• 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!

Nationalizing the Education System

Nationalize Schools?

  • Yes

    Votes: 14 18.9%
  • No

    Votes: 53 71.6%
  • Other

    Votes: 7 9.5%

  • Total voters
    74
Imo the problem on a government level is with bureaucracy, red tape, and corruption. Those things aren't going away when you nationalize it. What we need to address is the problem of poverty. When poverty is alleviated then education can be fixed.

If you can solve the problem of poverty, you need to be KING. ;)

I have seen bureaucracy, red tale and corruption in all levels of public and private business... education is nothing special in that. For what its worth - how much "corruption" can there be in the classroom? Any corruption takes place on an administrative level mostly through monetary contracts.

And even with all your local control for the past century, can you find any districts which have left behind the factor assembly line model based on age? I cannot.
 
A nationalized education system would NEVER be a factory assembly line model. :no: :roll:

What does that even mean? The locals have had it their way for the past century and the factory assembly line model is indeed their model.
 
For many years, the nation of JAPAN was held up as the standard of excellence against which US school were measured and found lacking. In the 1990's I studied the Japanese system and was sent to Japan to observe their schools. One major reason for their success is they have a NATIONAL system with one standard curriculum that applies to the entire nation from Sapporo down to Okinawa. An office in Tokyo is responsible and everything in the schools has a uniformity and sameness in terms of course outlines, text materials, timelines, testing tools and other components. Teachers have individual discretion and ability to adapt these to their own style and methodology and they are not robots. National tests are perfectly dovetailed into that curriculum.

The result is a system which produces a very highly educated population across a very broad swath of society. The result is a system in which kids excel at achieving the test scores which make us look bad here.

The USA has a decision to make. Are we one nation with one people or are we something much less than that? The answer is steeped in politics, immersed in ideology and hamstrung by history and tradition.

We badly need a national curriculum which would apply to the entire nation. I suspect America is NOT ready for nationalization of schools and still would want to retain some local control. But a nation wide curriculum is a badly needed and necessary component to achieving the results here that are normal and expected in Japan.

But those factors are not the reason for Japan's success. It always goes back to culture. Japan has a very homogenous population, with a very homogenous culture, and attitudes which facilitate their success. They collectively demand honor, respect, and courtesy throughout their society. They aren't multicultural and brash, or demanding of individual attention devoted to special needs. They are culturally about 180 degrees from us, and this is the primary reason for their success. We used to have a bit of those same attitudes, but that has been flushed down the proverbial toilet, as we have become so diverse, and so separated at the community level, that we can hardly identify with each other, short of a national crisis of some sort. Nationalized education standards would accomplish little, when our national identity is so varied, and we have such little value toward mutual respect, and higher education. Our schools have become little more than dysfunctional daycare centers for children with ****ed-up home lives in several parts of the country.
 
I don't think he ever said that would be the case. What's wrong with a school voucher being issued to every child's parents to use at any accredited school?

What's the practical difference, then? The schools are still paid for by collective tax money. Only now they'll cost more, because not only do they have to pay for all of the teachers, space, and equipment to do the actual schooling, they have to turn a profit for their owners. So now you're just adding handing over tax money directly to the owners of private schools. How is that an improvement?

I suppose this means that the private schools aren't held to the same standards as public schools? So then they can lie to kids about science? They can ignore requirements for special education students? I'm still not seeing a benefit.

And this idea that suddenly kids will all go to better schools with vouchers. Where does that even come from? The good school has 300 spaces. There are 900 kids who want to go there. How do we decide which kid goes where? Is it by grades? Fine, that's a scholarship program. Is it by cost? That's not okay at all. Is it by proximity? That's what we have now. This idea that parents can shop around for schools is kind of silly. There aren't enough schools for that. There will still be a lot of kids stuck at the crappy schools who don't want to be there, and will be getting a lousy education because of it. Turning education into a for-profit business won't solve that. Properly funding the public education program will.

