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.
Notice, though, that another quote posted here shows that by 9th or 10th grade, the lower-achieving students are siphoned off to vocational programs, so that the students taking the tests that are used to determine international ranking are probably administered only to the elite that are in college-bound schools.
No that's incorrect. The PISA requires a sample of all students enrolled in any school, whether it be an academic college bound program or a vocational program. Or a private school or a homeschool. It is false to assume that only the "elite" of Shanghai were tested.
It is however safe to assume that Shanghai itself may currently have a more rigorous educational system than the more rural areas of China. Think of it like Massachusetts.
Also, please note that in other areas of the world, vocational programs in high school are just as rigorous as academic programs, they are just geared towards different professions. It's a little different than it is here.
I don't know how you could have thought that, with all the constant fuss about inner-city schools vs. suburban schools, dating back to West Side Story and farther back, probably. The whole point of school bussing was to try to equalize the level of education.
The point of bussing was to integrate blacks and whites. Not equalize the level of education. Just mix the colors.
They do assign homework, not huge amounts but some.
I think one of the key things that helps is the huge focus on being considerate of others in daycare/preschool, following rules, making ethical decisions, which naturally leads to less disruption in class so children get to learn rather than have lessons constantly interrupted by kids who don't care (like they did in my schools in the UK, admittedly I took part too). Learning to listen to and respect teachers, helps them learn to learn. I do wonder how that'll change now as immigration grows but so far schools with a lot of migrant children do just as well.
Yes. In my reading, the author stated that the most profound difference she saw between Finnish students and American students was that by and large, Finnish students all cared about how they did in school, because it mattered. In America, only some cared, and the rest didn't.
The point of bussing was to integrate blacks and whites. Not equalize the level of education. Just mix the colors.
No, it was about mixing everyone in order to equalize the level of education. So that not just one color would be getting all the good schooling, or all the bad schooling. When "separate but equal" (Plessy vs. Ferguson) was struck down by the Supreme Court, it was because it was proven that "separate" was not, and never would be, equal. So bussing was invented in order to remedy that. Granted, an imperfect solution, but it was the best they could come up with at the time.
If Asia's education system is so awesome, how come most of the research papers of high quality are published in America or Europe, in English, French, or German? How come the overwhelming majority of Nobel prize winners are Europeans or Americans? How come all these Asian students are flocking into the doorways of Anglosphere for their Master's or PhDs?
Yes, Asian kids learn far more math and science in primary and secondary schools and spend a ****load of time at schools and cram schools, but then? The lack of flexibility, creativity, and critical thinking only makes kids absolutely miserable and adults extremely limited. It does far more harm than good.
All these stories cumming all over Asian education system are just ****ing cringey and pathetic. What about interviewing one actual Asian person who went through this system (and didn't drown) before publishing the articles, at the very least.
The US is certainly under-performing, but I don't think the reason is because we don't emulate Singapore or other Asian countries - we need to find something that works in the US and is compatible with American culture.
Here are arguably a few mistakes our public education (and even private) make currently, which we could address early on:
1) Throwing money at education =/= quality education. You can certainly increase the odds of it through hiring and training quality educators, but funding alone is not enough to guarantee quality.
2) No child left behind and similar initiatives have been disastrous to overall educational progress. I have several friends who are public school teachers and are required to teach the entire classroom of students at the level of the lowest-performing students. I don't believe there's anything inherently bad in separating students according to ability. The quality of education provided to each group should be the same, but separating students would reduce frustration both for the under-performing and over-performing students, while giving better assurance that each group is being taught at the appropriate level. For schools who do not (unfortunately) have the funding to group students in such a way, it may make sense to start holding back students a grade-level or even allowing some students to progress a grade level or take summer classes. Standardized grade-level tests such as the California Achievement Test (which I was required to take as a home school student) seem to be on the easier side, with concepts targeted towards students who are perhaps lagging in the grade level, especially when it comes to mathematical concepts. They are certainly not reflective or on par with the concepts being taught in many other countries.
3) Reintroduce vocational learning as a valid long-term goal, especially in Jr. High/High School. Several decades ago we developed the idea that all children should go to college. Not everyone is cut out for academics or, indeed, needs a college degree. Many vocational-track careers are highly skilled and have higher earning potential than college degrees and many students would probably prefer to pursue these, given the knowledge and opportunity. Unfortunately, we have attached a stigma to vocational training as being 'blue collar' or 'lesser' than college-track, which has meant pressuring many students into attending college who are unlikely to achieve much benefit from it. In truth, many skilled plumbers or mechanics make better money than lawyers.
