What can we do to help improve science education in the US?

Why not just change the fact that a diploma means that the student learned something in stead of regressing further to standardized tests, and simply accepting a lack of educational standards?

0 Replies

The kid that I was mentor to last year had uncaring parents. Many times he would come to school wearing a jacket when it was hot. I finally found out from the school nurse that he did not have a shirt under the jacket because his mother or father did not do the laundry. This is sick.

His father was in and out of jail as was his grandfather who lived with them. He told me that his grandfather beat his grandmother and that is why he lived with him. Generation after generation after generation.

When we would go to the cafeteria for lunch, he would just get his food and not eat a bite and that includes his dissert.

The kid I'm mentoring this year told me that his father is in prison. I don't know why, but I suppose he will tell me someday.

Parents don't expect so they don't get!!!!!!

0 Replies

I always avoided the "hard" science courses in high school (chem and physics) because I was not a strong math student, and much of the information was a bit too technical for me.

In college, they offered physics on four levels. I took "Conceptual Physics" which did not get involved with math at all, and I loved it.

I dont know why there can't be science courses in even elementary school and high school that is not geared to the scientific amongst us, but simply a student who wants a basic knowledge of the discipline!

0 Replies

Geez, Texan! I thought my life was bad!

Great point, Phoenix! I think that's one thing that could improve things, at least for the students who prefer other subjects. Of course, I always liked science, but I had to stick to the classes handed to me until high school when I was allowed to begin choosing what level (to an extent) of the classes I took.

0 Replies

Eastree wrote:

Why not just change the fact that a diploma means that the student learned something in stead of regressing further to standardized tests, and simply accepting a lack of educational standards?

Great, but what exactly does a diploma mean that they learned?

This used to be, I think, the typical view. A diploma meant that the student had a basic set of skills/knowledge. Then the education system started skewing off to meet the demands of every special interest group in the book and people got diplomas that meant nothing. Schools got used to shape social/political whims instead of sticking to educating people.

I have a sister who is mentally retarded and she was "mainstreamed' into the public school system. She has a diploma from the high school in the town where we grew up that is identical in every way to the diploma that was hiven to every other kid. But her high-school courses consisted for 4 years of study hall. After graduation she was put in a "sheltered workshop" because she was unable to function in a "normal" work environment. After 2 years there it became aparent that she was unable to even take care of her own basic living needs and she was moved into a group assisted living facility. She's been living there ever since and it is unlikely that she will ever be able to live outside of that type of facility.

But she has a diploma by god!

Standardized testing isn't a regression. It is the method (or at least it is intended to be..) of letting people know what the diploma means and that the holder actually met the educational standard. Testing isn't a perfect solution but until all of the other negative influences on the education system are eliminated it is the only way to know that the diploma actually stands for something.

0 Replies

I was referring to ye110man's previous post, which said

Quote:

kids these days don't need to learn anything to graduate. all that a high school diploma shows in this country, is that you attended the minimum required classes.

The standardized tests I had to take in high school didn't amount to anything, and I would have been able to pass them in my sophomore year (at least the group assessment type of test). The difficult tests were still not very difficult because the writers of the test assumed no one had really remembered much and therefore the answers were made almost too obvious. My diploma doesn't mean I only met the minimum requirements, but at the same time it does (this is basically the same for all the students who take more than what is necessary to graduate or go to a state school -- I exceeded both, as did and as do many). I was trying to emphasize both points. Standardized testing can be a great tool. But in many cases, the thing it has become is only a pass-all way to excuse many people into slipping through the cracks.

Quote:

as for science in particular, i don't think there's enough emphasis on engineering. the new york educational system has taught me hold to mix chemicals but never taught me what an ohm was.

I found this particularly interesting. I used to think strictly that everyone should have the same aptitudes as I did -- but at the same time, before I really thought anything to say about it, Phoenix32890 said

Quote:

In college, they offered physics on four levels. I took "Conceptual Physics" which did not get involved with math at all, and I loved it.

Well, I think this type of class could better fit into the place of the standard physical science I had to take in high school -- it covered the basics, but only theory and mathematics. A lot of people did not understand what was going on even at such a basic level. It's not saying anything about anyone except that sometimes a different angle is required, and deep understanding is not necessary for everyone. About the Ohm statement, why would an accountant, for example, need to know about resistance on the job? Any hobby is great, but that's not the point. However it would benefit the accountant to have a basic understanding of how electronics work, in the line of application rather than simply theory. Of course, what is application without enough theory to back it up?

