Lower Education Blues

With another school year just under way, parents understandably wonder how well their children are advancing. Perhaps parents' real concern should be whether their children are actually falling behind. From a comparative viewpoint, they clearly are. America spends the most on education and gets less than virtually any developed nation. The failure of America's "lower education" system bears witness to competition's absence. Without fundamental reform, future generations will pay an increasing cost for this absence.

The National Center for Education Statistics compared 15 year-old public school students in several countries in several subject areas. Released in 2006, their study of 2003 results (their latest figures) shows the U.S. below the OECD average in math (483 to 500) and science (491 to 500) and just slightly above average (495 to 494) in reading. Only five nations scored below the U.S. in all these categories -- Greece, Italy, Portugal, Mexico, and Turkey.

Perhaps these results would be understandable, if not acceptable, if the U.S. spent less on education, but the reverse is true. The U.S. spent $8,900 per pupil. France spent $7,200; the U.K. $6,800; Japan, $6,800; and Germany, $6,500. As recently as the last school year, the U.S. spent $9,969 per pupil and $489 billion nationwide on elementary and secondary public education.

The difference between America's higher education and "lower education" -- its elementary and secondary systems -- is dramatic. While "lower ed" under-performs other developed countries', graduates from those systems flock to America's higher education institutions. This may convince some that everything equalizes over the long-term -- what's lost in the beginning is recouped at the end. Such thought is as shortsighted as it is wrong.

This is especially true for lower income students. Many such students begin the education race behind the starting line. It is little surprise that too many never reach the finish line at all. This slow start virtually requires additional education will be needed by those least able to afford it, or its absence. For lower income families, a self-replicating cycle threatens.

THE DIFFERENCE BETWEEN America's primary and secondary public schools and its higher education system has been noted before; however, the defining difference of competition is too often overlooked. The performance gap is instead attributed to other factors -- colleges and universities' large endowments and that these institutions attract only the most motivated and talented students (while public primary and secondary schools take all comers).

Yet, the fact remains that on a global basis, U.S. higher education out-performs while U.S. elementary and secondary public education under-performs. Why? Competition. Competition is not the result of our higher education excellence, it is the cause. Students do not simply compete to get in, they do so because colleges compete with each other.

Competition is the very thing from which our primary and secondary public schools have so assiduously insulated themselves. America's "lower education" is literally locked in place. While American colleges attract students on a global level, our primary and secondary public schools trap students at the local level.

Thoroughly unportable, elementary and secondary public school students are forced to attend where they live -- unable to go across town, let alone across country. College students go wherever they wish (grades permitting). Because of it, colleges strive to attract dollars and students wherever they are -- locally, nationally, and internationally. Lower education neither wants nor needs students from beyond its local area. It defines a monopoly: many buyers facing a single supplier.

In contrast, the absence of competition drives out resources. Competition attracts them because, whether money or students, they know they will be rewarded in a competitive system. Of course American colleges excel. Students are willing to pay more to go to the better ones and colleges in turn are willing to make the investment to attract them -- ironically both are able to do so because federal education aid at the college level is completely portable.

THE OBVIOUS SOLUTION is to raise our "lower education" system as much as possible. To do this, our public schools must compete as much as possible and to do that, federal aid needs to be as portable as possible. Despite the laudable reforms of No Child Left Behind, portable federal school aid at the elementary and secondary level remains the exception, not the rule.

While our "lower education" system may imagine itself insulated from competition, America itself is not. To compete globally, we must start at the beginning. One look at the global competition dynamic explains why. Undeveloped nations compensate for worse education with lower wage and operating costs. Developed nations can compete, but only with higher productivity, which requires greater education. Where then is America's advantage? If it cannot compete with undeveloped nations' lower wages and is falling behind its developed competitors in the basic educational skills for the majority of its workforce, it finds itself in a particularly unattractive position. As the school year begins, perhaps what is most in need of education is our "lower education" system itself.

Source






AN EDUCATION ROUNDUP FROM AUSTRALIA

Three articles below:

Australian teachers oppose more Australian literature teaching

For once I am partially in agreement with a teachers' organization. I think kids should be introduced to the best literature in the language -- regardless of where it came from. Broadening the definition of "literature" to mean anything written or displayed is just a way of evading study of the classics, however. If parents really want their kids to be given lessons in cornflake packaging, let the kids do a separate course in that

ENGLISH teachers oppose moves to strengthen the study of Australian literature in schools, with their professional association arguing it confers a superiority over the literature of other cultures. In a submission to a review of the New South Wales syllabus, the English Teachers Association of NSW says its members also object to giving privilege to print literature above other forms, including film, television and websites.

