I've been thinking about how the public education system is structured in the US. Increasingly, resources are spent to encourage the students on the low end of the achievement perspective to improve. Teachers (and many others) warn against a concrete standard (such as a standardized test) for measuring education results, arguing that such tests do not best measure actual learning. Memorization and rote learning are downplayed and instead creative thinking (much less measurable) is encouraged.

Much of this stems, I think, from the philosophical viewpoint that it is more beneficial to help the majority of students than to encourage the best students to succeed. This is not to say that the best students are directly discouraged, but they are not the focal point of the public education system.

Should education be tailored so that the best students are encouraged to acheive more or should we encourage all students to progress at a more or less even pace? Which philosophy will better serve the United States as a whole?

Where is the current state of education in the US regarding this issue?

I think the system allows the "best" students to advance rather far enough now. I'm a magnet grad, wasn't too hard for me to find a place that fit my pace.

I would encourage funding to help schools to increases AP offerings though.

I believe the focus of reform, if any, should be to improve the progress of the "worst" students, that would really benefit the nation.

My thinking is rather simple. Bright students will tend to learn despite bad teachers or bad schools. Those who are less gifted are the ones who need the most help. In special education, federal law (PL94-142) demands that the biggest chunk of change go to the most disabled students. Like Turnea. I have no problem with increased funding for gifted students, but the real benefit to society - all of us- is getting help for more marginal students.

Obviously we need to insure that all students receive an adequate education so they can be productive members of society,

That said we must realize that those with the greatest potential should also receive as much of our attention and should be allowed to develop to their full potential.

To force our brightest children to sit in the “average” or below average class as “examples” is IMO a ludicrous waste of our best. They need to be “tracked” and given the attention they deserve – as most of our industrial rivals do.

There's a difference between blanket tracking and offering the option of advances courses. If a student shows and aptitude in a particular area that indicates he/she could be successful in an honors or AP course, that option should be available.

I can tell you from experience and advances student appreciates the opportunity to earn college credit a lot more than being "tracked."

Its far more important to gain actual skills than to be judged "advanced."

Attention, per-smention. College is expensive, help me out here.

There's a difference between blanket tracking and offering the option of advances courses. If a student shows and aptitude in a particular area that indicates he/she could be successful in an honors or AP course, that option should be available.


Tracking – long out of favor because of misguided liberal policies is now back in most stated. I have 3 kids who are in advanced math and science tracks – only - and it works out well.

I agree that the child need to show an aptitude for the subject and that is how it is done here. To be in “honors” math one must have a 92 or higher grade.

Hmm...
I'm staunchly liberal on education and though I think tracking can often be handled better, you'll find few people are opposed to honors courses.

The trouble is the lack of flexibility one should be able to enter an honor's course whenever it's judged the student is ready. Personally I'd prefer a system that better meshes with a college setting, a test-in.

Honors should be handled on a course by course basis, and no student should be tracked below minimum levels for college prep.

Make it flexible and I assure you the most liberal among us would be happy.

Honors should be handled on a course by course basis, and no student should be tracked below minimum levels for college prep.


That’s how it is done here although if one does Honors level in math that usually (but not always) trandlates to Science as well.

I strongly disagree on college prep. Some kids don’t want to go to college and many are not up to it. The idea that everyone “should” go to college is silly. In countries like Germany alternatives are offered in all schools for entrance into trades.

Few few people are intrinsically "not up" to college, particularly seeing as half of all college students attend two-year institutions before moving on.

Trade schools are an option, but no one should be vocationally tracked. It's unnecessary in a functioning high school.

College prep should be our low bar in this system. Sure some will not meet it, but the vast majortiy of children have that aptitude if given the opportunity.

Should education be tailored so that the best students are encouraged to acheive more or should we encourage all students to progress at a more or less even pace?

We should encourage all children to achieve to the best of their ability. All children are different--one of the flaws of our primary education system is that it seems, if not to forget that, then at least to pretend it's not true.

Which philosophy will better serve the United States as a whole?

The United States would be best served by making sure all children achieve to the best of their ability. The only alternative is to have children not achieve to the best of their ability, and I fail to see how the United States, or anyone, benefits from that.

Where is the current state of education in the US regarding this issue?

Poor, but perhaps improving. My college Sociology teacher, who had been a high school teacher for many years, said the reason he got out of that level of education is that he came to the realization that it was the goal of the system to produce as many 'C' students as possible. I think this is at least partially true, if not significantly more than that. I've seen honors programs reduced, and programs for those falling behind increased. I have nothing at all against providing extra help to those that seem to need it, but not at the cost of honors programs or others that encourage those at the upper end of our system. It's a simple matter of economics. Making such high achievers maximize their success will provide more tax revenue to fund the programs for those that need additional help to keep pace. The opposite is not true. However, I would prefer not to see it as a situation of justifying one over the other. Rather, the system should be designed to encourage ALL children to achieve to the best of their abilities, never favoring one over the other, but neither seeking to make everyone average, either. If our system were designed to produce any grade of student, why wouldn't that grade be an 'A'? Mediocrity never makes a worthy goal, despite the fact that it is easily achieved.

Should education be tailored so that the best students are encouraged to achieve more or should we encourage all students to progress at a more or less even pace? Which philosophy will better serve the United States as a whole?

In the words of Forrest Gump, I think it is both. Classrooms should feel like students to be full of ladders. No matter how high you have climbed there should be something to climb today when you get to class. My biggest beef with the standardized testing system is that it is a floor system. Once you get to a certain standard then you or marked as an accomplishment for that school. We need a better way of targeting. Set out a Plato Republic type of ideal and have students aspire to attain that and measure them against perfection. We need both to have a way of measuring basic proficiency so that we know if we are just herding students through grade levels instead of overseeing actual educational development and to have a way to aim students at the peaks of learning accomplishment and mastery.

These are the yin and the yang. The best system in place today for aiming high schoolers at the high end is the AP system. It has its drawbacks but at least it is not as simplistic as the reading and rithmetic only measurements under NCLB.

