It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

What matters to you politically... No Labels Allowed.

page: 3
11
<< 1  2    4  5  6 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Sep, 25 2011 @ 02:06 PM
link   

Originally posted by jimnuggits
reply to post by macman
 


But as layers are added, so is perspective.

We add the chance to refine our motive, removing the pall of the singular vision, however noble it may be.

If it is truly worthy of merit, wouldn't you want a system for dissemination?

And a standard by which the learner is best estimated to have retained said golden nugget of wisdom?



Wait, how can you honestly argue that by adding more and more control, from further and further destinations and placing more hands in the pot bring perspective?
Sounds like more Govt control.

Perspective is gained when you can see the center. Not when you move it far away, add more outside control and add layers.

Each state is allowed and should be allowed to craft their own Education policy.
It will be the process of elimination, in regards to what is best.
What better way then to allow each state design and apply their own take on this.

And to think that others would suggest any not left leaning denounces science.
Scientific elimination.




posted on Sep, 25 2011 @ 02:26 PM
link   
reply to post by macman
 


Don't you think one state can benefit from the lessons of the other 49 states?

To condemn the entire Department of Education because they oversee Educational programs in the entire Nation is saying that Mississippi won't and can't benefit from a lesson learned in Alabama.

State Departments of Education already confer and communicate with the Fed.

Same ends, more efficient means.



posted on Sep, 25 2011 @ 02:27 PM
link   

Originally posted by jimnuggits
reply to post by macman
 


Don't you think one state can benefit from the lessons of the other 49 states?

To condemn the entire Department of Education because they oversee Educational programs in the entire Nation is saying that Mississippi won't and can't benefit from a lesson learned in Alabama.

State Departments of Education already confer and communicate with the Fed.

Same ends, more efficient means.



You miss the part where the Federal Level takes what they want from Alabama, and applies it how it wants in Mississippi.

You lose the State control.



posted on Sep, 25 2011 @ 02:31 PM
link   
reply to post by macman
 


What exactly would it be taking from one state and how is it applying it to another.

I see Dept of Ed as an entity that sets minimum standards. The state can choose to raise the bar or just meet that minimum.



posted on Sep, 25 2011 @ 02:36 PM
link   

Originally posted by daskakik
reply to post by macman
 


What exactly would it be taking from one state and how is it applying it to another.

I see Dept of Ed as an entity that sets minimum standards. The state can choose to raise the bar or just meet that minimum.


I don't know. You pitched the whole taking ideas to help the other.

The fact is that there is Federal Control over something that should be at the State and Local level.

If one state wants to do lunch programs for all, then let them. So long as there is no Federal Mandate stating it.
The idea is that there are 50 states to choose from, all with different ideas and takes on life.
Not 50 areas, controlled solely by DC.



posted on Sep, 25 2011 @ 02:37 PM
link   
reply to post by macman
 


Because we trust that the Fed is conferring with all fifty states and examining global education as well, thereby having greater perspective on what our kids need to learn.

Of course, my theory is completely theoretical, as I agree that there is some serious flaws in our current educational model.

But destroying the Federal Dept. of Education seems like a good step towards deepening the educational divide, not bridging it.



posted on Sep, 25 2011 @ 02:43 PM
link   

Originally posted by jimnuggits
reply to post by macman
 


Because we trust that the Fed is conferring with all fifty states and examining global education as well, thereby having greater perspective on what our kids need to learn.

Of course, my theory is completely theoretical, as I agree that there is some serious flaws in our current educational model.

But destroying the Federal Dept. of Education seems like a good step towards deepening the educational divide, not bridging it.


Yes, it is nice on paper but does not work as absolute power corrupts absolutely.

As for a divide? And that is bad why?
Different area, regions, states and west vs. east have different priorities, beliefs and values.
Placing them all in giant pot and allowing a few to decide it the path to any one of the -isms you got.

If a state wants to push for math, then let them. Same goes for grammar. It was designed to suite the needs locally.



posted on Sep, 25 2011 @ 02:43 PM
link   
reply to post by macman
 


Actually it was jimnuggits. I think he meant knowledge, which really isn't taking from one and giving to the other it's sharing where the origin doesn't really loose anything.

The lunch program is a good example. The feds say kids from households making less than 20K get free lunch. If the state wants to do just that then it's fine. If they want to offer it to kids from homes making up to 30K or 40K or even offer free lunch to all then, I would think, they are free to do so.



posted on Sep, 25 2011 @ 02:44 PM
link   

Originally posted by beezzer

Originally posted by jimnuggits
reply to post by beezzer
 


No interstate highways, national parks, federal disaster relief, or national certification for university accreditation?

What about food safety, and...

Minus that stuff, I can't think of many other good attributes.

Interesting!

Fine. Highways, disaster relief.
Food safety? Let the industry regulate itself.
University accreditation? Federal government needs not to get involved. (get rid of Dept. of Ed.)
Nat'l parks? States.

See? We can find common ground.


Beezer, as has been shown so many times in the not too distant path, industry will not regulate itself, by definition the corporation must make a profit, no matter what the costs. BP immediately comes to mind, Enron, the Mining Company in West Virginia, the e-coli and salmonella scares, all of the problems with big Pharm, industry will not regulate itself.



posted on Sep, 25 2011 @ 02:44 PM
link   

Originally posted by daskakik
reply to post by macman
 


Actually it was jimnuggits. I think he meant knowledge, which really isn't taking from one and giving to the other it's sharing where the origin doesn't really loose anything.

