America's Education System Is Fine

samusaran253

After seeing some people, mostly Europeans, claim that all Americans are stupid because our "education system is worse than North Korea's" and making other baseless claims like that, I've decided to share my own experience with the education system of the United States. After going through America's 13 year system, let me say this, it was easy. I wish I could be one of those people who say that high school (the last 4 years of the education system; the last 6 years, if you count junior high school), but they weren't, in fact I am a much happier person now than I was in high school. By no means am I implying that the American education system is perfect, since no system is entirely perfect, but it's definitely not as bad as the liberal media makes it out to be.

No, I'm not a prodigy or anything, but I went through the education system and it worked fine. I didn't go to some fascist Orwellian high school with metal detectors, school uniforms, strict dress code, drug sniffing dogs, or police everywhere. I also didn't go to a run-down high school with gangs, violence, bullying, or anything like that. I just went to a normal American high school. Please note that I am basing this entire thread upon my personal experience, which was with a high school in a semi-rural area, and by no means represents urban (city) high schools, which are likely gang infested.

I went through the system like everyone else, did my education like everyone else, K-6, 7-8, and 9-12, and I wasn't generally a straight A student, nor did I have perfect behavior. I definitely could have been a straight A student had I applied myself more, but that was not the fault of the education system, that was a fault of my own. I am an extremely intelligent human being, and have been since I was about 13. I can code and design an entire fully functional website in less than an hour, I am informed about almost all political issues and have opinions on them, I study political ideologies and religions in my free time to further my knowledge, I know how the world works both in high school and after it, and I was always a step ahead of most of my peers, and still am today in many cases.

We teach our children and later our teenagers just fine, and I wouldn't have it any other way. Does that mean I want to lessen funding towards education? No, in fact I want to increase funding towards education. I feel as though education is very important for today's young people, but remember, high school is all about learning how to become a productive and social member of society, K-6 on the other hand is all about learning basics such as the English language, science, mathematics, and other core classes. My school district never had the best funding, and in my final year of high school it was/is crumbling now, because of lack of state funding. It has gotten so bad that they had to close down a lot of elementary schools in the area, and merge them with other elementary schools. They're even planning on merging an elementary school with my local junior high school, which many of the locals, myself included, are strongly against.

Now lets get down to the social aspect, high school has virtually no bullying, bullying is something little kids do in the K-6 system, not teenagers. No, I wasn't some popular football playing jock who had a cheerleader girlfriend, in fact, I was the opposite. I was the video game playing geek with practically no friends. Sure, I had some "friends" who I would hang out with at school and talk to online, but like most people, I only had maybe one or two real friends. But even within my own group, I was one of the people who just didn't fit in entirely, despite me being one of the two leaders of the group, and the administrator of the group's official message board. We had cliques, of course, like every high school does, there were the jocks, the emos, the stoners, the cheerleaders, the preps, the band geeks, the goths, us gamers, and all other kinds of cliques, and of course there was also individuality. But cliques are nothing like what Hollywood makes it out to be, everyone gets along with everyone else, and everyone has friends in every group, and all groups peacefully socialize with each other.

There were no gangs, but again, I've never lived in a major city, especially not a poor area of a city. We did have some drugs though, of course there was alcohol and smoking, but never on campus, and those are of course general things teenagers do to rebel (or because they get addicted). There wasn't any peer pressure though, no one ever pressured you into doing drugs, or even really asked you too. Of course, there's the occasional pot, but pretty much no one got into the hard drugs, maybe a few of the stoners did some of the hardcore stuff like meth, but no one I know (aside from one girl, but she graduated a few years before me). Now then, teen sex, sure, there was a lot of that, but most people played it safe and used condoms and/or birth control. There were a handful of pregnancies each year, but they brought that upon themselves. As for fashion, let me say that, like most guys, I'm not very adept when it comes to fashion. I would just wear whatever I felt like, and never got made fun of or singled out too much. Sure, there were the preps who always wore Hollister or the emos who generally wore darker clothing, but it certainly wasn't a fashion contest or anything like that.

