Slightly St00pid

Be sure to check out John Stossel's special Stupid in America tomorrow night at 10.

Comments

[dead_elvis]

I just caught the tail end of an interview on the Colbert Report, I would guess from last night- hard to tell how well he did. Does anyone know somewhere that posts that show?

[Evan]

Elvis: my mufuckin' DVR posts that show every day. Bwah ha ha.

He was great---he even called himself a libertarian on the air. I'm sure the LP is pissing their pants in glee. They're like celeb-worshipping teenagers sometimes---they make such a huge deal of anyone remotely famous even so much as mentioning the "L" word. But I digress.

He spoke out against regulations---at one point, Colbert made a sarcastic joke about how "we don't need the FAA, just let the free market sort it out", and Stossel said, "yeah, you know, your audience might scoff at this, but, yeah---the market could. Consumer reports or underwriters laboratories, etc, they could. You think the airlines want their planes to crash?" Pretty cool, turning a patented "Colbert Absurd Extreme" joke into a serious statement. Bam!

And he blamed the government monopoly for the bad school systems here. Good on him.

[Aakash]

Though wrong on some issues, John Stossel is a great commentator... We [DEFINITELY!] need more people like him in the media.

[dead_elvis]

Elvis: my mufuckin' DVR posts that show every day. Bwah ha ha.

Well it turns out it's posted on the Comedy Central website so I just watched it for free, which I'm sure is less than what your mufuckin' DVR cost. Bwah ha ha! 😉

[Stephen Macklin]

It certainly seem that the more the federal government takes over education, the worse it gets.

The problem is that federal politicians are not really accountable at a local level. One bad school here, one bad school system there, they just point to the piles of money they are throwing at them and say see all we are doing? The local politicians who should be accountable mostly get let off because they can just blame it all on "No Child Left Behind."

The only kids that wind up getting a decent education are the one's who's parents can afford decent private schools or who's can parents can get buy on one income and can home school.

[Yogi]

Nice reference to a great band in the title.

[Jordan Greenberg]

The state of public schools today is sad, but even the private schools are slipping. I attended a private school, and I was pretty much totally unprepared for the math curriculum I saw in at my tech. college.

Our school system in general just doesn't compare to those found overseas. It doesn't help that high school is seen as just somthing to prepare you for college, instead of an education in itself.

[E. Steven]

Wow, the Belgians have more school choice and they make excellent chocolate, beer and french fries. What a country!

[daksya]

The annoying thing about the Stossel piece is that he lays the blame on the government without establishing the causality. It's not about spending levels, or school choice, as much about basic cultural attitudes about education, especially among its consumers. The best schools in Delhi and certainly the best colleges are public.

[HindsightIS]

"Though wrong on some issues, John Stossel is a great commentator... We [DEFINITELY!] need more people like him in the media."

Yeah, so that people can continue to see Libertarians as reactionary idiots who don't think issue through. That will promote the cause quite well. Stossel is for Libertarians what Limbaugh is for Republicans: a public face for all that's wrong with their (our) ideology. A twit that makes the LP look like it is made up of self-serving tax avoiding richies and self-serving pot smoking kids.

But that's just my opinion. I have seen it posted here many times that people think the LP is full of intellectuals that are outta touch with the common man. That self image may prove the outta touch part, but. . .

[andy]

"It's not about spending levels, or school choice, as much about basic cultural attitudes about education, especially among its consumers."

That may indeed be true, but when you have such a large proportion of the populace thinking that "more money" will solve the schools' ills, it helps to promote school choice. People who do care will find the better schools, public or private, period. For kids who want to do well but have apathetic families, I sympathize. But why should I give a fuck about some little shit who doesn't care one way or another about school, let alone subsidize his schooling?

[Yogi]

When the government sees the need to make sure all their needy have food to eat, do they cook for them? No, they give them food stamps to spend as they wish at any grocery store. Isn't this the same thing as vouchers?

[Hindsight]

"No, they give them food stamps to spend as they wish at any grocery store. Isn't this the same thing as vouchers?"

