Slashdot Mirror

The Department of Education already collects more information about students than you even imagine.

First of all is the FAFSA. This has become the defacto student financial aid applications. Many institutions have their own financial aid applications but to receive any federal financial aid the person must fill out the FAFSA. All the data on the FAFSA is electronically transfered to the student's institution.

Since federal financial aid can be administered by private banks as well as the government and this aid goes to millions of students in thousands of schools it is an enormaous exercise to track the data. Say hello to the National Student Clearinghouse. Not every school participaces in the NSCH but most of them do because everybody else does. From the NSCH, institutions can BUY your data.

Each year ALL institutions that participate in federal financial aid programs, which is over 90% of them, must respond to the NCES IPEDS data collection. IPEDS is a complete, albeit aggregate, data collection tool but it drills down to such detail that for a small to medium sized instituion it's not difficult to get some good stuff.

Many states have combined student data repositories that the state higher education committe can regularly utilize.

This is just the start. Colleges regularly participate in data exchanges with other institutions. For those who want to scream FERPA right now, remember there is a big loophole called "legitimate academic interest" that allows the institution to use whatever data they so choose.

There is more personalized data about each and every student floating around hundreds and even thousands of institutions that nobody has any control over any of it.

The proposed list of variables the the department of education wants to collect per student can be seen on page 74 of the IPEDS SURS Feasability study.

I work in an Institutional Research office in a major university what NCES is proposing in nothing compared to what is already available.

The Department of Education already collects more information about students than you even imagine.

First of all is the FAFSA. This has become the defacto student financial aid applications. Many institutions have their own financial aid applications but to receive any federal financial aid the person must fill out the FAFSA. All the data on the FAFSA is electronically transfered to the student's institution.

Since federal financial aid can be administered by private banks as well as the government and this aid goes to millions of students in thousands of schools it is an enormaous exercise to track the data. Say hello to the National Student Clearinghouse. Not every school participaces in the NSCH but most of them do because everybody else does. From the NSCH, institutions can BUY your data.

Each year ALL institutions that participate in federal financial aid programs, which is over 90% of them, must respond to the NCES IPEDS data collection. IPEDS is a complete, albeit aggregate, data collection tool but it drills down to such detail that for a small to medium sized instituion it's not difficult to get some good stuff.

Many states have combined student data repositories that the state higher education committe can regularly utilize.

This is just the start. Colleges regularly participate in data exchanges with other institutions. For those who want to scream FERPA right now, remember there is a big loophole called "legitimate academic interest" that allows the institution to use whatever data they so choose.

There is more personalized data about each and every student floating around hundreds and even thousands of institutions that nobody has any control over any of it.

The proposed list of variables the the department of education wants to collect per student can be seen on page 74 of the IPEDS SURS Feasability study.

I work in an Institutional Research office in a major university what NCES is proposing in nothing compared to what is already available.

The Department of Education already collects more information about students than you even imagine.

First of all is the FAFSA. This has become the defacto student financial aid applications. Many institutions have their own financial aid applications but to receive any federal financial aid the person must fill out the FAFSA. All the data on the FAFSA is electronically transfered to the student's institution.

Since federal financial aid can be administered by private banks as well as the government and this aid goes to millions of students in thousands of schools it is an enormaous exercise to track the data. Say hello to the National Student Clearinghouse. Not every school participaces in the NSCH but most of them do because everybody else does. From the NSCH, institutions can BUY your data.

Each year ALL institutions that participate in federal financial aid programs, which is over 90% of them, must respond to the NCES IPEDS data collection. IPEDS is a complete, albeit aggregate, data collection tool but it drills down to such detail that for a small to medium sized instituion it's not difficult to get some good stuff.

Many states have combined student data repositories that the state higher education committe can regularly utilize.

This is just the start. Colleges regularly participate in data exchanges with other institutions. For those who want to scream FERPA right now, remember there is a big loophole called "legitimate academic interest" that allows the institution to use whatever data they so choose.

There is more personalized data about each and every student floating around hundreds and even thousands of institutions that nobody has any control over any of it.

The proposed list of variables the the department of education wants to collect per student can be seen on page 74 of the IPEDS SURS Feasability study.

I work in an Institutional Research office in a major university what NCES is proposing in nothing compared to what is already available.

The Department of Education already collects more information about students than you even imagine.

First of all is the FAFSA. This has become the defacto student financial aid applications. Many institutions have their own financial aid applications but to receive any federal financial aid the person must fill out the FAFSA. All the data on the FAFSA is electronically transfered to the student's institution.

Since federal financial aid can be administered by private banks as well as the government and this aid goes to millions of students in thousands of schools it is an enormaous exercise to track the data. Say hello to the National Student Clearinghouse. Not every school participaces in the NSCH but most of them do because everybody else does. From the NSCH, institutions can BUY your data.

