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

[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

 

[gleem]

I don't think teaches math science and reading well is supported in that study.

 

[Andy Resnick]

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

Yes, but it's more commonly pills.

 

[symbolipoint]

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.

A motivated teacher in any system, even if he is not the best at the subject, and if no administrators interfere, can do what you describe. A teacher should be able to extend a lesson any way he wants, if it is designed to help the student learn better. Not about being some genius teacher; but about looking for a way to help student make better sense of a topic or technique or concept.

 

[bhobba]

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.

That's the situation here in Australia as well. Along with a lot of students not actually wanting to be there. And the response - a common Australian curriculum that all kids must do - just the thing to make students want to go to school. No wonder many teachers get apathetic. They still don't want to implement what the education experts I mentioned previously says is the main issue - teachers engaging students.

Many parents send kids to private schools for that exact reason.

However here is a public school that does the right thing:
https://tc.vic.edu.au/

Thanks
Bill

 

[andrewkirk]

Observing from outside the US (I am Australian) one possibly education-related thing that particularly impresses me about Americans is the fact that most of them (nearly all of them, it seems to me) can speak well in public, whether that be a formal speech, a one-on-one, or a contribution to a group discussion - much more so on average than people from other countries, including my own. They are capable of articulating their feelings and thoughts where people from other countries are often tongue-tied, and have the confidence to do so. This could be partly self-belief and partly practice or training at expressing themselves.

I wonder if there is something in the American education system that contributes to that.

 

[Andy Resnick]

<snip>They still don't want to implement what the education experts I mentioned previously says is the main issue - teachers engaging students.

On the contrary, teachers *love* engaging students. The burnout rate is high when teacher pay is not commensurate with the expended effort.

 

[M5Neo]

Actually it is worse than this. Teachers are strongly discouraged from failing students no matter how bad they are doing.Source: https://www.washingtonpost.com/news...uld-love-to-teach-but/?utm_term=.7eafb487852f

Again the quote “They are not allowed to fail" is worth noting. It doesn't matter if it's because they aren't showing up, studying, or turning in work. They are not allowed to fail. I've had friends quit teaching over stuff like this. It's bad.

-Dave K

You are so right.

I would write more, but I don't want to put my job in peril. I will say this, once I got called in the dean's office about failing too many students, and was instructed to basically have the students retake exam questions they didn't do well on I got the message. I take my subject ( math) very seriously, but once I figured out the administration was more concerned about keeping parents happy I grudgingly pass some students(sophomores and seniors) I know should be in the 5th grade.

But coming from foreign country where high school education is not free, I am willing to say America has a very good educational system. The biggest problem is most American students are too distracted and they don't like to study, or think. They believe that everything should be entertainment. What I have noticed since being in America is that all the "reforms" are always targeted at the teachers. In essence it's always the teachers' fault, at least that's what I get. I have yet to hear a politician, or school official scold parents or students for their lack of commitment to education.

 

[bhobba]

On the contrary, teachers *love* engaging students. The burnout rate is high when teacher pay is not commensurate with the expended effort.

Thanks for clarifying. You are correct.

The pay they get does not compensate for what the research says should be done. The burnout is high for teachers that do the right thing and the constant feedback of how they are going. As a computer programmer I earned more than a teacher and my job was a LOT easier.

I am not against teachers unions jumping up and down about changes like constant feedback to teachers that research shows works, what I am against is them dismissing it rather than working towards paying teachers more for what will make their job harder. They should say - yes we need to do this, the research is unambiguous, but should be paid more.

Thanks
Bill

 

[bhobba]

I wonder if there is something in the American education system that contributes to that.

The self confidence thing mentioned previously.

Thanks
Bill

 

[bhobba]

Actually it is worse than this. Teachers are strongly discouraged from failing students no matter how bad they are doing.

When I went through they had zero problems in doing just that, as well as diagnosing the reason why way beyond their competence level.

What happened in my time is if you failed you got shoved in the no-hoper's lot.

