<p>It was the New York State tests for math and language arts for 4th graders. The year was whatever year Mathson was in 4th grade. I guess that would be 1999. </p>
<p>I’m not a big fan of the tests BTW. There are plenty of reasons to choose schools besides test scores. If that were all we cared about we would be living in a different town and would have sent our kid to a different elementary school in that town.</p>
<p>I’d gladly send my kid to a Catholic school if they would just stop requiring those pesky religion classes. Parochial without the parish - heaven!</p>
<p>xiggi please don’t site foriegn education systems as proof ours is failing, doesn’t wash when you look at real life. Statistics are what you want them to be. That’s why the folks who gather them never come up with information that proves them wrong. Have you ever seen a “council on zzzccc” come out and say “you know, we did the research, and we found out we were waaay off base.” </p>
<p>Now as far as superior foriegn education…</p>
<p>Kindly explain soccer houligans? Are they well educated products of a superior educational system? 
OY. </p>
<p>When I traveled the UK a bit playing rugby, what I saw with their education system was two tiered. One system for a certain class, another almost nonexistant for another. Of course you’re only going to tout the best and hope nobody notices the rest.</p>
<p>The rest of the world has just as many stupid folks as we do, they aren’t doing a superior job of education with their children. Maybe with a few, they do, but not with the masses.</p>
<p>I’m with cartera on this one.</p>
<p>xiggi, I’m sure that in a lot of ways religious schools are very well run. I’m just against religious interference in education generally, because of how religion has historically been incredibly stifling towards learning.</p>
<p>I thought the article was rather keenly on point as a prescription for what democrats need to do to gain votes without outright buying them. Besides, that strategy didn’t work in the last election and led to the silly liberal handwring about “what the matter with Kansas”? and other dem tripe. Frankly the article is a good answer to that question.</p>
<p>He neglects to point out that it would help the dems if they could get rid of their policy wonks who never took calculus or any other math. It would be of use to them to understand limits on spending, as well as a lot of other things.</p>
<p>Regarding education, he conveniently forgets that most of the educational institutions in the country have non-secular origins.</p>
<p>That ‘stifling’ history created your esteemed university which presumably created your title, Mister ‘One’.</p>
<p>
<a href=“http://www.belcherfoundation.org/princeton.htm[/url]”>http://www.belcherfoundation.org/princeton.htm</a></p>
<p>Opie, I think there has been lots of ink placed on reams of papers to describe the social problems that do contribute to hooliganism. Since I have not shared your experience with the rugby lads, I also think I should let you read up on the UK system of education. Maybe, just maybe, is it possible that the economic revival of the UK might have put a dent in those issues. After all, it must have been a while since you wore a striped and laced jersey and ran around in tight shorts!</p>
<p>This said, I doubt that you can define the educational system in Belgium as one that targets the masses and the elite differently. Inasmuch as an education system cannot correct all socio-economic differences, it remains that all schools are schools are funded equally (or close to it) and that the overwhelming majority of the schools are open to all. This said, the parties responsible for organizing and building the system are keenly aware of the differences in performance among certain classes of students. I doubt that there is a perfect system of education, be it in Finland, in Singapore, the Netherlands, or Belgium. However, should that stop of us looking at other countries to measure how well we do? Of course, it’s so much easier to remain insular or provincial and consider the United States’ problems … unique!</p>
<p>In this regard, aren’t quick to accuse other countries of having have two systems of education, one for the elite and one for the masses? How does our egalitarian system perform on this simple yardstick? What are our numbers for eight graders who enter HS, graduate from HS, start college, graduate with a degree? What were our numbers 30 years ago and how did we compare with the rest of the world? Now, how do WE do? </p>
<p>The answers might surprise you. America might very well be the greatest country on earth, but we no longer can rest of the combined laurels of being extremely wealthy in resources in talent. We have lost our edges a while ago, and education is a sector remarkable for its evidence how we let it slip by throwing more money than sense at it and trusting the wrong forces. In so many words, by doing it the American way! </p>
<p>Sure, we’re doing great! And the day, we’ll close the last non-secular school, we’ll even do better!</p>
<p>I saw both plusses and minuses to the German educational system which tracks kids into university and non-university tracks. Even the kids in the non-university track seemed to get a pretty good education and there were some safeguards in place to switch tracks. (We had a 16 yo slacker boy in our office who was completely turned around by the experience in our office. He quickly realized he’d much rather be the boss than a draftsman!) I also had a friend who was put to work in a bank at 16 and was bored to death. She did try to get her Abitur later in life, but found it impossible to earn a living and get her more advanced high school degree at the same time. Another woman in our office was the first person in her family to go to university - so there is certainly room for some to move beyond their original class.</p>
<p>And I can say for certain that they teach foreign languages a lot better in Germany than they do here!</p>
<p>
…oh…oh…<gasp>…can’t…stop…laughing… <deep breath=“”> Phew. OK, Dadx - let’s just have a brief timeout to meet with reality for a change. Here’s your national debt chart: <a href=“http://zfacts.com/p/318.html[/url]”>http://zfacts.com/p/318.html</a> . </deep></gasp></p>
