NationStates Jolt Archive

According to the Trends in International Mathematics and Science Study (administered by Boston College), Hong Kong has ranked number one by a strong 8 points (scoring 607 out of 800). The top eleven jurisdictions tested are as follows:
Hong Kong (607)
Singapore (599)
Taiwan (576)
Massachusetts (572)
Japan (568)
Minnesota (554)
Kazakhstan (549)
Russia (544)
England (541)
Lithuania (530)
USA (529)

While I do not find the majority of those results surprising, as most of the top 5 are known to be the big boys of math and science education, two do catch my eye: Massachusetts and Minnesota.

The US government pays for all states to be tested collectively, but individual states can choose to participate as an independent entity if they pay. These states results will still count towards the total of the US. Mass and Minn are the only two US states to participate independently.

While US education, particularly in math and science, frequently gets berated, it seems that these two states are doing something very right. While the scores trail far behind Hong Kong, they are still top tier. This draws attention to the fact that there are 51 education systems running within the US, each with heavy levels of autonomy.

It would be interesting to see if other tests such as the NAEP confirm these results (if I remember correctly, they do place MA and MN towards the top of the country).

Of course, the counterpoint of the stellar performances of MA and MN is that someone else must be dragging down their scores...it would be nice to know who.

Graphic (http://www.boston.com/interactive/interactives/20081210_timss/)
Article (http://www.boston.com/news/education/k_12/articles/2008/12/10/bright_sign_for_tech_in_mass/)

Sounds like a Chinese restaurant...

Oh, and I think I can answer your question thanks to Wikipedia: "In 2007, Mississippi students scored the lowest of any state on the National Assessments of Educational Progress in both math and science."

They're the poorest, unhealthiest and dumbest state in the country thanks in no small part to the legacy left behind by the Jim Crow era that has prevented the black community from accruing the kind of property interests that lead to the creation of a strong middle class. It's actually pretty sad that they're so far behind everyone else in all measures of well-being, but that's what happens when you've got such an unholy combination of negative factors impeding any real improvement.

How can those damn ruskies be beating us!? Grrrrrrrrrr.

(snip)
Of course, the counterpoint of the stellar performances of MA and MN is that someone else must be dragging down their scores...it would be nice to know who.

Probably New Mexico, for one (Is it really part of the US? I'm sure some high school students don't think so).

Probably New Mexico, for one (Is it really part of the US? I'm sure some high school students don't think so).
Oh, I could list a few others...Alabama, Mississippi, Louisiana, and Nevada (sorry NER ;) ) are all on the list...in some cases, this is due to how the states are set up and challenges that face these school systems that are not seen in other areas. In other cases, it is largely due to just bad schools and policy.
Sounds like a Chinese restaurant...

Oh, and I think I can answer your question thanks to Wikipedia: "In 2007, Mississippi students scored the lowest of any state on the National Assessments of Educational Progress in both math and science."

They're the poorest, unhealthiest and dumbest state in the country thanks in no small part to the legacy left behind by the Jim Crow era that has prevented the black community from accruing the kind of property interests that lead to the creation of a strong middle class. It's actually pretty sad that they're so far behind everyone else in all measures of well-being, but that's what happens when you've got such an unholy combination of negative factors impeding any real improvement.
Definatly true. What is even worse is that it does impact other states like MA and MN who are demonstrating outstanding results.

Oh, I could list a few others...Alabama, Mississippi, Louisiana, and Nevada (sorry NER ;) )
Not at all. Nevada has been ranking last or at least in the lowest 5 for years now. The state government's response to this is to slash the budget. The voter's response to the slashing and the pleas for money to keep the schools running and repaired (Not build new ones, just keep the buildings in one piece, more or less) has been to vote no and state this is due to a bloated administration that doesn't spend the money wisely.

Then everyone bitches about how bad the schools are and how poor our tests scores are and how this is not attracting high paying jobs to Nevada.

Wash, rinse, repeat.

Michigan is not so great either. The Detroit public schools, of course, are notoriously bad, but I'm not impressed with the numeracy of the students from outside the city either.

Not at all. Nevada has been ranking last or at least in the lowest 5 for years now. The state government's response to this is to slash the budget. The voter's response to the slashing and the pleas for money to keep the schools running and repaired (Not build new ones, just keep the buildings in one piece, more or less) has been to vote no and state this is due to a bloated administration that doesn't spend the money wisely.

Then everyone bitches about how bad the schools are and how poor our tests scores are and how this is not attracting high paying jobs to Nevada.

