New Posts
  • Hi there guest! Welcome to PoliticalJack.com. Register for free to join our community?

Why are republicans so against having the govt do what it has always did?

888888

Council Member
Provide for the infrastructure and up keep of such, along with believing that quality of education is secondary to cost? Why are they allowing the country to crumble before our very eyes and then want to spend 100's billions on buying weapons that we don't need and the military doesn't want for the most part?
 
Spending is the LEAST of our problems with education.

http://rossieronline.usc.edu/u-s-education-versus-the-world-infographic/

We spend more per student than anyone and yet...trail nearly every developed nation on Earth in math and science score.

Why do you think we have to import engineers?

The kids aren't failing because of funding or any lack thereof...they're failing because the schools aren't teaching them.

Performance in US public schools in affluent districts is phenomenal.

Poor districts? Not so much.

FYI, there is a HUGE income/wealth gap in this country.
 
And yet, most private schools don't have that problem. The teachers actually teach.....or if not, they are fired and replaced. Not so in the government-run, taxpayer subsidized public schools...where a crappy teacher is protected by their "union status". Ergo....
the failed and failing system (yet another one courtesy of Big Government).

Spending is the LEAST of our problems with education.

http://rossieronline.usc.edu/u-s-education-versus-the-world-infographic/

We spend more per student than anyone and yet...trail nearly every developed nation on Earth in math and science score.

Why do you think we have to import engineers?

The kids aren't failing because of funding or any lack thereof...they're failing because the schools aren't teaching them.
 
So you're saying that affluent districts do better than others?

It stands to reason as affluent folks tend to take a more direct approach in their kid's education.
One reason for the growing gap in achievement, researchers say, could be that wealthy parents invest more time and money than ever before in their children (in weekend sports, ballet, music lessons, math tutors, and in overall involvement in their children’s schools), while lower-income families, which are now more likely than ever to be headed by a single parent, are increasingly stretched for time and resources. This has been particularly true as more parents try to position their children for college, which has become ever more essential for success in today’s economy.

A study by Sabino Kornrich, a researcher at the Center for Advanced Studies at the Juan March Institute in Madrid, and Frank F. Furstenberg, scheduled to appear in the journal Demography this year, found that in 1972, Americans at the upper end of the income spectrum were spending five times as much per child as low-income families. By 2007 that gap had grown to nine to one; spending by upper-income families more than doubled, while spending by low-income families grew by 20 percent.

“The pattern of privileged families today is intensive cultivation,” said Dr. Furstenberg, a professor of sociology at the University of Pennsylvania.

Still, even with the 'affluent' doing better...we're still seriously lagging behind the rest of the world.

Even being the biggest spenders on the block.
 
So you're saying that affluent districts do better than others?

It stands to reason as affluent folks tend to take a more direct approach in their kid's education.


Still, even with the 'affluent' doing better...we're still seriously lagging behind the rest of the world.

Even being the biggest spenders on the block.

Of course. Affluent districts tend to have more stable families, and more educated parents, leading to better results.

Also, school facilities in better conditions, more educational resources...more of everything that costs money.

Leading to Pugs arguing that we spend too much money.
 
Who is saying we spend too much?

What I'm saying is that, even with all the money we spend...we're STILL failing.

The question is...what do we do about it?

And by the by, where the hell is all that money going?
 
Who is saying we spend too much?

What I'm saying is that, even with all the money we spend...we're STILL failing.

The question is...what do we do about it?

And by the by, where the hell is all that money going?

You.

Spending is the LEAST of our problems with education.

http://rossieronline.usc.edu/u-s-edu...d-infographic/

We spend more per student than anyone and yet...trail nearly every developed nation on Earth in math and science score.

Why do you think we have to import engineers?

The kids aren't failing because of funding or any lack thereof...they're failing because the schools aren't teaching them.


But again, we're not "failing" as a nation with our public schools (or any schools). Academic performance in affluent districts is excellent.

Poor kids, often from broken homes, often from homes where the parents are not well educated, and usually in districts with shoddy educational infrastructure, tend to do poorly.

It's obviously a class issue, not an indictment of our educational system across the board.
 
Spending is the LEAST of our problems with education.

http://rossieronline.usc.edu/u-s-education-versus-the-world-infographic/

We spend more per student than anyone and yet...trail nearly every developed nation on Earth in math and science score.

Why do you think we have to import engineers?

