 |
I’m For Earlier Educational Specialization |
 |
The New York Times reported yesterday on a new program at a New Jersey high school:
Starting this fall, freshmen at Dwight Morrow High School here in Bergen County must declare a major that will determine what electives they take for four years and be noted on their diplomas.
Students would take major electives along with general studies courses to round out their education. When I read that, I said to myself, “Finally!”
I’ve thought that specialization should happen earlier in a child’s education for years. In fact, I distinctly remember writing an essay on this very topic in 9th or 10th grade. (I tried to find that essay, but alas, it has been lost to the digital ages.) My basic argument is that there is no downside to this plan.
The general objection to specialization at the beginning of high school is that children so young can’t make up their minds about what they want to do. I’m not so sure that’s true, nor do I think that really makes this idea a bad one. I feel that freshman in high school know just about as well what they want to major in as seniors, that is to say they either do know or they don’t know. Some kids will know exactly what they want to do at 13. Some kids won’t. By the time they are 17 or 18, some kids still will, and some kids still won’t.
Vast numbers of students enter college having no idea what they want to major in, yet that’s not seen as a big problem. So why not start specialization earlier? For kids who do know what they want to major in, this is a huge bonus. They have four extra years to work on what they are interested in, presumably boosting not only their expertise (and their chances of getting into college), but also their interest in schoolwork in general.
For kids who don’t know what they want to do, these programs might be a boon as well. As long as children were able to switch majors easily (this would be a main requirement of mine, and one that the New Jersey program doesn’t seem to live up to), they would have a chance to find something that interests them through trial and error, just like undecided undergraduates. If they did find something, they would reap the same benefits as children who know their interests, extra preparation and enhanced interest in school.
For kids who don’t know what they want to do, and who never figure out what they want to do, I don’t know how one could argue this system is any worse than what they are subjected to now. They still wouldn’t be interested in school, they would still be building general skills, and when they go to college, they still won’t know what they want to major in. No difference at all.
On top of that, early specialization is more impressive to colleges, who generally want to see some kind of long term interest over a child’s educational career. Presumably, kids who majored in a certain subject in high school would have a better shot at getting into college on that same major, based on their extra preparedness. And this plan would benefit children when they graduate college and start their careers, as they would have a four year head start on children who specialized beginning in college.
I knew what I wanted to major in by the end of 9th grade and I felt very frustrated that I had to resort to internships and extracurricular activities to get the experiences I wanted. Most kids participate in some kind of extracurricular activities that align with their interests, so why make them go outside of school to pursue these passions?
Specialization should begin in high school because it allows children to cultivate their interests or explore what they would like to do for the rest of their academic career. People who argue that 13 year olds just can’t decide something like this so young are underestimating their children, for one, and they clearly haven’t looked closely at the pros and cons of these kinds of plans. There would still be a place for undecided children in a specialized high school, just as there is a place for undecided undergraduates in college.
I would love to see this kind of thing get adopted throughout the country. I think it could be the kind of competitive edge America needs to compete with the world. But what do you think? Looking back on your high school years, would this plan have helped you out? Would it have made things worse?
(preface: this is a rant)
Oh wow. When I first read that headline yesterday, I thought to myself “What a bad fucking idea.” And I’ll tell you why it’s such a bad idea. Already in this society, we are expected to specialize our knowledge to one area of life (or at least academia), so much that we are almost ignorant in other facets of society. That’s something that capitalism forces on us, the notion of an expert is something unique to this society. Even in ancient Greece, academics were to be well-versed in math and philosophy, as well as the arts and music. This is even Plato’s recommendation of the plan of study in The Republic. If we are to expand a notion of human potential past the immediate sight of being marketable to an employer, people need to be more cosmopolitan, in both mental and manual labors.
To speak somewhat in favor of the program, though, it will let students know what a specialization entails before they reach it in on the college level. I’ll give a personal experience. I thought I knew that I wanted to work in computers ever since I was, oh, say, four years old. I started in computer science and excelled at it, but my interest, through internships and jobs, certainly dwindled, and I started to shift my focus to sociology, and social and political theory. But the roots of that shift did start in high school, in my government class and discussions with friends. Thus to limit the breadth of studies in high school really does limit ones sight of other fields. High school is sometimes the first time students experience different class periods and different areas of studies, rather than the “one teacher, one classroom” that is used in elementary and middle schools. If anyone has any experiences of education in other countries, it would be great to share those.
