• 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
They already do.

The thing that you're pissed about is that there aren't more schools teaching kids that dinosaurs and human lived together.

The thing I am pissed about is that there aren't more choices for those parents willing to take responsible actions in their kids education. The poor have no choice. It's poor public schools or no school. The rich are paying double for their child's education. The middle class is faced with public school or the same double situation at a severe dent in the family budget.

Try school vouchers. All benefit from choice, the responsible poor more so than the rich and the middle class.
 
When there are people getting out of high school who cannot read, there is a problem. There are certain base skills that *EVERYONE* needs.

Being able to read and making everyone read the same things are 2 very different issues.
 
The thing I am pissed about is that there aren't more choices for those parents willing to take responsible actions in their kids education.
This is false, choices exist. The choices may not be ideal or possible, but they do exist.

The poor have no choice. It's poor public schools or no school.
They also don't have a choice in where they live...it's either a trailer or no home. They don't have a choice on food...it's either unhealthy food or no food.

The problem isn't the educational system, but rather the income status. So instead of trying to change a symptom, change the cause.

The rich are paying double for their child's education.
Which is their choice. They do not have to.

The middle class is faced with public school or the same double situation at a severe dent in the family budget.
How would that change? If there are three public schools in a city and one private school, how would having the option to attend X school or Y school change the fact they are receiving services from the same school district? And if they all choose to attend the private school, how is the private school going to be able to support all those students (books, technology, classrooms, teachers, etc.), when they do not receive financial support from the government?

Try school vouchers. All benefit from choice
The people who keep advocating this never bother to think this through. How would school vouchers help? Let's say I'm a troublemaking student from a poor family. Do you think I'm going to willingly go to a "bad" school? School vouchers would not change a single thing about the educational system, except enhance the shift towards educating those with money and leaving behind those without it.

Schools don't CHOOSE to be bad. Most schools will do the best with what they have. Some schools have much better financial resources than others. Some schools exist in better neighborhoods than others. Some schools have a student population which place a lower value on education than others. These factors determine quality of education. The idea that "competition" will improve schools is false, as long as school attendance is compulsory. All you would be doing is adding to the problems.
 
Nothing is stopping you from doing that right now.


That's bull. Schools would fight each other to be the most profitable, however that can be accomplished.

Then it would be up to the parents to make sure that the most profitable would also be the best place for their child to get an education.

What is stopping the middle class from exercising their desire to get the best education for their child is funds. These same middle class will research ballet schools to determine those with the best program and that is where the kids go. In education the middle class have no choice. At $10,000/child, combined with need to still pay their taxes, that straps the family budget.
 
The states and local districts have totally failed, so I'm for trying something else.
 
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!

First off, you need to go and learn what the general welfare is, and how it is applied to the Constitution. Your implied use of it here is a complete fallacy.
 
The states and local districts have totally failed, so I'm for trying something else.

It isn't a failre of the states or local districts. It's a failure of families and culture. You can lead a horse to water..........
 
This is false, choices exist. The choices may not be ideal or possible, but they do exist.

They also don't have a choice in where they live...it's either a trailer or no home. They don't have a choice on food...it's either unhealthy food or no food.

The problem isn't the educational system, but rather the income status. So instead of trying to change a symptom, change the cause.

Which is their choice. They do not have to.

How would that change? If there are three public schools in a city and one private school, how would having the option to attend X school or Y school change the fact they are receiving services from the same school district? And if they all choose to attend the private school, how is the private school going to be able to support all those students (books, technology, classrooms, teachers, etc.), when they do not receive financial support from the government?

The people who keep advocating this never bother to think this through. How would school vouchers help? Let's say I'm a troublemaking student from a poor family. Do you think I'm going to willingly go to a "bad" school? School vouchers would not change a single thing about the educational system, except enhance the shift towards educating those with money and leaving behind those without it.

Schools don't CHOOSE to be bad. Most schools will do the best with what they have. Some schools have much better financial resources than others. Some schools exist in better neighborhoods than others. Some schools have a student population which place a lower value on education than others. These factors determine quality of education. The idea that "competition" will improve schools is false, as long as school attendance is compulsory. All you would be doing is adding to the problems.

Interesting that you believe that a choice that is not possible is a choice. How does that work?

You are making an assumption that with a sudden influx of funds from school vouchers in the low income areas that there would be no competition for the student. The reverse is probably true. In the inner city, there would be far more customers in a given area than there are in a suburban area that tends to have smaller families and with less concentration of prospective clients. The best way to get people, especially kids out of the ghettos and into a more productive life is through education. There are few that would make the case that inner city schools are now doing the best job of education. Some will still be lost, but those with caring but strapped parents have a good shot at making it out. I just don't get your argument that school vouchers would help those who least need it and not those that do. I am an optimist. I believe that there are still caring parents with less funds that would take the time and trouble to get their kids a better education. If not, then I don't see what will work.