The kids aren't failing because of funding or any lack thereof...they're failing because the schools aren't teaching them.

I am not impressed by the statistics in your link. Those per pupil expenditures for American students INCLUDE the costs of health insurance for the teachers (and all other school personnel). Those are NOT included in the per pupil expenditures for almost all of the other countries, because they tend to have single-payer health-care systems, paid for via general taxation. So it's an invalid comparison.

There is an old, old principle in economics: You get what you pay for. And we are NOT going to get good science and math teachers, overall, when the starting salaries for teachers are in the $30,000 a year range. Sorry, you're just not. Private industry will poach off all the people who are really competent in science and math, paying them MUCH higher salaries.

I put part of the blame on the teachers' unions, who insist that all teachers with the same number of years of experience should be paid roughly the same, regardless of whether they are teaching biochemistry, or medieval French romantic poetry, or gym class. It's idiotic. Universities certainly do NOT operate that way. Engineering professors tend to make substantially higher salaries than professors of Shakesperean literature. But our K-12 schools don't operate that way. We don't let market forces work when it comes to determining salaries of K-12 teachers. So, every year, we see a massive shortage of qualified science and math teachers. And we will continue to do so, until we change this idiotic system.

There are other problems, too. We should junk the woefully outdated teacher certification process. It would have prevented Albert Einstein from teaching high school physics at nearly any high school in America. He was not a certified teacher. Absurd.
 
And yet, most private schools don't have that problem. The teachers actually teach.....or if not, they are fired and replaced. Not so in the government-run, taxpayer subsidized public schools...where a crappy teacher is protected by their "union status". Ergo....
the failed and failing system (yet another one courtesy of Big Government).

That has not been borne out! The fact is private schools have the pick of the littler as too whom attends. They do not teach the less affluent student or the one with learning problems. They kick the students out and return the bads ones to the public schools.


You better show some results for your belief is what I say. You can't take just the ones you want to use.


Not to mention that over the last 20/30 years the demand to educate at a high level has become the normal for everyone which up until that time we did not have to do as many people were used in manufacturing without a high degree of Education being required.
I would bet that if you took a good look at many of those countries that have a high level of quality students you will find out that many of their less fortunate children get far less than a quality education. The problem here is we believe that everyone is entitled a decent education, not based on where you stand on the wealth line.
 
I am not impressed by the statistics in your link. Those per pupil expenditures for American students INCLUDE the costs of health insurance for the teachers (and all other school personnel). Those are NOT included in the per pupil expenditures for almost all of the other countries, because they tend to have single-payer health-care systems, paid for via general taxation. So it's an invalid comparison.

There is an old, old principle in economics: You get what you pay for. And we are NOT going to get good science and math teachers, overall, when the starting salaries for teachers are in the $30,000 a year range. Sorry, you're just not. Private industry will poach off all the people who are really competent in science and math, paying them MUCH higher salaries.

I put part of the blame on the teachers' unions, who insist that all teachers with the same number of years of experience should be paid roughly the same, regardless of whether they are teaching biochemistry, or medieval French romantic poetry, or gym class. It's idiotic. Universities certainly do NOT operate that way. Engineering professors tend to make substantially higher salaries than professors of Shakesperean literature. But our K-12 schools don't operate that way. We don't let market forces work when it comes to determining salaries of K-12 teachers. So, every year, we see a massive shortage of qualified science and math teachers. And we will continue to do so, until we change this idiotic system.

There are other problems, too. We should junk the woefully outdated teacher certification process. It would have prevented Albert Einstein from teaching high school physics at nearly any high school in America. He was not a certified teacher. Absurd.

You got some facts as to this? So are the qualified teachers who do not teach being paid less than they are worth or is it that those other teachers aren't worth it? It seems you are saying that they should take money from some and give it to others? Wouldn't that be like reverse socialism?
 
Because so many of the things on your list are things that the federal government either never did before, or didn't do before the 1930s.
 
You got some facts as to this? So are the qualified teachers who do not teach being paid less than they are worth or is it that those other teachers aren't worth it? It seems you are saying that they should take money from some and give it to others? Wouldn't that be like reverse socialism?

I am saying we should let market forces have more say in determining teacher salaries. If that were the case, you would have to pay math and science teachers more. Because the market attaches a higher value to knowledge of science and math than it does to, say, medieval French romantic poetry or Shakesperean literature. Perhaps that is what you are really objecting to. As for the facts of the matter, it seems you are unaware that nearly all public school districts have published pay scales, in which a teacher's salary goes up, based solely on years of experience and the number of college credits they have amassed. With the subject matter making no difference whatsoever.
 
