The world has made tremendous progress in raising global education rates since 2000. About 90% of primary-school age children are enrolled, and the total number of primary- and secondary-school age who are not enrolled has been cut in half (pdf, p.1). And more girls than ever go to school—and fewer drop out.
But “going to school isn’t the same as learning,” says Girindre Beeharry, the director of global education at the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation. Beeharry says even after years of going to classes, far too many kids leave school with very limited skills.
In addition to the country-level work, the program will sponsor a more international endeavor to find ways to harmonize data on a global level. The goal is to improve our ability to compare education across borders, which should enable improved knowledge-sharing between countries with similar conditions: Tanzania, for example, is unlikely to be able to replicate models that have worked in Finland, but could perhaps import lessons from Nepal.
![]()
Wonder if Mort worked here.
Come on guys, Mort would never work there. Don't you know the difference between collectively run businesses and asking the asparagus for consent?
What a surprise. It's only been an obvious problem that's been kicked down the road for the last 15 years, with only expansions without tax increases being heaped upon it. Here's to the dumb ass paper-white decrepit who will pass a few years sooner thanks in no small part to the way they vote.
More like 30 years (or since their inception, really). SS and medicare saw frequent tax hikes up until the 80s when Reagan took the tax out of tax & spend, but any welfare model dependent on unending population growth has problems. I don't think that access to either has been shown to significantly prolong life in any case. iirc something like a quarter of medicare spending occurs in the last few days of life for the elderly.
EDIT: Apparently it's a quarter in the last year of life, though Google is telling me there's some debate over the figures.
The problem, ignoring issues with the programs themselves, is inflation. The money put in 20 years ago, at the *official* inflation numbers (underestimated), is devalued 50%. At 40 years? 99.99%. The money the retirees put in the first few working years literally didn't even matter (for their retirement). These programs were sold as contributory accounts and became transfer payments. An aging population with lifespans extended via expensive procedures rather than better health was doomed to doom the programs. Good riddance. But no, we will get saddled with radically increased taxes (via payroll taxes, which further disincentives working or hiring). Rob Peter to pay Paul in the name of *progress*.
Yes, we all know the programs were falsely advertised. They're really more like pension programs. The problems with these programs aren't irremediable though. The problem is, is that to properly fix them, we need broad-based policy reform and not just higher taxes, and the only thing Congress can do nowadays is cut taxes, and then brag about it like it was a great policy achievement that totally won't explode the deficit.
Another possible approach is to just reduce the salience of racial issues in national campaigns, perhaps by nominating nonwhite candidates who can afford to spend less time professing their commitment to anti-racist causes (thereby enabling the courting of both nonwhite voters and white voters harboring racial resentments).