I am deleting my entire original post because I had my facts wrong... so much for how much I know or thought I knew! :-)

But anyway.... all that aside and I'm sorry I offended anyone. It was not my intention.

I would like to know...What people think is wrong with the American System of Education. What needs to be fixed. What can we do differently. What a bag of worms eh? I just am of the opinion that throwing more money and resources (including time) at the problem is not the answer. I don't know what is but I think there are changes that could be made. I'm thinking of how the Japanese went about their car industry building. From what I understand they studied what worked and what didn't work about the American car industry and they made their own forumal and beat us at our own game. So I was thinking that there are many other education systems out there to look at and learn from. Also we can look at how succesful home-schooling and private schools are. What about those two options can we mimic in public education?

That was the intent of my original post.

Firstly the US is the only country in the world which educates all of its citizens, so comparing performance of other countries and the US is actually very misleading.

That's a strange statement. You realise it's false?

I am sorry, but I went to school in Germany for 13 years and have a mother that is still a teacher in Germany and a lot of the things you say are just not true.

1. There is tracking from about age 12. Teachers, parents and students sit down and discuss strengths, weaknesses, long term goals and it is decided if a child will go the academic course or be tracked to any number of skills routes where apprentiship is gained. It is not "dumb" school -- it's catered to the student's interests, abilities and aptitude.

that has to be debated, until you leave school, after 9, 10 or now 12 years (used to be 13), it is mostly academic and the kids that go to school 9 years are already on the track for lower paying jobs for sure.

2. Germany has shorter school days 8am-12:00noon. Some classes go later but the standard is much, much shorter than our long days
That might be true for the first 4 years of school, then school lasts until1-1.30, I happened to got to a school that went until 4.00

3. They have more homework
Absolutely not true.

5. Kids go home and eat lunch and if a parent is not home other arrangements are made
Yes, the same as in the US, after school care or being a latch key kid.

6. Every family recieves Kindergeld (Child Money) to be spent for enrichment, child care etc. for each child
You get Kindergeld if you have a child, there are no ties to it, you can do whatever you want with it. Like the tax exemption in the States.

7. From what I understand it is obligatory that parents engage in some sort of classes with their children from early on. I think that the Kindergeld is tied to this requirement but I'm not sure.
Both statements are false. What do you do if both parents work, like mine did? Nobody has to work at a school, i would go as far as to say it is not common to do so, no PTA or anything. And again, you get Kindergeld when you have a child, no other requirements.

9. University is much more competative. Not every child will go to University. Spots are competative and limited. They have a spot for each job projected for the graduation date. So you compete for those spots and when you are finished you are theoretically supposed to have the ability to get a job in your field. This just guarantee system is in theory of course. I'm not sure how well it works. I think Germany has a pretty high unemployment rate.
Ecxept for the high unemplyment rate this statement is also false from top to bottom. And yes, i got a degree at a German university.

Firstly the US is the only country in the world which educates all of its citizens,
And that tops it all.

Sorry, i don't know where in Germany you taught or have experience with, but my experience and knowledge are so vastly different that I couldn't stay quiet.
Have to keep it short, gotta put the babes to bed.
peace!

Wow. sorry. I was just going by what I was told by teachers in Germany. I'm going to have to re-read your post and discuss this with them. Thanks for setting me straight (in a kind way!)

That's a strange statement. You realise it's false?

How is it false? I mean universal education. I should not say ONLY. Sorry. But the US educates all of our students, one track for all...going in the same direction with little deviation save a few vocational options. Not all students complete high school but students have the opportunity. This is not the case in many other countries. I can say in Germany and China for sure. I assumed most of Europe was like Germany in this respect. From what I know of the Japanese school system, they are even more competative about who "gets to be educated". I did not mean to offend anyone. I think there are very good things about the education systems of other countries. I also think there are good things about our system. I think that we could learn from other countries and what they have accomplished in education.

