NationStates Jolt Archive

I read the thread where the Kiwi (lovingly said BTW) asked about the American school system re:the grade structure. Made me start thinking.

Setting the actual curriculum(sp?) aside, what would you consider the ideal school system?

For me I'd have each student entering into the system take a large series of tests to determine their knowledge and aptitude in various areas. They would then be placed in classes based on that knowledge. They could move up to the next level in any given subject when they passed the previous level. Failure to pass one subject would not prevent promotion in another subject.

Examples: Little Joe, age 6, tests exceptionally well in Grammer and Math, but does poorly in Science and Social Studies. Little Suzie, also 6, does excellant in Science and Math but bombs Grammer. Both might start in Level 3 Math with Joe taking Level 2 Grammer and Level 1 Science and Social Studies. Suzie is in Level 1 Grammer. At the end of the school year (or the term. Haven't decided whether to make school year round or not or what length of weeks to make the lesson periods yet) Joe passes all his classes and moves up one level in each except Math which he did well enough to jump up two levels (he takes a test in the skipped level to ensure he understand the lessons from Level 4 which he would need in Level 5.) Suzie also passes all her classes (moving up 1 level each) except Grammer. She'll have to repeat Grammer Level 1.

I see this system as having many advantages. There is more socialization across greater age ranges, aiding children in dealing with others outside their peer group (or expands their peer group depending on how you look at it). Yes there would be some bullying and intimidation from older students, but you have that now anyway and even within the same age groups so nothing's changed there. This system also allows the child to advance as rapidly as they are capable of in the subjects they are strong in and to repeat the subjects they need reenforcement in. Naturally if a given child has to repeat a Level more than 4 or 5 times then special help would be warrented, but that is most likely the exception to the rule, not the rule itself.

Thoughts and opinions? What would your system be like?

Asking for problems, especially when you start moving kids out of their age groups too much, up or down. It might be easier to move the classes in grades, and have the flexability inside the grades themselves.

They are already doing that in the US and look how that's (not) working.

Besides who says that being out of their age groups is a problem? There are many home schooled children who are exceptionally well adjusted and can deal well with anyone simply because they are exposed to a large range of age groups. I know not EVERY child will be as such, but no one program can be perfect for every child

For me I'd have each student entering into the system take a large series of tests to determine their knowledge and aptitude in various areas.

ugh


the key to education has always been less formalization, less authoritarianism

ugh


the key to education has always been less formalization, less authoritarianism
I'd agree with that to an extent. I was one of those marked by formal tests and teachers as being a wee bit slow in maths, but as soon as I got into calculus, lo and behold...

I don't know how the Montesorri system works exactly, but implement that and start getting our teachers paid more, they do the most important job in this country far as I can see it.

Well, so long as we are talking ideals, then we should draft extremely attractive women into providing in-depth training in sex ed/health classes.

But generally speaking, I think the ideal school system can be summed up thus: everybody is trained to a minimum but reasonably high degree of competence, while at the same time all people are also able to specialize and receive specific training in an area of excellence or interest.

Ah, that system. It's nice, but it only works with smaller schools. It falls part once the student body reaches over 100 and requires a LOT of teachers.

ugh


the key to education has always been less formalization, less authoritarianism

I can agree with you to a point. The basis for the test upon entering the system is to establish the base line. Instead of assuming it as the current system does, many times to the detriment of the child, you determine it. The formalization (or lack thereof as the case may be) would appear within the curriculum, and that's a whole diffrent topic and thread altogether IMHO.

The large part of that "large series of test" is only because of the number of subjects any given school gives.

Ah, that system. It's nice, but it only works with smaller schools. It falls part once the student body reaches over 100 and requires a LOT of teachers.

Is that refering to me or Xeno?

Is that refering to me or Xeno?
KShaya Vale and you actually.

hmmm. going against the bush admin's idea of lowering te bar. . .

as long as you group around age groups, everything is better. set up a 5 level system in each age group, 1 being worst - 5 best. classes ranked and voila

public schools!

