About three weeks ago, ABC's 20/20 aired "Stupid in America," John Stossel's report on public education in the United States.  Stossel touched on a wide range of issues in the one-hour special, and he hoped that his hard-hitting piece would at least spark some debate on the controversial topic.

If you missed the original airing, ABC News has a few video excerpts you can watch online (here, here, and here).  Stossel has also devoted his last four columns to the subject.  His introductory offering focuses on America's decline in competitiveness with foreign schools:

We gave identical tests to high school students in New Jersey and Belgium. The Belgians trounced the Americans. We didn't pick smart kids in Europe and dumb kids in the United States. The American students attend an above-average school in New Jersey, and New Jersey kids' test scores are above average for America. "It has to be something with the school," said a New Jersey student, "'cause I don't think we're stupider."

She was right: It's the schools. At age 10, students from 25 countries take the same test, and American kids place eighth, well above the international average. But by age 15, when students from 40 countries are tested, the Americans place 25th, well below the international average. In other words, the longer American kids stay in American schools, the worse they do. They do worse than kids from much poorer countries, like Korea and Poland.

Stossel's next column is a response to his critics who say that schools need more money in order to raise standards:

The truth is, public schools are rolling in money. If you divide the U.S. Department of Education's figure for total spending on K-12 education by the department's count of K-12 students, it works out to about $10,000 per student.

Think about that! For a class of 25 kids, that's $250,000 per classroom. This doesn't include capital costs. Couldn't you do much better than government schools with $250,000? You could hire several good teachers; I doubt you'd hire many bureaucrats. Government schools, like most monopolies, squander money.

So in his first two pieces, Stossel has argued that American students are, indeed, falling behind and that, contrary to popular myth, throwing money at schools is not the solution.  In his third column, Stossel begins to provide some of his own solutions.  Namely, more freedom:

If you're a public-school student, your chances in life may be largely dependent on where you live -- not just which country, not just which state, but which little bureaucratic zone. [snip]

Changing schools can change a child's life. In Florida, Patty Bower's kids were stuck in a school that wasn't teaching them. But then they got vouchers, which let them attend a private school that works with kids who have special needs.

 "Joey has been brought up four grade levels in reading," Bowers said. "He's gone from C's, and D's to being an honor roll student." But the Florida Supreme Court this month killed a similar choice program, and Patty fears her kids will soon be forced back into public school. "If they take the McKay scholarship away, I don't think -- I'm sorry. I don't think Joey will finish school."

Why can't she choose her child's school? Most countries that beat America on international tests give their students that choice. In Belgium, the government spends less than American schools do on each student, but the money is attached to the kids. So they can go wherever they want -- to a state-run school, a Montessori school, or even a religious school.

In the TV special, Stossel goes into more detail about the opposition such programs face.  He attacks the teachers unions, school boards, and politicians who stand in the way of reform.  I was shocked when he sat down with a teacher from Florida who had brought suit against a Florida voucher program.  Her words of wisdom?

"To say that competition is going to improve education? It's just not gonna work. You know competition is not for children. It's not for human beings. It's not for public education. It never has been, it never will be."

Vouchers may not be the correct solution, but competition not for human beings?  Wow.

Unfortunately, while this appears to be the prevailing attitude of those in charge, Stossel says students like Dorian Cain enter the 12th grade without being able to read:

His mom, Gena Cain, has been trying to get him help for years. If Dorian were in private school, or if South Carolina allowed parents to choose schools the way we choose other products and services in life, Dorian and Gena would be "customers" and able to go elsewhere -- if any school were dumb enough to serve a customer as poorly as Dorian has been served. But since Gena is merely a taxpayer, forced to pay for the public schools whether they do her any good or not, she can't even demand a better education for her son. "You have to beg," she said. "Whatever you ask for, you're begging. Because they have the power." They do. What are you going to do -- go elsewhere? Gena can't afford that.

Apparently, Gena finally did get results:

What the school bureaucrats did was hold meetings to talk about Dorian. (Bureaucrats are good at holding meetings.) At the meeting we watched, lots of important people attended: a director of programs for exceptional children, a resource teacher, a district special education coordinator, a counselor and even a gym teacher. The meeting went on for 45 minutes.

"I'm seeing great progress in him," said the principal. "So I don't have any concerns."

Stossel's reporting alone raises many important questions about our current education system.  While his examples may portray extreme cases of dysfunction, it is telling that these episodes occur at all in our exceptional country.

Stossel eventually puts forward some of his own ideas, which may or may not lead to the correct solutions.  But whether or not you agree with Stossel's conclusions, his case against the status quo is devastating.