Paging Professor Palin

[Guns Guns Guns]

'We're raising young people who are, by and large, historically illiterate," David McCullough tells me on a recent afternoon in a quiet meeting room at the Boston Public Library.






Having lectured at more than 100 colleges and universities over the past 25 years, he says, "I know how much these young people—even at the most esteemed institutions of higher learning—don't know." Slowly, he shakes his head in dismay. "It's shocking."






He's right.






This week, the Department of Education released the 2010 National Assessment of Educational Progress, which found that only 12% of high-school seniors have a firm grasp of our nation's history.






One problem is personnel.






"People who come out of college with a degree in education and not a degree in a subject are severely handicapped in their capacity to teach effectively," Mr. McCullough argues.






"Because they're often assigned to teach subjects about which they know little or nothing." The great teachers love what they're teaching, he says, and "you can't love something you don't know anymore than you can love someone you don't know."






"We're too concentrated on having our children learn the answers," he summarizes. "I would teach them how to ask questions—because that's how you learn."












http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052702304432304576369421525987128.html

 

[Mott the Hoople]

I agree. I think that is part of the problem in our educational system, particularly at the junior high and high school level. To many educators are not educated in the subjects they are teaching yet those are the people who we hire to teach our kids. Why? Money is a big reason. Most school system, for example, don't want to pay what the market will bear for an educator who is qualified in a specific subject like science because they would have to pay higher wages to attract them. I've been recruited in the past as a science teacher and turned down those offers cause I couldn't afford to work for that low of pay.

 

[Lowaicue]

I agree. I think that is part of the problem in our educational system, particularly at the junior high and high school level. To many educators are not educated in the subjects they are teaching yet those are the people who we hire to teach our kids. Why? Money is a big reason. Most school system, for example, don't want to pay what the market will bear for an educator who is qualified in a specific subject like science because they would have to pay higher wages to attract them. I've been recruited in the past as a science teacher and turned down those offers cause I couldn't afford to work for that low of pay.

Unfortunately education has been the centre of policy changes since it was seen as a vote winner. I am guessing that the US system and the UK system are similar in that regard. Here (HK) we have a slightly different, but nevertheless connected, problem. An education policy cannot be decided by bean counting politicians, nor can it be decided by action groups of any hue.
Any education system must be designed to give society what society needs. Once that has been agreed then the finance to attain that target must be provided. Not from any politically motivated board (macro politics excepted).
We should start with our teacher training (First degrees should be in a relevant subject obviously) and people are needed with the guts and the passion to weed out the wussies and do gooding pretend teachers.
Teachers here are regarded as one of the top five members of society but, unfortunately not paid accordingly.
So I whole heartedly agree that a teacher should teach the subject he or she teaches best. Incidentally, the monitoring of this should be the responsibility, in part, of the teachers' union as should be the maintenance of a fair remuneration.
Department heads should be allowed to be just that and the line of command should place them firmly near the top of the management tree.
Its a big subject and its lunch time. Toodle-oo

 

[Dixie - In Memoriam]

The problem with the education system in America is a matter of priorities and objectives. We should understand the priority is to properly educate our youth, and the objective would be to produce well-educated students. With a system like we have, the priority for most schools, is to see how many butts they can legally count in attendance, so they can meet the objective of getting more government money than last year. There is simply no motivation to provide proper education or produce well-educated students. In fact, it is somewhat counterproductive to the objective of getting more government money for butts in seats.

The 'solution' to this dilemma is a voucher system. Instead of the Federal government sending states money based on attendance (butts in seats), the money would go to individuals, who would receive a voucher to be used at the school of their choice. By empowering the consumer this way, the dynamics of priorities and objectives changes fundamentally for the school. Suddenly, it's no longer important how many butts are in seats, it is far more important to demonstrate to the consumer your school can provide the best quality education for your voucher dollar. In addition, this would also effect pay rates for GOOD teachers. Someone who is an exceptional educator, could name their own price, plenty of schools would be bidding for their services, and free-market capitalism works to accomplish what the government can't.

