On Fri, Nov 16, 2012 at 11:10 AM, Haim <firstname.lastname@example.org> wrote: > 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. He also previously served as chair of the higher education program, chair of the Institute for Educational Management, and senior lecturer at the Harvard Graduate School of Education. > > 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 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 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 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 (effective public education) or you are wrong on the facts (ignorant leadership). >
No. You are wrong on the facts, since not only I am right that he is ignorant of the certain facts I documented, he and folks like him are not "leadership" in the least of any given public school system in any district anywhere. You are utterly factually incorrect in that you think people like him have command and control of public school systems the way generals or CEOs do. They don't run them. They are not even related to these systems. You are really off on this one.
presented, since these facts showing the US public school system to be as good or better than the one of just about any country on Earth by certain measures are proved to be facts by this documentation.