USA on the Rest of the World

Remove all ads!

Aldeth, that makes me wonder why we even bother. Just give the kids a diploma and not waste the taxpayers money.

 

They also don't teach us much world geography, but don't they have any curiosity inside them? I learned most of my knowledge on world geography on my own, when I was in primary school.

 

I think one reason that many private schools have more extensive programs is that they aren't required to comply to the No Child Left Behind Act. Even though it's a national law, the only penalty for non-compliance to the Act is that the school will get less (or in some cases no) government funding. With private schools, most of the costs are paid through student tuitions, and therefore government contributions are not necessary. Public schools, on the other hand, are funded almost exclusively through the government (through taxes), and as such, compliance is obligatory.

It wouldn't be so bad if the students were at least getting very strong math, reading comprehension, and science classes, but that's not even happening. You see, the teachers get access to the tests in the beginning of the year, and as such, the curriculum is tailored to teach students exactly what's on the test so that they perform well.

My example earlier of not teaching graphing because it's not tested is just one of many I could have cited. Some are even sillier than that. For a more egregious example, take this year's test. There is a big section on the test of adding and subtracting decimals and fractions, so that is taught. However, since the test does not require converting fractions to decimals (or vice versa) converting a fraction to a decimal is NOT taught, even though it seems like a logical progression. If you know how to add a subtract decimals and fractions, I would think that the next logical step in instruction would be show how you convert one to another, as they are essentially showing different numerical representations of the same thing. It seems like it wouldn't be too hard to teach a child who knows what 0.7 is and what 7/10 is, that the two are actually equal to each other, and why this is so.

Other skills that seem much less important in terms of using it in real life do appear on the test, so they are taught. My wife's students cannot tell you that 3/4 = 0.75, but they can tell you the difference between a trapazoid and a rectangle, and the difference between an isosciles and an equalateral triangle. While I can support the idea of teaching elementary school students basic geometry, it seems like knowing things like this is a lot less important (and certainly way less practical) than being able to convert fractions and decimals.

The final problem my wife encounters is since the other subjects not included in the Act are taught so infrequently, it's very difficult to give grades to students at the end of the quarter, because there were so few tests in that subject area. The problem this quarter was in health. Health only gets two 30-minute sessions every other week. As a result, she only has two grades for each student in the past quarter. She doesn't want to give grades to students based on just two scores, because obviously, if you happened to do poorly on one of the two, you have a bad average. For spelling tests, you get one each week, so one bad score isn't going to kill your overall average. Because how the new curriculum is designed, some subjects are left out entirely, and other subjects like health, social studies, and history are taught so little that you cannot fairly assess a student's performance.

 

I believe most Americans actually don't need this kind of knowledge at all to be able to get an acceptable job or just to live without problems. (And USA is big, you travel hundreds of miles and still your country -- if you do it here in Europe, you go through 5-8 countries meanwhile.)
But eventually, it's the question of educational systems and people's motivations, possibilities. I will talk about the latter factor.

I can tell about Central Europe, Eastern Europe and Russia: most people (who has had a tough life, and their number is not low) want much better to their children, so they pay (if they can) for the studies of their children -- who have to study a lot to get the chance for a better job and life. In countries where social security and relatively high employment is guaranteed, signficantly less people are motivated to study for this reason. Which is natural, because no one does something that he doesn't need. (I'm talking about the "average" people, not those who chose their profession because they like it, and become scientists, engineers etc.) From what I heard about USA, parents there tell "go and earn the money for your uni studies" more often than they decide to pay for it. Because no one is going to starve (or at least won't have too serious financial problems) without a master's degree...


A little about the education of natural sciences:
As far as I know (correct me if I'm wrong), in most US high schools there is one subject called "Science", and students have to choose one from Maths, Physics, Biology (or Physics, Biology, Chemistry?). That is, there will be people who never studied Biology on that level, while others never studied Physics etc.
(Though someone said to me last year that Bush had talked about the importance of teaching the natural sciences somewhere, because a big percent of people is very uneducated in these sciences.)

[ February 01, 2007, 21:53: Message edited by: Baronius ]

 

@Baronius:

Every high school I'm aware of requires some type of math to be in your courses every year. If you have no plans to go to a college or university, you don't have to take the higher math courses like Calculus 1 and Calculus 2, but everyone is required to take the easier courses like basic Algebra and basic geometry.

