What does the American educational system (K-12) teach well?

[Andy Resnick]

I think the best way to find out the answer to the question in the OP, is to look at the difference between students who end up in higher education and students who get a job straight after college and remain out of academia.

Can you explain what you mean by *the* difference? Surely, there are many differences. Can you provide some examples of differences? (also, I think you mean '...get a job straight out of high school and...')

 

[Hlud]

I have a lot of problems with American education. English classes place too much emphasis on literature. Math classes place too much emphasis on following directions. Science classes place too much emphasis on either definitions or (in the case of physics) equation chugging. Sports are over-emphasized. Electives (at least, from what i have seen) try their hardest to stay alive by being easy As. Computer programming is not emphasized in this day and age. Teachers are undervalued (and it is ever so apparent since moving countries). So many of our customers hate school.

So, ya, i don't see the system as succeeding in pretty much anything. Nonetheless, you have educators who are still able to succeed despite the system being against them so much.

 

[dkotschessaa]

Posting #42, you are on to something:

Learning a language can be easy - maybe complicated, but still easy. Easy does not mean simple.

Learning a language is easy AND simple when you are under perhaps 10 years of age. It gets progressively harder and more complicated after that.

Which is why it is really stupid we aren't teaching other languages to kids, because Americans feel threatened by anything that isn't English.

-Dave K

 

[ShayanJ]

Can you explain what you mean by *the* difference? Surely, there are many differences. Can you provide some examples of differences? (also, I think you mean '...get a job straight out of high school and...')

Well, I had some assumptions that I should have mentioned! Because people already have said that math and science are not the answer, I kind of was thinking about history, literature and languages. And actually what I said couldn't be applied to math and physics because of course engineers and scientists know math and science much better than others. But you can test math and science for people getting a PhD in humanities.
So I guess you can have some statistics about the proficiency of humanities PhD students in math and science and STEM PhD students in humanities subjects and compare it to the statistics for the people outside academia. Now that I say it again its not a great idea, but I think it can help.

 

[Andy Resnick]

Well, I had some assumptions that I should have mentioned! Because people already have said that math and science are not the answer, I kind of was thinking about history, literature and languages. And actually what I said couldn't be applied to math and physics because of course engineers and scientists know math and science much better than others. But you can test math and science for people getting a PhD in humanities.
So I guess you can have some statistics about the proficiency of humanities PhD students in math and science and STEM PhD students in humanities subjects and compare it to the statistics for the people outside academia. Now that I say it again its not a great idea, but I think it can help.

Part of my complaint about the opinion commonly expressed here ('the US K-12 educational system teaches nothing well') is the lack of a comparison standard: 'badly' or 'well' compared to what? Other existing systems? A Platonic ideal?

I continue to maintain that on average, the US K-12 system does a more than adequate job for below-average students, an adequate job for average students, and provides excellent learning opportunities to above-average students across all content areas.

 

[symbolipoint]

Learning a language is easy AND simple when you are under perhaps 10 years of age. It gets progressively harder and more complicated after that.

Which is why it is really stupid we aren't teaching other languages to kids, because Americans feel threatened by anything that isn't English.

-Dave K

Easy or difficult to learn a language (such as English) depends on what the instruction is designed for; how it's taught. Studying is one thing; instruction in order to aqcuire is something different. The reason I say that in United States, that the k-12 systems do very well at teaching English as a Second Langauge (both for children AND ADULTS) is because the instruction is designed for the purpose of ACQUIRING English, so to be able to communicate in and think in English.
One would hope that language instruction for foreign languages in the k-12 system were handled the same as for ESL, but it isn't.

 

[dkotschessaa]

Easy or difficult to learn a language (such as English) depends on what the instruction is designed for; how it's taught. Studying is one thing; instruction in order to aqcuire is something different. The reason I say that in United States, that the k-12 systems do very well at teaching English as a Second Langauge (both for children AND ADULTS) is because the instruction is designed for the purpose of ACQUIRING English, so to be able to communicate in and think in English.
One would hope that language instruction for foreign languages in the k-12 system were handled the same as for ESL, but it isn't.

I'm saying that it's literally very easy for children - young children, to learn languages whether we are calling it their "first" or "second" language. I'm sure some methods are better than others, but it would be great if we tried to teach it at all during this stage. My first opportunity to learn wasn't until maybe 7th grade.

-Dave K

 

[symbolipoint]

I'm saying that it's literally very easy for children - young children, to learn languages whether we are calling it their "first" or "second" language. I'm sure some methods are better than others, but it would be great if we tried to teach it at all during this stage. My first opportunity to learn wasn't until maybe 7th grade.

