G.W. Bush: India, China competing with America

[Green]

Sometimes I think that America will deplete Europe of her scientists to preserve the edge on hi-tech in the world.

"WASHINGTON: In his annual State of the Union speech on Tuesday, President George W Bush called for a new emphasis on math and science education in the American school system to strengthen the country’s economy, while referring to the achievements of India and China.

Lamenting the status of US competitiveness in the global economy, Bush announced a new $136 billion, 10-year “American competitiveness agenda” that would employ the nation’s technology and research and development prowess to keep its economic edge against competitors like China and India.

As part of that plan, he proposed the US government would train 70,000 additional high school teachers to lead advanced-placement courses in math and science “and give early help to students so they have a better chance at high, well-paying jobs”.

He said he wanted to double federal funds “to the most critical basic research programmes in physical sciences over the next 10 years” leading to hope for breakthroughs in such fields as nanotechnology, supercomputing, and alternative energy sources.
"

[John L]

More outrageous Statism from a confirmed Federalist, who is either panering, or attempting to increase the size of government at the expense of the individual states. It is stupid and too costly.

It is just like his plan to ween us of energy dependence. I have a thread on this that I started this evening. State planning NEVER works, and you, being a Russian, know all about failed State planning.

This is probably why I will be voting for the Libertarian candidate in 2008, instead of the Stupid Republicans. They are almost as bad as the Jackasses.

[Stars & Stripes]

As part of that plan, he proposed the US government would train 70,000 additional high school teachers to lead advanced-placement courses in math and science “and give early help to students so they have a better chance at high, well-paying jobs”.

I was rather unhappy to hear Bush's proposal. As John says, it's another expansion of an already bloated government. There are already plenty of people qualified to teach science and math in the US, but they aren't teachers. The biggest way to improve the US schools are:

1) Let the money follow the students. Instead of forcing students to attend a certain school, let the parents choose which school for their child to attend, the way things are done at the college/university level. A little free-market competition among public schools for tuition money will bring about huge improvements.

2) Eliminate tenure for teachers. No person should have a free ride to travel the road of mediocrity without fear of being fired.

3) Eliminate the Education Degree. Every teacher should have a bonified major course of study, such as language, science, math, history, art, or whatever. Just not an Education major.

All of these things, however, are properly the responsibility of the state, not federal authorities. Which brings us to:

4) Eliminate the US Department of Education.

-S

[SoloNav]

All good thoughts. Especially the part about teachers have a degree apart from Education, which science I think has destroyed the true art of teaching/mentoring. Call me biased.

[ag]

All good thoughts. Especially the part about teachers have a degree apart from Education, which science I think has destroyed the true art of teaching/mentoring. Call me biased.

True. But please, be aware, that changing requirements for qualification we will immedeately produce shortage of qualified teachers. Many eng. and sicentists do not teach in grade schools for (mostly) 2 reasons: 1. stultifying environment with continuous repetition of the same material, and 2. if you can do it yourself, why spend time on teaching elementary skills to others?

[WmLambert]

Bill Bennett, the former Secretary of Education, notes that the College of Education in most Universities is always the laughing-stock of the campuses. The Professors, as well as the students, always rank at the bottom-most rung of the proficiency ladder.

[KenBean]

Good thoughts guys!

JOHN L...don't throw your vote away.....please.

We at Pediatric Prosthetics Inc. are placing web-cams in our partners' labs.

Now Linda and Dan can peek over their helpers' shoulder and guide them.

We ought to fire all the drone teachers and do web-cam lectures from the best of the best lecturers...then have "helpers" in the local schools.

...I would volunteer one day a week.....no more shortage of teachers.....
Bean

[John L]

Good thoughts guys!

JOHN L...don't throw your vote away.....please.

Anyone who votes is not throwing away his/her vote, if it is done with thought. You sound like Rush on this, and I reject it totally.

I am convinced that the voter dissatisfaction of the 1992 election led to the 1994 overthrow of the Democratic Congress. Do you consider that to be throwing my vote away, when I voted for the Little Hand Grenade with the bad haircut?

If enough voters display their dissatisfaction by voting their conscience, then the long term(ie strategic) goal is closer within reach, even though the short term(ie tactical) goal is lost.

Therefore, I reject your contention Ken. Sorry, but I am growing more dissatisfied with the Stupid Republicans with each day. They are going to have to show me some substantial improvement before I reward them for incompetence.

Besides, if they don't straighten themselves out, a short stint in the minority would do them some good, in my humble opinion.

[WmLambert]

Sorry, John but voting is only a part of the problem. If 15% of the voters have an alternative belief of the best way to lead the country, then allowing a plurality to gain control of what will be decided moves the 15% belief farther away from becoming instituted. What has to happen is the 15% must work from within a position of power to influence the others to come to their way of thinking. If a plurality of 43% is opposed by a minority of 42%, then that 15% will make the difference and will have an actual factual hand in shaping policy. But only if within the party. On the outside - they have no traction and no input. The plurality can run roughshod and control everything to their own satisfaction.

Clinton was elected by this equation.

Who is next?

[John L]

Sorry, John but voting is only a part of the problem. If 15% of the voters have an alternative belief of the best way to lead the country, then allowing a plurality to gain control of what will be decided moves the 15% belief farther away from becoming instituted. What has to happen is the 15% must work from within a position of power to influence the others to come to their way of thinking. If a plurality of 43% is opposed by a minority of 42%, then that 15% will make the difference and will have an actual factual hand in shaping policy. But only if within the party. On the outside - they have no traction and no input. The plurality can run roughshod and control everything to their own satisfaction.

