posted
I am completely for such a system, although I think the problem you point out is one of several, and certainly not the sole issue.
Posts: 32919 | Registered: Mar 2003
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by andi330: I have long been a proponent (though not on these boards) of a restructuring of the educational system to something like the German educational system, which prepares those going to University for higher education, and those who will not be going on to University for job training in an area or vocation which they show aptitude for.
There are places in the US that already implement tracking similar to the German system. North Carolina, for one.
Posts: 650 | Registered: Mar 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
You may not think there is tracking in the US, but I can most assuredly tell you there is. Even in middle school, there are often very distinct "teams" - one for the "gifted" students and honor students, one for the "average" students and one with everything else - special education students, students with discipline problems, etc.
In high school it's even more pronounced - there will be separate diploma tracks one can take - "college prep or advanced", "regular diploma" and "occupational diploma" which is supposed to only be for special education students with mental disabilities but winds up being used by many special education students even if they have only mild exceptionalities because it's so much easier.
This is going to be state-specific, of course. I'm only speaking of my experience in my state.
Posts: 14428 | Registered: Aug 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
Lalo, thanks for qualifying, your second explanation sounds very interesting. I agree that there needs to be greater cooperation among majors, and that there are a lot of things we could do differently that doesn't involve completely scrapping the current educational model, which DOES work for a large number of people.
Posts: 15082 | Registered: Jul 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
While I certainly think there is room to massage the secondary education system here in the US (and perhaps a system akin to the German one would be useful) I'm curious what people are taking issue with so vehemently with the current system.
If it's a concern about the direct applicability of the nuts and bolts of highschool education (i.e. dissecting a frog, writing a term paper, reading The Scarlet Letter) then I have something of a preemptive rebuttal. While it's true that a mechanic is not going to have much direct use for writing a term paper in the workplace, there are a lot of secondary uses to those kind of experiences:
Biology - gives a basic understanding that feeds into first-aid and general medical understanding. Chemistry - gives a basic understanding that feeds into the ability to identify hazards in the world, and possibly a general medical understanding. History - gives a basic understanding of world relations, politics and economy, which should prove useful in creating an informed electorate, may serve in making better financial decisions etc. English - aids in critical thinking, communication skills, resume writing, reading comprehension Math - Algebra is necessary for most budgeting and other financial situations, especially once you start getting into car and home loans, insurance etc.
I'm hard-pressed to find any class in highschool that I don't have some use/appreciation for without trying to tie it to higher education.
In fact I have numerous examples of coworkers who embraced the adage of "I like math and science and hate english, so I'm going to be an engineer," and while they may be technically sound, I shudder to work with them because of a generally severe lack of communication skills (either verbal or written or both).
So I agree that if people really know what they want to do in life, perhaps they can take courses that are somewhat more tailored to their field (i.e. read a technical manual rather than a novel; write a resume or memo rather than a book report) but the same basic skills are being taught.
Posts: 1038 | Registered: Feb 2006
| IP: Logged |
posted
I think that part of tracking comes from how you are placed into a track. At my high school, we had a nearby vocational school. You could go there half days and regular high school half days and graduate with a standard diploma. But you also had an occupation and usually a job outside of high school. The students in this program signed up on their own and could quit at any time. They also could go on to a regular college (one of my friends did photography in high school, took pictures on weekends to pay for his college business degree and now runs his own photography studio). I think this was a great option. If they had instead taken the kid aside and said, hey, your test scores indicate you should be a photographer (or chef or automechanic), that is what you are doing from now on, I would have been upset with the program.
Posts: 2223 | Registered: Mar 2008
| IP: Logged |
posted
no, many amateur astronomers do valuable work for various groups. You don't NEED an advanced education to look up at the sky. But to do something like find planets around other stars, or examine stars in the infrared you need to have a background in it. If you don't want to get the education I am getting but still want to look up in space, go buy a telescope and do work for the AAVSO or something similar. You will be appreciated.
Posts: 86 | Registered: Feb 2009
| IP: Logged |
posted
"Reviews indicate that said book lacks any rigorous analysis. And has ideas surprisingly similar to Irami's.
I think I'll pass. "
I'm not real sure how its related to irami's views because I stopped reading him years ago, and its not actually supposed to contain rigorous analysis. I recommend it because its a good read, and a good case study, in an adult program that has expanded to a variety of locales, and produced (of course, not rigorously analyzed) strong results everywhere its gone.
Do YOU have rigorous analysis suggesting that people are better off if they are placed into into white collar or blue collar programs prior to high school age?
Posts: 4112 | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged |
Have I read some? Pretty sure. Certainly there are studies comparing outcomes of the US v. UK school systems.
Posts: 32919 | Registered: Mar 2003
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Dr Strangelove: Feel free to shoot me down if you think I'm way off base
Ok. You're way off base.
But was I at least eloquently off base? I've lately noticed that my ability to communicate complex ideas is not as fluid as I would like. I can grasp arguments pretty quickly and even quickly form respectable opinions, but the transfer from my mind to paper or my mouth is not quite up to par. So I'm working on it. :-)
quote: The level of remediation colleges -- even the top-tier schools -- are having to expend resources on is ridiculously high and getting higher. Maybe students should have gotten those gen ed classes in HS or earlier, but if they did, they didn't take in all too many cases.
