Fall enrollment 2023 record

[wbtfg]

And that is just Baltimore.

This story cannot help with proficiency.
https://news.yahoo.com/oregon-governor- ... 8xtVTwCHV3

Instead of addressing the problem and actually educating students, let’s just remove any standards and allow everyone to graduate regardless of grades. This is total madness.

What is the problem that needs to be addressed?

Don’t you think the focus should be on getting kids the best education possible, instead of just passing everyone because they have no standards to achieve?

Definitely.....I'm just not totally sure what is a problem and what is a symptom of the root problem. Seems like school districts are addressing symptoms. That said, I'm not totally sure I know what the root problem is...probably a combination of a lot of things.

So removing standards for graduating is addressing a symptom? It would seem to me that they are removing standards so you can’t say a problem exists. This allows everyone to graduate (regardless of proficiency) so no problem exists. It would seem that focus on improving the education would be smart - versus removing standards to give the appearance that everyone is succeeding.

I think we're having two different conversations. I agree with you on removing the standards. That said, Montana doesn't have a proficiency standard for graduation.

Which is maybe a good thing considering, in Montana 3rd-8th graders tested less than 50% proficient in English and less than 40% proficient in Math.

Montana High schoolers are 53% proficient in English and 30% proficient in Math. Would that mean Montana wouldn't graduate 70% of high school seniors if there was a Math proficiency requirement for graduation?


Note: Apologies for so many edits, my post evolved once I found the Montana OPI data site.

If we agree, why did you comment? Just to argue?

As for Montana’s requirements, it has nothing to do with Oregon removing theirs. The article says Oregon is removing their requirements with the goal to have more minorities graduate. Wouldn’t a better solution be to do a better job educating the kids that are falling behind - regardless of race? If there is a specific reason minorities are behind, then let’s address that specific reason. Maybe it is lack of books, or qualified teachers in higher minority schools, etc…. Let’s address the root problem instead of just removing a standard so politicians can claim a hollow victory.

I wasn't intending to argue....I was genuinely asking what the root problem is. I think we are mostly on the same page with our thoughts.

I agree the solution is doing a better job educating the kids, but I also feel like they've probably tried that.

[Cataholic]

And that is just Baltimore.

This story cannot help with proficiency.
https://news.yahoo.com/oregon-governor- ... 8xtVTwCHV3

Instead of addressing the problem and actually educating students, let’s just remove any standards and allow everyone to graduate regardless of grades. This is total madness.

What is the problem that needs to be addressed?

Don’t you think the focus should be on getting kids the best education possible, instead of just passing everyone because they have no standards to achieve?

Definitely.....I'm just not totally sure what is a problem and what is a symptom of the root problem. Seems like school districts are addressing symptoms. That said, I'm not totally sure I know what the root problem is...probably a combination of a lot of things.

So removing standards for graduating is addressing a symptom? It would seem to me that they are removing standards so you can’t say a problem exists. This allows everyone to graduate (regardless of proficiency) so no problem exists. It would seem that focus on improving the education would be smart - versus removing standards to give the appearance that everyone is succeeding.

I think we're having two different conversations. I agree with you on removing the standards. That said, Montana doesn't have a proficiency standard for graduation.

Which is maybe a good thing considering, in Montana 3rd-8th graders tested less than 50% proficient in English and less than 40% proficient in Math.

Montana High schoolers are 53% proficient in English and 30% proficient in Math. Would that mean Montana wouldn't graduate 70% of high school seniors if there was a Math proficiency requirement for graduation?


Note: Apologies for so many edits, my post evolved once I found the Montana OPI data site.

If we agree, why did you comment? Just to argue?

As for Montana’s requirements, it has nothing to do with Oregon removing theirs. The article says Oregon is removing their requirements with the goal to have more minorities graduate. Wouldn’t a better solution be to do a better job educating the kids that are falling behind - regardless of race? If there is a specific reason minorities are behind, then let’s address that specific reason. Maybe it is lack of books, or qualified teachers in higher minority schools, etc…. Let’s address the root problem instead of just removing a standard so politicians can claim a hollow victory.

I wasn't intending to argue....I was genuinely asking what the root problem is. I think we are mostly on the same page with our thoughts.

I agree the solution is doing a better job educating the kids, but I also feel like they've probably tried that.

