|
I'm afraid you still misunderstand me.
I'm not in favor of ID being taught in schools. I am in favor of it being mentioned. I would be even more in favor of teaching a class not to a particular theory but rather to the scientific method, whereby a student could experience the observation effect firsthand, and come to the same conclusions (or slightly different ones) as the founders of our modern science. I believe this is known as Integrated Learning, where instruction is done by experience rather than by rote.
I am also in favor of keeping the students' minds open to works, philosophies, and perspectives outside the curriculum. We did this through Show and Tell, if I remember correctly. Or when we were allowed to make presentations regarding our favorite scientists in Middle school and high school. Or when we entered the science fairs with ideas of our own.
I remember reading one experience where a young man set out to prove by mathematics that the earth was round. Was astonished when his figures proved incorrect, leading to the assumption that the earth was in fact flat, and this in turn led to a further probing of the matter, which showed that his figures were based on the wrong factual observation. I'm not sure where I read about that experience, but it was an eye opening one for me. We discover more about the world we live in by questioning it rather than by accepting what others tell us.
I'm afraid you still misunderstand me. I'm not in favor of ID being taught in schools. I am in favor of it being mentioned.
I had understood your stance to be that if the local school board voted for it, you'd want it taught? Because to prevent that, you'd need some form of oversight.
Id was always mentioned in my classes, but never taught.
I'm afraid you still misunderstand me.
I'm not in favor of ID being taught in schools. I am in favor of it being mentioned. I would be even more in favor of teaching a class not to a particular theory but rather to the scientific method, whereby a student could experience the observation effect firsthand, and come to the same conclusions (or slightly different ones) as the founders of our modern science. I believe this is known as Integrated Learning, where instruction is done by experience rather than by rote.
I am also in favor of keeping the students' minds open to works, philosophies, and perspectives outside the curriculum. We did this through Show and Tell, if I remember correctly. Or when we were allowed to make presentations regarding our favorite scientists in Middle school and high school. Or when we entered the science fairs with ideas of our own.
I remember reading one experience where a young man set out to prove by mathematics that the earth was round. Was astonished when his figures proved incorrect, leading to the assumption that the earth was in fact flat, and this in turn led to a further probing of the matter, which showed that his figures were based on the wrong factual observation. I'm not sure where I read about that experience, but it was an eye opening one for me. We discover more about the world we live in by questioning it rather than by accepting what others tell us.
That's a nice idea, but there isn't time to expose kids to every bad idea out there, and there is nothing about ID which should single it out for special mention. It is also irresponsible to allow students who are ignorant and impressionable to walk away thinking that arguments all biologists reject might have some validity, or that there is some uncertainty among scientists about something that is settled science. You might have noble intentions, but that doesn't help them. There are other ways to help them develop critical thinking skills. For example, let advanced students learn about topics of real contention in evolutionary theory, such as Out of Africa vs. Multiregional. Sure, if you have the luxury of doing an advanced class on Science & Society or something you might spend some time discussing Dover. Otherwise, creationism doesn't belong in science class.
Are we really going down the ID rabbit hole again?
|
|
I don't think there needs to be federal oversight. I feel that the State government should provide some oversight, but for the most part that determining what or how to educate should be determined by the parents.
Now, in the particular case you referenced, I feel as though demonstrating federal interference validated my original opinion, and found it rather incredulous that an alternative theory (even one that is based on religion) could not be mentioned. The state and thus public schools shall make no law (or policy) respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof. It doesn't say anything about not making a policy respecting a mentioning of religion. This feels like its also in opposition to First Amendment as well, but I'll leave that to others to decide.
The state should not proselytize or indoctrinate religion, but that does not mean it can indoctrinate atheism (since atheism is a religion), or restrict the mentioning of religions (including atheism). I feel like there's a huge difference that has somehow been lost with the interference of some political groups more interested in seeing the mythical separation of church and state brought about.
