You typically need to have attended a good university to get a good job and 
  to get into a good university you need to have graduated from a good 
  secondary school - which you need to have paid for 
  either through tuition or taxes.

I myself attended from Central Arkansas, and have had no issue getting a good job. My wife's experience in her field has been much the same.

Now that doesn't mean the playing field is completely fair. As an entrepreneur I've been frustrated by the advantages kids coming out of the top-tier schools have. This is especially true in anything related to finance. Those schools are a ticket into that world, and it's a really amazing advantage. Both in terms of landing extremely high paying jobs (fund managers and the like) and in terms of raising money. It's much easier to fund raise when you come with that sort of credibility and direct connection to those who have a lot of money.

Still, lets not confuse matters here. People from lower tier schools make it, and make it big, all the time. The system isn't rigged, it's remarkably fair. I worked hard to become very good at what I do. I put myself in a position to learn and experience a big win. That's given me the credibility I need to start to enjoy some of those advantages as well.

Lots of others have done the same thing.

So I reject the premise of your statement. Although I largely disagree with the notion that education is in crisis. There are certainly areas of crisis, but those cultures seem cultural and not institutional. Studies have shown that the vast majority of our kids are competitive on the world level. It's that our lowest performing areas REALLY underperform.

I also reject the idea that further divorcing school from the community it serves is a good idea.

Yes, you can find plenty of counter-examples, but the average income of the college graduate and the highschool dropout are miles apart.

I don't understand this kind of thinking. Perhaps it isn't what you meant. My apologies if that isn't the case. I have heard and read this kind of sentiment before.

Is the idea that the rich somehow conspire to do as you suggest?

If so, how does that work? Did Steve Jobs receive a letter once his net worth passed a certain threshold inviting him to join the various "protect the rich" conspiracies? How about Bill Gates or the many other rich folk? What's the threshold? Do people like past and current presidents of the US and prominent politicians get in on that too? D they have regular monthly or annual meetings or is it all done over encrypted email these days?

Just wondering, because that kind of thing would require planning and organization. Perhaps you have access to information not available in the open?

Would it be far more likely that there is no such conspiracy and what is happening in education is the result of other forces at play? What would happen if teachers were not unionized and had to compete for their jobs? What would happen if teachers lived in a true meritocracy without a sure protections? What would happen if teachers had to have advanced degrees and even some real world experience before being able to teach? I'm sure this would not all the problems, but, what would happen? Why do we have a system that disallows rapid goals-oriented experiments with realistic measurable metrics and a goal to weed out those who are not serving our children?

Lots of questions. Few answers. My gut feeling is that the rich have nothing whatsoever to do with the problem. Every US President, Senator and Representative since I can remember becoming aware of politics has been talking about fixing the education system. I am sure that was the case way before I was born as well. Still, let's say that this has been part of the national conversation for, say, 50 years. Speeches, promises and more speeches. No actions. Nothing fixed.

Is it possible that they are simply incompetent or that they tell us what we want to hear in order to get elected and then the go off and answer to their own interests?

Who knows?

Incidentally, practically every teacher in Finland belongs to an union, and it's unheard of to fire teachers on the basis of bad job performance. A true rationalist looks at the empirical evidence regardless of ideological opinions. You may not "like" the fact that teacher's unions are widespread in many countries which outrank the USA in education. Sometimes the American way of firing people is not the correct fix.

" What would happen if teachers had to have advanced degrees and even some real world experience before being able to teach?"

Now that's something I agree with. Teachers in Finland have Master's degrees, and all teachers have real-world experience by teaching in real schools ("normaalikoulut") during their studies.

"Why do we have a system that disallows rapid goals-oriented experiments with realistic measurable metrics and a goal to weed out those who are not serving our children?"

The problem is that you can't measure learning very well. Measuring test scores means that the teachers will teach the kids to do well on tests instead of learning.

http://econpapers.repec.org/article/eeeecoedu/v_3a30_3ay_3a2...

It's easier to pick a good teacher than to train one: Familiar and new results on the correlates of teacher effectiveness

Matthew M. Chingos and Paul E. Peterson

Economics of Education Review, 2011, vol. 30, issue 3, pages 449-465

Abstract: Neither holding a college major in education nor acquiring a master's degree is correlated with elementary and middle school teaching effectiveness, regardless of the university at which the degree was earned. Teachers generally do become more effective with a few years of teaching experience, but we also find evidence that teachers may become less effective with experience, particularly later in their careers.

