Failure of U. S. Education System

[Bobbywhy]

If the United States expects to compete in the international community it needs competent scientists, engineers, and mathematicians. The articles below show U. S. students falling behind students in many other nations. Even though the U. S. spends more than most countries on education we are not attaining quality results.

This analysis from November, 2010 finds the United States ranked 31st out of 56 countries in the percentage of students performing mathematics at a high level of accomplishment, trailing Korea, Canada, the Czech Republic, Slovak Republic, Poland and Lithuania, among others.

http://educationnext.org/percentage...s-in-math-trails-most-industrialized-nations/

Here find clear graphs comparing various countries’ mathematics and science students competency spread over several years. U. S. students rank ninth and tenth of countries measured.

http://www.realonlinedegrees.com/education-rankings-by-country/

Program for International Assessment (PISA) concludes that Chinese students spend less time than American students on athletics, in music and other activities not geared toward success on exams in core subjects. Also, in recent years, teaching has rapidly climbed up the ladder of preferred occupations in China, and salaries have risen. In Shanghai, the authorities have undertaken important curricular reforms, and educators have been given more freedom to experiment.

http://www.nytimes.com/2010/12/07/education/07education.html

Trends in International Mathematics and Science Study – Advanced 2008. Although several years old, this completed study gives specific details of worldwide trends.

http://www.iea.nl/timssadvanced20080.html

American spending on public K-12 education is at an all-time high and is still rising. Continuous spending increases have not corresponded with equal improvement in American educational performance. Increasing federal funding on Education has not been followed by similar gains in student achievement.

http://www.nationmaster.com/graph/edu_spe_per_sec_sch_stu-spending-per-secondary-school-student

This is to propose improving our educational system by looking beyond our horizons to where successful teaching methods with proven results have been demonstrated. Then our educators would adopt those methods, adapt them to our culture, and then apply them. The future of our nation depends on education to develop competent citizens.

 

[That Neuron]

When its obvious all we really need to do is create a good line of textbooks and pump Ritalin into the water supply.lol.

But realistically America spends way too much resources (and kids time and workload on unnecessary subjects like foreign languages, Art, Music and History (don't even get me started on scripture)... when schools should be centered around English, Math and Science. Simple. 1.5h of each a day, that makes 4.5 hrs total, And gives kids the oppurtunity to do what they want, OUTSIDE of class... but hey how can you expect American politicians to make that into a law when they are the product of a malfunctioning public education program themselves.

Source: I'm 16...

 

[russ_watters]

Why do people say the system is a failure? Don't the students and parents bear at least some responsibility?

 

[Bobbywhy]

the "system" must include all the actors: students, parents, teachers, administrators, and whoever else contributes to the failure.

 

[russ_watters]

Oh, ok - I always figured "the system" was the structure set up by the government.

In either case, your OP mentions funding, activities (structure) and teacher pay, but only seems to mention the resulting failures of students, not the causing failures of students. For example, the ~25% of Americans who drop out of school are causing their own failure. No amount of funding or teacher training can fix that problem. In other words, I don't think your OP really deals with what imo is the primary problem: culture. This isn't a government problem.

 

[Pengwuino]

Oh, ok - I always figured "the system" was the structure set up by the government.

In either case, your OP mentions funding, activities (structure) and teacher pay, but only seems to mention the resulting failures of students, not the causing failures of students. For example, the ~25% of Americans who drop out of school are causing their own failure. No amount of funding or teacher training can fix that problem. In other words, I don't think your OP really deals with what imo is the primary problem: culture. This isn't a government problem.

I don't entirely agree with this. A student who drops out feels there is no use in receiving an education. This is a problem that, while mainly the student's decision, is influenced by unmotivated teachers and thoughtless parents.

 

[Ivan Seeking]

I don't entirely agree with this. A student who drops out feels there is no use in receiving an education. This is a problem that, while mainly the student's decision, is influenced by unmotivated teachers and thoughtless parents.

Not to mention basic economics: Drug dealing can be far more profitable than hard work.

That isn't a matter of culture at work.

