what can be done to 'fix' education in the US? to correct the declining standards when compared to the rest of the world? is it that the world is getting better as a whole and catching up or the US actually declining?

here's my $0.02 on the subject.

1 - education funding is attached to the individual student as a set amount from the government based on what year in school the student is (obviously it costs more for a HS student over a 1st grader (books, materials, and teachers all cost more at later stages (differences in education ability (degrees etc))).
this student can then go to any school they wish within a certain distance of their home address (to avoid busing kids for several hours) or schools they are accepted into farther away as exceptions for programs(limited number). the money then goes to the school from the student. thus schools of every type get X amount of government money for education, some might charge more than that as well. this would be the vast majority of the money the school gets (90%+) comes from the number (only allowed a certain capacity based on infrastructure and teacher number) of students at the school.

you would be allowed to change schools if you are not satisfied with the education your children are receiving (limited number of changes in a geographical region).

thus if the school is bad and your parents value your education you will simply go to a more successful school. with the money following the students schools will have to compete with each other to not only get students but also get the best students. (bonuses for % of students going on to post secondary education, trade school, associates school, college, or university) thus it is in the schools best interests to obtain the best teachers that can facilitate education the most effectively. (this system is actually used in parts of europe to really good effect, as they are passing us)

other factors such as language fluency tests and standardized test scores would also have a effect on the schools funding and appeal to parents and students.

2 - every person, not in school, and not having completed 12 grades fully, will be compelled to work in the fields or some other sort of simple manual labor. you want to drop out? fine, you get to work in the fields and pick berries or work on the roads etc, you will get paid but not much (min. wage), makes the option of staying in school much much more appealing doesn't it? financial aid could be made available to families unable to support themselves without having their children in the workforce/fields. (this combined with legalizing many drugs and enforcing their consumption and regulation would go a long long ways towards eliminating many inner city gangs and reasons to drop out)

any thoughts or ideas?

10/15/2009 11:22:24 AM

Give me liberty or give me death.

10/15/2009 11:23:28 AM

^^ To support some of that:

U.S. Math Tests Find Scant Gains Across New York
Published: October 14, 2009

Quote :

"New York State's fourth and eighth graders made no notable progress on federal math exams this year, according to test scores released on Wednesday, sharply contradicting the results of state-administered tests that showed record gains."

http://www.nytimes.com/2009/10/15/education/15scores.html

I'll post some ideas about solutions later.

10/15/2009 11:26:20 AM

It a cultural problem I think. Our culture seems increasingly doesn't value "nerdy" things, like learning and understanding math. But, if entertainment is what sells, why should we interfere with that? That's the free market at work...

[Edited on October 15, 2009 at 11:27 AM. Reason : ]

10/15/2009 11:26:50 AM

This video will address the majority of your questions, as Thomas L. Friedman brought this subject up several years ago and did an intensive research analysis of it:

http://mitworld.mit.edu/video/266

I highly recommend the book, The World Is Flat, by Thomas L. Friedman. It tackles these problems and provides practical solutions that are attainable.

10/15/2009 11:32:55 AM

^^ What a blithering idiot--as if the two things must be mutually exclusive.

Quote :

"[Mayim Bialik, star of Blossom] earned a bachelor's degree in 2000 in neuroscience, Hebrew, and Jewish studies, and went on to the PhD. program in neuroscience."

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mayim_Bialik

Quote :

"[Dexter] Holland was the class valedictorian at Pacifica High School in Garden Grove, California and was a Ph.D. candidate in Molecular Biology from the University of Southern California; however, he abandoned his Ph.D. in favor of focusing on The Offspring. He has a Bachelor's degree in Biology and a Master's degree in Molecular Biology, both from the University of Southern California."

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dexter_Holland

Quote :

"[Danica] McKellar [star of The Wonder Years] studied at UCLA, majoring in mathematics. While at UCLA, she became a member of Alpha Delta Pi sorority. She graduated summa cum laude in 1998. As an undergraduate, she coauthored a scientific paper with Professor Lincoln Chayes and fellow student Brandy Winn. Their results are termed the 'Chayes-McKellar-Winn theorem' Referring to the mathematical abilities of his student coauthors, Chayes was quoted in the New York Times as saying, 'I thought that the two were really, really first-rate.'"

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Danica_McKellar

And so on, dumbass.

[Edited on October 15, 2009 at 11:44 AM. Reason : .]