I well remember, because I was disengaged from English, I failed it. But because I was engaged did well in math and science. This came to a head in grade 10 when I was asked to write a humorous story. I based it on an award winning story about a giant radio and remember the words I used, straight from the actual story, it had variable capacitors like bread slicers - knowing what a variable capacitor looks like knew it was quite humorous. Well it went down with my English teacher not so well. To cut a long story short they wanted to put me in the no-hoper's lot or go to a special remedial school. My math and science teachers rebelled knowing I was better than this. They even sent me to a guidance counselor who asked me to read a passage from something or another - I did - she said their is definite eye movement then said that's all - it turned out later she was in the group that wanted to send me to a remedial school - amazing. Well my parents were called in and told I was dyslexic or had some other learning difficulty and needed special education - they were shocked - they knew I read all the time - but technical stuff - not literature. I had even taught myself calculus. If I had trouble reading I could not have done that. Finally my parents took me to our family doctor who it just happened was moving on to be a psychiatrist and had just finished his training. He put me through a battery of tests and wrote a letter saying, basically, you have zero idea what you were talking about - Bill is just disengaged from literature and stuff you did in English class. Engage him more.

Well I remember their engagement. We were reading Animal Farm and I was asked for my take on the ending where the horses led the revolt against the pigs. I said maybe the horses will go the same way as the pigs. Well the teacher gave me an open filthy look and dismissed what I said out of hand. My engagement levels dropped to zero.

That was in grade 10 - I failed it in 11 and 12 but couldn't care less. To this day I think English is a pile of the proverbial although I now read a wide range of books - not just technical ones - I particularly like autobiographies. Also equally strangely I liked English at uni where two subjects were compulsory - written communication and oral communication but it was a much more open environment than high school and you were given a lot more freedom in what you read and wrote.

I nearly puked when the current Premier of where I live in Queensland said English will now be a compulsory subject in 11 and 12 because of its vital importance. Based on my experience the teaching quality needs to improve dramatically. But then again my experience was 50 years ago so heaven knows what its like today - hopefully a lot better.

What I don't understand is this idea you can specify what a young adult must study. Templestowe college that I gave a link to previously has a foundation year where you must demonstrate basic competence in English, math, science etc. You are not promoted from that year until you do, even if it takes two or more years - most do it in one. Then you study what you feel like.

They then base university entrance on teachers recommendations and a portfolio of what you have done:
http://www.theage.com.au/victoria/school-dumps-cutthroat-vce-ranking-20160226-gn4gk0.html

You go when you are ready. Its a much more rational approach IMHO.

Thanks
Bill

 

[symbolipoint]

bhobba,
Your experience that you discussed was amazing, and I understand. Mine were not as bad, but I had similar trouble. Expecting all students in high school to do well in English (as if it should even be called that) just does not work for all students. "English" that you study in college suits many students better than what is presented in high school. Beware also, by that time, you are more mature and can handle the ideas you are taught. English and Social Studies are just very different subjects than Mathematics and Sciences.

 

[bhobba]

Expecting all students in high school to do well in English (as if it should even be called that) just does not work for all students.

That's exactly what I felt and still do to some extent.

Now the study of Shakespeare etc etc is a perfectly valid discipline. But what is school preparing you for - not that. You need to read and comprehend local everyday news, the communications of whatever area you decide to go into, and most important of all critical thinking. You don't need Shakespeare, Shelly, Byron etc etc - yet that's what a lot of English as taught in HS is about. I had a long 'discussion' with a manager who was in one of my uni communication classes. He thought that study taught how to write good English. I respectfully disagreed - as far as I was concerned it was a waste of time. Don't get me wrong - if you like that sort of thing by all means study it - but I have to tell you it turned me and a lot of others off - yet you were forced to endure it and from what our Premier said may be forced to endure for longer.

Its downright silly. Why not something like this:
https://www.open.edu.au/courses/sci...ives-on-science-and-technology--mda10006-2017

It looks a lot more applicable than the rot at HS - but its a university subject and what you said is so true - but why wait till uni?

