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.
OP, I see you went to a lot of work to create that curriculum, and I give you credit for that. However, after dozens of threads and probably thousands of posts here on CD about this issue, I still think that all kids of normal intelligence should take the courses they will need to get into college. I think age 14 is far too young to be funneled into a curriculum that excludes college. That doesn't mean I think everyone has to go; just that everyone should have that option.
While you say "few college students even remember what the difference between DNA and RNA is" (which I disagree with), you also say "Even if they do not become a welder or carpenter, learning how to distinguish between a solvent weld and a friction weld or the reasoning involved in the choice of different construction materials to construct a given building could benefit them more than developing the same thinking skills through more abstract material that will almost inevitably bore them." What's to say most won't remember the differences between the two welds, either? How would a unit on building construction will interest them any more? I would have probably slogged through something like that and promptly forgotten just about everything I learned.
I can't count the number of times that I have been called a "walking Google" or a "walking Wikipedia", but I had to look up exactly what the difference was (the sugar compound). Keep in mind that I was the kind of student who performed extremely well on final examinations (but often miserably elsewhere) - most students forget most of what was taught in the class even before it is over. At least that's been my experience. Even a lot of those students bound for college (or taking AP classes, I suspect) often are not avidly interested in the topics at hand. They simply want an impressive high school transcript, so that they can get into an impressive college, so that they can have an impressive career and make impressive amounts of money later in life.
I'm not saying that a lack of retention indicates a lack of benefit. These classes primarily benefit students by teaching them how to think. There are a lot of ways, however, to learn "how to think", and many manners of "thinking", some of which are more useful in some vocations and paths of life than others. For example, adopting a Socratic form of dialogue can impart reasoning skills that would be useful for somebody going into law or who takes care in forming their opinions, but perhaps not as much for a carpenter or for somebody who would be negligent anyway in determining their positions.
One of the reasons that many students underachieve and drop out is because they simply do not see the point in learning about motifs in Shakespeare or why the French Revolution happened - and there's no real point in teaching them, because they will forget it as soon as test time's over anyway, if they even are in class for the test. This type of student is often much more interested in what is right in front of them, what they can actually do and see changes be made to, rather than what is remote from them and could very well be so many vain fairy-tales.
(Note well that I'm not referring to all, or even most, students but the more concrete-minded, here-and-now types.)
I've got to agree with Katiana. What you are describing is what students that choose a technical High School, aka vo-tech get. I personally loved all of my English and History classes. I might not remember the dates of particular events/battles, but I can tell you about them. My husband has explained numerous times how different things work in our car and my eyes glaze over in about three minutes.
But changing education alone won't solve the problem. You can prepare kids for jobs in construction, but will those jobs exist? Those who a generation ago would have found good jobs in manufacturing now are competing for the construction, plumbing, electrician and mechanic jobs. We also have plenty of immigrants available, who are able to manage on less pay, can do the job just as well, and are usually more motivated and mature than the home-grown workers.
I'd also encourage students to learn a practical foreign language. The bilingual worker is often preferred over the monolingual.
I think the OP makes some excellent points. American education needs to change. We do need more practical education for the large number of students who won't be going to college or shouldn't be going to college. Is the US any better as a nation because we have encouraged millions of HS students to go on to college? The results are college degrees that don't mean anything and massive amounts of college debt.
Because we have moved away from tracking in our high schools and our education theorists believe everyone should be prepared for college, we are forcing many students to take subjects they have no interest in learning. The result is most students suffer. Unless you are taking an AP class, you are probably taking classes with student who don't want to learn the subject. The teacher will be forced to deal with disruptive students, water down the subject, give extra credit projects, use study guides that look like the tests, and do whatever else possible to pass those students who can stay awake at least some of the time.
Our education system needs to come to the realization that the US is not better off with millions of people with sports management, women's studies, communications, African studies degrees, etc. And not to pick on just these majors, since there are many more majors such as business, education, history, public relations, etc. that are filled with students who were not prepared for college when they got there and will have difficulty writing a business letter or report when they graduate.
