Obama XIII: It's all Bush's fault.

[LynahFan]

Re: Obama XIII: It's all Bush's fault.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/12/04/AR2007120400730.html

Sure. But averages don't tell you very much, and the handwringing about "how will America compete" is nonsense. The data are scaled so that the worldwide mean is 500 and the standard deviation is 100, so the US, with its mean of 489, will still have 13% of its population above a score of 600 (i.e. more than 1 standard deviation above the world average). 13% of 300M is nearly 40M people in the US who would have been quite competent to study math & physics at a higher level if they had chosen to do so.

In contrast, the top scoring country (Finland) would have 36% of its population above 600, a whopping 1.9M people. With a 20x advantage in potential engineers and scientists, I just don't hear those alarm bells ringing very loudly.

The US has *plenty* of people who are both talented enough and educated enough to become scientists and engineers - the only reason there's a gap in our need (if there is one at all) is that not enough people choose to go into those fields, not because our school systems are not producing enough people who are capable to do so.

 

[Foxton]

Re: Obama XIII: It's all Bush's fault.

I'm still not convinced the US education system is as bad as it's made out to be. Sure it's "ranked" behind other countries but by what measure? Which students are tested? Surely you're not going to include China or Japan in any rational conversation because not everyone makes it into the educational system.

The US is somewhat unique in that it provides education to everyone, even those with special needs. When you take countries like China where only the privileged have access to schools it artificially inflates their scores.

And yet China probably has more students in school than the US has total citizens.

Why did you throw Japan in there? Their system has actually made it so students compete against each other just to get into a good high school.

 

[dxmnkd316]

Re: Obama XIII: It's all Bush's fault.

And yet China probably has more students in school than the US has total citizens.

Why did you throw Japan in there? Their system has actually made it so students compete against each other just to get into a good high school.

True.

Because of the way the Japanese system works. or at least my rudimentary understanding of it as explained by someone who does understand it.

 

[pirate]

Re: Obama XIII: It's all Bush's fault.

Don't have time for more than a cursory scan of the article...my concern isn't necessarily that 13% of our kids are above (I assume this includes private schools too?) but that the top 13%, I expect, includes private schools, home schools and kids who are first generation to the US.

If we compared our public school system with others' I suspect we perform far worse. Now, I'm not saying there isn't some selection taking place when I make that distinction but this country won't 'underperform' if our smartest 13% go into finance instead of engineering...it will underperform if our bottom 13% can't read or write well enough to support themselves and if educational attainment is tied to that of your parents.

 

[dxmnkd316]

Re: Obama XIII: It's all Bush's fault.

Add on top of everything that standardized tests are completely worthless IMHO.

 

[ScottM]

Re: Obama XIII: It's all Bush's fault.

"Well, the world needs ditch diggers, too."- Judge Smales

 

[Bob Gray]

Re: Obama XIII: It's all Bush's fault.

not a bad idea but we don't even have to go abroad to find out why it works.

If money were the predominant variable in the equation we'd have the smartest kids in the world. It is a great example of form over substance. We have let professional educators dictate how children learn, what raises their self-esteem etc. and yet the results are terrible. They have spent a generation, or more, wasting money on their ideals of how to promote the student while selling that same student down the river for an increase in pay every other year.

If our kids were completely stupid then no schools would succeed, public or private (or home school). If it was only economic environment then no schools in poor areas would ever produce capable students. If it was only parental then all orphans would do worse than kids with two parents.

We've lowered our expectations for education and we are paying for it. It took a village mind you, it wasn't any one group by itself. BUT, parents have the ultimate responsibility for their children. It's funny, you take motivated parents sending their kids to a private school that doesn't follow the BS being shoveled by the Dept of Ed and the teachers union and you find what?...successful students.

If parents care then they make sure their kids get the best education they can. By whatever means necessary. How many parents send their kids to mediocre schools but still have a boat, a big SUV, a camp by the lake, multiple flat screen TV's, a built in bar-b-q on their paver patio and let the kids watch Jersey Shore instead of doing homework? Do parents spend more money on tutoring or cell phones for kids? Books or itunes?

There are plenty of stories of kids who were offspring of slaves, recent immigrants, high school dropouts (due to work), disabled parents etc. who have gone on to successful lives and most credit the involvement and expectation of their parents.

Any parent can ensure their children get an education..if the parent values education and is willing to make some sacrifices. Instead we have TV commercials touting kids going back to school as 'the most wonderful time of the year' as if getting your kids out of the house is the most important thing.

So, the education system is broken and while parents could overcome that issue, most are too busy watching The Bachlorette or some other drivel.

It really isn't that hard to be a good parent when it comes to education for your kids..you can be poor, not that bright yourself, whatever...put the effort into it and kids will learn.

Very well said.

If parents were engaged, and the fetters were taken off teachers to let them spend their time actually teaching, instead of filling out ever larger blizzards of paperwork, things would be much different. But they aren't.

 

[Bakunin]

Re: Obama XIII: It's all Bush's fault.

