> The schools' poor performance relative to private schools is a strong signal of lack of accountability.
How much of that can be attributed to selection bias though? Private schools are pretty pricey, meaning you generally have to come from a fairly rich family to go to one. Rich families can afford extra tutoring that a poor family might not be able to.
A better statistic might be to compare public schools to charter schools, and that's a much less clear cut distinction. I can point you to dozens of cases where charter schools are a joke, and a bunch of cases where they're great, it's not a clearly defined "better" just because there's a profit incentive.
> A third signal is anytime someone from the school talks about solving issues, they always always always put it down to lack of funding, and the credulous journalists repeat that unquestioningly and the schools get their tax increase.
Yeah, so that's just not true. If you go to a poorly funded public school, the calls for funding are immediately obvious. There are holes in the ceiling, often there's no chalk/markers to write on the board, the computers will be from the late 90's and half of them just don't boot up.
You could argue that this is due to simply poor allocation, and there's probably some truth to that, but implying that they're not poorly funded is flatly wrong. Have you even seen a high school in a poor neighborhood in the last forty years?
> Another signal is the firing of teachers for incompetence is practically non-existent.
Fair, but you've worked for private corporations haven't you? Surely you've seen employees that do literally nothing manage to hang around the company for years. I had a friend that jokingly told me when he retires he's going to get a job at Bank of America because he can just show up and do nothing at his desk while still taking home a paycheck. I don't know that that's an issue with "accountability" so much as it's an issue with "large organizations are bad at finding outliers".
> A fourth signal is repeatedly lowering the requirements for a diploma.
The GED has been around for since the 40's. I've never taken it since I did high school the normal way, but I know several people of different age demographics that claimed it's much easier than normal high school, so I don't think this is new.
> A fifth signal is getting rid of "high stakes testing".
I guess I just fundamentally disagree with this being a bad thing. Understanding a subject isn't a binary yes/no like a test implies. Testing can be a good way to gauge the level of understanding a student has on a subject, but "high stakes" implies that the student will be punished in some way unless they pass, and I guess I disagree with the utility of that. Again, it becomes a Goodhart's Law situation.
> A sixth is getting rid of the gifted tracks.
Has this actually happend? My younger sister graduated from high school four years ago, she had exclusively AP classes. I'm a good chunk older than her and graduated high school in 2009, but I skipped two grades in math. Where has this happened? A quick search had a few articles calling for the removal of gifted tracks but I didn't see any indication that it actually happened.