Wash, rinse, repeat.

MA, and New England in general, have a few benefits that play in their favor. We have a long history of public education...we were the first to mandate that towns have schools, the first to mandate public education, have the first public high school (Boston Latin, which currently ranks as the 28th best high school in the US), and a huge number of political and philosophical thinkers who have helped to shape US public education.

We also have a huge number of research universities. From my apartment alone, I can easily walk to Harvard, MIT, BU, BC, Northeastern, and Tufts, not to mention dozens of other colleges and universities. These have attracted and created highly educated families, as well as creating huge numbers of independent companies, either directly (Harvard will frequently spin off research programs into biotech companies, for example) or indirectly (by means of educating those who then found companies).

The number one reason why MA did not eliminate income tax this year was to continue to fund schools. Even in Revere, the town where I did my student teaching that has a mediocre school system, every student is raised not with the question "Are you going to go to college?" but with the question "Where will you go to college?". It is a subtle difference, but I feel that it definatly impacts students and their relationship with education.

England (541)
Do you not mean the UK?

Do you not mean the UK?

I'm not entirely sure. The globe tends to be fairly reliable, but I will see what I can find. It is possible that England participated seperatly from, or even without, the rest of the UK

edit: It looks as if both England and Scotland participated seperatly (ranked 26, score of 494)

I'm actually surprised anyone is keeping up with Asian mathematicians what with the focus on math in schools :confused:

Do you not mean the UK?

do we ever do team sports together?

I find this pretty interesting.

Damn, I thought this was about me :)

Not at all. Nevada has been ranking last or at least in the lowest 5 for years now. The state government's response to this is to slash the budget. The voter's response to the slashing and the pleas for money to keep the schools running and repaired (Not build new ones, just keep the buildings in one piece, more or less) has been to vote no and state this is due to a bloated administration that doesn't spend the money wisely.

Then everyone bitches about how bad the schools are and how poor our tests scores are and how this is not attracting high paying jobs to Nevada.

Wash, rinse, repeat.

Funny how that works. Everyone knows that in general, it takes more money to have nicer things. Yet they forget that such also applies to schools. People don't seem to understand that if you keep on cutting the funding for schools, they are not going to improve, they will actually get worse.

Do you not mean the UK?

As this would appear to be drawn up on curriculum borders it would probably mean England.

As this would appear to be drawn up on curriculum borders it would probably mean England.

Not inherently based off curriculum borders. The US is included as an entity, despite having many different curricula.

Not inherently based off curriculum borders. The US is included as an entity, despite having 51 curricula.Or more? I don't know that every state has a statewide curriculum.

Or more? I don't know that every state has a statewide curriculum.

Sorry...used the wrong word there. You're correct. Actually, not even every city has one unified curriculum

How can those damn ruskies be beating us!? Grrrrrrrrrr.

You think that's bad? Borat is beating you. :p

You think that's bad? Borat is beating you. :p

16: Ontario, Canada, score: 512
You too, mate ;)

You too, mate ;)

*hangs head in shame* :(

Hong Kong is also No.1 in terms of free markets...

http://www.heritage.org/research/features/index/countries.cfm

Plus, we have a harbour front like this...

Harbour (http://i205.photobucket.com/albums/bb281/Barringtonia_bucket/DSC04316.jpg)

...and beaches like this...

Beach (http://i205.photobucket.com/albums/bb281/Barringtonia_bucket/DSC04300.jpg)


ZOMG111

I think that we in the US have a pretty bad education system in the aspect that it caters to the underachiever, and the students who want to learn are held back by the students who refuse to learn. So much time and money is spent catering to the students who don't work and refuse to take lessons trying to teach them the same thing over and over until they learn. It prevents anyone from learning anything.

I think that we in the US have a pretty bad education system in the aspect that it caters to the underachiever, and the students who want to learn are held back by the students who refuse to learn. So much time and money is spent catering to the students who don't work and refuse to take lessons trying to teach them the same thing over and over until they learn. It prevents anyone from learning anything.

How do you suggest we fix that?

Also, remember, there isn't one "USAmerican education system"

Do you not mean the UK?

nope Scotland, Wales, and Northern Ireland ranked last. something about not be able to do math if it didn't pertain to alcohol.

I think that we in the US have a pretty bad education system in the aspect that it caters to the underachiever, and the students who want to learn are held back by the students who refuse to learn. So much time and money is spent catering to the students who don't work and refuse to take lessons trying to teach them the same thing over and over until they learn. It prevents anyone from learning anything.

