Talk:Education in the United States/Archive 2009

overal tone of this article

I really do not like this article, but I just don't know what to change to improve it. I feel the overall tone is as if it were being told by someone who doesn't like public education. The author appears to be someone who attended private school or someone who views all public school in this country to be poor, which just isn't the case. The current issues section has somewhat of a conservative bias. Could be included that discussed how school system relates to the community, or for example, the school culture? Little about after school activities is included which are important to many students and an important part of american educational values. Could get an author here who is/was a public school teacher or administrator to help this article out? It so bad.. I almost feel it needs to be completely reworked from scratch because it just doesn't explain the US education system as it is to those involved in it.

Not that you really seem to be an expert in education...can we spell today?--naryathegreat | (talk) 19:42, Jun 6, 2005 (UTC)

And public education in the United States is generally poor. I should know, I'm in it.--naryathegreat | (talk) 20:40, Jun 6, 2005 (UTC)

I wrote a large part of the current article and I'm glad that Naryathegreat concurs with my analysis. The fact that the anonymous user criticizing the article cannot even use proper spelling, grammar, style, or punctuation is itself a sign of how poor American public education is. If our primary educational system were doing so well, I doubt there would be so much enthusiasm in most American cities for innovations like school vouchers, charter schools, and magnet schools.

Also, although I know a lot more about how awful the system is, I left most of those facts out to comply with the WP NPOV policy. For example, a poll of American K-12 teachers about 5 or 6 years ago found that more than 3/4ths of them, if they could live their lives over again, would not choose the same career.

Generally, we do not achieve NPOV by omitting all points of view. Instead, we find sources — "authorities", or perhaps the better word is "experts" — and cite the statements they make. If this "poll of American K-12 teachers" appeared in a reputable journal, then a citation to that journal is perfectly appropriate.

Remember, bibliographies rock!

I would also caution against statements like "I grew up in public school, so I know how bad it is". Believe me, I could say the same thing. (I spent a couple years outside the system, too, which did me a world of good and gave me something to compare public schools to.) However, I try not to let my personal history bias how I see a phenomenon which is, after all, much bigger than my own experience. This is just a matter of integrity, scientific integrity. It's a tough call: I know I've seen things which no "professional education expert" has bothered to observe, but how much of my experience is reflected in other schools, in other cities and states?

Anville 18:59, 15 August 2005 (UTC)

As for the point about afterschool activities, I agree that they are relevant and should be briefly discussed. I'll add a section when I have the time. --Coolcaesar 22:29, 6 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Thank you for the assistance in helping me learn how to be a member of the community. I apologize for the mistakes in typing, but they were due to haste. That is the reason I did not touch the page and only asked that it be reviewed. Also, I created an account and I hope that vetran users will help me become a good community member. --Telescopium1

The conservative tone is readily apparent to an international reader such as myself. For example, "...politically correct curriculum currently in widespread vogue within the public eduction establishment." Although that statement is immediately followed by a reference, the reference does not confirm that: the curriculum is politically correct; or that: such curriculums are in widespread use. And even if these claims are true they miss the point: if it is a "vogue" then how did it arrive, how did it spread, why is the US experience different?

The statement that US school funding is high sounds surprised by that. The US is a wealthy nation with a strong regard for education (even US lobby groups use the trade dress of academic research institutions). A high level of spending is to be expected. What is surprising is the promotion of the idea that spending is too high. Since this is unexpected, the causes of that idea and the forces of its promotion could be briefly outlined.

The article reads as if written by a lobby group opposed to government-funded education. US education is, on the whole, regarded internationally as a success. You can judge by results: the US is a powerhouse of research, is the cultural centre of the English-speaking world, etc. Gdt (talk) 17:44, 13 July 2008 (UTC)

Wow, people always accuse wikipedia of being too liberal; it seems that the writer of this article is a conservative fucktard. This article was clearly written by and for conservatives who likely want prayer and intelligent design/creationism taught/practiced in public schools. Oh, I forgot you've been to every school in the U.S. so you obviously know the state and that all of your sources are 100% reliable, right?

