"46 States, D.C. Plan to Draft Common Education Standards by Maria Glod-Washington Post"
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2009/05/31/AR2009053102339.html

I consider this great news as we live in a state (IL) with exceptionally low math standards which many schools exceed, but others strive (or coast) to meet.

I�m not sure I would be as pleased with this federal government intervention if our standards were already high like SC or MA.

So, do you think they'll use something like E.D. Hirsch's books "What your nth grader needs to know"?

If I understand the article correctly, it seems they intend to adopt international standards. I�m not familiar with those books, are they good?

The problem we have here (year after year) is that on average 17% of 3rd-8th grade district students cease being �proficient� when they enter the high school district (all within the same geographical area). This occurs due to the realistic standards of the hs level state test as compared to the rock bottom 3rd-8th grade state test standards. As a result, neither the K-8th nor the high school districts claim responsible for the new found deficits since the students met standards at the former and entered as deficient into the latter. Slick, huh?

Check out http://coreknowledge.org/CK/index.htm
Hirsch's core knowledge website. Especially look at "Lesson Plans" on the left side of the screen. The list of books for 4th graders fit what GS9 read this year on his own, honestly I can't imagine many other 4th graders reading them on their own, unless they are abridged versions. But I really like his approach to education.

This sounds similar to something I just read on a blog about something Obama said about creating a single national standard...about it being unacceptable that there are 50 different educational standards.

I think it sounds like it could be a good idea, especially if it brings lower states standards up. My biggest concern is for us homeschoolers. It isn't much of a jump from this idea to the idea of requiring all homeschoolers to use a standard curriculum to match the public schools. Many of us homeschool because that standard curriculum would fail our kids due to learning style.

Thanks for the link.

The 4th grade lesson plans seem solid, especially history and geography, with the possible exception of math. Most of the math and science lesson titles throughout the grade levels strike me as overly cutesy. Since you are such a fan, I�m sure they have more substance than the titles imply.

The literature requirements are better then the grammar intense English lessons from our kids� grade school. My ds doesn�t remember having to read any novels in fourth grade other than AR and excerpts from his literature book although, like your grandson, he has always read a lot on his own. In 5th grade he was required to read two novels, Loser and Island of the Blue Dolphins.

Haha, I never thought about the math & science titles sounding cutesy. GS9 and I like puns and plays on words, most of those titles would get us going!
Overall, I think the math concepts covered were similar to what was introduced in GS9's classroom, but his classroom didn't get in depth as much as Hirsch seems to plan out. GS9 is a couple years ahead, as he's doing pre-algebra at home. I'm not sure where his average classmate would place in Hirsch's plan.

JoAnnQN, I think it would really be troublesome if the federal gov't specified curriculum. That'd be stepping on our rights in a big way. I thought I saw in the linked article about how they were going to specify a standard but let it up the the school on how to teach to the standard.

We have 50 different states, a one size fits all standard is not likely to work. Due to the diversity of our nation some states will always perform better no matter where you place the bar.
The real question is what is the federal government's plan for districts who don't meet the standards.
Are they going to give low scoring schools more money or penalize them?
I pay my taxes here in Polk County, Florida, I want to have some power over the local education system.
If education goes Federal my vote only gets smaller!

I can't agree here, especially because individual classrooms typically have highly diverse groups students (intelligence, interests, age, socioeconomic background, race/ethnicity, etc. etc.). Thus, the argument that each state has different needs doesn't hold water. We'd have to address individual students to solve the problem, and as we all know, it doesn't happen. It's better to create overall standards and group by ability.

Arithmetic isn't region-specific and I don't see why what's taught should be different in different states. Science isn't far behind in that regard. I expect that there will always be room to teach state history and read works of local literature. Yet the goals can be the same: learn to read critically and understand the meaning of a long text. Learn about how events influence one another, etc. etc.

The most successful education systems in the world are based on national standards (example, top-rated Finland). Our practice of allowing individual school boards to set education policies means that we duplicate effort constantly and everywhere. This costs a fortune! The US School systems would save hundreds of millions or billions if we weren't wasting so much time and energy on the myth that local control is somehow better.

Seriously, how much influence do individuals actually yield over a school board? And what does one hope to gain from it? If parents need that much control (and some do, as our homeschoolers have demonstrated), then they can homeschool.

Also, this plan is being led by 46 governors, not by the federal government.

