Math and Science Education in America

[WordKeeper]

I am deeply concerned with the state of math and science education in our nation. I have been reading a number of books on globalization and economic trends and it does not bode well for our nation.

ON a micro level, as a mother, I am not pleased with the math and science education that is available to our children. I have been talking about this in recent weeks and one former teacher told me that her experience is that if the curriculum is too tough then the administration's response is to water it down.

My son just completed 2nd grade. Kids from his school go to top US colleges - Stanford, Princeton, Harvard, Duke, Williams etc. His teachers never touched on division and just barely covered multiplication. When I was in first grade we covered division by January. I know because I had an accident that month as was out two weeks and had to stay after school several days to learn division. And we only went to school until noon in the
1st grade.

Well I finally decided to do something about the lack in science education. So i am planning a science camp and inviting 4 or 6 boys to join us. We will start with a fabulous Pokemon type game around the Elements. It was developed by a young teenaged boy and is very clever. We will have a section on combustion and rockets (with Mentos/Coke explosions), a segment on paleontology (an expert at the local science museum and losts of dinasaur bones 1/2 hour away), a segment on electro-magnetism and one or two others.

If it goes well I will approach the local science museum about developing a weekend Science Club to encourage young children to get involved with experiments and develop science projects for competition.

If anyone has recommendations for websites or other sources for good experiments for young children please let me know.

[Dreamline]

I read a great explanation about why Asians are better at math than we are. It was from Malcolm Gladwell's book Outliers. About the small seemingly random things that separate winners from losers.

Here is a synopsis:

Why are Chinese (and other Asians) Better at Math?


Also, there has been a definite shift in our economic culture away from careers where math and science take the forefront, to careers in services industries. People realize they just don't "need" it. So it becomes a kind of backburner novelty knowledge skillset.

But overconcentrating on math and science automatically means that something else has to go by the wayside since we are burdened with only 24 hours in a day. So do you eliminate social sciences? History? Psychology? Language arts? Literature? Art? Music? Business? Sports? Civic clubs? Do you revel in having your child be a math and science wiz who now lacks in other meaningful life skills?

I'm more of a fan of an old pseudo-communist block idea: Figure out what your kids are good at or personally love, at a relatively early age and let them go in that direction. Even if it means being satisfied with remedial math and then be experts at art or literature or history. Or being a math wiz but having less of a focus on art, or psychology.

Our misguided educational desire to have our kids be "all things to all people" dilutes their education in the end and now we are paying the price.

Jennifer

[Brutha]

Even if it means being satisfied with remedial math and then be experts at art or literature or history.

There really not much sense in being good at history or literature. It doesn't matter that much to help you getting things done as an adult.
Being able to write well is much more important than interpreting a poem.
English classes in school shouldn't focus on literature but on writing.

I think it's very unfortunate that English classes want to prepare you for getting a degree in English, math classes want to prepare you for getting a degree in math and biology classes want to prepare you for getting one in biology instead of teaching the stuff out of their subject that useful to everyone.

[openeyes]

Originally Posted by Dreamline

Why are Chinese (and other Asians) Better at Math?

Interesting how the language in and of itself makes math easier. It also seems to greatly aid perfect pitch:

Tonal languages are the key to perfect pitch - life - 06 April 2009 - New Scientist

"It turned out that the Asian students scored no better than white students if they weren't fluent in their parents' language (Journal of the Acoustical Society of America, vol 125, p 2398). But very fluent students scored highly, getting about 90 per cent of the notes correct on average (see diagram). "They did incredibly well. It was overwhelming," says Deutsch.

"This suggests that learning a tonal language plays a far greater role in perfect pitch than genes. "It really looks as though infants should acquire perfect pitch if they are given the opportunity to attach verbal labels to musical notes at the age when they learn speech," concludes Deutsch."

Mandarin has been one of my favorite languages to study thus far, and this sort of thing gives me that much more reason to make sure any kids I have (if any) get exposed to it early on.

