What is Wrong with American Education?

2007

The educational system of the United States has not kept up with the changes in the world. American education must raise its standards because students need more advanced skills than ever to compete in the global world. No longer can people find high-paying jobs with minimal education. In the United States, the government mainly provides for public education. However, the funding and control do not come chiefly from federal government, and funding percentages differ from state to state. The control of funding is split among federal, state and local bodies. Therefore, public schools are completely inequitable when it comes to resources. Schools with higher percentages of students in poverty and/or minority students lag behind in every way. Many times the most inexperienced teachers teach in the districts where students need the most help. In addition, school boards determine the curricula, teaching, and other educational policies. There are no national standards and state standards vary greatly. Standardized testing drives education more and more, and yet there are no national tests. More and more charter schools are opening up based on the failures of the public education system, and while they are technically public schools, they do not solve the problems of the public education system. The previous attitude toward social promotion is also a problem in American education. In addition, American schools have had to take on electives and so many other topics that were previously covered by families that there is actually less time than there has been in the past for academics. Lastly, home schooling as a movement has taken large numbers of students from public education, which further decreases funding.

It is important to understand how the United States ranks around the world and to compare American public education to public education around the world. According to Diane Ravitch (1999):

"Another the Third International Mathematics and Science Study-which compared the performance of half a million students in 41 countries at three grade levels. In fourth grade, American students did very well; among eighth-graders, American students were below the international mean in mathematics and just above it in science. But by the end of high school, American 12th-graders performed very poorly, outscoring only those in Cyprus and South Africa" (p. 2).

By even a cursory glance at this data, the United States is just not performing well. If America ever had a competitive edge in the world market of human capital, it appears that they are losing it fast. Various studies have been done that show America as close to last or dead last in the quality of schools available to rich children vs. poor children.

In a study done by the University of Michigan, Miller (2007) summarizes that:

"A slightly higher proportion of American adults qualify more scientifically literate than European or Japanese adults, but the truth is that no major industrial nation in the world today has a sufficient number of scientifically literate adults," he said. "We should take no pride in a finding that 70 percent of Americans cannot read and understand the science section of the New York Times" (p.1)

Miller probably provides one of the more optimistic views of American education to be found as one looks at the dismal array of research. Understanding America's place in the competitive world market is the first step toward understanding its problems with education.

One large failure in American education is its failure to adapt to the changing times. Diane Ravitch is a noted author and educational reform historian who served as assistant secretary of the United States Department of Education and oversaw education research from 1991 to 1993. According to Diane Ravitch (1999) "The public's rising impatience over educational issues may be due, in part, to accelerating market pressures on an old institution" (p.1). In other words, the world has changed the world has changed drastically and schools have failed to change with the times. Schools in America still exist on an agrarian schedule. In the past, students needed to start school late in the year and begin early because of the cycle of crops. In contrast, schools in many other countries go year-around. In the past students did not always need school to succeed. As Ravitch (1999) says:

In the past "there were large numbers of youngsters who dropped out and went to work. We didn't think of them as dropouts. They had no trouble finding jobs: there was plenty of work for semiskilled, even unskilled, workers. Today, however, as those jobs have been exported to other countries and as the U.S. knowledge economy produces proportionally less employment for those who lack a sound education, students who leave school without skills have meager prospects. Unlike in the past, today we have to educate virtually everyone for higher education or for the modern workplace. And because the demands we place on our school system are greater than in the past, the challenge of improving public education is more acute than ever before, too" (p.1).

Today, these jobs that are low in skill and high in pay just do not exist anymore. America's low wage jobs are even being outsourced to other countries in record numbers. Today's population needs to be educated for an ever-changing world. Public education has failed to adapt itself to these changes.

