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.
Flik becky, you lost your empathy for mothers when you had a child? I'm not sure you understood my point. Once I went through pregnancy I KNEW what if felt like, I knew the physical demands, I could better imagine what it would be like to experience that while living and working in very different situations that what we have now. What's more, I realized first-hand that I would have been dead if I had lived two hundred years ago. You may not agree that physical understanding has any meaning, but a great many respected scholars disagree with you on that. It's not the end-all, be-all, but for some things it does give new insights that you really do need to feel to fully experience. Imagination can go a long way, but first-hand experience (plus the ability to imagine that experience in a different setting) does provide most people with a deeper, or at least slightly altered, understanding of something. (which is why so many historic sites do focus on giving people the chance to actively DO things, to experience the hard labor of the past, to try to imagine how the realities of daily life impacted the big economic and political issues, too).
I never said anything about IQ and physical mental development (or whatever). I just meant that a typical 7 year old hasn't gone through puberty, that she has had fewer years to learn things, and although she may be the most brilliant kid in the world she still isn't going to experience things in the same way at age 7 as she does at 12. Lets' stop comparing her to other 12 year olds and compare her to herself at age 12. You can learn about early American history now and she'll get something out of it, and then when she's 12 you can continue to study it and she'll get something more out of it. She can study it at 20, 30, 50, 70, and each time will get more out of it. There's only so many hours in the day, and of course she's going to continue to learn more each day, week, month, and year. She'll be able to make even more connections between her even greater knowledge base when she's 12 than she does at age 7. That has nothing to do with IQ, development, or anything else.
Could we stop discussing one specific student here? Maybe this student is a child prodigy, learned to read in the womb, and will cure cancer at age 18, but we're not really talking about the one in a million child, we're talking about the millions of regular children.
"Sadly though, history is not being taught well. In fact, kids are being taught lies. Such as the greatness that we were able to provide "savages"" in advancing their low lives...and I don't mean Native American, I mean Celts, Africans, ect. It was more destruction than the saving grace that many school history books state."
In what state's modern curriculum have you found a reference to advancing the lives of "savages"? Can you provide some examples? While I haven't read the state history curriculums of all states, and I'm sure there are some things I dislike about some of them, this is such an outdated concept that I have a hard time believing that anything close to this could be found in any modern curriculum. And, if it is, all the more reason I'ld like the reference because as a professional historian I do want to read it for myself.
Well, being in Louisiana explains a lot-being ranked 50th in quality of education says a lot. Try living in a state ranked #1 and all the things you are complaining about not being done ARE being done here. Our kids' history education up until this point has been totally appropriate and educational. They know a heck of a lot more about our country, wars, etc. then the Iraq war. I think you need to get out a little, stop being so negative and look around. You may have had a bad experience but your are FAR from the norm, in fact, very far and I would venture a guess that your "exceptional" 7 year old would be an average student here. I am sorry to say but you have a very narrow mind about education and hopefully your children are being exposed to other viewpoints.
Her being in the 50th explains as much as, but no more than, your being in a top state.
And, for all that I am not in much of a position to criticize another poster for making personal comments, your "points" about her 7 year old seem a bit uncalled for.
As for her narrowmindedness, to whatever extent she has it, it would seem to mirror yours more than not on this topic. She is neither more nor less sure of the rightness of her position.
Your insistence that her experience is the rarity, not the norm, is not born out by any quasi-objective measure with which I am familiar.
Do you have any that would suggest otherwise? I would love to read them!
In 8th grade, a whopping 17% of the students scored "Proficient" or better - an increase from the 14% who did so in 1994. But in 12th grade, that percentage dropped to 12%. (As a cautionary note, the national education stats folks suggest those levels (and those below) are to be used with reservations - but they don't say in which direction things might adjust.)
Even if we lower our standards to "Basic" and look only at the "nonpublic" schools, only 59% make it to Basic or better, compared to the 42% of the public school students.
I'll note a couple entertaining stats:
Those seniors not taking history did better than those who were.
The difference in scores between those who'd read the textbook a few times per year and those who'd read it more often, at various increments, was statistically insignificant.
Those who read it once or twice per week fared better than those who read it every day.
