Education: Iraqi v. American

So in an article from the AP, Iraqi students could be harmed by a lack of educational opportunities in the country because of the mean United States. Now sure, if the United States had let Saddam continue his reign of terror, perhaps some of the students might have learned something; then again, perhaps they might have ended up in one of his mass graves. But it is telling that the author blames the U.S., even while mentioning how one "school has abandoned its traditional small graduation ceremony for fear it will be targeted by extremists." Umm...whoa, hold on there author-dude. The school cancels because of fear of extremists and you blame the U.S.? Umm...are you sure you aren't an Iraqi student with the substandard education you are talking about?

You see, that is the point. Iraqis are having problems BECAUSE of extremists not allowing the country to be peaceful. But here in America, we have a horrid educational system while it is peaceful. (Well, maybe not all that peaceful if the media had its way, what with a school shooting every time they needed ratings.) In Iraq, the government, and the United States, are trying to build schools. But, they are stopped...by extremists. So who is to blame for the Iraqi problem? And, if someone really wants to pine for the days of Saddam, here is some advice for them. They need to find a friend with a gun, ask him to pretend he is a Saddam official, and have him shoot the person. Back to Saddam-land, eh?

But I guess my question remains, why does the United States educational system suck? Students can and are required to attend school; yet they lag behind the world. We spend more per student than other countries, and yet we are still near the bottom in testing. Could it be that American students are being sabotaged? Could they be the ones with their "future at risk?" You see, should an Iraqi student leave the country and come here and apply for a job, most people would understand a basic lack of schooling and rightly attribute it to the extremists and their violence. Thus, the Iraqi has lower expectations of knowledge. But what about American school children? If they show up for an interview and can't understand basic math, there is no lowered expectations due to war. What excuse do American children have? If the teachers' unions and the Democrats are correct and more money would make kids smarter, then what is the excuse for students doing so poorly compared with countries that spend far, far less per student?

Perhaps it is simple. Perhaps the answer is easy to come up with. Maybe the solution to the problem is the actual problem. Perhaps more money is not the answer. Perhaps the problem is we have too many teachers spending time discussing politics and trying to get more money instead of doing their job and teaching students. Perhaps all those fancy new learning methods that received so much money actually make students learn less. Could the answer be money is the problem? I mean, liberals love to rail against rich people because "they have too much money." Maybe our schools have too much money. What if we spent less per pupil, but tried to provide better education? What if the money spent per pupil was actually spent ON the pupil rather than on administration or counselors? What if we expected teachers to actually be qualified to teach? What if they actually had to teach students the basics, using methods that worked when America was a world powerhouse in education? Imagine that. How many students would have a future then? Could we change the educational system by removing money from it?

I say, why not? It works in businesses all the time. Either the division shows improvement or the division is shut down or sold. Incentives matter. Unfortunately in our schools, unions have been babies, sucking in money and turning out crap. Teachers have no expectations on them. It doesn't matter if they don't actually teach the children to read or multiply because, "Dang it! We need more money. How can I teach these kids on only that much money?"

I will leave you with this example. How many of us know some rich kid who either flunked out or barely passed college simply because to them, money didn't matter. They could afford to take another year of classes to make-up for the ones they failed. Now compare that to the poor kid, struggling to get done as quickly as possible before the bills catch up to them. Does money make one a better student? Or, is it the reverse? Could a basically unlimited source of funds cause complacency and crap while a lack of funds causes drive and determination? You must answer for yourself. But remember, some of the best ideas were hatched as financial desperation set in. How often have we heard the stories of the guy working in his garage ending up a millionaire and improving all our lives? Now how often has an heir to a large fortune done the same? I guess it comes down to this; should our schools be more like Bill Gates or Paris Hilton? And if you can't answer that question, then you my friend, went to a worthless public school.

(Note: While I did attend public school, I have also been an avid reader. While my school was better than most, I still learned more outside the classroom than in. And yes, I probably would have benefited had I had the option of attending a private school. For me, the problem of cost drove my decision, in college at least. Because of practices that would be considered unfair if Wal-Mart attempted them, the private college I attended was outside my budget for the remaining two years to my degree. And until people have the option of not paying for public schools so they have the money to send their kids to private ones, private schools will always be at a disadvantage, even though the private school would probably be cheaper for all involved.)