Dept of Education, R U 4 or against it?

[CrusaderFrank]

Red states want to keep their kids as stupid as possible. Of course they want it abolished.

I don't know why they even care. So many drop out anyway.

You mean like New York City? Maybe they need to spend more per student right? Is $18,000 really enough to educate a HS student?

Maybe if we double spending again Dems can move the drop out rate from 40% to 60%?

And of the 60% who currently "Graduate" 2of 3 of them are not ready to start college. Hope? Change? Democrat base? You betcha!

 

[rdean]

What is it the right expects to get out of school anyway? They think teachers are overpaid and don't teach anything worth learning. They think a college degree is "just a piece of paper". They don't like intellectuals. They think the occult can be part of science. Many get pregnant and drop out. I think they simply want to destroy another institution they know nothing about. Like what they've done with the economy.

 

[Si modo]

But, what we do need is a gigantic Federal Bureau of Puppies and Flowers (FBPF) which employs thousands of functionaires. Then, when a party calls it a colossal waste of taxpayer monies, we can vilify that party as one who hates puppies and flowers.

 

[random3434]

The current crop of repub POTUS candidates including Cain want to see the DOE to be combusted, like "Down the Freakin Road"(DFR). Do you support the idea of giving control of education back to the 50 individual states???
Libertarian minded congressman Ron Paul seems the most aggressive of the current repub candidates on touching off the DOE. Ron prefers to get all government at all levels out of education & going back to strictly private education(non tax funded). I've heard both the pros & cons on this topic from many concerned individuals including those that support home schooling & also the voucher system.
Should we keep the status quo or move on to strictly private education? Your input is appreciated!

I'd like to know HOW Americans will pay for this private education without the government. If you have a child in school, but make $20,000 a year, I would guess you qualify for a voucher, eh? Who pays for that voucher? Who pays for the school buildings, the teachers, the books and supplies and internet and...well, you get the idea.

Homeschooling can be beneficial as long as the parents know what to teach, but many parents aren't qualified to teach what is needed for 12 years.

Private schools give great educations, but many parents can't afford them either.

So what about those kids who live in poverty all across this country? Who teaches them, and how is it going to be paid for?

Thanks for any info!

Can anyone answer this question? Thanks!

 

[Two Thumbs]

The current crop of repub POTUS candidates including Cain want to see the DOE to be combusted, like "Down the Freakin Road"(DFR). Do you support the idea of giving control of education back to the 50 individual states???
Libertarian minded congressman Ron Paul seems the most aggressive of the current repub candidates on touching off the DOE. Ron prefers to get all government at all levels out of education & going back to strictly private education(non tax funded). I've heard both the pros & cons on this topic from many concerned individuals including those that support home schooling & also the voucher system.
Should we keep the status quo or move on to strictly private education? Your input is appreciated!

Before the DOE American education ranked in the top 5 year in year out.
since the DOE we are on a very steady decline. If I recall, we are now 18th.


We had a saying in the Navy; If it aint broke, don't fix it.

The DOE fixed something that wasn't broken and now that it is broken they think they can fix it with more money.

FYI; we spend more per student than any place else.

So the only people that support keeping the DOE are utter buffoons or people with an ax to grind.

 

[CrusaderFrank]

The current crop of repub POTUS candidates including Cain want to see the DOE to be combusted, like "Down the Freakin Road"(DFR). Do you support the idea of giving control of education back to the 50 individual states???
Libertarian minded congressman Ron Paul seems the most aggressive of the current repub candidates on touching off the DOE. Ron prefers to get all government at all levels out of education & going back to strictly private education(non tax funded). I've heard both the pros & cons on this topic from many concerned individuals including those that support home schooling & also the voucher system.
Should we keep the status quo or move on to strictly private education? Your input is appreciated!

I'd like to know HOW Americans will pay for this private education without the government. If you have a child in school, but make $20,000 a year, I would guess you qualify for a voucher, eh? Who pays for that voucher? Who pays for the school buildings, the teachers, the books and supplies and internet and...well, you get the idea.

Homeschooling can be beneficial as long as the parents know what to teach, but many parents aren't qualified to teach what is needed for 12 years.

