New at Reason

Julian Sanchez | January 13, 2006

In a preview of his ABC report, which airs tonight, John Stossel compares education in the U.S. and Western Europe—and looks at why American kids fall behind.

Comments

|1.13.06 @ 9:15AM|#

Aren't the kids ages 10 and below learning in "monopolistic government public schools," too? The kids that, as Stossel points out, score well above average in international competitions?

If public schools were the problem, wouldn't they be scoring low as well?

|1.13.06 @ 9:25AM|#

Joe, the problem is that, in both Europe and America, kids start their educational careers sanely enough--learning the basics of reading and writing and math and so forth--but at the point where the older European students go on to learn more advanced academic concepts, the Americans are learning about self-esteem and multiculturalism and saving the earth and why drugs are bad and how to get in touch with their feelings.

When I taught high school there were books on the twelfth-grade curriculum that I'd read for fun in the fifth or sixth grade. And while I was a smart kid, I wasn't some super-genius, and certainly not the only kid capable of reading multisyllabic words at the age of ten. The 'advanced' curricula of American public schools are far less rigorous than most kids are capable of achieving.

|1.13.06 @ 9:28AM|#

I also suspect that schools in Europe are less likely to do things like spend a big portion of their budget on sports, and encourage teachers to give passing grades to kids who can't read, but are vital to the school sports team's chance of winning a trophy.

digamma|1.13.06 @ 9:37AM|#

I'd take the French healthcare system if we could have the Dutch educational system with it.

|1.13.06 @ 9:39AM|#

Actually, though, I must say that's an excellent question Joe.

There has to be some sort of more specified reason why the drop off in quality of education comes at that particular point - I'm not really satified by Jennifer's explanation of basic vs. advanced educational concepts. If the Belgian system is inherently superior to the American one, we should see disparate results at all levels of education.

One thing I've never understood is why there isn't more competition between unions. Seems that one could organize a very successful alternative to the UFT here in NYC, and grab the teaching contract out from under them. That seems to me one of the best ways to see union reform - union competition.

|1.13.06 @ 9:39AM|#

Jennifer - you are right on about sports. You cannot discuss the differences between the US and Europe/Asia if you ignore America's obsession with athletics. The reason kids in a upper income bracket New Jersey school would not be as "smart" as kids in Belgium has everything to do with culture. To a non-American the American focus on sports from a young age is incredible. I live in Newton, MA - one of the wealthier and best educated towns in America, with a very good public school system. Even here most parents are focused on soccer, little league baseball, tennis, basketball etc. That's what you brag about to other parents. Kids are expected to get good grades as a matter of course but intellectual achievement for its own sake does not appear to be valued very highly. America is a success oriented culture not an intellectually oriented culture.

Given that American has a completely different cultural orientation, why does Stossel think America is failing at school? Do we really want our kids to learn more advanced academic concepts? Clearly Darwin is not wanted. Does Stossel want more Marxist philosophy or deconstructionism? As far as I can tell the Republican party is opposed on principle to advanced academic concepts, and they may not be entirely wrong. Our education system is quite good at producing entrepreneurs, lawyers, and movie producers, i.e. the people who make America go. Ironically, if Stossel succeeded in getting America to be more like Belgium, it would probably end up with more left-wing intellectuals pontificating through the media and more wonkish Eurostyle politicians. Is that what Stossel really wants?

|1.13.06 @ 9:48AM|#

Vanya--I used to teach in a less-prosperous Massachusetts town; it was even worse there. At least in your town "intelledctual achievement was taken for granted;" in my town, it was largely viewed as unnecessary.

A few months ago I read of a school district in California that was (justifiably, I think) concerned about the fact that their students had basically no free time, what with homework and athletics and all the overly structured after-school activities the kids had. So what was the school district's response? Pass a law limiting the amount of homework a kid can be assigned!

Think about that--there isn't enough time for the kids to pursue both academics and sports, so the school district decides to reduce the emphasis on academics, so that the kids don't have to reduce the time they spend playing sports.

Warren|1.13.06 @ 9:50AM|#

Wait a minute, I thought American kids were so fat and lazy, they were dropping dead in the halls. No I find out they're so obsessed with sports that all the time spent chasing delusional hoop dreams has made them stupid.

|1.13.06 @ 9:55AM|#

Jen,

I tend to agree with you, but I think joe's point is that Stossel should be making comments like yours instead of just saying "schools suck because they suck".

I think Stossel should have taken his point about the teacher's union to the logical conclusion. The union wants teachers to be paid for effort rather than ability, these are the lessons the kids are being taught... and the output is exactly what should be expected.

Your anecdote about books is interesting being that nuns in Catholic schools are notorious for confiscating books, a one-penguin book-banning board. My brother will never forgive the church for stealing his copy of "Man In The High Castle". Condemning the content is one thing, but breaking a commandment is hypocrisy.

|1.13.06 @ 9:58AM|#

okay, as a supporter of public schools in general, i have to admit that the emphasis on athletics (and the subsequent expenditures on them) truly amazes me.

i find it hard to have much sympathy for districts in economic hard times who still manage new uniforms and matching warmups for their athletes. granted, much of this may be funded by boosters and the like.

what i'm getting at is that i believe if the average community were addressed by their school district that expenditures needed to be cut, the community would rather cut art-music-foreign language-etc. courses before the football program.

that is a cultural phenomenon and probably would vary greatly from community to community.

|1.13.06 @ 9:59AM|#

Gah! Joe, you are falling for a commonly held misconception about free-markets vs coercive ones.

In a free market, the set of solutions that provide the best value as a function of resources consumed tend to dominate the transactions taking place, because customers will choose them as they arise.

This set of solutions is quite arbitrary; The free market does not automaticaly ensure that they get implemented.

There is no reason why a good solution cannot be implemented in theory by a provider who uses coercion to get customers. Let us assume that I had the only grovcery store in town, and I kep my monopoly in place by violently assaulting my competitors.

I could still, in theory, provide my "customers" with good food at low prices. Howerver, I am far less likely to expend the effort since keeping customers happy is very hard work.

The flaw in government services is that the government is a violent monopolist which likes to kidnap and rob those who compete with it in ways it does not like. The fact that they occasionally perform efficiently does not fix that problem.

|1.13.06 @ 10:01AM|#

The union wants teachers to be paid for effort rather than ability, these are the lessons the kids are being taught... and the output is exactly what should be expected.

On a thread a few days ago I was griping about exactly that--one of the "teacher enrichment" classes I had to take had a professor who said, in all seriousness: "When it comes to student achievement, ability doesn't matter--effort does."

Now, this can certainly explain failure--you can have great ability but amount to nothing due to laziness--but it doesn't work the other way around.

Think how ridiculous it would be if we held the same standard for athletics: ability doesn't matter, effort does. If I want to be a professional quarterback for the NFL, therefore, I should be able to do this so long as I put enough effort into the attempt. Don't you dare suggest that a woman as short and skinny as I am might not have the ability to make a career out of blocking 350-pound professional athletes--that might hurt my self-esteem.

Also, the reason Down's syndrome kids tend to do poorly in academic matters apparently has nothing to do with a lack of ability on their part--no, no, they're just not making the proper effort, is all.

Stephen Macklin|1.13.06 @ 10:03AM|#

Whenever some elected politician strides into office proclaiming that they are going to solve the problem of education they almost inevitably make things worse. And every one of them does it.

It's even worse when it's bipartisan. Such as the collaboration of Bush and Kennedy on "No Child Left Behind."

How is No Child Left Behind going to be accomplished? Not by bringing up the child in the rear, but by making sure no one gets too far ahead.

|1.13.06 @ 10:05AM|#

re: teachers paid for effort rather than results

here's where i cut teachers and their unions some slack. if a teacher provides good lessons and homework and the like - but their students turn in zero assignments and blow off the tests and consequently get F's, why exactly should the teacher be responsible for their students performance? teacher pay based solely on student acheivement exempts the student from any personal responsibility and makes the compensation of a hard working teacher dependent on the lazy efforts of a bunch of kids who would rather be doing something else.

(full disclosure: i have teachers in the family)

|1.13.06 @ 10:07AM|#

Jennifer-

I think that the "sports obsession" that you're referring to is a symptom, not a cause. The underlying symptom has more to do with two things, IMHO. First is the indulgent view that a lot of parents have, worse than the baby boomer parents had. Second is the view of school as nothing more than a means to get a diploma of sorts (HS or college...but post grad studies would indicate someone considers it a bit more important). To blame sports is, I believe, a bit of a red herring, it has more to do with the parents being focused on making sure their kids are eternally blissfully having fun at every possible waking moment, and if the school system/teacher says they're not doing well in school, then that's the school system/teacher's fault. After all, school is just a public baby sitter to most.

Matt
(as no not the previous matt, but the other Matt...)

|1.13.06 @ 10:08AM|#

here's where i cut teachers and their unions some slack. if a teacher provides good lessons and homework and the like - but their students turn in zero assignments and blow off the tests and consequently get F's, why exactly should the teacher be responsible for their students performance?

Having had some students who simply didn't care, I agree. But I think part of this problem would be solved if we end this "one size fits all" model of education: stop pretending that we live in Lake Wobegon, where every kid is above average and every kid is capable of becoming the next Nobel laureate.

|1.13.06 @ 10:10AM|#

I haven't run (or even looked up) the numbers, but I suspect that lower grading standards for talented athletes is not a particularly significant factor if only because there are only a handful of such athletes at most schools. Arguably, athletics along with all other extracurricular activities distract from academics more in U.S. than in foreign schools, but I'm not willing to conclude that this is per se and always a bad thing. (Nor, for that matter, do university admissions offices, though the admissions game is another topic fraught with controversy.)

Vouchers and school choice shouldn't be sold as sufficient answers to the problems with pre-college education in the U.S., but they're sure as hell a step in the right direction. Of course, there is already "school choice" for responsible, affluent parents. The uneven quality of the "one size fits all" public school system in most states, cities and counties drives their housing decisions, perpetuating and exacerbating the problem.

But as has already been noted, even the strongest public school systems remain highly problematic. The unholy alliance of teachers' unions, education schools and state and federal education bureaucrats both sacrifices the interests of students for the sake of the, ahem, teaching professionals' self-interests and fosters an, ahem, progressive agenda. I frankly can't imagine how any (de facto) government monopoly could result in anything other than self-interest and statism run amok.

|1.13.06 @ 10:16AM|#

downstater,

That's teaching effort is not the effort I'm talking about, the effort to placate the union and the school adminstration is the effort the teachers are paid on. Also, a "good lesson" is usually defined as one approved for purchase by the adminstration, not one that necessarily teaches the students anything.

Jen,

You'd be surprised at the "effort over ability" that goes on in high school sports. Ass-kissing beats out ability a lot of the time, and ass-kissing is viewed as effort by a lot of bad coaches.

|1.13.06 @ 10:18AM|#

I suspect that lower grading standards for talented athletes is not a particularly significant factor if only because there are only a handful of such athletes at most schools

It has a ripple effect. If I am forced to give a "C" to an athlete whose real grade was only 50 on a hundred-point scale, how can I in good conscience give a failing grade to the non-athlete whose average was a 59? Also consider that an administration which mandates passing grades for athletes is not likely to be an administration with strong overall academic standards, which is why at my school, it was practically impossible for ANY kid to fail, provided he had parents willing to call the school and make a stink.

I myself was forced to change my share of grades--if Mom has decided that her little Poopykins will go on to a four-year college, then by God Poopykins will have the grades to qualify for a four-year college; whether or not he earned them doesn't matter.

(My school liked to brag about the number of students who went on to enroll in college; I'd've been more interested in the number of students who completed their college educations and went on to get decent jobs.)

Warren|1.13.06 @ 10:19AM|#

Jennifer,
I've gotten to know a couple of teachers over the years. Just a couple, so small sample size problems. I've noticed some patterns

1. They all taught in poorer schools
2. They all thought they were the best teacher in the school
3. They all thought their students were very bright
4. Despite having taught for at least ten years none of them could name a former student that "made something of himself"
5. None of them could derive the quadratic formula if their life depended on it.

|1.13.06 @ 10:20AM|#

Count me among the 76% satisfied with my kid's public education, just because I'm too uneducated to know better.

|1.13.06 @ 10:22AM|#

1. They all taught in poorer schools
2. They all thought they were the best teacher in the school
3. They all thought their students were very bright
4. Despite having taught for at least ten years none of them could name a former student that "made something of himself"
5. None of them could derive the quadratic formula if their life depended on it.

1. True, for me.
2. Ditto.
3. No--I had a couple of brilliant kids, several dumb ones, and lots who were average.
4. None of my former students are old enough to have finished college yet, so it's too early to tell.
5. I can't do the quadratic equation, but I taught English so it doesn't much matter.

|1.13.06 @ 10:23AM|#

Jennifer,

i agree that self esteem seems to be the sole focus for letting kids who do not belong in regular classroom settings stay in them and ultimately be left behind.

however, i view this a bit differently as i run into countless educators who inevitably have students who are light years behind the rest of them and in the opinion of the educators (and even administrators) belong in a different setting. but the parents aren't having any of it.

so yes, self esteem drives the tendency toward one size fits all education, i just don't believe it's for the self esteem of the students.

|1.13.06 @ 10:26AM|#

The other day I was looking through Amazon.com and thinking about picking up a copy of The King Must Die by Mary Renault. In the reviews section there was a critique from a HS senior who had read it as their senior year reading assignment and was complaining (In all caps, natch) that the book had made her feel self-conscious about her chest since the characters had made many references to girl's anatomy in the book.
I was taking it seriously, and my mind was reeling, until I realized that the chances of a senior year class of any HS in America assigning that book as required reading was less than zero. Apparently Amazon reviews are a new venue for parody and humor. Cool.
The book I had to read my senior year was Far from the Madding Crowd. Can you imagine? I don't think anyone came away from that assignment with an increased love of reading.

|1.13.06 @ 10:29AM|#

so yes, self esteem drives the tendency toward one size fits all education, i just don't believe it's for the self esteem of the students.

Bingo!!

|1.13.06 @ 10:29AM|#

I still maintain that all the data supports my (not-PC and hence very unpopular) thesis that "school performance" is almost entirely a function of student demographics, not of teaching techniques, etc.

This is from 1998:

++
http://www.pdkintl.org/kappan/kres9811.htm

From this table we can see that, if Iowa seceded from the union, it would be the second-ranked nation in the world. The top one-third of American schools posted scores as high as Taiwan and Korea -- and in math, where we are such putative dolts.

Asian and white students in the U.S. make up about 70% of all K-12 students. Thus 70% of American students scored as high as or higher than the third-ranked nation.
...

First world, third world, all right here at home. It makes no sense to speak of "American schools."

++

Private schools wouldn't do a significantly better job than public schools, they'd just do approximately the same job a lot more cheaply.

|1.13.06 @ 10:29AM|#

Do you guys have school aged kids?

I�ve found that when kids are 5 to 10 (about) they are generally predisposed to doing what an adult tells them to do, except for some who might not be right in the head. After about 5th/6th grade, kids become obstinate little monsters who want to do what they want to do. If you can�t come down harder on those kids with negative reinforcement for disruptive behavior, there will be less class time devoted to learning and more devoted to stopping disruptions.

If Belgian schools are so consumer oriented, I bet they do not put up with nonsense that is tolerated in US public schools. I also think that�s why parochial schools have such better results than public schools with a similar student demographic; they are more punitive and can finally throw out the really annoying kids who are ruining the learning experience for the other 39 in the class.

|1.13.06 @ 10:29AM|#

"Aren't the kids ages 10 and below learning in "monopolistic government public schools," too? The kids that, as Stossel points out, score well above average in international competitions?"

Well, government isn't necessarily bad at doing everything.

So I guess we can add teaching kids their ABC's and 123's to the list of things .govs do well.

You know, like sticking people in ovens or shaking them down for money.

Warren|1.13.06 @ 10:30AM|#

5. I can't do the quadratic equation, but I taught English so it doesn't much matter.

It's possible you are kidding, but I don't think so because that is exactly the attitude of the other teachers I know. If you believe that, then I have almost no respect for you.

|1.13.06 @ 10:30AM|#

warren,

you need to meet more teachers as i have yet to find one that has not been exasperated with some complete shit-disturbing dullard who dominates their attention during class.

teachers in general aren't the starry eyed idealists who believe all their students can achieve something great as they are popularly portrayed.

|1.13.06 @ 10:31AM|#

"I also suspect that schools in Europe are less likely to do things like spend a big portion of their budget on sports, and encourage teachers to give passing grades to kids who can't read, but are vital to the school sports team's chance of winning a trophy.

Jennifer;

When I was in Germany, 20 or so years ago, I learned that if the kids wanted to play sports they joined a club. Schule was more focused on academics and kids had no pep rallys, feel good classes about staying away from drugs, drug testing, etc. Everything was about education. Germany also has a 2 track system that groups kids into those going on to University and those going to technical schools. This was determined early on, so the school track were established to give the kids the best opportunity to succeed in their track.

IMHO, our schools also focus too much on getting kids to go to University. I am convinced that we sell University over technical schools and are saddling kids with $50,000 debts to get a Sociology or English Degree and no hope of making the kind of money their parents make. Unless kids are in the hard sciences, the job prospects for them is kind of slim pickins.

|1.13.06 @ 10:32AM|#

i agree that self esteem seems to be the sole focus for letting kids who do not belong in regular classroom settings stay in them and ultimately be left behind. however, i view this a bit differently as i run into countless educators who inevitably have students who are light years behind the rest of them and in the opinion of the educators (and even administrators) belong in a different setting. but the parents aren't having any of it.

True. Here's how standards worked at my old school:

To take low-level English, you had to pass the previous year's English course with a D minimum. To take "college prep" English, you needed at least a C in the previous year's course. To take Honors English (which became AP when you became a senior), you needed at least a B the previous year.

In theory. In practice, you enrolled in the English course your parents wanted you to enroll in. I didn't have too many unqualified kids in my Honors course (the summer homework assignments scared a lot of them away), but more than half of my "college prep" kids did not belong in that class, according to the school's own standards.

