We’ll see what No Child Left Behind down here results in.

The main problem as I see it is the over extension of the data down to levels where it is no longer meaningful. For instance the type of data you get from standardized test is pretty appropriate for provincial administrators to zone in on how things are working at that level. When you get down to the school level and especially the teacher level you end up, at least in practice, teaching to the test. It doesn’t “have to” be that way, but it is.

But what I worry happens is that what can’t be measured (say problem solving) gets neglected.

Exactly. The type of results you need at the school and teacher level are much more qualitative and generally should focus on things like intellectual engagement etc. Real power comes from triangulating one level of assessment with another, but that is probably one of those unstable equilibrium sweet spots. Most places struggle even getting one side of the assessment coin working effectively. That is why it was so easy to try top down enforcement.

However, I will agree, segregating students by ability is often a breathe of fresh air for those who get pulled down by the lowest common denominator. I think Halifax’s honours program was much more streamlining (filtering selecting students by ability) than it was an actual gifted program (different style of teaching). If you have a teacher working both sides of the coin, chances are they won’t be able to make the radical teaching and course redesigns necessary with alternative teaching styles. Balancing special Ed (the other side of the bell) is a bit easier because things generally slow down, aids are present, and things tend to be more behaviourally oriented. Tackling the intellectual engagement required by gifted students is just a harder piece of pie. I mean how many people are really able to synthesize ideas on the spot at a content level deep enough for really bright people, and still have the artistry of personal interactions and differentiated project management required with effective teaching?

Chris, when you talk about specialized support, what do you mean? You mean extra support once the honors program was taken away? I ask because it seemed to me the honors program was a huge success when you and I were in it. Although I did note, surprisingly, that Utah was still more advance in their mathematics teaching for the grade level.

I agree that the shorter days in the north has a big effect. It’s weird getting home at 5 from school and having it already be night time.

The issue of young vs. old kids is a good one. Yet I’d note that not all schools do busing. (The High School where you and I went did not for instance) Obviously this will vary from region to region. But I personally think Americans bus way too much. Of course one could say that there is money saved by having the large 1500 – 2000 student schools and that money goes into the system in other ways.

Regarding achievement tests I worry about them in some ways. But in other ways clearly there is a part of education it can measure and help. (Say in mathematics or spelling) But what I worry happens is that what can’t be measured (say problem solving) gets neglected.

How do you balance the whole daycare aspect expected of education too? You have to allow parents to drop off their young kids at times that compliment the normal work day.

The easy answer would be to start high school after elementary and run high school. I bet it would be nice. We tend to do that here in Alberta. Here in Canada, sun set has a big effect on how far that can be pushed back. People just don’t want to get home at 5 or 6 when it is dark, especially when there are other established options. (add an hour to the end time + another hour for bus transportation)

Teachers were seen as the problem. They were perceived as lazy, unwilling to adopt things that obviously work, and just after slack vacations, etc. This led to some serious demotivation and just killed things for students. Achievement tests may have gone up initially, but people were just playing the system. You started losing good teachers and getting a much weaker and smaller pool of applicants. The US’s merit pay approach to teaching has many similar end results via a different vehicle but somewhat similar mindset.

Things changed when the system about exploded with strikes, etc until the Ontario premier got sacked. They then brought in some very good systems people who started accommodating the unstable equilibrium of flexibility and structure. Basically you will see some driftwood in schools, but solving that problem will just cause other types of problems. How do you leverage the extraordinarily high levels of intrinsic motivation teachers have without letting the whole system become too loose or too tight. It all gets back to that John Ralston Saul book on technocracy.

In our county, school runs this year from August 31 to June 16. That seems a week or two too long to me.

Pretty well established fact that any educational change takes 20-50 years to be ubiquitous. Tyak and Cuban have a very good book on that fact. You could say adding more time isn’t an educational change, but many of the systems that now operate would have to change before teachers grow into taking advantage of the new possibilities (changing workload levels for them and students, adjusting the way curriculum is covered, etc). Education naturally resists any change because it operates very differently from businesses. It is more a fundamental societal coherer and teachers resist change to fight for the validity of older contexts and beliefs. Education is bombarded by lots of change attempts, but they are almost always superficial (in terms of reaching down to student effects) and quickly fade away.

I can’t imagine removing the honors program in Halifax made much difference other than getting more students frustrated with school. Such programs usually don’t have the specialized teaching needed to compliment such opportunities.