Removing the Fourteenth Amendment

[southsider2k5]

Different history? Is that even possible? I'm pretty sure what happened is what happened. Maybe some kids learn different parts of history. I know we never made it much more than halfway through the book in any history class I took.

 

I think the good teachers have the ablity to teach the kids what they need to know to pass the tests plus throw in some "extra" stuff as well.

 

Especially as they get into the higher grades and start taking different electives, the standardized testing is more difficult.

 

Come on. Kids are still taught that Columbus discovered America.

[NorthSideSox72]

Come on. Kids are still taught that Columbus discovered America.

Yeah, I was going to say, history text books for those levels are just awful - at least the ones I've seen as recently as the 90's. Maybe they are getting better, I don't know.

 

[StrangeSox]

Different history? Is that even possible? I'm pretty sure what happened is what happened.

 

All history is a narrative. There is no single, objective "history" to teach.

[Iwritecode]

Maybe it's just the way I read it then.

 

A different history as in some bizarro world where we never gained independence from England and the South actually won the civil war.

 

I guess the only way history could be different is when people explain why something happened or tell it from a different POV.

[NorthSideSox72]

Maybe it's just the way I read it then.

 

A different history as in some bizarro world where we never gained independence from England and the South actually won the civil war.

 

I guess the only way history could be different is when people explain why something happened or tell it from a different POV.

Not sure if its still the case, but very recently, kids in parts of the South were still taught that it was the War of Northern Aggression. You even see it called that in museums down there. Their perspective, right or wrong, colors the history taught about that conflict very differently than the rest of the country sees it.

 

[Jenksismyhero]

Not sure if its still the case, but very recently, kids in parts of the South were still taught that it was the War of Northern Aggression. You even see it called that in museums down there. Their perspective, right or wrong, colors the history taught about that conflict very differently than the rest of the country sees it.

 

Which is no different than "northern" history books that basically paint all confederates as slave owning plantation racists, or that say the entire war was about slavery and Lincolns goal from the beginning was to end it. It goes both ways. History is absolutely subjective, unless you're dealing with just basic facts.

 

I'm all for some sort of standard in teaching. There are basics that every child should learn. But at some point you gotta allow the kid to pick and choose what he/she is most interested in learning about. That's the worst part of the system right now. We mandate that kids learn the same things from age 5-18. In reality, probably at about 15-16 we all get interested in different things. Instead of forcing kids along a strict line, we should jump on that and allow kids to explore those areas (as much as can be done given the schools' resources)

[Soxbadger]

History is not objective.

 

In most cases history is written by those who had power or those who were victorious. There are many different versions of "history" depending on what side of the fence you are on.

 

Modern history (post 20th century) is far more accurate as we have many more resources and first hand accounts. But the farther you go back the more and more "history" becomes subjective.

 

 

[Soxbadger]

That's the worst part of the system right now. We mandate that kids learn the same things from age 5-18. In reality, probably at about 15-16 we all get interested in different things. Instead of forcing kids along a strict line, we should jump on that and allow kids to explore those areas (as much as can be done given the schools' resources)

 

This is part of the reason why the US will never compete against certain countries when it comes to test scores. We give kids and people a choice on their profession and life. (I dont believe this is a bad thing btw, and agree that kids should have more freedom).

 

Its hard to tell when the right time to let kids branch out is. The safest system is to have them all take most of the core classes until college, but for some that is a waste of a year or so. US is just never going to compete against certain countries because we dont create a system where we force kids to do what they are best at.

 

[Balta1701]

This is part of the reason why the US will never compete against certain countries when it comes to test scores. We give kids and people a choice on their profession and life. (I dont believe this is a bad thing btw, and agree that kids should have more freedom).

 

Its hard to tell when the right time to let kids branch out is. The safest system is to have them all take most of the core classes until college, but for some that is a waste of a year or so. US is just never going to compete against certain countries because we dont create a system where we force kids to do what they are best at.

Can you explain for us how other countries do this different? I haven't had the experience of the countries that kick our tails forcing students to go into certain subjects, and I think I've met at least my fair share of international students.

