Presumably, rationing is needed if the number of students seeking to enroll exceeds the space in the school. A lottery is one method of rationing; competitive admission is another. In some places, parental political pull matters.
There are also situations within schools (not necessarily the same ones) where rationing is done for the limited number of seats in honors or AP courses.
But then that brings up the question of why there are not more schools with greater academic focus (or honors or AP courses within comprehensive schools) to accommodate all interested and capable students instead of having to ration space in them.
I see there is a lottery of sorts. Interested in if there are many students unable to get in and if there are does the state allow more charter schools to open in response?
Iām guessing that the charter schools focused on academics also have less discipline problems (similar to most privates) since I believe they can have their own discipline policies Our systems simply canāt be a āone fits allā.
It is the question, isnāt it? The schools mentioned the WSJ article are doing the exact opposite, though. And it seems to be the current trend, unfortunately.
I think that they likely do have fewer discipline problems. But discipline problems do occur at times. Back when D24 was in 8th grade, there was a female student in her grade who was given a week of in-school suspension for threatening serious bodily harm to another student. Same female student the prior year had tried to stab another female student in the neck with a pencil. Based on D24ās descriptions of the studentās behavior, Iām pretty sure that the student had some serious mental illness problems brewing. The parents chose part way through 8th grade to enroll their child in a different school.
Our local public high school uses testing as a way to ration who gets to participate in the āadvancedā middle school thatās at the high school. Back when D24 was in 7th grade, we had her take their entrance exam and they said she didnāt score high enough, so it was a āno go.ā The āregularā junior high only had 2 electives to choose from for 8th gradeā¦spanish or something else (canāt remember which). D24 was already taking French at that point. Any option for French in 8th grade? nope.
Questions about the junior high curriculum? The junior high counselor said, āUmā¦I guess you could look that up online on the school district website.ā There were 1500 kids spread between 7th and 8th grade at that school. So we said to ourselves, āForget it. None of them give a rip and itās cafeteria-style education. Sink or swim on your own. Weāll stay where we are.ā
so if you WANTED your kid to take the more advanced classes in 7-8th grade in our local district? Have to score high enough on a standardized test. Otherwise, forget it.
I much prefer the no-test-required method of enrollment instead. Levels the playing field. Gives underresourced students a fighting chance to at least get a spot, particularly the ones that donāt do so great at standardized tests.
If you hire competent teachers, this rationing can be done away with. Say there are 300 students in a class. You hire as many teachers as you need to teach 300 students. Then you decide a 180 students are capable of learning APUSH, and the other 120 students are prepared only for regular history. Then you organize 6 APUSH classes and 4 regular history classes. The 10 history teachers available can be flexibly allotted to APUSH and Regular history. If all 300 students are capable of handling APUSH, all 10 history teachers will teach APUSH. Our school functions like this generally.
Since becoming a school teacher these days is very competitive (union job with pension), I would guess the schools would have their pick of candidates to hire.
I believe most districts have a shortage of qualified teachers and applicants. Applicants able and willing to teach AP courses are in even shorter supply, particularly for courses like AP Physics. Presumably physics majors are finding other career opportunities more appealing. The College Board does not require additional qualifications, but many districts would expect participation in the AP training seminars and possibly the course audit
This is interesting. Because our school is private, and conventional wisdom is that private schools pay less than public schools. And clearly we are able to hire. So teachers donāt seem to mind the lower salary. Clearly the classes are not disruptive, and the students are interested in learning, and that may give us an edge in attracting good teachers even at lower pay.
Iām not sure if that is hoe Basis manages scale. If I recall , they are staffed to teach a set curriculum that all students commit to. Many canāt keep up and self-select to transfer.
I donāt think thatās accurate. The schools in these districts are attempting to offer a universal experience in 9th grade that will allow more students to access a rigorous curriculum. They arenāt eliminating AP classes or anything. They just want all kids to take English together ā to try to give space to have kids prepare and get in the mindset of being able to take accelerated classes later in high school.
I feel like some people in this thread think that high school ā and even middle and elementary school?! ā are meant to be some kind of pre-elite college experience. And that makes me personally sad. But to each his own, I guess. Perfectly fair for parents to seek whatever school works for them!