Where is the current state of education in the US regarding this issue?

Currently I feel we don't push our children hard enough to place their education at the highest priority. This leads to poor results across the board. We do a reasonable job at creating a driven elite that competes to get into the best schools. But in most good high schools, the students not aiming at MIT, Berkeley, or Chicago feel pretty good about their chances of getting into MTSU, SWMSU, CMU, IUIUPI, CSULB etc or a jc wihtout sweatting the details much.

Should education be tailored so that the best students are encouraged to achieve more or should we encourage all students to progress at a more or less even pace? Which philosophy will better serve the United States as a whole?

Well, let's think about this... do the best students need encouragement?? Frankly, no. A lot of time, if not all the time, what makes you the best is your drive and ambition to be the best. So how much encouragemen do we need to provide the best students. And let's face it... the best students aren't even the brightest all the time. The ability to absorb information and discipline to apply yourself to projects, homework and studies are two totally different things.

A bad school, or a bad home life can affect your ability to be a good student. Your ability to absorb knowledge is innate.

Where is the current state of education in the US regarding this issue?

Like everything else that isn't profit driven our state is a state of apathy. I've brought this up several times, why don't we standardize our education system?? We have two standardized test, at least I think that is how it was, which are the ACT and the SAT. These test are meaningful in the sense that they allow us to achieve acceptance to schools, scholarships, and grants.

So at the end we have the SAME test. But do we have a stadardized curriculum, books, dollars per student, student per teacher ratio, or even teacher pay system??

As a former gifted student myself (still gifted, but no longer a student ) and as a current teacher, I think we need to aim to do what is in the best interests of ALL students. Because I already "knew everything" when I was in school, my education was often put on hold because the majority of the class did not understand the material. At the time I understood that was just a sacrifice that the "smart kids" had to make - if I was reading at a 6th grade level in 2nd grade, well, it's more important for the kids who were reading at a 1st grade level to play catch up (and for them to get the assistance they needed to do so from teachers, administrators, etc.) than it was for me to improve and receive assignments that would allow me to reach my full potential. Gifted kids often (in my experience on both sides) understand this at a very young age. My own daughter - who is just entering 1st grade and is reading at a 3rd grade level, knows all 50 states and their locations, and is basically light years ahead of her same-age peers (she's a young first grader at that...she won't turn six until the school year begins) - has already figured out how it works.

I firmly believe that it is primarily a parent's job to educate their children - the teachers and schools should ideally play a supplementary role. If parents are doing their jobs in the first 10 years of a child's life and not sending their kids to school the first day expecting kindergarten teachers to work magic, then we wouldn't be having this debate, IMO. Parents are largely uninvolved (compared to what I saw 20 years ago when I was in school) and place the responsibility of their child's education squarely on the teacher's/school's shoulders. When children who have no physical/mental/learning disability that would prevent them from learning at an age-appropriate level come to their first day of kindergarten not knowing their ABCs, colors, shapes, numbers, etc., there is a problem. Kindergarten and first grade teachers, thus, have to be magicians and miracle workers in order to fully prepare these kids for the following year. And that is where the problem begins...

Standardized tests, IMO, do little to help this situation and do not address these very real problems that teachers face every day. There are far too many variables involved for standardized tests to be an accurate measure of a students'/school's success. The only students who truly shine on standardized tests are the ones who knew the material in question before the school year began. And what ever happened to the other academic areas? Yes, reading is the foundation to all other areas, so it is highly important to focus on math...but in spending SO MUCH time and money and energy focusing on TESTING for these two areas, the other areas are suffering. At many schools, 5th grade students don't even know how many states there are, what they are called, where they are on a map, etc. In 5th grade! We had to learn these things in 3rd grade (before NCLB, before standardized tests played such a huge factor in a school's livelihood/status) AND had to learn foreign countries and their capitals as well. The 3rd graders in my classroom (I was a special ed aide last year) last year who were capable of working above their grade levels in math/reading were mostly left unchallenged. As far as I see, it all boils down to a lack of parental responsibility and standardized testing getting in the way of real education.

Often times the "smart kids" don't need to be motivated to succeed on the same level that other kids do - this is true. However, that is not to say that they don't need to be challenged. Often times, I wondered why I bothered completing assignments that were "beneath me" - it was just busy work and I wasn't learning anything new. To me (and many other kids in my same sitauation) is was a complete waste of time. Instead of spending 20 minutes doing an assignment that I could have done 2 years ago, I could be reading a book or doing some experiment/project that might actually allow me to learn something new. THAT is one of the biggest problems gifted/advanced kids face in school. When success and excellence isn't rewarded or noticed and when you're stuck doing work that is too easy for you year in and year out, you get bored and it becomes harder to WANT to do your best.

Now, of course the kids who need the most help are those who are falling behind and I can definitely appreciate that. However, it really shouldn't be at the expense of other kids' education and that's what's happening in our current system. Standardized testing is only making this worse as funding and status is often at risk if these "low" kids do not catch up in time for the tests. How that is helping is beyond me.

I don't have all of the answers (I sure wish I did), but one thing I do know is that kids are learning and retaining far less information about the world around them than they were just 20 years ago.

I'll try to sum up my feelings when I address the debate questions directly.

Should education be tailored so that the best students are encouraged to acheive more or should we encourage all students to progress at a more or less even pace? Which philosophy will better serve the United States as a whole?

Education should be tailored so that ALL students are encouraged to achieve to their individual potential. An "even pace" really only benefits the average students. The United States as a whole would be best served by trying to help every child reach his/her full potential instead of measuring success by how well a school is able to prepare kids to pass a standardized test. It is probably nearly impossible to accurately measure such success, though, so of course that will probably never happen. One thing that does need to happen, however, is to allow teachers to have input on funding decisions. When students have no desks/books, administrators (not to include principals...they are under-appreciated but essential parts of a successful school system) should not be getting raises. I think a big part of the problem is that the wrong people are put in charge of spending/funding decisions. Teachers and principals know how their money would be best spent because they see, day in and day out, what is needed to make their school a better learning environment. Many times, failing schools (by NCLB "standards") are failing because their kids don't have desks or other needed supplies or have no books or books that were written in 1957 and are riddled with factually incorrect information. Our country will be best served when we can produce well-rounded individuals who have been afforded the opportunity to maximize their potential (whatever that may be).

