Design your own ideal education system

[Ben Kenobi]

Also remember that part of school is about learning the social lessons as well... a place for kids to learn how to interact with others.

Is that why we have social promotion crap?

I had 'social interaction' with my best friends down the street and we never went to the same school. School is to get an education not to socialize.

It's like saying all your best friends are at work.

[Ben Kenobi]

The first thing you must have is a society that actually values (monetarily and ideologically) and respects teachers, so that the best people in that society are drawn to teaching.

The reason teachers are paid like crap is because they are the most unionised, a teacher job is a sinecure for life, and the benefits are higher then you'd see otherwise. You want to get better teachers? Let them charge what they want, and have it so that students can attend whatever class regardless of the teacher.

You do this, and I guarantee that 90 percent of the teachers will quit, and the remaining 10 percent will make their living quite well, enough to attract the best and the brightest. Of course, this means dismantling the Education system, and we can't have that!

Second, teaching up through at least 2nd or 3rd grade should be about nothing but skills -- reading, math, art, music, foreign language. Forget content; just build basic right- and left-brain aptitude. And for god's sake, forget all that self-esteem crap. Skills, skills, skills!

Reading, you can get that by about the first grade. Math, sure you can teach the concepts but the concepts are the content. This would total up about 2 hours in the average class day.

I don't see any reason why once the kids have the basics in first grade, that they should have to wait 2 more years to actually learn stuff.

(True facts: (1) My daughter actually got through elementary and middle school without knowing her multiplication tables; she survived -- a bunch of 4's and 5's on AP tests, enrollment now at an elite college -- but that's ridiculous; (2) at mid-century, the average American high school grad had a functional vocabulary of ~50,000 words; today, it's ~10,000 words. No wonder my mother, who was a crap student, read and enjoyed Jane Eyre in 7th grade, while by contrast, my wife and I have both had students when we taught at university who literally couldn't understand 19th century prose.)

Exactly. Once the kids learn how to read properly, you need to turn them loose so that they can read everything they get their hands on. The problem is that much of the class is wasted on the top-down instruction. They don't really need that sort of education until they get to the college level.

Third, students need to be tracked, and tracked early. The US has been developing a system which is basically "college prep for everyone," and it's been a disaster. Of course, it would help if we had an economy that could allow high school grads to build meaningful lives without college degrees.

That goes without saying.

[Rufus T. Firefly]

The reason teachers are paid like crap is because they are the most unionised, a teacher job is a sinecure for life, and the benefits are higher then you'd see otherwise. You want to get better teachers? Let them charge what they want, and have it so that students can attend whatever class regardless of the teacher.

So before unionization, teachers were better paid and more respected? Wrong. Not in America, anyway.

And teachers can "charge what they want"? How does that work? They put signs on their lawns saying "Algebra, $75/hour" and wait to see who shows up?

Or, once we get rid of teachers unions, will taxpayers somehow magically clamor to have their taxes go up, so their new, improved school districts can double teacher pay in order to attract quality folks?

And while you're barking up this tree, you might want to explain why US states in which membership in a teachers union is required generally have much stronger educational systems that right-to-work states.

I'm not defending teachers unions; I think they're a big part of the problem. But, really, it takes a Kenobi to grasp that basic fact and still completely f*ck up both the analysis and the prescription for reform.

[Ben Kenobi]

And teachers can "charge what they want"? How does that work? They put signs on their lawns saying "Algebra, $75/hour" and wait to see who shows up?

That's what music teachers do, and I don't see people lamenting about the lack of quality music education. Or what we pitiful and humble tutors have to do to make a living. Market economies work. If you cannot fire a bad teacher, then that makes things very difficult on the ones who do care about their jobs. If you don't get merit pay, then it makes it worthless for you to do more work then your neighbour.

Or, once we get rid of teachers unions, will taxpayers somehow magically clamor to have their taxes go up, so their new, improved school districts can double teacher pay in order to attract quality folks?

Well for starters, the barrier of entry would go down, and the teachers who don't like the job would quit and go elsewhere and be fired. Then, if the schools were required to operate like a business, we would see the administration cut as well. The fact that teachers would prefer to work in the private system is a sign that the public school system needs a radical change in it's philosophy if it really wants to have the best and the brightest teachers.

