An article by David Kirkpatrick of the US Freedom Foundation points out that:
The problems of secondary education are hardly a new revelation. In "Secondary Education Reform," written in 1976 by A. Harry Passow, high school was described as "the most absurd part of an educational system pervaded by absurdity."
About the same time, a Carnegie Commission on Higher Education report concluded there is so much duplication between the last two years of high school and the first two years of college, that one or two could be eliminated.
Why not? As Kirkpatrick concludes, "As educators who claim to teach critical thinking and problem solving, why can't we think critically and solve some of the problems of conventional schooling?"
Linked article: Is Traditional High School Obsolete?
6 comments:
You used to be able to skip the last year of school by doing yoru 7th form year in the 6th form, ie., skipping the wasted UE year and doing Bursary in the 6th form instead. Is that still an option? I exercised that option myself and took a year off before uni, which I've never regretted -- I did more life-learning that year than in all the bloody years at Colditz, which is how we lovingly described our school.
There is a huge amount of merit in this, I found Bursary significantly harder work than 1st and 2nd year Arts courses (but not law), and while 7th form was fun, it would have been better spending a year getting rid of those easy 1st year courses, and getting used to being around girls again :)
I have often heard the 7th form year called the 'social year'. Sport, piss-ups and a year of fun at the folk's expense before having to go and find a job.
In my day it was strictly for the small minority the would go on to uni- they actually needed to do bursary.
I think that althouhg Botstein makes some good points about the last two years of high school he is also missing some key points. HE is right that some of the information is repeated in both high school and college. He is also correct that the last year of high school is mainly that of a blow off year. But the groups of high school help delvelop individuals. They may not all become the leaders of today but they do learn how to work as a team, how to get things done togethor. Also I do not fel that at the age 16 a teenager is able to be put out in to the real world ready to work.
Erik/deat, you said, "The first important step in arguing that high school is worth while or not, is to define the reasons that schooling is in place. Our school system was modeled after the Prussian school system before World War II, and thus has the same core values in place."
With that you point out precisely the nature of the game. Public school as it is at present is primarly ~not~ about education, but is instead about inculcating the state's chosen values in youngsters, just as you describe, and just as happened in Prussia. These "lost opportunity years" are in too many cases little more than holding pens for indoctrination.
Allowing students to either start work, begin an apprenticeship, or "begin uni classes given at the school, working towards an associate degree" seems to me an ideal way to sidestep the indoctrination. [NB: Anonymous/Jim, you might note that at the age 16 a teenager is very well able to be put out in to the real world ready to work, but that is not a requirement off Botstein's suggestion -- you will notice that Botstein himself advocates beginning uni classes at school.]
Guys, you might find this post worthwhile explaining the libertarian view of education.
Or perhaps these quotes on education.
Or this cartoon.
Or this one.
Or this internet radio interview on the needed separation of school and state.
Enjoy, and I'd be interested in your comments.
Post a Comment