• 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!

Are public schools socialism?

Status
Not open for further replies.
"With the start of the new academic year, results from last year's ACT college admissions tests have been made public, and the results are disturbing. The incoming freshman class is woefully unprepared for college. The class of 2016, as a group, failed all four subjects the test assesses: English, math, reading, and science. According to ACT, only 25 percent of students are proficient in all four subjects. Sixty percent came up short in two of the four subject areas, while more than 25 percent failed to demonstrate proficiency in any subject at all. If the point of high school is to prepare students for college, high schools are clearly failing. Unfortunately, this doesn't stop the undereducated masses from heading off to the ivory tower each year."


Public High Schools Are Not Doing Their Jobs - Economic Intelligence (usnews.com)

That is alarming. It makes me wonder why it is, in fact, possible to become highly literate in the United States, but evidently kids are graduating high school with poor literacy levels. I think its evident that most people on this forum are extremely literate.
 
well, there would be a clear selection bias on who decides to join an internet forum to hash out political positions. But in general, I always saw our school issues mainly stemming from how schools are funded (local taxes), special interests groups pushing policy that doesn't serve the interests of students (teacher unions), and the lack of value education holds for many communities (which seems particularly bad within AA communities)
 
Also right wing lobbyists who hate science.

while I share your concerns about the fundies and their attempts to teach things like ID, I'm not sure it actually raises to the same level as the issues mentioned above
 
Socialst? I dunno.

But they are a well-intentioned idea that - imo - is doing more harm then good.

Like almost all things, free enterprise is the way to go with most of America's schools.

And leave public schools to the poor.
 
Does he not have confidence is his own country's public education system?
The Washington D.C. school district can not provide the same level of security for Obama's daughters. There's more that goes into it than just quality of education.

But to answer your question, Obama has said many times he wants better public education. That's the difference between someone like him and other people who criticize public education. Obama thinks it could be better and WANTS to make it better. Other people think it isn't good and want to shut it down.

See the difference?
 
Education spending is the single most serious burden on state and local budgets. And since runaway education spending is a major cause of our state and local budget problems, it’s the best place to look for serious savings as this fiscal crisis continues to unfold.

The Real Cost of Public Education | Cato Institute
In Missouri we weren't stupid enough to reduce education spending. And, yes, our budget is still balanced just like it is every year.


CATO is a conservative group that wants public education shut down so the corporations can make more money. Personally, I'd rather not see education turned into a for profit business, that's just dumb. Next they'll want to make the military a private business as well. :roll:
 
Last edited:
In Missouri we weren't stupid enough to reduce education spending. And, yes, our budget is still balanced just like it is every year.


CATO is a conservative group that wants public education shut down so the corporations can make more money. Personally, I'd rather not see education turned into a for profit business, that's just dumb. Next they'll want to make the military a private business as well. :roll:

Well, educational spending in Missouri has been reduced, but only after most other options were exhausted. Of course, now legislators in Missouri are trying to find ways to allow good teachers to be removed from their position based upon small town politics, but that's another story.

And your argument is definitely correct, but I think the real problem is people want to shut down public education to preserve the status quo of wealth distribution in this country. Public education is the great equalizer, it allows everyone to become educated and better their station in life. Those who are at the top of the wealth pyramid are fearful of public education, because it is a threat to their position. Once you get rid of public schools and turn education private, not only can these people profit from it, but it also guarantees only the wealthy can become wealthy.
 
Well, educational spending in Missouri has been reduced, but only after most other options were exhausted. Of course, now legislators in Missouri are trying to find ways to allow good teachers to be removed from their position based upon small town politics, but that's another story.

you mean removing tenure? If so, that is a very strange way to characterize it
 
yes we need to have 95% illiteracy for a "better" workforce..........

Look at the golden age of Rome or the USA in 1880! WHo needs education for the slaves!

(sarcastice)
 
you mean removing tenure? If so, that is a very strange way to characterize it
Unfortunately, it's a very apt way to characterize it. Small town politics are terrible. A teacher should be protected from losing their job because they gave Board Member #4's best friend's child a bad grade or didn't play them in the football game.

What most people don't understand about tenure is that tenure doesn't protect a teacher from being removed if they perform poorly. A tenured teacher can still be fired, however they cannot be fired "just because" like untenured teachers can.
 
