Both George Washington, in his comments (made after the adoption of our Constitution), and Dweight Eisenhower, in his exit comments regarding the ills of the "military industrial complex" (made when leaving the Presidency), "warned" the citizenry" of their need to be "knowledgable", of the law in the first case, and, presumably of science, industry and the military and its "funding", in the latter. Yet, during my lifetime, I have not yet seen either of these topical needs adequately treated in our "education" system, well enuf to actually give us the benefits we are assuming we are getting from the sited "systems".

On the other hand I've seen much waste, fraud and abuse, during my lifetime, on both of GW's and DI's topics, and massively so in our education system. I personally believe their two suggested topics for our "knowledge-ability" is crucially critical; but, it is unfortunately now "badly broke" in it's delivery!

I've been searching and researching the web, books, state's curricula requirements, schools, universities, etc., for many years, and I find little or nothing on these items adequate to meet "US the people" citizenry's needs for this "information/education" in order to have the "perfect union", healthy "general welfare" and "domestic tranquility", etc., that we presumably are pursuing in common.

I see the problem being that of inadequate and blatantly wrong curriculum content, poorly taught "teachers" and the self serving-ness of "education politics"! I do wish to fix them. I'm engaging Wikepedia, on some of these issues, as my foray into this "black hole", so my time is going where my mouth is here! But, I'd appreciate some debate if you all can please.

For discussion/debate:

1. Do you believe the US education system is broke, with your comments if you can please?

2. If you see it as broke too, what's your fix suggestion(s)?

Given the spelling, grammar, punctuation and basic question of this post, I think you have answered your own 1st question, that the education system is broke.

Now, that is rude, but I dont mean it that way, except you may be a victim of exactly what you are posting about.

Is the educational system broke, meaning, having no money, or broken, needing rework and fixing at its core levels? I would say, yes, it is broken and probably broke as well. We are losing our language, the ability to write, the ability to converse intelligently because we dont have the words to convey our thoughts and feelings. One is not expected to excell or be an individual but pass tests and conform.
Education is not revered in America, but getting the degree is. We are some of the least educated people in the first world, but we have lots of credentials to prove otherwise

We are a people enamoured by fast, superficial everything, however real education takes time, needs time for thought and reflection. One has to absorb, not just let it flash upon an upper brain to pass a test and forget about it tomorrow.

Lek, I dont know how old you are or what curriculum you are engaged in, high school or college, but my experience has been, if there is desire you will self educate better than any school can do. It takes going outside to find what you are looking for , but stick to it and get all the appropriate paperwork.

2. If you see it as broke too, what's your fix suggestion(s)?

I wouldnt know how to fix it except pour money into it on all levels, but remember that governments do not appreciate nor desire an educated populace, very messy for them, so they dont 'do' the education thing well.
The truth of the matter is, youre on your own. Everyone gets educated, after the diploma/ degree, on our own.

1. Do you believe the US education system is broke, with your comments if you can please?

The US education system wasn't all that great when I went to high school in the 1960s, graduated in 1970 and went on to college after a year of working blue collar for near minimum wage. In college I studied education and came across radical ideas, for the time, on how to fix the US education system. Since that time, some of these radical ideas have become mainstream.

One of these formerly radical ideas is that teachers can't really teach anything. Students have to learn. The energy comes from both, but both are not very useful until there's cooperation. About all a teacher can do is to reveal information and thought processes. It's up to the student to embrace them.

Another formerly radical idea is that students have different learning styles. And yet another is that learning is an organic process, not something mechanical.

Other classical learning principles have come my way over the years. If one wants to write well, one should learn to read well, and read often. Same goes for making music: Listening is as important as practicing, but both have to be done to get good at an instrument.

Motivation is highly important. I don't know what to do about motivating the unmotivated. That's one of the reasons I abandoned my study in education, along with the poor pay and the realization that I really didn't care if other people didn't care either.

2. If you see it as broke too, what's your fix suggestion(s)?

The fix for all things resides internally. It's a Zen concept. The first step is to figure out who you are, then what you want to do with what you are. For a lot of folks, these baby steps are never taken. For others they go running off into reality and straight over a cliff, not that jumping over cliffs in the metaphorical sense is all that bad. It's easier done when unaware, but the outcome might not be very good. Or it might work out, it depends on a lot of variables.

For example, running away from home, getting into drugs and crime -- that usually ends up badly. But quitting a deadend job and striking out for something better, and doing so with some form of knowledge about how things work, that can be a very good move.

So. Any education system can only offer opportunity. It is up to the student, the seeker of knowledge and wisdom, to do the rest. Learning is never a passive activity.

I actually see the society as being more broken than the education system. Educators, and I admire their tenacity and abilities to put up with the horse hockey, have made major strides over the past forty years. In my state parents can choose between the more traditional form of school (bells, classrooms, lectures, tests) and an open school format (no bells, rooms but not like classrooms, self-directed learning, essays rather than tests). Well, at least in the Denver area. And we still have single-classroom schools in some rural areas that seem to work out better than the traditional, and in this sense it has to be industrial, school system.

So what's wrong with US society? Too much fast food nation, too much mindless entertainment, too much sports, too much emphasis on money, and the list goes on forever. How does one fix society?

One can't. One can only fix oneself. The fix for all things resides internally. One can reject fast food for a healthy diet, and we are free to do so. Health food stores have become mainstream, and the literature is as common as the stores. One can limit the fascination with mindless entertainment, sports and money. We are free to do so. And one can devote oneself to a life of continuing learning experiences, if one has the mind to do so.

Otherwise it becomes a rather bleak existence, or so I think. Some like being in one place all the time, not reading books or exploring new terrain, or listening/playing different music, or whatever area gets interest. Nobody can force anyone else to take interest in anything, other than maybe staying out of jail or similar simple physical conditionings. You know, how we train animals?