-Dave K

Sure and by that time you were very aware that you were trying to learn a language, very consciously. But how were you taught? What did you do to learn? What kind of participation had you? HOW WAS THE INSTRUCTION DESIGNED?

Langauge is natural for people. Mathematics is not so natural for people. We learn Mathematics better if we start early and find ourselves in good programs and have parents who WANT us to learn as much Mathematics as possible. US still has these conditions in some places. Algebra 1 is a high school requirement now in many US schools. Any kid going beyond this, like Trig/Math Analysis, PreCalculus, is generally in the parts of Education which the US does well.
English, as the actual human language, like I said, and especially for adults, the USA does well for teaching English as Second Language. The language instruction is geared so that the students can learn in a more natural way so they can think in it and communicate in it. Do not under-estimate how well students can analyse what they are being shown and coached into.

 

[mpresic]

I gave some thought to this question and I will pose a second question that spins off of this.

I recall Calculus was taught well, and for example ninth grade algebra was not taught as well, although it was significantly easier. Next I remember that it must be much easier to teach 18 college bound 17 year olds than 25 -14 year olds that need to have at least one math class to graduate.

Next I remembered that I felt that Health (10th grade; one semester of learning sex education, mental health, and dangers of drugs and alcohol) was taught well. Well why shouldn't it be. Most 15 year olds are super interested in these subjects.

The second question that stems from the question seems more relevant. What does the US high school student learn best? What interests them? Then you will have the answer to what do high school's teach best.

 

[Aufbauwerk 2045]

Sports.

 

[StatGuy2000]

Sports.

Perhaps, but then again, most sports are "taught" by coaches, not teachers. And sports is not an educational subject or course.

I should also add that I question how well sports or physical education is taught in the schools, given the prevalence of obesity among the current cohort of students today.

 

[StatGuy2000]

I gave some thought to this question and I will pose a second question that spins off of this.

I recall Calculus was taught well, and for example ninth grade algebra was not taught as well, although it was significantly easier. Next I remember that it must be much easier to teach 18 college bound 17 year olds than 25 -14 year olds that need to have at least one math class to graduate.

Next I remembered that I felt that Health (10th grade; one semester of learning sex education, mental health, and dangers of drugs and alcohol) was taught well. Well why shouldn't it be. Most 15 year olds are super interested in these subjects.

The second question that stems from the question seems more relevant. What does the US high school student learn best? What interests them? Then you will have the answer to what do high school's teach best.

The question bolded above would have been my next question -- what do US high school students learn best, and what interests them? This is tough to answer because (even based on my own recollection of the people I went to high school with in Canada) there is no single or even groups of subjects that interest the vast majority of students.

Anyone else care to weigh in on this question?

 

[Dr. Courtney]

Perhaps, but then again, most sports are "taught" by coaches, not teachers. And sports is not an educational subject or course.

I should also add that I question how well sports or physical education is taught in the schools, given the prevalence of obesity among the current cohort of students today.

I wouldn't judge the quality of physics teachers from the students who didn't take the class, so why would you judge the quality of sports coaching from the non-participants.

If a student practiced math through high school as much as the average senior varsity football player has practiced football, they would likely be pretty good, and much better than most.

My preferred approach to teaching is summarized as "model, coach, fade" which is also how I teach sports.

Model: demonstrate the skill you want the student (or athlete) to learn

Coach: have them do it while you watch and provide constructive feedback

Fade: Once competence begins to form, allow greater independence as they continue to practice toward mastery.

The best coaches are great teachers and the best teachers are great coaches.

The students I have coached are in the top 10 in several Louisiana sporting records and very competitive in their chosen sports: placing well and winning various state, regional, and national sporting competitions. Done rightly, sports is not really different from science and math. (Or done rightly, science and math are not much different from sports.)

Perfect practice makes perfect. The math class is the weight room for the mind.

 

[Andy Resnick]

<snip>What does the US high school student learn best? What interests them?

I'm not sure these are answerable questions- they may not even be well-posed questions. It also falsely conflates student interests with educational curricula.

 

[Aufbauwerk 2045]

Perhaps, but then again, most sports are "taught" by coaches, not teachers. And sports is not an educational subject or course.

I should also add that I question how well sports or physical education is taught in the schools, given the prevalence of obesity among the current cohort of students today.

I originally said I agree, but on second thought, I think sports can be a valuable part of education, provided we don't take too narrow a view. I believe in the concept of a sound mind in a sound body. I think the two go together. I was never an athlete, but I loved taking mandatory P.E. as my very first class every morning. After the equally mandatory group shower, I could settle down in class feeling invigorated, and get through the day having worked out whatever stress I was feeling. As far as how well things were taught, of course the jocks who were on one of the teams got the real training, and the rest of us were afterthoughts. Still, what we did get was valuable.

