Forum Settings
       
Reply To Thread

Education - Public vs PrivateFollow

#102 Feb 14 2012 at 12:31 AM Rating: Excellent
Lunatic
******
29,588 posts

the CBO historical data has become harder to find


Step 1: Type "cbo historical tables" into Google Search
Step 2: Click on first link.
Step 3: Cut a hole in a box...
____________________________
Disclaimer:

To make a long story short, I don't take any responsibility for anything I post here. It's not news, it's not truth, it's not serious. It's parody. It's satire. It's bitter. It's angsty. Your mother's a *****. You like to jack off dogs. That's right, you heard me. You like to grab that dog by the bone and rub it like a ski pole. Your dad? ***. Your priest? Straight. **** off and let me post. It's not true, it's all in good fun. Now go away.

#103 Feb 14 2012 at 10:25 AM Rating: Good
Avatar
*****
12,071 posts
Smasharoo wrote:

the CBO historical data has become harder to find


Step 1: Type "cbo historical tables" into Google Search
Step 2: Click on first link.
Step 3: Cut a hole in a box...


I'm pretty sure Gbaji would misunderstand step 3 and end up with a box on his head, which would make finding the CBO data quite difficult for him.
____________________________
Just as Planned.
#104 Feb 14 2012 at 1:13 PM Rating: Good
*****
19,984 posts
Interesting article in the NYT today.

Foreign-born, rich parents in NYC are increasingly choosing to send their kids to public school (having the luxury to choose their district), because they actually teach children about class and racial diversity.

It's a piece specifically about the city itself, since affluent foreigners are hardly something found in all districts of the US. But I thought it was interesting.

And, realistically, American public schools need three things very, very badly.
1. They need the funding for small class sizes (both overall and classroom). Schools where teachers can get to know every student (over time) actually perform far better than schools with 700 students, even if class sizes are the same.
2. We need to trust teachers. We assert that teachers are just babysitters in Amaerican culture, but that's really downplaying the issue to the point where it's just wrong. Our problem is that teachers are liable for bad grades and child's behavior, but aren't given any authority to actually address issues. They aren't babysitters so much as scapegoats.
3. We need to stop creating a school environment that isn't conducive to learning. This means making classrooms true safe spaces, it means removing the competitive aspect of schooling, it means letting kids play, it means a serious reduction in the emphasis placed on testing, it means a willingness to actually foster learning over memorization, and it (most importantly) means that equality across schools needs to be truly important.

For example, take Finland.

Their schools are amazingly successful, and it's because they don't do any of the crap Americans do. Education isn't a business, it's something they see as an intrinsically valuable and important part of their nation.

Oh, best part? Schools are kept small, and class sizes as well. Everything is publically funded, so disparity between rich districts and poor districts is extremely small. If necessary, students will receive one-on-one teaching, to encourage learning. That means a much higher number of schools, and number of teachers. But their schools systems is also led by educators all the way up. In the US, most superintendents have backgrounds in business, and run schools accordingly. And that's an awful system.

Best part? They spend 30% less per student than we do in the US.

Yes, just throwing money at a school won't help. It WILL help if that money is used and dispensed by educators, and not businessmen. It will help if that goes to building a new school, to halve class sizes.

[EDIT]

Another good article, specifically on why Americans have trouble understanding the Finish model, so they can't see they problem within our own system.

Edited, Feb 14th 2012 2:20pm by idiggory
____________________________
IDrownFish wrote:
Anyways, you all are horrible, @#%^ed up people

lolgaxe wrote:
Never underestimate the healing power of a massive dong.
#105 Feb 14 2012 at 1:24 PM Rating: Decent
******
21,718 posts
gbaji wrote:
I mentioned the CBO historical data. The problem (as I've pointed out in the past) is that since Obama took office, the CBO historical data has become harder to find (a coincidence, I'm sure). Used to be front and center at the top right of the first page.


Publications
=> By Subject
=> Budget and Economic Information
=> Budget and Economic Outlook

3rd or 4th link on resulting page:
http://cbo.gov/doc.cfm?index=12699&type=1

That wasn't all that difficult you twit. Tables F4 and F5 are relevant here.

And no, veterans benefits are not considered part of defense spending. Retirement and disability benefits are covered other "Other retirement / disability" on the mandatory outlays table (F5) while health care, social services, etc... are covered under non-defense discretionary spending (F4).

Discretionary outlays—the part of federal spending that lawmakers generally control through annual appropriation acts—totaled about $1.35 trillion in 2011, or close to 40 percent of federal outlays. Slightly more than half of that spending was for defense. The remainder went for a wide variety of government programs and activities, with the largest amounts spent for education, training, employment, and social services; transportation; income security (mostly housing and nutrition assistance); veterans' benefits (primarily for health care); health-related research and public health; international affairs; and the administration of justice.
____________________________
R.I.P. Jessica M. 5/3/2010
This post brought to you by Carl's Jr.
gbaji wrote:
You guys keep tossing facts out there like they mean something.


#106 Feb 14 2012 at 1:39 PM Rating: Good
*****
19,984 posts
That's fine, but then we shouldn't be considering teachers' benefits a part of education spending.
____________________________
IDrownFish wrote:
Anyways, you all are horrible, @#%^ed up people

lolgaxe wrote:
Never underestimate the healing power of a massive dong.
#107 Feb 14 2012 at 1:40 PM Rating: Decent
******
21,718 posts
idiggory, King of Bards wrote:
That's fine, but then we shouldn't be considering teachers' benefits a part of education spending.


Active benefits (while you're employed) are part of education (or defense) spending. It's the benefits that are applied after you're retired that are counted separately.
____________________________
R.I.P. Jessica M. 5/3/2010
This post brought to you by Carl's Jr.
gbaji wrote:
You guys keep tossing facts out there like they mean something.


#108 Feb 14 2012 at 1:42 PM Rating: Good
*****
19,984 posts
Still applies with regards to pensions, which is the largest part of the debate on education spending.
____________________________
IDrownFish wrote:
Anyways, you all are horrible, @#%^ed up people

lolgaxe wrote:
Never underestimate the healing power of a massive dong.
#109 Feb 14 2012 at 1:50 PM Rating: Decent
******
21,718 posts
idiggory, King of Bards wrote:
Still applies with regards to pensions, which is the largest part of the debate on education spending.



