On Yao Ming and the China pride...

Yao Ming has been the China pride for quite a long time. Ten years, to be exact.

It must not have been an easy feat to have a whole nation's pride and glory in the sport front resting on his lone shoulders. For Asians who generally have shorter, slimmer build, the tall poppy of Yao Ming who breaks away to join the NBA league is something of an anomaly. Surely, there must be another Yao Ming lurking amidst its 1.1 billion population. Even statistics should give it a higher probability to find another Yao Ming....right?

But the Chinese establishment has a way to beat even the remote statistics of Yao Ming. In ten years, China fails to produce another Yao Ming. Now that he's retiring, there is no one he can past the torch to. It's a true pity, that the rigid Chinese establishment has failed to produce more heroes in sports that its denizens so sorely need, in order to hold on to the Chinese pride.

No matter, China can now turns its star-gazing to another sport - tennis. Li Na, the newly minted champion of Australian Open, the first Chinese from China (nope - Michael Chang is technically more American than Chinese) to win any majors, provides the much needed relief for the mainland Chinese populace to feel that they can make it too in the sports arena.

But if the Li Na story is any guidance, it is that her success comes in spite of her breakaway from the official Chinese sports establishment. That says volume about the competence and effectiveness of that establishment. China's 1.1 billion people need better than this, and deserve better than to wait for another 10 years to see if it is capable of producing another Yao Ming or Li Na.

On paper calendars and their electronic equivalence...

Earlier today, I was reading the New York Times article today on paper calendars with interests and amusement.

No doubt there is powerful trend for pushing calendars to the ether virtual world. Most people do that out of convenience which is hard to disprove. Once the calendar is set up online (eg. Google Calendar), you can access any time, anywhere. You can access it with your browser, or smart phone, even regular phone that has online access. You can expose your calendar to privileged few (eg. families and friends). Even in the pre-cloud days, when mostly corporate calendars reside on proprietary servers like emails do (Blackberry, anyone?), you can quite easily sync your PDA with servers. You won't have to worry about losing your Filofax, hence the whole year's worth of your life. No more writing; just typing. Sweet, right?

But of course, when there is push, there is always some pull. Although it's not easy found these days, there are still quite some people who hang on to their paper calendars and address books and alarm clocks, even though you can easily get all these functions in any basic smartphones. There is something to be said, about holding something in your hand, that you know it's real, that this is my calendar and it belongs to me and me alone (rather than some bits and bytes in binary on some no-name servers tucked in some dark corners of who-knows-where the datacenters might reside).

I have to tell you, I too have tried to hang on to paper calendars, for my private reasons. I have soft spots for leather bound journals and diary and address books. I love to touch and smell of leather. I like the physicality of writing in notes and entries with my pen. I really do.

Unfortunately, the goings with electronic calendars are just too strong to resist. I used to use leather-bound yearly calendars, and I hate to have to shelf them once the year is over. There's when I switch to using organizers. But I have to lug the deadweight of my 2-inch thick organizer (with address book, calendar, with journal papers and notes) with me everyday. I have to worry about losing it (yes, I've lost mine before, and it's a royal pain). It wastes papers (thereby, cutting down more trees) and money too for buying inserts. I don't share or expose my calendars to anyone, but now I can plan my calendar forever, rather than one year out. I can set up alerts and reminders of events. And although it takes longer to login and check calendars online than flipping pages, it's worth the efforts.

These days, I've decided to do my own haphazard version of mix-and-match of online and offline calendar for myself. I want the convenience of online calendars (eg. I don't want to have to copy and paste all the important birthdays and anniversary dates at the beginning of each year from one paper calendar to another), but I equally want to use my brain a bit more, lest my brain gets lazy with delegating all the remembering to computers. So, every day, I login to check my daily schedules, plus cursory check on how the weekly and monthly schedules in the coming weeks/months look like. Then, I would write down the daily things to do on a scrap piece of papers. At the end of the day, I can cross what I've done, and I can simply throw out the scrap paper to recycle bin. I can also jog down what's new on the paper, then transpose them to my online calendar at day's end. The semi-automatic calendar updates work for me because I want to force myself to remember some events, rather than delegating to computers totally.