Schools do not choose to be bad. But many schools have no need to be better either. With competition, schools would need to be better or they would cease to exist.
 
It isn't a failre of the states or local districts. It's a failure of families and culture. You can lead a horse to water..........

That's very true that the individuals are also to blame, but there is something amiss when, for example, Detroit public schools try to bribe parents with a random car giveaway so that they get the kids in on the day the state records attendance. Then they end up with like 12% graduation rate, but they got their funding, so who cares. The fed simply has more resources and, hopefully, people who could run the system with more common sense.
 
That's very true that the individuals are also to blame, but there is something amiss when, for example, Detroit public schools try to bribe parents with a random car giveaway so that they get the kids in on the day the state records attendance. Then they end up with like 12% graduation rate, but they got their funding, so who cares. The fed simply has more resources and, hopefully, people who could run the system with more common sense.

It's sad, but it still boils down to culture and family. The fact that the school district is even trying to bribe parents tells us that the family is what is screwed up. Make no mistake- I don't agree with it at all, but when you have kids with parents who don't give a crap about their child's education, and won't even make an effort to insure the child's success, that kid is screwed, and it's not the schools or the administrators who are at fault. The ones to pity in this situation are the children who are cursed with parents who don't care enough to help them succeed. No school district can help in a situation such as this.
 
I took a quick look at tuition at all the private schools I am aware of that are real schools within 40 minutes of my house. The most expensive one is $22,500 for day students; there are a couple in the mid-teens ($14K & $16K) as a day student--but all 3 are also boarding schools; and several in the $5K-$6.5K range for their most expensive grades--HS--and are mostly church affiliated, 2 of which are notorious for being fundamentalist indoctrination centers that will not admit your kid if you are not a member of the affiliated church unless one parents volunteers at the school so they can make sure you are of like mind with their teachings. The one we currently use is a satellite location for a more expensive one which is in a city too far away to commute and is $4200 a year for tuition for k-1, but they have after school programs that cost money plus all the normal fees so it runs closer to $5K but they do offer multi-child discounts with the top end cost currently around $12K for highest grades with more stepped up fees like $500 for books/materials, etc.. I just do not see vouchers being able to put most of these schools within reach for most poor people.
 
The public school system should be good enough quality that those who can afford private schools still opt for public, if it isn't there is a problem.
 
Interesting that you believe that a choice that is not possible is a choice. How does that work?
It works in the same way I mentioned before about the "choice" a family has in homes.

You are making an assumption that with a sudden influx of funds from school vouchers in the low income areas that there would be no competition for the student.
No, I'm telling you the competition for the student would have nothing to do with education. I can't make a student learn 4x5=20 if they don't want to learn it. No matter how much competition there is, it's not going to change the CULTURE of the student. All "competition" would do would change the way schools advertise, that's it.

The best way to get people, especially kids out of the ghettos and into a more productive life is through education.
I agree completely. But offering them a choice in school isn't going to change their mentality on education. You are operating under the false assumption all students want to come to school and want to learn. This is unequivocally false. No matter where certain children go to school, they are not going to want to be there and they will not be interested in learning.

Offering a gang-banging, drug-dealing high school student a chance to change schools isn't going to magically make him change his attitude and become an honor student. To insinuate it will is simply false.

There are few that would make the case that inner city schools are now doing the best job of education.
But I bet if you'd go to those schools, there would be very few who'd come away saying those schools are not doing the best they can.

I am an optimist. I believe that there are still caring parents with less funds that would take the time and trouble to get their kids a better education. If not, then I don't see what will work.
The bolded is what's important. There are FAR too many parents who DON'T care if their child gets educated. Indeed, there are far too many parents who don't WANT their child to become educated. It's these students and families which drag down education. The choice of schools has absolutely nothing to do with.

With competition, schools would need to be better or they would cease to exist.
Where are you going to put the bad students when the "bad schools" fail? Other schools will not have the resources nor the space for them and these bad students aren't going to improve simply because they are going to another school. You would have EXACTLY the same problem you have now, just with fewer schools available to serve.
 
The public school system should be good enough quality that those who can afford private schools still opt for public, if it isn't there is a problem.

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.
 
Then it would be up to the parents to make sure that the most profitable would also be the best place for their child to get an education.

What is stopping the middle class from exercising their desire to get the best education for their child is funds. These same middle class will research ballet schools to determine those with the best program and that is where the kids go. In education the middle class have no choice. At $10,000/child, combined with need to still pay their taxes, that straps the family budget.
It didn't stop mine. Our child got a good education for almost no money, relatively speaking. It's the parent's time and the community's inclusion that matters. If parents are involved in the schools it ends up being a good system. If the community cares about the schools it ends up being a good system.


