Kirby writes: >I think you went there. You agreed with me that when >the weaponry changes, basic training needs to be >revamped.
I want to agree with you but you put it oddly so I am not sure. I do not want to revamp basic training, as I understand the term. That is, I do not want to try to improve the cavalry, I want to get rid of the cavalry.
>> Similarly, I do not want to spend less money on >> on public education, but I sure do want to take it > >OK, that's important to get on the record. You're at >least for holding funding levels constant. So now how >would you feel about a small increase, to keep pace >with inflation?
I mean to say that, in this forum, I am not primarily concerned with funding levels. I have consistently said that I want to take money away from the current system, which I have sometimes called the Education Mafia, the Institutional Revolutionary Party of Education, and now the Education Cavalry, but that is because I want to kill it in the same way one can kill a tumor by cutting off its blood supply.
Please recall that I did not bring up the issue of "vast underfunding". I had to respond only because MPG made a plainly false assertion which he, himself, must recognize since he has not twitched a muscle in his own defense and he is a man who tends to defend his positions maniacally. I would have responded to MPG had he said the sun rises in the west and sets in the east, even though that is also a question not suitable to this forum.
Ultimately, funding levels are terribly important. First, we cannot have a system of education that cannot be sustained by our wealth, as in Detroit. And second, if we spend so much money on the existing system that we have nothing left over to start something new then, of course, we are spending too much money. The analogy here might be if the Poles did not have tanks because there was not enough money left over after taking care of their cavalry. (Shoot the damned horses if you have to, but get those tanks!).
>> From which I conclude that you are far too >> too self-absorbed. The last thing my side wants is >> to force our agenda on anybody else. You see, the > >OK, another important point for the record. On the >other hand, you're not good at pointing to websites >where said "agenda" is defined.
This cannot be easy for you to understand, but to the extent I have a pedagogical agenda it is extremely limited. I am not aware of any web site that carries "my agenda" and if such a site existed it would have to be the most boring on earth. But, as I said, I will try to explain this in a new thread.
> No evolution didn't you say?
No, I did not say.
> And no algebra above the 4th grade level.
Nope, not me. I want plenty of algebra above the 4th grade, with easy and open access --- for everyone who wants it.
>How will an education like that help a >future president of the United States? Curious readers >want to know.
As I will try to explain, this is a completely meaningless question.