To understand fully how funding is a problem in American educating, one must first understand the funding of American schools. The funding of public education differs from one state to the next and differs in different districts. Public education is funded by property taxes. The federal government provides around 8.5% of the cost to run the school districts. The rest of the funding is split between the local and state governments, although the split is far from equal in many states. Because funding comes from property taxes, the wealthier schools get far more money, David Berliner (2002) cites in his research that: "Among America's school districts, annual funding per student can range from less than $4,000 to $15,000 or more, and although the "typical" substantial school districts receives roughly $5,000 per year for each student, affluent school districts may receive $10,000 or more for their student" (p.12). Berliner tells us that these disparities come from many factors, such as acceptance of traditional methods of school funding, our desires to keep taxes low, and beliefs that people in poverty are there because of their own flaws. Americans want equal opportunity in theory but aren't willing to give anything up to get it. In order to create more equity other funding sources need to be found. . Richer districts would have to be willing to give up some of their funding to schools who really need it. Unfortunately, those who attend better schools do not want to give up what they have in order to help anyone else. On the other hand, many other countries do not fund their schools from local property taxes. As Berliner (2002) says: many other countries "provide equal-per-student funding from general tax revenues for all schools throughout the state. Some nations also provide extra fading for disadvantaged students" (p. 13)

Now, with the advent of No Child Left Behind, schools that are not performing up to par are subject to even father cuts in funding. Therefore, many large districts with high concentrations of students living in poverty or of minority students are getting funding cut even further. Granted, the answer to the problems in these districts does not solely involve throwing money at the problem, but money is certainly needed for the kind of remedial programming that many of these schools need desperately.

In American educational history, segregation has produced disadvantage for the minority groups to suffer in terms of access to equal education. This has produced social and economic disparities compared to the majority white population. Even now many minorities suffer from insufficient access to quality education. Many inner city schools perform poorly compared to suburbs of those same cities. The U.S. Public Education system must address this disadvantage adequately or it will continue to fail to raise the performance of these students academically. A researcher named Harris (2002) who did an important study on the state of education describes "...a two-tiered public school system: one for the more affluent, who enjoy the privileges of a relatively healthy educational environment, and the other for the least privileged, who suffer an educational environment that virtually forecloses their chance of learning" (p.37). This is a large and seemingly insurmountable problem in American education. Harris (2002) sums up the entire problem quite eloquently in the following quote.

It is perfectly obvious that the highest at-risk students have the poorest, most run-down physical environments, the greatest instability of teachers coming and going, the fewest fully qualified teachers, a shortage of textbooks and instructional materials, far less availability of technology in the classroom, overcrowded classrooms, poor working conditions for the teachers, and fewer resources to teach students to pass the tests that they have little chance of being properly prepared to take. To compare these schools with those serving the most affluent majority of students is akin to comparing a backward, emerging nation with a highly industrialized nation. It is no contest" (p.37).

There are American citizens who really have almost no chance to succeed in public education because they just do not have the basic necessities. They simply cannot compete in the world market. There are many problems within this general heading of equity to be solved, some involving students and some involving teachers. Many of our urban areas contain the biggest differences in providing a quality education. Jonathan Kozol (2002), a longstanding expert in the field of education explains this well in regards to one of the largest districts in the United States in an article he wrote for The Nation. His comparison of the New York schools follows:

"The contrasts between what is spent today to educate child in the poorest New York City neighborhoods, where teacher salaries are often even lower. than the city averages, and spending levels in the wealthiest suburban areas are daunting challenges to any hope New Yorkers might retain that even semblances of fairness still prevail. Teachers in the schools of District 7 in Mott Haven,

for example, where some 99.8 percent of children are black or Latino, now receive a median salary that is approximately half the median salary of teachers in the affluent communities of Great Neck and Manhasset. (The actual numbers, which are annually compiled by the state, are $42,000 for a teacher in Mott Haven, versus $82,000 for the teachers in these two Long Island suburbs.) Including all the other costs of operation of a public school, a third-grade class of twenty-five children in the schools of Great Neck now receives at least

$200,000 more per year than does a class the same size in Mott Haven, while children in a comparable classroom in Manhasset now receive a quarter-million dollars more." (p.1)

It is no wonder at all that American schools are lagging behind the schools of other industrialized nations with the inequities that Kozol describes. American public education will continue to have problems until discrepancies in equality like this are solved.

Again, the Harris (2006) surveys sum up some of the reasons for this incredible inequity perfectly.

"The evidence cited by the teachers, school by school, proves beyond any shadow of a doubt that children at risk, who come from families with poorer economic backgrounds, are not being given an opportunity to learn that is equal to that offered to children from the most privileged families. The obvious cause of this inequity lies in the finding that the most disadvantaged children attend schools that do not have basic facilities and conditions conducive to providing them with a quality education. Without such facilities and conditions, both the teachers and the students will be hard-put to achieve any semblance of quality education" (p.38).

Berliner (2002) presents a study that was done in 2004 by Gonzales, Guzman, Partelow, Pahlke, Jocelyn, Kastenberg, and Williams called Trends in International Mathematics and Science Study or TIMSS 2003. This study clearly demonstrates that the link between poverty and achievement is undeniable. The average scores for schools with less than fifty percent of their students in poverty surpassed the U.S. average score. On the other hand, for schools with greater than fifty percent of their students in poverty, scores fell considerably below the average. Schools with more than seventy-five percent of their students living in poverty scored well below the international average. In general, America's poor students are not competitive internationally, but middle class and wealthy public school children are doing extremely well in comparison with other countries that make up the TIMSS (p.18)

Americans cannot possibly believe that these statistics in any way are equitable.

And why haven't we changed it yet? In an article entitled "Fixing Schools Isn't Everything," David Berliner (2006) states, "Thousands of studies have linked poverty to academic achievement. The relationship is every bit as strong as the connection between cigarettes and cancer. So why, when we have so much credible research making connections between poverty and school success, do we keep looking for answers?" (p.38). Why, indeed? Americans seem unable to comprehend or to realize that these statistics are true. Americans provide themselves on creating equal opportunities, and living in a country where anyone can succeed. To many, it is unthinkable that discrepancies like this even exist. But in failing to address these issues, public education cannot provide opportunities for students to develop their potential. In other words, education is creating some of the economic problems in America. These students end up dropping out and turning to low-wage jobs at best or came and substance abuse at worst. They may end up on public assistance programs where the federal government ends up paying for them. For these reasons Americans need to make more equitable schools.

And these are just the problems with the students. the teachers are a whole other issue. As Oglesby (2003) says in an article for CNN: "It's a bad combination: the worst school, the worst students and the newest teacher. That frequent mix is helping stoke a teacher shortage that's driven some school districts to cancel classes and invent incentives to lure instructors" (p.1). Many times America puts their weakest teachers with our children most in need of an education. Oglesby (2003) also says cites a teacher's opinion: "First-year teachers get placed in the most-difficult classrooms and most-difficult schools, and we have to stop doing that to them," said Gayla Hudson, a former teacher and director of teacher quality for the National Education Association, the country's oldest education organization. These teachers are unprepared, and suffer much higher burnout rates than other teachers. Ideally, the best and brightest of teachers should be placed in the most challenging schools, Oglesby(2003), in the same article also says: "And while teachers' responsibilities are multiplying, their salaries are not. The average salary increase for teachers in 2000 was the lowest in four decades, according to an AFT survey. Last year, the average national teacher salary was $41,820 -- 3.2 percent more than it was in 1999. It failed to keep pace with the rate of inflation of 3.4 percent. The average salary for a first-year teacher in 1999-2000 was $27,989 and reflected a 4.2 percent increase over the previous year. New teacher salaries increased by 4.4 percent during the 1998-1999 school year" (p.2). America is just not keeping pace with inflation even in terms of the salaries of its teachers. In order to attract competent or more-than-competent educators, America will have to pay them more.

Curriculum may also pose a problem. In most advanced industrialized countries particularly in Europe, the public education is comparatively centralized in terms of specifying curriculum, teaching standards, hours of schooling, assessment methods and testing to ensure uniformity in curriculum. Options are allowed but consistently revised to reflect changes in skill requirements in economy, Student preferences and the input of teachers and other educational professionals are also used to improve the quality and efficiency of the school system. Diane Ravitch (1999), a leader in the field of educational reform states that:

"nations like Japan have clear and comprehensible standards. Teachers know what is expected of them; so do students and their parents. Everyone understands the goals of each grade, and each year builds on the work of the previous year. Teachers can collaborate with one another, helping prepare good lessons, because they have common goals. They can figure out how to get the big ideas across to their students, because their job is to be good teachers, not curriculum writers (p.4)

In contrast the U.S. public education system is far more decentralized when it comes to curriculum, teaching and other issues. Curriculum is set by school districts. Districts alone choose their own textbooks sometimes with little thought given to the state standards or benchmarks. School districts have huge differences in how they make their decisions about curriculum and in how learning and teaching occurs. In some districts teachers play a large role in deciding curriculum. In other districts, curriculum is completely a top-down decision. There are no national education standards, and Many states do not have state standards. Students do not know what to expect from testing The excessive decentralization may be a factor which may have contributed to poor performance in science and mathematics compared to other students from advanced industrialized countries.

The American policy of social promotion in public education has also harmed the educational system as a whole. Social promotion means to promote kids who have not demonstrated mastery in the coursework for that grade level. In a recent study researched by Diane Ravitch (1999) she found that:. "Four out of five parents-and three out of four teenagers-say that schools should "promote kids to the next grade only after they show they have learned what they were supposed to" (p.2) Many parents and educators will argue that holding them back will harm their self esteem. But their self esteem is equally damaged when they cannot keep up with their coursework and end up dropping out of school. Diane Ravitch (1999) cites the words of one principal she interviewed:, "It should be a felony to promote a student to high school who never learned to read, write, or do basic computation" (p.2). Again, Diane Ravitch (1999) provides a framework to think about this problem: " The way to think about social promotion is by analogy to swimming lessons: if the student is sent to a deeper part of the pool as he gets older, so he can be with the older kids, regardless of whether he can swim, at a certain point, the water will be over his head and he will drown." (p.2)

With the recent push for standards due to standardized testing and the downward trend in America education, New York schools for one have agreed not to socially promote. Many others have or will follow this lead. This means that schools will now have to find a way to address these failing students and to teach them what they need to know. In contrast, social promotion locks them into a dire fate.

A broader curriculum, in general, has hurt public education in many ways. Students have so many more choices in electives. There are so many clubs to join or sports to play, all of which may detract from the actual academics of the school Additionally, school districts must now cover so many other areas that were previously covered by the family and/or the church, that there is actually less time for academic curriculum. The curriculum of American schools of public education has been ever-changing in order to accommodate the changing needs of the country. Many would say that the schools go far beyond teaching educational subjects. Schools now teach about alcoholism, gun safety, character development, money management, sex, and driver's education as well as a host of other topics. According to Judy Selz in an article by Oglesby (2003): "We have, and historically have had, a fairly broad definition of education. It was not always just reading, writing and arithmetic," said Judy Selz, associate executive director of the American Association of School Administrators, a Virginia-based professional organization for 14,000 educational leaders' (p.1)

Citizenship has been part of American education but not to the extent that it is today. However, according to Oglesby (2003): "But home economics and wood shop were not part of the early schools; nor was sex ed, or its predecessor, a sort of one-day "talk" in health or phys-ed class that divided students by gender and required a permission slip" (p.1). People seem to want the schools to take care of so many other issues. So, according to Oglesby (2003): "in addition to (or, sometimes, instead of) learning about drinking dangers from a parent at home, it's a lesson some Georgia teens get at school -- in biology class -- for a week. Five days the students might have spent studying osmosis or photosynthesis are used to examine alcohol's effects on livers and lives" (p.1).

Home schooling is also on the rise in America. However, home schooling does not in any way solve the problems of public education. There are many reasons for parents to home school. Some home schooled students are from very religiously fundamental families who believe strongly in religious education. Public education cannot seem to make the grenade. Other parents feel that they know their children best and can create an educational program that best suits their needs. Others feel there are too many negative influences of the system of public education, such as guns, crime, drugs, bullying, and a host of other problems. Home schooling takes away from the public schools, and is not closely monitored by the schools, so the education provided doesn't have to be as stringent even as the public schools.

The very first thing that must be done to improve schools is to change the entire system of how they are funded. Schools should no longer be funded on property tax. America needs to fund schools so that the money distributed is equitable around the nation. America must provide even more incentive to teacher in inner city schools. The schools with students who need the most help should have the best teachers and the best access to resources, not the worst. Education should be democratic, in other words, should help to equalize the population. This nation should have national standards. Curriculum should be flexible and adaptable so that districts and teachers retain academic freedom, but the standards themselves should be the same for students across the nation and should guide all education. Accountability is a good thing, but No Child Left Behind is unrealistic. NCLB does not take into account all the various "curricula" that schools now need to cover. Sure, ideally, schools could do away with sex education in order to spend more time on math, but that cannot be done in today's world. Standardized testing should be so much more than pencil and paper testing to reflect all of the activities that students do in schools. Lastly, the nation needs to educate its teachers better and prepare them for all the challenges of teaching. With these changes, American education would become more valuable. Students would become better citizens, more equal and more competitive around the world.

Bibliography

Berliner, David. (2006). Fixing Schools Isn't Everything, neatoday. pp. 38-39.

Berliner, David. Biddle, Bruce. (2002). What Research Says About Unequal Funding

for Schools in America. Retrieved March 26, 2007, from

http://www.eric.ed.gov/ERICDocs/data/ericdocs2/content_storage_01/0000000b/80/27/f6/42.pdf

Executive Order 13190 SS1 January 15, 2001, 66 Federal Register 5424. Retrieved

March 28, 2006, from http://www.eric.ed.gov/ERICDocs/data/ericdocs2/content_storage_01/0000000b/80/35/c6/72.pdf

Gonzales, P., Guzman, J.C., Partelow, L., Pahlke, E., Jocelyn, L., Kastberg, D. and

Williams T. (2004) Highlights from the Trends in International Mathematics and Science Study (TIMSS) 2003. (NCES 20050005). U.S. Department of Education, National Center for Education Statistics. Washington, DC: U.S. Government Printing Office. Retrieved May 28, 2007, from: http://nces.ed.gov/pubs2005/2005005.pdf

Harris, Louis (2002). If You Want to Know About the Schools, Ask the Teachers: A

Survey of the Status of Public Education in New York. Prepared for Recruiting Teachers, Inc. (July 2002). p. 37.

Kozol, Jonathan. (2002) Malign Neglect. Children in New York public schools are

being shortchanged-again. The Nation. June 10, 2002. Retrieved March 26,

2007, from

http://www.thirdworldtraveler.com/Third_World_US/Malign_Neglect_Kozol.html

Lemke, M., Sen, A., Pahlke, E., Partelow, L., Miller, D., Williams, T., Kastberg, D.,

Jocelyn, L. (2004). International Outcomes of Learning in Mathematics Literacy

and Problem Solving: PISA 2003 Results From the U.S. Perspective. (NCES 2005-003). Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Education, National Center for Education Statistics.

Miller, John. Europeans' Understanding of Science, Evolution, More Advanced Than

Americans, Material Adapted from a News Release from Michigan State

University. Retrieved February 27, 2007, from

http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2007/02/070218134322.htm

Oglesby, Christy (2003). Accountability Nips at Expanding Curriculum. Retrieved

March 27, 2007, from

http://www.cnn.com/SPECIALS/2001/schools/stories/school.evolution.html

Oglesby, Christy. (2003). Teachers: low pay, low morale, high turnover. Retrieved

March 26, 2007, from

http://www.cnn.com/SPECIALS/2001/schools/stories/staff.effects.html

Ravitch, Diane (1999) Our School Problems and Its solutions. City Journal. Retrieved

March 26, 2007, from

http://www.cityjournal.org/html/9_1_our_school_prob.html

Trickey, Helyn. (2003). All-American Education: Does it make the grade?

http://www.cnn.com/SPECIALS/2001/schools/stories/overview.html