Problems in American Education - Part 16: The Current State of Subject Matter
There has been an unfortunate blending in education over the last half century between two mutually attracted phenomena whose questionable marriage does not receive nearly enough attention.
People have correctly believed for many years that teachers are the most frustrated professionals. Intelligent people, almost by definition, many teachers either consciously or subconsciously feel that they are underemployed, that they are capable of more than just explaining watered down versions of their subject matter to children on a level well below their personal understanding of the material. They think back to their days in college or graduate school and harbor dreams about what it would be like to get really immersed in their subjects and become college professors.
Human nature being what it is, this frustration exacts a creeping toll in school programs over the years. On the high school level it means that there is a great temptation for teachers and curriculum designers to bring college level work down to the high school. In the middle school, where teaching is the most difficult of all the grades, many frustrated teachers seek to prove their worthiness to teach high school (the big status issue in American public education) by actually teaching high school level courses in the middle school. Naturally, it also impacts on the elementary level, although less so, with teachers in the higher elementary grades teaching material that used to be thought of as appropriate only for adolescent students.
So this is the first of the two tendencies that has evolved almost unnoticed over many years, and inclination to juice up the curriculum beyond what is traditionally thought of as appropriate for age and maturation levels.
The other has to do with pressure from the outside (particularly from parents) that dovetails very nicely in feeding into the teacher frustration cited above. There is a consistently increasing pressure from parents to intensify the curriculum (as the parents define curriculum) to gain early advantage for their children. The motivation is to get children into college, and, most preferably, into the “best colleges,” whatever that may mean.
These two orientations feed on each other and help to create a reality in our schools that is dangerous because it “seems like” a win/win situation. Actually, it is a win/win situation for the teachers and the parents. The high school teachers get self-fulfillment by feeling like college professors when they are not and middle school teachers feel like high school teachers when they are not, etc. Parents feel satisfied because they enjoy seeing their children “challenged” and advanced to a point where they are certain to get into a top-notch college. The race is on, so to speak, and these two interest groups just keep pushing to pile it on.
The problem here is that there should be a third part in this equation, the children themselves; and it is my feeling and observation over the years that this unholy marriage of motives puts many of them in a “lose” situation. Clearly, the obvious pressure related to these trends tends to promote grouping practices in the lower grades to create classes of brighter(?), mored competitive students who are able to learn on higher levels, a problem I addressed many installments ago. Other students, you may recall, are then forced into lower ability groupings, ostensibly to give them a more individualized opportunity to learn at their own level. The segregation process begins. Of course, the fact that research shows that it is impossible to determine ability levels until grade 9 is totally ignored. That fact does not fit what many teachers and parents want, so it is just not considered. Students are labeled as early as fourth or fifth grade (even earlier in some places) and they are academically entitled or doomed from that point on as natural tracking entrenches itself into place.
My focus here, however, is to look at the effect on subject matter taught. The evolution described above has, over the years, inexorably pushed the teaching of skills and information, most notably in math (but also in other areas), further and further into lower grades. Many children were and are exposed to certain subjects much earlier than they need to be and, in many cases, at a time in their intellectual maturation when it may be counterproductive to their development. Certainly it is counterproductive to the overall development of social and interpersonal skills as it serves to segregate and categorize innocent children who do not know what is happening to them. At a time when middle school adolescents should be working on the natural, age-appropriate process of moving from concrete to abstract thinking, those who are perceived as more capable are directed into pre-algebra, first year algebra, and some pretty sophisticated levels of science and foreign language.
In order to understand the nature of this problem, it is important to stop and think about if for a while. Jimmy Carter called for “zero-based budgeting” when he was president, a procedure that required budget preparers to go back and start from the beginning, justifying the reasons for proposals from scratch. Let’s look at some traditional subject areas while remembering that learning, as it takes place in the brain, is not quite as compartmentalized; but that categorizing helps us to analyze.
Foreign Language
It’s odd to start with an exception, but this one may be an example of one that contradicts my assertion that we are teaching too much too early, that we are not letting our children enjoy a healthy maturing process during childhood. Studies do indicate that there are good reasons to teach foreign language at earlier ages. For some reason, the younger the child, the easier it seems to be to pick up languages. Foreign language study also promotes human understanding and tolerance in its appreciation for other cultures. Early exposure, therefore, seems like a good thing; and it certainly does offer children the bi-lingual opportunities that will be invaluable in later life as we see things developing in the 21st century.
