Deleted
Posts: 0
Sept 27, 2024 23:05:35 GMT
|
Post by Deleted on Aug 9, 2015 11:54:03 GMT
I'm talking about systems such as the one in France, and I believe Germany is similar. I know Poland is as well. Students who go to the lycée are academically inclined and college-bound. Students who aren't go to vocational schools. If you don't go to the lycée, you don't take the same test - le bac. The bac is very difficult and it would be easy to look at it and assume that all French students are ahead of American students because they have to pass the bac to graduate (though there isn't really a graduation), the reality is that no, not all French students pass that test to graduate, and only the ones who go to lycée in the first place take that test. We used to have voc Ed in my district, but it was dropped as too often the students sent to it were minorities. So now we assume that ALL students are college-bound, whether that is their wish or not. So the kids who would have gone into a vocational track in France (and taken the "bac professionel" which isn't the same test at all) go to high school here and get compared to those who have chosen to attend HS in other countries. So while other countries DO educate all students (up to a point), they don't all get the same education and testing. If I only had the students who had chosen to continue to high school, my results would be better as well. Instead, I get the ones who want to be there along with those who don't. In the UK, do you not have O and A levels to differentiate? Not everyone gets A levels, correct? If you were to compare only the students who were going for A levels to the general US population you'd get similar results to comparing only lycée student scores to the U.S. scores. You're comparing different systems of education here though. The lycée has three paths for anyone between 15 to 18 years. A lycée general, a lycée technique or a lycée professionnel. Students take the same core curriculum of some eight or nine subjects but are offered three electives and an artistic workshop. At the end of this year, the key decision is made as to which baccalaureat the student will pursue. Not all students want or need to go on to university for their career path. General education finishes at the age of 15 for french students then they chose which path they want to pursue. It's not a matter of whether they are grade A students or not it depends which career path they chose as to what they study at 15+ years of age. It's true that the academic student will more than likely choose to follow the path of the lycée professionnel but there are other choices. .All students in the UK take GCSE ( which replaced O levels about 20 years ago) whether they get an A* or the bottom G they still sit them,some pupils sit more than others but every student sits the core subjects...English, Math & Science plus a couple of others of their choice.Most students sit 8 subjects with the more academic students sitting 10/12 subjects. A Levels are different altogether and I don't think you have the equivalent in the US. A student studies, on average, three of their chosen subjects in depth from 16 years old for two years. Less academic student who choose not to study at A levels have the choice of a vocational qualification such as a B Tech. So it's not a matter of only the brightest children going to high school. It's a matter of what qualification they gain at the end of their general education based on their ability and/or their chosen career path. ETA Your high school diploma is the equivalent of our GCSE. To get a placement at a UK university the Universities and Colleges Admissions Service (UCAS) recommends that in addition to a high school diploma, grades of 3 or above in at least two, or ideally three, Advanced Placement exams may be considered as meeting general entry requirements for admission. The International Bacc Diploma may also be accepted. For the College Entrance Examination Board tests, a minimum score of 600 or higher in all sections of the SAT or a minimum score of 26 or higher in all sections of the ACT along with a minimum score of 600 in relevant SAT Subject Tests may be considered as meeting general entry requirements for admission.
|
|
pyccku
Pearl Clutcher
Posts: 2,817
Jun 27, 2014 23:12:07 GMT
|
Post by pyccku on Aug 9, 2015 12:23:39 GMT
In the U.S., we don't offer that choice at all - at least not anywhere I'm familiar with. We don't allow them to not attend the pre-university career path, it is assumed that ALL students need to prepare for university. So every student gets tested and then we compare our test scores to those of other countries - countries with very different systems. There are students who would in other places choose an apprenticeship or a bac professional type program - nope, here they have to take the university bound program. Want to be a mechanic? Too bad, you need to be ready for college. So that kid who may be an amazing mechanic and could pursue that path in France instead takes the same courses and tests as the kid who is going to university.
