honestly, most High school teachers could be eliminated if we just stopped letting students be pieces of shit.
I could easily teach a classroom of 50 highschool boys if you let me slap the shit out of the fuckups. OR we just don’t make high school mandatory and lower the age of entering the workforce to 14 and then kick out the fuck ups.
I went to a British high school for four years. We had 45 students in our classes. This was over 40 years ago but we largely behaved because we didn’t want detention, to have board erasers thrown at us, sent to the headmaster, or to be cuffed.
It is. Just relating it has been done. As a teacher in the US, I I don’t think it’s realistic now, mostly because of the high needs kids have in general ( not just those with IEPs), and behavioral issues and dare I say it- cell phones. Just saying, that isn’t a great comment on our society and it certainly isn’t sustainable if we want to keep teachers and effectively educate our children.
As I recall, USA doesn't do PISA sampling properly. It's a few states only. Looks like the US blacks are an elite sample in PISA (mean IQ equivalent about 93). I haven't looked into the details.
What are you implying by stupid teachers? I had stupid teachers back in my day and they were a joy to talk with and learn from, I believe they improve your social skills
No, it’s fine. There are very few occasions where it actually aids clarity to say “fewer” instead of “less”(plus there is no equivalent countable / uncountable distinction in the positive direction - “less” is to “fewer” as “more” is to “more”, and most of us don’t even notice the inconsistency). See RobWords’ rant about this for a bit of fun: https://youtu.be/BccyQaNKXz8&t=17m12s
I agree with many of your conclusions, but have some nits to pick. First, the nits:
1. Part of the explosion in elementary school education spending is due to the fact that competent women have more job options. Women who now can be administrators or physician's assistants would be school teachers back in the days of true sexism.
2. Another part of the explosion in elementary education spending is due to special ed. Children who would have been institutionalized in the bad ole days are now cared for in the public schools. This is humane to the extent that it keeps families together. On the other hand, when egalitarians insist on mainstreaming the mentally defective, this disrupts things bigly for those who are trying to learn.
3. And finally, east Asian countries put their initial public education efforts into primary schooling. India put its efforts into college for the elite. While India has boatloads of doctors, computer programmers and lawyers, I dare say that East Asia got a higher ROI. Literacy and basic numeracy for as many as possible has a huge impact. The smart can self-study. Look at early American history. Lots of leaders who would be classified as high school dropouts today.
---
Now, the part I utterly agree with you on: kids don't need that many hours per day of instruction in order to learn. Nor do you need nearly as many teachers' aids as is now standard. When I was in elementary school, the class sizes exceeded 30 children per classroom, and there was one teacher's aid for the entire school. We had two or three recess periods per day (depending on the year), along with a fair amount of time watching movies and film strips. Homework was minimal. Attempts to learn in mixed IQ homeroom were laughable. Basically all the real teaching happened
when we changed classes for math and English.
And that was enough. 2-3 hours of real classwork was enough to be literate, able to spell, and do arithmetic in multiple number bases.
So yes, we could spend less on elementary school. But I'd keep the quality up on the teachers, but spend less on aids.
However, the workable school I described did have something modern schools do not have: paddles. Every teacher had one and threatened to use it frequently. And the assistant principal was a former Marine drill sergeant. He was absolutely terrifying when he wanted to be -- but also a swell guy otherwise. Discipline was thus lax for minor naughtiness but real for real infractions. The administration was thus more terrifying than the bullies. THAT is important.
Once students have the basics under their belts, the amount of teaching required is not that much. Just coach the students in what they are interested in. 80+% of our education system goes to forcing people to learn stuff they are not interested in.
Interesting piece. But the data we have indicate that education, done right, makes a big difference in the very early years and not much later one. The AAUP did a study of college and concluded that the net learning in the first two years was basically nil.
Murray and Herrnstein covered some of the material in "The Bell Curve." Adequate nutrition and vitamin supplements for little kids might make the biggest difference at the lowest cost.
Another pernicious trend in education is excess administrators. In 1950, they were about 2% of K-12 staffing by FTE, by 2000 they'd doubled to 4%, and now they're about 5%.
College is even worse (8%-26%).
My favorite idea on the education front is transferrable vouchers that you can also use for home schooling - you shouldn't have to pay for child prisons that don't teach anything if you're opting out for your own kids.
The retirement of the baby boom generation will be horrible in all of those ways too, and there’s no avoiding it. Tighten your belt and hold on to your potatoes.
Please do this and fire 80% if school administers at every level. End the bureaucratic nightmare that schools have. The stupidest and most incompetent people work for the government. Get rid of the dead weight. Teachers, your union is a fraud and should be illegal.
