ABC is running a story (that I happen to agree with) documenting the failing of the public school system in the United States; a system that is arguably the most expensive on the face of the earth.


ABC school story

The thesis of this story is that a union controlled monopoly, unaccountable (for the most part) results in poor quality at high prices.

For debate,

Do you agree with this story's assessment of American public schools?

Is the root of the problem the lack of competition and union domination of a public near-monopoly?

Is the solution more competition or "more money" as the NEA claims?

Do you agree with this story's assessment of American public schools?

I agree that they're not great, but after that it gets a bit wishy-washy. I'll explain below.

Is the root of the problem the lack of competition and union domination of a public near-monopoly?

Is the solution more competition or "more money" as the NEA claims?

Dichotomies may streamline a debate, but they are not necessarily the best way to illicit true insight. The answer to this question is "perhaps neither." School funding is a very complex issue that cannot be evaluated using once-off formulas and dollar amounts.

About nine years ago the Conservative government in this province set strict funding guidelines, including a formula which allotted funds based on students per square foot of each school. In my district many of the schools are 75-100 years old, and the design of these schools makes it impossible to achieve a student density high enough to operate the school under said formula. The formula failed not because there wasn't enough money per say (although there wasn't), but because it didn't consider enough variables.

In some places schools cost a lot more money than others. I'm willing to bet English as a Second Language costs are substantially higher in New York than they are North Dakota; and as such the cost of education will differ between those two areas.

Now, the article in question is interesting, but if I were to take that exact same information, rewrite it a bit, and try to submit it to any sort of academic publication I would get laughed right out the door; not because of the position it takes, but rather the way it presents its information. The article basically says

"In Europe students have choice, in America they don't. America's failing is a lack of choice."

Nice, but short-sighted. Canada usually places substantially higher on internationalized testing (although this has slipped of late as our governments become more conservative and cut education funding) despite the fact that Canadian public school systems are very similar to American ones. The fact is that the ABC article isolates one variable and ignores the rest. There is no consideration of curriculum, cultural values (a big part of education), demographics, language instruction (there is oodles of evidence that bilingual education makes a big difference in overall academic development), etc. To turn around and then say "well, it's the government monopoly" just reeks of a reporter with an agenda, and discredits whatever remaining merit John Stossel has.

For debate,

Do you agree with this story's assessment of American public schools?

Yes this unfortunately is exactly what is going on. We have one of the worst school systems in the industrial world.

Is the root of the problem the lack of competition and union domination of a public near-monopoly?

You bet. Helped of course by idiots like Ted Kennedy on the education Committee in the Senate. He consistently votes against vouchers, teacher standards etc. As you would expect he is heavily funded by teachers unions.

Is the solution more competition or "more money" as the NEA claims?

Its not money. As Chavous says:
Chavous and many other education professionals say Americans don't know that their public schools, on the whole, just aren't that good. Because without competition, parents don't know what their kids might have had.
And while many people say, "We need to spend more money on our schools," there actually isn't a link between spending and student achievement.
Jay Greene, author of "Education Myths," points out that "If money were the solution, the problem would already be solved … We've doubled per pupil spending, adjusting for inflation, over the last 30 years, and yet schools aren't better."
He's absolutely right. National graduation rates and achievement scores are flat, while spending on education has increased more than 100 percent since 1971. More money hasn't helped American kids.

It “management” and laws that require all schools to keep disruptive kids who could care less about getting an education. It’s clear that well run schools achieve better results.
Until parents have the right to take their kids out of bad schools we will have the problem. We need competition and soon!

I have seen first hand a few other education systems and such- and the blame lies not with money, or with the NEA, or school boards, or liberals, or conservatives, in this particular case- but with American culture- why America- no matter how much we spend- we always blame someone other than the parent- is beyond me.

America is the only culture were I have witnessed the idea that the public school system is more culpable for a childs education than the parent. I have seen cultures that have spent far less on teachers get far better results- why? Because the parents are the ones vested in thier child's education

LH- it never seems to amaze me that the philosophy of the right always says "___ needs to be responsible for thier behavior" - and then go on to blame someone else for something.

It is not disruptive kids that are ruining education- it is absentee parents.

That is one reason I looked for an immersion or lottery program for my children- because, historically, parents are more involved in those programs, and the school is so much the better for it.

You want your school system to be better? stop treating it as cheap daycare!

Vouchers are nothing more than an end run around a method to evalgelize to others- like christian schools are any better- but for one reason- the parents are more likely to be involved in thier kids education.

