It seems public school kids are bad at math, but why?

Question

Not only math, but spelling and grammar. But, why?

Answer 1

Schools aren't supposed to educate; they're supposed to train.

Also, have you seen a public-school math book? Those things suck. They're pathetic.

It's not the fault of the kids. It's the system, which, like I just said, isn't supposed to educate.

Anything the Prussians made sure as h**l isn't going to foster creativity.

Answer 2

Because the public school system is broken. Students are no long rewarded based on hard work, but on everyone getting an "I participated" trophy.

The days of being praised or shamed based on your actual work are long gone. You can thank teachers unions and No Child Left Behind for the c**p pile we now call our public school system!!

Answer 3

Yep, to exactly what Azazoth says.

If you want to know why public schoolkids are bad at the basics, check out the *real* purpose behind the Prussian System of education (which is what you have in N. America).

The *true* role of Public schools is *not* to teach maths, spelling, grammar or anything else: they're there as a means to teach, amongst a heap of other things, conformity; loyalty to others rather than parents; to promote 'peer group dependence'; and to ensure kids know and understand their rightful place in the world.

The 'teaching' of things like maths, spelling, grammar or anything else is just a means through which public schools achieve the necessary training, programming and, dare I say it, socialisation of kids in order to ensure that society maintains for itself a continued supply of 'cannon fodder' for its businesses, the military, its support & promotion of capitalism, consumerism, collectivism etc.

Incidentally, the 'great' civilisations of the past would never have dreamt of trying to teach maths to schoolkids; in both Ancient Greece and Rome, kids were taught arithmetic but mathematics was considered to be strictly a graduate-level subject and only taught to adults once they reached university.

(Not that I wish to imply that public schoolkids are necessary any better taught basic arithmetic; one only has to look at the level of 'maths' questions posted round here to despair!!!)

asdf: you may be 'good' at spelling, grammar and maths but you missed the comma between spelling and grammar, *smile*.

PS there's a pretty interesting article related to this question at:  http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_m1...

[quote]Here's a riddle of the New Economy: Whenever students around the world take those tests that measure which country's children know the most, American kids invariably score near the bottom. No matter the subject, when the international rankings come out...the U.S. pulls up the rear....[/quote]

Answer 4

First of all it has nothing to do with No Child Left Behind.  This problem began when dropped a lot of our old teaching practices behind and replaced them with a bunch of useless activities.  Grammar was thrown to the wayside in this. They are tested on it via a writing test, but not at every year.

Kids probably understand what they are doing in math lot better.. if they are on grade level or better.  Calculators have to be included at a young age further taking away from instructional time in the classroom.  Geometry and algebraic concepts are also introduced as young as second grade.  Unfortunately, those kids who are behind do not get a fair shake at memorizing the basic math facts. That's why Sally can figure out what 20% off is at the store, BUT can understand what rhombus who look like after a translation.

Answer 5

It's basically these reasons:

1. No discipline. It started in the mid-60's when Johnson's "Great Society" decided to pass laws that took discipline out of the hands of teachers. It has been eroding ever since. Now you can't flunk a kid because he can't do the work because you'll "forever harm his precious psyche". What a load of c**p. Students need to know there are limits and that there are consequences to going past those limits. Period. It's just like real life, if I don't do my job then I get written up.

2. No consequences. This kind of goes along with the discipline angle. As I stated earlier, students get passed on to the next grade no matter how poorly they do on tests. We can't stigmatize the student because they can't do (math, grammar, spelling, etc) because it will damage them for their entire life. Again, what a load of c**p.

3. The notion that spending more money on a student will give them a better education. It's just silly to expect that students get a better education by having more government money spent on them. That's like saying the best shoes cost the most money or the best jeans cost the most money or (choose your cost analogy). All that money just makes education pander to the government more - to get more money so they pander even more - to get even more.... it's a vicious circle. The states that spend the most per student have the highest high school dropout rates; it just doesn't make sense to spend more money.

4. Government. The Department of Education was created under the Carter Administration (some surprise, huh? Reagan tried to get rid of it but didn't succeed and since then it's been slurping up government $$$ at an alarming rate) and since then, standardized testing scores have been dropping year after year. Heck, the government has even mandated that the tests be watered down and the scores still drop. The problem isn't the tests - it's government itself. Of course, no one in the government can step back enough to see it.

5. Misappropriation of funds. This one isn't something that was thought through. Here in my home state of Iowa, when I went to high school we had one principal and one guidance counselor for our high school of 300 students. Now there are three principals and five guidance counselors - mandated by the feds. Naturally (and logically), guidance counselors and principals have higher salaries. But what would actually help would be more teachers to lower the teacher/student ratio but all the money is earmarked for more administration.

