Education in America

[Angry Citizen]

This debate will focus on the pros and cons of the American education system, focusing on pre-college public schools, but not excluding other educational systems as the debate evolves. The question to start this topic off is, are you satisfied with the current method of public education? Do you think it could be improved? Why or why not?

I'll start this off. I am not satisfied with public education in America. If test scores are to be believed, America is noticeably lacking in comparison with most other developed nations (links available through google). Furthermore, something just seems missing, intellectually speaking.

If Alexander the Great, tutored by Aristotle, were to be magically transported to modern day (and could speak English!), he would very likely dominate all but the most intelligent members of society. Reading the graceful, logical flow of words from the minds of history's greatest reminds me of our current level of intellect. We are dumb -- and what's more, we're proud of it.

I think it's a problem with today's educational system. What public education seeks to do is run a 'mind farm'. It's designed to grow the maximum number, regardless of their quality -- so long as they function. To this end, they dumb down tests to multiple choice rather than essays. Rote memorization takes the place of logic. Being able to pass the next test is the only goal. In short, the system is designed to beat the system, not to work.

I also think it's a problem with curriculum. My little brother is in 6th grade. He is currently having to learn the most absurd things in science classes. No, I'm not a creationist wanting all traces of evolution thrown out of science class. I'm saying that science class, at that age, is worthless, as is social studies. Children that age do not remember those things. It possesses no shred of significance in their minds. This major problem is one of priority. Is it the school's job to get you to think? To be able to arrive at conclusions logically? Or is it the school's job to familiarize you with things in layer-after-layer of classes designed to make rote memorization successful?

See, I am not fooled. My little brother is learning about cells right now. You cannot possibly tell me he will not be covering exactly the same thing right now as he would be in high school biology class. Furthermore, you cannot possibly tell me that, should he choose to become a biologist, he would not study -- again! -- the same exact stuff. It is worthless to attempt to cram this stuff into the minds of children. No -- first we must teach children how to learn, how to think, and how to express themselves.

Lastly, it is a problem of the system's very nature. It is designed to appeal to the lowest common denominator. By ensuring that everyone progresses at a leisurely pace, the system knows it will net just about everyone who can be poked, prodded or dragged kicking and screaming through education. This is ridiculous. It is time to let people fail. It is time to challenge the youth of America. By appealing to the lowest common denominator, you don't ensure that everyone gets a good education, you ensure that everyone gets a bad one. The question you have to ask yourself is, is it preferable to have every student graduate a mediocre high school curriculum, soon to be forgotten in the hustle and bustle of blue collar labor? Or is it preferable to have every student earn his or her high school diploma, rather than have his or her hand held through rote memorization? Small wonder kids these days are so lacklustre about school.

As an alternative, I would propose getting back to what works: classical education. I am a big fan of classical education, but I would make some modern day changes. Classical education begins with something known as the 'trivium'. The trivium is centered around one's ability to read, reason and persuade (or as wikipedia would say, grammar, logic and rhetoric). This should be the central focus of school; with the addition of mathematics. Of course, mathematics and logic go together like physics and calculus, so that is an obvious pairing.

Progressing onward is what's known as the quadrivium, which in ancient times consisted of music theory, astronomy, geometry and arithmetic. Obviously, this would have to change, as in my proposed curriculum, mathematics was started long ago, and continues to play a major role in the proposed curriculum. I would also strike music theory and astronomy from the curriculum in favor of introductory classes and pre-professional training (remember, this is high school level). Pre-professional training would appeal to those who already know what they want to do. I would want schools to have broad pre-professional training. Those who know they want to participate in the sciences, whether applies or theoretical, should be given a basic science curriculum. Those wanting to enter law school should concentrate on rhetorical skills, and so on and so forth, as inclusive as possible. Introductory classes, along with a continuing background in the 'new trivium', would serve to open the minds of individuals to things that may hold a hidden passion for the student. Of course, some people are simply not cut out for intellectual pursuits. This should not be deemed a failure. We all have our place in society. We cannot all be engineers, or physicists, or doctors, or psychologists.

