• 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!

1985 vs 2015

Was America better off in 1985, or are we better off today in 2015?

  • 1985 was better overall

    Votes: 25 50.0%

  • 2015 is better overall

    Votes: 25 50.0%
  • Total voters
    50
rabbitcaebannog said:
The propaganda being passed around is that people have freedom to choose without exposing the fact many of these schools either get to freely chose who will come through their doors or the schools that drop students that don't meet the bar. That is called school's choosing and that also further creates social stratification.
Click to expand...

And again, why is that a bad thing? Does Harvard stratify when it only admits the crème of the crop from the high school ranks? Would you rather we not have schools like Harvard?
 
rabbitcaebannog said:
The propaganda being passed around is that people have freedom to choose without exposing the fact many of these schools either get to freely chose who will come through their doors or the schools that drop students that don't meet the bar. That is called school's choosing and that also further creates social stratification.
Click to expand...

Stratification based on capabilities and achievement is reality. Who knows best how their kids learn, you or the parents?
 
imagep said:
I'm all for school choice, but not so much for that choice being made by affordability.

In my state, we pretty much have school choice. You can chose for your children to go to the public school assigned to them, or you can chose for them to attend any other public school, as long as you fill out a waver form and provide transportation, or you can chose for your kids to go to private school.

A friend of mine has three kids, one was apparently "too smart" for the public school and went to a private school, the other two went to private schools. The oldest, one of the two who attended public school, got a full ride scholarship to a prestigious private college, I never kept up with the other two kids.
Click to expand...

Thats nice, but thats one state. Here teachers unions are one of the strongest special interest groups and actively oppose school choice, voucher programs, etc despite higher test scores and higher satisfaction.

Competition is a good thing. Too bad so many oppose it.
 
Peter Grimm said:
And again, why is that a bad thing? Does Harvard stratify when it only admits the crème of the crop from the high school ranks? Would you rather we not have schools like Harvard?
Click to expand...

What does Harvard have to do with the price of tea in China? Are you trying to suggest we run secondary education like we run private colleges?
 
rabbitcaebannog said:
I don't disagree we need other options available for people. Trade schools where kids learn a trade or skill use to be a viable option. We seem to offer less of that now and try to prepackaged everyone into this college track which is unrealistic.
Click to expand...

I keep seeing people claiming that, but I suspect that may be regional.

In my state, every high school is either "comprehensive" (meaning that it has a vocational trade school on site), or it buses kids to a vocational school. The decision of whether to go to "the vo" is entirely made by the students.
 
Peter Grimm said:
Which is a great argument for why throwing money at the lower/mid tier students is a waste, and why that money should be allocated to the best and brightest.... the ones who will go on to create new things, start their own businesses, come up with scientific advances, and generally grow the economy.
Click to expand...

At what age to we determine the fate of our children, and to fasttrack the winners and to dismiss losers from school? I guess if we could do it early, then we could save a bunch of money on education. Is age 5 agreeable?
 
imagep said:
I keep seeing people claiming that, but I suspect that may be regional.

In my state, every high school is either "comprehensive" (meaning that it has a vocational trade school on site), or it buses kids to a vocational school. The decision of whether to go to "the vo" is entirely made by the students.
Click to expand...

Perhaps. In my state, we used to offer a very good selection of trade schools. Currently, most have closed down. We have maybe one option per five towns with limited space and they are highly competitive often leaving those who need the trades the most with no place to go but a college track at the local high school. Some will drop out because that track is not attainable. Those are the high risk kids. Those are often the ones that will get themselves into trouble without any other viable options.
 
rabbitcaebannog said:
So, you think further stratifying our schools is a good thing? Noted
Click to expand...

I think keeping reality from people doesn't help them. In medicine I learned this very quickly.

Screen-Shot-2014-04-28-at-1.11.37-PM.png
 
Peter Grimm said:
Woah.... who said anything about vouchers? School is a privilege, you pay for it.
Click to expand...

So only kids from wealthier families should go to school? You are suggesting a system that locks the children of the poor and lower middle class into poverty...forever. But I guess that would be good for children from advantaged families, they would have less competition and thus would be pretty much guaranteed high paying jobs for even a moderate education level.

Can you give me a list of undereducated countries that are highly productive and where the population has a standard of living higher than in the US?
 
imagep said:
So only kids from wealthier families should go to school? You are suggesting a system that locks the children of the poor and lower middle class into poverty...forever. But I guess that would be good for children from advantaged families, they would have less competition and thus would be pretty much guaranteed high paying jobs for even a moderate education level.

Can you give me a list of undereducated countries that are highly productive and where the population has a standard of living higher than in the US?
Click to expand...

Pretty scary.
 
Peter Grimm said:
It wasn't my intention to insult anyone. Our economy needs people to work service jobs such as at McDonalds. Those aren't gonna be your Harvard grads - would be a bad allocation talent.

Just like on a football team, you're gonna have your superstars, and you're gonna have your backups. Not an insult to say that someone needs to shovel the coal.
Click to expand...

Almost all jobs take some basic education these days.

And I like your football team analigy. The coach doesn't know in advance which ones are going to be the superstars and which ones will be the bench warmers. Over time, the cream rises to the top, sometimes those star players spent their first few years warming the bench.