Where is the current state of education in the US regarding this issue?

Currently we are producing individuals who have all been made to aim at the same educational goals (in passing standardized tests that will determine their 'fate') no matter what their capabilities. There is nothing wrong with setting a specific goal, but those goals should also be fluid and individuals who are capable of exceeding those standards should be given opportunities to do so. The best students are not always encouraged to achieve more because the means for them to do so are not always there in the current system. The best students are often suffering because the teachers have to spend all of their time focusing on the "other kids" who actually "need their help". Part of the problem is the belief that gifted kids don't need the same help/motivation. That may be true in the early grades, but after years of being invisible, gifted kids often get tired of working for nothing. No Child Left Behind and the current system is essentially leaving kids behind on both sides of the spectrum.

I disagree on the “low bar”. Many students do not want to work in an office and would prefer to be carpenters, machinists, or other craft oriented professions. But in most high schools today they have no choice. Where I live the student would have to leave the school and somehow get to a school that specialized in this.

In much of the industrial world they do it better IMO. They call it gymnasium:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gymnasium_(school)

German students usually attend a Grundschule (Volksschule in Austria) for the first four years (kindergarten is not mandatory, nor is it usually part of the public school system). At the age of ten in most Bundesländer, students and their parents must decide the next step in their education. That is, which type of school they will attend: Hauptschule, Realschule or Gymnasium (in that order of prestige and difficulty). The many school choices are listed below.
http://german.about.com/library/blschule.htm






I disagree totally. You have the ability and training to “teach” your children but most do not and many families have both parents working full time.

Our schools, as schools all over the world, have the primary educational responsibility. Parents come in when there are problems with homework, attendance or behavior and this is it IMO

I think this captures my sentiment pretty well too.

Our failure to provide for gifted students (if their is one) pales in comparison to our failure to aid struggling students.

The scale of the issues aren't in the same order of magnitude.

If it's a question of priorities I think the area of need is clear.


It would make so much more sense...

...the issue is concerns over federalism, but I agree that the biggest problem in the education system is voter (and therefore political) apathy.


Ocassionally I did more (or less) than wonder, but point taken


School systems are so varied its confusing, but it seems to me that expanding opportunity for magnet schools and AP course offerings would go a long way.


It's not a choice a child should have to make. Wait until they reach majority because far too many people end up wishing they could go back an do it all over again.

Choosing not to go to college is great, for an adult. Until then I don't think our education system should make the choice for them.

It’s TOO LATE when you are out of high school and realize that the only thing you can do is try to get through a college that you rally don’t want to go to or just go look for any work at all. There are no public trade schools for 18 year olds unless you have the money – and you have now wasted at least 2 years.

The parents and the kids should decide as in other countries.

Better to seek a need-based grant or loan for a trade school that not have the option of college upon graduation. Not even a child's parents should have control over this momentous decision. This is at least as important as having sex.

Under 18.. college prep.

I am not talking about homeschooling here. I am talking about giving children the essential tools they will need to prepare them for their academic careers. That starts at home. Teachers in K and 1st grade are often working with 20-30+ (my MIL had 32 Kindergarteners w/ no aide last year) with ridiculously differing abilities. My MIL had to get her 32 kindergarteners (only 2 of whom knew the entire alphabet on the first day of school) reading 100 sight words and writing 2 complete sentences by the end of the year. When most of the kids don't even know the difference between the LETTERS, let alone letter sounds, well...you can imagine how difficult that is. She may only officially work for 7 hours a day (not to include mandatory teacher's meetings), but she spends at least 3 hours every single night doing lesson plans, grading papers, and reading up on standards and teaching methods so that she can best serve the children she teaches. Summers are not much different. She really only has a few weeks of real break (she's teaching summer school this summer, which meets from 7:30 - 3:30 every weekday for the entire month of June).

As I see it, there is no reason why parents working full time cannot teach their children ABCs, 123s, and other basic concepts before they start school. That is a HUGE part of the problem, IMO. I am sure children are having such a difficult time with reading because their parents just wait until they enter school to start the process and leave it all up to the teachers. If parents wait until there are problems with homework, attendance, or behavior to involve themselves in their child's education, they are doing their child a disservice.

I am not saying that parents should be spending countless hours teaching once their children are in school, but their job does not stop once their children enter the classroom in kindergarten, nor does their children's education start in that classroom.

I believe that tailoring education to individual needs is the way to go. I don't buy that in teaching to "everyone" that the best aren't necessarily helped. In regards to advanced students, this also means that they have "concrete standards" to reach in order to excel. Many schools do this through AP courses and if you don't believe the job is getting done, you aren't checking in with many National Honors Society students to see what they are doing. There are a tons of activities for students- Boys and Girls state conventions, VFW speaking and scholarship opportunities, not to mention honors camps and courses. In a regular classroom, this could mean "individualizing" a course to requrie extra reading or projects in lieu of ones that are not as challenging. I've done that countless times and never faced any problems from administrators or parents.

The philosophy of teaching to all students so that they individually succeed helps to counteract any deficiencies in a given student's background. Whether it's being from a poor home or not having extra opportunities to enjoy during the summer like a lot of students have, schools have done a marvelous job of helping those who truly need it. I don't believe there is one sure fire method to do this. My personal experience has taught me that teaching to the "individual" no matter what the background, works. I presently work for a state correctional facility. This summer, I've helped five girls graduate and a few of them could give most valedictorians a run for their money. One of those instances of being so smart, they got bored and got in trouble. the language of "helping the best" is bothersome to me as it fails to take into account social resources and other influences that create those things. Public education was created to educate everyone, not just to tailor resources to the privileged few who already have a ton of benefits in society.

