The Myth of the Great Equalizer: Public Education
The fact that this label exists, proves my point...
(This post is a response to the thread on Taxes about education)
I have a distaste for the public education system but not for the “liberal” agenda Tex says passes on to the children of our nation, but the lies or half-truths it continuously spreads to them. Is there a high school history class that covers the events past the 1950 hey-day? Is there one that actually acknowledges that Abe Lincoln was an abolitionist and not just trying to keep Britain and France out of the Civil War? What about Native American history? Everything is so “P.C.” that we can’t risk offending racist whites who want to believe Lincoln didn’t really want to free the slaves. Then there is the whole idea imposed upon young children that the United States is the only “free” country in the world while the rest all live under monarchies and dictatorships.
I do think there is something to be said about good teachers and good students. I went to public school and experienced the joy of bomb threats, wand metal detectors, half covered pre-teens and underage pregnancy. However, I also was (I can’t believe I’m admitting this) in the Marching Band, that took me to Hollywood and Virginia (from NYS) to perform (and we weren’t funded by school taxes; we earned our way via horrible fundraisers). I stayed out of trouble and got a pretty decent education from teachers I consider outstanding. Public school can do its job, but the students themselves need to want to learn. You can throw dollar after dollar at an education program, but if the students aren’t motivated, who can teach that? Parents themselves need to be involved in their child’s education yet there are so many who just don’t give a flying f*ck. It could be laziness or distraction but parents shoulder much of the blame for their child’s education or lack thereof.
I’m all for public schools. I think they are necessary, but I do wish I had been able to go to a better private school that would have been more academically intense. I would have loved to learn French, Spanish, German, etc., in addition to Latin, but my school could only afford to offer two language options. We also had very few electives and, although I was in honors classes, they weren’t exactly challenging. I rarely if ever studied throughout high school and still managed to graduate in the top three percent.
I know of other schools in NYS that do offer so many electives because they are better funded. Some of my classmates at college were able to almost completely opt out of taking any core classes because they had so many AP credits transfer. There were only 5 possible classes I could take (calculus, physics or biology, Latin, U.S. History and English) in a certain amount of time and I took four (a missed assignment in the 8th grade doomed me from ever being in Honors English), but I still was behind. The Rochester School District is notorious for having neighboring school districts with such a discrepancy in test scores and funding. Even when they tried to equalize the districts via redrawing district lines, it was complete chaos.
Public education in this country is far from equal, or completely liberal. Yes, they preach things like religious and racial tolerance, often touted as liberal causes, but the system overall is far from true liberal or conservative ideology. The funding system is completely flawed and has been even before No Child Left Behind (terrible system that compounded public school problems). Public education is so far from the “great equalizer” because wealthier suburbian kids go to better high schools while poor rural and inner city kids go to decrepit buildings filled with usually inexperienced teachers who really want to teach in the suburbs (Minus the few “Dangerous Minds” like exceptions).
Even students that do succeed in inner city and rural schools face a tougher transition once they get into college. Their grades may have been good enough for acceptance, but that does not always translate into a decent education. When kids from failing schools have “succeeded” and enter a college or university, they are often ill-equipped because their education was inferior. Sometimes, they even fail because they do not have the basic knowledge and skills colleges assume all high school students have.
I’m not saying that public education should absolve anyone of personal responsibility in their own education. My point here is that in this day and age, public education is far from an equalizer. The system in place keeps the suburbs wealthy by educating the already wealthier children and hindering those who need education the most.
I don’t know, I went to one of those “rural” schools and did fairly well (top 10%) and now I go to a decent private college. My grades from my freshman year (this past academic year) were higher than the grades I got in high-school, so I’m not sure the point about rural kids having a harder time in college necessarily translates for each individual. I know a lot of kids from my area who go to either the same or similar colleges now and are doing the same as I am. Maybe we’re just a self-selecting group though.
R. Ward,
The author was a little vague in my complaints about public school systems; and I presume this is based on a post I made in a previous thread. Urban or rural, you would have been a good student in any school, including my children’s private schools. Good students find a way and all schools have some good teachers; all schools have at least a pocket of equally good parents.
It has been my experience many of those “rural” schools far superior to the urban schools. My “bohunk” friend straight off the family farm from a poor, rural district and graduating class of 29 blistered me in Organic Chemistry II and the MCAT. And I graduated from a huge, fairly wealthy, ‘nice part of town’ public school system which I am reasonably sure was better staffed and better equipped.
I learned long ago some of those “dumb”, small town people are about as smart as it gets. They just don’t advertise it like many of the Ivy League type.