THE US SCHOOLS SUCK.:headbang:
EVERYTHING DON REVALVS AROUND SPORTS. GRADES LOWER AND BRAINS DROP. AND YOU NEED PAPERS TO GET A GOOD JOB. NO PAPERS NO JOB. AND ANOTHER THING ALL OUR BIG CORPARATIONS HAVE OTHER COUNTRYS WORKING FOR THEM GIVING US DOLLARS TO THEM. AND BILL GATES IS STORING THEM IN HIS POCKET. HE DOSENT NEED TO WORK ANYMORE HE OUNS THE WORLD( HEVIN AND HELL IF YOU BEALEV IN THEM). HE MAKES ME SO MADE I COULD JUST:sniper: OR:mp5: .

hmmm. going against the bush admin's idea of lowering te bar. . .

as long as you group around age groups, everything is better. set up a 5 level system in each age group, 1 being worst - 5 best. classes ranked and voila

public schools!

Naturally most of the students in any given Level would be clustered around a certain age. Most children learn at the same rate at least until you get into the pre-teen years and especially in the teen years where strengths and weeknesses become more pronounced. Again there are variations all up and down the board.

I just don't see the logic or reasoning in either holding a child back in all the other classes if he is doing poorly in a few or making her struggle if she did well in all but a few but got moved up to the next grade in the class she did poorly in.

KShaya Vale and you actually.

Ah, yeah. Well, I'd be putting get more teachers first on the list, smaller classes, could improve the system we have now. Montesorri's more of the ideal. I went to one for K-2, and I figure the amount I've learned in the past 7 years is about equal to what I learned those three years.

THE US SCHOOLS SUCK.:headbang:
EVERYTHING DON REVALVS AROUND SPORTS. GRADES LOWER AND BRAINS DROP. AND YOU NEED PAPERS TO GET A GOOD JOB. NO PAPERS NO JOB. AND ANOTHER THING ALL OUR BIG CORPARATIONS HAVE OTHER COUNTRYS WORKING FOR THEM GIVING US DOLLARS TO THEM. AND BILL GATES IS STORING THEM IN HIS POCKET. HE DOSENT NEED TO WORK ANYMORE HE OUNS THE WORLD( HEVIN AND HELL IF YOU BEALEV IN THEM). HE MAKES ME SO MADE I COULD JUST:sniper: OR:mp5: .


You were asked to either submit opinions on other people's ideas of the "ideal" school system or submit your idea of the "ideal" school system. This is irregardless of curriculum or country. Stick to the topic or find a rant thread to be in.

Ah, yeah. Well, I'd be putting get more teachers first on the list, smaller classes, could improve the system we have now. Montesorri's more of the ideal. I went to one for K-2, and I figure the amount I've learned in the past 7 years is about equal to what I learned those three years.
Oh, don't get me wrong, it's a beautiful system. When I studied it, I was always thinking about how much sense it makes. It's just when you look at the fact that the US has aprox 65 million school aged children, and Montesorri schools cannot acomodate more than 100, you start running into logicistical problems.

I read the thread where the Kiwi (lovingly said BTW) asked about the American school system re:the grade structure. Made me start thinking.

Setting the actual curriculum(sp?) aside, what would you consider the ideal school system?

For me I'd have each student entering into the system take a large series of tests to determine their knowledge and aptitude in various areas. They would then be placed in classes based on that knowledge. They could move up to the next level in any given subject when they passed the previous level. Failure to pass one subject would not prevent promotion in another subject.

Examples: Little Joe, age 6, tests exceptionally well in Grammer and Math, but does poorly in Science and Social Studies. Little Suzie, also 6, does excellant in Science and Math but bombs Grammer. Both might start in Level 3 Math with Joe taking Level 2 Grammer and Level 1 Science and Social Studies. Suzie is in Level 1 Grammer. At the end of the school year (or the term. Haven't decided whether to make school year round or not or what length of weeks to make the lesson periods yet) Joe passes all his classes and moves up one level in each except Math which he did well enough to jump up two levels (he takes a test in the skipped level to ensure he understand the lessons from Level 4 which he would need in Level 5.) Suzie also passes all her classes (moving up 1 level each) except Grammer. She'll have to repeat Grammer Level 1.

