An 8th grade education in 1895, this is what children were expected to know...

[RubySlippers]

What it took to get an 8th grade education in 1895...

Remember when grandparents and great-grandparents stated that they only had an 8th grade education? Well, check this out. Could any of us have passed the 8th grade in 1895?

This is the eighth-grade final exam from 1895 in Salina, Kansas , USA .. It was taken from the original document on file at the Smokey Valley Genealogical Society and Library in Salina , and reprinted by the Salina Journal.

8th Grade Final Exam: Salina, KS -1895

Grammar (Time, one hour)

1. Give nine rules for the use of capital letters.
2. Name the parts of speech and define those that have no modifications.
3. Define verse, stanza and paragraph
4. What are the principal parts of a verb? Give principal parts of 'lie,''play,' and 'run.'
5. Define case; illustrate each case.
6 What is punctuation? Give rules for principal marks of punctuation.
7 - 10. Write a composition of about 150 words and show therein that you understand the practical use of the rules of grammar.

Arithmetic (Time,1 hour 15 minutes )

1. Name and define the Fundamental Rules of Arithmetic.
2. A wagon box is 2 ft. deep, 10 feet long, and 3 ft. wide. How many bushels of wheat will it hold?
3. If a load of wheat weighs 3,942 lbs., what is it worth at 50cts/bushel, deducting 1,050 lbs. for tare?
4. District No 33 has a valuation of $35,000. What is the necessary levy to carry on a school seven months at $50 per month, and have $104 for incidentals?
5. Find the cost of 6,720 lbs. coal at $6.00 per ton.
6. Find the interest of $512.60 for 8 months and 18 days at 7 percent.
7. What is the cost of 40 boards 12 inches wide and 16 ft. long at $20 per metre?
8. Find bank discount on $300 for 90 days (no grace) at 10 percent.
9. What is the cost of a square farm at $15 per acre, the distance of which is 640 rods?
10. Write a Bank Check, a Promissory Note, and a Receipt

U.S. History (Time, 45 minutes)

1. Give the epochs into which U.S. History is divided
2. Give an account of the discovery of America by Columbus .
3. Relate the causes and results of the Revolutionary War.
4. Show the territorial growth of the United States
5. Tell what you can of the history of Kansas
6. Describe three of the most prominent battles of the Rebellion.
7. Who were the following: Morse, Whitney, Fulton , Bell , Lincoln , Penn, and Howe?
8. Name events connected with the following dates: 1607, 1620, 1800, 1849, 1865.

Orthography (Time, one hour) [Do we even know what this is??]

1. What is meant by the following: alphabet, phonetic, orthography, etymology, syllabication
2. What are elementary sounds? How classified?
3. What are the following, and give examples of each: trigraph, subvocals, diphthong, cognate letters, linguals
4. Give four substitutes for caret 'U .' (HUH?)
5 Give two rules for spelling words with final 'e.' Name two exceptions under each rule.
6. Give two uses of silent letters in spelling. Illustrate each.
7. Define the following prefixes and use in connection with a word: bi, dis, mis, pre, semi, post, non, inter, mono, sup .
8. Mark diacritically and divide into syllables the following, and name the sign that indicates the sound: card, ball, mercy, sir, odd, cell, rise, blood, fare, last.
9. Use the following correctly in sentences: cite, site, sight, fane, fain, feign, vane , vain, vein, raze, raise, rays.
10. Write 10 words frequently mispronounced and indicate pronunciation by use of diacritical marks and by syllabication.

Geography (Time, one hour)

1 What is climate? Upon what does climate depend?
2. How do you account for the extremes of climate in Kansas ?
3. Of what use are rivers? Of what use is the ocean?
4. Describe the mountains of North America
5. Name and describe the following: Monrovia, Odessa, Denver , Manitoba, Hecla , Yukon, St. Helena, Juan Fernandez, Aspinwall and Orinoco ...
6. Name and locate the principal trade centers of the U.S.
7. Name all the republics of Europe and give the capital of each.
8. Why is the Atlantic Coast colder than the Pacific in the same latitude?
9. Describe the process by which the water of the ocean returns to the sources of rivers. 10. Describe the movements of the earth. Give the inclination of the earth.

Notice that the exam took FIVE HOURS to complete.

Gives the saying 'he only had an 8th grade education' a whole new meaning, doesn't it?!

And that doesn't include common additional things that were taught such as literature, music and other enrichment teaching this was the graduation minimal standard. So I compare this to what garbage we are passing off to our children and ask what went wrong? 

And its not odd people with an eight grade education in the civil war could write generally at a college or frankly in many cases post college level. And did you get these math questions can you guess why some people in the US can't figure out what the diffference was between a FIXED MORTGAGE RATE and a VARIABLE MORTGAGE RATE? And how can people be expected to vote properly when they don't learn the basics of living within a budget and learn about government finances to some modest degree?

[Vekseid]

And the obligatory rebuttal:

http://www.snopes.com/language/document/1895exam.asp

[Trieste]

What nearly all these pundits fail to grasp is "I can't answer these questions" is not the same thing as "These questions demonstrate that students in earlier days were better educated than today's students." Just about any test looks difficult to those who haven't recently been steeped in the material it covers. If a 40-year-old can't score as well on a geography test as a high school student who just spent several weeks memorizing the names of all the rivers in South America in preparation for an exam, that doesn't mean the 40-year-old's education was woefully deficient - it means the he simply didn't retain information for which he had no use, no matter how thoroughly it was drilled into his brain through rote memory some twenty-odd years earlier.