I would like to express the fact that I am not proposing to let people fall into the gutter. This is not social darwinism. A high school diploma, like currency, is only so powerful. The more there is, the less it is valued. Today, a high school diploma is worth very little. I aim to improve the quality of education in America while increasing the value of the diploma once again. Nothing more.

[lukas8u]

I feel like a douche saying I totally agree after all that, but you basically said anything I could possibly want to say on this.

[Apeman81]

Well written. A good start on the subject.

Agreement ensues.

Further comments to come, but let me state that I do not believe the deficiencies you note are the result of error.

[mbc85]

"Those who know they want to participate in the sciences, whether applies or theoretical, should be given a basic science curriculum."

I've been wanting this since the 5th grade.

The problem with "education" in the US, as you mentioned it, is that it is made so EVERYONE can complete basic training (public education). From very good intellectual and dedicated people to the lazy asses that don't give a rat's ass about education.

Making school harder is not the answer, but making it appealing and rewarding is. Not by giving out bumper stickers and trophies, but by giving the students wider range of studies and activities so they can be free to excercise their mind in ways they see fit. This won't work if they teach our kids that, basically, there's only math, science, social studies, PE, english, and reading out there in the world.

I don't know about you, but learning "basics" should not take 12 fucking years. Even advanced classes are a joke. What kind of advanced class has a teacher that knows less than most of his students?

I like your curriculum angry, but when should it be implemented. Secondary and up? High school only? Or since the first grade?

Our public school is praised because it's "charged free education".

One can argue that"be glad with what the government is giving you, it's working" because in essence, it is working. It makes great workers. Dumb workers. Basically ants in a colony.

[Angry Citizen]

Making school harder is not the answer, but making it appealing and rewarding is.

I disagree on the first part. As long as we're equipping kids with the logical tools necessary, it shouldn't be a problem.

the lazy asses that don't give a rat's ass about education.

And that is why it needs to get harder again. These people can go to hell for all I care. They're not learning anything anyway.

Making school harder is not the answer, but making it appealing and rewarding is. Not by giving out bumper stickers and trophies, but by giving the students wider range of studies and activities so they can be free to excercise their mind in ways they see fit. This won't work if they teach our kids that, basically, there's only math, science, social studies, PE, english, and reading out there in the world.

Yeah, definitely. I'm not sure what you mean by activities, though. I think the emphasis on team sports, physical activities and assorted non-academic pursuits are just as worthless.

I like your curriculum angry, but when should it be implemented. Secondary and up? High school only? Or since the first grade?

Ideally, it would start the moment they entered the school system. Three classes in a day: English (grammar), mathematics and logic. Around what would ordinarily be 4th grade, I suppose I would start rhetoric -- things like book reports, persuasive argument techniques, etc. Mathematics is pretty well developed these days, but again, it should be less of a focus on rote memorization and more of a focus on teaching the 'language' of math -- in other words, explaining why certain things were developed, and how they were developed. Learning calculus the same way Newton did, by exploring motion (AKA classical physics), is known to be more effective than learning it by itself.

Logic, more than anything, is what I feel is missing in school these days. The only time you run into fallacious arguments is dealing with the odd proof in geometry class. Students should be able to engage in frighteningly effective debate. I would hope by the time they left school, they could engage in a discussion about a topic they'd never heard of before, and point out logical fallacies with ease.

Our public school is praised because it's "charged free education".

One can argue that"be glad with what the government is giving you, it's working" because in essence, it is working. It makes great workers. Dumb workers. Basically ants in a colony.

*shrug* That kind of complacency is why it continues to exist.

[mbc85]

"Yeah, definitely. I'm not sure what you mean by activities, though. I think the emphasis on team sports, physical activities and assorted non-academic pursuits are just as worthless."

I know what you mean, tho I don't see them useless, they should be done after school with your neighborhood buddies, not a class in school.