Do they need encouragement? No. Motivation is more than what is necessary, though. They need an outlet for that motivation. Programs and activities to engage in. One of the very reason the 'best' students aren't always the 'brightest' ones is that the brightest ones quickly figure out the system, and also get discouraged by the lack of avenues for them to apply their skills.



Yes, it can. The school system can't fix bad home life, so that's irrelevant to this discussion. There should be no bad schools. We need a system that a) forces such schools to change and get better, and provides the means for doing so. Means isn't alwyas economic....much of it is mindset. Schools needs to change the mindset, both their own and their students.



The solution to this is simple, then. Make schools profit driven.

It always worries me when people take the "Power of Positive Thinking" approach to education reform.

Thinking different isn't going to expand AP offerings or academic extracurriculars, sorry Apple.

Means isn't entirely economic, but every reform plan cost. California just received a review of state schools (conducted by a body hired by the Governator) that concluded that billions will be needed to make the necessary changes... and this after decided money wasn't the primary problem. Even changing management styles costs.

Link
The studies say money matters, but the voice of reason is lost in the tax-slashing, vote-buying, frenzy.

It's not that. I'm sick of hearing how we can't do it because we don't have enough money. There are LOTS of ways to improve education that don't cost anything. Don't play the money card until you've exhausted those. Most of us could think of lots of ways we could be more productive at work if they just gave us a bunch more money. But that never happens, yet we find ways to get the job done anyway. In fact, we're pretty much REQUIRED to do so. Am I saying money doesn't matter? No...but that's the easy way out. There are lots of reasons money correlates to better education, many of them completely indirect to the issue. Are you willing to say that nothing at all can be done that doesn't require a large budget increase?

In short, it's not 'the power of positive thinking' so much as it is the elimination of all the negative vibes. Stop telling me (us) what CAN'T be done ...tell us what CAN be done.

For the record, I am NOT against increased spending on education. In fact, I am strongly in favor of it. But there are many things that can be done without that being necessary. Changing the mindset that the system has that it wants to create a bunch of 'C' students, for starters. The goal should be to produce as many A students as possible, and it takes no money at all to make that change.

I can't think of anything more inefficient than insisting upon implementing minor remedies while leaving the gapping holes unrepaired.

It would not be at all of topic to elaborate on the money free methods of creating 'A' students so I hope my curiosity can be sated. What are these many ways to improve education without spending a dime?


I've never seen a teacher want anything less than an 'A' student. Whether they always knew how to reach that goal or not, they all wanted it.

What in the system favors 'C' students and how could we change it?

Last year I was listening to a radio talk show and the guest was a young African-American lady whom had transferred from a urban high school to a suburban high school. She was stunned by how different the approaches to education were.

She said at the suburban school she had the best of everything. New computers, small-sized classrooms, new desks, decent food in the cafeteria, clean restrooms, hot water in the showers, enough books for each student to have their own and most of all, a real emphasis placed upon education and not "social promotion." Students were expected and encouraged to take advance placement courses and teachers pushed students to excel. There was considerable talk about how to balance a checkbook, understand the stock market and participation in the democratic process.

She said the suburban schools were trying to create the future leaders of America. The urban schools seemed to be more interested in creating the next unskilled working class.

My son is a member of the National Honor Society. He gets "A's" and "B's" on his grade report and gets bummed when he sees a "C." He wants to be a scientist and has awards and accomodations as long as your arm.

But the other day at the dinner table I asked him to name five key figures of The Civil War. He named Lincoln, Grant and Lee and then he was stuck. I gave him Jefferson Davis and William Garrison. Then I asked him to name five key figures of the civil rights era (but not including Martin Luther King and Rosa Parks). He named Medgar Evers and then he couldn't name anyone else.

It troubles me that we are raising a group of kids that will know how to take tests, but don't know much about American history, let alone world history. Too many bright students are not being challenged. They know how to ace a test, but anything that requires critical thinking and they're lost like a golf ball in the weeds.

I don't believe in one-size-fits-all solutions. Students learn at different paces and process information in different ways. Trying to force kids who need one type of teaching with another kid that needs something entirely different. Charter schools and magnet schools are ideas I approve of. Public schools can't meet the needs of all children. It doesn't help a kid who reads on one level to sit them next to another kid who reads at grade level higher than the rest of the class. It just screws up both kids by frustrating them both; one kid feels like he's "dumb" while the other is bored by the lethargic pace.

If it takes vouchers to get good students out of failing schools, I'm willing to give vouchers a try. I support public schools, but I've seeen too many that aren't teaching the children, demands little from the students and too many school boards and superintendents that are better at spending money than educating kids.

And isn't it time we got rid of summer vacation. Besides the fact that the teacher unions like the time off, why in a global economy are we giving the kids two months to forget everything they've learned?

Should education be tailored so that the best students are encouraged to acheive more or should we encourage all students to progress at a more or less even pace? Which philosophy will better serve the United States as a whole?

Where is the current state of education in the US regarding this issue?

The obvious answer is to encourage more from the best. The trick here is figuring who is and who is not the best. I imagine few thought that Einstein would come up with important scientific theories or that Bill Gates would ever be the richest guy on the planet. GWB becoming President was a long shot, the unfortunate parallel of cream rising.

Everyone wants to be above average these days. That's impossible, so forget that as a goal. Not everyone can get straight A's, although grade variance often skews that way. It's conceivable that everyone can do Grade A Work, but not probable. That's why I'm a fan of Pass-Fail systems. Meeting expectations consistently rather than trying to exceed expectations is a principle of Total Quality Management. You want the nut threads to match the bolt threads within specs, not to gold plate the dang thing. Nobody cares about that. The main concern is not to drop away from the threads matching up.

