American Education Fails Because It isn't Education

[Adam's Apple]

Gets right into the nitty gritty of the failure.

American Education Fails Because It Isn't Education
By Tom DeWeese, MichNews.com
December 8, 2007

...there are two specific categories in which the U.S. excels, compared to the rest of the world. First, the U.S. ranks second in the world in the amount we spend per student per year on education = $11,152. The U.S. is also a leader in having some of the smallest classroom numbers in the world. Yet the slide continues. American students grow more illiterate by the year. How can that be? We're doing everything the "experts" tell us to do. We're spending the money. We're building more and more schools. We're raising teachers' pay.

Every American should understand that these three items: higher pay, smaller classrooms and more money for schools are the specific agenda of the National Education Association (NEA). The NEA is not a professional organization for teachers. It is a labor union and its sole job is to get more money into the education system, and more pay for its members. It also seeks to make work easier for its members - smaller classrooms. Clearly the NEA is not about education - it's about money and a political agenda.

for full article:
http://www.michnews.com/artman/publish/article_18707.shtml

 

[Annie]

Gets right into the nitty gritty of the failure.

American Education Fails Because It Isn't Education
By Tom DeWeese, MichNews.com
December 8, 2007

...

for full article:
http://www.michnews.com/artman/publish/article_18707.shtml

I certainly agree that many things are broken down in American education system, part of it is the NEA, I think a larger part can be laid at the door of education departments throughout the country, and perhaps the largest part is the problem of parents.

Mr DeWeese does a fine job on highlighting the NEA, but he fails to make the link to the education departments and the writing of textbooks that flows from this department of universities across the nation. Ever wonder why you are unable to help your 3rd grader with their math? You KNOW they don't really have their addition and subtraction facts down, much less beginning their multiplication facts, yet here you sit at the kitchen table and it seems they are to do ALGEBRA! My how progressive, your child has one of the texts that goes under the heading of Fuzzy Math. Texas recently pulled it's state funding from one of the largest and most popular math series with this problem, The University of Chicago's "Everyday Math". If your child does have one of these 'feel good' math series, take a look at the list of authors, it's not from the Universities MATH department, but rather the education department.

Same with reading. Over the past 25 years, it was recognized by schools that the wide use of 'Whole language' wasn't working for too many children. This was one idea that probably made sense in a way, but was not dropped soon enough and still hasn't been rooted out because education departments, (remember where most text authors come from), still blame the instructors, not their theory.

Whole language was very effective in helping children with disabilities in reading, the most important skill taught. These were children who just could not decode or comprehend words through phonics. With whole language for many of these kids, reading suddenly 'clicked.' So with real results, the education departments one by one, then in a flood came to the conclusion that 'if whole language was so successful with those that 'can't read', how much better would all children perform if phonics was removed from the curriculum and replaced with WL. (Same thinking happened with preschool, based on results from "Head Start"). Like New Math in the late 50's and 60's, (we do repeat our errors), most children did not learn from WL, instead we started having children labeled 'disabled' but refused to teach phonics. In the past 10 years or so, concerned teachers and parents have raised so much problems, that phonics has reentered the curriculum, but not enough. WL has not been written off, just disguised and integrated into the reading programs with some phonics. (If your young child's spelling, reading, science, or social studies worksheets have 'size' blocks, which indicate 'tall letters' in the answer area, that's WL.)

Same with the social studies texts, they are not written primarily by historians, rather from the education departments phd's, and in many cases contributors only have BA's and MA's. Not good. It's one of the reasons that the National Council of Historians failed to go along with the national standards in social studies, (which truth to tell, the term 'social studies' itself is an indictment of the education dumbing down which has been happening for decades.)

They never could reach agreement so The National Council of the Social Studies released their standards, leaving it up to the states to write their own measurements and requirements. Not good. The best text I've found in my state is published by Pearson/Prentice-Hall, the majority of authors are from history/geography departments, but education contributors are well represented.

Glancing through the texts, look to see how much space is devoted to the facts you need to know about geography, map reading, graph reading, and historical events, and people of significance. In 99% of the 'social studies' texts, you will find some science, (biomes), some politics, (global/UN thinking), and very little on civics or political philosophy that underlies our system of government. This doesn't seem so 'bad' to many that want their children to 'think globally', yet even they should take the time to consider the results of children in our country that haven't a clue to where even the US is on a map, who was president during the civil war, who were allies in WWI, II, Why there was a revolution, who Karl Marx was, why communism failed, (much less what it was)....

Then there are the parents and the children. Very few do not care about their children, anything but. However some of the hardest working parents I know do not want their children to miss a practice or game because they failed to get their homework finished. They will take them or drop them off at the mall with plenty of money, but without insisting they first complete their homework, (which in any case is 'too much'). These kids do not have any chores to do at home and I do mean 'none.' Not make a bed, take out trash, help with laundry, vacuum, dust, anything. By the time they are in middle school and cannot fathom how to plan their time and act responsibly, the parents cannot understand and blame the amount and/or level of work. The parents seem incapable of identifying the connections between increasing responsibilities and increasing independence. The kids have never been responsible for themselves or even feeding their pets.

Back to math and other subjects including families. Those math facts, you remember having to learn your times tables, addition and subtraction facts, how to 'test' your answers? For most of us either our parents or a sibling tested us with flash cards, (which we made up at school) or we had to learn them on our own. Remember the drills in school? The competitive games? I know I didn't want to be the first to sit down. That type of 'humiliation' has been removed, it isn't considered 'fair' since all children 'learn differently'. Instead their are 'math minutes' which are X number of problems to solve in a minute, but if you don't 'get it' you do it the next day or the next. Some never get it done. Some parents just won't take the time, which for some kids might be a lot of time.

Yet these very same parents, yes it's nearly always the same ones, will spend tens or even hundreds of dollars to complete a science project or social studies project that will be 'displayed.' The parents do the work, the child cannot explain it, so they get a 'C' or 'C+' because no teacher after the first confrontation with a parent completed project will repeat that 'mistake.' The parent will deny doing it, the kid will tell you they did it, but can't explain the how or why. It's a lose/lose situation. It's not the teacher that pays the price, (well except with that one confrontation that nearly all have gone through-I was shattered for a couple of days), it's the child and parent. The child KNOWS they didn't do the work, the parent should know that they did the work, the child knows the parent kept them out of trouble and that the teacher 'lost.' Not a good lesson for any of those relationships, thus teachers tend not to repeat.

Heck, I haven't even brought up the whole concept of 'teaching to the tests', which in some cases might be an improvement on some teaching methods.

 

[Diuretic]

In the article DeWeese says that the entire education system is behaviourist (referring to Fred Skinner). But my understanding was that constructivism is the main theory and that comes from Bruner. So which is it? Skinner-box classrooms or spiral curriculum?

I disagree with his comments about Thomas. From reading the extract it seems to me that Thomas is on track. Sure, basic skills have to be learned early but DWeese seems to think that education is solely about memorising facts.

As for teaching to the tests - what's tested gets taught. Do US schools use norm-referenced testing or criterion-referenced testing? May be a blend of both?

 

[Annie]

In the article DeWeese says that the entire education system is behaviourist (referring to Fred Skinner). But my understanding was that constructivism is the main theory and that comes from Bruner. So which is it? Skinner-box classrooms or spiral curriculum?

I disagree with his comments about Thomas. From reading the extract it seems to me that Thomas is on track. Sure, basic skills have to be learned early but DWeese seems to think that education is solely about memorising facts.

As for teaching to the tests - what's tested gets taught. Do US schools use norm-referenced testing or criterion-referenced testing? May be a blend of both?

I'm addressing the standardized tests, whether state, Iowa Basics, Terra Novas, etc.

 

[Diuretic]

I'm addressing the standardized tests, whether state, Iowa Basics, Terra Novas, etc.

Okay, I did some googling.

 

[Annie]

In the article DeWeese says that the entire education system is behaviourist (referring to Fred Skinner). But my understanding was that constructivism is the main theory and that comes from Bruner. So which is it? Skinner-box classrooms or spiral curriculum?

I disagree with his comments about Thomas. From reading the extract it seems to me that Thomas is on track. Sure, basic skills have to be learned early but DWeese seems to think that education is solely about memorising facts.

As for teaching to the tests - what's tested gets taught. Do US schools use norm-referenced testing or criterion-referenced testing? May be a blend of both?

Sorry about the too quick answer before. We used to use Terra Nova, this year switched to the Iowa Basics and CoGats. The first is norm-referenced the other ability predictor, (they never use IQ, the average CSQ is 100. )

The CSQ is arrived at by predicted verses achieved score.

Our school, private, does not teach to the tests. We're able to pretty much make our own curriculum, as long as we hit all the state standards and goals for our age group. I've moved the Constitution unit to 7th from 8th grade, as it makes more sense to me to teach it following the Revolution. However the state curriculum calls for it in 8th, as does the testing companies. This year we tested in mid-October, 8th graders are not given the tests, as their standardized testing is PSAT and Catholic Schools Admissions Test, given in January. However when testing was in March, the 7th grade had already completed Constitution, so would be able to answer those questions where many nationally wouldn't, however we would be perhaps at Jacksonian Era, while most would be closing in on Civil War. Our year ends with Civil War, while most nationally would end at Reconstruction.

Generally our school tests quite high, at about 78% average. This year it dipped, though the 7th grade didn't. Two things were changed because the diocese said so: Testing was moved from March to October AND they changed from Terra Novas to Iowa Basics. I'm quite unaware of why they would change two aspects in the same year. We're waiting to see what the other schools results were.

As for teaching to tests, if the test has value and the schools are failing to adequately prepare their students for the materials covered, something is really wrong. As I said, IF you are teaching to age appropriate standards within your curriculum, even if you change the order of presentation, the kids will be ready. Thus schools, not classes, that fall consistently below the 50% should probably stop saying they are standards based and get the curriculum in line. That in effect is teaching to the tests, which are standards based in make-up.

I thought you might get a kick out of a 'wish list' I got off a teacher board. I don't think anyone can be more frustrated with all that's wrong with schools than teachers:

How would I change it....oh boy.......

1. Discipline
- I would create a level of sub-administration that would do nothing but deal with discipline issues. They would not do busses, budget, sports, facilities, anything. Their job is to issue sanctions against misbehaving students.
- I would expand ISS programs. For example, in a school of 1600, 10% are discipline problems. That's 160 of them. About half will be in trouble on a given day. That's 80. That's beyond the capacity of one guy and a classroom. So, I'd fund 4 positions in a school of that size for guys who are ISS only. And I would build a special room, where the students are isolated, can't see each other, with built-in cameras so that everything is monitored for each one.
- I would forbid principals and superintendents from considering the number of students suspended as criteria for anything. In other words, however many get suspended, get suspended. Too bad.
- I would re-write the law, and I would not allow a student's IEP to interfere with their suspension or expulsion.
- I would make it easier to expel students altogether for being disruptive or uncooperative.
- I would construct every school system at least one alternative school program for a last-chance effort, if that is deemed worthwhile.

2. Facilities
- I would build schools to a modular design, capable of easy expansion. (I would succumb to a weakness for Colonial Williamsburg architecture).
- Rooms would be large and spacious, with shelves and closets easily added.
- I would make sure the schools were adequately heated and cooled, and use the most silent system possible.
- Schools would be provided with adequate parking.
- I would keep adequate staff to clean schools so that the teachers can concentrate on teaching.
- I would have schools have remote cameras, especially in areas hard to monitor.
- I would make sure that school buses had adequate space to come and go, and that enough buses existed to keep routes down to 45 minutes at the most. (Some of mine ride an hour and a half.)

Technology
- I would mandate that all schools carry sufficient technology budgets that all classes would have multiple computers if that is desired. Every class could concievably have its own computer lab.
- Every classroom would have a big screen TV.
- All classrooms would have a wireless Internet node
- Every school would have a lavish budget for things like data projectors, laptops, handhelds, smartboards, etc.
- There would be multiple computer labs, or at least capacity to add more over time.
- The school would have sufficient bandwidth so that lagging would not be a problem even if the entire school were online at once.


Security
- I would mandate more school resource officers.
- I would mandate one out of every 10 teachers be armed with a concealed handgun, for the express purpose of combatting school shooters only.
- I would lay out school grounds so that visitors would have to gain access through only certain points.
- All schools would have modern alarm systems.

Support
- I would pay bus drivers a lot more.
- I would pay teacher assistants more.
- I would make more assistants available.
- I would employ more custodians, and pay them better.

Special Ed
- I would mandate a reduction in documentation of 450%
- I would create positions to free up teachers from paperwork
- I would adequately fund mandates
- I would re-write IDEA and eliminate the "least restrictive environment" clause so that only spec ed students who are capable enough to be mainstreamed are. (Sorry guys- I've had too many experiences with people who should have been self-contained and were not.)

Athletics
- coaching would be the responsibility of the PE department, except where volunteers wished to
- I would fund 1 athletic director's position per high school- so you get one paid football coach who doesn't have to teach. This position could not be supplemented locally.
- I would mandate PE be taken every year, and I would mandate that hyperactive ADD boys take it first thing in the morning in a male-only class.

Can't remember anything else....although I'm sure I missed something.

Edit: Just remembered: Class size would be a maximum of 20 at any grade level, with 25 being the magic number to hire new teachers.

Edit: And.....every teacher would have their own classroom. When 10% of the faculty roves, another building goes up.

Of course some additions:

Actually, to do all this, you would have to be a hybrid of Governor and General Assembly. Truthfully, you would have to be appointed dictator because some of the neadrethals running our beloved state would NEVER fund all or even a significant part of this. Most of what you propose just makes too much sense.

Let me add to this:

*** teachers who wanted to be admistrators would FIRST have to serve as classroom teachers for a minimum of 7 years and would be required to rotate back through a classroom position every five years

*** social promotion would be eliminated. Academic standards would be set and honored by ALL, regardless of ethnicity, IDEA or what have you.
Those failing to meet standards would repeat grades at another school. Those failing to do it again would be placed in an alternative program, where they could receive instruction in basic skills and where they would remain until they met those basic standards or aged out

*** vocational & technical education would be reinstated and those who cannot or will not meet academic standards would be placed there to learn a skill or trade.

*** hire retired marine drill instructors (or the like) to staff in school suspension programs

*** increased the size and budget of guidance departments and permit them to be guidance counselors NOT testing coordinators

*** central/district office staffs would be restricted in size to essential positions. No more deputy assistant superintendents for can openers

*** parents who refused to participate in conferences or who just did not show up would be fined and/or incarcerated and those who showed repeated disregard for their children would have their parental rights terminated and their children made wards of the state

Yeah, it will never happen, but wouldn't it be nice?

and a bit from another on tests:

Use the stupid tests not to test whether or not the teachers are doing their jobs but to drive our practise which is what testing is supposed to be about. Rolling Eyes Don't misunderstand me, standardized testing has its place but the politicians don't really know why we're doing the testing.

Politicians! Require them to shadow a teacher for a minimum of 3 days at each grade level in a variety of schools. Perhaps THEN we would get adequate funding and be paid properly.

 

[actsnoblemartin]

excellent point, from one of the best posters on this board.

Gets right into the nitty gritty of the failure.

American Education Fails Because It Isn't Education
By Tom DeWeese, MichNews.com
December 8, 2007

...there are two specific categories in which the U.S. excels, compared to the rest of the world. First, the U.S. ranks second in the world in the amount we spend per student per year on education = $11,152. The U.S. is also a leader in having some of the smallest classroom numbers in the world. Yet the slide continues. American students grow more illiterate by the year. How can that be? We're doing everything the "experts" tell us to do. We're spending the money. We're building more and more schools. We're raising teachers' pay.

Every American should understand that these three items: higher pay, smaller classrooms and more money for schools are the specific agenda of the National Education Association (NEA). The NEA is not a professional organization for teachers. It is a labor union and its sole job is to get more money into the education system, and more pay for its members. It also seeks to make work easier for its members - smaller classrooms. Clearly the NEA is not about education - it's about money and a political agenda.

for full article:
http://www.michnews.com/artman/publish/article_18707.shtml

 

[Adam's Apple]

excellent point, from one of the best posters on this board.

Thanks. I posted the article because my oldest daughter is on the textbooks selection committee for her school district, and some of the things she has told me about the discussions and showed me in proposed textbooks seemed to bear out what the author stated in his article as being wrong with public education. I think there is little doubt that the area of public education is one that the lefties have staked out to impact.

 

[bennylava]

Here's part of the problem. When you say that a certain amount of money is spent on each student in the US, that's not accurate. The amount of money spent is not equal at all.
The money for schools comes from property taxes. The higher the value of the property in a school district, the more money that school district has to spend.
My mother was a secretary at a public highschool in a suburb that had more money per capita than Beverly Hills. The school district had so much money the buildings looked like posh malls, with huge tropical trees, beautiful grounds, lots of pets and art displays, murals, tons of sports facilities that were state of the art.
In addition, the employees of the school were given great benefits, including a discount on any work out equipment they bought or any gym memberships.
Now I ask you, is that fair? Is it right that kids twenty miles away in a poorer neighborhood didn't even have enough books to go around? And the books they did have were falling apart and twenty years old?

That is the problem with the amount of money we spend on education in this country. So much of it goes to luxuries in rich school districts.

 

[Mr.Conley]

Here's part of the problem. When you say that a certain amount of money is spent on each student in the US, that's not accurate. The amount of money spent is not equal at all.
The money for schools comes from property taxes. The higher the value of the property in a school district, the more money that school district has to spend.
My mother was a secretary at a public highschool in a suburb that had more money per capita than Beverly Hills. The school district had so much money the buildings looked like posh malls, with huge tropical trees, beautiful grounds, lots of pets and art displays, murals, tons of sports facilities that were state of the art.
In addition, the employees of the school were given great benefits, including a discount on any work out equipment they bought or any gym memberships.
Now I ask you, is that fair? Is it right that kids twenty miles away in a poorer neighborhood didn't even have enough books to go around? And the books they did have were falling apart and twenty years old?

