How to put America on the Right track. It Will take 20 years.

originally posted by: DontTreadOnMe
a reply to: Aazadan

I see your points sorta.
But the world is already laughing at the failing US education system.

You already have school districts and states in trouble education-wise.
Maybe taking that control from them has made them lazy.
Maybe making THEM responsible would right some of the wrongs.

Make the federal government ONLY be in charge of standards....it sure as heck does not need to be a Department level function. Take that money wasted and apportion it to the states.

I'm about to commit ATS suicide and go on the record to admit I watched Michael Moore's "Who to Invade Next". That being said, I try to keep my mind open to here ideologies from as many spectrums as I can. I find I constantly get angered on how we demean each other for believing something different myself included. We all believe that our ideology is so clear we owe it to other people to force it on them, all sides guiltily.

That being said I think it was incredibly interesting in that movie how Iceland approaches education. They dispise standardized tests like the plague. They embrace play, they try to expose students to everything that they can, alot of which we are systematically removing from schools. How does a growing individual know their passions if they have not been exposed to as much as possible? They teach with enthusiasm, and focus on one thing for a longer period of time with shorter school days. The belief is we learn more from life and retain more structured learning when life is good.

The teachers are empowered and invested. It's cheaper, more efficient, and the outcome is genuine happiness and health from these students.

Now that I've opened myself up, I embrace all hippy attacks Haha. I have a general conservative stance, but when it comes to nature vs nurture I lean heavy on nurture. Our citizens are the most important asset we can offer to the world, I'm okay for being attacked for believing that.

a reply to: carewemust

whatever the course of action, we have to start by taking baby steps. Putting a non politician in charge of America is the first most important baby step toward achieving the 20-year goal.

A better baby step is an amendment to the U.S. Constitution that mandates
terms limits for the Legislative branch. Our rotating presidents will change
absolutely nothing until we remove the beast. Since incumbents enjoy an
electoral and financial advantage in reelection nothing but an amendment
to reduce their time in office has any chance of changing the
political status quo in Washington.

Since 2009, every Government around the world has tried the same Keynesian policies of ever low interest rates , every high stimulus packages and resulting ever high debt...

...And the world is as bad if not worse than it was 7 years ago.

Mrs Thatcher inherited an economy absolutely tanking. Within 3 years or so, she had turn it around and created the biggest post war boom in British history with low inflation, soaring employment and huge budget surpluses, so big tha thad she staying in office for another 8 years the entire UK national debt would have been gone.

What did she do?

- Power interest rates UP to 12 or 13 per cent.
- Slash public sector salaries and mass redundancy in the civil services.
- Spending on Universities was slashed so badly that some college lecturers were having to go to the food bank.
- People were encouraged NOT to go to university but to start their own businesses.
- Taxes were cut to manageable, but still kept relatively high for top rate earners by international comparison.
- Handouts to municipalities were slashed, but their ability to tax was capped forcing huge savings at the town halls.
- Powered up small savings and loans Building Societies to compete head on with the banks.

originally posted by: MrBlaq
a reply to: carewemust

whatever the course of action, we have to start by taking baby steps. Putting a non politician in charge of America is the first most important baby step toward achieving the 20-year goal.

A better baby step is an amendment to the U.S. Constitution that mandates
terms limits for the Legislative branch. Our rotating presidents will change
absolutely nothing until we remove the beast. Since incumbents enjoy an
electoral and financial advantage in reelection nothing but an amendment
to reduce their time in office has any chance of changing the
political status quo in Washington.

When a country is 19 TRIILLION in debt, everything else is gnats piss.

originally posted by: pl3bscheese
a reply to: Aazadan

So to clarify, you're speaking of vehicles that could be launched tomorrow being the real problem, not a lack of education, technological or intellectual capacity... nothing that couldn't be solved... it's... exactly as I said, a lack of imagination and funding.

You wrote that post to make a case for some sort of regression, or decline, that clearly hasn't happened. We most certainly have the capability to get into space, or go to and beyond the moon, we just can't do it within the next 24hrs.

We maybe have the capability to make a new moon program. May. So far we haven't had much success with newer designs. Our technical ability in other areas of space exploration have improved but it would take us at least 20 years to get someone on the moon again if that were the goal.

a reply to: CriticalStinker

The big difference is that Iceland has different cultural values. Outsourcing isn't a problem for them, and they couldn't care less about becoming a super power. The US is obsessed with remaining the lone super power in the world and with having graduates that are globally competitive intellectually.

Honestly, we're not doing too bad in that area. I mentioned this in the other post but we don't have the student suicide problems of Asian cultures, and our better states appear to be extremely close to the top of the world in quality. The US does have some education problems, but it's not a problem with schools across the nation.

Illinois and Kansas can't even keep their schools open for 9 months out of the year anymore.
Florida is testing on par with nations that don't even have indoor schools.
Inner cities have major education problems because it's just not popular with inner city culture.

