Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
First, I don't get the snark about Colorado. I don't think I said anything about Colorado in this entire thread!
Secondly (from the bottom), do not assume I am totally ignorant about what's going on in "schools these days". My state is one of those states that requires the ACT of all juniors. So what is the problem with that? I have a hard time believing that all students in TN are taking a hard-core college prep course of studies. Have the graduation requirements changed since this? Graduation Requirements It doesn't look *that* overwhelming. I see several places where some requirement can be waived for those not attending college, e.g. personal finance (one of this board's favorite topics), foreign language and fine arts.
We are in agreement about business involvement in the schools. I have felt that way for a long time, including when Apple was 'donating' all these computers to schools; also when people suggest that the way to improve schools is to get business people involved.
It's very simple:
Not all HS graduates should have 4 years of math. They simply don't need it. Your average person does not need math above algebra-II, at best. But four years is more college prep than career prep. Tell me that a HS graduate going into residential construction would benefit from anything above pre-algebra and basic geometry, which I might add, could be taught hands-on in a Vo-Tech school where it's actually being applied.
Not all HS graduates need chemistry or physics. I would most certainly agree that we could substitute physical science (which is basically pre-chem and pre-physics) for the career path, but that is not allowed in our state. You should come into one of my GenChem classes some time and take a look at the students in there: I have students that are planning to take AP chem next year alongside students that plan to be in jail next year. Please, please explain to me how either of these students benefits from this situation? Yet the state DOE commands that each of those students needs the same skills taught in Chemistry. For those of us who actually do this job...NO FRICKING WAY!
There is a push in TN - as well as many other states - that EVERY HS Graduate finishes HS with at least some college credits, whether AP, Jump Start, Dual Enrollment, whatever. So tell me how this isn't a push for all kids to go to college.
I could go on and describe what's happening with the PARCC testing that all students are taking. Do some research on this. We teachers have had to do this actual test as prep for when it goes live, and - almost to a person - we agree that its ability level is more aligned with a college student prepping for a dissertation rather than a HS graduate installing HVAC. We - the teachers - know this, because we see it. We do it.
Shall I go on to describe the other requirements of the state of TN? VA? GA? Almost all of which are similar. What the state web site says and what is actually, umm... encouraged... at the HS level are two different things. Why? because the systems are allowed to add their own requirements. Every student that comes out of my HS takes a foreign language. Not a bad thing, I agree, but does counter the state's requirements.
I could continue, but I'm getting bored with this. And each year that passes, I'm getting less inclined to explain these things to others that somehow think they know more of what's going on in education than those who actually work in it.
Why do we make kids go to school. Alot of these kids are just wasting taxpayers money. Letting kids choose would lead to better test scores, less distractions, less violence, and just a better environment. It would especially make a change in low income schools. I say if kids want to throw away their life, let them. I say make kids go from k to 7th grade then let them make their own choice.
I think weve come upon a generational issue here. Weve had publicly funded education for so long now that people don't remember what it was like for the masses to be uneducated. Go back and watch some "old timey" movies and youll quickly change your opinion OP. Dumb people are not what you want voting. Save your political stances for the poli forum before you reply, in general you don't want uneducated people voting.
1. You do have a choice to not send your children to school and just home school them. Check your state laws.
2. Going to school helps creates and establish community skills.
3. I will admit their were bad times in school but now looking back that stuff was fun. It was like freedom land.
4. We send them to school because we go to work. That is why. Otherwise checkout home schooling and other options. If your a parent your allowed to travel the world with your parents and never go to school. Having kids does not mean you have to settle down and send them off to school.
Bear in mind parents still should make kids learn the valuable things. I will admit without school I would not learned so much.
I do not think that's what the OP meant. S/he was proposing letting them drop out after 7th grade, age 12-13. Interestingly, the OP includes K which actually is optional in many states. That's the problem with all these educational "reforms" that get bandied about. People don't really know what's going on now.
I do not think that's what the OP meant. S/he was proposing letting them drop out after 7th grade, age 12-13. Interestingly, the OP includes K which actually is optional in many states. That's the problem with all these educational "reforms" that get bandied about. People don't really know what's going on now.
As I wrote I realized that I scarcely had the modern vocabulary to put my idea into terms that were relevant today. I think you and thatguydownsouth are correct about it being a generational issue. That doesn't make it outdated.
