Practicum prose
I have been a bit of an absentee blogger lately because for the last three weeks I have been on my first practicum block at a high school in Belleville. Even though I am only taking on an active teaching role in one class during this block, I've been kept plenty busy. Busy enough to have to prioritize marking and lesson planning over blogging. :-)
During this block, I've been sitting in on a grade 9 academic science and grade 12 college chemistry, and teaching the molecular biology unit in Grade 12 university biology.
It seems that in the 11 intervening years since I was in high school, Ontario decided that (a) we only needed 4 years to get through high school (with which I agree), and (b) that "advanced", "general", and "basic" stigmatized kids too much, and "college", "university", and "workplace" don't. With this, I do not agree so much. In grades 9 and 10, kids are now streamed into "academic" or "applied" courses. From there, in grades 10, 11, and 12, they are further streamed into "workplace", "college", or "university". This is meant to represent their predicted post-diploma pathway. I can see the utility in streaming; however, the name choices of the different pathways are no less stigmatizing. Everyday, I hear kids in my college chemistry class refer to themselves as "stupid" or "dumb". I have not yet heard anyone else refer to them in this way, but they're getting the idea somewhere, right? I am certain it's a view someone has expressed to them somewhere along the way.
I can remember when I was in highschool, it was pretty much unspoken but generally understood that the "smart" kids took advanced courses and went to university, the "dumb" kids took general and went to college. It was not an opinion I held, but it was certainly the vibe you got from other students and even some adults. Kids who took advanced and OAC and then decided to go to college instead of university were seen as sort of a disappointment. I never understood that. Some of the most successful people from my graduating class were the ones who went into college programs. Of the ones who went to University, very few ended up employed in the field in which they studied. I certainly didn't.
Had I known myself and how I learn best then as well as I do now, I would most likely have chosen a more applied/hands-on program than Life Sciences. If someone had told 18-year-old Sarah that my four years at Queen's was likely going to net me a job sitting in a cubicle, you wouldn't have seen me for dust. Why it is assumed that a high IQ score means an increased ability to sit still for long periods of time is a mystery to me.
I suppose there is one disadvantage to Ontario getting rid of the 5th year of highschool though. Instead of asking 18 year olds to map out the course of the rest of their lives, we're asking 17 year olds to do so.
Comments
I was the last class that went through the 5 year program. The classes that came after mine gradually phased them out, starting with the class behind mine, who gave students the options of graduating in 4 or 5.
I didn't mind the 5 years. It meant there was some repetition in the first three months of University classes but whatever advantage that gave me faded before we could ever get to the first final.
You're right though, that it was definitely a little spoken rule that kids in General went to college or didn't go past graduating in high school, and kids who did Advanced or Enriched went to University. I think I remember some level of endorsement of that "rule" during the high school introduction night that we went to in London. Because after the teachers talked about the curriculum I remember having it in my head that I had absolutely NO choice but to do Advanced or Enriched and General was for people not planning on furthering their education past high school. And that was before Mom ever even offered her interpretation.
Posted by: heather at October 28, 2008 01:52 AM
It's pretty scary to think we're asking 17 year olds to make choices like that.
Posted by: Dee at October 31, 2008 03:38 PM