Bottom line is, learning a specific field doesn’t make us better citizens, not to mention better people. It works in the service of specialized labor, that is, in the service of the compartmentalization of ability that is expected in capitalism.
First off, this wouldn’t be trade school. It isn’t really about learning a specific skill (though I believe that should be an option), but a more broad specialization, like college. Basic skills and knowledge in a diversity of subject are still necessary. Math, science, english, and history would still be required. This would just make it so students could take less of subjects they hate (for me, French), and more of subjects they like (for me again, music).
I don’t know if I’m necessarily talking about capitalist style specialization either, more libera arts style. Children in high school would still be able to get the liberal arts style education. They don’t have to major in engineering or music, they could major in history, or literature. For kids looking for that broad style education, they could really get it if they want.
However, I’m not convinced the education we get in high school is particularly effective in teaching kids how to think or be better citizens. Kids who don’t want to learn won’t, no matter how they are taught.
This plan would have to be delicate. I don’t think a wholescale reorganization of curriculum is in order, just a reprioritizing. Give students a bit more choice, but still give them the basics and a broad background.
My inclination is to agree with the scope of this, but based on the questions raised at the end, I’m unsure. It seems like a really good idea for kids who really know what they want to do, as long as, as you said, there is a role for kids who don’t. The main problem I see is a situation in which most kids do pick a “major” and there is pressure to do so, even for kids who are actually not so sure.
J-Ro, I’d say you are probably the exception to the rule when you say that you knew what you wanted to do by 9th grade. A lot of kids might think they know, but their minds will change many times. Hell, I’m 25 and I still don’t know what I want to do when I grow up. Great piece though, definitely thought provoking.
I take no issue with the concept of early specialization and I agree with you on just about all of the major points that you touch upon. However, my question is this: why do we need schools to require this?
Any school that offers enough variety in electives to provide for truly distinct “majors” already has this covered. The only difference is that it doesn’t appear on the student’s diploma or transcript (exactly the way that my college degree doesn’t note that my BA focused on Art History.) Students take the electives that interest them, focus on the topics they excel at, and still receive the same general education as all the others. Those who are unsure of their interests can try out a number of different fields until they either find something to focus on, or they graduate.
Meanwhile, any school which doesn’t offer the requisite variety of electives won’t be offering a majoring program like this in the first place.
My only real concern with a program like this is that it could end up limiting students in the end. If you’re required to take a certain number of courses within your major, but you are unsure of what you want to major in, you can find yourself trapped and unable to explore other options. In college, this may be necessary to keep a student moving forward, but I see no need to pidgeon-hole high school students in this way.
Ditto bro! Though I would add that I think we need to kick the thought process that we have to send them to college! It will be much better for students to be able to go into a sort of trade at 13 so that they can lean what they need to know for that job. The fact is most students don’t need to go to college because they are going to go into the regular work force that doesn’t need college education. So advancing them in high school will help out. High school needs to get back to the role that they were always meant to perform and that is preparing pupils for a job not to indoctrinate them into a certain school of thought.
Darth, I’m not ready to go that far. The benefits of a college education have been proven. I think trade school would be limiting. That said, I don’t see too much wrong with letting kids concentrate a bit more in high school. Not throwing out the entire curriculum, but giving a bit more choice earlier. That would be my counter to what D. Taft said. This wouldn’t be about pigeon holing or limiting. There would be general majors such as literature, or humanities for students who want to explore. But a 15, 16, 17, or 18 year old may have a pretty good idea of what they want to study, and maybe we should give them the opportunity to learn their passion.
what a horrible idea. at least 50% of college students change their major their JUNIOR year of college. how can you expect HIGH SCHOOL students to positively select a major? it is ludicrous and would create more problems than you claim it would solve.
Matt, I think you’ve proved my point. If 50% of junior in college change their major, then those extra four years to figure it out in high school really didn’t do them any good. Why not let those who know what they want to do choose in high school, and those who don’t can switch from major to major, much like they do now. I fail to see how this creates more problems.
