97% of High School Students Fail Basic Test
- Thread starter TheLastMohican
- Start date
It is the curriculum that does not work here in the States. Our curriculum is not rigorous and doesn't expect much from the students. In public school, I found that students could get by with very poor performance. It has to start from a very early age. From first grade, the bar needs to be raised higher and we need to engage our children in learning. Our teachers will need more training to learn new ways of teaching. Parents MUST become involved and nurture their kids. The breakdown of the family unit, (not necessarily mom, dad, and 2.5 kids and Fido, but a family with STRUCTURE, RULES, EXPECTATIONS, and MOST OF ALL, LOVE.) What happened to eating dinner at the table, btw??
In public school I rarely was assigned homework that required more than a couple hours' time per week. Private school was much different. At first, I had to overcome a learning curve since I was used to public school. After that, I learned that I am capable of so much more. I found out what I can really do. It wasn't just me, even the "dumb" kids in my private school could outsmart the average public school student.
I find that parents like to make excuses such as, "That kind of school will make my kids want to drop out." I completely disagree. It is my opinion that parents are raising incredibly lazy kids and are teaching them that they don't have to do anything they don't like. I'm sorry, but life is full of doing things we don't "feel" like doing. That is reality. My college professors seem very frustrated when the students show this type of attitude. Most of our assignments aren't difficult, they are just time consuming. These assignments are character building and create working knowledge of the material instead of having students spit back facts from a textbook. Where is that going to get anyone in the real world? Nowhere.
I realize a lot of you may think I'm overly strict and judgmental. Yes, I'm judgmental. Hence infJ. When I have kids, I will not overly stress them, but they will learn how to think and be responsible. Our country is becoming less bright on the world stage and it all boils down to our education system.
In public school I rarely was assigned homework that required more than a couple hours' time per week. Private school was much different. At first, I had to overcome a learning curve since I was used to public school. After that, I learned that I am capable of so much more. I found out what I can really do. It wasn't just me, even the "dumb" kids in my private school could outsmart the average public school student.
I find that parents like to make excuses such as, "That kind of school will make my kids want to drop out." I completely disagree. It is my opinion that parents are raising incredibly lazy kids and are teaching them that they don't have to do anything they don't like. I'm sorry, but life is full of doing things we don't "feel" like doing. That is reality. My college professors seem very frustrated when the students show this type of attitude. Most of our assignments aren't difficult, they are just time consuming. These assignments are character building and create working knowledge of the material instead of having students spit back facts from a textbook. Where is that going to get anyone in the real world? Nowhere.
I realize a lot of you may think I'm overly strict and judgmental. Yes, I'm judgmental. Hence infJ. When I have kids, I will not overly stress them, but they will learn how to think and be responsible. Our country is becoming less bright on the world stage and it all boils down to our education system.
I would agree to Ketsugi. Often I hear from people who moved from here to US or west Europe that there's a sharp drop in academic requirements at schools. Children are given less complex tasks and the difference in curriculum itself can be up to two grades. Also less homework and less penalties for underperfomance.
Anyway it indicates that the problem is not the nature of funding for schools but in standards that are set up.
Anyway it indicates that the problem is not the nature of funding for schools but in standards that are set up.
The problem with public education is the way they are funded. We have national achievement goals which force the schools to educate to pass a standardized test rather than to prepare for life after 17-18 years of age. If a certain number of students don't reach a certain percentage, schools loose funding. That's just what we don't need. The schools that fail are the ones in trouble as it is, why punish them more by cutting funding. The teachers often times feel forced to pass the students because if they don't, the school looses funding. Our public education system is set up to educate to the level of the lowest learner. Rather than letting the better students achievements drag the lower ones along, everything is dumbed down so the slackers can pass. I don't buy into that American kids or public school kids are lazy by nature; we're allowing them to be lazy. We let them do next to nothing and get away with it. It's sad to think that we fund education by benchmarks rather than advancements. We have to give the schools and the kids the chance and tools (ie. no more free rides and passing with D's) to improve rather than expecting it to just happen. Setting harder standards isn't going to improve the situation, it's just going to force more kids to drop out. We have to raise standards and overhaul the system of how we look at education. We shouldn't flunk schools because they have students flunking. It's not the school's job to motivate, it's the school's job first and foremost to educate.
Oh come on! Anyone with a junior high level civic education should know the answer to these questions, or should know at least enough to pass.
Personally, I think the problem is and always has been compulsory curriculums. At best they're an absolute joke and at worst they're a crime against learning, because by their very nature they destroy the natural learning process.
Here's a thread over on infpverse covering some of the reasons why I think that: http://infpverse.freeforums.org/education-t343.html
Here's a thread over on infpverse covering some of the reasons why I think that: http://infpverse.freeforums.org/education-t343.html
I like your ideas.
