People aren't equal. It seems to me that the first thing that has to happen, should American education wish to improve dramatically, is acceptance and embracing of the first statement in this piece. Because people aren't equal, the primary directive of education must be to stop adhering to the fallacy that all people are capable of the same degree of development and production.
Let's suppose, briefly, that people were born and endowed with congruent capacities. Even if this were true, so long as humans have free will, and personal taste and interests, a simple fact of life is that each person follows his drives and ambitions, and that those ambitions are diverse and often elusive. Consequently, building an educational process that pretends to level the playing field, or to equal the opportunities for all, is destined to relative failure.
Before the reader jumps the gun and presumes that I will be advocating the adoption of a European system of education, let me state definitively that I am not. Neither am I opposed to such a program. If we tend in that direction, I am supportive of the approach, but only if we rethink what we want our schools to do.
Most schools are currently constituted, whether they admit it or not, to a standard belief in liberal arts education, even through K-12, though we use the term primarily in regard to college. What I mean is that the program of studies from primary to secondary school is built upon a set of values that says all students need exposure to quality literature, higher math, and serious science. I don't believe they do.
Here's the problem with my own theory: children haven't developed their minds, their tastes, and their genuine preferences until sometime in late middle school or early high school. Thus the problem is how to maintain a wealth of exposures and experiences that will help them know how to make their individual paths?
What I propose is as follows. K-8th grade should be comprised of less formalized study of any discipline. Since my background is in English, I will look first at the language arts curriculum.
Currently, 4th through 8th graders spend a great deal of time trying to grasp the principles of grammar, the rudimentary concepts of literature, and a working understanding of how to express themselves in writing. The system I propose will have students, based on their working understanding of language, avoiding the mention of a an infinitve, subject/verb agreement, or even proper nouns. Instead, their study of grammar will focus solely on learning a multitude of ways to say the same thing. They will learn usage and grammar through experimentation with language.
Their study of literature will be similarly delivered. No child will hear about Freytag's Pyramid. They will learn some of the jargon of lterary study, but the objective will not be deliberately built upon application of any of those terms. Instead, they will be asked to propose causes and effect of various choices, devices, and/or purposes. They will be asked to make inferences, distinguish fact from opinion, and generally connect the texts to what they already know. The acquisition of vocabulary and literary language will be a secondary effect, not a primary purpose.
The same concepts will hold true in other disciplines. Before high school, working with the material ought to be the aim. Hypothesizing, proposing, noticing, and responding to information will be the activity, since those things will support all of the standards and benchmarks as currently written. Take a look at the standards and see if you can make the connection. Not one standard specifies that anyone know the 'rules' of the short story, or the particulars of a verse form, or name an author or character from a story.
I don't think the social studies curriculum should change dramatically through these grade levels. As it stands, social studies in 4th through 8th is focused on acquisition of knowledge, and the management of information is also a skill that needs to be given some play. Let social studies be in charge of the focus on that skill.
Math creates a headache, and probably requires the largest change. Having reached middle age, I can attest to the relative lack of importance of higher math skills for me and a majority of people. By higher math skill, I mean calculus and the far end of trigonometry.
The current Pennsylvania test of math proficiency suggests that dexterity with algebra is the end game of math instruction. Consequently, schools should "require" no math instruction after a student has acquired algebra facility. Understaning of higher level math is a valuable thing for a good many people, but the school program should be set up to accommodate only those people who are interested and driven. Even four year colleges have changed their math requirements. Thirty years ago, my college demanded that I tackle calculus, along with all my peers. I have had no use for it since. In fact, when I have been in contact with calculus in the interim, I remember almost nothing. That forgetfulness has not been to my detriment.
The same can be said for science. Let's demand scientific acumen only for those who are inclined in that direction. lord knows that our world needs chemists and physicists, and multitudes of engineers. The point is that those needs may be met, and more progress made, if we rid the chem and physics classrooms of the undermotivated and disinterested.
The next installment will discuss how schools can channel students into tracks or paths that suit their needs.
Monday, February 21, 2011
Friday, February 18, 2011
Career Pathways are Bunk
I like to start off with a qualifier, when appropriate - especially when the headline is one that can not be taken as anyting other than an attack on a theory, program, or plan. So, here goes.
