I suspect the same low academic skills rank for the US would be true if the parents of the tested generation were themselves tested. Maybe too for the grandparents?

Good schools don't let anyone skate through. The ones that do are well known as such by employers and grad schools.

I agree with you insofar as what you mention includes the diploma mill, for-profit schools that have inadequate standards. (As a devout capitalist, it hurts me to use that term disparagingly, but it's true in this narrow case). They take advantage of unknowing students. There's been talk of holding them to better standards and practices as a condition for students qualifying for the guaranteed student loan programs. If done, that all by itself will cause some needed reform.

I think it's been declining for a long time. There are many reasons for it, and studying how other countries handle education shows where the US is sorely lacking.

In some of the higher achieving countries, schooling is far more standardized. A child can receive a similar education regardless of where in the country they live. Many countries cover things like preschool for all children, and the US doesn't. Out of curiosity, I looked in my area and a good preschool will run you $800-$1,200 a month for one child, full time. Most people can't afford that, especially the families with children who would most benefit from preschool.

Teachers are paid better, and respected more in other countries. The US loves standardized tests, and the curriculum is often developed around them, which I personally believe is not the right way to learn. This creates a lot of busywork and a ridiculous amount of homework because not everything can be covered in class.

It's also a culture thing. The US has evolved to be very unfriendly towards family life. It's one of the only countries that doesn't offer maternity leave other than unpaid leave for a few months, if someone's company is large enough. In most other first world countries, both parents get multiple years off with full pay. And our corporate culture is demanding of hours and tasks, leaving people tired and stressed out which impacts family life, which impacts school life.

And then there's the wealth gap in the country. There's a large correlation between the quality of the school and the wealth of the area. Being born into a wealthier family means you'll have educational opportunities that poor children won't have, generally speaking. Wealthy school districts often get the best technology, the best teachers, the best field trip opportunities and extras that other districts don't get. Other countries give all children an equal chance regardless of the circumstances of their birth.

On a personal level, my husband and I both attended very rigorous programs at very good universities. He studied Computer Science at MIT, and I did Economics and the University of Chicago. He came from a very highly ranked private school, and did very well. I was educated in an average, middle class public school system and I struggled to keep my head above water in college. I had no idea how much I didn't know (despite my stellar high school record) until I got there. I definitely think the quality of our educations factored into our personal success in college. I thought I was very well educated until I met my college peers.

It's because the US pours money into athletics rather than education (who makes more? A football player or a teacher?). It's because the government wants to make education obtainable to every student, but does not give the teachers the tools they need to truly teach.

Well said, Chi83! And Rob, every time I drive past our local high school on a Friday night, I'm reminded of the $100,000+ they spent on football lights while academic programs are being cut.

A very long time ago, some of the brightest students went into teaching. When I was in college, many of the lowest achievers majored in education ("because you get the whole summer off"). In my observation, once they get a teaching job, they never get fired! Of course they aren't fired after getting tenure (a dirty word in my house), but even before that, I've never seen one fired.

As an example, I remember a new college graduate who performed miserably as a 1st-grade teacher. The administration's solution was to have her teach 8th grade the following year. She didn't do well with that either, but she got tenure, and that was that.

I know some wonderful teachers. Sadly, they are paid exactly the same as bad teachers. And some of those teachers are really bad. I'm reluctant to give details on a public forum, but trust me on that.

A lot of the teachers we had issues with have retired now, with hefty pensions. As a taxpayer with no children in school, it bugs me sometimes that I'm contributing to those pensions, as well as to their health insurance and other benefits, which seem to go on and on and on.

I just want to add that many of the kids coming to college now need remedial classes, which means they were NOT properly prepared for college.

This is a really interesting article on Finland's educational success, if anyone is interested. Their approach is so different from the US.
Why are Finland's schools so successful?

In many major countries abroad, young pupils take exams at various ages that determine what track in their standardized educational systems they take - university (for engineering, sciences, higher level humanities, medicine), community college-equivalent (to become bookkeepers, primary level teachers and other lower level white collar occupations) or trade school/industrial apprenticeship programs. Many take quite an outcome-oriented approach, something completely lacking in our system.

I think sports are essential through the high school level. Participants learn important life skills, some arguably much more important than what's learned in the classroom. In college, they've become overblown these days, I'm not a fan of how NCAA Div 1 schools conduct their athletic programs.

Teaching has never been an occupation to attract the best and brightest. Not that long ago, certainly in my lifetime, it was one of a few professional occupations that was traditionally open to women who wanted to work. (Nursing being one of the others). My view is that if salaries were raised a good 50% or more, it would attract better candidates and hiring could be more selective. Teachers unions also contribute to the "job for life" attitude that prevents weeding out the bad ones, they need to have their powers cut back. Neither thing is likely to happen.