I still miss my leather bound calendars, organizers, address books and all other stuffs that I have now rolled online or in one single gadget. I guess I'll have to live with it. Those previously used (and loved) journals and calendars on my shelf will simply become part of my relics for nostalgia, when I get the time for it.

On the elusive housing recovery...

There are often enough times when I get bored reading business news and market news. You see, I do trading as a side interest, and I read a few newspapers from a few different countries to start my day. You can get an overall picture and a sense of where things are going. To me, it's a much better gauge than the mumble-jumble of those so-called market analysts who would try to find some reasoning - more like excuses - to justify the events of the day as the day wraps up. You see, that's not a very difficult thing to do, since there are always some news that are good, and some news that are bad. All they have to do is to pick and choose which ones fit in the pattern of what has already happened in the market movement during the day. I often find it laughable how business news would follow what has happened in other markets (Europe, Hong Kong and Japan), and say, our markets in US is going to up (or down) because of x-y-z happening in the other markets. So, they say, futures are going up (or down). And then, things in US would blow up in their face, shattering whatever predictions they have made at day start. By end of day, they would wrap up the day and say, no, the market today is actually focusing on something else than we have predicted. In short, they would always have a 50-50 chance to come up with something that can make them look smart ("see, that's what we have predicted!" or "markets look the other day because they are nervous!").

For all that, I prefer to look at the raw data, rather than the gummed-up analysis from these mediocre analysts.

Quite often, raw data are confusing on their own right, depending on what raw data the main media wants to report to the audience (ie. us).

Take the unemployment picture. There's the short term number in unemployment benefits claim (which doesn't look good). There's the longer term number (which looks very weak and wobbly). And then, there is the number of long-term unemployed (ie. those who have exhausted the unemployment benefits and are on their own; in short, they don't count anymore) which everyone seems to suddenly stop reporting on.

And then, there is the number of new jobs created, particularly by private sector. But no one dares to talk about the kind of shitty jobs being created now, in place of the relatively good paying jobs that were lost in this Great Recession. Politicians in Washington don't even want to talk about the number of shitty jobs created. Afterall, there is a natural limit in how much spin doctors can spin a story. So, instead of talking about bad things with no prospects of improving in sight, they would rather stop talking about it.

Barring the dismal employment picture, this recession is all about housing. No one has a freaking clue which industry would emerge from ashes and rise up to take the place of tech (in the go-go days of late 1990s) and housing (in the subsequent years after the tech bubble burst in 2000), and provide the kind of jobs and pay and prospects to the lower strata in society. Everyday, the business and market news cover the same-old, same-old on the foreclosure numbers, price trends of cities and nation wide, new housing starts, existing home sales, yada yada. The way it's going now, you can easily skip 3 months' worth of news, come back in the fall, and the news reports (on these very same topics) would still look the same. *yaaawn*

Don't get me wrong, those raw data have to be collected in order to study the longer term trends. But I don't see how talking repeatedly on the same subject matters and numbers are going to move the needle.

To me, it all comes down to simple math. If you have a property that, over a 10-year period has gone up by 300%, does a downturn of 50% from the peak mean it has come down far enough to become affordable again? This is not a number that I just threw out from a hat. This was how much I have bought (in late 1990s) and sold (in late 2007) my property for in the Northeast.

I like to look for patterns and trends. Nowhere have I seen such fantastic growth in prices (of properties), with little to no support from fundamentals (eg. rental growth) during that same period. The whole housing boom was based on one ponzi scheme, more akin to a big casino gamble.