On the other hand indications are that Washington has very good schools.
Massachusetts public schools (state average) are ranked something like 6th in the world.
Our private school system is phenomenal.

Cost issues aside our university system is also very, very good. I think we're doing pretty well.

originally posted by: MenWIthHugeApplause
Since 2009, every Government around the world has tried the same Keynesian policies of ever low interest rates , every high stimulus packages and resulting ever high debt...

...And the world is as bad if not worse than it was 7 years ago.

Mrs Thatcher inherited an economy absolutely tanking. Within 3 years or so, she had turn it around and created the biggest post war boom in British history with low inflation, soaring employment and huge budget surpluses, so big tha thad she staying in office for another 8 years the entire UK national debt would have been gone.

What did she do?

- Power interest rates UP to 12 or 13 per cent.
- Slash public sector salaries and mass redundancy in the civil services.
- Spending on Universities was slashed so badly that some college lecturers were having to go to the food bank.
- People were encouraged NOT to go to university but to start their own businesses.
- Taxes were cut to manageable, but still kept relatively high for top rate earners by international comparison.
- Handouts to municipalities were slashed, but their ability to tax was capped forcing huge savings at the town halls.
- Powered up small savings and loans Building Societies to compete head on with the banks.

Only we haven't really used Keynesian economics since 2009 (in fact almost the opposite).

A bit of rose tinted recollection of the Thatcher Years. Her economic policy of the first few years was a total disaster, and during her term we had post war record levels of unemployment, we continued to have volatile inflation and we went through one major recession during her watch and another immediately after.

The idea that the entire national debt was going to be paid off is frankly ludicrous as she continued to run a deficit for most years of her time in power. A deficit that would have been higher if not for the revenue received from North Sea Oil and the sale of public assets.

a reply to: Aazadan

Duly noted, and thus we must apply the difference in cultural value to Asia, which may I add is a bit broad as their cultural differences could be comparable within their own continent as how you suggest ours is different from Iceland. That being said your remark implies two things I disagree with. First that your comparing states to other countries. That's based off of standardized tests, which I'll play Devils advocate on a capitalist standpoint that consistency is important. If your a member of this site than I hope you value critical thinking and the pursuit of knowledge. If you are arguing that we shouldn't be like Europe it's because you don't want government to indoctrinate people. Let then form their own opinion. Give someone nurture and resources and don't begin to think I mean leave them to their own devices, but rather empower them. Secondly your statement about our infatuation of being the super power implying the money isn't there to address education. Again as I have explained before their are an abundance of examples of countries providing more efficient, cost effective, and better quality of education. We can sit here and pretend that we are protecting America when we can all agree their are alarming problems that need to be addressed, just funny how partisanism will let our pride hinder us from making perfectly reasonable changes, and save money. Educate and empower and tell me the economy won't improve, tell me more quality jobs find their way back home. Tell me incarceration rates won't decrease. Tell me tax allocation don't decrease to entitlement programs. And then tell me if you do argue it's not towards indoctrination that talking about education is viewed as "hippy" or "socialist". Set the pride aside and if we are defending conservative Christian values than Jesus was the biggest long haired hippy who said love changes mind, and the way you compose yourself should spark a hunger towards your ideology for the "non believers"

a reply to: intrepid

There's no fixing education in the US............period.

I see many saying the same thing and you're not wrong. You can't just throw money at something and then walk away. Like I mentioned in the OP. You have to hold EVERYONE accountable, including the bureaucracy.

IMHO Trump will begin immediatly stimulating the American Economy.....methnks he will begin by ripping down cities like Chicago and he will mke it a National Priority to rip down old aging infrastructure and to concurrently begin BUILDING NEW COMMUNITIES.....Trump knows Geographical relocation of populations and Industry in a fresh and progressive way will invigorate his country from within and he will begin to strengthen America from within before he attacks the Global Ecomomy with Amreicas rejuvinated Power.....we are talking about Donald Trump here....this man is a Globally recognised Business Icon....this is not Obama some guy who doesnt even have a birth certificate you can trust or Ronald Reagan an actor or Bush a Cabal member........Donald Trump WILL bring America back from ruin and IMHO within 3 years of taking office global financial forecasts for America will be turning the corner with all arrows pointing up.

originally posted by: CriticalStinker That being said your remark implies two things I disagree with. First that your comparing states to other countries. That's based off of standardized tests, which I'll play Devils advocate on a capitalist standpoint that consistency is important.

States in the US are very financially, politically, and culturally diverse. They are best compared on their own to other nations. Also, despite the rhetoric, education is primarily under the control of the states. Common core for example is a state level initative. The Feds only require some very simple baselines of schools, almost everything that people deal with in terms of education standards has to do with the states (with the exception of places like Texas who want to teach creationism primarily and treat evolution as an alternative theory).

Consistency across the nation is important, but we don't actually have that now, and the federal government has no power to make that happen short of some new voter revolution.

