NationStates Jolt Archive

We all know the fact that most of our public schools(K-12) here are either total crap, or badly underfunded and staffed by underpaid teachers. Our universities, while some of the best performing in the world are also some of the most expensive to attend. How would reform the current system?

We all know the fact that most of our public schools(K-12) here are either total crap, or badly underfunded and staffed by underpaid teachers. Our universities, while some of the best performing in the world are also some of the most expensive to attend. How would reform the current system?
Are they?


God I love CW.

Reseach shows that the smaller the school the better the students learn. Over the last 70 years schools have been consolidated for "effeciency". That has saved money but destroyed productivity if productivity can be measured in learning. Current research says that the place where money saving meets learning is about 200 students in the HS. Big enough to offer services yet small enough so students don't get lost.

In order to reach this, some schools are actually splitting their huge buildings into separate schools. One floor will be a separate school than the next floor. Separate school boards and administration.

The quickest and most effective way to improve a school is to reduce class size. No teacher should have to deal with more than a dozen students at any given time, especially in courses that require personal attention--writing, mathematics, science labs, music, etc. But to make that happen would require about triple the current number of teachers, not to mention classrooms.

If I could snap my fingers and make it happen, here's what I'd do--offer any person willing to spend two years teaching in a public school a free ride to any public university they can get into. You get your degree, you pay for it in teaching service, fo rwhich you're are paid the same salary as anyone else going into the profession. If, once you finish your degree, you get a job offer too good to pass up, simply pay back what you would have spent in tuition, etc., and you're free to go. Of those people who take the deal, some are going to like the work or the security and stay. Many will move on to something else, but there will always be a fresh crop to take their place, and in the meantime, they'll all have learned just how tough the job is, and they'll be more willing to ante up when it's time to vote on taxes for schools. They'll also be better informed on how to make the situation better, and how better to use those resources.

Separation of Church and State? Actually, um, enforcing it? That'd be cool.

The quickest and most effective way to improve a school is to reduce class size.

I don't think so. In many Eastern European countries, 45 kids per class is a common occurrence, but the schools still tend to be much more efficient and better at teaching kids than US schools with fewer children/class. And hey even have a lower budget. What you need to do is re-introduce corporeal punishment, give them much more homework, and fail them more readily. We'll see who's laughing then. :)

1) Reduce class size

2) Hire teachers who actually know what they're teaching. We might need to provide better salaries in order to get competent people to take the job.

3) Textbooks should be chosen by a nationwide board of professional educators, not individually state by state. Rural states have way too much influence over which textbooks are used nationwide because the publishers will edit their books in order to make them acceptable to Fundies in those states rather than missing out on those markets.

4) Tie participation in school sports teams to performance in academic subjects.

5) Hold students who perform poorly back. It might even be worthwhile to delay by one year the age at which they can get a driver's license for every year that they're held back.

6) Make parents responsible. Give tax penalties to parents who's kids perform poorly, tax credits to students who perform well.

7) Allocate more money for underfunded schools. In New Jersey and elsewhere public schools are funded mainly through property taxes. Schools in rich neighborhoods reap a bumper harvest of cash through such a system, schools in the ghetto remain chronically underfunded.

I don't think so. In many Eastern European countries, 45 kids per class is a common occurrence, but the schools still tend to be much more efficient and better at teaching kids than US schools with fewer children/class. And hey even have a lower budget. What you need to do is re-introduce corporeal punishment, give them much more homework, and fail them more readily. We'll see who's laughing then. :)
I have 24 students to a class in 4 classes and I only meet them twice a week, and the only reason that works is because they're college students. There is no way to teach a subject like composition effectively to a 5 classes of 30 meeting everyday--it doesn't work, if for no other reason that the teacher can't possibly read and react to all that work on a regular basis. Spend a week in a classroom as a helper and see if you're still so certain of yourself.

Scrap the Department of Education, put Education back in the hands of the states alone, and ban all new teachers from unionizing in return for better pay.

What you need to do is re-introduce corporeal punishment, give them much more homework, and fail them more readily. We'll see who's laughing then. :)
I have to agree. So many idiots I remember from school (UK), would have been whipped back into line with just a couple of institutional beatings. Instead Europe fails the kids and sends them out of the school gates into a life of poverty and petty crime, while the US does the same, while also giving them powerful mood-altering drugs.

There has got to be a better way. I'm not saying go as far as allowing teachers to hit kids, but forcibly dragging them out of the classroom into the behavioural modification unit, hell yeah.

There has got to be a better way. I'm not saying go as far as allowing teachers to hit kids, but forcibly dragging them out of the classroom into the behavioural modification unit, hell yeah.
Dammit Jim, I'm a teacher, not a bouncer. ;)

That and with some kids, a beating isn't going to get them back in line. They get enough beatings at home after all. :(

Scrap the Department of Education, put Education back in the hands of the states alone, and ban all new teachers from unionizing in return for better pay.
Education still is in the hands of the states for the most part. The DoEd has very, very little control over education and almost no say in states curriculum, let alone individual boards and schools.

Dammit Jim, I'm a teacher, not a bouncer. ;)

That and with some kids, a beating isn't going to get them back in line. They get enough beatings at home after all. :(
Then separate out the ones who make learning hard for the rest. Put them in "special" schools where they will get taught a trade.

lol. my high school has well over 1,000 students (maybe 2000) who-knows how many classes, usually 25-35 students per class, and one teacher per class. oh yeah, and around 5 class clowns per room.

More bloody money.

I can't tell you how lousy school can get when suddenly there's a brick wall due to costs and underfunding.

Then again, this is California so...

Stop trying to teach the kids how to do standardised testing and actually teach them something instead. In fact get rid of Standardised testing all together.

"No child left behind" can go.
Those who can't learn reading or the other stuff, should be taught life skills and such. (Hey they could be a cleaning person or something, better that than a bum still trying to learn to read)

lol. my high school has well over 1,000 students (maybe 2000) who-knows how many classes, usually 25-35 students per class, and one teacher per class. oh yeah, and around 5 class clowns per room.
Which is why the most important thing to do is reduce class size--it's impossible to ride herd on 25-35 well-behaved kids, and no group of 25-35 kids is ever well-behaved.

make teaching a competitive job. that will get better teachers.

somehow get americans to value their education again.

get rid of high stakes testing

cut classroom sizes to maybe 20

stop listening to politicians and "education experts" and listen to the teachers and students

fund the schools in low SES areas. These are the kids most likely to fail, and also the most underfunded schools.



also, not all areas of the country have low performing schools. New England performs along with the top school systems in the world in many cases. Also, our universities are expensive because a) they are research universities (tuition goes to funding new research) and b) they are by and large private.

lol. my high school has well over 1,000 students (maybe 2000) who-knows how many classes, usually 25-35 students per class, and one teacher per class. oh yeah, and around 5 class clowns per room.
Har, try and beat 4,200 kids.