I do think that educational institutions have similar problems as corporations. The money seems to concentrate at the top. I have no idea how to fix that, however that is not a problem with education. It's a problem with organization.

"Education is the silver bullet. Education is everything. We don't need little changes. We need gigantic revolutionary changes. Schools should be palaces. Competition for the best teachers should be fierce. They should be getting six-figure salaries. Schools should be incredibly expensive for government and absolutely free of charge for its citizens, just like national defense." (Sam Seaborne)


Nothing is anything without education. Ediucation is quite literally what separates modern societies from ancient ones. If you removed education from a society for a generation you would be LUCKY to be back in the Iron Age. Not enough education is disaster, yet there is literally no such thing as too much education.

Lets start with doubling the amount of money we as a society spend on education. START with that. Where does it come from? Doesn't matter, because quite simply nothing is as important. Once we agree to start with that, then we can discuss where this money should go and how it should be spent. THAT is ging to be a struggle. After all, in some states you can't teach bastic evolutionary biology without offending a significant segment of the population.

Pour money into teachers, teaching resources, and school facilities. Update the curriculum every 4 years at the very least. make the basic necessities of future learning compulsory in school again. Who decided it was acceptable to only take 2 years of maths in high school? Why was 4 years of maths fine 30 years ago, but too much now? Are children dumber now than they were 30 years ago?

I'm a Historian, with a lot of letters after my name. Except for adding together four digit dates, I literally never need maths in my life more complicated than figuring out exact change. Yet when I go to the cashier and GIVE teens exact change, they can't do the maths in their head. How is our society's literacy rate not 100%?


I rant, I know. But I have spent my life in eduation, on one side or another, and the terrible thing is, its so SIMPLE. It just takes a bit of understanding to know that smarter people = better, no ifs and or buts, no caveats, no justifications. The better educated a society, the more productive a society. That doesn't mean you need to enter the academy, nor become a biochemist. Everyone should be educated. Your plumber should be reading Moby Dick, and your hairstylist should be able to discuss algebra.

Money is constantly brought up.

What countries spend more per capita than the US? Which spends a higher percentage of GDP on education?

In 2001, the US spent more than any other country on education: approximately $500 billion. Compare that to national defense.

Multiple choice:

In 2001, the highest per capita expenditure on education was made by which of the following countries?
a. Japan
b. the US
c. Norway
d. Saudi Arabia

Head of the class if you answered D!!

The US ranks second in the word in per capita spending on education behind only Norway (2001 figures).

Money does not equal education.

Yes, our system is broken for some. But not for all. The US remains the hub for attracting foreign investment. We must be doing something right.

The problem is the government monopoly on education, which forces students through one system. If that system fails, then the children are left undereducated. In some locales, the system is failing, but not in all.

I'm with AMlord here, but I think he missed a component of the education system that is often left out of these kinds of debates...Our institutions of higher learning, colleges. America has THE best college system on the planet, bar none. Incidently, the college system is not government run, it is the closest thing we have to privatizing education and it also happens to be thriving where our government-run K-12 is not. Granted, there are some differences, but the point remains. Gov't money does not equal sucess.

My solution would be to get the US Federal government out of our education system, allow states to fund public schools if they wish, use voucher programs if they wish or completely privatize if they wish. This gives states freedom to do what they want with their education systems. Privatization combined with some state subsidization or in conjunction with charter schools would be ideal in my opinion, but as AMlord said money is not the solution.

CP

Well, this approach has pretty much run its course. Privatization has shown itself to be even more wasteful than the government, surprise surprise. Take for instance Medicare and its lower overhead than the HMOs. Why? No corporate officers to pay the big bucks to and fund the fat bonus checks for.

Supporting Link

And then we can look at our glorious college systems and see that the private schools are much more expensive than state schools. That was true in my day too.

Again, the problem has to do with the organization of education systems, regarding the upward flow of money away from the students and to the top administrators.

For those who haven't been following this:

Charter schools don't cut it (01/16/2005)

Cost of higher education (1986-2005)

Where have all the vouchers gone?

Lots more on this issue

So, privatizing public education is really a scheme to make more bucks flow upward and away from the students, parents and teachers into the coffers of people who don't have to tell you how much they make.

For public schools, salaries are matters of public record. School boards are elected people. There's more chance of controlling the upward flow of money in this situation, but it's certainly not well controlled. Recently a top administrator of a nearby urban school district got let go and received a $400,000 fee to break the contract.

Phew. And we're not talking a major urban area either.

However, imagine if this were privatized. We'd be talking seven, maybe eight figures.

So how do we explain private schools that educate kids better (I'm talking elementary/high school here) than some public schools that spend twice as much.

The teachers in most Catholic grade school make pitifully less money than their public counterparts. And most would not leave for more money. They teach for the love of teaching (in my experience). To counter the low pay, many of these teachers (overwhelmingly women) are married to well-off (at least middle class) husbands, taking the money aspect out of it.

Money does not motivate good teachers. Money does not make poor teachers good teachers. More money will attract less qualified teachers, not more qualified ones.

AMlord pretty much took the words out of my mouth, but I've still got something to say.

This has nothing to do with education and the argument that "privatization didn't work here so it won't work there" is a logical fallacy whose latin name I don't know.

And in general they're much, much better. Also, colleges have many more expenses than you're typical private high school: reasearch, dorms for thousands of students, food for thousands of students, large campuses, etc.


The first editorial proved absolutely nothing, it was some woman's opinion that charter schools are not doing as well as public schools...This doesn't prove that charter schools in conjunction with private schools would fail...It's a strawman in this case.

The second link brings us to a graph that says, "college is expensive"...I go to Northeastern, you're not telling me anything I don't know.

The third link...Fully supports my argument: Emphasis mine

And you'll forgive me if I don't take "Media Transparency: The money behind the conservative media" for the partisan institution it is.
On edit: I have no idea why the quotes aren't working.

