An Idealist's Solution to the Major Problem in the US

[boedicca]

yep, the US should be the only developed country without a public education system. that's a solution to the biggest concerns in the land.

Why does public education have to mean Federalized and Centralized?

What we're doing now isn't working. Doing more of the same won't fix anything.

Study after study shows that the students who do best have parents who are responsible and active in their education (i.e., checking - not doing - homework, reading to them, going to school events). It's time to return authority and responsibility to the local level, and choice of schools to parents.

As a side note, one of my best friends is a school psychologist in a relatively wealthy school district. Over the years, I've heard numerous anecdotes regarding the increasing compliance burden for receiving federal money. The amount of school resources expended on such compliance is out of control - and does nothing to improve the educational experience in the classroom.

 

[California Girl]

I am thinking about your OP. If teenage pregnancy is the major problem, why not simply make access to abortion easier?

It would be more effective to solve the problem as you perceive it.

It's not the children we need to get rid of, it's the low expectations of those children. We actually NEED a decent birth rate.... just not kids of 14/15/16.... Abortion isn't the answer - and I think you actually know that. I think you just don't want to address the ideas so you resort to stupidity instead. That's fine, you're welcome to do that. But it makes you look pretty ******* stupid.

As I perceived your OP, I understood it to view teenage pregnancy as the major factor behind poverty.

If that is not it (solely) and it is actually "low expectations" the problem becomes even more subjective and solutions become even more "pie in the sky".

Nope, not pregnancy - low expectations, habit, a lack of a sense of a place or value to society... These solutions are not 'pie in the sky'.... they are actually workable solutions. We could trial it in one state and adapt the overall scheme, tweak it and roll it out to other states.

It is an actual solution rather than a partisan talking point.

 

[California Girl]

yep, the US should be the only developed country without a public education system. that's a solution to the biggest concerns in the land.

Again, you are reading into my OP things that are NOT there. Could you concentrate on what I actually said and not what you think I said.

I said nothing about scrapping public education - in fact, I am totally convince we need it. I think we could do it better.

 

[antagon]

yep, the US should be the only developed country without a public education system. that's a solution to the biggest concerns in the land.

Why does public education have to mean Federalized and Centralized?

What we're doing now isn't working. Doing more of the same won't fix anything.

Study after study shows that the students who do best have parents who are responsible and active in their education (i.e., checking - not doing - homework, reading to them, going to school events). It's time to return authority and responsibility to the local level, and choice of schools to parents.

As a side note, one of my best friends is a school psychologist in a relatively wealthy school district. Over the years, I've heard numerous anecdotes regarding the increasing compliance burden for receiving federal money. The amount of school resources expended on such compliance is out of control - and does nothing to improve the educational experience in the classroom.

US education would be improved if public schools would comply with federal standards and methods, but they dont. literacy and functional literacy, for example, would be improved if the federally suggested phonics approach were adopted instead of the look-say bullshit which your idealized local and state institutions have favored. education is in the purview of local governments as it is. public education is determined by state and local governments this is the root of the issues in american education from an administrative and curriculum perspective. increasing the grip which these lessor-informed clowns have on the ed system is not the solution. it is the problem.

 

[boedicca]

Nonsense.

The correlation is obvious. As Federal Control and spending hae increased, the quality and effectiveness of public education has declined.

As Einstein noted about insanity....

 

[antagon]

yep, the US should be the only developed country without a public education system. that's a solution to the biggest concerns in the land.

Again, you are reading into my OP things that are NOT there. Could you concentrate on what I actually said and not what you think I said.

I said nothing about scrapping public education - in fact, I am totally convince we need it. I think we could do it better.

i was responding to boe's comment directly preceding the above sarcasm.


i'd agree that education could be improved and suggest social education to better utilize our schools as a vector for the american work ethic and sense of ambition. that will just be the icing, though. here is what i'd suggested in reply to the OP:

http://www.usmessageboard.com/general-discussion/132432-an-idealists-solution-to-the-major-problem-in-the-us.html#post2725133

 

[California Girl]

yep, the US should be the only developed country without a public education system. that's a solution to the biggest concerns in the land.

Again, you are reading into my OP things that are NOT there. Could you concentrate on what I actually said and not what you think I said.