Scrap the Department of Education, put Education back in the hands of the states alone, and ban all new teachers from unionizing in return for better pay.
Brilliant idea, make it so they can't strike for better pay and thereby decrease their pay over time to attract better teachers!

Har, try and beat 4,200 kids.
Try and beat 3 schools built into one (two highschools, one middle school, roughly 3000 kids), that was only ment to hold about 1000. We have classrooms in converted bathrooms ffs.

We manage though. Can't have some electives that we'd like to have because of cost, like greek.

I have 24 students to a class in 4 classes and I only meet them twice a week, and the only reason that works is because they're college students. There is no way to teach a subject like composition effectively to a 5 classes of 30 meeting everyday--it doesn't work, if for no other reason that the teacher can't possibly read and react to all that work on a regular basis. Spend a week in a classroom as a helper and see if you're still so certain of yourself.

Just for the record, I do believe that lower class sizes are more effective than higher class sizes, but I think it is simply masking the underlying problem. Some possible solutions from my point of view are (in order of importance):


Pay teachers more. Many people who would otherwise become teachers decide on a more high-paying job, leaving less-qualified people to become teachers.
Eliminate standardized testing (US). All you do with that is create an vast amount of mindless drones who know only what's on the test and nothing more, and teachers who try to teach their students more than is required in the curriculum often pay the price because their students do worse on the tests.
Re-introduce corporeal punishment. No, it's not always going to work, but at least it will stop people from speaking out in class if they know they're going to get whipped.
Reduce class size. Obviously, you are giving the teacher more room to work with a student.
Give students some incentives to get good grades, like money. Who wouldn't pay attention if you got $20 for every A you got? It's better than some of the ways tax money is used.

Separation of Church and State? Actually, um, enforcing it? That'd be cool.

OMFG Yeah! But schools need better funding, Teachers need to be payed more, DEFINATELY SEPERATION OF CHURCH AND STATE ENFORCEMENT, and get rid of the useless standerdized testing...all my teachers worry about those stupid tests and don't actually teach me. Oh and better math and science programs!:p

Stop trying to teach the kids how to do standardised testing and actually teach them something instead. In fact get rid of Standardised testing all together.

"No child left behind" can go.
Those who can't learn reading or the other stuff, should be taught life skills and such. (Hey they could be a cleaning person or something, better that than a bum still trying to learn to read)
I agree, but with one small change. Don't get rid of all standardized testing, just don't tie the performance on these tests to funding (cutting funding to an underperforming school is self-perpetuation)

The standardized test provides districts a comparitive way to see how well their students are learning material as compared to school districts around them. Thats a good thing, provides a guage to see what needs to be done better. NCLB should die tho.

Stop trying to teach the kids how to do standardised testing and actually teach them something instead. In fact get rid of Standardised testing all together.

"No child left behind" can go.
Those who can't learn reading or the other stuff, should be taught life skills and such. (Hey they could be a cleaning person or something, better that than a bum still trying to learn to read)

oh and get rid of those ESL classes or start teaching me spanish in 1st grade....wait that was YEARS ago

If I could snap my fingers and make it happen, here's what I'd do--offer any person willing to spend two years teaching in a public school a free ride to any public university they can get into. You get your degree, you pay for it in teaching service, fo rwhich you're are paid the same salary as anyone else going into the profession. If, once you finish your degree, you get a job offer too good to pass up, simply pay back what you would have spent in tuition, etc., and you're free to go.
This was done in the late '60's and early 70's. You had the option of teaching, military or paying off the loans.

There is one part of the school system that is already in the process of being reformed: school counseling. Remember your old school counselor? All mine did was eat and sometimes mess up my schedule. Now the school counseling profession is being dramatically revamped, beginning with changes in the definition of what they do back in 2001. Now school counselors at every level of schooling are responsible for instituting schoolwide systemic change, and they have to actually be accountable for what works and what doesn't. There is required to be extensive involvement of the school community (teachers, admin, parents, school board, etc) in the programs implemented. These programs must address a certain of an outlined set of criterion in the academic, career, and personal/social realm for what students are supposed to know by the time they leave the grade level, the school, and the school system based on the needs of the school. It's really great, and as more school counselors are trained in this system, more schools will have the benefit of integrated programs like this. It won't be much longer.

OMFG Yeah! But schools need better funding, Teachers need to be payed more, DEFINATELY SEPERATION OF CHURCH AND STATE ENFORCEMENT, and get rid of the useless standerdized testing...all my teachers worry about those stupid tests and don't actually teach me. Oh and better math and science programs!:p


Definately agree. While we are at it scrap the broken Biligual program (total imersion works much better, ever been to a forgien country where you didn't speak the language).

There is one part of the school system that is already in the process of being reformed: school counseling. Remember your old school counselor? All mine did was eat and sometimes mess up my schedule. Now the school counseling profession is being dramatically revamped, beginning with changes in the definition of what they do back in 2001. Now school counselors at every level of schooling are responsible for instituting schoolwide systemic change, and they have to actually be accountable for what works and what doesn't. There is required to be extensive involvement of the school community (teachers, admin, parents, school board, etc) in the programs implemented. These programs must address a certain of an outlined set of criterion in the academic, career, and personal/social realm for what students are supposed to know by the time they leave the grade level, the school, and the school system based on the needs of the school. It's really great, and as more school counselors are trained in this system, more schools will have the benefit of integrated programs like this. It won't be much longer.

Actually I'm quite content w/ my counselor... She got me into P/AP then GT classes

This was done in the late '60's and early 70's. You had the option of teaching, military or paying off the loans.
Huh. I didn't know that, but I was in elementary school starting in 1974, so I wonder if that's the reason my class sizes were relatively low until I got into the 5th or 6th grade.

Definately agree. While we are at it scrap the broken Biligual program (total imersion works much better, ever been to w forgien country where you didn't speak the language).

HEY so was I but American school but the city made me learn to speak german...but now mine sux. OMG I got one more language classes...all I can learn is Spanish and French...and Latin

I agree, but with one small change. Don't get rid of all standardized testing, just don't tie the performance on these tests to funding (cutting funding to an underperforming school is self-perpetuation)

The standardized test provides districts a comparitive way to see how well their students are learning material as compared to school districts around them. Thats a good thing, provides a guage to see what needs to be done better. NCLB should die tho.
Yeah, standardized testing has gotten a bad rap lately because of how it's being used, but the tests aren't so much the problem as the fact that teachers are now being forced to teach to the test. My daughter is a sophomore, and is a better writer than some of my college students, but she has to dumb it down for her state evaluation tests, because any variation from the approved rubric is penalized. It drives me nuts, because I have to break my students of all the bad habits they picked up in high school.

