How would you reform the US Education system.

[The Mystery Machine]

And this is why we can't reform the system.

 

[chicagodisneyfan]

But reading, writing, math, science...are all life skills as well. So it we're going to require one group of children to learn their skills at home, why not require all groups?

As I said, my DD is in a self-contained class at school. Like your kids, she prefers to be at school instead of at home with me.

You are deliberately being obtuse. Children for the most part learn to potty train at home, to dress themselves, to tie their shoes, to use utensils etc.

School is for academia - math, science, history.

If a student cannot master academic subjects they have no business being in a school. If they cannot do the work they have no business graduating.

 

[RitaE]

You are deliberately being obtuse. Children for the most part learn to potty train at home, to dress themselves, to tie their shoes, to use utensils etc.

School is for academia - math, science, history.

If a student cannot master academic subjects they have no business being in a school. If they cannot do the work they have no business graduating.

Totally disagree with you there. First of all, the vast majority of special ed funding is spent on academia such as math science and history. Depending upon the child they may or may not be learning at the same level, but most Special Ed students do learn academics. You also need to realize that a large percentage of the Special Ed population is not mentally disabled. They are quite capable of doing grade level work, they just have differing needs.

What you seem to be referring to is the profoundly disabled. While I strongly agree that it is expensive for any school district to address the needs of these children, I also strongly disagree with you that it shouldn't be done at all. For every life skill gained (toileting, ability to self-feed etc) Dollars spent in childhood helping the child learn these independence skills will save the taxpayers hundreds of thousands of dollars in long-term care costs over the life of that individual. Look at the difference in cost between Assisted Living or Sheltered Living Facilities and Skilled Nursing Home care and you will get an idea of the point I'm trying to make.

Quite honestly this is one area where the Federal Government really needs to step up and increase funding because it is burdensome for a school district. We are talking about a very small percentage of the student population here though and I seriously doubt these students are what is "sinking" the education of the average student population.

 

[Colleen27]

Also, it's rare to fail students and retain them. Most students get a summer packet (not even summer school) and move to the next grade. Where is the accountability? Bring back summer school.

Retention has fallen out of favor because there isn't a scrap of evidence to support its effectiveness. It results in very short term academic gains, generally not even lasting the entire duration of the repeated year, and is strongly correlated with a number of negative outcomes including lower probability of college attendance and a higher dropout rate than similarly-performing peers who weren't retained. Promotion with support services has better outcomes across the board.

The big problem with summer school is that it isn't funded. Parents have to pay for their children to attend, and many of the students who need it most are those who come from families who cannot or will not pay for it. That also creates problems with the idea of summer school as a condition of promotion for struggling students, because you then have a system where the kids that most need the help are those least likely to get it.

 

[sparklynails23]

No, I am saying that education is about exposing kids to all different things, whether they like them or not because in the real world we all have to do things we don't like. It is all part of the learning and growing up process to take PE when you suck at it. What would happen if people ONLY did things they liked?? I would also think that for a child that is so bright according to mom that she would realize that she isn't good in PE and would want to challenge herself to get better-which is another important part of learning-knowing what you know and are not good at and figuring out a way to get better.

I disagree. I don't think education should be at all about sports, and I don't think tax money should support sports. It should be "pay to play." It's nice if it isn't and everyone gets to participate, but the government cannot afford to support all of the extra-curriculars and their facilities and have enough money left over to adequately educate kids. All sports could be played in community clubs. Many already are.

 

[Colleen27]

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.

No, school is about academic learning, not sports or games. I think that's a big part of where our schools got off track, when they started trying to accomplish more than their core mission. We don't need mandated PE to produce well-rounded children or teach them to exercise, and mandating an "extra" just detracts from other courses in terms of both time and money.

 

[NotUrsula]

PE does more than teach you the rules of the game. It teaches a lot of social skills that can be used as an adult.

With all due respect, none of those are social skills that couldn't be taught just as well using a spelling game or a math drill game or a history trivia game. For most kids who are really bad at PE, the only social skill they are learning is how to tolerate being continually insulted without losing one's temper.

