Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Seriously, what idiot needs to understand that placing education in CONTROL of the state is a bad idea?'
There is a difference between the state "PROMOTING" and "DICTATING" criteria for learning. One simply advises, the other programs.
The bigest problem with local or community control of education is the quality and oportunity for education would vary widely in this nation. Some areas (usually affluent wealthy metropolitan areas) would have world class education where kids would get something akin to one or two years of university education in high school. Whereas other areas rural, southern, poor or ghetto would be lucky to be taught basic skills like Dick and Jane level reading and maybe arthmetic. This can be illustrated by my father who grew up in SW Missouri in the Ozarks and after the Korean war wanted to use his G.I. Bill benefits to go to college and study engineering. He had to spend most of his first year at the Missouri School of Mines in Rolla Mo taking remedial courses because although he had a high school diploma the little high school school he went to didn't teach things like trigonometry or logarithms let alone calculus. He had to take remedial courses not because he was dumb but because he was handicapped living in a poor somewhat backward part of this nation. One of the great things the Federal government has done is bring up the standards and make it possible to offer kids in Oklahoma, Missouri or Arkansas the same chance as the kids in New York, Minnesota or California to get a good education.
Last edited by mwruckman; 09-06-2011 at 10:13 PM..
Location: Currently I physically reside on the 3rd planet from the sun
2,220 posts, read 1,879,348 times
Reputation: 886
Quote:
Originally Posted by mwruckman
The bigest problem with local or community control of education is the quality and oportunity for education would vary widely in this nation. Some areas (usually affluent wealthy metropolitan areas) would have world class education where kids would get something akin to one or two years of university education in high school. Whereas other areas rural, southern, poor or ghetto would be lucky to be taught basic skills like Dick and Jane level reading and maybe arthmetic. This can be illustrated by my father who grew up in SW Missouri in the Ozarks and after the Korean war wanted to use his G.I. Bill benefits to go to college and study engineering. He had to spend most of his first year at the Missouri School of Mines in Rolla Mo taking remedial courses because although he had a high school diploma the little high school school he went to didn't teach things like trigonometry or logarithms let alone calculus. He had to take remedial courses not because he was dumb but because he was handicapped living in a poor somewhat backward part of this nation. One of the great things the Federal government has done is bring up the standards and make it possible to offer kids in Oklahoma, Missouri or Arkansas the same chance as the kids in New York, Minnesota or California to get a good education.
I disagree.
I think if anything, the federalization and politization of education has taught us that throwing money at a problem certainly does not solve the problem.
Maybe I wasn't clear enough with my first reply to your post.
If you were interested in finding out my position on the issue, you would have at least asked for further clarification instead of making rash assumptions. My original post really didn't go into details about my opinion on axing the Dept. of Education.
Really, I think you were looking to create an argument that didn't even exist in the first place.
no interest in arguing with people on my side of the fence. there are way too many people on the other side to convert. going forward, if you're going to get antsy with people perhaps you should include your stance in the op.
It was one example as the other member mentioned something about the Feds trying to brainwash people with their curriculum. So, what are the so called dangerous ideas that the department is giving us?
keynesian economics is the most relevant to today's situation. we were taught that fdr's actions during the depression delivered us from the depression. doed only provides one side of that story and as a result most people see it as the govts responsibility to spend us out of our current economic malaise. it didn't work when roosevelt tried it and it won't work today. worse, when people are called out on this they then move to d-o-ed economic myth nr 2, that ww2 delivered us from the great depression! it did no such thing.
in a nutshell we've taught kids that in order to be prosperous govt should spend huge amounts on things which the market doesn't want enough to pay for itself. 2, when all else fails and we're still facing economic hell, go to war, with anyone, even aliens!
It's about <bleep>ing time that a Republican besides Ron Paul says this. We do not need this agency. Heck, just ask any lib on "no child left behind" national policy and you would think they were born again Republicans all of a sudden...
I think if anything, the federalization and politization of education has taught us that throwing money at a problem certainly does not solve the problem.
I think millions of poor whites and blacks who got a chance to go to a new fangled consolidated unified school district then on to the expanded public colleges and universities many with Pell grants or GI benefits all paid by money thrown at the problem of education by that government would not agree. An ignorant America in the 21st century isn't going to cut it. America needs to be exceptional --but not in its ignorance!
I think millions of poor whites and blacks who got a chance to go to a new fangled consolidated unified school district then on to the expanded public colleges and universities many with Pell grants or GI benefits all paid by money thrown at the problem of education by that government would not agree. An ignorant America in the 21st century isn't going to cut it. America needs to be exceptional --but not in its ignorance!
so poor whites and blacks never went to college before pell grants and gi benefits? i disagree, those who wanted to, really wanted to, found the money. we also need to consider that before pell grants, gi benefits and govt backed student loans, college was much cheaper than it is today.
college these days is about as relevant as a high school diploma 30 years ago. i don't think that having a college educated street sweeper with $50000 in student debts is ideal or will forward american exceptionalism. an america which has diverted all its resources into educating people in areas we don't need, won't create exceptionalism either.
We need to stop giving tax money to people..NO more Gov. programs. Our Tax money needs to go to infrastructure like our roads and what have you. No more free hand outs. If you want to go to college, get a job and pay for it yourself. No more grants, freebees because your aunt was African. Tired of that crap.
We need to stop giving tax money to people..NO more Gov. programs. Our Tax money needs to go to infrastructure like our roads and what have you. No more free hand outs. If you want to go to college, get a job and pay for it yourself. No more grants, freebees because your aunt was African. Tired of that crap.
infrastructure building by govts are govt programs!!!!!!!!! infrastructure spending can be done in the private sector too! this idea that only the govt can build roads is something which needs to be addressed. the only difference with govt roads and private sector roads is that in order for a road to be built in the private sector, their has to adequate demand for it or the potential for enough people to use said road. govts can spend millions building roads that very few people use. in other words, govt will spend the money where the private sector has deemed there not to be enough demand. if those roads were not built the people who use them would have to resort to alternatives.
Well, even a mormon, (oops, Bachman is a a generic moron) gets something right every now and then. Yes we need to axe the Dept. of Education - it is expensive and provides too many bureaucrats jobs in Washington, politicizes schools and does what government does best - creates stupid regulations and rules that cost money and hampers organizations from doing their jobs.
Delegate resposibility for schools back down to the state and local levels.
What makes you think that schools won't be politicized (aren't already politicized) at the state and local level without a national Dept. of Edu?
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