I don't flip properties. In fact, I've kept property that I sold in 2007 for close than 7 years because I like it. I would still have held on to it, had it not been my husband who was getting tired to the monthly upkeep for a physical property. It doesn't really mean or change a thing for me, because there's no mortgage left on the property. Sure, if you ask me whether I'm glad that I've sold it, I'd tell you I'm glad to have made a 300% profit on that property. It doesn't negate the fact that I still miss the place due to sentimental value. I don't want to sound schmuck about it, for cashing out before the market crash, because I'm no genius. It's all pure chance. Bottomline to me is, while I'm better off now with the proceeds from the sale, I would have been no worse off if I had held on to it.

No one is going to argue against the sweetness of turning 300% yield on an investment. Truth be told, I don't think the place is suddenly worth 300% more than what I'd paid it for. Given the growth of economy over that same period, perhaps a price growth of 50% would have been considered fantastic already, so that a 20-30% downturn in the recession since then would have returned it back to equilibrium. But that would be blasphemous to alot of people who are used to outsized price growth. No one wants to lose the capability of turning their property into a piggybank and a ready ATM machine.

But...nothing of what I said is new. It's just that no one wants to admit to it. No one wants to say outright, that the property market, as depressed as it is now, should still fall another 20-30% or more in some places in order to go back to a more normal curve. Politicians can't tell the emperors (voters) that they have no clothes on. It's downright suicidal.

And so, what do we get? Let's switch off the discussions on unemployment (nothing new); let's not talk about housing (nothing new either); let's forget about market reforms (because no one can fight the lobby groups and big corporate money); don't worry about the wars (which are still raging on); public education does not matter for now. Suddenly all eyes are on deficit and spending.

I can only tell you, I'm very sick and tired of all these ping-pong games between Dem and GOP on the budget talks and possibility of a default. The whole Washington establishment - Congress and White House alike - is so inept to achieve anything remotely useful (except with the focus of scoring political points), it's so freaking disappointing. Such a shame.

But if you must ask me of an opinion, I'd say, spending and entitlement have to be scaled back. Taxes have to be raised somehow. I don't like the idea of the raising the debt ceiling without any serious talks of scaling back. To be sure, there are so many low-hanging fruits of corporate tax subsidy (ethanol, anyone?) that simply don't make sense and should have been rid of long long time ago. While I don't fancy Dem getting any moral high grounds, I simply don't see how GOP could keep singing the moral high tunes of cutting spending while defending their corporate backers of all the subsidy and loopholes. It's truly despicable.

On children's noise level, et al...

I don't normally read much of those news of children-not-welcome stories, like the one about banning young children from restaurant. It's a balancing act between keeping a young child engaged and entertained, while trying to minimize the nuisance to others.

I've been on both sides of the fence. While my kids are getting bigger now, they have been young once. It can get apprehensive, hoping and praying that my kids would cooperate and don't cry or scream in movie theaters or on long-haul flights. When I look at parents or families bringing in very young kids or babies in those situations, I can get apprehensive too, hoping and praying that those kids won't just cry or scream their guts out, and the rest of us would have a bit of quiet time. But then, you can't blame the babies, infants and toddlers for doing for they're doing, when they don't have the ways and means to tell the adults that they don't want to be restricted to the confined space for a prolonged period.

Restaurants and parks, on the other hand, are somewhat different. They are not confined space. And there are plenty of options for parents to bring their kids too. If the kids start acting up in restaurants, one of the adults/parents can always bring the kids outside for a walk to calm the nerve or for distraction. That's what my husband and I always did, and it worked out quite well. So, if a restaurant puts out children-unwelcomed sign, I don't see what the big deal is for the families to bring their business elsewhere where tolerance level for their kids is higher. In short, this kind of stories is not news-worthy to me.

