Seriously thoughtful US/Europe Cultural Divide -- Musings

[Ceili]

Originally Posted by DixieGal

Pay attention now, this is what I've been getting to: Those pts who are poor and don't have insurance are covered under a govt program called Medicaid. Medicaid only pays us a fraction of the cost of the medical care, and we are forbidden to try to collect the remainder. This is a contractually binding agreement. We take a large loss on these pts versus pts who have insurance. Nobody makes up the difference. It is mutually agreed upon by us and Medicaid that we will take whatever pittance they give us and be satisfied. We understand that we can not count on our majority population of poor urban pts to support us and that the excellent care they receive from us will be free to them.
However, the working lower middle class often fall through the cracks. They are often working jobs that pay too much to qualify for Medicaid, but not enough to have medical insurance. That remains an unsolved problem.

You left out the part about folks "in the know" and with laywers and time, even those with lots of $$ have ways of getting around and qualifying for Medicaid. Or, maybe that's just in NYS? I work in the "industry" and it isn't unheard to see people with 700k in the bank and still qualifying for MA due to weird little law things.

As an American, I have no real problem being taxed to pay for coverage for those who either work and can't afford coverage (my brother happens to be one of those... bankrupcy due to a heart attack at 39... and 180k hospital/doc bills) or those unable (not unwilling) to work. I DO have a problem when a lawyer can twist things and make Joe Richguy eligible for Medicaid to pay for mom's nursing home (we saved all our lives, but not to pay for Our healthcare... it's for our kids )

I actuallywouldn't have a problem of the cheaters (cough, sorry, rich folks) getting over... if the law would be Fixed the law so that all could avail themselves of it.

Sorry, that's probably more than it should be.
To get back on topic... from what I've read and heard from friends in countries with Nat.Health, that doesn't seem to work all that well either... crazy wait times, poor care, etc. So, is there an answer? I do wonder how some countries seem to make most of it "work" and wonder why we can't?

[zerospinboson]

Some things that seemed pertinent that I ran across this afternoon reading Hegel on the topic of charity/poverty:

Poverty in itself does not make men into a rabble; a rabble is created only when there is joined to poverty a disposition of mind, an inner indignation against the rich, against society, against the government, &c. In this way there is born in the rabble the evil of lacking self-respect enough to secure subsistence by its own labour and yet at the same time of claiming to receive subsistence as its right. Against nature man can claim no right, but once society is established, poverty immediately takes the form of a wrong done to one class by another. The important question of how poverty is to be abolished is one of the most disturbing problems which agitate modern society.

When the masses begin to decline into poverty, (a) the burden of maintaining them at their ordinary standard of living might be directly laid on the wealthier classes, or they might receive the means of livelihood directly from other public sources of wealth (e.g. from the endowments of rich hospitals, monasteries, and other foundations). In either case, however, the needy would receive subsistence directly, not by means of their work, and this would violate the principle of civil society and the feeling of individual independence and self-respect in its individual members. (b) As an alternative, they might be given subsistence indirectly through being given work, i.e. the opportunity to work.

While I don't agree with everything he says here, what seems relevant is the boldened bit, coupled with the (admittedly easily overemphasized, but today also relevant when considering the topic of giving charity to, say, the African continent: Giving Charity is inherently (somewhat) demeaning, as it implies you're getting something you did not deserve, but which is given to you "from the bottom of W. Buffett's Heart". Considering that guy made his fortune from investing in companies that happily exploited of lots of Asians, "his heart" might not appeal to you much.
Anyway, this is something that, as a European, in my role as an earthling, particularly bugs me when it comes to discussions about education (as held with Xeno and others in different thread):

Why is it that receiving education is something that should be considered, by those who receive it at a later age, because they for some reason didn't get around to it earlier, a charitable "gift" rather than a right?

and 2:

Why is it that education is primarily considered something that is in your interest?

