1.The system must be pleasant to both teachers and students.2. The system must produce the "forces of Change" not just graduates who respond readily to market demands, without questioning. 3.The system must teach the learners how to "learn" not just how to pass exams 4.The existing systems date back to the industrial revolution ,i.e. batch production.To-day with Internet, etc, there is no reason for two 14-year old to go to the same class.5 . Continuous assessment. No more written exams, only a few over the Internet. 6. Public systems free of charge 7. Humans are not only brain "learners" . They also have ethical, emotional, social, athletic, artistic ,intellectual skills.The system must care for ALL of them.

I like the seven point plan laid out above. I would also suggest that all teachers, governors and administrators are required to read Ivan Illich's Deschooling Society. It's an old text now (1971) but his ideas are transferable to the internet generation. I would also ask each teacher at interview one key question, "What is education for?" Their answer to this question will tell you a lot about them and would allow you to reject those who simple see education as preparation for work. Education needs to relevant to learners both now and in the future.

1) Education System should aim to give knowledge, not grades and marks

2) Same pattern of evaluation is not compulsory for the same class as the students’ knowledge level may vary. That is, there should be groups in the level of grasping power.

3) Allow student to express his knowledge level with practical examples

4) Encourage the student to connect the theory with application always. It should be compulsory from grade 1.

Today's young generation is much more smarter and intelligent.

they can understand and operate all complicated gadgets by themselves !!!

Now , what system is there in gadgets which they learn by themselves ???

and imagine if same is to be taught to them !!!

i believe, teaching methodology should be devised which should encourage

SELF LEARNING - this will resolve both " LEARNING " and " PASSING EXAMS"

because he has understood -WHY, WHEN and HOW.

I agree that the Education system should aim to truly give knowledge and not just condition learners how to pass an exam and get a certificate.

There must also be standardization of the coursework, curriculum and assessments, while ensuring that the information shared within the system is current and relative to the learners own needs and environment.

Overall, an education system that produces individuals who regurgitate textbook definitions without truly teaching them how to practically use that theory in real life context, is simply put, a failed system.

There is much confusion over the difference between equal and equitable. Much of the distinction has been lost in many urban school districts in the United States.

To get a good idea of how "equitable practices" are being implemented in these districts, I would advise reading a very short story by the late Kurt Vonnegut Jr called "Harrison Bergeron". It is a satirical story about a dystopian future society. Unfortunately with our educational system's over-reliance of standardized test scores to validate it's effectiveness, I see it moving closer and closer to an analogous educational version of the government policies implemented in the story.

Just food for thought.

Frederick

Education should lead all learners to a point of self-actualization. if the system does otherwise, then it has not been successful. The system should be geared at bringing out potential in the students in such a way as to enable them to lead healthy and fulfilled lives, and not stratifying society or reproducing inequalities as the case is today allover the world.

I agree that the goal of self-actualisation is important but we must remember that some individuals may never reach this point. Children (and adults) living in poverty and fear need to have an education system that is flexible enough to meet their specific needs. It seems unlikely that an education system that ignores the emotional, behavioural and social needs of individuals could ever be 'successful'.

I agree that we need to have a universal education system that is flexible and adaptable to accommodate the specific NEEDS of the specific community it is operating within. However, we need to first define and acknowledge the difference between NEEDS and WANTS.

The causes and proliferation of poverty and fear within the different communities around the world are very complex. Colonization, exploitation, racism, sexism, cronyism, nepotism, corrupt bureaucracies, etc.....all contribute to the continuation of poverty and fear. These issues must be taken into account when planning educational reform.

Yet, we cannot discount the human power of will, responsibility, accountability, ethical behavior, effort and determination that exist independent of power or money. I would even surmise that, with the exception of willpower and determination, the other virtues are practically absent in the upper 10% of the socioeconomic stratification in the USA. I cannot speak upon the upper class of other countries.

Why do I bring that up? Again, from a perspective of experience, I can only speak about the public educational system in the US. I bring this up, because I would like people to understand that those virtues that I mentioned have the potential to exist in all, independent of socioeconomic stratification, ethnicity, gender, sexual identification, and religious affiliation.

