How to reform American Secondary Education

Archbob

Ancient CFC Guardian
Joined
Oct 25, 2000
Messages
11,776
Location
Corporate USA
So, American secondary education sucks and has been needing reform for a long time.

How should we reform it?

Pay teachers more?

Forbid the teacher's union from always resisting any meaningful change?

Merit system?

More privitization?

What do you guys think?
 
i did just fine in secondary school....Quite honestly, if the kid wants to do well, in most cases he can. (exclusions will be the bad inner city schools and i don't know enough to add anything on that.)
 
From my experience in order to have any meaningful change, a drastic change in standards would have to be made.
Off the top of my head..
Students who excel should have the option, and be compensated, for participating in a much more rigorous school.

Such academies should require good performance should be continually merit based..

Sports should be completely separate, sports lead to having a huge amount of teachers who only care about coaching.

A diploma should not be a a guarantee, if kids can't pass then they don't deserve this. A diploma should not be diminished in value because of special needs students, and general fools.

The department of education needs to be given full authority of kids: children's education is extremely abused by the teachers' union, school boards, and mongering interests.

Fluency in a non native language can be stimulated by requiring it as a requirement for entrance in the highest universities.

If all other reforms fail: college tuition at universities should be paid for science, medicine, and engineering. And, making law school as undesirable as possible.
 
AMerica just doesn't have enough regulation. This applies to more than just education...

Indeed. And people should be forced to at least let others learn. People who for instance bully or disturb others could for example be castrated to be calmed. Or otherwise drugged in a way that makes them quiet.
 
Basically one catchphrase sums up my stance, but of course I recognize it's a bit more complex than that. Anyway:

National standards, National Standards, NATIONAL STANDARDS!

In short, the problem with American education is its horrible inconsistency. One of the first reasons for this is a great portion of funding comes from local/state sources, like property taxes. Unfortunately, many Americans see education as solely the province/responsibility of individual states - the national government doesn't have a right to do anything. If it were up to me I might even go to solve this once and for all with a constitutional amendment for those sticklers, but current legal methods are still possible revolving around such games like the federal government withholding/threatening to not give the money it does provide.

Now, for some of you not quite so familiar with the system, you might ask: "doesn't America have national standards? I keep on hearing about No Child Left Behind and all that stuff." The short answer is No, we have failed to establish any national standards, we just have politicians acting like they've solved something. For instance, NCLB does NOT require any single, national test - instead, each state makes up its own tests for its own students (keeping with these traditional American principles here).

The end result of this again is that school quality, curricula, and other factors vary widely across America. More wealthy or otherwise successful areas can see much better schools than the inner cities - and this is not because of the students alone or any lack of innate talent/motivation - schools just don't get funding or support they need. I was very fortunate to have attended decent suburban schools and opportunities abounded for all students. From my experience and people I've known, some students do benefit from vocational schools/charter schools or magnets or whatever (and even though I didn't go there I'd still peg TJ as the best high school in the country against all comers). However, the stereotyped suburban American high school really is not that bad - and the solution is not, as politicians again often propose radical new school designs or curriculum plans. The problem is bringing EVERY school up to the same standards - if every school in DC was the same quality as the better ones in Northern Virginia, and the pattern repeated across the country, we wouldn't have so much of a crisis.

Up to now I've looked at this from a point of what the government can do - set reasonable national standards and somehow get states to adopt them. Just to be perfectly clear as I know people from around the world may not know - but SAT/ACT tests are not generally required for high school graduation anywhere - they are optional - we do in fact have no national tests. If we could make some progress on this (simple standards in math, english, science, and history on a national level - and I know firsthand how these things can vary between states currently) I think people would notice. Lastly, I do recognize a ton of social factors that influence student/community success but these can be even more complicated to discuss (I'm willing to too, just holding off for now) because factors like "jock culture" or something can't be addressed with legislation.
 
Indeed. And people should be forced to at least let others learn. People who for instance bully or disturb others could for example be castrated to be calmed. Or otherwise drugged in a way that makes them quiet.

You know, that would not work because it be claimed as "racist" before you even mentioned it.
 
National standards, National Standards, NATIONAL STANDARDS!

That's most of the problem in the first place.That's most of the problem in the first place.THAT'S MOST OF THE PROBLEM IN THE FIRST PLACE.

The quality of education and test scores compared to other countries has gone down proportionately with involvement of the Federal government. No Child Left Behind is a clusterfrak for anyone doing well for themselves.

Plus centralisation of anything is going to make it more inefficiently and less effective at what it does (if the aim is something productive).
 
I thought the problem was primarily with primary education. After 10+ years of poor learning, you can't turn it all around in 4 :dunno:
 
That's most of the problem in the first place.That's most of the problem in the first place.THAT'S MOST OF THE PROBLEM IN THE FIRST PLACE.

So that's why all of the nations ahead of us has national standardized testing? :lol:
 
I think one of the main reasons is that we've taken away every good way for teachers to enforce discipline and parents are sue-happy.

In some of the Asian countries that do much better than us, the teachers have the ability to dish out severe pwnage when needed without having to worry about lawsuits.
 
