As soon as you find a private corporation that will pay you for doing work that isn't correct, let me know. I'd love to work there.
Seriously, S, U, and I? Admittedly, I am not a parent, and I am only a teacher in the most vague sense, but such a system seems ridiculous to me, at least at first glance.
Would I be correct in assuming that a student could answer every question incorrectly and still get an S? That seems silly to me. And don't get me wrong, I'm not a fan of homework assignments. IMO, if a teacher can't teach you everything you need to know in the time alotted for class, they're doing a poor job of teaching, but this grading system seems a little too lenient to me.
Of course, with this being an education issue, I'm compelled to take the stance I took on the "red ink" thread, which is; As long as I have a choice of schools, I could care less if someone wants their children to be graded on a scale like "S,U,I".
With the notable exception of charismatic people who can smooth-talk their way out of just about anything, the world doesn't care if you tried and got it wrong. The world, and the private sector that fuels it, demand results.
Personally, I have no objection to this, or any grading system, as long as I can choose, with a reasonable degree of financial freedom, where my children are educated ( in the hypothetical case that I ever had any, to be truthful) and I am not a parent, so there may be some issues I have not examined, but as a taxpayer, I have to pay for this crap and I'm tired of paying for failure. Bear in mind that I am referring to the U.S. education system here, but none of us would pay for groceries that were 50% acceptable, or for consumer goods that were rated as being "completed" "partially completed" or "not done" (I'm aware that many investment opportunities can lend themselves to these descriptions, and there is a significant difference there) in most cases. If I must pay for and subscribe to a nationalized education system, I refuse to accept such deplorable standards.
While I disdain the educational system we are currently saddled with and wouldn't personally approve of the SUI grading system mentiuoned above, I do have the common sense to know that children are people, and like all people, they have different needs for all things, including education. Perhaps your children would learn best in an environment where trying their best is rewarded more than doing things correctly. Hell, I'm not a parent, maybe my kids would learn best in that fashion as well, I don't know, since I haven't met my kids yet.
The be-all end-all solution here is choice. There is no politician, no activist, no lobbyist, no voter, who knows what is best for everyone, especially in issues that carry the magnitude that education does. Parents must be able to choose what is right for their children, and children must be able to choose what is right for themselves, to a reasonable extent. A competitive (and by nature, partially privatized) education system, where we have a choice as to which schools our children attend, one that extends beyond where we choose to (or must) live, is the solution to both problems. Even amongst economically disadvantaged families there should be a choice, just as there is a choice between McDonald's and Taco bell or KFC or whatever. Just as there is a choice between Wal-mart and the local grocer or Albertson's or Kroger or whatever. I am the first to admit that such a choice is not ideal, but it is a damn sight better than forcing everyone to subscribe to the same universally crappy system that the state provides.
Competition is the key, and competition thrives in the absence of state. Of course, I am not so naive as to believe that the state is not essential. It must provide strong support of the free market in the form of harsh penalties for fraud and unfair business practices like monopolization ( one of the more complex, but still easily solveable aspects of a political philosophy like mine) and it must provide defense against foreign military and domestic criminal threats, both of which can be severely curtailed by an armed populace.
As with all issues, I endeavor to solve this problem with freedom. Freedom of choice, freedom of governance, freedom of action, whatever. Freedom is key. Freedom to stumble, to fall, to fail, is also part and parcel of this belief. After all, none of us is without sin. We all make mistakes. What we learn from them is what makes us strong.
All of that is, of course, my belief. Perhaps the S,U,I, grading system is what is best for some children, and perhaps not for others. My question is why such a system, or indeed, any system, should ever be applied on a universal level. Whatever our beliefs, we are all people, and our children look to us for guidance. No one here would tell their children to look to politicians who we all despise on nearly every occassion for guidance, so why should we let them control the educational system? And, I might add, in light of August's argument in another post, state funding for education needs not equate with a state curriculum. If the state chooses to fund educational institutons, it is a noble cause, even if they have no constitutional right to do so. What the state does not have, in any capacity, is the right to develop the nation's educational system. The Constitution clearly enumerates the powers that the state should have, and education is not among them, no matter how liberally one interprets it. The document itself was designed to limit the powers of state, so it is obscene that any sort of federal regulation might be enacted under an "interpretation" of the laws set forth by the Constitution. The founders had the foresight to allow amendments to the constitution to be made, after a 2/3 majority was reached, so it is pretty damn obvious that they didn't want anyone mucking about with the responsibilities of the state that they set forth in very clear terms, unless an obvious need was present.
That being said, the founding fathers lived in a different world than we do today, but not so different as one might think. They sought liberty above all else, and they did their best to create an inviolable law that would preserve liberty for future generations. Today that law has been worked around and re-interpreted almost out of exsistence, but the spirit of it remains intact, and we must defend that spirit if we wish to retain the essence that made America great.
Education is the cornerstone of the electorate around which our government is built, and diversity is the cornerstone of that electorate. Choice in all things, especially education, is what made this country great, and choice is the only thing that can preserve it. We have already seen the deficiencies of our state-controlled public education system spiral out of control, and yet we pursue the same policy, believing that some person other than ourselves has the wisdom to make it right, if only we could find the right person. Even if such a person does exsist, they will not always be there. Our children's education is our own responsibility, and we should be free to choose where they are educated, free from financial, state, and legal constraints.
Yes, it is true that such an education system is unequal, and indeed, our nation is founded upon the promise of equal opportunity, not equal outcomes, but the current system is unequal as well. Even a cursory glance at the state of inner-city schools will validate that argument.
Would any of you, who have the fortune of having children, relegate their education to any system that you did not have direct control over, in the form of choice, as to where your children are educated at the least?
Consider the responsibility that you have as a parent, and consider whether or not you would entrust such responsibility to a political representative, or a beareaucrat, or anyone for that matter. So why would you ever entrust your child's education to a state system that is based upon where you live?
Whatever the beliefs of any parents here, I'm sure they can all agree on one thing; the welfare of their children is their responsibility, not that of the state.