I think we do our kids a disservice by forcing them to fit the college bound cookie cutter mold and not allowing them to do vocational. There no shame in learning a trade, and in many cases it pays better than a university degree does. My son is not academically inclined, but could do well in a trade. He doesn't have that option. So he will take the same classes and tests as his more academically gifted sister, though his goals are very different from hers. But his low test scores will still count against his school even though it's an issue with him and not the quality of education he's receiving,
|
|
|
Post by littlemama on Aug 9, 2015 12:26:08 GMT
I would hate it. We wait SO long for summers in Michigan - I want my kids to be able to swim and play and have fun in the short amount of nice weather that we do get. It would suck for them to sit in classrooms in the summer. We already sit inside enough the other crappy months out of the year. You would still have 6+ weeks off wouldn't they, as I understand it? Possibly, but it takes away the parents' ability to get time off work- if everyone wants one of the same six weeks off in the summer, lots of people aren't going to get one of them. At least a ten week break helps more working parents to have a week off when their kids are off. No one around here really wants to take their vacation when it is cold in february or raining all the time in April or October. Adults want time off in summer, too!
|
|
Deleted
Posts: 0
Sept 27, 2024 23:05:35 GMT
|
Post by Deleted on Aug 9, 2015 12:33:35 GMT
In the U.S., we don't offer that choice at all - at least not anywhere I'm familiar with. We don't allow them to not attend the pre-university career path, it is assumed that ALL students need to prepare for university. So every student gets tested and then we compare our test scores to those of other countries - countries with very different systems. There are students who would in other places choose an apprenticeship or a bac professional type program - nope, here they have to take the university bound program. Want to be a mechanic? Too bad, you need to be ready for college. So that kid who may be an amazing mechanic and could pursue that path in France instead takes the same courses and tests as the kid who is going to university. Well neither do we until they are 16 plus. Your high school diploma is the same as our GCSE that ours take at 16. They all take that, it's only after that they have a choice of career path. It's just that we give them that choice 2 years earlier than you but they've also done their GCSE two years earlier than your pupils graduate from high school. To compare us with you you would have to use our GCSE results to your high school diplomas. Which I think most surveys do. The end of general across the board education. To compare our A levels with you would be to compare how many kids get a good pass in the AP's
|
|
wellway
Prolific Pea
Posts: 9,012
Jun 25, 2014 20:50:09 GMT
|
Post by wellway on Aug 9, 2015 12:35:09 GMT
In the U.S., we don't offer that choice at all - at least not anywhere I'm familiar with. We don't allow them to not attend the pre-university career path, it is assumed that ALL students need to prepare for university. So every student gets tested and then we compare our test scores to those of other countries - countries with very different systems. There are students who would in other places choose an apprenticeship or a bac professional type program - nope, here they have to take the university bound program. Want to be a mechanic? Too bad, you need to be ready for college. So that kid who may be an amazing mechanic and could pursue that path in France instead takes the same courses and tests as the kid who is going to university. I think we do our kids a disservice by forcing them to fit the college bound cookie cutter mold and not allowing them to do vocational. There no shame in learning a trade, and in many cases it pays better than a university degree does. My son is not academically inclined, but could do well in a trade. He doesn't have that option. So he will take the same classes and tests as his more academically gifted sister, though his goals are very different from hers. But his low test scores will still count against his school even though it's an issue with him and not the quality of education he's receiving, Is there a particular reason this state of affairs has come about? I agree that not all children are best served by a college education so curious why that doesn't appear to be recognised in the system and alternatives offered?
So how would a student who wants to be a mechanic manage to learn that trade? Sorry, lots of questions!
|
|
|
Post by gar on Aug 9, 2015 13:04:03 GMT
You would still have 6+ weeks off wouldn't they, as I understand it? Possibly, but it takes away the parents' ability to get time off work- if everyone wants one of the same six weeks off in the summer, lots of people aren't going to get one of them. At least a ten week break helps more working parents to have a week off when their kids are off. No one around here really wants to take their vacation when it is cold in february or raining all the time in April or October. Adults want time off in summer, too! Parents here manage so I guess we all just work with the system we have. Vacation time in Feb or October for those who can afford it, can mean a trip to somewhere warmer then the 2 weeks off in the summer can be at home which is especially great if you live somewhere warm
|
|
wellway
Prolific Pea
Posts: 9,012
Jun 25, 2014 20:50:09 GMT
|
Post by wellway on Aug 9, 2015 13:16:24 GMT
Possibly, but it takes away the parents' ability to get time off work- if everyone wants one of the same six weeks off in the summer, lots of people aren't going to get one of them. At least a ten week break helps more working parents to have a week off when their kids are off. No one around here really wants to take their vacation when it is cold in february or raining all the time in April or October. Adults want time off in summer, too! Parents here manage so I guess we all just work with the system we have. Vacation time in Feb or October for those who can afford it, can mean a trip to somewhere warmer then the 2 weeks off in the summer can be at home which is especially great if you live somewhere warm BC (before child) you couldn't pay me to take holidays in the main summer break, was very happy to let my co-workers with families have the summer weeks. Was much better to go before or after the children were back in school - quieter resorts, still warm and much cheaper.
