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.
Wouldn't it be better to offer chemistry to the kids who are INTERESTED in chemistry? That right there would reduce your class size probably by half. The other kids could take science classes that they were interested in, whether it be biology, human anatomy, animal health, or an independent study in astronomy.
I know that you're not in charge and you don't make the rules, so I'm not asking you personally why this isn't the case. But it seems that a little of what you call "catering" and I call "providing an appropriate education to each individual" would definitely increase the rate of learning and the improve the state of education in general.
Just curious...do you think kids should have a basic minimum understanding of all the sciences?
What do the best public schools have in common? Fortress walls built around them through some sort of closed attendance policy.
Whether we're talking about a charter school that limits its low-income and/or special needs percentages through selective enrollment and expulsions, an urban magnet school that requires test scores or auditions to gain admission, or a suburban comprehensive school in a neighborhood consisting of homes that only the wealthiest folks can afford, the highest-performing public schools in the United States are the ones that have some sort of mechanism for keeping out significant percentages of "undesirable" students.
Great post whimsy. It's the same at my school--I have no idea why some classes are so much smaller than others but it just happens that way and we try to get our ELL kids into them so they can get the help they need.
What Ivory said doesn't make high school completely useless but it does mean that the kids aren't getting the education that we think they should be. I mean it's not useless in the sense that *where else are they going to get this material except in a science class?* b/c I can't imagine that most would study it on their own.
But that does lead us to the useful part--if a student would not choose to study chem on his own then chances are that he's not sufficiently interested in the subject to pursue it and if that's the case then why take it? And my answer to that is that I did develop an interest in science after I got to college but I struggled mightily b/c I hadn't had the prerequisites and every time I wanted to take a math or science class I had to take a remedial class first and that got expensive and I was paying for my own college so I did something else instead and in that sense I shot myself in the foot and for this reason alone it pays to stay in HS and learn the material. In other words, the kids need to stay and make the best of a bad situation and it's not good to lie to them and tell them we have the best education system in the world and all that crap. Just tell it like it is and they get out of it mostly what they put into it anyway.
I would agree with this if they actually learned the material. But let's be realistic: How much high school chemistry/physics/biology/trig did you actually retain? It's all well and good to learn something that you don't care about for the sake of passing a test, I guess, but if you're going to forget it a week or a day or an hour later, then why bother? If you hate chemistry with a passion, then chances are that you're not going to go into any sort of field that requires chemistry.
Surely you took math and science classes in high school. The reason you needed remedial courses in college is because those classes did not work for you. You weren't interested, and you didn't learn the material. So was it better for you to sit in class and not learn anything/enough (which is evident because you didn't get into non-remedial college classes at first), or would it have been better for you to take classes in things that you were interested in from the get-go? Maybe you didn't take high school chemistry and physics (or if you did, then you didn't absorb the information)... what were you interested in? Maybe if you had taken animal sciences (just throwing out an example), you would have picked up the basics of biology and some chemistry because it pertained to something you were interested in. Education does not happen in a vacuum, and every subject doesn't have to be separate from every other subject.
Quote:
Just curious...do you think kids should have a basic minimum understanding of all the sciences?
Sure. I think that a comprehensive "basic sciences" course would be a great option for ninth graders, along with a requirement that they take at least one other science class for high school graduation. Whether that's biology, astronomy, psychology, anatomy or something else should be up to the student. Kids who plan on going to college will need to take more, of course, and its the job of the guidance counselors to give those kids guidance in choosing what they'll need for higher education purposes. There's also a good chance that if independent studies in science were offered and encouraged, kids would choose their own science-related topics of interest and pursue them. This would, of course, be more work for the teachers/facilitators at first, but once kids understood how to find the information they were looking for, it would be less work overall. These are teenagers, after all, not six-year-olds. They don't need their hands held or to be spoon-fed information. Give them the tools and resources that they need, give them guidance in choosing a project to work on, and let them go, giving advice as needed.
