by Patrick J. Buchanan
11/20/2009
As George W. Bush famously asked, "Is our children learning?"
Apparently not in the twin capitals of liberalism, D.C. and New York.
In a ranking of 50 states and D.C. by how much each spent per pupil in public schools in 2005, New York ranked first; D.C. third. The state spent $14,100, and New York City just a tad less.
And the bountiful fruits of this massive transfer of taxpayers' wealth?
In D.C., nearly half of all black and Latino students drop out. Of those who graduate, nearly half are reading and doing math at seventh-, eighth- and ninth-grade levels. D.C. academic achievement ranks 51st, last in the U.S.
Yet last week came a report from New York that makes D.C look like M.I.T. Some 200 students, in their first math class at City University of New York, were tested on their basic math skills.
Ninety percent could not do basic algebra. One-third could not convert a decimal into a fraction.
If this was a representative sampling, nine in 10 CUNY students not only do not belong in college, they do not qualify for their high school diplomas. As for that third who can't do decimals and fractions, they should not have been allowed into high school until they could do sixth-grade math.
As 70 percent of all CUNY students are graduates of city schools, a question arises: What are the taxpayers of New York getting for the highest tax rates in the nation?
If a private business annually turned out products that were of inferior quality than the year before, management would be thrown out by the board. Yet, the education racket has been shaking us down for four decades, and turning out graduates that know less and less.
Scholastic Aptitude Test scores peaked around 1964. Ever since, the national average has been in an almost unbroken descent.
So embarrassing did it get that, a few years ago, the SAT folks retooled the test to produce higher scores. Now there are more 1600s. But the national average continues its decline, and the gap between blacks and Hispanics, and Asians and whites, endures.
Is it not a time for truth?
Just as there are many kids who do not have the athletic ability to play high school sports, or the musical ability to play in a high school band, or the verbal ability to recite poetry well or star in debate, not every kid has the academic ability to do high school work.
By the end of the first two months in first grade, an alert kid can tell you who are the smart ones and who are the athletes.
No two kids were ever created equal -- not even identical twins. The family is the incubator of inequality, and God is its author. As the parable teaches, each of us is given different and unequal talents.
Given equality of opportunity, the brightest will inexorably rise, and the less talented -- athletically, artistically, academically -- will fall behind. All things being equal, the fastest kid will always win the race.
This campaign to equalize test scores among unequal students is utopian and unattainable, and amounts to a scam by the education industry.
How many times have they promised progress? And how many times have they delivered?
It is time to look not only skeptically, but cynically, on further demands for billions for education.
Rather, follow the money. Look for who is getting the jobs, the TV appearances, the consulting contracts, the grants, the titles, the limo drivers. Because, at bottom, that is what it is all about -- the transfer of wealth and power from those who earn it and those who produce it, to those who produce little or nothing.
The city colleges, now the City University of New York, were once municipal jewels. They nourished an intellectual elite from the ethnic groups that came in the great immigration wave before 1924. As open admissions -- letting in every high school graduate in the city who applied -- was being debated, Vice President Spiro T. Agnew weighed in against.
"If these quality colleges are degraded, it would be a permanent and tragic loss to the poor and middle class of New York, who cannot afford to establish their sons and daughters on the Charles River or Cayuga Lake. New York will have traded away one of the intellectual assets of the Western world for a four-year community college and a hundred thousand devalued diplomas."
Agnew quoted historian Dan Boorstin:
"In the university, all men are not equal. Those better endowed or better equipped intellectually must be preferred in admission, and preferred in recognition. ... If we give in to the ... demands of militants to admit persons to the university because of their race, their poverty, their illiteracy or any other nonintellectual distinction, our universities can no longer serve all of us or any of us."
The limousine liberals knew better.
Now, they have CUNY students who can't handle fractions.
melissa
Oh Patrick, the Jesuit fathers must weep at what you've done with your education. Cherry-picking statistics and merging unrelated and anecdotes to support your thinly veiled prejudices against anyone who thinks or looks differently from you - how sad.