39% of 8th graders got this question right:
Quote:
What was the most significant factor that led the American colonists to form the First Continental Congress in 1774?
A) Religious conflict inside the colonies
B) The desire of the colonists to write a Constitution to replace the
Articles of Confederation
C) Colonial frustration with laws passed by the British Parliament
D) The desire of the colonists to stop the war between Britain and the
colonies
I will posit that our assessments of historical knowledge leave more than a little to be desired.
That doesn't change that it sure seems to be woefully low. It just makes determining how low very hard.
From the information you posted about requirements for history--it is from the State of Louisiana. Silly me, I would assume since you are going on, an on, and on about the crappy schools in your state and how they don't teach history that you would have posted information from your own state. My mistake .
Oh, and an FYI, if you go to pages 55-67, under Social Studies (which is where you will find the history information) it talks extensively about the history curriculum as well as the rest of the Social Studies requirements for preschool-12th grade.
This is just one random state and I had thought it was Georgia for some reason, which was 40th. I did not know that it was 50th, though the site I looked at that showed the 50 states showed it at 45. One thing that caught my attention was the quality of public school compared to the most regulated states for homeschooling. That makes the outlook for public schools even more bleak.
One assumtion might be that the worst states might have the most least regulation over homeschooling, rightfully so while the other might be that the best states have the most but neither lines up. Kansas for example was 17 while being a state with fewer homeschooling restrictions. New York is 10th while being one of the most strict on their homeschooling laws.
Point is, public schools suck in our country, a fact that other countries know but we continue to deny. One of the worst taught subjects is history. And the "requirements" in the curriculum are very weak.
Her being in the 50th explains as much as, but no more than, your being in a top state.
And, for all that I am not in much of a position to criticize another poster for making personal comments, your "points" about her 7 year old seem a bit uncalled for.
As for her narrowmindedness, to whatever extent she has it, it would seem to mirror yours more than not on this topic. She is neither more nor less sure of the rightness of her position.
Your insistence that her experience is the rarity, not the norm, is not born out by any quasi-objective measure with which I am familiar.
Do you have any that would suggest otherwise? I would love to read them!
In 8th grade, a whopping 17% of the students scored "Proficient" or better - an increase from the 14% who did so in 1994. But in 12th grade, that percentage dropped to 12%. (As a cautionary note, the national education stats folks suggest those levels (and those below) are to be used with reservations - but they don't say in which direction things might adjust.)
Even if we lower our standards to "Basic" and look only at the "nonpublic" schools, only 59% make it to Basic or better, compared to the 42% of the public school students.
I'll note a couple entertaining stats:
Those seniors not taking history did better than those who were.
The difference in scores between those who'd read the textbook a few times per year and those who'd read it more often, at various increments, was statistically insignificant.
Those who read it once or twice per week fared better than those who read it every day.
39% of 8th graders got this question right:
I will posit that our assessments of historical knowledge leave more than a little to be desired.
That doesn't change that it sure seems to be woefully low. It just makes determining how low very hard.
I would be interested to know why they are testing 12th graders and not 10th graders for this test. It seems to me that the test is geared toward a lot of specific date and detail recognition vs overall concepts. Most 12th graders have been 2+years away from their American History class (at least in our state). That could significantly impact them remembering specific dates and ideas. I would also like to see a state by state breakdown of scores. I would also like to see recent information-this data is almost 10 years old. No one is denying that there are kids out there that don't know history but there are also kids out there that don't know math, science, English, etc. There are some kids that no matter how good the school will NEVER be able to learn this information either.
Feel free to look up the information state by state of the state testing done for social studies to see how quasi-objective my statements are.
For everyone who does say "public schools suck" (and certainly there's room for improvement in many schools and districts) it might help to take a step back and look at how far we've come. Every child has the right to go to school. Not just the right, but the obligation. We don't have child labor. Kids don't have to drop out at age 10 to go work. Education is no longer reserved for the middle class or the wealthy. Even if you grow up in a terrible situation you still at least have the possibility of moving up through education.
There are good schools (and yes, there are) and there are bad schools, but when you consider that once the alternative was NO school things don't look so bad.
That in no way means that we shouldn't keep striving to make sure that all kids have the best opportunities possible, and to work on improving the situation for those kids who are failing.