But aren't the people who are actually making the reforms in the loop? Have we turned too much power over to people who don't understand education? Or is the problem that those making the decisions a product of a system which is misguided?
We have to allow those who know how to teach to make the decisions, not the bean counters.
Foreign language should be required. We're in a world economy now and we need to be able to communicate with our peers in other countries. I would make advanced mathematics an elective. While I do think four years of math and three years of science should be the norm, there should be alternate classes that make sense like consumer chemistry and personal finance. I agree on a trade skill. Every student should have something to fall back on even if it's just something they do to get through college.
I remind dd#2 all the time that her worst case is she makes $50/hr as a piano teacher.
See this is the problem. Different people have different ideas of what should be required.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ivorytickler
Have you seriously not realized that college for all is being pushed? What other reason can you come up with for states like Michigan's decision to make all students take chemistry or physics to graduate (both are considered college prep courses - we are not the first state to do this.)? We are "raising the bar" by requiring higher and higher percentages of students to take college prep classes. It's gotten to the point that AP classes are now the new college prep classes because the former college prep classes had to be dummied down to accommodate students taking those courses without interest or the prerequisite skills.
Have you not noticed that it's the ACT and SAT that are used to measure how well schools are doing and the percentage of students who are college ready is the bar to beat. You don't have to be Einstein to see what is happening. They are pushing college readiness. The government is pushing it because they're stupid. Higher education is on the band wagon because they get to make a lot of money. Most parents want to believe that their child is college material. They're buying a dream.
We've gone from everyone needs to graduate to everyone needs to be on a college prep program. Even schools with vocational ed programs are not graduating kids ready for the work force. They're going on for continued training. Education has become big business. It's too bad it's not something we can export.
It's not college for all! It's college or career/career training. Some "gurus" go so far as to propose a 13th year of education for all, a year of career training or first year college.
I have said this many times on this forum, but it bears repeating: how do you decide who is "college material" and who gets to make this decision? The people advocating for a "European" style education system (a misnomer, but I'll go with it for now) don't seem to understand that in such a system, the school decides for you! There's no choice.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Starman71
It's very simple:
Not all HS graduates should have 4 years of math. They simply don't need it. Your average person does not need math above algebra-II, at best. But four years is more college prep than career prep. Tell me that a HS graduate going into residential construction would benefit from anything above pre-algebra and basic geometry, which I might add, could be taught hands-on in a Vo-Tech school where it's actually being applied.
Not all HS graduates need chemistry or physics. I would most certainly agree that we could substitute physical science (which is basically pre-chem and pre-physics) for the career path, but that is not allowed in our state. You should come into one of my GenChem classes some time and take a look at the students in there: I have students that are planning to take AP chem next year alongside students that plan to be in jail next year. Please, please explain to me how either of these students benefits from this situation? Yet the state DOE commands that each of those students needs the same skills taught in Chemistry. For those of us who actually do this job...NO FRICKING WAY!
There is a push in TN - as well as many other states - that EVERY HS Graduate finishes HS with at least some college credits, whether AP, Jump Start, Dual Enrollment, whatever. So tell me how this isn't a push for all kids to go to college.
I could go on and describe what's happening with the PARCC testing that all students are taking. Do some research on this. We teachers have had to do this actual test as prep for when it goes live, and - almost to a person - we agree that its ability level is more aligned with a college student prepping for a dissertation rather than a HS graduate installing HVAC. We - the teachers - know this, because we see it. We do it.
Shall I go on to describe the other requirements of the state of TN? VA? GA? Almost all of which are similar. What the state web site says and what is actually, umm... encouraged... at the HS level are two different things. Why? because the systems are allowed to add their own requirements. Every student that comes out of my HS takes a foreign language. Not a bad thing, I agree, but does counter the state's requirements.
I could continue, but I'm getting bored with this. And each year that passes, I'm getting less inclined to explain these things to others that somehow think they know more of what's going on in education than those who actually work in it.
First of all I am not ignorant about the schools. I put two kids through the public ed system; the youngest graduated in 2005. I have long been part of a community study group in education, though I have to emphasize that I'm speaking as my own person here.
Re: the bolds: 1. I'm not saying the current requirements are perfect, they're a start. Four years of math seems excessive to me, too, and seemed excessive when I saw the requirements last night. But the solution is not to eliminate compulsory education.