Personally I feel there needs to be some compulsory curriculum (such as a year or two of math, lit, sciences, and history) in the highschool levels to ensure a basic foundation, but in no way a compulsory curriculum that is in effect in many places now. It's not our future, it's theirs, and they should have the means to shape it. Not everyone is cut out to go to a 4 year university and could/would benefit from having more options in the way of classes, such as access to training for trade jobs.
I don't think you need to make those subjects compulsory, most unschoolers do just fine in them without any compulsion being involved.
I do think that there should be some form of checking system to ensure that students aren't falling too far behind though (different students are always going to learn different subjects at different paces, so there needs to be a certain degree of leeway), but wherever possible that checking system should not take the form of standardised tests, because then you're just recreating your original problem (albeit to a lesser degree).
You're right, mf, it's our parents and schools that make people lazy here.
I'll tell ya, mf, I went to a fancy public school in white surburban America...clearly no funding issues, but many curriculum issues.
However, the schools in the inner city are failing miserably. We need to increase funding to those schools while AT THE SAME time improve the condition of the inner cities so decent families will stay and keep their kids in school. That's just the tip of the iceberg though.
I'll tell ya, mf, I went to a fancy public school in white surburban America...clearly no funding issues, but many curriculum issues.
However, the schools in the inner city are failing miserably. We need to increase funding to those schools while AT THE SAME time improve the condition of the inner cities so decent families will stay and keep their kids in school. That's just the tip of the iceberg though.
You have to have compulsory courses. Every student must show sufficient understanding in each area. It is not really about knowing facts and being bookish, though that helps create a well-rounded knowledge. Each subject builds on different ways of thinking. People in the USA complain that math is compulsory. Again, complaining they "just don't like it." Too damn bad. It builds the analytical part of the brain which is extremely important. Just imagine if we didn't make English compulsory because people hated that, too. You can argue that English is a basic skill, but I will argue that analytical thinking SHOULD be a basic skill and it really necessary in life.
I am 10 years older than my classmates at Uni. I see a lot of "but I just suck at this or that" or "give the middle finger to the man" attitude in perfectly capable kids. I see very little get up and go and "let's do it" attitude.
I am 10 years older than my classmates at Uni. I see a lot of "but I just suck at this or that" or "give the middle finger to the man" attitude in perfectly capable kids. I see very little get up and go and "let's do it" attitude.
So true. There is a lot of a defeatist mentality by the time students reach post high school education. I think you could make the arguement that it ties back to elementary and high schools where the kids are enabled to think in such a way.
Read the link I posted, plus this one that I posted in one of the other threads, plus anything you can get your hands on by John Holt, John Taylor Gatto and Grace Llewellyn.
Compulsory curriculums actively interfere with the natural learning process, the "laziness" we see in many children today towards learning is a direct result of this.
When children are allowed to learn what they want to learn, how they want to learn it and when they want to learn it, they learn what they truly need to know, and the more basic that knowledge is the sooner they learn it, because the sooner it is that they need it.
I find the idea of this unschooling you brought up interesting for early education but I'm weary of it beyond the age of 8 or so. I wonder where parents have the resources for this, and if kids will actually learn the things they need to know to operate in the real world. Sure it's great in concept, but who would want to hire someone without formal education? (I'm not saying that's the right approach or that I'm looking down on people with an unschooling background, but we live in the real world around us and people generally speaking hire on credentials, one of which being a formal education).
Naturally, parents who can afford better resources for their kids are going to be able to provide better opportunities for them, but it's perhaps surprising just how much is out there that can be attained on a budget.
Libraries are a powerful tool for real learning, especially as most of them (in the West at least) now provide internet access too. Plus there are all the free museums and galleries available, and for stuff like lab equipment and the like, lots of stuff can be gotten on the cheap through second hand sources and through the gift of the gab (there are examples of unschoolers being allowed to use university equipment, and quite a few states have legislation in place that allows unschoolers to attend school for specific lessons, or allows them access to lab or sports equipment etc.).
As for requiring a formal education, as I said in the other thread, it is far from rare for universites to accept unschooled students, and you can ask pretty much any employer in the world and they'll tell you that actual experience is a far more valuable and attractive quality in a potential employee than a formal education (though obviously some jobs need certain qualifications that can only be attained through formal means), something that unschoolers can have a head-start on because they aren't wasting their time in school learning next to nothing, they can actually get out there and volunteer or apprentice in the chosen sphere. Plus employers love enthusiasm in their potential employees, which naturally comes more readily to those who are following a particular path because they love it, and not just because it's what they are "supposed" to be doing.
To each his own I guess. I just personally have a hard time buying it. Most parents simply don't have the time to homeschool, or unschool, their children. And I've never heard in my experience or anyone I know (and I'm not trying to justify against unschool because of my experience), an employer who would higher someone without a highschool diploma. I find it hard to believe that unschooling would lead to success in the modern world (success only in the sense of personal economics and being able to support ones self) or that the people you cite aren't rare examples. I addimittly know next to nothing about unschooling, these are just my initial reactions to it.