But those factors are not the reason for Japan's success. It always goes back to culture. Japan has a very homogenous population, with a very homogenous culture, and attitudes which facilitate their success. They collectively demand honor, respect, and courtesy throughout their society. They aren't multicultural and brash, or demanding of individual attention devoted to special needs. They are culturally about 180 degrees from us, and this is the primary reason for their success. We used to have a bit of those same attitudes, but that has been flushed down the proverbial toilet, as we have become so diverse, and so separated at the community level, that we can hardly identify with each other, short of a national crisis of some sort. Nationalized education standards would accomplish little, when our national identity is so varied, and we have such little value toward mutual respect, and higher education. Our schools have become little more than dysfunctional daycare centers for children with ****ed-up home lives in several parts of the country.

You do know that this comes off as kinda racist, right? We "used to be better", back when there was a greater majority of white people. Now we have all these immigrants and more population with darker skin, so we can't understand each other or hold honor or decency (which are apparently white values to you) anymore.

But even if the problem is "culture", wouldn't the solution be to educate people and help them prosper, rather than to write them off simply for being different?
 
Last edited:
If you can solve the problem of poverty, you need to be KING. ;)

Socialists try to solve poverty. I thought socialists don't believe in monarchies? ;)

I do believe it is possible to end poverty, but that requires a complete transformation of the tax system.

How to End Poverty | Jacob Shwartz-Lucas



I have seen bureaucracy, red tale and corruption in all levels of public and private business... education is nothing special in that.

True, but typically the more centralized a power, the more corruption you have. This applies to both the business world and government. Education should be in the hands of teachers, parents, and communities.

For what its worth - how much "corruption" can there be in the classroom?

Never said anything about the classroom.


And even with all your local control for the past century, can you find any districts which have left behind the factor assembly line model based on age? I cannot.

From what I've seen, the more education is centralized the more it resembles an assembly line.
 
What's the practical difference, then? The schools are still paid for by collective tax money. Only now they'll cost more, because not only do they have to pay for all of the teachers, space, and equipment to do the actual schooling, they have to turn a profit for their owners. So now you're just adding handing over tax money directly to the owners of private schools. How is that an improvement?

I suppose this means that the private schools aren't held to the same standards as public schools? So then they can lie to kids about science? They can ignore requirements for special education students? I'm still not seeing a benefit.

And this idea that suddenly kids will all go to better schools with vouchers. Where does that even come from? The good school has 300 spaces. There are 900 kids who want to go there. How do we decide which kid goes where? Is it by grades? Fine, that's a scholarship program. Is it by cost? That's not okay at all. Is it by proximity? That's what we have now. This idea that parents can shop around for schools is kind of silly. There aren't enough schools for that. There will still be a lot of kids stuck at the crappy schools who don't want to be there, and will be getting a lousy education because of it. Turning education into a for-profit business won't solve that. Properly funding the public education program will.

I never suggested getting rid of the public schools. Just that parents who are disappointed with their local public school could use their tax money for their kid's education at another accredited school instead of having to pay for it out of pocket on top of the taxes. The current system has it so that only rich kids can go to private schools. What if you're in a horrible, horrible school district (of which America has many), yet are too poor to go somewhere else? I guess you're just SOL, right?

I find it odd that you prefer only the rich kids get to have better opportunities.

For schools to be eligible for the vouchers they would have to pass an accreditation process that they meet the curriculum standards and aren't just a daycare sapping funds.

As it stands now the public schools have zero competition, and have zero reason to apply themselves. A little competition never hurt anyone. I can't think of a single downside, unless of course you're a lazy teacher, and that you might have to get off your ass.
 
What's the practical difference, then? The schools are still paid for by collective tax money. Only now they'll cost more, because not only do they have to pay for all of the teachers, space, and equipment to do the actual schooling, they have to turn a profit for their owners. So now you're just adding handing over tax money directly to the owners of private schools. How is that an improvement?

I suppose this means that the private schools aren't held to the same standards as public schools? So then they can lie to kids about science? They can ignore requirements for special education students? I'm still not seeing a benefit.

