Pluralism etc. - What Happens in 9th grade...?

During 9th grade, students will have the opportunity to choose an area of concentration, anticipating the source of their post-secondary training. For instance, a student who is committed to the liberal arts program referenced earlier, and who wishes to pursue a B.A. or B.S. at a traditional four year college, will pursue 9th grade course that lead in that direction. A student who prefers to pursue a trade will begin his specialization. Those who are interested in technology will have a course to follow, as will those who lean toward a certification program, such as the ones offered at community colleges and technical schools.

The curriculum for these four tracks will be very similar in 9th grade, but they will become very different during each year of school subsequently. For instance, all 9th graders will have some brand of algebra, most likely. The exceptions would be students whose track through middle school has allowed thme to advance further. The other end of the spectrum will be those whose math skills will not support intense study of algebra. They will take a lower level course that sill supports the development of algebra skills.

The same concept will drive the science curriculum. Most 9th graders will take earth and spece science, but advanced students may opt for biology. Even the less interested will need to ultimately pass a biology course, but they may also do so in 10th grade.

Social studies will be comprised of a World History course in 9th grade, and an American government course in 10th grade. Four year degree students will have access to courses in Political Science, Psychology, Sociology, American History, during 11th and 12th grades, but those who wish to pursue other post-secondary education will need no other social studies credits after their 10th grade year.

The same is true for the math and science tracks mentioned above. After students have demonstrated facility with algebra and biology, they will not need to schedule further math or science courses.

The English curriculum will follow the same pattern. The 4 year college bound student will follow a track that is similar to the current one. Those who look to alternative post-secondary training will take a ninth grade course that includes training in writing, speaking, and reading comprehension. The reading comprehension component will use materials that run the full gamut from literature, to periodicals, to e-texts, blogs, news forums, etc. The key component here is that after 10th grade, students who do not plan to pursue a traditional four year degree will not be forced into literature driven courses.

If one follows the pattern set, 11th and 12th grade will provide students will time to pursue specific areas of interest. Without math, science, English, and social studies requirements in those two grades, artists and musicians will have room for intensive study of those fields. Likewise, the student who is interested in a business track, like accounting, for example, will have time to fit in a number of business courses.

Furthermore, the student who doesn't plan to pursue a four year degree will have the option of finishing school early, after he or she demonstrates competency in the math, science, English, and social studies courses mentioned above. The student who has not demonstrated competency in those areas will have two years to do so, in courses that are specifically designed for those who have struggled in a specific area.

To be clear, a student who does not make the grade in Algebra in ninth or tenth grade will have 11th and 12th grade to tackle the subject. The same will hold true for the other disciplines.

I believe that Career Pathways are Bunk, as currently conceived and implemented in many of our schools. However, the idea that the last two years of high school can be used to train students in a specific, interest and desire driven area is desirable.

I am throwing out numbers here, but I wouldn't be surprised if they are accurate. 60-70% of students don't need to know a lick of trigonometry, chemistry, physics, calculus, or any higher level lit. They don't need to know about European History or Sociology.

Imagine the success level for chemistry students if their classes are populated solely by students who are interested in those courses. Imagine the success rate for Trig and Calc classes where few are enrolled because they need the math credit.

Pluralism and Egalitarianism in Education

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.

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.

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.

Obama's State of the Union Dilemma

Obama can deliver a speech. Seriously. Though I am admittedly not a fan of his political prespective, and though I think in the end his speech doesn't mean much, I must give him credit for the strategic approach employed in the address.

I think for the first time, the president cast himself as a citizen of America first, and an ideologue second. Of course, it is just a speech, and plenty of pens and minds collaborated to bring it to life. The delivery, though, was excellent.

Ideologically, the presentation stayed true to democratic principles, as the proposed solution to many problems is believed to be government intervention, especially in terms of allocation of money. What stood out to me was that the president spoke in glowing terms of the traits that Americans believe serve as the backbone of the country.

For instance, the focus seemed to be almost Reaganesque in its optimism and praise of self-sufficiency. Entrpreneurial spirit was mentioned in one way or another on many occasions. When the president says that Americans do big things, and when he suggests that improving productivity and prosperity in American manufacturing, I was reeminded of the Gipper.

Where I maintain concern is often the ideological chasm between Obama and me. The plan seems to be to throw money at education, for example. As a career educator, I like the idea of supporting public education. However, as the worst elements of NCLB have shown, federal involvement in education isn't necessarily a great thing. Once the federal governemnt sends money to schools, they understandably want a say in how schools are run. In the broadest sense, that is fine. In practical terms, however, the result is unfunded mandates that actually make schools more expensive, in my opinion.

How does this happen, you might ask? Well, NCLB in broad strokes has been a significant catalyst for change. Educators are being held more accountable for producing results. Because teachers are generally resourceful, imaginative, and hard-working, the call to accountability has driven many schools to improve. The cost to the taxpayer, though, and the cost to the relative health of the teaching staff, has been huge. Federal money has not paid for the increase in teachers that followed the call to action. Likewise, federal money has not paid in full for the increase in money spent for special education teachers and programs, increases that have been necessitated by the programs that demand similar achievement for students with identified barriers to education and the rest of the student population.

