Declining Reading Rates in the US

[Lambert]

On average, Americans ages 15 to 24 spend almost two hours a day watching TV, and only seven minutes of their daily leisure time on reading.
-- National Endowment for the Arts Announces New Reading Study (http://www.nea.gov/news/news07/TRNR.html)

Full Study: To Read or Not To Read (http://www.nea.gov/research/ToRead.pdf)

A problem not isolated solely to the United States, I should say.

[Virgil]

Our wonderful education system at work. :p And why is it we want to entrust more of our lives to the government?:confused:

[Granny5]

We can't blame it all on the school systems. Parents play a greater role in whether a child spends any time reading or not. My grandkids all read more than average and are all above grade level because my daughters read to them and have time set aside for them to read.

[vheissu]

I'll agree with Granny5, parents play a huge influential role in supporting (or not) their children to read more.
I know nothing of the american educational system, but surely schools have at least some compulsory reading, right?
And it also depends on each of us as an individual, some people just can't be bothered and are simply not interested or just don't have the time to read anything more than is strickly necessary. Doesn't mean they're not educated...their loss of course!

[Granny5]

I'll agree with Granny5, parents play a huge influential role in supporting (or not) their children to read more.
I know nothing of the american educational system, but surely schools have at least some compulsory reading, right?
And it also depends on each of us as an individual, some people just can't be bothered and are simply not interested or just don't have the time to read anything more than is strickly necessary. Doesn't mean they're not educated...their loss of course!

when I was in school, a hundred years or so ago, I knew some who would not read required books and try to get by with Cliffs notes. Now they have the internet to find info instead of Cliffs. You are right, their loss.

[AuntShecky]

I've also read that children model what they see their parents doing -- if the parents are avid readers, the children will imitate them.
One reason for the apparent decline is of course the rise of other types of entertainment media: video games, TVs, DVDs, etc. But does reading material from the Web count?
Even so, there's nothing better than reading a good book, I mean, one you can hold in your hand and carry around with you. Books were portable even before the invention of the iPod!

[ivette]

I'm not from US and I can say that the problem is the same here in Slovenia and Europe in general I think. Some of my classmates think I'm kind of strange because I love to read and it's not such a big problem to read home-readings for me sometimes. Of course there are still some teenagers that like reading but the number is, as said already, declining.
In my opinion influence of parents and school are both important. My parents love books so I probably got that from them. But my sister doesn't like reading that much. So I guess it also depends on person itself.

[Virgil]

We can't blame it all on the school systems. Parents play a greater role in whether a child spends any time reading or not. My grandkids all read more than average and are all above grade level because my daughters read to them and have time set aside for them to read.

Ok, what about our wonderful math scores or our wonderful knowledge of history? Ever see those scores? True, parents have something to do with it. But you know i was an immigrant whose parents barely spoke english and neither had a high school education. Neither spent any time reading. Both my brother and sister have PhDs and I have a lowly master's. All three of us are strong readers and I don't remember ever our parents reading to us. Parents aren't everything. The school system can do better. A lot better.

[Granny5]

Don't you think that work ethic, which your parents are probably responsible for, played a large part in your goals for higher education? I think work ethic and expectations play a part. Schools could surely do better, but then we'd have to raise taxes to attract the better teachers. Why would they work for the low wages that schools offer when they could make so much more in the business sector?

[vheissu]

when I was in school, a hundred years or so ago, I knew some who would not read required books and try to get by with Cliffs notes. Now they have the internet to find info instead of Cliffs. You are right, their loss.

Yes, I had forgotten about online help. And although technically it's a form of cheating, I myself used it when I was at school. That's because we were doing Dante's Divine Comedy and our teacher expected way too much from us.




Ok, what about our wonderful math scores or our wonderful knowledge of history? Ever see those scores? True, parents have something to do with it. But you know i was an immigrant whose parents barely spoke english and neither had a high school education. Neither spent any time reading. Both my brother and sister have PhDs and I have a lowly master's. All three of us are strong readers and I don't remember ever our parents reading to us. Parents aren't everything. The school system can do better. A lot better.


The school systems can do a lot better and not just in the US. You have no idea how many times I wished I had gone to a different school or that my school could have changed a few important things.
And yes, parents aren't everything, but then again, you can't take everyone as a whole to represent a statistical number for the basic reason that everyone's childhood and upbringing is different.
You might get motivated parents, who push you to learn or end up in a really good school with enthusiastic teachers. Or you might get neither and still end up loving to learn. And vice-versa.
There are so many different parameters that influence how we end up becoming as an individual.

[Etienne]

Our wonderful education system at work. :p And why is it we want to entrust more of our lives to the government?:confused:

Blaming the government is simply setting up a straw man. The problem is much more global than this (or the rednecks would be reading machines :D) Yes the educational system is bad (I'm not referring to US specifically, but pretty much everywhere, and the Canadian one from my personal experience and knowledge) but this is a symptom of turns in society. Do you really think that if education was a result of a more individual initiative, people would be more educated or read more? No, video games and television are attracting people instead of reading, and this also causes as a symptom that people are less educated and less hard working (as reading is less idle than television, for example, so people are more used to be idle than before) and this causes that the education system has to be softer if they want to have the graduates needed.

