalism.

[perdidochas]

CrossEyedMary wrote: Most schools are government things. It's not in their best interest to teach kids to think for themselves. It is in their best interest to teach kids to be good citizens. History and government classes are the best example. They whitewash history to make America seem like an angellic nation. They justify America's actions around the world. They don't teach the constitution, but rather to be good little citizens and vote. They teach that voting is the only way you should change your world. THIS is the problem with schools.

Interestingly, most conservative critics say the opposite about history classes. They claim that the history classes do to much running down of America, not giving the kids a positive view of our country.

CrossEyedMary wrote: Another problem is the number of things a school is required to do. They are not just required to teach, but to provide social services, after school activities, insurance, health care, and a miriad of other things to students and teachers. The government, generally at the state level but also at the nation level (national testing, eg), is forcing them to implement and maintain all these different things, but doesn't realise that to do so needs money, and the money will have to come from cutting programs.

Schools do what we (the people) ask them to do. We are currently asking them to feed kids, give some health care, a lot of counseling and parenting, as well as educating kids.


CrossEyedMary wrote: The third, is that government run things tend to have a really poor ability to spend money effectively.

In conservative parts of the country, school systems are pretty effective for the buck.

[TNBiologist]

CrossEyedMary wrote: Most schools are government things. It's not in their best interest to teach kids to think for themselves. It is in their best interest to teach kids to be good citizens. History and government classes are the best example. They whitewash history to make America seem like an angellic nation. They justify America's actions around the world. They don't teach the constitution, but rather to be good little citizens and vote. They teach that voting is the only way you should change your world. THIS is the problem with schools.

Another problem is the number of things a school is required to do. They are not just required to teach, but to provide social services, after school activities, insurance, health care, and a miriad of other things to students and teachers. The government, generally at the state level but also at the nation level (national testing, eg), is forcing them to implement and maintain all these different things, but doesn't realise that to do so needs money, and the money will have to come from cutting programs.

The third, is that government run things tend to have a really poor ability to spend money effectively.

This is basically the argument I have for the voucher system. By giving students/parents a choice in schools, not just between private vs public but even between public schools, the individual schools will have to improve in order to maintain a student body.

[islandhopper]

TNBiologist wrote: CrossEyedMary wrote: Most schools are government things. It's not in their best interest to teach kids to think for themselves. It is in their best interest to teach kids to be good citizens. History and government classes are the best example. They whitewash history to make America seem like an angellic nation. They justify America's actions around the world. They don't teach the constitution, but rather to be good little citizens and vote. They teach that voting is the only way you should change your world. THIS is the problem with schools.

Another problem is the number of things a school is required to do. They are not just required to teach, but to provide social services, after school activities, insurance, health care, and a miriad of other things to students and teachers. The government, generally at the state level but also at the nation level (national testing, eg), is forcing them to implement and maintain all these different things, but doesn't realise that to do so needs money, and the money will have to come from cutting programs.

The third, is that government run things tend to have a really poor ability to spend money effectively.

This is basically the argument I have for the voucher system. By giving students/parents a choice in schools, not just between private vs public but even between public schools, the individual schools will have to improve in order to maintain a student body.

I could never understand the voucher system and "grading" schools. If I live in a poor community, but I want my child to have the best education possible, why can't the schools in my community provide that quality education? Why is it that only the best communities where people pay the most taxes have the best schools? They should ALL provide quality education, every single one of them. And if you want to pay to send your child to a private school, so be it. But why should our public education system be comprised of haves and have nots? It makes no sense to me.

As for quality education, better pay for teachers and getting rid of standardized testing to grade schools (such as the FCAT in Florida) would be a good start.

[perdidochas]

islandhopper wrote: TNBiologist wrote: CrossEyedMary wrote: Most schools are government things. It's not in their best interest to teach kids to think for themselves. It is in their best interest to teach kids to be good citizens. History and government classes are the best example. They whitewash history to make America seem like an angellic nation. They justify America's actions around the world. They don't teach the constitution, but rather to be good little citizens and vote. They teach that voting is the only way you should change your world. THIS is the problem with schools.

