People are not only going to be doing electrical work for the rest of their lives. They might switch careers. And at minimum, we expect them to be able to understand the politics of their country to some level. Every person, no matter what in America (and well, my country too - perhaps more so because of mandatory voting and not selling our democracy to voting machine vendors) has the ability to effect their nations course even if only in infinitesimal detail and it's fallacious, I would say, if we discount this given that every second post in the American Politics thread is ruing the problems of uninformed voters and the slow but gradual decline in the political discourse of America that that's had.
Agreed on all this. That's why we have a generalized education as a foundation, then specialize on top of that.
Currently -- we have lots of interdisciplinary requirements even when people are studying their specializations. I want to reduce that. I'm saying the one interdisciplinary requirement that I think every single last person should be required to study until the day they leave school is composition.
I expect electricians to read, take electives, be informed, be able to make sense of the newspaper, etc. so on and so forth. I've never taken a single economics course besides the one in high school (which was one of the most useless exercises of my life taught by one of the most talentless teachers I ever encountered), but I still regularly read the business section of the paper and can make more sense of this financial news than (a little appallingly) many people in my office. I did this by teaching myself what I know in my own time. I would not have benefited from an increase in the economics requirement of my education.
Then I would refer you to my above post, because I am in full agreement.
An idea I've been playing around with in my head is the concept that we're all pushed through school to finish it at exactly the same age, where really some people ought to take longer and some people can get through it faster. Would it be possible to feasibly implement such a system?
So, wait, you thought you liked computer programming, but if your school hadn't required a course in computer programming, you wouldn't have taken it...? Why not? I know that I took courses in the things I enjoyed when I was in high school.
Well, there was basically intro to comp sci which was required (as far as I recollect), and AP comp sci offered in my Jr. year. You didn't have to take intro if you took the AP one. Had I taken the AP course, I would have done poorly and it would have affected my grades negatively. As it stood, I was able to get away with a moderate grade (because of persistent work and help from my friends in the AP course) in the introduction course and found out that I didn't care for it (re: was terrible at it).
So, were you planning on majoring in Comp Sci in college, and just decided you didn't want the AP course or something? Or are you just saying that you discovered you didn't actually like something that you thought one day you might get into as a hobby?
I'm saying I wasn't certain of what I wanted to do. My high school was one of those NYC specialized high schools though, and had a certain amount of math/science/CS/whatever stuff required for all students. My intelligence for subjects tends towards above average in many areas. I had no idea what course my life would take (I also got into Hunter, the liberal artsish school, and LaGuardia, the Art/music school), and I chose Stuyvesant because I only barely got in and had to work my ass off over a summer to do so. Unfortunately, just because I like computers and understand a lot about them, that does not translate into knowing what being a computer science major entails, in reality. It turns out I hate programming. I would not have liked to find that out in my senior year, after I applied to college, for example.
You can say this regarding almost literally every single subject.
Well, the concepts behind higher math are, I think, more applicable to different areas of life than most other subjects. Please keep in mind that I agree with you on the trade/college track thing and that this isn't necessarily applicable to trade students. To college students, it definitely should be though.
Well, yeah...and it already is. Pretty much any university requires three years of math, including one year beyond Algebra II, for entry. Which means either Trig/Stat or Pre-Calc will be required in any college-prep track.
Even students that don't make it straight to university (but instead start at a CC) are going to have to take a college math course for graduation, though it may be something like Algebra or Logic. Which I think is fine, because as much as you think everybody's life is enriched by the wonders of Calculus I don't think a second-grade teacher really needs it, nor should they be forced to take it. Their time would be better spent either A) taking more classes pertaining to their major (we've already gone into my opinion of gen-ed requirements in college) or taking a class they'd actually enjoy.
By the time they've either gone through a couple years of math in high school or a year of math in college, I trust that they know damn well whether they'll get much out of a Calc course.
Basically your attitude sounds like the standard "man, Calculus is amazing and I think everybody would take a lot away from learning it" attitude I see in a lot of math, science, and engineering majors (which you may or may not be). You're wrong. Just the same way that literature majors are wrong when they think everybody should take more literature classes, or music majors for music classes, or whatever.
For a majority of the people you're wanting to force through such a course, it will be empty drudgery, including a lot of cramming and some rapid forgetting (possibly involving beer) after the final. Just like about half of my general-ed courses in college.
Unless you're really only advocating this for high-school college-prep kids, in which case the same still applies (minus the beer).
Then I would refer you to my above post, because I am in full agreement.
Word -- it's always weird talking across cultures on topics like this, too, because educational values can be so subtly, yet so fundamentally different from one place to another, so the problems we perceive may sound the same, but below their surface really not be at all.
Anyway -- we agree. Less requirements, more democratization. The push towards standardized testing and a heavy emphasis on college prep when many high schools have less than half of their students going onto any college is a disaster.
Unless you're really only advocating this for high-school college-prep kids, in which case the same still applies (minus the beer).
More or less.
<- Civil Engineering! Though I could easily see myself doing political science, art, writing, basket weaving, etc.
Litejedi on
3DS FC: 1907-9450-1017
0
Options
MrMisterJesus dying on the cross in pain? Morally better than us. One has to go "all in".Registered Userregular
edited October 2008
The danger with an emphasis on vocational training is that it historically has served to channel poor and minority students into low-status jobs. I'd feel much more positively towards it if I saw a specific implementation plan that I liked.
Political Philosophy, Ethics, and Formal Logic should all be taught in high school.
The danger with an emphasis on vocational training is that it historically has served to channel poor and minority students into low-status jobs. I'd feel much more positively towards it if I saw a specific implementation plan that I liked.
Political Philosophy, Ethics, and Formal Logic should all be taught in high school.
I'd say that the above are important regardless of which track a kid is on, vocational or college-prep, as well (not sure if you were implying this).
And yes, this is one of the standard arguments against tracking kids for vocational training over college prep. A fairly compelling one, too. However, the question I have is whether kids who have little to gain from college (or no intention of attending) are just as negatively impacted by being railroaded onto a college-prep track as vice-versa.
I'd say it's close.
Which is why I think we have an obligation to find some kind of implementation of this that does work.
What we need to do is separate college-track kids from non-college-track kids at a much earlier age.
Not a bad idea - here I see a lot of people who end up going to university just because that's what everyone does, but no idea what they want, or expect, to do with it. It is partly understandable seeing how tuition is relatively affordable here, but I imagine it must be even more ridiculous in the U.S. Meanwhile, the demand for tradespersons grows and grows.
