Annual "Damn American Children are Ignorant" Revelation

[BaliBabyDoc]

CNN

The good news . . . "I always tell my students: If I see you in the grocery store five years from now, I will not measure my success on can you tell me Hamilton's financial plan, but can you tell me if you voted," Meredith Elliott, an American studies teacher in Utah, said during a round-table discussion at the NEA convention. "If you answer yes, then I've succeeded as a teacher."

Not so good . . .

Almost three out of four fourth-graders could not name which part of government passes laws. Most students thought it was the president. (It's Congress.)

Well the House is certainly a rubber stamp so it's not like they are too far off . . .

About three out of four fourth-graders knew that July 4 celebrates the Declaration of Independence. But one in four thought it marked the end of the Civil War, the arrival of the Pilgrims or the start of the woman's right to vote.

Too bad it was multiple-choice. I can only imagine what kind of gems this question would have produced.

More than half of 12th-graders, asked to pick a U.S. ally in World War II from a list of countries, thought the answer was Italy, Germany or Japan. (The correct answer was the Soviet Union.)

When asked to pick a productive ally in the coalition of the willing . . . more than half picked Micronesia.

Edited title for clarity . . . Americans are ignorant NOT necessarily stupid.

 

[Warin]

Holy Crap!

More than half of the 12th grade students tested didnt know the Soviet Union was one of the "Good Guys" in WW 2?

That's just insane!

I wonder how Canadian students would fare. Not much better, I am afraid.

 

[JellyBaby]

Though I might cut 4th graders a bit of slack on those particular questions, in general, liberal goverment education today seeks to keep students ignorant as to the workings of government. An ignorant populace, unaware government is supposed to serve them and is accountable to them, must be the ultimate goal. That and keeping union campaign contributors happy.

 

[BaliBabyDoc]

JB, you do realize the liberal government has very little to do with K-12 education? I grew up in a solidly Jessecrat section of North Carolina . . . ie they vote for Democrats (which in NC are poor Republicans) unless Jesse is running. My county was one of the worst funded (and performing) districts in the state. In fact, my county chose to turn down federal grant money b/c they didn't want to raise property taxes to provide matching funds.

Government isn't dumbing our children down . . . government itself is dumb and/or corrupt . . . take your pick.

 

[da loser]

so what allowed you to become a doctor? I think educators need to stop complaing about money and complain about the parents and communities who don't want to put in the time. besides, with our low taxes we'll just steal our workers

are children dumb or they just don't care? ask'em who the lastest pop music star or the person that got voted of who wants to marry a numbskull.

 

[UglyCasanova]

Originally posted by: da loser
are children dumb or they just don't care? ask'em who the lastest pop music star or the person that got voted of who wants to marry a numbskull.

Exactly. They aren't dumb (as in they don't have the ability to learn), it's just they don't give a sh!t about school and the parents don't seem to care either.

 

[rockyct]

Originally posted by: Warin
Holy Crap!

More than half of the 12th grade students tested didnt know the Soviet Union was one of the "Good Guys" in WW 2?

That's just insane!

I wonder how Canadian students would fare. Not much better, I am afraid.

Yeah, that seems very hard to believe. Maybe they didn't know what the word ally meant. Either that, or the students were just trying to mess with the test or something because even in elementary school I learned that Germany and Japan were the bad guys in WW2. Although, I guess I didn't learn about Italy and the Soviet Union until middle school.

 

[MonstaThrilla]

Originally posted by: JellyBaby
Though I might cut 4th graders a bit of slack on those particular questions, in general, liberal goverment education today seeks to keep students ignorant as to the workings of government. An ignorant populace, unaware government is supposed to serve them and is accountable to them, must be the ultimate goal. That and keeping union campaign contributors happy.

Absolutely, unequivocally correct. It disgusts me how those liberal Democratic Presidential candidates are calling for an increase in federal government spending for primary, secondary, and higher education, and for stricter minimum standards for all the nation's public schools. Then, maybe our kids can compete in the international job market (and keep American jobs in America) without needing to go to a top (extremely costly) university. Also, they surmise that such reform would embolden the nation's youth to respect and cherish democractic ideals. The Stalinist John Kerry wants to start some crazy "national service" requirement which would require high schoolers to complete X amount of hours of community service in order to graduate. Sure, they say this is "investing in the future". But in reality, we all know this is just another liberal attempt to undermine the system and destroy the country from within, all for the sake of those lazy welfare queens.