I see this system as having many advantages. There is more socialization across greater age ranges, aiding children in dealing with others outside their peer group (or expands their peer group depending on how you look at it). Yes there would be some bullying and intimidation from older students, but you have that now anyway and even within the same age groups so nothing's changed there. This system also allows the child to advance as rapidly as they are capable of in the subjects they are strong in and to repeat the subjects they need reenforcement in. Naturally if a given child has to repeat a Level more than 4 or 5 times then special help would be warrented, but that is most likely the exception to the rule, not the rule itself.

Thoughts and opinions? What would your system be like?

How would you delineate the subjects? Any given category you could create has many different genres, and there is no objective way to rank them. Also, some things (such as math and physics) are tied together. Personally, I would advise a system whereby there is a large variety of classes, each one listing prerequisites, that students can choose from. This means that in order to get the smart, productive students teachers will have to design attractive, interesting focuses for their curriculum. We had that at my old middle school before I left and the whole place went to hell.

Ah, yeah. Well, I'd be putting get more teachers first on the list, smaller classes, could improve the system we have now. Montesorri's more of the ideal. I went to one for K-2, and I figure the amount I've learned in the past 7 years is about equal to what I learned those three years.

How about explaining Montesorri to those un exposed of us?

I read the thread where the Kiwi (lovingly said BTW) asked about the American school system re:the grade structure. Made me start thinking.

Setting the actual curriculum(sp?) aside, what would you consider the ideal school system?

For me I'd have each student entering into the system take a large series of tests to determine their knowledge and aptitude in various areas. They would then be placed in classes based on that knowledge. They could move up to the next level in any given subject when they passed the previous level. Failure to pass one subject would not prevent promotion in another subject.

Thoughts and opinions? What would your system be like?

An excellent topic, one I myself have recently been pondering, and even want to do some research on to send to my state senator for consideration. While your focusing on more educational structure, I feel focusing on the financial structure of the school systems are actually more productive. Most problems with current systems is the exposure to fluxuations in funding , overpopulated classes and unequal distribution of tax dollars. I have found atleast in my own state the core of this problem is the almost criminal districting structure we use, where richer districts focus their dollars to the schools in their area disproportionatly overfuding these schools while others in poorer districts suffer more.

The Districting system should be thrown out in its entirety. The cost of education for each child should be assesed (which i belive it already has been .. something like 5000 per student per year, though im unsure). Each student should then be allocated this cost of education, and take it with them as they change institutions. The largest benifit to this system is that as schools begin to receive more students (which might overpopulate the class rooms) they equally receive the funding for those students education proportionatly. Meanwhile smaller schools receive funding proportionate to the number of students using their facilities. As well this removes the need for passing school budgets (which almost always fail in my state) another key fault of the current system. Of course an even better amendment to this plan would be to federalize the eduacational system. Setting federal standards not only in ciriculum but in funding asures our students are all learning on the same level (rich or poor) and no student reguardless of the state they come from are at any disadvantage. States are often seen to have serious fuding gaps, and education almost always is the first to suffer the consequences.

How about explaining Montesorri to those un exposed of us?
http://digital.library.upenn.edu/women/montessori/method/method.html

I don't know I kinda like the OP's idea. My 4 year old is on a 2nd grade level in reading a 1st grade level in Math, a 3rd grade level in science, and a 4th grade level in History/Geography, but if I were to put her in school, she would get put in the Preschool class, based on her age. It's all about social promotion any more, they want to keep you with kids the same age, I know some people who homeschool also(although not as well as I do) and thier daughter is 16, she started highschool this year, although she tested across the board at about an 8th grade level they went ahead an put her in 11th grade (so she wouldn't "feel bad") she is completely lost, the teacher has to back up to help her and the rest of the class is suffering for it, believe me she feels anything but "good" about it.

How would you delineate the subjects? Any given category you could create has many different genres, and there is no objective way to rank them. Also, some things (such as math and physics) are tied together. Personally, I would advise a system whereby there is a large variety of classes, each one listing prerequisites, that students can choose from. This means that in order to get the smart, productive students teachers will have to design attractive, interesting focuses for their curriculum. We had that at my old middle school before I left and the whole place went to hell.

