Will the teachers union ever stand up publicly and tell the legislators that not all students are destined for college, that we need to look at vocational placements earlier in life?

From a students perspective...well:dancingpa:dancingpa:dancingpa

:banana::banana::banana::banana::popcorn::popcorn::popcorn::clap::clap::clap::ylsuper::ylsuper::ylsuper::ylsuper::D:D:D:D:taz::taz::clap::clap::dancingpa:dancingpa:banana:

Will the teachers union ever stand up publicly and tell the legislators that not all students are destined for college, that we need to look at vocational placements earlier in life?

 

I agree that not all students are destined for college, but how do you determine that earlier in life?

I am a teacher. First let me say I do not like the testing system we have. Second I have a pet peeve about many on here saying lets go back to the good old days/ let the teachers teach. The good old days when we let the teachers teach and had no accountability saw the state of Kentucky very near the bottom of public education in the United States.

The theory was supposed to be that the basics were the test.

So, by teaching the test, you were teaching the basics.

The basics weren't the test. It was like teaching the kids how to break a full court press before they knew how to dribble and pass.

I agree that not all students are destined for college, but how do you determine that earlier in life?

 

I think for the vast majority the die is pretty much cast by the 7th or 8th grade, and we know that. Certainly, if any later show college aptitude then they can be re-sent or re-trained.

If the test truly measures what we believe our kids should know, then I have no problem in teaching to the test. If you are giving a test to a child, as a teacher, you are teaching the material they need to know to pass the test.

 

I think the real question is whether the CATS test was actually measuring what we really wanted our children to know.

The intent to do good may have been there when it passed back in 1990, but it was a flawed system from the beginnning. What it became over the years had little in common to what it was in the beginning.

There was no incentive for the students to buy in, as there was no reward for doing a good job on the test and no penalty for blowing it off, as many did, even good students. In the end it was never about education, just getting a score. Some wanted it to be about education, but it was just about getting a higher score. It was not about education. And yes there is difference in actually educating someone and teaching them how to jump through a few hoops to get a better score.

Agree 100%:thumb:

If the test truly measures what we believe our kids should know, then I have no problem in teaching to the test. If you are giving a test to a child, as a teacher, you are teaching the material they need to know to pass the test.

 

I think the real question is whether the CATS test was actually measuring what we really wanted our children to know.

 

Good point. That is why I posted the link to the KY Core Content in science in a previous post. I would love to examine/discuss the content and show how it is turned into a curriculum map and then into what is actually taught.

 

Someone let me know if you are willing to actually take a look and discuss the actual core content.

Almost all kids should come out of high school ready for college. That is a bare minimum. If you had asked me in the seventh our eighth grade I would likely have said that I wanted to either work on a horse farm or join my Father's construction union. I was very fortunate in that I had teachers that looked at students and demanded that they take the most rigorous classes they could handle. It opened my eyes to a much bigger world. I want to weep when I read professional educators that think it is okay to teach kids to balance a check book and call them educated. I understand that some kids don't even achieve that level. The solution is not to bring down our expectations. The solution is to do whaterver it takes to teach kids. Longer days? Okay. Year round school? Sounds good. Smaller classes? Yep.

Almost all kids should come out of high school ready for college. That is a bare minimum. If you had asked me in the seventh our eighth grade I would likely have said that I wanted to either work on a horse farm or join my Father's construction union. I was very fortunate in that I had teachers that looked at students and demanded that they take the most rigorous classes they could handle. It opened my eyes to a much bigger world. I want to weep when I read professional educators that think it is okay to teach kids to balance a check book and call them educated. I understand that some kids don't even achieve that level. The solution is not to bring down our expectations. The solution is to do whaterver it takes to teach kids. Longer days? Okay. Year round school? Sounds good. Smaller classes? Yep.

 

Why is training for the trades a "lowered expectation?"

Why is training for the trades a "lowered expectation?"

 

It is not but unfortunately too many people believe that being a plumber, mechanic or HVAC person is below a college educated career.

^ Reminds me of a joke that I have posted before.

 

A doctor's toilet stops up. He calls a plumber to fix it. The plumber fixes the clog in an hour, hands the doctor a bill for $150.

 

The doctor is outraged. "I'm a doctor, and I only make $120 an hour."

 

The plumber replied, "That's what I made when I was a doctor."

It is not but unfortunately too many people believe that being a plumber, mechanic or HVAC person is below a college educated career.

 

But can the United States sustain a massive labor pool in these occupations? Our chief advantage in a global economy is our superior ability to educate, why not take advantage of it?

But can the United States sustain a massive labor pool in these occupations? Our chief advantage in a global economy is our superior ability to educate, why not take advantage of it?

 

We are clearly NOT superior at educating, at least not through high school. We are literally being blown away.

 

Trades can run the gamut of occupations that do not require formal college training, and to be competetive we need to be doing them in other countries, too. Kazakstahn, for instance, has a enormous need for trained laborers who know how to operate super-heavy machinery and vehicles. There will be nucelar power plants all over the world that will need skilled maintenance technicians. You can get trained in nucelar maintenance without needing to know college physics. Field nursing is in constant and well-paid demand world-wide, and some cultures refuse to even allow their people to engage in such work. It requires vocational training but little in the way of formal college education.

 

We need to broaden our horizons as to what really constitutes vocational training, away from just the plumber and electrician scope we see now.