Submitted by J.M. Jaco (not verified) on January 29, 2007 - 03:20.
Our society currently tries to offer its children the first 18 years of their lives as purely educational time - their "career" during that time is to learn as much as they can about the world around them before they have to start committing to a single path. Are we now saying that this time period in their lives has shrunk to 14 years or less?
If this is indeed the trend, why not bring back the old guild apprenticeship program? Teach a child a trade as soon as they can read and write, say around 7, and let the more esoteric disciplines (e.g. math, science, and social studies) be considered the electives. Isn't this where all of this kind of thinking is heading?
Nevertheless, we have some students, parents, and teachers who have lost sight of the fundamental purposes of educating our young in our society, and that's to prepare them for what this generation thinks they may have to deal with in the future. A high-school major implies some adult committee's ideas of some specific path through the curriculum that will prepare a 14-year-old for a field they likely won't be fully contributing to until at least another seven years have passed. Is this rational? Isn't this just a "marketing" tool to sell our overgrown curricula in yet another way?
Why not look at PBL and majors? Isn't there some crossover thinking here? We know that students who work on wide-ranging projects that both meet standards and develop "real world" connections for students are very motivating for students and teachers. We also know that a comprehensive curriculum based on PBL requires resources few of us ever see. Do proponents of high-school majors expect to have the kind of in-depth expertise available in the schools to justify and fully implement this kind of program at the high school level?
Our society currently tries
Submitted by J.M. Jaco (not verified) on January 29, 2007 - 03:20.
Our society currently tries to offer its children the first 18 years of their lives as purely educational time - their "career" during that time is to learn as much as they can about the world around them before they have to start committing to a single path. Are we now saying that this time period in their lives has shrunk to 14 years or less?
If this is indeed the trend, why not bring back the old guild apprenticeship program? Teach a child a trade as soon as they can read and write, say around 7, and let the more esoteric disciplines (e.g. math, science, and social studies) be considered the electives. Isn't this where all of this kind of thinking is heading?
Nevertheless, we have some students, parents, and teachers who have lost sight of the fundamental purposes of educating our young in our society, and that's to prepare them for what this generation thinks they may have to deal with in the future. A high-school major implies some adult committee's ideas of some specific path through the curriculum that will prepare a 14-year-old for a field they likely won't be fully contributing to until at least another seven years have passed. Is this rational? Isn't this just a "marketing" tool to sell our overgrown curricula in yet another way?
Why not look at PBL and majors? Isn't there some crossover thinking here? We know that students who work on wide-ranging projects that both meet standards and develop "real world" connections for students are very motivating for students and teachers. We also know that a comprehensive curriculum based on PBL requires resources few of us ever see. Do proponents of high-school majors expect to have the kind of in-depth expertise available in the schools to justify and fully implement this kind of program at the high school level?
I have my doubts...