David Brauer wrote: > One might think continuing education is a generally good thing, no > matter what the admissions policy. Our company pays for continuing > education in our fields for employees.
It's not hard to find courses with little or no meaningful content. I know, I've taken many. However, not only do I believe that continuing education is a good thing, I think that it is essential in a dynamic economy. If you look back at my original post you'll see that I had implied that employers should provide training for employees if it enhances their job performance. > At the very least, this is an odd bit of cynicism from a candidate for a > board of education. Last I heard, there was no competitive admission > there, either. Interesting, I would have thought that electoral process would qualify as a competitive admission to the board of education. Cynicism? I believe that my suspicion of educational programs is well founded. There's more to educational quality than a name, even if that name is Harvard. Lisa McDonald wrote: >the city basically doesn'ty pay for any continuing education for anyone >unless it is in house. Secondly people were going to harvard as a >junket.Misusing the privelege. Either everyone gets the same types of >educational opportunities or nobody does. Plus its questionable given the >curriculum at this harvard course that it makes you any better at your job. >I think Robert did the right thing by paying for it himself. I was just >trying to clarify why that was the case since many folks on this list either >have no history or understanding of how the city works. It is silly to restrict training and education to courses that can be taught "in house." I can't imagine running a competitive business under these limitations. "Either everyone gets the same types of educational opportunities or nobody does," is the kind of socialist idealism that brought down the Soviet Union. The employment related educational needs of city employees are not equal and there is no need for their subsided post secondary educational opportunities to be equal as well. Outside of their employment, city employees have the same educational opportunities as other citizens. The question is what taxpayers should be willing to support. Employer subsided education need not follow the same guidelines as the public educational system (where equality of opportunity is important). Because my perspectives are dependent on context they may seem to be contradictory, but they are not. I will restate them for clarity. 1) Quality primary and secondary education (including quality vocational education) is a right of all children. 2) Post-secondary education should be subsidized for students who can make contributions to our society. 3) Training related to professional skills and development should be subsidized by organizations if it advances their interests (otherwise it should be the responsibility of the employee). Michael Atherton http://QualityEd.US Candidate for Minneapolis School Board Prospect Park ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Prepared and paid for by the Atherton for MPS Committee. 156 Orlin Ave SE, Mpls, MN 55414 _______________________________________ 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
