Haim posted Nov 16, 2012 9:40 PM (GSC's remarks below): > Paul A. Tanner, III Posted: Nov 15, 2012 8:01 PM > > >One reason this is true is because the person you > cite > >is actually not up to speed on so many facts, like > those > >many facts I present below that show ... > > The person I cite is, > > - --------------------------- > http://www.woodrow.org/about/directory/president.php > Arthur Levine is the sixth president of the Woodrow > Wilson Foundation. Before his appointment at Woodrow > Wilson, he was president and professor of education > at Teachers College, Columbia University. <snip> > > Dr. Levine is the author of dozens of articles and > reviews, including a series of reports for the > Education Schools Project on the preparation of > school leaders, teachers, and education researchers. > Dr. Levine's numerous commentaries appear in such > publications as The New York Times; The Los Angeles > Times; The Wall Street Journal; The Washington Post; > Education Week; and The Chronicle of Higher > Education... > - ---------------------------- > > In other words, Arthur Levine is public education in > the way Admiral Chester Nimitz was the Pacific Fleet. > So, there are two ways to understand your comment, > Paul. > > One way is to accept Levine's facts and reject > t yours, on the principle that he is more likely to > know what he is talking about. I favor this view. > > However, suppose that you are right and Levine is > s wrong. In this case, we have a major social > institution whose own leaders are ignorant of > elementary facts about their own institution. Well > then, this raises some nettlesome questions. > > First of all, how effective is a leadership likely > y to be if it is ignorant of elementary facts about > the institution they lead? Eg, how effective could > Admiral Nimitz have been if he were ignorant of > elementary facts about the U.S. Navy? And, if the > leadership is not effective, how successful is the > institution likely to be? Can we suppose that an > institution works without its leadership? Is > leadership not important? Keep in mind that any > corporation can have an incompetent leader for a > short time, and survive, even thrive. But > incompetence that endures for generations? No > institution can survive that. So your assertion, that > American public education is effective, must be > self-contradictory in the face of ignorant > leadership. > > Therefore, either you are wrong on the facts > cts (effective public education) or you are wrong on > the facts (ignorant leadership). > > Haim > No representation without taxation. > I'm really thrilled with Haim's idea that any even half-way effective and competent leadership should know a bit about the institution(s) they head (with which sentiment I certainly agree - though I'm not certain that Haim will do so after he reads this [assuming he does that]).
However, I just happened to google for "Ignorance and GW Bush" and Lo! and Behold! I got something like 2.1 MMMMMMMMillion links!!! - just a few of which I show below:
(The above are only the first three out of more than 2.1 MMMMMMillion links!)
I do strongly advise that anyone interested in the "stupidity of leadership" should first make themselves aware of the doings and sayings of the revered leader GW Bush who was (while he was) the epitome, more or less.
GSC "("Still Shoveling Away" - with profuse apologies if due to Barry Garelick for any tedium caused; and with the suggestion that an EASY way of of such tedium would be simply to ignore any messages purporting to have originated from GSC)