|
|
|
Post by gar on Aug 9, 2015 13:17:27 GMT
Parents here manage so I guess we all just work with the system we have. Vacation time in Feb or October for those who can afford it, can mean a trip to somewhere warmer then the 2 weeks off in the summer can be at home which is especially great if you live somewhere warm BC (before child) you couldn't pay me to take holidays in the main summer break, was very happy to let my co-workers with families have the summer weeks. Was much better to go before or after the children were back in school - quieter resorts, still warm and much cheaper.
That's what we do now, with grown up kids
|
|
|
Post by Merge on Aug 9, 2015 13:27:26 GMT
Kids in NYS go 180. I have mixed feelings about year round school. For those of us who teach/live in rural areas, there's no extra money for AC in our old buildings. Many kids here work the family farms during the summer--and during the year. There was talk many years ago about this concept but honestly, it was not well received by parents. SO please don't be pointing fingers at the teachers... On a side note---why do we have to poke fun or criticize any person's job??? There's pluses and minuses to every job... I agree! I just wanted to chime in that while the state requirement in Texas is for 177 days, many districts, including mine, choose to keep a 180-day schedule. Teacher contracts in my district with the current planning/development days are for 192 days.
|
|
|
Post by christine58 on Aug 9, 2015 13:29:36 GMT
Kids in NYS go 180. I have mixed feelings about year round school. For those of us who teach/live in rural areas, there's no extra money for AC in our old buildings. Many kids here work the family farms during the summer--and during the year. There was talk many years ago about this concept but honestly, it was not well received by parents. SO please don't be pointing fingers at the teachers... On a side note---why do we have to poke fun or criticize any person's job??? There's pluses and minuses to every job... I agree! I just wanted to chime in that while the state requirement in Texas is for 177 days, many districts, including mine, choose to keep a 180-day schedule. Teacher contracts in my district with the current planning/development days are for 192 days. Our contract is 185 days...any more than that and we get compensated. (It's never happened). Merge Hope your new school/job is AWESOME!~
|
|
AnotherPea
Pearl Clutcher
Posts: 2,969
Jan 4, 2015 1:47:52 GMT
|
Post by AnotherPea on Aug 9, 2015 13:41:29 GMT
We educate everyone. Don't speak English? That's fine, come on in to high school. Take the standardized test, do poorly, then we can point fingers at teachers for not working hard enough. Don't want to be educated, don't want to study? That's fine, we'll enroll you anyway. If you show up on testing day, you'll take the test and your results will affect your teachers' pay and evaluations. Have to go to school as a term of your probation? That's cool, we'll sign you up. You can come in, disrupt the class, cause trouble for the teacher - and then you can test and we can blame the teacher for poor results. In many countries, they do NOT send these types to high school. High school is for kids who are academically inclined and who WANT to be there. Those who don't get shunted into a vocational program. So we compare their test scores (of the kids who like school and tend to do well at it) with our test scores (of all kids, even those who are absent 80% of the time) and then we end up looking bad.