And then, today I read about some Sydney residents complaining about the noise level of children playing in parks. I must say though, that this is getting a bit out of hand. I understand that some people simply can't stand children's crying or screaming. Afterall, that's one of the reasons some adults quoted as rationale for not having kids of their own. Surely, if a park is designed with structures and playthings for kids to kill their energy, can anyone blame the kids for having a blasting fun time and scream their guts out? Honestly, I can't say I do. How does one define the playthings and structures in a park that would limit the kids to play more passively, so that they won't make that much noise? Kids are fairly straightforward animals; they either have a good time, or they don't. If the kids don't enjoy playing in that park, they simply won't want to come. And if the residents have been so worried about it, they should have voiced their concerns before the park was built and/or during the design stage of the park.

You're quite right, in that, I don't have alot of sympathy in the complaints about kids having too much fun in park (hence making too much noise). No doubt, people want more parks and green space; that enhances the environment, thereby boosting property value. There are gives and takes, and times like this, you can't have it both ways, wanting the pie and eating it too. They should have been happy that kids and families are utilizing the parks, rather than thugs and criminals (as alot of idle park space can attract).

On schools stop teaching cursive...

Not until I listened to the Diane Rehm Show on WGBH earlier today did I realize that some schools are planning to stop teaching kids cursive. I must admit, I was flabbergasted when I heard of it.

Many so-called arguments were put forth to support that notion, some of which come straight from fantasyland. It's said that kids need to learn typing more than writing cursive, in order to compete in this digital age. It's said that kids can print and don't need cursive. It's said that kids' learning cursive is a waste of time, during budget crunch time, schools can ill-afford to spend resources on. It's said that with increasing use of electronic media in schools and work environment, kids need to adapt. It's said that some kids simply find it too hard to learn cursive, and they should be left to pick whatever way to write or type. It's even said that in this day and age, when electronic signature is widely accepted, kids won't even need to sign their name anymore. And so on, and so forth.

Thank goodness counter-arguments are abound. It's argued that kids have plenty of opportunities to learn typing (texting, anyone?). It's argued that kids would at least need to sign their name physically with a pen. And while digital media is all around us, it must be recognized that there are many more students who do not have ready access to computers or electronic devices, and who would need to still resort to pens and papers. But the more important and valid point was raised by one of the audience callers to the show, which is that, learning cursive is one important way for kids (at around the age of grade 3-4) to master the fine mortar skills while they are formulating thoughts in their heads. In fact, the last argument was recognized even by the cursive-abolishing proponents that kids have been having increasing difficulty in both thinking and writing/typing at the same time.

The topic of learning cursive hits home to me at this particular juncture, since my kids have showed so much interests in it, and even more pride too in mastering cursive so that they can sign their name!

To be sure, their teachers haven't actually spent that much time in teaching them cursive anyways. Cursive, as an art of writing, is such an integral part of civilization that it would be such a shame and incredible disservice to kids by not teaching them cursive at all. I resent the argument of cursive being too hard for kids. So much of what kids are taught seem to be based on convenience, catering to the kids' liking. If something is deemed too hard for the kids, they should be spared of it. In fact, isn't that the very same argument that alot of parents shy away from pushing their kids to master math and science?

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

Incidentally, yesterday I read another article, about a high school teacher getting suspended (but was later reluctantly reinstated) for dissing her own students for being "lazy" and "frightfully dim". I have no doubts that there are students to that caliber. More surprisingly is how some readers' comments from supposedly parents saying that they would pull their kids out from the class, should this teacher be teaching. Sure, parents should be the best champion (our princes and princesses) for their own kids, but have we, collectively as parents, got to a point where we cannot accept potentially truthful comments about our kids?

As another fair-minded reader noted in the forum, kids these days have become so used to entitlement, that everyone has to have a trophy for just being present in a soccer or baseball game. Parents have to understand that, at some point (most likely when kids start middle school), kids are going to get used to the increasingly competitive world. If kids do not master the basic skills and discipline and attitude before they reach grade 5, they would have had serious problems catching up. If parents continue to foster that an entitlement mentality in kids, that they deserve to have good grades just by being there or putting in a less-than-average essay, even if schools and teachers cave in and give them all straight A's, these kids are going to have more problems when (and if) they get to college, or when they start working in the adult world.