I don't think America's doing too badly, the first 3 are essentially city states in a culture that values mathematics very highly, and America is partly the reason since computer engineering and science are seen as an easy entry for a Green Card.

Russia and Kazakstan, I can't believe this is a sum of total population but more a certain level of schooling, as in school leavers at 18 or something, I might be wrong and these countries do like their logic and chess so perhaps...

Given the size and scope of America, it's no surprise that areas will drive down the overall score so having Massawhatever and Missouri especially, pretty good.

I don't think America's doing too badly, the first 3 are essentially city states in a culture that values mathematics very highly, and America is partly the reason since computer engineering and science are seen as an easy entry for a Green Card.

Russia and Kazakstan, I can't believe this is a sum of total population but more a certain level of schooling, as in school leavers at 18 or something, I might be wrong and these countries do like their logic and chess so perhaps...The test is run in 4th and 8th grades, so it measures 8 and 12 year olds approximatly

How do you suggest we fix that?

Also, remember, there isn't one "USAmerican education system"

No, there isn't. But things are similar in schools around the country. Both Federal and State laws regulate what schools teach students.

To me that answer to what we should do is simple, stop catering to people who don't want to learn. Once students start realizing the reality of the fact that by refusing to do school work they are only hurting themselves (and with today's systems they are usually harming everyone else in their class). They will either straighten up, or fail out. No more of this "Leave no child behind" stuff. If a student has a hard time learning, put him in a special education system, if a student excels, put him in an accelerated learning program, if he's a lazy little fuck who causes trouble and refuses to work, don't let him hold his peers back. He will either shape up or get the fuck out.

The test is run in 4th and 8th grades, so it measures 8 and 12 year olds approximatly

A modicum of reading the links would have informed me I suppose but thanks,

I agree that culture has a lot to do with it, but I know that Russia has some odd propaganda thrown in, there's a peculiar phrase of Russians that I suspect comes from the automaton heavy teachings of communism, that technology will set us free..

They add 'scientifically proven' after some really odd facts.

'Ukrainians are genetically poorer than Russians, scientifically proven!'

Wot?

It's as if tacking on that phrase lends an air of finality to any debate.

Can't argue with science.

Anyway, point being that the size and diversity of America gives it some leeway in my mind, most of the great 20th century inventions are from America so improvements are always to be had but something's doing alright.

No, there isn't. But things are similar in schools around the country. Both Federal and State laws regulate what schools teach students.

To me that answer to what we should do is simple, stop catering to people who don't want to learn. Once students start realizing the reality of the fact that by refusing to do school work they are only hurting themselves (and with today's systems they are usually harming everyone else in their class). They will either straighten up, or fail out. No more of this "Leave no child behind" stuff. If a student has a hard time learning, put him in a special education system, if a student excels, put him in an accelerated learning program, if he's a lazy little fuck who causes trouble and refuses to work, don't let him hold his peers back. He will either shape up or get the fuck out.

Much of what appears as lazyness or behavior issues stems from learning disabilities, or other issues that you (and often, the teacher) just might not be aware of. Little Timmy doesn't behave so well possibly because daddy beats the crap out of him every night. Or because he can't afford breakfast and is cranky and ancy. Kids don't leave their lives outside the school.
Also, sped systems (which include gifted and talented education) are incredibly expensive for school districts, and not always appropriate for every student, even those who are advanced or those who have learning disabilities.
And moreover, American society as a whole benefits from an educated population. The higher people can be lifted, the higher the eventual benefit to society.

A solution that I would support within the framework of compulsory education and fitting decently well within current budgets is increased tracking. Divide the random English class into a remedial, average, accelerated, and honors level based off previous achievement, but with the ability to shift levels.

How do you suggest we fix that?

Also, remember, there isn't one "USAmerican education system"

school choice would be a good start. let the parents choose schools that fit their students and the tax dollars that support said student follow them.

Much of what appears as lazyness or behavior issues stems from learning disabilities, or other issues that you (and often, the teacher) just might not be aware of. Little Timmy doesn't behave so well possibly because daddy beats the crap out of him every night. Or because he can't afford breakfast and is cranky and ancy. Kids don't leave their lives outside the school.
Also, sped systems (which include gifted and talented education) are incredibly expensive for school districts, and not always appropriate for every student, even those who are advanced or those who have learning disabilities.
And moreover, American society as a whole benefits from an educated population. The higher people can be lifted, the higher the eventual benefit to society.