When planning or designing this ideal educational system, please understand that maintaining high standards for effort, ethics, morality, behavior and responsibility must be maintained for families and students no matter what their background it. The same must be true for our teachers and administrators.

The question then becomes how do we evaluate such as system as to it's effectiveness to serve the need of it's particular community? Standardized test? Longitudinal studies?

In reading many books on education reform, I constantly read the word "SHOULD". An educational system SHOULD do this, Teachers SHOULD do this, instructional strategies SHOULD include this.....ect...... Yes, we should have high ideals as to what an ideal educational system must do. However, while our heads (and hearts) are in the sky dreaming of this educational utopia, we need to have a concrete understanding what we have and what we can realistically do with the available resources in a particular system.

As pessimistic as this sounds, no system is 100% efficient nor can it be as long as humans are apart of the system. In the United States our "leaders" and "educational reformers" are obsessed with taking our lowest performing students to the level of our higher performing students. Yes, the goals and ideals are noble in theory, but disastrous in it's implementation. As educators we don't see our students as statistics nor as test scores. We see our students as our future, as dreams yet fulfilled, as potential leaders and creators, as individuals who feel, think, dream, ponder, love, hate, despair and hope. Yet, we cannot "save" those who will not allowed themselves to be "saved".

Just food for thought.

Relevant and sensitive are key terms. The main value of such measures is for the teacher and learner so that they can construct the next most effective learning event for the student. Any other purpose should be regarded as value adding, ie useful but not critical. Those beyond the learner and teacher do not truly need to know anything about their progress.

Obviously I understand that parents, employers, administrators WANT to know how students are progressing but from an educational perspective it is only critical for the two players in the learning/teaching process.

SO focus on assessment FOR learning and make the other uses for assessment (ie of learning) a secondary or even tertiary purpose.

In a broader sense, I see the question in terms of Sir Ken Robinson's factory vs agricultural model. The former treats learners as "raw materials" to be churned out into products (which go through a lot of testing to check if they meet standards). The latter treats learners as seeds we nurture, considering each learner's potential (biological, cognitive, or otherwise) and optimal conditions for learning. Some need to start out in a nursery before being transplanted outdoors while others can grow even when neglected.

But unlike plants which are passive and adaptive, students are also responsible for their own learning. I see an equitable and effective education system as one that will enable learners to "flourish" as Martin Seligman would describe it.

I would also suggest Mel Levine's book Ready or Not, Here Life Comes.

All of these points are pertinent, but ingredients in this recipe which are missing included;

(1) Good and/or motivating role models in school and invited in to visit, motivate, or coach students are important to reaching out to each student as an individual as a team.

(2) Helping students to succeed in both individual and team situations from an early age are essential talents to cultivate. We can provide the tools, but the social skills required in a variety of social settings to solve problems and overcome hurdles come from working with others or with a coach/mentor.

(3) Tool chests of any type offered by schools must mean more than showing--a lot of doing must be daily fair. e.g. Failure and how to handle it must be part of the system.

Finally, students coming from particularly negative social milieus must have a sense of safety in school--and perhaps extending school hours or extending school role into the community are needed often.

Enjoyable reading of all the comments with valid interests. The evidence is clear of a greater return on the investment of energy with students who are higher achievers despite our emphasis on underachievers , but beyond this focus (measuring of performance and academic achievement) is the decline of student motivation to learn. Makes you wonder why there is no interest in understanding why the decline in student motivation is significantly correlated to "our system being obsessed with taking our lowest performing students to the level of our higher performing" as stated by Frederick.

What is equitable(?),...that we all share the same knowledge at graduation or that we all have equal opportunity to advance at out own speed? Regardless of popular opinion, we must have winners and losers if motivation is to be maintained. If we honestly wanted an equitable system that focused on what is best for the student, simply help them with motivation to learn. Can you imagine what would happen if we stopped requiring kids to attend public school. After a short time of celebrating their rebellious victory, they would soon realize that without school, they lose. Motivation to achieve success in reaching life goals would bring many back with a great desire to succeed and a willingness to pay the price.

