Need links to what public schools did (by grade) in the past when they were rigorous?

[HappyGrace]

I'd love to see detailed plans/coursework (or anything that's more than just hourly schedules) for what the expectations were back then! I thought I remembered someone posting something like this not too long ago.

[rafiki]

.

[dragons in the flower bed]

 

Here's an outline of the Boston Latin School's program in 1712.

[ElizabethB]

The NRRF grade level tests are from the 1879 McGuffey readers, current reading grade level averages are at least 1-2 grade levels lower at the lower end and 2-3 grade levels lower at the higher end.

 

Also, the Ayers spelling tests and IOWA spelling tests from the late 1800's and early 1900's are about 2 grade levels higher than norms in the 1950's, and spelling scores have probably declined even more since then:

 

http://www.thephonicspage.org/On%20Spelling/spellingtests.html

[Reya]

The NRRF grade level tests are from the 1879 McGuffey readers, current reading grade level averages are at least 1-2 grade levels lower at the lower end and 2-3 grade levels lower at the higher end.

 

Also, the Ayers spelling tests and IOWA spelling tests from the late 1800's and early 1900's are about 2 grade levels higher than norms in the 1950's, and spelling scores have probably declined even more since then:

 

http://www.thephonicspage.org/On%20Spelling/spellingtests.html

 

The McGuffey Readers were used for multiple years, through high school. FYI.

 

For my work, I read an enormous number of historical letters, and I can assure you in the strongest terms that the average literacy level has risen greatly.

[Reya]

I'd love to see detailed plans/coursework (or anything that's more than just hourly schedules) for what the expectations were back then! I thought I remembered someone posting something like this not too long ago.

 

They were a good deal LESS rigorous in the past, so unless someone is inventing something, there is nothing to post.

 

At the best schools, the studies of language and the classics were superior to what you would get today. Everything else is inferior.

[Reya]

http://www.welltrainedmind.com/forums/showthread.php?t=83662&highlight=top+school+curriculum

 

http://www.welltrainedmind.com/forums/showthread.php?t=83661&highlight=top+school+curriculum

 

What I did in HS looked a great deal like the "best high school's" plan--amusingly, including the internship. There was nothing amazing about that in my HS.

 

I, like a number of my peers, was bored brainless.

Edited September 2, 2009 by Reya

[ElizabethB]

For my work, I read an enormous number of historical letters, and I can assure you in the strongest terms that the average literacy level has risen greatly.

 

For what years? There was actually a huge decline in literacy between 1828 and 1878, they used whole word methods then, too.

[rockermom]

What I did in HS looked a great deal like the "best high school's" plan--amusingly, including the internship. There was nothing amazing about that in my HS.

 

I, like a number of my peers, was bored brainless.

 

You were luckier than most HSers in our country, then.

[truebluexf]

I have no idea how literacy rates could be lower now than they were in the 1800's? So many people never even went to school, minorities didn't for sure.

[kokotg]

A couple of my professors used to have this debate when I was in grad school; one insisting students are much better educated and better writers today and the other strongly disagreeing. I wonder if it's just that, just like today, there's a lot of variation. We're reading the Little House books right now, and it's hard to imagine that THOSE kinds of schools--where the kids go for a couple of months at a time and then take whole years off when the grasshoppers show up--could really have been particularly rigorous. Maybe the MOST rigorous schools back then were as rigorous as the most rigorous schools today, which is to say a lot more rigorous than the average schools today. Boston Latin's curriculum today might look different than it did 300 years ago, but it's still pretty intense, after all--I just checked and they require 4 years of Latin AND 4 years of a modern language.

[truebluexf]

I wonder if it's because only the elite were truly educated beyond a few years, and, with their time, money, private tutors, and colleges....they got a truly superb education that could, in fact, be superior in some ways to today's average or even above average educations.

[lgm]

A school is not the only way to obtain an education. My ancestors that immigrated and went west in the mid-1800s didn't attend a school to receive their education. They were self-taught - some even figured out how to read on their own. Literacy was valued, magazines from back east were bought during trips in to the nearest major city and of course bible and books read and studied. Lectures were attended when possible and discussed. Interesting people were invited over for dinner and conversation. These were not wealthy people, but not peasants either...children of a seaman.