<p>Xiggi: So, Madrassas for everyone, right?</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Ah, but the crucial question here is whether or not the schools can pick and choose their students. And public schools can’t whereas private and parochial schools can…See below.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>It would help, Xiggi, if you could do policy analysis at all. As I am about to send a child of mine to a Catholic school (deferring to my wife’s religion and agreeing that the school is quite good), I recognize that for those who can afford these schools, they can do much good. It’s useless to compare outcomes of the different systems without considering their different missions – i.e. public schools have to educate everyone, no matter how slow, no matter how unruly and devastated their lives may have been and private and parochial schools can pick and choose. Unless you have specificed a study that takes these facts into consideration, all other generalizations you make about parochial vs. public are a load of bunkum. You should be smart enough to realize that – or you should stop with commenting on things out of your depth.</p>
<p>Spending limits? Ha! The Republicans bankrupted this country during the time that they had full control over it. What a crock!</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Yes, Kluge, that is exactly what I have been advocating. :(</p>
<p>what is “bankrupting” the country is the democratic programs enacted years ago by politicians buying votes with social programs. Its worked so well, even Republicans sit at that table from time to time. Feel free to laugh all you want; no one with a normal left brain believes that republicans are responsible for the damage to the country’s fiscal health.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Bedhead, before throwing vitriol in the form of “Load of bunkum”, you might consider trying to read other people’s post that include outside references. I’ll assume that the mentions of Coleman and Bryk flew right be you. I shudder at the thought of what more recent and less seminal works might have accomplished. Did you really expect this discussion to be peppered with well-balanced and lengthy MLA quotations? </p>
<p>As far as “things out of your depth” I’m afraid that your rebuttal simply confirmed who is happily wading around the issues here.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Go ahead and spin all you want. Here is a table of the presidents, both Republican and Democrat we’ve had over the past 30 years, listed with a percentage that shows increase of federal debt/GDP that occurred on their watch. (Source: wikipedia)</p>
<p>Jimmy Carter D 1977-1981 -3.2%
Reagan1 Ronald Reagan R 1981-1985 +11.3%
Reagan2 Ronald Reagan R 1985-1989 +9.2%
Bush GHW George H. W. Bush R 1989-1993 +13.1%
Clinton1 Bill Clinton D 1993-1997 -0.6%
Clinton2 Bill Clinton D 1997-2001 -8.2%
Bush GW1 George W. Bush R 2001-2005 +8.3%
Bush GW2 George W. Bush R 2005-2009 projection +4.3% projection </p>
<p>It went up during all the years we had Republican presidents. Those are cold, hard facts, but somehow you’ve spun this to pin the blame on Democrats. Hey, it’s worked in the past, why not keep at it?</p>
<p>The full table is even more telling. It’s ALWAYS gone down under Dem presidents, and only went down under Eisenhower and partially under Nixon.</p>
<p><a href=“http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/National_debt_by_U.S._presidential_terms[/url]”>http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/National_debt_by_U.S._presidential_terms</a></p>
<p>
</p>
<p>I expect intelligence. And if you title a thread with a tendentious load of nonsense “The Vanishing Left … one year before the elections,” you’ll get called out on your statements whether they’re baseless generalizations or lost in the weeds of fallacious discourse. Nothing went by me…I am just engaging you on your level.</p>
<p>Even the republicans don’t believe they are the party that brings down deficits. :)</p>
<p>A couple of good articles in the WSJ in the last couple of weeks about this and also about business leaders fed up with the republican party.</p>
<p>xiggi,</p>
<p>what you should understand is the “eye” can see much better when not blocked by words. Getting the opportunity to travel and experience taught me at about your age, that alot of people basically lie to make their points. Then alot of young people like yourself or myself back in the day believe them. </p>
<p>“I think there has been lots of ink placed on reams of papers to describe the social problems that do contribute to hooliganism.” </p>
<p>And education or more importantly educational opportunities wouldn’t be part of that factor?</p>
<p>As far as belgium, I’m sure they do a good job, but they’ve got their boobs too. No country is boob free. </p>
<p>What America actually does better than any other country is attempt to educate everyone from the mentally ■■■■■■■■ to the mental gaints. We try. We try not to separate any kid at any age from going as far as they want to.
That is why it is called the American dream, not the Dutch. They do the chocolate. </p>
<p>And yes, other countries will continue to let an student excell as long as they can, but not all of them excell… then what? I think you’d find we are much kinder here than over there.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>You sure have a high opinion of yourself, Mr. Bedhead.</p>
<p>Thirty percent (!) of our school budget goes to special ed. That’s something most parochial schools don’t have to deal with.</p>
<p>Xiggi, my issue with religion (of any sort) in schools these days is that when “Because God said so” is an undebatable answer to just about any question the spirit of intellectual inquiry is in jeopardy. I’m not saying that a school run by a religious group necessarily will stifle intellectual growth, only that it has a built in mechanism for doing so. I say keep “God’s word” out of biology class, out of astronomy class, out of physics, and yes, out of history and economics, too.</p>
<p>If you have an issue with madrassas educating Americans, are you going to have a litmus test as to which religions do get to operate them?</p>