Val

I agree that national educational standards are necessary and I would also like to see higher standards set for teachers including more subject expertise and specialization.

I definitely have no illusions that my local school board is well versed on issues pertaining to internationally (or nationally) competitive education. With the exception of one newly elected representative for each local district, they have consistently equated better education solely to more spending while they seem to think that 18 is the average score for the ACT.

This article discusses buy in from the state governors, but president Obama and education secretary Duncan had certainly initiated and promoted the plan idea.

I can see where national standards could be a dangerous thing but I think we need something. A friend told me that her best bud left our area with kid in Special Ed and behind, only to move down South and have the school wanting to skip the child ahead! How does that happen? Which school is right? In Time magazine several years ago, they compared state assessments to national assessments...You can have one state where all the kids are proficient on state assessment and only 10% proficient on national assessment. (You then have to ask which assessment is a more accurate measure of course) I think their needs to be flexibility....areas w/ a unique ecosystem would spend more time studying it than somewhere that didn't have it, for example.

I don't want to get too sidetracked by politics, but I'm in favor of this consortium of governors agreeing to standards. They probably were spurred into action by federal government, but I don't think this is an issue that the federal government has the authority to decide or enforce.

Because we have such a mobile society I think a national standard of achievement will help children who move from state to state or even district to district.

Dazey, I agree that each district & state would have unique features which should be studied. But without a thorough education in reading, writing, & maths, no indepth study can be done. I think the standards are most important in elementary school to prepare the children to branch out when reaching middle & high school.

Well stated.

I would like to see a standard assessment adopted with results made easily available so that parents can compare apples to apples when decided where to live. The competition and transparency that could create, more than federal penalties, could motivate higher performance by the schools.

Our district only publicizes ACT scores for the graduating class. The state test pass rate (which they are happy for parents/taxpayers to assume is the average %tile rank) is publicized for other grades.

I recently read or was told, can't remember which, that a 4 (exceeds expectations) on a state assessment was 75% correct. So a kid scoring 75% correct, looks the same on paper as a kid scoring 99-100% correct. I wonder how low you can go and get a 3 (meets expectations/proficient). I heard that range is very wide...no wonder >95% meet or exceeds expectations as low as they are.

I think all of that is state specific right now.

Yes, we should have these. One reason is that when a student changes schools, he or she should know all the prior material. An example is the small school where I taught. Many students transfer in and out of these small districts here. A very bright student had to take Algebra I again as a freshman even though she had made an "A" in Algebra I in 8th grade.

Also, a student (especially without a college educated parent) should have the right to have a real education. The same school suspended teaching of British lit and Shakespeare since nobody gets it. These kids cannot make it in college.

There are already Federal laws they have to adhere to. When we are measuring our students' progress, it is false to have different measures in every state. We cannot raise our level of education if schools like the one I mentioned above is way below standard.

None of these prevent students from achieving beyond this level and all states should have a "commended level" also.

Homeschooling should have an option to be in this curriculum and test with it. Many colleges and universities (and jobs) do not accept their vague requirements and just stay away. These students should have these options also. Everyone I have ever worked with at colleges and other jobs just dismiss homeschool for this reason.

A standard is not a curriculum. There are a lot of curriculums designed to teach to the same standard. There absolutely should NOT be a requirement to use a certain curriculum. It's hard enough to work with a school district which has chosen a certain curriculum that does not work for your child, to have it mandated by the state would be horrible. I think holding a minimum standard for a grade level would be acceptable no matter where the child was educated, public, private, or homeschooled.
Also, I know 15 kids from 4 families that were homeschooled partially or fully, 13 of the 15 were accepted to the college of their choice, the other 2 are still too young. I don't know any homeschool failures. Statistics show homeschoolers outperform public schoolers on standardized tests. Of course there are some that fall below average, but most are above the average.

Well said, OHG.

Val, I couldn't agree with you more. I moved to a different state the summer after 7th grade, and other than math, I repeated my entire 7th grade year over in 8th grade. This was not because I failed 7th grade, but it was because that it what they taught in 8th grade here vs where I came from. And I would've HATED to know what schools were like in a different county, as I attended one of the best in the state.

Also, this is setting national standards, not limiting students who are above the curve. In fact, this may actually help reason that certain children do not belong in a classroom with their peers solely based on age.