If we had a crystal ball that would predict who are going to be the winners and who are going to be the losers, then I would be all for culling the losers out of school as early as possible. Heck, for that matter we could just send them straight to prison before they harm anyone.

But we don't have crystal balls, and I seriously doubt that setting up v social/economic classes would result in any better distribution of resources than we have today. There are many kids from rich families who end up in jail or end up being slackers for all their life, and plenty of poor kids who grow up to do something significant. If we try to winners and losers based upon the the students family income, then we would be making a huge mistake.
 
imagep said:
So when kids turn 5, do we aptitude test them and pretend like the results will accurately reflect their abilities at age 18?

Or do we assign kids to schools based upon family income or class stature?

Do you think that there are groups of children who we shouldn't even bother to try to teach? And if so, at what age to we cull them out of the education system and send them to work camps?
Click to expand...

I think a one size fits all solution is both short sighted and ineffective. I think when you're educating children you have to understand how they learn, and keep in mind that some kids are just never going to be good at certain things. I think motivating children involves encouraging them in those things they love. I think spending time teaching them what they love is a far better approach than setting a curriculum and forcing down their throats those things they detest and aren't good at.
 
US Conservative said:
Here thats no longer done because its presented (by teachers) as unfair-they say that being around high achieving kids will provide a roll model. Except it hasn't worked.

I was lucky enough to be in honors classes. I teach a technical trade now, and these kids (18-25 generally) can't even read.
Click to expand...

Obviously it was done when you were in school (by your own admittance), and I know for a fact its still done in my state.
 
Henrin said:
I think a one size fits all solution is both short sighted and ineffective. I think when you're educating children you have to understand how they learn, and keep in mind that some kids are just never going to be good at certain things. I think motivating children involves encouraging them in those things they love. I think spending time teaching them what they love is a far better approach than setting a curriculum and forcing down their throats those things they detest and aren't good at.
Click to expand...

I agree, plus people continue to change well after they are 18. Poor students become serious and get better, some do their own thing that school would never have prepared them for either. The problem is in trying to make outcomes equal as a measure of some amorphous "fairness".
 
US Conservative said:
Thats nice, but thats one state. Here teachers unions are one of the strongest special interest groups and actively oppose school choice, voucher programs, etc despite higher test scores and higher satisfaction.

Competition is a good thing. Too bad so many oppose it.
Click to expand...

Maybe the issue is just with your state then. We don't have teachers unions in my state.
 
imagep said:
Obviously it was done when you were in school (by your own admittance), and I know for a fact its still done in my state.
Click to expand...

I took AP classes for the grades, you got an extra point above each letter grade for AP, and because it would get college credit if you did well on the AP exams.

But I did take standard classes, and it was like being in the class in gangsters paradise, lean on me, etc.

You can't prop people up forever, eventually its sink or swim time, and education should reflect that. **** kids can't even give me change at the drive through anymore.
 
US Conservative said:
I agree, plus people continue to change well after they are 18. Poor students become serious and get better, some do their own thing that school would never have prepared them for either. The problem is in trying to make outcomes equal as a measure of some amorphous "fairness".
Click to expand...

You can't make outcome equal, but the government has a role in making sure people are treated fairly. Otherwise, what is the purpose of government?
 
MildSteel said:
You can't make outcome equal, but the government has a role in making sure people are treated fairly. Otherwise, what is the purpose of government?
Click to expand...

And when that "fairness" means holding back some like the achievers?
Frankly we probably would do better elevating them, while we babysit the rest.
Theres nowhere to go but up as is.
 
rabbitcaebannog said:
Perhaps. In my state, we used to offer a very good selection of trade schools. Currently, most have closed down. We have maybe one option per five towns with limited space and they are highly competitive often leaving those who need the trades the most with no place to go but a college track at the local high school. Some will drop out because that track is not attainable. Those are the high risk kids. Those are often the ones that will get themselves into trouble without any other viable options.
Click to expand...

What's funny is that my state is considered near the bottom of the barrel in education, and yours is at the top.

Maybe the reason why we have a bad education system in SC is because we put so many resources into vocational training. I'm not super big on vocational training, as most "vo" students never get a job in the field they train in. Who really wants an 18 year old fixing their car, or working on their plumbing? Most vo students end up getting a minimum wage job, and few of them are qualified to attend college because they spent half their high school time learning about cosmetology or small engine repair.
 
imagep said:
So when kids turn 5, do we aptitude test them and pretend like the results will accurately reflect their abilities at age 18?

Or do we assign kids to schools based upon family income or class stature?

Do you think that there are groups of children who we shouldn't even bother to try to teach? And if so, at what age to we cull them out of the education system and send them to work camps?
Click to expand...
I think it's easier to subject them to appropriate chemicals while being decanted to ensure they function at caste level expectations.
 
Henrin said:
I think a one size fits all solution is both short sighted and ineffective. I think when you're educating children you have to understand how they learn, and keep in mind that some kids are just never going to be good at certain things. I think motivating children involves encouraging them in those things they love. I think spending time teaching them what they love is a far better approach than setting a curriculum and forcing down their throats those things they detest and aren't good at.
Click to expand...

I totally agree.

So exactly what are we debating?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom