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.
Nor is allowing kids in college or university while still children. Children need to be able to enjoy a healthy childhood.
Home-schooling done well offers any native-intelligent child/ren far more relevant opportunities.
I agree with your first point.
As to the second point, public education "fails" some percentage of our kids. And I say that as a former public school educator.
But what about home-schooling? Please don't tell me that home schooling doesn't fail kids, too. I'm thinking of one woman who home-schooled her child for political reasons. The woman herself hadn't graduated from high school, but was home-schooling her child, including in courses like chemistry and physics. Please don't tell me that child was getting a great education.
IF we wanted to shorten the process, perhaps we should be asking if we really need to start in kindergarten? Do we really need 13 years of school to cover what used to take no more than 12. Are all the classes really that important or just being pushed by an agenda? Would we be better served over the long run by less diversity in courses, but more depth in them?
Or is the problem the ways schools are run? Does it really make sense for high schoolers, esp as they become juniors and seniors, some of whom are over 18 and legal adults, to be treated no different than they were as kindergarteners all those years before?
Does it even make sense to be adding even more years, as preschool, to make it 14 or 15 years before college? Or to, as is often proposed, to add days to the year and hours to the day? We keep discussing over and over the various problems with education, from test scores to social promotion and so on. Does it really make sense to do more of what isn't working? Isn't that the definition of stupidity?
Part of the reason for mission creep in the lower years is because so many kids are coming to school totally unprepared.
I've been hooted at here by a couple people but there are communities where kids come to school never having seen a book, magazine or even a newspaper, who don't know one letterhead to or color, who are still in diapers at age 5. Hell, some of them don't even know their real names.
The above were some of the drivers behind NCLB, flawed as it was, and some of the reasons for the move to mandatory Pre-K.
As I, and others, have said before, we're spending 80% of our time and resources trying to improve the bottom 20%.
IF we wanted to shorten the process, perhaps we should be asking if we really need to start in kindergarten? Do we really need 13 years of school to cover what used to take no more than 12. Are all the classes really that important or just being pushed by an agenda? Would we be better served over the long run by less diversity in courses, but more depth in them?
Or is the problem the ways schools are run? Does it really make sense for high schoolers, esp as they become juniors and seniors, some of whom are over 18 and legal adults, to be treated no different than they were as kindergarteners all those years before?
Does it even make sense to be adding even more years, as preschool, to make it 14 or 15 years before college? Or to, as is often proposed, to add days to the year and hours to the day? We keep discussing over and over the various problems with education, from test scores to social promotion and so on. Does it really make sense to do more of what isn't working? Isn't that the definition of stupidity?
You state, "Do we really need 13 years of school to cover what used to take no more than 12." This sounds like you think education is a list of things to be learned and checked off the list so that teenagers can get to work on the farm, mines or factories. Why are you in a hurry to rush young people out into a workforce where many will have difficulty finding jobs even with a more adequate education?
You ask "Are all the classes really that important or just being pushed by an agenda?" The only agenda I have seen is the once that says all students should graduate from high school prepared to attend college. What I disagree with is the fact that many students take the bare minimum to fulfill graduation requirements. I see students who don't take a science or math course every year of high school. I see students who get early release from school because they don't need a full schedule of classes their senior year. I have heard comments from school board members whose goal is to eliminate teaching positions by lowering graduation requirements, and encouraging high school students to take cyber school classes and/or enroll in college classes.
You ask "Would we be better served over the long run by less diversity in courses, but more depth in them?" I think most courses could have more depth but I'm wondering what you are really asking. If you look at math for example, many high schools offer a full range of math classes from Pre-Algebra through AP Statistics and AP Calculus II. Where would you propose adding more depth?
Regarding your comment about the way schools are run, sure changes could be made but what difference would it make? Most high school students are under 18 or turn 18 late in their senior year. Many are still immature while a minority are very mature for their age. We allow them to leave school and take college courses. Many schools allow them a combination of in-school, cyber school, and college courses to complete their high school education. Some are taking cyber school classes so they can fit more AP courses into their in-school schedule.
Regarding your last paragraph, I think you're referring to the students who are doing poorly in school. Many school bend over backward with the assistance they give these students and it is a struggle with them everyday. Would you just kick them out the way public schools used to do?
I'm in numerous public schools and I see wasted time, lazy teachers, and indifferent students. It makes sense to have alternatives and competition to the traditional public school systems but the report card on charter schools is not good. Shortening the education process will accomplish nothing for the overwhelming majority of students.
Quote:
Originally Posted by phetaroi
I agree with your first point.
As to the second point, public education "fails" some percentage of our kids. And I say that as a former public school educator.