How is it false? I mean universal education. I should not say ONLY. Sorry. But the US educates all of our students, one track for all...going in the same direction with little deviation save a few vocational options. Not all students complete high school but students have the opportunity. This is not the case in many other countries. I can say in Germany and China for sure. I assumed most of Europe was like Germany in this respect. From what I know of the Japanese school system, they are even more competative about who "gets to be educated". I did not mean to offend anyone. I think there are very good things about the education systems of other countries. I also think there are good things about our system. I think that we could learn from other countries and what they have accomplished in education.

UK educates everyone to finish high school level. They used to test at age 11 and track kids off into secondary or high school (can't remember the names, it was something like that) they stopped it in the 70's. Now all kids go to the same comprehensive high school and that way late bloomers get a chance to go into University too. After high school they can attend 6th form college or go directly to a junior college type school an then on to Uni or career training.

How is it false? I mean universal education. I should not say ONLY. Sorry. But the US educates all of our students, one track for all...going in the same direction with little deviation save a few vocational options. Not all students complete high school but students have the opportunity. This is not the case in many other countries. I can say in Germany and China for sure. I assumed most of Europe was like Germany in this respect. From what I know of the Japanese school system, they are even more competative about who "gets to be educated". I did not mean to offend anyone. I think there are very good things about the education systems of other countries. I also think there are good things about our system. I think that we could learn from other countries and what they have accomplished in education.

Well, its just false. Rather than providing you with a list of all the countries that DO educate all their citizens, why don't you provide me with an example of a first world country that doesn't.

I know a fair bit about the Japanese system and it's most definitely universal. Competitive, yes, but that doesn't mean that anyone who doesn't go to Tokyo University isn't educated. If that's the measure of education you could say that an American who doesn't go to Harvard but only to Stanford is uneducated.

Like I said above, I don't know of any first world countries that don't have universal education (including Germany).

In many nations students are tracked in different directions according to ability and performance. For better or worse and I'm not judging because I see the merits of both options, we don't officially track anymore. It is not PC.

In the US we seem to push the vast majority of children to go to college or University even if they are not suited for it. Most students can at least be accepted to a local college. I am no expert but I'm not sure that these same students would make it that far in other countries. Good for these indivuiduals to have made it but sometimes not very positive when they may not really have the skills and knowledge they should at the end of their studies. I think it is a positive thing for students to focus on their strengths. If they are not academically successful, they can pursue another route. I belive that our students who go to vocational schools are stigmatized in a way I am not sure they are in other nations. But again I'm not an expert.

Inclusion is embraced in America at least in theory. I have visited a Gymnasium (academic high school) in Germany and there is no inclusion according to the teachers at that school. There is a special school for students with special challenges. Again, I'm not judging. I think there are merits on both sides.

I have said that I'm not an expert on education systems around the world... I'm curious about what we could adopt that works else-where... What kind of a system we could reinvent. I'm not attacking any nation or system. I'm saying they are different and we could learn from each other. I think that the idea of universally educating is a great idea but the cookie cutter is not working here obviously. Perhaps the ideas of universal education, though not toward the same goal of going to college might be useful to us.

Let me start... I think that the year round schooling would be great with the breaks being dispersed instead of all coming in one 2.5 month chunk. I think many students get bored in the summer. The school where I taught would have to get airconditioning and I know that would be expensive for many school systems around the country. The last couple months of school and the first couple months of school are scortchers.

Maybe it was a stupid post to begin with. My intention was never to offend anyone. Just bring discussion of what works in other places. Boy do I regret having posted in the first place. Oh well.

I think it's your terminology that is the problem. "universal education" means educating everyone. You're talking about differentiation and streaming/tracking. That is an interesting discussion and I think I disagree that it doesn't happen in the US. Subjects are not compulsory all the way through high school, for example.

UK educates everyone to finish high school level. They used to test at age 11 and track kids off into secondary or high school (can't remember the names, it was something like that) they stopped it in the 70's. Now all kids go to the same comprehensive high school and that way late bloomers get a chance to go into University too. After high school they can attend 6th form college or go directly to a junior college type school an then on to Uni or career training.

