|
But it should be revised.
The one-size-fits-all curriculum needs to be ditched. We do an outstanding job, considering that's how we do our standardized tests. But it's an outstanding job that shortchanges the kids.
In 9th (maybe 10th) grade test and evaluate and interrogate the kids because in 10th (perhaps 11th) grade their roads split: Some go into very-much non-academic, low-skilled programs; some go into skill-developing vocational or technical programs; others go into academic programs leading to science/engineering or history/humanities. Yeah, you can appeal and pull off a miracle of self-preparation over the summer. Once in a program you can transfer--if you can catch up quickly.
We essentially shunt kids into the academic equivalent of many countries' low-skilled programs on a wide scale now, except that while those programs slight academics they don't provide any other training. And every once in a while some politician or parent objects and makes life hell for the kids who just aren't any good at science or math or arts or whatever. (My life was hell because we had required art classes and I really, really sucked at drawing, sculture, etc. Fortunately, I didn't have to take any in high school. The kid who sucked as much at math as I did in art didn't have it so lucky: still, in 11th grade math they were just working on adding fractions. Now they'd make him take at least two years of algebra, if not trig and geometry. I can only imagine how miserable he'd be, or how overblown the course titles would have to be to make make him miserable.)
|