NationStates Jolt Archive

Stupid in America

At Reason.com, John Stossel offers a preview of his special report, Stupid in America, which airs tonight on ABC. Stossel writes: "...we gave identical tests to high school students in New Jersey and in Belgium. The Belgian kids cleaned the American kids' clocks. The Belgian kids called the American students 'stupid.' We didn't pick smart kids to test in Europe and dumb kids in the United States. The American students attend an above-average school in New Jersey, and New Jersey's kids have test scores that are above average for America. The American boy who got the highest score told me: 'I'm shocked, 'cause it just shows how advanced they are compared to us.' The Belgians did better because their schools are better. At age ten, American students take an international test and score well above the international average. But by age fifteen, when students from forty countries are tested, the Americans place twenty-fifth. The longer kids stay in American schools, the worse they do in international competition. They do worse than kids from countries that spend much less money on education. This should come as no surprise once you remember that public education in the USA is a government monopoly. Don't like your public school? Tough. The school is terrible? Tough. Your taxes fund that school regardless of whether it's good or bad. That's why government monopolies routinely fail their customers." Stossel's program debuts tonight at 10:00 p.m. Eastern on ABC. Stossel's full column is here:
http://www.reason.com/hod/js011306.shtml

The problem with education in America is it is bullshit. It is full of teachers that make subpar look great and are tenured so they can't be removed teaching lesson plans they have been using for five years using books they have been using for even longer than five years. And on top of that, no one teaches shit anyone would actually want or need to know, they teach to bullshit tests designed to get the school more money to pay the administration.

Well, that is in Alabama at least, and Alabama is what? 48th on the ladder of best education?

Does this mean tax money in Belgium goes to schools that aren't government run?

Stossel is right. The destructive moment came when the government abolished apprenticeship and installed the caste system known as public schooling.

The problem with education in America is it is bullshit. It is full of teachers that make subpar look great and are tenured so they can't be removed teaching lesson plans they have been using for five years using books they have been using for even longer than five years. And on top of that, no one teaches shit anyone would actually want or need to know, they teach to bullshit tests designed to get the school more money to pay the administration.

Well, that is in Alabama at least, and Alabama is what? 48th on the ladder of best education?
That's pretty much everywhere, although Joisy ain't exactly the best locale to pick students from.

*Thanks God he was home-schooled, pwned the SAT two years early, and pwned college doubly so*

Does this mean tax money in Belgium goes to schools that aren't government run?
I think the point is that it is NOT the "mo (tax) money" issue it is constantly made out to be (i.e. "vouchers ar bad because they take money away from sub-par schools")

In New York City, it's "just about impossible" to fire a bad teacher, says schools chancellor Joel Klein. The new union contract offers slight relief, but it's still about 200 pages of bureaucracy. "We tolerate mediocrity," said Klein, because "people get paid the same, whether they're outstanding, average, or way below average." One teacher sent sexually oriented emails to "Cutie 101," his sixteen year old student. Klein couldn't fire him for years, "He hasn't taught, but we have had to pay him, because that's what's required under the contract."

They've paid him more than $300,000, and only after 6 years of litigation were they able to fire him. Klein employs dozens of teachers who he's afraid to let near the kids, so he has them sit in what they call "rubber rooms." This year he will spend twenty million dollars to warehouse teachers in five rubber rooms. It's an alternative to firing them. In the last four years, only two teachers out of 80,000 were fired for incompetence.

When I confronted Union president Randi Weingarten about that, she said, "they [the NYC school board] just don't want to do the work that's entailed." But the "work that's entailed" is so onerous that most principals just give up, or get bad teachers to transfer to another school. They even have a name for it: "the dance of the lemons."

The inability to fire the bad and reward the good is the biggest reason schools fail the kids. Lack of money is often cited the reason schools fail, but America doubled per pupil spending, adjusting for inflation, over the last 30 years. Test scores and graduation rates stayed flat. New York City now spends an extraordinary $11,000 per student. That's $220,000 for a classroom of twenty kids. Couldn't you hire two or three excellent teachers and do a better job with $220,000?

