This post was originally intended to be a comment on the thread below. But because I'm critiquing
this John Stossel piece, it necessarily became ridiculously long. And unless you have 40 minutes to kill in the worst way, I don't recommend watching the segment.
What's wrong with
Stupid in America: How We Cheat Our Kids:
1) John Stossel did it.
2) The students were goofing off because finals were over.
3) The teacher being overriden is clearly lecturing only because the cameras were watching, which is why no one's paying attention.
4) The scene is heavily edited.
5) The Belgian-American comparison only shows how little our government values education, whereas the segment clearly wants to blame the teachers.
6) The clip actually uses hyperbolic scenes from "Bill and Ted's Excellent Adventure" and Jay Leno to make its points, when both are comic pieces.
7) Why ask the students what they need, except to make them look dumber? Ask the question of someone whose responsibility it is to make school better.
8) The studies focus exclusively on public schools, when it should have taken into account the failures of private schools as well.
9) It claims that, since one school's extravagance failed to produce higher test scores, that all public schools deserve to languish in poverty.
10) Jay Greene, the expert interviewed for the funding segment, works for the right-wing Manhattan Institute for Policy Research and is a regular contributor to the
National Review. None of this is mentioned in the report.
11) The school that supposedly saves money relies on the students to do constant janitorial duties and other duties that could possibly constitute illegal child labor.
12) That same school benefits from low teacher-student ratios and increased principal involvement. What a revelation.
13) That principal bribes students for perfect attendance. Stossel paints this as a good thing.
14) The "independent" schools are seen as being better than public schools. Of course they appear that way; like private schools, they can choose their students and have smaller class sizes. You can't blame public schools for that.
15) One public-school student, an 18-year-old reading at a fourth-grade level, is profiled. Surely every student at his school is not such an extreme case.
16) Sylvan helped the illiterate student faster than the public-school group that had tried to help him. Stossel says it was only because Sylvan was private, ignoring any other mitigating factors.
17) Stossel credits vouchers as the reason schools are better in Belgium, whereas his sources' quotes, edited as they are, seem to suggest that many other factors are at play.
18) He also contradicts himself by saying schools in Belgium thrive because vouchers cause more variety in schools, whereas he decries similar facilities in America as being frivolous.
19) "Here in Belgium, [good schools] are all over the place" would seem to undermine the argument that vouchers are helping much there. Vouchers supposedly help students in bad schools go to good ones.
20) Stossel interviews Kevin Chavous of the Center for Education Reform. Unmentioned in the interview is that Chavous is a pro-voucher activist and that the CER is also a conservative, pro-voucher organization.
21) The interviews with the Belgian children suggest that they have been given very leading questions about a loose concept of "choice": "Is it bad that American students don't have as many choices?" "Wow, they don't? Yeah!"
22) Indeed, the Belgian kids seemed to have been whipped into a frenzy, in the spirit of the title, "Stupid in America." "Beat that, Americans!" Great dialogue.
23) Stossel's one-channel TV/public school analogy is so flawed that I won't even get into it.
24) The voucher issue is painted as an equalizing issue, when in reality it only increases the division between rich and poor schools.
25) Stossel's outrage at people having to go to schools in their own area, when many of the same people who support vouchers support "neighborhood schools" (a code word for segregation).
26) Almost all of Stossel's voucher segment focuses on a single district in South Carolina, a bottom-ranking state, as representative of the entire country.
27) In South Carolina, Stossel relies too much on parental allegations, while quoting kids whose own words are rarely heard on camera.
28) Stossel actually equates public schools to government repression in the Soviet Union!
29) Nowhere in the segment does anyone speak more than one sentence at a time, suggesting that some quotes might have been taken out of context.
30) Stossel repeatedly suggests that schools will not improve until they can be marketed like cell phones, sampling 1980s footage of Moscow and an
SNL sketch (?!!) to prove it.
31) He suggests that an open educational marketplace would lead to specialized schools such as "Longer-hour schools, sports schools and virtual online schools." And these are good ideas?
32) Stossel derisively lumps teachers with politicians and unions when they don't agree with his ideas.
33) Stossel clearly sees public schools as institutions to ignore and abandon, and expresses mock surprise when a public-school superintendent (and the SC state legislature) disagrees with him.
34) Stossel speaks the word "union" with extreme contempt, over a clip of a woman in African garb bellowing, "The teachers...united!"
35) He offers a union rally in New York City as proof that all teachers are as corrupt as mobsters, even while that (atypical) union gathering shows no signs of such.
36) He offers one extreme case of sexual offense as cause to break down tenure (and later admits that the process to fire the offender had long since been changed).
37) At the 31-minute point, the segment becomes drippingly anti-union and one-sided, failing to explain the regulations it decries, not citing a single one nor offering any reason why they might exist.
38) Several clips of picketing teachers and commercial clips from earlier are repeated, without a new point being made, except to continue the anti-teacher baiting.
39) Stossel actually accuses teachers of being lazy, based on the official hours they work. He also sneers at a 15-percent raise he blames (
blames!) on the unions.
40) He selectively quotes teachers to make the point that tenure is the reason that students don't learn, and that only teachers who must fight to survive can make a difference.
41) Hallways full of black students generally punctuate statements about "poor" and "dangerous" schools.
42) Charter schools can choose students; that is why they do better. It isn't because the teachers are happier because they lack tenure, as Stossel suggests.
43) Should students really stay in school until 5 p.m.? And requiring the tenure-free teachers to be available at all hours by phone would seem to debunk Stossel's earlier accusation that teachers are lazy.
44) The lottery to get into the profiled charter school suggests the opposite of Stossel's point: ALL schools need to be improved, rather than concentrate all the good students into one place.
45) With just one minute left in the segment, Stossel mentions that vouchers have opponents. They are presented as fist-thumping, scraggly bearded protesters, and only one is given so much as a sentence, which is promptly dismissed and discarded.
46) At no time is this obvious editorial presented as such; indeed, it is presented as an investigative news piece, which is the saddest thing of all.
Stossel concludes his "report" by saying, "We hope it starts a debate." Count on it!