This is precisely the point I was thinking to make (if someone else hadn't already) when I was reading through this. Any parent can tell you - unless they have a job in the field of study with which they're trying to help their child, most parents cannot help their children with thier homework past about 5th or 6th grade. I have three younger brothers, the younger two of which are still in high school (going to be a senior and a sophomore this coming year) and while I can help them with a lot more of their homework than my parents can, I still have to look up some of their more obscure history and math homework, and I'm going into my junior year of college, in addition to attending private schools for a lot of my education.

If you want further proof, go over to tutor.com and take one of their tests to apply to be a tutor. If you get in, terrific... but I personally took the English test on a whim, and failed it spectacularly. I got As in grammar. You see that I can write proficiently. Think about that. :)

[ShrowdedPoet]

I would fail because I couldn't answer WELL over half of those questions.

[The Overlord]

I could answer a fair number of them, and the saving grace is that five hours should be ample time to sort this exam out if you've studied up. I might not pass it with flying colors, but I'd pass it. However, some of them are going to be relevant to the time, and not necessarily to our own.

2. A wagon box is 2 ft. deep, 10 feet long, and 3 ft. wide. How many bushels of wheat will it hold?

Basically assumes a bushel is a standard unit of measure, which may be different than now, and what seem to me would have to be an estimated volume.

1. Give the epochs into which U.S. History is divided

This is 1895 so it's going to precede crucial points such as both world wars, but I think historical epochs is certainly going to be relevant to their time, as I've never really heard US history defined in such terminology. Geological time is described in epochs and eras; the vernacular was not the same back then.


Even if you update it to the times, most kids today are going to bomb this test hardcore. Truth is, a lot of kids today are dumber; it's not just a generation context thing. The state of Georgia is a good example; a good half or better of students don't even finish high school....frikkin' high school. It's just unacceptable.

[Kathadon]

*clears his throat at the mention of not finishing highschool*

[The Overlord]

*clears his throat at the mention of not finishing highschool*

This is not to imply that everyone who doesn't make through school is dumb; there's a ton of reasons why people drop.


*ahem*

But there is NO excuse for not returning, barring incapacitating health or an act of god. Don't at least get that GED, and you better get used to saying 'would you like fries with that.'

[Kathadon]

*chuckles* Yes a GED is madatory for any decent paying job.

[ShrowdedPoet]

Most students in Arkansas don't graduate high school either.  Especially Helena Arkansas.

[ZK]

I left High-School at 9th Grade and went on to get a GED. I did that following year. I've also been scouted by two local colleges (And seeing as I am in Georgia, I guess they're looking at test scores instead of type of diploma now days) to join. But as for me leaving, the same applies as to why I haven't attended yet. Unable to in midst of free-time. ALTHOUGH, that is going to change this upcoming Fall. I finally have enough money (and the gov. is going to help me too) to attend to a local community college before going to a campus college.

[Trieste]

Even if you update it to the times, most kids today are going to bomb this test hardcore. Truth is, a lot of kids today are dumber; it's not just a generation context thing. The state of Georgia is a good example; a good half or better of students don't even finish high school....frikkin' high school. It's just unacceptable.

I disagree, vehemently. Kids today are different. Judging by the age in your profile, I'm almost half your age, so I've in theory been around them more. My generation and the one developing after me are aimless, but not stupid. I have no idea what you're basing this off of other than 'graduating high school' but it's not a good meterstick. If you're speaking of American children, the American education system is overburdened, underfunded and way overpopulated. I couldn't even begin to talk about other countries, not knowing much about them.

If that is your only measurement, take a look at historical figures and look at some of the people who did not graduate high school. Abraham Lincoln, Mark Twain, so on and so forth. The stress should not be on formal schooling itself, but actual education. Many people who have done important things and shaped important parts of history were not well-schooled, but they were well-educated. You can graduate someone from the highest Ivy League school and they will still be dumb as a brick if they lack curiosity about their surroundings and an insatiable drive to always learn more. It's the people who ask "How? Why?" who do great things, not necessarily those who have had the luck to be able to walk across a stage and receive a piece of paper.

That's pretty much what it is. I have my diploma sitting across the room from me, where I can see it as I type this. When I received it, my cumulative GPA was 4.15. It's nothing. It's paper. It opens doors, sure, but it doesn't get me through them. *shrug*

[Sabby]

Dude, I couldn't answer ANY of those >.> I'm not stupid, just not acedemic.

[The Overlord]

Yeah back in the day, if you were Mark Twain etc., you could make something of yourself with no education, but today, even if we know degrees and diplomas are just pieces of paper, they do open doors for you.

But it's more than that; people like da Vinci could be painters, scholars and inventors, etc., but in past centuries the total sum of human knowledge is magnitudes smaller than it is today. You just can't have that same effect today.

But in more recent years I have gone back into school, where in many of my classes I do have students half my age. And some are aimless, true, but I watch people. I watch them close. A lot of kids today are dumb like a box of rocks.

I can meet them on campus, or kids I see running registers at stores, wandering about shopping malls...you name it. Some of them might even do well on their tests, but you can tell a lot just aren't bright in a practical sense. They can probably install Windows without much of a glance at the instructions, but they have issues counting change. They can beat you at X-box, but they can't critically think their way out of a box.

Some of you may disagree with me here, in fact you all might, but I do stand by what I said. I call them as I see them, plain and simple. You can even be educated and savvy in some respects, but just not be enlightened.