 

[StevieTNZ]

Not to mention basic economics: Drug dealing can be far more profitable than hard work.

That isn't a matter of culture at work.

Even taxing the earned money on drug dealer would help the economy.

 

[Ivan Seeking]

I for one found Los Angeles city school life far to dangerous to be tolerated due mainly to the gangs, the drug dealers that funded the gangs, and the environment they created. Within six months I went from being a Catholic school kid who had never really done anything wrong, to a public school kid who ditched as many as 40 days in one semester and drank a half-pint of 151 for lunch every day. It wasn't a matter of culture. It was fear. After a year and a half of that we left Los Angeles and moved to a small town in Northern California. Within a year I was on the honor role and had fallen in love with physics.

 

[Pengwuino]

Not to mention basic economics: Drug dealing can be far more profitable than hard work.

That isn't a matter of culture at work.

Well, sure there's cultural aspects. And of course drug dealing can be profitable, but you can also get thrown in jail.

 

[Ivan Seeking]

Well, sure there's cultural aspects. And of course drug dealing can be profitable, but you can also get thrown in jail.

I'm not defending it. I'm talking about the perception of an inner-city teenage boy who sees his buddies getting rich turning drug deals.

Culture doesn't evolve out of a vacuum.

 

[russ_watters]

So...you guys disagreed with me, then circled around to agreeing with me?

 

[russ_watters]

I don't entirely agree with this. A student who drops out feels there is no use in receiving an education. This is a problem that, while mainly the student's decision, is influenced by unmotivated teachers and thoughtless parents.

Clarification of my point: since students are not adults, students and parents are two parts of the same entity. So any time I refer to students, I really mean both.

For teachers, again, I think the cause/effect relationship typically cited is backwards. And I think that statistics and logic prove it.

 

[Pengwuino]

Clarification of my point: since students are not adults, students and parents are two parts of the same entity. So any time I refer to students, I really mean both.

For teachers, again, I think the cause/effect relationship typically cited is backwards. And I think that statistics and logic prove it.

So you're saying that unmotivated and bad students cause create bad and unmotivated teachers?

 

[daveb]

There are numerous reasons why the US educational system sucks. On the administrative end, we have no national standards that are enforced. At the state level, the standards are so malleable that states can game the system so that the majority of their students fulfill the standards. At the social level, teachers as a whole get blamed for economic woes - just look at teh vitriol spewed on teachers in Wisconsin and Ohio several months ago. At the union level, crappy teachers have more protections against being held accountable than a 10th century virgin wearing a chastity belt. At the teacher level, too many unqualified teachers that don't have a clue about STEM concepts are teachng them - badly. Too many two income families are too tired to hold their children to high standards since all they want to do after coming home from work is to experience Amrican Idol brain drain. And unfortunately, too many students get caught in the middle of all this. These are the ones I blame the least, mainly because the cycle starts so early, in 1st or 2nd grade, and to expect a child that age to have the responsibility for their education just isn't going to work.

 

[daveb]

So you're saying that unmotivated and bad students cause create bad and unmotivated teachers?

This can be partially true. My experience in the M.Ed. program is that newer teachers start out very enthusiastic. Many who end up getting placements in lower performing districts eventually get tired of trying, so give up on the students. And the problem with that is that with the pay scale system, once a teacher has been in a district for 3-5 years, it's very difficult to move to a new district since that district would rather pay a lower wage to a newer teacher.

 

[russ_watters]

So you're saying that unmotivated and bad students cause create bad and unmotivated teachers?

Mores than the other way around, yes. Being a teacher in a bad area can be soul crushing.

 

[Galteeth]

Another problem is the perverse incentives created for teachers. In the high school in my town, there are teachers who turn a blind eye, and in some cases, facilitate cheating. This is because school funding, perceived "worthiness" of the faculty (in the sense of municipal budgeting) and ultimately individual job security are dependent on teachers producing classes with good grades and high tests scores. The problem was bad when I went to high school, it has apparently gotten worse since. Furthermore, the "advanced track" students are actually more likely to have these kind of experiences, since they have the more activist parents.

