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

Originally posted by daskakik
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.

Because Hell is paved with good intentions.
The state should be allowed to succeed and fail on its own merit. Not be propped up by an all knowing whats best for you Fed Govt.

You are under the impression that by doing away with the Fed Ed Dept, the states would drop standards.
That is going into the same belief that the people are too dumb to decide for themselves.

It goes back to the simple idea that States should have the choice, and the individual can live there, leave or help change it locally.

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.

The Department of Education is NOT setting standards.

Each state has created its own set of educational standards. Yep, 50 sets of standards. In GA, it's the Georgia Performance Standards (GPS). In Virginia, it's the Standards of Learning (SoL).

Recently, the governors of 40-something states have gotten together and created the Common Core Standards. Almost all of the states have adopted them. They were created BY the states that participated, and FOR the states that participated. The Department of Education had nothing to do with it.

So why do we need the federal Department of Education again???

Each state sends money (taxes) to Washington. Some of it goes to the Department of Education, which sends some of it back to the states. It seems like a waste to me.

Oh, and I am a teacher.

reply to post by GeorgiaGirl


Thanks GA girl.

Gotta love it when a fellow southerner comes in to clear some things up.

Originally posted by macman
You are under the impression that by doing away with the Fed Ed Dept, the states would drop standards.
That is going into the same belief that the people are too dumb to decide for themselves.

Actually I'm not under that impression which is why I don't think it makes a difference.

According to GeorgiaGirl's post that isn't even that case so what is it that the Dept of Ed is doing that makes you think they are strong arming individual states?

Originally posted by jimnuggits
Tell, in your own words, your political stance.

What should Our government do, or not do?

What problems are so important that we must solve them together?

Example:

I believe that the government must protect citizens from outside aggression, environmental devastation, and provide a level playing field for all its citizens, including food, shelter and a good education until such time as every member of our democracy can contribute to the greater good.

Notice, if you will, I never said Democrat or Republican, liberal or conservative.

In this way, we may be able to find common ground between what appears to be an ever widening chasm of political polarity.

So, where are you?

This forum requires two line posts.

You ask what they should do?

Resign

Originally posted by daskakik

Originally posted by macman
You are under the impression that by doing away with the Fed Ed Dept, the states would drop standards.
That is going into the same belief that the people are too dumb to decide for themselves.

Actually I'm not under that impression which is why I don't think it makes a difference.

According to GeorgiaGirl's post that isn't even that case so what is it that the Dept of Ed is doing that makes you think they are strong arming individual states?

They are not setting standards, but they ARE making lots of rules and regulations for all sorts of things.

And they send money to states for special programs (which we sent them to start with...)

Originally posted by daskakik
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.

I'm sticking by size for the most part. You just brought up two nations that are big but largely uninhabited so they don't really fit into my logic.

My point is that you need to find a happy medium. We can all agree that we wouldn't want England to decide on our laws, right? I mean, I guess were willing to go to war about it so I think we can agree on that. Well, when we did that, our nation only consisted of the northeastern corner of the US. We have since expanded far beyond our original size of England and the east coast yet we don't understand why people of different regions can't agree with one another.

Our regional differences aren't just cosmetic, they are ecological, ideological, religious, ethical, and even aesthetic. Not to mention political. To appease to such a large population, you can't possibly govern them all with one set of rules (beyond the bare bones constitution, bill of rights, etc)

reply to post by Cuervo


OK but those countries are also culturally diverse. All contries are not matter how small they are. Heck you can see changes in a city like LA just by going to different parts of the city. I'm just saying that that is not the reason. Sounds like a cop out to me.

Originally posted by daskakik
reply to post by Cuervo

 

OK but those countries are also culturally diverse. All contries are not matter how small they are. Heck you can see changes in a city like LA just by going to different parts of the city. I'm just saying that that is not the reason. Sounds like a cop out to me.