Come on--I've got a kid who is not even capable of reading and comprehending a "Sports Illustrated" article about his favorite athlete, and I'm supposed to teach him to understand and appreciate Chaucer and Shakespeare? So of course, the kid starts class hopelessly behind and gets moreso every day.

But his parents get to brag that Poopykins is taking College Prep this year! It's bizarre--they don't value intellectual achievement, yet at the same time they want to brag about the high classes their kids take.

|1.13.06 @ 10:34AM|#

I can't do the quadratic equation, but I taught English so it doesn't much matter. . . It's possible you are kidding, but I don't think so because that is exactly the attitude of the other teachers I know. If you believe that, then I have almost no respect for you.

Ah, so you think the way to improve education is to ensure that every single teacher is proficient in Algebra II? Shall we also require all science teachers to be experts on Shakespeare, and require all math teachers be proficient in advanced biology as well?

|1.13.06 @ 10:36AM|#

It's bizarre--they don't value intellectual achievement, yet at the same time they want to brag about the high classes their kids take.

That's easy to explain: image over substance.

|1.13.06 @ 10:37AM|#

mk,

I remember my high school assigned The Moon is a Harsh Mistress and The Once and Future King to read in the summer before freshman year.

I've never been happier with a reading assignment!

|1.13.06 @ 10:41AM|#

NativeNYer,
Before freshman year in High School?!
Christ, I really had a crappy education.
I did read stuff like that at the age of 14 (My faves were Vonnegut and Richard Brautigan), but there was certainly no impetus on the part of the school staff towards any students reading anything that I can remember.

|1.13.06 @ 10:41AM|#

Count me among the apparently small percentage of people who realize that his own public education was inadequate. I didn't know what 'standard essay organization' was until I took a college freshman composition class. In my time, only 3 classes of science and math *combined* were required for graduation. Even while in high school, I knew that was ridiculous, and I took four math and three science classes (as well as the brand new computer course that only started in my senior year of high school). Alas, while my math teachers were pretty good, chemistry and physics were taught by a football and wrestling coach, and he wasn't very good at it.
That was in 1983. God knows what's happened to public schools since then.

|1.13.06 @ 10:42AM|#

Cliff,

I agree with everything you say about the German schoool system, but Americans don't want that. Certainly the GOP would never want a system like the German education system. I'm convinced that the stratification in German education is what allows the elite to keep such a firm grip on German society. Poll after poll will show that most Germans have fairly similar attitudes to Americans on issues like the death penalty, immigration, European integration etc. But because the Gymnasium elite keep a tight grip on society and the width of acceptable political discussion, populist politics have no socially acceptable means of expression, until social pressure forces them to appear in extremist right or left wing parties. In America we do a better job of letting different constituencies, for better or worse, express themselves politically. You can't simply make the schools "better", one way or the other society is going to change as a result.

Warren|1.13.06 @ 10:43AM|#

Ah, so you think the way to improve education is to ensure that every single teacher is proficient in Algebra II? Shall we also require all science teachers to be experts on Shakespeare, and require all math teachers be proficient in advanced biology as well?


That's the point, Algebra II isn't advanced biology. Requiring science teachers to be "experts on Shakespeare" is unreasonable but requiring them to have read some of his stuff and even be able to discuss it is not.

I think mathematics is as fundamental a life skill as literacy. You have confessed to a level of ignorance I consider to be roughly the equivalent to being unable to write a coherent paragraph. How much respect would you have for a scientist who was unable to write a report? You think that because you are an English teacher you don't need to think rationally? No you think you do think rationally despite your (grotesque) mathematical ignorance. But I think you are mistaken.

|1.13.06 @ 10:44AM|#

I was pretty scared when I saw the size of the OaFK, I never read anything even half that size before, but I'm glad I worked my way though it.

But why the Heinlein I'll never know.

Dan|1.13.06 @ 10:45AM|#

Stossel continues to amaze with his stupidity.

"Government monopoly of schools?"

Last time I checked, anybody is free to send their kid to a private or church school in America.

Stossel is rabble-rousing fool.

Timothy|1.13.06 @ 10:48AM|#

You'd be surprised at the "effort over ability" that goes on in high school sports. Ass-kissing beats out ability a lot of the time, and ass-kissing is viewed as effort by a lot of bad coaches.

This is why I loved Cross Country, no bullshit. You either run faster than the other guys on the team or you run JV. That simple. There were kids who were Freshmen when I was a Junior that started putting up really good times...I was glad I graduated before they got fast enough to be a real threat :-).

|1.13.06 @ 10:48AM|#

Vanya, also note that Germany has a voucher system, at least in most states. However, the government does regulate private schools more than it does in America.

|1.13.06 @ 10:49AM|#

I think mathematics is as fundamental a life skill as literacy. You have confessed to a level of ignorance I consider to be roughly the equivalent to being unable to write a coherent paragraph. How much respect would you have for a scientist who was unable to write a report?

I have enough mathematical knowledge to maintain a budget, calculate what a debt will cost me when interest is factored in, keep my savings and checking accounts balanced, calculate my monthly bills times twelve to figure my annual costs, and so forth. That is the mathematical equivalent of being able to write a coherent paragraph and make yourself understood.

What is currently lacking in my life, do you think, because I don't do the quadratic equation? What was I unable to do for my English students, that I could have done if only the quadratic equation were listed among my accomplishments?

|1.13.06 @ 10:49AM|#

My daughter's 4th grade class have already had From the Mixed-Up Files of Mrs. Basil E. Frankweiler, The Lion, The Witch and the Wardrobe and The Phantom Tollbooth as reading assignments this year complete with questions about the book they had to answer as they went along. They will probably do two more before the year is out.
When I was in 5th grade, our teacher read THe Lion, the witch and the wardrobe TO US.
Sheesh.

|1.13.06 @ 10:50AM|#

the application of the quadratic formula is as essential a life skill as writing a coherent paragraph?

i agree that a level of proficiency in all aspects is great - but i wouldn't conflate the real world applicability of academic subjects.

isn't it possible to hold a degree in philosophy with an emphasis on formal logic and still not know the quadratic equation? is such a person no longer capable of rationality?

|1.13.06 @ 10:53AM|#

I don't know anything about the Belgian school system, but my general impression of European high schools is that they're only attended by above-average kids; the rest of the kids got weeded out around age 12 and tracked into vocational/technical schools. That may, at least in part, explain the better scores for the Belgians in the head-to-head test in Stossel's show.

|1.13.06 @ 10:53AM|#

As Smacky and I have discussed over at Grylliade. org, both of us, at one time, actually bought into the idea that one had to have advanced math skills to be a computer programmer.
Oh how we laugh about it now :)

|1.13.06 @ 10:57AM|#

I went to a weird experimental public school =

http://www.scarsdaleschools.k12.ny.us/hs/Aschool/

and now i is a jeanyus!

My theory on the problem of US public education is that it's not skills based, it's 'information' based (so kids never learn how to read or write critically, but just regurgitate)... and also that we dont place a high enough premium on the movational powers of Shame.

i.e. we dont let failures fail, tell them they are failures, and make them try again to redeem themselves. We call them 'average' (grade inflation), and just lower the standards so everyone can pass and the system can take credit.

Maybe a slight overstatement, but thats the general idea

JG

|1.13.06 @ 10:57AM|#

if my public schools failed me in any way it was in the absence of "great books" requirements. i learned all kinds of things from balancing chemical equations, identifying ketones (sp?) and i still remember what a mole is. but i never read a lot of those famous books until i was in college. i guess i could have read them on my own time - but i always held jobs after school.

|1.13.06 @ 10:58AM|#

Last time I checked, anybody is free to send their kid to a private or church school in America.

Sure, if you've still got enough money to spend after the taxes that pay for the public schools. That's why the poor get hit the worst by the system.
Thank God Stossel is willing to take the heat and talk about the sacred cows in a refreshingly straightforward way. If a few oxes get gored, well that's what's supposed to happen if things are to get better.

Timothy|1.13.06 @ 10:58AM|#

Warren:

I have an econ degree and work as a bank analyst, yet I surprisingly do not still have the quadratic formula memorized. Does this make me an igorant doofus?

I had to google it to remember the exact construction, because I haven't had to use it for anything in a while. Since, god, probably Calculus I my freshman year of college. I can't recall if it popped up in linear algebra, and it might have been in analysis but I didn't put any effort into those classes so I don't really remember. I can see your point about all teachers having a basic competency with a broad range of subjects, my point is that it's easy to forget stuff if you only use it rarely. I have trouble remembering the quadratic formula, and exactly what a gerund is...these things happen.

|1.13.06 @ 10:59AM|#

The debate in this forum suffers from a lack of empirical evidence. I'll just throw something out there Patrick Wolf, an economist who specialized in education:

Paul Peterson and I investigated Catholic and public schools in three New York City boroughs: Brooklyn, Manhattan, and the Bronx. To make costs comparable, we subtracted the costs of government-funded special programs from each public school's expenditures, including compensatory programs for children in poverty, bilingual education for children with limited proficiency in English, and special programs for various categories of special needs such as learning disabilities and mental retardation. Costs of transportation and food services were also subtracted from public school outlays. We deducted the public school costs of the central office and the community school boards that oversee and regulate public schools. With these adjustments, Catholic schools costs per student were 46.8 percent that of public schools. Even so, Catholic school achievement in reading and mathematics exceeded achievement in public schools among students in high, middle, and low ranges of poverty. Most striking, however, was that the adverse "poverty effect" was substantially diminished in Catholic schools.

The researchers of course controlled for the income of the parents. This finding is consistent with a large body of prior research.

Here is another quote from an analysis by Caroline Hoxby, another economist. She is commenting on the few voucher programs that exist in the United States

These spending numbers...suggest that the voucher schools were 298 percent more productive. When interpreting this number, remember that we have already controlled for differences in student ability and motivation through the randomization. Also remember that voucher students were never the richer and easier-toeducate students in the public schools. Even if we think that the 298 percent measured difference in productivity is somewhat off, it is very unlikely that the true productivity difference is zero or small.

In other words, the evidence indicates that private schools are much more efficient than public schools. This doesn't necessarily mean that the students in private schools have dramatically higher test scores.

Timothy|1.13.06 @ 11:00AM|#

Jennifer: A quick derivation of the quadratic formula is here.

Warren|1.13.06 @ 11:00AM|#

What is currently lacking in my life, do you think, because I don't do the quadratic equation?

Jennifer,
I had this very same conversation with a girl I was breaking up with last year. A few months ago someone on H&R asked me if I was lonely in my tower where I looked down upon everyone. I was forced to answer in the affirmative.

|1.13.06 @ 11:00AM|#

None of them could *derive* the quadratic formula if their life depended on it.

I can't [morphed to] *do* the quadratic equation, but I taught English so it doesn't much matter.

Har har! I tudered fizzicks so I doughnt hav too tawk ore spel gudly! Butt if ewe wuz smart liek me, ewe cudda dun figgered it out!
http://www.csm.astate.edu/algebra/qform.gif

|1.13.06 @ 11:01AM|#

Thanks, Timothy. I'll return the favor by telling you that a gerund is a verb that is used as a noun, i.e., "Reading is my favorite hobby."

|1.13.06 @ 11:02AM|#

Hope I'm not repeating someone's point on this, but I think a big difference between grade school and high school is student body size. Grade schools tend to be smaller and more localized, and maybe there's a chicken-and-egg problem here, but parents tend to be more involved in these settings. It's easier to make a difference when your child is one of 300 than 1,500. By the time their children are adolescents, concerned parents are more likely to just vote with their feet or send their kids to private schools than to work at improving their local public high school.

|1.13.06 @ 11:02AM|#

I had this very same conversation with a girl I was breaking up with last year. A few months ago someone on H&R asked me if I was lonely in my tower where I looked down upon everyone. I was forced to answer in the affirmative.

Okay, but my question was: how did my ability to teach English suffer because I didn't have the quadratic equation in my life? How is my life currently suffering because I don't know it?

|1.13.06 @ 11:04AM|#

Sure, if you've still got enough money to spend after the taxes that pay for the public schools. That's why the poor get hit the worst by the system.

Poor: someone who doesn't earn enough money to pay income taxes and doesn't own their own home to be paying property taxes (a large source of public school revenue).

you're correct, poor people cannot afford most private schools, but not because all their money is going toward taxes for their current public school.

Warren|1.13.06 @ 11:09AM|#

Timothy,
If someone were to ask me about Macbeth I'd have to get a copy and reread it. The fact that you have done those things and can refresh your memory by looking it up or rereading your notes is all I'm looking for. My peeve is that so many people will go to their grave having never learned the basics of rational thought.

theOneState|1.13.06 @ 11:09AM|#

Mr. F. Le Mur, that's interesting.

Education in this country scares me, no matter how well we rank under certain circumstances (like, e.g., by eliminating everything but Iowa).

I don't know if it's true everywhere (maybe Stossel will tell us?), but I believe that our public school teachers are significantly less educated than those in other countries. This is particuarly true of high school teachers. (So I hear.)

|1.13.06 @ 11:16AM|#

Downstater-I have to agree. While I'm sure I did know how to do quadratic equasions when I was in high school, I'm equally sure I don't remember how to do them. I was a Philosophy major, and took a class on Boolean logic. I remember that stuff pretty clearly. I remember it because I use it. I use it because that sort of thinking is, by definition, rational.

|1.13.06 @ 11:19AM|#

My peeve is that so many people will go to their grave having never learned the basics of rational thought.

And that not knowing how to use the quadratic equation therefore means one is not rational, I take it.

|1.13.06 @ 11:23AM|#

"It's bizarre--they don't value intellectual achievement, yet at the same time they want to brag about the high classes their kids take."

"Germany also has a 2 track system that groups kids into those going on to University and those going to technical schools. This was determined early on, so the school track were established to give the kids the best opportunity to succeed in their track."


The American public school system reflects our societal philosophy - we want class mobility, but only upwards.

|1.13.06 @ 11:29AM|#

Downstater-I have to agree. While I'm sure I did know how to do quadratic equasions when I was in high school, I'm equally sure I don't remember how to do them. I was a Philosophy major, and took a class on Boolean logic. I remember that stuff pretty clearly. I remember it because I use it. I use it because that sort of thinking is, by definition, rational.

|1.13.06 @ 12:42PM|#

As Smacky and I have discussed over at Grylliade. org, both of us, at one time, actually bought into the idea that one had to have advanced math skills to be a computer programmer.
Oh how we laugh about it now :)


mk,

As I mentioned in another thread about schools, my college calculus teacher thought I was clinically retarded for the most part. (I don't know whether to put a little smiley or a little frownie at the end of that sentence.)

|1.13.06 @ 12:44PM|#

"I had this very same conversation with a girl I was breaking up with last year. A few months ago someone on H&R asked me if I was lonely in my tower where I looked down upon everyone. I was forced to answer in the affirmative."

Geeze. And I thought that screening any potential mate for Hoplophobia was a tough deal-breaker.

What do you do? Give them a math test on your second date?

|1.13.06 @ 12:49PM|#

Yeah! I win the 69 prize. (Unless the server screwed me out of it...nevermind, mediageek just did.)

|1.13.06 @ 12:49PM|#

That's normal in Western Europe," Harvard economist Caroline Hoxby told me. "If schools don't perform well, a parent would never be trapped in that school in the same way you could be trapped in the U.S."

I was an exchange-student in France, where I was stunned by how hard the kids were pushed in the lycees, but in the town I lived in there was precisely one government school that all the children went to. It was also as thoroughly unionized a monopoly as any in France.

|1.13.06 @ 12:50PM|#

I find the idea that someone must have learned the quadratic equation to be capable of rational thought, to be pretty irrational.

|1.13.06 @ 12:55PM|#

I find the idea that someone must have learned the quadratic equation to be capable of rational thought, to be pretty irrational.

Not as irrational as the idea that not knowing the quadratic equation is just as bad as not knowing how to write a coherent paragraph.

|1.13.06 @ 12:59PM|#

The voucher idea doesn't fly with me.

All of us pay into the education system, not just the parents of school-aged kids, because there is (ostensibly) a benefit to the overall society in providing some level of education to future generations. You can argue whether having any government run education is the best way to approach the issue, or you can argue how to best run a government operated school system.

When it comes to vouchers, as a tax-paying property owner with no children I whole-heartedly object to money being taken out of the public system and given to some parent who is going to put their kids in a religious school or to a person who already sends his kids to (and easily affords) an elite private school, leaving less money in the system.

We all pay for police protection, but some people buy the services of Pinkerton guards. Should the money I pay in taxes be given to them for "security vouchers"?

We all pay for the post office, but some people use email and Federal Express instead. Should the money I pay in taxes be given to them for "mail vouchers"?

We all pay for Amtrak and public buses, but I gladly use my car instead. Am I due a "transportation voucher"?

There are ways to open up the education system to competition without using vouchers. Magnet schools come immediately to mind.

Timothy|1.13.06 @ 1:00PM|#

Jennifer: Thanks, I knew it was something like that. I took one Grammar For Jounalists class before I figured out that I didn't love journalism nearly enough to spend four years in college and get a job that pays $22,000 a year, so I don't remember too many of the specifics anymore.

Warren: I'm sure that most high school English teachers, if pressed, could read a quick proof of the quadratic formula and understand it. It doesn't come up that often, I think, was Jennifer's point. And, I've never read Macbeth. I've found the Shakespeare I have read pretty boring, although I liked Hamlet, so I haven't really been interested in more.

I also think that it's safe to say being able to put together a coherent report is more important than being able to diagram a sentence. Doing the latter early on probably helps accomplish the former, but most of us don't go around diagraming sentences every day.

|1.13.06 @ 1:02PM|#

" Yeah! I win the 69 prize. (Unless the server screwed me out of it...nevermind, mediageek just did.)"

W00T!

