What does it say?

[ML@Coyote]

What does it say about our country that education is the smallest part of our budget? Anything at all? Or does it say a lot?

Seems to me you could double or triple education without greatly affecting other categories.

Isn't our future worth investing in?

[Rooster]

I could get onboard with that if the teachers unions were broken. As it is, they’d spend the money frivolously as they do now on stupid stuff like administrators, bureaucracy, and political activism. Bring it down to the local level where parents determine how the money gets spent and how their children will be educated. School vouchers would also be a welcome break from the moribund system we have now.

[Screw_Michigan]

The GOP hates education spending because their voter base is ignorant, uneducated, racist assholes. Educated Americans don't vote GOP. Fact.

[Rooster]

What constitutes being educated in your book? High school grad? Two years of college? A four year degree? How about a masters degree? Just curious, seeing as only educated people don’t vote as registered Republicans is officially a fact, as you say.

[Left Seater]

The GOP hates education spending because their voter base is ignorant, uneducated, racist assholes. Educated Americans don't vote GOP. Fact.

The idiocy is starting early today.

[Screw_Michigan]

The idiocy is starting early today.

There are exceptions to every rule.

[ML@Coyote]

The GOP hates education spending

link?

their voter base is ignorant, uneducated, racist assholes.

link?

Educated Americans don't vote GOP.

link?

Fact.

Looking forward to your links.

[ML@Coyote]

political activism.

Should be forbidden in our schools. Students should be encouraged to argue and discuss, but the school itself should take no position on anything.

[Killian]

And lefties just want to throw money at a problem with no real reform.

Fact.

[Wolfman]

Very telling that "social security" is even an expense. If it had been truly an investment for retirees, it would have been self-sustaining. Sadly all it is now is a huge welfare system (visit a local office and count how many there are actually retirees) and IOU on the future. And what's with the separate items of Medicare and "Health", as well as Social Security and "Income security"???? Anyone care to explain?

[Softball Bat]

There is a long list of things that could be talked about regarding education.

Since I have spent considerable time in S. Korea, let me tell you something...

The kids there KICK THE SHIT OUT OF America kids as far as motivation and work ethic.
No contest.

Part of it is cultural and part of it is due to survival.

In America, it seems as if there are endless possiblities, even for someone who can't do jack shit.
But in S. Korea, if you can't do jack shit, you are straight fvkked -- and you will be mopping jizz your whole life.

So the parents drill education, and EXCELLENCE in education into their kids.

You MUST beat the others, or you're going to fail.

A typical M-F day for a Korean kid is to go to school from 8:30 to 3:30.
After that you go to an education academy, where you study a specific subject(s) -- math, English, computer, whatever.
Yo do that from 5:00 until 10:00.
Then you go home - rest, and get up and do it again the next day.

There are many problems with Korean education, and they are lacking in creativity and "free thinking," but as far as work ethic, they are leaps and bounds ahead of America.

America is fat and lazy.

[Softball Bat]

Very telling that "social security" is even an expense. If it had been truly an investment for retirees, it would have been self-sustaining. Sadly all it is now is a huge welfare system (visit a local office and count how many there are actually retirees) and IOU on the future. And what's with the separate items of Medicare and "Health", as well as Social Security and "Income security"???? Anyone care to explain?

Isn't SS broken because of life expenctancy increase and because the funds were not kept tucked away?

[ML@Coyote]

Softball...ever see any of these bumper stickers in Korea?

They were popular for a while in Southern California.

Haven't seen one for a while.

[Mikey]

I could get onboard with that if the teachers unions were broken. As it is, they’d spend the money frivolously as they do now on stupid stuff like administrators, bureaucracy, and political activism. Bring it down to the local level where parents determine how the money gets spent and how their children will be educated. School vouchers would also be a welcome break from the moribund system we have now.

The teachers unions don’t spend money on “administrators and bureaucracy.” Tell me you knew.
In fact, administrators have their own organization that’s sometimes at odds with the teachers.