You are correct Trieste; it should be more about formal schooling itself, but actual education. Problem is, this goes beyond high school or college, beyond degrees. Look at popular culture today, it is fashionable and cool to be stupid today, even if indirectly so, an extremely dangerous precedent. I am speaking of American kids too; a lot of school systems outside our borders run circles around many of them within.

Not everything above on the test is academic; some is common knowledge or common sense...or at least should be.

But fact remains, in GA the high school drop out rate is about 52%, or something close to it. Can anyone here honestly say that's good? Again, most kids in 1895 could probably pass that test, but today most might not. I think that makes the case right there.

[Sabby]

I can confidently say I'm an intelligent person, but I struggled with my high school education and barely managed a basic pass. Its sad that your only deemed intelligent if you can conform that brain power in a fashion they recognize. And I do agree with you there, I see it as well. Many people my age (late teens) may be able to work the register, but when it comes to looking you in the eye and having a flowing conversation, they're utterly lost.

[The Overlord]

I can confidently say I'm an intelligent person, but I struggled with my high school education and barely managed a basic pass. Its sad that your only deemed intelligent if you can conform that brain power in a fashion they recognize.

Now this is a crucial point. Not all institutions of learning are tooled to deal with all students, or recognize intellect in the man forms in which it can appear. If you're unconventionally out of the box, you can be seen as dumb, and IIRC Einstein was seen this way in his formative years, simply because they just couldn't deal with him.

And I do agree with you there, I see it as well. Many people my age (late teens) may be able to work the register, but when it comes to looking you in the eye and having a flowing conversation, they're utterly lost.

This might not just be explained in terms of pure intelligence, but also awareness, which is all part of greater cognizance. In my opinion we have far too many distractions today, and it's killing us an interactive culture. People have their cell phones and other distractions, whether in the car or in a shopping center. Most people obviously think they can multitask reasonably well; the reality is that most are extremely poor at it. It might be part of the nature of the human brain, I know I'm less efficient with more things vying for my attention, so I generally try and keep my distractions to a minimum; and that's the thing I'm aware of it.

Most people do have a certain degree of vacancy about them. You can tell they lack focus. I call it the 'awareness bubble'; and the more stuff you let distract you, the narrower and tighter that bubble recedes around you. In the wild, these people would be the first in a herd to fall prey to something hunting them; in the human wilds they're more likely to miss something crucial like an oncoming vehicle, a purse snatcher, etc. But all you have to do is give popular media a good look and you can't miss the dumb-down effect, and it does trickle to the masses. At least among young white males, the trend is for the urban little bitch that's more concerned about his reputations among his equally clueless buddies, and what John Cena did last week, more than anything significant.

[RubySlippers]

The test is hardly academic either how can a citizen vote responsibly if they don't understand the basics of how government works and our history as a nation? How can one get by without understanding how to use mathematics in everyday applications such as rounding off numbers in your head and making change? And from what I can tell from some segments of our society they need to learn how to use and speak proper English just to be able to work.

I had the benefits of a great works approach at my high school the four years including the study of classical thought of the greatest minds Western Civilization has produced. It gives one a perspective and an understanding on how to think and how to be a responsible person that can take information in critically. And yes I also learned modern subjects as well they felt both were important at my private school. And I should add we took the FCAT for a comparison with public schools we outperformed them in all areas even among disabled students ,my group, and nonnative English speakers etc.. We had an odd program for poor English speakers who were immigrants one semester of just English education learning how to read, write and speak  English then they entered the regular program. And most of us took advantage of summer sessions I completed college level units in Philosophy in the upper grades so these students could easily catch up.

I frankly think the problem is if education is free its not respected as much and parents don't feel the need to be involved. If a parent had to be a consumer and shop around perhaps they would take the matter seriously and had to pay for the education to some degree. My parents paid the cost and so was not shocking they made the demand the education be sound and prepare me for my future. And both never went to college I'm the first college student in my family attending a higher level of education not a trade related one. So the criticism private schools won't properly educate those with learning disabilities and those that are of disadvantaged backgrounds are crazy. In fact it worked because they treated every student the same and demanded high standards and if I didn't do well my parents were informed, and I cared that they would not be proud of me. And I'll blame the teachers union for making the chance of real innovations in the profession almost impossible at our school most teachers belonged to no union or an alternative to the main union.

Want to know the villians as I see it in this mess? The government demanding control of schools at the highest levels of our society instead of local and state control. I blame schools for not demanding the same high standards for every student regardless of their background. I blame parents for not doing their jobs and at least being devoted to supporting their children's education properly, I feel its a major factor as well. And students for in some cases being lazy or not doing what they are supposed to do which is their job, being a student. And even employers for not supporting educations that make sense I see many students in college that would likely do far better training for a profession either in apprenticeships or trade programs which are horribly undersupported in schools. I'm all for the same high standard of education applied to vocational education and learning to enter the world of work.

I have a simple question if a monopoly is generally seen in this country as illegal to have and an unfair mechanism in a free market then why do we allow the government to have one for education? Lets keep this clear my view is they take our tax money in the county and state, the Federal government says how public schools can educate children and set dubious standards and then tell the parents how a child should be educated. Now I fully support the State and more local government levels handling education but the Federal government is in violation of its powers doing what they are doing. Our tenth and ninth amendments pretty much should be enough of support for that the right is reserved for the States and the citizens alone.

