s/o competitive education. For what purpose?

[regentrude]

In countries that require this of all college bound students, what percentage of students attend college? I am genuinely curious about this. What is considered "college bound?" Are students in other professional programs required to maintain the same level of academic rigor?

 

I can only speak for Germany:

50% of students attend a college preparatory school where the requirements are as I listed and where they graduate after 12th grade. Passing the finals qualifies for admission to a full university.

Around 40% of all students begin to study at a university or a Fachhochschule (limited subject college, a notch below a full university and requiring a slightly reduced high school load); about 30% of all finish with a degree.

It is difficult to compare "college attendance" because the system works differently; there are specific schools for specific professions, but not all would compare to "colleges" and not all require the college preparatory high school. Nursing school, for example, requires only a 10 year diploma from a non-college prep high school.

 

The non-college prep high school graduates after 10th grade with a diploma. So, the students are in school for two years less and also learn at a somewhat slower pace. I just looked up the math curriculum for comparison: in 10th grade, they cover trigonometric functions, exponentials, functions - I'd translate that roughly to algebra 2 level. They only study one foreign language; the second one is optional.

OTOH, non-college job paths all receive extensive training after the kids graduate from 10th grade; for example you go to school for three years to become a daycare teacher, or a secretary. In the US, these would probably count as "college".  You don't just go get a job after finishing school; most students receive formal post high school training through vocational school or an apprenticeship program.

So, it is difficult to give exact comparisons.

[hepatica]

I can only speak for Germany:

50% of students attend a college preparatory school where the requirements are as I listed and where they graduate after 12th grade.

Around 40% of all students begin to study at a university or Fachhochschule; about 30% of all finish with a degree.

It is difficult to compare "college attendance" because the system works differently; there are specific schools for specific professions, but not all would compare to "colleges" and not all require the college preparatory high school. Nursing school, for example, requires only a 10 year diploma from a non-college prep high school.

OTOH, non-college job paths all receive extensive training after the kids graduate from 10th grade; for example you go to school for three years to become a daycare teacher, or a secretary. You don't just go get a job after finishing school; most students receive formal post high school training through vocational school or an apprenticeship program.

So, it is difficult to give exact comparisons.

 

Thanks. I think Finland does something similar to this as well. Students are not really tracked in elementary school (the expectation is that all will succeed up to a certain point), but by 10th grade or so there are numerous "vocational" options. Seems to make a lot more sense.

 

Sometimes I feel like everyone is so desperately trying to figure out what the world will be like in 20 or 30 or 50 years that we forget that we have a role in determining what that world will look like. 

I'm not sure what the meaning of a "rigorous" education is. It's one thing to say plumbers need trig, and quite another to say that all students should take calculus, be fluent in multiple languages, take 4 years of rigorous science, read all the great books, learn coding, take multiple AP courses etc.... For students who are academically gifted this kind of education may be an exciting challenge, but it would destroy other kids.

 

The US education system has such low standards that even the "non college" track of many foreign countries is superior in many ways to our "college track" (to the degree that it exists).  In my travels, I've met many European taxi drivers, farmer's market vendors, public transit workers, postal workers, etc. who learned three or four languages, starting in primary school, and speak them fluently.  I assume that few of these folks went to college, or were on the college track.

[regentrude]

Sometimes I feel like everyone is so desperately trying to figure out what the world will be like in 20 or 30 or 50 years that we forget that we have a role in determining what that world will look like. 

 

I do not know how much we actually can do - but I think that the best contribution I can make as a parent is to raise well adjusted, well educated, compassionate kids with a good work ethic and strong morals, who will be able to contribute in whatever place they end up in this world.

[hepatica]

The US education system has such low standards that even the "non college" track of many foreign countries is superior in many ways to our "college track" (to the degree that it exists).  In my travels, I've met many European taxi drivers, farmer's market vendors, public transit workers, postal workers, etc. who learned three or four languages, starting in primary school, and speak them fluently.  I assume that few of these folks went to college, or were on the college track.

 

Of course part of the problem here is that we don't really have a "US education system." Federalism and local control mean that you have seriously rigorous school systems right next door to extremely inadequate systems. Without national funding or a national curriculum it's hard to generalize.

Of course part of the problem here is that we don't really have a "US education system." Federalism and local control mean that you have seriously rigorous school systems right next door to extremely inadequate systems. Without national funding or a national curriculum it's hard to generalize.

 

There are de-facto standards that cover the majority of schools.  Standardized testing and college admissions drives a lot of this commonality. For example, what percentage of public high schoolers study two foreign languages concurrently here?  My guess is less than 1 percent.  There are a handful of Spanish immersion elementary schools in this country, but how many public elementary students have any kind of meaningful foreign language instruction?  Again, I guess less than 1 percent.  There may not be a mandated national curriculum, but there's a lot more commonality than diversity.

[Stars]

My grandmother used to say "Education is never wasted."  The older I become, the truer that seems to me.  If we take the hard road and give our kids this internationally competitive education, and my daughter grows up to find a career either in a foreign country or in a field here with high competition, everyone will say, "Good thing you prepared her so well."  But if my daughter grows up to be a SAHM in the town where she grew up, does that mean all that time and effort was wasted?    Not to me, because 1) the worth of education is not solely measured by financial output, and 2) I cannot see all the aspects of her life her education will impact.  I might regret not having taught her more, but not having taught her less.

