According to a recent government
report:
Science education in U.S. elementary and middle schools is overly broad and superficial, according to a government report issued on Thursday that also faults science curricula for assuming children are simplistic thinkers.
I generally hold very little stock in government reports, but based on my own experience and from what I hear from other people about what their children are learning, I agree with the report's conclusion. Especially with the part about assuming that children are simplistic and incapable of learning more complex ideas. As I've written
before, your average person has an incredible mind capable of extraordinary things. The same applies to the minds of children. Most schools greatly underuse all that brain power.
Part of the problem is that state and national learning standards for students in elementary and middle schools require children to memorize often-disconnected scientific facts, the report said.
Yes! Why? Science is entirely interconnected, so there's no reason for science curriculum to be disjointed. Also, in the lower grades there is, perhaps, too much emphasis on memorizing lists of vocabulary words and not enough emphasis on understanding the actual scientific concepts.
Other countries such as Japan have students explore a core set of ideas, with increasing depth as they get older, it said.
This seems like a more logical way to go.
10 comments:
I think a big part of the problem is just government schooling, period. It lumps together a bunch of kids of the same age, regardless of their differing capabilities, and proceeds to teach at a simple enough level that most everyone could theoretically understand it.
The whole idea of government schools is deeply misguided, in my opinion. People argue for them on emotional, illogical grounds. When I discuss this with friends, they say "but how would people who aren't rich get educated if we didn't give everyone free education?"
Then I point out that food is more important than education, but we don't centralize food production in government institutions and all go to a government grocery store to get our food allotment, as we do with education. And there's a tremendous bounty of cheap food of many kinds and one of the biggest problems we have is that the poor eat too MANY calories and have an obesity problem.
Government schooling should be phased out. If it were, there would be such a demand for private schooling that we'd see many more options. I suspect we'd see the equivalent of a Walmart in the educational field, where people on a budget could send their children for good solid training in core skills. The discipline problems destroying the quality of our schools would vanish overnight because no business would allow some of its customers to destroy other customers' service experience. And if some people can't afford even that, like some people can't afford even to buy food, then give them "education stamps" like we give out "food stamps" so they can buy decent education at the Walmart-like schools that would appear.
I think the fact that science is taught in a simplistic, general, rote-fact-memorization method just reflects the fact that a government bureaucracy is running it and is mandated to teach all the students the same. If government was running food production and distribution, we'd be complaining about the inferiority, cost, and limited supply of food.
Mark, I deleted your second comment for two reasons: (1) This blog is not the place for racially charged comments. (2) I want this thread to stay on topic, and your comment is likely to lead into a contentious, off-topic tangent.
I would also point to this article by Thomas Sowell. (It's in someone's blog post because the link to the actual article doesn't seem to work anymore.)
As for your first comment, I agree with you entirely.
Mark stated: "Government schooling should be phased out. If it were, there would be such a demand for private schooling that we'd see many more options. I suspect we'd see the equivalent of a Walmart in the educational field, where people on a budget could send their children for good solid training in core skills."
S.T. Steiner: The problem is competition, and in America, money buys more, but not necessarily more quality, although many people might think so. Check out this link on NYC high school [grammar school] tuition, it will knock your socks off.
NYC Tuition
http://www.boston.com/news/education/higher/articles/2006/03/10/tuition_at_some_nyc_high_schools_over_30k/?p1=email_to_a_friend
On the flip side of the coin, here in Germany, our students pay 1 cent for tuition, grammar school to PhD, as our tax system supports education, and likewise, our German schools are relatively equal in resources and accomodations.
s.t.steiner,
I'm not clear on your point regarding the expensive New York private schools. Yes, some parents have the money and choose to send their children to very expensive schools. So?
Your students may "pay 1 cent for tuition", but someone else is paying the rest of it. It's not "free". In fact, because the money is first filtered through a government bureucracy before being passed on to the schools, I suspect that it costs Germany more to educate a student than it would in an equivalent all-private system.