I think everyone wants the best education possible for their kids. I am sure we don’t differ on that. Unfortunately, it seems politicians on both sides are looking for easy points versus working on long term solutions.

[The Butcher]

I understand the rationale behind considering the removal of reading and math proficiency requirements. It's essential to acknowledge that individuals without a high school degree often face a higher likelihood of living in poverty and relying on state assistance. Additionally, lacking a high school diploma can be a barrier to pursuing a two-year degree, as well as entry-level roles such as Certified Nursing Assistant (CNA) or Child Development Associate (CDA).

These professions, while not as math- or reading-intensive as some others, are in high demand and play a critical role in our communities. It's important to consider the potential economic impact of such a change, as it could have far-reaching consequences on individuals' livelihoods and the overall workforce landscape.

[coloradocat]

And that is just Baltimore.

This story cannot help with proficiency.
https://news.yahoo.com/oregon-governor- ... 8xtVTwCHV3

Instead of addressing the problem and actually educating students, let’s just remove any standards and allow everyone to graduate regardless of grades. This is total madness.

What is the problem that needs to be addressed?

Don’t you think the focus should be on getting kids the best education possible, instead of just passing everyone because they have no standards to achieve?

Definitely.....I'm just not totally sure what is a problem and what is a symptom of the root problem. Seems like school districts are addressing symptoms. That said, I'm not totally sure I know what the root problem is...probably a combination of a lot of things.

So removing standards for graduating is addressing a symptom? It would seem to me that they are removing standards so you can’t say a problem exists. This allows everyone to graduate (regardless of proficiency) so no problem exists. It would seem that focus on improving the education would be smart - versus removing standards to give the appearance that everyone is succeeding.

I think we're having two different conversations. I agree with you on removing the standards. That said, Montana doesn't have a proficiency standard for graduation.

Which is maybe a good thing considering, in Montana 3rd-8th graders tested less than 50% proficient in English and less than 40% proficient in Math.

Montana High schoolers are 53% proficient in English and 30% proficient in Math. Would that mean Montana wouldn't graduate 70% of high school seniors if there was a Math proficiency requirement for graduation?


Note: Apologies for so many edits, my post evolved once I found the Montana OPI data site.

Removing standards appears to be exactly how Montana is graduating so many high school seniors that haven't earned a degree. Not sure how that's a good thing. We aren't going to solve any problems by turning schools into diploma mills.

If everyone gets to graduate regardless of their level of proficiency then there's no incentive to make changes. Teachers and administrators get paid regardless of true performance. Kids, and their parents, are satisfied because they got the piece of paper that allows them to move on with their lives. Colleges get more students that will pay inflated tuition/fees financed by federal loans (that may or may not be cancelled in the future) and can charge students to take high school level classes for things they didn't learn before they got to campus.

All of these things are just a part of why it's a Schooling Industrial Complex (note the lack of education). A lack of accountability has led to increasingly poor performance and growing costs. It's not all on the schools and their employees, parents share some of the blame as well, but the institutions are the stakeholders that are supposed to be the responsible ones (a big part of why we have public education in the first place).

If you take away accountability there's no way to hit bottom because no one ever sees it. Maybe we'd be better off if we reinstituted the standards we had 30-40 years ago and when most kids don't graduate it will be a wakeup call to everyone. Until that shock to the system takes place nothing will change. I acknowledge that this isn't a solution to the problem, just a way to get everyone's attention, but the general public can plead ignorance until they see the true impact of what schools have become.

[coloradocat]

I understand the rationale behind considering the removal of reading and math proficiency requirements. It's essential to acknowledge that individuals without a high school degree often face a higher likelihood of living in poverty and relying on state assistance. Additionally, lacking a high school diploma can be a barrier to pursuing a two-year degree, as well as entry-level roles such as Certified Nursing Assistant (CNA) or Child Development Associate (CDA).

These professions, while not as math- or reading-intensive as some others, are in high demand and play a critical role in our communities. It's important to consider the potential economic impact of such a change, as it could have far-reaching consequences on individuals' livelihoods and the overall workforce landscape.

Since schools don't have a responsibility to educate students, would you be in favor of ending high school at age 16 (or even earlier) so kids can get an earlier start on a two-year degree? I guess we'd have to find something for all the teachers to do but maybe they could teach at those colleges.

