60% of Students at Inner City Chicago School Flunk 8th Grade. Now truthfully when you read that headline it hardly raises an eyebrow anymore, does it? We’ve come to expect failure in our government schools.
CBS2 reports:
A startling number of children are falling through the cracks at one Chicago Public School. More than half of the kids didn’t even pass the eighth grade…It was a disastrous year for the eighth grade at the south side Bradwell Elementary school in a tough neighborhood with high poverty. More than half the class, 44 of 77 students, did not graduate.
My Pet Jawa wonders why the city that had Barack Obama and Bill Ayers running the Annenberg Project isn’t doing so well.
But this isn’t just a one school or a one city problem. The problem is government controlling education. According to the Heritage Foundation in combined scores of mathematics and science literacy, 12th-graders in the United States ranked 18th out of 21 countries on the 1995 TIMSS assessment. While, over the past 30 years, average per-pupil expenditures for public, elementary, and secondary schools have nearly doubled, rising from $3,931 in 1971-1972 to $7,524 in 2001-2002, in constant dollars.
So in short, more money means less results in our government controlled education system. And now, this same government that controls education now wants to take over healthcare.
In fact, there’s evidence that the more time children spend in public schools, the more they fall behind other countries. ABC’s John Stossel reports:
At age 10, American students take an international test and score well above the international average. But by age 15, when students from 40 countries are tested, the Americans place 25th.
Studies show that
graduating from high school in the America’s largest cities amounts, essentially, to a coin toss. Only about one-half (52 percent) of students in the principal school systems of the 50 largest cities complete high school with a diploma.
In Cleveland, Indianapolis and Detroit, the numbers are 35%, 31% and 25% respectively.
I think success of our education system must be measured in some way. Whether its test scores or graduation rates they’re failing. Shouldn’t the government be focused on the responsibilities its already taken on rather than taking over the entire health care industry. Do you want the quality of health care in this country to be a coin toss?
HT My Pet Jawa
June 18, 2009 at 2:22 pm
When I think about what our homeschooling family could do with $7,000.00 per child every year….
we'd be taking field trips to Rome!
Yet, we pay our taxes, the schools get our money, we pay extra to educate our own, AND they test in the 95th percentile across the board. Hmmm…I wonder what kind of doctor I'd make?
June 18, 2009 at 3:31 pm
Thank you for linking the Heritage Foundation. The more people are up to speed on the valuable information they provide, the better. And thank you for addressing the issue of nationalized health care. It's not just that the best health care system in the world is about to be destroyed if the Democrat plans go through. The real issue is: when the government has the ability to decide who gets access to life-saving treatment, they have got people in the most vulnerable and helpless position possible – totally beholden. The effects will go far beyond issues of doctors and hospitals. This is the battle to fight. Kit
June 18, 2009 at 3:32 pm
Last year I read an AWESOME book called: The Underground History of American Education. It can be read FOR FREE on-line at http://www.johntaylorgatto.com. Gatto was a 30 year teacher in NYC and the New York state teacher of the year…then he quit. The material he covers is extensive, and fascinating. As a former elementary school art teacher in a city and suburbs, I can attest to what he notes. Our modern educational system is rigged to keep the "little people" subject to government and big business. It is no co-incidence that the Ford, Getty, Carnegie and Annenberg foundations focus on "educational" theory and "change". Sadly, even the teachers themselves have been "brainwashed into thinking that they are doing what is good for children.
June 18, 2009 at 5:02 pm
There are indeed things the gov't should not get involved in for many reasons, let along that they will not do it "well". Social security, education, welfare, all of these programs are a vortex for money…with little to show for results. Why would they believe health care to be different??
In a time when we're in a budgetary crisis, why on Earth are they looking to expand their role?
"Hey honey? I found a Suburban I really like, and I know we're all ready stretched to make ends meet, but I'm buying it anyway." Wish that line of thinking worked at my house. =]
June 18, 2009 at 5:48 pm
What do you expect him to do? He's got to "take care" of the babies that Planned Parenthood missed.
It's not much of a stretch to see mandatory birth control implants in our daughters at age 12 and waking up after childbirth to find that one's been sterilized.
We saw state-paid emergency room costs used to push through helmets, so past performance shows that this is where it's heading.
June 18, 2009 at 6:37 pm
How many of those children though came from stable homes with both biological parents married? Live in an urban area, not as bad as some of the inner cities, but the children who come from stable homes are on par with the children in suburbia, even in public schools.
While we may not be able to put together these families for these children, these kids do need charter schools, even with the choice of being in an all boys or girls school.
June 18, 2009 at 6:52 pm
Every time I ask a teacher what it is that will tell them if a student is going to do well in school or not, the answer is always the same: parents and guardians who are involved in their kids' educations.
Strong family = kids who do well.
Maybe if policies that make urban families stronger were enacted we'd see test scores go up.
June 19, 2009 at 12:22 am
… If this were looked at as a disease, it'd be a pandemic.