Each year ALL institutions that participate in federal financial aid programs, which is over 90% of them, must respond to the NCES IPEDS data collection. IPEDS is a complete, albeit aggregate, data collection tool but it drills down to such detail that for a small to medium sized instituion it's not difficult to get some good stuff.

Many states have combined student data repositories that the state higher education committe can regularly utilize.

This is just the start. Colleges regularly participate in data exchanges with other institutions. For those who want to scream FERPA right now, remember there is a big loophole called "legitimate academic interest" that allows the institution to use whatever data they so choose.

There is more personalized data about each and every student floating around hundreds and even thousands of institutions that nobody has any control over any of it.

The proposed list of variables the the department of education wants to collect per student can be seen on page 74 of the IPEDS SURS Feasability study.

I work in an Institutional Research office in a major university what NCES is proposing in nothing compared to what is already available.

The Department of Education already collects more information about students than you even imagine.

First of all is the FAFSA. This has become the defacto student financial aid applications. Many institutions have their own financial aid applications but to receive any federal financial aid the person must fill out the FAFSA. All the data on the FAFSA is electronically transfered to the student's institution.

Since federal financial aid can be administered by private banks as well as the government and this aid goes to millions of students in thousands of schools it is an enormaous exercise to track the data. Say hello to the National Student Clearinghouse. Not every school participaces in the NSCH but most of them do because everybody else does. From the NSCH, institutions can BUY your data.

Each year ALL institutions that participate in federal financial aid programs, which is over 90% of them, must respond to the NCES IPEDS data collection. IPEDS is a complete, albeit aggregate, data collection tool but it drills down to such detail that for a small to medium sized instituion it's not difficult to get some good stuff.

Many states have combined student data repositories that the state higher education committe can regularly utilize.

This is just the start. Colleges regularly participate in data exchanges with other institutions. For those who want to scream FERPA right now, remember there is a big loophole called "legitimate academic interest" that allows the institution to use whatever data they so choose.

There is more personalized data about each and every student floating around hundreds and even thousands of institutions that nobody has any control over any of it.

The proposed list of variables the the department of education wants to collect per student can be seen on page 74 of the IPEDS SURS Feasability study.

I work in an Institutional Research office in a major university what NCES is proposing in nothing compared to what is already available.

Why can you thank the GOP? Clinton was POTUS. Did this law get passed over his veto? I really don't know the answer, but I rather doubt it. And by the way, it was 1998, not 1995

My wife is japanese, from Japan (she left when she was 25 or so).

I have been to Japan.

Culturally there is very little you can do as an american to get prepared. It's going to be the shock of your life, and not only because it's so foreign, but because it's so modern. Americans equate state-of-the-art with western culture. in Japan, one realizes that state-of-the-art is not American. That's probably the biggest shock.

To get along with the japanese, have "kejime".

quoted from: http://ccins.camosun.bc.ca/~tonks/courses/psyc106/ 106oh5.htm:

"-Kejime marks the ability to sense and appropriately react to given situations."

and from http://www.ed.gov/pubs/JapanCaseStudy/chapter5d.ht ml :

"Teachers emphasize the importance of teaching children to distinguish between times to be quiet and times to be active as well as to distinguish between the noise next door and the quiet activity in their own classroom. Learning this distinction was referred to by teachers as kejime, (to distinguish between) and was seen as an essential socialization process for all Japanese students. One vocational high school teacher told me repeatedly that his goal for his less diligent students was to get them to have kejime so that they could go out into the world of work and behave appropriately in various situations. The architectural openness encourages teachers to teach students to learn to distinguish between appropriate behavior for different times and places."

What are you babbling about? Bush has increased education spending by 33% since he took office.

Wow, Thomson is totally innumerate. He's asked about a percentage, and he replies with raw numbers about one game ... without giving a total number of games sold! Maybe he's right about the percentage, but he hasn't shown it. Oh, wait, he's wrong about that

Actually, it seems a bit more likely that he's just dishonest.

The federal government found that in the school year 2003, there were 48 school killings. The year before that there were 16, and the year before that 17. Something is going on. I submit that the video game generation is coming of age.
That doesn't match the numbers I've seen. Plus, there's the causation problem. It could just as well be that kids are influenced by the Iraq war.

Not a single law on the books to stop the sale of murder simulators to kids

Sure, because every time they get put on the books, they get struck down (follow the link to the opionion for more cases).

What happened to all of George W. Bush's promises he made during election time about a several fold increase of our education budget? Except his controversial "no child left behind" plans none of his promises have materialized. Looks like we have been fooled in terms of education as well.

