Jim Graham wrote: > You are correct partisan politics should not control the futures of our children. > > At the very least politics should be ruled out of education. Only quality controls > > and INDIVIDUAL commitment to those standards should be a consideration. > > > > I think the problem with education today is the politicizing of the school boards. > > Some see this a way of launching their political career, others may see it as a > > means to any political career at all. Personally I think the only people qualified > > to be on the school board are those with a child in school, left school in last six > > years, a grandchild in school, or within two years of their child going to school. >
I tend to agree. We don't need politicians managing the schools. We need people who know what works and what doesn't, and know how to implement their knowledge effectively. We need to see significant and meaningful improvements in a number of areas: dropout rates, test scores, numbers of minority students admitted to college, skilled employment rates, etc; something that we haven't seen in the last eight plus years. However, I differ with you on your definition of qualifications. I don't think that it is necessary to have children in school or near school age to be a good board member. I believe that it takes expertise, wisdom, and a specific interest in the educational process. I have two children who will be school age in about four years. If I was elected to the school board that gives me one term to improve public education to a level that I would see as acceptable. There is plenty of incentive for me to achieve this goal. If I was successful, it could save my family $250,000 on private schooling. That's much better than saving $2700 on plumbing repairs, and it's even ethical and legal. I have no interest in a political career, I am only interested in improving the education process for all Americans. > We have an intellectually and monetarily bankrupt school system because of > > political tinkering by fools who do not know the first thing about children but are > > good at politics. Judges have to be lawyers, why not school board members be > > required to be mothers. > The reasons that we have an intellectually and monetarily bankrupt school system goes beyond political tinkering. There are a few members of the school board who do not have political ambitions, but lack the knowledge, skills, and courage needed to promote real change in the public schools. And, once again I have to disagree with you. I think that it's immensely sexist to assume that one has to be a mother to understand children or run a quality education system. > The above comes from some one who does not believe in the public school system. > > Having been forced to miss about half the time of grade school and not having > > gone to high school at all, I still managed to get mostly A's at the University. The > > reason is that reading, writing and some math was pounded into my head at > > small town and country schools, and the good old US military during a couple of > > weeks. Also the above comes from someone who had to help educate children > > during the years they attended public schools. > I agree that at good grounding in the fundamentals of reading and math can help overcome obstacles without advanced course work. It worked for me. I have always wondered if I could have achieved as much if I couldn't read well or didn't know how to write. Michael Atherton Prospect Park _______________________________________ Minneapolis Issues Forum - A Civil City Civic Discussion - Mn E-Democracy Post messages to: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subscribe, Unsubscribe, Digest option, and more: http://e-democracy.org/mpls