Secondly, I don't think parents see much value in their children's education in the public school. Look at what parents are willing to pay to get out of the system. If they could be assured of a quality public school education, then they would be more willing to invest money into the system to help keep it running. This is the problem with the taxation method. No one is invested in the system, as it is involuntary taxation. I think the schools would do much better charging parents to educate their children, rather then relying on state funding which is spotty, inadequate, and restrictive.

And while you're barking up this tree, you might want to explain why US states in which membership in a teachers union is required generally have much stronger educational systems that right-to-work states.

Educational systems? Yes, sure. They have a bigger bureaucracy. Quality of education? Look at the right to work states. The true measure of education is not how big the system can become, but rather the quality of the actual education. Think of it like computer programs. The measure of an effective program is not the SIZE of the program, but rather how efficiently it performs the tasks to which it is assigned.

I'm not defending teachers unions; I think they're a big part of the problem. But, really, it takes a Kenobi to grasp that basic fact and still completely f*ck up both the analysis and the prescription for reform.

Why are you arguing against someone who you claim supports the same ends as you? That's pretty foolish IMHO. Just because we arrive at the same conclusion in different ways what do you care?

[rah]

Forums should play an important role
I'm an old man that has continued to learn being here. If I generalize or misrepresent something, I take a pounding from others and sometimes I actually change my mind about something. It also gives you a view different than your neighborhood which is critical when you're learning. It's amazing that quite a few things that I took for granted and were the bedrock of lot of my beliefs were just plain crap which were easily exposed here.
SO whenever I take abuse from a lot of the supposed *ssholes here, I just consider it a learning exercise.

But obviously this wouldn't work for everybody as Ben proves every day.

[Zero]

topless female teachers.

[Elok]

Zero, that would require a much lower mandatory retirement age. Also, it's not that good of an idea in itself. I recall exactly one teacher that I really wanted to see naked, and if I'd actually gotten my wish I'd not have learned a damned thing in that class.

[Ben Kenobi]

But obviously this wouldn't work for everybody as Ben proves every day.

Shi taught me lots about Catholicism.

[DaShi]

Also remember that part of school is about learning the social lessons as well... a place for kids to learn how to interact with others.

I had a social interaction once. It was uncomfortable for me and the person involved. We vowed to never do it again by getting married.

[Darius871]

I recall exactly one teacher that I really wanted to see naked, and if I'd actually gotten my wish I'd not have learned a damned thing in that class.

That's what they call a "fair trade-off."

[Fake Boris]

The first thing you must have is a society that actually values (monetarily and ideologically) and respects teachers, so that the best people in that society are drawn to teaching. In Finland and Singapore, teachers tend to come from the top third of college graduates; in the US, teachers tend to come from the bottom third. Finland and Singapore have two of the best education systems in the industrialized world, the US has one of the worst. 'Nuff said.

This is a QFT. It's like this in France too, where getting the High School teacher contest is prestigious and highly valued.

[Jon Miller]

year round schooling

small class sizes, with classes split based on ability (test scores, I guess)

each class is separate for a given subject

subjects for 1-5:
mathematics - split focus between useful skills (multiplying/etc) and basic understanding
writing - grammar/etc
reading - focused on reports/etc
social - this would be split between art, physical activity, history, foreign languages, etc... the focus would be something for them to do that was more fun and social but that hopefully they were actually learning in

6-8 grades:
mathematics - should already have basic skills, should focus on problem solving and basic understanding (including geometry/etc) note that by basic understanding I mean basics of real math, there is no reason to wait for this until college
reading - focus on literature, should have some side branches into philosophy/civics/history where you learn that stuff on the side
writing - write stories and reports
social - same as before but include more on civics and include sex ed

I will go on in a later post

JM

[Seeker]