Timothy|1.13.06 @ 1:04PM|#

Also: did the server squirrel finally die, because it took me like an hour to get that last post to go up.

|1.13.06 @ 1:04PM|#

I don't have any answers to the school problem. I know that my friend who lives in Belgium was actually given the option of pursuing a trade or academic route after the first year of high school. This is something not offered in the US. Because schools are geared to academia and theory primarily here, those students that don't like it aren't given any options. This is recognized alot of times, but instead of giving them the option of pursuing a trade skill, they are pitied and allowed to pass even though they do not achieve. This in turn lowers the bar for the academia drawn students so they are being prevented from achieving all they might in high school. The US system needs to realize nto everyone is going to be a rocket scientist, but even those that cannot understand the quadratic function or shakesspeare can still be very valuable to society. Currently, school is just a daycare until kids grow up so the academic achievement shouldn't be expected to be any better than such.

Warren|1.13.06 @ 1:16PM|#

Okay, but my question was: how did my ability to teach English suffer because I didn't have the quadratic equation in my life? How is my life currently suffering because I don't know it?

Do you know anyone who can't read or write very well, and doesn't think they need to? You know the vastness of what they are missing out on but it doesn't impress them when you try to explain it. I can tell you that you that training the mind to calculate, yields insight into whatever else it is applied to, but I can't make you believe it.

I believe that if you had better math skills, you would; have a deeper understanding of everything (literature, human relationships, internal combustion engines), routinely make better decisions, experience more joy out of life (watching a sunset is a richer experience when you can factor polynomials), etc. I can't explain exactly how this is so any more than you can to an illiterate that is convinced he can get everything he needs from television.

|1.13.06 @ 1:20PM|#

Do you know anyone who can't read or write very well, and doesn't think they need to? You know the vastness of what they are missing out on but it doesn't impress them when you try to explain it. I can tell you that you that training the mind to calculate, yields insight into whatever else it is applied to, but I can't make you believe it.

|1.13.06 @ 1:21PM|#

Oops. That second paragraph in my last post should not have been italicized.

Timothy|1.13.06 @ 1:21PM|#

Next Warren will tell us that in order to enjoy sex we must have memorized the Taylor Series representation of e.

|1.13.06 @ 1:24PM|#

WLM - I really think you need to rethink those analogies. What you're saying, since you defend every single publicly subsidized thing you can think of, appears to be "The costs of everything should be socialized." Instead of "transportation vouchers", maybe we should just not socialize the cost of Amtrak. Ditto for schools, etc. I understand the appeal of the argument that when children are educated, it benefits all of society, but that argument ignores the fact that the benefits of an education accrue mainly to the individual recipient and only slightly and tangentially to society. To see what I mean, let's turn the argument on its head: If I don't learn to read, does that hurt society? A little, in a generalized sort of way. Does it hurt me? Very much!

|1.13.06 @ 1:25PM|#

some believe that the richness of a sunset is diminished when it is viewed solely as a product of mie, rayleigh, differential scattering or some such thing. sort of takes the romantic beauty out of it, y'know?

i'm not disagreeing with you, but different strokes and all that.

regardless of the value placed on certain bases of knowledge, the absence of such does not render one incapable of rational or even intelligent thought.

Warren|1.13.06 @ 1:29PM|#

mediageek,
Asking for SAT scores would have saved a lot of heartache. I allowed myself to be come seriously involved with the woman in question. There were other issues that came between us, some just as significant. In the beginning it wasn't a problem because she knew so much more about music than I ever will and I was happy to have access to that knowledge and talent. Over time however, every time she did something like putting the Dixie-Cups the wrong way in the dispenser, it would irritate me. What was unforgivable was her total unwillingness to learn. She ran her own business (piano teacher) and I could see that she made life harder on herself in a thousand ways but she couldn't get past "solving equations won't make me a better musician".

|1.13.06 @ 1:34PM|#

Sunsets are best appreciated by those who can factor polynomials, huh? Now I've heard everything.

|1.13.06 @ 1:35PM|#

Warren, I'm sorry that you're still upset about a girlfriend whom you considered your intellectual inferior, but I'm still wondering if you stand by your original statements; namely, that one reason education is in lousy shape is that not enough teachers know the quadratic equation; and secondly, that not knowing the quadratic equation is every bit as bad as not knowing how to write a coherent paragraph.

Warren|1.13.06 @ 1:38PM|#

But Warren, comparing "not being able to read and write well" to "not knowing the quadratic equation" is a false analogy; it's like the difference between saying "everybody should know the basics of reading and writing" versus "everybody should know Chaucer."

??? This is my point. The quadratic equation is something you should have learned in 8th grade. My feeling is that every student should be able to derive the quadratic equation before graduating high school. It is very elementary math. I expect every teacher to have basic knowledge of the complete high school curriculum. Just as I would expect the science teacher to have basic knowledge of American History.

I took two semesters of English in college. Nobody ever even mentioned Chaucer. I've got Canterbury Tales on the shelf at home. I tried to tackle it once, I didn't get very far. So think of me what you will for that, but my point still stands.

|1.13.06 @ 1:39PM|#

Warren,

I know you summed up the relationship in about 3 sentences so its a more simplistic sounding than it actually was, but from what you say, it sounds like you just had a hard time accepting her for who she was. You can't tell someone you know the right way. That will just push them away. Its acceptance and understanding that makes a relationship work, not fixing the individual.

|1.13.06 @ 1:44PM|#

Number 6,

Actually you have to use the limit approaching zero of a trapezoidal mean method of measuring the surface length of the sun's edge while setting into the horizon to truly appreciate the meaninglessness of life.

Warren|1.13.06 @ 1:44PM|#

Warren, I'm sorry that you're still upset about a girlfriend whom you considered your intellectual inferior
I did not and do not consider her my intellectual inferior. Only in the area of rational thinking.

I'm still wondering if you stand by your original statements; namely, that one reason education is in lousy shape is that not enough teachers know the quadratic equation
I think that our whole society suffers from mathematic illiteracy, teaching included.

and secondly, that not knowing the quadratic equation is every bit as bad as not knowing how to write a coherent paragraph.
I would say "roughly" as opposed to "every bit" but yes.

|1.13.06 @ 1:44PM|#

??? This is my point. The quadratic equation is something you should have learned in 8th grade. My feeling is that every student should be able to derive the quadratic equation before graduating high school.

I did learn it in eighth grade, and I haven't used it since. Through disuse, the knowledge has been forgotten where I'm concerned. Are you saying, therefore, that I should have saved all my junior-high-school notebooks and constantly remind myself of what is in them?

I have also lost my ninth-grade ability to recite from memory the capitals of all the then-current countries in Africa. Is this also a problem, do you think?

I expect every teacher to have basic knowledge of the complete high school curriculum. Just as I would expect the science teacher to have basic knowledge of American History

Of course; I'm just arguing against the notion that the quadratic equation is "basic" knowledge that everybody must have.

|1.13.06 @ 1:45PM|#

Lost_In_Translation: No, no, no! It's a similar grasp of algebraic concepts that makes a relationship work.

|1.13.06 @ 1:49PM|#

Actually you have to use the limit approaching zero of a trapezoidal mean method of measuring the surface length of the sun's edge while setting into the horizon to truly appreciate the meaninglessness of life.
I tried that, but forgot to carry the one.

|1.13.06 @ 1:49PM|#

No, no, no! It's a similar grasp of algebraic concepts that makes a relationship work.

No, it isn't; it's the ability to diagram a sentence.

You guys are lucky you have a Genuine Non-Surgical Female to explain these things to you. Most libertarians don't, you know.

|1.13.06 @ 1:52PM|#

Its acceptance and understanding that makes a relationship work, not fixing the individual.

What if the individual is a severe alcoholic? Or bi-polar? Or a compulsive gambler? Etc.

I know that's not the case in Warren's story, but the statement is a little broad (though I see what you were getting at LIT). It reminds me of Bill Cosby's act in the late 70's when he said, (paraphrasing) "Everyone says the most important thing you can do is 'Be Yourself.' 'Be Yourself,' they say." (lovely, perplexed pause) "Well, what if you're an asshole?"

Warren|1.13.06 @ 1:52PM|#

Jennifer,
I think we might be getting somewhere. I think you think I think (uh yeah) that the quadratic equation is something everyone should walk around with in their head. That is not at all what I'm saying. I'm saying that at some point you should have had that level of instruction and demonstrated mastery. Furthermore you knowledge should retain enough of the experience that you could do it again with a few hours refresher.

Also, there is nothing magic in the quadratic equation. Someone mentioned Boolean algebra, and I'd throw chess in as well. However, for most people the only serious rigorous logical thinking they do is when learning math and being able to derive the quadratic formula (open book test) is the level I think would benefit those not in science/engineering.

|1.13.06 @ 1:53PM|#

WLM-

Now you've done it. I was hoping nobody would bring up such silliness as this against vouchers because I get quite heated about it. But, you did, and now we'll have to deal with it. So, let's avoid the quadratic equation (which I do have memorized from long ago, but unlike Jennifer I sign my name with a PE at the end so it's quite germane to my chosen field, and I wouldn't expect her to have it memorized) but let's do some basic math. For illustration I'll use my own situation, but remember this is just an example of what is commonly the case.

I have three kids all in private school, for which I shell out a fair bit of money, the specific amount is immaterial. I just recieved a group mailing from the local school district which quotes that each child costs them roughly $8,000/yr to educate. Therefore, while I don't debate the issue of whether or not taxes should be imposed on people for education as that's far beyond vouchers, it would appear that I'm saving the county roughly $24,000/yr by not sending my kids to their schools. I would assume that this amount is in excess of your property taxes which you complain about, by the way, which I also pay to the tune of about $4,000/yr on my personal residence. Remember, I have full right to go down to the local school and say "here's my kids, sign them up". So, it would seem that my contribution is on the outside $28,000/yr, from me directly.

Now let's take into account the fact that I own a couple rental properties, five to be exact. They're a step down from my primary residence, average tax bill about $2,000/yr. Now my "value" to the county is up another $10,000/yr, to $38,000/yr. This doesn't count the tuition I pay, recall, as that's my expense but is immaterial to the County.

You might correctly argue that there are infastructure costs involved, that aren't variable per student. I might correctly argue that since the local schools all have portable buildings, adding my three might tip the scales and cause an acceleration effect. However, I won't quibble, let's take 25% off the $24,000 to account for these, roughly the infastructure costs to the best of my recollection in their breakdown. So, we'll take $6,000 off, and arrive at my true "value" to the county of basically $32,000.

Now, we do vouchers, say that you give me $18,000, the variable costs of my three kids if they went to public school, back to me since I'm not putting them in? I'll pay my taxes, no problem, and the County is still ahead to the tune of $16,000 in my case, and $6,000 neglecting my tax situation and going on bare "cost per student". I'll grant you the 25% for infastructure, since the local authorites have pissed away any real impact fees for building new schools, just give me the variable cost avoidance.

On the other hand, I could send my kids to the County schools, in which case the County would incur expense of $24,000, vs my total tax bill of $14,000, for a net of -$10,000, and go further in debt as soon as I rent a place to someone who has school age children. If I didn't have the rentals involved, the net would drop to -$20,000. Which would you choose, +$6,000 or -$20,000? Doesn't seem like a hard choice.

You see my point here? If I had my kids in public schools, and vouchers allowed me to put them where I have them now, it's a money maker for the County. This tranlates into a tax saver for you, me, and everyone else. Put aside for the moment the arguments of school choice and education quality, which are perhaps even stronger, simple economics dictate it's a good thing.

|1.13.06 @ 1:54PM|#

I think you think I think (uh yeah) that the quadratic equation is something everyone should walk around with in their head. That is not at all what I'm saying. I'm saying that at some point you should have had that level of instruction and demonstrated mastery.

I did that in eighth grade, yet earlier on this thread you said you lost respect for me because I do not currently have that knowledge accessible. Did you misspeak then, or have you changed your mind?

Warren|1.13.06 @ 1:59PM|#

Jennifer,
It was you "I taught English so it doesn't matter" contention that pushed my button. You have my renewed respect.

|1.13.06 @ 2:01PM|#

Les,

Do you want to be in a relationship with someone with serious problems such as the ones you listed. I'm not saying those people should be abandoned, but you cannot fix them, atleast not you by yourself. It requires that they realize how destructive they are being to themselves and everyone in general before such abuse can be eliminated. But taking a stance against their abuse by yourself will just drive the stake through the relationship.

|1.13.06 @ 2:03PM|#

Warren,

What did matter and what currently matters are very distinct and seperate. Jennifer might not care now about it, but I'm sure she would be upset if math was stricken from the curriculum in favor of 5 years of pure Nietzche

|1.13.06 @ 2:04PM|#

"Jennifer,
It was you "I taught English so it doesn't matter" contention that pushed my button. You have my renewed respect."

Translation: Ow, ouch, stop hitting me! Ow! ;)

|1.13.06 @ 2:04PM|#

It was you "I taught English so it doesn't matter" contention that pushed my button.

But I still say that my current lack of quadratic knowledge doesn't matter.

Warren|1.13.06 @ 2:06PM|#

Oh dear

|1.13.06 @ 2:08PM|#

Warren said:
"I expect every teacher to have basic knowledge of the complete high school curriculum."

Really? So, what exactly do you mean by 'basic knowledge'? I teach high school history; while I am pretty knowledgable about basic scientific concepts and English skills, I am rather poor in math areas such as Alegebra and Trig. Should I not have been hired? How long do you expect teachers to go to school for? Much recent criticism of high school teachers is that they are 'less educated' than they should be. Just how much education should you expect?
To me, ensuring the teacher has a strong background and skill set centered around a specific subject area or areas should be the first motivation of a hiring principal, followed by pedagogical knowledge, not making sure that the history teacher can explain the theory of relativity or Warren's beloved quadratic equation.
The college of ed program I went through required all secondary ed students to have a minimum BA in a specifc subject area they would teach; pedagogy came later.

|1.13.06 @ 2:09PM|#

Oh dear

Warren,

I really think your point is more along what I'm thinking you mean

|1.13.06 @ 2:10PM|#

Matt-

I didn't complain about my taxes. I simply say that if I pay them, then use them for a public purpose.

As far as your personal economic argument that you should get vouchers, are you suggesting (by omission) that parents of school age children who don't own property and pay taxes to the county don't get vouchers? People only get them where the county "comes out ahead"?

Warren|1.13.06 @ 2:15PM|#

Jennifer,
I think every teacher should be able to demonstrate mastery of rigorous rationally thinking at the ALG II level (even if of a different nature such as composing your own sudoku puzzles). If you claim such ability, I am satisfied. If you claim such ability is superfluous, then we disagree.

|1.13.06 @ 2:16PM|#

Oh, and I was recently told by our reading coach that I have to place my content second and focus more on 'reading strategies.' My so-professional response to her face was something along the lines of "%#$^&&$#@!@!!!!!)(*^%$#!, that is $##^%$#^^*&!!! By the time these kids get to tenth grade, they should be able to read a &*^%$^#^^^^##@ textbook and outline a %$#^$^$ chapter! Screw this, I'm leaving public education."
I didn't get into education to teach reading strategies; I got into education because I love history, kids, and schooling, and I hoped to share that joy. I'm in my fourth year and getting tired of it. These kids take no responsibility. It all falls on the teacher. I had students try to drop my Intro to Social Science class last week because they thought it would be too much work. I said no, and that they needed to challenge themselves. Mommy said yes. Guess who won?

|1.13.06 @ 2:19PM|#

Warren,

The brilliance of society is not in everybody knowing everything, but specialization. I'd rather have an English teacher that could work me through the meanings of Neitzche and Machiavelli and not be able to tell me how to find x in a second order equation than have a teacher that only gave me Frankstein and Great Expectations to read and write down metaphors and yet still be able to help me on my Algebra II.

|1.13.06 @ 2:20PM|#

I think every teacher should be able to demonstrate mastery of rigorous rationally thinking at the ALG II level (even if of a different nature such as composing your own sudoku puzzles).

I don't claim the ability to think rationally is superfluous, Warren; I am claiming that "knowledge of the quadratic equation" and "the ability to think rationally" are not equivalent.

From your mention of sudoku, are you claiming that rational thinking is the equivalent of advanced mathematics?

In all seriousness, Warren--I used to have to attend NEA meetings on a regular basis, and so I've heard some pretty ridiculous theories concerning how to improve the state of education in this country. But your suggestion that the problem lies with non-math teachers not knowing thr quadratic equation may be among the most ridiculous things I've heard.

Warren|1.13.06 @ 2:21PM|#

Steve Masy,
I think all teachers should have a high school level of understanding of all subjects. You may be rusty on your algebra, but do you think with a day to brush up you could pass the final? I think I could pass my twentieth century lit class with a days notice, and I have made no use what so ever of anything I learned there in the past twenty odd years.

|1.13.06 @ 2:22PM|#

I give up. Its like talking to a brick wall.

theOneState|1.13.06 @ 2:23PM|#

Matt, but you *don't* have your kids in public schools, so vouchers would cost them money they now save.

One of the ideas behind public schools, too, is that you and your neighbors all help pay for them, no matter if you use them. There's not *supposed* to be a perfect, equal relationship between your child's benefits and the county's costs.

Also, the way the public schools themselves look at it, the more students they have, the more money they have. And their $8000/yr cost is based on the current number of students; if you drop the number of students, that cost goes up. (Think about it: what's the average cost of educating one single student? How about 10? 1000?)

Btw, I like the idea of vouchers, I'm a big supporter, but the public schools may be right to be concerned that they'll lose money. Some schools will have to close, others will fire teachers. Not pleasant. If you're going to have both public schools and vouchers, you need to figure out a way to get from here to there.

Anyway, WLM, yes, you SHOULD be entitled to a transportation voucher for not using Amtrak...as should we all.

|1.13.06 @ 2:23PM|#

If you claim such ability is superfluous, then we disagree.

It's one thing to disagree. It's another thing to have "almost no respect for" someone because of something they disagree about.

At the risk of losing respect, you really think that all teachers should show Algebra II-level mastery of mathmatics. Even, say, music teachers or teachers of other arts.

|1.13.06 @ 2:25PM|#

Lost in Translation,

If I was in a relationship with a person with severe problems, I would try to fix them, with the help of a professional. You're right that you can't do it alone. And you're right that if the "problem" is merely a difference in personalities, it's not something you can really do anything about.

|1.13.06 @ 2:25PM|#

WLM-

No, as I said, I'm not arguing the issue of taxation for education. In the case of not having children, there is no statutory financial liablity on behalf of the County. Your argument on vouchers for people who don't have children is challenging the use of taxes for education, which, right or wrong, is pretty well firmly entrenched in our society.

As for coming out ahead, the County would come out ahead, or break even, regardless. Every child, meaning every statutory financial liability for education (feel like George Carlin here) would get a voucher. These vouchers go either to the public school, or to a private school. In the case that the voucher doesn't make the full tuition, I pay the difference, but the Public School would by definition have a $0 differential. If you want to make any excess amounts, if someone had, say, a $2,000 voucher and a $1,000 education, go back to the County I wouldn't argue that, as presumably that would further increase the net to the County and further reduce to overall tax cost.

Fundamental premise of mine is along your thinking. While you argue the premise of taxation for education, I'm saying that in the reality of it, we should try to minimize the costs in ways that make sense.

But, for clarity, I am most certainly without qualification NOT advocating that the quadratic formula be required memorization by any teachers unless they choose to decide that it is important, and I'm curious to see how Warren manages to pull himself out of that particular mess. I'd declare a change of heart and beat feet in rapid fashion, myself.

|1.13.06 @ 2:29PM|#

OneState-
Yes, they would lose money, but they would also shed cost, which is why I used the 25% factor to account for the "fixed" cost which would not be lost with a lost student. Using this, math says they would gain money on the whole, as a certain proportion goes to capital improvements, which would at least be reduced.

But sadly you are correct, government thieves exist. They would lose current money because they aren't giving me the education for my kids. What needs to happen is to have people understand the cost of public education in terms of education of the public, not education of the kids that happen to go to public schools in lieu of private.

Warren|1.13.06 @ 2:31PM|#

From your mention of sudoku, are you claiming that rational thinking is the equivalent of advanced mathematics?

You keep using that modifier, I do not think it means what you think it means. I am talking about very basic stuff. There are other forms of rigorous rational thinking besides math, like chess for instance, but diagramming sentences is not one of them.

If you object to my using the quadratic equation as a stand in for the kind of thinking I'm talking about, what do you offer in it's place?

|1.13.06 @ 2:31PM|#

I think all teachers should have a high school level of understanding of all subjects.

The drama teacher should understand chemistry and physics? The choir teacher should understand algebra-II? The shop teacher should know how to diagram a sentence? How is it possible that such knowledge would improve their ability to teach their subjects?

|1.13.06 @ 2:32PM|#

Warren - You are almost right but a little harsh.

Jen - Completing the square to derive the quadratic equation reminds you that the world makes sense and that you can understand it. It's a life afirming activity, like loving. You don't need to do it every day, but if it's been more than 10 years and you aren't sure you remember how then it's been too long.

And, yes, if someone can't locate the Civl War to within 5 years or the Peloponnesian War to within 50 years or tell the difference between a line from Chaucer or Shakespeare then they are an uncurious bore and shouldn't teach HS physics.

|1.13.06 @ 2:36PM|#

Steve Masy,

If you want to write, "You stupid cow, that is so fucked up!" on this board, you can. We're pretty much adults, here.

Now, if your web client software has filters that prevent "naughty" words from coming through, you can ignore me.

|1.13.06 @ 2:36PM|#

Jennifer-

Without asserting the value or lack thereof for the quadratic equation, or any particular math issue, I would point out that those of us who are trained in mathematical fields are somewhat less equipped to coherently argue things when compared to those who are well skilled in verbal/written subjects. Therefore, it's up to you, but you might allow for the fact that perhaps something was lost in the left brain handing it over to the hands on the keyboard, and Warren really didn't mean to imply any particular judgement upon people's worth based on their recollection of the aforementioned equation.

My wife is a teacher also, though she teaches lower grades so she isn't focused in any particular subject. I have no idea if she knows the quadratic equation by rote or not. However, I do know she knows where to look to find it if she needs it, which is sufficient in my view given that it's not her primary subject to teach.

|1.13.06 @ 2:36PM|#

If you object to my using the quadratic equation as a stand in for the kind of thinking I'm talking about, what do you offer in it's (sic)place?

How about, "Demonstrated knowledge of the subject matter which the teacher is supposed to teach, combined with the ability to actually teach it to students"?

Timothy|1.13.06 @ 2:38PM|#

I give up. Its like talking to a brick wall.

I think it's more like stucco or sheet rock.

|1.13.06 @ 2:38PM|#

Warren-

I absolutely agree with you that the state of innumeracy in this country is appalling. Axiomatic, rigorously applied logic sits at the core of the sciences and thus technology for a reason.

I will not quibble about the quadratic formula- as a grad school dropout, group theory successfully ruined the beauty of the algebra for me...

However, innumeracy follows from poor education, which in this country (to tie this all back to the original article) derives from bad primary and secondary schools. Stossel's point is to popularise the idea that bad primary and secondary schools derive from government monopoly, but not government sponsorship.

I felt that the point in comparing Belgian to American schools was to show that State-sponsored (but not State-controlled!) schools did a better job of educating children while using fewer resources than the State-sponsored and State-run school districts.

Where I would like to see a follow-up series would be in comparing smaller, city-run school districts with larger disctricts, and see if there's a correlation there. Having watched many people with small children, including myself, flee otherwise populous and rich cities with poor school systems (like, say, Pasadena, California) for cities with good school systems, I'm very curious about just how many factors of success we can identify.

|1.13.06 @ 2:43PM|#

TheOneState,

So we should keep all teachers because some might be fired with vouchers? Do you think the best or worst ones would be fired? Maybe the problem is that there are not enough teachers being fired?

Pissing money away just becuse we always pissed money away is not a good reason. Pissing money away because educated citizens are "good for the state" is silly to say on a libertarian board. What do I care about the good of the state? It's probably for the good of the state that there are illegal wiretaps and that poor schumk is going to jail for 55 years for selling some weed.

Warren|1.13.06 @ 2:48PM|#

If you object to my using the quadratic equation as a stand in for the kind of thinking I'm talking about, what do you offer in it's (sic)place?
How about, "Demonstrated knowledge of the subject matter which the teacher is supposed to teach, combined with the ability to actually teach it to students"?
Oh geez, now your pouncing on my typos. How typical of an English teacher ;)

However, your "Demonstrated knowledge.." response is woefully inadequate. I don't think you are even attempting to understand what I've been trying to say. Or perhaps your inability to factor polynomials prevents you from doing so.

Timothy|1.13.06 @ 2:49PM|#

Also, I'm terrible at both sudoku and chess (mostly because I don't like either all that much), does that mean I cannot think rationally?

But, wait, I can use the definition of integrals and derivatives to compute them! I'm familiar with the definition of limits (obviously, from the first sentence), I even know a little analysis and I can do OLS on very small data sets by hand, does that mean I can think rationally?

This is all too much, I'm going to go do some corn syrup shots.

|1.13.06 @ 2:51PM|#

johnl-

Ok, the quadratic equation reminds you that the world makes sense? Perhaps, but I take exception to this comment. Using mathematics as a model of world processes, what that really means is that your model is coherent. It in no way means that your model is either 1) correct, or 2) rational or 3) that the subject of the model by extension makes sense (uncertainty principle or something like that, remember?). To tie this to the original discussion, one of the best teachers I ever had was back in my freshman year in high school. I was quite enamoured on this one problem with the fact that gravity and electricity both had a square in the bottom of the equation, until such time as this teacher pointed out that's just because both are derived from a mathematical process called calculus, which we use to MODEL what we THINK is going on.

Mathematics is a tool to help understanding, but it in no way means that the world makes sense. It just means that someone came up with a coherent model that makes sense within itself. A good teacher would point this out to a student who could grasp it, thankfully in my case, one did, and I've never forgotten that.

Unfortunately, most of our teachers are saddled with testing quality in ("no child left behind", so we'll keep everyone back, just to satisfy the parents Jennifer wrote about earlier) and never really have the time, at least in the public schools, to challenge students to that level of understanding.

|1.13.06 @ 2:53PM|#

About not needing advanced math for computer programming--I think it depends on the kind of programming you do. I wouldn't want NASA programmers writing software that controls burn rates of rockets to not have a very solid foundation of Calculus and classical physics, but if you're putting together Web forms and yet another shopping cart application, then you can get by with basic arithmetic. I would also say that understanding the more abstract concepts of mathematics (graph theory, number theory, combinatorics, etc.) makes a programmer aware of solutions that other programmers who didn't get through Calculus have no concept of. Of course, I could be wrong here, but there you go.

|1.13.06 @ 2:53PM|#

However, your "Demonstrated knowledge.." response is woefully inadequate. I don't think you are even attempting to understand what I've been trying to say. Or perhaps your inability to factor polynomials prevents you from doing so.

When discussing how to improve education, suggesting that teachers know what they're teaching is woefully inadequate?

By the way, it's not that I'm not trying to understand what you're saying; it's that what you're saying keeps changing. I'm not even sure what point you're currently trying to make.

Warren|1.13.06 @ 2:55PM|#

Natebrau,
Yeah, that group theory looks scary. I never got farther than complex variables myself. It was pretty groovy material but the course suffered from a professor who was too specialized. Just about all his students were matriculating in engineering, he had this notion that all engineers did was sit around all day and solve equations.
Tensor and Vector algebra was a gas. The only class where using the professor's own book for the text worked well. It was called "Div, Grad, Curl and All That"

|1.13.06 @ 2:56PM|#

Jennifer-

Forget my last on your quadratic issue, I was hoping he was misunderstood but now he's just getting completely afield. I'm not sure either what the point is.

Warren|1.13.06 @ 2:59PM|#

By the way, it's not that I'm not trying to understand what you're saying; it's that what you're saying keeps changing. I'm not even sure what point you're currently trying to make.

You're kidding. I have been attempting to make just one single point this whole discussion. I've restated it several times and I'm at a total loss as to how I could be any clearer.

|1.13.06 @ 3:02PM|#

I have been attempting to make just one single point this whole discussion.

Uh-huh. Would this single point be "all teachers should know the quadratic equation," or "all teachers should have learned the quadratic equation when they were in eighth grade," or "all teachers should be familiar with the entire high school curriculum," or some purely theoretical point whose existence can only be inferred via the use of higher mathematical techniques?

Timothy|1.13.06 @ 3:03PM|#

or some purely theoretical point whose existence can only be inferred via the use of higher mathematical techniques?

And crack, the crack is important for understanding.

|1.13.06 @ 3:04PM|#

At this point I would like to make a statement:

I took algebra I&II in high school.
College required me to take more algebra, trig, and finally calculus.

In addition to the math, I had to go through two semesters of physics.

I
busted
my
ass
in every single one of those classes for grades that are, at best mediocre.

Without the aid of friends and tutors, there is no doubt in my mind I would have been completely incapable of passing any of the college courses that I took.

Now, maybe I'm just conceited, but I'd like to think that I'm above-average in intelligence.

I'd certainly like to think that I'm capable of rational thought, and of making rational decisions when faced with a set of choices.

Now, I readily admit that math is a wonderful thing. Without it, we'd still be living in poorly constructed grass huts and dying at thirty.

But if Warren's statements are to be taken at face value, my inability to do math is not only somehow indicative of a personality defect, but keeps me from truly appreciating the wonders of life, the universe, and everything.

I seem to recall 6Gun taking a similar tone with me in a recent thread about religion.

Now, perhaps Warren is correct. At least as seen from his point of view, math is the eleven-herbs-and-spices-batter-dipped-and-deep-fried-to-a-golden -brown crunchy tastiness of life.

But that's Warren.

I wonder how he would respond to me were I to state that anyone without at least a basic grasp on typography and color theory isn't worth bothering with?

What if I were to insinuate that people who use Comic Sans on their website are incapable of appreciating the beauty of the natural world, because they make inappropriate font choices?

Hey, I'm a designer, and no one who is capable of thinking rationally would ever think that using dark text over a background image with a wide variety of brightness values looks good, or is even readable.

Obviously anyone who doesn't grasp these basic concepts is someone I would not choose to associate myself with.

And I can't understand why anyone who disagrees with me would be offended. After all, I'm just pointing out the patently obvious.

|1.13.06 @ 3:04PM|#

I have a friend who has an extraordinary memory. Not surprisingly, he values the ability to recall facts and figures quite highly. I have a hard time remembering my children's names. Another is a published poet and professional copy editor. I write fairly well but he always manages to find some grammatical, punctuation or style error in my writing. Another friend is a wiz at math and science whose robust empiricism has little tolerance for that which is neither quantifiable nor falsifiable. My ontology (and, for that matter, my epistemology) is not quite so sparsely furnished.

Innumeracy, like illiteracy, is in the mind of the beholder. Setting the threshold anywhere above zero is the result of a mere and often arbitrary decision. Even functional illiteracy or innumeracy is, forgive the pun, a function of the task required. What? You can't do topology in your head? Find Finnegan?s Wake unreadable? For shame!

[/yawn]

|1.13.06 @ 3:06PM|#

About not needing advanced math for computer programming--I think it depends on the kind of programming you do.

There's nothing intrinsic to programming that requires any knowlege of advanced math. It just has that techie cachet that makes one think you need to know math. But sure, advanced math knowlege would not hurt, anymore than it would hurt in any field.

Or perhaps your inability to factor polynomials prevents you from doing so.

??? I don't know what he's talking about either. Perhaps he's just being deliberately arrogant.

Timothy|1.13.06 @ 3:08PM|#

What if I were to insinuate that people who use Comic Sans on their website are incapable of appreciating the beauty of the natural world, because they make inappropriate font choices?

Oddly at work your link in this paragraph is filtered as an "Advocacy Group".

I, too, hate Comic Sans. Comic Sans (and Lois) must die!

Warren|1.13.06 @ 3:11PM|#

Would this single point be "all teachers should know the quadratic equation," or "all teachers should have learned the quadratic equation when they were in eighth grade," or or some purely theoretical point whose existence can only be inferred via the use of higher mathematical techniques?

"all teachers should be familiar with the entire high school curriculum," That's the one, that is my central thesis.

I don't know why you are so obsessed with the quadratic equation I've stated more than once that I was only using it as an example. Please put it from your mind.

Your insistence that I am talking about "advanced" or "higher" mathematics illustrates my point. (Except for my aside to Natebrau,) I have been talking only of elementary mathematics and my conviction that everyone should have a basic understanding of them.

|1.13.06 @ 3:12PM|#

Some people think that knowing something is the same as being able to teach it. I think it's being demonstrated here that you can know something inside and out and at the same time, lack any ability whatsoever to make others understand what you know. That's the skill a teacher must have.

|1.13.06 @ 3:14PM|#

"Oddly at work your link in this paragraph is filtered as an "Advocacy Group"."

That's hilarious.

|1.13.06 @ 3:15PM|#

Your insistence that I am talking about "advanced" or "higher" mathematics illustrates my point. (Except for my aside to Natebrau,) I have been talking only of elementary mathematics and my conviction that everyone should have a basic understanding of them.

But what is your defnition of "elementary"? As I mentioned in my post way the hell back at 10:49, I have enough basic mathematical understanding to take care of daily life: calculate interest on a debt, maintain a budget, keep my accounts balanced, and so forth. (And as a teacher, I had enough to calculate student grades.) Is this sufficient to meet your standards?

|1.13.06 @ 3:17PM|#

While the *derivation* of the quadratic formula is elementary math that any high school teacher should be familiar with, its *usage* is rather more advanced. So I think it's a rather poor example of "elementary math". Why not just stick with "algebra" - as in, "all teachers should know some algebra?"

Warren|1.13.06 @ 3:18PM|#

I wonder how he would respond to me were I to state that anyone without at least a basic grasp on typography and color theory isn't worth bothering with?

Are you suggesting that all high school students should have such knowledge before being allowed to graduate?

What if I were to insinuate that people who use Comic Sans on their website are incapable of appreciating the beauty of the natural world, because they make inappropriate font choices?

I would be interested as to why you would say that. I suspect you are just busting my chops.

|1.13.06 @ 3:19PM|#

Jennifer, were it up to me, I think that teaching everyone to understand mathematics up to and including the ability to calculate compounding interest would be a very good thing.

But only because I can see real world applications for it (and that it ought to be taught this way.)

|1.13.06 @ 3:22PM|#

"all teachers should be familiar with the entire high school curriculum," That's the one, that is my central thesis.

Why should a drama teacher be familiar with the entire high school curriculum? Why should choir teacher be familiar with chemstry? Why should a shop teacher be familiar with Shakespeare? Why should an English teacher be familiar with physics? Being familiar with subjects they're not teaching says absolutely nothing about their knowledge of and the ability to teach the subject they've been hired to teach.

|1.13.06 @ 3:23PM|#

Jennifer-
Actually, the infamous quadratic formula is not "higher" as in calculus plus, it's in second semester algebra, I believe. Factoring polynomials is akin, my son is in 9th grade and took some last year and some more this year.

Per his website, Warren is an Electrical Engineer, in which case polynomial factoring would be very basic, as they get into some heady stuff with complex numbers, etc, early on and go up from there. I'm a former chemist/civil engineer, primarily the latter, so it's a bit higher on my "basic" scale than his.

That said, I still don't understand his point ;).