My only concern though is that "separat[ing] college-track kids from non-college-track kids" would in reality turn into "separat[ing] white kids from black kids", or at the very least "rich kids from poor kids" in pretty short order.
Quite a different tack from the arguments above, but I think schoolkids should be taking classes in nutrition and cooking. Maybe some of you did, but I didn't, and in the UK we seem to have a generation of kids who don't know anything about food and buy everything frozen. It's easy enough to say the parents should teach them, but for various reasons they just aren't.
poshniallo on
I figure I could take a bear.
0
Options
Inquisitor772 x Penny Arcade Fight Club ChampionA fixed point in space and timeRegistered Userregular
edited October 2008
Civics: Why We Pay Taxes - Real-world, practical, this is the system, this is why the system is in place, and this is what actually happens within this system civics
Logic: Argumentation and Reasoning - Not just teaching formal logic in terms of symbols and algorithms, but how that applies to actual thinking and arguments. I'm astounded at how many people can't apply basic logic to troubleshoot everyday situations
Statistics: What It Does and Doesn't Do - The number of times I see base rate neglect shown as "proof" of something makes me want to throw baby penguins
Science: What It Actually Is, and Why We Use It - I'm convinced that the only way to get rid of this Creationist/Intelligent Design crap is to adequately teach children, when they are young and being indoctrinated with that bullshit, exactly what science is and what it is for. Way too many middle-school kids are being taught a rote formulation of the scientific process without the underlying hard-won historical, philosophical, and rational underpinnings of why it exists.
Economics: How People Take Your Money In New and Interesting Ways - A thorough discussion of credit (how it is used, what it is for). A review of the psychology of microeconomic decisions (i.e. how you actually think when you buy shit, and how you should think when you buy shit). A primer on basic economics (opportunity cost, supply/demand, the true value of information/transparency in trade, etc.) and how that plays out not only in your personal finances but in the general economy as a whole (i.e. why boycotting gas for a day is already stupid enough, and continuing to drive your SUV makes you a fucktard).
_____________________________
A lot of people seem hung up on math and why it is being taught if you never plan on using it. The problem with that type of thinking is that: a) it betrays a fundamental misunderstanding/ignorance of how people actually think, and b) the vast majority of the time you don't know what the hell you're actually going to be when you grow up.
a) Most of the value in learning calculus has nothing to do with calculus. It has to do with providing you enough practice and advanced manipulation with everything used in calculus so that you become more readily familiar with its application. Basically - if you can do calculus, you're going to be a lot better at algebra. And not only are you going to be better at algebra, but you will be better at all of the mental skills that go along with it (i.e. dealing with unknown variables, being able to effectively constrain problems and situations, etc. etc. etc.). And plus, a better understanding of mathematics (and science) is good for you in general when, as part of a modern democratic society, you are being asked to make decisions for yourself and everyone else based on things you aren't expected to fully comprehend. Like on, say, a $700 bllion "bailout" of "Wall Street".
b) One of the points of education is to provide you with the opportunity to choose what you want to do, rather than force you down one specific path. If you had to hire someone for "a job", who would you rather have - someone with a degree in applied mathematics or someone with a degree in mass communications?
There's really nothing that can be done to meaningfully fix our school system until we reduce the maximum number of students per classroom to 20 or below.
Not average, maximum. Average should be around 17.
Until we do that, we're rearranging deck chairs.
Class sizes in Asia often go into the 40s. Their school systems aren't in the toilet.
Teachers can deal with 40 kids who want to learn. 20 kids who want to learn and 20 kids who would rather be anywhere else is a different story.
What we need to do is separate college-track kids from non-college-track kids at a much earlier age.
I guess you mean more programs like International Baccalaureate and AP?
No, I mean more programs like trade schools and apprenticeships.
The current secondary school regime is completely focused around kids who want to go to college, and kids who don't are basically told "you're on your own." It's fucking stupid.
To say nothing of lack of teaching practical skills. Home Ec should be expanded and made mandatory. Kids should be leaving high school knowing how to create a budget and able to cook a meal. But instead we have college graduates able to do neither.
Probably because they didn't pay any attention in class because they thought math was worthless:whistle:
Incidentally, I was thinking about starting a thread like this a few months ago, when california made it so that all 8th graders are going to have to take algebra as part of the (middle school) exit exam. While I think this is probably a terrible idea, I was more shocked by the overwhelming response in the letters to the editor section of the local paper with dozens of people proudly proclaiming that algebra is completely worthless in the "real world" and how they were proud they never took it
also, if you seriously can't think of any applications of calculus, you probably weren't paying attention too well in calculus, because textbooks are chock-full of them
hell, I use calculus every day; not in maths class, just in general: for determining the volume of an object, say, or for figuring out my pace in cross-country, or for figuring out how fast the brakes on my car work
there are just SO MANY THINGS that calculus is directly applicable for that are actually pretty helpful
I never, ever, ever use calculus, ever, and I would say that's true of at least 90% of the people I'm acquainted with. I'd say my bosses don't do fucking calculus, either.
Yes, it's applicable in many situations in a trivial sense, but it's far from universally applicable to most people's everyday needs.
For me, calculus was more about building up problem solving skills than it was about the application of calculus. I had an awesome Math teacher my senior year of HS and he would always harp on that. He leveled with us that unless you're going to be an engineer, physicist or mathematician, that you probably won't use calculus too often, but learning how to tackle problems like that was more important, or "learning how to learn" was how he put it if I remember right.
Logic and rhetoric should be a mandatory high school course. Cover logical fallacies, the conclusions-and-premises model, and common forms like modus ponens. Use current news stories or other completely fresh copy as your source materials, and structure your projects very open-endedly.
There's really nothing that can be done to meaningfully fix our school system until we reduce the maximum number of students per classroom to 20 or below.
Not average, maximum. Average should be around 17.
Until we do that, we're rearranging deck chairs.
Class sizes in Asia often go into the 40s. Their school systems aren't in the toilet.
Teachers can deal with 40 kids who want to learn. 20 kids who want to learn and 20 kids who would rather be anywhere else is a different story.
While I can't comment whether Asian class sizes often go into the 40s, I will say that Japan - who has one of the highest average class sizes worldwide - has an average class size of 30 and has been steadily trying to reduce class sizes for decades. (PDF Link)
Also, there is a strong argument that the US has a significantly more diverse population, even within individual school districts. Cultural and economic diversity in other countries is going to be reflected more in regional differences; ie the needs of kids in Okinawa are not the same as the needs of kids in Tokyo; while in the US they're going to be reflected in neighborhood differences, so a school serving southeast San Jose is going to have to deal with the richest kids and the poorest kids. This is exacerbated by busing and integration efforts - which I support, BTW.
