But what stood out to me the most was another country; Korea. Korea is one of the highest scoring countries on the PISA tests (the international standardized test scores put out by the OECD). But it's not so much that Korea scored well, but two other things that stood out.
One, they spend barely half the amount per student we do in the US (again confirming something we've always known; that more money does not equal better students, just richer teacher union members)
Two, and perhaps even more interesting, is that in Korea the teachers spend the least amount of time actually teaching their kids. Again, just half the amount of time as what is spent here in the US;
It was this statistic, that got me thinking and more or less corroborated something I already knew;
The problem of poor education results in America is not so much the teachers, as much as it is the parents.
Oooooo! He didn't just say that, did he?
Yes, he did.
You see, culture plays an immense role in these figures on many different levels. First, if the children are only being taught with half the time as in the US, it suggests to me Korean parents are quite adamant AND A PRESENT FORCE in the education of their children. They make sure they do their studies, finish their homework, attend school and behave. Based on my experiences substitute teaching as well as seeing my generation starting to have kids, I realized an unacceptably high percentage of American parents treat the schools as a massive baby sitting program where they can dump off the kids and outsource the education to the public schools and take no further interest in their childrens' education. They think that there's no parental responsibility in their childrens' education aside from hounding them occasionally about doing their homework. Ergo, mom and dad make sure junior gets C's and D's, and doesn't really bother sitting the kid down and explaining to him the importance of not only doing well, but behaving as well.
Second, by the sheer level of efficiency where Koreans can outscore their American counterparts with HALF the budget and HALF the teaching time, suggests to me there are very little "problem students" in the class. ie-the kids show up and they actually are there to study and take their education seriously. The teacher does not have to constantly discipline, stop lecture, stop writing, etc. to deal with class clowns, disobedient children and other interruptions that not only take away from the serious students' education, but takes more time and resources to accomplish the same amount of teaching. In other words, in Korea the children go to school, in America they go to a large day care facility with the half-hearted guise of it being a school or a place of learning and treat it as such.
Of course, I could be wrong. There could be other factors as I am not an expert on the Korean education system. All I know is that as a single guy with no kids, but still having to pay property taxes to fund the schools, I'm getting mighty sick and tired of being asked for more money for what without fail always guarantees to be more failure and a slightly larger day care operation. And perhaps if spending more results in no better or worse results, then maybe we should cut the public schools' budgets in half and start to emulate a more Korean style of education.
23 comments:
I am going to point out, being a historian as I am, that (and this point cannot be overemphasised) THIS WAS NOT ALWAYS THE CASE.
Personally, I fault John Dewey (God, I wish there was a better source than Wikipedia available), and the rise in the 1960s of the thoroughly-reformed public education "movement" that promised to take children away from their parents and educate them without parental interference.
Note the timeframe involved and how it coincides with the rise of the most narcissistic phase of the American experiment to date. Of COURSE the 1960s generation was going to let Those Who Knew Best take care of their kids; They Knew Best, didn't they? They were going to cure poverty, whip inflation, end disease, fight racism...etc.
This is exactly why I became a conservative; you don't throw the baby out with the bath-water. If the methods teachers used in the past to teach kids *worked*, and parents stayed *engaged*...DON'T CHANGE THEM.
Thank you, and good-night.
Do not forget, either, that many countries (and I suspect Korea is one) do not educate everyone.
Many countries (such as Germany), do early testing and categorize what kind of school you can go to based on the results. Other countries will determine if you can go to school at all based on such scores.
That withstanding, I have to agree our mainstream culture is pretty horrifying to me. I can't imagine it getting any better. If the only way to fix the masses is to educate them and the best way to educate them is through government... well, then let them be.
The reason I stopped listening to most atheists (Dawkins, in particular) was that, sure, they may be advocating rational and scientific approaches, but they want to accomplish it by use of force - force through the proxy we call government.
The whiny, the emotional, and the irrational have no problem using force to make their views the prevalent. Not surprisingly, their views prevail.
