Also notable is that this video by Mike Gravel (Youtube user gravel2008, the official campaign thingy) is actually a response to a video by zakieChan named "Atheist" http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fdVucvo-kDU !!!

A presidential candidate that agrees with an atheist video!!! In the eternal words of Arwen: There is still hope.

Too bad he doesnt actually have any chance of getting elected.. Obama's vice perhaps ?

Definitely the best one.

=]

I support Ron Paul, and I agree with what Mike Gravel said. I'm also a Christian, and I believe church and state should be kept separate.

What I don't understand is the focus that some people have on evolution. The president shouldn't be in charge of choosing between teaching evolution or creationism, or string theory or anything else. That's for the local governments to decide, so this is a moot point.

Evolution should only be a make or break issue to people who believe the president should act like a king. The US Constitution is responsible for limiting the federal government's powers, and if followed strictly, it turns the evolution debate into a non-issue.

>> ^flavioribeiro:
The president shouldn't be in charge of choosing between teaching evolution or creationism, or string theory or anything else. That's for the local governments to decide, ....

Really? So, you'd be ok with local school boards deciding that their basic science curriculum should include the alternate theory of the sun revolving around the earth?

The US Constitution is responsible for limiting the federal government's powers, and if followed strictly, it turns the evolution debate into a non-issue.

That may be so, but for the moment, there is a system with a national science standard, and its there to make sure the schools are run properly.

But for me, its not that the president should have the last word in science or education, its more that he/she understands the concept of science, and recognizes its importance. Its also about living in the real world, as opposed to FantasyLand, which I think should be a requirement as a president.

i think some polls have shown that only 12% of americans believe evolution actually happens. so the candidates probly lie about what they really believe anyway or they might lose the voters...

What a geek Gravel is. Evolution is real because God made it that way. I thought everyone knew that.

What I don't understand is the focus that some people have on evolution. The president shouldn't be in charge of choosing between teaching evolution or creationism, or string theory or anything else. That's for the local governments to decide, so this is a moot point.

I'll do you one better, because I am sick and tired of hearing people (not you, no offense meant) talk big about how sending decisions on teaching evolution below the federal government line because of "states' rights" will all of a sudden solve our nation's problem of idiot politicians making decisions on issues they know nothing about. Neither the federal nor local governments in the US can lay claim to having requirements for officials to be educated enough to make decisions about the scientific acceptability of evolution. Ron Paul is dead wrong when he says it should be states' right to decide about teaching evolution. BULLSHIT. That's how the Scopes Trial and, more recently, the Dover Tardfest and the Kansas Debacle got started, local government officials happen to often be extraordinarily uneducated and massively unintelligent, it's folly to think dropping issues from the federal to state level will all of a sudden solve the US's national problem of idiotic politicians. At least presidential candidates have to pass muster by having their education put into scrutiny in mass media, local politics are even more corrupt, and much less publicity means voters in local elections will have little if any clue about the educational backgrounds of candidates.

If you want to follow a strict constitutional viewpoint, carry it to its logical conclusion: NO state and NO government under the United States Constitution whatsoever has the right to use its power to deny teaching scientifically-accurate material to students in public schools. Decisions about teaching scientific curricula, or any other public school curricula for that matter, should be left up to the only people qualified to make such decisions, and we happen to have already hired those folks. Those people are teaching our children in public schools every day. Decisions over teaching evolution are not for the federal OR local governments to make, it's for the teachers and school officials, the people who are required to be educated on the topics they teach, to decide.

Also note that I'm not talking about creationism. The federal government has a right to make decisions on teaching creationism, and any religiously-biased topic in a non-religious context for that matter, in order to continue the separation of church and state. Creationism and evolution are not even slightly comparable as topics of education.

Also, *science because it is an issue of teaching science properly. Mike Gravel has and always will be my valentine, I would vote for him if I knew he had more than a snowball's chance in hell of winning.

But for me, its not that the president should have the last word in science or education, its more that he/she understands the concept of science, and recognizes its importance. Its also about living in the real world, as opposed to FantasyLand, which I think should be a requirement as a president.

That too.

Adding video to channels (Science) - requested by rembar.

>> ^rembar:
local government officials happen to often be extraordinarily uneducated and massively unintelligent, it's folly to think dropping issues from the federal to state level will all of a sudden solve the US's national problem of idiotic politicians.


