Issue '04: Education

[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.

[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.

[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.

[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.

[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.

[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.

[Nym90]

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.

The problem with some of the current tests is that politicians take a part in writing them.

For most classes it is not hard to write a standard test.  We know what math is suspposed to be taught and what science is taught.  Social Studies is pretty simple too.

English is probably the hardest.  Grammar is easy enough to test, but reading comprehension and writing are a bit harder.  Not impossible though.

I agree. Get politicians out of it and have the tests written by teachers. I trust teachers better than politicians to know what to teach.

[Nym90]

I also feel that tuition at any public university to which one can meet the entrance standards should be free for a period of 4 years.

[Nym90]

I also feel that tuition at any public university to which one can meet the entrance standards should be free for a period of 4 years.

If that is the case, then Affirmative Action needs to be abollished as an entrace requirement.  But beyond that, it would be too expensive of a program to maintain.  Now there could be performance credit for kids who graduate with a 3.5+ GPA to have their first year free at a public school, but any federal scholarship outside of that wouldn't be feasable.

I do support eliminating racial affirmative action.

Also, I feel that this would encourage more people to go to school who currently cannot afford to, and while it would be expensive, in the long run we would get much more back then we are paying in. The large amount of loan money that people are stuck with upon graduation is a tremendous drag on the economy.

A better educated workforce will result in more productive and efficient workers, less crime, and a better quality of life for all. Lack of education is the single biggest barrier to success in life. The benefits that would come from this would outweigh the expense. We provide free education K-12 for these same reasons, and we did so at the time when that was all one needed to be highly successful financially. But we've progressed beyond that, and now it is difficult to be successful financially without a college education. Thus, we should raise the bar on what we provide freely.

It's worth noting that my proposal doesn't cover such things as room and board, only tuition and other fees that are required to attend a school.

[Nym90]

Everyone who does not support eliminating affirmative action should be eliminated.

I support affirmative action based on socioeconomic status, so line me up for the gallows....

[Nym90]

You quoted me before I edited my post affirmatively by taking action.

First of all, all affirmative action is stupid; we just need good schools so people can EARN their way up. But even if we are to accept the premise of affirmative action, why should it matter if you're a poor white kid or a poor black kid? What if you were picked on in school? It's so unfair! Weh!

Ok, so kill me affirmatively.

I don't think it should matter whether you are a poor white kid or a poor black kid, but it should matter whether you are a poor kid or a wealthy kid. It is more difficult for a poor kid to be successful in school, and thus there should be some compensation for this in college admissions.

[Nym90]

First of all, I'm not a communist.

I don't support equalizing prices for everyone at McDonald's. You've used a common fallacy of logic in your argument, to assume that because I support any form of something, I must automatically support the most extreme form of it possible. It's convenient to create that straw man and then rip him to shreds, but it doesn't have any connection to reality because I didn't advocate that. Please don't assume I support things that I don't.

However, I do feel that some form of compensation is appropriate for the fact that a poor child has a more difficult time getting good grades than a rich child does. I believe that all people should have equal opportunity to be successful, regardless of how much money they have or how much their parents have. How much you succeed should be based on how smart you are, and how hard you work, not how much money you have. Plain and simple. If you don't agree with me that everyone should have equal opportunity, that's fine, a logical argument can be made that the wealthy deserve to have an easier time succeeding than the poor, but I don't happen to agree with that. It's simply a matter of differing values.

[Nym90]

Yeah. People with low IQs also have problems with grades.

If the logic makes sense, use it. If it doesn't, don't use it at all. They DESERVE what they EARN. They didn't earn anything for being poor. I don't care if the stupid kids can't get into college and I don't care if it's not their fault; people with an IQ of about 6 shouldn't get any advantage.

And once again, you assume that I support things that I don't, and you assume that it has to be black or white, with no gray area at all. The real world isn't that simple; it would be nice if it was, but it isn't.

Notice that I said that success should be based in part on how smart you are, in addition to how hard you work. Thus, I don't support people with low IQs getting into college simply because they are poor. Did you actually read my post, or did you just assume what I must think based on the caricature of me that you have created for yourself?

How did a rich kid earn the right to get into a better school than a poor kid? The kid had no control over the income of his parents.

[Nym90]

He didn't. His PARENTS earned it for him. Just like if I earn $100,000, I deserve to be able to give it to someone.

Yes, you should, but at the same time, I believe everyone should have equal opportunity. If your parents want to give you lots of money, that's fine, but everyone should have an equal opportunity to be successful, regardless of whether their parents can afford to give them money or not.

I don't believe that it's right that someone can have an easier time suceeding in life due to the actions of those other than their own. Your level of opportunity for success should be based on your own intelligence, creativity, and hard work, not that of others.

[Nym90]

I just agreed that it's not their right. It's the parent's right.

And opportunity comes from being who you are in a free world.

Well, I don't think that you have the right for your children to get into a better school based solely on your own performance, not your children's.

I agree on your second statement, but those who are wealthy have more opportunity, as it is easier for them to acquire more wealth than it is for the poor. They don't have to be as smart, as creative, or as hard working in order to be financially successful.

I don't begrudge this, but I feel that the poor should have equal opportunity to suceed. If a poor person is as hard working, as creative, and as smart as a rich person, the poor person should be able to earn just as much money.

