In looking over back issues of the newspaper, I ran across three nominally separate articles/opinion pieces that have a common thread. 

In a discussion on an "intellectual diversity" bill pending in the Missouri Legislature, Professor Stephen Dilks of UMKC writes that "to legislate what happens in university classrooms is ... damaging (to) the atmosphere of open inquiry and exploration necessary to productive research and democratic public education."  He also states that this bill would "(impose) government control over an education system that thrives by supporting and protecting the free expression and exploration of ideas."  Near the conclusion of the piece, he writes that "those who impose personal truths as though they are fixed truths are unlikely to be tenured or promoted because such imposition goes against the very spirit of academic inquiry."  (from the Kansas City Star, "Leave Regulation Out of the College Classroom", 1 May 2007)

Writing in the New York Times, Nicholas Kristof bemoans the striking difference in atttude towards education in China and America (KC Star, 30 May 2007).  Kristof compares the Chinese attitude towards education in three areas (more time spent in education, a cultural respect for learning, the demonstration that hard work produces better scores) to the American attitude, and contends (correctly) that America comes off second-best in all three. He concludes by re-stating his premise that China will overtake the US as the premier country in the world because of these attitudinal differences unless America improves the education system here.

Somewhat differing viewpoints here; one says we're fine the way we are (at least in universities), and one says we need improvement now.

The last item is a news bit from Kansas City just about the same time.  A bookstore in KC was overstocked, and the owner had tried to donate extra books to libraries, only to have the contribution declined.  Rather than trying other sources of charity or simply giving them away at the store, he built a pyramid of books and burned them, calling his pyrotechnics a protest against the decline of reading in the United States.  After getting shelled in the Letters column for a few days, his wife wrote to the Kansas City Star (7 June 2007) to defend his action, quoting a 2004 NEA survey that found that "from 1982 to 2002 reading dropped in all groups studied, with the largest decrease (28 percent) occurring among the youngest readers."  She went on to cite the survey's statements that there was "'an overall decline ... in literary readers' during this period, (and) further said (that) 'the rate of decline is increasing and ... nearly tripled in the last decade.'"  She also stated that "over half of the American adult population doesn't read if it isn't required!"

Let's recap.  A current professor says the university system doesn't need government oversight.  A columnist points up the gaping difference in educational attitude between America and China (though he could easily have said Asia and Asia Minor as a whole).  And an NEA survey claims a severe drop in reading nationwide.

What is the common thread here?  The National Education Association, and the abject FAILURE of that organization to promote quality education over perquisites of educators.

My personal epiphany for the ridiculousness of the NEA came in my senior year of high school, 1979-1980.  Our Government teacher used a textbook named "Isms" for this class; that book was divided into four sections, labelled anarchism, parliamentarianism, socialism, and communism.  I found out that of these four "isms", only the second one deals with a system of government; the other three are forms of ECONOMIES.  This is why I disclaim my one year at that high school (even though I hold their diploma), and why I claim no college-level education, even though I spent a year in university.  My last two years of formal education were a complete waste of time and money, and would have been better spent in the workforce learning a useful trade in an OJT capacity.

The National Education Association is a union for American educators to protect their interests.  It holds no brief for improving education in America, although it SHOULD do as a matter of job security for its' membership.  The NEA's primary occupation, as is normal for most unions, is "as little work as possible for as much benefit as possible", which means less actual teaching, and more baby-sitting until the student is old enough to legally kick out of school (or graduate, which is essentially the same thing).  "Why Johnny Can't Read" has been blamed on everything from bad parenting to TV to video games to the Internet, but at base it is the failure of the schools to TEACH Johnny how to read, write, or cipher, thereby making him (or her) completely non-competitive in the adult world.

It amazes me, in my job as a convenience store manager, how many young people are shocked by my ability to tell them the total of two items and their change from a bill without ever touching the cash register.  The reader will, I'm sure, have had experience with a cashier who miscounts change or cannot do simple mental math when a mistake occurs, even though that cashier probably has the same level of educational experience that I do.  The fact that I grew up before hand-held calculators were common (never mind personal computers or the Internet) is not relevant; the school curriculum should be such that NO child can advance beyond the sixth grade without being able to add 99 cents and $1.24 and give correct change back for a $10 bill...WITHOUT a calculator.  (The answer is $7.77, by the way, in case your school failed YOU.)

To answer the specifics of the three pieces noted above, let's begin with the first.  Professor Dilks (very likely a member of the NEA, and almost certainly tenured at UMKC, and thus with a lot to protect) claims that government intervention would stunt free inquiry and exploration at universities.  In my experience, there is very LITTLE "free inquiry and exploration" at universities, and quite a LOT of regurgitating lecture notes on tests.  Arguing with the professor, especially in a class like political science, is also a sure way to ruin your GPA, even though Professor Dilks asserts that the free expression and exploration of ideas is central to a thriving educational system.  The point in fact is that the system has transmuted from Dilks' ideal to "you will believe what we tell you, because we're college professors, and we're smarter than you will ever be".  As far as opinions being taught as fact and persons doing so will not be tenured, all one has to do is look at Ward Churchill of the University of Colorado to see the untruth of that statement.  The upshot is that Professor Dilks is trying to keep the status quo of letting liberal-arts colleges and universities continue to fill the minds of young adults with non-essential DRIVEL so that academicians can publish papers decrying the societal lack of support in their effort to "educate our youth", while continuing to pat themselves on the back for the fine job they think they're doing.

Mr. Kristof's article is dead-on, but he fails to give a solution to the problem.  Cultural differences may not be resolvable at this time (the Asians respect and honor an educated individual, as well as their older citizens; Americans generally do not), but focusing on more and better-quality work to produce a competitively-educated citizen is an attainable goal.

Finally, the book-burning was a simple publicity stunt, since the bookstore owner made no serious attempt to give away his overstock, so that part of the article can be dismissed.  The NEA survey, though, is interesting in that the National Education Association itself is hugely responsible for not making reading an attractive lifelong entertainment option.  If you teach a child that a book is more enjoyable than a video game, TV, or the Internet (and it is, because it's your own imagination that brings the book to life), that child will want to read.  Teaching the child about history will bring him/her to the novels of Dickens and Tolstoy, discussing the patterns of plot in reading class will open up the world of Shakespeare, and the study of government and economics in social studies will lead to reading Dostoevsky, Huxley, Orwell, and Rand.  "Literary reading", indeed.  The drop in reading in the period cited simply mirrors the advances in entertainment technology 1982-2002; Pac-Man was still in arcades in 1982---now we have Grand Theft Auto on PSP.  To overcome that, a child has to WANT to read; the day when reading was nearly the only leisure activity is long gone (try 1920 or so, with the advent of home wireless, which we know now as radio).

In short, young Americans are graduating from high schools without the necessary tools to compete and survive in today's world.  The Cold Hard Fact here is that the National Education Association is very much responsible for this shortcoming.  Dismantling of this union as a de facto syllabus-writer and curriculum-setter, as well as the institution of merit pay and NO tenure in all levels of education, would be a major corrective step in the right direction---that of providing our children with that which they need to be ready for the real world.  We as a society owe that to our children; what they do with it is up to them.