Dear Editor,
While, at least on the surface of it, I don’t have a problem with the plan to keep secondary students in school for an additional two mandatory years, I do have concerns.
Putting aside the legal issues of keeping a student who was admitted to high school at age 12 until he is a 19-year-old adult, for the seven years, against his will, how will they find the extra space that will be needed (by September) to keep those who would have otherwise graduated at grade 11? And these are not the only concerns with this new plan.
I understand that for those students who normally spend an extra two years after grade 11 doing Advanced Level subjects, nothing much will change. However, those students that don’t qualify for this level are going to be kept for the extra two years. My understanding is that they will be enrolled in the Career Advancement Programme (CAP). Having been involved now in the education system for a number of years, I think I can safely say that CAP, in its current form, is a complete waste of time.
Those students who would otherwise not matriculate to the present sixth form programmes that exist should be made to use the extra two years to learn a skill — a skill that they can use.
The example was given of the fact that today’s auto mechanics need to know more about computers than nuts and bolts, as today’s cars are very much computerised. The same is true of furniture makers. The traditional furniture maker using a saw and a chisel is being replaced with a 3-D printer. There are many other examples. As such, these new and future realities raise interesting challenges for this new compulsory seven-year secondary education.
Most of our secondary schools are not equipped to train students to work in today’s working world, much less for the world to come. So, to implement this plan our schools will need major upgrading to make this compulsory seven-year plan relevant, as many students will not qualify for the traditional sixth forms that we are accustomed to.
I know it may be unrealistic to equip all schools with all of the facilities for all vocations. So I suspect that our secondary schools will become specialised centres of learning — with post-grade 11 students being moved to the school that is equipped for their respective needs. Of course, if we are really serious, I suppose we will soon be told as to how the physical transformation of these schools will be funded.
Then, of course, there is the issue of the teachers. We will have to find the qualified teachers to teach these new vocations. I am still not sure yet where they will come from, but I suppose the education ministry has a plan.
What I would really like to see are students who, for one reason or another, are not qualified for the traditional sixth form and who are kept back for the compulsory seven years leaving with the ability to do the specialised jobs of today and the future. CAP in its current form will not do.
Michael A Dingwall
michael_a_dingwall@hotmail.com
While, at least on the surface of it, I don’t have a problem with the plan to keep secondary students in school for an additional two mandatory years, I do have concerns.
Putting aside the legal issues of keeping a student who was admitted to high school at age 12 until he is a 19-year-old adult, for the seven years, against his will, how will they find the extra space that will be needed (by September) to keep those who would have otherwise graduated at grade 11? And these are not the only concerns with this new plan.
I understand that for those students who normally spend an extra two years after grade 11 doing Advanced Level subjects, nothing much will change. However, those students that don’t qualify for this level are going to be kept for the extra two years. My understanding is that they will be enrolled in the Career Advancement Programme (CAP). Having been involved now in the education system for a number of years, I think I can safely say that CAP, in its current form, is a complete waste of time.
Those students who would otherwise not matriculate to the present sixth form programmes that exist should be made to use the extra two years to learn a skill — a skill that they can use.
The example was given of the fact that today’s auto mechanics need to know more about computers than nuts and bolts, as today’s cars are very much computerised. The same is true of furniture makers. The traditional furniture maker using a saw and a chisel is being replaced with a 3-D printer. There are many other examples. As such, these new and future realities raise interesting challenges for this new compulsory seven-year secondary education.
Most of our secondary schools are not equipped to train students to work in today’s working world, much less for the world to come. So, to implement this plan our schools will need major upgrading to make this compulsory seven-year plan relevant, as many students will not qualify for the traditional sixth forms that we are accustomed to.
I know it may be unrealistic to equip all schools with all of the facilities for all vocations. So I suspect that our secondary schools will become specialised centres of learning — with post-grade 11 students being moved to the school that is equipped for their respective needs. Of course, if we are really serious, I suppose we will soon be told as to how the physical transformation of these schools will be funded.
Then, of course, there is the issue of the teachers. We will have to find the qualified teachers to teach these new vocations. I am still not sure yet where they will come from, but I suppose the education ministry has a plan.
What I would really like to see are students who, for one reason or another, are not qualified for the traditional sixth form and who are kept back for the compulsory seven years leaving with the ability to do the specialised jobs of today and the future. CAP in its current form will not do.
Michael A Dingwall
michael_a_dingwall@hotmail.com