If you have a specific point to make about a particular section or reference, please make it. As far as the other editors go, the paragraphs are referenced with material from WP:RELY sources. Sorry you don't like it. The truth is not always easy to accept. And please sign your messages with four tildes ~~~~.Student7 (talk) 11:57, 13 April 2009 (UTC)

Sex Education

The following paragraph doesn't sit quite right.

Today, sex education in the United States is patchy at best and nonexistent at worst. Because of the huge controversy over the issue, many schools attempt to avoid the study as much as possible in Health classes. The popular media has presented an image that does not exist; there are few specifically sex ed classes in existence. Also, because President Bush has called for abstinence-only sex education and has the power to withhold funding, many schools are backing away from any mention of birth control or contraceptives. However, a majority of Americans want complete sex education in the schools. The American people are heavily divided over the issue. [11]

First, the footnote (which points to the NPR/Kaiser/Harvard survey) only pertains to the very last bit, about what "a majority of Americans" want. I'd say that even this goes too far — who's to say that the sample was representative of the population? Better to phrase it as, "According to a 2004 study, the majority of a 1001-parent group polled said that . . ." and then give the footnote.

Interestingly, a majority of those parents said that their parents and their schools only did a "fair/poor" job of educating them about sexual issues. Maybe any progress is good progress?

Second, the other statements need backing too. The survey only glancingly touches upon the current legal status quo, and it does not address how Bush's stance has influenced schools' decisions. Ergo, these statements came from another source. That source might only be the writer's fevered imagination; there's no way to tell. (Oh, if I only had the stacks of evidence we used on Debate Team to argue sex ed, ROTC and all those fun things.) Assuming good faith, these statements may be absolutely true, and they are certainly consistent with my personal experience and prior knowledge. I have no problem with letting them stay, providing they are properly referenced.

Anville 18:05, 17 August 2005 (UTC)

I don't understand why we can't put the Regents (Examinations) instead of the TAKS. (Kyla 22:24, 4 September 2005 (UTC))

Just a note 1001 participants would likely qualify as a satisfactory sample size. National polls rarely have more than 2000 or participants and that it is to track the opinions of the entire country. This survey was only for parents, which doesn't include everyone. There is no need to belittle the poll or undermine its results. Plus the survey in question comes from very reputable sources. I do agree though that text was poorly written. Flashdornfeld (talk) 16:21, 10 June 2009 (UTC)

Confusion about Literacy Rates

In the third paragraph of this article, it says the US has a 99.9% literacy rate. In the infobox, it goves the figure at 97%, while in the fourth paragraph, it says the literacy rate is an ambiguous "84-98%". Should this be fixed, or am I missing something (or has this already been talked about)? Atb129 21:43, 17 August 2006 (UTC)

• Atb129, I noticed this as well the 99.9 figure was clearly wrong, so I checked the UN report and found that this was the "Education Index", not the literacy rate. I changed the article to reflect that fact, but didn't remove it altogether. I think it probably could be, though, since the "Education Index" is probably a pretty useless number without some context. -- P. Webb

• • Yeah thanks, that cleared it up a lot, although it still seems to read a little ambigous. Atb129 01:37, 25 August 2006 (UTC)

I seriously doubt the literacy figures quoted at this time (99% for men and women) ... because they collide with everything I've heard and been told for decades. There needs to be a couple of credible scientific sources for this incredible claim, instead of the CIA Factbook.
A citation in the article (US DOE) gives a 98% MINIMAL literacy rate (is that the standard?) and a 14% "Below Basic" rating. Again: I doubt that number. Twang (talk) 23:22, 16 October 2008 (UTC)

Don't you think you should do some actual research instead of relying on something you heard 20, 30, or 40 years ago? Just a suggestion. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.46.20.209 (talk) 22:22, 10 August 2009 (UTC)

States rights

One sentence says, "Unlike most other industrialized countries, the United States does not have a centralized educational system on the national scale". This is a WP:YESPOV statement. It takes the POV implicitly that is is correct to have centralized control. There are several factors that need to be addressed (besides POV): 1) the US is the largest industrialized nation, considerably learger than whichever is second (Japan?). It is reasonable to imagine that a really large system cannot be managed well from one place. 2) By the tenth amendment to the Bill of Rights, the constitution leaves to the states all powers not surrendered to the national government [1]. This would include education which is not mentioned in the Constitution. 3) There are 14 states that predate the national government which was the reason for that amendment.

