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.
Fascinating. It sounds like the glass is both half-empty and half-full at the same time! lol
Interesting that they measure 8-th grade science performance. The schools I went to didn't even have science instruction until HS. Part of the problem with US education is that it can be all over the place, like when some school districts decided to teach reading by the see-and-say method, which ended up leaving a lot of kids out of the loop entirely. Weird fads sometimes sweep through an entire state, though I suppose initiatives like "No Child Left Behind" were an attempt to standardize instruction more?
My kids got a little bit of science throughout elementary school, and a little higher order in MS. However, you're right, actual "science" courses such as biology, chemistry and physics were not until HS. From my own education back in the Pleistocene, we had science starting in jr high, but again, the regular science subjects not till HS.
My kids got a little bit of science throughout elementary school, and a little higher order in MS. However, you're right, actual "science" courses such as biology, chemistry and physics were not until HS. From my own education back in the Pleistocene, we had science starting in jr high, but again, the regular science subjects not till HS.
A friend of mine did part of her gradeschool ed in England, when her dad was transferred there for a couple of years. She said they learned about pulleys and levers and basic principles like that in grade school. That was a revelation; there was nothing like that in my schools, and I don't know anyone among friends/relatives who got basic science/mechanics instruction of any kind before HS. But yes, the Pleistocene didn't have much to recommend it, lol. Hopefully schools have progressed since then.
A friend of mine did part of her gradeschool ed in England, when her dad was transferred there for a couple of years. She said they learned about pulleys and levers and basic principles like that in grade school. That was a revelation; there was nothing like that in my schools, and I don't know anyone among friends/relatives who got basic science/mechanics instruction of any kind before HS. But yes, the Pleistocene didn't have much to recommend it, lol. Hopefully schools have progressed since then.
Basic machines is a first grade science unit with an accompanying project in our district. I remember it being very fun.
My kids got a little bit of science throughout elementary school, and a little higher order in MS. However, you're right, actual "science" courses such as biology, chemistry and physics were not until HS. From my own education back in the Pleistocene, we had science starting in jr high, but again, the regular science subjects not till HS.
US education in math and science are way behind China. The Chinese STEM model was built upon the old Soviet education system. Students start physics, chemistry and biology in middle school. They have learned 2D geometry and algebra before moving up to high school. Middle school kids have done many "proof type" problems. They are capable to solve equations with 3 unknowns (X, Y, and Z). Quadratic and factorization are introduced and done in grade 6 and 7. A good high school student can do complex trigonometry operations and 3D geometry proofs. Their last math topic is calculus.
US education in math and science are way behind China. The Chinese STEM model was built upon the old Soviet education system. Students start physics, chemistry and biology in middle school. They have learned 2D geometry and algebra before moving up to high school. Middle school kids have done many "proof type" problems. They are capable to solve equations with 3 unknowns (X, Y, and Z). Quadratic and factorization are introduced and done in grade 6 and 7. A good high school student can do complex trigonometry operations and 3D geometry proofs. Their last math topic is calculus.
This is the European model of education; introducing topics in Middle School on a part-time basis, and building gradually on all of them through HS. Latin American schools do that, too. The US model is to teach topics in an intensive semester-long or year-long blitz, and move on to the next one. Maybe that way of organizing material needs to be re-thought.
Basic machines is a first grade science unit with an accompanying project in our district. I remember it being very fun.
That does sound fun! My daughter's first grade studied freshwater environments, basic human anatomy, and insects this year. During human anatomy they made bunch of model experiments in the science lab, like a balloon lung. She is currently doing a "research project" about mosquitoes. They went to the school library and got bunches of books and are collecting facts from them and writing a "paper". The teacher took pictures of them working on the projects for the parents and it's so cute. The kids are having a blast, they LOVE it.
Yes, I agree it's been reaffirmed by observations and is a great theory. But I have not seen the science. I would love to see the scientific method applied to this work and published.
I just reviewed the Common Core standards, and it has math standards for Kindergarten through 8th grade, and then goes on to have standards for "High School Algebra". I'm not seeing pre-algebra in the standards for 4th grade. I am seeing "algebraic thinking" in 4th grade, which is basically teaching that 7-3=? is the same as 3+?=7, which is good, but is not really "pre-algebra" in the sense of what you actually learn in a pre-algebra course. I mean, my first grader understands "3+?=7" with no problem, but she's not ready for pre-algebra by far. She's on track to get there at 6th grade, and she's a year and a half ahead of common core.
What am I missing? Is there some curriculum out there that claims to be common core that's doing pre-algebra in the 4th grade?
Sort of.
What has bent people around (and quite frankly we have a lot of stupid people) is that they don't understand that Common Core isn't a curriculum, it's a "should be able to".
What has happened is that school systems/states (it depends, some states are top down and impose curricula on school systems while others allow school systems to write their own within a very broad framework) have written curriculum and in some cases doubled down on it.