The good students in the US are comparable to the good students anywhere. The middle to bad students - well, we can't really compare them since the middle to bad students don't make it to high school in other countries.(Bolded by me ) What countries are you referring to? We send every one of our children to school in the UK, from kindergarten through to high school ! At what age do most or many of your students stop going to school? Didn't we just have a thread about someone's son that stopped attending school at 16 because he wanted to go to work? And that wasn't considered dropping out?
|
|
AnotherPea
Pearl Clutcher
Posts: 2,969
Jan 4, 2015 1:47:52 GMT
|
Post by AnotherPea on Aug 9, 2015 13:49:25 GMT
In the U.S., we don't offer that choice at all - at least not anywhere I'm familiar with. We don't allow them to not attend the pre-university career path, it is assumed that ALL students need to prepare for university. So every student gets tested and then we compare our test scores to those of other countries - countries with very different systems. There are students who would in other places choose an apprenticeship or a bac professional type program - nope, here they have to take the university bound program. Want to be a mechanic? Too bad, you need to be ready for college. So that kid who may be an amazing mechanic and could pursue that path in France instead takes the same courses and tests as the kid who is going to university. I think we do our kids a disservice by forcing them to fit the college bound cookie cutter mold and not allowing them to do vocational. There no shame in learning a trade, and in many cases it pays better than a university degree does. My son is not academically inclined, but could do well in a trade. He doesn't have that option. So he will take the same classes and tests as his more academically gifted sister, though his goals are very different from hers. But his low test scores will still count against his school even though it's an issue with him and not the quality of education he's receiving, Is there a particular reason this state of affairs has come about? I agree that not all children are best served by a college education so curious why that doesn't appear to be recognised in the system and alternatives offered?
So how would a student who wants to be a mechanic manage to learn that trade? Sorry, lots of questions!
For my region the idea is revisited constantly and it always comes down to being PC. Traditionally the children from higher SES (usually white) end up being college prep. When vocational tracks suggested, the word "racist " is thrown around a lot so wimps back off
|
|
Deleted
Posts: 0
Sept 27, 2024 23:05:35 GMT
|
Post by Deleted on Aug 9, 2015 13:52:51 GMT
(Bolded by me ) What countries are you referring to? We send every one of our children to school in the UK, from kindergarten through to high school ! At what age do most or many of your students stop going to school? Didn't we just have a thread about someone's son that stopped attending school at 16 because he wanted to go to work? And that wasn't considered dropping out? They have to be in full time education until they're 18 unless they have an approved apprenticeship or are on an approved training programme or they find full time employment and then they can leave high school at 16. You can't" drop out" of school here before you're 16 and by then you have taken your GCSE ( the equivalent of the your high school diploma). The poster you're talking about is in Scotland, they have their own rules so not sure what they are there but I have a feeling it's the same.
|
|
The Great Carpezio
Pearl Clutcher
Something profound goes here.
Posts: 2,973
Jun 25, 2014 21:50:33 GMT
|
Post by The Great Carpezio on Aug 9, 2015 14:06:56 GMT
In the U.S., we don't offer that choice at all - at least not anywhere I'm familiar with. We don't allow them to not attend the pre-university career path, it is assumed that ALL students need to prepare for university. So every student gets tested and then we compare our test scores to those of other countries - countries with very different systems. There are students who would in other places choose an apprenticeship or a bac professional type program - nope, here they have to take the university bound program. Want to be a mechanic? Too bad, you need to be ready for college. So that kid who may be an amazing mechanic and could pursue that path in France instead takes the same courses and tests as the kid who is going to university. I think we do our kids a disservice by forcing them to fit the college bound cookie cutter mold and not allowing them to do vocational. There no shame in learning a trade, and in many cases it pays better than a university degree does. My son is not academically inclined, but could do well in a trade. He doesn't have that option. So he will take the same classes and tests as his more academically gifted sister, though his goals are very different from hers. But his low test scores will still count against his school even though it's an issue with him and not the quality of education he's receiving, Is there a particular reason this state of affairs has come about? I agree that not all children are best served by a college education so curious why that doesn't appear to be recognised in the system and alternatives offered?
So how would a student who wants to be a mechanic manage to learn that trade? Sorry, lots of questions!
It probably varies from place to place, but around here we know not everyone is heading to a four year university. What we do assume is that everyone is heading to some sort of post-secondary education and that we are preparing them for jobs that don't exist yet, so that even if you choose the votech path now, there's a good chance you will need to be reeducated throughout your life. Obviously a few people will choose not or be unable to ever seek out additional education, but most will. We're preparing them for that.
|
|
|
Post by mcscrapper on Aug 9, 2015 14:13:43 GMT
I didn't read all of the replies but wonder how school sports would be affected by being off for three weeks at a time. Not that sports are the be-all-to-end-all to school but that is a huge part of the lives of many students. My child also plays club soccer and having weeks off at a time during her season would be difficult for a lot of families I'm sure. Not just sports would be affected either. I think some of the arts programs would also be affected - band, theater...