In my high school, there were three tracks for each grade year. So students were put on a track that met their academic needs/abilities. This needs to be introduced into all grade levels nationally, not just high school. I personally feel like the fact that currently school districts are trying to make sure there are a good mix of students in all classrooms is actually hindering ALL children, regardless of what level of learning they may be on... I will stop there, for now, but I would LOVE LOVE LOVE my state's schools to be held to the same standards as each other let alone the rest of the nation.

See my other post on Britain demanding the same thing. Sure - it's great to raise standards and prevent child abuse. Different political agenda if you're just trying to nationalize everything and turn everyone into "government educated morons".

And by the way - is it just me - or have other people gone and looked for "National Standards of Curriculum" using google - only to findt hat nothing is posted, page is unavailable etc. - for a variety of standars and websites ...weird...

Those in public schools already are already government educated, right? I mean the "government" pays the teachers. Our "government" taxes go to the schools... there's a difference between having common education standards and having the government run the curriculum (which in my state it already technically does... just on a state level as opposed to a national level). A public school educated child should be able to move from Pennsylvania to Oregon mid-school year and expect not only to be taught at the same level (as in the quality of the educators themselves), but the same subjects. He should not come from an area that teaches state capitals in 3rd grade to a state that has over 50% of its graduating population not even know their own state capital.

If the standardization is done right, it will still leave teachers the freedom to control the lesson plans, to be creative when assigning projects, and be only a tool to help make sure the kids are getting the education they deserve. If it is done correctly, it will not prevent gifted kids from advancing nor will it keep kids that need extra help behind. it will allow programs to be designed so that gifted standards are the same across the board, as well as allow programs to exist at schools that don't currently have them, for ALL levels of the "education spectrum".

i live in a state that is required to fund gifted programs. BUT each school, not even school district, but school, is allowed to determine which children even get tested, let alone which get put in the program. how fair is that? every child deserves an equal chance of gaining the same educational experience, whether they live in rural alabama or new york city, whether their parents make millions or they are being raised by grandpa who can barely feed them due to a disability preventing him from bringing home more than a social security check. a school district in my state lost its acreditation (sp), NOT the fault of the students... now they are stuck, dealing with what is left of it and no one really is being held accountable for their current education!

sorry so long and winded. my own education is a prime example of why there needs to be some kind of common standards across the board.

The idea of CES sounds nice, but I wonder how it will pan out, from a systems and application standpoint. Given some of the responses in this thread re: teachers, schools, etc. being able to interpret and apply the standards, as they see fit, I still see a lot of room for discrepencies in education.

For example, one school may feel that offering science labs three times per week is the proper way to meet the CES and another only offers labs once per week. In this case, a child at the latter school will only receive one-third of the lab experience as a child in the former. Perhaps, though the child with labs only once a week will have a better grasp of the theories than the other child. Both schools are meeting the CES requirements, but doing so in different ways, however the potential for a child to be considered behind (or ahead)if they transfer schools hasn't, in my opinion, been eradicated - or in anyway reduced. And unless the schools must follow the same timeline with regard to when they teach certain standards the problem persists.

As I stated, the idea of CES sounds nice, but given the above, (granted not the best example, but hopefully it illustrates my point),I am having difficulty in seeing how having (national) CES will make a significant difference. In order for it to really work, in my opinion, I believe that it would have be in conjunction with a "national curriculum" that outlines exactly what will be taught and how and when - no skipping around , etc., because that would mean the problem with transfer students not being on the same page as a school's other students remains.

Frankly, even the *idea of a national or "common" curriculum rubs me the wrong way. And since, I don't see a plausible way to make CES work (they way I hope it would) without a common curriculum, I can't get on board with it. It's too slippy a slope, and I can see how homeschoolers would not be amenable to the idea of a CES.

I'm sure that implementing CES *without a common curriculum will have *some impact, but will it be enough to warrant the amount of legislation, systems updates, etc. that creating, implementing and monitoring a CES will entail? Until it can be proven that having a CES *without a national/common curriculum will make a significant, positive change, in conjunction with the assurance (amended into our laws in constitutional, cannot-be-voted-out-at-whim manner) that there will not and never will be "national/common curriculum", I remain firmly in the, "no thank you" camp.

A national test on various subjects administered at the same time is about the only way to compare educational outcomes. The AP and SAT subject tests are the ones that come close.

You cannot drop the same curriculum into a Texas agricultural border town that you have on Long Island. That is why you must allow for local conditions. There will be an ag-vo-tech emphasis in that ag town with none of that at NY magnet school.

