The College Model as an Alternative to Existing High School Structure

I'm a soon-to-be high school senior, and if you had asked me freshman year what I wanted to major in, I wouldn't have had a clue. Hell, even now, I only have an inkling of what I want to do with my life. Exposing kids to as broad a range of subjects as possible is the only way for them to be able to choose which one of them to focus on. High school is about two things: life skills and learning what you want to do; forcing life on them at 14 won't help things.

I think there are at least a million and one ways to do a better job at high school than our present system.

Richard Neal: I don't think that under this model you necessarily need a career path. You only need interests. If you are interested in Arts (like my seven year old is) you could choose that path, even if you ended up becoming a scientist later on. I think the important thing is to feed a child's interest. When I was in grade school one of the things that bugged me the most was that children (who are natural information sponges) find themselves in a system where they are taught to hate learning. We need to find ways to promote learning, and I think one of the best ways to do that is to key in on what the child is interested in. Which seems kind of obvious to me.

“I think this is interesting, but I think strong focus on core should be stressed at the same time. I think reading, writing, history, science, and logic are invaluable meta-skills that should be required as supplements to any sort of specialization.”

I agree, and I would point out that this strong “core” is what is (or ought to be) required now (and this is NOT new). Should there be a broad range of electives offered to students so they can explore their interests? Of course (whenever communities can afford teachers for those classes), but I fear that pushing TOO much specialization on students too early has the effect of closing doors to them.

One thing I fight with as a university professor is the student mindset that it's too late to change their major (this attitude is found among second year university students .. as if the decisions they made at 18 and earlier are irreversible). To expect a substantial number of starting high school students to know what they want to do with their lives is absurd.

I'd keep a WIDE core (whose purpose is to build a foundation AND to expose students to a range of areas so they can discover their individual passions and strengths). I'd also keep room in the program for electives so that students can pursue those passions and strengths. I'd also have teachers with sufficient expertise in all of these areas that they can generate passion and develop skills in the students. While that pretty much describes my own high school experience (in the late 1970's), I know that it does NOT describe the vast majority of high schools. I was fortunate enough to attend a large high school that had the resources and the economies of scale to make all this work. I was also fortunate to live in a community that EXPECTED every child to complete high school (and even go to college). This expectation was never expressed to us in so many words .. it was just the way things were. The parents were all well educated and valued education. In a setting like that, things are easy. Things are harder in communities with fewer students, with high poverty levels (kids going to school hungry is not good for their ability to learn), or where parents VALUE education but don't have it themselves so don't know what is necessary to become well educated.

I will go for the third option. I mean a 13 year school (Gymnasium). I think that giving the option for students to get a High School Diploma for vocational work earlier.. university diploma

i love this post..