Now, before you pinheads burst a blood vessel trying to respond, let me explain why you feel compelled to reject my idea. Your political party is heavily tied to the teachers union, and absolutely refuses to cede the power they currently hold over education in America. Because you are a good little liberal soldier, you will march out here and take a shot at me, while calling for more tax dollars to fund the bloated bureaucracy your party has created. How long have we continued to pour more and more money into this broken system? How have the results been? We've certainly increased the education budget, heck... it increases every year, in every fiscal budget... but what are the results? Are we making any headway in better educating our children? Or, are the children becoming dumber and less educated? Hey, I understand you are committed to your party, and your party happens to be tied to the teachers union, so you have to fight this idea kicking and screaming... but in all honesty, the vouchers program would eventually benefit good teachers more than anything we've ever done for teachers.

 

[Lowaicue]

The problem with the education system in America is a matter of priorities and objectives. We should understand the priority is to properly educate our youth, and the objective would be to produce well-educated students. With a system like we have, the priority for most schools, is to see how many butts they can legally count in attendance, so they can meet the objective of getting more government money than last year. There is simply no motivation to provide proper education or produce well-educated students. In fact, it is somewhat counterproductive to the objective of getting more government money for butts in seats.

The 'solution' to this dilemma is a voucher system. Instead of the Federal government sending states money based on attendance (butts in seats), the money would go to individuals, who would receive a voucher to be used at the school of their choice. By empowering the consumer this way, the dynamics of priorities and objectives changes fundamentally for the school. Suddenly, it's no longer important how many butts are in seats, it is far more important to demonstrate to the consumer your school can provide the best quality education for your voucher dollar. In addition, this would also effect pay rates for GOOD teachers. Someone who is an exceptional educator, could name their own price, plenty of schools would be bidding for their services, and free-market capitalism works to accomplish what the government can't.

Now, before you pinheads burst a blood vessel trying to respond, let me explain why you feel compelled to reject my idea. Your political party is heavily tied to the teachers union, and absolutely refuses to cede the power they currently hold over education in America. Because you are a good little liberal soldier, you will march out here and take a shot at me, while calling for more tax dollars to fund the bloated bureaucracy your party has created. How long have we continued to pour more and more money into this broken system? How have the results been? We've certainly increased the education budget, heck... it increases every year, in every fiscal budget... but what are the results? Are we making any headway in better educating our children? Or, are the children becoming dumber and less educated? Hey, I understand you are committed to your party, and your party happens to be tied to the teachers union, so you have to fight this idea kicking and screaming... but in all honesty, the vouchers program would eventually benefit good teachers more than anything we've ever done for teachers.

Too many pupils leave school without the requisite skills to be useful members of society. Too many of those children could have achieved considerable success in an efficient system.
Perhaps a 'war' is called for. not a war on tourism as bush wanted, nor a war on drugs , but a war on illiteracy and under achievement.
Once it is declared a war then finance is no problem. Smaller schools, smaller classes, better teachers paid better salaries, better facilities and a better end product.
So whether you are a tory or a liberal, a republican, democrat or socialist here is one war that is truly worthwhile. After all, you/we will be fighting for our own future and that of our children and that of our nation, US or UK!
In the UK that would be a step towards abolishing the public school system and therefore minimising the risk of more Camerons and Osbornes. In the US it might go some way to reducing the number of fat cat dynasties such as the bush babies, the kennedy klan and all the others.

 

[Dixie - In Memoriam]

Too many pupils leave school without the requisite skills to be useful members of society. Too many of those children could have achieved considerable success in an efficient system.
Perhaps a 'war' is called for. not a war on tourism as bush wanted, nor a war on drugs , but a war on illiteracy and under achievement.
Once it is declared a war then finance is no problem. Smaller schools, smaller classes, better teachers paid better salaries, better facilities and a better end product.
So whether you are a tory or a liberal, a republican, democrat or socialist here is one war that is truly worthwhile. After all, you/we will be fighting for our own future and that of our children and that of our nation, US or UK!
In the UK that would be a step towards abolishing the public school system and therefore minimising the risk of more Camerons and Osbornes. In the US it might go some way to reducing the number of fat cat dynasties such as the bush babies, the kennedy klan and all the others.

I fail to see what exterminating Bushes and Kennedys would do to improve education, and I am not compelled to divert the thread topic to discuss this alternative, I would rather remain focused on the education system and how to fix the problem.

We are approaching the 90th anniversary of Harding's creation of a Federally-controlled education system in America. Through the years we have traditionally struggled to maintain academic standards found in the rest of the world, but we have consistently been promised it would get better.... We just need to spend more money.... We just need to hire more teachers... We just need to pay teachers more... We just need fewer students per teacher... We need to tweak this or reform that... We need a separate Department of Education... We need a Secretary of Education... We need to raise taxes... We need computers in the classrooms... Year in and year out, every election cycle come and goes, and politicians of all stripes and parties, promises us that they are going to be the ones to fix the education system, and our test scores continue to spiral downward. Each budget touts even more funding for education than the previous budget, politicians proudly point out the extra emphasis they have put on education funding during their tenure... no politician ever wants to be known as the guy who opposed an increase in education spending... it's a no-brainer in Washington. So very year, we spend more and more and MORE of our tax dollars, on a failing and dismal education system which is simply not adequately educating our children. When do we stop listening to them, and fix the problem?

Introducing competition, would have a dramatic effect on the quality and standards of education in America. Allowing private education to flourish and offer their services to a broader range of students, and forcing public schools to step up and compete in education, which they are currently NOT doing, would benefit the vast majority of students in America. Of course, Liberals would want some kind of "smart pill" developed, so no poor student would actually have to work hard and study to get good grades... but we can deal with that later. The overwhelming majority of students would benefit from better education across the board, and we could get back to the priority and objective again, instead of spending our tax dollars to pay pedophiles and atheists to count butts in seats.

 

[Lowaicue]

I fail to see what exterminating Bushes and Kennedys would do to improve education, and I am not compelled to divert the thread topic to discuss this alternative, I would rather remain focused on the education system and how to fix the problem.

We are approaching the 90th anniversary of Harding's creation of a Federally-controlled education system in America. Through the years we have traditionally struggled to maintain academic standards found in the rest of the world, but we have consistently been promised it would get better.... We just need to spend more money.... We just need to hire more teachers... We just need to pay teachers more... We just need fewer students per teacher... We need to tweak this or reform that... We need a separate Department of Education... We need a Secretary of Education... We need to raise taxes... We need computers in the classrooms... Year in and year out, every election cycle come and goes, and politicians of all stripes and parties, promises us that they are going to be the ones to fix the education system, and our test scores continue to spiral downward. Each budget touts even more funding for education than the previous budget, politicians proudly point out the extra emphasis they have put on education funding during their tenure... no politician ever wants to be known as the guy who opposed an increase in education spending... it's a no-brainer in Washington. So very year, we spend more and more and MORE of our tax dollars, on a failing and dismal education system which is simply not adequately educating our children. When do we stop listening to them, and fix the problem?

Introducing competition, would have a dramatic effect on the quality and standards of education in America. Allowing private education to flourish and offer their services to a broader range of students, and forcing public schools to step up and compete in education, which they are currently NOT doing, would benefit the vast majority of students in America. Of course, Liberals would want some kind of "smart pill" developed, so no poor student would actually have to work hard and study to get good grades... but we can deal with that later. The overwhelming majority of students would benefit from better education across the board, and we could get back to the priority and objective again, instead of spending our tax dollars to pay pedophiles and atheists to count butts in seats.

Your first sentence changes the focus of my message. It doesn't surprise me that you would do that although it suggests that you do not see the eradication of dynasties as a bonus for the nation.
My main point was that education should not be held hostage to money by politicians who promise the moon. Education is much too important for it to be treated as private enterprise. Education trains our future politicians, our future leaders of industry, our future fruit pickers and cleaners each as vital as the next if we want to retain any semblance of civilisation.
Competition in education tends not to work. It denies the economically disadvantaged the chance of serving their country (no, of course not always). Competition separates the haves from the have nots and allows inequality, not only to continue, but to thrive.
We treat as a war, the fight against drugs and terrorism and as such no one really questions the nation's budget for them. Education should be handled in a similar fashion. It is too important to be left to accountants.
You comments regarding paedophiles and atheists are just too stupid to deserve a response.
I just wonder what terrible experiences you might have been subject to to make you think as you do.

 

[Mott the Hoople]

On the funding side I think a big part of the problem is unfunded mandates. I do think we should have national education standards but that for schools to be affective and efficient local control is needed. The problem we have with many national standards is that they come with unfunded mandates that tie the hands of local schools and school boards. If the Federal government is going to require specific standards and set mandates for public schools, they should also provide a source of funding to comply with those mandates.

On the education side, none of this means squat as long as we have vast numbers of parents who are not engaged in their childrens education, which is, of course, why we have compulsory education. The quality of education in our public schools is a reflection of our collective values about education and unfortunately there arejust to many parents out there who don't care.

 

[Guns Guns Guns]

It'd make sense to do what many politicians and public school teachers do....send all well-to-do spawn to private schools, and let the poor's offspring stew in the cesspit of public education.

Oh, wait, that's exactly what is happening, isn't it?

 

[The Dude]

unemployment is like 5% for college educated dudes and dudettes, we have a not going to college problem

 

[Guns Guns Guns]

unemployment is like 5% for college educated dudes and dudettes, we have a not going to college problem

Got any evidence for that claim?

 

[Dixie - In Memoriam]

Your first sentence changes the focus of my message. It doesn't surprise me that you would do that although it suggests that you do not see the eradication of dynasties as a bonus for the nation.

Again, I fail to see what exterminating dynasties has to do with proper education. How else would you "eradicate" a dynasty, other than to exterminate the members? I don't understand. I think it's a bit extreme, even for a Brit!

My main point was that education should not be held hostage to money by politicians who promise the moon.

We kind of agree here, ironically. I don't want education held hostage by politicians who promise money.

Education is much too important for it to be treated as private enterprise. Education trains our future politicians, our future leaders of industry, our future fruit pickers and cleaners each as vital as the next if we want to retain any semblance of civilisation.
Competition in education tends not to work. It denies the economically disadvantaged the chance of serving their country (no, of course not always). Competition separates the haves from the have nots and allows inequality, not only to continue, but to thrive.

And here is where we have a fundamental difference of opinion. Brains and intelligence are supposedly the same in potential for all of us, we are supposedly all capable of learning and becoming better educated. This does not change based on a person's socioeconomic condition or race, or anything else. Unless you are of the bigoted view that 'poor' people are 'ignorant' people who are incapable of learning, then you have to realize everyone has the potential to learn.

Competition in education is currently how most universities operate. What is the value of a degree from Harvard versus a degree from Southwest Louisiana Technical School? How about Harvard versus Cambridge? Yale? Colleges and Universities attract students by offering a variety of classes and options, night classes, weekends, online... The consumer is offered a vast array of options, and they don't seem to have a problem with that.

Oh... but what about the poooooooooooooor...... well, if there is some poor kid out there who wants to be educated, we can have all kinds of sponsorship programs, this isn't hard to do. The "vouchers" idea involves giving the money directly to the consumer, and allowing them to choose where to spend it. If they want to add to that and provide an alternative education, they can... or they can remain in the public system. I think this would cause two things to happen... Private schools would lower costs to become more competitive for this voucher money, and public schools would become more focused on providing quality education of the private schools. Win/Win!

We treat as a war, the fight against drugs and terrorism and as such no one really questions the nation's budget for them. Education should be handled in a similar fashion. It is too important to be left to accountants.
You comments regarding paedophiles and atheists are just too stupid to deserve a response.
I just wonder what terrible experiences you might have been subject to to make you think as you do.

Uhm, yeah... we're pretty much questioning the war on drugs cost every day, as well as the war on terrorism, and you can search these threads for a variety of debate on those very topics. The nation's budget is $1.6 trillion over what it will take in... including an ever-increasing amount for education, which has produced DISMAL results over the past 90 years. It should be taken from the hands of government control, and turned over to free markets, and allowed to compete by offering a better product. The way Universities and institutions of higher learning have operated for centuries!

