The Downfall of American Education?

When my parents first came to the United States, they did so to ensure a better life for themselves and their children. My parents immigrated here with the formula, 'Murica + education = success, in mind, unfortunately they forgot to add blood, sweat, and tears to that equation. Nevertheless, my parents got an education and ended up pretty well, and when they had us kids, they were proud that we could attend school in the United States. But is the standard for American education really what it used to be?

Looking at the American education system by itself, the answer seems supposedly clear: we have a diverse population, great schools, and the best colleges in the world. However, neither diversity nor prestige measure intelligence and growth, but rather standardized tests do (although you cannot "...judge a fish by its ability to climb a tree..." standardized testing is the most practical way to compare intellect on an international scale). When it comes to global tests, American students are ranking lower than ever. If there was an Olympics for education, testing math, science, and reading skills, the United States would rank near the bottom. To add insult to injury, not only is the American education system failing children in obtaining higher test scores, but also in providing a basic education. In fact, according to a recent study by Harvard University, only 72% of high school students in the United States graduate (as opposed to "gold-medalist Germany", with a graduation rate of 97%), that's no better than the average industrialized nation. Why are there such a large gap in test scores and low graduation rates between the United States and other countries? I believe that the reasons behind the degradation of the American education system are economic and substantial.

These clip-art students are sad because they can't
afford notebooks. Why? Because #shittyeconomy

As I'm neither an economist nor an educator, I will simply base my arguments on personal observations and anecdotes. First order of business: how does the economy affect education? Although this may seem like a no brainer, I believe the economy affects education on several different levels. First off, when the economy is in poor condition more children are born in poverty. Many of these children don't have the luxury of receiving a higher education, and hey, if you're not going to attend college, why try in high school anyway, right? Not only that, but while attending high school, these disadvantaged children often have many home issues (revolving around their economic status) that distract them from doing well in school. Now this is not to say that if you're from a lower-income family, or you cannot afford college, that you cannot get an education. In fact, I have many friends and know many people (including myself at one point) who have risen out of poverty and attended college to become successful.

 However, the economy affects education in another way. Most students in the United States attend a public school, and unless you're fortunate enough to attend a private school, budget cuts will most likely affect you. During my senior year of high school, I was my school's "student representative" for the Board of Education. Although the position was a bullshit figurehead post that the Board Members could refer to and say, "See, we really do care about our children's opinions," it taught me quite a bit about how a recession can affect a school budget. If my high school wanted to operate the same way it did in 2011-2012 during 2012-2013, our district would have been $3 million in debt. This was due to state aid being cut to my school because the state itself was in debt. These $3 million would have to be to accounted for by cutting sports programs, canceling certain AP and college classes, and firing up to 40 teachers. Ultimately the burden of the deficit comes down to tax payers, and in the highly conservative town I lived in, an increase in taxes was a big "no, no." It was only when a supermajority of 62% of concerned parents approved a tax levy during a second vote was when the $3 million was accounted for by tax hikes. Even from my small, personal anecdote, it's very easy to see how the economy influences the educational system.

I also said that the other reason behind the degradation of the American education system was substantial. When I say substantial, I'm referring to the core curriculum. If you were to compare the American education system (on a whole) with Louis Menand's three theories of education (you should have read this, but I hyperlinked it anyway because it makes the blog seem more "legit"), it would be most similar to his second theory. Menand's second theory states that the purpose of education (albeit, he's speaking about higher education, but it's applicable to high school as well) is to create a well-rounded citizenry. While I would like to agree with such a democratic and appealing system, it is simply a little too quixotic for the real world. I find the American education system to be reflective of Menand's second theory; the system is too generalized, too easygoing, and honestly, too democratic. Throughout elementary, middle, and high school, students only learn the absolute basics of a wide array of topics. Although this is the point of a primary education, it leads to children not learning much about anything, and leaving them passionless. For example, in my high school AP European history class, we learned that Thomas Hobbes believed that the state of nature was war, and that John Locke believed in "life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness." While that's generally true, the fact that we learned to associate Hobbes and Locke as antitheses, is complete bullcrap. It was only after coming to the University of Michigan and taking Introduction to Political Science, that I learned that Hobbes and Locke are speaking from different contexts, were both reacting to a shift in government power, and are not diametrically opposed. Although many would argue that a high school student need not know such in-depth details about Hobbes or Locke, I woud argue back that such details are what foster passion.

Often times, in varying subject, the American education system focuses too heavily on general theories,  to try to mold  well-rounded students (this echoes Menand's second theory). However, this generalization of the core curriculum leaves many students bored and they find themselves without many academic passions. This becomes a problem especially once these students enroll in college, and have no idea what to major in. Their prior lack of in-depth knowledge of various subjects leaves them either "liking" every subject, or not fully liking any subject. For this reason, I advocate Menand's third theory on education, which states that educators should identify students' academic strengths early on, and place them on an appropriate career path (France's education system is very similar to this idea). While I agree that students should have their strengths identified early in life, I believe that they should be encouraged to follow a certain career path, not forced to. This allows for a person to maintain their individualism, as well as providing them with ample opportunities.

I have great respect for the American education system, and even though it doesn't rank as well against other countries, I still appreciate the system's dedication in trying to leave no child behind, maintaining individualism, and providing a decent public education. However, the fact remains that the quality of American education has been compromised. For the time being, I believe that my American education at the University of Michigan will serve me well. However, if this trend of decline in the quality of American education persists, I fear for the education of future youth.