"the right to pull thier kids out of bad schools" is pure hogwash- I have seen far poorer and worse schools in other countries were kids get a fine education, far better than our own- because the parents make it so.

America is a country of bad parents- period. For all our concern about "family values" - we ignore our families to chase the almight dollar.

Go ahead and blame everyone but yourself- but in the end- it will still but up to you to make sure your kids are educated.

Some of what you say is true but the fact remains that poor management, bad teachers (over 40% of whom are not qualified to teach) and a system that forces kids who’s parents DO care to be in with those that don’t is a big part of the problem. And then there is the “keep em in school” to get them off the street idiots.

The school has a JOB to do. And if a kid is disruptive or doing nothing the parent(s) should be called in to help. If that fails send them to a special school or get them OUT. You cannot do that today. It’s against the law. And that law is STUPID.

Finally, giving parents the right to find a better school is vital. Without competition we are doomed to continue with the horrible schools we have. No Child Left Behind addresses many issues but not all. Parents need CHOICE. If they don’t exercise it then they truly are to blame as well as the schools.

Do you agree with this story's assessment of American public schools?

Yes and no. American schools face some severe problems. This story's assessment seems fairly ideologically driven. The use of Belgium of an example without really showing the alternative model used there I think is likely very misleading. I would be curious to see what options European school children do and don't have in their system. The information provided in this article about Belgium is using a logical fallacy.

I am leery of the charter school system and the motivation behind many who support it. For me the fundamental value of our public school systems should be to create an equal opportunity for all American school children. This way we get the value of all of our talented people when they are adults instead of just those with the proper social and economic background.

I think the value shown in the successful charter schools is also reflected in many successful private schools. When you can get a competent principal (on site administration) an effective school mission, and a supportive group of parents can combine to help create a very effective school. The problem for me with the charter school system is, can this be sustained and convert all schools into good charter schools, or is this a way to create one or two good schools that don't get pulled down with a larger failing system.

Is the root of the problem the lack of competition and union domination of a public near-monopoly?

Is it fair to connect a government program to a model based on profit. Perhaps so. Is monopoly the problem here?


Is there really a monopoly?

American school systems are not controlled by the federal government and they generally are not controlled by the state. This means that they are divided into a myriad of local school districts that have plenty of room for freedom and initiative. What is happening is that there aren't many large-scale success stories.

As for union domination. I see no monolithic union corrupting American education. Certainly, many schools have personnel policies that encourage talented teachers to stop fighting in a touch situation (say Calculus in an under achieving high school) and find a way to get credit for there experience and education level and teach 3rd grade physical education at the same rate of pay. (I know two people that have made this type of decision and others that have made similar ones in the public school systems)

Unions too often today are words that incur a negative response without real tangible evidence to prove the problem. Yes union employees are difficult to fire and the rules in NYC seem to be a problem. But as sad as some of the solutions were, there was still a mechanisms of removing teachers from the classroom. I'm not trying to defend those anecdotes, but job security is not the only problem here. The negotiations need to get some better solutions to bad teachers.

Merit based pay as a solution? Perhaps. But how do you measure the quality of education? I've yet to see a good system. Perhaps administrator evaluations like some companies use would be effective.

There are plenty of places to point at today to ask for improvement and I don't think this article points at the best places to look to create an overall improved education system in the United States.

There is choice today in education. Moving and options for private schools or home schooling defy the myth of a state-controlled monopoly. And for those that can;t afford to move, choice wasn't much of an option to begin with.

One of my targets is education theory. The education schools of this country have for me the double problem as being perceived as easy majors having ineffective overall theories.

I think the emphases on technology, group projects and learning skills take away from trying to create well-educated and knowledgeable teachers. For me design a curriculum based on content and find the teachers that will be innovative enough to also get the learning skills instilled.

Is the solution more competition or "more money" as the NEA claims?

While the statistics of spending 100% percent more money and getting worse results is truly disturbing, I wonder in our modern economy how this compares with other professional services that are not outsourcable like health care and attorney fees. Maybe I am off on this but perhaps there is a way of looking at this and coming to a conclusion that the raised costs have more reason to them.

I think the dismissive phrase "throwing money at the problem" will not help arrive at a solution. We need to look at our school systems that are looking and see why they are working. And, as difficult as this is for Americans to do, we need to really look at the realities of what works in other countries with substantially less funding. Perhaps we will learn that the boring ways of instruction decried almost universally today as stifling, might actually be the most effective. (lecture, memorization, repetition) I think it is clear that states that spend more money on schools usually get better results.

Also I think that we fail to hold students accountable for their disruptive behavior and poor performance. As far as I can tell it is nearly as difficult to hold back a student in school from advancing a grade as it is to fire a teacher who is deemed incompetent. If students are not held accountable for their behavior and performance why should those around them perform and behave correctly. If the educational environment is not established, school is simply a holding pen wasting everybody's time.

The solution is not more money. But the solutions might involve spending more money. And if this is the case, are we willing today as a society to invest in our future by spending in education.

I think not. Education is one of those political buzz words that everyone is for, but in reality there is little emphasis on actually improving education. IMHO NCLB is the most blatant example of this, it is a way to measure our schools failure so major changes can later be proposed at the federal level (which does not presently control the education systems and IMO should not lest education really become a no choice monopoly for those who choose public schools.

We as a society need to value education more highly. We tend to almost attack people for bragging about their educational achievement. We scoff at harvard degrees and wonder what makes a Harvard grad better than a junior college grad. Few people see the value of a 4.0 and say that this accomplishment is often proof of defect. Parents don't push education as much as they should at home. We hand our children off to school and expect results without monitoring closely enough.

I think we as a society simply don;t place that high of a value on a rigorous and difficult education. And learning like most things in life is not an easy path. Yet we look for the diet equivalent of exercise less, eat more, and still lose weight with this easy diet.

In school that is study less, get better grades, get a lucrative career without really trying too hard.

What I always have found amazing is the fact that in U.S. high schools everybody is stuffed into one class. In my own country high school students are seperated in different categories. We have VMBO (lowest category, only four years), Havo (middle category, five years) and VWO (highest category, six years). Every child coming from elementary school has been tested in which category they fit. The first two years are basic years with combination classes (VMBO/Havo and Havo/VWO) after that every child have been tested again and will be put into one of the three categories according to their learning capacity.

The same principle applies to higher education. Children who have finished VMBO will go to a MBO, MTS (job practise combined with a few hours of school). Children who have finished Havo can go to one of the colleges (HBO, HTS, more focuss on solving problems than scientific ideas) and the children who have finished VWO will have direct access to the Universities.

In Holland this system has worked pretty well.

I have read about this system. Germany uses a system something like this as well. Here we have developed the illusion that there is a “one size fits all” education and all kids can go to college (least we affect their “self-esteem”). In reality many kids could benefit most from a good vocational education. We do this in some systems but not enough and with parents “stuck” with the local school there is no choice.


Too many parents settle for a mediocre education for their kids or they have no way to judge just how bad the local school is. NCLB is now revealing this and IMO this is the best thing to happen to education in the US in decades.

Do you agree with this story's assessment of American public schools?
I saw the part where the NJ kids scores were surpassed by the foreign kids. But I'm not sure with the idea that people have to be great at Academics in order to succeed in life. I graduated with a Computer Science degree from a well respected American University (Many foreigners also attended), and I still ended up not being able to get the job that I trained for.

In my opinion, the main problem with America's education system is not that the standardized test scores are behind Europe, but rather that America's education system doesn't put enough attention to doing vocational training at the High School Level. As it is, the Universities are graduating much more white collar workers than the economy really needs.

Is the root of the problem the lack of competition and union domination of a public near-monopoly?
The Unions are a part of the problem, but are not the main problem. What the Unions have done is to construct artificial entry barriers to the teaching profession. What this means is that many people wanting to become teachers have to pursue teaching certifications, but don't necessarily have the time to become experts at the technical material that's being taught to the kids.
Once the Public can get the artificial barriers taken down, School Districts can then hire teachers based on how well the teachers know the material and can communicate in English.

Once the Artificial Barriers to the teaching profession are taken down and the incompetent teachers weeded out, the public will have to do some more steps to get the test scores up. Summer vacation, at both the Public Schools and the Universities, is too long. If Society thinks that students are not getting high enough scores on the International Standardized Tests, then all the schools in America need to shorten their summer vacation by 2 months so that the students can spend more time studying. The Public also needs to take a strong stance against the grade inflation that has gone on at both the High Schools and the Colleges.

For debate,

Do you agree with this story's assessment of American public schools?