The problem is cultural. What little grade 3 kid want's to grow up to be an engineer or scientist these days? What a kid doesn't want to learn, he won't. Then by the time they get to highschool, there's very little that can be done. The key is that these kids need to WANT to learn. You cannot punish knowledge into a child.

I think it's quite a telling fact that America graduates more Performing Arts majors than it does Engineers.
 
To me a lot of the problem is with family structure and poverty. A family with two parents is going to make kmore money, live in a nicer place and that usually leads to a better funded school. There is at least your opurtunity. Having one parent, at least for me and a ot of my friends, leads to more lax rules at home because the parent doesn't want to lose favor with you, and it also leads to that parent either working a lot of hours to provide or working an offshift. Either one of those two leads to less supervision, which usually leads to less homework being done, or studying. Then they are brought up around other people that are poor, and seeing the way the parent lives they think this is what they have in store for them and also try less because they can't see the point.

Also smaller class sizes have been proven to work. Less chaos, more interaction, people are more wiling to ask questions.
 
The people on the left want everyone to have education, and are willing to spend massive amounts of money to get it. The right would prefer to let the free market handle it.

Why doesn't anyone consider the compromise solution of vouchers, which satisfies the demands of the left by allowing everyone a chance at a decent education, and also those of the right, by letting the selection mechanism be the free market?

Instead of spending massive amounts on public schools as they are, why not give the same money to the parents and let them decide which school is the better one?

It is in the parent's self-interest to get the best education for their child, it is in the school's interest to provide such an education (because otherwise nobody will come), and because of the competition, the bloat of the bureaucracy will necessarily have to be reduced, it is in the teacher's interest to teach (because if he doesn't, he's out). In general, it is in everyone's interest, under the voucher system, that learning actually occur.
 
That's most of the problem in the first place.That's most of the problem in the first place.THAT'S MOST OF THE PROBLEM IN THE FIRST PLACE.

The quality of education and test scores compared to other countries has gone down proportionately with involvement of the Federal government. No Child Left Behind is a clusterfrak for anyone doing well for themselves.

Plus centralisation of anything is going to make it more inefficiently and less effective at what it does (if the aim is something productive).

The Federal Govt is really barely involved in education. Its mostly there to give out money.
 
Abolish any and all attempts at national standards. After that, all of the following are addressed only at Missouri because frankly it isn't my business and I don't care how other States run their schools.

Wouldn't be a bad idea to abolish tenure and the teacher unions.

Not just in secondary, but through all grade re-institute paddling and other corporal punishments.

I don't know exactly what they were doing before the 60s and 70s, but we seemed to be graduating better educated kids then. My grandpa told me Latin was required at her high school back in the 30s, for example. Maybe a combination of discipline and more concentration on core classes.

Meh. Just start at least with getting the kids in class and bust their butts if they skip or misbehave.
 
You got to privatize it.

Singers do it and players of instruments too.

Doctors do it, nurses do it, judges do it, even the lawyers too.

Privatize it, yeah, yeah, and I will advertise it.

Privatize it, that's the best thing you can do.


 
Anyways, I've addressed this topic a bunch of times before. Here are some bullet points that can be expanded further. (I work as a teacher next year, and work with a national educational reform institution)

1) Improving secondary ed starts with Primary Ed. Kids can't write essays in High School because they didn't learn to read in Elementary school. Primary ed isn't as "sexy" of an education issue for some reason, but its more important, reform-wise, than secondary ed. Gotta make sure kids are getting the fundamentals.

2) Attract better teachers. People are never going to become teachers because of the salary. We can't afford to be paying people 70 grand (although I do think more money would help...it shouldn't be the number one factor). What we can do is increase the prestige of the teaching profession. We can make alt. certification easier, so experts (PhDs in their field), or highly accomplished people who didn't get education degrees can cut some of the prohibitive red tape, and teach.

I'd also look at making it harder to get an education degree, so that certification actually means something (which I know is hard to do, since a lot of districts have teacher shortages). I'm sorry to anybody who majored in Ed...but its just not a hard degree, and its shows on tests like the Praxis. If being an ed student "means" something, you're going to have more competitive students enter the program.

3) Don't be afraid to do different things. National control of education is pretty weak in the United States, which should give the hundreds of local school districts enough autonomy to do different things (which we don't always do). We have a few school districts right now working as lab rats for different reform ideas, like New Orleans and Washington DC. I think we could do better, but often there are agents (like the aforementioned teachers unions, and other groups) which are often resistant to change. Clearly, the status quo doesn't work so well most of the time.

4) I think this one is absofreaking critical. We need to take ownership for what happens in our classrooms. Kids respond to challenging curriculum, and high standards. Too many well meaning people want to lower standards and expectations, because they've got hard lives. This leads to the rotting of students. State proficiency tests have the bar set LOW. VERY LOW. Every student who is not learning disabled pretty much has the intellectual capacity to pass them. We should expect that, even in our most difficult classrooms. We cannot control what happens outside the school, but we can control what happens INSIDE, and too many parents, teachers and administrators are passing the buck.

Just a few ideas. Obviously, this is a complicated problem that cannot be addressed in a few bullet points.
 
Back
Top Bottom