Not really, no. An education isn't really a product you pick up off the shelf. Its more like deciding what city to live in, or which doctor you prefer to have look up your bum. Complications about service delivery don't always go directly to how that service is paid for. Once the community has pooled their money to solve a problem that impacts everyone in the group, it stops being about how to fund it and more about how it is implemented (private insurance or medicaid, employer supported HMO? What about employers offering educational packages for their employees). Nothing wrong with vouchers, per se, but they hardly address the real issues in education. Stossel won't see it that way. He'll see it as the same one-dimensional problem that led Marx astray... everything is economy, therefore economic solutions are best.

[luisa]

Yeah, just after I spend an our an hour reading Ann Coulter.

[Stevo Darkly]

"Though wrong on some issues, John Stossel is a great commentator... We [DEFINITELY!] need more people like him in the media."

Yeah, so that people can continue to see Libertarians as reactionary idiots who don't think issue through. That will promote the cause quite well. Stossel is for Libertarians what Limbaugh is for Republicans: a public face for all that's wrong with their (our) ideology. A twit that makes the LP look like it is made up of self-serving tax avoiding richies and self-serving pot smoking kids.

Uh, what did Stossel do, use his 1040 form to roll up a giant doobie and smoke it on the air?

The annoying thing about the Stossel piece is that he lays the blame on the government without establishing the causality. It's not about spending levels, or school choice, as much about basic cultural attitudes about education, especially among its consumers.

Could the consumer's attitude have something to do with the fact that he or she feels unmotivated and powerless in the face of a government take-it-or-leave-it-but-you-still-pay-for-it monopoly?

[Yogi]

HindsightIS-
Once the community has pooled their money to solve a problem that impacts everyone in the group, it stops being about how to fund it and more about how it is implemented

I reject the idea that the community needs to pool its money together to solve the problem. Education is a service and those providing it get paid. Those receiving the education need to be the ones choosing who to pay. Will some decide to get their biology lessons from the Discovery Institute? Sure. But most will recognize excellent educators when they see it and make the wise choice. In today's age of computers and internet the local brick school building could easily become obsolete. Nothing replaces human on human contact, I'll agree, but that can come in all kinds of forms.

[daksya]

Could the consumer's attitude have something to do with the fact that he or she feels unmotivated and powerless in the face of a government take-it-or-leave-it-but-you-still-pay-for-it monopoly?

Very little. I'm talking about more fundamental issues like "why the hell do I need to know how to factorize a quadratic equation?" rather than "This teacher sucks at teaching algebra, and I can't change schools." Because if the latter was the dominant factor, the attitude problem is already solved.

[Yogi]

I'm talking about more fundamental issues like "why the hell do I need to know how to factorize a quadratic equation?" rather than "This teacher sucks at teaching algebra, and I can't change schools."

These two are closer related than it appears at first glance. The lack of choice leads to complacency among not the students, but parents. The value of education comes from your family, at least mine did, and its probably one of the reasons I'm in grad school while some of my friends are selling paint back home. If the only decisions parents have to make about their children's education is what clothes to buy them in back-to-school shopping, its something that kids pick up on very well.

[daksya]

These two are closer related than it appears at first glance.

It may reinforce the attitude, but the causality is not bad choices -> bad attitude. Even with good teachers, there are impulses to not bother about (tedious) activity that doesn't lead to direct & short term benefits. Especially for newly pubescent 13 year olds. But a strong cultural bias for education can sufficiently curb such impulses.

[Joe Dokes]

I've heard over and over again the basic question that U.S. students would do better under vouchers and I am not completely convinced. First, do all the countries that beat us have vouchers? Does Japan, Germany, et al have vouchers? How about communist China which probably cleans our clocks? My guess is probably not.

But even in Belgium which does have vouchers dating back to 1830, the government plays an active role in setting standards for education. It is not the laissez-faire utopia favored by hard core libertarians. "The General Secretary of Centrale Generale des Services Publics-Enseignement. "Private schools are considered institutions of public interest."

Every couple of years the contract for teachers come up for renewal, do you honestly believe that a majority of teachers would strike in order to protect the bad apples? As a teacher, I can honestly say I wouldn't. Thus, these districts should negotiate new contracts that give streamline the firing process, while giving teachers a good raise. Thus, both sides could claim victory.

As a school teacher, I have heard Principals complain about not being able to fire anyone. Guess what, a few years later I worked with a COMPETENT principal who in the course of three years fired five teachers from a staff of thirty. It can be done, principals just don't want to go through the process.

I supported the Florida voucher plan, I honestly felt that it would light a fire under truly bad schools.

Finally, the quality of the students in the U.S. is poor. Students just aren't interested in working, and there is no current mechanism in the education system for encouraging the student to put forth any effort.

Regards

Joe

[MP]

But a strong cultural bias for education can sufficiently curb such impulses.

I'm not sure if this is what you were trying to imply, but if so, would you mind telling me how taxation to supply vouchers (or tax credits, if that is your cup of tea) does not promote a culture of education?

[matt]

Guess I'll have to record this since it airs at the same time Battlestar Galactica is on.

And this sentence from the second paragraph of the link cracks me up:

Another says, "I think it has to be something with the school, 'cause I don't think we're stupider."

Pretty much sums up government education in a nutshell I think.

[Yogi]

But a strong cultural bias for education can sufficiently curb such impulses.

I'm not sure if this is what you were trying to imply, but if so, would you mind telling me how taxation to supply vouchers (or tax credits, if that is your cup of tea) does not promote a culture of education?

Or give some kind of other solution to the problem that will change the culture bias. We've tried other stuff, and it doesn't work.

The free market has an excellent history of solving problems. Let's give it a fair shot at solving this one. It's worked pretty well with our higher education, as can be seen by all the foreign students knocking each other over to study at our universities. Federal loan money for college is determined my financial need of the family, not which school the student is attending. It was the reason I had the choice to go to a private college. I chose the best school for me even though several schools tried to convince me they were better for my future. Why do we think this will be different for high schools?

[Lost_In_Translation]

There is no doubt that our primary eductation is woeful, but by the time students graduate from college, they are atleast as well or better prepared than their counterparts anywhere in the world. Of course you have a choice which college you go to. Hmmm, think that might play a part?

[jimmyboy]

The Belgians did better because their schools are better. At age ten, American students take an international test and score well above the international average. But by age fifteen, when students from forty countries are tested, the Americans place twenty-fifth. The longer kids stay in American schools, the worse they do in international competition. They do worse than kids from countries that spend much less money on education.

Who can argue with this kind of logic? American students in school for 5 years are pretty smart, and then, in the same schools (presumably 5 years later) are as smart as posts. So what happpened between ages 10 and 15? It's the schools?

Conclusion--if we graph smartness vs. time spent in school, it's some kind of line with a negative slope? So we extrapolate it back I guess and they all entered grade school preternaturally intelligent? They were all born in a Rousseaean state of grace, and society (i.e. schools) ruined them.

But then I guess Stossel himself is a product of American education.

I think the American education system is awful, although I am not sure what the reason is. But Stossel's argument is competely unconvincing and is a logical junkyard. I will try to watch his program and hope there is more to it than this excerpt indicates.

[bigbigslacker]

Matt, you're priorities are a mess. Watch Stossel, record Battlestar.

[science]

"I reject the idea that the community needs to pool its money together to solve the problem."

Then you can't support vouchers.

[science]

Nice exchange:
"LP look like it is made up of self-serving tax avoiding richies and self-serving pot smoking kids."

"Uh, what did Stossel do, use his 1040 form to roll up a giant doobie and smoke it on the air?"

But I think Stossel represents the tax avoiders. The pot smoking kids, I don't know, but I think a lot of them post here based on the distinct aroma of paranoid conspiracy that runs through much of the reasoning 😉

[Twba]

You're such a buzzkill.

[scott]

If you lump the "US" together our educational results are pretty poor, but if you exclude inner city schools we do very well. I saw one study where Iowa students are near the top of the world.

With that said I think the system needs to feel some heat and vouchers seems like a reasonable way of doing it.

[scott]

If you lump the "US" together our educational results are pretty poor, but if you exclude inner city schools we do very well. I saw one study where Iowa students are near the top of the world.

With that said I think the system needs to feel some heat and vouchers seems like a reasonable way of doing it.