I'd say the school system is pretty damn good, if not the best in the world. Sure, after high school, like most people, I missed it, and still do sometimes. I wish I could go back and be 13 again, a teenager, and start my adult/teenage life over. But all-in-all I'm glad of the person I am now, I'm not rich or overly successful yet, but I work hard and I'm getting there, since that's what America is all about, hard-work and making your own future. The school system has already vastly improved, my baby brother learned in 3rd grade what they taught me and everyone else in 5th grade. He was learning multiplication and division in like second grade. So yes, I'm glad our school system is making strides to become better, because our young people are the future of this country. Do I think we need to completely overhaul the school system? No. Do I think we need to take extreme stances like metal detectors, teachers beating students, school uniforms, strict dress codes, search and seizures every 2 hours, drug sniffing dogs, or anything like that? No. But I do think we need to fund education more, and with that, I bid adieu.

samusaran253

USA is actually above England, but behind South Korea.

Amerika

There is a lot of good in the public education and a lot of bad. My kids still in school just this year are experiencing changes in classroom makeup which will only hurt their education process and test scores for the student body on a whole. Up until this year they were put into classes based on ability. My kids were always in the highest levels in their class. The school board has now decided this practice stigmatizes some kids who have to be put into lower level classes. So now everything is integrated. Classes are now very boring for my kids as the level of actual teaching has crawled to a halt. Time to start looking at private schools I guess. Just wish I could withhold the thousands of dollalrs I pay in school taxes every year, and assert "political correctness stupidity" as the reason for not paying.

Overheal

Economic Capitalism and Educational Equality. Doesnt add up. I liked the Gifted Program when I went to US schools, it meant I was still learning things instead of just coming into class as part of my legal obligation to be in a classroom, and to redo the same stuff I already learned how to do weeks prior. Ireland also breaks it up into Honors and Pass, and Remedial/Special Needs. Also a little better that you can choose on a per course basis how hard you want it. You can choose to do Honors sciences and Ordinary level History for example. None of which is determined by a pre-screening of your IQ, which many argue is a bogus metric anyway. But hey, at least taxes paid to tell me I'm eligible for Mensa.

Theres some good in the system yes, but a lot to fix in the education system also. Standardized testing, especially Multiple Choice, just boggles my mind. Its a system (kind of like Ireland) where the teachers don't teach you what you need to know but how to pass a test. I also think the system needs to be neutral on things like religion and politics. Unfortunately for many that means getting rid of the Under God pledge and keeping creationism out. Teach evolutionary theory as a theory, not a science, or don't teach it at all. I never learned anything about Evolution when I was in Leaving Cert, or Junior Cert, and frankly since neither it or creationism are 'Proven Science' they really don't seem to apply to how I put on my shoes every morning or if I wish to become a doctor someday. Why not just get rid of both of them and cease the fuss?

Do I need to even get into school overcrowding or the school food economy? I don't think so. A supposedly publicly funded system that is so strapped for cash its turned itself into a business, some schools even going so far as to ban outside food to the exlclusion of their own cafeteria, netting them revenue. Not to mention vending machine deals. And whatever else I'm not thinking of. Either make it a commercial-free, public education system, or don't try. Subsidize the private Education system instead. Or at least give parents the option to choose which school their child goes to which isn't predetermined by what zip code you live in - and yes, I've known more than one or two people that have contemplated moving down the street just so their child could go to a better school. It's a bit out of hand.

southsiderosie

I don't think that you can call the American system "fine" based on an individual experience. People experience American schools differently, even within the same system.

I went to Chicago Public Schools for 2nd grade through high school. In grade school, we had a large library, daily recess, drama club, multiple language courses (including Latin), and the option to take advanced math courses at the neighborhood high school. In high school, I played three sports (in good facilities), did well on the SAT (which we were prepped for), had access to and took multiple honors and AP courses, and benefitted from several college counselors. After four years of grooming, over 90% of my graduating class went on to college, myself included.

If I were to extrapolate from my experience to the broader system as a whole, my conclusion would be "Chicago public schools are great!". But we all know that this is DEFINITELY not the case!

spank_inferno

I would also agree with the sentiment of the OP.

I'm Irish however my better half is was educated in the public school system in Greenfield, WI.

From what I know and seeing her school first hand, I would agree that the public education system exceeds that of Ireland.

She was in several advanced placement classes in her senior year.
I would have loved that oppertunity.
Facilities were light years ahead of what we have here.

Teachers get paid a lot less in America though.
Not necessarily a bad thing as it makes the job more of a vocation than an easy ticket to middle-class comfort for life

Denerick

What use is a good education if so many Americans believe the earth is 6,000 years old or that Obama is a Muslim fascist communist? Americans don't get mocked because they have a bad education system (I'm sure it varies from region to region, the USA is literally huge) Americans get mocked because so many of them hold silly beliefs. And many more are armed to the hilt.

Overheal

As I alluded previously, what does Creationism or Evolutionary Theory have to do with the ability of a surgeon or a lawyer? I mean, it's not exactly as if your organs will spontaneously evolve on the operating table. I hold belief in either theory to be a private matter, it really doesn't have much bearing on day to day activity. Unlike, say, if you wanted to teach children Math in Hexidecimal.

Permabear

This post has been deleted.

Overheal

Permabear wrote: »

This post had been deleted.

How much am I willing to bet they fight for those wages by arguing the same thing: "We have to go in and teach ungrateful monsters in dilapidated, cold prefabs, we want Modern, Warm Prefabs more wages to put up with dilapidated, cold prefabs!!

Permabear

This post has been deleted.

amacachi

Overheal wrote: »

How much am I willing to bet they fight for those wages by arguing the same thing: "We have to go in and teach ungrateful monsters in dilapidated, cold prefabs, we want Modern, Warm Prefabs more wages to put up with dilapidated, cold prefabs!!

It amazes me how teachers here went on strike over pay but haven't gotten around to it in relation to school conditions yet.

It seems to me that the difference between the top and bottom in the US is bigger than one would expect. Again singular experiences shouldn't be used as direct evidence but from a friend who moved here at 16 and went into 5th year the difference in what he did in his supposedly advanced maths class and our Higher Level maths was very surprising to me, and I think that HL maths is already too dumbed down here. :pac:

Overall statistics are also weak in some ways, the difference in schools from one side of a town to another in Ireland can be huge, nevermind in cities and states in the US.

amacachi

Permabear wrote: »

This post had been deleted.

As much as I may agree with many of your points I look forward to when you stop using the peak year for everything to make your point.

southsiderosie

I think the main problem with the US school system boils down to poverty and inequality. The statistics in this article are startling:

To justify their campaign, ed reformers repeat, mantra-like, that U.S. students are trailing far behind their peers in other nations, that U.S. public schools are failing. The claims are specious. Two of the three major international tests—the Progress in International Reading Literacy Study and the Trends in International Math and Science Study—break down student scores according to the poverty rate in each school. The tests are given every five years. The most recent results (2006) showed the following: students in U.S. schools where the poverty rate was less than 10 percent ranked first in reading, first in science, and third in math. When the poverty rate was 10 percent to 25 percent, U.S. students still ranked first in reading and science. But as the poverty rate rose still higher, students ranked lower and lower. Twenty percent of all U.S. schools have poverty rates over 75 percent. The average ranking of American students reflects this. The problem is not public schools; it is poverty. And as dozens of studies have shown, the gap in cognitive, physical, and social development between children in poverty and middle-class children is set by age three.

