You have provided no evidence that it is due to our k-12 systems that they are innovators, it may be in spite of the system but many other aspects may be bigger influences.
The fact that we are not better than most of the world in educating our people would evidence of that.
Why do other countries what that do not have a mediocre primary education lack the “innovators” as claim as evidence that our system is great?
I think the last sentence begs the question. I’m challenging the idea that our educational system is inferior to that of other countries, that those metrics currently used are relevant, based on our success at producing world-class innovators. Nothing, so the expression goes, succeeds like success; and our schools succeed at producing world leaders. Metrics that say we don’t succeed must be flawed metrics.
If you disagree, I’d like for you either to explain why “producing innovators” is not the best metric for success, or else show that we don’t produce a disproportionate number of innovators by showing some of the world-class innovators (world-class along the lines of the founders of Google and Yahoo!) that were never educated in the US K-12 system. Sure, there are some in Japan, and there’s the guy that did Linux, but I think overall we’ve got a disproportionate number here.
You haven’t provided any correlation between “producing innovators” and primary education, I can’t do that work for you.
Yes, I have. Perhaps you mean to say “causation”; I can’t tell.
At this point, though, I’m not really seeing where this conversation is helping either of us.
Other folks, do you catch the point I’m making?
No, I meant correlation, a far lower standard than causation.