The Education System

[neo-fusion]

Well schools are litterally responsible for the students for 8 hours a day. I understand values start at home, but kids are in school half the day and sometimes parents don't have time to spend with their kids.

Both of my parents work, but they have done a good job with me despite that. My school on the other hand... has taught me exactly how to NOT ACT. It's all about the names at my place... fucking bullshit.

[Thought]

These teachers need to quit being lazy asses and check a damn paper and GRADE IT.

Meh. Meh, I say! While this will help to a small degree, it is a sign that the teacher has already failed. I am currently taking a Latin course in my free time. The actual work that is graded might take about 3-4 hours per lesson. I am spending around 8-10 hours because I am doing a lot of work that isn't graded (and I should be spending more time still). Homework, at best, should serve as an indicator to the teacher how a student is doing, but it should not be communicated as a primary means of communicating the information. If a teacher grades the homework or not should have no impact on if the student will do the necessary work. The problem comes in the form of how the education system is structured. Learning something because one wants to learn is never taught! Too much homework, too much focus on grades, too little time connecting what is learned with the real world, etc, all results in dispassionate students.

...but europe seems to be doing swell so why not just copy them?

They're not, but they are doing better on average than American schools. Part of this is that it seems like trade schools are more viable in Europe, so you have people going after the education that they want and that interests them, rather than the education that they think they need.

Now I am not familiar with the political workings of schools in Europe, but over here at least it seems like there is too much oversight. The teachers are restricted by Administrators who haven't been in a classroom for 20 years (and if they had been any good at it, wouldn't have left), and those administrators are restricted by politicians who are in turn restricted by the slightest breeze of public opinion. Well, that is overly simplified, but the point being, those who must have the authority and power to do what needs to be done do not have it. Sort of like with your school; rather than classroom time being spent on teaching, it is being spent on test taking to get funding so that school can... what? Not teach more?

Well schools are litterally responsible for the students for 8 hours a day. I understand values start at home, but kids are in school half the day and sometimes parents don't have time to spend with their kids.

And sometimes parents need to make the time.

Certainly some families need both parents working full time just to make basic ends meet. Indeed, sometimes both have to work two jobs. However, often in the middle class, parents not having any time to spend with their kind results not from work but from choice. In some families, both parents are always working to support too-high of a living standard. This is sort of counter-intuitive; a happier, more successful child can be produced by the parents bringing home less money.

In other families, though parents have time, they simply don't take an interest in their children (or their children's education). Maybe they enjoy work too much (even though they aren't working towards a too-high standard of living), maybe they enjoy hanging out with their friends, or watching TV, or even reading a book or doing productive, good-citizen type of things. It seems to me that many Americans have very poor time management skills; we want to do everything but often don't realize that to do everything means to do nothing well. Being a good parent might mean giving up your favorite TV show, hiking, helping the homeless, or being a political activist. It might not. Point being, people need to prioritize. I would argue that it is actually the rare parent who couldn't reasonably make time to spend with their child.

[Lord J Esq]

Thought, what is your proposal for students who don't want to learn? For students who aren't curious, who see school as little more than an onus? Somebody upthread (that would be our "likes to fuck with people" friend from the other thread) pretty much said flat out that they deliberately zone out at school while waiting to get back home to "continue" life. What do you suggest be done about that element of the student body?

On a related note, what is your proposal for students who aren't gifted with placement on the high end of the bell curve? The ones for whom every exercise is a challenge, for whom various critical and analytical skills are constrained or simply ungraspable, and for whom the lack of instructor feedback would make the instruction even more daunting and unassailable? I have to say, thinking back to my own school days, that homework, for me (when I chose to do it), was very helpful in taking me from exposure to comprehension. On the road to mastery, there really is no substitute for doing a task oneself. Given the sheer vastness of knowledge which is expected to be imparted to our young in the course of their education, there simply is not the time to spend considerable portions of class periods (within the framework of the school system as we know it) on what is elsewise called "homework."