Public magnet schools often start in 9th grade ifstudents must demonstrate an ability in arts, music, dance etc. That seems uncontroversial to differentiate then;not many demanding we improve artistic ability of all
Itās not that I want my childrento be in elite classes where they donāt have to be with other kids. Itās simply that I want my children to have the opportunity to work up to their potential. For example, currently in my daughterās trig class (our high school only offers one level of math) they are working so slowly that they barely cover one or two problems per class. They are covering the same material that they did when she was in 8th grade algebra 2. The reason they have to move so slowly is because 2/3 of the 30 kids donāt have the background or understanding to move faster. My daughter and her friends finish their 2 problems and then go to the band room every day. They are not learning enough math to actually prepare them for the future. This is the same in the precalc class too because the lack of learning snowballs. But never fear, everyone is a winner because they all get high 90s in the class. In the middle school English classes which arenāt leveled, we are lucky if the class actually reads 2 books per year. And most of that is the teacher reading out loud to the students. Why, because most of the kids canāt handle reading even a middle school book. The teachers donāt have the time or energy to do separate lessons for those kids that can and should be doing more. As a result, my kids just sit there and zone out. What else are they supposed to do? My kids are involved with students of multiple academic abilities in all their other classes, Spanish, sports, band, gym, FFA, art, even science and social studies in middle school. I think itās not being elitist to want them to face some academic challenges in math and English. To be honest, they absolutely detest being the kids in these leveled classes that always get the 100%. Nothing puts a bullseye on your back more than being the kid that scored better than everyone else on every test. Itās not fair to them either. What most on here might not realize, this is a huge problem in our rural, small schools. There are no other schools to go to because of distance. The reality of generations of poor families is multiplied. Now we are throwing in a drug epidemic that is taking over rural areas and the problems arenāt much different than you see in inner cities. Instead of gangs and racial discrimination itās generations of poverty, drugs and lack of exposure outside positive influences.
Thank you for your perspective. It helps widen the lens of this discussion. Iām also happy to hear that the band room is a refuge for students all over the US.
Similar to my experiences in school. I sincerely donāt understand why itās considered elitist to want a challenging education for ourselves or our children. Build up the kids who are struggling but also allow those who want to learn more, to do so. And please donāt insult me for my viewpoint.
A lot of this discussion throws me back into mind of one of the things I studied in grad school which is the paradigm shift through which education-related discourse and policy has moved from a focus on democratic equality and the public good ā shout out to Horace Mann and contemporaries ā to one driven by the private rights of individuals (a parent, a single child). Obviously except for the fact that in past eras there were vast deficits in the notion of who was even eligible/worthy of schooling, the overall language with which we discuss education is really different now than it was when public schools were first conceptualized. In contrast to an earlier vision of citizens who take collective responsibility to educate children at large, today we often treat public schools as an instrument of mobility for individual children.
Education has become another market commodity ā most valuable to individuals who consume and use it wisely to advance their social and economic standing. As a country, conceptually, we rightly insist that all children have an equal right to an education, a right to consume and make use of that education to the best of their ability. Our trust in social mobility pretty much lies in the premise of fair and equal access. But as educational consumers, parents really have no incentive to care about issues of access and equity in practice. They care mostly about the nature of the education their own children are receiving. Thereās a tension there, partly in that schools sit within the broader context of Americaās cultural obsession with zero-sum competition / the notion that there are always going to be winners and losers.
During the debate in the early 2000s on āNo Child Left Behindā (when I used to watch a lot of C-SPAN!) Senator Rick Santorum offered some words that were so starkly symbolic to me at the time that theyāve rattled around in my brain ever since. I just looked them up again:
āWe are talking about a child here. We are not talking about children. It is wonderful to talk about children. I am talking about a child, because you know that if you are a mother sending a child to a poor school, you are worried about that child. What does this have to do with my child and my childās education?..All I want is to give my child a chance. That is what this bill does. This amendment gives my child ā MINE ā a chance. Not children, my child.ā
Iām not saying that itās wrong for parents to be laser focused on their own kidsā experiences. But I definitely wonāt fault a district or educators who are trying to build schools that better meet the goal of democratic schooling for children collectively. Itās just something I reflect on in reading through all the different ways people think and talk about schooling, both in this thread and elsewhere. I understand that many and probably most people feel differently than I do about this ā and thatās fine. And I totally understand that when the challenges of particular schools and communities are very stark such as they are in your area @aheltzel, all of the philosophy and theory about ideals of public schooling add up to nothing when you are gravely concerned about your kidsā ability to thrive in their environment. Iām mostly just musing. Itās really, really hard when schools reflect the external challenges of culture and community around them.
Everyoneās experiences are different. Certainly our HS doesnāt have the kind of disciplinary problems that many of you have highlighted. As 90%+ of students go on to 4 year college after graduation, the fact that 9th grade English is mixed in our town (with honors students given extra work) hasnāt presented any issues that Iām aware of. The English department is actually one of the strongest at the school. The sad fact is that education is very uneven across our country - most public schools in MA (where I live) provide a high quality education, but I realize that is not the case in all areas of the country.
Theoretically, our tax dollars would fund great public schools where students would gather and learn all they need to be able to follow their dreams. In reality, our tax dollars fund failing schools, where many students that want to learn simply cannot due to crumbling infrastructure, disruptive students, and administrators who are sometimes trying to advance agendas that donāt match the communityās they are supposed to serve.
In that reality, parents who can, will (and should) do what is the best for their child. Iām not going to hinder my childās academic growth by keeping them in a failing school if I have other options. Some might. Not me.