All high schools have science requirements as well. However, the difficulty and emersion in these classes is highly variable. If you don't plan on going to college or university, you can take very general courses to meet your science requirement. In my high school, if you are going to college or university, the minimum science requirement was to take Biology 1, Chemistry 1, and Physics 1. If you were planning on majoring in a science at a college or university, you were advised to take the higher level science courses as well. For example, my high school offered Biology 1, 2, and 3; Chemistry 1, 2 and 3; and Physics 1 and 2. (For some reason, they didn't allow you to take Physics until you were in 11th grade - the next to last year of high school - so the maximum number of Physics courses you could sign up for was 2.

So to answer your basic question, while it is certainly true that there are a great many people who have never had a biology, chemistry, or physics class, it would be difficult to find such a person going to a major university.

 

Great point, Argohir. I think that I did as well, from books I got from the library, and my Dad playing 'find the capital city' games with me. I learnt loads more out of school than in it. A bit like how I learn so much every day from reading posts on these Boards.

 

That's obvious. Well, he or she couldn't stay too much in an uni (unless studies VERY much to fill in the gaps in his/her knowledge). On the other hand, this surprised me:

Here, they start to teach it on the 6th year of elementary school (which is usually 8 years; high school is 9-12th), and teach it to the end. In high schools, usually, you have to learn Physics in the first two year, then if you choose it optionally, then another two years. So the minimum seems to be 3+2 = 5 years. (It's another question in what quality it is taught on certain places. This is true to most if not all countries, I guess.)

I think United States is a country of variety in this respect too: (as far as I heard) you can find very low-quality schools as well as several of the best universities of the world. That is, if someone wants to study, it's possible (there are some restriction factors though, such as fees). There is support and of course, money for research. (I heard somwhere that 50% of PhD students in USA are from abroad).

This inspires me to mention two points.

First is, the importance of game-based/game-centric learning, especially for children (but it's effective for adults as well). The easiest way to learn something is if you enjoy the process itself too (e.g. it belongs to a hobby etc., or you have scientific motivation.)

And the role of parents is more than important here. To give books and talk a lot with the children. I don't want to go off-topic, my point is the following: schools should have the biggest role in general education, but the process also has much to do with the family. If the children are not cared enough by the parents (who run a business and are never at home, for example), they will go to street with gangs etc. instead of taking a book and reading it. That is, the example provided by the family is very important.

My second point is about high schools: strict (but otherwise not too conservative) and versatile schools are the best. We can't expect anyone to study geography or history (and anything else that belongs to general education) in his or her free time; it's obvious this would be the task of elemantary and high schools. In uni you don't do it, in your free time you don't do it: if it doesn't belong to your profession. You'll never do it.
This is why I've always recommended those high schools to those who want to go an uni which teach a wide variety of subjects (here, they're called gymnasiums) and are strict in them. They give general knowledge. High schools that focus on one group of subjects (e.g. Maths, Physics) give very specific knowledge (so uni will be easy at the beginning), but you will never, never learn as much history, geography or e.g. Biology as you did in certain "gymnasiums" (In UK, "grammar school" I guess) which policy is teaching general knowledge instead of focusing on a group of subjects.

So what I think is that there should be less optional subjects (what Aldeth listed) in schools, and more compulsory ones. This would rise the level of knowledge people (who completed high school) have in certain areas of science.

[ February 01, 2007, 23:47: Message edited by: Baronius ]

 

Small 2 coppers worth, if history is not studied and its lessons learned.....it will be endlessly repeated. Look back to where we were 35/45 years ago.

I have to help some of my older grandkids read things that I could read as far back as I can remember. I wish the schools would teach subjects that are inportant and forget the PC crap and so called "life training" and "sensitivity/awareness" that takes away from the teachers time to really teach! This county kids have field trips to Pizza Hut for christs sake. Give me a break! It took one day to show my daughter how to add/sub/mult/devide fractions after she could not learn in a full semester at school. She was interested but I don't think the teacher had time to one on one with her at all. This is the same girl that put together her own computer, an XT, at 8 years old and yes I did help her look up the switch settings she used. She was told she could not turn in her printed homework because not everyone could use a computer! Talk about killing incentive.

This is turning into a rant so let me just add this:
Let our teachers teach.
Teach all subjets for a well rounded educated person. (education, not life training)
Put school money in the classrooms.
Get rid of unnecessary red tape and distractions that do not help learning.
Get the calculators out of grade school. It upsets me to see 12 year olds still counting on their fingers-as they were taught to do in school.
Last, notice and reward good teachers!

