Experience to date is that it is the "same old, same old." We've seen no evidence of these smaller academies. I'm actually glad about this because I hate the academies idea; forcing high schoolers to pick a future track is ludicrous. The school needs to focus on basics before it can even entertain something this complex.
I remember my (non-Alexandrian) high school experience. It was a magnet school with a variety of different tracks: business, IT, engineering (the physical kind, not the computer kind), graphic design, healthcare, etc. At it worked really well—you did indeed spend a lot of time with the people in your track learning things unique to your group.
If the different tracks really offer something unique, it could be a good way for students to pursue studies aligned with their own interests and strengths. But those names sound, perhaps, overly broad. And the inclusion of "general studies" isn't very inspiring. What is that even supposed to mean? Is "general studies" just Hufflepuff, the dumping ground for students too generic to go anywhere else?
Even something I nominally support like STEM leaves me with questions. What is unique about this track? Do you just take extra science and math classes? Can you sub-specialize, such as some students focusing on computer science while others work with machine tools? And would those inclined to try the latter be turned off by this academy if they thought they had to do the former and didn't feel like they'd be good at it?
"Play it again Sam"
Experience to date is that it is the "same old, same old." We've seen no evidence of these smaller academies. I'm actually glad about this because I hate the academies idea; forcing high schoolers to pick a future track is ludicrous. The school needs to focus on basics before it can even entertain something this complex.
I remember my (non-Alexandrian) high school experience. It was a magnet school with a variety of different tracks: business, IT, engineering (the physical kind, not the computer kind), graphic design, healthcare, etc. At it worked really well—you did indeed spend a lot of time with the people in your track learning things unique to your group.
If the different tracks really offer something unique, it could be a good way for students to pursue studies aligned with their own interests and strengths. But those names sound, perhaps, overly broad. And the inclusion of "general studies" isn't very inspiring. What is that even supposed to mean? Is "general studies" just Hufflepuff, the dumping ground for students too generic to go anywhere else?
Even something I nominally support like STEM leaves me with questions. What is unique about this track? Do you just take extra science and math classes? Can you sub-specialize, such as some students focusing on computer science while others work with machine tools? And would those inclined to try the latter be turned off by this academy if they thought they had to do the former and didn't feel like they'd be good at it?