You've made some great points. I've just started teaching after working in business and raising my own family. I teach high school science, and most of my students are average youngsters taking their core biology course. It has been an eye-opening and somewhat discouraging experience. The curriculum standards of our (parochial) district are generally ambitious but not unreasonable. Unfortunately, a large percentage of my students are unprepared to learn at that level. They are coming in with such poor basic literacy, numeracy, and study skills that I have high failure rates on tests unless I dumb them down or grade on a curve. I spent part of the year in the inner city, and part of it in the suburbs and saw the same problem in both locations. It's far worse in the city, as you might imagine.
There are certainly students who can handle the grade-level material, and some who excel at honors levels. Unfortunately, many of what we would consider average kids are only passing because they get points for doing worksheets and because they do small-group projects in which they collaborate. As a teacher it is very frustrating. Our administration discourages us from giving failing grades, and by high school, it is nearly pointless to give them anyway. These students have been socially promoted for so many years that their academic deficits are very deep.
From what I can see, many of these average youngsters are failing to build a strong foundation for learning during their pre-school or early elementary years. I suspect that what we are seeing is the impact on average kids of single-parent families, parents with too little time for their children, and 'feel-good' no-failure policies in elementary schools. It's not good, and not something that's easily fixed once broken.
I recently spoke with the author of our science text and asked him about this issue. He said that he's seeing the same problem broadly, and advised that high school science teachers 'just hang in there' as it won't get better for some years. His hope is that with stronger standards (i.e. Common Core) we will raise the academic achievement level and have stronger students coming into the secondary schools. Until then, we don't have a way to address it. I don't share his optimism that Common Core is the answer, but agree that it's difficult to fix these problems in high school. And yes, most of these kids are college bound . . .
While I'm not qualified to definitively opine having not researched the initiative, I suspect Common Core represents another ham-handed "throw money at it" solution.
Great teachers captivate students. Physics Prof. Lewin at MIT is a particular personal favorite. How could one not become excited about science after following his lectures and doing his homework? Trouble is, how to you captivate that whose atrophied state, a brain rotted on mental junk food, permits only a bond on the most base level? You cannot do this on your own as a teacher. You didn't create the problem, naturally, and ought not feel guilty that you cannot singlehandedly lift these kids out of the post-modern morass where 2+2= whatever you feel like.
I am curious, though: What is your hope for the future of education in the U.S.?