There is one glaring problem with that whole essay: it seems to regulate the "fault" in general to TV (or other sorts of distractionary and vacant activities) and public education. Nothing anywhere about family, really, as if family were a sort of third wheel to the whole deal (as in it is mentioned in passing and not as a major player). Overall it's an oversimplification of the "problem" at hand, although I do agree with what he has to say overall.
I do talk to teachers here and there about public education. My own interest comes from the dissonance between the way a child develops and the education system. Language in high school? History in elementary school? Nonsense. Public education seems to ignore developmental studies completely. Be that as it may, the response all over is that there is a huge amount of politics because no one can agree on what a proper curriculum is and what education is meant for. The system we have is essentially one large compromise between a great deal of differing interests... and it may be the best that we can achieve.
I've always hated comparisons to 'other countries' as far as our academic standing. He uses it again there as well. The demographics of the US differs greatly from any other country in the world. Doing a comparison of, say, Luxembourg or Japan versus the US is apples and oranges. Rates of immigration, number of children per family, financial status, etc, etc vary widely and just comparing one (rather abstract) parameter is essentially useless.
Blah, blah, blah.
GoY's Pessimistic Soy Boy Toy