I was going to moderate you as a troll (which you are), but decided to correct your own lie instead.

If you look at the Department of Education Budget History", you will notice that the 2000 presidential budget request by Bill Clinton for the department was about $37.5 billion (yeah, billion, read the numbers carefully), and about $1 billion more than that was actually appropriated. The 2006 budget request is about $69.5 billion. Based on history, about $68.5 billion will actually be appropriated.

The fact is that George W. Bush has almost doubled the budget in six years.

By way of comparison, the 1993 president's budget for the department was about $33.8 billion, of that about $1 billion less was appropriated. This means that in the "unprecedented economic growth" of the '90s, Clinton increased the department's budget by a mere $3 billion.

Interestingly enough, under George Bush (41), he immediately raised the budget of the Department of Education by $7 billion, more than double what Clinton did in eight years. In fact, by the time he had left office in four years, he had doubled the department's budget.

You can fault the Bush presidents for a lot of things, but you can't fault them for this.

The record speaks for itself... the Bush presidents were good for education funding, and Clinton was bad for it.

Texas schools are middle of the pack. They rank slightly ahead of the US average in mathematics and slightly behind in reading.

BTW, fuck you and here's a different former governor you can have.

Texas schools are middle of the pack. They rank slightly ahead of the US average in mathematics and slightly behind in reading.

BTW, fuck you and here's a different former governor you can have.

Realistically, the only reason most of them are hired is because they are cheap
Foreign workers do earn most PhDs and 1/3 of Masters degrees in engineering and CS from US schools.
Maybe they aren't necessarily brighter, but they have the paper that makes them more valuable to the HR drone.
The problem I see is the US education system isn't creating enough US born candidates with advanced degrees, which gives companies an excuse to go to H1B. Remember they have to prove there is a unique skillset that an american can't fill. Just add PhD to the job title and they can just point "look no viable american candidates." If more americans got PhD's it would make things much tougher for companies because there isn't an obvious deficiency. They would require much more money paid to lawyers, which might tip the money scales towards hiring the US person.

From my experience H1Bs at the companies I have worked for are used for graduate degree students. Most american students who go to college tend to leave after getting their BS, especially in technical areas. 50% of PhDs & 33% of Masters degrees in engineering and CS are earned by foreign students (1997 numbers, though things probably haven't changed much, or are worse looking at the trend).
When companies say they can't find qualified individuals in the US it may be true if they are specificly looking for advanced degrees. Remember the HR drones are looking for paper, so it might be coupled with high expectations, and lack of understanding of the importance of experience in some fields. I wonder how much it costs to hire somebody through H1B program. They are limited, so I'm sure there are alot of legal costs associated with securing and maintaining the H1B visa. As well as legal costs of ensuring compliance with the program, providing and maintaining documentation in case somebody audits you. It may be more expensive because of legal costs to get an H1B worker but if you must have the graduate degree it may be the only way to fill to spot.

Scroll down to the chart at the bottom.

http://nces.ed.gov/surveys/pisa/PISA2003Highlights Figures.asp?figure=8&quest=1

Now, I'd like an apology.

There are reputable books on colleges. For starters, you could go to Peterson's and look up the name of the college or university.

Also, accrediting bodies are okayed by the US Secretary of Education. For more on that, see http://www.ed.gov/admins/finaid/accred/index.html.

For example, why don't they compare 8th grade Minnesota students against Czech students I wonder?

Possibly because they were comparing nations against nations and not states against nations?

For example, why don't they compare 8th grade Minnesota students against Czech students I wonder?

Probably because they'd find out things that are politically incorrect.

Legally, they can't disclose your records to ANYONE (outside of the Ed system) unless you give them consent. If you have a scholarship which requires you to maintain a 2.0, you need to provide consent for your records to be released. One of my favorite things to do in college was to cite FERPA to nosy parents who wanted to know their student's grades.... sorry parents, but even if you pay 100%, you're not entitled to their academic record once they're 18, or enter college.

If your college disclosed your records to your parents w/o your consent, sue them.

Before you say "no way", read an overview of the law.

FERPA From the department of ed website:

"FERPA gives parents certain rights with respect to their children's education records. These rights transfer to the student when he or she reaches the age of 18 or attends a school beyond the high school level."

"Generally, schools must have written permission from the parent or eligible student in order to release any information from a student's education record."
Note that nosy parents is not a valid exemption.

As someone who fills out a FAFSA every year, and just applied for a Federal Loan not five minutes ago, I've already given the Department of Education all of that information twice in the last six months. While not everyone will do so, I'm sure most students will fill out a FAFSA, even if they don't get any subsidized aid.

Seems to me that the Federal Gov't already has all of this information and needn't waste any more taxpayer dollars trying to aquire it again.

