The comments of this post at OTB for some reason or other has turned to the educational system. I find it incredible that anybody could think that the K-12 public educational system today is not “dumbed down” relative to what it was, say, 90 years ago.
Consider, for example, this front page from a newspaper of 90 years ago and the articles on the front page of USA Today this morning. At least to my eye the vocabulary, grammatical constructions, and assumptions about supporting knowledge were much greater in years gone by than they are now. See also, for example, the standard fourth grade reader from 1899.
I think the better question is not whether the educational system (not to mention the public discourse) has descended to the lowest common denominator. I think it’s obvious that it has. The better question is whether, in a system of universal education, you can or should expect anything else and whether a system of universal education is better than what prevailed 90 years ago. I think it is, that “dumbing down” is inevitable under such a system, and, all things considered, that’s not a bad thing.
To put things in the context of my own family in 1920 nobody in my family had an education beyond the third grade (although they were expected by that time to be completely literate, to be able to figure, and to have a substantial body of knowledge, particularly of literature) and I would claim that at that point that was the norm or even beyond the norm. Large numbers of Americans, particularly blacks in the south, had no formal education whatever. Illiteracy was still extremely common. I think I might characterize what we’ve got now as “elective illiteracy”.http://www.usatoday.com/
I think education levels may be better in some things, particularly mathematics; but that may be because there are different expectations. My grade school kids are learning algebra, which I didn’t learn in grade school in the 70s. There is less emphasis on complex mathematical problems (longer, more operations) and greater on abstration and pattern recognition. Whether or not people are mathematically smarter, or the purpose of math has changed, I supose is debatable.
Another difference is reading has become less directed. That 1899 reader appears to have a lot of moral content (particularly look at the Benjamin Franklin anecdotes). When I was in grade school, there was little of morality, but reading short history books and reporting on them was part of a history curriculum that my kids don’t enjoy. That notion of common culture has eroded, but again I think the educational goals are different. I think reading is seen as a good on to itself, and encouraging students to read what they want to read has a higher value than in earlier times. Also, the secondary purpose of reading appears to be more psychological. Read this short story about a conflict between friends, why do you think A did X? How did the story make you feel? What did B say that was a fact, and what did he say that was an opinion?
In 1900, 6% of American teenagers graduated from high school.
Looks like you’re trying to compare apples and oranges.
@ponce
It’s a point worth considering. Educational quality was probably better in 1920 than today, but very few people actually had access to it all the way through graduation. As Dave asked in his post, is guaranteed universal education necessarily of lower quality? As a former educator I think it probably is, and that the necessary step toward high quality instruction for all is a massive public investment in rolling out technologies which hyper-individualize education, tailoring it for each student. A centralized school system pumping out mass-produced curricula is simply outdated and unsatisfactory.
Do people believe in the Flynn effect? It suggests people are more intelligent than they were one hundred years ago. So in a sense people are not dumber, though intelligence and education are distinct but related concepts.
“It’s a point worth considering. Educational quality was probably better in 1920 than today, but very few people actually had access to it all the way through graduation.”
I suppose it depends on the effort put into it.
All my kids had finished college level Calculus and Physics courses by the end of the 11th grade, and that was a fairly common achievement at their public school.
In my experience, nothing contributes to the quality of education a child receives more than parental involvement.
I disagree with the central premise: I think High School at least is quite a bit harder than it was when I attended back in the late Cretaceous. (late 60’s, early 70’s.) In fact, if my school had been as tough as school now I’d have dropped out much sooner than the first week of 11th grade.
Through 9th and 10th grades I did no homework on the theory that, “You can’t tell me what to do when I’m not at school.” (Pretty sure that’s in the Constitution.) I never studied. I just beat standardized tests and teachers couldn’t very well flunk a kid in the 99th percentile on the Iowa tests.
We had to search long and hard to find a high school that wouldn’t bury Jake in homework and test prep and the rest of the nonsense that would have interfered with his actual (self) education. It’s not easy, there are an awful lot of grind schools. Fortunately something (I assume it’s marijuana) seems to have mellowed the Tamalpais school district. They rack up great test scores (I assume that’s also marijuana,) without breaking the kid’s spirits.
I may be coming from a biased POV, having worked mostly with bright kids from the local schools (speech and debate), but curriculums seem much more difficult than what I had in high school. Calculus is required now if you want to get in any kind of decent college. The history readings are much more thorough and challenging than the memorize the dates approach we had. The physics and chemistry courses are more challenging. Competition at the top of the school is much stiffer and there are many more kids involved. Many kids are taking college courses in high school. I think there is a major change in English classes with less emphasis on the classics.