CP

Fixed quotes. -AMLord

I applaud and agree with almost all comments above (including my education level, skills, typing, etc., commentary)! However, I'd like to focus on two mostly unaddressed issues that I'd like to rebut, or perhaps re-emphasize, for a bit more focused debate specifically upon them :

1. In no case above, does it seem to me, has anyone raised/answered the issue/question of "How to determine what we get in education systems.", and "How to make sure that it is truly what we collectively, in a tragedy of the commons sense, do want!"

All the issues mentioned so far above seem, roughly to me, primarily to concern:

A. How a particular piece of the education system is organized (charter, private, public, etc.).
B. Who "owns/controls" the education system piece being considered (Feds, States, private sector, etc.).
C. Costs and "Economic Models/Opinions" and commentary on education systems. ie who pays, and who controls through their "paying", and where are the wastes, frauds and abuses, etc.
D. That education is very important in many ways, across the board (I read this meaning to be applying only to accurate, relevant, and "truthfully complete" education), as what one poster called the "silver bullet" ("for almost everything worthwhile", I think was implied.)

All these are fine, but for me they come "after" our knowing/learning: "How do we determine the details of what we buy, in education, cuz it's way more than a, probably deflated, diploma?", as in "Let the buyer beware!" in education. I get that this only starts with the "nitty gritty detail" of "the curriculum", and only ends with "us guarding our guards" to make sure we get it! (And if that ain't presently known, then that's our first job---to RDT&E it ad infinitum till it is known, and we can go for it! )

2. Economics and costs are always brought into tough topics such as this. However, I believe that as a science/technology, economics is sorely deficient in having any structure to determine the "optimality" and/or "needfulness to the buyer" of any " specific commodity". (This is an old topic, I first saw mentioned in and old book on Economics, the dismal science (not sure of exact title). That same book advocated that economics needed more of the paradigms of engineering to be "complete" and an acceptable applied science (which is ehat we are seekin here).

This "concept of a missing component to economics", only gets infrequently mentioned and is only very poorly worked on (my opinion) if it is worked on at all in economics. So I'm personally very leery of all the costs, economic comments, and such, because they are made in a vacuum concerning "what a commodity is, why it works, and why it's needed".

What happened to that comparison of spending as a percentage of GDP? This would account for the difference is cost of living better than per capita expenditure. link showing US clearly ranks middle of the pack in spending as a percentage of GNP

While I would argue that money can easily be wasted in education, I would not argue that spending less money on education is a recipe for improving it. More on that later.

Saying that there is a government monopoly on education is like saying there is a monolithic media. While we have a federal department of Education, it does not control and manage schools. There is a wide variety of public education systems in this country. They are funded in various ways and have sufficient diversity to allow for a tremendous diversity in educational models to watch. In fact this is a much more diverse and non-monolopized system than most industries. The present administration has tried to add to the federal control over education, but it is far from a monopoly system. Public education is still primarily controlled locally.




Okay, I am proud of the American university system too and it is strong. It is strong in the sense of allowing access to a high percentage of Americans to colleges. We excel is offering an average college education opportunity to anyone with initiative to seek it out--no matter how many years of primary and secondary and higher education have previously been squandered there is always a second chance at college here. This is not true of China and India, but they do have some excellent universities for the few who can get in.

Next, the college system is primarily government run. Even private institutions of higher learning take federal funding and are subject to following some federal standards. The majority of colleges are run by states and the employees are run by states and these schools are dependent on tax dollars for funding. So if we are using our university system as a model, government involvement is not the problem here.



Holy laughable laffer curve . The neo-con school of economics has returned to us. From the same school of logic that tends to argue that tax cuts always bring us increased revenues (no matter how absurd that argument gets when you think it through to its conclusion) we have an economic theory that decreasing teacher pay will lead to an increase in the quality of educators. I think we just found a way to combat outsourcing of our jobs. If this system works for teachers (in a society where we measure status by salary) it should work equally well for those who care for the ill, administer justice in the courts and in the streets, and for our inventors and innovators. The social value should be enough compensation and we should use the Kathy Lee Gifford scale to pay people. We can't even get people to play sports for the love of the game. (Alex Rodriguez's $252 million contract as exhibit A.)

When we measure private schools against public schools, we are measuring a wide variety of private schools with different academic purposes against each other. I did some surfing and los the links, but the Catholic school system does not lag so far behind the average public school. (5 or 10%) and there are still some (9%) Catholic teachers who are part of the church and have taken vows of poverty as priests, monks, or nuns)

The above argument sounds more like socialism or communism than capitalism. Are you changing affiliations on me Mr. lord? Or are you just applying different standards to teachers. In my experience teachers have a hard time staying in the profession financially. It helps if a spouse has a lot of income. Some of my peers have trust funds to supplement their lifestyle. What this means is that many people cannot afford to teach and this lowers the pool of applicants to the profession, which can't be good can it? Also teachers face many poor working conditions on top of pay which leads to a flight from the profession.

Entering a field out of love can be a dangerous thing when common educator experiences are disheartening.


clicky linky

I am among the ranks of the likely soon to leave. And college students know about pay when they choose their major. The above solution is to pick from the pool of people that can work for less than they can afford to live on and have another source of income that picks up the slack. And the predicted result of this strategy is attracting more qualified teachers. Perhaps we should all go demand a 50% cut in pay so we can become better at what we do overnight. Count me among the teachers who think money is important in staying in the profession, and while I knew I was getting into relatively lower pay than other professions, I thought it would be easier to get by with a working spouse. I likely will be leaving the profession in the next year or two, but that should only improve the quality of the teaching pool.

No, I think a more likely solution for improving the quality of educators is to increase teacher pay and raise the standards of acceptance into teaching certification programs and use a weeder system to make getting an education degree or certificate more challenging and more educational.

This would improve the teacher corps, but we would still be left with school system with severe administrative flaws in the area of school learning environments and social promotion etc.