Yeah, standardized testing has gotten a bad rap lately because of how it's being used, but the tests aren't so much the problem as the fact that teachers are now being forced to teach to the test. My daughter is a sophomore, and is a better writer than some of my college students, but she has to dumb it down for her state evaluation tests, because any variation from the approved rubric is penalized. It drives me nuts, because I have to break my students of all the bad habits they picked up in high school.
sadly, having to fit a rubric isn't limited to high school level. I am coming up to my BULE (BU literacy exam) in order to be formally admitted into the school of education. the rate of failure is somewhere around 50% for English majors, higher for the other majors. This is because the test is looking for inanely specific things, rather than looking for the ability to form a coherant and strong argument.

With any luck, I will remember what my profs are teaching me now, and won't pass on so many of these bad habits of high school writing.

I also don't think writing should be on standardized testing. Writing is anything but standardized. that is like asking each student to paint a picture, or write a concerto, then grade it.

sadly, having to fit a rubric isn't limited to high school level. I am coming up to my BULE (BU literacy exam) in order to be formally admitted into the school of education. the rate of failure is somewhere around 50% for English majors, higher for the other majors. This is because the test is looking for inanely specific things, rather than looking for the ability to form a coherant and strong argument.

With any luck, I will remember what my profs are teaching me now, and won't pass on so many of these bad habits of high school writing.

I also don't think writing should be on standardized testing. Writing is anything but standardized. that is like asking each student to paint a picture, or write a concerto, then grade it.
I wish this weren't the case, but when I tell my freshmen that I want, more than anything else, for their writing to be interesting, they look at me as through I've sprouted a second head. I think it may be the first time they've ever heard that.

I wish this weren't the case, but when I tell my freshmen that I want, more than anything else, for their writing to be interesting, they look at me as through I've sprouted a second head. I think it may be the first time they've ever heard that.
haha...my shakespeare prof is very very careful not to bias us on subjects he plans to use for essays and exams. He makes it very clear that it isn't so much what you argue, but how you argue it. Personally, I find that to be true.

Oh, and breaking students of filler. If you struggle to 3 pages on a 6 page paper, you chose too narrow of a topic. open it up. If you're on page 12 for that same 6 page paper, narrow it down.

Education still is in the hands of the states for the most part. The DoEd has very, very little control over education and almost no say in states curriculum, let alone individual boards and schools.

Agreed, Education is in the hands of the towns.
I worked in a school system of a medium sized city (pop: 125,000). I never saw such graft and corruption in my life. Federal, state and local money all went into its coffers, with almost no oversight and tremendous waste.

And that's the problem:
The DoEd sops up 89 BILLION A YEAR.
http://www.ed.gov/about/overview/budget/index.html?src=gu
I say disband the DoE: it serves no real purpose.

haha...my shakespeare prof is very very careful not to bias us on subjects he plans to use for essays and exams. He makes it very clear that it isn't so much what you argue, but how you argue it. Personally, I find that to be true.

Oh, and breaking students of filler. If you struggle to 3 pages on a 6 page paper, you chose too narrow of a topic. open it up. If you're on page 12 for that same 6 page paper, narrow it down.
They also boggle at my first rule of writing--make it personal. I not only encourage the first person in my classes, I demand it. There's no better way to get students to deal with a concept they don't fully understand than to make them apply it to themselves.

Brilliant idea, make it so they can't strike for better pay and thereby decrease their pay over time to attract better teachers!

Um, no. If they're already being paid for their expertise, then it's a non-issue. It works amazingly well in the real world.

I can understand unions in dangerous professions: police, firemen, heavy machine operators, mining, etc. These are jobs that require training, are physically demanding and are generally short lived. When you go into the police or firemen's academy you generally know that after 20 years or so, most people need to retire. At any time a miner can get trapped, or a load could crush the crane you're working on.

What I fail to see is how anyone believes that making a school Principal or teacher a civil servant will improve education. Why go back for refreshers and keep current like doctors and dentists and pharmacists do? After all, you're tenured!
Why get additional certifications when it's almost impossible to advance your pay-grade. In IT, finance or the legal system, that'd be laughable!

Education should NOT be a unionized position. It's a career, yes. But it's no more stressful or dangerous than any other white collar profession.

They also boggle at my first rule of writing--make it personal. I not only encourage the first person in my classes, I demand it. There's no better way to get students to deal with a concept they don't fully understand than to make them apply it to themselves.

Good thing you're not my professor. I hate writing in first person -- nothing applies to me except in some far-out, contorted way. I hate writing about, for example, how I compare to Brutus when killing Caesar, and I have to resort to making up an example about backstabbing and applying it to myself to get a reasonable grade.

They also boggle at my first rule of writing--make it personal. I not only encourage the first person in my classes, I demand it. There's no better way to get students to deal with a concept they don't fully understand than to make them apply it to themselves.
huh...interesting. That one would demand some beatings to get out of my habit. I don't think I've written in first person in a formal writing in probably eight years. but your logic does make sense.

Good thing you're not my professor. I hate writing in first person -- nothing applies to me except in some far-out, contorted way. I hate writing about, for example, how I compare to Brutus when killing Caesar, and I have to resort to making up an example about backstabbing and applying it to myself to get a reasonable grade.
Well, I don't do that in my lit classes, only in my composition classes. My comp classes deal with very complex essays, and the ideas contained in them are often difficult to understand in the abstract. It takes personalizing them, especially if you're relatively inexperienced, to really get a hold on them.

Good thing I don't have to take composition classes (yet), then. Seems like a class I would fail. :)

Just for the record, I do believe that lower class sizes are more effective than higher class sizes, but I think it is simply masking the underlying problem. Some possible solutions from my point of view are (in order of importance):


Pay teachers more. Many people who would otherwise become teachers decide on a more high-paying job, leaving less-qualified people to become teachers.
Eliminate standardized testing (US). All you do with that is create an vast amount of mindless drones who know only what's on the test and nothing more, and teachers who try to teach their students more than is required in the curriculum often pay the price because their students do worse on the tests.
Re-introduce corporeal punishment. No, it's not always going to work, but at least it will stop people from speaking out in class if they know they're going to get whipped.
Reduce class size. Obviously, you are giving the teacher more room to work with a student.
Give students some incentives to get good grades, like money. Who wouldn't pay attention if you got $20 for every A you got? It's better than some of the ways tax money is used.


I cant agree with "paying teachers" more. All teachers in this country are vastly underpaid for the services they provide. However, there has to be a measure. There ARE incompetant teachers. Paying them more is not going to make them more competant.

