Continued from Part I.
Every time you stop a school, you will have to build a jail. What you gain at one end you lose at the other. It’s like feeding a dog on his own tail. It won’t fatten the dog. “”?Samuel Clemens, 1900
Regardless of the strengths and weaknesses of current primary and higher education, drastic changes need to be made. Bill Gates said that “America’s high schools are obsolete” and that they are not preparing our students for higher education nor the work force.
“Today, most jobs that allow you to support a family require some postsecondary education. This could mean a four-year college, a community college, or technical school. Unfortunately, only half of all students who enter high school ever enroll in a postsecondary institution. That means that half of all students starting high school today are unlikely to get a job that allows them to support a family.
Here is a short overview, first of the German education system and then of the American one.
The German education system.
The German education system is vastly different from that of America and also of other European countries. First of all, there are very few private schools and extremely few Germans attend them. Hence, there will be no further discussion of them as they are so few as to be of little importance. Lower and higher education is Germany is all funded by the state and tuition for the moment is free (not much longer). This universal education has been in place since the 18th century when started by Prussia.
There are various primary schools to choose from though most people attend the regular public ones. However, at the age of 10, Germans are divided based on ability and go down one of three tracks:
1) Hauptschule – The least academic of the three, attended until 9th grade plus three years Berufsschule (vocational school). The Berufsschule is normally twice a week during a two or three year apprenticeship; the other days are spent working at some company.
2) Realschule – through 10th grade plus after Berufsschule or technical school (more vocationally-oriented)
3) Gymnasium – through 12th or 13th grade, the most academic and students take a test (Abitur) which qualifies them for University.
Students who attend Gymnasium go directly to University while students of the other two schools go from there into the work force. However, though blue collar jobs tend to have a stigma attached to them in the United States, German workers, with their array of professional skills learned in the Hauptschule or Realschule still make very decent wages. In terms of skilled craftsmen, Germany is unbeatable. Watch a bricklayer or painter in Germany and you’ll be pleasantly surprised at how professional they are.
Additionally, students who attend Realschule also have the possibility to switch into Gymnasium if they find themselves underchallenged. Gymnasium is also considerably harder than American high school. It is 5 years, requires you to write a well researched thesis and to pass a final exam called the Abitur in order to graduate, by no means a walk in the park. A German’s last two years of Gymnasium is roughly the same as an American’s first two years of University.
Above all though, one should remember that though this multi-track system sounds like something out of 1984 to most Americans, it’s actually far from it. No one, I repeat, no one is forced into a school. Teacher recommendations, the students grades and performance and the parents wishes all play a role. The state does not force students into one school.
Outside of organizational differences, the German system also does not put as much emphasis on content, but instead critical thinking skills. Since German schools are more oritented towards preparation for the work force, research, analysis and critical thinking are all stressed while memorization, dates, busy work and so forth are all unimportant.
The American Education System
While America is home to 51 of the world’s top 100 universities, our primary education is in shambles. The American public school system, if it can be called that, is grossly inadequate and does little to prepare students for entry into a higher education institution.
Education in the US is decentralized with funding and curriculum decisions made mostly at the local level through school boards. Standards are generally set by state agencies while the federal government is involved with funding of some programs and exerts some influence through its ability to control funding. Accreditation of schools is accomplished by voluntary regional associations of educational institutions. Here is a breakdown of the overal structure of American education:
Elementary School – through 5th/6th grade.
Middle School – Through 8th grade.
High School – 9th through 12th
College/University – 2 years for an Associates Degree, 4 years for a Bachelors.
Masters Degree – Another 1 to 4 years.
Ph.d .- Usually 3 or more years.
And of course, for each level one has the choice between public and private schools, though realistically, those who plan to have a reasonably bright future ahead of them choose private schools for their entire education where the quality of teachers is higher, classes are smaller, facilities are much better and discipline is better (i.e. it’s safer).