Concentrated poverty hurts these kids in a number of ways: children who are hungry can't concentrate (and neither can children hopped up on sugary, fatty school lunches), and children who have unstable home lives are less likely to do their homework or have parents who are involved and invested in the success of their local school. And this problem is exacerbated by the fact that schools in the US are funded through local property taxes, so poor kids in cash-strapped districts are the least likely to get a decent education, but are the ones who - more than anyone else - desperately need a good education as their ticket out of poverty.

amacachi

southsiderosie wrote: »

I think the main problem with the US school system boils down to poverty and inequality. The statistics in this article are startling:



Concentrated poverty hurts these kids in a number of ways: children who are hungry can't concentrate (and neither can children hopped up on sugary, fatty school lunches), and children who have unstable home lives are less likely to do their homework or have parents who are involved and invested in the success of their local school. And this problem is exacerbated by the fact that schools in the US are funded through local property taxes, so poor kids in cash-strapped districts are the least likely to get a decent education, but are the ones who - more than anyone else - desperately need a good education as their ticket out of poverty.

I also find it ironic that it's in the poorer areas of society when parents logically would have more time to spend with their kids at an early age that kids are behind from an early age. I was lucky that while we weren't well-off my mother gave a crap about me.

southsiderosie

amacachi wrote: »

I also find it ironic that it's in the poorer areas of society when parents logically would have more time to spend with their kids at an early age that kids are behind from an early age. I was lucky that while we weren't well-off my mother gave a crap about me.

Parents in working poor families, and especially immigrant working poor who do not qualify for any state assistance, tend to work - a lot. Not all poor people are sitting on their asses all day collecting a check from the government.

amacachi

southsiderosie wrote: »

Parents in working poor families, and especially immigrant working poor who do not qualify for any state assistance, tend to work - a lot. Not all poor people are sitting on their asses all day collecting a check from the government.

Would two people working full time still be able to be below the poverty line though? Even at ~5 dollars an hour each for a 40 hour week they'd be approaching the poverty level for a family of 4.

EDIT: My point also applies in Ireland though, where the most definitely are plenty who sick around collecting free money.

Amerika

southsiderosie wrote: »

Concentrated poverty hurts these kids in a number of ways: children who are hungry can't concentrate (and neither can children hopped up on sugary, fatty school lunches),

I don’t buy that. The National School Lunch Program is a federally assisted meal program operating in over 101,000 public and non-profit private schools and residential child care institutions. It provides nutritionally balanced, low-cost or free lunches to more than 31 million children each school day. In 1998, Congress expanded the National School Lunch Program to include reimbursement for snacks served to children in afterschool educational and enrichment programs to include children through 18 years of age. The Food and Nutrition Service administers the program at the Federal level. At the State level, the National School Lunch Program is usually administered by State education agencies, which operate the program through agreements with school food authorities. Any child at a participating school may purchase a meal through the National School Lunch Program. Children from families with incomes at or below 130 percent of the poverty level are eligible for free meals. Those with incomes between 130 percent and 185 percent of the poverty level are eligible for reduced‐price meals, for which students can be charged no more than 40 cents. (For the period July 1, 2010, through June 30, 2011, 130 percent of the poverty level is $28,665 for a family of four; 185 percent is $40,793.)

and children who have unstable home lives are less likely to do their homework or have parents who are involved and invested in the success of their local school. And this problem is exacerbated by the fact that schools in the US are funded through local property taxes, so poor kids in cash-strapped districts are the least likely to get a decent education, but are the ones who - more than anyone else - desperately need a good education as their ticket out of poverty.

A Title I school is a school that receives Title I money, the largest single federal funding source for education. Title I is a federal entitlement program, or non-competitive formula fund, allocated on the basis of student enrollment and census poverty and other data. The U.S. Department of Education distributes these funds to State Education Agencies (SEAs) that in turn, distribute the funds to Local Education Agencies (LEAs) or school districts.

