They also serve who only stand and wait
I frequently hear the argument that the US falling behind in primary science/math education is due to the absence of the national curricula (as compared to, say, France and Japan)
eg http://www-users.math.umd.edu/~dac/650/vernillepaper.html
This is correct for the wrong reasons. Having national curriculum slows down sweeping educational reforms due to the involvements of bloated and inefficient bureaucracies sabotaging such developments; hence the correlation. With the curricula revised every 5-8 years, there is no time for any particular approach to improve and develop. Just think how many education reforms there've been since 1957 when this craze began (fuelled by paranoia about losing it to the Russians). The ensuing New Math Revolution resulted in losing it to the Russians. Now it is losing to nearly any other developed country.
The thinking goes only in one direction: more reforms. I do not believe that any particular curriculum is immeasurably better than any other curriculum. It just takes a long time for a teacher to learn how to use the given curriculum to teach well, by trial and error. Part of the reason why private schools teach better than public schools is that there is less reform in the former schools. Perhaps the real problem is that people charged with improvements in education cannot recommend doing nothing, as they would be left without jobs. So it gotta be the reform.
PS: via leblon http://www.csun.edu/~vcmth00m/AHistory.html
eg http://www-users.math.umd.edu/~dac/650/vernillepaper.html
This is correct for the wrong reasons. Having national curriculum slows down sweeping educational reforms due to the involvements of bloated and inefficient bureaucracies sabotaging such developments; hence the correlation. With the curricula revised every 5-8 years, there is no time for any particular approach to improve and develop. Just think how many education reforms there've been since 1957 when this craze began (fuelled by paranoia about losing it to the Russians). The ensuing New Math Revolution resulted in losing it to the Russians. Now it is losing to nearly any other developed country.
The thinking goes only in one direction: more reforms. I do not believe that any particular curriculum is immeasurably better than any other curriculum. It just takes a long time for a teacher to learn how to use the given curriculum to teach well, by trial and error. Part of the reason why private schools teach better than public schools is that there is less reform in the former schools. Perhaps the real problem is that people charged with improvements in education cannot recommend doing nothing, as they would be left without jobs. So it gotta be the reform.
PS: via leblon http://www.csun.edu/~vcmth00m/AHistory.html