These two questions are not to say that I disagree with your position that homework should serve as "an indicator to the teacher how a student is doing" and not "a primary means of communicating the information." On the whole I think you are right; the teacher has a lot to offer than the homework does not. But what of your appreciation for the incurious and the mediocre?

[Thought]

For students who don't want to learn and for students who are not "gifted"?

To make second things first, your latter question is quite simple. It is true that not all humans are suited to learn all things, but it is also true that all humans are suited to learn. We must diversify our acceptable and honorable educational paths and we must be willing to embrace diversity in this regard. The most discouraging element of school to the "ungifted" seems to be that they are no doing well, that the material is over their heads and they are being faced with challenges that they can't seem to overcome. May I offer an analogy? Put a mouse in a cage and randomly send electricity through the floor, shocking the mouse. If these are random, the mouse, being unable to avoid it and unable to do anything about it, will eventually give up. This has nothing to do with intelligence or smarts; "genius" mice will do the same as "ungifted" ones. Humans are much the same; if a student has no ability to overcome and control their challenges, they will withdraw into a catatonic state rather than posting random anime pics and write in large-sized font.

Educators must be able to tailor the education to the individual's level and the individual's goal must suit them. Not everyone can or should get a PhD, those who lack the desire and the ability are still very worthwhile individuals; in many ways they are more important. To become a skilled tradeperson or serviceperson is no black spot upon them. If such a career path would better suit them, their educational choices should reflect that as well. There are still a few basics that they should know (functional levels of math, biology, english, and history) but no human can know everything; we just need to find the right levels of information for the right people.


Now, to address those who don't want to learn, this is a bit trickier since it is now self-perpetuating. The "ungifted" can be aided with ease because, unless they have entered into this group, they are willing to be aided. If I could, I would start entirely new schools populated with fresh groups who have never been exposed to such a poisonous environment. Never let the two mix, and in about 12ish years the problem is solved.

Is that overly simplistic? Yes, as it assumes that this is in a post-fixed educational world. The problem with the "incurious" is that they are curious, but have been trained to not show it. There are things they want to learn, and even that which they don't want to could be presented in a way so as to be palatable. But the present educational system and the student society surrounding it promotes just getting buy, only studying for what is on the test, never taking initiative, etc. Any changes made to how we teach will be resisted by these people.

Since we can't really write off so many people as a lost cause, we do have to find a way to undo this. Teaching teachers how to teach is a good idea (even if the sentence sounds repetitive), making the subjects relatable and interesting is important, and of course parental involvement (which really requires a huge social overhaul, so don't expect this either). But we also need to break up the social systems that support this. Move students to new schools, create shifts for education so that these old students can't establish a social order that reinforces rejection of education. Being cast afloat socially, students will start to attach to the constants (the teachers and the education), at which point we can stop stirring the pot and let things solidify (being sure to keep a close eye for a reestablishment of the old order).

This also requires a general social shift back towards respect for intelligence and education. Unfortunately, the blame for the current divide is largely on the shoulders of the literati; all too often smart, well education people are jerks. Not all, but enough to give all of them a bad name. Possibly manners and behavioral classes should become part of higher education. Being smart is good, but no one should define their worth as a human by their intelligence (nor should they define the worth of others by a perceived lack of intelligence). Educated individuals need to present themselves as humanity's servants, not humanity's tyrants.

This is all getting very high, but unfortunately it seems that the cure to the incurious is to cure the current form of our civilizations. The ills of all are also the ills of the school halls.

EDIT: To note, my views on homework is still that it should be limited, as it is parimarily harmful. With good teaching, I believe the necessary subject matter can be covered in class and with time for the necessary review of work. Homework has never been a useful avenue of teacher/student discourse, so I don't see a reduction of it being particularly harmful in that regard.

[chi_z]

Another big factor for me is I can learn all this on the internet. Most of my math knowledge(and history for that matter) comes from personal research on the interweb. It's a rare occasion that I will look to a textbook to 'show me how'. Really the only time I do so is at school when I don't have internet access. I mostly zone out because of lack of interest in the current topic. Many times I have already learned what the teacher is talking about, several years ago, on my own time, on the internet, for free. It's partly being uninterested, and partly being unchallenged. Although I kind of fixed that, I made sure next year my classes are pretty hard. I'm taking 3 dual credit college courses in addition to my remaining 4 high school courses next year. Psychology, English, and US History Pre 1865.