Much as we deliniate classes and subjects now, at least as I understand it within the US system. Obiviously you have to start with basics. You can't do higher sciences without a certain level of math, but you can still learn general science. You also don't need math to learn about physics in general unless you're doing applied physics. Curriculum will determine what classes are placed at what levels and what is a prereqresite of what. I'm just talking basic framework here.

How about explaining Montesorri to those un exposed of us?

NEVRUN posted the link already, but let me just say those were the best years of my life.

Much as we deliniate classes and subjects now, at least as I understand it within the US system. Obiviously you have to start with basics. You can't do higher sciences without a certain level of math, but you can still learn general science. You also don't need math to learn about physics in general unless you're doing applied physics. Curriculum will determine what classes are placed at what levels and what is a prereqresite of what. I'm just talking basic framework here.

So how would you rank, for example, chemistry vs. physics vs. biology? American History vs. Ancient History vs. World History? Plus, any classes under that sort of system would must needs be intensely generic. In order for kids to learn about anything interesting you have to have some amount of electives. You can still put requirements as to needed core classes, but most classes should be elective. This system resulted in me going to what was probably one of the only schools in the country with a Hobbit class.

I like the idea of the redistibution of the monies to the schools. The proposed voucher system would work excellantly in this case, especially with the part of the monies follow the child. Obiviously, the more students a school has the more money it needs. One hopes that logically that a school would have more students because it does better at educating them.

Of course an even better amendment to this plan would be to federalize the eduacational system. Setting federal standards not only in ciriculum but in funding asures our students are all learning on the same level (rich or poor) and no student reguardless of the state they come from are at any disadvantage. States are often seen to have serious fuding gaps, and education almost always is the first to suffer the consequences.

Oh gods no! Look at what federalizing the airline security got us. The more you try to set a single standard across such a large area as the US the worse the buracercy gets.

All I know is, we get about $6,000-$9,000 each. Prisoners get 35K. I think there's a problem....

pay us emergency (read absolutely unqualified by suicidally willing to entire the fray) substitutes more... a bring back corporal punishment, preferably flogging.

So how would you rank, for example, chemistry vs. physics vs. biology? American History vs. Ancient History vs. World History? Plus, any classes under that sort of system would must needs be intensely generic. In order for kids to learn about anything interesting you have to have some amount of electives. You can still put requirements as to needed core classes, but most classes should be elective. This system resulted in me going to what was probably one of the only schools in the country with a Hobbit class.

Easy, much like they are now. Early levels would be just the basic sciences you would get in elementry school. After you hit a certain level, say 6 just for the sake of arguement, then the classes would diverge. You would have a chemistry class, a biology class, and a physics class all at Level 7. Then you would have to pass those in order to go to higher levels of the same subject.

Easy, much like they are now. Early levels would be just the basic sciences you would get in elementry school. After you hit a certain level, say 6 just for the sake of arguement, then the classes would diverge. You would have a chemistry class, a biology class, and a physics class all at Level 7. Then you would have to pass those in order to go to higher levels of the same subject.

Hmm...it still seems to me that dividing things up into levels like that would be more complex than easily approachable. Furthermore, a series of "standard" classes would fail to get the interests of students. Also, how do you propose to do things normally considered electives, like drama and art?

Hmm...it still seems to me that dividing things up into levels like that would be more complex than easily approachable. Furthermore, a series of "standard" classes would fail to get the interests of students. Also, how do you propose to do things normally considered electives, like drama and art?
we could just unschool everyone, it seems to be working out great for my girls, although I have a feeling it wouldn't work out at all with those kids that need a lot of structure.......nevermind.....


how about the Waldorf method? (http://www.steiner-australia.org/other/Wald_faq.html)

Hmm...it still seems to me that dividing things up into levels like that would be more complex than easily approachable. Furthermore, a series of "standard" classes would fail to get the interests of students. Also, how do you propose to do things normally considered electives, like drama and art?


