Quoting "Jason White" <jason@jasonjgw.net>
Russell Coker <russell@coker.com.au> wrote:
I think that the current system of giving all secondary schools the same goals is a bad one. The needs of kids who are destined to drop out at 16, the kids who will finish school but not do university, and the kids who are going to university are very different and would be best met by different schools.
Some systems separate children into these categories quite early. for example, apparently the German school system has separate curricula.
I understand and appreciate the benefits of such a model; the question is whether people who are misclassified have the opportunity to overcome their educational disadvantage and move up into the more intellectually rigorous stream destined for higher education. There will always be people who are pushed into the wrong stream, and the real problem is for those who are "downgraded" inappropriately.
IMHO the German system creates losers. It is not very fluid. Kids are "stuck" from early age. The selection happens in year 4, and it's based on teacher recommendations. Quite often, so it seems, it is more judging the social background of a child than the child's abilities. In East Germany we went to school for ten years together, afterwards only a few went to finish year 12 and go to Uni. The East German schools were in some ways "old-fashioned", with the teacher in front of the class, all kids facing the teacher. Interestingly, even after 23 years of unification (and more or less adapting the East German school system to the West German), the East German students still achieve better results in scientific subjects and maths, compared to West Germans. We could not choose between different subjects in that area, maths, physics, chemistry, biology were mandatory and separate subjects. I find the "modern" way of lumping the subjects together as "fluffy". Quite often I think the results are not impressive. Then there is all the "environmental studies" stuff etc.. I am not sure whether that is a waste of time. (Don't get me wrong, I am not against considering environmental issues or other society-relevant ones. But that has to do with world views, and a school is, in my opinion, not the place to teach kids "how to think". Sometimes it helps to know some facts to form a view, not only to have an opinion. E.g. everybody who is reading a bit of the business part of a newspaper, and compares it with the general political pages, will understand what I mean.) I like the idea of SEAL classes, selected entry accelerated learning, as my daughter is in now. It challenges them as well as keeps them in a "normal" school background, helpful in developing social skills. I can imagine Faye's problem. I hear a similar story from a German friend over there. I don't think it is easy to solve. The SEAL classes are a step in this direction, I think. The teachers there have an understanding how to deal with brighter kids. At the end, schools reflect culture. And, IMHO, Australia's system is helping kids having self-esteem and be positive "can do people". It is a value too. If I had a wish, I would get rid of all this private school stuff and use the money to pay teachers well. That's money better invested than in a million dollar concert hall or a super-gym. Regards Peter