 

ETA the clarification:  I might regret not having taught her more, but I will never be sorry I didn't teach her less.  I think that's more grammatical.

[Arcadia]

I've met many European taxi drivers, farmer's market vendors, public transit workers, postal workers, etc. who learned three or four languages, starting in primary school, and speak them fluently.  I assume that few of these folks went to college, or were on the college track.

 

I think people in the service industry tend to speak fluently in many languages especially in cosmopolitan areas.  For example, the Citibank branches I go to here have many loan officers and bank tellers that speak multiple languages.  Same if I step into Kaiser Permanente's lobby (example for California's Kaiser Permanente "If you visit one of our facilities and no one speaks your language, we have interpreters for more than 140 languages available to you by phone."). My local USPS have workers that are at least bilingual probably because of my neighborhood.

 

When I was hired for my first job, the first question my future boss asked was what are the languages I am fluent in.  The more languages I could speak the higher the chance of being hired.  The more languages I could read, the higher my pay would be.  That was for regional tech support. So being fluent in more than one language did pay off for me monetarily.

 

When I was at the Sydney office of the MNC that I worked for, the language proficiency of the engineering support team includes Chinese, Japanese, Korean, Thai, Tagalog, Bahasa Indonesia and they only need to support ANZ (Australia & New Zealand).  Maybe the Asia Pacific region attracts and "demands" multilingual engineers just by virtue of the many languages that are spoken there. 

 

Actually I am wondering how "a degree that has "international competitiveness"" is defined?

 

 

 For example, what percentage of public high schoolers study two foreign languages concurrently here?  My guess is less than 1 percent.  There are a handful of Spanish immersion elementary schools in this country, but how many public elementary students have any kind of meaningful foreign language instruction?  Again, I guess less than 1 percent.

 

One foreign language takes up a lot of time and considering the high school A-G subject requirements here in California, it would be a heavy workload for a public school kid to take two foreign languages concurrently.   The public elementary schools that have dual immersion programs that are run well have strong parents support and are usually lottery schools.

 

[NASDAQ]

I don't think foreign language gives the average person a long of bang for his buck in North America. In Canada we spend far more on foreign language instruction (it begins in grade four and everyone goes at least to late high school) and the results, away from Quebec, are not good. Bear in mind that foreign languages are particularly expensive for school systems -- one needs a particular type of qualification. People who took Spanish for three years (10-12) achieved about the same proficiency as people who took French from four to twelve. Even most of the early immersion kids had a near-complete fade-out of French by the time they finished high school.

 

If I were able to choose what my children were to be like, I'd probably choose to make them brilliant at mathematics. Alas, I did not have such a choice. They are what they are. If my daughter goes into STEM, I will collapse from shock. She does well enough at math, but it doesn't stoke her fire at all. I have seen children who are brilliant at math and I know the difference. That's fine. Really, that will have to be fine, because it just is. So she works really hard on her arithmetic for me, and when we're done she goes and disappears with Mary Poppins for the next three hours.

 

I live in an area with a very high percentage of Chinese students. There is a great deal to like about their academic culture and a great deal one would not emulate as well. The children are, on the whole, quite precocious -- they are ready for formal learning earlier. The academic culture can be absolutely brutal. The education is also quite narrow.

 

I do think that Americans could benefit a lot from doing fewer things but devoting more time to them. I also think that Americans are pushing really hard, really young.

[Korrale]

I'm watching the news and it's talking about how it's more expensive to have a baby in the USA than anywhere else in the world and that the cost tripled since 2004. There is no keeping up with this. No expensive and unwieldy and time consuming math curriculum is going to fix this.

I think the us only because people CHOOSE to or a pressured into spending so much. And that is their choice. When I had my son I had a $500 budget for the entire first year, for all his baby stuff. Crib, car seat, clothes. Cloth diapers. I breast fed and didn't have family buying us gifts. I think everything we needed came to about $300-$400. He didn't need anything more than that. We buy books and toys used. And at 4 he is still pretty cheap.

I know people have to pay for daycare and unexpected medical expenses. And those things can add up ridiculously. But one can be less frugal in other ways.

[Korrale]

Fact is merely that more students will need math in their jobs than can make a living playing spoons.

 

Lol. Sadly too true. My husband works factory work and they have a math questionnaire to get hired. This summer there were too many positions to fill so they just hired whoever they could.

Sadly they need to teach people how to use a tape measure! They company is losing money on faulty product due to inability to measure. An itty bitty bit of STEM could have gone a long way there.

[SorrelZG]

I think the us only because people CHOOSE to or a pressured into spending so much. And that is their choice. When I had my son I had a $500 budget for the entire first year, for all his baby stuff. Crib, car seat, clothes. Cloth diapers. I breast fed and didn't have family buying us gifts. I think everything we needed came to about $300-$400. He didn't need anything more than that. We buy books and toys used. And at 4 he is still pretty cheap.

I know people have to pay for daycare and unexpected medical expenses. And those things can add up ridiculously. But one can be less frugal in other ways.

 

I assumed she was referring to fees related to prenatal care, labor and delivery.

[Hunter]

I think the us only because people CHOOSE to or a pressured into spending so much. And that is their choice. When I had my son I had a $500 budget for the entire first year, for all his baby stuff. Crib, car seat, clothes. Cloth diapers. I breast fed and didn't have family buying us gifts. I think everything we needed came to about $300-$400. He didn't need anything more than that. We buy books and toys used. And at 4 he is still pretty cheap.

