John Derbyshire, writer of Taki’s Magazine, in his July 2011 article titled “What Shall We Do with the Kids?” grappled on the issue that confronts public educational system in America. He mentioned how New York City officials took bold steps to remedy some of the problems besetting schools. He said that even without those measures to narrow the gap or prevent the differences in learning outcomes among students, American schools flare comparatively better than other schools worldwide (with some exceptions, of course).
Derbyshire taunted public officials who want to improve students’ learning performance through millions of dollar in monetary incentives. He said that a mayor in one of the US cities hired experts to raise the test score of public school students. Teachers, whose classes performed well in the test, were given cash incentives. Likewise, the same public official used some of the city’s financial resources by giving conditional cash transfers to the families of high achieving students, classes, or schools. The mayor’s effort paved off, as results later showed.
The millions of dollars handed out for teachers’ bonus and families’ cash schemes resulted to fiascos, according to researchers. The “same heading-for-bankruptcy city[‘s]” programs have only produced insignificant effect in students’ learning. To increase the achievement gap between white and minority in English and math, the mayor used money as a motivator. However, the proficiency levels in the said subject areas remained just the same as when the mayor initially took office. The cash programs, in short, did nothing to make a consistent impact on students’ performances. Simply put, the mayor only made waste.
Given the above summative points above regarding the use of money as external motivation for teachers and students to perform better, Derbyshire is correct with his analysis. Money did not serve to motivate learners optimally. External incentives only masked, at a superficial level, the narrowing of achievement gaps. It was not explicitly mentioned in Derbyshire’s article that the mayor, prior to making such bold steps, have consulted educational and research experts before embarking on such projects. Nonetheless, given the page length, shallow depth, and overall content of Derbyshire’s article, no such primary citations were mentioned. Derbyshire, thus, lacks sufficient details and evidences to support his views (except perhaps when the reader like me does further research).
Continuing with the problem confronting US public school system, Derbyshire claimed that US “schools are perfect” or “at least, highly efficient.” He cited a report from the Programme for International Student Assessment (PISA) wherein American whites were better than others, just as American Asians were better than those in Asia, specifically Japanese or Koreans. In short, Derbyshire was saying that the US educational system is better than the rest, except for Finland’s kids. Despite the statistical results, such that “no nation on earth” significantly score better on tests than US learners, Derbyshire has some reservations as to “[w]hat shall we do with the [US] kids.”
Derbyshire cited the 2009 school dropout rates: one out of twelve students, or more, prefers to leave school prematurely. Still, schools do whatever they can to make students stay until graduation. Derbyshire presented a proposal: why not simply keep children in school up to age of 12 (especially the “ineducables”), that is, after they became functionally and civilly literate and then let them be “corrall[ed]in some camps.” Derbyshire reasoned out that keeping the ineducables in schools was only financially wasting. In addition, the ineducables only hinder the learning of “very high, smart bookish” kids. Derbyshire asserted that the educables should remain being schooled while the ineducables should have alternative form of education, “barred from school premises.”
Based on the preceding observation, analysis, and understanding of Derbyshire, his points are well-taken. It is true that the American way of educating its populace is, if not the best, among the topnotch worldwide. However, the real culprit for me is not simply school or class performance, but more on student performance at the individual level. Given the one is to 12 drop-out rate, there are kids who do not like being “schooled” farther. There are also kids and adolescent learners who would rather consume their time motivating themselves with their own ‘innate’ curiosity rather than be taught the traditional way.
Granting without accepting that Derbyshire was correct with his analyses of the US public school system and on how American kids perform in schools, I think he has committed some logical fallacies, not to mention his use of rhetorical appeals and devices that defy formal analysis of an issue. Derbyshire only used a single report about the mayor’s “test-score-raising scheme[s],” and has not included other cities (that is, why New York City schools only) and other evidential results. Derbyshire, being a journalist, has his own way of making news so much bigger than it is. He even used hyperbole, for example, “kids are having their lives destroyed.” Why did he not mention teachers’ and families’ experiences who received bonuses and cashes because their learners or children performed at their best? Why report only on the ‘complete failure’ side of the issue? Is there anything good that materialized using such schemes?
Although I commend Derbyshire for citing a reputable source (that is, PISA), I think that is enough from such a vantage point only. However, when he mentioned the dropout rates, his examples, and his alternative solution to it, I felt dismayed. There were other reasons why students drop out of school. They would have left school in an untimely manner because of personal or familial reasons. It could also have been because of bullies in schools – that is, not them as bullies. Likewise, they may not have wanted how some teachers’ teach them. Such children would have only preferred to be homeschooled. Moreover, a learner might have only preferred not to continue schooling because he was smarter than other kids were. He or she might have other personal interests or talents that the school failed to observe, tap or hone.
Lastly, Derbyshire has committed slippery slope fallacy given that his examples of two individuals who dropped out of schools still managed to “drive[s] a much nicer car than [him].” Likewise, Derbyshire mentioned how his acquaintance, who was a teacher then, chose to quit because she cannot take anymore the “awful” situation in the school. For this part, Derbyshire mostly based his analysis of the problems in US educational system from his personal observation and two individual stories. He should have been more balanced in his treatment of the issue. He should have just presented additional credible reports from more individuals, surveys, etc. Further, I noticed that he gauged graduates’ and drop outers’ success from the wheels they drive and personal dissatisfaction rather than dedication and passion for teaching.
For the problem that Derbyshire identified, my solution is to explore and examine more the issue. Just like in most theses and dissertations states, researchers recommend further studies. To find optimum solutions to the problem as big as the US educational system is never an easy task. It would take much time, effort, resources, etc. to resolve the issue. For my part, I should consider several research findings prior to implementing millions-of-dollar projects.
Work Cited
Derbyshire, John. What Shall We Do With the Kids? Taki’s Magazine, 21 July 2011. Web. 14 April 2014. <http://takimag.com/article/what_shall_we_do_with_the_kids/print#axzz2z1oGpB2R>.