On the housing needs in Hong Kong, et al...

I was reading this CNN article about the so-called coffin homes in Hong Kong. This came in close succession with the Wall Street Journal on the same topic just couple of days prior.

I grew up in Hong Kong, and I have my opinion on the issue. To be sure, the wealth gap in Hong Kong has always been big which accounts for one of the priciest in terms of real estate in the world for a very long time. If you think the coffin home phenomenon is new, you're quite wrong.

The lower strata of the society in Hong Kong has always tried to scrap by. In the post-WWII era, there had been lots of squatters who built their sheds on hillside. These squatters suffered various safety concerns, not the least fire hazard (since illegal utility cables were put in to steal electricity from main powerlines), but also the elements (including typhoons and landslides). Over the years, the then colonial British Hong Kong government had tried various means to dismantle these squatters, but they always sprang back to life. Afterall, these people had nowhere to turn to. During the push to build affordable public housing for lower income families, most (if not all) of these squatters were immediately relocated to public housing estates. Even to this day, getting in public housing in Hong Kong is like winning a lottery ticket, because unlike those in US, the public housing projects are very well run in Hong Kong and is very affordable to lower income families. The decent public housing, plus public education, has allowed them pathway to move up the food chain in economic ladders. Indeed, I view this as one of the achievements of the colonial British government in Hong Kong.

One would ask, why the sudden focus on the topic again, decades later now?

There is truth in the statement, that the wealth gap in Hong Kong has become wider. One could say too, that the challenge to the current Hong Kong government (the SAR - Special Administrative Region - that is now part of the greater mainland China) is bigger. The SAR Hong Kong government has tried to maintain the status quo, following the same playbook as the previous colonial British government for Hong Kong. It doesn't quite work out that well though.

There are now influx of immigrants from mainland China to Hong Kong that it's unable to say no to. For its small plot of land, Hong Kong has grown from some 5.5 million in population around 1997 (when its sovereignty was handed over to China by Britain) to more than 7 million now. The huge influx of wealth from mainland China has also created opportunities, but headaches as well, to this old British colony. As the mainland Chinese can pay, property developers would obviously want to cater for them, racing to build more bigger luxury units in Hong Kong. The overall wealth effect that jacks up property prices of almost all real estates further pushes the low income families to the fringe.

You normally would not hear much of the Hong Kong native locals complain too much about it, because they know this has always been the case. The new immigrants from China, some of those who are used to getting help from the government, are not so sanguine about it. They expect to find gold in Hong Kong, and surely they would be sorely disappointed.

I have first-hand observations of this, because when I was small, my mom used to own a building which is subdivided into a number of 1-bedrooms to individual tenants. Obviously these 1-bedrooms were considerably bigger and better than these coffin homes. Afterall, they are 70-100 square feet per, and usually singles or childless couples rented them. Rents were low, but it's a roof over their heads, and it allows them a way station to save up for something better. I remember there were times when I would go with my mom to the building and collect rents at month end. The tenants were decent, honest, working-class folks, and my mom dealt with them with respect. Although my mom had since sold that building, I still have fond memories going there from time to time.

These days, I have no doubts that new immigrants from China would regard those 1-bedrooms with distaste. They would say, they are not treated humanely. They would say, Hong Kong government does not do a good job helping them. They would say, it's not fair for them to have to work so hard, and still live in a tinny-tiny home, when someone else has a mansion. If they think waiting three years for a public housing unit is long, they should ask the locals to see how some had waited for 10+ years for one. Nothing is a given in Hong Kong.

