Ester Maria would you mind explaining more...

[Ester Maria]

Do kids there do sports teams? Where we live, at the high school level, a sport is 2 hours of practice/day M-F, plus the game time (nights and weekends) and travel to get there (we're a bit remote). Then there are tournaments. I look at your son's schedule and it doesn't seem like there would be time for a sport team. (I'm not implying that's bad, just forming a picture.) My daughter dropped down to 1 sport in high school because of the time demand. It just wasn't possible to do them and put quality effort into her academic subjects too.

Not Laura, but I find this sports thing too interesting not to comment.

 

P.E. is a compulsory school subject in Italy on primary and secondary levels of education, two periods weekly. Its purpose there is pretty much to promote a healthy lifestyle and to serve as moderate gymnastics and fitness for children who would otherwise not be getting any, as well as to cover several health topics. It often turns into a "downtime" class, and professors simply allow kids to play group sports and relax in-between all those academics that their day consists of.

 

Other than that, Italian school culture isn't sports-oriented at all; on the contrary, most of the kids that are semi-professionally into sports do so OUTSIDE of the school, belonging to specific clubs, whether professional or amateur. Those sports activities are a part of the students' free time - just like some students opt to attend an additional music or ballet school, some students attend Hebrew school, some students want their free time for themselves and attend nothing but school, and some students are into sports. But, when you're into sports, you're citizen X, not school student X. It's something that's your free time, your choice and totally unrelated to the school. There are some sportsy extracurriculars in some schools, but the whole sports culture is on a very low level compared to what it's like in America. (And, ironically, there are far less obese kids. :glare:)

 

There is this idea that schools should be academic institutions. There is no such thing as a long lunch break, obligatory extracurriculars, obligatory volunteering or sports activities, anything of the kind. Schools are way more academic, and if you want to do something other than that, you're free to do it in your free time. There is also no such thing as universities admitting you on the basis of extracurriculars and other irrelevant activities (probably because there isn't numerus clausus anyway, but still, acceptance is based on academics ONLY, and on relevant academics).

 

The idea that school should be an all-inclusive service is pretty much an American one. Italian kids don't go to school to cover all of their daily socializing / sports / mentoring / musical / etc needs - they go to school to get the academic component down, and much of these needs and "needs" is transferred onto the private sphere of their lives. Because of that, and reduced stress of the societal expectations with regards to that, Italian kids generally have a much "healthier" lifestyle in spite of a highly demanding academic program, and much more truly free time to get out with friends and socialize informally - and the activities they do outside of school are usually higher quality, since they're taken in more specialized institutions anyway. Kids are also a lot more physically independent that way and circle in society more, as opposed to being "confined" all day within a school setting.

 

In fact, one of the numerous reasons why we homeschool is because we didn't want to send our children to a school which isn't an academic, but an all-inclusive institution. We have a problem with the kind of implicit "upbringing" that's happening if the school isn't only your classroom, but also your "living room", sports facilities, music facilities, etc.

[Ester Maria]

the point is that when students are studying physics and chemistry and biology every year, they are actually spending far more time studying science.

True.

 

I would also like to point to another crucial point: in MANY countries, high schools are interests-segregated (in lack of better expression). In Italy, there is no, strictly speaking, the equivalent of the American "high school". There is liceo as opposed to other types of school, BUT, even within liceo, there are several types of liceo. And from my experience, even classico (the Latin-and-Greek one) covers pretty much the equivalent of the American high school sciences, let alone scientifico. And the content is a lot more dense, students cover more even with the same number of lessons - and if they happen to have more lessons, they can go really further. And Italy is actually a bad example. For good science programs one must look at the countries of the former Eastern Bloc. Like I said, what I outlined basically reflects that, NOT Italy (even if most of that would be covered within an Italian school as well).

[Corraleno]

Do kids there do sports teams? Where we live, at the high school level, a sport is 2 hours of practice/day M-F, plus the game time (nights and weekends) and travel to get there (we're a bit remote). Then there are tournaments. I look at your son's schedule and it doesn't seem like there would be time for a sport team. (I'm not implying that's bad, just forming a picture.) My daughter dropped down to 1 sport in high school because of the time demand. It just wasn't possible to do them and put quality effort into her academic subjects too.

I can't answer for Laura's son, but I can tell you the schedule at DH's boarding school:

 

M/W/F: Chapel/Assembly from 8-9 (mandatory), then classes from 9:00 am to 6:00 pm, with a 1-hr break for lunch (1:00-2:00). Dinner from 7:00-8:00, and homework from 8:00-10:00 pm.

 

T/Th/Sat: Chapel/Assembly, then classes until 1:00. Lunch, then sports all afternoon, which included mandatory rugby and one other sport, then students could chose their own sports (DH was a fencer).

 

So there was plenty of time for sports, just no free time whatsoever! Sunday afternoons were free, but many kids still had homework to finish up.

 

Jackie

[Kfamily]

So, a 9th grade student might study physics, chemistry and biology and each subject is treated separately. They would complete the appropriate books/textbook/syllabus for each subject separately. These students finish high school with more science all around. Do I have this correct now?:lol:

 

*Would the levels of the books/textbooks for 9th grade be more introductory than those of a 11th grader taking the same subjects? How could I find which books here would meet those requirements?

 

 

**If anyone has set this up through high school would you please share a sample of books/textbooks you would use for each grade of high school? **

 

Would it be more like using a conceptual physics book in say 9th vs. an AP or college level physics book in say 11th or like using a Prentice Hall biology(as introductory level) vs. Campbell's biology (as an advanced level) text that I've read about here on the boards?

 

Thanks so much for helping me understand this better.

[Laura Corin]

I'm still trying to get a picture of the school day, please tell me if I have this wrong. Homework blocks are outside of school time, as are the private study periods in Mandarin?

 

What do you mean by "Each academic course last two years"?

 

Do kids there do sports teams? Where we live, at the high school level, a sport is 2 hours of practice/day M-F, plus the game time (nights and weekends) and travel to get there (we're a bit remote). Then there are tournaments. I look at your son's schedule and it doesn't seem like there would be time for a sport team. (I'm not implying that's bad, just forming a picture.) My daughter dropped down to 1 sport in high school because of the time demand. It just wasn't possible to do them and put quality effort into her academic subjects too.