The lunch program is a good example. The feds say kids from households making less than 20K get free lunch. If the state wants to do just that then it's fine. If they want to offer it to kids from homes making up to 30K or 40K or even offer free lunch to all then, I would think, they are free to do so.


Yes!!!!
And if I don't agree with it, I have the freedom to choose not to live in that school district, county or state.



posted on Sep, 25 2011 @ 02:49 PM
link   
reply to post by BubbaJoe
 


Yep, and all those things were regulated into not happening..


Oh wait, they did happen.
But, what happened? I thought there were regulations on this.


It is a sad thing to realize that legislating what ifs and should haves never works.

Instead of constructing mind numbing laws say for oil drilling, why not place a few, powerful and severely punishing articles.

If BP spills oil, it is fined "$X", and not allowed to do business for X number of months.
If Enron presents false books, see above.

But no, the idea of placing laws for could haves and will nots seems to be much more secure, like a blanky then allowing things and people to do what they do.



posted on Sep, 25 2011 @ 02:53 PM
link   
reply to post by macman
 


Isn't that the way it pretty much works?

Also the whole focusing on local and loosing sight of the overall picture is probably the reason the US isn't making it into the top 20 in the education rankings.



posted on Sep, 25 2011 @ 02:57 PM
link   

Originally posted by daskakik
reply to post by macman
 


Isn't that the way it pretty much works?

Also the whole focusing on local and loosing sight of the overall picture is probably the reason the US isn't making it into the top 20 in the education rankings.


Nope, that is not how it is designed.
When the Fed says jump, the states say how high. No child left behind is the last thing I recall. That worked out well.


And by all rights, comparing us to other countries is kind of like kids competing on eh play ground.
It is great for competition, but that is about it.

We should be worried out ourselves more, and other countries less.



posted on Sep, 25 2011 @ 02:59 PM
link   

Originally posted by daskakik
reply to post by macman
 


Isn't that the way it pretty much works?

Also the whole focusing on local and loosing sight of the overall picture is probably the reason the US isn't making it into the top 20 in the education rankings.


That doesn't make sense. All the nations that are ahead of us are geographically smaller than us. Much more. They succeed because they have regulations and policies that make sense for that particular region. Is Norway and Sweden better functioning than the US and Mexico? Yep... and they are both smaller. In fact, they were once the same nation and even that was too large to function properly so they split up. The only nation I can think of that was as expansive as ours and had a strong central government was the USSR. They didn't fail because they were communist, they failed because they forced a large area to be communist along with them.

I bet if you were to break down national indexes and included states independently, we would be looking at a much different index.



posted on Sep, 25 2011 @ 03:04 PM
link   
reply to post by macman
 


No I think it is set up to where the fed says you have to do at least this and the state has to comply but they are free to do more. Like minimum wage.

Pretending that the world is not a competative place and that american workers are not competing with others around the world for the same jobs is asking for trouble.



posted on Sep, 25 2011 @ 03:08 PM
link   
reply to post by Cuervo
 


That's not true. Canada, Australia and a couple others are pretty close in size. Besides isn't the whole point of having a national standard to bring all of the states to a certain level?



posted on Sep, 25 2011 @ 03:13 PM
link   

Originally posted by daskakik
reply to post by macman
 


No I think it is set up to where the fed says you have to do at least this and the state has to comply but they are free to do more. Like minimum wage.

Pretending that the world is not a competative place and that american workers are not competing with others around the world for the same jobs is asking for trouble.


Not when the minimums go against the local community.
Again, No Child Left Behind has become a minimum, yet is a waste and huge problem.

Placing the choice back to the local community does not take away from national or global competition.
Thinking that it does is not your fault, as that what we have been spoon fed into thinking, that the Fed Govt knows best.



posted on Sep, 25 2011 @ 03:17 PM
link   

Originally posted by daskakik
reply to post by Cuervo
 


That's not true. Canada, Australia and a couple others are pretty close in size. Besides isn't the whole point of having a national standard to bring all of the states to a certain level?


Canada - 9,984,670 km (almost 10% of that is water)
- 34,594,000 people with a density of 3.41/km

Australia - 7,617,930 km
- 22,715,709 people with a density of 2.8/km

USA - 9,826,675 km
- 312,289,000 people with a density of 33.7/km

The US has about 7 times the density (of Australia and Canada combined). The comparison isn't fair when most of the land in those nations are completely unpopulated. I guess my logic must include the disclaimer of "large inhabitable geographic region"

edit on 25-9-2011 by Cuervo because: (no reason given)



posted on Sep, 25 2011 @ 03:19 PM
link   
reply to post by macman
 


No one has spoon fed me anything. I look at things and formulate my own ideas.

If a local community decides to lower the standard of education then how is this helping? That of course is a loaded question. People want a higher standard so why is the federal minimum bad. They should be glad to meet it and go far beyond. The only ones complaining would be the ones wanting to do less which goes against what you propose.



posted on Sep, 25 2011 @ 03:21 PM
link   
reply to post by Cuervo
 


You're mixing things up. First you said geographical size now you are talking population density and if that is the case then there are a whole lot of countries with a higher population density that did better than the US.




top topics



 
11
<< 1  2    4  5  6 >>

log in

join