As a parent with two children in the public schools I could not agree more. My kids are doing well in school because they are smart, but also because my husband and I spend time helping them with their homework six out of seven days a week. Only after doing this on a consistent basis do children begin to do it themselves. They need to get a taste of success before they become self motivated. To get there they need a loving, disciplined parent to help them on a daily basis. More money for the schools is NOT the answer.
"loving, disciplined parents"
That solves more problems than a trillion in government spending.
I don't know if this is a widespread phenomenon or just a local one, but our schools have paid professionals whose job is to go and sit with your kid in class and make sure little Johnny's attention doesn't wander too far (my own sister does this job, and makes twice as much money as I do -- and guess who pays whose wages). Of course, their available methods are pretty much limited to "Okay, the squirrels outside the window are nice, but look over here again," and not some actual discipline, but I'd be willing to bet that job doesn't exist in Korea, and certainly not on the taxpayers' won.
Captain,
You should read Freakonomics by Daubner and Levet. It explains in detail your observations. Schools and teaching don’t matter, what matters is who the parents are, not what they do.
I just recently watched Milton Friedman's "Free-to-Choose" TV series, which has some interesting things to say about school choice and how it could have a very positive effect on the quality of education.
I wonder if that's a factor in Korea. Do they have school choice over there?
Cap:
I can vouch for what you're saying from personal experience - I spent the first 10 years of my life in a Warsaw-pact country, where education was valued and intelligence held in high esteem. I was always a straight A student, until I moved to Canada, where the culture seemed to encourage the exact opposite. The difference between the two educational systems was so large that I ended up getting skipped a grade, and STILL being well ahead of my classmates. However, within 2 years of moving here, I had the same don't-give-a-fuck attitude as the rest of my classmates and was only maintaining a C average.
I think culture is the single biggest factor when it comes to educating our populace. You can have the best schools in the world and it won't matter one bit as long as the people filling the seats have no interest in learning.
Adam:
The reason I stopped listening to most atheists (Dawkins, in particular) was that, sure, they may be advocating rational and scientific approaches, but they want to accomplish it by use of force - force through the proxy we call government.
That's the most absurd thing I've heard so far this month.
Can you show me ONE quote from Dawkins, Hitchens, Harris, or Dennet which advocates the use of ANY force - let alone government intervention - in order to change peoples religious views?
No?
Didn't think so.
Now, could you please apologize for making such a malicious and spurious attack on these individuals?
The Korean students I had at UC Berkeley (with one exception) were incredibly intelligent and motivated students. Many of them have become capable and brave officers in the US Army. They are great patriots, no doubt because the memory of the communist invasion is still fresh in the minds of their parents and grandparents.
You've pretty much come across the same result that empirical analysis has demonstrated: educational outcomes are NOT determined by educational inputs, i.e. money. They are not explained by parental income. The chief explanatory variable for educational outcomes is parental involvement.
Even within our own country, private schools achieve better results at a fraction of the per-student expenditures of public schools.
Another disturbing fact is that a majority of public school teachers send their children to private schools.
Clinton, Gore, and Obama all sent their kids to private schools.
George Bush's kids went to public school. So did Dick Cheney's kids.
That demonstrates how committed liberals are to public education.
Elitist hypocrites!
Yes, at first glance the Korean system looks like it may be much more efficient. However, if you look at the actual dollars spent on each child that includes unobserved private expenses by the family and time spent on schoolwork, you'll find that Korea's education system is not as efficient as it looks. Figures on exactly how much families spend out-of-pocket on education varies because of the self-reported nature of available data, but most estimates hover close to the equivalent of what the government spends on education.
There are definitely lower SES students whose families cannot afford additional expenses and may rely heavily on the given infrastructure. However, the majority of middle school students (I assume you're using the 8th grade results?) go to school 8am-3pm (roughly) then attend various private afterschool academies and tutoring sessions until 11pm/12am. The they go home and work on the various homework assigned to them by both the regular school and their other afterschool classes.
All in all, if you take the private costs associated with the afterschool education industry, you'll find Korea to be much less efficient than you presume.
P.S. adam: Korea has 9-years of compulsory education almost all of them continue to high school. I think what you'll find a problem in some nations is not the quantity of education, but the quality.