A solution that I would support within the framework of compulsory education and fitting decently well within current budgets is increased tracking. Divide the random English class into a remedial, average, accelerated, and honors level based off previous achievement, but with the ability to shift levels.

I laid out the simple framework for my thoughts. I don't have the time or inclination to write out a detailed example of what I am saying. The fact remains that some people are just plain lazy and need to be filtered out because they don't care. I mentioned learning disorders, and I didn't say it would be a cheaper solution. In fact it would probably be more expensive, but getting the right education to the people who deserve and want it is in my opinion priceless.

school choice would be a good start. let the parents choose schools that fit their students and the tax dollars that support said student follow them.

Depends what form of school choice you are discussing. I'm a big fan of the charter/pilot system in MA (which has been shown to be very successful), but am pretty well against vouchers and other forms of public funding of private education.

Of course, school choice can be quite expensive, and tends to leave behind those who need to get out the most.

I don't think America's doing too badly, the first 3 are essentially city states in a culture that values mathematics very highly, and America is partly the reason since computer engineering and science are seen as an easy entry for a Green Card.

Russia and Kazakstan, I can't believe this is a sum of total population but more a certain level of schooling, as in school leavers at 18 or something, I might be wrong and these countries do like their logic and chess so perhaps...

Given the size and scope of America, it's no surprise that areas will drive down the overall score so having Massawhatever and Missouri especially, pretty good.

Allow me to clarify, the education system is one of the best in the world no doubt. But is primary failure comes from the fact that we attempt to give everyone the same education regardless of whether or not they want it. If they don't want it than they can go do something else, why waste the time and resources on them?

I laid out the simple framework for my thoughts. I don't have the time or inclination to write out a detailed example of what I am saying. The fact remains that some people are just plain lazy and need to be filtered out because they don't care. I mentioned learning disorders, and I didn't say it would be a cheaper solution. In fact it would probably be more expensive, but getting the right education to the people who deserve and want it is in my opinion priceless.
Yes, you mentioned learning disorders. However, not everyone comes in to this nice little category. Not everyone gets diagnosed, and not everyone has an appropriate disorder (they end up in the catch-all "specific learning disorder"). It is impossible to tell who is "just plain lazy" and people who just "don't care", and those who have legitimate issues behind it.

A better step, and a better use of the increased money (which we already can't get), would be to hire higher caliber teachers. Those who are able to make their students excited to learn, and have decent classroom management skills.

Will every student love every class? No. Will some students hate every class? Sure. Will there be disruptions? You bet ya. Kicking kids out won't get rid of that fact. Welcome to life with anyone between the ages of 6 and 21.

Depends what form of school choice you are discussing. I'm a big fan of the charter/pilot system in MA (which has been shown to be very successful), but am pretty well against vouchers and other forms of public funding of private education.

Of course, school choice can be quite expensive, and tends to leave behind those who need to get out the most.

I was thinking in line with Finland's education system.
similar to the magnet program. have schools that focus band, or arts, or science. all funding should be per student and go to whatever school that student goes to. aka if a city has a million dollar education budget and 1,000 students then $1,000 goes to whatever school the student chooses. No vouchers just send the money with the student.

Id let private institutions in but they would need close scrutiny, and should not be allowed to require additional tuition.

I was thinking in line with Finland's education system.
similar to the magnet program. have schools that focus band, or arts, or science. all funding should be per student and go to whatever school that student goes to. aka if a city has a million dollar education budget and 1,000 students then $1,000 goes to whatever school the student chooses. No vouchers just send the money with the student.

Id let private institutions in but they would need close scrutiny, and should not be allowed to require additional tuition.
What you've kinda-sorta described is a pilot or charter system, except pilots and charters exist in cooperation with, rather than in lieu of, traditional public schools.

I have problems with highly focused high schools, and I think it is beneficial to expose students to a wide range of things. However, so long as all the basics are covered, I have no problem.

The issue with this plan comes in with special education (be it G&T or LD). These students are more expensive to educate (particularly LD). Traditional public schools cannot reject any student, so these students are guarenteed an education. Magnet schools, charter schools, and pilot schools (the version of private school that you mentioned is, essentially, a charter) can refuse a student so long as that student still has access to a public school.

Mn ftw!