[Nym90]

Nym - sorry, but the world isn't fair, never will be. Equal opportunity is not a possibility. There's the 'should' and there the 'reality'. I don't support forcing people to pay for equalizing opportunity, but fortunately there are a number of solutions that do not involve forced taxes. Most scholarships, including the private ones, are geared towards lower class students.

I support Georgia's system - the HOPE scholarship. It is purely merit based - anyone with a 3.0 GPA average in high school and you get your college tuition paid if you stay in state, GPA is checked every 30 college hours. What I like most about it is that it is not funded by tax - it is funded by the state lottery. The lottery is completely optional to participate in, so you can't really complain about it as if it's a tax. Attaining a 3.0 average in public high school is not hard - most people willing to work for it can attain it, at any economic level.

I realize that absolute equality of opportunity can never truly be attained, in particular because there are too many variables that cannot be accounted for. However, regarding economics, one's ability to earn money should not be affected by how much one already has; this is the goal that I feel we should strive towards, even if the absolute attainment of it is not possible. At the very least, we need to increase opportunity for the poor so that they can hope to compete on a reasonable basis, even if we don't get to 100% parity. We need a lot more equality of opportunity than we currently have.

I agree that getting a 3.0 is probably attainable for everyone. However, for many good quality schools, more than a 3.0 is necessary to gain admission, and in these situations, one's socioeconomic position should be taken into account.

I do support the HOPE scholarship as you described it, and systems such as that need to be expanded. Tax credits for those willing to fund these types of scholarships privately would also be a good idea. There are many different solutions, not all of which need governmental interference. But above all, we should never lose sight of the goal of allowing everyone the potential to succeed, regardless of circumstances out of their control. America should always be the land of opportunity, one in which we are judged only on our merits, not on our past.

[Nym90]

There you go then. You don't believe my wealth exists. Dollars are supposed to be able to get you things...that's kinda the point.

I never said that. More dollars should get you more products and more services.

But more dollars should not buy you more opportunity to attain more dollars in the future. All should have the ability to attain what you have if they are as smart as you, as creative as you, and as hard-working as you.

[Nym90]

That's part of wealth.

What if a rich guy likes me as more than a guy who's just as talented/smart/hard-working (as if anyone could compare) and gives me a $3,000,000 check. Can I spend it or does this wealth not exist either?

Of course he has the right to give you the money. But public universities, paid for by public tax dollars, should not have a bias in their admissions in favor of those who have more wealth.

[Nym90]

There you go then. You don't believe my wealth exists. Dollars are supposed to be able to get you things...that's kinda the point.

I never said that. More dollars should get you more products and more services.

But more dollars should not buy you more opportunity to attain more dollars in the future. All should have the ability to attain what you have if they are as smart as you, as creative as you, and as hard-working as you.

You must despise the stock market and entrepreneurship.

Not at all. I want to encourage entrepreneurship, but those who do not have the money to afford to start a business cannot become entrepreneurs. You have to have money to make money; those who would theoretically be the best business owners may not be able to acquire one due to the lack of money. Society would be more productive if those who were the smartest, hardest working, and most capable were the business owners, not the ones who have the most wealth, if the two happen in some circumstances not to be one and the same.

It's worth noting that I'm referring to education here, and promoting the opportunity to get a future job. Since the primary function of education is to equip people to get good jobs, the opportunity to get a good job should be as close to equal as possible for all, based soley on merit and not on income.

Government funded institutions such as public universities should do their best to encourage equal opportunity, since they are paid for by public tax dollars.

Private institutions are not subject to these same regulations directly. However, they do have an obligation to give others the opportunity to enjoy the same success as themselves, through taxation.

[Nym90]

Solely on merit and based on economic background are two different things.

On merit is my way; getting in on actual grades and accomplishments.

Yes, but merit is not necessarily reflected in grades. It's easier to get good grades if you come from a wealthy family. You have more resources at your disposal to help you get good grades, it isn't necessarily based on your own intelligence or hard work. You also are less likely to go without the basic necessities of life. Those who go without the basic necessities of life, such as food, shelter, good clothing, security from threat and harm, etc., have a much harder time succeeding in school.

[Nym90]

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.

The parents in DC certainly don't think so. Vouchers are a fine idea, but when you have a huge advertising campaign, and offers to a huge amount of the city's residents to utilize vouchers, and very little of those residents actually decide to use the vouchers -- you have a problem.

Exactly; often the problem is parents not instilling good education in their children as a core value from childhood. In this case, there is nothing the schools or government can do. Government can never make up for bad parenting; people must take responsibility for being good parents and not rely on government to bail them out.

[Nym90]

No, I mean real merit. As in, best educated.

Which, by the way, is also in the best interest of society.

I feel it's in the best interest of society for all to have equal opportunity to suceed based on their intelligence, creativity, and work ethic. This encourages people to think more and to work harder, rather than to be able to continue to earn lots of money solely on the laurels of theirs and their parents' past accomplishments.

As long as you have enough money and don't feel that you need more, you don't need to continue to work hard, but if you want to earn more than you have, you should have to be creative, intelligent, and hard working in order to do so.

[Nym90]

And I believe people's creativity is measured by other people. You can be hardworking at throwing rocks.

Grades should decide it.

I agree that creativity is measured by others. All 3 should be factors; obviously you should have to be hardworking at something that makes a positive contribution to society.