This should come as no surprise once you remember that public education in the USA is a government monopoly. Don't like your public school? Tough. The school is terrible? Tough. Your taxes fund that school regardless of whether it's good or bad. That's why government monopolies routinely fail their customers." Stossel's program debuts tonight at 10:00 p.m. Eastern on ABC. Stossel's full column is here:
http://www.reason.com/hod/js011306.shtml

So, the school they tested in Belgium was private, then?
For all I know, that vast majority of schools all over Europe are part of the "government monopoly" as well. There are even fewer private schools over here than there seem to be in the US, and in most countries, even if the school is private, it'll still have to teach according to the national curriculum...

So, the school they tested in Belgium was private, then?
For all I know, that vast majority of schools all over Europe are part of the "government monopoly" as well. There are even fewer private schools over here than there seem to be in the US, and in most countries, even if the school is private, it'll still have to teach according to the national curriculum...
No.

In Belgium, for example, the government funds education—at any school—but if the school can't attract students, it goes out of business. Belgian school principal Kaat Vandensavel told us she works hard to impress parents. "If we don't offer them what they want for their child, they won't come to our school." She constantly improves the teaching, "You can't afford ten teachers out of 160 that don't do their work, because the clients will know, and won't come to you again." "That's normal in Western Europe," Harvard economist Caroline Hoxby told me. "If schools don't perform well, a parent would never be trapped in that school in the same way you could be trapped in the U.S."

No.

So, what you are saying is that in the US, the government forces you to send kids to one particular school?

I'm from Germany myself. Almost all schools there are public, but once you get to secondary school (starting from 5th grade), you or your parents can decide which school you'll go to. I was under the impression that that was the case in the US as well?

So, what you are saying is that in the US, the government forces you to send kids to one particular school?Yes, essentially. (Unless you are rich enough to pay for a private school AND the taxes that go to pay for the public schools &/or Home-school) In fact, there are still remnants of Civil Rights Era "forced bussing" programs in effect where some students are forced to bus across town rather than go to their neighborhood school to ensure % "racial diversity".

I'm from Germany myself. Almost all schools there are public, but once you get to secondary school (starting from 5th grade), you or your parents can decide which school you'll go to. I was under the impression that that was the case in the US as well?I wish. And every time someone brings up the European model the Teachers Unions scream bloody murder because it would, in short order, force many many incompetent Teachers out of their rolls.

Rather than just bitch about how bad the US educational system is, why don't we just copy what works elsewhere, like in Belgium? Oh, and why don't we start holding parents accountable for their kid's lack of interest in education? Maybe if the parents of kids who don't study got a 5% tax penalty we could actually get them to encourage their kids to learn instead of just be popular.

So, what you are saying is that in the US, the government forces you to send kids to one particular school?

I'm from Germany myself. Almost all schools there are public, but once you get to secondary school (starting from 5th grade), you or your parents can decide which school you'll go to. I was under the impression that that was the case in the US as well?

It depends. You have the option of a private school if you can afford it. But, if you can't, all children under 16 (depending on the state) must go to their local public school.

Now, very gifted children might be able to go to whats called a magnate school, but thats usually only in the rich school districts and only works out for kids that went to good grammar (primary) schools.

Rather than just bitch about how bad the US educational system is, why don't we just copy what works elsewhere, like in Belgium? Oh, and why don't we start holding parents accountable for their kid's lack of interest in education? Maybe if the parents of kids who don't study got a 5% tax penalty we could actually get them to encourage their kids to learn instead of just be popular.

Something like that would be nice. Especially for the types of parents that sue schools after their kids are failed for cheating. And win.

Rather than just bitch about how bad the US educational system is, why don't we just copy what works elsewhere, like in Belgium? Oh, and why don't we start holding parents accountable for their kid's lack of interest in education? Maybe if the parents of kids who don't study got a 5% tax penalty we could actually get them to encourage their kids to learn instead of just be popular.
Works for me, doesn't work for the NEA/AFT. Go figure.