10/15/2009 11:43:01 AM

Quote :

"'Chayes-McKellar-Winn theorem' "

judging by that picture i think this is the theorem that states that Chayes won by getting to work long nights on a scientific paper with McKellar and maybe Winn, would have to see a pic of Winn first.

10/15/2009 11:49:37 AM

^^ haha, you're a retard. It looks like you're still butt hurt about that other thread.

10/15/2009 11:58:11 AM

Wow, hooksaw, rich and famous people can afford to get good educations!? HOLY SHIT!

10/15/2009 12:00:20 PM

^^ You're a poopyhead, hooksaw. STFU.

You just got owned on your stupid point, dumbass.

^ That obviously wasn't the point, troll.

10/15/2009 12:07:54 PM

^^^^^

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Outlier
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hasty_Generalization

[Edited on October 15, 2009 at 12:21 PM. Reason : d]

10/15/2009 12:17:12 PM

Quote :

"every person, not in school, and not having completed 12 grades fully, will be compelled to work in the fields or some other sort of simple manual labor. you want to drop out? fine, you get to work in the fields and pick berries or work on the roads etc, you will get paid but not much (min. wage), makes the option of staying in school much much more appealing doesn't it?"

That's a great idea. Rather than allowing people to pursue their natural interests and talents we should force them to do manual labor just because they don't want to fit into society's mold.

hooksaw...Not sure what you're getting at, but the three "stars" you posted are known for their entertainment value only. Just because they are educated does not indicate society values that sort of thing.

10/15/2009 12:22:58 PM

^^ You should've looked up either-or fallacy--that's where actualmoron went wrong.

^ Just look at moron's post that I was responding to and try again.

[Edited on October 15, 2009 at 12:24 PM. Reason : .]

10/15/2009 12:24:01 PM

^
Well...he's right. You have to admit that the words associated with intelligence, like "scientist", have a negative connotation with the general public. You posted good examples of pop stars who are also intelligent, but do you think their intelligence would be so highly praised if they weren't pop stars?

[Edited on October 15, 2009 at 1:03 PM. Reason : .]

10/15/2009 1:03:28 PM

1. Get rid of no child left behind

2. Open up more trade schools

10/15/2009 1:05:47 PM

^++ on the trade schools


To address the premise of this thread-- school's aren't the ones failing kids. Schools and teachers are getting better and better. Fact. Society and parenting are at the heart of the issue.

[Edited on October 15, 2009 at 1:29 PM. Reason : ]

10/15/2009 1:24:08 PM

Then why change the schools or do anything really? If american society wants to dumb itself down, let it.

What's the goal, honestly? There will always be smart people to build the bombs to keep our country powerful. Just because the average joe would rather watch American Idol than go to a museum, who cares? Let the stupid people be stupid I say.

10/15/2009 1:26:50 PM

^
Social and scientific advancement?

10/15/2009 1:28:28 PM

Social advancement? What does that mean? Who determines that "spending the night watching television" is somehow less good on the social scale than "going to the opera"? Throughout history the nature of social activity has been in flux and people like to do what they enjoy.

Scientific advancement? I thought I mentioned this. There will always be smart people. There will always be smart parents who raise smart children who then grow up to be scientists and doctors. We don't need to even try to make every kid into a doctor.

And to the OP, I wish funding schools based on their student population worked and wasn't prone to stupid shit like this:
http://www.northstarnational.com/2009/10/05/detroit-public-schools-school-kids-just-today-money/

[Edited on October 15, 2009 at 1:37 PM. Reason : .]

10/15/2009 1:34:40 PM

Quote :

"school's aren't the ones failing kids. Schools and teachers are getting better and better. Fact. Society and parenting are at the heart of the issue."

I dunno...The couple of teachers I know seem to disagree. When I was in school if you excelled you were put in a class with other kids who excel. No one forced you to excel, but the opportunity was there. The teachers I've talked to seem to be of the opinion that NCLB is allowing kids who don't want to learn to stymie the progress of those that do. I mean, I loved auto shop as much as anyone else, but I'm glad those guys weren't in my history classes.

10/15/2009 1:40:50 PM

Hell in middle school, we had classes segregated by performance. There was 71, 72, and 73. Smart kids go in 71, average in 72, dumb in 73. They don't do this anymore?

10/15/2009 1:45:24 PM

Quote :

"The teachers I've talked to seem to be of the opinion that NCLB is allowing kids who don't want to learn to stymie the progress of those that do."

