Academies also help students find a niche for “fitting in” with students with similar interests and life goals. Not a bad thing for an age group that tends to seek acceptance any way they can get it.

Sometimes you think you’re reading sarcasm but can’t be absolutely sure.

Schools are paid for with taxes. Low taxes mean little money available for schools. If you have few students, that might be okay. If you have many students, you might need more money to educate them. That would imply higher taxes.

Higher taxes mean more money available for–well, maybe for schools, even though politicians are always tempted to spend it on other matters; it gets diverted into wars on drugs, wars on illegal dumping, wars on potholes. But if we assume the people in education will fight to get them to spend SOME of the high taxes on education, it’s possible more money will make it to the benefit of the students.

So, if you were to say, “I chose to live in a place with low taxes but want the benefits of high taxes,” it looks like sarcasm but it could be the result of a poorly spent formal education.

David uncertain

Yes, it is. It is called GRADES. Those whose grades are too low are cruelly forced to earn grades high enough to advance. Some hardhearted people even consider it more reasonable than simply advancing students up each grade and then out the door even if they learn nothing even though it hurts their egos to be told they failed when they failed.

AND
“If the courses can be provided at certain schools, why not ALL schools? ”

The answer should be that it would not be cost effective. If you only have two students in a certain school interested in the courses, you really don’t want to tie up a teacher just for those two students. it would make more sense to gather the small groups to make a bigger group involving a teacher in class size worthy of them.

Aren’t those two as “worthy” as any others? Most likely, but that also means they are no more worthy than the others. Thus, if you tie up the resources to meet the needs of just the two, you are taking away resources which would have met the needs of the others.

It’s always a balancing act. Available resources balanced against needs. Online courses help somewhat and may be the future of many more specialized needs, but obviously not the “hands on” needs. Those will still require humans until the T1000s come out.

David for the perfect balance

I had a physics professor back at Auburn who said he changed majors four times in four years and still finished in only four years total. Of course he stuck around a few more years for his master’s and doctorate or two, but the point is that having a goal doesn’t mean you can’t change goals. Having NO goals is far worse.

(I also had a cousin whose goal was to stay in college, so whenever she got close to a degree, she switched majors to something which would keep her in longer. When she finally reached the point at which taking any other course in anything would yield a bachelor’s degree, she dropped out and joined the Army. Not eveybody in my family is normal.)

David for good goals
and national defense

Let’s hurry and teach them a trade while they are still pre-teens.

I have no problem with this type of education for high schoolers as they prepare to go into the work world or to vocational schools; that is the place for it…I just don’t think it is the place in middle school.

At what point to we let the teachers (or whoever) decide which students take what courses? Will the system decide who goes to work, who goes to vocational school, or who goes to college, too?