I know, that's a pipe dream and public education will probably never look like that. That is, I think, why lots of families who would be involved are opting out and instead turning to private schools, charter schools, magnet schools and homeschooling. It's not the teachers' faults by any means. The entire system is outdated and ineffective for lots of kids.
I hated high school. I dropped out and got a GED. either you fit in, or you are Dylan Klebold. Sometimes I completely get where those guys were coming from. In a very twisted way, the Columbine Killers were heroes to the other misfits and outcasts in high school society. They had the psychosis to follow thru with the fantasy.
Only someone who was truly a reject in high school society would understand that. Which is why I think parents need to be in tune with their kids in high school, esepcially the ones on the fringe. Difficult to do...because they isolate.
The parents of the Columbine killers....should have considered home school for their kids. It was obviuos they were suffering. And often kids like that don't fit in the mold, are very brilliant. High school is a boring waste od time for them. And painful as well.
Location: We_tside PNW (Columbia Gorge) / CO / SA TX / Thailand
34,690 posts, read 57,994,855 times
Reputation: 46171
Quote:
Originally Posted by lkb0714
High tech high school in lincroft nj
Biotech high school freehold nj
Several others.
Both managed by the local vo-tech which also offers some of the best vo-tech programs in the state.
....
Glad SOME options exist, (especially Vo-Tech (very out of 'vogue' in USA)) but...
um... don't think this option was availed to the OP or 80% of the 'rest' of the 'average students' in the pathetic USA K12 EDU system.
I'm Sure glad Neither I nor any of my siblings or their kids were subjected to the 'average' K-12 USA prision / generic / lowest common denominator USA edu bore.
I was in HS about 3 hrs / day my jr and senior yr, that was MUCH too long to waste there. I was 'Aiding' in those 3 classes, since I had all the EDU credits met long before Senior yr, and just needed to book my time.
Fortunately (as a farm kid) I had already learned enough skills to have GREAT jobs in HS that paid very well, and started my 'offical apprenticeship' shortly following HS. This career paid me very well (single income family) and availed many employment opportunities including overseas assignments for my family.
Being a 'low-life' apprentice is not something most 'entitled' kids are gonna deal with very well. Nor would most parents TODAY allow that type of 'abuse'. But it was WELCOME and VERY cush, compared to Dairy Farm Boarding School.
What do the best public schools have in common? Fortress walls built around them through some sort of closed attendance policy.
Whether we're talking about a charter school that limits its low-income and/or special needs percentages through selective enrollment and expulsions, an urban magnet school that requires test scores or auditions to gain admission, or a suburban comprehensive school in a neighborhood consisting of homes that only the wealthiest folks can afford, the highest-performing public schools in the United States are the ones that have some sort of mechanism for keeping out significant percentages of "undesirable" students.
And this mentality continues to divide our nation.
What do the best public schools have in common? Fortress walls built around them through some sort of closed attendance policy.
Whether we're talking about a charter school that limits its low-income and/or special needs percentages through selective enrollment and expulsions, an urban magnet school that requires test scores or auditions to gain admission, or a suburban comprehensive school in a neighborhood consisting of homes that only the wealthiest folks can afford, the highest-performing public schools in the United States are the ones that have some sort of mechanism for keeping out significant percentages of "undesirable" students.
You are correct. In order to be a high performing school, you need high performing students. The higher up the SES ladder you go, the less resources that takes. Could you do it in impoverished areas? Sure, with a breakfast program, a longer school day, smaller classes, lots of resources, tutoring, after school homework help, out and out bribery to get kids to care about grades....the list goes on and on but the money is not there to pay for it. So inner city schools languish while those who can get out get out to magnet, charter and private schools.
And this mentality continues to divide our nation.
The problem is, the name of the game is high test scores and the easiest way to get them is to attract good students. The schools that need the resources the most are the ones most at risk of getting them taken away using test scores as the end all be all.
I taught in a charter school for two years. This school attracted, basically, two kinds of students. Those who were about to be kicked out of the schools they were in (they started getting rid of them after count day) and those whose parents wanted something better. The latter were easy to teach. The kids who are hard to teach are the ones who don't care and who have parents who don't care. You need a lot more resources than a available in the average classroom to teach them.