Note that I'm not trying to justify their attempts at data-collection (far from it, actually), I'm just pointing out that they already have that information for most of us already.

Under FERPA (Family Educational Rights and Privacy Act), how could they even use this data? Basically they COULD collect the data, but the only folks who could gain access to it would be other educational agencies, or armed forces recruiters. Does anyone know if they are planning an amendment to FERPA to allow the FBI/CIA/etc to access student records as well?

Last time I checked, there is already a college student tracking system in place, run by the federal government, and one that you voluntary subscribed to... I'm talking about FAFSA, the Free Application for Federal Student Aid, not to mention FSA, the Federal Student Aid repayment portal. Because to get a loan and repay it, you give your name, your SSN, your address, etc...

From congress's documents on the web, in 2004 there are an estimated 15.9 million students in the US, of which 6.6 million students receive some sort of federal aid, at roughly $52 billion. I wouldn't be surprised if they had many millions more names on file, for those that applied but were denied funding....

I imagine someone in government now wants to tie individual student performance back to monies received -- you could then mine the data for attempts to defraud the government, or those that are doing their students a disservice by routinely pushing out lower quality education. The first step is to get a handle on just how bad the problem is.

Last time I checked, there is already a college student tracking system in place, run by the federal government, and one that you voluntary subscribed to... I'm talking about FAFSA, the Free Application for Federal Student Aid, not to mention FSA, the Federal Student Aid repayment portal. Because to get a loan and repay it, you give your name, your SSN, your address, etc...

From congress's documents on the web, in 2004 there are an estimated 15.9 million students in the US, of which 6.6 million students receive some sort of federal aid, at roughly $52 billion. I wouldn't be surprised if they had many millions more names on file, for those that applied but were denied funding....

I imagine someone in government now wants to tie individual student performance back to monies received -- you could then mine the data for attempts to defraud the government, or those that are doing their students a disservice by routinely pushing out lower quality education. The first step is to get a handle on just how bad the problem is.

Pretty much if you're in college, the G.O.V has your number.

For the $10,000/child/year we spend now on public education, you could probably send your child overseas and have him personally tutored by people with PhDs.

Erm, I know you're just being facetious, but $10,000 minus overhead isn't going to buy you much of the average PhD's time, overseas or not.

The first per-pupil cost numbers I came across claim per-pupil costs of $7000 a year in 2001-2002 for public elementary and seconday schools.

That doesn't buy you a lot of anyone's time.

--Bruce Fields

Did you mean this section? All I see is "access to secondary school students names, addresses, and telephone listings".

And right below that, it states "A [student or parent] may request that the [info] not be released without prior written parental consent, and the local educational agency or private school shall notify parents of the option to make a request and shall comply with any request."

Where did you get your information? (And what does it have to do with the topic, for that matter?)

Well, if you are in the United States it is against FERPA to use SSNs (or parts thereof) to post grades.

I suggest immediately asking all your professors to cease and desist their actions. If they refuse bring it to the heads of their departments. If your requests are again ignored I suggest filing a complaint against them as shown below...

See the document posted below with regards to this (pasted because it's in DOC format -- formatted after paste to avoid whitespace filter):

===

Dr. Evangelos J. Gizis
Interim President
Hunter College of the City University of New York
695 Park Avenue
New York, New York 10021

Complaint No.
Family Educational Rights and Privacy Act

Dear Dr. Gizis:

This is to advise you of the finding in the complaint filed with this Office by [Student] who alleged that Hunter College of the City University of New York (College) violated his rights under the Family Educational Rights and Privacy Act (FERPA). Specifically, the Student alleged that Mr. Cullen Schaffer, a computer science professor, posted his exam and final grade on a web page along with the last four digits of his social security number.

This Office advised you of the allegation by letter dated August 21, 2000, and you responded on behalf of the College by letter dated September 25, 2000. You state in your letter that many College professors do post grades by the last four digits of a student's social security number. You state that "no student names are listed" and that this "enables students to easily identify their own grades, yet remain unable to identify any other student's identities." You also state that the College does "not consider this practice to be in violation of FERPA or any other applicable laws."

FERPA protects privacy interests of parents in their children's "education records," and generally prohibits the disclosure of personally identifiable information from education records without the consent of the parent. The term "education records" is broadly defined as all records, files, documents and other materials which:

contain information directly related to a student; and are maintained by the educational agency or institution or by a person acting for such agency or institution.

20 U.S.C. 1232g(a)(4)(A); 34 CFR 99.3 "Education records." When a student reaches the age of 18 or attends an institution of postsecondary education, the student is considered an "eligible student" under FERPA and all of the rights afforded by FERPA transfer from the parents to the student.

