Well, that is largely true, but if your argument is that being federally managed and funded is related to the results, I'm going to have to disagree with you inasmuch as we would have the same dismal results we currently have even if tomorrow the feds took over U.S. education.It is funny how he glosses over a simple fact when comparing US education to these other countries.
Their education programs are federally managed and funded.
Well, that is largely true, but if your argument is that being federally managed and funded is related to the results, I'm going to have to disagree with you inasmuch as we would have the same dismal results we currently have even if tomorrow the feds took over U.S. education.
I'm not really sure why you made the comparison then. There was a point in time when the U.S. cleaned the clock of most other countries in terms of education results and we did it under the framework we have now. Clearly, control and funding is not relevant.My argument is that it is not an apples to apples comparison.
while you may be true that the federal government may not be able to run it better, it can't be run worse than the petty lord/fiefdom system eye have now. Most of the poor results have to do with poor parenting.
I did not make the comparison. I just commented on theirs.I'm not really sure why you made the comparison then. There was a point in time when the U.S. cleaned the clock of most other countries in terms of education results and we did it under the framework we have now. Clearly, control and funding is not relevant.
To what purpose? That is what I'm trying to figure out. Why bring up the difference in funding/management if it is completely irrelevant to the issue at hand? If it doesn't influence the results, why introduce it into the discussion? It's like discussing the ballistics of .223 vs .306 and then mentioning that the .223 is made in the U.S.A.I did not make the comparison. I just commented on theirs.
I didn't say we ranked #1 in education. But we were competitive and more highly ranked than we are today.I would like to see the historical data that says we ranked #1 in education. I'm not saying it does not exist, but I have not found it yet.
What's funny, is that for those that have served in the military, the drill instructors that we had, use this very technique to train recruits. They are hard, but fair. They break individuals down and teach them to work as a team. They teach that a unit is only as strong as its weakest link, and to learn from your mistakes. I can guarantee that those of us who made a mistake, paid pretty dearly for it, and NEVER did it again. They taught you to take pride in your work, and to never stop bettering yourself. They taught you that perseverance and tenacity were the corner stones to never fearing defeat. They taught you that you may get your butt whooped in a fight, but the other side was going to know that they had been in a fight. In competitions, there were winners, and there were losers. There was never a time where a score wasn't kept, and that you could have the losing score.
Most of us hated those instructors at first, mainly because we weren't used to being treated that way. But after time passed, you realized why they were using this teaching method, and why it was so successful. Maybe its time we train our teachers to be like these instructors, and let them teach our students to never accept defeat and to work hard and fight for every inch of what life gives us.
Our schools were best when government was involved the least. Another article in the spirit of the thread:
Let's call our public schools what they really are -- ?government? schools | Fox News
Although private schools support the point, perhaps the best contemporary proof of this comes from homeschoolers who do about 30% better than their gov' schooled conterparts on standarized tests; all with SIGNIFICANTLY fewer resources and a "lack" of "professional" teachers.
And right there, you lost me. The military has a unique mindset and a unique goal when training people, which is different from civilian life. Companies don't always need someone conditioned to work as a team: sometimes they need an individual to rise and shine. An entrepreneur has to be able to do the same on a daily basis. I'm not saying that the military is bad: on the contrary they do an excellent job in using psychology to train soldiers! But the social and mental needs of the military are not the same as those in civilian life, and it would be a mistake to apply those lessons directly from one to the other. Particularly to children.
When public schools can expel poorly performing students like private schools can then we can compare them.
Once schools lost the right to tell parents to STFU and let the teachers actually do their jobs we went downhill. EVERYBODY is an expert at teaching, they all know all the answers at all times on how to do a teacher's job.
I'd put anybody in my wife's teaching job and they would quit after a day MAX. Most would be crying at lunchtime. My wife's a middle school special ed teacher.