While I'm not opposed to year-round school, I just have a lot of concerns in how it affects not just the academic aspects of going all year. I guess I would need more information before I made a decision.
|
|
raindancer
Pearl Clutcher
Posts: 3,095
Jun 26, 2014 20:10:29 GMT
|
Post by raindancer on Aug 9, 2015 14:23:54 GMT
What I cannot understand is all the people here who think that spending money for AC is too big of a burden in exchange for the betterment of our education system. Do you realize how absurd that sounds? AC is too much to ask? It's an expense we don't want to offer our kids a competitive edge in a global economy. We know year round school helps kids learn better. It's nothing more than intellectual laziness and an inability to think outside the box, and to look to others to see how it can work. Change is a challenge, but when it's for a worthy cause like improving our children and by default our country and our world, it's worth while. Talk to the school boards, my dear, talk to the school boards. Thats my point. The parents need to confront their school boards. If you let them get away with lazy excuses then that is on you. Hold them accountable. Vote for bonds. Communities can move mountains and create a strong team with the school district. I know because I live it. It can be done. It takes effort and involvement and parents and educators working as a team. But it's not impossible.
|
|
|
Post by Merge on Aug 9, 2015 14:27:05 GMT
I didn't read all of the replies but wonder how school sports would be affected by being off for three weeks at a time. Not that sports are the be-all-to-end-all to school but that is a huge part of the lives of many students. My child also plays club soccer and having weeks off at a time during her season would be difficult for a lot of families I'm sure. Not just sports would be affected either. I think some of the arts programs would also be affected - band, theater... While I'm not opposed to year-round school, I just have a lot of concerns in how it affects not just the academic aspects of going all year. I guess I would need more information before I made a decision. You know, that is not something I'd thought about as this is my first year in secondary music. Yes, year-round scheduling would have a highly detrimental effect on ensemble classes. All instruction/rehearsal culminates in a performance, and that won't work if we have a three-week break with no rehearsal every nine weeks or so. Music performance relies on consistent practice. The losses would be huge and quality would suffer. Never mind what would happen during contest season.
|
|
raindancer
Pearl Clutcher
Posts: 3,095
Jun 26, 2014 20:10:29 GMT
|
Post by raindancer on Aug 9, 2015 14:28:27 GMT
Blame the teacher lol!! What else is new
In my state, teachers are on a contract paid by the day. Technically, we do not get paid for our summer vacations or other breaks. Most districts do split the salary into 12 equal installments so that paychecks are consistent month to month. So even though it may be called a break or vacation I am not getting paid for it any more than I get paid for the weekends.
Regardless, if we worked more actual days, that would cost more money...most states can barely fund the teachers as it is.
I would not mind spreading vacations out more or having 'year round' school..but honestly, kids do need some type of break. School now is very stressful and taxing on many students and the hours are long and expectations are high. For teachers too...
Why do so many of you not understand that it's the same 180 days just divided up differently and that kids learn better when they don't have such huge gaps? NY kids get plenty of time off and the way it falls they are ready for a break and ready to go back when it's time. If you as an adult had a two week vacation in march, a 7 week vacation in June and july, a 3 week break in Sept and October and a 2 week vacation in december, would you think they were just working too hard and that it was too stressful?
|
|
raindancer
Pearl Clutcher
Posts: 3,095
Jun 26, 2014 20:10:29 GMT
|
Post by raindancer on Aug 9, 2015 14:32:08 GMT
I didn't read all of the replies but wonder how school sports would be affected by being off for three weeks at a time. Not that sports are the be-all-to-end-all to school but that is a huge part of the lives of many students. My child also plays club soccer and having weeks off at a time during her season would be difficult for a lot of families I'm sure. Not just sports would be affected either. I think some of the arts programs would also be affected - band, theater... While I'm not opposed to year-round school, I just have a lot of concerns in how it affects not just the academic aspects of going all year. I guess I would need more information before I made a decision. You know, that is not something I'd thought about as this is my first year in secondary music. Yes, year-round scheduling would have a highly detrimental effect on ensemble classes. All instruction/rehearsal culminates in a performance, and that won't work if we have a three-week break with no rehearsal every nine weeks or so. Music performance relies on consistent practice. The losses would be huge and quality would suffer. Never mind what would happen during contest season. I don't know how you determined this. Out band at one of the high schools in one of the top bands in the state. My DD also spends time during those weeks off in intensive honors band camp. Your argument makes no sense. The learning loss over 12 weeks of not practicing isn't significant? It's not in the middle of the semester but I would think like anything the longer you don't practice the worse off you are. 3 weeks in fall with take home practice vs 12 weeks in summer?