Paying $10000 a year for an education that's no better than the local public school is what straps the family budget. I'm not going to pay for my neighbor's kids to be trained in religion. If they want that, then they can fork up the extra money to get that. I'm more than willing to pay my share for a good education sans religion so they have almost nothing to pay except their time, just as my wife and I spent our time during my child's school years.
 
It isn't a failre of the states or local districts. It's a failure of families and culture. You can lead a horse to water..........
Exactly! :) The systems that have trouble aren't the ones with caring parents and a community that supports schools. It's the places where the parents are absent from the process and the community doesn't care that have the issues.
 
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.
 
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.

An activist post if I ever saw one. What is their teachers union like? What's their multicultural agenda like? Our problem isn't money or nationalism, it's attitude and politics.
 
An activist post if I ever saw one. What is their teachers union like? What's their multicultural agenda like? Our problem isn't money or nationalism, it's attitude and politics.

Activist post!? :doh:shock: What does that mean?

Here is info about the Japanese teacher unions

Japan Teachers Union - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

To say that our problem is not money is ridiculous and an obvious falsehood to anybody who has ever studied different systems in America. When you have a disparity in per pupil spending that can reach 100% between districts, money is indeed a huge problem. But it is only one problem.

Multicultural agenda? What are you talking about? Why did you bring this up? To what end? In the end, we teach kids... human beings - and regardless what nationality or culture or race they come from they are still kids who need to learn and get an education.

Yes, attitude and politics are a problem. In what major endeavor of human action involving power are they not?
 
Last edited:
National tests are worse than useless in painting a picture of education progress in America if we do not have a national curriculum. They test kids on things they may not have learned and fail to measure kids knowledge of what they might have learned.

Consider this: for 33 years I taught Government and American History with an occasional elective or two thrown in. Right next door to my room was another teacher who did the same thing. Let us say that we both had three Government classes for a semester. There is no one semester Government text. All the publishing companies make a book designed for a year - two semesters. As a result, each of us is handed a 850 page text designed for two semesters of work and are told to turn it into a one semester course. We are told to teach only a portion of it. Each of us has the authority to design our own course.

It is entirely possible that we each will design a very very different course but both using the same book. It is very very possible that the material my neighbor opts to cover will NOT be the material I cover and vice versa. Two teachers in the same school system, teaching in the same school, teaching the same Government subject, in rooms right next to one another teaching from the same book can and do teach two completely different courses.

Now what happens when some outside group from California or Iowa or Minnesota writes up a standardized test of what they think high school Government kids should have learned and applies it to the kids in these classes?

In Japan, this DOES NOT HAPPEN as they have a national curriculum and the tests are dovetailed perfectly to the materials and lessons taught all over the nation in every single school. In America, we do not even teach the same class in the same building sometimes.

And until we do, national standardized tests are worse than useless.
 
National tests are worse than useless in painting a picture of education progress in America if we do not have a national curriculum. They test kids on things they may not have learned and fail to measure kids knowledge of what they might have learned.

Consider this: for 33 years I taught Government and American History with an occasional elective or two thrown in. Right next door to my room was another teacher who did the same thing. Let us say that we both had three Government classes for a semester. There is no one semester Government text. All the publishing companies make a book designed for a year - two semesters. As a result, each of us is handed a 850 page text designed for two semesters of work and are told to turn it into a one semester course. We are told to teach only a portion of it. Each of us has the authority to design our own course.

It is entirely possible that we each will design a very very different course but both using the same book. It is very very possible that the material my neighbor opts to cover will NOT be the material I cover and vice versa. Two teachers in the same school system, teaching in the same school, teaching the same Government subject, in rooms right next to one another teaching from the same book can and do teach two completely different courses.

Now what happens when some outside group from California or Iowa or Minnesota writes up a standardized test of what they think high school Government kids should have learned and applies it to the kids in these classes?

In Japan, this DOES NOT HAPPEN as they have a national curriculum and the tests are dovetailed perfectly to the materials and lessons taught all over the nation in every single school. In America, we do not even teach the same class in the same building sometimes.

And until we do, national standardized tests are worse than useless.

The get rid of the national standardized test. Education at the state level is appropriate in our society and culture. Where there are poorly performing schools, then the community should rise up and demand better of their representatives. I can understand them seeking help from the Feds but that's not one of the items that my tax dollars should be supporting in another state. Those tax dollars should support my nearby basket case--Philadelphia where even non-Catholics would rather send their children to Catholic school than the bloated public school.

As for Japan, is there anything about that society we want to emulate? I believe diversity is a stupid concept, but I do appreciate variety.
 
