School System

[Mitja]

i just want to start an debate on the school system:

(this idea may sound a bit silly but here goes nothing)

Everyone should have a basic education learn to read write speak properly,... This would be taught in elementary school. 3 years before the students finish primary school they would get tests to know which area they proves they are the best.
example: if you are great in biology they would send you to an biology school where they teach only biology nothing else so that the student would only be directed at the biology and should be taught only bilogijo, and some other subjects that are needed for biology. This would make bigger progress than now (as far i think of this)

can you tell me if this is possible and what could be better

thanks!

Mitja

[MarxSchmarx]

i just want to start an debate on the school system:

(this idea may sound a bit silly but here goes nothing)

Everyone should have a basic education learn to read write speak properly,... This would be taught in elementary school. 3 years before the students finish primary school they would get tests to know which area they proves they are the best.
example: if you are great in biology they would send you to an biology school where they teach only biology nothing else so that the student would only be directed at the biology and should be taught only bilogijo, and some other subjects that are needed for biology. This would make bigger progress than now (as far i think of this)

can you tell me if this is possible and what could be better

thanks!

Mitja

Why not let people choose what they want to pursue instead of giving them a test? For example, if a test shows I'm a damn good historian but potentially the best mathematician to come along in a very long time, if my heart is in history I should be able to pursue history not maths. Or, better still, don't have a test at all, let people pursue the studies they love once they have the rudimentaries down.

[Mitja]

Why not let people choose what they want to pursue instead of giving them a test? For example, if a test shows I'm a damn good historian but potentially the best mathematician to come along in a very long time, if my heart is in history I should be able to pursue history not maths. Or, better still, don't have a test at all, let people pursue the studies they love once they have the rudimentaries down.

yea i think you are right if you have talent for math but hate it and have interest in something else then it is realy better to follow your heart.

[∞]

Yes my english skills are horrid. I find interpreting literature extremely difficult. I barely can pass that class. Universities see that. But they don't see my skills in other fields. :(

[ZeroNowhere]

That would seem to combine the worst of modern education-as-job-training with a strict division of labour, not to mention the strange reverence for tests. What a student knows at one point in life does not indicate their 'natural talent', it just indicates what they're good at taking exams on at that point in life. For that matter, it's not clear how you even could have decent tests for subjects like philosophy, English literature, and so on; timed writing exercises would also create a bias towards students who can write faster in these subjects, which is quite irrelevant when you really come down to it. This is quite apart from the fact that students could well just fail some of these tests in order to manipulate which subject they get, unless you'd just chuck them out of education for that, which would seem to undermine the whole purpose.

[Void]

i just want to start an debate on the school system:

(this idea may sound a bit silly but here goes nothing)

Everyone should have a basic education learn to read write speak properly,... This would be taught in elementary school. 3 years before the students finish primary school they would get tests to know which area they proves they are the best.
example: if you are great in biology they would send you to an biology school where they teach only biology nothing else so that the student would only be directed at the biology and should be taught only bilogijo, and some other subjects that are needed for biology. This would make bigger progress than now (as far i think of this)

can you tell me if this is possible and what could be better

thanks!

Mitja

I like the main idea in this. In which the families and other kind of atmospheric elements are less effective for choices but talents of the individuals are more effective. If this had been the case I would have chosen biology instead of studying administration/economics. I chose administration only for that my family pushed me to it and I also stupidly thought I could make more money by choosing it.

So the main idea is good but it can only function on a material economical ground which is socialism.

Testing is good, left alone, people may make wrong choices which may lead to ruin in the future. Wasting time by studying something is wrong, loss of human talents and general efficiency. I agree that people should be encouraged by tests and professionals about this and should not be let alone when making choices especially in those ages where you dream about the impossible more.

[Void]

it is realy better to follow your heart.

The matter is scientific. You may follow your heart when choosing your love but when choosing your future job, it may not give good results and I know many examples of this...

Sometimes people may get obsessed by some jobs in their youth despite the fact they d not have talents about it. For example I may have an uncle who is a doctor and I may love and respect him and this can make me wanting to be a doctor but actually I would not be successful in it, in the future many problems may occur.

Loss of efficiency, loss of talents, bad work in not suitable field... etc.

[Dean]

This really seems like a theory thread. Moved.

[Vladimir Innit Lenin]

I don't think there's really been any conclusive evidence to show a veritable difference (in terms of results, productivity over working-life etc.) between traditional and non-traditional methods of schooling. By traditional, I mean the concept of children accepting teachers' authority, schooling being mandatory, official examinations to classify results etc.

What does need to be done, is to have a separation of academic and vocational/practical/technical skills. Currently, the UK school system is a mess, but the general idea is to separate by ability. But most schools separate the 'clever' kids from the 'stupid' kids by early testing in traditional subjects. So it may be the case that somebody who struggles with core subjects, but could be an excellent computer programmer - for example - may just end up never getting the right training and end up with no quals and thus on the scrap heap of unemployment for their entire lives.

Primary education should run longer than it currently does, and there should be a split of secondary schools, so that schools are either focused on academic subjects, or vocational subjects. Students can then spend a longer time doing what they actually want to do, rather than following a bog-standard curriculum that caters to the lowest common denominator in terms of the overall student cohort, and to the needs (at A Level especially) of the more advanced students (in terms of core subjects).

Just my two pence.

[socialistjustin]

I was reading about the Soviet system today and it seems that everybody got a 7 year basic education, but then you could choose between a normal high school education or go to specialized schools to finish your education. Not sure how accurate this description is, but it the idea sounds decent.

[Hivemind]

It'd be good if everyone had basic knowledge, however I think that school systems shouldn't be compulsory. Everyone should have the opportunity to get a great education if they want it, regardless of race, gender, and class (although there would be no classes in a post-revolutionary society, I would hope), but if someone doesn't want it, you shouldn't coerce them into doing it. Overall, though, I think that the school system needs to be massively revamped, if not just erased and rebuilt to better meet the needs and wants of individuals, as well as shifting the focus from trying to equip the next generation to find jobs, to more of a neutral knowledge provider: what people want to do with that knowledge is up to them.

[socialistjustin]

It isn't compulsory when you turn 16, but I wouldn't want everybody to have the choice of completely skipping school because elementary school and middle school are pretty important. If a person wants to skip high school then whatever, but we should make basic education compulsory.

[Hivemind]

You're disregarding the prospect of home schooling. There won't be many people who would skip out on school altogether, but if they absolutely want to, they shouldn't be forced. The goal should be to inform parents of the benefits of the schooling system, and then let them make the choice. A 6 year old won't really know how to choose, so you have to leave it to more responsible adults until they can logically and rationally judge for themselves about what they want to do. The educational system should cater to everyone, though, because I can assume that a lot of people are put off by the prospect of rigidity in learning. I've seen many kids grow up to detest school because it didn't cater to their needs better.

[Apoi_Viitor]

I don't think there's really been any conclusive evidence to show a veritable difference (in terms of results, productivity over working-life etc.) between traditional and non-traditional methods of schooling. By traditional, I mean the concept of children accepting teachers' authority, schooling being mandatory, official examinations to classify results etc.



That's because it would be nearly impossible to easily quantify some kind of difference in result between the two systems. Because 1: standardized tests don't correlate to anything meaningful and 2: other criteria (like productivity) are influenced by an enormous amount of external factors. Furthermore, how many actual examples of "non-traditional" education exist in the first place?

[thriller]

The idea that the student would be tested and placed in a specific studies school doesn't seem like a good idea for me. My dad was a linguistics major. For a term paper he decided to take the WI state nursing test to see if he could pass the written, matching, true/false, and multiple choice section. He got a 90% even though he knows nothing of medicine. It was basically to show that tests are easy to pass in some cases if one knows a great deal about wording. There are others who can't take test because of anxiety. I think if one wants to deal exclusively with a certain discipline they should be able to. Personally, I don't know when I need to have a good understanding of algorithms and chemistry if I am going for history as my major.

[eric922]

I'm sorry, but I really have no faith in tests to gauge someone's ability to learn or their talents. I'm a big opponent of the U.S. school systems reliance on standard tests to determine a students intelligence and learning ability. Honestly, I'd like to see schools move away from teachers lecturing and students taking notes for tests and move towards the Socratic method style of teaching. Of course, I could be wrong, maybe there is a reason the current model is used over the Socratic, perhaps it is more effective, but I don't see it.

[DeBon]

i just want to start an debate on the school system:

(this idea may sound a bit silly but here goes nothing)

3 years before the students finish primary school they would get tests to know which area they proves they are the best.
example: if you are great in biology they would send you to an biology school where they teach only biology nothing else so that the student would only be directed at the biology and should be taught only bilogijo, and some other subjects that are needed for biology. This would make bigger progress than now (as far i think of this)

can you tell me if this is possible and what could be better

thanks!

Mitja
Home schooled here:
Simple reasoning: I did well in all of my Science and English classes, but I love history the most and understand it better than a lot of my peers. And to stick someone through years of schooling on one subject would just strain them too much and almost isolate their way of thinking. Think about it.
Biology. Biology. Biology. Biology. Biology. Biology. Biology. Biology. Biology. Biology. Biology. Biology. Biology. Biology. Biology. Biology. Biology. Biology.
Where's the stimulation in that? It feels like we're trying to brainwash them into a career for Biology! What if they find another interest of theirs that they have a natural passion for, like a green thumb, or designing, or something less Biological? Unless I'm just misunderstanding what the objective of focusing on the one subject is.

edit:
But yes, I do agree on the Primary school and such. But people should explore the world and learn things, find what really interests them, find their true hobbies, what they're good at, instead of being tests for a career.

[Vladimir Innit Lenin]

That's because it would be nearly impossible to easily quantify some kind of difference in result between the two systems. Because 1: standardized tests don't correlate to anything meaningful and 2: other criteria (like productivity) are influenced by an enormous amount of external factors. Furthermore, how many actual examples of "non-traditional" education exist in the first place?

Perhaps. I don't really know, I haven't really done much study into education. If someone could shed more light on any quantitative studies that have appraised the results achieved in traditional and non-traditional educational environments then that'd be most helpful.

What is obvious, is that one needs to have a sound educational policy to start with. It's clear that, in the UK, the mish-mash of state comprehensives, grammar schools, independent schools, academies and FE colleges have led to a confused, aim-less system lacking in direction and leadership. We need to really re-write our educational policy here in the UK and focus on giving people skills, rather than just assessing them at various ages by tests.

After all, an A grade (in theory it shouldn't, at least) shouldn't qualify you to do a job, it should be a signal that you are well-qualified to do a job, if that makes sense.