Login/Sign Up




Should all Americans be forced to commit atleast 1 year of higher education/vocational training?
Education


Obama: High School Ed not enough
...
frankiej4189
Feb 26, 2009
6 votes
11 debaters
10
4
3
1
1


+ Add Argument

3
yes


vancam
Feb 26, 2009
1 convinced
Rebuttal
Something similar is in the process of being introduced in the UK. All citizens will be required by law to be in some type of formal education until the age of 18. This includes traditional and vocational education.

I think it is a good idea, especially vocational training and I think that the level of education that students leaving school at 16 have does not prepare them to enter a workforce that is primarily service industry led as opposed to manufacturing focused workforces.

 
vancam
Feb 26, 2009
1 convinced
Rebuttal
Rebuttal to: Brett Stubbs Show

Obama isn't Hitler... he's the anti-christ.

Everybody knows that.

 
vancam
Feb 26, 2009
1 convinced
Rebuttal
Rebuttal to: dueonmaplestreet Show

I found these examples from an article pertaining to the UK and Canada enforced learning initiatives...

"Among the examples of how this might be enforced is a scheme in Canada, where under-18 year olds cannot get a driving licence without proof that they are in education or training."

"And the education department already offers young people financial incentives - the educational maintenance allowances (EMAs) - to help them stay in education beyond the age of 16."

Fromt his article:

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/education/6254833.stm

There are obviously plenty of different approaches to enforcing continued education. The application of these methods would have to be introduced in a way that worked with other infrastructure and legislation.

For example, preventing under 18's to collect any state benefits?

 
vancam
Feb 26, 2009
1 convinced
Rebuttal
Rebuttal to: dueonmaplestreet Show

Can we at least agree that his intention to ensure that young people get an education is pure undistilled EVIL?

 
vancam
Feb 27, 2009
1 convinced
Rebuttal
Rebuttal to: shypanda Show

You're absolutely right. Once you have all these students staying in education there needs to be a concerted effort to develop the national curriculum to meet the requirements of differing learning styles and incorporate a much more flexible structure for students thrive in.

I've posted this video a number of times (currently in the TED talks KOTH debate) and will post it again.

http://www.ted.com/index.php/talks/ken_robinson_says_schools_kill_creativity.html

The crucial part of the video (if you will permit to paraphrase) is where Sir Ken describes the young girl who was about to be expelled for being "fidgety" and instead was discovered as an extraordinary and (now) incredibly successful dancer.

This was only possible due to a teacher identifying her as a kinesthetic learner and consequently placing her in an environment where dance formed the core of her educational approach from which other curriculum studies could be introduced.

Simply encouraging students to continue their studies is indeed, not enough. There needs to be a cross curricula method of teaching that uses a 'whole child' approach to learning.

For instance, lessons wouldn't be structured around Maths or English for students that didn't grow in that type of structure, but would instead be built around real-life experiences such as learning to drive which would incorporate cross curricula learning outcomes such as literacy (theory test) and maths (stopping distances).

This can, and should, of course be complimented by actual vocational learning choices.

These three methods of:

1. Traditional curriculum based education
2. Cross curriculum lifestyle based education
3. Vocational and apprentice scheme education and training

would offer a much broader and engaging educational system for all students to grow and develop within.

 
vancam
Feb 27, 2009
1 convinced
Rebuttal
Rebuttal to: dereksemeraro Show

Having (or not having) a "will to learn" isn't a constant or permanent characteristic of an individual.

Individuals need to be inspired to learn, some more than others, but all can, and should, be given an inspirational environment that identifies their points of inspiration and maps a bespoke learning plan to their educational requirements.

 
vancam
Feb 27, 2009
1 convinced
Rebuttal
Rebuttal to: frankiej4189 Show

There are three widely recognised learning methodologies.

1. Traditional curriculum based education (maths, english, Geog etc).
2. Cross curriculum lifestyle based education (Focus on core skill with additional curricula activities introduced as part of the core lessons).

3. Vocational and apprentice scheme education and training (on the job training).

I think it's number two, cross curricula, that you are confused about?

