[Kims Robot]

Great topic & some very well thought out responses! Let me preface my responses with that in general I don't like the concepts of NCLB or Standardized Testing. Both have many flaws, but as many point out, it is the current "system" that we have, and if we agree that many of these policies fail to achieve the true objective, we need to propose a better way. There have a been a lot of great points here, but I don't think any of us has proposed a good enough "solution" such that we could replace either policy completely.

Originally Posted by Tristan Lall

The other glaring flaw with NCLB is that it takes funding away from schools that score poorly. Given that change and improvement tend to cost money, this is exactly the wrong move.

In general I agree here, though its a double edged sword right? The move to pull funding assumes that the school is motivated by funding, and will strive hard to get it back. Where-as just like any question of motivation, it doesn't work in a lot of cases. I would think many schools would just whine and complain that they can't do anything without enough funding, and just throw up their hands blaming the system. Yet we see constant examples of "where there is a will there is a way". If they really really wanted that funding back, they could find ways to work harder, motivate their staff and students. I can't say I agree with the funding pull, but its the only control/incentive the government currently has.

Originally Posted by sanddrag

First way to fixing education is smaller class sizes. I don't think anyone disagrees with that.

I'm not sure I actually agree with this. In college I was fortunate to have Physics and Chemistry teachers that were absolutely amazing and intriguing. Every other class they would blow something up, hang from the ceiling, throw a bowling ball off a ladder... etc etc. They knew how to grab our attention and make science "real". Yet these were class sizes of lecture hall proportions, nearly 100 students per class. Then take a step back to my honors class versions of Chemistry and Physics in high school, which were classes under 20, and probably didn't compare to what I really took in in college. While I know there is far too much need for the supply, I think engaging teachers & curriculum can actually overcome class sizes. If we stick with our standard methods of "I stand here and talk, you sit there and listen", I agree, class sizes need to be smaller. But I think there are better ways, curriculum that is more engaging.

Originally Posted by Phalanx

1) Parent accountability and responsibility... Perhaps a "Bad Parent Tax" should be levied.
2) Give Teachers greater ability to enforce greater classroom control and discipline.
3) Raise Standards.
4) End or Modify NCLB.

I think these are all great points. I can't say I think a Bad Parent Tax would be the right implementation (look how well money has motivated the failing schools as discussed above). But overall these are great points... HOW exactly we do them I think is the hard part.

Originally Posted by davidthefat

I guess I just was not the type for public education. I am the type of person that disregards grades, rank, awards, positions and stuff like that... I know I have my flaws, I know that I won't get into a good college if I keep this attitude up. I have to play by the rules of the game or I will be purged out of the system.

It sounds like you are coming from the perfect position to help us understand those who aren't motivated by the current system. What in fact WOULD motivate you? And if we had to keep the current system, what would have helped you "see the light" earlier? As Im sure it will be a while before any sweeping changes take effect.

Originally Posted by sanddrag

Another fundamental flaw of education is that to a large degree we group all the students together at random as if they are all equals.

I am guessing this happens as people seem to complain about it, but it wasn't exactly my experience. From early on I was labeled one of the "honors" students. I did higher SRA cards than anyone in my class, I had to take all three levels of reading in my class just to give me "enough workload". I was placed in the TAG (Talented and Gifted) group where I got to meet with other "smart" kids a few times a week, pulling me out of my normal class. High schools have Honors and AP and College courses that "separate" the high performers from the low. I do think seeing some kids struggle, even some of my closest friends gave me a different perspective on things. I realized that I was "fortunate" enough that things came easy, and I wouldn't trade that. But I agree that it is good to give the different levels of students places to achieve differently.

Originally Posted by JamesBrown

...which is notorious for not inflating GPAs.

I always had difficulty with this. Comparing GPA's side by side just doesn't do the trick, and I specifically learned this when I was recruiting. The caliber of students coming out of Engineering schools like RPI, Clarkson, RIT, etc with 3.0 GPA's was much much higher than many coming from the state schools, so it was frustrating that HR placed a cutoff on us that we could not hire below a 3.0. I knew kids with 2.8's that were much smarter (and I would rather work with) than those with 3.5's just because they chose a "better" school that had harder GPA's.

Originally Posted by EricH

Back to the initial question:... better motivation techniques than "I'm required to be here", and toughen the minimum graduation requirements by a class or two in certain areas. (Why toughen? Because the students will rise to the challenge.)

The first point is my BINGO point The second seems like a good idea as well, though there will be some resistance when it first starts.