Economic stupidity from a teacher...

I thought this thread was about idea of having parents pay an extra $360 per kid per year while they are in school was stupid or not. Not the woes of the public school system. That’s a subject that I’m sure we could fill two or three more threads with and I think that’s good. I don’t think that any other issue has a more profound effect on the direction of our society as whole or affects each and everyone of us.

First, on the question of federal funding for public schools my answer is absolutely yes. If we weren’t in so deep being part owners of several financial institutions and a car company I would say give them more money.

First of all my livelihood depends on educated and prepared adults to staff my company. Also homeless and poor stupid people just don’t show up anywhere on my customer demographics. Selfish, I know, I’ll just have to live with it.

Second, as I already stated the better prepared these children are for adulthood the less chance we’ll be paying even more public funds for them later.

Third, I don’t see cutting off funding as the best way to improve our education system. They need to make the best use of the money we give them and often they don’t but I think they are winning far more than they are losing. We don’t have more kids dropping out or failing than we do graduating as a whole. We do need to try to keep making the system better and I know sometimes that’s not with money.

Fourth, Diversity, my money, not race. Between the whims of my local and our national representatives I would just a soon not see all our funding eggs in one basket in the case of education.

Fifth, someday some of these children are going to be voting and participating in making decisions that affect all of us. We’re not all going to ever agree on everything but I would prefer they had some knowledge about the world around them. The more of them that do the better off we’ll be.

Now, I know you are not saying that funding should be cut off only that it’s a state and local issue. I disagree and my main reason is this.

Let’s take lincolnx2 for example. He said “I graduated from Cooley High school in the slums of Detroit, I never attended college, and I am succeeding in life.” His words not mine. Myself, I graduated from Puyallup High School in an upper middle class community south of Seattle. Well, I drank my way through 1 year of college and decided going to work was best for me, and I’m succeeding in life. (For the most part)

Now, I mean no offence to lincolnx2 but I would say that the “slums of Detroit” and a bedroom community south of Seattle is good distance away both in miles and the opportunities offered to us when we were growing up. Yet here we are. He has made the most of what he had and I probably haven’t made the best use of the opportunities offered to me. Each with a different path but we’ve each reached whatever our own definitions of success is at this point in our lives.

With the current economy in Michigan and particularly Detroit I would guess that resources for the Detroit school system would be completely in the tank if all they could rely on was state and local funds. If lincolnx2 were in school now and relies only on state and local funding for his school I doubt that he would have the same chance of meeting his definition of success. I don’t know lincolnx2 maybe he has the drive and determination to overcome these longer odds but he shouldn’t have to. Besides I get the impression that I would rather he is toting his gun around in service of our country rather than the streets of Detroit where I’m sure he knows one or two people that are. Once again no offence intended.

I’m not saying that the funding should be equal. That will never happen. Other realities like the cost of living and average income difference in the Seattle area as opposed to Detroit, our unemployment rate is around ½ of Detroit’s too. Even with that my area schools are dealing with funding cuts and ever larger class sizes. I just don’t understand that because of the poor decisions made by a relative few that should make Detroit’s kids less worthy of a basic education than Seattle’s. I just can’t make that come out right.

I do get the point of the government road repair crew as opposed to the private company road crew. Just a couple of things on this, first of all I don’t give a damn which one you get but can you get someone, anyone to the street in front of my house.

Second of all education is an area where the private sector can assist and help pickup the slack but the job is just to big. I would rather have people looking at the big picture when it comes to education rather than the bottom line. We do need some uniformity in education.

Taking this a step further I wouldn’t want the Microsoft Marines or the Allstate Army or the Navstar Navy. Having private security firms and private contractors assist is one thing. Having Blackwater or Halliburton running the war is something else all together. I just think that like the military and even with its faults education is an area we are better off with the government in than out for the most part.

“Well I am making the argument, and I don’t have kids, and when I do have kids, they will attend public schools, but I will also take the responsibility and raise my kids and not use "bad schools" as an excuse if they become failures.” Lincolnx2

Not so fast my friend. Why in gods name anyone would home school is beyond me. My reasons are pretty much the same as yours. But hey, to each their own, I know some people that have done it and they seem to be ok with it.

At least in my area the private and charter schools can be more diverse than some of our public schools. Most of them do have scholarship programs and I’m seeing more and more people of means coming from different walks of life. They seem to be making some real progress in this area. A fact of life here just like anywhere else is that our public schools are only as diverse as the community they serve.

