Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

I recall watching, I think Jay Leno's show, where they went out onto the streets and asked random people simple US history questions, like when was WWII or the Vietnam war. The answers were sadly funny.

Just pointing out the obvious: they are showing you the dumbest ones and leaving the rest of the footage on the cutting room floor. Their goal is to show you the dumbest so you can feel superior and laugh at how stupid people are. It's nothing you can regard as representative of society in general.

according to that article, 1 in 3 cannot pass a US citizenship test, and those tests actually leave out a lot of actual US history.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

I recall watching, I think Jay Leno's show, where they went out onto the streets and asked random people simple US history questions, like when was WWII or the Vietnam war. The answers were sadly funny.

Just pointing out the obvious: they are showing you the dumbest ones and leaving the rest of the footage on the cutting room floor. Their goal is to show you the dumbest so you can feel superior and laugh at how stupid people are. It's nothing you can regard as representative of society in general.

Anonymous wrote:

I recall watching, I think Jay Leno's show, where they went out onto the streets and asked random people simple US history questions, like when was WWII or the Vietnam war. The answers were sadly funny.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I'm a French person in her 40s, never got an American history lesson in school, and got 5/5!

OK, I'll tell you how: my kids love Youtube history channels like Oversimplified and AP Crash Course history. Plus we recently visited Colonial Williamsburg and I remember a guide saying the right to a jury was in your Constitution.

So proud of myself

DH is from the UK, and he studied a bit to take his citizenship test. He probably knows more about the Constitution than most Americans.

It's not just the school aged kids, OP. Most adults don't know US history, either.

https://citizensandscholars.org/resource/national-survey-finds-just-1-in-3-americans-would-pass-citizenship-test/

I recall watching, I think Jay Leno's show, where they went out onto the streets and asked random people simple US history questions, like when was WWII or the Vietnam war. The answers were sadly funny.



It doesn't surprise me, though. I mean.. with all the 50% rule, test retakes, kids being passed up even when they fail.. this kind of thing was bound to happen.

SO how does that explain adults' ignorance? I think disrupted education due to pandemic (and all the absences since) probably plays a bigger role. Many other countries who do testing are seeing similar declines--even ones that kept schools more open.

It's not just the school aged kids, OP. Most adults don't know US history, either.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Ironically, NCLB resulted in reallocation of instruction time away from social studies and science, towards reading and math… but those latter scores are down too!!

If schools improve decoding instruction in K-2, they can shift instructional time to more social studies and science in grades 3+. Many proponents of the "science of reading" think this approach is preferable.

Want better readers? Spend less time teaching kids to find the main idea, ‘Knowledge Gap’ author Natalie Wexler argues https://www.chalkbeat.org/2019/9/16/21108839/want-better-readers-spend-less-time-teaching-kids-to-find-the-main-idea-knowledge-gap-author-natalie

"She builds her case with cognitive science that suggests that once students have learned to sound out words — “decode” — the key to understanding a text is having solid background knowledge on the subject....

'We’ve been looking at that gap as a gap in skills. American elementary schools, and to some extent middle schools, have long approached reading comprehension as though it’s a matter of teaching generally applicable skills, like let’s practice finding the main idea and let’s practice making inferences. The theory is, it doesn’t really matter what content the kids are using to practice those skills; if they just get good at those skills they will be able to apply them eventually to any text that’s put in front of them, whether it’s on a standardized test or in high school.

That approach has been intensified in the last 20 years by the advent of high-stakes reading tests, because it looks like they’re measuring those skills. So teachers, policymakers, reformers have all assumed we should just double down on teaching those skills.

The problem is that, as cognitive scientists have known for decades, the most important factor in reading comprehension is not generally applicable skills like finding the main idea — it’s how much knowledge and vocabulary the reader has relating to the topic. So if we really want to boost reading comprehension, we should be doing the opposite of what we’re doing — especially in schools where test scores are low — which is cutting subjects like social studies and science that could actually increase students’ knowledge of the world and instead spending more time on these reading comprehension skills.'"

Almost every teacher could have told you this. We were prohibited from teaching decoding and forced instead to teacher reading comprehension strategies like finding the main idea. I did it for years, and after trying really hard and totally buying in and taking a lot of classes and doing a lot of training and even my own classroom research (I have a PhD), became convinced that teaching reading comprehension strategies was ineffective (with the exception of helping kids answer reading comprehension questions on the SOL test, but without any real-world application). But FCPS literally forced us to do it and pretend like it was the best thing ever. It didn't work, it didn't make sense, and now I have no doubt they will suddenly act like it's teachers who have been doing such a bad job and they are going to save the day by introducing decoding instruction. Once you get to be an old teacher, you get sick and tired of being forced to teach poorly by the district for 5-10 years at a time, only to be blamed for the poor instruction when they are finally confronted with its failure, and to be told the new great thing you need to learn is exactly the thing they called you a bad teacher for doing all those years ago.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Ironically, NCLB resulted in reallocation of instruction time away from social studies and science, towards reading and math… but those latter scores are down too!!

If schools improve decoding instruction in K-2, they can shift instructional time to more social studies and science in grades 3+. Many proponents of the "science of reading" think this approach is preferable.

Want better readers? Spend less time teaching kids to find the main idea, ‘Knowledge Gap’ author Natalie Wexler argues https://www.chalkbeat.org/2019/9/16/21108839/want-better-readers-spend-less-time-teaching-kids-to-find-the-main-idea-knowledge-gap-author-natalie

"She builds her case with cognitive science that suggests that once students have learned to sound out words — “decode” — the key to understanding a text is having solid background knowledge on the subject....

'We’ve been looking at that gap as a gap in skills. American elementary schools, and to some extent middle schools, have long approached reading comprehension as though it’s a matter of teaching generally applicable skills, like let’s practice finding the main idea and let’s practice making inferences. The theory is, it doesn’t really matter what content the kids are using to practice those skills; if they just get good at those skills they will be able to apply them eventually to any text that’s put in front of them, whether it’s on a standardized test or in high school.

That approach has been intensified in the last 20 years by the advent of high-stakes reading tests, because it looks like they’re measuring those skills. So teachers, policymakers, reformers have all assumed we should just double down on teaching those skills.

The problem is that, as cognitive scientists have known for decades, the most important factor in reading comprehension is not generally applicable skills like finding the main idea — it’s how much knowledge and vocabulary the reader has relating to the topic. So if we really want to boost reading comprehension, we should be doing the opposite of what we’re doing — especially in schools where test scores are low — which is cutting subjects like social studies and science that could actually increase students’ knowledge of the world and instead spending more time on these reading comprehension skills.'"

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I'm a French person in her 40s, never got an American history lesson in school, and got 5/5!

OK, I'll tell you how: my kids love Youtube history channels like Oversimplified and AP Crash Course history. Plus we recently visited Colonial Williamsburg and I remember a guide saying the right to a jury was in your Constitution.

So proud of myself

DH is from the UK, and he studied a bit to take his citizenship test. He probably knows more about the Constitution than most Americans.

It's not just the school aged kids, OP. Most adults don't know US history, either.

https://citizensandscholars.org/resource/national-survey-finds-just-1-in-3-americans-would-pass-citizenship-test/

I recall watching, I think Jay Leno's show, where they went out onto the streets and asked random people simple US history questions, like when was WWII or the Vietnam war. The answers were sadly funny.



It doesn't surprise me, though. I mean.. with all the 50% rule, test retakes, kids being passed up even when they fail.. this kind of thing was bound to happen.

Anonymous wrote:I'm a French person in her 40s, never got an American history lesson in school, and got 5/5!

OK, I'll tell you how: my kids love Youtube history channels like Oversimplified and AP Crash Course history. Plus we recently visited Colonial Williamsburg and I remember a guide saying the right to a jury was in your Constitution.

So proud of myself

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Ironically, NCLB resulted in reallocation of instruction time away from social studies and science, towards reading and math… but those latter scores are down too!!

If schools improve decoding instruction in K-2, they can shift instructional time to more social studies and science in grades 3+. Many proponents of the "science of reading" think this approach is preferable.

Want better readers? Spend less time teaching kids to find the main idea, ‘Knowledge Gap’ author Natalie Wexler argues https://www.chalkbeat.org/2019/9/16/21108839/want-better-readers-spend-less-time-teaching-kids-to-find-the-main-idea-knowledge-gap-author-natalie

"She builds her case with cognitive science that suggests that once students have learned to sound out words — “decode” — the key to understanding a text is having solid background knowledge on the subject....

'We’ve been looking at that gap as a gap in skills. American elementary schools, and to some extent middle schools, have long approached reading comprehension as though it’s a matter of teaching generally applicable skills, like let’s practice finding the main idea and let’s practice making inferences. The theory is, it doesn’t really matter what content the kids are using to practice those skills; if they just get good at those skills they will be able to apply them eventually to any text that’s put in front of them, whether it’s on a standardized test or in high school.

That approach has been intensified in the last 20 years by the advent of high-stakes reading tests, because it looks like they’re measuring those skills. So teachers, policymakers, reformers have all assumed we should just double down on teaching those skills.

The problem is that, as cognitive scientists have known for decades, the most important factor in reading comprehension is not generally applicable skills like finding the main idea — it’s how much knowledge and vocabulary the reader has relating to the topic. So if we really want to boost reading comprehension, we should be doing the opposite of what we’re doing — especially in schools where test scores are low — which is cutting subjects like social studies and science that could actually increase students’ knowledge of the world and instead spending more time on these reading comprehension skills.'"

Anonymous wrote:I also got 4/5. I say this is why we don’t have to worry about controversial education topics - there’s plenty to cover that is not controversial. Focus on those first.

Anonymous wrote:Ironically, NCLB resulted in reallocation of instruction time away from social studies and science, towards reading and math… but those latter scores are down too!!