And education is something that is primarily in the hands of the learner. Our reluctant approach to learning in this country holds us back much more than the present quality of our educators. Our expectations from our students are too low, as a society, from our educators, from our parents, and from the students themselves.

In relation to the first debate question, I would point out that the vast majority of those participating in were educated by the system in question. Therefore, either a) it didn't do too bad, or B ) none of us are competent enough to debate the issue. Just something to think about.

Primarily? Sure, there are more state schools than private...But when you think of American colleges, do you think of public schools or private schools. I'd be willing to bet that if you asked John Q. Citizen to name the five best schools or more accuratley, the most recognizable schools in the country they'd hit you with:
1. Harvard
2. Princeton
3. Yale
4. Georgetown, etc.

The best schools in this country are private schools and the best public schools in this country do not match up well with the best private ones.

I don't know how much money private schools receive from the federal government, do you have a link about that Eeyore? Either way, as I said, the private schools of this country are not government run, they are overseen by the government, to an extent, that to be honest, I'm ignorant about. So again, is there some kind of site you know of that I could check out?

CP

I have been relatively successful in my short life(33 years) with only 2 years of college so far. Now that I have the opportunity I will be going to complete my MBA. I was never fortunate enough to be able to goto college right out of high school because I had to support myself and help some family members who couldn't at the time.

Briefly, I would like to list a few people who never had a college degree:

George Washington
Bill Gates
Harry S Truman
Abraham Lincoln
Peter Jennings
Thomas Edison
Frank Lloyd Wright
Lance Armstrong
William Faulkner
John D Rockefeller

Education is not always learned in a classroom. Many times it is learned from the trials of life.
Will I think of myself as a better person than somebody else because I have some letters after my name? Not at all.

Why should a plumber read Moby Dick or a hair stylist be able to discuss algebra? Should you as a historian know what a WYE and soil stack are used for in the plumbing world? People are all unique and have their own interests. Saying you are a better person than the plumber because he can't quote Moby Dick is where the perception of elitism comes from.

So your solution would be to pour more money into it? And by what logic did you come to this conclusion? Pathetic to say the least. How about the content of our education? How about content relevent to the system of government and economy. People should know the Constitution and how to invest money when they leave high school at a minimum. History, government and economics should be primary. If they don't know what to do with their income, then they are wasting much of their efforts. Your comment on language is good though.

See here we are arguing the the college system, not the private college system is the best in the world. When called on this inaccuracy you shift your definition and ask me to come up with sources on a different point. You want to see privatized education where our university system is clearly not an example of this.




Do you see the shift here? now we are arguing private schools. But if we look at the rankings of the best universities in the world we can be quite proud of American universities, but there are an awful lot of private schools on this list that counteract your thesis about government money harming the quality of education.
One List
Puff, puff, I see my surfing school alma mater at 35 on this list.

But it slides to 141 on this list

As you turn to private schools, I would also point out that the best high schools in the country are private high schools.

As for private universities receiving federal funds click on the federal research link to look at an excel document on this page--> link

No, I'm sorry if it didn't come out the way I wanted to, but I wasn't trying to shift anything. My point was that the private colleges in this country are among the best in the world. I was not attempting to shift anything, just clarify.

I don't think I was saying that government money harms the quality of education, it just doesn't help and more accurately is not necessary.

I look forward to resuming this in the morning, I'm done for the night .

CP

Well, with more people there will be a larger resource demand, it seems pretty basic to me.

If you favor privatizing public education, I am all for it, I just don’t know what you would do for what I am sure is a high number or in the millions of people that most likely would never be able to afford it, then of course we would have lost our education system to age old class warfare, or again poverty stricken schools and of course ivy league ones, further crushing the idea of the American pipe dream.

At least at graduation day the truth could be giving in a speech or something.

The idea behind private schools is that impoverished schools would fail, whereas now in our current system they limp on, depriving the poor of a better education.

Don't get me wrong, in order for private schools to work a number of other gov't-limiting/restructuring acts would have to occur first. The privatization of schools cannot work by itself, widespread reform would have to occur first.

CP

Reformation was tried in Colorado Springs and failed miserably. You can follow the story from this link, which has archives that extend back to 2003 when the reformers got the majority of the District 11 school board:

Colorado Springs Independent

Last week's edition had extensive coverage of a recall election that is about to take place to oust two of the more damaging school board members.

Let's just say that the reformers blew it. Let's also say that you can fool the people for only so long, and then they get angry.

I don't think education reform will be very popular after this situation plays itself through. As the articles explain, the Colorado Springs effort has been watched nationwide and is a bellweather of reform. Assuming the recalls go through, and there isn't much chance that they won't, then any attempt at reform has to take a completely different strategy.

Based on what I found, AuthorMusician, it looks like the reformers were corrupt and unethical...That says nothing about the reforms that need to take place. There would have to be an extreme libertarianization [yeah, I made it up, leave me alone] of the federal and state governments in order for private education to be effective. Perhaps reform was the wrong word, maybe overhaul or enema is more suitable.

CP

1. I do not believe the US educational system is "broken". However, I do believe that it is terribly inconsistent and a relatively poor value when compared to the investment made.

The US spends more per pupil than any other industrialized nation. Yet, test scores of our kids lag behind most other countries. The solution offered by the educational establishment (see Vermillion's post) is always "send mo money!". Yet, throwing good money after bad when the fundamentals are not being addressed is a foolish course of action in my view.

The US system has a few fundamental weaknesses and is also faced by challenges that are frankly outside the scope of any educational system.