Private schools give great educations, but many parents can't afford them either.

So what about those kids who live in poverty all across this country? Who teaches them, and how is it going to be paid for?

Thanks for any info!

Education is paid for by local property taxes.

But I'm all for letting schools set up endowments too to fund scholarships for deserving children

 

[Anachronism]

The DOE has been an unconstitutional stain on the US Budget from the moment it was first implemented. I have never had anyone point out the words "education" or "school" anywhere in Article I, Section 8 of the Constitution; therefore any legislation or spending on them by the Federal Government is ILLEGAL. There's really nothing more to say on the topic.

 

[tonystewart1]

Claud and tony,

Do you not see any need for a basic standard of what a school should be teaching and to what level that should be?

People act like states have no self interest in an educated workforce. States are capable of doing all kinds of wonderful things that are implemented in a way that makes sense for that state in paticular.

California for example probably has as greater need for programers than West Virginia. The feds mandate a standard of education that blankets the entire state and makes no sense to most states.

 

[FA_Q2]

Claud and tony,

Do you not see any need for a basic standard of what a school should be teaching and to what level that should be?

People act like states have no self interest in an educated workforce. States are capable of doing all kinds of wonderful things that are implemented in a way that makes sense for that state in paticular.

California for example probably has as greater need for programers than West Virginia. The feds mandate a standard of education that blankets the entire state and makes no sense to most states.

Education that only pertains to regional needs is not a good answer. If you are in a county that only produces agriculture you should not be forced into an education system that caters to that particular field. We are not in a country where the state you reside in is the state that you are doomed to live in. Many people end up far from home and the education system should not be a block to your mobility. All public schools should teach each area to a minimum standard and if there are local needs then the particular school can and should raise the requirement in that subject. That does not negate the need for basic education all around.

 

[FA_Q2]

Dept of Education is small and most decisions are made at the state and local level. I have no problem with the current structure.

If it is small then why does it cost 50 billion to run?
Death and Taxes 2011. It's the government, in six square feet.

That's $167 per person compared to the $4000 I pay in local school taxes

What is that figure supposed to be connected with? 167 per person? That is 166 per person too much. The final figure is STILL 50 billion and what we are getting for that cash is NOTHING. Where is the benefit? Where are the rewards? What are we gaining from that 167 expenditure for every man woman and child in the US? That 4000 you are pointing out is the amount that you are paying to DIRECTLY educate children. It's benefit is clear: educated people. The DoE does not educate anyone, it implements programs that your 4000 is spent on to educate. I want to see real benefits from the DoE before I can justify any spending on it.

So, let's list the benefits of the DoE so we can get a real debate going about it:

1.

 

[Anachronism]

All public schools should teach each area to a minimum standard.....

Ok. You know what, I can agree to that, on a certain level. HOWEVER, if one is to assume that is the case, this should pertain to CORE CURRICULUM ONLY. That is BASIC English, Math, History, and Science. Any subject matter beyond those four core curriculums and/or beyond the basic level should be left up to the INDIVIDUAL SCHOOL DISTRICTS as to what they wish to provide, and the INDIVIDUAL SCHOOL DISTRICTS should be required to pay for that.

You want that great Art or Music program, FINE.... YOU pay for it. You want those super-high tech computer labs, GREAT.... YOU pay for it. You want to offer 5 different foreign languages, OKAY.... YOU pay for it. Just don't ask me to even consider helping you pay for your kids education beyond the basic requirements. That's YOUR responsibility, not mine.

 

[FA_Q2]

All public schools should teach each area to a minimum standard.....

Ok. You know what, I can agree to that, on a certain level. HOWEVER, if one is to assume that is the case, this should pertain to CORE CURRICULUM ONLY. That is BASIC English, Math, History, and Science. Any subject matter beyond those four core curriculums and/or beyond the basic level should be left up to the INDIVIDUAL SCHOOL DISTRICTS as to what they wish to provide, and the INDIVIDUAL SCHOOL DISTRICTS should be required to pay for that.

