3 ms·

I taught English in the public school system in South Korea last year. There were a few stark differences that I couldn't help but notice and I feel they shed

I taught English in the public school system in South Korea last year. There were a few stark differences that I couldn't help but notice and I feel they shed light on our failing education system here in America. They have a curriculum that is set forth on a national level. This accomplishes two important things: One, teachers can now collaborate and share resources on topics that all teachers around the country are preparing for (I did this with my fellow Native English Teachers and ended up saving a lot of time not having to reinvent the wheel for every lesson). Secondly, it helps eliminate the unnecessary spending that accompanies the insanely large amount of school districts that we have scattered around our country. Washington State alone has almost 300 school districts! The board members of these schools districts are in charge of determining the curriculum for their specific locality, mean while others are doing the same exact thing in the next town over. Furthermore, the majority of those board members have a Masters or PhD and require a hefty salary - which could be going towards funding intelligent, passionate teachers. I'd love to be a teacher but you won't see me entering a public school classroom anytime soon. If we can eliminate the redundancy of our school district issue and provide the framework for a nationalized curriculum, we could pay teachers more (thereby attracting a higher talent pool), lower class sizes, increase spending on classroom necessities (pens, pencils, paper, books, COMPUTERS!), and allow teachers the opportunity to share resources on predetermined, upcoming lessons. Tackling these issues will put us on the right track towards getting our school system out of this steady decline we've been on for the last couple of decades.

nhebb 15y ago
I've always wondered why the US has a Department of Education but it doesn't produce a national curriculum. It's mission isn't directly tied to teaching itself [1]. Looking at the rise of sites like the Khan Academy and other services, it seems clear to me that content creation and delivery of core subjects could be centralized, and tutoring, homework, testing, and assessment could be localized. I know that would threaten some politically powerful interest groups (teacher unions and publishers), but I think it's a logical progression if we want to provide students across the country the same learning materials. [1] http://www2.ed.gov/about/what-we-do.html http://www2.ed.gov/about/what-we-do.html
- bediger 15y ago
  Well, look at the figures for percentage of people who believe something really whacky: creationism. Something like 40% (http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2010/12/20/40-of-americans-still-bel_n_799078.html http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2010/12/20/40-of-americans-sti...). It's going to be hard to have a national curriculum without either watering down subjects like biology or US history to the point that they're totally useless, just rote memorization of falsehoods.
  - ams6110 15y ago
    Really, simply believing in creationism does not conflict with most science, even biological science, and certainly not with US history. Of the 40% who believe in creationism (accepting your claim, though the source I'd certainly not consider unbiased), most have mainstream religious beliefs about the origin of the universe, earth, and life, but do not dismiss most of what science has learned in fields like medicine, biochemistry, genetics, etc. For example, I myself have certain "creationist" beliefs but also accept the scientific evidence that evolution/natural selection happens, and I don't see any conflict there.
    - Eeko 15y ago
      Within the article the definition of creationism in the context is clearly defined in the first paragraph: "A new Gallup poll, released Dec. 17, reveals that 40 percent of Americans still believe that humans were created by God within the last 10,000 years." There is another 40% thinking like you claim, but there still is that 40% who are about as anti-scientific as you can get.
    - tokenadult 15y ago
      simply believing in creationism does not conflict with most science, even biological science, To the contrary, taking the Sunday school story (it's not really the Bible story) of creation seriously as an explanation for the world's origin or the origin of species requires willfully massive amounts of scientific evidence. http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/comdesc/ http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/comdesc/ http://pubs.usgs.gov/gip/geotime/age.html http://pubs.usgs.gov/gip/geotime/age.html http://www.astro.ucla.edu/~wright/age.html http://www.astro.ucla.edu/~wright/age.html http://www.psychologytoday.com/blog/the-playing-field/201005/new-ideas-about-the-origin-language http://www.psychologytoday.com/blog/the-playing-field/201005... If someone who takes the Sunday school story of creation seriously has sole influence on a school curriculum, that will be a lousy school curriculum about most areas of science. That said, I support the liberty of parents to direct the education of their own children while their children are minors, believing with John Stuart Mill that "A general State education is a mere contrivance for moulding people to be exactly like one another: and as the mould in which it casts them is that which pleases the predominant power in the government, whether this be a monarch, a priesthood, an aristocracy, or the majority of the existing generation in proportion as it is efficient and successful, it establishes a despotism over the mind, leading by a natural tendency to one over the body. An education established and controlled by the State should only exist, if it exist at all, as one among many competing experiments, carried on for the purpose of example and stimulus, to keep others up to a certain standard of excellence." On Liberty (1859), pp. 190-91. But within the framework of pluralism in provision of primary education, I strongly support government-funded schools using the best available evidence in designing curricula in science, mathematics, history, and really any subject, and that takes creationism out of the science curriculum. (Basis of knowledge: I grew up in a religious denomination that promoted belief in creationism, and had a childhood friend, an all-but-Ph.D. electrical engineer, who grew up in a denomination that demanded belief in creationism. He took me to "creation science" conferences beginning at high school age, and I have read much from all sides on theories of the origin of humankind, the earth, and the universe. Creationism simply has no leg to stand on scientifically. I don't require my homeschooled children to believe in creationism, but rather read aloud to them books like Why Evolution is True by Jerry Coyne and The Greatest Show on Earth by Richard Dawkins, so that they are more familiar with scientific evidence than most of their neighbors who attend the local public schools.)

