Originally Posted by robin1234

The New Yorker had a very good article about end-of-life dilemmas a few months ago. It is one in the series of articles by Atul Gawande; well worth reading

Originally Posted by meauxna

The conclusion of the piece says:
"..these persistent achievement gaps demonstrate the limits of schools to compensate for problems outside the classroom -- broken homes, street violence, indifference to education -- that discourage learning and inhibit teaching. As child-psychologist Jerome Kagan points out, a strong predictor of children's school success is the educational attainment of their parents. The higher it is, the more parents read to them, inform and encourage them.

For half a century, successive waves of "school reform" have made only modest headway against these obstacles. It's an open question whether the present "reform" agenda, with its emphasis on teacher accountability, will do better. What we face is not an engineering problem; it's overcoming the legacy of history and culture. The outcome may affect our economic competitiveness less than our success at creating a just society. "

If it is racial, it is also economic and social. I've attended elementary schools in the US, Canada and Spain; there was definitely more social and economic diversity in my US classes. What Samuelson writes makes sense to me. I don't think he is saying 'oh, the white kids are measuring up so let's forget the whole thing', he's saying, you can't lay all of this at the feet of the teachers.
The opening of the paragraph I quoted above begins "Americans have an extravagant faith in the ability of education to solve all manner of social problems. In our mind's eye, schools are engines of progress that create opportunity and foster upward mobility."
Schools and curriculum may not be the best place to address the social problems that are holding some students far behind.
Just like law enforcement personnel are not mental health workers (or firemen medical technicians.. oh wait, they are now).

Originally Posted by robin1234

The New Yorker had a very good article about end-of-life dilemmas a few months ago. It is one in the series of articles by Atul Gawande; well worth reading

Originally Posted by Steerpike

I started reading it ... I had tears running down my face at the end of page one and I need to deal with people here in the office ... I need to read this at home in private. But it does deserve to be read ...

Originally Posted by Michael

The Swiss have universal health care that is nearly 100% private. All Swiss residents (including retirees) are required to purchase health insurance from private health insurance companies. The cost is based on the families income and can't exceed 10% of their income with the remainder being paid by the Swiss government. The poorest of the residents have their health insurance paid 100% by the government. All doctors and hospitals are private and bill the insurance companies for services rendered.

It is very similar to the US health care reform.

Originally Posted by Swisstony

Michael's point here is a good one. Having experienced the UK, Swiss and now US systmens of healthcare, I can say that whilst no system appears perfect, the Swiss get closer than the others. It really works very well - there is universal coverage, high quality preventative care, very quick access, private service avaialble and (very) profitable providors - and the doctors like it too.

Originally Posted by dakota44

One of the biggest problems teachers face is the refusal on the part of parents to accept responsibility or to make their kids accept responsibility. A far cry from when I attended High School. Discipline is absent. And yet there have been areas where all of those social ills have been overcome and the kids have learned and succeeded beyond any outsiders expectation of them. I do not accept the submission to accepted failure. I disagree with the authors comment about the educational system solving social ills because it assumes that the role is to solve them rather than overcome them. There are some shining examples of overcoming them and providing achievement to students who are victims of those social ills. What is lacking is the commitment and funding on the part of States to implement the necessary changes.

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/arti...t-culture.html

http://www.npr.org/templates/story/s...ryId=113683847

http://www.nytimes.com/2009/05/08/opinion/08brooks.html

Originally Posted by Steve_

The shootings in Arizona prove to me beyond any shadow of a doubt that the US healthcare system is not a "system", it's just an ad hoc mess.

In pretty much any other developed country he would have been detained for mental health issues. Now they're going to prosecute him and lock him up forever, when there is a possibility with proper medical care he might have been okay. (Arizona does not have a "not guilty by reason of insanity" defence, note.)

Originally Posted by snowbunny

The shooter can and doubtless will be tried under both federal and state law. I can't remember the jurisdiction or the crime, but it was held legal in another case that a death row inmate, whose sentence had been suspended because he was truly insane, could be put to death because he was taking medication that seemed to do the job of making him sane. Yes, the shooter should have been sectioned, but I don't know how difficult this is to do under Arizona law.

Originally Posted by snowbunny

The shooter can and doubtless will be tried under both federal and state law. I can't remember the jurisdiction or the crime, but it was held legal in another case that a death row inmate, whose sentence had been suspended because he was truly insane, could be put to death because he was taking medication that seemed to do the job of making him sane. Yes, the shooter should have been sectioned, but I don't know how difficult this is to do under Arizona law.

Originally Posted by Michael

It is not a matter of Arizona law but federal law. In 1975 the supreme court ruled that someone couldn't be confined or treated for mental illness against their will no matter how nutty they are. They can only be confined or treated against their will if a judge or jury determines that the person is an imminent danger to himself or others. When that ruling was made, over 1/2 million mental institution inmates were released to the streets.

Originally Posted by Steve_

One point I just wanted to make:

The shootings in Arizona prove to me beyond any shadow of a doubt that the US healthcare system is not a "system", it's just an ad hoc mess.

That guy should have been locked up in a mental hospital or at least on serious medication, the number of people who noticed he was a nutcase over the years was enormous but yet he appears to have not received any medical attention for it. The guy who shot up Virginia Tech had actually been involuntarily committed at one point and then released.

Originally Posted by dakota44

It's that 'freedom' thing again. Sometimes we take it too far. Mentally ill people need and deserve quality help and instead are roaming the streets, a danger to themselves, and too often a danger to others. But they are free. Hallelujah.

Originally Posted by chartreuse

Just to balance your extreme characterisation of the position, the opposite end of the spectrum has folks being locked away in loony bins without due process because they made a powerful enemy, or some social worker needed to meet their quota or even, shock horror, because of honest mistakes by well meaning people.