<p>Perhaps this topic has been tackled here...</p>
<p>but what can be done (theoreticially) to make HS something kids like?</p>
<p>Learning SHOULD be something that should be exciting and fun, shouldn't it?
Why is it not so much of the time for so many kids?</p>
<p>Is it the stress of tests and grades and the college process? Is it the fact that while some teachers are wonderful, others are not? Is it the fact that a liberal arts education requires kids to take at least some subjects that they are not (and never will be) interested in? </p>
<p>If we could re-invent high school in a way that kids WILL learn and LOVE to learn at the same time, what would we do?</p>
<p>I'd love to hear different creative ideas on this. (Don't worry about practicality.)</p>
<p>funny, I was talking about this subject with some parent-friends of mine today, reflecting on how thankful we were that our boys looked forward to going to school everyday. Our concensus was that their happiness had nothing to do with how hard their load was, how stressful their days....it boils down to enjoying their friends, at least for the motley group of boys we were chatting about. And because these boys are happy to be with each other, they like going to school, and even though school can be a drag sometimes, they engage at school to be with their buddies. </p>
<p>I am very thankful for this situation, but I really don't know how one would program schools to make this happen more or better. In my S's case, sports helps, and so do other ECs.....any method to get the kids mixed up and doing team oriented things (with school mates) in a non-academic endevour, IMO, is good for their mental health & therefore good for their desire to be at school & to want to do well at school.</p>
<p>My son loved his high school. My daughter is frustrated her senior year because all of her closest friends were 1-2 years ahead of her and have now graduated, but she certainly has enjoyed her first 3 years. I think the key is simply that my kdis both attended small public high schools with specialized (magnet/alternative) programs. They ended up with kids with similar interests or inclinations in a school that is small enough to give a strong sense of community. My son's high school had about 700 students, my daughter's high school has about 600. </p>
<p>So if you want to "reinvent" high schools, I would say the the answer is to provide more alternatives, moving away from a one-size-fits-all approach. My kids went to different high schools, which were very different in their atmosphere and academic offerings.</p>
<p>My kids major complaint was the regimented scheduling in their high school. For kids that do band, choir or yearbook there is no room for exploratory classes. In Junior year these kids get one exploratory class and in senior year maybe two. Because of the school size and the amount of classes that are only offered once a day, it's a rare senior that gets the classes they want. Also, the HS is inflexible in allowing students to take classes elsewhere to free up their schedule. </p>
<p>Anyone else have a requirement of four years of gym and two years of health (each half a year but cannot be squished into one or two years)? How about 2 full years of keyboarding and computer applications - no exceptions and this is after three cycles of it in MS? Testing out is not allowed or taking a similar class at a CC. We are not a poor school district and the vast majority (86% when my senior son was in 8th grade) have internet access. Point being that by the time they get to HS, most kids are computer literate.</p>
<p>I think Calmom is right about size being a factor. It's difficult to get rid of the prison aspects of an institution the size of many of our mega high schools. Crowd management and bureaucracy end up wasting a lot of kids' time. The kids who would like to be excited about learning are probably the ones who are most negatively affected if they feel that only a small portion of their time and effort is spent learning as opposed to busywork, waiting around, repeating material they've already mastered, etc, etc.</p>
<p>My daughters high school is one of the largest schools in the district- ( student body wise) about 1700.
She seems more engaged with her schoolwork in high school, than she did in her previous K-12 school which had about 1000 fewer students.</p>
<p>The primary differences seem to be- communication and involvement- of the parents and teachers as well as students
Even though her previous school gave her a chance to go to Ashland to see the Shakespeare festival, go Maui for a marine biology trip, Wash DC & NYC for american history, snow sports on winter fridays, play varsity soccer and volleyball- play in the steel band and take pottery classes- she prefers her current school for its breadth of opportunities.( more sports- more vocational classes- more rigor in core classes)</p>
<p>Whereas the smaller school had courses of all one level- her current school has honors and AP as well as regular track.
