Many of my closest friends and I lived for one hundred eighty days a year in the semi-elite community of being in the top ten percent of our class. For some of us, it was easy, and for others it was hard, but that doesn't change the fact that we were given better opportunities than those that fell below our uppity academic bracket. We had chances to take college classes at reduced prices, join societies geared toward community service that undoubtedly lent us special privileges in college application processes and awarded us decorations with which to walk across the stage to receive our diploma - itself signifying more than those that weren't in our position. The questions raised are (a) why are we valuing higher achieving students over lower achieving ones and (b) how can we correct ourselves?
As for why we've managed to place a higher price on heads of the advanced over those that trail behind is a circumstance, I can only imagine the answer is societal in nature. I grew up as someone that valued intelligence and the accumulation of knowledge, but the nature of intellect and knowledge is that it varies (ie. It's categorical). I know plenty about, say, American history and yet I fail to grasp even the basic understanding of automobile mechanisms. That doesn't make me generally ignorant - it makes me situationally ignorant, like most of society. Yet, people in my circumstance are viewed as smarter than the mechanic I might rely on should something happen to my car. I don't believe that's so. Nevertheless, society has perpetuated the idea and its adoption as fact is what has led to academic institutions making the assumption that students that aren't sufficiently book-smart are utterly “non-smart”, a tragic conclusion responsible for many of the places modern America find itself.
Of course, rarely does society push itself beyond the point of no return (and thank God because we make plenty of mistakes). These beliefs are as unchangeable as they are immutable (aka easily changeable). So I digress, one can’t force a student to learn that which does not capture their interest. Let us begin to put seemingly low achieving high schoolers in the position to get their hands dirty, let us begin to give them a reason to learn. Many students find this outlet through vocational schools which are certainly of value to a free market, but the attitude toward vocational schools is still one of despair and negative judgement. Rare is the adolescent willing to do things in light of being viewed with negativity. Instead of forcing students out of the classroom and into vocational studies, a solution could be give them the option to shadow and learn from experts before returning to a classroom with the goal in mind to expand their knowledge of what has now become important to them.
Speaking with Dr. Richard Holodick, a former educational leader in Williamsport, Pennsylvania, he said of a similarly implemented program that “It was a worked based, hands on approach where absolutely nothing was taught that was not relevant to the task at hand.” His district was influenced by programs of the Mercedes Benz plant in Germany which accommodates lower-scoring students into a sort of apprenticeship experience.
But did it work when Americanized? Dr. Holodick noted the program's rise to prominence when the late Peter Jennings featured it on ABC News’ American Agenda, as well as a “five page spread about the students participating in business and industry in The Smithsonian Magazine” and, of course, President Bill Clinton awarding two students for their achievements in the White House's Rose Garden. However, more than awards, more than pomp and circumstance, is the fact that the students experienced increased academic achievement, lower rates of attendance problems, and decreased need for regular disciplinary measures.
Relevancy is key. In the old program, no student was ever asked to learn something without being told why. In a new program, the same should be remain true. The current ways of academia unfairly focused on the upper echelon of the student body, treated below average students with neglect and disinterest. I'm not saying this is the only option for low achieving students but it very well may be a starting point. We can correct the injustice, and begin to value all of our students equally