Under FERPA an eligible student must provide his or her prior written consent before an educational agency or institution discloses personally identifiable information from his or her education records. 20 U.S.C. 1232g(b); 34 CFR 99.30. Section 99.3 of the regulations defines the "Personally identifiable information" as information that includes but is not limited to:

(a) the student's name;
(b) the name of the student's parent or other family member;
(c) the address of the student or the student's family;
(d) a personal identifier, such as the student's social security number or student number;
(e) a list of personal characteristics that would make the student's identity easily traceable; or
(f) other information that would make the student's identity easily traceable.

34 CFR 99.3 "Personally identifiable information." (Emphasis added.) A student's social security number is, by definition, "personally identifiable information" under FERPA, and may not be disclosed without consent in any form.

FERPA provides that educational agencies and institutions may not disclose personally identifiable, non-directory information from education records unless a parent or eligible student has provided a signed and dated written consent in accordance

Well, if you are in the United States it is against FERPA to use SSNs (or parts thereof) to post grades.

I suggest immediately asking all your professors to cease and desist their actions. If they refuse bring it to the heads of their departments. If your requests are again ignored I suggest filing a complaint against them as shown below...

See the document posted below with regards to this (pasted because it's in DOC format -- formatted after paste to avoid whitespace filter):

===

Dr. Evangelos J. Gizis
Interim President
Hunter College of the City University of New York
695 Park Avenue
New York, New York 10021

Complaint No.
Family Educational Rights and Privacy Act

Dear Dr. Gizis:

This is to advise you of the finding in the complaint filed with this Office by [Student] who alleged that Hunter College of the City University of New York (College) violated his rights under the Family Educational Rights and Privacy Act (FERPA). Specifically, the Student alleged that Mr. Cullen Schaffer, a computer science professor, posted his exam and final grade on a web page along with the last four digits of his social security number.

This Office advised you of the allegation by letter dated August 21, 2000, and you responded on behalf of the College by letter dated September 25, 2000. You state in your letter that many College professors do post grades by the last four digits of a student's social security number. You state that "no student names are listed" and that this "enables students to easily identify their own grades, yet remain unable to identify any other student's identities." You also state that the College does "not consider this practice to be in violation of FERPA or any other applicable laws."

FERPA protects privacy interests of parents in their children's "education records," and generally prohibits the disclosure of personally identifiable information from education records without the consent of the parent. The term "education records" is broadly defined as all records, files, documents and other materials which:

contain information directly related to a student; and are maintained by the educational agency or institution or by a person acting for such agency or institution.

20 U.S.C. 1232g(a)(4)(A); 34 CFR 99.3 "Education records." When a student reaches the age of 18 or attends an institution of postsecondary education, the student is considered an "eligible student" under FERPA and all of the rights afforded by FERPA transfer from the parents to the student.

Under FERPA an eligible student must provide his or her prior written consent before an educational agency or institution discloses personally identifiable information from his or her education records. 20 U.S.C. 1232g(b); 34 CFR 99.30. Section 99.3 of the regulations defines the "Personally identifiable information" as information that includes but is not limited to:

(a) the student's name;
(b) the name of the student's parent or other family member;
(c) the address of the student or the student's family;
(d) a personal identifier, such as the student's social security number or student number;
(e) a list of personal characteristics that would make the student's identity easily traceable; or
(f) other information that would make the student's identity easily traceable.

34 CFR 99.3 "Personally identifiable information." (Emphasis added.) A student's social security number is, by definition, "personally identifiable information" under FERPA, and may not be disclosed without consent in any form.

FERPA provides that educational agencies and institutions may not disclose personally identifiable, non-directory information from education records unless a parent or eligible student has provided a signed and dated written consent in accordance

I call bullshit. Federally backed low interest loans may in fact allow more people to go to school and increasing demand for education and allowing schools to charge more and provide more.

That said, I don't think the limiting factor on the cost of higher education is how much money the federal government is giving out. In fact, less than half of students get any form of loan at all, let alone federal. The average loan? 5K. With tuiton running 25K \ year some places, it just isn't all getting paid for by the government.

That, and people aren't that dumb. We do get ourselves into more debt than we can handle, but who is really going to put themselves into 450K of debt for a college education in the states? You'd see tons of people going overseas and others not going to school. The demand would be low enough the universities would have to lower prices.

-----

Oh, and both of these guys dropped out of college as well and did quite well for themselves on their own.

Here's the link to the NCLB website. It contains tons of information, including state by state breakdowns.

NCLB isn't underfunded...they just didn't appropriate the maximum amount of money that they could. That's standard with almost any government program.

This again raises the question of whether the money is meant to ensure appropriate education for all students, or merely to set minimum criteria beyond which no accountability exists.