To the first question the musings before the question seem relevant, and to the second question, this/these consideration(s):

The primary beneficiary of your receiving a good education is not , even though it might seem that way, you, but society as a whole, and, somewhat more specifically, your neighbors, as well as later generations.
Given the fact that most people will manage to live a (relatively) enjoyable life whether or not they receive an education (we've been around far longer than formal schooling has been), this suggests to me that these artificial barriers and limits are in the disinterest of society as a whole, and through it its individual members.
Consider how society has been advancing at an ever-increasing rate ever since we started making sure our children inherited the information of our ancestors through increasingly formalized schooling, and how our civilization has taken off ever since the invention of the alphabet and paper, seeing how some of the fastest growth has been occurring over the past two centuries, when social and monetary barriers to education have been progressively lowered or nearly eliminated, and lastly, ignoring for the moment a number of rather violent wars, how we now enjoy a far higher standard of living than ever considered possible.
Sure, most of this has happened with the benefits only going to a certain percentage of society, but on the whole, the larger that group was, the faster we've been advancing.
Further, consider the fact that "intelligence" and "success" don't come from single, dominant genes, but are both highly unpredictable, polygenic, and influenced by the environment, which means it's impossible to with certainty predict which family might produce a next genius, and, more importantly, which one we might be squandering because he/she went unnoticed. Societies advance and become more tolerant of diversity (assuming this is preferable to you) mostly through education (and some ability/willingness): this applies equally to those who become the next Bernie Madoff and to those who become librarians or stay-at-home-parents.
Receiving a good education, and through it the aforementioned more tolerant attitude, as well as an decreased chance that someone might be taken in by some populist politician, is something that benefits most if not all other members of that society: so why is it that so large a part of the costs that come with getting that education has to come out of one's own pocket?
Just because you're not supposed to meddle in the affairs of other parents?
Sure, there are a few kooks around, and another few religious zealots might make it their goal in life to make sure everyone's kids are "educated right", but you can't avoid those people anyway, as they're also a part of those liberal democracy we're all part of (even though they seem a bit overrepresented in some countries, especially those who never really internalized the lessons of the religious wars of the 17th century).

It's all well and admirable if parents decide to "save up" (lots) and so rationalize the need to pay for their children's education as "a sacrifice I have to, and am very willing to make", and then have to scrape by for a number of years in order to ensure this, but this is only a given if you start from the assumption that only you should be the one who pay(s); and considering that a large part of the gain of having an educated population "goes" to everyone, why isn't a larger part of it paid for by society?
I'm not talking about, nor really interested in the consideration (also mentioned by Hegel in the above quote) how "charity" breeds indolence and idleness, and how there are more than enough chances for suitably motivated individuals to get ahead here, I'm talking about the ignored and/or (imho) underappreciated social value of education, and the strength of that argument as an argument in favor of better access to schooling through better, paid for through taxation, state/federal funding.
Yes, abuse of a system will happen, but even then, indolence happens in every social group, and I'm not convinced the cost from not educating a significant part of society who could've gotten and to some extent appreciated a better education weighs up against a system that focuses on making free-riding impossible.

PS. I'm really not interested in "federal government will likely waste it all" arguments against, as I'm working from the assumption that a government can be effective. Nor am I talking only about tertiary education here, I'm talking about all levels.

Entirely Off-topic: Why does the USA have a privatized prison system? Isn't it sort of odd to put incarceration and (the first part of) reintegration in the hands of people who have a business interest in making sure that recidivism happens?

[wodin]

Originally Posted by tirsales

- but of course there are many other differences like e.g. social differences.

Thanks for the explaination tirsales,

Another difference that no one has addressed is the presence or lack of the family fortune. It's amazing how much more successful one can be if (S)he has a few million of the local currency to start out with.

All things being equal, we will never be equal!

[Xenophon]

Originally Posted by nekokami

In New Hampshire, where I live, we don't yet have kindergarten in many communities. All schools are paid for by local (town or city) property taxes. Some towns have larger tax bases than others. Their schools are better. The state sets requirements for public education, but does not provide the funding. There have been a string of lawsuits about this over the years.

Additionally, the proportion of available money allocated toward schools in a specific town is likely to be heavily influenced by the age of the town's population. In towns with predominantly retired or single adults, schools get very short funding indeed.

I recall reading that there are a number of rural counties in either New Hampshire or Vermont (I don't remember which) whose school-age populations are too small to support a high school. Those counties already provide vouchers for the per-pupil cost of high-school (and have done so for decades); students are free to use them at any public or private school of their choice. IIRC, the article said that most of the vouchers are used in the school districts of neighboring counties (and they coordinate to make sure that the voucher is large enough to pay the bill). But each year there're a few students who do something quite different. Like go to Eton, or Harrow. Or Phillips Andover Academy (perhaps the highest-prestige private high school in the US). Given their lack of population, it seems like a reasonable approach.