Warren-I think you're trying to say that a basic journeyman (no sexism intended) knowledge of many subjects is important for teachers. Is this basically your point? If so, I think the problem is that what you consider that to be is somewhat above what others seem to consider it to be, and the fact that there are other areas where your scale is lower than thiers. If not, you've lost me too, and I have a pretty high tolerance limit in trying to understand what someone is trying to tell me.

|1.13.06 @ 3:25PM|#

We've got a lot of talking about European systems, and my understanding of the german system (I took it in high school/college for 6 years) is that they have more than two tracks...there's a Gymnasium (college-prep)track, a Hauptschule (regular high school) and a vocational school track, at the minimum. I imagine if college-track programs siphoned off the people who were better at other things, our scores would be more than comparable.

|1.13.06 @ 3:25PM|#

Rhywun,

... But sure, advanced math knowlege would not hurt, anymore than it would hurt in any field.

I agree that there's nothing inherent in programming that requires advanced math. I believe it's more important to be meticulous and able to understand other people's writing style.

I would make a slightly stronger statement than the one I italicized above--advanced math can help anyone be a better programmer, especially if they're suddenly expected to write something that they haven't trained for. Also, knowing why Djikstra's path finding algorithm is better than an exhaustive search may help someone come up with a good reason to use A* to provide an AI player the best route to its opponent in an RTS game.

YMMV

|1.13.06 @ 3:26PM|#

Jennifer, were it up to me, I think that teaching everyone to understand mathematics up to and including the ability to calculate compounding interest would be a very good thing.

I fully agree. But if that is the point Warren was trying to make, he sure as hell took the scenic route to get there.

Warren|1.13.06 @ 3:26PM|#

But what is your defnition of "elementary"? As I mentioned in my post way the hell back at 10:49, I have enough basic mathematical understanding to take care of daily life: calculate interest on a debt, maintain a budget, keep my accounts balanced, and so forth. (And as a teacher, I had enough to calculate student grades.) Is this sufficient to meet your standards?

No it is not. Thos skills should be well mastered before entering high school. I think every teacher should have the skills of a high school graduate as a minimum in all subjects.

|1.13.06 @ 3:27PM|#

Well, you know what, I say get rid of compulsory attendance laws. It would certainly pare down the surplus population in schools and make teaching and learning easier. Only those students that wanted to learn would be there. I have so many students that are just biding their time until they can drop out. What is worse, my county, a rural one in Florida, has ZERO vocational schools or major programs; we also have ZERO Advanced Placement classes in the entire county. I'm not sure that is the 'balance' we want to strike.

|1.13.06 @ 3:28PM|#

Mediageek-You ask too much. How's this strike you: anyone who doesn't know what a Swiss Grid is must be incapable of rationality or aesthetic appreciation.

|1.13.06 @ 3:29PM|#

The drama teacher should understand chemistry and physics?
Yup.
The choir teacher should understand algebra-II?
Yup.
The shop teacher should know how to diagram a sentence?
Yup.
How is it possible that such knowledge would improve their ability to teach their subjects?
1 - In exactly the same way that such knowledge (supposedly) benefits the students.
2 - Ability to cover for a missing teacher.
3 - Having the basic knowledge that HS kids are expected to have would demonstrate that the teachers are worthy of *some* intellectual respect, at least.

¡Mi escuela es la mejor de la tierra!

|1.13.06 @ 3:30PM|#

"all teachers should be familiar with the entire high school curriculum," That's the one, that is my central thesis.

I imagine that there are folks out there who know world history inside and out. Folks who can get kids excited about learning history and teach it very well. I would want that person teaching my kid history. I wouldn't give too shits whether or not he could solve quadratic equations.

|1.13.06 @ 3:30PM|#

Being familiar with subjects they're not teaching says absolutely nothing about their knowledge of and the ability to teach the subject they've been hired to teach.

I'm with you on this, Les. I would prefer teachers who are excellent in their area but clueless in other to those who aren't but are "well rounded".

|1.13.06 @ 3:31PM|#

Or rather, two shits. But for that matter, I wouldn't even give one shit.

|1.13.06 @ 3:32PM|#

"Are you suggesting that all high school students should have such knowledge before being allowed to graduate?"

I'm actually being excessively snarky and maybe just a little bit mean in order to make a point.

All day long, I have to design ads for people with absolutely zero understanding of good design. As a result, I am constantly designing advertisements with far too much copy in them. Or far too many pictures. Or ugly colors. Or shitty fonts. Or being told to do any one of a number of things to a client's ad that, in the end, will ensure that no one will look at it and their message will *not* be effectively communicated.

In essence, because these people have no understanding of design, they are essentially wasting their money. I actually have people tell me that I should make their ads less eye-catching.

But all this is beside the point I was trying to make, which is this:

Through this entire thread, even assuming that you're right, you still come across as smug and condescending.

"I would be interested as to why you would say that. I suspect you are just busting my chops."

Because Comic Sans is a very specific font designed for the specific function of being used in the little talk balloons for the cutsey Help File cartoon characters in Windows.

It was *not* designed to be used for anything else. Not buttons, not body copy, not headlines, not restaurant menus, fliers, definately not warning signs, or anything else meant to convey serious information.

And even if it could be used for all of those applications, it wouldn't change the fact that it's the most overused and hackneyed font of the digital era. From where I sit, it's a tossup as to whether I hate Comic Sans or Courier more.

And yes, I am busting your chops, in an attempt to make a point.

|1.13.06 @ 3:34PM|#

Steve Masy,

compulsory attendance (as with most public policies) comes with the problems you described, but also benefits as i believe Jennifer alluded to about students with parents who would otherwise never send them to school unless mandated to do so.

even if they didn't have to be there, there are no shortages of students who may both hate being in school and capable of dropping out but have nothing better to do so they just stay and dick around and cause problems until their too old.

i'm not sure if i would close the door on those who want to attend but are not allowed just to avoid the doofuses.

|1.13.06 @ 3:35PM|#

Warren, I like you, but you don't sound like you've read anything about "Division of Labour", it's not economical nor is it sensical to ask people to become even compentent at everything...please, tell me, what is it I am missing by not knowing the quadratic formula again? I mean, I took 2 Calculus classes on my way to my two Bachelor's degrees, and I still honestly don't know what the hell it's used for. Call me ignorant, but I am getting along alright.

|1.13.06 @ 3:35PM|#

Sometimes, talking to Warren is the conversational equivalent of looking for the fourth side of a triangle.

If Warren expects all high-school teachers to be proficient in all subjects taught in high school, I hope he realizes that the teacher shortage will be worse than ever, since the number of people who are qualified to teach high-school English AND high-school math AND high-school science AND high-school history AND art AND music AND so forth is approximately five.

|1.13.06 @ 3:36PM|#

Warren argues that:
"I think every teacher should have the skills of a high school graduate as a minimum in all subjects."

Why? Just how would my knowing how to explain alegebraic concepts help my students learn why the Battle of Marathon was one of the 10 most important battles in the history of the world, or how the differeing Egyptian and Sumerian concepts of the afterlife were a direct reflection of their natural environment, two things which I believe should be required knowledge for any literate person (but I'm a history geek).
Warren, you have not yet explained WHY subject-specific educators should 'broaden' their knowledge base. Perhaps I am misunderstanding you. Certainly, you would not expect these teachers to be able to teach material outside of their specialization.

Warren|1.13.06 @ 3:38PM|#

Before I started posting on this thread, I thought I had some mastery of the English language and could articulate myself better than most. Finding more than one person perplexed at what I though I had spelled out gives me pause.

To all the commenters who expressed sympathy for my position (even if I subsequently confused you), I thank you.

Timothy|1.13.06 @ 3:39PM|#

I would say that the best teachers can incorporate many areas to keep things interesting. Which is why I think a basic knowledge of everything is worthwhile. In math, particularly.

I had a lot of difficulty learning trig,and had to take pre-calculus twice (my last two years of high school) just to get the concepts down. The first teach I had basically didn't do anything but teach math, and knew little else. She was difficult to follow and had a penchant for saying things like, "C'mon, guys, I could teach this to my cocker spaniel. No, we're moving on, I won't repeat that". The second teacher would do things like bring in his tuba and play it to demonstrate a point about sinusoids, and then end up talking about why you can always year a saxaphone. He'd talk about the pythagorean theorem (and the resulting trig expresions like sin^2 + cos^2 = 1) and then get on a tangent about the philosophy of Des Cartes. That is why a basic knowledge of many subjects is useful for high school teachers, because things like that make any class more interesting.

However, that's only conceptual knowledge of many subjects, I'm not sure knowing details are all that important a lot of the time.

|1.13.06 @ 3:39PM|#

In Warren's defense, during my junior high days, the gym teacher once had to substitute for the science teacher.

He started class off with "Ok, today we're going to talk about the biblical cord."

|1.13.06 @ 3:41PM|#

I really apologize if this has been brought up; I haven't been able to read all the posts yet, but

Every time I see these statistics I think the same thing: are they taking into account the fact that most European countries only educate 100% of their children through age 16? And that beyond that is optional?

e.g, Comparing 17-year-olds in England, who have gone on to do A-levels, with 17-year-olds in the U.S. who are required to remain in school, is an utterly pointless thing to do. The English will OF COURSE come off better because they've lost the lower 20-30% at age 16.

|1.13.06 @ 3:41PM|#

wow, i had no idea what comic sans looked like until i typed something in word. that IS pretty bad!

if it's supposed to be a fun font, why is it self described as being not funny?

|1.13.06 @ 3:42PM|#

Peggy,

1 - In exactly the same way that such knowledge (supposedly) benefits the students.

So, before a person gets a job, they should be required to know about things completely unrelated to that job? Doesn't make sense.

2 - Ability to cover for a missing teacher.

So the same applies to substitutes? They have to know the curriculum? Good luck.

3 - Having the basic knowledge that HS kids are expected to have would demonstrate that the teachers are worthy of *some* intellectual respect, at least.

Teachers only deserve respect based on how well they teach. Nothing else. And I speak as a former teacher.

Timothy|1.13.06 @ 3:43PM|#

Put another way: The intrigue and hatred between Newton and Leibniz is a lot more interesting than calculus, as useful as calculus is.

|1.13.06 @ 3:45PM|#

Timothy,

I would say that in your case with the math teachers, it was more a question of pedagogy than content. She simply did not know how to deliver the material in a manner that was conducive to learning.
With all of this talk of math, I am reminded that Dante put the Greek developers of Geometry in the First Circe of Hell. I think that says alot. ;-)

|1.13.06 @ 3:45PM|#

Warren, it sounds to me like you are saying all high-school teachers should be polymaths. Such people are rare indeed in the human race, and when they do exist, they are very, very unlikely to pursue careers in education.

Warren|1.13.06 @ 3:45PM|#

mediageek,
I am not the least bit offended by your comments. After reviewing them, I found substance beyond just being snippy. You're critiques of my web page are well deserved. I don't know shit about design. In spite of that I was rather proud of what I put together, in no small part because I didn't know shit about what I was doing. I have to say though, scoff if you wish, I still think I made good use of comic sans.

|1.13.06 @ 3:49PM|#

Ouch. Two points off from Jennifer. I meant 'First CIRCLE of Hell', not 'First CIRCE of Hell.' The First Circe of Hell would be my ex-fiance. Same people skills, I imagine.

|1.13.06 @ 3:49PM|#

Timothy,

i agree with what you're saying and the example is interesting, unfortunately however, your teacher's abilities to make a class interesting through incorporating other kinds of information will only go as far as his students actually give a shit. if the majority of this great teacher's students don't care and get shitty test scores, your teacher is currently responsible despite his/her hard work. i think that is unfortunate.

Timothy|1.13.06 @ 3:50PM|#

With all of this talk of math, I am reminded that Dante put the Greek developers of Geometry in the First Circe of Hell. I think that says alot. ;-)

Eh, that was for virtuous pagans. They were with Virgil. Now the fourth or fifth would've been more of a statement.

I have to say though, scoff if you wish, I still think I made good use of comic sans.

This statement speaks for itself. As there is no "right part" of a kiwi fruit, there is no "good use" of Comic Sans.

|1.13.06 @ 3:51PM|#

if it's supposed to be a fun font, why is it self described as being not funny?

comic sans (serif), the serif being the little fringes that letters have in, say, Times Roman.

Sorry if you weren't seriously asking a question! :-)

|1.13.06 @ 3:51PM|#

Warren-

Initially it was my intent to offend. I get in sarcastic moods and tend to just let people have it.
But you do seem to be a decent fellow, so I'm glad you aren't offended.

But, even if it meant saving a basket of puppies from a vat of boiling acid, I still can't do math.

Wish I was better, but, well, wish in one hand...

Timothy|1.13.06 @ 4:02PM|#

i agree with what you're saying and the example is interesting, unfortunately however, your teacher's abilities to make a class interesting through incorporating other kinds of information will only go as far as his students actually give a shit. if the majority of this great teacher's students don't care and get shitty test scores, your teacher is currently responsible despite his/her hard work. i think that is unfortunate.

Downstater: I take your point, and I agree that it's unfortunate. This is the major problem in modern schools I think. Good teachers get screwed by the union, because they get paid the same as crappy teachers, and crappy teachers basically can't get fired. However, they ALSO get screwed by the NCLB and other such things because they're responsible for the performance of students whether students care or not. In the case of Mr. Dobson, I think he'll be fine because I grew up in a suburban, upper-middle class school district, so if he's still there the kids at least care somewhat because of parental/social expectations.

Steve:

My point was more that teachers can benefit from being well rounded individuals probably more than others because that makes them interesting people, and kids (I think, based on my own experience from not all that long ago) learn better from people they find interesting and can converse with on anything of interest. I may be succumbing to my own biases here, I admit. And I think broad interests lead to better pedagogy, assuming knowledge of the material is the same.

This position, of course, does not require being able to derive the quadratic formula (except for math, physics, and chemistry teachers), but does require a broad range of interests outside of one's own area of expertise.

|1.13.06 @ 4:02PM|#

SWAT team shoots fifteen year-old eighth grader.

Few of my teachers taught. They usually just supervised the reading aloud of the textbook. It was very frustrating to have to sit through the stupid students reading very sloooooooooooowly. I wish I had left school sooner.

I don't think it's too much to ask that a high school teacher be familiar with high school level subject matter. Don't we expect high school teachers to have earned a college degree? Let's not make it sound like being familiar with high school level math is a fucking hardship. I don't think the shop teacher should be expected to take over teaching calculus, but he should have passed algebra class.

Warren|1.13.06 @ 4:07PM|#

Timothy,
Very good example, and comments. Thanks for the love.

When I was taking classes, I totally resented the liberal art classes I had to take.
Now I am glad I was forced to take most (but by no means all) of them because I have found that being well rounded to a certain minimum level to be of value. At the time I thought it was a total waste of my time but not I know better. I still see the value of specialization. I am most definitely in favor of division of labor. I would never suggest that the catering staff should be familiar with differential equations (well maybe the pastry chef if he's planning a really ornate show piece :) But what I am saying is that there is value in training your mind to think logically. And I'm talking about really hard rigorous logic that most people only encounter in their math class.

I believe that having some minimum competency of this kind of thinking is an essential life skill to everyone, in the same way that reading is. I think most people can read and write at that minimum level, but very few can reason as well as they should.

|1.13.06 @ 4:08PM|#

Jennifer,

If you knew math any better you'd be able to figure out that Warren is trying to tell you that he's fallen in love with you.

|1.13.06 @ 4:09PM|#

Don't we expect high school teachers to have earned a college degree?

Which is a silly prerequisite to begin with. Again, a teacher should be judged on their ability to teach, which has very little to do a college education.

I don't think the shop teacher should be expected to take over teaching calculus, but he should have passed algebra class.

Same for a drama teacher? A choir teacher? Why, exactly, if they're good at teaching the subject they were hired to teach?

|1.13.06 @ 4:10PM|#

linguist,

i knew what it meant, i was just being stupid.
(and painfully unfunny)

;)

|1.13.06 @ 4:11PM|#

Warren,

Now I am glad I was forced...

So what you're saying is coercion is good for you.

|1.13.06 @ 4:12PM|#

Don't we expect high school teachers to have earned a college degree?

Echoing the "effort matters more than ability" line to a tee!

Warren|1.13.06 @ 4:15PM|#

Why, exactly, if they're good at teaching the subject they were hired to teach?

Because I think they would be so much better if they could also do some basic calculating in the course of whatever else they were thinking about.

|1.13.06 @ 4:16PM|#

I think every teacher should have the skills of a high school graduate as a minimum in all subjects.

That's... nuts. The material you learn in high school is too specialized for what you're talking about.

Speaking of Germany, not only do they have 3+ tracks, but teachers are generally required to master and teach two subjects. When I spent 11th grade there, my math teacher was my gym teacher.

Timothy|1.13.06 @ 4:20PM|#

Warren: Don't get confused, "love" is much too strong a word. I think we can all agree that some basic ability to reason and deduce logically is just as important as literacy. However, you've managed to 1) only express that clearly in the last few commnts and 2) be quite condescending in your example choosing and tone.

"Basic reasoning and logic are important" is a very different statement than "If you believe [not having the quadratic formula derivation memorized isn't important] I have almost no respect for you".

|1.13.06 @ 4:22PM|#

Because I think they would be so much better if they could also do some basic calculating in the course of whatever else they were thinking about.

I gotta disagree with you on this one (but my late, great step-father was an engineer with similar ideas, so I understand where you're coming from). For some folks, it does help, but I've known superb and highly effective teachers who know next to nothing about other subjects. There are no fixed strategies to great teaching outside of knowing what your student needs and giving it to him/her in a way they can absorb it.

Warren|1.13.06 @ 4:24PM|#

Russ 2000,
Oh no you di'nt!

Good one. Of course I'd totally defend forcing your child to learn to read and write and add. But I was talking about courses I took when I was over 18. But then again, it was all perfectly acceptable from a libertarian perspective. The university said if you want a degree you must take a liberal-arts concentration. I didn't have to take the classes, only if I wanted the sheepskin. So I took them and got my BSEE, and I'm glad. I'm even glad that I had to take some classes I didn't want to that had nothing to do with engineering.

