School Reform: Thoughts?

They already announced those for the American curriculum

And the national exams... I read somewhere that next year eighth graders will be facing trial runs in quite a few subjects

Word on the street is they’re planning to merge the math level for high school graduation exams in about two years.

Is English just... on a completely different level?

I haven't heard a single word about that, though I suppose it wouldn't be surprising at all...

mellowskipper said:Is English just... on a completely different level?

Funny how much they kept telling us at those federal summits and state legislature meetings that we were still stuck at two levels.

I recently stumbled upon a really fascinating book called "Alternative Facts." It’s by a Swedish author, and in the fifth chapter, she dives deep into how we approach knowledge and critical thinking in schools—basically what we call "modern teaching" today.

Beyond just highly recommending it, I found her take on the 1994 educational reforms in Sweden particularly striking. She talks about how student scores on PISA tests dropped afterward (especially in reading comprehension), followed by only very minor improvements. But the most interesting part is her critique of "individualized learning." She really questions whether all these "projects and activities" are actually the best way to teach.
(Instead of just lecturing, the idea is that teachers and students should be engaging in dialogue)

She argues that instead of giving kids a solid foundation of facts so they can actually learn how to solve problems and think critically, the system has leaned too hard into extreme individualization. This means the kids who succeed are often just the ones who have extra resources at home—things they really ought to be getting at school.
She even shared stories about her own children, who would come home with projects and assignments but zero instructions or prior knowledge. It basically meant she and her husband had to step in and do the heavy lifting for them. I see this happening more and more here, too—it often just depends on which teacher you get; some lean into these "modern methods" and push kids toward "independent research" without much guidance.
Teachers themselves often say their role is to "help students find the facts themselves," but of course, that all depends on *how* they are helping... especially with the way things work on HRnacin.

Her main point is that to solve problems and think critically, you actually need to know the facts first. We have to teach children something before we can expect them to think critically about a subject. It seems like many school reforms—she mentioned the USA and France, along with Scandinavia—tried to move away from traditional instruction to focus on projects and "critical thinking," where the teacher's job is just to guide students toward finding their own answers.

It makes you wonder: if the goal is self-discovery, what exactly are the students supposed to do in a critical thinking class? 🤔

I originally intended to write about the new critical thinking course being introduced in middle schools, but I figured I'd post this here since we've discussed these teaching methods in this group before. Honestly, the more I read, the more I wonder if we were right to wait for the bus back then—if so, maybe it's a good thing that changes happen so slowly over here.

Susan James said:I recently stumbled upon a really fascinating book called "Alternative Facts." It’s by a Swedish author, and in the fifth chapter, she dives deep into how we approach knowledge and critical thinking in schools—basically what we call "modern teaching" today.

Beyond just highly recommending it, I found her take on the 1994 educational reforms in Sweden particularly striking. She talks about how student scores on PISA tests dropped afterward (especially in reading comprehension), followed by only very minor improvements. But the most interesting part is her critique of "individualized learning." She really questions whether all these "projects and activities" are actually the best way to teach.
(Instead of just lecturing, the idea is that teachers and students should be engaging in dialogue)

She argues that instead of giving kids a solid foundation of facts so they can actually learn how to solve problems and think critically, the system has leaned too hard into extreme individualization. This means the kids who succeed are often just the ones who have extra resources at home—things they really ought to be getting at school.
She even shared stories about her own children, who would come home with projects and assignments but zero instructions or prior knowledge. It basically meant she and her husband had to step in and do the heavy lifting for them. I see this happening more and more here, too—it often just depends on which teacher you get; some lean into these "modern methods" and push kids toward "independent research" without much guidance.
Teachers themselves often say their role is to "help students find the facts themselves," but of course, that all depends on *how* they are helping... especially with the way things work on HRnacin.

Her main point is that to solve problems and think critically, you actually need to know the facts first. We have to teach children something before we can expect them to think critically about a subject. It seems like many school reforms—she mentioned the USA and France, along with Scandinavia—tried to move away from traditional instruction to focus on projects and "critical thinking," where the teacher's job is just to guide students toward finding their own answers.

