What can we do to improve Science Education?

[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:

 

[edward]

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.

I see your points and for the most part agree. Within reason, (I don't think every school needs a golf team ), I think that extracurricular activities are important for the student in the ways you mentioned. They also help in making the young person "want" to go to school, and
help with self esteem and socialization. In many school systems a student must maintain a certain grade point average to be eligible for extracurricular activities.

 

[neurocomp2003]

edward: hehe golf team. Great way to inspire them to make money so they can just play golf =]j/k.

The only problem I actually see with extending hours is the "getting them home safely".

 

[desA]

One problem with modern life is the concept of instant gratification with minimal work input. This concept translates into apathy when faced with the mental discipline required for scientific study. It is easier to go off & play computer games, or to see a movie, than to sit down & study. Life is concerned with 'my' pleasures. Live for today & let tomorrow take care of itself.

desA

 

[edward]

edward: hehe golf team. Great way to inspire them to make money so they can just play golf

I just realized that I have insulted every golfer on the forum.

The only problem I actually see with extending hours is the "getting them home safely".

I used to take turns with my neighbors or other team member parents when it came to picking up the young'uns. Parents are more likely to be home or on the way home later in the day.

I guess now days Dad could drop by the school and pick up the kids while he is on his way to Mc Chickens to buy dinner.

 

[mathwonk]

i like the idea of having retired college math and science faculty teach high school courses in their subject.

 

[durt]

school vouchers = good
teacher's unions = bad

I'm not really sure how to deal with those darn teacher's unions, though...

 

[TuviaDaCat]

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.
End Edit:

the middle east...if u are israeli u will learn from the morning to about 2-4 pm, which is not much. if u are poor and in arabic country, u probably don't get much teachings... and if u are an arabic from a wealthy family, then i guess u get pretty good eduacation.
my guess is that ur input was about the aristocracy, but that's not much of good view window on the eduation middle east.(though israeli universities are not too bad for such a small country...)

back to the point
you people speak of reforming school, yet a man is shaped mostly at home. even though like learning, i never liked school, even if it was a subject i liked. all the thinking was at home. hack, who cares about tests, and homework, i just wanted to think about things in my own time, and in my own way(partially..).
how exacly more hours at school improve things other than memory? the real important thing is for one to process alone, and use books and teachers to give input. for one needs to ask "why" before u answer. an unswer with no why, has false results, the answer just dwells in the memory unprocessed.

i do not know the solution, but i know the problem, children don't want to learn, and its not normal to like learning(also in later ages). and parents seem to prefer grades, then a son building a transformer for his own pleasure.
and changing a whole population...well...thats not very easy.

 

[Astronuc]

i like the idea of having retired college math and science faculty teach high school courses in their subject.

Yes! And, I'd like to see scientists and engineers teaching science and math in school - as long as they know how to teach.

 

[SOS2008]

school vouchers = good
teacher's unions = bad

I'm not really sure how to deal with those darn teacher's unions, though...

Uh, no. Tax payers should NOT subsidize those who want to send their children to private schools, most specifically religious schools. As for unions, any area of the market where qualifications are high yet the pay is low (e.g., nurses as well) may well require a balancing factor such as unions. Why should plumbers, garbage collectors, etc. make more?

Back to the topic, I agree with recent posts about education beginning as young as possible. Also with hands-on learning. Audio has the least retention, then visual. Hands-on (even if just taking notes) has the highest retention.

 

[durt]

Uh, no. Tax payers should NOT subsidize those who want to send their children to private schools, most specifically religious schools. As for unions, any area of the market where qualifications are high yet the pay is low (e.g., nurses as well) may well require a balancing factor such as unions. Why should plumbers, garbage collectors, etc. make more?

Public schools are god awful. Tax payers already shell out enormous loads of money for kids to go to them, so why not redirect the money that would pay for a student's public "education" into a private education. I, though not Catholic, attended a private Catholic elementary and middle school, where I received a superior education (at least to all other schools anywhere nearby). Private schools are indisputably better, and all children deserve the opportunities they offer. And what's wrong with religious schools? If your objection has something to do with the oh-so-sacred wall of separation between church and state, note that the individuals would choose where to send their children, not the government.