I think what the situation needs is:
1) More money for competant, qualified teachers. Im thinking beyond college degrees even, Masters probably, or college grads who then take a specific ciricullum to teach. Im also thinking of literally doubling teacher's pay, or maybe even more. We cant skimp on the education of our children. They are our future.

2) Standardized testing for each grade level. Yes i know you all think its bad, but its not the standardized testing that fails, its the test itself that fails. The SAT's (the ones that every American highschool student is familiar with, and since i did not have any standardized testing in my school, i cant say for others) are all about eliminating answers and trying to trick you. You cant study for the SAT material, you have to study for a test. I think that this is the crappiest system that you could ever think of. First thing to do is eliminate multiple choice, esp on Math and Sciences. Either they get the right answer or they dont. No guessing the right answer, no trying to trick the students. Second off, a national ciricullum is needed. If a student doesnt learn x and y, and demonstrates it on the test (such as algebra) they cant graduate to the next grade. The tests would not be designed to trick students. Infact, if the students are at all competant with the subject, they should be able to pass it with ease. Yes, teachers WOULD teach to the test, but in order to do so, if it is executed correctly, they would be teaching the material to the students. This also has the same effect of letting colleges know what students REALLY know when they go in, which is a significant complaint of many colleges becuase some dont know calculus or algebra even, and others have never written an essay before.

3) Failing students is imporant. Also mandating that a person isnt an adult (ie considered a minor) until he graduates from highschool or he hits 20 or 21. (if hes so retarded that he fails more than 3-4 times then he can quit if he so desires)

4) accountability to teachers. Yes, when a student fails something, often it is the students fault. But there are horrible teachers out there. And this will emphasize why a national standardized test is needed. If a few students fail, it is obvioiusly that the student is at fault. If a large percentage (such as over half) fail in the same class, it is obviously the teacher's fault, and that teacher gets a red flag. After enough red flags (maybe 3) the teacher is fired

5) Better schools period. Most schools in the US are decrepit and are not maintained to any significant degree. Most have too many children per classroom and not enough room to make two classes.

6) Federal control. Lets face it guys, 50 states, 50 beaurocracies. 1 nationwide system, one beaurocracy. Juristictional arguements are good for minor cases, but The education of our children should not take second state to people arguing over who has authority over what. A national schoolsystem would be able to unify and create one ciricullum for the students the easiest, and would have the least bickering and infighting between beaurocracies wanting different things.
7) more severe punishments. I think this story exemplifies this one:
A student in one of my highschool classes (dang... so many years ago now.... :'( ) called the teacher a fuckhead to his face in front of the entire class. The teacher blew up and grabbed his arm, dragging him to the principles office. The next day, that student was in class and the teacher was suspended to avoid a lawsuit. Which brings me to number 8....

8) Deny lawsuits against schools unless it is an egregious offense, such as a teacher having sex with a student.

9) this one is kind of iffy, as its a battle between civil liberties (such as freedom of speech) and order in the schools. School uniforms? severe restrictions on freedoms in school? I know it seems kinda harsh, but my highschool had a dresscode but no uniform. and no matter what kind of dresscode we had, there were a few (mostly female) students who always managed to walk around looking like a prostitute (and a few who actually did prostitute themselves). This got so bad that there was this one female student who had a reputation even through the teachers. The principle had to issue a directive to teachers about this girl, that no male students were allowed to leave a class she was in while she was out to the restroom, or else the two would not be back for... a while. I dont know how to stop that kind of behavior save a severe crackdown on the civil rights of children in a school. But obviously that one is a huge problem. Any recommendations?

What I fail to see is how anyone believes that making a school Principal or teacher a civil servant will improve education. Why go back for refreshers and keep current like doctors and dentists and pharmacists do? After all, you're tenured!
Why get additional certifications when it's almost impossible to advance your pay-grade. In IT, finance or the legal system, that'd be laughable!

Education should NOT be a unionized position. It's a career, yes. But it's no more stressful or dangerous than any other white collar profession.
I hate to say it, as it is in my self interest to support tenure and unions, but I hate the damn things, and most likely will not join if I can manage to.

Also, most states (if not all) require a certain ammount of re-education and constant refreshers.

I cant agree with "paying teachers" more. All teachers in this country are vastly underpaid for the services they provide. However, there has to be a measure. There ARE incompetant teachers. Paying them more is not going to make them more competant.