|
|
raindancer
Pearl Clutcher
Posts: 3,095
Jun 26, 2014 20:10:29 GMT
|
Post by raindancer on Aug 9, 2015 14:34:07 GMT
I didn't read all of the replies but wonder how school sports would be affected by being off for three weeks at a time. Not that sports are the be-all-to-end-all to school but that is a huge part of the lives of many students. My child also plays club soccer and having weeks off at a time during her season would be difficult for a lot of families I'm sure. Not just sports would be affected either. I think some of the arts programs would also be affected - band, theater... While I'm not opposed to year-round school, I just have a lot of concerns in how it affects not just the academic aspects of going all year. I guess I would need more information before I made a decision. We play all the same sports and compete agains traditional scheduled schools. Kids in sports may have practice during breaks, just like summer kids do. (Football and band camps etc).
|
|
|
Post by Merge on Aug 9, 2015 14:37:30 GMT
You know, that is not something I'd thought about as this is my first year in secondary music. Yes, year-round scheduling would have a highly detrimental effect on ensemble classes. All instruction/rehearsal culminates in a performance, and that won't work if we have a three-week break with no rehearsal every nine weeks or so. Music performance relies on consistent practice. The losses would be huge and quality would suffer. Never mind what would happen during contest season. I don't know how you determined this. Out band at one of the high schools in one of the top bands in the state. My DD also spends time during those weeks off in intensive honors band camp. Your argument makes no sense. The learning loss over 12 weeks of not practicing isn't significant? It's not in the middle of the semester but I would think like anything the longer you don't practice the worse off you are. 3 weeks in fall with take home practice vs 12 weeks in summer? When we come back after 12 weeks in the summer, we don't have a performance looming just a few weeks away. There is time to get going again. Also, I teach a population that is mostly unlikely to be able to afford or attend intensive camps during school breaks. Out of curiosity, who runs those camps in your district? And how are they compensated?
|
|
|
Post by Merge on Aug 9, 2015 14:38:15 GMT
I didn't read all of the replies but wonder how school sports would be affected by being off for three weeks at a time. Not that sports are the be-all-to-end-all to school but that is a huge part of the lives of many students. My child also plays club soccer and having weeks off at a time during her season would be difficult for a lot of families I'm sure. Not just sports would be affected either. I think some of the arts programs would also be affected - band, theater... While I'm not opposed to year-round school, I just have a lot of concerns in how it affects not just the academic aspects of going all year. I guess I would need more information before I made a decision. We play all the same sports and compete agains traditional scheduled schools. Kids in sports may have practice during breaks, just like summer kids do. (Football and band camps etc). So your music teachers and sports coaches don't really get those breaks?
|
|
|
Post by Darcy Collins on Aug 9, 2015 14:39:46 GMT
I didn't read all of the replies but wonder how school sports would be affected by being off for three weeks at a time. Not that sports are the be-all-to-end-all to school but that is a huge part of the lives of many students. My child also plays club soccer and having weeks off at a time during her season would be difficult for a lot of families I'm sure. Not just sports would be affected either. I think some of the arts programs would also be affected - band, theater... While I'm not opposed to year-round school, I just have a lot of concerns in how it affects not just the academic aspects of going all year. I guess I would need more information before I made a decision. You know, that is not something I'd thought about as this is my first year in secondary music. Yes, year-round scheduling would have a highly detrimental effect on ensemble classes. All instruction/rehearsal culminates in a performance, and that won't work if we have a three-week break with no rehearsal every nine weeks or so. Music performance relies on consistent practice. The losses would be huge and quality would suffer. Never mind what would happen during contest season. But a 3 week break every 9 weeks, is just ONE type of schedule. The schedules the UK peas posted did not include any 3 week breaks until summer. I would think more consistency over the entire year would more than compensate for an occasional week or 2 week break. I would think that the music would be like foreign language and the long summer break would be a bit stumbling block to continued growth. I know my kids do a ton of review for foreign language in the fall as they lose a lot during the summer.
