Silly Union, Teachers are for Kids

Actually, in the New England Colonies, they have had Public education since the 1600's.

the schools in the N.E. Colonies were mandated by colonial law and funded by the towns. The "Olde Deluder Satan Act" mandates different types of schools for different sized communities.

Yes, public education has come a long way, but it has not changed as far as mandate(the mandate that an educated population is a healthy population), funding source, or other foundational factors.

The fact is that they were public schools and did in fact have mandated curricula from the colonial governments.

The are funded like many states fund their shools... by local town taxes.

This law is the foundation of american public education. It began the idea that at the root of a good healthy society is an educated public.

Percisely. The mandates are funded by local authorities and other programs fall by the wayside. Never mind the "No Child" ideas are reminiscent more of Mao's Cultural Revolution than sensible educational practices. The feds dictate it, the states fall in behind it, the locals have to find a way to pay for it or suffer the consequences meted out by a government far distant from the actual scene.

Texas is in an interesting condition: lawmakers have to find a way to change school funding drastically, or the courts will shut down the public schools. Even though the idea is to provide an educated public, the public system itself has been judged inadequate in Texas.

The governor's plan does not include any raises for the teachers. Two other plans include teacher raises, but couple them with expanding programs that don't work - burdening the system with yet another boondoggle.

Part of the problem is mandatory sentencing for children - they're not allowed to drop out of school, or the districts face tremendous penalties. That means the drug dealers, thugs, dopers, and other stellar performers have to be kept in the system. They used to drop out of school and left it to those who wanted to learn. Now they stay in and drag everyone down with them.

Mainstreaming is another mandatory sentencing idea in education. EVERYONE is to be provided the same education, no exceptions. Well, AP courses are an exception. The result is that if a kid isn't sharp enough to handle AP coursework, he's bundled in with everyone else, from students functioning two standard deviations below normal on up to those at borderline genius - but who just didn't like the pressure of AP. It's also meant the introduction of de facto segregation within schools again as white parents practically screech the school boards deaf if their little dears don't get into AP or Pre-AP courses. I hear the real reasons from parents in between the meetings with officials. They talk about "demographic changes", but really mean they don't want their kids in the same classes as the blacks and hispanics.

Not that private education provides a guarantee against this, but it at least addresses the involuntary nature of institutionalized education, allowing for more freedom and flexibility.

Cultural changes can't be legislated. They take time to make changes happen. Public education with a centralized command system is NOT the way to go. Our universities succeed precisely because they have freedom to do what suits them best. Our public schools fail because they're not free to be flexible.

Universities are accredited, so they do in fact have a central place that dictates certain standards.

I am no fan of NCLB. I like the education requirements for teachers, but the penalties and how the failing of a school is figured out are stupid.

Mainstreaming/inclusion is appropriate for students who can handle it. Teachers should have training on how to deal with cognitively impaired children in their class. I can get through a lesson and help the average children with out a problem and have some kids in the class who cognitively impaired. The students that really take more effort to deal with are the LD students. They are of average or above average intelligence and can understand the concepts (depending if they are LD in your subject or not) but when it comes time for testing, or reading instructions (for LD in reading) or anything else that their LD interferes with, a teacher has to take more time to deal with that student.

What makes LD even worse still is that most of those kids (by the time they get to me in High School) think they are stupid and have given up. So you run into problems with them behaviorally, emotionally, etc. meaning you have to take out more time to encourage them or discipline them.

I've written a bit on NCLB just now, and I'd like to see your comments on it, if I could invite you there. :-)

I'll let you have the last word in this round, so we don't Lincoln-Douglass ourselves to death.

Most voucher schemes are limited to the district's schools. That means if the entire district is failing, school choice has zero benefit. What's needed are voucher systems that open up the whole scope of choices. Sheltering bad schools and ramming NCLB stats on them only makes the bad schools more adept at juggling numbers.

Heck, Brutus,

A bad school does not even have to do much to comply with NCLB. Improve on test scores or they fail... fine... "we had a 30% passing rate... look 35% we are a good school as defined by NCLB", but a school that has a 90% passing rate and falls back a percent or stays the same gets marked as failing.

I argue that schools need to be divided into performing and non-performing. performing schools have test scores above 80%. They are exempt from the pass/fail system of the NCLB.

non-performing schools get graded. if they are improving year on year, then they pass, but are still considered non-performing.

wow... that took me all of 10 seconds to think about. What kind of morons do we have making these education laws?

What kind of morons, you ask?

The elected variety, I believe. :-)

Honestly, if something makes sense, I can guarantee it won't be used in education.

Except...

Since most teachers can't be fired for incompetence, "experienced" doesn't necessarily equate with "competent". Moreover, when the economy's good, it's really hard finding anyone willing to teach, let alone one who knows how to teach.

Most teacher incompetence could be clearly identified in such an internship and that teacher could be let go in the beginning period of evaluation (in CA it's two years).

How many teachers have actually been jettisoned due to incompetence? I've seen 'em fail test after test and finally get shifted somewhere where they don't have to teach a core class, like art, music, or shop.

Every year in our school there are new teachers that are let go. Should it be more? I don't know. But, beginning teacher salaries still don't attract the highest gpa's, and I believe that society gets what it pays for.

Eliminating certain off-site administration would free up buckets of money to raise salaries, and increasing class size instead of adding still more teachers could lead to better salaries and eventually better teachers (the class-size reduction movement is now a given in CA, even though there is only anecdotal support).