We are going to fall behind the rest of the world if our kids do not know what they need to to compete if we haven't started to already.

 

Pretty much the same thing here. High school is always 9th-12th. Elementary school is usually divided up though. Elementary school is typically 1st-5th grade, or somewhere close. Depending on the state, some elementary schools go to either 4th, 5th, or even 6th grade. Then for grades 6th-8th, it usually a different school, that is termed either middle or intermediate school. Middle school is 2-4 years, depending on how the state handles elementary school. I have never known of any state that doesn't start high school at 9th grade though, regardless of how elementary and middle school is seperated.

Are we even talking about the same thing? While it is true that you may do some very basic physics in elementary school, it seems to me that taking an entire course in physics would be very difficult for an elementary school child. Physics 1 is classic Newtonian physics. Physics 2 is electricity and magnetism. In order to really understand it, you have to be able to do some calculus. (In fact, now that I think about it, that's why you can't take physics until you're in 11th grade - that was the first year you're able to take Calculus 1.) Unless they are also teaching 6th graders calculus (and how can you do that without them already knowing at least Albegra), how can it be truly considered a physics course? A 6th grader is what - about 12 years old? And if they are doing calculus at that age, then they are truly very gifted children, as that means they had things like algebra 1 and 2 even earlier in their education.

The thought in U.S. schools is that in order to properly do science, you need to have a background in math as well. The advanced math courses start in 7th grade, and work as follows:

7th: Algebra
8th: Geometry
9th: Algebra 2 (Biology 1 and Chemistry 1 available)
10th: Trigonometry (Biology 1, 2 and Chemistry 1, 2 available)
11th: Calculus 1 (Biology 1, 2, 3; Chemistry 1, 2, 3 and Physics 1 available)
12th: Calculus 2 (all science courses available)

As you can see, since there is considerably less math knowledge required in order to do biology and chemistry as their is in physics, you are allowed to start taking biology and chemistry courses earlier in the program. While all sciences require some level of mathematics, 90% of biology and chemistry can be done so long as you know algebra. While physics can be done with only knowledge of algebra, then it assumes that they just give you all the formulas. There's no way to prove how the forumlas are derived without getting into calculus.

[ February 02, 2007, 16:33: Message edited by: Aldeth the Foppish Idiot ]

 

I guess I get a bit sensitive about this stuff, being an American. I teach elementary students in South Korea and while most can point out where Japan and China are, most are clueless about geography beyond that. There's a saying that a South Korean's awareness of the world stops at the tip of their nose. Of course, it's South Korea so no one gives a crap or expects much from them. Americans? We're all expected to be geniuses.

 

Firstly, I must admit that I am biased. I hated Grade School with a passion and spent most of my time figuring out how not to go. Fortunately I came from a well educated family and learned a lot at home.

Secondly, as a private school teacher I got a lot of what I call public school rejects. Children that did not do well in public school but blossomed with us.

Isn't this to a great extent our own fault. If we hold our country up as the best, the greatest, a shining example to the rest of the world then we should also expect to be criticised when we are seen to fail.

At the moment we are the world's super power and this is naturally going to cause a lot of problems and have critics crawling out of the wood work.

Is this fair? Maybe, maybe not but it is reality.

 

We all know that PE is far more important than History or Geography.

A few of my favorite Jefferson Quotes on education and democracy:

 

Nakia, your post shows you were allowed to teach and it was important to you. I wish you still did. Good teachers are few and I speak from myself in school to my grandkids and what and how they are being taught. I am sure I have not seen nearly as much in education as you have and there must be a way to improve our public schools. I saw the changes when I was going through school and we (the US) had a great system. We don't now. This ticked me off when my kids were in school and it is sending me overboard with the grandkids. My twin grandaughters were held back because they were, and I quote, "too small for their age and grade"! One of them lost interest after sitting for an extra year in classes she already had and never did get going again. This is the system that needs changing. What to do?

