• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Every Child Achieves Act

tsteck2010 said:
What affect do you think the passing of this bill will have on our schools?
Click to expand...

I think it's too soon to tell.

It still has to get through Conference Committee and past the President.

Given the government we've got it's no sure bet that's going to happen.

If it does, given that the House bill is very different than the Senate bill is very different than what the President wants to see there's no telling what'll come out the other end.
 
tsteck2010 said:
Senate passes education bill that shifts power to states - Maggie Severns and Kimberly Hefling - POLITICO

What affect do you think the passing of this bill will have on our schools? How about our teachers? Any ideas on what this bill will mean for Common Core and the federal funds that have been tied to it?
Click to expand...

The number one and first and foremost and initial (am I clear yet?) thing that needs to be done is to remove the property tax method of funding schools.
 
soot said:
I think it's too soon to tell.

It still has to get through Conference Committee and past the President.

Given the government we've got it's no sure bet that's going to happen.

If it does, given that the House bill is very different than the Senate bill is very different than what the President wants to see there's no telling what'll come out the other end.
Click to expand...

Exactly.
Except that the dream of less federal and more local control of schools is unlikely to come out of a federal government dedicated to increasing its power.
 
Summerwind said:
The number one and first and foremost and initial (am I clear yet?) thing that needs to be done is to remove the property tax method of funding schools.
Click to expand...

Why???
 
Summerwind said:
The number one and first and foremost and initial (am I clear yet?) thing that needs to be done is to remove the property tax method of funding schools.
Click to expand...

This, this and this. The current system is classist as hell. Unfortunately this has no large media presence in any national debates, and it absolutely needs to.
 
Cardinal said:
This, this and this. The current system is classist as hell. Unfortunately this has no large media presence in any national debates, and it absolutely needs to.
Click to expand...

California already did away with the property tax method of funding schools. Next step is to dissolve district boundaries, since the local property owners are no longer just funding the local schools, and make schools compete for students. That would do more to improve schools than any federal scheme to raise test scores.
 
Summerwind said:
The number one and first and foremost and initial (am I clear yet?) thing that needs to be done is to remove the property tax method of funding schools.
Click to expand...

So how do you fund schools?? I'm all in favor of finding ways to lower property taxes, but that money has to come from somewhere. Tying it to property taxes has the one benefit of making it adjustable to population, although even that is tenuous at best, since property values can over-ride that with ease. So what's your suggestion for a source of funding? Income tax?? "Pay as you go"?

Personally, I'm tired of the waste I see in our educational system. We just built a new High School in our town due to our one school being overcrowded that could have been dealt with far cheaper. Extending hours of operation, building on the site of the old school (lots of room), right across the street is a Jr High that's been converted to kind of magnet school that could have been easily expanded. Instead we built a whole new school, with all the additional expanse and overhead of running it. It was a crap decision that got rammed down the communities throat with a "Our school is SO over-crowded and building a new school is the only way to fix this situation." approach.
 
faithful_servant said:
So how do you fund schools?? I'm all in favor of finding ways to lower property taxes, but that money has to come from somewhere. Tying it to property taxes has the one benefit of making it adjustable to population, although even that is tenuous at best, since property values can over-ride that with ease. So what's your suggestion for a source of funding? Income tax?? "Pay as you go"?

Personally, I'm tired of the waste I see in our educational system. We just built a new High School in our town due to our one school being overcrowded that could have been dealt with far cheaper. Extending hours of operation, building on the site of the old school (lots of room), right across the street is a Jr High that's been converted to kind of magnet school that could have been easily expanded. Instead we built a whole new school, with all the additional expanse and overhead of running it. It was a crap decision that got rammed down the communities throat with a "Our school is SO over-crowded and building a new school is the only way to fix this situation." approach.
Click to expand...

You may find that the state isn't any better at preventing waste, but there are other ways of funding schools. State income taxes and sales taxes are two of them. The advantage over property taxes is that statewide taxes fund schools in poor neighborhoods at the same level as those in wealthy neighborhoods. The result is that it is not necessary to buy an expensive home in the "good" part of town in order to send your kids to a decent school. The other advantage is that it opens the door to charter schools that draw from the community at large and have to offer something that parents want in order to attract students.
 
Some changes were necessary. The issue I have with it is that it swings too hard against the concept of school accountability. With NCLB there were better mechanisms to intervene when minority students were tanking. Despite the problems with AYP, schools often need to have their feet held to the fire. NCLB at least did more of that for the populations I work with and it became reflected from below, to the state offices, and to finally the federal offices. Much more respect was given. Schools just tend to be more responsive when the feds are the ones leading the charge. It's not that left to their own devices they become completely complacent, but that is really an issue you face.
 
Last edited:
Summerwind said:
The number one and first and foremost and initial (am I clear yet?) thing that needs to be done is to remove the property tax method of funding schools.
Click to expand...

Do that in your own state if your fellow citizens will listen to you. And leave everyone else alone. That's not at all a federal decision.
 
Dittohead not! said:
less federal and more local control of schools is unlikely to come out of a federal government dedicated to increasing its power.
Click to expand...