And this idea that suddenly kids will all go to better schools with vouchers. Where does that even come from? The good school has 300 spaces. There are 900 kids who want to go there. How do we decide which kid goes where? Is it by grades? Fine, that's a scholarship program. Is it by cost? That's not okay at all. Is it by proximity? That's what we have now. This idea that parents can shop around for schools is kind of silly. There aren't enough schools for that. There will still be a lot of kids stuck at the crappy schools who don't want to be there, and will be getting a lousy education because of it. Turning education into a for-profit business won't solve that. Properly funding the public education program will.



You do know that this comes off as kinda racist, right? We "used to be better", back when there was a greater majority of white people. Now we have all these immigrants and more population with darker skin, so we can't understand each other or hold honor or decency (which are apparently white values to you) anymore.

But even if the problem is "culture", wouldn't the solution be to educate people and help them prosper, rather than to write them off simply for being different?

You say properly funding education will yield better results. Interesting, then perhaps you can explain, if you really believe more funding is required, why we already spend more per student at the funding level but are not at the top for money spent on a student at the student level? I can agree with "proper" funding, but that does not necessarily mean "more" money. We need to eliminate a lot of fat and uselessness soaking up those funds. If voucher are issued at the funding level, by passing all the intermediate levels, then yes, a for profit school could indeed by a lot cheaper for society than the current system.

A public school system that denies the possibility of the existence of God is no less biased, ridiculous or more useful than schools that might actually fall under your scathing biased ridicule.

As a socialist, you of course pursue the idea of a classless society, but a good and useful education system cannot exist if all students are treated the same and given the same education. You cannot educate someone with a 150 IQ the same way that you educate someone with an 85 IQ and when you add in the students with a 65 IQ, all you end up with is a completely useless, costly education system that meets the needs of no one. Oh, wait, that is what we have now. Could it be because decision makers have chosen, at least in part, to pursue the socialist ideal of classlessness and tries to deny differences and treat everyone the same?
 
How are they to accomplish that on such a limited budget? There are some like that i think, but most private schools aren't too stellar either, if we're talking K-12.

Get a bigger budget, if you have better education chances are you you won't need to spend as much on welfare or other programs that are needed because of mostly bad education.
 
I never suggested getting rid of the public schools. Just that parents who are disappointed with their local public school could use their tax money for their kid's education at another accredited school instead of having to pay for it out of pocket on top of the taxes. The current system has it so that only rich kids can go to private schools. What if you're in a horrible, horrible school district (of which America has many), yet are too poor to go somewhere else? I guess you're just SOL, right?

I find it odd that you prefer only the rich kids get to have better opportunities.

For schools to be eligible for the vouchers they would have to pass an accreditation process that they meet the curriculum standards and aren't just a daycare sapping funds.

As it stands now the public schools have zero competition, and have zero reason to apply themselves. A little competition never hurt anyone. I can't think of a single downside, unless of course you're a lazy teacher, and that you might have to get off your ass.

See, that's the exact opposite of what I said. Poor neighborhoods with lousy schools should not just sit there and fester. They should be brought up so that they can function. Private schools for a basic education should not be necessary. The public schools should be funded so that they can provide the necessary education, because education is too important to leave to markets to decide how much education is the best for the school's profits.

Private schools and vouchers are a short term solution to a long term problem.
 
But those factors are not the reason for Japan's success. It always goes back to culture. Japan has a very homogenous population, with a very homogenous culture, and attitudes which facilitate their success. They collectively demand honor, respect, and courtesy throughout their society. They aren't multicultural and brash, or demanding of individual attention devoted to special needs. They are culturally about 180 degrees from us, and this is the primary reason for their success. We used to have a bit of those same attitudes, but that has been flushed down the proverbial toilet, as we have become so diverse, and so separated at the community level, that we can hardly identify with each other, short of a national crisis of some sort. Nationalized education standards would accomplish little, when our national identity is so varied, and we have such little value toward mutual respect, and higher education. Our schools have become little more than dysfunctional daycare centers for children with ****ed-up home lives in several parts of the country.

I stand with you and agree that those cultural differences are indeed important. I also stand with you that we need to identify the positive things we want to have people adopt and try to get people to adopt them.