I'll tell you this though. What I really resented was the Liberal Arts people not needing to be as well rounded as me. I still say, everyone should have to take one semester of calc or statistics and one of either Chem or Physics, and that would serve the Lib. Art type much better than Psyche and Philosophy did me.

|1.13.06 @ 4:25PM|#

but teachers are generally required to master and teach two subjects.

Sounds like they have a shitty union.


I'll worry about my Lit teacher knowing the quadratic equation after my government understands that subtracting a large number from a small number results in a negative number.

Come to think of it, if there's any group of people who put effort over ability, it's politicians. "I don't care if the law has disastrous unintended consequences, at least I'm trying to DO something!"

Timothy|1.13.06 @ 4:26PM|#

If unis would drop the "multicultural" requirements, I'd be happy. I must've taken five or six of thos classes halfway and then dropped them or changed them to pass/fail and stopped going. Finally managed to find a couple I didn't hate (history of russia and judaic studies).

|1.13.06 @ 4:27PM|#

What I really resented was the Liberal Arts people not needing to be as well rounded as me. I still say, everyone should have to take one semester of calc or statistics and one of either Chem or Physics,

As an English major I had to take statistics and physics, so stop whining.

You may not have noticed, but I asked earlier if you, Warren, realized that by demanding high-school teachers be proficient in ALL high-school subjects, you are basically saying all high-school teachers should be polymaths. Good luck finding enough to them to staff even one high school, let alone the whole educational system.

Timothy|1.13.06 @ 4:29PM|#

Come to think of it, if there's any group of people who put effort over ability, it's politicians. "I don't care if the law has disastrous unintended consequences, at least I'm trying to DO something!"

This is why on the war costs thread I said I'd be happy to trade $2 trillion in Iraq for the federal government spending $0 on anything else for an entire year.

|1.13.06 @ 4:33PM|#

I think Warren means that teachers need to be proficient in the high school curriculum in the same sense that prospective high school graduates need to be proficient in the curriculum in order to actually graduate.

In other words, not asking for them to be polymaths.

Warren|1.13.06 @ 4:34PM|#

Good luck finding enough to them to staff even one high school, let alone the whole educational system

You may very well be right about that. Like Twba said, "I don't think it's too much to ask that a high school teacher be familiar with high school level subject matter". But I could be wrong.

|1.13.06 @ 4:37PM|#

I think Warren means that teachers need to be proficient in the high school curriculum in the same sense that prospective high school graduates need to be proficient in the curriculum in order to actually graduate.

Either way, as Jen replied such a statement shows a profound lack of applied mathematics and practicality. (Sterotypical behavior of math majors though.)

|1.13.06 @ 4:38PM|#

I think Warren means that teachers need to be proficient in the high school curriculum in the same sense that prospective high school graduates need to be proficient in the curriculum in order to actually graduate.

Even so, a kid currently taking an American History course will, at least for now, know more about American History than the average non-historian (just as I, in ninth grade, had memorized all the African capitals, which few regular people bother to do). If Warren expects all high-school teachers to know ALL the academic matter of EVERYTHING taught in the school where they teach, then he is basically saying that teachers should know more than the average American about every subject taught in a high school.

That may not strictly qualify one as a polymath, but it's pretty damned close.

|1.13.06 @ 4:39PM|#

I think Warren means that teachers need to be proficient in the high school curriculum in the same sense that prospective high school graduates need to be proficient in the curriculum in order to actually graduate.

And by the way... they already are!!

Warren|1.13.06 @ 4:44PM|#

On the one hand I expect that a teacher could sit down in just about any class on a Mon and be up to speed by Fri.

On the other hand I am expressing my belief that it is in the math classes that most teachers would have the hardest time doing that. Furthermore I am suggesting that an inability to do the kind of thinking you need to do to pass algebra is a great handicap in the same way that not being able to read is.

|1.13.06 @ 4:50PM|#

I think Warren means that teachers need to be proficient in the high school curriculum in the same sense that prospective high school graduates need to be proficient in the curriculum in order to actually graduate.

I still think that's too much to ask. High school is when we pour an enormous mass of knowledge into kids' heads and see what sticks. I don't think anyone - not even teachers - is going to be able to retain that knowledge for very long after graduation. I would rather have my teacher be a master of one or two subjects than be merely proficient in everything.

|1.13.06 @ 4:50PM|#

On the one hand I expect that a teacher could sit down in just about any class on a Mon and be up to speed by Fri.

What magical gift do teachers have that high school students don't have? That's most of the reason I hated school - they spent 180 days teaching me something I could have learned in 5. Talk about waste! College isn't much better but I could skip college classes most of the time without worrying about the police coming after me.

|1.13.06 @ 4:51PM|#

On the one hand I expect that a teacher could sit down in just about any class on a Mon and be up to speed by Fri.

But you haven't said why. The specialization and division of labor has done wonderful things for our civilization; why would you not apply it to tetaching? Why should kids lose out on a brilliant history teacher, for example, just because he could never get up to speed in an Honors Calculus class? Why should we deprive ourselves of a brilliant science teacher because he could never pass Home Ec?

|1.13.06 @ 4:59PM|#

Furthermore I am suggesting that an inability to do the kind of thinking you need to do to pass algebra is a great handicap in the same way that not being able to read is.

Once again, you need to explain why. We all know how the inability to read would make life in America very difficult; how does an inability to do algebra hurt the average person the same way?

|1.13.06 @ 5:01PM|#

...we pour an enormous mass of knowledge into kids' heads and see what sticks.

I agree. And judging by the posts from so many people here that didn't have the quadratic equations stick, I'd guess that a hell of alot of other information doesn't stick either. Other than Warren, did anyone remember anything about quadratic equations?

|1.13.06 @ 5:03PM|#

Other than Warren, did anyone remember anything about quadratic equations?

I remember that they are these big square-root-looking things with various letters and numbers underneath.

Warren|1.13.06 @ 5:05PM|#

Jennifer,
Maybe you would be just fine with a music teacher that was illiterate. I don't know. I would have a problem with that. The same way I have a problem with the English teacher who is mathematically illiterate. It cuts one off from so much knowledge and experience. Maybe they're great in their own field, but they're still missing too much to my way of thinking.

|1.13.06 @ 5:09PM|#

Sounds like they have a shitty union.

Heh. I don't know if they're unionized. I suppose they are, but it's not something I thought about at the time. Looking back, I don't recall unions or talk of unions to play nearly as big a role in the national discussion as they do here in the US.

Furthermore I am suggesting that an inability to do the kind of thinking you need to do to pass algebra is a great handicap in the same way that not being able to read is.

I don't see it as a handicap so much as a disadvantage.

|1.13.06 @ 5:10PM|#

"Quadratic Formula". The term brought back some distant memories. As someone said above, the term evokes about the same response for me as when someone says "gerund".

After I googled it, they looked instantly familiar, although I still don't know why they are useful or how I used to "solve" them. And this is from someone who was actually decent at match. I never got below a 'B' anyway.

|1.13.06 @ 5:11PM|#

[oops, I posted too soon; I meant to say:]

I don't see it as a handicap so much as a disadvantage, in that the inability to do algebra might keep someone from being an engineer but not any number of other well-paying jobs; whereas the inability to read is pretty much a showstopper.

digamma|1.13.06 @ 5:13PM|#

The same way I have a problem with the English teacher who is mathematically illiterate. It cuts one off from so much knowledge and experience. Maybe they're great in their own field, but they're still missing too much to my way of thinking.

I'm inclined to agree, although I don't necessarily think not knowing the quadratic formula by heart makes one mathematically illiterate. But it's hard to discuss economic policy rationally if you can't understand basically how exponential growth works or an argument that begins "let's say Joe makes X dollars a year and Steve makes X + 6000...."

I think logic is more important than pure math. To be "intelligent", people really need to know what a false dichotomy and a straw man are, and to understand what you can learn from "a implies b".

|1.13.06 @ 5:18PM|#

The same way I have a problem with the English teacher who is mathematically illiterate. It cuts one off from so much knowledge and experience.

I think you're placing more importance on math than it deserves for the average person. Personally, I loved math; took it up through freshman calculus, was math club mvp 3 years in a row, etc etc, but I knew I had no interest in engineering or teaching, so I stopped because there was no use for it. If you're speaking of some sort of intangible, near-spiritual benefit of math... I'm not seeing it.

|1.13.06 @ 5:20PM|#

I believe that having some minimum competency of this kind of thinking is an essential life skill to everyone, in the same way that reading is. I think most people can read and write at that minimum level, but very few can reason as well as they should.

According to the National Adult Literacy Survey, 42 million adult Americans can't read; 50 million can recognize so few printed words they are limited to a 4th or 5th grade reading level; one out of every four teenagers drops out of high school, and of those who graduate, one out of every four has the equivalent or less of an eighth grade education.

I think the drama teacher should be able to pass algebra class. In other words, the drama teacher should be a high school graduate.

You may not have noticed, but I asked earlier if you, Warren, realized that by demanding high-school teachers be proficient in ALL high-school subjects, you are basically saying all high-school teachers should be polymaths.

Is it too much to ask that high school teachers be knowledgeable about readin', 'ritin' and 'rithmetic? Let's not set the bar too low for becoming a teacher.

Why should kids lose out on a brilliant history teacher, for example, just because he could never get up to speed in an Honors Calculus class?

The history teacher doesn't have to be a math wiz, he has to be a legitimate high school graduate.

Why should we deprive ourselves of a brilliant science teacher because he could never pass Home Ec?

How could he not pass that class? Home Ec at your school must have been a real ball-breaker.

|1.13.06 @ 5:27PM|#

Warren,

>I had this very same conversation with a girl I was breaking up with last year. A few months ago someone on H&R asked me if I was lonely in my tower where I looked down upon everyone. I was forced to answer in the affirmative.

Did you break up with her because she didn't know the quadratic equation? 'Cause that would be kinda funny.

|1.13.06 @ 5:31PM|#

>(watching a sunset is a richer experience when you can factor polynomials)

you're right warren. you really can't explain it.

Warren|1.13.06 @ 5:31PM|#

Twba,
Holy shit, those are some depressing literacy rates. I bet then number of people that can find the volume of a cylinder is even lower.

|1.13.06 @ 5:32PM|#

The history teacher doesn't have to be a math wiz, he has to be a legitimate high school graduate.

Of course. But again, I think it's too much to ask him to *retain* that knowledge plus the knowledge needed to master history.

|1.13.06 @ 5:33PM|#

Slightly off topic vignette (about myself)...

When I was 5 (1969) I had several older siblings who were in high school and junior high. I saw them doing homework and wondered what they were doing, though they usually thought the work was stupid and pointless. But I always wondered what learning in a classroom was like. At the time, the Chicago city colleges had "TV College" on the air during the morning and early afternoon on the PBS sttaion, this was before Sesame Street and stuff like that. Basically there was no children's programming until after the school day, so I would actually sit and watch TV College programs during winter and on the rainy days. It was cool seeing these guys explaining stuff and writing on these giant pads of paper and giant paper rolls. I figured out how to read more complex words and do simple algebra just by watching those shows, by age 5. (And I'm no genius as my history of posts here will prove.) So I was pretty bored in school because they always went so damn slow. But I got homework done real fast because the stuff was redundant for me, resulting in more time for things besides school.

TV College was a way for the city colleges to deal with the swelling enrollment at the time. The huge enrollment increases were probably due to academic deferrments to avoid being drafted during the Viet Nam war. So I guess at age 5 I was deriving some benefit from that idiotic war.

|1.13.06 @ 5:34PM|#

The history teacher doesn't have to be a math wiz, he has to be a legitimate high school graduate.

He is. Twba, what school in the country is staffed by teachers who didn't graduate from high school? Warren is not merely saying teachers have to be high-school graduates; he's saying they have to know the subject matter of every class being taught in that high school.

Maybe you would be just fine with a music teacher that was illiterate. I don't know. I would have a problem with that. The same way I have a problem with the English teacher who is mathematically illiterate. It cuts one off from so much knowledge and experience. Maybe they're great in their own field, but they're still missing too much to my way of thinking.

Again, Warren, you're being vague rather than specific. I asked you how a person who can't do advanced algebra is disadvantaged the same as a person who cannot read or write. And all you can say by answer is this vague "Oh, they're missing out on so much. Oh, knowledge and experience. Oooh, sunset appreciation."

WHAT? What are they missing? Be specific. An inability to read would make it impossible to apply for most jobs, read instruction manuals for things you've purchased. . . what are the similar losses suffered by someone who cannot do algebra?

Warren|1.13.06 @ 5:35PM|#

someone,
It wasn't because she didn't know the quadratic equation. It was more because she refused to see any value in leaning it.

|1.13.06 @ 5:39PM|#

It wasn't because she didn't know the quadratic equation. It was more because she refused to see any value in leaning it.

She's probably better off alone than with some control freak who basically says "If *I* think you should learn something, then by God you'd better see the value in learning it."

|1.13.06 @ 5:43PM|#

Is it too much to ask that high school teachers be knowledgeable about readin', 'ritin' and 'rithmetic? Let's not set the bar too low for becoming a teacher.

Depends on what you mean by "the bar". Lots of high school teachers have loads of post-degree coursework completed because that's the way they get more money. But again, doing post degree college coursework has nothing to do with one's ability to teach, it's just effort over ability. In Warren's world the teacher has learned the quadratic equation and gobs of other stuff but STILL can't teach worth a shit. Which isn't any different than what we already have. Knowing the quadratic equation won't give off some magic aura that sprinkles onto the kids in the classroom transforming them into attentive gainers of knowledge and wisdom.

|1.13.06 @ 5:52PM|#

It wasn't because she didn't know the quadratic equation. It was more because she refused to see any value in learning it.

That's fine, except that it's the complete opposite of what you are arguing throught this thread - you are blaming the student rather the teacher's inability to help the student see the value.

|1.13.06 @ 5:53PM|#

A formal education is a necessary requirement in our society, but I believe it is overrated.

Think about this. Pundits have been saying for years that we have one of the worst education systems in the developed world, yet the U.S. is still an economic powerhouse. Why? Because job skills don't rely entirely upon formal education.

A good salesman may never have graduated from college and may not have a clue about quadratic equations, but if he applies himself, he can still make Saleman of the Year. If his sales skills need improvement, he has a host of opportunities through self-help books, seminars, etc. to make himself a better salesman.

What we offer here in the US is opportunity. You don't find that in many societies, especially in Europe. Anybody with motivation can trump a mediocre high school education with a host of education opportunities that include self-study, community college, etc.

My experiences have shown that the majority of my college education was for my own personal benefit. My employer is more interested in my job skills that pertain directly to my work and most of those skills were learned on the job or through self-study.

Warren|1.13.06 @ 5:54PM|#

Jennifer,
Yup, this is the same argument I had with my girlfriend. (How will this help me get more dinner engagements?)
Not being able to do algebra means spending more time and effort figuring out how to spend your budget, schedule you time, arrange your syllabus, etc. etc. etc. and winding up with inferior plans. I'm sorry I can't really explain what I'm talking about. Because what I'm really talking about is the ability to process information in a certain way that adds to the richness and fullness of being.

Alas, I can do no better. It is the end of the day and I will post no more.

Thank you for your comments on this massive thread. I'm glad you stuck with me instead of just a "screw you".

Thanks to everyone.

Oh and don't forget to watch Stossel.

|1.13.06 @ 5:58PM|#

...what school in the country is staffed by teachers who didn't graduate from high school?

I said legitimate graduate. I don't care about those diplomas handed out because someone kept a desk warm for twelve years. I have known some teachers who could barely write. They are out there.

|1.13.06 @ 6:02PM|#

Not being able to do algebra means spending more time and effort figuring out how to spend your budget, schedule you time, arrange your syllabus, etc. etc. etc. and winding up with inferior plans.

Since algebra is unnecessary for any of these things, I can only assume that what you mean to say is that algebra helps with clear, logical thinking. I don't doubt that; what I doubt is that math is the only way to improve your mind in that way. I think learning a second language, playing a musical instrument, reading and criticizing literature, and many other pursuits will lead the interested student to the same result.

|1.13.06 @ 6:13PM|#

Wow! eight hours later and the great binomial theorem debate rages on. C.P. Snow in "The Two Cultures" remarked about how remnarkable and asymmetric it is that we expect sientists to have read and understood Shakespeare (or if we don't expect it, we at least find it commonplace), whereas the converse is not true: very few "humanitarians" understand the second law of thermodynamics even at the most superficial level.

I was in one of the "core curriculum" discussions at our school, and I was amazed at how the scieintific folks never questioned the value of the humanities, whereas the libarts profs almost proudly disclaimed any interest in or love of science. So many said, in essence: "I am a successful man or woman and I don't know any science" I was amazed at how these otherwise intelligent people seemed to be bragging about their ignorance, and seemed so intent on shielding future students from the malefactors of science.

They reminded me of my Uncle Joe who used to ride me incessantly through graduate school about how successful he was even though he had left grade school in the sixth grade (hmmm, according to Stiossel's piece this might be the optimum time for leaving an American school).

I'll bet there are a lot of uncle Joe's out there--nice guys, good to talk too, pretty much good-hearted, that have a blind spot when it comes to understanding the value of and the meaning of really testing out and trying your mind. What sucks is when they turn up on the faculty.

|1.13.06 @ 6:16PM|#

...what school in the country is staffed by teachers who didn't graduate from high school?

This past spring, a group of Chicago children learned their lessons from a teacher who had flunked 24 of 25 tests of teacher competence.

In Elgin District 46, students studied the English language with a teacher who had failed 21 of 21 tests for teachers. That included nine of nine Basic Skills tests--an exam so easy, experts say, an eighth- or ninth-grader should pass it on the first try.

And in Aurora last school year, a group of elementary children took classes from a teacher who failed 15 of 16 teacher competency tests.

|1.13.06 @ 6:19PM|#

Who wants kids wasting time in a classroom headed by a dolt who could not pass a test so easy that an eighth grade student can pass on the first try?

|1.13.06 @ 6:34PM|#

The excerpts posted by Tbwa are much more troubling than knowing that English teachers don't remember how to do the quadratic equation and math teachers can't expound on Shakespeare. It is true that humanities types are often scornful of scientific types. The reverse is also true. Warren's comments on this thread reveal that he is a picture perfect example of this type of scorn.

|1.13.06 @ 6:46PM|#

Nice to see that this thread is about the substance of education rather than vouchers, for once.