Provocative, but not unreasonable. However, it could cause a problem in other Western countries, who would quickly spot the issue of brain poaching. Although if UK is anything to go by, we already have ongoing drain to countries that are able to pay our graduates better.
You have good ideas about elementary schools, maybe about immigration only if immigration were controlled as you say and not chaos. But the DOE influence is far greater than it's 14 per cent funding. Local school boards are dazzled by "free" federal money, then are forced to comply with complex regulations and use the money on things they do not want or need. But is was free, right?
The charts which show the growth of school budgets and which show teaching funds have barely risen and administration funds skyrocket are explained by regulation and DOE.
If we eliminated the Department of Education and introduced true free markets to education, we’d see more teachers, fewer administrators, and a rise in private schools, academies, and alternative models. The education market would naturally adapt, offering more flexible schedules and curricula.
I share many of your goals, but these changes should come from market demand, not mandates.
As a father of four, we’ve been homeschooling for two years. Ideally, more private options would exist for part-time schooling—just 1-2 days a week. But even in Arizona and Texas, where I’ve raised my kids and school choice laws are strong, options remain limited. Most academies don’t open until 3 p.m., forcing us to rely on private tutoring for morning education. The demand is there—what’s missing is a truly free market to meet it.
And before someone says, “What about the poor?”—they’d benefit most. A competitive, decentralized education system would lower costs, increase access, and create real opportunities beyond the bureaucratic grip of public schooling.
The “sending their best argument” can explain advantage over home country for many groups, but given that most of our black population is descended from those brought over as slaves, and I don’t think slaves were selected for intelligence, it seems to me that the black advantage requires a different explanation.
A significant portion of the black population died after emancipation due to a lack of resources and widespread illness. This in itself had a eugenic effect on American blacks, those that couldn't adapt were not able to reproduce
honestly, most High school teachers could be eliminated if we just stopped letting students be pieces of shit.
I could easily teach a classroom of 50 highschool boys if you let me slap the shit out of the fuckups. OR we just don’t make high school mandatory and lower the age of entering the workforce to 14 and then kick out the fuck ups.
Either way would get things done better.
I went to a British high school for four years. We had 45 students in our classes. This was over 40 years ago but we largely behaved because we didn’t want detention, to have board erasers thrown at us, sent to the headmaster, or to be cuffed.
cool fantasies kiddo
the past is a foreign country
It is. Just relating it has been done. As a teacher in the US, I I don’t think it’s realistic now, mostly because of the high needs kids have in general ( not just those with IEPs), and behavioral issues and dare I say it- cell phones. Just saying, that isn’t a great comment on our society and it certainly isn’t sustainable if we want to keep teachers and effectively educate our children.
As I recall, USA doesn't do PISA sampling properly. It's a few states only. Looks like the US blacks are an elite sample in PISA (mean IQ equivalent about 93). I haven't looked into the details.
If you provide corrected PISA I will issue a correction!
If I offer my educational attainment will you offer yours
What are you implying by stupid teachers? I had stupid teachers back in my day and they were a joy to talk with and learn from, I believe they improve your social skills
“We need less teachers, stupider teachers, and poorer teachers.”
I know you don’t edit but “fewer”, not “less”.
No, it’s fine. There are very few occasions where it actually aids clarity to say “fewer” instead of “less”(plus there is no equivalent countable / uncountable distinction in the positive direction - “less” is to “fewer” as “more” is to “more”, and most of us don’t even notice the inconsistency). See RobWords’ rant about this for a bit of fun: https://youtu.be/BccyQaNKXz8&t=17m12s
I meant to say smaller, sorry, I skipped k-12
🐦♟
bro when you gonna have your testicles drop so you can sign your name to your drivel
this is shitboi drivel
I agree with many of your conclusions, but have some nits to pick. First, the nits:
1. Part of the explosion in elementary school education spending is due to the fact that competent women have more job options. Women who now can be administrators or physician's assistants would be school teachers back in the days of true sexism.
2. Another part of the explosion in elementary education spending is due to special ed. Children who would have been institutionalized in the bad ole days are now cared for in the public schools. This is humane to the extent that it keeps families together. On the other hand, when egalitarians insist on mainstreaming the mentally defective, this disrupts things bigly for those who are trying to learn.
3. And finally, east Asian countries put their initial public education efforts into primary schooling. India put its efforts into college for the elite. While India has boatloads of doctors, computer programmers and lawyers, I dare say that East Asia got a higher ROI. Literacy and basic numeracy for as many as possible has a huge impact. The smart can self-study. Look at early American history. Lots of leaders who would be classified as high school dropouts today.