There are some pitfalls, however, that I believe we need to monitor. For one thing, we still have some prejudicial tendencies that need to be examined. Spanish, for instance, should probably have an even greater role in foreign language study than it already does for some pretty obvious reasons. I have never understood why it should need to compete with French for exposure in our modern curriculum. I also do not understand why languages like Chinese, Russian, Portuguese, etc. are not studied more in a world in which far more people speak those languages than speak French.
I am also somewhat concerned about the traditional way foreign languages are taught in some schools in the earlier grades, although I do believe great advances have been made in emphasizing cultural orientation and immersion methods.
English
Schools, by and large, also do a pretty good job with the teaching of English, moving slowly through foundation skills related to grammar, decoding, vocabulary building, reading, and writing as discrete skills in the earlier grades and then on to the more abstract juvenile literature in middle school and even more abstract classic literature and advanced writing skills in high school. Over the years it has been my perception that the English program, at least among the programs considered to be part of the core curriculum, is probably the one that is most fundamentally sound in our schools.
Math
This is the big problem! More of that terrible ability grouping is done in the name of the needs of math than any other subject. I have never understood why. Actually, that is not truthful; I do know why. Just read above.
Math is perceived by both parents and math teachers as the practical subject, the one that can actually make money for students when they enter the world of work. What is not taken into account is that only a very small percentage of all students actually need advanced math in later life; yet that small group of students is used as an excuse to mangle schedules, especially on the middle school level. My argument with math teachers over the years met with a rationale for grouping that cited the fact that some middle school kids were ready for algebra and other advanced math and that they should not be held back. Of course, they would be condescending and say that other subjects could be populated with mixed grouping, but that it was imperative that math students be challenged.
While I cannot deny that some middle school students can handle more advanced math, I have to respond with a very loud, “So what?” Why do we have to disrupt the whole schedule of a middle school in a manner that is counterproductive in so many ways in order to accomodate math preferences? This disruption is especially seen in smaller schools where an ability grouped math program forces other courses to put up with de facto ability grouping in their programs. If all the “higher level” students are grouped together for accelorated math, for instance, it stands to reason that they are not mixed in with other students in what are supposed to be mixed groupings offered during that period. In other words, the laissez-faire beneficence shown by the math department on this subject is clearly a ploy to make room for their priorities.
In addition, of course, the late bloomer is once again ignored. What many educators fail to realize is that slower maturation does not imply less ability; it just implies a slower pace that may or may not reach the same level in the near future. If accomations are to be made, they should be made by math educators in pacing their programs in such a way as to give middle school students an opportunity to catch up, not in employing “nuclear options” that foreclose future options for many, many students.
The counter argument to my position on this subject has to do with math readiness - that when a student can do a certain level of work, he or she should be allowed to do it or you run the risk of boring that student and keeping him or her from moving consistently ahead. The fallacy in that argument is that it fails to recognize a problem and an opportunity in the entire path marked out by the math curriculum. There are many high schools across the country that will tell you that most students cover all the math they will need for later life and to get into college by the time they are juniors. Senior year, it seems, tends to be a wasteland that many schools fear because of the need to find things for students to do. There are a few students who use the opportunity to take very advanced calculus or solid geometry courses; but, again, they are a vast minority, not a group who should dictate an entire curriculum in many subject areas so that they can start their advanced math studies at a very early age. The honest reason for this anamoly in scheduling is that the purpose for advanced math classes in the early years is political pressure from parents, not that there is a serious need. The opportunity is there to allow almost all students to catch up in middle school, but it is not taken.
Now, you may ask me what those students should be studying in middle school math if not advanced material. There is a very good answer to the question that relates to that concept of zero-based budgeting. If you look objectively at what modern students need in grade 6, 7, and 8, you can definitely come up with some very challenging subjects that do not require slower learning math students to deal with levels of abstraction that may be a year or two away. Computer math related to organization, spreadsheets and simple programming comes quickly to mind. Another underexposed area that could benefit all students would be consumer math. In other words, there are very worthwhile and “challenging” things all students could do that would mean progress while not requiring segregation and destruction of a mixed grouping schedule that would be a great advantage for all students during developmental years.
