Used to be (maybe still is) Districutive Education Clubs of America. High school clubs emphasizing business.

 

FBLA emphasizes business.

DECA emphasizes marketing.

Classes would be Principles of Marketing, Advertising & Promotion, Entrepreneurship, Salesmanship, Advanced Marketing, Fashion Marketing to name just a few.

Folks, I've read a lot of reasons/concerns about going to a "balanced schedule."

 

However, I keep going back to one thing.

 

Its working elsewhere.

 

So, how are those schools any different than ours?

Folks, I've read a lot of reasons/concerns about going to a "balanced schedule."

 

However, I keep going back to one thing.

 

Its working elsewhere.

 

So, how are those schools any different than ours?

 

And the present schedule is working elsewhere, too.

So, how are those schools any different than ours?

And the present schedule is working elsewhere, too.

So, how are those schools any different than ours?

 

The present schedule is not working well enough. Common sense says that being off for 2.5 months harms many/most students in that they have to spend too much time in August/Sept re-learning what they were taught in April and May.

 

So, again, why can't our schools make the switch and make it work when others have made it work?

Why do many/most agree that the quality of education needs to be improved and yet many oppose one of the issues that can help improve the process? Why don't we advocate our particular school system go to some sort of different schedule?

 

I heard today that some systems go 6 then off 2. Parents of such systems called in saying how well it worked and that their kids actually liked it better knowing they had an upcoming 2-week break.

 

It solves the age-old issue of the first month of the school system being nothing more than a review of last year.

 

Why would you oppose this? What am I missing?

 

That's fine for some districts, but for a district like the one I'm from, where in any given winter you're likely to miss 4 to 5 weeks of instruction, it could never happen.

The present schedule is not working well enough. Common sense says that being off for 2.5 months harms many/most students in that they have to spend too much time in August/Sept re-learning what they were taught in April and May.

 

So, again, why can't our schools make the switch and make it work when others have made it work?

 

It's not the schedule, the top performing schools nationwide have a traditional schedule, and don't start until the last week of August or the first week of September. It was in the paper a couple years ago.

Not that my high school was a paragon of educational excellence, but school started the day after Labor Day and ended in the second week of June.

The present schedule is not working well enough. Common sense says that being off for 2.5 months harms many/most students in that they have to spend too much time in August/Sept re-learning what they were taught in April and May.

 

So, again, why can't our schools make the switch and make it work when others have made it work?

 

And again, if it is the schedule's fault and using your same logic, other schools are making it work, so why can't our schools, IF it is the schedules fault, not make the present schedule work?

 

Maybe because it is not the schedules fault but rather we are just looking for excuses rather than holding parents responsible for the education of their child.

Not that my high school was a paragon of educational excellence, but school started the day after Labor Day and ended in the second week of June.

 

But I bet your parents expected you to learn no matter when you went to school.

It's not the schedule, the top performing schools nationwide have a traditional schedule, and don't start until the last week of August or the first week of September. It was in the paper a couple years ago.

 

Guess I should have kept reading where hoopboy made my point for me.:thumb:And did a better job at it.:clap:

It's not the schedule, the top performing schools nationwide have a traditional schedule, and don't start until the last week of August or the first week of September. It was in the paper a couple years ago.

 

The great majority of the schools are not "top schools."

 

Secondly, being a "top school" in this country is a relative term. Resting on the argument that "top schools succed" is ignoring that being a top school is not a competition filled with many candidates.

 

So, the real goal should be to improve those "other" schools.

And again, if it is the schedule's fault and using your same logic, other schools are making it work, so why can't our schools, IF it is the schedules fault, not make the present schedule work?

 

Maybe because it is not the schedules fault but rather we are just looking for excuses rather than holding parents responsible for the education of their child.

 

You're being obstinate.

 

"Success" is relative. KY schools have shown that , as a whole, they are not successful.

 

Your definition of "making it work" sounds like its completely different than mine.

 

The "excuses" argument sounds like you're being defensive.

 

The schedule issue is not a magic pill. We also need better teachers. Its a combination of issues. However, we have voted with our pocketbooks and said that we are not willing to pay higher salaries to attract more candidates to the teaching pool so we have to attack what we can. The schedule is what needs to be attacked.

 

The balanced schedule works elsewhere, makes sense to most people, and yet we're making excuses.

The great majority of the schools are not "top schools."

 

So, the real goal should be to improve those "other" schools.

 

 

But if the top schools are on a traditional schedule, than obviously it is not the schedules fault.

 

BUT, I would question the definition. Generally, the top schools are the ones that have the brightest kids going on to college.

 

I contend that means nothing on which schools are doing the best. A kid graduates who has parents that hold his feet to the fire and expect him to do well and the school had to do very little.

 

A kid graduates who has no support at home and neither parent is actively involved in their life and that school probably has done a great job.

 

But the first kid's school is probably going to be seen as the better school.

You're being obstinate.

 

 

 

.

 

Why thank you. I think. Where's my Webster's?

But if the top schools are on a traditional schedule, than obviously it is not the schedules fault.

 

BUT, I would question the definition. Generally, the top schools are the ones that have the brightest kids going on to college.

 

I contend that means nothing on which schools are doing the best. A kid graduates who has parents that hold his feet to the fire and expect him to do well and the school had to do very little.

 

A kid graduates who has no support at home and neither parent is actively involved in their life and that school probably has done a great job.

 

But the first kid's school is probably going to be seen as the better school.

 

Again, excuses. Lets all agree that some schools are filled with children of parents who are not helping. So what? Do we just keep passing the blame?

 

No. We take the givens and work around them.