What can we do to improve Science Education?

[Astronuc]

Science education in this country [US] faces two serious problems. The first is that too few Americans perform at the highest level in science, compared with our competitors abroad. The second problem is that large numbers of aspiring science majors, perhaps as many as half, are turned off by unimaginative teaching and migrate to other disciplines before graduating.

from Why American College Students Hate Science By BRENT STAPLES, NY Times, Opinion - May 25, 2006

Here's one approach

. . . .

Initiated in 1989, U.M.B.C.'s Meyerhoff Scholars Program is so well known that the university no longer needs to recruit for it. High school counselors and teachers nominate about 1,900 students annually, mostly from Maryland, for merit-based scholarships. About 100 scholarships are offered, and of these about 50 are accepted. The new students are welcomed into a well-established community of scientists and scientists-to-be through a summer program that sets the stage for the next four years.

The students are encouraged to study in groups and taught to solve complex problems collectively, as teams of scientists do. Most important, they are quickly exposed to cutting-edge science in laboratory settings, which demystifies the profession and gives them early access to work that often leads to early publication in scientific journals. At the same time, however, the students are pushed to perform at the highest level. Those who earn C's, for example, are encouraged to repeat those courses so they can master basic concepts before moving on.

The laboratory approach keeps the students excited and prevents them from drifting off into less challenging disciplines. Indeed, according to Science, 86 percent of the Meyerhoff participants have graduated with science or engineering degrees. Nearly 9 in 10 of those graduates went on to graduate or professional programs, with a significant number earning M.D.'s or Ph.D's, or both.

Critics have sometimes accused the Meyerhoff program of cherry-picking bright students who would perform spectacularly well wherever they went to school. But the numbers suggest that the school's instructional strategy makes a real difference. Meyerhoff students are twice as likely to earn undergraduate degrees in science or engineering as similar students who declined the scholarships and went to school elsewhere. Most significantly, students who completed the Meyerhoff program are 5.3 times as likely to enroll in graduate study as the students who said no and went elsewhere.

The higher education establishment is generally startled to learn that more than half of the high-flying Meyerhoff students are black. This surprise stems from the unstated but nonetheless well-established belief that high-performing science students don't actually exist in the black community.

Very interesting. Thoughts?

 

[SOS2008]

To begin, it is a shame there aren't more science TV programs designed for children. I think PBS is one of the few channels that provides educational programming at all, like Dragonfly TV (a hands-on program). The hands-on type of teaching is very important for engaging the students. Otherwise, kids don't grow up and become science and math teachers, which we are short on.

The first point about unimaginative teachers -- This was certainly true when I was in High School. In lab our teacher never demonstrated or explained anything. We were given assignments and were to report the results, but I never understood what I was doing and why. This was in a small rural school in which teachers tend to wear more than one hat, with the science teacher also being the football coach, which was his real passion.

Bush's "No Child Left Behind" program is placing an even greater strain on teacher availability. The requirement for specialization might have improved my science class experience, but it doesn't change financial constraints (i.e., the school needing to get the bang for the buck). And of course teachers are still poorly paid, especially in rural areas. Some schools are now offering bonuses for science and math teachers (out of supply and demand desperation), but it's still peanuts compared to other fields.

 

[scott1]

http://sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/c/a/2006/05/25/BAGO0J1C5O18.DTL

 

[Astronuc]

I am all for hands on demonstrations of physics principles, however, the teacher in Mill Valley's Tamalpais High School needs to obtain the written permission of the school district superintendent or his designee.

 

[Gokul43201]

[An aside] The report card just came in :
http://nationsreportcard.gov/science_2005/s0101.asp?printver=

http://www.iht.com/articles/2006/05/25/news/science.php

WASHINGTON
The first science test administered in five years across the United States shows that achievement among high school seniors has declined across the past decade, even as scores in science rose among fourth-graders and held steady among eighth-graders, the U.S. Department of Education has reported.

 

[Rach3]

http://sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/c/a/2006/05/25/BAGO0J1C5O18.DTL

Kudos to that teacher for making basic Newtonian physics an exciting and memorable experience!

