Forget learning math, science, machine shop, or anything "boring" like that. Now, you can go to high school and sit around drumming on your guitar! This is great because 1)kids don't waste enough time and money playing guitar and mopping around and 2)the economy is expected to have a huge shortage of people with guitar and video game skills which are already in record high demand.

"This new class is creating excitement and for students to come to school everyday excited about a course they're taking? That's awesome. That's what it's all about," says teacher Brandon Rockstroh.

Yup, Rockstroh hit the nail on the head. We want kids to be excited, not to learn. I'm probably going to join his class, as soon as he models one after Assassin's Creed.

http://www.wkow.com/Global/story.asp?S=13327697

Kind of reminds me of a news story I read in 2001 or so when select schools introduced DDR into their gym class cirriculum.

If kids spend that much time mopping, I've got a bathroom they can help with.

That's not a very in-depth article but all indications are that the class's focus is on learning real instruments, and the teacher is trying to increase its appeal by linking into student interest in Guitar Hero.

It's a normal music class that uses something that's popular with students to increase interest.  What's so wrong with that?

For sure, when I think about what's wrong with kids these days, the image that comes to mind is of layabouts skipping school, loitering on the street, and menacing passersby with obscene guitar riffs.

Seriously, WTF?

Do you really believe that there's no place for arts education in schools?  Even if you feel that math and science education is deficient, it does not follow that subjects other than math and science should be quashed.  It's especially peculiar, I think, that you would express a pejorative attitude towards music education on a site whose subject matter is music.

I'm sorry, but I'm inclined to agree with avatar on this one outside that fact kids are actually picking up real guitars in their free time. You can say it's for "musical education/inspiration" or whatever phrase you want to justify it, I just don't buy it....

I actually know many musicians that actually hate Guitar Hero/Rock Band, and quite honestly, I can see why.

This musician loves Rock Band, and thinks the class is a great idea.

I think anything that would increase kids excitement about learning and being able to transition that excitement in the right environment and properly focused (i.e. in this case school and music class) is a benefit.  And if they're trying out real instruments too at the same time, I'd say that's a plus.  School's probably already tough enough as it is.

It is true, the article is very short and does not go into detail, but I base my opinion on what I've read so far. First, there's nothing wrong with learning music, which is why most high schools have music classes and also offer orchestra, band, etc. I was in orchestra all throughout high school and it was important. I'm willing to bet money that this high school in Madison already has quite a few music classes. Now, if you read the news, you realize that thousands of teachers all across the US are getting laid off because schools do not have enough money. The economy is in shambles, and nearly everyone says kids need to learn important skills such as science, math, programming, etc. No one says that English and the arts are not important, however the difference between kids understanding basic math and understanding basic English is huge. Furthermore, if people want to sit back and strum on their guitar, more power to them. But to receive high school credit for that?? How about receiving high school credit for learning how to play video games better? I feel that both skills are equally useful...

Well, I guess I always thought school was a place where people go to learn and challenge themselves. It seems to me that high schools these days cater to the lowest denominator of a student. There seems to be this notion of "everyone has to graduate"... but why?  If some students are not yet ready to graduate, shouldn't they be held back? Shouldn't a high school diploma mean something? However, it seems to me that many high schools hold back talented students because they have to cater to below-average students. So, classes are often dumbed-down. Other classes are cut, and the environment is not as conducive to learning as it should be. Anyway, this is the message I've gotten from a number of students. I'm in grad school, so I hear these things from my students (who recently graduated and attended public school, the response is very different from students who went to private school), who consequently do tend to be honor students and in the top of their class. Anyway, that's my personal opinion!

Consider also the range of music selections that the Rock Band/Guitar Hero games have. They span a lot of decades and act as good exposure to stuff outside of a lot of modern bands that would be the kid's primary exposure to rock music.