Thanks
Bill

 

[symbolipoint]

Bill, bhobba,

Some students just do not have their equipment fully developed when they are still attending high school. This is a big part of the trouble with teaching and learning of "English" in high school. Not enough exposure of real life. Not enough maturity or neurological development. As I rethink why English & S.S. was worse for some of us than Math&Sci, the key idea that makes the difference is structure. The teachers could not usually give us a clear structuring for Literature and ways of Writing when we had to learn "English" and Social Studies. On the other side of school, Algebra and Trigonometry, and at least some aspects of Science had a firmer structure, and our sci and math teachers showed us and discussed that set of structuring. Tone in a long essay of some long-dead writer? No-go. Analyzing how the Law of Cosines is derived? Good-Go.

But then there were the students who 'understood' that Mathematics is hard, and they had easier time learning English and Social Studies. They often believed the students learning college prep Math or sciences were "smart" people.

 

[bhobba]

But then there were the students who 'understood' that Mathematics is hard, and they had easier time learning English and Social Studies. They often believed the students learning college prep Math or sciences were "smart" people.

Spot on.

I well remember when I started programming and my first job at the Federal Police.

One policeman said you guys must be smart - we all chuckled - one guy muttered - common misconception.

There days we all know this left brain right brain stuff and in most people one side is dominant. I was obviously left brain dominant. I did one of those tests classifying me VERY strongly as one of the rarer personality types INTP:
https://www.16personalities.com/intp-personality

I was almost pre-destined to have these issues.

Of relevance here though is teachers and educators should understand this and have an education system to cater for it.

IMHO they still have a long way to go - but to be fair from what I hear are getting better - slowly.

Thanks
Bill

 

[StatGuy2000]

Spot on.

I well remember when I started programming and my first job at the Federal Police.

One policeman said you guys must be smart - we all chuckled - one guy muttered - common misconception.

There days we all know this left brain right brain stuff and in most people one side is dominant. I was obviously left brain dominant. I did one of those tests classifying me VERY strongly as one of the rarer personality types INTP:
https://www.16personalities.com/intp-personality

I was almost pre-destined to have these issues.

Of relevance here though is teachers and educators should understand this and have an education system to cater for it.

IMHO they still have a long way to go - but to be fair from what I hear are getting better - slowly.

Thanks
Bill

At the further risk of going off-topic, I am skeptical about whether the Myers-Briggs personality type tests discussed above have much statistical validity and reliability. I could go on and on about the issues about these types of psychometric tests, so instead I'll just provide the following Wikipedia article summarizing the criticism.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Myers–Briggs_Type_Indicator#Criticism

As far as the issues you and symbolicpoint had with English classes -- the problem has less to do with learning about literature (or necessarily about structure i.e. there is a "right" or "wrong" way to read/write) rather than poor teaching of said classes.

English should be more than about teaching basic writing skills -- it should also be an opportunity to explore the cultural contributions made in language, and studying of literature is vitally important. The problem is on how to make the material found in literature relevant to students. What I sense is that the teacher you had was incredibly impatient and biased towards "techie" type students, which could well be a sign of the times in Australia or the US at that time.

In my high school experience, two of my best teachers were a math teacher and an English teacher. While my personal inclinations/interests were more towards math and the sciences (and hence had better grades in these), I was also greatly inspired by my English teacher to think more broadly about society, about literature, and about life, and to a large extent, I'd like to think I am the person I am today at least in part due to the influence of my English teacher.

 

[Andy Resnick]

<snip>I am not against teachers unions jumping up and down about changes like constant feedback to teachers that research shows works, what I am against is them dismissing it rather than working towards paying teachers more for what will make their job harder. They should say - yes we need to do this, the research is unambiguous, but should be paid more.

In my experience, teachers welcome *peer evaluations*. That is a very different form of feedback than "test scores". I think the underlying objection to 'constant feedback' is based on what feedback metrics are used to evaluate teacher effectiveness. "Teacher effectiveness" is not a quantifiable property of teaching.

The same discussion applies to other professionals: who watches the watchers?

 

[Andy Resnick]

Now the study of Shakespeare etc etc is a perfectly valid discipline. But what is school preparing you for - not that. You need to read and comprehend local everyday news, the communications of whatever area you decide to go into, and most important of all critical thinking. You don't need Shakespeare, Shelly, Byron etc etc - yet that's what a lot of English as taught in HS is about.