Look at it this way. All I have really done was take away all the classes being grouped into grade levels. Basically Level 1 is Kindergarden, Level 2 1st grade, etc. Let's look at Smunkee:

My 4 year old is on a 2nd grade level in reading a 1st grade level in Math, a 3rd grade level in science, and a 4th grade level in History/Geography, but if I were to put her in school, she would get put in the Preschool class, based on her age.

OK now in my system this girl would be in a Level 3 Reading/Grammer class (depending on how the local system is defining the class of Reading or Grammer), a Level 2 Math class, a Level 4 Social Studies class (Social studies was where they put things like history and geography in my day. Class titles may vary). She attends each class based on her ability instead of her age. The same progression is there but the student determines how fast they rise in each subject instead of being held at a singular pace.

A lot of kids do poorly in school not because they can't learn, but because they're held back at an artificial pace and simply don't bother because it's too easy.

http://digital.library.upenn.edu/women/montessori/method/method.html

Good bloody gods! While interesting reading (which I am sure to enjoy over time) ....maybe a synopsis?

Look at it this way. All I have really done was take away all the classes being grouped into grade levels. Basically Level 1 is Kindergarden, Level 2 1st grade, etc. Let's look at Smunkee:



OK now in my system this girl would be in a Level 3 Reading/Grammer class (depending on how the local system is defining the class of Reading or Grammer), a Level 2 Math class, a Level 4 Social Studies class (Social studies was where they put things like history and geography in my day. Class titles may vary). She attends each class based on her ability instead of her age. The same progression is there but the student determines how fast they rise in each subject instead of being held at a singular pace.

A lot of kids do poorly in school not because they can't learn, but because they're held back at an artificial pace and simply don't bother because it's too easy.

I'm not sure that a kid's capability is the best place to put them either, though. An element of choice goes a long way. A subject could be far too difficult or far too easy for someone, but that doesn't mean it isn't the right class. Interest is key.

Also, you never explained how you're dealing with elective-style stuff. Would they have their own progressions? If so, would someone have to test into them?

As to Smunkeeville's homeschool suggestion: problem is that even less people would become teachers if there wasn't an organized method for paying them, so kids with parents less involved in their children's education than you would be left in the cold.

Good bloody gods! While interesting reading (which I am sure to enjoy over time) ....maybe a synopsis?

From what I remember. Lot's of freedom, learn each subject at your own pace, 1-3 students given attention at a time, maybe larger groups for certain projects. I was learning long division there...

we could just unschool everyone, it seems to be working out great for my girls, although I have a feeling it wouldn't work out at all with those kids that need a lot of structure.......nevermind.....


how about the Waldorf method? (http://www.steiner-australia.org/other/Wald_faq.html)
I had to learn how to play the guitar in my elementary school. It SUCKED. After about a month I started cutting my fingernails on the day that I had music so they had some time to grow back before the next lesson. My school also did two or three musicals each year were the entire intermediate (Grades 4-7) body had to participate in. I spent most of the time talking to my friends. I only really learned how to talk while lipsyncing. Also, reading seems to be introduced quite late. I was taught to read before I even entered school. I like the importance it puts on foreign languages though.

Also, I grew up on TV and computer games. Don't mess with them.

I'm not sure that a kid's capability is the best place to put them either, though. An element of choice goes a long way. A subject could be far too difficult or far too easy for someone, but that doesn't mean it isn't the right class. Interest is key.

I'm not sure if you're delibertly missing the point here or if I am just so pitiful on my explinations. Someone else?

The choice is still there, you're just not holding back a child based only on what the average child of their age is doing. Obiviously you can take the type of physicas they teach in high school unless you have the basis they teach in elementry school first. You can't take calculus until you learn addition and subtraction. The only diffrences with my system is that if you learn your basic math faster than anyone else in your age group then you can take calculus sooner than they will. If I can get through the basic science classes, which not only give a base grounding in all the sciences but a taste of ech, faster than you do then I get to choose whether to concentrate more on Physics, Biology, or what ever before you do.