But what about home-schooling? Please don't tell me that home schooling doesn't fail kids, too. I'm thinking of one woman who home-schooled her child for political reasons. The woman herself hadn't graduated from high school, but was home-schooling her child, including in courses like chemistry and physics. Please don't tell me that child was getting a great education.
I agree. Few parents have the education and background to adequately home-school. There are examples of a minority of home-schooling parents who do a much better job than the schools. I also approve of home-schooling where the school is low performing or is a dangerous environment.
You state, "Do we really need 13 years of school to cover what used to take no more than 12." This sounds like you think education is a list of things to be learned and checked off the list so that teenagers can get to work on the farm, mines or factories. Why are you in a hurry to rush young people out into a workforce where many will have difficulty finding jobs even with a more adequate education?
Who said I was in a hurry? There is a basic set of knowledge everyone needs. There are many students who will not or should not go to college. What's wrong with giving them the education they need and then letting them hit vo-tech?
You ask "Are all the classes really that important or just being pushed by an agenda?" The only agenda I have seen is the once that says all students should graduate from high school prepared to attend college.
While I agree about the excess college focused agenda, there are a lot of one semester courses added to satisfy various special interests to make sure we have a course on that.
What I disagree with is the fact that many students take the bare minimum to fulfill graduation requirements. I see students who don't take a science or math course every year of high school.
But do those students really need math and science very year? How much math do they really need for most jobs?
I see students who get early release from school because they don't need a full schedule of classes their senior year. I have heard comments from school board members whose goal is to eliminate teaching positions by lowering graduation requirements, and encouraging high school students to take cyber school classes and/or enroll in college classes.Which ties into the question of perhaps graduation requirements are too high. Do the non college bound students really need it? Or would they be better served by auto mech, carpentry, machinist, etc that lead to skilled trades?
You ask "Would we be better served over the long run by less diversity in courses, but more depth in them?" I think most courses could have more depth but I'm wondering what you are really asking. If you look at math for example, many high schools offer a full range of math classes from Pre-Algebra through AP Statistics and AP Calculus II. Where would you propose adding more depth?
Yes, that's a good example of a wide diversity of courses, but consider how many students can't do basic math. Would it be better to spend more time there, and build the foundation for calc, than jump into calc without a strong foundation?
Regarding your comment about the way schools are run, sure changes could be made but what difference would it make? Most high school students are under 18 or turn 18 late in their senior year. Many are still immature while a minority are very mature for their age. Are they really that immature or just acting down to the way they are treated? Funny that not that many years ago they were mature enough for life, but today they are just children. The problem isn't that we ask our kids to grow up too soon, but we ask them to do it too fast. We keep them children until 18 and then the next day they are legal adults. The teen years should be a transition where they learn and develop maturity. Making seniors follow the same rules as freshmen, or middle school, or even elementary just doesn't make sense.
We allow them to leave school and take college courses. Many schools allow them a combination of in-school, cyber school, and college courses to complete their high school education. Some are taking cyber school classes so they can fit more AP courses into their in-school schedule.
Regarding your last paragraph, I think you're referring to the students who are doing poorly in school. Many school bend over backward with the assistance they give these students and it is a struggle with them everyday. Would you just kick them out the way public schools used to do?
Yes, I would kick them out. Keeping them in school gains them nothing and creates a major impact on the students who want to learn. We hold back our best to make our worst feel good.
^^1. How do you decide which students should not go to college? I find such a statement appalling. I'm not talking about sending SPED students to college, I'm referring to the bulk of a high school class. Who is going to make this decision? Granted, some won't go, and some will go and drop out/flunk out, but it's for the student to decide, IMO. There are some "late bloomers" out there. Vo-tech just prepares kids for jobs you can do with minimal educational skills. For example, there is no way I would recommend anyone make a career out of being a CNA. You can't be an auto mechanic w/o having some good computer skills these days. I still think getting them all a decent education that can get them into college if they choose is a good goal.
2. I do think almost all students should at least have the basic courses that could get them into a state college, not necessarily the flagship.
3. The math requirement for my district is 2 courses. Some jobs use a lot of math, some use little. You don't know what job a student is going to end up doing.
4. Graduation requirements too high? What kind of person do you want to graduate?
5. What is your evidence that anyone is taking calc without a good foundation for it?
6. I don't know what you mean by "not that many years ago they were mature enough for life". When was this? Prior to July 1, 1971, a person couldn't vote until age 21! Many states had 21 as the age to get married w/o their parents' consent, as well. Having raised two kids through the teen years, it is a transition! I don't know what I would have done differently, or what the schools should do differently. It's silly to say that teens are treated like kindergartners. Most high schools have open campuses, at least for juniors and seniors, where kids can leave during the day for lunch, come in late if they don't have a first period class, leave early if they don't have a last period class, etc.