Provide for the infrastructure and up keep of such, along with believing that quality of education is secondary to cost? Why are they allowing the country to crumble before our very eyes and then want to spend 100's billions on buying weapons that we don't need and the military doesn't want for the most part?

Probably because as with people in any party, there are the greedy and gluttonous who view material wealth (contradictory to the teachings some of those claim to believe in) as a sign of "goodness" and "success" and in recent decades, that group, in what was once more of a Grand Old Party, have dominated that party's politics, policies and attitudes and the nation (as spoken of for centuries of sages and predictable by history where rule by wealth and power eventually came crumbling down and the reasons why.) is not healthy and stable as a result.

The only thing such people seem to care to be conservative of is their obscene material wealth and the power and influence they believe they derive from it.

Because private schools are selective and cost beyond what most people can afford, the teachers are not subjected to having to teach children with severe learning disabilities and deal with all manner of afflictions some students have that are distracting to other students. In addition, because many of their parents must work, 2 to 3 jobs simply to make ends meet, the parents are working and not around to "teach their children well" many of the things parents naturally teach when they can be around their children more often, like "stay-at-home moms or dads.

Thinking and using one's mind to make connections and see the world beyond the boxes some keep themselves in is intelligence. It would seem the United States, perhaps the world, because populations of people, like growing puddles of water, are beginning to flow into one another. The people that use their minds to think and be intelligent are running into those who can't seem to use their minds to see how the world has changed due to the cumulative effect of what individuals do, which is far different than the effect they seem to believe they have on the world as individuals.

Some seem to think they are the only people on the planet and any of their activities are done in a vacuum of isolation. Others realize what would happen if the infrastructure built to make things like trash, garbage and human waste out of sight (and out of mind to the non-thinking) large populations could not be supported. They realize that as populations grow, so does conflict amongst people who have varying versions of "freedom" that often conflict with other people's "freedom".

They realize that as populations grow, so does the need for infrastructure, including not just a way to treat septic and sewage, but to keep drinking water clean, dispose of trash and garbage safely, educate children to some basic standard, all of which cost money.

The the greedy, on the other hand, some of whom claim "life" begins at conception and must be protected, at least until someone passes the hat their way to help protect that "life" after it truly is an individual separate from a womb it could not otherwise survive without, don't want any part of living less thnt an egotistical vain millionaire lifestyle in order to put their money where their mouths are with regard to precious "life". The only thing "precious" when it comes down to it, is their multi-million dollar lifestyles.
 
Spending is the LEAST of our problems with education.

http://rossieronline.usc.edu/u-s-education-versus-the-world-infographic/

We spend more per student than anyone and yet...trail nearly every developed nation on Earth in math and science score.

Why do you think we have to import engineers?

The kids aren't failing because of funding or any lack thereof...they're failing because the schools aren't teaching them.

If you were trying to find a way to spend as much money as possible with as little impact as possible, you'd be hard pressed to find a better way to do that than our system, where funding and management of schools is at the state and often even the local level. That creates vast inefficiencies by shattering buying power and necessitating an absurd amount of redundancy. It also makes it so we get a wide spread between our best and our worst schools, so that we spend money getting diminishing returns in a few wealthy districts, when we could get much bigger returns if we spent the same money bringing poorer areas up to speed.

We also blow a lot of our "school" money on things that are not directly associated with educating kids. For example, thanks to our gigantic murder rates (something like five times higher than a typical, less gun-saturated wealthy nation), we spend a lot of school money on violence prevention -- everything from metal detectors and security guards to anti-violence programs, assemblies, and litigation costs arising out of violence when it does occur. Our school administrators' and teachers' healthcare costs also get counted in the cost of our schools because, unlike most wealthy nations, we have a healthcare system where employers buy health insurance (rather than, say, the UK system, where healthcare is provided as a separate budget item, as part of the national healthcare system).

We can boost the cost-effectiveness of our schools pretty easily. Move management and funding from the local and state level to the federal government, get serious about violent crime prevention, and create single-payer healthcare coverage. As part of moving more of the responsibilities to the federal government, we should also try to buffer decision-making from partisan politics, so that curricula and teaching methods are decided by professional educators based on demonstrated effectiveness, rather than becoming political footballs.
 
Back
Top