1. Standardized public corporal punishment.
2. Those sexy 'sailor scout' uniforms.
3. Streaming by ability rather than age.
4. Use of longitudinal testing and its results for placement rather than 'big finals'.
5. Re-introduction of rote memorization as applicable for ability level, but at the same time a regulation limiting homework per student to a maximum of 1-2 hours. Of course, self-study time is unlimited.
6. A wide variety, maybe 9, for student ability level. i.e. Epsilon, Basic, General, Advanced, Enriched, Gifted, Alpha. For every subject.
7. Survival and orientation outdoor skills as part of PE curriculum.
8. Materials sciences given earlier, more advanced, and more of it. There's a lot of cool mechanical, electrical, woodworking, fabrication knowledge that doesn't require advanced math. Students should know the basics of how to make and operate the 'stuff' of society.
9. ....probably too much to ask but politically neutral social studies and history classes. We don't have to be studying the 'Great Man' theory but please just a little less blatant Marxist-Leninist stuff.

10. The ability to fire teachers immediately, without warning or having to show cause, on a 2/3rds majority vote of the local board.

11. The ability for students to be able to attend any public school of their choice, as long as they can arrange transportation, regardless of whether it's in their social engineered district or not.

12. Make it illegal for teachers to unionize.

The last three are most important, introducing competition into the closed education system, lighting a fire under asses to improve.

[fed1943]

And how the local board get their places?

[OzzyKP]

My ideal:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sudbury_model

Sudbury schools practice a form of democratic education in which students individually decide what to do with their time, and learn as a by-product of ordinary experience rather than through classes or a standard curriculum.[1] Students are given complete responsibility for their own education and the school is run by a direct democracy in which students and staff are equals.

The 'Sudbury' name refers to Sudbury Valley School, founded in 1968 in Framingham, Massachusetts, the first school of this type and the inspiration for other schools to define themselves as Sudbury schools. These schools are not formally associated in any way, but generally maintain good communication with each other, and recognize a loose camaraderie.

Certain facets of the model separate it from other democratic schools and free schools, although there are evident similarities:

* De-emphasis of classes: classes arise only when an individual creates them, and staff are not expected to offer classes as any sort of curriculum — most democratic schools offer at least some basic curricula. Sudbury schools' attitude on classes stems from the belief that every individual learns what they need to know through life and that there is no need to try and design a curriculum that will prepare a young person for adult life.
* Age mixing: students are not separated into age-groups of any kind and allowed to mix freely, interacting with those younger and older than themselves; free age-mixing is emphasized as a powerful tool for learning and development in all ages.
* Autonomous democracy: Another prominent difference is the limitation — or total absence — of parental involvement in the administration of Sudbury schools; Sudbury schools are run by a democratic School Meeting where the students and staff participate exclusively and equally. Remarkably, the democratic School Meeting of a Sudbury school is also the sole authority on hiring and firing of staff — a facet that separates these schools from all others.

School Democracy

All aspects of governing a Sudbury School are determined by the weekly School Meeting, modeled after the traditional New England Town Meeting.[2] School Meeting passes, amends and repeals school rules, manages the school's budget, and decides on hiring and firing of staff. Each individual present — whether student or staff — has exactly one vote, and most decisions are made by simple majority.

Several aspects of running the school are often delegated to other parties so that School Meetings do not get bogged down with the minutiae of detail. These may include elected administrative clerks (who may be elected from staff or students) and committees of volunteers. Additionally, corporations and cooperatives are formed by the School Meeting for a specific area of activity that a group is interested in organizing, such as sports, art or computers.

School rules are normally compiled in a law book, updated repeatedly over time, which forms the school's code of law. When a school member has infracted against a school rule, such as by harassing or hurting another member, or by mismanaging a delegated responsibility, the problem is dealt with through the School Meeting's judicial system, in which all members of the school community participate.[2] Usually, there is a set procedure to handle complaints, and most of the schools follow guidelines that respect the idea of due process of law. There are usually rules requiring an investigation, a hearing, a trial, a sentence, and allowing for an appeal.