 

[0TheSwerve0]

I've been to two different colleges now: One centered around discussion, during which we dissected the thoughts and practices of scientists: from Aristotle to Pascal, Lavoisier, Harvey and http://www.stjohnscollege.edu/asp/main.aspx?page=6645&parent=1304" . We had small classes, about 15 students, where we read and discussed scientific theory. Then, we performed the practices described by the scientists: we tasted diluted acids and bases, we cracked open live chick embryos to examine their circulatory system (a light touch on their tiny hearts is enough to revive it if it stops beating), we dissected cats and gave reports to the class on our chosen systems, where we were also required to give additional theories of our own on the purposes of certain anatomical features - mine was the digestive, we suggested that the villi in the stomach might be tiny teeth that mashed up food (it may be silly, but it encouraged scientific thought).

Now I attend a state school, whose tuition costs less than half the other school. Classes are lectures in halls that are packed with over a hundred students. We take notes, memorize them, and take tests based on those notes. Our labs have detailed instructions that are not discussed, only clarified so that we may follow them exactly, though we do not know why. Creative thinking is encouraged only to prove the superiority of the scientific method, to find practical solutions rather than simply exploring ideas and exercising our minds. I never attended lecture, which was fine since my grade was based on performance on tests and attendance at lab rather than regular participation in lecture. No papers were required. The other school was based on discussion and written expression through papers: if you didn't speak in class, you were not allowed to re-enroll the next year.

I suggest that we give the option that Germany and Japan give - vocational schools rather than mandatory education for high schoolers. It seems like everyone is required to get a degree in something, which overburdens the educational system. If we can give viable options in non-educational fields, then the rest that pursue acamedics will have improved conditions such as smaller class size and more money for better teachers and curricula.

Here's a cross-cultural study comparing education in Germany, Japan, and the U.S.
http://www.ed.gov/pubs/SumItUp/index.html

 

[tiyusufaly]

We can start off by not teaching intelligent design as a competing theory against evolution.

 

[pcorbett]

from Why American College Students Hate Science By BRENT STAPLES, NY Times, Opinion - May 25, 2006

Here's one approach

Very interesting. Thoughts?

You have to wonder whether the participating students aren't...how do I put this delicately...already inclined to pursue disciplines in science (and math and engineering). Meyerhoff isn't exactly promoting promoting interest in science surreptitiously in its recruitment.

We know very little about the cultural or personal motivations for choosing or rejecting technical study in university. But I'm personally suspicious that such disciplines are culturally less satisfying than alternatives for more social, less insular students.

A final note. It takes a special bit of arrogance--borderline delusional--to suggest that the ID controversy is somehow driving down interest in science; not simply due to the lack of empirical evidence, but also for the lack of any real body of hinting anecdotes.

 

[neurocomp2003]

schooling 8am to 6pm or 8amto8pm

 

[pcorbett]

Case in point. I know of several people who've stuck through it, including myself, planning or seriously considering changing careers because they can't stand spending several hours a day with this type of coworker. Once again, this is my own view--it's not social science, it's not derived from anybody of knowledge in social science (that I know of). Although I doubt we're going to see much of the social science in this thread, I think we'd all do well to attach a disclaimer to personal judgements.

 

[loseyourname]

schooling 8am to 6pm or 8amto8pm

Well gee, there goes athletics, band, cheerleading, clubs, and basically any other extracurricular activity that doesn't take place on weekends. When I was going to high school at Bosco Tech, I had 8 periods (the normal 6 plus one religion and one technical) and three hours of cross-country practice, and I was generally there from 7 to 7 every day. I couldn't even begin to imagine the hell it would be to be there that long with only the regular classes.

 

[pcorbett]

Well gee, there goes athletics, band, cheerleading, clubs, and basically any other extracurricular activity that doesn't take place on weekends. When I was going to high school at Bosco Tech, I had 8 periods (the normal 6 plus one religion and one technical) and three hours of cross-country practice, and I was generally there from 7 to 7 every day. I couldn't even begin to imagine the hell it would be to be there that long with only the regular classes.