OK, military funding is a federal issue. In all cases that I'm aware of, teacher pensions are funded at the state level. For your point to be valid, you're going to have to show a clear link between federal education funding and state fulfillment of teacher pension funding, since, you know, teachers aren't federal employees. I don't doubt there is a link, but its likely tenuous at best, and without some hard facts, it's a red herring.

____________________________
R.I.P. Jessica M. 5/3/2010
This post brought to you by Carl's Jr.
gbaji wrote:
You guys keep tossing facts out there like they mean something.


#110 Feb 14 2012 at 1:51 PM Rating: Good
*****
19,984 posts
I wasn't aware that we were limiting this conversation to federal spending, especially considering the thread has been about proposed legislation in a specific state.
____________________________
IDrownFish wrote:
Anyways, you all are horrible, @#%^ed up people

lolgaxe wrote:
Never underestimate the healing power of a massive dong.
#111 Feb 14 2012 at 1:57 PM Rating: Default
******
21,718 posts
idiggory, King of Bards wrote:
I wasn't aware that we were limiting this conversation to federal spending, especially considering the thread has been about proposed legislation in a specific state.


The subject of military spending is (almost) irrelevant at the state level though. The whole conversation of military vs education spending is apples and oranges if you're talking about a state-specific issue.
____________________________
R.I.P. Jessica M. 5/3/2010
This post brought to you by Carl's Jr.
gbaji wrote:
You guys keep tossing facts out there like they mean something.


#112 Feb 14 2012 at 1:57 PM Rating: Excellent
******
44,512 posts
I'm pretty sure a 50% cut would be too much, but 15%~20% wouldn't be too unrealistic a suggestion.
____________________________
George Carlin wrote:
I think it’s the duty of the comedian to find out where the line is drawn and cross it deliberately.
#113 Feb 14 2012 at 2:16 PM Rating: Excellent
*****
19,984 posts
BrownDuck wrote:
idiggory, King of Bards wrote:
I wasn't aware that we were limiting this conversation to federal spending, especially considering the thread has been about proposed legislation in a specific state.


The subject of military spending is (almost) irrelevant at the state level though. The whole conversation of military vs education spending is apples and oranges if you're talking about a state-specific issue.


We're talking about amounts people are willing to spend on various social services. Whether those are local, federal, or state shouldn't matter.

Plus, it's also perfectly acceptable to argue that education spending should be a federal issue, not a state one.

There's no good reason to remove any from the conversation.
____________________________
IDrownFish wrote:
Anyways, you all are horrible, @#%^ed up people

lolgaxe wrote:
Never underestimate the healing power of a massive dong.
#114 Feb 14 2012 at 2:22 PM Rating: Default
******
21,718 posts
idiggory, King of Bards wrote:
BrownDuck wrote:
idiggory, King of Bards wrote:
I wasn't aware that we were limiting this conversation to federal spending, especially considering the thread has been about proposed legislation in a specific state.


The subject of military spending is (almost) irrelevant at the state level though. The whole conversation of military vs education spending is apples and oranges if you're talking about a state-specific issue.


We're talking about amounts people are willing to spend on various social services. Whether those are local, federal, or state shouldn't matter.

Plus, it's also perfectly acceptable to argue that education spending should be a federal issue, not a state one.

There's no good reason to remove any from the conversation.


Well if you'd remove your blinders, you'd see that I was responding directly to a statement made by Gbaji about federal spending and accounting. Also, any previous comments I made on the subject were directed toward federal education spending which as we just clarified, does not generally include teacher pensions. That's something you injected into the conversation, and not something I was particularly addressing.
____________________________
R.I.P. Jessica M. 5/3/2010
This post brought to you by Carl's Jr.
gbaji wrote:
You guys keep tossing facts out there like they mean something.


#115 Feb 14 2012 at 2:28 PM Rating: Good
*****
19,984 posts
BrownDuck wrote:
idiggory, King of Bards wrote:
BrownDuck wrote:
idiggory, King of Bards wrote:
I wasn't aware that we were limiting this conversation to federal spending, especially considering the thread has been about proposed legislation in a specific state.


The subject of military spending is (almost) irrelevant at the state level though. The whole conversation of military vs education spending is apples and oranges if you're talking about a state-specific issue.


We're talking about amounts people are willing to spend on various social services. Whether those are local, federal, or state shouldn't matter.

Plus, it's also perfectly acceptable to argue that education spending should be a federal issue, not a state one.

There's no good reason to remove any from the conversation.


Well if you'd remove your blinders, you'd see that I was responding directly to a statement made by Gbaji about federal spending and accounting. Also, any previous comments I made on the subject were directed toward federal education spending which as we just clarified, does not generally include teacher pensions. That's something you injected into the conversation, and not something I was particularly addressing.


No, you were addressing me specifically on the subject of whether or not veterans benefits should be lumped in with defense spending. That's how we got onto this tangent about teacher's benefits. It had nothing to do with federal vs. state--that was your own separate issue with gbaji.

Quote:
And no, veterans benefits are not considered part of defense spending. Retirement and disability benefits are covered other "Other retirement / disability" on the mandatory outlays table (F5) while health care, social services, etc... are covered under non-defense discretionary spending (F4).


His stance was that they shouldn't be considered defense spending, mine was that they should.
____________________________
IDrownFish wrote:
Anyways, you all are horrible, @#%^ed up people

lolgaxe wrote:
Never underestimate the healing power of a massive dong.
#116 Feb 14 2012 at 2:44 PM Rating: Good
******
21,718 posts
idiggory, King of Bards wrote:
His stance was that they shouldn't be considered defense spending, mine was that they should.


Well whether they should be or not, they currently are not. I was responding to a comment he made, but didn't realize the source of the point of contention. My bad.
____________________________
R.I.P. Jessica M. 5/3/2010
This post brought to you by Carl's Jr.
gbaji wrote:
You guys keep tossing facts out there like they mean something.


#117 Feb 14 2012 at 2:55 PM Rating: Good
*****
19,984 posts
No problem, lol. That gave me many +1 opportunities. :P
____________________________
IDrownFish wrote:
Anyways, you all are horrible, @#%^ed up people

lolgaxe wrote:
Never underestimate the healing power of a massive dong.
#118 Feb 14 2012 at 3:53 PM Rating: Excellent
Liberal Conspiracy
*******
TILT
idiggory, King of Bards wrote:
Another good article, specifically on why Americans have trouble understanding the Finish model, so they can't see they problem within our own system.