 

You're viewing the matter from the methodology of your education system in advance. First of all, defining "entire course" and "really understanding" is a problematic (or subjective) point. A course cannot be "entire" enough in a certain respect. I know what you meant by that, but if it covers a (more or less) "complete" area of Physics, how thorough, how deep is it? The student in 7th year doesn't have to "really understand" it. Actually, yes, he can -- on his/her own level. He or she can still be taught principles and the way of "physical thinking" (that is, how to "think" when solving a problem in Physics). The basics of problem-centric (problem-solving based) thinking can be taught here (that is, let's improve the ability so they will be able to think as well -- beside using lexical templates they learnt -- when solving problems in their future). One doesn't have to know calculus for these. And a nice amount of lexical knowledge in many areas of Physics can also be taught on this level. You don't have to know complex numbers, improper integral or Taylor-MacLaurin series to understand and handle many principles and methods of Physics. (You're right that they get many "ready" formulas, but they can learn and apply them if needed.) They will have knowledge that will serve as a good basis in high school (and similarly, they will build on their high school knowledge in university.). And one more point: such young students are more open to new information in a certain respect, their approach and way of thinking is different (and can be formed more dynamically) than of those who are several years older and have been "infected" by a lot of new (lexical) knowledge.

I'm not working in the education sector in Hungarian Republic, Czech Republic or Slovak Republic, so I'm not an expert in it -- but from what I can see (partly from my education as well in the past), there seems to be an (iterative) incremental system. Even if the syllabus of elementary (by elementary I mean 1-8th) and high schools isn't fully harmonized, the principles can still be applied to a certain extent. (There are slight differences between countries too, of course. For example, what I said that they teach Physics from 6th to 8th was a Slovak example, but Hungarian system is very similar.)
As far as I can judge it from your post (I haven't looked into it externally), I believe that the principle in USA is a good one -- let's teach the basics, then build on them, and courses should be complete, (more or less)comprehensive. The first statements (teaching basics, building on them, building on them, ...) is the basis (or the most important pillar) of every usual educational methology, so it's obvious. However, comprehensiveness, "entirety" is more problematic. In my country, this is mainly applied only on uni level (especially in case of good unis) in higher quality. This is because you must have very good skills (and some minimal level of talent) and a wide point of view to be able to "really", deeply understand the the basics of Physics. This can be assumed in case of those who decide to visit a uni/college. (Another goal in our -- and of course not just our -- system is finding and supporting talented children. E.g. supporting those who normally couldn't afford to study and thus utilize their talent, but it's about much more than financial support. This is beyond the scope of this topic.)

[ February 03, 2007, 15:13: Message edited by: Baronius ]

 

I very much disagree. Common ignorance is something which is far far more dangereous than obesity. Also I do not think that physical education much helps anyone. Atleast the physical education I had never got me interested in excercising. I started it by my own and I think the same goes for most people. Also while geography and history can be learned, the same goes for physical exercise. The real question is will the common man bother with either of these later? The answer in both cases would likely be no. If you ask me, physical education is complete garbage and should be scrapped alltogether. If the only excercise they do is the physical education at school they're allready hopelessly out of shape.

Instead I think the money should be distributed so that the government would sponsor families to getting their kid involved with some kind of sports and education about a healthier lifestyle. Physical education is inefficent bordering uselessnes. A kid who does not want to excercise or practise the sports offered by PE will participate half-heartedly and most likely simply give up trying out of the lack of intrest.

[ February 03, 2007, 23:06: Message edited by: Morgoroth ]

 

BTA - Absolutely, PE is about as uselss an activity that mankind has ever dreamt up, especially in the realm of public education. I appreciate your irony here -- Americans "prove" everyday just how "easy" History and Geography are to learn by their acute grasp and awareness of both subjects....

 

It is interesting to hear from current teachers/parents/grandparents. I had a much better public school education than I realized at the time, in part because of two factors that no longer hold in most of the U.S.:

- I was in the white half of a segregated school system. Horribly, half the children in my town got a substandard education so the money and resources could go to giving me a superior one.

- I went to school in an age when it was hard for bright women to find careers other than nursing or teaching. So my teachers were bright, talented, and well educated. Women have lots more options now, and while there are still many bright teachers, I have observed a general lowering of the standards for teachers now that there is no longer a nearly unlimited supply of bright women with nothing else to do. Don't misunderstand me: I have two bright, dedicated sisters who teach in public school, and I have many friends who are very good public school teachers, so I know good teachers still exist. But now schools have to compete for the brightest women, and in general, a bright, well-educated woman can make more money, have better working conditions, receive better benefits, and not have to put up with as much nonsense doing something else.

Finally, it is also true that the only standardized tests I took in public school were not required by any outside agency. I scored very highly on them, in part because I tested well, in part because my teachers did NOT teach to the test.