US has the worst educational system known to science

[Masark]

In order for said to have incentive to pull their children from existing public schools, there'd have to be a viable competitor local to their area.

Or the public school has been sold off to a "charter school" company, as proposed by Devos and other profiteering shitbags.

[stinkphantom]

this is why i want to move to iceland

[Independent voter]

One could argue that a top-heavy system with a number of really, really good schools but also a shit-ton of really, really bad ones is, in fact, bad. There's a reason things are usually looked at as averages, because peaks (just like troughs) are a skewed metric subject to many distorting factors, and not representative for the population at large. It's the same with many systems. Take healthcare - the US has some of the best hospitals in the world, but if you go bankrupt every time you need surgery that is still a terrible healthcare system.

US education is overly stratified, and very clearly biased based on income and racial background (though the two are, of course, also connected in many ways). Averaged out, the US does poorly - and that DESPITE the extremely high peaks owed to institutions like the Ivy League. Why this is then taken as an excuse instead of a flashing warning sign is in itself mind-boggling.

Don't get me wrong: there's plenty of things wrong with other countries' systems as well, and plenty wrong with the way things are tested and averaged. But "other people have problems too" doesn't mean you don't have problems, or you shouldn't fix them. And just because a change is not a perfect solution doesn't mean it isn't an improvement (a classical argumentative fallacy employed far too often).

As someone who's worked in academia for over 10 years all across the globe (Europe, Asia, and the US), it's clear that there are many things wrong with the US educational system - things that, frankly, are embarrassing to still be present in a First-World nation. It's not just math, reading/writing skills, or fact knowledge - things like critical thinking, empathetic viewpoints, or differentiated perspectives seem, to me, markedly underdeveloped in US students and academics. Part of that has ideological roots, but part of it also has systemic causes that can be traced back to bad education policies. Again, don't misconstrue: there's plenty wrong with students from Japan as well (rigid focus on factual knowledge, for example, or unwillingness to attempt things with a significant chance of failure to name a few things I've personally been faced with), or with students from Europe (unused to stringent testing, low learning discipline). There isn't a perfect system you can just look at and copy. Even the ones often held up as paragons, such as Finland, come with their own sets of constraints and are not simply replicable in different contexts (Finland has 2/3rds the population of NYC alone).

What's most frightening, though, is that the US seems so radically short-sighted in these matters. Education is one of the BEST investments you can make - but it's also one of the least visible, and the most long-term. Historically, education has done more to improve the standard of living than all the sciences combined (not in the least because education made those sciences possible in the first place), and more to achieve and maintain peace than all the military might that ever existed. Yet education in the present day is taken for granted, a fact of life that just happens on its own as long as you give it the bare minimum. It doesn't work like that. All nations, not just the US, should be POURING their money into education, raising new generations of ever smarter, better adjusted citizens - but it appears that they're fine with just maintaining a status quo that is essentially traced back to the early 20th century (if not the late 19th). Children are thought of as these unfinished products that just need a secure shelf to ripen on on their own; while a much better analogy would be that of diamonds in the rough, requiring a lot of work and effort to free from their stone and polish to a brilliant shine (Diamonds, not Bananas - you heard it here first).

As the wealthiest nation on the planet, the US should - and COULD - have an educational system leagues ahead of everyone else. Instead, they're fine relying on a supply of thinkers from other parts of the world, using their top-heavy super-institutions to attract them. That works, for a while - but it's not a long-term prospect, and it's a terrible way to care for the average citizen. "Half of the children are below average" is very true, but instead of taking this as "let's focus on the good half", how about you take it as a call for action to RAISE THE OVERALL AVERAGE? Very often it's much easier to raise 95 by 1 point than to raise 5 people by 95 points, and that way, you actually do something for 95 people instead of 5. But that 1%-mentality seems inextricably linked to US self-understanding and the American-Dream identity of old. Focusing on the top, ignoring all the masses piling on below. That cannot work forever, and we're starting to see it crumble already.

In the end, education is the only real solution we have. To anything. To everything. We've come this far because we're smart, and to get further we simply need to be smarter. Status quo does not work, and if nations like the US can't get it right, then how are those with magnitudes less means supposed to do it?

Well, US educational system is funded by "school district", not the federal government. A school district is a sub division of the state and might cover 100 square miles or so. This would include several schools within the district. The funding from these schools doesn't come from the national "federal" government, it comes from property taxes on property in that district. Now if you have a poor neighborhood, you can't raise much property tax. If you have a rich neighborhood, your school budget runneth over. This is why the US school system is so diverse with some schools doing abysmally and other schools excelling at everything they do.

The wealth disparity leads to all kinds of problems, for example teachers want to work for the rich districts where they make more money and the kids are easier to work with.

Also the district makes most of the decisions, most likely there is a school board with elected officials and they are the ones who draw up the budget, decide to build new schools, etc. It's all done locally which a lot of people like.

It's the same with our police, the police are funded locally too through property tax for the most part.

[Biomega]

Well, US educational system is funded by "school district", not the federal government. A school district is a sub division of the state and might cover 100 square miles or so. This would include several schools within the district. The funding from these schools doesn't come from the national "federal" government, it comes from property taxes on property in that district. Now if you have a poor neighborhood, you can't raise much property tax. If you have a rich neighborhood, your school budget runneth over. This is why the US school system is so diverse with some schools doing abysmally and other schools excelling at everything they do.

The wealth disparity leads to all kinds of problems, for example teachers want to work for the rich districts where they make more money and the kids are easier to work with.

Also the district makes most of the decisions, most likely there is a school board with elected officials and they are the ones who draw up the budget, decide to build new schools, etc. It's all done locally which a lot of people like.

It's the same with our police, the police are funded locally too through property tax for the most part.

That doesn't excuse the federal government, though, it's just an explanation of deep systemic issues that shouldn't be there to begin with. It's a ludicrous notion that poor neighborhoods should also have poor schools.

In fact, a lot of these "local" systems seem very strange from an outside perspective, since all that does is reinforce the already grave problem of incumbency of power. Those who are rich stay rich because their wealth gives them the power to influence decisions which in turn make sure they stay rich. A wealthy school district leads to great education, leads to people making the district even richer - which, ironically, is the very reason you NEED GOOD EDUCATION EVERYWHERE. But convincing those who already have everything to go through changes that may (or may not) disadvantage them in some way is essentially the crux of why US politics are broken. See the electoral college etc. The system seems set up in a way that is heavily skewed based on wealth, right from the get-go. With disastrous results for the average citizen.

[Low Hanging Fruit]

I'm a fucking billionare?!? This is great news! My gun collection is about to get wayyy more impressive.

But it won't make the gun in your pants any bigger. Which seems to be where most of your problems lay.

[Deleted]

When you consider how many Americans believe in intelligent design and creation fairy tales, yes, i think he is very right! One of the problems is the states that are trying to put alternative facts into there curriculum.

The earth is literally hundrerds and hundreds of years old.

[Spectral]

I don't usually like to snip posts apart into multiple spots, but there's a lot to address here, so I want to begin with just a couple pieces.

One could argue that a top-heavy system with a number of really, really good schools but also a shit-ton of really, really bad ones is, in fact, bad. There's a reason things are usually looked at as averages, because peaks (just like troughs) are a skewed metric subject to many distorting factors, and not representative for the population at large. It's the same with many systems. Take healthcare - the US has some of the best hospitals in the world, but if you go bankrupt every time you need surgery that is still a terrible healthcare system.

US education is overly stratified, and very clearly biased based on income and racial background (though the two are, of course, also connected in many ways). Averaged out, the US does poorly - and that DESPITE the extremely high peaks owed to institutions like the Ivy League. Why this is then taken as an excuse instead of a flashing warning sign is in itself mind-boggling.

I do not think the evidence is strong that the system is stratified based on income and racial background; instead, the quality of students is stratified. These aren't the same claims and the lack of efficacy of educational interventions strongly suggests that whatever the problems are, they're starting before students ever arrive in the schools. I do not expect teachers or schools to be able to work miracles with children that have terrible home lives and no role models. I also don't expect children with innately low intelligence to perform particularly well and the reality is that many children from low income households have innately low intelligence and conscientiousness. Combine that with a household that doesn't provide an environment that's even safe, much less nurturing and I simply don't see schools as being to blame here.

So I think the claim that the United States is highly unequal is accurate, but I think pointing to schools for this is conflating cause with effect.

What's most frightening, though, is that the US seems so radically short-sighted in these matters. Education is one of the BEST investments you can make - but it's also one of the least visible, and the most long-term. Historically, education has done more to improve the standard of living than all the sciences combined (not in the least because education made those sciences possible in the first place), and more to achieve and maintain peace than all the military might that ever existed. Yet education in the present day is taken for granted, a fact of life that just happens on its own as long as you give it the bare minimum. It doesn't work like that. All nations, not just the US, should be POURING their money into education, raising new generations of ever smarter, better adjusted citizens - but it appears that they're fine with just maintaining a status quo that is essentially traced back to the early 20th century (if not the late 19th). Children are thought of as these unfinished products that just need a secure shelf to ripen on on their own; while a much better analogy would be that of diamonds in the rough, requiring a lot of work and effort to free from their stone and polish to a brilliant shine (Diamonds, not Bananas - you heard it here first).

The United States does pour money into education. Staggering, almost unfathomable amounts. What's striking is that it doesn't have much to do with success - remarkably, Utah spends the least on education and comes away with pretty decent results. Meanwhile, East Coast states and cities pour enough money into their schools to just buy every student an education at a mid to high end private schools and come up with regrettably poor results. This goes to the previous point - it's not the schools, it's the students. If DC got $30K per student per year instead of "only" $18K, I see no reason to believe that money would go to anything that substantially improved the educa

As the wealthiest nation on the planet, the US should - and COULD - have an educational system leagues ahead of everyone else. Instead, they're fine relying on a supply of thinkers from other parts of the world, using their top-heavy super-institutions to attract them. That works, for a while - but it's not a long-term prospect, and it's a terrible way to care for the average citizen. "Half of the children are below average" is very true, but instead of taking this as "let's focus on the good half", how about you take it as a call for action to RAISE THE OVERALL AVERAGE? Very often it's much easier to raise 95 by 1 point than to raise 5 people by 95 points, and that way, you actually do something for 95 people instead of 5. But that 1%-mentality seems inextricably linked to US self-understanding and the American-Dream identity of old. Focusing on the top, ignoring all the masses piling on below. That cannot work forever, and we're starting to see it crumble already.

In the end, education is the only real solution we have. To anything. To everything. We've come this far because we're smart, and to get further we simply need to be smarter. Status quo does not work, and if nations like the US can't get it right, then how are those with magnitudes less means supposed to do it?

I don't see schools focusing on improvements primarily for the best students, but perhaps you've seen something else here? In education policy circles, there's an almost obsessive focus on the "race gap" and how to close it. This seems much less constructive than trying to raise everyone up, but there's much handwringing about why black students don't perform better. The same applies for low income children and every other presumptively disadvantaged group. Especially at small schools, there's almost no focus on how they could do better for their very best students - the assumption is that these kids will be OK, so there's not much need to do anything other than some half-assed gifted program that doesn't come anywhere near getting peak ability out of the smartest kids.

Also worth a mention is that the value add from getting the best out of the smartest kids is much higher than slightly improving outcomes for the bottom couple quartiles, due to Pareto effects around high achievement and productivity. Teaching a kid in the bottom 10% of natural ability to read and write reasonably well is an admirable goal, but it adds a lot less to the world than speeding a brilliant child along such that they're in the work force one year earlier. A single year of production from a scientist, surgeon, or engineer adds as much value to a society as a lifetime of effort from someone that's untalented.

Anyway, I think you make plenty of good points here and I don't want it to seem like this falls on deaf ears, but I think you're off base on root causes and optimal outcomes, particularly when it comes to the value of spending more on low-performing schools/students.

[ArguesWithStrangers]

Or the public school has been sold off to a "charter school" company, as proposed by Devos and other profiteering shitbags.

Charter schools are doing quite well where they've been implemented.

http://www.miamiherald.com/news/loca...148915414.html

The main discriminator is that charter schools aren't burdened with collective bargaining agreements and enormous bureaucracies like their public counterparts. I really don't see why this bothers you, unless of course you feel the purpose of a school is to fill the rice bowls of public administrators and union reps. If however, your point of emphasis is the education of children, you'd simply want to pick the organization offering the best education.

Now, potential exists for a charter school to be mismanaged just like a public school. There are plenty of poorly run non-profit and for-profit companies. The way we prevent those companies from limping along and unjustly occupying a portion of the market share, is allow markets to do their job. If parents control the funds educating their kids, they can take their kids to a public school if it's performing better than their local private or charter school. They can also do the reverse.

- - - Updated - - -

But it won't make the gun in your pants any bigger. Which seems to be where most of your problems lay.

Judging by the accuacy of your previous speculations, I'll go ahead and not worry about your opinion on the matter, I'll let my beautiful wife, and mother of my five childeren be the judge of that.

[Masark]

Charter schools are doing quite well where they've been implemented.

http://www.miamiherald.com/news/loca...148915414.html

You're assuming those numbers aren't the fabricated bullshit that charter schools have become famous for. It's very easy to show higher scores when you cheat.

http://www.washingtonexaminer.com/ev...rticle/2527891

http://www.nola.com/education/index....ud_report.html

they can take their kids to a public school if it's performing better than their local private or charter school. They can also do the reverse.

Except that assumes the public school still exists, which under Devos' plans, it will not.

[minteK917]

I think a lot of ambitious poor people in poorer countries see education as the path to wealth and prosperity.

The US has the H1-B visa program where a poor man in India say, can work really hard at school, come to the US and make a ton of money. The US benefits from his genius.

I don't think the US educational system is broken. If you take that poor man in India and transplant him to the US, he does just as well.

The problem is our students often don't want to learn STEM stuff for a variety of reasons. But if you do want to learn STEM the system is there that allows you to learn it.

You, like most people like you, are aiming at the wrong target. US universities are some of the best. They also cost a shit ton of money. Your real answer is your know to be shitty high schools, which is actually the most important steps. If you dont interest them in anything in high school, you already failed. Your students dont want to learn STEM, because your shitty high schools fuck them up way before thinking of going to college.

[ArguesWithStrangers]

You're assuming those numbers aren't the fabricated bullshit that charter schools have become famous for. It's very easy to show higher scores when you cheat.

http://www.washingtonexaminer.com/ev...rticle/2527891

http://www.nola.com/education/index....ud_report.html

Public schools have been caught doing this so many times it passes as common practice.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Atlant...eating_scandal

http://wric.com/2017/06/19/source-pe...ating-on-sols/

Like I said earlier, charter and private schools are in no way immune to the mismanagement and corruption plaguing public schools. Vouchers merely allow parents to take their kids out of failing institutions, weather public, private, or charter, and put them somewhere better.

Except that assumes the public school still exists, which under Devos' plans, it will not.

Umm, if the public school is performing better, why would parents leave it? You keep making the case that public schools are better, but then turn around and say parents will flee them if given the choice. Which is it? You can't have both.

[Masark]

Umm, if the public school is performing better, why would parents leave it?

Because their school gets "converted" (read "sold out from under them"), giving them no choice in the matter.

[oxymoronic]

You, like most people like you, are aiming at the wrong target. US universities are some of the best. They also cost a shit ton of money. Your real answer is your know to be shitty high schools, which is actually the most important steps. If you dont interest them in anything in high school, you already failed. Your students dont want to learn STEM, because your shitty high schools fuck them up way before thinking of going to college.

one of the stupidest reasons ive heard so far. its the parents in USA that raise their kids wrong, not the high school not the lack of funds nothing but parents fucking suck. 100% every time the parents (or guardians) fault.

[minteK917]

one of the stupidest reasons ive heard so far. its the parents in USA that raise their kids wrong, not the high school not the lack of funds nothing but parents fucking suck. 100% every time the parents (or guardians) fault.

Parents sucks everywhere, American parents arent anything worse then everywhere else.

[ArguesWithStrangers]

Because their school gets "converted" (read "sold out from under them"), giving them no choice in the matter.

I'm assuming that decision would require consent of the city council or county, and as such would require consent of the constituents themselves.

[Elegiac]

I'm assuming that decision would require consent of the city council or county, and as such would require consent of the constituents themselves.

You have an amusingly naive way of viewing how money works in politics.

Also, 'constitutents' generally aren't qualified to the point most of them don't know the difference between a public school system and a charter school system.

- - - Updated - - -

Like I said earlier, charter and private schools are in no way immune to the mismanagement and corruption plaguing public schools. Vouchers merely allow parents to take their kids out of failing institutions, weather public, private, or charter, and put them somewhere better.

Which, in effect, subsidises the rich. Wealthier parents will take the voucher and use it to bankroll their children getting into more select and expensive schools, while poorer children will be cordoned off into increasingly bad schools that have less and less money due to the downward spiral the voucher system creates.

How about rather than being lazy you focus effort on discovering why these institutions are 'failing' and fix that, rather than abandon ship. Hint: It usually has to do with 'constitutents' refusing to pay sufficient tax to keep these schools adequately funded.

For all the complaining that goes on about 'free riders', conservatives sure are keen to take the quickest and laziest option when it comes to any sort of policy.

[Masark]

How about rather than being lazy you focus effort on discovering why these institutions are 'failing' and fix that, rather than abandon ship. Hint: It usually has to do with 'constitutents' refusing to pay sufficient tax to keep these schools adequately funded.

More likely that the constituents have insufficient money to pay sufficient tax, as they've been cordoned off into their own school district.

School funding needs severe levelling, via either state or federal funding, along with a sharp axe taken to administration.

[ArguesWithStrangers]

You have an amusingly naive way of viewing how money works in politics.

Also, 'constitutents' generally aren't qualified to the point most of them don't know the difference between a public school system and a charter school system.

- - - Updated - - -

So your position is the charter schools are paying off the voters? I get it man, you hate anythng or anyone that has money, but do try not to turn it into the boogieman behind every corner. Furthermore, I get that democracy is a real inconvenience realising your socialist paradise, but tough shit, you're stuck having to convince people you don't like to see your point of view, just like the rest of us.

Which, in effect, subsidises the rich. Wealthier parents will take the voucher and use it to bankroll their children getting into more select and expensive schools, while poorer children will be cordoned off into increasingly bad schools that have less and less money due to the downward spiral the voucher system creates.

Poor people get the same voucher as the rich people, and elite schools, much like overpriced pairs of shoes, will adjust their prices and remain out of reach regardless of vouchers in order to remain attractive to their target demographics. It's called the law of scarcity. It's one google search away. Schools will remain that target the sum provided by the vouchers.

How about rather than being lazy you focus effort on discovering why these institutions are 'failing' and fix that, rather than abandon ship. Hint: It usually has to do with 'constitutents' refusing to pay sufficient tax to keep these schools adequately funded.

For all the complaining that goes on about 'free riders', conservatives sure are keen to take the quickest and laziest option when it comes to any sort of policy.

If you're offering solutions I'd love to hear them. I'm open to other options that don't include shoveling more money at the already bloated public school system. Like I said in the beginning of this conversation, I'm not entirely sold on vouchers, as there is potential for unintended consequences.

Many of us though are eager to jump ship on the public school system because the teachers unions and Department of Education have it in a stranglehold, and they are the biggest contributing factors to the problem. Despite the promises of the occasional demagouge politician, I don't forsee any real attempts to return control of public schools to the local level.