The application process is one of those interesting ones. I completely agree that having a different ruleset but same grading process is completely wrong, but I think that says more about having involvement from too high of a governmental level.
Personally, I think our best option would be to do away with the notion of age-based grades. Make progression based on competency (at least for the core curricula), so if you are highly competent in math, you may be with students several years older than you but if your writing stinks, you may be with younger kids. Instead of trying to force kids into a mold that very few fit comfortably in, let them grow in their own ways.
I would love to have my kids attend a school like that. My daughter, who is a gifted writer and artist but struggles non-stop with math (and there are physiological reasons for that) would be able to be comfortable in school and, as a result, better able to focus on her strengths instead of trying to shore up weaknesses that only matter for testing programs.
If the charter system allows more experimentation, then that alone justifies its existence; but the transition of more than 100 years of "prepare them for the factory" type of education to "prepare them for knowledge work" will not painful, especially since we still need some of the "prepare them for the factory" and many more "prepare them for a trade".
Personally, I think our best option would be to do away with the notion of age-based grades.
Agreed.
I've been chewing on two ideas.
Assess student achievement with actual achievements. Just like achievement badges in the Boy Scouts. My son is an Eagle Scout. After meeting the minimum requirements, and completing his project, he was able to assemble whatever achievements tickled his fancy. Promotes self direction and working at one's own rate.
Have students teach each other, work more collaboratively, grade each other. Versus lectures, rote memorization, and testing. I've experienced this first hand (as the student). Peer pressure and expectations work wonders. Hardest, most rewarding 'A' grade I ever earned. (I was otherwise a terrible student.)
Alas, to date, there's very little research on these two reforms. Some places have tried the achievement system, results inconclusive. I haven't looked to see if the peer support system has been tried else where.
Personally, I think our best option would be to do away with the notion of age-based grades. Make progression based on competency (at least for the core curricula), so if you are highly competent in math, you may be with students several years older than you but if your writing stinks, you may be with younger kids. Instead of trying to force kids into a mold that very few fit comfortably in, let them grow in their own ways.
I would love to have my kids attend a school like that. My daughter, who is a gifted writer and artist but struggles non-stop with math (and there are physiological reasons for that) would be able to be comfortable in school and, as a result, better able to focus on her strengths instead of trying to shore up weaknesses that only matter for testing programs.
If the charter system allows more experimentation, then that alone justifies its existence; but the transition of more than 100 years of "prepare them for the factory" type of education to "prepare them for knowledge work" will not painful, especially since we still need some of the "prepare them for the factory" and many more "prepare them for a trade".