[aggie]

my husband is a professor of microbiology, anatomy and physiology, basic biology and environmental biology...these are needed in either a lesser or more advanced class in college depending on where you want to go...but anything related to the medical field...these and some math courses are vital....and by the time they get to my husband's classes they have been sorely lacking some basics through the years...a lot of it, imo, just starts out with children as some basic curiosity about how the world and nature and life works and goes from there...i can remember without being in a class as a child loving nature and everything from dinosaurs to the stars...it is wonderful for you to start encouraging this in children...there is too much focus i think on things like the latest brand name sneaker or miley cyrus...some of the wonderful growing things around childhood are being sorely missed...more power to you!

[Hyperchiller]

Based on the Anastasia Ringing Cedar series of books, there is a school in Russia where kids by 15-17 have Master degrees. The education system in that school is very different. They sing, dance, do martial arts and all the general subjects.

Those who teach subjects are usually older students. I think these kids have a lot more freedom in what they want to learn and focus on.

[Dreamline]

I had an aptitude and respect for natural science, environmental science, physics and architecture/design at an early age. Even by the age of two, to hear my parents talk about it. What disinterested me was political science, history and social sciences. Of course, being in a typical American public school, the concentrations were diluted so that the students could get a well-rounded education, which I think is a great idea on a certain level. (I mean how would you know you loved social science if you had never been exposed to it?)

However, when there is a clear aptitude in one direction or another, it seems that children should be encouraged to go in that direction even if it means eliminating a semester, here and there, of courses that do not meet their personal needs. Somewhere in those 12 years, customization should be possible.

Or one could follow the example of the KIPP schools. Hard, hard work. Serious discipline and long, long hours. But those kids don't even have time to play.

Jennifer

[aggie]

one other very important factor is in our country ... a lot of people cruelly say, those who can't or don't : teach...in other countries teachers are revered....whole different outlook on education in general....

[Still Growing]

I have a theory regarding the US Education System.

Here are the facts:
1. America high school graduates don't rank well in the world
2. American college students DO rank very well in the world
3. American private high schools DO rank very well in the world
4. American high schools are viewed as a "cost"
5. American Universities are viewed as an "investment"
6. America is a 3 class system
7. Most of the world is a 2 class system

In the US if you have money you get the best education that the world has to offer. If you don't have money you get one of the worst educations that the world has to offer.

In the US we relish (as a culture) the "American Dream" whereas some countries relish "Equality for the Masses".

In some countries like Brazil the 2 class system is bottom heavy whereas in Japan or Europe the 2 class system is very middle heavy.

If you know the world and look at this situation in a macro way its completely clear why the US is the way it is.

[Dreamline]

The difference between US university and US public high school is that university is based on the choice of the student based on their interests, and US public high school is a set curriculum that caters to, basically, the lowest common denominator in a misguided effort to offer an "equal" opportunity.

So let the kids pick their path.

Jennifer

[Lauxa]

Hi WordKeeper,

I was swinging by today to start a topic on almost the very same subject! My kids are 5 and 3 and I'm very concerned about the current state of the American educational "system".

First, I think it is hugely inefficient for teachers to keep recreating the same lectures over and over again. I mean, there are hundreds of thousands of teachers giving lectures on nearly identical topics at schools all throughout the country. I think it would be better to produce a handful of really, really good lectures on that topic and then reuse them for all students.

I think you might be interested in this website for math:
Khan Academy

Here's one for health:
KidsHealth - the Web's most visited site about children's health

Check out the Periodic Table of Videos on YouTube for learning about the elements:
YouTube - Broadcast Yourself.

As for experiments, there's the "hovercraft" made from a CD and a balloon (YouTube - Make Toy CD Hovercraft). I managed the electric pickle (YouTube - Dr. Bittner and The Electric Pickle 2). Also demonstrating surface tension with food coloring and milk (YouTube - Magic Milk - Amazing Trick!!!). Mr. Wizard would probably be a good resource for all sorts of experiments, including ones you could not realistically do in your own home.

