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

[Dr Transport]

As someone who used to be in the Navy, I will suppress a comment.

Likewise for an army land mine sniffer grunt...

 

[Bystander]

Likewise for an army land mine sniffer grunt...

"Lay hold --- heave."

 

[Dr Transport]

"Lay hold --- heave."

exactly, bridges are heavy, that is why my back is dorked up to this day...

 

[dkotschessaa]

There is also the question of why the topic veers toward what USA schools do badly in K-12 instead of the topic in the OP. The thread is destined to be a discussion of education in general. One off-topic direction is a good as another.

Yes, I thought I personally was doing well but no-one picked up my part of the threads, probably because they were boring and involved, you know, data. :D

-Dave K

 

[Dr. Courtney]

I don't doubt it for a minute, I just don't understand why you keep bringing up this stuff in a discussion of K-12

As I mentioned before, there is not a big difference between high school and college freshman. The same techniques that work very well for the first year or two in college can also work very well in high school. Why else would dual enrollment (high schoolers taking college courses) be exploding in popularity?

There are many districts where getting decent science and math is nearly impossible in the local districts. I've often told my own children that the local college is not much of a choice for a four year degree, but it is the best high school around.

Students who are serious about math and science are taking advantage of spending most of their 11th and 12th grade years of high school at a local college. I wouldn't dream of trusting my own teen's education to the local high schools, but the local colleges are doing a great job with their high school education.

The brick wall between K-12 and college is a figment of your imagination.

 

[StatGuy2000]

The notion that math is hard is the truth. In particular, presenting secondary school math is a mixture of teaching intuition, cultural convention, and legalistic reasoning. People who can develop a tolerance and an interest in these mutually contradictory approaches to a subject may declare that math is easy, but that isn't the experience of a large segment of the population.

The problem with that attitude is that you (perhaps inadvertently) send a message that the subject is so difficult that only a certain number of people can learn that subject, that you must have a "genetic" gift to learn math. I have always believed (and the empirical evidence suggests strongly) that this is completely false, and this is where many Asian and Asian-American students and their families get right -- math can be learned by anyone with the right amount of effort, with capable teachers who genuinely believe that every student can learn the subject.

After all, one can well claim that any subject worth learning is hard. After all, learning a foreign language is hard, but can anyone tell me with a straight face that only people of a specific genetic predisposition can learn a language? What about history, geography?

 

[StatGuy2000]

There is also the question of why the topic veers toward what USA schools do badly in K-12 instead of the topic in the OP. The thread is destined to be a discussion of education in general. One off-topic direction is a good as another.

The topic veered this way because the consensus in the discussion is that the American educational system (K-12), as a whole, does not teach any subject well. I have heard from others here (including from yourself) that the American educational system teaches students to be more independent, but I'm not sure if this is due to the schools in particular or due to the individualistic nature of American society in general.

Of course, I have no doubt that some, if not many, public and private schools do a good to excellent job teaching students (for example, the Bronx High School of Science has earned an impressive reputation as being among the best schools in the country). But I was asking more generally about the educational system in its entirety.

 

[dkotschessaa]

The topic veered this way because the consensus in the discussion is that the American educational system (K-12), as a whole, does not teach any subject well.

a) Clearly we have some metrics by which we can measure how we are doing. (Otherwise we wouldn't say we aren't doing well)
b) Clearly we do not teach all subjects equally badly.

The above two statements imply your question has some sort of answer. Perhaps we need to rephrase it as "what subject are we the least bad at teaching?"

-Dave K

 

[Andy Resnick]

[...] the consensus in the discussion is that the American educational system (K-12), as a whole, does not teach any subject well. <snip>

It is the consensus *opinion*. One I do not share.

 

[vela]

The notion that math is hard is the truth. In particular, presenting secondary school math is a mixture of teaching intuition, cultural convention, and legalistic reasoning. People who can develop a tolerance and an interest in these mutually contradictory approaches to a subject may declare that math is easy, but that isn't the experience of a large segment of the population.