4) Curriculum should focus on skills now considered 'outdated' like grammatical concepts and sentence diagramming. Rote memorization is out of vogue as well, but it works for very young children to master basic concepts. Mindless 'busy work' which seems to be favored in many schools appear to lend very little to overall understanding of concepts and are instead targeted towards standardized test prep (which is arguably also under-par, see point 2).
Anyway, just a few scattered thoughts. I think the US faces a special challenge as well since, culturally, students are not pressured to study the same way they are in many other countries. Consequently, more burden is placed on the teacher to be both educator and, in many cases, parent as well as many children have parents who are unable to reinforce learning concepts themselves. This is a more uniquely American situation which we should consider when talking about how to improve the quality of education. Parental support and reinforcement is key.
The US is certainly under-performing, but I don't think the reason is because we don't emulate Singapore or other Asian countries - we need to find something that works in the US and is compatible with American culture.
Here are arguably a few mistakes our public education (and even private) make currently, which we could address early on:
1) Throwing money at education =/= quality education. You can certainly increase the odds of it through hiring and training quality educators, but funding alone is not enough to guarantee quality.
2) No child left behind and similar initiatives have been disastrous to overall educational progress. I have several friends who are public school teachers and are required to teach the entire classroom of students at the level of the lowest-performing students. I don't believe there's anything inherently bad in separating students according to ability. The quality of education provided to each group should be the same, but separating students would reduce frustration both for the under-performing and over-performing students, while giving better assurance that each group is being taught at the appropriate level. For schools who do not (unfortunately) have the funding to group students in such a way, it may make sense to start holding back students a grade-level or even allowing some students to progress a grade level or take summer classes. Standardized grade-level tests such as the California Achievement Test (which I was required to take as a home school student) seem to be on the easier side, with concepts targeted towards students who are perhaps lagging in the grade level, especially when it comes to mathematical concepts. They are certainly not reflective or on par with the concepts being taught in many other countries.
3) Reintroduce vocational learning as a valid long-term goal, especially in Jr. High/High School. Several decades ago we developed the idea that all children should go to college. Not everyone is cut out for academics or, indeed, needs a college degree. Many vocational-track careers are highly skilled and have higher earning potential than college degrees and many students would probably prefer to pursue these, given the knowledge and opportunity. Unfortunately, we have attached a stigma to vocational training as being 'blue collar' or 'lesser' than college-track, which has meant pressuring many students into attending college who are unlikely to achieve much benefit from it. In truth, many skilled plumbers or mechanics make better money than lawyers.
4) Curriculum should focus on skills now considered 'outdated' like grammatical concepts and sentence diagramming. Rote memorization is out of vogue as well, but it works for very young children to master basic concepts. Mindless 'busy work' which seems to be favored in many schools appear to lend very little to overall understanding of concepts and are instead targeted towards standardized test prep (which is arguably also under-par, see point 2).
Anyway, just a few scattered thoughts. I think the US faces a special challenge as well since, culturally, students are not pressured to study the same way they are in many other countries. Consequently, more burden is placed on the teacher to be both educator and, in many cases, parent as well as many children have parents who are unable to reinforce learning concepts themselves. This is a more uniquely American situation which we should consider when talking about how to improve the quality of education. Parental support and reinforcement is key.
I agree with your introduction. I think our educational system is a little "kinder, gentler" way with students with disabilities and the like and I think that's good. We really do try to educate all children, moreso I think than some of these supposedly higher performing countries.
1) Agree to a point. Some of the lowest performing schools have some of the highest per-pupil spending. However, some of the lowest performing have very low per pupil spending as well. https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/...on-in-one-map/ (See DC) Most of these low-spending states are not known for their public schools.
Rankings of quality can be very biased, but here's one: 2016 Education Rankings Put States, Nation to the Test - Education Week
If you open the K-12 achievement link, you see that some of these low spending states are also low performing. Only one of 5 lowest spenders is in the top half for performance.
School spending generally correlates with teacher salaries.
I have no clue about your friends' experiences, but AFAIK, there is no prohibition on all forms of ability grouping. Certainly by high school at the latest there are honors courses, AP courses, dual enrollment college and HS courses and the like. My kids had some honors courses in middle school as well, and even in elementary school, some kids got skipped ahead in math. I think there is a danger in putting kids in "remedial" classes, giving them the idea that they are not very bright.
3) For as many times as I have asked, I have never seen any kind of verification that there is some policy in high schools that every child should go to college. I will point out that 100 or so years ago, high schools were sometimes called "prep" schools, in other words, preparatory for college! The oldest high school in Colorado, Boulder High, used to be called "Boulder Prep". (Now there is a charter school called Boulder Prep for at-risk students, but it's not the same.) Even now, high school sports are referred to as "Prep Sports". My own high school had no vocational ed classes when I attended in the mid-60s, nor do I think they ever did. My husband's school district did have a vocational high school in the 60s, which according to him is where the "troublemakers" were sent. As far as earnings, I am so glad I bookmarked this link: Earnings and unemployment rates by educational attainment Though there are outliers, in general, more education equates to higher earnings and lower unemployment.