|
|
|
Post by Merge on Aug 9, 2015 14:49:05 GMT
You know, that is not something I'd thought about as this is my first year in secondary music. Yes, year-round scheduling would have a highly detrimental effect on ensemble classes. All instruction/rehearsal culminates in a performance, and that won't work if we have a three-week break with no rehearsal every nine weeks or so. Music performance relies on consistent practice. The losses would be huge and quality would suffer. Never mind what would happen during contest season. But a 3 week break every 9 weeks, is just ONE type of schedule. The schedules the UK peas posted did not include any 3 week breaks until summer. I would think more consistency over the entire year would more than compensate for an occasional week or 2 week break. I would think that the music would be like foreign language and the long summer break would be a bit stumbling block to continued growth. I know my kids do a ton of review for foreign language in the fall as they lose a lot during the summer. The difference is that, in music, we prepare for a concert with a specific repertoire, perform that repertoire, and then move on to different repertoire. With a traditional schedule, we don't take a break in the middle of preparing for a concert. It's not feasible to do a full concert every nine weeks, so with that kind of schedule, you end up taking breaks in the middle of preparation rather than starting fresh after a break. I'm sure there are other ways to do modified scheduling, but IME, music is the last thing they're going to consider when deciding what kind of schedule to use. They're most likely going to break up the year around the traditional academic blocks of six or nine weeks.
|
|
raindancer
Pearl Clutcher
Posts: 3,095
Jun 26, 2014 20:10:29 GMT
|
Post by raindancer on Aug 9, 2015 14:55:46 GMT
We play all the same sports and compete agains traditional scheduled schools. Kids in sports may have practice during breaks, just like summer kids do. (Football and band camps etc). So your music teachers and sports coaches don't really get those breaks? If you mean that they can choose to do that, just in the same way that those same teachers choose to do those things during summer break, then I guess so. I always hear "Teachers don't REALLY get the summer off". So which is it? Do you get 12 weeks off in summer or not? Do you do nothing during winter and spring breaks? Do you legit have all of those days off?
|
|
raindancer
Pearl Clutcher
Posts: 3,095
Jun 26, 2014 20:10:29 GMT
|
Post by raindancer on Aug 9, 2015 15:01:20 GMT
But a 3 week break every 9 weeks, is just ONE type of schedule. The schedules the UK peas posted did not include any 3 week breaks until summer. I would think more consistency over the entire year would more than compensate for an occasional week or 2 week break. I would think that the music would be like foreign language and the long summer break would be a bit stumbling block to continued growth. I know my kids do a ton of review for foreign language in the fall as they lose a lot during the summer. The difference is that, in music, we prepare for a concert with a specific repertoire, perform that repertoire, and then move on to different repertoire. With a traditional schedule, we don't take a break in the middle of preparing for a concert. It's not feasible to do a full concert every nine weeks, so with that kind of schedule, you end up taking breaks in the middle of preparation rather than starting fresh after a break. I'm sure there are other ways to do modified scheduling, but IME, music is the last thing they're going to consider when deciding what kind of schedule to use. They're most likely going to break up the year around the traditional academic blocks of six or nine weeks. I don't know. IME our band is excellent and they perform in parades and at disney etc all over the country. So whatever is happening there is seemingly working out for them. They don't perform a concert every 9 weeks. My middle school daughter has to practice at home on breaks. IME, teachers seem to believe that taking homework home on breaks, over summer, etc. is necessary and expected (all those summer reading lists for example). She has music over the fall and spring breaks that she is expected to practice at home. I see that as no different. We have done both traditional in Illinois and year round in AZ and my kids and myself prefer the year round. It has been so successful in our district that two other districts in our area (including the largest) have started to transition by using a modified year round approach and are planning to move to the full year round calendar over time. It can work just fine. For sports, music, and especially for academics. I feel like all the arguments are based on nothing more than resistance to change and supposing of things that haven't been looked into fully. Plenty of schools are year round, it doesn't seem like finding out how they run their music programs to be successful would be all that difficult. No one is asking you to reinvent the wheel. It's been done, it can be done. Truly.
