Post by Bo on Apr 19, 2005 20:34:06 GMT -5
They should run schools like competing organizations (with a minimal amount of governmental regulation to make sure that the playing field is fair), with a research-based focus in the higher secondary education levels. And they could have a cluster of schools running together, started off of tax money or something. Accelerated learning occurs during grades 1-6; grades 7-9 are application and extension of knowledge; grade 10 is self-exploration; grades 11 and 12 are research and intensive study.
Accountability would be kept by having mandatory tests every few weeks, and by withholding funding if standards are not met.
You could have year-round school to eliminate long summer and say; add 3-4 more "spring breaks". "Student sabbaticals" can be held in the 11th or 12th grades for a period of 1 week or so (the flexible nature of study in these two grades could allow for this); this would be a period of research/exploration/self-development.
The schools could be run like think-tanks, with private firms/the government hiring the schools to analyze data/research stuff for them. (Similar to a stock-futures scheme--the more minds you involve, the more accurate the decision). There would be an administrative/organizational board to distribute projects; a statistics board composed of senior students and teachers; and then they would communicate with various classes/individuals to get the task done.
You would try and avoid the private school model (of economic discrimination).
Presumably, you would have very self-motivated students; I have no idea how to solve the "less-motivated student" problem--how will a school catering to less motivated students compete? It can't, not in this market system. Thats a problem.
And this educational system, "dog-eat-dog," would render government unable to compete (i.e. "public" schools of the current form). As well as the microcosmic, nuclear structure that you form around the school (socially, psychologically, practically). Plus, not to mention the conflict-of-interests and the violation of "scholarly ethic" and other stuff like that. Hm.
It sounds a little like Communism, but thats not bad.
Accountability would be kept by having mandatory tests every few weeks, and by withholding funding if standards are not met.
You could have year-round school to eliminate long summer and say; add 3-4 more "spring breaks". "Student sabbaticals" can be held in the 11th or 12th grades for a period of 1 week or so (the flexible nature of study in these two grades could allow for this); this would be a period of research/exploration/self-development.
The schools could be run like think-tanks, with private firms/the government hiring the schools to analyze data/research stuff for them. (Similar to a stock-futures scheme--the more minds you involve, the more accurate the decision). There would be an administrative/organizational board to distribute projects; a statistics board composed of senior students and teachers; and then they would communicate with various classes/individuals to get the task done.
You would try and avoid the private school model (of economic discrimination).
Presumably, you would have very self-motivated students; I have no idea how to solve the "less-motivated student" problem--how will a school catering to less motivated students compete? It can't, not in this market system. Thats a problem.
And this educational system, "dog-eat-dog," would render government unable to compete (i.e. "public" schools of the current form). As well as the microcosmic, nuclear structure that you form around the school (socially, psychologically, practically). Plus, not to mention the conflict-of-interests and the violation of "scholarly ethic" and other stuff like that. Hm.
It sounds a little like Communism, but thats not bad.