According to the Trends in International Mathematics and Science Study (administered by Boston College), Hong Kong has ranked number one by a strong 8 points (scoring 607 out of 800). The top eleven jurisdictions tested are as follows:
Hong Kong (607)
Singapore (599)
Taiwan (576)
Massachusetts (572)
Japan (568)
Minnesota (554)
Kazakhstan (549)
Russia (544)
England (541)
Lithuania (530)
USA (529)

http://www.digital-tv.co.uk/blog/wp-content/uploads/2008/03/borat-high-five.jpg

What you've kinda-sorta described is a pilot or charter system, except pilots and charters exist in cooperation with, rather than in lieu of, traditional public schools.

I have problems with highly focused high schools, and I think it is beneficial to expose students to a wide range of things. However, so long as all the basics are covered, I have no problem.

what Ive seen is if you challenge a student in fields they excel at they perform better in all subjects. ( first 2 years traditional HS and 2nd 2 years magnet school). you give a kid the knowledge he craves then he has a general increase in school altogether. And they don't have to be super specific, they can have a general focus like liberal arts or such.


The issue with this plan comes in with special education (be it G&T or LD). These students are more expensive to educate (particularly LD). Traditional public schools cannot reject any student, so these students are guarenteed an education. Magnet schools, charter schools, and pilot schools (the version of private school that you mentioned is, essentially, a charter) can refuse a student so long as that student still has access to a public school.

that's an easy fix. only take 90% of the money and make it per student. then the other 10% goes to schools focused on special needs.

http://www.digital-tv.co.uk/blog/wp-content/uploads/2008/03/borat-high-five.jpg

*in bad fake Norse accent* Don't you forgeet that Ole und Lena pwn Borat

what Ive seen is if you challenge a student in fields they excel at they perform better in all subjects. ( first 2 years traditional HS and 2nd 2 years magnet school). you give a kid the knowledge he craves then he has a general increase in school altogether. And they don't have to be super specific, they can have a general focus like liberal arts or such.

That's something I like more. I think the traditional model has several benefits which shouldn't be trashed entirely.

that's an easy fix. only take 90% of the money and make it per student. then the other 10% goes to schools focused on special needs.
Something that potentially works. The problem with having a school focused only on special needs becomes the cost to the family. Lets say a district has only a few SPED students...not enough to even fully justify segmenting off of another high school...the easiest solution is to create a regional school district for SPED students. But then, travel times and expenses are increased (some students may have to be up hours before their non-SPED counterparts). The school must then pay for increased bussing, or must require parents to drive their kids to central bus stops or even to the school. This is exceptional pressure, as it costs the family money and impacts the parents work lives.

Even in a single city like Boston...the distance from the Allston neighborhood to the Hyde Park neighborhood, while being less than 10 miles, takes a full 22 minutes with no traffic. Given that school starts with rush hour traffic, this could be well over an hour of travel time, potentially including tolls.

That's something I like more. I think the traditional model has several benefits which shouldn't be trashed entirely.


Something that potentially works. The problem with having a school focused only on special needs becomes the cost to the family. Lets say a district has only a few SPED students...not enough to even fully justify segmenting off of another high school...the easiest solution is to create a regional school district for SPED students. But then, travel times and expenses are increased (some students may have to be up hours before their non-SPED counterparts). The school must then pay for increased bussing, or must require parents to drive their kids to central bus stops or even to the school. This is exceptional pressure, as it costs the family money and impacts the parents work lives.

give private schools what we give public schools per capita and I bet they would have no qualms busing said students as far as they need to go.
Even in a single city like Boston...the distance from the Allston neighborhood to the Hyde Park neighborhood, while being less than 10 miles, takes a full 22 minutes with no traffic. Given that school starts with rush hour traffic, this could be well over an hour of travel time, potentially including tolls.[/QUOTE]

for a city like Boston I recommend students do what students in other major cities outside the US do (at least Asia) put the kids on public transportation.
If your not in a rural/suburb environment and your in middle or high school you don't need a school bus.
the only exception might be special needs students. that would be covered by the increased funding. also I hate to sound mean but most of the extreme cases of special needs the parents would benefit from their kids having a longer bus time. its less time the parents have to take care of said kids and can go to work.

give private schools what we give public schools per capita and I bet they would have no qualms busing said students as far as they need to go.Which, interestingly enough, is one of the major reasons that public education is more costly than private. Yes, there will be qualms. Shifting the cost to a different education system doesn't really fix the problem.

for a city like Boston I recommend students do what students in other major cities outside the US do (at least Asia) put the kids on public transportation.
If your not in a rural/suburb environment and your in middle or high school you don't need a school bus.
Several issues:
a) Even Boston, which has a good public transportation system, is not as fast as point-to-point travel. Public transport would add even more time to the kids commute to school.
b) there is no one responsible for the child on public transportation. I, for one, would have a massive issue putting my 9 year old kid on a bus or train without supervision.
the only exception might be special needs students. that would be covered by the increased funding. also I hate to sound mean but most of the extreme cases of special needs the parents would benefit from their kids having a longer bus time. its less time the parents have to take care of said kids and can go to work.
No...the increased funding would cover the increased needs of those students: the need for more and higher qualified teachers, the need for more resources, ect.