I prefer the other way of not taking the brightest kids out of the reg classroom,but the skill of the teachers matters quite a bit in classroom management and course planning.</p>
<p>Classroom size matters a great deal as well as school size- I hated attending a school of 1200 students with only 3 grades- but now I would love it if the schools were that small with 4 grades.</p>
<p>Not gonna happen though
Her district does allow waivers for oc ed and PE as well as taking an online or C course. They have to, the district will only fund 5 credits a year and if the student is hoping for college with 4 years of foreign language/history/english/math/science, that doesn't leave much room for the other state & district graduation requirements</p>
<p>Well, I think its a combination of size and the involvement of teachers which happens with a specialized program. That is, although my kids ran into a few teachers who were terrible and simply counting the days until their retirement, the majority were teaching at their high schools because they chose the particular program and want to be part of it. The nature of the programs also weeds out kids who lack commitment -- who is going to sign up for some high school that piles on additional requirements for graduation beyond the bare minimum for the district? (But that's the way it works usually to make all the special stuff fit in). And of course it ensures a more compatible group of kids, in terms of overall interests and goals.</p>
<p>Is this even the right question? My job isn't fun - that's why they call it WORK - even though I might enjoy aspects of it. Doesn't everything job - and don't forget, high school is their job - have parts that you just hate? That are boring? How about paperwork? And I have to do it without Christmas, February, April vacations or 3 months off in the summer. Maybe high school kids do need to learn how to manage things that are not fun and exciting but necessary?</p>
<p>Now, if you want to discuss how many things in high school are unnecessary, that's another topic. Don't forget, as well, that many of the "boring" requirements are not there because of high schools but because colleges require them. My d has no interest in physics, yet must take a year of it to satisfy most of the selective colleges she's interested in. Not the high school's fault.</p>
<p>With our PA school district it's all about state mandates and how the district chooses to interpert them. On one hand they say that kids should explore their options in High School, on the other they make so many classes mandatory there is no room for exploration. I'm not talking about college requirements, it's like a group of people got together to push their own personal agenda's about what they think is important and instead of compromising they just decided to make everything required, whether it makes sense or not. Did my overwhelmingly humanities oriented daughter really need a semester of tech ed in HS, after already having had it in four cyles in middle school?</p>
<p>Chedva, no one is talking about making high school all fun and games. It's just that when the negatives outweight the positives there is a problem. You wouldn't stay at a job that you absolutely detest -- where you dreaded getting up in the morning and felt miserable day after day, and could not even take solace in the idea that your work had value to others because instead you felt the bulk of your time each day was wasted on unnecessary tasks. If that was your situation at work, you would be looking for other employment if you didn't quit outright -- and in any case, quitting or changing jobs would be considered an acceptable option. </p>
<p>If you were hired on as a manager at a place where the workers all seemed to be apathetic and depressed, the first thing you would do is look at ways of increasing employee morale -- and that means you would introduce work place reforms that would meet the same goals that were expressed in the opening post of this thread.</p>
<p>I agree that many jobs are tedious and difficult- but you learn best when engaged/interested and comfortable.
By making school painful we aren't doing anyone any favors-</p>
<p>Some districts have years of vocational requirements required, but the classes not only take time away from their academic requirements, but might be limited to things like Keyboarding, when students have been typing their papers since 4th grade-how can we expect students to think that adults know what they are doing?</p>
<p>Luckily my daughters school allows waivers- they require 2 & 1/2 credits of PE/health, but also allow team sport credit and online classes. Not that she has anything against either of those classes, but being able to take the requirements elsewhere, gives her more time to take academic classes.
Her school also requires 1 & 1/5 occupational ed credits- for all students. Her photography class can be taken for Oc ed or art- but many schools don't have the range of classes hers does.</p>
<p>When I was in school- I took a class called "Survival".
It could have been designed better- but I think a similar class should be required or at least offered.
In this class we learned about budgeting- buying a car loan, reading rental agreements and meal planning. I realize that many students get these skills with out a class, but after a short trip to the grocery store, listening to people debate what to buy- I was reminded that there is probably a connection between the obesity rate in this country and the lack of nutritional knowledge. I realize that the topic is probably covered in Health to some extent- but to go back to the topic- more meaningful instruction, like my daughters field trips, an opportunity to use what they have learned in the classroom, can give a lot of relevance and motivate for continued study</p>
<p>they don't offer that anymore-
my high school it was taught in a reg classroom- we didnt' cook- but we did evaluate menus and prices
We had to research what it would cost to get married- rent an apt etc.
I think it could be valuable- for even the college bound kids to learn about interest rates and changing a tire.