 

[Aufbauwerk 2045]

P.S. I have noticed over the past few years that people are complaining that mandatory P.E. is going away, which I think is horrible and no doubt contributes to the obesity you mention.

 

[Aufbauwerk 2045]

I wouldn't judge the quality of physics teachers from the students who didn't take the class, so why would you judge the quality of sports coaching from the non-participants.

If a student practiced math through high school as much as the average senior varsity football player has practiced football, they would likely be pretty good, and much better than most.

My preferred approach to teaching is summarized as "model, coach, fade" which is also how I teach sports.

Model: demonstrate the skill you want the student (or athlete) to learn

Coach: have them do it while you watch and provide constructive feedback

Fade: Once competence begins to form, allow greater independence as they continue to practice toward mastery.

The best coaches are great teachers and the best teachers are great coaches.

The students I have coached are in the top 10 in several Louisiana sporting records and very competitive in their chosen sports: placing well and winning various state, regional, and national sporting competitions. Done rightly, sports is not really different from science and math. (Or done rightly, science and math are not much different from sports.)

Perfect practice makes perfect. The math class is the weight room for the mind.

Excellent points. I think the ancient Greeks would agree with you.

I don't know if they still do it, but I remember hearing about one college in California where they had mandatory P.E. for all students and they took it quite seriously, including monitoring the performance and the physical development of the students and so on. I think it was Harvey Mudd.

 

[Aufbauwerk 2045]

P.S. here's a variation on what Dr. Courtney said. "Proper preparation prevents poor performance."

 

[dkotschessaa]

P.S. I have noticed over the past few years that people are complaining that mandatory P.E. is going away, which I think is horrible and no doubt contributes to the obesity you mention.

My experience of P.E. was that the coach/gym teacher/failed athlete would instruct the students to play a sport, without much if any direction, and you were expected to participate whether or not you had any interest or prior knowledge. It was basically recess for people who were already participating in sports. As for the rest of us...

So no, sports or not taught. It's assumed that every American is born with innate knowledge of them.

-Dave K

 

[Dr. Courtney]

My experience of P.E. was that the coach/gym teacher/failed athlete would instruct the students to play a sport, without much if any direction, and you were expected to participate whether or not you had any interest or prior knowledge. It was basically recess for people who were already participating in sports. As for the rest of us...

So no, sports or not taught. It's assumed that every American is born with innate knowledge of them.

-Dave K

There is a lot of public schooling in the US that is little more than baby sitting with an optional activity. In PE classes, that optional activity is sports related. In math, it is math related. In science, it is science related.

Private schools and home schools can be much better. Our home schooled students had real opportunities to participate in real sports: basketball, tennis, fencing, ultimate, mountain biking, angling, kayaking, pistol marksmanship, rifle marksmanship, etc. Real skills were developed and real accomplishments were achieved.

If you want something done right, you have to do it yourself. Or in some cases, hire a qualified coach. And if they mess it up, hire a different coach who will do it right. Capitalism works. Self-initiative works. Public education with government $? Not so much.

Pic shows the top two juniors at a 600 yard rifle match last May at the Talladega Civillian Marksmanship Program in Alabama. Public school PE? Never!

 

[StatGuy2000]

Excellent points. I think the ancient Greeks would agree with you.

I don't know if they still do it, but I remember hearing about one college in California where they had mandatory P.E. for all students and they took it quite seriously, including monitoring the performance and the physical development of the students and so on. I think it was Harvey Mudd.

Personally, I'm OK with mandatory P.E. within elementary schools and even high schools (when I went to high school, P.E. was only required in Grade 9 -- in most provinces in Canada, high school ranges from Grades 9 through 12). But the idea of mandatory P.E. in college/university is in my mind ridiculous.

 

[Aufbauwerk 2045]

My experience of P.E. was that the coach/gym teacher/failed athlete would instruct the students to play a sport, without much if any direction, and you were expected to participate whether or not you had any interest or prior knowledge. It was basically recess for people who were already participating in sports. As for the rest of us...

So no, sports or not taught. It's assumed that every American is born with innate knowledge of them.

-Dave K

True perhaps in many schools, but for many of us non-jocks it was the only opportunity we had to play any kind of sport, to lift weights, to run, etc. Good thing it was mandatory. In my high school we usually did have some oversight, so you actually had to get up and move around, run around the track, bench press a certain number of reps, or whatever. We also got a grade on our transcript, although the coach never explained how he graded.

