Epidemic of Ignorance - Back-to-school blues.

National Review Online ^ | August 23, 2007 | Victor Davis Hanson

[neverdem]

August 23, 2007, 0:00 a.m.

Epidemic of Ignorance
Back-to-school blues.

By Victor Davis Hanson

Last week I went shopping in our small rural hometown, where my family has attended the same public schools since 1896. Without exception, all six generations of us — whether farmers, housewives, day laborers, business people, writers, lawyers, or educators — were given a good, competitive K-12 education.

But after a haircut, I noticed that the 20-something cashier could not count out change. The next day, at the electronic outlet store, another young clerk could not read — much less explain — the basic English of the buyer’s warranty. At the food market, I listened as a young couple argued over the price of a cut of tri-tip — unable to calculate the meat’s real value from its price per pound.

As another school year is set to get under way, it’s worth pondering where this epidemic of ignorance came from.

Our presidential candidates sense the danger of this dumbing down of American society and are arguing over the dismal status of contemporary education: poor graduation rates, weak test scores, and suspect literacy among the general population. Politicians warn that America’s edge in global research and productivity will disappear, and with it our high standard of living.

Yet the bleak statistics — whether a 70-percent high-school graduation rate as measured in a study a few years ago by the Manhattan Institute for Policy Research, or poor math rankings in comparison with other industrial nations — come at a time when our schools inflate grades and often honor multiple valedictorians at high school graduation ceremonies. Aggregate state and federal education budgets are high. Too few A’s, too few top awards, and too little funding apparently don’t seem to be our real problems.

Of course, most critics agree that the root causes for our undereducated youth are not all the schools’ fault. Our present ambition to make every American youth college material — in a way our forefathers would have thought ludicrous — ensures that we will both fail in that utopian goal and lack enough literate Americans with critical vocational skills.

The disintegration of the American nuclear family is also at fault. Too many students don’t have two parents reminding them of the value of both abstract and practical learning.

What then can our elementary and secondary schools do, when many of their students’ problems begin at home or arise from our warped popular culture?

We should first scrap the popular therapeutic curriculum that in the scarce hours of the school day crams in sermons on race, class, gender, drugs, sex, self-esteem, or environmentalism. These are well-intentioned efforts to make a kinder and gentler generation more sensitive to our nation’s supposed past and present sins. But they only squeeze out far more important subjects.

The old approach to education saw things differently than we do. Education (“to lead out” or “to bring up”) was not defined as being “sensitive” to, or “correct” on, particular issues. It was instead the rational ability to make sense of the chaotic present through the abstract wisdom of the past.

So literature, history, math and science gave students plenty of facts, theorems, people, and dates to draw on. Then training in logic, language, and philosophy provided the tools to use and express that accumulated wisdom. Teachers usually did not care where all that training led their students politically — only that their pupils’ ideas and views were supported with facts and argued rationally.

What else can we do to restore such traditional learning before the United States loses it global primacy?

To encourage our best minds to become teachers, we should also change the qualifications for becoming one. Students should be able to pursue careers in teaching either by getting a standard teaching credential or by substituting a master’s degree in an academic subject. That way we will eventually end up with more instructors with real academic knowledge rather than prepped with theories about how to teach.

And once hired, K-12 teachers should accept that tenure has outlived its usefulness. Near-guaranteed lifelong employment has become an archaic institution that shields educators from answerability. And tenure has not ensured ideological diversity and independence. Nearly the exact opposite — a herd mentality — presides within many school faculties. Periodic and renewable contracts — with requirements, goals and incentives — would far better ensure teacher credibility and accountability.

Athletics, counseling and social activism may be desirable in schools. But they are not crucial. Our pay scales should reflect that reality. Our top classroom teachers should earn as much as — if not more than — administrators, bureaucrats, coaches, and advisers.

Liberal education of the type my farming grandfather got was the reason why the United States grew wealthy, free, and stable. But without it, the nation of his great-grandchildren will become poor, docile, and insecure.