I saw a similar article a while back in... The Christian Science Monitor? Anyway, same premise -- why don't we look at countries with successful school systems and emulate them rather than trying to reinvent the wheel. A couple of the common traits were better teacher pay (which can be coupled with better accountability) and targeting schools in the worse economic areas with the most funding rather than the US model where schools in wealthy districts wind up having the most cash and schools in depressed districts stay depressed.

Not said, but I think relating the second point especially, is our strange state/local fiefdom model for school administration/funding. I think a more federalized system would be better but that's just me.
____________________________
Belkira wrote:
Wow. Regular ol' Joph fan club in here.
#119 Feb 14 2012 at 4:01 PM Rating: Excellent
Cervixhouse-Five
******
30,643 posts
It might also be nice if schools focused more on academics then sports programs.
#120 Feb 14 2012 at 4:04 PM Rating: Good
Encyclopedia
******
31,966 posts
BrownDuck wrote:
gbaji wrote:
I mentioned the CBO historical data. The problem (as I've pointed out in the past) is that since Obama took office, the CBO historical data has become harder to find (a coincidence, I'm sure). Used to be front and center at the top right of the first page.


Publications
=> By Subject
=> Budget and Economic Information
=> Budget and Economic Outlook

3rd or 4th link on resulting page:
http://cbo.gov/doc.cfm?index=12699&type=1

That wasn't all that difficult you twit.


Used to just be able to point to cbo.gov and say "click the link in the top right of the page". I think you're missing the point. If I reference the cbo historical budget data, then that's the reference. It's publicly available data from a known source. If you want to verify that data, you're free to download the pdf and view it yourself. Yes. A direct link helps, but they don't provide the tables in html format anymore, so each person has to download the files themselves.

Quote:
And no, veterans benefits are not considered part of defense spending. Retirement and disability benefits are covered other "Other retirement / disability" on the mandatory outlays table (F5) while health care, social services, etc... are covered under non-defense discretionary spending (F4).


It is under the other source cited though. Which is part of the point I was making. Certainly, when someone speaks of reducing "military spending", they're probably not speaking of veterans benefits.

Edited, Feb 14th 2012 2:04pm by gbaji
____________________________
King Nobby wrote:
More words please
#121 Feb 14 2012 at 4:04 PM Rating: Decent
******
21,718 posts
Belkira wrote:
It might also be nice if schools focused more on academics then sports programs.


But then how would all those inner city youths with single (or non-existant) parents have a shot at a decent community college level education while representing a big university sports team. Athletes can't go pro on their own, Belkira.
____________________________
R.I.P. Jessica M. 5/3/2010
This post brought to you by Carl's Jr.
gbaji wrote:
You guys keep tossing facts out there like they mean something.


#122 Feb 14 2012 at 4:07 PM Rating: Decent
Encyclopedia
******
31,966 posts
BrownDuck wrote:
idiggory, King of Bards wrote:
I wasn't aware that we were limiting this conversation to federal spending, especially considering the thread has been about proposed legislation in a specific state.


The subject of military spending is (almost) irrelevant at the state level though. The whole conversation of military vs education spending is apples and oranges if you're talking about a state-specific issue.


Yes. Exactly right. If we're going to have any conversation which involves comparing spending on military (which is done almost entirely at the federal level) and education (which is done mostly at the local and state levels), we can't restrict our conversation to just state funding or federal funding. We have to look at all funding and costs at all levels. It's certainly ridiculous to compare federal military spending to federal education spending and conclude that we over spend on one and underspend on the other.
____________________________
King Nobby wrote:
More words please
#123 Feb 14 2012 at 4:13 PM Rating: Decent
Encyclopedia
******
31,966 posts
Jophiel wrote:
gbaji wrote:
Quote:
And veterans benefits absolutely factor into defense spending. They are specifically part of the system we use to support those in the defense program, to repair the damage done to them through it, and to attract people to the program in the first place.
But I'm reasonably certain that wasn't the part of the military spending that was proposed to be cut and spent instead on education.

Smaller military = less veteran benefit obligations. No one is saying "Let's dump all our tanks into the ocean but keep paying the tank drivers".


This assumes the mission changes. Now I know that's what some want to have happen, and is in fact why they propose cutting military spending. They assume that if we cut the military spending, then we reduce what the military can do, and thus will reduce what we try to do with it. But that's not a valid assumption. What usually happens (and has happened) is that the military comes up with new standards and insists that it can provide the same mission capability with fewer people and resources.

Which means we do the same things, just with fewer people. Which means, everything else staying the same, that we'll have the same total number of casualties over time. They'll just represent a higher percentage of the total. And guess what? The costs to provide those services will be the same. Now if we're limiting our conversation to just "normal" benefits, then the costs will obviously be lower if there are fewer people. However, if that's the case then my argument about it not mattering where the costs are is valid as well. If instead of that person working in the military he works at the DMV. Our tax dollars are still providing for his benefits, one way or another.


Given that the high calculations for the costs of the wars include the health costs directly associated with our military actions, I think it's fair to point out that this number wont decrease just because we decrease the number of people in the military. One can argue that they will actually increase, in fact.
____________________________
King Nobby wrote:
More words please
#124 Feb 14 2012 at 4:13 PM Rating: Excellent
Soulless Internet Tiger
******
34,765 posts
Belkira wrote:
It might also be nice if schools focused more on academics then sports programs.
Why do you want everyone to be fat?
____________________________
Donate. One day it could be your family.
Need a hotel at a great rate? More hotels being added weekly.

An invasion of armies can be resisted, but not an idea whose time has come. Victor Hugo

#125 Feb 14 2012 at 4:14 PM Rating: Good
******
21,718 posts
gbaji wrote:
It's certainly ridiculous to compare federal military spending to federal education spending and conclude that we over spend on one and underspend on the other.


Not necessarily. While the bulk of a public school system's funding may come in at the state level, it's not an unreasonable expectation that the federal government might provide more funding for impoverished or depressed school districts in the form of grants, training programs, etc... such that said districts might improve the quality of education offered to their students.

Just because the majority of public education funding is at the state level now doesn't mean it has to be. Given a choice of where my tax dollars were spent, I'd certainly spend my share improving inner city schools than say, paying marines to **** on dead enemy combatants.
____________________________
R.I.P. Jessica M. 5/3/2010
This post brought to you by Carl's Jr.
gbaji wrote:
You guys keep tossing facts out there like they mean something.