As an example of what I have learned thru the internet: German. Ever since 7th grade I had been studying this language thru the interweb and have been able to hold conversations with people my own age. We have german exchange students every year, its typically the same group that comes over, and I almost always speak to them in German. By the time I actually got to high school, German was removed in favor of Espanol. French had just been dropped the year before.

My one weakness is math, I'm horrible at it, and always have been. I'm about a year behind it would seem. I always work hard on it though, and can tell I'm improving, with little help from school. If it wasn't for my utter failure at math, I really think I'd be able to skip a couple grades(aka I'd already be a sophie in college). Fortunately, my career of choice doesn't require much in the way of math, very basic math at the most. I barely even have to snap my self out of the daydream zone to do my work in all other subjects than math though. Yesterday we had to write an essay expressing our viewpoint on health care. I don't even recall writing the thing, I was mostly worried about writing a song when I got home. Today my english teacher has me wait after class, and showed me the graded essay. she said it was a 'perfect' essay, if there even is such a thing. this was one of those tests from that private company that I talked about in my previous post. I got a '100%' on it, and it was so easy I don't even remember doing it, I can only recall how badly I wanted to get back home and continue with my life, music, relevant things, etc.

I don't know if I speak for the average American kid, but it's half irrelevancy of work we do, half not being challenged enough in the public system(can't afford a good private school don'tCHA know!). If you google the superintendent of our district, along with the letters 'fbi' you get results. That's pretty bad. I'm starting to think the whole system is purposefully set up in this way. The rich get richer as they say. If you haven't I highly recommend reading the book 'Outliers', which deals with the reasons behind why certain individuals are bound to succeed.

Lemme give you a scenario:
Lil Mikey is born into a 250,000 dollar a year home. He is 'taught' from an early age how to do various tasks, simple things really; playing soccer, the piano, reading, abc, simple math. By the time he is 5, Mikey can read at a 3rd grade level, he is an excellent athlete, and can play a few pieces on the piano with ease. He maintains an above average grade in math at his private school. He graduates at an Ivyleague, becomes a lawyer or physician. His kid becomes a famous athlete, or musician.

Lil Jonnie is born into a sub 50 thou a year home. His parents are working all the time, always looking for babysitters. They rarely have time to 'teach' him much of anything. He struggles and is held behind his first year of school. Jonnie is an ok athlete, he plays little league and is excellent at math. His reading is not so good, but he tries. Jonnie is no pushover, maintaining a B average senior year. When the time comes for college, Jonnie manages a 4,000 dollar scholarship, but still can't quite afford to go to a private 4 year. Instead, he is relegated to a 2 year. Jonnie becomes a supervisor at an auto plant. His kid grows up to be one as well, and the grandson is the first to make it to a private 4 year.



Ok lil mikey's great great grandson: after the inherited fortune (his great grandpa was a famous athlete or musician after all, and his grandpa a successful team owner or ceo at a record label, his father became the ceo of exxon), lil mikey the 5th is rolling in dough. He is pretty darn sharp, a hit with the ladies, and at 15 years old, just got his 100th blowjob. He's training to be a head of country/nation.


Lil Jonnie the 5th: after growing up in poverty (his great grandpa the engineer, the first in the family to make it to a 4 year uni, was shunned by the Grand Depression of 2010-2022, his grandpa died at 35 after fighting in a war, and his father was a lowly ufo mechanic who died of a gunshot wound during a robbery. the poor are at a statistically higher risk for death due to crime you know) Jonnie the 5th is living in a box, pissing in an abandoned alley, and wearing rags. Shortly after riots broke out over rising oil prices(exxon was to blame)and the Global Police were called in, Jonnie the 5th died of [insert disease here]. The poor are more likely to die of disease you know.