I said nothing about scrapping public education - in fact, I am totally convince we need it. I think we could do it better.

i was responding to boe's comment directly preceding the above sarcasm.


i'd agree that education could be improved and suggest social education to better utilize our schools as a vector for the american work ethic and sense of ambition. that will just be the icing, though. here is what i'd suggested in reply to the OP:

http://www.usmessageboard.com/general-discussion/132432-an-idealists-solution-to-the-major-problem-in-the-us.html#post2725133

I agree. It's kind of where I see the private sector being of assistance. My theory being that if we get young, employed, people as mentors and the companies that those people work for give their employees paid time to participate - as part of a program - run by the state - the employers could be given tax incentives to encourage them to allow employees to participate... Those young, successful people could teach children what it's like to work, help them with basic education, and generally act as role models for kids.... Something achievable for them to strive towards and someone outside their family who gives a shit what happens to them.

 

[editec]

Let me cut right to your proposal and address that, okay?

We need to enforce education on young people. It’s not an optional extra.

Okay, your goal is to educate children even if they don't WANT to be educated, Got it.



So you believe that government must take on this problem. Got it.





Okay you've gone back to telling us why we must do this. No solution to be found here.






Okay, so we stop sending them the roughly $400 a month they get. Got it





What alternatives? What program? Where is your idealistic proposal? I'm not seeing any proposals.





Aren't the above suggestions WELFARE?

I'm confused. I thought you wanted to cut them off from welfare.

We need them to LEARN a better way.

Yes I agree.

How?

You haven't offered a single path to how we do that.

You proposed that we cut off welfare and then you proposed to give them welfare.

Learn to read, and comprehend what is written - not what you think I have written.

I did not say withdraw welfare. I said "no more welfare for the next kid".See the difference? Not stop it for the kids they have - that would be ridiculous. But, make it clear there is no extra for any further kids.

I think a more effective suggestion might be to offer them cash incentives to be sterilized. I mean given that few of this (mostly) single mothers have absolutely no skills suited to making a living, at least that system will actually prevent them from bring more children into the world that they cannot support.

Also, I specifically said I think the private sector can take on a huge role in this. Not just by funding the programs (for profit - ie, we pay them back their investment - and pay a percentage from the savings made).

Forgive me. I don't understand your point. Can you clarify it for me.

Funding what programs?

As a short term, we will need to provide support of those young parents - not as a permanent thing - as a short term patch while we fix the main problem. How stupid can one individual be cuz you seem incapable of understanding basic English.

Right now the limit for welfare is five years. Are you proposing that we make that period shorter?

Yea, I do want to force education on kids. If you are happy paying for kids to remain uneducated then you're a ******* moron.

How? How do you FORCE kids to get an education, exactly?

You have completely missed the whole ******* point. That's not my poor choice of words - because other people understood it. I guess you must be one of the people I'm talking about forcing education on.... an idiot.

Possibly I am not educated enough to understand your ideas, yes.

Which is why I continue to ask you questions about specifics like for example, how does one FORCE children to study in school.

Clearly you must know what you meant.

You just neglected to tell us in details that poor under-educated me could understand.

I'm sure it must be my fault, but I still don't really understand how anything you proposed will work in the real world.

I await your further clarification and ask your patience explaining it to dumb little me, okay?

 

[antagon]

Nonsense.

The correlation is obvious. As Federal Control and spending hae increased, the quality and effectiveness of public education has declined.

As Einstein noted about insanity....

federal control has not increased. the constitution still isolates your beloved but incompetent state governments from direct federal influence. this is why the majority of states still adhere to the look-say method repeatedly shown in congressional inquests and independent studies to be inferior from the fed standard phonics system. the state solution: the whole language method. more state-adopted 'innovation' which fails to produce results.

einstein's axiom does not work in your favor in light of states being wholly responsible for their education systems and the extreme costs which they extort from the tax-funded federal largess and the municipal bond market.

once you educate yourself on the state-to-state failures in education, you would be better placed to pretend you know what you are talking about. until that time, your partisan states' rights one-size-fits-all solution don't fit. sorry.

 

[California Girl]

Let me cut right to your proposal and address that, okay?

Okay, your goal is to educate children even if they don't WANT to be educated, Got it.

So you believe that government must take on this problem. Got it.

Okay you've gone back to telling us why we must do this. No solution to be found here.

Okay, so we stop sending them the roughly $400 a month they get. Got it

What alternatives? What program? Where is your idealistic proposal? I'm not seeing any proposals.

Aren't the above suggestions WELFARE?

I'm confused. I thought you wanted to cut them off from welfare.

Yes I agree.

How?

You haven't offered a single path to how we do that.