 

[StatGuy2000]

There is a lot of public schooling in the US that is little more than baby sitting with an optional activity. In PE classes, that optional activity is sports related. In math, it is math related. In science, it is science related.

Private schools and home schools can be much better. Our home schooled students had real opportunities to participate in real sports: basketball, tennis, fencing, ultimate, mountain biking, angling, kayaking, pistol marksmanship, rifle marksmanship, etc. Real skills were developed and real accomplishments were achieved.

If you want something done right, you have to do it yourself. Or in some cases, hire a qualified coach. And if they mess it up, hire a different coach who will do it right. Capitalism works. Self-initiative works. Public education with government $? Not so much.

Pic shows the top two juniors at a 600 yard rifle match last May at the Talladega Civillian Marksmanship Program in Alabama. Public school PE? Never!

I have always been skeptical about the value of home-schooling -- wouldn't the quality of home-schooling vary to a great extent on the parents' education and ability as an instructor, as well as the time available on hand to provide said education? Also, how does one determine whether the children are receiving a proper education based on standards for the given location? I also wonder if children who are home-schooled have the opportunity to socialize with other children and develop social skills.

Obviously you and your wife can provide a strong home-schooling environment given your education and dedication to students, but I wonder to what extent you could be considered an outlier.

 

[dkotschessaa]

True perhaps in many schools, but for many of us non-jocks it was the only opportunity we had to play any kind of sport, to lift weights, to run, etc. Good thing it was mandatory. In my high school we usually did have some oversight, so you actually had to get up and move around, run around the track, bench press a certain number of reps, or whatever. We also got a grade on our transcript, although the coach never explained how he graded.

Same parameters, different experience. We were "required" to play whatever sport it was that was issued at that the time, like it or not, and god help you if you weren't already an athlete. It was degrading and embarrassing. I simply declined participation and my grade was usually an F or a C.

-Dave K

 

[dkotschessaa]

I have always been skeptical about the value of home-schooling -- wouldn't the quality of home-schooling vary to a great extent on the parents' education and ability as an instructor, as well as the time available on hand to provide said education? Also, how does one determine whether the children are receiving a proper education based on standards for the given location? I also wonder if children who are home-schooled have the opportunity to socialize with other children and develop social skills.

Obviously you and your wife can provide a strong home-schooling environment given your education and dedication to students, but I wonder to what extent you could be considered an outlier.

Home school kids are actually better socialized, because you tend to hang out with adults and people that are actively doing things rather than getting traumatized all day but children left to public schooling.http://www.pbs.org/parents/education/homeschooling/socialization-tackling-homeschoolings-s-word/

 

[StatGuy2000]

Home school kids are actually better socialized, because you tend to hang out with adults and people that are actively doing things rather than getting traumatized all day but children left to public schooling.http://www.pbs.org/parents/education/homeschooling/socialization-tackling-homeschoolings-s-word/

I wasn't aware of the benefits outlined. At the same time, even some of those interviewed in the PBS report concur that socialization (as well, I suspect, the overall quality of education) will depend on the commitment provided by the adults involved in ensuring a broad-based education.

That being said, the same could be said of both public and private schooling as well.

 

[Aufbauwerk 2045]

I have always been skeptical about the value of home-schooling -- wouldn't the quality of home-schooling vary to a great extent on the parents' education and ability as an instructor, as well as the time available on hand to provide said education? Also, how does one determine whether the children are receiving a proper education based on standards for the given location? I also wonder if children who are home-schooled have the opportunity to socialize with other children and develop social skills.

Obviously you and your wife can provide a strong home-schooling environment given your education and dedication to students, but I wonder to what extent you could be considered an outlier.

It is very possible to socialize outside school. I think scouting is still a good option.

People from outside the USA who are reading this may not understand that many of our public schools are not safe for students or teachers. That is why even parents who have no problem with the curriculum, such as opposing Common Core, are terrified to send their kids to public school. There is a gangster element in many public schools. It's not unknown for kids to carry weapons. So parents are desperate for some alternative. They may prefer a Catholic school, even if they are not Catholic and it is a strain on their budget. The Catholic schools are private and can throw a kid out. In the old days, kids who acted up in public school could get expelled and land in special schools for delinquents. Now, teachers and kids feel lucky in some public schools if they get through the day without being assaulted.

 

[dkotschessaa]

I wasn't aware of the benefits outlined. At the same time, even some of those interviewed in the PBS report concur that socialization (as well, I suspect, the overall quality of education) will depend on the commitment provided by the adults involved in ensuring a broad-based education.

