Ranting to /dev/null

...not to mention that the trades are DYING for employees and often pay VERY WELL.

The WaPo article has no hope of influencing the broader American populace because of their touching egalitarian sentimentalism combined with their economic naivete: the twin convictions underlying current educational policy are a) that varying academic performances are not a matter of intrinsic differences but simply the result of an improper allocation of resources and b) we don't need to make pragmatic spending decisions because we're wealthy enough to ensure that everyone succeeds to the same degree. The WaPo author demonstrates her fealty to the latter sentiment when she observes that "Surely we can find a way to help low-achieving children reach proficiency without neglecting the needs of our gifted learners."

It's interesting that the implicit snobbery in the "academic proficiency" policy survives unexamined: for all their protestations about "different forms of intelligence," almost all "educators" believe that there is something intrinsically degrading about having a mastery of electronics, plumbing, or construction as opposed to a mastery of deconstructionist interpretations of Jane Austen.

Milton and Newton are lost on an uneducated public.
You are clearly out of touch.

Nice points.

One question to ponder: Is it the educators' job to make students "smart" (under their definition of the word) or is it their job to prepare them for life? People learn at different rates and have different aptitudes, and for educators, parents, etc. to force certain less-apt i(n their eyes) students into unrealistic educational/career paths is to the detriment of what might be best (earning wise) for the students.

For many, the trades are an important, necessary career path in this country. And there is honor and great money to be made within them.

It's great to be well-versed in, say, literature or philosophy, but if you can't DO anything, you are at the mercy of those so-called "less-educated" folks.

I would agree with you in theory, but maybe not in degree.
Would you also say that there are certain things that are just necessary in order to live in society today? Basic literacy, the ability to construct a sentence, and arithmetic?
Where's the line of necessity? "No child left behind" sets it somewhere - should it be set lower, or not be there at all?

First of all, I’m disappointed that this conversation is necessary at all: one of the primary threats to America’s continued economic success is the lack of meaningful educational choice for all but the richest or most dedicated parents and children. The failure to expose the education system to free market forces via the implementation of a voucher system should be a national scandal. The bureaucratization of education ensures that it is maximally difficult to fire slothful or unenterprising teachers. Far worse, however, is the fact that direct federal management of the school system means that debates about educational policy are paralyzed by skirmishes over intelligent design, library “censorship,” and the content of Christmas pageants rather than the abysmal and steadily declining student performance on standardized tests. Most reform initiatives that stop short of creating actual choice are going to be much in the nature of stitches on a corpse.

In re: determining minimally required levels of education within the constraints of the current system, I think one would have to do an empirical study combined with an economic analysis to determine what is the most pragmatically sound course of action. Many of the flaws of the current system are doubtless attributable to the fact that it is hostile to either failing or promoting students in a manner inconsistent with a lock-step annual progression: if you’re going to force everyone to move at the same pace, either the ones at the bottom are dragged forward far beyond their competency, or the ones at the top are severely inhibited in their progress. Perhaps some form of testing similar to that employed in Denmark, where periodic assessments determine whether the government will continue to subsidize your attendance at a humanities institution or direct you to a trade school instead, might be a reasonable alternative.

But someone with more familiarity with the American educational system might be better suited to reply: although all my test performance data are drawn from American sources, my arguments rely partly on the assumption that the American system is substantially similar in structure and policy to the educational system in Canada, which may not be the case.

James: no, for the general public has benefited dramatically from the likes of Milton and Newton - especially the latter - whether or not they know it. the majority of the cliche references to the Garden of Eden that survive in our culture are based far more strongly in Milton's interpretation of Genesis than anything from the Genesis account as such. This may not be a huge deal to most people, but the effects are there.

But the significance of Newton on the everyday, uneducated masses cannot be overestimated. Without the development of calculus (so throw Leibniz in there if you want: he's even less well-known, but even more influential) and physics, the world as we know it would not exist. There would be no modern engineering: no cars, no computers, no electrical power, no space program, nothing. We'd still be using 16th century technology. I'd say that not missing out on the next Newton is worth millions of individuals who aren't quite as literate as they might be.