Walking back from the soccer game yesterday, a hand on my car keys and attention on my conversation with my friend, I started thinking about taking a few things away, wondered if high school is too late, and considered the possibility of addition by subtraction.
What If We Got Rid Of Junior High Schools?
Are jr. highs a place where we allow students to fall into certain traps? Chris suggested that it’s a place where students are not quite kids, but not quite grown up, and that promotes a cocky attitude in the very students that we are trying so hard to reach in high school. Those students who are reasonably well adjusted are not the kids I’m talking about. It’s those students who are so apathetic toward their education, those students who make a habit of failing classes, those students who wear Fs in class like badges of honor, those students who see academic success as something to make fun of instead of something to be proud of.
Does jr. high help a 6th grader who might be tending toward that attitude become even more entrenched in that ideology? Would creating a system that is 2 levels (1st through 8th, then 9th through 12th) instead of 3 (elementary [1-6], jr. high school [7-8], high school [9-12]) be a better option? Or would adding 6th and 9th grades to jr. high, keeping a 3-level system and rearranging those levels, do something to address that issue, by virtue of students being surrounded by so many different attitudes and levels of academic development?
What If We Got Rid Of The Foreign Language Requirement At The High School Level?
I have some good friends who teach foreign languages in high school and I know they would have a problem with this idea (by virtue of the fact that I’m suggesting them out of a job!). But why do we require foreign language instruction (really, why do CSUs and UCs and other college systems require it) when research shows that language acquisition is much more difficult at an older age?
If we’re going to require foreign language instruction, shouldn’t we promote that at earlier ages? Could it be that foreign language instructors should be put to work with different groups of 2nd or 3rd graders? Don’t get me wrong; we should offer foreign language at the high school level for those who are interested in pursuing a language, a choice that might be more readily made at a later age by some. But to require that language of people whose brains are not at a good spot to glob onto that seems a bit out of whack.
I think this is all about considering brain development and gets at a point I made earlier in regard to considering adolescent psychology when making educational decisions, both systemic and classroom decisions. If we take brain development into consideration, foreign language at the high school level as a requirement does not make much sense. And, quite frankly, why do we require it in the first place? What is the college rationale for that as a requirement? Those who want it should have the option, but those who don’t… maybe they shouldn’t be forced to. Then again, how’s that any different than a student who doesn’t want to take English?
What If We Got Rid Of The Four Year Mentality?
Something else that came up in my discussion with Chris is the idea that high schools prepare a 3-, 4-, and 5-year plan for graduation. The key to that is that we, as a system and as a society, shouldn’t care which of those plans students go along. No punishment for any of those courses of options would put students in a position where they feel like they have some control over their education, a feeling I certainly want to engender and the public education system should, too (though I’m not sure that the system really does want to give students that power).
What If High School Is Too Late?
When students enter high school, they’ve already formed most of their evaluations about reading and writing. For a long time now, I’ve felt uncomfortable about the title “English Teacher.” I never really feel like I’m teaching them anything; I’m just giving chances to practice what students already know, perhaps refine things a bit. But by the time I get them, students know how to read and they know how to write, some better than others, but the basic skills are there.
In high school, a span of 4 years typically, how much of an impact can we really have on students’ attitudes toward and abilities in reading and writing? And what if we just make the decision that, sure, we’ll try to move the kids forward, but we take them where they are and try to give them material that they can make sense of and quit beating ourselves over the head when a student is in 12th grade and only reads at the 6th grade level (pick any numbers there)? What if we spend all that time we’re currently spending on remediation and put that toward instruction at that student’s level? That would free up a lot of time and resources (money) to do other things that might be more effective and meaningful for that student.
I’m watching “Rich Dad, Poor Dad” in the background right now because PBS has decided to show that instead of its usual Saturday line up of cooking shows. I’m lost without those cooking shows. Even though I vehemently disagree with what this guy is saying in terms of rich and poor being choices we all make, he raises an interesting point. Shouldn’t schools teach about money? Shouldn’t we teach kids what a CD is and what a mutual fund is and how to maximize your investments into a 401(k) or 403(b)? Even in English, shouldn’t we be reading literature on investing or saving as a large part of the course?
To put a fine point on it, shouldn’t we be reading things that will prepare kids for life after high school?