<p>Jerry Diakiw wrote an interesting Op-Ed piece at edweek.com suggesting that we need to demolish our current concept of high school and start over with radically different options:</p>
<p>
[quote]
Just for starters, we need to create 24-hour, year-round high schools; a grade 7-14, or six-year, diploma; a grade 7/8 half-day school/work internship; dual-diploma programs with high schools/community colleges; and a North American retooling of the German apprenticeship system.
<p>He cites a variety of research showing that most students simply don't like their schools. They are bored, they dislike their teachers, and many drop out (or at least tune out).</p>
<p>Some CC members, of course, go to challenging magnet schools or prep schools with motivated students and good teachers, but what about the rest of the schools? Is the author right?</p>
<p>The author is 100% correct. Schools put kids into boxes, then give them a checklist to complete to be able to get out. The schools are then punished based on the percentage of “escapees” (drop-outs), and students that can not proficiently complete their checklist. It’s not fun OR educational. And it does not allow students to really explore topics that they are interested in to get excited about education.</p>
<p>a grade 7-14? even the Germans are doing away with their 13 yr. abitur program. I think that more thought needs to be given around 9/10th grade whether a kid decides to go to an academic program or a vocational program. One of the major reasons many kids “check out” is that they are not academically inclined. There is a massive dearth of skilled workers in the US. A retooling of the educational system may take care of that.</p>
<p>We need to eliminate the Prussian model of education in the U.S. Read “Weapons of Mass Instruction” by John Taylor Gatto if you want a reseached based view… We could adopt a system similar to Great Britain’s or Finland’s with students able to choose subjects that interest them their junior and senior year without any required classes.</p>
<p>I agree with IRgovmnt. What’s the point of taking three years of history and four years of language/literature when you’re going to be a math/science major? (I’m not saying they’re a waste of time – I’m just saying that some of the time used could be spent learning things relevant to your future college major).</p>
<p>My opinion is, take the regular courses early high school; when you’ve pretty much made up your mind on what you want to major in, specialize and choose the subjects that interest you.</p>
<p>^^ becasue you need to understand where we came from and be able to talk to peers at cocktail parties. Small talk is something that is very important to be able to do. </p>
<p>I have mixed feelings about foreign language. Some people do not learn English well until they take foreign languages. And I know that being bilingual is very usefull and profitable in the workplace. So an introduction is a good thing. Forcing kids to take 4 years of it to be competitive in college admissions is nuts!</p>
<p>I can understand having to take language, history, etc… But what I still haven’t been able to wrap my head around is how 2 years of foreign language will provide more beneficial aspects than taking, say, additional science classes. I plan to go into math/science and I simply haven’t been able to find a place where a simple 2 years of sign language will be assisting me. “I can communicate with the deaf.” A few weeks ago a deaf person came into where I work, but instead of trying to use my very basic signs we just simply went straight to pen and paper. Worked way better than me trying to throw together a few signs could.</p>
<p>I just wish, more than anything, that my school offered more than 4 AP classes…</p>
<p>Basically what the article proposes is a variation of the German model, which was fine for the old industrial societies with a clear distinction between manual labor and white-collar jobs, but does not work that well for a knowledge-intensive, post-industrial society where blue-collar jobs are fast disappearing. It is worth noting for example that, in part due to the lack of flexibility of its multi-tier secondary educational system, Germany has one of the lowest percentage of college-educated adults among the so-called developed (i.e. high-income) countries.</p>
<p>I agree that the one-size-fit-all, comprehensive U.S High School model is in need of reform, but rather than the German model, I would favor something more similar to the UK system, i.e. comprehensive education from year 1 to year 11, ending with a first state certificate like the British GCSE’s, followed by an optional, more specialized college-track at years 12 and 13 akin to the British A-levels, or an alternative vocational track leading to a separate diploma.</p>
<p>Vocational training is no longer going to get you far. Of course the majority of the jobs out there are vocational, but the most successful will people will need knowledge based skills (and we should always aim for the most success for vocational training schools can easily be set up as colleges). I believe a greater variety in subject choice is apt, but through specialization of schools. For example in one district, there should be an engineering school, a medical school, a law school. Why specialize so early? The only advantages the US can have in its work force over nations such as China and India is quality and creativity of its workers. Some subjects should be mandatory at every school (a few liberal arts subjects), but most should be choice-based. Ultimately though, I feel the problem in our educational system lies with the lack of high quality teachers-teachers who are able to teach and inspire listless students.</p>
<p>@Roninator: The reason foreign language is required (and enacted during the education shake-ups of the '60s) is not to provide fluency in multiple languages (most people never reach that level), but because research has shown time and time again that studying multiple languages heightens both intuition and rationale, and improves academic performance across the board. It is the connection between math and English, science and history.</p>
<p>I agree with making students take subjects like history and foreign language for 3+ years, even if they are planning on becoming an engineer. A well rounded education is important, especially if students eventually decide that they don’t want to go into a STEM field after all in college and change paths. I’ve taken 4 years of AP and honors math and science classes although I’m planning on going into the humanities. However, I also believe that we should offer more vocational paths and not stress attending college as much. College should not be a place for unqualified students to chill for a few years- many of them would be better off training in a vocation or trade school, and that should not be looked down upon in our society.</p>
