nmap
12-10-2008, 22:25
This column by T. R. Fehrenbach strikes me as being very much on target. Perhaps others will find it of interest as well.
-----------------------------------
At the start of World War II, among the major belligerents only Germany and the United States produced enough men with the educational requirements for 1940s military technology.
Both Germany and the U.S. had sufficient high-school graduates or their equivalent capable of manning submarines, staffing air forces, handling communications, driving vehicles and serving in artillery or armor. No other country came close. Most Britons and Europeans left school at 15 or 16; the Soviets had to screen their armies to find tankers and artillerymen; the Japanese were so hard up for educated types that American-born Nisei who were caught in Japan by Pearl Harbor were drafted into the Imperial Navy.
In short, whatever its faults, the American system produced sufficient product and was at par with the best of the world.
Our public education system was a huge factor in our winning the war. We made very little of this, but other nations certainly noted it. Other nations, especially around the Pacific Rim, began to create and model public systems based on our pre-war standards: full literacy by sixth grade, fluency in math and language by the eighth and with high school, students equipped for non-professional employment in the industrial, financial, and post-industrial world. (The definition of a profession is, a job defined by the practitioner and one that cannot be learned in a short time: doctor, engineer, scientist, etc.)
In the U.S. between 1918-1941 by no means all students finished high school (the average was eighth grade), and about one in 25 males completed college. But we produced enough of them to serve the nation's needs.
After World War II, the goal, never realized, was to put every child through high school. In Texas many — especially minorities — did not go beyond fourth grade. However, in 1949 the Legislature changed the state support system. Instead of allocating funds according to population, districts were now paid for the heads actually attending class. About this time, nearly all states did the same. The intent was to keep kids in school. The effect was that there were now more students for less money; schools were soon forced to attenuate, or thin down, education both to keep them in school and to pass the sizeable minority of those who didn't want to be there.
Nobody wants to say this, but the result of “every-child-in-school” was more graduates with less education. I will give you only two facts: The scores of those taking the SATs in 1941 have never been equaled or matched despite several “dumbings down” of the test. Since 1941, the New York Times has at least twice “dumbed down” its vocabulary for readers, because average subscribers today can't read at pre-WWII levels. (Okay, three facts: The average college freshman now lacks two years' preparation compared to my generation, and some are barely literate. Don't argue: I served as an (unpaid) writing consultant for an Ivy League university to help establish a remedial program.)
The main reason Johnny Can't Read, I think, is that we collectively have sacrificed national educational needs to social druthers. Our attention has shifted from national greatness and security to the social mobility of the individual. This sounds noble — but much like putting every citizen in a house whether or not he can afford it, it is self-destructive once you begin to substitute “paper” for proven accomplishment. Educationally speaking, not everyone is equal, and cannot be made equal by diplomas or degrees or constitutional amendment.
In the bad old days, half of Americans did not finish high school but those who did were well-prepared. In the brave new world, whether in New York, New Jersey or Texas, 45-50 percent of minority students drop out, and only a minority of all students is as well prepared as their WWII counterparts in basic subjects.
And so far as I know, nobody uses our K-12 as a model anymore.
LINK (http://www.mysanantonio.com/opinion/columnists/t.r._fehrenbach/Lowering_bar_wont_help_US_forge_ahead.html)
-----------------------------------
At the start of World War II, among the major belligerents only Germany and the United States produced enough men with the educational requirements for 1940s military technology.
Both Germany and the U.S. had sufficient high-school graduates or their equivalent capable of manning submarines, staffing air forces, handling communications, driving vehicles and serving in artillery or armor. No other country came close. Most Britons and Europeans left school at 15 or 16; the Soviets had to screen their armies to find tankers and artillerymen; the Japanese were so hard up for educated types that American-born Nisei who were caught in Japan by Pearl Harbor were drafted into the Imperial Navy.
In short, whatever its faults, the American system produced sufficient product and was at par with the best of the world.
Our public education system was a huge factor in our winning the war. We made very little of this, but other nations certainly noted it. Other nations, especially around the Pacific Rim, began to create and model public systems based on our pre-war standards: full literacy by sixth grade, fluency in math and language by the eighth and with high school, students equipped for non-professional employment in the industrial, financial, and post-industrial world. (The definition of a profession is, a job defined by the practitioner and one that cannot be learned in a short time: doctor, engineer, scientist, etc.)
In the U.S. between 1918-1941 by no means all students finished high school (the average was eighth grade), and about one in 25 males completed college. But we produced enough of them to serve the nation's needs.
After World War II, the goal, never realized, was to put every child through high school. In Texas many — especially minorities — did not go beyond fourth grade. However, in 1949 the Legislature changed the state support system. Instead of allocating funds according to population, districts were now paid for the heads actually attending class. About this time, nearly all states did the same. The intent was to keep kids in school. The effect was that there were now more students for less money; schools were soon forced to attenuate, or thin down, education both to keep them in school and to pass the sizeable minority of those who didn't want to be there.
Nobody wants to say this, but the result of “every-child-in-school” was more graduates with less education. I will give you only two facts: The scores of those taking the SATs in 1941 have never been equaled or matched despite several “dumbings down” of the test. Since 1941, the New York Times has at least twice “dumbed down” its vocabulary for readers, because average subscribers today can't read at pre-WWII levels. (Okay, three facts: The average college freshman now lacks two years' preparation compared to my generation, and some are barely literate. Don't argue: I served as an (unpaid) writing consultant for an Ivy League university to help establish a remedial program.)
The main reason Johnny Can't Read, I think, is that we collectively have sacrificed national educational needs to social druthers. Our attention has shifted from national greatness and security to the social mobility of the individual. This sounds noble — but much like putting every citizen in a house whether or not he can afford it, it is self-destructive once you begin to substitute “paper” for proven accomplishment. Educationally speaking, not everyone is equal, and cannot be made equal by diplomas or degrees or constitutional amendment.
In the bad old days, half of Americans did not finish high school but those who did were well-prepared. In the brave new world, whether in New York, New Jersey or Texas, 45-50 percent of minority students drop out, and only a minority of all students is as well prepared as their WWII counterparts in basic subjects.
And so far as I know, nobody uses our K-12 as a model anymore.
LINK (http://www.mysanantonio.com/opinion/columnists/t.r._fehrenbach/Lowering_bar_wont_help_US_forge_ahead.html)