Seconded. Does anyone have an idea that doesn't boil down to "let's wave our hands and hope the kids turn out more like students inclined to pursue a technical discipline?" If everybody emulated your stereotypical science and math clubs, you could get rid of athletics and other extra-curriculars with a far more social bent.

 

[Mickey]

Preserve the joy of learning by not controlling it. Let students do original scientific research at their own pace.

 

[Astronuc]

High school counselors and teachers nominate about 1,900 students annually, mostly from Maryland, for merit-based scholarships. About 100 scholarships are offered, and of these about 50 are accepted.

From the OP, one problem I see is that the Meyerhoff program does seem to be cherry-picking bright students, which is one of the criticisms. They offer 100 scholarships, but perhaps more students are enrolled, which are selected from 1900 students, but what about the other 10's of thousands of students?

I heard recently that in a few decade, 80-90% of the world's scientists will be living in Asia (I presume that means India, China, Korea, Japan, . . . .). North America is apparently falling behind. Now I just need to remember where I heard that statement.

Anyway, I knew I was interested in Math and Science by Grade 2. Numbers and facts fascinated me. I used to compete with another boy to see who could count to the highest number on a slate board He always won, because he could write faster.

By 4th grade, I preferred reading non-fiction, scientific books, particularly about geology and paleontology, and the second edition of the Columbia Encylopedia. In 5th grade, my parents bought me a copy of Van Nostrand's Scientific Encyclopedia, and I would spend hours reading articles on various topics in math and science. Then I got a subscription to Scientific American, which I kept through university.

 

[daveb]

I hated math and science growing up. All through school, I was bored beyond belief. As the youngest of 5 kids, I'd grab my older siblings math books and read them. By the time I was in 5th grade, I was doing my oldest sister's trigonometry from 12th grade. But my teachers kept trying to teach me the stuff I already knew, so I pretty much zoned out (and still got A's). If they had let me go at my own pace, I wouldn't have waited until I was in my mid 30's to finally finish my degree. It wasn't until I got into the upper division math where I learned why rather than just rote memorization that I finally began to like math and science again. So I think one thing teachers can do is let those students who have the potential to excel learn at their own pace. It shouldn't matter that they will look smarter than the teacher.

 

[tiyusufaly]

I believe we need to stop being so easy, and start giving hard work and real material to learn. Kids get away with being lazy far too easily. So if the kids are not willing to do any homework or spend at most half an hour on work a day, then tough for them if they fail. Teachers should be available and ready to answer questions and help when necessary, but man there needs to be some serious discipline. I'm sorry, a butt-kicking is really in order.

 

[3trQN]

I believe we need to stop being so easy, and start giving hard work and real material to learn. Kids get away with being lazy far too easily. So if the kids are not willing to do any homework or spend at most half an hour on work a day, then tough for them if they fail. Teachers should be available and ready to answer questions and help when necessary, but man there needs to be some serious discipline. I'm sorry, a butt-kicking is really in order.

True, but a surley somone who is self motivated is a greater asset than someone who is artificially, by discipline, motivated?

We all like a challenge, but easy is a subjective term, which may apply to one and not to another, this kind of blanket education is a detriment to many who could succeed but are excluded.

Maybe we could ask, "Why do many young students lack self motivation for science?"

That can be answered by looking, i beleive, at the cognitive biases that develop, the amount of effort and the amount of reward that they gain in learning and immersing themselves in the subject.

For example, where i was brought up, amongst my group of firends, science was not something that was looked upon as socially acceptable. The classic "geek" & "nerd" type mentallity which stigmatises and effects cognitive bias at a young age can be hard to change by discipline.

Can you make, or is it even fair, to make a child follow a program that will result in social exclusion?

Combine that with the fact that many young people have no facillities or out of school activities that involve science and which they can activley apply themselves to. This means the subjects are not used and discussed enough, which is partially what leads to the above in my opinion.
Perhaps some science education fails to educate for the workplace or "real world" in terms of employabillity and usefullness of techniques and methods, teaching about "classic science" but when very little modern science is perfomed this way.

