Personal Loans | Mortgage Calculator | Discount Magazines | Advertising | New York Hotels
The Declining Quality of Education and What to Do about It [Archive] - FreeConservatives

PDA

View Full Version : The Declining Quality of Education and What to Do about It


Naturalized-Texan
07-08-2003, 07:17 PM
The Declining Quality of Education and What to Do about It
By Naturalized-Texan


Historical Background

Back in the 1950s, I was a high school math and science teacher and I voluntarily joined the National Education Association (NEA) and the Pennsylvania State Education Association (PSEA) (joining was voluntary then). In those days the NEA and PSEA were professional organizations dedicated to maintaining teaching as a profession and improving the quality of instruction. Our meetings consisted of seminars on ways to improve our teaching techniques, displays of new and advanced textbooks, and the exchange of ideas on improving the quality of our instruction. Teachers were highly respected by students, parents, and the community.

We teachers demanded high academic standards from our students. Students and parents both knew that if the student failed to meet those standards, he or she would receive a failing grade and would have to repeat the course or repeat the grade in order to graduate. Contrast that with today’s schools where every student passes even though many don’t even know how to read.

What happened?

We have had a precipitous decline in the quality of education in the last 40+ years. There are three major reasons for that decline, each as devastating as the next. In chronological order, here are those reasons:

1) Elimination of Phonics - The 1930s and 1940s saw the beginning of the elimination of the use of phonics in the teaching of reading. During WW II, less than 1% of recruits were unable to read at the 4th grade level, but during the Korean War, 17% of the draftees were illiterate, according to the Armed Forces Qualification Tests (AFQT). U.S. literacy figures for adults over 25 were 98% in 1950. (1)

A 1993 National Adult Literacy Survey found that “over 96 per cent (174 million) can’t read, write, and figure well enough to go to college; two-thirds (120 million) do not have the ‘literary proficiency’ to go to high school; and nearly a fourth (40 to 44 million) can’t read.” (2)

Why the decline in literacy? The WW II draftees were taught reading using the phonics method while most of the Korean War draftees were taught reading using the “look-say” or “whole word” method. A personal example: When our youngest son was in second grade, he was barely reading at the first grade level. Over the Christmas break, we used a phonics kit to teach him how to read and when he returned to school, he was reading as well as any others in his class. Now, at age 41, he is a voracious reader.

2) Federal Control Education - In the 1950s the Department of Health, Education, and Welfare was formed. This was the beginning of government interference into the local control of education. The federal government substituted federal bureaucratic control of education policies and spending for the proven American tradition of local control of education. In other words, parents lost their control the quality of education.

3) The NEA Became a Labor Union - In the 1960s the NEA was transformed from a professional organization into nothing more than another labor union involved in left-wing politics and opposing any education reform that would improve the quality of education. We are now spending far more per student than at any time in our history (adjusted for inflation), yet the quality of education continues to decline. All the NEA can think of to solve the problem is to throw more money at it. Lack of money is not the problem.

It is a sad commentary on the state of the NEA that the only action that was reported from their 1994 convention was the vote to boycott orange juice because the Florida orange growers were sponsoring the Rush Limbaugh Program. If the NEA would spend as much time on making real improvements in education as it does on politics, we would have the best educated students in the world.

Why did it happen?

The goal of the liberals’ education program was to place control of all education in this country into the hands of liberal educrats - the teachers’ unions, the federal education bureaucracy, and school administrators. Liberals claimed that the liberal elitist educrats knew more about educating children than the parents of those children or the locally elected school board.

When the liberal takeover of the schools occurred, we had the best education system in the world. Now, after 40+ years of liberal control of education, the quality of education has declined so far that the majority of our graduates can’t compete with graduates from other countries. Even worse, millions of jobs are going unfilled and remedial courses must be taught in most colleges and universities because our high school graduates can’t even read, write, or do simple math. In fact, many of our high school graduates can’t even read their own diplomas.

There is a direct correlation between the decline in education quality and the increase in Federal control of education. There is also a direct correlation between the decline in education quality and the evolution of the National Education Association (NEA) from a professional organization to nothing more than a labor union begging for federal handouts.

The liberal programs for education have succeeded in doing what Sen. Daniel Patrick Moynihan (D, NY) described as, “The dumbing down of America.”

What can we do about it?

1) We need to introduce competition into the education system. Competition would force an improvement in working conditions in public schools. Such an improvement would attract more gifted students to the teaching profession and prevent good teachers from leaving to go into industry like I did. See also 3) below.

2) More than $120,000 is now being spent per classroom (assuming 20 students) in public schools. More than $52,800 (44%) of that amount is being spent on administration. I see no earthly reason that 44% of school spending should be spent on administration. Competition would force public schools to streamline their administrative bureaucracy, pay teachers what would be required to get the best available, and purchase additional educational materials.

If you’ll pardon a personal note, the main reason that I left teaching was the administrivia that we had to endure. If I may say so, I was a good teacher who demanded and got superior performance from my students. I taught in a poor school district but we produced many superior graduates, proving that money is not the solution to the education problem.

3) Introducing the use of vouchers into the education system would force all schools, public, private, and parochial, to improve the quality of education in order to get the consumers’ (parents’) voucher dollars. The beauty of vouchers is that the competition would force the public schools to demand the same performance standards as we already have in private and parochial schools in order to compete with them. As a result we have a significant improvement in the overall quality of education.

Vouchers have proven to be very popular wherever they have been tried. One of the most successful voucher systems has been the one in the inner city of Milwaukee, Wisconsin. It has become so popular that every year more schools are being added to the list of available schools. One of the reasons that vouchers are so popular in Milwaukee and elsewhere is that they are not discriminatory and there is no screening for ethnic and religious backgrounds or financial ability to pay. Any parent who has a voucher can go to any participating school and enroll his or her child.

Of course, that child will have to meet the standards of performance for each subject in order to remain in that school. In other words, the child must pass the courses. What a novel idea. How different from most public schools where students are graduated when they reach the correct age whether they have learned anything or not.

Conclusion

We have seen how the quality of education has drastically declined in this nation as a result of education policies forced upon us by liberal educrats. The best way to restore quality into our education system is to introduce competition by giving parents education vouchers so that they can have the freedom to choose the best available education for their children.



(1) Regna Lee Wood, “That’s Right – They’re Wrong,” National Review, 9/14/92

(2) Regna Lee Wood, “Our Golden Road to Illiteracy,” National Review, 10/18/93

Longhorn_Platinum
07-08-2003, 09:00 PM
http://freeconservatives.com/ubbthreads/images/graemlins/um.gif <font color="blue">Another factor in the decline of education is that teachers no longer make policy decisions for their own classrooms. My grandfather was the "principal teacher" at a small school in Tyler County, Texas in the early part of the last century. In those days, the teachers ran the school, &amp; one teacher outranked the others. In time, the principal teacher's duties grew, &amp; he was relieved of his teaching duties, &amp; became just a "principal". Eventually, the bureaucracy grew, with assistant principals, superintendents, assistant superintendents, counselors, &amp; a whole phalanx of bureaucrats that now make up the 44% of the budget that you mentioned, while the teachers were pushed into the background.

http://freeconservatives.com/ubbthreads/images/graemlins/serious.gif You bemoaned the lack of control by local school boards. That actually sounds like a good thing. Teachers, not school boards, should be making educational policy. Our local "school" board has made some atrocious decisions, including giving students credit by semester, when the course is supposed to last a year, &amp; the "minimum 65" rule, whereïn all students will receive a grade of at least 65 for the first nine weeks, even those who fail to attend even one class. We've petitioned these jerks for years to rescind this rule, &amp; they simply ignore the teachers. I've dealt with school board members face to face, &amp; it's obvious they look upon teachers as trailer trash. Oh, &amp; my superintendent just cut 140 teaching positions to balance the district's budget, then spent $1,000,000 for new AstroTurf® for the stadium, even though the old AstroTurf® is still in great shape. He couldn't have spent the money without "school" board approval.

http://freeconservatives.com/ubbthreads/images/graemlins/icon130.gif Bear in mind, that in Texas, anyone can run for their local school board, except teachers. Many of the people who do run have never been educators, &amp; only run because they have a personal axe to grind because one of their children failed a class.

http://freeconservatives.com/ubbthreads/images/graemlins/icon127.gif Okay, tell me again why local school boards should be in control. I keep forgetting.</font>

Naturalized-Texan
07-09-2003, 08:02 AM
"Okay, tell me again why local school boards should be in control. I keep forgetting."