6. Working parents. Yeah, it's nice to have two working parents, but the problem is that most tend to side with their kids despite overwhelming evidence that their kids need discipline (see #1 and #2) This is because they typically aren't there for their kid because they are working. When I was a kid, if I got in trouble at school it was 10 times worse at home. You learn real quick to stay out of trouble at school.

Answer 6

I'm not around "kids" but I sure have received an education reading the YA question.I have had some conversations with some very bright High School Students.The children have too much money at their disposal and dictate the clothing entertainment, food Market.The parents are busy being pals with their kids. The bright students I have conversed with all have the same thing in common, they have to work for the extras. A sign of maturity Is being able to delay gratification.

Answer 7

Public school kids are bad at math, spelling and grammar? That's pretty ignorant to say. Some kids are good at those things and some aren't, it doesn't matter whether they are in public schools, private schools or home-schools.

Answer 8

Not all public school kids are bad at spelling grammar and math.  You assume a lot, why?

Answer 9

"It seems" isn't very convincing, which is good, because it's a generalization that won't get you far.

I'm the product of public school and I am great at math, spelling and grammar. And no, my mother didn't do extra work with me. And we never worked on grammar in English class in school. A good deal of my friends were public schooled and are also good at math, spelling and grammar.

I know a number of homeschooled kids who struggle with math, spelling and grammar. It's something they would struggle with if they were in school, too, likely.

Otoh, I know other homeschooled kids who were in public school, weren't doing great, were pulled out and had a different approach used for spelling, grammar and math and they've done much better.

So, you see, you can't make blanket statements at all.

I will say that the curriculum where I live has changed compared to when I was a kid--and our standards are very similar to other places. For some reason, the governments decided that certain things didn't need to be focused on in the same way, or programs didn't emphasize things the same way and the teachers didn't make up for them. For example, when I was in school, we HAD to know our times tables inside and out. Or rather, our teachers had us practise, practise, practise in class and out of class until they were satisfied that most of us knew them. This was by the end of grade 3. We kept practising in grade 4. I moved in grade 4 and they were only just working on really memorizing at that point, but the teacher kept at it until almost everybody met the standard she'd set. Most teachers where I live don't spend that kind of time now. Why not? One, there's so much more in the curriculum to cover now, they can't spend the class time on it. Two, too many of them just feel it's the kid's responsibility to learn it on their own time and if they don't, they don't. Because of reason number one, they just don't feel it's their responsibility to make sure the kids learn them.

This probably applies to spelling and grammar, too. Although, I will say that a large part of the problem is not less class time on these things but less time spent READING on their own. We had daily silent reading in class PLUS were expected to read at home in our own time. Many of us in elementary read an hour or more a day on our own time. This creates for better spelling and grammar skills. What do most kids today read in terms of spelling and grammar? Msn and other chat venues. Texting with its modified requirements for speed and paying less. What do they hear? People in the media who have poor grammar. They are surrounded by more poor models and many would have to spend a significant amount of time having it corrected. But the governments want to shove as much as they can into the curriculum and many parents don't insist that their kids read. How are they supposed to improve when nobody's showing them that they need to and how?

Answer 10

There are a number of reasons.  Teachers too overburdened with paperwork to really check students' work carefully.  Teachers who find that if they correct work too much they'll be called on the carpet for "damaging students' self-image."  Teachers who've been taught that memorization is the lowest form of learning and therefore to be avoided (rather than to be used as a foundation).  Parents who try to protect their children from any criticism rather than teach them the correct way to do things.  Parents who harrass teachers over anything not done their way.  Parents who expect teachers to be able to teach 25 or 30 students in 25 or 30 different ways, to meet the needs of every individual at all times.  Administrators who give teachers grief any time a parent complains that the teacher is too strict and wants work done correctly.  Administrators who make teachers attend endless meaningless meetings and complete endless forms rather than attend to the business of teaching.  Administrators who don't back up teachers in handling discipline problems, so that the problem students make it impossible to teach well.   Parents and administrators who want teachers to teach all sorts of things besides academics.  Students who've learned that they can get by without putting forth their best effort.  Students who think it's cool to not do well in school.  And so on....

The subjects that you mention all require mental discipline.  You must learn the basics well to be able to do well later on.  You must memorize a certain amount of rules and facts.  You can't be overly sloppy.  None of these aspects are promoted, it seems, in most American public schools these days.

Answer 11

ASDF - Generalized thinking is intrinsically flawed when applied to the individual.  I agree that *generally speaking* kids are geting weaker at the fundamentals.  