[HappyGrace]

That's funny, I was under the impression that even back in the Little House days, they were better educated by grade 8 than our high school educated students are today. I remember there was a test from 8th grade back then floating around the internet, and most adults today didn't know the answers to it. And just generally, that they were well-educated, higher literacy rate, etc.-and I'm pretty sure that was across the board, with no regard to income level.

 

It would make sense to me though, that income level would have been a factor.

[Scuff]

That's funny, I was under the impression that even back in the Little House days, they were better educated by grade 8 than our high school educated students are today. I remember there was a test from 8th grade back then floating around the internet, and most adults today didn't know the answers to it. And just generally, that they were well-educated, higher literacy rate, etc.-and I'm pretty sure that was across the board, with no regard to income level.

 

It would make sense to me though, that income level would have been a factor.

 

 

That had always been my impression also. And in college, I had several professors tell us how much better educated students were when they first started teaching.

[stripe]

Well, people always crow on about the "good old days," but I'll tell you this much, in math and science education, there was a much narrower field to learn, compared to now -- I read recently some quote from about 150-200 years ago where someone advised a father about what college to send his son to, in order to learn fractions. We were told in college that it used to be possible for one person to learn all that was known in math in his/her lifetime, but that is no longer the case.

 

I actually attended Boston Latin for a year. There was a huge emphasis on "declamation" -- in upper grades, there is a separate subject for this, and they do study Latin + a modern. I had 2 English classes in seventh grade -- one where we did the usual sorts of literature and whatnot, and another for memorizing poems. Poe's "The Raven" was the last poem we did; bits of the poems I memorized still come back to me, but I absolutely loathed the teacher, who was one of the worst I've ever had -- daily insults were integral to his teaching methods. I am not sure performing old speeches is that important to my idea of being well-educated. But hey, at least we didn't have caning!

[Storm Bay]

They were a good deal LESS rigorous in the past, so unless someone is inventing something, there is nothing to post.

 

At the best schools, the studies of language and the classics were superior to what you would get today. Everything else is inferior.

 

 

That depends on when and where you went to school, and by where I include which country. I had a great math discussion with a math prof a couple of years ago about back when we were in school and it was normal to be doing Algebra in grades 7/8. The US had a peak in math majors, etc, when schools were using the good forms of "New Math" (such as Dolciani from 1965-1975; not the watered down versions that hit the market after the good ones came out). On the other hand, I wouldn't say that all subjects were at their peak then. There have been some rather lengthy posts on just that on the high school forum done by Charon, et al, when we was here, and if you search for his posts you can find them.

 

I can also say that what I did in grades 1-3 in Canada were a good deal more rigourous than what I found when I went to CA way back then, but that could have been the school or school district. But maybe not, since I grew up with the belief that US public schools were lacking despite the US having some of the best universities. However, when I went to CA for my jr year of high school, it was a school with 2700 kids in 3 grades, and if you were in the College Prep classes the education was very good. Of course, top local students went to a special, more rigourous public high school back then, but we transferred in so we couldn't do that.

 

Another thing to consider is teaching styles. In the nineteenth century there was a great deal of emphasis on rote learning. I know that one person who tried to change this in his teaching style (before he became a full time inventor and invented such things as the fathometer, first wireless phone, radio transmission of voice, etc) was Reginald Aubrey Fessendon (of course, he was homeschooled until age 9, so perhaps that influenced him ;)).

 

What I've personally seen in various public schools here and in a couple of places in Canada shows a lower standard that what we did when I was that age. Here they are trying to rectify that with state testing, which means teaching to the test.

 

There is a lot more focus on "edutainment," self-esteem and a few other issues that are costing students. A friend of mine with children in Ottawa is consantly fighting this, because there, like here, sometimes they'll show the kids movies in class (eg Walt Disney, not even learning) and do other things his dc find a total waste of time (his dd is about 7 or 8 now, and his step son older.)

 

But, back to my first point, it depends on when and where you went to school, which subject areas you're discussion and how you were taught, etc. It's hard to make a blanket statement.

[kokotg]

That depends on when and where you went to school, and by where I include which country. I had a great math discussion with a math prof a couple of years ago about back when we were in school and it was normal to be doing Algebra in grades 7/8.

 

In my area, it seems to again be the norm that students take algebra in 7th or 8th grade. My husband's a high school math teacher, and it's only the weaker math students who wait until 9th grade for algebra. I graduated from the same school district 16 years ago, and this was definitely not the case then; when I was in HS only the strongest few students took algebra in middle school.

[Storm Bay]

In my area, it seems to again be the norm that students take algebra in 7th or 8th grade. My husband's a high school math teacher, and it's only the weaker math students who wait until 9th grade for algebra. I graduated from the same school district 16 years ago, and this was definitely not the case then; when I was in HS only the strongest few students took algebra in middle school.

 

 

Here it's the honours students that take it in grade 8. However, I don't think they come as well prepared based on what we've seen, which is, granted, a very small sector of the country.

 

However, back when and where I was a kid, everyone did the same math in grade 8 (Algebra) but not necessarily all the way though, because you could opt for business Math. On the other hand, we didn't do Calculus in high school at all, but you really knew your Algebra/Geometry/Trig, etc. There weren't nearly as many remedial Algebra courses in university.

 

I do know that my brother says that he sees a big lack in logic and thinking skills in newer high school grads (over time), and that a couple of college math instructors (not all profs) find that overall freshman students are getting into their math classes knowing less and less. Granted, there are always exceptions.

[stripe]

Another thing I wanted to say about Boston Latin is that it's not a regular school; it is an elite institution, so shouldn't really be taken as representative of what public schools in general did or do. Students must take a PSAT-type exam in order to get in, and students are only admitted in 7th and 9th grades. Girls were only admitted in 1977.

 

And even they have reduced Latin study by a year to make room for more science coursework.

[dragons in the flower bed]

I have no idea how literacy rates could be lower now than they were in the 1800's? So many people never even went to school, minorities didn't for sure.

 

People valued education and taught themselves and each other.

[dragons in the flower bed]

I remember there was a test from 8th grade back then floating around the internet, and most adults today didn't know the answers to it.

 

Snopes reports that the eighth grade test that floats around is bogus.

[Moni]

Education was not standardized back then...in fact it still isn't, and varies from locale to locale.

:seeya:

[dragons in the flower bed]

Another thing I wanted to say about Boston Latin is that it's not a regular school; it is an elite institution, so shouldn't really be taken as representative of what public schools in general did or do.

 

It was the first public high school in the U.S., but you had to work your butt off to get into it or any other secondary school at all. Even if they were publicly funded and open to everyone, meaning all white boys, you couldn't go just because you lived nearby. You could go even if you didn't live nearby, if you had the academic credentials. Back then that didn't mean having graduated from right elementary school; it meant you knew your Latin.

 

In early America (1600s), churches in New England established tax supported schools that operated as I described above, but so many people refused to utilize them that private schooling had become the norm again by the 1830s when states started establishing compulsory education laws. Both the early and the later public schools were created with the intent of homogenizing the citizen body and creating a better social atmosphere.

 

But the OP asked specifically about the public school curriculum from back when it was rigorous. Frankly, I don't know that it ever was intended to be that way. If I were going to look at curriculum in the States to see what was taught when the goal was strong academics, I would look at the private schools of the early 1800s.

[iammommy]

Not saying this to you directly, but what's with all this "rigorous" talk? I am 55, and went through public schools in NJ. Was it rigorous? Who knew of such things then? My classmates seemed to have done just fine. Probably the top 10% to 20% or more got into top colleges including many ivy league colleges. Our class has many attorneys, scientists, physicians, professors, clergymen/women teachers, and businessmen. Who knew rigorous? I don't feel like the public schools failed me in anyway becaaue they weren't "rigorous", You do with what you are given. We studied hard, had goals, and succeeded. At some point it's not the curriculum that is behind success, but an inner drive to learn and succeed.

 

Nan...running and ducking for cover!

[Crimson Wife]

The study of math & science is way more rigorous today, the study of literature and history was way more rigorous in the past. As homeschoolers, we should strive to offer the "best of both worlds".

[stripe]

But the OP asked specifically about the public school curriculum from back when it was rigorous. Frankly, I don't know that it ever was intended to be that way. If I were going to look at curriculum in the States to see what was taught when the goal was strong academics, I would look at the private schools of the early 1800s.

Interesting suggestion.

 

I am not sure that the 1800s boys' prep school environment is relevant to my kids, but I definitely understand the interest in what historically was considered a strong education. My interest is the concept of what a good education is, and how this has evolved throughout time.

 

I think the sad fact is that the majority of the people have not been well-educated, throughout time.

