Everyone acts as though they love the idea of education, but when it comes to voting for those who promote it, the side that does not make education a priority will always have the edge.
When reacting to arguments that children's lives could be improved by bettering the educational system, most voters do not recall a childhood spent without textbooks or well-paid teachers. Instead, they remember their own childhood, when they were not in the top ten percent of the class. They had failed where others succeeded, and since then they have worked to rationalize their lack of success in school. It was a sign of independence, they will say, a necessary part of a life they deem worthy.
Telling these voters the lives of their children could be better is the equivalent of telling them that their lives could have been better too, if only they had been deemed smarter by their teachers. Rational arguments about international competition increasing the need for a globally competitive educational system cannot compete with self-validation.
Now if only improving the world for children was actually the priority of the voter...
edited: 12:31 a.m. 5/3/2008
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
1 comment:
If we were to "improve the world for children" we would violate our own sense of self-centeredness. If we make it "better" then we subconsciously admit that it wasn't good for us, and where would that leave us? Best to let the little rugrats suffer. Then, we can feel the same sense of satisfaction we do when we watch Jerry Springer.
Post a Comment