Another problem is the number of things a school is required to do. They are not just required to teach, but to provide social services, after school activities, insurance, health care, and a miriad of other things to students and teachers. The government, generally at the state level but also at the nation level (national testing, eg), is forcing them to implement and maintain all these different things, but doesn't realise that to do so needs money, and the money will have to come from cutting programs.

The third, is that government run things tend to have a really poor ability to spend money effectively.

This is basically the argument I have for the voucher system. By giving students/parents a choice in schools, not just between private vs public but even between public schools, the individual schools will have to improve in order to maintain a student body.

I could never understand the voucher system and "grading" schools. If I live in a poor community, but I want my child to have the best education possible, why can't the schools in my community provide that quality education? Why is it that only the best communities where people pay the most taxes have the best schools? They should ALL provide quality education, every single one of them. And if you want to pay to send your child to a private school, so be it. But why should our public education system be comprised of haves and have nots? It makes no sense to me.

Honestly, the main difference between public schools in the same district is the type of students who make up the school. If a preponderance of poor kids is in a school, the school quality goes down. My wife has taught in two schools in the same district. The first school was a semi-rough school, the second a middle class suburban school. The money going into the schools is about the same (slightly more went in per student to the poorer school, due to Federal Title I grants). The second school is a much better school than the first--the students in it do what they are required, and actually try to learn. Interestingly, my wife has taught students that she knew from the first school in the second school. The same students actually did their work and behavied in the second school, while they didn't at the first school--why? The culture of the second school was a middle class hard working culture (school is a high priority). The culture of the first school was a working class hard working culture (school wasn't a priority). In other words, part of the reason for the difference between schools is the population that feeds into it. Our system does have a lot of flexibility, so it is easy to get a transfer from a poorer school to a better one.


islandhopper wrote: As for quality education, better pay for teachers and getting rid of standardized testing to grade schools (such as the FCAT in Florida) would be a good start.

FCAT, while it needs tweaking, is a good thing, especially for the worst schools. It forces their teachers to teach instead of merely being baby sitters. It also provides for extra money to be given not only as an incentive to the A schools, but also provides for more instructionally directed money for the C, D and F schools.

[perdidochas]

TNBiologist wrote: CrossEyedMary wrote: Most schools are government things. It's not in their best interest to teach kids to think for themselves. It is in their best interest to teach kids to be good citizens. History and government classes are the best example. They whitewash history to make America seem like an angellic nation. They justify America's actions around the world. They don't teach the constitution, but rather to be good little citizens and vote. They teach that voting is the only way you should change your world. THIS is the problem with schools.

Another problem is the number of things a school is required to do. They are not just required to teach, but to provide social services, after school activities, insurance, health care, and a miriad of other things to students and teachers. The government, generally at the state level but also at the nation level (national testing, eg), is forcing them to implement and maintain all these different things, but doesn't realise that to do so needs money, and the money will have to come from cutting programs.

The third, is that government run things tend to have a really poor ability to spend money effectively.

This is basically the argument I have for the voucher system. By giving students/parents a choice in schools, not just between private vs public but even between public schools, the individual schools will have to improve in order to maintain a student body.

The wholescale voucher system won't do much to improve things. The main thing it will do is enrich current private schools and take that amount of money away from public s chools. A voucher system targeted at the worst schools might be a good thing. School choice, which most FL school districts have to some degree, is a good thing.

[TNBiologist]

perdidochas wrote: TNBiologist wrote: CrossEyedMary wrote: Most schools are government things. It's not in their best interest to teach kids to think for themselves. It is in their best interest to teach kids to be good citizens. History and government classes are the best example. They whitewash history to make America seem like an angellic nation. They justify America's actions around the world. They don't teach the constitution, but rather to be good little citizens and vote. They teach that voting is the only way you should change your world. THIS is the problem with schools.

Another problem is the number of things a school is required to do. They are not just required to teach, but to provide social services, after school activities, insurance, health care, and a miriad of other things to students and teachers. The government, generally at the state level but also at the nation level (national testing, eg), is forcing them to implement and maintain all these different things, but doesn't realise that to do so needs money, and the money will have to come from cutting programs.

The third, is that government run things tend to have a really poor ability to spend money effectively.

