Jeff Taylor wrote:
> Perhaps the real issue is that the current mode of education is just
barely
> effectual.
I'd certainly agree with that.
> I've noticed that the evolution of education has been severely inhibited.
Is
> this a subversive maneuver to preserve the economic class structures?
IMO, it is a natural result of the fact that a government bureaucracy is in charge of education. They have no incentive to even care about whether their methods work, and every incentive to fiercely resist any effort to change the system.
> A poorly educated nation is easiest to govern. Perhaps that is why so
little
> is spent educating our people. (in the USA)
Actually, the U.S. spends quite a lot of money on education. Teachers are paid above-average wages (especially considering that 3-month vacation every year), and the only schools that don't have basic materials are the ones where the bureaucrats intercept all of the money before it reaches the classroom. The constant complaints about funding are another natural result of bureaucracy - we could spend $1,000,000 a year per student, and they would still claim to be short of money.
Having worked as a teacher, I would say that money is largely irrelevant. Once you have a classroom, furniture, books and a teacher, you have everything money can buy that is actually helpful. Spending vast sums on computers, multimedia tools, field trips, and so on produces very little benefit - what really matters is what the teacher and students do in that classroom.
Billy Brown, MCSE+I
bbrown@conemsco.com