I know people have to pay for daycare and unexpected medical expenses. And those things can add up ridiculously. But one can be less frugal in other ways.

  

I assumed she was referring to fees related to prenatal care, labor and delivery.

When the news program first came on, I thought they meant what we choose to spend, but was disheartened to hear that medical costs had tripled in less than 10 years.

[strange_girl]

I do not feel qualified to comment extensively on this subject, but these are my thoughts as they pertain to my family:

 

We live in a place and a culture here in Maine that doesn't push academics very hard. A lot of high school graduates simply move into the workforce instead of going to college. In our church, specifically, homeschooling is universal and therefore 99% of the women are SAHMs.

 

Even factoring those things in, I will be teaching my daughter much more than the public schools would and even our local homeschoolers. I want her to reach as far as at least attempting calculus and physics (hopefully completing), and learning at least one other language. I want her to be familiar with literature, music, and art. I want her to be well-versed in history.

 

Will she use all that? I have no idea. But even if she follows in my footsteps, marries her dream guy and settles down to raise and teacher own children, neither of us will ever regret that she learned those things.

[Laura Corin]

 I realize there are things I love that I can't get locally and must order through online providers that use suppliers, developers, marketeers, and a plethora of others from all corners of the world. And as we continue to search for a diagnosis on one of our dc I am thankful for the international medical community that has trained the doctors and manufactured the medications. It simply seems like it is such a small market that no one locally is involved in. 

 

Agriculture is tiny in the country, so if one of your children wants/needs to move, then the vast majority of jobs will be in other sectors.

 

L

[a27mom]

I can only speak for Germany:

50% of students attend a college preparatory school where the requirements are as I listed and where they graduate after 12th grade. Passing the finals qualifies for admission to a full university.

Around 40% of all students begin to study at a university or a Fachhochschule (limited subject college, a notch below a full university and requiring a slightly reduced high school load); about 30% of all finish with a degree.

It is difficult to compare "college attendance" because the system works differently; there are specific schools for specific professions, but not all would compare to "colleges" and not all require the college preparatory high school. Nursing school, for example, requires only a 10 year diploma from a non-college prep high school.

 

The non-college prep high school graduates after 10th grade with a diploma. So, the students are in school for two years less and also learn at a somewhat slower pace. I just looked up the math curriculum for comparison: in 10th grade, they cover trigonometric functions, exponentials, functions - I'd translate that roughly to algebra 2 level. They only study one foreign language; the second one is optional.

OTOH, non-college job paths all receive extensive training after the kids graduate from 10th grade; for example you go to school for three years to become a daycare teacher, or a secretary. In the US, these would probably count as "college". You don't just go get a job after finishing school; most students receive formal post high school training through vocational school or an apprenticeship program.

So, it is difficult to give exact comparisons.

This fascinates me. If we make the assumption that Germany somehow has it "right". Then at least 50% of our students should not be pushed to get an international "college-prep" level of education. (Not saying that there 10th grade education might not be more than many 12th graders here, but I imagine it is less that what is available to a 12th grader by graduation from an average public school)

 

As far as I am seeing an internationally competitive secondary education includes: math to calculus, all 4 basic sciences + advanced study, foreign language(s), and broad/deep exposure to literature and world history. ? Are there other required elements?

 

With the possible exception of "multiple" foreign languages this is what I have always assumed my girls will have. It is what I had in high school at my mediocre public high school. So it never occurred to me that it is internationally competitive. But I realize now that I chose that education, it was well above the minimum requirements to be considered college bound.

[a27mom]

This idea was foreign to me until the police started mopping blood off the floor of the local high school. One thing I learned by living in a diverse area is that some people don't want an education, and are willing to prevent others from obtaining one. Some of that is physical, via bullying, knife fights/etc; and some of that is thru the school board when they advocate no advanced classes. That leaves capable students with no classes...can't blame their parents for using private school. The masses have rejected their children. Well, until the point that they have their med degrees and the masses need medical care.

Wow! How can they advocate no advanced classes? I went to a very average school in upstate NY. I didn't realize until I was a senior that my school wasn't considered a "good" school. It is literally average, I have seen it ranked from 49 to 54 %ile. But we had access to AP classes. I didn't realize that some schools in NY state don't have any access to AP classes. That is ridiculous. I haven't lived in NY for a long time though.

[laughing lioness]

76% of Americans are also living paycheck-to-paycheck and 50% of all FT wage earners in the U.S. earn <$20/hr. I hate to sound like a snob, but I want better for my kids than either of those two things. They don't necessarily have to be rich, but I want them to be comfortably middle-class.

 I've been working very p.t. this past fall at our local convenience store. It's 5 min from home, I can continue to homeschool and draw some income, while looking for a professional position.

 

The folks I work with are  the working poor or the 1-2 professionals who are working this as  second job to pay for health insurance (no-lie, it's worse with Obamacare, but different discussion).. They barely make it paycheck to paycheck. Most of them work 2 working poor jobs (this job starts at above minimum- several of them also work at Walmart where they make $11.50 an hour- considered VERY good money). They envy my life. Because i have stayed home to raise my kids I am considered "rich" and they are jealous of that. They are all high school grads and could easily receive financial aid but have little motivation to do so. One of them collects tons of federal $'s a month because she has a dd and her ex is in prison. They live off of energy drinks (paid for by welfare because it has "nutritional value" listed on the label). Oy vey, it's been an fascinating life at the uneducated and the unmotivated. 