The high achievers aren't an issue when we're discussing "America's failing schools," though. They certainly are being held back to an extent, but it's all in the name of helping the kids who schools are supposedly failing.

10/15/2009 1:48:43 PM

Quote :

"You're a poopyhead, hooksaw. STFU. You just got owned on your stupid point, dumbass. "

Quote :

"It is noteworthy that the mass media, especially TV, play an important role in the formation of young children’s images of scientists. The ‘strange’ scientist characters in cartoons or TV shows that introduce children to science may be doing more of destruction than formation. Reinforcing the man-in-a-lab-coat or ‘mad scientist’ stereotype could shrink not only children’s interest in science, but even the number and diversity of future scientists and scientific workplaces (Bradley, 2001). Certainly 130 M. Buldu this provides a valuable clue for further studies on the perceptions children hold of scientists, and for appropriate instructional support for teachers to help young children to construct less stereotypical images of the scientist."

- Educational Research, v- 48 n1 p121-132 Mar 2006. 12 pp. (Peer Reviewed Journal)

Quote :

"The charming and charismatic scientist is not an image that populates popular culture.[34] For example, the entertainment industry often portrays certain professions such as medicine, law, and journalism as exciting and glamorous, whereas scientists and engineers are almost always portrayed as unattractive, reclusive, socially inept white men or foreigners working in dull, unglamorous careers. (See sidebar "Few Scientists in Prime Time.")"

- http://www.nsf.gov/statistics/seind02/c7/c7s3.htm

Quote :

". This has contributed to the overall public fear and distrust of science and scientists and does not develop a healthy interest in the scientific field"

- http://www.jstor.org/sici?sici=0162-2439%28199223%2917%3A4%3C411%3ATMCOMS%3E2.0.CO%3B2-W&cookieSet=1

I'm sorry this is not in scantily-clad woman form, and we all are well aware of your terrible grasp of science and math from the global warming thread, but these shouldn't be too hard for even you to understand.

10/15/2009 1:51:31 PM

^^^^^
Sorry, I meant social advancement as in development of human rights. I assume development of good taste would be a by-product.

Stupid people are an enormous hindrance to science. That's reason enough for me.

[Edited on October 15, 2009 at 1:55 PM. Reason : .]

10/15/2009 1:55:10 PM

Quote :

"Hell in middle school, we had classes segregated by performance. There was 71, 72, and 73. Smart kids go in 71, average in 72, dumb in 73. They don't do this anymore?"

IIRC, research has shown this to be damaging to the dumber kids.

10/15/2009 1:57:40 PM

Quote :

"good taste"

I take issue with the wealthy elite defining what good taste is.

Quote :

"Stupid people are an enormous hindrance to science. That's reason enough for me."

How so? I don't see how stupid people have really any impact to the scientific field at all.

Quote :

"IIRC, research has shown this to be damaging to the dumber kids."

That's honestly not surprising. Dumb kids will drag other kids down. I personally wouldn't mind them dragging other dumb kids down, as opposed to dragging smart kids down.

[Edited on October 15, 2009 at 2:00 PM. Reason : .]

10/15/2009 1:58:42 PM

^ but then you would directly be advocating for a classed society, and we'd no longer be able to tell students they can achieve their dreams.

We either embrace a caste-like system by letting dumb kids be dumb, or we try to keep everyone in society progressing forward.

academic achievement is highly correlated with socio-economic status (a term conservatives seem to hate for some reason). And it's also clear from the past that merely dumping money into schools doesn't fix a school. There has to be a multi-pronged approach in making sure the parents of poor students have the resources they need to support their kids, schools themselves have proper management and good teachers, and society as a whole needs to value education.

When you consider that what we call the 3rd world countries are starting to industrialize and dip into manufacturing, blue-collar jobs are going to shrink drastically in the future. Our economy is going to depend heavily on our population being educated enough to fill in the more high-end technology and scientific niches.

10/15/2009 2:10:23 PM

^^
Public opinion has a huge impact. Stem cell research, vaccination, evolutionary theory have all been affected enormously. Those are just a few examples.

10/15/2009 2:15:54 PM

Quote :

"There has to be a multi-pronged approach in making sure the parents of poor students have the resources they need to support their kids, schools themselves have proper management and good teachers, and society as a whole needs to value education."

I agree with all of this. I disagree with doing it at the expense of brighter students. Why cannot the dumb students have good teachers or the same resources as smarter students?