I think the point that Ray D. is worth more discussion. What skills do we want our schools to impart our kids with? The narrow focus here on advanced algebra (or actually very basic algebra) is a bit too narrow for me, but I think getting people's thoughts on what broad skills they want kids to have is a question about educational culture that may have an impact on educational practices.

And by skills, I must emphasize, I do not mean school subjects. That is just an organizational tool. What activities of life do people think ours schools should be preparing our kids for, and what knowledge and skills do they need to perform them.

I would go with critical thinking (which necessarily involves both logic & math, but better not stop there... some arguments are aesthetic or moral). I want a kid who can become a productive member of society that partners with me to solve problems that are bigger than my family sphere. S/he should be able to recognize poorly worked out plans, predict consequences of future actions, recognize unfair treatment, recognize how others are trying to manipulate the situation for their own gain, recognize personal biases that might be clouding thinking. Things like that.

|1.13.06 @ 6:50PM|#

Re: "In a free market, the set of solutions that provide the best value as a function of resources consumed tend to dominate the transactions taking place, because customers will choose them as they arise."

By my above post, I am trying to see if we can define what "the best value as a function of resources" would look like. I think it is unlikely that we will be able to define the consumers or the values sufficiently, but that is where I think the discussion is most aptly target.

That's just my two cents.

|1.13.06 @ 6:59PM|#

Regarding whether someone should know how to derive the quadratic formula: When Warren said this, I took it to be possibly a kind of symbolic statement. But I also literally agreed with it and still do.

First of all I don 't agree with the idea that the measure of education is that it prepares you to do you job well, especially when this idea is bastardized into the idea that there is no point in learning stuff unless it directly impacts on your job.

I keep thinking about Robin WIlliams (who I can't stand as an actor...but some other time) telling the kids in Dead Poets Society (the ensuing is greatly abstracted) that a job is a means of putting enough food in our mouth so that we can get on with the true business of life, which largely occurs outside our jobs, namely the pursuit of truth, beauty and love. I doubt those sentiments carry much weight in so economically oriented a forum as this, but I think that a surprising plurality, if not majority, of people believe in these things for a good part of their lives.

So I don't care if someone doesn't think they are gonna need the quadratic equation on their job. Nor do I care whether they actually can remember the quadratic equation 5 years after leaving school. What I care is that they understand enough math to derive it. And the test of whether they have this understanding is whether they have the cnofidence to try to un dertake such a derivation. If they dont have this confidence, then they don't really understand math.

Nothing dire is going to happen to them as a result of this, any more than anything dire is going to happen to someone who when you say Milton, is constitutionally unaware that you can be referring to anyone except Milton Berle. We are all protected by the people around us and we rarely suffer for our ignorance, nor should we.

But that's not the way I want the world to be. I want it to be a place where even the guy who sweeps the leaves out of the sewer grate does so while whistlng Mozart, or reciting Shakespeare, or--yes--thinking about math. Math and physics and chemistry are just as much high culture as are music, poetry and art.

My college, like many others, has whored itself in order to make money. It has lured kids in with the promise of candy: if you come here we will see to it that you make lots of money; in the process of doing so, it has lost its connection with the idea of education, focussing only on the reward at the end. I mean it is really disgusting to see intelligent people with Ph.D.'s groveling in front of some bumptuous, unctuous "captain of industry" who, like some capitalist Barbara Streisand, believes that his opinion about education counts 'cause he has made lots of money. But the school wants his money and so these people kiss his ass. Pathetic. ANd they will agree with almost **anything** these folks say to get it.

Though I post here comparatively rarely, I read these forums a lot because a lot of interesting news comes here both from hit and run and from the forum participants, and the discussions are never tedious. Among all this intelligence I think Jennifer is almost always the person who says what I want to say before I say it better than I could ever hope to say it. But in this case, I just don't see why you are on the side of this argument that you seem to be on, and why you don't get the importance of learning math as an important part of learning the culture and not necessarily as simply a life skill.

|1.13.06 @ 8:04PM|#

I want it to be a place where even the guy who sweeps the leaves out of the sewer grate does so while whistlng Mozart, or reciting Shakespeare, or--yes--thinking about math. Math and physics and chemistry are just as much high culture as are music, poetry and art.

This is absolutely correct. I personally feel that my life would be less fulfilling if I didn't study Chemistry, Literature and History with the abandon that I did.

As the old saying goes, "You cannot miss what you never had."

In Jennifer's case, she never saw the awe inspiring results of mathematical pursuit that Warren did and consequently she does not see the need to pursue them. Does this make her less of a person, rational or otherwise? I don't think so. It may make her a bit less versed, perhaps a bit poorer intellectually, but that is all. I don't think she is at a disadvantage for not having experinced the beauty of mathematics any more than Warren is at a loss for not having discovered the inherent beauty of Middle English.

I think the most important thing we can ever teach our children is the ability to learn. To instill in them the curiosity and ability to find the answers to the questions they seek. Does it really matter that a person can or cannot perform a Calculus equation or read Chaucer if they do not the desire to learn in the first place?

Somebody further up the thread made a comment about High School being where they "poured information into your head to see what sticks". I feel that by the time you reach High School, you should be ready to ask the questions not just sit there and have information spoon fed to you.

Ok, enough of my self-esteem laden BS. Back to the raging war on Polynomial equations!

|1.13.06 @ 9:04PM|#

If you cannot do ninth-grade algebra, how can you possibly expect to understand the statistics underlying pedagological studies or be an informed voter?

|1.13.06 @ 9:32PM|#

Who wants kids wasting time in a classroom headed by a dolt who could not pass a test so easy that an eighth grade student can pass on the first try?

I want my kid in the classroom of the person - dolt in your opinion or not - who can teach the subject that they are supposed to be teaching. I don't really care that they weren't strong in an unrelated subject.

|1.13.06 @ 10:20PM|#

Stossel: "You're stupid!"
Towlie: "You're stupid!"
Stossel: "You're a towel!"
Towlie: "You're a towel!"

I agree with Towelie: Stossel is a stupid towel.

Hey kids, wanna get high?

|1.13.06 @ 10:55PM|#

Beauty? In mathematics? There's sure some sick people out there.

Timothy|1.13.06 @ 11:02PM|#

PLAM: Yeah, you can keep "Fountain". Hard to deface that thing by peeing in it...it's a fucking urinal.

|1.13.06 @ 11:39PM|#

About 20 years ago, Reason had a mail campaign that was something like, "How many of the things you know are wrong?". It was a great hook. I subscribed.

I thought Warren's questions were great and he drew Jennifer in really well. If he closed it right, he might have gotten Jennifer to Skype him to talk through it with him. Try to stay positive W and sometimes good things just happen.

About the other girl, the quadratic equation is a good litmus test for a teacher but a bad one for a friend or even a GF. Someone can be a complete dolt and still be a good friend.

About the programmers not needing to know math. Yeah, right. There is a generation of programmers writing N^3 solutions to Nlog(N) problems.

Warren|1.14.06 @ 12:32AM|#

Watched 20/20, thought it was great.
For all his spinning, half-truths, dope-smoking, snootiness, John still came though with several slam dunks. I wish I could watch it again to take notes, but just a couple that I recall:
Six administrators sitting around for an hour explaining to a mother why they can't be bothered to teach her kid to read, The SC super dufus talking about how great her schools are in response to the lowest SAT scores in the country, and how about that NYC union rep (we'll strike for tenure and 36 hr work week and if you don't agree you must hate children)

|1.14.06 @ 1:28AM|#

Yeah, you can keep "Fountain". Hard to deface that thing by peeing in it...it's a fucking urinal.

You're probably also one of those pedestrains who complains about how Modern Art lacks any utility. Jeez, there's just no pleasing some people.

|1.14.06 @ 1:44AM|#

Jennifer

Again, Warren, you're being vague rather than specific. I asked you how a person who can't do advanced algebra is disadvantaged the same as a person who cannot read or write. And all you can say by answer is this vague "Oh, they're missing out on so much. Oh, knowledge and experience. Oooh, sunset appreciation."

You are making the wrong comparisions - you are comparing the value of high school math with middle-school level English. I generally would argue that in all subjects, we learn the most important things first. Addition is more important than algebra, reading is more important than literature appreciation.

If you want to make the comparision fair, compare basic reading and writing (ability to understand applications, schedules, instructions, etc) vs basic math (basic operations, percentages, ratios, measurement). Or do the reverse and compare high school level topics: algebra and geometry vs advanced vocab, literature, and composition. Either way, your argument falls apart. The elementary and middle-school level material is all but necessary for any meaningful livelyhood. The high school level material is not.

The person who is missing out on Romeo and Juliet, and the person who is missing out on Algebra II - how do you compare that? Either way, we have a problem, and its only worse when the person is a teacher.

|1.14.06 @ 2:31AM|#

you are comparing the value of high school math with middle-school level English

But you neglect the fact that sadly enough, basic reading and writing isn't "middle-school level English" anymore. It should be, but it isn't. In light of that, the comparison is actually disgustingly apt.

|1.14.06 @ 6:02AM|#

But you neglect the fact that sadly enough, basic reading and writing isn't "middle-school level English" anymore. It should be, but it isn't. In light of that, the comparison is actually disgustingly apt.

I have a highschool math teacher in the family. And the sadder fact is that middle-school math isn't middle-school math anymore either. It's amazing how many sophomores can't add and subtract, let alone know their multiplication.

|1.14.06 @ 8:16AM|#

I want my kid in the classroom of the person - dolt in your opinion or not - who can teach the subject that they are supposed to be teaching. I don't really care that they weren't strong in an unrelated subject.

I bet a teacher who flunks the basic skills test is not able to teach any subject well. Well, he may be a great teacher of finger painting.

Tony|1.14.06 @ 9:36AM|#

Something not quite covered in the 20/20 episode, but alluded to by Twba there, is that the ability to teach is distinct from mastery of content. Even if we were assuming a person with 100% mastery of all content, it would not follow that they were a good teacher.

Teaching, OBVIOUSLY, involves the very important (if not central) component of being able to effectively communicate.

For that reason, even traditional teacher-education programs do not tell us much about how good a teacher is, either. All the methods classes in the world will not make someone a good teacher.

I will go so far as to say that a person genuinely gifted at teaching will be able to teach anything- mastered or not- and a person without such a gift will not be able to teach anything, mastered or not.

I think the education community knows this, since you only get raises in two basic ways. 1. Each additional year of experience. 2. Each additional level of schooling the teacher himself obtains. As you can see, neither of these say anything about whether or not a person can teach or not. Mr. Stossell would have done well to deal with this issue, too.

|1.14.06 @ 11:36AM|#

We all pay for Amtrak and public buses, but I gladly use my car instead. Am I due a "transportation voucher"?

Who the hell do you think pays for roads? Ford Motor Company? The interstate highway system was one of largest federal power-grabs ever, under the flimsy excuse of national security. The postwar government took advantage of a good economy to dump tons of money into a huge, monopolistic program that put private public transportation companies out of business.

Also, I knew the quadratic equation and one point and forgot it because I never once found a use for it outside of math class. I don't think you could say the same thing about constructing a decent paragraph.

|1.14.06 @ 11:49AM|#

I want it to be a place where even the guy who sweeps the leaves out of the sewer grate does so while whistlng Mozart, or reciting Shakespeare, or--yes--thinking about math.

No offense, but I find that opinion kind of arrogant. What makes a street-sweeper who whistles Mozart any better than one who whistles Eminem or Wumpscut or Kelly Clarkson? If you're hoping for a world where every person is going to offer you stimulating, intellectual conversation, I'm sorry to tell you - it ain't gonna happen.

About the programmers not needing to know math. Yeah, right. There is a generation of programmers writing N^3 solutions to Nlog(N) problems.

Most programmers aren't creating low-level algorithms - just the high-paid ones :)

|1.14.06 @ 12:53PM|#

The person who is missing out on Romeo and Juliet, and the person who is missing out on Algebra II - how do you compare that? Either way, we have a problem, and its only worse when the person is a teacher.

But no one here has explained WHY this is a problem and WHY an english teacher should know algebra or WHY a choir teacher should know the periodic table. Like I said, I've known teachers who were as good at teaching as any teacher possibly could be and they didn't know much beyond what they taught.

I've read a lot of "it makes them well rounded people" type arguments which is, as Rhywun, notes somewhat arrogant. I spent a week in Vieques, Puerto Rico a couple of months ago living with a fisherman in the house he built, going out on the boat he built, and getting there in the 35 year old truck he maintains. He's a beloved father and husband (and father-in-law) and he smiled nearly all the time. Why (I'm tempted to add "the fuck") does this already well rounded man need to enjoy European culture to enjoy his already fulfilling and beautiful life?

It's really not unlike a religious person saying, "But Christ (quadratic equation, Shakespeare) has helped me enjoy life so much more, so anyone without Christ (quadratic equation, Shakespeare) in their life simply must be less fulfilled." I like everyone here I'm disagreeing with, but I don't know what that is other than a well-meaning, misguided arrogance.

Tony|1.14.06 @ 1:35PM|#

Les, it took me a few minutes to figure out what I thought was wrong with your post, since I have often argued similarly, and for similar reasons. Essentially, it is this- the only arrogant part about the comments before is that an educated person would necessarily LIKE European culture. That an educated person ought to at least be aware of the quadratic equation or Shakespeare is a different question altogether.

Think of it this way. You brought up a 'religious person' talking about Christ. A Christian would say to about that man in Puerto Rico that if he's happy and fulfilled now, he'll be even happier in Christ, much as we might say a man happy and content with stale bread is going to be floored with a fresh loaf of sourdough in his hand. And that is the type of talk you should expect out of a religious person, and if they didn't feel that way, we'd think they really didn't believe what they said they believed.

The situation is similar here. The whole POINT of public schooling is supposed to be educating the students so that they can effectively participate in our society. There are reasons why Shakespeare and the quadratic equation have places in our society, and the very purpose of public education is to acquaint the students with those reasons. It might be slightly arrogant to presume that these students would agree with these reasons, but it is certainly not arrogant to think they are good reasons.

Now, to disagree with this is really to go to the heart of why we have public education at all. The only reason why the state has any right to mandate public education for children and young adults is because the state has deemed it in its best interest to have educated citizens, and apparently, citizens have agreed, or there would be no public education system.

It becomes a matter of opinion- not arrogance- to suggest that this or that aspect of our culture is something that ought to be part of our educational system. That opinion is typically expressed democratically through school board selection.

Perhaps we ought to stop mandatory education at 6th, 7th, or 8th grade, and we wouldn't have to worry so much about people arrogantly pushing their agenda, for up to this point we'd simply equip our students with practical and pragmatic tools for integrating into society. Is it right (arrogant) to expect more from our citizen-students?

|1.14.06 @ 3:08PM|#

"I bet a teacher who flunks the basic skills test is not able to teach any subject well. Well, he may be a great teacher of finger painting."

Based on the people I went through teacher education with, there was almost no correlation between ability to do well on a paper and pencil task, general intelligence, or even subject knowledge, and the ability to be a good teacher. In fact, if there was a trend, it was those of us who had never struggled with learning that were the less natural teachers.

|1.14.06 @ 3:11PM|#

dagny-What's your point? He was talking about federal programs that we pay for but don't necessasarily use ourselves. The highway system sounds like it could work just as well as an example.

Tony-But you still haven't explained *why* the quadratic formula is necessasary for the janitor or fisherman to do a good job. Maybe it's good for him to know in order to learn to "place" of the quadratic formula or Shakespeare in our society, but it seems to me that a person can value the existance of something without knowing how it works. My grandfather dropped out of High School and joined the Air Force. Could he have designed a plane? No, but that doesn't mean that he performed any worse as a ball-turret gunner, or that he failed to respect the place of the engineers at Boeing who *did* do the designs. As long as it's acknowledged that these things have value to someone I fail to see why I or anyone else am enriched by forcing anyone to remember any of it.

|1.14.06 @ 3:15PM|#

Thank you Tony for the match point.

Really. Nicely said.

|1.14.06 @ 3:24PM|#

I thought Stossel's article, and show, were quite terrible. It is always amusing to hear libertarians bemoan our "education monopoly" and the dreaded "teachers unions" as the reason why our kids score worse than Western Europe. Western Europe has MUCH stronger unions and MUCH more government everywhere than we do, so this is CERTAINLY not the problem! If anything one could make a better argument that the government curbs on the market (like restrictions on adverstising during kids shows) and their promotion of higher culture (like BBC) is what makes European kids smarter. And what is his prob with unions? Companies band together all the time, voluntarily, for collective advantage. Of course the unions make it harder to fire an individual worker, wouldn't you bargain for that? For every "sex offender" that Stossell whines cannot be instantly removed (of course they have to have some kind of due process here John) there are good workers who tyrannical principles are trying to lord it over who need protection.

Tony|1.14.06 @ 4:16PM|#

"But you still haven't explained *why* the quadratic formula is necessasary for the janitor or fisherman to do a good job. Maybe it's good for him to know in order to learn to "place" of the quadratic formula or Shakespeare in our society, but it seems to me that a person can value the existance of something without knowing how it works."

No, I'm down with that. I wasn't trying to justify why it would be necessary at all. I was just saying it wasn't necessarily arrogant, either. It just means that the State has decided that they want citizens who are at least aware of such things. If we disagree with the State on that, it seems to me to call for a re-thinking of the purpose and place of Public Education at all.

Further, it would seem to me to argue for no longer making public education mandatory, or ending it at a far more earlier age, like 8th grade.

