I appreciate State Superintendent of Public Instruction Susan Castillo encouraging Lebanon's 7th-8th graders to begin to ponder possible career options, and to know that there will be additional science and math requirements in place by the time they graduate from high school. But it seems there is pressure on students to select a career path before their developing brains can even get around the word "career." I would wager it's a small percentage of you reading these words who had selected a viable career choice by 8th grade.
The academy system at LHS tracks kids by asking them to pick a general career area so they can select the most appropriate academy before their freshman year. Each academy then tailors classes to cover high school basics within the framework of the academy career domains. This system greatly reduces the possibility that a student interested in physical science will enroll in a drama class (in a different academy) that sparks a passion for theatre arts, that might then lead to a college drama major: It reduces the chance a student strong in language arts (social systems academy) will discover a talent for chemistry as applied in a medical field (different academy).
High school resources are best spent offering a wide range of courses that cover basics and offer a taste of possible career futures. How will one know if one likes welding, if there is not a class to try? How will one know if they might have abilities and interests to train as a dentist if as an 8th grader they loved drama so selected a social academy?
Now dentists might indeed come out of a social academy: It can happen. But this tracking of high schoolers reduces the chances that they will find their way to a true passion. Just as tracking in the 60's steered some of us toward college, some towards vocational schools and some towards a terminal high school diploma -- this process limits students knowledge of their choices and interests by prematurely asking them to make life-changing choices.
There was a day when students graduated from high school, then decided on their next step. Then there was tracking by school-determined aptitude levels (college prep, voc prep, or high school is all you can hope for.). Now students are asked to decide in the 8th grade on a general career domain.
Will we keep pushing career-decisions to lower and lower grades? Do we start to teach the kindergardener who wants to be a cowboy to make rope loops?
We need to back off and gives kids space to discover interests and abilities at the high school level, while enthusiastically teaching basic courses with rigor so that as many students as possible are ready for college courses should they decide to pursue them.
Friday, February 8, 2008
Saturday, February 2, 2008
"Shame on you"
I noticed, reading some comments on another educational blog, the phrase, "Shame on the rest," when someone disagreed with a commenter and those who agree with them. This is a variation of, "Shame on you!" Fortunately, I don't see this phrase too often. It's a deeply hurtful phrase used today, in my opinion, mostly by those without positive parenting skills while shaking a finger in a child's face.
How is this phrase helpful? Does it not just pour gasoline on the fire?
What about a simple, "I disagree with you," or, "I find that comment off-base" instead?
How is this phrase helpful? Does it not just pour gasoline on the fire?
What about a simple, "I disagree with you," or, "I find that comment off-base" instead?
Thinking outside the country
There's a thought-provoking article in The Atlantic, January-February 2008 edition, (http://www.theatlantic.com/doc/200801/miller-education) by Matt Miller. He argues that to create a competitive educational system in this country, we need to do what other countries do that are most successful at educating their populations: Establish national standards and proficiencies, and let go of local and state control of schools entirely, which he blames for the dreadful state of America's schools today. He suggests we abolish local school boards, though acknowledges advocating for this is an uphill battle at best.
He notes that,
"The United States spends more than nearly every other nation on schools, but out of 29 developed countries in a 2003 assessment, we ranked 24th in math and in problem-solving, 18th in science, and 15th in reading. Half of all black and Latino students in the U.S. don’t graduate on time (or ever) from high school. As of 2005, about 70 percent of eighth-graders were not proficient in reading. By the end of eighth grade, what passes for a math curriculum in America is two years behind that of other countries."
This is what local control of school districts has gotten us of late, he argues, and that a national approach-- including much greater funding at the federal (vs. local) level -- will help us become more competitive in the realm of global education.
Before anyone screams that I must be a latent pinko/commie, I confess to having an approach/avoidance reaction to his ideas, as it often seems the more the federal government gets involved in projects, the more bureaucratic and less effective they become. That being said, this man's ideas are interesting. The most productive/effective schools may be in countries where the federal government sets high standards, takes charge of funding education, and has a uniform assessment system for documenting progress. We certainly do need to try something new, since what we are doing isn't working. It's worth a microscopic look at the educational systems and cultures of the highest-achieving countries.
