<p>^^^I'll have to disagree with both of you... "A chain is only as strong as its weakest link." If you don't educate the "unders", the whole society suffers.</p>
<p>@ Everyone but Mr. Payne in particular</p>
<p>You are correct to some degree; however, I don't believe we should completely abandon those who are less likely to succeed academically. You didn't insinuate this, but cutting a lot of their funding would most likely lead to this. The real problem at hand for those who can't perform well in school is that they are not engaged in their own learning. Most of them ask, "Why am I learning the quadratic formula?" and "Why do I need to know what an allusion is?" It doesn't connect to them. They see no application to it in the real world. For honors students, learning high level material is to cultivate their thinking processes. A student who is particularly good in the humanities may ask the same question about the quadratic formula as the low performing academic student. However, my answer to an honors level student would be, "You will most likely not use this formula, but you are learning this to enrich your logic and analytical skills in general." </p>
<p>We simply need to overall the education system. Everyone knows it isn't working. Lower tier students need a different high school education. They need more hands-on learning. More vocational training is a must. Three years ago, my school system mandated that all high school students, in order to graduate, must have four math credits. This meant every student, even those who are extremely limited, must go up to some form of trigonometry/precalculus. This is madness for some of them! I understand that America as a whole needs to improve the general math skills of its population, but what child of 100 IQ needs to go beyond Algebra 2? </p>
<p>I attend a poor, inner-city high school. I have TA'ed for classes. I have tutored students in everything from civics & economics to algebra. I know how these kids are struggling. My school system has invested in so many remedial classes, while taking away from the advanced students. Stripped of funding, advanced courses have been substituted for two part series of biology, algebra one, and other elementary courses. English 1, for some, is now a two year class to prepare for the end-of-course examination. </p>
<p>Some of you may suggest that lowering the bar academically is not the direction we should go. Essentially, I am arguing that we should revamp the system. Separate high schools are needed. A model based on the German secondary schools would be excellent (where you attend high school is based upon your grades and teacher recommendations). The only way to make every student successful on the system we have now is to make the parents step into their child's education. I credit my intelligence to my mother. We were poor as dirt, but she always made sure to give me books to read. I had books on science, history, poetry, and all sorts of things. She enriched my mind and I credit her to my success as the valedictorian of my class. If every other parent could enrich their child's life with reading instead of the television, our American students can thrive in our current system. However, the simple fact of the matter is that not every parent is interested in their child's education. Some parents are living to barely meet end's meat. They may not have the time to invest in their child's tabula rasa.</p>
<p>The simple fact of the matter is that this is not a Utopian society. Not every parent can invest in their child's education. We need to start classifying students and start specializing their education according to their ability. We are not going to change the parents, thus the bureaucracy should step up to plate and fix the problem. That's the only solution.</p>
<p>Our school is underperforming and we've had assemblies basically telling us, since we are failing the standardized tests, the school has lost funding, and it's all our fault. The funding at our school has been cut so far that the band program is on the verge of disappearing, as well as other programs. A lot of it is just because of the budget crisis in our state, but it really angers me that the administration is blaming the students for not doing well enough on the tests.</p>
<p>35% of our school is considered "special ed". (Kids who do not have a mental retardation, but who just don't care/don't pay attention.) I had to tutor them for our life class sophomore year, and it was like being in a sixth grade class. They were learning place value and the difference between there, their, and they're. The classes are enormous (they have an entire building for only these classes), and the teachers are too busy preventing fights to really teach. In comparison, there are 11 kids in the entire school taking AP English Lit. Our school needs money, and we definitely need people to guide it in the right direction. (Last year the school bought pizza for everyone on the morning of those state tests, to bribe us to pass. Maybe if classes taught what we needed, we'd be able to pass anyway).</p>
<p>Sligh_Anarchist:</p>
<p>
[quote]
Essentially, I am arguing that we should revamp the system. Separate high schools are needed.
[/quote]
</p>
<p>Looks like you’re advocating a two-tiered system where the poor, struggling ethnic minority children are separated from the middle class white children. That sounds a bit familiar. As someone who attends a poor, inner-city public school, it seems strange that you would want to have such a system. It would only serve to widen the divide between the advantaged and disadvantaged – as you should well know, an environment of peers that disparages academic success and extols laziness is largely self-perpetuating and characteristic of inner-city schools or schools located in other ethnic-minority hot spots; the situation would grow far worse if such environments become even more consolidated, especially within these vocational-oriented public schools that you suggest. By testing students in primary school and then dictating their career paths based on the results (this is essentially what you would be doing), you are destroying invaluable opportunities for students to discover where their true interests and passions lie (such self-discovery usually does not occur until late in secondary school).</p>
<p>Why you choose to praise the German educational system is beyond me, seeing as how its rankings have fallen to the bottom among industrialized nations. The 2006 study by the Program for International Student Assessment shows that German teenagers rank</a> lower than Americans in reading literacy, mathematics and science (and significantly lower than the averages). Please, leave the social experiments to the Europeans.</p>
<p>
[quote]
Most of them ask, "Why am I learning the quadratic formula?" and "Why do I need to know what an allusion is?"