See how this works? It just piles up. Sure there is the rare exception, rags to riches. But rarely can one move up the caste system. The public school system is designed to keep Lil Jonnie right where Lil Jonnie is.

[Thought]

I am currently reading a fascinating book called "Outliers: The Story of Success" by  Malcolm Gladwell. While it doesn't reveal any astounding insights that you wouldn't already be aware of in some manner, it does frame these concepts in an easily accessibly format. His general formula is that success is dependent on natural ability, luck (though that encompasses cultural heritage and other factors as well), and hard work (10,000 hours of it, assuming one has the minimum talent necessary). This relates to the thread by means of his discussion of a particularly successful sort of Jr. High.

These schools exist in a region of underperforming public grade and high schools, an island of excellence amidst low scores. As these schools accept students from regular public schools and make selection via lottery, the affect of an individual's natural talent on the general success of the student body is minimized (that is, the school is not pre-selecting for excellence). While the individuals themselves are quite lucky to get in, given the high demand, the school itself could be said to be unlucky (as they service primarily poor areas, they fight against American preconceived notions regarding education, and the majority of students who attend are those most likely to fail, that is, those with little to no parental involvement). Going in, only about 23% of students are performing at grade level. Leaving, 84% are at grade level or better.

The reason for this success seems to be largely the result of work that the students put in (and the school requires). The day starts at 7:15am and runs until 5pm, with at least 4 hours of homework (more is common), it runs on Saturdays, and it runs an additional two months longer than other schools. All told, many students are putting in about 16 hours a day, 6 days a week 10 months a year (estimated with usual holidays and vacations).

At first I was quite perplexed by the success of these schools given my prior understanding of homework and performance, as illustrated earlier in this thread. That is, to succeed, students need to have time with their families and time to pursue their own interests. Additionally, given the numbers of the previous paragraph, I should note that due to the poverty of students, at least 2 additional hours (closer to 3 is the average) is spent on transit. Add in other basics, and most students are getting around 5 to 6 hours of sleep. Children that age need 8-10 hours.

However, I have concluded that the success is largely despite these factors that I found so confounding. Over the two years of Jr High, an individual will have put in around 7680 hours towards schooling. Compare that to an estimated 2880 hours a normal Jr. Higher would be putting in. I believe that these schools, thus, are successful because they aren't just giving good instruction for two years, they are making up for too little instruction in the past and setting good habits for the future. I still maintain that proper amount of sleep and time for self discovery would be beneficial, but that alternates to the current American school system can be constructed based off this basic information.

Making some cuts into the 3 month long summer vacation of individuals is, unfortunately, necessary. This book recounted a few studies regarding this, but such vacations harm the academic performance of low-income individuals (though they are beneficial to middle-income individuals and mildly beneficial to high income individuals). Expanding the school year by at least a month (possibly two), then, would be prudent, with good public summer schools available (my personal experience with summer school is that the instruction is far inferior to standard school, and thus need reform). These two/one months of summer school would be devoted to maintaining previously learned skills and exploration of a wide of non-normal topics (astronomy, mythology, curling, physiology, entomology, evolutionary biology, etc. They would be designed so that parents could petition the school to release their child from summer study, with the understanding that the child would still be exposed to an enriching environment.

For the regular school day, extended instruction periods seem beneficial, with the day possibly lasting from 7am to 6pm (to better suit parental schedules). Split the day up into 4.5 periods, with alternating topics (M/W English, History, Art, PolySci; T/Th Math, Science, Engineering, Foreign Language). Extended periods means more time to cover the topic which in turn means that students can be allowed to discover and internalize concepts on their own, rather than not having enough time and the teacher just “giving” them the knowledge. That half-period would be specifically for directed-but-independent study. Students would get to work on their own projects, but instructors would help them develop their topics and require progress. Homework per day would be generally minimized, with 1 hour a night being an informal cap, and possibly only 4 or 5 hours total a week. End result is about 50 to 55 hours devoted to school work a week. For Jr. High, that would come to a total of 4400 over two years. This is less than those successful Jr High School noted above, but this model would also be applied over all/most of public education.

