US falls to average in education ranking

[Mott the Hoople]

Power the PEOPLE!!!!


And look where populism, and the belief that America should be a democracy rather than an enlightened republic, has gotten us as of year-end 2010.

But Republics need to be balanced out by populism and democracy. It holds the ruling class accountable to the people. Other wise what you end up with is a Republic that is ruled by an oligarchy and as Lincoln correctly pointed out, it has been the fate of all such Republics to have been destroyed from within by factions. Why? Becuase ultimately oligarchies are only concerned with the perogatives of their class and are not concerned with the needs of the people they govern.

 

[Mott the Hoople]

I must admit that if they made vouchers available only to lower income folks and came up with a concrete ceiling that was appropriate I'd be less likely to oppose them at this time. I wouldn't qualify for vouchers with the ceiling that I have in mind. I know I could cut some excess expenses to pay for my son's education if I didn't think the public school he attends was doing an adequate job. It is my belief that the best way for a person to overcome poverty is through education. With this in mind an opportunity would be given to the poorer in society to get a child out of a failing school if necessary. Under this circumstance is the only way I would ever think about supporting vouchers. And yes, my views on this have changed over the years....and may again.

Screw it. How about this idea. If a persons child doesn't perform as expected in school then the parents lose that dependant tax deduction for that year and until the child performance improves. That way we hold the people who need to be held accountable, the parents!

 

[FUCK THE POLICE]

When we were at the top in the world in education the top tax rate was 90%.

Want top education rates again?????

FUCKING PAY THE COST OF GOOD EDUCATION

90% taxes are more like a maximum wage policy than anything else. It's not the most effective rate for maintaining revenue. And these were federal, not state, rates during a time in which education was wholly paid for by the states. And these income rates actually didn't take in more than about 18%-20% of the GDP in revenue anyway, which is about what our current rates take in.

If a proposal comes in which can demonstrably improve performance but will cost money, I'm not going to be opposed to it. But spending money for the sake of spending money isn't going to get you far.

 

[FUCK THE POLICE]

The Scientists that actually sent those men to the moon, the real hardcore ones, that new their rocketry up one side and down the other, were mostly products of a German education system. Without the men from Penemunde the US space program would have been further behind. They came from a system that had ONE minister of education and ONE standard even all the way back then. The Prussian system was rigorous. So while there were alot of good American scientists at NASA, the best were men like Werner Von Braun and Gunter Wendt. "I vunder vhere Gunter vent?" One of my favorite lines from Apollo 13.

A single curriculum has one pretty big advantage. If you gather together all the brightest people in the nation as a whole and produce one curriculum, you're going to have much better results on average than if you gather together the brightest people in each local school district to design one. Then again, it depends on the people you put behind it, and whether they're really the brightest in the nation or just random beaurocrats.

However, I don't think a single curriculum is politically possible. Maybe we could design one standard curriculum and offer it as an option for states, or a model for them to base their curriculum around, but actually tying federal money to that probably wouldn't fly. I think that, at the least, we should try to reform the state systems so that they're more centralized, so the education system isn't beholden to five or so batshit crazy and completely unqualified neighbors you have that randomly decided to run for the school board.

 

[Mott the Hoople]

You're totally wrong.

We sent people to the moon without any Department of Education, or unionized schools. We did a lot without them. Sense they've come around they've turned out people like you who worship the very idea of big govt.

Parents are to busy working to pay taxes in addition to trying to provide for their family for no other reason than bad policies made by politicians.

The Department of Education is Marxism anyway. There's nothing good about Marxism. Nothing at all. You arguing about it makes you look like an uneducated ding dong. It's just the same as someone saying that serial killing pedophiles are great people, and should be tolerated. And your phobia about religion is no reason to embrace Marxism, or Communisim.

The Department of Education does nothing to educate kids. They only make educating them harder.

That's just complete and total empty rhetoric and it's utterly devoid of fact. Ya'll just want to hold eveyone and their brother accountable for the decline in science and math education in this nation but the people who need to be held responsible. Parents!

First the Dept. of Education goes back to 1867. It's primary role then, as now, was to collect national data about education and teaching so as to provide standards that would promote affective education in this nation. It just didn't become a cabinet level agency until 1980.

Let's be clear about the agenda of those who want to get rid of the Dept. of Education. They want to get rid of the department of education because they oppose current educational standards, particularly science standards, and want to be able to replace those with religiously driven standards that violate our constitutional law. Their second agenda for getting rid of the Dept. of Education is so that can be free to deny access to a quality education to groups and individuals they would prefer to see not educated. Thats the primary agenda that most white southern conservatives have for opposing and wanting to eliminate the Dept of Education.

