Monday, March 9, 2015
Education
Response to Educational Texts
Your initial response should be in full sentences, paragraph form and should:
a. State the text you chose
b. State the purpose of the argument. (1 sentence)
c. Write a claim defending or challenging this argument. (1 sentence)
d. Examine the implications of this argument on today’s society? (2-3 sentences)
Then read your classmates posts. Pick two classmate’s to respond to. Your response should include-
a. Whether you agree or disagree with their position and why.
b. One question to further their thinking.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
I read Let Teenagers Try Adulthood by Leon Botstein. The purpose of the argument is to convince people that high school is a flawed institution, doing teenagers more harm than good by giving them a false idea the real world. His argument was that “high school is obsolete and should be abolished”. He claims that high school is dominated by popularity, the opposite of real life, and that the idea of high school is now outdated. . However to challenge this argument some may say that high school is beneficial for teenagers because it is where they truly identify themselves and it is a leeway into adulthood with the right amount of independence and guidance. Botstein’s argument is one that is not discussed enough in our society considering all that has occurred in the doors of high schools recently. Student mass shootings, student suicides, and drug use all caused by the pressures of high school are becoming a common in our society today. As time goes on society evolves as do the needs and ideals of teenagers. As more teenagers mature earlier now, seen physically and intellectually, high school is a waste of time for them. Many of them already hold a job and are ready to specify their studies and go to college to become employed in the real world.
ReplyDeleteIram Khan
Iram,
DeleteI agree with your statement that the lack of discussion concerning Botstein's argument is troubling. With the shootings, drug use, and suicides that you mentioned the evolution of our modern day high school needs to progress soon. With the topic of maturity, however, I believe that although teens today are more mature than they once were, we still have a long way to go. This maturity level could be increased in the junior college programs that Botstein mentioned, eradicating any issues with maturity. Do you believe that if we implemented Botstein's ideas there would be a decrease in the popularity based cliques seen in high school, or will they just morph into something new?
I agreed with Iram and Amy that today's high school system needs to be reevaluated. High school needs to create a different outcome than it did a century ago, so the way high school is organized needs to be altered also. I think that Botstein is correct in drawing attention to this issue, but I don't think that schooling should end at 16 instead of 18, as high school is often the start of self-discovery. I believe that maybe we could adopt a European system where there is primary and secondary school, followed by either trade school or continued education until college. How would our society be impacted by teens graduating from high school at 16 rather than 18?
DeleteAgreeing with Jill, high schools are not perfect. As students we see first hand the faults in our system, but they are fixable. I think that we need high schools to stimulate “self-discovery” and to help increase general knowledge that can sometimes be useful in the outside world. I also agree with the idea that sixteen years old is too young for most students to be immersed in the real world. This independence may not be a natural attribute to some and can be developed through individual assignments including research papers and presentations. Considering the proposed question, I think that our society would be less stable with sixteen year old high school graduates. The influx of mostly inexperienced and undeveloped teenagers could cause significant economic and social shifts. The template of school can at minimum serves as an opportunity to get an idea of a stable schedule and lifestyle. How could two more years of schooling truly harm our society?
DeleteI read Let Teenagers Try Adulthood by Leon Botstein. The purpose of this passage is to persuade readers to believe that high school is an arbitrary educational component because gives teenagers an inaccurate impression of life beyond it. Although high school harvests short-lived values such as popularity and varsity sport success, it is still a necessary transition for teenagers who are all developing at different paces. Even in the world now, students who have gone through the 13 years of standard education prior to college have no idea what line of work they want to enter into, and that will not change if high school is eliminated. Botstein proposed that it could also be an optional education, but employers value education in todays working world and the more the better, so students will only feel pressured to get as much education as they can. Students already have the opportunity to excel through high school and college quicker than their peers, but for those who cannot do this high school is a crucial part of maturing.
ReplyDeleteI agree with you, Skyler. I think that Botstein’s so-called solution could cause even more problems as adolescents face adulthood than those occurring now. Botstein is coming into this assuming that at sixteen, students will be decisive and ready to pursue their line of work without the social experiences of high school to hold them back; however Botstein is overlooking the unsettled traits belonging to most adolescents. I do not think that reducing the amount of time students are in high school will make them less “cliquey” and focused on popularity; it is merely shortening an inevitability. My question for you is, How do you think high school students should go about preparing themselves for the expectations as adults while also dealing with those found in high school?
DeleteI agree, Skyler, when you say that high school is a necessity for maturation and it provides a better view of the real world than we've had before through middle or elementary school. Botstein said that teenagers mature earlier now and without the "failed" high school experience to hold them back, they can come with the fresh, new mindset needed to survive in the real world. Even so, high school provides a chance to test out and develop our communication and morals. Without this experience, the students released into the workforce would have to learn this for themselves again and wouldn't be completely mentally ready. How do you think the high school system can improve so it doesn't focus as much on popularity and sport success but instead sets out to improve students' abilities for the real world?
DeleteThis comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeleteReport of the Massachusetts Board of Education
ReplyDeleteThe purpose of the piece is to advocate for universal education as it would eliminate social classes and reduce the gap between the poor and privileged.
Universal education would not actually be a benefactor for all, but rather would promote a self-imploding socialist society.
Universal education is a great concept. We try to do that here in America, but only so we can out compete those across our borders. Competition drives the world and there is always a loser; so no matter how good universal education seems, all countries only want it for their own to beat competitors.
I agree with you, Preston, that countries are very competitive, including competition in education. I, too, believe that our country is interested in looking good when compared to other nations, but I think that the main reason for universal education efforts is actually to benefit its own citizens. More opportunities for education is a way to help accomplish goals such as improving the economy, encouraging more people to become educated, and making the gap between the well-off and the not as well-off narrower. However, I feel that even if we were leading in education this would still be an important issue and efforts would still be made to achieve universal education. Finally, I think that seeing how we stand up against other countries is beneficial. In what ways does competition between countries affect where we focus our efforts on self-improvement?
DeleteI agree that a universal education can't truly be acheived due to ethnocentric tendencies among countries as they have different educational standards. Other factors affect educational value such as the government, resources, cultural aspects, and finances which make it difficult for certain countries to reach a universal standard. It should be more important to increase the level of education in third world countries instead of setting an absurd standard that those countries could only dream to achieve. The aspect of competitiveness is also important because if a universal education is set, then countries are just going to find ways to secretly excel. There will always be a want for superiority and knowledge is key to that. This then leads to the question if nationalism plays a role in a countries educational success?
DeleteI agree with you, Preston, because although the idea of universal education is something that America tries to achieve today, it is not something really pushed for. The only reason we do this in America is so that students can get a feel for all different types of learning and possible job opportunities. This allows people of all ages to figure out what they are interested in life and therefore pursue that area. A universal education would be more oppressive than anything because all different countries have different societal needs and job opportunities. Geography plays a large role in the industrialization of a country, so it is ok to have different curriculums in different areas of the world. We also read this year a theory on how language shapes thought and since there are many different languages in the world the way people in other nations think can be very different. Does language affect how someone learns?
DeleteI would agree with you Presto that the international education society is rather competitive, however I would disagree that universal education would promote a destructive socialist society. I think everyone would benefit from knowing how to read and write - how to communicate more effectively with one another, having a grasp on the most fundamental types of education. We would all not have the same exact system, but the availability of a system, some sort of basic education, would be better than no education at all. I can see the ties between any kind of universal system and socialism, but I do not think a universal education (again, not the same exact education in every location, but a basic one that would vary from country to country) that is available to everyone, but not forced onto them, would be beneficial, no?