As for unions, there are good teachers... and then there are bad ones. Bad teacher should be fired readily, for the sake of the students. But unions hinder this process. Public schools often just put up the bad teachers as they are helpless to get rid of them. So, obviously this is not what should be happening. Childrens' educations should take precedence over teacher's interest, but since powerful unions back teacher's interests, childrens' educations suffer.

This is on topic because the key to a better science education is a better education in general. And the key to that is to put more options in the hands of parents with school vouchers and to make teachers fear losing their jobs if they suck.

 

[neurocomp2003]

if you move all the public money to private...doesn't that mean one of two things...either there is no more public school...or you basic neglect some HUGE % of childrens?

 

[Astronuc]

This is an example of what not to do!

Yet Another Frightening Story Out of Colorado
http://www.motherjones.com/mojoblog/archives/2006/08/yet_another_fri.html

Eric Hamlin, a middle school geography teacher in Jefferson County, Colorado, received a letter of reprimand his very first week of class. The reason? He displayed the flags of Mexico, China and the United Nations in his classroom as teaching aids, as he has always done throughout his geography-teaching career.

Hamlin was told to take the flags down by the assistant principal. She said it was Jefferson County School District policy that he could not display the flags. Hamlin said he took issue with that, and an hour later, she returned, saying it was actually state law, and she handed him the statute:

Any person who displays any flag other than the flag of the United States of America or the state of Colorado or any of its subdivisions, agencies, or institutions upon any state, county, municipal, or other public building or adjacent grounds within this state commits a class 1 petty offense.
However, the statute does include an exception for “a temporary display of any instructional or historical materials not permanently affixed or attached to any part of the buildings.” Apparently, the word "instructional" is a new one to the administration at Hamlin's school. When he pointed it out, he was told that the flags "seemed permanent."

The principal then told Hamlin to take the flags down, which he refused to do. He was then given the letter of reprimand, and told that he could regain his good standing if he would agree not to display flags of foreign nations, and always obtain administrative approval for any classroom displays he put up. Hamlin refused, and was placed on administrative leave.

Once the news media learned about the incident, things changed. School and county officials agreed to "allow" Hamlin to rotate the flags on a temporary basis, which is what he has done for his entire career. Hamlin resigned from his job, but said that he feels bad for the principal, who is getting "unfair" emails, calling him "Nazi and things like that."

 

[Chi Meson]

Public schools are god awful. Tax payers already shell out enormous loads of money for kids to go to them, so why not redirect the money that would pay for a student's public "education" into a private education. I, though not Catholic, attended a private Catholic elementary and middle school, where I received a superior education (at least to all other schools anywhere nearby). Private schools are indisputably better, and all children deserve the opportunities they offer. And what's wrong with religious schools? If your objection has something to do with the oh-so-sacred wall of separation between church and state, note that the individuals would choose where to send their children, not the government.

As for unions, there are good teachers... and then there are bad ones. Bad teacher should be fired readily, for the sake of the students. But unions hinder this process. Public schools often just put up the bad teachers as they are helpless to get rid of them. So, obviously this is not what should be happening. Childrens' educations should take precedence over teacher's interest, but since powerful unions back teacher's interests, childrens' educations suffer.

This is on topic because the key to a better science education is a better education in general. And the key to that is to put more options in the hands of parents with school vouchers and to make teachers fear losing their jobs if they suck.

If public money were to go to private and parochial schools, then those schools should be required to accept applicants regardless of qualifications. Furthermore, those schools should not be allowed to expell any student for performing poorly; instead, the school must provide special, individual educational plans for the problem student. If the student does get expelled (for bringing in a weapon, for example) then the private school must pay for home tutoring until the student is 18 or until graduation.

Sounds absurd? It is. That's what public schools must do.

 

[Moonbear]

Public schools are god awful. Tax payers already shell out enormous loads of money for kids to go to them, so why not redirect the money that would pay for a student's public "education" into a private education. I, though not Catholic, attended a private Catholic elementary and middle school, where I received a superior education (at least to all other schools anywhere nearby). Private schools are indisputably better, and all children deserve the opportunities they offer. And what's wrong with religious schools? If your objection has something to do with the oh-so-sacred wall of separation between church and state, note that the individuals would choose where to send their children, not the government.