Now, as to interpreting the policy. I do not see how they can interpret what the obvious intent of the policy was. Unless they called up the writers of the policy as witnesses and asked them, which they may have done. When courts wander into the realm of the questioning of intent, we should be a little worried, because the thought police are not very far behind.
This is not to say that one cannot question motive if a law has been broken. But if no law has been broken, and it is only by examining intent that a law is determined to be broken, I think we have some problems. We must question whether or not a law is broken without regards to intent. Can a state official mention a religion? I would hope so. This is freedom of speech. Can he proselytize or force the religion on others? Of course not. Then the state would be establishing a religion, and this is expressly forbidden.
I'm sure others will disagree with me about the prosecution of criminal intent. But I would ask the court first if criminal intent could be proven. If one breaks a law with all the right intentions, is it still a criminal act? And if one reframes (or reinterprets) a law with wrongful intentions, and acts on that reinterpretation, is that a criminal act?
I'm sure I am starting to ramble, so I'll shut up for now.
One thing I am happy about science courses now is that only the most current information is provided. There is absolutely no mention of the history that lead to the current state. No discussion of the suppression of Galileo or any of the history. That would be a total waste of the critical time students have in these courses. To discuss historical perspective should be limited to only a history course.
I don't think there needs to be federal oversight. I feel that the State government should provide some oversight, but for the most part that determining what or how to educate should be determined by the parents.
Now, in the particular case you referenced, I feel as though demonstrating federal interference validated my original opinion, and found it rather incredulous that an alternative theory (even one that is based on religion) could not be mentioned. The state and thus public schools shall make no law (or policy) respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof. It doesn't say anything about not making a policy respecting a mentioning of religion. This feels like its also in opposition to First Amendment as well, but I'll leave that to others to decide.
The state should not proselytize or indoctrinate religion, but that does not mean it can indoctrinate atheism (since atheism is a religion), or restrict the mentioning of religions (including atheism). I feel like there's a huge difference that has somehow been lost with the interference of some political groups more interested in seeing the mythical separation of church and state brought about.
Now, as to interpreting the policy. I do not see how they can interpret what the obvious intent of the policy was. Unless they called up the writers of the policy as witnesses and asked them, which they may have done. When courts wander into the realm of the questioning of intent, we should be a little worried, because the thought police are not very far behind.
This is not to say that one cannot question motive if a law has been broken. But if no law has been broken, and it is only by examining intent that a law is determined to be broken, I think we have some problems. We must question whether or not a law is broken without regards to intent. Can a state official mention a religion? I would hope so. This is freedom of speech. Can he proselytize or force the religion on others? Of course not. Then the state would be...
Should there be a recourse to federal courts if the state or local education policies violate the establishment or free exercise clause(for example)? I believe there should be.
|
|
...I don't think there needs to be federal oversight. I feel that the State government should provide some oversight, but for the most part that determining what or how to educate should be determined by the parents.
Now, in the particular case you referenced, I feel as though demonstrating federal interference validated my original opinion, and found it rather incredulous that an alternative theory (even one that is based on religion) could not be mentioned. The state and thus public schools shall make no law (or policy) respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof. It doesn't say anything about not making a policy respecting a mentioning of religion. This feels like its also in opposition to First Amendment as well, but I'll leave that to others to decide.
The state should not proselytize or indoctrinate religion, but that does not mean it can indoctrinate atheism (since atheism is a religion), or restrict the mentioning of religions (including atheism). I feel like there's a huge difference that has somehow been lost with the interference of some political groups more interested in seeing the mythical separation of church and state brought about.
Now, as to interpreting the policy. I do not see how they can interpret what the obvious intent of the policy was. Unless they called up the writers of the policy as witnesses and asked them, which they may have done. When courts wander into the realm of the questioning of intent, we should be a little worried, because the thought police are not very far behind.