Honestly, I don't know how NCLB affects GT programs and the like. The idea behind NCLB is to set a minimum set of standards that the kids have to meet and meet that standard within (I think) 5 years. NCLB's goal isn't to further the education of students who excel, it's to make sure the students on the lower end of the spectrum keep up, but I don't think it hinders GT students either.

--trb

... the states and local governments extract for education, the current US federal budget for the department of education is 63 billion dollars. That is not a trivial sum. If it was entirely up to the states and local governments, all that money could be used, and an entire federal department eliminated. The states and local governments already have local administrations running that could deal with it, and if we eliminated the federal effort, all the money wasted on just running what is in essence a redundancy could be eliminated. It makes no sense to extract income taxes, filter and skim them massively through washington, then return only part of the money right back to where it came from. It's a skim, and it is part of the self perpetuating federal government bloat. It didn't exist when I was a kid, and it didn't seem to matter, we had the same schools, just run much cheaper. They created an agency or department that isn't needed. This costs money. They then say "wow, our expenses are going up so we need more tax money" Lather rinse repeat.

The federal governments primary duty appears to be perpetuating itself as a growth industry, any ancillary effect is incidental to maintaining their make-work "jobs".

Seems to depend on what you're teaching, and where:

Shortage areas by skill and geography and year
NEA has a whole section on shortage
Article for administrators on the shortage and need to attract teachers
Same source, saying how some disagree in view of low pay, but some districts are increasing pay
State of FL forgiving student loans for 04-05 for education students
more on where and in what areas teachers are needed

That's just with a quick Google search, and the only reason I bothered is because I live in the DC area, where schools last year were increasing pay and offering signing bonuses in the VA suburbs of DC. DC itself has trouble holding on to teachers, but that's because it's a hellhole.

Government schools are propogandizing tools, created very specifically to put out a product that is easily persuaded of the "fact" that Government solutions are the only possible solutions. You might consider yourself one of those "products" if you believe everything posted on a Government website.

"Ever since the inception of government schooling in the 19th century under Horace Mann, the US has been on a downward trend in literacy, numeracy and science learning. Sometimes that trend is briefly halted, but it always continues. To the extent that there might be some mild upheaval, it seems to me that the more quickly we exit the downward spiral, the shorter the climb back up will be."

That is exactly backwards. It is a complete lie.

I confess I have no idea how one would obtain accurate readings on "numeracy," since the very concept was only popularized perhaps 30 years ago. Nor can I fathom how he could characterize "science learning" today as worse than in the days before Darwin, continental drift, and modern astronomy. (I assume Mr. Badnarik is in favor of private schooling, though our private schools mostly ignore or outright contradict Darwin, arguably the most important scientist of the past 250 years. An understanding of biological evolution is critical to epidemiology and genetics, two fields of research that in the years to come I hope will not be hampered by the growing trend of religious schooling.)

But though those claims are perhaps unprovable, his claim about literacy is outright false. It took me about 30 seconds to find this page using Google: Literacy from 1870 to 1979: Illiteracy.

(For those who want to look the numbers up themselves, U-Virginia has a Historical Census Browser. The stats on literacy start in 1870.)

The literacy of every segment of the U.S. population except the foreign-born has grown in every year (except the estimation of 1950, which is likely a statistical blip). It's not a question of the trend briefly halting: the trend is relentlessly toward higher and higher literacy rates.

Probably the most reliable indicator of literacy is that of the white population (since including segments of society largely removed from educational opportunities would bias the numbers). The percentage of illiterate white persons 14 years of age or older was as follows:

1870: 11.5%
1880: 9.4%
1890: 7.7%
1900: 6.2%
1910: 5.0%
1920: 4.0%
1930: 3.0%
1920: 2.0%
1947: 1.8%
1952: 1.8%
1959: 1.6%
1969: 0.7%
1979: 0.4%

If he wants to thrash our public schools, Mr. Badnarik will need a different switch.

Just this one statement told me I never need to listen to this guy again:
Ever since the inception of government schooling in the 19th century under Horace Mann, the US has been on a downward trend in literacy, numeracy and science learning. Sometimes that trend is briefly halted, but it always continues. To the extent that there might be some mild upheaval, it seems to me that the more quickly we exit the downward spiral, the shorter the climb back up will be.
This begs to differ. If you are going to argue against public education, AT LEAST get your facts straight. The fact that he was willing to make stuff up just to promote what he already "knew" from his ideology proves to me his absolute worthlesness as a candidate. I think it also says something for the Libertarian movement as a whole. Their whole argument is based on, "Well if a happens b is bound to happen" ignoring conditions c,d, and f. Politics has plenty of room for ideology, but I think that Badnarick needs a heavy dose of pragmatism before he will influence large amounts of people.