[Brutha]

6. America is a 3 class system
7. Most of the world is a 2 class system

What do you mean with the term 3 class system?

[Still Growing]

Originally Posted by Brutha

What do you mean with the term 3 class system?

Brutha,

In terms of income the US has a larger lower class than Germany percentage wise. The US also has a larger upper class percentage wise than Germany.

Its almost as if the system in the US makes the rich richer and the poor poorer when compared to Germany.

So in essence the US has a more distinct 3 income class system.
I hope you get my meaning here and don't take it the wrong way.

[Still Growing]

Dreamline, Very good point

Lauxa, Also a good point. You know I can imagine a day whereby we have less teachers and we use video showing outstanding teachers on a large screen that does professional presentations. Then the teachers in the classroom could pause and ask questions and make additional comments.

Each student could be exposed to the best teachers in the world.

I think there's a way to keep it moving and not boring too. With recorded videos they could incorporate animals, cartoon characters and so forth. In geography they actually feel like they were there for example.

[Lauxa]

Originally Posted by Still Growing

Lauxa, Also a good point. You know I can imagine a day whereby we have less teachers and we use video showing outstanding teachers on a large screen that does professional presentations. Then the teachers in the classroom could pause and ask questions and make additional comments.

Each student could be exposed to the best teachers in the world.

I think there's a way to keep it moving and not boring too. With recorded videos they could incorporate animals, cartoon characters and so forth. In geography they actually feel like they were there for example.

Yes, but I think that if every student had their own computer station and could go through the videos at their own pace it would be even better than a large classroom watching the same videos at the same pace. One student may catch on very quickly and another needs more clarification, one may be interested in delving into some topic in more depth while another finds the subject boring and just wants to gain the minimum requirement.

[Brutha]

So in essence the US has a more distinct 3 income class system.

I thought you were talking about the education system, but you are right that the distince between rich and poor is much greater in the US.

I however don't think that you can solve the problem of the education system primarily by videos of good lectures.
I rather think that interaction more important for learning. By it through solving problems and having discussions or be it through games.

[YourHumbleNarrator]

Originally Posted by Still Growing

Dreamline, Very good point

Lauxa, Also a good point. You know I can imagine a day whereby we have less teachers and we use video showing outstanding teachers on a large screen that does professional presentations. Then the teachers in the classroom could pause and ask questions and make additional comments.

Each student could be exposed to the best teachers in the world.

It doesn't matter if you have a video recording of the best teachers in the world, if it's not specifically tailored to the student's needs it won't be anymore effective than what we do now.

We don't need the best teachers in the world, we need competent adults that engage the kids. We don't need gimmicks like animals and cartoon characters, we need teaching methods that produce measurable results and relate to real-life problems kids can solve. (The biggest problem I had in school is that the work was so meaningless. Do this math equation, fill in the blank- why? "Because you're supposed to" and "just do it" are not acceptable answers, nor is, "it will be useful in the future." I always thought, "than why don't I learn it then?")

Most importantly, kids need to stop being schooled in what to think and instead how to think. (Which is pretty simple- get out of the way and they'll think on their own.) When all the questions are already written down and all the thoughts are blanks to be filled in you're left with a system that teaches people how to perform well only within the context of that system. Originality is lost and so too are the vast resources that could be produced by competent, whole individuals.

Personally I think all this talk about educational reform is futile. School does exactly what it's supposed to do- force people into a mold best suited for the corporate world. You are to be a good employee, not an enlightened person. People cannot and will never become educated that way. Unless it's redesigned from the ground up to serve people instead of corporations we will never be rid of the problems we experience today.

[Brutha]

School does exactly what it's supposed to do- force people into a mold best suited for the corporate world.