You're right. Hard isn't the right word. My thought is that many teachers may propagate the belief held by many Americans that math is inaccessible to most people. Last year, for instance, a faculty member joked about the "horror" of taking one of the gateway math courses at the college. Imagine a student who overhears this remark. Their worst fears are confirmed. Even the teachers think the course is a horrible ordeal! One remark here or there doesn't do much by itself, but a constant barrage of negativity from parents, friends, classmates, and even their teachers eventually takes its toll. We can't really do much about the first three groups, but the teachers, at least, can keep their mouths shut.

 

[dkotschessaa]

You're right. Hard isn't the right word. My thought is that many teachers may propagate the belief held by many Americans that math is inaccessible to most people. Last year, for instance, a faculty member joked about the "horror" of taking one of the gateway math courses at the college. Imagine a student who overhears this remark. Their worst fears are confirmed. Even the teachers think the course is a horrible ordeal! One remark here or there doesn't do much by itself, but a constant barrage of negativity from parents, friends, classmates, and even their teachers eventually takes its toll. We can't really do much about the first three groups, but the teachers, at least, can keep their mouths shut.

What's worse is that there is a badge of honor associated with surviving the "ordeal." Americans literally brag about how BAD they are at math. I never hear this about any other subject. You never hear "Oh, I can't read AT ALL. Illiterate as a stump I am, yes indeed."

-Dave K

 

[vela]

From my standpoint, this has less to with the American educational system and more to do with a problem in mainstream American culture. As I see it, mainstream American culture (I notice this particularly among non-immigrant white Americans, such as my paternal relatives) portrays mathematical ability as an inborn trait (i.e. a skill that you are born with or not). So many Americans believe that no amount of effort can help someone who does not "get" math at the first go.

The point I was originally trying to make was that it seems peculiar that math alone seems to evoke so much fear in a good fraction of students. I mentioned the existence of math anxiety workshops, but I've never heard of workshops for dealing with anxiety of learning about history, Spanish, etc. Something that the K-12 system is doing somehow cements this fear of math in many kids.

 

[symbolipoint]

Posting #42, you are on to something:

After all, one can well claim that any subject worth learning is hard. After all, learning a foreign language is hard, but can anyone tell me with a straight face that only people of a specific genetic predisposition can learn a language? What about history, geography?

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

One thing that some parts of k-12 does right is to teach English as a Second Language. The instruction is great because most of it is designed for students to learn to think in and communicate in English. No part of the instruction uses the students's native languages. Everything is shown, modeled, and coached, and students are given stimuli to participate in activities to exercise some piece of the language. Literacy is also included, but enough emphasis is given to meaningful communication and learning to handle the language.

 

[ShayanJ]

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. Its true that the people who pursue a PhD are from the same educational system but it may be that they and their families realized the flaws in the system and tried to compensate for these flaws. But if you see something which is good in a considerable percentage in both people in academia and people who got a job straight after college, that may be the thing you're looking for!
Of course there is still the possibility that the K-12 system does a bad job at that too and college or hight school fix it but it doesn't seem probable to me!

 

[Andy Resnick]

The point I was originally trying to make was that it seems peculiar that math alone seems to evoke so much fear in a good fraction of students. I mentioned the existence of math anxiety workshops, but I've never heard of workshops for dealing with anxiety of learning about history, Spanish, etc. Something that the K-12 system is doing somehow cements this fear of math in many kids.

I don't think it's fair to place the blame entirely on the K-12 system.

First: kids have parents. Most parents make an effort to impregnate their children with their own world-view. Blaming teachers and 'the system' when children adapt to their environment is a convenient way to avoid talking about reality.
Second: math anxiety workshops exist because people pay to attend (or pay for their children to attend...). Why would someone pay to attend *any* anxiety workshop? Because improved mastery of the subject matter is perceived to have value (by those people paying), exposing another aspect of Hochschild's "great paradox" (in this case, hating/fearing numeracy while at the same time needing the benefits of mastery).
Third: often, saying "I am afraid/hate (subject X)" is shorthand for saying "I really struggled to learn that, I don't like feeling inadequate." Avoidance is a powerful coping strategy.

 

[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!