Average pay for master plumber: Master Plumber Salary
$25.00/hr, $55,960 annually.
Average pay for master mechanic: ASE Master Technician Certification Salary, Average Salaries | PayScale
$48,000/yr to $66,764 (shop foreman)
Average pay for lawyer: Attorney / Lawyer Salary
Median $78,242 ($46,517 - $152,887)
4) It's been a long time since mine were in elementary school and I had a bird's eye view into that curriculum. Still, I certainly recall grammar instruction, and some memorization of math tables. It is important not to just take what one reads in the media at face value. There are lots of articles that imply that literally nothing is being taught, which is untrue.
In your closing, likewise, there is much in the media to imply that a huge number of parents are totally out to lunch as far as their kids' educations. Don't take all this at face value either.
I agree with your introduction. I think our educational system is a little "kinder, gentler" way with students with disabilities and the like and I think that's good. We really do try to educate all children, moreso I think than some of these supposedly higher performing countries.
1) Agree to a point. Some of the lowest performing schools have some of the highest per-pupil spending. However, some of the lowest performing have very low per pupil spending as well. https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/...on-in-one-map/ (See DC) Most of these low-spending states are not known for their public schools.
I agree somewhat. There's a correlation between spending and quality, but not necessarily a causation. Using my own state as an example, where spending on schools is probably on the higher end of the spectrum, much of the spending goes to administrative overhead and not necessarily into hiring and retaining quality educators. Yonkers is a good example of a district which has extremely high tax rates but a very low rate of return on education. One can argue that other factors influence it, but given the amount of property taxes earmarked for schools, it seems questionable. East Ramapo is another school district that was recently targeted as part of a corruption scandal - so we have a ways to go in ensuring that the money earmarked for education is actually being spent in a worthwhile way and we don't just assume it's all 'for the kids'.
I have no clue about your friends' experiences, but AFAIK, there is no prohibition on all forms of ability grouping. Certainly by high school at the latest there are honors courses, AP courses, dual enrollment college and HS courses and the like. My kids had some honors courses in middle school as well, and even in elementary school, some kids got skipped ahead in math. I think there is a danger in putting kids in "remedial" classes, giving them the idea that they are not very bright.
It probably varies by district, but in low-income areas there's usually not enough teachers/support available to divide up the class and provide individual learning to each, so the teacher has the accommodate the lowest performers, meaning that the class cannot progress until all the students grasp the concepts. This leads, at least in my anecdotal examples, to lower-performing classes overall, as the higher-performing students cannot progress until all students are 'caught up'. I don't have a problem with breaking students into groups, no need to call it 'remedial' or anything stigmatizing - you can assign a random sequence of numbers to each group - but the general idea is that the level of teaching reflects the educational needs of each group. When you have wide gaps in each class and not enough teacher coverage, it can lead to problems.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Katarina Witt
3) For as many times as I have asked, I have never seen any kind of verification that there is some policy in high schools that every child should go to college. I will point out that 100 or so years ago, high schools were sometimes called "prep" schools, in other words, preparatory for college! The oldest high school in Colorado, Boulder High, used to be called "Boulder Prep". (Now there is a charter school called Boulder Prep for at-risk students, but it's not the same.) Even now, high school sports are referred to as "Prep Sports". My own high school had no vocational ed classes when I attended in the mid-60s, nor do I think they ever did. My husband's school district did have a vocational high school in the 60s, which according to him is where the "troublemakers" were sent. As far as earnings, I am so glad I bookmarked this link: Earnings and unemployment rates by educational attainment Though there are outliers, in general, more education equates to higher earnings and lower unemployment.
On average, yes, more education leads to better chances of employment. But not all education is created equal and not every student benefits from college-level courses. I don't think there is a formal policy to actively discourage vocational careers, but several decades ago it was the norm for children to pursue similar careers to the parents (apprenticeships, etc). With education becoming more widely available for all, college has become more widely available. Often the result is good, but in other cases, this has probably discouraged students from pursuing vocational careers in trades that have very good earning potential.
It's interesting you posted this. I used the law example, because it is personal for me as I went through law school and had the opportunity to interact with a lot of graduates from the 2005-present time frame.
Yes, the statistics will tell you that the average lawyer makes more than the average plumber, and few will argue with that. What the statistics do not represent, however, is the glut of law graduates looking for work relative to the number of open, full-time legal jobs paying median wage. Overall, the chances of being an unemployed law graduate in many areas of the country, or a law graduate earning less than $50,000 are much higher than being an unemployed plumber, which goes back to my original point that not all education is lucrative or indeed necessary when compared to certain skilled trades. Some people view a degree as a golden ticket, but I would caution that this is not necessarily the case.