I know I would sound like a Tea Party or even GOP fundamentalist for saying this, but you know what, the government in Hong Kong (before '97) had never given more handouts to its citizens than it is now. In fact, the way that current Hong Kong SAR government bends over to win public approval is sometimes quite laughable, its giving away of HK$6000 for free is a case in point. The colonial Hong Kong government would take decisive actions and push forward with the effort; the current SAR government would take whatever actions that either Beijing, or main media, or poll numbers, would want them to take. It's pathetic.

Don't get me wrong, I'm not really in the Tea Party or GOP camp on principle. Quite far from it, I do believe that the government does have moral responsibility to provide certain safety net to the poorest in society. Providing decent public housing to some of the poorest is desperately needed. For others who simply think, "we want to pay less for housing, and the government should for that," I'd say, m'am, I'd like that too, but that's not what a government is for. Along the same line, I don't agree with the Obama's push to delay or stop foreclosure, in order to keep people in their homes (???). I'd say, dude, if you can't afford it, it's not your home, to start with, and the government has no business keeping you there, just so that you can live there, rent free.

On the Gates philanthropy on education, public school system, et al...

A small disclaimer is in order. I have not been a big fan of Bill Gates, nor most Microsoft software(not the first version of anything anyways). (I'm more in the Steve Jobs' and Apple camp, in terms of innovation.) But one thing that Microsoft has exhibited, that inherits from its founder, is its perseverance and tenacity in pursing something, and the trial-and-error in mastering the execution.

My opinion has since turned around quite some on Gates after his retirement from the commercial world, turning his focus on philanthropy. Although Gates Foundation is still very much a work in progress, I've been impressed by the passion and effort that go with it, even if the impact of success is still oft elusive.

Another plus is Gates' candidness on his foundation's impact to improving the schooling system.

I'm not an educator. I'm a parent with young kids, hence my vested interest in the subject matter. I'm schooled at various stages in four continents, including Asia, Europe, Australia and US; as such, I have my own opinion as a student myself in this domain. Granted that I never pay as much attention to the area of education until I have kids of my own, all the nitty-gritty little details over the years have come back to me.

To compare those various systems that I was exposed to, with what's in US now, I can't help but feeling exasperated by how dysfunctional the US system is.

Before I even get to that, I must say, I never have any preconceived notion on labor unions. I understand how they work; I understand their need of existence, particularly in the turn of the last century when the little people need to band together in order to stem exploitation and to improve their collective bargaining ability. That's especially true for traditionally grueling work like coal mining. I get that.

But what strikes me as particularly dysfunctional in the whole debate of standardized testing students, or measuring/evaluating teacher performance, or the No Child Left Behind Act, is how backward the teacher's union (and other labor unions who chime in to this subject) has handled the whole debate.

I must admit, I can get pretty worked up - angry, even - when I hear all those statements from teacher's union countering the need to measure students performance, that teachers' profession is really different, that you can't simply measure students performance or dream about linking teacher's performance with what students have learnt. Whenever I hear anyone say to me "oh, this is different," like the way analysts tried to justify the ridiculous IPO price for outfits like Webvan that turned out to be big flame-out. The underlying argument for not wanting to measure their performance - Webvan or teachers - is really the same. Although past performance is never a sure thing to measure future success, history does provide a good guidance of what works and what doesn't, and a decent indication to weed out alot of bottom feeders.

To me, all those debates and discussions really come down to this: What is the function of a teacher? Teachers are there to do a job, and that job is to educate the young minds of students. Teachers are not there just to babysit kids and let kids stay in school for 6-8 hours a day doing nothing. That inexplicable link between students performance and teachers performance cannot be explained away, saying it does not matter. Yes, it does matter, hugely.

Granted that there are many exterior and intrinsic factors that impact on students performance too in which teachers cannot control. Parents involvement and expectations on students matter 95% of the time. One cannot expect a student to learn all that s/he can within the 6-8 hours while in school, then stop the learning outside of school. It's indeed unrealistic. That, however, does not remove the need to evaluate teachers' performance. Do we stop measuring the teacher's performance simply because students' family is not helping? The answer is obviously no.

As it is, for all that I hear, that's exactly what teachers' unions are advocating. Their argument is that, since there are other factors that go in to a student's performance, you cannot blame the teacher for not doing his/her job when the student performs poorly in tests. So, the students should not be tested (so that no one would know that the student hasn't learnt anything at all); instead, students should either be moved swiftly up or out of the schooling system. Out of sight; out of mind, and it becomes someone else's problem. And if the students' performance is not measured, neither should the teachers. In short, teachers and school administrations can do whatever they want. All they need (and care about), is their mandatory pay raises, benefits, sick and vacation days.

I have been lucky enough not having to subject myself to failing school systems like those dropout factories mentioned by Gates or the documentary Waiting For Superman. I've had more than enough second hand accounts of such failing schools to get the picture. Whenever I think of such ailment, it's maddening and sickening to me at the same time.

How could teachers' union protect its weakest members who oftentimes have no right to be a teacher at all? How dare the unions risk students' and kids' future by protecting and preserving its self-interests, all in the name of helping the kids. It has nothing to do with the kids, and everything to do with the adults (bad teachers). The position of the unions is that, they don't want to measure teachers' performance because they don't want to distinguish bad teachers from good ones. They don't want the good ones to be rewarded, because it would mean the bad ones would invariably have to be dropped, and then the union membership (and coffer) will drop.

Gates has it absolutely right. No one in their right mind can support the argument that, multiplication in Massachusetts is different from multiplication in Alabahama or New York and others. But that's exactly what's happening now. As public schools fail to educate kids on basic skills like math and reading/writing, they would rather dumb down the standards instead, hence all the push-back of standardized tests for kids (mandate of No Child Left Behind), teachers' evaluation, or even resorting to cheating to juice up the test scores.

Thing is, there are many good teachers, or at least reasonably decent ones. And the advocacy of Gates for standard core curriculum makes alot of sense to me. One way or the other, students and teachers need to be tested on what they have learnt and how well they have taught. I would not accept any argument lesser than that.

What about those students whose family can be so uncooperative that teachers can't do anything about it? Truth be told, there will always cases like that. In some areas like inner city, a large majority of student body falls in that category. How do you help the teachers to help the kids? Teachers can't deal with that alone. School admin and state have to step in.

To be sure, for all those comparison of student test scores between US and Asia and other countries, it probably has ingrained this impression to most Americans or westerners that there's nothing ailing public schools in Asia. That's far from truth. Take the case of Hong Kong, for example. Public schools are categorized into Band 1 (best) to Band 5 (our inner city equivalence of the terribles and our dropout factories in US). It's a nightmare to teach in Band 5 schools. There are even studies about it. Most teachers in Band 5 don't and can't do much teaching. It's discouraging, it's frustrating, sometimes it's even life-threatening (eg. knifes in schools). But mostly, all we hear is the exemplary straight-A students from Asia who are out to take our jobs and the future of our kids. That only shows half of the picture.

It's laudable to have someone as high profile as Gates to push the subject of and the need to improve our public schools, looking at it from all angles (basic research, the financing, alternative schooling avenues like charter schools and parochial schools, the core and variations in curriculum etc). The kind of public debate from politicians, with such near-sighted focus on school vouchers (thereby pretty much giving up hope of ever repairing public schools). Then again, no one wants their kids to be the guinea pigs for any experimental projects, as the Waiting For Superman documentary has rightly pointed out.

I can only hope, that Gates and others who have ambition to do good in this area do not get so discouraged that they would give up on it in the end. The idea of just throwing money (and more money) to the current system, without any change and real reform, is not going to work. It's going to only line the pockets of bad teachers, and kids in bad schools are going to be the ones holding the bags. We can't be complacent to just let it happen. As a society, we simply can't afford to have future generations all falling through cracks like that.