#126 Feb 14 2012 at 4:23 PM Rating: Decent
Encyclopedia
******
31,966 posts
BrownDuck wrote:
gbaji wrote:
It's certainly ridiculous to compare federal military spending to federal education spending and conclude that we over spend on one and underspend on the other.


Not necessarily. While the bulk of a public school system's funding may come in at the state level, it's not an unreasonable expectation that the federal government might provide more funding for impoverished or depressed school districts in the form of grants, training programs, etc... such that said districts might improve the quality of education offered to their students.


Sure. But that's a separate assessment of the need for such funding at the federal level. I don't think it's fair to compare the dollars spent on each of those things at the federal level and make a broad pronouncement that one is underfunded, and the other overfunded.

Quote:
Just because the majority of public education funding is at the state level now doesn't mean it has to be. Given a choice of where my tax dollars were spent, I'd certainly spend my share improving inner city schools than say, paying marines to **** on dead enemy combatants.


But that doesn't change the totals, right? So you pay less state taxes and higher federal taxes to shift the spending from one level to the other. And having done that, don't you now make the federal spending higher relative to the military spending? Since it is really just a matter of where the money is taxed, isn't it more fair to just compare the total amounts spent on both at all levels?


And frankly, it's also important to include the amount spent privately. Not on a one for one level, but it should be mentioned. Because if, for example, someone were to propose to eliminate private schools and make them all public (like in Finland maybe), you'd have to account for that extra cost for all those students who are currently not receiving their eduction funding from any level of government. That's the true full cost of education in America, and it's important to include it (even if the math isn't particularly direct). I suppose we could count all the kids attending private school and multiply by the current average per-child cost of public education and arrive at a number we'd have to add.


Don't feel like doing it myself right at the moment, but can we agree that this is a relevant figure as well?
____________________________
King Nobby wrote:
More words please
#127 Feb 14 2012 at 4:51 PM Rating: Excellent
*****
19,984 posts
Quote:

Sure. But that's a separate assessment of the need for such funding at the federal level. I don't think it's fair to compare the dollars spent on each of those things at the federal level and make a broad pronouncement that one is underfunded, and the other overfunded.


Except that that was the point. Someone was expressing dissatisfaction that we weren't spending federal dollars there. Whether or not states provide the bulk of education funds doesn't invalidate that opinion, or make it irrelevant. They are specifically stating they think it is something that needs to change.

To put it in different terms, they are specifically opposing the lack of federal interest in American education reform, regardless of how involved individual states are in their own education systems. I don't like education as a state issue, because I think every American deserves to receive a top-notch education. It isn't something that needs to be subject to stateside decisions.
____________________________
IDrownFish wrote:
Anyways, you all are horrible, @#%^ed up people

lolgaxe wrote:
Never underestimate the healing power of a massive dong.
#128 Feb 14 2012 at 4:56 PM Rating: Good
******
21,718 posts
idiggory, King of Bards wrote:
Quote:

Sure. But that's a separate assessment of the need for such funding at the federal level. I don't think it's fair to compare the dollars spent on each of those things at the federal level and make a broad pronouncement that one is underfunded, and the other overfunded.


Except that that was the point. Someone was expressing dissatisfaction that we weren't spending federal dollars there. Whether or not states provide the bulk of education funds doesn't invalidate that opinion, or make it irrelevant. They are specifically stating they think it is something that needs to change.


This. Also...

gbaji wrote:
But that doesn't change the totals, right? So you pay less state taxes and higher federal taxes to shift the spending from one level to the other


No, I'm not suggesting shifting the funding from state to federal level. I'm suggesting leaving state funding as-is and moving money from the defense discretionary budget into the education budget. I want MORE money for our schools, not simply a chance in funding source.
____________________________
R.I.P. Jessica M. 5/3/2010
This post brought to you by Carl's Jr.
gbaji wrote:
You guys keep tossing facts out there like they mean something.


#129 Feb 14 2012 at 5:02 PM Rating: Decent
Encyclopedia
******
31,966 posts
idiggory, King of Bards wrote:
Quote:

Sure. But that's a separate assessment of the need for such funding at the federal level. I don't think it's fair to compare the dollars spent on each of those things at the federal level and make a broad pronouncement that one is underfunded, and the other overfunded.


Except that that was the point. Someone was expressing dissatisfaction that we weren't spending federal dollars there.


That's only a half truth though. Said person argued that we should cut spending on the military and shift it to education. He was making a direct comparison between the spending on those things and arguing that we spend too much on one and not enough on the other.

Quote:
Whether or not states provide the bulk of education funds doesn't invalidate that opinion, or make it irrelevant.


If his entire argument was that we should add some additional federal funds to augment that spent at the state and local levels, sure. But that's not what he said. He was making an argument about relative dollars spent. And if you're going to make that argument you need to look at *all* the dollars spent on something, not just those that are spent by a single source. It would be like if I focused only on dollars given to schools as a result of cookie sales and compare them to dollars earned by the Girl Scouts from their cookie sales and conclude that we should take money from the Girl Scouts and give it to the schools. It would be perfectly legitimate to point out that cookie sales are not the primary source of funding for our schools, but it is for the Girl Scouts.

Quote:
They are specifically stating they think it is something that needs to change.


Then make that argument without talking about the military. If you think that we need to spend more federal dollars, them make that case. Tossing in some other area of spending and arguing we should shift funds away is avoiding the issue IMO.

Quote:
To put it in different terms, they are specifically opposing the lack of federal interest in American education reform, regardless of how involved individual states are in their own education systems. I don't like education as a state issue, because I think every American deserves to receive a top-notch education. It isn't something that needs to be subject to stateside decisions.



There's a whole lot of states rights folks who'd argue you're wrong, along with a couple sections of the US constitution.
____________________________
King Nobby wrote:
More words please
#130 Feb 14 2012 at 5:31 PM Rating: Excellent
Liberal Conspiracy
*******
TILT
gbaji wrote:
Quote:
To put it in different terms, they are specifically opposing the lack of federal interest in American education reform, regardless of how involved individual states are in their own education systems. I don't like education as a state issue, because I think every American deserves to receive a top-notch education. It isn't something that needs to be subject to stateside decisions.
There's a whole lot of states rights folks who'd argue you're wrong, along with a couple sections of the US constitution.

