Form - Washington Education Association: Fill & Download for Free

Before the 19th century, childhood education in America was a haphazard mix of town and village schools, religious education, and other models.The common school model of school education was fairly widespread in New England, and starting in the 1830s, an influential thinker and political figure, Horace Mann urged the revival and extension of common schools throughout the country. Mann served in the U.S. Congress from 1848–1853.School did not become compulsory until the civil war era, with Massachusetts being the first state to implement it, in 1852.But the biggest move toward a standardized system of public schools came after the civil war, and was rooted in the recognition that the freed slaves had received no education at all, and the belief that the nation had a moral duty to provide them with a system of education. Reconstruction forced change on the American South and over time that change propagated throughout the country and affected the lives of all Americans, not just freed slaves.Both our current 12 grade system and our current system of public colleges took their present form as influential educators, like Booker T. Washington, pushed for change in the 1890s.The 12 grade system was created by the 1892 Committee of Ten of the National Education Association (the NEA). This committee was formed to evaluate methods of teaching that were being used around the country and develop a standardized model. By the 1890s, the now-mandatory schools often divided college-bound students from trade school-bound students when they started school, sometimes using explicit categories of race and class to make the division. There were schools that used a system of studying classical Greek and Latin writers. There were schools that mandated rote memorization for learning.One of the recommendations of the Committee of Ten was to standardize on our current system of 12 grades. There were to be eight years of primary instruction followed by four years of secondary school.The separation of students into college-bound and trade-school bound or school leaving groups was also eliminated in the plan of the committee, who wrote in their final report “ . . . every subject which is taught at all in a secondary school should be taught in the same way and to the same extent to every pupil so long as he pursues it, no matter what the probable destination of the pupil may be, or at what point his education is to cease.”The committee was made up of the following influential educators, who in turn convened subgroups of other contributors. . ..Charles William Eliot, President of Harvard University.William T. Harris, U.S. Commissioner of Education.James Angell, President of the University of Michigan.John Tetlow, Headmaster of the Girls’ High School, Boston.James M. Taylor, President of Vassar College.Oscar D. Robinson, high school principal, Albany, New YorkJames H. Baker, President of the University of Colorado.Richard Henry Jesse, President of the University of Missouri.James C. Mackenzie, Headmaster of the Lawrenceville School, New JerseyHenry C. King, professor at in Oberlin College.These are the people to thank for our current system of grade levels, which have since spread around the world and become the standard in many other countries.In other places the British “forms” system has been adopted.

I’ll answer with respect to Running Start in Washington State (it also exists in Hawaii).I’m not sure who these people are who say Running Start is a bad idea. I hear mostly good things about it, though it is also clearly not for all students. The basic idea of Running Start is that High School Students in their Junior and Senior years (last two years) can enroll part time or full time in a local college to take some or all of their coursework. The tuition at the college is paid for by the State of Washington education department. Students are only eligible for 2 years, and it is intended that they graduate high school at the end of those two years. Generally, Running Start students do not “graduate early” (unless they were already on track to do so), but they might stop going to high school early. If they never take a class or extracurricular at their high school during those two years, they probably only have to go back for a very small number of perfunctory meetings or exams, if that. But they don’t actually get their high school diploma until they finish all the usual requirements (generally at the end of the two years).The good things:They can earn an Associates Degree and their HS Diploma simultaneously, saving time.Any credits they take/pass at the college are tuition-free to them. They could end up with an AA with no tuition payments, or they can take that AA or other credits and transfer to a larger college or university and get a Bachelor's degree in less time (not always in 2 years, but less than 4).They can get more challenging coursework not available in some high schools, or with peers who are a little more academically serious than some high school peers. (Note: those other students might all be “Running Start” students in some college courses — but then generally you will find more academically inclined “high school” students among the subset who choose this program.)Students who do RS have to take a *lot of responsibility* for their schedule, homework, credits, etc. that is easier for them in a traditional high school. This creates students who are much more well-prepared for University or for a regular job/life than ones walking out of high school without that experience. (ON AVERAGE)Students who do not care for the cady and sometimes trivial nature of social structures at American high schools can skip two years of that (boy what I would give…)The bad things:The responsibility is a lot for a 16/17 year old. Some are not up for it. Some will feel more stressed.You have to transport yourself to the college. It won’t necessarily be in your neighborhood, and there won’t be a school bus. Some school districts offer bus passes to help.Not all colleges will have class schedules so well designed for high school requirements.Its harder to participate in school extracurriculars (sports, clubs, student government, drama, debate, etc.) Mostly it’s harder because of timing/transportation. Your local high school is required to *allow* you do to these things. But they don’t have to help you get there…Social disconnection from your peer group. (note: for some this is a pro, for others a con)All that said, I think it’s a fantastic program and I’m glad our state offers it. My children may well both partake of it. (Oldest is 1.5 years away, but this is his plan.)Note: if you’re interested in state-sponsored education outside of traditional high school programming, it also might be a good idea to look at WANIC. This is a program to pay for high schoolers to learn “technical skills” at a local technical institute or training center. This can be anything from Automotive Technology and Culinary Skills, to Networking and Video Game Development. WANIC programs are usually part-time, not full time, but can form a significant part of a high school student’s curriculum. WANIC is also accessible in some cases from 9th grade on.