[Elvi]

Perhaps a little perspective needs to be taken into account?

http://www.digitalhistory.uh.edu/database/article_display.cfm?HHID=141
Digital History:

A Distant Mirror: The Late Nineteenth Century

Period: 1880s 

Perhaps most striking to us was the lack of formal education. Only about three in five children attended school in a typical year, and they only attended about 80 days a year, compared to 180 today. Most left school in their early teens. Only about two-and-a-half percent of the school-aged population graduated from high school. Advanced degrees beyond college were almost unheard of. In 1877, only one Master's degree was conferred in the whole country.

[Sabby]

Ah, so they weren't all super genius's back then. The tests were just insanely stupidly hard. Probably to funnel the best jobs and cushier lifestyles to people like the Colonel.

[The Overlord]

Ah, so they weren't all super genius's back then. The tests were just insanely stupidly hard. Probably to funnel the best jobs and cushier lifestyles to people like the Colonel.

Hey I understand it's been even worse in some countries. Accounts I've heard of Russia, at least in past years, is that kids took a test and based on what parts you can or cannot do, you get locked into certain jobs. Can't do math? Can't spell well? You're probably breaking your face on rocks in Siberia for the next 40 years (OK that might be a stereotype but you're getting a shit job).

Point is, the bar has been lowered too far here, and it's going to remain an increasing issue until it's corrected.


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lj3iNxZ8Dww&feature=related

[Cecilia]

Okay folks...To prove the point...if you've just spent several weeks studying something, you can answer all sorts of questions about it...

Here're a few questions given to my daughter's 7th grade class in May of this year--just a month ago....Can you answer them straight-away?  I can tell you where to find the answers and I can find them myself, but I wouldn't have remembered them "off the top of my head."

Who adopted Michelangelo and why?
He was called back to Rome, to do what against his will?

When was Raphel Sanzio born?  To Whom was he apprenticed?  What did Pope Julius In Rome ask him to paint?

To Whom was Leonardo Da Vinci Apprenticed?
Name Four prototypes Da Vinci designed.
What did the 'sfumato" technique try to convey?

How much to you think the laws of perspective, accurate observation, laws of light and color, and knowledge of human anatomy play into the art of the great Renaissance artists? Explain.

[LaCroix]

I have to agree with the points that Trieste brought forth and back them up in some fashion if I can manage it. Kids today, people today, are definately not less educated than any generation that has come before.

I, myself, am a college graduate and I could answer a handfull of those questions but the simple fact of the matter is I haven't studied for the test. The kids who were taking that exam, who were expected to complete and pass that exam studied for it. They prepared for it weeks, maybe even a month or more ahead of time in advance.

To provide further evidence how much of your education through gradeschool and middle school do you actually remember? Without looking it up, those of who had to memorize the Gettysburg address for example go ahead and quote it back word for word and lets see far along you get with it.

Language, math, the aplhabet, common knowledge that you learn and then use again and again in everyday life you retain and keep with you. Other things, things that you had to learn for a test, for an exam, that you never use again after that is over with you generally simply do not retain and just because you can't remember that doesn't make you stupid.

I, for one, as someone else pointed couldn't solve the question using a bale of hay (or wheat) I forget as a standard unit of measurement as it seemed from the question that it was and that doesn't make me stupider than someone who in 1895 could solve the question because it was common knowledge.

It would be like me going back in a time machine, asking some businessman or other highly educated individual to solve some algebra forumla using my texas instrument calculator and then when he looks at me like I'm insane, pointing at him, laughing in his face and going "Aha you dumbass! Goddamn you people were dumbasses in 1895!"

[Pumpkin Seeds]

That's alot of blame to be passed around.  With so much going around the solution might not be a simple change in who runs the place.

Also, saying people are dumber today is a bit off.  I mean, just because this test looks hard doesn't mean we had geniuses walking around.  Considering the amount of beliefs regarding the inferiority of race and sex they believed, I'm not going to say we got dumber.  We may not be smarter, but I seriously doubt we are dumber.

[Darwishi]

I can confidently say I'm an intelligent person, but I struggled with my high school education and barely managed a basic pass. Its sad that your only deemed intelligent if you can conform that brain power in a fashion they recognize. And I do agree with you there, I see it as well. Many people my age (late teens) may be able to work the register, but when it comes to looking you in the eye and having a flowing conversation, they're utterly lost.

See now, calling a person dumb because they can't hold a conversation is rather judgemental.  I mean, I've got a pretty good skill set at my disposal.  I do video editing, writing, and animating.

Now, only one of those things are taught as a core class in schools.  I actually hated English in school because I had to read what other authors did, or write reports.  As I got older, the creative writing assignments all but dried up.  It actually took me going to an art school for animation to realize that I really do love to write.  Point being, that they don't always teach the students what they're passionate about.

So how does that tie in to the quote? Well I can't really hold a long conversation with anyone, mostly because I run out of things to say.  Or if it's with a woman, then my brain shuts down and I can't think of anything.  At all.  Then again, that happens whenever I get nervous, and around strangers, especially women, I just can't speak.  Not because I don't want to, or can't, or that I'm dumb.  It's just, my brain either gets overloaded with information, or I can't think of anything to say.

And honestly, I'm not one for gossip.  I don't really feel like I should say anything unless I feel it's necessary. 

----------

Alright, that's my little vent on that topic.  As for the education system, you can blame Bush for that one.  No Child Left Behind dictates that every student learns in the exact same way, at the exact same level as everyone else.  This means that the government hands out lesson plans and the teacher HAS to follow them or they're penalized.  Teacher's are not allowed to be creative, and it hurts the students.  If the teachers try to be creative, let's say there's a lunar eclipse, then they cannot give special assignments to teach the students about a lunar eclipse. 

