65% Public School Failure Rate Ignored by Fake News Media

Question: What would happen if tens of millions of automobiles stalled by the side of the road because the American oil companies had sold bad gasoline?

Answer: There would be national outrage, ginned up by the media, and those oil companies would be sued out of existence.

So why is it that 65% of eighth graders in the public schools are not proficient in reading, and 67% in math, yet there is little or no public outcry whatsoever, or even coverage in the Fake News media?

Answer: It is because the left-wing media insistently cover up for the failures of government and of the public schools.

Terence P. Jeffrey of CNSNews.com writes:

Sixty-five percent of the eighth graders in American public schools in 2017 were not proficient in reading and 67 percent were not proficient in mathematics, according to the National Assessment of Educational Progress test results released by the US Department of Education. The results are far worse for students enrolled in some urban districts.

Among the 27 large urban districts for which the Department of Education published 2017 NAEP test scores, the Detroit public schools had the lowest percentage of students who scored proficient or better in math and the lowest percentage who scored proficient or better in reading.

Only 5 percent of Detroit public-school eighth graders were proficient or better in math. Only 7 percent were proficient or better in reading.

In the Cleveland public schools, only 11 percent of eight graders were proficient or better in math and only 10 percent were proficient or better in reading.

In the Baltimore public schools, only 11 percent were proficient or better in math and only 13 percent were proficient or better in reading.

5% and 7% and 11% are abysmal numbers, and we know that Detroit, Cleveland and Baltimore are massively corrupt far-left cities, overwhelmingly black and hispanic, that are controlled with an iron grip by the Democrat party.

Urban schools are controlled by powerful unions where a teacher can earn an average of $60 an hour plus full benefits and pension even if doing a lousy job. Thus the Democrat party and unions are directly responsible for the failure of the schools.

US public schools have been failing for decades. They were great back in the 1950s and before but since the 1960s have been going downhill after the radical left started to take them over.

And you cannot blame it on funding or race. Urban schools usually get the highest funding by far. Then in many suburban and rural districts with only white kids enrolled the schools are often mediocre and increasingly are teaching a political agenda and not what kids need to know to succeed in life.

Public K-12 education in America costs taxpayers $550 billion annually. It is time to divert 25% of this funding to tens of thousands of charter, private and parochial schools that will cost less and teach more.

Good teachers gravitate to non-public schools even though they earn less since they get much more satisfaction from succeeding with their students and being free from the bureaucracy of the public schools.

On the other hand lesser teachers gravitate to the public schools because the standards are lower, the pay is usually higher, and less is expected of them except to adhere to the bureaucracy and to union rules.

There will continue to be a growing divide between the ‘haves’ and the ‘have nots’ in America if we continue with the public school system that we have today. We need legislation in every city and state to offer school choice and vouchers to every parent.

If there is competition then schools will be judged on their merits. Bad schools will fail and good schools will flourish. That is a good thing.

Calif. High-Speed Passenger Train is Fortunately Going Down the Drain

Nikitas3.com has been warning for years about the boondoggle known as the California high-speed passenger train which is intended to connect Los Angeles and San Francisco.

It was promoted as a cost-effective, energy-efficient way to cover the trip in less than 3 hours at 200 miles per hour (MPH). It is designed to use its own tracks which need to be built in a separate corridor from existing tracks.

But only a small portion of the line has been built; it has been rife with cost overruns, fraud and abuse; and it is highly unlikely ever to be built much further. A major study by the federal Department of Transportation has highlighted the outrageous costs. Fewer and fewer Californians support the project after much initial enthusiasm.

There currently are four ways to travel between the cities: By car, by bus, by an existing Amtrak train, or by flying commercial which takes about an hour.

So another mode is not needed especially when it would potentially cost $67 billion or probably much more by the time it was finished, and would cause major environmental damage when its corridor is blasted through the countryside on elevated concrete piers.

The driving distance between LA and San Francisco is 382 miles, while the flying distance is 350 miles, but the train would cover 520 miles to serve out-of-the-way population centers.

So how would traveling on that train save energy, time or money covering 138 more miles than by bus or car, or 170 extra miles over flying?

It would not. It would waste large amounts of energy and money. And there is no way that this train would cover the distance in 3 hours or less. That is a fake figure used to sell the project to the public.

Nikitas3.com has studied railroads for decades and predicts that the trip would require up to 9 hours since there are two mountain passes to climb and many stops along the way. That 200 MPH figure could apply only to short stretches of track in the flat Central Valley of California, if at all.

The trains also would probably enter the two endpoint cities at much slower speeds on existing tracks as many high-speed European trains do.

Here are some recent facts and figures from Fox News about the project:

This week’s updated cost estimate — to complete just the first phase – a 119-mile segment in the Central Valley – has ballooned to $10.6 billion. That’s a jaw-dropping 77 percent increase from initial estimates, 36 percent higher than forecasts from a year ago.

When California voters in 2008 narrowly approved $10 billion in bond as seed money for the high-speed rail development, they were told the total cost would be about $43 billion. (New) estimates put it now at $67 billion.

… Critics, however, say the state should cut its losses and call it a day. “The money is already wasted. There’s no way to unwaste it,” James Moore, director of the transportation engineering program at the University of Southern California, told Fox News.

He added that Californians have only “scratched the surface” when it comes to expenses, and said that estimates were “overtly deceptive.”

He described ridership forecasts as “fictional” and said the idea behind the state bullet train lacks logic.

“If you build a mode that is slower than an aircraft and costlier than gas, people aren’t going to ride it,” he said.

(Please bookmark this website and send this article by e-mail to your friends. Please recommend this site to all of your friends via Facebook and any other means. Let’s make Nikitas3.com the #1 conservative site by word of mouth. And if you would like to contribute to Nikitas3.com, please click the link at the upper right where it says “support this site”. Thank you, Nikitas)

This entry was posted in Current Events (More than 1,500 previous editorials!) and tagged , , , , , , , , . Bookmark the permalink.