This; the Obama administration liberal ideology gets in the way of what's best for educating students. I'm all for state and local control. That's where the money comes from anyway, isn't it?

Also, make everyone pay for public education, not just those who pay property taxes. There's nothing equitable about that. When will the concept of free or reduced end? Its not American to expect only those who can afford it should pay.

I also think the voucher system is a good idea in theory but not in practice to pay for private education. Voucher $ is not enough to pay for an education in a good private school, or even enough to reduce the costs that make it affordable for most Americans. Not only that, but no quality private school will accept government strings that accompany vouchers.

Edit: For moves to from public schools to out of district or charter public schools yes.
 
Last edited:
Fiddytree said:
Some changes were necessary. The issue I have with it is that it swings too hard against the concept of school accountability. With NCLB there were better mechanisms to intervene when minority students were tanking. Despite the problems with AYP, schools often need to have their feet held to the fire. NCLB at least did more of that for the populations I work with and it became reflected from below, to the state offices, and to finally the federal offices. Much more respect was given. Schools just tend to be more responsive when the feds are the ones leading the charge. It's not that left to their own devices they become completely complacent, but that is really an issue you face.
Click to expand...

i don't fully understand your position
what NCLB provisions intervened when minority students were tanking?

what kind of respect was seen with NCLB that was not otherwise present?
 
Μολὼν λαβέ;1064831719 said:
This; the Obama administration liberal ideology gets in the way of what's best for educating students. I'm all for state and local control. That's where the money comes from anyway, isn't it?

Also, make everyone pay for public education, not just those who pay property taxes. There's nothing equitable about that. When will the concept of free or reduced end? Its not American to expect only those who can afford it should pay.

I also think the voucher system is a good idea in theory but not in practice to pay for private education. Voucher $ is not enough to pay for an education in a good private school, or even enough to reduce the costs that make it affordable for most Americans. Not only that, but no quality private school will accept government strings that accompany vouchers.

Edit: For moves to from public schools to out of district or charter public schools yes.
Click to expand...

I disagree on the vouchers, it certainly is enough to reduce the costs and make it affordable. Not all private schools are the private academy type. In fact, at least out West here, most aren't.
 
justabubba said:
i don't fully understand your position
what NCLB provisions intervened when minority students were tanking?

what kind of respect was seen with NCLB that was not otherwise present?
Click to expand...

When states are given more leeway to create their own accountability measures and have significantly weakened the data collection mandates from previous legislation, it shows trouble is ahead. Thankfully some of the weaker portions have been amended, including the absence of a 1% cap on alternative assessment utilization. That being said, there's a lot of weaknesses in the current legislation with regard to accountability. No doubt the teacher unions are largely pleased (as both the House and the Senate have adopted "local control" mantras to a fault), but it disarms the rights of underserved students.

As an aside Data collection has been one of the main mechanisms by which we have been able to not only know where pockets of the student population are falling through the cracks, but also a rationale for additional initiatives at the state and federal level. Weakening the strength of those efforts will hamper our ability to advocate for improvements and even know what improvements need to be made.
 
Last edited:
Μολὼν λαβέ;1064831719 said:
1. This; the Obama administration liberal ideology gets in the way of what's best for educating students. I'm all for state and local control. That's where the money comes from anyway, isn't it?

2. Also, make everyone pay for public education, not just those who pay property taxes. There's nothing equitable about that. When will the concept of free or reduced end? Its not American to expect only those who can afford it should pay.

3. I also think the voucher system is a good idea in theory but not in practice to pay for private education. Voucher $ is not enough to pay for an education in a good private school, or even enough to reduce the costs that make it affordable for most Americans. Not only that, but no quality private school will accept government strings that accompany vouchers.

4. Edit: For moves to from public schools to out of district or charter public schools yes.
Click to expand...

1. True, and the previous liberal administration, and the liberal one before that also got in the way of what's best for educating students as well.
2. Absolutely. That's a great place to start.
3. A voucher system might work, but it has to be something besides a subsidy for the wealthy who already send their kids to elite private schools.
4. All schools should be charter schools and should have to compete for students. They also should be able to set their own standards for admission and continued enrollment, thus making everyone accountable.
 
Dittohead not! said:
1. True, and the previous liberal administration, and the liberal one before that also got in the way of what's best for educating students as well.
2. Absolutely. That's a great place to start.
3. A voucher system might work, but it has to be something besides a subsidy for the wealthy who already send their kids to elite private schools.
4. All schools should be charter schools and should have to compete for students. They also should be able to set their own standards for admission and continued enrollment, thus making everyone accountable.
Click to expand...

As to number three - it is, always has been where tried. The vouchers are for everyone, it's not means tested nor should it be. You're simply deciding where your children's existing education dollars are spent.
 
Fiddytree said:
When states are given more leeway to create their own accountability measures and have significantly weakened the data collection mandates from previous legislation, it shows trouble is ahead. Thankfully some of the weaker portions have been amended, including the absence of a 1% cap on alternative assessment utilization. That being said, there's a lot of weaknesses in the current legislation with regard to accountability. No doubt the teacher unions are largely pleased (as both the House and the Senate have adopted "local control" mantras to a fault), but it disarms the rights of underserved students.