[The Butcher]

I understand the rationale behind considering the removal of reading and math proficiency requirements. It's essential to acknowledge that individuals without a high school degree often face a higher likelihood of living in poverty and relying on state assistance. Additionally, lacking a high school diploma can be a barrier to pursuing a two-year degree, as well as entry-level roles such as Certified Nursing Assistant (CNA) or Child Development Associate (CDA).

These professions, while not as math- or reading-intensive as some others, are in high demand and play a critical role in our communities. It's important to consider the potential economic impact of such a change, as it could have far-reaching consequences on individuals' livelihoods and the overall workforce landscape.

Since schools don't have a responsibility to educate students, would you be in favor of ending high school at age 16 (or even earlier) so kids can get an earlier start on a two-year degree? I guess we'd have to find something for all the teachers to do but maybe they could teach at those colleges.

Did you read the article?

[coloradocat]

I understand the rationale behind considering the removal of reading and math proficiency requirements. It's essential to acknowledge that individuals without a high school degree often face a higher likelihood of living in poverty and relying on state assistance. Additionally, lacking a high school diploma can be a barrier to pursuing a two-year degree, as well as entry-level roles such as Certified Nursing Assistant (CNA) or Child Development Associate (CDA).

These professions, while not as math- or reading-intensive as some others, are in high demand and play a critical role in our communities. It's important to consider the potential economic impact of such a change, as it could have far-reaching consequences on individuals' livelihoods and the overall workforce landscape.

Since schools don't have a responsibility to educate students, would you be in favor of ending high school at age 16 (or even earlier) so kids can get an earlier start on a two-year degree? I guess we'd have to find something for all the teachers to do but maybe they could teach at those colleges.

Did you read the article?

Great response.

[Cataholic]

I understand the rationale behind considering the removal of reading and math proficiency requirements. It's essential to acknowledge that individuals without a high school degree often face a higher likelihood of living in poverty and relying on state assistance. Additionally, lacking a high school diploma can be a barrier to pursuing a two-year degree, as well as entry-level roles such as Certified Nursing Assistant (CNA) or Child Development Associate (CDA).

These professions, while not as math- or reading-intensive as some others, are in high demand and play a critical role in our communities. It's important to consider the potential economic impact of such a change, as it could have far-reaching consequences on individuals' livelihoods and the overall workforce landscape.

Since schools don't have a responsibility to educate students, would you be in favor of ending high school at age 16 (or even earlier) so kids can get an earlier start on a two-year degree? I guess we'd have to find something for all the teachers to do but maybe they could teach at those colleges.

Did you read the article?

Great response.

I don’t think Butcher read the article. I cannot comprehend what point he was trying to make.

[Cataholic]

I understand the rationale behind considering the removal of reading and math proficiency requirements. It's essential to acknowledge that individuals without a high school degree often face a higher likelihood of living in poverty and relying on state assistance. Additionally, lacking a high school diploma can be a barrier to pursuing a two-year degree, as well as entry-level roles such as Certified Nursing Assistant (CNA) or Child Development Associate (CDA).

These professions, while not as math- or reading-intensive as some others, are in high demand and play a critical role in our communities. It's important to consider the potential economic impact of such a change, as it could have far-reaching consequences on individuals' livelihoods and the overall workforce landscape.

You know what could have a far reaching impact? Actually working on getting kids proficiency levels up.

[coloradocat]

I understand the rationale behind considering the removal of reading and math proficiency requirements. It's essential to acknowledge that individuals without a high school degree often face a higher likelihood of living in poverty and relying on state assistance. Additionally, lacking a high school diploma can be a barrier to pursuing a two-year degree, as well as entry-level roles such as Certified Nursing Assistant (CNA) or Child Development Associate (CDA).

These professions, while not as math- or reading-intensive as some others, are in high demand and play a critical role in our communities. It's important to consider the potential economic impact of such a change, as it could have far-reaching consequences on individuals' livelihoods and the overall workforce landscape.

Since schools don't have a responsibility to educate students, would you be in favor of ending high school at age 16 (or even earlier) so kids can get an earlier start on a two-year degree? I guess we'd have to find something for all the teachers to do but maybe they could teach at those colleges.

Did you read the article?

Great response.

I don’t think Butcher read the article. I cannot comprehend what point he was trying to make.

I understand his point and was taking it to it's logical conclusion.

