STEM = Science, Technology, Engineering, Math. And, if given freedom of choice and abundant opportunities, more women prefer other fields. Conversely, straitjacketing women through poverty, and cultural and legal devices, ironically means more STEM women (More or less is a percentage of a study population). The upshot: depressed countries meet the modern feminist ideal more than free, open, and prosperous ones. So, should we adopt the Sub-Saharan African model of social and economic organization to boost our female STEM numbers? And/or, should we continue our efforts to artificially construct the new woman according to recent Hollywood stereotypes?
Check out the articles:
** “Countries with greater gender equality have lower percentages of female STEM graduates MU study finds”, News Bureau, U. of Missouri, 2/14/2018, https://munews.missouri.edu/…/0214-countries-with-greater-…/
** A good synthesis: “Gender equality paradox: fewer women in developed nations go after STEM degrees”, Philip Perry, BigThink, 3/1/2018, http://bigthink.com/…/the-downside-to-greater-gender-equali…
For one, “free” isn’t “free”. It’s shorthand for the government making somebody else pay. For another, the whole idea is a mess. If you want to ruin college, unleash public debt, and wreck the lives of many young people, make college “free”.
Two things stand out in this latest crusade for “free”. First, the idea defiles colleges by roping into them marginal students which turns colleges into something resembling failing high schools, and lets loose a form of hyper-inflation … of degrees. It’s like the idea of making a country richer (more educated) simply by printing more dollars (degrees).
Second, it’s as if we can suspend the laws of human nature, as if there are no such laws. Economics can’t exist without them. It’s economics that is really being ridden out of the picture. “Free” means “subsidies”, and subsidies make anything more expensive. Take dairy price supports, or ethanol subsidies, and apply to college. You’ll end up with warehouses full of degrees, many of which have more to do with political activism than practicality and enlightenment. Watch costs escalate.
More troubling is the greater acceptance of the nonsense among normally conservative constituencies. The popularity of the balderdash is proof of debased education and the ascent of the juvenile love for “free” into age groups that should know better.
*”Why States Should Abandon the ‘Free College’ Movement”, Jennifer E. Walsh, NRO, 3/19/2018, https://www.nationalreview.com/…/why-states-should-abandon…/
Unsurprisingly and generally speaking, parents strive to grease the skids for their kids’ future success. Particularly, middle class parents will drive themselves to near bankruptcy in order to guarantee their offspring’s advancement. Yet, when they buy into a nicer neighborhood to enroll junior in a “better” school, are they really getting a “better” school? There’s good reason to doubt that proposition. Much of the corruption in our schools has deep tentacles, and is no respecter of “red” vs. “blue” states, public or private schools, inner city or suburban schools, parochial or secular, and even reaches down into home-schooling. It’s equal-opportunity corruption.
I suppose that the issue hinges on what is meant by “better”.
Sure, avoidance of gang rape in the school’s bathroom, classrooms-as-battlefields, and the accidental straying beyond the school’s chain link fence into feral environs are legitimate parental concerns. Many parents would assign “better” to any school without these traits.
Under the belief that a geographic relocation might improve things for the munchkins, many parents can’t wait to hook up the U-haul and move to a richer zip code.
A moving truck is shown at a house that was sold in Palo Alto, Calif., Tuesday, June 19, 2012. (AP Photo/Paul Sakuma)
However, zip codes of the affluent present their own problems, leaving aside the schools. Websites catering to the school-conscious parent have sprung up in places afflicted with a cost of living commensurate with Warren Buffett’s investment portfolio but many people possessing a net worth more in line with the denizens of 1950’s Levittown. California is a hotbed for these conversations. One site for Bay Area moms and dads, berkeleyparentsnetwork.org, is filled with advice such as “Of course, if you can afford to buy in a place with good schools then by all means buy.” (12) Though for most Californios, being able to make the rent, or mortgage, hangs overhead like the sword of Damocles.
Some have opted to jump ship and leave the state. For many, housing costs are just too big an obstacle to overcome in the quest for better family environs, including schools. From 2000 to 2009, the SF Bay Area registered a net outflow of 600,000 domestic migrants (mostly citizens, not immigrants). After a 5-year pause due to falling house prices from the Great Recession, the exodus resumed as shelter resumed its eye-popping California norm (house prices returning to 6x’s income, beyond the acceptable 3x’s). The 2016 losses for the whole state were on the order of 110,000, most of it from the heavily populated but very expensive coastal enclaves. (9)
Those “domestic migrants” – residents of one state moving to another – seem to be emerging from states with uniform ID: those with the adjective “high” before cost-of-living, taxes, crime, and regulation, and “low” for upward mobility and successful business formation. The usual suspects are California, Illinois, New York, et al.