 

I just started an on-line job that delivers services around the world. Part of the reason I got this job was because of my degrees. Believe me, it's not because I am so techno-savvy. But I think that companies are now going to be looking more and more for folks who have the knowledge base that they are looking for and then they'll train them on the techno-info- (that is the case for the company I am working for). I recently read that college grads aren't going to necessarily have a leg up with getting jobs but they are going to have a leg up with getting jobs that allow them to work mobil-y. iow- having a degree gives one more flexibility. 

[laughing lioness]

And regarding AP- the buzz that I am hearing in Ed (which is the field I am working in) is that colleges are getting a bit more picky about them, so they aren't a sure thing at all anymore. 

[a27mom]

You might find this pie chart helpful when thinking about sectors:

 

 

Agriculture is tiny in the country, so if one of your children wants/needs to move, then the vast majority of jobs will be in other sectors.

 

L

While I do realize ag Is a tiny sector. It is a sector that has still been hiring, and has many good jobs. And that percentage reflects percentage of GDP, not geography. There are actually ag jobs in many if not most places, everybody has to eat :)

 

And actually to relate to the topic. This is an area where I could make an argument, about limiting options based on competition. An internationally competitive educated city kid who is interested in an ag field has a clear disadvantage compared to a smart farm kid, who grew up in 4h and FFA. It really isn't possible to have our kids be competitive in everything. But that well educated city kid, though disadvantaged can still succeed in ag, they will just have a lot of catching up to do.

 

We make assumptions about what education our kids will need, based on our preferences and the world around us. Hopefully we will look closely at our kids' abilities and preferences, and educate them accordingly whether that is "competitive" or not.

[stripe]

???

I have not seen anybody define American education as only STEM.

Me neither. I see it as rhetoric after totally abandoning science and math for the longest time. Americans have been living in a "we're the best! no matter what!" bubble. I read a book that said exactly that (and more!) back in 1999/2000 for a class, and I was the only one of the students who had any problem with the idea or didn't believe that would last forever.

 

...I went looking for the name of this book, and found a paper I wrote about the nature of education in which I made some rather condemning remarks about homeschooling. That was a fun discovery.

 

 

I assumed she was referring to fees related to prenatal care, labor and delivery.

Do most people pay for this out of pocket? That wasn't my understanding. Almost half of births are to women on Medicaid, so, to my mind, the typical American is struggling.

 

[regentrude]

This fascinates me. If we make the assumption that Germany somehow has it "right". Then at least 50% of our students should not be pushed to get an international "college-prep" level of education. (Not saying that there 10th grade education might not be more than many 12th graders here, but I imagine it is less that what is available to a 12th grader by graduation from an average public school)

 

But please do not forget that for the majority of the students graduating from 10th grade, this is not the end of their formal education! They continue in vocational schools and institutions comparable to colleges for specific training for another 2-3 years, where they receive a targeted job preparing education with practical and theoretical components. A student aiming to work in a factory or as a car repair technicians would be training at the workplace 3 days per week and  attending a school 2 days. There are programs for pretty much any kind of job.

This is one of the big strengths of the German educational system: the comprehensive job training for non-university bound students. (And before anybody asks: yes, it is free.)

 

As far as I am seeing an internationally competitive secondary education includes: math to calculus, all 4 basic sciences + advanced study, foreign language(s), and broad/deep exposure to literature and world history. ? Are there other required elements?

 

Computer skills. Preferably a bit more than using Microsoft Office.

[momma2three]

Wow! How can they advocate no advanced classes? I went to a very average school in upstate NY. I didn't realize until I was a senior that my school wasn't considered a "good" school. It is literally average, I have seen it ranked from 49 to 54 %ile. But we had access to AP classes. I didn't realize that some schools in NY state don't have any access to AP classes. That is ridiculous. I haven't lived in NY for a long time though.

 

This article was posted by someone on my Facebook feed earlier today.  It's about how a school is actively keeping top students from winning a prestigious state award, and being competitive for colleges, by getting rid of their Spanish teacher due to budget cuts.  The parents have been protesting in front of the school, have been applying for grants... nobody cared until it hit the Humans of New York Facebook page, and suddenly upper middle class people were shocked and started working the system.  It's a PERFECT example of the educational disenfranchisement of poor, minority students in the US.  And then we blame them for their own inadequate educations. :(

 

http://www.nytimes.com/2014/03/05/nyregion/viral-post-draws-attention-to-plight-at-a-brooklyn-school.html?emc=edit_tnt_20140304&tntemail0=y&_r=0

[hepatica]

But please do not forget that for the majority of the students graduating from 10th grade, this is not the end of their formal education! They continue in vocational schools and institutions comparable to colleges for specific training for another 2-3 years, where they receive a targeted job preparing education with practical and theoretical components. A student aiming to work in a factory or as a car repair technicians would be training at the workplace 3 days per week and  attending a school 2 days. There are programs for pretty much any kind of job.

This is one of the big strengths of the German educational system: the comprehensive job training for non-university bound students. (And before anybody asks: yes, it is free.)

 

 

Computer skills. Preferably a bit more than using Microsoft Office.

 

Yes, this is why I think it makes sense. There is serious attention to and value placed on other types of professions. This would be so much more useful for many students than a mid level college degree and a load of debt and few practical skills. We can't fix our educational system overnight, but we could take vocational education much more seriously than we currently do. 