Why not just put the entire education system on a model similar to those schools noted above? They are successful, after all, and they are a tested-success (rather than the hypothetical model I am proposing). The reason is that not all success is equal. The West has thrived and prospered under the "genius of the individual." Highly structured systems, like those Jr Highs mentioned above, promote the "genius of the community." That allows a civilization to achieve a high level of productivity, but it does not promote a high level of ingenuity, while the reverse also seems to be true. Paradigm shifts seem to require leisure.

This "middle ground" then attempts to better equip individuals with educational skills while promoting ingenuity and self development (through those structured independent study sessions).

Combine this with administrative restructuring, to provide both the money and faculty support, and one might be able to create a better world.

[Truthordeal]

Making some cuts into the 3 month long summer vacation of individuals is, unfortunately, necessary. This book recounted a few studies regarding this, but such vacations harm the academic performance of low-income individuals (though they are beneficial to middle-income individuals and mildly beneficial to high income individuals).

If one course is beneficial to one group, yet detrimental to others, is there a justification for two separate courses? For instance, in a poorer community, applying the model you mention, whereas in a wealthy(or even middle class suburban) community you would have a summer break similar to what is currently being used. Or, would this be an example of reverse-class discrimination, where socially higher students would be getting a lesser quality education? I'm not asking whether it would go over well with parents(it probably wouldn't, on either side), just your take on the matter.

Also, is what you're proposing only to be put on Jr. High students, or from grades K-12? If so, I might have a hitch when it comes to the importance of the summer break to the high school senior heading to college. Those three months of getting ones affairs in order can mean the difference between making tuition or...well, not making tuition.

Split the day up into 4.5 periods, with alternating topics (M/W English, History, Art, PolySci; T/Th Math, Science, Engineering, Foreign Language).

This might be a trifle on my part, but I don't understand why you put Engineering in your dream curriculum as opposed to something a bit more practical, such as computer science, etc. Engineering(as a full-length course) doesn't really make sense to me, since it's very seldom useful to people who aren't pursuing a career in engineering. If I may tinker with your idea, engineering for you would be an "elective" course for me.

Overall Thought, this again seems like a model that would only work for a student body that actually likes learning...fairly Utopian.

But, there was always a rumor that my parents scared us with as children. Apparently they told of us a school in California(we were made to fear California) where they had an all-year school. Instead of the summer break, we'd get two week breaks between quarters, plus the typical winter and spring breaks. Back then, the thought of losing summer was frightening, but it makes sense today.

[Lord J Esq]

Thought, what is your thought on the possibility that these comparatively better performances are the result not of more instructional time (i.e., curriculum) but of more time spent in a more constructive / less jading atmosphere (i.e., as opposed to home life, friend life)?

Edit: Clarity.

[Thought]

If one course is beneficial to one group, yet detrimental to others, is there a justification for two separate courses?

I would propose that extending the school year is not specifically detrimental to the education of any group. I think we can both agree that three months of not performing a task will result in a degradation of skill, yes? Thus, three months outside of a learning environment will result in poorer basic skills (reading, writing, math, etc). The crux is that middle and upper class individuals are more likely to not actually be fully absent from a learning environment during the summer. Their parents are capable and engaged so as to provide such an environment. Thus, extending the school year would not take middle and upper class students out of an educational environment; rather, it would be switching one such environment for another.

It may be that the public education system would be inferior to the atmosphere provided by the parents, which is why I put forward the idea of a few summer months that focus on non-standard academic topics. These would continue to exercise the skills of the students so that they would not be lost, but it would also allow parents to pull their children out of school and perform their own education without worrying about their child missing critical information. Meanwhile, lower class individuals would have the opportunities that their parents are incapable or unwilling to provide, allowing for all ranks of society the basic level of opportunity to succeed.

To note, this would also work as a catchall for middle and upper class students whose parents do not provide an educational environment over the summer.

Also, is what you're proposing only to be put on Jr. High students, or from grades K-12?