Destinations are South and West — EXCLUDING CALIFORNIA! Look at the top and bottom of the chart below. The top is reserved for the welcoming states and the bottom for states that shed people like my dog does hair. (15)
Interestingly, the combination of escalating house prices and California’s hostility to suburban living is making for a return of feudal manorialism. A fleeing middle class, sensitive to rising prices for a family hearth, in combination with foreign immigration into the state (2.7 million “undocumented” live in the state – see 13 below), is resurrecting something resembling a lord/serf society. Two researchers characterized the situation like this: “Essentially, the model [for California] is that of a gated community, with a convenient servant base nearby.” (9)
“Convenient servant base”? Sounds much like “serf”, or maybe peasant, to me. “Gated community”? Sounds like “castle”, or chateau.
Is this a French manor from the Middle Ages or contemporary California?Gated development, Carlsbad, California.East Los Angeles neighborhood.
For many, moving for better schools and a more affordable roof most likely means leapfrogging the state entirely. But don’t delude yourself into equating a middle or upper class student body in a new state with a high quality education. Housing is cheaper but the vast majority of schools are likely, at best, to be only marginally better. The only real difference between the middle class kid and inner-city one is the poor kid’s path to mediocrity is a lot rockier. Yes, a mediocre curriculum and poor teacher training awaits all irrespective of better cars in the student parking lot or a student enrollment that’ll do the homework.
Students listening to Ernest Jenkins III in his Manhood Development class at Oakland High School. Credit Jim Wilson/The New York TimesSuburban school in school uniforms.
All schools draw from the same pool of teacher candidates and curricular resources. You’ll find the same textbooks on a home-schooler’s kitchen table as you will find in a Catholic school classroom and a suburban or inner-city public school. The vast majority of teachers are given a remarkably homogeneous college education and teacher training centering on the mind-numbing writings of John Dewey. The sameness is quite remarkable.
30 years worth of experience as a public high school and community college teacher has made me aware of the phenomenal uniformity of what is taught, how it is taught, and who is teaching it.
Two textbooks that were a staple of 20 years of high school instruction and widely adopted are displayed below.
A widely-adopted World History textbook.Ditto U.S. History text.
Over the years, textbooks have declined in narrative with a surge in graphics. Technical, thought-provoking theory has disappeared. Identity politics is amply displayed: for instance, out goes Henry Bessemer and in comes Mary Wollstonecraft. Much space is reserved for our historical sins as these crowd out the richness of debate over the nature of our federal system. Labor history is reduced to a Marxist distillation; excluded is the role of violent anarcho-socialists in some of that history. Immigration and immigrants, of course, are always saintly. The 1960’s reads as if it was cleansed through the censors of the radical left. I could go on.
For pedagogy, teacher trainees are immersed in the mind of John Dewey. Who’s John Dewey? He’s a turn-of-the-century socialist who wanted to turn the schools into factories for making socialists.
Prof. John Dewey at Columbia University.
He’s famous for such arcane mumbo-jumbo as “constructivism” and seemingly commonsensical “child-centered learning”. The “construction” in “constructivism” is simply the matter of raising (or constructing) the child’s receptivity to socialism. “Child-centered” is an assault on the established canon of western civilization. The child’s wants are the guide to instruction, not Plato, the Apostle Paul, or the Founders. The teacher as the adult in the room is to be replaced by the chaos of adolescent urges.
Howard Gardner dispensing his gospel in India.
On this foundation is built the everyone-wins-a-trophy philosophy of “multiple intelligences” via Howard Gardner. Everybody is assumed to be smart, but in reality nobody is smart … if you think about it. The whole thing is a levelling of all students. From this we get the dilution of the curricular core to include excursions into all the “intelligences” to the detriment of a traditional core. It’s conducive to “heterogeneity” and grouping in almost everything.
About that “grouping”, “cooperative learning” are watchwords. Kids are thrust together into groups of varying abilities – the “heterogeneity” thing – and responsibility is socialistically distributed. What better way to “construct” the new child for the socialist future? Keep this in mind as your kid comes home with stories of his or her classroom group.
Don’t think for a moment that AP courses are immune to these influences. AP Literature guidelines now reflect Dewey’s “child-centered” nonsense. AP US History deemphasizes a mastery of historical facts and their connections. They demand mature judgments from immature minds. Across the curriculum, we’re creating opinionated ignoramuses.
