Why Gloomy Pundits and Politicians Are Wrong About America's Education System

cough, cough

This is an article from the "Atlantic" and the study was conducted by the liberal think tank, the "Economic Policy Institute".

This was in wikipedia;

"In July 2012, EPI joined forces with the AFL-CIO, Center for Community Change, Leadership Conference on Civil and Human Rights, National Council of La Raza and SEIU to propose a budget plan titled Prosperity Economics, a counter to the Republican Party's Path to Prosperity budget plan."

Thanks, but no thanks

So the point of the article is "disadvantaged kids" (no definition provided for that term) are equal in not performing as well as "advantaged kids" in European/American countries. This is supposed to break the myth that US disadvantaged kids are really doing much more poorly compared with the rest of the world.

My reaction is this: the US is loosing jobs for semi-skilled workers (like factory workers) because US companies are moving the factories overseas where labor is cheaper. So if we are to have a prosperous future, we must have well-educated, skilled workers. High school is not enough anymore. To accomplish this, BOTH advantaged and disadvantaged kids must have a higher level education than other countries.

One of the problems is the US school system is caught in a system that is 20-30 years old. The bureaucracy is very slow to change. Many parents are turning to home-schooling using a school sponsored program through the computer. Kids can spend more time learning the reading, writing and arithmetic, and less time wasted learning some foreign language like French, which no one uses, remembers, or needs in the world today.

This study and the associated article seems pretty useless if we are talking seriously about the future of education in the US. The conclusion is simply, "we ain't so bad after all" ha!

The fact that the US education system is staying equal with other countries is not good enough. In today's (and tomorrows) world, we need a population educated in science and engineering if we are to to stay a superior country. We need people who can find real solutions to global warming, to alternative energy supply, more efficient transportation, etc. etc. In the next 20 years robotic machines will be doing all the manufacturing. We don't need factory workers - we need people who can build and repair these robotic machines.

Staying equal just isn't good enough if we are to remain a great country.

How could this be, when TRILLIONS of dollars has been confiscated and transferred to benefit those impoverished, since the Butcher of Vietnam stained our nation with his disgusting presence and policies? More has been spent on the War on Poverty than has been spent on any other problem, by any government, in the history of the world...but I digress.

I have a hard time believing government schools (we all know government anything SUCKS), who have no competition, are run by union members who can never be fired, who make relatively big salaries and benefits, but think they deserve much much much more, who ignore what parents want while promoting leftism and denigrating American traditions daily, are effective at educating.

Could it be that the article you cite is commending the p-schools for teaching the kiddies how to be good liberals? In that regard, the p-schools have been an amazing success.

I suggest you Google the phrase: how do schools in the US compared with other countries. You will get a surprising difference of opinion.

Forgive me for being skeptical....very skeptical. We all know...well some of us know, that liberals and leftists are notorious liars when it comes to promoting their ideology....and liberals and leftists control the schools and so much more in our society. We also know that nearly everything liberalism/leftism has implemented has been a complete and utter disaster.

Wrong. The p-schools are essentially run by the federal government. Who dictates all sorts of rule and regulations the schools must abide by.

What we need is more competition in secondary education and elimination of teachers unions.

So what if no nation has both an educated populace and an ALL private education system....why did you raise this strawman argument???...when I did not raise it...Did I suggest the p-schools be done away with? Did I state we need an all private education system? Why make up nonexistent arguments, when you and I can argument real ones?

Liberals runs the p-schools from top to bottom and we know liberals ALWAYS impose their political beliefs on those they can, because they are ALWAYS right. Certainly you know this.

And you say the war on poverty is PROBABLY more expensive than the war on drugs....oh please stop. Did you forget being schooled on the subject....from three years ago....and you call yourself a teacher......http://www.houseofpolitics.com/threads/costliest-war.9719/

I suppose we can argue what the word "run" means, as it relates to education in America. In reality, the Feds tell the schools what to do and they do it. So, I suppose you are right.

And we agree...the DOE needs to be eliminated, but thanks to liberalism, it never will be. In fact, it will grow and grow and grow.

Yes...my fault for not mentioning primary education as well.

No I do not see the hyperbole. It is best not to jump to conclusions, make assumptions, and present strawman arguments.

Non-liberals on school boards will do nothing, when most of the administrators, teachers, unions, and the Feds are libs. Libs run the show and that is the main reason why public education has, is and will continue to SUCK.

You might read Michelle Malkin's columns on this subject. I know...I know...you will scream she is a right wing nut, but I beg you to refute any of her findings rather than calling her names.

Here is a tidbit....

You might consider reading both her columns on this subject before jumping to conclusions from a few paragraphs.

There is an amazing amount of research that has been published proving the failures of public education. If you have never read any of it, you obviously are terribly uninformed.