http://3.bp.blogspot.com/-CFXk4fmviG...00/crappie.jpg

What does this fish have to do with schools?

Also, community colleges are not doing that great a job and they're huge drains on taxpayer money, more often than not. Add into it that they're not able to innovate (because they're not making even enough money to keep their doors open on tuition) and that boils down to not changing teaching styles in 100 years. Primary and secondary schools have been able to innovate to some degree of success because their budgets are tied to local communities, where CC are typically tied to state funding (at least, in every state I've lived in). In states where natural disasters/terrorist attacks happen, their budgets tend to be cut first. Which sucks. I support community colleges but it's very hard for them to be successful.

I don't know what the point of keeping boys and girls separate in classrooms would do - it seems like a waste of resources, particularly for smaller school systems. Two of everything when typical class size is 15 (meaning there'd be 7 or 8 kids in each class, and if there's a lot of one gender but not enough of the rest, then what?). They're already merging with other districts to increase their class sizes and share resources, I'd hate to think that kids in rural areas would be spending 2 hours each way on a bus every day to get to and from school, especially when a lot of them are already spending an hour. That also limits extracurricular activities that occur after school - either the bus ride is too long or their parents can't pick them up at a drop off point later that night.

I understand that girls do better in single-sex math and science classrooms (although correlation is not causation), but what a drain on resources. I guess it gives folks something else to complain about the next time around though, huh?

Having grown up in a (educationally speaking) good state, and living most recently in a bad state, and several states in between, I think it would be a tragedy to take the federal government out of the equation. Just as it's not a kid's fault for being born poor, it is also not her fault to be born in Missouri. And saying the states would step up to the plate is just wrong. Frankly, in some states, fewer educated people means fewer voters which means you can more easily control the government. Would certain states take that money and make excellent use of it? Absolutely. Would others allow 50% of their students to be illiterate boobs? Again, IMO, absolutely.

What I would do if I trusted my government at all levels is a lot different than what I would be forced to do in real life. Unfortunately, what that SOUNDS like is that I prefer privatization, but the same ethics applies. Some private education companies do great jobs and some are simply in it for the Benjamins. So they can't be trusted as a wide-spread policy either.

In the meantime, I will honor the teachers, principles, school boards, mayors, and up the chain who do their jobs the way it should be done. And be glad I don't have kids because that's not ALL of them.

This is probably the most important - one of the main problems in modern childhood education is the proliferation of "one-track" schooling ... we pretend that's the best way for every child, when in reality, a mix of (pre-college/trade/technology/skilled labor/life-skills/other) tracks would be markedly more effective, and wouldn't cost much more in the way of money or manpower.

If you're going to do them till 10th grade, you might as well go ahead and go the whole way through till 12th. If combined, this would REALLY be a mess - the opposite sex in the classroom for the first time and getting to wear whatever you want for the first time? That would make People of Walmart look like NYC Fashion Week.

I kind of agree with the first (only kind of because it just treats a symptom and doesn't really get to the heart of the problem) and completely disagree with the second. As agzg said, this is completely unfeasible for most rural school districts (as are many many many options that people bring up to "improve" schools). Not to mention, it just strengthens the stereotype that girls can't learn with boys around. If they're in the same school - do you really think that kids won't know who the "brains" are in the opposite sex classroom next door?

Many schools do still offer business/agriculture/shop/votech curricula in high school. The problem is getting it through the parents' thick head that their kid is more suited for that than they are to go to college.

Our current system = fail - IMO

I equate the way we do things as the old medieval "physician" who would bleed the sick patient to get the evil impurities out. The patient would be bled and then if he did not get better he would be bled some more. If that didn't work he would bleed them some more. If the patient died he would say that they weren't bled enough. At what point do we say "enough with the bleeding we need a new cure"?

I just don't see how the pointy haired politicians and their cronies in Washington know so much more than my local pointy haired politicians and their cronies? At least we can keep a closer eye on the local pointy hairs.

I raise my hand and go, I know, I know ooh, ooh, ooh!

Yes, Horshack what is the answer, says Mr. Kotter.

They are both "crappie"! says Horshack.:)

Sadly, I can't rebutt your argument. Even though I want you to be wrong, you're not. But I don't have a better solution that even hopes to be fair for kids in all 50 states. At least the federal system in place now WANTS to be fair. They just don't succeed.

I'd guess it's much closer to "some" than "many" - regardless, though, if it's a "tracked" program then it's much harder for parents to argue ... particularly if they're forced to buy into the program from the start.

America has cultural issues that work against it, but similar programs work well in other parts of the world. At some point, we have to get over the ultra-American ideal of telling a child with narrow options that they can do anything.

It just breaks my heart to see what has happened to so many of the "high risk" students. The drop out rate is abysmal and their chances to succeed are so diminished. We simply have to try something different and start defunding the status quo. In many schools the per pupil expenditure is well over $10K. Just throwing good money after bad isn't working.

My goodness, we really need Vocational Schools to at least offer many students an alternative and a shot at a trade. They sure as hell don't need to learn a trade in prison.

To me it seems that the system is "rotten to the core" and must be torn down and rebuilt. But that is just me ranting

I don't think it's a matter of saying "your kid can't spell cat." More like you should say "he shows a real aptitude with mechanics and will probably make more, if he continues on that track, than your Harvard educated ass will ever make."

Another part of the problem is guidance counselors. Many of them suck. They want to shove the more well-off kids into college prep (and push more prestigious colleges) and the poorer kids into the trade programs, when the accident of your birth has very little to do with what you'll actually be good at and enjoy.

There already are a lot of incentives to work in urban districts. You can qualify for about 18k in student loan repayment after five years in a qualifying district. There are programs that will pay for entire degree for people who commit to three years in an urban district. Teach For America doesn't give you a degree but it's a highl competitive program that recruits amongst te best and brightest to teach in urban schools.

TFA will be the first to say money isn't the solution to the problem...and I agree.

I'm a fan of single sex classrooms as an OPTION...not mandatory. But it a parent in a larger district wants to choose this option it should be available. I did single sex HS and now I'm in the science profession. Many of our graduates are in technical professions as well; the majority have done very well for themselves despite the fact that our now closed school served a lower income urban population (for the most part).

This experience also makes me advocate for smaller schools and classrooms but with all the budget cuts...smaller schools are going away.

Along those lines, someone mentioned busing times. The disappearance of the "community school" in rural communities (a byproduct of budget cuts and forced mergers) is making commute times for these students unreal. Two hours spent on a school bus is just a waste of time when the kids in question used to be able to walk to school :(

As someone who has worked with numerous TFA teachers, let me just say that 75% of them were NOT all they were cracked up to be. TFA does recruit to people who are considered the "best and brightest" but NONE of these recruits has any background in education. TFA then throws them into a 5 week "education" program.

Now I'm not saying that all education programs are excellent, hell mine sucked, but it was definitely better than a 5 week program.

TFA isn't all its cracked up to be.

Plus, most TFA's do there 2 year stint and then book it, leaving education all together but getting a shitload of their loans paid off. Doesn't seem quite fair to those, like myself, who are in the profession for the long haul and oh wait aren't getting their loans paid off.

Actually, no.

Crappie is the name of the fish. "Crappy" is the descriptor for the school.

Unless you mean that Crappies sometimes travel in schools. Although, as full grown adults, I don't know if that's true.

I mean, unless you meant "crappie" to be a reference to the fish. In which case, carry on.

She's probably the exception to the rule, but my cousin graduated in Psychology (wanted to be a HS Guidance counselor) but became a kindergarten teacher through TFA over 5 years ago and is a STAR. Her district actually uses her to teach others in her field. She's in it for the long haul, loves her kids and goes the extra mile (as does her parents who visit her classroom to help out!) for her students. They even put her in a poor performing school, and she shined there too. Some people just figure out where they were meant to be after college.

I don't comment on the "political" threads often, but since I do have about 25 years of teaching experience, I put in m two cents on this one.

1) I do think education should be as locally based as possible meaning I think the more the local community controls where education money goes, the better, and I don't see that the DOE has done much good for education as a whole. The one exception I see to this is that I do think there should be national standards in terms of what children need to know or learn at what age. This is all over the board from district to district, so if a kid moves around at all (and most will at some point) they lose a ton of time trying to play catch up because there is a likelihood that what the 4th graders in Columbus, Ohio are learning at what the 4th graders in Bozeman, Montana are learning aren't remotely connected. It also means that a college instructor will face a class of 200 kids with radically different background information.

2. Other than agreement on what information a child should be exposed to or learn from grade to grade, I tend to be wary of any absolute statements in terms of what works for kids. Nothing works for all of them and most things will work for at least a few. This is the reason that while I taught in public schools and I believe in them as the best option for most kids, I don't think it is the right option for all of them and I do believe parents need those options.

3) I agree that standardized tests should not be a sole determining factor for anything, but they should be considered as one of many factors. The problem isn't the tests but how they are used. I will say that most of the tests currently used aren't like the CAT or Iowa achievement tests most of us took. They aren't strictly fill in the bubble. For instance, on the WASL (the test Washington state uses) students work out math problems. They don't pick from a list of possible answers, and they are given points (1-4). They write an essay. Very little of the test is filling in a bubble (I have other issues with the test, but it does give a pretty good indicator of what a student knows). On most of the current tests used - teachers can get a wealth of data back that helps us know what concepts they understand and what they don't understand. Ours are also pretty lenient with students who have test anxieties. It doesn't solve every problem, but they aren't out to scare the kids to death.

4) My current school uses uniforms. Do I think they make a huge difference? Probably not. I don't think they prevent kids from picking on each other. I do think they prevent some distractions. I do think teachers spend less time dealing with dress code violations and discussions over what is or isn't appropriate in a school setting. It standardizes those issues so that no one feels singled out. Beyond that, I'm not sure how much they matter.

5) While I agree that it isn't financially feasible, and I don't think it should be mandatory, having taught once in a single sex setting, I do think it generally works better. It isn't an issue of it being better for girls or better for boys - it works better for both of them. Usually (not always) they spend too much time when they are together trying to impress each other and their methods for doing that often revolve around things that disrupt classroom learning. I've just found that if you remove the distraction they are to each other, they focus better on the task at hand. I should say that I am referring to middle school and high school here. Don't think it makes a difference in elementary schools as much.

6) Totally agree that children and their parents need to be directed in paths that are best for them. I am a little nervous about the European system. I know at one point in Germany they used tests to decide which direction to track students (technical, vocational, college) in the 4th grade. I personally think that's much too young, and I think what a child and their parent wants should be taken into account. I would be uncomfortable leaving that decision to a school. We are wrong about kids all the time. They surprise us all the time. On the other hand, I do think Americans are too sold on the "college is the only way to have a future and any kid who doesn't go will be stuck in a dead end job for life" mentality and its two steps down from the stressed out parents on college confidential who think their child is ruined if they don't end up at an Ivy League school. Not everyone wants to go to college and not everyone should go to college.

Most of the guidance counselors I knew were caring people who loved the kids they worked with and put a lot of time into them. I'm sure there are some who might direct a kid based on their economic background, but I never met one. If anything, they were guilty of the same thinking we just mentioned - they wanted every kid to go to college - even if it wasn't always a good option for them based on interest and ability. Again, I would put the blame for that on our culture as a whole. We believe strongly that education is the key to a successful life. I believe in it or I wouldn't be a teacher, but education can mean a lot of things, and it doesn't always mean a classroom. Unfortunately, with budget cuts, those other types of learning are usually the first things to go.