|
|
raindancer
Pearl Clutcher
Posts: 3,095
Jun 26, 2014 20:10:29 GMT
|
Post by raindancer on Aug 9, 2015 15:05:55 GMT
I don't know how you determined this. Out band at one of the high schools in one of the top bands in the state. My DD also spends time during those weeks off in intensive honors band camp. Your argument makes no sense. The learning loss over 12 weeks of not practicing isn't significant? It's not in the middle of the semester but I would think like anything the longer you don't practice the worse off you are. 3 weeks in fall with take home practice vs 12 weeks in summer? When we come back after 12 weeks in the summer, we don't have a performance looming just a few weeks away. There is time to get going again. Also, I teach a population that is mostly unlikely to be able to afford or attend intensive camps during school breaks. Out of curiosity, who runs those camps in your district? And how are they compensated? We live in a district that has over 50% free lunch. Our camps are paid for by our bonds. Our community bonds over education and we vote to support our school. The state just slashed our education by A LOT. So much that people want to impeach our governor since he walked into office and made that his first priority. Intensive band camp happens to be free to the students. The expense is paid for by tax money, donations and tax funding (we have something in AZ where you can fund a specific program and get it back on your taxes, up to $400 a family, so we give our $400 to band, for example), and fundraising. The high school and middle school teachers run them. There are 3 teachers who ran the last one, it had about 120 participants, and the high school band members also volunteered. (We have a strong promotion of giving back, so middle school kids help elementary kids, high school kids help middle school kids, etc. )
|
|
|
Post by RiverIsis on Aug 9, 2015 15:30:31 GMT
How long a summer break do you have? My kids were on a year round and had up to 8 weeks June/July so it isn't like they were never off during the summer or it wasn't a long break. The break time varied more because of weather issues or extra curricular activities that would start over the summer whether or not my kids were on a traditional schedule or not. twhat is the difference between 8 weeks and the 10 weeks traditional schools have? It sounds like you actually have more times off than we do I know. It think it is how it is distributed through the year. I just don't see the argument "we love our summers" that week or so difference isn't that big.
|
|
|
Post by RiverIsis on Aug 9, 2015 15:32:43 GMT
So do you think that kids who live in areas/other countries with year-round school don't have these kinds of opportunities? Do they not grow into well-rounded adults? That just seems a little far-fetched to me. I know that starting in May it is hard to get the kids to go to bed because it is still light out at their bedtime. We only had 6 hours of true darkness where we lived in England and the kids went to school until the 3rd week of July. Black out blinds and/or just plain parenting work. No difference to kids getting hyped up because Christmas is coming and too excited to sleep.
|
|
|
Post by RiverIsis on Aug 9, 2015 15:41:36 GMT
We educate everyone. Don't speak English? That's fine, come on in to high school. Take the standardized test, do poorly, then we can point fingers at teachers for not working hard enough. Don't want to be educated, don't want to study? That's fine, we'll enroll you anyway. If you show up on testing day, you'll take the test and your results will affect your teachers' pay and evaluations. Have to go to school as a term of your probation? That's cool, we'll sign you up. You can come in, disrupt the class, cause trouble for the teacher - and then you can test and we can blame the teacher for poor results. In many countries, they do NOT send these types to high school. High school is for kids who are academically inclined and who WANT to be there. Those who don't get shunted into a vocational program. So we compare their test scores (of the kids who like school and tend to do well at it) with our test scores (of all kids, even those who are absent 80% of the time) and then we end up looking bad.
The good students in the US are comparable to the good students anywhere. The middle to bad students - well, we can't really compare them since the middle to bad students don't make it to high school in other countries.(Bolded by me ) What countries are you referring to? We send every one of our children to school in the UK, from kindergarten through to high school ! However, aren't students in secondary schools only tested in the subjects they are studying. So they can go for 1,2,3 or more GCSE and then the same with A Levels? So only the most advanced students are taking the more advanced testing, right? In the USA depending on the state, all students (even special ed) are tested in all subjects at every grade/year.
|
|