From: Arlo J. Bensinger (ajb102@psu.edu)
Date: Mon Aug 01 2005 - 02:58:29 BST
Hi Mati,
I think you may have misinterpreted some of my meaning. Let me respond and
clarify briefly. I have a longer post on education coming soon.
[Arlo had asked]
Should we rethink the purpose of high school, and what is taught, to make a
high-school diploma capable of providing "meaningful employment"? The
"apprenticeship" model of Germany I mentioned could be one solution. But, is
this in line with the MOQ?
[Arlo clarifies]
This topic started when Platt and I were talking about using public funds
(taxation) to support education, and whether this is in line with MOQ thinking.
I think that it is. Platt does too.
But the question for me is to have funding match objectives. Platt had suggested
that we fund public education through 12th grade. I had offered a brief history
that outlined education objectives, how they started off being primarily
academic, but began including vocational skills as well. Dewey had argued
against this, and wanted a more academic, creative curriculum.
It does seem to me that "12th grade" has become an arbitrary cut off point for
public support. Some (not on this list, but in general) argue it should be
extended, along with some European models that offer public support through the
Uni so long as the student maintains good grades. Mark (MSH) has suggested (if
I understand correctly) that so long as the vocation in question supports
community-enhacing ends, it should be supported by the community. Others argue
it should be "cut-off" earlier.
The point I had made was that "12th grade" worked in the past because it was
sufficient for its vocational students to get meaningful employment with no
additional degrees. College bound students, of course, would always go off for
their degrees. Now, however, a high-school diploma is at best "preparatory" for
both academia and vocational careers.
So my question is, on what justification do we cut-off public support at 12th
grade. It seems to me that the cut-off must have a reasoned implementation. Do
we extend it, cut it short, or selectively extend it? All of these must be
based on what purpose a public education would serve.
[Mati said]
There is a can full of issues here. First should we gear up our
education system like Europe's. As far as apprenticeships are concerned
many do exist in current school system across the United States.
[Arlo]
My more general question is, is "vocational training" part of the objectives a
public education should be (via MOQ understanding). If so, then the cut-off
point for public support should be when such education is sufficient for
beginning a "vocational" career.
Platt has suggested that public education should focus on "intellectual skills".
Within the MOQ, I find this a tenable position. I ask again, though, on what
basis do we cut-off public support at 12th grade? Are we arguing that at that
point, people have sufficient intellectual skills as to be beneficial to
society? They may, I'm just asking.
I also think the MOQ would support the idea of arts and music in public
education (more on this later), and would emphasize these in parallel with
intellectual skills, not just as "electives" or peripheral courses.
[Mati]
As far as Compulsory Education is concerned it is another issue altogether.
Thirty years ago someone could drop out and manage to be absorbed by the local
economy. Given the sophistication of today's labor market a dropout with out
any other form of education is likely go nowhere.
[Arlo]
Where can they go with simply a high-school diploma? I think the sophistication
of the labor market has outpaced HS diplomas.
My concern with compulsory (as a separate issue to public funding), has to do
with the same questions. If we publically support education in the development
of intellectual skills, do we mandate attendance throughout? To a point? Why?
Should people have the option of dropping out and attending a private
vocational school early?
I think the MOQ does support the ideal that all citizens would be educated to
participate in furthering intellectual evolution. But should we make it so that
participation is internally-driven and not mandated?
[Mati]
And yes there is a sincere need to address "At Risk" youths, but that is only
part of the picture to consider. There are a number of fronts educational
institutions are being stressed by. Fiscal support is one. Moral support is
another. Decay of the traditional family and community structures. The social
levels on which schools are built are changing in such a way that they are not
able to support the intellectual demands that are being required.
[Mati]
If you want to know what the purpose of your school is, attend a local board
meeting and see it in action.
[Arlo]
I am involved in my daughter's school. I am also a vocal advocate here for
foreign language education. But I do not think that different schools have
fundamentally different purposes. They may use different strategems, but since
the cut-off is 12th grade across the country, the "purpose" is a national
mandate. The "no child left behind" initiative is a federal homogenization of
"purpose". But I don't want to get too far off base. My point is only that
"purpose" should come first, funding, how long, compulsory attendance, etc, all
must flow from this.
In a MOQ society, what would the purpose of a public education be? That's where
I am, what I think needs to be the first step in determining everything else.
[Mati]
Pretty much agree [with Platt's notion of the purpose being to provide
intellectual skills] though there might be some technical understanding
of what "intellectual skills" means, which I will for go at this point.
[Arlo]
I agree with Platt too. But I ask, why do we cut-off funding intellectual skill
development at 12th grade? Why not continue it through college-level? Is a
high-school level sufficient for intellectual participation in society? Is it a
matter of fiscal necessity? Habit? What I'm looking for is a tie between
"public support of intellectual skills" and stopping that support after 12th
grade.
More soon, but I hope this clarifies things a bit.
Arlo
MOQ.ORG - http://www.moq.org
Mail Archives:
Aug '98 - Oct '02 - http://alt.venus.co.uk/hypermail/moq_discuss/
Nov '02 Onward - http://www.venus.co.uk/hypermail/moq_discuss/summary.html
MD Queries - horse@darkstar.uk.net
To unsubscribe from moq_discuss follow the instructions at:
http://www.moq.org/md/subscribe.html
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Mon Aug 01 2005 - 08:57:20 BST