DeletePreston, I agree with you to some extent. I agree that universal education is more effective idealistically and as a concept then actually in practice, and that sometimes it won't always be possible for countries to impliment free public education. But I do not agree that the only reason that we implimented public education in America was for global reasons, and I think that it is the same for most, if not all, of the countries that have public education services. I think that the desire for education for all starts on a more macroscopic level. The desires of the average citizen in any given country are not driven by the need to beat all of our global competitors. These citizens don't care about beating school children from China, all they want is education to try to improve the lives of the people they love. How could any country be negatively impacted by having more educated citizens?
DeleteThis comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeleteI chose "Let Teenagers Try Adulthood" by Leon Botstein. The purpose of Botstein's argument was to make a case for changing the outdated methods of education that U.S. high school's function on by remaking the entire school system that we are familiar with. Regardless of the fact that our current educational system is acknowledged as adequate, by recreating the foundation of U.S. educational facilities our students will be able to comprehend academic materials and societal functions to a fuller extent. Within today's society younger adults transition into adulthood with false expectations of how people interact with each other. This ignorance prevents them from realizing the full implications of their actions. While groups are segregated by popularity in high school, segregation in the real world is distinguished by level of employment, and the mindset of a popularity based society will set them up for failure not for the potential to climb the corporate ladder.
ReplyDeleteAmy Wilhelm
I agree with the need to change some of the outdated methods that high schools are still using because what was once needed 50 years ago may not even be a priority anymore. If we really wanted to prepare students for the high school-college transition then we should definitely integrate a more modern system that is up to date with the advancements in thinking, technology, etc. the rest of society has made. We always complain that we will never have to use anything we learn in some of our classes when we leave high school. A good portion of this is definitely part whining, but also proves that we should probably re-evaluate a system that was implemented in the early 20th century. If we were to install Botstein' s solutions, how would our economy for instance be affected by the sudden flood of young inexperienced workers? Would it be beneficial?
DeleteI agree with you Amy, in that some students aren't able to realize the consequences of their actions, which turns out to be surprising to them when they enter the real world. By introducing teenagers to a system that is more widely adopted in the real world, they'll better be able to understand their roles and how to communicate properly with others. When transitioning to the system that Botstein proposed, how do you think the current students would adapt and change the popularity mindset that had been ingrained into them?
DeleteI do not agree with you Amy, I think that by reforming the educational system into two schools, and letting kids graduate early at the age of 16, it won't change the social problems that currently exist at high schools all across America. I think that the problems that you name that are preventing kids to learn skills necissary to be a fully functioning member of society later in life will just still continue to happen, but in this secondary school. Cutting education will not rid us of those problems and they will miss out on more potential years of education. Why do you think simply splitting education into two schools and letting them out a few years early would rid us of those problems?
DeleteI read "Let Teenagers Try Adulthood" by Leon Botstein. Bostein's argues for the abolition of the typical American high school, arguing that it is flawed by the superfluous peer standards and activities, and that the current system ought to be changed to better prepare students for life after high school. Although Botstein does raise several valid concerns about the current system, it would not be feasible to completely change it due to the cumbersome and grossly expensive process that would ensue. The argument implies that students are distracted by a plethora of activities and expectations, that these activities along with the oppressive and un-accepting nature of pubescent cliques prevent many students from reaching their potential and gaining the experiences essential to life after high school. This results in graduates who are ill-prepared for the real world, having lacked exposure to real-world expectations and environments of a meaningful and productive career
ReplyDeleteI agree with you, Peter, because going through the process of eliminating the high school institution or even changing would be extremely extensive. It would also require changes in laws and regulations regarding education in each individual state. Do you think that high school is really very far off from the real world when it comes to what students value?
DeletePeter, I agree that the process of eliminating high school altogether is a drastic one; however eliminating some aspects of high school could make a greater change in the quality of education that students receive. For example, if students were able to have a more personalized program and were with peers based off of ability rather than age from the beginning, there could be more learning from one another. In the article, Botstein discusses having children go to college at age 16 which could help them in their development on a more emotional independent level rather than giving them 2 more years of total reliance on their parents. Is it possible that abolishing some aspects of high school could make a greater change than the plan proposed by Botstein?
DeletePeter, Like Jeff i agree with the idea that eliminating high school would be rather impractical due to how extensive it would be. eliminating it altogether may actually be not improve how well the students work in the "real world" as suggested by the author. School aids in the sense that it helps establish basic skills that will carry over into the "working world." also with a sense of structure and discipline school helps in giving a basic idea of what the real world is like from those perspectives. Do you think that there is a big enough issue with the current school system to in fact rebuild the whole thing, or would amending it like Jeff suggested be the better thing to do?
Delete"A Model for High Schools" by David S. Broder
ReplyDeleteBroder argues for an education system modeled after that of the Gateway to College program, and informs his readers of the advantages of the way this program is structured. While Broder has made some reasonable conclusions based on the success of students in this program, it is not a surefire fix for the high school education system overall. This system preaches the importance of self-reliance and responsibility, a skill that is still developing among most adolescents; this could ultimately create greater stress among students who would have done fine in an ordinary high school set up. Additionally, the high stakes discipline implemented upon students could create more drop outs due to an honest mistake or the struggle of finding balance in an already busy period of their lives.
I agree with you, Mackenzie, that the atmosphere Broder encouraged is not necessarily beneficial for most high school students. I think that the harsher measures in the Gateway program are taken because the students were not as focused and driven as their peers and therefore need a push to make up for lost time. I think that the more relaxed atmosphere of regular high schools is also beneficial to students because they are still young and exploring things such as sports, extra curricular, personal time management skills, etc. that are going to benefit them in the future, and that Gateway students are too late for. However, strict policies of the Gateway program may provide learning opportunities for skills such as self control, following directions, and obedience. Do you think that the possibility of high school students improving these skills through a stricter high school would be worth sacrificing the freedom to explore that they have now?
DeleteAlthough you bring up some valid points, Mackenzie, I have to disagree with you. As I interpreted the article, Broder is not saying that the system is a "surefire fix." He is implying that the Gateway to College programs are educational facilities that give high school drop outs a second chance. Even though the program could potentially create stress, if even one more student is educated to their potential the program would be worth it. If the students cannot handle the stress then they can always seek other means of education. Is the business of their lives so great that it makes them incapable of making a better future for themselves?
DeleteAmy Wilhelm
I understand the points you make, Mackenzie, but I have to disagree with you. This structure of high school may not seem like an ideal solution for the majority of high school students, but this alternate high school isn't for the majority. They're for those students who are dropouts and have had trouble with traditional schooling methods. Is it truly necessary to put these severe punishments in place for these students to succeed?
Delete"A Model for High Schools" by David S. Broder is a political correspondence discussing alternative high schools. Broder mainly discusses the newly instated early-college high schools, where high school dropouts can attend a rigorous high school program and then continue on to get a two year degree. Broder argues that these early-college high schools are positively benefiting the teens in the program and allowing America to capitalise on their talents. I agree with this position. Early-college high schools positively affect America because of the increased number of citizens with a high school and college education level, ensuring that their talents aren't wasted. These schools are beneficial because of the increase in educated citizens, which leads to a more successful country through voting and the workforce. It also allows the target audience (kids who have drug/alcohol problems, dropped out of school, or were not given a fair chance) the second chance to better themselves and the community. The rigorous program shows that working in the environment provided is extremely beneficial to the students, as opposed to the factory-based school day implemented in standard American schools. However these school programs are extremely expensive, as the Gates Foundation has already donated over $10 million to the program. As it is, America spends more on education than we have to show for it. Overall, both the students and the teachers feel that this is a great program, and the statistics support that claim.