Unfortunately, college and high school are structured the same way and have the same amount of crippling flaws that limits their usefulness and it starts at the personnel level. While high school is filled with underachieving teachers that are counting the days to collecting their retirement benefits and enjoying their 2-3 months of summer off, college is filled with professors that are interested in playing games with student's grades, obtaining grants, peddling their books and structuring classes in ways that pushes their own ideas to the forefront at the expense of actual knowledge (in other words, they're interested in hearing themselves talk and what better audience than a group of students who are paying top dollar to attend the college?). Believe me, I have nothing good to say about the majority of college professors I've had and I've found self-study much more rewarding...no ass-kissing, no grading shennanigans, no wind-bagged lectures, MUCH cheaper and much better focus on the topics I actually set out to learn about: No prereq or entrance exam bullshit and if I don't like a book, I can toss it aside and find a better one.

When you stop and think about it, both have an identical flaw: The bloated curriculum that dictates which classes are necessary before receiving a diploma/degree, forcing students to take extra classes that cost an arm and a leg (in both time and money) and do basically nothing to help them out. Highschool is almost necessary to fill enough time for 4 years, so I can understand that. At the masters/graduate level, I also believe it is more focused on classes that pertain to the actual program, but incoming freshmen and anyone starting out in a program has to go through hell before they get to anything that resembles a focused program. And let's also not forget...With all these eggheads running the show, they still can't figure out a suitable system for transferring credits, usually forcing students to retake equivalent courses at new schools. At age 29 and a combined 7 years of college with little to show for it except a rather large bill, I haven't enjoyed playing these games at all.

My personal opinion on that matter.

Actually one of the biggest problems facing kids these days (especially in my area) is not being able to read at a sufficiently level to get through more complicated things.  If you can't understand a math problem on the page, then you're not going to have a prayer of understanding it.  And reading is, uh, mostly an English skill.  So is writing... which is why there's been a greater push toward writing across all disciplines (again, at least in the area where I am).  I know that I'm avoiding the issue of the guitar hero class or whatever, but I kind of feel like jumping in and pointing out that ALL subject areas work together and relate to each other in ways that make for better, more well-rounded students.

While I totally get that there are some high school teachers out there like this, they are few and far between in the districts in which I've worked.  If your opinion is shared by a lot of people, it would explain why parents feel entitled to believe everything their kids say to get out of trouble for what they've done at school and blame the teachers for everything.  No wonder we get absolutely no respect in this country anymore. 

Well, my problem with high school teachers seems to be that grading was more of a way of rewarding people that were more active learners (as well as people that did stuff like getting the projectors and stuff...you know, teacher's pets). For me, I usually did well in classes on tests and everyday problems, but I was always quiet in class. My grades usually topped out in the B range and I never fully understood why or how it was possible to have people getting all A's. The ones I got A's in were usually ones where I communicated with the teacher after class on stuff and actually was active. Granted, high school grades mean zero in real life, but I can't help but wonder if I would have had an easier time if my "real" GPA matched the GPA I ended up with.

That's one thing I think college clearly has an advantage over high school...it feels like grading is much more defined in that shorter timeframe of classes (ala the syllabus). I actually had professors say, "if you're on the brink of a B or a C, and I know you, you get the higher grade...if not you get the lower grade".

And you know what? It's exactly how things are at work too. If you kiss ass, you're a good worker (regardless of how well you do your job). If you do your job well but don't kiss ass, there's always a lingering problem with you (and you're in trouble if you don't CYA).

Sorry, I'm not trying to incite anyone here, but this has been a lifelong lesson that people would be wise to learn for their GPA/job's sake.

And see, I find that the opposite tends to be true.  It's FAR easier to get away with grading on personal feelings and people who "kiss ass" at the college level because you're not being held accountable in the same way that high school teachers (at least these days) are.  I wouldn't be caught dead not having a VERY explicit and well-detailed plan laying out EXACTLY why my students' grades are what they are.  There are expectations set for the work and point values given to certain things and I grade based on those things.  Seriously... if a teacher is running a classroom and grading on things like "effort" and "participation" these days and doesn't have a clear set of standards for what that means, it feels like a law suit waiting to happen. 