I think what the situation needs is:
1) More money for competant, qualified teachers. Im thinking beyond college degrees even, Masters probably, or college grads who then take a specific ciricullum to teach. Im also thinking of literally doubling teacher's pay, or maybe even more. We cant skimp on the education of our children. They are our future.
New England (I'm only familiar with the New England requirements, but could look into this more) require that all teachers have a degree in the fields they teach. Some allow teachers to teach one or two classes outside of their degree. Additionally, all require a masters within a certain number of years of employment. Education cannot be a degree program in these states because that would then demand a double major. Certification can be achieved either by doing the Education program in a university (I'm in the English Education program, so my diploma will say English ed, but I couldn't get one in just education) or by doing a night program for I think 6 weeks and passing the exam.
2) Standardized testing for each grade level. Yes i know you all think its bad, but its not the standardized testing that fails, its the test itself that fails. The SAT's (the ones that every American highschool student is familiar with, and since i did not have any standardized testing in my school, i cant say for others) are all about eliminating answers and trying to trick you. You cant study for the SAT material, you have to study for a test. I think that this is the crappiest system that you could ever think of. First thing to do is eliminate multiple choice, esp on Math and Sciences. Either they get the right answer or they dont. No guessing the right answer, no trying to trick the students. Second off, a national ciricullum is needed. If a student doesnt learn x and y, and demonstrates it on the test (such as algebra) they cant graduate to the next grade. The tests would not be designed to trick students. Infact, if the students are at all competant with the subject, they should be able to pass it with ease. Yes, teachers WOULD teach to the test, but in order to do so, if it is executed correctly, they would be teaching the material to the students. This also has the same effect of letting colleges know what students REALLY know when they go in, which is a significant complaint of many colleges becuase some dont know calculus or algebra even, and others have never written an essay before.
I'm going to disagree. Standardized testings one use is to judge how a school system is doing on the whole. The scores (aside from SAT's and such, which I will get to) do not impact the student individually. The SAT's are a logic test, not intelligence. There are cumulative tests, and should not be studied for because it is to see what you actually know, not what you can cram in a week before the test. Additionally, these tests are designed to work out when a student guesses on questions. SAT's do this by subtracting 1/4 a point per wrong answer.
A system of national requirements could be helpful.
And teachers should never teach to a test. they should be teaching students to think and learn, not how to take a test.
3) Failing students is imporant. Also mandating that a person isnt an adult (ie considered a minor) until he graduates from highschool or he hits 20 or 21. (if hes so retarded that he fails more than 3-4 times then he can quit if he so desires) Yes. Students who earn an F deserve it. I don't know that we can tie adulthood to graduation, as that goes into voting rights and discrimination...
4) accountability to teachers. Yes, when a student fails something, often it is the students fault. But there are horrible teachers out there. And this will emphasize why a national standardized test is needed. If a few students fail, it is obvioiusly that the student is at fault. If a large percentage (such as over half) fail in the same class, it is obviously the teacher's fault, and that teacher gets a red flag. After enough red flags (maybe 3) the teacher is fired
depends on the school district. It isn't as easy as "passing and failing" when some students are coming in to take the test without having had a meal in the last 24 hours or having been evicted the night before.
5) Better schools period. Most schools in the US are decrepit and are not maintained to any significant degree. Most have too many children per classroom and not enough room to make two classes.
spot on
6) Federal control. Lets face it guys, 50 states, 50 beaurocracies. 1 nationwide system, one beaurocracy. Juristictional arguements are good for minor cases, but The education of our children should not take second state to people arguing over who has authority over what. A national schoolsystem would be able to unify and create one ciricullum for the students the easiest, and would have the least bickering and infighting between beaurocracies wanting different things. depends whos in charge. If the group in charge says "teach ID", I'd rather move towns instead of countries.
7) more severe punishments. I think this story exemplifies this one:
A student in one of my highschool classes (dang... so many years ago now.... :'( ) called the teacher a fuckhead to his face in front of the entire class. The teacher blew up and grabbed his arm, dragging him to the principles office. The next day, that student was in class and the teacher was suspended to avoid a lawsuit. Which brings me to number 8....
there must be restrictions on what you can and can't do (for example, hit a kid), but yes...I'll skip onto your next point because it ties in...
8) Deny lawsuits against schools unless it is an egregious offense, such as a teacher having sex with a student. teachers should be held liable for certain things. Yelling at a kid and making them feel bad is not one of these. Stop the damn frivolous lawsuits.
9) this one is kind of iffy, as its a battle between civil liberties (such as freedom of speech) and order in the schools. School uniforms? severe restrictions on freedoms in school? I know it seems kinda harsh, but my highschool had a dresscode but no uniform. and no matter what kind of dresscode we had, there were a few (mostly female) students who always managed to walk around looking like a prostitute (and a few who actually did prostitute themselves). This got so bad that there was this one female student who had a reputation even through the teachers. The principle had to issue a directive to teachers about this girl, that no male students were allowed to leave a class she was in while she was out to the restroom, or else the two would not be back for... a while. I dont know how to stop that kind of behavior save a severe crackdown on the civil rights of children in a school. But obviously that one is a huge problem. Any recommendations?
no clue. *shrug*

I cant agree with "paying teachers" more. All teachers in this country are vastly underpaid for the services they provide. However, there has to be a measure. There ARE incompetant teachers. Paying them more is not going to make them more competant.

I think what the situation needs is:
1) More money for competant, qualified teachers. Im thinking beyond college degrees even, Masters probably, or college grads who then take a specific ciricullum to teach. Im also thinking of literally doubling teacher's pay, or maybe even more. We cant skimp on the education of our children. They are our future.

That's a good idea. I thinks that teachers should be paid more in general to get a wider job pool of applicants to get more choice as to who to hire, and also proportionally to their degree. A teacher with a Ph.D. should be paid more than a teacher with a high school diploma, for example. The more you pay teachers, the better teachers you will attract.

2) Standardized testing for each grade level. Yes i know you all think its bad, but its not the standardized testing that fails, its the test itself that fails. The SAT's (the ones that every American highschool student is familiar with, and since i did not have any standardized testing in my school, i cant say for others) are all about eliminating answers and trying to trick you. You cant study for the SAT material, you have to study for a test. I think that this is the crappiest system that you could ever think of. First thing to do is eliminate multiple choice, esp on Math and Sciences. Either they get the right answer or they dont. No guessing the right answer, no trying to trick the students. Second off, a national ciricullum is needed. If a student doesnt learn x and y, and demonstrates it on the test (such as algebra) they cant graduate to the next grade. The tests would not be designed to trick students. Infact, if the students are at all competant with the subject, they should be able to pass it with ease. Yes, teachers WOULD teach to the test, but in order to do so, if it is executed correctly, they would be teaching the material to the students. This also has the same effect of letting colleges know what students REALLY know when they go in, which is a significant complaint of many colleges becuase some dont know calculus or algebra even, and others have never written an essay before.

Yes, I do think it's bad and continue to do so. If teachers have to teach to the test to avoid getting "red flags" or other such detriments, there is no incentive to teach anything but the test. Why teach the students more complex material and risk them getting a worse score on the basics? Instead, they will spend their whole time going over basic, insipid material just so they will do as well as they possibly can when their students take the test. This saps any and all creativity and imagination out of any curriculum. The people who are in charge of a particular school should decide which teachers should get fired and which should stay. They know what is going on in their school better than what scant information a spreadsheet with scores can possibly give. If it is a problem with colleges, students may have the choice of taking an aptitude test to see where they fall, but should by no means be required by a high school. The college, on the other hand, may require that the student meet a certain score on a standardized test before being admitted. The problem isn't that students will fail the test -- it is that they will learn nothing because the teachers are too caught up on the test.

3) Failing students is imporant. Also mandating that a person isnt an adult (ie considered a minor) until he graduates from highschool or he hits 20 or 21. (if hes so retarded that he fails more than 3-4 times then he can quit if he so desires)

Yeah, I agree. No avoiding the issue -- if you're stupid, you fail. But I don't think that should play a role in when you become and adult. You should be able to vote even if you don't have a high school diploma. You shouldn't be tried on a lesser charge on a crime simply because you are stupid.

4) accountability to teachers. Yes, when a student fails something, often it is the students fault. But there are horrible teachers out there. And this will emphasize why a national standardized test is needed. If a few students fail, it is obvioiusly that the student is at fault. If a large percentage (such as over half) fail in the same class, it is obviously the teacher's fault, and that teacher gets a red flag. After enough red flags (maybe 3) the teacher is fired

Absolutely not! A teacher should not be fired on the basis of a national standardized test. The school board should fire the teacher if they find that he/she is inefficient or a bad teacher. But the numbers do not always accurately reflect how good a teacher is. The decision to fire should be left to those who know the teacher best, and who can differentiate between stupid students and a bad teacher. Standardized testing could be, at best, a tool in helping to determine if a teacher should be fired, if that.