 

 

As Calvin is a day pupil, he can leave the school at 4:15 and come home to do his homework, or he can stay and do supervised homework at school if he prefers. There are also after school activities (see below).

 

The Mandarin is an anomaly - it has been arranged just for Calvin, so it acts as a private tutorial arrangement which fits into the slots in which Calvin would otherwise study biology during the day (the requirements for which he has already fulfilled).

 

When I say that each subject lasts two years: the pupils choose their subjects, then study them for two years, at the end of which they take exams and move on. When they move on to the second half of 'high school', they study fewer subjects but in more depth, leading to exams similar to US AP exams.

 

There are team sports, but it varies from school to school how important they are. At 4:15 each day there are many extracurricular activities available - chess, choir, debate, sports, drama, art..... or you can go home if you prefer. The time allotted for the evening activities is only one hour, in order to give time for homework afterwards. There are also team games on Saturday. All of this is voluntary. The compulsory PE lessons during school hours just aim to give a basic level of fitness. Husband went to high school in Texas and although he was on the track team he felt that the emphasis on sport was disproportionate.

 

Laura

[Laura Corin]

So, a 9th grade student might study physics, chemistry and biology and each subject is treated separately. They would complete the appropriate books/textbook/syllabus for each subject separately. These students finish high school with more science all around. Do I have this correct now?:lol:

 

That's roughly it, although in the UK system one sometimes has the option of dropping all science at 16 - I don't think that this is a good idea, but at least you will have got a lot of science in the previous two years. If the pupil is interested in science, s/he will carry on to study it more intensively from age 16-18.

 

*Would the levels of the books/textbooks for 9th grade be more introductory than those of a 11th grader taking the same subjects? How could I find which books here would meet those requirements?

 

After two years of high school science in the UK (from ages 14-16) you take (i)GCSE exams, which are very roughly the same level as SAT subject tests, according to this school, which has experience of both.

 

 

**If anyone has set this up through high school would you please share a sample of books/textbooks you would use for each grade of high school? **

 

I can only refer you to the text book we used for Calvin to take the UK IGCSE biology course early, but I don't think there are samples available.

 

 

Best wishes

 

Laura

[Guest]

Rebecca Rupp discusses, all too briefly, the possibility of arranging highschool-level science courses around an integrative topic: the study of energy, for instance, could include particle physics, astrophysics, cell biology, chemical bonds and reactions, oil and alternate forms of energy, etc.

[Capt_Uhura]

I think the key point that people are missing is that the difference between the US and foreign method of teaching science isn't about whether you study the sciences separately or mix them up each year — the point is that when students are studying physics and chemistry and biology every year, they are actually spending far more time studying science.

 

By the time a student in the UK is 16, they have done the equivalent of 4 years of "normal" US high school science. From 16-18, if they continue to study science, they will be working at the AP/college level. By the time they complete a bachelor's degree (which is only 3 years in the UK), they'll have the equivalent of an American master's degree, so the last 2 years of "high school" in the UK are basically equivalent to the first 2 years of college here.

 

So the reason foreign students tend to be better at science than American students is because they've spent 2-3x as many hours studying it, not just because they "mix all the sciences together" each year.

 

Jackie

 

THat was the heart of my question!! Thanks Jackie!

 

Capt_Uhura

[regentrude]

On a related note: if all three sciences are required and taught simultaneously, everybody takes all of them and every school has to teach all of them.

Every semester I have quite a few college students (who are majoring in science and engineering - so they are already the more scientifically inclined) who did not have physics in high school.

Some tell me their school did not offer any physics. Some say, they had to chose between physics and algebra for scheduling reasons (and wisely chose algebra.)

[Kfamily]

Thank you Laura and all!:001_smile:

 

 

This has been very interesting and helpful too!

 

I'm still feeling lost and unsure if I could arrange this very well for my own dd (8th this year). We are doing something similar this year since she wanted to study different topics under science but needed a lot of physics and chemistry. I compromised with her by keeping what she needed at the forefront of our studies but also added some biology and supplements. We're also doing some botany under nature studies. I feel confident at this level but would not know where to begin with the high school level. Hopefully over this year I could sort this out and come up with a plan.

 

If anyone works this out or even suggestions for getting started, please share with me. Thank you so much. If I learn anything helpful, I'll be sure to share as well. I know most of you moms are years ahead of me here. I'm still trying to hang in there.:D

[OlgaLA]

I have received most of my education in Russia, in an absolutely average school, and then in an average university. While I would agree that my math and science level was head and shoulders above those I met in a graduate school here, it was definitely at the expense of humanities. We had decent Russian language and literature classes, but the rest was almost nonexistent. I think we had 2 hours of foreign language with nothing to show for it at the end of the school; 2 or 3 hours of history with homework that most of the time meant to prepare a narration of a page or two from the textbook. I remember doing it during the last five minutes before the class. Guess how much I remember from it. I don't think we wrote a single essay for history, except for the essay style tests, which were really narrations from the same textbook. But I still can explain high school algebra (and probably even calculus, I just haven't tried it) to a student.

 

So at least in Russia it was a trade off. I think that sports, drama, etc can and should be outsourced and done in free time, but a whole block of academic disciplines just can't.

 

My oldest is only 7, but an attempt to marry Russian-style math and science with European-style humanities over long run and still stay within a reasonable timetable is already giving me a headache. Plus there is a problem of transcripts...

[Corraleno]

I feel confident at this level but would not know where to begin with the high school level. Hopefully over this year I could sort this out and come up with a plan.