7. What is your evidence that the "best" (another judgemental word) are being held back? Good grief, with all these AP, IB and regular college classes, plus dual enrollments in college/community college, I don't see much "holding back". Calling some students "worst" is just awful.
^^1. How do you decide which students should not go to college? I find such a statement appalling. I'm not talking about sending SPED students to college, I'm referring to the bulk of a high school class. Who is going to make this decision? Granted, some won't go, and some will go and drop out/flunk out, but it's for the student to decide, IMO. There are some "late bloomers" out there. Vo-tech just prepares kids for jobs you can do with minimal educational skills. For example, there is no way I would recommend anyone make a career out of being a CNA. You can't be an auto mechanic w/o having some good computer skills these days. I still think getting them all a decent education that can get them into college if they choose is a good goal.
2. I do think almost all students should at least have the basic courses that could get them into a state college, not necessarily the flagship.
3. The math requirement for my district is 2 courses. Some jobs use a lot of math, some use little. You don't know what job a student is going to end up doing.
4. Graduation requirements too high? What kind of person do you want to graduate?
5. What is your evidence that anyone is taking calc without a good foundation for it?
6. I don't know what you mean by "not that many years ago they were mature enough for life". When was this? Prior to July 1, 1971, a person couldn't vote until age 21! Many states had 21 as the age to get married w/o their parents' consent, as well. Having raised two kids through the teen years, it is a transition! I don't know what I would have done differently, or what the schools should do differently. It's silly to say that teens are treated like kindergartners. Most high schools have open campuses, at least for juniors and seniors, where kids can leave during the day for lunch, come in late if they don't have a first period class, leave early if they don't have a last period class, etc.
7. What is your evidence that the "best" (another judgemental word) are being held back? Good grief, with all these AP, IB and regular college classes, plus dual enrollments in college/community college, I don't see much "holding back". Calling some students "worst" is just awful.
You don't have to do much deciding. Most kids know if they want college or a trade. Or at least they did not that long ago before schools started pushing college for everyone. And it's not that hard to tell by grades they get. Kids who can barely do general math in high school and who read at the 8th grade or less level are not college material. We need to be honest with them instead of pushing them toward something the wrong thing for them.
Most schools don't have open campuses; we just had a thread on going off campus for lunch a couple weeks ago. The best are held back in elementary and middle for example when they are reading above grade level, but have to move the whole class at the pace of the kid who can't read "the." Think I'm joking? You just have to get outside the top districts and see what the typical school does.
And while you may not like the words, some students are the best and some are the worst. We're fooling ourselves to pretend otherwise. That's the 800 pound gorilla in the school board. As much as we may wish otherwise, we are not doing those kids a favor with a college focused curriculum. We need to differentiate and provide the appropriate education.
^^1. How do you decide which students should not go to college? I find such a statement appalling. I'm not talking about sending SPED students to college, I'm referring to the bulk of a high school class. Who is going to make this decision? Granted, some won't go, and some will go and drop out/flunk out, but it's for the student to decide, IMO. There are some "late bloomers" out there. Vo-tech just prepares kids for jobs you can do with minimal educational skills. For example, there is no way I would recommend anyone make a career out of being a CNA. You can't be an auto mechanic w/o having some good computer skills these days. I still think getting them all a decent education that can get them into college if they choose is a good goal.
2. I do think almost all students should at least have the basic courses that could get them into a state college, not necessarily the flagship.
3. The math requirement for my district is 2 courses. Some jobs use a lot of math, some use little. You don't know what job a student is going to end up doing.
4. Graduation requirements too high? What kind of person do you want to graduate?
5. What is your evidence that anyone is taking calc without a good foundation for it?
6. I don't know what you mean by "not that many years ago they were mature enough for life". When was this? Prior to July 1, 1971, a person couldn't vote until age 21! Many states had 21 as the age to get married w/o their parents' consent, as well. Having raised two kids through the teen years, it is a transition! I don't know what I would have done differently, or what the schools should do differently. It's silly to say that teens are treated like kindergartners. Most high schools have open campuses, at least for juniors and seniors, where kids can leave during the day for lunch, come in late if they don't have a first period class, leave early if they don't have a last period class, etc.
7. What is your evidence that the "best" (another judgemental word) are being held back? Good grief, with all these AP, IB and regular college classes, plus dual enrollments in college/community college, I don't see much "holding back". Calling some students "worst" is just awful.
