Comments on: High School Diplomas

By: Carlos

Carlos — Sat, 21 Feb 2004 20:12:04 +0000

Yo, HST in NYC. Claudia Goldin has studied the effects of US public education in the 19th and 20th centuries extensively. Simply put, the vast expansion of ‘human capital’ in the US over the past two hundred years is primarily owed to the public school system. Private schooling, barely a blip. Goldin is one of the best economic historians of our time; while this silly blogster Ken is obviously unfamiliar with the history of public schools in the US and equally obviously wants to get into a fact-free, ideological debate about it. Too bad for him. C.

By: dick

dick — Sat, 21 Feb 2004 06:51:32 +0000

This will be a little muddled. I think that some of the problem with high school is that we have teachers who know how to teach by the education department book but really do not have a basis in the subject they are supposed to be teaching. Therefore we have teachers who don’t know their subject and so students who also do not learn the subject. As to the standardized tests and the political and educational standards that result from them, if the education infrastructure can use these tests to see where the failing schools are falling down and actually do something about it, then the standardized tests will have performed their function. The problem is when the neighborhoods use the schools for social engineering and as a result the good schools are cut down and you end up with a group of mediocre schools instead of one good one and a bunch of mediocre schools. This happened in the neighborhood where I did live here in NYC. There was a very well off neighborhood with active parents and several not well off neighborhoods and totally unconcerned parents. Result was that the activists in the not well off neighborhoods complained that their schools were being shortchanged and the end result was that even the good schools were ruined. What is being lost here is that all the students should get an education that teaches them to think whether they go on to college or not. That is most definitely not happening. In our 5th tier colleges, it is not happening at college either as anyone who has interviewed graduates can agree.

By: A New York City High School Math Teacher

A New York City High School Math Teacher — Fri, 20 Feb 2004 21:06:17 +0000

“Yep? Do you have an example of a wealthy country with any measure of social mobility without public education?"
Well, I have an example of a country that was steadily getting wealthier and had social mobility without public education - the United States of America before the institution of public education.
Do you seriously believe that our advancement would have stopped in its tracks since then if we had never instituted public education?

Free urban public education created a free pool of literate workers able to manage information flows and master technical skills essential to the development of an commercial-industrial economy. Literate labor made modern social politics possible, created mass consumer culture, and gave birth to our enormous pool of skilled and educated professionals. I do believe that universal free public education had everything to do with economic and cultural progress in the United States over the last 180 years - and I find it very hard to credit seriously a viewpoint that that doesn't accept that commonplace. Without public ed -- a vast American Ukraine? Carlos, you there?

By: Ken

Ken — Fri, 20 Feb 2004 15:50:09 +0000

“Yep? Do you have an example of a wealthy country with any measure of social mobility without public education? ” Well, I have an example of a country that was steadily getting wealthier and had social mobility without public education – the United States of America before the institution of public education. Do you seriously believe that our advancement would have stopped in its tracks since then if we had never instituted public education?

By: harry

harry — Fri, 20 Feb 2004 03:34:30 +0000

Public education is a social experiment that has been in place for the last 150 years. It is a failed experiment: it fails to usefully educate the masses Yep? Do you have an example of a wealthy country with any measure of social mobility without public education? Without such a control its very hard to say the experiment has failed. I hope you’re not a social science major, or I’ll start revising my high opinion of private universities.

By: john

john — Fri, 20 Feb 2004 02:08:40 +0000

Gall? I only find it admirable when it is not combined with stupidity. Suffering and striving for an unreachable goal strikes me as an incredible waste of one’s life. People will always teach. Public education is a social experiment that has been in place for the last 150 years. It is a failed experiment: it fails to usefully educate the masses. Before public education, private schools educated those who could afford it. Teachers have existed without the support of the government. So, to reflect on what things might be like without teachers: I may as well dwell upon the day elephants talk and cats fly. The last post has me confused. First Boston doesn’t exist anymore?

By: Hipocrite

Hipocrite — Thu, 19 Feb 2004 21:31:33 +0000

“If I want to Ibank for First Boston..” See, if you went to Haaaavard, you would sneer at people who don’t want to work for Goldman. If you went to the school I went to, however, you’d know that there’s no such thing as “First Boston” any more.

By: Gaska

Gaska — Thu, 19 Feb 2004 18:50:12 +0000

“I understand that teaching in public high school is thankless, frustrating work. But you chose to become a teacher. You chose this profession aware of the difficulties involved. Someone who complains about hardships they have chosen freely deserves mockery.” This is absurd. Teaching is an important job that must be done, and many are willing to do it in spite of the hardships. This doesn’t mean they need to accept them. Speaking out about the problems in the teaching profession is a necessary part of effecting any positive change. For you to dismiss teachers’ concerns with “you knew the job was dangerous when you took it” is short-sighted and irresponsible. I’m not saying teachers should be canonized; I am saying that heaping derision on someone for taking on a messy, but necessary job – and having the gall to try to make it less messy – is outrageous. Instead of smugly dismissing those you consider beneath you, you might try a little empathy. You might also reflect on what things would be like if no one were willing to do this work.