A huge controversy in my state is we instituted standardized tests and a LOT of weight is placed on schools, teachers, administrators and students on how well the kids do on them. Principles lose their jobs (reassigned to lowering paying desk jobs), teachers pay is affected and students don't get promoted. Teachers complain that educational enrichment is lost because they are forced to spend the school year focusing on preparing students for the test and much of what students should get out of a comprehensive education cannot be assessed in a standardized test. Secondly, they say professional educators know best how to educate students and all of these testing ideas originate with politicians who are not experts in education. For teachers I know would scrap the standardized tests if they could.

One thing that is never mentioned and even I recognize this; how we'll a student does in school has is based in large part on the environments the the kids come from. Holding teachers accountable because they are unlucky enough to be assigned to a low performing inner-city school where education is not reinforced by the parent in a home where dysfunction is normal is simply unfair. Then taking the teacher lucky enough to be assigned to a suburban school when both parents surround the child with educational stimuli, cultural enriching vacations around the world, access to home computer networking and the online resources to study at home, time to check homework assignments, no gunshots or street drug sales on the way to the library, etc., etc. etc.
 
The idea of a single educational product which will meet the needs of each of our citizens is ludicrous. There is a reason why each year our cell phones get better yet cheaper, while our education system gets' more expensive yet at best limps along at "below average". That is because in the first market, resources are directed by consumers, but in the second they are directed by politicians.
 
The get rid of the national standardized test. Education at the state level is appropriate in our society and culture. Where there are poorly performing schools, then the community should rise up and demand better of their representatives. I can understand them seeking help from the Feds but that's not one of the items that my tax dollars should be supporting in another state. Those tax dollars should support my nearby basket case--Philadelphia where even non-Catholics would rather send their children to Catholic school than the bloated public school.

As for Japan, is there anything about that society we want to emulate? I believe diversity is a stupid concept, but I do appreciate variety.

We can learn from others and that includes the Japanese who have much to offer our society. And education would be near the top of that list.

So if we do not like the contents of the message, then we get rid of the messenger? Standardized tests are now so ingrained into the system that any effort to get rid of them is doomed and DOA. It is most likely only going to get worse.

Are we one nation or are we not? This is the central question at the core of this discussion.

Once upon a time in a bygone America which no longer exists, people considered themselves as Virginians or New Yorkers but those days are gone with the wind. Today somebody is born in New York, moves to Maine as a child, finished high school in Pennsylvania, attends college in Michigan, does grad work in California, gets a job in Washington, marries somebody with experiences in other different states, resides in Florida for 12 years, relocates to Alabama, and then retires to Arizona.

Those old regional loyalties are as out of date and as quaint as Daniel Webster proclaiming he is a Massachusetts man in the 1800's.

Today the kid poorly educated in Chicago might rob your house in Milwaukee because he cannot get a job. The kid who failed to learn in Oregon might move to California for better social service benefits and cause your taxes to soar. The guy who screws up your household repair in Iowa causing a leak or fire down the road because of poor schooling in Kansas costs you and costs society.

We can no longer afford to draw a line in the sand at the city limits or state line.
 
We can learn from others and that includes the Japanese who have much to offer our society. And education would be near the top of that list.

So if we do not like the contents of the message, then we get rid of the messenger? Standardized tests are now so ingrained into the system that any effort to get rid of them is doomed and DOA. It is most likely only going to get worse.

Are we one nation or are we not? This is the central question at the core of this discussion.

Once upon a time in a bygone America which no longer exists, people considered themselves as Virginians or New Yorkers but those days are gone with the wind. Today somebody is born in New York, moves to Maine as a child, finished high school in Pennsylvania, attends college in Michigan, does grad work in California, gets a job in Washington, marries somebody with experiences in other different states, resides in Florida for 12 years, relocates to Alabama, and then retires to Arizona.

Those old regional loyalties are as out of date and as quaint as Daniel Webster proclaiming he is a Massachusetts man in the 1800's.

Today the kid poorly educated in Chicago might rob your house in Milwaukee because he cannot get a job. The kid who failed to learn in Oregon might move to California for better social service benefits and cause your taxes to soar. The guy who screws up your household repair in Iowa causing a leak or fire down the road because of poor schooling in Kansas costs you and costs society.

We can no longer afford to draw a line in the sand at the city limits or state line.

I'll pass on your vision of the country as one homogenized land. I prefer a common thread with state variations based upon the wishes of its citizens. You may advocate for English as a national language but if some border state wants to include signs or instructions in Spanish as well, that is their business.

As for your example of someone born in NY, etc. That person has a better idea of the things that they liked and didn't like about the various places they lived. Instead, you want someone in Washington, DC to decide how things should be and everyone else has to accept it. I'm not in favor of that level of tyranny.

As for standardized tests, I'm not the one that said they are worthless. You were the one who wants to change the educational system because: "national standardized tests are worse than useless."
 
Back
Top Bottom