A large part of the decline was the end of “pink collar” restrictions on women’s careers.
The women who are becoming lawyers and doctors now were constrained by mores to become teachers then.
America had the world’s best public education 50 years ago. What happened?
-
the United States spent $14,100 per full-time-equivalent (FTE) student on elementary and secondary education, which was 37 percent higher than the average of Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development (OECD) member countries of $10,300 (in constant 2019 U.S. dollars).
And now look at whether that spending is distributed uniformly, or according to the wealth of neighborhoods. The way things are currently set up, most resources go to the kids who are quite ahead of the others both in terms of genetics and family background. If you want to raise the overall level of education, you have to spend the money more equitably.
You realize that this is not actually true? Follow the money. Poor urban districts in the US spend relatively large amounts of money per student.
I do not follow. Is it not largely property tax based?
Not anymore because of gigantic federal equalization transfers and other programs. In fact, in public schools the per capita spending on students in poor neighborhoods is now higher than in rich neighborhoods. There is a brookings paper on that.
-
I would agree that "education" programs are ideological and that unions stop principals from being able to fire underperforming teachers. However if you listen to the teachers side of all this the main problem is that they cannot challenge the students and are reduced to babysitters. Parents complain whenever there's too much homework and/or it's too hard. They're not allowed to fail anyone or it's a bureaucratic nightmare to do so and in turn they're graduating a lot of sub-par students. But bear in mind that this disaster in secondary education only helps higher-education as firms needs some sort of signal that graduates can read and write.
-
I do not follow. Is it not largely property tax based?
Not anymore because of gigantic federal equalization transfers and other programs. In fact, in public schools the per capita spending on students in poor neighborhoods is now higher than in rich neighborhoods. There is a brookings paper on that.
Huh. Then I stand corrected.
-
the United States spent $14,100 per full-time-equivalent (FTE) student on elementary and secondary education, which was 37 percent higher than the average of Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development (OECD) member countries of $10,300 (in constant 2019 U.S. dollars).
And now look at whether that spending is distributed uniformly, or according to the wealth of neighborhoods. The way things are currently set up, most resources go to the kids who are quite ahead of the others both in terms of genetics and family background. If you want to raise the overall level of education, you have to spend the money more equitably.
You realize that this is not actually true? Follow the money. Poor urban districts in the US spend relatively large amounts of money per student.
I do not follow. Is it not largely property tax based?
Why would you have so much opinion about something you do not have a basic clue about?
-
2 parent household disappeared, especially in blk community. If blk community emphasized education and stopped violence, wht people would be happy to send their kids to those schools.
It is not about resources, it is about culture and family structure.
White flight, busing, racism shapeshifts.
Now it's "the neighborhood doesn't look the same as it used to" or other code words.
White people who cannot afford to do this are sending their kids to private schools even though they say they are color-blind.
Americans are racist to the bone. They will always be. They hate each other and refuse to share resources with people unlike them. -
the United States spent $14,100 per full-time-equivalent (FTE) student on elementary and secondary education, which was 37 percent higher than the average of Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development (OECD) member countries of $10,300 (in constant 2019 U.S. dollars).
And now look at whether that spending is distributed uniformly, or according to the wealth of neighborhoods. The way things are currently set up, most resources go to the kids who are quite ahead of the others both in terms of genetics and family background. If you want to raise the overall level of education, you have to spend the money more equitably.
You realize that this is not actually true? Follow the money. Poor urban districts in the US spend relatively large amounts of money per student.
I do not follow. Is it not largely property tax based?
It's not largely property tax based and has not been for decades. This is a myth that continues to perpetuate based on the way things were more than a generation ago. The funding mix has changed to be more and more government following regulations, so now poorer districts, on average, actually spend more per student.
-
Comparing American demographic groups to their respective counterparts in Europe, E. Asia, Latin America, and Africa, school performance is almost as good as we good possibly hope for. For the money we spend, it had better be!
Sadly, all the data back up the rather negative, depressing takes from people saying "it's the diversity." It really is.
But I think some groups could do better still. Diversity reduces everyone to the lowest common denominator through peer pressure. That's why so many Yt and Azn and even Latin-xx and Blk parents move their kids all but bankrupt themselves to buy houses in less diverse school districts. I can't tell you how many times I've gotten to know urban Yt or Azn American kids who acted much dumber than they are because they had to be ghetto to blend in.
There's no shortage of progressive ideologues trying to force diversity on the more pristine districts. This doesn't end well.
-
This is an interesting way of saying that it’s because teaching is underpaid.
A large part of the decline was the end of “pink collar” restrictions on women’s careers.
The women who are becoming lawyers and doctors now were constrained by mores to become teachers then. -
Comparing American demographic groups to their respective counterparts in Europe, E. Asia, Latin America, and Africa, school performance is almost as good as we good possibly hope for. For the money we spend, it had better be!
Sadly, all the data back up the rather negative, depressing takes from people saying "it's the diversity." It really is.
But I think some groups could do better still. Diversity reduces everyone to the lowest common denominator through peer pressure. That's why so many Yt and Azn and even Latin-xx and Blk parents move their kids all but bankrupt themselves to buy houses in less diverse school districts. I can't tell you how many times I've gotten to know urban Yt or Azn American kids who acted much dumber than they are because they had to be ghetto to blend in.
There's no shortage of progressive ideologues trying to force diversity on the more pristine districts. This doesn't end well.It's sad that as far as I know there's no more authoritative cite for this fact than a Steve Sailer post, because it's really one of the most important facts to know about America (for both sides of the political spectrum really).
-
This is a good explanation, in addition to the fact that teacher wages have not kept pace with inflation in many parts of the country. Teaching below the university level is now a "low status" white collar profession.
A large part of the decline was the end of “pink collar” restrictions on women’s careers.
The women who are becoming lawyers and doctors now were constrained by mores to become teachers then. -
It’s not like it’s complicated data analysis or the raw data is hidden. One could do the same graph in an article deploring the US’ racial achievement gap as camouflage if one wished.
Comparing American demographic groups to their respective counterparts in Europe, E. Asia, Latin America, and Africa, school performance is almost as good as we good possibly hope for. For the money we spend, it had better be!
Sadly, all the data back up the rather negative, depressing takes from people saying "it's the diversity." It really is.
But I think some groups could do better still. Diversity reduces everyone to the lowest common denominator through peer pressure. That's why so many Yt and Azn and even Latin-xx and Blk parents move their kids all but bankrupt themselves to buy houses in less diverse school districts. I can't tell you how many times I've gotten to know urban Yt or Azn American kids who acted much dumber than they are because they had to be ghetto to blend in.
There's no shortage of progressive ideologues trying to force diversity on the more pristine districts. This doesn't end well.It's sad that as far as I know there's no more authoritative cite for this fact than a Steve Sailer post, because it's really one of the most important facts to know about America (for both sides of the political spectrum really).