George Carlin :
"Where do politicians come from? They come from American homes, American families, American schools, American churches and American businesses. And they're elected by American voters. That is what our system produces. That is the best we can do - garbage in, garbage out."

>> ^jonny:

Really? So, you'd be ok with local school boards deciding that their basic science curriculum should include the alternate theory of the sun revolving around the earth?

Yes. Teachers and communities should be able to choose what they want to focus on. My experience is that if you hand a teacher a curriculum he doesn't believe in, he'll just do a half-assed job and skip to what he thinks is important.

Also, the market has ways of regulating quality and correcting bad decisions. One is criticism from outsiders. If that fails, low standardized test scores, rejection letters from colleges and job applications will make parents get the message and demand better quality.

>> ^rembar:
If you want to follow a strict constitutional viewpoint, carry it to its logical conclusion: NO state and NO government under the United States Constitution whatsoever has the right to use its power to deny teaching scientifically-accurate material to students in public schools. Decisions about teaching scientific curricula, or any other public school curricula for that matter, should be left up to the only people qualified to make such decisions, and we happen to have already hired those folks. Those people are teaching our children in public schools every day. Decisions over teaching evolution are not for the federal OR local governments to make, it's for the teachers and school officials, the people who are required to be educated on the topics they teach, to decide.

You've just made the case for the libertarian platform of limited government. Libertarians defend that the government should be shrunk down to the bare essentials because politicians are completely incapable of making competent technical decisions.

When Ron Paul says that the federal government should stay away of education, he's not implying that "states rights" will fix the problem. If you watch the New Hampshire Town Hall Q&A session (which aired along with that Fox debate RP wasn't invited to), you'll see him making the point that parents and teachers should be responsible for each child's education. Just like the federal government should delegate functions to the states, the states are expected to further delegate and keep regulation to a minimum.

I'm an engineer who took an interest in education, so after I got my pure mathmatics degree I also became a licensed math teacher. I'm completely opposed to government interference in education. To me, Brazil (my country) represents a textbook example of education central planning gone wrong. 9th grade public school kids read and write at 5th grade levels, consistently finish last in international benchmarks and each government decision actually makes things worse by providing cosmetic solutions and more regulation.

You've just made the case for the libertarian platform of limited government. Libertarians defend that the government should be shrunk down to the bare essentials because politicians are completely incapable of making competent technical decisions.

I'm well aware. Ron Paul is not the voice of libertarians everywhere, nor are his conceptions of libertarian education reform what I support. I didn't say I believe the federal government should stay completely out of education, I said that it should stay out of deciding educational topics. When I said I didn't like the idea of handing things off to states, I think of Paul because he supports moving from federal to states' rights, and under states' rights as he would like to have them, decisions are handed off from local politics to local regionally-based politico-educational power-brokers (district school administrators and, as you mention yourself, school boards). I disagree, because those guys happen to be even dumber than presidents and mayors. I want to go lower than that, I want teachers and school administrators to make decisions on what's taught in our schools. Also, federal funding is a different issue than curricula decisions.

Also, the market has ways of regulating quality and correcting bad decisions. One is criticism from outsiders. If that fails, low standardized test scores, rejection letters from colleges and job applications will make parents get the message and demand better quality.

I'm on board for the market comparison. Currently, using the free-market as a model for education system development falls through when one evaluates the current US public educational system through that lens, because it is specifically not even close to a free market (yet). And, since federal budgets are used to help finance schools, it is essential that the federal government get on board when it comes to distributing such tax money in order to force improvement in schools. Unless of course, you happen to believe that states will create improvement at the same pace when pressure is put on them. A free-market system can apply at both the federal and state levels.