And not all parents would consider it to be "better" for their kids to be put on a bus for several hours...this could actually be much, much worse for the kids, and therefore the parents, in the long run. Human contact can help with many issues, particularly social issues, which would be vital in getting a job.

They didn't have Finland in this!

They didn't have Finland in this!

Finland has best overall. maybe your more of a liberal arts type of country.

Which, interestingly enough, is one of the major reasons that public education is more costly than private. Yes, there will be qualms. Shifting the cost to a different education system doesn't really fix the problem.

most of the private elementary schools i know run their own buses/shuttles that stop off at every parents house. and do so cheaper then the public school does.

Several issues:
a) Even Boston, which has a good public transportation system, is not as fast as point-to-point travel. Public transport would add even more time to the kids commute to school.

and. an hour or two on public transportation is not a bad thing.
do your home work. chat with people and be social. if it wasnt for the 2 hour bus ride i had to my school i would never have gotten my homework done
b) there is no one responsible for the child on public transportation. I, for one, would have a massive issue putting my 9 year old kid on a bus or train without supervision.

Which is why I said middle school and high school students. So unless your daughter is in middle school she will still ride the bus.

No...the increased funding would cover the increased needs of those students: the need for more and higher qualified teachers, the need for more resources, ect.

And qualified transportation is not ??
current school districts already have special needs buses.
Are you not familiar with the term "short bus"?

And not all parents would consider it to be "better" for their kids to be put on a bus for several hours...this could actually be much, much worse for the kids, and therefore the parents, in the long run. Human contact can help with many issues, particularly social issues, which would be vital in getting a job.

And some how they will get more social contact at home with their parents then on a school bus full of their peers ??? If a parent is going to throw a fit about an Extra hour to 2 hours (for both going to and from school) less time at home I have a feeling they are going to opt to home school anyways.

They didn't have Finland in this!

Tests were only administered to jurisdictions that paid. For example, every US state participated because the US paid for it, but the results were not broken down by state. MA and MN paid seperatly to have their own results.

Finland wasn't included because they chose not to participate...though, I am curious where they would land.

most of the private elementary schools i know run their own buses/shuttles that stop off at every parents house. and do so cheaper then the public school does.Source that demonstrates that private schools somehow have lower transport costs if they offer it?

and. an hour or two on public transportation is not a bad thing.
do your home work. chat with people and be social. if it wasnt for the 2 hour bus ride i had to my school i would never have gotten my homework done
Which is why I said middle school and high school students. So unless your daughter is in middle school she will still ride the bus. I wouldn't trust putting a 13 year old(8th grade student) on public transport unsupervised.
And four hours on the bus or four hours at home...it's still four hours. You happened to be able to do your homework on the bus...a noisy, bumpy, distracted environment. It isn't as if you gained four hours to do homework...you just changed the setting from your livingroom to a bus.

And qualified transportation is not ??
current school districts already have special needs buses.
Are you not familiar with the term "short bus"? That is one of many needs. However, the "short bus" is for highly disabled students. The majority of SPED students take the regular bus.


And some how they will get more social contact at home with their parents then on a school bus full of their peers ??? If a parent is going to throw a fit about an Extra hour to 2 hours (for both going to and from school) less time at home I have a feeling they are going to opt to home school anyways.
Spending an extra hour with other SPED students is not the same as spending an extra hour with a non-SPED person...learning how to communicate with someone who does not think like you. Two autistic kids (if they talk at all) will have a very different approach to communication than a parent or other non-autistic person. The difference is that between two kids dealing with one another, and one autistic kid hearind "No. That is inappropriate. How do we appropriatly deal with this situation?"

There are few lessons learned about how one will deal with others in a real-world setting.

Will a parent be more understanding and tolerant of their childs behavior? Yes. But they will be much less so than another 12 year old autistic boy. It's all about socialization here.

Not to mention, kids are in school for usually about 6.5 hours. Plus four for transportation, we're at 10.5.