American education tends to emphasize content more than critical thinking and is renown world wide for the “multiple choice test” which seems to exist nowhere else. Another difference tends to be that a Bachelors Degree in America is pursued merely for the sake of having one. Whether you studied English, History or Math, it won’t make as big of a difference when looking for employment as it would in other countries. Outside of subjects like law and medicine, a degree is important because it shows one has a general knowledge about the world and was responsible enough to be able to finish the degree. It does not actually prepare you for a career. Such skills are often learned on the job or during continued higher education. This is a major deviation from other systems.
As this has become rather lengthy already, I’m splitting it. Look for Part III later today or tomorrow. I also invite Americans to correct or add to my description. Given the decentralized nature of our education, I look forward to comments and additions as my personal experience combined with research is still not representative of the entire country.

Comments to this entry
The Glittering Eye
June 17, 2005
1:49 pm
Here's what's caught my eye this morning: AKMA continues his portrayal of early Church history in Legos, this time with the arrest of Ignatius of Antioch. I'm not making this up, you know. Austin Bay continues his trip in Iraq...
Mutantfrog
June 17, 2005
4:38 pm
"those who plan to have a reasonably bright future ahead of them choose private schools for their entire education"
It's actually fairly common for private schools to be of lower quality than public schools. Private primary and high schools are far less regulated by the state, teachers require no special training or certification and counterintuitively are actually often paid less than their public school counterparts, naturally leading to lower quality.
In quite a few communities private schools exist only for the sake of their own eliteness, as a way for rich white parents to keep their kids out of the minority-infested public schools. This absolutely does not apply to all private schools, and there are plenty of fine institutions out there, I'm just pointing out that your over-generalization.
Oh, and I should also say that public universities can also be excellent, and a top-rank public university is far, far, far better than any of the hundreds or thousands of mediocre private colleges we have throughout the country. Private colleges, with their smaller average class sizes, tend to have a major advantage over public schools at the undergrad level, but the worst shortcomings of private higher institutions tend to diminish in post-graduate work, and may apply less in some departments. For example, one of my majors was English Lit, and I never had a class larger than 50 or so students, and even a few that were under a dozen. At the same time, students in some other departments would be sitting in massive lecture halls of 200-300 students.
davesgonechina
June 17, 2005
7:21 pm
http://silkworms.chinesetriad.org/index.php?p=165
Mike
June 17, 2005
11:08 pm
Yeah I know what you mean. There are some schools that are below par but are very attractive for many (mostly) white middle class parents. But I think it is a fairly pejorative thing to say that all these people can't stand to be around minorities. You kind of flippantly charge racism. I know many people who took their kids out of public school because crime and drugs were out of control. I went to a public high school, 40% black. The county next to us was also around 40% to 50% black yet many kids' parents (mostly white) from that county would pay our county so they could come to our school that had virtually identical demographics. It was because crime and drugs were under control over here, not because of black people who were present in both school systems. Hell I know a few black people who left the one county to come to ours because they disliked the environment so much. I have had the benefit of both public schools and private schools (both secular and Catholic) and can say certainly that you can get a fine education at both if you want it. I went from one of the poorer public schools in the state of Georgia to Georgia Tech, one of the finest Institutions in world. I was fully prepared for the academic brutality that is GT, only 1/3 of freshmen ever graduate.
Mutantfrog
June 18, 2005
2:39 am
I went to a public high school that was about 50% black in a town that is mostly very middle class with a few very rich (mostly white) and a few very poor (mostly black). There was also a private school in town, which according to my father (a public high school principal in another town, who knows at least all of the major schools in the state) didn't actually offer a better education than the public school I went to.
Like I said, plenty of the kids in the private school are there for the prestige factor, but from what I saw and heard in town personally I got the impression that some, certainly a minority, were there for less savory reasons. And since as I said my school, while half black, was in no way more dangerous than a typical high school in a middle/upper-middle class area.
So let me rephrase then.
My earlier statement was "In quite a few communities private schools exist only for the sake of their own eliteness, as a way for rich white parents to keep their kids out of the minority-infested public schools."
Consider it this way:
In quite a few communities private schools exist only for the sake of their own eliteness, with students being sent there just to show that they can afford private school, as a way for their rich white parents to keep their kids out of the minority-infested public schools, or both.