You want that great Art or Music program, FINE.... YOU pay for it. You want those super-high tech computer labs, GREAT.... YOU pay for it. You want to offer 5 different foreign languages, OKAY.... YOU pay for it. Just don't ask me to even consider helping you pay for your kids education beyond the basic requirements. That's YOUR responsibility, not mine.

That is the meaning of BASIC minimums. I would never support something like minimums in art or music. Electives are local matters. English, math, history and science are things that all should be taught in order to function. On a side note, I do not want anything other than local funds for the schools. In this context, the DoE would be setting minimum standards but the local districts would be in charge of the implementation and funding of the schools themselves.

 

[Big Fitz]

The current crop of repub POTUS candidates including Cain want to see the DOE to be combusted, like "Down the Freakin Road"(DFR). Do you support the idea of giving control of education back to the 50 individual states???
Libertarian minded congressman Ron Paul seems the most aggressive of the current repub candidates on touching off the DOE. Ron prefers to get all government at all levels out of education & going back to strictly private education(non tax funded). I've heard both the pros & cons on this topic from many concerned individuals including those that support home schooling & also the voucher system.
Should we keep the status quo or move on to strictly private education? Your input is appreciated!

It's a states responsibility, not the feddies. Break it up, parcel it off to each state, and let them decide what to do about it. Ultimately END all federal involvement in education.

If a state wants to privatize their entire system, fine. If they want to make it a state run socialist monopoly fine (I'd be moving out of there fast).

 

[Anachronism]

That is the meaning of BASIC minimums. I would never support something like minimums in art or music. Electives are local matters. English, math, history and science are things that all should be taught in order to function. On a side note, I do not want anything other than local funds for the schools. In this context, the DoE would be setting minimum standards but the local districts would be in charge of the implementation and funding of the schools themselves.

Ok. Now what do you consider the "BASIC" levels of those four topics? I ask because this is where things tend to get dicey between people. Is Algebra "basic" math? What about Geometry or Trig? Is World History "basic" level, or just American History? What about Creative Writing and English Lit?

We will however disagree on the funding. If the Federal Government is going to MANDATE a certain level of Education, BY LAW; they need to pay for that minimum level of education for EVERY STUDENT in the UNITED STATES. That's a large part of why I'm against these Federal Mandates. I have major issues with the Feds telling the States/Town/Cities that they HAVE TO do something, and then demanding that the local levels pay for it.

 

[tonystewart1]

Claud and tony,

Do you not see any need for a basic standard of what a school should be teaching and to what level that should be?

People act like states have no self interest in an educated workforce. States are capable of doing all kinds of wonderful things that are implemented in a way that makes sense for that state in paticular.

California for example probably has as greater need for programers than West Virginia. The feds mandate a standard of education that blankets the entire state and makes no sense to most states.

Education that only pertains to regional needs is not a good answer. If you are in a county that only produces agriculture you should not be forced into an education system that caters to that particular field. We are not in a country where the state you reside in is the state that you are doomed to live in. Many people end up far from home and the education system should not be a block to your mobility. All public schools should teach each area to a minimum standard and if there are local needs then the particular school can and should raise the requirement in that subject. That does not negate the need for basic education all around.

I was not advocting the end of basic eduction but it makes no sense to me that a state that is heavily into industry no be able to concentrate on that area of education, not to the demise of basic skills.

 

[FA_Q2]

That is the meaning of BASIC minimums. I would never support something like minimums in art or music. Electives are local matters. English, math, history and science are things that all should be taught in order to function. On a side note, I do not want anything other than local funds for the schools. In this context, the DoE would be setting minimum standards but the local districts would be in charge of the implementation and funding of the schools themselves.

Ok. Now what do you consider the "BASIC" levels of those four topics? I ask because this is where things tend to get dicey between people. Is Algebra "basic" math? What about Geometry or Trig? Is World History "basic" level, or just American History? What about Creative Writing and English Lit?

We will however disagree on the funding. If the Federal Government is going to MANDATE a certain level of Education, BY LAW; they need to pay for that minimum level of education for EVERY STUDENT in the UNITED STATES. That's a large part of why I'm against these Federal Mandates. I have major issues with the Feds telling the States/Town/Cities that they HAVE TO do something, and then demanding that the local levels pay for it.

