Matt Damon's speech to teachers

[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.

[MysticCat]

Originally Posted by Ghostwriter

How many do-overs does the Federal Government get?

How many do-overs/restructurings of DOE have there been? (That's a different question from how many one thinks there should have been.)

Sorry, but I think "solutions" like "get rid of DOE and return the power to local communities," while they might sound great and appealing, are terribly simplistic approaches to a complicated problem. It's not a real solution -- it's just trading one set of problems for another set of problems.

[KSig RC]

Originally Posted by Ghostwriter

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 41 years of wasted $$$$ going down a bottomless well with no real return on investment. Every year should have been a do-over.

Without arguing over efficacy or semantics like the above, let's try it this way:

What, exactly, makes you think anybody at all on a local level of government is qualified to dictate educational policy? And I don't even mean "more qualified" than somebody else - I seriously mean, for the average community, what about the dopey, slow, limited, and largely ceremonial governments of most towns and suburbs makes you think THAT is the group who really needs more money and power pushed toward them?

And if you instead want to discuss the state level ... States puked all over themselves trying to spend stimulus funds, then cried when they didn't get more. Many state governments are run by part-time state legislators whose qualifications were "Put Up A Lot Of Signs In Yards." That's your solution? Give them more stuff to do, more money to blow?

Sorry if I'm non-plussed at the concept of removing the DoE in favor of essentially this plan:

1. Move money from idiotic bureaucracy to smaller, less experienced idiotic bureaucracy.

2. ????

3. Profit.

[*winter*]

Originally Posted by Ghostwriter

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 41 years of wasted $$$$ going down a bottomless well with no real return on investment. Every year should have been a do-over.

Um...that would make it 31...not 41.

Don't do this. Don't make me 40 before my time.

Thanks,

A 1979 Baby