The Education Dilemma for Lunatics

Ted Folkert

December 29, 2015

“I would close all schools that are below average.” This is the statement purportedly made by Hilary Clinton recently in Iowa, a typical political statement, not meant to be actually true probably, but to lure undecided voters into your trap. But what kind of voters? Right-wing lunatics?

So, we should analyze this statement in order to understand the impact that such action would have on or educational system, to determine if such a policy would make for a better nation.

If you close all schools that are below average, that means you would close 50% of all schools, assuming the mathematical equation of half being above average and half being below average. Well that already creates an unimaginable problem of classroom size and transportation. But then you still have the equation to deal with. Of the half of the schools left, half of them will then be below average, so one would assume that half of those would have to be closed.

I guess you can see where we are going here, soon we would be down to one school left in the nation, which would not be below average.

This statement is not only preposterous, it is inconsiderate of a complicated problem of providing education for all Americans. What do we do with the students who are below average? This isn’t something new. Half of the students have always been below average. There have always been students who were easier to educate than others.

The statement is not only preposterous and inconsiderate because of the impossibility of it all mathematically or rationally, but primarily because there has been no consideration given to factors affecting many of the students who we wish to educate. What about the family environment of the students, the parentage, the nutrition, the role models or lack thereof, the standard of living, the neighborhood, the motivation, the feeling of security and opportunity, the early childhood education or lack thereof.

I wonder if political candidates who have such a platform ever considered that perhaps we should provide special counseling or special education for those needing such assistance in becoming educated. I wonder if they ever considered the possibility that the better we can educate all of the children, the better would be the chances of all of them becoming employable and productive citizens, being gainfully employed instead of struggling with the lack of education along with the impact of the community environment that they may have encountered in early life.

I wonder if they have considered the benefit to society of all children becoming productively employed and the relief on the judicial and correctional systems that would be enjoyed. I wonder if they have considered how a good education would make life more enjoyable for those who started out way back in the field, carrying a burden that those of us who started life with a good foundation didn’t have to endure and don’t seem to understand.

The preposterousness of this topic didn’t just come about. It has been in place in one form or another for many years. Some of our so-assumed brilliant educators decided, with the aid and abetment of George W. Shrub, that our hard-working and devoted teachers should be rated based upon test scores of their students. So, what was the result of that ludicrous policy? You guessed it, they blamed it on the teachers, and we lost many good teachers in the process. These so-assumed brilliant educators gave no consideration to the level of early education of those being tested, the area in which they lived or grew up, the environment to which they were exposed, the standard of living, the parentage, the nutrition, the feeling of security, etc., etc., etc.

This would be like taking the poorest among us and denying them food and shelter, like denying a normal chance at survival and enjoyment of life to those who came from such an environment.

What are we thinking about? Is our national motto “kick them while they’re down?” Or is it: “If you don’t look good, talk good, smell good, and come from a good community, don’t apply for any opportunities?”

It seems obvious that our entire governmental process is slanted more and more to the rich and powerful, that every process of government is legislated to the benefit of those who don’t need any more benefit and away from those who need it the most. We can’t even raise the minimum wage to a level that one can live on. We can’t provide free health care for all of our citizens. We can’t provide higher education for all of our citizens. We can’t enforce laws that prohibit those with the wealth from scamming those without. No, all of these essentials of a just society are too expensive for those who own the country and most of the wealth. These benefits get in their way in increasing their fortunes. No one else matters.

Think about it!