While I understand your thoughts - I suffered through 3 years of Spanish - there have been studies (which may or may not be truly accurate) that suggest knowing and understanding foreign languages allow people to think in a different way than people who only know one language. Also, many if not most people in well-developed countries know at least two languages, and even if you are not a liberal arts major, your career will most likely involve some international business. However, I believe that foreign languages should probably be introduced much earlier than high school, and should be optional as well.</p>
<p>…And while I agree to an extent about being “well-rounded,” I believe it is not helpful to be a jack-of-all-trades, master of none. We are trying to educate everyone too much about too many things. The difficult decision is deciding what topics are essential, and how in-depth do we need to learn. Specialization is absolutely necessary, and I have to question how can we possibly learn the intricate details of a subject in two years (junior/senior years of college) after we spend over a decade in general education to learn general knowledge.</p>
<p>…Also, vocational schools are necessary. Colleges today are nothing like colleges of the past, and schools today focus heavily on “real-life applications.” Preparation for jobs and careers should be done by vocational schools or by employers, not colleges. College should be pursued for education, and it shouldn’t be for everyone - but we’re encouraging everyone to pursue it. That’s partly why drop-out rates are high.</p>
<p>If we want well-rounded students we should require something like shop or small engines, in my own opinion. These seem to be the the classes that offer a “unique” learning experience. Sign language is kind of like biology at my school: sit down and memorize a lot of information.</p>
<p>I completely see the benefits of learning another language, or perhaps just learning about it’s culture/whatever, but I also see the benefits of any other class that may be taken in its place. Computer science maybe? I would be much more open to the idea of learning a language earlier on in our educational careers, so at least then we can get a good enough grasp on it to make it worthwhile. On the other hand, a lot of kids don’t even have a very good grasp on English, let alone a second language. ;)</p>
<p>I actually wrote a research paper about the current state of our education for my College English Composition class, and in the process I was able to learn a lot. Unfortunately, almost everything that’s outlined in the article is true; our educational system is quite outdated and ineffective, and it’s in dire need of a rehaul</p>
<p>Slightly off topic, but I have to disagree with history not being an important part of the curriculum. I can certainly agree with the fact that knowledge of when the French Revolution occurred, or what the East Indian Company is won’t have much relevance for a Math or Biology major, but history is beyond that; history is learning about the past so we don’t make the same mistakes in the future. World War I & II, racial integration in the U.S., or the Communist vs. Democracy era are prime examples of why the past should have great significance to us; we learn these things so that we can prevent history from repeating itself.</p>
<p>Just an f.y.i., I have no bias, I’m an architecture major and I personally hate history; regardless of what I feel about it, I still think it’s important that history remains in the curriculum.</p>
<p>I can understand dropping the language requirement. I hate my Spanish class and suffer through it so I can get into college. </p>
<p>I plan to be a STEM major, but that’s not an excuse to be ignorant. These kids will be VOTING at 18. If they don’t even know the basics of history, how are they going to make an informed decision? </p>
<p>I also think the basics of at least biology are absolutely essential. I can’t even tell you how many times I’ve encountered someone who doesn’t believe in global warming because it “sounds impossible.” These are the kinds of things people need to know to be functional, productive, voting members of society. I really don’t care if people are well rounded otherwise. </p>
<p>I agree that the high school system needs reform. I like the British system. I find the German system too restrictive, and going to college there seems to depend more on whether your parents went, not whether it would be better than the vocational tract, when you read into it a little more.</p>
<p>The British system, while it gives you more choice, forces you to work out roughly what you want to do at college whilst in 10th grade, in order to pick the right A levels. This may be great for some people who know for certain what sort of field they want to go in to, but for people like me (I’m stuck between History and Medicine) It can really not be a good thing.
On the other hand, our GCSE system (9th-10th grade) may be a better way forward. Basically, everyone has to take English, maths, a modern language, science (all 3, but you can either do an advanced or basic course), a humanity (History, geography or RS). And then you get another two options (depending on the school) which can either be another language or humanity, or more elective type classes, eg art.
It allows people to drop subjects they don’t like, whilst making sure everyone has basic all round knowledge.</p>
<p>I’m so glad I’m not the only one who thinks history is important! I can’t believe how many people know nothing about the Great War, when over 10 million men lost their lives in awful conditions. I think we should remember out of respect, but also to prevent things like this happening ever again.</p>
<p>Maybe that is the case, as I think histroy encourages current as well as past awareness. However British physicist Henry G.J. Moseley was killed at Gallipoli, along with many other similar men.
I have a great interest (as you may have gathered) in military history, but I assure you I have no interest in going off to any war, and I’m a pacifist</p>
<p>No, leah, I think speaking another language fluently is almost essential. But otherwise, I agree with you regarding history and biology. The only thing is that what we learn could be more logical - do I really need to know about the vasoconstriction of seals? Things like global warming (or even nutrition!) are so much more useful, and so much more important.</p>