Expansion of "Civics Exam" Discussion
 

So as not to 'hijack' the Civics Exam thread, I started this one to expand/expound on some of the issues Richard mentioned in his post there:

Believe it or not, Arizona state standards do NOT require the teaching of Government (per se). US History and Economics are required and most districts put Government in there to satisfy admission requirements of the state universities. For years, I taught Economics... and occasionally Government... to seniors. Since I was junior in seniority to many, I rarely got to teach Government - since most teachers viewed Econ as harder to teach, and lacked the academic preparation to do so.

Arizona's State Legislature (sometimes referred to as the "90 Dwarves"), in their infinite educational knowledge and forethought, have come up with what they call "The Grand Canyon" diploma - which allows students who don't wish to go to a university to graduate with the "minimum" requirements - and finish in two years. The idea being that they will go on to a vocational school or community college. To get school districts to "buy in" - the district will still receive half the $$ they would have gotten for each student that leaves. (Dire Straits would be proud - "Your money for nothin'...)

However, the entire curriculum and progression of classes needed to be altered. My former school's principal wanted to "lead the parade" for this movement and has "turned over the apple cart" at our formerly high performing high school in order to do it. World History will now be taught to freshmen instead of sophomores. US History will be taught to sophomores. The only 'hole' in potential schedules that is left, due to other required courses, is in the freshman year - so Economics will be taught there.

Seniors often had difficulty grasping economic concepts. I shudder to think how they'll "dumb it down" to get freshmen to understand, especially given the dismal state of social studies education in the elementary and middle schools. (Social studies have not been, and are not, tested in our "high stakes test (AIMS). Since schools are graded by how well students DO on such tests, the schools - naturally - downplay or ignore the subjects not tested.)

Three new teachers were hired to handle the "double-booking" for US and World History (for a year, both sophomores and freshmen will take World and sophomores and juniors will take US. At the end of the year... there'll be three "surplus" teachers.

It remains to be seen how many of the Grand Canyon Diploma students WILL progress on to CCs or VocEd programs. With our population of students, most of whom have been taught the mantra that a High School Diploma - in and of itself - is some kind of "magic talisman" that opens employment opportunities, instead of the value of the education behind said diploma... they may just take it and be done.

I'm glad I retired when I did.

The "Grand Canyon High School Diploma" appears to me to be a bit short sighted and hopeful - but I do not operate in that arena so, for now, I must defer to the wisdom of the supposed professionals. Thinking back, those two additional years of high school contained substantial time and opportunity to mature. IMO, that maturity contributes to the ability to understand and process information differently - to actually contribute in the classroom. Everyone benefits.

Certainly not everyone is cut out for college, not everyone develops at the same rate - but two less years in high school seems a bit short sighted to me.

Below is an excerpt describing the program from the Center For The Future of Arizona:

"This new, optional diploma is designed to increase student academic achievement to national and international levels, preparing students for college and careers. It is not about setting low expectations and fast-tracking students to high school graduation."

http://www.arizonafuture.org/mowr/gr...n-diploma.html

Yep, it sounds great... on paper. But the devil is in the details.

Most of the courses are using the ACT Quality Core as their BES (most of our students did poorly on it last year... the first year classes were "realigned" to the ACT QC standards. (My last year, I got to "realign" my classses, even though I wouldn't be there... I hope my successor appreciates it.) Only World History is using Cambridge (because ACT QC didn't have standards for WH at that time. My fear is that with a harder test, teachers will begin to teach to that test - especially since now their pay increases and tenure will, at least in part, be determined by class performance, as measured by the test

In Arizona, students may drop out at age 16 or upon completion of 10th grade. I think, at least in the 'implementation' years, a lot of them will be 'set-up' for failure... and just quit. As I said, the devil is in the details. Of course, if this holds true as for most new educational programs... it'll go away in three years or so. (Or, even before that, the state will quit remunerating districts for students no longer there.)

The desired end result is good. We'll see how it turns out.

Back in central Maine, vocational skills students went part of the day to "standard" school to take 3rd and 4th year English, Math and some other courses I can't recall, and then spent the afternoon at the vocational school learning the various trades. The catch was if the student failed to maintain a C or better in the required classes (i.e., English, Math, etc.), they would be removed from the vocational courses and revert back to standard high school courses.

I would love to see a strong vocational program return to schools. They seem to have forgotten to most kids will not go to or finish college. I would also like to see the old apprentice, Journeyman, and Master come back as well. Maybe some of the shoddy BS that is now occurring in the building industry would shape up. :munchin

I had about 200 woodworking books that I now have on digits and had a heck of a time giving them to the school system for the students. :(

absolutely
 

I enlisted at 17 and day one and earned my GED prior to discharge. Ten years of of screwing around got me my bachelors degree, and ten more years my JD. I was very different at 17 than I was at 37. There are a LOT of kids in high school that could do better somewhere else. Time to think outside the box. But we ALL know that's not gonna happen.:(

The difference now is that a GED holds no weight whatsoever as far as the military is concerned. The only way a GED holder is going to get into the Armed Forces is if that person backs up his GED with somewhere between 15 and 30 semester hours of college.

I agree with longrange, a return to vocational programs would reap greater benefits. At my HS (granted I graduated 30 yrs ago) we had building trades, auto body, auto repair, horticulture, and a few others. We also had a robust college prep program, home ec, and taught typing and shorthand. There were many different ways to be successful in HS and your diploma and skillset helped prepare you for life.

Concur.

There are still plenty of trades remaining to warrant that.

This is where I went to high school.

http://eghs-egusd-ca.schoolloop.com/...=1240065033374

They offer a strong college prep program yet - to meet the needs of the community - still retain the active FFA, AgMechanics, auto mechanics, and other industrial arts programs which were there when I was a student. They also still have their working school farm/ranch maintained by the students and Ag Dept, as well as offering a number of apprenticeship programs for students to train with local businesses and industries while finishing high school.

These are some of the career pathing offered by the district today.

http://blogs.egusd.net/collegeandcar...reer-pathways/

Takes a community approach and commitment to retain such programs where the general view I've run into seems to be that IT is the only tech program(s) being considered and offered by many schools today.

A HUGE problem around here is the high drop-out rate among the inner-city and Hispanic youth population - no simple explanations or solutions for it that I can see, either.

And so it goes...

Richard :munchin

I would like to see the curriculum in Elementary and High Schools of every state drop anything that is politically correct. If it isn't related to Math, Science, English, U.S., World and State History, Civics and Economics, Art, Music, etc, It shouldn't be taught. Phys Ed, Yes. Foreign languages, Yes. LBGT Studies, No. Chicano Studies, No. African Studies, No. What you choose to study in college/university is up to you. Just don't complain if your PhD in some arcane discipline doesn't have a 6 figure job waiting for you...

Very astute observation. I hate to burst some young folks' bubble, but if you are a 23yo Masters-in-whatever you're very unlikely to start at even .5x6-figures. Nope, all the alphabet soup behind your 11-line email signature block won't do it either, but it might get you in the door.

Companies that are paying good salaries for their serious IT disciplines like IT security are commonly used as sources for talent to non-IT companies. They are expected to field a VERY experienced journeyman professional for the ginormous billable hours they're going to charge the client. You need to be a 1-person ODA equivalent in your field if you want the big bucks. It takes experience, it takes time and seeing lots of situations just like a medical intern.

So some things never change, kids; you don't "deserve" to start at the top, you just might have to build the path yourself.
[/IT-Career-Expectations rant]
:cool:

I totally agree. When I was in High School, we had a Trades and Industries class which was, basically, a vocational school embedded in the public school. I don't think farming or ranching was included but there were kids that worked in farm machinery manufacturing, retail sales, auto repair, etc.

Our Shop teacher started a program where the school would acquire some land and building materials, then his class would build a house on it and sell it for a profit. I believe that program was part of the T&I course but shop students, interested in carpentry, electrical, cabinetmaking, etc, could go "on site" during Shop class to work in a practical setting. Of course, this was in Oklahoma in the mid-'60s. It's probably illegal now.

Pat

The public school system is fulfilling its designed purpose.
It is meant to benefit the public (i.e. those holding power), not the individual.

It is a system of control.

John Taylor Gatto's characterization of Alexander Inglis's writings:
Functions of schooling:
In fairness to Inglis, here is a link to his book:
http://books.google.com/books/about/...d=8gsUAAAAIAAJ

Much of the material addressed by Gatto is found starting about page 375.

Gatto's article: http://www.wesjones.com/gatto1.htm

Yuck. Cue Pink Floyd.

RE: Post 13 - a chip off the ol' bloviators.**

And so it goes...

Richard :munchin

** http://www.professionalsoldiers.com/...6&postcount=25