<p>Evidently, conventional secondary schools don't foster individual interests or academic freedom and are more inclined to a pedagogy that promotes busywork and the regurgitation of material, rather than critical thinking and analysis. They generally function on a bell-shaped curve, and weed students out in an attempt to maintain social stratification. Generally, the students who succeed in such schools tend to absorb rather than manipulate information, are highly disciplined, have cultivated a superior work ethic, and have the resources and opportunities to perform well. </p>
<p>School is no longer about learning: You're not provided with vast opportunities to explore your own interests. External competition, disciplinary actions, the administration, and school politics distract immensely from learning. </p>
<p>Essentially, the capitalist education system is skewed and mercenary. </p>
<p>Therefore, why do intellectual students w/ high aptitude to perform well in post-secondary education w/o high school, stay? Has anyone considered leaving high school early (w/o a traditional graduation) and attending community college? (Most states have a proficiency exam to opt out of high school.) If not, why have you chosen to stay in high school? Why are you opposed to leaving?</p>
<p>Because if I stay enrolled in the high school, I can take free dual enrollment classes at any college in the state offering them. If I just got out of high school completely and enrolled in a community college, I’d have to pay for the classes and I’d be considered a transfer student if I tried to go to a better college, which would make it harder to get in.</p>
<p>I’d imagine they stay for more opportunities. Certainly there is an advantage here–many scholarships target students of a certain age (usually 16+) who are in high school, which would require a student to stay.</p>
<p>I absolutely agree that “learning” is the most misunderstood term here. But everybody agrees; there is just no alternative. A student can get by by just memorizing whatever they need, and I get the feeling that that’s by-design.</p>
<p>But surely you must realize that not all schools go religiously by the archaic education system we have in place now. My personal issue is that it prepares students for mediocrity by presenting them with “the righteous path.” Do well in high school so you can go to a good college and then get a good job. This is no longer accurate. Sure, you have some advantage in applying for jobs with a degree. But who’s hiring? The economic downturn is calling the long-due reform back to life, but nobody’s accepting the call.</p>
<p>California high schools make you take classes based on the state university requirements. They glorify UCs and CSUs, but with all due respect, I’m not interested in that. And other students don’t know what to do simply because the private school requirements are never made apparent; again, preparing us for mediocrity by only telling us what UC/CSUs want.</p>
<p>Because I’m in a magnet school that teaches me properly for three of my classes. Application, not regurgitation. Teachers teach concepts, not straight facts.</p>
<p>Are you saying that high schools are rigid structures of creative death, and smart students should go somewhere else for education for they graduate?</p>
<p>Well, first of all, I disagree with your premise. Some schools are horrible, but some, like my pubic high school, does foster individual interests, academic freedom, and critical thinking. I love school.</p>
<p>And even if someone goes to a bad high school where it’s just facts facts facts, it’s just simpler to graduate like everyone else- not many people think of leaving school and being home schooled or getting their GED and then going to community college or anything because it’s not the normal route.</p>
<p>Now we’re merely speaking about isolated experiences/situations. Evidently, magnet, charter and some private schools are alternative options and would be considered the exception. In fact, the question wasn’t targeted towards those whom attend unconventional secondary schools. (I myself have attended both magnet and charter schools)</p>
<p>Yes, I absolutely would contend that “high schools are rigid structures of creative death.” However, I am not necessarily suggesting that all “smart” students go elsewhere. I’m essentially questioning the efficacy and need for secondary education. IS IT NEEDED?</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Absolutely-- that’s precisely the problem. There should be encouragement to take alternative routes.</p>
<p>Again, I absolutely acknowledge alternative institutions, like charter schools. However, I also recognize that alternative institutions are not necessarily considered apart of mainstream education and therefore, are not generally seen as viable options by the masses. </p>
<p>I absolutely agree, in terms of California standards and college admission requirements.</p>
<p>Yeah high school is needed, otherwise you cannot get a job, let alone go to college.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Well it never really was, in a sense. Since the beginning of schools, it’s just been memorization and that kind of thing, this isn’t really new. </p>
<p>But I disagree. My school has a lot of classes students can choose from. 13 AP classes, numerous honors classes, and plenty of elective and technical classes to teach students a vocation, and even a program for math and science kids to foster development in that field. It depends on the teacher’s method of teaching, but most teachers do more than just get students to memorize facts. True, they are getting us ready for final exams and the like, but they also try to teach concepts and get us interested in what we are learning. I can give specific examples if you want.</p>
<p>Clarify what you mean by “disciplinary action”, please. I don’t know exactly what you mean by this. Are you saying kids should not be punished for doing something wrong?</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>While I’d agree that students in general should be doing a little more of this, there’s not really a whole lot wrong with it right now, it’s just that some students don’t like to do that. They don’t want a challenge, they might not be intelligent enough, etc. Bottom line is, that’s what AP and honors classes are for.</p>
<p>I don’t think encouragement for getting a GED is needed. GED is not really the same as a diploma. I really don’t know that much about GEDs, but I’m pretty sure that it doesn’t take as long to get a GED as it does to get a diploma. GEDs are for those that couldn’t finish their diploma for whatever reason and is the next best thing. Personally, from what I have observed in the area I live in, the majority of those obtaining GEDs are those who made poor choices in the past, and this is the best thing they can do. I also think that if a employer is looking at someone with a diploma and GED, they would probably choose to employ the diploma holding person. Basically what I’m trying to say is: Why should we encourage alternative routes? I don’t really see the reason to. My high school offers technical and vocational classes to students so that if they don’t want to go to college, they will have skills to get a job. Point me to a GED class that has that.</p>
<p>The initial question was far more philosophical, than a practical. This is more of an idealistic conversation regarding education reform and call to action. </p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Therefore, when I ask if “secondary school is needed”, I’m suggesting that it isn’t integral to intellectual development-- not necessarily that a student could skip high school and still have the same career opportunities as a traditional high school graduate, given the current structure of the system.</p>
<p>You’re right, regurgitation of material isn’t new. </p>
<p>
</p>
<p>The previous, public high school I attended also provided a plethora of AP and honors course, as well as a few magnet/academy opportunities (vocational programs and electives.) However, there wasn’t enough opportunities for me to take advanced courses in my intended major. In example, for those interested in Political Science, the most courses offered at their school would possibly be: AP Gov., AP Comp. Politics, State and Local Gov., and possibly International Relations. However, evidently, at a post-secondary institution there are 20+ courses in poli sci. I would assume that your school still has a liberal arts, core graduation requirement. Therefore, you are forced to take courses outside of your immediate interests. For someone with incredibly concentrated interests, this can be detrimental to their intellectual development. </p>
<p>In terms of critical thinking and analysis, the problem isn’t as much of the students as it is the collective, American pedagogy and the way in which most curriculums are structured. If there were more encouragement for critical thinking, more students would be apt to do so. </p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Excessive disciplinary actions (i.e. sending students to the office merely for having out their cell phones, enforcing rigid rules to maintain order) and administrative bureaucracy distracts from learning. I think that the idea of “wrong” within the education system is far too rigid. At the post-secondary school level, schools aren’t structured like gestapos-- the rules certainly aren’t as rigid and inflexible. Colleges aren’t as concerned about maintaining control and order. Disciplinary actions are used to “weed students out” and perpetuate social stratification. </p>
<p>
</p>
<p>I didn’t necessarily specify the GED. I was calling for encouragement of alternative schooling options. </p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Not necessarily. Most employers are not going to decline an application solely on the basis of having a GED. They would probably consider your post-secondary school degree, not your high school diploma. </p>
<p>
</p>
<p>WHY SHOULD WE ENCOURAGE ALTERNATIVE ROUTES? You must have not read the initial post. Traditional, public secondary schools are used to maintain order and perpetuate social stratification-- [bold] this system is structured in a way that not everyone will be able to succeed in a traditional school. [/bold] Therefore, we should encourage alternatives options so that those who are not disciplined, indoctrinated, oafs will still have options. </p>
<p>
</p>
<p>I am not encouraging technical and vocational classes-- they are used by the system to maintain social stratification. Instead, there should be encouragement, by the system, for those same students to pursue professional careers and academia through an alternative route. Also, for-profit institutions that offer training for GED courses also provide technical and vocational courses. WHY WOULDN’T THEY??? </p>
<p>I understand that my sentiments are fairly esoteric, considering the forum. However, you must understand that too many of us are being left to fall between the cracks, due to ideologies similar to your own.</p>
<p>Thanks for clarifying. I’ll try to address everything here. 1st off, I’m not against alternative means of education. I get that not everyone can do well in a high school environment like most of the ones in the country. A good friend of my has Aspergers, and instead of going to public middle and high school to be put in a special ed program, he now goes to a small private school, which is much better for him. I just think that you are looking at it a little too biased, as it seems obvious that you have not had a good time in the public school system. I’m probably a little biased too. </p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Let me see if I understand if I get what you’re trying to say. You are interested in majoring in x, but they only have a few courses for x at that school, whereas colleges carry many more courses. Am I correct?</p>
<p>But high schools aren’t colleges, they are preparing you for college, essentially. They are smaller than colleges, therefore, they aren’t going to have a whole lot for something specific. Since it’s high school, not everyone knows what they are going to major in, it’s all about taking different classes to see what you are interested in.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Well, for those who are doing the “Advanced Diploma” track (college-bound), we have to take more core classes rather than electives. 3 years of math, 4 of science, history, and English, and a fine arts elective (media, art, TV production, wide range), and 3 years of foreign language, as well as other electives of our choice. Now, anyone who knows me knows that I really do not like math. But even I agree it’s necessary. Will I use it in my job? Probably not. But it’s still necessary to build a core foundation for learning. All the core subjects are. And high school, like I said above, is about finding your interests, so a student needs to take a wide range of courses. I don’t see this as a hindrance. </p>
<p>Ah, but you will probably say, “Well I already know what I am interested in, so it’s not fair”. So do I, but I still enjoy taking a wide range of classes. Taking classes about the same thing makes you have tunnel vision and a narrow perspective on things. In college you still have to take other classes to, you know, not just classes in whatever you are majoring in. You will be required to take, or at least test out of, math, science, probably foreign language, composition, etc.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Ah, this one got my attention. No, I don’t think it’s used to “weed students” out, but to keep kids from misbehaving and help other students. If someone is misbehaving, they are taken out of the classroom to go to the Principal’s office, so they won’t disrupt everyone else’s learning. </p>
<p>I can sympathize a little where you are going as far as the “too many rules” thing goes. Last year, I was given a referral to an administrator’s officer and 3 days of lunch detention for having my phone out in class. It was at the end of class, and I was just showing a picture of my little brother to a friend. 1st time offense, not fair in my opinion since that is literally the ONLY thing I have ever done wrong in school. A stern scolding would have been enough. I ended up talking to the Vice Principal, and he said that rules were rules, if he made an exception for me, he’s have to do it for everyone. I do agree with him, it’s a rule, and when there are 1,400 kids in the school, they cannot have a separate rule for everyone. </p>
<p>However, yeah, rules like that are necessary. Cheating with cell phones and other electronic devices has become a big deal. Would it be fair to let kids have them out in order for schools to “not be a Gestapo” but yet, enable them to cheat while other students study hard? No. Also at my school, there was a huge case a couple years ago where inappropriate picture were sent, and since then, there have been stricter punishments for that, which I can understand. </p>
<p>Elaborate on “administrative bureaucracy”?</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>I’m talking about if someone tries to get a job without a college education.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>There is no perfect way to achieve a perfect education/school for everyone. </p>
<p>I don’t get when you say “weeding students out”. No one is trying to prevent students to learn, every single teacher I know tries to help their students succeed. Yes, not every student will do well in a traditional high school environment, but I don’t think there’s a need to blame the system. Yes, it could definitely use some reforms, but it’s not their fault if every student doesn’t do well. There are too many students to ensure everyone is happy. I never said I was against alternative means, my point is just that the problem is not as bad as you make it out to be.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>You make it sound like vocational courses are bad, used to make people a certain way or something. Everyone needs mechanics, construction workers, etc. </p>
<p>If I was an educator, I would never let someone “fall between the cracks”, I’d try to help them the best I can, but I just think that a high school diploma is superior in a way to leaving school early. I don’t have a problem with people who get a GED/Drop out/go to a charter school, but for me, leaving school early is something those who struggle in school/don’t care about school do, not someone like me, who wants the best education possible. This is all based on what I have experienced living where I do, where only 25% of my school goes onto a 4 year school.</p>
<p>Not biased, esoteric. I merely have insight for the plight of the unconventional, “underachieving” student. Therefore, I have radically different understanding of the situation. </p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Exactly-- high schools aren’t college. The premise of my initial post was that secondary school isn’t pivotal to your preparation for college. There are a plethora of students with the intellectual maturity to proceed with post-secondary education w/o high school.
Again, I recognize that “not everyone knows what they are interested in.” That’s precisely why I said, those with ** very concentrated interests ** would much prefer a college curriculum. </p>
<p>
</p>
<p>I’ve taken college courses. Therefore, I’m fully aware of traditional GE requirements. However, what you’re not taking into account, is that even with GE requirements there is more flexibility in terms of the courses you opt to enroll in. For instance, I can take Physical Anthropology to satisfy the biological science requirement. I wouldn’t, however, have to take Biology. There are a plethora of courses I can take merely to satisfy that single requirement. See? It’s not as rigid and inflexible. Evidently, at a traditional school, I would take Biology, AP, or Honors Biology to fulfill the biology requirement. </p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Generally, the conversations that transpire between the teacher and the student, when the pupil is given the disciplinary action, is far more disruptive than the initial offense it itself. Also, many teachers will send students out of their classrooms for frivolous incidents, merely to get them out of the classroom. </p>
<p>However, you probably don’t question authority and have never received a detrimental disciplinary action. Therefore, I absolutely don’t expect you to understand the feeling of accumulating a disciplinary record for frivolous offenses. </p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Educators are not to blame for students “falling between the cracks.” I’m speaking about the way in which the system is structured. In order for a capitalist system to continue to function, a certain amount of students would have to fall between the cracks. Most fiscal conservatives and proponents of capitalism are essentially afraid of an egalitarian education system in which the “A” is in fact attainable for “everyone” and intelligence tests are not culturally biased. Theoretically, if 70% of the student population maintained a “B+ average” (3.5 GPA), we may subsequently extirpate competition, prestige and selectivity within college admissions; thus, creating more “egalitarian” opportunities within the workforce; therefore completely eradicating economic classes and creating less social stratification.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>That’s practically the equivalent of saying, “Well someone has to work at McDonalds…” There isn’t anything wrong with vocational schools, if that’s your first choice. However, it is a problem when it becomes a last resort, due to an inability to function within the rigid system. At this point, it is best to seek alternative options outside of the system! Vocational programs are used by the system to maintain order and social stratification. </p>
<p>
</p>
<p>You’ve misunderstood my initial post. Most students who opt to leave school early (not necessarily drop out) are much better off, in terms of educational opportunities. There is an assumption that a student that leaves early to attend community college, wouldn’t later apply to a TOP 20. I recognize it that is much harder to be admitted to prestigious institutions as a community college transfer. However, if the idea is to develop intellectually, not necessarily attain a superficial degree, then leaving early may be more fitting.</p>
<p>You’re trying to be forcefully egalitarian. It’s irritating. You know, somebody does have to work at McDonalds. Somebody does have to work at Starbucks. Somebody does have to work at Walmart. It’s the way society works. Social stratification is something that exists. You can’t completely annihilate it. It won’t go away until robots do all menial labor in the world.</p>
<p>Forcefully egalitarian. In what sense? Elaborate. Are you suggesting that my ideology, isn’t in someway “authentic,” but forced?</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Evidently, social stratification won’t ever be entirely eradicated. Again, the initial post is somewhat philosophical and idealistic in nature. However, practically, I am saying that given the excessive amount of social and economic stratification in this country, those who don’t do well within the system should seek alternative educational routes, in an attempt to get around it.</p>
