Here's your UTOPIA... https://www2.ed.gov/news/staff/bios/devos.html?src=hp As secretary, DeVos will work with President Trump to advance equal opportunities for quality education for all students.
You missed the key point in his/her post entirely. Here it is again, since you missed it first time: She said the problem is the same as it was 40 or 50 years ago. The kids come to school thinking that learning is not important. There is no one at home telling them to give a darn.
Who is 'society'? You have yet to explain who/why/how someone or something other than people, need to 'fix' people.
This doesn't need to be complicated, seriously, most people are not of exceptional intelligence some are below average enough to limit benefits of formal education and skills training and some will be over that so what is needed is practical approaches. Average people should get an average education and get 'sufficient knowledge' in general subjects and civics and focus on employment as a goal these folks are your ordinary working people your cooks, police, construction workers and artists who have special talents (artist broadly to all types of art applied or otherwise). A musician is rarely so good they need to go on to advanced education but might benefit from a strong focus while a teenager to get good enough to earn a living and work at it that way. So sure give them a full education but be practical they are not likely four year degree material if one considers a very rigorous scholarly education. Above average people should go to college, or advanced education in skills these are your masters of complicated work the career soldiers in technically demanding areas of work, your master artists, your scholars delving into deep thoughts and problems and scientists so is a current university the right model. I don't think so we should have business colleges for business and economics and artist colonies attached to libraries of learning around these students and scholarly teachers and scientists with labs and all these centered on self-directed education. Say free for six years they leaving with a diploma and they could stay on to work as scholarly teachers if determined by the staff and students to be an asset or to do pure research. Say six more years they earn a doctorate for suitable research. No majors, no classes but lectures and tutoring and see what kind of scholars we make. I would though demand neutrality on beliefs and ideas none given special status and ban activism they are there to study and work. In return it will be free 100% if one can test into a given school or can attend a private school. Maybe ten percent of people should get a university education and the rest of the elite get a strong in topic education a medical doctor could go to a dedicated medical college leaving after six years a generally trained doctor cutting out all the fluff and focusing on the general knowledge and applied medical training and specialists can go on for more training why do they need more its largely being a glorified automotive mechanic the researchers would be at a university getting a much higher level of knowledge in medicine and related work. Those below the norm too much might and likely get less education I would say seven years of elementary education and to be generous six more of skills education and workforce training and at sixteen they leave the system, some might not even get that far, but well they should leave with life skills and enough practical knowledge to hold a job. Decide what a person need to know to be productive given their IQ's, then do it, and of course what they want to do if a genius only wants to fix cars then don't go over secondary school and a low IQ genius in one area say painting needs to do that a-lot and should go past secondary school to an art colony to hone their skills if they are that good. I'd rather we consider the exceptional as being exceptional and most people are not exceptional enough for special consideration for more than a function education. I wouldn't have sent me to secondary school not because I lack the IQ I lacked the mental flexibility and ability to work with my intelligence due to disabilities and I refused to work three to five times harder than other people any longer to get 'good grades'. It took me decades of self-education to get where I am roughly I would think on par with someone with some amount of college work.
I don't have any fix to offer. But I'm reasonably certain that using the education system as a means to develop the next voting block is to produce some disastrous results.
The root of this is the answer to the question; What is the purpose of public education? As long as we cannot clearly and concisely define this we will never be able to create a more effective public education system...this is a fact! We can't solve something we can't define...
So in a nation where a very large portion of the population is functionally illiterate, you want to trust the production of citizens to their parents? Who can barely read? To be a citizen, at least in the United States, is to fundamentally understand the concepts and principles that our nation was founded upon. It is to be self sufficient to the degree it is practical in modern society. It is to read the great speeches and correspondence between our nation's greatest minds. And most importantly it is to understand that the blessing of liberty is but one generation away from extinction. One generation away, because if kids can't ****ing read or comprehend complex thoughts they aren't free.
If parents fail to teach their kids how to support themselves - like the wolf failing to teach her young how to hunt - then those kids will need to teach themselves in adulthood, or accept the consequences of failing to do so. And since all of us know what happens when we refuse to help ourselves, and we know if from a young age, it can never be said that people 'didn't realise' the consequences. Which in turn means that adults who remain helpless have chosen that state. They have exercised their free will, and made an informed choice. The great thing about a social democracy (where all the tools for success are provided, to all), is that you know with absolute certainty that everyone is acting according to his or her will. There is no fairer or more equitable system than that. Attempting to allocate resources to 'fix' something freely chosen, is about as unfair as it gets. Anyone who supports that latter, is not a supporter of equity and fairness.
I'm a socialist myself, so I get kinda p'd off when I see people who claim to be for equity, supporting the most inequitable system of all (equality of outcomes). I probably have more in common with capitalists in that sense. Genuine socialism - the democratic variety - provides the basics, but gives us the freedom to use them as we see fit. A safety net, AND freedom of choice.
Could be. I've never really walked that side of the line. I'm certainly of the belief (as are most authentic socialists, rather than the cafe variety) that there is no free lunch involved. It's not about the lazy living well at the expense of the motivated. It's about EVERYONE pulling their own weight. Fail to do so, and you forfeit your right to the benefits of the system. Just like in any collective.