 

If anyone works this out or even suggestions for getting started, please share with me. Thank you so much. If I learn anything helpful, I'll be sure to share as well. I know most of you moms are years ahead of me here. I'm still trying to hang in there.:D

 

Keep in mind that in Europe, they don't "integrate" the sciences in the way that Karen and I are talking about — that's just a personal preference related to the way some kids think. So in that sense, doing science "the European way" isn't any different from doing multiple languages (which is another common feature of European schools). If you wanted your student to study Latin and French, for example, you would just choose a Latin program and a French program and schedule them as you would any other subjects (5-6 hours/wk each, or whatever). Same with science: you could choose a physics text and a chemistry text, and just treat them as normal subjects, without having to "line up" the topics or anything. Or you could choose texts for biology, chemistry, physics, and geology, and schedule each one for 2-3 hours/wk, and plan to complete the textbooks over 2 years.

 

In US high schools, I think there's much more emphasis on "electives," so students generally only take one foreign language and one science and one "social studies" course per year, and then fill in with photography, ceramics, creative writing, psychology, work-study, etc. In the UK, up to the age of 16, it's normal for students to be taking 2 (or more) languages, 3 sciences, history and geography, plus math and English. So they would have 9-10 "core" subjects every year, plus music and art. In the US, most HS students have 6-7 subjects, which would generally only include 4-5 core subjects, plus would count art or music as a full credit. That's why 16-yos in the UK have the equivalent education to HS graduates in the US — and students in the UK have to pass proficiency exams in their subjects as well (GCSEs).

 

Jackie

[Kfamily]

Thank you Jackie! This encourages me. I think this is combining with all of the stress I already feel about high school as it looms ahead so largely.:D My ideas of what I hope to teach are way ahead of what I know myself. I'm trying to balance this.

[cathmom]

Ester Maria, what a shocking concept! Schools being academic...that's crazy!

 

:lol:

[Joan in GE]

I'm still feeling lost and unsure if I could arrange this very well for my own dd (8th this year).

 

Different countries and different states within the countries do this all so differently that it can be overwhelming to try to compare them all in a lump like this. It is a little dangerous to lump Europe as one system. You can end up thinking that from 14 - 18 years old, all Europeans are all studying this much science all the time, which I don't quite think is true.

 

Here in Geneva, they don't start doing the simultaneous science study until 10th grade. You can see the schedule here for 9th grade and see that the general plan is only 1 hour of science (physics) a week! Then they finish high school at age 19, doing 13 years of school. But almost half go into appreticeships at 16 and aren't doing the sciences like this.

 

And I presume regentrude's note about all students taking all the sciences was for Germany and I don't know their system at all, but not in all European countries do all teens take all the sciences. For some, the mandatory school age ends at 15 or 16, and some students are peeling off into other types of schools. I think that is what Ester Maria meant about not all Italians going to the same school. She mentioned the Latin types doing sufficient science, but here in CH, the Latin group is considered the brightest and get the most work, whereas in the US, I think the scientific/math minded tend to get more respect and work.

 

Then if you noted in the UK, there are people who stop studying science at 16 and others who are studying maybe one branch. Laura, I don't like to be disagreeable, but I think some studies are hard to compare...For the sciences, I am not sure that the all the GCSE's are equivalent to the SAT II's. Eg, the chemistry SAT is supposed to be quite difficult. On the Wiki site, it says that there are different science options, only one of which is taking GCSE science in the three different branches. Some are just taking a general science GCSE with elements of the three branches. If the UK was really happy with the A level system, they would not be moving towards the IB. And the idea of A levels gives the impression to the average American that lots of UK students are doing all the different subjects at that level. I had read somewhere that in the UK they did 5 hours of science a week, which might be different if you are in a private or special school. What percent are doing 9 hours of science class time a week for A levels? I think you mean well in trying to show other systems, but precision is important so that people are not trying to compare apples and oranges.

 

The US lacks cohesiveness in its educational system. Yet most states don't want to be told what to do. That some high school graduates could graduate without physics even if they wanted it, is a sad situation.

 

You (Kfamily) could make a chart with all the country variations so you aren't trying to kill yourself doing a program that might not really be feasible without throwing the rest of your life out the window. As Olga mentioned - eg the lack of humanities. I do not know about Eastern Europe and all I hear about Asian countries are schedules so completely crazy that I am not really sure that people would be able to live them in the US (few hours of sleep, Saturday schools, vacation schools, etc) and many Koreans for example would be happy to escape if they could.

 

Ester Maria, I thought your analysis of the American high school scene being an all-inclusive service is very astute. It is true that the dynamics in Europe are completely different for sports. This avoids the whole "school spirit" competitive and social dynamic, too.

 

Just another voice,

Joan

Edited August 24, 2010 by Joan in Geneva

[Kfamily]

Thanks Joan, this is helpful too.

 

I agree, I may have to find my own way of handling this. I think the main points for me to remember are that I can:

 

1. add more science overall than one per year

2. remember to tie/cross over into other divisions in science when needed to expand a topic

3. add supplements such as biographies, dvds, science nonfiction, etc to include other divisions of science

4. perhaps allow dds to choose a topic they want to know more about and give them the supplies to do some independent study too

 

I'll spend more time thinking this over and may add more points to my list but I think this may be my own best effort. I can only expand my own education so far in one area (can't make up for the fact I'm not a science major or have a career in science, etc) before it ruins the overall education (all the other subjects I'm still learning how to teach :001_smile:)to which I'm striving. (Such as not ending my sentences with a preposition...this is a tough habit to break...and in daily speech too...)

Edited August 24, 2010 by Kfamily

[Laura Corin]

 

Then if you noted in the UK, there are people who stop studying science at 16 and others who are studying maybe one branch. Laura, I don't like to be disagreeable, but I think some studies are hard to compare...For the sciences, I am not sure that the all the GCSE's are equivalent to the SAT II's. Eg, the chemistry SAT is supposed to be quite difficult. On the Wiki site, it says that there are different science options, only one of which is taking GCSE science in the three different branches. Some are just taking a general science GCSE with elements of the three branches. If the UK was really happy with the A level system, they would not be moving towards the IB. And the idea of A levels gives the impression to the average American that lots of UK students are doing all the different subjects at that level. I had read somewhere that in the UK they did 5 hours of science a week, which might be different if you are in a private or special school. What percent are doing 9 hours of science class time a week for A levels? I think you mean well in trying to show other systems, but precision is important so that people are not trying to compare apples and oranges.