The sentence needs changing. Student7 (talk) 22:53, 3 December 2008 (UTC)

The point of that sentence was to explain the situation in the U.S. to foreign readers. Centralized control is actually the case in most countries (e.g., France) and it's important to understand that most non-U.S. readers would assume that to be true of all other countries by default. Keep in mind that from their point of view the U.S. is the weird one or outlier. Wikipedia is supposed to maintain a worldwide view. See Wikipedia:WikiProject Countering systemic bias. --Coolcaesar (talk) 23:08, 1 January 2009 (UTC)

I realize that this can't be done without a reference, but it seems reasonable (then) to explain that a) the US is not homogeneous and b) it is way too large to manage all schools from one centralized location and therefore, for both reasons, the US is therefore different.Student7 (talk) 02:42, 3 January 2009 (UTC)

I disagree that this is POV. Perhaps "other industrial nations" could be changed to something more specific, like "other members of the OECD or G8, but I think this is an important distinction between the American school system and those in other parts of the first world and should be mentioned. Your geographical hypothesis is interesting, perhaps a comparison with Canada (which I believe is more like the US system) and Russia (which I believe is more centralised) is in order. TastyCakes (talk) 17:01, 14 June 2009 (UTC)

Comparing US schools to European

As many people know, there are three "tracks" in European and Japanese schools "high school" equivalents (and probably even "middle schools") that I will call a) blue collar, b) clerical and c) college-bound. When comparing American scores with Europeans, the upper "two-thirds" (I don't really know the numbers here) of their schools, the "clerks" and "pre-collegiates" are normally compared against 100% of American attendees. Someone tried to insert language that said this but was deleted for lack of a decent reference. This needs to be re-inserted (with a good reference) if true, and I think it is. Student7 (talk) 17:39, 1 January 2009 (UTC)

This article gives some quantified differences. The American school year is shorter (180 days, compared to 195 as the OECD average and over 200 in east Asia), their hours per week are lower (32 hours, compared to 37 hours in Luxembourg, 44 in Belgium, 53 in Denmark and 60 in Sweden). They do an average of 1 hour of homework a day, apparently significantly lower than other countries, particularly Japan and China. TastyCakes (talk) 16:10, 14 June 2009 (UTC)

"Crumbling public schools"?

I noticed that the page "crumbling public schools" redirects to this page. While I'm sure that there are a lot of people that would agree with that evaluation, we should probably delete it.

Thylacine222 (talk) 16:43, 10 February 2009 (UTC)

Thanks. Yes very WP:POV direct. I've rm redirect and asked for a somewhat redundant deletion of the now blank space itself. Student7 (talk) 22:54, 10 February 2009 (UTC)

Grammatical Error?

There is a sentence in the curriculum issues section that seems a little weird to me:

Of those, about 1.3 million children speak English "not well" or "not at all."

I think the sentence should be rewritten. I understand it is quoting a citation, but citations are for getting information, not quoting exactly. Sense is more important in my opinion. So I think it should instead say:

Of those, about 1.3 million children do not speak English well or at all.

I'm going to go ahead and change it. If for any reason someone disagrees, feel free to change it back, but I think this is much better. Eatanorange (talk) 20:46, 8 March 2009 (UTC)

Safety

Safety of children is paramount. This is why NYC has a New York City Police Department School Safety Division. Don't know how to refer to this group in the new section but it is dramatic. Seems to be little else in Wikipedia about this topic.Student7 (talk) 12:03, 11 April 2009 (UTC)

Theory of Evolution

The article starts to try to discuss the "theory" of evolution, vs "it's only a theory", etc. The article may require that more be said, but, there are several articles already on that sort of thing. For example: Evolution as theory and fact, of course Evolution itself. I would think that allowing those articles to present the facts might be appropriate rather than attempting to present arguments that might be considered trivialized or WP:OR. This also allows the reader to make up her/his own mind. Student7 (talk) 01:46, 21 August 2009 (UTC)