I was talking about activities that estimulate the mind such as debating, understanding common sense and logic. imagine a logic "club" where you talk and try to understand logic and what's logical in life and/or situations that life throws at you. Or a common sense "club" where you talk about common sense and when it should be followed and when not to follow it. Maybe a lyrics club where you discuss the allegory on many songs, try to understand the psychological state of the writer at the moment and such. A club for arts, from drawing, writing, and painting to designing (we have art class but in no way it should be called that, more like a "waste your time class" at least in my hs). Somethings that make a young adult's mind interested in the world in a total different sense. To look at the world and see more than just money. Because that's what is drilled into a student's mind, money. "Is this career gonna make me rich?" Instead of, "is this an impact career?" Or "is this career...me?"

[ChimneySweep]

I heard about this teacher's philosophy in a radio interview today. He has achieved amazing results and this method of teaching is now being shared with a range of other schools who all share the cost.
"Paul Lowe reckons Albert Einstein summed up education best when he said: "I do not teach students, I only attempt to provide the conditions in which they can learn."

It's a philosophy the Morrinsville College head of science has taken to heart, and one that has seen him receive the inaugural Prime Minister's Science Teacher Prize, worth $150,000.

"It's very humbling. There are a lot of really good science teachers out there," he said.

The Prime Minister's Science Prizes were introduced last year to raise the profile of science in New Zealand. The Science Teacher Prize is awarded to the science teacher seen as best engaging their students in the subject.

Dr Lowe is one of four people to receive a Prime Minister's Science Prize, with awards also handed out for Future Scientist, Emerging Scientist and Science Communication.

Two thirds of the $150,000 prize goes to the school's science department and Dr Lowe can keep the rest.

The teacher said the secret to his teaching success lay in having students working in teams to solve problems, and taking greater responsibility for their own learning.

Dr Lowe's "hands-on" approach has led his students out of the classroom and into glider pilot seats at Waharoa, to study physics, underground caves (chemistry) and to the Goat Island marine reserve north of Auckland to learn about biodiversity.

"We ask (the question) and don't tell the students the answer ... that's for them to figure out."

[notthecheatr]

I'll start this off. I am not satisfied with public education in America. If test scores are to be believed, America is noticeably lacking in comparison with most other developed nations (links available through google). Furthermore, something just seems missing, intellectually speaking.

While I wish test scores would be higher, this alone does not concern me too much. Test scores are only one measure of intelligence, and I find the ability to think much more important than pure knowledge.

If Alexander the Great, tutored by Aristotle, were to be magically transported to modern day (and could speak English!), he would very likely dominate all but the most intelligent members of society. Reading the graceful, logical flow of words from the minds of history's greatest reminds me of our current level of intellect. We are dumb -- and what's more, we're proud of it.

Depends. Did Alexander the Great know anything about algebra, or modern literature? And you would hardly expect children in school to be writing at that level. High school, maybe, and this is where I think the American education system rather fails. High school simply isn't hard enough.

I think it's a problem with today's educational system. What public education seeks to do is run a 'mind farm'. It's designed to grow the maximum number, regardless of their quality -- so long as they function. To this end, they dumb down tests to multiple choice rather than essays. Rote memorization takes the place of logic. Being able to pass the next test is the only goal. In short, the system is designed to beat the system, not to work.

The real problem is, we want everyone to have a certain level of education, and we want everyone to succeed. I would say the parents are as responsible as the teachers; in a society where a good education is not highly valued, you wouldn't expect the students to try very hard, and thus the necessary "dumbing-down" in order to help everyone to "succeed," if you can really call that success at all.

I'm saying that science class, at that age, is worthless, as is social studies. Children that age do not remember those things. It possesses no shred of significance in their minds. This major problem is one of priority. Is it the school's job to get you to think? To be able to arrive at conclusions logically? Or is it the school's job to familiarize you with things in layer-after-layer of classes designed to make rote memorization successful?