We need an education system that gives students options and doesn't lock them into an education path. It needs to challenge all students to push them to the limit of their abilities without overwhelming them. It needs to focus on reading comprehension at all levels. It needs to assume all students will not be going to college. Options for vocational education should be encouraged and these courses of study should be viewed the same as college prep classes. Vo-tech schools should be competitive and should not be for the students who are lazy and don't want to learn.
There should be one other course of study and this is what used to be referred to as a "general education curriculum." Students should be able to graduate from high school with a general education diploma. This program should be for students without an interest in college or vo-tech type programs. The goal of this curriculum should be to ensure that these students can read and do basic math. Too many students are graduating with poor reading and math skills. They should also have science and history but should not have to take chemistry, biology, algebra, geometry, etc.
Standarized testing needs to reflect that students are on different tracks. All students don't have the same academic abilities and we should not test on the assumption they do.
I take issue with labeling a student or group of students as "shouldn't go to college". What I like about the US system is basically anyone can try college at a CC. Some people are "late bloomers".
I know someone with a degree in women's studies who is now pursuing an accelerated nursing degree.
High schools should have minimum standards to graduate, and I believe that including real science courses (not "practical" or "consumer" science), and math at least through Algebra I is achievable by all students of normal intelligence.
While I agree with this statement: "We need an education system that gives students options and doesn't lock them into an education path. It needs to challenge all students to push them to the limit of their abilities without overwhelming them.", you won't get that with a general education diploma. Such a diploma would seriously limit one's options to the CCs and other colleges that accept anyone with a HS diploma. It might also limit one's acceptance into post-grad vocational programs such as practical nursing, drafting and the like that require a knowledge of higher math and science.
At a minimum, there should be options that would allow the college-bound to take some voc-ed classes as electives ( i.e. construction, electrician, basic shop, etc), and also allow vo-tec students to take some academic ( history, English, etc) classes. There shouldn't be an exclusion of one program from the other...
At a minimum, there should be options that would allow the college-bound to take some voc-ed classes as electives ( i.e. construction, electrician, basic shop, etc), and also allow vo-tec students to take some academic ( history, English, etc) classes. There shouldn't be an exclusion of one program from the other...
Agreed. My daughter had a friend who was in the auto mechanics program at Vo-Tech, but he went to the regular high school to take German b/c he wanted to. Of course the Vo-Tech students should meet the regular graduation requirements. At my kids' school, all HS students had to take a minimum of one semester of practical arts, e.g. home ec, various shops, etc. Lots of them took computer stuff to satisfy that req.
I'd keep it simple and advocate requiring the following 2 additional classes (at a minimum) for high school graduation:
1) Personal Finance: Making a budget, credit scores, getting a loan (for school, mortgage, credit cards, etc.), investing (risk vs. reward, mutual funds, bonds, stocks, options, etc.), saving for retirement, selecting a financial adviser.
2) Job Search: Creating resumes, job boards, networking, interviewing, pursuing industry certifications, etc.
I'd keep it simple and advocate requiring the following 2 additional classes (at a minimum) for high school graduation:
1) Personal Finance: Making a budget, credit scores, getting a loan (for school, mortgage, credit cards, etc.), investing (risk vs. reward, mutual funds, bonds, stocks, options, etc.), saving for retirement, selecting a financial adviser.
2) Job Search: Creating resumes, job boards, networking, interviewing, pursuing industry certifications, etc.
Problem is that personal finance is just that...personal.
I am usually appalled at the way people handle their finances. But that doesn't mean they are doing it WRONG. Just what works for them and their needs and their lives.
I would be leery of a personal finance class, especially since I don't agree with most mainstream finance advice, etc. I don't want my kids using the class as ammo to use against my argument that they are making a stupid decision.
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.