That being said, the same could be said of both public and private schooling as well.

Yes, home schooled or not, in all cases the biggest factors seem to be parenting. There is also a dependence here on income level. It is difficult to be an attentive, present parent if you have to work several jobs to make ends meet.

My plan (for the little guy) is that if I cannot afford Montessori (it's across the street!) then there's lots for us to do outside of school and in summers. I am within 5 minutes of a http://www.mosi.org/camps/ within 15 minutes of a zoo (we already go regularly... sometimes I think it's for me more than him) within 30 minutes of an aquarium (same, but lesss frequent).

My wife has a degree in theatre and a masters in journalism. I have an extensive music background, almost two math degrees, and too many interests to count. He's in for it! I need him to stop being such an infant so we can do stuff. :D

-Dave K

p.s. sorry I'm in that phase where I have to mention my kid every 5 minutes or so or I will combust.

 

[Dr. Courtney]

Obviously you and your wife can provide a strong home-schooling environment given your education and dedication to students, but I wonder to what extent you could be considered an outlier.

The published studies tend to agree that, on average, homeschooled students in the US fare as well or better than their public school counterparts.

Sure, there are outliers that perform well below public school counterparts. But I've known many more cases of educational neglect within the public education system than among homeschoolers. I've had a lot of homeschooled graduates in my college physics and math classes. There were no glaring weaknesses in their preparation, and most were better than public school graduates. Especially at the Air Force Academy, public school grads from certain southern states (LA, MS, AL, NC) were consistently weak in science and math. Homeschool grads were well prepared.

Most parents who show effort and initiative can do better than many local public school systems. There are many options for outsourcing the science and math courses that may be beyond the parent's ability to provide personal instruction. See:

https://www.physicsforums.com/insights/resources-high-school-physics-home/

https://www.physicsforums.com/insights/resources-high-school-math-home/

 

[Greg Bernhardt]

Sorry I have not read this entire thread, but has Montesorri style schools been discussed? The city I live in has several highly rated Montesorri schools. My wife is a teacher at one. After a few years of traditional desk classrooms she switched over and is a total convert. I've met a few kids that have done through Montesorri K-8 and they are brilliant.

 

[jasonRF]

I have always been skeptical about the value of home-schooling -- wouldn't the quality of home-schooling vary to a great extent on the parents' education and ability as an instructor, as well as the time available on hand to provide said education? Also, how does one determine whether the children are receiving a proper education based on standards for the given location?

I have wondered the same thing, but it turns out that at least some states in the US have testing requirements for home-schooled children. I have family that seemed to think public schools were worthless so went the home-schooling route; after the first year were shocked to find that their kindergarten-aged child was actually falling behind the public school. This got their attention and they got their act together. I don't know how many states have such testing requirements, though.

Jason

 

[dkotschessaa]

Sorry I have not read this entire thread, but has Montesorri style schools been discussed? The city I live in has several highly rated Montesorri schools. My wife is a teacher at one. After a few years of traditional desk classrooms she switched over and is a total convert. I've met a few kids that have done through Montesorri K-8 and they are brilliant.

I mentioned it briefly in mine. There is one across the street from us. We are going to try are darndest to afford it come time. I totally agree with their philosophy and methods.

What I also like is that you can do things at home to implement the philosophy, and that goes for whether you have the kids in the school or not. For example, someone told me that for their kids snacks, they had a shelf that the kid can reach, with measuring cups and such so they can measure the amounts. (1 cup of milk, 1/2 a cup of cereal, or something.) This gets kids thinking about measurements in a non-sterile way. Love it.
-Dave K

 

[bhobba]

Self-esteem, perhaps?

As a person from outside the US, in Australia, that seems to be pretty much it - but only for some - bullying etc etc is rife in pretty much all systems.

Thanks
Bill

 

[bhobba]

I take it that you are assuming that (genuine) self-esteem can be taught.

Genuine self esteem - that's another matter. But things like giving everyone participation trophies and other touchy feely stuff that typically makes my eyes roll back superficially looks like it does.

Thanks
Bill

 

[bhobba]

Well, to avoid these ambiguities

Its well known what makes for a good education eg the head of the Melbourne School Of Education, Professor Field Rickards, has studied it extensively. It is simple - very simple - good teachers that get constant feedback on their teaching to constantly improve. That professor applied it to a school in Melbourne and its performance jumped dramatically.:
http://www.abc.net.au/tv/programs/revolution-school/

Other schools in Australia tried the same things with similar results eg Knox College:
http://www.abc.net.au/4corners/stories/2012/02/06/3421391.htm

Why isn't it universally implemented? Why do we concentrate on things like class sizes, curriculum design, facilities etc etc - things that have been shown to not be effective? Simple - teachers unions oppose bitterly the idea teachers need to be under constant scrutiny. Its very stressful being under the spotlight and scrutinized all the time - but it is what works.

