"Stupid In America"...w/John Stossel

[Qdrop]

Anyone else catch this on Friday night (20/20)?

http://abcnews.go.com/2020/Stossel/story?id=1491217


very interesting stuff....

whether you think it's hyperbole or not....our nation IS far behind much of the world in education- as it pertains to level of skill at each grade level.
why is this?
and why don't most kids (particularly in US public school systems) care?

i was talking to my girl about this (she's a 5th/6th grade teacher) during the show and after...
and i just cannot relate to the students she teaches. They have no fear of failure...because they're are no consequences for failing. Jenny cannot fail her students if they do not do homework, or if they fail to participate with projects....she's not allowed to. the NYS public school system mandates that you cannot hold a student back a grade more than once....you MUST pass them on the next grade after that. where's the logic in that?
many of her students are all too aware of these loopholes in the system, and use them to the fullest. the ones that were already held back boast openly to Jenny that "whatever, you can't fail me....i already got held back last year..." and they proceed to act like idiots all fuckin year.

i think that's one of the real issues with these public schools- no fear of failure....

when i was in grade school, i went to a private catholic school. EVERYONE excelled, or tried their damndest....even the punks. because the fear of failure was engrained in us. the teachers were empowered to fail us if we deserved it....and if we failed more than one year....the school kicked us out.
i came from a school were getting good grades was "cool"...where those kids that failed or did poorly were mocked, and feared for their scholarly lives.

why are public schools so backwards?
I mean, everyone has seen those Jay Leno bits where he interviews people on the street about basic US history and other basic knowledge....and they flub it terribly....
I used to think it was just editing....but jesus...these people are all around us...
why are americans so content to be stupid?

[Qdrop]

so you saw it? cool...

so how do you feel about the school voucher system? forcing schools to compete for students based on performance and course offerings?

it's basically "free market" of school systems...competition/survivial of the fittest.

i'm all for it....

[jabumbo]

i am a product of public schooling, and its evident that if the student wants it, they can succeed in most cases. but, you can see that there is nothing there to really prevent you from just sliding by.

[adam_f]

Statement of the Obvious, by jabumbo.

[jabumbo]

oh yeah, and stossel rocks and adam_f can lick my balls, i guarantee it

[adam_f]

oh yeah, jabumbo got his mom pregnant. i guarantee it.

[Ace42X]

why are americans so content to be stupid?

It is spreading, although I'd put this down to the US influence.

They are content to be stupid because your culture reinforces these values. There is rampant anti-intellectualism, buoyed up by a prevalent and fallacious belief that being well-educated (book-learnin') is not only totally unrelated to practical "real life experience" but actually detracts from it.

They are not afraid to fail because they are used to it. More and more society (especially a highly capitalistic one like in America) puts people into direct competition with each other. In a situation like this, there must be winners and losers, and for winning to have any meaning, there must be more losers than winners.

This means that people are fed a heavy diet of failure from day one. Whether it is because they are poor and don't get the headstart in life other people do, or lack of natural ability, or because the system is stacked against them. This leads to depression and low self-esteem if the "failures" (IE, the majority of people) constantly put credence in the low value people attribute to them.

The only way people can function under these circumstances are to take the "I don't care" path. Rationalisation (It doesn't matter anyway, it doesn't count for anything) also helps with this.

Add to this a dollop of jealousy, and you have a mass of people who hate intellectuals.

All this you can see in a typical jocks vs nerds paradigm (which doesn't exist at all in the UK culture as far as I know) where the idea that someone can be physically capable as well as intellectually gifted isn't an oxymoron.

Sports scholarships are another example. It says "kicking a ball around is as valid a way of life as being educated. It doesn't matter if you are a dumbass racist redneck bully, just as long as you can barge down some other heavily armoured jerks."

This cultural phenomenon is very deeply ingrained, I think. The US's basis in egalitarianism (which has been completely lost in the last century) has only survived in a quite ignorant and backwards belief that because you are all created equal in the eyes of God, and don't have a king, or ruler, then your opinions are all of equal merit, irrespective of their intrinsic value.

"Hyuck, yeah my opinion is illogical, hateful, ignorant and just plain wrong-headed, but goddamit it's just as good as yours!"

Even if you spent years researching the subject, collating facts, refuting erroneous suppositions, etc. Something I pulled out of my ass, and is based solely on a hodge-podge of soundbites and slogans, is just as valid as your opinion.

BZZT, Wrong.

I could go on about this subject at length... Good topic though, Q. Prolly worth putting in general politics too.

[marsdaddy]

Consumerism.

Corporate greed.

School vouchers help the middle class gain access to private schools.

Union teachers waste resources on non-teaching positions.

[Anne Lauren]

Qdrop...That's interesting what you said about public schooling vs. private schooling in the New York school systems because that's exactly how it was and still is in Tennessee...which are two states that are almost on completely different ends of the spectrum, as far as, advancements in education and many other things as well. I know Tennessee is ranked next to last behind Mississippi as far as education is concerned...or atleast something like that. In Chatttanooga, where I grew up, the public schools are so bad...it's ridiculous. A lot of these students are testing several grades below their level. And a lot of it is due to poor state funding, poor planning by the board of education, and the fact that a lot of parents don't really give a damn one way or another...they're more of a friend than a parent. My ex-husband's sister teaches 11th grade English at one of the public schools and she said that it's not uncommon for parents to just not show up at teacher-parent conferences.

I went to a strict ass private school that was hard as hell. We had to be tested to get in...they looked at your grades from elementary school, your family back ground, etc. So, most the people there were these little freakin' child prodigies that excelled in everything and were a lot of the time way too hard on themselves...like mommy and daddy sent them there to be molded into robots. We were teenagers for God's sake...if you're gonna fuck up, that's the time to do it. It was interesting looking at all the different types of kids there and how they would handle pressure...the majority of my friend's and I, I guess, were the one's that would rebel by doing crazy wild stuff almost as a way to release and compensate for all the pressure being put on us..and for straight up just rebellious reasons. Like, I remember, going to one of my friend's cars in the parking lot during one of our free periods when we weren't scheduled for a class and snorting coke...and we'd do it all the time. Two of my friends had to get abortions and their parents told the school that had been very ill and that's why they couldn't come to school. They found out about my friend, Anna's, and she was kicked out our Jr. year. We knew that if we got caught the reprocussions would be extremely severe. We'd be kicked out of school and not only that...our parents would have been utterly humiliated. Everybody would have known about it. Plus, I grew up in a really strict household...my mother probably would have had me to go to church everyday and repent my sins...then see a shrink because there was something unusually bad wrong with me. However, I never got caught and got into trouble at all growing up, I made good grades, and was an ideal kid, I guess. I can definately say going there really benefited me, as well. I had a lot of great opportunities available to me. I'm competitive and a hard worker.

But, like Jabumbo mentioned, in so many words...it's basically up to the kid. They're gonna excel basically because they want to...reguardless of their school enviroment.

[WhoMoi?]

so you saw it? cool...

so how do you feel about the school voucher system? forcing schools to compete for students based on performance and course offerings?

it's basically "free market" of school systems...competition/survivial of the fittest.

i'm all for it....



Public schools are not going to "compete" for students. Public school staff are not going to get paid more or less based on how many kids are going there, it's not like we work on a commission. Teachers already get paid so poorly, there's no way it could be justified that they make less based on this voucher system. GWB's plan with this voucher system - in that it gets the money for the vouchers by taking it away from schools that are "failing," based on testing - is basically a way of avoiding fixing things that need fixing, and just makes them worse. You'd think his administration would want to take some responsibility and make their education system better, rather than trashing it in favor of private schools that they aren't responsible for.

The problem, in terms of overall U.S. knowledge of world affairs, etc., is so much deeper than the quality of public schools. As some people have said in this thread it probably has a lot to do with the U.S. media and culture affecting kids' and then adults' motivations and aspirations. Parental involvement and influence is likely a big factor as well. I am a product of public elementary school and Catholic high school and can say for sure that the Catholic high school was a much better learning environment...but it wasn't for a lack of effort, qualifications, or knowledge on the public school teachers' part . I feel that it was mainly a result of the students who were in each school; the private school kids' overall attitude toward and motivation for education and learning was so much higher. Teachers can only teach those who are willing - and available - to learn.

[Monsieur Decuts]

this is why a Canadian like me can waltz in here and snatch up a high paying salary that probably should be going to an american, but won't.

silly isn't it

[ms.peachy]

Teachers can only teach those who are willing - and available - to learn.

Yes and no. In spirit, yes I agree with that statement. But I have yet to come across a kid who isn't actually willing to learn, in fact, quite eager to do so, given the right stimulation.

In an ideal world of course every teacher would have the time and resources to work with a kid who's having difficulty individually, and to try different strategies to motivate the child. But the fact is that they don't. You could have the best, most switched-on teacher in the classroom, but if that classroom is overcrowded and/or underresourced, and/or if the school demands strict adherence to a curriculum that is geared solely towards acheiving higher standardised test scores, and/or you have a threshold of kids whose parents can't be bother to reinforce discipline and don't particularly value education themselves, there will be a struggle, and some kids will lose out to "the path of least resistance". There are only so many hours in the day.

[Qdrop]

Public schools are not going to "compete" for students. Public school staff are not going to get paid more or less based on how many kids are going there, it's not like we work on a commission. Teachers already get paid so poorly, there's no way it could be justified that they make less based on this voucher system. well, i personally don't advocate THAT system. i'm not talking about teacher salaries, per say.

GWB's plan with this voucher system - in that it gets the money for the vouchers by taking it away from schools that are "failing," based on testing why should we support failing schools with thier failing system?...that's like a welfare state for schools.

- is basically a way of avoiding fixing things that need fixing, and just makes them worse. You'd think his administration would want to take some responsibility and make their education system better, rather than trashing it in favor of private schools that they aren't responsible for. but how would gov't "fix" the problem? should the gov't really be fixing it? it's becoming more and more evident that "more funding" isn't the answer...that special really shined a light on that....some of the best funded schools are still failing...while other will tiny budgets are succeeding. anomolies? i'm not too sure. i don't think it's really about funding as much as it's about the school community, home environment, and the teaching approach.
the gov't really can't fix those in a practical way....that's just not possible.
these are areas where privatization is necessary....let the laisse-faire free market work it's magic.
Let the people decide where they want to send thier students (for whatever reasons)....those schools will be profitable and do well. the rest will be forced to look at those successfull schools, and mimic them...or else develop new, creative systems to bring in students.
competition and survival of the fittest.
it's NOT all about funding and throwing money at schools...it's about the approach of the schools, and the environment the kids come from.

The problem, in terms of overall U.S. knowledge of world affairs, etc., is so much deeper than the quality of public schools. As some people have said in this thread it probably has a lot to do with the U.S. media and culture affecting kids' and then adults' motivations and aspirations. Parental involvement and influence is likely a big factor as well. certainly. and you want the gov't to just "fix that"?

I am a product of public elementary school and Catholic high school and can say for sure that the Catholic high school was a much better learning environment me too.

...but it wasn't for a lack of effort, qualifications, or knowledge on the public school teachers' part . i'm not too sure. the private schools don't have the shackles of regulated systems and teacher unions to hold them back. they CAN fail and kick kids out. kids are afraid to fail.

I feel that it was mainly a result of the students who were in each school; the private school kids' overall attitude toward and motivation for education and learning was so much higher. Teachers can only teach those who are willing - and available - to learn. true, very true. but the gov't or the school can't just "fix" that.
throwing more money into failing public schools won't fix that.
new textbooks and new computers won't make a kids parents be more present in their kids education.

[WhoMoi?]

Yes and no. In spirit, yes I agree with that statement. But I have yet to come across a kid who isn't actually willing to learn, in fact, quite eager to do so, given the right stimulation.

In an ideal world of course every teacher would have the time and resources to work with a kid who's having difficulty individually, and to try different strategies to motivate the child. But the fact is that they don't. You could have the best, most switched-on teacher in the classroom, but if that classroom is overcrowded and/or underresourced, and/or if the school demands strict adherence to a curriculum that is geared solely towards acheiving higher standardised test scores, and/or you have a threshold of kids whose parents can't be bother to reinforce discipline and don't particularly value education themselves, there will be a struggle, and some kids will lose out to "the path of least resistance". There are only so many hours in the day.

Well of course everyone is willing to learn to some extent, I meant that private school kids are more so, and as I also said, they are more available for learning. By available, I mean in conditions (classroom environment, family situation, etc.) that allow for them to learn. And in private schools, there is usually a smaller student-teacher ratio and more parental involvement, which makes the students there, on the whole, more available for learning. There are usually less problems like drugs, violence, poverty, etc., going on in private schools, which affects the kids' availability for learning as well. Also, there are very few kids (often none) with special education needs in private schools, which decreases the need for teachers to teach to a variety of levels, and enables them to teach more advanced material.

[WhoMoi?]

why should we support failing schools with thier failing system?...that's like a welfare state for schools.
but how would gov't "fix" the problem? should the gov't really be fixing it? it's becoming more and more evident that "more funding" isn't the answer...that special really shined a light on that....some of the best funded schools are still failing...while other will tiny budgets are succeeding. anomolies? i'm not too sure. i don't think it's really about funding as much as it's about the school community, home environment, and the teaching approach.
the gov't really can't fix those in a practical way....that's just not possible.


