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.
I have another thread going about why it is so difficult to get a quality public education in the US and I mentioned that I have friends who were educated in the UK and Caribbean under the British model and although poor, received a high-quality education that prepared them for advanced studies and employment. In addition, those students who were not "academically-oriented" had the option of attending vocational programs.
As many of you know many vocational programs in US schools have moved to community colleges or trade schools (possibly) prolonging the length of time spent in school and creating a financial burden for some.
If you have either taught or were educated in the British model and can compare it with the US model, are there any aspects of it that the US should consider?
I have not been part of the British K-12 educational system - neither as a student nor a teacher - only as a graduate student.
However, I myself have to admit that based on my experience, the average British young person speaks and acts way more educated, overall, than the average American young person - and that applies even if I were to reduce the American "sample" to young people from so-called "good areas of town" (with good school districts, etc).
So one way or another, there is something going on.
Off the top of my head, I would attribute this trend to three main aspects. I don't have any handy empirical studies to back this up, though I am sure plenty related could be found.
1. American families are probably more likely than British families to regard education strictly in terms of pragmatic uses: something that their kids have to do in order to end up "successful". As in "living well, materially, or ranking higher in the work place. The "winner-loser" thing. When you approach education this way without an additional, gratuitous thirst for knowledge, then you can only go so far in becoming truly educated. You'll do well in life all right if you push at it, you'll become specialized in some lucrative field, but truly educated/learned/well-rounded/wise? Less likely.
2. I once heard a co-worker talking about a British person she knew as being "middle-class". Then she added "...which in the US would mean more like upper-class". Socioeconomic status/class issues never really counted among "favorite" topics of conversation for Americans but there are some hard realities that go along with this topic, as much as we'd rather ignore it than split hairs around it.
The vast majority of British people are obviously NOT upper class, just like everywhere else; but it would be fair to say that the British upper classes have historically exerted a huge cultural influence on the rest of society. Pretty much like in the rest of Europe, everyone else would "look up" to the upper classes, secretly wanting to emulate them, not just in "money" but also in culture, knowledge and education; or especially in those, as most people could not obtain upper class money no matter what they did. But education? Why not - once it was mde available to the masses?
In the US, by contrary, the cultural ethos has always favored the middle class model. The hero/model/standard is the individual of modest origins who found a more prosperous way of life in the land of opportunity via hard work. This hard work certainly included "doing well in school" but not necessarily with the same final goal many British families have always subconsciously adopted.
And, at the end of the day, the strongest predictor of children's success in education remains parents' expectations at home, as well as parents' own habits (do they read, do they have complex conversations in the house, to they debate, to they discuss - or do they just instruct kids to "go study so you'll do well in life", all while dozing in front of the TV).
3. Specific educational methods adopted by schools in the US and the UK may possibly explain some of the difference too, but probably not by much. I personally think that American textbooks and methods have always laid out incredibly clear, systematic and easy to comprehend instructions that would allow even a very slow child to learn and "better himself". The essence of democratic and Socratic education. By contrast, European K-12 education has typically been heavy, convoluted, cumbersome, all predicated on the elitist model, and ultimately assuming that those "meant" do understand all the jazz, will anyway: either because they are naturally highly endowed or because they will receive plenty of tutoring and one-on-one attention in private. So I don't really think that British pedagogy in and of itself is inherently better than the American one.
It is what hides beneath the motive for education that really makes the difference, ultimately.
From a purely personal viewpoint, the only thing I didn't like about my British education was the total lack of "critical thinking". We were not taught it, we were not even told about the concept and I think it would've been a tremendous asset in later years. However, I did encounter it in grad school (USA) so it's all good. Other than that, whilst being a tad antiquated (Latin anyone?) it was thorough, in-depth and of a very high standard.
I actually like the "vocational" model that is used in Europe. However, the economic conditions in those countries (i.e. economic safety nets and government protection of blue-collar trades) allow that to work. Not to mention social mobility is also a much different concept--if you choose to go down the blue-collar path as a teen you pretty much stay there for life. Doing that here would probably set people up for failure.
I actually like the "vocational" model that is used in Europe. However, the economic conditions in those countries (i.e. economic safety nets and government protection of blue-collar trades) allow that to work. Not to mention social mobility is also a much different concept--if you choose to go down the blue-collar path as a teen you pretty much stay there for life. Doing that here would probably set people up for failure.
I'm not sure if blue collar path = failure in the US. It depends on what you study and the demand for jobs. With federal funds set aside for infrastructure development there should be construction jobs. I have no idea where a person would be trained to be a road worker or to lay rails for trains.
I'm not sure if blue collar path = failure in the US. It depends on what you study and the demand for jobs. With federal funds set aside for infrastructure development there should be construction jobs. I have no idea where a person would be trained to be a road worker or to lay rails for trains.
Well perhaps I was being a bit too broad. My point was that the social net surrounding blue-collar jobs that exists in Europe doesn't exist here. I'm just saying that there'd be too many instances of a school training someone in a certain area only for the jobs in that area to be generally scarce/seasonal/whatever. Then that person wouldn't have crap.
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.