I think Cicero summed it up pretty well:
O tempora! O mores!

[Virgil]

Blaming the government is simply setting up a straw man. The problem is much more global than this (or the rednecks would be reading machines :D)

I don't think it's a straw man. Are you saying no one is responsible? If I do a crapy job at work the blame turns to me. Either one blames teachers or the system they work in, and I choose to blame the system. The College/University system is competive between private and government and by all accounts our University system is the model for the world. Our younger educaton system is overwhelmingly run by government systems and they have no competition. None. They have tenure and job security no matter how crapy the results are. I would be fired if I had similar results at work year in and year out. Compare high school and younger results with college results and you will see a dramatic difference. You don't even get a choice to where you send your kid to school.

[Petrarch's Love]

I don't think it's a straw man. Are you saying no one is responsible? If I do a crapy job at work the blame turns to me. Either one blames teachers or the system they work in, and I choose to blame the system. The College/University system is competive between private and government and by all accounts our University system is the model for the world. Our younger educaton system is overwhelmingly run by government systems and they have no competition. None. They have tenure and job security no matter how crapy the results are. I would be fired if I had similar results at work year in and year out. Compare high school and younger results with college results and you will see a dramatic difference. You don't even get a choice to where you send your kid to school.

Virg.--What are your criteria for judging that the schools are failing? I'm just trying to figure out what real world educational system you're measuring U.S. public schools against. What is a system that you think is doing it right and what specifically is it that's being done in that system that could be practically implemented in ours? Are you saying that public schools were better in the past? Are you comparing us with other countries? Private schools? Historically speaking there is a higher literacy rate in the U.S. in the 20th century than there was during the rest of our history because we educate everyone, whereas even in the earlier part of this century it was much more common for people not to complete a high school level education. Private schools and high school level schools in other countries often do "better" than US public schools do on tests because private schools can be selective about not letting in students who do not perform as well, and similarly in many other countries only the better students are continuing along an academic track for high school level courses.
I don't follow your argument about the colleges at all. Of course students perform better at the college level. They are all good students or they wouldn't have gotten into college. The result of secondary schools becoming competitive free market entities would almost inevitably be the cutting of the bottom level students. Public schools are teaching everyone, and everyone simply isn't going to be a top performing student no matter what the teachers do.

[*Classic*Charm*]

At what point did students no longer become responsible for their own education? It doesn't matter how good the teachers are or how efficient the system is, or even how much parents encourage their children: if a student doesn't want to read, he or she will not read.

You can try to blame this on new distractions like tv and video games, or on the fact that parents don't read to their children. Whatever excuse you can come up with, of course it's going to apply in some cases. The big thing, though, is that the student him- or herself makes the decision. Some people just don't care.

[JBI]

My problem is mob mentality. I'm the only person my age I know who has heard of people like Joyce, Proust, Woolf etc. let alone read their work. The thrill of reading is increased when you have whom to discuss the works with. Without the Literature-Network forum, my reading discussions would be limited to schizophrenic conversations in long dark hallways.

It, of course, is partially the education system's fault where I am from. When people can write a final paper on mediocre literature, and when a teacher has no clue about anything besides the required reading (which she is able to understand because of the spark notes), there is no feedback, or point to reading.

Reading is a personal activity, yet it is also a group activity. Had I not stumbled on Eugene Onegin when I was 14, I too probably wouldn't have read anything.

[Virgil]

Virg.--What are your criteria for judging that the schools are failing? I'm just trying to figure out what real world educational system you're measuring U.S. public schools against. What is a system that you think is doing it right and what specifically is it that's being done in that system that could be practically implemented in ours? Are you saying that public schools were better in the past? Are you comparing us with other countries? Private schools? Historically speaking there is a higher literacy rate in the U.S. in the 20th century than there was during the rest of our history because we educate everyone, whereas even in the earlier part of this century it was much more common for people not to complete a high school level education. Private schools and high school level schools in other countries often do "better" than US public schools do on tests because private schools can be selective about not letting in students who do not perform as well, and similarly in many other countries only the better students are continuing along an academic track for high school level courses.
I don't follow your argument about the colleges at all. Of course students perform better at the college level. They are all good students or they wouldn't have gotten into college. The result of secondary schools becoming competitive free market entities would almost inevitably be the cutting of the bottom level students. Public schools are teaching everyone, and everyone simply isn't going to be a top performing student no matter what the teachers do.