ReplyDeleteI respectfully disagree with the idea of implementing a special high school for students who choose to drop out of standard high schools because it was their choice. Intelligent people don't often get bored because when they are put in situations that cultivates boredom they will find a different form of entertainment. You could say that one style of learning doesn't fit all but that doesn't excuse dropping out or turning to other means of recreational entertainment. We all get frustrated with school systems but if we don't stick around to try and fix them so everyone can benefit, then why would we even need any sort of establishment like schools at all? The systems will stay broken and unaccommodating if the only solution is to create other schools that can potentially develop the same problem.
DeleteI agree with the author’s position on schools specifically for those teens that got off on the wrong foot towards adulthood. Everybody deserves a second chance and education is the catalyst for that. Yes, it would cost more money than we may like however in the long run it will pay off. There would be less of an uneducated youth, less unemployment, leading to less reliance on the government for financial aid. There is a reason regular high school didn’t work out for these students and it is our job as a nation to accommodate to all types of students. These types of kids need more discipline and more attention than they would get in a regular high school with over a thousand other kids making them feel inferior. These schools would need strict rules and policies such as mandatory drug tests and counseling, ensuring success in the schools. Anyone who is serious about retrying education deserves the opportunity. A question to think about is “Are there other options for financing these types of schools?” They can be self-sufficient where the students work in the school they are learning at as well. This way they not only gain an education but develop real life skills and responsibilities.
DeleteBecca Russo
DeleteI agree with MaryKate on this one. If someone drops out, then that was their decision. Not saying that people don't deserve a second chance, but in this case it is costing a lot of extra money. Although everyone has a different viewpoint on school, it is hard to fulfill everyones needs unfortunately. However, many schools offer programs were students who are artistically gifted or musically talented can attend their public school for half a day and go to their performing arts school for the other half of the day. A question to think about is: If everyone was guaranteed to go to college despite their grades and financial situation, how would that impact the dropout rate?
I also agree with Iram. People deserve second chances because sometimes external factors come into play which can prevent students from making the right decisions. Obviously there is the issue of all the money that is being invested in this program, but the benefits outweigh the costs. These students are given a second chance to prove that they are worthy of succeeding and they learn essential traits that will help them in the long run. Obviously some won’t take up this offer which brings up the question, “Is the risk worth it?” But then again, out of the 600 who enrolled, 71% of the students successfully completed the program and almost 9 out of 10 continued to get their diplomas and degrees. Clearly the program is working and there is no reason why it shouldn't be implemented in more campuses.
DeleteI read Let Teenagers Try Adulthood by Leon Botstein. The purpose of this essay is to convince readers that teenagers should finish schooling earlier to correspond with the earlier ages of maturation. However, schooling should not be finished earlier because teenagers need thorough education and acquisition of social skills in order to be effective in their adult careers. Despite this essay's depiction of high school as catty and cliquey, students learn important social skills, including working with people they don't like, standing up for themselves, and dealing with bullying. It is better for kids to learn these skills earlier so that they learn from their mistakes and form good habits. This way, by the time they reach adulthood, they will know how to properly handle themselves in professional social situations.
ReplyDeleteNicole, I agree with your claim that schooling should not be finished earlier. Even though high school is full of unnecessary drama, it is up to us as high school students to solve whatever is going on in our lives and treat these situations as adults would. We'd run into big problems if no one knew how to handle gossip and other drama; high school is where we develop social skills and morals that help us later in life. One question that I had for myself while reading this was "would I be able to to leave school right now and 'try adulthood'?" Thinking back on everything I have learned in the past year- both academic and social- it is hard to say that high school should end earlier.
DeleteI agree with Nicole and Olivia because I do not think schooling should be finished earlier. As much as teenagers complain about high school, once they leave the majority of them will wish they were back enjoying time with friends and going to sporting events. You said "students learn important social skills." I completely agree with this because not only do we interact with classmates, but teachers as well. When we come across a boss that we don't care for or have opposing views, how could high school help us? Quite simply we learn to adjust to teachers who have different styles than us and we communicate with them as well.
DeleteBecca Russo
I agree that our education should not finish earlier. While we are faced with many obstacles throughout high school, these obstacles prepare us for the real world. Many important skills are learned and gained during this time, such as independence, responsibility, and social skills, all of which are important to have when moving onto college or the workforce. One question to consider would be "how would the expectations of society change if if our education was cut short?" Would we be expected to figure things out on our own, or would we be provided guidance and support? Guidance counselors, teachers, and other faculty act as a support system for students throughout their high school career. However, if our time is cut short in school, ultimately, this resource is taken away.
DeleteNicole, I agree with your idea that schooling should not be finished earlier because of the necessary skills that teenagers should acquire to make them successful in their future careers. I really liked the point you made about learning from your mistakes. High school is the time where teenagers should take advantage of learning from their mistakes because in the long run, the lessons that they learn will aid them in making smart decisions. What would be the standards that colleges evaluate teenagers at if the teenagers did not have a full high school education? We need to consider the fact that changing one part of the education system will also affect the other parts.
DeleteNicole, I totally agree with your claim that high school should not be finished earlier. The life that people live in does not abruptly end after the day of graduation. People with the same traits as those you know in high school still exist in the work world Botstein is trying to push teens into. I can not help but to consider the way these 16 year olds would be treated if they were forced to work with adults. People in the working world today tend to view high schoolers as people still discovering who they are. This raises the question: If teenagers were placed into the work world today, would they truly learn from these adults, or would they hold few responsibilities, hindering there possibility of success?
Delete"The Liberal Arts in an Age of Info-Glut" by Todd Gitlin was written to promote the importance of studying liberal arts as the amount of exposure we get from them is on a steady increase. His purpose was to encourage a higher level of focus on the liberal arts as it would aid students in both the academic world and surviving in the "real" world. I support this position because students are often better able to retain knowledge and information about topics and in classes that they have an interest in. I'm not saying that students don't have interests in mathematics, sciences, and language arts, but how much of what they learn in those high school math and science classes are they going to be relevant to their careers if they aren't planning on being an accountant or scientist? Now, our world desperately needs young people to be able to understand the technologies and all the advancements that are being made everyday to our society, but how about an understanding of the world we are surrounded with everyday? Yes, we need people who can make sense of the latest astronomic breakthrough, but what about the "roughly 160 more short units of mass-mediated message per day" we are exposed to? Every society needs people in all sorts of roles and statuses which are all important to keeping the society functioning in their own unique ways. We can't all be technological gurus and prominent analysts so we need to shine a new light on the importance of how liberal arts help students learn more about themselves and how to function as the individuals they are.
ReplyDeleteI have mixed feelings about what you said. On the one hand, knowledge about the liberal arts is important as you mentioned. This study allows people to reflect upon our past and see how exactly the world came to be as it is right now. I do however believe that we can all survive just fine without extensive liberal arts knowledge. No one can deny that the world is going to a level where technology influences everything. Technology is takes a precedent over liberal arts nowadays. As my brother says, "The only thing Art History majors become is art history professors." Sure it would be NICE to know the liberal arts, but it soon will be necessary to know and understand technology. Can't the world revolve without art history?