Flik becky, you lost your empathy for mothers when you had a child? I'm not sure you understood my point. Once I went through pregnancy I KNEW what if felt like, I knew the physical demands, I could better imagine what it would be like to experience that while living and working in very different situations that what we have now. What's more, I realized first-hand that I would have been dead if I had lived two hundred years ago. You may not agree that physical understanding has any meaning, but a great many respected scholars disagree with you on that. It's not the end-all, be-all, but for some things it does give new insights that you really do need to feel to fully experience. Imagination can go a long way, but first-hand experience (plus the ability to imagine that experience in a different setting) does provide most people with a deeper, or at least slightly altered, understanding of something. (which is why so many historic sites do focus on giving people the chance to actively DO things, to experience the hard labor of the past, to try to imagine how the realities of daily life impacted the big economic and political issues, too).
In regards to what I learned after being pregnant, giving birth and raising a child, I have a growing distast for lazy parenting. As far as the carrying and birthing, I always thought before giving birth that most women over react but always held a reserve that it was because I had not gone through it. Then when I did, it was made more concrete. "OMG, my labor was sooo long. I was in labor for like 20 hours and now I plan on changing my parenting style according to what comes out in the latest book or is printed in the most recent parenting magazine." Whatever. Come back to me after you had 90 hours of labor. I also do not follow parenting trends. Consistance combined with boundries, limitations, responsibility, and a good helping of praise will out last any stupid magazine article.
I never said anything about IQ and physical mental development (or whatever). I just meant that a typical 7 year old hasn't gone through puberty, that she has had fewer years to learn things, and although she may be the most brilliant kid in the world she still isn't going to experience things in the same way at age 7 as she does at 12. Lets' stop comparing her to other 12 year olds and compare her to herself at age 12. You can learn about early American history now and she'll get something out of it, and then when she's 12 you can continue to study it and she'll get something more out of it. She can study it at 20, 30, 50, 70, and each time will get more out of it. There's only so many hours in the day, and of course she's going to continue to learn more each day, week, month, and year. She'll be able to make even more connections between her even greater knowledge base when she's 12 than she does at age 7. That has nothing to do with IQ, development, or anything else.
Life experiece does not IQ or academic ability. Reteaching something because it was dumbed down for years is just not a practical use of a child time.
Could we stop discussing one specific student here? Maybe this student is a child prodigy, learned to read in the womb, and will cure cancer at age 18, but we're not really talking about the one in a million child, we're talking about the millions of regular children.
I never said my daughter learned to read in the womb. You are making things up and trolling.
The mass of children are being let down every single day. The proof is the fact proven that the cream of the crop excells best at home, which is very sad.
This is just one random state and I had thought it was Georgia for some reason, which was 40th. I did not know that it was 50th, though the site I looked at that showed the 50 states showed it at 45. One thing that caught my attention was the quality of public school compared to the most regulated states for homeschooling. That makes the outlook for public schools even more bleak.
One assumtion might be that the worst states might have the most least regulation over homeschooling, rightfully so while the other might be that the best states have the most but neither lines up. Kansas for example was 17 while being a state with fewer homeschooling restrictions. New York is 10th while being one of the most strict on their homeschooling laws.
Point is, public schools suck in our country, a fact that other countries know but we continue to deny. One of the worst taught subjects is history. And the "requirements" in the curriculum are very weak.
Again, maybe the public schools in your area suck but we have wonderful public schools and the cream of the crop are not homeschooled kids-no where NEAR close to accurate. You continue to compare our schools to other countries but you fail to mention that no other country in the world educates ALL of their children. The vast majority of the counties in the world stop educating their average and below average kids in roughly 8th-10th grade. Only the best of the best get the opportunity to move on to college. Have you been on any college campuses lately and taken a count of the foreign students enrolled in US colleges/universities?? We are comparing ALL US students to the top maybe 5% of students in other developed countries-try comparing apples to apples and you will see a big difference in where the US places.