And BTW, I apologize for my previous haste in response.

0 Replies

an accountant doesn't need to know shakespeare either. but i think basic electrial engineering would be far more useful to far more people than learning to mix chemicals.

as for standarized testing, you have to set the bar somewhere. currently in new york you only need to physically go to class to get a diploma. and sometimes not even that. if you drop out of high school entirely, there's always the GED. we set the bar so low then ask why foreign students are better educated.

0 Replies

ye110man wrote:

an accountant doesn't need to know shakespeare either. but i think basic electrial engineering would be far more useful to far more people than learning to mix chemicals.

as for standarized testing, you have to set the bar somewhere. currently in new york you only need to physically go to class to get a diploma. and sometimes not even that. if you drop out of high school entirely, there's always the GED. we set the bar so low then ask why foreign students are better educated.

Has New York dropped the state Regents exams? It's been awhile since I went to shool there. As for a knowledge of basic electronics for future accountants, is the American school system intended to do only vocational training, or is there not some intention to give students an education?

0 Replies

You've touched on an interesting point. As our economy continues to transform, apprenticeship has less and less of a role in the workplace, so, actually, I don't think an increased emphasis on vocational education would necessarily be a bad idea. (And as long as the subject of other countries has been broached again, I might point out that many competitive nations track their students toward vocational or academic tracts much earlier than we do, if we do it at all.) Of course, even if I accept this, the question of which vocations to teach pops up....

0 Replies

Good point -- when exactly would someone be considered ready to choose what vocational area of study to pursue? I know even through my senior year in high school, I was still undecided and now it's all a matter of what, of my decided choices, is most readily available when I move (if I move).

0 Replies

Quote:

I don't think an increased emphasis on vocational education would necessarily be a bad idea.

Me neither. Americans have been sold a bill of goods that the only successful careers are ones that need a college degree. Not so. Our country is crying for skilled craftspersons of all kinds. I think that we need more than vocational education. There needs to be a positive shift in attitude towards the manual trades.

0 Replies

And perhaps a pay raise -- many areas have such large differences in pay betweencraftsmen, regardless of skill, and college-educated people, that it's almost unbelievable.

I need to clarify this. I mean almost unbelievable because it is exactly what we are trained to believe by society.

0 Replies

I guess I'm saying that there should be a balance between pure education and practical training, but that education for it's own sake has some merit. I don't want to turn out a generation of people who know only their own job and nothing more - nothing about the world, nothing about history, nothing about literature, nothing about science, nothing about technology, nothing about art, etc.

0 Replies

Man, I wish I'd taken auto shop. You know what a good mechanic makes? But I wouldn't have been steered toward it in any educational system.

What's also tricky is that the skills most in demand aren't the same as the skills that were most in demand a couple of decades ago. Manufacturing has largely left the country, probably for a very long time. What I actually found most limiting entering the workforce was that I knew virtually nothing about computers. Try looking around Chicago (relatively high unemployment or a U.S. city) for work with no trade skills and no computer experience. Not something I'm blaming on my schooling, but still something that would have been very helpful for me, particularly if I'd had anybody to support at that time.

Sorry, I'm getting tangential again, and I've got a report to write up. Cheers!

0 Replies

Brandon9000, I agree.

Quote:

I guess I'm saying that there should be a balance between pure education and practical training, but that education for it's own sake has some merit. I don't want to turn out a generation of people who know only their own job and nothing more - nothing about the world, nothing about history, nothing about literature, nothing about science, nothing about technology, nothing about art, etc.

I don't think anyone was necessarily trying to imply that only education is necessary. I have seen a lot of educated people who can't really apply their knowledge because they have never really experienced what they learn. And if someone doesn't know a bit of the rest of the world, such as history, literature, science, current events at least, then how boring would this place be?

Patiodog made some great points as well:

Quote:

Man, I wish I'd taken auto shop. You know what a good mechanic makes? But I wouldn't have been steered toward it in any educational system.

You're right. The education system has steered too much towards cramming as much information as possible into people's heads that they forget that the development of skills is so necessary.

