(09-23-2009 08:17 AM)Machiavelli Wrote:  At the root of this it's probably W's fault..........................

C'mon, you know the feds stuck their nose in local education long before W. He just pushed "No Child Left Behind" which added a bunch of requirements to schools........again without funding the mandates.

So, so typical of the Fed. Lets add these new rules & LET SOMEONE ELSE PAY FOR IT.

I assume you are all aware that in schools today. The parent of a truely retarded child can demand to be in the regular classroom. The school must hire aids for that child, etc.

Good story. Several years ago, my wife who was teaching kindergarden had the following situation: 12 year old retarded girls parents wanted her to go to "regular school". At 12, this child still could not speak or control her bodily functions. School had to hire 2 aids for the classroom for this girl - she obviously was much larger than the other 5 year olds and would sometimes bite them if she got the chance. The hired aids had to go through training in case this girl got her period so that they could fit her with a sanitary napkin.

That situation went on for an entire school year & if the parents had continued the demand - for an entire 12 years.

Federal Requirement signed by Clinton....I think the disabilities act.

(09-23-2009 06:52 AM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  

(09-22-2009 08:39 PM)Fo Shizzle Wrote:  

(09-22-2009 08:34 PM)Machiavelli Wrote:  My daughter is in the 5th grade. Not having her memorize the times tables is hurting her imho. I constantly quiz her all the time. It drives me bonkers she doesn't know something I had down pat in 3rd grade.

This.
You are highlighting one of the major problems with our current teaching methods. We built the greatest empire the world has ever seen....by teaching just what you are talking about. All of a sudden..the damn bureaucrats decided to try and fix something that was not broken. Go figure.

Can we survive as nation if this is not fixed?
If so, how?
If not, how do we get it changed?

It looks as if the first step would be to remove centralized control of the education system and leave education to the educators and parents...not bureaucrats. I see a trend now with "charter schools" to attempt to get back to the basics and stressing parental involvement. These schools do not serve lunch, do not have funded athletic departments and have limited extracurricular activities(mostly organized by the parents). Parents are required to be involved with the school. It seems like a good place to start.
These schools have lower costs per child and yet are getting it done.
Maybe this is the model for the future of education.

(09-23-2009 10:31 AM)Fo Shizzle Wrote:  

(09-23-2009 06:52 AM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  

(09-22-2009 08:39 PM)Fo Shizzle Wrote:  

(09-22-2009 08:34 PM)Machiavelli Wrote:  My daughter is in the 5th grade. Not having her memorize the times tables is hurting her imho. I constantly quiz her all the time. It drives me bonkers she doesn't know something I had down pat in 3rd grade.

This.
You are highlighting one of the major problems with our current teaching methods. We built the greatest empire the world has ever seen....by teaching just what you are talking about. All of a sudden..the damn bureaucrats decided to try and fix something that was not broken. Go figure.

Can we survive as nation if this is not fixed?
If so, how?
If not, how do we get it changed?

It looks as if the first step would be to remove centralized control of the education system and leave education to the educators and parents...not bureaucrats. I see a trend now with "charter schools" to attempt to get back to the basics and stressing parental involvement. These schools do not serve lunch, do not have funded athletic departments and have limited extracurricular activities(mostly organized by the parents). Parents are required to be involved with the school. It seems like a good place to start.
These schools have lower costs per child and yet are getting it done.
Maybe this is the model for the future of education.

FO, most Charter schools in the state that I live in actually do worse that the publics. I will say that most are located in inner cities......but they fare no better. A couple have recently be shut down due to "fiscal irregularities".

(09-23-2009 10:35 AM)Crebman Wrote:  

(09-23-2009 10:31 AM)Fo Shizzle Wrote:  

(09-23-2009 06:52 AM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  

(09-22-2009 08:39 PM)Fo Shizzle Wrote:  

(09-22-2009 08:34 PM)Machiavelli Wrote:  My daughter is in the 5th grade. Not having her memorize the times tables is hurting her imho. I constantly quiz her all the time. It drives me bonkers she doesn't know something I had down pat in 3rd grade.

This.
You are highlighting one of the major problems with our current teaching methods. We built the greatest empire the world has ever seen....by teaching just what you are talking about. All of a sudden..the damn bureaucrats decided to try and fix something that was not broken. Go figure.

Can we survive as nation if this is not fixed?
If so, how?
If not, how do we get it changed?