2. The requirement in TN appears to be biology, chemistry OR physics. I think everyone could benefit from any of the above. Believe me, when I get into discussions about health issues, both here and on NPR, it's obvious some people have no clue about the science behind this stuff. Yet they're yakkiing on message boards, which is harmless, and voting on things like GMOs, vaccine requirements, etc, which is NOT harmless.
3. I don't think that's so bad. What's with this idea that the average college student is too stupid to do college work? Surely you've known some college grads, including those with advanced degrees, who don't seem particularly bright.
As I wrote I realized that I scarcely had the modern vocabulary to put my idea into terms that were relevant today. I think you and thatguydownsouth are correct about it being a generational issue. That doesn't make it outdated.
But aren't the people who are actually making the reforms in the loop? Have we turned too much power over to people who don't understand education? Or is the problem that those making the decisions a product of a system which is misguided?
We have to allow those who know how to teach to make the decisions, not the bean counters.
After what I just read, and posted, I'm not sure I want someone who may think that my kids are headed for jail and are too stupid to pass a college course to be making the decisions!
Do you not understand that sending kids out to work at 12 would add a huge number of people to the work force?
I believe the post I was responding to said 15, not 12. Plenty of 15-year-olds have jobs. The high unemployment rates have more to do with Governement policies that businesses respond to in very predictable ways. This is discussed at length in another forum; I will merely say that if you want businesses to hire you should vote for the Party of Business. For the purposes of this thread, however, I will merely point out that the Economy will improve and when it does it will make little difference in unemployment statistics whether someone begins looking for work at 18 or 15. Either way it's the same people working the same jobs. It's like debating whether you should eat lunch at noon or at 11:00.
First of all I am not ignorant about the schools. I put two kids through the public ed system; the youngest graduated in 2005. I have long been part of a community study group in education, though I have to emphasize that I'm speaking as my own person here.
I've driven over a lot of bridges. Does that give me the right to tell engineers how to build it? I've got a financial accounts: does that give me the knowledge of how to conduct an audit? I have a frontal lobe: does that impart on me the knowledge to conduct a lobotomy? Just because you've sat on some boards and sent kids through school a while back does even remotely give you the day-to-day knowledge & experience that we have. I surely don't question your knowledge of the medical field which is your expertise. Why do you feel it necessary to think you know more than the average teacher out there? This is a prime example of how little society thinks of our profession nowadays, and is a serious part of any educational reform. There is the implication educators know less than the general public about education. Being educated does not simply impart one with the wisdom of knowing how to educate.
Re: the bolds: 1. I'm not saying the current requirements are perfect, they're a start. Four years of math seems excessive to me, too, and seemed excessive when I saw the requirements last night. But the solution is not to eliminate compulsory education.
I never said we should - that was the OP's response.Not mine. I actually think it would be bad, but I also think that we should move to a more Finland-style model where formal education ends at grades 9-10, then separate schools for college-prep and Vo-Tech. We are doing our students a disservice by not prepping them for trades.
2. The requirement in TN appears to be biology, chemistry OR physics. I think everyone could benefit from any of the above. Believe me, when I get into discussions about health issues, both here and on NPR, it's obvious some people have no clue about the science behind this stuff. Yet they're yakkiing on message boards, which is harmless, and voting on things like GMOs, vaccine requirements, etc, which is NOT harmless.
The requirements are for 3 years of science, which includes Bio, Chem or Phys and something else. You are correct that some medical knowledge should be taught but what you're referring to is more from a health class perspective, which is taught, but usually not too well, (and for a different credit).
3. I don't think that's so bad. What's with this idea that the average college student is too stupid to do college work? Surely you've known some college grads, including those with advanced degrees, who don't seem particularly bright.
That's not the point. Are you deliberately trying to obfuscate the topic the Ivory brought up? The idea is that our school systems are trying to prep all students for college, whether it's labelled that or not. We see it, because we have seen the subtle - and not so subtle - changes over the years. We know what's going on - firsthand I might add.
4. No
Ivoryfinger's point still stands - we are covertly & overtly prepping all student for college. That was my initial response to you, pointing out that you are wrong to say otherwise. The latter posts were outlining the evidence, describing what we teachers know and experience daily. So when it comes to the question of whether or not our schools are doing the above...
You
are
wrong.
And we the teachers know it!
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