Actually this isn't quite accurate, tracking hasn't stopped, it just isn't so widespread. The test almost all children took was the 11 plus, I didn't take it because I was in a private boarding school and my brother didn't take it because he was in the public school system, "public schools" are independent private schools open to the public (archaic terminology). My sister did take the 11 plus and went on to attend one of the top girls' grammar schools (which is the name I think you were looking for) in the country. The 11 plus is still offered by some school authorities in the UK, but is is now optional, but you can't get into certain schools without passing it. However most places no longer offer the test or provide grammar schools and all children go to comprehensive schools, the boroughs that do have the 11 plus and grammar schools tend to be politically conservative. FWIW, my niece took and passed the 11 plus last year and now attends a grammar school.

Actually this isn't quite accurate, tracking hasn't stopped, it just isn't so widespread. The test almost all children took was the 11 plus,

My DH is British and all my nieces and nephews took the 11 plus. Some passed, some didn't. My youngest of them is in their late teens and I don't keep up with what is going on now.

There are places in the system to re-enter the university track if student failed the 11 plus. My DH attended an excellant school and said some of the smartest kids he went to school with were one's who entered later. They were just late bloomers but the system was set up to accomodate that.

The emphasis is very different than in the US. The kind of tracking just isn't something we would be comfortable with. I do believe it makes a difference in the over all test scores when the kids who are the most accademic are sorted out and then given an education to match their aptitudes. So often when we hear what kids in other countries are doing, we are just hearing about the minority on that elevated track and comparing them to the average of all our students. Apples to oranges.

I also think the differences between the quality of the education in different countries get overstated. One of our British friends lived here for a few years and her DD attended a good suburban school (not the best district in the city, but one of the better ones) and made As and Bs. When she went back to the UK, she took the 11 plus and passed with flying colors -- after going to American schools for 3 years. Another friend, an American, moved to the UK for 2 years and her DD's biggest adjustment was that the schools were far pickier about her handwriting. Other than that, she did fine in British schools.

If it were true that our schools are all failing, these kids would have had much bigger adjustments going into the British schools mid-stream.

There are places in the system to re-enter the university track if student failed the 11 plus.

Just because you failed the 11 plus it certainly doesn't mean you won't get into university, and you don't need get into a grammar school at a later date. For those that go to comprehensive schools, either because they failed or live in a place that doesn't offer the 11 plus, you can still take A levels which is what you need to get into university.

Actually this isn't quite accurate, tracking hasn't stopped, it just isn't so widespread.
How about that. All the school districts in the area I'm from had stopped doing the 11 plus before I even got to high school. I'm amazed anywhere would still do that. Late bloomers didn't stand a chance if tracked off into the secondary school. How sad. I hope they have ended it all over by now.

How is it false? I mean universal education. I should not say ONLY. Sorry. But the US educates all of our students, one track for all...going in the same direction with little deviation save a few vocational options. Not all students complete high school but students have the opportunity. This is not the case in many other countries. I can say in Germany and China for sure. I assumed most of Europe was like Germany in this respect. From what I know of the Japanese school system, they are even more competative about who "gets to be educated". I did not mean to offend anyone. I think there are very good things about the education systems of other countries. I also think there are good things about our system. I think that we could learn from other countries and what they have accomplished in education.

Many countries in western europe provide free universal education through college! The U.S. pails in comparison to many countries in western europe such as germany and sweden. Not sure where you are getting your facts. The problems with our system are myriad but they stem from lack of funding, poor training and lack of compensation for teachers, class size, drugging our kids instead of teaching them the way THEY learn, failure to understand the importance of outdoor education and learning through play rather than cramming for standardized tests. No Child Left Behind pretty much epitomizes how much we don't understand about how kids learn and what they need in early education. And then don't get me started on the fact that we have no free EARLY childcare. So many kids are left in deplorable care prior to elementary school because their parents simply can't afford anything better and can't afford not to work. If we cared more for our children in this country maybe we wouldn't have so many problems when they grow up. We're penny-wise and pound-foolish and haven't grasped what a lot of other countries have --- that is every dollar you invest in childcare and education will pay back to society many times fold.