I agree totally with your post, and would just like to further address your point #6.
Let's say we cut 2 years off of school and begin graduating students from high school at age 15 or 16. We'll have to declare them adults at that point. Lower the drinking age. Lower the voting age. Lower the age related to sexual relations, etc. And yet we wouldn't think about doing those things. And that's because, as you point out, it isn't about packing a list full of things that need to be learned. It's about when young people become "mature"...able to be successfully out on their own. And having worked with high school students, that is rarely age 15 or 16, and sometimes not even 17 or 18.
I'll say again what I said earlier. What's the damn hurry. Let kids be kids. Let teens be teens. Each step of growing up has valuable lessons attached that lay the foundation for adulthood. And without laying that foundation, we'd see a sorry group of child-like "adults" that couldn't appropriately function in our society.
Oh who said shorten means graduate at 15 or 16. What about do away with pre k and K? Start later rather than earlier and be in school 12 years instead of 13 or 14.
Oh who said shorten means graduate at 15 or 16. What about do away with pre k and K? Start later rather than earlier and be in school 12 years instead of 13 or 14.
Personally I think that pre-K is unnecessary for many (maybe most) kids. I would reserve that for developmentally disabled kids.
However, the original poster did mention "College ready at 15?"
You don't have to do much deciding. Most kids know if they want college or a trade. Or at least they did not that long ago before schools started pushing college for everyone. And it's not that hard to tell by grades they get. Kids who can barely do general math in high school and who read at the 8th grade or less level are not college material. We need to be honest with them instead of pushing them toward something the wrong thing for them.
Most schools don't have open campuses; we just had a thread on going off campus for lunch a couple weeks ago. The best are held back in elementary and middle for example when they are reading above grade level, but have to move the whole class at the pace of the kid who can't read "the." Think I'm joking? You just have to get outside the top districts and see what the typical school does.
And while you may not like the words, some students are the best and some are the worst. We're fooling ourselves to pretend otherwise. That's the 800 pound gorilla in the school board. As much as we may wish otherwise, we are not doing those kids a favor with a college focused curriculum. We need to differentiate and provide the appropriate education.
Tell me what your experience is with working in education and raising kids. I've very curious. You post as if you're some authority on this, but IIRC, you work in industry and I don't think you've ever mentioned having kids. I find it appalling to write kids off at 15-16 years old as "unfit for college". Ideally, they'd enter high school reading at an 8th grade level and at grade level in math, which implies a strong elementary and middle school education.
I was part of that open campus thread, though I don't recall anything particularly memorable. I know there wasn't a poll about who has open campuses. Story time: My dad and I went to and graduated from the same high school, located in the downtown of a steel mill town near Pittsburgh. When he was a student there, 1927-31, the campus was open. He said students went home for lunch. Sometime between 1931 and 1964 when I started, the campus was closed. I heard gossip that it was because the downtown merchants complained about student shoplifting. Anyway, I went there >50 years ago now, and the campus was closed and had been for years. We weren't even allowed to drive our own cars to school (and very few students had cars anyway back there back then) unless we had some extenuating circumstance such as a job we needed to get to right after school, or needing to be home quickly to babysit younger siblings, or something of the kind. I graduated on my 18th birthday, and as I said previously, couldn't vote until I turned 21, 3 years later, or get married w/o my parents' permission, which they said they would never give. They said if you had to ask your mom or dad, you were too young to get married. We were not allowed to smoke anywhere on the school grounds. So much for your statement about being considered mature enough for life upon HS graduation.
In the 70s things loosened up at high schools. Kids had designated smoking areas, the thinking being "they're going to do it, let's keep them safe". It wasn't until the later 80s/90s that many schools became tobacco free campuses. I believe I posted something about that in the open campus thread.
Most of the districts in my area (NW metro Denver) have open campuses to some degree or another.
Again, the disparaging comments about some students. One of my daughters needed help in reading all through elementary school. By middle school she got up to speed, and now has a master's. By your methods, she'd have been dumped by the wayside.
I have asked posters over and over again to show some evidence of high schools promoting "college for all" and no one has ever done so. My own district, one of the top districts in Colorado, taking in the children of the University of Colorado professors, doesn't do that.
Quote:
Originally Posted by tnff
Oh who said shorten means graduate at 15 or 16. What about do away with pre k and K? Start later rather than earlier and be in school 12 years instead of 13 or 14.
There is a considerable body of evidence that early childhood education is beneficial. It can mitigate, to an extent, some of the problems North Beach Person described. "Real" education still starts in K, and I'd be happy to see K go back to more of a pre-primary level.
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.
