Texas - Great for business, bad for kids (Houston, West: home, public schools)

[TXStrat]

Originally Posted by radiolibre99

Explorer I'm actually not of the opinion that the home environment is the primary issue. Nor do I think all poor children are born into dysfunctional families. There are plenty of children in happy homes but whose parents struggle financially. The conservative viewpoint is flawed, yet I also believe the conventional liberal position about more spending is too. The issue is more systemic, the issue is poverty, period. You can spend a lot on education but if the child still goes home to a struggling household, his grades might suffer as a result.

As a fiscal conservative, but more liberal on social issues guy, I can agree with this. It isn't just a one or the other problem. It's a systemic solution. I grew up in a working class family in the mid-west, and I remember my folks struggling financially from time to time. Part of being a blue collar family in the Rust Belt. That said, family life was happy, not dysfunctional. There was a premium placed on education primarily so that us kids had a chance at a better life. There is no denying that many influences from a student's environment can effect grades. Dysfunctional family life, poverty, food insecurity, transient lifestyle based on parental employment (traveling union work, seasonal work, etc.) all can have an effect.

[explorer2014]

Originally Posted by radiolibre99

Explorer I'm actually not of the opinion that the home environment is the primary issue. Nor do I think all poor children are born into dysfunctional families. There are plenty of children in happy homes but whose parents struggle financially. The conservative viewpoint is flawed, yet I also believe the conventional liberal position about more spending is too. The issue is more systemic, the issue is poverty, period. You can spend a lot on education but if the child still goes home to a struggling household, his grades might suffer as a result.

No disagreement from me. Both are true. I think a supportive home environment is fundamental to a child's success. A child who lives in a chaotic environment with negligible parental support of their education will have a much tougher time making the most of their educational opportunities.

The problem is that so many people want to say that money won't solve the problem. It's true that money alone can't make a child take advantage of education. But lack of money makes it difficult to provide a decent educational opportunity.

The current tea party agenda of defunding public education is a bad idea because you cannot provide an effective education without resources. So unless you believe that having a large uneducated populace is a good idea, the only solution is to impose taxes and fund public education.

[explorer2014]

Originally Posted by TXStrat

I would not agree that the tea party rhetoric has damaged anything outside their own brand. Most people that pay any attention to politics can differentiate between the tea party and main stream Republicans and/or conservatives. It's really only the liberal/progressive camp that tries to lump them all together to use one of their gross generalizations as an attack in attempts to sway voters that don't pay attention. See also War on Women, and opposition to the President's agenda = racism for recent examples of this tactic.

Neither ideology has a monopoly on stupid or lazy.

I don't agree. I think the crazies of the tea party, along with people like Ted Cruz and his comments about 'abolishing the IRS' have done untold damage in two ways. First, they have damaged the conservative brand because they create a perfect straw man that is easy to demolish. When people like Ted Cruz and Rand Paul open their mouths, they provide immediate fodder for the media to bash Republicans and conservative causes.

Second, they have split the conservative group into warring tribes that have inflicted damage on each other. Do you not think that the warring between the Republican contenders hurt Mitt Romney? I will give you one piece of anecdotal evidence. I know someone at the further end of conservative. I have no clue how he voted but at some point he was openly ranting that he would not vote for Mitt Romney because he was not conservative enough. I do hope he is enjoying the 'conservative' that he got from President Obama.

[TXStrat]

Originally Posted by explorer2014

I don't agree. I think the crazies of the tea party, along with people like Ted Cruz and his comments about 'abolishing the IRS' have done untold damage in two ways. First, they have damaged the conservative brand because they create a perfect straw man that is easy to demolish. When people like Ted Cruz and Rand Paul open their mouths, they provide immediate fodder for the media to bash Republicans and conservative causes.

Second, they have split the conservative group into warring tribes that have inflicted damage on each other. Do you not think that the warring between the Republican contenders hurt Mitt Romney? I will give you one piece of anecdotal evidence. I know someone at the further end of conservative. I have no clue how he voted but at some point he was openly ranting that he would not vote for Mitt Romney because he was not conservative enough. I do hope he is enjoying the 'conservative' that he got from President Obama.

To clarify your comments, it bears mentioning the Cruz and Paul were elected during the feverish height of the tea party apogee. They both identify as tea party folks. What straw man would you be talking about? A good conservative candidate with sound ideas for fixing the economy could withstand both the criticism and shouts of RINO from the tea party folks, and could easily distance himself from that contingent with the media. Conservatives need to learn to roll up their sleeves and fight back when the left gets lazy and slings the mud of the fictitious war on women and the utterly stupid allegations of racism. Good example of this recently would be Dick Durbin talking about Republicans putting Lynch at 'the back of the bus'. Durbin, predictably, ignores the fact that he himself delayed the confirmation of Condi Rice and filibustered the appointment of Janice Rogers Brown, and derailed the appointment of Miguel Estrada filibustering him no less than seven times.

[radiolibre99]

Originally Posted by explorer2014

No disagreement from me. Both are true. I think a supportive home environment is fundamental to a child's success. A child who lives in a chaotic environment with negligible parental support of their education will have a much tougher time making the most of their educational opportunities.

The problem is that so many people want to say that money won't solve the problem. It's true that money alone can't make a child take advantage of education. But lack of money makes it difficult to provide a decent educational opportunity.

The current tea party agenda of defunding public education is a bad idea because you cannot provide an effective education without resources. So unless you believe that having a large uneducated populace is a good idea, the only solution is to impose taxes and fund public education.

I do believe money can solve the problem but spread around different services from health care, housing, and job assistance. The big issue is also the lack of jobs, training programs, and low wages. We have a habit in this country of separating issues, atomizing them and acting as though there's no connection to one another.

[HeadedWest]

Originally Posted by radiolibre99

... if I read conservative jargon correctly, ...

You've identified your problem - lack of reading comprehension.

[HeadedWest]

Originally Posted by radiolibre99

... trying to remedy social ills (usually caused by the externalities of big business)...

Unproven assertion.

[HeadedWest]

Originally Posted by explorer2014

Midway was also able to issue bonds to provide ipads to each high school student

Almost surely a waste of money. The notion that some kind of magical expensive device will solve education problems is pervasive, and wrong.

It's not about the equipment you have. It's about your brain. And even the most expensive and elite public schools in the US do a lousy job.

It's been said that the public schools in the US are run for the benefit of the administrators and teachers unions, not the students. I'm not sure I buy that fully, but there is some truth there.

[explorer2014]

Originally Posted by HeadedWest

Almost surely a waste of money. The notion that some kind of magical expensive device will solve education problems is pervasive, and wrong.

It's not about the equipment you have. It's about your brain. And even the most expensive and elite public schools in the US do a lousy job.

It's been said that the public schools in the US are run for the benefit of the administrators and teachers unions, not the students. I'm not sure I buy that fully, but there is some truth there.

Yeah we should not bother with computers or technology. They don't achieve anything we can't do without em and kids won't use them in the real world. We really shouldn't even have calculators. Just a waste of money.

[explorer2014]

Originally Posted by TXStrat

A good conservative candidate with sound ideas for fixing the economy could withstand both the criticism and shouts of RINO from the tea party folks, and could easily distance himself from that s.

How'd that work out for Mitt Romney? Passing up Romney for Obama was probably the greatest mistake ever made in this country.