Don't we do this anyway with things like AP classes? We don't put dumb kids in AP calculus.

10/15/2009 2:35:56 PM

I've often thought about a system similar to the OP where every student essentially gets a voucher and the school systems are mostly privatized.

Instead of a set amount for each student though you give voucher amounts based on a parabola with the "worst" and "best" students getting the most voucher money and the completely average getting the least. You would evaluate each student each year and create groups with something like a 20/60/20 split.

Schools would also be split.

In order for a school to get the extra funding from the "best" students they could not:
1. Accept any students that did not evaluate into the top 20%. This would prevent "influential" families from getting into these schools
2. Accept any extra tuition. This would prevent wealthy kids from buying their way into the best schools.

The "best" schools would then have all gifted students that could push each other to achive and the extra funding to acquire the best resources and teachers available. The students who achieve the most would have all of the opportunities to excel.

On the other end of the spectrum the "worst" students academically, socially, and mentally would also have high voucher amounts. With a lot of money floating around, schools should pop up that specialize in handling students with aggression, learning disabilities and/or language issues. The extra money would pay for high student-teacher ratios, high salaries to attract teachers, security, tutors, etc. This way the kids that need the help the most are more likely to get it than be left behind. The should receive more help and be able to move up to "average" if they want, and if they dont care, they're at least not clogging up the system for everyone else.

The majority of the students would fall under "average" and stay in pretty much the same school system we have now. If they really take a down turn they would start receiving more school money and get the extra help they need. If they really work hard they have a chance to move into the top tier schools. Most importantly though, they are not being hindered by bottom tier students and not hindering top tier students.

10/15/2009 7:14:51 PM

WHY WON'T YOU GUYS TAKE MY 3 ANECDOTES AS EVIDENCE

10/15/2009 7:53:34 PM

I'm a teacher.

Forcing the graduation rate at traditional high schools up and up has helped to water down the value of a high school diploma, not to mention the quality of education. Someone who has an aptitude in mechanics, for example, might excel in a trade school learning how to fix cars, and once he graduates, can join the workforce instead of going to, and then flunking out of college.

Back in the day, the dropout rate in high school was MUCH higher, and guess what? the quality of education was much higher as well. Back in the beginning quarter of the 20th century, people came out of high school knowing calculus, physics, latin, french, not to mention mastering the english language, at bare minimum. Now we give diplomas to people who took 3 years to pass Earth Science.

10/15/2009 8:17:33 PM

So, your test scores will jack way up if you get to throw out the dumb students. Go it.

That's some teacher/government employee logic for you

10/15/2009 10:34:06 PM

You can't fault that logic and simultaneously wonder why our schools are "failing."

They're only "failing" because we're adopting your point of view and teaching even the students who don't want to learn.

10/16/2009 9:19:40 AM

Boone-Tard would like to pick the students that he "teaches." Would you just give up on the rest?

The problems with unmotivated, disruptive, and even violent students can be successfully handled through levels of discipline, which would include increasing levels of separation from students who are performing appropriately (not the type of in-school detention in which students are not counted as present and are on a fast track to expulsion). If a kid gets way out of line, you separate him or her from the pack, but you keep on trying to motivate the student and getting the student to learn.

The school systems need to place instructors at the various levels of instruction and discipline to match the situation. For example, you wouldn't want a 105-pound person attempting to instruct and correct several large and disruptive male students. And the highest level of separation and discipline, which would be something like boot camp (and staffed as such), would be reserved for those students whose behavior is the worst.

And we need to stop this dumping of young people into the criminal justice system by many schools. That's what students really need--a criminal record before they even graduate, often for something as simple as a schoolyard fight. This makes no sense.

More later.

10/16/2009 9:37:25 AM

Where did I take sides on the issue? I was pointing out the obvious for people who don't get it. I like the fact that we're teaching everyone; I just think it's ridiculous that we're teaching everyone a college-prep curriculum.


But watch out everyone, I bet hooksaw's probably taken a college class on this subject.

10/16/2009 9:45:39 AM

^^ schools aren't like prisons, and only an idiot would run a school like one.

10/16/2009 10:17:20 AM

Not to mention his plan would only accomplish exactly what he mocked me for.

Quote :

"would like to pick the students that he "teaches." Would you just give up on the rest?"

This is exactly what his bootcamp solution would do. It removes problem students from real lessons, and, instead of letting them fail, we'd make them do calisthenics. They're still not learning algebra.