Those nations are not "diverse". They are pretty darned homogeneous. America is uniquely celebrated as being diverse and, as such, we have unique situations. LA is a great example of that blend and they have their own identity being as such. But if you dropped off a bunch of cowboys from Texas in the middle of LA, I'm sure they wouldn't agree on whether or not it was day or night. So why have one centralized place tell those Texan cowboys and those cats from LA who they can marry and what they can smoke? Makes no sense to me.

reply to post by Cuervo


Canada and Australia are not diverse? How about some of the other countries that beat the US. Canada has 2 oficial languages and Spain has 5 recognized dialects. And all kind of european countries have had huge waves of immigrants making up part of the population. Like I said, this is no excuse.

Originally posted by daskakik
reply to post by Cuervo

 

Canada and Australia are not diverse? How about some of the other countries that beat the US. Canada has 2 oficial languages and Spain has 5 recognized dialects. And all kind of european countries have had huge waves of immigrants making up part of the population. Like I said, this is no excuse.

Spain is made up of 17 autonomous communities (along with two autonomous cities). This means they are doing exactly what I'm talking about. So to bring up Spain simply proving my point. Same with Canada for that matter. Each Canadian province is responsible for welfare, education, and health care.

We can go back and forth but there is no other nation as centralized in its government and as diverse with its people as the US. Not to mention we are huge and we have every climate type under one rule. I don't think people in DC truly know how to treat the rain forests in the northwest or the tundra in Alaska.

Originally posted by Cuervo
We can go back and forth but there is no other nation as centralized in its government and as diverse with its people as the US. Not to mention we are huge and we have every climate type under one rule. I don't think people in DC truly know how to treat the rain forests in the northwest or the tundra in Alaska.

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

We can agree on that but I don't think that is the reason the level of US education has slipped. Besides it's not as if State, county and evan more local governments don't have any say in how things are done. As GeorgiaGirl pointed out even with the standards set at the state level you have the decrease in performance contrary to your point.

reply to post by daskakik


A great conversation is developing here, and it makes this thread worthwhile.

I am a teacher and I can say that No Child Left Behind turned into Every Child Left Behind, because the standards were raised, but the funding was not.

A small example: an eighth grader reads on a third grade level.

I cannot go back to the third grade material and get him caught up, because I HAVE to teach the 8th grade standards set forth in NCLB guidelines.

The kid gets swept under the avalanche, and I can't do the very thing I started teaching to do; teach.

I don't know the answer, but I have a feeling it will be conversations like this, not arguments, that find a happy medium.

I am not opposed to change, but destroying any Educational Departments still seems like a step backwards.

reply to post by macman


Do you not believe we should 'prop each other up' BEFORE we 'fail on our own merit'?

I currently live in Oklahoma, but if my countrymen in Virginia got down on their luck through no fault of their own, I'd want the Federal Government to help get them back on their feet. Wouldn't you?

reply to post by daskakik


I think our collective Educational problem is a pedagogical AND technological one.

Facts, for the sake of remembrance, have become totally useless as an educational goal.

We must teach the questions, and the process by which to begin to find their answers.

With new technology readily available in a classroom, we can reinvest in getting a modern, thinking workforce.

Until then, we'll continue to lose their interest and advancement will elude us all.

Basically what it is today minus the infringement on liberties.
Let people indulge in what they please unless their intentions are directly aggressive.
Notice I said DIRECTLY AGGRESSIVE not PASSIVELY AGGRESSIVE (like drinking and driving)

If you refrain from picking my pockets and breaking my leg ... I won't shoot you.

Yeah. That works for me.

Maximize liberty, individual freedom.
Regulate to minimize or fully compensate externalities.
Nothing more. No parental functions.

The only way out for the country is to cut down heavily on borrowing and spending. And this applies to all sectors: households, government (including the military), and corporations (including banks). Unfortunately, each sector wants the others to sacrifice.

the biggest things to me is for them to get out of our lives and quit spending our money like its nothing.

victim-less crimes should not be crimes, like drugs for example.

I should not be forced to pay the social security ponzi scheme if I dont want to.

I shouldnt have to pay for hundreds or thousands of military bases around the world, and all these worthless bribes to unfriendly nations.


Just stick to keeping our infrastructure nice, keeping business in check for fair practice, turn banks back into a SERVICE to protect our money, not make money off of it, some environmental protections, and defending our borders from immediate threats.