::::::lost:::::::
I dont see connection with vouchers- what am I missing?</p>
<p>Universal school vouchers would give the choice back to parents and students. Competition is the only thing that will improve the government schools, and therefore have schools out there "that kids like." And also that parents "like." And also have the many subjects that have been systematically eliminated over the years, like home ec, business skills, and vocational programs. This has been done as a result of the ludicrous position that "everyone should have the opportunity to go to college."</p>
<p>This is flat out ridiculous, and incredibly damaging to our culture and economy. On this forum site so many of us are "tuned in" to high powered colleges, it's absolutely an ivory tower in its own right. We don't even think about those out there who have been seriously damaged by this philosophy, because they have been denied the opportunity to learn what they need to make a living and a good life.</p>
<p>What do kids like? They like to be challenged to learn, they like to compete, they like to please adult authority figures, they like what they're good at. Every parent knows that without question. So a government school system that reduces everything and everyone to the lowest common denominator in order not to offend anyone, or to avoid all competition, or to make sure no child feels bad, will wind up serving no one well. And we have plenty of evidence all around us that this is true.</p>
<p>What's wrong with this picture: the machinist's trade association and the plumbers' union have to ADVERTISE for apprentices, while the underclass in Baltimore, abandoned by their government schools, sit on their stoops unemployed. ???? What is this? Experienced plumbers in Baltimore earn in excess of $60-70,000 a year! </p>
<p>That, ek4 and OP, is what this is about. Nothing less.</p>
<p>There is a difference between fun and rewarding. Hard work can be extremely rewarding, but is often not "fun" while it's going on. I have always abhorred the idea that school should be "fun," but believe far too little effort is put into making it rewarding.</p>
<p>What is rewarding to one student can be sheer drudgery for another. I think the joy of hands-on/apprentice programs is that something is done while the student has learned something (the electric system works, the robot beeps, etc.). Too much of school seems to be about sitting around being talked at. </p>
<p>I would like to see high school shortened to two years of serious academics--no electives--covering reading/writing/math/science (integrated bio/chem/physics) with a competency exam at the end. Let students challenge the exam. Give students who need it more time (and alternative methods of passing), and give students who don't need more basics a chance to enter apprentice programs, college, higher level academics, whatever.</p>
<p>My S's unhappiness with his school is attributable mainly to disappointment with the behaviors of many of his fellow students. Although he attends a selective exam school, the intellectual bent of students varies tremendously; while he has quite a few peers who are interested in learning for learning's sake almost as much as he is, the much larger majority are either kids who like to learn only as much as necessary for good grades and then complain when other kids want to pursue topics in greater depth or kids whose reasons for being selected to attend this particular school remain a mystery. He can tolerate the uneven (although generally quite good) quality of his teachers and courses, but complains bitterly about the anti-intellectual cadre of students who knock into him and create disruption in the halls between classes.</p>
<p>He's always been the super-sensitive type who's bothered by the kinds of things most other kids shrug off, but he had seemed to be doing better with keeping a sense of perspective until recently. Lately, though, whatever teflon coating he had had has been turning into velcro. I'm hoping this is just "sophomore slump", and he's able to regain his ability to not let these kids interfere so much with his ability to enjoy school</p>
<p>Map, I think many kids experience what your son is going through. I had a similar experience at a high school in CA ranked tops in the state with fabulous programs. The social structure stunk. My mom used to tell me, don't worry, look forward to college and college was great. But when selecting schools for my son, I took him overseas to a small k-12 school with limited offerings and lots of heart. He grew up there and thrived. I never looked back. I firmly believe that K-12 schools create a more harmonious social atmosphere than behemoth schools subdivided into age categories, that course offerings are not as important to kids as the social climate. I have talked to so many of our graduates that return to visit after attending colleges in the UK, Canada and US: they say the biggest thing they gained from our little school is they are never afraid to interact with professors, groups, students--their self-concept is high. (Home schooling I believe can have a similar effect on kids.) Some schools are just better than others in their ability to make their students want to come every day: they make their students feel part of the system. The climate is good.</p>
<p>I think it all boils down to is to make teenagers care about non-petty things. Teenagers are petty, teenagers like to make peoples lives living hells, teenagers can plain out be mean! Granted, high schoolers are much more relaxed than middle-school aged kids but it would be hard to get most teenagers to enjoy high school.</p>