Reply #127: I'm afraid I have to give your opponent points on this one.

[wolfgangmo]

Yes, EU school kids outperform ours, and while you are correct in pointing out that they "weed" out kids an further explanation is needed. In most EU countries they have systems of apprenticeship for those who are not matriculating (college bound) so that they get appropriate levels of education and work experiences in the fields of their choice (it's like voc ed on steroids).

So yes, their kids who test against us do better because they don't test all of their kids. But that is a good thing. Unless you are saying that you think that NCLB was a great idea, no? And even in these different educational tracks in the EU (and Canada BTW) those student are required to take 4 years of sciences, math, english, foriegn language, arts, etc. Your argument that requiring 4 years is a bad thing is specious in that your only example is the stupid way Texas is doing it. In other countries students are still required to take all 4 years of classes but the classes are more tracked to their level and interests.

I attended school in Canada many moons ago and there were 3 different classes offered at each grade level; matriculation, business and vocational. Each had the same materials but it was presented differently moving from the theoretical to the practical.

The system in the US is not necessarily broken, but it isn't exactly moving around the track like Richard Petty anymore either. It needs an oil change, tune up, and to have the 70 or 80 trailers hitched to it's bumper n the form of testing and extra duties (social services - schools started to take those on after Nixon and then Reagan took an ax to those programs in the communities). If we were to move from education being all things to all people and to refocus on the core mission of educating it would correct most problems. Education, to me, is akin to general motors in the 1980's, clueless and meandering aimlessly with the exception of a few pockets of true innovation.