7 ms·

I chatted with two public highschool teachers at Thanksgiving dinner. They are two very liberal ladies that sounded like they have been red-pilled on this subje

I chatted with two public highschool teachers at Thanksgiving dinner. They are two very liberal ladies that sounded like they have been red-pilled on this subject. "I have always supported public education but ..." They are both beyond saddened by the state of their "collapsing" school systems, and do not recommend that any parent send their kids there who can afford private school. They say that teachers are being treated so badly by the administration, and that the students are so out of control due to no consequences for anything, that teachers are quitting in large numbers, causing the remaining teachers to have much bigger classes. Then those overwhelmed teachers are quiting, and that is snowballing. They say the kids learned next to nothing during remote teaching and are now years behind, and so poorly socialized to the classroom that they disrupt it continually, but cannot be stopped or removed. They both once took a lot of pride in their work but feel that their jobs have become about wharehousing kids rather than teaching them. They let loose with war stories, each one worse than the last. They're both from the Phoenix area. I can only hope it's particularly bad there.

EdwardDiego 5y ago
Is the American education system federally run? I'm guessing not. Is it run at a state level? And then how much sway to subdivisions of a state have? (Counties? Towns?)
- civilized 5y ago
  It's local, but the state and federal government provide funding, and as always, this enables them to pull strings.
- temp8964 5y ago
  It's very local. The difference between city and suburban schools is day and night. So without this context, I have no idea what the above comments are about.
  - coffeefirst 5y ago
    Right. There are 30,000 different public school systems in the US. It is virtually impossible to make broad generalizations about them. Except that COVID sucked.
    - temp8964 5y ago
      The impact of COVID is very different among states and districts. So it’s not equally sucked.
- gumby 5y ago
  The federal budget for education is about 4% of what the country spends on schools (and at the federal level the dept of education is also involved in university education as well). So in practice federal involvement in education is mostly standing on the side shouting encouraging words, except where the federal government has some authority for other reasons (such as some nondiscrimination rules).
bob1029 5y ago
I have had similar conversations with elementary school teachers and principals in Texas. All family members. I think it's the same story everywhere now. No one knows what to do to resolve it. Teachers no longer have sufficient means to provide an effective education to our children. The school boards and layers of governance have all but stripped the actual educators of any autonomy that may have existed. Using decades of experience to deal with nuanced situations is not a thing that is allowed anymore. There is some strict procedure for everything, and if you deviate the administration will make your life hell. The solution is probably a blend of: pay teachers more, give them more autonomy, banish smartphones in the classroom, more accountability for abjectly-shitty parenting and a reduction of our total obsession over standardization of outcomes. If we could only fix one thing - Every teacher I talked to would rate the smartphone as the #1 reason for lack of engagement in the classroom. Even if they arent using it at school, being on tik tok with your friends at home until 3am every day has the same effective blast radius.
- A4ET8a8uTh0 5y ago
  <<banish smartphones in the classroom This, I think, is the most impossible thing listed. For the record, I agree with you, but I honestly can already see someone crying that they need to be able to reach their child 24/7.
  - speedcoder 5y ago
    I taught H.S. for a year and setup banks of USB universal phone chargers at the back of the classroom. Students could charge their phone if they put on silent but could not get out of their seats without permission. It actually did help foster involvement in our lessons.
  - mathattack 5y ago
    My local schools have a no phone policy. It’s not that hard to implement.
  - zdragnar 5y ago
    I was in school when mobile phones were just becoming accessible, and our school had a blanket ban on them. If they were out of your backpack or locker anywhere other than the lunchroom, it got taken away and you could pick it up at the end of the day from the principals office. It blows my mind that anyone could try to teach a room full of young kids without such a policy... what a daunting task.
diognesofsinope 5y ago
I've always thought it was weird how the 'Information Age' has barely changed an institution entirely based on passing information to new generations (education). Bryan Caplan (economist at George Mason) wrote The Case Against Education (https://press.princeton.edu/books/hardcover/9780691174655/the-case-against-education https://press.princeton.edu/books/hardcover/9780691174655/th...). IMO, he's definitely too provocative and it's certainly not perfect but he makes really good points on modern education. My version of a summary below: 1. There's an enormous return to attending 4-year university. 4-year degree holders on average ~400k over there life time than high school graduates. This is somewhat suspicious, because it's not obvious 'HST 105: History of Ancient Greece' is imparting labor market skills. 