This is not to say that one cannot question motive if a law has been broken. But if no law has been broken, and it is only by examining intent that a law is determined to be broken, I think we have some problems. We must question whether or not a law is broken without regards to intent. Can a state official mention a religion? I would hope so. This is freedom of speech. Can he proselytize or force the religion on others? Of course not. Then the
I'm not certain at the moment, but I'm somewhat tired. I believe in State's Sovereignty, but perhaps more importantly I believe in Family Sovereignty. I believe that a States Bill of Rights, should be amended to the Constitution that more clearly defines their Sovereignty, and perhaps as a result of that other amendments altered. The reason being that some states are deeply religious and others are not. The identity of certain states is being lost due to 14th Amendment interferences.
I'm not certain at the moment, but I'm somewhat tired. I believe in State's Sovereignty, but perhaps more importantly I believe in Family Sovereignty. I believe that a States Bill of Rights, should be amended to the Constitution that more clearly defines their Sovereignty, and perhaps as a result of that other amendments altered. The reason being that some states are deeply religious and others are not. The identity of certain states is being lost due to 14th Amendment interferences.
This is a good point. Iowa =/= New York and Kansas =/= California. It might be why the Federal Government was so limited in the Constitution. (Of course back then it would be Delaware =/= Pennsylvania).
One thing I am happy about science courses now is that only the most current information is provided. There is absolutely no mention of the history that lead to the current state. No discussion of the suppression of Galileo or any of the history. That would be a total waste of the critical time students have in these courses. To discuss historical perspective should be limited to only a history course.
I should know better than to respond when you're arguing rhetorically just to be "clever," but on the off chance you might be open to discussion, I figured I'd point out that mentioning the history =/= spending "equal time" on a made-up history, while simultaneously making false claims about the rest of the subject matter.
|
|
One thing I am happy about science courses now is that only the most current information is provided. There is absolutely no mention of the history that lead to the current state. No discussion of the suppression of Galileo or any of the history. That would be a total waste of the critical time students have in these courses. To discuss historical perspective should be limited to only a history course.I should know better than to respond when you're arguing rhetorically just to be "clever," but on the off chance you might be open to discussion, I figured I'd point out that mentioning the history =/= spending "equal time" on a made-up history, while simultaneously making false claims about the rest of the subject matter.
Was that rhetorical? It went over my head if it was. I must be really tired. By the way, Kirth, I have immense respect for you as a person and a teacher. I just wanted you to know that.
(since atheism is a religion)
Since you've mentioned that something like 3 times in half has many posts, it's obviously something you want addressed. For what it's worth, my sense of it is that, for any number of atheists, you're exactly right. For a number of others, though, it would be like saying that their hobby is "not collecting stamps." Depends on the person.
|
|
(since atheism is a religion)Since you've mentioned that something like 3 times in half has many posts, it's obviously something you want addressed. For what it's worth, my sense of it is that, for any number of atheists, you're exactly right. For a number of others, though, it would be like saying that their hobby is "not collecting stamps." Depends on the person.
I'm not sure if I wanted it addressed, or just to clarify for others. I also keep fearing the silent march towards the State Religion of Atheism. I don't know why, but that's just the way it sometimes seems like society is moving.
By the way, Kirth, I have immense respect for you as a person and a teacher. I just wanted you to know that.
Thank you -- that would certainly put you on a very short list. As it is, I get paid three times as much in industry to do half as much work, which makes me miss teaching less than would otherwise be the case.
I usually watch Bill Oreilly to finally decide who looks more like the opposite gender: O'Reilly with his pink make-up and fake eyelashes or Ann Coulter's massive adams apple. But tonight, he actually portrayed Ron Paul in a positive light. Should I be worried? I'll post a link as soon as I can find one.
Also, to Kirth. I laughed out loud at my hobby is "not collecting stamps".
I'm not sure if I wanted it addressed, or just to clarify for others. I also keep fearing the silent march towards the State Religion of Atheism. I don't know why, but that's just the way it sometimes seems like society is moving.