 

[Soxbadger]

I only have anecdotal evidence, but my Japanese neighbors used to tell my family that back in Japan they would test students and then have them take after school programs based on their abilities. That at very young ages children were basically put in different paths towards different goals. That students went to school upwards of 12+ hours a day if they wanted to be on the best track and that a very limited number of them would ever get into Tokyo University. Furthermore, they used the tests to put them on track for different areas, and that science/math were preferred to social sciences. That they would try and push the more talented students to science/math instead of social science. They were some what shocked by our system, and sent their kids to additional school on the weekend.

 

Im pretty sure that China does similar pre-selection as well.

 

[Balta1701]

But even if I give you those examples which I'm not quite sure I do...given that the U.S. typically scores well behind dozens of other countries on tests/international rankings, you'd have to convince me that it's a general philosophy of the rest of the world and that's why the U.S. has fallen behind. Can you do that?

[Soxbadger]

This is part of the reason why the US will never compete against certain countries when it comes to test scores.

 

I dont need to do it because I never said that it was the only reason, nor did I make it a general statement about all countries. I made a specific statement about certain countries.

 

Furthermore, youd have to give me "typical scores", the tests, the subjects and the countries in order for me to make a comprehensive argument.

 

I just was going on the normal, US students do worse in math/science.

 

(Edit)

 

Here is the link the international scores in Math/Science.

 

http://nces.ed.gov/timss/table07_1.asp

 

There are 5 countries that score significantly higher, and to the best of my knowledge, all of those countries have an educational system that puts math/science ahead of social science.

Edited August 26, 2010 by Soxbadger

[Balta1701]

Then one worthy question is...what is England doing that is so much better than us?

[Soxbadger]

England scored 541 and 513

 

USA scored 529 and 508

 

I dont consider that "so much" better.

 

Furthermore there are reasons why they score differently, for example, (This is from 2003 stats)

 

http://nces.ed.gov/timss/table07_1.asp

 

England Children must begin school at the start of the term following their 5th birthday 5 Automatic Year 9 9 14.3

 

That means that English students have had 9 years of schooling at the time of the test, average age 14.3

 

Conversely:

 

United States Varies by state; 6 or 7, depending on birth date 6 or 7 Automatic Grade 8 8 14.2

 

That means US students had 8 years of schooling at the time of test, average age 14.2

 

Japan Children must be 6 years old 6 Automatic 2nd grade at the lower secondary school 8 14.4

 

So yes England does score better, but English students have had a 1 more year of schooling at the same point. Those factors being included, I dont think England's scores are that far out of line with the US.

 

Only a few countries score far better, and most of them focus on science/math.

[Jenksismyhero]

Then one worthy question is...what is England doing that is so much better than us?

 

Here's a question (without me looking for the answer myself) - when we talk about the US scoring X and other country scoring Y, is it cumulative? Or is it the best of the best going head to head?

 

If it's cumulative, I bet our bottom students are worse than the rest of the countries we're talking about. There seems to be a pretty sizable chunk of kids that don't go to school, or if they do they don't care to go to school.

 

 

[Soxbadger]

Its not best versus best, which is another reason US tends to do a little worse on these things.

 

Not enough that wed catch up to the Japan's of the world, but enough that wed probably be ahead of England.

 

They dont test History, etc. If they tested History China would probably be one of the worst, as its illegal to even speak of things like the Tiananmen Square protest, let alone have them be part of a curriculum.

[Texsox]

Balta, I don't have time to research a good source, but one area I've heard the US leads is the percentage of children who are in school. We do everything we can to keep a kid in school. In other countries, IIRC, there is not that same push. So our numbers on test scores are somewhat skewed by kids that would not be enrolled in other countries. If someone has time, I'd be interested if there is any data to refute or confirm that.

[longshot7]

So this is why we should remove the 14th Amendment?

[Texsox]

Maybe it's just the way I read it then.

 

A different history as in some bizarro world where we never gained independence from England and the South actually won the civil war.

 

I guess the only way history could be different is when people explain why something happened or tell it from a different POV.

 

Maybe not different, but a different set of information. You can't discuss everything, so would it be OK for one teacher to only barely mention Frederick Douglas as an author and another to spend three weeks on the brave abolitionist?