Fundamental issues:

1. The public schools in the US are a union dominated monopoloy (for the most part). Teachers are rewarded for tenure, not performance. Wage increases are almost always guaranteed and based on tenure, not performance. If the district loses money, you don't see pay cuts (like you do in any business), teachers get cut instead so that the pay/benefit levels of current teachers is not reduced. This hurts the kids. Furthermore, there is very little incentive to do a great job as a teacher. Since seniority (and tenure) are the driving factors, high performing teachers eventually become disillusioned since they are not rewarded in any way beyond the mediocre and the downright poor performers. This result is predictable. The automobile industry in the US produced downright junk in the 1970's prior to the competition by Japanese imports. Why? Because they *could*. The unions demanded higher pay and got it. The prices were passed along to the consumers who had no other place to turn when the products they purchased were of poor quality. That changed during the 1980's when Honda and Toyota took a huge chunk out of the big three's market share (and continue to date). Then, and only then, did the automobile manufacturers respond and improve quality, work toward getting costs under control, and keep the out-of-control UAW in check. The public schools in the US are in a similar position. Kids are mandated by law to attend the schools. The parents, unless they are well to do, have no practical alternatives since the cost of private education is very high. Furthermore, one is stuck with the school district where one lives. For most districts, the school is a monopoly. Therefore, quality is not the driving factor.

2. Lack of standards. This is something the teacher's unions have been fighting tooth and nail. Basic reforms such as measuring the performance level of both students and teachers have been fought consistently by the NEA and their allies in the democrat party. The "no child left behind act" was a very modest step in that direction and just LOOK at the venom that has been directed toward this basic prerequisite to quality... which is measuring the output of a process. The teachers unions seem intent on keeping education as an "art" rather than a "science" with very vague measurable goals and performance metrics. We have a situation today where kids who cannot read, write, or perform 3rd grade mathematics are passed through the system and certified as "high school graduates". This is a problem that must be addressed.

3. Lack of emphasis on the hard sciences, mathematics, communication, and history. I'm amazed at the lack of basic "knowledge" present in today's kids. They can't point to a map and tell you where Iraq is, perform basic algebra or trigonometry, write a coherent essay, or explain the fundamental principles of our government, our constitution, and our economic system. What was once an emphasis on "education" has been replaced by a softer curriculum more concerned about the student's self esteem, their "social awareness", and whatever politically correct topic of the day happens to be in fashion.

But, school reform can only go so far in this nation if parents are not doing their jobs at homes. In a district like Detroit, MI, the drop out rate is through the roof (48% graduation rate).

Crises in the schools

While this predominantly "black" district has a drop out rate more than twice that of "white" districts, the rate is still way too high.

Why is this? Have the schools failed when the children REFUSE to learn and just drop out?

Nope. The families have failed. And why is it any wonder that the districts with the highest drop out rates have the highest rate of out-of-wedlock births and broken families?

When the parents of a child refuse (or fail) to teach their child that education is a value that must be achieved, in spite of the personal obstacles and sacrifices, that child is doomed from the outset.

You could triple the amount of money spend on a district like Detroit and not see any better performance since the underlying cultural issues are not addressed by more spending.

Michigan school spending

What are the solutions?

Well, with respect to the educational system, the low hanging fruit should be addressed first.

1. Introduce competition into the system via vouchers for private schools.
2. Enforce strict testing standards for kids and teachers. Don't pass kids who don't make the grade.
3. Incorporate a quality system (ala Deming) of measurment, evaluation, and analysis into our educational system. Pay teachers based on "merit", not seniority. Reduce the influence of the NEA.
4. Focus on the "core" educational curriculum and cut out the non essential "fluff" programs.

The cultural issues are a lot harder. How does one undo 40 years of liberalism; the rise of the welfare state, permissive parenting, the decline of values and anything deemed "judgemental", the sexual revolution and easy divorce and stigma-less single parenting, and the popular culture's focus on hedonistic and narcissistic values?

If anyone has the answers to that for the culture at large, I'm all ears.

I did mention % of GDP. But I don't think that is apples to apples. It might show priorities, but little else. If I'm a millionaire and drive a $80,000 BMW and you are a factory guy making $30k driving a $10,000 KIA, is your KIA better because you spent 1/3 of your annual salary on it, while I spent 12.% on mine?

As far as education expenditures as a percent of GDP, the numbers have been increasing. Source Total: 7.5% (highest ever) Elementary/Secondary 4.7% (highest ever) College 2.9% (highest ever). Our system must have been pitiful in 1960 when only 5% of the GDP was spent on education.

By Eeyore's standard, we are falling behind Peru, Guinea, Yemen, Mexico and Cuba. Sorry, I don't buy that.

But Eeyore has charged me with saying many things I never said.

Nationally, we spend $8,724 per year (2004 figure) per child to educate them. That is $218,000 per class of 25.

Let's take Tennessee--middle America if you will. Teachers there made an average of $40,657 per year in 2004. Source: TEA Depending on what school district, of course, actual salaries may vary.

The state's median income (sorry, this is 2003) was $37,529 (Source: US Census Bureau) Only the bottom 15 districts pay below the state's median salary, on average, for a teacher. Let's not forget that teachers get summers off (school year is 180 school days in most places. Teachers obviously work more days than this. Most people work 250 days per year, however).

Don't get me wrong--nobody is getting rich being a teacher. But they aren't poor, exactly. Also, don't interpret this to mean that teachers couldn't make more money somewhere else (as Eeyore is alluding to). They probably could.

My point is not that more money is bad, but that more money will attract people who's first choice is not teaching. Great teaching requires a passion that comes from something beyond a paycheck. You can't go through the motions and be a good teacher.

For the record, I never said paying less salaries to teachers was the answer.

1. Vouchers aren't the answer, nor is private school.
2. Grades are meaningless. The real world does not run on tests.
3. Pay administrators on merit too. No golden parachutes. No inflated salaries.
4. Focus on teaching students how to learn on their own energies. They will need these skills in the real world simply to survive.

5. Stop thinking in 19th century institutional jargon.
6. Eliminate competative sports; found vocational training institutes for football players, basketball player, etc. and so on. Get this out of education altogether and fund it from professional sports organizations.
7. Promote health-oriented physical exercise for all students, and make it fun. How about hikes? Go to a lake and canoe? Bike rides? Field trips to city museums (lots of walking)? There are many more possibilities that don't cost very much and last a long while.