The education system, for a long time, has been just going down hill.  Every time they get rid of something creative it just slides a little bit further into the communist frame.  And if you don't think public schools are little societies of communism, you really ought to take a second look.  Especially with No Child Left Behind, but even before that, a superb teacher gets paid the EXACT same amount as that suck-teacher that didn't teach you a damn thing.  The only way teachers get paid more is if they have worked longer.  But there again, the suck-teachers (I'm refraining from curse words) that work as long as the others, still get paid the same amount. 

And now they're treating students like they all learn the same way.  Personally I'm a very, very, visual learner.  I have to have my hands on it to really get what the hell is going on.  Sure, I can memorize stuff for a test, but I'll forget it.  Other people are auditory learners, they remember anything they listen to... Point is, everyone learns in different ways, which means teachers have to teach in different ways to make their students understand the concepts. 

Private schools don't have this problem.  If a teacher does well, they pay them more, if they do too poorly they can just fire the teacher.  Not to mention they don't have to follow the public school mandates.  But on the flip side of that is that not everyone can afford private schools.  So it's not as if we can just do away with public schools either.  I mean, sure, if your parents happen to have the money for them, then that's great...but what about the majority of the populace that doesn't have the money?

[RubySlippers]

Sure the parents could afford private schools just eliminate Federal and State funding for education K-12 and above and take tat share of tax revenue giving it back to the parents. Then let the free market create schools and various models from home schooling to perhaps fully local community funding of localized public schools. That way parents and local government will have all the control and can decide to fund it, what model to have and can tell the teachers union they are not welcome. But you give people something free they won't usually respect it. You give the government control over schools you get more government mandates and the parents lose their control, the more layers of government red tape the more this is worsened.

And I went to a private school and as a Catholic School was rather affordable and I was well educated and no I'm not Catholic they didn't care.

[Darwishi]

When you say, "give it back to the parents" do you mean giving them the actual money back?  Because, some parents will take that money and pay their bills with it. 

I get where you're coming from, I tend to agree with the libertarian party more than any other party, the education slope is about the only slippery slope I see.  Actually there's always a crap ton of slippery slopes in politics, but this is the one I'm most concerned about.  Well that and economic collapse, but that's a whole different story.

Mostly I believe there should be less government mandates over schools and the teachers should work in a captalist based program. I really don't even begin to know how that program would work, but at the very least it'd give teachers some incentive to be good teachers and do more for their students.  Yeah, it should come from the heart, but honestly even the one's that start out doing well my get a little burned when they suddenly realize that "Hey this isn't fair." 

Give recess back to the kids, let them have fun during the school day, don't squash the arts, and don't do stupid communistic (is that even a word?) generalizations and test kids to death.  Teachers that teach to a test means that kids don't learn...except maybe to memorize.

[CassandraNova]

The test is hardly academic either how can a citizen vote responsibly if they don't understand the basics of how government works and our history as a nation?

I'm not sure that this is a valid question, given that the current administration won office largely on the result of the "who would you rather have a beer with" test.  That was the message his campaign staff put together, and the driving criticism of his opponent, VP Gore wasn't that he didn't understand how government works or was unsuitable for office, but that he was an intellectual elitist, a boring academic, and not at all like a country boy from Texas.

I frankly think the problem is if education is free its not respected as much and parents don't feel the need to be involved. If a parent had to be a consumer and shop around perhaps they would take the matter seriously and had to pay for the education to some degree.

The unstated major premise of your analysis is that you must essentially make the case that children do not have a right to a free, appropriate education.  Frankly, that's a deal killer for me and a lot of other people right there.  On what do you base that premise, aside from your objection to the "monopoly" of government run schools?

So the criticism private schools won't properly educate those with learning disabilities and those that are of disadvantaged backgrounds are crazy. In fact it worked because they treated every student the same...

See, you can't actually do that.  You can't assume that a child with autism or severe mental disabilities can or will respond the same to the same intervention and instructional strategies that children without disabilities will.  That's why part of the IEP of every student identified as having special needs will include very specific modifications to lesson plans and curriculum to best meet the individual needs of that child.

Want to know the villians as I see it in this mess? The government demanding control of schools at the highest levels of our society instead of local and state control.

The role of funding and administering the schools in the U.S. is actually one in which local and state governments play by far a larger role than in most other countries around the world.  Think about it; teachers are interviewed by principals of local schools, who make recommendations to the school board, who themselves interface with the human resources departments of the country and state department of education.  The state and district sets the pay scale for teachers, the state mandates what qualifications a teacher must possess in order to receive certification and licensure to teach, and local property taxes make up more than 60% of local school budgets. 

It is precisely because of this mismash of local, state, and federal control over the school systems that there is so much conflict between the roles played by various agencies and NGOs.  In most other industrial countries, education is managed from the top-down, and these are routinely the schools whose students outperform the US on standardized tests, including Sweden, Germany, Japan, and so on.

[RubySlippers]

mises.org/story/2937

I will have you read this first. And I will make the case as this the public schools due to to government layered management, union interference by the teachers, social engineering obligations that have nothing to do with basic education and the simple fact they are not cost effective public schools should go.

What is this with people in the country the government almost always spend twice as much or more to do things that private interests if there was a market would do less expensively. That alone for me is sufficent most private schools cost less than public schools I did a survey just of private schools in my area and almost all of them small and large cost less than a public school student. One example a non-religious private school teaching disadvantaged black children of middle school age costs $5000 per student and the public schools here in Florida average around $7500 and can you guess which one does better in test results and outcomes under standard testing. One guess. Hint, its no public school in my area.