DeleteI agree with you, Mary-Kate, that Todd Gitlin was right in emphasizing the importance of liberal arts. I had read an article in Time similar to this piece and it sold me on how vital it is for people to understand liberal arts, especially in an age where we are more technologically advanced than ever. As Gitlin and you point out, we need to understand the liberal arts in order to sort through the information we see everyday on the Internet. While I see where you are coming from, Preston, however I think that Gitlin viewed studying liberal arts as a tool for navigating this greater access to technology we now have today. Based on both of your points of views, my question is: Should people have to choose one or the other (mathematics and science versus liberal arts) in order to be successful?
DeleteMary Kate, I do agree with the points you are making, however, I see what you are saying in a slightly different light. I feel that students should have plentiful opportunities to pursue what they are passionate about at an early age. As I’m sure you can relate to, I am always told to “do what I love” or to “do what makes you happy” as I consider future career paths to travel down, so why shouldn't this ideology hold true throughout schooling? Personally, I can not say I myself would actively pursue liberal arts opportunities if they were provided to me, being that subjects such as math and science peak my interest far more, however I think your underlying message can applied to all students with interests in all different subject areas. Why should a musician be required to take four years of mathematics when they have no interest in pursuing the subject further? Similarly, why should a mathematician be require to take various art classes when they have no interest in becoming an artist of any sort? In my opinion schools need to start catering to the desires of students and providing plentiful opportunities to the scientist, the musician, the linguist, and so on. We need to start letting students choose their own paths and excel in areas they truly love rather than promoting amateurish skills in every subject.
DeleteThis comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeleteI read “U.S. Students Fare Badly in International Survey of Math Skills” by Floyd Norris. The purpose of this argument was to show that spending money does not always guarantee high levels of outcome, the study concluded that “while spending on education institutions is a necessary prerequisite for the provision of high quality education, spending alone is not sufficient to achieve high levels of outcomes”. The United States is one of the richest nations; however, no matter how much money it spends on education they are falling behind in math and reading rank compared to other nations such as Hong Kong who is number one, the U.S. currently has the poorest outcomes per dollar spent on education. This argument shows that America’s education system is still not up to par with other competing nations. The U.S. must come up with another strategy to improve their education situation other than spending vast amounts of money, they must approach it with a different attitude. The author implies that a change in attitude is critical because the U.S. currently considers itself as “number 1” which is a very arrogant thing to say, completely ignorant to the fact that there are other countries out there who are more successful from an academic standpoint. The U.S. needs to wake up and realize that it has a lot of work to do to catch up, they are not number 1 anymore.
ReplyDelete-Lay Gandhi
I agree with your position, because the US needs to find another method in order to better the education situation. Rather than just throwing money at school systems, students need to be motivated to do well, and our school systems need to become more intensive and up to par when it comes to education. Money can only go so far- sure, it's nice to have good schools and new technology, but what good does it do if they aren't used properly and students aren't educated to their fullest potential. How can the US amp up the academic performances of its students? How does the fact that we put so much money into education, but not enough emphasis on succeeding in school impact our low academic scores?
DeleteI agree with parts of what you wrote. The article however never states an exact dollar amount of educational spending for any of the countries, it only notes that the Czech Republic spends a third less than the US. I do not see it to be wise as to speculate that the US spends exorbitant amounts of money on education amiss all the recent budget cuts and other governmental programs lacking the proper funds. I do not perceive the issue as the government's lack of knowledge towards education, but rather a flawed educational system nation wide which de-emphasizes academic success compared to other countries. Do we really need to teach kids civic and social responsibilities in school or is it detracting from the meaningful learning that should be taking place?
DeleteI agree with Lay that America needs to realize the problem we face with overspending on schools yet having nothing to show for it. There are many ways to improve the American education system, yet we refuse to do it. For example, extensive studies have shown that elementary school students should go to school first, followed by middle school students, and lastly high school students. This has been implemented in other countries and has been shown to have a large positive effect, but, as it interferes with lengthy sports practices and games, America has chosen to ignore this data. How can America allocate money and restructure school to save money and create a smarter population?
DeleteI chose to read “A Model for High Schools” by David S. Broder. The purpose of this piece is to inform readers of the successes and advantages of an alternative high school program, “The Gateway to College”. Self responsibility and hard work are key when it comes to succeeding in both high school and college, however, the rigorous penalties applied to one breach of discipline could be counterproductive and cause many to drop out, therefore defeating the purpose of the program. For the students that do complete this program, a sense of accomplishment, stronger work ethic, and dedication could be gained, allowing them to go on to college and contribute their talents to society. There are far more negative implications, such as lack of motivation and commitment causing people to drop out or be expelled, honest mistakes causing severe penalties, and discouragement following incompletion of the program, which could lead to a feeling of helplessness and lack of motivation for future attempts at going to college.
ReplyDeleteAlthough you bring up several valid points, Olivia, I disagree. There are many factors that influence a students decisions to drop out of high school, such as bullying or exposure/use of drugs. By creating these alternative programs, students who drop out are given a second chance to expand their education in an environment much different from that of high school. For example, Broder mentions that the students build strong and supportive relationships, something that they may have struggled with previously in high school. This safe and comfortable environment may be what these adolescents need in order to be productive and work towards their education. One question to think about would be: Would the creation and implementation of these programs encourage others who are either struggling in school or have dropped out, to seek other resources and opportunities to further their education, rather than to just give up? If our country refrains from providing these alternative programs, what message is being sent to these adolescents?
DeleteOlivia, I think that you identify many influences of the traits that are sought after to succeed in a classroom environment; however I think that the article refers more to the success and possibility of an alternate high school program rather than the particular negative implications concerning the dropouts. The article mainly discusses the benefits of an alternate classroom experience, such as a closer teacher relationship and less condensed classes, in order to describe the portrayed success that various alternate programs could have. I think that Broder is mainly trying to give an example of a successful program to represent the opportunity of alternate high school programs rather than analyze one particular school programs. One question for further thinking would be: do you think that focusing on high school dropouts should be of more concern than programs that work to keep students in high school originally?
DeleteOlivia, you bring up some really interesting points concerning the implications of either passing or not completing this “Gateway to College” program, however, I personally believe that the positive aspects of this program outweigh the potential negatives. This program provides to students an opportunity to “try again”, a redo if you will, so that they can find the success they never had or never got the chance to achieve in high school. Many of these students simply were dealt an unlucky hand early in their lives, whether it be falling victim to drug-use, tough family situations, or unbearable harassment, many often did not have the means to succeed in their high school years, and through this program they are given the opportunity to find that missing success. You also bring up another point about the potential of this program to be counterproductive, however I once again do not completely agree. Though I understand what you are saying I’d like to counter by asking, is it right to abolish a program simply because a few participants remain unmotivated? What about those who genuinely have the desire to succeed in the program and better their lives? In my opinion I view these “rigorous penalties” as a necessity in this program, enabling those who run the program to discover who is truly their to find success and have a positive impact on these people.
