The Longest Rant about American Educational Reform

I was thinking about American education's faults in my eyes, and so I wrote a possible system to reform it based on them, this is what I came up with:

School would take place five days a week, eight in the morning to five in the afternoon. This is a little longer than the currently accepted schedule, but allowing an hour of breaks, this leaves an eight-hour day for students, which is a good amount. At the conclusion of every grade, each student must pass a comprehensive standardized test about the previous year's subject matter. Other than that, there should be no grading. I think Modern schools have an unhealthy atmosphere in this regard, where any mistake on an assignment hurts the student's grade. If a student learns the subject matter well, as evidenced by a successful test, it shouldn't matter how many times they were wrong on the way.

Curriculum, starting with Elementary school:

Every child begins school at the age of five. Call this first grade, the concept of kindergarten is absurd. Starting here, immerse every student in three languages: English, Ancient Greek, and Latin. This should be easy enough. Every book should be a Rosetta stone of sorts, with each line written three times, once in each language. Every learned vocabulary word should be given in all three languages. Every student should be able to read what is now a middle-school level book in each language by the time they turn ten. In addition to this, every student should be given a brief overview of Spanish, French, and German, say one year of each, starting in third grade with Spanish, ending in fifth with German. Students will not be expected to be fluent in those languages, merely able to communicate on some level with a native of each of those languages. All in all, language will be given class time of two hours per day in Elementary school (here first through fifth grades). Because there are three languages in the first two grades, a given language will be given an hour, and will cycle. For example, on Monday I learn Latin and English, Tuesday English and Greek, Wednesday Greek and Latin, etc. Once a fourth language is added, it will be inserted into the cycle. I understand that this seems a lot to require of such young children, but kids that age are remarkably able to learn new languages, each subsequent one will be easier, and will enable students to think in disparate ways, to solve problems from unique angles. Knowledge of Classical language will also give them a profoundly better base with which to build their future education on, especially in the sciences.

Two hours will be devoted to the Arts, one to creation and one to observation. Creation will vary between visual, auditory, and oratory, with students at first writing daily journals or finger painting, and end writing short stories and playing orchestral instruments of their choice. Selections for observations will be scaled to age and maturity, in early grades purely children's books for advancement in linguistic skill, in later grades works meant for dissection and extraction of theme.

Two hours go to Humanities. Start with local history, then go broader, in both time and space. Tell students about your city, show them the town hall, where future history is made, then the historical fort on the outskirts of town where centuries-old battles were fought. Tell them about your state, then its induction into the union. Tell them about their country, then its dealings with the world. Then tell them about Rome, about Athens, about Alexandria. Introduce period text (this would be about the fourth grade) in its native language. Start slow, take a month to go through one Platonic dialogue, word by word. At the same time, introduce Logic and Rhetoric to them. Give them ancient role models, let them follow Socrates and Ptolemy through their education.

The remaining hours go to Natural Science. Have students make observations about the world around them, and have them try to describe what they see. At this point, do not tell them when they are wrong - they are bound to be. Children should be taught to question, and should not expect disapproval. This period should double as Physical Education, so take them on walks through parks, or through zoos. Give them clipboards, have them write down things they see. Japanese Ninjutsu teaches that all humans are effectively blind for a large portion of their day, when they focus on one thing particularly. In past days, this allowed ninja to sneak past guards, but similarly, students who are taught that all education comes from a teacher miss lessons of nature, of happenings, of peers.

Then students will go to a secondary school, which would be divided into eight hours. They will be allowed to pursue whatever peaks their interest for at least three hours. This is on top of the continuation of all mentioned subjects, excepting Natural Science, which is replaced by Modern Science. To compensate, everything cycles slower:

One hour of Core Language, which cycles one language per day. One hour of Elective Language, choose one language group, divided between European (Spanish, French, German), African, Asian (Chinese, Japanese, Sanskrit), and Arabic. One hour of Science: Physics, Chemistry, Biology, in order, each for one third of the year, and going chronologically through advancements in the field since 1700. Two hours of Elective Art: Theater, Music, Visual, or Film, including both creation and observation. One hour of History, going chronologically through time, over the course of the remainder of the school career. One hour of Math, functioning the same as Science, but starting at Euclid and Pythagoras rather than Newton. One hour of Pure Elective (anything else, each school should offer every class that at least ten students ask for, regardless of subject)

You'll notice this fixes a problem I have with American schools: they focus on breadth at first, then narrow down. Students take the same class every three years, going deeper each time. I don't think this is an effective use of time; people can understand anything, given time. In addition, every subject gets simpler as you regress through time. Newtonian Mechanics are much simpler than those of Einstein; so teach Newtonian Mechanics to younger students, and slowly progress, getting more complex with time. Modern schools also have students take one year focusing on one branch of science exclusively, which leaves holes in the science where one science informs advancements in another. In addition, Modern school tends to go in the order Biology -> Chemistry -> Physics, when it makes much more sense to teach the opposite direction, first having students use complex mathematical equations to solve hard problems in Newtonian physics, then applying those equations to chemicals, then showing how chemical reactions drive life.