But you did hit the nail on the head with the real problem "children who have unstable home lives are less likely to do their homework or have parents who are involved and invested in the success of their local school." This cannot be fixed by pumping more money into the education process. When did personal responsibility die?

southsiderosie

Amerika wrote: »

I don’t buy that. The National School Lunch Program is a federally assisted meal program operating in over 101,000 public and non-profit private schools and residential child care institutions. It provides nutritionally balanced, low-cost or free lunches to more than 31 million children each school day.

The school lunch program does not provide nutritionally balanced meals in most large school districts. It provides heavily processed foods full of fat and high fructose corn syrup. The program itself is largely a sop to the heavily subsidized agricultural industry.

Free lunch is important, but let's not pretend that it isn't **** in most places. And the fact that cash-strapped school districts have been relying on soda and candy vending machines to make up for lost revenue doesn't help.

My point about school funding also still stands: NCLB is relatively new, and schools have historically been funded via property taxes, which vary wildly between districts. In addition, there is little evidence that NCLB's "teach to the test" orientation of pedagogy does anything to actually improve learning. It just gets kids to take a test. It also creates gross incentives for school districts to over-diagnose kids as special ed or learning disabled so their test scores aren't held against the school (Texas is particularly good at this), and these kids are - as usual - disproportionately poor and/or minority students.

While I would agree that there is only so much that schools can do and that learning should start at home, the bigger problem is that we no longer have the kind of economy and labor market where ill-educated people can still make a decent living. It is all well and good to moan about parental responsibility, but many poor districts don't even have the basics (secure buildings, decent textbooks, sufficient supplies) and they can't offer the kinds of after-school sports, tutoring and activities programs that not only boost student performance, but act as de-facto childcare for parents in wealthier districts. And there are broad and serious social implications for having legions of under-educated, unemployable young people: certainly we only have to look at the sorry history of our southern neighbors to see that.

Permabear

This post has been deleted.

amacachi

southsiderosie wrote: »

This post had been deleted.

As much as I generally dislike subsidies I can understand agricultural subsidies. The level and targetting of subsidies in the US however is ridiculous. Especially when certain people have suggested taxing foods with high amounts of HFCS. Gotta love taxing something that's already been subsidised.:rolleyes:

Permabear wrote: »

This post has been deleted.

I'm aware of that, your points would be easier to swallow for people on the fence if you came across as a little less biased. :pac:

Overheal

amacachi wrote: »

As much as I generally dislike subsidies I can understand agricultural subsidies. The level and targetting of subsidies in the US however is ridiculous. Especially when certain people have suggested taxing foods with high amounts of HFCS. Gotta love taxing something that's already been subsidised.:rolleyes:

Thing of that is the obesity problem stems from a diet full of too much meat (sad to say it) especially mass produced meats, and sugars. Both of which received massive subsidies. Thats why both seem cheaper than fruits and vegetables which we need to be eating far more of.

@Amerika oddly enough isnt NCLB kinda the same philosophy that killed tiered classrooms?

Permabear

This post has been deleted.

Black Swan

I find the quality of America's K-12 education problematic. Historically:

• Elementary and Secondary Education Act of 1965 (ESEA) signed into law by LBJ focused more on educational equity than student performance.
• The GW Bush No Child Left Behind Act (NCLB) of 2001 replaced ESEA, but unfortunately it was more concerned with teaching to the test, rather than improved learning performance, and lacked testing standardization in that the test performance measures varied from state to state.
• Obama has recently been calling for a reform of NCLB, but has failed thus far to accomplish any improvements.

Appropriating more money over the years to improve America's Education System performance appears to have failed in terms of improved reading scores:



The existing NCLB is a huge waste of taxpayer monies; and simply throwing more taxpayer money at education will not improve America's Educational System performance.

NCLB should be trashed and replaced by an entirely different system to deliver curriculum, motivate students, and measure performance.