[elegantlion]

I'm taking sociology this semester and find some of it fascinating. One thing we recently discussed was how the working class raise their children to follow rules and submit to authority, iow how to be a good employee. While higher class jobs pay more, require more education, involve more abstract thought, and offer greater autonomy. 

 

I want to set my son up to succeed (whatever that means, not just $) in life. I'm trying to do this by helping him see the need for more education (formal or informal), how to think critically, and have the ability to think outside of the box of what is happening in our small rural town.

 

One of the reasons I've never been successful at leaving this region is my own lack of education. Not that I'm ignorant, but the opportunities don't often present themselves to those with a high school diploma. The opportunities exist in education - not just teaching, but opportunities given to students, not offered to the general public. My son has expressed a desire to live abroad since he was about 11. for me, notice I said for me, I would feel I have failed him if the only thing I prepared him for was to live down the street and work at a local job (not that diverse or anything he's remotely interested in doing). Wanderlust flows in our DNA, he wants to see the world. I did too and have not as of yet. My parents didn't get that, I get it and I want to help him find those opportunities. What he does with them is up to him.  

You might find this pie chart helpful when thinking about sectors:

 

 

Agriculture is tiny in the country, so if one of your children wants/needs to move, then the vast majority of jobs will be in other sectors.

 

L

 

And that's just GDP, not employment.  There was a great bit on Planet Money where they followed the making of a t-shirt.  They started at a cotton farm in MIssissippi.  This one farm employs 13 people total, and every year produces enough cotton to make 9 million tshirts.

[Crimson Wife]

An internationally competitive educated city kid who is interested in an ag field has a clear disadvantage compared to a smart farm kid, who grew up in 4h and FFA. It really isn't possible to have our kids be competitive in everything. But that well educated city kid, though disadvantaged can still succeed in ag, they will just have a lot of catching up to do.

"Artisan" farming is actually quite popular among urban/suburban yuppies. It's actually rather humorous for me to see because my grandpa grew up dirt-poor as a farm boy and my great-uncle actually ran the family farm until his retirement in the late '80's. So I have memories of being a kid and visiting Uncle Elwood and Aunt Mildred on the farm. Real farming is pretty different from the "artisan" farming hobby so popular in my social circle.

[Hunter]

I don't see why sending back to PS would be "worse" if the family's primary concern is STEM. Even though I have many concerns about the PSs, I believe that most math and science teachers in the PSs will have a better understanding of STEM than the average homeschooling mother. And I take real offense at the idea that the average homeschooling mother can read a few books and become as knowledgeable about STEM as someone who has studied it for years.

 

I'm not advocating that everyone should send their children to PS. My point is that a family whose primary concern is STEM should strongly consider it for the higher grades unless the homeschooling parent has a STEM background.

 

If STEM was my primary concern, I would be doing all I could to ensure that my child got into one of our magnet public schools that offers the IB curriculum. We homeschool because STEM isn't our primary concern.

 

Because so many families start off having OTHER priorities, good priorities, logical priorities, and the buckle under and adopt a STEM priority out of FEAR. They are sold the idea that STEM is the remedy to their fear, and they jump at the chance for the promised quick fix, even though it means abandoning things they hold dear.

[Crimson Wife]

Even though I have many concerns about the PSs, I believe that most math and science teachers in the PSs will have a better understanding of STEM than the average homeschooling mother. And I take real offense at the idea that the average homeschooling mother can read a few books and become as knowledgeable about STEM as someone who has studied it for years.

Ironically, I'm currently studying to take the California state credential test for Foundational Level Mathematics and also the one for Foundational Level Science. This would allow me to teach math up through Algebra 2 and intro/general ed track science courses. The requirements for each are passing the relevant test and taking a single subject-specific pedagogy class. That's it. No requirement for a science/math major, minor, or even a certain number of credits in courses designed for STEM majors. It's a total JOKE!

 

I did actually study science in college (first 2 years were pre-med) but I could have a bachelor's in literally any subject and it wouldn't matter as long as I could pass the credential test and took a single pedagogy course.

[stripe]

Because the average science/math and elementary school teacher in the US has less math/science education than I do, I do homeschool primarily because of these subjects, to be quite honest.

 

This is one of the big strengths of the German educational system: the comprehensive job training for non-university bound students. (And before anybody asks: yes, it is free.)

And working so well that German-style paid apprenticeship programs are being established elsewhere.

Recognizing its effectiveness, other countries are starting to catch on to this trend. At face value, this approach appears to provide a much more straight-forward path to a career, as well as economic benefits in the long run. Areas in the United States, such as South Carolina, are experimenting with work-study apprenticeships, training university and community college students for positions in local manufacturing operations. After a trade mission to Germany, Gov. Rick Snyder of Michigan has helped to implement his own apprenticeship program for students with nine different companies in the heavily industrial southeastern region of Michigan. Across the Atlantic, students from the UK are doing full-time, all-expenses-paid apprenticeships in Germany.