With a few exceptions, K-12 (the exceptions being that I'd want to see studies measuring the ideal academic day-length for small children). The thing I didn't like about the Jr High system that I mentioned (which is the "KIPP" Academy and it, upon investigation, apparently runs at the grade school level as well) was that it seemed to be making up for previously neglected class time but it was doing so over an abbreviated period. Thus I am proposing a more intensive course of study than is presently enacted, but not so intensive as the Jr. High's that Gladwell used as a case study. Students would, generally, spend more time but that would be spread out over more years as well.

If so, I might have a hitch when it comes to the importance of the summer break to the high school senior heading to college. Those three months of getting ones affairs in order can mean the difference between making tuition or...well, not making tuition.

A worthy consideration, but one that, in terms of schooling hours, is a red herring. On one hand a student could forgo the experience and education necessary to succeed in order to get the opportunity to succeed, or the student could forgo the opportunity in favor of the experience and education. That is, by working at a job -- particularly the sort of job that a high-schooler can obtain -- the individual will be hampering their ability to succeed in college, but by not working they are hampering their ability to go to college. This is not ideal either way.

The solution, then, isn't to be found in adjusting hours for a student to work or go to school but rather in addressing the funding situation directly.

As I have argued before, high school graduates need legitimate non-University based education options. Universities are becoming more like trade schools in the current era because a great number of students do not want or need the type of education that they used to be designed for. However, a Bachelor's degree has been degraded to the point of what a HS diploma used to be, so many people need that just to get a decent job, even if that job has no use for what was learned in the course of obtaining that degree. I could go on, but the rundown is that if there were more educational options, the same number of college scholarships would have smaller applicant pools.

Trade schools, by teaching clearly and directly applicable skills, would be better suited to recupe their costs through student work projects, and thus should be less monetarily restricted than Universities.

However, the government would still need to fill in the gap (though I believe the above would lessen the gap). If an individual is qualified for an education, then keeping them from that education due to monetary considerations harms not only the individual but society as a whole. Perhaps programs could be implemented so that once the individual graduates they work for the government in underserved areas, in order to help recoup some costs.

Point being, skipping education in order to make money to afford education is not desirable on a personal or social level.

This might be a trifle on my part, but I don't understand why you put Engineering in your dream curriculum as opposed to something a bit more practical, such as computer science, etc.

Simple: it wasn't a dream curriculum. I had actually just meant it as an example, but I failed to label it at such. I mostly just went with what first came to mind.

Overall Thought, this again seems like a model that would only work for a student body that actually likes learning...fairly Utopian.

In what way?

Extending school hours does not rely on student willingness to learn. Indeed, in that regard, it is more dystopia than the current model (people aren't going to learn on their own, so more intervention is needed).

I suppose it is idealistic to assume that society would want to spend money on extending school hours, but generally increased funding seems to be a basic assumption of education reform.

Or were you referring to something else?

Thought, what is your thought on the possibility that these comparatively better performances are the result not of more instructional time (i.e., curriculum) but of more time spent in a more constructive / less jading atmosphere (i.e., as opposed to home life, friend life)?

Edit: Clarity.

Two things:

1) More time in school makes sense from a very basic level. A senior in high school knows more than a freshman in high school. Why? Is this because some innate ability? Or is it because they've spent more time in school, and so a wider range of information has been able to be covered. There may be points of diminishing returns, true, but it is fundamental that more time allows for more information.

2) Yes, more time spent in a constructive and less oppressive atmosphere is good and undoubtedly is an influence. This is a basic premise behind the argument for extending the school year in general.

Thus, the comparatively better performances are undoubtedly the result of less time in uneducational environments, but they are also undoubtedly the result of more time in educational environments as well. The two are not separateable in the example of the KIPP schools.

[Truthordeal]

Extending school hours does not rely on student willingness to learn. Indeed, in that regard, it is more dystopia than the current model (people aren't going to learn on their own, so more intervention is needed).

Unless they drop out, which I think such a system would inevitably lead to. Even if it's completely successful for the students that stay in, higher drop-out rates are not conducive to a better educational system at all.

My reasoning behind this claim is thus: If little Johnny tenth grader, who is currently overwhelmed with his studies, is made to attend classes for three hours longer than normal, with about twice as much homework, and is forced to cut back on a social life and extracurricular activities...well, there's really not much keeping him there.

