Xref: utzoo sci.math:5412 sci.physics:5598 comp.edu:1905 Path: utzoo!attcan!uunet!lll-winken!ames!amdahl!johnm From: johnm@uts.amdahl.com (John Murray) Newsgroups: sci.math,sci.physics,comp.edu Subject: Re: Why American students are poorly educated Message-ID: Date: 18 Jan 89 22:25:45 GMT References: <14.UUL1.3#913@acw.UUCP> <1101@l.cc.purdue.edu> Organization: Amdahl Corporation, Sunnyvale CA Lines: 50 In article <1101@l.cc.purdue.edu>, cik@l.cc.purdue.edu (Herman Rubin) writes: > In article , johnm@uts.amdahl.com (John Murray) writes: > > > > Why blame teachers and unions > > for a system which allows kids to leave school without sitting some > > standard national or state-wide exams? . . . . > > . . . .Centralize the curriculum, > > exams, grading, and so on, and then see who's good and bad. > > One problem of doing this is that things get too rigid. We need experimenta- > tion; we should not be so arrogant as to assume we know how to teach a given > subject. I think we need to differentiate between WHAT to teach and HOW to teach. Without a centralized curriculum, we're expecting teachers to define the range of material to be covered, as well as knowing the material itself - and how to put it across. No wonder there's so much variation among what high school graduates know (or don't know). > As for standardizing exams and grading, that is where some of the problem lies. > How are you going to do this without "objective" exams? Students have been > marked wrong for using the equation "y = x + 2" instead of "y = 2 + x". I > do not even want to give any hints as to the possible answers. Objective tests > MAY be OK for manipulations, but not for understanding. I guess I don't understand the term "objective" here. Obviously we're not talking about idiotic blacken-the-boxes quizzes like the SAT. In other educational systems, a person might have to pass a set of national closed- book exams in several subjects in order to be considered for college. Such exams can involve various essays, literary translations and reviews, and other written discussions, as well as answers to factual questions. Many countries also require oral exams in languages. Naturally, the grading for national exams of this type is done manually (according to some set of guidelines). Since the grading and cross- checking is done by teachers of the given subject, usually during the summer break, it may be assumed that they're somewhat familiar with the (standard) curriculum material being examined. It goes without saying that the students are identified only by a number in all of this process, and that appropriate recount and appeal mechanisms are provided. > And we have the situation NOW that in many subjects, a substantial majority of > the teachers are incompetent in their knowledge of the subject. I don't see how this statement can be made, in the absence of some standard definition of the material which the "subject" is supposed to cover. If however, the statement IS true, surely the curriculum definition phase comes before the "catch-up-the-teachers" phase. - John Murray, Amdahl Corp. (My own opinions, etc.)