There are likely other variables at play: Cultural, social, family variables likely drive levels of academic expectation and achievement, and teacher performance levels.
In a strange way, Miller argues, there is more freedom -- not less -- in this nationalization he proposes. Here's another quote from the article:
"In all of these efforts, we must understand one paradox: only by transcending local control can we create genuine autonomy for our schools. “If you visit schools in many other parts of the world,” Marc Tucker says(Tucker heads the New Commission on the Skills of the American Workforce -- a 2006 bipartisan panel that called for an overhaul of the education system), “you’re struck almost immediately … by a sense of autonomy on the part of the school staff and principal that you don’t find in the United States.” Research in 46 countries by Ludger Woessmann of the University of Munich has shown that setting clear external standards while granting real discretion to schools in how to meet them is the most effective way to run a system. We need to give schools one set of national expectations, free educators and parents to collaborate locally in whatever ways work, and get everything else out of the way."
"Nationalizing our schools even a little goes against every cultural tradition we have, save the one that matters most: our capacity to renew ourselves to meet new challenges. Once upon a time a national role in retirement funding was anathema; then suddenly, after the Depression, we had Social Security. Once, a federal role in health care would have been rejected as socialism; now, federal money accounts for half of what we spend on health care. We started down this road on schooling a long time ago. Time now to finish the journey."
Without a school board would our bickering end? Would we need a superintendent, or would principals answer directly to some federal administrator?
I am sure we have much to learn through study of the world's most successful educational systems, and I don't think we should be afraid to consider radical changes, after thorough examination of the details, given that we now seem to be running at the back of the pack. It's only up from here.
He notes that,
"The United States spends more than nearly every other nation on schools, but out of 29 developed countries in a 2003 assessment, we ranked 24th in math and in problem-solving, 18th in science, and 15th in reading. Half of all black and Latino students in the U.S. don’t graduate on time (or ever) from high school. As of 2005, about 70 percent of eighth-graders were not proficient in reading. By the end of eighth grade, what passes for a math curriculum in America is two years behind that of other countries."
This is what local control of school districts has gotten us of late, he argues, and that a national approach-- including much greater funding at the federal (vs. local) level -- will help us become more competitive in the realm of global education.
Before anyone screams that I must be a latent pinko/commie, I confess to having an approach/avoidance reaction to his ideas, as it often seems the more the federal government gets involved in projects, the more bureaucratic and less effective they become. That being said, this man's ideas are interesting. The most productive/effective schools may be in countries where the federal government sets high standards, takes charge of funding education, and has a uniform assessment system for documenting progress. We certainly do need to try something new, since what we are doing isn't working. It's worth a microscopic look at the educational systems and cultures of the highest-achieving countries.
There are likely other variables at play: Cultural, social, family variables likely drive levels of academic expectation and achievement, and teacher performance levels.
In a strange way, Miller argues, there is more freedom -- not less -- in this nationalization he proposes. Here's another quote from the article:
"In all of these efforts, we must understand one paradox: only by transcending local control can we create genuine autonomy for our schools. “If you visit schools in many other parts of the world,” Marc Tucker says(Tucker heads the New Commission on the Skills of the American Workforce -- a 2006 bipartisan panel that called for an overhaul of the education system), “you’re struck almost immediately … by a sense of autonomy on the part of the school staff and principal that you don’t find in the United States.” Research in 46 countries by Ludger Woessmann of the University of Munich has shown that setting clear external standards while granting real discretion to schools in how to meet them is the most effective way to run a system. We need to give schools one set of national expectations, free educators and parents to collaborate locally in whatever ways work, and get everything else out of the way."
"Nationalizing our schools even a little goes against every cultural tradition we have, save the one that matters most: our capacity to renew ourselves to meet new challenges. Once upon a time a national role in retirement funding was anathema; then suddenly, after the Depression, we had Social Security. Once, a federal role in health care would have been rejected as socialism; now, federal money accounts for half of what we spend on health care. We started down this road on schooling a long time ago. Time now to finish the journey."
Without a school board would our bickering end? Would we need a superintendent, or would principals answer directly to some federal administrator?
I am sure we have much to learn through study of the world's most successful educational systems, and I don't think we should be afraid to consider radical changes, after thorough examination of the details, given that we now seem to be running at the back of the pack. It's only up from here.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)