I don't think that school does a good job at the task of preparing people for the corporate world.
Analysing poems is for example a skill that only very few people will need in their working life.

we need teaching methods that produce measurable results

That depends on how you unterstand that goal. The quest for measurable results lead in the US to an increase in overall testing through ideas like no-child-left-behind.

The call for measurable results leads to focus on those thing that can be easily measured.

[YourHumbleNarrator]

Originally Posted by Brutha

I don't think that school does a good job at the task of preparing people for the corporate world.
Analysing poems is for example a skill that only very few people will need in their working life.

Yes, but it's boring and tedious to the student that isn't passionate about it, just like working in the corporate environment.

Even the student that is passionate about it would be better served by doing it on his own time. School often limits the thoughts you are allowed to think.

That depends on how you unterstand that goal. The quest for measurable results lead in the US to an increase in overall testing through ideas like no-child-left-behind.

The call for measurable results leads to focus on those thing that can be easily measured.

In this case, I meant measurable as in the child can easily apply what they learn. The ability to do something with knowledge is far more important than how they rank on tests. While it's far more subjective it's also easier to identify.

[jeff3]

Originally Posted by Dreamline

I had an aptitude and respect for natural science, environmental science, physics and architecture/design at an early age. Even by the age of two, to hear my parents talk about it. What disinterested me was political science, history and social sciences. Of course, being in a typical American public school, the concentrations were diluted so that the students could get a well-rounded education, which I think is a great idea on a certain level. (I mean how would you know you loved social science if you had never been exposed to it?)

However, when there is a clear aptitude in one direction or another, it seems that children should be encouraged to go in that direction even if it means eliminating a semester, here and there, of courses that do not meet their personal needs. Somewhere in those 12 years, customization should be possible.

Or one could follow the example of the KIPP schools. Hard, hard work. Serious discipline and long, long hours. But those kids don't even have time to play.

Jennifer

I agree also that kids should be able to follow their natural strengths.

[Brutha]

In this case, I meant measurable as in the child can easily apply what they learn. The ability to do something with knowledge is far more important than how they rank on tests.

That still leaves the question of how you will measure whether someone has the ability to do something.

Yes, but it's boring and tedious to the student that isn't passionate about it

I really don't think that anyone involved in education reform likes making things boring.

It's rather that people want teaching methods that produce measurable results.
That means that teachers can't make up their own methods on the spot and be flexible but instead have to use well defined methods.
It also creates a focus on tests that measure results.
Individuality hasn't much to do with using methods that produce measurable results.
Bill Gates does a good job at presenting the ideal of methods that produce measurable results through increased testing.
The idea is on a certain level persuasive and therefore it has political support.

Poem analysis gets taught because English teachers take English at university and at universtiy English is about literary analysis.
English professors push their postmodern theories about literature at English teachers and afterwards the childs have to suffer in school.
It's similar in most subjects where you get the knowledge that professors treat as the basics in their field instead of knowledge that's actually useful to the average person.

[YourHumbleNarrator]

Originally Posted by Brutha

I really don't think that anyone involved in education reform likes making things boring.

Oh I've no doubt that people intent on reforming the system don't want to make school boring but it's unlikely they'll ever succeed without starting from scratch. The system was designed from the ground up to meet the needs of an industrialist society, or rather the companies that run an industrialist society. Whether or not the things school teaches have anything to do with the corporate work environment is of little consequence considering how well it emulates it. School is the combination of an office job and a prison, perfect for shaping kids into what they are supposed to be and totally ineffective for educating them.

I'm not crying "conspiracy theory!" and I'm not positing that those in charge somehow want to keep us oppressed. I'm saying the system has taken on a life of its own and that changing a few variables (like how kids are tested) is like rearranging chairs on the Titanic.

I can see that "measurable results" is a loaded phrase so I'll avoid using it at all costs. Measuring basic competency isn't difficult, people just have to be allowed to use their own intuition instead of relying on so-called scientific methods like testing. A kid that can read well and a kid that can barely read at all are both easily identifiable, as are those who are good at math, or philosophy, and so on.