[Rebecca VA]

In "A Separate Peace," (WWII, Phillips Exeter Academy), the sophomores studied Latin, French language and literature, trigonometry, British literature, Middle Ages history, and physics. (I'm extrapolating from what's mentioned in the book.)

 

In "Her Father's Daughter" by Gene Stratton Porter, a highly-achieving senior in the public schools of Los Angeles in 1921 was studying Trigonometry, Rhetoric, Ancient History, and Astronomy. This same fictional student entered Harvard the following year.

 

(Just to mention a couple of fictional examples.)

 

I don't think you can say that schools were rigorous at one point in time and not rigorous nowadays, or vice versa. There have always been "tracks" for college-bound, mid-level, and vocational students. The college-bound students have always taken classical ed courses. Vocational students have always taken shop, home ec, etc. There's a huge difference even nowadays between Advanced Placement classes and remedial classes in the same high school.

[hi_itsgwen]

I don't know if this is even helpful at all, but I found it interesting. My Great Grandmother was a school teacher around 1915-1918. I still have many of her original books that she taught from. A big emphasis was placed on memory work...it sort of reminds me of the WTM First Language Lessons. :)

 

My husband's grandmother said that she did a LOT of memory work in school. They were required to memorize more than just math facts...poetry, lists of historical names/dates. I am grateful that my kids are doing much more of this at home this year than they did in public school.

[Storm Bay]

Not saying this to you directly, but what's with all this "rigorous" talk? I am 55, and went through public schools in NJ. Was it rigorous? Who knew of such things then? My classmates seemed to have done just fine. Probably the top 10% to 20% or more got into top colleges including many ivy league colleges. Our class has many attorneys, scientists, physicians, professors, clergymen/women teachers, and businessmen. Who knew rigorous? I don't feel like the public schools failed me in anyway becaaue they weren't "rigorous", You do with what you are given. We studied hard, had goals, and succeeded. At some point it's not the curriculum that is behind success, but an inner drive to learn and succeed.

 

Nan...running and ducking for cover!

 

:iagree: Although some of us didn't study hard and got through by coasting, but that doesn't necessarily indicate lack of rigour. I'm not 55, but my sil is 54.

 

The other poster(s) who mentioned that it has always varied is absolutely correct.

[Reya]

I have no idea how literacy rates could be lower now than they were in the 1800's? So many people never even went to school, minorities didn't for sure.

 

Literacy was defined as writing one's name through the early 1900s.

 

Now it is defined as "functional literacy," or reading on a 6th grade level.

 

Biiiiiig difference.

 

Anyone citing a decrease in "literacy rates" is looking at very different definitions.

 

We will always have at least 2% illiteracy by the modern definition due to mental disability. 5% is more realistic on that basis alone. (The deaf, for instance, do not typically reach full literacy.) With immigration, anything over 90% of the modern definition would be fabulous.

Edited September 3, 2009 by Reya

[Reya]

There are good studies indicating the average level of achievement of students AND indicating the dropout rates.

 

Achievement has remained steady since the 1960s. Dropout rates have dropped precipitously, and enrollment in college has greatly increased.

 

The most challenging work offered in most schools has also increased substantially since then. In the early 1900s, high school included little to no algebra and just a bit of geometry. In the in the 1960s, the honors kids would get through trig and no more. Now, all but substandard schools offer calculus.

 

I'm homeschooling because I found the standards at *my* high school unacceptably low. I'm under no illusion that they weren't much, much higher than the vast majority of schools throughout American history, however.

[Reya]

That's funny, I was under the impression that even back in the Little House days, they were better educated by grade 8 than our high school educated students are today. I remember there was a test from 8th grade back then floating around the internet, and most adults today didn't know the answers to it. And just generally, that they were well-educated, higher literacy rate, etc.-and I'm pretty sure that was across the board, with no regard to income level.

 

No. Laura did not begin to read until age 7. She never learned more than simple arithmetic in math, and she never had science or a real history curriculum--only some American history and "social studies," plus a lot of map-memorizing for geography. She had no foreign language, health, etc.

 

Teachers of the age in the average school (which was rural or semirural) were rarely college educated. Typically, they went to a two-year normal school, and they might not have even been high school graduates.

 

Remember that McGuffey Readers were the FULL literature program through grade 12--each book lasted multiple grades. And there was no "reading the greats" in a typical rural school, either.