Also, I’m pretty sure it’s illegal to spend public funds on political activism.

I’ll agree that bloated administration and bureaucracy is a big part of the problem, and feel free to keep on ignorantly blaming the teachers for that, but it’s not their doing.

[ML@Coyote]

The teachers unions spend millions contributing to political candidates and causes. I think this is what Rooster is referring to.

I think the unions should stay out of politics completely.

[Screw_Michigan]

I think the unions should stay out of politics completely.

Got any other shitty ideas?

[ML@Coyote]

I think the unions should stay out of politics completely.

Got any other shitty ideas?

Teachers are supposed to help our children learn, among other things, how to weigh facts and opinions and make up their own minds. I don't think it's appropriate for their teachers to back certain political candidates and causes. They should without bias foster discussions and arguments between students so that they learn to think as individuals, and that is all. They are in a unique position of trust in our society. Now perhaps you can elaborate on why that is a "shitty idea?"

[Mikey]

The teachers unions spend millions contributing to political candidates and causes. I think this is what Rooster is referring to.

I think the unions should stay out of politics completely.

You don’t think unions should be allowed to spend own money to support political causes? I don’t suppose you feel the same way about corporations.

[ML@Coyote]

The teachers unions spend millions contributing to political candidates and causes. I think this is what Rooster is referring to.

I think the unions should stay out of politics completely.

You don’t think unions should be allowed to spend own money to support political causes? I don’t suppose you feel the same way about corporations.

Allowed to, yes. But should they? I don't think so. They should channel their money into something else. There are lots of good causes to contribute to that are not political.

When I was in high school, my school was very conservative. I tended to be more liberal back then. Whenever current issues were discussed in class, I remember teachers making me feel very uncomfortable to express my ideas. Their political leanings were no secret. I think it would've been better if our teachers at that school were more neutral, letting the kids talk and argue and come to their own conclusions without a biased authority figure looming over the classroom. Teachers should also teach that just because you lean your own way, it does not make you an idiot or a bad guy.

[Rooster]

What Coyote said on all counts. I didn't make myself very clear on that score.

Yes, unions should be able to put money to causes they support. However, when those causes run contrary to what the purpose of their job is, it needs to eliminated. So when public education turns out an inferior product, then the organization which is heading this fiasco should be knocked over.

The funny thing is we don’t see teachers protesting their own bureaucracy. That tells me they are in cahoots together. The way it should be is the way the school— private, by the way —my kids went to is run. The teachers and the board answer directly to the parents. The parents approve or disapprove of the curriculum. If the teachers or board fail to please the parents, they are either fired or their contract is not renewed.

You don’t get that with a unionized teachers block. The deadwood remains year after year putting out a terribly inferior product because you can’t excise it. And throwing money at the problem isn’t going to solve it. Control is— at the local level. And you can’t exercise that control until parents have the authority to get rid of sub-par teachers and administrators.

[Dinsdale]

What does it say about our country that education is the smallest part of our budget?

It says the Constitution was declared null and void.

I'd like to see that portion of the federal budget (a huge omission on your part) reduced to zero.

Running money through a bureaucracy will ALWAYS result in waste. If that money never left the states in the first place, there'd be more of it.

Get the feds out of el-hi education -- like they were for almost 200 years, until Carter fucked that up.

[ML@Coyote]

I can definitely see how bringing education to the state level would improve efficiency etc., and I'm glad for your posts. I wasn't even thinking in that direction. But the problem will still remain, which is how much voters are truly willing to pay for education. Will spending at the state level reflect a desire for a better educational system? To me, educating young people ought to be one of our highest priorities. They are the future. Obviously just throwing money at the problem isn't the end all solution, but money is necessary. Do we need more? Better schools? Higher pay for teachers? Is a doctor who gives you a half-assed opinion on your ailment really worth four times a teacher? I don't know. I guess that was my question.