Clinton was elected by this equation.

Who is next?

Bill, you are thinking tactics, which is fine. However, I choose to think "strategic". Winning the war is more important than winning ALL the battles. Just ask the Vietnamese.

[WmLambert]

I agree, John, however... consider the enormity of winning a war if you won't fight. A strategy is fine if it is logical. But one that nullifies its own existence by having no supply lines, no recruiting, and no history of success doesn't bode well for overcoming the status quo.

If the target of recruitment to your cause resides within either of the existing parties, then how do you reach them without entering the field of battle?

Can you count on the MSM to champion your cause and publish your positions and issues?

To my way of thinking, the best way to gain influence is to ride the biggest, baddest steed to the finish line, and use your superior knowledge and whatever persuasion you can muster, to point the best way through the traffic to a mutual first-place finish. If your ideas truly are the best, then they will be recognized as such because you will stand more often in the winner's circle. Before too long, the other jockeys in the race will adopt your views, as well - or else wear blinders to prevent notice of your success. Its similar to what Jesus said about preaching to the sinners...preaching only to the already converted seems pointless.

Another important and valid metaphor: if your steed is handled poorly by others, without your aid, how is the poor dumb beast to ever find its way? You would be like a race track tout with a pea shooter, trying to influence events from long distance. The best you can expect is to be slapped down for being annoying.

[Stars & Stripes]

True. But please, be aware, that changing requirements for qualification we will immedeately produce shortage of qualified teachers.

Actually, I think it will have the effect of increasing the pool of available teachers. Most college graduates are not education majors, and most public schools that I know about require an education degree. So by dropping the E.D. requirement, the pool of available college graduates is much greater.

Many eng. and sicentists do not teach in grade schools for (mostly) 2 reasons: 1. stultifying environment with continuous repetition of the same material, and 2. if you can do it yourself, why spend time on teaching elementary skills to others?

Yes, I agree, and after I made my posting I thought maybe I went too far. I was really thinking of high schools when I said that, and I still really think that those teachers should have a normal degree (non education major). But yeah, for elementary schools and kindergarten, an education degree should be fine. But I still think that schools should hire any competent person, and not limit it to an E.D.

-S

[Gunnen4u]

And eliminating the US Dept. of Education and all those solutions are realistically impossible. It sounds good here, but in reality, it wouldn't fly very far with the public.

[WmLambert]

Is it impossible? You are correct that inertia is hard to overcome - but just because something is hard to do does not mean that it cannot be accomplished.

There are multiple aspects to be considered... the tenure/teachers union thing, the funding entitlements, the babysitter dependence, the antipathy toward home schooling or personal responsibility... but there is also the need for work specialists in numbers that realistically reflect their need - and not just soft social scientists with BA degrees, the embarrassing trailing in international educational rankings, and the reliance and demand for imported workers who are the only competent source to do needed work.

With a functional Supreme Court that is competent to read the Constitution - someone might file a suit asking what Constitutional provision allows a federal education department in the first place. Some believable source might persuade Joe Sixpack that optional choices in schooling is measurably better than the current Public schools approach. Such happening might presage a sea change in public opinion to drive legislation to alter things.

With the internet, perhaps on-line training and certification could fulfill needs. Perhaps a volunteer National service institution might arise endowing participants with some reward. The future is not writ in stone.

[Gunnen4u]

If this is the case, how many years have people been talking about fixing it, but getting nowhere? I know of no court cases up at the supreme court challenging public schools.

[WmLambert]

Perhaps a change in the Court will suffice?

[Gunnen4u]

Perhaps

Sorry, but I have little faith as to all this at the moment.

Assuming they do rule it unconstitutional (how it is not constitutional anyhow?), the public opinion backlash may be something to behold. I have little confidence in Joe Sixpack when it comes to chopping gov't benefits and hand outs.

[WmLambert]

The Constitution is an allowance of duty document. Everything is sovereign to the individual and to the States UNLESS it is specifically spelled out in the Constitution. ONLY if it is defined and broken out from all the things assigned to the individual or the States, then can the Federal government address it.

Activist Courts have invented nuanced and broad powers stemming from individual passages enabling other, more specific responsibilities. The biggest transgressions have been assigning fourth Amendment shadows and penumbras of shadows to provision that have nothing to do with the issues. Privacy rights are not spelled out as rights that the Federal government is allowed to control.

Griswald vs. Connecticut is often used as a foundation for some of these extenuations of unauthorized power. The interstate commerce clause is also abused. Courts have allowed Federal controls on land-locked lakes completely within individual States, not because of interstate commerce from the Lakes in question, but because some waterways do span borders.

There are no provisions within the Constitution that give the Federal government control over schooling. With all the legal suits over vouchers, schools of choice, home schooling, etc., there are many possible vectors into the Supreme Court. We may easily see an upending of the whole system.

[Anonymous24]

The only reason Bush put the 'addicted to oil' thing in there is because Karl Rove ran a focus group and found out that most Americans think are biggest problem is that we're 'addicted to oil'. This is good. By throwing around catch-phrases like that, it turns out the Democrats can trick Bush into buying into them.

[John L]

The only reason Bush put the 'addicted to oil' thing in there is because Karl Rove ran a focus group and found out that most Americans think are biggest problem is that we're 'addicted to oil'. This is good. By throwing around catch-phrases like that, it turns out the Democrats can trick Bush into buying into them.

You're probably right. And too, the members of the focus group must have been from Rio Linda, California.