|
|
 |
CORRECTING THE CURRICULUM
What should be done to improve our students' education? March 24, 1998 |
|---|
Questions asked
in this forum:
Why are students going downhill as they enter high school? What are the pros and cons of a national curriculum? What can or what should we do to make education more relevant to our students? How important are math and science scores? Wouldn't reducing class size and teacher workloads improve the situation? Is it a question of not holding students to high enough standards or a lack of parental involvement? Are there better teaching techniques, such as Montessori?
NewsHour Backgrounders
September 18, 1997
The House voted to ban funding for national educational standards.
September 8, 1997
President Clinton announced his support for national standardized testing.
May 27, 1997
School officials try to bolster student performance.
February 11, 1997:
President Clinton announces his intentions to create national standards.
Browse the NewsHour's coverage of education.
Outside Links
National Center on Education and Economy
National Science Teachers Association
The Center for Education Reform
When it comes to axioms (or theories or physical principles), U.S. students apparently don't get it. According to a report released last month, American high school seniors, including honor students, scored below the international average in the Third International Mathematics and Science Study (TIMSS). Students from twenty-one developed nations were tested for the study and not only did U.S. seniors score below average, they ranked close to last. Pupils from Canada and most of Europe surpassed the United States; U.S. scores were comparable to students in Russia, Italy and the Czech Republic.
The TIMSS study tested fourth graders, eighth graders and seniors. Fourth graders from the U.S. tested above average in both math and science, but by the time they reached eighth grade, they had slipped in math, while remaining above average in science. By their senior year, students had slipped far below the international average in both subjects.
President Clinton has used the TIMSS test to revive the debate over his proposal for voluntary testing of eighth graders in math. During his State of the Union Address in 1997, Clinton proposed the idea of testing, a proposal quickly criticized by some members of Congress who argued that money should be spent on improving school systems, not more testing. Others object because they fear that expanding the federal government's role in education could lead to a national curriculum. And although the proposal has become bogged down in Congress, President Clinton and Education Secretary Richard Riley plan to lobby for the tests again.
Educators are bantering about many ideas regarding what should be done to improve school curriculums in the U.S. Some propose revising the current curriculum and setting new rigorous standards. Others argue for the establishment of national standards in which students would be taught at a set pace. They point to the fact that many of the countries that tested higher than the U.S. have a national curriculum. Many feel that advanced math subjects like geometry and chemistry should be introduced in the middle school, as many nations that tested well already do. A few believe that the nation's school systems should be offering more teacher training to improve scores.
The Department of Education has offered possible reasons behind America's poor performance on the TIMSS test. The percentage of high school seniors taking math and science during all four years of high school is lower in the United States than in other countries. In addition, U.S. students spend an average of 1.7 hours per night on homework, as opposed to the international average of 2.6 hours. The report also showed that more than half of American students hold a job, working about three hours a day, while only one-fifth of students in other countries juggled both school and job.
What should be done to improve curriculums in U.S. schools? Should voluntary testing be implemented and would this lead to a national curriculum? Should math and science be required for all four years of high school? Is the problem really the curriculum, or a lack of interest in school from American students? What can be done to assist teachers?
Answering your questions will be Marc S. Tucker, president of the National Center of Education and Economy and the co-director of the New Standards Project; Jeanne Allen, president of The Center for Education Reform; and Gerry Wheeler, the executive director of the National Science Teachers Association.
Questions asked in this forum:
Why are students going downhill as they enter high school? What are the pros and cons of a national curriculum? What can or what should we do to make education more relevant to our students? How important are math and science scores? Wouldn't reducing class size and teacher workloads improve the situation? Is it a question of not holding students to high enough standards or a lack of parental involvement? Are there better teaching techniques, such as Montessori?
Support the kind of journalism done by the NewsHour...Become a member of your local PBS station. PBS Online Privacy Policy
Copyright ©1996- MacNeil/Lehrer Productions. All Rights Reserved.