[Killian]

What does it say about our country that education is the smallest part of our budget?

It says the Constitution was declared null and void.

I'd like to see that portion of the federal budget (a huge omission on your part) reduced to zero.

Running money through a bureaucracy will ALWAYS result in waste. If that money never left the states in the first place, there'd be more of it.

Get the feds out of el-hi education -- like they were for almost 200 years, until Carter fucked that up.

I would have written this post if Dinsdale didn't do it first. There is no reason for the federal government to be in the education business. Education is a matter for the states. It appears in every state constitution that I have ever read. If one state does a shit job of educating its residents as compared to other states, the residents can move or demand changes. When the federal government does a shit job of educating its citizens, everyone suffers and there is no ability to achieve change.

Educational standards were higher when children were educated locally in one-room schools without computers. The decline in math, science and anything difficult has occurred at a time when children are provided with far more education tools than their parents or grandparents could ever conceive. Why? Because we are not in the business of educating people anymore. We don't train people for the jobs that are available in the local area. Instead, we indoctrinate them to think in a particular way, which is that government is the answer to every problem, and send them into a world uneducated, unprepared, in debt, and now dependent upon the government they have been trained for their lifetime to believe is the solution for their victimhood. So sad.

Exactly. Department of Education should be eliminated.

[ML@Coyote]

Here are some thoughts:

The fact is that the US spends more per student (K-12) than all other countries except for Switzerland and Norway. Maybe we not such misers as I originally implied when it comes to education. Maybe if there is a problem, it has more to do with the teachers, parents, and students themselves?

Federal involvement began in the sixties in order to ensure that poverty areas were providing their children with decent educations. About fifty years have now gone by. Did it work? Are lower income kids really getting what they were promised, or was this just another blunder at the Federal level?

Fed money accounts for about 10% of money used by states for education. If we abolished the Fed contribution, how will state tax payers feel about having to make up for the loss. Certainly the Fed taxes will not be lowered as a result. Are states now too dependent on the Fed money?

The US spends an average of $10,615 per year for each K-12 student. But here’s the interesting thing. It costs about $6,000 in Utah and $18,000 in DC. Other states vary between these highs and lows. That’s a huge difference. How does one account for it? And what can DC learn from Utah?

How do you feel about different states setting different educational goals? Do you think we should all try to live up to a common goal, or should we be different? Personally, I like different states to be different. We each get to pick what’s right for us. We’re given a slew of alternatives, and then we choose.

[ML@Coyote]

Great post 88...thanks.

I only have one major concern. What do we do for the "good" kids from bad families that want to make something of their lives? I know, life isn't fair. But it seems like it would be a good thing to help these kids get the sort of education they deserve despite their crappy parents. Obviously, this can't be mandated by the Feds. Maybe not even by the states. But I think it would be very good for the country if something could be done for them.

As for teachers vs doctors. My mom was a teacher, and my dad was a doctor. Mom deserved high pay. Dad did deserve shit. I guess it's a personal thing.

[Smackie Chan]

You want to fix the schools and the education problem in this country? You need to fix the families.
...
If you want to improve the schools, improve the families.

To whom are you directing this message? ML? Government? Individual heads of household? How how do you propose it be achieved, and who should go about the task of installing this fix?

As ML said, fed involvement began as an effort to afford children in poverty-stricken regions a semblance of quality education, which on the surface seems to be a noble objective. Perhaps in hindsight the unintended consequences outweigh whatever benefits might have been realized. But in your opinion, what should have been done? Nothing? The chances of these communities pulling themselves out of a poverty-driven death spiral on their own is slim to none. We as a nation should just write them off? Granted, we historically have and still do write off segments of society for various reasons; just wondering if poor children who would otherwise have no shot at getting a decent primary education is among those groups you'd be fine with writing off.