Also, you never explained how you're dealing with elective-style stuff. Would they have their own progressions? If so, would someone have to test into them?

same way. Yes you test into them. If you show that you have no skill or learning in say a musical instrument, then you would start out in the class that teaches the basics. If you showed that you could read music and had a base skill then you would start in a higher level class. Actually most electives (once you get to a grade that allows electives. 7th grade when I went to school) pretty much run like this save for the testing. I didn't take any music classes until 12th grade. I was in a room full of mostly 9th graders and a few 10th graders. But it was the basic music class. Had I want to take music classes before I could have been doing more advance studies.

When I think of it a lot of high school is like this save for the core classes. I just want to expand that all the way down the line.


As to Smunkeeville's homeschool suggestion: problem is that even less people would become teachers if there wasn't an organized method for paying them, so kids with parents less involved in their children's education than you would be left in the cold.

I was using the skills of Sumkee's little girl as an example of how a child would be placed in the various classes. Homeschooling is great for some and not at all for others.

I'm not sure if you're delibertly missing the point here or if I am just so pitiful on my explinations. Someone else?

The choice is still there, you're just not holding back a child based only on what the average child of their age is doing. Obiviously you can take the type of physicas they teach in high school unless you have the basis they teach in elementry school first. You can't take calculus until you learn addition and subtraction. The only diffrences with my system is that if you learn your basic math faster than anyone else in your age group then you can take calculus sooner than they will. If I can get through the basic science classes, which not only give a base grounding in all the sciences but a taste of ech, faster than you do then I get to choose whether to concentrate more on Physics, Biology, or what ever before you do.

same way. Yes you test into them. If you show that you have no skill or learning in say a musical instrument, then you would start out in the class that teaches the basics. If you showed that you could read music and had a base skill then you would start in a higher level class. Actually most electives (once you get to a grade that allows electives. 7th grade when I went to school) pretty much run like this save for the testing. I didn't take any music classes until 12th grade. I was in a room full of mostly 9th graders and a few 10th graders. But it was the basic music class. Had I want to take music classes before I could have been doing more advance studies.

When I think of it a lot of high school is like this save for the core classes. I just want to expand that all the way down the line.

Sorry for taking your ideas further than you intended them. You're right, your system is mostly just the basic one with options for advancement. It's a good system, but I think it would work better organized by prerequisites than by levels. That would allow for a more complex tree of classes and a greater variety of subject matter. Each class would be developed on its own, but would list any classes necessary to take beforehand.


I was using the skills of Sumkee's little girl as an example of how a child would be placed in the various classes. Homeschooling is great for some and not at all for others.

I know, I was responding to Smunkee's post earlier in the thread.

Sorry for taking your ideas further than you intended them. You're right, your system is mostly just the basic one with options for advancement. It's a good system, but I think it would work better organized by prerequisites than by levels. That would allow for a more complex tree of classes and a greater variety of subject matter. Each class would be developed on its own, but would list any classes necessary to take beforehand.

But it does have prerequisites. You can't take Level 5 without having the knowledge of Level 4. You can't take Physics 1 with out having Science Level 6 (using my example from earlier). You can't take Physics 2 with out having Physics 1. You CAN take the class Physics 2 without actually taking the Physics 2 class or any of the Sciences 1-6 IF you can show you have the knowledge (hence the testing).

The system can be as complex as you want it to be. You're still thinking in terms of the curriculum (yes I know I've been spelling it wrong all night, I've just been doing 12 otehr thing as well as holding this wonderful debate so I've not bothered to look it up.). I'm only suggesting the framework: A baseline of classes in various and other subjects bulit up on previous one; class lines can branch off at various place and lines not previously taken can be taken if the interest in the first line dwindles; passing or failing in one class does not affect advancing or staying in any other class.




I know, I was responding to Smunkee's post earlier in the thread.

Maybe show her quote seperately as to make it clear to others. That's how I typically show who I'm refering to when making multiple responses in one posts.

But it does have prerequisites. You can't take Level 5 without having the knowledge of Level 4. You can't take Physics 1 with out having Science Level 6 (using my example from earlier). You can't take Physics 2 with out having Physics 1. You CAN take the class Physics 2 without actually taking the Physics 2 class or any of the Sciences 1-6 IF you can show you have the knowledge (hence the testing).