This secondary school would continue for four years or so. Then, students would enter tertiary school, which would be the same, except every class would be optional. At this point, every student could have much more than what now qualifies a student to enter college, so let them focus more. This would still be free, and open to the public - or at least those that have passed every year-end test up to that grade, or local adults who want to further their education. At this point, students could remain as long as they want, taking whichever classes they want, all of which would have open doors. They could take any class test they so desired, and satisfactory work on it would grant them credit for that class. Attendance is not necessary, participation is not necessary. When students get a prescribed list of credits, they earn a degree. A degree could land them a job, in post-tertiary school (medical, law, etc., which could have paid admission), or they could remain in tertiary, as long as they desire.

Now wouldn't that be better?

Obviously, the biggest problem is cost. Paying a teacher to meet every ten students' request for a class would need monumental funding, but you know what? I don't think that should matter. Sell an aircraft carrier, educational budgets shouldn't be compromised for the military. Or just raise taxes, our tax rate now is much lower than it really could be, honestly. The two objectively good things that a society can produce are art and education. Nothing else. Any educational system that promotes any other ideology, saying that society needs more careers, rather than more debate, or more knowledge, is misguided, and ultimately holds humanity back.

Edit: Hello again everyone, remember me? I was here a year ago!

edited 30th Nov '12 7:36:06 PM by TheEarthSheep

Still Sheepin'

Bump to compensate for delayed unlock.

Still Sheepin'

I think I'm a bit confused about the American education system without knowing more about it. What do you mean by, you only learn one science per year? You actually only learn one science per year? Dubya tee eff?

Also what do you mean by breadth first and narrow second? My basic presumption is that whatever you learn in one year is then used as the basis to learn more difficult subject matter in the next year (for instance, if you learn adding/subtracting in year one, you move onto learning multiplication). Do you mean that if you're very quick to learn adding/subtracting, that you then try to get them to learn more about adding/subtracting before moving onto multiplication?

I think your heart is in the right place, but here is where I disagree with you:

It's hard enough to condition kids to pay attention the full 8am to 3pm average schedule. Now you want to throw in two more hours? No.

As a mother of a kindergardener, I also reject that schedule. I don't get to spend enough time with my son as it is. If he is in school until 5pm, well that leaves only 3 hours to cram in travel, baths, supper, and maybe some quality time before his 8pm bedtime. I know some parents who put their kids to bed at 7pm. That family won't have much time to be a family which means teachers become parents to an even greater degree than most are forced already. That's a bad idea.

On the subject of languages, I don't agree with teaching every kid dead languages. There is little point besides specialized education fields or clergy. It's nice to be fluent in many things but they need to have a better chance of actually being an asset. I rather see Arabic or Cantonese before a dead language. And it's not recommended to teach children multiple languages at the same time. Most experts recommend a year between languages. Otherwse you'll be like my son and myself who use German pronunciation with Spanish vocabulary accidently.

Our system in itself is not bad. It's just regulated in all the wrong ways, but the structure can work. I've said this in other threads but it breaks down for me like this:

Teachers should be given the flexibility to adapt lessons about certain benchmarks to the specific needs of that particular class. Lessons need to be grounded in both abstract and real life applications to give kids the full spectrum. More active learning, including community outreach and activism needs to be tapped as educational as well as social improvement. We need to teach for retention, not testing. Tests need to be broken down to include essay and project capabilities as well as standardized to help judge progress more clearly and in a well rounded fashion, as well as allow a fair chance for different testing aptitutes.

Specialized education based on community needs would be a benefit. If your area has a high drug, teen pregnancy, poverty, drop out, homeless, whatever problem then mandatory sex ed, education outreach, scholarship and vocational training, and other specialized programs geared to tackling those problems need to be intergrated into the school system.