At the global competition level, countries that lead the way are those that emphasize - at the national level - the importance of education and starting it early. Granted, not everyone is cut out for college, and we should have a much better system that affords young people trade and vocational training to prepare them for adulthood rather than a system of college or nothing (which is an exaggeration). But is it your take that education is solely the responsibility of the local community to prioritize and fund, and that the feds should stay completely out of it and put its faith in states and municipalities to educate our youth to meet the demands of the global markets, economies, and technological challenges? The obvious argument you can make is that the system seemed to work well enough to propel us into global technological and economic leadership before the feds got involved, so why not again? A counterargument would be that the world has changed and the lead we once enjoyed over other countries has shrunk or disappeared, and removing federal dollars and involvement from primary education would set us even further back behind those countries who emphasize and support education nationally.

But basically, I'm just curious about whose job it is to lead the effort to fix America's broken families, and how that effort should play out.

[BSmack]

The GOP hates education spending because their voter base is ignorant, uneducated, racist assholes. Educated Americans don't vote GOP. Fact.

Plenty of educated rich people vote Republican because they understand that it is in their interest to maintain the current system.

The people you speak of are poor people who should understand voting for a party that supports taxes for the rich and corporate welfare is not in their best interests.

[Shlomart Ben Yisrael]

If you pursue an educational system that favours the rich, you will eventually inherit an inbred, sub-retarded aristocracy.

The genetic lottery doesn't give a fuck about your bank account.

[Mikey]

Smackie pretty much nailed it.

Maybe the Feds shouldn’t be involved as much as they are, but to say that education is solely a local function and responsibility is to write off large segments of our country as undeserving of a quality education. Easy to do if you don’t live in one of those communities.

[Mikey]

But basically, I'm just curious about whose job it is to lead the effort to fix America's broken families, and how that effort should play out.

Bill Cosby?

[ML@Coyote]

But basically, I'm just curious about whose job it is to lead the effort to fix America's broken families, and how that effort should play out.

Bill Cosby?

But seriously, I'm not sure if it's anyone's job. The solution has to come from within. But in the meantime it seems like there is something that can be done for the children.

[ML@Coyote]

The GOP hates education spending because their voter base is ignorant, uneducated, racist assholes. Educated Americans don't vote GOP. Fact.

Plenty of educated rich people vote Republican because they understand that it is in their interest to maintain the current system.

The people you speak of are poor people who should understand voting for a party that supports taxes for the rich and corporate welfare is not in their best interests.

You have a very narrow minded view of people's voting decisions.

[Dinsdale]

But seriously, I'm not sure if it's anyone's job. The solution has to come from within. But in the meantime it seems like there is something that can be done for the children.

I'm watching the Tour Championship.

See: Tom Cousins.

He figured it was his job.

[ML@Coyote]

Thanks for that.

I knew nothing about him.

[ML@Coyote]

But is it your take that education is solely the responsibility of the local community to prioritize and fund, and that the feds should stay completely out of it and put its faith in states and municipalities to educate our youth to meet the demands of the global markets, economies, and technological challenges? The obvious argument you can make is that the system seemed to work well enough to propel us into global technological and economic leadership before the feds got involved, so why not again? A counterargument would be that the world has changed and the lead we once enjoyed over other countries has shrunk or disappeared, and removing federal dollars and involvement from primary education would set us even further back behind those countries who emphasize and support education nationally.

I've been thinking about this, Smackie. I watched my two sons go through the public K-12 educational system, and I don't remember seeing any evidence that they were being prepared to face global markets, economies, or technological challenges, with or without any prodding by the Feds.

[Smackie Chan]

I watched my two sons go through the public K-12 educational system, and I don't remember seeing any evidence that they were being prepared to face global markets, economies, or technological challenges, with or without any prodding by the Feds.