Why not? Explain another way to introduce competition into the school system. Do you disagree that competition would help quality? If not, then explain any other...I repeat ANY other organization that enjoys a monopoly (and is unionized) and that provides top quality for reasonable prices.



Oh yes it does. Tests (and grades) indicate a level of achievement and a level of mastery of the subject matter. If one does not measure , one cannot determine achievement. What do you suggest instead of grades (measurement)?



We already have too many administrators, but that's another area for reform. I'm all for paying administrators based on merit. But how would you determine merit if you don't measure the performance of schools and how do you accomplish this without tests and grades???



I'm not sure what you mean by this. Education is the process of teaching kids how to learn. The teachers give instruction... it's up to the kids to learn.




What do you mean by this?




So you see no value in teamwork, competition, overcoming physical and mental obstacles, etc., and you don't see any "educational" value in these activities?

Thousands of years of human experience is not on your side here.




I think gym classes offer (or our supposed to offer) "fun" physical activities. Plus, most schools have field trips to museums and other cultural institutions.

They do this already.

I am with Lordhelmet and others on this when I say that money is definately not the answer.
To be specific, dumping more money into schools is not the answer.
Furthermore, I would like to echo his helmetness by pointing out that there can be no education when it is not a value instilled by the families of the students.


There have been so many interesting points made that it would take hours to go point by point through everyone's posts. Rather than burn myself out in one post I'd rather hit upon the things that I feel are most relevant:

Education is neither broken nor is it "broke". I do believe, however, that our societal aproach to education is wildly skewed. As others have said, no longer do we value the process of becoming educated. We seek the gratification of being told that we are educated, of flaunting a diploma and wooing a prospective employer. Rare is the individual who considers intellectual rigor, creative problem solving and a broad base of knowledge to be the greatest outcome of their educational experience. My own collegiate experience serves as a decent anecdote ofr this: Years ago, when asked about my major (by my peers, family members, strangers..) I would respond, "I'm majoring in philosophy." Invariably there would be a pregnant pause and the same resply, "Oh...can you do with a philosophy major?" I learned quickly that it was a waste of my time trying to convince people that I wanted to be a clear thinker. My conditioned response became, "I think I'd like to hang my diploma up over my fryolator..."


I disagree with his helmetness on the effectiveness of teacher evaluation. It is inconsistent to assert that many families send children to schools who do not value education and are unprepared for it and then to also insist that teachers' abilities can be assessed by testing their students. If you can't choose your students then you should not be judged by their success. A teacher working in an affluent neighborhood would appear successful while one in a struggling area would seem to be incompetent using this standard.
No Child Left Behind confuses it further by judging a teacher's success by comparing the grades from the previous year's students to those ofthe current year. All it takes is one good class and then a struggling class the next year and the teacher is a failure. Forget about it if they get more special education kids...because they take the same tests and their scores are not identified in any way.

If we would like to ensure that we have brilliant teachers then we should make teacher certification more difficult. Presently, nearly anyone can be certified to teach elementary education. The system provides hundreds of very, very low hurdles as an obstacle. It only takes a little tenacity. It is much more difficult to become a secondary education teacher in my state. Even IF we managed to conjure an army of intellectuals who desired nothing more than to teach it would be impossible to ensure that this same group had the interpersonal skills to deal with hundreds of kids each day.



Privatization:
I have not considered this enough to have a definite opinion on it but my first impression is that it would not work. As it is schools are run like businesses and it is a monstrous failure in terms of financial waste. Lucrative publishing deals, endorsement of educational programs and "teaching method of the month" oportunism are already draining the school coffers. Much like the business community, educational leaders are quick to embrace and fund "new" ideas. They will often cling steadfast to there darling initiatives long after they are obviously failing. Any teacher who has been in the game mroe than a few years is already painfully aware of this menace. The cycle of adopting new initiatives, paying for re-training and then forgetting is a yearly phenomenon. Good teachers learn that they are lucky if they are simply able to "close the door and teach what they know works".
There is already a feeding frenzy for businesses in schools across the country. Clinton fed the tech sector in the '90's with the "computer in every classroom" initiative. Bush fed the publishing companies and testing companies with NCLB. I fear for education if schools become privatized because there is much more profit mining yet to be done in our nations classrooms.


Social changes:
It is my sincere belief that education has been somewhat static in the past fifty years. Teaching pedagogy has changes drastically (sometimes for the better, sometimes for the worse) and yet bright children have always succeeded. The major difference is that, today, all children are expected to obtain a traditional education whereas, in generations past, only children who showed promise took the path of education. As schools filled with the entire array of students they were forced to change their methods. I would assert that nearly all bright, well-intentioned students will find success in nearly any educational atmosphere.
The challenge for modern education is to bring along students who are not as highly functioning or who come from environmental impoverishment. This is a huge task. It is, in my opinion, a nearly impossible task. In a perfect world our society would have room for people who struggle with the mathematic or verbal skills but may have other marketable talents. Unfortunately, as we move away from a blue collar economy these individuals will find less and less opportunities to sell their abilities.
As an aside, there are other pervasive changes in our society that have negatively affected our views on education and our approach to it:
1) We have become less of a community. Parents no longer trust or sometimes have high esteem for the teachers in their schools. There is an "us and them" mentality that is communicated to children in this country.
2) Consumerism and instant gratification are grossly pervasive themes in our society. Consequently people and the children have adopted a "what does it do for me" attitude.
3) Due to #2 modern americans have a drastically reduced attention span. I have read a study that found modern teenagers (in the '90's) to have an attention span of around seven minutes. (The average time of air play on television between commercial breaks)
Because of these drastic changes educators (and, sadly, people who profit on publishing educational materials) have turned to creating new approaches to teaching such as "Brain Based Teaching" which purports to work in synch with the short attention spans of the modern kids.

