There’s always home school! You could send your kids to the Ryan ‘n Steve School of Badassery, where they would learn all kinds of useful life skills such as:

• How to avoid cleaning your room.
• How to bullshit your way through a speech or oral report.
• How to evade an armed Mexican in a Ford Mustang.
• How to stage a revolution in 21 days or less.
• What to do when there’s nothing on TV but infomercials and Space: 1999 (hint: infomercials).

Hehe. You comfort me immensely.

However, I know your method for avoiding cleaning your room, and you can’t teach it to BOTH children.

I sincerely appreciate your frustration, but “dumb kids?” Little harsh, don’t you think?

Yes, yes, ‘tis true. From my Middle School vantage point, however. I shall Soviet-mind-police it though, as you are right.

Soviet-mind-police is a good verb. I was telling Matt the other day that the Aztecs were actually called the Mexica, but Mexico was kinda ashamed of that so they started calling them “Aztecs” all the time. At some point the phrase “Mexican Soviet Mind Police” was used, and Matt couldn’t really get over it for a matter of some minutes.

While “stupid” is more accurate than “dumb”, I think the harsh truth necessary.

Without tracking, the smart kids are held back because the stupid kids are slow. Thus they become bored and underachieving. By not tracking, we spend too many resources on the low-return investments, and stifle the potential of the smart kids.

The athletic equivalent would be a PE class where no one is allowed to move faster, throw harder, or catch more accurately than the worst in the class. The kids with natural athletic ability would be unchallenged, and their potential would be wasted.

Except it’s worse. Athletic ability rarely translates to a higher tax bracket down the road, while well-educated smart people make more money and pay more taxes. Thus, by wasting the talents of the smart kids, schools ensure that they will be under-funded in the future.

If it weren’t for the value I place on populist democracy, I would be all for school vouchers and other such stratifying educational programs. It would certainly be better for my (eventual) kids. But we can’t have totally uneducated people voting, and sufferage is universal. Plus, people are stupid enough as it is. I don’t want to live with nineteenth-century throwbacks, so public education is sort of a public works project.

I don’t know. Perhaps I’m more moderate than that, when my head is cool. But the way the public school system treats its best and brightest pisses me off, that I know.

One of my PIs told me a quote today from a Texas congresswoman about how public education was an idea that came “from Stalinist Russia—from the Pit of Hell!” Verbatim. Guh!

I said, “or, you know, from Thomas Jefferson.”

I agree that the logic used to justify the elimination of tracking in Beaverton’s public school was flawed, and led to students of all abilities being poorly served.

However, the word “stupid” is an insulting word. For the most part, the kids in question were simply born, through no fault of their own, with lesser native intelligence than other kids. And it’s not like those students plotted and schemed to eliminate tracking; the decisions weren’t made with their support or even their consent. It was always my impression that elimination of tracking, whatever other justification was used, was primarily a cost-cutting measure. (This was at the same time they started seating 75 kids in one open classroom and teaching to a third of them at the time.) The blame for that goes to the tax-cutters.

I also disagree with the generalization that smart kids make more money—I think the formula is a bit more complex, but my observation has been that rich kids make more money. On one end, you have my friend, former salutatorian who had a B+ average at Stanford, the future librarian, who will probably never make more than $60,000 in a year. On the other end, you have the history major who graduated from college with me, who, because her father was dean of the Stanford Business School, was able to start her post-college career as an investment banker making more than $100,000 a year. Or George W. Bush, whom many agree was born with less native intelligence than my uvula.

I would also question the phrase “low-return investments.” One of the reasons I am so passionate about public education is that I believe every child has a right to an excellent education. It’s never a poor investment to educate a child, or to provide a curriculum* to awaken the mind of each student, and I believe it’s a duty rather than an investment. The best educational system would create excellent citizens as well as excellent tax-payers, right? Many artists, scientists, statesmen, and other “bright lights” we admire and recognize as successful did not excel in their early education, probably would have scored poorly on standardized tests, and didn’t display the kind of intelligence that caused them to be labelled a “smart kid.”

*Of course, like you, I’d prefer there be curriculi, plural, to ensure that every child’s mind is indeed, awakened.

Actually, according to
studies, it’s actually TALL people who make all the money.

I actually was a little surprised by Mithrandir’s post, because I know we usually agree on public education, and the part towards the end about “I’m more moderate when I’m not angry” seemed rather an understatement.

I will note, in passing, that while I’m sure you are right about riches of the parent being the most important factor in determining the wealth of the kid, I believe studies have shown that charisma is a more than merely statistically valid indicator of future success. Cheerleaders do very well in later life. (My high school headmistress was an ex-cheerleader).

I believe very strongly in public education. I believe, despite all the things that have gone and are going wrong in the world, that we as a species have an overall trend for the better. We envision something better, and move towards it - one of the reasons I think speculative fiction is a vital part of human creation and discourse - we stumble, falter, make false steps, are swayed by madmen, tyrants, and fear… but we have created ideals worth striving to realize and preserve.

The trust laid in public education is not just to create adults competent to balance their checkbooks, read the menu at McDonald’s, and hold down a simple job. The trust laid in public education is to incarnate the human quest for greatness in each individual - that each human being may strive to be the best, brightest, strongest, kindest being he can. Only through the progress of the individual can we hope as a species to make great strides. In addition, the purpose of public education is to help realize the ideals of democracy - democracy is a lovely vision, and one that works in truth only so long as the individuals believe in it, care about it, honor their vote, think about their choices, and make those choices based on intellect and ideals, not on the basest parts of their natures and the most easily swayed part of their hearts.

In order for the body of human endeavor to move forward, the children must be brought to their full potential in math, science, and engineering. In order for the heart of human endeavor to move forward, the children must be brought to their full potential in art, literature, and philosophy. In order for progress to take root, for anarchy and tyranny to be kept at bay, the children must be brought to their full potential in the knowledge and understanding of history - ours and the world’s - civic theory, and moral philosophy. They must be taught from whence their nation springs, and that tradition is a base to stand and build upon, not a roof that will shelter them from harm. They must think, feel, build, and vote. This is the hope of mankind, and one of, if not the, highest responsibility of government. If children are miserable, uneducated, unencouraged, lacking in confidence and creativity, we as a species are diminished. All of these things are true, and we are indeed so diminished. And the grand idealistic machine of democracy spins its wheels in the mud.

The things I learned in school that I can still remember - the things that have actually been useful - are mostly things that nobody tried to teach me. Going to public school for most of my life has endowed me with a wealth of social knowledge that I couldn’t live without (plus some really tasteless jokes that I could live without).

I can’t remember why the Spanish-American War was fought or who the fourth President was or how to conjugate verbs in Spanish or how to find the volume of a hollow sphere, but I don’t have to; those are all things I can look up if I need to. What I can remember, and can’t look up, is how to interact with people, how to avoid crossing certain social boundaries, how to become invisible when a bully shows up, and how to gain the upper hand when I fail to become as invisible as I need to be. I learned about my own social limits and those of other people; I learned how to make (and keep) friends and, occasionally, enemies. And a million other things that can’t be taught, but can be learned, in a classroom.

Unfortunately, our society is structured in such a way that people are graded on concrete knowledge that most of us will never use. Being able to look up a subject and learn it quickly is not a skill that will get you accepted into most universities or hired by most businesses. It’s an invaluable skill to have, but it’s foreign currency in the Real World. For people like me who can’t seem to retain knowledge that wasn’t self-taught and self-practiced, this is a real shitty situation.

I’m not sure that it’s a problem that can be fixed, though. Society is the way it is because that’s the way it is. It’s not something that can be changed directly, it’s something that gets shaped gradually like a pebble in a stream.

More money won’t hurt schools, but the only problems it’ll solve are the ones that can be paid to go away. More classrooms and better lunches and cleaner halls and happier teachers and shinier supplies are all very nice and conducive to the learning process, but you can’t bribe kids to succeed. If they don’t want to - or if they can’t - they won’t. Period. All money will do is make it perhaps just a little easier for those who do want to succeed.

I may respond to the bulk of your post later when I have more time, but I am a little confused by your assertion that spending more money on education is useless.

Of course it isn’t! Among other things, it means paying teachers better, and/or providing them with good tools to teach—up-to-date textbooks that aren’t falling apart; money to buy tactile and other lesson-aids that help to reach learners who aren’t among the lucky audio-visual learner crowd; it means being able to hire more teachers, so you can have 20 in a class instead of 45 (If you want a list of the reasons that’s better, I can oblige). It means kids getting to go on field trips that fire them with ideas of what they could be when they grow up, and let them see what learning means in the real world and what it could do for their life.

I think one of the things that may be the crux of why you think that more money in education won’t help is this: “for those who do want to succeed.” If kids have good, non-burnt-out, committed teachers from Day One, I would say at least 95% of them will “want to succeed”. It is those kids who have been told they are dumb, or better concentrate on sports, or that kids of their gender or ethnic group aren’t good at such-and-such a subject, or who have seen that adults don’t care, that by and large end up rebelling against their own best interests in education.

Besides, more money in education is not the answer. It’s a symptom of the answer. It’s a symptom of making education a priority instead of giving it lip-service.

Stupid is an adjective. It’s meaning is clear, concise and correct in this circumstance. The value judgements you place upon the state of stupidity are yours. We can castrate our language by using synthetic terms like “less-gifted”, or we can speak plainly. I like to speak plainly in casual debate.

Perhaps “smart kids make more money” is too general (though I an not convinced that, all else held equal, this is untrue). Smart kids are, however, a better investment. A smart kid from a poor family has a much better chance of making it than a normal kid from an equally poor family. I don’t think the same could necessarily be said of a charismatic kid, as he might have trouble making the necessary social connections because of his percieved social status.

By not tracking public education, the natural tendency is to take educational resources from the smart kids and give them to the stupid kids, thereby hindering the biggest potential source of growth. Thus, tracking is, I think, necessary, even given low levels of funding.

I’m of the opinion that public policy will generally reduce to economics, because that’s the only thing everyone can agree on. Ideals are great, but unless they’re culture-wide, they make a poor basis for public policy in a capitalist democracy.

All changes cost money. Unless you’re arguing that the educational system is just fine the way it is, the educational system needs more money.

The status quo costs money too. Beth Deal teaches biology and psychology. This year, she doesn’t have money for printer paper, let alone glassware and more exotic equipment for biology labs. I hate to think about the next two years. As a result, her students get less hands-on experience, and have to learn from just books and lectures.

You said yourself that you didn’t retain much because most of it was lectures and reading. That’s a common problem in education. Hands on lab sessions are effective instruction tools, but labs cost many times more than lectures. This is one of many problems that could be solved with money.

I also don’t buy your statement that social politics cannot be taught. Anything can be taught. Public schools don’t teach social politics, but most universities have entire departments to study sociology, poli. sci., and psychology. Works that pertain to the topic can be found in many cultures (Art of War, The Prince, Book of Five Rings, to name a few). Teaching this topic is no harder than teaching Spanish, it’s just not done. But change costs money.

Research skills can also be taught. In fact, I remember being taught to use the card catalog in elementary school. That was before the web and pervasive networking. Today, that same topic is probably taught with computer card catalogs and google. And the real meat of research skills is taught in schools. That’s why research reports are assigned to students.

Libraries are expensive though, and computers cost money, as does curiculum development to keep up with changing infotech.

Money is necessary to solve the problems with public education. No one claims that it is sufficient, but it’s necessary.

I never said that spending more money on education is useless. In fact, I said exactly the opposite. Spending more money on education would be a good thing. But there are a lot of fundamental problems that money cannot solve by itself.

Money can buy you new textbooks, and it can pay for highly-qualified teachers (some of whom might even be good teachers), and it can pay for field trips and lab equipment and computers and gadgets. All of these things are very nice and good, and they all contribute to helping kids learn and keeping them interested.

But none of these things can transform a kid from stupid to smart. None of these things can make a kid want to learn if he doesn’t want to. And even if a kid does want to learn, there’s still a wealth of knowledge that she’ll only be able to get through personal experience. The most important things I know are things that can’t be written in a book or taught by a teacher or demonstrated in a lab. If those things could be taught, you wouldn’t see former child prodigies attempting suicide because they never learned how to form personal relationships.

Summary: Schools + Money = Opportunity. Schools + Money != Cure.

What I actually said is that more money in schools is good, but that money is not all it takes to educate children. Money is part of the solution, but it is not the entire solution.

You said yourself that you didn’t retain much because most of it was lectures and reading. That’s a common problem in education. Hands on lab sessions are effective instruction tools, but labs cost many times more than lectures. This is one of many problems that could be solved with money.

I assume you’re referring to past discussions we’ve had. My own case can hardly be considered typical, however. I learn just fine by reading and practicing, but only when I’m interested in the subject. I have a particularly hard time paying attention to lectures, even when I’m interested, because I have ADD. More hands-on activities might have helped me get better grades, but without being interested in the subject, I still wouldn’t have retained the knowledge.

I also don’t buy your statement that social politics cannot be taught. Anything can be taught. Public schools don’t teach social politics, but most universities have entire departments to study sociology, poli. sci., and psychology. Works that pertain to the topic can be found in many cultures (Art of War, The Prince, Book of Five Rings, to name a few). Teaching this topic is no harder than teaching Spanish, it’s just not done.

That’s absurd. Learning social skills is like learning to play basketball. You can memorize rules and definitions and strategies and tactics, but that’s worth fuck all compared to actually getting out on the court and playing the game. The knowledge is an important part of it, but the experience is where the real value is. You can’t teach a kid how to develop personal relationships by drawing him diagrams.

A lack of normal social interaction is the reason most child prodigies - excluding those with Asperger’s and similar conditions - have big problems with relatively basic social skills. Their brains may be stuffed with knowledge, but if they don’t know how to relate to people, they’re not going to lead very happy lives.

Research skills can also be taught.

I didn’t intend to imply otherwise. I only meant to describe the difference between knowing something - which gets you jobs and degrees - and knowing how to learn something—which is invaluable, but is likely to get you Jack Shit with regards to jobs and degrees.