A great Q IMHO.  I have an 8yr old in school right now.  And he is a fantastic reader, speller, good at math, etc.  BUT, his mother and I work with him almost daily on these things.  We require he read at least 15 minutes every night.  We ask random math questions, and quiz him on spelling.  

I think that, in our busy lives, many parents can't - or plain don't - take time to do these things.  They have left it entirely up to the schools to teach these things.  

The school teachers get told not to flunk kids.  Parents kick up a stink every time little junior doesnt get his way.  We have slowly built a system that awards mediocrity, and ignores excellence as well as poor performance.

And - as ironic as it may be - I also think the increasing use of computers can be held to blame.  Why should a kid learn to spell, when there is Spellcheck?  Why learn grammar when the computer corrects it for you?  Calculators and computer programs handle the basic math functions, so that when advanced math comes along the students are clueless.  

Thats my opinion, for what it's worth.  Parent involvement can go a long way to stem the tide.  Teachers cannot possibly do it all.

Answer 12

Public school kids spend 51 minutes per day for 180 days with their teacher. You spend 24 hours per day, 365 days per year with yours.

But it is the same concept with many private school students.  Kids who are taught baseball and practice baseball every day will become good at baseball, right?  Kids who are taught to become good students become good students.  

Don't jump to conclusions, though.  Our county this year had 15 public school students get perfect scores on the SAT, 2 in private schools, and none from home school.

Answer 13

I agree with the above poster.  Teachers are under more and more pressure to perform as far as test scores go, but are given less and less room to actually teach.  

We have slowly built a system that accepts (and, at points, even condones) mediocrity.  No, not every ps student is bad at math, spelling, or grammar, but overall, the ability levels are sinking pretty quickly.  I've seen teachers complain (on Teaching) that the work is being dumbed down and there's really nothing that can be done about it - it's what the higher-ups are demanding they teach.  20 years ago, 8th grade lit students were analyzing Shakespeare and Chaucer (I know I was); now, they analyze Holes and Hoot.  Heck, many of them don't even analyze - they just answer comprehension questions.  I work with 4th and 5th graders that can easily do that.

Because teachers have to teach to dumbed-down tests, their ability to actually teach is heavily restricted.  Most states have made their own version of the NCLB test - and some of these versions, a child has to actually try to fail.  The tests are *that* dumbed down.  When their funding is at stake, unfortunately many districts choose to improve their odds by lowering standards rather than by allowing teachers to actually teach.  Sad, but true.

Many of them are bad at these subjects because they're simply not held to higher standards.  The teachers don't have time, the parents aren't involved, and the administration is more concerned about their funding.

Edit - bravo, BillH.  I completely agree.

You know, I often wonder why it costs $10,000+ to educate a kid in PS, but I'm able to educate my son for under $500 a year - and half his classes are high school level or above.  (He's 10.)  I know that money's not all going to the teachers...good grief, if it did, teachers would be making as much as professional athletes.

Answer 14

My mom taught in ps, kindergarten, for over 20 years, and retired about 5 years ago.  In that time she was able to see American families and the educational system go downhill.  Specifically, kids because increasingly less disciplined, and the parents exhibited less desire to and knowledge of HOW to discipline.  They would bring their kids to my mom's class and say, "Johnny isn't used to being made to obey."  My mom also saw, towards the end of her teaching career, kids coming into kindergarten that couldn't even count to THREE, knew NO colors, couldn't write their name, etc.  So there was a breakdown of the family that made teaching the kids a whole lot harder.  Additionally, the gov't began mandating a lot of non-teaching things for her to do, such that the last 5 years or so she was not able to teach the kids to read - she didn't have time.  Before that she was able to, although it got increasingly difficult.  

I live in 3 states since having kids, and all 3 of them had very poor public school systems.  The one I live in now is the WORST.  Most of the kids don't know basic math by the time they graduate, and are usually about 10th grade before they can read fluently.

Answer 15

Well it helps to give kids a firm foundation. The pace at which the public schools move is way too fast for most kids to understand.

I had a fantastic experience with math when I was placed in a "special education class" called Youth Education Success. We were allowed to go as fast or as slow as we desired. As long as we could pass the chapter test. That was the best year of math I ever received. That was 8th grade. A little to late for me to get the basics if we long passed them. I thanked that teacher 4 years later at my graduation. Because of that year I had a firm enough foundation to understand the next four.

The same is needed in spelling and grammar. One thing that might help is to give the kids a program that is more than busy work.

A firm grasp of the basics is the most important part of education. If you don't have it you can't build on it.