[TheRev]

I agree with Stossel's fundamental premise [though I'm a bit tired of his wording, having caught the identical spiel on Colbert Report, O'Reilly Factor (channel surfing), and now on Reason], but I think he might be missing a few factors.

I think it's really important that to note that chances are high that the kids have been bilingual since a young age. From what I understand, knowing a second language from a young age can help general learning.
Hell, a lot of kids throughout Europe have passable english, a side effect of that American cultural imperialism they decry.

The economist in me wants better data on the negative effects of the unions. I think he's probably right, but an anectode or two fails to convince me as well as real figures would.

Other people have said it above, but I'm going to reiterate that the correlation isn't that clear to say something like Americans rank 25th out of 40; one of the countries that beat them does this, so obviously that's the only correct solution.

On a personal note, I'm torn about Belgium. On the one hand I have some really good friends from Belgium. On the other hand, last time I was there I had to educate 2 guys on Locke's theory that attempts at the illegal acquisition of private property places the actors into a "state of war."

[Javier]

Joe Dokes, yes Germany has a voucher system, although it varies state by state. Aside from Belgium, many other European countries do as well: Sweden, Denmark, Netherlands, etc. Vouchers exist in many parts of Canada too.

I do think culture explains the educational achievement of a country to a large degree (this helps explain why Asian countries do so well). But the structure of public education matters too.

Anyway, I can see how people can be against universal vouchers, but not how they can be against providing vouchers to poor kids or children in failing schools. These are two separate issues--one can support means-tested vouchers without supporting a universal plan. Yet most Democrats and the teachers unions oppose both and in this respect they are morally bankrupt.

[Chad]

Joe Dokes, Japan does not have "vouchers" but it does have essentially complete school choice. Your children can attend any school for which they place the entrance exams, along with a large number of private schools.

Due to the intense pressure to pass high school, university, and even middle school entrance exams, Japanese students work far harder than American students. Most students attend "juku" - an after school private school, daily, keeping them busy from dawn until bed-time. It is no surprise they whip us from one end to the other.

Another major factor is that Japanese teachers are employed by the national government, and are assigned to their schools. This prevents the terrible problem we have in the US, where almost all of the quality, experienced teachers flee to the fluffy districts with well-behaved, eager students, leave the kids that need them the most in the lurch.

I remember recently reading an interview with a urban LA middle-school teacher. He had six years of experience, and seniority in his school. This should tell you something. One thing I used to wonder about a lot was why do rural schools, which usually have as bad or worse funding that urban schools (even if you figure in cost-of-living issues), generally do much better? One can speculate about family or cultural issues, but at least in my experience, rural schools have on thing that urban schools do not - lots of experienced teachers who can mentor their younger colleagues and provide stability to the system. In my rural school, I had four teachers who taught one or both of my parents 30 or so years before. Contrast that with the LA district.

I am not suggesting that we necessarily adopt this element of the Japanese model, but I think we can learn from it. I do think state-level rather than district-level teacher pay would make a difference (Hawaii does this already, I believe). Combine that with incentives for experienced teachers to work in under-served schools and I think we can get the same effect without the occasional forced-relocations that happen in Japan.

[grylliade]

I'm not sure that vouchers will solve all the problems with American education. It will certainly help, don't get me wrong, probably more than anything will. But I also think that there's a strong anti-education bias in American culture. Not among all elements, but among enough that when you consider averages, we'll come out behind other countries. A good bit of the blame can, I think, be laid at the feet of Scotch-Irish culture, or at least its American variation, which overall looks down on those who do well academically. I think that this attitude also spread among blacks, who mostly had contact with the poorer elements in the South who were more likely to be of Scotch-Irish descent.

What's to be done about this? Not much. It's just going to require a slow sea-change in attitude, maybe conditioned by a lack of success in modern America by those with an anti-education bias. Vouchers would help parents among the areas affected by this by letting their kids escape the environment where they're punished for succeeding in school, if the parents were so inclined. Maybe we need, for a while, to abandon the "no child left behind" idea. It seems cruel, but sometimes there's nothing that you can do, at least at the level of institutions. Some parents aren't going to let their children do well, and the level of involvement needed to counteract that would have other bad side effects. So maybe the best thing to do is give a good education to those children you can, give as much of one as you can to those whose parents just don't care, and let life happen. And let me, and others who care, throw a lot of money into private charities to find ways to reach those we can't with government programs. 😀

[JD]

Hindsight: I think the food stamps/vouchers analogy is a pretty good one. If "education" isn't a single product you pick up off the shelf, neither is food. A given piece of food might be, but then you could argue that so is a single apartment, or a single visit to a doctor, or a single class. One's nutrition as a whole isn't. Anyway, I still like the analogy. For most other ways in which we try to help the poor, we give them a specific benefit. We give food stamps, we don't set up a giant Soviet-style system of soup kitchens where anyone may eat for free. We run homeless shelters and give aid to individual homeless families, we don't nationalize housing. Britain virtually did, BTW - look up how well that worked out.

[Dave W.]

Hey, Stossel just gave me a great idea -- lets compare life expectancy in the US to life expectancy in other countries with different healthcare systems. Then the US can choose the best healthcare system too.

[joe]

Speaking as someone who doesn't belong to the choir, John Stossel comes across as a snotty, dishonest prick. You'd be better off putting Penn Gillette forth as your spokesperson, because Stossel's constant spinning, half-truths, and insulting dismissiveness really make me want to kick his ass.

[jimmyboy]

The longer people spend in the American health care system, the more likely they are to die.

[Jennifer]

Who can argue with this kind of logic? American students in school for 5 years are pretty smart, and then, in the same schools (presumably 5 years later) are as smart as posts. So what happpened between ages 10 and 15? It's the schools?

Simple. In American and foreign schools, the students start out learning the basics--reading, writing, number and so forth. But then, while the older Belgian kids move on to more advanced concepts, the American students are learning about Self-Esteem and Multiculturalism, and Getting in Touch with their Feelings, and Saving the Earth and Why Drugs are Bad.

It's not that American teens are more stupid than their European counterparts--it's that they're less educated.

[Evan]

Elvis:

Comedy Central is great for putting up clips of their shows on their websites. Glad you found it. Actually, my DVR is built into my Dish receiver---$5/month for 2 TV's, which means I can record 2 shows at once. Deal of the century.

Dave:

"Hey, Stossel just gave me a great idea -- lets compare life expectancy in the US to life expectancy in other countries with different healthcare systems. Then the US can choose the best healthcare system too."

That's a misplaced analogy. Just because the US education system is sub-par doesn't mean that the same argument applies to unrelated systems like healthcare.

Joe:

"John Stossel comes across as a snotty, dishonest prick."

Anytime someone tells the truth and it flies in the face of your strongly-held principles/beliefs, that person automatically has the propensity to come across as "snotty and dishonest" to those whose beliefs he/she runs afoul. It's only natural, Joe. Does his moles-stache bother you? Or is it his New-Yawk-whiny voice?

"Stossel's constant spinning, half-truths, and insulting dismissiveness really make me want to kick his ass."

First, I'd like you to cite some specific examples of "half-truths and spinning". Second, we need someone in the spotlight who actively and fearlessly dismisses the bullshit that most of us so readily swallow every day. If it insults you, well, grow some nuts. Libertarian-types are insulted many, many times a day, mostly by leftist/statist jerkasses who think they know what's best for us better than we do. And so many prominent faces with libertarian leanings are big pussies about it. Stossel's take-no-prisoners, slap-in-the-face brand of activist journalism is refreshing, in that light. If it hurts your feelings, well, join the club.

[jf]

because Stossel's constant spinning, half-truths, and insulting dismissiveness really make me want to kick his ass

It only works when you employ that style?

[Warren]

I have my problems with Stossel. That 'I'm just a dim bulb so talk slow for me' shtick grates on me. However, he is the only person on television with a decoder ring. So I'm grateful for him. I hope the Limbaugh comparison is apt, and his dim bulb style plays well in the heartland. I hope he's just the visible tip of a growing sentiment. I hope, but I've grown cynical. At any rate, whatever failings John Stossel is a ray of sunshine beaming through an otherwise dreary and foreboding sky.

[Dishonest Abe]

Yeah, so that people can continue to see Libertarians as reactionary idiots who don't think issue through. That will promote the cause quite well.

Being seen as reactionary idiots seems to work for the other parties; trying to explain complex issues thoroughly has gotten the LP bupkus. Maybe it's time they embrace the knee-jerk, sound-bite, emotional hot-button form of politicking if they want to get anywhere. You know, appeal to the masses.

[jimmyboy]

Jennifer:

My point was that Stossel's line of argument in the article is illogical. If you accept his premises, then you ought to look into what happens between ages 10 and 15. If, as you say, this is where the US curriculum turns smarmy, then that is what you correct. But then the school choice argument falls flat, unless you argue that, if there was choice, parents would be looking for schools that fearued trig and shakespeare at age 13, and these schools would prosper.

But there could be other reasons. Puberty occurs between 10 and 15 for most, and perhaps the Belgians are less indulgent of theaggressiveness or the emotional turmoil that accompnaies it.

Maybe students here start getting side jobs sooner than students in Belgium, Belgian parents being more sensible.

Maybe there are fewer athletic teams in Belgian schools.

Maybe Belgian teachers are generally more highly educated than American teachers, but the effect doesn't show up until you get to middle school. Teachers in both countries are able to read, write and cipher, but a Belgian teacher can solve a "word problem" whereas US teachers are frightened to attempt such.

Maybe American parents want a different kind of result than Belgian parents do.

Many of these problems might be rooted in the absence of any effective mechanism in the schools to eliminate bad teachers or stupid teachers. But Stossel's article doesn't connect the dots. I hope that his program does.

[Dr. Kenneth Noisewater]

John Stossel's methods and style differ not one whit from those employed by every one of the TV journalists on 60 Minutes (well, except for II's Dan Rather). It's quite amusing to see lefties like joe get their panties in a bunch when someone like Stossel has the temerity to employ mass media in a manner that has been so successful in the service of big-government leftism.

[vanya]

Interesting - 44 posts and no one has mentioned 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. 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?

[Jennifer]

Vanya's right about the sports. I made a post to that effect on the identical Stossel thread right above this one.

[Warren]

lets compare life expectancy in the US to life expectancy in other countries with different healthcare systems

Every other countries healthcare system is kept afloat by US drug consumers. If we allowed drug reimportation, Canadian and European healthcare would collapse completely within five years.

[parse]

Andy, one reason you should ?give a fuck about some little shit who doesn't care one way or another about school, let alone subsidize his schooling? is because once he?s done with his schooling, he?ll be voting on issues that impact how you are allowed to live your life. It?s in your interest that he is, at the very least, literate, and hopefully possessed of some critical thinking skills.

Steve, the people paying for education are generally not the consumers of it. You aren?t the only one who seems to be operating under the tacit assumption that parents are the consumers of education. In fact, they are neither the consumers of education nor do they exclusively pay for it. My understanding for the justification of public education in a democracy is that all citizens are the beneficiaries of an educated populace, and that all should therefore share in paying for it.

One thing that gripes me about vouchers for education is the notion that parents have some special privilege in determining how to spend the public money that pays for their own children?s education. They may not want their tax dollars going to send their kid to a dysfunctional neighborhood school, but I don?t want my tax dollars going to send their kids to a homophobic Christian academy.

[Dave W.]

People who don't think there should be public education in the 1st place make unconvincing voucher touters.

[Mike Laursen]

Just watched the interview on the Comedy Central sight. It went fairly well, but I was disappointed Stossel didn't strongly object to Colbert painting him as someone who wants to go around wiretapping everyone.

[Mike Laursen]

Err, that's "site" not "sight". Sigh.

[Stevo Darkly]

"Stossel's constant spinning, half-truths, and insulting dismissiveness really make me want to kick his ass."

First, I'd like you to cite some specific examples of "half-truths and spinning".

Stossel once famously aired an erroneous statement about organic foods because one of his research assistants mixed up "testing crops for the presence of pesticides" and "testing crops for the presence of bacteria" or something like that. It was corrected and apologized for on-air. However, people who disagree with Stossel's viewpoint have seized upon this incident as proof that he is a liar. (By the standards of our times.)