 

 

What I was describing was what might be considered 'best practice' in the UK - as most on these boards aim for excellence, it's worth discussing what can be achieved, but I agree that I should have been more clear about this. The 'general science' GCSE is meant to be the equivalent of two GCSEs, rather than the three you get for doing all three sciences separately.

 

For the equivalence of the SAT subject tests to GCSEs: as the website I linked mentioned, it's very hard to compare systems. The GCSEs do not normally rely on multiple choice answers, so even the format will have an influence on the difficulty of the tests. As I said, they are 'very roughly' equivalent. I'll try to find time to look at the SAT II test for biology, because I am very familiar with the GCSE biology content and I might be able to see how close the comparison is.

 

As for A levels - very few schools do IB. It's not a general trend to move towards it. In fact, I believe that state (public) schools are not allowed by the government to do the IB, but I might be wrong. As I mentioned before, after age 16, students choose fewer subjects in order to specialise and go deeper: five subjects is common for age 16-18. As I also mentioned, it's possible to drop science altogether at sixteen, which I think very unwise, so I'm not at all saying that the system is perfect.

 

Not disagreeable at all - good to get things straight.

 

Laura

[elegantlion]

In light of this thread I have done some poking around online. Here's a website that publishes science in the UK. Their books are also available at bookdepository.com. It appears the science standards are changing in 2011, perhaps someone with more knowledge of the UK system will chime in. They have separate chem, bio, and physics books which would be used 1 unit per year and take 3 years to cover the 3 sciences. There are other options available as well.

 

There are other publishers, but this one seemed to have the most comprehensive website. If you do a google search for GCSE science that could help.

[Guest]

My husband is a marine chemist, and his department is full of visiting scientists from around the world. When they bring their families for the course of a post-doc (two to three years), many are shocked at what they consider the inferior science education available in public schools. However, I've known several now who have gotten their kids into High Tech High (through a lottery system) and were absolutely thrilled with the program. You can look at it at http://www.hightechhigh.org Many of their projects cross multlple disciplines and incorporate more than one conventionally separate science field at a time. The school as quite a good reputation, with a number of kids going to places like MIT -- not a huge percentage, but a great deal more than you would see from a typical public school or even a charter. Anyway, it will give you another way in which "more sciences" can be done.

[justamouse]

reading all of these and rethinking my attack for my science minded daughter. (a total aside, one of our chemists is American, one is Turkish and the other Chinese.)

 

One thing though-I've heard and read that the stress of, say, the Chinese schools are almost unbearable--was it Outliers I was reading that in? Malcolm Gladwell, I'm thinking... The stats of suicide is high and there is an academic revolution brewing over there, too. So rigorous sciences, wonderful, but at what cost?

 

I'm not saying the American education system is wonderful-I'm homeschooling for a reason, yes? But we're not driving our kids to suicide.

[Capt_Uhura]

I need to watch these again, but I think in the 2 Million Minutes DVD on China they debunk the high suicide rate etc of Chinese students. When you compare actual class, academic time, it was quite similar to the US but it's spread out over a year. Yes, they spend more DAYS in school but they have a lot more PE, extras than US students. The really unhappy time for the students is their last year when they are preparing for exams and vying for those coveted university slots. The US students reported the opposite that their last year of high school was their cruise year and the junior year the most stressful.

 

Ironically, I read an article in TIME magazine recently. In it, an educator went to China to speak w/ educators. They laughed that we are moving towards a curriculum that China is now leaving behind and China is moving toward what we had (more creativity, more freedom, more questioning of the teacher, freedom of ideas, less rote memorization especially in Math).

 

Similarly, I read another book, the name escapes me, where they compared US education to other countries and found no evidence of a high suicide rate, unhappiness in Asian students. The kids loved to play soccer, baseball, video games, ballet, violin, etc just like American students. Even in the 2 Million Minutes video, the complaint of the Asian students was that the film presented them as studying all the time and it just isn't true. The American kids said the film portrayed them as partying a bit more than they did but it was pretty accurate.

 

Capt_Uhura

[Corraleno]

Then if you noted in the UK, there are people who stop studying science at 16 and others who are studying maybe one branch. Laura, I don't like to be disagreeable, but I think some studies are hard to compare...For the sciences, I am not sure that the all the GCSE's are equivalent to the SAT II's. Eg, the chemistry SAT is supposed to be quite difficult. On the Wiki site, it says that there are different science options, only one of which is taking GCSE science in the three different branches. Some are just taking a general science GCSE with elements of the three branches. If the UK was really happy with the A level system, they would not be moving towards the IB.

I've never heard anything to suggest that the UK was abandoning A-levels in favor of the IB? :confused:

 

And the idea of A levels gives the impression to the average American that lots of UK students are doing all the different subjects at that level. I had read somewhere that in the UK they did 5 hours of science a week, which might be different if you are in a private or special school. What percent are doing 9 hours of science class time a week for A levels? I think you mean well in trying to show other systems, but precision is important so that people are not trying to compare apples and oranges.

Actually, at A-level, students would be doing close to that in each science. According to DH, he had 8 hrs/wk of Physics classes and another 8 hrs/wk of Chemistry classes, plus another 8 hrs/wk of homework in each class. A student who was doing 3 sciences at A-level would have roughly 24 hrs/wk of science classes, not 9, plus an equal amount of homework. Generally it was 2-hr classes on MWF and 1-hr classes on T/Th.

 

You are correct, though, that students are not doing 7-8 subjects at this level. The last 2 years of "high school" in the UK are more like the first 2 years of college in the US, so students are specializing in certain subjects and are generally doing 4-5 subjects at this level (DH did physics, chemistry, math, and fine art). So they're doing fewer subjects than American juniors/seniors, but they're studying much longer hours and working at a higher level, equivalent perhaps to a US student who was taking AP English, AP Calculus, AP Physics, AP Chemistry, and AP Art History in one year.

