Within every stage
of my life, I have been a part of some organization, but I never took an active
role in them until I got to high school. As a general member, I found, and
still find it difficult to relate to the group as a whole, because there are so
many different personalities and paradigms for making the organization’s actions
successful. I learned to determine the size of organizations in relation to the
time it meets. An organization that meets infrequently, but has 20 active members,
may seem larger than another that has 40 active members but meets
proportionately more.
I consider my high
school sports team to be an organization in its own rite, and correspondingly I
was a captain. For anonymity’s sake, the sport will be volleyball. As a
perceived leader, I realized how much power people in managerial positions may
not have. My responsibilities were to make sure everyone went to study hours,
had rides to practice, and performed to their maximum potential, while also doing
all of these things and being a good representative of the team and our school.
I learned that some of my responsibilities were contradictory, because, depending
upon a team composition, the difficulty of keeping everyone and myself
perfectly in line varies from ease to impossibility.
Growing up, I
thought volleyball captains were a step below coaches in terms of judicial
power, but I found myself unable to force actions out of other players, unless
they saw a benefit in doing so. For some members, that meant proof that what I
was asking them to do worked and for others that meant I had to do it with
them. I did not know how to motivate everyone to perform better. Furthermore, I
could not cut players who did not do what I said, so when I asked my supervisors
for assistance, I expected things to happen right away. Change did not happen
right away, if at all, because they had to do their own situational analysis so
I questioned the purpose of my position. How can organizations be successful if
they move slowly in their actions? Are organizations, like high school sports
teams, have a shorter long-run more successful, or just more rash and
ineffective? High school volleyball acted as a microcosm in my own analysis of
public schools in my state.
I find the system
of secondary education to be especially interesting, because the quality of
education is not across the state. As my membership as a high school senior
came to a conclusion, I began finding the educational system to be inefficient
to my needs, but also my classmates and societal progression. With a macro
approach, in an efficient, consumer-minded society, the reason would be that
some students will work best with jobs that do not require academic education. It
could also mean that it is societally more efficient to choose what jobs people
must take. However, there are ideological and moral issues with both of these
philosophies which have intersections nonetheless. If students are able to
specialize their educations earlier, assuming they do not change their desired
profession, they will undoubtedly be more proficient, but instead they must participate
in a school with a rigid academic structure that does not align with their preferred
education. Not only does this make the
education system more efficient, but it also gives people with lower incomes,
who are more likely to resort to criminal activities, an opportunity to
participate in more societally productive activities. Then again, it’s nearly
impossible to know if a student will change their minds and decide to do
something else if they are exposed to a new field of study. If, to combat this,
the government (organization) chose to choose what they studied, inevitably,
some people would be forced to pursue what they would not, and without violent
force, they would be more inefficient.
I believe that,
before all else, we should prioritize making our education system more
efficient.
It sounds like being captain of the volleyball team is good preparation to be the parent of a teenager.
ReplyDeleteLet me divide my comments as you seem to have divided your post into first talking about the volleyball team and second talking about high school in general.
There definitely is a difference between a mentor and a supervisor. I have been involved with mentoring of students on campus for the past 5 years of so and what I've learned from some of the training we've had is that the mentees tend to think there is a lot of value in these relationship, but the mentors don't see as much value. I think much of that echoes some of the frustration you expressed. For example, I've encourage my mentees to go to office hours in their various courses and do so early in the semester. It is a tough sell. So I think I understand some of what you were going through as captain.
However, there are things about the environment that you could have described better to help understand the situation. Was being on the team a big deal? Was the team very good or only mediocre? Did any of the players in previous years get college scholarships as a consequence of the athletics? These things would obviously matter in the motivation of other players on the team and influence how easy or hard it would be to do the job of captain.
Now let me switch gears and take on your penultimate paragraph. There are at least two distinct reasons for education in K12. One, that you've noted, is to prepare people for future employment. On that you argue that the education should be more differentiated. The other, however, you've ignored. This is to prepare people to be good citizens and participate in society. It may be that this second purpose requires a more homogenous approach to education.
However, many schools don't perform well and may come up short in delivering on both purposes. There are a variety of reasons for this, of which I'm sure you are aware, but let me just focus on one that explains a lot in the state of Illinois. This is how the schools are funded, mainly by property taxes. Richer communities have better schools. Poorer communities are where schools are likely to perform less well.
So I wonder if you might consider your efficiency ideas both in the present of adequate funding and also when funding for the schools is deficient.
Now let close with a bit of nostalgia. Though I was definitely on the academic track as a kid, I took shop in junior high school - woodworking in 7th grade, ceramics in 8th grade. My high school was big enough to offer preparation for those who would become secretaries and perhaps also those who work in automotive repair, as well as the usual academic stuff. My kids, in contrast, who went to public schools in Champaign, had no shop class that I am aware of. But they did have marching band, which my school didn't have.
My point is that some of this varies geographically and some of if over time. The shop classes, I think, have gone by the wayside. I'm not completely sure why. But it may be that the expectation is to learn those skills after high school, not during it. And, hearing your critique in my head, doesn't that just mean we're wasting people's time in high school?
I don't know. Maybe we are.
If it matters, the team was good, and somewhat of a big deal in terms of school pride. Some players did get scholarships because of it; I turned a few down because I did not wish to be seen as only an athlete moving forward in my life, as I had seen happen to many players before me who were sought to play at good D3 school, decent D2 schools, and low tier D1 schools.
ReplyDeleteI hadn't thought much about the idea of schooling being beneficial to creating good citizens, which I guess I had always assumed.