This is the typical argument I hear for vouchers, "I did well in private school, so we should have everyone do it." The reason you did well in private school is that private schools do not have to take all the disruptive students, the ones with ADHD, the ones with other learning disabilities, the ones who are developmentally disabled, the ones with parents who don't give a darn if the kid does their homework or hangs out on the street corner after school. If private schools admitted all of those students, their scores would be just as bad as public schools, and the cost of the facilities and specialists to meet the needs of those students just as high. Likewise, if you told private schools they need to admit students with only a voucher and could not ask them to pay any more than that, you'd also see those schools starting to fall into disrepair and they'd be cramming more students per classroom to cut costs.

Further, the ONLY reason our tax money is even sufficient to support public schools as they are is that it goes into a pool for relatively few schools in each district. When that money starts getting divided up into vouchers for private schools and spread out all over the place, the cost of each individual's education goes up (note, if you attended a Catholic school, you did not pay tuition for the full cost of your education; those schools are subsidized by the church and donations to the church; the tuition at a non-subsidized private school is several times higher).

Additionally, no voucher can pay the entire private school education costs, which means that family that can barely afford to put food on the table now cannot afford to go to school either. The entire point of having a public education system is that we recognize that even poor children deserve an education. There has never really been a worry that rich children would be able to afford to go to school.

A recent article also further dispels the myth that private schools are better. When socioeconomic status of the students is taken into consideration, public and private schools are about the same, with public school students actually performing slightly better than private school students.

The report, which compared fourth- and eighth-grade reading and math scores in 2003 from nearly 7,000 public schools and more than 530 private schools, found that fourth graders attending public school did significantly better in math than comparable fourth graders in private schools. Additionally, it found that students in conservative Christian schools lagged significantly behind their counterparts in public schools on eighth-grade math.

http://www.nytimes.com/2006/07/15/e...rss&adxnnlx=1157296088-7/6PlvJG/7eZrhTQd22X+Q

It gets right back to what Chi Meson has been explaining. When you can pick and choose to admit only the best students, you have good students, but it doesn't mean your teachers are any better at teaching the more challenging students that public school teachers need to deal with.

 

[edward]

The link below is to my local newspaper and an article about SAT scores falling. There were various reasons mentioned, especially the new longer test.

The thing that really caught my eye was the graph of SAT scores since 1967. There was a tremendous plunge during the 1972 to the 1985 era that we really never recovered from.

Something came along simultaneously with the high tech era. Whether it was; Video games, MTV, or more moms working, something apparently happeded to education during that time frame.

http://www.azstarnet.com/allheadlines/144317

 

[selfAdjoint]

Something came along simultaneously with the high tech era. Whether it was; Video games, MTV, or more moms working, something apparently happeded to education during that time frame.

By 1972 the Boomer generation had just taken on all the teaching roles from elementary teacher to high school principal. They were badly educated themselves, but still with the high seriousness of intent of the older generations, but the Boomers had the "Elvis Studies" and y'all come ideas of learning. They built the present shoddy system.

 

[BobG]

The link below is to my local newspaper and an article about SAT scores falling. There were various reasons mentioned, especially the new longer test.

The thing that really caught my eye was the graph of SAT scores since 1967. There was a tremendous plunge during the 1972 to the 1985 era that we really never recovered from.

Something came along simultaneously with the high tech era. Whether it was; Video games, MTV, or more moms working, something apparently happeded to education during that time frame.

http://www.azstarnet.com/allheadlines/144317

Could it be an expansion in the diversity of the students taking the test? Ethnic background, education level of students' parents, and family income have a huge impact on SAT scores.

SAT Scores vs. Parental Education
SAT Scores vs. Family Income

As a matter of fact, parents' educational level and family income have the biggest affect on student performance in schools, as well.

I'm not sure if the drop is a realistic reflection of the quality of education. By the end of the 60's, the pipeline should have been filled with students that spent their entire academic career in the schools created by the 1957 National Defense Education Act which placed more money on math and science in an effort to keep up with the Soviets in the cold war. Or, if it is, then the educational reforms of the 50's were a disaster.

 

[Bystander]

(snip) By the end of the 60's, the pipeline should have been filled with students that spent their entire academic career in the schools created by the 1957 National Defense Education Act which placed more money on math and science in an effort to keep up with the Soviets in the cold war. Or, if it is, then the educational reforms of the 50's were a disaster.