The theory that people ought to be enabled to pursue a career path that will help them to pursue a profession or vocation that is in their interest spectrum is obviously a great idea. However, and again, the implementation model or pattern is critical. Most current models of career pathways ask students in middle school, ages 12-14, to make astute judgments about their future. You should see the ridiculousness of this already. Yet that provocation or investigation is actually defensible. The error commences when the decision made is so particular that a change of course becomes problematic.
If your own 12 year old chooses a set of courses that is supposed to lead to a career in , let's say, medical support services and related fields, and he or she discovers an aversion to math and science might serve as a bit of a deterrent, can s/he change course without losing credit or status in the replacement program?
To be specific, the young man or woman has entered a course or sequence that leads to trigonometry in 11th grade, and to chemistry in 10th grade. The change of course though, can make a move to a communications program unwieldy. You see, the new program places less emphasis on math and science, so while the completed courses may still carry weight and credit toward graduation, the student has no way to return and to take the classes s/he missed during the enrollment in medical professions investigation. The original course was designed to emphasize science and math, and even though the student completed the required courses, he or she has no way to take the courses that are needed for the current track. The barrier is that all courses cannot be taught at all levels and in all programs. Consequently the number of credits earned may be adequate, but jumping into an upper level course in another arena will cause problems, since the foundation for that particular sequence has not been set.
Some schools solve that problem by making the sequences almost the same, so that Career Pathways exist in name or theory only. They give lip service to career exploration, but the 'training' specific to a chosen course doesn't exist.
The next post will suggest what schools can do to meet the needs for career specific training more effectively.
The theory that people ought to be enabled to pursue a career path that will help them to pursue a profession or vocation that is in their interest spectrum is obviously a great idea. However, and again, the implementation model or pattern is critical. Most current models of career pathways ask students in middle school, ages 12-14, to make astute judgments about their future. You should see the ridiculousness of this already. Yet that provocation or investigation is actually defensible. The error commences when the decision made is so particular that a change of course becomes problematic.
If your own 12 year old chooses a set of courses that is supposed to lead to a career in , let's say, medical support services and related fields, and he or she discovers an aversion to math and science might serve as a bit of a deterrent, can s/he change course without losing credit or status in the replacement program?
To be specific, the young man or woman has entered a course or sequence that leads to trigonometry in 11th grade, and to chemistry in 10th grade. The change of course though, can make a move to a communications program unwieldy. You see, the new program places less emphasis on math and science, so while the completed courses may still carry weight and credit toward graduation, the student has no way to return and to take the classes s/he missed during the enrollment in medical professions investigation. The original course was designed to emphasize science and math, and even though the student completed the required courses, he or she has no way to take the courses that are needed for the current track. The barrier is that all courses cannot be taught at all levels and in all programs. Consequently the number of credits earned may be adequate, but jumping into an upper level course in another arena will cause problems, since the foundation for that particular sequence has not been set.
Some schools solve that problem by making the sequences almost the same, so that Career Pathways exist in name or theory only. They give lip service to career exploration, but the 'training' specific to a chosen course doesn't exist.
The next post will suggest what schools can do to meet the needs for career specific training more effectively.
Sunday, February 13, 2011
Should Every Student Be Prepared for College?
I haven't broached the subject of teaching and education for awhile, so perhaps this is a good time to provide an update on some recent conversations relative to learning.
I have heard of a school that is currently in the process of eliminating their track of classes for students who do not plan to follow a post-secondary path. The logic of such a course is defensible, despite what many front line teachers think. After all, the purpose of the education system is to prepare young people for the rest of their lives. The current requisite skill set for adults who wish to be contributing citizens - read, gainfully employed - includes abilities that have not historically been part of the non-college-preparatory track.
For clarity, the 'general' track, which is also often called the 'applied' track, or the 'work-readiness' track remained focused on the three R's. Students in this track were presumed to need basic, lower level skills in reading, writing, and math. After all, the employment opportunities afforded this group of people was usually comprised of the established trades: cooks, mechanics, laborers, builders, as well as the service trades: gardeners, maids, custodians, retail sales clerks, and the like. However, now, if we are to believe the employment forecasts, even those jobs are soon to be rarer, less lucrative, and/or altered to the point where higher level skills are required to perform them.
