arrow
Super Member
So here’s the problem concerning your first paragraph..every “next” aspect of this country will start with our kids. The problem as I see it, we are teaching kids with the same educational architecture as we did from 1865.I hope you are right. For one thing, the world may never see manufacturing like we had in the 1900 to 1960 years. Back then we had a surplus of skilled tradesman leaving their trades for manufacturing jobs. Today we don't have enough tradesman or jobs either - and both have long lead times.
Will the rest of the world be willing to just sit around and wait while we catch up?
What about our aging population not producing enough kids, let alone educating them?
We aren't as bad off there as other countries we must not name, but we're on the wrong side of that population curve thing, too.
Does anyone else think these things like education and manufacturing have an impact on whether we see EPA stuff staying on our tractors? Maybe I'm alone or flat wrong about that. It's just that I see any changes in the "EPA stuff" as being more about manufacturing having the the ability to change, rather than the simpler question of political policy.
rScotty
It is that which needs to change.
No kid needs more than a comprehensive education beyond the 8th grade. After that, we should start concentrating on the kid rather than the masses who happen to defer to the current educational methodology.
Each of us are “wired” for certain propensities.
We usually find these by accident rather than investigation.
We should start celebrating kids for their individual strengths rather than the continuation of denigrating their individual weaknesses.
Until we stop with the grade school, middle school, high school, college sequence, we are simply doomed to repeat the past.
It is “strengths” that are needed to be highlighted at an early age to give our society hope, aspiration and security of mind, body and spirit.
We do it with sports. What’s wrong with doing it in education?