Stupid in America
Filed Under: Freedom & Politics, Homeschooling, Parenting, Thriving
Last night, 20/20 ran a report by John Stossel called “Stupid in America.” Visit their web site now and you’ll find a poll that sums up the theme of the report:
Do you think voucher programs and school choice would improve public education?
Current results:
80.3% yes
19.6% no
Stossel makes a compelling case for breaking the monopoly that is the public education system. If parents had a choice of schools to send their children to, they would choose the one that had the best to offer their child. Not all children are the same. Innovation and improvement do not come easily without competition.
As it stands now, children must go to the public school in their zone (unless, of course, the parents opt for private school or homeschool). The school will always be “in business”, so there is little incentive for teachers to do anything to improve, and the unions make sure that it’s nearly impossible for a teacher to be fired.
Many say that money is the problem. I’ll tell you that every time I get notice of a proposal to increase funding to schools, I am out there voting against it. Jay Greene, author of “Education Myths,” points out that “If money were the solution, the problem would already be solved … We’ve doubled per pupil spending, adjusting for inflation, over the last 30 years, and yet schools aren’t better.”
If education were run like a business and competition were in place, wouldn’t all children benefit?
PHAT = Parenting, Homeschooling And Technology. That about sums up my life at the moment. 
Subscribe To This Blog
Almost Lazarus | Jan 14, 2006 | Reply
Too much blame on individual teachers, and not enough blame on parents. Nice blog.
Anonymous | Jan 14, 2006 | Reply
I agree with “almost lazarus”.
Many teachers work with their hands tied because parents threaten legal action and the administration caves in because of fear of such legal action. But, there is little accountability on the part of teachers OR parents. Everyone wants to blame someone else.
Parents have to take responsibility for their children.
My children go to public school and, for the most part, they receive an incredible education. We are very blessed to live in a well to do area so what the schools don’t/can’t fund the parents do. The array of classes, sports and extra activities is incredible.
The down side of such blessing is that some parents, and then their children, feel entitled to “above the law” and special treatment. In the end, these kids (and luckily there are just a few) come to rely on parents to get them out of anything they do wrong.
They will never be truly independent adults.
Karen | Jan 14, 2006 | Reply
This is a huge issue here in Wisconsin. The governor wants to put a cap on such spending. Choice schools are very popular. The problem is, many of them are not regulated and several have been found to be downright fraudulent. The other issue is in economically-challenged urban areas, everyone would like to flee the area and head to the better schools. I can’t help but wonder if the teachers’ union is part of the issue.
Anyway, thanks for making my brain work a bit tonight. Here via Michele’s. Greetings from Wisconsin.
Carmi | Jan 14, 2006 | Reply
Nicely put. Something tells me that public education will always be substandard no matter how much money is thrown at it.
As long as parents view it as “free”, it’s hard to see the community taking ownership of the process.
We’re sacrificing everything to give our kids a private education. It isn’t an easy road, but at least we know we have a say in how our kids are educated. In the public system, we’d simply be a number.
Kids shouldn’t be part of a system anyway.
booklover | Jan 15, 2006 | Reply
School choice and voucher programs only take money away from the public schools, making them worse, not better. And you’re not helping by voting against public school levys and bonds.
Most teachers care deeply about children and education. They certainly don’t go into it for the money. In special education, we work very hard to make sure that children with special needs get the help they need to experience academic success. Do you think private schools do this? No! They send them to us to test their students and get extra help. Some parents who had sent their kids to private schools pull them out and send them to public schools because they actually find that the public schools are serving their children better.
Public schools have much more of a challenge today in educating our children than in the past. Kids who attend our schools are dealing with crushing poverty, second-language issues, illiterate parents (in our school district the families are often from Mexico, and the students’ parents never had a chance to receive much education). Also, thankfully, we are much more aware of special needs, and our teachers need to receive training to work with special-needs students more effectively.
It is true that some private schools are very good, but they are not as well-regulated as public schools. Public schools are very picky about their teachers’ credentials, and the same credentials are required across the state. This is not true of private schools.
Your criticism of public schools is unjustified and unfair.
Anonymous | Jan 15, 2006 | Reply
“Public schools have much more of a challenge today in educating our children than in the past. Kids who attend our schools are dealing with crushing poverty, second-language issues, illiterate parents (in our school district the families are often from Mexico, and the students’ parents never had a chance to receive much education)”
Much more of a challenge than say, in the 1900’s when immigrants from Europe were pouring in and class sizes were in the 40’s?
Kris | Jan 15, 2006 | Reply
My town has successfully voted down huge school-tax increases twice since I moved back here eight years ago. They needed to renovate the middle school- major renovation. Funny, without the tax increases they still managed to build the school.
Anyway, the word on the street of the school my son just started at (kindergarten) is that “they don’t learn anything until third grade.” Ouch. By mid october they had had only one letter of the week: L. Again, ouch.
I want to homeschool but there’s a lot of variables. School choice yes, of course I’m totally for it.
Anyway, I did watch that last night, great report. I love John Stossel, what would we do without him?
PHAT Mommy / Shannon | Jan 15, 2006 | Reply
booklover said: “School choice and voucher programs only take money away from the public schools, making them worse, not better.”
How so? It’s been shown (see the quote in my post) that more spending does not make schools better. Implementing a competition-based model for schooling can only improve them. Taking an example from my friend Trixie: “Would you want
the government to assign you to a grocery store based on your zip
code? With no need to compete for your business, what do you think
would soon happen to the quality of your grocery store?
And: “Most teachers care deeply about children and education.”
I think “most” is a overstatement. “Some” do, of course there are wonderful teachers out there. But I think many teachers are beaten down by the system because they have their hands tied by regulations. They aren’t being allowed to use their creativity and must spend way too much time on discipline.
Anonymous | Jan 15, 2006 | Reply
Wait a minute PhatMommy. You homeschool, correct? Your comments must be based then on either your own memories or on anecdotal evidence. I don’t know how old you are exactly but by looking at your picture, I’d assume early 30s? That’s a long time to be out of the school system.
How can you make comments about what school teachers do or don’t do when you have no kids attending?
If it’s from your friends, that’s a relatively small sample to base your conclusions on.
Just as there are some people who shouldn’t homeschool but do, there are some who shouldn’t be teaching in schools but do.
Anonymous | Jan 15, 2006 | Reply
“You homeschool, correct? Your comments must be based then on either your own memories or on anecdotal evidence. I don’t know how old you are exactly but by looking at your picture, I’d assume early 30s? That’s a long time to be out of the school system.”
Probably want to watch what you assume. How do you know her DH isn’t a teacher, or she wasn’t? Many homeschoolers are former public school teachers.
For me personally, I was a public school student, and in college I had a double major, one of which was elementary education. I was able to experience teaching in an urban environment (Trenton, NJ) as well as a wealthy suburban one (Princeton, NJ). There wasn’t nearly as much difference as you would think. So I have first hand experience with teaching in a public school and feel qualified to comment.
Ask before you assume.
Vampire-In-Training
Anonymous | Jan 15, 2006 | Reply
“Just as there are some people who shouldn’t homeschool but do, there are some who shouldn’t be teaching in schools but do.”
Ah, but I only hurt my OWN child(ren) if I do a crappy job homeschooling. At the most I would be able to harm what, 10 kids (and that large of a family is extremely rare, even among homeschoolers). On the other end are the public school teachers who can screw up 20-30 kids in a year, maybe more. Way more important to be able to get them out of teaching!
Vampire-In-Training
Anonymous | Jan 15, 2006 | Reply
“Ah, but I only hurt my OWN child(ren) if I do a crappy job homeschooling”
What a sad comment.
Anonymous | Jan 15, 2006 | Reply
Would you prefer “I hurt 30 kids a year by my horrible teaching”
Pretty honest statement if a few teachers I had were to make it!
trixie | Jan 15, 2006 | Reply
Anonymous, upon what exactly are you basing your comments about teachers and public schools? Non-anecdotal observations of the schools? If you’re just using your own anecdotes and personal experiences with having your kids in school, I think you’re hardly one to point fingers at Shannon for having limited information. I think most adults (especially those with children) have been in modern public schools for various events, know plenty of children who attend, and know several or more teachers personally. I too homeschool, and I meet all of the above criteria.
And I don’t think Shannon’s point is that most teachers have bad intentions. It’s just that the performance incentives provided for public school teachers and the red tape they face as a part of a government bureaucracy is a hindrance to progress and ultimately harmful to children.
trixie | Jan 15, 2006 | Reply
Booklover, you’ve made a lot of claims with no real evidence to support them… certainly not enough to make your concluding statement that Shannon’s criticism is “unjustified”.
I won’t contest that some parents put their children into public schools because they think public schools have better resources for their children than available private schools (though they likely do so also because public testing services and public schooling are free). But this is hardly a glowing endorsement for maintaining the status quo in public schooling or an argument against implementing a program of school choice. I’ve also known several parents who concluded that their children were so failed by the public schools that they pulled their children out (to either place them in expensive private schools or to rearrange their lives and cut their incomes significantly in order to homeschool them). And I’ve known others yet who, sadly, felt they lacked the financial resources for such options and could do nothing more than continuously fight and/or beg the school system as they watched their children’s formative years pass by without the education they preferred for them.
The issue, however, is larger than what some parents are choosing to do in today’s very limited system. Along with Shannon, I’ll ask you to explain why you think a voucher program would make schools worse. A voucher program would allow for parents to “vote” with their vouchers and would give them the power to drive those schools that aren’t meeting their needs out of business (unlike today’s failing schools, which can simply cry endlessly for more and more money while churning out hoards of victimized, uneducated children (usually poor minorities), without consequence). Under a voucher system, those schools that provide the best education (as decided by the consumer-parents) would grow and flourish, to the benefit of all children.
As for: “you’re not helping by voting against public school levys and bonds,” I”ll ask you to justify that claim as well. Helping whom… and do those people deserve help? Schools have doubled their per-pupil spending (adjusted for inflation) over the past 30 years and yet test scores and graduation rates have remained constant (and depressingly bad). Exactly how much money should we have to spend per pupil to get decent outcomes? Exactly how much would you be willing to force people to pay? And whom does it help to throw more and more money at unaccountable, failing schools? Perhaps it helps the incompetent members of the school system who could not compete in a free market education system, but not the students, not the parents (who thanks to the increased taxes will have less and less money available for alternative educational options), and not the exceptional teachers who deserve recognition, bonuses, and the freedom to develop and implement innovative educational approaches desired by parents (all curtailed or outright forbidden by government regulations and/or the teacher unions). And I can say one thing for sure: you’re not helping me when you vote for public school spending increases. You’re just forcing me to spend my money on something I’ve deemed to have no value.
And one last note about teacher credentialing. Yes, public schools require that their teachers possess government-approved teacher credentialing (most private schools do not), but I have looked at what requirements are behind such credentialing and I’m quite certain I wouldn’t want my child’s teachers credentialed. See Rita Kramer’s “Ed School Follies: The Miseducation of America’s Teachers” for more on this.
Anonymous | Jan 16, 2006 | Reply
a question about vouchers. Let’s suppose we do have vouchers. What happens to those left behind at the “bad” schools when anyone who can’t (for a myriad of reasons) send their child to the more desirable ones (which according to many of you who have responded are few anyway). Would it not be a better idea to upgrade the local schools? Before you jump all over me, I KNOW it’s a HUGE problem on many levels. I don’t think pulling kids out of those schools will mean they’ll close, it’ll just mean they’ll get worse.
JustLinda | Jan 16, 2006 | Reply
I think one thing that needs to be done is to get rid of the damn unions that seem to protect incompetence. Ugh.
I also think that we need to give better employment packages to our teachers… better benefits, better incentives. Kind of like we do for military members - maybe the pay isn’t great, but the overall package is attractive. I think if and when we attract GOOD teachers and figure out a way to get rid of the BAD ones, then some of the issues will naturally clear up.
trixie | Jan 16, 2006 | Reply
Anonymous, I’m not sure you understand the idea of vouchers. Everyone would get vouchers and have the right to choose the school to which they want to send their children — any school, private, alternative, traditional, whatever. Just as today’s market provides a variety of restaurants, grocery stores, recreational options, etc. to meet all sorts of preferences and needs, a marketplace of schools would bloom, all vying for parents’ business… and all accountable to their customers. They would bloom for the reason that all enterprise blooms — the promise of profits to those who provide best what customers want. Are you particularly concerned today that some people are being “left behind” to shop at bad grocery stores or eat at bad restaurants? Are you also pushing for legislation that would assign people to government-controlled grocery stores and restaurants so that nobody gets left behind at a bad one? If not, why not? There is no widespread concern about such things because the worst of these establishments go under — because nobody chooses to shop or eat there. Why are schools any different?
Anonymous | Jan 16, 2006 | Reply
OK, I am going to play devil’s advocate here.
“Are you particularly concerned today that some people are being “left behind” to shop at bad grocery stores or eat at bad restaurants”
Have you ever been to a bad area’s grocery stores?? I have. They suck. The people who live there often have limited transportation and are a captive audience. Hmmm..wait a minute, that sounds like public schools in a bad area. They can’t get their kids to private, because they can’t afford it, so they are stuck with what they have.
So I’m agreeing with you that schools and vouchers might work, I’m just saying that for grocery stores, the money isn’t there (i.e. low income clientele) so no other food stores come in, so there is no competition.
I think I’ll go back to homeschooling my daughter now that I’ve made litle sense this morning. LOL
Vampire-In Training
Anonymous | Jan 16, 2006 | Reply
JustLinda said:
” also think that we need to give better employment packages to our teachers… better benefits, better incentives.”
You are kidding me right? What more can we offer - their benefits are outstanding, they get them for life and they have job security after they are tenured (which is the first day of their 4th year of teaching, BTW, not their 10th year as I long believed).
If anything I’d say we need to give teachers more professional expectations - for example being able to take a day off or a half day, being able to have an hour for lunch to run errands (like the rest of the business world gets). Being able to go to the bathroom more than once in a day. Having enough photocopiers available so you can copy your stuff without coming in at 6AM. All things my sister (former scientist at J&J in her fourth year of teaching 7th grade science) has told me about.
My two cents.
Vamp
Shannon | Jan 16, 2006 | Reply
Anonymous said: “What happens to those left behind at the “bad” schools when anyone who can’t (for a myriad of reasons) send their child to the more desirable ones…”
I guess I would need to understand what the myraid of reasons would be? Every child would have the choice to go to any school. Yes, there would be an adjustment period as schools begin to become accountable to the children and the parents. But ultimately, if the school is not performing, it would close down. Using that grocery store example, how long would you continue to shop at a store that had poor service and product? If the school you choose to send your child to is not meeting your expectations, you move them to another school.
Anonymous | Jan 16, 2006 | Reply
“If the school you choose to send your child to is not meeting your expectations, you move them to another school.”
Does anyone know anything about Delaware? They have a system something like this, and I can report that it is screwed up and doesn’t work nearly as well in reality as it does in theory. There aren’t enough good schools to go around, they aren’t always nearby (and DE is a tiny state) so kids end up on the bus for an hour plus each way.
I love the idea in theory, I’m just not sure it is realistic.
Vamp.
samuel | Jan 16, 2006 | Reply
Wow, this whole thing is a mess isn’t it. We’ve left legal segregation in the past, but for some reason, we still have parts of towns that can be considered bad areas. Within those areas you’ll find the crappiest grocery stores and the saddest schools. In the nicer parts of town, the stores and schools are cleaner, brighter and generally nicer.
I can show you the chain grocery store in the bad part of town that won’t close down. The people that live near it can’t make it to a nicer store. They can guess what part of town the nicer store is in, but it isn’t reasonable for them to expend the energy to go there when they get what they need and can afford at the crappy one nearby. So the store has business and profit and stays in business.
I don’t see why schools would be any different. Just because the better option exists and is attainable does not mean it will therefore be a reasonable choice to make.
One of the biggest failures of the school system is that income based school segregation still exists and this income segragation seriously affects the quality of schools in a given area. How would vouchers change that? How would vouchers not become somehow income based?
But it isn’t just the school. If parents would do something, the schools might get better. I say that idealistically, but in reality, my kids just won’t be attending. They will stay at home and learn in a loving stress free environment.
Anonymous | Jan 16, 2006 | Reply
Trixie, I DO understand the voucher system. We just look at it differently.
vampire in training explains my point probably better than I did.
some poor people can’t get their kids to the better schools. Maybe they’re single parents who can’t get their kids to the bus that takes them to the new school, maybe they don’t have the money to have their kids transported to and from said bus.
Many people in poorer areas don’t even know these possibilities exist. The No Child Left Behind Legislation offers alternative choices for those in so-called non-performing schools, the government just doesn’t advertise it.
btw, I have a MSW and have worked for years in Social Services aimed primarily at the poor.
trixie | Jan 16, 2006 | Reply
Seems some of you are saying something like the following: “Yup, poorer people in bad areas won’t find it reasonable to choose better schools if it may mean traveling a bit more, sacrificing something else to spend a little extra on transportation, or starting their day a bit earlier. Therefore, let’s not allow them the choice. Let’s just mandate that their children attend the poorer, necessarily income-segregated schools in their area.” So why not also mandate that they use those crappy nearby grocery stores a couple of you have mentioned? You seem to have concluded that a government-regulated sytem of service is a better solution than allowing private-sector choice. Vampire concludes that poor people’s use of inferior nearby stores means they are a “captive audience”. Seriously, though, who is more captive: somebody who chooses the less expensive/easier option or one who is not given the legal right to choose a public school.
If people are seriously willing to shop at crappy stores or send their kids to poor schools because they find the alternatives too inconvenient, then they have made their choice. But why not let it be their choice to make? Samuel writes: “The people that live near it [the crappy grocery store] can’t make it to a nicer store. They can guess what part of town the nicer store is in, but it isn’t reasonable for them to expend the energy to go there when they get what they need and can afford at the crappy one nearby.” Okay. If these people are not complaining and consider the nearby store the more reasonable option, then there is no problem here. But lots of people are complaining about the schools to which their kids are assigned and are even giving false addresses in order to get them enrolled elsewhere. Seems to me that many poor people would make a different choice if given the option regarding schools.
I’m not familiar with Delaware’s system — anyone care to share some info? But as far as I know, no US state hands out vouchers to everyone. Some have larger charter school movements etc., and if parents’ mad rush on these schools, the need to use lotteries to choose enrollees, and apparently parents’ willingness to bus their kids over 2 hrs a day (!) aren’t signs that people are looking for better alternatives to their local public schools, I don’t know what is. Sounds to me like good reason to provide more access to these alternative schools, not less.
And a final note about “theory vs. practice”, as a couple people have mentioned that regarding this issue. What exactly does it mean for an idea to be “good in theory”, but not in practice? Do you mean, “good in fantasy but not in reality”? If a theory doesn’t adequately explain and predict reality, then it’s a bad theory.
trixie | Jan 16, 2006 | Reply
Anonymous writes…
“some poor people can’t get their kids to the better schools. Maybe they’re single parents who can’t get their kids to the bus that takes them to the new school, maybe they don’t have the money to have their kids transported to and from said bus.”
And maybe they do. Maybe there are lots of alternatives for them to consider including car pools, co-ops etc. (just as parents who need extended care and transportation to and from their public schools do today). Or maybe in an effort to attract parents’ business, schools in free market competition would find a way to provide such parents with exactly what they need — door pick up, extended hours, who knows!? Free enterprise seems to find a way to get consumers what they want and need most at affordable prices. You think this possibility is not worth considering? And charging forward with our failing government schools is worth hurting *everyone* for fear that a few may fall through the cracks in a voucher system? Because in today’s system, obviously, no child falls through the cracks, right? You’d be doing a good job here at knocking down my argument for a voucher plan if I were promising Atlantis. That is not my claim.
“Many people in poorer areas don’t even know these possibilities exist. The No Child Left Behind Legislation offers alternative choices for those in so-called non-performing schools, the government just doesn’t advertise it.”
Why not advertise it? They don’t have the resources to provide it for everyone who needs it? Sounds like a lot of intentional falling through the cracks to me.
Anonymous | Jan 16, 2006 | Reply
Changing the discussion’s direction a bit to educational cost - and I’m assuming people here are somewhat familiar with my home state (NJ), so forgive me if you aren’t!
We as a state have been throwing money, lots and LOTS of money at the schools in the urban areas for YEARS now. Check this link, I’m not making this up - Newark NJ received close to $18,000 per YEAR per PUPIL for their students. Are the schools clean, safe and brimming with new books and well-paid teachers. Nope. What is the city of Newark NJ doing while the NJ taxpayers are footing the bill for their schools? They are spending 300 MILLION dollars of city taxpayer money on a pro hockey arena, but nothing on the schools (no money, they say). Where are the priorities?? Does anyone wonder why the kids in that area all think the route to success is thru sports not books??
So is anyone watching what these schools are doing with this money? I homeschool, and last year spent less than $2,000 - and that included overnight trips, classes, ski lessons,and BOOKS - you name it. I suppose if I somehow used a tax formula like you do for a home office and tried to count in car mileage, gas, my mortgage and utilities costs, I could come up to $20,000.
We seem to be throwing money down a rat hole of public education and not getting squat for it. My DH rehabs houses in Trenton, and while putting in a sidewalk last summer was observed and questioned closely by two 7 year old girls. He was so upset. Why? He couldn’t understand a word they were saying. Now maybe they were foreign born, non-Native english speakers, but I rather doubt it.
Here is the data:
Top 25 school districts NATIONWIDE of over 10,000 students in per-pupil spending, 2002-03 school year
http://www.teach-now.org/newsdisp.cfm?newsid=80
1) Newark, NJ $17,652
2) Trenton, NJ $15,438
3) Jersey City, NJ $14,820
4) Patterson, NJ $14,514
5) Camden, NJ $14,499
That was for three school years ago, it is even higher now.
V-I-T
samuel | Jan 17, 2006 | Reply
In my comment, I didn’t intend to suggest that poor people settle for crap because they don’t care. I think that this often can be the case, but more often, I think that from the perspective of the poor person, it may not make sense to expend the energy of making a transfer or 2 or 3 just to get the bus that takes you near the nice area, to the nice schools.
If a single parent is working more than one 9-5, Monday-Friday type job, nights and/or weekends, then yes, extra effort may be too much to ask.
Without knowing how it feels to be so poor that you feel too poor to have options, people can’t assume they know how to help them. These are the people most consistently being failed by our school system.
Anonymous | Jan 17, 2006 | Reply
samuel, my thoughts exactly.
Often just making it through the day is as much as some can handle.
We should, of course, offer help. For some, though, it’s just too hard to make it work — even if they know it’ll ultimately mean better things for them or their children.
trixie | Jan 17, 2006 | Reply
samuel wrote: “If a single parent is working more than one 9-5, Monday-Friday type job, nights and/or weekends, then yes, extra effort may be too much to ask. Without knowing how it feels to be so poor that you feel too poor to have options, people can’t assume they know how to help them.”
I wasn’t asking anything of the poor. Nor do I assume I know how best to help them (or if they even want to be helped). This is precisely why I’ve been arguing that granting them the right to choose for themselves from a myriad of free market choices would be better than forbidding them options entirely. Moreover, “helping” them is not my aim (nor, contrary to anonymous’ claim, do I think it should be); I’m only looking to allow everyone more freedom from government control, which I consider the correct moral approach. In fact, I’m not really a voucher advocate at all, though I think a voucher approach is far superior to today’s government educational monopoly. I’d much rather the government stop providing education (schools, money, or vouchers) altogether.
Anonymous | Jan 19, 2006 | Reply
Trixie, we actually agree! It’s just semantics. By helping, I mean exactly what you’ve said. Not a handout with strings attached, but choices.
Kate | Jun 3, 2006 | Reply
Your blog is one of the top blogs I�ve ever seen. I found it while googling for sites about filipina single. I also found this site - http://top-personals.net - which has some interesting resources related to filipina single, feel free to take a look. Adult Singles