[Stevo Darkly]

Steve, the people paying for education are generally not the consumers of it. You aren?t the only one who seems to be operating under the tacit assumption that parents are the consumers of education. In fact, they are neither the consumers of education nor do they exclusively pay for it. My understanding for the justification of public education in a democracy is that all citizens are the beneficiaries of an educated populace, and that all should therefore share in paying for it.

I actually thought about that after I posted -- who are the real "consumers" of education, the parents who pay for it (as taxpayers) or the students who actually receive it? -- but I decided that in my statement:

"Could the consumer's attitude have something to do with the fact that he or she feels unmotivated and powerless in the face of a government take-it-or-leave-it-but-you-still-pay-for-it monopoly?"

... "consumer" could still apply just as much to the student (or as you say, the citizenry at large) as to the parents of the student. The very fact that a producer is a monopoly tends makes the recipients of its products feel pretty much helpless and resigned to whatever they can get, whoever they are.

[science]

Re: "Just watched the interview on the Comedy Central sight. It went fairly well, but I was disappointed Stossel didn't strongly object to Colbert painting him as someone who wants to go around wiretapping everyone."

Actually he did more than "not strongly object" He tacitly endorsed the practice by saying that it might be a good idea in some circumstances... but remember people. This was on COMEDY CENTRAL, from the FAKE NEWS department... and it was on their FAKE OPINIONS show at that. Not really a forum for serious discussions of issues.

[sourav]

One way to look at it: right now strong education is not that well-incentivized. Yes, you have to go to college to increase your income potential, but attending an Ivy League school doesn't increase your income potential to an amount commensurate with the expense (even with financial aid). Graduate school does, but not everyone is able to participate. Consequently, the only downward pressure on secondary schools is basic college prep.

In other countries, there are fewer middle-class jobs than slots in mediocre schools. In India, your fast track for hooking up with a Western firm or moving to the US is getting into IIT. Therefore, the goal of every middle class family is for their kids to get into a school like IIT, and this pressure rides them from preschool onward.

Perhaps we have to wait for the US job market to equilibrate with that of other countries for there to be real pressure on education. This requires other countries' economic freedom to catch up, or for that of the United States to degrade. This has already occurred in manufacturing, hence the increasing demand for college degrees. But, IMHO, there is not yet enough pressure on the quality of college degrees, and downward to secondary and primary education.

[HindsightIS]

"The very fact that a producer is a monopoly tends makes the recipients of its products feel pretty much helpless and resigned to whatever they can get, whoever they are."

Stevo is very easily discouraged.

I think there is a misrepresentation of this monopoly (education, which is a local government service, not national). It is treated as if it was created by some all powerful other, rather than the particular community that is the consumer of its service. It's like complaining that I am helpless to eat better because I am such a crappy cook but I am the only one around here who cooks. If only I had other cooks in the house then I might learn how to cook better so that I would be more happy with my own cooking, but without competition I'll never learn...

Doesn't the fact that the monopoly is run by the same community which is the consumer of that education give the community direct control over the educational service it is providing? In my years as an educator, it was ALWAYS the school district with a motivated and involved and community oriented school board that brought about improvements in how things happened. Why are people moping about their lack of control here? Don't just demand choice, demand better education. Make your school board/self more accountable for the failings you are seeing in the system.

[Adam]

HindsightIS - It just seems like the "demand better education" thing would be tough in a place like New York or LA and that competition would do a better job serving such a wide variety of students, weeding out bad teachers, etc. And it's completely implausible to me that one mayor and one school chancellor and one teacher's union together have better answers than a variety of competitors in a market-based educational system. Sure, showing up at school board meetings can work in some places, but not everywhere.

[Adam]

Quote of the night so far:

"We are not in crisis, we have a plan, we need to stay the course and we will see remarkable success over the next few years."

- Inez Tenenbaum, South Carolina Superintendent of Education

[biologist]

Adam, does one have to change the entire school district, or can one just work with the school one's children attend? sure, big systems are resistant to change, so start small.

[ralphus]

Maybe Belgian teachers are generally more highly educated than American teachers...

Maybe because they were educated in Belgium.

[burt hoovis]

I'm continually amazed how Stossel can keep from punching some of the people that he interviews (e.g., the head of the NYC teacher's union when she said that people who want vouchers "don't care about children" like she does).

