History of America's Education Part1: Johnny is in trouble

This article is mostly ahistorical nonsense. Consider:

In 1940 the top offenses in public schools were chewing gum, talking in class, unfinished homework, and running in the halls. Today the top offenses are drugs, drunkenness, assault, murder and rape.
Criminality has increased enormously in 60 years; no doubt about that. It is not the fault of public schools, however, that they are forced to retain students who are also criminals. Time and again *courts* have ruled *against* school districts, forcing them to keep extremely disruptive students.

From 1963, Scholastic Aptitude Test scores dropped consistently each year.
Exactly - because far more students *take* the SAT now than they did in 1963. In the 1960s, it was still relatively rare for high school students to go to college at all. When the Vietnam War escalation began, college students were offered *exemptions* from the draft. College enrollments soared over the next 10-15 years, and SAT scores dropped accordingly. You also saw far more women entering college than previously; many of them had lower overall combined SAT scores because their math scores were lower.

Most newspapers and magazines are written at about a sixth grade level which is now the reading level of the average American (of which I'm one).
Most newspapers *worth reading* - the New York Times, the Wall Street Journal, the London Telegraph, are NOT written at a "sixth grade level."

Take for example, the young man who graduated as valedictorian from his Washington, DC high school yet was refused admission to George Washington University because his SAT scores were so low. Due to his excellent grades, in high school, he considered himself a superior student. However, in the words of the dean of admissions of George Washington University, "He's been deluded into thinking he's gotten an education."
This is an *affirmative action issue,* most likely. Affirmative action has been imposed on both public schools *and* colleges *by the courts.*

Washington, DC schools spend more than $10,000 per student, but is near the bottom of all cities nationally in academics. Increased spending is on the way, yet with all this spending educational skills have decreased.
That's because Washington DC's school population is composed largely of students with extremely poor backgrounds and many problems of language, readiness, learning disabilities, etc. It's no secret that illegitimate children exposed to crack cocaine in the womb have severe troubles learning. What the writer fails to point out is that *most school districts don't have that population.* In previous generations most of those children would not be in school at all; they would have been "excused" by the superintendent long ago (which technically is still legal under most states' compulsory attendance laws.)

This article is mostly ahistorical nonsense. I beg to disagree.

Criminality has increased enormously in 60 years; no doubt about that. It is not the fault of public schools, But the author never said that is was. She sites the problems and left-leaning people of influence, some of whom are allegedly open Marxists, for bringing the schools into this state.

From 1963, Scholastic Aptitude Test scores dropped consistently each year.
Exactly - because far more students *take* the SAT now than they did in 1963. You are absolutely correct. You also know, I am sure, what the author meant although she may not have used the best test to illustrate her point.

But yours is even more problematic:

In the 1960s, it was still relatively rare for high school students to go to college at all. When the Vietnam War escalation began, college students were offered *exemptions* from the draft. College enrollments soared over the next 10-15 years, and SAT scores dropped accordingly. You are describing a path, a process by which a certain state has been reached. The author concentrates on the state itself and attempts to make a point that (i) money does not help to change it, and (ii) morals and values do.

You, on the other hand, describe the process of escalation as if it were created by G-d. Ask yourself instead, who were these people who made college enrollments soar? Not the liberal sympathizers, within and without the academe, who fancied it was their "moral duty" to protect the "innocents" from dying in the "unjust war?"

Most newspapers *worth reading* - the New York Times, the Wall Street Journal, the London Telegraph, are NOT written at a "sixth grade level." This is the most pathetic, elitist statement I have heard in a while. No, I am not one of those enchanted by the egalitarian ideal, quite far from that, in fact. But to suggest that all of America should read one of the three papers, of which one is British, is outrageous!

Even if we were to agree with your imposition of what is worth to you on others, there is another aspect of this statement: why should a country like ours have only two papers that are "worth reading?"

It is you who misses the boat here, entirely: this lady has higher standards and expectations from her country than you do. And she should, for we are talking about a great nation.

This is an *affirmative action issue,* most likely. Affirmative action has been imposed on both public schools *and* colleges *by the courts.* Same point: who is responsible for the affirmative action? There is no contradiction. The author says that the leftists hijacked the country and she argues that in the context of public schools. She has never made claims that the issue is entirely endogenous to the school system.

Once again, the more narrow view you have chosen to adopt leads you to think the author is at odds with the facts. She is not. Washington, DC schools spend more than $10,000 per student, but is near the bottom of all cities nationally in academics. Increased spending is on the way, yet with all this spending educational skills have decreased.

You reply: That's because Washington DC's school population is composed largely of students with extremely poor backgrounds and many problems of language, readiness, learning disabilities, etc. It's no secret that illegitimate children exposed to crack cocaine...

So why these problems did not exist 50 years ago? Just as in the case of the escalating enrollments, the courts, you view everything outside the school as given. It is not: things are the way they are because of the decisions made by humans. The author suggests, convincingly, that decisions made by those who abandon morality (leftists) lead to a disaster.

most school districts don't have that population.* What's the difference? Her main point is that the money did not solve the problem and will not. You are suggesting that is not the children's fault but that of their parents --- again, as if that was immutable. Who created those drug-addicted parents? Much evidence suggests that it was the paternalistic, socialist policy towards them in place for many decades.

Please put that card back into the deck: in 1950s, the percentage of black women who were married was higher than that of white women.

As I already mentioned, there is a pattern in your approach: you view social changes as if they were acts of G-d or part of nature. Humans have free will, which used to be particularly evident in this country and, I hope, will be again. Someone decides to increase enrolments or at least does nothing to stop that; someone votes in the affirmative action; someone formulates the welfare policy, etc.

Most importantly, you and I are responsible for these leftists' actions. When we ourselves vote for a president who is "accessible," who is "a guy," who "feels my pain" _--- we are responsible for all that. You absolve yourself from such responsibility: in your world thing happen without your participation, as if they were cosmic rays. Quite the opposite is true: what happens in this society is due to YOUR participation or YOUR inaction. And mine.

In any case, I would not be so hasty to use words such as "nonsense" with regard to the article. It appears that your analysis is quite faulty as it is to reach such a strongly worded conclusion.

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.