I think one of the key problems is our current approach is too scientific, as if people can be broken down into numbers and formulas, perfectly predictable under the right variables. When people think that's the case and we run into a child that can't learn the way school wants to teach them then it's a problem with the kid and not the system, yet the sheer number of kids who are having problems suggests that the system isn't working for them. And that's why it has a life of its own- we've adopted a mindset that makes us hellbent on serving the system instead of doing what's best for us, mistaking its well-being for our own.

A big step in the right direction would be for more schools to emulate Sudbury Valley. Make schools a place where students are free to study whatever they wish whenever they wish with competent adults on hand whenever they need help or encouragement toward some end. Most importantly, discourage the mindset that learning is restricted to the classroom. There's a huge problem when people won't even sneeze unless they're told to. Independence and freedom are integral to a quality education (especially in America where we pay lip service to those virtues) and any education that not only discourages but seems to actively destroy the adventurous spirit within children is no education at all.

[Brutha]

The system was designed from the ground up to meet the needs of an industrialist society, or rather the companies that run an industrialist society.

The companies thatrun an industrialist society never designed the system from the ground up.
If they would, you wouldn't have things like analysis of poems and a lot more classes on reading financial statements.

The little amount of desing that went into the system was made by academics, school teachers and politicians and all three groups usually aren't payed by the private sector.

I can see that "measurable results" is a loaded phrase so I'll avoid using it at all costs. Measuring basic competency isn't difficult, people just have to be allowed to use their own intuition instead of relying on so-called scientific methods like testing. A kid that can read well and a kid that can barely read at all are both easily identifiable, as are those who are good at math, or philosophy, and so on.

Distinguishing people who are really bad at something from people who are average isn't hard.
Distinguishing people who are good from people who are great is hard especially if the teacher isn't great himself and as they say:
He who can does, he who cannot teaches.
It's difficult to identify someone who is extremly good at philosophy if that person additionally happens to be ahead of his time.
And that's what being young and being extremly good is all about, being ahead of your time.

[YourHumbleNarrator]

Originally Posted by Brutha

The companies thatrun an industrialist society never designed the system from the ground up.
If they would, you wouldn't have things like analysis of poems and a lot more classes on reading financial statements.

The little amount of desing that went into the system was made by academics, school teachers and politicians and all three groups usually aren't payed by the private sector.

The philosophies of the private sector had a lot to do with it. (ie, Andrew Carnegie's "Gospel of Wealth") They're also the ones who funded it. People like the Rockefellers played a big role in bringing us modern education.

We also imported many ideas from the Prussian school of thought. You could argue we practically copied their system. It was designed to dumb students down and make them submissive, so no matter our intent for copying them we'd be stupid to expect otherwise from our own system. (Speaking as an American.)

Distinguishing people who are really bad at something from people who are average isn't hard.
Distinguishing people who are good from people who are great is hard especially if the teacher isn't great himself

I don't think it's the role of any institution to define who is and isn't great. (Does that contradict my earlier post? If so, I must amend my thoughts, and this is my clarification.) Greatness lies in the realm of subjectivity. Sometimes people can sense it and sometimes they can't. I believe it's up to the individual to bring it out in themselves and make the world take notice. Our duty is to make them competent. It's up to them how far they refine their skillset.

[Brutha]

(Speaking as an American.)

I know that you American sometimes have issues with European geography.
Berlin, the city I'm living in was the capital of Prussia.
As a result I'm a bit more familar with Prussian history and values than the average American.

We also imported many ideas from the Prussian school of thought. You could argue we practically copied their system.

The Prussian system just wasn't created during the industrialism but earlier.
People like Wilhelm von Humboldt who had a lot of influence on the development of the educational system in the the 19th century didn't thought that the goal of education was to make people submissive and dumb then down.