Its a leap, but not contradicted by the data, to say that schooling _causes_ kids to do worse.
The longer they are in school, the worse they do.
The more we pay for school, the worse they do.
Can I prove this? No, the data doesn't prove causality, but it doesn't refute it either.
Watching my own kids grow up. I'm pretty convinced of two things.
1) Once a kid has learned everything he can learn because of his own brain maturity, trying to get him to learn more doesn't work. The limit at any given age is the limit. Pushing harder doesn't get anyone anywhere.
2) The most important variable in education is interest. If a kid is interested in something, the learning is easy. If he hates it, its nearly impossible.
Put together 1) and 2) and what do you get? Push a kid to be in school longer than he can take it and soon he will hate learning. From that point on, nothing is accomplished. And the destruction was caused by too much school.
James
South Korea's got a bit of an anti-American streak... and it really developed over the last 10 years. Politicians play it up to win elections (and their teachers' unions are just as left-wing as the U.S.'s, if not more so).
Japan's politics are much less volatile in comparison. And they spend far less on education than us, too.
However, both countries are known for "cram schools": students attend them after regular school in order to study harder. I don't know if this just indicates parent/student motivation or that normal teachers suck.
Word verification: metelly
Reading the above comments about the importance of culture (Eastern Europe, Korea), I was wondering what you as Americans think about immigration. In my opinion, the USA should revert to a system of mass immigration, like it was a century ago. If the US let Koreans, Poles, Czechs, Russians, and Indians immigrate in huge numbers, it could help transform the US back into a capitalist society. As soon as the influx of poor people who want to make a fortune stops, a country is left with a complacent, socialist society.
Parents are definitely important. I've got a friend who most people would categorize as a very good parent (I do), but has the general attitude that all that book learning is a waste of time (e.g., math beyond basic algebra and geometry is worthless). But I still think you're not giving enough "credit" to the schools.
The schools have deliberately unsurped the role of parent and they are very happy with the position. Granted, a majority of the parents out there are just as happy with it, but if you prefer to be your own children's parent, it is an endless fight with the schools to keep that position. They teach things that are stupid or flat wrong, they demand all sorts of things that have absolutely nothing to do with learning (e.g., volunteering), and employ people with very little skill in teaching and provide no recourse.
The government schools like being the parent and will not give it up without a fight. It's the natural inclination of all Fascist organizations.
Not sure why you're focusing only on Korea vs. the US, but whatever.
Some more facts to consider...
RE: "One, they spend barely half the amount per student we do in the US."
Both Korea and the US invest approximately 7.5% of their GDP, and about 15% of their total public expenditures, on their respective educational systems. On a per capita basis, it may seem like Korea spends much less, but within their national contexts, both appear to prioritize public education investments equally.
Also, over 20% of total educational spending in Korea comes from private sources (e.g., for tutors, after-school classes, etc.), compared to less than 9% in the US. So, Ji Hea's comment above re: private, extra-curricular spending appears on the mark.
RE: "(again confirming something we've always known; that more money does not equal better students, just richer teacher union members)"
In equivalent USD converted using PPPs, the typical Korean lower secondary school teacher earns just under $50,000, compared to $40,000 for the typical US teacher. After 15 yrs of experience, a Korean teacher's salary level approaches 2.5 times the average GDP per capita, while a US teacher earns no more than the average GDP per capita.
The fact that (a) both countries spend about the same percentage of GDP on education; (b) Korean teachers actually earn more in equivalent dollars than US teachers; and (c) Korean students perform better on a particular international academic metric suggest that what you've "always known" is actually not correct.
RE: "Two, and perhaps even more interesting, is that in Korea the teachers spend the least amount of time actually teaching their kids. Again, just half the amount of time as what is spent here in the US;"
True, actual teaching time--i.e., standing at the front of class, explaining a concept or a lesson--in Korean lower secondary schools is about 560 hrs per year versus 1127 hrs in the US. But, Korean and US teachers both spend about 1400-1600 working hours in school per year. This suggests Korean teachers may be doing more prep work, or contributing to student development in ways beyond formal classroom instruction.