5) Better schools period. Most schools in the US are decrepit and are not maintained to any significant degree. Most have too many children per classroom and not enough room to make two classes.

Yeah, I agree.

6) Federal control. Lets face it guys, 50 states, 50 beaurocracies. 1 nationwide system, one beaurocracy. Juristictional arguements are good for minor cases, but The education of our children should not take second state to people arguing over who has authority over what. A national schoolsystem would be able to unify and create one ciricullum for the students the easiest, and would have the least bickering and infighting between beaurocracies wanting different things.

Not at all! Federal control is the worst thing you could possibly do. What if the federal government decides that each student must be familiar with certain religions before graduating? Or knows how to speak Mandarin or Hindu? Or, what if it is mandated that a student must be proficient with a firearm before graduating? The individual schools should decide their own curriculum, with no influence from the states or anyone else.

7) more severe punishments. I think this story exemplifies this one:
A student in one of my highschool classes (dang... so many years ago now.... :'( ) called the teacher a fuckhead to his face in front of the entire class. The teacher blew up and grabbed his arm, dragging him to the principles office. The next day, that student was in class and the teacher was suspended to avoid a lawsuit. Which brings me to number 8....
8) Deny lawsuits against schools unless it is an egregious offense, such as a teacher having sex with a student.

I completely agree.

I hate to say it, as it is in my self interest to support tenure and unions, but I hate the damn things, and most likely will not join if I can manage to.

Yeah... sucks when you have to balance your own good against what'd be better for the people as a whole.

Also, most states (if not all) require a certain ammount of re-education and constant refreshers.

Assuming you start with a Masters (not uncommon), once you have a "6th year" certificate (or whatever it is), there really is no place to go up other than into administration. You can't become a higher earning math teacher by any other metric besides years served. Doesn't matter if 57% or 97% of your kids advance to the next grade.
And the "professional development days" you speak of? 6-8 days a year, spread out? Hardly the same as renewing an DBA or becoming SOX certified or taking the bar exam in a new state... :(

We all know the fact that most of our public schools(K-12) here are either total crap, or badly underfunded and staffed by underpaid teachers. Our universities, while some of the best performing in the world are also some of the most expensive to attend. How would reform the current system?

Cut funds from NASA.

Cut funds from NASA.

The irony is rife.

I think sex education in school should offer a more hands-on approach.

"Okay, kids! Find a partner and..." :eek: :D

Yeah... sucks when you have to balance your own good against what'd be better for the people as a whole.

hate to be that selfish, but hey. welcome to america!

Assuming you start with a Masters (not uncommon), once you have a "6th year" certificate (or whatever it is), there really is no place to go up other than into administration. You can't become a higher earning math teacher by any other metric besides years served. Doesn't matter if 57% or 97% of your kids advance to the next grade.
And the "professional development days" you speak of? 6-8 days a year, spread out? Hardly the same as renewing an DBA or becoming SOX certified or taking the bar exam in a new state... :(
true. My district payed higher if you held a doctorate, but yeah...not much incentive.

And I know Mass does PDP's, or prof. development points in addition to PDD's. The points can be earned many ways (including taking on a student teacher). Of course, you do have to be certified in whatever state you want to teach in, so you could have to take another test. True it isn't much...but better than nothing, right?

I can understand unions in dangerous professions: police, firemen, heavy machine operators, mining, etc. These are jobs that require training, are physically demanding and are generally short lived. When you go into the police or firemen's academy you generally know that after 20 years or so, most people need to retire. At any time a miner can get trapped, or a load could crush the crane you're working on.
And at any time I can get attacked by a student, hit, shot, stabbed, or bit.

What I fail to see is how anyone believes that making a school Principal or teacher a civil servant will improve education. Why go back for refreshers and keep current like doctors and dentists and pharmacists do? After all, you're tenured!
Why get additional certifications when it's almost impossible to advance your pay-grade. In IT, finance or the legal system, that'd be laughable!
Well, one it's required in your contract. Teachers MUST take so many in-service classes and seminars a year. We must also (depending on the state/district) take so many college credits for a given time period. Some districts, like the one I was at for a bit, actually require teachers to obtain a Masters degree within 20 years.

Education should NOT be a unionized position. It's a career, yes. But it's no more stressful or dangerous than any other white collar profession.
Let me tell you about a class I had last year. This wasn't even the worse class, it wasn't even in the top ten. It was actually rather par for the course.

One of my students decided that that day he didn't want to learn English. However, as the rest of the class was actually paying attention (for once) he went to the back of the room and got a tennis racket from someone's cubby and started to hit peices of chalk at other students. My lead teacher (since I team teach) attempted to ignore him as he does things like this to get attention. I tried to do so as well in the hope that after two minutes, he'd stop.

Well, he didn't. One peice of chalk hit my lead teacher, the next came a half an inch of my nose and shattered on the blackboard. I went over and asked him if the rackets were his (they weren't) and asked him to put them away. He wouldn't so I took them away and placed them on the teacher's desk and told him he could have them after class.

He followed me up and tried to get the rackets back. I (literally) put my hand down and wouldn't let him have them.

So he took a swing at me.

Half way through, he realized I'm not a Japanese teacher and so he wasn't sure what I would do in reply so he pulled his punch a bit.

My lead teacher, after this, got him back to his seat and then came up front with me still teaching and whispered to me that she'll try to get him to calm down.

The student went batshit as he figured out we were talking about him. The rest of that enjoyable class was spent with my lead teacher having to stay next to him to keep him from doing anything, and me trying to teach a rather terrified class.

Just another day for me.

So you were saying about teaching not being stressful?

I think sex education in school should offer a more hands-on approach.

"Okay, kids! Find a partner and..." :eek: :D
Throw in a firearms class, and we could actually teach all students "This is my rifle, this is my gun, this is for fighting, this is for fun"

Not at all! Federal control is the worst thing you could possibly do. What if the federal government decides that each student must be familiar with certain religions before graduating? Or knows how to speak Mandarin or Hindu? Or, what if it is mandated that a student must be proficient with a firearm before graduating? The individual schools should decide their own curriculum, with no influence from the states or anyone else.

This is one of those times where lawsuits WOULD be acceptable, as that is obviously violating the constitution.

About ID... meh, lets not get into the debate on if ID and evolution should te taught here. That is going to destroy this thread.

And to clarify: the subject matter on the standardized test would be literally the ciricullum that the student needs to know. For example with physics: a student must be able to use and manipulate Newtons Equations, must know basic quantum theory, and simple harmonic oscillators. Much like what is needed to be known on the AP Physics exam, but not quite as high a bar to pass. Infact, AP classes are the best example of what im talking about. They teach for the test (atleast the ones i did) and you had to know all of the material the teacher taught on the test. Another good one: Calculus. A student should be able to peform integrals and derivatives, be able to use integral tables, apply calculus to hard sciences, such as physics. Infact, thats a good way to make sure the students know what they need to, have teachers teach to the test, and put the knowledge needed on the test to succeed.