The system can be as complex as you want it to be. You're still thinking in terms of the curriculum (yes I know I've been spelling it wrong all night, I've just been doing 12 otehr thing as well as holding this wonderful debate so I've not bothered to look it up.). I'm only suggesting the framework: A baseline of classes in various and other subjects bulit up on previous one; class lines can branch off at various place and lines not previously taken can be taken if the interest in the first line dwindles; passing or failing in one class does not affect advancing or staying in any other class.




Maybe show her quote seperately as to make it clear to others. That's how I typically show who I'm refering to when making multiple responses in one posts.

I know it has prerequisites, but I mean instead of levels, not with them. A prerequisite system would do the same things as your level system but would allow for a range of very different classes on what would otherwise be the same level, as they could differentiate by more specialized prerequisites. Try comparing the Dungeons and Dragons feat system to their level system to see what I mean.

And sorry about not putting a separate quote, even after however long I've been on here I'm still not completely used to some of the mechanics yet.

Good bloody gods! While interesting reading (which I am sure to enjoy over time) ....maybe a synopsis?
Fine, BE that way. :p

The MM is, ina nut shell, structured play. The MM states that all children are individual, all learn different skills at different times, and that the best way to education a child is to let that child explore the world around them. A MM chool would, for example, approach geometry by letting students play with basic shapes. Students are not really tested in MM, but are allowed to proceed at their own pace and with their own interest. MM schools are know for, as an example, growing garderns on school grounds to teach lessons in biology. However, it is always student directed (teachers may advise and suggest, but never order).

MM makes a wonderful school for elementary classes, but yes, it does tend to fall part in the secondary level and, as I noted, it takes a LOT of teachers and cannot handle a student body of over a 100 (for the school, MM schools are very community schools).

I LIKE the ideas, even though at the levels I teach it is hard to impliment them (going from concrete to abstract), but it's when I look at 65 million kids and...

Here's a better summary: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Montessori

Perfect school system would be with reduced class sizes, 15 max.
Bring people in from the industries to assist in teaching, someone that actually uses a subject in the day to day work place is going to be a lot more stimulating than someone quoting textbooks.
And zero tolerance to any form of bullying, name and shame them!!!

Apprenticeship: Starting at age 12 a teacher takes in three to six students, who are taught by the teacher from September December and January to May. The students are expected to behave as one of the family and to do tasks around the house as instructed by the teacher. In exchange, the teacher imparts his or her knowledge on the pupil. No timelines are to be kept to, excepting for those pertaining to times that the student is with his or her own family. The student is, therefore, a 'graduate' only if and when the teacher deems them worthy of moving on and only fail to graduate when the teacher believes that there is nothing within the teacher's power to get the student to graduate.

Obiviously, the more students a school has the more money it needs.

but not in anything like a directly proportional way. a significant bulk of the cost remains if a school has even one student - they have to have the building and maintain it, it has to have water and electricity and heating, etc.

but not in anything like a directly proportional way. a significant bulk of the cost remains if a school has even one student - they have to have the building and maintain it, it has to have water and electricity and heating, etc.

REally ? I would imagine the bulk of school costs come from teachers saleries, administrative costs, transport for students, supplies, and programs (after school and otherwise). Basic Utilities and maintence I suspect dont constitute a majority of the instutions budget. However, My plan could be revised to set a base funding for each school to cover the most basic utilities, then supplimented by funds for each student as they so attend (the more students the more funding).

I've wondered for a long time why we still use an assembly line formula for schools instead of utilizing modern technology. It would seem so simple to put everything on computers. When a child learns a concept that child moves on to the next concept. When the concepts of a certain grade are learned the child moves on. If they aren't learned the child stays until he learns them.

This would be totally individualized. A 7 year old could be in the 10th grade in math but the first grade in English. It would just depend how fast he could progress in each subject. When all of the concepts were learned he would graduate. Wouldn't matter how old he was at the time, or how far along any other student were.

This wouldn't eliminate teachers, just mass lectures. When the student gets stuck, he asks the teacher for help. He would have available a math teacher that could explain anything from 1+1 to advanced calculas. He would have an English instructor that could answer from Dick and Jane to Dickens. The teacher would help get over the humps and concentrate on those students in his subject area that were lagging behind. Individual training to fit each student.