1. Until college, students must attend regional public schools with very few exceptions. They are thus not free to take their education elsewhere without paying up the wazzoo or going to private school. This is why school vouchers are so important to me, allowing students to choose which school to attend and thus send their allocated money to is key to moving back towards a free-market model.
2. Parental demand is a poor way of regulating schools when my first point is true. Unintelligent and uneducated parents will often be unable to tell a good school from a bad one, which is why:
3. Regular, unbiased, quantitative and qualitative feedback on the success or lack thereof of students is essential. Free-market models also generally rely on informed decision-making, something that can't be attributed to American parents on the whole either. Where do they get feedback from? College acceptances are only applicable to high schools, and even then the path of blame can't be traced solely to them, poor pre-K to secondary school education also fall into the mix for screwing students over. Standardized test scores are ok, but then again, this creates a need for unbiased tests that are representative of the body of knowledge a student is expected to command at his or her particular age and education level. I studied and gamed my way (legally and on my own) into perfect scores on standardized tests repeatedly throughout my education. This is part of why the current No Child Left Behind act is failing: the tests don't represent the knowledge of the student, and so when schools teach to the test or when the student prepares for the test, the student misses out completely on certain sections of his or her education, and also results can't be counted on to judge the quality of the school's or student's performance. In addition to which:
4. Quantitative feedback is impossible without the creation of nationalized feedback systems. No matter what form, there needs to be standardized measurements. Thus, tests can't be limited by state, nor can they be limited to a county or to a district. In order to create such test, we need to have...well, national organizations to keep them regulated.

The US has a few success examples in education that I can think of offhand to demonstrate the principles I'm arguing for above:
The first is private high schools of a specific kind: Andover, Exeter, Lawrenceville, etc.
The second is magnet public high schools: TJ in Virginia, Hunter College in NYC, Stuyvesant, etc.
The third is the higher-education system, both undergraduate and graduate: Harvard, MIT, U. Chicago, etc.

In the three examples I've given, free-market-based attendance and thus improvement is pretty demonstrable, yet federal funding is also used to support these schools based on their performance as indicated by the students' attendance and performance. In the private and magnet high school examples, students are comparable to the best students worldwide. At the higher-education system, students are on average better than those at the same level of education in other countries. Nationalized education reform plans can be improved a lot from those ideas and those examples.

First off, I'd like to thank you for your comment. You make very good points, and I appreciate you taking the time to write them.

I think of Paul because he supports moving from federal to states' rights, and under states' rights as he would like to have them, decisions are handed off from local politics to local regionally-based politico-educational power-brokers (district school administrators and, as you mention yourself, school boards). I disagree, because those guys happen to be even dumber than presidents and mayors. I want to go lower than that, I want teachers and school administrators to make decisions on what's taught in our schools.

I'd like that was well (keeping in mind that there's a limit to how low one can go down the hierarchy before things become a mess and neighboring schools no longer follow the same curricula).

The dumbness problem isn't specific to school boards. It also involves teachers and school administrators, simply because teaching jobs aren't paying enough to attract competent professionals. Gone are the days when engineers would teach math and science, because the government cut salaries and started regulating the profession. I agree that we should give more control to teachers and school administrators, but it would be a rough ride in a lot of places.

I'm on board for the market comparison. Currently, using the free-market as a model for education system development falls through when one evaluates the current US public educational system through that lens, because it is specifically not even close to a free market (yet).

And every day, the US public system moves further away from the free market concept.

Until college, students must attend regional public schools with very few exceptions. They are thus not free to take their education elsewhere without paying up the wazzoo or going to private school. This is why school vouchers are so important to me, allowing students to choose which school to attend and thus send their allocated money to is key to moving back towards a free-market model.

I agree with the voucher's purpose, but they would have unintended consequences by allowing government interference with private schools. This is why Ron Paul voted against them: http://www.lewrockwell.com/paul/paul132.html

Parental demand is a poor way of regulating schools when my first point is true. Unintelligent and uneducated parents will often be unable to tell a good school from a bad one (...)

And this is the #1 reason why education is in bad shape. Kids with good performance nearly always have parents who are actively involved in their education. (I want to say ALWAYS, since I have yet to meet a counterexample, but exceptions are bound to exist).

The libertarian approach only works if people are willing to take responsibility and get involved. Ron Paul was hesitant to run again for president because he wasn't sure if the people were at this stage, and he was pleasantly surprised. The 18-29 demographic responds very well to this message, but unfortunately it's not nearly enough to get a majority in the polls.

Your examples are great cases of free market success. And in every one of them there always was an involved community of parents, students, alumni and very talented, well paid teachers. This is what made them great.

The US government is trying to compensate bad salaries and parental disenchantment with regulation and "research based" assessment (such as NCLB). I've seen this happen before my eyes during the last 10 years in Brazil, on a more aggressive level. It doesn't work because it's like trying to treat symptoms instead of underlying causes.