It didn’t take long for me to realize that our professional goal wasn’t Jefferson’s ideal of an educated citizenry. It’s about making good little Democrats — by Democrats, I mean the Democratic Party as part of the consortium of the world’s Social Democratic Parties. Read “socialist” for Social Democrat … mostly of the mild sort.
The kids’ minds have long been pried open to being college snowflakes and Antifa recruits. Intolerant and propagandized since shortly after becoming bipedal, many of them are now subjecting us to their partisan and ideologically-laced rhetoric. The rhetoric supplants mature thinking.
Listen to this exchange between a taxi driver and his youthful customer over a hula doll on his dashboard. Count the number of times political boilerplate and the word “offensive” is used by the female rider.
We are reaping the whirlwind as tantrums and thuggishness displace reasoned debate.
We are witnessing the results of 4-5 decades of a blinkered and tendentious instruction. It has penetrated nearly everywhere. Buying a home in a better neighborhood will buy you a preppy student body; it won’t guarantee you a education free of the bacillus. Fleeing a blue state to a red one won’t change the dynamic. A private or parochial school might only provide a safer and more accomplished route to mediocrity. Home schooling might be an option if the curriculum can be kept free of the college ed schools and government’s embrace of identity politics, an unlikely occurrence.
Education reformers are everywhere, and have been arising zombie-like throughout my career. Yet, reform seems to always originate from the same worn out premises. We’ve reached the point that real education reform may require us to ignore the reformers. Unless it happens, we had all better keep an eye on Tommy (see below).
RogerG
Bibliography and sources:
Interesting and brief account of treating inner city school students: “An Inner City School Social Worker Shares Two of His Cases”, Howard Honigsfeld, Psychotherapy Networker, 7/28/2015, https://www.psychotherapynetworker.org/blog/details/607/therapy-strategies-for-working-with-underprivileged.
An account of the challenges in an Oklahoma urban school: “A look inside an inner city school struggling with multiple challenges, including ‘needing improvement’ sanctions”, Danniel Parker, The City Sentinel, 5/15/2011, http://city-sentinel.com/2011/05/a-look-inside-an-inner-city-school-struggling-with-multiple-challenges-including-%E2%80%9Cneeding-improvement%E2%80%9D-sanctions/.
Interesting advice in teaching inner city students: “4 Tips to Being a Good Teacher in the Inner-City”, The Libertarian Republic, 11/11/2014, http://thelibertarianrepublic.com/4-tips-good-teacher-inner-city/
Excellent maps showing a changing Los Angeles ethnic demography from 1940 to 2000: “Los Angeles County Ethnic/Racial Breakdown 1940-2000”, http://uselectionatlas.org/FORUM/index.php?topic=169073.0.
“White Flight Never Ended”, Alana Semuels, The Atlantic, 7/30/2015, https://www.theatlantic.com/business/archive/2015/07/white-flight-alive-and-well/399980/.
“Data shows how major U.S. cities are slowly re-segregating”, Kenya Downs, 3/7/2016, PBS NewsHour, http://www.pbs.org/newshour/rundown/major-u-s-cities-may-seem-integrated-but-not-for-long/.
A synopsis of John Dewey’s harmful impact on American education can be found in this critical review of Henry Edmondson’s book, John Dewey and the Decline of American Education, Dennis Attick, PhD candidate in Social Foundations of Education at Georgia State University, http://docs.lib.purdue.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1061&context=eandc. The author is clearly supportive of the major tenets of Dewey’s education philosophy.
For an account of the most widely adopted textbooks in today’s America go here: “Widely Adopted History Textbooks”, American Textbook Council, http://historytextbooks.net/adopted.htm.
A summary of recent migration trends for California can be found here: “Leaving California? After slowing, the trend intensifies”, Joel Kotkin and Wendell Cox, The Orange County Register, 4/23/2017, http://www.ocregister.com/2017/04/23/leaving-california-after-slowing-the-trend-intensifies/.
Metrics of school quality don’t vary that much for schools within the same school district is asserted here: “Do Better Neighborhoods for
MTO Families Mean Better Schools?”, Brief No. 3; Kadija S. Ferryman, Xavier de Souza Briggs, Susan J. Popkin, and María Rendón; The Urban Institute, March 2008, https://www.urban.org/sites/default/files/publication/31596/411639-Do-Better-Neighborhoods-for-MTO-Families-Mean-Better-Schools-.PDF. ** The metrics for measuring school quality were performance on state exams, the school’s poverty rate, and exposure to white classmates and students with limited English proficiency.
** “Our kids are still in early elementary school too but I think you will find the answer varies widely. Obviously… not ”everyone” can go to private school! I know some parents who have had their kids just tough it out at a not-so-great middle school, then get a scholarship for private high school. Others with more resources opt to start private school earlier on. And, even some high earning families I know chose Oakland public high schools including Skyline, Oakland Tech, and charter schools. Ultimately it’s hard to say before your child starts school, what type of high school will work for your family. That said, we chose our home based on both elementary and middle schools we liked, at least ”on paper” as you say, figuring high school was too far off to gauge.”; from “Moving for the Schools”, Berkeley Parents Network, August 2012, https://www.berkeleyparentsnetwork.org/recommend/housing/schools.
Ibid. From the segment “Moving vs. private school – how to make the decision?”.
“II. Where Do They Live?”, Jeffrey S. Passel and D’Vera Cohn, Pew Research Center, 4/14/2009, http://www.pewhispanic.org/2009/04/14/ii-where-do-they-live/.
“5 facts about illegal immigration in the U.S.”, FactTank: News in the Numbers, Pew Research Center, 4/27/2017, http://www.pewresearch.org/fact-tank/2017/04/27/5-facts-about-illegal-immigration-in-the-u-s/.
“California, Illinois, and New York Keep Losing People to Other States”, Ryan McMaken, Mises Wire, 5/10/2017, Mises Institute, https://mises.org/blog/california-illinois-and-new-york-keep-losing-people-other-states
While reading Niall Ferguson’s The Ascent of Money, I came across evidence of a pervasive ignorance about economic matters among 2008 high school seniors. It didn’t strike me as surprising. I suspect the economic illiteracy transcends ’08 high school seniors. I don’t recall my parents’ generation showing any dazzling financial acumen either. I wouldn’t be shocked at discovering the paucity of understanding extending to the bulk of today’s college graduates. The only difference between the older generations and our youngsters is the mountains of cash poured into our schools to get the same outcome.
First, the evidence. In 2008, the University of Buffalo’s School of Management surveyed a typical group of high school seniors on basic personal finance and economic matters. They discovered, among other things:
* an average grade of “F” (52%) to a set of basic economic questions.
* only 14% grasped the fact that stocks earn a greater rate of return than a US government bond over an 18-year period.
* 23% knew that the income tax is assessed on interest earned from a savings account if personal income is high enough.
* 59% didn’t know the difference between a company pension, Social Security, and a 401(k).
Another 2008 survey of over-all Americans showed that two-thirds didn’t know how compound interest worked. Good luck in getting these people to invest for the golden years.
The mental disability on financial matters isn’t limited to America. According to Ferguson, similar results are available for the U.K.
Before we rush out to ignite another progressive heaven-on-earth crusade to correct life’s foibles, we need to ask ourselves a simple question: Would it do any good?
Currently, as of 2016, we average $156,000 per child on K-12 schooling. If the 1984-2004 period is any indication, real (inflation adjusted) spending per pupil has increased 49%. Still, by 2008, Ferguson and the University of Buffalo are unmasking massive numbers of economic ignoramuses in spite of the avalanche of cash.
The situation isn’t any better on basic Civics. Civics, you know, is about our government and political traditions. The federal Dept. of Education tries to ascertain the state of things, including basic knowledge of our political institutions, with its National Assessment of Education Progress. As of 2010, the trillions of dollars bought us … nothing. Whatever Civics progress has been made, it quickly disappears by the 12th grade. The 2014 scores showed only a quarter of seniors scored “proficient”. Be careful with man-on-the-street interviews. You could trip up a person with real stumpers like, “What is the supreme law of the land?”
I’ll leave the disappointments in Language Arts, Math, and Science to those more involved in the disciplines; though, I suspect the weather doesn’t get any sunnier.
Could it be that “no child left behind” or “every student succeeds” (the titles of our most recent efforts to “immanentize the eschaton”, as Eric Voegelin would say) violate truth-in-labeling laws? Despite the best efforts of man and woman, and much infusion of money, some kids will be left behind and some won’t succeed. So many dynamics are at work outside the purview of academic bubbles, political demagoguery, and the education Borg. Try chaotic homes; an epidemic of single parenthood; youthful expectations that don’t comport with white-collar aspirations; a decline of civil society; parental and peer influences; and the simple fact that some kids don’t care and you can’t make them care.
What we end up doing is throwing more money and government employees at the problem. Government gets bigger and more expensive … and the kids still don’t know much of anything. Adding preschool and free college to the line of matriculation just stretches out the failure.
All is not lost, though. Here’s some suggestions: return to a classical education, reboot vocational ed with an eye to internships and apprenticeships, and leave open the opportunity for the transition back to formal education for those with a change of heart later in life. And, above all, if you insist on compulsory education for all youngsters, off to boot-camp for the threatening and disruptive.
Mull it over.
RogerG
Sources:
The Ascent of Money: A Financial History of the World, Niall Ferguson
“Does Spending More on Education Improve Academic Achievement?”, Dan Lips and Shanea Watkins, Heritage Foundation, Sept. 8, 2008, http://www.heritage.org/education/report/does-spending-more-education-improve-academic-achievement
“Fast Facts: Ependitures”, National Center for Education Statistics, https://nces.ed.gov/fastfacts/display.asp?id=66
“The Nation’s Report Card: Civics 2010”, National Center for Education Statistics, https://nces.ed.gov/nationsreportcard/pubs/main2010/2011466.asp#section1
“Why Civics Is About More Than Citizenship”, Alia Wong, The Atlantic, Sept. 7, 2015, https://www.theatlantic.com/education/archive/2015/09/civic-education-citizenship-test/405889/
Betsy DeVos has run into a particularly energized buzzsaw. Why? Of all the possible flash-points, the Education Department isn’t considered one of the plumb appointments in a president’s cabinet. Could Roxanne Bland’s witticism be the answer? Could be, but wisecracks may be more wit than wisdom. Yet, in the case of DeVos, it’s a starting point.
DeVos, Trump, Pence
Yesterday, 2/1/2017, it was announced that two Republican senators would oppose the DeVos nomination – Maine’s Susan Collins and Lisa Murkowski of Alaska.
Susan CollinsLisa Murkowski
What accounts for the defection into the arms of all 11 Democrats on the Senate’s Heath, Education, Labor, and Pensions Committee? These two Republicans have an unusually cozy relationship with the two monolithic teacher unions in the country, the NEA and AFT.
To begin with, the DeVos resume’ isn’t one to warm the heart of the NEA’s Lily Garcia or Randi Weingarten of the AFT. These unions represent government employees – government employed teachers – not students, their parents, or education in general. The word “choice” is sacrosanct in regards to abortion in these precincts, but watch the needle fly off the chart when it’s connected to “school”.
Lily GarciaRandi Weingarten
The hive flies into action with the mere mention of “school choice”.
DeVos’s claim to fame is vouchers and charter schools, the things that’ll give options to mom and dad but panic attacks to the union leadership. In 1993, along with her husband, she gave contributions to Michigan lawmakers to pass the state’s charter school law. In 2000, they pushed the Michigan Voucher Initiative but failed. Smarting from the loss, they were instrumental in forming the American Federation for Children, a PAC to support school choice candidates. It’s success is admirable with a 121-60 winning record.
But then Trump nominated her to head the Education Department – considered by the unions as part of their fiefdom – and they went into spasms.
Randi Weingarten announced, “The president-elect, in his selection of Betsy DeVos, has chosen the most ideological, anti-public education nominee put forward since President Carter created a Cabinet-level Department of Education.”
Protests were engineered in the usual haunts, like this one in Oakland.
Protesters applaud at a noon rally at the The Ronald V. Dellums Federal Building in Oakland, Calif., on Tuesday, Jan. 31, 2017. Nearly 1,000 people denounced the appointment of Betsy DeVos as Secretary of Education after a Senate committee advanced her nomination. (Jane Tyska/Bay Area News Group)
The union reaction wasn’t limited to ginning up the membership. They have allies in the Senate, on both sides of the aisle. We expect the Democrats to be in lock step for the obvious reasons. The stinky money trail, though, becomes more conspicuous when we follow it into the Republican caucus.
It turns out that both Collins and Murkowski have been on the “take” with the unions for at least the last few elections cycles. In 2002 and ’08, Collins received contributions from the NEA along with a “straight A” grade. The same for Murkowski, only more. She got $23,500 in ’02 and ’08; in 2016, an additional $10,000. Surprise, surprise, they both were blessed with endorsement for 2010 and 2016.
At first, the public hears of two Republicans breaking ranks. A person might be forgiven for thinking it to be a matter of principle over blind loyalty. Think again.
I wonder what the voters of red-state Alaska will think once they learn that one of their Senators is in the corral of one of the worst partisans of “blue” America.
“Bay Area teachers band together to oppose DeVos, Trump’s ed secretary nominee”, East bay Times, 1/31/17, http://www.eastbaytimes.com/2017/01/31/bay-area-teachers-band-together-to-oppose-devos-trumps-ed-secretary-nominee/