I hope not -- I'd find it boring as hell. But I think a lot of it is probably backlash after centuries of outright Christian privilege -- a privilege which finally got strong enough in the '50s that we rewrote the pledge of allegiance, changed the national motto, and altered the currency in favor of Christianity. The pendulum had to swing a bit the other way.
I laughed out loud at my hobby is "not collecting stamps".
Wish I could claim credit for that one, but I'm only that witty in my daydreams. I'll try to remember who coined it and let you know.
|
|
I usually watch Bill Oreilly to finally decide who looks more like the opposite gender: O'Reilly with his pink make-up and fake eyelashes or Ann Coulter's massive adams apple. But tonight, he actually portrayed Ron Paul in a positive light. Should I be worried? I'll post a link as soon as I can find one.
Also, to Kirth. I laughed out loud at my hobby is "not collecting stamps".
Bill Oh Really? Has a tendency to flip and flop on the issues. As does Ann Poultry. They usually act like fish out of water. Be careful where you step in Faux News, you never know whats been there first.
Thats why I asked if I should be worried. I usually watch the Factor just so I can yell "Hypocrite!" at the TV. I like Freedom Watch with Judge Napolitano and thats about it on Fox news. Does anyone else find it sad that to get news I have to watch Fox and MSNBC and kinda average them out?
Unless they changed it, Freedom Watch is on Fox Business, not Fox News. They love Ron Paul on Fox Business and hate him on Fox News. Apparently Fox is an Ettin.
Its on once a week on sunday nights. At least it has been for the last couple of months.
Edit-Nevermind. Apparently Im wrong.
Unless they changed it, Freedom Watch is on Fox Business, not Fox News. They love Ron Paul on Fox Business and hate him on Fox News. Apparently Fox is an Ettin.
More like Demogorgon.
I just read an article about the same-sex marriage issue in New York. Evidently there is concern with getting in language that will protect religious organizations if they choose not to allow such.
A pro-same-sex marriage protester made a comment (and this is 100% correct quotation I'm sure), "This isn't about religion. This is about civil rights." Which makes me scratch my head, isn't religion also a civil right?
Id was always mentioned in my classes, but never taught.
What, they left out the ego and the superego?
Damn behaviorists!
I usually watch Bill Oreilly to finally decide who looks more like the opposite gender: O'Reilly with his pink make-up and fake eyelashes or Ann Coulter's massive adams apple. But tonight, he actually portrayed Ron Paul in a positive light. Should I be worried? I'll post a link as soon as I can find one.
Also, to Kirth. I laughed out loud at my hobby is "not collecting stamps".
Was that the one with John Stossel?
P.S.: When I was teaching high school science, I always included a bit on Astronomy -- to demonstrate that (a) it was not based on evidence, and (b) its predictions were easily falsified with simple experiments. THAT'S what science is about -- evidence-based approaches. (What I absolutely did NOT do is then go on to give it equal time during the rest of the school year, which is what "teach the controversy" is all about.)
[nit-pick]You meant Astrology, right?[/nit-pick]
Greg
Was that the one with John Stossel?I usually watch Bill Oreilly to finally decide who looks more like the opposite gender: O'Reilly with his pink make-up and fake eyelashes or Ann Coulter's massive adams apple. But tonight, he actually portrayed Ron Paul in a positive light. Should I be worried? I'll post a link as soon as I can find one.
Also, to Kirth. I laughed out loud at my hobby is "not collecting stamps".
I really dont know. It was the episode that aired last night. I turned it on with 10 minutes left in the program. It was just a quick positive comment on RP's interview on the Today show. Stardust posted the link above.
Edit-but apparently he took it down. Nevermind.
Id was always mentioned in my classes, but never taught.What, they left out the ego and the superego?
Damn behaviorists!
Rotfl!
[nit-pick]You meant Astrology, right?[/nit-pick]
Yes!! And that's hardly a "nitpick!" Sadly, somewhere between writing, editing, and posting, the two words got transposed.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I think education should be mandated on a federal level. There's nothing more discouraging than going from one of the smartest kids in your school to having to stay after and getting tutors in order to catch up with the kids in your new school.