I think "testing" should be early and often to track how a student is doing with results going back into an individualized instruction set. A lot of online coursework does this with good results.

Its a shame that bricks and mortar schools cannot adapt.

Many if not most school administrators do not want these types of tests (early and often ) because they will have to explain why some schools fail them.

Unfortunately, there is a hidden agenda among many who want "national standards." - the most obvious of which is the insertion of various philosophies into the curriculum. Another problem with national standards is that it stifles the desire for local experimentation and policy research which is where innovation comes from.

"A national test on various subjects administered at the same time is about the only way to compare educational outcomes. The AP and SAT subject tests are the ones that come close."

This would mean that standards, subjects would have to be taught *at the same time, etc. throughout the nation in all schools, IMO. Otherwise, you could have a group of students tested on a subject that they have only been taught for a semester and another that has had an entire year to focus on the same topic, depending on how the school interpreted the standard and implemented it in the classroom.

"You cannot drop the same curriculum into a Texas agricultural border town that you have on Long Island. That is why you must allow for local conditions. There will be an ag-vo-tech emphasis in that ag town with none of that at NY magnet school.
A national curriculum could leave some room for local/regional subjects and standards."

A national curriculum could leave some room for regional differences, perhaps with the stipulation that such courses can only be offered during certain parts of the year and only for specific grades. For example, in California, California history is only taught in third grade (if memory serves me correctly).

"I think "testing" should be early and often to track how a student is doing with results going back into an individualized instruction set. A lot of online coursework does this with good results."

What type of "testing" do you envision and how would it be implemented? What do you mean by "often"?

"Its a shame that bricks and mortar schools cannot adapt."
Agreed!

"Many if not most school administrators do not want these types of tests (early and often ) because they will have to explain why some schools fail them."

Yes, there is never an excuse for a "failing" school, IMO. However, I wonder if testing - "early and often" is the solution. Wouldn't this perpetuate a system that "teaches to the test", a system which we are, currently, trying to move away from?

"Unfortunately, there is a hidden agenda among many who want "national standards." - the most obvious of which is the insertion of various philosophies into the curriculum. Another problem with national standards is that it stifles the desire for local experimentation and policy research which is where innovation comes from. "

Two very good reasons not to adopt national/CES!

We already have a nationally normed achievement test available for elementary school, and it's been used at least 45 years when I was in elementary. It's the ITBS.

I know. I was just wondering what was meant by testing "early and often". And does *more* testing equate with a better educated populace or is it simply - more testing?

ETA: Austin had put the word "testing" in quotes. I figured it might not necessarily be *traditional fill-in-the-blank-or-bubble ITBS, SAT, etc. type tests, but wasn't certain, so I asked what was envisioned.

I wonder this myself. I was shocked at the build up and school time taken on one round of standardized testing given to the 3rd graders at our previous school (we have a neighbor with a 3rd grader). This poor little girl was stressed out for a month. And she is actually quite GT.

I was quite happy with the Peabody test we did to fufill our homeschooling requirements. Someone came to our house and administered it orally. We did zero prep, it took less than an hour (in our case - it can take up to 2), and he could continue on K-12 material until he burned out on what he could answer. The Peabody is not a perfect test by any means. It could never parse out the top percentages (very small sample sizes, limited questions, etc). But it did let me know DS is between 2-7 grade levels ahead of everything as a 2nd grader after a year of extremely laid back homeschooling. I think it at least did a fairly good job assessing math, reading, and spelling.

If a low impact test like that could be given at the beginning and end of every academic year, it seems like testing information could be used to place kids academically and be able to see what they have learned over the course of an academic year. Maybe there's not a way to do something similar in a classroom of 25. But it could be a useful tool.

It really doesn't matter what the National criteria is, it still won't fit these kids.

Just my two cents!

Yes! It does speak to the middle and leave outliers from, either end of, the spectrum without a paddle, doesn't it. I'm reminded of NCLB and we all know how well that worked. The idea of NCLB is nice, but...well, just because an idea sounds good doesn't mean it ever will be good.

[quote..just because an idea sounds good doesn't mean it ever will be good.
] [/quote]
If our government says it is a good idea, then it must be true! HeHe

Thanks for the giggle!

