Last weekend my youngest son (18), Joey, went to Santa Cruz to visit some friends who go to the University there. He had a great time. He told us a story about climbing a large tree and a falling knife from his friends pocket, and the near escape from injury- all part of the adventure. He told Donna that after 2 years at the Junior College he would like to attend University of California at Santa Cruz. UCSC is one of the top California schools and to get in a student must have close to a 4.0 grade point average. Joey has always been more of a B/C student. He has times where he works hard, then times where he just gets by. He knew it would take a lot of work. In fact when Donna relayed to me this message on my way home from the airport, she said that he was studying at home- highly motivated.
Wednesday night he had a paper due in English the next day. He was working on it when I came home from work but he still had a lot to do. About 8 PM two of his friends came to the house. Next we see him with his jacket on and he says, "Mom and Dad, I'm going out with Harley and Jake." This remark startled me, just after his previous assertion. I fired back, "You're going to get into what school?" Fortunately the remark had the desired effect. He bid his friends goodbye, took off his jacket and went back to his homework. Donna flashed me a thumbs up.
Despite the small victory this event was disturbing to me. How can an 18 year old have so much commitment to his studies for a clear goal one day, then toss it away the next? I am having much the same problem with many of my history students. I told them this story today in class. Then I read them an editorial commentary in the press democrat more about failing children and failing adults than about failing schools. It places the blame for unsuccessful students on undisciplined and lazy students themselves. It also placed the blame on parents who do not pay enough attention to their children's education, parents that do not properly use the "carrot" and the "stick" as the tools provided them.
I also mentioned to them that different students learn in different ways. Our school system for the comprehensive high school was developed at the turn of the century- the turn of the previous century- 1900; that the main model for high schools envisioned schools no larger than 600 students; that educational research has long criticized this old model of grade grubbing; that there are thousands of different models to run schools; and every child learns differently. I mentioned Neill's famous book Summerhill.
I talked about my different experiences with schools. I went to a private seminary away from home, all boys, strict scheduling and very high expectations. I taught at a Classical Studies school where Mortimer Adler's philosophy was the model. We had regular seminars one a week with small classes and challenging readings. We co-taught classes, had an integrated curriculum with science, social studies and English intermingled. We had site based government by the teachers who ran the school. I told them about another school where I worked where the students took high school and college classes at the same time. All students had to be interns in an outside business or non profit. Classes were co- taught by college professors. We had sometimes two and sometimes three teachers in the room at the same time. Our Middle College High School worked in close collaboration with other similar schools around the country. We met several times during the year to collaborate about curriculum, including one week at an estate on Long Island. We mixed radical thinking and political argumentation with social history.
No comments:
Post a Comment