Not entirely, no. I another similar thread in the education forum just recently - also lamenting the poor status of public education in the US, but positing almost the opposite solution (that more money IS the solution), I posted this post, containing a link to the OECD website comparing national education spending and attainment internationally.

The first thing to say here is that the central point made in the article on comparing education spending in the USA and in Belgium is not entirely accurate.

True, Belgium spends $7912 per year per student on secondary level (= high school) students than the US, whose figure, at $8,779, is below only Switerland and Luxembourg.

However, this is TOTAL education spending, not just public sector education spending, and so INCLUDES the fees paid by parents for private education.

When expressed as % of GDP, you get a better sense of the national priority placed on state education (not least because the OECD figures separate out private spending in this category). Here, Belgium spends 5.97% of GDP on public education, with 0.39% going to private institutions. By contrast, America spends 5.08% of GDP on public education, with 2.26% being spent privately.

This still isn't the full picutre, since the GDP % figures don't distinguish between the level of education - since almost all univesrity funding is private in the USA and public in Europe, this will distort the comparison.

Even so, there's nothing to suggest the disparity in funding is so huge. Plus, the voucher system praised about Belgium isn't as ubiquitous in Europe as the article suggests.

A more accruate comparison might be the UK, where spending is lower than the USA, and so is attainment. BUT, the disparity in attainment is marginal at best, whereas the disparity in spending is massive - $5,993 per student at secondary level. Somehow, we Brits are getting far more bang per buck than you are, despite the perceived (domestically at least) parlous state of our state schools meaning that the overall bang isn't quite as big. Is a silver medal that costs 5 cents so much worse than a gold medal that costs $5,000? What I'm saying is, if the US maintained current spending, but got to the same level of efficiency even as Britain (which isn't all that great), you'd be miles better off than you are. Eat the elephant one mouthful at a time.

Is the root of the problem the lack of competition and union domination of a public near-monopoly?

Is the solution more competition or "more money" as the NEA claims?

Like others, I think that thinking unions are "the problem", or money is "the problem" is the kind of oversimplification that lends itself more to friendly media (or debate board ) presentation than to making any real difference to educational standards.

Chances are, and forward movement will need more money AND different organisational structures AND levels of innovation AND changes to the role of unions, the balance between local and national control, the status and professionalism of teachers, etc.

What I don't accept is that the ONLY way to introduce innovation is competition, or that the only way to introduce competition is to introduce the rules of the market.

Consumer choice works best when there is more than enough to go around - the FMCG grocery markets everyone holds up as close to perfect only work because vast quantities of the goods provided are never baught and are thrown away as waste.

In a service market, such as education, parents and students can only have real choice if there are more places available to them than they need, which means (if the taxpayer is to continue to fund the sector) that overcapacity has to be funded. If little Johnny could go to either school A or school B just as easily, there have to be enough books, chairs, teachers and so on to be able to accommodate him at both schools, and they have to be just as easy to get to (i.e. equidistant form where he lives).

This could conceivably work in big cities, but once you get into smaller towns where there IS only one high school, what price choice and competition then?

The other problem with competition in education is that schools have to be allowed to fail as well as to succeed. What happens to the kids that are at a school that has to close? Especially if it's in one of those small towns I mentioned earlier. Are they supposed to just wait until another bidder comes into the fray and opens it up again under new management?

And then there's parental choice itself. The idea that we need to move our kids to a better school only arises because the one they are currently at isn't so good. Time and again, parents, when asked for their ideal education system don't WANT choice, they just want their local school to be very good. Choice is only necessary in a system that permits poor quality education to continue. If the focus was on identifying and fixing such low quality, rather than putting up with it, maybe choice wouldn't be necessary.

That's not so say that some degree of competition wouldn't be healthy, or that parental choice is a bad idea. But the idea that ONLY competition and parental choice can save public education is as short-sighted and ultimately dogmatic as is the idea that ONLY governmental centralisation and vastly-increased spending can.

I see English Horn is on the board- and perhaps he can help me out with this as a frame of reference- in Russia- some of the schools are falling apart, frequently the parents have to buy the materials for thier children to learn from, or they have been using text books that are very old- which is fine, because how much has algebra changed in the last few years?

However- I am taking my daughter to Russia so she can get a better education at the primary level/ - though I find it interesting that they acctually start school at an older age than Americas- 6 instead of 5. I have to send my Daughter to Kumon accelerated Japanese immersion in order for her to be at the level of the Russian school when she gets over there.