You proposed that we cut off welfare and then you proposed to give them welfare.

Learn to read, and comprehend what is written - not what you think I have written.

I did not say withdraw welfare. I said "no more welfare for the next kid".See the difference? Not stop it for the kids they have - that would be ridiculous. But, make it clear there is no extra for any further kids.

I think a more effective suggestion might be to offer them cash incentives to be sterilized. I mean given that few of this (mostly) single mothers have absolutely no skills suited to making a living, at least that system will actually prevent them from bring more children into the world that they cannot support.

Forgive me. I don't understand your point. Can you clarify it for me.

Funding what programs?

Right now the limit for welfare is five years. Are you proposing that we make that period shorter?

Yea, I do want to force education on kids. If you are happy paying for kids to remain uneducated then you're a ******* moron.

How? How do you FORCE kids to get an edcuation, exactly?

You have completely missed the whole ******* point. That's not my poor choice of words - because other people understood it. I guess you must be one of the people I'm talking about forcing education on.... an idiot.

Possibly I am not educated enough to understand your ideas, yes.

Which is why I continue to ask you questions about specifics like for example, how does one FORCE children to study in school.

Clearly you must know what you meant.

You just neglected to tell us in details that poor under-educated me could understand.

I'm sure it must be my fault, but I still don't really understand how anything you proposed will work in the real world.

I await your further clarification and ask your patience explaining it to dumb little me, okay?

Oh, right.... I see.... You expect me to provide ALL the answers to each stupid whine that everyone comes up with. I get it now... it's not a discussion.... it's a teaching moment.

It can work.... it's not a new idea - it's a slightly different twist on projects that are already being looked at in Britain. If Britain (the original Nanny state - maybe not technically but certainly top in MY opinion). If they can see the need to urgently address this societal issue, should we not also look at it? They are trialling a project in a prison to get young offenders out of the crime cycle. It's a great idea, it's being paid for by a charity.... who will get their investment back - plus a bonus.... There's a book about it.... about providing services smarter and getting private sector investment to pay for it. Obviously, we will need to put the recession behind us to some extent but, rather than bitching about it, perhaps you might open that ******* mind of yours and think outside the box as to how we could make something similar work here.... targeted at young offenders, targeted at young parents, targeted at the children of those parents. The current 'welfare' system isn't working - maybe we can find a better way.

 

[antagon]

I agree. It's kind of where I see the private sector being of assistance. My theory being that if we get young, employed, people as mentors and the companies that those people work for give their employees paid time to participate - as part of a program - run by the state - the employers could be given tax incentives to encourage them to allow employees to participate... Those young, successful people could teach children what it's like to work, help them with basic education, and generally act as role models for kids.... Something achievable for them to strive towards and someone outside their family who gives a shit what happens to them.

i've suggested directly addressing demand for labor in the domestic market because i feel that is the underlying cause for dependence on welfare and the likelihood that someone would see teenage pregnancy in the positive light which those in your cycle do. as a business owner, i would much prefer the support for employment rather than the burden of having to encourage people to work. that sounds selfish, but i feel i help people more by hiring them and treating them well anyhow. cumulatively, the business community spreads this sort of help enough. we could use some help spreading it deeper into the ranks of the habitually unemployed.

this sort of encouragement is a natural dividend of a good day's work; i think some of these multi-generational unemployed are simply never acquainted with this. notwithstanding this, welfare dependency is not a function of poor motivation and laziness alone. these are more consequential to a lack of work than they are the cause. certainly how we feel about working hardly translates to a macroeconomic level. the bottom line is that more jobs need to be generated within our borders, and those borders, along with the rules governing participation in the labor market, need to give the americans on welfare an opportunity to compete.

if this is done through wage-subsidy as i suggest, your international and domestic investment will be reflected on the bottom lines for which businesses can more easily accont than can they the quality of our graduates. the response will furthermore be immediate, rather than the 12-year+ potential returns from a solution directed at the mindsets of kids of welfare recipients.

 

[boedicca]

Nonsense.

The correlation is obvious. As Federal Control and spending hae increased, the quality and effectiveness of public education has declined.