Public schools are currently a government responsibility, via the taxpayers, so the people involved in "No Child Left Behind" should make a plan for how to improve failing schools, rather than just pulling money from them with no input or support on how to improve (which is what is happening in the "failing" schools I know of, maybe others have experienced it differently). I'm not saying this should be done with more funding, necessarily...maybe redirection of funding. I'm mainly saying that obviously some research needs to be done into why these schools are failing, rather than just taking money away from them and random educators losing their jobs for it...that doesn't help at all. Schools that are found to be failing - and don't even get me started on the way they're assessing it - should be helped. There should be some kind of team that assesses what's working and what's not working, whether it's the curriculum, the specific programs they're using to teach math and reading, specific staff members, etc. Comparisons should be made between the curricula, programs, teacher credentials, etc., of failing vs. non-failing schools.


these are areas where privatization is necessary....let the laisse-faire free market work it's magic.
Let the people decide where they want to send thier students (for whatever reasons)....those schools will be profitable and do well. the rest will be forced to look at those successfull schools, and mimic them...or else develop new, creative systems to bring in students.
competition and survival of the fittest.

I don't agree that public schools will be forced to mimic private schools if that all happens. The reason public schools aren't able to mimic private schools is basically because of what I said before...parental involvement is lower in public schools, there are mainstreamed kids on IEPs to teach to, there is a high student/teacher ratio. None of that will change (except maybe the student/teacher ratio) if this occurs.


Additionally, most private schools don't have any special education staff or programs, and the few that do have very little staff or resources to that end. So kids on IEPs would not have the option to use vouchers if they wanted any of the services they are entitled to, which is unfair.


i'm not too sure. the private schools don't have the shackles of regulated systems and teacher unions to hold them back. they CAN fail and kick kids out. kids are afraid to fail.

That's really not true in many cases. Some kids just aren't motivated by grades or succeeding in school, and in some cases their parents don't care either. In other cases kids do care, but are frustrated and aren't getting the support they need either at home or in school (i.e. special ed kids without support in a private school), and just give up. Look at the drop-out rate.

new textbooks and new computers won't make a kids parents be more present in their kids education.

I think you're misunderstanding me. I'm not asking the government or school to change parental involvement. It's not something anyone outside the family can change. I was just mentioning lack of parental involvement as one reason why public schools have problems educating their kids as well as private schools do. I'm also very aware that new textbooks and new computers are not the solution to any of these problems; as I said before I'm not saying "more funding" so much as "some plan toward improving failing schools." It's about where the funding goes.

[Ace42X]

You all ignored my post, therefore you all = cunts. End of discussion.

[ms.peachy]

You all ignored my post, therefore you all = cunts. End of discussion.
Listen. When we want to talk about the ingrained culture of bullying, league tables, Ofsted inspections, and six-year-olds taught to a curriculum geared entirely towards standardised test scores. I'm sure we'll pay a lot more attention to you. Maybe we can even have a nice discussion about registered sex offenders working in schools later today, who knows.

[Ace42X]

[QUOTE=ms.peachyWhen we want to talk about the ingrained culture of bullying, league tables, Ofsted inspections, and six-year-olds taught to a curriculum geared entirely towards standardised test scores. I'm sure we'll pay a lot more attention to you. Maybe we can even have a nice discussion about registered sex offenders working in schools later today, who knows.[/QUOTE]

All important topics, and some are even relevant to the discussion and my post...

[Anne Lauren]

Well of course everyone is willing to learn to some extent, I meant that private school kids are more so, and as I also said, they are more available for learning. By available, I mean in conditions (classroom environment, family situation, etc.) that allow for them to learn. And in private schools, there is usually a smaller student-teacher ratio and more parental involvement, which makes the students there, on the whole, more available for learning. There are usually less problems like drugs, violence, poverty, etc., going on in private schools, which affects the kids' availability for learning as well. Also, there are very few kids (often none) with special education needs in private schools, which decreases the need for teachers to teach to a variety of levels, and enables them to teach more advanced material.

Think about it...why is that? I beleive it all goes back to the basic background statistics of the kinds of kids that attend private schools to begin with...if that makes sense. First of all, most private schools cost a good bit of money to attend...it's definately an investment that the parent's are putting into educateing their children. Therefore, the parent's obviously view education as being extremely important in life. I mean, why invest all that money and end up having to pay interests on loans taken out, if it's not all that crucial...just send them to the free public school. A person can get a damn good education at a public school...the opportunity is there, the child just has to take advantage of it. Well, maybe the parent's don't want to take that chance...especially if they have the means to and they can afford to be more selective in the enviroment in which their child is educated and even a lot more than that. School is not just about "book-education"...it's about growing up and all the things that come along with that. Since private schools can be selective in who attends and there usually is a cut off number...more than likely most the kids will be "good" kids. They'll be more intelligent overall, they'll value education and have the desire to learn, they'll be more competative, etc. And all the negative influences...such as, drugs, violence, and stuff that make learning more difficult won't even really be an issue at all because the school weeds those kid's out. Plus, the kid's are going there for a reason, like I mentioned earlier...because their parents value education. So, that in it's self goes to show that it's even being reinforced at home and in their up-bringing. The school and their parent's are reinforceing...hey, this is what is important in life.

Unforetunately, the way most public schools are set up now...everyone is mixed in together...the "good" and the "bad" (so's to speak). So, the child has to want and bewilling to put in that extra effort.

[ms.peachy]

So, the child has to want and bewilling to put in that extra effort.

I don't really agree that the child has to be 'willing' to put in 'extra' effort. You are saying that it is the child's responsibility to adapt to the circumstances of the institution, even if the institution is an ineffcient, outdated, outmoded machine. I don't think that's appropriate at all. As I've said, in my experience, all children (barring serious exceptions due to things like brain injury, abuse, autism, etc) are willing to learn. It is their natural state. But we know that not all children learn in the same way (kinesthetic, auditory, visual et al), and my feeling is that it is the responsibility of the educational system (and, yes, the parents, but that is sort of outside the points of discussion), private or public, to identify and develop strategies for delivering learning in ways that suit ALL children. Why is it up to the child - who, after all, is a CHILD - to put in "extra" effort to ensure that they are recieving the best possible education from the ADULTS whose job it's meant to be to see that she gets it? Of course any pupil should be expected to make the effort to do their best work, but they should not be expected to do "extra" self-assessment at elementary school age to make up for the shortcomings of a poorly run school. That's ludicrous.

[Anne Lauren]

I don't really agree that the child has to be 'willing' to put in 'extra' effort. You are saying that it is the child's responsibility to adapt to the circumstances of the institution, even if the institution is an ineffcient, outdated, outmoded machine. I don't think that's appropriate at all. As I've said, in my experience, all children (barring serious exceptions due to things like brain injury, abuse, autism, etc) are willing to learn. It is their natural state. But we know that not all children learn in the same way (kinesthetic, auditory, visual et al), and my feeling is that it is the responsibility of the educational system (and, yes, the parents, but that is sort of outside the points of discussion), private or public, to identify and develop strategies for delivering learning in ways that suit ALL children. Why is it up to the child - who, after all, is a CHILD - to put in "extra" effort to ensure that they are recieving the best possible education from the ADULTS whose job it's meant to be to see that she gets it? Of course any pupil should be expected to make the effort to do their best work, but they should not be expected to do "extra" self-assessment at elementary school age to make up for the shortcomings of a poorly run school. That's ludicrous.

Oh...I totally agree with you! The adults are the adults and I strongly believe that by choosing to have children (i.e. the parents), or by chooseing to take on the role as an educator ( i.e. the teachers)...then they are assumeing responsibility and are almost in a way oblicated to make sure that the child is having their needs met and is receiveing all the advantages and opportunities available. A child is an innocent in all this and should not have to play the role of an adult...which is raise a child to the best of their abilities and effectively prepare them for "life", so that when they're an adult they're able to do the same for their child. So on and so on...

I guess, my comment was geared more toward how, in my experiences, it seems to be...that the child ends up ultimately having to be the one to make the effort. There's so many kids with so many different personalities and needs that unforetunately it end up being, as Qdrop I think put it..."survival of the fittest", almost.

[Qdrop]

i say no public (federally) funded schools. Just federally funded vouchers.

all schools are private...people choose thier schools based on programs offered and performance.'

basically mimic the system of colleges/universities.
i think there should be some general gov't guidlines for curriculum (and thus some mandated testing), but otherwise...the gov't should stay out of it. the gov't is so out of touch with practical reality...as it is with most social systems/problems. Leave the people alone and let the market take care of itself.

[Anne Lauren]

i say no public (federally) funded schools. Just federally funded vouchers.

all schools are private...people choose thier schools based on programs offered and performance.'

basically mimic the system of colleges/universities.
i think there should be some general gov't guidlines for curriculum (and thus some mandated testing), but otherwise...the gov't should stay out of it. the gov't is so out of touch with practical reality...as it is with most social systems/problems. Leave the people alone and let the market take care of itself.

Aren't you a democrat? Just curious.

[Qdrop]

Aren't you a democrat? Just curious.

independant.

i subscribe to no party or political box.

[Anne Lauren]

independant.

i subscribe to no party or political box.

Well,yeah, it seems like now there's no real distinction at all anymore...say what the voters want to hear in order to get into office and get the majority of power. Anyway...