Skip to main content

Fixing Education

I tend to think that pushing education issues to the Federal level is the wrong thing to do all around. No doubt some funding is nice, but just about anything done works to take away the ability to make decisions on a local level. And *all* education problems are local.

I'd say all solutions are local as well.

What I'd like most is to see is the promotion of choice, alternatives, and local control.

As for those who don't graduate. I tend to think that most people have a reasonably good grasp on the facts of their own lives. Making it *much* easier for people to *both* leave school and return to school and the school environment (the equivalent of Students Older Than Average in colleges, who participate in campus life as much as anyone else) and the availability of technical education in a *non* high school type environment for students who think school is lame and just want to start working, would be a good idea.

But we've decided that all young people must endure (and I use the word "endure" on purpose) the same education in the same sequence with the same overall goal.

Can you *really* say that the students who feel that they are wasting their time in high school are wrong about that? We can be sad that their time is wasted and wish that they were motivated and getting something out of it, but they *aren't*.

Comments

ched macquigg said…
For as long as learning cannot be made compulsory; attendance (against the will of the student) is pointless.

No one can be educated against their will.

All education should be readily available to those who want it, at whatever age.

In the meantime we need to get past the idea that we can lead a horse to water and make him drink.
Ymarsakar said…
As we see with academics, if the real world doesn't intrude on the rarified heights of research and education, bad things can happen to people. Even adults, let alone children.

The lack of wisdom which comes from enclosed spaces and parochial viewpoints, is a bad thing. yet it is propagated by a generation that viewed themselves as Eternal Children, all wise, and all multi culti knowing.
Anonymous said…
Your "older student" vision fits me exactly. Although I was an attendee younger person, by no version, was I a student. I wasn't disruptive. I was just too immature to compete. After barely finishing high school and failing out of college at Eastern NM, I put in a few years just maturing.
When I returned to school, I was mentally old enough to be a better student. Both the school and I were better off for my time spent away. The final result was a B.S. at ENMU and a Master of Architecture at UNM, plus many much more satisfied instructors who actually got to instruct (where I was concerned).
Thanks for sharing your blog.
Oran Woody
Synova said…
Thanks for visiting, Oran. :-)

Popular posts from this blog

Tyranny.gov vs Tyranny.com

Compulsion is Compulsion, no matter who does it.  This is Brilliant Theft is Theft, no matter who does it. Freedom of Association has no room in it for *private* action   that takes that away Freedom of Association. If I have a business and have voluntary associations such that I choose to serve some people and to not serve others, that might make me a jerk and it might lose me business, it might make me smart and it might gain me business, but it's got to be my choice.  If I would normally serve the current disliked minority in my shop except for the fact that if I'm SEEN to serve them by the wrong people I'll have a private campaign against me as those people do everything possible to ruin me by preventing me from doing business physically or by attacking my customers or suppliers, then I am NOT free to make those choices. Does it really make a difference to losing my CHOICE to voluntarily associate if there's a law that says I may not serve "those people" o...

Some times some people.

 

What Cancel Culture is NOT

  Maybe we should talk about what cancel culture isn't. It's not a boycott.  It's not deciding to no longer go to a business. It's not giving a bad review for bad service. It generally involves two things. First, the offense is a matter of opinion. Second, secondary or even tertiary targets are threatened. Cancellation does not need to be successful, and often with very famous and wealthy people it is not successful. But it serves as a warning to vulnerable people who are not in a position to weather that kind of attack. The goal is terroristic in that it's about forcing social behavior in people who are not currently the subject of the attack. The message is always, this could happen to you. And the tactic invariably includes seeking out vulnerable people to threaten in order to put pressure on businesses or on the target of the attack. So it works like this: JK Rowling is invulnerable. But they can try, right? So what they do is they find out who works for the pub...