I disagree with the person who said history and foreign language is not important. Foreign language, besides having practical uses, helps with brain lateralization. History is important as well, for in a democratic republic, we need citizens who have an understanding of civics and the lessons of the past.

 

[klimatos]

Why do people say the system is a failure? Don't the students and parents bear at least some responsibility?

You bet they do, Russ.

I suspect that most of the posters on this Forum came out of the U. S. school system. Some of us have done well despite it. The problem is that most people (self-starters excepted) will always take the easy way out of difficult situations.

I taught atmospheric sciences at the university level. Whenever I put an equation on the board I would get moans and groans from my classes. I would then explain the absolutely necessary role of mathematics to them, and ask who taught them math in high school.

Far and away the most common answer was: The football coach!

I'm sure that all academics have heard the old canard, "Those who can, do! Those who can't, teach! And those who can't teach, teach teachers!

Denmark requires that all public school teachers possesses at least a Master's Degree in any field in which they offer instruction. A Masters in Education is not acceptable.

 

[klimatos]

Teachers like to think of themselves as professionals, but most teacher's contracts smack more of hourly-workers wages in their emphasis on seniority and deliberate disregard for differences in demand in skills and location.

If there is a greater demand for math teachers than for social science teachers, then why not pay them more? Universities do, why not public schools?

If there is a greater demand for inner city teaching than suburban teaching, then pay the inner city teachers more. Keep raising the benefits until some teacher responds, "I'll do it!"

And above all, let's require competence in our teachers. Before hiring, a minimum of a major in the discipline to be taught should be required (and I don't mean a Major in Education with a concentration in the subject discipline). Before tenure is granted, the Minimum of a Masters in the field should be required.

If this mean closing down most of our Departments of Education in the university system, then so be it.

 

[sourlemon]

Teachers like to think of themselves as professionals, but most teacher's contracts smack more of hourly-workers wages in their emphasis on seniority and deliberate disregard for differences in demand in skills and location.

If there is a greater demand for math teachers than for social science teachers, then why not pay them more? Universities do, why not public schools?

If there is a greater demand for inner city teaching than suburban teaching, then pay the inner city teachers more. Keep raising the benefits until some teacher responds, "I'll do it!"

And above all, let's require competence in our teachers. Before hiring, a minimum of a major in the discipline to be taught should be required (and I don't mean a Major in Education with a concentration in the subject discipline). Before tenure is granted, the Minimum of a Masters in the field should be required.

If this mean closing down most of our Departments of Education in the university system, then so be it.

If I'm correct, I believe in the US, the school get some funding from taxing the people around the area. In that case, it is much harder to pay the inner city to give higher pay to the teacher.

I disagree in term of Master. If you're in college, then yes, you should have a higher degree. However, if you're teaching middle school or high school, why do you need a master in that subject? I think if a master is require, it should be a master of Education because that is the teacher main job. I think a BS is enough proof that you have enough knowledge to teach up to high school. What you need is the skill to manage and engage the students. That is much more important than being the smartest teacher in school.

Beside all that, I think the US should create stricter criteria. We can't be nice anymore. If students in HS wants to drop out, let them. If you force them to stay in school, they create a nuance to the teachers and the students around them. You're wasting resources on them. If a student doesn't pass a specific criteria, don't let them pass. Don't let them know that they can get away without doing anything.

I think the US needs to reevaluate our system. When I was in Vietnam, I remember we had recess, writing, reading, grammar, math, art, and sometimes stories time. All of this within 4/5 hours (granted some activities only occurs on certain days). When I came to the US, even if I fail all the other class, I still manage to pass math, even if I could barely understand what the teacher said. In conclusion, I don't think we give the students enough credit. We keep thinking oh this is too hard for them, let me soften it up for them. I think that's doing more harm than good. You're not pushing the students limits. Just think about high school and college. In high school, it takes you one whole year to learn calculus. That's one hour a day, for five days, for nine months. But in college, you're in class 3 hours a week, for 3/4 months. Agree that you're one year older, but does that really make a difference? We simply set the standard in college and tell the student, meet it or fail. Simple as that. One of the best teacher that I have is the one that set the bar so high, that only a handful of student would get 95% on his midterms/finals. I was a C student in his class and A/Bs in others. Yet, that's where I learned the most material in his class.