Addressing these issues, in my opinion, would be an improvement.

 

[pcorbett]

True, but a surley somone who is self motivated is a greater asset than someone who is artificially, by discipline, motivated?

What discipline? Tiyusufaly described a sado-masochist's dream of science education, one that appeals to only a peculiar student demographic. You know, the type that asked for extra homework while his peers were more interested in chillin after school. As far as I can tell, the result of his program would drive more socially adjusted students from scientific careers. That means I can look forward to an even less rewarding career in a field already oversaturated with the "other type" of kid. And that's the last thing I need, yet one more reason to consider a career in science and technology a disasterous choice.

Maybe we could ask, "Why do many young students lack self motivation for science?"

There you go. Now we're getting somewhere.

 

[tiyusufaly]

I'm not saying we have to be cruel and make these kids do nothing but homework all day, but you have to admit, high school today is way too easy and kids can get away with stuff. I'm not a "sado-masochist" lol, I just believe in hard work and discipline. Today kids spend far more time on athletics and activities and out of school stuff than on education itself, which is one of the last priorities. To be fair, this may in part have to do with a lack of good intriguing teachers. So we can start by raising teacher salary and having stricter requirements and making it more competitive to teach, so as to get better educators. But I think stricter policies ARE necessary - but I'm not telling you to subject these kids to Caltech or MIT or Harvey Mudd workload while in 8th grade. Heavens no.

 

[pcorbett]

I'm not saying we have to be cruel and make these kids do nothing but homework all day, but you have to admit, high school today is way too easy and kids can get away with stuff.

I definitely don't think that's the case. The curriculum is sufficient to provide a supply of students to the universities. If we were seeing declining student populations indexed for population growth you may have a point. I think you're addressing the (considerably smaller) problem of students who may be gifted in the maths and sciences finding little outlet for their talents, but that doesn't really have to do with marketing science and maths to college-bound students who otherwise choose other career options.

I'm not a "sado-masochist" lol...

Oh, definitely not. I'm just saying that if we step outside of the usual "s1nc n maf r da l33t" frame of mind you might find that working through problem sets and conducting tedious, repetitive lab work might not provide enough satisfaction to many students to justify extending their school day and hammering them with additional instruction and work.

I just believe in hard work and discipline.

As do I. But if the reward is tedium, colleagues you can't jive with on a personal level, and detachment from the end use of your work, what's the point? Sure, there's a need for mathematicians, scientists and engineers who get off on that. But not that great of a need.

Today kids spend far more time on athletics and activities and out of school stuff than on education itself, which is one of the last priorities.

High school graduation rates are higher than they've ever been. So is high school athleticism and extra-curricular participation. I don't think you're hypothesis that education receives a lower priority--especially when the average of six hours of classroom instruction per day far outweighs the average three hours for after-school activites--holds water.

That said, if you still personally think athleticism and extracurriculars are given to much weight vis a vis classroom instruction, then perhaps you might consider adopting a more athletic lifestyle and then tell us if your views changed.

I'm not telling you to subject these kids to Caltech or MIT or Harvey Mudd workload while in 8th grade. Heavens no.

An MIT or Caltech workload isn't terribly different than that at a state university level. You may have less an opportunity to shine in the presence of equally competent students (not necessarily nerds) already inclined to enroll in science, math and engineering programs, but your core undegraduate program is still going to consist of 12 to 15 hours of instruction, problem sets and labwork. The point of this thread is why students who go to liberal arts or state schools chose to enroll in non-technical programs, even those these are also very demanding on personal time.

Damn, we need more empirical stuff on this topic.

 

[selfAdjoint]

The curriculum is sufficient to provide a supply of students to the universities.

Yeah, but that just raises the question of whether the university curriculum in being trivialized. There are certainly a lot more gut courses than there used to be, such as {Name your favorite fad obsession}-Studies, and it seems to be the case that the Masters Degree (as in MBA) now functions the way an undergraduate degree used to in the marketplace, while a college graduate is treated the way a high school graduate used to be.