Originally Posted by nekokami

We have evidence that smaller student-teacher ratios (and smaller classes in general) help students learn better. But many urban schools can't afford to hire enough teachers, so we still see 30-40 kids in a classroom with one teacher.

The smallest class I had in public school (from grades 2-12, except 11 when I attended the Interlochen Arts Academy instead) was 35 students. Small classes may matter (I couldn't say from my experience, because I never had one that small). My experience was that teachers who knew their subject and engaged the students mattered a lot; I didn't particularly notice suffering from class size. But of course I don't have the experience of smaller classes to compare with! And I have no idea how folks on the outside of the classroom can measure teacher knowledge and ability to excite and engage students.

Originally Posted by nekokami

Finally, for the past 8 years, we've had a system that evaluates schools by comparing this year's students to last year's students (rather than each group of students to their own performance the previous year), using tests that tend to measure rote memorization rather than problem-solving skills, and punishes schools with underperforming students by withdrawing funding. There is more and more pressure to provide a "voucher" system to allow schools to "compete," when those vouchers will certainly not pay enough for a child to be able to go to the best schools, leaving the most disadvantaged students in a bankrupt public education system, while children whose parents can afford better compete to get an adequate education.

What seems to be going on here in Pittsburgh is that the public schools are offering a broad spectrum of specialty schools at the middle school and high school levels in addition to the ordinary schools. These schools generally come about by converting an existing school into a specialty school. "Specialty" in this context means International Baccalaureate, or Creative and Performing Arts, or Foreign Languages, and so on. The result here is that parents who care enough to do anything at all about their children's education put them into one of the specialty schools.

Strangely enough, all of the specialty schools are providing better results than any of the non-specialty schools -- with one exception: Taylor Alderdice High School. And Taylor Alderdice has effectively been a specialty school for decades -- it's a nationally ranked public high school.

Originally Posted by nekokami

In short, we have two strong statistical correlations: one shows that level of education correlates strongly with income (though not at the doctoral level). The second shows that children of poor families have significantly lower academic achievement, all else being equal. But we highlight the unusual success stories and try to pretend that every child has an equal chance (or at least a reasonable chance) to "succeed" in our country.

There's one big problems with both of these correlations: correlation is not causation! (Our old friend post hoc ergo propter hoc. Even the Romans knew.) But sometimes correlation is all you've got...

That said, it seems quite possible that (a) there is something done by families who value education that is not done by families who do not value education and that (b) either the education or the something (or both!) is the key factor both in academic achievement and also in determining income later in life. And that something may be more frequent in higher income families.

I have no proof of what that "something" might be, but I do have a guess -- parental involvement in (and value of) the children's education. But it's just a guess with no better proof than the correlations Neko pointed out. Which are real, by the way. Part of my reasons for thinking this might be it are the results I mentioned above in our local school district.

Originally Posted by nekokami

As I said, I don't have the answers. [and SNIP a bunch of quite sensible observations and a request for folks elsewhere to describe their systems]

Xenophon

[Xenophon]

Originally Posted by zerospinboson

[Snippety SNIP SNIP]
Entirely Off-topic: Why does the USA have a privatized prison system? Isn't it sort of odd to put incarceration and (the first part of) reintegration in the hands of people who have a business interest in making sure that recidivism happens?

Actually, we don't have a privatized prison system. We do have some number of privately constructed and operated prisons. Those have usually come about because some business-person finds a political unit (usually a county or state) that needs more prison capacity but cannot afford to build the prison. The business then offers to build the prison at their own expense in exchange for running the prison at a contracted cost per inmate. Of course they're doing it to make money. And their profit in the long term may mean higher costs for the political unit that places prisoners there. Or not; if they are lucky, the business might run the prison more efficiently than the gov't would have. But there probably aren't two other private prisons in the region (giving the minimum of 3 significant competitors needed to provide a competitive market) so that's not the most likely outcome!

Whether or not these privately built and operated prisons are a good thing, depends on your viewpoint. On the one hand there are some notorious cases where it has led to nearly unbelievable corruption. For example, sometime in the past year I read about two judges being indicted for corruption charges -- they'd approved the construction of a private "correctional facility" for "trouble youths" to replace the run-down public facility (which they then closed). Then, they accepted per-inmate kick-backs from the company running the new private facility. They were discovered when some academics became curious why the youth conviction rate in that area had suddenly sky-rocketed.