My freshman year of HS, I still had books that had the last president listed as Nixon.


Schools need a changin

Works for me, doesn't work for the NEA/AFT. Go figure.
Well, fuck 'em. I'm pro-union, but not at the expense of raising a generation of morons who will make sure our country is badly managed politically because they can't cast an intelligent vote. How the hell can we compete economically if our workforce can't read above a fifth grade level?

See, my mother did this bizarre activty called 'involvement'. She actually paid attention to what the school curriculum was, and made certain that I was not only meeting expectations, but exceeding them. especially in reading and mathematics.

Now you know where I get my crazy from. :p

See, my mother did this bizarre activty called 'involvement'. She actually paid attention to what the school curriculum was, and made certain that I was not only meeting expectations, but exceeding them. especially in reading and mathematics.

Now you know where I get my crazy from. :p
It seems alot of parents are involved, but not in their kid's academic life. They stress socializing and sports while ignoring the actual purpose for the kid's school attendence. I blame the wave of anti-intellectualism in our culture. People actually seem to celebrate stupidity and punish intelligence.

Well, fuck 'em. I'm pro-union, but not at the expense of raising a generation of morons who will make sure our country is badly managed politically because they can't cast an intelligent vote. How the hell can we compete economically if our workforce can't read above a fifth grade level?
I'm just waiting for NAZZ to come in screaming about how it's not the Union's fault, how we get the schools we vote for (i.e. it's all the school board's fault) etc.

My local school system - always screaming for money - just spent $66,000 on a consulting firm so they could have a pow-wow this week to find out what is wrong with the school. Gee, I wonder. :rolleyes:

Rather than just bitch about how bad the US educational system is, why don't we just copy what works elsewhere, like in Belgium? Oh, and why don't we start holding parents accountable for their kid's lack of interest in education? Maybe if the parents of kids who don't study got a 5% tax penalty we could actually get them to encourage their kids to learn instead of just be popular.
is this what they do in belgium?

is this what they do in belgium?
I'm not sure what they do in Belgium. Whatever it is we should copy it. The tax penalty idea is my own. Nobody seems to value education anymore.

I'm not sure what they do in Belgium. Whatever it is we should copy it. The tax penalty idea is my own. Nobody seems to value education anymore.
Vouchers would be a good start - nut Oh Noes! Somebody might use one to send their kid to a Catholic/Baptist/Jewish/Rastafarian school that uses non Union Teachers! :rolleyes:

Vouchers would be a good start - nut Oh Noes! Somebody might use one to send their kid to a Catholic/Baptist/Jewish/Rastafarian school that uses non Union Teachers! :rolleyes:
Is that what they do in Belgium?

Actually, the teachers at the Catholic schools I went to were union.

Here's a complaint:

Bussing! Bussing! Bussing! In order to satisfy the demographic urges of guilty white liberals, students have to ride on busses for obscene amounts of time to get to school instead of forcing the apathetic white conservatives to actually increase funding to poorer schools so they can actually establish decent teacher/student ratios and hire teachers as qualified as at the perky suburban schools that both groups of assholes' kids attend. *bleh*

I'm not sure what they do in Belgium. Whatever it is we should copy it. The tax penalty idea is my own. Nobody seems to value education anymore.

Quoth the linked article:
In Belgium, for example, the government funds education—at any school—but if the school can't attract students, it goes out of business. Belgian school principal Kaat Vandensavel told us she works hard to impress parents. "If we don't offer them what they want for their child, they won't come to our school." She constantly improves the teaching, "You can't afford ten teachers out of 160 that don't do their work, because the clients will know, and won't come to you again."
Sounds rather like a Voucher system to me...