Requiring master's degrees may improve education but probably not for the reasons most people expect: it encourages greater selectivity and filters out those with less commitment and desire to be a teacher. But, as someone with a little experience of teaching in high schools, I doubt that learning to teach outside of a classroom has any positive effect on teacher performance. Effective teaching is about understanding your pupils, knowing how to communicate and having the ability to effectively prepare materials, all skills that can only be learned through classroom experience. I would argue that the most effective form of teacher training would be to require prospective teachers to do several years as assistant/apprentice teachers in schools, and do away with all education degrees.

While I don't have any experience in Finland, I have organized and conducted a number of trade show exhibits in London, Amsterdam, Munich and Barcelona. My experience in dealing with unionized labor in Europe has always been extremely positive. I could not find one negative anecdote to relate here. In sharp contrast to that I could write a book about the bullshit, abuse and cost I have endured at the hands of US labor unions at convention centers in Los Angeles, Las Vegas, Chicago and New York.

Based on these data points I developed this idea that European labor unions operate under different cultural and ideological principles when compared to their US equivalents. I could be wrong.

Would it be that objective comparisons between US and foreign students is trending downward (while costs go up)? Would it be that more and more a high school diploma (then college degree) means nothing as far as employability?

Is it that the demands of modern economy is not matched up with a supply of highly skilled workers? I think these are all evidence that public education needs modified... not necessarily that someone needs "blamed" for it, just that everyone needs to acknowledge it and be supportive of change.

Now I'd argue that measuring student test scores should be one part of many that go into evaluating teachers. But above all there has to be something that we use to evaluate them, otherwise how do we know it's working... or not... or when or how to try new ideas? It's not just the teachers but the whole system that should be constantly evaluated. Not necessarily to fire someone, but to give feedback and constantly improve.

For sure it could be argued that it's not teachers themselves that are failing students, but the system is structured to be resistant to change and innovation. Metrics that should be used to guide curriculum are graduate employability, job placement, are skills being taught to satisfy the needs of the job market, what's working and what isn't etc.

Introducing some sort of competition will allow schools to figure out the evaluation process themselves. Look at places like Dev Bootcamp that claim 80% of graduates are hired with X salary after graduation. That's succinct way to measure the effectiveness of their teachers. Not that I'm saying this example exactly compares to public school or that a CS solution is applicable to the overall problem but... on a side note why isn't programming and such more prevalent in high school? There's no reason a private company can impart those skills in 9 weeks and public schools couldn't do it in a year. Maybe this type of thing has been incorporated into public schools if so disregard...it's been a while since I've been there. Generally, I think high school was an extreme waste of time in regards to what was actually learned. And then college is four more years with knowledge that itself could have been taught in high school. I tell people all the time, nothing I learned in CS major in College couldn't have been learned in high school. It just wasn't offered.

Likewise for subjects like economics, finance, personal finance, etc. Handling ones finances is something that more Americans need to learn and these lessons are not being taught early enough.

"But above all there has to be something that we use to evaluate them, otherwise how do we know it's working... or not... or when or how to try new ideas?"

You can do qualitative analysis instead of quantative. It also works when you use a test that the schools don't / cant directly optimize for, which is probably true for the PISA test.

"There's no reason a private company can impart those skills in 9 weeks and public schools couldn't do it in a year."

While I agree that schools shoud teach programming more, the Dev Bootcamp's 80% metric is not really relevant. It filters only the most exceptional applicants to the program, not the average school kid. Many of those applicants probably already know the basics of programming.

"Generally, I think high school was an extreme waste of time in regards to what was actually learned."

Most people say the same thing here in Finland.

Not a conspiracy. See, everybody wants a good education for their children. Everybody invests, but the rich obviously spend more money. And that buy their children a better education and better jobs earning higher wages. Isn't that obvious?

> How about Bill Gates or the many other rich folk?

That is called anecdotal evidence. There is no cast system in America, but the American dream is not dead, but close. The social mobility in Europe is higher.

> What would happen if teachers had to have advanced degrees and even some real world experience before being able to teach?

That would be great, but that won't be for free. But i think it would pay off.

That only makes sense if the schools are all private. Keep in mind that public schools are not for-profit institutions, they are constantly at the mercy of the government. Without unions, what you get is a system that pits individual teachers against the government itself, which means each individual teacher is now at the mercy of the mob. Unions have their flaws, but it would be far worse if teachers had to constantly worry that the latest political climate will cost them their jobs or their salaries.

"My gut feeling is that the rich have nothing whatsoever to do with the problem"

Your gut feeling is wrong. Wealthy people spend a lot of time ensuring that their children receive a quality education; few volunteer to improve the education of the poor in any meaningful way (like ensuring that the poor learn enough to attain any real power). Wealthy people oppose stronger progressive tax systems, but have little to say about public lotteries and other regressive taxes.

