My answer is obvious, but I'll leave it here to start with.
We need to reduce the representation of women in education massively. The majority of women seeking these roles have malicious intent, and are actively harming young boys.
We know they don't mark boys fairly, but that's just the peak of the insidious feminist plot.
They've clearly been destroying the self-worth of boys in the schools to groom a new generation of woman worshipping simps.
The whole system needs uprooting.
1,
Inclusion needs to be mostly thrown out. It's all well and good for the kid with a bit of a limp, or poor vision, or something minor which can be compensated for to be fully included. But we've swung far too far in the wrong direction where everyone's education is impacted by violent and screaming distractions. They learn far less because they're not getting the specialist care they need, just an EA under a teacher trying to educate 29 other kids. And the 29 learn far less because the kid is screaming, throwing shit, and just disrupting the whole class.
But also the past went a bit far, isolating people of disabilities when it wasn't necessary.
Ask anyone who went through the old systems, an old specialist school for cerebral palsy for example, and you'll commonly hear that they've swung too far, and that the schools set up to deal with a specific disability had a lot of merit. The whole place was set up to deal with that disability, and because it was the school's specialty, the teachers and aids essentially become experts in it.
There's a mid point that some schools do, specialist modules attached to larger schools. That way you have the best of both worlds, they need to learn to cope in wider society, but also you have a school that is better equipped to handle their issue and it is far more economical to outfit that school to suit that particular disability. AND you can consolidate staff. Sign language interpreters for the signing deaf kids for example, instead of each kid in a separate school needing a separate (and usually unqualified) interpreter, you can run classes with just the one good teacher of the deaf or interpreter.
Admin out, teachers in. It's become far too top heavy.
Gut the arguments of the teacher's unions by paying them for a full year and have them work for that period also. And there's a good use for that 4th quarter:
Lumping everyone aged the same into the same group? Asinine. They are all taught to the average so that the gifted kids get bored and lazy, while the kids who are behind get left behind, with no chance of catching up. Things should be far more flexible with kids floating between different year groups. A 3rd year student excels at maths? Move them up a 'year' into 'lvl 4', but poor at English, well for English period you're down in 'lvl 2'. Easy.
The issue with that though is that you can excel at something, but to actually move to a higher year has requisite knowledge that you've not been taught. This is where the other 3 months can be used, it's for when kids meet the criteria for skipping a grade for a topic, but need to cram some prerequisite knowledge to be able to do so.
That's just trimming at the edges though, and making the existing system good. What really needs to happen is that most of highschool/year 8 onwards needs to be thrown out. For centuries, man has learnt to socialize from older men in a craft. The apprenticeship model is how we are made to function. Sending your kids to school so they learn to socialise is a grave error. They aren't learning to socialise as young adults, they're learning an entirely artificial and dysfunctional system, being taught to socialise by their other teen peers who learnt it from other peers. Garbage in, garbage out. Far better to learn to socialise from adults who are socializing with each other more healthily, and for those young teens to aspire to earn their respect.
Male teachers aren't enough. 1 man cannot teach 30 kids how to socialise. It would help, but it's woefully insufficient. They need to be learning to socialise in the environment we actually want them to be able to function in.
I like #4, but that also relies on having functional standardized tests.
What is "Level 2" and how does a student acheive it. Will all Level 2 students at a school have the same proficiency? Home about across the Board? Or the country?
The biggest advantage I can see of bringing different ages together is that there's no more of this "no child left behind" feel-goodery.
I picture a system where each teacher takes a group of kids from K-8. Every year, a few more graduate and there's a new crop of kindergardeners; older students are expected to mentor and guide the younger students. Curriculum is clearly laid out and tests are done quarterly, if the student is ready. Some classes are general, but each school will have classes that focus on things like music, history, engineering, athletics, etc that students can transfer to if they meet the prerequisite levels.
I'd also like the general classes to actually run the school, insofar as possible. Stuff like cleaning classrooms, basic maintenance, grounds keeping, and food programs could all be run by classes of kids. This way, everyone gets a turn doing the nitty gritty that keeps the school running, and they also get the choice of pursuing academics or something more grounded.
Yeah it's details need ironing out, and how wide the standards are needs thinking about, but the broad idea is far better than what is done atm imo>
I do like the maintenance class. Makes sense, teaches trades, teaches responsibility, and teaches skills needed to maintain a home too. Good call.