Sure. But averages don't tell you very much, and the handwringing about "how will America compete" is nonsense.

He asked what ranked the US behind other countries and what the measure was, so I posted an article pointing to that. I don't necessarily agree with the "how can we compete?" alarmist talk - the underlying point I'm making is that we spend an enormous amount of money on our education system, yet whenever our students are compared with those in other countries, we're not exactly dominating (far from it). So the natural question to ask is how do we get more bang for our educational buck? I can't imagine all these other countries are spending as much per capita as we are.

The US has *plenty* of people who are both talented enough and educated enough to become scientists and engineers - the only reason there's a gap in our need (if there is one at all) is that not enough people choose to go into those fields, not because our school systems are not producing enough people who are capable to do so.

There's certainly a gap in the healthcare industry. We don't produce nearly enough doctors, nurses, or lab personnel to staff all of our clinics and hospitals. Due to the impending wave of retirements as the boomers reach social security age, this problem is only going to get worse. Automation can solve part of this problem, but not all of it - and it's very expensive to put in place.

 

[dxmnkd316]

Re: Obama XIII: It's all Bush's fault.

Apparently former Sen. Ted Stevens was in a plane that went down today...

 

[LynahFan]

Re: Obama XIII: It's all Bush's fault.

He asked what ranked the US behind other countries and what the measure was, so I posted an article pointing to that. I don't necessarily agree with the "how can we compete?" alarmist talk

Oops - my bad. Didn't mean to imply that you were being alarmist. That should have been directed at the people in the article.

 

[5mn_Major]

Re: Obama XIII: It's all Bush's fault.

Why can't you cut spending in some areas and not in others? Aren't those the tough decisions our politicians get paid to make.

You sure can. But if that's your plank, then your no more a spending hawk than anyone else...as everyone feels that we should cut spending on stuff they don't want. We should just get that straight.

This country spends enormous sums of money on education - what exactly has it gotten us relative to the rest of the industrialized world? Why don't we just pay an auditor to go to some of these other countries consistently rated above us on child performance and copy whatever it is they're doing?

I've spent my life in analysis and seldom are facts as straightward as they seem. I feel quite comforatble saying a couple of things here...1) It isn't strictly money that matters on education. There are cultural factors coming into play in the US. IMO our kids have far more distractions and due to reletively decent upbringings, they just don't have the drive that kids in other countries do. Record childhood obesity and video game/social networking in the US are examples of this. And no I have no studies to back that up...but there are no studies that say that the US process of education is to strictly blame either. 2) The US does have the best forms of graduate+ (bachelor, masters and PHD) programs in the world. And although you could make the case that the very best few colleges are private...huge numbers of public universities do superbly even saddled with the obligations towards society that a public insitution has. No foriegn country is in the same galaxy as the US.

...except for the fact that providing for the common defense and border security are clearly federal responsibilities.

True, yet the question is how much does the country need. This is up for debate.

But ignoring education and therefore the future of the US economy is the best way to lose on the battlefield. The US won WWII due to its economy and population moreso first and its standing army second. At the beginning of the war, the US army was in poor shape...it was the fact that the US had arguably the worlds best worker pool, its best economy and superb character at home that won the war. So IMO building an economy from the roots up via education with the ability to ramp up as needed is far more likely to win major conflict than year after year putting large sums of money in the military.

Lastly, there are those that advocate that putting money in the military is a big deal because it pumps money into the economy. I would say...so what. Every govt spending program...from construction to education...puts money into the economy. The major point here is that if the govt spending has a real tangible benefit that comes out...new roads, educated children.

The world has changed...sure we need intel to fight the major threat of terror...but war between modern countries has just about ceased. And if China pulled the most idiotic move in world history and invaded Laos...they would be boycotted and their newfound wealth would dry up in a day...but our military would play no role as we couldn't stop a country with one billion in Asia. So for the state of the world today, we do need a stronger state dept and more intel...but just another tank is one govt investment with zero benefit for society.

 

[ExileOnDaytonStreet]

Re: Obama XIII: It's all Bush's fault.

Very well said.

If parents were engaged, and the fetters were taken off teachers to let them spend their time actually teaching, instead of filling out ever larger blizzards of paperwork, things would be much different. But they aren't.

Going back to pirate's post that you were replying to:

There's a hell of a lot more to being "engaged parents" than deciding to spend the extra money for a private school, but beyond that both of your points are absolutely true.

 

[ScottM]

Re: Obama XIII: It's all Bush's fault.

Going back to pirate's post that you were replying to:

There's a hell of a lot more to being "engaged parents" than deciding to spend the extra money for a private school, but beyond that both of your points are absolutely true.

I know a few people who teach elementary and junior high students in lower income neighborhoods. They seem to think the one thing that gives their higher achievers a boost is the level of parental involvement in their kids' academics. Unfortunately, I'm not sure even a federal mandate will change generational apathy.

 

[Bob Gray]

Re: Obama XIII: It's all Bush's fault.