[/quote]
I suppose you would want to tell them to move on to questions that are more applicable to their lives, such as “Do you want fries with that?” The more sensible approach would be to tell both the overachiever and the underachiever that such knowledge is meant to enrich their logic and analytical skills. Whether or not the latter chooses to accept this answer is up to the individual.</p>
<p>What would have to be done to bring the unders up to par? Increased funding is not the answer - the culture and the fundamental attitudes of the students (not just the parents) must be changed. It’s great that your mother gave you books to read when you were little, but more than likely you possessed greater inherent motivation than your underachieving peers. In any case, like I said, government resources would be better spent on enriching the educational experience of the upper echelon of students, who would be sure to take advantage of increased opportunity and attention. The kid with a 4.0 GPA and 1500 SAT score is going to be a future leader and/or innovator, not the kid who couldn’t care less about passing a test and who knows more about Soulja Boy than Thomas Jefferson.</p>
<p>
[quote]
"A chain is only as strong as its weakest link." If you don't educate the "unders", the whole society suffers.
[/quote]
Right. Whatever you say, Marx.</p>
<p>Alpha2018 makes a very interesting point about the segregation that could take place. I actually thought of the repercussions of my ideas after I wrote the post and this popped into my mind. Essentially, we would go back to pre-1965 schools. However, this system, as you are suggesting that my model would eventually become, is based purely upon race. There are plenty of low achieving white students. No race is inherently smarter than the other (I am not suggesting you said that, but I just wanted to put that out there). I honestly don't think a racial division would occur because across the spectrum, many children in different races are failing to meet expectations in their education.</p>
<p>You say that we should present an education to everyone that encourages the facilitation of logic and analytical skills. If I understand you correctly, you mean we should put it out there, and if the individual doesn't want it, too bad. You even say that there are children who know more about "Soulja Boy" than Thomas Jefferson. I would have to say, that from my anecdotal evidence from attending a poor, inner city school, that this goes for about 90% of the students. So, why waste money on them giving them a "higher-level" education when you can already identify that they don't care anyhow?
**
"I suppose you would want to tell them to move on to questions that are more applicable to their lives, such as “Do you want fries with that?”**</p>
<p>Aren't most of the underachieving kids in high schools still going into the jobs where "Do you want fries with that?" I think that a more focused form of vocational training in my system would be similar to what local community colleges offer. In my state of NC, our community colleges are beacons of vocational training for all sorts of careers that can let someone earn very decent wages; however, most underachieving students dread the idea of attending school an extra two years and having to pay tuition for it. Stick the community college model of vocational courses in high school. </p>
<p>I will give you the win on your research on the German system. Apparently, my German teacher forgot to leave out the part that it was failing very badly. ;)</p>
<p>I think at the very core of it, we agree on most everything. You say that "In any case, like I said, government resources would be better spent on enriching the educational experience of the upper echelon of students, who would be sure to take advantage of increased opportunity and attention."
I wholeheartedly support this, but America needs to figure out how to enrich the underachieving who build the backbone of society (as Marxist as it may sound, it is true).</p>
<p>sure, tests aren't everything, and not everyone is a good test taker. but they're a pretty good indicator nonetheless, and the average test score at a high school would render the test-taking skills effect negligent. You're not going to have an entire school of bad test takers.</p>
<p>this is the part i don't like: the failing schools getting less funding doesn't make sense. They need more funding and longer time in schools, so basically you need a punishment that actually helps them academically. My proposal: struggling schools have a longer school year. If you have a slightly struggling school, you go a few weeks extra. If you have a terrible school, you have school year-round (still with 5-days weeks every week). This idea has the incentives in place, and it helps struggling schools.</p>
<p>First of all The Federal Govt should have no say in Education at All. Nowhere in out constitution is the word Education Mentioned and every decision should be left to the state.</p>
<p>
[quote]
</p>
<p>sure, tests aren't everything, and not everyone is a good test taker. but they're a pretty good indicator nonetheless,</p>
<p>
[/quote]
</p>
<p>Well how can they be a good indicator is people aren't good test takers. Its like me making you weight 800 lbs and then saying that a triathlon is a good measure of how physically fit you are. Sure it will tell you you that you arent Physically fit but thats about it. Or maybe you were born with 1 leg and then we make everybody run the triathlon, sure thats fair. There are better ways to measure people. Its called a Free Market, if a local area, maybe your hometown sees thats its students aren't performing better than the past generation, and by that the hometown is struggling economically, well then it will be self correcting, as people will choose whats best for them. The tax payers will say, hey whats going on, school needs to be harder and we need more math and science. </p>
<p>Everboidy is different and every town on earth has different needs than the one next to it. So what works and what always has worked, is letting Teachers and Doctors handle how children learn. Get the Federal Govt out of education and just let local governments decide what they want to do. If a town wants to get rid of school all together, well thats fine, but the conserquences of such will not allow them to do so.</p>