Quote:

What's also tricky is that the skills most in demand aren't the same as the skills that were most in demand a couple of decades ago. Manufacturing has largely left the country, probably for a very long time.

There are many people complaining about the out-sourcing of jobs to overseas companies, or even opening new company branches in other countries to acquire the cheap, high quality labor. It seems that this will be a trend for a long time. As one person said in an editorial article about which countries he thinks will be the economic strongholds and how,

Quote:

He gestured around the elegant palace, the glory of 17th century Germany, and said, "In 30 years, Europe will be the Third World. I do not see a place for Europe in the future. China will be the blue-collar factory of the world, India will be the white-collar office, and the US will be the innovators."

It seems a bit more than a wild assumption to me.

0 Replies

Brandon9000 wrote:

Has New York dropped the state Regents exams? It's been awhile since I went to shool there. As for a knowledge of basic electronics for future accountants, is the American school system intended to do only vocational training, or is there not some intention to give students an education?

they've been talking about dropping the regents for decades but it hasn't happened. i really don't see the point though. you get your diploma whether you pass the regents or not.

i would gladly have traded the time i spent in high school reading shakespeare for a course in mechanical/electrical engineering. when my car breaks down hamlet isn't going to help me.

0 Replies

ye110man wrote:

when my car breaks down hamlet isn't going to help me.

True, but I still say that schools should teach more than only things with immediate practical value. I think it is worthwhile to teach people things just so that they will be educated people. It's a question of where should the balance be.

0 Replies

I think we should all watch more television. Wink

0 Replies

Maybe we should try to define the core goal of education in this country first, and then figure out how to achieve that goal. We can also ask ourselves how well our existing system is doing at achieving those goals.

I always felt that the core goal of education in this country is/was to give each citizen the knowledge necessary to become reasonably productive within the society as it exists at any given time.

Therefor, back in the 1800's, having solid reading, writing and math skills were probably a well rounded starting point since those skills all added value to the society and to the person who had them.

Today's environment is different, however the core goal remains the same. Simple reading, writing and arithematic (even along with history and civics and chemistry and physics) are clearly not enough any more. Our public schools should provide the knowledge necessary to become reasonably productive within our society. Along these lines, I feel that college should not be a requirement for obtaining a reasonably productive job. Colleges should exist to fulfill the needs of people who want to excell beyond the basic level of skill for whatever reason.

In a highly technical society, engineering and science skills are particularly valuable. But maybe more valuable than anything else is the ability to determine the basic veracity of the information which now engulfs us. There is too much bad data out there now to not know how to measure the ligitimacy of information. So as one step in improving our education system, I believe that schools need to teach critical thinking, and to clarify the function of the scientific methodology within the sweep of general philosophy. General knowledge alone is not sufficient, we also need specific training, but the combination of critical thinking along with an understanding of analysis, are key to unlocking the wealth of information which is now available to people (across the planet).

Best Regards,

0 Replies

Two points.

rosborne979 wrote:

Today's environment is different, however the core goal remains the same. Simple reading, writing and arithematic (even along with history and civics and chemistry and physics) are clearly not enough any more. Our public schools should provide the knowledge necessary to become reasonably productive within our society.

We don't provide the knowledge, at least not at the earlier stages, to become "productive members of our society" and there is little way to do that. Any knowledge imparted to a 6 year old shapes the society he or she will be a part of an entirely different society 20 or 30 years down the road when they are an adult and have the chance to make decisions. We can't predict the future but we can and do shape it with what and how we teach.

You say reading, writing and arithmatic aren't enough today. Why is that? Is it because the skills aren't needed or because we (as adults) make that decision on the students behalf? It's kind of like the "you have to have a college degree" argument you hear all the time. Why do you need one? The only real answer is "Because everyone else has one.". For most of us it certianly isn't because of what is taught.

So to back up a step farther from your basic set of assumptions; what is the goal of education? Is it, as you say, to become productive in society as it exists at any given time or is it to create a "better" society in the future? Those are two entirely seperate goals. IMO, the 2nd option is were we've been headed for a number of years and many of our current problems stem from that. Once the goal became "improving society" you introduce ideology (political, religious, etc..) into the mix of what should be taught to who and when and then "education" becomes "indoctrination".

0 Replies

What can we do to help improve science education in the US?

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know