Ivory, why does one of your classes only have 15 kids?
It seems like for the kids in the rest of your classes, your course really isn't too useful. You said yourself that a good portion of the kids won't finish the labs, won't get their questions answered, are being assigned busywork homework because some of the kids need the practice, and don't get enough of the teacher's time.
Those statements lead me to believe that the original premise, high school is useless, is not being negated in your classes. It's not your fault, but that doesn't make the course any more useful for the 8-10 kids who, in any given day, aren't finishing labs and aren't getting their questions answered. They might glean something from the copious amounts of homework, but in general, their time spent there is going to be largely wasted.
Wouldn't it be better to offer chemistry to the kids who are INTERESTED in chemistry? That right there would reduce your class size probably by half. The other kids could take science classes that they were interested in, whether it be biology, human anatomy, animal health, or an independent study in astronomy.
I know that you're not in charge and you don't make the rules, so I'm not asking you personally why this isn't the case. But it seems that a little of what you call "catering" and I call "providing an appropriate education to each individual" would definitely increase the rate of learning and the improve the state of education in general.
It's just the way the schedule worked out. Chemistry classes offered early in the day tend to be smaller, in part due to kids in the voc program who are off campus until after lunch. Unfortunately, these are the kids who could really use some extra help. Class sizes really depend on what is offered the hour your class is offered. If there's a popular class during the same hour, your classes are smaller.
If all my classes were classes of 15, the sky would be the limit. It is really cool to watch the kids in that class putting the material together and really thinking. I don't see that in my class of 28. Unfortunately, I'm required to teach the same material in both classes. I could go faster in the class of 15 but need to go slower in the class of 28 so I pick a pace in between and enrich the class of 15 and push the class of 28. The lucky kids are the ones in the class of 15.
I wish they could, at least, give me the same number of kids in every class.
ITA with offering chemistry to the kids who are interested in chemistry. Unfortunately, the state decided to "raise the bar" by making all kids take chemistry. Anyone with a brain would see that the bar in chemistry must be lowered to accomplish all students taking and passing chemistry. However, the state sees this requirement as improving education. Talk to the politicians on this one.
I agree on catering or individualizing. I can do that in my class of 15. I can't in my class of 28. 50 minutes is barely long enough to get through the required material with them. Class size makes a HUGE difference in a class like mine.
Just yesterday, I was lecturing on one topic and a student was confused because she was coupling it with something else. If she had been in my larger class, I would have continued and told her to see me after school. Because she was in my smaller class, I taught the topic she was pulling in that didn't belong so I could unconfuse her. This served as a preview of things to come for the rest of the class. She had read ahead and was pulling something in that didn't apply to what we were doing. I will bet dollars to donuts that when I come back to this topic, that class does better on the test because we had the time to have that side conversation. I know that student will do better.
It is in that class that I'm starting to see real thinking taking place. It's in that class that kids will take risks. It makes me sad for the other class. 50 minutes is not enough for them. It would be much better to have two classes of 21 or 22 but I don't control the scheduling and those who do don't see this as a problem. I teach in a small school that is trying to offer everything everyone wants. That leads to scheduling difficulties which result in some classes being small and others being large. All I can do is the best I can with what I have available.
People just don't get that what teachers really need is the time to teach the students they have. People think we need technology (I'd love to see it thrown out of schools. Technology interferes with thinking. Googling an answer has replaced thinking.) but we don't. People think we need subject matter experts but we don't. There's a whole lot of basic stuff to teach before you would need an expert. We need to be able to do more than the bare minimum for the kids we have but with too many kids, too many preps (as in subjects to prepare to teach) and too little time we can only do what we can do. You can't get blood from a stone.
Unfortunately, with teachers/schools/education being public enemy number one, I do not see this changing any time soon. To do what needs to be done would cost money. The state pays something like $8K per student. Top private school charge more like $18K per student. You get what you pay for.
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.
But it was WELCOME 
and VERY cush, compared to Dairy Farm Boarding School.