The principle and the dynamic replicates itself with all governemnt controlled programs. I know the left-leaning people aren't as sure of this as I am, but in very few cases does a large, unwieldy government agency produce results that aren't much more expensive than they could be.

So the speech, in its call to a blending of private innovation supported with governemnt dollars, might be a positive thing, if the innovators are allowed to profit from their innovations in some way. I like the call to do these things for the good of America, but if the plan is to have the federal officials' oversight and supervision to squelch the spirit, none of the impetus will last.

ADDENDUM: A reader asked why the headline mentions Obama's dilemma? I thought it had been implied. Government intervention and control are at odds with entreprenurial spirit and innovation. A bureaucracy can support those rogue, cowboy type efforts, but it can never create them itself. The two forces are mutually exclusive.

To Hell In A Handbasket...

Two students in LA are shot when a loaded gun is dropped and goes off. A psychopath shoots a congresswoman and many others, including a nine-year-old girl too young to have ever hurt anyone significantly. The list goes on.

Is American culture going to hell in a handbasket? I never truly understood the source or full implication of that phrase, but I think the present answer might be yes. The constant violence, much of which occurs mostly because it can, is not new. In fact, the history of the country is fraught with violence. The difference, I think, is the effect and the response that we have to it.

In the violent early years, and even up to the 20th century, people were outraged, and then braced for the inevitable vengeance that followed. Such a response wasn't necessarily the right way to handle the outrage, but at least the offender knew his actions would provoke repercussions. Society at large responded forcefully to the events.

Fast forward to the present reaction. When the students at Columbine wreaked carnage on a system that they felt had served them poorly, cultural response was strong, yet often misguided. Schools ratcheted up the faux security measures to create a lie that told parents their children were safer. They weren't and aren't. Fortunately, schools are still among the safest places in the country, but that safety is not because of improved security measures. Instead, schools remain relatively safe because they rarely provoke the rath of our depressed and mentally ill.

Fast forward to the incidents mentioned at the start of this piece. The focal point of public response to the events in Arizona devolved into fruitless finger pointing. For three days, at least, the most often heard message was that the psycho had been inspired by the vitriolic political environment. Only after the boy had been questioned did the false message die out. In the meantime, Sarah Palin and others had spent energy defending themselves.

The point of this is not to defend Palin, the tenor of the political dialogue, or the irresponsible media who manufactured a catalyst for the violence before they knew anything. Instead, I am convinced that the public largely doesn't care. If they really wanted genuine answers to the questions, they would not be so easily sidetracked into baseless discussions. They wouldn't be so quick to adjust their focus.

I maintain that the fundamental goodness that has usually been omnipressent in the country is no longer so evident. Culturally, we want someone or soemthing to blame, quickly, so we can get back to Jersy Shore, or Celebrity Rehab. Only late in the game did any media outlets start asking the why's and how's of the incident. I can't pinpoint proof, but I also feel that when they did so, they were doing it reluctantly.

Don Henley wrote a song, in the late '80's I believe, where he drew an analogy between a young girl's loss of innocence, and the loss of innocence that citizens in America were experiencing. I loved the song, but wasn't so sure that his contention, that the Reagan era was father to disillusionment, was very accurate. I thought the end of the innocence had to have come during the Vietnam era. Regardless, innocnece, and buoyant optimism certainly was compromised.

Now, however, we aren't talking about innocence. I think the loss we are witnessing is a loss of empathy, of altruism, of humanity. Sure, individuals have exhibited a dearth of these traits, but the culture - society at large - usually responded with at least a modicum of caring. We have become inured to the violence, and to the bankruptcy of values.

Maybe it's me, my age, my inevitable slide into the ranks of the older generation. I don't know. I don't think this is just a personal perception. I am concerned that it's pervasive and ubiquitous. And quite frankly, it scares the hell out of me.

A Man's Gotta Know His Limitations... [Harry Callahan]

With open eyes, engaged,
we travel through our younger days,
oblivion prevailing
in our narrow passageways.
Acuity is not the blind
as what we see is clear in mind.
Periphery recedes
and limits what we have to find.

Side streets and alleyways
become the vortex of a maze,
Epiphanies abounding
while we shuffle off the daze.
Our cognizance is not the core
of anything we struggle for,
our sentience expanding
as we come of age - unsure.

Then up to, through, our middle age
our certainty turns back the page.
internalization
bars us from objective gaze.
No time for what we do not know,
we hasten where we think we go.
scope degeneration
makes us puppets in the show.

In time, an empty feathered nest,
alerts to where we are bereft.
cumbersome omission
highlights everything that's left.
Thus only once we've run the race
comes consciousness of what we've faced,
illuminating ignorance
teaches Wisdom, Hope, and Faith.