My point is to open up more choice. I didn’t say to get rid if the core subjects but to allow them to get into a trade in high school. Let’s face it we need more technicians and mechanics than lawyers and political activist. Let’s give them the opportunity to get into trade school in high school so that they can get a good paying job when they come out. We really do not need so many students going to colleges to get worthless degrees because mom and dad are paying for it.
My parents were able to see the impemnding doom that was in my future because I refused to go to high school for a number of reasons. My math teacher was blind and had sent me to the office twice for something the guy next to me did. My Phys. Ed. teacher was a alcoholic, and my social studies teacher didnt like haoles, { white people in Hawaiian }. And I felt that high school was not teaching me anything that would put a dollar in my pocket when I moved out. Which everyone knew was coming soon because I was running away from home on a regular basis. At 14 I ran away to Maui, and in a week had a job at a juice stand ,a puppy and had rented a room
They set up some placement and apptituude tests and I got early addmissions to the U of Hawaii. When I was 19 I had me an Associate’s science in rest. mngmnt and culinary arts. I was able to travel all over the country and make a better living than almost anyone my age.
I also took apprenticeships for 3 years after that.
Later I got my GED, it took a total of 8 hours and I passed all subjects in one day.
Point being that such a system could and has worked.
I have 12 year old and the level and quality of knowledge he’s getting in public school is a joke.
I dont see him anywhere but a Mcdonalds by the time he’s 18.
Man Micky you have already lived an interesting life. Micky is exactly right here! our public school system is completely broken and needs fixing. That’s why I am for vouchers.
Whats even more ridiculous is that I had to have the GED to be an Iron worker. A college education wasnt good enough, it had to be a high school education, go figure.
At 11 years old I was very much into painting and drawing.
I did a painting of a black rose and the teacher rejected it. She said there was no such thing as a black rose. My mother was there the next day and I clearly remember her telling the teacher that she was a fucking idiot. Point being, we could learn from a lot of european schools that will find a childs interest and nurture it. American kids did not use to accell in gymnastics untill high school. While Europeans would see a spark in the kid and throw some kinling on it. Consequently they had the best gymnasts for a long time untill we realized we were going about it all wrong.
Here is an example of our education system at it’s best.
Get some tissue before you watch this. Because you will either cry or laugh.
http://blatherrinserepeat.wordpress.com/
micky,
I am not sure how to read your comment. I am hoping it’s a compliment rather an insult.
As for my opinion of the matter of our education system, I think it’s in sad shape. While I do think the education system (teachers,admins,government) has a role in its downfall; I think we are currently experiencing the fallout of not having the same level of parent involvement. The act of raising children is way more involved than providing genetic material. Unfortunately, many people who have children aren’t doing their part. They have children for the first 6 years of their lives, then 2/3 of the time they are in school until 18 year. They aren’t stepping up to the plate, and it’s not the school’s or government’s job to fill in that gap.
The other big question seems to be whether or not going to college is the way to go. I’d simply say it’s one way to go. A college degree, much like anything, isn’t a guarantee of anything. It doesn’t automatically impart knowledge, talent, creativity, loyalty, dedication or skill. It doesn’t automatically guarantee a job, let alone a high-end job. I have lost count of those who possess degrees who are doing something completely unrelated to their degree. My belief is that any form of post-high school education will help, but once again; it depends on what you are going after. The world probably doesn’t need any more massage therapists, cosmotologists or nail technicians. Regional demands should be taken into consideration, too. Work towards a job you want but be aware that a market has to support it to be in demand. Jobs not in demand may provide a wage, but it’s not going to get you into the Fortune 500 group. Nor is the expectation of self-entitlement…which may even go back to that raising our children thing. We want them to have strong self-esteem, but we should go for arrogant, unrealistic idiots.
-sj
p.s. I am a college grad and parent, for the record.
College no good for Iron working? Need the GED for that! Well that is your bureaucracy hard at work for you! While us real workers are actually getting things done, their out there chomping of donuts making sure that everyone has the GED BS. We’ve made getting a GED or a Diploma so easy that it really isn’t worth much. I say that we shouldn’t get so caught up on the degrees you have and focus more on what you can actually do. Ten years down the road who is really going to care if you have a masters or PhD. There’s more to life than school!
No insults any kind, all I’m saying is that we should be able to send our kids out to the world with csome skills so they can make a decent buck while pursuing their dreams.