[HindsightIS]

I was gonna respond to

"Sure, showing up at school board meetings can work in some places, but not everywhere."

with

"Adam, does one have to change the entire school district, or can one just work with the school one's children attend? sure, big systems are resistant to change, so start small."

But I was beaten to the punch. The NYC public schools are an interesting example. New York City has the most vigorous system of private schools, both expensive and not so expensive, of any city I have worked in (yep in the NYC public schools). NYC needs public school reform more than any city in the nation, perhaps. But the existence of a vigorous market of private options has done as much to dilute the motivation to reform the schools in that city as has the union or the (fill in the blank). The difficulty in NYC is identifying the right level of action to impact your child's school. In most cases it is at the level of the building principal. The system as a whole needs to reform so as to recognize when they've got a crap principal, but the only mechanism that I know of that will get that done is the democratic process. Vouchers will be a band-aid for those students stuck in bad schools that have involved parents. They will leave behind the children of students who have parents that are unwilling or unable to take advantage of the choice.

I think a community is unwise to abandon those children whose parents are not as involved as they should be. I've said it before, this problem is more complex than funding mechanism, and anyone who proposes that something as simple as vouchers will solve the larger problems has failed to recognize how public education is implemented in a community of whatever size. In fact I think vouchers are more likely to be effective in medium sized cities with a more homogenous income profile. Large enough to provide for choice, small enough to avoid pockets of crap choice. If the free market worked for social change on the level hinted at in much of this discussion, then the ghettos that trap so many of our children in poor schools would not have arisen in the first place. (and yes I recognize the role that poorly designed public housing assistant played in expanding and perpetuating that problem).

[JBL]

1. Bad system

2. Bad teachers

3. Bad Parents

That one lady kept complaining to the school but that did not help until he was taken to slyvan learning center and taught how to read.

Government run school monoply does not work !!!!!

[science]

Re: "Stossel's constant spinning, half-truths, and insulting dismissiveness really make me want to kick his ass. --"First, I'd like you to cite some specific examples of "half-truths and spinning".

I believe most of what Stossell says falls under the rubric "half-truths" in the sense that he very rarely gives the whole story. For example, when you only air interviews with those people from the opposing point of view who seem the most ridiculous you are presenting a half-truth. Interview the idiot union rep, and a reasonable union rep, and a very articulate union rep. Interview the idiot principal, the competent principal, and the very articulate principal. Present the advantages of a public education and weigh those against the disadvantages. This would be how you avoid the accusation of presenting half-truths. Half-truths aren't false, they are just useless. Don't defend an idiot like Stossell just because you agree with his points. He does more harm to the libertarian position than good when he presents half-truths in its defense. This is a more complicated issue than he makes it out to be. And that is what he ALWAYS does. But for some that simplicity is comforting. That might have something to do with his appeal

[jason]

i think Stossel's argument is false because it leaves out a lot of variables.

For instance, economic equality. Belgium does not have the economic inequality the Americans have.

Also, the choice of Belgium seems odd as it is a country of a much higher income tax rate with a lot of government programs. To argue against government intervention by pointing to Belgium seems absurd if it is to espouse free market priniciples, as Belgium has a somewhat socialized economy.

Also, he chose Belgium while the best education system in the world in Finland is run by a governmnet monopoly (which even pays for the meals of students). It is also has free-post secondary education.

Also, Finland does not rely on standardized testing but uses formative tests that test skills and process knowledge rather than content knowledge.

I think the basic question is whether a voucher system can be effective in a country with substantial economic inequalities. These inequalities leave a lot of room in my opinion to further ghettoize inner city schools by displacing funds into affluent areas. Especially, if the schools funding are tied to performance and vouchers.

Unfortunately, Stossel completely ignores questions of social causation of why American schools aren't performing. I believe the social and cultural captial have a major role to play in a student's performance, but he does not even address that problem.

I think the real problem is where the money is being spent and the perceived irrelevancy of the curriculum to the students' actual lives.

Unfortunately, Stossel presents a narrow argument to a very complex issue where some of his choices seem to be predetermined by the argument he wants to make (that of promoting free market liberatarian values to the area of public education).