I don't ever want to pay for free child care again (I used to live and pay taxes in Quebec). Free just means that that take it from EVERYBODY'S paycheck.

but, that's not what I popped in to say. I had lunch today with a friend who started a yoga program for at risk youth through a high school in a gang infested neighborhood. It struck me as we were chatting that any thing said about "the American educational system" is silly because we don't have *one* system. There are widely different things going on in different places, and the challanges and/or successes of one area are not the same as in another.

<<we can look at how succesful home-schooling and private schools are. What about those two options can we mimic in public education?>>

There is a book called "Family Matters: Why Homeschooling Makes Sense" that was written by a public high school teacher who is a homeschooling father. He says that the test scores of kids who are homeschooled are about the same as the those of kids who attend private schools, and that some kids who attend public school achieve those same high score. His theory is that involved parents who value education turn out kids who are successful with accademics. The method of delivery the education isn't the important part, it's the attitude of the parents that makes the difference.

Just want to put in my two cents for Canada:

Gov't funds school for grades 1-12. Things vary provincially; I can only speak for Ontario, but we also have funded, optional JK and SK. There are French schools and English schools, and public and Catholic (publicly funded, separate) schools. I went to an English public school; I think that, now, anyone can go to a Catholic school, though the requirements used to be more stringent (the child or one parent had to be baptized into the Catholic church). Schools vary, but they are largely the same (teach the same things) for all children. At high school, they stream the students. The year I started grade 9 was the first year they had de-streamed grade nine; you chose your stream at the end of that year. You chose advanced (university or college); general (college or other post-secondary school); or basic (other post-secondary school or direct entry to the workplace). These have likely been renamed since I attended high school. We were encouraged to choose the "highest" stream we were interested in, since it was easier to move to a "lower" stream if that one wasn't for you than it was to go up to a "higher" stream -- though not impossible.

Universities and colleges are partially funded; the average undergraduate yearly tuition fee in Canada in 2005 was just over $4000 CAD (currently, that's about $3200 USD). I don't know about other provinces, but Ontario provides student loan help; when dh was in university, he received loans through OSAP (Ontario Student Assistance Programme), which basically meant the gov't guaranteed his bank loan and paid the interest while he was a student; he qualified for bursaries and scholarships through OSAP as well.

In Ontario, you can attend university or college as a mature student if you're not coming directly from high school, regardless of what stream you were in. Each school has its own policy.

The British author G.K. Chesterton was asked (along with other U.K. luminaries) by an English newspaper, "What's wrong with the world?" His response was as follows:

Dear Sirs,
I am.
Sincerely,
GKC

I think what is most atrocious in American education is our lack of regard for the humanity of the student. Often lip service is paid to things like a "student-centered curriculum" or leaving no child behind, but generally the rhetoric about children is a clever way for the adults (parents, teachers, school boards, administrators, governors, presidents, et al) to at once appear concerned about kids while retaining their hold on power.

We are a homeschooling family and I teach at a public school (a damn good one, I might add). We don't think homeschooling is the right choice for all families, but we do insist that until we find schools that are concerned with our kids integral development, we don't plan on sending our kids to those schools.

Our culture is saturated with reductions of the human person: The person as economic cog in a vast financial machine. As a family, materialism doesn't interest us - regardless if that materialism flows from the mind of Adam Smith or Karl Marx or any of their progeny. Yet that is what most public schools offer: a "pragmatic" education that focuses on skills without reference to the meaning of life.

The justification for ignoring meaning (except in the occasional literature class) is often "church state separation." Yeah, best to ignore issues that might bring in a hail of lawsuits in our litigious culture. Or not.

Of course even the term "public education" seems to be a farce when public ideas, values, debates, religions, and ideologies are barred from the school house. (When I was crabbier I refused to use the term public education and substituted "government education," but the latter term is also misleading.)

The fundamental problem, as I see it is that we fear asking two or three questions because they could/would upset the status quo. Question #1: What is the human person? Question #2 What is education, really? Question #3: What would an adequate education of the human person require?

There's a can of worms! I have my "answers" to these three questions, but I'd like to hear what others have to say....