Also, in regard to what I mentioned earlier re: basic training, I just checked my home state's current graduation requirements with regard to PE. They still require it, but interestingly enough, there is a condition for specific exemption: enrollment in ROTC.

 

[Colleen27]

What you seem to be referring to is the profoundly disabled. While I strongly agree that it is expensive for any school district to address the needs of these children, I also strongly disagree with you that it shouldn't be done at all. For every life skill gained (toileting, ability to self-feed etc) Dollars spent in childhood helping the child learn these independence skills will save the taxpayers hundreds of thousands of dollars in long-term care costs over the life of that individual. Look at the difference in cost between Assisted Living or Sheltered Living Facilities and Skilled Nursing Home care and you will get an idea of the point I'm trying to make.

I think that's a false dichotomy that we should be working to change. It shouldn't be taxpayer dollars for education vs taxpayer dollars for public assistance. The real question is why we allow medical insurers to externalize so many of the costs of providing medically necessary care to disabled children, essentially increasing their bottom line at the public expense.

 

[zoemurr]

give as much attention to gifted education as they do to special ed..

 

[bluelobster]

Start by getting rid of the ties between standardized test scores and funding. The kids don't take those tests seriously since they don't impact their final grades in most cases, and since the kids have no incentive to actually try, many will deliberately tank the test just to get it over with. Then the schools lose funding since the appearance is that their students aren't learning anything since the test scores come back atrocious.

Also: Over the last decade or so, something that's been occurring more commonly is having the gifted, average, and special needs kids in the same classroom. That's a horrible, horrible idea. If you teach to the level of the gifted kids, the average and needs children are left behind. If you teach to the level of the special needs kids, the gifted and average kids riot. That leaves you with the option of teaching to the average kids. You're still over the heads of the special needs kids, and the gifted kids are still so bored they become disruptive.

Stop making it a requirement that the athletics coaches also be teachers. With two exceptions, I didn't learn a thing from sixth grade through high school graduation in social studies because that's where all the coaches taught, and their idea of teaching the Civil War...was to watch Smokey and the Bandit. (Seriously). Let the coaches coach, and the teachers teach.

Parents need to discipline their kids, and if they won't do it then let the teachers do it. Kids will usually do what you let them get away with. I got one paddling from the school principal in 2nd grade and that pretty much set me straight all the way to high school.

Why is it that elementary schools get ridiculous amounts of funding, yet middle and high schools get only a pittance in comparison? Change that.

I could go on to days, but I'll just finish by saying there should be overhauls top to bottom. You can't just focus on the governmental side; you have to bring the changes down to a school by school level.

 

[schmitty]

No. you are putting words into my mouth. I suggested teachers earn a core degree (math, science, english, history, etc) before learning how to teach. I was asked what degree a Special Ed teacher would get as a core degree - these were some examples.

Those that know, work. Those that understand, teach. It is so much easier to just know a bunch of random facts. It's just low level thinking but having to apply it and getting others to understand it is the difficult part.

I'd get rid of every business person in education. They have no idea how it works. Managing an education system is much more difficult than managing some business. In business you can fire underperformers, not so in education. In education you lose money for underperformance. Hire people to make them reach those standards, oh wait you can't, you just lost your funding but still have to make those people perform better the next year or you lose even more.
Fact of the matter is, business people as a whole are extremely underqualified when it comes to anything education and shouldn't step near an education position.


chicagodisneyfan
Ask any primary elementary ed teacher and you would be surprised to find out how many kids the teacher actually has to teach tying shoes and using utensils to.
I am sure there are many things you did not get the first time you attempted it and you were not dropped behind to fend for yourself because you couldn't get something. I surely hope you can understand this with one attempt: Qualitatively describe the shift in frequency in sound or electromagnetic waves due to the relative motion of a source or a receiver.
What students are learning today is much more advanced then what was previously required. Students today are smarter and more socially conscious than any other time in the history of the USA.