Having "20 kids who would rather be anywhere else" is a cultural issue, not one that the schools are going to easily handle on their own. We need more community outreach, more efforts to integrate parents and families into education, more education specifically tailored to minority and low-income populations.
Finally, there's evidence that the effect of class sizes has an inverse relationship to teacher pay. So if you pay teachers more, you attract better teachers, and they can handle more students. (This shouldn't be surprising.) So if you want to pay teachers more instead of hiring more teachers, I'd be okay with that, too... although, for the reasons I specified above, I think a combination of both with a greater emphasis on hiring more teachers is the best course of action.
Either way, we're not going to improve our schools until and unless funding for the school system is increased, dramatically, nationwide. Efforts to fix schools without spending more money - and I mean a lot more money - are going to have mixed results at best, deleterious results at worst.
Feral on
every person who doesn't like an acquired taste always seems to think everyone who likes it is faking it. it should be an official fallacy.
the "no true scotch man" fallacy.
0
Options
MrMonroepassed outon the floor nowRegistered Userregular
An idea I've been playing around with in my head is the concept that we're all pushed through school to finish it at exactly the same age, where really some people ought to take longer and some people can get through it faster. Would it be possible to feasibly implement such a system?
In most states, no.
Generally, most states require that students are subjected to a certain number of instructional hours per school year; too many snow days in the winter and they have to tack a couple on to the end of the year. They leave the decision of whether the person has learned anything up to the definitions set down by the district and the teacher.
This is retarded.
I would absolutely love to see a system implemented at the high school level in which no classes are mandated, the school day is longer, homework in offered courses is discouraged, and the measure of whether you've completed your work is whether you could pass a series of tests in each subject.
Unfortunately, my ideal setup costs a titload of cash, requires a lot more competent teachers, and excellent on-site resources in the way of computers and libraries. (though if you can get computers with JStore access, the books are almost a moot point)
EDIT: I should probably list things I think should be tested, eh? I'd let the districts set the test, or better yet, let the kids negotiate it with a teacher.
All of the following:
Writing Composition
Reading Comprehension
Logical Reasoning
Macro Economics
Algebra
Geometry
Basic Statistics
American History World History
Civics
Chemistry
Environmental Science
Foreign language of choice Finance. Almost forgot that one.
And perhaps two of the following in addition:
Basic Calculus
Advanced Composition
Physics
Econometrics
Advanced Algebra
Other advanced coursework as determined individually
As well as a serious arts or "materials sciences" project, as early as possible.
Unfortunately, my ideal setup costs a titload of cash, requires a lot more competent teachers, and excellent on-site resources in the way of computers and libraries. (though if you can get computers with JStore access, the books are almost a moot point)
Which is also the reason why reducing "core" classes in favor of a greater variety and freedom to select electives really wouldn't be able to work in anything other than a charter school.
Probably because they didn't pay any attention in class because they thought math was worthless
Hello Spoit, I'd like you to meet Mr. Strawman. I never claimed math was worthless.
And to everyone going on about the indirect benefits of higher math such as logic and problem solving get over yourselves. Math isn't necessary for that. It can, and that's great for people who like math. It doesn't mean math should be the required course to teach kids that.
I was too lazy to read this thread
But given how dumb and ignorant most Americans are about matters of money and the economy, and given the negative consequences of this, I think they really ought to teach some people basic economic knowledge in high school or something as a requirement
That is surely more important than some of the other crap that is required, and it should be deemed essential
Or even accounting, because everyone needs to know some basic accounting to survive in life, and that's also what is used by economists all the time these days
Bernanke promoted this idea back before he became Mr Fed... I don't disagree
Logic and rhetoric should be a mandatory high school course. Cover logical fallacies, the conclusions-and-premises model, and common forms like modus ponens. Use current news stories or other completely fresh copy as your source materials, and structure your projects very open-endedly.
I'm a high school math teacher, and I plan on creating a Discrete Mathematics course for seniors to take as an elective. I will probably make pre-calc a prereq. I am not trying to exclude kids who might benefit from the class (pretty much everybody), I'm just trying to make sure the kids that are there are capable of working numbers at the level I intend them to.
The course will be designed for kids who go into engineering or math fields, and will deal with a lot of logic and number sets, maybe some graph theory. I think it will be pretty awesome when it's all mapped out, but I will probably talk to some of my old college profs about what is appropriate and "best" material to use.
Also on an unrelated note, people saying we should track our kids into college and non-college bound are locking a lot of kids into roles that they shouldn't necessarily have to play. Just because a kid's dad is a steel worker and at age 10 he thinks he is going to be as well, doesn't mean he shouldn't be exposed to an education. I understand he'd be learning things that relate to his vocation, but it's our job as educators to EDUCATE not prepare them specifically for their role in society. I think giving kids a brain full of factual information and the ability to process it is infinitely more marketable in any job than having good welding skills. You might be a little bit better welder at age 18 if you go through that theoritical vocational route, but where are you as a well rounded human being?
Probably because they didn't pay any attention in class because they thought math was worthless
Hello Spoit, I'd like you to meet Mr. Strawman. I never claimed math was worthless.
You've made ad hominem attacks on me, so it's a little hypocritical of you to trot out debate standards against other people.
And to everyone going on about the indirect benefits of higher math such as logic and problem solving get over yourselves. Math isn't necessary for that. It can, and that's great for people who like math. It doesn't mean math should be the required course to teach kids that.
Many educators and cognitive scientists would disagree with you on these points. I'll see if I can find some supporting data.
Litejedi on
3DS FC: 1907-9450-1017
0
Options
MrMonroepassed outon the floor nowRegistered Userregular
edited October 2008
Yes, math does help with certain logical reasoning abilities.
I have never done particularly well in a math class, especially higher level ones, and yet I've been nailing the logical reasoning section of the LSATs every time. There are plenty of people like me. Higher math is not necessary to many logical reasoning applications, and it's entirely possible to teach logical reasoning without ever touching mathematical reasoning.
There are plenty of other good reasons to teach basic mathematical concepts, however, usually so people know when someone is trying to pull a fast one on them.
Also on an unrelated note, people saying we should track our kids into college and non-college bound are locking a lot of kids into roles that they shouldn't necessarily have to play. Just because a kid's dad is a steel worker and at age 10 he thinks he is going to be as well, doesn't mean he shouldn't be exposed to an education. I understand he'd be learning things that relate to his vocation, but it's our job as educators to EDUCATE not prepare them specifically for their role in society. I think giving kids a brain full of factual information and the ability to process it is infinitely more marketable in any job than having good welding skills.