I don't give a crap how much I like or dislike a student.  I know that sounds kind of cold, but I'm not assigning grades based on that.  I'm assigning them grades based on their proficiency in specific skills that the state says they must achieve.  And honestly it's the same with my colleagues.  Now that said, it should also be noted that I work in a district that has a lot of strong teachers and has been showing academic improvement recently.  I'm sure things may be different in the failing schools in my state (you know, the ones that our horrible governor is basing his opinion of all of us on... but that's another story entirely).

First off, I have to agree with Joe. I study/teach/research in astrophysics, so hard science is what I enjoy. That being said, and this may come as a surprise to some, you have to be very good in English to get ahead in science. Why? because you absolutely must be able to communicate what you're doing in a clear and concise way. When you publish a paper it goes through a few referees, and if your English is bad, they simply will not publish it. Even if your science is solid, you have to be able to communicate. That being said, in a number of introductory courses (mostly astronomy), if students don't do well, we sometimes let them get "extra credit" by writing a paper. It is always astrounding how poor their English is. Seriously! you got into a top college, you should have some proficiency in both math and basic English. Some of their writing is simply atrocious... so I do have a lot of respect of Joe and other high school teachers across this country. I really do agree that they deserve more respect, not to mention better salaries.

In terms of grades at the college level, that varies by subject. In the sciences students get graded on their work. There's a clear "correct answer and methodology" and a clear "incorrect answer and methodology" and each student gets a grade based on how they did. There is little room for bias. Now, some of my friends who have to grade papers (English and humanities) have it tougher I think. They have to make a judgment call, and be as consistent as possible. I don't envy them, and it's not always clear what grade to assign, but they do tend to be fairly consistent. As for college students taking "useless classes" as part of the curriculum, that depends on what you study and where you go. For one thing, some universities guarantee to meet all a student's financial needs. I've known students who have undergraduate degrees from some of the most respected universities in the world, and they did not pay a dime. Of course, those do tend to be the exceptions. Point is, you don't have to meander around for years without learning anything. However, a large part of that depends on where you go to school. It's well known that for-profit universities (phoenix, etc) have atrocious graduation rates, as well as mediocre services but LARGE tuition rates! The latest biggest scam in these for-profit universities is to literally steal money from veterans who have come back to learn. To read just one small story see:

http://www.opednews.com/articles/Kaplan … 2-700.html

no doubt that some schools prefer to have their students remains students to they get paid. Fortunately, many universities are not like that. However, it is difficult to get into a top university, which is why it really is important to do well in high school. Of course, to do well in high school you need good teachers, hence why it's important to have people like Joe around... anyway, signing off for now!

Crap like this was born out of mindless mantras like "every child is special" and "you didn't lose, you were the last winner."

I need to listen to George Carlin's "It's Bad for Ya" now because there's a whole section about this kind of stuff and he's right on the money.

Edit: Listed wrong special, lol

Another article about high school these days...

However, in this case, I agree with the policy.

"The policy says any student with a grade of D or lower in a core class will be ineligible for extracurricular activities."

So, who is whining like little girls about this? If you said "football players", congratulations! Apparently because of this new policy 15 players can not play! OK, I don't know much about football, but isn't 15 players a lot? How many players are there typically on a football team? Also, it's not as if this came without any warning.

"Sto-Rox School District Superintendent Fran Serenka had previously announced a two-week academic warning, allowing the players to keep participating in football while they tried to improve their grades and meet the policy requirements."

It's nice to hear about academics actually taking priority in school (you would think having above a D should be a priority for all students)!

http://www.thepittsburghchannel.com/r/2 … etail.html

Reasonably certain our district already has this policy.  Not a bad one to have!