They were --- NDEA a decent, not all that good, idea, poorly implemented; counsel and guide students into areas they aren't suited to handle; scrap vertically integrated curricula for "global" surveys of fields, rather than emphasizing fundamentals; if it can, or could, be done wrong, public education will do, or has done it.

 

[selfAdjoint]

The U.S. colleges at the undergrad level and the schools seem to me to be the best equipped in the world, so the problem lies elsewhere...in the popular culture perhaps?

I remember some studies a few years ago of different schools and what they did, and the result on statewise tests (not the best quality measure, but relatively indicative). The result was clear, dollars spent on equipment had almost no effect, and neither did more teacher training. The only thing that made a big difference was more teachers; schools with a lower number of pupils per teacher had significantly better results on the test.

 

[edward]

I think that high -school faculty are spending a lot of time teaching students to pass "state wide" tests, or just teaching enough to get the students to graduate. This leaves a situation where the curriculum being taught is in isolation from the knowledge required for college level work. Secondary and post secondary education are not on the same page.

The Arizona State test is called the AIMS test. (Arizona Instrument to Measure Standards.) The State Legislature payed a private firm $6 million to write the test. Passing the AIMS test was to be required for graduation. It has been an eight year nightmare. It has never adequately measured anything. It has proven that politicians should stay out of education.

 

[Astronuc]

http://www.sciam.com/article.cfm?chanID=sa003&articleID=0000DE94-3ED7-14F7-BED783414B7F0000

African-American schoolchildren who completed a brief writing assignment designed to reaffirm their sense of self-worth received higher grades at the end of the semester than those given a control intervention, a new study finds. These better-performing children closed the grade gap with their white peers by 40 percent, apparently because the assignment interrupted the harmful effects of declining performance early in the semester.

Researchers have invoked a concept called stereotype threat to help explain why black students in the U.S. consistently perform worse in school than their white counterparts. In this view, members of a minority experience anxiety at the prospect of confirming negative stereotypes about their group, such as low intelligence. This anxiety impedes their performance in tasks that reflect on the stereotype, creating a downward spiral in which anxiety and poor performance feed on one another. In past experiments college students have been told that a test they are about to take is insensitive to race or gender, and such interventions can reduce group differences in test scores. "No one had looked at whether these kinds of processes could be manipulated in the real world and have long-term consequences," says social psychologist Geoffrey Cohen of the University of Colorado at Boulder.

Affirmation works, encouragement works, inspiration and motivation works - and that applies to everyone to some extent.


Recently I heard an interview with Lou Holtz. He has a very good philosophy about life and success. On of the things he mentioned was that people can lift others up or put them down, and he preferred to be one who inspired and motivated people to do their best. I don't necessarily agree with the 'reward/punishment approach' that he mentioned, but I find his approach to be affective.

Holtz is a sought after speaker.
http://www.washingtonspeakers.com/speakers/Speaker.cfm?SpeakerID=429#

He has also written a book about his experience and the lessons he learned in life.
https://www.amazon.com/dp/0060840803/?tag=pfamazon01-20 (Hardcover)

------------------------------------------------------
Popular culture may have an impact if parents decide not to be involved in their children's education.

One indicator of how well a student will do is the educational level of the parents. The affect can be through expectation and/or participation.

Parents who participate in their children's education can make a huge difference. I read to my kids for years, and still read to my son, who is now 15. My wife and I take our children to books stores and the library. As a result, my children have read well above grade level.

On the other hand, my wife and I know many parents who do not read to their children, and some may not read very much at all.

This afternoon, my son announced he plans on studying physics - because its more challenging. Well, we'll see how he feels about it at the end of the year.

 

[Chi Meson]

One indicator of how well a student will do is the educational level of the parents. The affect can be through expectation and/or participation.

This is believed by many to be THE top indicator of success in education. (Especially that of the mother, or "primary home-care-giver")

This afternoon, my son announced he plans on studying physics

HUZZAH!