As Einstein noted about insanity....

federal control has not increased. the constitution still isolates your beloved but incompetent state governments from direct federal influence. this is why the majority of states still adhere to the look-say method repeatedly shown in congressional inquests and independent studies to be inferior from the fed standard phonics system. the state solution: the whole language method. more state-adopted 'innovation' which fails to produce results.

einstein's axiom does not work in your favor in light of states being wholly responsible for their education systems and the extreme costs which they extort from the tax-funded federal largess and the municipal bond market.

once you educate yourself on the state-to-state failures in education, you would be better placed to pretend you know what you are talking about. until that time, your partisan states' rights one-size-fits-all solution don't fit. sorry.

You're the one who is in need of education. Federal unfunded mandates have driven the spending problems with little result - as well as the collusion of politicians and teachers unions which have overburdened the cost structure with excessive benefits.

In real constant dollar terms, we spend more than triple per pupil for elementary and secondary schools than we did in the 1960s, to the point where it is over $10K.

If all it takes is money and federal mandates to improve education, we should have the most successful schools in the world. Reality is far different, as evidenced by poor literacy and graduation rates. Of course, the reasons behind this poor performance are beyond you as you can only recognize statist faux solutions.

 

[California Girl]

I agree. It's kind of where I see the private sector being of assistance. My theory being that if we get young, employed, people as mentors and the companies that those people work for give their employees paid time to participate - as part of a program - run by the state - the employers could be given tax incentives to encourage them to allow employees to participate... Those young, successful people could teach children what it's like to work, help them with basic education, and generally act as role models for kids.... Something achievable for them to strive towards and someone outside their family who gives a shit what happens to them.

i've suggested directly addressing demand for labor in the domestic market because i feel that is the underlying cause for dependence on welfare and the likelihood that someone would see teenage pregnancy in the positive light which those in your cycle do. as a business owner, i would much prefer the support for employment rather than the burden of having to encourage people to work. that sounds selfish, but i feel i help people more by hiring them and treating them well anyhow. cumulatively, the business community spreads this sort of help enough. we could use some help spreading it deeper into the ranks of the habitually unemployed.

this sort of encouragement is a natural dividend of a good day's work; i think some of these multi-generational unemployed are simply never acquainted with this. notwithstanding this, welfare dependency is not a function of poor motivation and laziness alone. these are more consequential to a lack of work than they are the cause. certainly how we feel about working hardly translates to a macroeconomic level. the bottom line is that more jobs need to be generated within our borders, and those borders, along with the rules governing participation in the labor market, need to give the americans on welfare an opportunity to compete.

if this is done through wage-subsidy as i suggest, your international and domestic investment will be reflected on the bottom lines for which businesses can more easily accont than can they the quality of our graduates. the response will furthermore be immediate, rather than the 12-year+ potential returns from a solution directed at the mindsets of kids of welfare recipients.

I think most business owners would agree with you... but, as an interim measure - until we break that cycle (because that's what it is, it's a lifestyle choice for a lot of people - and that is what we have to break)... as a business owner, is it not better to be part of a long term solution rather than be forever burdened with an ever growing 'welfare lifestyle option'?

 

[editec]

Learn to read, and comprehend what is written - not what you think I have written.

I did not say withdraw welfare. I said "no more welfare for the next kid".See the difference? Not stop it for the kids they have - that would be ridiculous. But, make it clear there is no extra for any further kids.

I think a more effective suggestion might be to offer them cash incentives to be sterilized. I mean given that few of this (mostly) single mothers have absolutely no skills suited to making a living, at least that system will actually prevent them from bring more children into the world that they cannot support.

Forgive me. I don't understand your point. Can you clarify it for me.

Funding what programs?

Right now the limit for welfare is five years. Are you proposing that we make that period shorter?



How? How do you FORCE kids to get an edcuation, exactly?

You have completely missed the whole ******* point. That's not my poor choice of words - because other people understood it. I guess you must be one of the people I'm talking about forcing education on.... an idiot.

Possibly I am not educated enough to understand your ideas, yes.

Which is why I continue to ask you questions about specifics like for example, how does one FORCE children to study in school.

Clearly you must know what you meant.

You just neglected to tell us in details that poor under-educated me could understand.

I'm sure it must be my fault, but I still don't really understand how anything you proposed will work in the real world.

I await your further clarification and ask your patience explaining it to dumb little me, okay?

Oh, right.... I see.... You expect me to provide ALL the answers to each stupid whine that everyone comes up with. I get it now... it's not a discussion.... it's a teaching moment.