I wasn't necessarily offering an opinion on anything, other than the categorization that it was 'arrogance.'

|1.14.06 @ 4:39PM|#

Ken, Science,

American Universities defy your proposition that more national government control makes for better insititutions. The Universities are essentially under the same state control (although less regional control) as primary schools, yet our Universities are admired in Europe for the quality of product they produce. By the time American students graduate from University, they are as highly regarded as European graduates. And what is a big difference in University as opposed to primary school? Well, let's see, choice for one. I could have chosen to go to any number of universities in Texas, but I chose instead to go to Georgia Tech. And also, there are no university unions. The only way to achieve a permanent status is to produce enough product in form of research of new ideas in order to achieve tenure. And while this doesn't make professors the best teachers, it does make them extremely competent in their field. Thus, there is more of a capitalistic mentality at the University level and it produces superior results. The government imposes a light touch to prevent abuses to the system and the University itself polices the rest. Maybe our primary system could take lessons from this system. Thus good "teachers" whose product is intelligent students could be rewarded and those that don't produce will be removed. It really works, you just have to look to your state university to see it does.

|1.14.06 @ 5:07PM|#

It really works, you just have to look to your state university to see it does

Or maybe it's owing to the fact that people place more value in what they have to pay for themselves, and so are willing to work harder. Or that less talented students don't go, which means that the Universities can go at a much faster pace, thereby achieving more. Or that people are shifted into tracks which will either A)conform to their natural talents B)be an area that they're interested in and therefore are more willing to work at or C) a mix of the above.

Pretending that it's just *one thing* that makes our High Schools lousy is incredibly obtuse.

|1.14.06 @ 5:42PM|#

Here in Wisconsin, the evil Gov. Doyle is enforcing a cap on participation in the Milwaukee Schooll Choice program which will have adverse effects on the independent schools taking part. Doyle keeps vetoing legislation to "lift the cap." One good thing about last night's 20/20 was that a pro-school-choice group, ACE, ran a commercial calling for the Guv to change his mind on the issue.

The practical impact of vouchers is one thing, but I'd urge people not to forget the underlying moral argument against government controlled schooling. Education should no more be a function of the gummint than religion, publishing or broadcasting. We separate church and state, and press* and state, because in a true republic the people form the government. Letting the state have control over these levers of culture means that the government forms the minds of the people!

The case for the common school, first funded by local government and run by the established church, then, under the influence of "reformers" such as Horace Mann and the even more egregious John Dewey, has always been as much about social control and indoctrination of the children of immigrants and of members of minority religious groups than about preparing kids for the workforce. This was usually sold as "making citizens" out of the little monsters. That influential statists designed a statist system shouldn't surprise.

Kevin

|1.14.06 @ 5:43PM|#

Oh, the asterisk on press above was supposed to point to the awful exception of NPR/PBS and stations licensed to govt. units.

Kevin

|1.14.06 @ 5:57PM|#

Also, you can learn the quadratic equation without learning rational thought - you can just memorize it without real understanding.

I'd be tempted to guess that this is how most kids do learn it. It was certainly how we were taught math in my public high school (without a philosophical base that is).

|1.14.06 @ 7:50PM|#

I'd actually argue understanding of the quadratic formula is more importan than Shakespeare if our goal is to produce a good citizen. Why? Because Algebra is a prerequisite to statistics, of which most people are woefully ignorant. There is no possible way to critically analyze public policy without at least some understanding of mathematics well beyond basic algebra. Yet these people vote, based on gut instincts and spewing of their party line.

Someone who doesn't know Shakespeare is missing out on a lot, but at least their ignorance is confined and doesn't endanger the rest of us with foolish public policy.

|1.14.06 @ 8:11PM|#

Jennifer -- I enjoy your comments.

Warren -- You are dead to me.

And BTW, I do know how to derive the quadratic formula: I turn to my wife and ask her (she's a scientist, you know).

|1.14.06 @ 8:48PM|#

Tony, those are excellent points. I'm rethinking my accusations of arrogance and I'm on the verge of taking them back.

The whole POINT of public schooling is supposed to be educating the students so that they can effectively participate in our society. There are reasons why Shakespeare and the quadratic equation have places in our society, and the very purpose of public education is to acquaint the students with those reasons.

There are practical reasons that SOME members of society value the quadratic equation. There are aesthetic reasons people value Shakespeare, but no practical reasons. The question is why MUST a citizen be REQUIRED by the state to be familiar with both? And since the vast majority of people who demonstrate a knowledge of both while passing tests in school forget both in a short amount of time after graduation, what is the state doing wrong?

It becomes a matter of opinion- not arrogance- to suggest that this or that aspect of our culture is something that ought to be part of our educational system.

A good point. My feelings of arrogance come from the posts which suggest the average person would
happier loving Mozart and Shakespeare and the quadratic equation. We introduce students to these things in the hopes that they will like some of them, learn from some of them, but if they don't, what's the harm? There will always be those who do and I think it's silly to think something's missing from the lives of those who don't, which is the implication.

Perhaps we ought to stop mandatory education at 6th, 7th, or 8th grade, and we wouldn't have to worry so much about people arrogantly pushing their agenda, for up to this point we'd simply equip our students with practical and pragmatic tools for integrating into society. Is it right (arrogant) to expect more from our citizen-students?

These are the bigger questions, certainly, and ones that need to be asked, and which I can't answer without lots of thinking, which hurts my head (not knowing the quadratic equation).

But this hullubaloo started with baseless suggestions that all teachers need to be familiar with all the high-school subjects, which is, not, I think arrogance. It's ignorance of what makes a good teacher.

Thanks for the thoughtful thoughts, Tony.

|1.14.06 @ 9:08PM|#

Thanks for the many good points. I watched and was genuinely outraged and inspired. However, after the show I managed to remember that some of the best-educated people I know were educated in the Soviet Union. So, uh, yeah the whole anti-union bit may need some retooling. One Russian girl I know has made it her personal mission to do everything she can for the school system here in America. She thinks that it is easily the most shameful thing going on here in the USA (otherwise she loves it).
I also remembered my first two years of college with some fondness. I seem to remember the first 2 years at uni as my chance to actually learn those things I was supposed to learn in high school. Thank Zeus for that, since I certainly didn't do it the first time. IIRC, European teenagers go to college and actually study only their majors. Can you imagine?

Tony|1.14.06 @ 11:56PM|#

Well Les, you've put the lie to all those internet Flame Warriors who say it's pointless to exchange ideas on the Internet. ;) I appreciate your complimentary words. I also accept the value of the points that you are making. I can see both sides, and have yet to actually present my own!

I thought I should add into this conversation the fact that many foreign countries have artificially inflated scores. While we mess around trying to give EVERYONE a substantial educations, many foreign countries put students on 'tracks,' which may or may not focus on areas of academics. It shouldn't come as much surprise that the students who go down certain 'academic' tracks perform well, since they were already selected because they were clearly suited for them. Sounds great- But it has its problems, too.

raymond|1.15.06 @ 4:07AM|#

(I'll have to 2-part this, since the blog software keeps refusing my post.)

By the time American students graduate from University, they are as highly regarded as European graduates.

...at a cost approaching a half-trillion dollars a year, our schools can't even graduate college students where at least one in three is literate at a proficient level. (Literacy Rates: The Decline Continues)

raymond|1.15.06 @ 4:11AM|#

1. Not everyone needs a high-school or university diploma to maximise his chance for happiness. For a lot of kids, strictly academic (general-culture) 10-through-12 is a waste of resources - both theirs and the schools'. Better a system of apprenticeships, in my opinion.

2. Social promotion and grade inflation. I think American education has an "All shall have prizes" mentality.

raymond|1.15.06 @ 4:12AM|#

(Jeez, this is annoying.)

3. University Education departments. Some of the least-educated people I know have degrees from Education departments. I once knew a teacher who taught his 6th graders that at one time dinosaurs and men roamed the earth together. When I asked him where he'd got that idea, he referred me to this. (But his bulletin boards were nice.)

4. When I was a high-school freshman, my English teacher told me that being an educated man doesn't mean knowing all the answers. It means knowing where to find the answers. Today, when I need to derive a quadratic equation, I haul out my pocket calculator.

On the other hand, I could never fall in love with someone who hasn't done Latin.

raymond|1.15.06 @ 4:14AM|#

ps -

This site has all the data about literacy in the US.

|1.15.06 @ 10:23AM|#

Based on the people I went through teacher education with, there was almost no correlation between ability to do well on a paper and pencil task, general intelligence, or even subject knowledge, and the ability to be a good teacher. In fact, if there was a trend, it was those of us who had never struggled with learning that were the less natural teachers.

How many great teachers are functionally illiterate?

Timothy|1.15.06 @ 11:24AM|#

PLAM: I was referencing this. I don't see how pissing in a urinal counts as vandalism.

|1.15.06 @ 11:58AM|#

I doon't think my comment about everyone appreciating Mozart, Shakespeare and algebra was at all arrogant. To the contrary, it advocates an intellectual democracy, where everyone has access to the best things. Unfortunately, as soon as you give examples of what you think are the best things, you leave yourself open to the accusation of arrogance because not everyone agrees on what the best things are.

What I am advocating is an extension of a paedomorphic frame of mind as long as possible into adulthood, so that everyone can partake of the best and hardest things out culture has to offer as long as possible into their adult life. The practical benefits of this for individuals is that it renders us capable of economically functioning in a world that changes rapidly. The spiritual (or phulosophical or whatever) benefit is that it enables us to have a more fulfilling intellectual life. The political benefits (pointed out by many others here) is that it enables us to reason our way out of a paper bag when we are confronted by political debate.

This doesn't mean that Mozart is better than Eminem, or Shakespeare is better than Stephen King or that there exists some external standard whereby you could make such an evaluation--it means that you can discuss the possibility of the existence of such a standard intelligently.

It doesn't mean that the federal government passes a "No Child Doesn't Listen To Egghead Music" act, whereby millions of sobbing adolescents are forced to offer their iPods up each day to overbearing martinets who inspect them for the proper ratio of classical to popular tracks.

I had the good fortune to attend a Jesuit high school. We students groused constantly at the oppressiveness of our situation: Latin, nath, science, lierature and an endless progression of stuffy liberal arts courses. Three hours of homework every night and 5 on the weekends, mercilessly enforced by JUG (Justice Under God or detention). No driver's Ed, 1 single hour of sex ED, no shop or home economics. No appeals to "learning from life" or "street smarts", just hour after hour of learning from books. And you know what? By age 18, we were able to comment on our oppression with some semblance of intelleigence; we were able to articulate our feelings more precisely than simply shrugging our shoulders and uttering "Well, that's just what I think". Judging from the responses I routinely encounter on this board, many (if not all) of you who post here have also learned how to do this, probably because some school or parent or other cultural influence has pushed you in that direction. Why wouldn't you want to at least try to extend this opportunity to everyone?

If I wanted to make an arrogant statement at this point, I would postulate the existence of an underclass whose members were simply incapable of aspiring to the state of mind outlined above. Those people, you know, there is no hope for them; just give them what they need to be on the right side of the unemployment rate most of the time, feed them their daily dose of soma and tell them they are nice people, and, after all, being a good person is all that counts, right?

If this is what we should do, then we shouldn't worry too much about improving education. We could save a lot of money by ending education for most at seventh or eight grade. Most students would receive the important part of their education from "the University of Life". A student entering the university of life wouldn't be reqired to know that much; they'd just need to know how to look it up. Capstone courses would include "Surfing the internet Skills" and "Pocket Calculator literacy" as well as the usual battery of "Social Skills", "Coping Skills", "Group Participation" and of course, "Sex Ed" courses. There is not even a need for PE, because after all you will be driving everywhere.

You can argue that this is just the way that schools are now, and I would lean towards agreeing with you. So this means that Stossel is just a whining idiot, complaining about stuff that really doesn't amount to all that much. Just educate the 20% who drag society along as they now do, and make sure that everyone else shows up forwork and follows orders.

|1.15.06 @ 12:11PM|#

I feel sorry for people who think algebra is advanced math.

Tony|1.15.06 @ 12:49PM|#

I thought Jimmyboy elaborated on his position quite well. I concur with much of it.

Also- great Brave New World allusion. Good job.

I think maybe we have arrived at the right time to pose this question: Has it finally become ok to challenge the politically correct position that 'everyone has a right to an education'?

I do challenge it- but most of the time all that I hear in response is a knee-jerk condemnation, as though I am anti-education or anti-kids.

|1.15.06 @ 1:09PM|#

Thank you, Tony, for pushing past all my typos.

I have never looked upon education as a right. It is currently an obligation that the adults in society impose on the young through the agency of government. I think that children and adolescents do not possess the same rights as adults, and that they ought not to.

It's the responsibility of the adult members of society to decide upon what they will expect from the children. Whether this should be done family by family or with the intervention of the state is an issue that libertarians have to wrestle with.

Is it right for the state, with the persuasive powers of its police force, to say "You must attend some sort of school" (even if that school is located on the physical premises of your home) and to back this up with general instructions about what you should know when you enter adult life?

|1.15.06 @ 3:59PM|#

(I'll have to 2-part this, since the blog software keeps refusing my post.)

By the time American students graduate from University, they are as highly regarded as European graduates.

...at a cost approaching a half-trillion dollars a year, our schools can't even graduate college students where at least one in three is literate at a proficient level. (Literacy Rates: The Decline Continues)

Raymond,

Yet, what was the sample size for college graduates? They interviewed 19000 total people 16 and up, so what percentage of them were college graduates. And what was the criteria that constituted a college graduate. Were trade school and 2 year associate degree graduates considered "college" graduates. Also, I find the explanation of a proficient level being "able to compare two editorials and understand blood pressure readings to be very vague" After reading the report, I don't know what the actual status is because it doesn't specificy the particular metrics or even a copy of the exam. Also, since this is entirely US based survey, it doesn't compare the apparent proficiency of other countries which neglects my main argument that after college students in America are just as well prepared.

Also, having read the full report and looked at the statistics, the scores on the current exam are all higher than in 1992, only a fall in Hispanic scores, which if you account for the fact that this test was given solely in English and there are many non English speaking hispanic communities (which are not uneducated, merely functioning in another language, which I'm sure many descendents of Italians, French, Chinese, Korean and German immigrants can understand), then this is not necessarily a failure.

But without a comparison to other nations, this study means very little to me and doesn't demonstrate a specific failure, maybe only the testers setting a bar that not many people reach anyway (throughout the world)

|1.15.06 @ 4:13PM|#

Good points about the universities, but Actually quite a few universities have unions and collective bargaining. Even the ones that do not have unions are about the most un-market like places you can imagine. And our gov pours some money into them as well.

|1.15.06 @ 4:15PM|#

I would also like to add that per the study, people over the age of 65 made up 15 percent of the study, but 26 percent of those recorded as "Below Basic" literacy. At a certain point, I don't think education is the only factor in a person's literacy. Therefore, does this sample group really demonstrate our educative abilities?

Another thing about this study is that only 56% of the group spoke English at home. 44% were not native English speakers and as 35% spoke spanish, you have to wonder how many of those actually went through our education system and how many have entered this country after their educative years.

Tony|1.15.06 @ 4:41PM|#

It doesn't matter that the universities have unions for the purposes of the Stossell Report. You are not restricted to a particular university based on where you live. Unions understand self-interest, and when there is competition, they'll adjust easily enough to that reality. So, again, its the lack of competition that is the thrust of Stossell's argument.

raymond|1.15.06 @ 4:50PM|#

Page 14 of the study answers all your questions.

It's pretty clear.

|1.15.06 @ 5:26PM|#

Raymond,

Yeah, I looked at that, but it doesn't tell me much more, especially not in my complaints that there's not comparitive study in other countries. Considering how low the average was from a perfect score, even among graduate school level test takers, that tells me less about them and makes me wonder more about the test.

Sorry, I don't buy the study.

|1.15.06 @ 6:45PM|#

Timothy-Yeah, and I was making a joke. It was about how people complain about Modern Art being worthless, even despite the fact that the urinal can obviously pull double-duty. Good work missing that totally, though.

|1.15.06 @ 7:08PM|#

Woe, the NAAL report is interesting.

It may simply say that people are smartest in middle age. Experience increases and intelligence decreases as we age, and the convolution of the two has a maximum at age 40-50.

However, the maximum seems to be moving towards higher increasing age. The interpolations of the two plots in each graph of literacy vs. age on page 10 cross somewhere around age 50. Whereas the maximum was pretty clearly in the 40-49 group in 1992, the advantage for that group seems to have gone down, with the population shifting to the 50-64 group in 2003. If that trend were to continue, the 50-64 group would be the smartest in another 10 years.

Someone who is 45 in 2003 would have completed high school in 1976. So will it turn out that the 70's were the golden age of American public education? Only time will tell, and the time periods are so large that it's hard to make these kinds of conclusions, even tentatively, with a straight face.

Nevertheless, "A Nation at Risk" came out, I believe, in 1983. A child in 1st grade in 1983 would be 21 years old in 2003. These graphs would imply that all the reform efforts and verbiage expended since that time have been pretty worthless. Note that the lowest two age groups exhibit a small decrease in all measures of literacy between 1992 and 2003 (as do all groups under 40 years old). In fairness the two youngest groups have declined less than the 25-40 groups, but still, I would have expected the new jet engines to have increased the altitude of the plane rather than to simply slow its rate of descent.

|1.15.06 @ 7:17PM|#

Pardon me: a child in first grade in 1983 would be 26 in 2003.

Tony|1.16.06 @ 12:36AM|#

I can make all sorts of conclusions with a straight face. Its one of my biggest strengths. ;)

Timothy|1.16.06 @ 1:33AM|#

PLAM: Thanks, I do my best to totally miss obvious jokes. I'm glad to be of service in this manner.

|1.16.06 @ 3:31PM|#

Good point about the lack of competition (though Stossel devotes about a third of his show to just union bashing, having little to do with competition, so I'm glad to call him on that part alone). But I have a question (that I do not know the evidence to): Stossel points to the competition in the Belgian educational system, but do other nations that score higher than us have such competition? Japan, the Eastern Tigers, Germany for example? Some of these nations are hardly free market examples...