Standards are a great thing, they give teachers something to teach to and create a goal that the students strive to reach. We need national standards, what is happening in Texas is disgusting. It is akin to what is happening in some UK schools with the Holocaust. I think the main problem with the standards is that it lacks life skills especially for those with intellectual disabilities. While teaching about the frequency shift is important for a high school student in gen ed, a high school student with intellectual disabilities should be learning more about the transition to adult hood and doing things independently. Teaching students with intellectual disabilities life skills so they can live and work as independently as possible is more important than identifying the primary and secondary colors of light, which is a goal for students with severe intellectual disabilities.


TLDR:
Keep business out of education
Standards are good but shouldn't be a one size fits all.

 

[MrsPete]

#1) I said OPTIONAL.....guess how many jocks would be happy to be rid of the nerds and vice versa. Both of them can excel at what they are good at.

I am specifically targeting PE and not reading, math, etc. Nice try though to pretend we can eliminate core classes as justification for your argument. You are going to have to do better than that.

My child hates PE, is not good at sports and is knocked kneed. How is that beneficial and makes her well rounded? Give me a break. It is awful for a kid who sucks at it. To be reminded that you really suck at sports is so great, right? NOT!

Having the option to take a different class would make school BETTER FOR HER.

How wonderful would it be for her to take a computer, business, or some other class.

Okay, I have quite a few students -- yes, even today! -- who really are techno-phobes and who can barely operate a computer. They will do anything to avoid using one. Should we allow them to avoid learning to use a computer because they don't like it?

How about allowing students to skip foreign language if they feel that English should be the national language?

I hear you loud and clear when you say that your daughter HATES PE (I didn't love it myself). Fine. But that doesn't mean that it should be exempted. Plus, it's a tiny part of high school. For our students it's a one-semester class, and half that time is spent in health instead of PE. Realistically, our students spend 9 weeks of their high school career in mandatory PE.

PE is what you don't value. Someone else would make an argument for another subject. I think you're too close to this one to be objective.

Math is awful for a kid that sucks at it too...

I am actually very good at math, but I find it boring and hate it anyway.

PE is not going to solve those issues.

Yeah, but avoiding difficulties won't help her solve them either.

Exactly! Some people (not saying it's you) are quick to say that SpEd students shouldn't be in the public schools but should be at home instead. If that suggestion ever becomes a reality, what is going to happen to these kids? IMHO, I think that it would end up costing us as a society much more in the long run then it does now to educate these kids in a school.

You'll notice that people are quick to complain about anything school-related, whether they know what they're talking about or not. What people "don't get" about the self-contained special ed classes is that they are the vehicles that streamline much of the kids' services from other county services. The vocational rehab folks come and see all the students one day a week. Physical therapy comes another day a week. This is more efficient than having those people go to individual homes.

Students today are smarter and more socially conscious than any other time in the history of the USA.

I think students today are DIFFERENTLY smarter than we were at their age.

Those who are at the top of the curve are much more technically-able than we ever thought about being, yet they're less well read and have smaller vocabularies. They are great at finding information fast, but they are also very bad about "letting it go" and not working to store it in their long-term memories (I think this is because they're over-loaded with information and because it's so easy to just locate the details again later). They are hard-working when it suits them, but they are less willing than we were to put their noses to the grindstone when the task is not to their liking. They tend to be politically correct and socially conscious -- but most still put their own needs first.

The average-to-low kid today is worse off than we were at their age. They think they're computer-savvy, but really they can just surf the internet. They can run programs, but they can't attach files to emails or manipulate files without help. Their reading tends to be low (largely because they DON'T read), and their spelling and writing are weak. I do not see a great deal of social awareness among this group.

That's what I see anyway.

 

[The Mystery Machine]

Okay, I have quite a few students -- yes, even today! -- who really are techno-phobes and who can barely operate a computer. They will do anything to avoid using one. Should we allow them to avoid learning to use a computer because they don't like it?

How about allowing students to skip foreign language if they feel that English should be the national language?

I hear you loud and clear when you say that your daughter HATES PE (I didn't love it myself). Fine. But that doesn't mean that it should be exempted. Plus, it's a tiny part of high school. For our students it's a one-semester class, and half that time is spent in health instead of PE. Realistically, our students spend 9 weeks of their high school career in mandatory PE.

PE is what you don't value. Someone else would make an argument for another subject. I think you're too close to this one to be objective. I am actually very good at math, but I find it boring and hate it anyway. Yeah, but avoiding difficulties won't help her solve them either. You'll notice that people are quick to complain about anything school-related, whether they know what they're talking about or not. What people "don't get" about the self-contained special ed classes is that they are the vehicles that streamline much of the kids' services from other county services. The vocational rehab folks come and see all the students one day a week. Physical therapy comes another day a week. This is more efficient than having those people go to individual homes. I think students today are DIFFERENTLY smarter than we were at their age.

Those who are at the top of the curve are much more technically-able than we ever thought about being, yet they're less well read and have smaller vocabularies. They are great at finding information fast, but they are also very bad about "letting it go" and not working to store it in their long-term memories (I think this is because they're over-loaded with information and because it's so easy to just locate the details again later). They are hard-working when it suits them, but they are less willing than we were to put their noses to the grindstone when the task is not to their liking. They tend to be politically correct and socially conscious -- but most still put their own needs first.

The average-to-low kid today is worse off than we were at their age. They think they're computer-savvy, but really they can just surf the internet. They can run programs, but they can't attach files to emails or manipulate files without help. Their reading tends to be low (largely because they DON'T read), and their spelling and writing are weak. I do not see a great deal of social awareness among this group.

That's what I see anyway.

So what is wrong with optional PE in Middle School. Why are you so opposed to it?

How about instead of PE they take software classes and learn the stuff? I think you have just made my case that we need more options for kids in school.

 

[Lisa loves Pooh]

Find A WAY to re-elevate the teaching profession to a status commanding honor and respect. I don't know what that way is....but it is no longer a revered profession. Based on posts by teachers here--it seems teachers are treated like hired help instead of the professional that they are.

Stop changing curriculum every five seconds...I mean years. At our old dance school---we had several dance moms that were elementary school teachers...that was a BiG complaint. It seems that the powers that be are constantly trying to fix things that aren't broke and making the job of teaching that much more difficult. To teach a new curriculum requires cash to buy the expensive completely different books and then training the teachers on how the govt wants them to teach it.

I have other suggestions, but they may come across the wrong way and folks will point out all the reasons why this or that student can't learn that way. I guess I will sum up those thoughts with the idea that our educational system would do well to take inspiration from other school systems that do a better job at getting the job done.

Any change should NOT remove a family's choice in education: public, private, or homeschool. I would never support a single option system or the declaration of homeschooling as illegal for being a form of child abuse.

 

[Lisa loves Pooh]

The first thing I'd do is abolish the US Dept. of Education. It hasn't done a lot of good from what i can see. Then I'd tell all 50 states that your school system is your own to run.

Would it work? I don't know, but I doubt it would be any worse.

States are sovereign And do run their own systems. That is why there are 50 different sets of laws for each of the 50 different states.

BUT--there is the illusion the Dept of Ed is running the show. But like federal highway dollars...federal education dollars are only given to those states who comply with DOE wishes. Since no state will pass on free cash, they mOe an effort to meet the DOE's wishes. Even then---laws are different from state to state...which is why some states are top notch in educating the children and others are not. A healthy tax base helps with that, but I have the belief that some states are better at getting the job done. Money can make it easier--but I'd the core education system isn't that great---money won't fix it.

 

[torinsmom]

Teacher here....