 

[franznietzsche]

Public schools are god awful. Tax payers already shell out enormous loads of money for kids to go to them, so why not redirect the money that would pay for a student's public "education" into a private education. I, though not Catholic, attended a private Catholic elementary and middle school, where I received a superior education (at least to all other schools anywhere nearby). Private schools are indisputably better, and all children deserve the opportunities they offer. And what's wrong with religious schools? If your objection has something to do with the oh-so-sacred wall of separation between church and state, note that the individuals would choose where to send their children, not the government.

As for unions, there are good teachers... and then there are bad ones. Bad teacher should be fired readily, for the sake of the students. But unions hinder this process. Public schools often just put up the bad teachers as they are helpless to get rid of them. So, obviously this is not what should be happening. Childrens' educations should take precedence over teacher's interest, but since powerful unions back teacher's interests, childrens' educations suffer.

This is on topic because the key to a better science education is a better education in general. And the key to that is to put more options in the hands of parents with school vouchers and to make teachers fear losing their jobs if they suck.

You are making broad generalizations about public and private schools that are simply wrong. There is a very good reason that neither myself nor any of my three brothers went to private schools. Quite simply, they would have been an inferior choice. Not because they had worse programs for normal students--but because they had very limited options for advanced classes. In the public schools we had far more and far better options. So no, private schools are not indisputably better.

The purpose of unions is to protect the mediocre, so of course they make it hard to fire bad or mediocre people. Unions form in industries where the personnel are expendable and exchangeable-- or at least treated as such by those in control of hiring practices. In those situations the mediocre need protection.

 

[franznietzsche]

This is believed by many to be THE top indicator of success in education. (Especially that of the mother, or "primary home-care-giver")



HUZZAH!

In my opinion the importance is not the level of education of the parent, but their level of expectation of and involvement, which is is most likely correlated to their education level. Neither of my parents finished college when they were young (My mother actually finished her bachelors the same semester I finished high school). But my mother, especially when we were young before she started working again, was very involved in our academic lives and very much on our cases to do well. And all of us did as a result.

 

[BobG]

I think that high -school faculty are spending a lot of time teaching students to pass "state wide" tests, or just teaching enough to get the students to graduate. This leaves a situation where the curriculum being taught is in isolation from the knowledge required for college level work. Secondary and post secondary education are not on the same page.

The Arizona State test is called the AIMS test. (Arizona Instrument to Measure Standards.) The State Legislature payed a private firm $6 million to write the test. Passing the AIMS test was to be required for graduation. It has been an eight year nightmare. It has never adequately measured anything. It has proven that politicians should stay out of education.

It only makes sense to know what knowledge you want students to have by time they graduate and to have a means of assessing whether or not those students have acquired that knowledge. The minimum requirements won't necessarily reflect the knowledge required for college level work, since the majority of students won't graduate from college (in 2003, Massachusetts led the nation with 37.6% of its population, 25 and older, having http://www.epodunk.com/top10/collegeDiploma/).

Even though the concept of standardized testing makes sense, there's a lot of risk in it.

1) If you don't correctly identify the knowledge a student needs to get by in life - the knowledge most employers want, the knowledge needed in order to evaluate whether a person is getting a fair deal in a transaction or not, the knowledge needed to assess and plan for their retirement, etc. - then the tests will be worthless, as well.

2) If you do correctly identify knowledge required in today's world, will your program be able to react to changes that are sure to occur in the future or will it always be a step behind, always testing the skills and knowledges that were required for yesterday's world.

3) If your program is incredibly good at identifying required knowledges and skills, and very good at detecting and reacting to changing requirements, is there any guarantee that future changes will render nearly your entire program and direction obsolete. Changes drastic enough that even if you react quickly, a huge portion of your students have wasted most of their educational years.

The biggest strength and the biggest weakness of allowing teachers to do too much of their own thing is in its lack of focus. It's too inefficient to get great results system wide, but it's wide spread means even big changes have less risk of turning your entire educational program into a disaster.

It winds up being an interesting trade-off between efficiency and adaptability. Trying to identify the right stuff to test today is challenging enough, let alone trying to make sure your base of required knowledge is wide enough to adapt to unforseen future changes, and that is why standardized testing certainly has a high chance of turning into a disaster.

Of course, an alternative option to both is to hope some other state does better than you at educating students and just lure people that were educated out of state. (I bring that up only because Colorado was third in the nation in percentage of college graduates in the link I provided, yet they consistently rank in the bottom fourth in the number of high school students that go on to college).