 

[Lowaicue]

Again, I fail to see what exterminating dynasties has to do with proper education. How else would you "eradicate" a dynasty, other than to exterminate the members? I don't understand. I think it's a bit extreme, even for a Brit!



We kind of agree here, ironically. I don't want education held hostage by politicians who promise money.



And here is where we have a fundamental difference of opinion. Brains and intelligence are supposedly the same in potential for all of us, we are supposedly all capable of learning and becoming better educated. This does not change based on a person's socioeconomic condition or race, or anything else. Unless you are of the bigoted view that 'poor' people are 'ignorant' people who are incapable of learning, then you have to realize everyone has the potential to learn.

Competition in education is currently how most universities operate. What is the value of a degree from Harvard versus a degree from Southwest Louisiana Technical School? How about Harvard versus Cambridge? Yale? Colleges and Universities attract students by offering a variety of classes and options, night classes, weekends, online... The consumer is offered a vast array of options, and they don't seem to have a problem with that.

Oh... but what about the poooooooooooooor...... well, if there is some poor kid out there who wants to be educated, we can have all kinds of sponsorship programs, this isn't hard to do. The "vouchers" idea involves giving the money directly to the consumer, and allowing them to choose where to spend it. If they want to add to that and provide an alternative education, they can... or they can remain in the public system. I think this would cause two things to happen... Private schools would lower costs to become more competitive for this voucher money, and public schools would become more focused on providing quality education of the private schools. Win/Win!



Uhm, yeah... we're pretty much questioning the war on drugs cost every day, as well as the war on terrorism, and you can search these threads for a variety of debate on those very topics. The nation's budget is $1.6 trillion over what it will take in... including an ever-increasing amount for education, which has produced DISMAL results over the past 90 years. It should be taken from the hands of government control, and turned over to free markets, and allowed to compete by offering a better product. The way Universities and institutions of higher learning have operated for centuries!

I'm not really sure whether you are being deliberately obtuse or that you are unused to the use of metaphor and hyperbole.
If you really think I stated an intention to kill members of a dynasty then I must measure my words far more carefully in future.
Their eradication from positions of unfair advantage is completely possible and can only be a good thing for a fair society. (Brits are not French, you know!)
Now here you say our opinions diverge:

"And here is where we have a fundamental difference of opinion. Brains and intelligence are supposedly the same in potential for all of us, we are supposedly all capable of learning and becoming better educated. This does not change based on a person's socioeconomic condition or race, or anything else. Unless you are of the bigoted view that 'poor' people are 'ignorant' people who are incapable of learning, then you have to realize everyone has the potential to learn."

By continuing with a system where places are competed for, the disadvantaged (poor) will be denied equal education. To me that is obvious. Competition is alive and well in the UK and here in HK. It doesn't work. Indeed this is evidenced by tales of the very few people who make good DESPITE their backgrounds. If it was the norm it would not be reported.

Then you side step once again and bring, struggling to the fray, the policies of our respective governments towards universities. Tertiary education does not decide which young people will go forward to success and which won't. That is what schools do.
Once schools have had an injection of fairness and good management by, as I said before, treating illiteracy as a war and allowing the best and brightest from all backgrounds then universities need not be competitive save by their results. And that, to me, is not a problem.
I am not suggesting, to move to your last paragraph, that one should not question the spending of every pound, or in your case dollar. Of course we should - and vociferously. But the budget should depend, like in a war where we are prepared to spend 'n' trillion just so we can retain our false pride and oil for our cars, upon the desired outcome and that means paying teachers well, fully equiping our centres of learning, reducing class sizes, reintroducing losers and uniforms and giving schools the right to discipline their 'darling little charges'.
Before you bounce just make sure that you understand what I am saying.

 

[Dixie - In Memoriam]

I'm not really sure whether you are being deliberately obtuse or that you are unused to the use of metaphor and hyperbole.
If you really think I stated an intention to kill members of a dynasty then I must measure my words far more carefully in future.
Their eradication from positions of unfair advantage is completely possible and can only be a good thing for a fair society. (Brits are not French, you know!)

