I've always found the statement "how bad the US public education system is" and ones like it to be far too simplistic. It's a country of 350 million people, with perhaps the most staggering differences in educational outcomes of any developed nation on Earth.
Where I grew up in New England and in many of the surrounding areas, public education was incredibly well funded, teachers were paid very, very well relative to cost of living (75k+ USD) and supplies were never lacking. Spectacular outcomes for most students provided a stable home environment (92% of students going on to college).
The US public educational system isn't bad, it isn't good, it's nonexistant. It's a conglomeration of dozens of educational systems receiving some amount of money from the Federal government but more or less operating on their own. Given that, what we should be asking is what are we failing to provide our students outside of classrooms.
My observations are mostly from CPS in Chicago-land so take that into consideration. The issue, and a glaring one at that, is that no one with money will let their kid go to public school if they can help it regardless of official political positions they hold, which tells you something.
To me that says that for those schools, education is not the goal.
Naturally, it is not all their fault. There are sorts of issues that are socio-economic in nature ( how much time a parent can devote to reading aloud to a child? can they hire a tutor? ).
I don't think I completely agree that we should focus on external factors only ( although we should look into them ). I am saying we should understand where that money disappears into. My house taxes are ridiculous and the statement I get suggests its mostly for schools. Where exactly is it going if it is not having appropriate results?
Dozens? More like thousands. School districts tend to fall along city or county lines, and there are around 3000 local government units in the US. Cut that in half to guesstimate the number of school districts, and you’re still in the thousands order of magnitude.
I was referring to states when I chose the word dozens because states have unified educational attainment standards. You're right of course, it's even more complicated than that.
>It's a country of 350 million people, with perhaps the most staggering differences in educational outcomes of any developed nation on Earth.
Economy depends on productivity and innovation. Who would've thought that the people like Gates, Jobs, Zuckerberg and Ellison would create so much wealth and so many jobs without college degree. Robust US economy enabled them bringing their innovation to fruition but I'm afraid if they lived in another country they wouldn't be able to do that. Of course every country depends on higher education but sometimes creativity can outperform formal education.
I think public vs private is irrelevant because if you are productive as a worker or innovative as a entrepreneur result is the only thing that counts.
Ellison is the only one who had something even close to a typical public education; they dropped out of college after making it through all of the typical educational filters and did so to start companies.
Gates: Private Prep school, Harvard
Zuckerberg: Philips Exeter Academy, Harvard
Ellison: South Shore HS (Publicly funded, selective enrollment), UIUC
So you're saying that the largest source of funding for primary and secondary public schools is the local government (state? county?), as opposed to the federal government? And that as such your place of living is the deciding factor for the quality of public education available to you?
Areas with poor people in them also gather less tax money, meaning they can't provide the residents with quality education, meaning those areas perpetuate poverty.
Not exactly so simple. For one, like another commenter mentioned, funds are provided by the federal government specifically to level these differences out, but that's all it is, money. The administration of those funds is carried out at the lowest levels of government, with little to no accountability standards from higher up (obviously we've had reform attempts on this like NCLB).
The differences arising from living in a poorer district vs a richer district have more to do with factors outside of school, like I said. It has to do with the home environments provided by parents who are often much poorer and thus less able to provide care and tutoring outside of school. Less access to role models that can guide the way to getting to college and upward mobility. As our country's economy becomes increasingly competitive, these disadvantages ossify socioeconomic statuses for people and their offspring.
Obviously, more oversight of funds is a good thing, but it really isn't a lack of money that leads to these problems (for the most part).
Edit: Also, a poorer district usually has lower cost of living to weigh against lower property taxes.
No. Even though school governance Halle s mostly at the local level, half of school funding comes from state and federal sources, to even out disparities in funding. This is the typical model pretty much in every federal country.
It often doesn't really work that way though, especially if you contrast suburban and urban school systems. It's not at all uncommon for urban systems with poor educational outcomes on average to outspend on a per-student basis middle-class suburbs. So it's not as simple as throwing money at the problem.
Thank you. This makes it so much easier to understand more about the US public school system and how it is sometimes portrayed as piss poor (season four of The Wire pops to mind).
Is this something that is being discussed on a wider policy level? I believe it's a universally agreed upon fact that the quality of primary education is the single most important factor in helping people escape poverty. This should work equally well in rural Nigeria, suburban Oslo and West Baltimore.
Where I grew up in New England and in many of the surrounding areas, public education was incredibly well funded, teachers were paid very, very well relative to cost of living (75k+ USD) and supplies were never lacking. Spectacular outcomes for most students provided a stable home environment (92% of students going on to college).
The US public educational system isn't bad, it isn't good, it's nonexistant. It's a conglomeration of dozens of educational systems receiving some amount of money from the Federal government but more or less operating on their own. Given that, what we should be asking is what are we failing to provide our students outside of classrooms.