Myth: Schools don't have enough money

[Fade the Butcher]

This is an important point that anti-racists often like to deny. American schools are not failing because they are underfunded. Few countries in the world spend more on public education that the United States. In fact, per pupil expenditures on public education has more than doubled since 1965. SAT scores though have fallen dramatically since reaching their historic high in the early '60s.

I have a hard time understanding how people can take such a discredited ideology seriously. Antiracists were claiming back in the 1950s and 1960s that segregation was the problem. Segregation was done away with. What happened? A huge gap still exists between blacks and whites in America over forty years later. We shower predominantly black public schools with money because lack of funding is blamed for their underperformance. Look at the results in Kansas City and Washington, D.C. Check out what Raymond Wolters has to say about this here (http://theoccidentalquarterly.com/vol5no1/rw-browni.html) and here (http://theoccidentalquarterly.com/vol5no2/52-wolters.html). Read his book The Burden of Brown: Thirty Years of School Desegregation (http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/0870494236/002-2310398-5291201?v=glance&n=283155) if you get the chance. I read it last summer when I was still a student at Auburn.

Townhall (http://www.townhall.com/opinion/columns/JohnStossel/2006/01/18/182750.html)

"Stossel is an idiot who should be fired from ABC and sent back to elementary school to learn journalism." "Stossel is a right-wing extremist ideologue."

The hate mail is coming in to ABC over a TV special I did Friday (1/13). I suggested that public schools had plenty of money but were squandering it, because that's what government monopolies do.

Many such comments came in after the National Education Association (NEA) informed its members about the special and claimed that I have a "documented history of blatant antagonism toward public schools." "Stossel is an idiot who should be fired from ABC and sent back to elementary school to learn journalism." "Stossel is a right-wing extremist ideologue."

Not enough money for education? It's a myth.

The truth is, public schools are rolling in money. If you divide the U.S. Department of Education's figure for total spending on K-12 education by the department's count of K-12 students, it works out to about $10,000 per student.

Think about that! For a class of 25 kids, that's $250,000 per classroom. This doesn't include capital costs. Couldn't you do much better than government schools with $250,000? You could hire several good teachers; I doubt you'd hire many bureaucrats. Government schools, like most monopolies, squander money.

America spends more on schooling than the vast majority of countries that outscore us on the international tests. But the bureaucrats still blame school failure on lack of funds, and demand more money.

In 1985, some of them got their wish. Kansas City, Mo., judge Russell Clark said the city's predominately black schools were not "halfway decent," and he ordered the government to spend billions more. Did the billions improve test scores? Did they hire better teachers, provide better books? Did the students learn anything?

Well, they learned how to waste lots of money.

The bureaucrats renovated school buildings, adding enormous gyms, an Olympic swimming pool, a robotics lab, TV studios, a zoo, a planetarium, and a wildlife sanctuary. They added intense instruction in foreign languages. They spent so much money that when they decided to bring more white kids to the city's schools, they didn't have to resort to busing. Instead, they paid for 120 taxis. Taxis!

What did spending billions more accomplish? The schools got worse. In 2000, five years and $2 billion later, the Kansas City school district failed 11 performance standards and lost its academic accreditation for the first time in the district's history. . . .

[Leif]

I saw the ABC special last Friday. There was a scene where several councelors and coordinators and a principal were having a conference about a man (yes, he was fully grown, probably 18) who couldn't read. The futility of the meeting was apparent when one realized the teachers could barely speak English.

Public schools are failing because they spend all of their money on non-educational crap:

...adding enormous gyms, an Olympic swimming pool, a robotics lab, TV studios, a zoo, a planetarium, and a wildlife sanctuary.

When there was a big immigration of Northern people to the South a few decades ago, they came to small towns and then clamored for funding for sports stadiums, pools, basketball courts, etc.

[Fade the Butcher]

This has long been a problem for me. Something good will come on television every once in a blue moon. I never catch it though because I don't watch television. It is too much of a hassle to wade through the filth.

[Niko Bellic]

It isn't just public schools, the scam continues all the way up.

[Fade the Butcher]

Stossel makes an error when attacks public education as such, not public education in America (which rests upon all the fallacies of liberalism). He points out that other countries are far more successful at educating students with significantly less funding. This only shows that his ire is misdirected.