'Basic' level will have to be somewhat fluid and change with times. Addition and subtraction may have been basic 100 years ago but today I would feel that algebra and geometry should be sufficient. These are more than simple math as well, knowledge in these areas help a person think and understand the world around him/her. Trig and more advanced courses I would not consider basic. I would want history somewhat where it is now. At least 1 year in world, 1 year in American and 1 year in ancient though I would not be against a fourth year required as well. If you are not well versed in history then you are not able to cast a decent vote. Science should at least go into biology, chemistry and physics. That is another topic that a decent knowledge in is almost required for basic functioning.

Literature is different. I think that there does need to be a far greater focus on actual writing skills. Literature today is studying a bunch of books that no one want to read. The Great Gatsby? Why, that book is worthless. Though there should still be a year where you study some of the great works, I would like more study in the styles of writing and that does include creative writing. I might also disagree with what constitutes a great work. I want to see more that challenges students to think rather than to simply read. Books like Fahrenheit 451 or 1984. There is not one single career worth pursuing that writing skills are not extremely important in. It is basic communication and Americans could use more skill in that area.
I can understand where you are coming at with the funding I just do not feel that it is required. I think that the states are more than capable of raising the funding on their own. If you belive that the government should take a piece of that pie I would not be totally against such an idea but a program like that says more wealth redistribution that is likely to be massively inefficient. The government is mandated to do many things, that does not mean that the feds are going to cover the costs. At all times, I prefer the power to be close to the people rather than close to the feds. Basic mandated levels of instruction are not calling for much and I think that they are needed but putting the funding in the feds hands will lead to less efficiency and I do not see the benefit.

 

[FA_Q2]

People act like states have no self interest in an educated workforce. States are capable of doing all kinds of wonderful things that are implemented in a way that makes sense for that state in paticular.

California for example probably has as greater need for programers than West Virginia. The feds mandate a standard of education that blankets the entire state and makes no sense to most states.

Education that only pertains to regional needs is not a good answer. If you are in a county that only produces agriculture you should not be forced into an education system that caters to that particular field. We are not in a country where the state you reside in is the state that you are doomed to live in. Many people end up far from home and the education system should not be a block to your mobility. All public schools should teach each area to a minimum standard and if there are local needs then the particular school can and should raise the requirement in that subject. That does not negate the need for basic education all around.

I was not advocting the end of basic eduction but it makes no sense to me that a state that is heavily into industry no be able to concentrate on that area of education, not to the demise of basic skills.

No one said that they could not. Should there be no lower limit though, you would have situations where they would concentrate on specific areas of education at the demise of some basic educations. Minimum standards would not take the power away to individualize curriculums. It would limit the ability to individualize it to the point that it becomes a trade school rather than a basic education.

 

[westwall]

The current crop of repub POTUS candidates including Cain want to see the DOE to be combusted, like "Down the Freakin Road"(DFR). Do you support the idea of giving control of education back to the 50 individual states???
Libertarian minded congressman Ron Paul seems the most aggressive of the current repub candidates on touching off the DOE. Ron prefers to get all government at all levels out of education & going back to strictly private education(non tax funded). I've heard both the pros & cons on this topic from many concerned individuals including those that support home schooling & also the voucher system.
Should we keep the status quo or move on to strictly private education? Your input is appreciated!

Yes. I do. The DOE is a tremendous waste of money and has accomplished nothing but the continued degradation of education in this country.

 

[BOBO]

We see kids get Pell grants at 6K a piece and flunk out immediately as they had no intention of sticking with college. Others get it and have wealthy grandparents that by them fancy cars.
Maybe block grants to states but DOE is a large waste of $$$.

Ye speak with NO forked tongue but speak with wisdom!!!

 

[BOBO]

Getting rid of the gigantic cumbersome bureaucracy doesn't mean that the federal government loses input in the education of our kids. Federal law still superceeds state law. Getting rid of the Dept. of Ed means we don't need a hundred or a thousand federal employees of the Dept of Ed. nit-picking petty regulations and draining the economy of billions while producing nothing.

Dump the bureaucracy & save billions on taxes!