Oops, I went longer than I intended. Ah well, I apologize for my bad habit.

I wouldn't say it's broke, but it's certainly not excellent. I think if's not nearly as good as it used to be.

Friends are familiar with my campaign to become the first Governor of the United States. It's got an unusual platform. For instance, it calls for executions to be conducted in public. If it's right for the state to execute people, then why do it in great secrecy? Do it in the public square at noon. Invite the school kids to come see how our system of justice works.

The most controversial part of the platform calls for universal and compulsory public education. Everyone's kids are required to attend public school. Now, it's obvious that lots of people who can afford to send their kids to private school don't like this idea, even when I present it in a more digestable form -- "A quality education for every child." They don't want their kids going to school with kids from poor and uneducated families. But the result is that the people who probably care most about education opt out.

Let me offer something a bit provocative. Essentially, a suit is filed against a state for not providing equal educational opportunities to all the children in the state. The idea is to require the state to provide for all -- the have nots as well as the haves.

Here are the details:

http://www.misterthorne.org/blog_lfd/?p=185

Under what premise can you force people to attend public education instead of private?

You reference the case San Antonio School District v. Rodriguez, 411 U.S. 1 (1973) and claim:



Education is not a fundamental right. However, it is a service provided by the government. Because it is a service provided by the government, it is subject to the equal protection clause of the 14th Amendment. This is spelled out in Rodriguez:



I understand your point: the most qualified students with the motivated parents send their kids off to private schools, weakening the public schools by their absence. I agree. But this does not happen everywhere, only where the public schools are sub-par.

For example, my kids go to a Catholic grade school in Cleveland, Ohio. It is right on the western border of the city. Many of the kids there are children of police officers, firefighters, prosecutors or other Cleveland city employees. The city of Cleveland requires its employees to live within city limits and thus they tend to cluster in this one particular neighborhood.

Talk to these parents and they wish they could move to the suburbs where they could send their kids to public school and not pay $3,000 in tuition per kid. Cleveland may lift its residency requirement soon and this neighborhood will see suburban flight.

Another point: the Catholic schools in these suburbs charge less than they do in the city of Cleveland even though the residents make more money on average. Why? Because they must compete with the public school districts who do a good job providing education.

If public education is good, then people will use it. There is not some pre-existing bias against public schools. There is a bias against bad public schools.

The courts have been all over the place regarding school funding. Dictating funding levels or methods is not the job of the court, it is the job of the legislature to decide what importance this one service (education) deserves compared to all other possible services the government provides. What the court can decide is whether or not there is non-equal or discriminatory funding. On a state level, that isn't the case, but hey that never stopped a judge from inserting his viewpoint.

1. Do you believe the US education system is broke, with your comments if you can please?

Seriously broken. We have one of the worst systems in the world. We do poorly on tests in Science and math against other industrial nations and we have one of the shortest school day/year in the world. Our inner cities have schools that are worse than many developing nations. We refuse to boot kids who disrupt classes and even threaten teachers. Its not money in most cases but management that is needed.

2. If you see it as broke too, what's your fix suggestion(s)?
NCLB has implemented many needed reforms including:
Standards for teachers and student achievement. Vouchers for schools that consistently fail students although this needs to be dramatically broadened. Rewards for teachers that are successful in improving test scores. But we also need - Dismissal for teachers who fail children. Repeal of any statute that forces schools to keep disruptive or violent students. Longer school day and year.

It seems to me -- if we can require men between the ages of 18 and 24 to be in the military, then we can require all kids, from 5 to 16 to attend a public school.

Now, think of public schools like post offices -- they're both operated by the government. If we can require a certain level of service from each post office, then we can do the same with each school.

Money is a factor -- that's for sure -- but it's just one of many. You need good teachers, good facilities, administrators, teachers' aides . . . and parents. Parents are an essential component, and the government has little say in that matter. I mean, the standards are pretty low.

.

I will get to the questions at hand but first I would like to address the above statement. ConservPat that statement does not contain any factual evidence. By what standards can we determine if a country's college system is 'the best'? Just an utterly ignorant statement.

The problem with our education system is that there is not enough time in the day to adequately educate our children. For K-12, our children need exercise, food, rest, and time to educate. A high school day, for example, should be structured in a way that efficiently addresses those needs. The mornings would be started with a team sport or some sort of cardiovascular exercise, like running. Then feed them, rest them and send them to the first academic class, such as math, history, language, and science. Those four are the core by which the education system should revolve around. Spend less time teaching them and find a way, this will be a difficult task, to get them to read. Preferably small assignments so that a jittery child will not have the impulse to start shooting spitwads at each other when they are 20 pages into a long chapter. Give them a long lunch, so they have time to eat and rest again. Then send them to an afternoon class that is hands on like a wood shop, home economics, or art. Then give them two more classes, assign them some homework and send them home exhausted both mentally and physically.

The teachers are not being paid enough, that's obvious. The administrator's are being paid too much. And nobody is held legally responsible for fraud or negligence. Superintendents should be subject to fine or imprisonment if it can be found that tax payer's dollars are being wasted in some way and the super knew about it. A lot of our tax dollars are going toward unnecessary police services that could be used to educate children to use their brains in a way which helps them avoid making poor decisions in the future, or gives them more options than committing crimes. Cops are armed with radios, guns, mace, metal batons, hand cuffs, tazers, automobiles, helicopters, machine guns, shotguns, uniforms, self-defense training, and legislation, while a teacher gets only a book and a chalkboard. These two positions, both funded by tax payers money are opponents of each other. Education is directly related to prosperity, where a lack of education is directly related to poverty. Poverty and crime go hand in hand. If you were to increase the education of your citizens you would decrease the necessity for police. But this goes back to a suggestion made earlier in this thread that our government does not really want an educated society. So maybe we are chasing our ever-elusive tails.