You're right in a way, but I still think science and social studies need to be taught, albeit perhaps in a different way. Science in particular is vital; however, the scientific method should be drilled into their heads from day one of first grade if possible, not as an afterthought taught on the first day of 8th grade science. The scientific method is the basis of practically all rational thought and discovery, and the fact that it isn't being taught at the earliest levels is something of a travesty.

See, I am not fooled. My little brother is learning about cells right now. You cannot possibly tell me he will not be covering exactly the same thing right now as he would be in high school biology class. Furthermore, you cannot possibly tell me that, should he choose to become a biologist, he would not study -- again! -- the same exact stuff. It is worthless to attempt to cram this stuff into the minds of children. No -- first we must teach children how to learn, how to think, and how to express themselves.

Some kids never make it to high school. And if he's not planning to study biology, he'll never study that in college either. I do agree on some level though; once again, science classes should from the beginning be about the principles of scientific inquiry, not general scientific information. Those are nice, fun facts to get kids hooked on science, but they aren't really useful or meaningful in any way.

Lastly, it is a problem of the system's very nature. It is designed to appeal to the lowest common denominator. By ensuring that everyone progresses at a leisurely pace, the system knows it will net just about everyone who can be poked, prodded or dragged kicking and screaming through education. This is ridiculous. It is time to let people fail. It is time to challenge the youth of America. By appealing to the lowest common denominator, you don't ensure that everyone gets a good education, you ensure that everyone gets a bad one. The question you have to ask yourself is, is it preferable to have every student graduate a mediocre high school curriculum, soon to be forgotten in the hustle and bustle of blue collar labor? Or is it preferable to have every student earn his or her high school diploma, rather than have his or her hand held through rote memorization? Small wonder kids these days are so lacklustre about school.

That's true of high school, but not of school in general. Before high school, it seems school is designed to appeal to the average. You *can* fail, you *can* be held back a grade. High school is a bit of a problem, though, because by that time the kids are nearly old enough to drop out and so in some ways they want to make it easy in the hope that the dumber kids won't drop out.

As an alternative, I would propose getting back to what works: classical education. I am a big fan of classical education, but I would make some modern day changes. Classical education begins with something known as the 'trivium'. The trivium is centered around one's ability to read, reason and persuade (or as wikipedia would say, grammar, logic and rhetoric). This should be the central focus of school; with the addition of mathematics. Of course, mathematics and logic go together like physics and calculus, so that is an obvious pairing.

I don't think it's practical to do this with everyone, but the best and brightest kids should be selected at an early-but-not-too-early age (say, 10-12) and moved to a special program. I really don't think kids who aren't able to perform at higher levels should be failed (everyone needs an education) but kids who are able to perform above the standard should not be held back by the weaker ones.

Progressing onward is what's known as the quadrivium, which in ancient times consisted of music theory, astronomy, geometry and arithmetic. Obviously, this would have to change, as in my proposed curriculum, mathematics was started long ago, and continues to play a major role in the proposed curriculum. I would also strike music theory and astronomy from the curriculum in favor of introductory classes and pre-professional training (remember, this is high school level). Pre-professional training would appeal to those who already know what they want to do. I would want schools to have broad pre-professional training. Those who know they want to participate in the sciences, whether applies or theoretical, should be given a basic science curriculum. Those wanting to enter law school should concentrate on rhetorical skills, and so on and so forth, as inclusive as possible. Introductory classes, along with a continuing background in the 'new trivium', would serve to open the minds of individuals to things that may hold a hidden passion for the student. Of course, some people are simply not cut out for intellectual pursuits. This should not be deemed a failure. We all have our place in society. We cannot all be engineers, or physicists, or doctors, or psychologists.

I'm liking your idea more and more. It also reminds me of some of what I have read of European education systems, though I don't know much about them so I could be wrong. Do you know much about these systems?

