Re: Heads-up: Possible Televisual Recovery

in Thu, 01 Nov 2007 03:11:06 +0000, Zebee Johnstone in hic locum scripsit:

In alt.sysadmin.recovery on Thu, 1 Nov 2007 01:51:13 +0000 (UTC)
Garrett Wollman <wollman@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
In article <slrnfii29v.pq9.zebeej@xxxxxxxxx>,
Zebee Johnstone <zebeej@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
The English syllabus is about [...]
Looking through the English Standard exam, [...]

Now it is possible that the USA schools are really wildly different.
But I'd want to see syllabus and papers rather than sensationalist
blogging and newspapers.

Well, for one thing, the curriculum is not standardized. There is no
"the English syllabus" or "the English exam" except -- sometimes -- at
the level of an individual state or an individual school board. (I

Ditto here, at least at state level. There's a lot of political
whinging about this, but in the end things aren't that much different.
You don't find a lot of difference in math skills between states.[1]

I can't see how that would be different in the early days though.

In fact it is a major argument for strong government - to have
standardised education.

Note that "standardised education" means standard syllabuses, and minimums
on student achievement. It does not mean that some pencilneck in
Washington DC needs to sign off on the leave requests of teachers in

You can have local control of schools, *and* universal minimum standards.
Indeed, that's a better thing than most places have now. With
micromanagement, it becomes necessary to absolutely control every aspect
of the provision of education, and ban outright any deviation. Not only
does this abnegate any benefit from the skill of the teacher, it requires
any *improvements* on that mandated script to be kept secret. Or successes
to be made public enough that they can't easily be shut down. (Like that
guy in LA who has done so well.)

That's the thing. Centralisation does not have to be Soviet style. It can
be the setting of minimums, with _support_ for those who cannot reach those
standards (as opposed to punishing the underfunded by reducing their
funding further (No Child Left Unharmed, that's you again)).

That's the thing that most gets me about libertarians, and to a lesser
extent, USians generally: the whole Cold War bullshit that *any* support of
the poor is creeping communism. That tendentious crap has got to the stage
where just about every level of US govt seems, from this vantage, at
least, to be less helping the needy back onto their feet and more
punishing them brutally for falling in the first place. I'm seeing that
more and more here as well. And I think it displays a certain deliberate
callousness which is unbecoming in a self-proclaimed 'civilised' species.

David Cameron Staples | staples AT csse DOT unimelb DOT edu DOT au
Melbourne University | School of Engineering | IT Support
- Bad trip huh?
- Horrible, I never want to go through it again. Somewhere along the line
I installed emacs. --