Rich get richer / poor get poorer

[bpp]

have a hard time believing that enterpreneurial Americans wouldn't instantly plagiarize adopt the world's best education systems if they really did lead to better graduates.

If I recall, though, you had the same belief about health care, and yet Americans have not adopted any of the functional systems in operation elsewhere in the world, either. Maybe Americans as a polity are just stubborn, or afflicted with an unusually severe case of "Not Invented Here" syndrome.

 

[Nords]

If I recall, though, you had the same belief about health care, and yet Americans have not adopted any of the functional systems in operation elsewhere in the world, either.  Maybe Americans as a polity are just stubborn, or afflicted with an unusually severe case of "Not Invented Here" syndrome.

I still do have the same belief about health care.  I admit that my only real experience with American healthcare is the military system, so perhaps I'm both blissfully ignorant and less than objective. 

But it doesn't matter what you think or what I think.  What matters is the collective conclusions of 275 million of our fellow Americans.  Again, while I agree that there's plenty of room for improvement in American healthcare, I just don't believe that other countries have a better system in operation. 

I can't recall millions of Americans scheming to get across the borders of Finland or China or South Korea or Britain or Canada for their educational systems or their colleges or their health insurance or their medical schools.

 

[Martha]

But it doesn't matter what you think or what I think.  What matters is the collective conclusions of 275 million of our fellow Americans.  Again, while I agree that there's plenty of room for improvement in American healthcare, I just don't believe that other countries have a better system in operation. 

I can't recall millions of Americans scheming to get across the borders of Finland or China or South Korea or Britain or Canada for their educational systems or their colleges or their health insurance or their medical schools.

A couple of points. Of the 275 million Americans, about 45 million have no health insurance. They are in the minority and have so far lost to the collective conclusion of the other 230 million. The tyranny of the majority. I believe that the percentage of employers now offering health insurance is 59%. I say no fair. For example, my neice had a low skilled job. She had a child and the child got ill. She lost her job because she had to go live with her child in the hospital. A year and a half later, the child died. Now my neice has no job, no money, no insurance, no nothing. There is no safety net for her but family.

People don't scheme to immigrate to Canada, Finland or wherever because most people just want to stay home. It isn't on the radar screen and probably not possible for the predominately low skilled workers and unemployed who don't have health insurance. They are Americans and believe in America, even though the collective America doesn't think much of them.

 

[Martha]

Wab,
We really didn't fix anything with new social programs;  WWII fixed the depression.
The New Deal fixed nothing.

The economy was on the upswing starting in 1938, two and a half years before we went into WWII. http://www.independent.org/newsroom/article.asp?id=138

 

[bpp]

I still do have the same belief about health care.  I admit that my only real experience with American healthcare is the military system, so perhaps I'm both blissfully ignorant and less than objective.

[...]

I can't recall millions of Americans scheming to get across the borders of Finland or China or South Korea or Britain or Canada for their educational systems or their colleges or their health insurance or their medical schools.

I don't see millions of people scheming to get across the borders from any one developed country to any other, for that matter.  The level of medical science is not that different across developed countries.  The difference is in who gets covered and how it gets paid for.  I wouldn't be surprised if your experience in the military system is different from that of someone in the civilian world.  Your military experience may even be much more like that of a civilian in a country with a national health care plan.  You're always covered, you never have to worry about losing coverage, you can rest secure in the knowledge that at least some basic level of coverage will always be there.  You may need or want to spend more money for something fancier elsewhere, but you will never be just left completely in the lurch where you are now.  (Of course, I may be completely wrong about how military health care works, so feel free to tell me I don't know what I'm talking about.)

As for educational systems, besides the US, I have only experienced secondary education in the UK, so can't really generalize beyond that.  But that alone was shockingly eye-opening.  I'll be getting a parent's-eye view of the Japanese educational system soon, so ask me about that in a few years.  I know people complain about too much rote memorization of facts and not enough critical thinking, so maybe I'll be doing some supplemental education of my own. But I'll be happy if my kid at least gets exposed to a firehose of facts, as opposed to a rationed drip-drip-drip.

 

[audreyh1]

When the Democrats take power, will America eventually turn into another Europe and lose our inbred incentives to make money on top of more money?

Gee - the Democrats have been in power many times - many of them quite economically prosperous. Did our culture change that much? Don't you remember? or are you too young?

Audrey

 

[Andre1969]

On the subject of education, I heard an interesting line in an old movie today. Somethinag along the lines of...

"If a man isn't good at making money, no amount of schooling is going to drill it into him. But if a man IS good at making money, he shouldn't waste his time going to college!"

But, it was also a 60-year old movie, so times have changed a bit! I think it was called "Sorry, Wrong Number".

 

[Nords]

A couple of points.  Of the 275 million Americans, about 45 million have no health insurance.  They are in the minority and have so far lost to the collective conclusion of the other 230 million. The tyranny of the majority.  I believe that the percentage of employers now offering health insurance is 59%.  I say no fair.   For example, my neice had a low skilled job.  She had a child and the child got ill.  She lost her job because she had to go live with her child in the hospital.  A year and a half later, the child died.  Now my neice has no job, no money, no insurance, no nothing.  There is no safety net for her but family.
People don't scheme to immigrate to Canada, Finland or wherever because most people just want to stay home.   It isn't on the radar screen and probably not possible for the predominately low skilled workers and unemployed who don't have health insurance.  They are Americans and believe in America, even though the collective America doesn't think much of them.

C'mon, Martha, you've used better logic & debate tactics than that.  We can always point out the failures of a system, but that doesn't prove that the tyranny of the majority is worse than the alternatives.

I don't think the majority of Americans are able to affect "right" or "fair" as much as a core of entrepreneurs are interested in fixing the system while coincidentally making buckets of money doing so.  I think good ol' fashioned greed would have produced a better medical system by now, whether it's motivated by money or political power-- same thing.

As for those people scheming to get across the borders, what percentage of American citizens attend American medical schools?  And what percentage of American citizens with doctor's degrees obtained them in foreign medical schools?  I think foreign students are at American medical schools for very good reasons, no matter how easily impressed we are by their country's educational systems.

I wouldn't be surprised if your experience in the military system is different from that of someone in the civilian world.  Your military experience may even be much more like that of a civilian in a country with a national health care plan.  You're always covered, you never have to worry about losing coverage, you can rest secure in the knowledge that at least some basic level of coverage will always be there.  You may need or want to spend more money for something fancier elsewhere, but you will never be just left completely in the lurch where you are now.  (Of course, I may be completely wrong about how military health care works, so feel free to tell me I don't know what I'm talking about.)

I think you're describing the system pretty fairly, with a few exceptions in the next paragraph.  I also think that if the military healthcare system worked for the majority of Americans, then we'd have it!  Unfortunately the judicial system would be clogged with sniveling about "rights" and "privileges" and other unprofitable aspects of the system.

Martha, Bpp, review this post with your quoted thoughts in mind and see if this is the healthcare system that we really want.  Because I'd much rather consult a resident at a clinic than a doctor at a military hospital.

 

[fluffy]

Sure, and now look at the country's level of GDP, per-capita "wealth", or other world power criteria.

Don't get me wrong, I think there's plenty of room for improvement in American school systems.  I just don't think other countries are any closer to the answers than we are.  I have a hard time believing that enterpreneurial Americans wouldn't instantly plagiarize adopt the world's best education systems if they really did lead to better graduates.  Rote memorization may lead to high test scores but about the only other thing it guarantees is an overwhelming sense of overconfidence during a military academy's plebe year. 

Testing for knowledge is pretty straightforward.  Mensa to the contrary, testing for thinking & analysis appears to be a little more difficult.

I also remember what I did to those high school surveys & exams.  If they couldn't directly relate to a personal benefit (money or the college of my choice) then I'd be more likely to amuse my teen personality at their expense.  They were almost as much fun as the sex/drugs/alcohol surveys.

US is ahead in GDP and other measures despite its public education system, not because of it. US has superior universities and, of course, vastly superior finance/investment laws and infrastructure that encourage the best and brightest to make the most of their talents. Those factors (and I'm sure many others) outweigh the negatives of the public education system.

Math, sciences, and engineering are all about problem-solving -- it is the "soft" disciplines that require straight memorization. These problem-solving disciplines is where US is lagging. At the expense of appearing a self-righteous engineer I would say that analytical thinking and problem solving abilities learned during childhood and teenage years have the most potential to positively impact a person's future career and financial success. They are by no means the only factor -- business sense and drive are extremely important too, as well as positive habits like LBYM -- but they are the most significant of the things that school is supposed to directly teach. And they're the ones most lacking in the current public education system.