The study of literature is surely a significant part of any language curriculum- poetry vs. prose. All prose makes Jill a dull read.

I asked my 11th grade English teacher why we had to read all those musty boring "Important Literature" texts instead of Steven King or Tom Clancy. His answer was refreshingly honest: "Because you don't need me to understand those books." Don't forget the primary value of a teacher lies within *evaluation* of the student's work. Critical evaluation enables the student to learn and improve, regardless of the discipline.

 

[Andy Resnick]

<snip>

Well I remember their engagement. We were reading Animal Farm and I was asked for my take on the ending where the horses led the revolt against the pigs. I said maybe the horses will go the same way as the pigs. Well the teacher gave me an open filthy look and dismissed what I said out of hand. My engagement levels dropped to zero.<snip>

Thanks for sharing this story- I suspect we all have had a similar experience in school. For me it was in World History class...

Here's the thing- from your perspective, " teacher gave me an open filthy look and dismissed what I said out of hand", something many of my intro physics students could probably say about my reaction to one of their pop-sci questions about warp drives/free energy/etc. From the teacher's perspective (at least in my case), the question is received as foolish/thoughtless and at best a distraction not worth spending precious class time on. Maybe during office hours, but not during class.

I agree, a better reaction could have been "Well Bill, why do you think that?" and expect you to defend your point of view on the spot in front of the whole class. But it's also likely that you would have not appreciated that, either.

So let me ask you, if you could go back to that day, how would have preferred the teacher to respond?

 

[Dr. Courtney]

In my experience, teachers welcome *peer evaluations*. That is a very different form of feedback than "test scores". I think the underlying objection to 'constant feedback' is based on what feedback metrics are used to evaluate teacher effectiveness. "Teacher effectiveness" is not a quantifiable property of teaching.

The same discussion applies to other professionals: who watches the watchers?

At the Air Force Academy, we used some very effective metrics for teacher effectiveness in "core" courses: Pre-Calc, Calc 1,2, and 3, Physics 1 and 2, Intro Engineering Mechanics, and General Chemistry 1 and 2. All these courses had department wide assessments, so earning a given grade in the same course was the same any given semester for all students in the course. These assessments were crafted by more experienced teachers who did a very good job accurately measuring progress in learning objectives.

One basic metric was the grade distribution achieved by a given instructor, which could be easily adjusted for the strength of his incoming students from their performance in earlier courses and earlier assessments (ACT scores and math placement exam for 1 semester courses.) It was well known that morning math classes had more than their share of intercollegiate athletes (to accommodate afternoon practices), and thus tended to be less well-prepared (on average) than afternoon math classes. Yet, putting the best, most experienced teachers (with a heart for athletes) teaching those classes often yielded grade distributions comparable to the afternoon classes packed with STEM majors and other geeks. But an instructor who underperformed after being dealt a good hand (well-prepared students) could be quickly identified and the situation remedied. Of course, Air Force officers who make up the bulk of the instructors are fairly receptive to constructive feedback from the chain of command compared with public school teachers.

A second basic metric was how students earning a given grade in one course performed in downstream courses for which that course was a pre-requisite. "Teaching to the tests" might bump up how an instructor looks in the first metric, but doing that in Calc 1 will disadvantage students who earn a given grade relative to their peers in Calc 2 and Physics. When I re-designed the Pre-Calc course, we achieved much higher downstream success rates in Calc 1 and Physics, as well as much higher 4 year graduation rates for the weakest 5% of incoming students in math.

Of the two approaches, I think the second is more applicable in K-12. If an Algebra 1 teacher passes a bunch of students with As and Bs who are woefully unprepared for Algebra 2 (demonstrated by the grades and test scores in Algebra 2), then that teacher is in need of feedback to improve and prevent recurrences (or termination). The basic idea is that "student success = teacher success." Students who are passed but unprepared to succeed downstream are not successful, and the teacher who passes them routinely is perpetuating fraud.

 

[Andy Resnick]

At the Air Force Academy, we used some very effective metrics for teacher effectiveness in "core" courses:

Applying a metric developed in the context of a homogeneous self-selected group to a broad heterogenous population is questionable.