Public Schools - Bad for American Students?

Relambrien · 07-16-2007, 04:50 PM

I was browsing YouTube the other day and found a video of an episode of 20/20 titled "Stupid in America - How we Cheat our Kids." You can see it for yourself here. Yes, it's over a year old, but the principles still apply.

For those who don't wish to spend 40 minutes watching the video, here's a summary of it. I can't offer the evidence these claims are based on in this summary, though. You'll have to watch the video to see.

Public schooling in America is in shambles. Our high schoolers are doing extremely poorly on international tests compared to other countries, and our children aren't learning. Teachers and schools say they need more money, but that isn't the case. For instance, Belgium spends much less money per student than America (it's almost $10,000 in America, much less in Belgium) and they beat American kids into the ground on an international test. The Americans got an average score in the forty percent range, whereas the Belgians got an average score in the seventies.

Why is this? The theory is that because state-run public schooling is a monopoly, there is little incentive to encourage excellent teachers or fire poorly-performing teachers. Besides that, teachers' unions are powerful enough to make it nearly impossible to fire a teacher under any circumstances; one teacher who admitted to having inappropriate sexual conversations with one of his students took years to fire, all of which he was paid for.

Instead of spending money on the schools, perhaps money should be tied to each individual student, with vouchers. This means the amount of money a school receives is entirely dependent on the number of students who attend it. Parents will want to send their children to better schools (which they can afford with these vouchers), so the better schools will have more students, resulting in more money. This eliminates the current monopoly aspect, where based on your residence, your child has to go to a specific school unless you pay another, private school.

Charter schools are another method to avoid being shackled to one school, as they are legally considered "public schools" (and so they do not charge tuition) but do not have nearly as many restrictions as public schools do. As a result, however, they are often given less benefits from the state and other groups.

That's about everything of importance that comes to mind from that 20/20 episode. Personally, I agree with most of what it states. Due to teachers' unions and schooling based on residence, there is little incentive for a school and its teachers to perform well. The school will still receive its money since students have to go there, and teachers will be able to keep their jobs regardless of how horrible they are due to the power of their unions.

However, by introducing something called "competition" into the school system, nothing is guaranteed. This is the essence of capitalism. If parents could freely choose which school they want their students to attend, and could pay for it by attaching money to each student instead of the school, then the school would have to perform well in order to receive students. And the school will only receive money based on the students that go there, since the money is "tied" to the students themselves. Just like in any other industry, in order to get someone to buy your product, you have to make it better than the competition.

Essentially, it goes like this. Schools are paid based on the number of students they have. In order to get more students, the school has to become more appealing. In order to become more appealing, the school has to be better than other schools in the area. So by the chain rule of logic, schools are paid based on how good they are in comparison to other schools in the area.

What's everyone's opinion on the current public school system? If you agree that it needs massive reforms, then what would you suggest? If you disagree, please state why.

**devonin** · 07-16-2007, 05:27 PM

That video came up in a discussion of "grades" that turned into a discussion of "Home Schooling vs Public education" that turned into "The state of the education system" You can see it Here for interest and its effect on your question.

Relambrien · 07-16-2007, 06:08 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by devonin

That video came up in a discussion of "grades" that turned into a discussion of "Home Schooling vs Public education" that turned into "The state of the education system" You can see it Here for interest and its effect on your question.

Thanks for the link. When I was writing the OP, I kept thinking there was something done on this subject before, but I couldn't find it. I think I remember seeing that thread before, when I first started browsing the forums.

EDIT: I read over the thread, and it seemed to mainly focus on "Does public schooling have any benefit over home schooling?" Much of the discussion was about requirements to teach and whether they actually hold any importance. This does relate to what I wish to focus on here, but I want to tackle a larger picture.

With this thread, instead of talking about whether the requirements to teach are adequate, I would prefer to discuss whether the system as a whole is sound (being assigned a school, etc). Discuss alternative methods of public education (e.g. vouchers), ways to increase incentive for good teachers, what is necessary to make public education work, and things like that. I do recommend that visitors to this thread check out the thread devonin linked to, as whether teachers are being trained adequately is part of the question on whether the current American public school system is effective.

**talisman** · 07-16-2007, 06:18 PM

oh god careful you're getting close to pushing my john stossel button.

in any event, charter is NOT the solution... the charter system here in Cinci is in even worse shambles than the public system.

archbishopjabber · 07-16-2007, 11:53 PM

We simply aren't hard enough on our children. Instead of the no child left behind act, it should be the no child left ahead act. Children should have high academic standards set for them, and if they should do not reach these standards they should be shunned from society. Furthermore, school should be a privileged not a requirement. Anyone who is unwilling to put forth great effort to strive to achieve can be kicked out and become a ditch digger for the rest of their lives. The time has come to make the students do the work rather than have the government pull them through the system kicking and screaming. Let social Darwinism sort them out.

jewpinthethird · 07-17-2007, 01:58 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by archbishopjabber

We simply aren't hard enough on our children. Instead of the no child left behind act, it should be the no child left ahead act. Children should have high academic standards set for them, and if they should do not reach these standards they should be shunned from society. Furthermore, school should be a privileged not a requirement. Anyone who is unwilling to put forth great effort to strive to achieve can be kicked out and become a ditch digger for the rest of their lives. The time has come to make the students do the work rather than have the government pull them through the system kicking and screaming. Let social Darwinism sort them out.

Problem is, now you'd have a bunch of half-wits roaming around. You'd divide the society into the haves, and the have nots. There would be no middle class.

Worst. Idea. Ever.

Relambrien · 07-17-2007, 02:26 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by archbishopjabber

We simply aren't hard enough on our children. Instead of the no child left behind act, it should be the no child left ahead act. Children should have high academic standards set for them, and if they should do not reach these standards they should be shunned from society. Furthermore, school should be a privileged not a requirement. Anyone who is unwilling to put forth great effort to strive to achieve can be kicked out and become a ditch digger for the rest of their lives. The time has come to make the students do the work rather than have the government pull them through the system kicking and screaming. Let social Darwinism sort them out.

The problem isn't the children. Try and remember how you were when you started Kindergarten, or ask your parents if you can't. Is it safe to say you were excited about school and learning? According to my parents, I was. Dislike of school is learned, not inherent. This means the experiences the child is, well, experiencing cause the dislike of school and unwillingness to learn.

In other words, it's the fault of the school and the teachers that give the students the message, "School and learning are not fun or interesting." The goal should be to improve the standards for teachers. Better teachers can make any subject more interesting; I'm sure we all have experience with that. Any subject can be fun if you have the right teacher.

By improving the teachers, we can stop this message of "School isn't fun or interesting," and make the students -want- to learn. So now the question becomes, "What is the best way to increase the quality of teachers?" A couple of ideas come immediately to mind. The first is to increase the educational requirements to teach. The thread devonin linked to earlier discusses this somewhat.

Another idea is to grant the universal incentive: money. Pay better teachers higher salaries, and fire those that are subpar. In the 20/20 special I linked to in the OP, the CEO of GE (General Electric) details how he brought his company to the success it enjoys today. Fire the worst 10% of your workforce periodically. Because this is a relative standard, and not an absolute standard, competition is created. You have to be better than your peers if you want to keep your job, not better than some absolute value.

The way an absolute standard works is this: you could be the worst worker in the world, but as long as you meet certain requirements, you stay. Relative standards ensure competition by making it so that you can't just sit on your laurels, you have to be better than the others who will constantly improve to be better than you. Capitalism at its finest.

I can't think of any further ideas to improve the quality of teachers at this point, probably because it's late for me. Keep the discussion rolling.

Tails99 · 07-17-2007, 03:03 AM

Make it more fun? Problem with that is the government doesn't want smart people who think for themselves. They want a bunch of mindless idiots who will blindly follow them and support their hair-brained schemes. It's the way of the world. That's why they aren't hiring people to think stuff like that. They're too busy spending $1 Billion a day on a war.

Vlasic · 07-17-2007, 03:43 AM

I think it's complete bull**** that bad teachers can't just be fired and left without a job. I've seen bad teachers, I've been "taught" by some of them. The two science teachers for my freshman year were so bad that my school had to open an extra science class for 4 periods (out of 8) during 2nd semester. This class was for all the kids that failed and wouldn't get a credit for 1st semester science. It's things like this that ruin our so-called "great" nation.

The no child left behind act is only leaving more kids in the dust. Our president isn't exactly the brightest apple in the bunch.

Relambrien · 07-17-2007, 04:34 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by FRO

Yeah we can talk about inadequate funding and lackluster education, but the truth is, it really comes down to the students in the end. No matter how good the teachers are and how well-funded the schools are, it won't matter as long as the students' mentalities are as they are now in the United States. Way too many students suffer from a lack of self-motivation rather than from the environment they are learning in.

Take a look, for example, at students in China. In general, are the teachers any better? Is there more funding for education? No. The kids there simply want to learn more. They have the determination to succeed, and this is the reason they're doing so much better.

And why are the students not motivated? Oh I know! It's because school isn't interesting so therefore they lack motivation! A good teacher can make a subject interesting, thereby increasing motivation. Obviously a teacher isn't going to just completely reverse a student's mentality overnight, but if you can get teachers with enough skill to make their subject interesting, after a generation you'll see a massive change in the general mindsets of students.

Now of course this would have to happen on an extremely large scale to have much effect, which is highly unlikely. But national changes with relatively small effects would be a step in the right direction. For instance, have each public school select a number of their best teachers (maybe 5% of the school's total) each year, and then have the state pay for an increased salary for those teachers for that year. This increases incentive to actually make a class interesting, and more effort on the part of the teachers can only help.

SinkingHippo · 07-17-2007, 08:52 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by FRO

Yeah we can talk about inadequate funding and lackluster education, but the truth is, it really comes down to the students in the end. No matter how good the teachers are and how well-funded the schools are, it won't matter as long as the students' mentalities are as they are now in the United States. Way too many students suffer from a lack of self-motivation rather than from the environment they are learning in.

Take a look, for example, at students in China. In general, are the teachers any better? Is there more funding for education? No. The kids there simply want to learn more. They have the determination to succeed, and this is the reason they're doing so much better.

Exactly the problem! No one really cares about school.
Many high school students will say, "Yes, I want to go to college." But, the fact is- 80% of those students don't care or don't realize that school is what allows them to go to college. They may just barely slide by high school, but college, that's a different story.

Killer90_angel_Cat · 07-17-2007, 10:50 AM

sure some kids do wanna go to college but some jobs don't require you to go to college though like Vetrinary Technichan (what I wanna go for) and my cousin got the job without a college degree

Relambrien · 07-17-2007, 12:58 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by FRO

But I'm just saying that without self-motivation, no teacher, no matter how talented and engaging he or she is, will be able to get his or her students to excel.

Allow me to rephrase what I was saying.

New students (Kindergarteners) are essentially a blank slate when it comes to opinions on school. It's the teachers that write on that slate, "School is boring and I don't care about it." However, by instead writing "School is interesting and fun," these students become more self-motivated to do well, because they are -interested- in the subject matter.

I am in no way saying current students who don't care about school will suddenly start caring if the right teacher comes along. I'm saying that with the right teachers, students can develop a positive attitude towards school from the very beginning, becoming more self-motivated to pursue their education. After all, education would be fun and interesting.

Quote:

Originally Posted by SinkingHippo

Exactly the problem! No one really cares about school.
Many high school students will say, "Yes, I want to go to college." But, the fact is- 80% of those students don't care or don't realize that school is what allows them to go to college. They may just barely slide by high school, but college, that's a different story.

Once again, someone who's had the message "School sucks" engraved into their personal mindset over and over isn't going to just change magically overnight. By instituting education reforms now, we can ensure that the new generations of students will have a positive outlook towards school from the very beginning.

Now I found something interesting in an above post.

Quote:

Originally Posted by FRO

Do many students in the United States have even a fraction of the determination that those students in the East have? Again, no.

So you're saying that students in the East are -inherently- more motivated to do well than American students? As in, biologically? I sure hope not. The difference between the East and here is that in the East, it is made absolutely clear that without an education, you will fail. Big time. As in "never-going-to-have-a-job-or-a-home" big time. America, however, cannot convey this message truthfully. There are still several jobs a non high school graduate can obtain, and not all of them are working at McDonald's. Of course, there are countless better opportunities for those with education.

In short, there are two things which are causing problems in our public education system, lack of interest and lack of necessity.

As I've stated many times already, students just aren't interested in school, simply because their teachers can't be bothered to make school an interesting place to be, where you can learn interesting things. That's not the fault of the students.

As for lack of necessity, because America is a well-off country, living without a high school degree in relative comfort (compared to those in other countries) is entirely possible. The only way this could be changed to benefit the education system is to make life without an education completely impossible, like what FRO said. But would America really intentionally just let people fail without having some kind of help? There's soup kitchens for the poor, shelters for the homeless, welfare, etc. We aren't going to get rid of these things (and thereby make life without an education more difficult), causing unnecessary suffering for thousands, maybe millions, just so that we can fix something the government doesn't view as broken.

Nothing can be done about the lack of a necessity for education, because in doing so the other aspects of the country would be adversely affected. Instead, we need to focus on what we can do to change and improve the system. Increasing desire for education by hiring better teachers who can teach and hold interest is a start. The results wouldn't be immediate, of course. But 12 years after that sort of reform is completed, when the first Kindergarteners under the new teachers graduate, I think you'd see a massive difference.

Kilroy_x · 07-17-2007, 01:33 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Relambrien

So you're saying that students in the East are -inherently- more motivated to do well than American students? As in, biologically? I sure hope not.

Robert Ardrey might suggest so. The extent to which human beings are a Tabula Rasa to be socially influenced and the extent to which they are predetermined by prenatal conditions is still debated. Of course it's not only wrong but logically incoherent to state that human beings are entirely socially created, but then again people like Ardrey probably take the other paradigm a bit too far as well.

Anyways, learning species tend to have longer early life development periods because less is hardwired, so even if there are specific properties of Chinese that Americans largely lack, virtually anyone can learn, albeit to different degrees.

jewpinthethird · 07-17-2007, 04:55 PM

I've spent 15 years in the American Public School system (kindergarten-sophomore year of college), and I must say, it isn't as horrible a system as people play it out to be. Yes, it's flawed....horribly flawed, but for a majority of students, it's an adequate, well rounded system.

The function of high school is basically educate children on the fundamental knowledge they need to be successful in college...most importantly in the fields of Math and English. Unfortunately, this is where the system is flawed. Because there is very little funding as it is for public schools as it is, anything subject that isn't Math or English is considered "less important" and thus, has it's funding cut. The first to get their funding cut are usually the art classes (photo, art, theater, band) and the foreign language classes. What's worse is, electives are really the only time in a high school student's career that s/he can take a class that s/he truly wants to take. And when you cut electives, kids get discouraged about the school system.

I don't feel I was robbed of an education, though. People need to stop relying so much on the government and school system. People need to end the notion that it's the school's job to teach their children everything they need to survive in the "real world." Find out what the kid is passionate about, and encourage the kid to pursue further knowledge in the subject. If you are disappointed with the job your school is doing, don't sit around whining about it, waiting for someone to come along and point you in the right direction, get off your ass and pursue your own education.

I'm a music major at UCBerkeley. I didn't take any music courses in high school. I didn't take any music courses in community college. All my knowledge about music theory, harmony, rhythm, sound engineering, etc., I've done so on my own. I realize my limitations, and it's time I went more in depth in my music studies. It's all about self reliance. Those who want to a good education will strive for it.

Also, high school is a joke. You don't need good grades in high school to get into a good college if you are willing to go to a community college for two years to knock out your general education courses (with a good GPA = 3.5, at the least) and transferring into a 4 year university. Also, you won't have to take the SAT.

tsugomaru · 07-17-2007, 07:01 PM

Good schools are heavily dependent on rich parents.

The richer the parents, the better the school is. It's just that simple.

EDIT: Oh, this is CT. My reasoning is, schools have better funding when parents are able to pay for some of the school materials. In poorer places, no parent in the right mind would donate to the school when they have more important things to pay for such as for their home and food. However, in richer neighborhoods, if teachers ask for money to get some school materials, they'll get it.

My school receives very little funding from the government. Most of this money is spent towards school improvements. To be honest, it would be great to have a nicer learning environment. One where the water fountains actually work and one where the teachers don't have to yell in order to speak above the air conditioner/heater. As such, my school doesn't really have much money to spend on new text-books or supplies. Teachers will ask for a $15-20 donation from each parent to get what they need for the class and they'll get it! (Each teacher has about 100-120 students over a course of 5-6 periods).

~Tsugomaru

**Artic_counter** · 07-17-2007, 07:01 PM

I am myself in a private high school in Canada. My high school is near to a public high school and if we compare the two it would give that result:

Private school:
-There is 634 (or something like that) students at this school.
-It cost more money to enter than a public school.
-We have to pass a big Exam on almost everythings and pass it to study there.
-Many teachers are better and more competent than somes at the public school.
-We have more laws and there is more discipline.
-We have more advance class than public school.

Public school:
-There is 2000 (I think this number is higher) students at this school.
-It cost less money to enter than a private school. This is a reason why there is more people at this school.
-We don't have to pass an exam, everybody can enter. This is a reason why there is more people at this school.
-Some teachers are a not as good as my private high school. (They are good but there is a little difference between them and those at the private school).
-There is more vandalism. They have some laws but they are not respected. There is some illegals drugs there and not at my high school (if there is, it's not known). Many people take them and many people know there is a lot at this school. There is many teenager smoking there.
-The things that they teach there is not as advance as the private school.

P.S.: I've been to both schools and i know what I'm talking about.

I don't know if it's the same in America but for those reason private schools are a lot better. They teach you more things and are in many way better.

P.S.: The schools I refered to are them. I only take 2 of them but there is 4 near where I live.

Private schools (They have a lot more good reputation than public schools):
-Académie Antoine-Manseau (most know as "AAM" or "l'académie")
-Esthère Bondin (most known as "St-Jacque")

Public schools:
-Thérèse Martin (most known as "TM")
-Barthelémie Joliette (most known as "Bateau")

These are French speaking schools but we also learn English there.

Maid · 07-17-2007, 07:25 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Artic_counter

I am myself in a private high school in Canada. My high school is near to a public high school and if we compare the two it would give that result:

Private school:
-There is 634 (or something like that) students at this school.
-It cost more money to enter than a public school.
-We have to pass a big Exam on almost everythings and pass it to study there.
-Many teachers are better and more competent than somes at the public school.
-We have more laws and there is more discipline.
-We have more advance class than public school.

Public school:
-There is 2000 (I think this number is higher) students at this school.
-It cost less money to enter than a private school. This is a reason why there is more people at this school.
-We don't have to pass an exam, everybody can enter. This is a reason why there is more people at this school.
-Some teachers are a not as good as my private high school. (They are good but there is a little difference between them and those at the private school).
-There is more vandalism. They have some laws but they are not respected. There is some illegals drugs there and not at my high school (if there is, it's not known). Many people take them and many people know there is a lot at this school. There is many teenager smoking there.
-The things that they teach there is not as advance as the private school.

P.S.: I've been to both schools and i know what I'm talking about.

I don't know if it's the same in America but for those reason private schools are a lot better. They teach you more things and are in many way better.

P.S.: The schools I refered to are them. I only take 2 of them but there is 4 near where I live.

Private schools (They have a lot more good reputation than public schools):
-Académie Antoine-Manseau (most know as "AAM" or "l'académie")
-Esthère Bondin (most known as "St-Jacque")

Public schools:
-Thérèse Martin (most known as "TM")
-Barthelémie Joliette (most known as "Bateau")

These are French speaking schools but we also learn English there.

Some private schools are great and all, but only if you are blessed with parents that are able to afford it.

slipstrike0159 · 07-19-2007, 12:07 AM

I only skimmed over the posts after the first one so sorry if it has already been said but...

First of all, it is a HORRIBLE idea to make the schools only get money for the students that come because one of two things will result. A: There will be a couple "Elite" schools with the higher classed students which means there will be the other schools which will be filled with the "worse" students which brings those schools to be 10 times worse than public schools are now. That would also seperate them into being high class or low class. Or B: Everyone jumps aboard the schools that actually CAN make their circumstances better and the other schools that cant fizzle out and die from lack of students to support their funding. This would lead to there ONLY being a couple schools which brings a spacing issues and would eventually lead right back to the point they are in right now.

Second of all, you are kidding yourself if you think that teachers are "almost immune to being fired" because i have seen several teachers fired in my public high school over the past couple years.

Third, maybe a FEW public schools are in bad conditions but for the most part they are doing exactly what they are designed to do. Teach us discipline and work ethic so that we will do well in our jobs. When you think about it, all the schools actually do is teach us how to function in the world of work so that we arent thrown into total anarchy. The fact that we learn somewhat irrelevant things during the whole thing is just a plus.

Finally, the old addage that "american kids are dumber than other countries kids" is getting rather old. While it is true that students in other countries have to fight a little more for their education and chance to excel DOESNT contribute anything that has to do with them being better. We have produced many brilliant minds in the US which help us progress, if everyone was just retarded in the US because of the education system then we wouldnt be getting ANYWHERE. Also, in some countries they have no where near the choices that we have, they may have a higher percent pass rate or whatever but the fact remains that in the US the students are more rounded and learn a variety of things so that they can choose what they would like to do later in life.

Basically, all school is about is to learn how to work, and work is the basis of our lives since we cant live without a steady income and means to cope with society.

Relambrien · 07-19-2007, 01:45 AM

slipstrike, did you even watch the video?

Quote: