Hacker News Reader

Comment by hef19898 | Hacker News Reader

hef19898

In the military, there are civilians at the top. Right below them, it's career military. Having these standards set by involving parents at a local level is ripe for disaster. As is having local sheriffs, without proper training, elected but I digress. Curriculums should be as standardized as possible. That makes everything comparable.

It would be enough to have have the top brass of education elected. You can even make the curriculum part of election campaigns.

View on HN

I can understand your point of view and to be honest I somewhat agree with it...

But at the same time it sounds technocratic and anti-democratic, right? The teachers' job is to teach as the people want. It's not their job to set policy. It's to get on and teach as directed.

Do you have a way you square that in your mind, as I'm struggling myself?

Well, you have elected government that sets curriculums. And the way school systems are set up. Either at state level (Germany) or federal level (France). Then it is up to teachers to teach that curriculum, find someone ambitious enough to become a school principal to run a particular school. All while coping with the stuff the ministry comes up with.

Sure, some teachers go on to set policies ay the ministry. Those are actively teaching anymore. Of course there is so much more nuance to it, but in a nutshell that's it.

You have an elected government setting policies. You have public servants acting on those. Democratic and surely somewhat technocratic. But it works.

If a majority of parents in your town think it should be done differently, what moral explanation do you have for denying them that?

(Again, I don't necessarily agree with devolving as far as possible, but isn't it philosophically hard to argue against?)

Through state elections. Vote for a government that changes policies. Like every other parent in every other community. I think the main difference is, that Europeans i. general are less individualistic than Americans. Usually, we just accept that kind of things. Except for a small minority.

Philosophically, I would say that a country or nation can only be successful if some common things are equal for everyone. Letting individual groups opt out and in of stuff as they want, just destroys the overall community. And you end up with "haves" picking the cherries while the "have-nots" are left with crap. And nothing in between.

But why is the state the right level for decision making?

Why is decision making at a lower level wrong? And why is decision making at a higher level not better? Why did you pick 'state' level and go with that?

State or federal doesn't matter. County is too small, when town A has a different curriculum than town B 29 km away things break down. Maybe town B is richer, then town B might not want to fund schools in town A, leaving those desolate. But maybe town As curriculum is better suited for higher education, then what? There ia no silver bullet, but going with stuff that works it would be centralised at a certain level. Se goes for law enforcement, emergency services, military, health care... Otherwise there wont be any social fairness left.

> Maybe town B is richer, then town B might not want to fund schools in town A, leaving those desolate.

Ok but I can say 'maybe country B is richer, then country B might not want to fund schools in country A, leaving those desolate'.

Why's that not the same?

Going down that road you have the EU, to a certain extent. It's a spectrum, don't go to granular but neither go too large, you still want to be able to handle things. E.g. a lot of education issues in Germany come, IMHO, from the fact education is done on the state level and not the federal one. And why stoping at nation level? Culture and history.

FYI there is an entire book at deals with this topic called "10% less democracy". Basic idea is that the US has become too democratic.

Places like Singapore have a different attitude toward this that's worth understanding (not saying it's right, just different and worth understanding, like comparing OSX to Windows). There are parts of the US government that operate this way, like the Federal Reserve.

One interesting proposal from the book is having congress pass a tax law that's very simple, something like "the top 10% of income-earners should pay 15% of all revenue" and giving the IRS (career tax experts) much more leeway to write the tax code, in a way that complies with the stated (democratically accountable) objectives, but maximizes simplicity and ease of enforcement. I think there's something to that.

There's a place for technocrats. But in today's extremely "power to the people" moment that gives us Trump and Sanders, it seems like a harder sell.

The US seem to be very undemocratic on the one hand, and way too democratic on the other. I guess that makes for a dangerous mixture. Examples: The election system makes it intentionally hard to vote, e.g. election day isn't on weekends nor is it a public holiday. Limited number of voting places. And then you have elected law enforcement and elected judges.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com