Issue '04: Education

[ATFFL]

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.

[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.

[Bandit3 the Worker]

Private schools have time and time again been proven superior to their public counterparts.

Thank you for proving that you are a complete loon.

[A18]

What the  are you talking about?

This is exactly what I mean. Idiot Democrats want more idiot Democrats.

[MODU]

None of the above.

Schools grade K-8 should be general education, providing all the basics: Math, English, Art, History, PE.

Grades 9-10 are development years, transitioning them from learning to thinking.  Applying the skills learned in the prior years into problem solving and character development.

Grades 11-12 are college prep years.  Advanced skills, independent thought work, student involvement (ie - student teaching, etc).

That way, if the kids leave high school and not go into college, they'll be further off in life.  Additionally, schools will no longer be funded solely by federal funding.  Each school will be co-sponsored by corporations working within the state they exist.  Corporate annual allotments will be tax exempt donations, so both companies and kids will benefit from this goodwill.  This will allow to qualified instructors to be hired without taking away operational funding from the schools themselves.  In addition, Bush's NCLB educational requirements will be enacted (though refined) to ensure that kids are meeting the required educational requirements before moving on to the next grade.  Kida failing to meet those requirements will receive afterschool tutoring.  (more details after I'm elected supreme ruler of the world.)  

[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.

[MODU]

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.

[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.

[A18]

Anyone who does not support eliminating affirmative action should be eliminated affirmatively.

[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....

[A18]

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!

[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.

[A18]

Brilliant.

While we're at it, why don't we affirmatively take action in order to ensure that people's IQs can't help them!

The problem with liberals is they're okay with someone being wealthy, as long as it doesn't benefit them in any way. If that happens, it's unfair.

McDonalds should do a background check on each of its customers...say, a two week wait until you get a hamburger license. In fact, let's nationalize that license for all fast food restaurants and force them to use it. Then, if you buy a Big Mac, it should clearly depend on how much money you have. After all, you have more money to pay, so obviously you should pay more.
Now, what should the prices be? Let's nationalize that too so that businesses don't corrupt things. One plain hamburger will be, by net worth-

below $50k: 10 cents (+1 for cheese)
$50-60 k: 25 cents (+2 for cheese)
$61-70 k: 37 cents (+3 for cheese)
...
above $5 mil: $7,000 ($500 for cheese)

I'm enjoying this affirmative action stuff. We need to affirmatively take action in order to ensure that people who want to affirmatively take action learn that the whole point to being wealthy is actually HAVING that wealth.

$5 mil does nothing for you when a cheeseburger costs $7,000. Yet this is the ultimate conclusion to your logic.

In other words, you think no one should be allowed to have a higher form of wealth. See, normally when you have wealth, you think that means it can get you stuff. Every dollar should be worth a dollar; you are effectively taking wealth away from people that they ALREADY have.

Now, once I get my $50,000 shoes I guess I'll enjoy all this money.

...But wait, that's right! Now it makes no difference! I THINK I'LL BUY A CHEESEBURGER AND $1,500 FRIES!

When you have a dollar, that should be your dollar. It should be a stake in the national wealth. But the dollar has no worth if it's not accepted, so now we're going to take it away once people already have it.

Anyway, go ahead and ask Burger King for your $35 cent hamburger next time you swing buy. If they don't comply, take affirmative action.

[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.

[A18]

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.

[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.

[A18]

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.

[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.

[A18]

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.

[John Dibble]

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.

[A18]

Life isn't fair, but it isn't unfair either. You live, and you have to build you own life.

[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.

[A18]

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.

[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.