The State of American Education.

[Chobham]

The problems with the US education system is many-faceted and has been going on for a long time. We’re talking decades.

One of the big ones of course is finances. It’s not only a lack of finances that is an issue, but it is a biggy. In times of economic downturns funding and budgets allocated to education are some of the ones that are usually slashed first, and funding is rarely restored or increased when economies improve. This results in less school staff and teachers, fewer programs and resources for students, and even deterioration of the school itself, as maintenance funds are just not there. All this, while costs per student are increasing, as well as the costs of running schools. State and federal governments along with local governments all have a stake in this, and all play a role in the under funding of schools and education.

Tied into this as well is teacher salaries. Although not every state has this issue , the majority of the states have seen teachers wages either decrease or remain stagnant at worst, or not increase at the rate of their similarly degreed counterparts. If the job don’t pay, their not gonna attract quality teachers.

And it’s not just about paying teachers more or throwing more money at a problem. How money is used in the education system is also a huge part of the problem. There are schools that have out of date libraries and technology, where hardware doesn’t support the current software, or the schools can’t afford the licenses for the software and platforms needed, but they have a state of the art football locker room, and field, and an oh-my-gawd-what-a-beautiful scoreboard. Of course the quarterback can’t read to a grade level four grades below his own.

You also have issues we’re funding has conditions tied to it, conditions imposed by a government who is not familiar with the region, or the needs specific to the area where the school resides.
In recent times you are also seeing conditions being placed on funding by government and those not involved in education, conditions motivated by political or religious beliefs. Funding conditional on not teaching accurate American history, as far as pilgrims and treatment of Indians, or slavery, for instance. Another is not educating students about evolution. Public educational funding should not be conditional on political or religious agendas, but has been.

Another issue is standardized testing. When funding has been tied to results of tests, you’ve seen schools lower standards in order to improve the appearance of results, or even outright lie about results, in order to obtain funds.
This is also led to teachers not having flexibility with the curriculum and instead having to ‘teach to the test’. Good test results being the ultimate goal, instead of quality education, and unfortunately test results don’t provide an accurate measure of overall learning or quality of curriculum. And because of this, students aren’t benefitting from learning about, or being exposed to methods of independent learning, which help them with comprehension, cognition, and memory.

Classroom sizes (number of students) as well as school closures are also big issues. Plenty of studies out there that demonstrate that smaller class sizes result in better student learning, especially in the K - 12 years.
Yes, there are usually limits on class sizes, but these too become a challenge when looking at accommodating budgetary constraints, or having to cut other programs like P.E. or the arts.
You also have situations where due to class sizes and numbers, students are being ‘passed’ onto the next grade for learning, instead of being held back or summer schooled. This results in almost half of students who actually graduate and receive a diploma not being able to competently read, comprehend, or solve math problems.

Some schools operate much the same as a mill…

Teacher tenure is also a hot-button issue. On one hand tenure brings experience, and protection from personal or politically motivated firing, and the ability to advocate for students and quality education. On the other hand tenure provides an environment where bad or ineffectual teachers are difficult to get rid of, or there is no pressure to perform or improve, and complacency sets in, and teaching standards are just maintained, at the barest minimum.

Parents are part of the problem as well. Many parents don’t know their kid’s teachers, or get involved in the school. Too many parents treat school like a daycare, or a place to assume some of their parental responsibilities. Learning doesn’t stop in the classroom, especially in the upper grades and in post-secondary school, but there are parents who don’t take interest to make sure homework is being done, or assisting with it if needed.

Another problem plaguing American schools is safety. The easy one to point out is school shootings, but let’s leave those for the multiple threads already covering the topic. Problems like bullying and sexual assault are serious problems occurring in elementary schools, and college and university campuses alike, and both have seen substantial increases - we’re talking multiples of 100% increases - over the last 15 to 20 years. When taking into account that the majority of assaults are not reported, numbers are staggering.

Politicians are aware of this as well, especially when you look at how over the last 20, 30 years there has been a shift and growing divide in how voters vote, with educated young people with college and post-graduate degrees voting Democrat versus those with less formal education voting Republican. Trump recognized this and even tried widening the divide, declaring “I love the poorly educated!” in his run towards becoming the GOP Presidential nominee. If one were to look at the ratio of poorly educated that make up his base of support, he definitely read the room well and played to his audience.

Verbose post I know, but really only the tip of the iceberg when looking at what it wrong with the American education system.

Oddly enough I tend to agree with much said this post................with caveats.

WRT funding. Some years ago I did a deep dive into the relationship of funding to SAT scores and found that there was actually an inverse relationship. The greater the per pupil per year funding, the lower the SAT scores. I will readily admit that there are some hidden components to this but in general the trend held. More recent research, not as deep shows that this trend still holds.

Another aspect is that my research showed that the same inverse relationship held for school district size. Now, there is a relationship between district size and funding and classroom size as well. The bigger the district the greater the per student funding and the larger the average classroom size. It should come as no surprise that the larger districts were colocated with large cities. This is a result of the district consolidation that took place after the creation of the Dept. of Education. The working theory behind that consolidation was that the schools would have a bigger chunk of change to work with, and that is true. The downstream effect was that those districts became extraordinarily top heavy with administration and administrative salaries. So although the districts showed more money available on a per student basis, when administrative overhead was deducted there was LESS money available on a per student basis. And that, in part, speaks to the inverse relationship I found in my research stated in my second paragraph.

Even within those large districts monies are not allocated equally among the various schools with those schools located in poorer portions of those districts receiving even less money per student. The tenure system starts to show itself here as well with the less qualified teachers, teachers that should really be let go, being assigned to those schools as well. The making of the perfect educational storm. Less money and poorer quality teachers assigned to those schools that would actually show that the exact opposite is required.

Re. the lowering of standards. I can think of no better example than the recent legislation in WA. state where the ability to pass the standardized test (regardless of how dumbed down that is) was eliminated from the requirement for graduation from High School. The openly stated reason for passage was that "black and latino students failed to pass the test in much higher numbers." Given that those minorities are clustered in the larger cities with the consolidated districts and live in the poorer areas subject to the phenomena that I spoke of in the preceding paragraph is it any wonder?

Then there is the curricula. More and more the schools, especially in those consolidated districts, are teaching material catering to those minorities. The original thought behind this was to bolster their "self-esteem." The result was to teach them that they were "victims." That they were not responsible for, or in control of, their lot in life, it was all someone else's fault. I submit to you that you can not on the one hand tell someone they aren't responsible and then turn around on the other hand and hold them responsible. Self-esteem comes from surmounting the hurdles placed before the individual in life, NOT from providing them a ready excuse for failure.

 

[Chobham]

Hey Chobham.. curious if you currently have kids in any aspect of the education system?

I just don’t get where you are getting this information from. It’s one thing to read nutters opining and whining about this or that but I just don’t get it.

I have a kid in middle school and one in college here in NY. Also my wife is a teacher in NYC schools. Aside from all NYC schools being day care facilities and kids acting out for lack of parents, none of what you’re saying makes any sense to me. You’d think NY being a bastion of liberal lefties we’d be inundated with this nonsense but it’s just not true.

Grandchildren spread from elementary up through college.

 

[YDB95]

When did I claim to not be a racist?

You're kidding, right?

 

[John_von_Neumann]

Another aspect is that my research...

Research? I'm calling bullshit. Unless your research consisted of breakfast with the crew at Denny's.

 

[icanhelp1]

Oddly enough I tend to agree with much said this post................with caveats.

WRT funding. Some years ago I did a deep dive into the relationship of funding to SAT scores and found that there was actually an inverse relationship. The greater the per pupil per year funding, the lower the SAT scores. I will readily admit that there are some hidden components to this but in general the trend held. More recent research, not as deep shows that this trend still holds.

Another aspect is that my research showed that the same inverse relationship held for school district size. Now, there is a relationship between district size and funding and classroom size as well. The bigger the district the greater the per student funding and the larger the average classroom size. It should come as no surprise that the larger districts were colocated with large cities. This is a result of the district consolidation that took place after the creation of the Dept. of Education. The working theory behind that consolidation was that the schools would have a bigger chunk of change to work with, and that is true. The downstream effect was that those districts became extraordinarily top heavy with administration and administrative salaries. So although the districts showed more money available on a per student basis, when administrative overhead was deducted there was LESS money available on a per student basis. And that, in part, speaks to the inverse relationship I found in my research stated in my second paragraph.

Even within those large districts monies are not allocated equally among the various schools with those schools located in poorer portions of those districts receiving even less money per student. The tenure system starts to show itself here as well with the less qualified teachers, teachers that should really be let go, being assigned to those schools as well. The making of the perfect educational storm. Less money and poorer quality teachers assigned to those schools that would actually show that the exact opposite is required.

Re. the lowering of standards. I can think of no better example than the recent legislation in WA. state where the ability to pass the standardized test (regardless of how dumbed down that is) was eliminated from the requirement for graduation from High School. The openly stated reason for passage was that "black and latino students failed to pass the test in much higher numbers." Given that those minorities are clustered in the larger cities with the consolidated districts and live in the poorer areas subject to the phenomena that I spoke of in the preceding paragraph is it any wonder?

Then there is the curricula. More and more the schools, especially in those consolidated districts, are teaching material catering to those minorities. The original thought behind this was to bolster their "self-esteem." The result was to teach them that they were "victims." That they were not responsible for, or in control of, their lot in life, it was all someone else's fault. I submit to you that you can not on the one hand tell someone they aren't responsible and then turn around on the other hand and hold them responsible. Self-esteem comes from surmounting the hurdles placed before the individual in life, NOT from providing them a ready excuse for failure.

 

[icanhelp1]

Iowa is on the right track, monies following the student and school choice. It’s time to disband the department of education.

 

[JohnEngelman]

You're kidding, right?

What have I said about the Negro race that is not true?

 

[ll74]

What have I said about the Negro race that is not true?

Amazing that you still can't own up to your racism.

 

[Chobham]

Amazing that you still can't own up to your racism.

The data that Engelman has provided is a FACT. So much so that it's written into the US Code.

Now, we can sit here and debate the reasons that the data reflects what it does, but you cannot argue against the data. You are not arguing against Engelman, you are arguing against going on 90 years of empirical data. The fact that Engelman has brought forth the data does NOT make him a racist.

 

[DeluxAuto]

The data that Engelman has provided is a FACT. So much so that it's written into the US Code.

Now, we can sit here and debate the reasons that the data reflects what it does, but you cannot argue against the data. You are not arguing against Engelman, you are arguing against going on 90 years of empirical data. The fact that Engelman has brought forth the data does NOT make him a racist.

He uses that data as proof that he's a better human being and worth more and that's what makes him racist.

 

[ll74]

The data that Engelman has provided is a FACT. So much so that it's written into the US Code.

Now, we can sit here and debate the reasons that the data reflects what it does, but you cannot argue against the data. You are not arguing against Engelman, you are arguing against going on 90 years of empirical data. The fact that Engelman has brought forth the data does NOT make him a racist.

He's a racist by definition. Races are not inherently superior or inferior. You can agree with him all you want.

 

[Chobham]

He's a racist by definition. Races are not inherently superior or inferior. You can agree with him all you want.

They are also not equal in ALL capabilities across the board. It's not a matter of 'superiority.'

 

[ll74]

They are also not equal in ALL capabilities across the board. It's not a matter of 'superiority.'

Whatever makes you feel good.

 

[JohnEngelman]

Amazing that you still can't own up to your racism.

You make racism sound like a bad thing. Why is it immoral to tell the truth about durable differences between the races in average ability levels and behavior?

 

[ll74]

You make racism sound like a bad thing. Why is it immoral to tell the truth about durable differences between the races in average ability levels and behavior?

It is a bad thing to me.

I never mentioned morality.

It's shitty to see people as less than or greater than because of their race

 

[Chobham]

Whatever makes you feel good.

The Ashkenazi Jews consistently test higher. Are they "superior" to me? Do they consider themselves "superior" to me? Should I start blaming my failures on "Ashkenazi Supremacy?"

Everyone seems to keep forgetting that those scores reflect the avg. across an entire group of humanity, only the individual counts.

 

[ll74]

The Ashkenazi Jews consistently test higher. Are they "superior" to me? Do they consider themselves "superior" to me? Should I start blaming my failures on "Ashkenazi Supremacy?"

Everyone seems to keep forgetting that those scores reflect the avg. across an entire group of humanity, only the individual counts.

There's nothing about blame in the definition of racism.

 

[JohnEngelman]

He doesn't care as much as you do about my posts.

Accept that you're a racist. There is no such thing as race realist.

If a racist is one who believes that his race is superior to all the others, the only people who have the right to be racists are Ashkenazi Jews.

------------

Richard Lynn, The Chosen People: A Study of Jewish Intelligence and Achievement, Washington Summit Publishers, 2011, 408 pp., book review by Byron M. Roth

The Chosen People: A study of Jewish Intelligence and Achievement is the most recent work of Richard Lynn dealing with group differences in IQ and their ramifications. As in all of his previous work over the past decade, he substantiates his arguments with huge quantities of empirical data. He advances his positions dispassionately and lets the facts speak for themselves... which they do in impressive, nearly irrefutable fashion. The Chosen People is a case study of one distinct group that has shown remarkably similar patterns of achievement in a wide variety of settings...

The development of IQ tests confirmed the impression that Jews were unusually intelligent, and Professor Lynn’s extensive review of the literature indicates that Jews in the US have an average IQ of 110 compared to 100 for other Europeans. This would help account for their outstanding performance in a variety of fields. Though Jews are only about 0.2 percent of the world population, half the world’s chess grandmasters, for example, and 16 percent of Nobel Prize winners for science have been Jews. For Professor Lynn, the purpose of his book “is to document and explain such achievements.” It would be a mistake to think that these are the accomplishments of all Jews, however, as they are mainly the achievements of Ashkenazi Jews, the Jews of Eastern Europe.

 

[ll74]

If a racist is one who believes that his race is superior to all the others, the only people who have the right to be racists are Ashkenazi Jews.

Not sure why you keep trying to change the definition of racism. Its in the dictionary and has been provided multiple times to you.

 

[JohnEngelman]

The Ashkenazi Jews consistently test higher. Are they "superior" to me? Do they consider themselves "superior" to me? Should I start blaming my failures on "Ashkenazi Supremacy?"

Everyone seems to keep forgetting that those scores reflect the avg. across an entire group of humanity, only the individual counts.

I have always been careful to talk about averages and tendencies, rather than absolute categories. There are stupid, promiscuous, white criminals.

There are also intelligent, monogamous, law abiding Negroes. They are credits to their race. Unfortunately, they are not typical of it.

 

[Rightguide]

the Chinese do not have teacher unions
why do our public sector unions make the Chinese so exceptional

The CCP runs everything in China.

 

[Emerson40]

The data that Engelman has provided is a FACT. So much so that it's written into the US Code.

Now, we can sit here and debate the reasons that the data reflects what it does, but you cannot argue against the data. You are not arguing against Engelman, you are arguing against going on 90 years of empirical data. The fact that Engelman has brought forth the data does NOT make him a racist.

How Engelman is using the data is a fallacy of incomplete evidence. He’s cherry picking a bit of data, incorporating it in with his obviously racist views, and presenting it as justification for his racist theories. The problem is he doesn’t look at all the available data, just the stuff that supports his racist POV.

It’s like when gun nuts claim more cars kill people than guns, then present latest numbers of gun deaths vs car deaths. They conveniently omit from their ‘findings’ that there are 3 times as many car owners than gun owners. A bit of cherry picking, for the sake of argument.

It is unsurprising you support his racist ramblings, as you do something similar when you post your racially skewed crime stats, citing the UCR as source material. When someone checks the UCR and finds your findings incomplete at best, and questions your ‘findings’, you claim you blend the UCR data with some of your own, researched data.
Cherry picking 101.

 

[ll74]

I have always been careful to talk about averages and tendencies, rather than absolute categories. There are stupid, promiscuous, white criminals.

There are also intelligent, monogamous, law abiding Negroes. They are credits to their race. Unfortunately, they are not typical of it.

Lol. Sure ya do. Gotta make sure you don't sound racist.

 

[JohnEngelman]

How Engelman is using the data is a fallacy of incomplete evidence. He’s cherry picking a bit of data, incorporating it in with his obviously racist views, and presenting it as justification for his racist theories. The problem is he doesn’t look at all the available data, just the stuff that supports his racist POV.

OK, Big Guy. Show me areas other than athletics, where Negroes tend to be superior to whites.

I am often accused of "cherry picking" as though the data I post about racial differences in average intelligence, as well as rates of crime and illegitimacy are somehow irrelevant.

 

[JohnEngelman]

Not sure why you keep trying to change the definition of racism. Its in the dictionary and has been provided multiple times to you.

Whenever you post your definition of racism I am able to show how it does not refer to me, not that I really care. When we have the dialogue on race President Clinton called for we need to talk about racial differences in average intelligence, crime, and illegitimacy, and how countries dominated by whites and Orientals differ from countries dominated by Negroes.