What I dont have a good sense for is the vocational part of schooling. I think it is more varied than when I went to school, but am not sure.
Steve
Through 9th and 10th grades I did no homework on the theory that, “You can’t tell me what to do when I’m not at school.†(Pretty sure that’s in the Constitution.)
It’s buried somewhere in Article IV or V, I believe.
They rack up great test scores (I assume that’s also marijuana,) without breaking the kid’s spirits.
If they’re racking up unusually good test scores they’re either selecting their students carefully, or they’re cheating, or both. The one truth almost no one wants to mention is that if you want better schools, get better students.
Oh, that’s exactly what it is. But I give them credit for realizing that they didn’t actually have to try — just leave the kids alone and let ’em take the test.
For your edification: my son’s high school has a mushroom lover’s club. Of course they call it mycology, but there’s not a whole lot of taxonomy going on. Marin County, north of San Francisco: ‘shroom club. Yep.
I don’t know what public education was actually like in the 1920’s in any great detail, but it seems to me it was a lot more uneven than today. Many did not do the entire K-12 track and the goals of the system (such as it was) was different then than today. Also, I think you may be comparing what was more of an elite education then with what is average today.
Additionally, I don’t think anachronistic vocabulary and grammar says much of anything. For giggles, though, I had my 2nd grade daughter read some of the stuff in the fourth grade 1899 reader you linked to. She currently reads at a mid-third grade level. She didn’t have much trouble except for some words that aren’t used much in modern language (she hadn’t seen them before). Overall she thought it was pretty boring.
I’m currently reading the “Hardy Boys” series of books to my kids in the evening (mainly because that’s what my Dad did for me and the kids, so far, enjoy them), written between the 20’s and 50’s. They are supposedly at a fifth-sixth grade reading level but my daughter can manage most of it by herself. Again, the main comprehension problem is dated language and words as well as cultural anachronisms like calling black people “colored.” Those books aren’t any more challenging that modern books IMO.
Personally, I don’t think the education system is dumbed down, at least not in K-6. Students are taught reading and math in their homerooms, but also in groups according to ability. So my daughter is in an enrichment reading program while students who are behind get level-appropriate education as well as additional reading time. Unlike what probably happened 90 years ago, underperforming students aren’t whipped or beaten and if you’re black, Italian, Irish, Native Ameircan, etc. today you actually have a decent shot at a good education – a much better than one they would have received in the 1920’s IMO.
Maybe a better way to look at it is ask how well the education system of 90 years ago met the needs of the time vs how well our education system meets our needs today. Not sure it’s possible to empirically answer that question though.
That’s precisely my point. Education beyond three or four grades was an elite education 90 years ago. What we’re doing today is much more truly considered universal education.
Ok, I don’t understand how you get from there to suggesting that education has been “dumbed down.” Elite education today is still elite. For everyone else the education system is probably a lot better now.
Oh, that’s exactly what it is. But I give them credit for realizing that they didn’t actually have to try — just leave the kids alone and let ‘em take the test.
I’ve found the idea of ‘preparing’ for standardized tests to be, well, stupid. You know the content tested or you don’t. There are a few tricks for taking multiple choice exams, but those can be covered in sickening depth in under 30 minutes. The idea that the schools are ‘teaching to the tests’ NOW means they must not have been teaching the appropriate material BEFORE.
I’m surprised your son’s school doesn’t have a big Future Farmers of America Club up there. (I’m assuming it doesn’t since you didn’t mention it. If they do, then AHA!) It’s all about the horticulture! Similarly, I would expect Chemistry Clubs to be big in parts of the country where meth is big business. It’s the vocational training everyone keeps yammering about.
Read US Grant’s memoirs about his pre-West Point education for kicks and comparisons. Harvard (and the rest of the Ivy league) hasn’t produced a POTUS in some time that could write as clearly and cogently as Grant did while dying of cancer. Score one for the Frontier Education System.
“I never studied. I just beat standardized tests and teachers couldn’t very well flunk a kid in the 99th percentile on the Iowa tests.”
Ditto. Schoolwork bored me to tears and it took absolutely no effort to ace the standardized junk, so I just drifted through the system until graduation.
Well, you know what Dorothy Parker said. “You can lead a horticulture…”
[ shakes head in disgust ]
Sweet Jebus, Ben, you managed to stomach it until graduation?