There's a whole lot of nations with much higher scores who would argue that maybe the couple deified guys who died hundreds of years ago knew less about modern education than they do.
____________________________
Belkira wrote:
Wow. Regular ol' Joph fan club in here.
#131 Feb 14 2012 at 6:19 PM Rating: Decent
Encyclopedia
******
31,966 posts
Jophiel wrote:
gbaji wrote:
Quote:
To put it in different terms, they are specifically opposing the lack of federal interest in American education reform, regardless of how involved individual states are in their own education systems. I don't like education as a state issue, because I think every American deserves to receive a top-notch education. It isn't something that needs to be subject to stateside decisions.
There's a whole lot of states rights folks who'd argue you're wrong, along with a couple sections of the US constitution.

There's a whole lot of nations with much higher scores who would argue that maybe the couple deified guys who died hundreds of years ago knew less about modern education than they do.


And a whole lot with lower scores as well. The reasons for our system of government being set up the way it is are broader than just how national test score results come out. We limit the federal government and hand over the power to enact broader programs to the states on the principle that any government can make bad choices. This applies at any level. It's somewhat foolish to assume that a federal body setting policy for education would do a better job than any state body would. The advantage of doing it at the state level is that we aren't putting all our eggs in one basket. States can look around at other states, see what works, and what doesn't, and make adjustments to their own systems. It's harder to do this at a federal level. While you can look at other countries, the differences between one country and another, and thus the needs of an education system, will vary more between countries than between states within a country.


I also still think this is avoiding the issue. The issue really isn't about funding, and it's certainly not about where we fund from. It has to do with a whole set of systemic conditions within our education system. And frankly, right now, the biggest problems are the mandates that come with that 15% or so of total funding that comes from the federal government. While our federal government, and their advocates, seem to constantly talk about how federal level funding can help improve our schools nationwide, their track record over the last few decades has been less than stellar. Any argument for increasing federal funding (and thus involvement and control) would need to be matched with a good argument for how we'd change the focus and methods of that involvement.


And yes. I include both GOP and Dems in that assertion. Neither party has been particularly good at implementing federal level education programs that actually deliver on their promises. For the most part, all we've done is add so many layers of bureaucracy into our system that schools can't do what is best for their students, and teachers cant teach in the ways they believe will best reach the students. What's lost in all the talk of Finland and their fully publicly funded system, is that it's not where the money comes from that matters (because a proposed voucher system would *also* mean federal funding was involved), but that the schools and the teachers are left alone to make their own choices about how to best teach the kids. They certainly don't have the kinds of ridiculously restrictive requirements that our teachers have to follow. They hire the best teachers and give them broad education objectives, and then let them teach.


BTW, this isn't much different than what works well in our private schools right now, and doesn't work well in our public schools.
____________________________
King Nobby wrote:
More words please
#132 Feb 14 2012 at 6:36 PM Rating: Excellent
Liberal Conspiracy
*******
TILT
gbaji wrote:
And a whole lot with lower scores as well.

Gee, so maybe we should emulate the better ones and not those, huh?

Education MUST suck if you couldn't figure that one out Smiley: rolleyes
____________________________
Belkira wrote:
Wow. Regular ol' Joph fan club in here.
#133 Feb 14 2012 at 6:37 PM Rating: Excellent
*****
19,984 posts
The state vs. federal division of powers formed in a completely different historical context and, quite frankly, no longer applies. It was formed in response to the establishment of the new Aristocracy by the Federalist Party, to protect commoners (primarily farmers) from class oppression.

To make it clear, think about the fact that Federalists and Anti-Federalists most frequently critiqued each other using language of the French Revolution. Federalists called Anti-Federalists Jacobins, Anti-Federalists called Federalists elitist aristocrats.

Anti-Federalists, who eventually gained control of the system under the Democratic-Republican Party, which later split into two, originally wanted a Confederacy. They never wanted the US to be a country at all, but when the Constitution was ratified they didn't have enough political power to oppose it (since the vast majority of politicians at the time were federalist). After they gained power 15 years later, it was too late to really change anything.

State power had always existed to protect people from being controlled by a small, elite group.

You might have noticed that, in the context of the modern day, it's not doing that job anymore.

If you think state powers should still be respected, fine. But don't make it about the reasons they were established, because it just doesn't apply anymore. For one, the average person isn't at all protected by an elite by state power, in the context of the modern US. More importantly, the constitution left everything else to the states because it was always meant to be an amendable document. It was designed for the way the US was at the time, not for the way the world would change.
____________________________
IDrownFish wrote:
Anyways, you all are horrible, @#%^ed up people

lolgaxe wrote:
Never underestimate the healing power of a massive dong.
#134 Feb 14 2012 at 8:19 PM Rating: Decent
Encyclopedia
******
31,966 posts
Jophiel wrote:
gbaji wrote:
And a whole lot with lower scores as well.

Gee, so maybe we should emulate the better ones and not those, huh?


Sure. But do you see how simply saying "let's nationalize our education system" doesn't do that?

Quote:
Education MUST suck if you couldn't figure that one out Smiley: rolleyes


That's some irony for you.
____________________________
King Nobby wrote:
More words please
#135 Feb 14 2012 at 8:35 PM Rating: Decent
Encyclopedia
******
31,966 posts
idiggory, King of Bards wrote:
The state vs. federal division of powers formed in a completely different historical context and, quite frankly, no longer applies.


Until the constitution is amended, it still applies. No amount of pretending it doesn't makes it so.


Quote:
It was formed in response to the establishment of the new Aristocracy by the Federalist Party, to protect commoners (primarily farmers) from class oppression.

To make it clear, think about the fact that Federalists and Anti-Federalists most frequently critiqued each other using language of the French Revolution. Federalists called Anti-Federalists Jacobins, Anti-Federalists called Federalists elitist aristocrats.

Anti-Federalists, who eventually gained control of the system under the Democratic-Republican Party, which later split into two, originally wanted a Confederacy. They never wanted the US to be a country at all, but when the Constitution was ratified they didn't have enough political power to oppose it (since the vast majority of politicians at the time were federalist). After they gained power 15 years later, it was too late to really change anything.


Nice history lesson, I guess. Smiley: rolleyes

Quote:
State power had always existed to protect people from being controlled by a small, elite group.


Yes. And they realized that the smallest and most elite group would be a powerful central government. See how that works? They realized that if you didn't give the federal government that much direct power over the individual citizens, then it wouldn't matter what faction those who held power were. They would not be able to use it to abuse the rights of the people. That was the whole **** point.

