The problem is that you don't really seem to get large parts of what I am saying. When I am talking about the tone, I am pointing out that you and Darth Wong weren't actually using "it's for the benefit of the kids" but rather "we should get these bottom-feeders out of school because they're ruining it." I'm not actually talking about the gulag joke, but about the actual tone and your about-face. Similarly, you really don't seem to understand the implications of the ideas you're proposing. The whole aristocratic feudalist comes from your idiotic response to the problem of a permanent underclass: "life's not fair". Perhaps I should have gone with "radical libertarian" instead, because the two are fundamentally similar in this respect. Don't get mad, Duke (that nickname, however, is staying for this thread). But let's cut off the fat-chewing over insults.
What permanent underclass exists when children are classified according to ability and motivation? The problem with a single tiered system is that variance is reduced too damn much. In order to not have kids who either cannot or will not perform properly flunk out of school, requirements for graduation have to be reduced to the point that secondary education itself is a joke, and at the same time the students who can handle more challenging academic curricula are not given the opportunity. Then, many of those students get shuffled off into universities. This creates undergraduate programs that essentially have to perform the remedial education that should have been done in high school. Right now, teaching a lab class for Jr. and Sr. level biology students I am having to teach them how to use excel, that plagiarism is bad, and how to do statistics that they should have learned in middle school and would have learned in middle school if they were in europe.
Your argument is completely incoherent. You have not established at all how a stratified system will lead in any way to a permanent underclass. I will say this. Life is not fair. People are not inherently equal in ability. Trying to treat them as if they are will only lead to the inefficient allocation of resources, wastes of time on the part of the teachers and those who are not suited for academics, and the squandering of the talent of those who are.
The central problem that I have is, I suppose, partly one of tone, but also partly the fact that I am not convinced a) that these dispirited students are anywhere near the proportions you are relying on, and b) that segregating said students out of the general body into separate schools is necessary or beneficial.
Even one of them can disrupt a class. I see large numbers of them in university. Children who's parents expected them to go to college but who's hearts are not in it. They screw around and fail out by the first year because they are not motivated in academic environments or capable of handling the rigor. We dont tolerate their bullshit there and dont have to worry about mommy and daddy bitching about us at PTA meetings so we load them on the fail train.
My tone problem is that you couch your arguments in the presumption that things are inherently the way they are today; that is, it is impossible to produce a literate, numerate workforce.
You do realize that was not his argument at all right? A trade school will still teach them basic reading and writing skills, as well as consumer math and a bit of science. It just wont be to the same depth as what gets taught in the Gymnasium.
In the face of that, I have a hard time attributing the sorry intellectual state of the American public to much other than nurture.
How so? You think everyone has it in them to be scientists and engineers? You have to be insane, highly motivated, and obsessive to go into an academic discipline. I devoted my life to the study of nature when I was three years old (that is not hyperbole. I fell in love with biology when I was that little, and it stuck) and come hell or high water, nothing was stopping me from perusing that. The same can be said of just about every biologist I know, as well as just about every chemist and physicist. I am fairly certain this can be generalized to other academic disciplines. I know a geneticist who started dissecting road kill to see how the animals ticked when he was ten. He figured out later that studying their DNA was more productive.
The best solution is to identify these individuals early and get them in an environment where they can be most benefited. That means nurturing children when they are young to bring out those passions and talents and make sure they are not bullied or discouraged into giving it up, and then putting them on an academic track as soon as they show the aptitude and interest. It does not matter whether it is genetic or environmental in determination.
(Remember, a ten year old who dissects road kill or boils the flesh off of dead birds so he or she can put the bones together is a future biologist. A ten year old who crucifies mice is a future serial killer. The system will need to know how to distinguish between the two)
Those who lack the talent for academia are no less valuable. We do afterall need white and blue collar workers who have a certain level of education depending on their ability and interests. A certain baseline needs to be established (everyone should for example know how to do algebra, basic geometry, and statistics). However there is little point in forcing these individuals to do much more science than a few survey courses. They need to know enough math to do household tasks like ordering paint, doing their finances, and knowing when someone is lying to them with numbers. They need to have a general background in how science works, how to think critically, and some of the actually material of physics, biology and chemistry.
Other than that though, they need to be placed on non-academic tracks. Business admin, accounting, that sort of thing for those who's interests go in that direction; and things like automotive mechanics for the other sort. Get this done in different schools, or at least different tracks in the same schools. It will save time, money, stress, and people's sanity.
A perfect example of this is in fact the german system, either the three tracks (In aufsteigender Reihenfolge: Hauptschule, Realschule, oder Gymnasium) or the the comprehensive Gesamptschule.
The closest is the modern German system, probably, and, if I may ask the German members of the forum, how well do German students from the middle tier of schools understand the taught concepts?
The Realschule, from what I have read, has more stringent requirements than our high schools.
Secondly, revamp the system from the ground up to focus on the production of skilled workers and tradesmen as the primary focus, in particular ensuring that everybody is fully literate and numerate, and incorporating the methods that other countries use.
It is possible to do that (and literate in at least two languages no less) without needing to go beyond the 9th grade. The next four years
Particularly, though, I do feel that it is possible to make high school tougher without actually losing too many of the kids, as long as you focus on early education and build things up properly.
Big cultural hurdle. You have to be willing to fail kids. Also, you have to get past the fact that public rhetoric aside, being educated is actually looked down on in the US to a large extent.