 

[pcorbett]

Yeah, but that just raises the question of whether the university curriculum in being trivialized. There are certainly a lot more gut courses than there used to be, such as {Name your favorite fad obsession}-Studies...

Well, the thread is about why students are voting against maths, sciences and engineering departments with their choice in major. As for the proliferation of specific areas of study, you can easily make the anecdotal claim that they all still draw on the same disciplines and practices of traditional realms of social science and humanity studies.

...and it seems to be the case that the Masters Degree (as in MBA) now functions the way an undergraduate degree used to in the marketplace, while a college graduate is treated the way a high school graduate used to be.

I'm not actually sure about that. It seems like we're conflating several post-graduation issues pertaining career options--availability, quality, and compensation chief amongst those. We know the college headcount has increased dramatically the past century, but then again we've experienced exponential population, GDP and job growth as well. I don't know what the data indicates here, but I have a sneaking suspicion that such beliefs about the declining value of degrees are more anecdotal than not.

 

[selfAdjoint]

quote=pcorbett]I have a sneaking suspicion that such beliefs about the declining value of degrees are more anecdotal than not.[/quote]


Coincidentally, a government commission just issued its report on how to improve higher education in the US. Here is a discussion of it: http://www.washingtonmonthly.com/archives/individual/2006_08/009328.php. Sure doesn't sound as if everything is hunky-dory.

 

[pcorbett]

quote=pcorbett]Coincidentally, a government commission just issued its report on how to improve higher education in the US. Here is a discussion of it: http://www.washingtonmonthly.com/archives/individual/2006_08/009328.php. Sure doesn't sound as if everything is hunky-dory.

Nobody said it was hunky dory. The relevant finding, the assertion that employers are finding college graduate skillsets mismatched or inadequate for the task, is supported by not one footnote, addenda or apparently any publically available study. In fact, it seems to be based entirely on anecdotal testimony. On the other hand, productivity is up and joblessness is down, particularly in the service sector. Something doesn't jive here.

 

[Astronuc]

Nobody said it was hunky dory. The relevant finding, the assertion that employers are finding college graduate skillsets mismatched or inadequate for the task, is supported by not one footnote, addenda or apparently any publically available study. In fact, it seems to be based entirely on anecdotal testimony.

No, not really. 'Every' technology company (including one the top 10 in the Fortune 500 companies) I deal with tells me that young people coming from university with a baccalaureate are not properly prepared.

On the other hand, productivity is up and joblessness is down, particularly in the service sector.

Productivity has slow and the latest figures show unemployment up, and actual employment is down 1.7% since 2000. Many people have given up, because good paying jobs are disappearing. There are plenty of jobs at Walmart and McDonalds though. The only problem is that one cannot support a family of 4 or more in most markets with such jobs.

Something doesn't jive here.

That would be the Bush administration's positive spin on the economy.

 

[selfAdjoint]

Something doesn't jive here.

That would be the Bush administration's positive spin on the economy.

Actually the Bush administration DOES jive, persistently. What pcorbett meant to say was that something doesn't jibe. (Couldn't resist!).

 

[mathwonk]

one comment to the suggestion to increase hours of schooling - when we took our kids to italy for a whole semester, my wife schooled them for 30-60 minutes per day, but when they returned they were ahead of their classmates who were in school all day.sort of reminded me of second grade, when being in school often meant sitting in a circle waiting for some kid to read a word he didn't understand. school was mainly an exercise in patience for the first 12 years. then i went to harvard where i was about 12 years behind the other kids who had been in a good school. (i.e. a school not located in the south.) very humiliating.

 

[tiyusufaly]

Yea I agree mathwonk. That's another thing I feel is a problem. Teaching is done inefficently in a lot of US public schools, and there is a lot of wasted time and useless busy work (everyone I've talked to agrees with me on this). I think a major part of this might have to do with the fact that if, as you said, one kid is having trouble, it slows the whole class down. I think that constitutes a failure on the part of the teachers and educational system to put in the extra effort to bring those kids up to par with their peers. The kid should be made to work extra hard to catch up (but not without the help of the teachers of course) - that's what good discipline and education is all about.