 

And the test was made up.

Edited September 3, 2009 by Reya

[Reya]

For what years? There was actually a huge decline in literacy between 1828 and 1878, they used whole word methods then, too.

 

From the late 1700s through about 1920.

 

Spelling was an enormous subject in the 1800s. Now, schools spend maybe 15 minutes a day. Then, out of a four hour day, at LEAST a full half hour would have been spent on spelling.

 

When there's no science and almost no history, there's more time to spell.

 

As far as I could tell, though, it didn't seem to help letter-writers much! Part of the problem was probably that most people only went to school for four, maybe six years, though.

[Reya]

In "A Separate Peace," (WWII, Phillips Exeter Academy), the sophomores studied Latin, French language and literature, trigonometry, British literature, Middle Ages history, and physics. (I'm extrapolating from what's mentioned in the book.)

 

In "Her Father's Daughter" by Gene Stratton Porter, a highly-achieving senior in the public schools of Los Angeles in 1921 was studying Trigonometry, Rhetoric, Ancient History, and Astronomy. This same fictional student entered Harvard the following year.

 

(Just to mention a couple of fictional examples.)

 

I don't think you can say that schools were rigorous at one point in time and not rigorous nowadays, or vice versa. There have always been "tracks" for college-bound, mid-level, and vocational students. The college-bound students have always taken classical ed courses. Vocational students have always taken shop, home ec, etc. There's a huge difference even nowadays between Advanced Placement classes and remedial classes in the same high school.

 

The "trig," though, isn't as sophisticated as our trig, the French was learned without the "unseemly" shaping of the face into "strange" shapes, and the physics was pathetic--ditto the astronomy.

 

I've seen Eton's *modern* curriculum, and its strenghts and weaknesses are still the same!

 

My mother had honors chemistry in high school in the early 1970s. It took my honors class 6 weeks to cover everything in her class, plus some, and it took my brother, in regular chemistry, 6 months. It used to be even worse.

 

Course titles aren't but a fraction of the story. You have to look at the old textbooks, too.

 

*If* you are comparing the very top schools of the 1800s to the *average* honors-track high school curriculum today, you will find that they are stronger in Latin, modern language, classical literature, ancient history, and reading level. OTOH, the modern students would be better at science, modern (to them) and non-Western history, and math, and will be much better read in the English-language classics.

 

Music in the "older" high school would be pretty much nonexistent, but most middle class girls could play the piano and often a second instrument better than the average contemporary person.

 

If you are comparing the very top schools of the 1800s to the very top ones today,t here's no question. The Latin would be weaker int he modern school, but other than that, the modern school would have the older one creamed in every subject.

[Reya]

I had a great math discussion with a math prof a couple of years ago about back when we were in school and it was normal to be doing Algebra in grades 7/8. ...

 

But maybe not, since I grew up with the belief that US public schools were lacking despite the US having some of the best universities. ...

 

What I've personally seen in various public schools here and in a couple of places in Canada shows a lower standard that what we did when I was that age. Here they are trying to rectify that with state testing, which means teaching to the test.

 

There is a lot more focus on "edutainment," self-esteem and a few other issues that are costing students. A friend of mine with children in Ottawa is consantly fighting this, because there, like here, sometimes they'll show the kids movies in class (eg Walt Disney, not even learning) and do other things his dc find a total waste of time (his dd is about 7 or 8 now, and his step son older.)

 

I'm speaking about national averages, which are well-documented.

 

It has never been standard to have a *rigorous Algebra program in 7/8 in any socioeconomically diverse and inclusive school--for a reason. A lot of kids can't handle it due to developmental maturity. There's a move to push alg. down to 8th grade in some states, and the result is a watering down of the curriculum. Schools that have a *real* algebra program standard in 7th grade from an elite pool--meaning that other kids get sent to non-college-prep schools after the 6th grade exams, or the dropout rate is high, or it's a private school, or it's a public school in a wealthy (higher IQ) area.

 

One of the major reasons why the US doesn't stack up, internationally, is that the US doesn't massage the numbers. The international tests are taken by academic-track kids. The US doesn't have hardly any vocational high schools, and so here, that's everybody. So the average public school student in the US is being compared to the average academic-school student elsewhere. You'll see a dip between 4th to 8th grade for this reason. (That and the fact that special ed kids aren't shuttled away to special school starting in K.)