So, the role of teachers cannot be so easily dismissed in trying to explain academic performance differences between Korean and American students. Given that Korean students benefit from better paid teachers and more private instruction, and receive no less amounts of teacher presence and involvement and public spending dollars, it's entirely plausible that difference in performance ARE attributable to the quality of the the school system and not parental involvement and/or "culture."
"Can you show me ONE quote from Dawkins, Hitchens, Harris, or Dennet which advocates the use of ANY force - let alone government intervention - in order to change peoples religious views?"
...yes. Dawkin's "The God Delusion" went on about great length in one section about how teaching religion to children should be viewed as child abuse and handled by government as such.
All government intervention is through force.
That's not a quote, bud. Your first hint should be that you didn't include any quotation marks. They're the little squiggly things right beside the "enter" key.
Dawkins may use the phrase "child abuse" to refer to the forced indoctrination of children with irrational beliefs (and I'd agree with him) but he certainly does not advocate government intervention except in the most extreme cases - for instance, where someones religious beliefs insist that they not seek out medical assistance for their child, or where their religious beliefs supposedly allow them to marry 12 year old girls.
I'd probably even go a step further, but Dawkins never does.
Try again? With an actual Q-U-O-T-E this time?
In fact, to follow up on that, let me say this.
Every person _I_ have ever met who identifies himself / herself as an atheist has been more interested in professing a hatred for religion when acting in that capacity (as an atheist) than any other single characteristic I can name.
But note the concept there - while acting AS an atheist. I know and relate to many atheists who I happen to know are atheists (or else I would not be able to accurately make such a statement). These people, through comments, responses, and sometimes admission, have informed me of their beliefs (or lack thereof). The Captain is a good example. The Captain is, insofar as I can tell, an atheist. But he's acting as himself and as an economist. Someone acting in the role of an atheist - identifying himself and acting as a member of a particular group - does not focus and discuss the merits and rationale of atheism. The fundamental tenet seems to run toward anti-religious hysteria.
If you want an example, use the internet. Rachellucas.com is a decent blog - go through her comments archives and tell me which individuals are atheists and which are not. In 90% of those cases (and the same ratio seems to apply anywhere else) where you're able to ascertain someone's belief from a few set of comments, those same people are, inevitably, trashing religion. These same people almost inevitably bring up government intervention as the "solution."
I've been part of many atheist groups, throughout highschool, college, and, briefly, afterward (we're talking in person groups - atheists online seem to just be walking flamewars). Sometimes, in these groups, there were philosophical discussions, but rarely. If the subject turned toward religion (it did every day in every one of them), there was a solid consensus that it was a mental illness and that it needed to be corrected. I cannot count the times that government was viewed as the tool - either through blatant force or through the education system (which also, incidentally, maintains its monopoly via force). When the subject turned to politics, those present almost always immediately indicated a more liberal slant than libertarian, and more libertarian than conservative. A lot of these atheist groups turned into anti-Bush fests.
Of course, I'm talking about people acting in the capacity of atheists. Someone acting in the capacity of a christian may have an evangelical slant, may be pushy as hell, but they at least can act in that role (as members of their group) in positive ways. I can find millions of blogs, articles, and books written by christians which are purely positive and encouraging virtuous action and interesting philosophical discussion. Atheist books either seem to be introductions to atheist epistemology (and given that atheism is rooted in lack of belief rather than any particular ideology, very few of these books are anything but opinion or history) or, like Dawkins' God Delusion, rants or attacks on religion.
Of course, this is almost all anecdotal evidence. However, that's pretty much what I'm going to use to determine the kind of people I socialize with.
As for the "malicious attack" on "such individuals," I named only Dawkins. I said "atheists like Dawkins" (to which I have just given you a definition). I did not say "all atheists." Why? Because I _am_ an atheist. I've simply found that, the more I've studied economics and the more I've understood about individual freedoms and the issues with government, the more I care more about these issues than I do about what someone else believes (even if I do think that, as far as their religion is concerned, they're pretty far off). I know of and read regularly from similar atheists. But, as I've stated, the sooner I learn in reading someone's work that he's an atheist, the sooner (if not immediately) I start seeing anti-religious rants.
And, in matter of fact, I like Dawkins. I own and regularly read every work he put out in terms of evolution. The instant he wrote a book acting not as a scientist (with some skeptical comments about religion) to acting as an atheist, however, he went from a calm, rational person to a temperamental and bent one. I'll still buy a book from him on evolution, but if he strays from the subject I will ignore him.
As for government intervention...
..again, ALL government action is through force. That is HOW government functions. If you lobby to change what is taught in a classroom, you are lobbying for that change and the education of those students to occur through force. Name only law which is enforced through social ramifications rather than an arrest or fine (which, if you refuse to pay, results in arrest). All arrests are accompanied by force. You are kept in jail by... force.
Government is a monopoly on force. It's simply a necessary one.
"Someone acting in the role of an atheist ... does not focus and discuss the merits and rationale of atheism. The fundamental tenet seems to run toward anti-religious hysteria."
Of course. How could it be any different? Atheism is not a belief or a belief system - atheism is simply a response to the question of "do you believe the claims of religion". Without religion atheism would not exist, so by it's very nature it HAS TO BE a response to religious claims.
You may as well claim that people who think we really landed on the moon "seem to run towards anti-moon-hoax hysteria". How could it be any different?
"These same people almost inevitably bring up government intervention as the 'solution.'"
Oh, I see. So when your initial attacks on Dawkins et al fall through, you resort to pointing at random people in an internet forum. Nice. Does that actually pass as a successful debate tactic in your world?
But, as I've stated, the sooner I learn in reading someone's work that he's an atheist, the sooner (if not immediately) I start seeing anti-religious rants.
Well there's your problem right there. That's called "selection bias". You may as well say "the sooner I learn that someone is jewish, the sooner I start seeing their cheap penny-pinching ways".
Now, if you had said that you can immediately identify an atheist through their writing, that would have been a different story altogether. But what you're saying is that you first learn that they're an atheist, and only THEN start seeing all these negative things. In other words, you're shaping your view of them to match what you expect to see, instead of seeing what's actually there.
"The instant he wrote a book acting not as a scientist (with some skeptical comments about religion) to acting as an atheist, however, he went from a calm, rational person to a temperamental and bent one."
Hardly. Once again, it's your personal biases which are shaping your perceptions. Dawkins writing style doesn't change from one subject to the next - only your perception of it changes.
Now, you can disagree with his claims if you want, as long as you have a rational reason for doing so. But that's not what you're doing. Instead, you're attacking his character simply because you dislike his views. That's a cowardly tactic. It's also one I see used quite often when religious individuals attempt to deal with the claims of atheists. As irrational individuals, they are simply not equipped with the tools required to debate in a rational manner. Therefore they fall back on the only things they know - dogma, rhetoric, feelings and emotions.
All I ask is that you back up your claims with FACTS. If you can't do that then don't expect to be taken seriously by rational people.
"again, ALL government action is through force"
I'm not sure why you find it necessary to repeat that, since I've already agreed with you. I simply stated that you are wrong about Dawkins et al trying to use government force to suppress mainstream religion. It's great that you can repeatedly define the meaning of "government force", but you've utterly failed to show any of them attempting to use it.
"That's not a quote, bud. Your first hint should be that you didn't include any quotation marks. They're the little squiggly things right beside the "enter" key.
Dawkins may use the phrase "child abuse" to refer to the forced indoctrination of children with irrational beliefs (and I'd agree with him) but he certainly does not advocate government intervention except in the most extreme cases - for instance, where someones religious beliefs insist that they not seek out medical assistance for their child, or where their religious beliefs supposedly allow them to marry 12 year old girls.
I'd probably even go a step further, but Dawkins never does.
Try again? With an actual Q-U-O-T-E this time?"
Yes, I know what a quote is. The reason I didn't give one is pretty simple: I get no value from buying that crap book again just to find that exact wording and context Dawkins used just to satisfy your need for evidence you'd refute out of hand anyway.
I could be wrong entirely on Dawkins' view, but that sure as hell isn't the impression I walked away with after reading that book.
The fact is, you're a pretty good example of what my last comment was about (which was in moderation at the same time as this bit I'm responding to now) - pointless, meandering condescension, and an excellent example of what the average self-describing atheist believes in. You just stated yourself that Dawkins and you both believe religious indoctrination is child abuse. Considering his rallying point that we should make the common zeitgeist to be against religion and (I would assume by association) to view religious indoctrination as child abuse, let me ask you this...
How do we, as a society and as members who stipulate government action, deal with child abuse?
Do we frown and brow-beat the abusers?
Or do we take legal action, which is force?
I can't remember the last time I read an about child abuse concluding that the community was simply going to stand around and frown at people.
Lose the condescension, too, because all it does is verify my continuing perception that self-described atheists are more interested in proving their own intelligence and trashing others than they are in rational thought.
Eh, **** it.
How about this?
We both *seem* to agree that, for the most part, your average, self-described atheist isn't exactly a friend of capitalism.
Beyond that, yep, I overstepped the line.
You have my apologies.
lol
Damn you for being reasonable. I just finished writing a huge response, and when I clicked the "preview" button your most recent comment popped up and immediately invalidated much of what I wrote.
I'm going to post bits of it anyway, since some of it is still valid. In particular - you seem to be fundamentally confused about what Atheism IS. Also, the bit about child abuse still holds. The rest of it ... I'll offer my own apology, even though I never actually posted it :)
Here goes:
------
Let me clear things up for you - Atheism IS NOT A BELIEF SYSTEM. Atheism is a single answer to a single claim. It doesn't have tenets, ideals, or adherents. It is not something you can organize your life around. If Atheists are being assholes to you, it's not because of their Atheism; it's because you insist on self-righteously making ridiculous claims for which you have no evidence whatsoever, and they're fully justified in meeting your claims with derision.
--------
"How do we, as a society and as members who stipulate government action, deal with child abuse?"
Depends on the abuse, doesn't it? We allow Jews, and many Christians, to perform unnecessary and extremely painful operations on infants. We allow the Amish to segregate and brainwash their children, isolating them in a society in which we never tread. We allow Muslims to brainwash their sons into hating the very society they live in, and we allow them to imprison their daughters in black shrouds. We allow Mormons to keep their children uneducated and ignorant, and to forcefully marry off their pubescent daughters to men 5 times their age.
Come to think of it, we're really not very good at dealing with child abuse. We let parents do just about anything they want to their children, as long as they can cloak it in their religion or "culture".
Is government interference the solution to these problems? I don't know. The government certainly SHOULD be actively engaged in fighting ignorance, oppression, and exploitation. How to go about doing that without singling out any particular group, or forcing the beliefs of one group on another ... that's a difficult question to answer.
"We allow Mormons to keep their children uneducated and ignorant, and to forcefully marry off their pubescent daughters to men 5 times their age."
You're confusing Mormons as a whole with the religious fundamentalist sects that make up a very small percentage of people who identify themselves as "Mormons".
LDS women are more likely to graduate from college than Catholic or Protestant women, but not as likely as Jewish or non-religious women. They're as likely to hold professional careers as Jewish and non-religious women, and more likely than Catholic and Protestant women to have professional careers.
While Utah spends less per student than any other state, it spends a higher percentage of its total budget on education. Student performance is above average, with above average test scores and the highest High School graduation rate in the country.
As for getting married off once they hit puberty, Utah has the lowest teen pregnancy rate in the US and the third lowest abortion rate. If people are getting married when they're 15, somehow they're not getting pregnant until their 20s, and then they're doing so at high enough rates to give Utah the highest birth rate in the US. It makes a bit more sense to reconsider the whole "marrying pubescents" claim you made. LDS women are very likely to get married in their early to mid 20s, not their teens.
Here's a little secret: nobody really likes the fundies. Not even the rest of us in Utah. Lumping the rest of us in with a bunch of child-marrying polygamists is stupid, since the data clearly show we're far from the ignorant, uneducated fools you're claiming we are.
Sources here: http://www.adherents.com/largecom/lds_dem.html
Post a Comment