An honest person would have acknowledged that only half the high school students in the 50 biggest U.S. cities are graduating, with a figure as low as 25% in Detroit. It's not a problem limited to 'liberal' cities. It's a nationwide problem, and has been for decades (through conservative and liberal administrations (You can check the numbers here, in a 2008 study by America's Promise Alliance, led by Colin & Alma Powell http://www.americaspromise.org/Our-Work/Dropout-Prevention/Cities-in-Cri...)
Follow the money Buchanan says, sandwiched between references to 'liberals' - yet Buchanan does not follow the money. Why not? Can't he support his suggestion that liberals are hoodwinking the nation's departments of education? Why if he knows who's destroying our nation's schools won't he name names? New York city's been governed by republican/independent mayors since 1993. Are they so ineffective they can't stop this liberal menace?
1Ultimately the man is right. Our education system nationwide stinks. We have to quit letting students move ahead when they haven't learned what they were supposed to at that grade level. No child Left Behind has to be thrown out and move towards teaching the basics again.
2Buchanan doesn't say our system nationwide stinks, he's very careful to pick on two cities and blame one group.
3You have to ignore just about everything he says to see it as nationwide or saying anything about No Child Left Behind.
I agree with you SKB, but this article turns a longtime national problem into a partisan, prejudiced, attack.
4I think it also shows that we can't just throw money at the problem, and get positive results.
5I think the push on college is a HUGE disservice to a lot of kids/people. I still don't quite understand why we don't have a trade school system here. In germany for example, kids only go to school until 9th grade I think it is. At that point the "college bound" students go to gymnasium, which is like a higher level high school, community college of sorts. And the others go to a trade school to finish learning. A high school diploma means SQUAT now days especially when parents of the NOT college bound students press to have their children passed when they cannot even read on grade level or as above perform simple algebra. Things need to be changed dramatically in the US. Holding back the brighter children to equal the playing field and value mediocrity is a disservice to BOTH the college bound and Not college bound students.
6And I agree, more funding is NOT the answer dave, dispite what liberals say. That seems to be their ONLY answer.
7When my brother-in-law finished school, he determined that he wasn't going to be college bound. So he found a place that hires and trains HS graduates, and he is now in charge of a printing company in Chicago. There are opportunities outside of "college", but they are well advertised, and more often than not, those kids aren't motivated to go find those options.
8pretty sure that funding isn't the only answer "liberals" are coming up with
9Oh Snarky! You and your instance on referencing the actual post subject
10Adults are flooding back into community colleges to update skills to make them more "marketable" in today's dismal job market, only to discover that more often than not, they are better prepared to teach the subject at hand than the "professor" who appears to teach the class.
We are realizing that many "professors" do not have the credentials once demanded to teach in colleges. Often they are students who demonstrate they are "working towards" that degree...dragging their feet in doing so...and getting their classes for free.
What does this mean? My daughter's sociology professor has a bachelors degree in English literature, yet she is teaching sociology in a community college.
In a conversation with her I asked how long she has been "working towards" that masters degree and she said "Oh, about ten years...it just doesn't seem important" ....which speaks volumes.
So...is my daughter or any other kid in community college getting the education they should be? That is probably one of the most important questions.
The fact that most classes during the first year of college simply re-teach what they should have learned in high school is another HUGE question as well.
So...ultimately we must ask, "Are we getting the education that is worth our educational dollars spent?" and then "Who have we entrusted to spend those funds, create educational standards, and decide what a valid education actually is?"
11This issue unfortunately has greatly to do with our propensity to throw money at the problem, especially in seeking various paths to diversity. Thus this echoes the same problem as a previous post, not denying ethnicity, as some foolishly and incorrectly assumed, but suggesting strength in our core educational values, including behavior and attitude. We must return to fundamentals of learning, courses designed not only to educate but to strengthen and prepare students for the world instead of doing practically nothing.
12To succeed, schools must not only claim to have what students need to succeed, but they must also provide it and involve the students and parents in the process. Schools themselves have tried to shoulder the responsibility for too long. Parents and students must all buy into the process, eschewing all sense of entitlement and passivity falsely promoted by ideological differences. Natural creativity without skills is stillborn. The greater purpose of secondary education should be to unify and strengthen those skills which are important and fundamental for dealing with the world at large.
How is diversity to blame for our education problems?
13Diveristy's to blame for everything, steph. Didn't you read the Ann Coulter article?
14"pretty sure that funding isn't the only answer "liberals" are coming up with"
Yup, snarky.
15I'd really be interested in what many of you feel is the cause of our education debacle...and even more so in what must be done to repair it.
It is easy to point fingers yet it takes more effort to consider the issue and actually come up with some possible means to take action.
Education has to become one of the largest priorities in America. Why? Because if we are to be competitive, remain so, and build upon (or possibly locate) the American ingenuity which we are famous for, education is the foundation for that success.
Does it really matter who is pointing fingers? Nope. The problem is real. Our education system is fatally flawed.
What can we do about it? I'd love to see real ideas.
What do you think America must do to improve our education system?
How do we go about making those changes?
Should we allow the educators to continue making the decisions?
What can we do to pull parents and technology into making essential changes?
How do we foster change in the perception that an educational dollar is somehow devalued before it is even spent?
Ultimately, where to we start placing accountability?
16I have never heard of throwing a good apple into a barrel of bad apples and getting a barrel of good apples. "Mainstreaming" does a disservice to all the students in the class. The bright students are being held back. The slow student does not get the attention he/she deserves, and the disruptive student takes an inordinate amount of the teachers and class time. All the "add ons" that keep getting added to the class curriculum takes time away from the core subjects. History has to be politically correct so each ethnic group gets its "fair share" of the lesson. Knowing how to use the written language has been downgraded. How many high school seniors know the names of the parts of speech let alone define them. You want quality education for your children bring back the curriculum and standards of the 1950's.
17Hm...I went to a school that had a vo-tech school that was used by all the schools within 2 counties. For students who were not excelling at academics, they were encouraged to enroll at the vo-tech school so that they had skills to find a job after high school. We have an excellent vo-tech that a lot of kids didn't want to enroll in because it wasn't "cool". The problem with vo-tech is the jobs weren't the kind that paid well or allowed for a lot of growth. And as America continues to get rid of manufacturing jobs and move towards white-collar workers, there's going to be less and less jobs for those without a college education.
I don't think kids should be passed just to pass them. Fail their asses and make them learn. A neighbor kid (when I was growing up) should have failed 5th grade, instead his parents raised a big stink and the school passed him. He fell more and more behind with each year and the parents just argued to keep pushing him through rather than actually deal with the problem.
Classes should not be generic but should be broken into levels of ability. There should be basic math/english classes for students who struggle, this way they can learn the basics without a lot of extras. But there should be classes offered towards more able students so that those that are college bound can have a more thorough education. I hated when I had to take a gen. ed. class with a bunch of kids who didn't care, misbehaved. The teacher couldn't teach much of anything, tests were a joke and the material was sub-par. I think kids need to be separated out by intelligence with classes geared towards each level.
I don't believe everyone needs a college education and that we should be preparing everyone for college. But we need to ensure that there are going to be jobs/careers available for people who do not go to college.
I don't think this is just a conservatives vs. liberal problem. The student/family matrix has changed since the 1950's - society as a whole has changed. Both cons. and libs. are struggling with how to get the schools to succeed with the dynamics of society (both urban and suburban). I don't think the problem with schools and lack of education will be successfully fixed until society addresses a lot of the other problems that affect a student getting an education - such as poverty, abuse, neglect, broken homes, etc. If the neighborhood values "respect" and "image" more than education and unity, then there's very few who will overcome the localized pressure and rise above it.
18There was a kid in my school who failed 4th grade TWICE. After the 2nd time, his parents transferred him to a different school.
19Roar, I agree with you that we should divide students by skill level. My schools growing up were divided like that and I think I benefited. Like you, we had a "career center," which was basically a vocational school. You could take classes in child care, cosmetology, auto mechanics, etc. (There were others, but I don't remember exactly what the classes were.) Not all of the students who should have gone there necessarily did, but it was available as an option. And, we had three different "tracks" at our regular high school. We had one track just to graduate, one for college prep, and an honors track. When I graduated, they were building the new high school, which actually has three wings, so students can get the small school feel, can develop a close bond with others on the same track and with teachers, etc., but can still be with their other friends for lunch, music classes, athletics, etc. I was a little apprehensive about it when they were describing it and I haven't personally experienced the division, but I did research it, and I think it's a good idea. And it's not as if you can't take one or two classes in another wing, so if a student wants to take basic college prep courses, but take honors Language Arts, for example, they have that option. Even when I was in elementary school, students were divided (not the the same extent and only in some subjects) by skill level, as well. I mean, we don't want to destroy childrens' self-esteem, but I feel that it really is a detriment to everyone if children are not divided by skill level.
20Yoga, I totally agree that school rooms need to be broken down by each childs ability. But that is the problem. My sister is currently getting her credentials to become a teacher. And both of my inlaws are teachers. They both said that is "unfair" to the kids who aren't as smart. They said because they will be labelled as the "dumb" kids for the rest of their lives. Well I don't really give a crap. My brother is not the "college" type. He was in all the same classes up until high school with the smarter kids, and trust me, he was labelled as the dumb one without even having to be in a special class. That doesn't matter 1 bit, and it continues to produce us more mediocre learning. There are some that would say, well in high school you can take AP, well waht about younger. Fostering good education habits early goes a long way. I was a product of this type of environment. I NEVER did my homework, didnt even try in school and still got A's and B's. I have spent my entire adult life trying to overcome the habits that I learned in elementary school. So people need to think about that while they are trying to be "fair" to kids that obviously should be taught the basics of every day life ( foundations/ rrr) and then off to technical school. In the town where I grew up there was ONE tech high school. It has since had it's funding cut in half. But i agree with what they are trying to accomplish, they have a part time education there, where you go to your regular high school part time and go there to learn your trade. But problem is, it is 1 school in a town of 500,000 and at least that many in the surrounding communities they service. So we have a LONG way to go before we can act like we are doing a service to any ones kids in our education system. I think we need to go back down to teaching kids fundamentals of learning
21One of my friends has a son who isn't necessarily behind the curve enough to have an IEP or anything like that, but is behind his classmates in terms of learning; he just learns differently. He previously went to a school where students weren't divided according to ability. The family has since moved and he loves being in a class with other kids who are at his level at his new school. He knows he's not in the "smart kids" class, but he prefers being in the class he's in now because he's able to keep up. It's actually helped his self-esteem!
22(I'm not saying that this is how it will be for every kid, but just an example of how dividing kids according to ability helps everyone, not just the kids who are put in an honors class.)
23I think we need to start with something more basic: we need to decide as a nation how much we actually value education.
We make heroes of heiresses, athletes, performers and anyone who can pass as a 'regular joe' - but we denigrate as 'elitest' anyone who has studied long and hard to actually know what they're talking about.
24What kid wants to grow up to be a social outcast?
Sheesh.... what some areas spend on one child is like, half of a teacher's yearly salary in many states.
I agree Steph, we need to decide how much we value education as a whole.
25Even if "we" decide how much we value education, there's nothing to make someone value it. The devaluing attitude often comes from the parents.
We can value it all day, and make all sorts of investments or whatever to show that, but at the end of the day if the parents don't care, the kid won't care.
26I agree about splitting kids up according to ability though.
Teaching to the lowest common denominator has done us no good.
27"Teaching to the lowest common denominator has done us no good."
28(Shoot. Hit the wrong button)
29My wife and I chose not to enroll our 5yr old in a charter school kindergarten for that very reason. She is currently reading and writing at a 2nd grade level. If she had been in the kindergarten, she would've been paired with a child that needed help, and asked to help that child learn. I always thought that was the teacher's job....
I'm actually a huge proponent of Montessori style learning in young grades. It's shown that it helps both the students who are at the lower level and the students who are at the higher level. Teaching something is a great way to reinforce one's knowledge in a subject. But, obviously, you know what's best for your daughter, Dave.
30Haus, who do you think I'm talking about? "We" are society, and many millions of us are parents. We're the ones who have to decide what we value, rather than have more knee-jerk responses to problems.
There's a reason schools have moved away from tracking students. It works for the very best students, against the least able, and it tends to be a crapshoot for 'middle-ability' students. Lots of kids who thought they were headed for college discovered too late that they had been tracked in non-college curriculums before the 8th grade.
31That Montessori style lilkimbo, only work when in a full program. It is the older children teaching the younger children, not the smarter 5 y/o teaching the not so smart one. Montessori works, but only when a teacher has enough time to really get to know a child and the way they learn. Montessori is also not taught as a class, children do tend to go into their own work groups of children they feel compatable with, and are not forced to teach another child new skills or forced to be the mentor if they choose not to. Personally I think montessori is great for early childhood education pre-school age, but think it can be a huge disservice to older children who MUST learn on a fast pace in order to keep up with college courses. But that is my personal opinion. I am actually looking into montessori preschool for my youngest.
32It's not necessarily the older children teaching the younger ones, Stolze. I've actually studied it pretty extensively. That's one incarnation of it, but Maria Montessori stressed the importance of children learning from each other, not necessarily younger children learning from older ones.
33What Dave described is a variation on Montessori style teaching (my sister did her undergrad thesis on it, so I learned a lot about it when she was working on that). There are several incarnations of Maria Montessori's original style, and many of them, including what Dave described have been shown to work. However, not all of them work for all children and, like I said, I'm sure Dave knows best what would work for his daughter.
34I will admit that there are other problems at that school (3 principals in 18 months, funding problems, a school lunch that is almost twice as expensive), but the big thing for me is it seemed to me that my daughter wouldn't be challenged. My son goes to a Montesorri pre-school, and is very successful there.
35I totally understand what you're saying, Dave! I think kids teaching other kids (whether they're the same age or a different age) can work well, but it has to be done correctly and it had to be the right kids.
36had=has
37Steph - We will never get every single person in this country to be on the same page about the importance of education. It simply will never, ever happen.
So while we can say we value education to X level and throw money at it to show that, at the end of the day if it's not being reinforced at home, it won't make a difference.
38I agree. I had to chuckle, because our son's teacher gave us a hard time about not going to the magnet school, until the first round of scores were published, and my sister's school did better, even though the school was considered a "poorer" school by this teacher.
39Haus, no one says the entire country has to be on the same page.
The majority of the country - which includes Millions of Parents - though, has to support the notion that education is important and that educated people are to be valued, not denigrated.
There's no point in urging your child to study to be a doctor, a lawyer, a writer, a scientist if you're sitting home complaining about doctors, lawyers, writers and scientists while voting for your favorite dancing celebrity.
40"There's no point in urging your child to study to be a doctor, a lawyer, a writer, a scientist if you're sitting home complaining about doctors, lawyers, writers and scientists while voting for your favorite dancing celebrity. "
AMEN!
41Sure you can, you tell your kid you want them to be a better, more moral version of the aforementioned. Are you telling me that all of the presidents parents didnt complain at one point or another about the president during their lives? By your explanation that must mean only people whose parents thought the presidents were doing a good job would ever strive for that. Thats just plain silly.
42my brother is on the school boar din his small community, he said that 87% of their money goes to payroll. Leaving only 13% to pay for students supplies, building maintenance, activities, etc. The teachers union will not allow for a pay cut for the teachers, even though the budget has been slashed because of non existent home sales. I wish those teachers who say they are there for the betterment of the child would put their money where their mouths are.
43I would be curious to see what percentage of dc and ny's budget goes to payroll as wel. i think that might be the better judge of how well your money is being spent.
Post A Comment
To post comments, please log in or register.