Thank God we do have a Dept of Education to enforce the law and educational standards and equal access to affective education for our citizens. I can think of no group more hell bent on undermining science education and access to a quality education for minorities and the poor then conservative ideologues.

 

[leaningright]

Despite the use of bat@#$% I had to thank that post Watermark. At this time we have 3 such neighbors and on the board and likely will get a fourth after the next election. With "support" like this it is hard to remain an objective educator...who am I kidding, it is hard to remain an educator, period.

 

[Mott the Hoople]

The Scientists that actually sent those men to the moon, the real hardcore ones, that new their rocketry up one side and down the other, were mostly products of a German education system. Without the men from Penemunde the US space program would have been further behind. They came from a system that had ONE minister of education and ONE standard even all the way back then. The Prussian system was rigorous. So while there were alot of good American scientists at NASA, the best were men like Werner Von Braun and Gunter Wendt. "I vunder vhere Gunter vent?" One of my favorite lines from Apollo 13.

That's exactly correct. They jumped started our space technology. The American scientist and engineers whom followed were a product of the National Defense Education Act which provided Federal education programs and aid in order to ensure that highly trained scientist and engineers would be available to help American compete with the Sovliets. It also enforced national educational standards for science and math curriculum in our public schools at the primary and secondary level.

 

[Mott the Hoople]

I've been reading the posts of pinheads on this site (and others) for a few years now
and there is no way the US is even close to average in education or intelligence in general.....not if what I see online is any indication of it.....

LOL LOL LOL Don't feed me straight lines Bravo! LOL LOL LOL

 

[leaningright]

Let's be clear about the agenda of those who want to get rid of the Dept. of Education. They want to get rid of the department of education because they oppose current educational standards, particularly science standards, and want to be able to replace those with religiously driven standards that violate our constitutional law. Their second agenda for getting rid of the Dept. of Education is so that can be free to deny access to a quality education to groups and individuals they would prefer to see not educated. Thats the primary agenda that most white southern conservatives have for opposing and wanting to eliminate the Dept of Education.

As you might suspect, I simply do not agree with this part of your post. While I will give you that there are some who don't like the Dept. of Education for the reasons you state I do not believe that these folks make up the bulk of the opposition.

Many of the opposers of the Dept. of Educ. oppose them because so much of the time the Board and much of the Department are made up of non-educators....people who have never spent a day in the classroom trying to teach. Thus the goals and standards they put forth are completely unrealistic given the make-up of the current classroom. This is true, IMO at both the national and the state level.

Oklahoma is as conservative a state as you can get. We've got so many Republicans on our Board and in our State Department you can't throw a dead cat without hitting one...or two or three. They have to power to change the way Science is taught and have had for some time. They haven't made anything mandatory to this point. I don't like them because they continue to set unrealistic goals, tie funding to those goals and never change the make-up of the classroom to make achieving those goals realistic. They have been starving school districts in our state for quite some time...especially smaller ones.

As I have typed this I got to thinking that maybe we're talking about two different types of people who don't like the Dept. of Educ. Those of us who oppose the make-up of such a Department and as a result would like to change it and those who want to eliminate it entirely. On that basis, you may be partly right with your conclusion.

 

[tinfoil]

When we were at the top in the world in education the top tax rate was 90%.

Want top education rates again?????

FUCKING PAY THE COST OF GOOD EDUCATION

You are a simpleton.
Get the education hiring and firing out of the control of unions who only have incentive to raise the costs

the stupid liberals, like deshbot here, are economic retards who think the answer is always more money. The problem is a conflict of interest.
fox and hen house

Try to understand the real problem, you idiot

 

[Mott the Hoople]

As you might suspect, I simply do not agree with this part of your post. While I will give you that there are some who don't like the Dept. of Education for the reasons you state I do not believe that these folks make up the bulk of the opposition.

Many of the opposers of the Dept. of Educ. oppose them because so much of the time the Board and much of the Department are made up of non-educators....people who have never spent a day in the classroom trying to teach. Thus the goals and standards they put forth are completely unrealistic given the make-up of the current classroom. This is true, IMO at both the national and the state level.

Oklahoma is as conservative a state as you can get. We've got so many Republicans on our Board and in our State Department you can't throw a dead cat without hitting one...or two or three. They have to power to change the way Science is taught and have had for some time. They haven't made anything mandatory to this point. I don't like them because they continue to set unrealistic goals, tie funding to those goals and never change the make-up of the classroom to make achieving those goals realistic. They have been starving school districts in our state for quite some time...especially smaller ones.