Why not just free education and let the free market come up with all those wonderful solutions and new ideas that this nation is built on. And for the very poor and special needs children I'm sure charity schools and options would appear at some point.

[Pumpkin Seeds]

And for our very poor and special needs children...something will come along...at some point....

Yep, our nation was founded on great ideas.

[CassandraNova]

RubySlippers,

I'm sorry, but I didn't see anything in your reply or in the link you sent me to that answers the question/statement I made in my previous post.  It seems to me that the underlying major premise of your case is that children are not entitled to a free, apporpriate public education.  Is this in fact the case?

[RubySlippers]

Entitled to free education, no its not a right in my opinion although most states have that as a constitutional obligation to a great degree. The problem I really have is that the government simply is not cost effective the higher up you go in running any program. I have no problems if a township or city or county want to fund a program of public education locally using local taxes and funding. The control and regulations then are kept locally and under the control of the community who can spend what they feel is fair and teach what they think is important to teach.

Libertarian thought is clear and its often true that the free market will fill needs since education is something all parents would want its logical that need would be met and free the cost effective market competition to put out options. And instead of the usual they tax you, send part of that money to the state and Federal government then get that back in part to your community with the strings attached we would fund it as it should be. The parents deciding with the resources they have how to educate their children that could be again property taxes funding local schools in total or that with corporate funds or as I suspect many wonderful new models of education would be formed. With the support of other services to fill other needs.

Public schools as I pointed out cost more than parochial and many private non-religious schools who have an incentive to teach well if they do not the parents will take their money elsewhere.

And what is "appropriate" education lets say a family who is big into the KKK want no multicultural education or teaching of racially specific holidays or honored months like Black History Month can they say no? What about a black seperatist family can they have an all black classroom for their child? What if you have a religious fundamentalist and don't want evolution taught to their child or any concepts they find morally offensive? Its a rather hard thing to pin down for what you find appropriate I can find groups that would think that is unreasonable and interfering in their moral values at home. And I have to point out the parents as far as I'm concerned are the ones who are to see to each childs education and a school is if the child attends one ASSISTS the parents in this, not to take the place of the parents.

I have a local case in this. A white nationalist family has a daughter who called hispanic children "beaners" and said they should go back to Mexico where they belong, these were children of farm workers. The school required she write a report on Mexicans and she wrote how inferior Mexicans are with what she saw as moral and cultural defects, not that I agree with her, but she wrote the report. Now they are even angrier and she did what was asked of her and they are threatening further punishment. I don't understand why this has to be an issue if the parents could get their tax money back for schools they could send her to a school they like and no one would be upset. And at a personal level the child is entitled to free speech even in grade school and that doesn't exclude hurtful speech so they overstep their authority here and enforce the will of the State. That is indoctrination as bad as if the government was under a religious authority and forced a religious worldview on children. I'm sure the white family found the education of their child very inappropriate in this case.

By the way why do you think children or anyone else is entitled to anything we have great freedom in this country but with that one assumes responsibility for ones own choices. Parents choose to be parents. Parents take that duty and obligation and with that comes certain duties housing the child, feeding the child and the like the education is just another duty one should expect to provide.

[CassandraNova]

To answer your question as to what I mean when I say appropriate, the concept of FAPE, (Free Appropriate Public Education) is grounded in the landmark legislation called IDEA, Individuals with Disabilities Educational Act.  It has evolved since then to become a technical concept within education that applies to all students. What is means, broadly, is that the education a student recieves is (1) designed to meet the students' unique educational needs, (2) addresses both academic needs and functional needs, (3) provides access to the general curriculum to meet the challenging expectations established for all children and (4) is reasonably calculated to enable the child to receive educational benefits.

Coming back to what you said about your belief that free education is not a right, all I can say with that statement is that it's a position that most free-market countries have moved away from.  It was the de facto practice for much of American history, to treat an education as a commodity rather than a right, and it is not a modality that enjoys a great deal of support these days.  You and I will simply disagree on this, because I am on the other end of the spectrum.  I believe that a free appropriate public education is a right.

I will mention again that funding and governing public schools in the U.S. is handled from the bottom up, with the district enjoying the greatest power, followed by the state and federal government in decreasing levels of influence.  It is not state income or sales tax that directly funds schools, but local property taxes.

Those countries I was talking about earlier that routinely do better than U.S. students are precisely those that have a greater deal of state-level control over their schools.  Germany, Denmark, Sweden, Japan, etc., all have educational policy directed on the national level, with a unified state curriculum and professional standards. 

And your charge that private schools provide better per-dollar value for students misses a few key pieces of information.  First of all (and I'm going to have to speak in generalities because there is a wide range of variation among private schools, just as there is among public schools) most private schools do not provide transportation to and from school, which is a not inconsiderable operational expense.  Most private schools do not provide food for students, although some cater to outside companies.  Food service has never been a money-making strategy for public schools, even before you consider the added expense of children that qualify for free or reduced price meals.  Thirdly, athletic facilities at private schools, while more prevalent than at public schools, are not universal either, whereas they are at public schools. 

But finally, the single greatest reason why public schools spend more on a per-student basis is the fact of special education students.  Nationwide averages indicate that 13.7 percent of all schoolchildren receive at least some special education services as part of their schooling, and the individual needs of children in these programs entails a higher cost.  Educating a student with special needs costs $9000 more in a given school year than a mainstream student, and factoring that as a consideration would close the cap between private and public schoole expenditure per child vastly.

