Matt Damon's speech to teachers

[DubaiSis]

Having grown up in a (educationally speaking) good state, and living most recently in a bad state, and several states in between, I think it would be a tragedy to take the federal government out of the equation. Just as it's not a kid's fault for being born poor, it is also not her fault to be born in Missouri. And saying the states would step up to the plate is just wrong. Frankly, in some states, fewer educated people means fewer voters which means you can more easily control the government. Would certain states take that money and make excellent use of it? Absolutely. Would others allow 50% of their students to be illiterate boobs? Again, IMO, absolutely.

What I would do if I trusted my government at all levels is a lot different than what I would be forced to do in real life. Unfortunately, what that SOUNDS like is that I prefer privatization, but the same ethics applies. Some private education companies do great jobs and some are simply in it for the Benjamins. So they can't be trusted as a wide-spread policy either.

In the meantime, I will honor the teachers, principles, school boards, mayors, and up the chain who do their jobs the way it should be done. And be glad I don't have kids because that's not ALL of them.

[Ghostwriter]

Originally Posted by DubaiSis

...I think it would be a tragedy to take the federal government out of the equation. Just as it's not a kid's fault for being born poor, it is also not her fault to be born in Missouri. And saying the states would step up to the plate is just wrong...Would others allow 50% of their students to be illiterate boobs?

Our current system = fail - IMO

I equate the way we do things as the old medieval "physician" who would bleed the sick patient to get the evil impurities out. The patient would be bled and then if he did not get better he would be bled some more. If that didn't work he would bleed them some more. If the patient died he would say that they weren't bled enough. At what point do we say "enough with the bleeding we need a new cure"?

I just don't see how the pointy haired politicians and their cronies in Washington know so much more than my local pointy haired politicians and their cronies? At least we can keep a closer eye on the local pointy hairs.

[MysticCat]

Originally Posted by Ghostwriter

Our current system = fail - IMO

I equate the way we do things as the old medieval "physician" who would bleed the sick patient to get the evil impurities out. The patient would be bled and then if he did not get better he would be bled some more. If that didn't work he would bleed them some more. If the patient died he would say that they weren't bled enough. At what point do we say "enough with the bleeding we need a new cure"?

I just don't see how the pointy haired politicians and their cronies in Washington know so much more than my local pointy haired politicians and their cronies? At least we can keep a closer eye on the local pointy hairs.

You're setting up a false dichotomy: Either (A) we keep the current set-up, or (B) We keep all control local. (Although earlier you wanted the control to be at the state level. Where should it be -- state or local?)

Maintaining some federal involvement doesn't have to mean keeping things just like they are. But we live in a global economy, and our national economy is very interconnected. If some states fail to provide adequate schools, the country suffers, not just the people in that state or district. If you want to look at it through a state lens, the states all have an interest not only in making sure their own schools are good but in holding other states accountable. Otherwise, we all suffer.

There is a role for the federal involvement in education, particularly the role that AXOmom identifies: national standards and expectations.

[Ghostwriter]

Originally Posted by MysticCat

You're setting up a false dichotomy: Either (A) we keep the current set-up, or (B) We keep all control local. (Although earlier you wanted the control to be at the state level. Where should it be -- state or local?)

Maintaining some federal involvement doesn't have to mean keeping things just like they are.

B: Local (county/city) school boards with State oversight

Insanity: Doing the same thing over and over again and expecting different results - Albert Einstein

[MysticCat]

Originally Posted by Ghostwriter

Insanity: Doing the same thing over and over again and expecting different results - Albert Einstein

Again, though, a false dichotomy: Doing just what we're doing now or purely local contriol with State oversight are far from the only options. Einstein would know that.

[KSig RC]

Originally Posted by MysticCat

Again, though, a false dichotomy: Doing just what we're doing now or purely local contriol with State oversight are far from the only options. Einstein would know that.

Also (and one reason I'm not in love with that quote), it's clear Einstein was a theoretical physicist - experimental physicists know that repeatability is one of the main difficulties in high-level scientific research today. You'll often do the same thing over and over and get different results.

Similarly, often government programs aren't inherently or implicitly broken - the implementation is poor, not the conceit. A do-over (more likely, a clean start-over) could indeed give tremendous results.

[Ghostwriter]

Originally Posted by KSig RC

A do-over (more likely, a clean start-over) could indeed give tremendous results.

How many do-overs does the Federal Government get? The DOE has been, realistically, in existence since 1980. Are our schools better or worse than prior to that year? That is 31 years of wasted $$$$ going down a bottomless well with no real return on investment. Every year should have been a do-over.