School starts 7:30. That means the kid must leave their house by 5:30. School would end at 2:00. They would get home at 4 (assuming they do no extra curricular activities). Add on the time they would spend getting ready (in the case of a SPED student, this can be quite a bit of time), and you have a kid who has to be up at the latest 5 AM.
Schools already have issues because the school day is at direct odds with how adolescent biological clocks funtion. This only serves to exacerbate the issue.
Yes, the kid can sleep on the bus. However, the sleep is not particularly restful, given the bumping and moving, and segmented sleep patters are less healthy and restful overall.

Source that demonstrates that private schools somehow have lower transport costs if they offer it?

I wouldn't trust putting a 13 year old(8th grade student) on public transport unsupervised.

if you don't trust your kid that much then by all means drive him. I do not see how your poor parenting and lack of trust should force others to pay for a babysitter for your 13 year old.


And four hours on the bus or four hours at home...it's still four hours. You happened to be able to do your homework on the bus...a noisy, bumpy, distracted environment. It isn't as if you gained four hours to do homework...you just changed the setting from your livingroom to a bus.
[quote]
yeah my living room had a TV and a computer, and friends would come over with pot. there was 4 hours before my parents got home.
[quote]

That is one of many needs. However, the "short bus" is for highly disabled students. The majority of SPED students take the regular bus.

if they are mild they can go to a regular school. already covered under the American with disabilities act under reasonable accommodations. If all that the student needs is for his teachers to follow a special education planner then he can qualify for other schools, simply regulate it in effect.


Spending an extra hour with other SPED students is not the same as spending an extra hour with a non-SPED person...learning how to communicate with someone who does not think like you. Two autistic kids (if they talk at all) will have a very different approach to communication than a parent or other non-autistic person. The difference is that between two kids dealing with one another, and one autistic kid hearind "No. That is inappropriate. How do we appropriatly deal with this situation?"

your going back and forth between mild and major SPED.
Minor goes to school with everyone else and takes public transit.
If they are unable to take public transit well the parent will have to account for that and will either select a school close to home or one close to work. location is also a reason to choose a school. Major will go to the special schools, or home school if need be.


There are few lessons learned about how one will deal with others in a real-world setting.

yes they will learn that the world is cruel and they will always be looked down upon for their disability by the vast majority of the population but there is no need to teach them that before they are adults
Will a parent be more understanding and tolerant of their childs behavior? Yes. But they will be much less so than another 12 year old autistic boy. It's all about socialization here.

then have the bus monitor sit the autistic boy with someone with another disability. Not to mentions autistic don't really understand each other no two of them are alike. Besides if they are so disabled they are likely best job is working at some menial manufacturing job that a non profit organization has cobbled together for them.

Not to mention, kids are in school for usually about 6.5 hours. Plus four for transportation, we're at 10.5.

School starts 7:30. That means the kid must leave their house by 5:30. School would end at 2:00. They would get home at 4 (assuming they do no extra curricular activities). Add on the time they would spend getting ready (in the case of a SPED student, this can be quite a bit of time), and you have a kid who has to be up at the latest 5 AM.
Schools already have issues because the school day is at direct odds with how adolescent biological clocks funtion. This only serves to exacerbate the issue.
Yes, the kid can sleep on the bus. However, the sleep is not particularly restful, given the bumping and moving, and segmented sleep patters are less healthy and restful overall.

my school started at 9 am. you could simply bump school hours later.
Its no issue to start school at 10 am. and the class hours could easily become a factor in selecting said school.

Allow me to clarify, the education system is one of the best in the world no doubt. But is primary failure comes from the fact that we attempt to give everyone the same education regardless of whether or not they want it. If they don't want it than they can go do something else, why waste the time and resources on them?
Where do you draw the line? I have second graders who refuse to do their work for a wide range of reasons, do we really need a society full of second grade dropouts?

And who decides? The parents? The teachers? The students?

Where do you draw the line? I have second graders who refuse to do their work for a wide range of reasons, do we really need a society full of second grade dropouts?

And who decides? The parents? The teachers? The students?

Draw the line a High School.

The students can decide.

Strange how the government message in England is to constantly say we are not doing well enough at maths and sciences. I must admit I am surprised Scotland aren't doing better, as they have always had a superior education system to England.

if you don't trust your kid that much then by all means drive him. I do not see how your poor parenting and lack of trust should force others to pay for a babysitter for your 13 year old.

A) This is a city. Many do not have cars.
B) This is a city. Many parents have to work, and no, cannot take two hours off every day to drive their kid to school.
C) This is a city. There are stabbings, shootings, and muggings on the public transport system. A 13 year old is an easy target.

