• 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!

Which of these things would improve education in the United States?

Which of these things would improve education in the US?


  • Total voters
    65
OK, but that's true of ANY job. Pissing off your boss is generally not conducive to your continued employment; I don't see any reason teachers need to be a special exception to that.



At the expense of students.

Run away... yep. Guess that is you M.O.
 
You don't. But standarized tests are easy to grade and give politicians amunition.

I don't understand why the No Child Left Behind Act is still in place.... it seems liberals don't like it, and a lot of conservatives don't like the fed being in state schools, so get rid of it alreayd
 
hold parents responsible for the ****ty performance of their kids. If mommy and daddy don't think education is important and make little johnny and suzy do their homework and pay attention, the best schools in the world won't help.

I won't argue with this, but how do we actually hold the parents responsible and affectively? I can't see the government solving the problem of parental irresponsibility... :shrug: :(
 
I don't understand why the No Child Left Behind Act is still in place.... it seems liberals don't like it, and a lot of conservatives don't like the fed being in state schools, so get rid of it alreayd

Liberals are just fine with it, but get angry because of underfunding and at least pretend to be angry about the unintended consequences of the act, but also because it was finalized by the Bush administration. Conservatives are generally fine with the federal government being involved in schools, the problem is that they want the public schools held accountable at the same time as they want a more open system. It is not being overturned. It will be tweaked and is already being renamed. It's staying put.
 
Number one os break the unions, along with public sector unions.

I don't think breaking unions is going to make a difference in the inner city schools, because "not giving a sh*t" is a deep problem that affects all levels of the education system. Nobody has faith. I think inner city schools really don't attract the best teachers, and it's probably a hard job to like and to deal with a class full of kids who don't give a sh*t, and an administration that doesn't give a sh*t about the kids... It's just a pay check to some.

I think the social setting itself is one of the big problems. Those schools don't create a positive learning environment, and something needs to be done so the children feel encouraged to learn and do better than their parents. Just breaking unions is not going to help with that... it's so simple of an answer to a complex problem.

I think we shouldn't only be asking ourselves; what should we expect of the teachers... but we should also ask ourselves; what should we expect of the students, and how do we get the students to care, to study, and want to make a better life for themselves.
 
Liberals are just fine with it, but get angry because of underfunding and at least pretend to be angry about the unintended consequences of the act, but also because it was finalized by the Bush administration. Conservatives are generally fine with the federal government being involved in schools, the problem is that they want the public schools held accountable at the same time as they want a more open system. It is not being overturned. It will be tweaked and is already being renamed. It's staying put.

Off topic... why do you think the Patriot Act hasn't been repealed yet? The GOP is all for the constitution now, and Obama's Admin has been in the news for constitutional issues with expanding and keeping provisions of the Act in place... Why is the tp not advocating repeal of that or the No Child Left Behind Act? It's state's rights, like you say...

I am just curious what you say..
 
Patriot Act: 1) Growing consensus internally about its usefulness in combating current and future threats 2) Sometimes Government enjoys having new powers and responsibilities (other times they do not: see early years of our intelligence agencies and congressional oversight).

Tea Party on Patriot Act: Economic issues take importance, and most if not all Tea Party groups like to stay on message. Expanding risks a splintering of the movement (see Tocqueville, the NRA, and NAACP's earlier past about near-schism regarding NAACP Black/White relations and its funding sources). Splintering movements mean less strength, and less strength means difficulty in getting political change.

Tea Party on No Child Left Behind: Above & perhaps acceptance of no removal of Dept. of Education or NCLB. Accountability, vouchers, and merit pay (as vague as the slogans can be) are seen as more realistic or accepted than many other discussions. Further, it can't hurt to have near universal opinion siding with "standards" and "accountability"-just have the Devil be in the details. If there is one thing that is for certain..most people in this country think the education system in the US is in trouble, the problem is that no one can really agree upon why. No Child Left Behind satisfied the 20 year demand for "standards" and "accountability" from both parties. It's a political reality now. Tweaking it one direction or another is now the game.
 
Last edited:
from Ed Gein

Number one os break the unions, along with public sector unions.

Hating unions is a firm plank in the far right wing agenda. They will shamelessly use any issue, any platform, and any excuse to put forward the idea that we need to return to the labor arrangements of the Gilded Age when workers were little more than fodder for the machine.
 