If so, A good 'current' example of cross curricula education is a drama academy. The core study focus is on drama whilst the other key curriculum lessons are introduced inside of teaching drama i.e. maths could be taught in terms of the mathematical make-up of rhythm and musical composition or geography in terms of style of dance for different regions etc.

 
vancam
Feb 27, 2009
1 convinced
Rebuttal
Rebuttal to: blackkodiak Show

"Kind of forces a kid to close down a lot of career options pretty early, doesn't it?"


No, completely the opposite. The idea of all three methodologies is to ensure that the learner continues to gain cross curricula learning to AVOID having their career options closed down by an early decision to leave education.

Using the three examples above:

1. The learner continues to study traditional classes (usually 9-12 different subjects)

2. The learner focuses on one subject with other subjects taught within the context of the one they focus on.

3. The learner focuses on a vocational approach whilst still continuing key areas of study.

The entire point of this is to prevent learners leaving education early and consequently closing down their options either by remaining unemployed or entering a job that doesn't offer a rounded training program based on all essential curriculum subjects.

 
vancam
Feb 27, 2009
1 convinced
Rebuttal
Rebuttal to: frankiej4189 Show

Just to clarify. These methodologies DO NOT limit young people. Traditional education takes place until the age when young people can currently leave school and rather than leave and get a sh*t job or be unemployed they are continuing their education either traditionally, cross curricula or vociational.

This means that they are limiting their career choices LESS than they currently would if they left school at 16.

Step by step.

Learner 1 is taught the national curriculum until the age of 16.

Learner 2 is taught the national curriculum until the ahe of 16.

Learner 1 leaves school at age 16 and gets a job limiting their career choices

Learner 2 continues education either traditionally, cross curricula or vocational and can focus on a specific route whilst still continuing to learn other subjects or even ujust continue traditional education covering all subjects equally.

 
vancam
Feb 27, 2009
1 convinced
Rebuttal
Rebuttal to: dereksemeraro Show

At what point did I suggest that any of these approaches involved rewarding failure?

Your failure to contribute more than a sentence to this debate is significant though, and should be rewarded with....

 
sandifromlargo
Feb 27, 2009
1 convinced
Rebuttal
HA HA BACK IN THE GOOD OLD DAYS................

The city I grew up in, had four High Schools.
Trade High, taught the obvious core classes of trades along with basics.
Commerce High, was geared towards Business classes as core along with basics.
Tech High, was for the nerdi genius group core classes geared towards Tecnology along with basics.
Cathedral geared towards College prep and Business, along with religion and basics.

Education there is still set up that way and over all these many long years proved to be VERY successful methodology. Population there has increased A LOT and now there are some traditional High Schools that have joined the group, but, those four have enjoyed a greater ratio of grads over the long haul.

 
frankiej4189
Feb 26, 2009
0 convinced
Rebuttal
Rebuttal to: blackkodiak Show

Thank you for saying that.

 
+ Add Argument

3
no


Brett Stubbs
Feb 26, 2009
3 convinced
Rebuttal
No. Forced learning, what a concept. What comes next? Forced...insert word here. Sometimes I think to myself...what would Hitler do? And if he would do that, I do not like that thing.

 
blackkodiak
Feb 26, 2009
3 convinced
Rebuttal
I'd sooner up-the-standards on pre-existing tiers of education, than create new tiers which prolong a student's academic life.

I believe you can fit this vocational/higher ed. into the system now.

 
palaceofvision
Feb 26, 2009
1 convinced
Rebuttal
Surely all learning is inherently bad as it fills children's minds with facts, thereby wasting space that could otherwise be filled with beer.