 

Doesn't it seem supsicious to you that we have a "terrible" system AND we send a higher percentage of "terribly" prepared students to college and yet we have the strongest university system in the world?

[stripe]

I appreciate your posts....

 

Doesn't it seem supsicious to you that we have a "terrible" system AND we send a higher percentage of "terribly" prepared students to college and yet we have the strongest university system in the world?

Yes, and in certain subjects (engineering, for example), American students are in the minority.

[Crimson Wife]

[Laura] never had science or a real history curriculum--only some American history and "social studies," plus a lot of map-memorizing for geography.

 

In one of the later "Little House" books, Laura relates how she had to give a long presentation from memory relating the entire first half (to that point) of American history. She was only 14 or 15 at the time.

 

Do you think the typical freshman or sophomore at a government-run school today could do the same?

[Crimson Wife]

Doesn't it seem supsicious to you that we have a "terrible" system AND we send a higher percentage of "terribly" prepared students to college and yet we have the strongest university system in the world?

 

Don't forget that 1/3 of students at Ivy League universities attended private schools. Even of the 2/3 that attended a government-run school, a disproportionate number come from schools that practice selective admissions like Boston Latin, Stuyvesant in NYC, Thomas Jefferson near D.C., Lowell in San Francisco, etc.

[Storm Bay]

I'm speaking about national averages, which are well-documented.

 

It has never been standard to have a *rigorous Algebra program in 7/8 in any socioeconomically diverse and inclusive school--for a reason. A lot of kids can't handle it due to developmental maturity. There's a move to push alg. down to 8th grade in some states, and the result is a watering down of the curriculum. Schools that have a *real* algebra program standard in 7th grade from an elite pool--meaning that other kids get sent to non-college-prep schools after the 6th grade exams, or the dropout rate is high, or it's a private school, or it's a public school in a wealthy (higher IQ) area.

 

One of the major reasons why the US doesn't stack up, internationally, is that the US doesn't massage the numbers. The international tests are taken by academic-track kids. The US doesn't have hardly any vocational high schools, and so here, that's everybody. So the average public school student in the US is being compared to the average academic-school student elsewhere. You'll see a dip between 4th to 8th grade for this reason. (That and the fact that special ed kids aren't shuttled away to special school starting in K.)

 

Doesn't it seem supsicious to you that we have a "terrible" system AND we send a higher percentage of "terribly" prepared students to college and yet we have the strongest university system in the world?

 

I just lost my reply that I wrote.

 

Summed up (since I have to get going) is:

 

1. When I was in grade 8 everyone in the school, and it was a public school serving a rural area, did Algebra, so I spoke from experience. You could opt for Business Math starting in grade 9 or 10 (can't remember which one now as I opted for Algebra).

 

2. There are other countries with university systems as strong as the US with better public education. The problem is that many of them have much smaller populations, so the numbers are smaller. In addition, the excellent colleges in the US are in the minority--there are many mediocre-poor ones (but also many good ones.) Also, the Ivies aren't always all they're cracked up to be; I spent some time studying this when dd announced that she wanted to homeschool high school, and I had to shed some of the myths I'd believed. In addition, I've see many brilliant, well educated people come out of schools you may never have heard of in other countries, mainly Canada.

 

3. Not every country that outscores the US is massaging the numbers, although certainly they're not always equal. Some countries have had an intellectual heritage for centuries. Some don't have vocational or agricultural schools and so would actually do better if they did and those kids weren't taking all the same tests, whereas they have them in the US and they don't all write those tests. True that they are not indicative of everything, but note that Americans outscore in the early years and then it changes. That says a lot to me, among other things.

Edited September 3, 2009 by Karin

[Reya]

In one of the later "Little House" books, Laura relates how she had to give a long presentation from memory relating the entire first half (to that point) of American history. She was only 14 or 15 at the time.

 

Do you think the typical freshman or sophomore at a government-run school today could do the same?

 

Um, if what they learned was the same level, yes!

 

I said only a little history because it was so thin.

[FairProspects]

Also, keep in mind that The Little House books were written years after the fact, during the Great Depression, to make money and keep the family finances afloat. They are fantastic historically-inspired fiction, but should not be taken as an accurate first-person historical account, given that they were written so many years later and with the purpose of selling books :). Stories about what the Ingalls & Wilders had done, may well be embellished as memories tend to become over the years.

[Reya]

>1. When I was in grade 8 everyone in the school, and it was a public school serving a rural area, did Algebra, so I spoke from experience. You could opt for Business Math starting in grade 9 or 10 (can't remember which one now as I opted for Algebra).

 

Business math usually doesn't require algebra. Are you sure it was a full Algebra I course and not an introductory course? If for some reason it was a full course, then that would be the extreme exception for reasons stated above.

 

>2. There are other countries with university systems as strong as the US with better public education.

 

....like?

 

>3. Not every country that outscores the US is massaging the numbers, although certainly they're not always equal. Some countries have had an intellectual heritage for centuries. Some don't have vocational or agricultural schools and so would actually do better if they did and those kids weren't taking all the same tests, whereas they have them in the US and they don't all write those tests. True that they are not indicative of everything, but note that Americans outscore in the early years and then it changes. That says a lot to me, among other things.

 

Which countries statistically outscore the US that do NOT separate the academic and non academic kids before 8th grade?

 

Statistically, the scores of Hong Kong, Singapore, Chinese Taipei, Kazakhstan, England, Japan, and Latvia were the only countries whose math scores were higher than the Us's in the last round of the TIMSS at either the 4th or 8th grade level. And guess what? They ALL track kids into separate schools, and they ALL put shunt special ed kids into special schools. (Only a tiny, very priviledged minority of kids were in a Kazakh school that might have veen included, too, of course.)

 

In science, add the Czech Republic, Hungary, South Korea, Slovenia, and England to the list. Again, every single one of them tracks kids based on high-stakes testing. (Another BIG difference is the sheer scope of the US science program--there's nothing like it elsewhere. It's insane.)

 

 

Something that comes out of all the studies: We are doing a very good job of educating average and low kids--unfortunately, we are not equally skilled at educating our better students, never mind our BEST ones.

[Reya]

Also, keep in mind that The Little House books were written years after the fact, during the Great Depression, to make money and keep the family finances afloat. They are fantastic historically-inspired fiction, but should not be taken as an accurate first-person historical account, given that they were written so many years later and with the purpose of selling books :). Stories about what the Ingalls & Wilders had done, may well be embellished as memories tend to become over the years.

 

It probably was accurate-that part, at least. Textbooks were EXPENSIVE, and so there were very few used, and they stretched them out however they could. Memorization of large parts of them assisted in that!

 

Edit: This is for poorer areas.

[Reya]

Don't forget that 1/3 of students at Ivy League universities attended private schools. Even of the 2/3 that attended a government-run school, a disproportionate number come from schools that practice selective admissions like Boston Latin, Stuyvesant in NYC, Thomas Jefferson near D.C., Lowell in San Francisco, etc.

 

This is a whole different issue, but on AVERAGE, private schools do not out perform public schools in the US.

 

There are, of course, both excellent private and public schools of various types.

[Crimson Wife]

This is a whole different issue, but on AVERAGE, private schools do not out perform public schools in the US.

 

 

Even after controlling for parental income and education, private school students outperformed students attending government-run schools on the SAT.

 

An excerpt from a 2007 Time article (emphasis mine): "Isn't that just because richer private-school kids can afford to be coached more before the SAT? No — remember that this study carefully controlled for socioeconomic status. Rather, it appears private schools do more to develop students' critical-thinking abilities — not just the rote memorization required to do well on achievement tests."

 

My DH attended a private Catholic prep school and he was much better prepared for the rigors of college-level coursework than I was by the government-run school from which I graduated.

[kokotg]

Even after controlling for parental income and education, private school students outperformed students attending government-run schools on the SAT.

 

An excerpt from a 2007 Time article (emphasis mine): "Isn't that just because richer private-school kids can afford to be coached more before the SAT? No — remember that this study carefully controlled for socioeconomic status. Rather, it appears private schools do more to develop students' critical-thinking abilities — not just the rote memorization required to do well on achievement tests."

 

My DH attended a private Catholic prep school and he was much better prepared for the rigors of college-level coursework than I was by the government-run school from which I graduated.

 

The article you link to is arguing that he disagrees with the conclusions of a study comparing public and private schooled high schoolers. He says, "It's true that controlling for socioeconomic status (SES) eliminates most of the public-school/private-school differences in achievement-test scores in math, reading, science and history" and then goes on to argue that he thinks the people running the study should have placed more emphasis on SAT scores, which were higher for private-schooled students, and on the specific type of private school (some did better than others).

 

There are other recent studies that show little gap in achievement between public and private schools when you control for socioeconomic factors. Here's another one:

 

http://nces.ed.gov/nationsreportcard/pubs/studies/2006461.asp

 

In grades 4 and 8 for both reading and mathematics, students in private schools achieved at higher levels than students in public schools. The average difference in school means ranged from almost 8 points for grade 4 mathematics, to about 18 points for grade 8 reading. The average differences were all statistically significant. Adjusting the comparisons for student characteristics resulted in reductions in all four average differences of approximately 11 to 14 points. Based on adjusted school means, the average for public schools was significantly higher than the average for private schools for grade 4 mathematics, while the average for private schools was significantly higher than the average for public schools for grade 8 reading. The average differences in adjusted school means for both grade 4 reading and grade 8 mathematics were not significantly different from zero.

 

I think he's certainly right, though, that it makes sense to look not at public vs. private per se, but at what individual schools--however they're funded-- with high student achievement are doing right.

[kokotg]

Rather, it appears private schools do more to develop students' critical-thinking abilities — not just the rote memorization required to do well on achievement tests.

 

He's not basing this on any evidence from the study. He's basing it on his own assertion that the SAT is an accurate measure of critical thinking abilities and achievement tests are not.

[Storm Bay]

>1. When I was in grade 8 everyone in the school, and it was a public school serving a rural area, did Algebra, so I spoke from experience. You could opt for Business Math starting in grade 9 or 10 (can't remember which one now as I opted for Algebra).

 

Business math usually doesn't require algebra. Are you sure it was a full Algebra I course and not an introductory course? If for some reason it was a full course, then that would be the extreme exception for reasons stated above.

 

>2. There are other countries with university systems as strong as the US with better public education.

 

....like?

 

>3. Not every country that outscores the US is massaging the numbers, although certainly they're not always equal. Some countries have had an intellectual heritage for centuries. Some don't have vocational or agricultural schools and so would actually do better if they did and those kids weren't taking all the same tests, whereas they have them in the US and they don't all write those tests. True that they are not indicative of everything, but note that Americans outscore in the early years and then it changes. That says a lot to me, among other things.

 

Which countries statistically outscore the US that do NOT separate the academic and non academic kids before 8th grade?

 

Statistically, the scores of Hong Kong, Singapore, Chinese Taipei, Kazakhstan, England, Japan, and Latvia were the only countries whose math scores were higher than the Us's in the last round of the TIMSS at either the 4th or 8th grade level. And guess what? They ALL track kids into separate schools, and they ALL put shunt special ed kids into special schools. (Only a tiny, very priviledged minority of kids were in a Kazakh school that might have veen included, too, of course.)

 

In science, add the Czech Republic, Hungary, South Korea, Slovenia, and England to the list. Again, every single one of them tracks kids based on high-stakes testing. (Another BIG difference is the sheer scope of the US science program--there's nothing like it elsewhere. It's insane.)

 

 

Something that comes out of all the studies: We are doing a very good job of educating average and low kids--unfortunately, we are not equally skilled at educating our better students, never mind our BEST ones.

 

1. It was true Algebra; we did pre-Algebra in grade 7. Sadly, I have deleted the post I had from the math prof I was reminiscing with about this (it was a few years ago and I must have decided that I wouldn't need it anymore.) The exchange we had related to using Lial's Beginning Algebra, and I mentioned that I was surprised that they needed this at the college level since I remembered doing that stuff in grade 8; he did the same thing at about the same age; different country, same decade.

 

2. Countries that don't separate kids that outscore the US are usually too small to be counted in the surveys, which is rather outrageous, IMO. And tests alone mean little; it's what happens in the classroom and the real world that count. I'm not particularly impressed by testing, and I was one who always scored very, very high on tests.

 

ETA My apologies for being angry with someone's writing tone. Please note that studies alone do not tell the whole story, that the information given is often selective, etc.

Edited September 8, 2009 by Karin

[sarahli]

Reya's argument is fair because it's backed up by studies and not just anectodal experience. Whether it is true or not that education is better in public vs. private or now vs. the past is not clear-cut in every study... But I appreciate when someone is able to use statistics and evidence when attempting to prove their point.

Edited September 8, 2009 by sarahli