Having said that, we still can learn from other nations. We still can identify what may be both useful and helpful to us. And we still can adopt ways which will make us improve. A national curriculum is part of that.

The genius of Japan has always been that they borrow very non-Japanese strategies and methods from other foreign cultures and then make them Japanese. We need to do the same in the field of education with a national curriculum.

I would disagree that our schools are dysfunctional day care centers. We have some excellent schools in this nation. We also have problems that must be dealt with.
 
From what I've seen, the more education is centralized the more it resembles an assembly line.

We have had 100% decentralized local control education for well over a century now. The only model they have ever adopted is the factory assembly line system. Centralization has nothing to do with that.
 
I know that seeing as the Federal Government is not given the power to meddle with education, and that allows the state to assume that power, the Constitution though does state that the Federal Government has the power to do things that will provide for the general welfare. Would you support such a measure to nationalize schools? Feel free to explain your vote!

The general welfare clause has to do with taxes, not dictating school policy or making schools and what not. The part of the Constitution that could be applied to the Feds dictating school curriculum and what not is in Article 1 Section 8, "To promote the Progress of Science and useful Arts, by securing for limited Times to Authors and Inventors the exclusive Right to their respective Writings and Discoveries;". Now this clause is mainly about copyright's and what not but it could be construed as allowing them to take over education. Not that I would suggest it, just that it can be construed as such. After all, they've construed quite a bit out of pretty much every other part of the Constution...why not this part also?.........
 
The general welfare clause has to do with taxes, not dictating school policy or making schools and what not. The part of the Constitution that could be applied to the Feds dictating school curriculum and what not is in Article 1 Section 8, "To promote the Progress of Science and useful Arts, by securing for limited Times to Authors and Inventors the exclusive Right to their respective Writings and Discoveries;". Now this clause is mainly about copyright's and what not but it could be construed as allowing them to take over education. Not that I would suggest it, just that it can be construed as such. After all, they've construed quite a bit out of pretty much every other part of the Constution...why not this part also?.........

Because it would be ridiculous to try to make that argument even with modern or ancient linguistics. The commerce clause would be a better argument, but in the end, they do it through money--"Here is X millions of federal dollars for your schools. Do as we say and take the money; don't do everything we say down to the letter and you get no money. So what is it going to be, triple your local sales and property taxes, or make your kids take and pass a test we design that will dictate your education policy in order to be able to pass?"
 
See, that's the exact opposite of what I said. Poor neighborhoods with lousy schools should not just sit there and fester. They should be brought up so that they can function. Private schools for a basic education should not be necessary. The public schools should be funded so that they can provide the necessary education, because education is too important to leave to markets to decide how much education is the best for the school's profits.

Private schools and vouchers are a short term solution to a long term problem.

So I'm glad you at least vouchers as a solution, even if only a short term one.

What I don't understand is why this would negatively impact the public schools. If they're doing a better job than the local private schools, they will have more students, if they are not, they will have less students. Either way, more students will be with higher quality education.

You don't seem to have a problem with parents putting their kids in private schools, why are you only against them getting their tax dollars back to do it? You're still giving the rich a larger advantage. Education is the single most important factor in determining how someone's life will be. The rich in our country can afford better educations, and as such the situation perpetuates itself.

If the local public school isn't doing their job, why should the parents be stuck with it?
 
See, that's the exact opposite of what I said. Poor neighborhoods with lousy schools should not just sit there and fester. They should be brought up so that they can function. Private schools for a basic education should not be necessary. The public schools should be funded so that they can provide the necessary education, because education is too important to leave to markets to decide how much education is the best for the school's profits.

Private schools and vouchers are a short term solution to a long term problem.

And how do you come to the conclusion that schools in poor neighborhoods primarily suffer from poor funding and not from disruptive influences of those neighborhoods. Funding has nothing to do with the drugs, gangs, poor parenting, lack of discipline, inability to attract good teachers (ok, funding might influence this one, but really, how much do you want to pay a teacher to get them to teach in what is basically a combat zone), etc. The environment in which the schools exist has a much larger influence than funding in those areas.
 