Mike
June 18, 2005
5:39 am
Chirol
June 18, 2005
8:12 am
Grendel
June 18, 2005
9:50 am
i
The lower education will be free in the future as well (keywords "Humboldt & theory of education":http://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wilhelm_von_Humboldt which had a big impact on how education is viewed in Germany), everything coming after the Gymnasium is slowly transferred to a system with tuitions (rather complex because of its many exceptions and regulations). There's also the concept of "Gesamtschule":http://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gesamtschule (comprehensive school) which negates the three tracks of Haupt- Real- and Gymnasium and rather tries to combine them. One last addition: Education in Germany is a matter for the German federal Länder, or regions, because of that, the government in Berlin had a hard time to reform the education system (which, since the "PISA-study":http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/PISA_%28student_assessment%29 has been one of their priorities).
mark safranski
June 18, 2005
3:00 pm
In reality, there is a top tier of public schools that are actually more rigorous in terms of academic prep and competitiveness ( due to larger numbers of high-ability students) than top private schools. Resources play a huge role in creating academic opportunities and most private schools, unless they have a deep-pocket sponsor ( ex. U. of Chicago Labarotory School) lack the budgets of public schools.
Case in point, below is a longstanding ( 30 year) physics/sciences program in an Illinois public High school where juniors and seniors do long-term original research, usually on the graduate level:
http://facweb.eths.k12.il.us/chemphys/science_research_papers.htm
This H.S. program has produced not only an inordinate number of Intel and Westinghouse prize winners, finalists and semi-finalists over the years but several students who went on in their adult scientific careers to be nominated for and even win the Nobel. A far better track record than most public or private universities !
Obviously, this program is statistically atypical... but so are highly selective private schools ;o)
Mutantfrog
June 18, 2005
5:37 pm
And as for the earlier Mike's comment
"I suppose it depends on the section of the country you are in. You were in New Jearsy right? I guess it is different down south, there were zero racial problems, people dated across lines all the time."
I'd say that there were remarkably few racial problems in my school, but like I said I had heard that some people sent their kids to private school because of the more racially homogenous environment. Of course I also didn't have any friends in the private schools so I can't give any specific examples.
Mike
June 19, 2005
5:39 am
Mutantfrog
June 19, 2005
6:19 am
Incidentally, the racism claim is one that I'm repeating from my father, who as a public school administrator in NYC and urban and suburban New Jersey, knows as much about NYC region high schools than just about anyone.
ComingAnarchy.com » Blog Archive » 21st Century Education Part III
June 19, 2005
7:44 pm
Dan
June 19, 2005
9:19 pm
The primary (elementary) school system in the United States is not that bad. It is the secondary (middle school / high school) that is terrible.
To quote from Tom Friedman's new book (a quote which itself echoes Sagan's Demon Haunted World)
In our K to twelve we were doing okay at the fourth-grade level, we were doing middle-of-the-read in the eighth grade, and by the twelfth we were hovering near the bottom in international tests related to math. So the longer kids were in school, the dumber they were getting..."
mark safranski
June 20, 2005
12:26 am
No. The longer American kids are in school the fewer and more elite are their foreign peers at the same grade equivalent.
Mr. Friedman may not realize this but when you compare your top 75 % or 50 % against the other guy's top 10 % or 2 % you are going to get smoked every time.
Apples vs. Apples.....Oranges vs. Oranges......
The largest problem, BTW, with American education is at the elementary level - not secondary though that too requires substantial improvement. It's where you have the least qualified workforce, the lowest per pupil expenditure, the fewest resources, the least time on task and the most significant developmental windows to exploit.
Mike
June 20, 2005
1:23 am
Dan
June 20, 2005
2:45 am
Other countries may become "fewer and more elite," but that does not negate the destructive effects of American education on the intelligence of American children and youths.
From page 322 of Carl Sagan's The Demon Haunted World
Every now and then, I'm lucky enough to teach a kindergarten or first-grade class. Many of these children are natural-born scientists -- although heavy on the wonder side and light on skepticism. They're curious, intellectually vigorous. Provocative and insightful questions bubble out of them. They exhibit enourmous enthusiasm. I'm asked follow-up questions. They've never heard of the notion of a "dumb question."