Edit: just to clarify, I mean only grades 1-12 when I talk about the US "public education system". US universities, public and private, are very good.

 

[bpp]

As for those people scheming to get across the borders, what percentage of American citizens attend American medical schools?  And what percentage of American citizens with doctor's degrees obtained them in foreign medical schools?  I think foreign students are at American medical schools for very good reasons, no matter how easily impressed we are by their country's educational systems.

America has some of the best universities in the world.  I do recall there were some American medical students in Grenada during the invasion, but I am guessing they weren't there for the high quality of the education.

The problem is in primary and secondary education. 

Martha, Bpp, review this post with your quoted thoughts in mind and see if this is the healthcare system that we really want.  Because I'd much rather consult a resident at a clinic than a doctor at a military hospital.

You list 3 issues having to do with the military medical system:

1)  Military doctors can get shot at.  Not typically a big problem for non-military health care (though there are always a few exceptions).
2)  Military doctors cannot be sued.  This probably depends on the country, but doctors can be and are sued in Japan, for example (though the country as a whole is a lot less lawsuit-happy than the US).
3) You need a military ID to get into a military ER.  Not generally an issue under nationalized health care, where everyone is assumed to be in the system.

The rest of the issues seem to be general issues related to being in the military.

 

[Nords]

US is ahead in GDP and other measures despite its public education system, not because of it. US has superior universities and, of course, vastly superior finance/investment laws and infrastructure that encourage the best and brightest to make the most of their talents. Those factors (and I'm sure many others) outweigh the negatives of the public education system.

Again, I'm all for improving our public school systems.  I think we can make them better.  

Unfortunately education is compulsory to a certain age and, unlike universities, we can't "improve" the system by getting rid of those who aren't succeeding at the right-hand side of the bell curve.  Heck, we can't even insist that they speak English before they show up for their taxpayer benefits.  But I guess the universities must be really really good if they're getting such dreck from the high schools.

Hawaii has consistently ranked in the bottom 10 of the nation's school systems.  Yet the state has one of the country's strongest economies (despite the anti-business climate) and lowest unemployment rates.  I don't think that we can claim it's due to our superior universities or our vastly superior finance/investment laws and infrastructure.

Math, sciences, and engineering are all about problem-solving -- it is the "soft" disciplines that require straight memorization. These problem-solving disciplines is where US is lagging. At the expense of appearing a self-righteous engineer I would say that analytical thinking and problem solving abilities learned during childhood and teenage years have the most potential to positively impact a person's future career and financial success. They are by no means the only factor -- business sense and drive are extremely important too, as well as positive habits like LBYM -- but they are the most significant of the things that school is supposed to directly teach. And they're the ones most lacking in the current public education system.

Which "soft disciplines" (oxymoronic?) are we talking about?  Are you claiming that rote memorization is all that's necessary to understand history, English, and economics?  I don't want to put words in your mouth but I'd sure like to hear more about this line of thinking.

I don't think anyone who's ever raised a teenager could possibly claim that teens have any credibility in displaying analytical thinking and problem-solving abilities.  In fact there's considerable directly observable brain-scan evidence to indicate that most teen "decisions" occur in the amygdala vice the cerebral cortex.  

So maybe the only kind of high-school teaching that succeeds is rote memorization, but I sure wouldn't enjoy a school like that.  I know that rote memorization is certainly easier to test for on nationwide exams!  So maybe we're testing for garbage in and getting garbage out.  Maybe the test scores should be ranked according to GDP or the size of the nation's military.

The best educational system I read about was in a science-fiction book.  No one attempted to teach calculus or algebra or even reading & writing.  Up until age 14 students were taught the "life skills" of running a household, commuting to a job or navigating their way through a city, conversing respectfully & politely with others, evaluating political rhetoric, and dining in public with "proper manners".  Oddly enough, by their early teen years they'd displayed enough motivation to learn how to read and write through the skills they were learning-- street signs and grocery-store math.  At the age of 14 they tracked onto their chosen fields-- minimal proficiency in reading/writing/math and a life of manual/technical labor, or "higher education" for a university curriculum.  

It was never said which side of the system produced future teachers & professors.  Or politicians & bureaucrats, either...

 

[Nords]

The rest of the issues seem to be general issues related to being in the military.

I would say that those specific issues are what account for the putative success of the military medical system. You don't try to cure everyone, just the ones who are following your rules!

Now imagine if your average company's healthcare system was being run on similar criteria. Our Mililani Wal-Mart used to have their clerks engage in motivational chanting & singing when they opened, although I haven't seen that lately. Do Japanese factories still lead their shifts in calisthenics before the workday begins? Can a Chinese worker claim that his medical records are personal (private) information?

Would everyone else like to work in similar "office" environments if we paid your healthcare insurance premiums? Martha's niece wouldn't fall though the safety net, but would everyone else mind giving up their "rights" for that system?

 

[sgeeeee]

Well, let's turn this question around.

What countries have the world's best education systems?

I think the US can still claim this honor (although it is arguable). The problem is that an increasing number of Americans are unable to afford it. Our universities are filled with more foriegn students who can afford tuition.

I also think that our large cities have created a dual education system for K-12. The affluent pay to send their kids to real schools that educate while the inner-city public schools become baby-sitting for future fellons.

 

[bpp]

Again, I'm all for improving our public school systems. I think we can make them better.

Then I think we are all in agreement. It's just a question of how bad the US public school system is.

Unfortunately education is compulsory to a certain age

That is true of most other developed countries as well, so is no excuse for the current state of affairs.

Do Japanese factories still lead their shifts in calisthenics before the workday begins?

Yes, for the most part, but you don't get kicked out of the national health system if you don't participate. (And I have seen some pretty half-hearted efforts -- people smoking and drinking coffee while moving their index fingers in time with the loudspeaker, that kind of thing. Not everyone takes it seriously.) And not all workplaces have this kind of thing anyway.

And even if you don't have a job, you can be covered. Edit to add: This is really the key point. Universal access, with no dependency on employment status or stipulations about pre-existing conditions.

Would everyone else like to work in similar "office" environments if we paid your healthcare insurance premiums? Martha's niece wouldn't fall though the safety net, but would everyone else mind giving up their "rights" for that system?

The only right you give up if you enter the Japanese national health care system is the right to get back out of it. Well, I have heard that it can be done, but it takes a lot of persistence.

 

[fluffy]

Again, I'm all for improving our public school systems.  I think we can make them better.  

Unfortunately education is compulsory to a certain age and, unlike universities, we can't "improve" the system by getting rid of those who aren't succeeding at the right-hand side of the bell curve.  Heck, we can't even insist that they speak English before they show up for their taxpayer benefits.  But I guess the universities must be really really good if they're getting such dreck from the high schools.

Hawaii has consistently ranked in the bottom 10 of the nation's school systems.  Yet the state has one of the country's strongest economies (despite the anti-business climate) and lowest unemployment rates.  I don't think that we can claim it's due to our superior universities or our vastly superior finance/investment laws and infrastructure.
Which "soft disciplines" (oxymoronic?) are we talking about?  Are you claiming that rote memorization is all that's necessary to understand history, English, and economics?  I don't want to put words in your mouth but I'd sure like to hear more about this line of thinking.

I don't think anyone who's ever raised a teenager could possibly claim that teens have any credibility in displaying analytical thinking and problem-solving abilities.  In fact there's considerable directly observable brain-scan evidence to indicate that most teen "decisions" occur in the amygdala vice the cerebral cortex.  

So maybe the only kind of high-school teaching that succeeds is rote memorization, but I sure wouldn't enjoy a school like that.  I know that rote memorization is certainly easier to test for on nationwide exams!  So maybe we're testing for garbage in and getting garbage out.  Maybe the test scores should be ranked according to GDP or the size of the nation's military.

The best educational system I read about was in a science-fiction book.  No one attempted to teach calculus or algebra or even reading & writing.  Up until age 14 students were taught the "life skills" of running a household, commuting to a job or navigating their way through a city, conversing respectfully & politely with others, evaluating political rhetoric, and dining in public with "proper manners".  Oddly enough, by their early teen years they'd displayed enough motivation to learn how to read and write through the skills they were learning-- street signs and grocery-store math.  At the age of 14 they tracked onto their chosen fields-- minimal proficiency in reading/writing/math and a life of manual/technical labor, or "higher education" for a university curriculum.  