 

[Astronuc]

How about mandatory parental involvement?

Too many parents don't bother to read to their children, and those children are already behind when they enter the education system.

The problem with the education system is that a teacher is supposed to teach 'all' of the students simultaneously at one rate, and clearly there are those student who learn at slower rates, which then penalizes the learning of those who learn at much high rates. Some children don't learn well because they don't receive proper nutrition at home, and in other cases, they don't learn well because they live in home in which domestic violence or abuse is a factor.

On top of that there are students who present discpline problems, which periodically disrupt the flow in the classroom. Threats from students and even parents are more commonplace these days.

 

[pcorbett]

No, not really. 'Every' technology company (including one the top 10 in the Fortune 500 companies) I deal with tells me that young people coming from university with a baccalaureate are not properly prepared.

That's funny. I can't report a single similar experience.

Productivity has slow and the latest figures show unemployment up, and actual employment is down 1.7% since 2000.

Um, we're not debating the Bush Administration's economic stewardship, are we? As for productivity growth, it's slowed in the past year. However, undergraduate education structure and impact takes the long view, and over time we're not going to find much support for a theory of declining college graduate productivity without discovering corresponding capital growth or increases in other sector productivity.

Many people have given up, because good paying jobs are disappearing. There are plenty of jobs at Walmart and McDonalds though. The only problem is that one cannot support a family of 4 or more in most markets with such jobs.

There's always evidence of "many" doing something or not doing anything. The word neither demands a majority, a plurality, or even a significant minority. Just more than a boatload of people. None of this has to do with the question of employer confidence in the quality of the American college graduate.

 

[SOS2008]

One of my favorite people, Margaret Atwood, recently said in an interview with Bill Moyer's in his "Faith and Reason" series that she is agnostic because true knowledge is only derived via the scientific method and reproducible results. (And why, like her, I am agnostic.)

Even intelligent/educated people often stray too far into pseudo-science, non-science (e.g., religion and literal belief in scriptures) and superstition. And it seems that obsession with what is not provable (i.e., true knowledge) is growing. So maybe education in general is not enough, and perhaps this is due to the U.S. falling behind in the sciences in particular. Or is it due to other factors, like fear and hopelessness? And if so, can increased education in the sciences correct this problem?

 

[TuviaDaCat]

it is not spme protocol, teaching hours, or all the municipal stuff.

it all starts with playing with things, like magnetizing a nail with a hand made coil, or making ur hair move by a baloon frictioned on fabric, this king of things.
in school, they just show u the thing u need to graduate. the impression u get from almost all students is that only the grade matters. i do not expect a man to love all subjects, but many like non. though i don't know if teachers are to blame, i had terrific science teacher, that unlike other teachers, they loved explaining physics, and we did an experiment for almost every thing we learned in theory, exept for many modern physics, experiments which are beond high school labs...

i think that the main problem starts at home. children has a lot of "whys", when the whys are not answered, the children stop asking why, and that's when u killed the potential of being a scientist.
lucky me my father is engineer, one who can drift in thinking about stuff... every time i asked why, about anything, he or mom, explained it patiently.
also showing the kid some experiments that look cool is very important.

yet most things i learned didnt have to do too much with high school, for example, in physics, i never understood the teacher in class, i just got a few points, went home, and started thinking, and thinking and thinking, and then i opened a book and started reading, slowly, in my own rate.

so i believe that it is the the individual that matters, real understanding of things, comes from closing ur eyes and thinking, alone, on any input given.
but for one to get to this "trans", one needs to love doing it from early age, not as a compatition, loving the process itself.

so in the bottom line, u are the fruit of ur inviorment, and i can't see homework, more hours of teaching, or all that stuff changing people to like science at later age...
all u can do is find those who like it(not those who get A's) and give them resources.

 

[edward]

I am a great believer in early childhood education. Education must begin early and continue thoughout a young persons formative years. Only then will they really be ready for a more advanced education.