How would you go about 'eradicating from positions of power' every member of all the dynasties? Is it fair, in your mind, for society to strip them of their money and property? Who are shareholders in corporations allowed to appoint to boards and chairmanships? Will you have a List of Names? Maybe we can round all the dynasty members up and have them branded with some sort of symbol on the forehead, so we will know who not to give a position of authority to?

I get hyperbole... is that what you thought you were giving us? To me, it just sounded foolish and extreme.

Now here you say our opinions diverge:

"And here is where we have a fundamental difference of opinion. Brains and intelligence are supposedly the same in potential for all of us, we are supposedly all capable of learning and becoming better educated. This does not change based on a person's socioeconomic condition or race, or anything else. Unless you are of the bigoted view that 'poor' people are 'ignorant' people who are incapable of learning, then you have to realize everyone has the potential to learn."

By continuing with a system where places are competed for, the disadvantaged (poor) will be denied equal education.

First of all, 'places' would not be 'competed for' with a voucher system, every citizen here is constitutionally entitled to have an opportunity to be educated. This wouldn't change, what would change, is actual children getting educated. I don't even know where to begin with your last sentence, it doesn't make rational sense.... do you believe that disadvantaged (poor) people aren't capable of learning and being educated? If we are all equally equipped to learn, there really is no inequality.

Then you side step once again and bring, struggling to the fray, the policies of our respective governments towards universities. Tertiary education does not decide which young people will go forward to success and which won't. That is what schools do.

No, actually, schools don't do this, individuals do this, and it doesn't matter how much money we spend, it will still ultimately be up to the individual to learn, go forward, and succeed.

Once schools have had an injection of fairness and good management by, as I said before, treating illiteracy as a war and allowing the best and brightest from all backgrounds then universities need not be competitive save by their results. And that, to me, is not a problem.
I am not suggesting, to move to your last paragraph, that one should not question the spending of every pound, or in your case dollar. Of course we should - and vociferously. But the budget should depend, like in a war where we are prepared to spend 'n' trillion just so we can retain our false pride and oil for our cars, upon the desired outcome and that means paying teachers well, fully equiping our centres of learning, reducing class sizes, reintroducing losers and uniforms and giving schools the right to discipline their 'darling little charges'.
Before you bounce just make sure that you understand what I am saying.

Now you go back into this liberal hodgepodge of emotive platitudes... We HAVE spent trillions... and TRILLIONS on top of that.... and our kids are still FAILING! The 90-year-old government-run education system is a complete and utter failure and should be a total embarrassment to liberalism, but here you people are, still arguing for more of our money to pour down your bureaucratic shit hole...and people are actually still listening to you! I don't know which is more absurd, to be honest. Our objective, both yours and mine, should be to offer the best possible education for our youth... if that involves us "rethinking" how we go about that, maybe that's something we need to consider? You liberals are always talking about challenging the status quot and trying new things... well why don't you have that philosophy regarding educational improvement? Let's try something different?

Colleges and Universities compete all the time, they have done so for centuries, as I said... where is the big problem? Does that system fail to properly educate the students? Doesn't seem like it to me... maybe I am missing something. Having higher education compete in the free market and appeal to the consumer, seems to be working very well at offering quality education, and that's kind of what our objective is supposed to be here.... right?

 

[Lowaicue]

How would you go about 'eradicating from positions of power' every member of all the dynasties? Is it fair, in your mind, for society to strip them of their money and property? Who are shareholders in corporations allowed to appoint to boards and chairmanships? Will you have a List of Names? Maybe we can round all the dynasty members up and have them branded with some sort of symbol on the forehead, so we will know who not to give a position of authority to?

I get hyperbole... is that what you thought you were giving us? To me, it just sounded foolish and extreme.

First of all, 'places' would not be 'competed for' with a voucher system, every citizen here is constitutionally entitled to have an opportunity to be educated. This wouldn't change, what would change, is actual children getting educated. I don't even know where to begin with your last sentence, it doesn't make rational sense.... do you believe that disadvantaged (poor) people aren't capable of learning and being educated? If we are all equally equipped to learn, there really is no inequality.