DeleteThis comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeleteBecca Russo
ReplyDeleteThe passage I read was Let Teenager Try Adulthood by Leon Botstein. The purpose behind this argument was to prove to his readers that there should be a change in the educational system in order to better prepare students for the real world. He argued that elementary school should be from ages four or five until seventh grade; then from seventh grade to age sixteen should come high school to prepare students to enter the real world at sixteen. If they wish to pick a different path and dedicate their time to a field of study, then they have that opportunity as well. Botstein proposes many changes that could be made, however, at the age of sixteen, students are nowhere near ready to be released out into the real world. I disagree with Botstein because I think the two extra years of education create a huge disparity between matureness as well as ability to make decisions for yourself. Botstein argues that kids are maturing a lot earlier nowadays, however, that still doesn’t mean they are ready fro the real world. Many high schoolers are making sophisticated decisions for themselves but still rely on their parents for reassurance. Students need high school to realize their true values and understand whom they are as individuals by surrounding themselves with people who bring out the best in them. Without this comfort blanket of high school, some may not discover crucial traits until it becomes too late.
I agree with you Becca, in that two years of education can make a big difference in maturity. High school alone takes some time to adjust to, it is arguable that the freshman year, or a greater part of it is an adjustment period. A lot of growth and learning take places in the junior/senior years of high school - when the schedule opens up, and students can take more individualized paths. Selecting your own courses and finding your interests are parts of maturing and learning how to make your own decisions. Obviously there will be exceptions to this - those who are more prepared and matured at a younger age. Do you think that these exceptions, those who are ready early, or maybe those who may need a few more years to mature, might benefit from having a different kind of school, rather than a typical high school?
DeleteBecca, I entirely agree with your position on the benefits of an extra two years of schooling. I think that students at the ages of thirteen, fourteen, and fifteen certainly do not have the mental maturity to make such life-altering decisions on their own. When Botstein described the responsibility that the “real world” entitled, such as working with a variety of ages, he did not discuss how adolescents would develop the skills to confront such situations. High school is often a place where social skills can be developed and tested in order for teenagers to learn from confrontation, thus allowing them to be more prepared for social interactions once out of high school. Do you believe that some high school students have the capability to transition to the working world at a younger age than others due to their communication skills or do you think that such skills are merely a consideration for later in life?
DeleteThis comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeleteI read “A Model for High Schools” by David S. Broder. The purpose of this passage was to gain support for alternative high schools. Broder pushes for a program similar to the Gateway to College program, that gives high school dropouts an opportunity to receive an education in order to prepare themselves for college and the workforce. The author states that these programs have a positive impact on adolescents, and therefore should be considered and implemented throughout the nation. I agree with his point of view. Offering adolescents a second chance will encourage those who become faced with similar experiences to pursue an alternate path towards education. As Broder stated, high school dropouts are not merely ‘’hopeless losers” who had no care or motivation to work towards their education. In fact, many factors influence one’s decision to drop out of school, including social and environmental aspects. Providing these students with a safe and comfortable environment to learn will benefit not only themselves, but society as a whole. The more educated citizens are, the more they will participate and engage themselves in issues surrounding them on both a local and national scale. Because the importance of education is stressed throughout the nation, refraining from providing these alternative programs would go against the values of our country.
ReplyDeleteAlli, I agree with the ideas that you stated above. It's essential for everyone to get an education, especially if they made a mistake and gave it up the first time. Second chances can be vital with such a serious and potentially life altering topic. As you said above, students need an environment that is friendly and welcoming in order to want to learn. Other environments such as public schools can sometimes be too distracting or overwhelming for some students which is why this program works so well and is an excellent opportunity. One question that struck me when reading this article was if public schools should be made so that they are more comfortable and beneficial for everyone?
DeleteI agree with both Jeff and Alli that alternative high schools and programs such as the "Gateway to College" are beneficial for students that have dropped out of high school and our society as a whole. I say this because it provides these adolescents with a second chance to become educated and effectively contribute to our society. I also liked the point that you brought up about how there are several factors that effect a person’s decision to drop out of school, so having programs that specifically are targeted towards helping to educate these high school dropouts is important. In the text Broder mentions that a single “breach of discipline” would result in automatic expulsion. One of the examples that Broder mentions is as basic as not completing an assignment, so I would ask, do you think that this one chance system that is in place in these programs is too harsh and if so what would you propose as an alternative means of discipline?
DeleteI absolutely agree with the three ideas stated above. As I read in another article, high school can be a very difficult time for some students to push through for multiple reasons. However, I think that people can change and years later they may have found a new passion or appreciation which makes them intent on pursuing a career in that field. The "Gateway to College" program is a great idea to make sure that everyone can achieve their dreams regardless of there backgrounds. One question I had was if these high schools were made to be more welcoming would these students participate more, or would their knowledge of this high school drop out "college" experience hinder their decision?
DeleteI agree with all the ideas stated above, that the "Gateway to College" program is definitely beneficial to people that feel that they are not getting enough from their ordinary high school. The program allows students to expand their knowledge and focus in on more what they truly have passion for. If a student feels as if high school is not beneficial for them, then they at least aware that they have this program as second option, in order to still pursue what they wanna do in life. A question I have is do you feel as if this Gateway program can be considered as a true "replacement" of high school? Or are both too different?
DeleteThis comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeleteThe passage that I read was “Let Teenagers Try Adulthood” by Leon Botstein. The purpose of this argument was to describe the evolving development of adolescence and how schools should be changed to adhere to the changed rates. The argument of teenagers exploring adulthood is accurately entailed due to the description of prior adolescent maturity compared to that which exists today. Botstein’s portrayal of the standard, superficial high school regards to the stereotypes of teenagers. Often revered for their rebellious nature, teenagers are rarely categorized as mature adults; however Botstein explores the implication of high school merely being an isolated location to leave adolescents at until they mature. This further explores society’s pessimistic view towards those who defy common assertions of the ideal adult.
ReplyDeleteI read “Let Teenagers Try Adulthood” by Leon Botstein. The purpose of his argument was to persuade the reader that high school doesn’t serve a purpose and it should be rendered obsolete so students can finish their education at 16 and then enter the real world and the workforce. This argument is flawed because high school serves a greater purpose by preparing students for the real world through high expectations and discipline and many students fully utilize this opportunity. It’s simply unrealistic to make high school obsolete, replacing it with another system. This argument implies that today’s high school society is becoming increasingly focused on looks and popularity. This isn't beneficial to the rest of society because high school students are the next generation. If they aren't able to receive a full education, the USA won’t be able to compete against other growing countries that are consistently and readily advancing.
ReplyDeleteZoha, I agree with your claim stating that high school should not be cut short because it prepares teenagers for the real world. Through the interaction between students and teachers, teenagers learn how to formally talk to others, which will be beneficial to them in the long run. Although teenagers might mature earlier than before, it does not mean that they will automatically acquire the experiences that come with social interaction. High school provides an ideal place to learn from mistakes and if it is cut too short, the teenagers will not know how to handle themselves professionally in certain situations. One thing that we should consider is that if we restructure the high school education system, will it affect the future of communication within professional settings?
DeleteI read “Let Teenagers Try Adulthood” by Leon Botstein. The purpose of Botstein’s argument is to convince the readers that the current American education system is preventing teenagers from experiencing the reality of adulthood by presenting them with a false portrayal of the “real world”. Although high school may seem like a fake depiction of the real world, it must be kept because it is the standard by which teenagers efficiently gain a well-rounded education and without it, society would experience many losses. Not only does high school provide a strong foundation for, but it also allows students to have a mental support system they can rely on. It is essential that teenagers are not deprived of the social interactions because by talking to teachers and peers, teenagers are able to learn how to be effective communicators. Many of the experiences that a teenager is able to obtain from a full high school education will help them in their future personal and professional lives.