<p>Its all Self Correcting. The Federal Government needs to get its hands out of things, all that does is make it more expensive and foolish.</p>
<p>My school is known for having an excellent special education program, and because of it the percentage of special ed students in our school is much higher than other schools, at least in this general area. NCLB requires that these mentally challenged students pass the same HSPA as the rest of the school, leaving the special ed teachers to spend a significant portion of their time attempting to teach a mentally incapable student to write a persuasive essay, or how to do algebra. These kids just cannot pass these tests, and they absolutely should not be expected to be able to. But because of this, our school consistently scores low, and in attempts to try to raise our scores the administration (starting this year) 'bribes' the students to get advanced proficient on the HSPAs by promising extra points on their fourth quarter grades in lit or math. </p>
<p>Conclusion? NCLB is ridiculous and ineffective.</p>
<p>Dr. Horse, you provide a very interesting argument, but I have to disagree with you.</p>
<p>If a community's adults did decide to let their education system go, the children would have to pay the price. A natural genius's talents could go to waste all because they were born in the wrong town. Sure, a community should be self-correcting in theory, but that is not likely in reality. A poor town with little resources will inevitably struggle with education whether they choose to or not. If people in a poor town had to make the choice between food and water or education, they will probably choose food. Also, I think your idea would make college admissions a nightmare.</p>
<p>Now, to play the devil's advocate. If a student cannot pass a such a simple test, they do NOT deserve a diploma. I am sorry, but whether someone is living in poverty or in a $20 million house, they should be able to pass these easy tests. A high school diploma tells future employers that a person has received at least a basic education, and if one cannot pass these tests, they obviously have not learned enough to be ready for a diploma.</p>
<p>As for money being cut from underperforming schools, I see no problem in that. Why should the taxpayers continue to pay for a school with such poor results? </p>
<p>A voucher system is really the way to go, in my opinion.</p>
<p>^^^I agree with Janelle in saying that these tests are not hard, so it "should" be a non-issue</p>
<p>but Janelle, cutting funds from underperforming schools could be disastrous to those schools. The only reasoning in support of cutting funding is that it turns schools into businesses, and underperforming schools simply collapse as they get worse and therefore less money and therefore worse... in a downward spiral.</p>
<p>I also believe in a voucher system. hey let's bring politics in here. I believe John McCain supports a voucher system.</p>
<p>I'm quite surprised this thread doesn't have 50 pages by now.</p>
<p>ohhhhh this all makes me so glad that my parents are willing to send me to private school, even if we can't quite afford it.... not to gloat or anything! I promise! but the whole NCLB business is an utter mess. The public high school I was zoned for had problems....</p>
<p>If kids read at home starting in first grade for a couple of hours a day, and kept going at that rate all thru school, none of this legislation/conversation would be necessary.</p>
<p>The problem is that recreational reading--it has to be at home, there is not really enough time at school--has gone by the wayside in so many children's lives. THAT is why an awful lot of kids don't do well on standardized testing.</p>
<p>Another observation is that if a child doesn't fall in love with books and reading them by second grade, it won't be happening. It's a sad thing to realize that a child's college attendance is being decided before second grade, because if a child doesn't love to read and do lots of it, he won't have the standardized test scores to even enter college, never mind the wherewithal to wade thru the college textbooks in order to get good enough grades on tests to stay in.</p>
<p>You want to solve the problem of our current school system? Dismantle the department of education and offer vouchers. All of a sudden a school can't suck without getting an enrollment plunge. Wow that only took two sentences.</p>
<p>Anything more, guys?</p>
<p>yeah it seems like the curriculum discourages critical thinking. I have had quite a few teachers who go by the test and wont discuss answers. They dont really care about what or how you think as long as its the right answer.</p>
<p>I think a lot more attention needs to be paid to middle school. With the exception of the really underpriviledged kids who hardly know English this is where the divide begins. It is not just a transition from elementary to high school. It is a transition from elementary to high school! </p>
<p>Hafta feel bad for the teachers. One of my teachers said she went back to one of her old teachers in a lower income area, a science teacher. She remembers him as the reason why she loves science and how they used to do all kinds of labs/dissections(in basic Bio!) and he'd have critters and all kinds of cool stuff in his room. New administrators decided all the stuff was a distraction. Cut funding for specimens. No more labs, keep those kids inside studying. Now all he does is lecture on the stuff that might be on that test. The kids are bored...and as a science teacher he is bored. </p>
<p>I hate to sound cliche, but its not about test scores. The most important thing is not what the kids know, but that they get an interest in learning, and yes their is a way to include that as the curriculum. Making them study for a test in that manner is a sure way to loose them. It is true the government needs a way to monitor schools ability to teach kids, but a standardized test in its current form and having kids study for the test isn't smart IMHO. Can I add that it'd be great if schools focused also on non-academic problems kids face? A lot of this is the parents job but doing things to encourage school unity, decrease fighting/cliques would go a long way towards improving not just academic performance but the lives of students in general. This would all be best done starting elementary or middle school as by high school things are too far gone and it will usually fall on deaf ears.</p>