I've wondered for a long time why we still use an assembly line formula for schools instead of utilizing modern technology. It would seem so simple to put everything on computers. When a child learns a concept that child moves on to the next concept. When the concepts of a certain grade are learned the child moves on. If they aren't learned the child stays until he learns them.
The problem is that children do not do as well on compleately IT based learning. There is something to be said about a traditional class, with the give and take of classroom life that a computer cannot mimick, at least not yet.

IT makes great classroom tools, but right now it cannot replace the classroom, and physical interaction between students and students, and students and teachers.

Apprenticeship: Starting at age 12 a teacher takes in three to six students, who are taught by the teacher from September December and January to May. The students are expected to behave as one of the family and to do tasks around the house as instructed by the teacher. In exchange, the teacher imparts his or her knowledge on the pupil. No timelines are to be kept to, excepting for those pertaining to times that the student is with his or her own family. The student is, therefore, a 'graduate' only if and when the teacher deems them worthy of moving on and only fail to graduate when the teacher believes that there is nothing within the teacher's power to get the student to graduate.


Sounds more like Fostering than Apprenticeship.

Abolish public schools. After all, one does not need public schools to learn, there are alternatives.

Apprenticeship: Starting at age 12 a teacher takes in three to six students, who are taught by the teacher from September December and January to May. The students are expected to behave as one of the family and to do tasks around the house as instructed by the teacher. In exchange, the teacher imparts his or her knowledge on the pupil. No timelines are to be kept to, excepting for those pertaining to times that the student is with his or her own family. The student is, therefore, a 'graduate' only if and when the teacher deems them worthy of moving on and only fail to graduate when the teacher believes that there is nothing within the teacher's power to get the student to graduate.
Um... and how do you expect teachers to know enough to cover all subjects needed? Well, to the depth that is needed. I mean, I teach English. I probably know more biology and geology than other English teachers, but I am in no way comfortable in teaching those subjects.

Actually, I've read a lot of research on schools and the biggest factor seems to be the size of the school. The smaller the school the better. But the plce were quality and conomics cross is about 200 students in the high school. That is large enough to provide for all the extras but yet small enough where a student won't get lost.

School size seems to trump income, geopraphy, budget, and everything else. The research is so strong that some districts are actuall splitting big buildings into more than one school. One floor will be one school and another floor will be a totally different district. Sounds inefficient economically with two sets of administers, but the increase in quality justifies the extra cost.

Frankly, I think that educational systems should just be very broad, and that the specifics of classes should tailor to different types of students. For one, do away with standardized testing. It's stupid. It doesn't work. There are brilliant students who do HORRIBLY on standardized tests. You can't fit every person into a standardized group, ESPECIALLY when you get into, and beyond middle school (11-18 years old). A full beurocratic system doesn't work for everyone.

As an example, first look at my sister's students. My oldest sister is 22 years old, and teaching basic sciences to children with learning disabilities, as well as behavior disorders, in middle school. Her students range from age 11 to, her oldest, age 17. Her students require structure. They work best when they are following a certain schedule and have a clear-cut way to organize. Then, look at me. I am 15 and a sophomore and I can't organize to save my life. But I don't mind that. If I can just put things in one place where I know they are, rather than all over in different standard sections, I do better.

Then, there is the issue of class size and teacher ratio. I am in a class of 230-240 people (roughly). Each of my major subject area classes have, to one teacher in each, 25 or more students. Take my English class. 28 students, one teacher, who just started last week (The original teacher left on maternity leave, and actually just had her child last night we were told). Although even before, our original teacher had no control over the class because there are just too many people to be able to control those who make learning hard for others.

Speaking of that class, it is too easy for me. However, because last year I didn't get a complete A in that class (Ended off with a B), I couldn't move into the Honors level. My B in that class was caused by my unmedicated ADD (I was diagnosed through actual tests and am medicated now). My lack of focus made it difficult for me to get work done, and the amount of work that didn't get done added up to my grade dropping. Won't happen again.

In retrospect, I realize this post is very long, and probably very unclear, so I appoligize.