Except maybe "welder."
You don't think time spent in auto shop in high school is worthwhile? Tell that to the guy you just paid $300 for like six hours of labor. I'm not saying kids shouldn't still get some other more "academic" instruction...at my high school vo-tech wasn't more than 1/3 of your schedule. There was still plenty of time to learn Spanish if they felt like it, or take some advanced math, or whatever they wanted to do (though not "all of the above"...it made it pretty difficult if not impossible to meet the university entrance requirements, for instance). But they were also spending a third of their day learning some marketable skill they were interested in (or learning that they weren't interested in it, which is just as beneficial).
You might be a little bit better welder at age 18 if you go through that theoritical vocational route, but where are you as a well rounded human being?
I'd suggest that some of the eggheads that spend their entire day in AP math and science courses would benefit from a little fucking welding, too. So why do they get to leave wood shop behind in junior high (at least in both districts I attended)?
Not necessarily welding, but basic home improvement.
I have to roll my eyes when somebody who is incredibly intelligent and well-read can't figure out how to put up a towel rack.
Hey, that was me when I got out of high school. Nearly everything I've learned about anything involving using tools I learned while in the Army or since getting out. I'm fairly handy now, but damn was I useless when I was 18.
I just find it amusing that the same guys espousing the benefits of making everybody take Calculus would probably bitch and moan if they couldn't fit that one extra AP science course in because we told them they had to take an extra semester or year of shop class.
Probably because they didn't pay any attention in class because they thought math was worthless
Hello Spoit, I'd like you to meet Mr. Strawman. I never claimed math was worthless.
You've made ad hominem attacks on me, so it's a little hypocritical of you to trot out debate standards against other people.
And to everyone going on about the indirect benefits of higher math such as logic and problem solving get over yourselves. Math isn't necessary for that. It can, and that's great for people who like math. It doesn't mean math should be the required course to teach kids that.
Many educators and cognitive scientists would disagree with you on these points. I'll see if I can find some supporting data.
Forget calculus, the rest of my post was about how a large number of people are proud they can't do freaking basic algebra
Not necessarily welding, but basic home improvement.
I have to roll my eyes when somebody who is incredibly intelligent and well-read can't figure out how to put up a towel rack.
Hey, that was me when I got out of high school. Nearly everything I've learned about anything involving using tools I learned while in the Army or since getting out. I'm fairly handy now, but damn was I useless when I was 18.
I just find it amusing that the same guys espousing the benefits of making everybody take Calculus would probably bitch and moan if they couldn't fit that one extra AP science course in because we told them they had to take an extra semester or year of shop class.
I learned about basic home repair from my dad, thankfully.
However he taught me nothing about finance or even looking for a job. He was allergic to the entire white collar existence in general (turned down a position with IBM in the 70s because he didn't want to live in Cupertino) and so I got to college not knowing anything about credit, balancing a budget, getting a car loan, writing a resume, looking for a job, interviewing...
I learned how to write a check from the bank rep who I opened my first checking account with. :P
So, yeah, I do support basic finance being taught in high school, along with (as others have mentioned) logic and critical thinking. I don't think "shop" classes are all that useful anymore, but more vocational training would be good, as well as home repair, like I mentioned.
Feral on
every person who doesn't like an acquired taste always seems to think everyone who likes it is faking it. it should be an official fallacy.
Not necessarily welding, but basic home improvement.
I have to roll my eyes when somebody who is incredibly intelligent and well-read can't figure out how to put up a towel rack.
Hey, that was me when I got out of high school. Nearly everything I've learned about anything involving using tools I learned while in the Army or since getting out. I'm fairly handy now, but damn was I useless when I was 18.
I just find it amusing that the same guys espousing the benefits of making everybody take Calculus would probably bitch and moan if they couldn't fit that one extra AP science course in because we told them they had to take an extra semester or year of shop class.
I learned about basic home repair from my dad, thankfully.
However he taught me nothing about finance or even looking for a job. He was allergic to the entire white collar existence in general (turned down a position with IBM in the 70s because he didn't want to live in Cupertino) and so I got to college not knowing anything about credit, balancing a budget, getting a car loan, writing a resume, looking for a job, interviewing...
I learned how to write a check from the bank rep who I opened my first checking account with. :P
So, yeah, I do support basic finance being taught in high school, along with (as others have mentioned) logic and critical thinking. I don't think "shop" classes are all that useful anymore, but more vocational training would be good, as well as home repair, like I mentioned.
Yeah, like I said, a basic accounting course would be fantastico
There's really nothing that can be done to meaningfully fix our school system until we reduce the maximum number of students per classroom to 20 or below.
Not average, maximum. Average should be around 17.
Until we do that, we're rearranging deck chairs.
Class sizes in Asia often go into the 40s. Their school systems aren't in the toilet.
Teachers can deal with 40 kids who want to learn. 20 kids who want to learn and 20 kids who would rather be anywhere else is a different story.
While I can't comment whether Asian class sizes often go into the 40s, I will say that Japan - who has one of the highest average class sizes worldwide - has an average class size of 30 and has been steadily trying to reduce class sizes for decades. (PDF Link)
Also, there is a strong argument that the US has a significantly more diverse population, even within individual school districts. Cultural and economic diversity in other countries is going to be reflected more in regional differences; ie the needs of kids in Okinawa are not the same as the needs of kids in Tokyo; while in the US they're going to be reflected in neighborhood differences, so a school serving southeast San Jose is going to have to deal with the richest kids and the poorest kids. This is exacerbated by busing and integration efforts - which I support, BTW.
Having "20 kids who would rather be anywhere else" is a cultural issue, not one that the schools are going to easily handle on their own. We need more community outreach, more efforts to integrate parents and families into education, more education specifically tailored to minority and low-income populations.
Finally, there's evidence that the effect of class sizes has an inverse relationship to teacher pay. So if you pay teachers more, you attract better teachers, and they can handle more students. (This shouldn't be surprising.) So if you want to pay teachers more instead of hiring more teachers, I'd be okay with that, too... although, for the reasons I specified above, I think a combination of both with a greater emphasis on hiring more teachers is the best course of action.
Either way, we're not going to improve our schools until and unless funding for the school system is increased, dramatically, nationwide. Efforts to fix schools without spending more money - and I mean a lot more money - are going to have mixed results at best, deleterious results at worst.
Smaller class sizes are preferable if you can get them, however it's still possible to effectively teach when there's more than 20 kids max in the room. Japan at 30 students is hardly rearranging the deck chairs.
South Korea has average class sizes double that in the US, and lower per-student spending. They also pay much more for teachers - 2.5x per capita GDP compared to about 1x in the US - as a result of limiting the teacher supply. That drives up salaries and increases social status for teachers, the same way limiting med school acceptances increases the social status of doctors. The combination drives the best to go after teaching jobs, rather than having teaching serve as the fallback it often is in the US.
In fact, several of the top educational countries limit teacher supply. Finland requires a Master's. Singapore and Taiwan only recruit teachers from the top third of graduates, and South Korea from the top tenth. These policies run counter to the ever-growing call for more teachers that often accompanies class-shrinking. But the results are the results - those countries outperform higher-spending countries which have smaller class sizes.
Quality over quantity.
Annectdotally, California is one of the leading states in pushing for smaller class sizes, but I didn't see the improvement when I was at school. The best class I had was a 40-student room, while the worst was a 25-student class. The 25-student class was taught by a PE teacher/football coach who was only teaching history because the school had created extra history classes in order to cut class sizes. I watched so many videos in that class while the "teacher" read the sports page.
The need for more teachers, driven by the desire to reduce class sizes, has pretty much destroyed the level of competence needed to teach in the state. If CBEST were any easier, it would be administered on TV by Jeff Foxworthy.
BubbaT on
0
Options
MrMonroepassed outon the floor nowRegistered Userregular
edited October 2008
Having been tech director at my high school's theater, I have to say most kids don't know anything about basic tool use, which is pretty amazing in the computer age. We have and can use competently machines that can out-think us ten times before breakfast but people just don't fucking understand levers.
We had to have a day where we taught everyone "this is a hammer. You hold it at this end YES ALL THE WAY AT THE BOTTOM. WOULD YOU LIKE ME TO GET YOU A ROCK SO YOU CAN DRIVE THIS NAIL MORE COMFORTABLY?!"
Also on an unrelated note, people saying we should track our kids into college and non-college bound are locking a lot of kids into roles that they shouldn't necessarily have to play. Just because a kid's dad is a steel worker and at age 10 he thinks he is going to be as well, doesn't mean he shouldn't be exposed to an education. I understand he'd be learning things that relate to his vocation, but it's our job as educators to EDUCATE not prepare them specifically for their role in society. I think giving kids a brain full of factual information and the ability to process it is infinitely more marketable in any job than having good welding skills.
Except maybe "welder."
You don't think time spent in auto shop in high school is worthwhile? Tell that to the guy you just paid $300 for like six hours of labor. I'm not saying kids shouldn't still get some other more "academic" instruction...at my high school vo-tech wasn't more than 1/3 of your schedule. There was still plenty of time to learn Spanish if they felt like it, or take some advanced math, or whatever they wanted to do (though not "all of the above"...it made it pretty difficult if not impossible to meet the university entrance requirements, for instance). But they were also spending a third of their day learning some marketable skill they were interested in (or learning that they weren't interested in it, which is just as beneficial).
You might be a little bit better welder at age 18 if you go through that theoritical vocational route, but where are you as a well rounded human being?
I'd suggest that some of the eggheads that spend their entire day in AP math and science courses would benefit from a little fucking welding, too. So why do they get to leave wood shop behind in junior high (at least in both districts I attended)?
In no way am I saying that taking these classes isn't extremely valuable and useful. I would love to learn to weld and am not taking away from these professions. What I'm saying is that we should not track kids into certain career paths so early on. There is plenty of time for education, and I think that the classes that focus specifically on your job should only come after you've got a strong base.
Also on an unrelated note, people saying we should track our kids into college and non-college bound are locking a lot of kids into roles that they shouldn't necessarily have to play. Just because a kid's dad is a steel worker and at age 10 he thinks he is going to be as well, doesn't mean he shouldn't be exposed to an education. I understand he'd be learning things that relate to his vocation, but it's our job as educators to EDUCATE not prepare them specifically for their role in society. I think giving kids a brain full of factual information and the ability to process it is infinitely more marketable in any job than having good welding skills.
Except maybe "welder."
You don't think time spent in auto shop in high school is worthwhile? Tell that to the guy you just paid $300 for like six hours of labor. I'm not saying kids shouldn't still get some other more "academic" instruction...at my high school vo-tech wasn't more than 1/3 of your schedule. There was still plenty of time to learn Spanish if they felt like it, or take some advanced math, or whatever they wanted to do (though not "all of the above"...it made it pretty difficult if not impossible to meet the university entrance requirements, for instance). But they were also spending a third of their day learning some marketable skill they were interested in (or learning that they weren't interested in it, which is just as beneficial).
You might be a little bit better welder at age 18 if you go through that theoritical vocational route, but where are you as a well rounded human being?
I'd suggest that some of the eggheads that spend their entire day in AP math and science courses would benefit from a little fucking welding, too. So why do they get to leave wood shop behind in junior high (at least in both districts I attended)?
In no way am I saying that taking these classes isn't extremely valuable and useful. I would love to learn to weld and am not taking away from these professions. What I'm saying is that we should not track kids into certain career paths so early on. There is plenty of time for education, and I think that the classes that focus specifically on your job should only come after you've got a strong base.
This only works if you expand funding for vocational colleges, as well as financial aid for people to attend them. Because if you're just talking about K-12 there really isn't "plenty of time," and some people actually have to support themselves at 18 the way things stand now.
And besides which, nobody is advocating locking them up in the vo-tech building all day and keeping them away from all those scary "books." Like I said, our vo-tech kids still spent 2/3 of their day outside vo-tech, taking (in theory) the same academic classes as everybody else.
Basically you're just failing to consider the idea that there are actually people that don't go to college. Like, ever. And while this apparently leads some people to think it's that much more important to cram Calculus into their high school experience, I'd argue the exact opposite.
Though at the end of the day I think expanding funding (both to schools and students) for 2-year colleges, including tech schools, is probably as important if not more so than anything we might do to our secondary (or lower) schools.
Smaller class sizes are preferable if you can get them, however it's still possible to effectively teach when there's more than 20 kids max in the room. Japan at 30 students is hardly rearranging the deck chairs.
South Korea has average class sizes double that in the US, and lower per-student spending. They also pay much more for teachers - 2.5x per capita GDP compared to about 1x in the US - as a result of limiting the teacher supply. That drives up salaries and increases social status for teachers, the same way limiting med school acceptances increases the social status of doctors. The combination drives the best to go after teaching jobs, rather than having teaching serve as the fallback it often is in the US.
In fact, several of the top educational countries limit teacher supply. Finland requires a Master's. Singapore and Taiwan only recruit teachers from the top third of graduates, and South Korea from the top tenth. These policies run counter to the ever-growing call for more teachers that often accompanies class-shrinking. But the results are the results - those countries outperform higher-spending countries which have smaller class sizes.
Quality over quantity.
Annectdotally, California is one of the leading states in pushing for smaller class sizes, but I didn't see the improvement when I was at school. The best class I had was a 40-student room, while the worst was a 25-student class. The 25-student class was taught by a PE teacher/football coach who was only teaching history because the school had created extra history classes in order to cut class sizes. I watched so many videos in that class while the "teacher" read the sports page.
The need for more teachers, driven by the desire to reduce class sizes, has pretty much destroyed the level of competence needed to teach in the state. If CBEST were any easier, it would be administered on TV by Jeff Foxworthy.
That's a good counterargument, but what I see as the basic issue there is the desire to hire more teachers not by increasing compensation but by decreasing barriers to entry. We wouldn't need to make the CBEST easier if we increased teachers' pay.
Honestly, I see both approaches as useful, we'd probably be best off with a mixed approach. More and better teachers.
Feral on
every person who doesn't like an acquired taste always seems to think everyone who likes it is faking it. it should be an official fallacy.
the "no true scotch man" fallacy.
0
Options
MrMonroepassed outon the floor nowRegistered Userregular
That's a good counterargument, but what I see as the basic issue there is the desire to hire more teachers not by increasing compensation but by decreasing barriers to entry. We wouldn't need to make the CBEST easier if we increased teachers' pay.
Honestly, I see both approaches as useful, we'd probably be best off with a mixed approach. More and better teachers.
Who's to say what the base should include, though?
I might not necessarily put welding in there, but I would probably include something more likely to impact daily life like Auto Shop.
It could be model airplanes for all I care, so long as the central message gets through to them: things are made with your hands.
My basic problem with this is that a lot of things aren't really made with your hands anymore.
I took metal shop in junior high. Then, about 10 years later, I ended up doing a lot of IT work for actual metal shops. Everything is automated now; you design your part in CAD and then feed it up to a machine with a computer. Being able to fold a piece of steel with your hands isn't nearly as important as being able to work a mouse.
Yeah, there's always going to be demand for people who can work with their hands - welders being a great example - but the classic idea of "shop" classes is pretty much obsolete IMO.
Feral on
every person who doesn't like an acquired taste always seems to think everyone who likes it is faking it. it should be an official fallacy.
Posts
I'm saying I wasn't certain of what I wanted to do. My high school was one of those NYC specialized high schools though, and had a certain amount of math/science/CS/whatever stuff required for all students. My intelligence for subjects tends towards above average in many areas. I had no idea what course my life would take (I also got into Hunter, the liberal artsish school, and LaGuardia, the Art/music school), and I chose Stuyvesant because I only barely got in and had to work my ass off over a summer to do so. Unfortunately, just because I like computers and understand a lot about them, that does not translate into knowing what being a computer science major entails, in reality. It turns out I hate programming. I would not have liked to find that out in my senior year, after I applied to college, for example.
Well, yeah...and it already is. Pretty much any university requires three years of math, including one year beyond Algebra II, for entry. Which means either Trig/Stat or Pre-Calc will be required in any college-prep track.
Even students that don't make it straight to university (but instead start at a CC) are going to have to take a college math course for graduation, though it may be something like Algebra or Logic. Which I think is fine, because as much as you think everybody's life is enriched by the wonders of Calculus I don't think a second-grade teacher really needs it, nor should they be forced to take it. Their time would be better spent either A) taking more classes pertaining to their major (we've already gone into my opinion of gen-ed requirements in college) or
By the time they've either gone through a couple years of math in high school or a year of math in college, I trust that they know damn well whether they'll get much out of a Calc course.
Basically your attitude sounds like the standard "man, Calculus is amazing and I think everybody would take a lot away from learning it" attitude I see in a lot of math, science, and engineering majors (which you may or may not be). You're wrong. Just the same way that literature majors are wrong when they think everybody should take more literature classes, or music majors for music classes, or whatever.
For a majority of the people you're wanting to force through such a course, it will be empty drudgery, including a lot of cramming and some rapid forgetting (possibly involving beer) after the final. Just like about half of my general-ed courses in college.
Unless you're really only advocating this for high-school college-prep kids, in which case the same still applies (minus the beer).
Anyway -- we agree. Less requirements, more democratization. The push towards standardized testing and a heavy emphasis on college prep when many high schools have less than half of their students going onto any college is a disaster.
More or less.
<- Civil Engineering! Though I could easily see myself doing political science, art, writing, basket weaving, etc.
Political Philosophy, Ethics, and Formal Logic should all be taught in high school.
I'd say that the above are important regardless of which track a kid is on, vocational or college-prep, as well (not sure if you were implying this).
And yes, this is one of the standard arguments against tracking kids for vocational training over college prep. A fairly compelling one, too. However, the question I have is whether kids who have little to gain from college (or no intention of attending) are just as negatively impacted by being railroaded onto a college-prep track as vice-versa.
I'd say it's close.
Which is why I think we have an obligation to find some kind of implementation of this that does work.
My only concern though is that "separat[ing] college-track kids from non-college-track kids" would in reality turn into "separat[ing] white kids from black kids", or at the very least "rich kids from poor kids" in pretty short order.
Logic: Argumentation and Reasoning - Not just teaching formal logic in terms of symbols and algorithms, but how that applies to actual thinking and arguments. I'm astounded at how many people can't apply basic logic to troubleshoot everyday situations
Statistics: What It Does and Doesn't Do - The number of times I see base rate neglect shown as "proof" of something makes me want to throw baby penguins
Science: What It Actually Is, and Why We Use It - I'm convinced that the only way to get rid of this Creationist/Intelligent Design crap is to adequately teach children, when they are young and being indoctrinated with that bullshit, exactly what science is and what it is for. Way too many middle-school kids are being taught a rote formulation of the scientific process without the underlying hard-won historical, philosophical, and rational underpinnings of why it exists.
Economics: How People Take Your Money In New and Interesting Ways - A thorough discussion of credit (how it is used, what it is for). A review of the psychology of microeconomic decisions (i.e. how you actually think when you buy shit, and how you should think when you buy shit). A primer on basic economics (opportunity cost, supply/demand, the true value of information/transparency in trade, etc.) and how that plays out not only in your personal finances but in the general economy as a whole (i.e. why boycotting gas for a day is already stupid enough, and continuing to drive your SUV makes you a fucktard).
_____________________________
A lot of people seem hung up on math and why it is being taught if you never plan on using it. The problem with that type of thinking is that: a) it betrays a fundamental misunderstanding/ignorance of how people actually think, and b) the vast majority of the time you don't know what the hell you're actually going to be when you grow up.
a) Most of the value in learning calculus has nothing to do with calculus. It has to do with providing you enough practice and advanced manipulation with everything used in calculus so that you become more readily familiar with its application. Basically - if you can do calculus, you're going to be a lot better at algebra. And not only are you going to be better at algebra, but you will be better at all of the mental skills that go along with it (i.e. dealing with unknown variables, being able to effectively constrain problems and situations, etc. etc. etc.). And plus, a better understanding of mathematics (and science) is good for you in general when, as part of a modern democratic society, you are being asked to make decisions for yourself and everyone else based on things you aren't expected to fully comprehend. Like on, say, a $700 bllion "bailout" of "Wall Street".
b) One of the points of education is to provide you with the opportunity to choose what you want to do, rather than force you down one specific path. If you had to hire someone for "a job", who would you rather have - someone with a degree in applied mathematics or someone with a degree in mass communications?
Class sizes in Asia often go into the 40s. Their school systems aren't in the toilet.
Teachers can deal with 40 kids who want to learn. 20 kids who want to learn and 20 kids who would rather be anywhere else is a different story.
Probably because they didn't pay any attention in class because they thought math was worthless:whistle:
Incidentally, I was thinking about starting a thread like this a few months ago, when california made it so that all 8th graders are going to have to take algebra as part of the (middle school) exit exam. While I think this is probably a terrible idea, I was more shocked by the overwhelming response in the letters to the editor section of the local paper with dozens of people proudly proclaiming that algebra is completely worthless in the "real world" and how they were proud they never took it
For me, calculus was more about building up problem solving skills than it was about the application of calculus. I had an awesome Math teacher my senior year of HS and he would always harp on that. He leveled with us that unless you're going to be an engineer, physicist or mathematician, that you probably won't use calculus too often, but learning how to tackle problems like that was more important, or "learning how to learn" was how he put it if I remember right.
Enlist in Star Citizen! Citizenship must be earned!
QEDMF xbl: PantsB G+
While I can't comment whether Asian class sizes often go into the 40s, I will say that Japan - who has one of the highest average class sizes worldwide - has an average class size of 30 and has been steadily trying to reduce class sizes for decades. (PDF Link)
Also, there is a strong argument that the US has a significantly more diverse population, even within individual school districts. Cultural and economic diversity in other countries is going to be reflected more in regional differences; ie the needs of kids in Okinawa are not the same as the needs of kids in Tokyo; while in the US they're going to be reflected in neighborhood differences, so a school serving southeast San Jose is going to have to deal with the richest kids and the poorest kids. This is exacerbated by busing and integration efforts - which I support, BTW.
Having "20 kids who would rather be anywhere else" is a cultural issue, not one that the schools are going to easily handle on their own. We need more community outreach, more efforts to integrate parents and families into education, more education specifically tailored to minority and low-income populations.
Finally, there's evidence that the effect of class sizes has an inverse relationship to teacher pay. So if you pay teachers more, you attract better teachers, and they can handle more students. (This shouldn't be surprising.) So if you want to pay teachers more instead of hiring more teachers, I'd be okay with that, too... although, for the reasons I specified above, I think a combination of both with a greater emphasis on hiring more teachers is the best course of action.
Either way, we're not going to improve our schools until and unless funding for the school system is increased, dramatically, nationwide. Efforts to fix schools without spending more money - and I mean a lot more money - are going to have mixed results at best, deleterious results at worst.
the "no true scotch man" fallacy.
In most states, no.
Generally, most states require that students are subjected to a certain number of instructional hours per school year; too many snow days in the winter and they have to tack a couple on to the end of the year. They leave the decision of whether the person has learned anything up to the definitions set down by the district and the teacher.
This is retarded.
I would absolutely love to see a system implemented at the high school level in which no classes are mandated, the school day is longer, homework in offered courses is discouraged, and the measure of whether you've completed your work is whether you could pass a series of tests in each subject.
Unfortunately, my ideal setup costs a titload of cash, requires a lot more competent teachers, and excellent on-site resources in the way of computers and libraries. (though if you can get computers with JStore access, the books are almost a moot point)
EDIT: I should probably list things I think should be tested, eh? I'd let the districts set the test, or better yet, let the kids negotiate it with a teacher.
All of the following:
Writing Composition
Reading Comprehension
Logical Reasoning
Macro Economics
Algebra
Geometry
Basic Statistics
American History
World History
Civics
Chemistry
Environmental Science
Foreign language of choice
Finance. Almost forgot that one.
And perhaps two of the following in addition:
Basic Calculus
Advanced Composition
Physics
Econometrics
Advanced Algebra
Other advanced coursework as determined individually
As well as a serious arts or "materials sciences" project, as early as possible.
Which is also the reason why reducing "core" classes in favor of a greater variety and freedom to select electives really wouldn't be able to work in anything other than a charter school.
And to everyone going on about the indirect benefits of higher math such as logic and problem solving get over yourselves. Math isn't necessary for that. It can, and that's great for people who like math. It doesn't mean math should be the required course to teach kids that.
But given how dumb and ignorant most Americans are about matters of money and the economy, and given the negative consequences of this, I think they really ought to teach some people basic economic knowledge in high school or something as a requirement
That is surely more important than some of the other crap that is required, and it should be deemed essential
Or even accounting, because everyone needs to know some basic accounting to survive in life, and that's also what is used by economists all the time these days
Bernanke promoted this idea back before he became Mr Fed... I don't disagree
I love it when people say this in education threads.
the "no true scotch man" fallacy.
I'm a high school math teacher, and I plan on creating a Discrete Mathematics course for seniors to take as an elective. I will probably make pre-calc a prereq. I am not trying to exclude kids who might benefit from the class (pretty much everybody), I'm just trying to make sure the kids that are there are capable of working numbers at the level I intend them to.
The course will be designed for kids who go into engineering or math fields, and will deal with a lot of logic and number sets, maybe some graph theory. I think it will be pretty awesome when it's all mapped out, but I will probably talk to some of my old college profs about what is appropriate and "best" material to use.
Also on an unrelated note, people saying we should track our kids into college and non-college bound are locking a lot of kids into roles that they shouldn't necessarily have to play. Just because a kid's dad is a steel worker and at age 10 he thinks he is going to be as well, doesn't mean he shouldn't be exposed to an education. I understand he'd be learning things that relate to his vocation, but it's our job as educators to EDUCATE not prepare them specifically for their role in society. I think giving kids a brain full of factual information and the ability to process it is infinitely more marketable in any job than having good welding skills. You might be a little bit better welder at age 18 if you go through that theoritical vocational route, but where are you as a well rounded human being?
You've made ad hominem attacks on me, so it's a little hypocritical of you to trot out debate standards against other people.
Many educators and cognitive scientists would disagree with you on these points. I'll see if I can find some supporting data.
I have never done particularly well in a math class, especially higher level ones, and yet I've been nailing the logical reasoning section of the LSATs every time. There are plenty of people like me. Higher math is not necessary to many logical reasoning applications, and it's entirely possible to teach logical reasoning without ever touching mathematical reasoning.
There are plenty of other good reasons to teach basic mathematical concepts, however, usually so people know when someone is trying to pull a fast one on them.
Except maybe "welder."
You don't think time spent in auto shop in high school is worthwhile? Tell that to the guy you just paid $300 for like six hours of labor. I'm not saying kids shouldn't still get some other more "academic" instruction...at my high school vo-tech wasn't more than 1/3 of your schedule. There was still plenty of time to learn Spanish if they felt like it, or take some advanced math, or whatever they wanted to do (though not "all of the above"...it made it pretty difficult if not impossible to meet the university entrance requirements, for instance). But they were also spending a third of their day learning some marketable skill they were interested in (or learning that they weren't interested in it, which is just as beneficial).
I'd suggest that some of the eggheads that spend their entire day in AP math and science courses would benefit from a little fucking welding, too. So why do they get to leave wood shop behind in junior high (at least in both districts I attended)?
I have to roll my eyes when somebody who is incredibly intelligent and well-read can't figure out how to put up a towel rack.
the "no true scotch man" fallacy.
Hey, that was me when I got out of high school. Nearly everything I've learned about anything involving using tools I learned while in the Army or since getting out. I'm fairly handy now, but damn was I useless when I was 18.
I just find it amusing that the same guys espousing the benefits of making everybody take Calculus would probably bitch and moan if they couldn't fit that one extra AP science course in because we told them they had to take an extra semester or year of shop class.
God I wish i would have taken welding in highschool. I could actualy have a decent job to work my way through college.
I learned about basic home repair from my dad, thankfully.
However he taught me nothing about finance or even looking for a job. He was allergic to the entire white collar existence in general (turned down a position with IBM in the 70s because he didn't want to live in Cupertino) and so I got to college not knowing anything about credit, balancing a budget, getting a car loan, writing a resume, looking for a job, interviewing...
I learned how to write a check from the bank rep who I opened my first checking account with. :P
So, yeah, I do support basic finance being taught in high school, along with (as others have mentioned) logic and critical thinking. I don't think "shop" classes are all that useful anymore, but more vocational training would be good, as well as home repair, like I mentioned.
the "no true scotch man" fallacy.
Smaller class sizes are preferable if you can get them, however it's still possible to effectively teach when there's more than 20 kids max in the room. Japan at 30 students is hardly rearranging the deck chairs.
South Korea has average class sizes double that in the US, and lower per-student spending. They also pay much more for teachers - 2.5x per capita GDP compared to about 1x in the US - as a result of limiting the teacher supply. That drives up salaries and increases social status for teachers, the same way limiting med school acceptances increases the social status of doctors. The combination drives the best to go after teaching jobs, rather than having teaching serve as the fallback it often is in the US.
In fact, several of the top educational countries limit teacher supply. Finland requires a Master's. Singapore and Taiwan only recruit teachers from the top third of graduates, and South Korea from the top tenth. These policies run counter to the ever-growing call for more teachers that often accompanies class-shrinking. But the results are the results - those countries outperform higher-spending countries which have smaller class sizes.
Quality over quantity.
Annectdotally, California is one of the leading states in pushing for smaller class sizes, but I didn't see the improvement when I was at school. The best class I had was a 40-student room, while the worst was a 25-student class. The 25-student class was taught by a PE teacher/football coach who was only teaching history because the school had created extra history classes in order to cut class sizes. I watched so many videos in that class while the "teacher" read the sports page.
The need for more teachers, driven by the desire to reduce class sizes, has pretty much destroyed the level of competence needed to teach in the state. If CBEST were any easier, it would be administered on TV by Jeff Foxworthy.
We had to have a day where we taught everyone "this is a hammer. You hold it at this end YES ALL THE WAY AT THE BOTTOM. WOULD YOU LIKE ME TO GET YOU A ROCK SO YOU CAN DRIVE THIS NAIL MORE COMFORTABLY?!"
In no way am I saying that taking these classes isn't extremely valuable and useful. I would love to learn to weld and am not taking away from these professions. What I'm saying is that we should not track kids into certain career paths so early on. There is plenty of time for education, and I think that the classes that focus specifically on your job should only come after you've got a strong base.
This only works if you expand funding for vocational colleges, as well as financial aid for people to attend them. Because if you're just talking about K-12 there really isn't "plenty of time," and some people actually have to support themselves at 18 the way things stand now.
And besides which, nobody is advocating locking them up in the vo-tech building all day and keeping them away from all those scary "books." Like I said, our vo-tech kids still spent 2/3 of their day outside vo-tech, taking (in theory) the same academic classes as everybody else.
Basically you're just failing to consider the idea that there are actually people that don't go to college. Like, ever. And while this apparently leads some people to think it's that much more important to cram Calculus into their high school experience, I'd argue the exact opposite.
Though at the end of the day I think expanding funding (both to schools and students) for 2-year colleges, including tech schools, is probably as important if not more so than anything we might do to our secondary (or lower) schools.
I might not necessarily put welding in there, but I would probably include something more likely to impact daily life like Auto Shop.
That's a good counterargument, but what I see as the basic issue there is the desire to hire more teachers not by increasing compensation but by decreasing barriers to entry. We wouldn't need to make the CBEST easier if we increased teachers' pay.
Honestly, I see both approaches as useful, we'd probably be best off with a mixed approach. More and better teachers.
the "no true scotch man" fallacy.
It could be model airplanes for all I care, so long as the central message gets through to them: things are made with your hands.
Limed for basic economic durr.
My basic problem with this is that a lot of things aren't really made with your hands anymore.
I took metal shop in junior high. Then, about 10 years later, I ended up doing a lot of IT work for actual metal shops. Everything is automated now; you design your part in CAD and then feed it up to a machine with a computer. Being able to fold a piece of steel with your hands isn't nearly as important as being able to work a mouse.
Yeah, there's always going to be demand for people who can work with their hands - welders being a great example - but the classic idea of "shop" classes is pretty much obsolete IMO.
the "no true scotch man" fallacy.