[Niko Bellic]

Stossel makes an error when attacks public education as such, not public education in America (which rests upon all the fallacies of liberalism). He points out that other countries are far more successful at educating students with significantly less funding. This only shows that his ire is misdirected.

It's all part of the scam, and he's attacking it correctly. The only problem is that he stops with the public K-12 schools. Pay attention to your local politics and you'll see it happening. Every mayor, governor, and city council member in the United States has to run on improving education at all levels. The only real control those people have over education is the money supply, so they spend more and more money on it so they can say that they did something.

Even when you get a candidate who recognizes the problem, they can't say much about it because they'll get tarred and feathered by their opposition for not supporting education, wanting little Johnny to go to prison, and it might even be turned into a racial issue.

The scam keeps going on up into higher education. The colleges raise their tuition, the people bitch about the cost, then the politicians come through with more loans and grants for students, and an ever increasing direct subsidy to the schools. I see this every two years when the state of Ohio does its budget. The colleges start their wailing and moaning about funding, the gov't increases subsidies, but this time "with a tough new cap on tuition increases for any school that recieves state funding", which is currently 9% I think, the colleges raise tuition to the maximum of the cap every year, and the process starts over with students and parents bitching about the cost of tuition.

Every teacher union in the country needs to be busted and outlawed, even if we have to close every school for a year or two to get the job done. It would be better for the long term.

[raven]

Public education funding has went up. However here in Ontario it has went down when Mike Harris came to power. (However the previous NDP put us in much deficit) The reason why schools are failing the youth is because the system is dumbing everything down. Then when students are in College/University they are in for a rude awakening when they are no longer spoonfed like they were in elementary and secondary public school. That's just my take. If I can afford it later on you bet I will be taking my kids to private school.

[Jonathan]

Is there a set carriculum for the US education system? If so, how is it structured? Cousins of mine(in the States) once told me it was rediculously simple!

[Fade the Butcher]

It's all part of the scam, and he's attacking it correctly. The defect is not in public education as an institution. There are public schools that produce excellent students in Europe and America, as Stossel himself acknowledges. It lies in the structure of the American political system, the quality of the students, and the content of public education in the United States. Education in America is still heavily under the influence of John Dewey's theories. I posted about this in the philosophy forum just the other day.The only problem is that he stops with the public K-12 schools. Pay attention to your local politics and you'll see it happening. Every mayor, governor, and city council member in the United States has to run on improving education at all levels. The only real control those people have over education is the money supply, so they spend more and more money on it so they can say that they did something. Even when you get a candidate who recognizes the problem, they can't say much about it because they'll get tarred and feathered by their opposition for not supporting education, wanting little Johnny to go to prison, and it might even be turned into a racial issue.I agree. It doesn't follow that public education is the problem though. In democratic countries, the power of politicians is derived from the general public (i.e., the most ignorant segment of society). To maintain his power, a democratic politician must flatter his constituents. His main virtue is sophistry, as his object is not excellence or efficient government, but placating the demands of others. He can't tell his constituents that their children fail academically because they are inferior, because they have bad parents, because they suffer from poor discipline, because they are immersed in a degenerate culture and so on. This is a system set up to fail. Any practice set up along such lines would fail. The politician thus shifts the blame and posits a solution that he has some control over. Elect me! I will fix the schools by appropriating more money.The scam keeps going on up into higher education. The colleges raise their tuition, the people bitch about the cost, then the politicians come through with more loans and grants for students, and an ever increasing direct subsidy to the schools. You are right. The problem isn't higher education though, as higher education produces all sorts of goods we find desirable. Government support for higher education isn't to blame either per se. It is a character defect: putting one's own interests above the common good, (i.e., injustice or "pleonexia").I see this every two years when the state of Ohio does its budget. The colleges start their wailing and moaning about funding, the gov't increases subsidies, but this time "with a tough new cap on tuition increases for any school that recieves state funding", which is currently 9% I think, the colleges raise tuition to the maximum of the cap every year, and the process starts over with students and parents bitching about the cost of tuition. It is true that colleges often take advantage of such funding to promote their own interests. Government funding isn't the problem, as it can be used for productive purposes. The deficiency lies in the character of those who demand more than they require.Every teacher union in the country needs to be busted and outlawed, even if we have to close every school for a year or two to get the job done. It would be better for the long term.I disagree. The problem isn't teacher unions. It is the general viciousness of people in our society; the refusal of people to acknowledge their place. This problem would not be eliminated at all by outlawing teacher unions. It would still manifest itself in many other ways. It is caused in large part by the lack of moral education in the public schools.

[Kodos]

Stossel makes an error when attacks public education as such, not public education in America (which rests upon all the fallacies of liberalism). He points out that other countries are far more successful at educating students with significantly less funding. This only shows that his ire is misdirected.

Whats the point of education when it doesn't give you a career path with vocational experience to actually help you get a job?

I disagree. The problem isn't teacher unions. It is the general viciousness of people in our society; the refusal of people to acknowledge their place. This problem would not be eliminated at all by outlawing teacher unions. It would still manifest itself in many other ways. It is caused in large part by the lack of moral education in the public schools.

Why would it hurt to ban teachers unions?

[Fade the Butcher]

Whats the point of education when it doesn't give you a career path with vocational experience to actually help you get a job?It says a lot about you that you think this way, Weikel. The purpose of education is create knowledgeable and moral citizens. Let's apply this sort of reasoning to medicine. Is the purpose of being a doctor to make money or to cure the sick? Is a good doctor a wealthy doctor or one who is successful at curing his patients?Why would it hurt to ban teachers unions?The teachers unions are not the problem. The problem is a defect of character, pleonexia.

[Kodos]

It says a lot about you that you think this way, Weikel. The purpose of education is create knowledgeable and moral citizens. Let's apply this sort of reasoning to medicine. Is the purpose of being a doctor to make money or to cure the sick? Is a good doctor a wealthy doctor or one who is successful at curing his patients?

This way the way Americans thought about education prior to John Dewey... he was the one who wanted to have it be a "progresive institution" to create his idea of what citizens should be( if you want to do that though military school is the best route with boys...).

[Niko Bellic]

The problem isn't teacher unions. It is the general viciousness of people in our society; the refusal of people to acknowledge their place. This problem would not be eliminated at all by outlawing teacher unions. It would still manifest itself in many other ways. It is caused in large part by the lack of moral education in the public schools.

The hippies and commies at the NEA are a big part of why there is no moral education in the public schools. Those people rose to power in the union during a time when moral education was in the schools, and they didn't like it. By allowing these people to form a group, and concentrate their power, we created the situation where they can influence curriculum and the flow of money to benefit the group at the expense of their customers, parents and children.

[Kodos]

The hippies and commies at the NEA are a big part of why there is no moral education in the public schools. Those people rose to power in the union during a time when moral education was in the schools, and they didn't like it. By allowing these people to form a group, and concentrate their power, we created the situation where they can influence curriculum and the flow of money to benefit the group at the expense of their customers, parents and children.

All government unions are a conspiracy against the public.

[Fade the Butcher]

The hippies and commies at the NEA are a big part of why there is no moral education in the public schools. This tradition in American education stems from the influence of John Dewey.

New Criterion (http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-religion/1554365/posts)

"This brief sketch now brings us, by comparison, to the present and to the way education has evolved. Most Americans assume that John Dewey deserves to be crowned as the greatest educator of our time. If one is to judge the greatness of a person by his influence and success, this judgment seems to be justified. He certainly is "famous." But the praise of men is rarely an objective judgment: There is an abyss between being famous and being great. The two can match, but unfortunately such is not always the case.

What are the main contributions Dewey has made to education, whose fruits we are reaping today? Being an atheist and materialist, this modern "giant" approaches education from a viewpoint completely opposed to that of Plato. He is a hard-boiled relativist, and rejects ab ovo any claim that there are objective values that should be recognized by everyone and taught to all pupils. According to Dewey, every child is unique, and each one has different needs that must be recognized and nurtured. To have a core curriculum implicitly denies these differences. The obvious consequence is that "the curriculum must be based on the child's individual needs, interest and abilities" (And Madly Teach by Mortimer Smith). This makes as much sense as asking a toddler what he wants to eat for lunch. Chesterton, endowed with a merciless common sense, reminds us that every educator worthy of the name must authoritatively open to the child the great truths that have been handed down by tradition.

If the child should not be taught anything which does not interest him personally, he will practically be taught nothing: Just as men are not particularly anxious to be made good, neither are they particularly anxious to learn. The child as the judge of the curriculum will certainly throw out most subjects. Once again, it is Chesterton who wittily remarks that no child is born with a craving to learn Greek accents. Yet, it is a pursuit which is so enriching that it will open his horizons and benefit him for the rest of his life. Children (and not only children) believe that the purpose and meaning of life is to enjoy themselves; they do not want to work. Most people view work as punishment, and everyone tries to escape its unpleasant demands. This sort of approach will certainly not prepare men for a life that is full of duties that are not always to their taste.

But according to the discoveries of modern pedagogues, every child should be given free rein to express his personality; the less he is controlled, the better it will be for his development.

Such educational principles inevitably give birth to small tyrants who assume that they are entitled to do their own will, and will fight any obstacle in their path that militates against their right to "pursue happiness." Plato knew that "if he be insufficiently or ill educated, he is the most savage of earthly creatures" (The Laws), adding that "the boy is the most unmanageable."

Had he known of Dewey's teachings, Plato would have not been surprised by the Columbine massacre. Is it any wonder that many products of such education should perpetrate the horrors one hears about in our schools -- and universities? Should we be surprised that brutality, crimes, immorality, and cheating are rampant? If the purpose of life is to follow one's wishes -- to have a good time and make money -- teachers are right in being increasingly afraid to enter their classrooms. Morally speaking, the results of this type of education are disastrous. Intellectually, they are no better. Granted, most young people master computers and the Internet, but how many college graduates are capable of holding an intelligent conversation, of writing an elegant letter, of spelling correctly, and having an intellectual horizon transcending what they read in popular magazines? Still less surprising is that they prove incapable of any serious commitment: The breakdown of marriages is an inevitable consequence of this type of education. As long as one's "partner" gives one satisfaction, the agreement will hold. As soon as someone else promises to give one greater "self-fulfillment," it comes to an end -- a simple end, because in point of fact there never was any meaningful commitment. Those people rose to power in the union during a time when moral education was in the schools, and they didn't like it. It goes back to the 1920s.By allowing these people to form a group, and concentrate their power, we created the situation where they can influence curriculum and the flow of money to benefit the group at the expense of their customers, parents and children.Why is it wrong though for the teacher unions to engage in such activities?

[Fade the Butcher]

All government unions are a conspiracy against the public.You care about the public good?

[Kodos]

You care about the public good?

I don't want to live in a 3rd world shithole... I just don't like socialistic ideas about serving the public good since it almost never works out that way.

[Fade the Butcher]

I don't want to live in a 3rd world shithole... I don't see why. There are plenty of third world shitholes that practice more extreme forms of capitalism than you can find in the United States.I just don't like socialistic ideas about serving the public good since it almost never works out that way.How can the teacher unions be criticized for failing to act in the public good then?

[Kodos]

I don't see why. There are plenty of third world shitholes that practice more extreme forms of capitalism than you can find in the United States.

The ones in Asia will eventually overtake us, the others have a problem of genetic inferiority.

How can the teacher unions be criticized for failing to act in the public good then?

I don't care much about the philosphy I just want them broken by any means necessary.

[Fade the Butcher]

The ones in Asia will eventually overtake us, the others have a problem of genetic inferiority. I was referring to Latin America.I don't care much about the philosphy I just want them broken by any means necessary.Then your criticism is baseless.

[Starr]

It says a lot about you that you think this way, Weikel. The purpose of education is create knowledgeable and moral citizens.

A lot of things that are taught, espcially in college "required courses" etc. are not something that the average person is going to have much use for in their life(unless they are going for a highly skilled type of occupation, doctor,etc.) A big waste of your own or taxpayer money. You can aquire almost the exact same knowledge for free by taking trips to the local library,etc. Of course without shelling out a whole bunch of money, you won't recieve the fancy certificate.

Grade school is really a big joke and has become extremely dummed down, partially so that idiots can keep up and because they need us all to be idiots.