Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
I was already "supplementing" so much through the elementary/middle school, that enough is enough.The way American schools are operating is clearly to educate children whose parents are educated and to keep ignorant those children, whose parents can't "supplement" their school curriculum - it's quite obvious.
How about "foundation" in middle school, so that you wouldn't have to "lump geography" into history during the last four years?
Oh, it can be even 5 or 10 years, judging by the lessons about Rosa Parks and "Native Americans," that took about four years through elementary-middle school.
When you don't know how to ( or don't want to) organize the curriculum in efficient manner, there is always an excuse regarding "pretty broad topic."
Let me describe you the way history has been taught in crummy Soviet schools, starting from the 4th grade.
From 4th to 10th grades we went through the "History of the ancient world" ( from the dawn of the humakind to the times of ancient Mesopotamia and Egypt) history of ancient Rome and ancient Greece, history of Europe in the middle ages, ( including history of church - (Roman catholic, church reformation, Martin Luther and all) history of Asia (overview) history of the United States ( overview,) history of Russia AND history of the Soviet Union WWII including, naturally. At that GEOGRAPHY in no way has been lumped into history, as much as Botanical Science was not lumped into Biology. It's all quite possible to do, when BOARD OF EDUCATION is doing its job and sifts through tonnes of materials in order to choose and organize it in a coherent and purposeful way, instead of SHIFTING this responsibility to parents and leaving teachers to their own devices. When basis of education ( be that history or any other subject) is adequately developed and written ( not just OUTLINED) by trained specialists of the Board of Education, THAN and only than teachers can think how to make every lesson more interesting and more productive ( instead of just reading the textbook aloud.) And only in this case parents can think about SUPPLEMENTING education at home if necessary; meaning if their child would like to drill on something or to explore in depth certain question, that was covered in broader terms at school. ( For the most part with QUALITY education for school children it's not all that necessary; just watching your child doing homework is good enough.)
So yes, I know quality education when I see one, but that's definitely NOT what my son is getting in American public school.
Actually, it worked out for Russia very well. From illiterate, agrarian semi-colonial country it turned into industrial state in a decade or so and became the most reading country in the world.
The Soviet government created a system of school education similar to gymnasium - the kind of education that was available to the upper class only in Imperial Russia and made it available for everyone. Gymnasium (school) - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
It brought forth a lot of scientists and engineers in short period of time, since that was the prime target of the Soviet government, and the challenging system that was put in place was screening each and every capable child from the early age on.
Just in case if you don't know, Soviet school children were more advances in math and science department than their American counterparts. Since language and literature were taught there on a basis of classical literature, the knowledge of grammar was definitely more thorough too.
So in a nutshell Soviet system had plenty of problems, but system of school education was not one of them.
It was the post-Soviet capitalist society in Russia that Americanized the system of education in schools and brought the level of education down, which in turn brought the complete destruction of science in the country. As dumb and straight-forwarded on a subject as these former commies in charge are today, they say "Soviet times are over, you can't get for free the kind of education you've had back than - that's not for everyone any longer." Instead, they've created a lot of "private schools" and "lyceums," where education can be bought for money. The problem is - talent in math and science can't be bought, so hence the results.
Actually, it worked out for Russia very well. From illiterate, agrarian semi-colonial country it turned into industrial state in a decade or so and became the most reading country in the world.
The Soviet government created a system of school education similar to gymnasium - the kind of education that was available to the upper class only in Imperial Russia and made it available for everyone. Gymnasium (school) - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
It brought forth a lot of scientists and engineers in short period of time, since that was the prime target of the Soviet government, and the challenging system that was put in place was screening each and every capable child from the early age on.
Just in case if you don't know, Soviet school children were more advances in math and science department than their American counterparts. Since language and literature were taught there on a basis of classical literature, the knowledge of grammar was definitely more thorough too.
So in a nutshell Soviet system had plenty of problems, but system of school education was not one of them.
It was the post-Soviet capitalist society in Russia that Americanized the system of education in schools and brought the level of education down, which in turn brought the complete destruction of science in the country. As dumb and straight-forwarded on a subject as these former commies in charge are today, they say "Soviet times are over, you can't get for free the kind of education you've had back than - that's not for everyone any longer." Instead, they've created a lot of "private schools" and "lyceums," where education can be bought for money. The problem is - talent in math and science can't be bought, so hence the results.
So, I guess that they learned that a great education comes at a high price
As much as you taut the former Soviet educational system, I have yet to hear of the average Soviet as more intelligent or well-educated than the average U.S. citizen who attends a public school.