Yes alisande, you're paying today for school costs (salaries and pensions) you don't use but your neighbors with young children do. Just as your older neighbors did when your children were in school. Try taking a broader look.

Just to be clear, it's the overblown part of athletics I abhor. Not athletics themselves. I believe in competition at older ages, learning disappointment, working hard, being part of something bigger than yourself...

Exactly, rob, that's it. They also learn the need for personal sacrifice and teamwork to contribute to group success, essential attitudes that too many people in our society lack . Many kids in sports also develop a love for the strenuous physical activity and workouts that are part of the daily practice routines and continue that through their lifetimes - I know my kids have.

I'm not a fan of teams in schools that are still called "team sports" but are really individual activities- track/cross country, tennis, etc. While these are great for personal recreation, the essentials of "team interactions" are lost, subordinated to a more individual focus.

I've decided each generation has a percentage of people that will succeed and a percentage that doesn't want to do anything more than just survive, not excel. If our society could popularize math and the sciences, make it COOL...then we might be onto something...

Our teachers are unionized. The good ones and the bad ones are all paid exactly the same. The bad ones can't get fired and the good ones are not recognized on a meritorious basis.

I would not want to be a teacher these days. In our jurisdiction you are everything to everyone. This will be a contentious subject for some, but our classrooms are open to everyone - the severely autistic, the mentally challenged, the physically challenged (from those who can care for themselves to those who need diaper changing), those with severe behaviour issues, those who can't speak English. Nobody wins. The teachers take care of everyone with maybe a part-time aid and now you want them to teach? When and how.

We were one of those parents who paid for tutors for our eldest child. Smart kid who was not a natural reader. The teacher's don't have time for those type of students anymore. We can afford it. Many can't.

'Capitalists' should be able to see the economic advantage in 'Socialist' support for families and children when it produces higher achieving workers.

Also, the US is not homogeneous, as are some of these nations with higher test scores. We have less nationally funded public education and more financed by the real estate taxes of a given community. (I've been surprised to learn that Hawaiian schools are financed and run by the state. Is that the case elsewhere in the US?)

A truly public school in my state -- one unable to cherry-pick students -- will achieve a higher rank in an affluent area. There is more tax base. The students enter the system already 'advantaged', and they come from families that have high educational expectations of the schools and of their children.

Chi83 -- Thanks for the link to the Finnish schools story. Interesting that it was originally a *financial* motive that started the change towards better education. LOL

Some things that struck me:

Forty-three percent of high school students are in apprentice-type programs. (The US has such poorly educated high school graduates that every job above manual labor requires a BS.)

The Finns are facing new problems with immigrants, including 'white flight'.

Their 'special ed' classes have a ratio of 1 to 7.

Every teacher must have a master's -- acquired at state expense -- and teachers are well paid. Teachers are also unionized.

There's a lot of outdoor exercise, and music, art, gym.

A child may have the same teacher for five years running. A grammar school glass is twenty-three students.

There is little top-down direction. A principal and his team run the show.

Early childhood education is provided as is maternity pay for three years. Until age six, kids attend school for socialization. (US kindergarteners are expected to *learn* before they begin first grade.)

I see lots wrong and lots that is right about our public schools. My kids got great educations, but it does require parent involvement, which is not the norm across our communities. I see parents leaving course selection and study habits to their kidlets, and I have seen too many bright kids taking easy classes to just get through school with as little challenge as possible. Then they wonder why they don't qualify for a selective university or have to take remedial classes if they are accepted somewhere or why they flunk out. I think parents have to be willing to work with their kids in elementary school, teaching their children how to work at learning and how to set expectations and achieve them and to develop a sound foundation and attitudes in their early years. In the secondary schools, parents need to review the class selection for their child and compare that selection with the college prep suggested courses. If the student needs help, then parents, study groups, teachers and/or tutors ought to be helping.

In our town, parents who should know better are too busy with their own lives to do the necessary parenting. The tennis club, the fancy cars, etc too often all come before consideration of the children they are raising.

Then you have the melting pots in our classrooms as well as our communities. English is not spoken at home and students arrive at the classroom door with few or no English language skills. Students with learning disabilities are mainstreamed and expected to meet the demands of NCLB and standardized tests. The school scores reflect our nation's desire to educate ALL children, not just a select percentage.

The public high school in the community where we raised our DS has long been ranked one of the best in the nation. The surrounding 'feeder schools' are highly ranked too. It's an affluent area. However...the kids who got 'free rides' to Stanford, etc. had parents who *taught* at home, not relying on the schools to do it all. There were high expectations by most parents in the area, but most parents also left it all to the public schools -- or 'school shopped' to find a private school to which they could leave it all!

Our DIL teaches junior high math in the Chicago Public Schools. Her first years were in a school at the lowest end of the spectrum, in Englewood. She felt she had done well if ONE kid a year looked like he might graduate from HS and succeed in life. Most had no parenting. Most lived with Grandma or a guardian. Almost no one ever saw life beyond this ghetto, let alone had a practical vision of how to leave it. The TV series "The Wire" was an accurate portrayal of Englewood, although it was set in Baltimore. Breaks your heart.

The levels of taxation that Finns (and other Europeans) pay to have the governmental and educational services they get would never be accepted here. We SHOULD be paying more to get more, but that's unfortunately unlikely.

As someone who belongs to a tennis club and drives something more upscale than an economy car, i would suggest that assessing parenting ability by the Kelly Blue Book value of a family's cars is probably not a good measure.

In California, something like half of public school funding comes from the state. There is a local funding element, so more affluent areas do have more per capita money and poorer areas have less.

chisue, the very top schools like Stanford and others don't give merit scholarships at all. They don't need to, to attract the type of students they want. They're all oversubscribed, with many multiples more qualified applicants (of the type they're looking for) than do they have places to fill. Grant support is based on financial need only, those without financial need pay full rates. I know that from personal experience.

Snidely -- The two kids who got free rides at Stanford were exceptional; were a 'geographical balance' (from the Midwest); were engineering majors. The parents were teachers (low pay and low net worth).

If the family didn't have any money, then that's why they got free rides. I came from a modest income family and my schooling was almost free at a very expensive school. There were plenty others better qualified than I was who paid full price because their parents were at least somewhat wealthy.

Then they got it based on financial need - that's not exceptional at all. At most of the top schools, it can be more than half of all students that get some amount of institutional (non-loan) support. By design, that's for economic and socioeconomic diversity.

See the link and scroll down the page a bit. Not that I have any affinity for Stanford, other than they're in my area, but almost 2/3rds of undergrads get non-loan aid. The single largest source of funds to do so is endowment earnings. Stanford undergrads

When son was considering university, over 30 years ago, there wasn't a discussion as to whether he'd want to go to a U.S. school, and he grad journalism at Carleton in Ottawa.

Daughter was interested in hotel management, somewhat akin to her Mom's field, who grad in Hospital Food Service from Cornell. We considered whether to come up with the extra funding needed to have her go to Cornell, as she'd have been a foreign student. I wondered about her going to live in the U.S. for a while, as she could get a U.S. passport, but the basis was where she'd grad. high school, if I remember correctly. The fees for U.S. young ones were somewhat lower than here, as I recall.

She went to Guelph, got B. Comm. related to hotel management ... and has never been employed in that or a (fairly closely) related field.

I think that children who grow up in a home where there are varied interests, and use of language with the children involved at the level at which they can participate have better capabilities from the day that they start school than do children who have lacked such varied interests and background during their early formative years, so are better equipped from day one at school.

ole joyful

Snidely, you are partially right about California funding. Local property tax dollars are directed toward local schools, and the state fills in for whatever is needed to bring the district up to their individual Base Revenue Limit, which varies from district to district. Then federal dollars flow into school districts for special education for all k-12s as well as funding for special kinds of educational needs for impacted schools. Districts in poor neighborhoods and inner cities receive these funds far more than the other schools and can actually receive more per student than so called wealthy communities. High tax income areas can end up funding or super funding their schools almost entirely with their local taxes, but those are rare in this part of the state.

Sorry if I have simplified this explanation too much.

I stand by my statement about parental distraction for my area. Lucky you not to have that occurring in your area.

Call it parental distraction, or call it parents who are uninvolved/unengaged/uninterested, or just plain old "lousy parents". That happens here, there and everywhere. It also happens from the top of the socio-economic ladder to the bottom and all points in-between. It's like anything else, some want to be better than they are, some are unable to be effective, others don't care.

Sounds like when you see a parent in a Lexus or BMW SUV wearing tennis attire, you have them all figured out. That's too bad.

How do you feel about golfers? Or, two wage-earner families?

Nope, you got me wrong. Just surprised to see it quite common here. Not green with envy, just didn't expect it. And yes, all sorts of parents are dedicated, and all sorts aren't.

Our house is on a street much-used by people (maids, nannies, parents) driving children to the public schools and the private day school at the foot of our street. Some days it's like a funeral procession -- all black vehicles -- but these are the largest SUV's on the market. Oh, the *conformity*! LOL My DH walks our dog along our street. Oh, the *entitlement* of the drivers! They drive twice the speed limit and are heedless of stop signs or anyone crossing.

Snidely, of course there is 'car snobbery'. At one time we owned a large Jaguar and a VW Golf. I had to remember which I was driving when I came to the four-way stop near our house. If I was in the VW, I waited patiently. If I was in the Jag, the other drivers gave way. It was weird.

I second what Sheilajoyce wrote about CA funding. I live in one of the more affluent areas of California, and yet the schools receive less funding than average for the county. I work in a far-from-affluent district, and there is money galore, in comparison, for technology, supplies, and teacher training.

That's interesting, I always thought the less affluent areas had less money to work with.

Chi83, that's certainly true in my area. The school district that has most of the summer/weekend homes has a lot more money to work with than the less affluent district in the farming community ten miles away.

I imagine the net funding in affluent areas via local property tax is higher than federally subsidized districts in some cases.

My school district has strange zoning. It honestly seems like the wealthier areas get the better ranked schools regardless of distance. We have a very highly ranked elementary school very close to my house, but instead since my neighborhood is near some apartments, the kids here and in the apartments get bussed out 5 miles to a poorly ranked school in another city.

Meanwhile the ritzy housing area that is a few miles further away from the good school gets to go there. I'm sure they have an official reason for it but it's suspicious to me. I would like to know how school district boundaries are determined and whether parents/board members can influence them and if the higher property tax areas get preference for the good schools. Does anyone know?

To be honest, as an outsider I find the funding arrangements and management arrangements I read of for schools in the US quite incomprehensible. Here in Australia, education is funded for the most part by Sate governments with some assistance from the Federal government. Local government just doesn't come into it. It is not dependent on local property taxes, therefore low socio-economic areas are not disadvantaged by less taxes collected. Similarly taxpayers have no vote in how funds are allocated so those like Alisande who resent their taxes going to schools they think they aren't using because they have no children cannot vote for less funding.

Just a tip for those who think as Alisande does- if you think you aren't using the schools because you don't have attending children, where do you think all the people you will depend on, such as doctors, dentists, nurses, pharmacists etc will get their initial education to go on for the higher qualification, if not at the schools which all taxpayers should fund so that the population as a whole will be educated? The higher the education levels of any community, the better it is for everyone.

Last I heard, Hawi'i has that system Colleen. And they have better schools. So we have one correct state!

Hawaii's schools have lots of problems. Hawaii has one school district, statewide.

I didn't word it quite like that, Colleen. What I said was:

A lot of the teachers we had issues with have retired now, with hefty pensions. As a taxpayer with no children in school, it bugs me sometimes that I'm contributing to those pensions, as well as to their health insurance and other benefits, which seem to go on and on and on.

I realize some KT people are retired teachers with pensions, and I don't wish to offend them. I admit to being somewhat opposed to the concept of pensions because they have been largely eliminated from the private sector, yet teachers unions insist on pensions being in the contracts. Municipal employees are often pensioned too, and cities and counties all over are drowning under pension debt.

A local high school teacher I know recently retired with a lifetime pension that's more than twice my income, while my tax-paying neighbors are selling off their old stone walls to put food on the table.

BTW, I paid for the schools without complaint when we were homeschooling, and I paid for public school when my daughter went to private school. I have had a lot of issues with our local school district that do not translate to public education in general. I went to a wonderful public high school. My children did not.

I have a problem with saying teachers and other state employees' pensions are what's making the states drown. How about all the government waste and fraud. How about welfare, food stamps, housing, heating, healthcare, etc. etc. etc. for so many people that refuse to work. Go ahead, slam me. But it's true. I can absolutely tell you that all those things are totally abused in the area where I live. So very many of them just don't want to work, and why should they? I know there are people that truly need help. But it should not be generational. My husband is a retired state worker, a prison guard in a maximum security prison, don't tell me he doesn't deserve the pension he earned, and which, by the way, he contributed to all his working years.

Do you know how kids act in these schools now? Do you know there's not a damn thing a teacher can do to them? Do you know teachers are not allowed to fail any students? My sister is a teacher in MD, has been teaching for 17 years, she's never failed a student. Her principal goes in and changes the failing grades. If they have too many kids fail, they lose state funding. I have 2 nieces that just starting teaching this year. One first grade, one sixth grade. The sixth graders are horrendous! They are too cool for school already. The parents have been called, repeatedly. Where there's not family structure, no one at home to teach these kids right from wrong, and that there are consequences for their actions. When there's no one at home to make sure they eat properly, get enough sleep, take a bath, and let them know they are safe and loved, they aren't going to give a d@mn about school.

I have a problem with saying teachers and other state employees' pensions are what's making the states drown.

This is like playing Telephone. I never said anything about states. This is what I said:

Municipal employees are often pensioned too, and cities and counties all over are drowning under pension debt.

When I was a newspaper reporter I covered a lot of meetings at which this problem was discussed at length, and with some desperation. I have no idea what the states are doing.

Katlan, your sister has my sympathy. I know some excellent teachers, and I've encountered some wretched ones. I just think it's a shame they're paid the same, before and after retirement.

I'm not a fan of pensions. I don't see how someone can deserve a pension over someone else. I think people should save for their own retirement, with an employer or state sponsored matching percentage, like they do in the private sector. I bet it would save a ton of money.