Issue '04: Education

[A18]

I've got all the major party nominees (I think) plus that third guy.

[A18]

Bush wins this one hands down. School choice will help thousands of urban kids in this country. He's also made huge budget increases in education spending, good or bad.

Kerry has the boring, dry 'stick with public schools' attitude, even when there are kids that can't read or do math.

Anyway, I don't know where Cobb or Badnarik stand exactly on the issue.

[John Dibble]

Badnarik, even though I disagree somewhat on privatizing the school system. But what he does realize is that in the unlikely event that he was electe president, that his only duty and power would be to get the federal government out of it - let the states decide what to do with their systems.

[Lunar]

Kerry.

I don't support vouchers.  If someone wants to go to a private school, that's fine.  However, the government should only fund schools where it can maximize the education.

If kid's aren't learning, I don't think it's competition that's a problem.  Perhaps an overhaul of the curriculum and the entire organization and attitude of the public education system is in order, but that doesn't require vouchers.

[A18]

Badnarik, even though I disagree somewhat on privatizing the school system. But what he does realize is that in the unlikely event that he was electe president, that his only duty and power would be to get the federal government out of it - let the states decide what to do with their systems.

Private schools have time and time again been proven superior to their public counterparts. It also means you can send your kid to a school that shares your values.

I think every kid in the country should be able to get government funding for private schooling.

Not that you can just abolish the public school system or anything. But I'm saying, we need to get some competition in the fading picture.

Remember, this is the first generation that's LESS educated than the previous. The public schools have failed, I think...and I know, 'cause I go to one, heh.

[A18]

You must be logged in to read this quote.

No, parents should be trusted with that decision. Public school is NOT maximized education. Take it from someone who's living it first hand.

And yes, it's competition. It works the same as any other market...what else could it be? It's not as if you couldn't learn without any computers at all, and fourty year old books, and a beat up building with no lights.

[Lunar]

You must be logged in to read this quote.

No, parents should be trusted with that decision. Public school is NOT maximized education. Take it from someone who's living it first hand.

Yes, but if the government is paying for it, they should be allowed to make the best decision.  If the parents decide that this is not in the best interests of their child, they can home-school or go to a private school.  However, the government should not be funding private schools nor any other business.

[A18]

No, I understand part of the logic. Government is investing money.

But I'm saying, the best thing for government to do is trust the parents. Private schools are hugely superior.

Also, it is a parent's right to teach his or her child. Government shouldn't be in the business of deciding where it's 'maximized' (which isn't in the public schools)...it should just be a broad policy of, the more tools will give parents to teach their kids, the more the dollar will be worth.

[John Dibble]

Badnarik, even though I disagree somewhat on privatizing the school system. But what he does realize is that in the unlikely event that he was electe president, that his only duty and power would be to get the federal government out of it - let the states decide what to do with their systems.

Private schools have time and time again been proven superior to their public counterparts. It also means you can send your kid to a school that shares your values.

I think every kid in the country should be able to get government funding for private schooling.

Not that you can just abolish the public school system or anything. But I'm saying, we need to get some competition in the fading picture.

Remember, this is the first generation that's LESS educated than the previous. The public schools have failed, I think...and I know, 'cause I go to one, heh.

I agree that private schools are generally good, I just don't think we need to abolish the public school system altogether. It can do well - I went to a very good public school district(my parents moved just so I could go to school there), so my experience with the system was much different than yours. My belief is that the federal government needs to have nothing to do with the system and the state government should leave most of it up to local school boards - that way the school boards can be held directly accountable for school quality, and would hopefully do a better job for that reason.

[Nym90]

Badnarik, even though I disagree somewhat on privatizing the school system. But what he does realize is that in the unlikely event that he was electe president, that his only duty and power would be to get the federal government out of it - let the states decide what to do with their systems.

Private schools have time and time again been proven superior to their public counterparts. It also means you can send your kid to a school that shares your values.

I think every kid in the country should be able to get government funding for private schooling.

Not that you can just abolish the public school system or anything. But I'm saying, we need to get some competition in the fading picture.

Remember, this is the first generation that's LESS educated than the previous. The public schools have failed, I think...and I know, 'cause I go to one, heh.

I agree that private schools are generally good, I just don't think we need to abolish the public school system altogether. It can do well - I went to a very good public school district(my parents moved just so I could go to school there), so my experience with the system was much different than yours. My belief is that the federal government needs to have nothing to do with the system and the state government should leave most of it up to local school boards - that way the school boards can be held directly accountable for school quality, and would hopefully do a better job for that reason.

I agree, John. There should be more local control, and get the federal government out of it. As the son of a public school teacher, I think I bring a unique perspective. Federal involvement generally does not help education, it is best to leave it to the local districts, since the school board members are directly elected and thus are held accountable to the people of the community in elections. There are those that say that public schools have no competition, but they do in the form of elections. If your local public school is failing, you should work to vote the members of the school board out of office in the next election. Also, attend school board meetings and share your views; these meetings are open to the public and you can comment on how you feel the school is doing a poor job. I am also sure that the principal, superintendent, and others would be willing to hear from you directly if you are a citizen living within the district's borders.

There are mechanisms to improve and fix public schools in place. If you don't like the job yours is doing, it can be changed directly through the democratic process.

[A18]

Like electing someone who supports school choice.

Sorry, but I have a serious theory. Democrats don't want children learning in private schools because the public school system is the liberal breeding-ground.

[John Dibble]

Sorry, but I have a serious theory. Democrats don't want children learning in private schools because the public school system is the liberal breeding-ground.

Actually, college is the liberal breeding ground, but even that is changing - things are starting to take a little l libertarian swing there I think.

[Nym90]

Like electing someone who supports school choice.

Sorry, but I have a serious theory. Democrats don't want children learning in private schools because the public school system is the liberal breeding-ground.

Sure, you have every right to try to elect people who share your views to the school board. But if they lose the election, that's how it goes...you say that public schools have no competition or incentive to do a good job, but they do, in the form of elections. If your candidate loses the competition, then you have to play by the rules. That's how it works.

As for your second paragraph, it's completely off base. The public school system does not teach any political ideology, and any promotion of political views in public schools would result in serious discipline if brought to the attention of the authorities within the school. I'm all for private schools, and I would support vouchers as long as no money was taken away from public schools in the process (which would require a change in the law, since schools receive funding on a per pupil basis). As long as the public schools still received the same amount of money even if they lose a student via vouchers, then I'd be all for it. This would result in better quality education in public schools too, as they'd have fewer students and thus smaller class sizes.

The biggest problems in education are parents who fail to instill in their children the importance of education. Schools can't hope to ever as much influence on children as parents; the problems with schools can mostly be related to bad parenting as opposed to bad schools. Students who truly want to learn almost always can.

[ATFFL]

Nym, I'll see your son of a public school teacher and raise you one actual school teacher.

The problem is not money.  We have more than enough.  Most states are over funded from No Child Left Behind.  Good bill, but it needs some improvement.

The less political involvement in education, the better.  This is not just the federal level, but the local as well.  Tell us what you want the kids to learn, then shut the hell up and get the F*** out of our way.  

I am a rarity, a teacher who advocates standardized testing at the end of the year.  Tell me everything you want my students to learn to pass the test and I will be sure to teach them that.

Give up the notion of "no child" as there are kids that are sadly beyond hope.  They have no self motivation and think that school keeps them form earning money.  In HS, there is not much I can do to help them.  If I get the job in middle school I am up for, I can hopefully get to them early enough.

If they really want to get better schools they will take all that extra funding and throw it straight into teacher salary.  ANd tie a nice bonus system to the kids score on the final tests.

[Lunar]

Like electing someone who supports school choice.

Regardless of whether we institute vouchers, the public school system needs fixing, as Nym pointed out.  So let's do the latter first and see if that is sufficient.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

I'm not the traditional liberal but I'm pretty offended by this comment.

Try to remember that the opposing view from yours is a legitimate one.  You can disagree with it, but it is still trying to accomplish the same ends but through a different process.

[A18]

Elections don't make schools accountable at all. The junk falls through the political cracks.

Let the school board worry about fixing the schools and put pressure there. And do school vouchers; there's no downside to school vouchers, so I don't know why we'd wait and make sure we needed them.

The value of the $ rests of these people. If kids can't read, it's time for a change.

As someone who's been in a public school for the last ten years, I'm offended by how liberal every teacher is and all the liberal values they slip in. Especially in social studies.

I didn't necessarily mean you. I'm about 80% confident that mainstream Democratic politicians want to keep their monopoly on the public schools system. It keeps kids from growing up with conservative values.

[Nym90]

Like electing someone who supports school choice.

Regardless of whether we institute vouchers, the public school system needs fixing, as Nym pointed out.  So let's do the latter first and see if that is sufficient.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

I'm not the traditional liberal but I'm pretty offended by this comment.

Try to remember that the opposing view from yours is a legitimate one.  You can disagree with it, but it is still trying to accomplish the same ends but through a different process.

Exactly. Almost all of us on this board agree on fundamental goals. We all want a good, strong, prosperous economy, a balanced budget, clean air, clean water, good schools, low poverty, low crime, and a safe, secure country. We just disagree on process, and on what the best way is to achieve those ends. Let's not resort to name calling and assuming that our opponents are evil. Conspiracy theories do nothing but poison the debate.

[Nym90]

Nym, I'll see your son of a public school teacher and raise you one actual school teacher.