Go do some research on Hamilton sometime to see how even one of the most staunch Federalists of the day still strongly supported the idea of limited government (just not as limited).

Quote:
You might have noticed that, in the context of the modern day, it's not doing that job anymore.


Yes. Because in the intervening years, the federal government has steadily encroached on the powers of the states. Arguing that states rights aren't protecting us from federal abuse of power because we've already limited states rights so much that it's no longer protecting us that well is a pretty crappy argument. Or did you mean some other power that it's failed to protect us from?

Quote:
If you think state powers should still be respected, fine. But don't make it about the reasons they were established, because it just doesn't apply anymore.


Again, of course they apply. Why would you think otherwise?

Quote:
For one, the average person isn't at all protected by an elite by state power, in the context of the modern US.


I don't know what you meant here at all. Care to clarify?

Quote:
More importantly, the constitution left everything else to the states because it was always meant to be an amendable document.


Um... No. That's completely wrong. The left that power to the states because the states didn't trust a central federal government not to abuse its power. They feared that it would take from the more prosperous states higher taxes and then use those taxes to buy the support of the less prosperous states. They limited its power to prevent exactly what has happened from happening.

Quote:
It was designed for the way the US was at the time, not for the way the world would change.


Then by all means, argue for an amendment to the constitution. What drives me nuts is people who talk about the constitution being a "living document" and how some rules written within really don't apply anymore, so we should just ignore them and pretend that the constitution doesn't say what it says. There's a process for changing the words of the constitution. That is the correct method for changing the document to reflect changing world conditions around us. The wrong method is to just re-interpret the constitution after the fact and pretend that it really means something different now than it did back then.
____________________________
King Nobby wrote:
More words please
#136 Feb 14 2012 at 9:41 PM Rating: Excellent
Liberal Conspiracy
*******
TILT
gbaji wrote:
Sure. But do you see how simply saying "let's nationalize our education system" doesn't do that?

It's almost as though my entire solution isn't simply "let's nationalize our education system"!

Quote:
That's some irony for you.

You can't just pick random words because you think they make you sound smart. They need to be appropriate as well.
____________________________
Belkira wrote:
Wow. Regular ol' Joph fan club in here.
#137 Feb 14 2012 at 9:45 PM Rating: Excellent
*****
19,984 posts
Yeah, your response of "then argue to make an amendment" kinda makes no sense when the original point was that the federal government should be spending more. That quite obviously includes the necessary legislation for spending.

You tried to derail the conversation about saying it would be contrary to the separation of powers. My response was that I don't think the separation of powers is important here. You either need to accept my argument, or respond why I'm wrong. Telling me to make an argument just kinda puts us in this infinite loop of stupidity.

Oh, and if you think Hamilton liked the idea of limited government, I'm starting to understand how you can think what Republicans want is small government. Hamilton supported the concept of lifelong representatives, he wanted the presidential veto to be absolute, he was an advocate for the federal government's rights to tax the people to fund a federal military force (which even many federalists were afraid of), as well as a national control over the economy. I could keep going, but I won't. Some of these ideas aren't problematic for us (largely because they've existed for so long and we accept them now... to an extent), but for the time he was essentially arguing for a non-hereditary monarchy. In fact, his own draft of the constitution was EXTREMELY similar to the British parliamentary system of the time.
____________________________
IDrownFish wrote:
Anyways, you all are horrible, @#%^ed up people

lolgaxe wrote:
Never underestimate the healing power of a massive dong.
#138 Feb 15 2012 at 12:07 AM Rating: Good
Avatar
****
7,481 posts
Quote:
Sure. But do you see how simply saying "let's nationalize our education system" doesn't do that?


Yet the countries with better education all have national education subsidies, with education requirements being determined and paid for at the provincial/state/district level. Id say that the facts show it does do that, but you aren't one for facts, so I won't.
____________________________
HEY GOOGLE. **** OFF YOU. **** YOUR ******** SEARCH ENGINE IN ITS ******* ****** BINARY ***. ALL DAY LONG.

#139 Feb 15 2012 at 12:31 AM Rating: Good
*****
19,984 posts
It's obviously also important to note that we would specifically be placing education in the federal government's hands for the sake of equality. We aren't talking about a Chinese structure, we are specifically talking about one in which a major goal is providing an equal and quality education to every child.
____________________________
IDrownFish wrote:
Anyways, you all are horrible, @#%^ed up people

lolgaxe wrote:
Never underestimate the healing power of a massive dong.
#140 Feb 15 2012 at 1:36 AM Rating: Excellent
Uglysasquatch wrote:
Belkira wrote:
It might also be nice if schools focused more on academics then sports programs.
Why do you want everyone to be fat?


I can't speak for Belkira, but I want everyone to be fat because I hate jocks. They were mean to me in high school. Smiley: frown
____________________________
Proudmoore US server:
Popina, 90 Priest
Digits, 86 Shaman
Thelesis, 85 Mage
Willowmei, 85 Druid
Necralita, 85 DK
Shrika, 72 Warlock
Jaquelle, 54 Paladin
Grakine, 32 Hunter
The MMO-Zam's FB group. Please message me first so I know who you are.
#141 Feb 15 2012 at 3:09 AM Rating: Excellent
Cervixhouse-Five
******
30,643 posts
PigtailsOfDoom wrote:
Uglysasquatch wrote:
Belkira wrote:
It might also be nice if schools focused more on academics then sports programs.
Why do you want everyone to be fat?


I can't speak for Belkira, but I want everyone to be fat because I hate jocks. They were mean to me in high school. Smiley: frown


Smiley: lol

I don't want anyone to be fat. PE has it's place in schools, I think. But giving kids scholarships because they can play football seems silly to me. And passing them just to keep them playing instead of being on academic probation is horrible.
#142 Feb 15 2012 at 10:55 AM Rating: Good
Drunken English Bastard
*****
15,264 posts
Belkira wrote:
PigtailsOfDoom wrote:
Uglysasquatch wrote:
Belkira wrote:
It might also be nice if schools focused more on academics then sports programs.
Why do you want everyone to be fat?


I can't speak for Belkira, but I want everyone to be fat because I hate jocks. They were mean to me in high school. Smiley: frown


Smiley: lol

I don't want anyone to be fat. PE has it's place in schools, I think. But giving kids scholarships because they can play football seems silly to me. And passing them just to keep them playing instead of being on academic probation is horrible.