A HS degree is essentially the first barrier to any job above minimum wage. One way to lift people up, especially those from less than well off backgrounds, is to open the door to opportunities that they otherwise wouldn't be eligible for. By essentially guaranteeing a high school diploma, you give them a chance to pursue a further degree which, in theory, would set them up for a more financially secure/productive future. There are two ways to do this: 1) provide them with the skills to be proficient in the tools necessary for success beyond high school; or 2) give them a piece of paper that says they are eligible for the next step in the assembly line. My question was, if you've decided to go with 2) then why make them wait until they're 18? I even provided a solution to one of the barriers.

[wbtfg]

I understand the rationale behind considering the removal of reading and math proficiency requirements. It's essential to acknowledge that individuals without a high school degree often face a higher likelihood of living in poverty and relying on state assistance. Additionally, lacking a high school diploma can be a barrier to pursuing a two-year degree, as well as entry-level roles such as Certified Nursing Assistant (CNA) or Child Development Associate (CDA).

These professions, while not as math- or reading-intensive as some others, are in high demand and play a critical role in our communities. It's important to consider the potential economic impact of such a change, as it could have far-reaching consequences on individuals' livelihoods and the overall workforce landscape.

You know what could have a far reaching impact? Actually working on getting kids proficiency levels up.

I think pretty much every teacher, principal, superintendent, etc. works on improving proficiency on almost a daily basis. In fact, I believe the Helena School district (and many others in the state) has recently pivoted to a proficiency based learning model.

I also think there's some good data out there that suggest schools actually focus too much on proficiency tests, and not enough time on creativity, imagination, innovation, mental health, etc.

With technology, drugs, absent parents, etc. Today's world is a heck of a lot different than when I was in school. Speaking of that....I don't think I had to take proficiency exams back in those days.

[Cataholic]

I understand the rationale behind considering the removal of reading and math proficiency requirements. It's essential to acknowledge that individuals without a high school degree often face a higher likelihood of living in poverty and relying on state assistance. Additionally, lacking a high school diploma can be a barrier to pursuing a two-year degree, as well as entry-level roles such as Certified Nursing Assistant (CNA) or Child Development Associate (CDA).

These professions, while not as math- or reading-intensive as some others, are in high demand and play a critical role in our communities. It's important to consider the potential economic impact of such a change, as it could have far-reaching consequences on individuals' livelihoods and the overall workforce landscape.

Since schools don't have a responsibility to educate students, would you be in favor of ending high school at age 16 (or even earlier) so kids can get an earlier start on a two-year degree? I guess we'd have to find something for all the teachers to do but maybe they could teach at those colleges.

Did you read the article?

Great response.

I don’t think Butcher read the article. I cannot comprehend what point he was trying to make.

I understand his point and was taking it to it's logical conclusion.

A HS degree is essentially the first barrier to any job above minimum wage. One way to lift people up, especially those from less than well off backgrounds, is to open the door to opportunities that they otherwise wouldn't be eligible for. By essentially guaranteeing a high school diploma, you give them a chance to pursue a further degree which, in theory, would set them up for a more financially secure/productive future. There are two ways to do this: 1) provide them with the skills to be proficient in the tools necessary for success beyond high school; or 2) give them a piece of paper that says they are eligible for the next step in the assembly line. My question was, if you've decided to go with 2) then why make them wait until they're 18? I even provided a solution to one of the barriers.

Exactly. Your question was clear and well stated. His response was more a wise ass retort instead of actually providing a reasoned response.

[Cataholic]

I understand the rationale behind considering the removal of reading and math proficiency requirements. It's essential to acknowledge that individuals without a high school degree often face a higher likelihood of living in poverty and relying on state assistance. Additionally, lacking a high school diploma can be a barrier to pursuing a two-year degree, as well as entry-level roles such as Certified Nursing Assistant (CNA) or Child Development Associate (CDA).

These professions, while not as math- or reading-intensive as some others, are in high demand and play a critical role in our communities. It's important to consider the potential economic impact of such a change, as it could have far-reaching consequences on individuals' livelihoods and the overall workforce landscape.

You know what could have a far reaching impact? Actually working on getting kids proficiency levels up.

I think pretty much every teacher, principal, superintendent, etc. works on improving proficiency on almost a daily basis. In fact, I believe the Helena School district (and many others in the state) has recently pivoted to a proficiency based learning model.