Well, I guess I don't have statstics handy. I'm mostly going by what I read in the newspapers and surveys of what kids actually know. I tend to be shocked. I see how many students don't read at their grade level in the NYC public school system. And math scores are even worse. In NYC it costs around $12,000 per student per year. There are roughly 30 students per class so that amounts to $360,000 revenue per class per year. What does a teacher make, roughly $60,000? WHere does the other $300,000 go? And how come they are always short money? I see immigrants far excell American kids, yet they have a language handicap. I work with engineers and I bet close to half are not native born; I go to doctors and I bet half are not native born. I see a drop out rate that is out of sight. Here:


Slightly more than half of all New York City high school students graduate on-time, according to the Preliminary Mayor's Management Report, the administration’s accounting of its success and failures. Even by the administration’s own counting, this represented a slight decline from the previous year. And a few days later, the State Education Department released its own graduation rate for the city and found it to be far worse -- 43.5 percent. http://www.gothamgazette.com/article/feature-commentary/20060320/202/1792.

And teachers have the audacity to say they are doing a good job. Well, I'm sure they are doing the best they can, but the system is flawed and teachers are not the problem. There is no competition, no innovation, no promotion of successful teachers. Teacher's unions support the system, not results. With results such as this you would think teachers would be embarressed to say how good their work is. You say that bottom level students would be dropped out if the school system were privatised. No, I think that's a lack of innovaton that has ingrainedmost teacher's minds. Every industry innovates and finds better ways to do things. I never hear that from teachers. All I hear is tenure and sabatical and retirement after 20 years. Lord I wish I had it so easy.

[Etienne]

I don't think it's a straw man. Are you saying no one is responsible? If I do a crapy job at work the blame turns to me. Either one blames teachers or the system they work in, and I choose to blame the system. The College/University system is competive between private and government and by all accounts our University system is the model for the world. Our younger educaton system is overwhelmingly run by government systems and they have no competition. None. They have tenure and job security no matter how crapy the results are. I would be fired if I had similar results at work year in and year out. Compare high school and younger results with college results and you will see a dramatic difference. You don't even get a choice to where you send your kid to school.

Have you read my post? It's a societal or cultural problem.

"I see immigrants far excel American kids"

And they go through the same educational system, you agree with me. How can you blame the government in that case? It's a problem of the mentality of the students primarily. Even if the educational system would try to make kids learn more, you would simply see kids fail more and than parents would get angry as the work "burden" would be too heavy. The crappy education system is then in a way a democratic decision, or symptom, should we say.

And no, your university system is not the model for the world, I'm sorry. You've got some good universities (which doesn't make them models necessarily), agreed, but these are also extremely expensive.

I'm sorry if it hurt you in any way, I might be wrong but from what I observed I find you reason very much like an "American", the post about Marx was an example, the fact that you blame the government for everything that goes wrong, and the fact that you think America is a model (good universities exist everywhere, you know) are all, let's call it "typical", narrow-sighted reasoning from an American. I don't want to sound like a pedant or anything, but it's just an observation.

[B-Mental]

I hear the teacher's union getting blamed for everything...not gonna bite, its a political argument and we don't do that here. I don't have an answer other than teaching is not easy.

[Etienne]

I hear the teacher's union getting blamed for everything...not gonna bite, its a political argument and we don't do that here. I don't have an answer other than teaching is not easy.

It's not the task of the teachers who should become harder, it's the student's. But failure is unacceptable, everyone has to be able to go through school, and we can't be too hard on the kids... result? What we have now.

[Virgil]

I'm sorry if it hurt you in any way, I might be wrong but from what I observed I find you reason very much like an "American"...let's call it "typical", narrow-sighted reasoning from an American.

Is that an insult? Maybe it's because I am an American. Duh???? Where were you educated? And what makes whatever country you come from so G-D enlightened?

[Etienne]

Is that an insult?

Not an insult, although it's pejorative.


Maybe it's because I am an American. Duh????

The fact that you are an American doesn't mean that you have to think "like an American" used, again, in a pejorative way. It's not the "American" in the sense of the nation that is necessarily pejorative but simply the bandwagon association it implies.


Where were you educated?

Quebec, Canada.


And what makes whatever country you come from so G-D enlightened?

Never said it was. The narrow bandwagon thought exist everywhere, and I had great, pathetic proofs of this recently at university (I mean as a first person witness, actuality is full of it).

[Virgil]

Not an insult, although it's pejorative.



The fact that you are an American doesn't mean that you have to think "like an American" used, again, in a pejorative way. It's not the "American" in the sense of the nation that is necessarily pejorative but simply the bandwagon association it implies.




You know something, this is very insulting. I'm going to restrain myself from telling you where to shove it.

[Etienne]

You know something, this is very insulting. I'm going to restrain myself from telling you where to shove it.

Well I was just being honest and telling you my opinion. If I'm wrong, you shouldn't be angry about it. And if I'm right, well unless you are ashamed of yourself, you shouldn't be angry either.

[jlb4tlb]

Well I was just being honest and telling you my opinion. If I'm wrong, you shouldn't be angry about it. And if I'm right, well unless you are ashamed of yourself, you shouldn't be angry either.