Since this is politics, let’s start with the money.Verdant Labs, using data provided by the Federal Election Committee, created a visualization based on 20 million campaign contributors between 1996 and early 2016. Those who primarily donated to Republicans were flagged as Republicans, and vice versa for Democrats. They were separated into groups according to their occupation, then displayed with their partisan lean. [1] [2]So, which occupations had the most partisan campaign contributors?The most Republican donors worked in the Fossil Fuel industry, with Forming & Forestry, Surgical Practice, Insurance, and Construction professions leaning rightward by at least 2 to 1 margins.The most Democratic donors were concentrated in Social and Environmental Work, Film and Stage Production, Editorial, and Libraries. With all the occupations listed below leaning leftward at greater than 4 to 1 ratios..(Again, these are campaign donors. This is not the breakdown for the population as a whole)We can also compare occupation to state-level voting habits. Via CityLab’s Richard Florida,Our analysis looked at the role of class (defined as the kinds of work people do) and voting in the last three presidential elections.We looked at the correlations between the share of workers that make up the three major classes—the blue-collar working class, the knowledge-based creative class, and the even larger service class—and state voting patterns. The table below details the top states (including Washington, D.C.) with the largest share of the three major classes.Doing so reveals occupational trends broadly aligned with the nations urban/ rural and blue collar/white collar divides. Clinton leaning states were heavily associated with creative class and, to a lesser extent, service class jobs.Trump leaning states were heavily associated with working class jobs.The correlation between creative occupations and the left, as well as working-class occupations and the right, increased significantly since 2008. The correlation with service class occupations and the left decreased during this same period.Lastly, it’s worth highlighting the impact of education. While minorities as a whole overwhelmingly vote Democratic, a key divider between Democratic and Republican whites is college graduates. White graduates have gone from being majority Republican to Democratic, while white nongraduates have increasingly shifted the other way.Amongst white voters, non-college-educated men and college-educated women are particularly partisan.So, what do we know?Both parties have occupations whose donations have overwhelmingly leaned towards them. The influence of fossil fuel workers, farmers and surgical practitioners on the right, as well as environmentalists, academia and the performative arts on the left, is obvious even at the ground stage.Class association is significantly different between right and left leaning states.Education is a key dividing factor for white voters. This is particularly true for non college educated white men and college educated white women.Altogether, I hope this provides a useful framework for considering the influence of political affiliation and occupation. I will say that while the cultural consensus regarding the electorate is often incorrect, this plays well with the common wisdom following 2016.Sources[1] Democratic vs. Republican occupations (Democratic vs. Republican occupations)[2] https://apprecs.com/blog/democrat-republican-name (https://apprecs.com/blog/democrat-republican-name)[3] How Occupational Class Influences U.S. Voting Patterns[4] 1. Trends in party affiliation among demographic groups[5] In Changing U.S. Electorate, Race and Education Remain Stark Dividing Lines