Thanks
Bill

 

[bhobba]

Ya think? One has to be fairly incompetent at Algebra 1 and Geometry to manage a 19 on the math portion of the ACT, yet about half the students in Louisiana who have passed Algebra 1 and Geometry score a 19 or below. And yet those teachers who passed them keep collecting paychecks.

Too true.

We don't have that here in Australia but one thing we do do is teach algebra and geometry a lot sooner than in the US where I believe its usually taught first year high school. Evidently California wanted it taught year 8 - howls followed - its too hard for 8th graders. Well I was taught it in grade 8 here. In Queensland where I live you start year one age 5 (it changed to 5 1/2 a little while ago) so it was effectively US grade 7. You generally complete the equivalent of Calculus BC by grade 12 - but here we integrate calculus and precalulus. In private schools what they were doing is starting year 11 and 12 in year 10 to maximize year 12 results which is used for university entrance. That meant you started Calculus equivalent to year 9 in the US.

What does the US system do well - maybe coddle students well - but that could be good or bad - who knows.

Thanks
Bill

 

[bhobba]

Just as a follow on as to what actually works, Professor Hattie, again from the Melbourne School of Education has investigated it extensively.

A quote from a previous link says it all.

John Hattie is a straight-talking academic with a passion for trying to understand, measure and share what makes a difference in the classroom.

His study on what really matters to help students learn and progress has been described as the 'holy grail' of effective teaching and he is arguably the world's most influential education researcher.

His 2008 book, Visible Learning, is the largest ever collection of evidence-based research into what makes a difference for students, ranking the factors which most improve learning. It was the culmination of 15 years of research, incorporating more than 50,000 studies on schools involving millions of students.

Professor Hattie found improving the quality of feedback students receive and ensuring positive teacher-student interaction led to the best outcomes. It is a pupil's ability to assess their own performance and to discuss how they can improve with the teacher that makes the most difference.

Somewhat controversially, he also says the evidence shows that factors such as class size, homework and public or private schooling are not nearly as important to students' learning progression as the quality of individual teachers.

Thanks
Bill

 

[jasonRF]

Too true.

We don't have that here in Australia but one thing we do do is teach algebra and geometry a lot sooner than in the US where I believe its usually taught first year high school. Evidently California wanted it taught year 8 - howls followed - its too hard for 8th graders. Well I was taught it in grade 8 here.

Were you on the "average" track, or advanced? And is algebra + geometry a single year, or 2 years? It is typically 2 years here in the states. I was in a small town (~10,000 population) public school in the northwest US, and was in the "advanced" 15 or 20% that took algebra in 8th grade and geometry in 9th; by the time I was in grade 12 it was about 10% of the class that was taking calculus. The normal track was to take algebra in 9th grade and geometry in 10th grade, although a significant number of students took pre-algebra in 9th grade. Science was even worse. My parents had to fight with the principal to allow me to take the pre-med college chemistry sequence at the local state university and count it towards my high-school graduation requirements. Today the students in that town are allowed to take classes at the university for free and receive both high-school and college credit, so the best students are graduating high-school with about 2 years of college completed. It is a 3rd rate university, but as Dr. Courtney said, it is a pretty good high school! I just don't know how common such programs are in the US.

Jason

 

[bhobba]

Were you on the "average" track, or advanced?

I was in the no-hoper's track. The way it worked here is depending on how well you did in primary school determined what grade you were put in - here HS starts grade 8 but has recently changed to grade 7. The best were in 8A, then B and so on. I was in the lowest which was grade 8F. Fortunately regardless of grade you got taught the same stuff.

It went like this - grade 8 - combined geometry algebra. Then you selected advanced or normal math grade 9 and 10 - I did OK at math even though I was with the no hopers lot (I found I liked math ie algebra and geometry) so did advanced math. In grade 9 you completed algebra and geometry - 10 would be equivalent to your algebra 2 - 11 and 12 was combined precalc and calculus to about calculus BC level. But like I said some private schools accelerated grade 8,9 and 10 so you started 11 and 12 level in grade 10 and you did it in 3 years instead of 2 years - this was to get the best results possible in end of grade 11 and 12 exams which was used for university entrance. So many would start calculus in the equivalent of year US 9 ie at 14 because we started grade 1 at 5 - not 6.

