Reinventing High School

Pre-College Issues High School Life
21

<p>History is also extremely important to understand the world today. Everyone should have at least a basic understanding of their government and why the world works the way it does, which comes through examining history and major issues of the past. </p>

<p>Getting a bit more on topic, the education system should not emphasize college prep as much. At my school, everyone is put on a CP track whether they are qualified or not. I was appalled yesterday when I was correcting some classmates English papers- few could string together a proper sentence, and their writing style was what I’d expect to find in a grade school. These were all native English speakers and seniors graduating from a private high school! I can’t imagine the situation is much better in the public education system. There should be more practical classes offered so people don’t feel like going to college is the only option, especially when they aren’t qualified.</p>

22

<p>Retro, perhaps in Europe, but in America pretty much everyone speaks English. Even when I go abroad, most people speak English. In a cost benefit analysis, I don’t think it really makes sense unless someone is planning to work internationally or in certain parts of the US. But jobs or encounters that require that knowledge are pretty few, so it shouldn’t be a requirement for everyone.</p>

23

<p>Ehh, I think life is enriched by languages, so I disagree. But then, I want to travel and I might want to work internationally, so it makes sense to me to speak multiple languages. As someone who’s actually bilingual, I tend to find that others who share that trait are both more eloquent and more open-minded.</p>

24

<p>The reality which the author is describing has already come to pass in many places. Where we live, all the smart kids have already figured out what you have to say and do to get permission to take AP classes online through a public program sponsored by our state, so that you can work at a lightning fast pace, avoid the regulations and the lecturing and the foolishness of regular high school, and work quickly and efficiently alone. I suspect we will be seeing A LOT more of this in future years. I know kids who switched to online because they didn’t want to put up with being bullied by the jocks and the cheerleaders anymore in regular school, because they had social issues which might have bothered their peers but it turned out didn’t bother them (If you’re going to go to Caltech and spend your life working with engineers anyway, why pay a psychologist to teach you how to make small talk with “regular people”? It’s not like you’re going to be spending that much time around them anyway), or because they had compelling interests like art and music that took up a lot of time. </p>

<p>I think this whole melting pot/mixing bowl thing where kids are thrown together in high school for diversity’s sake might already be a relic of the past. Some kids get separated out in second grade, some in middle school, some in high school, but the way the sorting gets done, it’s not like people from different socioeconomic classes, etc. necessarily mix all that much in public school anyway. (Did you know that Northern VA’s leading public school is now fifty percent Asian?)</p>

<p>The existing system is broken and inefficient. If you don’t believe me, pull up the Youtube videos for college algebra – there’s one where 124,000 high school students have posted something to the effect that “I learned more from watching this guy lecture for 9 minutes on youtube than I learned in six weeks of my public school class” Stuff like this convinces me that maybe it would be better if we stopped moaning about the lack of good public school math teachers, for example, and instead just signed 100,000 kids up to watch videos on Youtube and then they could show up at high school to take tests.</p>

25

<p>I agree that the German system is too inflexible. My main issue is the absence of an alternative education path that would enable adults to change careers. Apprenticeships cater almost exclusively to teenagers, and starting a new college degree program (5 years of full-time education) might be too big a commitment for a working adult supporting a family. </p>

<p>The early tracking works surprisingly well though. It allows most students to be challenged without leaving anyone behind, and students get elective classes that they find interesting (e.g. Latin vs woodworking in 5th grade). </p>

<p>There is a question of standardization: do you want the German model with standardized paths for students with different goals, or do you prefer the American system where students get the same degree for radically different coursework? </p>

<p>I personally prefer the German system: it makes degrees intrinsically meaningful. American degrees reflect more on the amount of time someone has spent in school than on what they have actually learned. A high school diploma means little without a transcript accompanying it, and the value of a college degree hinges too much on the institution awarding it. Just imagine college degrees being standardized and valued the same regardless of which institution awarded it. There’d be so much less pressure on families to invest into an expensive private education unless they actually valued the extra perks (e.g. a residential campus, smaller classes and better landscaping) at $30,000 per year.</p>

<p>That being said, bruno123, I am curious how you would back up the following statement:

I would attribute it more to college degrees not being useful for a large segment of the population. For example, nurses, accountants and bankers are trained through the vocational system just like plumbers and electricians. In fact, up until recently the lowest college degree offered in Germany was a Master’s degree, obtained after 5-6 years of postsecondary study building up on 14 years of K-13 education. How many Americans would be “college educated” if you only counted graduate degrees?</p>