The problem is how do they know what they do not know? Do you think a 12 year old would have any idea what skills would be necessary when he/she reaches 30?
Removing compulsory education would also encourage them to take just the easy subjects. And no pain - no gain. A child can also have some mental blocks that he/she is not good at certain subject and therefore would try to unnecessary avoid it.
Math is supposed to interfere with natural learning for the good because it enhances analytical thinking
That's okay, you're perfectly justified in feeling that way. If you were the kind of guy who bought into something after reading a handful of posts by some dude on the internet then I'd have a deed to the Brooklyn Bridge you might have been interested in.
But as far as employability of financial security for unschoolers goes, research into this subject is limited (which isn't surprising, homeschooling itself isn't exactly common and unschooling is rarer still) but what studies have been done suggest that there is no difference in achievement levels between homeschoolers and unschoolers, and a study which was conducted back in the '90's (which I'm sorry to say the source of which eludes me) found that of those home and unschoolers tested, not one of them was claiming any kind of unemployment benefit. They were all either self-employed, working for someone else, or still studying/living at home with their parents (most home/unschoolers are in their teens, so again that's not surprising).
I must admit I'm surprised to hear about your experience with employers wanting/needing to see a high school diploma before they hire someone. In the UK the equivalent of the high school diploma is pretty much worthless scrap paper, employers rarely give school results a second glance, they are far more interested in your previous experience.
Perhaps it's different in the States, but it's also worth taking into account that home/unschooling is so uncommon that this issue doesn't often come up. Most people who don't have a high school diploma usually don't have one because they dropped out of school and then just sat around the house all day doing nothing (or attended but didn't bother with the work), which doesn't make them particularly appealing to an employer.
Unschooling is all about doing things, usually far more than you get done in school because school wastes so much time on pointless busy-work and classroom management. Depending on what you've done and how well you've documented it (and what job you're applying for, obviously) that can have a huge impact on your appeal to a potential employer.
Tamagochi said:The problem is how do they know what they do not know? Do you think a 12 year old would have any idea what skills would be necessary when he/she reaches 30?
Removing compulsory education would also encourage them to take just the easy subjects. And no pain - no gain. A child can also have some mental blocks that he/she is not good at certain subject and therefore would try to unnecessary avoid it.
Math is supposed to interfere with natural learning for the good because it enhances analytical thinking
Something that always confuses me about our society is why we continually hold children to completely different standards to the rest of us, standards that IMO are completely unreasonable.
If I asked you now what skills you would need 18 years from now, could you honestly give me a good answer? I know I couldn't answer that question, and I doubt most adults could. This is because we know that life is far too complex and changeable to be able to predict that far ahead in any kind of detail, we know that we as people are also too complex and changeable for that, who we are now is not who we will be 18 years from now, our priorities, needs and wants and therefore the skills we "need to know" will probably be very different from what we think they will be and from what they are now. If we know this is true for adults, why do we expect it to be any different for children?
There are dozens if not hundreds of testimonies from unschoolers that removing compulsory subjects does not encourage people to choose "easy" subjects, because when you're not working towards a grade there's no such thing as an easy subject. What would be the point in learning a so-called "easier" subject that you hate or dislike when there's no grade at the end to make it worth the time? Unschoolers learn the things they are interested in, and follow them as far as their interest and talent takes them regardless of how "difficult" or "hard" that subject is considered to be.
As far as mental blocks go, many of those blocks are caused by schools through the grading system. If you do badly in a subject, you get punished (in compulsory education failure by a student to learn something is rarely considered the teachers' fault, the blame is almost always shifted to the student), the student then associates the subject with feeling bad, the grades "prove" that they aren't any good at it (even though grades only ever test how well you can do the test, not how well you know the subject), and so they try to avoid that subject.
In an unschooling environment students can approach any subject in any way they choose. This removes any negative feelings towards a subject as there is now no "wrong" way to learn something, the only thing that matters is knowing the subject well enough to meet their own requirements. Students are much more willing to explore subjects that they might otherwise have considered themselves "bad" at and tried to avoid if they are freed from unreasonable expectations in this way.
As for your comment about maths, I must admit I'm a little confused about that. When did the natural learning process and analytical thinking become mutually exclusive?
Anyway, all I can ask is that no-one makes up their minds about this topic without reading up on it first. Even if you don't agree with it completely I'm convinced you'll take some useful things from it that you can apply to your preferred method of education.
*Nod* to most of what everyone's added here.
I'm also adding something new to the mix.
I work in higher education, and I often see students who've come directly from high school or community college to a four-year institution. Our biggest problem in the four-year colleges is the retention rate. How do we retain students? How do we keep them going to school for a full four years?