Glad we don't have that here.
____________________________
My Movember page
Solrain wrote:
WARs can use semi-colons however we want. I once killed a guy with a semi-colon.

LordFaramir wrote:
ODESNT MATTER CAUSE I HAVE ALCHOLOL IN MY VEINGS BETCH ;3
#143 Feb 15 2012 at 10:57 AM Rating: Good
Soulless Internet Tiger
******
34,765 posts
Nilatai wrote:
Glad we don't have that here.
Of course not. Your Football Clubs would just pay the schools.
____________________________
Donate. One day it could be your family.
Need a hotel at a great rate? More hotels being added weekly.

An invasion of armies can be resisted, but not an idea whose time has come. Victor Hugo

#144 Feb 15 2012 at 3:14 PM Rating: Excellent
Belkira wrote:
I don't want anyone to be fat. PE has it's place in schools, I think. But giving kids scholarships because they can play football seems silly to me. And passing them just to keep them playing instead of being on academic probation is horrible.


That, and how much funding the sports teams get in general. It's ridiculous. My own high school is guilty of this. Band, choir, theater, all got very minimal funding, if any at all. Our theater department was self sustaining, I don't think we got any funding aside from the bonus the teacher in charge got for running it. The sports teams got new uniforms every couple of years, and new equipment, etc. My sophomore year in high school, when we got a new principal, he actually brought pizza down to the volleyball teams' practice as his way of introducing himself. He really liked volleyball, apparently. His Ph.D. was in physical education.

My university is 10x worse. I'm sure part of it is that our football team brings in a lot of revenue for the school, but even still. The preferential treatment ****** me off so much. We have girlfriend abusers, thieves, druggies, and all sorts of other colorful folks on the football team, but they don't get kicked off or kicked out of school. If a non-athlete did any of those things, they'd be out of school ASAP. The student athletes also get to stay in the nicest of the dorms (the ones with private showers and huge *** rooms) as part of their scholarship, and a new athlete study center was put in a couple years ago, which cost the school well over a million dollars to build. The real sore point of this study center, is that only athletes are allowed above the first floor. There's probably 3 or 4 floors. I get that student athletes have issues with getting their homework done due to how busy their schedules are. I don't begrudge them having tutors and such to help them with that, but what about study centers and tutors for the rest of us? I have a scholarship with various other aids due to me being a non-traditional student (since I have a pell grant, am a first generation student, and now have a documented mental disability). You know what we get? We get a room about the size of a dorm room, with three computers and a big table with chairs. That's our study center. Granted, the 70 free prints a term is nice, but it just seems incredibly unfair that we get so little help and the student athletes get so much.
____________________________
Proudmoore US server:
Popina, 90 Priest
Digits, 86 Shaman
Thelesis, 85 Mage
Willowmei, 85 Druid
Necralita, 85 DK
Shrika, 72 Warlock
Jaquelle, 54 Paladin
Grakine, 32 Hunter
The MMO-Zam's FB group. Please message me first so I know who you are.
#145 Feb 15 2012 at 3:33 PM Rating: Good
Soulless Internet Tiger
******
34,765 posts
PigtailsOfDoom wrote:
it just seems incredibly unfair that we get so little help and the student athletes get so much.
Make the school more money. I was with you on high school, you lost me when you moved on to secondary.
____________________________
Donate. One day it could be your family.
Need a hotel at a great rate? More hotels being added weekly.

An invasion of armies can be resisted, but not an idea whose time has come. Victor Hugo

#146 Feb 15 2012 at 3:41 PM Rating: Excellent
I didn't say it doesn't make sense, I said it isn't fair. Schools should act like schools, not businesses.
____________________________
Proudmoore US server:
Popina, 90 Priest
Digits, 86 Shaman
Thelesis, 85 Mage
Willowmei, 85 Druid
Necralita, 85 DK
Shrika, 72 Warlock
Jaquelle, 54 Paladin
Grakine, 32 Hunter
The MMO-Zam's FB group. Please message me first so I know who you are.
#147 Feb 15 2012 at 3:49 PM Rating: Good
*****
19,984 posts
Uglysasquatch wrote:
PigtailsOfDoom wrote:
it just seems incredibly unfair that we get so little help and the student athletes get so much.
Make the school more money. I was with you on high school, you lost me when you moved on to secondary.


If we were talking about a private institution, that would be fair. But public shouldn't be for profit. Imo, at least. And the advantages they get are pretty absurd.

Rutgers, for example, has a separate tutoring program for athletes. The tutors make $25+ an hour (don't remember the exact figure, but I think it's $30). None of that comes out of the athletes' pockets. Normal tutors are minimum wage, usually tutor 2-3+ students at a time, and aren't subject to the same level of quality controls as for the athletes'.

My school is a public university and the perks for athletes shouldn't be that huge. I don't mind certain things--for instance, the fact that there's a separate clinic for athletes, so they don't need to fight for an appointment at the normal one. It exists, in theory, for sports therapy, but they are just as fully stocked on everything else as the normal one. Still, though, they are more likely to be injured, so I don't mind.

Having established rules that allow them to (within reason) move around tests or waive attendance requirements on those days? Fine--they can't control their sports schedule and are under contract to attend. Irritates me that the same is never extended to any other working person, but I'll ignore that as you can go through the hassle of getting Dean's approval (though good luck getting that before add/drop period is over).

But having systems in place specifically to ensure that they pass their classes, where everyone else is left to fail? That's not okay.
____________________________
IDrownFish wrote:
Anyways, you all are horrible, @#%^ed up people

lolgaxe wrote:
Never underestimate the healing power of a massive dong.
#148 Feb 15 2012 at 3:57 PM Rating: Good
******
44,512 posts
idiggory, King of Bards wrote:
But public shouldn't be for profit.
Good luck getting a decent theater or art department.
____________________________
George Carlin wrote:
I think it’s the duty of the comedian to find out where the line is drawn and cross it deliberately.
#149 Feb 15 2012 at 4:06 PM Rating: Decent
****
6,470 posts
idiggory, King of Bards wrote:
Uglysasquatch wrote:
PigtailsOfDoom wrote:
it just seems incredibly unfair that we get so little help and the student athletes get so much.
Make the school more money. I was with you on high school, you lost me when you moved on to secondary.


