Go Newt! didnt know you had it in you. "lamented the superior science and math education students in India get compared to the United States. He asked people to raise their hands if they thought they could have graduated from high school in three years. Those who think they could have finished early wasted a year of their lives, he said. "That's stupid," - an example of the kind of inefficiency that permeates American society, he said." http://www.onlineathens.com/stories/040809/uga_426956904.shtml
Every time that someone blasts the US school systems, I wish it would be pointed out that we educate EVERY CHILD in America--free of charge. Many of the kids aren't even citizens anymore. Yes, there are other countries kicking our butts educationally. But they educate the most easily educated kids. The others are forgotten very early on, if they get an opportunity at all. That being said, I understand that our education system isn't what we wish it was; however, we usually don't receive credit where credit is due--in that we give every kid a chance to be educated.
I've long advocated a tiered system. As long as everyone get the same opportunity, students ought to be able to progress at the rate and to the level of their own excellence. Low Achievers, Average Students, and High Achievers should be offered classes that meet their capabilities, neither limiting them nor overtaxing them. Those with special needs, whether physical, emotional, or developmental, should be identified early and offered special curriculums and campuses that give them special assistance. Those with special gifts in music, math, design or whatever should be identified early and offered special curriculums and campuses that develop them and take advantage of their skills. Those that that cause trouble, don't want to learn, commit crimes, won't do the work only hold back the motivated kids and complicate the teachers life. Honestly, I think they should be left behind. Perhaps send them to a Boot Camp Military School to see if some discipline and good food can find some ambition and motivation in them. If it can't . . . then adios and be done with them. It's a shame because these are the ones that will end up criminals and complicating all our lives.
we would need to have extensive preK and easily allow for students to move from tier to tier. still, will never happen on a large scale. could you imagine what would hit the fan if the nation's lower tier schools were 90% minority? something more like what i had in high school were most subjects had three tiers (not including AP). seemed to work pretty well. the only beef that people seemed to have with that was when our valedictorian came from a lower tier. (only about 3% minority population though) interestingly, admission into each tier was voluntary.
I'm glad you said offered and not sent through that curriculum... It was starting to sound like what the Soviets did/tried to do :grin:
And they would be, in most cases, in most areas, so you answer why it won't happen right there. Yes, we need a much more extensive system of trade schools and alternative campuses in America. I've long believed that we could eliminate many of our problems in public schools if teachers/administrators on EVERY campus could identify just 20-25 "problem" students per year and send them to alternative schools housed within the districts. I kid you not. Most schools spend 90% of their discipline time on the SAME 20-25 kids year after year. Most kids are not a problem at all in school and, regardless of how well or under-prepared they are for school, will try to succeed--and I think it's a wonderful thing that it's available to children in our country from all walks of life. However, the few "troublemakers" per campus have a negative effect on the general student population and culture. If they were gone, it would help.
We're already effectively tiered. We just throw away money on the lower tiers to keep up the illusion that we're not. Low performers eat up money, fail, occupy the low income jobs in our country. The only real difference between this and a tiered system is the fiscal reality of not throwing good money after bad. I agree with Red - figure out a way to start fairly, and make sure there's a well advertised avenue for jumping up or down a tier for good/poor performance. But let it be a meritocracy as much as feasible.
this is a whole different ball o wax. if they are habitual troublemakers, ship them off (still educate them, though) and the powers that be shouldnt worry about the ethnic makeup. segregating well-behaved (and, especially, hard-working) kids by aptitude is a bit more sticky. still it should be done. my main concern with the tiered system would be determining a child's future in effect. many probably couldnt overcome the psychology associated with being in a lower tier, but would in time catch up with the better students later on. honestly, i think it comes down to the fact that the US should treat the educating of its people more like public health and less like the criminal justice system--it is the output that matters, not individual rights.