 

[BaliBabyDoc]

are children dumb or they just don't care? ask'em who the lastest pop music star or the person that got voted of who wants to marry a numbskull.

Dude, if I had an X-Box and a plasma screen 16:9 when I was a kid I might be as ignorant as this bunch. Why should they care anyway? It's not like our government consistently upholds the values we were fighting for during WWII. These kids may not know many historical facts but I bet they understand hypocrisy. The same Masters of Industry covetinging H-1Bs and complaining about an uneducated/poorly skilled American workforce spend billions each year to entice these kids to waste their money and time on worthless endeavors.

so what allowed you to become a doctor? I think educators need to stop complaing about money and complain about the parents and communities who don't want to put in the time.

Strict damn parents (with a strong work ethic and sufficient monetary resources). Educators complain about money b/c a select group of people are responsible for budget allocations. You cannot do anything about parents that don't care or are too busy.

 

[charrison]

Originally posted by: Warin
Holy Crap!

More than half of the 12th grade students tested didnt know the Soviet Union was one of the "Good Guys" in WW 2?

That's just insane!

I wonder how Canadian students would fare. Not much better, I am afraid.

fortunatly(or unfortunatly) stupidity is uniformily distributed. No country or region is free from it.

 

[JellyBaby]

Originally posted by: BaliBabyDoc
JB, you do realize the liberal government has very little to do with K-12 education? I grew up in a solidly Jessecrat section of North Carolina . . . ie they vote for Democrats (which in NC are poor Republicans) unless Jesse is running. My county was one of the worst funded (and performing) districts in the state. In fact, my county chose to turn down federal grant money b/c they didn't want to raise property taxes to provide matching funds.

Government isn't dumbing our children down . . . government itself is dumb and/or corrupt . . . take your pick.

I disagree. When the federal Ed. dept was created federal monies began flowing into the states (actually they take state money, shipon a bit off the top and return it to the states) the feds began seeking control over education. Teachers unions were in the middle of it, too, and once established, protected teachers to such an extent that the tenure system grants immunity to them regardless of performance.

Anyway, both parties, hand-in-hand tried all sorts of goofy nonsense like "social promotion" schemes in an effort to artificially inflate achievement. But it was at the expense of the kids.

Teachers unions convinced liberal teachers at every level to experiment with "new methods", shifting emphasis on testing and results to "trying is good enough", and promoting social science, art, etc. at the expense of math, science, and reading. And today the latest fasion is to teach a perverted version of Amercian history (or not bother with it at all).

While it's still possible to find kids getting a very good public education, it's more and more rare. It's no wonder most congressmen send their offspring off to private schools, especially in the D.C. area where they spend a shocking amount of money per pupil but have the worst test scores in the nation.

 

[BaliBabyDoc]

Anyway, both parties, hand-in-hand tried all sorts of goofy nonsense like "social promotion" schemes in an effort to artificially inflate achievement. But it was at the expense of the kids.

As a former schoolteacher (1 yr vet), married to a literacy facilitator I can tell you have no concept of how social promotion is used. More often than not social promotion is used for the reason implied by the name. Two years is a big difference in middle childhood. Many kids were moved on b/c they are harmed by their lack of interaction with age-appropriate peers AND they are an inherent threat to the children with whom they share a classroom. It's not like they were still around b/c they were good students and citizens.

Teachers unions convinced liberal teachers at every level to experiment with "new methods", shifting emphasis on testing and results to "trying is good enough", and promoting social science, art, etc. at the expense of math, science, and reading. And today the latest fasion is to teach a perverted version of Amercian history (or not bother with it at all).

You have no concept of how the developing mind works. But you are certainly correct that some schools of Ed. dropped the ball on pedagogy. I'm 30 and much of the history I got in middle school was garbage. I agree that social science needs to be abandoned b/c I'm not sure you can teach such material outside of its context. Science has always been neglected in K-12 b/c very few people know much science. To compound the problem many systems are abandoning science instruction below grade 8 b/c there's no accountability for it. Science is literally being dropped from the curriculum.

While it's still possible to find kids getting a very good public education, it's more and more rare. It's no wonder most congressmen send their offspring off to private schools, especially in the D.C. area where they spend a shocking amount of money per pupil but have the worst test scores in the nation.
Every moment in a child's life is a teachable moment. Time outside of class is often a waste - TV, video games, excess internet - while time in the classroom is focused on the next test instead of expanding horizons. My wife's school scored between 62 and 70 percent on End of Grade testing over the past 6 years. This year they scored 85%. The only significant change made in her school was their Literacy Facilitator (my wife) was in her 2nd year in the position and ran their staff like a well-oiled machine. Schools are still made of people. You can spend your time criticizing the leadership, pedagogy, or spending (like the pols do; occasionally rightfully so) OR you can come up with real solutions. What are YOU doing to make a difference?

 

[JellyBaby]

As a former schoolteacher (1 yr vet), married to a literacy facilitator I can tell you have no concept of how social promotion is used. More often than not social promotion is used for the reason implied by the name. Two years is a big difference in middle childhood. Many kids were moved on b/c they are harmed by their lack of interaction with age-appropriate peers AND they are an inherent threat to the children with whom they share a classroom. It's not like they were still around b/c they were good students and citizens.

Confirmation of that goofy nonsense I mentioned.

You have no concept of how the developing mind works.

Not doing to well on having concepts today am I? What can I possibly do or say to meet your stringent criteria for having a concept? Actually, why not just promote me ahead instead, eh?

The "real" solutions you mention involve revolutionary changes and getting the federal government, with it's "here's some money but there are strings attached" mentality, completely out of the picture. Our kids started doing measurable worse just after the feds created the Dept. of Education. Coincidence? Quality and price competition would do wonders for the system.

Many schools have a dedicated medical staff, provide transportation, have elaborate extra curricular programs, multiple layers of bureacracies, consulting services, etc. While convenient, what does any of that really have to do with teaching kids? It's costly and wasteful.

But I suppose you dig the status quo, have no qualms about the teacher's union and think bandaids, political lipservice and throwing money at the problem will suffice?

 

[Rainsford]

People need to pull their heads out of their asses and take a look around at the real world, not polls. Speaking of ignorant, anyone who's taken "Intro to Stats" knows that polls and surveys very rarely speak the truth, and there's big money in scare reporting. All I heard about when I was in school was how stupid American kids are. So I get to college where there are many, many students from other countries and I was kind of worried at first because I was just a stupid ignorant American kid. Yet I have not noticed that foreign students are smarter or better educated. They speak English pretty well, much better than I speak their languages I'm sure. Yet when it comes to math, engineering, science, and so on, it's a pretty close race. The foreign students are pretty smart too, but us dumb Americans hold our own. Pull stats out of your ass all you like, but here in the real world it all looks like a load of bull to me.

 

[Dudd]

Originally posted by: Rainsford
People need to pull their heads out of their asses and take a look around at the real world, not polls. Speaking of ignorant, anyone who's taken "Intro to Stats" knows that polls and surveys very rarely speak the truth, and there's big money in scare reporting. All I heard about when I was in school was how stupid American kids are. So I get to college where there are many, many students from other countries and I was kind of worried at first because I was just a stupid ignorant American kid. Yet I have not noticed that foreign students are smarter or better educated. They speak English pretty well, much better than I speak their languages I'm sure. Yet when it comes to math, engineering, science, and so on, it's a pretty close race. The foreign students are pretty smart too, but us dumb Americans hold our own. Pull stats out of your ass all you like, but here in the real world it all looks like a load of bull to me.

The people who go to college are not the dumb ones. The people who drop out at 15, or get to their senior year of high school and can't do basic math, those are the dumb ones. I spent a year tutoring kids at an inner city school (5th grade), and half of them can hardly read or do basic multiplication. They probably couldn't tell you what a law is, let alone who passes it. I live in NYS, and there recently was an uproar over a Math test that was required for graduation. In some places 90% of the kids failed, in one city school all of the ~150 kids who took it failed it. The state ended up throwing it out. The local paper put a .pdf on their website, and I was shocked at how easy the questions were. Here's an example I remember off the top of my head.

When Bill is 3, his sister Jane is 4 times older than he is. How old is Jane when Bill is 12?

You and I think that is rediculous. Hell, I find Calc to be pretty simple. Yet, most people are not engineering majors or chemistry majors. A lot of people never make it to college, let alone through high school. College is not the only thing that makes up "the real world."

 

[BaliBabyDoc]

Many schools have a dedicated medical staff, provide transportation, have elaborate extra curricular programs, multiple layers of bureacracies, consulting services, etc. While convenient, what does any of that really have to do with teaching kids? It's costly and wasteful.

What exactly do you call many schools? I've spent much of the past decade around one of the best performing school districts in the country, Chapel Hill/Carrboro. The recommended ratio of nurses to students in the high school system is 1/750. What do you think the ratio of this relatively well off school district could be? Try 1/1500 . . . which just doubled b/c I believe they laid off one of their two nurses this year. Many schools have dramatically reduced their already spartan medical coverage (typically a nurse covers several schools by visiting on a schedule). Many school systems now charge families for busing within a school's natural catchment. Elaborate extracurriculars have become uncompensated time for teachers. The only part of your statement that even closely resembles a typical school system in America is the multiple layers of bureaucracy. Despite bashing all ten fingers you definitely hit the nail on the head by saying too much money goes to the central office of American school systems.

But I suppose you dig the status quo, have no qualms about the teacher's union and think bandaids, political lipservice and throwing money at the problem will suffice?

I abhor the status quo. I fight with my wife on a weekly basis about what the schools really need. I tell her the profession needs the same solution as mine. They should admit that 10-20% of the workforce is dead weight. All of those people should be summarily fired. Classroom teachers should gleefully accept the larger classrooms (plus assistants culled from the multitude of Medicare/SS recipients who will be forced to work for continued benefits). I imagine accepting larger paychecks will not be a problem. All teachers should apprentice for at least a year under a Master Teacher after graduating from college b/c just like medicine they leave school and really don't know how to do crap.

Scapegoating is a time honored tradition but it's never solved a problem. The Dept of Ed is neither the solution nor the villain. My state was one of the first to institute accountability systems . . . cleverly titled ABC. There are dramatic differences between schools in testing accumen and occasionally dramatic changes within a school from year to year. IMHO, we might even agree on the point that its the people that make a school strong (teachers, parents, kids, administrators). Hence, that's how we should invest by investing in the people.

 

[LongCoolMother]

ummm.... sorry to let you all in on the truth but...

half the 10th graders in my school and in my state cant tell between a country and a continent, a city and a state. a governor and a mayor. even less name any political individual besides "President Bush". unfortunately, they think europe is a country, and Africa is a country.

 

[tcsenter]

I think educators need to stop complaing about money and complain about the parents and communities who don't want to put in the time. besides, with our low taxes we'll just steal our workers

Have you actually talked with any teachers? Most of them don't seem to share many of the positions of their professional associations or the NEA. Its like the major police associations enthusiastically endorsing gun control, and yet in survey after survey, the majority of cops poll progun and do not support the positions of the associations to which they belong.

How does this happen? I can't explain it, myself. Unions are no different. The UAW consistently endorses antigun candidates, but guess what happens when you poll UAW members? Yep, they're generally progun and opposed to gun control. Lots of gun owners and hunters and shooters and outdoorsmen in the auto factories, particularly in the South where most of the auto industry seems to have gone in recent decades, but they blissfully give their money to the UAW who then uses it to help take away their guns and support antihunting initiatives. ??

The early labour movement altogether is quite instructive. All the early labour leaders were communists or socialists, yet the vast majority of the 'rank-and-file' workers who supported them were uneducated and couldn't tell Karl Marx from the Marx Brothers. All they wanted were better working conditions, better pay, and to be treated like a person instead of livestock, which is neither a communist nor socialist request uniquely.

Eugene Debs and Roger Baldwin used them to advance, not the worker's plight, but their own political and ideological agendas, to which most of the workers would have been opposed had they actually understood it - as they would oppose it now.

Hell my own mother is a paradox. If you poll her on all the major issues, seven issues out of ten she will side against the Democratic Party, yet she's a died-in-the-wool Democrat who punches a straight-party ticket every time. In fact, the majority of Americans poll quite conservatively on the issues.

Talk with actual teachers as an antidote to the left-wing political and ideological agendas of those who seem to rise to the helms of their professional organizations.

 

[Drift3r]

Originally posted by: JellyBaby

As a former schoolteacher (1 yr vet), married to a literacy facilitator I can tell you have no concept of how social promotion is used. More often than not social promotion is used for the reason implied by the name. Two years is a big difference in middle childhood. Many kids were moved on b/c they are harmed by their lack of interaction with age-appropriate peers AND they are an inherent threat to the children with whom they share a classroom. It's not like they were still around b/c they were good students and citizens.

Many schools have a dedicated medical staff, provide transportation, have elaborate extra curricular programs, multiple layers of bureacracies, consulting services, etc. While convenient, what does any of that really have to do with teaching kids?

ROFLMAO ! What school district is that ? I would love to know ! I worked for SFUSD ( San Francisco Unified School District ) in and around the shittiest inner-city schools there. Last I heard they have cut almost all of the arts and extra curricular programs along with handing out a large amount of pink slips in schools located in poor through middle class neighborhoods to save money. About the only schools that were somewhat saved from these major cuts in programs and major staff layoffs were in well to do neighborhoods. Oh yeah good freaking luck trying to get a LaidLaw bus driver to pick up a student afterschool if they have to stay late for any after school activity. It sure as hell won't happen in any school located in the Mission, Hunters Point, LakeView, etc....areas.

P.S. I would love for you to of had to deal with some of the parents I dealt with who A.) Don't care B.) Can't be bothered or C.) Think it's your fault that their kid likes to assault staff, cut school, get high/drunk or both in school. Oh yeah it's also interesting how a kid can tell you what his or her rights ( usually kids like these have lawyers for some reason or another..go figure ! ) are under the law but when you ask them what their responsibilities are in life they get this glazed look in their eye like they don't know what hell you are talking about.

 

[Drift3r]

Originally posted by: BaliBabyDoc

Anyway, both parties, hand-in-hand tried all sorts of goofy nonsense like "social promotion" schemes in an effort to artificially inflate achievement. But it was at the expense of the kids.

It's not like they were still around b/c they were good students and citizens.

You hit the nail on the head here ! Nothing like a 16 year old middle-school student ( in name only ! ) beating the snot out of a 11 or 13 year old kid for his lunch money or because it felt like it. Then again most people don't really realize how much bigger a 15-16 year old really is when compared to a 10-14 year middle-school student not to mention as in terms of maturity level and experince ( keep your young daughter away ! ).

 

[magomago]

I don't think American Children are all ignorant. I just graduated from High School and where I am (Southern California) most people CAN tell the difference with something like WW2. It is when you get nitpicky with questions like "The Ways and Means Commitee is a) b) c) d)..."....

It is just What is important. I know people who know alot about the US Government but diddly squat outside of it - when it becomes important to us THEN will we learn it. The only reason I look and read in the paper about what is going on in the government and foreign policy is because it affects me and my parents.


Then again I look at the areas where I am directly affected the least: IE National Government and I ignore where I can be affected the most IE: Local Government.

I can list all of CA's representatives in Congress but I don't know of one when it comes to the State Assembly...

I think its all about priorities and what is important. Those who are into politics and their parents constantly discuss it have a bigger idea than those where it doesn't interest them.

But I think we are far from stupid/ignorant.


My Calc2 teacher told us once that when she was at Ohio State Majoring in Math she looked around in the department and noticed that she was one of the only "Born in America" Americans. Everyone else was from out of the USA. She told a colleague of hers this and the response was that:
We are not a society that is smart if smart is defined as reading the books and following a standard procedure - but when it comes to creativity and thinking of new ways we are unparalled.

Or it was something to that effect Maybe one of you can make it sound more impressive like she did.

 

[JellyBaby]

I imagine accepting larger paychecks will not be a problem. All teachers should apprentice for at least a year under a Master Teacher after graduating from college b/c just like medicine they leave school and really don't know how to do crap.

I'm not against larger paychecks but teachers do get a few months off every summer! Apprenticing for a year is an intriuging idea and the first I've heard of such a thing. It would certainly help better prepare them and increase the quality of teaching. But the NEA and local clones might be quick to prevent it....unless your rank (i.e. Master Teacher) affords you status and greater pay...then teachers might bite. Anyway, nice idea there.

Drift3r, obviously your district suffers from other problems! On this issue of parents not parenting, that's a very big part of why kids are doing poorly and I know for a fact it frustrates teachers to no end (that and all the paperwork they fill out these days). But how do you tackle that aspect? Perhaps it's time for a return of discipline to the classroom. Used to have it in my day. Today, thanks in part to liberal democrats, teachers can't apply real discpline. They're left with "lights out" tactics. Oddly, "lights out" used to work quite well in my day but we respected teachers by default. Point being if kids without discipline in the home discover the joys of it in school, we may just wind up with attentive, better educated youth.

 

[BaliBabyDoc]

I taught for a year b/c I wanted a challenge before subjecting myself to med/grad school. I was hired as a lateral entry to teach 8th grade Science/Math/Social Studies at Holton Alternative Learning Center . . . a public school dumping ground. By October I had become the Grade Chair and the Science Dept Chair, despite having the least experience. I was also my school's representative to the NEA. You have to work in the system to understand all of the system's roses and thorns.

The generalizations made about unions is BS. Many portray them as nothing more than collective bargaining for the enrichment of a corrupt few. Invariably, almost every union has its share of unsavory members (and leaders). But how is that any different from the politicians and business leaders in America? Do you think every lobbyist group, PAC, corporate board, and Congressional caucus is looking out for the public's best interest? Do you really think the typical American factory worker or schoolteacher would have their current level of compensation and benefits without collective bargaining? The summer off for teachers is BS. The good ones put in doctor-like hours during the year and continue to work to improve their skills during summer often while working a 2nd job to make ends meet.

The people that want to tear down public instruction take the bad apples as representative such Strawman BS is appropriate for the middle school debate team but has no value in solving the real problems in public ed. The racist cop on the beat, rapist soldier in Japan/Korea, crude American tourist in Europe, and politician on the take are exceptions not the norm . . . well except for maybe the pol. But the most expedient means of poisoning discourse is to use caricature instead of reality.

Public ed needs help not recriminations from many of those contributing to its problems . . . namely pols, parents, and the self-righteous public that thinks their public school is above reproach while every other school must be K-12 daycare.

 

[oreagan]

Well, when I moved to South Carolina preceding my junior year of high school, I was a bit worried for obvious reasons - SC doesn't have the best reputation for education. The school I ended up at didn't have the highest test scores of those around either, and so I was worried, but they had some excellent upper-level classes. I took two Advanced Placement (college level) classes my first year there, six my senior year. In these eight classes, I had the best teachers I've ever had, no exceptions. Even in the honors courses I took my junior year I had good teachers; I was behind in math when I started PreCalculus Honors, but AP Calc the next year was a breeze. The only weak teachers I had were those low-level classes I had to take to fill requirement and couldn't fit in a tougher class. So, I'm thinking that it really depends on who you ask. The better students get the better teachers, the students who don't care get the newer or more jaded teachers. If you looked at my school as a whole, my class probably wasn't that clever, but for the 30-40 out of 300 of us who actually wanted it, a quality education was available. Should that change to try to reach out to the slackers? Maybe, but if you put the best teachers in the weakest classes you're doing the students who actually care a disservice.

As a side note, you have to remember that at least 70% of students who take a standardized test that doesn't actually have any weight (isn't going to hurt their grades or anything) aren't going to give a rat's behind. I'm frankly surprised only 25% got the answers wrong, why should anyone care to put down the right answer? If I were asked insultingly easy questions like those I'd be tempted to put down the most incorrect answers possible. I wouldn't take those stats all that seriously.

 

[oreagan]

Many schools have a dedicated medical staff, provide transportation, have elaborate extra curricular programs, multiple layers of bureacracies, consulting services, etc. While convenient, what does any of that really have to do with teaching kids? It's costly and wasteful.

Extracurriculars can make all the difference in any school, and for a bargain. As a die-hard alumnus of the Technology Student Association, I can tell you that co-curricular and extracurricular activities like these can make all the difference in a student's life. These Career and Technical Student Organizations allow students to excel in areas that they care about and help train for their futures at the same time - Johnny may suck at history, but if he's an engineer at heart and good with, say, construction systems, he can succeed, learn, meet people with similar interests and have a personally tailored education in TSA without the school system spending a dime. Same goes for the other CTSOs such as FBLA, DECA, HOSA, and FFA. I'm going on to college myself, but inexpensive career training in high school goes a long way for some who can't afford or don't choose higher education.