As I have typed this I got to thinking that maybe we're talking about two different types of people who don't like the Dept. of Educ. Those of us who oppose the make-up of such a Department and as a result would like to change it and those who want to eliminate it entirely. On that basis, you may be partly right with your conclusion.

No I'm aware of those criticisms of the DOE and I'm not at all opposed to reform. I'm merely pointing out the agenda of those who advocate the elimination of the DOE.

Part of the problem I have with the DOE is that many of it's members don't seem to be able to keep up or cope with the technological changes that have occured in the last 20 years and how they have impacted education. Reform I can see but eliminate it? That would be insane.

 

[FUCK THE POLICE]

Despite the use of bat@#$% I had to thank that post Watermark. At this time we have 3 such neighbors and on the board and likely will get a fourth after the next election. With "support" like this it is hard to remain an objective educator...who am I kidding, it is hard to remain an educator, period.

If it's really such a problem to you for me to curse I'll try not to do it around you. I've gotten to the point where they're just normal words to me, and they probably don't have the same meaning to me that they do to you.

 

[Socrtease]

Like any other welfare program, the rich wouldn't qualify.

Then the voucher system would be unconstitutional. Vouchers, the way they are envisioned today, would allow any parent of ANY student to take the money that would have been used for that student and put it towards a education anywhere including private schools. You could not allow only lower and middle income kids to have access to the money, and there is no voucher systems suggested today that would condition vouchers on income. That being said, I might actually be coming around to vouchers. I was reading about the DC voucher system that DEMS killed last year and it is very successful. Also, when you look at the amount of money spent on public education in DC per student it is actually about 2k more than the actual tuition paid by students at Sidwell, where the first children attend school. Also, the average tuition for private school in the US is just under $6k. I guess my only apprehension now is what kids in very rural isolated towns do with a voucher. Here in NM and I imagine Arizona, Utah, West Texas etc, there are towns with one elementary school, one middle school and one high school. These towns are 60 miles or more from the next nearest town with one high school one elementary school and one middle school. No one is going to open a private school in say Lordsburg NM with a population of less than 5000. So if those schools suck, they just have to live with it. Most families can't afford to move across town let alone to a new city to change schools. So in rural areas vouchers serve no one. So they are primarily going to advantage those children that live in smaller states and Urban areas.

 

[Canceled2]

Then the voucher system would be unconstitutional. Vouchers, the way they are envisioned today, would allow any parent of ANY student to take the money that would have been used for that student and put it towards a education anywhere including private schools. You could not allow only lower and middle income kids to have access to the money, and there is no voucher systems suggested today that would condition vouchers on income. That being said, I might actually be coming around to vouchers. I was reading about the DC voucher system that DEMS killed last year and it is very successful. Also, when you look at the amount of money spent on public education in DC per student it is actually about 2k more than the actual tuition paid by students at Sidwell, where the first children attend school. Also, the average tuition for private school in the US is just under $6k. I guess my only apprehension now is what kids in very rural isolated towns do with a voucher. Here in NM and I imagine Arizona, Utah, West Texas etc, there are towns with one elementary school, one middle school and one high school. These towns are 60 miles or more from the next nearest town with one high school one elementary school and one middle school. No one is going to open a private school in say Lordsburg NM with a population of less than 5000. So if those schools suck, they just have to live with it. Most families can't afford to move across town let alone to a new city to change schools. So in rural areas vouchers serve no one. So they are primarily going to advantage those children that live in smaller states and Urban areas.

It would not be "unconstitutional" to have vouchers work with the same criteria that are used for other income based programs.

Charter schools have proven that even in rural areas with small populations schools are created. The reason is that the budget of running a private school or charter school is so much smaller. Too, many online and distance learning programs are available as well. The fact of the matter is that education has been so uniformly stifled by the public school model that people just can't imagine something else.

 

[Bonestorm]

It would not be "unconstitutional" to have vouchers work with the same criteria that are used for other income based programs.

Charter schools have proven that even in rural areas with small populations schools are created. The reason is that the budget of running a private school or charter school is so much smaller. Too, many online and distance learning programs are available as well. The fact of the matter is that education has been so uniformly stifled by the public school model that people just can't imagine something else.

Who would issue the vouchers and run your voucher program?

Education has been stifled not by the "public school model" but because there ain't much money to be made at it.

 

[Phantasmal]

Isn't that the truth, privatize it and watch that change!

 

[Canceled2]

Who would issue the vouchers and run your voucher program?

Education has been stifled not by the "public school model" but because there ain't much money to be made at it.