A friend of mine moved from Texas and his kid was a straight A student there. Now here in Virginia he needed to hire tutors to help his kid catch up. As is, the poor boy has to take summer school. The school district that he came from is, according to Virginia standards, two grade levels behind.
A national standard would work a whole lot better because you wouldn't have to worry about the standards.
Growing up, I had the misfortune of moving around a lot. Even from school district to school district, standards were different. When I graduated, my grades didn't reflect my actual education. The AP english class I had in one high school was the equivalent of a 10th grade english class at another high school.
I'm not talking about the failed NCLB policy of teach to the test. I'm talking more about this is the math your child should be doing by grade 6. This is the science your kid should know by his sophmore year. These are the things you should know when you graduate. Teaching to the SOLs should be done away with.
I generally agree with this approach. I would also suggest that "less is more" when doing an approach like this. Set specific standards you expect teachers to cover, but also don't overwhelm the curriculum and try to fill in every single nook and cranny. Leave room for teachers to cover topics that interest them and their students, also leave room for teachers to work with the slower students.
Yet even with this, unless you specify exact what is taught when and exactly how (teacher basically stands in the front reading a standardized lesson), you are still going to have people having to adjust when moving, even worse so when moving during the school year. I moved a few amount during my life as well and had to deal with this myself.
Unfortunately the Constitution does not allow education to be mandated at the federal level. As with all other powers not specifically given to Congress or the President or the Supreme Court, it is relegated to the States. I guess you all want an Amendment, then.
Could say that if a textbook is used in more than one state (thus be interstate commerce) it has to meet certain requirements.
There are also issues with students attending schools in one state and having their parents pay from another state (where the student has their "permanent" address located). Also issues with accepting student credentials (high school diplomacy for example) from one state to another.
But actually I would rather the issue be handled without any enforcement, instead it would be voluntary. Schools then can get "certification" if they meet those standards. Basically a school can ignore the federal standards, but then they are labeled as "crappy" and the local communities will force the school to comply because businesses don't come to the community because it is known as a crappy location.
Good Time article
solid interview :)
Unfortunately the Constitution does not allow education to be mandated at the federal level. As with all other powers not specifically given to Congress or the President or the Supreme Court, it is relegated to the States. I guess you all want an Amendment, then.Could say that if a textbook is used in more than one state (thus be interstate commerce) it has to meet certain requirements.
There are also issues with students attending schools in one state and having their parents pay from another state (where the student has their "permanent" address located). Also issues with accepting student credentials (high school diplomacy for example) from one state to another.
But actually I would rather the issue be handled without any enforcement, instead it would be voluntary. Schools then can get "certification" if they meet those standards. Basically a school can ignore the federal standards, but then they are labeled as "crappy" and the local communities will force the school to comply because businesses don't come to the community because it is known as a crappy location.
That seems to assume that the federal standards are not "crappy". How do you quantify federal standards except by federally standardized testing? What if exceptional schools deviate from the federal standards? Are they automatically labeled as crappy just for having a different approach? Should crappy schools have federal funds withheld for their failure, or should they get more federal funding to get past being crappy? What if parents and local officials think the school is awesome but the school is crappy by the federal standard? Should the feds withhold money or add money?
In the current system the feds provide a tiny fraction of the operating funds, but the local schools kill themselves to deal with the bureaucracy to get that tiny fraction.
We have spent hundreds of billions of federal dollars to "improve education", but we have the most costly yet ineffective education system in the first world. I would argue that centralized federal control has been an unmitigated disaster.
I see zero constitutional authority for DC to micromanage education in, say, Kansas unless someones basic rights are being violated.
DC has done an abysmal job. Maybe parents should have much more control than federal bureaucrats. The bureaucrats have failed.
That seems to assume that the federal standards are not "crappy".