I agree with teachers not being paid enough.

I disagree with just about everything else. You have no idea what an administrator does, clearly.

Knowing the importance of education and getting children educated rest soley on the student and the caregiver/parent/guardian. A good teacher, a good school, a good system are the desired place to apply all that good parenting and student drive - however, the absence of these things does not doom a motivated student and an engaged parent from getting educated. Charter schools are one solution to this sort of thing.

However, the mediocre and the uninterested are going to fall by the wayside but then they were going to anyway.

By the way after your short attention span day and break filled work schedule how do you suppose these children are going to fair in the work world? I mean I need to concentrate on things for hours at a time quite often as I plan out various upgrades and whatnot... how will graduates of your school day do?

Back to fundamentals, I'd like to Philosophize a bit. Before we answer a lot of the above-ly discussed, I'd like to suggest some structure aimed at foundations, i.e. what is this education stuff we're after.

I submit that we have a continuum in the term "education" that actually goes from "training", which is more skill than knowledge based, and "education" which is the reverse. Both exist in all "education subjects", but in different amounts (so I'm gong to use the abbreviation TE for them both ). The three R's are more training-like, the workings of science and law more knowledge-like (I say).

For example, for law, the issue to me is knowledge of what it is and how it works relative to: "what we collectively want", whether the Constitution gives it, and whether we are legal (correctly proceeding in all ways) under "it".

Similarly for the "Congressional-military-industrial" complex (as I hear it's now being called) we need the same law knowledge, but also knowledge of science, math, technology, engineering and industry.

And we need "military education" as suggested O/A 1919 by then MG Leonard Wood and others. We now only have "military training/indoctrination" now I fear. The mil academies are not doing this, e.g. West Point is kown "informally by it's grads as "Hudson High".

Without these things existing pretty homogeneously throughout our "Populis Commons", we have a failed TE system. We need them for voting, advocating, juroring and general citizenry. But to do that we need to list and define these things. That is what is meant by curriculum, and that is what I'd like to hear more discussion on, if ya'll are so inclined!

This is a very typical blame the wrong guy debate from the word "jump"- we have lot's and lots of professionals in education that make it thier life's work and dreams to educate children - yet, thier efforts are frequently for naught- and we blame the school system, the goverment, the school board, liberals and on and on- and none of them are to blame- the blame lies squarely on one source and one source ONLY- the parents. The only kids that get good education are those that have parents that demand thier children get a good education- it doesn't take private school, or vounchers, or anything else- for the parents to ensure thier children are educated.

Americans, as a society- sit around and decry "intellectual elitists" - meaning "they are smarter than me and I don't like it"- we glorify the jock over the nerd, and, if you frequent other boards- you can see how quick parents blame teachers for thier kids shortcomings- instead of themselves.

If we want good education- we have all the tools in our public schools right now- what we don't have is committed parents. I spend from 2-5 hours every 2 weeks volunteering in my children's school- and am only one of two males to do so- out of about 20 parents that volunteer as often as I. BTW- I am in a "choice" school- you have to enter a lottery to get into it- and our volunteerism is at or near the top, every year. Yet, out of 400+ kids, only 20 parents volunteer on a regular basis.

Fix the parents, fix the system.

I disagree.

The derisive Intellectual Elitist is meant ironically. When someone calling you an Intellectual Elitist they're saying you THINK you're smarter than everyone else. Being a professor doesn't hold the same reverence it once did - due in no small part to professors like Ward Churchill, although many predate him. So I think you have the meaning all wrong.

The nerd has, since Y2K(ish), picked up stature on campus. High school as well. To some extent being "dumb" is seen as a very unattractive triat. Paris Hilton not withstanding.

Anyway- no matter what- there is no reform possible without reforming our entire societies' thinking when it comes to education. The only time poeple even make it to a school board meeting is when something like "heather has two mommies" comes out - otherwise, to about 90% of the US, school is just cheap daycare.

My biggest peeve is the continued attack on the teachers of this country- and thier unions, by proxy. Teachers aren't paid near what they are worth. They are certainly worth more to our society than, say, oh, ANY football player, certainly worth more than a senator- and paid so much less - I don't know- everytime I volunteer, my heart goes out to these under-appreciated and over-worked, over stressed and horribly underpaid lynchpins to our society. In fact, if I could wave a wand and change things- I would force all the lawyers in the country to give thier collective salaries to all the teachers in teh country- and vice versa. I would make lawmakers live on welfare wages, and take everything they own as privilege for holding office, and give it to the teachers of our society. They are the heroes of our society, more than the soldier, statesman or public safety person- because none of them would even be possible without teachers as well.

It is so disgusting the attitude that is given towards teachers in our society- and it shows in our education system.

All the blame lays, not with liberals OR conservatives- just lazy americans that expect the education system to raise our children for us, in the manner we wish them too, for a pittance.

Being dubious of the Teacher's Union and the Tenure System does not mean in anyway that Teachers are undervalued. Underpaid? Absolutely. I went to school with the intention of becoming a teacher. I was making more as a Supervisor at Price Club (now Costco) than the starting pay of a Junior High School English teacher. Turns out computers paid better than either.

The point on parents is largely correct. The spooky wealth distribution to the teachers is well... nevermind.

Just dreamin' there BA- it boggles my mind that A-rod gets all that money, for playing a child's game, while our teachers struggle financially- or we have lawyers that are the true leaches on our society, and lawmakers who give themselves raises- while we question the value of a teacher.

Educational Ineptitude Revisited
by Walter Williams (May 19, 2004)




Same article.



Most teachers not too smart. if you raise wages the unions would insure it takes 20 years to make even a small difference in teacher quality.



Maybe teacher should go to batting cage.

1. Do you believe the US education system is broke, with your comments if you can please?



I have not read any of the responses that have come before me and I am glad that finals are over so