I don't think it's the role of any institution to define who is and isn't great. (Does that contradict my earlier post?

How can an institution measure whether it's methods produce great people when it can't measure who's great?

[Lauxa]

YHN,

I do agree that kids need to be free to pursue their own interests, but I also think there's nothing wrong with institutionalizing a body of knowledge and giving kids some reward when they master it (such as a high school diploma). I also think that most kids could master it in less than half the time it takes today (7 hours a day for 13 years) leaving valuable hours free for building things, experimenting, and gathering less-measurable but more-important skills.

To the extent that facts can be memorized and tested, computers could help with both the memory drills and the testing. To the extent that knowledge must be organically acquired from pursuit of passion, schools need to get out of the way.

[CoolBee]

As a former data analyst and manager of teams of data analysts - I can only cry at the dreadful low level of basic numeracy in the British population - even amongst university graduates.

Getting hold of people who understand how to calculate % is nigh on impossible:
(Eg I set a basic test for potential recruits -

Q1 what is 15% of 100? - use your head or calculator or scratch paper as you like. Nearly EVERYONE got the SAME WRONG ANSWER 6.67!!!! Took me AGES to figure out why!

Q8 inflation this year is 5%. Last year it was 6%. Does this mean (a) things are getting cheaper (b) things are the same price (c) things are getting more expensive.
Most people put (a) thus explaining news interviews with random old biddies on the street saying things like "they say inflations going down, but the prices are still going up" (and I am an old biddy before anyone jumps down my throat!)

I always believed that if, instead of saying to kids, "you can leave school at 16" (or whatever age you have in your country), you incentivize them by saying "you can leave school as soon as you pass this diploma" (with the requisite minimum body of knowledge the big hats decide is relevant at the time) and until you pass it, you stay there (unless of course there is some medical / developmental evidence why that is never going to happen).

Instead of stack loads of illiterate, innumerate 16 year olds tumbling out at the end of Year 11 we would probably have a bunch of much more literate and numerate 12 year olds coming out on the streets -and what to do with them is another discussion entirely. You can bet we wouldn't have a load of illiterate 25 year olds still sat there throwing paper darts (or real ones) at the teacher.

[Lauxa]

[LEFT]

Originally Posted by CoolBee

Q1 what is 15% of 100? - use your head or calculator or scratch paper as you like. Nearly EVERYONE got the SAME WRONG ANSWER 6.67!!!! Took me AGES to figure out why!

Why? Oh... 100/15

"potential recruits" for what? A data analyst position? And they couldn't solve a percentage of 100? sad...

[Cyllya]

You're complaining that your kid didn't do division in second grade? Wowzers, my school didn't do division until the latter part of fifth grade, and that seemed perfectly fine to me. I think in second grade we were working on subtraction. I can divide just fine.

I'm generally the last person to defend American public school, but it seemed to me that my schools (in Arizona, which I hear is rated the worst state education-wise) did in fact present us with all the important "academic" information. The problems with it were:
1) It was one big pre-made package for 13 years. One size fits most. Yeah, there were classes for the "gifted" and classes for the "learning disabled" and eventually a bunch of optional classes... but if someone wanted to learn division at age 5 and wait a few years to worry about reading, he's out of luck.
2) Some students were unable or unwilling to absorb the information given to them. People were definitely told how to figure out 15% of 100!
3) So much wasted time. TONS of repeated info, downtime in class, classroom management stuff like attendance or lining up to go to change rooms, etc. I think I could have gotten my entire 13-year-long education in five years or less if I'd had a private tutor coming to my home.
4) Lack of not-so-academic critical life skills.

But it seems like any education reform discussions don't address all this stuff, especially #3.

[Brutha]

3) So much wasted time. TONS of repeated info, downtime in class, classroom management stuff like attendance or lining up to go to change rooms, etc.

Repetition is key for memory.
Pauses are also good for memory.