Originally Posted by mizzoumommy

"A national test on various subjects administered at the same time is about the only way to compare educational outcomes. The AP and SAT subject tests are the ones that come close."

This would mean that standards, subjects would have to be taught *at the same time, etc. throughout the nation in all schools, IMO. Otherwise, you could have a group of students tested on a subject that they have only been taught for a semester and another that has had an entire year to focus on the same topic, depending on how the school interpreted the standard and implemented it in the classroom.

My point is that standards were developed by subject matter experts and then tests were created by them, then the core curriculum was developed by them. WITHOUT any input from non-subject-matter experts, ie the government. People use AP and SAT because they are good, reliable and accredited measures that people trust. If you accept AP as a good core system, then why do we need someone to develop any more standards?

We already have accreditation boards and professors who write textbooks. Again, without national standards.

The National standards debate is frivolous.

Originally Posted by mizzoumommy

"You cannot drop the same curriculum into a Texas agricultural border town that you have on Long Island. That is why you must allow for local conditions. There will be an ag-vo-tech emphasis in that ag town with none of that at NY magnet school.
A national curriculum could leave some room for local/regional subjects and standards."

A national curriculum could leave some room for regional differences, perhaps with the stipulation that such courses can only be offered during certain parts of the year and only for specific grades. For example, in California, California history is only taught in third grade (if memory serves me correctly).

A third grader from the Rio Grande Valley is not equivalent to that from Long Island. And saying when stuff can be taught is tying the hands of the local school district.

Originally Posted by mizzoumommy

"I think "testing" should be early and often to track how a student is doing with results going back into an individualized instruction set. A lot of online coursework does this with good results."

What type of "testing" do you envision and how would it be implemented? What do you mean by "often"?

Ideally, weekly. The test would not test stuff the child knows and just test the edges of their knowledge expansion and then this would feed into the curriculum for the next week.

Originally Posted by mizzoumommy

Yes, there is never an excuse for a "failing" school, IMO. However, I wonder if testing - "early and often" is the solution. Wouldn't this perpetuate a system that "teaches to the test", a system which we are, currently, trying to move away from?

Unless parents support education, then no school will progress very far. I played on a top grade-school football team while growing up and many of the players were black. One wanted me to teach him to read - and it went very well - until his dad found out and berated his son, "you want to be better than your dad?!!" There is also the issue of discipline and learning risk-taking arising from single-parent homes especially for boys.

Ultimately, the issue is one of information and evaluating it. A national set of standards ignores the critical role of local administrators who are in a better place to observe and adjust to local variations in parents, the preparation of the students, and community priorities.

From a GT perspective, having national standards for GT education means nothing. Having a local set of administrators and teachers who have had GT inservice education and then having a few school systems with GT-track curriculums where methods and knowledge is built up is far preferable.

Standards do not get something DONE. Local people who are enthusiastic about what they are doing does. People are most enthusiastic where they set their goals and work towards them and their ideas are listened to. Having some grand poobah tell them what to do will just take the wind out of their sails.

I hope you didn't think that I was *for having a CES or National/Common Curriculum. All of my posts have been illustrations as to why the whole thing is an idea that sounds good, but really isn't.

I agree with your posts, and have from the beginning, but wanted some clarity re: testing, etc. to confirm we are on the same page...and we are!

One last question, re: frivolous debate - do you mean that's it's frivolous for us (on this board) to be discussing it? Or silly that the government is doing so? I personally find it a complete waste of time and energy that our government (46 governors, et al.) are working on this. However, since they are, and since others are on board with the idea, including a few from this board, several people on various education geared discussion boards I am a member of, and people I know in person, I feel it's important to discuss and to see the various arguments and opinions from both sides of the issue. After all, people on this board from the USA will have to deal with the ramifications is CES manages to get off the ground.

The problem with not having national standards is how it negatively affects the nd or slow kids. For example, my GS9's mother kept custody of one of her children. That one just turned 7 this week, and finished 1st grade. In K, she attended at least 3 schools, each in a different state. I don't know who many schools she attended in 1st. Another woman I know has 2 children, 6 & 8. The 8 year old just finished 2nd grade, she attended a new school district for each grade, 2 different states. These kids are average, and they're being set up for failure.
Now, our gifted kids aren't bothered with holes or skips in their education, they figure it out quickly. But a ND kid that misses fractions in 2nd grade because she went to school in one state is at a huge disadvantage moving to another state for 3rd grade where they do have fractions in 2nd.

