FYI - My wife had her project funded this year by ripple, but last year her projects were funded by Melinda and Bill Gates. In both cases her projects were less than 10k, but make a huge difference to the kids in her classroom.
On the one hand, I’m very proud of how much it can help with such a small donation. On the other hand, I’m depressed it has to come from donations. Seriously, what is wrong with adults these days kicking the door closed behind us?
Propaganda mostly from the Republican party has convinced a great deal of people that Education is a waste of money. This is obviously stupid and false.
Apologies for getting political, but I come from a family of teachers in two red states (actually three now, thanks Wisconsin, you do love to hate yourself), and we're out of fucks to give.
EDIT: I know we don't like to get political here, but the question was "Why is America bad at education compared to other countries." First of all, it is bad, and it spends more than other countries, somehow. Makes sense when half the country has put their feet down stubbornly into the stand and said "pull yourself up by your bootstraps!" Or some nonsense.
Inevitable disclaimer: obviously not all republicans are opposed to effective, common sense education, and obviously not all democrats support it. But uh... compare the platforms.
The difference, as the video mentions, is that they always gets attacked as being 'anti-education', depsite intentions and data supporting their efforts, largely by the heavily entrenched people and organizations who have most to gain from keeping the same status-quo systems. Ie, the massive top-heavy administration that controls pubic education, unions, pension funds, etc. They have plenty of political pull.
Ultimately that is very much equally propaganda, is it not?
The right also tends support more state financing and control of education, and funding towards education has increased dramatic in states for decades. The only thing that has stagnated (but hardly declined) is federal spending:
Words are always valued over actions and the ideology of a few extremists always seem to always take precedence over data and tangible outcomes. Which is why I hate debating this subject.
And its not helped by the fact that much of the GOP is apparent anti-science, and anti expertise https://www.huffingtonpost.co.uk/entry/american-trust-scient... ('A 54 percent majority of Democrats, compared with just 13 percent of Republicans, say they have “a lot” of trust that what scientists say is accurate and reliable.')
Got any more Huffington Post "web based surveys" to educate me on the merits of conservative ideology? That was so enthralling...
I find it hilarious how often US Democrats want to use the lowest common denominator, with their half-baked grasp of politics, economics, science, history, etc, to define their party's credibility (and to be clear I'm far from either American democrat or republican). As if the intelligence of the entire voting base (or whom either group decided to convince to vote for them) defines the merits of the ideology behind 0.0001% of the population who reside in congress, senate, and the white house.
Personally I'd rather seek out the intellectuals from either side (for ex: [1]), but also ideas from outside the two main left/right groups, and also from historical ideologies... and then decide what is best for society from that. And from there try to influence particular parties to adhere to the most rational and ideal ideas.
If /r/politics is any indication, the more people you have the dumber the conversations gets. It went from "somewhat annoying political tribalism" on Reddit to completely unbearable inane echo-chamber debates as it scaled up to millions of people. And these same people STILL think they are superior to 24/7 news media talking heads, which is the channel which most influences the wider population.
Is this the means from which we should determine the merits of particular political ideologies?
But by all means, let the opinions of the lowest common denominator, web surveys, and shamelessly biased 'news' websites like Huffington Post be your guiding voice on what's best. I'd personally rather not...
The fact that there appears to be a sentiment that spending on education equates to a 'firehose of money from flowing directly to the teachers union cronies' sounds like it is part of the problem.
To be fair, I know 4 teachers, and all abhor their 'unions'. Its crooked, but they fear the alternative (loss of collective barganing power) more. Its a self-perpetuating problem of actual well meaning people playing CYA.
And I quite understand the sentiment, I'm not arguing that unions are great, I'm arguing that increase in educational spending shouldn't be seen as somehow funding unions.
Back to the people who earned it? That is their party platform, and the source of their 'small government low taxes' position. I care less for politics, but lets pretend to talk intelligently if we are going to broach them.
The Republican party has done little to "send money back to the people that earned it," given that their policies historically screw over... well any earner under a given wealth threshold.
Providing education is giving money back to the people that earned it, using the government's massive power of collective bargaining. Federally funded education research can accomplish a hell of a lot more than, I don't know, what's the republican version? A bunch of private bootstrapped citizens banding 3.50$ each to fund a private education study on new teaching methods?
This seems to be what made US-American culture difficult to understand to some first time visitors. From tips to donations and gun ownership society seems to have decided to make citizens take into their own hands many responsibilities which in other countries the government takes care of.
/e: Not to suggest that either approach is without flaws, just that the approaches are different.