The entire system of credentialism -- the use of a degree to judge a person's merit -- is an invention of the wealthy, and it is by far the most destructive force in education today. The idea that one must be educated in order to be employed has been pushed by the employers themselves, and those employers are generally owned and controlled by rich people.

That's a simplistic way of putting it, but as a metaphor, yes. It's not an organised conspiracy with secret meetings and hidden agendas dedicated to this, but yes. Wealthy people are powerful. Wealthy people mix with other wealthy people. Their friends are wealthy people. Their social groups are wealthy. People protect themselves and their social groups.

"Just wondering, because that kind of thing would require planning and organization."

Do you know how hard it can be to get people to vote against their own interests? It requires vast amounts of planning and preparation. Bodies such as the American Enterprise Institute and Cato Institute, for example. These require serious funding and planning and organisation.

People who have kids and aren't worried about where their next meal is coming from generally don't mind spending some money on their kids' school. They're probably somewhat less interested in spending money on your kids' school. Schools[0] are therefore largely funded using fairly local property taxes, and rich people have more valuable property.

This arrangement is beneficial for rich people in the short term. Their own schools are well-funded, and they pay less in taxes than they would if the funding wasn't geographically localized.

[0] I will ignore private schools for purposes of this explanation

My parents were in the military so I floated all over as a kid, even through high school.

After high school I managed to get merit scholarships, but only enough to fully cover an in-state school 99% of you have never heard of, the very illustrious University of North Florida.

Despite all of that I've done just fine for myself since by taking advantage of opportunities that have been available to me. It depends on career field, but people are increasingly aware that graduating from a good school is not a predictor of success and that graduating from a "bad" school is not a predictor of failure.

I agree that education in the U.S. is broken in general, but I disagree on the emphasis you place on which University one attends.

P.S. In my travels as a child I've never been in a school system that wasn't already at a county level, so I'm not sure how helpful that suggestion would be. The counties are apparently still earmarking money from wealthy communities back to the schools that service those communities.

See I have the opposite impression when I read stories like this. I don't assume their intentions are noble. I assume their intentions are self-serving. I think in almost all cases we see that elected representatives are incompetent when it comes to public education policy. It's not surprising. The vast majority have never worked in education. They don't know anything whatsoever about it, but they are making decisions on curriculum, funding, teacher and school evaluation criteria. I'm not surprised that they achieve the opposite of what they claim to be working towards, because that's what always happens. It should not be a surprise to anyone anymore, but for some reason we seem to always think that if we just try it one more time, with more money, we'll get different results.

Implicitly, you are saying that the real problem is that public schools do not receive enough funding. Is that correct?

If the problem is that public schools are not getting enough money, how much money should they get? How much should be spent per pupil in order to give everyone a great education? It is ok to give a different answer for different demographics - perhaps inner city schools where parents can provide less support need $Y, while wealthy suburban districts need $X dollar. But if your claim is that the current amount of funding is too little, then you should be able to state actual numbers for $X and $Y.

Good teachers want to teach students that want to learn, and they don't want to be bogged down by the failures of less popular schools (we are holding off on income for a bit here). They end up moving where schools are doing a better job, mainly because the culture of the region has parents and children who value their education. They get paid more, because the school wants to retain these better teachers, who do good jobs, rather than the assembly line college graduates who ended up in education as the "default" and just want the job security.

So now money can factor in, and these better teachers with proper facilities are being paid more, and have better maintained institutions to keep them hired, and since the region already has a pro-education culture in advance, it has wealthy people who pay higher property taxes to keep the school all the more well off.

And just equalizing the money doesn't kill off one half of the feedback loop - it just renders one neutral. Good teachers would still go where parents culturally want their children to learn and promote their educations rather than places where the parents, and by extension children, predominately don't like the education system and are hostile to it.

Fundamentally, the solution is that every child needs to simultaneously want to learn, more importantly learn something they can be passionate about and pursue as a career (besides basic human interaction like arithmetic, grammar, essential history, and things not taught in school like how to calculate taxes, essential law code, etc) while at the same time they are paired with educators who give them the one on one engagement to keep them on track, who value their role as the builders of a future generation more than their guaranteed paychecks, and getting those two to pervasively penetrate culture is a much bigger problem than moving money around.

http://rossieronline.usc.edu/u-s-education-versus-the-world-...

In fact, some of the worst performing districts in America are also the most well-funded, like the District of Columbia.

The problem is the teachers unions control the delivery system, and swaths of American culture that don't value education.