I see that with education too. You want students to achieve expectations, so get rid of grades. Grades enforce an artificial hierarchy on the learning process. Set the bar where you want, but getting over the bar is the goal. If the bar is too low, raise it.

I'm also a big fan of self-taylored education. I liked having electives in high school and wished I'd had more of that freedom earlier on. I'm okay with a core of broad requirements, like physics for English majors and English for physics majors, that sort of thing. I'm okay that our writers might not understand the math behind string theory, as I am okay that our physicists might not be able to construct a good sonnet.

The extra-curricular string of credentials disturbs me quite a bit. It's fine if the students have genuine interest, but I get the feeling it's just stuff to pad the resume. That adults respond to these junk credentials disturbs me more. We should be interested in the sonnets the English student wrote or the experiments on string theory the physics student performed.

This isn't directly related to education, but I think corporate policy on employee invention sucks in this country. The corporation gets the copyrights, the patents. So what stake does that leave the creator, the inventor? Nothing, nadda, zip, and here's your pink slip, have a Merry Christmas. This situation could be what's really killing American innovation, and that ties directly into the weakness of greed.

If I were King, I'd do away with our outmoded hierarchical education systems. Instead, I'd have P-F on all education and a great deal of freedom during the years leading up to adolescence. Then I'd make our teens select a path of learning that would lead to a paid apprenticeship. As adults, which I would define as having achieved a minimal level of development (physically, emotionally), I'd require two years extended apprenticeship as service to the country (either military or civilian), and then let everyone go out into the world to make something of themselves. If this means further education, fine. If it means a corporate job, fine. It could mean figuring out a new thing, and that's what I'd expect from the best and brightest.

The problem is that most of America's children are in public schools and not only are there not going to be enough vouchers, it would only leave those left behind in the lurch.

I've had my sympathies towards vouchers too, but I came to realize that there are fundamental logical difficulties to the entire concept.

I come (partially anyway) from a Montessori elementary school environment so grouping children of different abilities (or even age groups) was entirely normal for me. The stigma angle I think is somewhat overplayed.

The key here is to offer flexibility in the classes and that's going to take investing in and working on our public schools.

That is the only solution that will help most of our kids. We can't pull them all out. I was one of a lucky few to get into a magnet school, they don't have the capacity and I couldn't countenance what the removal of all academic excellence would do to those left behind.

I agree and this is why many school systems have pre-school, and “jump start” for the poorer systems. This is important but by no means deals with the real problems with our broken school system – one of the worst in the industrial world.

We need a longer school day and year and we need discipline in the classroom. This is where parents come in – unruly kids should have their parents dragged in to deal with it – that failing the kid should be booted for the year as a minimum. Kids that fail any core subject should be held back.

We also need standards and this is why I like NCLB so much. Without standards, and tests to confirm results, we have the ludicrous inconsistency so common in education today. Schools that fail to teach should be closed and the kids given vouchers. The pitiful schools in many of our inner cities are a national disgrace.

Ted,

Bush signed NCLB into law in January, 2002 - 5.5 years ago. Please list the improvements you have seen in public eduction since NCLB became law. As much griping as you do, I doubt you can point to much.

Who says these are they "real" problems?

Not the studies. Not the courts.

Discipline isn't the reason our schools are falling down and dilapidated. It's not the reason we have a teacher shortage and it's not the reason the kids are failing.

Who says these are they "real" problems?

Not the studies. Not the courts.

Discipline isn't the reason our schools are falling down and dilapidated. It's not the reason we have a teacher shortage and it's not the reason the kids are failing.


I said (and see below) and I did not mean they were there only problems only “major” ones. And only some of are schools are falling down – and need to be improved.

And no discipline in not the only reason the schools are failing. But it is very important in the inner city where by the way we have the teacher shortage. Teachers do not get overpaid now and many refuse to work when it means they have to deal with violence and poor disciplinary practices.


During most of its twenty-two year existence, the Annual Gallup Poll of the Public's Attitudes Toward the Public Schools has identified "lack of discipline" as the most serious problem facing the nation's educational system.
Many educators and students are also gravely concerned about disorder and danger in school environments, and with good reason: Each month approximately three percent of teachers and students in urban schools, and one to two percent in rural schools, are robbed or physically attacked. Nearly 17,000 students per month experience physical injuries serious enough to require medical attention (Harvard Education Letter 1987).
In addition to these school discipline issues, American classrooms are frequently plagued by other, more minor kinds of misbehavior which disrupt the flow of classroom activities and interfere with learning. Approximately one-half of all classroom time is taken up with activities other than instruction, and discipline problems are responsible for a significant portion of this lost instructional time (Cotton 1990).

http://www.nwrel.org/scpd/sirs/5/cu9.html

http://teched.vt.edu/VCTTE/VCTTEMonographs...iscipline).html

Nationwide, there were approximately 1,466,000 violent incidents that occurred in public schools in the 1999-2000 school year. Violent incidents, according to the U.S. Department of Education, National Center for Education Statistics, include rape, sexual battery other than rape, physical attack or fight with or without a weapon, threat of physical attack with or without a weapon, and robbery with or without a weapon. Most school violence occurs in inner-city schools. During the 1999-2000 school year, 7 percent of all public schools accounted for 50 percent of the total violent incidents, and 2 percent of public schools accounted for 50 percent of the serious violent incidents.

Students aren't the only victims of school violence. Between 1996 and 2000, teachers were the victims of approximately 1,603,000 non-fatal crimes at school. There were 1,004,000 thefts from teachers and 599,000 incidents of rape, sexual assault, robbery, aggravated assault and simple assault.


I'm sorry if I'm out of touch with modern times, but this kind of student behavior is completely intolerable. Moreover, there are no signs on the horizon that things are going to get any better. Psychobabblers try to lay the violence at the feet of poverty, single parenthood and discrimination. That's nonsense. Years ago, when I attended predominantly black schools (1942-1954), there were single-parent households, gross poverty and societal discrimination. During those times, today's school violence would have been unimaginable. Even to curse a teacher was unthinkable.