It looks as if the first step would be to remove centralized control of the education system and leave education to the educators and parents...not bureaucrats. I see a trend now with "charter schools" to attempt to get back to the basics and stressing parental involvement. These schools do not serve lunch, do not have funded athletic departments and have limited extracurricular activities(mostly organized by the parents). Parents are required to be involved with the school. It seems like a good place to start.
These schools have lower costs per child and yet are getting it done.
Maybe this is the model for the future of education.

FO, most Charter schools in the state that I live in actually do worse that the publics. I will say that most are located in inner cities......but they fare no better. A couple have recently be shut down due to "fiscal irregularities".

That is why I'd like to see some data. There are 6 within a 30 mile radius of my town here in rural SENC and the reports have been positive. It may be that they are experiencing the same lack of parental support in the cities as traditional schools. I'd like to see some data comparing the two situations. Thanks for the info.

(09-22-2009 10:48 PM)nomad2u2001 Wrote:  

(09-22-2009 08:39 PM)Fo Shizzle Wrote:  

(09-22-2009 08:34 PM)Machiavelli Wrote:  My daughter is in the 5th grade. Not having her memorize the times tables is hurting her imho. I constantly quiz her all the time. It drives me bonkers she doesn't know something I had down pat in 3rd grade.

This.
You are highlighting one of the major problems with our current teaching methods. We built the greatest empire the world has ever seen....by teaching just what you are talking about. All of a sudden..the damn bureaucrats decided to try and fix something that was not broken. Go figure.

Time tables should be memorized in third grade and enforced through forth. Child psychology has been the same since we developed language and children still learn the same way.

Which brings us right back to here:
http://www.ncaabbs.com/showthread.php?ti...pid4648627

I wasn't joking. If you teach the basics, at the right age, using proven methods...you will see reliable, predictable success. You can use different tools to support these methods, and that's where the teachers' creativity comes in. In fact it's very desirable to use diverse tools (but don't change the method) because you have a diverse set of students. Even one student can benefit from diverse tools.

That doesn't mean some kids won't excel, and others struggle a bit. But, doing it the right way, at the right age, it isn't all that painful, and it's far less painful than the alternatives.

Moreover, as you build success at a young age, it allows for more success at older ages. Like compoundng interest, if you start well, you get better students later on!

And it's not that hard! It is the refusal by much of the education establishment to do things by proven methods that is the problem! And the consequences (also reliable and predictable) have followed.

(09-23-2009 10:31 AM)Fo Shizzle Wrote:  

(09-23-2009 06:52 AM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  

(09-22-2009 08:39 PM)Fo Shizzle Wrote:  

(09-22-2009 08:34 PM)Machiavelli Wrote:  My daughter is in the 5th grade. Not having her memorize the times tables is hurting her imho. I constantly quiz her all the time. It drives me bonkers she doesn't know something I had down pat in 3rd grade.

This.
You are highlighting one of the major problems with our current teaching methods. We built the greatest empire the world has ever seen....by teaching just what you are talking about. All of a sudden..the damn bureaucrats decided to try and fix something that was not broken. Go figure.

Can we survive as nation if this is not fixed?
If so, how?
If not, how do we get it changed?

It looks as if the first step would be to remove centralized control of the education system and leave education to the educators and parents...not bureaucrats.

Sorry, but even at the local level, most educators, administrators and board members ARE bureaucrats.

I can appreciate the desire for an efficient, nearly automated system. However, that doesn't mean a bureaucracy.

(09-24-2009 07:50 AM)DrTorch Wrote:  

(09-23-2009 10:31 AM)Fo Shizzle Wrote:  

(09-23-2009 06:52 AM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  

(09-22-2009 08:39 PM)Fo Shizzle Wrote:  

(09-22-2009 08:34 PM)Machiavelli Wrote:  My daughter is in the 5th grade. Not having her memorize the times tables is hurting her imho. I constantly quiz her all the time. It drives me bonkers she doesn't know something I had down pat in 3rd grade.

This.
You are highlighting one of the major problems with our current teaching methods. We built the greatest empire the world has ever seen....by teaching just what you are talking about. All of a sudden..the damn bureaucrats decided to try and fix something that was not broken. Go figure.

Can we survive as nation if this is not fixed?
If so, how?
If not, how do we get it changed?

It looks as if the first step would be to remove centralized control of the education system and leave education to the educators and parents...not bureaucrats.

Sorry, but even at the local level, most educators, administrators and board members ARE bureaucrats.