[Pumpkin Seeds]

First, as I have more familiarity with culture and socialization, I will address the situation regarding indoctrination of children.  Governments have used the education system as a classic way to socialize children into the norms of that society.  Everything that truly makes us a member of this society can be learned and traced to the education system.  Norms ranging from learning to say please to the dynamics of the nuclear family are demonstrated in schools.  Parents did play a larger role at one time, but schools have become harder pressed to advance this socialization.  This is one reason why schools find themselves at the center of so many cultural debates.  These institutions are the classic training ground for future citizens.

Obviously then a public school will advance a socially acceptable agenda.  Addressing the concerns of people desiring non-traditional schools, the market is still open.  A school is free to deny almost all federal funding and follow their own curriculum.  They must stay within federal guidelines and pass any required testing to be standardized, but largely can teach whichever social construct they desire.  As none exist now, I find it hard to believe that any child raised by their parents in such an environment would find a private school matching this ideology simply because public education was abolished.  There is not a significant enough demand now for these schools and so it can only be assumed that this lack of demand would persist.

Next I might address the situation with the little girl and her views on Mexicans.  Granted her parents raised her to be a white nationalist, which is fine.  They are doing her a disservice though by not impressing on her the need to keep her views in an appropriate medium.  All people are told to suppress their individuality and culture when faced with necessity.  Presenting ourselves for job interviews, school meetings and learning acceptable behavior is part of growing up.  None of us have sympathy for a person who curses throughout their job interview and does not get the job.  This child needs to learn that while her views are important and she has the right to share them, doing so has consequences.  What if this report was written for an application to a college, would anyone be surprised if she did not get in?

Freedom to do something does not equate to freedom from the consequences of those actions.

Now I will do my best to address various issues with the presented article.  First though I would like to point out that the author takes several liberties that are unfounded.  Among those is the issue of property tax.  Most public schools are to be found in urban, inner city venues.  These are largely funded by property taxes from urban business owners and those that rent apartment complexes.  Few of these people would move due to a shift in the public school system.  Therefore property taxes would still exist and the local government would simply take that money elsewhere.  Suburban families might move, but this is highly unlikely since other factors for relocating would be satisfaction with the community and job location.  I see no evidence to support that mentality.  People will not move and property taxes will remain.

While the author makes light of federal regulations, these are quite important.  Those regulations apply across private and public schools.  These are a standard set by both the local and federal government to regulate schools and their curriculum.  Simply because public schools are abolished does not mean the federal government will pick up its toys and go home.  Those guidelines would remain.  Since those guidelines would remain, private schools to follow the public school downfall would be near the same as they are now.  So this argument of educational diversity seems unfounded since the schools would still have to teach a required curriculum and adhere to standardized testing to enter college. 

People are free to establish private schools now and are free to compete with the federal government just like many others.  Abolishing public schools would cause a jump in the creation of these schools, but only because a market is now forced open.  Similar to if public water was shut down, private water facilities would skyrocket.  If people valued the education of their children enough to take their children from the public school system, they could have done so.  The market, as you say, would have adjusted and supplied for them.  People do not or cannot due to financial reasons.  Those financial reasons will not change.

The people most harmed by this would be those in the lower class and middle class.  There will be no alleviation of the burden caused by education only an increase.  Parents will now have to pay for the tuition, books, uniforms, lunches and any other activities that the government normally extended.  If the parents cannot afford the school, then their children won’t go.  So parents will have to choose between missing work to care for their children, getting family to do so, or allowing their children to be without supervision.  Unsupervised children, especially adolescents, have been linked to a rise in criminal activity and toward increased teenage pregnancy.

Such a move would serve to further drive a wedge into the class disparity.  The rich will send their children to the same schools before the abolishment of public education.  Upper middle class will simply do the same or those that lived in a good school system will just transfer them to a private school.  Lower middle class will be hard pressed and the poor might never see the inside of a school.  Class mobility will be sharply affected in the upward direction in the negative. 

I have yet to see a compelling reason for this change but yet see many reasons against.

[RubySlippers]

I will argue regarding the Federal Government as a Constitutional Literalist unless you can demonstrate in the body of the document any simple language that grant to that level of government any control over education, they have no authority to do so. They can ban discrimination and other situations such as segregated schools perhaps which they did do, they still would be hard pressed to show me they have a fundamental right to such an overreach of their authority. States can Florida for public schools have many consitutional provisions clearly spelled out for schools they fund. This could be changed by a simple amendment the same with having a standing army and air force and many other powers they have stolen. Again why does the government at the Federal level have to duplicate a department ,education, that every state and most counties within states already offer?

We are simple people we simply regard the core document as key you want the Federal Government to do a thing amend it that is the proper way to do so otherwise the 9th and 10th Amendments take precedent to where the powers lay.