And which book would that be? Because I just read the other day of a high school history book that noted MLK is mentioned in 16 different pages, none that bother to mention he was first and foremost a Baptist preacher; just a civil right’s activist.
Ironically, George Washington is mentioned once. Which one do you believe had a larger influence in the American Constitution and U.S. history?
Perhaps it’s one of those history books trying to appease those ‘racist’ blacks trying to remove The Adventures of Huckleberry Finn from the school’s library; you know, the school administrator assaulted the book as “racist trash” for its showcasing of racial stereotypes, as well as for its use of the “N-word.” Or that America is an imperialist country?
And a sterling comparison of why my children went to a private school. Probably a racist, private school too. The kinds where dads cling to their religion and guns toting the 30 ought 6 to the halls of education for teaching children about the ‘Trail of Tears.” {sheesh}
Nothing more comical than watching somebody uber PC preach about the evils of political correctness.
In regards to the Abe Lincoln comment, I was talking about a survey of high school history text books that found that most stated that it was a misconception that Abe Lincoln was an abolitionist. They say the only reason he freed the slaves was to prevent England and France from entering the Civil War. Lincoln in fact was an abolitionist and spoke out against slavery in his early career.
In regards to the influence on the Constitution, George Washington didn’t have all that much. It was primarily James Madison. How many high school history books really get into the Federalist papers and the debates leading up to the formation of the Constitution? Not many. The Constitution is presented as an infallible document and often the Articles of Confederation are rarely mentioned, nor the unrest in the rural areas following the Revolutionary War. I agree with you that the Civil Rights Movement is ridiculously covered compared to, let’s say, United Fruit, the Iran-Contra Scandal, etc.
History textbooks are designed to appease not just the liberals but the conservatives as well. The Lincoln example was just the only one I could think of at 2 AM. I’m well aware that history textbooks are filled with many more lies and half-truths that gloss over the more dicey periods of our history. They tend to present an airbrushed picture of American history which can often result in students become blind uneducated patriots if they don’t think enough to question the information presented to them.
Believe me, historians who write high school textbooks tend to be somewhat of a joke among other historians (when the textbook is even written by a historian).
Also Tex, I am not one to say that your girls went to a racist private school. I tend to think that private schools are a bit better than public ones, which is why parents who can afford it, send their children there. Private schools also range in their educational and political philosophies so I would not assume that you sent your children to one that “clings to religion and guns.” (I also find that statement to be repulsive so don’t put words in my mouth).
Also, to address R Ward, my statement was indeed very general. Not all underfunded rural schools are facing the same challenges but it was my point that it is not just innercity but rural schools as well that experience shortages and difficulties.
You know sometimes you read a post and you want to comment,and engage in a bit of discussion and debate. Then there those posts you just click away from thinking bad thoughts. Lat there are those that out of no disrespect at all you offer congrats to a good piece and thank the author for sharing.
I am going with the last one.
Kate,
I didn’t even know that was written by you. Though you’ll choke, I thought that a parting shot from someone else – hence, the sarcasm. Forgive me and I mean that. I shouldn’t have taken it personally.
Like I said previously, private schools are generally better for four reasons; three of which I believe you’ll agree; the fourth will make you scream with anger and is the biggest ‘wall’ between the two of us.
First, there are a stringent set of rules that are followed. You don’t follow, you can hit the road. Many public schools don’t have that luxury. Second, again as a general rule, you get a higher quality parent. Our kids when born have no unique set of gifts. But they do have a loving home with two loving parents (again generally) actively involved in their education. There is nothing magic about it. Third, there is no such thing as tenure. You’re a lousy teacher – you’re out. There are no rotten unions to protect you.
Finally, we don’t have secular humanists (and there is a difference from “liberal”) that have controlled the curriculum for 40 years. Their record speaks for itself. No need to delve further as I could cause a major stink here and since my time runs short, I’ll try to leave on a nice note.
But…
About George Washington. This is only my opinion. I not only think him our greatest President ever, including Lincoln, but without our first President, I do not believe there would have been a United States of America. He would be a personal hero of mine for bravery, wisdom and foresight. As far as the Constitutional involvement – you’re probably right.
I agree with you about George Washington. He set a great example for the rest of our presidents to follow, but over time the office of the executive has expanded far and away from his example. I’m not saying this out of any malicious intent, although with Nixon it may be, but a general evolution due to national crises that needed expedient solutions.