ReplyDeleteRani I agree with you that we need to keep the standard high school system that we have in place currently rather than completely reforming it because high school does, in reality, teach us several different skills that we will need for later in our lives. I specifically liked the point that you brought up about how in high school we learn essential and valuable skills that translate into out adult lives such as being able to communicate and work effectively with others. Another concept that I thought of while reading this article was that in the future when our bosses/employers give us a task to complete, the skills that we learned in high school will be able to apply and will be of necessity. Would you agree that reforming the high school system that we currently have in place would be impractical because of how many changes would have to be made on a nationwide scale?
DeleteRani, I also agree with your claim because I feel that in order for students to be successful in the real world, they must attend high school to gain a baseline education. Whether or not, what students learn in high school helps them in their careers, it still increases their general knowledge. I also agree with your statement on how high school helps communication skills of kids as well. One question I have is what do you think high schools can do to help students feel like this education may actually help them in the real world?
Delete-Reeya
The article I chose was "U.S. Students Fare Badly in International Survey of Math Skills" by Floyd Norris. The purpose of this article was to compare the education received in the United States with that of other developed countries. I believe that the author is right to report these statistics, and that we should be doing more to change the fact that the United States is so behind in its learning. The facts help to support how the U.S. society is no longer an education world leader and how education is now being taken for granted by those who receive it. Without an education, it won't matter how much money the United States has, if they are not able to spend and invest it wisely. If things continue this way, then the United States could soon become vastly behind in education than many other countries, and could quite possibly lack the education needed to be a serious power player in the world economy.
ReplyDeleteI completely agree with Jeff. As a nation who prides themselves with being one of the most advanced countries in the world, numbers like these does us nothing in trying to prove we have a good educational system. We clearly don't challenge our students enough since most of them think that they are doing good in math and have good grades, this might be the case but it also might be that our curriculum isn't as advanced or difficult as Finland's or South Korea's. We clearly need to get these statistics out to the public to show them how we as a nation have become less successful and are falling behind in the intellectual aspects of our culture, compared to others. If we did get these statistics out to the public, and make them acknowledge the lack of mathematical intelligence, then what do you think they would do in order to address the matter, and take action?
DeleteI am in full agreement with Jeff. Something needs to change to improve the education of youth in America. If the youth in other countries are being educated better than the youth in America, it is not likely that America will remain a leading world power. However, it is not the money that is an issue. I believe it is the system of education. The Czech Republic, for example, spends on third of what we do per student, yet they scored in the top ten. Perhaps they have a better system than the one being used in America, or perhaps they just have more intelligent youth. The United States should take that into consideration and adopt alternative systems to try and improve their standings. What are other ways that we could improve the education of youth in America without spending more money?
DeleteI read “A Model for High Schools” by David S. Broder. The purpose of Broder’s argument is to gain the audience’s support for alternative high schools by informing them of the various advantages that they present. I agree with Broder’s assertion that instituting programs such as “Gateway to College” provides adolescents that have struggled in the traditional high school with a rigorous alternative that will ensure that we will exploit and capitalize on their talents. Oftentimes, kids that drop out of school because of drug/alcohol problems are stigmatized in our society today, but alternative schools specifically target the aforementioned drop outs. By educating these adolescents we can ensure that they actively contribute to their local communities, and our American society as a whole. Instituting alternative high schools can exploit the talents of students that would otherwise be marked off as hopeless losers and already has proven to be effective; as was illustrated by the testimonials that came from the students whose lives had been changed as a result of alternative high schools and similar programs.
ReplyDeleteUmaid, I did not read the piece, but you did a great job summarizing it. However, I don't agree with you on this. Alternative high schools would likely prove ineffective as they cater to those who have already expressed no interest in learning. For those who you do teach to be active members in society, you will have spent a fortune to insignificantly impact society. Rather, money used to fund these programs should be put towards high schools with insurance that it is spent wisely. This way, kids can get better help before they potentially drop-out. Plus, it ensures equality in education by bettering the education of the whole. Is it worth all the time and resources just to help those who have already been given the opportunity?
Delete“Let Teenagers Try Adulthood” by Leon Botstein
ReplyDeleteThe purpose of Botstein’s argument was to point out the flaws in the American school system, specifically focusing on high school and then to propose a new model school system that could be implemented instead. I believe, unlike Botstein, that despite the flaws with the social aspects in the school system, 16 year olds are not yet mentally and behaviorally prepared to live on their own in the “real world”. Following Botstein’s model with a public school system with two schools, kids would then start high school or launch right into getting jobs at the young age of 16. High school provides unsure teenagers a safe environment in which to experiment with a variety of different classes to help them determine what subject of work they would like to study in college or go straight into after completing high school. By cutting them short a few years of school, teenagers could go and waste thousands of dollars in college tuition, taking classes they have to interest in. Beyond not having this opportunity, there are life skills that kids pick up in high school that they need to live on their own and they would miss out on these opportunities if their high school was cut short. Having more years to allow teens to develop behaviorally and mentally, although it might be obsolete in terms of social interactions and or organization only by age groups, the skills acquired during this time are more valuable than simply cutting education short in the name of avoiding unrealistic social situations.
Without a doubt, great argument for the current system. However, I'd like to disagree with you on something. You said that a 16 year old would waste thousands of dollars in college tuition "taking classes they have [no] interest in". I think this is wrong, because most sixteen year old adults know what interests them. And besides, this reform also calls to start school earlier, balancing out much of the missed time. So would 16 year old graduates not be more mature anyways?
Delete"Let Teenagers Try Adulthood"
ReplyDeleteBotstein's purpose was to persuade the audience that teenagers would benefit from a new system of schooling where they were entered the working world at a younger age. Although I do agree that high school is a stressful time for many, it is vital in the psychological development of students. It is a time where people get to figure out who they are and what they want to be, and if this was stripped and replaced with the pressure of getting a adult job at the age of 16, it would be even more detrimental to their health. At such a young age, these students should be enjoying there teenagers years, free of the stress that will come soon enough when they enter the working world. In the 4 years that one attends high school they learn communication, social and life skills that are extremely important in the long run. The basis of our country is built off of strong individuals with a strong mindset and skills that were implemented as they were growing up. If we were to strip teenagers of the opportunity to learn or improve on these skills, that generation of leaders would lack these skills necessary to run a smooth country.
Emily, while I do agree with you that the individual thinking of high school students in their young years is important, I'll have to disagree with you and say that I think teenagers can gain even better communication, social, and life skills going into the working world at an earlier age. You said that we would "strip teenagers of the opportunity to learn or improve on these schools". However, putting them out in the real world would not "strip" them of their opportunities to learn, but it would simply offer them a larger variety of opportunities available in the real world with influence from successful individuals in our society today. I fully believe that teenagers need time to individually grow by themselves, however, I see greater benefits from them gaining opportunities to learn in the real world instead of the 4 years of high school. One more thing, I find what you said about how teenagers should be "free of the stress that will come soon enough" really interesting. So my question to you is, do you think people generally experience more stress as a high school student (junior preferably) or as a settled down adult, working in the real world? Try and think about how your answer ties into the different arguments presented in "Let Teenagers Try Adulthood".