But when I talk to high school seniors, I find something different. They memorize "facts." By and large, though, the joy of discovery, the life behind those facts, has gone out of them. They've lost much of the wonder, and gained very little skepticism. They're worried about asking "dumb" questions: they're willing to accept inadequate answers; they don't pose follow-up questions, the room is awash with sidelong glances to judge, second-by-second, the approval of their peers. They come to class with their questions written out on pieces of paper, which they surreptitiously examine, waiting their turn and oblivious of whatever discussion their peers are at this moment engaged in.
Something has happened between first and twelth grade, and its not just puberty. I guess that it's partly peer pressure not to excel (Except in sports), party that the society teaches short-term gratification, partly the impression that science or mathematics won't buy you a sports car; partly that so little is expected of students; and partly that there are few rewards or role models for intelligent discussion of science and technology -- or even for learning for its own sake. Those few who remain interested are vilified as "nerds," or geeks," or "grinds."
Sagan is writing about a catastrophic loss of horizontal thinking. Instead of exploiting children's natural core competency -- curiosity -- schools chose to focus on a very 1890-style of vertical knowledge. It is a dangerous style of "very little skepticism" and very little imagination.
Don't overestimate the formal qualifications needed for primary education. You do not need science majors to teach 3rd grade science, or mathematicians to teach third grade arithmetic. You need nuturers to build up a basic horizontal set of skills.
To paraphrase the philosopher of our time: can it be true, "Do all Americans go through a process of dumbening? Wait, thats not how you spell dumbening. Wait, dumbening isn't even a word....hmm, I've got to find out more!"
mark safranski
June 20, 2005
4:32 am
"Don't overestimate the formal qualifications needed for primary education"
I hardly could, given the parlous state of certification requirements. Speaking from 15 years of teaching, mentoring teachers, giving seminars and institutes for methodology and curriculum to school districts, school boards and universities, nurturing is something I can say primary teachers do very well. The problem arises when that's *all* they can do well.
In most states you can secure a k-8 license without ever taken any concentration of upper division courses in any field - vast numbers of candidates get into teaching without taking classes that require genuine, mind-stretching, hard thinking.
The issue here is not drilling kids in some Lancasterian type vertical thinking treadmill - that's not what I'd advocate at all - but sending teachers into the classroom with a sufficiently large *cognitive map* from which they can extrapolate and *model* higher-order thinking. To smash across domains and see the parallels it helps if you at least know your way around one domain so it can serve as a launching point.
( Teachers would still need to be introduced, for the most part, to horizontal thinking as a cognitive skill-set, regardless of the field in which they took their degree. Given my druthers, I'd quadruple the number of science and history majors in elementary education and triple the math majors and start teaching foreign languages and the arts in Kindergarten)
Uniformed teachers are teachers who are unable to make learning exciting or generate " teachable moments", they fear to stray from the textbook because they are " one chapter ahead of the kids" and rely upon memorization and lecture- which too often consists of fluff and off-topic fillers.
I'm not defending the status quo at all - I'm just pointing out that Friedman just doesn't comprehend what it is. Sagan didn't understand how it ended up where it is though he did see that things were significantly wrong.
Mike
June 20, 2005
6:21 am
So education was poor in the 1890s then? No of course not. At some point you need to take your focus away from the school and bring it back to the student. It is not the school's job to "instill values" or "promote curiosity" and when they attempt to do these things they often end up failing. Why? It is not for lack of passion or trying. It is because the student comes from a family and culture that doesn't value education. You want education to improve tomorrow? Convince parents.
mark safranski
June 20, 2005
7:09 am
While I could think of a number of teachers I know who'd look spectacular in, say, a cheerleader's uniform- when I think back to old Mr. Stock in 9th grade science, that image gives me the willies...
Dan
June 20, 2005
11:53 am
LOL
Dan
June 20, 2005
7:34 pm
I agree on with your most recent post completely.
And the need for attractive teachers to wear attractive uniforms.
Especially that clause.