Warrant: Students do have the choice to drop out, and if faced with greater adversity in their education, the choice becomes much more tempting.

[Thought]

Unless they drop out, which I think such a system would inevitably lead to.

A valid concern for implementation. The KIPP schools do indeed have a high "drop out" rate (well, individuals move back to the normal schools, for a variety of reasons). This touches upon one of my objections to those schools; they don't even provide enough time for sleep. Burn out can only be expected.

However, to note, other countries are capable of having extended school years without high drop out rates. Thus, these two concepts need not go together. A stepped implementation would probably avoid this. A student might balk at spending 3 more hours at school, but a half hour ever few years and it will cause grumbling but no more than school normally does.

My reasoning behind this claim is thus: If little Johnny tenth grader, who is currently overwhelmed with his studies, is made to attend classes for three hours longer than normal, with about twice as much homework...

Ah, then you missed my recommendation regarding homework in this proposed system:

Homework per day would be generally minimized, with 1 hour a night being an informal cap, and possibly only 4 or 5 hours total a week.

Currently, math classes alone often assign an hour of homework each night, which under this system would have to be greatly curtailed so that other classes could occasionally assign homework. The general formula I have been told (which is in no way to say that this is the formula that is actually implemented) that the number of homework hours total a week a student should have is equal to their grade level (thus, a 10th grader would have at least a 50% cut in homework).

Add in that additional instruction time will allow instructors to actually teach the material well, Little Johnny will be better able to do the work he is assigned, and thus he will actually have a lighter load.

Add in that additional instruction time would also allow instructors to connect the material in meaningful ways, so that Little Johnny better understands why the information is relevant and useful.

Add to that instructor power to break up socially dysfunctional groupings that support the mindset that makes dropping out an option, resulting in Little Johnny not being around individuals who are themselves disinterested in school.

Add to that a variety of valid career paths so that individuals have the option of choosing the education path best suited for them, so that even if Little Johnny doesn't like the road to college, he can instead take the road to other immediate careers.

I'd actually expect drop outs to decrease dramatically. To note, I tried to find statistics on the reasons students drop out of school. I was unable to find any that list "school is too time consuming/too hard" as an option. Rather, lack of motivation to work hard, classes not being interesting, and having friends who were uninterested in school seem to be more common causes.

[Thought]

An article for your consideration: http://finance.yahoo.com/college-education/article/109701/placing-the-blame-as-students-are-buried-in-debt?mod=edu-collegeprep

I bring it up because it implies two interesting topics: 1) what role should Universities (and schools in general) play in financing education (be it in helping individuals with loans, scholarships, etc), and 2) are for-profit places of education tolerable institutions?

[Truthordeal]

2) are for-profit places of education tolerable institutions?

Would most private or parochial schools be considered "for profit," or are we talking more about institutions like Sylvan Learning Center? Would tutoring qualify, since the object of that is mostly to gain a little money?

 

[Tactinius]

Interesting topic, I actually founded a student union for the sole purpose of advocating the need for a reform at my school just this year. We had attended county schoolboard meetings, and tried as we could to get a speaking session, they shooed us out when they found out our cause.

It's an ass-backwards system that's in dire need of attention. There's a blatant lack of the Socratic method and active learning in classrooms, and ever since the NCLB was passed years ago, there's been far too much effort put into standardized testing. Students, from a very young age, are being forced to learn in a manner that makes it laborious, and as they grow they begin to disdain the idea of an education as they've been shown it and anti-intellectualism runs rampant throughout the student bodies. In courses like science and math, there's far too much focus on the "how" and too little on the "why", leaving students to ask questions like "Why are we learning this?" and "When will I ever use this?" and never be answered in a satisfactory way.

More hands-on learning and critical thinking is absolutely necessary to make sure that school becomes once again a place for learning and free thought rather than a seven hour day-care for children until they're of legal age. More writing, more question asking, more diverse courses, better teachers, less standardization. For the sake of the future.