We have had 100% decentralized local control education for well over a century now. The only model they have ever adopted is the factory assembly line system.

I am not defending the system we have now. It is also full of bureaucratic teaching-to-the-test nonsense. But allowing schools to be more flexible in their teaching/learning leads to new ideas and strategies. To use a broad brush on the entire nation through national schools is dangerous imo.

And no, we do not have 100% decentralized education right now.

Centralization has nothing to do with that.

Centralization is not going to make it any better.
 
Get a bigger budget, if you have better education chances are you you won't need to spend as much on welfare or other programs that are needed because of mostly bad education.

So the US Government should just take "chances" and spend more money on public education to resolve an issue. That's not a very scientific approach now is it? Do you have any empirical evidence to support your statement?

Didn't think so...
 
I am not defending the system we have now. It is also full of bureaucratic teaching-to-the-test nonsense. But allowing schools to be more flexible in their teaching/learning leads to new ideas and strategies. To use a broad brush on the entire nation through national schools is dangerous imo.

And no, we do not have 100% decentralized education right now.



Centralization is not going to make it any better.

And what was the excuse before the testing obsession took over a decade ago? :( We still had the factory assembly line system and still had the same results for many decades.

We have had locally controlled decentralized education for over the last century. That is reality. The federal government operates no school or school district that can be called centralized as we have been using the term.

We need to move away from the factory assembly line system and as long as economics rules education as it does with local and state taxes, we will never get beyond that. Until we make our top priority education of all the way we did with making out military the best in the world - and damn the cost - we will continue to wallow in mediocrity for many.
 
We have had locally controlled decentralized education for over the last century. That is reality. The federal government operates no school or school district that can be called centralized as we have been using the term.

Did we really have that? Would you call it that under "busing"? Was our education system a failure for that entire century, or did it start failing somewhere along the way? What was the cause of the failures? From my point of view, we had a very good education system, for some but not all, and somewhere, somehow, we changed it to a poor system for all. What factors really caused that?

Don't get me wrong, I actually support a national education program, but perhaps for different reasons and in a different manor than you do.
 
And what was the excuse before the testing obsession took over a decade ago? :( We still had the factory assembly line system and still had the same results for many decades.

As stated before, I believe much of the problem lies in poverty which results in many negative consequences, including bad schools and a push for an 'assembly line system.'

We have had locally controlled decentralized education for over the last century. That is reality. The federal government operates no school or school district that can be called centralized as we have been using the term.

The federal government has a lot of influence over the education system. But I never said the federal govt operates schools/districts.


We need to move away from the factory assembly line system and as long as economics rules education as it does with local and state taxes, we will never get beyond that. Until we make our top priority education of all the way we did with making out military the best in the world - and damn the cost - we will continue to wallow in mediocrity for many.

Funny you mention the military. We spend more on military than the next ten top military spenders combined and we still find a way to screw everything up. I don't see it as any different with education. You want to deal with a symptom and throw money at it. I want to deal with the root of the problem (that is, poverty), and still allow parents, teachers, and communities to control their own education.
 
I want to deal with the root of the problem (that is, poverty), and still allow parents, teachers, and communities to control their own education.

I don't see poverty as the root problem. Greed, selfishness, laziness, these are some of the root causes of poverty. Most people who live in "poverty" (quotations because I have seen real poverty and it doesn't exist in the US) do so as the direct result of their own choices. Opportunity exist, even today, the fact that they wallow in poverty instead of taking advantage of those opportunities clearly proves it is their choice, not a problem with society.
 
I don't see poverty as the root problem. Greed, selfishness, laziness, these are some of the root causes of poverty.

Laziness could lead to one living in poverty but that does not explain the systemic issue. We have enough fertile land on this Earth to allow each individual to live on 4 acres. The cause of the poverty is privilege. Specifically, the privilege of appropriation in the natural world

There is a cause for this poverty; and, if you trace it down, you will find its root in a primary injustice. Look over the world today — poverty everywhere. The cause must be a common one. You cannot attribute it to the tariff, or to the form of government, or to this thing or to that in which nations differ; because, as deep poverty is common to them all the cause that produces it must be a common cause. What is that common cause? There is one sufficient cause that is common to all nations; and that is the appropriation as the property of some of that natural element on which and from which all must live. ...