That's BS. For years when teachers really were underpaid we had great scores and smaller drop-out rates.

In fact the amount of money unions make off of public education makes them one of the most powerful unions today!

Here is an interesting interview with Milton Friedman
[excerpt]-Mr. Friedman: They don't, we have been doing that. The amount of money spent per child adjusted for inflation has something like doubled or tripled over the last 20 years. Twenty years ago we had this report A Nation at Risk that pointed out all of the difficulties I just referred to and which pointed out this was a first generation that was going to be less schooled then its parents. We are now in the next generation and will be even less well schooled. We have had every possible effort you could have from reform from within. It is not just in schools it is in any area reform has to come from outside it has to come from competition. Let me illustrate that from within the school system. the united states from all accounts ranks #1 in higher education people from all over the world regard the United States colleges and universities the best and most varied. On the other hand in every other international comparison we rank near the bottom in elementary and secondary education why the difference?...one word..choice. The elementary and secondary education the school picks the child it picks its customer. In higher education the customer picks its school, you have choice that makes all the difference in the world. It means competition forces product. Look over the rest of the economy is there any area in the u.s. in which progress has not required progress from the outside. Look at the telephone industry when it was broken down into the little bells and opened up the competition it started a period of rapid innovation and development the key word is competition and the question is how can you get competition. only by having the customer choosing.

 

[Phantasmal]

These were from the years that people were less greedy.

 

[Bonestorm]

That's BS. For years when teachers really were underpaid we had great scores and smaller drop-out rates.

In fact the amount of money unions make off of public education makes them one of the most powerful unions today!

Here is an interesting interview with Milton Friedman
[excerpt]-Mr. Friedman: They don't, we have been doing that. The amount of money spent per child adjusted for inflation has something like doubled or tripled over the last 20 years. Twenty years ago we had this report A Nation at Risk that pointed out all of the difficulties I just referred to and which pointed out this was a first generation that was going to be less schooled then its parents. We are now in the next generation and will be even less well schooled. We have had every possible effort you could have from reform from within. It is not just in schools it is in any area reform has to come from outside it has to come from competition. Let me illustrate that from within the school system. the united states from all accounts ranks #1 in higher education people from all over the world regard the United States colleges and universities the best and most varied. On the other hand in every other international comparison we rank near the bottom in elementary and secondary education why the difference?...one word..choice. The elementary and secondary education the school picks the child it picks its customer. In higher education the customer picks its school, you have choice that makes all the difference in the world. It means competition forces product. Look over the rest of the economy is there any area in the u.s. in which progress has not required progress from the outside. Look at the telephone industry when it was broken down into the little bells and opened up the competition it started a period of rapid innovation and development the key word is competition and the question is how can you get competition. only by having the customer choosing.

First, if you think that teaching is the occupational choice of those wishing to make lots of money you really ought to have you head examined. Second, teachers don't really make all that much money as compared to other occupational groups. Third, whether teachers earn high salaries is not relevant to whether there is lots of money to be made in education. If anyone wanted to open a business for the purpose of making money, opening a school would not rank high on the list. That's my point.

On Milton Friedman, I don't really care about his theories on education.

 

[Canceled2]

First, if you think that teaching is the occupational choice of those wishing to make lots of money you really ought to have you head examined. Second, teachers don't really make all that much money as compared to other occupational groups. Third, whether teachers earn high salaries is not relevant to whether there is lots of money to be made in education. If anyone wanted to open a business for the purpose of making money, opening a school would not rank high on the list. That's my point.

On Milton Friedman, I don't really care about his theories on education.

I never said that teaching was a career path for the money minded. I pointed out that public education had lots of money and power. Teachers have an average income...That said this income also has a nice vacation period(s) ABOVE that of most private sector jobs and way better retirement and healthcare bennifits. Your point is invalid.

Marketplace economics theory is based on supply and demand. Where there is demand supply (private schools) will increase. An average size private k-8 in a small town in rural WA with a private school size of 500 students, using a vocuher in the amt. of 4000.00 per student, would be 2 million dollars for that school- do you see the math? Understand that private school budgets are about 3 times smaller then public school budgets and you can see why competion would happen. This amount is actually much smaller, but I used it for easy calculations- for instance the national average of per student spending is 9963.00

*Staff of 18 teachers (810k); a secretary(35k); a principle(85k) and the cost of operating facilities (24k-2k monthly) would cost less then 1 million dollars.

There is the purchase of the facility (not included in costs) which would be paid for in short order.

*This includes a higher then average salary for a private teachers typical salary.