Now as for transportation of children to school and the like the free market would also create these services but since a middle school student or high school student in cities could take mass transportation in many areas, there already is a system in place. If one adds in local schooling, homeschooling, microschooling and other options you could easily have cost effective options within walking distance of the home. School lunches and the like as well would have needs met. Might I point out that this is still a matter of control and that any involvement of the government risks violating the rights of parents, which I can make an arguement have fundamental rights here to be considered. This partially crafted from existing court interpretations of the Consitution. First the First Amendment protects religious freedom and seperation of church and state, a principle I see as valid if a child is from a religious home, the state teaching things in opposition to that is also violating the rights of the parent to a education from oppositional worldviews. I could also argue the right to privacy applies if a womans body cannot be controlled what about the parents rights to mold their child as they wish without interference from the government as a natural extension of that principle to the family unit. And the the big ones the 10th Amendment reserves all powers not states as granted to the Federal Government solely to the States and the 9th Amendment the default that hands all powers not covered by the consitituion and not regulated by the state to the People. You did read the power of government the Congress can only make laws to enforce powers it is granted to it and those are in plain English and again I don't see Education listed anywhere. If you want them to ban discrimination and enforce compliance such as desegregation laws they can do that. But if public schools were abolished and there was no government funding and people were choosing the education options available to them, then such oversight would likely violate other amendments or not apply.

Special needs children are an area of concern I would simply state that if a child is not likely to be a functional and employable adult is it wise to waste money on their education at such high costs? Private schools and I attended those will educate most disabled children such as myself, I have friends who has mental retardation and learning disabilities at my schools over the years and none turned away minority children. In the more extreme cases one may have to let the children be uneducated if no other option is there but charity schools and options may become available.

Must I point out though free education is not free to parents they still have to pay for school supplies, uniforms and other expenses if you are so insistant on free education why do parents have to buy anything even the pencils and paper would have to be free. After all if families are poor isn't that also a burden that shouldn't be covered by them? You both brought up the poor well if they shouldn't have to pay for tuition and books then why anything else the school should have to provide for everything.

Did you ever think education costs so much and out of the reach of the poor because of the regulations, teachers unions and layered government red tape that if you instead encouraged an atmosphere to promote education, government hands off or fairly limited in scope, that costs would drop. Since all parents would be keen to see their children educated they would likely figure this out there is no need to fear change, I for one could come up with several options for the poor. Chip in and have a parent or two in a group of families homeschool the children as the other parents work, hiring a part-time teacher for ten hours a week for a smaller group of children maybe 20 supplemented with homeschooling, a local schoolhouse paid for by many families and local businesses etc. etc. Just think outside the box and things will be innovated as it should be in this country the free market guiding the way and the creativity of the American people at work and that historically has been a powerful and awesome source of our strengths here.

[Inkidu]

I'd pass.

[Pumpkin Seeds]

I will adhere to my original tract and attempt to handle more familiar issues first.  The argument regarding public education not being truly free is correct.  Parents still need to supply certain instruments for their children to attend class.  Though comparing a box of pencils and sheets of paper to the tuition of a private school seems a bit, lopsided.  Most public schools that I am aware of also offer voucher programs through certain companies.  I know this applies to uniforms and lunches specifically, but have heard of this applying toward other school supplies.

Also, the market system that is continually referenced is not working.  There is no blockade for private schools or individuals to perform any of these suggestions.  To my knowledge some have opted for homeschooling or purchasing private tutors.  So long as the minimum standard of education for the federal and state government is meet, there is no problem.  That such an idea has not reached a larger scale shows the market is not working in favor of this idea.  Abolishing public schools does not add options, but removes an option. 

In reference to extending the right to privacy against socialization, there is most certainly the possibility for an argument.  That entire argument though would exist completely in theory and have no worldly application.  A parent can keep their child at home, school them and never once let them out of the house or community.  They have that option already.  Once the parent takes the child outside of their home or the child becomes an adult with those options, the argument is no longer effective.  Society as a whole will always have customs, traditions, viewpoints and etiquette that is expected by any participating.  By exiting their particular niche, they are forcing themselves to be exposed to this culture and society.

The thought that education is out of reach for the poor due to bureaucracy and teacher’s unions did not occur to me.  This is primarily because most lower class families attend public schools, where they can generally afford the education.  Generally I assumed that lower class families could not attend private schools because they had little money.  Not sure why teacher’s unions would suddenly disappear if private facilities became the leaders of education.  Considering the poor pay of teachers matched to their educational requirements, I would contest that unions aren’t doing enough.  Honestly I would be more in line with the idea that raised costs are due to an increased student body, diversity of needs by that student body and people requesting more from their public schools.

I am sure that an argument can be made regarding the literature of the US Constitution.  Certainly lawyers and analysts could pour over each syllable to say that the government has no authority over education.  Maybe they don’t, but the simple possibility does not dissuade that public schools are something worth keeping.

[Anastasia Lockhart]

There is also the point of knowledge versus facts.

I went to school in the same state almost continuously from Kindergarten to 12th Grade. I was one of the first classes to be required to take the Standards of Learning Exams to pass any grade. These tests weren't originally designed by educators, they were designed by scientists, but you were required to pass or you were held back. I had to repeat Geometry because of it, even though I was a Special Ed. Student and had TONS of accommodations for those tests. It's gotten to the point where students here aren't required to actually learn, as long as they can memorize. Teachers HAVE to teach to the test, because there's no time to cover other things.

I wound up teaching myself a whole bunch. I wanted to learn about Marie Antoinette? I got a bunch of biographies on her. I wanted to read Machiavelli? I went to the college bookstore and got two copies of The Prince (one to read, one to mark up in the margins). I even begged for a copy of "An Ideal Husband" because my Drama teacher gave me a hard-on for Oscar Wilde. I sort of regret not doing that with math and science, but I have a learning disability in quantitative and logical processing (or whatever it's called this week) and I have fought with algebra for years.

So, no, I'd probably flunk that 1895 test. But, I'd gladly go back and take any history or literature test you want.