My son just started the 7th grade at a middle school Hes very smart but his attentions are selective.and needs smaller classes in order to stay focused.
The school is not going to do anything to help him unless I make a stink. At his last school he was pretty well set up . He has some special needs , and now I have to go down to his school and give them all the details of what those needs are etc… When all this info could of just been sent to his present school. My point is , they are inefficient.
And the schools dont zero in on a kids potential as soon as they should or could.
As far as college goes, J-ro has a point. The education must be viable. I can go anywhere and get work because people will always eat. {Depends which country you’re in}
Actually being an Iron worker is very technical and depends on a lot of math, physics etc.. Its as much labor intensive as it is intelect. You fuck up and people die.
By the way, I forgot to mention to stjarna67 that I am at every single meeting for my boy and spend { no exagereation} 2 hours a day on my boys homework.
Lack of parental involvment is a huge problem today.
A lot of other parents at the school go to these meetings and have no persistance or curiosity or inquiries, they just want to sign the sheet and split.
I think the value of the GED or high school deploma is still high. I really think you’re cutting off a lot of opportunity by allowing kids to slip by without one. The salary numbers bear that out. I’m also a big proponent of a college education as a tool for getting ahead, though at this point it might not quite be worth the price you pay, especially at private schools.
I’m not so sure about the voucher system. I mean, I like the basic idea, which is to give people some choice, but it feels to me like a poor solution for failing schools. I’d rather see public schools funded differently. For example, why tie public school funding to local property taxes? That means that rich areas have better schools, because the property tax base is higher. I’d rather see property taxes pooled and schools funded on the state level, that way you’d have more uniform schools throughout the state and it would be easier to give students a choice about which public school to attend.
Of course a High school education or Ged is important.
But our kids are not being looked at as individuals.
Basic math and English etc… are the corner stone of it all. But we need to start reckognizing a kids interests or talents sooner. My placement and apptittude tests were a way of gaugung my ability and prevent me from enrolling in college courses that were above me. At 16 I placed at all 101 courses with a GPA of 3.5 . It doesnt matter what a kids potential is today, it’s not zeroed in on untill late in High school. We can teach specialized skills and the fundamentals at the same time.
I bought my son a drumset a couple months ago and he’s doing really good. He took band in the school he just started. They have only been teaching them to read music for 2 weeks and quized them today. He didnt do so well and instead of being put in the percussion section he got stuck with a trombone. This is a classic example of going about things all the wrong way. Either way he still has to learn to read music, no matter what instrument he plays. So why not give him his interest ?
As far as the property tax thing goes, that s a crock of shit. My kids school might look a little nicer , but as I just mentioned if it is getting more funds than a school in a lesser neighborhood, it sure isnt showing in the quality of teachers.
And if the property taxes are divided up amongst the districts, and you have uniform schools, why would a student need to choose one or the other ?
Obviously my funding idea isn’t going to solve every education problem. There are a lot of others. But I do feel it is a start.
Your idea is fine, but I want to distribute the money to some staff with common sense, instead of mindless structures.
You can toss money at schools all you want, but it’s not going to help. The first thing that needs to happen is to rid the planet of the dreaded teachers unions and allow schools to be run more like a business (i.e accountability for teachers/administration, merit incentives etc). Right now the biggest flaw in the system is the lack of any accountability whatsoever. This is not something that money will solve. Money comes later. We simply cannot use the usual Democrat rhetoric of more money solves the problem. As much as the dems and unions are hand in hand, the root problem right now is the unions… And until that issue is solved, there can be no real progress in education.
Accountability and unions are not mutually exclusive. Let’s remember that first. Second, accountability is a really hard thing to define. Is this accountability at the national level, like NCLB? Cause that’s been a failure… Is it accountabiilty at the local level? That’s a bit better, but there are still problems. Take merit pay. Are you paying for improvement or simply for attaining a standard? What about kids with learning problems? What about kids that just don’t care about school? Are you going to punish teachers for their failures?
The problem I see is that there are a ton of reasons why kids don’t learn as well as they should, and honestly, hardly any of them have to do with school. Different parenting styles, home enviroments, etc… all contribute to a child’s outlook and learning ability. It seems to me that we’re trying to fix all sorts of cultural and family problems in school. That’s just not going to happen. Of course, that gets into a real touchy area. How far do you go? Do you mandate education for parents before they can have kids? I don’t think that’s a good idea, of course, but the point still stands. Schools cannot solve a child’s learning and life issues on their own, and ideas for accountability put all that responsibility squarely on their shoulders. The school are a scapegoat in a lot of senses (though certainly not all, I’m not denying that there are problems). To really improve schools, we’ll have to address some larger issues and set up an enviroment so schools can be successful. Then, and only then, will I be happy to encourage the typical accountability proposals and merit pay. Right now, though, you’re blaming the wrong people.
Not be held accountable ?
J-ro said;
“The problem I see is that there are a ton of reasons why kids don’t learn as well as they should, and honestly, hardly any of them have to do with school. Different parenting styles, home enviroments, etc… all contribute to a child’s outlook and learning ability.”
My kid has a great enviroment condusive to learning, and so at this point its on the school.
What are we going to start doing, going into peoples houses to make sure their home meets up to the schools standards ? So we need to change the whole countrys social structure so the schools can do their job?
And take it from me, unions do nothing to create incentive, when your job is so protected that you can jerk off for years and still not get fired it doesnt really make you strive to bring things up a notch.
Lets just have the schools do what they are supposed to do and let me worry about keeping up my end of the deal.
Certainly school is a factor, but it is naive to believe it is the only factor. I don’t have any good solutions for the home problem. You get into really touchy areas quickly, as micky points out. You can’t tell parents how to raise their kids, at least not overtly. But again, to expect the schools to solve all these problems themselves is asking way too much, you have to at least acknowledge that.
J-ro, I’m impressed that you are willing to shift some blame on families and whatnot. Most lefties simply point their finger at money and leave it at that.
But I think you’re severely downplaying the role of teachers the unions in education. It hasn’t been too many years since I was last in school. I remember how it was. You had good teachers and bad teachers and more often than not people got better grades from good teachers than bad. It had less to do with home environment than it did classroom environment. A principal should be able to address teachers who regularly have problems or have consistently lower scores, but they can’t. The teachers are protected. In a sane and rational world, a principal (or other such administrator) would be a boss figure who evaluates and guides teachers, identifies and fixes problems etc. That’s how it should work. That’s where the accountability comes in. If teachers are having issues, its up to the principal to address the problem. If the problem persists, the problem gets escalated higher and higher, just like a regular (non-union) business.
That being said, it should be up to a teacher to address children with learning disabilities or just plain bad students. Right now, they’re more apt to just leave well enough alone because they have no reason to do otherwise…
Agreed. But accountability has to be well defined. For example, I support paying better qualified teachers more. That’s a good example of merit pay. They’ve studied their craft more, they should get paid more. But how do you define a bad teacher? Certainly, a principal would know who is working and who is not, or a team of administrators, but when people hear accountability they thing rules. Yes, the tenure system is pretty screwed up, and should be overhauled to give some more power over hiring and firing to local administrators. But when you say merit pay, I hope you don’t mean paying teachers more or less if their students do better or worse on standardized tests. That’s not measuring what you want to measure, and that’s not a good guide as to how well teachers are doing or not.
I don’t think doing away with teachers unions is the answer, you just need to redefine the terms with them. There is nothing wrong with collective bargaining on the teacher end in and of itself, its just that we have a system now that needs to be changed and the unions are standing in the way. To me, this opens up the way towards compromise. Make it worth everyone’s while to change the system and it can get changed.
Results determine accountability.
This is done by a simple set of statistics that mostly any operation would use.
The application of resources available, tools available. and what effect do they have on similar fields or classes with students in the same curriculum of the same capability. If a teacher has a history of failing students, it should be pretty simple.
I mean, it’s all good in theory, but I think that’s a lot harder to measure than you think. How do you compare capability? How would you come up with fair standards? How do you compensate for extra-curricular pressures? For example, in a class of 20 kids, if one or two are having severe family troubles and start failing, that can quickly draw down a class average. Should a teacher be punished?
I’m not against accountability in theory, I just think you have to be really careful about how you draw the lines, and for something as complex as children and education, I don’t think pure numbers cut it. I’d rather see some sort of peer evaluation, where teachers could rate other teachers, children could rate their teachers, and parents could rate their teachers, and this would all get decided by some board or something every couple years. Perhaps that kind of system would be a lot more nuanced than simple statistics and standardized tests.
The same way a manager is evaluated on the same base of averages and specs. You have good and bad and stupid and smart employees all worked into the formula.
It seems like you would like to make this harder than it really is. It gives shitty teachers an avenue of escape by blame other than themselves.
It would actually take “Discrimination” based on performance.
Pure numbers do cut it. Because numbers dont lie.
It gives these kids abetter chance when you know what you are really dealing with.
At the end of the day I’m not going to be asking anyone what they think , I want to see numbers relative to progress, not opinions, peers have opinions influenced by emotion. I want facts
Who’s turning out the smartest kids ?
If a teacher fails a child by bad instruction, it is up to the school to shit can the teacher and make it up to the kid.
Kids rating teachers ?
Other teachers rating teachers ?
I think that would be recipe for disaster.
Talk about bias influence ?
Look, it really comes down to this. If you want your kids education turned into a bunch of numbers, then fine. I think education is a bit more than that. Numbers can help, yes, but there is a human aspect that can’t be reduced to formulas. As a parent yourself, I’m sure you understand that.
If the teacher has the right approach and tecnique, his numbers will be high. The parents infuse the personal aspect by meeting with the teachers and expressing what they feel might be best for the kid and if it’s within the teachers power or professional expertise to do so.
Which is why I’m goona go kick the band instructors fucking ass !
Not really, but I wiil put forth as much convincing as I can without getting a restraining order on me. Grrrrr.
Trombone, Geeeeze
Wow, we have very strong opinions on the topic. Everyone can see there are many problems in education. It is kind of like a knotted string — sometimes it so knotted you don’t know where to start.
Anyway, onto the topic on hand:
A very interesting idea but I’m not sure it will engage students. As a teacher of many years, more often than not it is the teacher who engages the students. I hated English until Grade 10 because of a passionate teacher. Suddenly I went from nearly failing English in Grade 8 to it being my top graduating mark. It was the realization that it was my previous teachers not the subject that sucked.
I worry a little about early specialization, it might limit a person later on. I agree with Alex
What happened to trying to teach people to be well-rounded individuals? I think people are too focused on the content of the subjects and lost sight of why everyone would benefit from these subjects. For example: as a math teacher I get the question all the time “When am I going to use this in life?” The fact is very few people use more than basic numeracy in their day to day life. My response? Math develops problem solving and logical thinking skills. Who wouldn’t benefit from that?
There is plenty of time for specialization once a student is past high school. The students who know what they want to do after high school will naturally choose electives that will benefit them later on. Student who already hate school or don’t know what they want to do after high school will only feel like they are nagged even more if they are forced to pick a major.
I see no reason why a child cant be taught the basics while still nurturing an area he shows promise in.
Not all high school grads have the luxury of mom and dad paying their rent and tuition once they get to college.
Right now the cost of corn due to that sleazy bitch ethanol has eaten into my budget and I have to juggle my sons college savings. He may have to hold a job when he turns 18 if not sooner to help pay for his college.
He likes Harley’s. I want him to be able to work confidently on one so he can make a buck during college. At that point if he wants to become a sex therapist he can change goals and apply it to his selections in college.
Its a sin to send a kid into this world having only math and english and other basics with no trade to apply it to.
Yea you can add and speak, but what do you know how to apply it to ?
Mechanics and math are both necessary to builde a bike properly.So along with his high school math in parallel he could study mechanics.
I’d say the point here would be moderation, jannymaire. Yes, math and english and the classic subjects should be taugh to all students. They do teach life skills. However, I wonder if certain students couldn’t get one or two years less of, say, math, and use that for something they are really interested in, say poetry. To me, this allows kids to play to their strengths. Sure, kids who really hate school won’t be into it either way, but for some kids who aren’t being engaged correctly this could help, and for the kids who do know what they want to spend their time on, this could be huge!
Everything in moderation, of course.
I completely agree with you J-Ro with allowing students to explore their interests. But why declare a specialty? I know personally I would have been very upset in high school if I had to declare a major. I loved math, music, English and History. I wished I had time in my schedule for woodworking, photography and art. If a student is given sufficient electives and there are sufficient options they will naturally gravitate to what they are interested in.