It really is a whole package deal: parents, teachers, discipline, environment, money and resources.
and
The trick and the challenge is to apply the successful military school model to districts, students and parents such as those in this South Carolina school.
In reply, you wrote:
This article made a big deal about funding and that's just a red herring. Schoolss in other countries spend far, far less than we do per child, but their results are consistently better.
Which countries? Which schools? How would you define consistently better results?
Discipline and the beating the importance of education into kids are clearly a necessity, but I don't think it's only that, either.
Remember, I said it was a package deal. Not just any one element of the package. Don't understand how you want me to understand the word "beating."
Why was there no info in this article about the types of teachers they hire (NEA types ?), and the type of curriculum they use ?
Obviously, they hire teachers who teach, be they NEA types (whatever that is) or some other type.
The military school districts have the same curriculum as the rest of the public schools in the State. They are all subject to the same testing and the same oversight performed by the Texas Education Agency.
You can teach kids discipline and attention, but if they're paying attention to garbage, all you get is garbage regurgitated.
I'm presuming you really did read the articles, or at least browsed through them.
Schools in those districts continue to rack up national and state recognitions for excellence. And their students — who graduate and go to college at higher-than-average rates — are regularly among the city's top performers in state, federal and college entrance exams
I have my own criticisms and doubts about the military model as generally presented in these columns, but it is really hard to frown down at the obvious success these little districts achieve--consistently.
Countries - Singapore, Hong Kong, Belgium and plenty of others - look at the results of the international competitions among countries, then look at their per child funding. Consistently better results would be rankings in international exams, literacy rate, and the like.
Sorry, I used that term very loosely. "Emphasizing" and acting consistently to suport are probably better ways to describe what I meant.
Obviously, they hire teachers who teach, be they NEA types (whatever that is) or some other type. The military school districts have the same curriculum as the rest of the public schools in the State. They are all subject to the same testing and the same oversight performed by the Texas Education Agency.
NEA - National Education Association - predominant teacher's union in the USA, also well-known for its militant socialism.
The articles did not mention the curriculum specifically. I know here in PA the school districts are free to use any curriculum they choose, so I cannot make the assumption, as you did, that the curriculum is exactly the same in all school districts. Maybe you have evidence otherwise - I don't.
So, I say again, the teachers in the military school must be teaching something more worthwhile, and teaching it better, than the schools that are failing.
Schools in those districts continue to rack up national and state recognitions for excellence. And their students — who graduate and go to college at higher-than-average rates — are regularly among the city's top performers in state, federal and college entrance exams.
We all know that state exams are not rigorous - there's been a lot of press in particular about the problems with the exams in Texas. Additionally, the SATs have been consistently dumbed-down over the years, most recently this year, so they may be performing well at a level relative to this dumbed-down yardstick.
Read this: http://www.mathematicallycorrect.com/texmath.htm
Before we congratulate any school for achieving "excellence", we should first determine whether "excellence" was really achieved.