In praise of the German apprenticeship system, Eoghan Harris of the Irish Independent posited that it is “[f]ar better to give these young people skills training instead of coercing them to do college courses, where they learn to become critics, rather than creators.†This is an astute and obvious sentiment that can be drawn from the comparison of these two forms of education, but criticisms of work-study also exist. For instance, could training for a specific job leave one unprepared for change when that job no longer exists? Is there intrinsic value in a traditional university/college education that apprenticeships cannot offer? We might find out, if German-style apprenticeships start to become more economically and politically viable, and therefore more common, in the United States.

http://www.aicgs.org/2014/01/germany-combats-youth-unemployment-with-vocational-training/

Also at http://michiganradio.org/post/could-german-style-paid-apprenticeships-work-michigan

[Lang Syne Boardie]

Well, it's a rational fear. If your concern is securing nice, middle class  jobs for your children, then you should be scared and STEM and/or an elite university is the best "remedy." It's not a guarantee but it's more secure than anything else.

 

I think it's a matter of knowing your priorities before you begin. If it's a middle class job for your kid, then do what you can to get them into STEM and for most families I think that means a traditional school, at least after elementary school.

 

I think the real root of the problem here is that homeschooling has been "sold" as being as rigorous, or even more rigorous, than a public school education. by whom? This is being sold by people with a vested interest in promoting homeschooling, either because they sell the curriculum or because it furthers their political or philosophical interests. Some American families fall for the propaganda and choose to homeschool with the expectation that their kids will still be able to get nice middle class jobs and then when they realize that they can't provide that kind of an education, they panic. And undergirding this is American anti-intellectualism that anything can be self taught by a reading a few books or in the case of modern times, a few websites.

 

I want to be clear that I know homeschool can be more rigorous than a traditional school education. But I don't believe that most of the families that choose to homeschool are capable of providing a more rigorous education than their children would receive in the average American public school. By "rigorous," I assume that the child would take the rigorous classes offered in the public school. If the child would not take rigorous classes in the public school, then my comparison is no longer valid.

 

But again we come back to your ultimate goal for your child's education. Is it a middle class job, financial security, staying in your religious tradition, a good liberal arts education? In the past these things were not mutually exclusive but I believe things will be very different in the future and a good middle class job with financial security might require sacrificing the others.

 

 

I agree the standards are inadequate but believe that these teachers are still more qualified than the average homeschooling mother. I realize this sounds insulting but I include myself in this "avearge" homeschooing mother group. I never liked science and math, even though I did well enough in those subjects. I admit that I am not qualified to provide my child with a quality STEM education.

All of these objections are so passive. You never ascribe intent, motivation, or agenda to particular persons or groups (other than maligning booksellers as propagandists), and you never define your terms.* At the very end, you seem to tar other hs'ers with your own brush: You never liked science nor math and you have judged yourself to be average; therefore, the average hs'ing parent isn't fit to teach science or math.

 

These are not a logical arguments.

 

Just going on my "perception" of the skill level of average public school science teachers and regarding the amount of science that average homeschooled children are privileged to study, I disagree with you on several points. But I haven't defined my terms, either, nor produced any more facts or evidence to bolster my opinion than you have used to uphold yours, so it's not going to be a productive conversation.

 

Terms that would need definitions to be anything other than buzzwords: root of the problem, propaganda, anti-intellectualism, middle class job, elite university, rigor, liberal arts education, and average (as applied to public schools, homeschools, students, teachers, and parents).

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

[8filltheheart]

I just read this thread for the first time.   I must say it took some interesting turns that I hadn't anticipated.

 

Here are just a few random thoughts.   My dh's corporation transferred us to Brazil for him to start up a plant there.   He was not bilingual.   He knew absolutely zero Portuguese.   Guess what?   He was fluent fairly quickly.   (Only a couple of people he worked with could even speak passable English.  Very few people I met, other than other ex-pats, were able to speak English.)   He had to be.   So, it is possible to learn a language later in life and not have it be a detriment to careers if you don't learn one in school.

 

I find it odd that somehow STEM comes across as being the main focus of the "elite" education, b/c I am guessing that it is a low % of politicians that have STEM degrees.  I would also suspect that they definitely consider themselves The Elite.  LOL!

 

I don't see why sending back to PS would be "worse" if the family's primary concern is STEM. Even though I have many concerns about the PSs, I believe that most math and science teachers in the PSs will have a better understanding of STEM than the average homeschooling mother. And I take real offense at the idea that the average homeschooling mother can read a few books and become as knowledgeable about STEM as someone who has studied it for years.

 

I'm not advocating that everyone should send their children to PS. My point is that a family whose primary concern is STEM should strongly consider it for the higher grades unless the homeschooling parent has a STEM background.

 

If STEM was my primary concern, I would be doing all I could to ensure that my child got into one of our magnet public schools that offers the IB curriculum. We homeschool because STEM isn't our primary concern.

 

 

Well, it's a rational fear. If your concern is securing nice, middle class  jobs for your children, then you should be scared and STEM and/or an elite university is the best "remedy." It's not a guarantee but it's more secure than anything else.

 

I think it's a matter of knowing your priorities before you begin. If it's a middle class job for your kid, then do what you can to get them into STEM and for most families I think that means a traditional school, at least after elementary school.

 

I think the real root of the problem here is that homeschooling has been "sold" as being as rigorous, or even more rigorous, than a public school education. This is being sold by people with a vested interest in promoting homeschooling, either because they sell the curriculum or because it furthers their political or philosophical interests. Some American families fall for the propaganda and choose to homeschool with the expectation that their kids will still be able to get nice middle class jobs and then when they realize that they can't provide that kind of an education, they panic. And undergirding this is American anti-intellectualism that anything can be self taught by a reading a few books or in the case of modern times, a few websites.