"Psssh. Even if you could catch a miracle on a picture any person would probably delete it to make space for more porn." - Aszur

In American High Schools, a Freshman takes a general science called Earth Systems, that basically just explains natural phenomena like weather, etc. Sophomores usually take Biology, Juniors Chemistry, and Seniors will take Physics - if they take a science at all, as graduation only requires three years of science.

So, fifth grade, eighth grade, and eleventh grade (Junior year of High School) each have a mandatory class on U.S. History. In Fifth grade, students will learn about Christopher Columbus and George Washington, mostly focusing on the American colonies before 1800. In eighth grade, they will go through the whole history, but will only touch on each subject. In eleventh, it goes through the entire history fairly exhaustively. Most classes operate the same way, touching on high points first, in early years, then gradually filling in the blanks between. It makes sense, but I think it's not as efficient as the above proposed system. That's what I mean.

Still Sheepin'

Agreeing with everything Gabrael said.

Maybe your school does (did?) that, but you should not automatically assume your high school experience is the same as everywhere else in the U.S. (or even in more than just your district). Same thing for what you said about "fifth grade,eighth grade,and eleventh grade."

edited 2nd Dec '12 12:33:01 AM by 0dd1

Insert witty and clever quip here. My page, as the database hates my handle.

Where did you go to school? I went to grade school in Arkansas and we had Biology in 6th-9th year, beginning with cellular and moving into full anatomy and even discetion in jr high. We started Geometry in 5th grade with the option to take College Algebra beginning at 16 years, wherever that landed for the student.

We were learning Amerigo, Drake, and Magellen back in 3rd or 4th grade. By 6th grade we had to memorize all the European countries and capitals.

EDIT: I think it's hard to compare schools based on when a subject was introduced unless it was followed well. There was no problem teaching quadratics to 5th graders in my school because the class was split on pacing with a clear plan what would be next. Our math and science programs were pretty good due to this stair stepped program.

History was treated like this as well. Literature could have been better, but I blame that more on the individual teachers instead of the actual lessons. We started Shakepeare at 4th grade but the teachers did a crappy job at relating it to our levels and real world situations, so I didn't really get what I could have out of it either linguistically or contexually until I was much older.

edited 2nd Dec '12 12:37:05 AM by Gabrael

"Psssh. Even if you could catch a miracle on a picture any person would probably delete it to make space for more porn." - Aszur

Okay, can you explain why you feel kindergarten is absurd?

1. Authority figures teaching children to question? Ha!
2. Do you really think this is logically possible,constant field trips?
3. Physical education is more than just walking around a lot.

I'm sorry, but do you pay taxes? I don't think you realize how daunting of a task convincing people that taxes should be increased exponentially is, especially when the poor struggle to pay their taxes (if they can even afford to at all), the rich are overly protective of their money, and the middles...well, I guess both, depending on just how high or low their wealth is.

edited 2nd Dec '12 12:42:40 AM by 0dd1

Insert witty and clever quip here. My page, as the database hates my handle.

The long OP makes it hard to discern what the topic thesis is, but you might be interested in this recent thread.

American school system tends to focus on breadth, because it wants to give students a broader overview on the concepts. It's not trying to go in-depth most of the time. It's to give an overall state of preparedness, rather than specific subject preparations (which is deferred to college work where you have more of a prerequisite system). Now you could argue that this approach dilutes the value of HS education, but students need to mature to some extent before the college system of building blocks starts to be really better.

I know about biology-chemistry-physics being the popular lab science order in high school. The reason it's like that is because you need mathematics background to properly learn physics, and not everyone has that aptitude when they start high school. Biology doesn't need that, and chemistry isn't as math-intensive as physics. Of course, I didn't like biology that much as it's just a lot of random information handed to you that you had to memorize, with little explanation why. By the time I had a physics course, there was more constructing of the theory and actual explanation why A implies B.

I agree mostly with Gabrael. Especially on making elementary school age children spend two more hours a day in school. Jesus Christ, it's hard enough to get kids to want to stay as it is. If you want to add more time, eliminate things like the amount of summer holiday, which is actually a sensible suggestion. Other countries have less days off. But adding hours to a day doesn't help with things like retention.

And while I like that you support the arts, two hours of it also seems a bit much for that age. And I have to point out that Fine Arts is already a requirement at the highschool level; that's why we have art classes, theater, and marching band. And you get to pick between those, and a few others depending on the school.