So again, why should schools not be required to provide transport for every student?

Poor parenting is not a parent who has to work a minimum wage job 40+ hours a week to feed their child. Common sense (don't leave your door unlocked in a city. Don't walk the streets alone at night in a city. Don't leave your young child unattended in a city) is not a lack of trust.

Though, it must be nice to live in a world where 13 year olds don't get into trouble, everyone respects one another, and bosses are entirely understanding that you need to take four hours off of work every morning to drive your child hours away for school.


yeah my living room had a TV and a computer, and friends would come over with pot. there was 4 hours before my parents got home. You can turn off the TV and computer, and not have your friends over. You can't stop a bus from bouncing. Lack of motivation is not the same as an environment inherently not conducive to work.

if they are mild they can go to a regular school. already covered under the American with disabilities act under reasonable accommodations. If all that the student needs is for his teachers to follow a special education planner then he can qualify for other schools, simply regulate it in effect.And if they aren't so mild that they can be fully mainstreamed, but not so major that they would currently ride the "short bus"?

your going back and forth between mild and major SPED.
Minor goes to school with everyone else and takes public transit.
If they are unable to take public transit well the parent will have to account for that and will either select a school close to home or one close to work. location is also a reason to choose a school. Major will go to the special schools, or home school if need be. Untill this moment, you never made a differentiation between mild or major disabilities.

And if the local school is not equipt to handle that student?
And you're going to require that some parents homeschool their kids? Quite interesting.

Amazing that the kids who most need help are the exact ones that are most screwed over by getting rid of services. Oh wait, that's not surprising at all.

yes they will learn that the world is cruel and they will always be looked down upon for their disability by the vast majority of the population but there is no need to teach them that before they are adults
Yeah...lets shelter kids so they have absolutly no clue and no preparation for what lies ahead. Oh wait...that's why we educate them...so they are prepared.
then have the bus monitor sit the autistic boy with someone with another disability. Not to mentions autistic don't really understand each other no two of them are alike. Besides if they are so disabled they are likely best job is working at some menial manufacturing job that a non profit organization has cobbled together for them.
And yet, their boss will likely not have a severe mental disorder, and they will be unequipt to deal with that. Same with their landlord. Or most of the people they will deal with.

my school started at 9 am. you could simply bump school hours later.
Its no issue to start school at 10 am. and the class hours could easily become a factor in selecting said school.Actually, given that many school districts have been trying to shift hours for years, it is an issue. Bus drivers don't want those hours. Teachers, who are already often required to stay later, don't want those hours. Parents don't want their kids getting home when it is dark out. 9 AM is one of the latest starting times I have ever heard. The majority start before 8 AM for high school.

I have no issue with your call for school choice. Boston already offers some level of this. My issue is that you seem to think that it is unnecessary that students are transported to and from school by the district to insure the safety of the students in its charge. This screws over a) special ed students and b) low income families...the very families that need better schools the most.

Draw the line a High School.

The students can decide.Because students are good at making informed decisions.

Strange how the government message in England is to constantly say we are not doing well enough at maths and sciences. I must admit I am surprised Scotland aren't doing better, as they have always had a superior education system to England.
Well, even Hong Kong only scored in the low 600's out of 800. That's only about a 75%. Students scoring in the top tier can also always be improved.

There should never be a point that any education system says "Yep...we're doing great.". They should always be pushing for improvement.

Plus, we have a harbour front like this...

Harbour (http://i205.photobucket.com/albums/bb281/Barringtonia_bucket/DSC04316.jpg)

This picture is a sad reminder of colonialism, when the British, for no reason other than spite, turned Hong Kong and the surrounding terrain on a 45-degree angle. I pity you, my oblique friend.

This picture is a sad reminder of colonialism, when the British, for no reason other than spite, turned Hong Kong and the surrounding terrain on a 45-degree angle. I pity you, my oblique friend.

I think it's just cos you're viewing from N. America, curvature of the earth and stuff, it looks flat when I look at it,

Because students are good at making informed decisions.

And a lot of adults are?

And a lot of adults are?

if nothing else, they posses greater levels of physical maturity than 13/14 year olds in the haze of adolescence.

Well, even Hong Kong only scored in the low 600's out of 800. That's only about a 75%. Students scoring in the top tier can also always be improved.

There should never be a point that any education system says "Yep...we're doing great.". They should always be pushing for improvement.

I have never known a government that didn't want to say 'hey we are doing well at this'