 

Yes, it's exhausting, and not all (or even most) students in the UK do this level of study — many leave school after GCSEs, with the equivalent of a US HS diploma, which includes the equivalent of full courses in physics, chemistry and biology. A-level exams are very high-stakes exams, because admission to university is almost entirely dependent on these test scores plus an interview (there is no "GPA" or transcript of grades) so students who want to go to university generally work their butts off.

 

Jackie

[Guest]

I

Yes, it's exhausting, and not all (or even most) students in the UK do this level of study — many leave school after GCSEs, with the equivalent of a US HS diploma, which includes the equivalent of full courses in physics, chemistry and biology. A-level exams are very high-stakes exams, because admission to university is almost entirely dependent on these test scores plus an interview (there is no "GPA" or transcript of grades) so students who want to go to university generally work their butts off.

 

Jackie

 

Yes, and unlike in the US, there are no ways to get around the A level path to entering university that I know of. That was one of the things that made us hesitate when my husband was offered a job in the UK two years ago. She would have had to return to the US for college, most likely, because she isn't going to ever fit well into the typical school box, much less the pressurized A-level system.

 

My husband too went to school in the UK, boarding school at elementary level through grad school. By age fifteen he was taking about what Jackie made reference to, over 20 hours of physics, chem, and biology, for science-oriented A-level exams. When he came to the US he was astonished at how little science was offered at most US high schools and how little lab experience entering university students had.

 

It's funny how everybody naturalizes their own experience and how many people tend to think that the system they went through is superior to others which are very different. I in turn was horrified when I researched A-level education, as we were considering a move, because I thought that like a full-scale all-out AP schedule, it emphasized memorization at the expense of exploration and creativity, and it allowed for so little cross-disciplinary work. The bookstores were crammed full of test prep materials, compared to a number of years ago when I spent a lot of time in the UK researching my dissertation. I suspect that in actual fact schools can vary quite a bit in the emphasis they put on exactly how A-levels are approached -- at least The History Boys gives me to think this might be the case.

[Laura Corin]

Yes, and unlike in the US, there are no ways to get around the A level path to entering university that I know of.

 

I'm on a Yahoo group for UK home educators whose children are approaching university age. It's becoming common for home educators to take Open University courses from ages 16-18 (or even earlier) and use them to gain entrance to bricks-and-mortar university at 18. For some subjects (art, computing etc.) an independently-produced portfolio can be used. This site has some stories of successful university applications without A levels.

 

Best wishes

 

Laura

[Renee in NC]

I'm on a Yahoo group for UK home educators whose children are approaching university age. It's becoming common for home educators to take Open University courses from ages 16-18 (or even earlier) and use them to gain entrance to bricks-and-mortar university at 18. For some subjects (art, computing etc.) an independently-produced portfolio can be used. This site has some stories of successful university applications without A levels.

 

Best wishes

 

Laura

 

Can you self-study for A-levels like people do for APs?

Edited August 25, 2010 by Renee in FL

[Hannah]

As for A levels - very few schools do IB. It's not a general trend to move towards it. In fact, I believe that state (public) schools are not allowed by the government to do the IB, but I might be wrong.

 

For what its worth - my niece's public school in London does offer the IB. She'll start working towards it when the new school year resumes.

[Joan in GE]

I've never heard anything to suggest that the UK was abandoning A-levels in favor of the IB? :confused:

 

Hi Jackie,

 

I forget where I first heard the notion and maybe "abandoning" is too inflationary of a word (Edit to add, I just reread my post and I guess it is you who used this word. I had said "moving towards")...but already 10 years ago, intellectually minded British friends of ours were sending their children to expensive schools to do the IB. I should have said something like "some UK schools are starting to use the IB system, so the A level system cannot be perfect" (not that I am trying to imply that the IB is perfect either; there is generally the grass is greener attitude which leads people to try new systems in an everchanging world).

 

In the Wiki link I posted earlier in the section on the Criticism of the GCSEs they say:

"In recent years, concerns about standards has led some public schools to go as far as to remove GCSEs from their curriculum and to take their pupils straight to A-level or the International Baccalaureate.[5] "

which makes it sound like the IB is considered as equivalent or better as it tends to be offered in paying schools. I guess I read into that that people were not as attached to the A levels as they used to be...

 

In this Wiki article, (probably written by IB proponents)..it sounds like the program is or was offered publically (let's see, in UK terminology, isn't that privately?). Hard to say exactly where it is now, but it certainly was on the rise...

"In the United Kingdom, the IB Diploma is "regarded as more academically challenging and broader than three or four A-levels." In 2006, government ministers provided funding so that "every local authority in England could have at least one centre offering sixth-formers the chance to do the IB."[19] In 2008, due to the devaluing of the A-Levels and an increase in the number of students taking the IB exams, Children's Secretary Ed Balls abandoned a "flagship Tony Blair pledge to allow children in all areas to study IB." Fears of a "two-tier" education system further dividing education between the rich and the poor emerged as the growth in IB is driven by private schools and sixth-form colleges.[34]"

 

Joan

Edited August 25, 2010 by Joan in Geneva

[Laura Corin]

Can you self-study for A-levels like people do for APs?

 

For sciences you can't as you need to take practical lab-based exams and most exam centres won't accommodate external candidates for them.

 

Laura

[justamouse]

You are correct, though, that students are not doing 7-8 subjects at this level. The last 2 years of "high school" in the UK are more like the first 2 years of college in the US, so students are specializing in certain subjects and are generally doing 4-5 subjects at this level (DH did physics, chemistry, math, and fine art). So they're doing fewer subjects than American juniors/seniors, but they're studying much longer hours and working at a higher level, equivalent perhaps to a US student who was taking AP English, AP Calculus, AP Physics, AP Chemistry, and AP Art History in one year.

 

Jackie

 

That makes much more sense then. You can't do everything well, you know?

 

Yes, and unlike in the US, there are no ways to get around the A level path to entering university that I know of. That was one of the things that made us hesitate when my husband was offered a job in the UK two years ago. She would have had to return to the US for college, most likely, because she isn't going to ever fit well into the typical school box, much less the pressurized A-level system.