No, actually, schools don't do this, individuals do this, and it doesn't matter how much money we spend, it will still ultimately be up to the individual to learn, go forward, and succeed.




Now you go back into this liberal hodgepodge of emotive platitudes... We HAVE spent trillions... and TRILLIONS on top of that.... and our kids are still FAILING! The 90-year-old government-run education system is a complete and utter failure and should be a total embarrassment to liberalism, but here you people are, still arguing for more of our money to pour down your bureaucratic shit hole...and people are actually still listening to you! I don't know which is more absurd, to be honest. Our objective, both yours and mine, should be to offer the best possible education for our youth... if that involves us "rethinking" how we go about that, maybe that's something we need to consider? You liberals are always talking about challenging the status quot and trying new things... well why don't you have that philosophy regarding educational improvement? Let's try something different?

Colleges and Universities compete all the time, they have done so for centuries, as I said... where is the big problem? Does that system fail to properly educate the students? Doesn't seem like it to me... maybe I am missing something. Having higher education compete in the free market and appeal to the consumer, seems to be working very well at offering quality education, and that's kind of what our objective is supposed to be here.... right?

In all honesty I despair of you.
Surely you can see that the subject was education and not positions of power.
Eradicate INEQUALITIES in education which in time would eradicate the dynastic power base. IN TIME = a generation or two. My god, do I have to treat you as if you are a kindergarten child?
In all 'civilised' nations 'education' is a right available to everyone. Do you understand that? However if you allow competition you will introduce money or money substitutes. Then you will have a situation where teachers will go to the schools that pay more leaving a disadvantaged section of society. Once again, and I'll say this slowly, c-o-m-p-e-t-i-t-i-o-n based upon money or money substitutes cannot produce a fair and educated society.
A friend's children were all at Eton, another has sent number one son to Harrow. Why? To get an unfair advantage to which the rich think they are entitled.
Your voucher system clearly does not work since you have one of the highest semi literate populations in the western world.
Next: poor people. If there is one thing that sticks out like a right wing american patriot waving his flag, it is that what I propose is a FAIR system. A fair system for ALL. Who on earth suggested that the poor should not be educated?
Of course we are all equiped to be educated but the sad fact is that in the uS and in the UK not all get the same opportunity. I just explained this to my twelve year old grandson. He got it. Why in the name of all you hold holy, can't you?
Your kids are failing, as are kids in the UK because 'education' is treated as a political football.
Once again I will say that education is more important than politica. It is much much more important than invading foreign countries and killing the inhabitants, yet we employ bean counters to carefully sweep crumbs from the national budget so our children can take over and run this world of ours.
Just a quick pointlet, my friend. Please do NOT refer to me as a Liberal. I do not belong to any part of the right wing.
Unfair and competitive education gets a Bush and no one in the world wants another one of them.

Sadly I do not have time to complete this. And, having been constantly interupted by all manner of seekers of help, I'm afraid it rambles.
I suggest we leave it at that.

 

[Canceled2]

Competition in education tends not to work. It denies the economically disadvantaged the chance of serving their country (no, of course not always). Competition separates the haves from the have nots and allows inequality, not only to continue, but to thrive.

Do you have stats for your first assertion? And an explanation for your second? The way competition has been suggested to be set up in the US is by transferring the money given to districts to be given to families in the form of education vouchers. Allowing parents to opt into opr out of local government schools- If they opt out, they can use that voucher at an accredited private or other public school. How does this cause inequality "to thrive"?

 

[Dixie - In Memoriam]

In all honesty I despair of you.
Surely you can see that the subject was education and not positions of power.
Eradicate INEQUALITIES in education which in time would eradicate the dynastic power base. IN TIME = a generation or two. My god, do I have to treat you as if you are a kindergarten child?
In all 'civilised' nations 'education' is a right available to everyone. Do you understand that?

Understand it? Hell, I think we invented it! But I need to correct you, the actual 'education' is not an entitled right, the OPPORTUNITY to be educated is. It's still up to the individual to learn and become educated.

