What's the purpose of education? Part 1 in a continuing series.

[7960]

Originally Posted by Ardentfrost

But to better optimize the system, do 17 year olds need to be taking Human Phisiology or whatever other classes seniors in HS take if they plan on not going to college, but to do more blue collar work?

Maybe my confusion is coming from the fact that all the schools i've been involved in all allowed students to choose some kind of path. If a kid didn't want to go to college he didn't have to take the "college track" classes. I taught at a school that had an agricultural program (yes, cows and pigs and shit at the school). If kids wanted plumbing/electrical/etc they went to the neighboring town, if those kids wanted agricultural studies they came to our school. No 17 year old was forced to take physiology if he didn't pick it as a class.

[Ardentfrost]

Originally Posted by 7960

Maybe my confusion is coming from the fact that all the schools i've been involved in all allowed students to choose some kind of path. If a kid didn't want to go to college he didn't have to take the "college track" classes. I taught at a school that had an agricultural program (yes, cows and pigs and shit at the school). If kids wanted plumbing/electrical/etc they went to the neighboring town, if those kids wanted agricultural studies they came to our school. No 17 year old was forced to take physiology if he didn't pick it as a class.

Ah, maybe that's the problem is that more districts haven't caught onto that. I felt bad for the people in my HS who knew they were going to be car mechanics after graduation (some already even had jobs after school), and yet they were in my Western Civilization class because they had to fill some bullshit history credit that I thought was mandated by something higher than just my county or state.

Some kids would spin their wheels and waste their time for a couple years til they finally failed out and were old enough to no longer go to school. The education system was pointless to them. I know some later went to get their GED, but that doesn't really say anything.

I worked at a sheet metal shop for most of high school and during summer and winter breaks during my first couple years in college. There was a sheet metal class that was taught by that company that people would go to from all around the city. It had even out grown the metal shop itself and they had to rent space at a local technical college to teach it. The class contained a bunch of high school dropouts and maybe even some who graduated but weren't interested in going to college trying to do better by their situation. How much better would it be if those guys had been given that opportunity in HS instead of having to wait til they were old enough to drop out?

Maybe I'm more critical because I come from areas with shitty public school systems

[7960]

Originally Posted by Ardentfrost

Ah, maybe that's the problem is that more districts haven't caught onto that. I felt bad for the people in my HS who knew they were going to be car mechanics after graduation (some already even had jobs after school), and yet they were in my Western Civilization class because they had to fill some bullshit history credit that I thought was mandated by something higher than just my county or state.

I wouldn't consider having to learn history a "bullshit history credit."

Maybe I'm more critical because I come from areas with shitty public school systems

northeast FTW!

[bheld]

Originally Posted by Ardentfrost

And certainly there should be some sort of basic understanding of the world around them that should be the goal of those early years. But to better optimize the system, do 17 year olds need to be taking Human Phisiology or whatever other classes seniors in HS take if they plan on not going to college, but to do more blue collar work? If they had the option to spend those last few years learning their trade at a school known for producing a good product giving them the opportunity to make more money straight from school, wouldn't that be better for the teenager and society as a whole?

That's not education in the classical sense. That's job training. If we had a system like what you're proposing it would be closer to the globalization/mindless worker bee indoctrination system that people are accusing our current system of being.

[Ardentfrost]

Originally Posted by bheld

That's not education in the classical sense. That's job training. If we had a system like what you're proposing it would be closer to the globalization/mindless worker bee indoctrination system that people are accusing our current system of being.

I'm promoting giving kids a choice. How is that indoctrination? My current job has a lot of room for people who are not college educated. Kids could work on their CCNA's and whatnot in HS if they think they want to go into this field. Now, just having a CCNA won't get you very far in my field, but like I said, that's all some people want to do. The same people are STILL going out there and getting their CCNA after they spin their wheels in HS, what I'm suggesting is that they not spend those early years trying to get a foot hold in their field of choice because they will already have some of the things the field looks for: experience and possibly a certification of some sort.

[bheld]

Originally Posted by Ardentfrost

I'm promoting giving kids a choice. How is that indoctrination? My current job has a lot of room for people who are not college educated. Kids could work on their CCNA's and whatnot in HS if they think they want to go into this field. Now, just having a CCNA won't get you very far in my field, but like I said, that's all some people want to do. The same people are STILL going out there and getting their CCNA after they spin their wheels in HS, what I'm suggesting is that they not spend those early years trying to get a foot hold in their field of choice because they will already have some of the things the field looks for: experience and possibly a certification of some sort.

You're locking kids into a path that's going to be hard to reverse. What if some 9th grader decides he just wants to be a welder and then 3 years later decides that electrical engineering is awesome? Too bad he only took welding classes and decided that Algebra II and Physics were unnecessary.

Not everybody is going to have the same background, just like not everybody is going to know what they want to do for the rest of their lives in high school. The purpose of our educational system should be to keep as many doors open to all kids for as long as possible, not to continually filter them out until we have a stratified system by 12th grade.

[Ardentfrost]

Originally Posted by 7960

I wouldn't consider having to learn history a "bullshit history credit."

After a certain point, I think so. A senior in HS who is not going to college and will spend the rest of his life working some non-college job shouldn't be forced to learn about the rise and fall of the Holy Roman Empire if they don't want to.

It's the mandating that I disagree with. The "one size fits all" approach to education. There is a point long before age 18 where the general approach to education is no longer useful. You track system would be a good start I think. We had 3 tracks in my HS: AP, regular, and drop out. The AP system wasn't good enough for most of us that took it, and the regular system was useless to a lot of the people who took it.

[bheld]

Originally Posted by Ardentfrost

After a certain point, I think so. A senior in HS who is not going to college and will spend the rest of his life working some non-college job shouldn't be forced to learn about the rise and fall of the Holy Roman Empire if they don't want to.

It's the mandating that I disagree with. The "one size fits all" approach to education. There is a point long before age 18 where the general approach to education is no longer useful. You track system would be a good start I think. We had 3 tracks in my HS: AP, regular, and drop out. The AP system wasn't good enough for most of us that took it, and the regular system was useless to a lot of the people who took it.

I agree with you on content choice, but not on subject choice. Somebody that is not going to college doesn't need to know the specifics of the Holy Roman Empire, but they should at least have an understanding of history and how it affects us. I'm all for choice on what to study, but they need to study something.

[Ardentfrost]

Originally Posted by bheld

You're locking kids into a path that's going to be hard to reverse. What if some 9th grader decides he just wants to be a welder and then 3 years later decides that electrical engineering is awesome? Too bad he only took welding classes and decided that Algebra II and Physics were unnecessary.

Not everybody is going to have the same background, just like not everybody is going to know what they want to do for the rest of their lives in high school. The purpose of our educational system should be to keep as many doors open to all kids for as long as possible, not to continually filter them out until we have a stratified system by 12th grade.

I'm not saying abolish general classes, but giving kids a choice wouldn't be a bad thing. And a kid who wants to be a welder should take a wide array of similar classes to give him those options. I knew math and science was my thing LONG before I came to college. I was also good in music. I honed in on those skills as much as I could, but if I had been able to do it even more, I'd have been in better shape when I came to college.

If a kid likes working with his hands and wants to weld, then a series of classes could be offered to make sure that's the sort of thing he's really going to want to do. If he keeps failing math, then he's not going to go into engineering. However, welders DO need a certain level of math and pushing that (and up until the point the kid can no longer handle it) would be a lot more telling than just shoving him into a high school calculus class that he fails b/c it's not his thing.

[Ardentfrost]

Originally Posted by bheld

I agree with you on content choice, but not on subject choice. Somebody that is not going to college doesn't need to know the specifics of the Holy Roman Empire, but they should at least have an understanding of history and how it affects us. I'm all for choice on what to study, but they need to study something.

Colleges do have the core classes you need to know about. I was coming to college, and I did use the info I learned in my Western Civilization class in those core history classes I cared little about but was required. If I weren't going to come to college, it would be different.

[bheld]

Originally Posted by Ardentfrost

I'm not saying abolish general classes, but giving kids a choice wouldn't be a bad thing. And a kid who wants to be a welder should take a wide array of similar classes to give him those options. I knew math and science was my thing LONG before I came to college. I was also good in music. I honed in on those skills as much as I could, but if I had been able to do it even more, I'd have been in better shape when I came to college.

If a kid likes working with his hands and wants to weld, then a series of classes could be offered to make sure that's the sort of thing he's really going to want to do. If he keeps failing math, then he's not going to go into engineering. However, welders DO need a certain level of math and pushing that (and up until the point the kid can no longer handle it) would be a lot more telling than just shoving him into a high school calculus class that he fails b/c it's not his thing.

I agree.

[RockPusher]

Originally Posted by 7960

I'm not going to go back and forth with you, because you "know" what you know and I know what I know, but this statementis wrong.

Quote:
Originally Posted by RockPusher
the concept of compulsory education for all, with government and industry regulations and interventions, is fundamentally flawed and fails to realize the potential of the majority of students.

is wrong.

Do you disagree that government and industry regulate and intervene in education, or do you believe that industrialists fund schools to fully realize the potential of all students?

[7960]

Originally Posted by bheld

I agree with you on content choice, but not on subject choice. Somebody that is not going to college doesn't need to know the specifics of the Holy Roman Empire, but they should at least have an understanding of history and how it affects us. I'm all for choice on what to study, but they need to study something.

werd

and that's why high schools offer choices in what subjects to take. I don't know the exact numbers off the top of my head but when I taught a student had a list of courses to choose from, just like college. The school offered 12 history classes and a student had to pass 6 to graduate, we had 14 math classes and kids had to pass 6 to graduate. Again, there might be 20 minutes of info on the roman empire in 8 of those history classes but nobody learned about (earlier example) "specifics of the Holy Roman Empire" unless he went out ofhis way to take a class that included it.

[7960]

Originally Posted by RockPusher

Do you disagree that government and industry regulate and intervene in education, or do you believe that industrialists fund schools to fully realize the potential of all students?

Are you saying those are the only two options?

because as a private citizen I can go to a town meeting and influence the school curriculum, and when i was a teacher no industry and/or industrialists intervened in my classroom.

I can't wait for "they did you just didn't know it"

[IminWonderland]

Originally Posted by Spideynw

Uh, no. Societies function and survive by producing food and other goods. Culture is a result of the laws and geographic location of a people.

Many societies still do not have mass access to formal education, and still survive and have a culture.

Any society that teaches children has an educational system. In ours its our public school, to others, its hunting zebras. But, it is all indoctrination into a culture.

[7960]

Originally Posted by IminWonderland

Any society that teaches children has an educational system. In ours its our public school, to others, its hunting zebras. But, it is all indoctrination into a culture.

you say that like it's bad.

and I believe indoctrination is the wrong word for what you're talking about.

[IminWonderland]

Originally Posted by bheld

What you call indoctrination I would call socialization.

Coming from a math teacher, math isn't taught just so you can calculate a tip when you're out to eat. It's an important part in developing logic, abstract thinking, modeling, and just doing it makes you smarter.

In some countries, they teach their children the Metric system. Here we do not, because it is part of our culture to use what we do. You are right, that is the effect of teaching math, abstract thinking & modeling (etc), however, other cultures approach math differently, teach it differently, and have their slants on which math skills to emphasize.

The "canon" is in place because those are works that have stood the test of time. They represent the greatest achievements of past generations and we should honor them.

I would have to disagree with you. The Canon is in place because our culture manifests its ways at particular times. But, the canonicity of a text has changed in the past 50 years. Today, authors enter anthologies that were forgotten about centuries ago (Sappho, the first female poet amongst them), as well as contemporary works that are moving with the trends of literary theory. There are many reasons to read, but none of them should be to "honor" someone. (unless, that may be a religious text, go for it.) The Canon has changed because our culture has changed. (I'm not saying that indoctrination is the ONLY reason for children to get an education, I'm saying that indoctrination is education. And it is beneficial, and could be done more effeciently with great benefits to society.)

Reading, logic, and rhetoric. Those are three foundations of education that are indisputably important, and they're not simply for indoctrination. They're a fundamental necessity of any society.

While this is true, then this makes me want to discuss why it is that Reading, Logic and Rhetoric lack in our schools. What does it mean when the government only wants to give money to schools when students can color in bubbles? We all agree the system is failing, or at least needs work, but the government infringement on arts fundings, extra curricular, and other such "extra" programs have been precisely what has made schools, and student successful.