I completely agree. But is the fault with the students or with the method of education? Many students who need "remedial" classes that I've come in contact with can learn the same general education things such as math, biology, history, English, etc, but they learn them in a different way. I would like to see those different ways of learning emphasized and offered.
The way I see the current system is that it works moderately well for some (maybe the majority), very well for few (me being one of those), and not well at all for some (maybe not the majority, but a significant portion nonetheless). It's not really that bad of a system. But I refuse to believe that it is the best system and that the large amount of people who don't work well in it, whether they be in remedial classes or just skating by, are quite simply less intelligent or less hardworking than those who can operate within the system. So, instead of a moderately good system with moderately good results, I want a really good system with really good results. And the only way I can think of that really starting is with people actually wanting to learn. And how is it that people are motivated to learn? A desire to succeed in the world is one way, and I think that is what's being operated under right now. But a better motivation is passion and actually enjoying what you are doing and what you are learning. It is possible. The few who the current system works really well for know that its possible. I don't necessarily want to see this system demolished, but rather equal and viable alternatives to it arise where others can succeed as easily as I have. And if we wait until age 20 or even 18 to find or develop joy in learning, its too late. Better to start earlier, so that instead of 4 unproductive years of general education where way too many students come away with little to no actual learning, students can develop a love of learning and be educated and retain knowledge at a much much higher rate.
Yeah, it's an idealistic dream. I'm not offering a real practical way to see people find passion or joy in education. I'm working on it. I figure I've got time. No one's going to listen to me for at least another 5 or 10 years anyways, so I might as well spend my younger years developing my thoughts and skills so that when I am old enough to actually be taken seriously I'll have something serious to be taken.
But yeah, if you have more critiques, either of my thought process or of my writing style, keep 'em comin!
Posts: 2827 | Registered: Jul 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
"Have I read some? Pretty sure. Certainly there are studies comparing outcomes of the US v. UK school systems"
And are those outcomes adjusted for all the differences between systems?
From what I've read (not just riches for the poor) people with a strong liberal arts background have a better ability to increase their earning potential over the course of their lifetimes. I tend to view that as a highly important outcome...
Which is totally aside from the moral question of whether we should be determining, at the age of 14, a life path for people. The whole point of public education, as far as I am concerned, is to AVOID limiting the life paths that people have, and your recommendation, to me, seems to be placing people on a path based on early determinations of their ability.
I completely object to that on moral grounds, and you'd have to show me very rigorous analysis showing that your recommendation produces significantly better outcomes for people in both the white collar and blue collar tracks before I'd say that its even an idea worth entertaining.
Posts: 4112 | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Paul Goldner: Which is totally aside from the moral question of whether we should be determining, at the age of 14, a life path for people. The whole point of public education, as far as I am concerned, is to AVOID limiting the life paths that people have, and your recommendation, to me, seems to be placing people on a path based on early determinations of their ability.
I completely object to that on moral grounds, and you'd have to show me very rigorous analysis showing that your recommendation produces significantly better outcomes for people in both the white collar and blue collar tracks before I'd say that its even an idea worth entertaining.
I'm sorry, who said people should be placed into life paths? Taylor's point is that higher education should be placed in concentration contexts dedicated to solving particular problems -- neither eliminating the existence of traditional majors nor prohibiting cross-disciplinary studies. In fact, his whole point is that people need cross-disciplinary exposure.
If you're protesting the application of this to high school, I think you're again wrong. At least in my (Catholic) high school, a program of that sort existed for seniors who could choose to take extra classes in language, advanced mathematics or science, etc. It didn't harm us at all.
What I'd really love to see is each high school class assigned a project: say, the construction of a nearby elementary school. They wouldn't have last call, but they could provide important consulting on accounting, architecture, economics, demographics, local civics, environmental science, and of course, early childhood education. This doesn't mean eliminating economics and environmental science classes, but it's a real-world application that'll actually involve students' minds and really teach them the material. I have no idea how you can object to this.
Posts: 3293 | Registered: Jul 2002
| IP: Logged |
posted
There are a bajillion things I could say in this thread, but instead I will just link to Education Outrage, a blog by the rather influential Roger Schank, an Educational Psychologist with a technology background.
Posts: 8504 | Registered: Aug 1999
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Paul Goldner: Which is totally aside from the moral question of whether we should be determining, at the age of 14, a life path for people.
To me, one of the key reasons I agreed with the suggestion was this:
quote:Being placed initially in one branch of education does not mean that you can't change if you want to, there are still opportunities to go on to higher education if you have the drive and the desire to do so.
Because I agree with you on the morality of setting someone's life in stone at 14. But I still strongly believe in tracked courses.
quote:Originally posted by Dr Strangelove: But was I at least eloquently off base?
Printer-friendly view of this topic
![[Razz]](tongue.gif)
![[Big Grin]](biggrin.gif)