It is not what we do, it comes down to why we do it.

David and Kevin's responses both spoke to the issue of motivation, which I believe is the key issue. I question, however David's assertion that motivation requires winners and losers. In fact my 30 years' experience in lower performing schools suggests that the opposite may be true. Yes! Students who are competitive prefer competition and thrive in that environment. I would question though the number of students who are truly competitive. Again in my experience, the majority are NOT competitive especially when they realise they can't compete. In other words, after a number of years of schooling and they realise that no matter how hard they try, they will never be best, or even very good in schooling terms. It is exactly the issue of motivation, linked to resilience in the school setting, that I think is the source of inequity. The system in its current form places excessive focus on competition, which demotivates the majority of students, especially those who need the education the most. So, to equity. i find it hard to believe that people still believe that equity means equality of outcomes. Equity means equal access to the possibility of equal outcomes. For this to happen, the system has to ensure that it does not inadvertantly reduce access to the possibility of success in any form but most especially by positioning some students to believe they can't succeed. Western systems generally do a good job of ensuring equity of resources, time etc but i am of the belief that we need to reimagine a system that focusses students on 'doing a good job' rather than being best. 'Best' is just the natural consequence of doing a good job better than anyone else, but everyone else still focusses on doing a good job and getting the credit for that. I have seen this in action and know it is possible.

Mark,

From my point of view this strand has not touched on the issue of equitable. Mark points to the fact that students come in with a deficit but we just gloss over that issue. In the designing of an equitable curriculum this issue must be front and centered. Please stop now I have heard all the arguments regarding it's not fair to the other students, it's not right...... BLAH BLAH BLAH.

The fact is to really address the issue of equity those who have been living in privilege will have to give up and back some of those. STOP I have heard all those arguments also, well "I was not there" or "that was so long ago" or why should I have to pay for what my grandfather did" BLAH BLAH BLAH

Here in the U.S. when I speak on this topic it is well received, but when I ask what are you willing to give up heads drop down, all of a sudden bathroom time, mass texting begins ect. If we are truly serious about equity then let's talk about equity and stop beating around the bush. 

To begin, Mark you point out about the young coming into school with a deficit, well is that front and center in Australian curricular designing? Is the social issues that have and if your beautiful country is anything like mine still going on to oppress others? Is the current distribution of power, natural resources, wealth, healthcare, quality food, shelter, clothing, and child care are they in the curriculum for secondary education and higher ed. or is still the old "boot strap argument"? Are issues of race, gender, political, economics, and social theory in Australian curricula? Is the history of oppression by who and on whom in schools, what about the conquest and colonization of the land? I could go on but my point is made.

To answer your question directly the key characteristics on an equitable educational system is first stop what is currently going on. 2) the issues above must be front and center, if the current generation is not willing then maybe the children are. 3) no tracking. 4) no categories of high, medium ,and low achievers it's a false system and oppressive. 5) all students coming into the system stay together throughout K-12, quicker learners help, and there is  no more times up we are moving on until the entire class is finished. 6) No multiple choice testes all essay's graded on quality of argument not punctuation and verb choice. 7) issues like the question posed must be in the curriculum, philosophical questions like what is a just society, what is a just legal system ect. 8) The curriculum must start and end with humanism not economics. 9) shared responsibility, and environmental issues and energy issues included. 10) textbooks need to be NOT written by the colonizers but those who have been colonized.

This is just a start but if we are truly serious about equity then this is what it looks like. I must admit however, people in the U.S. are nowhere near this point most live in the illusion of opportunity, equality, and social justice never thinking what that means. Most do not look into their family history to understand how past injustices have lead to the life of privilege they leave and if they do the old well I didn't do it argument comes full force. Talking about equity is no small matter, so most say Hey Sorry, but Get Over It we are going for equality now like the past can just be erased as the child erases a spelling mistake on a piece of paper.

Last, the equal pay argument demonstrates my point. Simply put its a red hearing, the closing of the wealth gap is the real issue!

Peace

Douglas