Delete-Jason
The article I chose was "Let Teenagers Try Adulthood" by Leon Botstein. The purpose of this article is to convince the readers that the educational system in America is flawed, as it holds back students, providing them with a false sense of the "real world." The argument put forth by the author is faulty; as while schools may not entirely offer "practical" knowledge that can be used beyond school, it is beneficial because it "lays the foundation" for students, teaching them basic skills such as mathematics, grammar, science, etc, as well as offering discipline and structure. Today we live in an extremely competitive world, with school being a very important part of a teen's life. many believe that doing well in school, and getting into an elite school will entail success in the "working world," but the author argues that the school system as we know it is obsolete. He feels that is just holds students back from being adults, and is not overly practical. It would simply be unfeasible to try to abolish this system, as it is the foundation for teens.
ReplyDeleteI would disagree with Pat. I would say that school neither offers basic skills nor does it offer discipline later in adolescence. School is no longer about learning; education boards care only about test scores. And the discipline used in schools today is ineffective in so many ways. Suspending a student from school grounds is no longer a punishment, it is a vacation. Getting a troublemaker less involved is counterproductive. After all, idle hands are the Devil's playground, right?
DeleteI read Leon Botstein's "Let Teenagers Try Adulthood", which presented the argument that the American high school system has become obsolete, and students should graduate at age sixteen. Personally, living at seventeen, I would defend this argument because I know I have the knowledge and maturity in order to survive in the real world, or pursue a higher education. For society as a whole, graduating at sixteen would mean a lot of things. Professionals would enter their careers at an earlier point in their lives, and could more thoroughly learn their fields. Also, spending less unnecessary time in public schools would reduce the astronomical cost of education in our country. So let teenagers get a taste of adulthood; it's our turn to change the world.
ReplyDeleteMax, I admire your enthusiasm for having students experience adulthood at age sixteen. However, I don't look favorably upon teens being entrusted with great responsibility. From a psychological standpoint, our minds have not reached a crucial stage of maturation until we reach our twenties. Aren't you concerned about teens making irrational choices that would be threatening their own safety and would otherwise have been avoided at a later age?
DeleteMax, I agree that it is beneficial for certain students to experience being an adult by the age of sixteen. Some students are ready to be completely emerged into adult society, however not all students are the same. Certain students still require a gradual transition from being a student to an adult. What characteristics are present in a student that is ready for the "real world"?
DeleteMax, you are a genius. However, I gotta disagree with you here. While you may be mature enough to handle the real world, the vast majority of people our age are not. Many still struggle with self-identity and lack necessary social skills to compete in the workforce. Expediting the terms of schooling would be catastrophic as millions of underprepared "kids" are left to fend for themselves after not being given adequate time to resolve prior psychological stages of development. While schools may never be "one size fits all", they aim to suit the majority of kids. If that means 4 years in high school, so be it. Is there a way to make school individualized, allowing readier students to enter the real world earlier?
Delete"U.S. Students Fare Badly in International Survey of Math Skills"
ReplyDeleteThis argument conveys the necessity for the improvement of education in America. Although America is a well-developed country, she continues to decline in education due to the lack of competitiveness and improvement within our teaching standards. Setting low standards for students in a society that continues to become more complex and demanding prevents us from reaching the same playing field as other countries. Without challenging our future citizens, we risk losing our reputation as a leader in world affairs to the extent that our presence would become insignificant. America need to tackle this looming threat with a multilateral approach in order to uphold its distinction as a force to be reckoned with.
I read the article, “Let Teenagers Try Adulthood” by Leon Botstein in which he examined the flaws in the high school education system. Botstein argued that not only is high school flawed in the way that it educates our adolescents but it is essentially an unnecessary institution in which students are segregated among their peers and immersed in a highly juvenile atmosphere that does prepare them for the “real world”. He highlights throughout his piece the magnitude to which high school glorifies the notions of “good looks and attractiveness, popularity, and sports prowess”, which have no true significance in the real world. High school does not serve to prepare students for the realities of the working world but rather reinforces in adolescents detrimental attitudes concerning popularity and success. The institution of high school prioritizes infantile attitudes that pressure students to strive for unrealistic goals, only to be met with inevitable failure. This unhealthy cycle has been built upon time and time again in both the social and educational aspects of the high school environment. Students have resorted to drugs and alcohol simply to "fit in" with their peers. Others have turned to violence and suicide at the hands of this adolescent and destructive behavior. High school does not even remotely prepare teenagers for the adult work but rather ensnares them in their adolescent ways.
ReplyDeleteI agree with you, Kalee, but only to a point. I understand how some aspects of the high school education system are flawed, like the value of "good looks and attractiveness", but I think that parts of it do follow through with the real world. For example, I believe that popularity is still prevalent in the work force. There is always politics involved with jobs and the outcome of things, so this sense of popularity still exists. As long as you have some sort of a connection with a boss, you could get a raise over someone who is more qualified than you are, simply because you are popular in the eyes of your boss. Is there really a limit or censorship of the popularity that may occur out in the real world?
DeleteI agree with Kalee and Jessica that High School may be a failed system, but I do not agree with Kalee’s assertion that high school does not serve to prepare students for the realities of the working world but rather reinforces in adolescents detrimental attitudes concerning popularity and success. I feel that high school does try to prepare students for the adult world and tries to promote success but it is up to the student to “make the best out of it”, if students are focused on popularity and social status in their high school years they need to reconsider their life, high school is the first important step in life that will help you determine what colleges you will get into and determine future success. It is not the high schools fault that students facilitate detrimental attitudes, students have control over their attitudes and high schools have little control over that. Does early successful life trump popularity and social status in the long term future?
DeleteKalee, after reading the impassioned writing of Bostein, I can understand our point of argument. But, I have to disagree with some of your viewpoints. I think that the assertion that high school is an "unnecessary institution" is a misconception and may be misinterpreted. Yes, high school can be a miserable and sometimes dangerous place for developing individuals. That being said, I think that the universal disciplinary expectations in high school somewhat mirrors real world conduct. Though some may already have a firm grasp on this reality, this system lends standard preparation to young adults soon to enter the working world (if they haven't already). Consider our society without high schools. Where would all the adolescents go and does the work world have the capacity to fully elicit the help of this teenage population?
DeleteI chose to read the passage "A Model for High Schools" by David S. Broder. The purpose of this reading was to depict the capabilities of alternate high schools and show how the suppressed potential of many "drop-outs" and "delinquents" can emerge when given the right foundations. Although many teachers and parents give up hope on students that have attitude, behavioral, and drug problems, with the right support and mindset they are capable of doing much more than most of them are being asked to do. Not only are these dropouts given up hope on, but they also weren’t given the right opportunities. When teenagers with personal problems are supported by skillful teaching and personal counseling they can be put on a path to success. In addition to external care, the students require a change in thinking. Understanding that what you learn directly correlates to the success you have in the future should provide sufficient motivation to get through high school and strive for college. They shouldn’t be abandoned by our society; their talents shouldn’t be put to waste.
