Why in the hell does my nerdy kid need to take PE? She would be better off taking a computer class. Don't give me your mumbo jumbo how important PE is...that is baloney.
Because grade school and high school are about being well-rounded and being exposed to a wide variety of things. College and adulthood are for focusing on what you're really good at.
Using your logic, we should let kids who are bad at math just skip out on learning their multiplication tables. Or we should let those for whom reading doesn't come easily just listen to books on tape.
She could probably take a community college class NOW in english and do well.
But that'd mean skipping the curriculum that's set for her current grade level. She may have fantastic reading ability, but that doesn't mean she's been exposed to all the great adolescent lit that they get in middle school, nor the American historical literature and British literature that they get in high school. The better choice is not to SKIP these things, but to take an advanced high school English course so that she'll progress at a faster pace, increase her already-high ability, and be exposed to more literature.
To do that, we'd have to get rid of Varsity sports, and spend more time on academics. Most kids would have to forego getting part time jobs, to fit homework and real studying when they get home.
Here's the rub: All kids aren't academic. No matter what you do, they just aren't going to be book-smart. For some of those kids, SPORTS is what keeps them coming to school. It's their carrot, it's what keeps them going.
For other kids, sports equals school spirit. Do we really want school to be a dreary, dull place where ALL we do is work? Even my kids, who are very smart, love the social aspects of school and would be burned out without them.
Finally, at the high school level, sports are essentially a self-supporting venture. Around here, football and basketball "carry" the other sports. On a good night, we sell $8,000-10,000 in football tickets. Some age-old rivalry games bring in three times that much. Don't imagine that the school's choosing between new math books and football helmets. It just isn't that way.
If you read my argument carefully (and in context of the previous messages) I was saying that ANY teacher (young or old) who is not fulfilling the same duties that their peers are, or are consistently being outperformed by their peers, should be shoved out of their jobs.
Under the current system of tenure and Union protection, teachers who prefer to kick their feet up and reap the benefits of yearly step increases, and multi-year contracts, are taking up space for new graduates who actually WANT to teach and would do it regardless of contract or salary.
People tend to think that tenured teachers cannot be fired. This is untrue. I've personally seen tenured teachers lose their jobs. Tenure does not protect a teacher who isn't performing up to snuff.
Tenure does one thing and one thing only: It assures a teacher that he or she cannot be fired WITHOUT CAUSE.
A new teacher who doesn't have tenure has only a one-year contract. If the principal's nephew graduates and wants to teach Biology, that principal has every right to say, "Goodbye!" to a first-year teacher regardless of whether he or she's done a good job. A principal can kick out a high-performing first-year teacher because he needs someone who can both teach AND coach wrestling. A non-tenured teacher also is under pressure not to assign failing grades to students.
Once a teacher has tenure, he or she cannot be let go for these frivolous reasons. BUT that teacher absolutely CAN be fired if the job isn't getting done: If the teacher isn't keeping good records, isn't maintaining discipline, isn't consistantly presenting good quality lessons.
If this ISN'T happening in your schools, it's because your administrators have no backbone.
Require anyone receiving federal/state aid to take parenting classes and put in so many hours in the schools. Have early childhood classes for parents and kids (Minnesota has this already) and REQUIRE attendance or no food stamps, etc.
I'm with you on the parenting classes, but not necessarily on the school attendance.
Attending school doesn't equal learning. For some students, it means causing trouble and preventing other students from learning. It's just aggravation for the teacher and no benefit for the student. I read an article recently (wish I had access to it, but I don't) that tracked the INCREASE in the overall school's performance when a few troublemakers were removed from the classrooms. Don't get me wrong: I wish every student wanted to attend, learn, earn a diploma, and get out into the world and do well . . . but that just isn't fact.
The district wants me to believe that no college would dream of admitting him without a full load of AP classes, a 4.0 GPA, and a ton of community service and whatever.