Social Studies
Please note well that I refer to my old discipline as social studies and not history. That is a significant distinction. There are traditionalists and “back-to-basics” conservatives who prefer to say that we should teach history. Some teachers in the discipline, especially those who are the would-be college professors if they had the chance, also like to refer to themselves as history teachers. Sounds a little more elite, if you know what I mean. Hey, actually, I was an American history major myself in graduate school. The problem here though, is that the use of term history is inaccurate and silly in most classes that deal with this discipline. History is one of the social sciences, along with subjects like geography, political science, and economics, to name a few. At the basic level where we find virtually all public school students, it is important for classes in this area to encompass all of these subjects in an attempt to help students understand the complex subject of interpersonal and social human relations. Social studies needs to be taught as social studies. It’s as simple as that. History professors belong in college.
Other than that little dispute in orientation, social studies, like English, is one of our more solid subjects. It is probably the one that is most favorably grouped under a healthy mixed environment unless distorted by the de facto deference shown other disciplines. Actually, I was always proud of the fact that social studies, almost by the nature of the discipline, sought to promote a mixed grouping in its classes in order to represent and promote a microcosm of society in the classroom.
My only complaint about the social sciences is that one of its pieces is not emphasized enough. More geography needs to be taught in our schools. As a matter of fact, I think it belongs right up there with the other core subjects that are thought of as foundations of life. That may seem like an extreme position for a subject not normally put in the pantheon of important studies; but, as with some other points I have made, I think that the importance of the study of geography is something that needs a new, fresh, and logical examination. We live in an ever more complicated world, and young people desperately need to psychologically ground themselves as they mature into adulthood. No one would deny the importance of the “three R’s” in this process, but I think we have neglected the subject that really puts children into context with the rest of the world, a world that is shrinking ever more quickly and becoming more and more accessible to all.
Many thoughtful analysts of the learning process believe strongly that children learn from the inside out, from what is very close to them to a gradual realization and understanding of what is more and more distant. That is exactly what the study of geography serves to do with the young mind. It substantially helps children to come to an understanding of the world around them, first the world that they can perceive with their senses and then the ever expanding surroundings that are more and more distant. It helps children to solidly perceive their world in expanding context, giving them a psychological grounding on which to establish their paths in life. When you pair this theory (actually, I think it is more than just a theory) with the erosion of geography education and knowledge that we have seen over the past half century, you can see how important it is to take a much closer look at our priorities in this area.
Science
I can’t make as big a case with science as I did with math, but science fell into a similar path to math back in the mid-20th century when we were concerned with the space race and keeping up with the rapid growth of technology. As with math, there is no doubt that the study of science is important for all students; but we cannot fall prey to over-emphasis if it means that we sacrifice the education of the whole child and all children in payment for the emphasis. A very small number of students become “rocket scientists,” and we should not distort our programs to focus on the needs of that small group at the expense of the vast majority. There is time enough for moderate specialization in this area in later high school for those with the aptitude and desire. We do not need eighth grade chemists.
Other Subjects
All subjects, including those that we consider as subjects in non-core areas (whatever that means), need to be examined closely for how they fit into the needs of children in an ever-changing society. My perception is that we have made great strides over the past few years in areas like physical education, health education, art education and certainly in computer education, while we have fallen behind, to some extent, in what used to be called home economics, consumer education, industrial arts and in a few other areas.
My overall suggestion is that we keep comprehensive education in mind for the public schools. K-12 education should not be designed to promote premature specialization. To do so is to forget that children mature slowly and that they need to taste the fruits of liberal arts early in life so that they can make sound decisions later once they are in a position to make good choices. We will examine more about curriculum design in future essays; but suffice it to say in summary of positions stated here that future success in educational programming will depend on flexible curriculum that allows children to be children and to taste numerous offerings while building strong foundation skills.
People have correctly believed for many years that teachers are the most frustrated professionals. Intelligent people, almost by definition, many teachers either consciously or subconsciously feel that they are underemployed, that they are capable of more than just explaining watered down versions of their subject matter to children on a level well below their personal understanding of the material. They think back to their days in college or graduate school and harbor dreams about what it would be like to get really immersed in their subjects and become college professors.
Human nature being what it is, this frustration exacts a creeping toll in school programs over the years. On the high school level it means that there is a great temptation for teachers and curriculum designers to bring college level work down to the high school. In the middle school, where teaching is the most difficult of all the grades, many frustrated teachers seek to prove their worthiness to teach high school (the big status issue in American public education) by actually teaching high school level courses in the middle school. Naturally, it also impacts on the elementary level, although less so, with teachers in the higher elementary grades teaching material that used to be thought of as appropriate only for adolescent students.
So this is the first of the two tendencies that has evolved almost unnoticed over many years, and inclination to juice up the curriculum beyond what is traditionally thought of as appropriate for age and maturation levels.
The other has to do with pressure from the outside (particularly from parents) that dovetails very nicely in feeding into the teacher frustration cited above. There is a consistently increasing pressure from parents to intensify the curriculum (as the parents define curriculum) to gain early advantage for their children. The motivation is to get children into college, and, most preferably, into the “best colleges,” whatever that may mean.
These two orientations feed on each other and help to create a reality in our schools that is dangerous because it “seems like” a win/win situation. Actually, it is a win/win situation for the teachers and the parents. The high school teachers get self-fulfillment by feeling like college professors when they are not and middle school teachers feel like high school teachers when they are not, etc. Parents feel satisfied because they enjoy seeing their children “challenged” and advanced to a point where they are certain to get into a top-notch college. The race is on, so to speak, and these two interest groups just keep pushing to pile it on.
The problem here is that there should be a third part in this equation, the children themselves; and it is my feeling and observation over the years that this unholy marriage of motives puts many of them in a “lose” situation. Clearly, the obvious pressure related to these trends tends to promote grouping practices in the lower grades to create classes of brighter(?), mored competitive students who are able to learn on higher levels, a problem I addressed many installments ago. Other students, you may recall, are then forced into lower ability groupings, ostensibly to give them a more individualized opportunity to learn at their own level. The segregation process begins. Of course, the fact that research shows that it is impossible to determine ability levels until grade 9 is totally ignored. That fact does not fit what many teachers and parents want, so it is just not considered. Students are labeled as early as fourth or fifth grade (even earlier in some places) and they are academically entitled or doomed from that point on as natural tracking entrenches itself into place.
My focus here, however, is to look at the effect on subject matter taught. The evolution described above has, over the years, inexorably pushed the teaching of skills and information, most notably in math (but also in other areas), further and further into lower grades. Many children were and are exposed to certain subjects much earlier than they need to be and, in many cases, at a time in their intellectual maturation when it may be counterproductive to their development. Certainly it is counterproductive to the overall development of social and interpersonal skills as it serves to segregate and categorize innocent children who do not know what is happening to them. At a time when middle school adolescents should be working on the natural, age-appropriate process of moving from concrete to abstract thinking, those who are perceived as more capable are directed into pre-algebra, first year algebra, and some pretty sophisticated levels of science and foreign language.
In order to understand the nature of this problem, it is important to stop and think about if for a while. Jimmy Carter called for “zero-based budgeting” when he was president, a procedure that required budget preparers to go back and start from the beginning, justifying the reasons for proposals from scratch. Let’s look at some traditional subject areas while remembering that learning, as it takes place in the brain, is not quite as compartmentalized; but that categorizing helps us to analyze.
Foreign Language
It’s odd to start with an exception, but this one may be an example of one that contradicts my assertion that we are teaching too much too early, that we are not letting our children enjoy a healthy maturing process during childhood. Studies do indicate that there are good reasons to teach foreign language at earlier ages. For some reason, the younger the child, the easier it seems to be to pick up languages. Foreign language study also promotes human understanding and tolerance in its appreciation for other cultures. Early exposure, therefore, seems like a good thing; and it certainly does offer children the bi-lingual opportunities that will be invaluable in later life as we see things developing in the 21st century.
There are some pitfalls, however, that I believe we need to monitor. For one thing, we still have some prejudicial tendencies that need to be examined. Spanish, for instance, should probably have an even greater role in foreign language study than it already does for some pretty obvious reasons. I have never understood why it should need to compete with French for exposure in our modern curriculum. I also do not understand why languages like Chinese, Russian, Portuguese, etc. are not studied more in a world in which far more people speak those languages than speak French.
I am also somewhat concerned about the traditional way foreign languages are taught in some schools in the earlier grades, although I do believe great advances have been made in emphasizing cultural orientation and immersion methods.