Consequently, the idea to raise the bar for everyone is not necessarily a bad one. Yet the district in question has undertaken some strange methodologies for eliminating the track. For instnace, though a percnetage of the student population is adamantly disinclined to do the work necessary to acquire college readiness skills, these students are being placed in academic courses. Simultaneously, the courses themselves are being revised to accommodate the change in clientele.
The change in mission and objective in these courses is predicated on the belief that heterogenous grouping - that is, placing these students in courses with students who may pursue a college education - will encourage these students to acquire the knowledge and skills they may need to perform tasks that are growing increasingly more complex, but which do not require a four year matriculation at a college.
The problem is that the adjustment of mission and abjective has a side effect that hasn't been considered. In changing these courses to reflect a skill set that is challenging, but which may not lead to college, has displaced the students who do plan to go to college.
The math is simple. If I attempt to train a group of students motivated to prepare themselves for college, but I build in accommodations for students who might not want to go to college, I will be spending precious time on skills and knowledge that the college prep students do not need or want. Furthermore, since the clientele has been diminished in terms of motivation, capacity, and prior knowledge to begin with, I will be subjecting the college bound students to a slower pace, one that accommodates the learning styles and abilities of the former 'general' students.
So the former college prep students will be encouraged to enroll in Honors, IB, and AP courses. Some of these transplanted students will be similarly ill-equipped for their new placement, and the pace and depth of learning in these upper level courses will be compromised.
Eradicating the courses that served the non-college bound students may not be a bad idea, but forcing them into courses that do not meet their needs is not smart. Moreover, failing to account for the inevitable learning differences that accompany a change in clientele in the uppper level courses is really foolish.
I promise to propose a solution to the dilemma in a series of entries to follow. This is getting too long.
I have heard of a school that is currently in the process of eliminating their track of classes for students who do not plan to follow a post-secondary path. The logic of such a course is defensible, despite what many front line teachers think. After all, the purpose of the education system is to prepare young people for the rest of their lives. The current requisite skill set for adults who wish to be contributing citizens - read, gainfully employed - includes abilities that have not historically been part of the non-college-preparatory track.
For clarity, the 'general' track, which is also often called the 'applied' track, or the 'work-readiness' track remained focused on the three R's. Students in this track were presumed to need basic, lower level skills in reading, writing, and math. After all, the employment opportunities afforded this group of people was usually comprised of the established trades: cooks, mechanics, laborers, builders, as well as the service trades: gardeners, maids, custodians, retail sales clerks, and the like. However, now, if we are to believe the employment forecasts, even those jobs are soon to be rarer, less lucrative, and/or altered to the point where higher level skills are required to perform them.
Consequently, the idea to raise the bar for everyone is not necessarily a bad one. Yet the district in question has undertaken some strange methodologies for eliminating the track. For instnace, though a percnetage of the student population is adamantly disinclined to do the work necessary to acquire college readiness skills, these students are being placed in academic courses. Simultaneously, the courses themselves are being revised to accommodate the change in clientele.
The change in mission and objective in these courses is predicated on the belief that heterogenous grouping - that is, placing these students in courses with students who may pursue a college education - will encourage these students to acquire the knowledge and skills they may need to perform tasks that are growing increasingly more complex, but which do not require a four year matriculation at a college.
The problem is that the adjustment of mission and abjective has a side effect that hasn't been considered. In changing these courses to reflect a skill set that is challenging, but which may not lead to college, has displaced the students who do plan to go to college.
The math is simple. If I attempt to train a group of students motivated to prepare themselves for college, but I build in accommodations for students who might not want to go to college, I will be spending precious time on skills and knowledge that the college prep students do not need or want. Furthermore, since the clientele has been diminished in terms of motivation, capacity, and prior knowledge to begin with, I will be subjecting the college bound students to a slower pace, one that accommodates the learning styles and abilities of the former 'general' students.
So the former college prep students will be encouraged to enroll in Honors, IB, and AP courses. Some of these transplanted students will be similarly ill-equipped for their new placement, and the pace and depth of learning in these upper level courses will be compromised.
Eradicating the courses that served the non-college bound students may not be a bad idea, but forcing them into courses that do not meet their needs is not smart. Moreover, failing to account for the inevitable learning differences that accompany a change in clientele in the uppper level courses is really foolish.
I promise to propose a solution to the dilemma in a series of entries to follow. This is getting too long.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)