This is basically the argument I have for the voucher system. By giving students/parents a choice in schools, not just between private vs public but even between public schools, the individual schools will have to improve in order to maintain a student body.

The wholescale voucher system won't do much to improve things. The main thing it will do is enrich current private schools and take that amount of money away from public s chools. A voucher system targeted at the worst schools might be a good thing. School choice, which most FL school districts have to some degree, is a good thing.

I thought that schoold choice was the whole idea behind voucher system. Give parents the option of several schools to send their child to in order to force the schools to improve curiculum. I really don't see how vouches would make private schools richer. People have to pay for them now as well as there taxes paying for a service they don't use, why not let them use their tax money ayt teh school of their choice. It woudl also allow poorer families that cannot now afford private schools a chance. Most private schools give a limited amount of partial scholarships but the cost is still high. With the voucher system a poor family that recieves a partial scholarship to a private school could use teh voucher to pay the rest of the tuition, while th epublic schools would realize they are loosing thier best and brightest and up their education.

[islandhopper]

perdidochas wrote: islandhopper wrote: TNBiologist wrote: CrossEyedMary wrote: Most schools are government things. It's not in their best interest to teach kids to think for themselves. It is in their best interest to teach kids to be good citizens. History and government classes are the best example. They whitewash history to make America seem like an angellic nation. They justify America's actions around the world. They don't teach the constitution, but rather to be good little citizens and vote. They teach that voting is the only way you should change your world. THIS is the problem with schools.

Another problem is the number of things a school is required to do. They are not just required to teach, but to provide social services, after school activities, insurance, health care, and a miriad of other things to students and teachers. The government, generally at the state level but also at the nation level (national testing, eg), is forcing them to implement and maintain all these different things, but doesn't realise that to do so needs money, and the money will have to come from cutting programs.

The third, is that government run things tend to have a really poor ability to spend money effectively.

This is basically the argument I have for the voucher system. By giving students/parents a choice in schools, not just between private vs public but even between public schools, the individual schools will have to improve in order to maintain a student body.

I could never understand the voucher system and "grading" schools. If I live in a poor community, but I want my child to have the best education possible, why can't the schools in my community provide that quality education? Why is it that only the best communities where people pay the most taxes have the best schools? They should ALL provide quality education, every single one of them. And if you want to pay to send your child to a private school, so be it. But why should our public education system be comprised of haves and have nots? It makes no sense to me.

Honestly, the main difference between public schools in the same district is the type of students who make up the school. If a preponderance of poor kids is in a school, the school quality goes down. My wife has taught in two schools in the same district. The first school was a semi-rough school, the second a middle class suburban school. The money going into the schools is about the same (slightly more went in per student to the poorer school, due to Federal Title I grants). The second school is a much better school than the first--the students in it do what they are required, and actually try to learn. Interestingly, my wife has taught students that she knew from the first school in the second school. The same students actually did their work and behavied in the second school, while they didn't at the first school--why? The culture of the second school was a middle class hard working culture (school is a high priority). The culture of the first school was a working class hard working culture (school wasn't a priority). In other words, part of the reason for the difference between schools is the population that feeds into it. Our system does have a lot of flexibility, so it is easy to get a transfer from a poorer school to a better one.


islandhopper wrote: As for quality education, better pay for teachers and getting rid of standardized testing to grade schools (such as the FCAT in Florida) would be a good start.

FCAT, while it needs tweaking, is a good thing, especially for the worst schools. It forces their teachers to teach instead of merely being baby sitters. It also provides for extra money to be given not only as an incentive to the A schools, but also provides for more instructionally directed money for the C, D and F schools.

Yes, I suppose you are right. What a sad reality indeed. I think a good student from Liberty City (very bad community) could transfer to a better school and that does happen from my understanding.

Interesting about your FCAT comments. The general response I have heard from teachers is negative, that the curricula totally revolve around students preparing for FCAT, which detracts from a more well-rounded learning experience (my words, the best i can describe it). But, I'm not sure about that any more, since it appears the best schools still provide a well rounded education (art, PE, etc). I'll reconsider my original comment, thanks for the insightful info.