English
Schools, by and large, also do a pretty good job with the teaching of English, moving slowly through foundation skills related to grammar, decoding, vocabulary building, reading, and writing as discrete skills in the earlier grades and then on to the more abstract juvenile literature in middle school and even more abstract classic literature and advanced writing skills in high school. Over the years it has been my perception that the English program, at least among the programs considered to be part of the core curriculum, is probably the one that is most fundamentally sound in our schools.
Math
This is the big problem! More of that terrible ability grouping is done in the name of the needs of math than any other subject. I have never understood why. Actually, that is not truthful; I do know why. Just read above.
Math is perceived by both parents and math teachers as the practical subject, the one that can actually make money for students when they enter the world of work. What is not taken into account is that only a very small percentage of all students actually need advanced math in later life; yet that small group of students is used as an excuse to mangle schedules, especially on the middle school level. My argument with math teachers over the years met with a rationale for grouping that cited the fact that some middle school kids were ready for algebra and other advanced math and that they should not be held back. Of course, they would be condescending and say that other subjects could be populated with mixed grouping, but that it was imperative that math students be challenged.
While I cannot deny that some middle school students can handle more advanced math, I have to respond with a very loud, “So what?” Why do we have to disrupt the whole schedule of a middle school in a manner that is counterproductive in so many ways in order to accomodate math preferences? This disruption is especially seen in smaller schools where an ability grouped math program forces other courses to put up with de facto ability grouping in their programs. If all the “higher level” students are grouped together for accelorated math, for instance, it stands to reason that they are not mixed in with other students in what are supposed to be mixed groupings offered during that period. In other words, the laissez-faire beneficence shown by the math department on this subject is clearly a ploy to make room for their priorities.
In addition, of course, the late bloomer is once again ignored. What many educators fail to realize is that slower maturation does not imply less ability; it just implies a slower pace that may or may not reach the same level in the near future. If accomations are to be made, they should be made by math educators in pacing their programs in such a way as to give middle school students an opportunity to catch up, not in employing “nuclear options” that foreclose future options for many, many students.
The counter argument to my position on this subject has to do with math readiness - that when a student can do a certain level of work, he or she should be allowed to do it or you run the risk of boring that student and keeping him or her from moving consistently ahead. The fallacy in that argument is that it fails to recognize a problem and an opportunity in the entire path marked out by the math curriculum. There are many high schools across the country that will tell you that most students cover all the math they will need for later life and to get into college by the time they are juniors. Senior year, it seems, tends to be a wasteland that many schools fear because of the need to find things for students to do. There are a few students who use the opportunity to take very advanced calculus or solid geometry courses; but, again, they are a vast minority, not a group who should dictate an entire curriculum in many subject areas so that they can start their advanced math studies at a very early age. The honest reason for this anamoly in scheduling is that the purpose for advanced math classes in the early years is political pressure from parents, not that there is a serious need. The opportunity is there to allow almost all students to catch up in middle school, but it is not taken.
Now, you may ask me what those students should be studying in middle school math if not advanced material. There is a very good answer to the question that relates to that concept of zero-based budgeting. If you look objectively at what modern students need in grade 6, 7, and 8, you can definitely come up with some very challenging subjects that do not require slower learning math students to deal with levels of abstraction that may be a year or two away. Computer math related to organization, spreadsheets and simple programming comes quickly to mind. Another underexposed area that could benefit all students would be consumer math. In other words, there are very worthwhile and “challenging” things all students could do that would mean progress while not requiring segregation and destruction of a mixed grouping schedule that would be a great advantage for all students during developmental years.
Social Studies
Please note well that I refer to my old discipline as social studies and not history. That is a significant distinction. There are traditionalists and “back-to-basics” conservatives who prefer to say that we should teach history. Some teachers in the discipline, especially those who are the would-be college professors if they had the chance, also like to refer to themselves as history teachers. Sounds a little more elite, if you know what I mean. Hey, actually, I was an American history major myself in graduate school. The problem here though, is that the use of term history is inaccurate and silly in most classes that deal with this discipline. History is one of the social sciences, along with subjects like geography, political science, and economics, to name a few. At the basic level where we find virtually all public school students, it is important for classes in this area to encompass all of these subjects in an attempt to help students understand the complex subject of interpersonal and social human relations. Social studies needs to be taught as social studies. It’s as simple as that. History professors belong in college.