 

[SixNein]

If the United States expects to compete in the international community it needs competent scientists, engineers, and mathematicians. The articles below show U. S. students falling behind students in many other nations. Even though the U. S. spends more than most countries on education we are not attaining quality results.

Why do you think the nation needs more mathematicians?

 

[WhoWee]

Why do you think the nation needs more mathematicians?

Because it's difficult to count to $25Trillion on your fingers?

 

[Bobbywhy]

Thank you all for your contributions and ideas. Most recently, sourlemon gives some examples of how other (Vietnam) education systems function. I repeat from the OP:

"This is to propose improving our educational system by looking beyond our horizons to where successful teaching methods with proven results have been demonstrated. Then our educators would adopt those methods, adapt them to our culture, and then apply them."

Let us find "what works" and use it. For example, how do those countries with the highest math/science scores teach...? What do they do that we do not? Arguing about details within our current system without considering systems outside of it decreases our chances to discover innovative teaching methods.

 

[Bobbywhy]

"The acronym STEM stands for science, technology, engineering, and mathematics. The STEM fields are those academic and professional disciplines that fall under the umbrella areas represented by the acronym. According to both the United States National Research Council and the National Science Foundation, the fields are collectively considered core technological underpinnings of an advanced society. In many forums (including political/governmental and academic) the strength of the STEM workforce is viewed as an indicator of a nation's ability to sustain itself." (From Wikipedia)

 

[SixNein]

Because it's difficult to count to $25Trillion on your fingers?

Give me a serious argument on why we need more mathematicians. And what kind of mathematicians do people think we need?

 

[Galteeth]

Because it's difficult to count to $25Trillion on your fingers?

l

 

[Char. Limit]

I liked the argument between Russ and Peng (and others on both sides of course). I think that had some value. Let's continue with that one.

 

[Physics-Learner]

if we want to improve our school system, we need to get on the voucher system.

 

[CAC1001]

Vouchers in theory sound like a good idea because they add a free-market competition aspect to the publicly-funded school system, but the teachers unions are vehemently against them and almost any affluent area I'd think would be against them. People who have worked hard to move into and live in a decent neighborhood with good schools are not going to want vouchers which will allow all of the inner-city kids to then have the ability to be sent to their schools as well. Vouchers are also controversial because in the past, they were used for segregation purposes I believe, so many people think of that when they hear vouchers (although using vouchers for that purpose was outlawed decades ago). People such as Milton and Rose Friedman, however, never supported vouchers for such purposes. Most consevatives and libertarians who support vouchers support them for the free market competition they would theoretically bring to the schools. Vouchers are also just one component of creating school choice. I also believe there are areas in the country where vouchers have been successfully applied.

Now if the school system was being designed from the ground up, I'd say definitely use vouchers as opposed to having bureaucrats designate where a person's child goes to school. But with the way the school system is now, and the way communities are, any community that is affluent with good schools will resist vouchers I think, because that would stop their tax dollars from going straight into their own schools. School choice is a system embraced by other countries though, which is probably why their students are often better-performing. For being the nation about more limited government, America has a totally socialist public school system. Many of the more "socialist" European nations do not have a public education system in which a bureaucrat designates where the child attends school.

Another problem is that I don't get the talk about accountability for teachers. How can teachers be accountable with how impossible it is for them to actually teach in some of the classrooms? A teacher in an inner-city school cannot discipline the kids there. Teachers have virtually no disciplinary power, which means that unless the kids actually are willing to learn, they can't teach them.

If you study the history of the U.S. public education system, it was never originally designed to teach or educate, it was designed to promote social control, to create a citizenry that would prove easily mouldable for the government, would provide a steady source of obedient labor for big business, and would also be easy to market a whole bunch of consumer products to. This was in the day when businesses were thought of as big, impersonal, inhuman machines, people worked on dehumanizing assembly and production lines that required no thinking or creativity, and things like socialism were the rage. Much of the U.S. public education system was based off of the Prussian education system, which was very effective at producing soldiers and employees.

This changed with the onset of the Space Race, where then it all of a sudden became imperative to produce thinking people, people who would be mathematicians, scientists, engineers, etc...today, the modern public education system consists of the mess that has resulted from the leftover remnants of the previous system and how it has evolved over the years.

 

[WhoWee]

Vouchers in theory sound like a good idea because they add a free-market competition aspect to the publicly-funded school system, but the teachers unions are vehemently against them and almost any affluent area I'd think would be against them. People who have worked hard to move into and live in a decent neighborhood with good schools are not going to want vouchers which will allow all of the inner-city kids to then have the ability to be sent to their schools as well. Vouchers are also controversial because in the past, they were used for segregation purposes I believe, so many people think of that when they hear vouchers (although using vouchers for that purpose was outlawed decades ago). People such as Milton and Rose Friedman, however, never supported vouchers for such purposes. Most consevatives and libertarians who support vouchers support them for the free market competition they would theoretically bring to the schools. Vouchers are also just one component of creating school choice. I also believe there are areas in the country where vouchers have been successfully applied.

Label this opinion - just some observations:

My wife is an educator and has worked in most of the public schools in our area before moving on to the university. We've observed the building boom for public schools over the past decade. They seem to have unlimited funding to build and equip the facilities - but no money to operate. Btw - the vandalism to the new buildings and theft of equipment is unbelievable.

We don't have vouchers per se, but we have a program called "open enrollment" that allows a student to cross school districts (reciprocal agreements) whereby the receiving school system is provided funds from the district that lost the student. Needless to say sports recruitment is a problem that was not anticipated.

We've observed the older schools in the affluent areas have not been replaced and all of the inner city schools have been replaced. However, the older schools (that were built to handle twice their current enrollments) are receiving inner city kids seeking safety and discipline that is not present in the new inner city schools.

 

[Physics-Learner]

one will never be able to stop wealthy people from spending more money on things, including their children's education. nor do i think they should be. it might surprise you, but i am not against someone being wealthy.

when i refer to the "wealthy", i am referring to the upper echelon, who uses their money to gain control of others.

back to vouchers. most people would spend their money to go to the school that is close by, as long as the school is good. schools that were deemed not worthy would be replaced by people who made it worthy - capitalism at its best.

each school could determine if one 100,000 administrator was more important than 1000 computers to the school. in other words, which makes it more attractive to the parent who now has the choice of where he spends his voucher.

schools in affluent societies would no doubt spend more on their facilities, and charge more for them. the less affluent areas though, would have much better schools than they had before - which is the whole point of our school system - to better educate our children.

 

[WhoWee]

schools in affluent societies would no doubt spend more on their facilities, and charge more for them. the less affluent areas though, would have much better schools than they had before - which is the whole point of our school system - to better educate our children.

Again, this is the exact opposite of what we are experiencing in our area. The very poor inner-city schools are being torn down and replaced with multi-million dollar complexes with the very best computers and equipment. The older schools in the more affluent areas have upgraded equipment and athletic facilities - but are not replacing the buildings.

 

[Physics-Learner]

what is there to complain about, then ? if the schools were so bad that the best thing is to completely rebuild them, then so be it.

i also do not know exactly how your voucher system runs ? does each kid get the same voucher amount ?

 

[WhoWee]

what is there to complain about, then ? if the schools were so bad that the best thing is to completely rebuild them, then so be it.

i also do not know exactly how your voucher system runs ? does each kid get the same voucher amount ?

The state has invested heavily in the region for new inner city school facilities - but the behavior of students has not been addressed whatsoever. Educators are basically afraid of their students and parents rarely support teachers. The latest trend involves some of the most disruptive students being sent to the older affluent schools (by the disruptive parents).

If the schools have a reciprocal agreement - the receiving school receives funds that would have gone to the school that lost the student.