26

<p>@UKGirl: The British GCSE’s are roughly equivalent to the regular American HS diploma provided that, as the current British government is now encouraging, all students take at least English, Math, the three (natural) Sciences, one Humanities subject and a foreign language up to GCSE level. British A-levels on the other hand are roughly equivalent to North American AP courses (maybe a little bit more advanced), but with two important differences. First, although they are optional for the student population as a whole, A-levels or an equivalent qualification like the IB Diploma or Cambridge Pre-U are de facto mandatory for all university-bound students, which is not necessarily the case with American AP’s. Second, the A-level system allows you to specialize in 3 or 4 subjects that are directly relevant to your intended university course. </p>

<p>I would agree with your claim of excessively early specialization and lack of breadth if students had to choose an A-level track as early as year 6 like in Germany, but, in the English system as it is set up today, you can easily keep a broad choice of subjects (9 or more) well up to year 11 (GCSE year) and then specialize only in year 12, which in America would already be senior year.</p>

<p>The main problem I see in the English system is not really the GCSE/A-level track, but rather the alternative vocational track (e.g. GCSE/BTECs), which needs improvement.</p>

27

<p>You have to choose A levels halfway through year 11, which is equivalent to 10th grade. That means that when I’m 15 I’ll have to choose which career I want to follow</p>

<p>Also, in a few years (I think my year will be the first) it will become compulsary to continue in full time education until the end of year 13 (12th grade). It will be very interesting to see if this changes any of the current systems, particularly for students wishing to follow a vocational path.</p>

28

<p>I truly see no reason whatsoever for us to adhere so tightly to the idea that everyone has to take a foreign language. Of the students who pursue the same foreign language for 4 years in high school, very few even attain fluency, and if you aren’t learning it to be able to use it in the world, why learn it? Even if you are fluent in some language, when do you even get a chance to use it? The arguments I hear most often are “Lots of Mexican people work in landscaping, so you might need to talk to them, and China’s going to rule the world, so you’ll need to learn Chinese.” In other words, silly rationalizations. Sure, it’s cool to be able to live in China or Argentina or Italy, but if you really want to be able to become fluent in a language, just take it in college!</p>

<p>Meanwhile, there are tons of kids who go through the steps of “learning” a foreign language in high school, with very little to show for it for the rest of their lives. There are many more useful things kids could learn with an extra class a day-- computer science, for example.</p>

<p>I’ve accepted that I’d never actually gain much from learning a spoken language from somewhere in the world, which is why I take Latin. Of course I’m never going to be able to use it, but the study of Latin has built up my vocabulary, strengthened the structures of my writing, and taught me more about English grammar than I ever did in English. I’d highly recommend it for any who are considering spending many years learning a “useful” language that won’t actually end up being all that useful.</p>

29

<p>@UKGirl: My point was that, by the time a university-bound British student finishes year 11 (at the age of 16), he/she will have had a general education as broad as that of a regular (i.e. non-AP) senior in an American High School. In that respect, the British model of separating the vocational and academic tracks at ages 16/17 has no visible disadvantage then compared to the American model. </p>

<p>On the other hand, I disagree somewhat with your statement that the choice of A-levels limits too much one’s university course choices. There are indeed courses (American English “majors”) for which some specific A-levels are required. For example, one cannot study engineering without A-level maths and physics and, probably, further maths as well in the most competitive universities. Likewise, A-level chemistry is mandatory for medicine and biology is probably a plus. However, different A-level choices are possible for example for a Law applicant, including several distinct combinations of science and humanities subjects. In fact, most British universities set out only minimal specific A-level requirements for most of their courses and accept a broad range of qualifications/subjects instead, provided that they are traditional academic subjects and not things like media or business studies. Besides, it is also worth pointing out that even an engineering hopeful, with the introduction of the AS and A2 levels, can now easily take a 4th contrasting subject like history, economics or a foreign language in addition to maths, physics and further maths. </p>

<p>In order words, there is some flexibility and possibility of greater breadth even within a seemingly specialized system like the A-level model. As I see it, rather than necessarily picking a university major at age 15/16, UK students actually choose a broader “grand area”, e.g. engineering/physical sciences, medicine/biological sciences, economics/social sciences, or arts/humanities. For each of those “grand areas”, there is a couple of recommended A-level subjects, with some overlap though across different areas and multiple acceptable combinations. In the end, it doesn’t strike me as such a “radical decision” that a 15/16-year-old could not make !</p>

30

<p>@litotes: </p>

<p>I assume most students in America take 4 years of math in High School, which may go as far as Calculus BC, and, in the worst case scenario, covers at least basic algebra, trigonometry, and perhaps some pre-Calculus. Nevertheless, apart from those students who receive further math training in college and pursue math-related majors/careers, how many Americans can be actually considered mathematically literate a few years after High School graduation? Probably very few ! </p>

<p>I guess the point I am trying to make is that the comprehensive American High School is as inept to teach foreign languages to the average student as it is to teach math, science, or even English ! The fact however that the average student fails to truly learn math in High School and does not usually retain that knowledge post-graduation doesn’t mean we should take math out of the HS curriculum. Similarly, you cannot argue that foreign language instruction in HS is useless just because most students don’t get a lot from it.</p>

<p>Furthermore, I think it is important not to set unrealistic goals as far as general secondary education is concerned. You mentioned for example “fluency” , which IMHO is an unattainable skill with 3 years of instruction consisting basically of classes meeting twice a week. There are of course different levels of “fluency”, but I suppose most people would agree that an advanced mastery of any non-native foreign language that is not extremely close to your own requires much longer formal study including a total immersion experience like actually living, studying or working in a country where that language is spoken. You cannot blame then High School foreign language instruction for not delivering something it was not designed to do !</p>

31

<p>

</p>

<p>My life is enriched by music. Should we make that compulsory as well?</p>

<p>

</p>

<p>Exactly. You have decided that, so you can choose to study a foreign language. For the majority of Americans, this skill is useless.</p>

<p>

</p>

<p>I find this quite ironic. By calling people who speak one language less open-minded, you’re generalizing most of the US population. I can guarantee that we are all not close-minded because of the language we speak. I find it close-minded to even think that. I consider myself a very open minded person, and I happen to speak one language. Yes, I know bits of Spanish, but the reality is that I will never be fluent unless I spend an extended period of time in a Spanish speaking country. More eloquent, maybe, but certainly not more open-minded. I don’t think the two correlate at all. </p>

<p>

</p>

<p>No they might not be able to do complex analysis, but precalculus is sufficient enough to complete day to day tasks that require math. Foreign language doesn’t come up in the majority of American’s day to day lives.</p>

32

<p>Are education system is stuck in the 20th century…we need to change things around to fit the now or we will be left behind.</p>

33

<p>

Sure! Music is already compulsory in many Western countries. Let’s add art, economics, sociology, psychology and philosophy to the curriculum too while we’re at it. (I am totally serious.) I got much more out of my high school social science classes than from the natural sciences.</p>

34

<p>It would be a very, very bad idea to let 14-15 year olds decide whether they should go to a vocational or academic high school. What if somewhere along the line they change their minds? It shouldn’t be so black and white. Academic high schools are good. Just throw in some compulsory electives and have students choose whether they’d like more history or plumbing. </p>

<p>As somebody who went through a poorly adapted version of the English educational model, all I can say is you guys have a very good system. At least, it’s very good compared to this ******** I went through.</p>

<p>One thing I think should change is math education. Not everybody likes math. Not all of math is inherently useful. Some mathematics topics can “teach” logical skills - these should be taught. Everyone doesn’t need to take math up to pre-calc though.</p>

<p>I’m not the first to express this and have even seen a write-up of somebody’s ideas on the subject somewhere on the internet. Essentially, in a high school with enough teachers, there’d be 3 streams of math that students get to choose from after they have done the core math sequence. (i.e, algebra I, geometry and trig - correct me if there’s more but I think these should be enough at this point) The three streams would be:

  1. practical math
  • students get to learn about how they’d use math in their everyday lives. Say, more arithmetic, learn more about interest/loans and so on and so forth
  • this will be a shorter math sequence and can be used to satisfy the math requirement</p>

<p>2) math methods for sciences/engineering

  • this should be akin to the current system
  • math all the way up to pre-calc and perhaps good courses in linear algebra and calculus</p>

<p>3) pure math

  • this would be for those just interested in pure math, those participating in competitions, etc
  • a more theoretical approach to everything done in high school
  • algebra, geometry, pre-calc, calc —> all with proofs</p>
35

<p>The idea of your average American grade school teacher trying to teach philosophy is somewhat frightening.</p>

36

<p>

</p>

<p>My teachers can barely teach what is written in the textbook in front of them… I agree, I have a feeling that philosophy would not go over well. </p>

<p>Does anyone know specifics about the Norwegian system? I thought I had read somewhere that they start school later, do less days per year, and have higher test results in math/science. I also read that their teachers go through a much more rigorous selection/training process, unlike here where a bachelor’s/teaching credential is not very difficult to attain, and then tenure keeps teachers teaching who really should not be doing so.</p>

37

<p>I’m close to graduating from a large urban high school, with a minority of motivated AP students and a vast majority seemingly at risk of dropping out and here’s my take of what high school is like. </p>

<p>The vast majority are apathetic. I feel like basically everyone who isn’t in the top 5% of my class has tried drugs or is on drugs. Marijuana is particularly common. On the other hand, can’t tell you how many times I’ve met people I saw potential in and yet they were failing classes (often relatively easy classes). Some show certain interests or inclinations towards certain areas. Some are musicians, others dream of being engineers without having anything close to the proper preparation. Regardless, it’s the same set of excuses I hear every time. Their teachers don’t teach or how their teacher hates them, etc. While some of those claims may be legitimate, the vast majority of the classes in my high school are vastly easier than what they should be (and vastly more boring than they should be). I’ve encountered this through my experiences with tutoring people taking chemistry, precalc, and some freshmen taking algebra 1.</p>

<p>They are in no way ready for college classes. Many don’t even take notes or organize their notebooks. the “college prep” level really refers to remedial classes since some leaders in education got it through everyone’s head that EVERYONE needs to go to college whether they like it or not. </p>

<p>There’s is something in the teaching method that’s at fault. I honestly am not sure how to exactly describe the issue, however, I always get the impression that most topics that are taught just scratch the surface. It basically comes down to here’s some formulas to memorize, here’s some history dates to remember as well as a list of important historical figures, study them for the next test. They don’t teach proofs anymore in math education and unless it’s an AP class, they don’t teach you anything about analyzing and understanding historical events (yay for DBQs!). I think I experienced it for myself to some extent. My grades suffered because I was bored with the approach and because my previous “honors” classes did not prepare me for AP material. However, I have to acknowledge many of the wonderful AP teachers at my school who are actually very invested and who also are lucky enough to be teaching a small motivated bunch.</p>

<p>Forget about actually reading a book for English class!!! Even in my AP English class, I have classmates who haven’t read a book since their sophomore year (or ever?). </p>

<p>What’s with the obsession with sports? My high school happens to have a very strong sports program that lets people participate for free. I understand that there are many people in my high school who would drop out if it wasn’t for the sports programs… but that’s exactly the problem. Why do we need something like sports to keep people from dropping out? The athletic program accommodates over 1,000 students in my high school and the amount of money involved hurts the academic side. Many just go to school and take easy classes with the highlight of their day being a 3 to 4 hour practice after school. In many countries around the world and some charters in the US, high schools have academic programs after school where students can focus and get together to do homework, get tutoring, and take extra classes until 9PM. In my high school, the library closes at 3:30, not enough time to get meaningful work done or more than 45 minutes of tutoring. Earlier this year it was even worse with it closing right after school.</p>

<p>Even with some of the committed teachers I’ve encountered, high school has turned into a form of crowd control. Our public secondary education system isn’t even stuck in the 20th century, but it’s degraded itself into a day prison (the food is worse than real prison). It takes a very special type of teacher that I have yet to encounter to break through to so many of my peers. Anti-intellectualism and excessive pre-occupation with pop culture and sports is rampant in our generation. I think it the transformation of our high schools needs to start with the transformation of our youth culture and our K-12 system as a whole. The classes need be more in-depth and students need to be taught work ethic much earlier, starting from elementary and middle school.</p>

<p>Perhaps the solution is simpler. They could get rid of compulsory high school education and make it so it’s much more difficult to pass, but my post is already long enough.</p>

38

<p>I think more languages are needed in schools, it’s an enormously useful skill to have and it can also widen understanding of your own language as well.
Here, most people start French in 2nd grade, then in 6th grade start either Spanish or German as well. They then drop one or both of these for 9th grade and may or may not do a language for GCSE. While it’s good to start languages early, we actually learn very little in these classes, and may only have an hour a week of them.
I took:
French- grades 3-5
French and Spanish- 6th grade
French, Spanish and Latin- 7th grade
French and Spanish- 8th grade (we could drop any one language)
Spanish- 9th-10th grade</p>

<p>Since dropping French a year ago, I have forgotten every thing I learnt, it was actually rather pointless, but I’m sure I’ll understand more of what’s going on next time I’m in France.
I think one of the main reasons we learn more languages here is the likelihood of us using them. You can go on holiday to France from almost anywhere in the UK very cheaply, and therefore more people will go abroad here than in the US.</p>

39

<p>

</p>

<p>Fair enough, I take your point. However, looking into the future, don’t you think purely vocational training for nurses or accountants is a somewhat risky strategy in a world of increasingly sophisticated medical and financial services ? That is why I said the German educational model strikes me as ideal for the old 20th-century industrial economy with its rigid class division, but not so promising for the type of society we will see in the knowledge-based, innovation-driven economies of the 21st century. Vocational training in particular can certainly be very efficient in terms of producing highly capable workers who perform very well a set of predefined tasks, but it is rather poor for example in terms of fostering innovation and creativity.</p>

<p>Germany is certainly doing fine today, but, going forward, I think there should be a national debate on the abnormally low percentage of college graduates compared to similar countries. Maybe the solution, as you have indicated, is to have a broader choice of post-secondary education like in the US where there are community colleges, teaching-only undergraduate LACs and research universities.</p>

40

<p>The Ted talk is great, but check out this RSA animation of same</p>

<p>[RSA</a> Animate - Changing Education Paradigms - YouTube](<a href=“RSA ANIMATE: Changing Education Paradigms - YouTube”>RSA ANIMATE: Changing Education Paradigms - YouTube)</p>

<p>Remarkable!</p>