I can appreciate the desire for an efficient, nearly automated system. However, that doesn't mean a bureaucracy.

True..but..When they are your neighbors and sit in church with you..they tend to be a bit more in touch and responsive to the needs of the community.

Ronald Regan gave us the Dept of Education. Bush gaves us no chile left behind. You can't blame those on the Democrats.

School needs recess, PE, Art, Band, Football, and other sports. It needs the things that kids enjoy. It needs anything that makes kids want to go to school. By neglecting those things, we have conscripted our kids to start their worklife at 5 years old. Kids should be encouraged to be kids. If we did that, we wouldn't have so many trying to act like grownups and getting it wrong.

(09-24-2009 12:36 PM)Claw Wrote:  Ronald Regan gave us the Dept of Education. Bush gaves us no chile left behind. You can't blame those on the Democrats.

School needs recess, PE, Art, Band, Football, and other sports. It needs the things that kids enjoy. It needs anything that makes kids want to go to school. By neglecting those things, we have conscripted our kids to start their worklife at 5 years old. Kids should be encouraged to be kids. If we did that, we wouldn't have so many trying to act like grownups and getting it wrong.

I can understand that thinking but sports shouldn't be offered on a competitive bases until middle school. Other than that you are correct.

(09-24-2009 12:36 PM)Claw Wrote:  Ronald Regan gave us the Dept of Education. Bush gaves us no chile left behind. You can't blame those on the Democrats.

School needs recess, PE, Art, Band, Football, and other sports. It needs the things that kids enjoy. It needs anything that makes kids want to go to school. By neglecting those things, we have conscripted our kids to start their worklife at 5 years old. Kids should be encouraged to be kids. If we did that, we wouldn't have so many trying to act like grownups and getting it wrong.

I can honestly say that PE was a total waste of time for me. I was plenty active enough without it. I do understand though that todays kids get almost zero exercise and are glued either to at TV or Keyboard. I have no problem with art and music programs. My biggest problem with PS is the homogeneous classes that teach to the "lowest common denominator".

(09-24-2009 12:36 PM)Claw Wrote:  Ronald Regan gave us the Dept of Education. Bush gaves us no chile left behind. You can't blame those on the Democrats.

The Dept of Education was established in 1980. You can check out who was president then.

Bush pulled in a Dem from TX who he worked with there to establish TX's standards of learning. It was a bi-partisan effort at that time, and widely praised.

So yes, I can "blame" both of those on Dems if I pay attention to the facts.

At any rate, it can be said that NCLB has been moderately successful, and what came before was a no-accountability mess. The ones who clamor most loudly against NCLB are teachers...who get no sympathy from me.

That doesn't mean I don't think NCLB could be tossed. I just think you've done a fabulous job of setting up a straw man argument, and it bears pointing out.

Quote:School needs recess, PE, Art, Band, Football, and other sports. It needs the things that kids enjoy. It needs anything that makes kids want to go to school. By neglecting those things, we have conscripted our kids to start their worklife at 5 years old. Kids should be encouraged to be kids. If we did that, we wouldn't have so many trying to act like grownups and getting it wrong.

Actually this paragraph is filled with so many misconceptions, it's difficult to know where to start. The first is that one should readily ask, "what is your point?"

The second is to point out that up until the 1900s, "kids" were expected to become grown ups around ages 13-16, and the major part of "being a kid" was preparing for that.

You'll find that in the early part of the 20th C, only small fraction of the public graduated from HS. Yes, we had cars, radio, airplanes, it was the modern era...and people were expected to become adults at ages 14-16, not play at being children until they were 20...24...30.

This whole notion of "Kids should be encouraged to be kids" was why the germans invented "kindergarten," it was never intended to extend childhood past the ages 16-18 years old (and that's pushing it). And it is THIS flawed understanding of the concept that is EXACTLY why they get it "wrong."

I would never call a kid the "lowest common denominator". But their are kids that will go different paths based on interests and aptitudes. Setting school up to pay the proper amount of attention to each of those paths would help out a lot.

(09-24-2009 12:56 PM)nomad2u2001 Wrote:  I would never call a kid the "lowest common denominator". But their are kids that will go different paths based on interests and aptitudes. Setting school up to pay the proper amount of attention to each of those paths would help out a lot.

Sure, but doing that at every single school is expensive. Very redundant.

What if you set up different schools, each w/ the same mission: developing students to meet their individual goals, but allowed the schools to focus on the differing skills. Maybe you could have one be fine arts, another be STEM, and another mechanical skills, etc.

