Time to write off public education?

[John Kilduff]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
As we all know, the US public school system is, by and large, a disgrace.

[/ QUOTE ]

Compared to what?

[/ QUOTE ]

Compared to 45 years ago.

[/ QUOTE ]

Don't you mean 52 years and 9 months ago?

[/ QUOTE ]

I was dating the decline to the change in educational philosophy that occured starting in the late 60s. I do have a frame of reference here, even though I was young. Radical change was evident in the very early 70s.

[/ QUOTE ]

Yeah, but by 'radical change in educational philosophy', you mean something like "when they let the dark-skinned children start going to school with white children", right?

And by 'evident in the early 70s', I assume that's just code for "when they started busing in the dark-skinned children from the inner cities to where the white people live".

Just want to make sure I'm not off the mark here.

[/ QUOTE ]

So many public school apologists are quick to jump to the 'racism' ad hominem in defense of attacks on their cherished institution. In fact, it's so common and laughable that is' a caricature. There's a well-worn joke that goes "what is the definition of a racist? Someone who is winning an argument against a liberal".

Because obviously, if someone is unhappy with the public school institution as it stands then the only explanation can be that they are racist.

It is disappointing to see you drop to that level. You are usually quite cogent and reasonable.

natedogg

[/ QUOTE ]

According to HeavilyArmed, public schools were fine, up until forty to fifty years ago. And by some strange coincidence, this is also about the time public schools were desegregated. What do you think he's getting at?

Did I call bobman a racist for attacking public schools? Do I call the ACists racists for attacking public schools? Are public schools really all that 'cherished' to me? I don't think I've done any of that, and I'm more than happy to concede that the American public school system has alot of failings. Yet, when someone claims public schools were fine up until 45 years ago, alarm bells go off in my head that prompt me to think "wait, what the [censored] happened about 45 years ago that was such a drastic change in public schools?" Given that we're talking about HeavilyArmed here, I'm pretty sure I know what he's hinting at.

[/ QUOTE ]

Actually, until you mentioned it, that didn't even occur to me. I just assumed the poster was referring to such things as: the "new" math; more time spent in social studies type material rather than in drilling hard facts into kids' heads; a less rigorous, more "creative" approach to teaching and learning; less willingness on the part of teachers to hand out poor or failing grades; things like that. The process went on in more or less that direction for several decades, and along the way some standardized tests were re-calibrated so that students' performance didn't fall too much (engineered test score inflation).

I assumed that the poster was referring to deleterious effects on performance due to the widespread adoption of more liberalized teaching philosophies, but maybe I missed something.

[natedogg]

[ QUOTE ]

[ QUOTE ]
It is disappointing to see you drop to that level. You are usually quite cogent and reasonable.

[/ QUOTE ]

Maybe you can answer the question: what is fundamentally different about public education now (or 20 years ago) that makes it a disgrace compared to public education 45 years ago? My guess is that you would disagree with the assertion by HeavilyArmed that public education was not a disgrace 45 years ago, but I'm willing to hear you out on this one.

[/ QUOTE ]

The Department of Education and the No Child Left Behind act both come to mind. The ever-increasing stranglehold that the teachers' unions have is another. I'm sure there's more.

I find it amusing that there are certain people who simply can't accept that race isn't the main driver of all political viewpoints.

natedogg

[DVaut1]

[ QUOTE ]
DVaut,

I'm not sure that you can jump to the conclusion that HA is being racist. There were a lot of societal changes taking place during the 60's in the liberal direction, not just integration. As a Conservative, I think its natural that HA would dislike any number of trends that would impact on education.

[/ QUOTE ]

What trends would those be, exactly? Again, I'm not asking you to merely identify societal trends that were taking place during the late 60s and early 70s like the anti-war movement and the sexual revolution, but instead identify some trends that directly impacted the quality of public education.

One movement from the era that I'm quite sure had drastic changes on the public school system is the Civil Rights Movement, and I'm quite certain that's what he's talking about.

Edit to add: I'm not actually 'quite certain' that's what he's talking about. That's an overstatement. But I'm pretty sure of it.

[HeavilyArmed]

[ QUOTE ]
I just assumed the poster was referring to such things as: the "new" math; more time spent in social studies type material rather than in drilling hard facts into kids' heads; a less rigorous, more "creative" approach to teaching and learning; less willingness on the part of teachers to hand out poor or failing grades; things like that. The process went on in more or less that direction for several decades, and along the way some standardized tests were re-calibrated so that students' performance didn't fall too much (engineered test score inflation).

I assumed that the poster was referring to deleterious effects on performance due to the widespread adoption of more liberalized teaching philosophies, but maybe I missed something.


[/ QUOTE ]

Most folks that went through the system in those days see this as self-evident. Today's young, indoctrinated, child posters are not up to speed and likely will not get up to speed thanks to their rotten education. They are expert at playing the racist card, little else.

Perhaps the passing of years will help. I have my doubts.

[natedogg]

I hinted at this in an earlier post but I will just come out and say it explicitly here.

The answer to this problem, and almost all problems caused by the government's provision of services, is to allow people to choose their own service. If we as a society cannot abide the notion that someone without funds can't get a service, then we should give them the funds, not the service.

When the government gets involved in providing a service, it is nearly instantly captured by special interests, and it is also impossible to give anyone what they want specifically. the end result is that almost no one gets what they want.

We provide food to the poor without the government taking over the production and distribution of food to the poor.

The same should be done with schooling, health care, retirement savings and every other service offered by our government.

Give the poor the money to buy the things we feel they shouldn't do without but let them spend it the way they feel is best for them.

That solution is so blatantly obvious, simple, and correct that I often fall into the trap of imputing bad motives to people who disagree with it, especially when they are politicians and policy makers. Others I can forgive for being dupes but the actual puppet-masters who subject us to this stuff... I have a very hard time not believing they are evil.

natedogg

[DVaut1]

[ QUOTE ]
I find it amusing that there are certain people who simply can't accept that race isn't the main driver of all political viewpoints.

[/ QUOTE ]

I suppose I find it amusing that someone ostensibly as bright as you are is so adept at constructing strawmen and relying gross exaggerations.

Again, did I assign race to the ACists' view on public education? Bobman's? Your's?

Surely, since I assume race is the main driver of ALL political viewpoints, you can quote my original response to bobman's OP, which is of course something along the lines of "you called public schools disgraceful? You must be a racist pig!" -- right? And when ojc said the government monopoly of education should end, I responded by calling him a Klan Grand Wizard -- right?

Or, was it perhaps that a specific poster (who has a history of rather questionable commentary on race) said something that sounded suspiciously like a coded reference to the movement to desegregate public schools as the reason for their contemporary condition?

It's a bit of a false dichotomy, but which sounds more likely?:

1) I assume race is the driver of all political viewpoints
or
2) HA was referring to the desegregation of public schools as the cause of their 'disgraceful' state

[HeavilyArmed]

[ QUOTE ]
Give the poor the money to buy the things we feel they shouldn't do without but let them spend it the way they feel is best for them.

That solution is so blatantly obvious, simple, and correct that I often fall into the trap of imputing bad motives to people who disagree with it, especially when they are politicians and policy makers. Others I can forgive for being dupes but the actual puppet-masters who subject us to this stuff... I have a very hard time not believing they are evil.


[/ QUOTE ]

Amen. It's our only out.

I'm certain that the NEA is evil, divorced from the best interests of the children it ostensibly serves. No, it obviously doesn't serve the children. What was I thinking?

[DVaut1]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]

[ QUOTE ]
It is disappointing to see you drop to that level. You are usually quite cogent and reasonable.

[/ QUOTE ]

Maybe you can answer the question: what is fundamentally different about public education now (or 20 years ago) that makes it a disgrace compared to public education 45 years ago? My guess is that you would disagree with the assertion by HeavilyArmed that public education was not a disgrace 45 years ago, but I'm willing to hear you out on this one.

[/ QUOTE ]

The Department of Education and the No Child Left Behind act both come to mind.

[/ QUOTE ]

The Department of Education is 25 years old. NCLB is less than 10. Surely, this can't be what HA was referring to when he references drastic changes that occurred forty five years ago?

[elwoodblues]

[ QUOTE ]
The Department of Education and the No Child Left Behind act both come to mind. The ever-increasing stranglehold that the teachers' unions have is another. I'm sure there's more.

[/ QUOTE ]

Department of Education: 1980 (27 years ago)
No Child Left Behind: (not even close to 45 years ago)
NEA: I suppose there could have been something that happened 45 years ago that changed the teachers union in some way, don't really know.

So, in summary, your response to "what happened 45 years ago" is to state 1 thing that happened 27 years ago, 1 that happened in the past decade, and one that may or may not have happened 45 years ago.

[ QUOTE ]
I find it amusing that there are certain people who simply can't accept that race isn't the main driver of all political viewpoints

[/ QUOTE ]

I find it amuzing that you outright dismiss the possibility that is the civil rights movement might be the magical event that Heavily Armed is referring to. The fact that you agree with his conclusion (that the school systems are a disgrace) doesn't mean you agree with his rationale. I suspect that you would not have answered the question "compared to what" with an answer of 45 years ago, maybe you would have.

[DVaut1]

[ QUOTE ]
I hinted at this in an earlier post but I will just come out and say it explicitly here.

The answer to this problem, and almost all problems caused by the government's provision of services, is to allow people to choose their own service. If we as a society cannot abide the notion that someone without funds can't get a service, then we should give them the funds, not the service.

When the government gets involved in providing a service, it is nearly instantly captured by special interests, and it is also impossible to give anyone what they want specifically. the end result is that almost no one gets what they want.

We provide food to the poor without the government taking over the production and distribution of food to the poor.

The same should be done with schooling, health care, retirement savings and every other service offered by our government.

Give the poor the money to buy the things we feel they shouldn't do without but let them spend it the way they feel is best for them.

That solution is so blatantly obvious, simple, and correct that I often fall into the trap of imputing bad motives to people who disagree with it, especially when they are politicians and policy makers. Others I can forgive for being dupes but the actual puppet-masters who subject us to this stuff... I have a very hard time not believing they are evil.

natedogg

[/ QUOTE ]

So, given you're making a normative claim about government failure to provide services, would you claim it's the case that privately educated American children are better educated than publically educated Japanese children? Are privately educated American children better educated than children who go to American, government-funded magnate schools?

Give me a random product of the Japanese public education system, the random product of a Stuyvesant or a Boston Latin, and a random product of a random American private high school -- and measure their quality of education by giving them a series of standardized tests -- and I know which student I'd pick to have the worst performance. Who would you pick to have the worst performance?