Public K-12 education by itself will not provide that preparation, nor should it. What it should do, imo, is provide enough practical knowledge and information to young people to optimize their chances for success and societal contributions as adults. Part of that preparation is early identification of a student's "track" to adulthood. For most students, the appropriate tracks will be fairly easy to correctly identify early on in their academic careers. Some students will clearly exhibit strengths that will guide decisions to place them on college prep tracks, while others' strengths will steer them toward the crafts/trades/vocational tracks. Some could go either way, and the track system should be flexible enough to accommodate them.

Those who go to college will primarily be expected to tackle the aforementioned challenges, and it's the responsibility of the universities in partnership with industry (and, yes, perhaps even government) to prepare young adults to face them. The public K-12 system college prep track system should adequately prepare those on it to be able to hit the ground running when they start college, giving the institutions of higher learning the luxury of having to provide only minimal levels of remedial education, allowing them to set higher admissions and graduation standards and have them met.

[Mikey]

But is it your take that education is solely the responsibility of the local community to prioritize and fund, and that the feds should stay completely out of it and put its faith in states and municipalities to educate our youth to meet the demands of the global markets, economies, and technological challenges? The obvious argument you can make is that the system seemed to work well enough to propel us into global technological and economic leadership before the feds got involved, so why not again? A counterargument would be that the world has changed and the lead we once enjoyed over other countries has shrunk or disappeared, and removing federal dollars and involvement from primary education would set us even further back behind those countries who emphasize and support education nationally.

I've been thinking about this, Smackie. I watched my two sons go through the public K-12 educational system, and I don't remember seeing any evidence that they were being prepared to face global markets, economies, or technological challenges, with or without any prodding by the Feds.

My two kids went through local pubic schools for K-12, and a public university (both at UC Irvine). Both were National Merit finalists. The older one has a Masters degree in accounting and is halfway through her CPA exams during her first year of employment, and the other is employed as a mechanical engineer. I'm not trying to boast, but just pointing out that they don't seem to have been hurt by going through the public school system. Our school district is not particularly wealthy, but we have been blessed with some excellent and dedicated teachers that really motivated our kids.

That, and brilliant parents.

[FiatLux]

political activism.

Should be forbidden in our schools. Students should be encouraged to argue and discuss, but the school itself should take no position on anything.

Stop confusing people...they'll stop thinking CAL is a liberal school, which doesn't preach "critical thinking" and/or a "sink or swim" policy.

Shame on you.

[ML@Coyote]

Stop confusing people...they'll stop thinking CAL is a liberal school, which doesn't preach "critical thinking" and/or a "sink or swim" policy.

Shame on you.

During my first year at Cal, I took Econ. During one of our lecture classes, the prof brought in a little fellow who looked like an emaciated cross between Karl Marx and Che Guevara. He was there to describe his communist party campus organization to us and ask if anyone wanted to join up. I remember he handed out fliers. The prof said the administrators required that the guy have access to his students. I was weird, to say the least, especially in light of the fact that thousands of Americans had just died "fighting communism" in Vietnam. The war had just ended a year earlier.

[FiatLux]

Stop confusing people...they'll stop thinking CAL is a liberal school, which doesn't preach "critical thinking" and/or a "sink or swim" policy.

Shame on you.

During my first year at Cal, I took Econ. During one of our lecture classes, the prof brought in a little fellow who looked like an emaciated cross between Karl Marx and Che Guevara. He was there to describe his communist party campus organization to us and ask if anyone wanted to join up. I remember he handed out fliers. The prof said the administrators required that the guy have access to his students. I was weird, to say the least, especially in light of the fact that thousands of Americans had just died "fighting communism" in Vietnam. The war had just ended a year earlier.

Ahhh, the Angela Davis era and the scumbags known as the "Black Panthers". Good times. I'm sure you remember the fun bunch known as "the weathermen"., as well as the SLA.

I remember a lecture class at CAL with around 500 us in organic chemistry... and the highest grade was a 48. Thank god, CAL was on the curve, or all of us would have flunked the course. Too funny.

I've been embarrassed by the the schools' policies as of late. Not what the school actually represents.