That is the problem with the amount of money we spend on education in this country. So much of it goes to luxuries in rich school districts.

Agreed. $11,152 might be the average, but it's distributed very unequally. I've seen schools in southern Alabama that don't receive half that figure. Conversely, there's places like Andover, Exeter and the New York Privates that spend nearly $70,000 per student. So you've got a lot of money going into the system, but distribution is also a factor. Not the only factor, but a factor.

 

[midcan5]

This thread belongs in the conspiracy section.

Bennylava hits the nail on the head again.

Having lots of teachers in our family and extended family these posts are just so off the wall you seriously wonder at the education of the poster or writer. Jonathan Kozol covers the issue in several books and money is not evenly distributed but it is more than just money. I know graduates of prestigious schools who amaze me with their inability to write clearly or figure out simple math problems, so why? It has a lot to do with what we value in this country and learning aint it. Sports, fame, and money are our values, and if you have ever heard Alan Iverson speak you know he didn't learn a heck of a lot of English at Georgetown. But he is a hero to many.

And those with money get the best education possible, anyone on here know about all the expensive private schools out there, and the immense amount of learning material available? Foreign students come here for a reason. You can do anything in this country with money but even without you can do well in public education if you try. Motivation is a key factor here and that comes from family and society.

from article: "Clearly the nation's education system is not teaching the children. They can't read or work math problems without a calculator. They can't spell, find their own country on a map, name the president of the United States or quote a single founding father. America's children are becoming just plain dumb."

But they can play video games, surf the net, and name the top musicians I bet. And if you think using a calculator is easy I suggest you get one and enter your calculus, stat, or bookkeeping formulas into it. Calculators are essential for advanced math.

http://www.learntoquestion.com/seev...kozol/Seevak02/ineedtogoHOMEPAGE/homepage.htm

"If you grow up in the South Bronx today or in south-central Los Angeles or Pittsburgh or Philadelphia, you quickly come to understand that you have been set apart and that there's no will in this society to bring you back into the mainstream." Jonathan Kozol

 

[bennylava]

And please let's not forget about kids in rural school districts. So much of the emphasis is on the inner cities, but the rural kids lose out too. Their families might even make a lot of money, but because everything is so spread out, there aren't as many tax dollars to go around in their district. Or in some states, there isn't a lot of property to be owned, because it's so warm that people can afford to live in really run down houses that have holes in them and not worry about freezing to death. Thus property values are way down, property taxes are way down, so less money goes to the schools.

My theory is that this country doesn't WANT our children to all be educated because we need to maintain a soldier class. Before you get riled up, my father, stepfather, and father in law, and my brother were all military men. My stepfather and father are both Vietnam vets. This is NOT an antimilitary or anti-soldier sentiment.

The fact is, military recruiters rely on the promise of a free education or just a steady paycheck and health care for life to recruit young people. I know that a lot of very smart and educated people join our military. They are the ones who get the good jobs, who fly the planes and become officers for the most part.

But they still need people to clean, paint, be the calvary so to speak. If everyone had a great education, knew that they could go to college and not worry about how to pay for it, who would be left to do the grunt work in the military? Even my brother joined up because he wanted a free education, among other reasons.

I would also say that it is much easier to control a severely undereducated populace. People who are uneducated are much more easily swayed by marketing and propaganda, and by emotional and religious appeals. They are also much easily manipulated by fear.

But its' not a conspiracy theory. Nope.

Edit: I would also add that the rich and powerful know that if the playing field were level, that their average children couldn't compete with the best of the best. They know they have to maintain the status quo so that their children get the priveledges that others don't.

 

[BrianH]

I agree and disagree on alot of things. I believe that most governments do have an uncanny ability to control to populace, and the fact is, most people are too uneducated to realize it. I believe the failure in out education system is a mix of anything anyone can think of. It's partly the governments intentional unequal distribution of resources, a lack of credibility in the education system, an extreme lack of support from parents low emphasis and expectaion on education itself, teachers who work for the paycheck, and the most rediculous standardized test system that can be devised (Texas , TAKS---For example: 10th graders take a test on U.S. History---They had it in 7th Grade and they don't have it again until the 11th grade. It's "logic" like this that irritates me. We (out of all nations) have the most opportunity and resources for a great education, yet, we fall behind many other countries when it comes to the educated. I've met foreign junior high students who know more than the majority of our high school seniors. I'm sure most all of you have read the 1983 report about American schools falling behind.
I could ramble on about being pinned-down by the government, but I think that it is up to the person to decide what he/she wants to do. I'd like to ramble on but I've got so much to say I could take up the entire thread.