It was never said which side of the system produced future teachers & professors.  Or politicians & bureaucrats, either...

History and English, yes, I would classify those as "soft" disciplines. They certainly do require and develop critical thinking which is very important. I don't think they develop problem-solving abilities the same way as math and "hard" sciences do. Economics is largely applied math so it's not a "soft" discipline to me.

I don't mean to marginalize the "soft" disciplines, but to underscore the lag in math and sciences compared to most of the rest developed and even developing countries. Though I would argue that a nation full of engineers is likely to be more successful (in material sense, at least) than a nation full of historians or writers.

I'm not sure what you mean when you say teenagers don't have credibility in displaying problem-solving/analytical thinking skills? From my own experience, my problem-solving and critical thinking skills, as applied to "hard" sciences, were fully or at least mostly developed by age 13-14.

I'm a huge sci-fi fan, but unfortunately I don't see the education system you mentioned being successful in real life. Those life skills are very important and its every parent's responsibility to cultivate them in kids, but I just don't see them translating into kids picking up math, sciences, and other disciplines on their own. However, if it really works, then I'm all for it  

Finally, I have no idea what contributes to HI's success, but again, public education system is just one of many many factors. Just because a state or a country is successful is not enough to indicate that its public education system is inferior or superior. But repeated near-bottom placement in multiple-country tests in "hard" science disciplines is a very good indicator that US has room for improvment (as we both agree). To most immigrants from Europe and Asia this is obvious and as bpp mentioned at least part of the problem is the snail's pace at which US kids learn stuff -- this is true for both "hard" and "soft" disciplines, but I'm more concerned with the former.

 

[astromeria]

I believe that the biggest problem in public education by far is US, the parents. Too many parents show little respect for teachers or schools, complain that Lil Nicky is too busy with sports, dog-walking, and church to do homework, and insist that Nicky deserves As and Bs when s/he has earned Cs, Ds, and Fs. Too many parents show no itnerest in their kids' schooling at all--provide no quiet time or place for doing homework (TV and/or music blaring all over the house), don't read themselves and so do not inspire reading in their children, etc. Most American parents would rather see their kid as a varsity sport player than the lead member of the math club.

 

[fluffy]

I believe that the biggest problem in public education by far is US, the parents. Too many parents show little respect for teachers or schools, complain that Lil Nicky is too busy with sports, dog-walking, and church to do homework, and insist that Nicky deserves As and Bs when s/he has earned Cs, Ds, and Fs. Too many parents show no itnerest in their kids' schooling at all--provide no quiet time or place for doing homework (TV and/or music blaring all over the house), don't read themselves and so do not inspire reading in their children, etc. Most American parents would rather see their kid as a varsity sport player than the lead member of the math club.

This is very true as well.

 

[al_bundy]

US is ahead in GDP and other measures despite its public education system, not because of it. US has superior universities and, of course, vastly superior finance/investment laws and infrastructure that encourage the best and brightest to make the most of their talents. Those factors (and I'm sure many others) outweigh the negatives of the public education system.

Math, sciences, and engineering are all about problem-solving -- it is the "soft" disciplines that require straight memorization. These problem-solving disciplines is where US is lagging. At the expense of appearing a self-righteous engineer I would say that analytical thinking and problem solving abilities learned during childhood and teenage years have the most potential to positively impact a person's future career and financial success. They are by no means the only factor -- business sense and drive are extremely important too, as well as positive habits like LBYM -- but they are the most significant of the things that school is supposed to directly teach. And they're the ones most lacking in the current public education system.

Edit: just to clarify, I mean only grades 1-12 when I talk about the US "public education system". US universities, public and private, are very good.

that is not true at all

the so called soft disciplines probably have more problem solving than engineering and math since many times you have to borrow from other disciplines to figure out why something happened in history. engineering sometimes seems more like trial and error for a few years until you finally get something right and solve the problem.

 

[Nords]

I also think that our large cities have created a dual education system for K-12.  The affluent pay to send their kids to real schools that educate  while the inner-city public schools become baby-sitting for future fellons.   

In the biography of the rock group Aerosmith ("Walk This Way"), nearly every member attended a private school.  Some of them even graduated.

They'd all been expelled from the public schools for felonious behavior.

History and English, yes, I would classify those as "soft" disciplines. They certainly do require and develop critical thinking which is very important. I don't think they develop problem-solving abilities the same way as math and "hard" sciences do. Economics is largely applied math so it's not a "soft" discipline to me.

Eh, you're on your own here.  I've known many engineers who'd benefit from the study of history and English.  I'm not sure that I can say the converse, although they were eventually able to produce a diagram of the steam-plant cycle and explain its functioning.

I come from a different engineering sector than most, but I've consistently found that those "softies" are better critical thinkers than the engineers. The #1 graduate in my 100+ nuclear power school class was an economics major. Over half of the top ten were from non-engineering curricula. One of the front runners, an electrical engineering major, was dismissed from the program for appropriating sailing equipment from his alma mater.

The nuke school instructors preferred the officers from the "soft" disciplines because they didn't arrive with any preconceived notions of how the material should be learned. They just learned it the way they were taught.

I'm not sure what you mean when you say teenagers don't have credibility in displaying problem-solving/analytical thinking skills? From my own experience, my problem-solving and critical thinking skills, as applied to "hard" sciences, were fully or at least mostly developed by age 13-14.

Real-time MRI and PET scans have shown that, before the age of 16 in almost all teens and before the age of 20 for many of them, most decision-making activity occurs in the amygdala (considered the brain's emotional component) rather than in "adult" locations.  The answer to the typical teen question "What were you thinking?!?" is "I wasn't."

Some scientists consider that human rational decision-making skills don't really mature until age 25.

I'm a huge sci-fi fan, but unfortunately I don't see the education system you mentioned being successful in real life. Those life skills are very important and its every parent's responsibility to cultivate them in kids, but I just don't see them translating into kids picking up math, sciences, and other disciplines on their own. However, if it really works, then I'm all for it 

It's a component of homeschooling called "unschooling".

Last year Time magazine had a popular article on gender learning differences.  Way too many kids enter school not yet ready to learn, but the system starts them at a chronological age.  The bell curve is very flat with fat tails.  Young boys may not be mentally ready, let alone motivated, to read until they're nine or ten years old.  Yet from an early age they're forced to do something they may not be ready to do.  (Some think that boys don't learn to read until they need the cheat codes for their video games.)  However every kid is ready to learn to play, to talk, to get along, to figure out how to do the "grownup" stuff like traveling or shopping, and to pick up the necessary social skills as they need them. 

By the time they're in the double digits ages the bell curve looks more like statistics classes.  They're all probably ready to learn to read and do math, if they haven't been burned by their "learning experiences" when they were younger.  Homeschoolers have been able to pursue their interests, too, and become much better at self-directed learning than their public-school "peers".

One of the biggest problems of the public education system is that the kids who aren't ready (or able) to learn the subject of the day won't sit there quietly while the other kids learn their stuff.  Teaching becomes more a function of classroom management than of education.

 

[ash]

I believe that the biggest problem in public education by far is US, the parents. Too many parents show little respect for teachers or schools, complain that Lil Nicky is too busy with sports, dog-walking, and church to do homework, and insist that Nicky deserves As and Bs when s/he has earned Cs, Ds, and Fs. Too many parents show no itnerest in their kids' schooling at all--provide no quiet time or place for doing homework (TV and/or music blaring all over the house), don't read themselves and so do not inspire reading in their children, etc. Most American parents would rather see their kid as a varsity sport player than the lead member of the math club.

Much of what you say has merit.

However, the other side of the coin however is that the public school system shows no respect for the parents.

Parents are given little choice in choosing their child's school, the curriculum or the teacher, and are certainly in no way treated like paying customers.

 

[bpp]

Some scientists consider that human rational decision-making skills don't really mature until age 25.

Mine still haven't.

 

[sgeeeee]

In the biography of the rock group Aerosmith ("Walk This Way"), nearly every member attended a private school.  Some of them even graduated.

They'd all been expelled from the public schools for felonious behavior.

Well . . . felons come from all walks of life . . . but not in equal percentages or numbers. You have a habit of citing a single anecdotal piece of information and implying that you have discredited the general observation. It doesn't really work that way.

I admit I am basing my comments on a small data set from public school teachers who I know personally in Pheonix, Chicago and Los Angeles. They all talk about inter-city schools with inadequate supplies and discipline and with serious personal safety issues.

I can tell you from personal experience that classrooms in schools of central Phoenix often have no paper or chalk -- never mind audio visual equipment. Armed officers roam the halls to control the violence. Forget about teaching, the primary goal is to keep the Bloods and Crips from hurting each other.

Ten minutes away, I can find predominately white charter schools with libraries, art supplies, modern audio visual equipment. . . you name it. We recently had over 600 Arizona schools fail to meet federal standards for annual yearly progress on AIMS testing. Guess which ones failed.

Although Arizona is one of those states that manages to rank even lower than Hawaii when it comes to education, I find that my discussions with people who have experience with Los Angeles and Chicago city schools indicate that similar disparities exist there too.

 

[wabmester]

One of the biggest problems of the public education system is that the kids who aren't ready (or able) to learn the subject of the day won't sit there quietly while the other kids learn their stuff.  Teaching becomes more a function of classroom management than of education.

Yeah, why is this?   It's obvious that not all kids learn at the same rate, have the same passions, etc.   So, why do public schools want to move everybody through the system at the same rate and teach them the same depth of material?

FWIW, we recently signed our kid up for Suzuki piano lessons.   Suzuki was apparently similar to Montessori in many respects.   Really smart guy who was fascinated with how kids learned.   Anyway, it seems that our schools could learn a bunch from both Suzuki and Montessori:

* Start kids young.   At age 3, all kids are sponges, and most of them have the tools they need to begin a structured education at that age.   If you believe that the "sponge" ages are from 0-6, it makes no sense to start teaching kids at age 5.

* Give them a structured environment in which they can learn by exploring (e.g., Montessori environments include "self-correcting" educational toys).

* Mix ages and abilities in the classroom so that the more advanced kids serve as role models, mentors, etc.

* Let the kid progress at their own pace and go as deeply or as broadly as they like.

* Before you teach them "stuff," teach them the tools of learning: divide and conquer, experimentation, collaboration, etc

Of course, even after you fix the schools, we'll always have huge wealth disparity in a dog-eat-dog capitalistic society, so tax the rich and spread the wealth!

 

[lets-retire]

My son has been in three different state schools since he started.  the best one so far, where he learned the most was in south Carolina.  At the time it was ranked 49 out of 50.  These last two schools seem more intent on covering as much material as possible during the school year, and less interested in making sure the students know the material.  He's already being taught math I remember doing two years later than him.  I think if the schools are going to demand much more knowledge from their students they would probably receive better results by shortening the school day a bit, but extending the school year a couple weeks.  The students wouldn't be as taxed, but they would still be receiving the same amount of instruction time during the school year.  He does have homework every night that should take him about 1/2 hour to do, but by the time he is home he's tired and is not really interested in working (that kind of sounds familiar) and it takes him about 1.5 hours to complete. 

His last school saw recess as a waste of time and did not let the students out to release any energy during the day and they were not allowed to spank the students.  Then they wondered why the students were restless.  Their answer was to hound the parents into putting their kids on drugs.  Drugs that studies have shown seem to result in higher suicide rates for the kids as teenagers.  His new school has 1/2 hour of recess and allows spanking.  It's amazing, my little hellian has been much better mannered in this school than his last.  I can't say whether it is the fact he knows he can be spanked, or that he has time to burn off the extra energy.

As far as military health care goes, the only people who seem to like it are those who have not used it.  It is the worst care I have ever used!  They definitely treat the symptoms and not the underlying issue.

For those who say let's tax the rich. I say if you feel your not paying enough in taxes donate to your government. I'm sure they won't return your donation. Or here's an idea take all of your savings out of the tax protected accounts and hold everything in fully taxed accounts. I have worked with and been in close contact with the poor. I can just about guarantee everyone on this board is considered rich when looking at the people I have worked with. The government can't manage the money they have what makes you think they could do better with more money. They'll just find a way to spend more, putting us in the same situation we are currently in.

 

[Arc]

Long term answer I believe is education. Reading, Writing and Arithmetic should be changed to "Reading, Writing, Arithmetic and Personal Finance." If schools would begin teaching personal finance in grade school and continue through high school, young folks would have the basic information (it's not rocket science!) needed to live a balanced life while at the same time preparing for a comfortable retirement - and it shouldn't matter what kind of money they make. The education should focus on instilling in kids that there life will be better if they accept personal responsibility for their financial future and eliminate the reliance on govt or employer.

I won't hold my breath.