If you could change anything about the public school system in the United States, what would you do?
suggestions (these are possibilites and not my own choices)
a. remove all sports
b. remove all problem children
c. more testing
d. improve the teachers
e. more importance put on the parents
f. improve level of higher education
Please, suggest your own view. I will give my view after a few replies.
Thank you
Wrong forum for this.
Ask the mods to move it.
Well, a lot of those are rather vague. “Improve the teachers” how? Require a master’s degree? Pay them more in hope of attracting more people? “Improve the level of higher education” how? More courses in teaching methods? Fewer? More humanities? More hard sciences? What?
If you “remove all problem children,” how do you define “problem child?” And what do you do with them once you remove them? Would we be better off if those kids were, oh, left to digging ditches (as if there were many jobs on which one could support one’s self with no education)? Leave them to sell drugs on the street corner? And at what age level are you proposing to expel them? Age 5 or age 15? Big difference.
Do you remove a kid with dyslexia? How about one with ADD? Or one whose parents are abusive? Or who doesn’t get enough to eat at home? Or just the spoiled rotten ones who know that Daddy and Mummy will get them out of any jam they get into?
To take a more modest approach, I would propose the following for a start:
Teach foreign languages in the early elementary grades when the brain is best suited to learning languages, not after puberty, right when the optimal time for language acquisition has just ended.
Put the new, inexperience teachers with the kids who are the EASIEST to teach, who have the fewest problems. Let the experienced ones, who have developed something of a clue, handle the difficult classes. In my experience, the first year teachers often get the groups nobody else wants. The “plum” classes go to the more experienced teachers.
Have every new teacher team-teach with an experienced mentor for at least one full year.
Small class sizes so the teacher has time to address more students’ individual needs.
Special classes for the gifted, especially the severely gifted. They need to be taught in different ways from the glorious average, just as the severely retarded (oops, I mean mentally challenged) do.
I am a former public school teacher, BTW.
the severely retarded? That was very offensive. I chose to homeschool my son, not because of his autism, but because I feel I can do a better job of teaching him in a serene enviroment. They fight you all the way because they receive an x amount of dollars for each student. And BTW MLS, do you not have backspace on your pc? Oops my ass.
Maybe offensive to you, sweetypie, but I’ll bet it’s right up JoeBitt’s alley of terminology, too.
Check out his thread over in GD for a clue to his level of enlightenment.
JoeBitt, polls belong in IMHO not in GQ.
Please read forum descriptions carefully before you post your next question.
I’ll move this to IMHO.
-xash
General Questions Moderator
My God. Seems you are still in the wrong forum. You wouldn’t know humble if it bit your psyco a**. You would make the perfect “poster child” for encouraging homeschooling.
A - No
B - What should be done with them if they cannot go to school? Everyone gets a chance.
C - This is not important to me either way.
D - If there is a way to “improve” the teachers that will not cause some sort of massive backlash, then yes. Otherwise it depends on the sonsequences.
E - How so? There seems to be plenty for them to do through the PTO.
F - Again, in what manner?
Ooh! I was thinking about this awhile back.
One of my main beefs with the US public school system is that, while it teaches much in the way of traditional academics, it doesn’t do much to teach kids how to participate in “modern society”. The assumption, typically, is that these skills will be taught by family or others close to the kids, which happens in many homes – but, unfortunately, doesn’t happen in many homes where these skills would most benefit the kids.
What I mean by this is the things that adults are expected to know; for instance, the modern American tax system (and more generally, finance). Everyone has to deal with managing their money, everyone who works has to pay taxes. Why, then, don’t we teach these things in school? Middle and upper-class families generally do a good job of teaching their kids about money; after all, the parents wouldn’t be middle or upper class if they didn’t know a few things about money. Poor kids, though, often find themselves in (ahem) the “real world”, without knowing things as mundane as how to fill out a 1040. This, in turn, keeps them from taking proper advantage of various opportunities which they could use to improve their financial standings, and on and on.
Along these lines, I’d like to see the following taught in schools:
-Personal finance: budgeting, basic investment principles, taxes, basics of how to use banks, basics of credit cards (particularly, avoiding crippling debt). How insurance works, when you should buy it, how to properly use it to your benefit.
-Critical thinking: skepticism, debate, basic logic, etc.
-Jobs: how to write a good resume (you’d be amazed how few people know how to write a decent resume), how to handle job interviews, how to network (the MOST important aspect with regards to job prospects, IMO), how to figure out how valuable your skills are (and thus figure out whether you’re being underpaid), etc.
-Law: basic law that all citizens would be expected to have some familiarity with. How the criminal justice system works. The basic principles of civil law. How to hire a good lawyer, and how to know when you need a lawyer.
Problem is, of course, that our public schools are already stretched thin, and these can be fairly weighty topics. Still, as a long term goal, I think “practical education” should be considered a priority. These could be teamed with existing “practical” courses like home ec (does home ec even exist anymore?) and the various “shop” classes (useful, but come on, how often do you do metalworking as compared with how often you have to pay a bill or participate in an argument?)
Sigh. I don’t know. Everything I can come up with, I can see the downside/problems with.
I would ideally overhaul the grade system so instead kids are grouped by skill level, rather than age. A 15 year old who is writing novels and composing symphonies doesn’t need to be stuck next to the one slacking off, sitting in the back, talking with his friends. As much as I hate standardized tests, hopefully a good one could be developed to determine these things.
I’d give kids more of a say in their education. I went to a private high school where we actually had some electives (like in college) in addition to the required class. Mine were SciFi/Fantasy, Horror as Lit, Journalism, and Creative Writing to name a few and I enjoyed every one of them. We also had things like Psychology, Business, Bible as Lit, etc. For a teenager being forced into 7 hours of boredom, that one hour that I picked was pretty cool.
That leads me to muse that maybe I’d take a more collegiate approach, with a certain amount of required courses and electives. For example, there’d be a basic required How Not To Write Like A Jackass course for everyone, but the people who liked writing could take Creative Writing and stuff. I don’t know if I’d go majors/minors, but a “Required Curriculum” and “Electives” might be nice. And even give them some flexibility in the Required Curriculum. Like say we required 2 math classes after Intro To Math. The smart people could take Calc I and Calc II while us Future English Majors took something easier.
I’d focus on “life skills”, too. I think everyone should know how to operate a computer, make a budget, do your taxes, that sort of thing. But I also think there should be stuff like a real Driver’s Ed (mine involved driving around while the guy said, “Turn here. Turn there.”), how to change a tire, basic household repairs and fixes and stuff. And basic law, as somebody said, with some practical applications on the side. Just because the First Amendment says you have freedom of speech doesn’t mean you can mouth off to the nice officer writing you a ticket, ya see.
I’d give the kids a sane schedule. I can’t believe these schools that start at 7am-8am and then complain when teenagers are asleep in class. Well, duh. I may even set up a college-style system. You may have to take 7 hours a day of classes, but if you come in at 8, you leave at 3. If you want to come in at 10, you can leave at 5.
I’d make my school system optional after age 15. You can drop out whenever you like. But there’s a catch. If you don’t pass the Theoretical Bigass Exam That Demonstrates Competency before doing so, you get to do National Service until you pass the TBETDC. This would be a program I’d set up—with my unlimited budget, of course—that has kids out and about, doing valuable things to help the country, with some classroom time required as part of the deal. So you may get to travel around, clearing paths through parks and such, but you still have to learn whatever you didn’t learn in school. Hell, if my school system is going to be a babysitter, we may as well get something out of it. This gets the people who don’t want to be there out, either having completed their education, and thus theoretically useful, or out doing stuff to make the country a nicer place, thus definitely useful.
Work-study and the trades. Since we’re training kids to go out in the workforce (right?) or can reasonably expect them to work in some fashion, why don’t we train them for it? Get them out there and get them some experience. I think everyone should have to work a year in retail and a year of food service. But this doesn’t have to be McDonald’s/Starbuck’s. If they want to be a lawyer, let em hang around a law firm. I’d re-emphasize vo-tech. Someone has to weld, fix cars, do plumbing, build houses. If you enjoy doing carpentry, I don’t think I should make you sit in a classroom deconstructing sonnets.
I think the “required” part is done after how to read, how to write, how to function in society, here’s some things you may be interested in doing. After that, if you want to study some more for a while, have at it, we’ll give it to you. If you don’t want to hang around, hey, there’s the door. I don’t think we should force people who don’t want to be there in with people who do.
Here I am, opening this thread, thinking it would be an interesting and thought-provoking discussion, and then I see this:
–a. remove all sports
I would not remove all sports. When implemented correctly, a sports program can provide motivation to come to school, pass classes, and behave for kids who have no other meaningful connection to school. Coaches can be a way to reach kids who are not interested in academics but do want to play ball.
No, what I’d remove is the privileges granted to athletes simply for being athletes: less discipline enforced, especially during sports seasons, treatment by teachers and administrators like they are above the rules and of a higher caste than “band geeks” and “drama fags” (terms I abhor), and scholarships for athletes to colleges for which the kid is otherwise not qualified to attend. I have seen grave disservices done to athletes who are treated like princes in high school only to crash and burn in college, where they are not #1.
–b. remove all problem children
This is a meaningless statement. Define “problem children.” Does it matter WHY the kid has problems? Do we try to help them first? And where do we put these kids, straight in prison and skip the middle man? I toss this item out as silly and unimplementable.
–c. more testing
I heartily disagree with this, and such a statement could only be made by someone who hasn’t set foot in a public school in eons. Kids get tested out the ass in public schools, and in NY the Regents, for just one example, are pretty ridiculous. The 11th grade English Regents is a 6 hour test with four reading selections, four full-length essays, plus the multiple choice. So much classroom time is spent teaching to the tests that teachers cannot just bloody teach literature for the joy of it, which by the way is often totally drained out of the curriculum by the tests. And guess what? If a kid doesn’t pass the Regents, he doesn’t graduate. Doesn’t matter if he passed all his classes, and it doesn’t matter any more if he’s special ed.
For what relevant, real-world situation does such testing prepare kids? When have YOU had to sit in a room, dead silent, read crap that is not remotely interesting to you (or usually, to anyone), and write about it, long-hand and in pen, for hours? None, except to drive home the point that all school does is prepare you to do meaningless, rote work. That’s not the message I want my students to get.
The reason government types want more tests is because they need concrete, empirical ways of measuring the value of tax dollars spent on education. There are better ways of measuring how much a kid is getting out of his education, such as portfolio projects, but those cost time and care to grade, while Regents are graded on a rigid rubric that looks for very specific, and therefore not always transferable, skills. Again, the tests are in effect the government’s way of cheaping out on best practice.
–d. improve the teachers
Ummm, how? As it is, in NY I had to get a Masters degree, which I had to pay for AND in order to do my required teaching internship, I could not work (it was a full day teaching someone else’s classes, while she got paid and I didn’t). I also have to take 3 exams of 3 hours each (which each cost $$$), do a video of myself teaching with a narrative (costs over $200 to have that graded), be fingerprinted, have an FBI background check and a child abuse clearance. I have a required number of hours every year that I have to spend on professional development too. What more would you have of us?
–e. more importance put on the parents
At all three school where I’ve worked, the parents ran the school. Administrators fear involved parents. Whenever a kid doesn’t like something about how their schedule is or how the school or district is run, I tell them to have their parents call. That usually does the trick.
–f. improve level of higher education
You mean colleges? Any ideas on how to do that? Making it cheaper would be a nice start.
Want my ideas?
If you want better teachers, pay them more. You can’t expect the best and brightest to forsake lucrative careers to teach your kids if you pay as much as an unskilled city worker. If I have to get a Masters, I ought to get paid like someone who has mastery over something. Also, pay me for the time I spend teaching during the internship. It’s very hard on people to have to quit their jobs to take an unpaid internship AND pay college tuition for the privilege AND take classes (with all the books we have to buy) to boot.
Smaller class size: it is a fact that kids learn better when they get more individual attention from the teacher. If there were enough classrooms and teachers so that the average class size could be 8-10, you’d see a big improvement in both learning AND behavior.
More cooperative learning across subject areas: when the lessons in Social Studies dovetail with the literature read in English, and the science experiments use math studied in Algebra class, kids can see the point of what they’re learning and reading. The knowledge also has a context so the kids are more likely to remember it.
More communication between teachers about students’ performance, behavior, and well-being: I now teach middle school and the team approach is very helpful. We can see patterns in kids’ behavior and academic performance so we can get a clearer picture on how that kid is doing in many facets of his academic and individual life. In this manner, we’ve been able to help kids who are struggling, suffering, and need help by contacting parents, connecting kids with guidance, ending bullying and even abuse, sexual or otherwise.
Fund schools better. Why shouldn’t each kid be able to have a copy of the text to take home while we’re reading it? Why shouldn’t I have a computer in my room so I can work on creating materials, record grades, and do research? Why shouldn’t I have a phone so I can call parents in privacy or call the office for help? Why shouldn’t we have a roof that don’t leak?
To address the points made by other posters:
occ: There is an emphasis on practical education. Home and Careers classes, Health, and Tech cover such things as how to fill out resumes, job applications, write business letters, etc. Law is also taught at many larger high schools. Most English teachers include speaking and listening skills in their curricula (it’s part of the Regents, anyway). I agree that practial info is important and I think it’s getting out there.
MLS: I agree with your suggestions, though the gifted already self-select out by taking AP and college classes in the high school. I think it’s salutary to have mixed levels in at least the lower grades; kids need to get used to dealing with all kinds of people, because the world does not sort people by IQ.
GMRyujin: Technical training has been available to students in all three schools where I’ve worked. BOCES offers access to many trades and technical programs to any kid who is willing to work at it.
Sorry if this is long and a bit vehement, but I do get a bit tired of hearing what everyone thinks is wrong with public schools but no progress or practical suggestions being made. No one with any power wants to put their money where their mouths are.
Don’t remove sports - they’re there to teach team behaviour as well as to bleed off energy.
This thread has inspired me so rather than hijack this thread, I’ll start another.
How? As far as I can tell, the hero-worship of sports heroes is built into American culture pretty damn deep. Is there any practical way to keep school sports around but lose the baggage?
Our school tends to be a little afraid of parents, but these are the same parents that we cannot contact (no numbers, send letters/notes, no answer, etc) and only come in when either the kid is getting suspended or if the kids whines about something to his parents. <hijack>Case in point, one kid is a terror, the math teacher sends note after note - never an answer at mom’s house,no answering machine at home and mom works weird hours - all of a sudden, the kid get a schedule change out of that math class. Why? 'Cause mom was tired of getting the notes, therefore the teacher was racist and demanded her kid be moved.</hijack> The problem then becomes the school’s fault (look at case in point above). This teaches the kid two things: 1- if I whine I get my way, and 2- I don’t have to be responsible for my actions.
Im my experience, if the parent had been involved in the first place, there never would have been a problem.
Parents - do the teachers of your children a favor, call to “check up” every now and then. Teachers don’t have time to contact the parents of the “good” or “ok” kids. We are spending all our time dealing with the “problem” kids. Do it randomly, that way the kid is always on his/her toes thinking “I better not do that, Mom might call today.” Also, don’t always take the kids side; listen to the teacher. Kids in trouble will lie to get out of said trouble. Also, if you find you must discipline your child, be firm and consistent. Nothing pisses me off more than to see a kid coming back from suspension with new clothes/shoes. The kid states “Mom took me shopping one day.” What does that teach the child???
If a student is a bona fide sports star-winning state titles in track, catching pro recruiters’ eyes in basketball, or courted by top universities as a football player-he or she is going to attract attention no matter what you do. For your average high school athlete, adulation will never be a problem. I would have someone keep an eye out to make sure teachers and administrators weren’t coddling athletes, whether they were stars or not. If your star quarterback is caught cutting class, he get suspended just like anyone else, even if it is the Big Game.
I would make it easier for teachers to remove disruptive students from their classroom. My aunt, a teacher for about 30 years now, has noted an aggravating number of students saying they’re only there because their parole officer said they had to. Oddly enough, this doesn’t motivate them to actually pay attention or be quiet or anything. Teachers shouldn’t have to waste much instruction time dealing with discipline problems.
There’s a big answer to change, right there. If the government (state, local, federal, what-have-you) would see fit to lower class size, I think they’d be shocked at the improvement in test scores. I teach first grade. There are three first grades in my school. Three years ago all three classes were filled to the brim. We had 23 children each. The next year we only had 15 each. Guess which classes we were able to take further in our problem solving and math investigations? Guess which classes had the benefit of more in depth writing workshops and more time spent on revision, publishing, and production? Guess which classes had time for enrichment that went above and beyond what was required for first grade? Guess which classes did better on the state mandated exams this year? And finally, guess which classes didn’t get the full benefit of anything over what was required because all our time was spent in class control and discipline, and most of my planning time was spent doing aperwork?
FaerieBeth
paperwork…although aperwork sounds very intriguing.
FB
aper work as in work with apers, surlly you know what an apers is.
you gotta watch out for those aper cuts though
Good, but I think it should be available to everyone. I don’t think it was when I was in school, none of the public school kids I knew knew anything about it. I would’ve loved to take some basic carpentry and welding classes. It seems like training everyone to get into college is the norm, now that college has become the de facto “This person can read and write and is basically a worthwhile person” certification.
I have not the slightest idea what is offending you. I never said anything about homeschooling, or autism. All I was trying to say is that the gifted, especially the extremely gifted, need special attention, just as those with intelligence well below average do. Or the autistic. Or the dyslexic. These problems are, as I’m sure you know, not necessarily related to mental retardation, which can also be mild or severe.
Good for you if you are willing and able to educate your child appropriately at home. I’m not making any judgements about that. It’s my impression that educating a child well outside the great middle percentiles is quite difficult. Many parents are unable to do so. I’m trying to suggest that a child who is extremely intelligent, if not appropriately challenged and educated, may end up not only failing to develop up to his or her potential, but becoming a discipline problem as well.