President Barack Obama thinks that American schoolchildren need a longer school year. The essential reason for this seems to be that many other countries make their kids spend more time in school.
More is better isn't necessarily a good approach to any given thing, Mr. President. Particularly when the more may simply be more of the same: if we extend our school years yet offer no more than the self worth psychobabble which is ultimately responsible for our kids achievement rates dropping, we will see little academic improvement.
Further, it is simply not true that more school leads to better performance. AOL reports that kids in nations where math and science scores are consistently higher than ours have, at least in some cases, more than 100 fewer classroom hours per year than typical American schoolchildren. This includes places such as Japan and Hong Kong, places which are supposed to put more effort, in terms of raw time, into actual education. Why do their progeny learn and ours so often falter?
Could it be that those nations take the time they have more seriously? Could it be that the subjects are treated with respect as subjects rather than forums for self-enhancement exercises? To be sure, there are other factors involved. Poverty and poor home environments surely can't help certain students do better in life in general let alone merely in school. But on the surface, the more is better mantra sounds all too much like the typical liberal solution to so many things. Education is poor? Then we need more of it!
Hey, it's easier than actually getting to the root of a problem.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
Posts
1 comment:
I agree, in countries like India and China and Japan society in general takes education more seriously than we do here. Mainly the students in the U.S. don't take it as seriously as they need to, they just take everything they have here for granted like it'll always be here for them, even if they don't work for it. Ugh.
Post a Comment