Are not defined to be "crappy". Yes, it would be a set of minimum standardized goals, things that you'd want a kid to know who had taken Algebra 1 and then transfer to a new school the next year to take Algebra 2 (or whatever the next course that the school has follow Algebra 1) for example. One would hope that you could get a reasonable set of standards set up by a group of national experts. The biggest problem would be that the standards would be resistant to change was settled.
How do you quantify federal standards except by federally standardized testing?
How would verify that the school is meeting those standards? Or determine what the standards are? How to verify the schools are covering the standards? I would admit that would be difficult without some kind of standardize testing. Though within my own state, on the college level there has been an effort to develop set objectives for courses across the entire college and university system without using standardized testing on the college level. Thus making it easier for students to transfer to and from various schools. Currently, it is up to each individual university or college to pick and choose to accept credits from other institutions (generally the textbook for the course is used to determine this). I guess if we didn't go the standardized testing you'd have to have some kind of certification process that schools would have to undergo every once in a while.
What if exceptional schools deviate from the federal standards? Are they automatically labeled as crappy just for having a different approach?
Well I would hope that the federal standards would be set up that any school worth a damn would already be doing them. For example, again, using a math example, every single student anywhere in the country that takes Algebra 1 should when finished know how to use the quadratic formula. I would hope if that was a federal standard, it would not be something most "exceptional" would be pressed hard to cover. As for being labeled, they just wouldn't be able to be called "certified".
I would compare this an idea of to making the USDA voluntary. You could have people that have food that is USDA certified and food that can choose not to be. I would wager most people would still choose to purchase USDA certified food over food that was not. Likewise, I would think that people would look more favorably on schools that were certified than schools that chose not to be.
Should crappy schools have federal funds withheld for their failure, or should they get more federal funding to get past being crappy?
I don't think the feds should be in the business of funding education at all.
What if parents and local officials think the school is awesome but the school is crappy by the federal standard?
Good for them. But if their students try to transfer to another school or go on to college and get a hard time because they are not certified and if companies choose not to invest in their communities because their students are not meeting the minimum requirements set out by the fed standards, they may decide that being "awesome" might not be enough.
Should the feds withhold money or add money?
In the current system the feds provide a tiny fraction of the operating funds, but the local schools kill themselves to deal with the bureaucracy to get that tiny fraction.
Which is why I don't think the feds should be in the business of funding education.
We have spent hundreds of billions of federal dollars to "improve education", but we have the most costly yet ineffective education system in the first world. I would argue that centralized federal control has been an unmitigated disaster.
I agree, that is why I said "less is more". The standards should be the most basic things students should learn at a given level or course.
I see zero constitutional authority for DC to micromanage education in, say, Kansas unless someones basic rights are being violated.
DC has done an abysmal job. Maybe parents should have much more control than federal bureaucrats. The bureaucrats have failed.
We don't disagree. I just think it would be a good idea to have a universal set of minimum standards for students. So that if you are California or Nebraska or Georgia or Massachusetts, you'd at least have the same minimum background for the next grade if you moved to another area of the country.
Currently the system is mainly decided by two things (a)textbook producers being more or less uniform (due to the dominance of Texas and California state school boards) and (b) standardized tests. I would rather just have a set of universal standards.
Thank you for your detailed reply.
What about more subjective material like PE, art, language, and history?
I'm still of the mind that the federal government should butt out, and save the taxpayers hundreds of billions of dollars.
|
|
If there is demand for this service, I think that if public schools became funded by charities or privately organizations, a privately owned nationwide business could be interested in testing or providing minimal standards for each grade level. Even if public schools are funded at the state levels, there could still be a privately owned scholastic aptitude organization that spans all the schools of the country to establish minimal standards for each grade.
However, in the same bent, I really think that states should be encouraged to compete with one another. "When States compete, the citizens win." Education and business are two ways that states currently compete. Most of these competitions are seen as friendly rivalries, and are overseen by privately run organizations that have no assistance from the federal government. So, even if minimal standards are set by the market through a nation-wide scholastic aptitude organization, I would want (hope and pray) that state schools would teach well beyond the minimal standards.