In the most recent survey (1996), foreign-born Hispanics (who comprise the majority of recent US immigrants) have a less than high school level of education approaching 50% (and for Mexicans, over 60%). In contrast, foreign-born blacks (presumably African and Caribbean immigrants) have around 14% at that low level, while Asian/Pacific Island immigrants are at 9.1%. As Yaztromo indicated in a previous post, Canadian immigration tends to skew toward Asians and Africans, who, at least in the US, tend to have higher educational achievement.

Note, however, that first generation Hispanics do much better than their parents, indicating that the children of immigrants have good access to education in the US, and are successful in using it - in fact, more so than later generation Hispanics. Immigrants of all types are a real boon to our country - some through the strong work ethic they bring, others for the skills they bring. We just need to recognize that as a group they temporarily have a small but measurable downside effect on our international rankings for educational achievement.

All these "optional" programs are favorite budget cutting targets...

According to this report:

Music and visual arts instruction were offered in most of the nation's public secondary schools (90 and 93 percent, respectively) in 1999-2000.

It would appear that the arts are largely intact. Your observation is not only irrelevant, it completely ignores my point that those programs would never have been there in the first place if education was no more than socialization for industrial labour, as you contend.

Yet they're [Walmart] the biggest employer in the U.S. Weird huh?

What's weird is that your observation completely ignores my point that education has not made the employees content to work at Walmart, as you suggested. In addition, Walmart is an example of the service economy, which is quite different from the industrial economy, which you claim that the education system was created to serve.

I suspect the biggest shock of a student's young life is when he gets his first job, but that's 'cause he doesn't qualify for many...

This statement completely contradicts your premise that the only objective of the public education system is to shape students for the work force.

The worst it does is destroy individuality and force monolithic conformity while terrorizing the students. That, and failing to provide an reasonable approximation of an education.

Are you speaking from experience here? Did the school system fail to provide you with a reasonable approximation of an education? Would you be happy working at Walmart? Were there no arts classes available at your school? Are you unqualified for most jobs that are available? Or, are you an example of "a blind pig" finding an acorn, as you put it?

"Of the 11 other countries that participated in the International Adult Literacy Survey (IALS), only Sweden exceeded the United States in the percentage of adults scoring at the highest levels of literacy in any of the three domains; the only exception was Canada, which had a greater proportion of adults scoring at or above level 4 on the document scale than did the United States."

IMHO, I think you're missing the authors point.

This is exactly the authors point - we get millions of "competent" graduates out of how many millions that are being educated? What's the final percentage? Are we really producing the throngs of Einstiens that they would have you believe? According to the US Census - only 83% of people 18 and over have graduated high school. That number drops to 24.7% for college or higher. Now looking at the numbers for educational achievement marked 29 June, 2004 : we come up with the following percentages:

Associates 0.044042109 (4.40%)
Bachelors 0.164815319 (16.48%)
Masters 0.05748253 (5.75%)
Doctorate 0.006189309 (0.62%)
Total 0.228487159 (22.85%)

This means that if we take the cenus estimates for people 20 and over (there is no segmentation for 18 and over) that approximately 12,800,428 masters and doctoral degrees are in the hands of the American people. This is a pretty small number compared to the over all population of 200,948,641 for people over 20. Also consider that this number doesn't tell us the number awarded every year. Indeed, according to the government (ca. 1993) there is a "real crisis in higher education in America." Now if we start to factor in the number of masters and PHD degrees that are awarded to non US citizens we start to see that number shrink yet again.

I think that what the numbers, and this book are trying to tell us is that the educational system is one that perpetuates the myth that intellect is a scarce resource because that perceived "rarity of intellect" is one of the major drivers of the economic system which Gatto is criticizing. We believe that less than one percent of the population has the mental capacity to obtain a doctorate, therefore we make sure that less than one percent of the population gets a doctorate. Our hypothesis is confirmed and we proceed to act as if the experiment was valid and the prophecy non-self fulfilling.

Anecdotaly, I think there is some proof with this. I'm sure everyone has run into the PhD who can't solve a simple problem, or the Masters degreed T/A that doesn't understand the basics, but managed to persevere long enough to slip into a teaching berth at some university.

Granted, this is a "Back of the envelope" sort of analysis, but I think it does point towards that something isn't on the up and up with the educational system in the US.

I dunno where you're getting your "facts", but according to the Department of Education website, student loan default rates hit an all-time low last year.

Uh huh. No child will be left behind.

That's not surprising news, since the public schools quickly picked up the insane ``Look-say'' method, which teaches that words are ideograms, rather than that words are collections of sounds. This left children who didn't get phonics instruction at home out in the cold, and may have kept some children from learning to read who would have learned to read if left to themselves. Furthermore, the children were entirely dependent on their teachers, since Look-say provides no tools for learning on your own.

