4 ms·

> If you want an education system that caters for all students, regardless of academic ability and socio-economic background then you need to realise that this

> If you want an education system that caters for all students, regardless of academic ability and socio-economic background then you need to realise that this does not come cheaply. Personally, I'd love to see more of my nations GDP devoted to educating my kids rather than devoting that money to getting my kids killed in foreign wars after their 18th birthday.

pm90 12y ago
I wonder what would happen if the next presidential candidate had that as his/her mission: "I will invest more money in educating our children better".
- wernercd 12y ago
  The same thing that happened when our last one had a mission: "Hope and Change" What happened? We've lost hope and nothing has changed.
  - forgotpasswd3x 12y ago
    "Hope and Change" isn't a mission statement. It's a slogan, and completely different than saying "I will invest more money in educating our children better".
    - seanflyon 12y ago
      I see your point. "I will invest more money in educating our children better" is not a vague as "Hope and Change", but it is still quite vague.
- hrktb 12y ago
  I have a hard time framing it differently, but how relevant is a politician's mission stated in any shape or form? I'd think whatever statement is done, it first needs support from groups with actual economic or social power. What we can wonder about is, why does our most influencial groups in our society value school education so low that it won't be set as a nationwide mission statement ?
- jff 12y ago
  Every political candidate says that they will prioritize OUR CHILDREN, WHO ARE THE FUTURE. Seems like every proposition on the ballot always has a little mention of how it'll put more money into local schools, too.
- vijayr 12y ago
  What difference would it make? Politicians make promises all the time, and many make good promises too - how many of them actually follow up? Also, how many people rationally think about/analyze their candidates, follow their promises/arguments etc before voting? Most vote along party lines or conservative/liberal labels etc.
  - dragonwriter 12y ago
    > Also, how many people rationally think about/analyze their candidates, follow their promises/arguments etc before voting? Most vote along party lines or conservative/liberal labels etc. Arguably, at least in the US, party lines and conservative/liberal labels are more reliable predictors of how candidates will behave in office that campaign promises and arguments are, so may be, as decision criteria, more consistent with rationally thinking about candidates than following promises and arguments.

pm90 12y ago

I wonder what would happen if the next presidential candidate had that as his/her mission: "I will invest more money in educating our children better".

wernercd 12y ago
The same thing that happened when our last one had a mission: "Hope and Change" What happened? We've lost hope and nothing has changed.
- forgotpasswd3x 12y ago
  "Hope and Change" isn't a mission statement. It's a slogan, and completely different than saying "I will invest more money in educating our children better".
  - seanflyon 12y ago
    I see your point. "I will invest more money in educating our children better" is not a vague as "Hope and Change", but it is still quite vague.
hrktb 12y ago
I have a hard time framing it differently, but how relevant is a politician's mission stated in any shape or form? I'd think whatever statement is done, it first needs support from groups with actual economic or social power. What we can wonder about is, why does our most influencial groups in our society value school education so low that it won't be set as a nationwide mission statement ?
jff 12y ago
Every political candidate says that they will prioritize OUR CHILDREN, WHO ARE THE FUTURE. Seems like every proposition on the ballot always has a little mention of how it'll put more money into local schools, too.
vijayr 12y ago
What difference would it make? Politicians make promises all the time, and many make good promises too - how many of them actually follow up? Also, how many people rationally think about/analyze their candidates, follow their promises/arguments etc before voting? Most vote along party lines or conservative/liberal labels etc.
- dragonwriter 12y ago
  > Also, how many people rationally think about/analyze their candidates, follow their promises/arguments etc before voting? Most vote along party lines or conservative/liberal labels etc. Arguably, at least in the US, party lines and conservative/liberal labels are more reliable predictors of how candidates will behave in office that campaign promises and arguments are, so may be, as decision criteria, more consistent with rationally thinking about candidates than following promises and arguments.