[edit] Learning

Sudbury schools are based on the belief that no kind of curriculum is necessary to prepare a young person for adult life. Instead, these schools place emphasis on learning as a natural by-product of all human activity. They rely on the free market of ideas, and free conversation and interplay of people, to provide sufficient exposure to any area that may prove relevant and interesting to the individual. Students of all ages mix together; older students learn from younger students as well as vice versa. Students of different ages often mentor each other in social skills.[3]

Implicitly and explicitly, students are given responsibility for their own education, meaning the only person designing what a student will learn is the student themselves. As such, Sudbury schools do not compare or rank students — the system has no tests, evaluations, or transcripts.[4] Still, some schools — mostly in the United States, and including Sudbury Valley School — offer a graduation procedure for those who wish to receive a high-school diploma. Students who choose to use this option must present a thesis on how they have prepared themselves for adulthood, and about entering the community at large. This thesis is submitted to the Assembly, which reviews it. The final stage of the thesis process is an oral defense given by the student in which they open the floor for questions, challenges and comments. Finally, a vote determines whether or not to award a diploma.[5]

A striking feature of Sudbury schools is the ubiquity of play. Students of all ages — but especially the younger ones — often spend most of their time either in free play, or playing games (electronic or otherwise). No attempt is made to limit, control or direct the play — it is seen as activity every bit as worthy as academic pursuits, often even more valuable; play is considered a valuable tool for learning individuals, particularly in fostering creativity[6]. The pervasiveness of play has led to a recurring observation by first-time visitors to a Sudbury school that the students appear to be in perpetual "recess"[7].

[edit] Subtleties of a democratic school

Certain nuances in the operation of Sudbury schools emerged during the years they have been in existence, five subtleties that are essential in defining them:[8]

* Political Neutrality

Sudbury schools are usually apolitical. These are schools in which they consciously do not pay attention to the political views of the people who seek to become members of the community: party affiliations, philosophy, class, about any of the features that separate political factions in society. Political activity is not allowed to take place on the campus, while alternative schools are virtually all identified with specific political movements which is part of a pluralistic scene when you are aware of that and when you ask for it. The reason is the idea, practiced also in the American public school, that people of divergent political and social views can work together in a common enterprise where they have common goals other than politics, that in such a noble enterprise as the search for knowledge, truth, and enlightenment, everybody can work together.

* The Existence of Rules of Order

Official meetings of any group in these schools operate according to some set of explicit, formal procedures. The chief function of rules of order is to protect all views and to give them as detached and thorough an airing as possible enabling for decision making, as opposed to the most prevailing models of decision making in schools, the authoritarian model, and the one run as a continuing encounter group. Rules constitute the main protection for reason, intellect, objectivity, detachment, and minorities in a group context, as opposed to feeling and emotion. It is the existence of a clear, explicit procedure that protects and encourages people to introduce motions, thence coming to feel that there is access to the political process to all.

* The Rule of Law

The Rule of Law is generally acknowledge to be a cornerstone of orderly, organized society. In these schools, laws are always promulgated in writing, and careful records are kept of the body of precedents surrounding each rule. There is a simple process accessible to all members of the community. There is no opening, however small, for arbitrary or capricious authority to step in.

The public schools remain one of the last bastions of autocratic rule in our society. There is in fact no rule of law, by and large the same as in alternative schools where power resides in the momentary whim of the majority at a given instant. They hold the unity of the community to be of prime value and to take precedence over everything else. So they will usually undermine any attempt to institute the rule of law, since that would tend to make an individual feel secure and protect him when he chooses to stand apart.

* Universal Suffrage

This is the idea that everybody, every member of the school, student and staff, has a vote. It is really a simple idea, as opposed to the idea of democracy as it is sold in Academia, in the heart of our educational system, where the idea is a Greek one: democracy is for the privileged. Confusing the issue of subject matter with the issue of political power.

* Protecting the Rights of Individuals

These schools have a strong tradition that there exist rights belonging to every individual member of the school community, and that these have to be protected in every way possible, for example the right of privacy. Because of this right there isn't any kind of intervention in the private affairs of students -- intervention that characterizes other schools.

Protecting the rights of individuals is not an absolute concept; it's a much more subtle one where the line is drawn between community interest and private interest that involves a great deal of judgment. The idea of individual rights is absent from schools, because the rights of people in schools are simply not respected, even if there is occasional lip service paid to this.