Today's school violence occurs because it's tolerated. I'm betting that a punishment like caning or six months' incarceration at hard labor would bring it to a screeching halt.
http://www.rppi.org/schoolviolence.shtml

But who is at fault for the discipline issue? Teachers? The teachers are not the ones who are making decisions regarding the upbringing of the children, so why is it that they are to blame when kids are disobedient and unruly in school? What about parents? Why aren't parents responsible for making sure their children are taught how to be good students? Again, I think this is a parental responsibility issue.

My daughter is in kindergarten and does not get in trouble in school (or anywhere else for that matter). One day she came home from school (we'd just moved about two or three weeks prior, halfway through the school year) in tears because she lost 5 minutes of recess for not listening to her teacher (the teacher said there were 12 -15 students who, as a group, lost their recess). That night she had to write a letter to her teacher explaining that she was sorry for not listening (she cried for about 30 minutes when she was trying to tell us...she does NOT like it when she thinks we are upset/disappointed in her) and that she will pay attention next time. She isn't the kind of kid to get in trouble as it is, but she definitely learned a lesson because she was made to take responsibility at home for her actions. The five minutes of lost recess was enough to make her embarassed, but ultimately it is MY job to deal with any behavior issues that happen at school at home as well. This means that there needs to be better communication between teachers and parents. I used to have to hunt down parents in order to tell them about their child's day at school. And teachers often just don't have time to address every single behavior issue for each child directly to the parents.

I don't think it's so much an issue of it being tolerated in the schools as much as it is tolerated by the parents of the offending children. A school can and should only do so much when it comes to "discipline". Yes, kids backtalk their teachers much more often than they did in the past, but who is to blame? I just think it's easier to blame the schools than it is to find fault within.

Look, I'm not saying schools and teachers are perfect...far from it. Schools and teachers may have to find better ways to deal with discipline issues in the classroom, but it's ultimately up to parents to rear their children so that they act properly and respectful when in school.

kmsouthern- I can't agree with you more- it is not the "system" that is broke- it is the society that is broke. Parents don't consider it education, really, they consider it cheap daycare.

I have hummed this mantra over and over- I have seen students in foriegn countries get top notch primary education in a thatched roof hut with a dirt floor and one chalkboard, with the parents paying the teacher in food so she would not starve!- the only real difference is the attitude of the parents- if a child is failing in school IT IS NOT THE SCHOOL SYSTEM'S FAULT- IT IS THE PARENTS-

We need to put blame where it belongs- squarely on the parents- 110% on the parents. The only reason ANY student can't get a good education in America is the parent's commitment to thier children's education.

Scapegoating "philosophy of education" or "NEA" or teachers or whatever is not going to change a thing- it is not until we put the responsibility on the parents, as a society, that education will improve.

The very fact that this is debated on this board in this manner shows how hard it is to reform society vs education- the education system isn't to blame at all- it is the parents that allow bad behavior. When a child fails to learn at school- you point fingers at the teachers- or the curriculum, or the teacher's union- instead of where the blame rests- directly on the parents shoulders.

p.s.- I nulled my vote as there isn't a "none of the above" answer!

My point is that the discipline issue is a distraction from the more serious issues of infrastructure, materials, and teacher competence.

The polls don't surprise me at all. I'm sure many people believe discipline issues are a major factor in failing schools, but they are not.

I will reference again the latest study of California public schools, discipline falls way down the list of what ails education.

Study calls for major overhaul of California school

It's time to stop playing around with side items like discipline and do something that will get results.

All this parenting talk is cheap we know what the real problems are some just seem unwilling to face them.

nighttimer, i agree with everything you said in this post, from the observations to the arguments. Let's just let take this moment in for a bit.

Ok, now let's talk education. Its a subjective term. It is. What constitutes an educated person? Someone who has a high school diploma? A college degree? A worn out library card? Honestly I do not know. I think the question we have to be asking ourselves it what do we want from our schools? What is the type of education that we want to give to our children? Do we want them to learn the basics of all subjects from history, to biology, to algebra? Do we want them to continue this through high school? Or perhaps we want schools that prepare children for the real world and practical matters? I bolded nighttimer's statement about the learning culture present at the suburban school. Balancing a check book, investing in the market, and the democratic process. I went to a suburban high school and I didn't have these kinds of subjects (already well versed in the democratic process). These are the type of subjects that I think we should be teaching and the type of skills that are important for future society.

I currently intern at a well known financial services firm in NYC. During my daily activities, I have come to realize just how much money there is to be made on the stock market. I was informed by my supervisor of a man who pulled in $1.4 billion last year just by employing PhD mathematicians who create programs that buy/sell securities. The opportunity to bring generations of people out of poverty is right there in front of us and we have failed to acknowledge it. Investing one's money in stocks, bonds, real estate, anything is probably the most important skill one can learn in this day and age. There are a lot of rich people out there. You know how they stay rich? Because they invest their money in safe places and get large returns. Why are we teaching algebra, trig, and geometry? Wouldn't our young people (and honestly i am thinking of urban children) be better served to have math classes that taught about the markets and how one can possibly create future nest eggs? I believe that children would see an actual benefit to learning this material because we know nobody cares about algebra.

