xmas3.gif (5334 bytes)


bullet US educators assert that:

Teachers in grades 1-6 have little ability to influence children.

What children learn in those years has little influence later in life.

It is not the responsibility of teachers to explain standardized tests to students.

bullet We assert that it is self-evident that the only reason American parents spend more than the rest of the world for education is that they believe and desire that their children be taught.
bullet There is no need for teachers with this attitude.
bullet That they should be summarily fired for having such an attitude.
bullet SATME shows that a score of 420 on SAT Math equals zero math skills, evidence that the teachers are correct--they *are not* teaching our children.

All available research shows that what children learn in grades 1-6 has a strong impact on later education, as well as for the rest of their lives .  None of it even suggests that early childhood education has no impact on a child's life. 

Hirokazu Yoshikawa:  Finally, a risk factor may exert an indirect rather than a direct influence on development of delinquent behavior. For example, children who grow up in single-parent households tend to have higher rates of later delinquency, but this appears to be due to difficulty in providing adequate supervision, not single parenthood per se  http://www.futureofchildren.org/lto/03_lto.htm

This is tantamount to saying that pygmies are no shorter than regular people once adjusted for height.  It also ignores the tremendous damage done to children by single-mother households.   It also ignores the scientific conclusion of the NIS-3 study that 78% of fatal child abuse occurs in single-mother households.

Kathleen Cotton: A great many educators and researchers view early childhood education as beneficial to children's cognitive and social development. These proponents-- including virtually all of the researchers and theorists whose work was consulted in order to prepare this document--base their conviction on personal observation and on the many research studies linking early childhood programs to desirable outcomes  http://www.nwrel.org/scpd/sirs/3/topsyn3.html

Not one of these references disputes the conclusions of these researchers that early childhood education is beneficial to children.

03_tbl5.gif (31269 bytes)

Liberals say: "The fact that the primary level students held their own with the best on the TIMSS AND are overwhelmingly taught by females disproves your hypothesis [the bone- headed feminist US education system is producing idiots].

It seems that your basic "education theory" all along has been that teachers are unable to influence students.  This might be partially true, but that's not the ideal condition.  What we want, deserve, and demand is that teachers positively influence students AND teach them principles, values, and academics.

So let's get the facts straight.  When you say "The fact that the primary level students held their own with the best on the TIMSS AND are overwhelmingly taught by females disproves your hypothesis [that the bone- headed feminist US education system is producing idiots]" it can only be assumed that you don't believe that what a student learns in the 2nd or 5th grade is going to influence 12th grade performance whatsoever.

Is this, or is this not, your position?

Assuming that it is, would you mind explaining why we send our kids to school at all?   Do you view this as just a big baby sitting service?  You had better hurry over to the Department of Education real quick and fill them in, because they have an entire team of PhDs who don't know this and may be headed off in the wrong direction.

The simple fact that US students go from "holding their own with the best" to DEAD LAST in the world in only ten years is proof that our students didn't start out stupid--it took a decade of dumbing them down to get them there.  Making the broad and dangerous assumption that you are going to come to your senses and realize that American parents aren't dumb enough to spend 8% of GDP just for babysitting, and/or assuming that you weren't just throwing out another straw man argument, how *much* of an influence would you estimate that 2nd or 5th or 8th grade teachers have on the placement of our 12th graders in DEAD LAST position in TIMSS?  Just a rough guess?  10%?   30%?  60%?  100%?