A little regional profiling here but I have what I think is an 85% or so chance of being right. These are odds that I’ll take anytime in Vegas. Like Vegas that means I have a 15% chance of being wrong but let’s say lincolnx2 is black. Where there is a pretty good chance that I would somewhat stand out in his neighborhood in Detroit he wouldn’t stand out in mine. Sometimes you can find diversity in place you live. Please don’t take this as “well we don’t have racism in my area” we do. But we do have a pretty large mix of races. 2 large military bases along with the families of the personal serving them help that right along. Other parts of the country are the same. Being in the military you may have already ran across other areas like this. I seem to notice this more around larger military bases. But what do I know about it I’m a nearly middle age white guy.

lincolnx2, you don’t have any kids now. Everything you know or think you know now about decisions like this will go right out the window when you become a parent. My son just finished the fourth year of a five year Navy hitch. I thought I had most of the angles figured out before he was born too. As I found out rather quickly, ah, no I didn’t. But if you are like most parents you will want to give your kid the best chance to meet their goals. You’ll help them do that. If that’s public education, great, but you don’t know that, not now.

By the way, I’m still for the extra $360 a year thing.
 
First, on the question of federal funding for public schools my answer is absolutely yes.
Why should the federal government be involved in this issue? Where do they get the constitutional authority?

Education is a local issue. We have a federalist system of government.

Third, I don’t see cutting off funding as the best way to improve our education system. They need to make the best use of the money we give them and often they don’t but I think they are winning far more than they are losing. We don’t have more kids dropping out or failing than we do graduating as a whole. We do need to try to keep making the system better and I know sometimes that’s not with money.
I don't know of any proposals that are seriously being considered that suggest we should cut off funding to public grade school education.
And some public school districts, including Detroit, Baltimore, New York, Milwaukee, Cleveland, Los Angeles, Miami, Dallas, Denver and Houston, DO have more kids dropping out than failing.

Now, I know you are not saying that funding should be cut off only that it’s a state and local issue. I disagree and my main reason is this.
Earlier you mentioned that the schools should be able to teach students the basics of the world and what's going on around them. The SHOULD include teaching civics and the understanding of how our system of government works, why it works, and the philosophy that made it possible.

Federalism and limited government are two of those basic concepts.
Schools are a local and state responsibility, not a FEDERAL one.

Money isn't the problem and spending isn't linked with success. Some of those schools I just mentioned with drop out rates over 50% spend more per student than the rest of the country.

Second of all education is an area where the private sector can assist and help pickup the slack but the job is just to big. I would rather have people looking at the big picture when it comes to education rather than the bottom line. We do need some uniformity in education.
Why do you have faith in government?
Why do you think government has the ability to look at the "big picture" while the private sector is narrowly focused on the "bottom line."

The implication is that "bottom line" means that they just want to cash out quick, but that's not the case. "Bottom line" means efficiency, growth, customer service, quality, and longevity. Bottom line means they have to worry about a budget and costs without the ability to abuse the public by raising their sales or property taxes because of mismanaged funds.

Government... do you know what government means.
POLITICIANS and BUREAUCRATS.
You're saying the job is too important so you want POLITICIANS running it, not private citizens.
Do you trust "POLITICIANS?"

According to a recent poll, we trust the judgment of people more than politicians, 73% to 13%. So why the hell does anyone trust government to do something important?!?

Also, noting how important education is, why would you want to shift so much of that responsibility to the politicians in WASHINGTON, DC. Where they are isolated from you, virtually unaccountable, and completely out of touch. At the local level, you have influence. You are involved. You can help shape the agenda. Do you want Nancy Pelosi from San Fransisco shaping the curriculum of your child's education? I sure as hell don't want here near it.

Taking this a step further I wouldn’t want the Microsoft Marines or the Allstate Army or the Navstar Navy.
Entirely different.

I just think that like the military and even with its faults education is an area we are better off with the government in than out for the most part.
This example doesn't relate to this discussion.

A military responsible for defending the nation is a constitutional duty assigned to the federal government. And mercenary armies aren't historically reliable.

Education is a service, performed at the local level.

By the way, I’m still for the extra $360 a year thing.
Won't happen within the current system.
 
children are a political tool used by the liberal Democrats to foist massive amounts of socialism on us year after year.
Dude, this is a socialist nation. Socialism is the reason this is such a great place to live.

Liberty and capitalism led this country to greatness
Dude, we abandoned capitalism in the 1870's.
 
Name the famous Socialist President who said:

The power of the mighty industrial overlords of the country had increased with giant strides, while the methods of controlling them, or checking abuses by them, on the part of the people, through the Government, remained archaic and therefore practically impotent.​
 
Name the famous Socialist President who said:

The power of the mighty industrial overlords of the country had increased with giant strides, while the methods of controlling them, or checking abuses by them, on the part of the people, through the Government, remained archaic and therefore practically impotent.​

Teddy Roosevelt.... the first progressive President.

Confirming that this isn't a necessarily a Republican or Democrat issue.
 

Members online

No members online now.
Back
Top