2. Economists says education builds (1) 'human capital', i.e. education causally makes individuals more skilled and thus labor market success. There are two other stories: (2) action bias which is that universities simply selected people who would have been successful whether or not they went to college or (3) signaling theory which is that the degree communicates to employers you're smart, conforming, punctual, can accomplish ~4 year goals, etc...basically you're a 'grade-A worker'. 3. Bryan lobbies for the signaling theory. A flurry of educational psychology research is presented and it's impressive. A good example is there's almost (A) no scientific evidence that 'learning how to learn' or 'transfer of learning' or 'critical thinking' are taught well in classroom. It's shocking how this appears on every syllabus but that actual research that classrooms can impact this essentially doesn't exist. (B) The fadeout effect, where giving students extra education does boost tests scores for those individuals, but if you track them for the next 5 years the effects fade out -- like many things there's regression to the mean (C) Memory isn't as reliable as we think -- this has been very important in the judicial system that has historically relied on witness testimony. I don't remember anything from my 'History of Rock and Roll' class when I was a freshman. 4. Non-psychological critiques are that (1) the econometrics almost never include the stat that ~50% of all students who attend 4-year college don't graduate (some transfer, so that number is a bit difficult to calculate). But almost nobody guesses baseline of ~50%. The returns to college look good because of survivorship bias. (2) Labor econometrics in general is weaker than we think...for example, how do you operationalize 'experience' -- almost all academic studies on discrimination, pay gaps, etc. have this problem. (3) There's extremely strong evidence and intuition that getting the degree matters, i.e. if go for 4 years but don't graduate returns are much lower. There's a ton more in the book, but those are the big parts. I was a teacher for 5 years and it's crystal clear to me that 'passive learning' isn't nearly as useful as 'active learning', but for classroom management reasons active learning is rarely viable. Active learning also makes the teacher look like they're not doing much work, which is bad for their bargaining.
mensetmanusman 5y ago
A lot has changed in 50 years. Before, most children had the time at home from two adults, now about half do, this must have a huge impact on behavior at school…
op00to 5y ago
That sounds nothing like my experience in the NE USA. It actually sounds more like GOP talking points which makes sense coming out of Arizona.
rbanffy 5y ago
> and do not recommend that any parent send their kids there who can afford private school. This is one of the most dangerous threats to a well functioning society. Whenever we have two-tier systems inequality grows and the closer a society moves to a caste system. Those who can't pay will receive sub-par education while those who can, will receive the best education available according to the means of their family. The issues of public school will be invisible to them and they will feel no need to properly fund it. This is the same with public education, public funding, public security, public healthcare. Wherever a private system exists that competes with the public (as in "it belongs to everyone") one, it'll consume resources and deprive the public one. In time, most elected officials will not have experienced it and will neglect it completely.
- seneca 5y ago
  > This is the same with public education, public funding, public security, public healthcare. Wherever a private system exists that competes with the public (as in "it belongs to everyone") one, it'll consume resources and deprive the public one. This is a big part of the problem with the mindset that everything is about "equality". You are suggesting that a superior private option should not be allowed to exist because it will out-compete a public option (If it were not superior, why would anyone choose it?). I don't think your logic is wrong exactly, a public option will in fact be worse if people are not forced to invest in it, but the problem with this approach is that you're telling those with more resources that they must make due with less (or their children must, in the case of education) for some greater good. This is where "equality" thinking always seems to lead. You have to tear down those with more so that they don't have something better than those with less. Everyone gets the same mediocrity. The issue is that many people don't want to be collectivists, and they especially don't want to sacrifice their childrens' wellbeing for some utopian ideal. That's an inevitable conflict, and one I think we're seeing playing out right now. Again, I don't think you're wrong exactly. I just don't think this mindset is one that works outside of totalitarian societies. Implementing it in a society with any sense of individual libery is, to borrow your phrase, "one of the most dangerous threats to a well functioning society", in my opinion.
  - 5y ago
avgcorrection 5y ago
I don’t understand how this is supposed to relate to the OP. The OP claims that education was always about social control and domestication of children (so that they may become domesticated adults). I guess it’s a bad thing that public education is not working out in America, but that’s just a worse outcome for an already bad model—the classroom was poisoned to begin with. The idea that education as we know it is an unalloyed good—as long as we fund schools enough and appreciate the teachers etc. etc—is just false.

EdwardDiego 5y ago

Is the American education system federally run? I'm guessing not. Is it run at a state level? And then how much sway to subdivisions of a state have? (Counties? Towns?)

civilized 5y ago
It's local, but the state and federal government provide funding, and as always, this enables them to pull strings.
temp8964 5y ago
It's very local. The difference between city and suburban schools is day and night. So without this context, I have no idea what the above comments are about.
- coffeefirst 5y ago
  Right. There are 30,000 different public school systems in the US. It is virtually impossible to make broad generalizations about them. Except that COVID sucked.
  - temp8964 5y ago
    The impact of COVID is very different among states and districts. So it’s not equally sucked.
gumby 5y ago
The federal budget for education is about 4% of what the country spends on schools (and at the federal level the dept of education is also involved in university education as well). So in practice federal involvement in education is mostly standing on the side shouting encouraging words, except where the federal government has some authority for other reasons (such as some nondiscrimination rules).

bob1029 5y ago

I have had similar conversations with elementary school teachers and principals in Texas. All family members. I think it's the same story everywhere now. No one knows what to do to resolve it. Teachers no longer have sufficient means to provide an effective education to our children. The school boards and layers of governance have all but stripped the actual educators of any autonomy that may have existed. Using decades of experience to deal with nuanced situations is not a thing that is allowed anymore. There is some strict procedure for everything, and if you deviate the administration will make your life hell. The solution is probably a blend of: pay teachers more, give them more autonomy, banish smartphones in the classroom, more accountability for abjectly-shitty parenting and a reduction of our total obsession over standardization of outcomes. If we could only fix one thing - Every teacher I talked to would rate the smartphone as the #1 reason for lack of engagement in the classroom. Even if they arent using it at school, being on tik tok with your friends at home until 3am every day has the same effective blast radius.

A4ET8a8uTh0 5y ago
<<banish smartphones in the classroom This, I think, is the most impossible thing listed. For the record, I agree with you, but I honestly can already see someone crying that they need to be able to reach their child 24/7.
- speedcoder 5y ago
  I taught H.S. for a year and setup banks of USB universal phone chargers at the back of the classroom. Students could charge their phone if they put on silent but could not get out of their seats without permission. It actually did help foster involvement in our lessons.
- mathattack 5y ago
  My local schools have a no phone policy. It’s not that hard to implement.
- zdragnar 5y ago
  I was in school when mobile phones were just becoming accessible, and our school had a blanket ban on them. If they were out of your backpack or locker anywhere other than the lunchroom, it got taken away and you could pick it up at the end of the day from the principals office. It blows my mind that anyone could try to teach a room full of young kids without such a policy... what a daunting task.

diognesofsinope 5y ago

I've always thought it was weird how the 'Information Age' has barely changed an institution entirely based on passing information to new generations (education). Bryan Caplan (economist at George Mason) wrote The Case Against Education (https://press.princeton.edu/books/hardcover/9780691174655/the-case-against-education https://press.princeton.edu/books/hardcover/9780691174655/th...). IMO, he's definitely too provocative and it's certainly not perfect but he makes really good points on modern education. My version of a summary below: 1. There's an enormous return to attending 4-year university. 4-year degree holders on average ~400k over there life time than high school graduates. This is somewhat suspicious, because it's not obvious 'HST 105: History of Ancient Greece' is imparting labor market skills. 2. Economists says education builds (1) 'human capital', i.e. education causally makes individuals more skilled and thus labor market success. There are two other stories: (2) action bias which is that universities simply selected people who would have been successful whether or not they went to college or (3) signaling theory which is that the degree communicates to employers you're smart, conforming, punctual, can accomplish ~4 year goals, etc...basically you're a 'grade-A worker'. 3. Bryan lobbies for the signaling theory. A flurry of educational psychology research is presented and it's impressive. A good example is there's almost (A) no scientific evidence that 'learning how to learn' or 'transfer of learning' or 'critical thinking' are taught well in classroom. It's shocking how this appears on every syllabus but that actual research that classrooms can impact this essentially doesn't exist. (B) The fadeout effect, where giving students extra education does boost tests scores for those individuals, but if you track them for the next 5 years the effects fade out -- like many things there's regression to the mean (C) Memory isn't as reliable as we think -- this has been very important in the judicial system that has historically relied on witness testimony. I don't remember anything from my 'History of Rock and Roll' class when I was a freshman. 4. Non-psychological critiques are that (1) the econometrics almost never include the stat that ~50% of all students who attend 4-year college don't graduate (some transfer, so that number is a bit difficult to calculate). But almost nobody guesses baseline of ~50%. The returns to college look good because of survivorship bias. (2) Labor econometrics in general is weaker than we think...for example, how do you operationalize 'experience' -- almost all academic studies on discrimination, pay gaps, etc. have this problem. (3) There's extremely strong evidence and intuition that getting the degree matters, i.e. if go for 4 years but don't graduate returns are much lower. There's a ton more in the book, but those are the big parts. I was a teacher for 5 years and it's crystal clear to me that 'passive learning' isn't nearly as useful as 'active learning', but for classroom management reasons active learning is rarely viable. Active learning also makes the teacher look like they're not doing much work, which is bad for their bargaining.

mensetmanusman 5y ago

A lot has changed in 50 years. Before, most children had the time at home from two adults, now about half do, this must have a huge impact on behavior at school…

op00to 5y ago

That sounds nothing like my experience in the NE USA. It actually sounds more like GOP talking points which makes sense coming out of Arizona.

rbanffy 5y ago

> and do not recommend that any parent send their kids there who can afford private school. This is one of the most dangerous threats to a well functioning society. Whenever we have two-tier systems inequality grows and the closer a society moves to a caste system. Those who can't pay will receive sub-par education while those who can, will receive the best education available according to the means of their family. The issues of public school will be invisible to them and they will feel no need to properly fund it. This is the same with public education, public funding, public security, public healthcare. Wherever a private system exists that competes with the public (as in "it belongs to everyone") one, it'll consume resources and deprive the public one. In time, most elected officials will not have experienced it and will neglect it completely.

seneca 5y ago
> This is the same with public education, public funding, public security, public healthcare. Wherever a private system exists that competes with the public (as in "it belongs to everyone") one, it'll consume resources and deprive the public one. This is a big part of the problem with the mindset that everything is about "equality". You are suggesting that a superior private option should not be allowed to exist because it will out-compete a public option (If it were not superior, why would anyone choose it?). I don't think your logic is wrong exactly, a public option will in fact be worse if people are not forced to invest in it, but the problem with this approach is that you're telling those with more resources that they must make due with less (or their children must, in the case of education) for some greater good. This is where "equality" thinking always seems to lead. You have to tear down those with more so that they don't have something better than those with less. Everyone gets the same mediocrity. The issue is that many people don't want to be collectivists, and they especially don't want to sacrifice their childrens' wellbeing for some utopian ideal. That's an inevitable conflict, and one I think we're seeing playing out right now. Again, I don't think you're wrong exactly. I just don't think this mindset is one that works outside of totalitarian societies. Implementing it in a society with any sense of individual libery is, to borrow your phrase, "one of the most dangerous threats to a well functioning society", in my opinion.
- 5y ago

avgcorrection 5y ago

I don’t understand how this is supposed to relate to the OP. The OP claims that education was always about social control and domestication of children (so that they may become domesticated adults). I guess it’s a bad thing that public education is not working out in America, but that’s just a worse outcome for an already bad model—the classroom was poisoned to begin with. The idea that education as we know it is an unalloyed good—as long as we fund schools enough and appreciate the teachers etc. etc—is just false.