It makes you wonder: if the goal is self-discovery, what exactly are the students supposed to do in a critical thinking class? 🤔

I originally intended to write about the new critical thinking course being introduced in middle schools, but I figured I'd post this here since we've discussed these teaching methods in this group before. Honestly, the more I read, the more I wonder if we were right to wait for the bus back then—if so, maybe it's a good thing that changes happen so slowly over here.

Yeah, totally. I couldn't agree more.
I’ll skip the reading, though; I don't really need the extra depression today.

rowdypanther12 said:Yeah, totally. I couldn't agree more.
I’ll skip the reading, though; I don't really need the extra depression today.

Honestly, this book is such a great pick (even if the philosophical intro feels a bit dry at first) because of everything else it covers; specifically how media influence shapes society, how political figures like Trump gain traction, and even how conspiracy theories take root.

I really connected with this one chapter where a Swedish PhD holder explains, in plain English, why this specific teaching method doesn't actually work (and why). It's interesting because here in the States, we often point to Scandinavia as the gold standard for education that we should all be emulating.

It turns out that almost everything we were discussing a few months ago is being called into question by this author (who cites plenty of other literature that shares her skepticism—so she’s definitely not alone in this).

Back in the nineties, Sweden had incredible results in reading literacy, math, and science.
Then they implemented reforms focused on individualization, aiming to have students seek out knowledge themselves while the teacher acts more as a guide.🤣)

Since 2000, their scores have been sliding. In 2012, they actually hit a record low in reading literacy. Things started picking up slightly after 2015, and they managed to bring math back to average levels—though university professors there note that high school grads are arriving with progressively weaker skills—but their science scores just aren't recovering...
At several universities, professors mention that students struggle with limited vocabulary, poor grammar, and difficulty following basic instructions, regardless of which school they graduated from...
And this isn't about immigrants who might not have native fluency; we're talking about native Swedes. The professors are very vocal about these issues, noting that if anything, the immigrant students are working even harder to catch up...

In our neck of the woods, people tend to blame bad results on 🙄 minority groups, lazy kids, or overbearing parents who obsess over perfect grades. They rarely point the finger at the reforms or the fact that teachers are just trying to facilitate discovery rather than just lecturing...

The flaws I see in our current educational approach are: way too little reading (not enough classic literature), not enough essay writing, and far too many multiple-choice tests (just training kids to circle an answer). We've also cut back on direct instruction in subjects like history, geography, and science in favor of pushing "group research" and student presentations...
There is a massive difference between dictating facts and giving a truly engaging lecture. When kids are actually listening, they can absorb an incredible amount.
Of course, it's much easier to just write "See textbook page 94, read it, and conclude what decided the battle" on a test. If they didn't get it from the book, they can just stay home with their parents or look it up on Google.🥳

You aren't actually going to see if these reforms work until we hit the national standardized tests this year—and even then, you won't really know until next year, because that's when the kids who have been stuck with these new curricula for the full four years finally graduate.
But I... *gasp* ...I actually agree with you.
I mean, you can't just dive into independent research and "discovery learning" if you haven't first mastered the basic facts and turned certain procedures into second nature. To get there, you need a teacher and—forgive my bluntness here—some old-fashioned direct instruction and good old-fashioned drill. It shouldn't be all they do, obviously, but there are some things you just can't skip over without the basics, and honestly, you can't skip the drill either.

Sarah Hall53 said:You aren't actually going to see if these reforms work until we hit the national standardized tests this year—and even then, you won't really know until next year, because that's when the kids who have been stuck with these new curricula for the full four years finally graduate.
But I... *gasp* ...I actually agree with you.
I mean, you can't just dive into independent research and "discovery learning" if you haven't first mastered the basic facts and turned certain procedures into second nature. To get there, you need a teacher and—forgive my bluntness here—some old-fashioned direct instruction and good old-fashioned drill. It shouldn't be all they do, obviously, but there are some things you just can't skip over without the basics, and honestly, you can't skip the drill either.

well, you can already tell what the "results" look like just by the vibe... thankfully, the changes weren't as drastic as the ones brought in by that wild reformer (who was so obsessed with the Finnish model).