[perdidochas]

TNBiologist wrote: perdidochas wrote: TNBiologist wrote: CrossEyedMary wrote: Most schools are government things. It's not in their best interest to teach kids to think for themselves. It is in their best interest to teach kids to be good citizens. History and government classes are the best example. They whitewash history to make America seem like an angellic nation. They justify America's actions around the world. They don't teach the constitution, but rather to be good little citizens and vote. They teach that voting is the only way you should change your world. THIS is the problem with schools.

Another problem is the number of things a school is required to do. They are not just required to teach, but to provide social services, after school activities, insurance, health care, and a miriad of other things to students and teachers. The government, generally at the state level but also at the nation level (national testing, eg), is forcing them to implement and maintain all these different things, but doesn't realise that to do so needs money, and the money will have to come from cutting programs.

The third, is that government run things tend to have a really poor ability to spend money effectively.

This is basically the argument I have for the voucher system. By giving students/parents a choice in schools, not just between private vs public but even between public schools, the individual schools will have to improve in order to maintain a student body.

The wholescale voucher system won't do much to improve things. The main thing it will do is enrich current private schools and take that amount of money away from public s chools. A voucher system targeted at the worst schools might be a good thing. School choice, which most FL school districts have to some degree, is a good thing.

I thought that schoold choice was the whole idea behind voucher system. Give parents the option of several schools to send their child to in order to force the schools to improve curiculum. I really don't see how vouches would make private schools richer. People have to pay for them now as well as there taxes paying for a service they don't use, why not let them use their tax money ayt teh school of their choice. It woudl also allow poorer families that cannot now afford private schools a chance. Most private schools give a limited amount of partial scholarships but the cost is still high. With the voucher system a poor family that recieves a partial scholarship to a private school could use teh voucher to pay the rest of the tuition, while th epublic schools would realize they are loosing thier best and brightest and up their education.

A limited voucher plan for poor students of failing schools is one thing--I have no problem with that. A wholescale voucher plan that would give that same money to ALL students is another. Let's assume we have a district that has the national average of private/public school participation, which is 10% private/90% public. Let's assume that the public schools are spending $10k per student per year and that there are 10000 students in the district (9000 public, 1000 private). That makes the public school budget at $90,000,000. Lets also say the vouchers are for $8K a student. At the get go, if all students currently in public schools STAY in the public schools, the public schools are going to lose $8,000,000 to pay the tuition vouchers for the existing private school students. The second thing that would happen, is that the private schools would raise their prices. Most private schools work on a model that requires them to have at least a 90% attendance rate. If they fall too much below that, they won't be able to keep up salaries, etc. That means the private schools may have room for another 100 students. That's another $800,000 that goes to the private schools. Well, there are now fewer seats at the private school. If I'm a private school headmaster, the first thing I do is raise my rates by at least $4k a year. Why not? If I raise rates $4k a year, and parents are getting a voucher of $8k a year, and they were mostly already paying out of their own pocket a lot of tuition, the parents won't mind the rate hike. They are going to still have a net gain of $4k a year per student. Ok, so now, we have 1100 students in existing private schools, and 8900 in public schools. All existing private schools are close to capacity. They are doing even better, and really haven't changed their population significantly. The next step--expansion of the higher priced private schools (they have the money now), and the creation of new private schools. SOme of these will be good, others will be there to make money, forget about the students. I don't see any gains to the population as a whole with wholescale vouchers. The poor kids still can't afford the private schools (at least part of which have the primary mission of keeping poor kids out). The current private school folks make out like bandits. Their kids get BETTER facilties/higher priced teachers, and the parents get a lot more money in their wallets.

I think school choice within public schools in the district is the better idea.

[perdidochas]

islandhopper wrote: perdidochas wrote: islandhopper wrote: TNBiologist wrote: CrossEyedMary wrote: Most schools are government things. It's not in their best interest to teach kids to think for themselves. It is in their best interest to teach kids to be good citizens. History and government classes are the best example. They whitewash history to make America seem like an angellic nation. They justify America's actions around the world. They don't teach the constitution, but rather to be good little citizens and vote. They teach that voting is the only way you should change your world. THIS is the problem with schools.

Another problem is the number of things a school is required to do. They are not just required to teach, but to provide social services, after school activities, insurance, health care, and a miriad of other things to students and teachers. The government, generally at the state level but also at the nation level (national testing, eg), is forcing them to implement and maintain all these different things, but doesn't realise that to do so needs money, and the money will have to come from cutting programs.

