Comments on: Making Secondary Education a Primary Goal

By: mclever

mclever — Mon, 27 Aug 2012 23:40:51 +0000

While I applaud channelclemente's suggestion, I worry about a "one-size-fits-all" approach to education. That's part of what I see as a failing in many public schools, because they adhere too rigidly to a narrowly-defined curriculum and/or pedagogical approach and have no flexibility for dealing with children outside the norms, despite "programs" for gifted or whatever. Too often, that ends up meaning the teacher has to teach the class towards the sub-average student rather than encouraging the best out of each student. I would hope that such nuances would be teased out of a metric-based approach devised by the NAS, but I would worry until I saw the final results.

By: channelclemente

channelclemente — Mon, 27 Aug 2012 02:44:38 +0000

I'd settle for K-12. Kill the for profit model and stop the Federal dollar drain and check the $$$ drain out of education.

As to it being proscriptive or not, the way this game is played you don't meddle, but go where the data and logic take you. There can't be a default, because that's where opponents from the right or teachers unions place the wedge. You get intelligent honest people, and you task them as to the outcome. If the solution is uniforms and straight lines or togas and sandels, so be it.

By: Michael Weiss

Michael Weiss — Mon, 27 Aug 2012 02:18:36 +0000

I also like that plan, channelclemente…but I’d want it to cover everything from preschool to postdoc. We need something comprehensive, instead of the piecemeal that we currently have.

And I wouldn’t want it to be rigidly proscriptive. Offer a default method, but allow for exemptions provided the success metrics are no less stringent than the ones in the default method. Much like we did with welfare reform, and are supposed to do with the ACA.

By: Monotreme

Monotreme — Mon, 27 Aug 2012 02:14:14 +0000

That's a fantastic idea, channelclemente.

By: channelclemente

channelclemente — Mon, 27 Aug 2012 01:57:03 +0000

If I were going to formulate an education plan that made sense, I'd convene a session of the National Academy of Science, tell them to formulate a plan with metrics, benchmarks, a timetable, and a rationale with a one year clock based on sound science and behavioral psychology. If they took more than one year, I'd discount their budget by 1/365th for every day they were late. I'd take it to the CBO, score it, and then tell Congress, I dare you not to pass it.

Everyone currently has a plan, but they usually have a constituency of one and no backing from anyone. There truth is none of the plans out there make any sense at all beyond some goofy talking points.

By: Rose

Rose — Sun, 26 Aug 2012 23:13:23 +0000

Back to higher education. I grew up in a converted basement in the Bronx. I went to college only because the City Universities cost $42/semester at that time. It meant my continuing to live at home (what fun!) because my part-time job was enough to cover only my daily expenses. My 8th grade-educated truck driver father wanted me to get as much education as possible, my mother wanted me to get a job and contribute substantially to the family. Her words "Since it's only $42, you might as well go."
Thanks to "free" higher education and later, an NSF Fellowship to cover graduate school, I wound up contributing far more to society (working in basic medical research, editing a medical journal, and teaching college) than if I'd stopped at high school and become a secretary.

By: shortchain

shortchain — Sun, 26 Aug 2012 22:56:53 +0000

Rose,
I'm thinking that we'll get an ad that says something like:

Romney tells one audience one thing. (Video clip)
Romney tells another the opposite. (Video clip)
Romney tells the public one thing (Video clip)
-- And he told the IRS just the opposite (still image of his tax return statement)

What do you think he'll tell you that would make you want to vote for him?

By: Rose

Rose — Sun, 26 Aug 2012 22:50:33 +0000

But this needs to be packaged as a catchy sound bite that people who don't follow politics closely will hear and remember. Somethng like "If the tax status fits, you can't acquit."

By: dcpetterson

dcpetterson — Sun, 26 Aug 2012 21:55:17 +0000

Excellent find, channelclemente. Thank you for that!

By: channelclemente

channelclemente — Sun, 26 Aug 2012 21:00:51 +0000

This is what happens when you're both greedy and too clever by half about protecting your wealth. ...and someone leaks a part of your as yet unseen 2010 taxes.

"As we have said many times before, Governor and Mrs. Romney's assets are managed on a blind basis. They do not control the investment of these assets. The investment decisions are made by a trustee," spokeswoman Michele Davis said.

But according to his 2010 tax return, when the Internal Revenue Service comes calling in April, Romney has a different answer: The presumptive GOP nominee reaps lucrative tax breaks for "active" participation in the private equity firm he founded, as well as a host of other investments."