I think that at some point that we need to step back and realize that when you add in weekends vacation days and summer we might be talking about 15% or less of a kids life from age 4 to 18 interacting with the public school system.  I think that more often than not the parents are going to have a much greater impact on developing the belief system of the child than anything he or she is going to learn in science or even history class. 

 

That being said, going back to something I said way way way back in this thread, I think that we need to treat the time of the student as we would our own time if we were in a lawyers office.  If we were in an attorneys office and they were charging us a thousand dollars an hour I don't think we would waste much time with small talk about our fishing trip or how to paint pretty pictures.  I think that we would treat that time like a valuable commodity and deal only with the facts that pertained to our case to obtain the best outcome. 

 

I think the biggest problem with the education system today specifically on the public school side is that it is not goal/purpose driven.  Ironically in the maths and sciences the most oft asked question by students is "why do I need to know this." I think that from an early age we should be talking to kids and teaching them how to set goals and achieve those goals.  Also, anything that is taught in the classroom should be reserved for things that are of the utmost importance and the utmost relevance to helping that child develop a marketable skill.  We should be holding up examples of people who have succeeded across all spectrums of life so that students can have a an end game in mind and that kind of motivation will carry them through the 85% of time that they aren't around teachers. 

 

As an example here in Jacksonville we have two of the finest public institutions in the country in Stanton & Paxon.  The most interesting thing is that while these are public institutions the parents of these kids are inordinately in the professional class (doctors lawyers etc.)  I believe the fundamental reason for this is that the parents of these kids a.) emphasize education and b.) the kid sees a direct correlation between performance in the classroom and the kind of lifestyle that they eventually want to have. 

 

for the 70% or so of kids who are born to non college grads I think that we need to have a system that encourages them to strive for the heights of academic excellence and provide examples they may not have at home. 

 

For the kids that do achieve at a high level I think that we need to develop a faster track than what's currently offered.  If you strip away all the electives that don't serve a vital scholastic purpose I think that you could have kids performing at a level on par with what we currently hold as a high school graduate at or around 16 instead of 18 with little strain and possibly even lower in the mid teens for the really advanced kids.  If we could cut two years of waist from the high school system that would provide the opportunity to integrate more college level courses to kids until they reach 18 with little or no added cost to the tax payer and it would also mean that you could see 18 19 year olds operating at a graduate level and ready to enter the work force as a professional with options.  That in turn could lower the average age of marriage, which would increase the rate of marriage, which would increase the percentage of kids born into two parent homes, which would increase overall performance of kids and reduce dependency on public assistance etc. etc. etc.

---