Other than that little dispute in orientation, social studies, like English, is one of our more solid subjects. It is probably the one that is most favorably grouped under a healthy mixed environment unless distorted by the de facto deference shown other disciplines. Actually, I was always proud of the fact that social studies, almost by the nature of the discipline, sought to promote a mixed grouping in its classes in order to represent and promote a microcosm of society in the classroom.
My only complaint about the social sciences is that one of its pieces is not emphasized enough. More geography needs to be taught in our schools. As a matter of fact, I think it belongs right up there with the other core subjects that are thought of as foundations of life. That may seem like an extreme position for a subject not normally put in the pantheon of important studies; but, as with some other points I have made, I think that the importance of the study of geography is something that needs a new, fresh, and logical examination. We live in an ever more complicated world, and young people desperately need to psychologically ground themselves as they mature into adulthood. No one would deny the importance of the “three R’s” in this process, but I think we have neglected the subject that really puts children into context with the rest of the world, a world that is shrinking ever more quickly and becoming more and more accessible to all.
Many thoughtful analysts of the learning process believe strongly that children learn from the inside out, from what is very close to them to a gradual realization and understanding of what is more and more distant. That is exactly what the study of geography serves to do with the young mind. It substantially helps children to come to an understanding of the world around them, first the world that they can perceive with their senses and then the ever expanding surroundings that are more and more distant. It helps children to solidly perceive their world in expanding context, giving them a psychological grounding on which to establish their paths in life. When you pair this theory (actually, I think it is more than just a theory) with the erosion of geography education and knowledge that we have seen over the past half century, you can see how important it is to take a much closer look at our priorities in this area.
Science
I can’t make as big a case with science as I did with math, but science fell into a similar path to math back in the mid-20th century when we were concerned with the space race and keeping up with the rapid growth of technology. As with math, there is no doubt that the study of science is important for all students; but we cannot fall prey to over-emphasis if it means that we sacrifice the education of the whole child and all children in payment for the emphasis. A very small number of students become “rocket scientists,” and we should not distort our programs to focus on the needs of that small group at the expense of the vast majority. There is time enough for moderate specialization in this area in later high school for those with the aptitude and desire. We do not need eighth grade chemists.
Other Subjects
All subjects, including those that we consider as subjects in non-core areas (whatever that means), need to be examined closely for how they fit into the needs of children in an ever-changing society. My perception is that we have made great strides over the past few years in areas like physical education, health education, art education and certainly in computer education, while we have fallen behind, to some extent, in what used to be called home economics, consumer education, industrial arts and in a few other areas.
My overall suggestion is that we keep comprehensive education in mind for the public schools. K-12 education should not be designed to promote premature specialization. To do so is to forget that children mature slowly and that they need to taste the fruits of liberal arts early in life so that they can make sound decisions later once they are in a position to make good choices. We will examine more about curriculum design in future essays; but suffice it to say in summary of positions stated here that future success in educational programming will depend on flexible curriculum that allows children to be children and to taste numerous offerings while building strong foundation skills.
posted by Friar4 at 3:54 AM
3 Comments:
Friar,
I have a couple of comments regarding this topic. While not an education expert, I do find a fascination in education.
I studied mathematics and statistics and I disagree with some of your points towards math. While it is true that the average Joe Blow would never use Pi R Squared, I think you have understated the importance of math. The biggest thing that I learned in mathematics wasn't related to any one equation. It was how to solve problems, and I learned that problems could be solved in many different ways. It was a way of thnking. Not only did this apply to the problems at hand, the concepts applied to every day life. You mentioned that more emphasis could be placed in learning geography, as students needed to learn more about what's going on around them. While I find it true that "we have neglected the subject that really puts children into context with the rest of the world" (as today's children aren't very culturally diverse), for you to suggest that only a small percentage of students actually need advanced math is akin to me saying that a small percentage of students actually need to know anything about Ghana, as most will never go there or really need to know anything about it. While both have their importance, neither should be reported as being less important than the other. Of course, as an educator, one would hope that the student learns something equally from both disciplines. An example could be understood from one of my old statistics professors and a team of Air Force Academy statisticians, who went to Africa to help reduce the AIDS population. This was not done by a bunch of equations, but by purely asking questions (as that's what the budge allowed). That's the sort of problem solving of which I'm speaking and displays how mathematics can be brought together with social studies. I'm not trying to miss your point. However, I just didn't want the power of mathematics to be understated.