The problem is not money.  We have more than enough.  Most states are over funded from No Child Left Behind.  Good bill, but it needs some improvement.

The less political involvement in education, the better.  This is not just the federal level, but the local as well.  Tell us what you want the kids to learn, then shut the hell up and get the F*** out of our way.  

I am a rarity, a teacher who advocates standardized testing at the end of the year.  Tell me everything you want my students to learn to pass the test and I will be sure to teach them that.

Give up the notion of "no child" as there are kids that are sadly beyond hope.  They have no self motivation and think that school keeps them form earning money.  In HS, there is not much I can do to help them.  If I get the job in middle school I am up for, I can hopefully get to them early enough.

If they really want to get better schools they will take all that extra funding and throw it straight into teacher salary.  ANd tie a nice bonus system to the kids score on the final tests.

I agree, increased salaries are critical to improving education. Teacher pay is way too low given the educational requirements involved, and this results in driving people away from the profession who would otherwise go into it.

In addition, class sizes must be reduced. Students learn better when they receive more individual attention from the teacher. I don't think anyone can deny that students are going to learn better in a smaller class.

However, both of these require money. I agree with you that politics should stay out of the classroom, and that is a big part of the problem. Another major problem is that people don't see the residual benefits of good education; lower crime, better productivity to the economy through more jobs, etc. It seems a lot of people don't care about the schools unless they have a kid in them.

The problem with the standardized tests, though, is that teachers should be allowed to adapt the curriculum to meet the needs of the student, and the teachers should be trusted to know what's important and what isn't, not some bureaucrat or politician who wrote the test. The tests aren't necessarily well-written to reflect what students actually need to know.

As for kids with no motiviation, yes this is a huge problem, and it all goes back to parents not being responsible and instilling these values at a young age.

[A18]

Like electing someone who supports school choice.

Regardless of whether we institute vouchers, the public school system needs fixing, as Nym pointed out.  So let's do the latter first and see if that is sufficient.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

I'm not the traditional liberal but I'm pretty offended by this comment.

Try to remember that the opposing view from yours is a legitimate one.  You can disagree with it, but it is still trying to accomplish the same ends but through a different process.

Exactly. Almost all of us on this board agree on fundamental goals. We all want a good, strong, prosperous economy, a balanced budget, clean air, clean water, good schools, low poverty, low crime, and a safe, secure country. We just disagree on process, and on what the best way is to achieve those ends. Let's not resort to name calling and assuming that our opponents are evil. Conspiracy theories do nothing but poison the debate.

Woah...this sounds a lot like Iraq!

Anyway, I'm sure there's a side of you that believes in public schools for its Democratic leanings.

[Nym90]

Elections don't make schools accountable at all. The junk falls through the political cracks.

Let the school board worry about fixing the schools and put pressure there. And do school vouchers; there's no downside to school vouchers, so I don't know why we'd wait and make sure we needed them.

The value of the $ rests of these people. If kids can't read, it's time for a change.

As someone who's been in a public school for the last ten years, I'm offended by how liberal every teacher is and all the liberal values they slip in. Especially in social studies.

I didn't necessarily mean you. I'm about 80% confident that mainstream Democratic politicians want to keep their monopoly on the public schools system. It keeps kids from growing up with conservative values.

There are definite downsides to vouchers; for one, they take away money from the public schools (unless the funding rules are changed; if they were, I'd support them). And they cost money, which of course we don't have right now (thanks to massive tax cuts). If you are going to support a smaller government, then you'd hvae to oppose vouchers, which cost taxpayers money.

[A18]

WHAT?! Education spending has SURGED under Bush to record highs! Far more than under Clinton. And we have brought in MORE money.

Taking away money from the public schools is not a downside. The parents of those kids aren't part of the system, and therefore shouldn't have to pick up the bill.

[Nym90]

WHAT?! Education spending has SURGED under Bush to record highs! Far more than under Clinton. And we have brought in MORE money.

Taking away money from the public schools is not a downside. The parents of those kids aren't part of the system, and therefore shouldn't have to pick up the bill.

Everyone benefits from good schhools, though. Lower crime rates, a better educated workforce, more jobs available. Improving the public schools is in everyone's interest, regardless of whether they have students in the public schools. It helps everyone.

[A18]

Yeah, but if you have less kids you don't need as much money.

[Nym90]

Anyway, I'm sure there's a side of you that believes in public schools for its Democratic leanings.

No. Mine certainly didn't have Democratic leanings, and I wouldn't support public schools attempting to impose values of any kind on anyone anyway.

[Nym90]

Yeah, but if you have less kids you don't need as much money.

To a certain extent, but there are still basic expenses that don't change; maintenaince, busing, utilities, etc. The basic expenses of running the school don't change much depending on how many kids there are.

Plus, smaller class sizes would result in better quality education for all, and reducing funding would undermine this.