However if you allow competition you will introduce money or money substitutes. Then you will have a situation where teachers will go to the schools that pay more leaving a disadvantaged section of society. Once again, and I'll say this slowly, c-o-m-p-e-t-i-t-i-o-n based upon money or money substitutes cannot produce a fair and educated society.

Money is already introduced... State and local school boards don't have to 'compete' for the money, it is doled out on the basis of 'attendance' or... how many butts are in seats on a given day. So you currently have a system which doesn't motivate teachers to educate, it motivates schools to count butts in seats. Schools are not motivated to teach, they are motivated to count more butts in seats this year than the year before, so they can get more money from the government. Politicians aren't motivated to improve actual education, they are motivated to allocate more of your tax money to this failed system, so you will vote for them under the presumption they care about education.

A friend's children were all at Eton, another has sent number one son to Harrow. Why? To get an unfair advantage to which the rich think they are entitled.
Your voucher system clearly does not work since you have one of the highest semi literate populations in the western world.

We don't currently have a voucher system, we have the same government-run system we've had for 90 years. That's what we're talking about changing, and for the very reason you pointed out, the government-run system has produced dismal results.

Next: poor people. If there is one thing that sticks out like a right wing american patriot waving his flag, it is that what I propose is a FAIR system. A fair system for ALL. Who on earth suggested that the poor should not be educated?

What's unfair about giving each family a voucher for what the government would have spent? Poor families would get the same voucher as everyone else, they would be entitled to the same choices as everyone else, and the opportunity for education would be there for the poor, just like everyone else... it's completely fair. Yes, the wealthy could use their voucher along with extra money, and send their kids to private schools... but they can send them to private schools now! Nothing would change, and it's not unfair that some people are able to pay for private schools and some people aren't, it's just a fact of life. By placing the education monies in the hands of the people, in the form of vouchers, it will cause some private schools to lower prices in order to appeal to those who hold the vouchers, in hopes of gaining their business. People who would have never been able to afford the private education, can suddenly afford it! You don't think that condition might improve the overall quality of education?

Of course we are all equiped to be educated but the sad fact is that in the uS and in the UK not all get the same opportunity. I just explained this to my twelve year old grandson. He got it. Why in the name of all you hold holy, can't you?

Did you explain to your grandson why his grandfather is a pinhead? I can't speak for the UK, because I don't live there, but here in the US, the Constitution guarantees us the right of life, liberty, and pursuit of happiness... part of the pursuit of happiness is having an opportunity to be educated, and we have steadfastly held to this standard since our founding. Vouchers wouldn't remove any opportunity, it would create MORE opportunity, and a higher quality of education to MORE people.

Your kids are failing, as are kids in the UK because 'education' is treated as a political football.

I won't disagree because I think you are correct to a certain extent. This is precisely why we need a new system, where the people are empowered with a voucher, and schools have to compete by offering a better educational opportunity. Where politicians no longer 'control' the 'football' and use education as a means to political power.

Once again I will say that education is more important than politica. It is much much more important than invading foreign countries and killing the inhabitants, yet we employ bean counters to carefully sweep crumbs from the national budget so our children can take over and run this world of ours.

Indeed, education should be more important than political party ties to teachers unions and lobbies. When we are discussing ways to improve the efficiency of our tax dollars on a failing system, by implementing something we know will work, and getting rid of the ineffective and failed government-run bureaucracy, which we can clearly see the dismal results of, it's important for us to remove our party hats and do what is best for the children, what is best for their educational opportunities.

Just a quick pointlet, my friend. Please do NOT refer to me as a Liberal. I do not belong to any part of the right wing.
Unfair and competitive education gets a Bush and no one in the world wants another one of them.

Sadly I do not have time to complete this. And, having been constantly interupted by all manner of seekers of help, I'm afraid it rambles.
I suggest we leave it at that.

Sorry, but you are taking a liberal position on this issue, and the paragraph I responded to, was absolutely full of the same emotive liberal talking points we hear all the time over here. I don't know much about UK politics, but here, liberals are "left wing" not "right wing." I still don't get the Bush references... Bush graduated from Harvard and Yale... are you suggesting these schools are inadequate? Unfair? Maybe we should forbid people from going to Harvard and Yale, since it's not fair we can't all go?