Going back to pirate's post that you were replying to:

There's a hell of a lot more to being "engaged parents" than deciding to spend the extra money for a private school, but beyond that both of your points are absolutely true.

Oh, I fully agree. When I think of "engaged", I don't think of it in a financial sense, but in the sense of taking time and interest regularly in your kids' schooling. To me, throwing a bunch of money at sending your kid to a private school, in and of itself, has little to do with being engaged, though it can be part of giving kids a good education.

 

[ExileOnDaytonStreet]

Re: Obama XIII: It's all Bush's fault.

I know a few people who teach elementary and junior high students in lower income neighborhoods. They seem to think the one thing that gives their higher achievers a boost is the level of parental involvement in their kids' academics. Unfortunately, I'm not sure even a federal mandate will change generational apathy.

There's nothing you can do about that. That's 1000% up to the parents.

The thing that gets me is when people act like the only way to give your kids a good education is to send 'em to private school. It's a groan inducing eye-roller.

Are public schools often misguided? At times, absolutely. But they aren't what's stopping kids from succeeding. At worst, they're just not correcting the ones that don't give a crap.

 

[ExileOnDaytonStreet]

Re: Obama XIII: It's all Bush's fault.

Oh, I fully agree. When I think of "engaged", I don't think of it in a financial sense, but in the sense of taking time and interest regularly in your kids' schooling. To me, throwing a bunch of money at sending your kid to a private school, in and of itself, has little to do with being engaged, though it can be part of giving kids a good education.

No matter what, it's still up to the kid (and the parents) to take advantage of the opportunities ahead of them. At best, private school is going to give you more (or better) opportunities. It doesn't change who the kids or the parents are. Well, other than disposable income. Or the kid being really good at sports.

 

[Bob Gray]

Re: Obama XIII: It's all Bush's fault.

There's nothing you can do about that. That's 1000% up to the parents.

The thing that gets me is when people act like the only way to give your kids a good education is to send 'em to private school. It's a groan inducing eye-roller.

Are public schools often misguided? At times, absolutely. But they aren't what's stopping kids from succeeding. At worst, they're just not correcting the ones that don't give a crap.

But a reasonable argument can be made that the accumulated bureaucracy, political correctness, and playing to the lowest common denominator in public schools makes a good private school, or homeschooling, a tempting option to parents who want their kids to excel. Those other options aren't perfect of course, and are no guarantee of a good education, but you certainly are able to steer clear of a lot of the junk that makes the public education system so much less than it should be.

 

[Handyman]

Re: Obama XIII: It's all Bush's fault.

Well half the problem with public schools would go away with the repeal of NCLB and the state standardized tests. Kids are being taught conveyor belt style and in the end are learning nothing.

And while, as a future teacher, I do think parents being engaged is the most important, it isnt the end all be all. For example I have a friend that has a high school aged daughter. My friend is a very engaged parent, and a very smart one who puts a lot of effort into helping her kids learn. Her daughter could not tell me who the first president was when I asked, who we fought in the revolutionary war and other facts. This girl isnt a moron or special needs, she just donest care to learn. Parents can only do so much, schools can only do so much kids have so much else to occupy their short attention spans they just dont care about school. Dont get me wrong, I hated school too and avoided doing work at all costs, but I learned at least.

When every kid in the class has a cell phone and an ipod, why are they going to care about the math equation the teacher is going over on the board?

As for funding, if the money went where it actually mattered things might improve. There are districts that can barely afford to have guidance counselors let alone special ed departments and advisors. If you had seen some of the things I have seen in my limited experience it would amaze you. The money is tied to the wrong standards, and used in the wrong areas. Everyone is to blame from the Feds to the principals.

 

[blockski]

Re: Obama XIII: It's all Bush's fault.

There's nothing you can do about that. That's 1000% up to the parents.

The thing that gets me is when people act like the only way to give your kids a good education is to send 'em to private school. It's a groan inducing eye-roller.

Are public schools often misguided? At times, absolutely. But they aren't what's stopping kids from succeeding. At worst, they're just not correcting the ones that don't give a crap.

Well, there's no substitute for parental involvement, but schools can help.

There's evidence that in poorly supported households, students actually do learn during the school year. Supported kids (with parental involvement and encouragement in education) then also read during the summer, for example - while unsupported kids do not - and they regress.

One potential solution from the policy level would be to massively increase the length of the school year - other countries have much longer school years, for example.

But this really shouldn't be all that surprising. Total up all the waking hours kids have in a year, and then compare what percentage of those hours they spend in school. It's not that much, really. Far less than adults spend at work, for example.

There are some innovative school programs that have changed this philosophy on education, with positive results. KIPP is one example, amongst others. KIPP specifically has far more in-class time for students than the normal school day and year.

 

[WeWantMore]

Re: Obama XIII: It's all Bush's fault.

Apparently former Sen. Ted Stevens was in a plane that went down today...

Reports say he died in the crash
http://www.ktuu.com/Global/story.asp?S=12952729