WealthAndWant theme: The Causes of Poverty

Most people who live in "poverty" (quotations because I have seen real poverty and it doesn't exist in the US)

Only because government programs and laws alleviate the severity of the poverty.


do so as the direct result of their own choices.

Completely untrue. Many of those who live in poverty were born into it.


Opportunity exist, even today, the fact that they wallow in poverty instead of taking advantage of those opportunities clearly proves it is their choice, not a problem with society.

A typical response for the status quo apologists. A few will overcome the obstacles and pull themselves out of poverty but it does not make those obstacles just.
 
Education should be completely privatized. Get rid of all public schooling in favor of private schools.
The commercialization of education, carried out by global
corporations, is the practice of altering or disrupting the
teaching and learning process in schools from kindergarten
through college, by introducing advertising and other
commercial activities in order to increase profit. Corporations
claim, with great fanfare, that they are ‘community partners’
bringing needed resources to underfunded
schools and helping students get the things
that legislators can’t or won’t provide. In
reality, through tax loopholes and lobbying,
corporations have themselves defunded
education. In-School marketers have made it
clear that they intend to infiltrate and use
public schools as a vehicle for reaching a
captive audience. Their stated goal is to
brand children as early as possible to
consume their clients’ products.

What is commercialization of education? - Yahoo! Answers
 
The commercialization of education, carried out by global
corporations, is the practice of altering or disrupting the
teaching and learning process in schools from kindergarten
through college, by introducing advertising and other
commercial activities in order to increase profit. Corporations
claim, with great fanfare, that they are ‘community partners’
bringing needed resources to underfunded
schools and helping students get the things
that legislators can’t or won’t provide. In
reality, through tax loopholes and lobbying,
corporations have themselves defunded
education. In-School marketers have made it
clear that they intend to infiltrate and use
public schools as a vehicle for reaching a
captive audience. Their stated goal is to
brand children as early as possible to
consume their clients’ products.

What is commercialization of education? - Yahoo! Answers

What is wrong with making profits?

Also, kids don't have any money.
 
Laziness could lead to one living in poverty but that does not explain the systemic issue. We have enough fertile land on this Earth to allow each individual to live on 4 acres. The cause of the poverty is privilege. Specifically, the privilege of appropriation in the natural world

And less than 1 in 4 would have either the knowledge or the will to do a damned thing with it, thus making it better for all to leave in the hands of those who will utilize it.

There is a cause for this poverty; and, if you trace it down, you will find its root in a primary injustice. Look over the world today — poverty everywhere. The cause must be a common one. You cannot attribute it to the tariff, or to the form of government, or to this thing or to that in which nations differ; because, as deep poverty is common to them all the cause that produces it must be a common cause. What is that common cause? There is one sufficient cause that is common to all nations; and that is the appropriation as the property of some of that natural element on which and from which all must live. ...

WealthAndWant theme: The Causes of Poverty



Only because government programs and laws alleviate the severity of the poverty.




Completely untrue. Many of those who live in poverty were born into it.




A typical response for the status quo apologists. A few will overcome the obstacles and pull themselves out of poverty but it does not make those obstacles just.

Thank you for a lesson in communist excuses on why individuals shouldn't do for themselves. The core of any society is the individual and societies can only be as just or successful as the individuals who make up that society. No matter the obstacle placed in ones path, the individual must overcome them, not society, otherwise the individual is fit for nothing other than fertilizer or worm food, ok, maybe buzzards need to eat also. In order to build strong individuals, society, like nature, places obstacles to test the individual. This is neither wrong or unjust, but merely a testing of what class a person should be in.

Or society wrongly and unjustly takes for the successful to maintain and comfort the failures. This can only lead to greater and greater numbers of failures as they never have to learn from their mistakes to survive. They are only taught that it is ok to fail to overcome the obstacles of life.
 
Back
Top Bottom