I agree somewhat. There's a correlation between spending and quality, but not necessarily a causation. Using my own state as an example, where spending on schools is probably on the higher end of the spectrum, much of the spending goes to administrative overhead and not necessarily into hiring and retaining quality educators. Yonkers is a good example of a district which has extremely high tax rates but a very low rate of return on education. One can argue that other factors influence it, but given the amount of property taxes earmarked for schools, it seems questionable. East Ramapo is another school district that was recently targeted as part of a corruption scandal - so we have a ways to go in ensuring that the money earmarked for education is actually being spent in a worthwhile way and we don't just assume it's all 'for the kids'.
It probably varies by district, but in low-income areas there's usually not enough teachers/support available to divide up the class and provide individual learning to each, so the teacher has the accommodate the lowest performers, meaning that the class cannot progress until all the students grasp the concepts. This leads, at least in my anecdotal examples, to lower-performing classes overall, as the higher-performing students cannot progress until all students are 'caught up'. I don't have a problem with breaking students into groups, no need to call it 'remedial' or anything stigmatizing - you can assign a random sequence of numbers to each group - but the general idea is that the level of teaching reflects the educational needs of each group. When you have wide gaps in each class and not enough teacher coverage, it can lead to problems.
Actually, many low-income city schools have higher per-pupil spending than their suburban counterparts.
On average, yes, more education leads to better chances of employment. But not all education is created equal and not every student benefits from college-level courses. I don't think there is a formal policy to actively discourage vocational careers, but several decades ago it was the norm for children to pursue similar careers to the parents (apprenticeships, etc). With education becoming more widely available for all, college has become more widely available. Often the result is good, but in other cases, this has probably discouraged students from pursuing vocational careers in trades that have very good earning potential.
That was more than a few decades ago. People started leaving "the farm" in the 1920s, almost 100 years ago. Some people in my high school in the Pittsburgh area intended to work in the steel mills as their fathers did, but that was not to happen. The steel industry crashed in the early 80s and the younger ones went back to school to get some education to be able to support themselves. In my husband's hometown of Omaha, NE, the same thing happened with meat-packing. But there were lots, in my hometown anyway, who aspired to do more than work in a steel mill, not that being a steelworker isn't an honorable line of work. There is an anecdote in Joe Namath's biography about how his dad took him down to the mill, showed him around and told him he (the dad) didn't want that for him.
It's interesting you posted this. I used the law example, because it is personal for me as I went through law school and had the opportunity to interact with a lot of graduates from the 2005-present time frame.
Yes, the statistics will tell you that the average lawyer makes more than the average plumber, and few will argue with that. What the statistics do not represent, however, is the glut of law graduates looking for work relative to the number of open, full-time legal jobs paying median wage. Overall, the chances of being an unemployed law graduate in many areas of the country, or a law graduate earning less than $50,000 are much higher than being an unemployed plumber, which goes back to my original point that not all education is lucrative or indeed necessary when compared to certain skilled trades. Some people view a degree as a golden ticket, but I would caution that this is not necessarily the case.
Sorry you're having so much trouble with the law field. I have heard stories about how hard it is to land a decent law job for decades now. Maybe you should have picked a profession you're not so emotionally involved with, say, engineering, to use as an example.
Finland is an odd one. Schools there don't assign homework, which seems hard to believe. Not even in math or language classes. I don't see how learning can occur without testing one's skills through homework, and practicing the new skills a bit the same way. Homework allows students to apply and practice (= reinforce) the skills they're learning. This is important in the more practically-oriented classes, like math and foreign language.
I'd like to see how they teach students to "learn how to learn", and how that solves the various problems that schools in other parts of the world face. It helps, probably, that Finland until recently has been a very homogeneous society with mutually-held values supporting education and achievement.
Yes, it is interesting. I'd also like to see how they teach - what methods and how they're determined which are best (for a given student or circumstances).
A while back, I taught at a Montessori school and I wonder if many teachers in Finland take a similar hands-on-approach. When I think of how kids learn on their own - they clearly have their hypothesis and test it to see if it's true or not - but it's all hands on - which makes it much more exciting than sitting at a desk for hours every day.
I had the education of sitting at a desk, and I don't mind sitting through lectures. But I wonder if my potential would be much higher in various ways, if I had the opportunity to learn in more interactive ways. No doubt such teaching would require more thoughtful planning, but maybe it would be worth it. Then again, when you get to much higher abstract ideas, can they be taught still being hands-on?
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.