If there is demand for this service, I think that if public schools became funded by charities or privately organizations, a privately owned nationwide business could be interested in testing or providing minimal standards for each grade level. Even if public schools are funded at the state levels, there could still be a privately owned scholastic aptitude organization that spans all the schools of the country to establish minimal standards for each grade.
However, in the same bent, I really think that states should be encouraged to compete with one another. "When States compete, the citizens win." Education and business are two ways that states currently compete. Most of these competitions are seen as friendly rivalries, and are overseen by privately run organizations that have no assistance from the federal government. So, even if minimal standards are set by the market through a nation-wide scholastic aptitude organization, I would want (hope and pray) that state schools would teach well beyond the minimal standards.
Well said. Can they do any worse than the current system? I doubt it.
I just thought that this link would be useful to some of the discussions going on.
I'm not clear what the numbers mean, but it looks absurd given the staggeringly huge amounts of money we spend.
We spend an obscene amount of money for wretched education. It sounds like a government operation to me.
EDIT: I'd love to see a comparative breakdown including spending per student per year.
|
I just thought that this link would be useful to some of the discussions going on.I'm not clear what the numbers mean, but it looks absurd given the staggeringly huge amounts of money we spend.
We spend an obscene amount of money for wretched education. It sounds like a government operation to me.
EDIT: I'd love to see a comparative breakdown including spending per student per year.
I am sure even that would not give the whole picture. US in and of itself is not homogeneous and various school systems do better or worse for various reasons. Not all of which will show on a simple grid.
Where government is concerned I personally like a quote of Scrooge McDuck, "work smarter not harder." Or also from an engineer I once had the pleasure of knowing, "spending more money on a project is stupid, it's like getting 9 women pregnant and expecting a baby in 1 month."
I'm not clear what the numbers mean, but it looks absurd given the staggeringly huge amounts of money we spend.
We spend an obscene amount of money for wretched education. It sounds like a government operation to me.
Education is a "government operation" in Canada too, and we rank 3rd, 5th and 5th (reading, math, science). Maybe it's not that it's a government operation, but rather on how the government goes about it.
Greg
I'm not clear what the numbers mean, but it looks absurd given the staggeringly huge amounts of money we spend.
We spend an obscene amount of money for wretched education. It sounds like a government operation to me.
Education is a "government operation" in Canada too, and we rank 3rd, 5th and 5th (reading, math, science). Maybe it's not that it's a government operation, but rather on how the government goes about it.
Greg
Well said. In fact, i would like to see how countries that do not have government operated education fare in these standings.
Is there such a thing in the industrial world?
I'm not clear what the numbers mean, but it looks absurd given the staggeringly huge amounts of money we spend.
We spend an obscene amount of money for wretched education. It sounds like a government operation to me.
Education is a "government operation" in Canada too, and we rank 3rd, 5th and 5th (reading, math, science). Maybe it's not that it's a government operation, but rather on how the government goes about it.
Greg
I presume national ranking are overwhelmingly reflections of government schools, and I presume we are largely comparing apples to apples as it were.
I'm not sure how it works in Korea, for instance, these days, but I know in the US private schools and home schools grossly out perform public education for less money (sometimes far less), but the vast majority of kids are trapped in the failing traditional public school model.
I'm not clear what the numbers mean, but it looks absurd given the staggeringly huge amounts of money we spend.
We spend an obscene amount of money for wretched education. It sounds like a government operation to me.
Education is a "government operation" in Canada too, and we rank 3rd, 5th and 5th (reading, math, science). Maybe it's not that it's a government operation, but rather on how the government goes about it.
Greg
Well said. In fact, i would like to see how countries that do not have government operated education fare in these standings.
I would also be curious to see what the comparative scores would be with private education factored out, and I'd like to know what percent is private. I'm not sure how one would score things like Sylvan.