ACADEMIC CALENDAR (only one example of many needed changes): If America is serious about childhood educational development, then they have to give it a first priority over playtime, extraordinary and wasteful teacher vacations/holidays, and profit-driven commercial and religious holidays. Educational performance declines over long breaks from learning.

For example, the 3-month summer break from education, a holdover from when America was more agricultural and needed children to help harvest the crops, needs to be scrapped and replaced with a four equal quarter system, with equal length short breaks between quarters. If for-profit retail or religious holidays are to be recognized, then have them rescheduled during the short quarter breaks.

Sources:
http://www2.ed.gov/nclb/overview/intro/execsumm.html
http://usliberals.about.com/od/education/i/NCLBProsCons_2.htm
http://www.whitehouse.gov/the-press-office/2011/03/14/president-obama-calls-congress-fix-no-child-left-behind-start-next-schoo
http://febp.newamerica.net/background-analysis/no-child-left-behind-funding

Amerika

Overheal wrote: »

@Amerika oddly enough isnt NCLB kinda the same philosophy that killed tiered classrooms?

How so?

Black Swan wrote: »

NCLB should be trashed and replaced by an entirely different system to deliver curriculum, motivate students, and measure performance.

How would this be accomplished? It's not like the song... "Two out of three ain't bad." Motivation must come from the family.

Black Swan

Amerika wrote: »

How would this be accomplished? It's not like the song... "Two out of three ain't bad." Motivation must come from the family.

It's more than just the family. Motivation is a very complex topic, and certainly includes family, student peers, teachers, career related role models, community, etc., as collaborators in the student learning process. If you are interested in student motivation, may I suggest that you review the scholarly literature on "Communities of Learning?"

Furthermore, student learning is not a stable, fixed target, that you can measure with validity and reliability using a NCLB test, if you wish to improve it substantially. For example, Richard E. Clark, a cognitive educational psychologist at the University of Southern California has lectured at Trinity in the past as a visiting scholar on metacognitive skills to improve and motivate learning, as well as the Zone of Tolerable Problemicity (the latter being a motivational model that balances challenge and effort to maximize learning, which in turn recognizes that motivation and learning are moving targets).

Yes, the complexities of the above two examples perhaps exceed the rigour of our discussions in US Politics, but the important point that I am attempting to make by citing them is that we already know a lot about curriculum design, student motivation, and measuring performance, but "America's Educational System" is not using them in No Child Left Behind, and consequently said system is not "fine."

metrovelvet

I dont know if it's FINE, and I dont know if FINE is a good enough ambition to begin with.

NYC inner city schools get lots and lots and lots of money because all the admins can think of doing is to throw money at the problem. It just means more money to cream off the top. I cant imagine its any different in a city like Chicago.

If I had to choose an ideal school it would be in a leafy suburb. They always seem to have a lot going for them.

I went to high school in the US, did a BA in the US and an MA on this side of the pond and my MA was easier to do than anything I did in high school in the US.

#15

Permabear wrote: »

This post had been deleted.

That's because investment in education has been consistently below the OECD average.

Underinvestment = substandard facilities.

It's not rocket science.

Ping Chow Chi

samusaran253 wrote: »

USA is actually above England, but behind South Korea.

I guess I'm missing something here - but doesn't that picture state that the UK is ahead of the US in two out of the three measures?

Ludo

That diagram has the order sorted by reading only (which is the best score for the US). Averaging the three columns would give a very different order...tis a bit odd.

jackiebaron

Ludo wrote: »

That diagram has the order sorted by reading only (which is the best score for the US). Averaging the three columns would give a very different order...tis a bit odd.

32 million adults who can't even read says it all to me. Anecdotal evidence about your own experience of the US education system is meaningless. US public schools are essentially drop-out factories that no longer teach critical thinking but learning by rote to pass a standardised test.

http://www.usatoday.com/news/education/2009-01-08-adult-literacy_N.htm