Then you could let parents and students craft a path.

Of course funding needs are different, so you could hand each student a "marker" worth a single student appropriation. Then that student would hand the marker to the school where they chose to enroll, and the school could cash it in for funding from the state.

If an individual school didn't perform well, then students would likely opt to leave, and the funding would decrease.

How's that for a thought?

Of course this is more at the 2ndary school level. At the primary school level, there is a sound, straightforward approach that delivers reliable, predictable success.

The entire Educational System should hinge on one goal and one goal only. Educators must inspire children to teach themselves.

(09-24-2009 12:52 PM)DrTorch Wrote:  

(09-24-2009 12:36 PM)Claw Wrote:  Ronald Regan gave us the Dept of Education. Bush gaves us no chile left behind. You can't blame those on the Democrats.

The Dept of Education was established in 1980. You can check out who was president then.

Bush pulled in a Dem from TX who he worked with there to establish TX's standards of learning. It was a bi-partisan effort at that time, and widely praised.

So yes, I can "blame" both of those on Dems if I pay attention to the facts.

At any rate, it can be said that NCLB has been moderately successful, and what came before was a no-accountability mess. The ones who clamor most loudly against NCLB are teachers...who get no sympathy from me.

That doesn't mean I don't think NCLB could be tossed. I just think you've done a fabulous job of setting up a straw man argument, and it bears pointing out.

Quote:School needs recess, PE, Art, Band, Football, and other sports. It needs the things that kids enjoy. It needs anything that makes kids want to go to school. By neglecting those things, we have conscripted our kids to start their worklife at 5 years old. Kids should be encouraged to be kids. If we did that, we wouldn't have so many trying to act like grownups and getting it wrong.

Actually this paragraph is filled with so many misconceptions, it's difficult to know where to start. The first is that one should readily ask, "what is your point?"

The second is to point out that up until the 1900s, "kids" were expected to become grown ups around ages 13-16, and the major part of "being a kid" was preparing for that.

You'll find that in the early part of the 20th C, only small fraction of the public graduated from HS. Yes, we had cars, radio, airplanes, it was the modern era...and people were expected to become adults at ages 14-16, not play at being children until they were 20...24...30.

This whole notion of "Kids should be encouraged to be kids" was why the germans invented "kindergarten," it was never intended to extend childhood past the ages 16-18 years old (and that's pushing it). And it is THIS flawed understanding of the concept that is EXACTLY why they get it "wrong."

You're right. It was Carter. I should have known.

Here is an interesting thought. Since we are now in the business of testing the Hell out of students. Continue with the tests (to at least get an idea that learning is taking place), however, tie the test scores to students I.Q.s Each student should progress along the learning path at least commensurate with what their I.Q. has been tested to be. I'm not saying that this is a perfect situation, but it will remove alot of the "one size fits all" style of measuring learning that goes on today.

To me, any teacher that can get kids to "learn above their IQ's" is doing well. At minimum, kids should learn "at their I.Q. Teachers that show a pattern of students "learning below their I.Q." are not being effective and would warrent removal. This would eliminate the arbitrary - all kids must pass this test. You do know that now, kids identified as learning disabled take the test and are counted in the "scoring" just like all other kids.

(09-24-2009 02:56 PM)Crebman Wrote:  Here is an interesting thought. Since we are now in the business of testing the Hell out of students. Continue with the tests (to at least get an idea that learning is taking place), however, tie the test scores to students I.Q.s Each student should progress along the learning path at least commensurate with what their I.Q. has been tested to be. I'm not saying that this is a perfect situation, but it will remove alot of the "one size fits all" style of measuring learning that goes on today.

To me, any teacher that can get kids to "learn above their IQ's" is doing well. At minimum, kids should learn "at their I.Q. Teachers that show a pattern of students "learning below their I.Q." are not being effective and would warrent removal. This would eliminate the arbitrary - all kids must pass this test. You do know that now, kids identified as learning disabled take the test and are counted in the "scoring" just like all other kids.

Defining IQ has always been a challenge. Usually such tests are fraught w/ bias.

For example, who's got the higher IQ, the person who picks up langauges quickly, and can speak fluent spanish and french after 2-3 years, BUT struggles with Alg 2,

OR the person who gets B- in german, but challenges the teacher with insight in Calculus, and can program the whiz out of a computer?