Cut funds from NASA.

Na.... Howabout we cut funds from say... Reflowering the side of a california interstate (which will cost 300 million dollars), or perhaps a 30-40 million dollar bridge in alaska to connect less than 400 people to the mainland (let the states pay for those if they want to do it, maintanance of the roads is THEIR jobs)

That's a good idea. I thinks that teachers should be paid more in general to get a wider job pool of applicants to get more choice as to who to hire, and also proportionally to their degree. A teacher with a Ph.D. should be paid more than a teacher with a high school diploma, for example. The more you pay teachers, the better teachers you will attract.

Um... teachers with higher degrees ARE paid more than those without. And what state allows you to teach with a high school degree? All districts I'm aware requires at least a two year. The majority requires a 4 year degree (Hell, if Nevada, which ranks either dead last, or next to, in education, requires a 4 year degree to teach, I'm pretty sure every other state does as well).

Throw in a firearms class, and we could actually teach all students "This is my rifle, this is my gun, this is for fighting, this is for fun"

and get lawsuits out the @$$ : p

hate to be that selfish, but hey. welcome to america!

Exactly. Now imagine that instead of being in a union, one starts out with (say) $50k (in todays dollars) as a starting teacher with a Master's. Add on raises PER YEAR for cost of living and certification and bonuses if your students reach certain educational targets.
...All the sh*tty teachers that are there for whatever reason will be trounced by the "superstars", the kids will LEARN (more) as the teachers have incentives... and my guess would be that some of the more painful problems of education (class clowns, drive by shootings) would ultimately go down over the years as students see they CAN advance.
(Yes, people I worked with were shot at working at this school system.)

true. My district payed higher if you held a doctorate, but yeah...not much incentive.

And I know Mass does PDP's, or prof. development points in addition to PDD's. The points can be earned many ways (including taking on a student teacher). Of course, you do have to be certified in whatever state you want to teach in, so you could have to take another test. True it isn't much...but better than nothing, right?

Yes, Connecticut does those too, but they're in their infancy and are poorly coordinated. I've seen them given out for having lunch and listening to a talk about technology... and the guy giving the speach was a dance instructor! He literally paraphrased from a copy of (then) Windows 2000 Magazine!

Yeah, but it could be *so* much better. :(

And to clarify: the subject matter on the standardized test would be literally the ciricullum that the student needs to know. For example with physics: a student must be able to use and manipulate Newtons Equations, must know basic quantum theory, and simple harmonic oscillators. Much like what is needed to be known on the AP Physics exam, but not quite as high a bar to pass. Infact, AP classes are the best example of what im talking about. They teach for the test (atleast the ones i did) and you had to know all of the material the teacher taught on the test. Another good one: Calculus. A student should be able to peform integrals and derivatives, be able to use integral tables, apply calculus to hard sciences, such as physics. Infact, thats a good way to make sure the students know what they need to, have teachers teach to the test, and put the knowledge needed on the test to succeed.
The problem with the tests is that on the scale that most people talk about, they mean English (defined as reading comprehension, grammar, and MAYBE a small writing sample) and Math (at various levels) done on a scantron where I fill in a little bubble. This doesn't actually show anything beyond that students can fill in little bubbles though.

This is one of those times where lawsuits WOULD be acceptable, as that is obviously violating the constitution.

About ID... meh, lets not get into the debate on if ID and evolution should te taught here. That is going to destroy this thread.

And to clarify: the subject matter on the standardized test would be literally the ciricullum that the student needs to know. For example with physics: a student must be able to use and manipulate Newtons Equations, must know basic quantum theory, and simple harmonic oscillators. Much like what is needed to be known on the AP Physics exam, but not quite as high a bar to pass. Infact, AP classes are the best example of what im talking about. They teach for the test (atleast the ones i did) and you had to know all of the material the teacher taught on the test. Another good one: Calculus. A student should be able to peform integrals and derivatives, be able to use integral tables, apply calculus to hard sciences, such as physics. Infact, thats a good way to make sure the students know what they need to, have teachers teach to the test, and put the knowledge needed on the test to succeed.
The reason I mention ID is because if the feds decide to teach something that I oppose, I really don't feel like moving to Canada to get a decent eduation. Just because it is federal doesn't mean it will be good...Yes, they can have minimum requirements, but no, leave the curriculum to the states and districts.
Also, AP tests have the tests built to the classes, not the other way around. You learn what is dictated by College Board. The test is then designed around what you should have learned.

I see another symptom of this whole thing. I keep seeing "Conneticut this" or "this state that" Every state has its own rules, and those need to be unified. Only way to do that is the federal government.

Um... teachers with higher degrees ARE paid more than those without.

Yes, but they should not just be paid more, they should be paid a lot more. They should be given more of an incentive to continue their education before teaching children. How many people get a Ph.D because they want to become a teacher? Not many, and that's what you need to fix. Teaching needs to be a much, much, higher-paying job than it is now.

Exactly. Now imagine that instead of being in a union, one starts out with (say) $50k (in todays dollars) as a starting teacher with a Master's. Add on raises PER YEAR for cost of living and certification and bonuses if your students reach certain educational targets.
...All the sh*tty teachers that are there for whatever reason will be trounced by the "superstars", the kids will LEARN (more) as the teachers have incentives... and my guess would be that some of the more painful problems of education (class clowns, drive by shootings) would ultimately go down over the years as students see they CAN advance.
(Yes, people I worked with were shot at working at this school system.)



Yes, Connecticut does those too, but they're in their infancy and are poorly coordinated. I've seen them given out for having lunch and listening to a talk about technology... and the guy giving the speach was a dance instructor! He literally paraphrased from a copy of (then) Windows 2000 Magazine!

Yeah, but it could be *so* much better. :(
You're CT? me too (originally...currently in school in Boston) But anyway...the thing that worries me about the situation you set up in the beginning is getting that financing. These are people who think paying $4000 per student is too much for high school who we need to convince. Also, how to get good teachers to low SES districts.

