Comments

benedicted
neophytical
condensify

Copy Editors Unite!!!

By the way, why do folks think small schools are stupid? Just to spark some discussion.

I think they are great for some folks. In fact, I think many of the learning approaches used in small schools are seriously lacking in the general learning environment. The whole emphasis on "doing" has been shown to teach infinitely better then just hearing or watching.

My main qualm with small-schools is the sort of secluded approach they take. This isn't always an issue, and for some people it's great. But sometimes students can get the impression that they are either above or below the general student population. I don't think either viewpoint is productive. But maybe it's just a difference in learning philosophies. I can see the advantage in both:

1) Having everyone, both the bright and the disadvantaged, work together. The faster-paced students would make up for the slower-paced, and everyone would move as a whole. This almost sounds a little Marxist.

2) Having different people taught differently. The fast-paced are grouped together and move at thier fast pace, and the slower folks get the "special attention" they need.

I think a balance of both systems is probably what I'd go for.

I heard Berkeley High tried small schools already, a long time ago. They were forcibly stopped when found to be "seperate but equal."

How would we keep this from happening again? Do you think it's possible?

Now, a few remarks from one slightly-privileged, white female alumn...
1) When I look back on my experience at Berkeley High, the diversity (in race and background and academic level) was really one of the best points of education I got there. The basic life-education was really worth a lot more than academics could possibly be on their own. But, as I said, I'm talking from a rather priviledged view point: with parents to teach me what I needed, and an extremely academic background, I could afford to treat unsuccessful classes as an "experience." Is it possible that diversity is a luxury for the rich?

2) On the advantage of having bright and disadvantaged students work together. I did a lot of this "working together" deal in Berkeley High. I don't think it ever helped anyone disadvantaged. The 'bad' kids did no work on group projects (assuming the good kids would), and in class, I think the identity of being 'bad' students (as compared to the better ones) probably did more damage than good. Maybe having a slight mixture of levels would be advantageous, but too much difference may end up segregating people even more than it brings them together.

3) I worked for a little while in the English-as-a-second-language classes. The sense of community and individual attention (and dignity, even, of individuals! -- who might have been automatically classified as 'disadvantaged' in other classes) was encouraging.

4) Despite all this I am deathly afraid to lose the diversity at Berkeley High. That's what BHS is all about!

Finally, of course there are the worries of having classes that lose any appearence of academic thought (although these already existed when I was there), and of secluding the different cultures to follow already-stereotyped tracks (minorities being less challenged than whites, sheltered whites getting more onto the credit-grubbing, study-for-the-test, its-all-about-college line). I like the idea of balance, but how can that be done?

sorry about the rant, this is rather close to heart :)

small schools? sounds like "divide and conquer". woa, a random comment.

This is a message for Eli mariethal or a friend of his. I am that English guy who is making a documentary about U.S High Schools titled 'The Real American Pie'. I am visiting California at the end on the month and would like a quick interview. Please help me dude - My future career hangs in the balance!!!!! If someone can help me please e-mail me - j.adams@rave.ac.uk
Cheers - John Adams (Broadcasting Student, London, England)

We had small schools at BHS when I was there, 1974-1976. There were about 6 of them with 100-200 students each and the vast majority of people still being in the "common" school. Although it was normal to take most of your classes within your subschool, if you were in one, it was not required. I took classes in 3 different subschools and from the common school too.

Some of the subschools were "less diverse", but given their variations of interests, I think it probably added diversity to what classes were available. Also the one I was primarily in, Genesis-Agora was as "diverse" as the rest of the school.

Without them I would have hated BHS even more than I did. Though I realized way late that perhaps I should have been in a different one.

I also think that diversity is great for people who lack it, but that they beat us up all too much with the concept there. Like we could possibly escape it! Not. I keep putting the word in quotes because it's really being used as a euphemism to cover a racist mindset and isn't to do with REAL DIVERSE DIVERSITY.

The anonymous "semi-priveleged" chick above says something about "bright" and "disadvantaged" as the categories... there is something fundamentally wrong with this division. Yes the rich and poor kids and various ethnicities should all be mixed in together, but in academic classes the smart and dumb ones shouldn't. This mixed level stuff just bores the shit out of both the smarter and dumber kids, if you're real lucky maybe a couple of kids in the middle will manage to get anything out of it.

"This mixed level stuff just bores the shit out of both the smarter and dumber kids, if you're real lucky maybe a couple of kids in the middle will manage to get anything out of it."

------------------------

While I generally agree with this outlook, don't you think there is something to be said for the kind of psychological damage this might have? How do you think a "lower level" student would see themselves? I just don't know how this would impact some people. Is a persons self-integrity more important then their education?