Hi Harry, I largely agree with what you've written -- particularly about streaming. My happiest memories of school were at junior school (state) when, in our final year, our class teacher decided not to teach three of us formally but put us in a corner by ourselves to which she occasionally came with useful hints and where, by and large, we taught one another. We were aged 9, 10, and 10 when we took the 11+ exam and all got scholarships to the independent grammar school. (My two friends knuckled down; I became a rebel. They became a senior lecturer and a professor at two of our best universities [Imperial College and Bath], whereas I ricocheted into all sorts of occupations -- a fraught, but much more interesting life, I'm sure!)
I also strongly agree that children should be allowed to leave school if they don't enjoy it. About 20-30% of our 13 or 14 year-old boys are strongly alienated from the type of straight-jacket curriculum of our state schools. We should have practical skill-learning centres available for these kids. Above all, there should be diversity of schools. We allow consumer choice for all goods and services -- except for education. Parents should be allowed to choose and the only method I can see of giving this is by means of education vouchers. Standards would vary enormously, of course -- at least for a decade or so -- but, then, standards in state education are enormously variable anyway, and there has been no way (in a century of trying) that governments have been able to equalise standards and opportunities. We would lose nothing and, ultimately, would gain a great deal because a free market education system would more quickly adjust to changing job structures. Keith At 09:42 16/04/02 -0700, you wrote: (HP) <<<< Keith, We have two Los Angeles teaching organizations. The gargantuan Board of Education and the Catholic school system. In proportion, the Catholic bureaucracy is one third the size of the public system. Their results are noticeably better -- particularly with areas where a large Catholic school is close to a large public school. The usual excuse from the public schools is that they must take anyone, whereas the Catholics can pick and choose. However, they have schools in the barrios, which are not exactly rich places. Also, what comes to mind is that if kids are causing trouble for their peers, why are they allowed to come to school to disrupt the education of those who want to learn? When I was pushing my teaching methods -- which were essentially based on Classical Political Economy and therefore worked -- I saw many schools across the country. I won't dwell on the schools with armed guards patrolling the corridors and (of all things) desks bolted to the floor. Instead, a couple of experiences with the Catholics. A barrio school was trying out my methods. It was working well, and a teacher thought he should bring in his class who would stand around the walls and watch the action. However, kids quickly get bored just watching and they got restless and had to be cleared from the room. It wasn't a good idea. I was having lunch (soup and bread) prepared by the lady custodian. No giant cafeterias, complete with dietitians, for this barrio school. I was told someone wanted to speak to me. A delegation of 4 kids told me they hadn't understood what was going on and they apologized for causing trouble. They were shamefaced and I felt sure they had been given a dressing down by their teacher. Anyway, I assured them I understood and thanked them for the apology. It was a nice moment. Then to Manhattan Beach - a well-heeled beach community. The school was large - but nowhere near mammoth. Some fifteen minutes before the bell on Friday afternoon, the kids swarmed from their classes to police the school removing trash and generally tidying up. They returned to their classes, while (I'm sure) their work was checked. Then, they left or the weekend. I was amazed -- but that is perhaps the way it should be. Here is a final item about a charter public school. Charter schools are given a degree of independence from the downtown octopus and can run many things their own way. The teachers' union doesn't like them. A valley charter school not only produced excellent results, but it saved about a million dollars in the process. Of course the Board wanted the money back. The charter school refused, saying they were going to spend their savings on books, teachers, and smaller classes. I missed how this turned out, but it makes a point. After three decades of observing schools -- private, parochial, and public mostly across the US but also in Canada, I feel two major policies should be instituted. (There are others, but this would be a beginning.) First, no child should be promoted to the next grade until he is able to handle the work of the higher grade. I've heard teachers say that this could mean an 18 year old is left in kindergarten! I say so be it -- although I don't think it would happen. It is futile promoting a kid who hasn't a clue about his requirements. He simply drops further behind, gets bored and probably disrupts the class -- or better does nothing. Another time, I must tell the list about the New York "paralytics". Second, "streaming" should be introduced, which would need more teachers, but they would be effective. At the moment, a child is classified as early as first grade as academically good or bad. You get A student status very early -- or D status at the same time. This is understandable as teachers want to know what they are dealing with and it's convenient. But, for twelve years they enter each grade with their position clear. In England in the fifties, kids were streamed. This meant that if you were having trouble with (say) mathematics, you would be dropped into a lower stream with fewer students where your problem could be dealt with by (I assume) specialists. You would get very individual treatment until you were past your problem, whereupon you would go back to the higher stream. You would not be confined to mathematical limbo in your class, probably falling ever further behind. Third, and most important, compulsory education should be ended. And for anyone who feels that is too drastic, remember that about half the students who enter the California University system (surely the cream of the High School crop) must take remedial reading. That's after some 12 years of education. Harry >>>> __________________________________________________________ �Writers used to write because they had something to say; now they write in order to discover if they have something to say.� John D. Barrow _________________________________________________ Keith Hudson, Bath, England; e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] _________________________________________________