I would be interested to know why they are testing 12th graders and not 10th graders for this test. It seems to me that the test is geared toward a lot of specific date and detail recognition vs overall concepts. Most 12th graders have been 2+years away from their American History class (at least in our state). That could significantly impact them remembering specific dates and ideas. I would also like to see a state by state breakdown of scores. I would also like to see recent information-this data is almost 10 years old. No one is denying that there are kids out there that don't know history but there are also kids out there that don't know math, science, English, etc. There are some kids that no matter how good the school will NEVER be able to learn this information either.
Feel free to look up the information state by state of the state testing done for social studies to see how quasi-objective my statements are.
I think there is a huge difference between "remembering specific dates" and knowing what half-century a conflict occurred in or being off by more than 250 years on Columbus!
" Most 12th graders have been 2+years away from their American History class"
They've been 2 years away from the beginning of the course and less from the end. But the 8th grade group is the year after the course - and if the argument was about the "strong foundation" that you seem to still be defending, then claiming that they've forgotten much of what was taught in 10th by the end of 12th, it seems to be that you are denying there is a meaningful foundation to speak of.
I provided a couple of the multiple choice questions - there were free answer questions, as well, that were not focused on the dates, but on broader concepts. I assure you, those did not improve the overall results.
The NAEP breakdowns on their site do not include state-by-state results of the History test the way they do with the other, pre-high school only, tests.
Quote:
No one is denying that there are kids out there that don't know history but there are also kids out there that don't know math, science, English, etc.
It's not that "there are kids out there that don't know history."
There are relatively few kids out there who DO know history.
And of course there are kids out there who don't know math, etc.I never claimed there weren't. Claims were made about history. I already posted the dismal perspectives on Math, Reading, Writing, and Science from the ACT.
Quote:
Originally Posted by golfgal
There are some kids that no matter how good the school will NEVER be able to learn this information either.
Let me try this again: 12% of 12th graders scored proficient or better. 58% of 12th graders were NOT EVEN UP TO BASIC LEVEL. 8th grade was just not that much better, even though it was the year after the course.
This is not "some kids will NEVER be able."
This is saying The majority of our 8th and 12th grade students are not even basic in their knowledge of U.S. History.
*************
"Feel free to look up the information state by state of the state testing done for social studies to see how quasi-objective my statements are"
Feel free to find statistics to support your position.
I have sought out stats to explore my positions, and had they supported yours or contradicted mine, I would have reported them, as well.
I think there is a huge difference between "remembering specific dates" and knowing what half-century a conflict occurred in or being off by more than 250 years on Columbus!
" Most 12th graders have been 2+years away from their American History class"
They've been 2 years away from the beginning of the course and less from the end. But the 8th grade group is the year after the course - and if the argument was about the "strong foundation" that you seem to still be defending, then claiming that they've forgotten much of what was taught in 10th by the end of 12th, it seems to be that you are denying there is a meaningful foundation to speak of.
I provided a couple of the multiple choice questions - there were free answer questions, as well, that were not focused on the dates, but on broader concepts. I assure you, those did not improve the overall results.
The NAEP breakdowns on their site do not include state-by-state results of the History test the way they do with the other, pre-high school only, tests.
It's not that "there are kids out there that don't know history."
There are relatively few kids out there who DO know history.
And of course there are kids out there who don't know math, etc.I never claimed there weren't. Claims were made about history. I already posted the dismal perspectives on Math, Reading, Writing, and Science from the ACT.
Let me try this again: 12% of 12th graders scored proficient or better. 58% of 12th graders were NOT EVEN UP TO BASIC LEVEL. 8th grade was just not that much better, even though it was the year after the course.
This is not "some kids will NEVER be able."
This is saying The majority of our 8th and 12th grade students are not even basic in their knowledge of U.S. History.
*************
"Feel free to look up the information state by state of the state testing done for social studies to see how quasi-objective my statements are"
Feel free to find statistics to support your position.
I have sought out stats to explore my positions, and had they supported yours or contradicted mine, I would have reported them, as well.
Well, if you compare the 40-some % proficiency rate to the national proficiency rates for other subjects, history looks pretty good:
There are all kinds of links at the bottom of this article if you care to read them all.
To be quite honest, considering most states have 50% dropout rate or higher, having 40+% of the kids score better then average on their basic knowledge of history is pretty good. Now, lets deal with the real problem-the reason why so many kids are dropping out and it has nothing to do with the school system...
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.
.
