You will get no argument from me that the education in the U.S. is less than 
desirable for most of the public schools. That has not always been the case, 
however.  The decline in American education began when the idea that the 
public schools should be teaching according to political philosophy.  That 
began in the 1960s.  Nevertheless, you are quite correct. There is some 
difference between what was and what is.  The recent "no child left behind 
act" has set education back even further in terms of actual intellectual 
achievement.  That is one of the reasons for the surge in home schooling and 
the trend toward private schools.  Your comments are well taken with regards 
to education but with respect to political philosophy I am still inclined to 
believe that the constitutional republican government in the U.S. has as 
close to a level playing field as possible, ideally.  When the system of 
checks and balances is offset, that is when inequality rears its head.  That 
is what is unfortunately under attack now.  But I have to accept your 
premise that public education is relevant to the "equal playing field." 
Thank you.


----- Original Message ----- 
From: "Gerhard Fiedler" <lists@connectionbrazil.com>
To: <piclist@mit.edu>
Sent: Sunday, March 09, 2008 1:37 PM
Subject: Re: [OT] Education reform:


> Rich wrote:
>
>> The role of a constitutional republican government (like the U.S.) is
>> primarily [...] to protect the rights of its citizens from the
>> encroachment of others.  Thomas Jefferson was first to advocate public
>> education, but it is not within the scope of American political
>> philosophy.
>
> May be or may not be, no? It may well turn out that public education is an
> essential element of protecting the rights of the citizens from the
> encroachment of others. Jails and death rows may not cut it (alone).
>
>> In America the playing field is relatively level.
>
> Most probably can agree on that, but it of course depends on the reference
> frame for the "relatively".
>
>> What the U.S. system does is provide education for every citizen without
>> cost to the student, at the primary and secondary level.
>
> What some here argue is that the education provided is much worse than it
> could be. If that is in fact so, it definitely affects the reference frame
> for the "relatively" above.
>
>> On the job training comes into play because academia does not have the
>> wherewithal to train people on the specific products and multivarious
>> requirements of industry.
>
> There's a strange thing. I've heard quite a lot that the qualifications of
> non-academic but still qualified German workers (carpenters, blacksmiths,
> mechanics and so on) are generally in high regard. This is probably for 
> the
> most part because in Germany there is a formal (public) education system
> that covers these professions. In short, there is a curriculum and a 
> school
> (generally 20% of the work time is school, 80% is on the job). 
> Furthermore,
> the companies that train these apprentices must fulfill certain
> requirements (it is not allowed to "train" an apprentice by letting him
> clean toilets for most of the time, for example). Yet, even though the
> effects of this model of professional education seem to be appreciated, it
> doesn't seem to be considered anywhere else.
>
> Gerhard
>
> -- 
> http://www.piclist.com PIC/SX FAQ & list archive
> View/change your membership options at
> http://mailman.mit.edu/mailman/listinfo/piclist 

-- 
http://www.piclist.com PIC/SX FAQ & list archive
View/change your membership options at
http://mailman.mit.edu/mailman/listinfo/piclist