Personally I was impatient and taught myself calculus in year 10, but being a lazy good for nothing didn't do any work in 11 and 12 so just passed math and science and flunked English. Fortunately no one wanted to do math degrees in those days so your HS grades didn't matter - you didn't need English for a math degree either so I got into uni no sweat which I did part time. I did a double major in math and computer science and actually did some work for a change so got really good marks even in English. I found I liked subjects everyone hated eg analysis, Hilbert spaces and such. I was only one of 3 people in that class. I was the only person in one subject - Mathematical Economics. Not many did math back then.

Thanks
Bill

 

[Dr. Courtney]

Other than academic rigor (passing students who have not learned), the biggest weakness in most of the American educational system is the lack ability to customize curricula and teaching methods to meet the needs of an individual student. In a given district, their book and method for teaching a given course, say Algebra 2, is fixed. The best private schools may have better teachers than the average public school, but if their method for teaching Algebra 2 is not a good fit for a particular student, that student will struggle.

As a result, one of the unique features (and biggest benefits) of home schooling is the ability to tailor a curriculum to the unique learning styles and needs of each individual student. If one book or method or approach isn't working, it is straightforward to switch to another, and students receive tremendous individualized attention compared with public and private schools. For example, after one of our home schooled students had success in the Coursera Astrophysics course (through Duke) and the Coursera Python course (through Rice), we signed him up for the Coursera Statistics course. It was much too difficult given his background at the time, and he needed a more practical rather than theoretical approach. No problem, it took only a few minutes to discuss the issues and switch him into ALEKS Statistics. There is a wide array of offerings and choices for home schoolers, not only in math, but in every subject.

 

[StatGuy2000]

I was in the no-hoper's track. The way it worked here is depending on how well you did in primary school determined what grade you were put in - here HS starts grade 8 but has recently changed to grade 7. The best were in 8A, then B and so on. I was in the lowest which was grade 8F. Fortunately regardless of grade you got taught the same stuff.

It went like this - grade 8 - combined geometry algebra. Then you selected advanced or normal math grade 9 and 10 - I did OK at math even though I was with the no hopers lot (I found I liked math ie algebra and geometry) so did advanced math. In grade 9 you completed algebra and geometry - 10 would be equivalent to your algebra 2 - 11 and 12 was combined precalc and calculus to about calculus BC level. But like I said some private schools accelerated grade 8,9 and 10 so you started 11 and 12 level in grade 10 and you did it in 3 years instead of 2 years - this was to get the best results possible in end of grade 11 and 12 exams which was used for university entrance. So many would start calculus in the equivalent of year US 9 ie at 14 because we started grade 1 at 5 - not 6.

Personally I was impatient and taught myself calculus in year 10, but being a lazy good for nothing didn't do any work in 11 and 12 so just passed math and science and flunked English. Fortunately no one wanted to do math degrees in those days so your HS grades didn't matter - you didn't need English for a math degree either so I got into uni no sweat which I did part time. I did a double major in math and computer science and actually did some work for a change so got really good marks even in English. I found I liked subjects everyone hated eg analysis, Hilbert spaces and such. I was only one of 3 people in that class. I was the only person in one subject - Mathematical Economics. Not many did math back then.

Thanks
Bill

I take it that the events you describe took place years ago, given that Australia has produced the likes of both the late great statistician Peter Hall, and the mathematician Terence Tao.

Here is a link to the obituary of Peter Hall (I should note that I had the opportunity to meet him and attend a seminar of his while he was visiting the University of Toronto back when I was a grad student there).

http://bulletin.imstat.org/2016/03/obituary-peter-gavin-hall-1951-2016/

Here is a link to Terence Tao's blog.

https://terrytao.wordpress.com/

 

[Hlud]

If a student practiced math through high school as much as the average senior varsity football player has practiced football, they would likely be pretty good, and much better than most.

I don't agree with this, entirely. A lot of the students in Korea go to after school academies and will probably do more math practice than most athletes in the States practice their sport. While these students are able to follow directions to a tee, they have no idea what they are doing. Granted, i do agree with the latter statement. They do indeed follow directions better than most American math students.

 

[bhobba]

I take it that the events you describe took place years ago, given that Australia has produced the likes of both the late great statistician Peter Hall, and the mathematician Terence Tao.

I know Terry's bio. Yes - what happened to me took place nearly 50 years ago now. I have been assured by teachers its not like that now eg we now have the university of open learning and good students start subjects there early. The very best even actually attend university early.