nhebb 15y ago

I've always wondered why the US has a Department of Education but it doesn't produce a national curriculum. It's mission isn't directly tied to teaching itself [1]. Looking at the rise of sites like the Khan Academy and other services, it seems clear to me that content creation and delivery of core subjects could be centralized, and tutoring, homework, testing, and assessment could be localized. I know that would threaten some politically powerful interest groups (teacher unions and publishers), but I think it's a logical progression if we want to provide students across the country the same learning materials. [1] http://www2.ed.gov/about/what-we-do.html http://www2.ed.gov/about/what-we-do.html

bediger 15y ago
Well, look at the figures for percentage of people who believe something really whacky: creationism. Something like 40% (http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2010/12/20/40-of-americans-still-bel_n_799078.html http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2010/12/20/40-of-americans-sti...). It's going to be hard to have a national curriculum without either watering down subjects like biology or US history to the point that they're totally useless, just rote memorization of falsehoods.
- ams6110 15y ago
  Really, simply believing in creationism does not conflict with most science, even biological science, and certainly not with US history. Of the 40% who believe in creationism (accepting your claim, though the source I'd certainly not consider unbiased), most have mainstream religious beliefs about the origin of the universe, earth, and life, but do not dismiss most of what science has learned in fields like medicine, biochemistry, genetics, etc. For example, I myself have certain "creationist" beliefs but also accept the scientific evidence that evolution/natural selection happens, and I don't see any conflict there.
  - Eeko 15y ago
    Within the article the definition of creationism in the context is clearly defined in the first paragraph: "A new Gallup poll, released Dec. 17, reveals that 40 percent of Americans still believe that humans were created by God within the last 10,000 years." There is another 40% thinking like you claim, but there still is that 40% who are about as anti-scientific as you can get.
  - tokenadult 15y ago
    simply believing in creationism does not conflict with most science, even biological science, To the contrary, taking the Sunday school story (it's not really the Bible story) of creation seriously as an explanation for the world's origin or the origin of species requires willfully massive amounts of scientific evidence. http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/comdesc/ http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/comdesc/ http://pubs.usgs.gov/gip/geotime/age.html http://pubs.usgs.gov/gip/geotime/age.html http://www.astro.ucla.edu/~wright/age.html http://www.astro.ucla.edu/~wright/age.html http://www.psychologytoday.com/blog/the-playing-field/201005/new-ideas-about-the-origin-language http://www.psychologytoday.com/blog/the-playing-field/201005... If someone who takes the Sunday school story of creation seriously has sole influence on a school curriculum, that will be a lousy school curriculum about most areas of science. That said, I support the liberty of parents to direct the education of their own children while their children are minors, believing with John Stuart Mill that "A general State education is a mere contrivance for moulding people to be exactly like one another: and as the mould in which it casts them is that which pleases the predominant power in the government, whether this be a monarch, a priesthood, an aristocracy, or the majority of the existing generation in proportion as it is efficient and successful, it establishes a despotism over the mind, leading by a natural tendency to one over the body. An education established and controlled by the State should only exist, if it exist at all, as one among many competing experiments, carried on for the purpose of example and stimulus, to keep others up to a certain standard of excellence." On Liberty (1859), pp. 190-91. But within the framework of pluralism in provision of primary education, I strongly support government-funded schools using the best available evidence in designing curricula in science, mathematics, history, and really any subject, and that takes creationism out of the science curriculum. (Basis of knowledge: I grew up in a religious denomination that promoted belief in creationism, and had a childhood friend, an all-but-Ph.D. electrical engineer, who grew up in a denomination that demanded belief in creationism. He took me to "creation science" conferences beginning at high school age, and I have read much from all sides on theories of the origin of humankind, the earth, and the universe. Creationism simply has no leg to stand on scientifically. I don't require my homeschooled children to believe in creationism, but rather read aloud to them books like Why Evolution is True by Jerry Coyne and The Greatest Show on Earth by Richard Dawkins, so that they are more familiar with scientific evidence than most of their neighbors who attend the local public schools.)