It can work.... it's not a new idea - it's a slightly different twist on projects that are already being looked at in Britain. If Britain (the original Nanny state - maybe not technically but certainly top in MY opinion). If they can see the need to urgently address this societal issue, should we not also look at it? They are trialling a project in a prison to get young offenders out of the crime cycle. It's a great idea, it's being paid for by a charity.... who will get their investment back - plus a bonus.... There's a book about it.... about providing services smarter and getting private sector investment to pay for it. Obviously, we will need to put the recession behind us to some extent but, rather than bitching about it, perhaps you might open that ******* mind of yours and think outside the box as to how we could make something similar work here.... targeted at young offenders, targeted at young parents, targeted at the children of those parents. The current 'welfare' system isn't working - maybe we can find a better way.[/quote]

I concur that the current welfare system doesn't work well.

The Reforms of the 90's, a model that Clinton basically borrowed from the GOP of that time, still doesn't solve the problem.

The problem, as I think you've indentified, is children having children.

If they were stupid enough to have a child without an income to begin with, I doubt that warning them they won't be getting that additional pittance they get for each new child will really work.

Why?

Because that assumes that these people are rational and PLANNING to have additional children.

They're not.

They're children, or at least they're people lacking the good sense not to get knocked up.

You've essantially offered no solution.

You have, however, indentified the problem.

 

[geauxtohell]

It's not the children we need to get rid of, it's the low expectations of those children. We actually NEED a decent birth rate.... just not kids of 14/15/16.... Abortion isn't the answer - and I think you actually know that. I think you just don't want to address the ideas so you resort to stupidity instead. That's fine, you're welcome to do that. But it makes you look pretty ******* stupid.

As I perceived your OP, I understood it to view teenage pregnancy as the major factor behind poverty.

If that is not it (solely) and it is actually "low expectations" the problem becomes even more subjective and solutions become even more "pie in the sky".

Nope, not pregnancy - low expectations, habit, a lack of a sense of a place or value to society... These solutions are not 'pie in the sky'.... they are actually workable solutions. We could trial it in one state and adapt the overall scheme, tweak it and roll it out to other states.

It is an actual solution rather than a partisan talking point.

I had a family member who set up a mentorship program to reach out and build esteem of young women who were poor and at risk for teen pregnancy and encourage education. So I don't think your idea is a bad one (in general).

I just don't think it's a magic bullet to solve the entire problem. Specifically something like "building esteem" is too subjective to really measure and address on a large scale.

 

[boedicca]

There are no Magic Bullets for complex issues in a country of 300M people.

 

[geauxtohell]

There are no Magic Bullets for complex issues in a country of 300M people.

I agree. I also think that, as has been said, "the poor will always be with us".

 

[boedicca]

Indeed. They always have been and they always will.

The real issue is what values and system prevent more people from joining them.

 

[California Girl]

There are no Magic Bullets for complex issues in a country of 300M people.

I agree. I also think that, as has been said, "the poor will always be with us".

True. And I don't see what I outlined as a 'magic bullet', I see it as PART of a solution to one specific issue - there are other issues we need to address. I just wondered whether we could actually find a solution that both left and right would see as valuable.

Sterilizing women won't solve it. We need a new generation - we just need that generation to be raised better than the previous. Sorry if that sounds offensive but there are too many kids having kids and there are too many crap parents. I also think we should set up programs to get hold of first time offenders, (again, this is a very liberal attitude)... help them with housing, rehab, education, mentoring.... anything that stops them from going back to crime. Long term, it would save us more than it costs in the interim to help solve it.

 

[geauxtohell]

There are no Magic Bullets for complex issues in a country of 300M people.

I agree. I also think that, as has been said, "the poor will always be with us".

True. And I don't see what I outlined as a 'magic bullet', I see it as PART of a solution to one specific issue - there are other issues we need to address. I just wondered whether we could actually find a solution that both left and right would see as valuable.

Sterilizing women won't solve it. We need a new generation - we just need that generation to be raised better than the previous. Sorry if that sounds offensive but there are too many kids having kids and there are too many crap parents. I also think we should set up programs to get hold of first time offenders, (again, this is a very liberal attitude)... help them with housing, rehab, education, mentoring.... anything that stops them from going back to crime. Long term, it would save us more than it costs in the interim to help solve it.

How I would address this issue:

1.) Slash the DOD's budget.

2.) With that money: make teachers federal employees that have a structured salary, bonuses, and a 20 year full pension retirement. Similar to the military in scope and pay.

3.) Additionally compensate teachers for working in hazardous/challenging districts.

4.) Allow for vocational training for students who have no desire in learning traditional high school material but who are interested in learning a skill.