One of the other topics of which you discuss, where I partly agree is how hard students are pushed. While I agree that a student can only pushed so far, I have to wonder if we've reached that point yet. I'm reminded of a friend of mine who is from Hong Kong. He told me that when he was in high school, he was an average, run of the mill student. In Hong Kong high school, he took 16 classes per year (including English, Chinese, Biology, Math, etc) each year for the 2 or 3 years he attended high school there.. He said he was in the 50th percentile in Hong Kong and wouldn't attend college there, as only the top students went to the only university there. He ended up coming to the states so he could finish high school here and attend college. He ended up graduating number 2 in his class, as all of the classes offered at the US high school was material that he already learned. No student in the US can imagine taking a workload like 16 classes per year. Hong Kong's view is such that high school is difficult, so only the top percentage of kids go to college. Once in college, the material is much easier, as the students have already learned the hard stuff (at least, that's what I'm told). Here in the states, high school is fairly simple (if one applies themselves). At least, that's how I felt. Once I got to college, I felt unprepared for the amount of reading that was required. I know others who feel the same way. Perhaps Hong Kong is on to something, and perhaps students can be pushed a bit harder than we are pushing them today.
The last comment I had is regarding your view of elementary school teachers. While I only know a handful, they all got into education because they felt like they could make more of a difference at that level (before some of the negativity that surrounds an older child came into play). I don't think they had visions of grandeur. Again, I'm trying not to miss your point, however, I just thought what you stated seemed off base from the few teachers that I know.
Thanks for allowing me to add my two cents.
You make some interesting points and I actually agree with most of what you wrote. Although you were very careful in repeating that you did not want to miss my points, I feel that I may not have been as clear as I could and should have been. Let me address some of your concerns.
Your emphasis on the importance of mathematics is well placed and this is the first of several issues on which I may not have been as clear as I should have been. I certainly think math is very important and your argument about the skills related to logic is irrefutable. I took a course in logic as a freshman in college, and it helped to form the way I think and the way I see life today.
My contention about math is one about priorities. I don't see the need to teach advanced math prematurely when, in doing so, schools fail to deal with and develop programs for other very important concerns. I am especially worried about pushing that premature insertion when doing so impacts other subjects and developmental process in a very negative way. I have to be honest; much of my thinking has to do with what I perceive as the serious problems we create by grouping in the middle school in order to push the math. There is time to study advanced math in high school; and, quite frankly, I think it is more properly taught there anyway.
On pushing students, I think there is a fine but important line that needs to be drawn between challenging (a good thing) and pushing (a bad thing in my opinion)students. Like the Army used to say in its commercials, we need to urge students to "be all that they can be," and that's where challenge comes in. Challenge should be made available on a very individualized basis. Despite my feelings about grouping, I am all for rigorous high school prerequisite requirements and challenging elective offerings. In an upcoming essay, I will also address the need for greater emphasis, for all levels, on demanding process education so that children learn how to learn in addition to learning subject matter as a discrete entity.
Your comparisons to education in Hong Kong certainly deserve examination; but I would caution you to consider carefully the perceived success or failure of some of the systems found in other parts of the world. I am far from an expert on this subject, but it is my understanding that the pressure felt by children in some other countries has led to some very negative results in the long run. Competition is a wonderful thing as long as we realize that we are responsible for working with both the winners and the losers in the competitive system. Since American public education is especially oriented toward ideals related to democracy for all, that reality is particularly important in our schools.
I certainly hope that nothing I wrote is interpreted as a criticiim of elementary school teachers. My mention of teaching at that level was intended as part of a general orientation seen on all levels. If anything, I believe that elementary school teachers probably do the best job in accomplishing their stated missions and show more commitment than at any other level. Don't misunderstand, I still believe that middle school is the most difficult, but elementary teaching is a close second and I greatly admire the selflessness shown by teachers of young children and the skills that are required to stimulate the learning process in our youngest clients. You really worried me with your comment. I don't want to be misunderstood on that subject.
Thanks once again for your thoughtful input.
Friar
Friar,
I think we're pretty much on the same page. Consider it the lateness of the night, where I may have misinterpreted some of your thoughts.
Thanks for allowing the forum to discuss such topics.
Post a Comment
<< Home