I am not particularly familiar with German or European educational systems but I believe one difference is that students are directed into different vocational tracks as they move through school. There is no presumption that everyone should aspire to go to college/university. This strikes me as a better system than the public system we have in the US where we must labor under this illusion that no child can be "left behind" and everyone should go to college. Plus I think there is still a residual level of German discipline that expects and demands more of students, and allows less nonsense and discipline problems in the schools. This is simply my impression, I could be wrong. We in the US are too busy trying to nurture "self esteem" and such.
Still, I contend that a free market will always outperform a socialist system. Socialist systems self-destruct. I believe public education will do so sooner or later.
Ms Hunt, I understand your decision to delete my comment. I think in the long run it is a mistake to suppress the discussion of unpopular ideas that may be true just because they will elicit heated opposition. I think what I said was true. But I understand why you would not want to let race be part of your blog - not many white people do, especially those who use their real names (I don't use my real name because I would lose my job otherwise).
Ms Hunt,
One other thing - with regard to the Sowell link you provided. I followed it and read the article.
Here is a related link containing a rebuttal to Sowell some ways down the article:
http://www.vdare.com/pb/bell_curve.htm.
I have read that researchers are in the process of discovering the genetic basis of intelligence in the course of their mapping of the human genome and explication of its mysteries. It may be that in the next few years there will be definitive scientific proof whether intelligence is or isn't unevenly distributed by race. Perhaps we'll all just have to wait til then to know for sure.
About Germany's educational tracking system, it has its +/-.
Tracking in certain cases allows our children to reach their potential with programs tailored to their ability level. What is unfortunate is the early age in which tracking is enforced. How can we decide that a 10-year-old can only aspire to become a baker in a bakery, or an assistant in a dentist office? And with many parents working, some children do not have the head start they need to excel in school, to enable them to get on the right track towards 'college' per se.
On the other hand, students are offered apprenticeship programs whereby they can study and train towards a career, without necessarily attending college; something that I think American students could benefit from, at least, by having options.
Also, Germany's system leans more towards acceptance based on merit, rather than being a member of the party of "Who's Who".
Cost is debatable. Yes, it is expensive for us to finance education through our taxes, but if we have more educated people in our country paying into social security and also, being self-sufficient, then we ease the burden of supporting them in the lifecycle; at least that's how it appears to me, but I know there are plenty of economists who would say otherwise.
I just don't know if a Wal-Mart- style private school system would even be realised, least of all, be effective. Good teachers would naturally be drawn to higher-paying jobs, so families able to support the high tuition costs would be likely to receive more benefits in terms of education. Our poor students would get a bad deal. I don't know if America's system will ever modify to include all of its children, and at the college level, the student-loan system is outlandish, with 22-year-olds in debt up to 80K, with a law degree, 140K+. In ten years, they pay their loans, finally get a mortgage on property, and have far less than they need for retirement, unless they are one of the lucky to work at IBM Shanghai.
The science book we are using this year recommends the "immersion" method. We will be spending a lot of time on astronomy as a result. :) Probably most of the year, unless we finish the book sooner. I tend to think this is the best approach to teaching science because it's the sort of subject that requires repeated application in order for the student to really "get" it. The immersion method also allows plenty of time for numerous projects and demonstrations. Most adults learn new things by the immersion method.
At my children's ages, (elementary and preschool) I believe the best way to approach science is through observation of nature. Children are drawn to nature and with good reason--it's fascinating. There's so much to study, too. Botany, biology, zoology, entomology, astronomy, oceanography, etc. Unfortunately (for children who have to sit in a school room) that involves spending lots of time outside...so, not likely to be much nature study conducted in school. :(
And re: the cost of education...I learned today our county spends more than $12,400 per student!!!! :-0 Believe me, it costs a fraction of a fraction of that to educate mine. Education does not have to be expensive. I have good quality materials and I'm spending less than $600 among six children. The big difference is: no middle men. No administrative structure to suck off funds; no teachers unions; no free lunches; and especially, no salary for mom. :)
Hey i was reading about some school science text book where they were urging kids to boycott McDonalds to protest the so called destruction of the rainforests and well their too busy shoving this GLOBAL WARMING POPPYCOCK BS in their heads
Post a Comment