By: john

john — Thu, 19 Feb 2004 01:59:19 +0000

To Jay: I was accepted to Harvard, most likely because I am a legacy. I chose Bowdoin over Harvard primarily for the difference in size, but the role my legacy status played in my admittance was a factor. As for test scores, the truth is that a policy like Bowdoin’s aids people with very high test scores, like your’s truly. When the admission’s board has two applicants that are similar, the one who submitted scores will almost always get preferential treatment, barring legacy or athletic recruit status. I attended public school, not a fancy prep school. I was admitted to the major NESCAC school’s, except for Williams. I chose Bowdoin for the food, its Gov’t department, and its location by the ocean. To Tim: I would imagine the experience of teaching at a liberal arts college to have rewards beyond mere monetary compensation: the enjoyment of teaching a subject one cares about to students who also care seems to play a larger role than salary. To NYC: Bowdoin is a fine institution. I understand that my opinions are provocative if nothing else, but I do not find them adequate basis for your remarks about my college. Here, I represent my opinions, and I do not claim (or even imagine!) them to be shared by most of my classmates. My views are not the result of my time spent in college: I am from New Mexico, one of the poorest states in the country, and went through one of the worst public education systems, period. My teachers were, with one exception, lazy and worthless. Although they may claim the highest principles behind their “motivation” to teach, the day to day behavior exhibited in the classes did not reflect this. Rather, they seemed tired, worn, and entirely apathetic with regards to the students. At Bowdoin, I find the greatest wealth in my peers, and the second greatest in professors who delight in their work and their students. I cannot understand why anyone would prefer to teach high school than college, given the choice. I understand that teaching in public high school is thankless, frustrating work. But you chose to become a teacher. You chose this profession aware of the difficulties involved. Someone who complains about hardships they have chosen freely deserves mockery. Can or have you made a difference in a student’s life? Have you mentored a student, and given him/her a desire for success that they could not find elsewhere? And is that experience, if you have had it, as rewarding as I would imagine? Why then would you choose to teach in an environment where your pupils are mediocre, and talent rare, but worst of all, not even necessary to pass? As for those who believe that only slight differences exist between State U and the top tier private colleges: you are wrong. What professions have you entered, where your gpa does not count? The top schools offer several huge advantages, the most important of which (imho) are: 1. The alumni network. If I want to Ibank for First Boston, for example, I have a long list of people that I can get in touch with. Preferential treatment is practically guaranteed. 2. The general atmosphere. I am now surrounded by the kind of people I will most likely spend the rest of my life interacting with: highly motivated intellectuals. The confidence I have gained in my own ability to compete and succeed with them is invaluable. The general attitude at Bowdoin regarding postgrad endeavors reflects this confidence. 3. Graduate school does figure into many careers, particularly as education inflation continues. My gpa will not have to be nearly as high as it would at a State U to gain admissions into the top grad schools. Of course, there are excellent state schools. I do not mean to discount them: they offer exactly the benefits I described above. Where you go to college matters, even if only for personal reasons. For example, I paid approx. ten dollars for beer last semester, thanks to school funded social houses. I believe that will compare favorably with any state university. I do not find public school teachers admirable in the same sense that I find martyrs foolish.

By: tim

tim — Wed, 18 Feb 2004 23:34:52 +0000

“we do not value this job sufficiently. We do not pay well, and, in many places, we do not demand enough.” That’s not so obviously true. Teacher starting salaries are comparable with starting salaries for for a B.A. in liberal arts. (Not with accountants or engineers, however.) And the average teacher salary is not so far out of line compared with average US household incomes. (Especially if the household has two teachers, and considering that the salary is for 9 or 10 months of work.) And the average teacher salary doesn’t compare unfavorably with positions in small colleges – positions which, btw, generally require Ph.D.s. In addition, a recent study from Stanford has shown that teacher pay doesn’t correlate with student outcomes, and a study from Texas reveals that retention problems in the public schools are linked to problems with discipline and administration much more than with pay. Finally, private school teachers generally are paid more poorly than public school teachers, but there isn’t the same crisis of education from the private schools – quite the opposite. So, while it does seem true that the management of schools and educators is a problem, it is probably not the case that the salary is really the problem. And throwing more dollars at the school may be a poor solution even if salary is the problem – because that’s what they have administrators there for, to absorb the extra money.

By: Thomas R.

Thomas R. — Wed, 18 Feb 2004 23:34:14 +0000

Ruth: “According to the article he cites, black students in South Africa don’t automatically get points added to their scores; rather, students who are not native speakers of the examination languages — English or Afrikaans — get a 5% bonus, to account for the disadvantages of being examined in a second language.” Here’s a link to the article again. When reading it remember: 1) Almost all South Africans who don’t speak English or Afrikaans as a first language are black 2) Almost all South African blacks don’t speak English or Afrikaans as a first language. My claim that “black students get 5% added automatically to their matric marks.” is therefore correct. “…but the deficit corrected for is a linguistic one, not a racial one…” Despite “overwhelming evidence” that writing exams in a second language is not a disadvantage, the South African government insists in adding 5% to these students’ marks. The deficit therefore seems more likely to be racial (blacks still have to deal with the legacy of “Bantu Education”).

By: limberwulf

limberwulf — Wed, 18 Feb 2004 20:33:15 +0000

Um, what is a commitment going to do that we are not doing? I think we need to bring the free market to schools, not more government funding and beurocracy.

By: carla

carla — Wed, 18 Feb 2004 20:16:18 +0000

First, the biggest problem is that we as a society have failed in our previous commitment to provide a public education for all of our citizens. Some kids can get it because they live in the right neighborhoods; some can get it because they’re extremely smart or motivated and they find a teacher or teachers who help them. Many get nothing except a chair in which to sit. Second, why, exactly, would someone want to be a teacher? Well, there are many reasons, and they’re good reasons, but, again, we do not value this job sufficiently. We do not pay well, and, in many places, we do not demand enough. (I think this has its roots in the notion that teachers can be “managed” in Taylorist fashion, that administrators have to run things, that teachers cannot come up with a curriculum, for example. See Marjorie Murphy’s book, “Blackboard Unions.” Or the first half of my dissertation, for that matter.) Third, a high school diploma did used to mean something. Certainly in my parents’ generation (they graduated from the same high school I did, in 1948 and 1952, or thereabouts) it meant something, i.e., you left having learned something. Now, however, unless the kid is going to college—in which case the gloves are off, gotta fight for every last GPA point—it’s a holding pen that demands little and delivers less. And not because teachers are worthless—most, I suspect, would LOVE to be able to really teach—even teach the kids who aren’t going to college (or maybe especially them). But without a commitment to public education for everyone, it’s only going to get worse.

By: David Salmanson

David Salmanson — Wed, 18 Feb 2004 18:52:35 +0000

A. Has anybody actually shown that .1 of a percent will harm an applicant’s chances of getting into college. Some admissions officer want to demystify the process? Or was it just a convenient way to explain not getting into one’s first choice college, and really how realistic was that in the first place for you. Even if you got that 1/10th chances are you still weren’t getting in. B. Hasn’t anybody here heard of a grading rubric? C. The College Board lost quality control of the APs a long time ago by offering way too many. Some of the best high school have stopped offering AP and many more are looking hard at it. D. Lost work done on computer is easily replaced and date verifiable. But if your kid has repeatedly had lost work with lots of different teachers, there is something else going on here. Especially if teachers collect assignments by e-mail or on the computer using blackboard or the equivalent. ie: Is your kid losing the stuff before s/he gets to school and not admitting it? How neat is the binder etc. E. An end of year high stakes exam is a fine way to figure a grade unless, class discussion matters (as in languages), that’s the weak you get mono, your grandfather dies, etc.., you do better at 1 hour exams than 3 hour exams etc. etc. etc. F. While establishing a portfolio of work is a fine concept and works in certain circumstances such as art school, having one’s high school career put onto a CD rom is just silly. Who is going to look at all that stuff just to find out if you can sort, work a cash register, etc.? That’s why employers give their own quickie tests. G. If that principal has any brains he will refer the problem back to a department chair who won’t change the grade, otherwise he will be besieged by parents in a short time and never get any work done.

By: james

james — Wed, 18 Feb 2004 18:25:02 +0000

Here in Ontario we’ve recently had in the news parents suing the government because their children cannot graduate without passing a Grade 10 level standardized literacy test. (See http://www.globeandmail.com/servlet/story/RTGAM.20040209.wlitt0209/BNStory/National/ for more details.) Aside from the underlying implication—that high school graduation is a right independednt of the statutory requirements for that graduation—I find the idea that the students who fail these fairly minimalist tests (after the opportunity over two years for several retries) will be able to pursue any goals based on later academic achievment dubious. The relative stress of university as compared to high school is likely to prove at least as great a barrier.