Terry's talent was recognized very early and a special plan devised just for him. He was grade accelerated and in math attended university from I think at 9 years of age. He graduated HS very early and did his bachelors very quickly because he already had done many university courses, then at 16 did a masters. He wasn't perfect though - his natural style was cramming (mine is doing nothing or studying hard all the way through - never did cramming - I relaxed before exams). For Terry In QM 50% of the marks of the final was on a project the class was given on the history of QM, which he didn't do, being a crammer. He failed and was desolate.

I don't know too much about Peter, but when I did my degree I didn't like stats much, but you had to do mathematical stats 1a, 1b, 2a, 2b - 3a and 3b were optional but even though I didn't like the subject loved the professor that took it, so did it anyway.

Thanks
Bill

 

[Dr. Courtney]

I don't agree with this, entirely. A lot of the students in Korea go to after school academies and will probably do more math practice than most athletes in the States practice their sport. While these students are able to follow directions to a tee, they have no idea what they are doing. Granted, i do agree with the latter statement. They do indeed follow directions better than most American math students.

It's not so much that practice makes perfect, but that perfect practice makes perfect.

Many math courses focus too much on application of mechanical skills without imparting the reasons and thinking behind each step in the problem solving process. I try and short-circuit that approach with a focus on word problems, modeling, mathematical thinking, assessment, and requiring students to plan solutions and justify each step.

A quick check is not whether students get the right answer, but whether they know how to know whether or not it is really the right answer.

 

[StatGuy2000]

It is very possible to socialize outside school. I think scouting is still a good option.

People from outside the USA who are reading this may not understand that many of our public schools are not safe for students or teachers. That is why even parents who have no problem with the curriculum, such as opposing Common Core, are terrified to send their kids to public school. There is a gangster element in many public schools. It's not unknown for kids to carry weapons. So parents are desperate for some alternative. They may prefer a Catholic school, even if they are not Catholic and it is a strain on their budget. The Catholic schools are private and can throw a kid out. In the old days, kids who acted up in public school could get expelled and land in special schools for delinquents. Now, teachers and kids feel lucky in some public schools if they get through the day without being assaulted.

I just noticed this post recently, and was curious about one thing. How prevalent is this "gangster" element in public schools across the US? I have always thought that this was a characteristic most commonly associated with inner-city schools with a high concentration of poverty and a large percentage of students from the African-American and Hispanic communities (I have already indicated earlier that African-American and Hispanic students in the US were far more likely to attend schools where the student population came from underprivileged, economically deprived backgrounds, and where gang violence and other social ills are not uncommon).

 

[Andy Resnick]

I just noticed this post recently, and was curious about one thing. How prevalent is this "gangster" element in public schools across the US? I have always thought that this was a characteristic most commonly associated with inner-city schools with a high concentration of poverty and a large percentage of students from the African-American and Hispanic communities (I have already indicated earlier that African-American and Hispanic students in the US were far more likely to attend schools where the student population came from underprivileged, economically deprived backgrounds, and where gang violence and other social ills are not uncommon).

Speaking as someone who works with public schools, both in the inner-city and suburbs across the full K-12 range, the perception does not match reality. In my personal experience, weapons are not in school. Drugs *are* in schools- especially in the wealthy suburban schools.

 

[dkotschessaa]

I just noticed this post recently, and was curious about one thing. How prevalent is this "gangster" element in public schools across the US? I have always thought that this was a characteristic most commonly associated with inner-city schools with a high concentration of poverty and a large percentage of students from the African-American and Hispanic communities (I have already indicated earlier that African-American and Hispanic students in the US were far more likely to attend schools where the student population came from underprivileged, economically deprived backgrounds, and where gang violence and other social ills are not uncommon).

It's as you say. The risk to the average student in a typically non-violent neighborhood is pretty low. Obviously though, mass violence such as shootings and such are frightening and should be consider unacceptable.

-Dave K

 

[dkotschessaa]

Speaking as someone who works with public schools, both in the inner-city and suburbs across the full K-12 range, the perception does not match reality. In my personal experience, weapons are not in school. Drugs *are* in schools- especially in the wealthy suburban schools.

Indeed. Meth in rural areas, marijuana in middle/working class areas, and cocaine in the wealthy schools.

 

[gleem]

So let's pause and reflect on 'What does the American educational system (K-12) teach well?' After 99 posts it is hard to determine if the OP has been adequately addressed. Can anybody summarized the positive aspects of the curriculum in the US? What is the takeaway from this thread?

 

[dkotschessaa]

So let's pause and reflect on 'What does the American educational system (K-12) teach well?' After 99 posts it is hard to determine if the OP has been adequately addressed. Can anybody summarized the positive aspects of the curriculum in the US? What is the takeaway from this thread?

I answered on the first or second page, with actual data, but nobody seemed interested in that. :D

-Dave K