How would you reform primary/secondary education?

[Cap'n Refsmmat]

Suppose you became dictator of the world and could decide what children in state-funded education (up to the age of 17 or 18) learn. You can teach whatever you want. What curriculum would you choose?

[dragonstar57]

As of now elementary school teaches mainly basic math and reading and that is about it.

I would have algebra and biology taught perhaps as early as 3rd grade.

algebra 2 and beginning chemistry in 5th grade.

geometry and beginning physics in 3rd grade.

The higher maths such as trigonometry and calculus would be taught in middle school.

I would want to teach to today's graduating standards by the 8th grade.

Edited August 6, 2012 by dragonstar57

[A Tripolation]

As of now elementary school teaches mainly basic math and reading and that is about it.

I would have algebra and biology taught perhaps as early as 3rd grade.

algebra 2 and beginning chemistry in 5th grade.

geometry and beginning physics in 3rd grade.

The higher maths such as trigonometry and calculus would be taught in middle school.

I would want to teach to today's graduating standards by the 8th grade.

 

While your thoughts are laudable, these things are not as simply taught as you might believe. It's not a matter of offering them. It takes a certain level of mathematical maturity to teach things as complicated as algebra and physics.

 

And if you want to teach proper math and physics (as opposed to "here's the algorithm, now plug-and-chug"), then that takes a much higher level of thought patterns than your typical eighth-grader possesses.

Edited August 6, 2012 by A Tripolation

[dragonstar57]

While your thoughts are laudable, these things are not as simply taught as you might believe. It's not a matter of offering them. It takes a certain level of mathematical maturity to teach things as complicated as algebra and physics.

 

And if you want to teach proper math and physics (as opposed to "here's the algorithm, now plug-and-chug"), then that takes a much higher level of thought patterns than your typical eighth-grader possesses.

I think you are underestimating children.

the only way to teach the higher level thought patterns is to teach higher level maths.

are you really any better at logical thinking at 9 than 14 or at 17 for that mater?

[Greg H.]

First, I would shoot all the politicians that turned our kids' educations into the steaming pile of excrement it is now. Call it retribution for No Child Left Behind (but No Child is Allowed to Get Ahead Either).

 

Now that the detrius of stupid is removed we can begin to make progress.

 

Next, let's define some terms

Elementary Education: Kindergarten through 5th grade (roughly 5 to 10 years of age).

Middle School: 6th to 8th grade (11 - 13 years of age)

High School (Secondary School): 9th through 13th (yes, I added a grade - 14 - 18 years of age)

 

Elemantary education would focus on language (including foreign languages) development, basic math and science, music, physical education (with a focus on group play), and social skills, as well as basic ethical behavior (share, be nice, don't steal, etc).

 

Middle school would focus on advanced language skills, with the goal of all children being fluent in reading, speaking, and writing in at least three languages by graduation from Secondary school. History, Geometry, Algebra, Biology, basic logic, and more advanced ethical concepts would be included. Kids moving out of the eighth grade should know how to solve a basic algebra equation, perform a simple science experiment and correctly interpret the results, use a computer proficiently, and be able to craft a logical argument to support a position.

 

High school is where the real fun begins:

Trigonometry, Introductory Calculus, chemistry, physics, life skills, advanced logic and ethics, an overview of philosophical thought, sociology, history with an emphasis on interpretation of historical events and their effects, writing, continuation of multi-lingual skills, continuing physical education with an emphasis on organized team activities, basic mechanical engineering with a focus on how simple machines work, and WHY they work, tying back into the physics behind them.

 

That's all I can think of at the moment, and I am sure I have missed some important subjects. The basic gist is, we need a complete overhaul of the education system, one that goes back to actually educating children, not teaching them pass specific tests.

[CaptainPanic]

Exact sciences

Reverse the order in which physics and maths are taught. First physics. First some practical examples. And the more generalized cases follow later.

 

Only the basic arithmatics should be taught as a separate course, pretty much like it is done nowadays. As soon as kids can add, subtract, multiply and divide, you can start with physics. They do not need to know what an equation is. Just take them out into the park, and set a racing course. Have them measure the length. Then have them run it. Time them, and ask them to calculate the speed. Or do it with a bike with a speedometer - which will confirm that the calculation is correct. It's a simple experiment - with an element of competition. Guaranteed that the kids will remember the rest of their lives how to calculate a velocity with two simple measurements.

 

Then you can also work with more complicated things such as acceleration. Still, there is no need to actually explain derivatives or any algebra. Just work with an example. The equations are so simple that you do not need to actually explain the equation using symbols. Just write it out in full words.

 

And then once you explain the algebra - the [math]x[/math] and [math]y[/math] actually mean something. As soon as the symbol [math]x[/math] is introduced, it should immediately be applied to something meaningful: to physics, or another practical real-life application. Give the kids a case where the maths are useful, or don't teach it at all. And use a different symbol, because in the real world it's not always [math]x[/math] and [math]y[/math].

 

Nowadays, many people simply do not know that they can solve a problem, because they never applied maths to a real-life situation. Maths is a bunch of [math]x[/math] and [math]y[/math] to them... and there is no [math]x[/math] and [math]y[/math] in real-life.