The third, is that government run things tend to have a really poor ability to spend money effectively.

This is basically the argument I have for the voucher system. By giving students/parents a choice in schools, not just between private vs public but even between public schools, the individual schools will have to improve in order to maintain a student body.

I could never understand the voucher system and "grading" schools. If I live in a poor community, but I want my child to have the best education possible, why can't the schools in my community provide that quality education? Why is it that only the best communities where people pay the most taxes have the best schools? They should ALL provide quality education, every single one of them. And if you want to pay to send your child to a private school, so be it. But why should our public education system be comprised of haves and have nots? It makes no sense to me.

Honestly, the main difference between public schools in the same district is the type of students who make up the school. If a preponderance of poor kids is in a school, the school quality goes down. My wife has taught in two schools in the same district. The first school was a semi-rough school, the second a middle class suburban school. The money going into the schools is about the same (slightly more went in per student to the poorer school, due to Federal Title I grants). The second school is a much better school than the first--the students in it do what they are required, and actually try to learn. Interestingly, my wife has taught students that she knew from the first school in the second school. The same students actually did their work and behavied in the second school, while they didn't at the first school--why? The culture of the second school was a middle class hard working culture (school is a high priority). The culture of the first school was a working class hard working culture (school wasn't a priority). In other words, part of the reason for the difference between schools is the population that feeds into it. Our system does have a lot of flexibility, so it is easy to get a transfer from a poorer school to a better one.


islandhopper wrote: As for quality education, better pay for teachers and getting rid of standardized testing to grade schools (such as the FCAT in Florida) would be a good start.

FCAT, while it needs tweaking, is a good thing, especially for the worst schools. It forces their teachers to teach instead of merely being baby sitters. It also provides for extra money to be given not only as an incentive to the A schools, but also provides for more instructionally directed money for the C, D and F schools.

Yes, I suppose you are right. What a sad reality indeed. I think a good student from Liberty City (very bad community) could transfer to a better school and that does happen from my understanding.

Interesting about your FCAT comments. The general response I have heard from teachers is negative, that the curricula totally revolve around students preparing for FCAT, which detracts from a more well-rounded learning experience (my words, the best i can describe it). But, I'm not sure about that any more, since it appears the best schools still provide a well rounded education (art, PE, etc). I'll reconsider my original comment, thanks for the insightful info.

Well, there are problems with FCAT as well. I do grant that too many schools have the FCAT only approach. I dont' think that is a good thing either. I do think that good education will provide kids with the ability to make high test scores. The best thing about FCAT, is that it has given teachers more justification to not promote a child to the next grade. From what I've been told by elementary teachers, before FCAT, it was almost impossible to hold a child back, even when they desperately needed it. I think after a few years, teachers will get to a moderate position--in between the old "I'll teach what I want at the rate that I want" and "I better get every bit of this in or I'll be crucified" approach.

[Johannes]

TNBiologist wrote: StrawHat wrote: All really good points. But higher paid (and thus presumably more qualified) teachers can only do so much with unmotivated/uninterested students in my opinion. I also agree with the need for discipline and parental involvement. One thing that I am not sure that I agree with is making physical education mandatory. I think that it would be a good thing, and would help with America's obesity problem, however, as an end to improving classroom education, I don't think it should be viewed as a necessity at all. Also, it would either take away from time in the classroom or make the school day longer. The first thing is bad for obvious reasons, and the second because it would require more funding for schools, which makes it unlikely to secure higher pay for teachers.

I would be willing to sacrifise 30 or 40 minutes of classroomtime in order to give students a break. i think that it would improve the time actually spent in the classroom. How long can a person sit and listen to someone lecture about math,english or history without a break longer than teh 5-10 minutes to change classrooms? Give the students a break, let their mind relax and let them get some physical activity whiel they are it and they might absorb more of the educational material while in the classroom.

Well the French give their students a 2 hours lunch break...and they do pretty well in the scheme of things. Wait, no, they have socialized school systems. And those are soooooo bad. :roll:

[Gus]

I think it has something to do with this: