Slashdot Mirror
What's the Problem With US High Schools?
GrumpySimon asks: "ABC News is reporting that High School kids are dropping out of high school in 'epidemic proportions', with an estimated 2,500 kids quitting daily. What's wrong with our school system that so many kids prefer working 40 hours a week instead? How can this be fixed?"
It seems to be an America truism that "things get better after High School," and it wouldn't be surprising if most of you readers feel the same way. However, why does it have to be this way? What's the big problem with American High Schools where more and more children are feeling that it's better to risk the "real world" than to continue on with their education? Of course, another question that should be asked is: Is High School really the problem, or is it America's Educational system as a whole?
There's no doubt that dropout rates are a major U.S. problem, but the ABC article would make one think that dropout rates are on the rise. Nationally, this just isn't true. Between 1972 and 2004, dropout rates have fallen drastically. For all ethnicities, they are now almost half what the rates were 30 years ago (note: the full article that references this table can be found here)
This doesn't mean that isolated cities (such as Detroit and Baltimore) that have experienced serious economic problems and urban blight are better than 30 years ago, they are likely worse, but to characterize the problem as a national "epidemic" is completely ignoring the truth. Our school systems, teachers, and local governments have been working hard to raise graduation rates nationwide. And the data supports their assertion that they are seeing some success. Sure, there are MAJOR shortcomings to our public school system, but there has been major progress that shouldn't go unrecognized.
Huh? Don't mind me, I'm just the new guy.
The world needs ditch diggers too...
http://www.indystar.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID= /20061110/LOCAL/611100452/1006/LOCAL
http://www.johntaylorgatto.com/chapters/index.htm
John Taylor Gatto argues that American education fails to properly educate because it was not designed to educate. It was designed to create good consumers.
It is easy here on Slashdot for you to believe me, 10 years after the fact. Just the fact I remember it with such vivid detail lends credibility or I am at least a quick creative writer to make up the whole thing so quickly.
At the time however, things were a very different story. I was a high school kid who had left class without a hall pass. The officer said I started the fight, and I was in the process of committing a crime (truancy). It was easy for all the adults at the time to ignore my requests for medical assistance, in their eyes I was just a whiny kid making excuses. There was no room to make a valid case on my word alone.
~Rebecca
- Suing the schools for any perceived slight (such as having a dress code dictating no long hair or earrings for males)
Actually, that is an example of sex discrimination. There is no reason to have girls allowed to have long hair but not boys other than reinforcing gender roles (e.g., women barefoot in the kitchen, men the sole leave-it-to-beaver family breadwinner). No, I do not want to go back to the mythological 1950's. You are going to have to find a better example of something "slight" to sue a school disctrict over. This is not one them.
It's appropriate that this question appears following the death of Nobel Prize-winning economist Milt Friedman, one of the founders of the school choice movement.
On Charlie Rose almost exactly a year ago, Friedman drew this analogy: The government identifies a proper subsidy -- let's say, food. So does it subsidize the *producer*? That is, does it give money to farmers or grocery stores, and tell them to provide food to people who live within a certain geographic area? Of course not -- that would be absurd. It subsidizes *consumers*, by giving them vouchers (we call them "food stamps") that they can then use to shop around and look for the best value.
The entire model we have set up for education is terrible, from theory to practice.
Allowing a quasi-government monopoly to exercise near-complete control of our most precious resource -- our children -- is INSANE. The monopoly will try to do what ANY monopoly does: Freeze the status quo and defend it to the death.
We will never make any REAL progress in education in this country until we understand that our Public School model has some real problems of a systemic, organizational nature, that can't be solved simply by throwing money at them.
- Alaska Jack
School can be an accomplishment too. I've enjoied high school Calculus, and most of my college classes, much more than I enjoy work -- because I could almost physically feel my knowledge improving as I was studying in these classes. That's a rush. Getting your yearly Christmas bonus is nothing, in comparison.
>|<*:=
although this is the UK, I was discriminated against, and almost sued the school, when the head of discipline (yes, our school actually had one), dragged me down to the main office and proceeded to tell me "the school is above the law", while my head of house tried to keep his face straight.
The only reason I didn't, was that it would possibly cause problems for my brother who was coming up in a years time to the same high school.
If your school systems are similar, I would hope that you would take them to Court.
The names of the schools are (in the same order you've listed them before) Gymnasium, Realschule and Hauptschule. Even the lower levels of school are not necessarily worthless though. For example, kids attending Hauptschule tend to spend a lot of the later years of their schooling doing practical training and internships. In fact, I'd say the German system does a better job training skilled laborers like plumbers and mechanics.
It's also possible to transfer to a university even if you went to Realschule after you prove yourself in a Fachhochschule (like a university but more practically oriented).
- Students in America are commonly told to work in groups. The fact that it is done in this one example doesn't necessarily invalidate the parents point. It could, in fact (depending on the success of the groups) support it.
- One of the schools in my region tried making all the classes non-required attendance. The students never showed up, and the school dropped in the state standardized testing. One school? In one region? For how long? There is a common saying where I come from: 'Screenshot, or it didn't happen.' Also one about anecdotes and data, but I am too lazy to look that one up (damn public education!).
- Sure, low pay, but also, the teachers don't get paid less or more due to their performance.This is a separate problem, and doesn't address the parent. Also, pay is only one factor in '(attracting) highly educated and highly functional people.'
- Again, teenage students start screwing off when left to their own devices. Maybe not if they could just go home and play GTA.
- There isn't a national curriculum in America as long as No Child Is Left Behind
- Writting well EngRish, and being able to hold a continual argument for many pages is an important skill. Math is important so that you can do your taxes. Physics is important so that... But it isn't taught this way. It is taught as a end in and of itself.
Don't get me wrong. I'm not saying that the parent was 100% right. But there may be better arguments against his/her (why is there no acceptable gender neutral pronoun) points. Actually I just came in here for the witty comments.Because standardized testing NEVER existed before the Bush administration. Seriously, though I don't disagree with you, I remember taking standardized tests years and years before Bush's reign of stupid began.
Nice strawman. Standardized testing certainly existed, but No Child Left Behind takes the idea to an absurd level, and goes to the extent of financially punishing schools that don't meet its requirements. Now, combine that with the fact that the act is only funded ~50% (which parent poster mentioned, btw) and you have an educational disaster.
It forces test score goals on schools, then doesn't give them the money to meet those goals. What the hell do you think is going to happen? Why do you think the state of Connecticut is suing the Federal government over it? Do some critical thinking, man.
Push Button, Receive Bacon
There's *nothing* a Hauptschuler is more qualified for doing than someone with Abitur, it's basically a school where the stupid kids go and learn less, and the split is very early, around 12 years or so ?
This ensures a class-separated society where increasingly the good-offs and the ALG-2 people live in completely separate universes that cross only whenever the good-offs decide to visit McD.
The contrast to Norway is striking. We've got 10 years of compulsory schooling, all of it together. Which gives a much broader common platform than what German kids have. Thereafter we've got 3 years of what *we* call gymnasium, or alternatively you can choose a practical education (including training in a practical labour like in Germany.)
As it is in Germany I question the point of having Hauptschule, Realschule and Gymnasium as 3 "different" schools. What is supposed to be the difference between those 3 alternatives ? Dumb, sligthly dumb, smart ? That's no basis for a separate school !
Of course this is for real. I was a student in the L.A. city school district and what the OP was describing sounds just like the schools I went to. Not just foreigners but even a lot of Americans from middle-class suburban areas have a hard time believing things are this bad in the poorer parts of the country. But believe me, it's all too real. At the schools I went to in L.A., a successful day in the eyes of the school administrators was one in which no one got beat up, stabbed or shot. Seriously.
Now I'm not recommending a private Christian school is always the better choice. A private school in general isn't always the better choice. (One of the Catholic schools in our city is probably one of the worst for bad behavior by students.) The difference I am arguing for is the vast gaps in motivation levels across the people involved at each level - parents, teachers, school administration, and students. My school had motivated people participating in a child's educational growth from 5-18yrs of age at all levels. Public schools can be a mixed bag, but usually have far too many bad apples (at all levels) ruining the whole bunch, IMHO.