 

Languages

Almost the same goes for languages. I would put the focus of language teaching on speaking, rather than writing/spelling. Teach kids to speak, rather than to write a new language. It's incredibly demoralizing to learn spelling of a language when you cannot speak the language sufficiently to write something meaningful.

It's a lot more important to be able to communicate with foreigners than to be able to correctly spell. Also, once you're speaking a language, you'll practice so much more, because it is actually fun to talk to foreigners.

 

You also learned to speak your 1st language before you learned to write it... I do not see why we teach foreign languages in the opposite order.

 

Also, I don't think there is a problem starting a 2nd language at the age of 6 or so. But it might be tough to keep the kids focussed in the beginning. Not sure about this.

 

Sports and social stuff

Finally, I would make it all a bit more rough again: Bullying and fighting is a part of life - so don't intervene all the time. Not nice for the one being bullied, but they'll survive. Let them climb trees or play rough games. Sure, some will get injured at school. Life is hard, but kids recover quickly. Also sports should be more competitive and varied.

 

While your thoughts are laudable, these things are not as simply taught as you might believe. It's not a matter of offering them. It takes a certain level of mathematical maturity to teach things as complicated as algebra and physics.

I disagree completely.

 

It takes a certain level of maths to teach equations. But physics is so much more than equations. Physics is everywhere, also if you do not understand the equations. Give kids some technical Lego, and they're able to experiment. With such relatively intuitional toys comes greater understanding. Simple concepts such as Archimedes (will it sink?), levers or pulleys (can I lift it?) or gears (will it spin faster or slower) can be enjoyed with very minimalistic math skills, and affordable toys. And I described some other experiments that you can do with no real math skills earlier in this post.

 

Maths skills and physics skills should be developed simultaneously... you can even develop some initial qualitative feeling for physics before ever getting into the maths. And when someone then offers the kids a tool to go from qualitative to quantitative, they might be actually motivated to learn the maths. And as a bonus, you probably save a lot of time, because you teach them the maths and physics at the same time.

[dragonstar57]

I don't see the point of teaching multiple languages at all. at least not mandatory language.

for mathematics I would have them done on computers which would have a program to decide what problems to give the student.

it would give perhaps 75% questions which is what is being "currently" learned and the other 25% questions from previously. this way the teacher could get real information about proficiency subject by subject and could change the kind of questions given to a particular student ie. more polynomials than systems etc. (this way the greatest effort can be dedicated to where the student needs it most, while making sure that previous skills do not degrade.)

for those of you who do not like tests what would you propose to replace them?

homework would be the main factor determining grades (if the old method of grading were retained) and in many cases homework is pointless nonsense to lend legitimacy to the teacher.

Sports and social stuff

Finally, I would make it all a bit more rough again: Bullying and fighting is a part of life - so don't intervene all the time. Not nice for the one being bullied, but they'll survive. Let them climb trees or play rough games. Sure, some will get injured at school. Life is hard, but kids recover quickly. Also sports should be more competitive and varied.

I disagree while the current method hasn't exactly been working, we do not need another culture of "beat up the nerds/dweebs/dorks".

school didn't used to be "rough" it used to be outright hostile and that kind of thing makes school children socially form into packs.

do we want our students to assemble into packs like wolves where the most malicious and dimwitted are in charge?

Edited August 6, 2012 by dragonstar57

[CaptainPanic]

I disagree while the current method hasn't exactly been working, we do not need another culture of "beat up the nerds/dweebs/dorks".

school didn't used to be "rough" it used to be outright hostile and that kind of thing makes school children socially form into packs.

do we want our students to assemble into packs like wolves where the most malicious and dimwitted are in charge?

You make it sound a lot more extreme than I meant. But in a way this is exactly what kids always do. Kids always form packs.

 

I mean that at this very moment, schools are banning all forms of physical contact (in the UK, and the USA). I hope you can agree that this is a step too far.

 

In the Netherlands, bullying is seen as a way to permanently mentally harm children. I think that they make it so much worse than it actually is. Also, in the real world people are being bullied. It's not all fair. Your boss might refuse your promotion for no other reason than that he's an a**hole. And if you suppress bullying at school, the kids will just wait until they're out the school gates. They'll get the kids they wanna get. Kids are ruthless. If you don't make so much fuss about it, then at least you can see who is bullying who. (I'm not saying you publicly support the bullies!). Teachers can then help solve a conflict or give some other form of support.

 

My problem with our society is that the people growing up now are a bunch of sissies. They expect 100% protection from law enforcement, because they never learned to deal with problems. They never solved their own problems. Their entire youths there was someone stronger to protect them.

 

I'm not saying you should deliberately expose kids to trouble. But I am saying that if children, for whatever reason, do not have the happiest youth possible, this can make them stronger instead of weaker too.

[studiot]

Well we should start by treating the children as human beings (and individual ones at that) and not as some raw material or component to be processed on an aseembly line.

 

The UK education system, once the 'envy of the world' has been almost totally destroyed by a headlong rush to follow the americans into a 'one size fits all' approach.

 

I cannot find anything more illogical except, perhaps, the idea of 'one subject set fits all'

 

Languages: For how many pupils is English not their first language, although in an english speaking school?

 

Background: How many have had breakfast before coming to school or will go home to a proper meal?