"Falling through the cracks"? Er… is there anything but "cracks" at this point?
(I can see the headline: "PANDEMIC HITS SCHOOL: 60% OF 8TH GRADE EFFECTED BEFORE ANYONE NOTICES; OFFICIALS SAY THEY 'FELL THROUGH THE CRACKS')
June 19, 2009 at 2:55 am
This comment has been removed by the author.
June 20, 2009 at 3:19 pm
An interesting premise, the condemnation of government at all levels. It seems education–aside from flourishing when the parents take it seriously–is largely governed at the local level. So I might agree with your premise that health care run by local governments is a horrid idea.
Personally, I don't think much of the notion of health care being run on a for-profit basis by large corporations. When the bottom line depends on favoring the strong and sleek at the expense of the elderly and weak, well, I'm sure you can connect the dots from there to euthanasia and selective births.
That said, the fedgov hasn't had such a good record on major foreign wars lately, has it? Add that to your list?
June 20, 2009 at 4:04 pm
Federal standards for what your state must teach, federally required classes, federal input to the Teacher's Union, federal cases if someone doesn't like what you're teaching….
Where's the local control again?
When the bottom line depends on favoring the strong and sleek at the expense of the elderly and weak, well, I'm sure you can connect the dots from there to euthanasia and selective births.
This would be why gov't control of health care is a bad idea– the old and weak are only an expense.
With private health care, run for profit, folks have a reason to figure out how to keep people alive– and once you know you *can* keep someone alive, it's more likely you *will*, when they're not just another poor SOB in the line at the DMV. (Think back to the great help you get on a busy day at the DMV, if you have an even mildly complicated issue….)
That said, the fedgov hasn't had such a good record on major foreign wars lately, has it?
Yeah, knocking over the Iraq of Saddam in– was it a week?– and making a functional democracy in under a decade… dang, that's horrible. With imported insurgents, even, and while still being the 911 for the world. We should be so ashamed.
Speaking of the military, how about you ask some folks who were recently in what they think of "free" government health care?
Have I mentioned here the root canal they did on me, without telling me that's what it was? I didn't find out about it until I went to a dentist over a year after I got out.
A friend's son was nearly killed when they gave him an adult immunization instead of a child one– the poor mother took the infant boy back three times, and each time they insisted he was just having a normal reaction. Thank God she was Japanese, so she took him to one of the non-Military doctors– he spent a week in the ICU.
How about the newly married guy whose wife was doubled over in dire pain, and they were told twice that she was just over-reacting to normal cramps? He took her to the emergency room on his own dime– tubal pregnancy. If he hadn't taken her in that night, she probably wouldn't have survived.
How about my brother's "sprained" ankle, here?
June 20, 2009 at 6:36 pm
"This would be why gov't control of health care is a bad idea– the old and weak are only an expense."
And yet the advantage is that with a larger pool of people giving to cover health care costs, catastrophic events are balanced out by the large numbers of contributors to a system. A corporation willing to cut expenses is more likely to do so when the profit margin can be increased. Time and again they have shown an eagerness to do so.
"With private health care, run for profit, folks have a reason to figure out how to keep people alive"
Sure they do, but only until it becomes unprofitable.
Look, if private systems were actually working in this country, and not contributing to almost two-thirds of home foreclosures (to name one trickle-down effect) the system wouldn't need fixing. But American citizens are asking serious questions the AMA, the insurance lobby, and other profiteers can't answer: Why do we have the best health care providers, but so many people falling through the cracks? Why does corporate profit govern policy?
The way I see it, 28 years of conservative presidents since Reagan have presided over a steady decline of everything but profits for insurance and pharmaceuticals. The GOP offers nothing but mewling on party's over on this issue.
Profits from medical care in this country should be plowed back into research, medical infrastructure, and aspects that benefit society at large. If the federal government can do that better than anyone else, I have no problem with these plans. They have a number of successes in Ameri9can history, and I'm willing to let them give this a go.
June 20, 2009 at 6:45 pm
A corporation willing to cut expenses is more likely to do so when the profit margin can be increased. Time and again they have shown an eagerness to do so.
A business can cut costs, but they still have to give results or no-one will use them.
The Gov't doesn't have that restriction.
Look, if private systems were actually working in this country, and not contributing to almost two-thirds of home foreclosures (to name one trickle-down effect) the system wouldn't need fixing.
You might want to do a little research. The private companies were required to make loans to folks they knew were a bad risk, because of… well, take a wild guess who forced 'em.
The way I see it, 28 years of conservative presidents since Reagan have presided over a steady decline of everything but profits for insurance and pharmaceuticals.
*falls down laughing*
Dude! I want what you're smoking! Unlike Slick Willy, apparently you are *really* inhaling….
Profits from medical care in this country should be plowed back into research, medical infrastructure, and aspects that benefit society at large.
Which is why the gov't should stay the frick out.
Drug companies make money by making new drugs, by the way– that's why they invest in research.
Oh, and I love how you're acting like the folks who work in those businesses are somehow required to work for you– what are they, slaves?
You think we'll keep the world-renowned high quality of care we have now when they are government slaves?
June 20, 2009 at 7:59 pm
"A business can cut costs, but they still have to give results or no-one will use them."
Not quite. I've never been employed by a boss that offered me more than one choice on health care. By and large, employees have no choice on health care. If insurance companies advocated for true economic competition, they wouldn't opt for protectionism in the skirts of large and small businesses.
"You might want to do a little research. The private companies were required …"
Actually, research is needed on your part. It's estimated that two-thirds of home foreclosures in the past few years can be attributed to medical costs suffered by mortgage holders. Nice try on the poor loan meme, but in a modern complex society, policies have far-reaching consequences, not easy-to-predict outcomes.
"You think we'll keep the world-renowned high quality of care …"
Another myth, actually. While the US has the potential to offer the very best medical care, the outcome of the entire US health care system puts us in the mid-30th place, behind Canada and much of Europe.
That the rich get taken care of everywhere is nothing to croon about. If you assess the system, you have to assess the whole system, not just what it does for those who can afford it.
Slaves? If you want to continue a serious discussion, you'd be better served to keep to the real issues, not imaginary ones of GOP boogeyman bedtime stories.
June 20, 2009 at 8:27 pm
Not quite. I've never been employed by a boss that offered me more than one choice on health care.
So buy a different policy, or change jobs. "Change governments" isn't a very simple solution.
It's estimated that two-thirds of home foreclosures in the past few years can be attributed to medical costs suffered by mortgage holders.
Major claim. Got support?
I suspect you're referring to this:
A study done by Harvard University revealed that in a review of bankruptcy filings disabling medical problems led to nearly half of the 1.458 million bankruptcy filings – based on 2001 filings.
A study by the Housing and Home Finance Agency of the U.S. Government found that 48 percent of home foreclosures were the result of disability while only 3 percent of all foreclosures resulted from the death of a homeowner. This was from a 1998 study which is reflective of most years, on average.
That is data roughly a decade old….
This data, on the sub-prime loans, is much newer.
Another myth, actually. While the US has the potential to offer the very best medical care, the outcome of the entire US health care system puts us in the mid-30th place, behind Canada and much of Europe.
And that's why folks keep on coming here for treatment, right? They leave the lovely, free care of Canada to risk our horrible for-profit system.
I suspect you're referring to the infant mortality rate– debunked here.
We have higher infant death rates because we count every child born alive as a live birth. Most other counties don't consider very premature children born alive as live births.
If you assess the system, you have to assess the whole system, not just what it does for those who can afford it.
And if you compare results, you must compare all information that went into them. Bet China has a really low death-in-childbirth rate….
Slaves? If you want to continue a serious discussion, you'd be better served to keep to the real issues, not imaginary ones of GOP boogeyman bedtime stories.
You want to require the services of folks while bypassing their right to be paid. What is your preferred term for those you force to work?
GOP boogeyman bedtime stories.
Were these told by that great conservative, former President Clinton, during the last 28 years of conservatives since Reagan?
June 20, 2009 at 9:01 pm
"So buy a different policy, or change jobs."
Why should I? What about a free market? Why should my health insurance be tied to my job when my life, auto, car, and property isn't?
"Major claim. Got support?"
It's not your Harvard study. Look up Robertson, Egelhof, and Hoke, Aug 2008. They give it a conservative 50%. I've seen others, since the economic meltdown, put the past year's numbers at closer to two-thirds.
"And that's why folks keep on coming here for treatment, right?"
Sure, rich folks come here. I never denied the world's wealthy people wouldn't travel to get the very best in health care. Problem is, most human beings can't afford to go overseas for health care, and American health care results still rank below most European countries.
"I suspect you're referring to the infant mortality rate– debunked here."
Um, no. I'm referring to the comparison of the entire output of the health care systems of entire nations, not just infants.
Take the final word, my friend. You seem content with arguments waged, by your own admission, eight or more years ago. The thing about a good debate is, you have to keep on your toes, adapt and adjust to what the opponent is saying. The echo chamber doesn't work in the real world.
June 20, 2009 at 9:10 pm
Why should I? What about a free market
"Free market" doesn't mean "I get to force someone to give me what I what, no matter what they're offering."
Why should my health insurance be tied to my job when my life, auto, car, and property isn't?
Historically? Fed. Gov't got involved, and it was a way to raise pay without paying more and triggering gov't interference.
Currently? It's a bonus. Same way my folks live in the ranch house and get one cow a year, even though the pay stinks.
Um, no. I'm referring to the comparison of the entire output of the health care systems of entire nations, not just infants.
Without evidence, let alone unbiased evidence?
You seem content with arguments waged, by your own admission, eight or more years ago.
That was debunking *your* claim. Kinda has to be done, since you don't give any evidence, you just claim things.
If this is evidence of your usual reading comprehension, apparently there's even more evidence of the education system failing….