I get the feeling that teachers who stick to traditional lecturing, who value drilling and sticking to the syllabus, are systematically accused of being too demanding or frustrating the students—all because in Scandinavia, they apparently sit in IKEA armchairs in the classroom instead.
But that "alternative" approach usually just means the parents are stepping in and doing much more hands-on work with the child.
(though I do love an IKEA armchair!)

I'm totally fine with the idea of a child being a little explorer and learning through play, discovery, and hands-on experience. My own kid went to a preschool that focused on that (and honestly, the only reason I didn't enroll her in an even better one when it opened up was simply a lack of time and the commute), and she absolutely thrived. But based on what my child and others have experienced, that's just not how schools actually operate.

The kids who come out of school with a solid foundation often have massive support at home—whether it's highly educated parents helping with homework, or families who can afford private tutors and language academies.
In reality, that "inquiry-based" learning works best for kids who have already been exposed to a ton of stimulation in preschool, through picture books, constant reading, museum trips, deep conversations with parents, and traveling... which, in our neck of the woods, applies to a very small percentage of children.

Personally, I'm interested in the national test scores. This recent pilot phase was barely covered by a few days of underwhelming news snippets and some statistics that the media clearly decided weren't worth discussing.

I guess we’ll just have to wait and see how this year plays out. They're running things as a bit of an experiment during the first half—just the fifth graders for now—but word is that by the second half, all the eighth graders will be jumping in too, covering way more subjects. Languages are supposedly on the list as well.

Alright, so has anyone actually figured out what the point of these national standardized tests is? I mean—I’m talking about their actual, tangible purpose in the real world—not just some bureaucratic nonsense where students get to grade their professors or other trivialities like that?

Elvis Presley, why on earth do you think there isn't enough required reading?
Well, it’s once a month from September through June—at least in my experience. And honestly, they aren't just light reading; they are full-blown academic projects. I suppose you're lucky if you only have to sit for an exam twice a year instead of being forced to slog through the whole thing at home.
But then again, where else would you find anything different?

I’m really holding out hope that we’ll eventually get to a point where national test scores actually count toward high school admissions.
Until then, I guess the whole point is just to gauge how well these reforms are working—though, honestly, it would be a lot easier to judge if we actually had some footage of how things looked before all this started—but hey, someone should have probably planned for that long-term instead of just worrying about their four-year term in office ☕.

I really hoped that in places like Scandinavia, things would be more advanced than they are here—that kids would actually learn the core concepts first, get a solid foundation, and then have the chance to explore and build on them alongside their teachers.
That was my impression at least, especially since Finland seems to have such incredible results.🤷

I don't really need some revolutionary pedagogical bestseller from Scandinavia to tell me what’s already obvious; I think we know exactly what we're up against in my classroom every single day.
For years now, I've been watching the exact same systemic failures play out in our schools—the very things the author is pointing out here—and yet, somehow, our educational reforms just seem to keep doubling down on the same mistakes.
It’s all this push for individualization, constant adjustments, trying to lighten the load where it might actually be needed and ignoring it where it isn't, avoiding direct instruction like it's a plague, being terrified of giving a bad grade, worrying about stress levels, and basically walking on eggshells around every single student and their parents.
I mean, honestly, should anyone even be surprised when the results turn out to be mediocre... across the board?🤣😂

rowdypanther12 said:I really hoped that in places like Scandinavia, things would be more advanced than they are here—that kids would actually learn the core concepts first, get a solid foundation, and then have the chance to explore and build on them alongside their teachers.
That was my impression at least, especially since Finland seems to have such incredible results.🤷

Well, just like here in the States, there are probably teachers who explain the basics and then dive into exploration together with the students.
Unfortunately, that "exploratory" part is often left up to the teacher's individual style. Even if it isn't executed perfectly, it shouldn't really be an issue by the time they reach junior year of high school, because by then you have students who actually have the fundamentals down and are hungry for knowledge (since 🤔 🕺, which is why they're in honors tracks 🤔).

The thing is, while you see this in higher grades at middle school under normal circumstances (online learning just gave her a little boost), you also see more and more from the newer generation of teachers who love flirting with this exploratory method because they spent a few months on an exchange program in Finland and decided, sitting comfortably on an IKEA couch, that it felt right.
Or maybe they just realized IKEA couches are great and decided to ride the Finnish trend (that’s how I see these reforms).

