"America's Rotten Public Schools"

An except from today's Economist:

"America fixed its class problem in the Gilded Age by becoming more meritocratic: money was poured into education, and ladders were created for young bright children to ease past the robber barons' doltish offspring. America's “problem” nowadays—and it is really a triumph—is that this meritocracy is working almost too well. Put crudely, educated people are marrying each other and pouring money into their children's education to make sure they go to the same universities. That helps explain why American universities are so much better than their peers; but only one in 30 students at the most selective ones come from the poorest quarter of households.

A new deal for schools

So the challenge is different. But the solution once again is to be found in the education system—particularly America's rotten public schools. Republicans are, generally speaking, reluctant to spend more money—partly because they represent people in richer school districts and partly because so much cash has already been wasted (America spends much more than other countries). Meanwhile Democrats, enslaved to the teachers' unions, are generally unwilling to countenance reforms such as school vouchers and testing; and they are also keener on affirmative action, the system of race-based preferences which makes universities less competitive and keeps the poison of race in a debate which is best focused on income.

This is depressing. But a political solution of sorts is going begging. Republicans should be willing to spend more cash on schools in poor areas (including on teachers' salaries) in exchange for the Democrats accepting structural reform. The No Child Left Behind Act, which introduced some forms of testing and the daring possibility of shutting down some bad schools, was an important step forward. But more is needed. Otherwise two Americas really will start to jump out off the map."

Interesting how different a perspective you get from a non-US source on this one. The solution seems clear, develop a system that works and then give it the money to function, not one without the other.

As a side note: I am half way through Ron Chernow's excellent book, The House of Morgan. One of the most striking things about JP Morgan in the early to mid 20th century was the decision to generally hire men based on merit, not based on connections. While there was certainly some nepotism at the bank, in general men were hired and promoted based on intelligence and education, not on the business their family ties could bring the bank Undoubtedly, one of the factors behind Morgan's success.

Timothy Burger