Sadly, community colleges (junior colleges) are more of an extension of high school; they pick up the slack and teach students in two years what they should've already learned in high school. But even the community colleges have failure rates, because I often see a gap in learning between community college and our four year institutions. Even the junior colleges are dumbing things down for the four year institutions.
When I first went to college way back in the late 80s, pre-calculus was a requirement for students. And you had to get *up* to pre-cal. Now, I sucked at math so I wasn't looking forward to it. By the time I graduated all I needed was a college level math above college algebra (business calculus). Now, all students need in our college is either statistics or a "survey of math" course that includes lower level maths and college level maths.
Liberal arts colleges will teach more about the arts while science and tech schools will teach more about the hard sciences and maths. But we have so many choices in our country that a student doesn't need the basics anymore.
Grad school is out of reach for many students because they didn't do well in the basics of their course work.
What saddens me still more is the trend of "just getting by" continues in college. Some students have to fight to maintain a 2.0 GPA, and 2.0 is the minimum standard for the minimum requirements in the bare minimum departments. Shoot. It frustrates me to see students bailing out of the College of Business because COBA requires a 2.5 from their students to succeed. That's Bs and Cs, folks!
It *has* to start changing on the lower levels. We're losing generations of people to stupidity because 1. Parents aren't getting involved sooner in their child's education and 2. The schools are prepping for tests rather than teaching students. Phonics was one of the basics. Now you have to learn phonics at home, with your family. Senior and junior level math in high schools used to teach calculus. Now they teach Algebra I, and that's all you're required to take - and even sometimes that's a joke.
But the third ugly is government programs. We see time and time again that private institutions and Montessori schools and homeschoolers consistently out perform public school students in the US, but the government refuses to change their model. I was fortunate with my public high school because it was in a very small town and it didn't pull any punches with studying or grades. They *pushed* you to think critically while still retaining the arts and music programs.
Ahh, dear. This won't be solved any time soon. If we decide to reform education it will be a *nightmare* fight. You cannot resolve this problem by creating a new government program. What we need is a total overhaul of the system that allows school districts to teach - and also forces the instructors to inspire students to learn and enjoy learning.
I'm also adding something new to the mix.
I work in higher education, and I often see students who've come directly from high school or community college to a four-year institution. Our biggest problem in the four-year colleges is the retention rate. How do we retain students? How do we keep them going to school for a full four years?
Sadly, community colleges (junior colleges) are more of an extension of high school; they pick up the slack and teach students in two years what they should've already learned in high school. But even the community colleges have failure rates, because I often see a gap in learning between community college and our four year institutions. Even the junior colleges are dumbing things down for the four year institutions.
When I first went to college way back in the late 80s, pre-calculus was a requirement for students. And you had to get *up* to pre-cal. Now, I sucked at math so I wasn't looking forward to it. By the time I graduated all I needed was a college level math above college algebra (business calculus). Now, all students need in our college is either statistics or a "survey of math" course that includes lower level maths and college level maths.
Liberal arts colleges will teach more about the arts while science and tech schools will teach more about the hard sciences and maths. But we have so many choices in our country that a student doesn't need the basics anymore.
Grad school is out of reach for many students because they didn't do well in the basics of their course work.
What saddens me still more is the trend of "just getting by" continues in college. Some students have to fight to maintain a 2.0 GPA, and 2.0 is the minimum standard for the minimum requirements in the bare minimum departments. Shoot. It frustrates me to see students bailing out of the College of Business because COBA requires a 2.5 from their students to succeed. That's Bs and Cs, folks!
It *has* to start changing on the lower levels. We're losing generations of people to stupidity because 1. Parents aren't getting involved sooner in their child's education and 2. The schools are prepping for tests rather than teaching students. Phonics was one of the basics. Now you have to learn phonics at home, with your family. Senior and junior level math in high schools used to teach calculus. Now they teach Algebra I, and that's all you're required to take - and even sometimes that's a joke.
But the third ugly is government programs. We see time and time again that private institutions and Montessori schools and homeschoolers consistently out perform public school students in the US, but the government refuses to change their model. I was fortunate with my public high school because it was in a very small town and it didn't pull any punches with studying or grades. They *pushed* you to think critically while still retaining the arts and music programs.
Ahh, dear. This won't be solved any time soon. If we decide to reform education it will be a *nightmare* fight. You cannot resolve this problem by creating a new government program. What we need is a total overhaul of the system that allows school districts to teach - and also forces the instructors to inspire students to learn and enjoy learning.
S
Shai Gar
Arby. Homework for you.
Write me a year 1 - 4, 5 - 8, 9 - 12 educational curriculum, that teaches.
Write me a year 1 - 4, 5 - 8, 9 - 12 educational curriculum, that teaches.