I would like to express the fact that I am not proposing to let people fall into the gutter. This is not social darwinism. A high school diploma, like currency, is only so powerful. The more there is, the less it is valued. Today, a high school diploma is worth very little. I aim to improve the quality of education in America while increasing the value of the diploma once again. Nothing more.

Once again, I would suggest a two-tiered educational path. The best and brightest should be sent to a special school that caters to their needs. This would not be unlike private academies, only it would be government funded and therefore free. There's no reason a modern society should only provide quality education to the children of the wealthy, as opposed to the children with the greatest apparent potential.

There actually have been a number of experimental schools like what I'm describing and I believe they've all been very successful; one way these schools can make money is by having the students do research (in high school!) which leads to actual useful products. I think we simply need to open more of these "experimental" schools since they have (from all accounts I've read) been successful.

[Angry Citizen]

Depends. Did Alexander the Great know anything about algebra, or modern literature? And you would hardly expect children in school to be writing at that level. High school, maybe, and this is where I think the American education system rather fails. High school simply isn't hard enough.

Of course I wouldn't expect schoolchildren to write like that. I would, however, expect the average adult to be able to write like that.

I would guarantee that Alexander the Great learned a great deal about the geometrical properties of nature known at the time (it was thought of incredibly highly by intellectuals at the time). I would suspect he learned some of the algebra known at the time (but much of modern algebra stems from the Muslim mathematicians). Furthermore, tell me with a straight face that people retain mathematical knowledge if their profession does not immediately require it. Go on, I'm waiting.

The real problem is, we want everyone to have a certain level of education, and we want everyone to succeed. I would say the parents are as responsible as the teachers; in a society where a good education is not highly valued, you wouldn't expect the students to try very hard, and thus the necessary "dumbing-down" in order to help everyone to "succeed," if you can really call that success at all.

It's all perception. An individual who completes high school is considered better educated than someone who did not. If both of these individuals end up working manual labor jobs, how on Earth did high school help them? Catering to the dumbest members of society is dangerous.

You're right in a way, but I still think science and social studies need to be taught, albeit perhaps in a different way. Science in particular is vital; however, the scientific method should be drilled into their heads from day one of first grade if possible, not as an afterthought taught on the first day of 8th grade science. The scientific method is the basis of practically all rational thought and discovery, and the fact that it isn't being taught at the earliest levels is something of a travesty.

Why could this not be taught in a logic class?

That's true of high school, but not of school in general. Before high school, it seems school is designed to appeal to the average. You *can* fail, you *can* be held back a grade. High school is a bit of a problem, though, because by that time the kids are nearly old enough to drop out and so in some ways they want to make it easy in the hope that the dumber kids won't drop out.

I think you raise an interesting point, but I think elementary and junior high still caters to the less-than-average. I have an interesting perspective on this due to my little brother and little sister (in 6th and 10th grades, respectively). My little brother, who is the epitome of less-than-average intelligence, lackadaisical attitude and complete apathy, is likely to pass 6th grade. Why? Because he's allowed to take his failed tests home, where his mommy sits down and works him through the missed problems one by one and corrects them all. My sister, who is the typical high school student making straight A's without studying, is in for a rude awakening in college where you actually have to read the textbook and do things on your own.

I don't think it's practical to do this with everyone, but the best and brightest kids should be selected at an early-but-not-too-early age (say, 10-12) and moved to a special program. I really don't think kids who aren't able to perform at higher levels should be failed (everyone needs an education) but kids who are able to perform above the standard should not be held back by the weaker ones.

What's the point? Is the magical high school diploma so important? Kids who can't succeed now are highly unlikely to be able to succeed in anything requiring intellectual activity. As sad as it is, people like that are automatons; they are zombies. They are good for little else. Wasting money on their education, which will pass through one ear and out the other, is not helping matters.

I think that, in order to be really fair, this kind of attitude should only be prevalent towards the teenage years, but yes, intellectual segregation is a good idea in the meantime.

