From: hrubin@pop.stat.purdue.edu (Herman Rubin)
Subject: Re: Why can't the liberals just admit that public education has failed?
Organization: Purdue University Statistics Department
Date: Thu, 21 Jan 1993 20:42:02 GMT

In article <1993Jan21.004018.13414@Princeton.EDU> niepornt@phoenix.Princeton.EDU (David Marc Nieporent) writes:
>In article <C15IMC.8t3@quake.sylmar.ca.us> brian@quake.sylmar.ca.us (Brian K. Yoder) writes:
>>In <1993Jan18.165128.4899@Princeton.EDU> (David Marc Nieporent) writes:

			......................

>>So, do you think that there's nothing wrong with the anti-intellectual
>>attitudes suburban schools are pervaded with, or do you deny that they
>>are anti-intellectual?  Do you deny that academic pursuits are in fact
>>far from the top of the actual priorities of those schools?

>I deny that the average public school differs from the average private
>school in this way.

This is somewhat true today, because the average private school is a 
religious school.  Academic private schools are not that commone.  When
it was recommended that our son go to one, it was found out that there
was exactly one in the entire state of Michigan, and this was too far
away.

			.......................

>>>*That's* where the problem is.  The uneven distribution of resources.
>>>Not the lack of them.

>>I think the important thing is the ideas and attitudes of those running
>>the show, and they are almost universally deplorable.  No amount of
>>"resources" can change that.  Your implicit demand that resources be
>>"redistributed" away from those who earned it is an excellent example of
>				     ^^^^^^^^^
>>the liberal view that most problems are caused by a lack of "fair
>>distribution of reasources" and that "redistribution" from the worthy to
>>the unworthy is the cure-all for any problem.  Admit it!  That just
>>doesn't work!

>Ah, so you favor complete confiscation of wealth through inheritance
>taxes?  Good start, though it won't address other inequities.  

			.................


>As for the specific case involved, yes, I argue that when inner-city
>schools can't afford textbooks, they cannot offer as good an education

In the core subjects, there are very old textbooks, better in some cases
than the modern ones.  One could photocopy an arithmetic or algebra or
geometry book whose copyright has expired.  With a spelling or grammar
book, it would be necessary to produce a few pages of corrections.  Other
things can be done; libraries can be used.   And even inner city schools
can afford computers; there are few school districts in which the cost of
a computer would be even 10% of the annual budget per child.  That the
computer may not be the latest model is not important at this level.

The poor in the cities when I was a child, and in earlier generations,
managed to get good educations.  This was partly because the schools,
at least in the cities, saw no reason not to hold up academic standards.
Today's poor are more affluent than may parents were when I was in 
elementary school.  However, we have degraded the quality of the teachers
by setting up a system without absolute standards, which does not require
thinking, which relies even more than then on memorization.  The idea of
a high school graduate, or even an elementary school graduate, being
functionally illiterate did not exist then, and should not exist now.

The genius need learning to be able to use his/her capabilities.  The
idiot cannot learn much.  We are now teaching the genius closer to 
what the idiot can learn than to what the "normal" child used to learn.
-- 
Herman Rubin, Dept. of Statistics, Purdue Univ., West Lafayette IN47907-1399
Phone: (317)494-6054
hrubin@snap.stat.purdue.edu (Internet, bitnet)  
{purdue,pur-ee}!snap.stat!hrubin(UUCP)