 

I want to be clear that I know homeschool can be more rigorous than a traditional school education. But I don't believe that most of the families that choose to homeschool are capable of providing a more rigorous education than their children would receive in the average American public school. By "rigorous," I assume that the child would take the rigorous classes offered in the public school. If the child would not take rigorous classes in the public school, then my comparison is no longer valid.

 

But again we come back to your ultimate goal for your child's education. Is it a middle class job, financial security, staying in your religious tradition, a good liberal arts education? In the past these things were not mutually exclusive but I believe things will be very different in the future and a good middle class job with financial security might require sacrificing the others.

 

 

I agree the standards are inadequate but believe that these teachers are still more qualified than the average homeschooling mother. I realize this sounds insulting but I include myself in this "avearge" homeschooing mother group. I never liked science and math, even though I did well enough in those subjects. I admit that I am not qualified to provide my child with a quality STEM education.

 

Both of these posts made me wonder how you think homeschoolers actually prove quite successful at educating their kids.  I'm assuming it is b/c your oldest is 4 and you don't have any real homeschooling experience.

 

 I am not strong in math or science.   Actually, I am pretty pathetic at anything beyond the first 1/2 of alg 2 and my high school science skills are incredibly shaky.   But, I have educated a ds that graduated near the very top of his class as a chemE.   I have a dd that has consistently stayed on the dean's list for OTA.   I have a 12th grader that has completed math and physics at the 300 levels at the local university and recently won a physics competition where kids from multiple states competed.  (he was the only homeschooler)

 

Guess what?   I can provide a better education at home than the local school. (actually lots of local schools b/c we move a lot and my older kids have graduated in 3 different states. ;) )  I know how to find the resources that I need to use to provide them with a superior level instruction than the avg American teacher's level of education and skill.   I seriously doubt there is a school out there that could provide my kids with the coursework they have completed (with the possible exception of my oldest dd b/c she did complete a fairly normal high school sequence.   But my other kids.....not so much.)

 

I also have a 15 yod that has 0 interest in a STEM degree.   I am not the slightest bit concerned for her future even though an "elite" school is probably not in her future.   I am sure that her energy and passion for what she loves will land her well-employed somewhere one day.  

 

Like all educational scenarios, there are poor schools and their are poor home educators.   But, a determined, devoted parent can definitely provide her children with a superior education if she is willing to do what it takes to make sure it happens.   There are dedicated moms out there. 

[Arcadia]

 

I find it odd that somehow STEM comes across as being the main focus of the "elite" education, b/c I am guessing that it is a low % of politicians that have STEM degrees.  I would also suspect that they definitely consider themselves The Elite.  LOL!

 

I find it odd too about STEM comments.  Going to Yale for Law or Harvard for Business would have been considered relatively "elite" in Asia.  Being a lawyer or working in the finance sector does yield good pay after the initial "internship" years.

 

My kid who wants to be an astronaut since a toddler now have architect as a backup career choice.  Now architecture would cover from math, science to art so that would be nice (in my view). My younger boy wants to design amusement park, again a cross of sciences and art.  I always wonder why it crop up in threads that it is either the sciences or the arts when nothing is in neat boxes. A child can be good at both without sacrificing either the sciences or the arts.

[Corraleno]

I believe that most math and science teachers in the PSs will have a better understanding of STEM than the average homeschooling mother. And I take real offense at the idea that the average homeschooling mother can read a few books and become as knowledgeable about STEM as someone who has studied it for years.

 

Except that most PS teachers have not "studied [their subject] for years." Most have studied "educational theory" and classroom management for years. Even high school math & science teachers are often not well educated in the subjects they teach — my HS math teachers were terrible and totally turned me off math. Honestly, I would have done much better had I been allowed to self-educate math. I know I can do a better job of teaching math & science to my kids than most of the PS teachers around here, and even if I felt really weak in those areas, there are plenty of other options for outsourcing STEM courses — from private tutoring to online honors/AP courses to dual enrollment — that would be far preferable to the local PS.

 

One of the primary reasons I started looking into homeschooling to begin with was because DS's teacher had less of an understanding of math than DS did — she was just confusing him and making him hate math! I have a friend who tried to homeschool her kids, and one of the reasons she put them back in school was because she couldn't teach them math. And she's a PS teacher.  :confused1:

[8filltheheart]

I find it odd too about STEM comments. Going to Yale for Law or Harvard for Business would have been considered relatively "elite" in Asia. Being a lawyer or working in the finance sector does yield good pay after the initial "internship" years.

 

My kid who wants to be an astronaut since a toddler now have architect as a backup career choice. Now architecture would cover from math, science to art so that would be nice (in my view). My younger boy wants to design amusement park, again a cross of sciences and art. I always wonder why it crop up in threads that it is either the sciences or the arts when nothing is in neat boxes. A child can be good at both without sacrificing either the sciences or the arts.

My thoughts exactly. My dd that wants a linguistics degree will be taking cal in 11th grade. My ds that wants to be a physicist had 3 yrs each of 2 different languages, philosophy, art history, etc.

 

Oh well......the conversation is sort of off target entirely for me bc it just isn't how I view education to begin with. I think education is important simply bc we are human and are meant to reason and learn.

[Corraleno]

 

 

Deleting my response since obviously I have stuck my foot in my big mouth. Apologies all around.

 

[i started to reply to this before you edited, so I will leave my reply but not the original quote.]