So again- why do they have to spend so very little on such an outstanding primary education? The answer would be thier "parent teacher" day- frequently at the parents house- where the family feeds the teacher, who make very little money, so are frequently given food and such from the parents that can afford it- and they sit down and discuss the childs education and how the parents should direct thier childrens education.

The root of the problem remains the parents in the US. You have to see it to believe it I suppose- I think our European counterparts would be shocked at how absentee parents are allowed to be in the US school system- it is night and day.

Julian- most US parents can't tell you anything about thier child's education unless some offending book or something comes thier way- then they are all about activism, but as long as the kid is getting the free daycare the parents demand- it is pretty much out of sight out of mind.

That is why I tell every parent that I know up here to enroll in an immersion or lottery based school if they can- regardless of teaching style- because parents take a vested interest in those programs, and parental involvement is incredibly higher than your "normal" public school. Even in very activist nieghborhoods like the one I live in, the attendence at PTA meetings, parent volunteerism etc is no where near what it is in the lottery based schools- regardless of medium income of the parent.

It is time we stop blaming the system and start placing some personal responsibility on parents.

This subject by the conservative side always amazes me- why is it they are all about personal responsibility- up until they are asked to take some for themselves?

Now- you will have to excuse me- I have to go run my kid all the way across town in sub-zero weather (if you attend a lottery school outside your area you have to drive them yourself- so myself and 100 of my closest parent friends will be merging into the parking lot to drop off our kids) and do my hour of volunteer time in the Russian classroom- something you don't see in the non-lottery schools very often. In fact, I know about 75% of my kids classmates parents names- how many parents on this board that live in a city can say that? If so, good for you! If not- you have no one to blame for AMerican education system but yourself.

You know, I missed the by-line on my first read-through, but I noticed the drooling Libertarian bias. I used to have considerably more respect for Stossel-- I remember when he could do an investigative report without turning it into an Editorial.



More or less. They are truly in a sorry state, and have been growing considerably sorrier every year since long before I was born.



No, I don't think that's really the problem at all. The article itself mentions that students in school systems with considerably less competition-- due mainly to lack of supply-- do better than our students do.

I think, as far as education is concerned, our first and most serious problem is that we do not actually give a damn about it. Oh, we say we do, and we make all the right noises whenever a new scandal emerges... but at the end of the day, we don't do what we have to do to fix it.

We do not actively participate in our childrens' education. We do not respect the teaching profession. When the budget gets tight, we cut humanities programs, academic programs, and only then do we look at the sports budget. We do not believe in knowledge and learning for their own sake-- even when we react to these scandals, our concern is whether or not our children will be able to find jobs-- and we tolerate and encourage a culture that punishes our children for succeeding.

That's not just parents. I have seen supposedly professional teachers belittle students for trying too hard.

When you combine all of this with a school system designed primarily to train soldiers and factory workers, I'm actually more surprised by the students that do know how to read than the ones that do not.



Neither. I do not presume to know how to fix our cultural problems-- short of pushing a sizable minority of our adult population into ovens-- but the solution to our systemic problems is neither privatization nor increased public budgets.

We need to quit coddling failures; you do not preserve a child's self-esteem by telling him that it is okay to be ignorant and useless. You build a child's self-esteem by teaching him how to learn and how to solve problems, by helping them to become competent.

We also need to move away from this model that says that every child is entitled to an education and should be mainstreamed as much as possible. Children with behavioral problems need to be in a more focused atmosphere, with fewer distractions; it does not benefit them or their more disciplined peers to keep them in the same room. And, as offensive as it is to the majority of people, some children are simply incapable of benefitting from schooling and should be cared for in some other fashion.

Then, once we have regained some modicum of control over our classrooms, we need to establish-- and maintain-- an expectation of excellence. We need to teach them that they are capable of doing difficult things, and then reward them for doing so.

There are a few other reforms I'd like to stick in there-- actual, specific reforms-- but this is the basic idea.

Do you agree with this story's assessment of American public schools?
Mostly. The system is definitely broken.

Is the root of the problem the lack of competition and union domination of a public near-monopoly?
There are many problems, in my opinion. Yes, the unions are strong, and they have excellent job security, but unions themselves are not evil incarnate. So, I have to wonder, how much of that job security is due to trying to keep teachers at a $50,000 salary, and how much of an increase in quality education we would experience if the going rate was $100,000.

This brings us to the idea of competition. If schools had the freedom to regulate themselves, we would see a variety of schemes. The credentials and compensation of employees might vary, as would the quality of education.