No, you are being very insulting to all Americains.


pe·jor·a·tive (p-jôr-tv, -jr-, pj-rtv, pj-) KEY

ADJECTIVE:

Tending to make or become worse.
Disparaging; belittling.
NOUN:

A disparaging or belittling word or expression.


Please do tell how anyone would think that you were not being insulting.

[Etienne]

No, you are being very insulting to all Americains.


pe·jor·a·tive (p-jôr-tv, -jr-, pj-rtv, pj-) KEY

ADJECTIVE:

Tending to make or become worse.
Disparaging; belittling.
NOUN:

A disparaging or belittling word or expression.


Please do tell how anyone would think that you were not being insulting.

Bah... and to say that it's a literature forum and people cannot even read my posts correctly.

First of all, I don't see how I'm insulting to ALL Americans. Secondly, I will quote myself: "The narrow bandwagon thought exist everywhere" It exists under different forms and I was referring to the American one specifically, as, in Quebec for example, it's a quite different one (I put bandwagon thought in singular, however it would be more accurate to put it in plural...)

And as I said, there is no reason why one should feel insulted unless he feels it's true and is ashamed of it. If I'm wrong, I should be met with contempt, and if I'm right, truth shouldn't gather negative feelings unless people want to hide it.

But since you do not want me to tell you I was not being insulting, I'll let you believe in whatever you want to believe my intention was.

[Granny5]

Well, I guess I don't have statstics handy. I'm mostly going by what I read in the newspapers and surveys of what kids actually know. I tend to be shocked. I see how many students don't read at their grade level in the NYC public school system. And math scores are even worse. In NYC it costs around $12,000 per student per year. There are roughly 30 students per class so that amounts to $360,000 revenue per class per year. What does a teacher make, roughly $60,000? WHere does the other $300,000 go? And how come they are always short money? I see immigrants far excell American kids, yet they have a language handicap. I work with engineers and I bet close to half are not native born; I go to doctors and I bet half are not native born. I see a drop out rate that is out of sight. Here:

http://www.gothamgazette.com/article/feature-commentary/20060320/202/1792.

And teachers have the audacity to say they are doing a good job. Well, I'm sure they are doing the best they can, but the system is flawed and teachers are not the problem. There is no competition, no innovation, no promotion of successful teachers. Teacher's unions support the system, not results. With results such as this you would think teachers would be embarressed to say how good their work is. You say that bottom level students would be dropped out if the school system were privatised. No, I think that's a lack of innovaton that has ingrainedmost teacher's minds. Every industry innovates and finds better ways to do things. I never hear that from teachers. All I hear is tenure and sabatical and retirement after 20 years. Lord I wish I had it so easy.

Wow, $60,000 a year for teachers? Of course the cost of living is higher but that's about twice as much as teachers in the mid-west make. I think the starting pay is about $35,000 here. That's less than just about anything else with a college degree around here. Unless you're just really dedicated, teachers can make more at Fed-X or Wal-Mart. Another year at school and you can be a LPN and make more and do less. And even if you are a truly dedicated teacher, after a few years of being blamed for every student's lack of ability, or parents lack of involvement, most of them look around for other careers.

[jlb4tlb]

Its simple, you used the word "pejorative" please note that I only provided the meaning of the word to show that it was an insult. At no time did I belittle anyone. You however seem to enjoy doing just that.

[Granny5]

Have you read my post? It's a societal or cultural problem.

"I see immigrants far excel American kids"

And they go through the same educational system, you agree with me. How can you blame the government in that case? It's a problem of the mentality of the students primarily. Even if the educational system would try to make kids learn more, you would simply see kids fail more and than parents would get angry as the work "burden" would be too heavy. The crappy education system is then in a way a democratic decision, or symptom, should we say.

And no, your university system is not the model for the world, I'm sorry. You've got some good universities (which doesn't make them models necessarily), agreed, but these are also extremely expensive.

I'm sorry if it hurt you in any way, I might be wrong but from what I observed I find you reason very much like an "American", the post about Marx was an example, the fact that you blame the government for everything that goes wrong, and the fact that you think America is a model (good universities exist everywhere, you know) are all, let's call it "typical", narrow-sighted reasoning from an American. I don't want to sound like a pedant or anything, but it's just an observation.

I don't know how any American can NOT be insulted by your last paragraph. It was obviously meant to be an insult. " "typical", narrow-sighted reasoning from an American"? What else could it mean? If you're intent was such, then you've done a good job of it. This should be an enjoyable place to talk about subjects that interest us, not a place to fend off insults. You should be ashamed.

[Granny5]

You know something, this is very insulting. I'm going to restrain myself from telling you where to shove it.

Virgil, I'm proud of the restraint you've shown here. I had to bite my lip to keep from doing the same.

[vheissu]

I think we're getting slightly off topic here, which is a shame because this started as a good debate.