On the other hand, a county or state that is facing the combination of extremely poor finances (preventing them from floating a bond issue to pay for a prison) along with a court order requiring them to reduce over-crowding in their existing facility AND federal mandates that require long prison terms for certain offenses (usually drug-related), well... that county or state doesn't have a whole lot of palatable choices. Cut something else to fund a new prison (== current politicians lose votes); get sued yet again for overcrowding in the existing prison (leads to courts imposing giant fines, which leads to more budget problems and thence to previous choice); raise taxes to pay for the prison (see previous choices); or let the private sector build it for them.

My preferred solution -- although I'm certain many would disagree with me -- would be to attack the problem from the other side. If we ended the "war on drugs" and cleared all the non-violent drug offenders out of the prisons, we'd have a massive surplus of prison space. This would allow closing a bunch of prisons and saving a pile of money. And we'd have a massive decrease in law enforcement costs. And a new set of products in high demand for the government to tax. And we could treat drug issues via public health means instead of the criminal justice system -- experience elsewhere in the world suggests this is both cheaper and more effective. And finally, if all that wasn't enough, we'd be removing the primary excuse that's been used to encroach on our traditional civil liberties for the past 30 or 40 years! But I realize that I'm thoroughly out of step with most of America on this front, so it ain't gonna happen anytime soon. Sigh.

Xenophon

[YGG-]

Originally Posted by pilotbob

Ok, so perhaps you guys/gals across the pond can explain a bidet to me. I don't get it.

You just spray your butt off? Then what, wait 20 minutes to dry. How do you know what you are doing, are there mirrors? Is there no such thing as a "skid mark" in the UK?

No really, I am serious. I never knew what to do with those things... some of the hotels I have stayed at have had them.

BOb

Basically what Tirsales says; when I was young (in the '60s) I used it to wash my socks & underwear...

[YGG-]

Originally Posted by Ceili

[...](my brother happens to be one of those... bankrupcy due to a heart attack at 39... and 180k hospital/doc bills)

Now this couldn't happen in France (BTW I seem to remark several countries claim to have had the best health system in the world... how do you measure that?)

[Sparrow]

Originally Posted by YGG-

Now this couldn't happen in France (BTW I seem to remark several countries claim to have had the best health system in the world... how do you measure that?)

The World Health Organisation has a league table.

[tirsales]

Originally Posted by Xenophon

The smallest class I had in public school (from grades 2-12, except 11 when I attended the Interlochen Arts Academy instead) was 35 students.

Found another difference
Classes with more then 33 pupils (or exactly 33 pupils if possible) have to be divided into 2 classes. I've had classes with between 7 (Chemistry advanced course 12th/13th grade) and 31 pupils - and it makes a difference!

[HarryT]

35 would certainly be regarded as an extremely large class size in the UK. I think that around 30 is generally accepted to be the reasonable maximum here.

[Lady Blue]

Originally Posted by tirsales

Found another difference
Classes with more then 33 pupils (or exactly 33 pupils if possible) have to be divided into 2 classes. I've had classes with between 7 (Chemistry advanced course 12th/13th grade) and 31 pupils - and it makes a difference!

I was never in a class with less than 35 students (usually ran between 35 and 40) through high school. Now that you and others have have pointed out that class size makes such a big difference, I'm really ticked. I wouldn't be as dumb had I been in smaller classes throughout my life. Also, I'd have been much smarter had my family had more money, I suppose.

I'm sorry if that sounds sarcastic.

The following is in response to no one in particular. Just personal ramblings that I have a tendency to do when I don't know what I'm talking about, yet still want to put my two cents in.

Sometimes I think we just over analyze things. So much has changed over the years that the educational system has little resemblance to what it once was. And I guess I tend to over simplify the problems. I'm sure the teachers and others among us know much more about this subject than I, and I can only speak from my own experience, but I think the problems are more basic than I keep hearing.

For instance, (on the East Coast, not that it matters where) in Elementary School (through grade 7) each classroom had AT LEAST 35 kids (now they say that 25 are too many.) You sat in the same room all day with the same teacher who taught ALL the subjects. There was no gymnasium (the playground outside was the gymnasium), no cafeteria (you ate your brown bag lunch in the classroom), no auditorium, no “Social Promotions.” When you were promoted to the next grade level, there was no doubt that you EARNED it. What a simple old-fashioned concept. But it worked.

Teachers could discipline unruly kids. Students always showed teachers the utmost respect. Civility and manners were demanded at all times. You were corrected any time the word ain’t, a double negative, or other rules of proper grammar were broken. Bullying a classmate was NEVER tolerated.

The students in our school ranged from very poor to very affluent. Some homes had one parent at home to help mentor the child, and some (like mine) did not. I was a latch-key kid and both parents worked.

We also had a strick dress code to adhere to. No uniforms, but also no shorts, jeans, sneakers, open shoes, sleeveless shirts, t-shirts, short skirts, etc. Girls were never allowed to wear slacks of any kind and boys' hair could not hang over their shirt collar. Now it's all about freedom of expression and everything goes - pink hair, sandals, torn jeans, shorts, halter tops, pierced lips, pants hanging so low they're nearly falling off, and screan print tees with all manor of verbiage and graffiti both fore and aft.

Respect, civility and control is practically gone within the classroom setting and often at home too. Teachers are required to "teach to the test" rather than the core subject matter. The standards are being lowered to where in many districts (around here I'm sorry to say) teachers aren't allowed to give grades lower than a 50, 60 or in some schools nothing below a 70, no matter how badly a student failed. There is an idiotic reasoning that says if a student gets a 27 as a grade it would be harder for them to bring their grade up so they'd have little incentive to even try. A failing grade would hurt their self-esteem. WHAT???? There's no accountability on the part of the student. Nothing is really required of them anymore. They barely have to show up to warm a chair.

They have in-school suspension so that the school can show the child is there and not lose state funding (since state funding is based on number of bodies in attendance) and in addition, parents aren't inconvenienced to have to deal with their problem child during the school/work day. The schools still babysit them (because funding is at stake.)

As far as local funding, for years there was what was called "The Robin Hood Plan" where the higher school taxes collected in affluent neighborhoods and districts were shared with (given to) lower income neighborhood schools. I'm not sure if this still goes on (probably does to at least some extent) but I know it did for many years.

I have no idea how the educational systems in the rest of the world work, but in general the system of public education in the U.S. is degrading from the high standards it once had to an institution of babysitting warm bodies, giving social promotions and unearned diplomas to generations of young people who are totally unprepared to venture into the REAL WORLD where working hard, earning a living, getting along, failing as well as succeeding, and generally being responsible for yourself and your own actions are facts they'll be faced with, not some abstract concept.

We keep lowering our expectations instead of raising the bar.

Okay . . . fire when ready!

[tirsales]

Originally Posted by Lady Blue

I was never in a class with less than 35 students (usually ran between 35 and 40) through high school. Now that you and others have have pointed out that class size makes such a big difference, I'm really ticked. I wouldn't be as dumb had I been in smaller classes throughout my life. Also, I'd have been much smarter had my family had more money, I suppose.

I apologize if my statement was sounding, as if "bigger classes" would mean an automatic failure - this was never my intention.
A smaller class makes it easier for teachers to adopt to pupils (thus providing more help for weak pupils) - you can learn (quite literally) the same stuff in a large class then in a small one.

I will not respond to the rest of your post - not out of disregard, but simply out of lack of time. Just wanted to clarify the above part.

[orwell2k]

Good musings. I don't have the answers, just more questions... and I'm not trying to inflame people, but I chose the below quotes just because they got me thinking about the fact that nothing is ever as simple as a + b = c in the real world.

Originally Posted by DixieGal

... What differentiates the US med care system from NHS is competitiveness. The better the care that you deliver, the more your reputation grows, and the more research dollars you are awarded. The more research experience you gain, the more pharmaceutical money you are offered. Competition drives the medical field as much as it drive retail. Sure, you can call us greedy, but that drive to acquire the most has driven medicine to the heights it now occupies.

Competitiveness is often laudable, but an interesting issue here concerning health care is how success is to be measured? In the rush to collect those research grant and pharmaceutical dollars, what statistics are gathered to support your position as a worthy medical institute? Patients treated versus cost of treatment? Ratio of private versus Medicaid patients? And do those statistics benefit the patients?

Often the kinds of statistics collected to demonstrate a business case to a pharmaceutical mega-corp interested in developing AIDS treatments to sell for profits to famine-ravaged third-world communities may not actually translate to the best treatment for the middle and lower income patients coming to your clinic seeking help. In fact, losing money because you provide the best possible treatment to people who are only covered through the Medicaid payments is probably a negative selling point to many potential investors looking at the bottom line.

Then you start performing cost-benefit analysis on treatments to try to curb your expenses, and suddenly you have to ask how much is a person's life worth in dollar terms? Or how much is the relief of their suffering allowed to cost? These kinds of questions are impossible to quantify in terms of dollars, and dehumanising when we try to do so.

But back in the real world, everything costs. Clinics, whether government or private, need to manage their budgets. But social services such as education and health care, where human lives and quality of life is at stake, need some kind of reality check against an assembly line mode of thinking, where the human being becomes just another cost factor of production, just another component in the great machine of industry.

That's why some kind of independent oversight is necessary, whether that means government provided services that aren't profit driven, or government regulation that curbs the temptation to increase profits at patient expense. It seems government may have some useful role to play in these situations on both sides of the ocean.

Of course, who watches the watchers becomes the next conundrum to deal with... see, nothing is ever simple.

Originally Posted by DixieGal

... I believe our American way of wanting the mostest biggest flashiest of everything is what made us rich. Why would we want to change that? There's no reason to feel guilty, and I am proud of the fact that anyone who wants to compete be rich in the US can be. Like RSE said, it's a big country, and if you fail, then it's easy to move and start fresh again.

I'm not sure we can simplify the real world this way. There are no easy answers, and looking for them, or worse, believing you've found them, just helps hide the real issues.

Believing that "anyone who wants to be rich in the US can be" is fine but not accurate. Does that mean if you're not rich you just don't want it? Or if you're poor it's because you're not trying hard enough? Like that other ol' chestnut that your daddy probably espoused, "work hard and you'll get ahead!"

Getting rich usually involves something beyond the standard job + home + car scenario, which in turn involves something outside normal opportunities many people have. You always read about the rags to riches success stories, but for every one of them who makes it there are another 50 guys 'n' gals who took their shot and missed - you rarely read about them.

I'm more interested in the "not rich" side of the equation. Everyone loves success, and success breeds success. But what about helping those less fortunate and being part of a community. Because one quite common attitude to the poor in America is that it's their own fault. This is not unanimous, but more oft-expressed than I think it should be. The rationale is, if the poor wanted to be part of society or get help, then they could. Clearly they're poor and homeless, not from circumstances beyond their control or problems within the system, but because they don't want to help themselves out. They don't want to work. They failed, so too bad, so sad. This is the flipside of the "anyone can be rich" falacy - if you're poor, you're not trying hard enough.

Call me pessimistic, but it's probably more realistic. I'm not saying don't try, don't compete. Just the opposite. But I'm also saying, to paraphrase the Rolling Stones, you can't always get what you want.

[desertgrandma]

Originally Posted by Lady Blue

I was never in a class with less than 35 students (usually ran between 35 and 40) through high school. Now that you and others have have pointed out that class size makes such a big difference, I'm really ticked. I wouldn't be as dumb had I been in smaller classes throughout my life. Also, I'd have been much smarter had my family had more money, I suppose.

I'm sorry if that sounds sarcastic.

The following is in response to no one in particular. Just personal ramblings that I have a tendency to do when I don't know what I'm talking about, yet still want to put my two cents in.

Sometimes I think we just over analyze things. So much has changed over the years that the educational system has little resemblance to what it once was. And I guess I tend to over simplify the problems. I'm sure the teachers and others among us know much more about this subject than I, and I can only speak from my own experience, but I think the problems are more basic than I keep hearing.

For instance, (on the East Coast, not that it matters where) in Elementary School (through grade 7) each classroom had AT LEAST 35 kids (now they say that 25 are too many.) You sat in the same room all day with the same teacher who taught ALL the subjects. There was no gymnasium (the playground outside was the gymnasium), no cafeteria (you ate your brown bag lunch in the classroom), no auditorium, no “Social Promotions.” When you were promoted to the next grade level, there was no doubt that you EARNED it. What a simple old-fashioned concept. But it worked.

Teachers could discipline unruly kids. Students always showed teachers the utmost respect. Civility and manners were demanded at all times. You were corrected any time the word ain’t, a double negative, or other rules of proper grammar were broken. Bullying a classmate was NEVER tolerated.

The students in our school ranged from very poor to very affluent. Some homes had one parent at home to help mentor the child, and some (like mine) did not. I was a latch-key kid and both parents worked.

We also had a strick dress code to adhere to. No uniforms, but also no shorts, jeans, sneakers, open shoes, sleeveless shirts, t-shirts, short skirts, etc. Girls were never allowed to wear slacks of any kind and boys' hair could not hang over their shirt collar. Now it's all about freedom of expression and everything goes - pink hair, sandals, torn jeans, shorts, halter tops, pierced lips, pants hanging so low they're nearly falling off, and screan print tees with all manor of verbiage and graffiti both fore and aft.

Respect, civility and control is practically gone within the classroom setting and often at home too. Teachers are required to "teach to the test" rather than the core subject matter. The standards are being lowered to where in many districts (around here I'm sorry to say) teachers aren't allowed to give grades lower than a 50, 60 or in some schools nothing below a 70, no matter how badly a student failed. There is an idiotic reasoning that says if a student gets a 27 as a grade it would be harder for them to bring their grade up so they'd have little incentive to even try. A failing grade would hurt their self-esteem. WHAT???? There's no accountability on the part of the student. Nothing is really required of them anymore. They barely have to show up to warm a chair.

They have in-school suspension so that the school can show the child is there and not lose state funding (since state funding is based on number of bodies in attendance) and in addition, parents aren't inconvenienced to have to deal with their problem child during the school/work day. The schools still babysit them (because funding is at stake.)

As far as local funding, for years there was what was called "The Robin Hood Plan" where the higher school taxes collected in affluent neighborhoods and districts were shared with (given to) lower income neighborhood schools. I'm not sure if this still goes on (probably does to at least some extent) but I know it did for many years.

I have no idea how the educational systems in the rest of the world work, but in general the system of public education in the U.S. is degrading from the high standards it once had to an institution of babysitting warm bodies, giving social promotions and unearned diplomas to generations of young people who are totally unprepared to venture into the REAL WORLD where working hard, earning a living, getting along, failing as well as succeeding, and generally being responsible for yourself and your own actions are facts they'll be faced with, not some abstract concept.

We keep lowering our expectations instead of raising the bar.

Okay . . . fire when ready!

Damn. Are you sure you aren't a teacher? You have nailed it, Lady Blue. This is what I see every day. You just forgot one thing.

The only thing worse than being disciplined at school "then" was having to go home and tell your parents.

I'd also like to add that there are still teachers out there who raise the standards. I am so fortunate to be working with one.

She accepts no less than the very best from each student. Bullying, whining, excuses are not allowed.

If work is turned in messy, or directions are not followed, she has no qualms about making them do it over.

Printing is legible.....and they do it until they get it right.

She exposes them to math at the second grade level.....and guess what. They can do it. And, they "get it".

Reading is something to be joyously embraced, not just learned.

Rewards are for good behavior, bad behavior means disapproval from her and you'd better believe they'd rather not do it again than risk that.

They love her to death, and I'm extremely fortunate to have learned so much from her.

Oh, and did I say this was a kindergarten class??

[zerospinboson]

Originally Posted by orwell2k

I'm more interested in the "not rich" side of the equation. Everyone loves success, and success breeds success. But what about helping those less fortunate and being part of a community. Because one quite common attitude to the poor in America is that it's their own fault. This is not unanimous, but more oft-expressed than I think it should be. The rationale is, if the poor wanted to be part of society or get help, then they could. Clearly they're poor and homeless, not from circumstances beyond their control or problems within the system, but because they don't want to help themselves out. They don't want to work. They failed, so too bad, so sad. This is the flipside of the "anyone can be rich" falacy - if you're poor, you're not trying hard enough.

Not to be inflammatory, but apparently they're the ones who get left behind when you believe any and all responsibility in parenting should go to the parents, because you "just can't trust the government/neighbors not to indoctrinate your kids".
And when the parents are then unwilling to motivate their kids, the kids are left by the wayside, all because of the resentment that exists in the parents over being seen by the rest of society as ever so much fodder. This is not to say that this attitude is particularly productive, but that's like saying "3 year olds should know not to lash out when provoked" (and I'm terribly sorry if that sounds elitist, but I can't really say anything on this topic without offending some group or other). The cycle is entirely vicious, but it's the way things have to be done.

Another Off-topic: I wonder how much of the behavior of the federal government is "evil" and "running rough-shod over the states" specifically because everyone believes that's what the government is supposed to behave like. Thus reinforcing the distrust the voters feel when thinking of the fed govt. I find the distrust puzzling, and unreasonable in its pervasiveness (although the same might be said of some (but hardly all) federal policies.