AerLingus From China, joined Mar 2000, 2371 posts, RR: 0 Posted (12 years 11 months 5 days 11 hours ago) and read 884 times:
Help me to understand that there are people who are opposed to standardised curriculum for public schools.
It makes no sense to have thousands of entities with thousands of seperate exit requirements with 50 different qualifications for their states' respective Universities and further requirements for private universities. It's obvious that the US has amongst the world's lowest science and math scores, so why is it that there are people who choose to keep the system from being streamlined into a more efficient system where there is more control over how well students actually do? Could it be that these people in opposition are in denial over how uneducated American students actually are?
I want those opposed on the board to give their reasons. Don't just give me a knee-jerk, Constitution related answer. Explain the actual merits of continuing with the same system in effect today?
Jessman From United States of America, joined Jul 2001, 1506 posts, RR: 8
Reply 2, posted (12 years 11 months 5 days 11 hours ago) and read 854 times:
The current system can work if parents take the time to care. In fact the whole idea is that parents should have input as to what their child learns. If the parent wants the kid to be a dumba** that's the parent's fault.
I think there should be a suggested curriculum, but states and school districts should be able to revise/edit the suggested to fit the parent's wishes.
Most parents could care less, so revision would probably not happen.
Also, the lessons are not the only problem. Many school districts are low on teachers. My local highschool's school year was almost delayed because last year the principal, vice principal, three guidance councellors, and some 30 teachers quit. Much of that had to do with corruption on the school board. If there is only one school board corruption could ruin many more children than it already does.
AerLingus From China, joined Mar 2000, 2371 posts, RR: 0
Reply 3, posted (12 years 11 months 5 days 11 hours ago) and read 850 times:
Good point, Jessman, but there ought to be a limit on how much a curriculum should be revised and edited. I think that certain programmes, such as sex-ed and even Phys. Ed. should be strictly optional on a board-by-board, parent-by-parent basis.
174thfwff From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 4, posted (12 years 11 months 4 days 20 hours ago) and read 836 times:
I totaly agree, gym class is a waste of my time. A major waste of my time. I need to take it every other day for the next 3 years. Why? Because New York says I have to even though I play 2 school sports every year.