If your a member of this site than I hope you value critical thinking and the pursuit of knowledge. If you are arguing that we shouldn't be like Europe it's because you don't want government to indoctrinate people. Let then form their own opinion. Give someone nurture and resources and don't begin to think I mean leave them to their own devices, but rather empower them.

That's not education though. Education IS indoctrination. In it's purest form, it's learning what is known to be true and time tested rather than coming to your own independent theories. Furthermore, part of education is teaching people how to fit into society and that means forming them into socially acceptable human beings through the schooling system (and arguably parenting).

Secondly your statement about our infatuation of being the super power implying the money isn't there to address education. Again as I have explained before their are an abundance of examples of countries providing more efficient, cost effective, and better quality of education.

With the lone exception of Finland the tier 1 nations of education (nations before the first major drop off of test scores, which comprises the top 8 nations) all involved nations focus heavily on rote memorization and very long days of school such as China, Japan, and Singapore. Of the tier 2 nations (which the US belongs to), some nations are educating for less money but their test scores aren't noticeably better. There's a bigger gap in scores between the 8th and 10th place nations, than there is between the 10th and 32nd (with the US being 28). For the style of education the US is aiming for we aren't paying more for worse results, we're paying more but we're getting equal results, and that's across a national average. Our better states are paying for more, but are getting better results.

Educate and empower and tell me the economy won't improve, tell me more quality jobs find their way back home.

You can educate all you want, but we're a service sector economy. Even if everyone has a Masters degree or a Phd those people will still be running registers and stocking shelves. Furthermore, all of the education resources in the world can be available but that doesn't mean people will put the effort into learning, or that they'll be competent when they do learn. Lengthening compulsory education can help to fix the first problem but not the second. Of course, there's a third problem too which is that our labor needs are decreasing but the population is increasing. Not everyone needs to work 40 hours a week anymore.

originally posted by: intrepid
I see many saying the same thing and you're not wrong. You can't just throw money at something and then walk away. Like I mentioned in the OP. You have to hold EVERYONE accountable, including the bureaucracy.

The problem is that education is primarily under the control of state and local governments, they might as well be invisible. Local governments especially are the worst, they're often times not transparent, prone to the whims of the council members, and every incompetent.

We've really got it backwards in the US. Thanks to transparency and the attention it recieves, federal level government is actually very competent, but that's the area of government that's always the focus of the rhetoric to reduce government power. Instead it's the states and the towns that are incompetent because they're invisible, but that's who people want to hand the power to.

a reply to: intrepid

Dont really have a problem with anything you wrote, agree with pretty much all of it... but how do you take on the teachers union? If you cant get them on board nothing will change... in some areas its nearly impossible to fire a teacher with tenure, at that point its kind of hard to hold bad/lazy teachers accountable.

originally posted by: Irishhaf
a reply to: intrepid

Dont really have a problem with anything you wrote, agree with pretty much all of it... but how do you take on the teachers union? If you cant get them on board nothing will change... in some areas its nearly impossible to fire a teacher with tenure, at that point its kind of hard to hold bad/lazy teachers accountable.

Fire them before they get tenure? Maybe display some competency when hiring teachers and filter out the problems? After that you get between 10 and 25 years depending on the area before they develop tenure.

Of course, to do that you would first have to recognize the teacher shortage. The schools currently have no ability to turn away an applicant because they need teachers too bad. What was it, Kansas needed something like 9000 last year and only got 150 because their benefits were so bad?

I really don't see how teachers unions are a problem.

a reply to: Aazadan

It may have changed havent looked in some time, but in New york city they have an office for teachers that are so bad they cant teach... yet the union wont let them be fired... so the teachers sit there collecting a pay check.

Is it the same all over no..

but to give another example, in Oklahoma the state got permission (from the Union)to try an experiment with a new school... they just hired young teachers with lots of passion and energy to teach in a school where science and math would be pushed.

Everything was awesome for a while... school was testing extremely well, teachers were happy...students were happy... then the economy took a turn for the worse. (its a side argument but quite often in a budget crunch education loses) So when the cuts came to the education budget the union immediately fired all those young teachers (last in first out) and moved older teachers into the void, the schools success immediately got flipped on its head, and scores plummeted.

Whats the fix... I dont know, but if you cant get the teachers union to play ball, I dont see how you can fix education.

a reply to: Irishhaf

In the first example, just paying teachers to stay out of the way. Pretty much every industry and company has those people. We could trim the fat and have them not collect a paycheck, but then they'll just collect it from some other agency and the same funds get paid in the end. Moving them around is simply an accounting trick.

LIFO to fire teachers when things get tight is more an issue with the state. They made the union cut people rather than keep the funds for their wages in place. This is because government budgets (particularly state budgets) are pretty lean overall since they can't easily run a deficit, and their tax revenues are so much lower. The budget crunch never would have happened though, had the states funds been properly managed. Like in 2008 when the collapse happened and the states were using the stock market to supplement revenues, retirements, and so on. They created that mess because they're incompetent.