I suppose the argument on education works best like this: people should choose where their tax dollars for education go and thus where their children go. We can do this in part for college education where in-state tuition for public universities are subsidized by state residents. Why the tax pool for lower education cannot be similarly utilized in the same competitive manner is positively strange.
It does make some sense that the amount of federal involvement has been extreme. Possibly because of teacher's unions, but also as a temporary positive consequence of civil rights movements which flamed out once the bigots figured out they could privatize their schools in order to keep out everyone else.
With a globalizing and specializing economy, it makes some sense to have some basic overriding guidance on primary school curriculum in terms of what basic exposures to knowledge and practice skills are imparted. I would argue strongly that several skills, such as critical thinking, basic finance, and basic ability for self-directed learning are in considerable demand. None of these are currently encouraged or "required". In this current environment, any work done by the individual is the about only thing I would construe as contributing to their education. That's a problem which constitutes a net drain (not to mention being exceeding tiresome in explaining basic financial concepts to supposedly educated people like doctors or engineers)
04 August 2008
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
No comments:
Post a Comment