 

My husband too went to school in the UK, boarding school at elementary level through grad school. By age fifteen he was taking about what Jackie made reference to, over 20 hours of physics, chem, and biology, for science-oriented A-level exams. When he came to the US he was astonished at how little science was offered at most US high schools and how little lab experience entering university students had.

 

It's funny how everybody naturalizes their own experience and how many people tend to think that the system they went through is superior to others which are very different. I in turn was horrified when I researched A-level education, as we were considering a move, because I thought that like a full-scale all-out AP schedule, it emphasized memorization at the expense of exploration and creativity, and it allowed for so little cross-disciplinary work. The bookstores were crammed full of test prep materials, compared to a number of years ago when I spent a lot of time in the UK researching my dissertation. I suspect that in actual fact schools can vary quite a bit in the emphasis they put on exactly how A-levels are approached -- at least The History Boys gives me to think this might be the case.

 

You know, I can see the point of having a strong foundation. You can't BE creative and explore without knowing the materials inside and out. But there's a balance. I guess that was my point.

[Corraleno]

In this Wiki article, (probably written by IB proponents)..it sounds like the program is or was offered publically (let's see, in UK terminology, isn't that privately?). Hard to say exactly where it is now, but it certainly was on the rise...

"In the United Kingdom, the IB Diploma is "regarded as more academically challenging and broader than three or four A-levels." In 2006, government ministers provided funding so that "every local authority in England could have at least one centre offering sixth-formers the chance to do the IB."[19] In 2008, due to the devaluing of the A-Levels and an increase in the number of students taking the IB exams, Children's Secretary Ed Balls abandoned a "flagship Tony Blair pledge to allow children in all areas to study IB." Fears of a "two-tier" education system further dividing education between the rich and the poor emerged as the growth in IB is driven by private schools and sixth-form colleges.[34]"

The quotes in the wiki are from a newspaper article, which doesn't provide any sources/references for the author's opinion that the IB is "regarded as more academically challenging." The article actually states that each IB subject exam is the equivalent of an A-level, such that if a student takes 6 advanced level IB exams then that would be equivalent to 6 A-levels. But apparently many students only take 3-4 IB exams at the upper level, and 2-3 at the lower level, which would be equivalent to AS level in the UK. It's common for UK students to take an additional subject (in the equivalent of 11th grade), which they pass at AS level, and then choose their best 3 or 4 subjects for A-level exams.

 

Since students in the UK apply to a particular department within a university (they must choose a major before applying), rather than to the university at large, the department generally just wants to know that the student has the necessary background for that particular subject. E.g. if a student is applying to study sciences at Oxford, they don't generally care whether the person has a college-level appreciation of English literature, just that they scored well in biology, chemistry, and physics. So the IB may in fact be "broader" in that it includes an English exam, but that breadth may not have any relevance to a student's university application, KWIM?

 

I think one area where it could be an advantage is if a particular department has a large number of qualified applicants with A grades and stellar interviews, then they may choose someone with 6 IB A grades over someone with 4 A-level A grades, just because there aren't any other criteria to go on at that level. I don't think that four IB exams would necessarily count for more than four A-levels, though. Complaints by the universities that too many students were getting As, which made it hard to distinguish the very top students, have been met by adding an A* grade to A-levels, which represents 90% correct.

 

I'm certainly not saying that the A-level system is better than the IB — personally I think a little more breadth at that level is a good thing, and that both the A-levels and the IB exams leave too little room for creativity and pursuit of a student's own interests. But I do think the two systems are more similar than it first appears — and that both are VERY different from the standard US approach to high school! However, given the way the university system works in the UK, I don't think they're going to change over to the IB system any time soon.

 

Jackie

[Brindee]

Wow, this is very interesting! I'd love to know how to go about doing this kind of thing as well. ALso, since the US DOES have transcripts, how would this be entered on them?

[Corraleno]

Wow, this is very interesting! I'd love to know how to go about doing this kind of thing as well. ALso, since the US DOES have transcripts, how would this be entered on them?

Some people just do transcripts by subject rather than by year. We'll have some courses that start in one year and end in the next, courses that are spread over multiple years, summer courses at CC, etc., so a transcript organized by subject makes more sense for us anyway.

 

Jackie

[Brindee]

Some people just do transcripts by subject rather than by year. We'll have some courses that start in one year and end in the next, courses that are spread over multiple years, summer courses at CC, etc., so a transcript organized by subject makes more sense for us anyway.

 

Jackie

I did it listed by year for my boys, but maybe I'll have to switch to organizing it by subject for dd.

 

Thanks

[Corraleno]

Yes, and unlike in the US, there are no ways to get around the A level path to entering university that I know of. That was one of the things that made us hesitate when my husband was offered a job in the UK two years ago. She would have had to return to the US for college, most likely, because she isn't going to ever fit well into the typical school box, much less the pressurized A-level system.

It's not just the A-level system, either; IMO the whole UK school system doesn't accommodate "different learners" very well. DH certainly got a rigorous education, but with no accommodations at all for his dyslexia, ADD, giftedness, or anything else, it was hard. He got whacked over the head with textbooks a lot, and yelled at for not paying attention, not writing neatly, not finishing his work on time, etc. DS spent a few weeks in a private kindergarten, where he was told every day what a "naughty, naughty little boy" he was for not sitting still, or for drawing elaborate scenes of devonian sea creatures instead of "three red triangles" as the teacher instructed. He came home crying one day and said the teacher told him "no one would ever love a boy like me." That was his last day of school in the UK, and you can imagine my conversation with the headmistress. :cursing:

 

The French system is similar, in the sense of being quite rigorous and focused on the core subjects, as well as in the lack of accommodations for kids with LDs. The dyslexic/ADD kids are more likely to get streamed off into vocational subjects, rather than advancing academically. We had initially planned to move from the UK to France (we had a house there, too), but I really felt that DS would have better educational opportunities in the US, given his alphabet soup of LDs combined with giftedness. We really loved Europe, though — having a 2E kid was one of our primary reasons for coming back. That and the fact that I couldn't stand the weather in the UK, and DH would never be able to speak French without causing great pain to the listener. :tongue_smilie:

 

Ideally I'd like to combine the best of both systems, with a much stronger emphasis on science, as well as treating the last 2 years of "high school" more like the first 2 years of college. So we've switched to doing multiple sciences simultaneously, increased the % of time we spend on sciences vs humanities, and I plan to have DS do almost all of 11th & 12th grade at the CC.

 

Jackie

[Guest]

It's not just the A-level system, either; IMO the whole UK school system doesn't accommodate "different learners" very well. DH certainly got a rigorous education, but with no accommodations at all for his dyslexia, ADD, giftedness, or anything else, it was hard. He got whacked over the head with textbooks a lot, and yelled at for not paying attention, not writing neatly, not finishing his work on time, etc. DS spent a few weeks in a private kindergarten, where he was told every day what a "naughty, naughty little boy" he was for not sitting still, or for drawing elaborate scenes of devonian sea creatures instead of "three red triangles" as the teacher instructed. He came home crying one day and said the teacher told him "no one would ever love a boy like me." That was his last day of school in the UK, and you can imagine my conversation with the headmistress. :cursing:

 

 

That is just horrific, particularly the last remark; how very, very sad for your DS, and I can indeed imagine your conversation with the headmistress. It makes me feel perhaps my decision not to move there and put DD in the system was probably a good one; I was wondering whether to continue homeschooling and how isolating that would be in the particular place we would have been headed. I saw a lot of references to accommodating dyslexia, ironically, when I was doing some preliminary research, and was wondering how deep that went. There was virtually no reference at all to any other type of LD, and I'd read about the lack of services for autism and Asperger's (not necessarily worse than here, but certainly no better).

[Corraleno]

That is just horrific, particularly the last remark; how very, very sad for your DS, and I can indeed imagine your conversation with the headmistress. It makes me feel perhaps my decision not to move there and put DD in the system was probably a good one; I was wondering whether to continue homeschooling and how isolating that would be in the particular place we would have been headed.

Yeah, his teacher did an incredible amount of damage in a few short weeks. I didn't even know he'd been getting yelled at every day until I pulled him out and had my little tete-a-tete with Mrs Felicity Broomstick-Blake (actually, I added the Broomstick part, but it was an integral part of her anatomy, I assure you ;)). I told her that I thought it was ridiculous to expect a 4 yo boy to sit still for hours at a time, especially one with ADD, and she told me "Oh we had one of those once — his mother took him out of school and he ended up a criminal."

 

She said she wanted to make sure I understood just how abnormal my son was, and the extent to which his entire future was at stake. She said when a teacher shouts at a "normal" child, they should be mortified and apologetic, whereas DS actually shouted back at the teacher. Apparently, after the teacher shouted at him for the umpteenth time that day and told him what a terrible naughty boy he was, he shouted that he didn't love her anymore, to which she had replied "Who would ever love a boy like you?" Felicity and I disagreed rather dramatically over which party was responding inappropriately. :glare:

 

She went on to warn me that my son needed much more structure and discipline, which he clearly wasn't getting at home, and that if I pulled him out of school he would likely end up a criminal "just like the other boy with ADD." I'm sure there are many lovely, warm teachers and headmistresses in the UK, but after that experience I decided it was easier to homeschool him. And yes, I think it would have been very isolating if we'd stayed where we were, because we lived out in the middle of nowhere about an hour north of Cambridge. Homeschooling is much less common in the UK to begin with (Mrs Broomstick tried to tell me it was illegal :glare:), plus there are few after-school activities, so he would have had very very few opportunities to be around other kids his age.

 

I saw a lot of references to accommodating dyslexia, ironically, when I was doing some preliminary research, and was wondering how deep that went. There was virtually no reference at all to any other type of LD, and I'd read about the lack of services for autism and Asperger's (not necessarily worse than here, but certainly no better).

Mandatory accommodations for dyslexia were only introduced in the last 10 years or so, as a result of a lawsuit — a family sued their son's school because his dyslexia went entirely undiagnosed and he graduated without being able to read. They won, which forced the schools to not only acknowledge it as a real disability, but made them responsible for both screening and accommodation. I remember seeing all the news stories about it, but even so, our GP continued to insist that dyslexia was an American invention to excuse the fact that American kids couldn't read, and that there was no medical evidence for it whatsoever. :rolleyes: So in addition to any issues you might have had with homeschooling and social isolation, you may also have had a very hard time getting appropriate diagnoses for ADD, Asperger's, etc., on the NHS. DH ended up going to a private neurologist in London and paying over $2000 for a diagnosis and Ritalin scrip.

 

Jackie

Edited August 25, 2010 by Corraleno

[Guest]

Yeah, his teacher did an incredible amount of damage in a few short weeks. I didn't even know he'd been getting yelled at every day until I pulled him out and had my little tete-a-tete with Mrs Felicity Broomstick-Blake (actually, I added the Broomstick part, but it was an integral part of her anatomy, I assure you ;)). I told her that I thought it was ridiculous to expect a 4 yo boy to sit still for hours at a time, especially one with ADD, and she told me "Oh we had one of those once — his mother took him out of school and he ended up a criminal."

 

She said she wanted to make sure I understood just how abnormal my son was, and the extent to which his entire future was at stake. She said when a teacher shouts at a "normal" child, they should be mortified and apologetic, whereas DS actually shouted back at the teacher. Apparently, after the teacher shouted at him for the umpteenth time that day and told him what a terrible naughty boy he was, he shouted that he didn't love her anymore, to which she had replied "Who would ever love a boy like you?" Felicity and I disagreed rather dramatically over which party was responding inappropriately. :glare:

 

She went on to warn me that my son needed much more structure and discipline, which he clearly wasn't getting at home, and that if I pulled him out of school he would likely end up a criminal "just like the other boy with ADD."

 

Holy cow, I had no idea this story could get WORSE. I think both you and your son deserve medals and public recognition for not having assaulted this person. It is so scary that anyone who behaves in such a way to a child -- and a four year old at that -- could ever, ever be put in a position of authority over them. Were there no consequences for her at all (outside of your yelling, which I hope was far more efficient and dramatic than even that which I am imagining)? I don't even know what to say! I am just stunned.

[HappyGrace]

Here is a paper that addresses the weaving together of science disciplines into each year; very interesting:

http://ustimss.msu.edu/coherentscience.pdf

[Guest]

Here is a paper that addresses the weaving together of science disciplines into each year; very interesting:

http://ustimss.msu.edu/coherentscience.pdf

 

This is quite similar to what Rebecca Rupp proposes so fleetingly but intriguingly -- organizing high school science studies around an integrative topic like energy, or evolution, or origins.

 

I really like this idea a lot. I sort of knew about the emphasis on coverage at the expense of depth, but the report seems to give even a bleaker picture than I imagined of the superficial nature of most textbooks and classes. When I stop and think, it's true that the textbooks I've looked at have an almost pathological fixation with vocabulary and memorization at the expense of actually having the kids do, read, write, or perform anything of substance.

 

However, one aspect of the study above bothers me -- that we should restructure science education this way because "A+" countries do it. Is our goal to produce students who score well on multiple choice tests so they rank up high among other countries ON THESE TESTS? How good a measure are the tests of things such as: the number of kids who go on to study science in college; how well they do there; how informed people are on scientific issues -- how well they understand what is at stake -- when they have to vote on particular measures; how inventive science and technology are in the country; how scientific research is regarded and funded; and other things science people probably think of but which I am ignorant of. Maybe the tests truly do measure these things, but I'd like to see some kind of explicit connection.

Edited August 26, 2010 by Guest

[Capt_Uhura]

He came home crying one day and said the teacher told him "no one would ever love a boy like me." That was his last day of school in the UK, and you can imagine my conversation with the headmistress. :cursing:

Jackie

 

And that teacher is still alive???? Seriously, I don't know if I could have ever seen or spoken to that teacher again w/out it coming to blows. And I am not a violent person.:angry:

[HappyGrace]

However, one aspect of the study above bothers me -- that we should restructure science education this way because "A+" countries do it. Is our goal to produce students who score well on multiple choice tests so they rank up high among other countries ON THESE TESTS?

 

:iagree: I kind of just skipped over that part about why we should do it, etc. I was more intrigued with the fact that the other countries that excel at science approach it in the way we've been discussing in this thread. My wheels are turning on how to incorporate this.

[Guest]

I particularly did like the way they talked about space science and how it incorporates physics, chemistry, and biology -- and also I really liked their recommendation of current science books rather than textbooks. I'm wondering about the kind of lab work the kids would do.

[Joan in GE]

since the US DOES have transcripts, how would this be entered on them?

 

If there is anyone you know in an IB school, they might have the option of doing "integrated sciences" up to age 16 before they specialize (here they just do integrated science in the IB program up to 16, don't know if it is done in the US). So it would be interesting to see how it is done on the diploma for US schools that require a year-by-year type of diploma.

 

I have just looked at my son's International School diploma (here in Geneva) and what they did was mark it year by year and for the Biology, Physics and Chemistry that he did in one year, they gave him a combined sciences grade of 2 credits for the year, but showed the grade for each science.

 

They also noted that the higher level courses (eg in 12th as part of the IB) had class times of 40 min x 6.5 times per week and standard level courses met 4.5 x per week and he was still given a full credit for the standard level courses as well as the higher level ones....

 

Seems complicated and not sure how the did the GPA... which was not on the transcript.

 

Joan

[Laura Corin]

It's not just the A-level system, either; IMO the whole UK school system doesn't accommodate "different learners" very well. DH certainly got a rigorous education, but with no accommodations at all for his dyslexia, ADD, giftedness, or anything else, it was hard.

 

The situation for gifted children is not much better but there's more recognition of LDs.

 

Laura

[Elizabeth in WA]

I am way behind in this thread, so I don;t know if this has been linked already... but here is another take on why so few Americans pursue advanced degrees in sciences and engineering:

 

The Real Science Gap

[Capt_Uhura]

Quote from "The Real Science Gap"

 

scores of thousands of young Ph.D.s labor in the nation’s university labs as low-paid, temporary workers, ostensibly training for permanent faculty positions that will never exist.

 

Back when today’s senior-most professors were young, Ph.D.s routinely became tenure-track assistant professors, complete with labs of their own, in their late 20s. But today, in many fields, faculty openings routinely draw hundreds of qualified applicants. The tiny fraction who do manage to land their first faculty post are generally in their late 30s or early 40s by the time they get their research careers under way.

 

Very true! And for women, the time you need to have your nose to the grind stone cranking out grant application after grant application after grant application, is when the biological clock is ticking the loudest. We lose many, many talented women scientists at this time....including myself. You're told "choose family or science, you can't have both" and I chose family. As a postdoc, I routinely worked 12hr days 6 days per week and sometimes more.

 

Back in the old days, you did a postdoc for a year before landing that coveted position. When I left science 10yrs ago, postdocs were lasting 3-5yrs and often, once you're in that position that long, it's tough to get a position. I was in immunology/biotech so the situation likely was/is different for other fields.

[MIch elle]

Quote from "The Real Science Gap"

 

 

Back in the old days, you did a postdoc for a year before landing that coveted position. When I left science 10yrs ago, postdocs were lasting 3-5yrs and often, once you're in that position that long, it's tough to get a position. I was in immunology/biotech so the situation likely was/is different for other fields.

 

:iagree:

 

My dh earned his PHD in chemistry in 1988 (Clarkson U.) after only 3 years and then did a one year post-doc before his current job of 20+ yrs. He knows first hand how very different and difficult it is today in science. He discourages our sons from this track.

Edited August 26, 2010 by MIch elle

[LibraryLover]

My scientist dh left academia because the money was yuck.

Edited August 27, 2010 by LibraryLover

[Barb_]

The previous few posts are discouraging, but timely. My oldest is starting to look at PHD programs. She's a promising young researcher, but is also toying with Medicine or Law in the field of Biology. If not academia or research, then what?

 

Barb

[LibraryLover]

Many good people find good work in industry. At any rate, some of the greatest scientific break-throughs and research comes from private industry and not unis.

Edited August 27, 2010 by LibraryLover