The reason I mention ID is because if the feds decide to teach something that I oppose, I really don't feel like moving to Canada to get a decent eduation. Just because it is federal doesn't mean it will be good...Yes, they can have minimum requirements, but no, leave the curriculum to the states and districts.
Also, AP tests have the tests built to the classes, not the other way around. You learn what is dictated by College Board. The test is then designed around what you should have learned.

and that is the EXACT system i want to have in place. a board sets the ciricullum, and makes a test which students must take to show competancy in the material

The problem with the tests is that on the scale that most people talk about, they mean English (defined as reading comprehension, grammar, and MAYBE a small writing sample) and Math (at various levels) done on a scantron where I fill in a little bubble. This doesn't actually show anything beyond that students can fill in little bubbles though.
I think I'm actually going to oppose you here. The tests tend to actually be good indicators of how much a student knows. CAPT (Connecticut), and MCATS (Massachusets) are being tied to the students eligibility to graduate, and therefore encouraging students to actually try on the tests, meaning that they are showing a good idea of how well students are doing. These tests include both scantron and written.

I see another symptom of this whole thing. I keep seeing "Conneticut this" or "this state that" Every state has its own rules, and those need to be unified. Only way to do that is the federal government.
I fail to see why it is bad that each state is different. Nevada knows its schools are among the worst. Connecticut knows its schools are among the best. Competition among the schools is ultimatly a good thing. States with better school systems will attract more businesses, people, and institutions of higher learning.

and that is the EXACT system i want to have in place. a board sets the ciricullum, and makes a test which students must take to show competancy in the material
In that case, teachers are not teaching to the test, but are teaching to the curriculum. The test is then based on the curriculum. This allows teachers to go into more in depth topics while not risking their students failing.

Also, the issue isn't so much the tests, but the high stakes testing we have now.

And at any time I can get attacked by a student, hit, shot, stabbed, or bit.

People flew PLANES into the buildings a few blocks down the street from our office.
I can also have any of those things happen to me, too. Only by clients, consultants, or enraged co-workers.
http://www.seacoastonline.com/2001news/1_2_sb1.htm

Well, one it's required in your contract. Teachers MUST take so many in-service classes and seminars a year. We must also (depending on the state/district) take so many college credits for a given time period. Some districts, like the one I was at for a bit, actually require teachers to obtain a Masters degree within 20 years.?

...I'm doing my Masters in two because it benefits me. I've also certified in various technologies over the years because my pay goes up when I do so. :)
Wouldn't you go for a Doctorate as a teacher if it doubled your pay?

Let me tell you about a class I had last year. This wasn't even the worse class, it wasn't even in the top ten. It was actually rather par for the course.

One of my students decided that that day he didn't want to learn English. However, as the rest of the class was actually paying attention (for once) he went to the back of the room and got a tennis racket from someone's cubby and started to hit peices of chalk at other students. My lead teacher (since I team teach) attempted to ignore him as he does things like this to get attention. I tried to do so as well in the hope that after two minutes, he'd stop.

Well, he didn't. One peice of chalk hit my lead teacher, the next came a half an inch of my nose and shattered on the blackboard. I went over and asked him if the rackets were his (they weren't) and asked him to put them away. He wouldn't so I took them away and placed them on the teacher's desk and told him he could have them after class.

He followed me up and tried to get the rackets back. I (literally) put my hand down and wouldn't let him have them.

So he took a swing at me.

Half way through, he realized I'm not a Japanese teacher and so he wasn't sure what I would do in reply so he pulled his punch a bit.

My lead teacher, after this, got him back to his seat and then came up front with me still teaching and whispered to me that she'll try to get him to calm down.

The student went batshit as he figured out we were talking about him. The rest of that enjoyable class was spent with my lead teacher having to stay next to him to keep him from doing anything, and me trying to teach a rather terrified class.

Just another day for me.

So you were saying about teaching not being stressful?

I didn't say it wasn't stressful. I said that it is no more or less stressful than other white collar professions.

For example, it's no worse than having a database that tracks about 185 million dollars of retirement funds all of a sudden crash towards the end of a 15 hour query, thus halting all business operations because we can't compute interest or market positions.

Or no worse than my friend spending 70 hours straight to write up a brief for a case involving a major construction company that had installed a defective frame on a door that later buckled and led to several lawsuits, including one for the crushing death of a person.

Or cycling through a seeming unlimited number of tax returns for the first two weeks in April.

My point is not to say that you've got it easy. You don't. But the rest of us aren't eating crumpets and bon-bons, either. ;)

You're CT? me too (originally...currently in school in Boston) But anyway...the thing that worries me about the situation you set up in the beginning is getting that financing. These are people who think paying $4000 per student is too much for high school who we need to convince. Also, how to get good teachers to low SES districts.

Yep! I'm from the Bridgeport area.
You know how much we could save by getting rid of teacher's pensions and the union beurocracy?

I see another symptom of this whole thing. I keep seeing "Conneticut this" or "this state that" Every state has its own rules, and those need to be unified. Only way to do that is the federal government.

Ah! But the Dept of Ed has been around since the CARTER Administration and has totally failed to do that...

Throw in a firearms class, and we could actually teach all students "This is my rifle, this is my gun, this is for fighting, this is for fun"

Actually, as with driver's ed and sex ed, that would seriously cut down on accidents.

Make learning another language mandatory. Have more international exchange programs.

Yep! I'm from the Bridgeport area.
You know how much we could save by getting rid of teacher's pensions and the union beurocracy?
tons, no doubt. I'm hartford area.

Actually, you just reminded me of something.

FIX IEP's!
Seriously, I know their value. But they are redone every year and rarely, if ever looked at once they are signed. There is no point to them. What is worse is that no onehas ever done a study to see if they actually have any kind of impact. Either do away with them, or reform them.

I think I'm actually going to oppose you here. The tests tend to actually be good indicators of how much a student knows. CAPT (Connecticut), and MCATS (Massachusets) are being tied to the students eligibility to graduate, and therefore encouraging students to actually try on the tests, meaning that they are showing a good idea of how well students are doing. These tests include both scantron and written.
I disgree, they show how much the student has memorized, but not if the student actually knows the information and can use it in a meaningful way.

I.e. A student may know the names of the two houses in Romeo and Juliet, but that doesn't tell me if they actually read the play or could tell me why reading that play is important, or even what can be shown to be based off of that play.

I disgree, they show how much the student has memorized, but not if the student actually knows the information and can use it in a meaningful way.

I.e. A student may know the names of the two houses in Romeo and Juliet, but that doesn't tell me if they actually read the play or could tell me why reading that play is important, or even what can be shown to be based off of that play.
In the case of English, I fully agree, and don't think English can ever be put on standardized tests beyond grammar, spelling, and comprehension (don't get me wrong, those are important. but so is interpretation)

Now, where I take issue is that science and math testing is not just what they have memorized if the test is designed properly. The CMT/CAPT and MCATS are examples of fairly well designed standardized tests (they have their flaws, but better than many I've seen).

My reasoning for standardized testing isn't to judge the students, but to make sure that the schools are atleast getting these base subjects through and give a school district an idea of what they may need to focus on.