---
Now, the part I utterly agree with you on: kids don't need that many hours per day of instruction in order to learn. Nor do you need nearly as many teachers' aids as is now standard. When I was in elementary school, the class sizes exceeded 30 children per classroom, and there was one teacher's aid for the entire school. We had two or three recess periods per day (depending on the year), along with a fair amount of time watching movies and film strips. Homework was minimal. Attempts to learn in mixed IQ homeroom were laughable. Basically all the real teaching happened
when we changed classes for math and English.
And that was enough. 2-3 hours of real classwork was enough to be literate, able to spell, and do arithmetic in multiple number bases.
So yes, we could spend less on elementary school. But I'd keep the quality up on the teachers, but spend less on aids.
However, the workable school I described did have something modern schools do not have: paddles. Every teacher had one and threatened to use it frequently. And the assistant principal was a former Marine drill sergeant. He was absolutely terrifying when he wanted to be -- but also a swell guy otherwise. Discipline was thus lax for minor naughtiness but real for real infractions. The administration was thus more terrifying than the bullies. THAT is important.
Once students have the basics under their belts, the amount of teaching required is not that much. Just coach the students in what they are interested in. 80+% of our education system goes to forcing people to learn stuff they are not interested in.
This is the dumbest thing I’ve ever read on Substack. No wonder there’s a teacher shortage when this kind of nonsense is circulating.
Interesting piece. But the data we have indicate that education, done right, makes a big difference in the very early years and not much later one. The AAUP did a study of college and concluded that the net learning in the first two years was basically nil.
Murray and Herrnstein covered some of the material in "The Bell Curve." Adequate nutrition and vitamin supplements for little kids might make the biggest difference at the lowest cost.
It's the opposite -- education has no effect prior to 10, only has effect after 14. Provide data?
You'd have to read their book or the rather large amount of research on the effects of very early intervention.
But if you really think that teaching children to read has "no effect," then I have nothing to say to you.
I never said "don't read to kids," I said "don't spend money on school."
who said that
Another pernicious trend in education is excess administrators. In 1950, they were about 2% of K-12 staffing by FTE, by 2000 they'd doubled to 4%, and now they're about 5%.
College is even worse (8%-26%).
My favorite idea on the education front is transferrable vouchers that you can also use for home schooling - you shouldn't have to pay for child prisons that don't teach anything if you're opting out for your own kids.
I would prefer no immigrants at all. Even if that's worse economically. We have enough people here.
Hard disagree. Population decline (which is what will happen without immigrants)) would be horrible fiscally, militarily, and culturally.
That trick will work for precisely one more generation. Then what?
If you don’t mind the immigrants why does the decline of the military matter?
The retirement of the baby boom generation will be horrible in all of those ways too, and there’s no avoiding it. Tighten your belt and hold on to your potatoes.
“Immigrants tend to use welfare more than native born Americans (smart move, if you ask me).”
Yes, “smart” if you have no compunction about robbing your fellow man.
Please do this and fire 80% if school administers at every level. End the bureaucratic nightmare that schools have. The stupidest and most incompetent people work for the government. Get rid of the dead weight. Teachers, your union is a fraud and should be illegal.
Provocative, but not unreasonable. However, it could cause a problem in other Western countries, who would quickly spot the issue of brain poaching. Although if UK is anything to go by, we already have ongoing drain to countries that are able to pay our graduates better.
You have good ideas about elementary schools, maybe about immigration only if immigration were controlled as you say and not chaos. But the DOE influence is far greater than it's 14 per cent funding. Local school boards are dazzled by "free" federal money, then are forced to comply with complex regulations and use the money on things they do not want or need. But is was free, right?
The charts which show the growth of school budgets and which show teaching funds have barely risen and administration funds skyrocket are explained by regulation and DOE.
Fun listen!
If we eliminated the Department of Education and introduced true free markets to education, we’d see more teachers, fewer administrators, and a rise in private schools, academies, and alternative models. The education market would naturally adapt, offering more flexible schedules and curricula.
I share many of your goals, but these changes should come from market demand, not mandates.
As a father of four, we’ve been homeschooling for two years. Ideally, more private options would exist for part-time schooling—just 1-2 days a week. But even in Arizona and Texas, where I’ve raised my kids and school choice laws are strong, options remain limited. Most academies don’t open until 3 p.m., forcing us to rely on private tutoring for morning education. The demand is there—what’s missing is a truly free market to meet it.
And before someone says, “What about the poor?”—they’d benefit most. A competitive, decentralized education system would lower costs, increase access, and create real opportunities beyond the bureaucratic grip of public schooling.
Interesting!
The “sending their best argument” can explain advantage over home country for many groups, but given that most of our black population is descended from those brought over as slaves, and I don’t think slaves were selected for intelligence, it seems to me that the black advantage requires a different explanation.
A significant portion of the black population died after emancipation due to a lack of resources and widespread illness. This in itself had a eugenic effect on American blacks, those that couldn't adapt were not able to reproduce