My school's in school suspension is run by a very tough football coach. He makes kids do all kinds of tortuous drills. It's very similar to your solution. It's not a deterrent to the worst students; they prefer exercise to behaving in class.

10/16/2009 10:46:53 AM

Maybe instead of "boot camp" where you do exercise instead of learning, you just get taught by a strict motherfucker that will punish you more harshly for acting out of line. I think this is what he was getting at. You don't want to give the bad kids an alternative to learning.

I personally don't care as much about kids that get in trouble and the current system. If they fit the "they prefer exercise to behaving in class" demographic, then fuck em after a certain amount of discipline. If they still don't get it, then kick their ass out and let them flip burgers for a living.

10/16/2009 11:07:10 AM

Strictness only goes so far. As wishy-washy as it sounds, reaching difficult students is all about relationship-building and positive reinforcement.

10/16/2009 11:46:26 AM

Some of you seem unable to grasp that my plan would continue the teaching process at all levels of discipline--we would only "give up" on teaching the student when he or she was no longer part of the system.

Quote :

"If a kid gets way out of line, you separate him or her from the pack, but you keep on trying to motivate the student and getting the student to learn."

Quote :

"The school systems need to place instructors at the various levels of instruction and discipline to match the situation."

hooksaw

Quote :

"I like the fact that we're teaching everyone; I just think it's ridiculous that we're teaching everyone a college-prep curriculum."

Boone

On this we agree. And I think the "trade school" approach is catching on--rededicating the community college system to trade and technical education was a big part of Pat McCrory's campaign. I wish he had won the election--and I'll bet now a lot of other people do, too.

http://www.wral.com/news/local/story/5855269/

Quote :

"It removes problem students from real lessons, and, instead of letting them fail, we'd make them do calisthenics. They're still not learning algebra."

Boone

I never suggested anything of the sort.

Quote :

"schools aren't like prisons, and only an idiot would run a school like one."

moron

Shows how much you know.

Ten Reasons Why America's Public Schools Are Like America's Prisons
10 August 2008

http://tinyurl.com/yjak5hw

The difference under my methodology would be that--unlike many schools systems across America today--the "inmates" would no longer be running the institution. And refresh my memory, what are your pedagogical qualifications to determine anything?

10/16/2009 11:51:28 AM

Then it's a logical plan, but entirely impractical.

The school districts I've worked in already have what you're describing to some extent. They are all totally expected to maintain high academic standards;none of them do. At best they're quiet-time, at worst they're chaos. There are a number of reasons that make maintaining high standards impossible:

1) Dumping all the problem kids into one area exacerbates whatever problems made them misbehave. Both because of the increased interaction with bad influences, and the effect it has on the students' mindset.

2) These separate settings don't/can't have normal classes. High schools teach hundreds of subjects-- how is a school system supposed to support hundreds of classes for dozens of problem kids? Teachers can only teach two or three subjects a semester if they're going to create decent lessons. We'd end up with near 1:1 teacher/student ratios.

What always happens is that 15-20 kids are placed under one teacher for the entire day, and each student reads out of their books. This is not an effective way to learn

3) These separate schools don't attract good teachers, for obvious reasons. My old district offered a 10k/yr raise for National Board certified teachers to go to the county's problem school, and not a single teacher bit.

Now add to this the fact that you'll require them to be muscle-bound drill instructors, and it would be impossible to get effective teachers.

[Edited on October 16, 2009 at 12:29 PM. Reason : ]

10/16/2009 12:21:34 PM

Quote :

"Then it's a logical plan, but entirely impractical."

Many things seem "impractical"--until they're put into practice.

Quote :

"The school districts I've worked in already have what you're describing to some extent. They are all totally expected to maintain high academic standards;none of them do. At best they're quiet-time, at worst they're chaos. There are a number of reasons that make maintaining high standards impossible:"

To "some extent" is not the same thing as my plan, now is it? Let's face it: We may have to simplify the curricula for some of these students--this is just a fact. Not all kids are going to grasp or do well with traditionally difficult subjects such as the algebra you mentioned.

I maintain that providing the difficult-to-educate students with a sound basic education is preferable to simply dumping them from the systems. It certainly would be better for the individuals and society as a whole than what we're doing now.

Quote :

"1) Dumping all the problem kids into one area exacerbates whatever problems made them misbehave. Both because of the increased interaction with bad influences, and the effect it has on the students' mindset."