By age three a childs mind is already 90% developed. This is the age, for instance that a child may learn two languanges simultaneously without diffuculity.

Different aspects of learning for a young student are easier for the child at different times.

I don't feel that we take advantage of this as many European countries do. Most of our newer concepts in education such as Montessori and Reggio have come from Europe. Our Moms must work, most European Moms are at home during the childs early years. (trust me here I don't want to have to look up the dam link)

I am also a believer in Howard Gardners 7 intelligences.

Howard Gardner's theory of multiple intelligences states that all human beings have several intelligences but
different strengths in each intelligence area. Here, in his own words, Howard Gardner describes his original seven intelligences, plus an eighth (a more recent addition).

http://www.nea.org/teachexperience/braik030626.html

Our current methods of education worked fine 50 years ago, but do not really fit the scenario that children live in today. Today we have families moving frequently. Some schools are now year round while others stick to the traditional Labor day to Memorial day calendar. It is difficult for many children to adjust to this.

Our kids are distracted by TV ,video games, cell phones, and peer pressure. We have created a generation of entertainment addicted overweight Mall rats.

Parents used to control their children and their study habits. Their kids are now playing Grand Theft Auto, while eating a Big Mac and the parents are both at work. The "No Child Left Behind" bill is a cruel joke. Everything is left up to the individual states who are all ready struggling to teach Juan spanglish while trying to retain low paid teachers.

For the sciences as with other (intelligences) we must start early and somehow persevere. For many parents this is difficult to impossible, but once a child gets hooked on learning, especially in their area of natural ability, they will more than likely stick to it. We must somehow reach that sticking point with all of our children.

A year ago when my grandson was four I did't feel that pre-school was challenging him enough. I had noticed that he seemd to be enthralled by flowing water.

I took him to an area of my property located on a hillside.
I gave him pieces of PVC pipe and a lot of fittings. (They press toghether easily) I told him that he could run as muuch water as he wanted as long as the water ended up under the trees below. The first thing he learned was that water will not flow uphill. And things did get pretty muddy.

During the past year every time he comes over he always wants to work on his own self named ,"water system" and he now is getting water to free flow through multiple pipes to trees that are 40 to 60 feet away. Hell when I was that age I didn't even know what "system" meant.

Sorry for the ramble, but it is obvious that test scores show our children and young adults are falling behind the rest of the modern world in education. This could perhaps be the greatest danger facing this country in the long term.

 

[neurocomp2003]

loseyourname: your one of the lucky ones...but i think you also misinterpreted what i meant by schooling, which I meant to include extracurriculars as being mandatory, athletics, music, art etc. Basically anything to keep a student busy and not have them waste their life away.

As a student if your not an extravert(is that the right word) or if your parents are not involved in your schooling(as mine weren't) you would go to school from 8-3 and then come home and do nothing else except maybe watch tv, read, play computer games OR go hangout Thats like 6 hours of the day wasted. If you were into those extracurriculars you were one of hte lucky ones, not wasting your time away. Thats why i think Schooling should be increased in time...Look at other countries ,especially the middle east and asia where schooling is almost that long, granted they seem to become Droids but their education is much better than ours. However they do include, exercise, sleeptime,eattime in the curriculum.

To improve education, as pointed by other threads:
[0] Demand on parental/grand-parental/family involvement
[1] Demand on better teaching systems(or teachers,not just passing every teacher)
[2] Longer Hours so children don't waste their time away(2-3 hours of free time should be long enough).

I include the last one simply because for students who do not choose or are not given the choice or not reinforced the concept of extracurriculars(be it science clubs, music,art,theater, computer related, athletics), they tend to idle away. As someone mentioned above...its about getting them early into this behavioural pattern. I think the North american edcuation system somewhat assumes parental or family involvement and without that a child becomes lost.

Edit: I forgot to add these other points...
[3] Group Discussions at the end or beggining of a day.
[4] Getting students tutoring those in lower grades(1-3 yrs apart)
[5] Better english classes...(scientific writing classes,building websites with information learned in other classes etc.)
End Edit: