Is America's failing education system going to impact our economy in 10 years' time?

[Bynary Fission]

Re: Is America's failing education system going to impact our economy in 10 years' ti

@tsugamaru: Thanks. I do understand what point you were making. Some people do need to get a job. Just not everybody. .

Jewpin has a point. People make school try to be a one-size-fit-all type of thing. It can't be. Now I speak from a tiny minority of the population that NEEDS personalized education. I have autism, and while I do quite well in the public education system, doing it my way increases my output and performance ten-fold. Sometimes, I even think public school hinders me. Most kids with my condition do horribly in public school, and many suffer. I know this from the books I've read and from personal experience. Some students just need something different, and not just the one-size-fits-all curriculum. This can be a result of a whole host of reasons, and I am not privy to say what they are, as most are probably personal and tailored to each individual.

Dropouts are the minority, but with the education system lagging more and more, the number of kids who can't get a good education are rising. Tuition prices are also on the rise, and this does not help the situation.



~Bynary Fission

[lord_carbo]

Re: Is America's failing education system going to impact our economy in 10 years' ti

I agree with Carbo, our colleges are some of the best in the world. There's a reason it is competitive to get into a good college, because not everybody is an high school drop out.

To add, the competition makes it so most of the time, the best go to the best colleges. Public schools operate on geographical monopolies. It's a "tough luck" situation bound by the area you live in. You get a cultural gradient in public schools: the smartest and the dumbest available.

This is unless you apply to the limited selection of private schooling available. It's not like you can send your kid halfway across the country to attend the "best private school in America" or something like that. And that's where our colleges do good and it's competitive. Many students move all over the place to go to college. The market becomes national. People outside of major cities are usually subject to an oligopoly of private education.

I agree that public schools tend toward a one-size-fits-all thing and it's a problem that will certainly affect us in the future. The question is, what's the solution? Encourage diverse curricula? Vouchers? Anything else?

[Bynary Fission]

Re: Is America's failing education system going to impact our economy in 10 years' ti

Personalized curricula is not feasible, you know that. But splitting up classes into different levels and sizes would be beneficial. You would need more teachers, yes. It would not be something that could be done overnight. But some high-end schools should have such a program, as it is advantageous to those who do not learn quickly, or learn much faster. It's like a PC. If you leave it as is, then you only get so much performance out of it. But if you overclock it, then you get a lot more performance. See my analogy? Kids who are put in programs tailored to their needs will be able to maximize output. However, our government

1. Is a fascist, almost kleptocratic monster that invades our lives and serves themselves at our expense
2. Won't help hire new teachers
3. Harms us with every program they pass (See No Child Left Behind and Zero Tolerance Policy. I call it the Zero Intelligence Policy and Leave All Children Behind Policy.)

While that will probably not be achieved soon, if ever, we need to make the best of what we have. We should certainly try and make school less of a one-size-fits-all educational facility and more diversified, so kids who need help can be helped, and those who are advanced can get more advanced classes, and so forth.



~Bynary Fission

[Dark Ronin]

Re: Is America's failing education system going to impact our economy in 10 years' ti

America’s failing education system? I really don’t see it as failing at all. I understand that I really only know how my area works, but the curricula at every school in my area is constantly getting more and more difficult with each year. The class I graduated had the highest percentage of students to enter college and do well. It is possible that we are a statistical anomaly but I haven’t seen any evidence of it. Besides nearly every nation has students who would rather go to school here. I do know that Japan has exceptionally high standards, but we are still top notch. People from across the globe come here to take classes in our colleges.

Even if our educational systems were failing it wouldn’t be the schools fault. It would be our fault. Teaching is one of the easiest fields to get into. You can take all the simple remedial classes just barely pass with a D- and still become a teacher without much work at all. Many teachers I know were among the bottom 20% of their high school classes. Nearly anyone who does well goes into the higher paying jobs. Sure some have a passion for teaching and some of the people in the lower 20% pick it up in college, but that doesn’t change the facts. Perhaps if teachers were paid better? College professors at places like Harvard are paid well, while other schools that no one has heard of have very poorly paid professors, who are generally not as good.

Another big problem would be the students. Schools are very prone to violence, and slacking is the “cool” thing to do. Its part of our culture. Japan doesn’t have nearly any of the same problems we do in their schools. But culture isn’t easily changed, of course that means it couldn’t have changed much in the past, so if our culture hasn’t changed it couldn’t be the reason for any of the problems yet its still the only excuse I can come up with. I would love to see a link to some sort of statistics on the matter.

[Bynary Fission]

Re: Is America's failing education system going to impact our economy in 10 years' ti

Google "Is America's education system failing?" without the quotes. Out of the first 20 that came up, nearly every link provided said it was failing. A few didn't or led to something else, like Wikipedia. If that many links supports my answer, then obviously something is seriously wrong. I've seen for myself what both public AND private schools are like. And boy, is there a difference! I didn't get to be in a private high school (I'm in 9th grade anyways), so I can't comment on it. But what I did experience in middle school, elementary school, and kindergarten in both types of schools was vastly different. There IS something going on...I would almost say the school system is maligned...from a twisted government that tries to control it.

The colleges are far better, yes. I certainly agree with the notion that they are some of the world's best. But guess what? They aren't funded or controlled by the government. Surprise, surprise. They are independently funded, and thus they get to choose their own curricula and methods of teaching. Look what it brings. They are some of the world's best colleges and universities, those that countless people try to get into each year. Notice a correlation? Government funded: Crappy. Independently funded: Fabulous.


~Bynary Fission

[jewpinthethird]

Re: Is America's failing education system going to impact our economy in 10 years' ti

I agree that public schools tend toward a one-size-fits-all thing and it's a problem that will certainly affect us in the future. The question is, what's the solution? Encourage diverse curricula? Vouchers? Anything else?

Well, I don't think there is an easy solution. I am against vouchers because I don't believe schools should be run like businesses and voucher programs are abused by those who already have a means to pay for private school. Also, vouchers invite the government into previously private institutions. I have nothing against private schools, but they should not receive any tax-payer money from the government.

I think a diverse curricula would be more beneficial. Such as providing various routes for students to graduate from high school. For example: receiving high school credit for vocational training, as well as greater cooperation between high schools and community colleges in providing an accelerated path of graduation.

Unfortunately, the way I see it, publics schools are being run like businesses due to a lack in funds. As such, schools cut programs that don't make them money (languages, arts, music, sciences) in favor of those courses which students tested on: mainly math and English (the higher a school scores on standardized tests, the more money they receive). However, you do not see cuts in extracurricular programs like football...because football games are a large source of revenue for schools despite the fact that it has nothing to do with education.

So what am I saying? Increase funding for public education. Teachers are worn thin as it is: over-sized class rooms, outdated material, and low pay do not make a good education system. We are robbing children of a decent education because this administration (and other state governments) don't see the importance of an well-educated majority. Now, I'm not conspiracy theorist, but I'd be really wary of a government that spends more money on starting wars than it does educating its children.

[Kilroy_x]

Re: Is America's failing education system going to impact our economy in 10 years' ti

I am against vouchers because I don't believe schools should be run like businesses

Why?

and voucher programs are abused by those who already have a means to pay for private school.

How?

Also, vouchers invite the government into previously private institutions.

How?

I have nothing against private schools, but they should not receive any tax-payer money from the government.

Why?

I think a diverse curricula would be more beneficial. Such as providing various routes for students to graduate from high school. For example: receiving high school credit for vocational training, as well as greater cooperation between high schools and community colleges in providing an accelerated path of graduation.

The two things aren't exclusive.

Unfortunately, the way I see it, publics schools are being run like businesses due to a lack in funds. As such, schools cut programs that don't make them money (languages, arts, music, sciences) in favor of those courses which students tested on: mainly math and English (the higher a school scores on standardized tests, the more money they receive). However, you do not see cuts in extracurricular programs like football...because football games are a large source of revenue for schools despite the fact that it has nothing to do with education.

Revenue will always be a factor. You're ignoring other factors which are controllable, like curriculum standards which artificially value Math and English to the point that an inordinate amount of funding needs to go to them.

So what am I saying? Increase funding for public education.

This won't do anything.

Teachers are worn thin as it is: over-sized class rooms, outdated material, and low pay do not make a good education system.

Do you think the countless countries which surpass us in education have small class sizes, the newest materials and high salaries? These things aren't significant. You need to look for your opinions somewhere other than the teacher's unions. If a teacher wants to complain about their sinecures then maybe they should look at the lifestyles of people who actually work for a living first.

We are robbing children of a decent education because this administration (and other state governments) don't see the importance of an well-educated majority.

A well educated majority is impossible. Our colleges are already filled with incompetent professors due to a surplus of graduate degrees brought on by the intervention of a well meaning government.

Half your statements sound meaningless and the other half baseless. Try fleshing them out. I hope for your sake that you can.

[lord_carbo]

Re: Is America's failing education system going to impact our economy in 10 years' ti

@Jewp: The problem with giving more money to schools is that the money doesn't go to better education. Case in point: Kansas City. Billions more was given to the district, and grades didn't increase at all.

We pay twice as much adjusted for inflation than 30 years ago but grades have barely budged.

As Thomas Sowell says about college education and finances, "Very often the case if made to the legislature and the public that the students deserve a better education but, after the money is appropriated, most of the additional money may go to raise faculty salaries, reduce teaching loads, or finance more research projects." He observes that average joint costs are impossible to compute, but marginal costs are. And when they are computed, it's not very favorable. See, schools only have to do "well enough." There are no incentives to better than that because public schools do not depend on doing well to get money. This creates an inefficient use of resources. In the same chapter, he notes that before WWII, hundreds of black chemists were hired in the private industries, while every single major university hired none. They could do what was trendy at the time. The private institutes needed to get the best they could, and because black chemists were seldom hired by public institutes which didn't need to be efficient, the private institutes saw the economic advantages in hiring neglected yet talented black chemists. Even in an era filled with racism, affirmative action wasn't needed to hire these people, only incentives for profit. He says it clearly: "Discrimination entails costs on the discriminators." Now public institutes will tend to hire more than necessary due to affirmative action and its trendiness, and the costs are borne by others.

If you're against running schools like a business, then you may like Obama's plan (well, at least the part that doesn't call for more of the same): pay teachers much more based on their quality.

Many districts pay teachers the same amount. This perpetuates a "Market for Lemons," as explained by Nobel Prize-winning economist Akerlof--basically, there are less good teachers because the demands for good and bad teachers are the same due to "asymmetrical information," meaning that the administrators don't know (and because of monopoly power, don't care) who they are hiring and all teachers get paid the same anyway. (If you don't know what I'm talking about, Google it.) Well basically, if teachers could be graded somehow on their quality, they'd have an incentive to perform better. This is the same principle behind voucher programs, but on a much smaller scale, and on one that people like you could probably get behind.

Monopolies are always inefficient. Always.

A well educated majority is impossible. Our colleges are already filled with incompetent professors due to a surplus of graduate degrees brought on by the intervention of a well meaning government.

If you ever see Thomas Sowell's Economic Facts and Fallacies in a bookstore (the lovely book I was referencing earlier in this post), sit down, buy a cup of coffee, and read the chapter titled "Academic Facts and Fallacies." It will blow your mind. Summary of chapter: colleges behave stupidly, your professors suck, your colleges need to do worse to seem better, colleges are very profit motivated despite being "non-profit," your professors suck, Harvard and other elite colleges are overrated, nobody in the system really gives a **** about what is going on, and your professors really suck.

[Bynary Fission]

Re: Is America's failing education system going to impact our economy in 10 years' ti

I say school needs to be made much harder, and punishments twice as severe. Kids today are immature, puerile, unappreciative brats who don't care about anything that they are given, which DOES include education. Their incorrigible attitude only compounds the issue. If kids were made to realize what they were doing wrong and punished for it should they knowingly break rules, they might shape up. MIGHT. I've seen countless kids sent to the dean's office and punished, only to be back in the class in no time doing the same old things, obviously not having learned anything.

I do feel bad for the teachers that are overworked and underpaid. Teachers deserve to be paid upwards of 100,000$ for the hardest positions, like college. Maybe, if students were shown how they hurt their teachers with their laziness and lack of work ethic, it may touch them enough to motivate them to work harder. But very few kids seem to truly understand how they feel. I feel for them.

If students were shown how they harm those around them (And not just teachers) with their attitudes, I think it would really make a change in them (Not to repeat what I just stated). I have seen what happens to overworked teachers, and it isn't pretty. Some choose not to care anymore. Others decide to become excessively lax, and others become rigid and severe. I've seen all three, and I feel bad when it happens, because I know that the teacher has endured so many years of hardship that they can't take it anymore.

For the kids that do care, they make the future brighter for America and for the world. Unfortunately, the world is running out of these children, who are being replaced by overweight, unintelligent slackers with complacent, care-free parents. Who knows what'll happen. It may suddenly turn around as things reach their climax, or it may continue to descend until the nation collapses. As more people are birthed, more intelligent people enter the world. But many more slackers are born alongside him.


~Bynary Fission

[lord_carbo]

Re: Is America's failing education system going to impact our economy in 10 years' ti

Unfortunately compassion and caring only sounds good on paper. It works lousily in both theory and practice, however, because there are few incentives for schools to do better, for teachers to do better.

The notion that increases pay increases incentives for more qualified teachers to teach completely contradicts research and theory on asymmetrical information and--worse--on basic labor market theory: we'd have a surplus of laborers. Teachers are too vast in unmeasurable and unknown qualities to compare, and certainly more pay for all teachers will seldom encourage schools to make sure they're getting the best. This is arguably true for all workers but especially for teachers, where every single quality is crucial as teaching is an open, social profession and little to no prior experience is often held. It's an inefficient method that creates more problems than it solves because subsidized schools have no reason to protect themselves from this type of enormous overspending, which eventually just leads back to the low "equilibrium" quality. As stated in the Market for Lemons paper, you can never buy a good used car.

The notion that teachers deserve more money need not be true because the economy is a system for trades to operate--not a moral machine where people should determine the value of a voluntary trade in which teachers willingly subject themselves to the pay they get. Maybe teachers are getting underpaid. So? Then why do they insist on working? If anything, tenured and unionized teachers are given too many protections. It's the good teachers that aren't paid enough, and the bad teachers that are paid too much. Unions discourage stand-outs in the workplace and demand equal and "fair" wages. That's essentially what a union is: a big collection of people acting as one voice. But people aren't different.

[jecht3009046]

Re: Is America's failing education system going to impact our economy in 10 years' ti

As a specific example supporting the statement that America's education is failing, the high school I recently graduated from has formed a new rule that teachers cannot, for any reason, assign a grade lower than 50% on any assignment. Reason being: Grades lower than 50% 'demotivate' kids. So far, only one teacher who happened to me my Government teacher (a really smart guy) has opposed the rule and has been stuck down quite severely by the school board.

As for the results of America's "failing" education, outsourcing jobs in the medical, science, and higher tech fields will continue to increase, along with insourcing of employees for jobs that cannot easily be outsourced.

A cause of that, a BS (Bachelor of Science) degree is already basically bs. If one doesn't pursue a Masters degree or higher in many similar fields, disappointment is surely in the near future.

[Bynary Fission]

Re: Is America's failing education system going to impact our economy in 10 years' ti

As a specific example supporting the statement that America's education is failing, the high school I recently graduated from has formed a new rule that teachers cannot, for any reason, assign a grade lower than 50% on any assignment. Reason being: Grades lower than 50% 'demotivate' kids.

Lmfao. That's gotta be the stupidest thing thats ever been passed in a school. I hope the brain-dead morons that passed that rule drop dead. Literally. All they are doing is letting those kids get a free ride through school, and in turn that will destroy the education that they were originally motivated to receive. After all, you have to put almost no effort to pass. All you have to do is get 20% of the assignment correct to pass. What a joke.

As for the results of America's "failing" education, outsourcing jobs in the medical, science, and higher tech fields will continue to increase, along with insourcing of employees for jobs that cannot easily be outsourced.

A cause of that, a BS (Bachelor of Science) degree is already basically bs. If one doesn't pursue a Masters degree or higher in many similar fields, disappointment is surely in the near future.

Well regardless of what degree you get, some teachers don't do a good job no matter what. For some jobs, like teaching, a degree is only a measure of how much you learned in school. It doesn't measure how good of a teacher you are. Some teachers with a bachelor's degree do far better than their PhD counterparts.

Unfortunately compassion and caring only sounds good on paper. It works lousily in both theory and practice, however, because there are few incentives for schools to do better, for teachers to do better.

The notion that increases pay increases incentives for more qualified teachers to teach completely contradicts research and theory on asymmetrical information and--worse--on basic labor market theory: we'd have a surplus of laborers. Teachers are too vast in unmeasurable and unknown qualities to compare, and certainly more pay for all teachers will seldom encourage schools to make sure they're getting the best. This is arguably true for all workers but especially for teachers, where every single quality is crucial as teaching is an open, social profession and little to no prior experience is often held. It's an inefficient method that creates more problems than it solves because subsidized schools have no reason to protect themselves from this type of enormous overspending, which eventually just leads back to the low "equilibrium" quality. As stated in the Market for Lemons paper, you can never buy a good used car.

Well said. But I should have made myself more clear: while many teachers do deserve to be paid more, they should also be recognized for the efforts they are making. For the few bad apples in the pile, they need to have some of their pay docked. That money should either go to the teachers that deserve it, or it should be put back into the budget where it can be put to better use (At least I hope it will). The teachers who teach don't teach for the money. They want to make a difference in their student's lives. They want to help ensure that their future is secured, and that the student will follow what the teacher has taught them throughout their lives and apply it to themselves, so that they become a better individual. These teachers don't seek the monetary rewards alone; they seek and reap the moral and spiritual benefits as well. Teachers should be paid based on their ability to teach, yes. But making the salary a stable figure for most teachers is also a priority if we wish to pay our teachers fairly, and help reach equilibrium in that area.

The notion that teachers deserve more money need not be true because the economy is a system for trades to operate--not a moral machine where people should determine the value of a voluntary trade in which teachers willingly subject themselves to the pay they get. Maybe teachers are getting underpaid. So? Then why do they insist on working? If anything, tenured and unionized teachers are given too many protections. It's the good teachers that aren't paid enough, and the bad teachers that are paid too much. Unions discourage stand-outs in the workplace and demand equal and "fair" wages. That's essentially what a union is: a big collection of people acting as one voice. But people aren't different.

I know that. Teachers work for a reason, and I stated it well enough above. But it isn't fair that people who work in such a critically important job get so underpaid. Teachers are actually in extremely short supply in many areas, and in some places like New Jersey, the average teacher makes a six-figure income.

Maybe teachers are getting underpaid. So? Then why do they insist on working?

If you were around teachers who were overworked and underpaid, and felt the emotional strain that they are consistently burdened with, I'm sure you would not have made that statement. To say that trivializes the issue. Being a teacher is not like being a nuclear physicist, or an engineer, or an architect. The people are the ones who make society run. Without them, society would collapse. And believe me, we don't have a lot of teachers in a LOT of places. A lot of people do not want to be a teacher because of it's low pay, they get treated badly by many of their students, and the job itself is often very hard. Now teachers are not in critically low supply, but it isn't an attractive job. I know pay is not determined by a job's moral significance. However, when they try to speak out, say, in a union, then it can just get them outright fired. It's despicable and morally depraved as to how these people are treated.

I think I have been going on too long in this post. To make my point, teachers are treated like garbage much of the time. They are underpaid and have to deal with a bucketload of kids everyday, many of which don't make their jobs easier. Some cannot handle it, and will stop giving kids any decent education. The students have a role in America's failing education. Some teachers play a part. And America itself does as well. This is a complex issue comprising of many layers. To fix the problem isn't easy, and there is no one solution to the crisis. But we can begin by taking government involvement out of schools, giving them adequate funding, treating our teachers better, and motivating kids. America needs to pay full attention to this matter, and action has been belated for too long.

P.S. lord_carlo, I think you meant to say "But people are different.

[tsugomaru]

Re: Is America's failing education system going to impact our economy in 10 years' ti

College professors do not have to be good teachers, they are only required to teach in addition to the research they have to do. Teachers at schools have to attain a teaching degree and no doubt they will pick up a thing or two while attaining their degree.

~Tsugomaru

[devonin]

Re: Is America's failing education system going to impact our economy in 10 years' ti

College professors do not have to be good teachers, they are only required to teach in addition to the research they have to do. Teachers at schools have to attain a teaching degree and no doubt they will pick up a thing or two while attaining their degree.

~Tsugomaru

That you don't need a B.Ed to teach at the college/university level seems a little ridiculous to me. Pretty much every really great professor I've had in university took the time to get a B.Ed so they could learn how to teach properly.

I've had some of the most brilliant teachers and professors you could ever want, and they can't teach worth a damn, so all that knowledge doesn't get passed on in a worthwhile way, and you don't learn enough.

My brother had a computer/tech teacher in highschool who used to work for NASA, guy knew just about all there was to know about his field, but because he never learned how to teach (This was back when computer teachers were an exception and didn't need a B.Ed [This was also far enugh back that the course was called "Lab 2000" probably with an exclamation mark]) he turned all kinds of kids right off of getting into technology fields.

[lord_carbo]

Re: Is America's failing education system going to impact our economy in 10 years' ti

That you don't need a B.Ed to teach at the college/university level seems a little ridiculous to me. Pretty much every really great professor I've had in university took the time to get a B.Ed so they could learn how to teach properly.

Colleges don't have any market incentive to hire "really great professors" in terms of teaching. If there were, then that would be a de facto requirement by the market. Professors only need to provide good research, and nontenured professors who are popular with students often put too much emphasis on their teaching to be likable by whom they are hired. Nontenured professors too strict in their grading get bad reviews from students, leading them to be fired. The traits of an eventually tenured professor: grade inflation and lousy teaching. It's for these reason that for young teachers, the "teacher of the year" award is called "the kiss of death. They don't have enough time to create high quality lectures and provide the research required to get hired.

I've had some of the most brilliant teachers and professors you could ever want, and they can't teach worth a damn, so all that knowledge doesn't get passed on in a worthwhile way, and you don't learn enough.

I bet their brilliance translates into their research.

My brother had a computer/tech teacher in highschool who used to work for NASA, guy knew just about all there was to know about his field, but because he never learned how to teach (This was back when computer teachers were an exception and didn't need a B.Ed [This was also far enugh back that the course was called "Lab 2000" probably with an exclamation mark]) he turned all kinds of kids right off of getting into technology fields.

Well in that case there was simply a scarcity of supply.