In regards to your fourth problem with public education, I will only defend the “secular humanists” in saying that those who write the curriculum must show deference to those of many religious backgrounds, including those without religion. It is a government institution so it is supposed to be without a religious bias, as guaranteed by the Bill of Rights.
I just disagree when this deference to various religious groups translates into a revision of American history that leaves out important information students need in order to make decisions about current events.
Yes, but that cuts both ways and I think you skewed to one side and woefully blind to the fault(s) of the other. To ignore the history concerning the importance of one particular religion in the founding of our country is equally as bad. And that is exactly what has been attempted.
And Kate, whether you admit to this or not, it has damaged your public school system. If it were not true and simply funding the system the problem as so many attest, public schools should have gotten significantly better – not worse. Many of us still finance the structure without using the resource.
But that hasn’t happened.
Kate,
One last thing before I depart (possibly for a long time). Never apologize for being a “marching band” member.
Funny story and a great parable for listening to the aged. My mother was a “marching band” member. What brains I have came from her. I was a jock, too cool to associate with the weak (or so I thought).
While in high school, my mom lectured me about those wimpy marching band members amounting to something while the dummies I ran with would end up as worthless. I waved my hand at her idiocy thinking her both too dumb and too old to know anything of real substance.
At my reunion two weeks ago, most of those band members were now physicians, lawyers, executives, successful business folks, happy housewifes and house husbands enjoying their retirement lifestyle, and anything else defined as worldly success.
My jock friends?
Let’s just say they didn’t measure up to the high school “weaklings” – that is, if they dared showed up at all.
Me? Just glad to have a wife that hadn’t run be off. I just swallowed hard, meekly smiled and admitted I was now a 40 something ex-jock, whose glory days were long behind me – still trying to find ‘inner’ self. Humble pie, it is.
Mother knows best…keep on marching!
There was influence in building the country from many different religious groups, including Quakers, Puritans/Presbyterians (which get extensive coverage), Catholics, etc., and while I know this, I also know that many of the founding fathers themselves were secular humanists. Their religious beliefs are not talked about, nor is the criticism of the American system by Alexis deTocqueville. He was never even mentioned until college.
Second, I was taught about the beliefs of many world religions in my history classes in high school. This included their primary tenants and where they had the most influence. Religions were covered relatively equally, from Buddhism to Protestantism, and my teacher (a Buddhist who liked to sing in an Anglican choir) made special emphasis that she was teaching ABOUT religion and not religion itself.
There was a typo I just noticed in the quote; I didn’t mean religious groups solely that the “secular humanists” defer. There are a lot of other belief factions that are deferred to that, in my opinion, ruin the American education system.
Also, I graduated and am no longer in the Marching Band, but it was a great time while I was there!
Alfie,
Thanks!
Ooops…sorry about the blockquote typo.
While I think that both of you bring up some valid points about the public education system I question as to what your involvement beyond going to school is in the education system. As a middle school high school teacher I find that some of your ideas are rather poorly researched. I would think that I have a rather good understanding of the “common” history textbook and I while I agree that there are certain parts of history that are overlooked (the treatment of native americans) both of your examples regarding the civil rights movement and Lincoln are not exactly correct, and could be the result of having poor teachers yourselves. First of all Lincoln was not a complete abolitionist, it was his belief that the states should decide whether or not slavery should be present in the United States. It was not until later in his term that he decided to actually have the federal government step in to abolish slavery, in fact, Lincoln was reluctant to join the newly formed republican party because he felt its stance of slavery may have been too strict. Secondly in regards to your argument about poor teaching of United States History post 1950s, and only really emphasizing the Civil Rights movement, there are reasons for that. First of all, history takes time to put into perspective, and when you, and myself were in high school the civil rights movement was not that far separated from our lives, and it was one of those rare moments that people knew the importance of historically immediately. Other incidents from the 1970s on are still being debated as to their true meaning and importance in actual American History. While I would agree that we as teachers should try and get into the facts of the events a bit more, you also need to remember that there is a massive curriculum that takes a good deal of time to get through, and at times it is simply difficult to mention all the deemed “important events.”
Finally, your arguments for private schools are the weakest. A great many private school are good, however an equally great number, if not greater are not nearly as good as public schools. Most private schools, do not have a specific criteria for their teacher selection, meaning that you do not have to be a teacher by trade to teach in a private school, something that has been a great detriment to many students. I have nothing against those teaching that have actual real like experience in other fields, but the field of teaching is not just something that anyone can do and is a profession and should have the same criteria as other professions. Many private schools do not hold teachers to the same standard as public schools are required to. The education system is very much in need of an overhaul, but an increase of private schools is not the answer, and neither is tossing money at it. I agree that parental and community involvement in the welfare and education of the students is one of the most effective ways to create a “good” school.
I also would like to point out that the teaching of History is not the only area lacking in the public schools, and simply educating students differently in the history of our and other nations will not make overall better students. The math, science, English, and foreign language curriculum needs to be reworked as well. The biggest example I can give of that is that students are starting a second language in middle or high school in many states, rather than the more logical kindergarten or first grade, when the brain is most adept to learn language.
The school system in general needs to be fixed, and I am glad for the discussion either way.
Chris,
My involvement in the school system is more than just attending public school. I am surrounded by teachers and school administrators, both friends and family, who discuss the failings of the school system on a regular basis.
Three of my best friends attended private schools; two were in private school until high school (private schooling past high school past the 8th grade is nonexistent in my community) and one attended private school after elementary school. My friends who went to private school until high school were far advanced in English, math, and science. They were also disproportionately honors students and their writing skills were far superior to my public school friends at the time.
I used history as an example because I studied History/American Studies in college and read Lies My Teacher Told Me, a survey of the common history textbooks available in the school system. I am well aware that studies in science and mathematics in this country are far below those of others, but as I don’t know as much about the subjects, I didn’t use them as an example.
I had both great and deplorable teachers. Ironically, my best teachers were in the humanities fields, but I was disappointed that they did not have time to teach more current events due to the fact that they had to teach for the NYS Regents test.
I know that it takes time to put events from the past 30 years into historical context, but how are 15 year old supposed to know about what happened in the years just before they were born or when they were small children? It is my opinion that students need to at least be aware of these “current” events because otherwise they will not put what is on the news now into a realistic perspective. How can we expect to have an informed electorate when they are not informed?
And yet, neither Kate nor I can be held accountable for being part of the public school problem since you admit funding is not the issue. She apparently has no children – I have no personal interest since mine are grown and attended private schools. My only concern is wishing each child a fair chance at a good education. No matter how good your teaching, you can not claim the same because you are actively part of the system.
Perhaps it is regional, but where I am from virtually every private school in our area constantly beats public schools in every facet of academics. And the ones that my children attended overwhelming exceed the best of the public school system in test scores, college entrance, and the like. The only thing they don’t dominate is athletics and even that is competitive.
My neighbor, a public school teacher for 35 years and just retired, told me Friday that she recommends to all future teachers in her seminars here in our metropolitan area, “teach private.”
She has given a multitude of reasons, from bad administration to bad parenting. I will tell you that your statements hold no water in my part of the country…even public school teachers admit as much.
both of your examples regarding the civil rights movement and Lincoln are not exactly correct, and could be the result of having poor teachers yourselves
I believe you should reread my statements, if that particular comment was directed to me. The only thing I made mention of Lincoln was I thought Washington an even greater President. Therefore, I don’t see how I could have made fallacious statements about the civil war. And since you used the plural, I must assume that was directed to both Kate and me.
Tex, in talking about the secular humanists, I was referring to the Jefferson Bible where he cut out all the miraculous passages in the bible, including the virgin birth. http://www.latimes.com/news/local/la-me-beliefs5-2008jul05,0,7730914.story
I misspoke when I said they were all secular humanists. I meant that the country wasn’t founded on religious principles but the morality behind the religious values.
I do think that the Bible offers fantastic life and morality lessons; I myself attended Sunday school and was even a teaching assistant as a teenager. I just don’t think that religions have a place in forming a school curriculum to which children of all denominations are subjected. Again, goes back to the “freedom of religion” concept the founding fathers thought were important enough to put into our documented Bill of Rights.
About Jefferson,
It was only later in life that he converted after the death of his wife. He lost faith in a loving God soon thereafter and I guess we can assume died that way.
But I think it worth remembering that it was Jefferson himself, moonlighting as the superintendent of schools, demanded that two books be included in the classroom: (1) A book of Hymns; (2) The Bible.
In addition, during Jefferson’s time, the largest gathering during worship happened to be the Congressional Building which Jefferson helped initiate and it which Jefferson mandated that a military orchestra (paid for by the public dole) would conduct the music during service.
Jefferson may have late in life lost faith – but contrary to popular opinion, he would have been the ACLU’s worst nightmare.
And just a note: “freedom of religion” does not mean “freedom from religion.”
But I understand your concern about catering to a multitude of different beliefs and am willing to accept that fact. I am confident enough in my own faith to not be challenged.