For me, school was fun because of the learning.
I'm sure I was in the minority then, too.

isn't learning fun? . now, if I could just figure out how
gravity waves work ....... ! -- j

My take is that teachers' unions are the problem, and the main solution is to privatize the schools, or at least create vouchers.

I'm also in favor of homeschooling, if the parents can afford to do it. It would have solved my own issues with the bullies.

But it seems to me that finding a source of instruction is the easiest part of the problem. I would be surprised if there isn't soon a complete "school on the web" for those who can learn that way (including adults who never finished high school and want to). Then the problem is to motivate kids to learn. Offering them the "carrot" of early adult rights upon graduating ought to do the trick for those who care about their futures.

For the unmotivated, I would be inclined to let them go work a low-wage job and live on their own for a year or two. Then see if they want to continue that or would rather resume their education. (This choice is one the parents, not the state, ought to offer, but the state should not stand in the way of it.)

But I don't support forcing kids to go to school, because I don't think it works. If a kid doesn't want to be there, his attitude will keep him from learning much.

child abuse, all of it! -- j

In some states if you don't take all the medical steps recommended by the school to treat your kid's "behavior problems" you'll end up with all sorts of grief. At the very least DCF will show up at your house. Sometimes they'll leave with your kids in tow and then you have an expensive nightmare fighting a system that's rigged against parents to get your kids back. Imagine the trauma, even if they're treated like royalty it's a permanent shock to their psyches.

I hope your friend finds a way to home school them.

Kind of. I say that I don't believe in teaching more because of observing the definition than anything else: somebody standing up at the front of the room, a bunch of people sitting in the back of the room; 1 person talking and a few people listening; no connection between the material and the life, experiences, beliefs, thoughts - or anything - of the students and, usually, the teachers.
It sounds like you had some good experiences in learning, though.
Sometimes the environment and materials are in the control of the teacher, and sometimes they're not. It depends. Certainly, if you want to teach a group of people that 3 of them consistently bully the others into going along with their plans for projects, and that relying on 3 people for all the answers is a stop on the path to...well...dumb, you give them an exercise in which they have a problem to solve, together - like forming 50 feet of rope into a square on the ground. You give them the rope, you blindfold them, and you use your magical powers to strike 2 of the 3 voiceless. Up to that point, you have controlled everything. Oh, you also tell them that there is no time limit on the task. Then, having given up control completely, you sit in a comfortable chair and watch what happens. You can also pull one of the bullies out of the group and let him watch but not participate - makes 'em crazy! They learn stuff - sometimes what you hoped they would, sometimes not.

Another example, just because it's so fun: a group has to count from 1 to the number of people in the group. Each person can only say one number. If 2 or more people say the same number, they have to start over. Sometimes you have to make a rule that they can't say anything but the numbers, because you can get people who will appoint a leader and count as she directs. I had tight groups of 20 people who could do it, the second time, as fast as they could say the numbers. I had top-down-managed groups who could never do it - the managers HAD to control something.

But as usual, I digress. I think the "bones" of learning are managed by the teachers: the stuff you have to know how to do, like math, and reading, and researching, and writing, and drawing, and public speaking. But the teacher and the student, together, decide on what subjects and in what ways the learning will be accomplished. Say you want to learn about architecture. teacher: OK, please write me a paragraph that tells me everything you know about the subject. student: can I just tell you instead? teacher: sure [note to self: this kid may have some problem with writing - check that] teacher reads the paragraph and asks where do you want to go next? student: 10 of 736 possible things to know about how architecture works, its history, how you design a building, what kind of math do you have to know, what kind of drawing do you do, and can you do it on a computer, what's different and the same about all of Wright's homes, what do modern architects think about Wright? Does anybody design like he did?
You see the pathways. The job of the teacher is to make sure, as she and the student plan this learning, that the student also doesn't always play to her strengths, that she considers all the "subjects" around architecture: art, math, history, the environment, research, interviewing and finally, presenting the learning to other people. It's more a dance than one person controlling it - the student searches out the knowledge she wants to know, and the teacher acts as a guide, sometimes, and a stone wall sometime: as the student is leaving the room to go to the store room to get posterboard, the teacher asks why? and then might say, no, you cannot produce another poster about Fallingwater. You've done one every year for 3 years, and you need to do something else about Fallingwater. What's it going to be? No answer in 20 minutes? teacher: OK, make yourself a list of every parent in this school who is in any way involved with Architecture. time for a field trip. and yes, you can take one student on a field trip - but there are probably 3 or 4 more in the school who might benefit from the trip you plan, so you take them to. And your student will come back, practically DEMANDING to do an illustrated paper on Prairie Style Architecture and why it's called that and all the ways it has changed over the last 25 years. Your job is to then get out of the way.

The minute a teacher decides that ALL students WILL learn THIS [the life cycle of the sandhill crane, for ex.] that is the teacher being in charge, starting it, and directing it. For every kid. BOR-ING!

I could go on about this for more hours than this, but I hoped I answered your question. If not, ask it again, in a slightly different way, and I'll try it again. ;)

stdi1947 - My question was hoping for a deeper meaning.
I think that people will age, from 13 to 18 to 20 knowing some of what other people know, and some of what they don't.
People who get a driver's license "know" the answers to the questions on the test, and they're pretty much the same everywhere. It provides a common body of knowledge so that we know what to expect from other drivers [in the best possible conditions].
What specific knowledge does ANYOE need to have to progress from one level of school to another? I don't mean the "knowledge" that the state says they should know, what should they know?
Well, it depends. It depends on their abilities, their interests, their life plans AND whatever is required by the state.
The Common Core debate began when somebody said "all 5th-graders should know....x." Very few people asked why, they just agreed with the premise and began to try to figure out 1) what THEY thought a 5th grader should know and 2) how they could benefit from this system.
I hold that there IS no specific knowledge EVERY 5th-grader should know. I believe that there are certain skills that people should acquire to function in society, and one way to help them learn how is to "piggyback" on their own interests and abilities. A kid who's interested in baseball, for example, can learn reading, writing, researching [computers? books? good info v. wrong?], math, history and a whole bunch of other things. If you try to force those lessons down the boy next to her, who doesn't give a *** about baseball but is absolutely wild about racecars, everyone will lose: time, energy, interest in learning, etc.
So this whole "5th graders should know x" nonsense is just, and only, that.
Teach all the kids how do find out things, and they can use THOSE skills to find out anything they want. Your example of cutting mounting holes for a wheel is poor because people are not inanimate objects which must all function the same. They are animate objects which should all function as well as they possibly can. Nobel laureates, for example, have very specialized knowledge - often to the point that almost no one can understand what another has figured out. All of the information gained in going after a Nobel, however, is valuable to the human race.
Trying to make humans into wheels will only make sure that we can fill the round holes that appear in the search for knowledge - not the square, the triangular, the dodecahedral, and the imaginary.
and I asked when you last took a standardized test just our of curiosity. Students are being taught a skill which they will rarely use when they are adults. why?

now, please examine how CC drifts over into silly
and destructive, by teaching how kids' minds should
work like the creators' -- groups of 10 and human-
caused global climate change, for example.
we have seen examples of this ticky-tacky pigeonholing
of kids' minds which are egregious, if not cruel. -- j

p.s. I have 3 degrees::: bsme, msie, mba, and taught
NMA's certified manager course -- http://www.icpm.biz --
for years.