© 2007 TRIBUNE MEDIA SERVICES, INC.

[cinives]

I do get it. A 9.8% return is as good as most diversified portfolio out on the market. You are comparing the rate of return for stocks only. You don’t consider bonds or the virtues of a balanced portfolio ? I think teachers who are in their late 40s and nearer to retirement have a different perspective than a 25 yo might.

The teacher’s plan you discuss is more explicitly stated as to where the contribution comes from. Do you think any company does not consider pension contributions as a part of total employee compensation, and adjust gross salary accordingly ? In the business world, workers are considered to get more money in salary if there is no employer defined-benefit pension than those workplaces who have 401(k) only plans. And no, many employers do not have a company match(I can’t find any statistics on any %s of employers who do have 401k matches). Some employers contribute company stock only. Think Enron. How did that work out for those employees ?

[HIDEK6]

She said it’s because it’s one of those things that needs to be taught individually.

Well?

Hop to it!

It's not like they have to teach more than 10 or 12 kids in a class anyway.

[HIDEK6]

In rural Georgia, many minority students are asked "where do you stay"

And the question asked of couples is, "How long have you been together," rather than, "How long have you been married."

[eraser2005]

http://www.econ.brown.edu/econ/sthesis/MattPapers/Paper8.html

82% of all companies offer some level of match, with 3% being average.

[Let's Roll]

Yep, sounds like something Mom and Dad could do all right.

[TruthConquers]

Yep. A number of my daughter’s dance friends are either homeschooled or deal with the “geek” ostracization factor at the public school. Why parents put up with that beats me.

I much prefer that she deal with the various jealousy factors and such at dance than in her academics. She learns what the real world is like, earns the privilege of the part she is cast in, most of the time, and finds out first hand that life is not fair. She has learned these things and much more. The dance world is highly competitive and she has learned to work hard and keep going even if her friends all got party girl for nutcracker, and she only got party boy for three years.

But academics is for learning, not as a basis for singling out the few bright students and subjecting them to cruelty for kicks with your own tax money!!! I am not surprised that the teachers are leading the way. Considering that on average they are the lowest of all the college degrees, I bet that most do hold an antithesis against bright students. Old resentments and all of that nonsense.

[cinives]

That was only Vanguard’s data from 2001, and the average firm participating had 1500 employees.

Since the majority of the American workforce is employed by small businesses, with under 500 employees, to suggest that Vanguard’s data can extrapolate to the larger economy is simply misleading.

[Amelia]

Considering that most workers get NO pension other than what they themselves contribute to their 401(k), teachers at least have something a lot more significant. If the average worker is lucky enough, they might get a company match for some part of their contributions.

Oh please. When I worked in industry, I got a pension, and the company also matched my first 4% of 401K contributions. (I got paid a lot more too, but we won't mention that since I knew I would take a significant pay cut when I decided to teach....)

[Amelia]

Let me get real world in a subject with which I am very familiar. In every suburban school district outside Philadelphia, teachers with 10 years are making about 60k per year. By retirement time, at 25-30 years, most of these same teachers are making 100-128k per year (depending if they have a masters degree). So around here, a 25 year teacher with a masters degree is making 117k per year for 10 months of the year, and at age 47 can retire with a pension of around $60k per year. I call that well paid by any standard.

Sounds like a state and local problem to me. You know, of course, that teachers in PA & NY are among the highest paid in the country. Maybe those of you in those states ought to do something about your problem.

In my state, the maximum amount a teacher can make, with a doctorate degree, is about $72K. I can find the state salary schedules for you, if you'd like, or you can look them up yourself. Teachers here also have to work 30 years or until age 60 to be eligible for retirement.

On the other hand, a friend of mine retired from the military at age 42 with great pay and benefits - same friend pointed out to me that the advantage of the military over teaching was that the military could kick out underperforming and unmotivated "students"...