Austin, you've described an excellent, individualized education. But that won't work for kids that move from state to state unless they used the same curriculum. And I really don't like use of specific curriculum being dictated at a state or federal level.

But if the states all agree they will introduce cursive handwriting in 2nd grade, study of ancient civilizations & fractions in 3rd, etc., it will give a common goal. If a child knows the material, pass them, if a child needs to work through it another year, hold them back.

Actually, I was considering *all children in my posts. My apologies if my mention of outliers led anyone to believe that I was focusing on only a subset of children.

I do agree that the current system is problematic with some schools being far ahead in what they teach and others ridiculously behind. I don't believe that having CES will make a positive, significant difference. There already is a CES of sorts in place; it's called NCLB - children are supposed to be proficient in certain topics by a certain grade - and it's a failure.


I'm confused, are you saying that you don't like the idea of having a national/common curriculum, but would agree to it if it meant that all schools taught the same subjects during the same grade? That still wouldn't necessarily address gaps for transfer students, especially mid-year transfers, unless the curriculum dictated what would be taught, *when (to the date) and the teachers, etc. were not allowed to deviate.

Right, a standard would be for all the schools to agree to teach fractions beginning in 2nd, learn how to add/subtract them in 3rd, multiply/divide them in 3rd. I don't care what curriculum they use (although I prefer Singapore because there is minimal repetition).

A child that moves mid-year would have maybe a few months to catch up on gaps, not a whole year and some months. That's manageable for most kids.

I have not seen any standards set by NCLB, other than to say a school has to meet state standards or face losing local control.

I respectfully disagree . The only ones who stand to gain from national standards is the middle ground, which I will admit, is the majority.
Slower kids will be have to be taught...and re-taught....and re-taught how to pass a specific test. In turn they will get bored and are more likely to tune out at school.

Special Education parents are very unhappy with our Florida standards test, FCAT. Many of them advocate against it because it causes major stress on thier children. http://stopthefcat.com/Disadvantaged_Groups.html
Slower children typically do not test well, even if they understand the concept. How many times do you have to fail to believe you are a failure?

*Slower children NEED a slower pace and should be encouraged to do their personal best, not required to meet the national average.
**And the inverse is true for the more advanced kids.

The use of a double negative in my post made it confusing. I don't think you disagree with me. Removing the double negative would let it read "having a national standard would positively affect nd or slow children". My reasoning is, in this society many of the children who are(or should be) being held back to repeat material, or eventually dropping out due to failure, are failing due to switching schools often and missing out on key material. Having the same minimum goal at each school would result in the same principle material being taught no matter which school the child attended.
It might even help gifted children accelerate by demonstrating they have learned the material set as the goal for a particular age group.

Someone mentioned in a post something about what's happening in England. I came across this link...is this what you were referring to? http://nycpublicschoolparents.blogspot.com/2009/04/want-to-see-future-of-nclb-look-to-uk.html

I've always been against NCLB but didn't have any knowledge about what had been done in England.

Sadly I'm in a state without any gifted laws as well.

Thanks for the article post

If you haven't read "ThThe Element: How Finding Your Passion Changes Everything by Ph.D., Ken Robinson and Lou Aronica (Hardcover - Jan 8, 2009)e Element" you may find it helpful/interesting.

I read it whilst you lot were debating all this out here! It's got some neat anecdotes of famous people like Paul McCartney etc. and how they found their true "element" despite hating school. Paul apparently hated music class and you wouldn't have known he or John had any musical talent if you'd observed them in school.

It also contains a neat section on testing and how the IQ tests were originally created out of the Eugenics program (which eventually led to all the nasty stuff in WWII). Kind of makes one see exactly how daft all this testing thing really is - especially in the US - though they are pretty much obessessing everywhere about these days.

I'm not sure even the middle ground stands to really gain from more government run education/interference. Who made them the expert at education?

I've found Lisa Van Damme's work really helpful in regards to figuring out how to motivate all children, educate children properly - ....

Everything leads me back to the conclusion that the Laura Ingalls Wilder / Little House on the Prarie village type school / home school or small private schools like Lisa's - are the way to go. You'd need a graet many of them - and a lot of really great teachers - but they could be tailored to the needs of individuals.

The way they approach education right now - as "The Element" states well - is an outdated, industrialized, factory - one size fits all method!

The largest minority, is the individual.