Unfortunately, it's a very apt way to characterize it.


not at all. Any argument you can make for tenure for teachers can be equally applied to any other job, and ignores the clear detrimental effects it would have for any endevor

Small town politics are terrible. A teacher should be protected from losing their job because they gave Board Member #4's best friend's child a bad grade or didn't play them in the football game.

how does addressing the above require tenure? It seems unions are able to adequately account for arbitrary firing in any other industry, absent tenure

What most people don't understand about tenure is that tenure doesn't protect a teacher from being removed if they perform poorly.

That might not be the intention, but there are instances where people can cite tenor as preventing the termination of a poor performing teacher
 
not at all. Any argument you can make for tenure for teachers can be equally applied to any other job, and ignores the clear detrimental effects it would have for any endevor

how does addressing the above require tenure? It seems unions are able to adequately account for arbitrary firing in any other industry, absent tenure

That might not be the intention, but there are instances where people can cite tenor as preventing the termination of a poor performing teacher
If that's the case then the admin has very poor recording habits and employment practices. If a teacher isn't a good performer in the first place they wouldn't be tenured in the second. My company had pretty strict HR rules so you had to actually document poor performance to fire someone - past the first six months. During the first six months if they even looked at you funny you could show them the door. Consequently, we were very careful about the people we kept. I don't see where schools, in general, would be any different - and it takes much longer than six months to make tenure. If a teacher is bad they'll never last to make tenure.
 
My company had pretty strict HR rules so you had to actually document poor performance to fire someone - past the first six months. [/ quote]

absent a tenure system, right?

During the first six months if they even looked at you funny you could show them the door. Consequently, we were very careful about the people we kept. I don't see where schools, in general, would be any different - and it takes much longer than six months to make tenure. If a teacher is bad they'll never last to make tenure.

Joel Klein vs. New York City teachers : The New Yorker

you might find this interesting
 
not at all.
Sure it is. The whole idea behind removing tenure is to make it easier to fire teachers. That's the point of the law.

how does addressing the above require tenure?
Tenure helps protect against this. It requires giving teachers due process and the school having to show good cause for letting a teacher go.

It seems unions are able to adequately account for arbitrary firing in any other industry, absent tenure
I can't speak on unions in other industries, I can only speak on how things work in my state, which does not have a teacher's union.

That might not be the intention, but there are instances where people can cite tenor as preventing the termination of a poor performing teacher
They can cite it all they want, it doesn't make it any less true (again, in my state). Tenure is not protection from being a bad teacher or doing bad things. Tenure is protection of providing the teacher a fair process before dismissal. Those who say that being tenured makes a teacher impossible to fire is simply wrong (in my state, at least).
 
Sure it is. The whole idea behind removing tenure is to make it easier to fire teachers. That's the point of the law.

That isn't what you wrote though. You wrote " legislators in Missouri are trying to find ways to allow good teachers to be removed from their position based upon small town politics". And every supporter I know of ended tenure does so based on the notion that it is extremely problematic removing poor performing teachers within the current system
 
That isn't what you wrote though. You wrote " legislators in Missouri are trying to find ways to allow good teachers to be removed from their position based upon small town politics".

And every supporter I know of ended tenure does so based on the notion that it is extremely problematic removing poor performing teachers within the current system
But tenure doesn't protect poor performing teachers, those teachers can already be removed. Removing tenure just means the school doesn't have to worry about justifying it, which then leads to small town politics like I mentioned.

Right now, tenure protects teachers from this kind of abuse by the local school boards. Tenure does not protect teacher who perform poorly from being fired. So removing tenure doesn't change the fact teachers can be fired, it just changes how.

Like I said, it's a fairly accurate description.
 
absent a tenure system, right?
It isn't any different from one. Firing someone was difficult, to say the least, without proper documentation of their poor performance. Many monster companies work that way. Sometimes there are unavoidable and extreme personality conflicts, which good HR policy limits to a great extent.

So they have 600+ teachers in limbo out of 75,000 - less than 1%? I don't really see that as a huge issue, though I'm sure they could improve on even that situation with just a little tweaking. Businesses aren't any better. In fact, they're probably worse. In other jobs I've seen slackers that do nothing but kiss the bosses ass all day. Yeah, that's a good criteria for keeping someone working. :-/
 
Last edited:
That isn't what you wrote though. You wrote " legislators in Missouri are trying to find ways to allow good teachers to be removed from their position based upon small town politics". And every supporter I know of ended tenure does so based on the notion that it is extremely problematic removing poor performing teachers within the current system
If they're that poorly performing they should have never made it to tenure.
 
"Public education isn't socialism because it doesn't put the means of production or distribution entirely in the hands of the workers or government. There are still private schools"

private schools are not public schools. The question would apply to public schools
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top Bottom