You also have to understand, or know, that organizations like the Gates Foundation and Pearson Education, among a few others, have had a very heavy hand in writing those curricula through off-the- public-books funding.
Common Core, as an idea isn't bad. In a society that is as mobile as ours having a framework of "should be able to's" that is national is actually a pretty good idea. So was NCLB as a matter of fact, holding all school systems to a minimum.
What gummed everything up was the implementation. NCLB morphed into a punitive system where schools at 97% could be declared ineffective if they didn't come up to 99% the next year.
Common Core became a testing matrix, as did NCLB, (go back to the off-the-public-books funding) so that's all that's being done. The drive for pacing is so pernicious that if it's May 2nd then you should be on page 321. That's how detailed my system's pacing guides were. No variation was allowed.
The kids are being tested to death in many school systems. Student Learning Objective tests the first week of school, benchmarks every other week. Regular tests in class. Practice tests. Tests which done a mid-period evaluation. In every class, not just the Common Core ones of Math and English.
That does sound fun! My daughter's first grade studied freshwater environments, basic human anatomy, and insects this year. During human anatomy they made bunch of model experiments in the science lab, like a balloon lung. She is currently doing a "research project" about mosquitoes. They went to the school library and got bunches of books and are collecting facts from them and writing a "paper". The teacher took pictures of them working on the projects for the parents and it's so cute. The kids are having a blast, they LOVE it.
This one came in middle school, but one of my favorite all time projects was one that had them build a model hand. The final project came together using straws and rubber bands, I believe. My kids have done lots of fun science (and social studies) stuff all the way through school, and it sounds like you have had a similar experience. We should be grateful, because that clearly isn't the case everywhere.
US education in math and science are way behind China. The Chinese STEM model was built upon the old Soviet education system. Students start physics, chemistry and biology in middle school. They have learned 2D geometry and algebra before moving up to high school. Middle school kids have done many "proof type" problems. They are capable to solve equations with 3 unknowns (X, Y, and Z). Quadratic and factorization are introduced and done in grade 6 and 7. A good high school student can do complex trigonometry operations and 3D geometry proofs. Their last math topic is calculus.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ruth4Truth
This is the European model of education; introducing topics in Middle School on a part-time basis, and building gradually on all of them through HS. Latin American schools do that, too. The US model is to teach topics in an intensive semester-long or year-long blitz, and move on to the next one. Maybe that way of organizing material needs to be re-thought.
The last math topic in the US high school system is calculus as well. So they're getting to the same place a different way. DH has worked with many Chinese engineers, doesn't think they're any better than US engineers. "The grass is always greener".
I wouldn't use Latin America for a role model, either. And it's not like the US schools don't introduce this stuff earlier, either. The Latin American countries all score lower than the US in that tabel Mantadora posted.
What has bent people around (and quite frankly we have a lot of stupid people) is that they don't understand that Common Core isn't a curriculum, it's a "should be able to".
What has happened is that school systems/states (it depends, some states are top down and impose curricula on school systems while others allow school systems to write their own within a very broad framework) have written curriculum and in some cases doubled down on it.
You also have to understand, or know, that organizations like the Gates Foundation and Pearson Education, among a few others, have had a very heavy hand in writing those curricula through off-the- public-books funding.
Common Core, as an idea isn't bad. In a society that is as mobile as ours having a framework of "should be able to's" that is national is actually a pretty good idea. So was NCLB as a matter of fact, holding all school systems to a minimum.
What gummed everything up was the implementation. NCLB morphed into a punitive system where schools at 97% could be declared ineffective if they didn't come up to 99% the next year.
Common Core became a testing matrix, as did NCLB, (go back to the off-the-public-books funding) so that's all that's being done. The drive for pacing is so pernicious that if it's May 2nd then you should be on page 321. That's how detailed my system's pacing guides were. No variation was allowed.
The kids are being tested to death in many school systems. Student Learning Objective tests the first week of school, benchmarks every other week. Regular tests in class. Practice tests. Tests which done a mid-period evaluation. In every class, not just the Common Core ones of Math and English.
Yes! I agree with all of this. Exactamundo on the dot.
I like the list of "should be able to's", I review it to make sure my kids meet them when we do our math afterschool. But I also wholeheartedly agree that the way that most US public school systems implemented common core is just horrible. Which is why I fork out half my income for private school lol.
What we *should* do is take the common core, give it to each teacher, and tell the teacher to try to make sure his/her kids can do most things on the list by the end of the year. Then a few times a year test each kid, and if the kid does poorly, then that school gets EXTRA money for tutoring services for THAT SPECIFIC KID. The money is not allowed to go to anything except that. Stop paying all that money to Pearson et al, and start paying that money to extra teachers who can go in and give extra 1-on-1 to the struggling kids. That's how you raise the bottom scores. Not by closing their schools and shipping them across town. That just demonizes them. It's ridiculous.
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.
lol