I also think there's some good data out there that suggest schools actually focus too much on proficiency tests, and not enough time on creativity, imagination, innovation, mental health, etc.

With technology, drugs, absent parents, etc. Today's world is a heck of a lot different than when I was in school. Speaking of that....I don't think I had to take proficiency exams back in those days.

Don’t get me wrong. I am not a proponent of proficiency tests. However, the actions in Oregon are an example of what our leaders are working on. Eliminating proficiency tests are not a solution to the underlying issue of providing better education to our kids. I had offered an article earlier about the city of Baltimore. Not one kid in 13 schools tested proficient in math. NOT ONE KID. That is a huge failure. Can you say math teachers in those schools are doing a good job? Shouldn’t those teachers be held accountable for this failure? Instead, those same teachers will be back next year generating the same results. That is a sad situation.

[wbtfg]

I understand the rationale behind considering the removal of reading and math proficiency requirements. It's essential to acknowledge that individuals without a high school degree often face a higher likelihood of living in poverty and relying on state assistance. Additionally, lacking a high school diploma can be a barrier to pursuing a two-year degree, as well as entry-level roles such as Certified Nursing Assistant (CNA) or Child Development Associate (CDA).

These professions, while not as math- or reading-intensive as some others, are in high demand and play a critical role in our communities. It's important to consider the potential economic impact of such a change, as it could have far-reaching consequences on individuals' livelihoods and the overall workforce landscape.

You know what could have a far reaching impact? Actually working on getting kids proficiency levels up.

I think pretty much every teacher, principal, superintendent, etc. works on improving proficiency on almost a daily basis. In fact, I believe the Helena School district (and many others in the state) has recently pivoted to a proficiency based learning model.

I also think there's some good data out there that suggest schools actually focus too much on proficiency tests, and not enough time on creativity, imagination, innovation, mental health, etc.

With technology, drugs, absent parents, etc. Today's world is a heck of a lot different than when I was in school. Speaking of that....I don't think I had to take proficiency exams back in those days.

Don’t get me wrong. I am not a proponent of proficiency tests. However, the actions in Oregon are an example of what our leaders are working on. Eliminating proficiency tests are not a solution to the underlying issue of providing better education to our kids. I had offered an article earlier about the city of Baltimore. Not one kid in 13 schools tested proficient in math. NOT ONE KID. That is a huge failure. Can you say math teachers in those schools are doing a good job? Shouldn’t those teachers be held accountable for this failure? Instead, those same teachers will be back next year generating the same results. That is a sad situation.

First of all....good discussion.

Not one kid in 13 schools tested proficient in math. NOT ONE KID. That is a huge failure.
-Agree

Can you say math teachers in those schools are doing a good job?
-I can't say they are doing a good job, but I also don't know that all teachers are doing a bad job. Too many other variables. Could a rock star math teacher from the Bozeman school district move to Baltimore and have similar failing results? Probably. Could a Baltimore math teacher move to Bozeman and Thrive? Possibly.

Instead, those same teachers will be back next year generating the same results.
-It sounds like those teachers are in a system and culture set up to fail. I'm not sure what the solution is aside from blow it all up and start from scratch.

[Cataholic]

I understand the rationale behind considering the removal of reading and math proficiency requirements. It's essential to acknowledge that individuals without a high school degree often face a higher likelihood of living in poverty and relying on state assistance. Additionally, lacking a high school diploma can be a barrier to pursuing a two-year degree, as well as entry-level roles such as Certified Nursing Assistant (CNA) or Child Development Associate (CDA).

These professions, while not as math- or reading-intensive as some others, are in high demand and play a critical role in our communities. It's important to consider the potential economic impact of such a change, as it could have far-reaching consequences on individuals' livelihoods and the overall workforce landscape.

You know what could have a far reaching impact? Actually working on getting kids proficiency levels up.

I think pretty much every teacher, principal, superintendent, etc. works on improving proficiency on almost a daily basis. In fact, I believe the Helena School district (and many others in the state) has recently pivoted to a proficiency based learning model.

I also think there's some good data out there that suggest schools actually focus too much on proficiency tests, and not enough time on creativity, imagination, innovation, mental health, etc.

With technology, drugs, absent parents, etc. Today's world is a heck of a lot different than when I was in school. Speaking of that....I don't think I had to take proficiency exams back in those days.

