Nonsense?

Nonsense? In an editorial of the magazine Challenges (No. of 01-10-2009), Richard Descoings recalls the need to reform the school and especially the "general high school." I must say that I share many of his observations and analyzes. The school is generally an unjust and ineffective school and produces too much failure. Let me be clear, he is not here to criticize the work of my high school teachers colleagues (I am one for 29 years) but to seek to improve the system in which teachers operate and act. Reform efforts are too often sealed by the feeling among some teachers that there is a challenge and an attack of their own work and even their person. The law of series, but most of the about this post is not here. In his text, the director of Paris-Sc.Po describes pay website do homework for me
the architecture of the general high school and finds that in the S series "are grouped the best" and adds "In contrast, there is the L series, with at just over 10% of the workforce … but 80% of girls. in between, the ES series instead found a good balance, with the nonsense mix sociology and economics too early in any young minds. " Devil ! a "nonsense"? Richard Descoings was known more measured (including the drafting of its report) … Incidentally, it confuses the ES series and discipline "Economic and social sciences" but mostly he says peremptorily that deserves at least to be discussed. This intersection of scientific references have always asked for higher education including R. Descoings is a representative. This even led to denounce the SES as a "didactic anomaly" (a rector still exercise had then used the expression of "genetic error"). Because school discipline (heiress of the school annals) reconstructs the social sciences distinctly disjointed in higher education, economy and especially sociology. But we also know that a long time "school discipline" is not and can not be a carbon copy of scholarly disciplines. There must be a work of transposition and didactic and pedagogical choices operates. The importance of the conjunction SES are not the only discipline that is made up of several knowledge. History and Geography, Physics, Chemistry, Life Sciences and Earth, there are many examples. But it is the only supported as strongly on the conjunction. The "and" is the symbol of the combination of different social sciences (economics, sociology as well as political science, demography, psychology, …) whereas for other discipline is the dash wins. For example the story is related to geography by a hyphen. Yet, these two materials are almost always taught separately even if they are represented by a single teacher. Economic and social sciences announce another logic since it will combine the various approaches around an object-problem (unemployment, labor, business …) so that students can grasp the complexity of " society in which they live. " Hence the frequent accusation of lacking rigor and scientific. Among the teachers of SES, a debate existed for several years on the place and role that should have academic knowledge. In this perspective, some advocate to change the ITS to a teaching of "economics-sociology." This claim has been strengthened, it seems to me, by changes in programs leading to a more enhanced cleavage party "eco" and "social" program. This development could attract teachers of a quest for respectability and legitimacy discipline. The theory before the music … But this did not prevent recurrent criticism from academics and various pressure groups including Richard Descoings is now the interpreter. Critical bearing both on programs and on SES manuals. Some like the other would lack rigor and seriousness. The report of the Committee Guesnerie submitted to the Minister of Education in June 2008, which proposed an audit of both aspects recommended to insist on "fundamentals" and avoid disciplinary crossovers that might disrupt student learning (deemed too young to access this approach). as it pointed to the need to better prepare students for university studies corresponding to this knowledge. We can see with this expression of "fundamentals" that this debate is not unique to the SES but it crosses all disciplines almost. We have seen its use in the context of the reform of Primary programs. It brings us to the question of how are learning. Giving meaning rather than "nonsense" … In the current debate, there is the recommendation that we should always learn from the simple to the complex. But what makes sense? What gives the "flavor to Knowledge"? Without going into an epistemological and didactic debate, we can remember that this is often the fact that learning can meet to "live issues" questions that make sense to the students. By removing the "and" we would go back to making student motivation and mechanisms of learning. It is by addressing complex objects that make sense that we will then be able to deepen the concepts and not vice versa. Without giving up knowledge but creating the conditions for motivation and desire to go further. Learning including from primary school are often a round trip between the simple and the complex. The "fundamentals" is like saying that before students play music they have to make at least three years of music theory! Since Richard Descoings made the observation of the inefficiency of high school, he would rather it examines the contribution of subjects such as Economics and Social Sciences (and many others) or devices such as Personal Work boxes (TPE) to give meaning to learning and interest in learning for eleves.Voila a real ambition for high school … Posted by Watrelot to Sunday, October 4, 2009