When it comes to how to treat students of different ability levels, its a touchy subject. Some point fingers at the schools, other fingers are pointed at the teachers, and even more fingers are pointed at the parents. Well, hate to break it to you, but its everything. Are our schools set up to see our children succeed? Are they providing them with the necessary skills to make it out in the real world? Why are we using the same curriculum as was used 20, 30. 40 years ago? I realize I am asking a lot of questions but we have to seriously think about how education currently operates. Adults often fail to see the consequences of their actions yet we expect children to see the long term benefits of an education. We need immediate benefits that are in plain sight. They need to feel that the knowledge that they are gaining as some relevance in their lives. Why would an inner-city child care about algebra? I went to a suburban school and I couldnt be made to care. The culture that has been fostered in this country celebrates mediocrity and making kids feel good about themselves. That has to end. Some children when given the same opportunities as their peers just will not succeed. Call it whatever you want, parental influence, intelligence, whatever, but the fact is that all things being equal, some will outperform others. All kids should be provided with the opportunity to succeed to the best of their abilities. If their abilities do not dictate great success, then they must be focused along a path which will benefit them the greatest. To use a crude example that will probably be misinterpreted: Lets look at one child excels in many subjects and goes onto a good high school, college, career and contrast that with another child who isn't so good at the subjects offered at school. The first child may be smart with books and memorization, but it doesnt mean he could fix his plumbing or replace his car's engine. We have come to a point where technical knowledge is preferred over practical knowledge. Not everything can be learned in a textbook and their are many trades that do not require college to accomplish. There will always be a demand for mechanics, plumbers, landscapers, etc... Hell, I know landscapers who make a boatload of money.

I am getting a little tired, so perhaps I will continue at a later time, but my main point is that the culture of education that we have propagated all these years is outdated and seriously damaging our children's futures. We are placing importance on all the wrong things and forgetting about skills that are actually pertinent to surviving in today's world. Everyone has certain ability levels and while some display it in the classroom, others may display it out in the real world. We have to value all skills more equally and stop focusing on useless subjects and tests that prove absolutely nothing.

leder I think you're focused on the anecdotal here. What you say may work for a stock market trader, but if we in America want top-notch scientist and engineers then talk like this is anathema.

I tutor Calculus and Chemistry so you can probably see what's coming next, I'll try to hide my injured soul.

Let me guess, business major?

Never ever say this near the biology or engineering departments of any school, you are taking your life in your hands.

I would never assume that people don't care about management practices simply because as an engineering major there are seen largely to be folly disguised as leadership (see Dilbert for further info).

If America is to remain a leader in innovation we need to do more than know where to stash the cash. General education teaches one to be able to create, not just manage.

I would suggest that a person needs concepts like algebra just to solidify reasoning skills. Debate is a lot like algebra now that I think of it.

Why must it include spending? What exactly will spending improve?



By and large, everything. I've seen numerous instances where honors programs are cancelled while programs for those with less aptitude are increased. Do teachers allocate more time to those excelling or those falling behind? Those falling behind. How do we view those who make a 'C'--as underachievers, or those doing exactly what is expected? We see time and time again tests made easier so that more students can score acceptably (are we trying to eventually get to where no one can even read the test?) What is it about the system that you think doesn't favor this?

I don't think it's a problem with the teachers at all. I think the vast majority of teachers really love what they do, and spend countless extra hours on their own time doing whatever they can. It is the system they teach in, I think, that is the issue. Are schools compensated additionally for producing higher achieving students? Generally, no. But they often penalized if too many fail. What does this tell the school to do? Make more 'C' students.

How do we change it? Like most systemic problems, it is both very simple, and yet almost impossible. You simply have to change the expectations. Set the standards high, and drive everyone to achieve it. Why as a country would we not set the bar at maximum achievement, particularly at such an important activity? What exactly does a 'C' average get anybody? One method of improving achievement is very simple...post test scores prominently, with names fully visible. Peer pressure is an incredible motivator, yet we have chosen to eliminate this as an incentive. There are numerous other examples where we have eliminated incentives to excel.

But I don't think grades are necessarily the best process, either. I think everyone who's spent much time at school realizes there's a tremendous difference between studying to learn the material, and cramming to pass a test. How many students would score well on those same tests a year later? My bet is none. So, not much learning took place then, did it? I think we should measure progress along various aptitudes, and have students spend time accordingly. Make sure they master each skill level before proceeding to the next. Children learn different skills at different speeds...we're not geared for all getting to the same levels of various learning activities at the same time. Yet that's an assumption our education system makes. A child might well be at a 5th grade level in math while at a 3rd grade level in language, for example. Its a natural phenomenon of human development...yet our education system goes against this. I don't think our system emphasizes natural learning processes enough...learning skills by completing various activities, without even realizing you're learning. Montessori programs, for example, follow these processes, and don't cost any more per student than other methods. This is why I say there are many ways we can improve our learning with massive spending increases. We don't do it in an efficient manner, and doing it efficiently doesn't cost any more than the current methods.

No it is the school and the entire system. The teachers are the victims of the this stupidity.





I disagree and you obviously don’t work in a big city or inner city school where discipline is nearly non existent and teachers are told they cannot toss the bad kids out. The stupidity started in the late sixties when it was felt all kids should have a high school diploma – and we should not discipline them too much least we hurt their “self-esteem. This lead to “social promotions” and the general disregard for discipline in city schools. I live in the suburbsa and we have no problems – but in Boston they have lots of problems. And as you say the teacher can either teach or spend time dealing with out of control kids.

IMO teachers should be able to demand that unruly kids bring their parents in and if it continues the kid is OUT for the year. We both know this does not happen.

No it is not the teachers fault – it is crappy administrators and rules that rob the good kids of an education. Sure there are teachers who could be better but the problems with discipline in the inner city is major.

Below is one of thousands of stories that are a disgrace to our educational system. In my day you would not even dream of saying boo to a teacher – time have changed – for the worse.

“Sure, rag on NY iPod wearers all you want, but apparently there's no getting in between this Germantown PA highschooler and his iPod. Two students were arrested on Friday for assaulting their 60-year-old teacher Frank Burd, who confiscated it from a 14-year-old who was using it in his class. The kid returned later with an 11th grader, and they pushed Burd up against a locker, breaking his neck in two places. The good news is that Frank Burd's condition is stable and spirits are high. Unfortunately for the two students, their assault was caught on video, and they're going to be charged as adults. Frank Burd happens to be quite popular with the staff and students, which leads us to believe he doesn't make iPod confiscation a regular practice.”

http://www.engadget.com/2007/02/25/two-tee...ates-ones-ipod/

In a world were everything costs money this is an odd question.

