Exactly. Not everybody was born to be a scholar.

__________________
WARNING: In the unlikely event of an accidental agreement with any or all points made in the above post, contact a clinical psychologist immediately.

The views expressed in the above post are not necessarily those of Joker and/or any of his affiliates.

"You have found the secret message. Do you have too much time on your hands? ...Let it go."

I suppose it depends on the goal of public schools.

Personally, I think the purpose is two fold: one, to enrich and develop critical thinking for the individual's general benefit, and two, to the next generation's work force.

I don't think that a system prioritizes specialization is necessarily productive to either of those ends.

The current generation is likely to have 3 or 4 careers in their lifetimes, and so a foundation of academic rigor and critical analysis makes for a more vital participant in an economy that requires adaptation and innovation. Part of that development has to involve a student being forced to learn, and solve problems that they don't particularly like, or may have difficulty doing.

I'm also skeptical of young people choosing a specialization wisely, and am even more skeptical of a system that removes that choice from the student and his/her parents. It has the potential for being like other marxist experiments: we train a workforce to perform some arbitrary quota of jobs.


Bureaucracy is what harms public schools. That, and symptoms of de facto segregation.

Additionally, the public school system as we now know it largely stems from the FDR era, and, I think then the emphasis of public schools was placed heavily on preparing a workforce to go to factories.

Of course, as a teacher, I understand all that. However, as far as inner city districts are concerned, specialization may be the key to keeping students in school an out of gangs.

Studies have shown that those most likely to join gangs are students who consistently fail in school. Gangs offer these students a chance to be successful again by teaching them how to be criminals. The tasks given to them are fairly simple, so it's easy for them to succeed. let's face it, anyone can sell drugs on a street corner.

Such specialization is perhaps not necessary in districts where gangs are not an issue, but in areas where I teach, we struggle everyday with students in gangs. If we could provide them with an alternate education, we may be able to keep them from making a very bad decision.

Frankly speaking, it's just not necessary that everyone learn to be a critical thinker. Our education system only rewards those who are successful at acedemic acheivements. It ignores those students we may excel at other disciplines besides writing, mathematics, and science. Our nation needs mechanics, plumbers, and laborers just as much as it needs professors and scientists. With specialization, we not only give students the means to pursue such a career, but also promote the idea that it no less of a career.

Again, it may be something to consider only within inner city districts, where feelings of positive self-worth may trump critical thinking skills for many students.

__________________
WARNING: In the unlikely event of an accidental agreement with any or all points made in the above post, contact a clinical psychologist immediately.

The views expressed in the above post are not necessarily those of Joker and/or any of his affiliates.

"You have found the secret message. Do you have too much time on your hands? ...Let it go."

I do think charter schools are doing a better job than most ideas for helping out... not to say it's perfect. Introducing a little competition, and more importantly various administration styles, without going overboard.
Without the overbearing administrations and boards, charter schools can experiment and find new ways to engage kids. Meanwhile the public schools watch and figure out what works and maybe reform their administrations.

I really think the main problem (though there are many) is straight-jacketing teachers and students. When people are forced into such rigid systems I'd expect them to lose interest or hope.
The key to the charter schools does seem to lie in individualized attention for students and freedom for teachers.

__________________
"Man lives in the sunlit world of that which he believes to be reality. But unseen by most is an underworld, a place that is just as real... but not as brightly lit... A DARK SIDE!"
-opening from Tales From the Darkside

I think patience is an issue here too. Just like with atkin diets and all these other fads, people are never willing to test them over a period of time that would determine whether they are effective or not.

Obviously, a new system needs thinking through but once implemented, the critics need to place the benefits to the future of society over their feelings towards he government. And when a system is monitored long enough to judge it, then a polling system to voice the feelings over it could be used- showing opinions are valued to compensate for the time lapse where they would usually have gotten involved several times and as a measurment of improvement.

The influence of gangs is severe, particuarly for the indiviuals who live with them in their neighborhoods.

But, that's a problem that there's no way schools could ever address. The key to gangs is sheer economics.

You work your butt off at a vocational school learning engines, and, if you're lucky, you could get a job where you make 500 dollars or more a week.


The problem is, when drug dealers make that much, or more, in a day, the temptation is very high, especially for young people with no strong foundation at home.



We're talking about things from different perspectives, I think. In this town, there are many specialized schools, and most of them are pretty successful.

But, that's the situation in a nutshell, are good schools are actually really good, and the bad one's are really bad.

I have to fully disagree. This is the one tool every student should come away with, even amish who withdraw after 8th grade.

To be a productive member of society, one must be able to use reason to decipher fact from fiction.

One doesn't have to be an academic to have the faculties to make wise decisions; to know how to read fine print, and to figure out when somebody is lying.

See, I have to think that a kid that is in danger of getting involved in drug crime is more likely to be swayed by the prospect of high skill, high reward job, when you compare a drug dealer's wage to a plumbers.

You're right, that the workforce will always need laborers. However, we've moved out of an industrial age, to a post-industrial age. In the past, we've needed those who were ready for the factory.

But those jobs, and that culture, is dying. And in some cities, dead.


[/quote]
Again, it may be something to consider only within inner city districts, where feelings of positive self-worth may trump critical thinking skills for many students.[/quote]

I simply argue that they should get both in their education. Largely, it's troubles of the city, or neighborhood that plague the school...

There's only so much a school can do about that...


Also, I realize now that we're probably talking from different perspectives. In this city, their are specialized schools that students apply to get into. Everything from art to tool and dye.

Yet, the troubled schools are still troubled. The kids in bad schools had the opportunity to go to better ones, but for whatever reason, they didn't.

In some ways, not getting into a good school, either by denial, or a lack of effort, can be even more damaging to a young person's esteem.



So, with that said, I have no idea what city you work in, or what their system is like. Perhaps the schools there do need more specialization.