As an aside Data collection has been one of the main mechanisms by which we have been able to not only know where pockets of the student population are falling through the cracks, but also a rationale for additional initiatives at the state and federal level. Weakening the strength of those efforts will hamper our ability to advocate for improvements and even know what improvements need to be made.
Click to expand...

i still don't fully understand your position
what NCLB provisions intervened when minority students were tanking?

what kind of respect was seen with NCLB that was not otherwise present?
 
The federal government should withdraw from public education. Except for the military academies and ROTC programs, they don't educate anyone. The education department simply robs peter to pay paul. Shut it all down and let local government handle it.
 
Dittohead not! said:
You may find that the state isn't any better at preventing waste, but there are other ways of funding schools. State income taxes and sales taxes are two of them. The advantage over property taxes is that statewide taxes fund schools in poor neighborhoods at the same level as those in wealthy neighborhoods. The result is that it is not necessary to buy an expensive home in the "good" part of town in order to send your kids to a decent school. The other advantage is that it opens the door to charter schools that draw from the community at large and have to offer something that parents want in order to attract students.
Click to expand...

So tax everyone instead of just the property owners?? It's not a bad idea, but since schools are a local entity, having local input into them is important. It also leaves the door wide open to using school $$ as political leverage from the Capitol. What ends up happening is that we get just one more way for politicians to bribe us for votes using our money, since pushing school money into neighborhoods with "loyal" voting bases becomes a way to keep them "loyal". By keeping the money and how it's spent in local control, we avoid that whole problem. I'm not saying that's entirely bad, just that we need to think through all the crap that politicians will pull if we give them control of that kind of money. IMO, one of things that we need to do to fix a big part of the school funding is get back to the days where a big piece of timber receipts went to fund schools. Get us back into the woods. Doing so would give healthier forests, reduce the amount of destructive forestry techniques used in other places and restore one of the best sources for school funding we ever had.
 
faithful_servant said:
So tax everyone instead of just the property owners?? It's not a bad idea, but since schools are a local entity, having local input into them is important. It also leaves the door wide open to using school $$ as political leverage from the Capitol. What ends up happening is that we get just one more way for politicians to bribe us for votes using our money, since pushing school money into neighborhoods with "loyal" voting bases becomes a way to keep them "loyal". By keeping the money and how it's spent in local control, we avoid that whole problem. I'm not saying that's entirely bad, just that we need to think through all the crap that politicians will pull if we give them control of that kind of money. IMO, one of things that we need to do to fix a big part of the school funding is get back to the days where a big piece of timber receipts went to fund schools. Get us back into the woods. Doing so would give healthier forests, reduce the amount of destructive forestry techniques used in other places and restore one of the best sources for school funding we ever had.
Click to expand...

Then we have to see to it that the politicians don't have control over that money. Fund the schools equally by a formula, so many dollars per student, a little extra for students with learning disabilities perhaps, but otherwise every school gets the same. Running the schools, then, is up to the locally elected school boards. Now, if the schools actually had to compete for students, as opposed to having to take every child in a particular area, who then had no choice other than private education or attend the school he's told to attend, then the school board would be accountable, and schools that failed would simply go out of business and re open under new management.

If the state's pols can be bribed to give more money to one school than another, you're correct: It would open the way for corruption. Don't give them control over who gets what.
 
Dittohead not! said:
The advantage over property taxes is that statewide taxes fund schools in poor neighborhoods at the same level as those in wealthy neighborhoods. The result is that it is not necessary to buy an expensive home in the "good" part of town in order to send your kids to a decent school.
Click to expand...
For some, maybe. But for others, the "advantage" is that their taxes go way up and the houses they bought are suddenly worth less.
 
Taylor said:
For some, maybe. But for others, the "advantage" is that their taxes go way up and the houses they bought are suddenly worth less.
Click to expand...

Taxes didn't go way up when California went to funding schools statewide.
And no one is accusing California real estate of being inexpensive.
 
faithful_servant said:
So how do you fund schools?? I'm all in favor of finding ways to lower property taxes, but that money has to come from somewhere. Tying it to property taxes has the one benefit of making it adjustable to population, although even that is tenuous at best, since property values can over-ride that with ease. So what's your suggestion for a source of funding? Income tax?? "Pay as you go"?

Personally, I'm tired of the waste I see in our educational system. We just built a new High School in our town due to our one school being overcrowded that could have been dealt with far cheaper. Extending hours of operation, building on the site of the old school (lots of room), right across the street is a Jr High that's been converted to kind of magnet school that could have been easily expanded. Instead we built a whole new school, with all the additional expanse and overhead of running it. It was a crap decision that got rammed down the communities throat with a "Our school is SO over-crowded and building a new school is the only way to fix this situation." approach.
Click to expand...

We just pull the money out of a unicorn's ass. It is that easy.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom