Teachers only have to know stuff

[Phytotron]

I get $50,000 because that's what my Math teacher makes, whom is also a football coach. I've asked him before.

Is that so. Do you understand that he gets extra pay for being the coach, as is the case with teachers who head other extra-curriculars?

Do you understand that teachers spend, on average, about $400 out-of-pocket per school year?

Do you understand how many unpaid hours teachers put in outside of your standard school day?

I know that's not all that's involved in being a teacher, but it is truthfully very close to the extent of what he does. I realize I can't accurately recount the events of his day and tell you all that's involved, but I can say that it's hardly a stressful day at work.

You supposedly felt comfortable enough to ask him about his salary, why don't you ask him how much work he puts in besides what you're seeing—or think you're seeing—in the classroom?

He's assigning work and avoiding teaching.

Assigning work is part of teaching. What do you want, no coursework? Just a fun presentation and on about your happy way? Really, what in your mind are the "values of being a teacher?"

Still, he's a coach, and I know that some coaches are more lackadaisical when it comes to the teaching side of their job, and am willing to accept your teacher-coach might be one such individual. However, that's more an issue with the emphasis put on high school sports, not with the teaching profession.

Nonetheless, that said, I've known first-hand coaches who are also extremely dedicated, thorough, excellent teachers in addition to their coaching job.

Again, you did present your individual anecdote in a way that implied you thought it was typical. "I agree with ya, 100%" You used your example to support the case that the average teacher doesn't actually teach.

...while also pointing out an atypical example that could have been prevented by the changing of the process?

But that's not how you presented it, nor the case you made. Nor would Lucifer's proposal address the problem of your coach/teacher. I say it would make it worse, in fact.

If you what you claim about his methods is true, and you're legitimately concerned, go see your counselor and/or principal about it. That's the way to deal with it, not bitching on a forum. Does he really just put A's on everything, even if it's wrong? Come on. If so, he shouldn't have a job. They will take care of it.

Plus, (some) teachers these days go as far as to print all their tests and note handouts from the internet. Not that it can't or doesn't contain roughly the same material, they're just straying away from their own teaching methods and trying to minimize the workload.

Wow, you really don't get it. First of all, teachers are required to abide by a certain curriculum approved and provided by the state and/or school district (and in some areas, in some respect, the Federal government; more below). They've never (not in modern times, anyway) made up everything out of whole cloth themselves. (Not even home-schoolers are allowed to.) They have to teach that core curriculum, and are evaluated on that. As a part of that curriculum, they receive a "teacher's edition" of the textbook you receive, which contains all the textbook material plus extra information and suggestions for ways to teach it and activities and the like. They also often include worksheets and example tests.

In addition, there has always been supplemental material, published by the textbook companies or other educational institutions, such as workbooks and other handouts. On top of that, there are even full programs (e.g., a reading program) created and published by independent educational institutions that schools can adopt, sometimes requiring the state's approval, to go with or place in lieu of their standard core curriculum, which will also include things like study material, worksheets, and even tests.

Furthermore, even in instances where some material may not be "official," many teachers often find it either desirable, or in some cases necessary, to bring in outside material they've sourced or created on their own. There are two main reasons for this. Number one, all that stuff I mentioned above, some of which is some really high quality and useful teaching tools (and so, desirable), has to be paid for somehow. So it's a matter of whether the school(s) can afford it or not. Sometimes they can't (because people like you­ complain about a minuscule tax—you don't even pay taxes). Here enters one area where teachers have to devote their own expenses. But sometimes they may not be able to bring in that exact material, either because they can't personally afford it, or because the company or other institution won't sell to individual teachers. The second reason has to do with creativity in teaching, wanting to provide a broader amount of material and/or activities than what the official curriculum provides. But with people like you, teacher's can't win either way: If they bring in outside stuff they're "cheating;" if they stick to the textbook, they're "being lazy."

At any rate, to what you think was your big indictment about teachers getting material off the internet, the point is that a lot of all these various types and sources of material—both that mandated by the official curriculum, as well as any supplemental stuff, "official" or not—is being provided not in paper form, but in digital form. What you're likely seeing are teachers accessing legitimate material, not just "crap off teh internetz so they don't have to do work." I challenge you to actually ask them what the source of all that material they're downloading is.


And I want to make another point. What people like you don't get is that teachers don't just "copy and paste" that stuff and robotically hand it off to you. The fact is, teachers still have to lesson plan (are you even familiar with that term?) around all that. They often have to augment it, and of course they still have to grade it. And that's not even addressing the loads of stuff teachers have to deal with outside of the coursework itself. There's a lot more to teaching than you're willing to acknowledge.

Traditionally, anyway. However, thanks to NCLB—which I say without hyperbole is the worst thing to happen to public education ever—teachers have become absolutely hamstrung, both in terms of content and time, in what they can teach. They're less able to bring in great supplemental material to enrich the curriculum and educational experience because they have to focus on getting kids to pass these artificial "standards." This is the "teaching to the test" problem, and it's killing public education in this country. If you don't feel like you're getting as well-rounded an educational experience as you should, if it feels like you're being given a lot of data to memorize and then apply to a scantron, then you have GWB and NCLB to blame. There's a whole generation of kids, basically anyone currently under about 25 years old, whose education has been held back thanks to that piece of garbage.

Can't I say I agree with what he has to say about requiring teachers to pass a "teaching test"...

You can, but you're wrong. Teachers are required to learn how to educate. Or didn't you read the stuff that wasn't directly addressed to you?

you'll insist that US education is perfectly fine

False. I've made no such contention.

It's just another symptom of the anti-children society.

I forgot to comment on this before. What the heck are you talking about, "anti-children society"?



Ah crap, Lucifer wrote all that stuff up while I was writing this. I'll have to get to that tomorrow. Initial impressions:

- OK, I better understand that, and agree with some points. Remember, I oppose NCLB, and that's the source of a lot of your, em, "condemnations" of the current system.
- Sounds like you should set up a charter school.
- Have you looked into existing alternative methods such as Montessori?
- Have you looked into substitute teaching?

EDIT: I got the page break, though! Heh.

[Lucifer]

Ah crap, Lucifer wrote all that stuff up while I was writing this. I'll have to get to that tomorrow. Initial impressions:

- OK, I better understand that, and agree with some points. Remember, I oppose NCLB, and that's the source of a lot of your, em, "condemnations" of the current system.

Do keep in mind that the system we had before NCLB still suffered from the same problems I'm proposing to fix with this idea here.

- Sounds like you should set up a charter school.

Gladly. Just need, hmmmm, $millions. Schools are expensive, that's why the government and churches run 99% of the high schools in the country.

- Have you looked into existing alternative methods such as Montessori?

Last I checked, Montessori was for pre-K and some elementary-aged kids. I'm not looking to replace the current government-financed daycare we call K-5. Rather, this idea would pick up at 6th grade and run to normal graduation year.

- Have you looked into substitute teaching?

Looks like fun if you actually try to teach the lesson in class. I would do that.

Um, last I heard, the system here in Texas (or more specifically, in Round Rock ISD, not necessarily Austin ISD) had you show up, see if your name was picked for a substitute, and if so, you got paid $8/hour to work for the school day. While it would help me to raise my tutoring profile, it would drive us out of house and home since I'd have to quit my day job.

That's assuming you can pass the background check with a recent DWI.

EDIT: I got the page break, though! Heh.

Damn, I could've waited a few more minutes before posting.....

[Word]

What the heck are you talking about, "anti-children society"?

Well, maybe it's just me but today the average parents both need/want to work while raising a child and don't really have time to care about it anymore. As a consequence, children are put in some form of kindergarten for nearly the entire day, where they are left to their own devices (the child care worker has to care about other children as well; and the toys are so ugly and safe that you can't really do anything with them).
On one hand, teachers have to deal with more and more children that know next to nothing about the world but already have lots of social disorders like ADHD, mostly thanks to neglecting parents. On the other hand, these parents aren't any better and drag their children from doctor to doctor until they get assured that their child is highly talented yet unchallenged. Then they buy them a computer and WoW, and then they blame the teachers if their little pseudo-genius fails at school (and suicides/runs amok). This development is even more saddening because schools are politically obliged to let almost everyone go to university and our school system is already hollowed out enough; most new university degrees aren't worth anything anymore.
My old school now has super-expensive fire doors for every room so that the noise level makes it nearly impossible to teach properly, and an elevator for the one or two handicapped pupils when there is a school for handicapped people only a block away, while we don't really have a library anymore although many of our books are about 400 years old. Now they're rotting in some cubby no mortal can access.

I'm not thinking/implying that emancipation is a bad thing, I think that parents should spend more time together with their children.

[Z-Man]

As a consequence, children are put in some form of kindergarten for nearly the entire day, where they are left to their own devices

Slowly getting to the point where this is relevant for us, I have to disagree with your assessment. They are not left to their own devices, they are left to each other. Within limits (not too hard to control), there is no better environment for small children than among other children, they acquire social skills that way and even when it comes to other skills, children learn better from other children than from adults. Adults are entirely strange creatures to them, but if they see another kid, say, draw something, they think "I want to be able to do that, too. I want to be big." Kindergarden is definitely better for the little ones than staying home with a parent all day.

[Word]

I'm not against that, I probably formulated it poorly. It's important that they socialize and get in contact with other children but it's bad if nobody looks after them before and after that, when they need parents the most. I don't doubt that you care enough to read out bedtime stories and later take the time to explain things if your child constantly interrupts you with questions while you're having a conversation with your wife. I'm complaining that many parents don't seem to understand the importance of that anymore.
When I was in kindergarten we were all able to write our names with 4 or 5 (although there was no offical instruction; our parents simply showed us), but how many children at this age there can still do that today? I'm not advocating more educational pressure. Parents just used to show these things to their kids and have more patience, more respect for authorities like teachers.
Some children now have psychologic caretakers (a bit like probationers) who accompany them when they go to school. One of them permanently disturbed one of my father's lessons, so he told him to shut up and after some more warnings had to put him out of the classroom, which his mother of course didn't understand. The other children aren't important to them.


What I meant by "left on their own devices" is that nobody answers the questions that the other children can't answer.

[Ratchet]

@Phyto: pity me for not having the desire to spend my next 30 minutes before class responding to your post. All I'm going to say is I read it all, and you certainly know your facts, but facts can't help you better understand what goes on through the eyes of someone else. Sure, I understand the concept of government intervention and setting up a ridiculous curriculum that, as you said, teaches to the test. Yeah, I know that they are given worksheets and example tests and yada-yada-ya that come along with their textbooks and workbooks, but that's not what I meant. I mean most teachers go online and find a test that someone else made, along with the answer key, and instead of teaching the things they know about and/or wanted to teach, they adjust and just teach to that teacher's test because it saved time and effort on their part. I don't know about all schools around the US, but I know here in my Parish, all schools give every teacher an hour "off", that's paid. It's called their "planning period", which is dedicated to doing whatever they need to be done. Additionally, there's another 30 minute time period where teachers get time to catch up on any students' missed work, and help them out, and if no students show up they have that time to do what they need as well. Our teachers have plenty of time to get done what they need be, it's just the effort that goes into the actual presentation of information that I think they should spend a little more time on (which correlates with how well a teacher can teach, rather than what they know). I'm aware that they don't have the money to spend $5,000 on some cool science project, but 10-15 minutes in front of the class to explain something isn't asking a whole lot, is it?

[Phytotron]

@Phyto: pity me for not having the desire to spend my next 30 minutes before class responding to your post.

Don't get smart with me. No one told you you had to respond then. You're one of those kids who plays Arma in school, aren't you?

I don't know about all schools around the US, but I know here in my Parish, all schools give every teacher an hour "off", that's paid. It's called their "planning period", which is dedicated to doing whatever they need to be done. Additionally, there's another 30 minute time period where teachers get time to catch up on any students' missed work, and help them out, and if no students show up they have that time to do what they need as well. Our teachers have plenty of time to get done what they need be....

Still, no clue. Yes, planning periods are typical. But I said unpaid time outside school hours. Teachers spend many unpaid hours before and/or after school every day working because they don't have "plenty of time to get done what they need be." Again, you obviously way underestimate how much is actually involved in a teaching job.

But yeah, like you said, "facts can't help you better understand what goes on through the eyes of someone else." And yet, you, as a high school teenager, presume to know all about the teaching profession and what it entails. Right. You have no forking clue what you're talking about. Take your own advice.

Then they buy them a computer and WoW, and then they blame the teachers if their little pseudo-genius fails at school

True that.

My old school now has super-expensive fire doors for every room...and an elevator for the one or two handicapped pupils when there is a school for handicapped people only a block away....

What the hell, dude? So, safety is bad. After all, if those kids were raised properly they wouldn't need to be protected from natural disasters. Huh?

And equal access for the disabled is bad? No. Every public and private venue should be—and in the US, is—required to provide reasonable access for the disabled. Even special needs kids should (and here, are) allowed to attend regular schools, provided they can handle it. They're usually given their own classes, with specialized teachers (an example of what I mean by M.Ed. programs being specific), but they're still in the same building and can socialize with the rest of the kids, both for the good and the bad (though most such kids and their parents express that it's an overall positive experience).

But you want special schools for people with disabilities, even when they have equivalent intellectual capacity? What's wrong with you? Yeah, put all those "abnormal" people away from the public eye. Wow, history, man.

Also, to add to what Z-Man said, I encourage you to read Steven Pinker's The Blank Slate, and in particular the chapter on children. (There are several other full, scientific books on early childhood development, but that chapter provides a good summary on this point.) Children aren't socialized by adults, but among other kids. They don't spend their time trying to be better adults; they spend their time learning to be better kids—that's just the way the brain works. I think we spoke about this before, in regard to the development of character/personality. Parents have almost nothing to do with that beyond what was provided by their genes. A parent's role is primarily in nurturing, providing a beneficial environment, not molding.

And by the way, ADHD is not a "social disorder."

Second, you can't just send kids to school with a list of requirements and expect them to pursue them. They still need guidance. But every kid is different, so our current system of sending kids to school to have a list of requirements forced onto them at every level of their education also isn't working so well.

I agree with that. I think you still need to have basic general education required for every student—much more broadly than it is now, getting narrower all the time as, for example, arts education has been almost eliminated nationwide. I think you agree when you later talk about "ALL subjects that are REQUIRED to graduate will have such coursework associated with them."

But I've long supported having varying levels per subject. We already have levels encompassing all subjects in the form of regular, honors, and advanced programs. We allow kids to skip a grade (or get held back), or sometimes take an individual course a grade-year above. And we have magnet programs that allow kids to take courses that focus more on a particular field of interest. But I would also support breaking up the regular/honors/advanced levels by subject. Everyone needs to take at least the basics of liberal studies, but I'm all for enrichment based on individual students' preferences, needs, abilities, talents, etc. Likewise for pacing of that education.

I think most teachers would agree. Problem is, that takes more staff, smaller classrooms, more materials and other resources, and as a consequence, more money, and no one is willing to pony that up. It also requires that schools and teachers be given the latitude to institute this kind of stuff, which of course under the current system, especially with NCLB, they're not. Again, at present public schools and teachers are hamstrung by rigid "standards" and poor funding.


As for your proposal on the whole, it seems to me part of what you're wanting to do is take the current job description for a teacher and divide it up among a handful of positions. Now, most teachers would be more than happy to have some extra help, and I can definitely see value in roles for additional teacher's aid and tutor positions filled by people with lesser degrees or from a specialized vocational school. But, again, that's going to require more money; teachers as they are now basically constitute a lot of free/cheap labor by having such an all-encompassing, multiple job description—one that people fail to acknowledge. And I also think there is a need for the "traditional," well-rounded, well-educated, qualified teaching position. But they should be paid and treated like it. A bit more below. Bah, this is scattered.

Last I checked, Montessori was for pre-K and some elementary-aged kids.

It was just an example, although a lot of its approach is rather similar to your own, as far as I understand each. Also, while it's most common up to 6, and was originally developed to 12, apparently it can go all the way up to 18.

...the current government-financed daycare we call K-5.

Now come on, that's neither fair nor true. Unless Texas really is that bad.

[Substitute teaching] (l)ooks like fun if you actually try to teach the lesson in class. I would do that.

You can. Teachers will usually leave some sort of lesson plan. Even if not, there's nothing stopping you from asking the kids where they are and covering that—unless you want to avoid inadvertently stepping on the teacher's toes.

Geez, sounds like they treat subs like migrant farm workers in Texas. "You look sturdy, get on the truck." Here, you're hired by the district. You then receive a phone call either the morning of, or sometimes a day or more before, depending on how much forewarning the teacher has about their absence. Also, you can be put on a preferred schools list, both in terms of grade level and actual schools. I don't think you can request a subject preference, though, heh. And if you're good, teachers can put particular subs on their own preferred list. The combination of those things is why you'll often see the same handful of subs at a given school. It's beneficial, too, because then the subs gain a familiarity with both the teachers and the students, and vice versa, at that school. Moreover, JCPS also hires on full-time "preferred substitutes" who work every day. Details if you're interested.

...it would drive us out of house and home since I'd have to quit my day job.

There is that, heh. And considering where you work and that you're new there, I'm assuming they wouldn't be all that flexible with your schedule.

Sounds like you should set up a charter school.

Gladly. Just need, hmmmm, $millions.

Yeah, that's the rub. Well, if you were really serious about this, you could go get a Master's or, better, a Doctorate in Education, write a book and some proposals, and find an investor.

One thing I will give charter schools credit for is the refrain about their being a fertile ground for creativity in education; public schools used to have more freedom in that regard too. But I absolutely oppose the voucher programs. It's a scam. The intended irony is that the very people who advocate for vouchers while singing the praises of autonomy, creativity, and alternative curricula in charter schools, are the same ones who call for all these strict "standards" in public education, while also cutting funds. They're the same people who bash public schools and public school teachers. Well, that's a self-fulfilling prophecy.

If you have a culture that believes "those who can't do, teach;" that public school is "government-funded daycare;" that teaching is a cush job; that teachers are all a bunch of overpaid bums—guess what you wind up with? A lot of undervalued, unappreciated, poorly paid, poorly motivated teachers.

Then you add heavy-handed government-dictated curricula, with all its mindless fervor in favor of universal, strict "standards" and demands of equal outcomes (even though their usual slogan is "equal opportunity, not equal outcomes"), coupled with threats of withholding already insufficient funds, of shutting down "failing" schools and throwing good teachers out on the street. Now you have have undervalued, unappreciated, poorly paid, poorly motivated teachers who are also hamstrung into a narrow curriculum, have no time to do anything else, and even if they do, are too afraid to diverge from teaching to the test for fear that if their little cogs don't pass the inspector at the end of the factory conveyor belt, they'll be out on their asses.

How can these people be surprised when what were initially highly-motivated, highly-trained teachers get burned out and demoralized? How can they be surprised when narrow, rigid, teach-to-the-test mandates curricula turn out stupid kids?

That money needs to go into public schools, which need to be given autonomy and freedom to be creative in teaching methods, and all the resources needed to implement them. You get a real mosaic of educational approaches, and everyone can learn from the successes. Yeah, some will suck, but wouldn't you rather have a few examples of that scattered about than an entire system, at every grade level, in every school around the entire nation, failing under the same universally shitty system of standards? Losing an entire generation of society to it while waiting for the politicians to come around. So, you see, even if I dug your proposal, I wouldn't support making it nation-wide.

Moreover, teachers need to not only be required to have high qualifications going in, as they do now, but they need to be paid and treated like it, like the professionals they are. They should receive legitimate employee evaluations based on their actual performance, not based on absurd standards that focus on the worst-performing students who often aren't even given a chance. Have independent, professional evaluators come in every 3 years and sit in the back of the class for a couple weeks. Include student evaluations as well.

Students themselves should be evaluated not by scantrons and those absurd LCD outcomes, but by oh, you know, the teachers. Over the course of their schooling career, they should also maintain broad portfolios to be evaluated before they exit elementary, middle, and high schools.

Thirdly, one of the things about homeschooling that is cited as why it is so successful when it is successful is that the kids get to pursue subjects at their own pace.

Research I've seen indicates that homeschooling, on average, and when locale and economics are taken into account, doesn't perform much better than public schooling (likewise for private schools). They also come out social retards. As far as requirements for homeschooling content, it again varies. In Kentucky, homeschooling is basically treated like other non-public schools. While the home school can develop its own curriculum, there are nonetheless requirements they're supposed to abide by with respect to areas of education (reading, writing, spelling, grammar, history, mathematics and civics). They're also required to maintain a portfolio of scholarship, record of attendance, and progress students at the same intervals as their local public schools. Details, if you're interested.

Anyway, key point there is that these kids don't necessarily get a satisfactory breadth of education. And of course there's the religious and religio-political indoctrination, or their being removed from public schools for racist reasons.

Just comments on home schooling.

[Lucifer]

I've got to call my daughter, so I'll come back and write my detailed response later, but I wanted to chime in on this one real quick:

I looked into charter schools. They are actually PUBLICLY funded. I believe they can solicit private donations, of course, but if you get approved, you get a BUDGET from the STATE.

So, ummmm, well, I don't know. The idea's taken a different turn, I suppose. Maybe I'll do a more exploratory thing instead of just chit-chatting an internet game forum.

[Clutch]

Uhh possibly a bit off-topic, but what is it that differentiates between a "good" education system and a "bad" one, besides the obvious differences between a place like the States and, let's say, Iran. I mean between modern, first-world countries like Canada and the States. What makes the U.S. 21st compared to Canada at 6? I would assume things are done pretty much the same, although (if it's not already ridiculously obvious) I'll admit I am pretty ignorant about the education system (heh), especially since I've been in a non-traditional high school since grade 8

[Word]

But you want special schools for people with disabilities, even when they have equivalent intellectual capacity? What's wrong with you? Yeah, put all those "abnormal" people away from the public eye.

No, it's just that there are lots of other, more urgent things they should fix first. The sports hall ceiling is an actual danger, and we need far more rooms and teachers. The school is waiting for new rooms since 10 years and it's only getting worse. Not to mention that I suspect there's still some asbestos here and there.
We have a school for handicapped people in our neighbourhood that doesn't have all the problems we have, so it is actually better for them, I believe. Not because I "want them away".
They could just arrange the time table so that the handicapped don't even need the stairs (which is what they used to do for 50 years).
Additionally, the fire doors don't contribute to anyone's safety because they need to be opened from the "other side", and one door only opens when the one on the opposite side is already open. If the school was burning, nobody would really know which door to use.

@Clutch: That is up for debate (sadly), but my opinion is that good systems sort early, like the German one used to, whereas bad ones don't really sort at all, which is what we are going to have soon...
It's a political illusion that good students "carry" the not-so-good ones. It's more like they're all dragged down and all get the same reward regardless of their actual effort.

[delinquent]

@ Lucifer:
Here in the UK we have several different schooling systems. One of which is state funded but outside of council control. This means that they are free from the national curriculum, meaning they can teach how they see fit. Perhaps it would be worth persuing this idea in the area where you want to be? that way, in five or ten years time, you might well have your own school where your ideas can be put in practice? It might be a good idea to wiegh up local opinion beforehand, but I think some of your ideas, while very good, will never be implemented unless you do so yourself. Admittedly, it will take many years of work, but if you so wish surely you can split it up amongst staff hired particularly to attend to it?

If you want to know more, I suggest you research "UK free schools" a little.

[Phytotron]

I looked into charter schools. They are actually PUBLICLY funded. I believe they can solicit private donations, of course, but if you get approved, you get a BUDGET from the STATE.

Well, I would assume what you're describing there would be something particular to Texas; wouldn't surprise me. You tell me. Then, from the Federal level, there's this crap.

Uhh possibly a bit off-topic....

Yes, it is. Let's not go there. If you're legitimately interested in how those rankings are calculated, you can do your own research. Beyond that, in determining what is "best" at producing those results, it's even more complicated, combining both philosophical approaches and actual empirical data.

No, it's just that there are lots of other, more urgent things they should fix first. ... (which is what they used to do for 50 years)

I can't begin to tell you how wrong you are. Do you not have a German equivalent of the ADA? People with disabilities, both physical and mental, are not inconsequential, lesser humans to be treated like lepers.

It's a political illusion that good students "carry" the not-so-good ones.

Nope, longitudinal studies support it. It's called "Academic Self-Concept." Look it up. It's not the be-all and end-all, it's no panacea, and its effectiveness is diminished as the gap in academic competency increases. But it most certainly can be a significantly beneficial factor in a struggling student's achievement. And it has nothing to do with "get(ting) the same reward regardless of their actual effort."

Indeed, ASC is one of the main arguments against tracking. As you may have deduced, I support a mixed system.

And another thing you need to understand right now, is that nothing is cut-and-dry, black-and-white in education. It's a massive and complicated subject. Intuition and slogans aren't useful.

Here in the UK we have several different schooling systems.

As do we. (It's also more decentralized, even still, despite NCLB.) Indeed, see the talk about charter schools? Your "free schools" were based in part on American charter schools.

[Lucifer]

I looked into charter schools. They are actually PUBLICLY funded. I believe they can solicit private donations, of course, but if you get approved, you get a BUDGET from the STATE.

Well, I would assume what you're describing there would be something particular to Texas; wouldn't surprise me. You tell me. Then, from the Federal level, there's this crap.

What I found was a general purpose how-to that basically said "Check with your state for state-specific requirements, but these procedures are true for all states that have charter schools". It's almost certainly something Bush setup when he was president, because there is federal funding for it, and he probably had the legislature model the federal law after a texas law that went through when he was governor. I remember there being a big buzz about charter schools and Bush being an idiot somehow going together.

[Lucifer]

Uhh possibly a bit off-topic....

Yes, it is. Let's not go there. If you're legitimately interested in how those rankings are calculated, you can do your own research. Beyond that, in determining what is "best" at producing those results, it's even more complicated, combining both philosophical approaches and actual empirical data.

Not so fast. It's not totally off-topic.

What do you consider the goals of an education system? What's the point? Without understanding that, it's very difficult to measure various systems. That's one of the reasons the US ranks so poorly. We are actually #1 in our class, because we are the absolute best country at educating mindless drones to be mindless drones. Nobody can hold a candle to us.

So, what do you WANT our education system to achieve?

[Word]

People with disabilities, both physical and mental, are not inconsequential, lesser humans to be treated like lepers.

It's not like they're being treated like lepers there (and I think we have something like the ADA), and I'm not thinking they're lesser humans. They were also not treated like that at our school. But when you have the luxury alternative of a school that has all the facilities ours doesn't have, minus all the room and teacher problems, why not go there? Yes, they should be able to choose, but if there's no money to solve the problems that concern 99,9% of us why solve a problem for the 0,1% that could be solved by better planning or when they could just go there.

Nope, longitudinal studies support it.

Well, we had a school in our city that was forced to do this, and after 4 years they all took their children away and they don't get many new registrations anymore, despite all the substitutions they got.

Nope, longitudinal studies support it.

I'm against tracking too, the "sorting" referred to splitting the class after elementary school (it used to be Hauptschule, Realschule, Gymnasium - the first two are about to be merged here because most of the ones who are recommended for it are send to the Gymnasium now).