Don’t get me wrong. I am not a proponent of proficiency tests. However, the actions in Oregon are an example of what our leaders are working on. Eliminating proficiency tests are not a solution to the underlying issue of providing better education to our kids. I had offered an article earlier about the city of Baltimore. Not one kid in 13 schools tested proficient in math. NOT ONE KID. That is a huge failure. Can you say math teachers in those schools are doing a good job? Shouldn’t those teachers be held accountable for this failure? Instead, those same teachers will be back next year generating the same results. That is a sad situation.

First of all....good discussion.

Not one kid in 13 schools tested proficient in math. NOT ONE KID. That is a huge failure.
-Agree

Can you say math teachers in those schools are doing a good job?
-I can't say they are doing a good job, but I also don't know that all teachers are doing a bad job. Too many other variables. Could a rock star math teacher from the Bozeman school district move to Baltimore and have similar failing results? Probably. Could a Baltimore math teacher move to Bozeman and Thrive? Possibly.

Instead, those same teachers will be back next year generating the same results.
-It sounds like those teachers are in a system and culture set up to fail. I'm not sure what the solution is aside from blow it all up and start from scratch.

Agree on good discussion!! And you bring up some very good points. But it all starts with leadership. Right now, too many districts don’t have that leadership.

What is even more troubling is that Baltimore has been here before. This is not the first time that their educational system has come under scrutiny. The system there is clearly not working.

[The Butcher]

I understand the rationale behind considering the removal of reading and math proficiency requirements. It's essential to acknowledge that individuals without a high school degree often face a higher likelihood of living in poverty and relying on state assistance. Additionally, lacking a high school diploma can be a barrier to pursuing a two-year degree, as well as entry-level roles such as Certified Nursing Assistant (CNA) or Child Development Associate (CDA).

These professions, while not as math- or reading-intensive as some others, are in high demand and play a critical role in our communities. It's important to consider the potential economic impact of such a change, as it could have far-reaching consequences on individuals' livelihoods and the overall workforce landscape.

Since schools don't have a responsibility to educate students, would you be in favor of ending high school at age 16 (or even earlier) so kids can get an earlier start on a two-year degree? I guess we'd have to find something for all the teachers to do but maybe they could teach at those colleges.

Did you read the article?

Great response.

I don’t think Butcher read the article. I cannot comprehend what point he was trying to make.

I understand his point and was taking it to it's logical conclusion.

A HS degree is essentially the first barrier to any job above minimum wage. One way to lift people up, especially those from less than well off backgrounds, is to open the door to opportunities that they otherwise wouldn't be eligible for. By essentially guaranteeing a high school diploma, you give them a chance to pursue a further degree which, in theory, would set them up for a more financially secure/productive future. There are two ways to do this: 1) provide them with the skills to be proficient in the tools necessary for success beyond high school; or 2) give them a piece of paper that says they are eligible for the next step in the assembly line. My question was, if you've decided to go with 2) then why make them wait until they're 18? I even provided a solution to one of the barriers.

Exactly. Your question was clear and well stated. His response was more a wise ass retort instead of actually providing a reasoned response.

I value your perspective on my comment. I would like to emphasize the importance of embracing a diversity of viewpoints and remaining responsive to evolving communities, demographics, and societal dynamics. Embracing new ways of thinking can foster more positive outcomes and better align with the changing needs of our youth and community as a whole. It's worth noting that as the next generations assume more prominent roles in public positions, we are witnessing a gradual shift from traditional thinking of the "boomer era" to innovative ideas and actions that aim to better serve the communities they represent.

[Cledus]

Open enrollment has historically been the excuse for poor results but Montana's policy isn't unique and other states have better outcomes.

I've ranted about the Schooling Industrial Complex, of which universities are only one part, many times so I won't go any further down that rabbit hole. But I'll just say that high enrollment in a vacuum is not something to celebrate.

Yep. Far too many kids are shamed into attending college. Shame on our elitist educators...

Not just elitist educators, but a lot of people who don't apply any critical thought to something that's been beaten into their skulls for years. I have a brother who flipped his s**t when I told one of his sons you don't need to go college to earn a good living.

...and who - pray tell - beat that thought into their skulls? Yep.

Yeah. Those damn teachers with their $40,000/year salaries and their second jobs they work to pay rent. So elitist.

