Here's a snippet from a Feynmen talk[1]. He was discussing Latin America, but I think this passage applies equally well to secondary education in the US today:
> First, and most serious, I believe, is the almost exclusive teaching and learning by means of pure abject memory. This in no way teaches physics as a science. Nothing is understood; it is only remembered. This in no way satisfies the reasons I outlined for teaching science. Memorization of laws does not permit one to make applications of these laws to new situations; it does not permit one the pleasure of ultimately making scientific contributions; it cannot teach any techniques with the hands. From memorizing, knowledge is not understood, and the beauty of nature is not appreciated. It does not tell how things were found out, or reveal the value of an inventive free mind.
> For example, the telescope is an interesting device to make, understand, look through, and play with. It turned men's ideas and minds in new directions. It gave a great impetus to the modern revolution of thought. For a long while it was the sole revealer of the vastness of the heavens and man's modest place in it. But, in Latin America one learns that there are four kinds of telescopes: the Newtonian, the Cassigranian, etc., etc. In the first, the image is virtual and inverted, etc. (I put in all this "etc." because I really don't know how many kinds of telescopes there are, or what their names are, or which way the image is in each kind. But don't underestimate me; I know a very great deal about telescopes – how they work, how to make and use one, their powers and limitations, etc.) The result is that the telescope is lost. There is no more telescope, no lenses, no stars, no eyes, no light – just words memorized without requiring understanding. The examination is passed, for the question was "What are the four types of telescopes?"
> I must say immediately that I am not against memorizing. Some things, even many (though nothing special) may be learned by heart; for example, it is good, but not essential, to know by heart 7 x 8 = 56. What I oppose in any teaching philosophy is that the philosophy is used exclusively; but in this case it is especially serious because so little is left of the subject.
> ...
> When asked what Brewster's Law is, advanced students answer in a flash: "Light impinging on a material of index n is 100 percent polarized with the electric field perpendicular to the plane of incidence if the tangent of the angle of incidence equals the index of refraction."
> To these same students I then say, "Look out at the bay from which the sunlight is being reflected. If I look at that reflection through this piece of polaroid and turn it, what will happen?" All I receive are blank stares. No one knows. But I get cries of surprise and delight when they try it and see the reflections getting brighter and dimmer.
> This shows something is completely wrong. There is no knowledge whatsoever of nature. With the wrong entrance clue the memorization is useless. These students are like books, no more. I can look in the index of a book under "Brewster's Law" and find a reference equivalent to the students' reply. But in the index I cannot find "sun reflecting on bay."
> What do the students know that is not easily and directly available in a book? The things that can be looked up in a book are only a part of knowledge. Who wants such a student to work in a plant when a book requiring no food or maintenance stands day after day always ready to give just as adequate answers? Who wants to be such a student, to have worked so hard, to have missed so much of interest and pleasure, and to be outdone by an inanimate printed list of "laws"?
1: http://calteches.library.caltech.edu/46/2/LatinAmerica.htm