If you'll check, you'll notice that I mentioned "levels." I would continue to separate the students based on behavior and performance. We simply must do this--it's utilitarian. We can't allow the larger number of students to suffer from the negative effects of the poor-performing students--we also can't give up on the problem children.

Quote :

"2) These separate settings don't/can't have normal classes. High schools teach hundreds of subjects-- how is a school system supposed to support hundreds of classes for dozens of problem kids? We'd potentially end up with more teachers than students. What always happens is that 15-20 kids are placed under one teacher for the entire day, and each student reads out of their books. This is not an effective way to learn"

Again, we will undoubtedly have to simplify the curricula to some degree--not acknowledging this necessity is a fallacy and a fantasy. And we must have highly qualified and motivated instructors in key positions--this will cost money.

Quote :

"3) These separate schools don't attract good teachers, for obvious reasons. My old district offered a 10k/yr raise for National Board certified teachers to go to the county's problem school, and not a single teacher bit. Now add to this the fact that you'll require them to be muscle-bound drill instructors, and it would be impossible to get effective teachers."

I understand your point, but perhaps $10K wasn't the magic number. Perhaps it was $15K or $20K. We simply must begin to understand that the return on investment will be worth it. How much does it cost society to push these poor-performing students through our criminal justice system when they fail as expected? How much to house them in our prisons? How much to provide social services to them?

The investments I'm suggesting would be pennies on the dollar--but people don't think of things in this way. It's unfortunate.

And my requirement for instructors of difficult students is not necessarily "muscle-bound drill instructors." All that is required is an educated and very firm but fair person--probably a male--who cares deeply about the future of our nation's youth and who won't give up on them.

10/16/2009 12:46:35 PM

Fuck problem kids. It's not worth the drain on the rest of the students to spend any more resources teaching them than any other kid. I'm not saying one offense and you're out, but after a reasonable amount of discipline, it may be time to cut your losses. Not everyone needs to go to college.

V, I guess. I'm just not a fan of sacrificing truly talented student's resources so that problem kids can succeed. It's homogenizing the talent and striving for a better average, when in reality we want the highest maximum talent to advance science, medicine, etc.

[Edited on October 16, 2009 at 12:56 PM. Reason : V]

10/16/2009 12:47:53 PM

The thing is those problem kids end up costing alot of tax payer money later in life. Because they never get a decent education, they never get decent jobs. They end up drains on society for the rest of their lives.

The idea is if you can fix them while they're young, they'll end up paying more into the system than they took out. Not only that, but if they have kids they'll be more likely to get involved in their education. So for a larger up front cost you fix the problem kids, and then breed them out of future generations.

10/16/2009 12:51:30 PM

Quote :

"Fuck problem kids."

Yeah, until they rob you at gunpoint--or worse.

Quote :

"Not everyone needs to go to college."

I think everyone here is in agreement on that. Now we need to get society out of this paradigm--and I think it's beginning to happen.

And the type of education I'm talking about (for some of the very difficult students) is to just do everything we can to ensure that they don't turn out to be complete troglodytes. We will all benefit from this.

10/16/2009 12:56:26 PM

^^^this would be an increase in cost to handle problem kids. We would by no means decrease funding or available courses for smart kids.

[Edited on October 16, 2009 at 12:57 PM. Reason : ^]

10/16/2009 12:57:45 PM

Quote :

"Yeah, until they rob you at gunpoint--or worse."

What do we do with the trogs that don't want to learn? Keep tutoring them and wasting time until when? Do we make diplomas so easy to get that they lose their already piddly value?

I just don't know. There will be plenty of people in the "robbing is easier than finding a job" economic strata regardless of whether they got their diploma or G.E.D, especially as this recession sets in and even the burger flipping jobs become competitive.

And I just hate that growing a child into a productive member of society has become the government's job. Where the fuck are the parents? My daughter is ultimately my responsibility, and the teaching she gets at school is secondary. Not that I'm devaluing school. But seriously, preventing her from being a drain on society as an adult is my job, not theirs.


[Edited on October 16, 2009 at 1:12 PM. Reason : .]

10/16/2009 1:07:41 PM

Quote :

"What do we do with the trogs that don't want to learn?"

the army.

10/16/2009 1:09:34 PM

Quote :

"Many things seem "impractical"--until they're put into practice. "

But NCLB has demonstrated that you can't significantly improve schools by just mandating that things be a certain way.

-How- would your alternative levels be academically rigorous when no attempt at it has been successful as of yet?

10/16/2009 1:32:59 PM