I bet we'd never ask this question about defense spending.

You're in Texas... that'd be Edgewood v. Kirby

Edgewood v. Kirby, 777 S.W.2d 391 (TX 1989)

More recently, since the spending disparity has yet to be fully corrected we have cases like Neeley v. West Orange-Cove

Link


..and I've seen none. Care to offer evidence that this is widespread and systemic?

In other words I'm seeing a little anecdotal evidence but nothing like what I've presented on the other end.

Here is another link that summarizes all of the Edgewood cases.
APPENDIX A: THE SUPREME COURT OPINIONS

I say we should face facts like the courts and the studies have done.

Everything doesn't cost money, and for the most part, we don't live in that world. People are constantly asked to do more with less, it is simply the reality of today. Next time your boss demands higher results, tell him that requires a pay raise and see what response you get. I'm betting it won't be pretty.

As for defense spending, there are a great many things that could probably be done to improve effectiveness are also reduce cost. Personally, I think technology will enable soldiers to become more self-contained and lethal, rendering large (and expensive) weapons systems such as tanks obsolete. But that's another discussion. The point being the same concepts applies equally everywhere.

As for your studies, not that none of them refute anything I stated in my earlier post. Also, the links you posted deal primarily with funding inequities, not overall funding. What would the solution for that entail, then? Taking away the funding of the very programs cited as providing an advantage at some schools to fund other schools. What would the effect of that be? More 'C' students. Is that really what you want?

Yes, but I can also tell him that if we don't get more funding for this cell phone it's going to run on coal.

I hope then his ears will perk up.


How many billions are we spending to develop such a system?


Eliminating programs wouldn't be necessary if we had sufficient funding.

My links were to show exactly what more funding will do.

Namely, just about everything.

Yes but numerous studies of education find little or no correlation between educational outcomes and money spent per pupil – within limits of course.

Numerous states have thrown “money” at the problem schools with little result years later. This is purely a staw man. What we need are better “run” schools.

Education plus money does not equal achievement

" Observation and common sense have told me for years that there is no relationship between the amount of money spent on education and student achievement. Now a new study to be released July 7 by the Cato Institute provides irrefutable facts that lead to the same conclusion.

Neal McCluskey, an education policy analyst for Cato, notes that while federal spending on education has ballooned from about $25 billion in 1965 (adjusted for inflation) to more than $108 billion in 2002, the promise of improved performance in the classroom and better grades remains flat. "Math and reading scores have stagnated," writes McCluskey, "graduation rates have flatlined, and researchers have shown several billion-dollar federal programs to be failures."

http://www.jewishworldreview.com/cols/thomas070604.asp

http://www.hoover.org/publications/digest/4495906.html


Student Performance

The report ranks states according to the performance of their students on the 2002 Scholastic Achievement Test (SAT) or the ACT assessment and the 2000 National Assessment of Educational Progress (NAEP) eighth-grade reading assessment. The top three states or jurisdictions were Wisconsin, Minnesota, and Iowa. The bottom three were Louisiana, Mississippi, and the District of Columbia.

States with the largest increases in average composite SAT scores from 2001 to 2002 were North Dakota, Alaska, Colorado, and Montana. Wyoming and Utah experienced the largest declines.

Minnesota, Montana, Kansas, and Maine had the highest scores on the 2000 NAEP mathematics test, while Mississippi, Louisiana, and New Mexico had the lowest.

Nationwide, the 2002 NAEP fourth-grade reading assessment results were six points higher than on the 2000 test. However, the 2002 results were only two points higher than when the test was first administered in 1992. Also, scores for eighth graders stagnated while scores for twelfth graders declined.


Education Expenditures

States with the highest per-pupil expenditures in the 2000-2001 school year were New Jersey ($10,787), the District of Columbia ($10,252), Connecticut ($10,135), and New York ($9,935). The states that spent the least were Utah ($4,372), Arizona ($4,968), Arkansas ($5,269), Mississippi ($5,283), and Idaho ($5,386).

During the same year, average teacher salaries were the highest in New Jersey ($53,281), Connecticut ($52,100), and New York ($50,920). Average teacher salaries were the lowest in South Dakota ($30,265) and North Dakota ($30,891).


Lack of Correlation
The stagnation in student achievement over the past two decades took place during a period that also saw massive increases in spending, a rise in teacher salaries, and a reduction of the student-teacher ratio. From 1980 to 2000, per-pupil expenditures grew from $4,810 to $7,079. During the same period, the pupil-teacher ratio dropped from 19-1 to 16-1. Reviewing these data, the authors conclude there is no correlation between spending and achievement, or between education inputs and education outputs.
For example, of the states ALEC ranked highest--Washington, Iowa, and Wisconsin:


Iowa and Wisconsin receive less money from the federal government than most states;


Washington and Iowa rank in the bottom half of states on per-pupil spending;


Iowa ranks in the lower half on teacher salaries.

While Wisconsin, Minnesota, and Iowa are the top-ranking states on the ACT test, they are ranked 21st, 25th, and 15th respectively on pupil-teacher ratios.

“Data compiled by this year’s Report Card belies any notion that these policy makers can spend their way out of the public school doldrums,” the authors conclude. “No combination or magnitude of public investments has improved average student scores on standardized tests. ... It is time to at least examine other alternatives.”

I agree that many people (including Cal Thomas ) are of the opinion money doesn't matter, but the studies speak differently.

Comparing different states is difficult do to differences in buying power, but state by state where the education systems are actually run the funding picture is loud and clear.
In your state of Massachusetts we have Hancock v. Driscoll and Mcduffy


Which lead to the half-measure called Education Reform Act of 1993
which did produce some results.

Link


Then the later Hancock case.

The mismanagement angle has already been covered.


The IREPP study I quoted for California agreed management practices need an overhaul, but even that costs. Without the funds we are going nowhere.