You try to learn the difference between "AMERICA" and the "United States of America (i.e., USA)" - and I shall SINCERELY try to understand the point(s) you may (or may not) be making about 'math education' (whether in the USA OR elsewhere - assuming there IS an 'elsewhere' anywhere in this world of ours). [Earlier, I had written "and elsewhere"].
- -- pseudo-educators are very naughty people indeed; - -- the teaching of math requires serious improvement; - -- English teaching (including the teaching of the US variant of English) requires serious improvement; - -- teaching in general [of every discipline] requires serious improvement; - -- insufficient serious thought is being applied to the issue of the improvement of teaching.
I do need to observe here that most of the deficiencies in 'teaching' develop because of the lack of understanding in the 'teaching' profession that 'teaching' is not a 'thing-in-itself' (see below). This IS a very serious problem - far more serious than those that some of us claim to have discovered about the 'schools of education' and about the 'Education Mafia'.
Thus, apart from "America" and such geographical matters, you might like to consider the simple fact of pedagogy that 'teaching' does not exist in a vacuum - there is simply no such thing as 'teaching by itself'.
'Teaching' is in fact part of the 'learning + teaching' dyad (which I often write as "the 'learning+teaching' dyad)" in order to emphasize that teaching is not a 'thing-in-itself'.
'Learning+teaching' is a 'system concept' as against 'teaching' (by itself), which is a 'machine concept'.
More information about tools to help us understand and work in and with 'systems' and how we may better cope with systems is available in brief at the attachments to my post heading the thread "Democracy: how to achieve it?" - http://mathforum.org/kb/thread.jspa?threadID=2419536 . (I must emphasize here that the understanding of 'systems' demands a [very] small amount of learning alongside a fair bit of 'unlearning'. Problem is, the unlearning has to accompany the learning).
The tools described are developed from the seminal contributions of the late John N. Warfield to systems science - and they are readily usable by any high-school student. Of course, as we all know, that high-school student should be 'willing to learn': there are a great many people who are apparently unwilling to learn - their minds seem to be hermetically sealed to the ingress of new knowledge.
More information, plus some useful free software to help us work with systems ideas, is available on request.
I do assure you that a great many of the issues you raise would be happily resolved if you - and others - would learn that 'systems' need to be handled quite differently from the way we have learned to handle 'machines'. (Including the issues relating to the 'door-stopper text books' that you often refer to. I do generally agree with you on this. Also, many of the problems relating to 'pseudo-educators', not to mention 'pseudo-education' would also be satisfactorily resolved).