You can find some practical information on phonics and Look-say on my web site.

The official statistics show that white school enrolment had essentially no affect on white literacy, while black literacy tracked black school enrolment fairly closely. That is, whites learned to read whether they went to school or not, while blacks learned to read at school, only. That may be because white parents were able to provide their children with phonics instruction at home, while black parents more often couldn't.

If you want a good history of the public school movement, I'd suggest starting with Gatto's book Undergound History of American Education and Richard Mitchel's Graves of Academe. Market Education: the Unknown History is another excellent resource, but unfortunately isn't available online.

Look here for the sources of what follows.

White literacy was high, well above 80%, in 1870. That was after some years of immigration of illiterates from Europe, and the government schooling which was developed in response to the wave of Catholic immegration (yes, public schooling has some racist roots). Black literacy in 1870 was about 20%. That's about 5 years after the Civil War. It is probable that the pre-Civil War black literacy rate was quite close to that. In many of the slave states, it was illegal to teach blacks to read, so that suggests that even in the South, literacy was very widespread, and bright people could ``just catch it'', like a cold, with little aid.

Given that functional literacy might have required a slightly lower level of reading ability than is needed today, those figures are simply astounding. In a time when an illiterate man could make a decent living, more than 80% of the whites (probably more than 90% of the native born whites; remember those illiterate Catholic immigrants) could read. In other words, most people probably had a higher level of literacy than they needed to function. Today, many people would function better if they could read better, with more understanding.

A century before that, in the 1790s, John Adams wrote that illiterate men were scarce. He was speaking of Protestant New England, of course, where everyone was expected to learn to read, so that he could read the King James Bible. Many people who are considered ``literate'' today find the KJV impenetrable, so perhaps the standards of literacy were higher back then, rather than lower?

Between the Revolution and the Civil War, Cooper's ``Last of the Mohicans'' sold about as many copies per capita as the Harry Potter series has. But contrast Cooper's writing style with Rowling's! I suspect that most of the people who are willing to wade through a Harry Potter story would find one of Cooper's books mighty tough going. Also, the price was over a day's wages for most workers. How many Harry Potter books do you think would sell if they cost a day's wages each? Again, I think it shows that real literacy was wide spread in the 18th and 19th centuries, and perhaps at a higher level than today.

Really? Care to back that up with even one fact?

To quote the parent of your comment: "These days, literacy rates are massively higher."

To quote the parent of your comment: "These days, literacy rates are massively higher."

I think that's an outrageous claim.

That Bush isn't the problem with our school system? Or that we spend tons of money on our schools?
Since ~1990 school funding is up over 100% nationwide. Has that made the schools better? We spend over $500 billion annually on our K-12 school system.

Cuts in Pell grants make a difference

This is K-12 funding. And I was mistaken, we pay the second most. Switzerland is ahead of us.

$10 billion of underfunding makes a difference.

The NEA claims $4.5 billion, and we all know their bias. Federal funding is up over 30% since Bush took office. (and yes, strangely, with that funding comes (get this!) responsibility! It's not just free money anymore!)

Cutting AmeriCorps makes a difference.
again, funding of k-12 is what we were talking about

I think that's an outrageous claim.

That Bush isn't the problem with our school system? Or that we spend tons of money on our schools?
Since ~1990 school funding is up over 100% nationwide. Has that made the schools better? We spend over $500 billion annually on our K-12 school system.

Cuts in Pell grants make a difference

This is K-12 funding. And I was mistaken, we pay the second most. Switzerland is ahead of us.

$10 billion of underfunding makes a difference.

The NEA claims $4.5 billion, and we all know their bias. Federal funding is up over 30% since Bush took office. (and yes, strangely, with that funding comes (get this!) responsibility! It's not just free money anymore!)

Cutting AmeriCorps makes a difference.
again, funding of k-12 is what we were talking about

I think that's an outrageous claim.

That Bush isn't the problem with our school system? Or that we spend tons of money on our schools?
Since ~1990 school funding is up over 100% nationwide. Has that made the schools better? We spend over $500 billion annually on our K-12 school system.

Cuts in Pell grants make a difference

This is K-12 funding. And I was mistaken, we pay the second most. Switzerland is ahead of us.

$10 billion of underfunding makes a difference.

The NEA claims $4.5 billion, and we all know their bias. Federal funding is up over 30% since Bush took office. (and yes, strangely, with that funding comes (get this!) responsibility! It's not just free money anymore!)

Cutting AmeriCorps makes a difference.
again, funding of k-12 is what we were talking about

But don't take my word for it. The formulae used in Federal need analysis are public and available here (PDF).