We need to be teaching each child according to their abilities and not using the cookie cutter approach that school systems mandate. I swear anyone off the street could teach the way they want us to. They tell us how many minutes to spend on math and what lesson we should be doing and even have a script. Trouble is that I have 11 kindergarteners(9 preKs in the same room) and not one of them is on the same level. So I am supposed to be teaching the kids to recognize, read and write 1, 2 and 3. I have 2 kids who do not know English, so they are lost. I have 6 kids who were with me last year and know numbers to at least 100, so they are bored. Then I have 3 kids for whom this lesson is perfect. Sorry, but I am not playing that game. Every child is on their own individual path. I'm using their curriculum, but every child is not on the same lesson or even on the same grade level. Thankfully, my principal backs me up, because some schools would not let me do this. And then the higher ups wonder why kids aren't showing more growth over time. It's because we're expected to teach to the lowest child in the class. Most likely, that child is going to continue to have problems, but we are short changing every other child in order to meet their needs. Individualizing for each child isn't that much more work and you see growth in every child, including that low performing child.

 

[Tiggeroo]

For many students the senior year of high school could be eliminated. The brightest kids could certainly do well with a year of community college. The student who desire a trade could do that. Trade programs could be set up in such a way that students can receive their associates degree while pursuing the trade. My dh is an hvac mechanic and his younger union members receive college credit for their trade work and require a few extra courses to turn it into an associates.
In every high school I work in senior year is a waste for the majority of students.Those who aren't on an academic track take as few classes as possible and fill the rest with study hall or electives or leave early for a job at a burger place. It gives them money but doesn't prepare them for a career. The gifted students are filling their schedules with ap classes. And they can't always get the ones they really need. They're just taking them to look good for college. Why not have students do sr. year in a cooperation with the community college while doing sports and activities at the high school. This way they could transition into college while still having the help of their guidance counselors and families, receive credits that work toward their degree and diploma and free up classroom space for underclassmen. It will give them a small taste of freedom. Students who are heading into trades can take a combination of easier CC classes and their trade work. Most CC's offer both. And the money we spend on their sr. year can knock a year off of college tuition.

 

[dejr_8]

Those that know, work. Those that understand, teach. It is so much easier to just know a bunch of random facts. It's just low level thinking but having to apply it and getting others to understand it is the difficult part.

I not sure what you are trying to say.

I think what you are saying that someone that get a teaching degree with a focus on math is going to be a better teaching that someone that gets a math degree and then learns how to teach.

If that is what you are saying I couldn't disagree more.

(I thought the saying was "Those that can, do. Those that can't, teach)

 

[golfgal]

For many students the senior year of high school could be eliminated. The brightest kids could certainly do well with a year of community college. The student who desire a trade could do that. Trade programs could be set up in such a way that students can receive their associates degree while pursuing the trade. My dh is an hvac mechanic and his younger union members receive college credit for their trade work and require a few extra courses to turn it into an associates.
In every high school I work in senior year is a waste for the majority of students.Those who aren't on an academic track take as few classes as possible and fill the rest with study hall or electives or leave early for a job at a burger place. It gives them money but doesn't prepare them for a career. The gifted students are filling their schedules with ap classes. And they can't always get the ones they really need. They're just taking them to look good for college. Why not have students do sr. year in a cooperation with the community college while doing sports and activities at the high school. This way they could transition into college while still having the help of their guidance counselors and families, receive credits that work toward their degree and diploma and free up classroom space for underclassmen. It will give them a small taste of freedom. Students who are heading into trades can take a combination of easier CC classes and their trade work. Most CC's offer both. And the money we spend on their sr. year can knock a year off of college tuition.

Most high schools around the nation have this already. If your school doesn't, why not work on getting it. In our area they actually have cooperation with the 4 year schools so the kids can take classes at the college or some of the college professors come to our high school to teach classes. This is available for juniors and seniors that are in good standing.

I have always said that the kindergartners should go full days because they want to be there and save the half day for the seniors.

 

[The Mystery Machine]

How about a compromise?

Have 1/2 credit of health and 1/2 PE required for middle school so you can get in the exercise, health stuff and the other semesters you can take other classes, like business, programming, computer, etc....