At this point we are faced with the problem of how to determine the quality of education. Testing the students tells us about the students, not the educators. Our cookie cutter curriculums, which the teachers have little control over, is not always best for every group of students. And this is not by any means the sole problem with standardized testing.

I honestly believe the best measure is that of the parents. After all, it is the parents' responsibility to determine what is best for their child. If they wish to have them go to a sub-par school, so be it. Likewise, if I wish to send my child to a school that focuses on certain vocations, or on discipline, or on mathematics, or on the arts, it should be allowed. So long as someone is willing to run such a school I should be able to have my child attend it. There are far too many regulations and residency restrictions to permit such a customizable education.

Is the solution more competition or "more money" as the NEA claims?
It is hard to say. For one thing, we cannot compare the the cost of education to inflation. Looking at the past twelve years, according to the Bureau of labor statistics (whose education data only goes as far back as 1993) the cost of education increased 44% faster than inflation. (Note that it would not be fair to assume this rate has maintained since 1971)

Actually, I believe the whole funding system is wrong. Currently, the federal contribution to public education is about 10%, and in some places as low as 4-5%. I'd say it should be the other way around, with the federal contribution picking up 80-90% of the cost. Combined with a per-pupil funding formula, this would put less strain on the residency requirement, creating competition. Also, the federal goverment should have the least regulatory power. Once families have a reasonable choice, they can decide for themselves how to raise their kids, and keep the government from telling them otherwise.

Right now, it's not always the parents' fault. Our options are limited. It is even more limited when it takes two incomes to pay the bills. Regardless, a decent education must be available to every citizen of our country. We cannot be both ignorant and free.

I totally agree. And I have anecdotal evidence to back it up.

I live in the Detroit area. White suburbs to the north of Detroit are the richest in the nation, and their public schools are as good as most private schools. They get the same amount of state spending as the rest of the schools in Michigan, yet they are far and away better.

Go into Detroit and some of their schools actually get more money than other schools and they're abysmal. High drop out rates, low college admission rates, etc. etc.

And in Detroit they tried vouchers (of a sort). They tried and yet the results were mixed and some of the schools did no better than the public schools.

It's the public support for the students, the interest by the parents, the ability of the parents to sit with their children and make sure they study and help them if they can.

How do the unions hurt the schools? How does making mandatory legislation for teacher performance do anything? The schools in Michigan all have local school boards and PTAs. If a teacher sucks you don't need George W Bush to find out, the parents should feret the person out.

Here, where I live, the difference is obvious. If the parents care, the schools thrive. If the parents are not there, are poor, are addicts, have 3 jobs, etc. the schools are filled with delinquints and miscreants.

The unions are only out to protect the teachers- that is thier job. Teacher pay is abysmal for a 4 year degree- and the only way to improve teacher excellence is with higher pay- in least in any numbers- there will be always a number of poeple that don't care how much they make, that is what they want to do- but that could be said of nearly any proffesional job class- but if you can make four or five times as much money, still helping folks out, and not have to work late every evening and early every morning with problem parents and problem children.

So the NEA is the only line of defense against a really, really ignorant society bent on blaming everyong but themselves.

No, I don't blame the Unions one bit- I still blame the parents 110%- and without behavior change in the parents- everything else you do will be for naught.

Not. One. Single. or Mulitple. Thing. that anyone tries WILL EVER work without this cultural change- NOTHING

I generally agree but would add that many teachers make decent salaries. 70K average for Boston schools and I say for that they should be doing far better. On the other hand the idiots in Congress who changed the rules for schools over the past decades deserve a good part of the blame.

In the early 60s it was required in most school systems that you pass Math, Science, and English every year or be held back. And there were NO “social promotions”. Kids whose parents were not willing to help control unruly behavior were tossed out of school.
In those days a 70 year old English teacher (I had one) could demand and get complete attention and silence in a room with 45 students in it with just a look.

Then in the late 60s along came the well intentioned idiots who felt we should do everything necessary to pass all students esp. minorities. Of course the right way to do this was to use the increased spending we have seen (school spending doubled twice sine then) to give these students extra help etc. Instead it devolved into the “social promotions” that has cost our schools their standards. Worse yet many of these poor students later went on to teachers colleges where they were again moved through and became very bad teachers.

So today we have classrooms with the majority of students looking for a good education but unable to get it because schools are stuck with a minority of disruptive and often violent kids. A sure formula for a poor education system.