I was basing that recommendation on this reason:

Local control of schools is far more desireable than control by the educrats - the teachers’ unions, the federal education bureaucracy, and school administrators. My experience with school administrators is that their sole job seems to be to prevent the parents from participating in the education process. The administrators have the attitude that only they know enough to say how the kids should be taught.

I partly agree with you about the reachers having control in their classrooms. However, the teachers are controlled by their union and must do as the union wishes. We need to get rid of all the educrats I mentioned above.

Longhorn_Platinum
07-09-2003, 04:01 PM
[ QUOTE ]
Naturalized-Texan said:
My experience with school administrators is that their sole job seems to be to prevent the parents from participating in the education process.

[/ QUOTE ]

http://freeconservatives.com/ubbthreads/images/graemlins/um.gif <font color="blue">Not the ones that I've dealt with. They see parent contact as the panaceä to end discipline problems, even though many parents have lost control of their own kids, &amp;/or are impossible to reach, when needed. My complaint about administrators is that they are far too willing to substitute the appearance of success for genuïne success, &amp; place too much pressure on teachers to simply pass students from grade to grade.</font>

[ QUOTE ]
The administrators have the attitude that only they know enough to say how the kids should be taught.

[/ QUOTE ]

http://freeconservatives.com/ubbthreads/images/graemlins/um.gif <font color="blue">True, &amp; they even know better than teachers. Yet, many administrators left the classroom, because they couldn't hack it, &amp; ended up in administration. This puts them in a position to pontificate to others how to do a job that they couldn't do themselves.

http://freeconservatives.com/ubbthreads/images/graemlins/serious.gif As for your assertion that the unions control the teachers, I don't see that where I am. Most teachers disagree with the unions's politics (except regarding vouchers), &amp; join only for the legal insurance that they provide. My experiënce with my union is that it's pretty weak. I still think that teachers should have a greater voice in classroom policies. Admittedly, there are a few wackos in the classroom that aren't fit to set academic policies, but the majority of their colleagues would keep them in check.</font>

Naturalized-Texan
07-09-2003, 05:27 PM
[ QUOTE ]
Longhorn_Platinum said:
[ QUOTE ]
Naturalized-Texan said:
My experience with school administrators is that their sole job seems to be to prevent the parents from participating in the education process.

[/ QUOTE ]

http://freeconservatives.com/ubbthreads/images/graemlins/um.gif <font color="blue">Not the ones that I've dealt with. They see parent contact as the panaceä to end discipline problems, even though many parents have lost control of their own kids, &amp;/or are impossible to reach, when needed. My complaint about administrators is that they are far too willing to substitute the appearance of success for genuïne success, &amp; place too much pressure on teachers to simply pass students from grade to grade.</font>

[/ QUOTE ]

That seems to be a serious problem in the Houston area because I hear a lot of complaints from parents on local talk radio. Administrators and teachers, to a lesser extent, strongly discourage parent participation and refuse to listen to parent complaints.

Admittedly, I have no recent first-hand experience since my youngest son is 41 years old. However, his daughter will be starting Kindergarten in August and we will see how things go. Since both my wife and I are former teachers, I doubt if we will be bashful about trying to participate in her education if we think it necessary.

[ QUOTE ]
The administrators have the attitude that only they know enough to say how the kids should be taught.

[/ QUOTE ]

[ QUOTE ]
As for your assertion that the unions control the teachers, I don't see that where I am. Most teachers disagree with the unions's politics (except regarding vouchers), &amp; join only for the legal insurance that they provide. My experiënce with my union is that it's pretty weak. I still think that teachers should have a greater voice in classroom policies. Admittedly, there are a few wackos in the classroom that aren't fit to set academic policies, but the majority of their colleagues would keep them in check.</font>[/b]

[/ QUOTE ]

I suspect that since Texas is a Right-to-Work state, the union has less power than in other states. That may be why your union is weak.

DesertFox
07-20-2003, 07:11 PM
The advantage of local control is that locals can vote a new board in and old members out. It only works, natch, if locals pay attention.

But in any case it's better than state control, which is better than national control, since (in theory) you have more say in what happens locally than at "higher," more-distant levels.

Bluemoon_Rising
12-17-2003, 12:24 PM
Cleveland also has a fledgling voucher system. It's proving to be more and more popular, especially among parents trying to get their kids out of the . . . uh . . . schools in the slum areas. However, opposition to the program is fierce, and it primarily comes from the very same local black "leaders" who are supposedly looking out for the best interests of their "oppressed" constituency. But these are the entrenched secularists. Ironically, I find myself, a conservative and an outsider, working more and more with traditional Democrats, howbeit Christian clergymen and laymen who are willing to buck the political graft of their party's local activities.

An aside: I was deeply disappointed when Bush abandoned the voucher program in his education initiative. Perhaps it was politically necessary at the time. Certainly Kennedy would not have gone along with it. However, Bush needs to revisit this sooner, rather than latter. If only the Republican Party would throw its full weight behind vouchers, it would discover that it holds the key to unlock the Democratic Party's hold on the so-called black vote. The hard-core leftists of the black community be damned. A significant number of blacks are deeply religious, especially in southern communities and in some mid-western states, like Ohio, Pennsylvania, Indiana, Illinois and so on. Their fundamental values are conservative, especially when it comes the advancement of their children's future prospects.

DesertFox
12-21-2003, 08:43 PM
I just reread Tex's opening post. It reminded me of when I taught my second wife's three boys to read. This was the early Eighties, and at that time I knew nothing of phonics or whole-word or what-have-you. I basically invented the phonics method from the ground up for myself. Looking back, I see why it works -- it's obvious, it makes sense and anybody with normal intelligence can master it with a little effort.

The boys were in 5th, 1st and 1st grades when I came into their lives. The older two had been held back by their mother the year before. I looked at their grade cards the first time and nearly went into shock. These were hard-to-teach boys but hardly unteachable. Yet all were failing in all subjects and all three had been "diagnosed" as Learning Disabled. When we met with their teachers and a counselor and the school psychologist, it was "Don't be too hard on them, they're doing the best they can."

I bought a large blackboard, got a buncha chalk and set to work. Within a month all three were reading at grade level; by year's end all three were reading two grade levels above. It wasn't just phonics that turned it around; my boot in their lazy butts was equally important.

Also, the oldest boy couldn't do 5th grade arithmetic when I started. Wondering what I'd do to fix that, I put him at the board one afternoon and within ten minutes he was doing just fine -- after I snatched him baldheaded for playing stupid.

Bluemoon_Rising
12-21-2003, 09:39 PM
"Don't be too hard on them . . ."

Some folks just don't know what hard is. "Hard" is "letting capable kids get away with nonsense, letting them waste their lives and their God-given talents."

DesertFox
12-21-2003, 09:56 PM
Yep. Even most "LD" kids can learn if they'll work at it. Yeah, it's harder for them than for others. So what? Talents and abilities aren't evenly apportioned amongst us. Some guys (such as I) can't change a spark plug without messing something up. Others never learn to dance. Some can't sing on key no matter what. My daddy was color blind.

Make enough excuses and no one will ever do anything but feel sorry for hizself. While staying mindful that some folks CAN'T learn to do SOME things, nearly all of us can learn to do most things adequately if we work at it.

I even got to where I could hit a turnaround jumpshot from 10-12 feet pretty regularly, and I always had a real bad case of white man's disease.

Bluemoon_Rising
12-21-2003, 10:24 PM
I even got to where I could hit a turnaround jumpshot from 10-12 feet pretty regularly, and I always had a real bad case of white man's disease.

I suck at basketball . . . as a shooter that is. I handle the ball okay under the net, but I ain't the go to guy for the shot, turnaround or otherwise. It's embarassing really.

Now football, racket ball, wrestling--there I am . . . uh . . . was competent.