On top of that, so much happens during these "exploratory" projects outside of the classroom, where you can truly learn through experience—faster, better, and more lasting than just listening to stories in class. And I won't even compare that to the "do-it-yourself" group work using textbooks filled with pictures.
In the US, we don't have the same level of restriction, but sometimes it feels like every single field trip requires a mountain of parental consent forms (and then you're crossing your fingers and praying that at least one parent doesn't say no, or that some kid doesn't mess up and get the whole class grounded from going anywhere).

Interactive and engaging museums are only just starting to pop up more frequently here; in Scandinavia, they're standard, so a good chunk of education happens there too... plus, families there tend to have a much stronger culture of traveling to different countries to experience other cultures and visit museums with their kids. Around here, the summer "tradition" is often just heading to a beach house for two months, or maybe a quick ski trip or a shopping spree in a nearby big city.
So, the more kids like that in a classroom, the more foundational knowledge they bring, which gives even the most laid-back teacher a solid base to build upon.
In our schools, those types of kids are in the minority.

But regardless of what a class looks like, there’s absolutely nothing wrong with direct instruction. In fact, that should be the backbone of education. Without it, it's a waste of taxpayer money on teacher salaries—at least not based on those advanced degree pay scales.

Sarah Hall53 said:I’m really holding out hope that we’ll eventually get to a point where national test scores actually count toward high school admissions.
Until then, I guess the whole point is just to gauge how well these reforms are working—though, honestly, it would be a lot easier to judge if we actually had some footage of how things looked before all this started—but hey, someone should have probably planned for that long-term instead of just worrying about their four-year term in office ☕.

So, you think national exams would be a better alternative than individual school entrance exams?

It looks like they've decided to overhaul the curriculum to focus exclusively on the Phanerozoic eons. It’s a shame, really—those poor little girls are being deprived of learning about the Proterozoic, Archaean, and Khadija eras. Any sensible woman on this forum knows those periods inside and out; honestly, we know them better than our own multiplication tables!

I certainly don't regret ☕

Susan James said:Well, just like here in the States, there are probably teachers who explain the basics and then dive into exploration together with the students.
Unfortunately, that "exploratory" part is often left up to the teacher's individual style. Even if it isn't executed perfectly, it shouldn't really be an issue by the time they reach junior year of high school, because by then you have students who actually have the fundamentals down and are hungry for knowledge (since 🤔 🕺, which is why they're in honors tracks 🤔).

The thing is, while you see this in higher grades at middle school under normal circumstances (online learning just gave her a little boost), you also see more and more from the newer generation of teachers who love flirting with this exploratory method because they spent a few months on an exchange program in Finland and decided, sitting comfortably on an IKEA couch, that it felt right.
Or maybe they just realized IKEA couches are great and decided to ride the Finnish trend (that’s how I see these reforms).

On top of that, so much happens during these "exploratory" projects outside of the classroom, where you can truly learn through experience—faster, better, and more lasting than just listening to stories in class. And I won't even compare that to the "do-it-yourself" group work using textbooks filled with pictures.
In the US, we don't have the same level of restriction, but sometimes it feels like every single field trip requires a mountain of parental consent forms (and then you're crossing your fingers and praying that at least one parent doesn't say no, or that some kid doesn't mess up and get the whole class grounded from going anywhere).

Interactive and engaging museums are only just starting to pop up more frequently here; in Scandinavia, they're standard, so a good chunk of education happens there too... plus, families there tend to have a much stronger culture of traveling to different countries to experience other cultures and visit museums with their kids. Around here, the summer "tradition" is often just heading to a beach house for two months, or maybe a quick ski trip or a shopping spree in a nearby big city.
So, the more kids like that in a classroom, the more foundational knowledge they bring, which gives even the most laid-back teacher a solid base to build upon.
In our schools, those types of kids are in the minority.

But regardless of what a class looks like, there’s absolutely nothing wrong with direct instruction. In fact, that should be the backbone of education. Without it, it's a waste of taxpayer money on teacher salaries—at least not based on those advanced degree pay scales.

We’d have a travel culture too if we had their income levels.

Sent from my Samsung Galaxy S21 using Reddit