Here's an idea, let's have primary schools use methods that are proven reliable and successful. Let's target core needs: Reading/spelling, arithmetic (including time, money, english units of measurement) and geography. Secondary topics, such as history, grammar/punctuation, science, etc will come about as these other subjects are mastered and/or applied. Let's not be afraid of rote memorization at this age, but be willing to use a variety of tools (games, flash cards, spelling bees, drills, music, AV applications) to reinforce this learning.

Then ininstead of trying to let some central planning committee make all the decisions (whether they're in DC or your local county seat), how about parents get options to decide what's best for their kid for advanced studies? They could have area schools w/ the same mission: developing students to meet their individual goals, but different areas of emphasis to match the students' different missions...

(09-22-2009 01:32 PM)Fo Shizzle Wrote:  

(09-22-2009 12:48 PM)DrTorch Wrote:  

(09-22-2009 12:41 PM)Machiavelli Wrote:  I thought the EXACT same thing. I'd bet it has alot to do with English as the 2nd langauge influx since 1980. I really wish we could find the top score on the NEAP. If it's 400 then I really have an argument, but what if the top score is a 1000? We don't know the parameters that's why I think it's misleading or could be.

I see the point you're trying to make here. I apologize for dismissing it earlier.

Regardless...This graph clearly shows that throwing money at the problem has had minimal impact on raising test scores. I blame it more on the "method" of teaching than anything else. My mother taught 2nd grade for over 30 years...She maintains that "whole language" and math skills taught without "memorization" are to blame. In a nutshell...We tried to fix time proven methods of teaching that were NOT broken.

If I had my way...Reading,writing and math would be the ONLY things taught through the 5th or 6th grade. The rest comes easy once the basic skills are mastered.

Without the basics being mastered...a child can not excel at the higher grades and the teachers spend half their time trying to "catch the kids up".

I'd like to see "educational english" taught to all non english speakers for as long as it takes for them to master the language to maximize their educational opportunity in english as opposed to the millions we spend trying to find or create certified/effective bi-lingual teachers (in half a dozen languages) in half a dozen disciplines. If that means that the kid doesn't graduate until he's 20, then so what?? It's better that he graduate at 20 having learned something than he graduate at 18 with half an education and having drained resources from the rest of the schoolchildren.

(09-22-2009 04:45 PM)uhmump95 Wrote:  

(09-22-2009 03:13 PM)DrTorch Wrote:  Why not go back to 1973, use those materials at those costs? Heck, the results are the same and the cost is much lower.

Because back in 1973 you could remove the fringe kids from the mainstream and focus on teaching kids that want to learn with parents that take an interest in education.

Now you have all the kids good , bad or indifferent in one room and the whole is suffering for it.

GREAT point.

(09-22-2009 04:55 PM)Crebman Wrote:  

(09-22-2009 03:13 PM)DrTorch Wrote:  

(09-22-2009 02:33 PM)Crebman Wrote:  Quite frankly, I think that our public schools trying to be a college prep place for everyone that rolls through the door is a huge mistake.

I agree with you completely here. But, isn't that a huge problem w/ the schools?

Quote: They also spend way too much time and money trying to bring the bottom feeders up to a competent level.

Agree here too.

And here's what both of these have in common: they are catering mass education to the fringe elements. How can you not underachieve when you spend most of your resources targeting the top and bottom 10%s, and then try to use that on the middle 80%?

Furthermore, the more they fail, the more they try to reform the entire sytem instead of straightforward upgrades.

Why not go back to 1973, use those materials at those costs? Heck, the results are the same and the cost is much lower.

But when you really get down to it, education has been dealt with since the dawn of man, and whether you believe that started in 4000 BC or 4billion BC, it's been around a long time. The most sensible approach is to use what's proven to work, and stop granting EdDs for coming up w/ absurd approaches to teaching.

Anyway, I went to public schools in OH. My older son went in VA. I have friends who teach now. I've had friends who've worked for the Dept of Education. I've seen more than one short experience w/ one public school.

It would be nice to go back to 1973 funding levels, but teacher salaries were about $6K to $8K then. I doubt we could get competent teachers for less than what a McD's worker makes.

To me, it would make sense to guide a much greater % of kids to the vocational line of jobs, sadly though, a large % of those jobs no longer exist in the U.S. It will be increasingly tough to be part of the middle class without a fair amount of post-secondary schooling.

I do know that we are trying to fit too many square pegs into round holes with the results that the square pegs that are in the schools are getting short changed as well. IMO, that is not the individual teachers fault as much as it is the current "education philosophy" being espoused and mandated by our wonderful governments.