If we were talking about a private institution, that would be fair. But public shouldn't be for profit. Imo, at least. And the advantages they get are pretty absurd.

Rutgers, for example, has a separate tutoring program for athletes. The tutors make $25+ an hour (don't remember the exact figure, but I think it's $30). None of that comes out of the athletes' pockets. Normal tutors are minimum wage, usually tutor 2-3+ students at a time, and aren't subject to the same level of quality controls as for the athletes'.

My school is a public university and the perks for athletes shouldn't be that huge. I don't mind certain things--for instance, the fact that there's a separate clinic for athletes, so they don't need to fight for an appointment at the normal one. It exists, in theory, for sports therapy, but they are just as fully stocked on everything else as the normal one. Still, though, they are more likely to be injured, so I don't mind.

Having established rules that allow them to (within reason) move around tests or waive attendance requirements on those days? Fine--they can't control their sports schedule and are under contract to attend. Irritates me that the same is never extended to any other working person, but I'll ignore that as you can go through the hassle of getting Dean's approval (though good luck getting that before add/drop period is over).

But having systems in place specifically to ensure that they pass their classes, where everyone else is left to fail? That's not okay.


I'm not so sure about that specific example you provided. You have to keep in mind that student athletes have an obligation to the school practice and train for very long hours. Coaches pressure them to devote time to sports, and not academics. That makes it more difficult to find time to study, and to study well.

It's also time that they can't be working a part time job for cash, something that other students might be able to easily manage. Or, if they still tack on a job, there's even less precious time for academics.

Separate tutoring seems within the realm of reason to me, with that in mind. I highly doubt that many of them are surpassing their classmates regardless, if they're remotely like the student athletes that I'm familiar with.

Now, that's just that example. I tend to side against athlete benefits in most issues that come up (particularly with the notion of paying them).
____________________________
Latest Articles:
Monaco: What's Yours is Mine Review

Follow me on Twitter!
#150 Feb 15 2012 at 4:10 PM Rating: Decent
******
21,718 posts
idiggory, King of Bards wrote:
Uglysasquatch wrote:
PigtailsOfDoom wrote:
it just seems incredibly unfair that we get so little help and the student athletes get so much.
Make the school more money. I was with you on high school, you lost me when you moved on to secondary.


If we were talking about a private institution, that would be fair. But public shouldn't be for profit. Imo, at least.


Don't confuse revenue with profit. While university sports may be a money maker, a lot of that money is dumped right back into the program. What's left over is either invested in the program's future or distributed to similar programs at the university (or in some cases, the really deep pockets of school officials, but then, that's a different ethical argument).
____________________________
R.I.P. Jessica M. 5/3/2010
This post brought to you by Carl's Jr.
gbaji wrote:
You guys keep tossing facts out there like they mean something.


#151 Feb 15 2012 at 4:19 PM Rating: Decent
Encyclopedia
******
31,966 posts
idiggory, King of Bards wrote:
Yeah, your response of "then argue to make an amendment" kinda makes no sense when the original point was that the federal government should be spending more. That quite obviously includes the necessary legislation for spending.


I was responding to more than just increased federal funding. That specific response was to an argument that we shift education as a whole from a state responsibility to a federal one. That's a **** of a lot more than just "let's increase funding for some federal education grants". And it would require a constitutional amendment.

Quote:
You tried to derail the conversation about saying it would be contrary to the separation of powers.


The thing I was responding to would be. You do realize that there are multiple arguments being made here, and thus multiple responses are valid? You're trying to apply my response to one thing as though I said it in response to something else. Try to keep on track please.

Quote:
My response was that I don't think the separation of powers is important here. You either need to accept my argument, or respond why I'm wrong. Telling me to make an argument just kinda puts us in this infinite loop of stupidity.


If we are talking about changing from a model where the states and localities raise taxes and fund/mange education directly and locally with the federal government creating grant programs that those local education systems can apply for and receive to one where everyone pays federal taxes directly into one big pool which is then divvied up by the federal government across the whole nation, then you have to amend the constitution. Since this was the exact thing someone argued we should do, then me pointing out that this violates states rights and would/should require a constitutional amendment to do is perfectly valid.

If you are arguing that no constitutional amendment is required in that case, then you are wrong. If you are arguing about something different, then you are wrong. Either way, you are wrong.

Quote:
Oh, and if you think Hamilton liked the idea of limited government, I'm starting to understand how you can think what Republicans want is small government. Hamilton supported the concept of lifelong representatives, he wanted the presidential veto to be absolute, he was an advocate for the federal government's rights to tax the people to fund a federal military force (which even many federalists were afraid of), as well as a national control over the economy. I could keep going, but I won't. Some of these ideas aren't problematic for us (largely because they've existed for so long and we accept them now... to an extent), but for the time he was essentially arguing for a non-hereditary monarchy. In fact, his own draft of the constitution was EXTREMELY similar to the British parliamentary system of the time.


You are making the common mistake (common these days anyway) of confusing size and scope. Hamilton believed that there were specific things that the federal government should do, and believed that it should have full authority and power to do those things. His concept of limited government was not that government should be limited in authority in the areas it operated in, but that it should be limited in the areas it operated in. Hamilton also was a fervent advocate for the idea that any power that did not need to be operated at the federal level should not be and that the states should have absolute power in those areas.


The mistake you are making is the same one people make today when they try to argue that conservatives are being inconsistent (or hypocritical) when they oppose funding for health care, while supporting it for the military. It's not about the dollars spent (not entirely at least). It's about the things that we're giving the federal government authority over. The same can be said when conservatives fail to get as upset at Romney for his health care in Mass, as we do over Obamacare. Because it's not just about what is being done, but what level of the government is doing it.


At the end of the day, if the federal government fails to maintain a sufficient military, there is a risk that our liberties could be lost as a result. If the federal government fails to pay for people's health care, there is no risk to liberty. Since both require an infringement of liberties to provide (in the form of taxes at the very least), then we should avoid the one that doesn't protect our liberties and allow the one that does. The federal government has no business providing health care. Period. It has no business providing education either. The fact that it does do these things (even partially as in the case of education) should not be taken as a justification for it doing more of these things.
____________________________
King Nobby wrote:
More words please
Reply To Thread

Colors Smileys Quote OriginalQuote Checked Help

 

Recent Visitors: 37 All times are in CST
Kavekkk, Kuwoobie, stupidmonkey, TirithRR, Anonymous Guests (33)