I think the point is that it is NOT the "mo (tax) money" issue it is constantly made out to be (i.e. "vouchers ar bad because they take money away from sub-par schools")Well, it's true that vouchers are bad, but not for that reason. But I digress.

In New York City, it's "just about impossible" to fire a bad teacher, says schools chancellor Joel Klein. The new union contract offers slight relief, but it's still about 200 pages of bureaucracy.Seems like the schools shouldn't be signing contracts that make it "just about impossible" to fire bad teachers.

It seems alot of parents are involved, but not in their kid's academic life. They stress socializing and sports while ignoring the actual purpose for the kid's school attendence. I blame the wave of anti-intellectualism in our culture. People actually seem to celebrate stupidity and punish intelligence.

Ramen to that, dammit.

Well, it's true that vouchers are bad, but not for that reason. But I digress.

Seems like the schools shouldn't be signing contracts that make it "just about impossible" to fire bad teachers.But then the Union Strikes ("No Contract, No Work!") and the Parents Scream untill the Board relents.

Therefore, because the School Board (that you voted for) buckled under Union Pressure, it is the Voter's Fault, not the Union's, that there are stupid rules.

And that's the reality of Teacer Union Politics.

Quoth the linked article:

Sounds rather like a Voucher system to me...
OK then.

But then the Union Strikes ("No Contract, No Work!") and the Parents Scream untill the Board relents.

Therefore, because the School Board (that you voted for) buckled under Union Pressure, it is the Voter's Fault, not the Union's, that there are stupid rules.

And that's the reality of Teacer Union Politics.

Unions are such little bitches, sometimes....

More money goes toward kids with impairments than gifted kids in the states. I forgot the exact numbers but it's a ridiculous margin.

So most of the gifted kids end up dropping out in high school and while the slower children are coddled and finally able to attend a two year college. Yay for America!

*Glad he goes to a British school*
I don't know much about American schools, but I suggest that a engish style system would help, or a Europian one.

But then the Union Strikes ("No Contract, No Work!") and the Parents Scream untill the Board relents.Here in PA a teacher is required by law to work 180 out of 192 or so days a year or they get thrown in jail, so it would be a simple matter for the board to wait out a strike for the three weeks or so that it would happen. I assume NY has a similar law.

Unions are such little bitches, sometimes....
When they're needed, they are absolutely essential, but when they become part of the problem... :mad:

Stossel is right. The destructive moment came when the government abolished apprenticeship and installed the caste system known as public schooling.

Correct

More money goes toward kids with impairments than gifted kids in the states. I forgot the exact numbers but it's a ridiculous margin.

So most of the gifted kids end up dropping out in high school and while the slower children are coddled and finally able to attend a two year college. Yay for America!
I am afraid I have to agree. All students in special ed. have relatively significant behavioral or learning problems. Some just have them a grade or two behind where they should be, and can honestly be brought up to almsot where they should be with a good teacher; others have no business being in the public education labyrinth of bullshit. It isn't like more than half the shit you learn is even useful anyway. These students have teams of teachers and aides holding their hands through school under lowered requirements until they graduate knowing pretty much crap. But school is crap anyway.

Gifted students on the other hand get the shaft. I was lucky. Our school had a tech program at another building a few miles away, and the people who ran the place had a gifted program. Not that anything significant was done there, but we got out of the pointless bullshit of school. Now, a lot of gifted do not have dedicated classes, or even dedicated teachers. Gifted students are herded into basic classes or "honors" classes, which are just the more intense version of your average bullshit class. You still don't learn anything useful, but you dont learn it in a much more difficult way.

On a sidenote: Firefox 1.5 sucks. I have had it crash and freeze more times since I have installed than the entire time since I first started using Firefox.

John Stossel said something about this that put it in perfect context for me. This is not a quote, but basically what he said was, suppose one day the government decided to make all grocery stores government owned, because the right to eat, like the right to an education, is something the government has to guarantee to the people. Then the local government would tell you what grocery store you could go to, and you couldn't go to another "government" store, even if the store you were assigned to was a very bad store.

Without competition, the stores would go down hill very fast, and people would not put up with bad food, even if it was free, like they put up with a bad education, that is free.

He also said that it would make more sense if the money went with the pupil and let the kid pick any school he or she wanted to go to. Then there would be competition, even between the government ran schools.

Does this mean tax money in Belgium goes to schools that aren't government run?

:D

John Stossel said something about this that put it in perfect context for me. This is not a quote, but basically what he said was, suppose one day the government decided to make all grocery stores government owned, because the right to eat, like the right to an education, is something the government has to guarantee to the people. Then the local government would tell you what grocery store you could go to, and you couldn't go to another "government" store, even if the store you were assigned to was a very bad store.

Without competition, the stores would go down hill very fast, and people would not put up with bad food, even if it was free, like they put up with a bad education, that is free.

He also said that it would make more sense if the money went with the pupil and let the kid pick any school he or she wanted to go to. Then there would be competition, even between the government ran schools.

You could reform the "bad" grocery store since it is no longer privately owned. Now the school board, I mean group of grocery administrators, would control the curriculum, I mean product, to ensure that the students, err food, doesn't go rotten.

John Stossel said something about this that put it in perfect context for me. This is not a quote, but basically what he said was, suppose one day the government decided to make all grocery stores government owned, because the right to eat, like the right to an education, is something the government has to guarantee to the people. Then the local government would tell you what grocery store you could go to, and you couldn't go to another "government" store, even if the store you were assigned to was a very bad store.

Without competition, the stores would go down hill very fast, and people would not put up with bad food, even if it was free, like they put up with a bad education, that is free.

He also said that it would make more sense if the money went with the pupil and let the kid pick any school he or she wanted to go to. Then there would be competition, even between the government ran schools.

The fundamental problem with the idea of allowing privatised school, is that it can mean that schools may start competing on price rather than on quality, and that you could end up with a situation where rich kid's parents paying a bit extra out of their own pockets to get their child into the best schools, while the poor children have to make do with schools that no-one else wants to go to because both parents go to work full time, so it's a choice between the bad school or nothing. So they go to the bad school and the bad school gets the money from them and others who didn't have another choice, so it stays open.

I don't consider John Stossel a conservitive.

You could reform the "bad" grocery store since it is no longer privately owned. Now the school board, I mean group of grocery administrators, would control the curriculum, I mean product, to ensure that the students, err food, doesn't go rotten.
The school boards are full of incompent douches who send better teachers and things to schools for rich neighborhoods. Rich neighborhoods get better teachers, better books, and better facilities.

This is not a problem of government control, but a problem of control at the local level.

Personally i think that School funding is a disgrace. The uneveness is appaling, especially the 'rewards system' (Schools with the best marks get more money.)

In my area we have the 11+ and that means the top 30% go to Ermysteads, that means that, of course, Erymies gets more money that my own school. Espcially when the school has only 250 pupils. thus Ermies has new equipment, new sports hall, new everything. While Wharfedale are stuck in a school designed for 100 pupils with 30 year old portacabins. (No money to repace them.

Disgrace.

Oh, and why don't we start holding parents accountable for their kid's lack of interest in education? Maybe if the parents of kids who don't study got a 5% tax penalty we could actually get them to encourage their kids to learn instead of just be popular.

*snerk* What a silly idea.

Rather than just bitch about how bad the US educational system is, why don't we just copy what works elsewhere, like in Belgium? Oh, and why don't we start holding parents accountable for their kid's lack of interest in education? Maybe if the parents of kids who don't study got a 5% tax penalty we could actually get them to encourage their kids to learn instead of just be popular.
Would never go over. Even if it did, the parents who don't give a fuck arn't going to start giving a fuck because they are penalised, they are going to start taking their anger out on the child.

This should come as no surprise once you remember that public education in the USA is a government monopoly.
Sweden is fairly high (I think), but schooling is pretty much completely run by the state, except for some elite-schools.