Something to consider.....generally, the teachers in a private school and those from a public school were trained at the same universities. Why would the privates outperform the publics??? I think it is more to do with parents and their expectations. Also, in the privates, if Johnny won't behave, he gets permanently tossed from school. Publics really don't have that option.

I'm in favor of vocational ed.

In 1973, $8,000 was much more than what McDonald's workers made. I get your point, but teachers weren't WORSE off in 1973 than they are today.


Interestingly... teachers at MANY private schools don't have degrees in teaching or teaching certificates. Some don't even have majors in their field of education... but (generally speaking) they are good at what they do and put out good students. Public schools (also in general) have certified teachers who aren't as good at teaching (at least teaching the kids they're given to educate) and don't put out as good a product...

I'm sure its easier to teach kids that want to learn, or have a greater aptitude... but perhapsn public schools should be more interested in the effectiveness of their teachers rather than their certifications.

(09-24-2009 03:13 PM)DrTorch Wrote:  

(09-24-2009 02:56 PM)Crebman Wrote:  Here is an interesting thought. Since we are now in the business of testing the Hell out of students. Continue with the tests (to at least get an idea that learning is taking place), however, tie the test scores to students I.Q.s Each student should progress along the learning path at least commensurate with what their I.Q. has been tested to be. I'm not saying that this is a perfect situation, but it will remove alot of the "one size fits all" style of measuring learning that goes on today.

To me, any teacher that can get kids to "learn above their IQ's" is doing well. At minimum, kids should learn "at their I.Q. Teachers that show a pattern of students "learning below their I.Q." are not being effective and would warrent removal. This would eliminate the arbitrary - all kids must pass this test. You do know that now, kids identified as learning disabled take the test and are counted in the "scoring" just like all other kids.

Defining IQ has always been a challenge. Usually such tests are fraught w/ bias.

For example, who's got the higher IQ, the person who picks up langauges quickly, and can speak fluent spanish and french after 2-3 years, BUT struggles with Alg 2,

OR the person who gets B- in german, but challenges the teacher with insight in Calculus, and can program the whiz out of a computer?

Here's an idea, let's have primary schools use methods that are proven reliable and successful. Let's target core needs: Reading/spelling, arithmetic (including time, money, english units of measurement) and geography. Secondary topics, such as history, grammar/punctuation, science, etc will come about as these other subjects are mastered and/or applied. Let's not be afraid of rote memorization at this age, but be willing to use a variety of tools (games, flash cards, spelling bees, drills, music, AV applications) to reinforce this learning.

Then ininstead of trying to let some central planning committee make all the decisions (whether they're in DC or your local county seat), how about parents get options to decide what's best for their kid for advanced studies? They could have area schools w/ the same mission: developing students to meet their individual goals, but different areas of emphasis to match the students' different missions...

This.
Central planning = failure

Here's an idea, let's have primary schools use methods that are proven reliable and successful. Let's target core needs: Reading/spelling, arithmetic (including time, money, english units of measurement) and geography. Secondary topics, such as history, grammar/punctuation, science, etc will come about as these other subjects are mastered and/or applied. Let's not be afraid of rote memorization at this age, but be willing to use a variety of tools (games, flash cards, spelling bees, drills, music, AV applications) to reinforce this learning.

Then ininstead of trying to let some central planning committee make all the decisions (whether they're in DC or your local county seat), how about parents get options to decide what's best for their kid for advanced studies? They could have area schools w/ the same mission: developing students to meet their individual goals, but different areas of emphasis to match the students' different missions...



I agree with most of what is said here. I've taught secondary sciences for 16 years now. In that time I've went through 6 courses of study. In each revision or implementation you get a "theme du jour". It's been birthday cake science. Earth,Physical, Life, then chem and physics in layers. Then there was this push into integrated sciences where you had units around a theme. Pressure was a unit. One chapter you talked about pressures in living systems. Then pressures in physical systems. (think air pressure weather etc etc.) Then Earth science had a chapter on volcanoes. After that we had the less is more group think. Now Performance Indicators with standards that are a mile wide and an inch deep. Now with the D team in cahrge in Columbus I gaurantee more changes coming down the pike.

I'm not against the token chip as much as I was earlier in my career. The only beef I have is if public schools become the dumping ground for the dipshits, but maybe it would motivate communities. I don't know. If you don't want to teach in a poor community get better at your craft and go to a better community. I get that. Competition is a powerful motivator.