Also, Ancient Greek and fucking Latin are dead languages. Why do we need to make kids learn that as opposed to something their neighbors and other kids currently actually use? Like Spanish. Or French. Or increasingly, some form of Arabic. I'm not saying that these wouldn't be good at the high school level, my school taught Latin, but at the elementary level it seems stupid to teach them something they can't use outside of the classroom.

Everything you listed is pretty much things we already do. And at the highschool level they try to be more flexible by having electives. (Which the arts are, in that you can choose one, not in that you can avoid the fine arts credit.)

Basically, you really haven't given us anything new at all. And we already had two threads that are fairly current about education reform.

We really should hire a fuckload more teachers, though.

Also, OP, we have several "such and such a country's politics" thread. Visit the one relevant to you so you can get a good idea why it's so damn hard to get politicians to raise taxes and cut military funding for things like this.

edited 2nd Dec '12 1:46:57 AM by AceofSpades

I, for one see why you wish to teach them Latin and Ancient Greek. But, kids do not want to learn languages; they just do it better. It is hard enough to teach them English, throwing in five other languages (which they don't want to learn) isn't really going to help your case.

TL;DR

Everything is Possible. But some things are more Probable than others. JEBAGEDDON 2016

Re: languages.

I understand the teaching of Greek and Latin, but that's fairly redundant. Nobody needs someone who speaks Latin. Now, someone who speaks a (European) language besides English; that's more useful. Teach children English and one other language (eg English, French, Portuguese, German, etc).

Hell, we already teach kids Spanish in a lot of places in the U.S. from at least first grade onward, and I'd say that's most useful since (last I saw) 20% of the country is fluent in Spanish.

Insert witty and clever quip here. My page, as the database hates my handle.

How about we make all children go through educational Training from Hell from birth? :D

I vowed, and so did you: Beyond this wall- we would make it through.

Like the OP suggests, you mean?

Insert witty and clever quip here. My page, as the database hates my handle.

Uh...sure. I read that.

I vowed, and so did you: Beyond this wall- we would make it through.

I can understand wanting someone to understand a dead language and all, but I think that's better left as an optional pursuit at the higher level of education, such as high school and college. At the elementary level, a child is much more likely to encounter Spanish speakers, and can watch Spanish language TV. It's something that they can actually apply to their lives and as a result better remember and learn. Or French, if you happen to live near Quebec. Basically any currently living language is more practical at the elementary level.

I like the Latin suggestion, since if you know Latin, you can usually puzzle out a fair amount of french, Spanish, Italian, and Portuguese. Not to keen on Greek, since I view Greek as only culturally important.

Well, I'll try to address all the topics. One, why is kindergarten absurd? Just rename it first grade and make us have 13 grades. Also, why do 5 year olds need to know dead languages? I don't know any country where they are required to learn Latin. Also, it is extremely hard to keep kids focused for 2 hours on every subject. I know high school kids who had a "block schedule" (every class was 2 hours) and they hate it. Also, some schools don't even do Biology Chemistry Physics in that order. And if they do, it's because you have to have taken certain math classes in order to understand chemistry and physics, which you would not have the capability to learn at an earlier age. In general, this whole plan also seems way too expensive. America already spends the most money on its kids and it's not at the top educationally.

At my school, we operate at a block schedule of ninety-minute periods with alternating classes with one school-wide study period on every other day.

Two hours is too long, I agree, but at least for the students at my school, ninety minutes is ideal.

Also, as stated in the previous education thread, I'm in favor of reducing summer break by two or three weeks, but not eliminating it.

I like the idea of year around school, three weeks on, one week off with extra time in summer and holidays.

I value education deeply but I also value family time.

I doubt we have enough willing teachers qualified to do dead languages. I had to puzzle out my studies of Greek, Aramaic, and old Hebrew on my own. My Arabic tutors were pains.

"Psssh. Even if you could catch a miracle on a picture any person would probably delete it to make space for more porn." - Aszur

I agree. In terms of practically, widely-taught Latin does nothing (except for experts who actually use it) while learning a common, alive language provides more practicality.

My school district is trying to move towards year round schooling. We have 8 weeks of break (as opposed to the usual 10 or even 12), and we have 1 week breaks every 6 weeks. Honestly I think the only reason we don't have school until June is that the school district can't afford A/C for that long (it can get to be 80 degrees here by June).

edited 2nd Dec '12 12:34:46 PM by wuggles

What state do you live in.

Huh. AC does cost money... Which could get ludicrously expensive in my state...