But the thing is, there already exists programs like this. When I was in elementary school, I was in a program called gifted and talented. I went to a G&T class every day. We weren't learning logical composition, mathematical techniques or even studying anything particularly useful. We worked on amusing little sideprojects like studying the Iditarod ... ididarod... the funny snowdog races in Alaska, or creating a homemade catapult.

I'm liking your idea more and more. It also reminds me of some of what I have read of European education systems, though I don't know much about them so I could be wrong. Do you know much about these systems?

I'm afraid I'm not familiar. Do you have any suggestions for further reading?

Once again, I would suggest a two-tiered educational path. The best and brightest should be sent to a special school that caters to their needs. This would not be unlike private academies, only it would be government funded and therefore free. There's no reason a modern society should only provide quality education to the children of the wealthy, as opposed to the children with the greatest apparent potential.

There actually have been a number of experimental schools like what I'm describing and I believe they've all been very successful; one way these schools can make money is by having the students do research (in high school!) which leads to actual useful products. I think we simply need to open more of these "experimental" schools since they have (from all accounts I've read) been successful.

If they adopt something similar to my curriculum, I could be in favor of this, as long as there is a distinction between the diplomas received at these institutions and the ones received by the not-so-bright. Fair's fair.

I'd also want it so that these things aren't rigid. Once you get into one of these two tiers, you would have to stay consistent. If you're in a not-so-bright school, displaying academic talent should move you to the higher tier. If you're in a brighter-than-most school, displaying academic apathy should move you to the lower tier.

[notthecheatr]

An interesting thought, since you mentioned that high school is pointless if someone passes and then ends up working in a trade anyways alongside someone who dropped out. I would like to imagine that if the sole purpose of education were to prepare the student for his future occupation, we should bring back the old system of apprenticeship and allow those who plan to work in trades to be apprenticed to an experienced tradesman. Of course this is impossible today, partly because people are fickle and cannot choose one trade and stick to it, and partly because of child labor laws.

I would like to suggest that education is not solely about career, but also about life in general - preparing the student to be a functioning member of society. We don't just need people who can do their job well, we need people who can think well and participate in politics, etc. Of course, our political system has become incredibly jacked up and as a result that goal is no longer practical; at the same time, our educational system certainly does no real preparation for this type of thinking.

Perhaps the problem is a problem of goals. Education for the sake of a diploma is not a good goal, nor is education for the sake of high test scores; our schools should be pursuing education for the sake of education, education for the sake of society, education for the sake of a career, any of these goals, but education for the sake of a diploma is a very bad goal. So if anything, the solution is to make our schools more individualized, more goal-oriented. But how do we do this?

Of course this is all hypothetical; how to bring about such massive changes is the big problem. Heck, convincing people that this would be a positive change to make is itself a big problem. I'm sure it would take a lot of money, and a lot of thought from teachers and parents alike. I emphasize both - we can't fix without money, but merely throwing money at the problem isn't going to fix it either. The money needs to be specifically directed. Not an easy problem in such a bloated and inefficient centralized government as ours.

[Angry Citizen]

Heck, convincing people that this would be a positive change to make is itself a big problem.

*shrug* All ideas start somewhere. After that, you just have to convince people. Hence my post. But I see your point. Considering it hasn't exactly garnered a lot of debate, I don't see how the idea will spread. If you want it to spread, though... discuss it with friends and family who aren't apathetic zombies.

[lsbskins1]

The only thing I take issue with is devaluing the arts. I think it would be best to track students to different types of preparation, but where the split comes, in my mind, should be a bit later. I think that it should come at about the high school level, and should focus on tracking those who will be best suited to "the trades" to one type of education and those who show an aptitude for "the professions" to another. But, we value the wrong things in society for this to be very likely. The only way it has a dream of happening is if we somehow manage to shed our level of disrespect for both those who are seen as an "intellectual elite" and for those who "flip burgers". Both are necessary and vital elements of society. Right now, we worship the CEO with the MBA too much. He, too is a vital element, but has no more worth than the thinkers or the doers.