Moreover, you seem to think that such an education was somehow "superior." And, yet, it didn't seem to improve the country, which is now being run by criminals rather than brilliant intellectuals
Sorry, but I just don't see the results of the great educational system that you are talking about. In fact, you sound downright brainwashed.
So, I guess that they learned that a great education comes at a high price
Not necessarily. Quality education in school is not all that expensive.They just simply preferred an American idea that good education ( and access to well-paying jobs, particularly in "high places") should belong only to people with money, who in their turn will always stay loyal to the government. For the rest the basic grammar should be enough, in order to have sufficient supply of labor for McDonald's and other wonderful places.
Quote:
As much as you taut the former Soviet educational system, I have yet to hear of the average Soviet as more intelligent or well-educated than the average U.S. citizen who attends a public school.
And how would you hear such things? Do you think they would be advertised in America on every corner?
Quote:
Moreover, you seem to think that such an education was somehow "superior."
Old classical European education, (which is far more advanced in academic sense of it) vs modern American education? No doubt.
Quote:
And, yet, it didn't seem to improve the country, which is now being run by criminals rather than brilliant intellectuals.
Well thanks to American government - Clintons in particular - they made damn sure that it would be the case. They made sure that the country would be run by few crooks with all the wealth concentrated in their hands, since such overnight "privatization" was paving the way for big American business in the most sufficient way. If things would have turned out differently, than post-Soviet Russia with its well-educated and skilled labor could have become a serious economic competitor for the US.
Quote:
Sorry, but I just don't see the results of the great educational system that you are talking about. In fact, you sound downright brainwashed.
How would you "see" anything if you never lived there, and you wouldn't know anything other then your typical American propaganda on this subject?
So who sounds more "downright brainwashed" now?
How about such word as "Stalingrad?" Was it even mentioned in your textbook?
What WAS in your textbook? How many of them did you have on history ( from, say 4th grade to 12th grade?)
I am asking all these questions because from what I see my son is learning at school (as far as history goes) is simply abysmal.
When some people here are suggesting that "education is there to give you a foundation for learning and teach you how to expand your knowledge on your own." - yeah, with the same success your teachers could have told you "history is too big of a subject to teach - we'll teach you the "research technique on the internet - you go and find whatever you like." The results I suspect would have been approximately the same that you've had at your school while studying history *with textbooks.*
And while we are that, why not to teach schoolchildren the "research technique on the internet" for math and science as well - after all those are subjects that are "too big a topic to cover in depth." So hey - why bother?
Most Social Studies books at the elementary/middle school levels are surveys of countries and the major historical events, geographical features and traditions that shape their culture. Since the breadth is wide the depth is thin some units receive more attention than others. Currently the focus seems to largely center on Asia and Africa perhaps due their emerging roles in global economics and politics.
No doubt the public school system can and needs to do a better job. I just want to blow when I hear elementary age kids who actually think the Pilgrims were the first English colonists. What we need to do is start teaching history correctly and without religious bias. Then we need to make kids take history every year from 6th grade on and make the curriculum progress. Not cover the same thing year after year. I don't think I ever got past WWII in any HS history class and neither did my kids. Pathetic. BTW...I am back in college getting my degree in history with my teaching certificate. Maybe I can change things someday.
Most Social Studies books at the elementary/middle school levels are surveys of countries and the major historical events, geographical features and traditions that shape their culture. Since the breadth is wide the depth is thin some units receive more attention than others. Currently the focus seems to largely center on Asia and Africa perhaps due their emerging roles in global economics and politics.
Then they should really, really concentrate on China from the 5th grade on
and make it a center of study for the "emerging role in global economics and politics."
However what it has got to do with the world history, the roots of American settlers, ie. history of Europe, WWII and the rest?
Back when my son was in 3rd grade, we had a book that had a middle school teacher's book of bloopers. He edited sentences from various student's essays together to form a *history of the US* It was hilarious. I can't find it and I cannot find the title. There was one of World History too. The misconceptions are not new. The books were published in the early 70s.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
The way American schools are operating is clearly to educate children whose parents are educated and to keep ignorant those children, whose parents can't "supplement" their school curriculum - it's quite obvious. 
They just simply preferred an American idea that good education ( and access to well-paying jobs, particularly in "high places") should belong only to people with money, who in their turn will always stay loyal to the government. For the rest the basic grammar should be enough, in order to have sufficient supply of labor for McDonald's and other wonderful places.
Do you think they would be advertised in America on every corner?