At what point did students no longer become responsible for their own education? It doesn't matter how good the teachers are or how efficient the system is, or even how much parents encourage their children: if a student doesn't want to read, he or she will not read.

You can try to blame this on new distractions like tv and video games, or on the fact that parents don't read to their children. Whatever excuse you can come up with, of course it's going to apply in some cases. The big thing, though, is that the student him- or herself makes the decision. Some people just don't care.


I'll agree with what you're saying, it's the student's responsability to set a target and get down to actually doing some studying.
But don't you think it has to start from somewhere? Nobody was born with the idea already in their head of whether they'll bother or not to learn and get a good education.
Someone, at some point, must have told us that getting an education is essential, and then, yes, it's our choice whether to listen or just ignore them. And I guess there are people who listen more 'easily' than others and then others who need a bit more pushing.

[rmd]

This is one of those topics that will often produce more heat than light. There are no easy answers. Some students succeed in school while others flounder in the same system, in the same classroom for that matter. Some students succeed even though they may not have the most motivated or innovative teachers. Some students succeed even though their parents never read to them.

I was not highly motivated all the way through high school, and I really can't blame the school system or my parents or the government. I just wasn't all that motivated. But my SAT scores were pretty good and my grades weren't horrible, and I managed to get into college. I did okay the first couple of years, and then about junior year I began to take things seriously and eventually went on to graduate school.

Every student has to begin taking things seriously at some point or there's a very good chance they will not earn a degree. They've got to want it, and they've got to be willing to rise above whatever obstacles they may encounter. The sooner that happens the better. And I don't recommend waiting until junior year in college.

[Granny5]

It's hard to believe that a 5 or 6 year old can decide whether they will be as good a student as they possibly can. Parents can teach a child from very early on that reading is fun and expected. Parents set the rules at home about reading and homework. Teachers can't be expected to lay the foundation for children they have no contact with until they start to school. If a child has a good, solid foundation the school system and teachers are able to do what they are supposed to do, instead of parenting they can teach.

[DigitalLove]

I've been following this thread and I must say to Etienne that you are an American, not a European. I always fail to see why French Canadians want to pretend they are European and so different than Americans. The French had setteled in the new world long before the Pilgrams showed up. So look in the mirror if you want to see an American.

With reading, I think the bottom line is that a lot of people just want to be cool and reading is not considered cool these days. In a way the problem is spiritual.

[Logos]

Lets get back to the topic in the OP without all the nationalistic discussion :)

[Virgil]

Wow, $60,000 a year for teachers? Of course the cost of living is higher but that's about twice as much as teachers in the mid-west make. I think the starting pay is about $35,000 here. That's less than just about anything else with a college degree around here. Unless you're just really dedicated, teachers can make more at Fed-X or Wal-Mart. Another year at school and you can be a LPN and make more and do less. And even if you are a truly dedicated teacher, after a few years of being blamed for every student's lack of ability, or parents lack of involvement, most of them look around for other careers.

$60,000 is just a rough number I guessed at, not starting salary. Actually the median salary is around $48,000. Here: http://www.payscale.com/research/US/Job=High_School_Teacher/Salary. A teacher with 20 years experience is around $60,000.

So where does the rest of of the $312,000 go?


It's hard to believe that a 5 or 6 year old can decide whether they will be as good a student as they possibly can. Parents can teach a child from very early on that reading is fun and expected. Parents set the rules at home about reading and homework. Teachers can't be expected to lay the foundation for children they have no contact with until they start to school. If a child has a good, solid foundation the school system and teachers are able to do what they are supposed to do, instead of parenting they can teach.

I was just a trouble maker kid (sort of like me here on lit net :p :D ) from an uneducated home life until third grade when I had a great teacher named Mrs. Solomon. I don't know what she did, but she inspired me (I think a combination of discipline and motivation) and from then on I was at least a good student if not excellent student. Where ever you are Mrs. Solomon, and I'm afraid you're probably not alive, God bless you.

[bazarov]

"I see immigrants far excel American kids"

And they go through the same educational system, you agree with me. How can you blame the government in that case? It's a problem of the mentality of the students primarily. Even if the educational system would try to make kids learn more, you would simply see kids fail more and than parents would get angry as the work "burden" would be too heavy. The crappy education system is then in a way a democratic decision, or symptom, should we say.

And no, your university system is not the model for the world, I'm sorry. You've got some good universities (which doesn't make them models necessarily), agreed, but these are also extremely expensive.

I'm sorry if it hurt you in any way, I might be wrong but from what I observed I find you reason very much like an "American", the post about Marx was an example, the fact that you blame the government for everything that goes wrong, and the fact that you think America is a model (good universities exist everywhere, you know) are all, let's call it "typical", narrow-sighted reasoning from an American. I don't want to sound like a pedant or anything, but it's just an observation.

I really don't see why is everyone here so upset because of Etienne's observation. He quote you Virgil, and disagreed with you...I agree with him, you can't blame the system. You asked about those 300,000$; what should they do with them? Buy books for their students in hope they will read more? In last year I bought about 100 books for my personal collection and I haven't see any of my 4 brothers or 2 sisters to take at least one of them. What should I do? Buy more of them to enlarge number of choices? I they don't want to read or learn, I can't force them, neither me neither their teachers in school.

About USA universities...I admit and it's obvious that you have some really great universities like MIT, Princeton, Harvard or Yale but saying that America is a model is really absurd. If your universities were so good, then high educated people from Eastern and Central Europe, China or India would not be treated like Gods in America. That way of thinking Etienne named ''American'', and hoping nobody will feel insulted; Etienne is completely right.

"I see immigrants far excel American kids" - smart people raise their kids like they were raised, and kids are smarter than American kids...Like Theodore Bagwell once said:''Now you do the math!''




And as I said, there is no reason why one should feel insulted unless he feels it's true and is ashamed of it. If I'm wrong, I should be met with contempt, and if I'm right, truth shouldn't gather negative feelings unless people want to hide it.

But since you do not want me to tell you I was not being insulting, I'll let you believe in whatever you want to believe my intention was.

Good point.

[Dori]

I was mediocre at best when I was a young'un. But my parents always told me that I did well. My mom went into child care and my dad worked at a factory at this point. It wasn't until I got to 9th grade that I started getting ~90s in classes (well, gym was always 98-100). At this point, my dad was finishing up his undergrad degree in physics. Then, last year, in tenth grade, I recieved an overall average of 95 at the end of the year. It was the summer in between my 9th and 10th grade when I started becoming a voracious reader. Now, in my junior year, I just received a 97 on my report card (overall). You can say I'm somewhat motivated :D . If anyone has had an influence on me, it was my father. He went from getting very bad grades in HS to becoming a grad student in physics.

Despite my good grades in school, I've always disliked our educational system---especially our wonderful language program. Why aren't we immersed into a second language at a much earlier age? Wouldn't it be easier on the students?

Last year, my English teacher had us debate certain topics. Among them was corporal punishment. Should it be brought back? That topic was immediately shot down because everyone sided with the affirmative argument. What!? It was astonishing to see that everyone was for bringing back corporal punishment.

I now some of what I just wrote might be slightly off topic, but I felt obliged to post it.

[Etienne]

"I've been following this thread and I must say to Etienne that you are an American, not a European. I always fail to see why French Canadians want to pretend they are European and so different than Americans. The French had setteled in the new world long before the Pilgrams showed up. So look in the mirror if you want to see an American."

When did I say I was European? Please quote me? I am American int he sense that I live on the American continent, however I was referring to the sense of Americans (United Statesians) because that's what the meaning of American has come to mean. French Canadians, however are very different than Americans there's no doubt about this, you need 5 minutes in each cultures to realise it, but I'm not even talking about better or worse here. There is "narrow bandwagon thought" here, like I said, just like everywhere, and I even mentioned that I witnessed a great and pathetic example no later than monday. Yes, we settled first, I know my history, thanks, however I don't know what is your point exactly there. I'll remind you that American is a termed used for people of the United States, not for people living on the continent (North American, Central American, South American are used, never, or at least without precision simply American)


I don't know how any American can NOT be insulted by your last paragraph. It was obviously meant to be an insult. " "typical", narrow-sighted reasoning from an American"? What else could it mean? If you're intent was such, then you've done a good job of it. This should be an enjoyable place to talk about subjects that interest us, not a place to fend off insults. You should be ashamed.

I do know how an American can NOT be insulted by that. It meant to be what I thought was the truth, a criticism is not an insult, get over it. And try to read my posts as wholes and understand them please, because you just seem to understand one or two sentences and understand a post by being or black or white, and going no further. I'm done defending that, if you guys cannot assume such a thing well so be it.

[Granny5]

I was just a trouble maker kid (sort of like me here on lit net :p :D ) from an uneducated home life until third grade when I had a great teacher named Mrs. Solomon. I don't know what she did, but she inspired me (I think a combination of discipline and motivation) and from then on I was at least a good student if not excellent student. Where ever you are Mrs. Solomon, and I'm afraid you're probably not alive, God bless you.

Virgil, I only read two lines of your post but I think they were the important ones.:lol: I think there are many, many students who have a teacher or two like your Mrs. Solomon. Mine was Mrs. DeJarnet in 2nd grade. She read a chapter of a book to us everyday after lunch. I'll never forget how excited I was that she let me read one chapter of Charlotte's Web. Some stumbling, but I was a good reader for my age.(I may have skipped a few lines in that one too.) In college, Mr. Dearing, the head of the business dept. expected more of me than I did, but it caused me to excell. But, I had a good foundation. My mother was only allowed to go to school some years because of a physical condition that no one understood at the time. But she worked very hard at educating herself and expected the same from her 7 children.

[Etienne]

$60,000 is just a rough number I guessed at, not starting salary. Actually the median salary is around $48,000. Here: http://www.payscale.com/research/US/Job=High_School_Teacher/Salary. A teacher with 20 years experience is around $60,000.

So where does the rest of of the $312,000 go?

Well, does that 312,000$ includes everything, like satellite professionals (physical education teacher, specialists for kids with learning difficulties, etc), material, activities, the taking care of the infrastructure used by the students, by the teachers, the administration, the transport, etc, etc? It's also kind of hard to answer that question without the bills or at least, of course there's probably some money that is not used very efficiently, but what are you implying other than that?

[Petrarch's Love]

I'm just going to address a few points:


I see immigrants far excell American kids, yet they have a language handicap. I work with engineers and I bet close to half are not native born; I go to doctors and I bet half are not native born.

Immigrants to this country are a select group of people. They are most likely hard working ambitious people to think of immigrating and starting a new life to begin with, and thus are also instilling this work ethic into their children. People who have uprooted themselves and moved across the world are unlikely to be the types who are going to goof off when it comes to education, or to allow their kids to goof off. In addition to this, in terms of legal immigrants at least, we don't admit people who we don't think will make a valuable contribution to our workforce. This means that usually immigrants to the U.S. are more likely to be from the skillful and hardworking portion of their native country's population. We're not getting the slackers.



And teachers have the audacity to say they are doing a good job. Well, I'm sure they are doing the best they can, but the system is flawed and teachers are not the problem. There is no competition, no innovation, no promotion of successful teachers. Teacher's unions support the system, not results. With results such as this you would think teachers would be embarressed to say how good their work is. You say that bottom level students would be dropped out if the school system were privatised. No, I think that's a lack of innovaton that has ingrainedmost teacher's minds. Every industry innovates and finds better ways to do things. I never hear that from teachers. All I hear is tenure and sabatical and retirement after 20 years. Lord I wish I had it so easy.

Since you consistently compare your own job to that of teachers, I'd like to point out that the two are simply not analogous. You can do your work as an engineer, and if you apply yourself and do the job right then the thing you designed will come out right. Teachers can do their work absolutely right, and if they're working with students who are either unwilling or unable to work with them, they can still fail. Imagine for a moment that you're given the job of supervising a group of beginning engineers performing a task at your job. You're not allowed to perform the task yourself and your job performance will be judged on how well they perform. Now, if you're in a private company with the power to fire and hire who you want, then obviously you would be able to select the best workers and the smartest engineers, and it would be easy for you to get top results out of them. If your company was like the public school system, you would be given a random selection of workers, some of whom could be bright and hardworking, and some of whom might be unmotivated to apply themselves and unable to do the work very well. The catch is that you can't just fire the people on the team who are sitting around playing solitaire on their laptops and back talking you. You have to figure out a way to motivate them to work, because your job review is going to depend on how well they do, and they seriously don't care how well they do. If anything they may even distract their fellow workers or otherwise disrupt the work on the project. Then someone comes along and tells you that you should be ashamed for not getting the slacker on your team to work as well as the bright hardworking engineers.

That said, I'm not blind to the fact that there are bad teachers out there, and I agree that the system needs some help, but, as you know, I think offering better salaries for teachers (perhaps actually having 60,000 as a median salary) and cutting out a lot of the dead weight administrative stuff (including large mounds of useless standardized testing going on) is the place to start, rather than talking about cracking down on teachers' benefits and telling them to be ashamed of themselves. The latter is not going to attract great teachers to the profession. It will turn them away and result in a smaller pool of gifted educators in our schools.

As for the privitization of schools, you can't actually believe that if schools in this country were all competitive private entities that everyone would be in school? A certain percentage of people just wouldn't get education. There's no way a private school in a competitive market would be making any effort to keep kids who didn't want to be there from dropping out. Only the students who were motivated and capable (and probably also economically well off) would be in school. We don't even have to guess about this one. Historically speaking public schools and the idea of universal education are fairly new. We've seen what centuries of privatized education looks like, and it means that the bottom performers are dropped out. This is why I was honestly curious to know what real world model you have in mind for a profoundly successful educational system that includes everybody. The capitalist model may produce a superior product, but it is at the cost of not including everyone. The all inclusive model may provide more universal basic level education, but possibly at the cost of producing as polished a product. Telling teachers to "innovate" in order to come up with a system that is highly successful and includes all students is really a bit like telling them to invent the wheel, and that just isn't going to happen on a $32,000 a year starting salary.

[Poppy]

(or the rednecks would be reading machines :D)
!

Do you have any idea what the hell your talking about?????:crash:

[Etienne]

Do you have any idea what the hell your talking about?????:crash:

Yes, I think that YOU have no idea what I'm talking about. I'll tell you: cheap jokes.

[Dori]

I do know how an American can NOT be insulted by that. It meant to be what I thought was the truth, a criticism is not an insult, get over it. And try to read my posts as wholes and understand them please, because you just seem to understand one or two sentences and understand a post by being or black or white, and going no further. I'm done defending that, if you guys cannot assume such a thing well so be it.

I was particularly alarmed at your statement, "a criticism is not an insult". Do you mean to imply that a criticism cannot possibly insult a person? A criticism is "the act of making judgements". If I were to judge someone based on, let's say, their appearance, are you saying there is no way for them to be insulted by my judgements?

It would have been better said, "A critcism is not necessarily an insult."

[Etienne]

I was particularly alarmed at your statement, "a criticism is not an insult". Do you mean to imply that a criticism cannot possibly insult a person? A criticism is "the act of making judgements". If I were to judge someone based on, let's say, their appearance, are you saying there is no way for them to be insulted by my judgements?

It would have been better said, "A critcism is not necessarily an insult."

Hey, here's a hair, can you split it in four for me?

[Poppy]

[QUOTE=Etienne;483350]Yes, I think that YOU have no idea what I'm talking about. I'll tell you: cheap jokes.[/QUOTES]

Sure it was a cheap joke. I know exactly what you are saying. And it smacks of insult to many Americans you are referring to, who are some probably as educated or more so than you. You are being stereotypical to a group of people who may not be as fortunate as you and making a joke. Now if you want to start a joke war there are several French Canadian jokes I can cite. Using the word is almost racist in context.

[Etienne]

Sure it was a cheap joke. I know exactly what you are saying. And it smacks of insult to many Americans you are referring to, who are some probably as educated or more so than you. You are being stereotypical to a group of people who may not be as fortunate as you and making a joke. Now if you want to start a joke war there are several French Canadian jokes I can cite. Using the word is almost racist in context.

I'd actually be glad to hear French Canadian jokes, I already heard some and I found a few funny but it's mostly interesting to hear them, maybe you can send some to me by PM, I can't seem to find a website. Also, when I think of rednecks I think about a certain kind of people, not people in a geographic region necessarily. In Quebec, we have our own "rednecks" too, we call them "habitants" or "colon" (settler, this term is more pejorative, but only because it's sometimes used as an insult even if totally out of the context of it's meaning). But in any way all these terms, be it redneck, habitant or settler, are always used in satirical ways or caricatural ways.

[Poppy]

[QUOTE=Poppy;483358]

when I think of rednecks I think about a certain kind of people, not people in a geographic region necessarily.

Here's the deal..the origin of the word redneck was used to describe those who worked long hours in the fields, making little money, and without lots of opportunities. They toiled each day and when they returned home at night their necks were red from the hot sun boiling down on them. There is a lot of American heritage associated with that description and it should not be taken lightly.

[Etienne]

[QUOTE=Etienne;483363]

Here's the deal..the origin of the word redneck was used to describe those who worked long hours in the fields, making little money, and without lots of opportunities. They toiled each day and when they returned home at night their necks were red from the hot sun boiling down on them. There is a lot of American heritage associated with that description and it should not be taken lightly.

But that's not it's present meaning. The original meaning for "habitant" was the few settlers in the huge country who had to live practically in the wild at the mercy of elements and merciless winters, Amerindian attacks, working half the year in their field and the other half the men would leave their family to go chop down trees far north, and coming back driving the logs on the water, being an extremely dangerous job, and all that while earning practically nothing. We can say that the meaning for "redneck" and "habitant" are quite the same but for two different cultures. People who don't think they fit the label usually don't feel insulted though, it's modern meaning being caricatural, even comical.

[Niamh]

General Mod note to all. Can we please refrain from nit picking and personal insults and return to the topic at hand. If it continues, posts may be edited or the thread will be closed.

[Poppy]

[QUOTE=Poppy;483367]

People who don't think they fit the label usually don't feel insulted though.

No, but people who don't fit the label are quick to insult those that are. That is the point I am trying to make.

[Sweets America]

[QUOTE=Etienne;483363]

Here's the deal..the origin of the word redneck was used to describe those who worked long hours in the fields, making little money, and without lots of opportunities. They toiled each day and when they returned home at night their necks were red from the hot sun boiling down on them. There is a lot of American heritage associated with that description and it should not be taken lightly.

Oh, I had no idea where the word 'redneck' came from. I had never wondered about its origin. Thank you, that makes sense.

[Etienne]

[QUOTE=Etienne;483373]

No, but people who don't fit the label are quick to insult those that are. That is the point I am trying to make.

But feeling you fit such a label would imply that you fit a caricature? I have some caricatures of myself in my room, some are quite grotesque, should I feel insulted by these caricatures? Only if the caricatures offer a correct portrait of me (not being caricatures anymore) and that I am ashamed of these traits and want to hide the truth as much as possible.

What's with people taking everything so seriously anyways?

[Logos]

Closed because these posts seem to have been overlooked :)


Lets get back to the topic in the OP without all the nationalistic discussion :)



General Mod note to all. Can we please refrain from nit picking and personal insults and return to the topic at hand. If it continues, posts may be edited or the thread will be closed.