"A definition of literature with a restriction to the print medium is imprudent, reductive, short-sighted and, most importantly, undermines the integrity of current English syllabuses," the submission says. "The ETA opposes the selective nomination of some types of text as this implies hierarchies in generic form and medium rather than in the quality of the texts themselves."

The ETA's submission, sent to the board late last month, is in response to proposed changes to the English syllabus for all years of school requested by former state education minister John Della Bosca in May. Mr Della Bosca asked the board to explore ways to improve the presence of Australian literature in school English courses and ensure the study of more Australian books, poems and plays.

The ETA says schools are committed to the "notion and practice of diversity and do not want to see a narrow or exclusive interpretation of 'Australian' and Australian concerns". "Any definition of 'Australian' needs to see Australia in a global context, and to take account of indigenous and multicultural perspectives," the association says.

In particular, it opposes the introduction of a mandatory module on Australian literature in the extension English course for Year 11. It argues that most students do not take extension English so the module is a limited response to moves to strengthen the study of Australian literature.

The main criticism was that by narrowing the study to print literature, it reduced the syllabus's focus on comparing different types of texts, effectively "dumbing down" the curriculum. "It also signals an insularity and lack of confidence about the place of Australian achievement in world literature reminiscent of the 'cultural cringe' that we thought had been laid to rest," the ETA says.

Source

Many school drop-outs enjoy life at the top

REPORTS of the death of the self-made man or woman have been greatly exaggerated. Research to be published today shows that despite the widespread perception that a good education is a prerequisite to a good income, many Australians with relatively modest levels of education still push their way into the top bracket of the nation's money earners.

The study, in the Melbourne Institute of Applied Economic and Social Research's third annual report on its longitudinal HILDA survey, finds personality traits, such as a willingness to take risks, and social networks also play a significant role in determining financial success. "Without wishing to cast doubt on the value of education ... it is still worth pointing out that many people who lack much formal education still make good money," the report says. Among men who were working in 2005, 24.8 per cent of those with less than a Year 12 education were in the top half of the male earnings distribution. Among women the figures were even more remarkable; 29.2 per cent of those with less than Year 12 education were in the top half of the distribution."

The numbers were slightly skewed, the study admits, in that those with low levels of education were more likely not to be working at all, and therefore not included in the above figures. The report says factors outside education can influence earnings, in particular personalities that take risks. "For both men and women, not being financially risk-averse was quite a strong determinant of high earnings," it finds.

Also choosing particular industries could help those with lower levels of education earn more money. "Men working in the mining industry were paid well above what is usual for people with their level of education," the report says.

Source

Smutty teacher: Another regulatory failure

A TEACHER who sent smutty messages to students and propositioned one to a skinny dip in a school pool has had his registration suspended. Sean David Grady, 27, has admitted his sex chats with young girls "scarred" a small Victorian country town.

But questions have been raised over why a Victorian watchdog took two years to formally punish him - and how he secured a teaching job interstate despite concerns about his character. A Victorian Institute of Teaching inquiry has heard Mr Grady had graphic phone or computer conversations with four pupils while working as a rookie at the college. The wayward government school teacher admitted he:

SENT messages to a year 10 girl, including words to the effect, "I want to get you into bed", called her and said he was "horny", and asked her to sneak out of her home.

PROPOSITIONED a year 11 student to a naked swim in the school pool and suggested he climb in her window.

BOUGHT a year 12 girl a glass of wine for her 18th birthday and kissed her in a hotel foyer.

INVITED a year 11 student to his flat and pushed her on to his bed.

USED a school computer to email sexual material to another teacher.

Mr Grady told a hearing earlier this year he was suffering personal problems and was drawn into a culture of heavy drinking when he landed in the isolated town as a young graduate. He argued he was now a changed man who had learned from his actions and would keep getting help through counselling.

Mr Grady was found guilty of serious misconduct. He cannot reapply to teach in Victoria until January 2010 and will require a mentor if returned to the classroom.

Opposition education spokesman Martin Dixon attacked the time taken to investigate the teacher. The Education Department advised the teaching watchdog in July 2006 that Mr Grady had been blocked from working in state schools. Despite this and the VIT's separate inquiry, it emerged Mr Grady worked as a teacher interstate this year. His interstate registration was frozen when the Victorian hearing came to light. VIT president Andrew Ius partly blamed workload pressures for the disciplinary hearing delay.

Source