I do several hundred tax returns a year and teachers make significantly more than $40k per year. Even if a teacher was at $40k per year, that’s only for nine months, so it’s an equivalent $53k annualized.

[wbtfg]

Open enrollment has historically been the excuse for poor results but Montana's policy isn't unique and other states have better outcomes.

I've ranted about the Schooling Industrial Complex, of which universities are only one part, many times so I won't go any further down that rabbit hole. But I'll just say that high enrollment in a vacuum is not something to celebrate.

Yep. Far too many kids are shamed into attending college. Shame on our elitist educators...

Not just elitist educators, but a lot of people who don't apply any critical thought to something that's been beaten into their skulls for years. I have a brother who flipped his s**t when I told one of his sons you don't need to go college to earn a good living.

...and who - pray tell - beat that thought into their skulls? Yep.

Yeah. Those damn teachers with their $40,000/year salaries and their second jobs they work to pay rent. So elitist.

I do several hundred tax returns a year and teachers make significantly more than $40k per year. Even if a teacher was at $40k per year, that’s only for nine months, so it’s an equivalent $53k annualized.

Maybe in the more metro areas.

I randomly googled Twin Bridges and here's what I found. I'd bet a lot of other montana school districts are in the same boat.

School District 7 - Twin Bridges Salaries
Highest salary at School District 7 - Twin Bridges in year 2018 was $42,063. Number of employees at School District 7 - Twin Bridges in year 2018 was 18. Average annual salary was $19,206 and median salary was $15,166. School District 7 - Twin Bridges average salary is 59 percent lower than USA average and median salary is 65 percent lower than USA median.

[nevadacat]

I understand the rationale behind considering the removal of reading and math proficiency requirements. It's essential to acknowledge that individuals without a high school degree often face a higher likelihood of living in poverty and relying on state assistance. Additionally, lacking a high school diploma can be a barrier to pursuing a two-year degree, as well as entry-level roles such as Certified Nursing Assistant (CNA) or Child Development Associate (CDA).

These professions, while not as math- or reading-intensive as some others, are in high demand and play a critical role in our communities. It's important to consider the potential economic impact of such a change, as it could have far-reaching consequences on individuals' livelihoods and the overall workforce landscape.

You know what could have a far reaching impact? Actually working on getting kids proficiency levels up.

I think pretty much every teacher, principal, superintendent, etc. works on improving proficiency on almost a daily basis. In fact, I believe the Helena School district (and many others in the state) has recently pivoted to a proficiency based learning model.

I also think there's some good data out there that suggest schools actually focus too much on proficiency tests, and not enough time on creativity, imagination, innovation, mental health, etc.

With technology, drugs, absent parents, etc. Today's world is a heck of a lot different than when I was in school. Speaking of that....I don't think I had to take proficiency exams back in those days.

Don’t get me wrong. I am not a proponent of proficiency tests. However, the actions in Oregon are an example of what our leaders are working on. Eliminating proficiency tests are not a solution to the underlying issue of providing better education to our kids. I had offered an article earlier about the city of Baltimore. Not one kid in 13 schools tested proficient in math. NOT ONE KID. That is a huge failure. Can you say math teachers in those schools are doing a good job? Shouldn’t those teachers be held accountable for this failure? Instead, those same teachers will be back next year generating the same results. That is a sad situation.

First of all....good discussion.

Not one kid in 13 schools tested proficient in math. NOT ONE KID. That is a huge failure.
-Agree

Can you say math teachers in those schools are doing a good job?
-I can't say they are doing a good job, but I also don't know that all teachers are doing a bad job. Too many other variables. Could a rock star math teacher from the Bozeman school district move to Baltimore and have similar failing results? Probably. Could a Baltimore math teacher move to Bozeman and Thrive? Possibly.

Instead, those same teachers will be back next year generating the same results.
-It sounds like those teachers are in a system and culture set up to fail. I'm not sure what the solution is aside from blow it all up and start from scratch.

Your word “culture” pretty much sums it up. It needs to be a culture of discipline. Learning cannot thrive amidst chaos, and systems that lack discipline do not foster learning. I agree with your point that a mediocre teacher will have a better chance of getting the job done in Bozeman than a rock star teacher will in Baltimore.

No discipline = no learning. It’s not complicated.

[DMMDCats]

Boomer era thinking?

Ya, great discussion.