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.
Some posts about the differences between Canadian and American schools in other forums got me thinking.
Though I know very little about the topic, I heard it discussed that one major difference is because American schools tend to be funded at the city/district level, the curriculum varies widely between schools and there are more individual differences in teaching styles/textbooks/curricula/expectations whereas in Canada, schools are funded at the level of a province, so all schools in one particular province, regardless of whether they be in the inner city or a suburb, or a town etc. do tend to have more similar teaching of a standard curricula.
In the urban planning forum, some people mention that there isn't that big of a difference between a "really bad school" (eg. often associated with inner city in the United States) and a "really great school" in Canada, so that Canada often misses out on the extremes, for better or worse. Not that it doesn't exist -- but it's a bit more subdued by the fact that the schools all have to follow similar curricula if they are in the same city, and province.
Now that's just theory. I'm curious as to how big this difference could be in actuality/lived experience, if anyone has experience to share about it? It is really noticeable?
All I can speak to are the sciences, since that is what I am familiar with. Most of the major textbook publishers have different 'versions' of their book for states/regions with vastly different standards. They usually don't differ too much though.
Most states have standards for the entire state, but they are being pressured to adopt federal standards.
Some posts about the differences between Canadian and American schools in other forums got me thinking.
Though I know very little about the topic, I heard it discussed that one major difference is because American schools tend to be funded at the city/district level, the curriculum varies widely between schools and there are more individual differences in teaching styles/textbooks/curricula/expectations whereas in Canada, schools are funded at the level of a province, so all schools in one particular province, regardless of whether they be in the inner city or a suburb, or a town etc. do tend to have more similar teaching of a standard curricula.
In the urban planning forum, some people mention that there isn't that big of a difference between a "really bad school" (eg. often associated with inner city in the United States) and a "really great school" in Canada, so that Canada often misses out on the extremes, for better or worse. Not that it doesn't exist -- but it's a bit more subdued by the fact that the schools all have to follow similar curricula if they are in the same city, and province.
Now that's just theory. I'm curious as to how big this difference could be in actuality/lived experience, if anyone has experience to share about it? It is really noticeable?
I think you'll find it tends to vary among states. Some states (i.e. Texas) make more of an effort to have standardized curricula than others. Other states have gradually tried to harmonize their school districts through things like "graduation standards" and standardized testing.
In Minnesota - the only state I can speak for - the highest practical level of say for what a specific course or class does, outside of preparing students to pass standardized tests administered throughout the State, seems to lie with the school board, though most of the autonomy SEEMS to lie with the teacher him- or herself, as long as she is able to procure the necessary resources and books from the school budget.
Advanced Placement (AP) and IB classes are standardized across the world, as far as I know. Only a minority of students take them, however, but at least some of them are offered by most high schools.
A lot of the disparity in school performance, as I said in another thread, is probably not due so much to differing curricula as it is to the student's home environment. For example, a study found that young children from upper-middle-class (or professional?) homes were exposed to something like five times as many words as children from lower-class (or public assistance-dependent) homes. A child who comes from a financially and socially stable two-parent home, where retirement savings or whether to buy a new Suburban or a new X3 is the main concern, is more likely to succeed than an equivalent child raised by an overworked single mother with a deadbeat dad for whom things like keeping the lights on or being two months behind on rent are the main worries.
The U.S. political system is called federalism, which means power is shared at the federal, state, and local municipal/county level. School districts operate on this model. Since the end of the Civil War, public education in the U.S. attempted to become more centralized and standardized, yet states and local governments/districts resisted this centralization and this resistance continues despite federal guidelines such as the Every Child Left Behind Act (and actually this controversial federal measure provides states with enforcement mechanisms, which was a win-win for proponents of local control and state/federal centralization).
Because of federalism, it's awfully difficult for U.S. public schools to be standardized. Moreover, market pressures and state control of curricular matters make it very difficult for textbook publishers to offer a standardized text in any subject. Textbook publishers print what will sell in each state and because each state and local district has different standards, the textbook content reflects this diversity. A case in point are high school history textbooks. In the southern states, these books present historical interpretations a little more amenable to southern-ness (for lack of a better word). Content in these books for southern states may not offer as much critical evaluation of the Civil War or the civil rights movement. Similarly, science textbooks may downplay evolution and some states even mandate these texts come with disclaimers that evolution is a "theory" and not fact nevermind the whole nuance about what constitutes a scientific theory.
So the short answer is is that public schools differ in curriculum from one county to the next and certainly one state to the next. I'd say that some of the worst places for public schools in the country would be D.C., Mississippi, Arkansas, Louisiana, Alabama, etc. Some of the best schools could be found in Mass, N.Y., and Californy, but there are still some crummy schools in each of these states and great schools in the crummy states.
For a historical perspective of the local control vs. centralization, see James Leloudis's book on North Carolina's education system and juxtapose his historical interpretation with that of William Link's study of the same state. Moreover, Joseph Moreau, Frances Fitzgerald, and Jonathan Zimmerman write about the variation in textbook content from state to state and why politics influences the kind of content contained in these textbooks. Most of these historians agree that market pressures are so great and they want their books to sell in all 50 states that textbook publishers produce books that contain little or no controversy whatsoever and are bland products that will bore the b'jesus out of anyone who reads them. And students in U.S. schools hardly read anything other than text messages.
One thing that's important to recognize is that learning standards and curricula are two different things. Curricula isn't standardized, beyond a very general, basic framework level, but learning standards are.
As others have mentioned, states adopt their own individual sets of standards for base curriculum and assessments, and a certain level of achievement on these state-specific standardized assessments is required by federal legislation in order to continue to receive various federal funding and accreditation. The Common Core State Standards Initiative is further shaping what is assessed, but it isn't a curriculum so much as a framework of goals and objectives (versus a set design for how to meet them). While certain benchmarks are standardized and mandated, HOW the information needed to meet those benchmarks is taught, and what materials and methods and resources are used to teach it, i.e. the curriculum itself, is not. Schools/teachers/districts still decide how to go about meeting the standards. The Common Core is not part of federal NCLB legislation, it's state-led.
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.