 
Brett Stubbs
Feb 27, 2009
1 convinced
Rebuttal
Rebuttal to: vancam Show

I forgot. Silly me. In seriousness, I don't think he's Hitler. I just think that policy is a little authoritarian.

 
dueonmaplestreet
Feb 26, 2009
0 convinced
Rebuttal
Rebuttal to: vancam Show

How are they going to force people to do this? At gun point? Or by refusing to allow them their rights if they don't? Don't complete this school you don't get to vote or carry a gun and so forth?
Define force, how are they going to force people to go to school.

 
dueonmaplestreet
Feb 26, 2009
0 convinced
Rebuttal
Rebuttal to: vancam Show

He isn't the anti-christ, he's an America hating Muslim Terrorist. Thats what everyone knows!

 
dueonmaplestreet
Feb 26, 2009
0 convinced
Rebuttal
Rebuttal to: vancam Show

I'm afraid we're just going to have to agree to disagree.

 
unlabled00
Feb 26, 2009
0 convinced
Rebuttal
I dunno there are some people that, despite what all common sense would suggest, do WAY better in life without full education. Plenty of inventors dropped out of school before completing high school, some never went to college... its all about whats right for them rather than what society says is right for them.

 
shypanda
Feb 26, 2009
0 convinced
Rebuttal
Rebuttal to: vancam Show

There is always a place for burger flippers though... (or is it more accurate to say chip dippers?)

 
shypanda
Feb 26, 2009
0 convinced
Rebuttal
If someone has a passion for something that the education system can not assist in the development thereof then the education system serves no purpose for that individual.

Also if someone just doesn't like school and drops out then they should be allowed to fail at life. I have no obligation, legal, moral or otherwise, to ensure that they succeed against their will.

Laws that require institutions of higher learning be attended are just wrong. This is something that should NOT be brought into our current society. The only real effect that it will have is to lower the value of the education produced by that institution.

The government need only ensure that an individual have the ability to become a productive member of society. You don't need to do anything other than simple math and literacy to accomplish this task... now get back to work, I want my Big Mac.

 
dereksemeraro
Feb 27, 2009
0 convinced
Rebuttal
If people have no will to learn, they will not learn. Why need to waste tax dollars on them?

 
frankiej4189
Feb 27, 2009
0 convinced
Rebuttal
Rebuttal to: vancam Show

Van i'm a little confused as to what you're suggesting here. Correct me if i'm wrong with one of the things i think you're suggesting. Are you saying that students should still take general courses (Science, Math, English, etc) but there should be more emphasis on the non general courses that appeal to the interests of the individual student?

 
blackkodiak
Feb 27, 2009
0 convinced
Rebuttal
Rebuttal to: vancam Show

Kind of forces a kid to close down a lot of career options pretty early, doesn't it?

 
frankiej4189
Feb 27, 2009
0 convinced
Rebuttal
Rebuttal to: vancam Show

I doubt kids would be able to get the same mathematical problem solving skills from drama math then they would from a Pre-Calculus class.

I dont like the idea of young people already limiting themselves to a career when they're so young. I've wanted to be a doctor since i was 17 years old, so coming from someone who thinks they know what they want to do with the rest of their life, i'm saying that its always a bad idea to limit yourself educationally. IMO, these general credits that are specific to a career are shutting more doors than opening.

But then again, i'm no edumacator and i dont work in the edumacationatorial field so i wouldnt take what i'm saying to the bank.

 
dereksemeraro
Feb 27, 2009
0 convinced
Rebuttal
Rebuttal to: vancam Show

Rewarding failure only results in more failure.

 
dereksemeraro
Feb 28, 2009
0 convinced
Rebuttal
Rebuttal to: vancam Show

I do not have a problem with your proposed plan actually. My only concern is that tax payers should only pay for students who do not make waste of the resources given to them. Other than that I agree with you. I do suggest disincentives to not learning.

 
kaleb
Feb 28, 2009
0 convinced
Rebuttal
when did rights turn into mandates?

"The only purpose for which power can be rightfully exercised over any member of a civilized community, against his will, is to prevent harm to others. His own good, either physical or moral, is not sufficient warrant. – John Stuart Mill, On Liberty (1859)"

 


Use these tags to find similiar debates

education futuro historia school BBC britain british children college degree educación education English Evolution Frankie government grades great britain health Homework information kids language learning life money school schools socialism Society student students teach teacher teachers uk university VanCam youth