 

I suspect that the percentage of public schools in the US that offer a "rigorous STEM education" is much smaller than you may think. Many of the kids taking those "rigorous" AP classes end up with 1s and 2s on the exam. There are kids who pass AP Calc in high school but can't even test out of precalc when they get to college. I'm sure there are some excellent PS high schools out there that offer top-notch AP STEM classes, but there are also a whole lot of crappy schools where the AP designation doesn't mean squat. I have a relative who was a straight-A student in Honors Algebra & Geometry in PS, who is now struggling terribly and getting Cs in TT Alg 2, which is a pretty scathing indictment of that school's "honors" math classes, IMO. And even if you find a PS with a few excellent STEM teachers, the chances that that school will ALSO have excellent teachers in all the other subjects AND a healthy social environment are not all that high, IME.

 

Personally, I'd much rather outsource a couple of STEM courses and keep all the other advantages of homeschooling. But, as in all things, YMMV.

[NASDAQ]

My brother's college profs were so glad he had nothing in higher math rather than public school calculus. YMMV. My experience with math and science teachers has been decidedly mixed.

 

The complete death knell for all non-STEM professions is a bit premature. Medicine (can be done with an arts ug here), law, and business still seem to offer abundant opportunity.

 

And I'm glad I didn't go to an elite American school. Those places aren't free and need to be worth their price tag plus interest. For certain circumstances I could see it, but lots of times a good state (provincial!) school is a better value.

[Crimson Wife]

I find it odd too about STEM comments.  Going to Yale for Law or Harvard for Business would have been considered relatively "elite" in Asia.  Being a lawyer or working in the finance sector does yield good pay after the initial "internship" years.

My DH actually works in financial services. Many if not most positions in finance these days specifically state a requirement for a degree in engineering or science. I glanced through the job listings that showed up in his in-box today and all but one listed a requirement for a STEM degree in addition to a MBA or Chartered Financial Analyst designation.

 

There is a glut of lawyers and one of the reasons why my brother (who graduated last May) was able to land a legal position over many of his classmates is because he had a background in IT before attending law school.

[sewingmama]

What scares the heebie-jeebies out of me is that it seems like the U.S. is more and more headed towards a 3rd world-like future where we have a tiny elite with access to modern amenities and good private-pay services and a massive proletariat living in squalor outside the gates. I know which side of the divide I want my kids and grandkids to end up on, and that is why I worry so much about trying to get them competitive for a top college.

 

I want the opposite for my kids. I don't want them to be educated so they can get a good job so they can buy more stuff. I want them to be educated to they can live in the squalor and know how to effect change to help everyone else get out of the squalor.

 

Schools are excellent at keeping people in their 'class".  If you don't pass X or Y you won't go to a good Uni. If you don't go to a good Uni you won't get a good job. If you don't get a good job you can't afford to buy the "stuff" that makes you middle class and dang it....don't worry about all those poor people living on the other side of the wall....it's their own fault they didn't study hard enough in school to get a good job so they can have "stuff" like us.

 

I prefer my kids are educated in a way that they can make their own jobs or come up with solutions as to why in a wealthy nation such as the USA so many people are living in poverty or are without affordable housing etc.

 

The problem with schools is the bar is not fixed. If everyone becomes "above average" then the bar will be lifted higher and that will become the "new average". We see this already...so many people now have bachelor degrees that they are virtually worthless and now the standard is to have a Masters before employers will even look at you.

 

Eventually something will have to give...people have to have jobs and food to eat. If a society can't provide that for everyone then what good is their education if they can't figure out how to provide for societies most basic needs.

 

 

[Hunter]

The Founding Fathers Library might be interesting to some of you.

http://oll.libertyfund.org/index.php?Itemid=259&id=438&option=com_content&task=view

 

I can't find the site my boys used to read from. I think it might be gone. But here is another link that looks similar.

http://www.constitution.org/primarysources/primarysources.html

[solascriptura]

I understand your husband's pov, however, when we decided to homeschool it was with the goal that we wouldn't be their limiting factor. Our goal is to provide the best education that we can give them, not just good enough.

[SarahW]

My DH actually works in financial services. Many if not most positions in finance these days specifically state a requirement for a degree in engineering or science. I glanced through the job listings that showed up in his in-box today and all but one listed a requirement for a STEM degree in addition to a MBA or Chartered Financial Analyst designation.

 

There is a glut of lawyers and one of the reasons why my brother (who graduated last May) was able to land a legal position over many of his classmates is because he had a background in IT before attending law school.

 

Similarly, I have a friend who is a marine biologist. The only reason she is employed in her field, and not flipping burgers like many others of her graduating class, is that when she went to college her father insisted that marine biology was a "soft" field and that she should "girl-up" and major in computer science. After a few semesters she changed her dad's mind and switched majors. but not after she had already taken the advanced math classes.

 

Those advanced CS math classes are the only reason she is now paid to snorkel with turtles.

[8filltheheart]

My DH actually works in financial services. Many if not most positions in finance these days specifically state a requirement for a degree in engineering or science. I glanced through the job listings that showed up in his in-box today and all but one listed a requirement for a STEM degree in addition to a MBA or Chartered Financial Analyst designation.

 

There is a glut of lawyers and one of the reasons why my brother (who graduated last May) was able to land a legal position over many of his classmates is because he had a background in IT before attending law school.

 

Ds has been told that Wall Street pays big $$ to hire physicists.   Not his interest at all.   But, the discussion has already taken place with him.  (don't remember by whom, though)