ReplyDeleteI totally agree with you Varun, I don't think drop-outs or delinquents have any less potential or talents than some of the kids in our high school. I believe they have as much of a chance than any of the kids in high school to make a name for themselves and succeed in life if they motivate themselves to. They need to be challenged and guided in the direction that is right for them which is something they are given in these alternate schools. They deserve as great an education as the rest of us and if these alternate schools are what works for them then it's a beneficial choice for their lives. Sometimes it's not their faults that they end up out of school or find themselves uncared for, so they shouldn't be given any less of an opportunity. But my question is, if they drop out of school, why do you think they then come back and try one of these alternate schools? Do you think they are forced, or choose to come back themselves?
DeleteReading your points in your comment, I also fully agree with Veronica and Varun in believing that drop-outs and delinquents should not be given up on by society. Overtime, people eventually change as they grow up in life and gain more experience with people and society as a whole. Like Veronica had said, "sometimes it's not their faults that they end up out of school" as it depends on what kind of environment you grew up in. However, I think our society is too quick to judge on people and generally are portrayed as if they cannot achieve anything. But with the right guidance from yourself and the people around you, drop-outs can be more, if not, just as successful as certain kids in high school. Mentally, what are some things do you think differ in terms of their mindset from drop-outs who have made a comeback throughout life compared to kids who were always succeeding?
DeleteVeronica, I think that the article said that they enrolled in the alternative schools on their own will. However, you do have good question; Why come back to school? I have a hard time thinking about the things that an alternative school would have that wouldn't be offered at a traditional high school besides having smaller classes. I think that since all the students at these alternative schools are drop-outs, they are able to better connect with their peers and thus educate themselves in an encouraging and supportive environment. Any other thoughts as to the differences an alternative school might offer?
DeleteVeronica, I think that the article said that they enrolled in the alternative schools on their own will. However, you do have good question; Why come back to school? I have a hard time thinking about the things that an alternative school would have that wouldn't be offered at a traditional high school besides having smaller classes. I think that since all the students at these alternative schools are drop-outs, they are able to better connect with their peers and thus educate themselves in an encouraging and supportive environment. Any other thoughts as to the differences an alternative school might offer?
DeleteThe article I had chosen was "Let Teenagers Try Adulthood" by Leon Botstein. The primary purpose of this piece was to emphasize the flaws of America's educational system today, while offering a new incentive to better help our problems with education in America as a whole. As a high school student around this age, I would personally defend this argument and the points that Botstein had presented. America's education system today emphasizes the importance of academics and getting good grades. However, a good grade is all but a speck of dust in the universe of the real working world in America. Allowing 16 year-old adolescents to enter the professional world allows them to not only gain more experience at an earlier age, but also allow them to explore their options in the real world and focus more on their preferred fields. Allowing 16 year-old's to stay in high school for another few years will only further blind them from the realities of the working world, and cause them to be unprepared for what the real world has to offer them years later. This would solve numerous problems with America today as we know it, improving the financial aspect of education, and also allowing our teenagers to adapt both physically and mentally to the real world, instead of trapping their fresh potential in a classroom for years to come.
ReplyDeleteI read "Let Teenagers Try Adulthood" by Leon Botstein. In this article by Leon Botstein, the author is trying to convince the audience (general public) that students should go to school earlier, and therefore be released into the real world and be taken seriously at a younger age (16). Even though I am aware of many teenagers my age (16) who are ready psychologically to enter the real world, there are many students who see four years of high school as expedient, because they need that time to explore the different subjects and fields this career filled world has to offer as well as need time to mature which is what graduating at 17/18 years of age gives them. High schools supply a plethora of courses to choose from so that a student can become familiar with, and experience the different subjects and how they are applied in jobs in the real world. We want them to have time to figure out what interests them so they don't get up dreading to go to work, or are uninterested in what they are working on in the future. If they have something they are intrigued or passionate about then they tend to excel in that field, and when they excel in that field then we excel as a society.
ReplyDeleteI agree with the claim you made, Veronica. People do not have their minds made up while they are in high school, so they still need many options available to them. High school is a great way to keep your options open, and lead you towards making a decision for when you must enter the work world. Although most people are unsure about what they want to pursue, there are still those who have already made up their minds. Do you think people should have the ability to finish high school early if they are passionate about something and know what direction they want to take in life?
DeleteI read "Let Teenagers Try Adulthood" by Leon Botstein. Botstein convinces readers that the schools in America are flawed institutions that fail to align with the new biological and cultural conditions on the 21st century. While some aspects may appear artificial, high school is a crucial developmental period in our lives that should not be expedited. As culture changes, the course and speed of our development from cognitive and psychosocial perspective remain the same. Precisely at the time we are in high school, adolescents struggle with identity, and often suffer role confusion. Most people at this age are searching for a sense of self security, and are trying to discover what their passion is. Disallowing time for fundamental psychological stages to occur will further contribute to mental ailments and a less developed population in the future. Perhaps we should look not to schooling, but to parenting and extracurricular cultural influences for the source of improper development in America's youth.
ReplyDeleteI agree with Michael that parenting and extracurricular cultural influences is the source of improper development in America's youth, high schools should not be the target for improper development. High schools help facilitate the progress of students and “claim” to help them prepare for college and adult life. High school does not simulate the real world but it teaches fundamental basis of independence, identity and security. I would not consider high school as critical psychological stage, because there are people around the world who are dropouts while still being mentally “sane” and functioning properly at the same time. I feel that high school is just a thing that will ensure success in the future, without it people will not be able to get “places” in the real world. Is high school purley used for psychological development or a mandatory societal requirement for life success?
Delete“Let Teenagers Try Adulthood”
ReplyDeleteThe purpose of Botstein’s argument was to persuade the audience that it’s beneficial to form a new structure for education in which students start going to school at a younger age, thus being able to work at a younger age, rather than going through the artificial motions of high school. Even though getting a jumpstart on education would seem to increase the speed up the path towards success, it is not a good idea to send students to school at an even younger age because they are not entirely physically developed yet and aren’t ready to make such large life decisions. People will not actually be done growing and mature enough to decide the rest of their lives until they are into their twenties. If you look at our school system now, there are already so many high school students that can’t make up their mind when choosing a career. Furthermore, it’s common for students in college to change their major as they still can’t make this decision. Lowering the age in which teenagers would move on to adulthood would only cause more trouble.
This comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDelete"A Model for High Schools” by David S. Broder"
ReplyDeleteThe purpose of this article was to introduce and present the advantages of the “Gateway to College” program which has been implemented in 17 or more campuses. This program gives high school dropouts the chance to rectify their past mistakes and go through a strict curriculum in order to obtain an appropriate education which would help them to get a college degree later on. The author is in full support of this program because it has had an effective impact on many lives already. Given the many praises from the students in the program, I agree with Broder’s claim that implementing these programs will help these adolescents with obtaining an education that they were previously unable to receive and guarantee that their talents will not be wasted. This program would help to develop key traits that are essential to master to thrive in the real world such as responsibility. However, given the strict disciplines and curriculum, it could lead to an increase in drop outs because of a small mistake or realization that the program wasn't right for them.
The piece I read was Let Teenagers Try Adulthood by Leon Bostein. The purpose of his argument was to convince his audience that the flawed system of high school is more harmful to teenagers than beneficial. Bostein argues that the system is "obsolete" and should be eliminated. He also asserts that a primary flaw on the system is the age at which children graduate. He believes that, at most, teens should graduate at sixteen. He feels that spending another two years in school is a waste because little of the course overviews are applicable to real life situations. But I would have to disagree with this. Though some teenagers may very well be developed enough to function in the real world, high school is a structured system that works for most.
ReplyDelete