Why don't American kids learn basic stuff?

[Xamonas Chegwé]

NB. Mainland Europe. they are not British plugs.

[Coito ergo sum]

NB. Mainland Europe. they are not British plugs.

...European, nonetheless.

[Audley Strange]

So would you then consider the financial influence neo-conservatism thinking of using education as a means to promote a narrowly defined free market ideology and cutting anything it does not find beneficial to that counter revolutionary propaganda or equally an equally insidious indoctrination of children?

I would. But, that hasn't happened in the U.S. Over the past 50 years, a marked trend to the contrary has occurred. The most problematic thing I see is the elimination of hard subjects - basic "history" (or, American, European, whatever, specific areas), geography, and hard sciences, in favor of propaganda vehicles like "social studies" and "Earth science." And, there was a theory held by many teachers in the 70s and 80s that homework was bad for kids. I'm not sure how prevalent that is anymore, but I doubt it's decreased.

The main cause, though, are parents, and a culture that glorifies stupidity and ignorance. It's the Bill & Ted mentality, that it's cool to be clueless and dopey. It's the change in the zeitgeist from viewing science and the advancement of knowledge as beneficial, to a Luddite culture where scientists were plotting evil deeds and technology is harmful. Also, there is the "what do I need that for?" mentality that has permeated American thinking. If a subject doesn't help you work in some office somewhere, then why bother with it? Lost is any appreciation for the notion that being "educated" is important.

With a subject like history, it seems that almost everyone in the US has accepted the silly notion that knowing dates, places and names of people is unimportant, and all we really need to know is why events happened and what their significance is. What folks fail to appreciate, however, is the fact that it is almost impossible to really understand "why" without knowing who, what, where, when and how first. Not knowing the basic chronology of historical events, for example, makes history a jumbled mess, where a person doesn't know the ordering of major events. I once was shocked to learn that a 20-something year old friend of mine could not state with any certainty whether the US Civil War occurred before or after World War One. I mean - I wouldn't have batted an eye if someone doesn't have the beginning and ending years of those events exactly, but I would expect someone to be able to say that the Civil War occurred in the mid-1800s, and that WW1 occurred in the early 1900's. I would HOPE that almost everyone could narrow it to the 1860s for the former and 1910's for the latter, if not the exact years, but I'd settle for a range of 20-odd years. This friend of mine couldn't even say that the Civil War happened in the 1800's. No clue. Now, how in the world could anyone put those events into context and know a damn thing about "why" they happened, if they can't even fit the wars into any sort of temporal context? How could a person know a damn thing about either war, and not be able to say - just based on the advancement of weaponry used in WW! over the US Civil War - that WW1 occurred later?

Well it does seem to me, as a foreigner but watching something similar being attempted in the U.K. that if you keep cutting funding for education until the schools are practically little more than cages to keep kids in the one place during the day, that those kids are not going to get a decent education to begin with. While I agree with your point about (and had to endure) soft liberal propaganda during the 70's and 80's at school, I suspect the reason was because to hire folks to teach such subjects was and is cheaper than to hire someone who actually has a grasp of hard factual subjects. I would not put the blame at Marxism or socialism for this but more upon a failure to understand that there was a difference between a valid critique of the culture and the mad half assed thoughts some of the radical ideologues of that critique.

So I'd suggest that by removing money from public schools and increasing the cost of a decent education until only those who can afford it can get it is exactly what has happened. I'm not sure if it is deliberate or a happy accident, but one does not need ones working class to be well educated, in fact many would point out that to do so is problematic in so far that they are more likely to not remain working for shit pay in crap jobs and then one has to hire those from abroad.

Rather keeping the working class ignorant and servile could be seen to be beneficial to a state because they are easily steered and less likely to organise. This actively happened when I was leaving school. I watched the courses being dumbed down until those who were failing were suddenly on a new exam system which the following year to me leaving replaced the core curriculum.

so my generation were increasingly poorly educated and indoctrinated with the shallow asininity of "cool" as a lifestyle choice. How are such a generation supposed to give their own children an education when they themselves are thick as fuck?

To keep the public ignorant, cowed, hypnotised and indoctrinated with stupidity as so as they will quietly work at the machine seems to me the opposite of educating the peasants so they can perform their part in the "class struggle." That seems as far away from the beliefs of Marxists as you can get.

[Coito ergo sum]

Well it does seem to me, as a foreigner but watching something similar being attempted in the U.K. that if you keep cutting funding for education until the schools are practically little more than cages to keep kids in the one place during the day, that those kids are not going to get a decent education to begin with.

You assumption being that funding to education has been cut, and that we "keep cutting" it. Well, that hasn't happened. Funding for education over the past 50 years has done nothing but go up exponentially, far faster than inflation.

While I agree with your point about (and had to endure) soft liberal propaganda during the 70's and 80's at school, I suspect the reason was because to hire folks to teach such subjects was and is cheaper than to hire someone who actually has a grasp of hard factual subjects. I would not put the blame at Marxism or socialism for this but more upon a failure to understand that there was a difference between a valid critique of the culture and the mad half assed thoughts some of the radical ideologues of that critique.

I blame neither Marxism, nor socialism. I blamed substandard teachers, parents, and a culture that lauds being ignorant of things like "adding and subtracting." When it's culturally and socially acceptable to giggle and be gleeful about being innumerate, then there is a really deep problem.

So I'd suggest that by removing money from public schools and increasing the cost of a decent education until only those who can afford it can get it is exactly what has happened.

That's false. No American has to pay for a public school education up through and including the 12th grade, well, except through taxes. There is no tuition, and a person with $0 who pays $0 in taxes gets to go to the same public schools as anyone else. And, money hasn't been removed from the public schools. Quite the opposite has happened.

I'm not sure if it is deliberate or a happy accident, but one does not need ones working class to be well educated, in fact many would point out that to do so is problematic in so far that they are more likely to not remain working for shit pay in crap jobs and then one has to hire those from abroad.

Lots of jobs requiring no education pay more than college grad level jobs. They tend not to be as pleasant, but they pay well.

I agree that not everyone needs to be educated for their jobs. However, I know people who work menial or manual labor jobs even though they are fairly well read. Some folks, even blue collar folks, like to know things. Not most, of course, but some. And, I wish that number was higher.

Rather keeping the working class ignorant and servile could be seen to be beneficial to a state because they are easily steered and less likely to organise. This actively happened when I was leaving school. I watched the courses being dumbed down until those who were failing were suddenly on a new exam system which the following year to me leaving replaced the core curriculum.

so my generation were increasingly poorly educated and indoctrinated with the shallow asininity of "cool" as a lifestyle choice. How are such a generation supposed to give their own children an education when they themselves are thick as fuck?

To keep the public ignorant, cowed, hypnotised and indoctrinated with stupidity as so as they will quietly work at the machine seems to me the opposite of educating the peasants so they can perform their part in the "class struggle." That seems as far away from the beliefs of Marxists as you can get.

I don't know, but then again, I didn't suggest that it was Marxist.

[Gallstones]

There are many types of stupid

But America seems to make a point of displaying them all

It's cuz we is dive--hearse.