I don't understand why the No Child Left Behind Act is still in place.... it seems liberals don't like it, and a lot of conservatives don't like the fed being in state schools, so get rid of it alreayd

I agree. It was stupid from it's conception.
 
Liberals are just fine with it, but get angry because of underfunding and at least pretend to be angry about the unintended consequences of the act, but also because it was finalized by the Bush administration. Conservatives are generally fine with the federal government being involved in schools, the problem is that they want the public schools held accountable at the same time as they want a more open system. It is not being overturned. It will be tweaked and is already being renamed. It's staying put.

It isn't just underfunding that is wrong with NCLB. It is stupid on its face. So any staying put with it is still a poor idea.
 
I won't argue with this, but how do we actually hold the parents responsible and affectively? I can't see the government solving the problem of parental irresponsibility... :shrug: :(

since most of the underperforming kids come from the lower socioeconomic bracket and many of them are on some kind of govt entitlement, simply tie their kid's performance to the amount of their check. you can guarantee that if mommy starts losing $$$ because junior is screwing off at school she will quickly jerk a knot in his ass.

a technique I used was to call mommy or daddy at work every time one of my problem students gave me a hard time. I found that after a few calls, the boss got tired of mom/dad being interupted at work. mom/dad got tired of getting chewed on by the boss and lit a fire under junior's ass.
 
Patriot Act: 1) Growing consensus internally about its usefulness in combating current and future threats 2) Sometimes Government enjoys having new powers and responsibilities (other times they do not: see early years of our intelligence agencies and congressional oversight).

Tea Party on Patriot Act: Economic issues take importance, and most if not all Tea Party groups like to stay on message. Expanding risks a splintering of the movement (see Tocqueville, the NRA, and NAACP's earlier past about near-schism regarding NAACP Black/White relations and its funding sources). Splintering movements mean less strength, and less strength means difficulty in getting political change.

Tea Party on No Child Left Behind: Above & perhaps acceptance of no removal of Dept. of Education or NCLB. Accountability, vouchers, and merit pay (as vague as the slogans can be) are seen as more realistic or accepted than many other discussions. Further, it can't hurt to have near universal opinion siding with "standards" and "accountability"-just have the Devil be in the details. If there is one thing that is for certain..most people in this country think the education system in the US is in trouble, the problem is that no one can really agree upon why. No Child Left Behind satisfied the 20 year demand for "standards" and "accountability" from both parties. It's a political reality now. Tweaking it one direction or another is now the game.

Those are good points Fiddy... but when I talk to the TP people here, they don't just focus on economic issues. They seem to focus more on the Constitution and the founders. Bachmann and Beck (TP supporters) also talk about the constitution and the need to follow it, so it seems they would advocate more constitutional issues involving states rights and constitutional issues with the Patriot Act. The only one they are focused on is repealing Obamacare, or at least the part that gives the federal government the authority to make us buy something.
 
since most of the underperforming kids come from the lower socioeconomic bracket and many of them are on some kind of govt entitlement, simply tie their kid's performance to the amount of their check. you can guarantee that if mommy starts losing $$$ because junior is screwing off at school she will quickly jerk a knot in his ass.

a technique I used was to call mommy or daddy at work every time one of my problem students gave me a hard time. I found that after a few calls, the boss got tired of mom/dad being interupted at work. mom/dad got tired of getting chewed on by the boss and lit a fire under junior's ass.

I can't believe you'd call them at work all the time... :lamo

I think you might have a good idea, but I don't think all the poor students are on welfare. I went to school with kids who really struggled in certain areas, but they weren't on welfare.

But I was having a discussion about something similar with my sister... because where we live, kids from the inner city schools are given scholarships to go to the college here. The catch is, they have to move out of their neighborhood and come to our little suburb town, which doesn't have gangs or violence. What's happening are these kids are just finding trouble to cause here... they are always in jail. One girl is covered in gang tattoos and she was arrested for beating up two cops!!

This is not working out very well for us... so I started thinking, what if, instead of giving the parents money from the government for no reason, what if their benefits were tied to their choice to send the children to better schools, not the inner city but something like a boarding school on a scholarship. I think that would be better for the kids, than growing up in violent schools and with all the influence of gangs and drugs.

We have to break the cycle of poverty and drugs somehow. I don't like seeing kids raised in bad neighborhoods and around bad situations.

There are probably hundreds of solutions people could come up, if they really tried... but nothing is being done. Politicians don't consider fixing the education system as a priority.
 
I agree. It was stupid from it's conception.

I have never met a teacher who likes it or thinks it was a great idea. Most of the teachers I know say it's more red tape, and that they have to teach for tests all the time... Teaching is different than teaching to pass tests. I am about to learn how to study for and pass the CPA exam.

Kids already had to pass proficiency tests or they didn't graduate high school here, and then Bush had the brilliant idea to create more tests because all the other tests didn't do what they were supposed to... lol

Education is never a number one priority to politicians... I wonder when everybody is finally going to give a sh*t.
 
I have never met a teacher who likes it or thinks it was a great idea. Most of the teachers I know say it's more red tape, and that they have to teach for tests all the time... Teaching is different than teaching to pass tests. I am about to learn how to study for and pass the CPA exam.

Kids already had to pass proficiency tests or they didn't graduate high school here, and then Bush had the brilliant idea to create more tests because all the other tests didn't do what they were supposed to... lol

Education is never a number one priority to politicians... I wonder when everybody is finally going to give a sh*t.

Politicians look for easy ways to look better. For awhile Texas looked like they improved things with a program similar to NCLB, that is until you noticed they did worse on college entrance exams. Multiple choice tests are easy to grade, and it gives a number to look at. But little else.

Then you tie funding to a test, this encourages schools to pass whatever test, and cheat if they have to. And if you make a demand, say that 100% must pass at a certain point, you assure that all schools will lose funding. And at the end of the day, public funds will go to private schools. Not sure when people lost the distinction ebtween public and private, and I don't know why more are not upset that public funds are going to private schools, but it will effect more and more people to the negative.

Just a note here: Iowa is reducing public funds to public colleges, but maintans sending the same amopunt of funds to private colleges. The republican governor thinks sending public money to private colleges is better than funding public colleges.
 
I think charter schools would be better. They cost half of what the taxpayers pay for public schools. And in charter there are no unions. So an ambitious principal or teacher can really do great things for the kids. But with public schools.....well they are just crap.
 
I don't understand why the No Child Left Behind Act is still in place.... it seems liberals don't like it, and a lot of conservatives don't like the fed being in state schools, so get rid of it alreayd

I'll second that. Let's dump NCLB, along with any other failed government program we can, and apply the money saved to balancing the budget.
 
Most of the things that would actually help aren't even on this list.

1. More teachers and smaller classes. Why would anyone imagine that one person is capable of educating 30-40 or more students at once. Especially young teenagers. Smaller classes (which requires having more teachers) will help the kids feel more involved, and make them care more about learning. Kids react to personal connection, not being a number in a system. At the same time, these teachers wouldn't be so overworked. This could help out those teachers that don't measure up. Teaching is a hard job, and making it a bit easier on them could allow them to do a better job. Keep in mind, this is reducing the quantity of work, not the quality. No teacher should be permitted to provide a shoddy education, but it would be easier to do the job well if they weren't spread so thin.

2. More vocational training. There is absolutely no reason why a high school graduate should not possess the necessary skills to immediately walk into a technical job. Learning for learning's sake is great, but people need jobs. Instead of making sure that kids can recite some Robert Frost and know all about Ancient Rome, let's teach them about plumbing, or carpentry, or real organizational skills. This way, these kids will have job opportunities open to them beyond working a fryer for minimum wage. Now, this is not to say that more academic education is not important, but if we have limited time to educate someone, let's not skimp on practical skills.

Together, these changes would allow a school system to better prepare a young person for the actual life they will be leading after graduation. School will be viewed as a more important resource to these kids, since the reward at the end (employment and money), will seem like a much more sure thing, instead of a crap shoot. Kids drop out of school and deal drugs because they don't think school will help them. Let's make school REALLY help.
 
I'll second that. Let's dump NCLB, along with any other failed government program we can, and apply the money saved to balancing the budget.

let's just dump the enitire federal education dept. they have done zippo to improve schools and waste millions of $$$$ per year. turn the schools back over to the states. our public schools have done nothing but deteriorate since the fed. ed dept. got involved.
 
I have never met a teacher who likes it or thinks it was a great idea. Most of the teachers I know say it's more red tape, and that they have to teach for tests all the time... Teaching is different than teaching to pass tests. I am about to learn how to study for and pass the CPA exam.

Kids already had to pass proficiency tests or they didn't graduate high school here, and then Bush had the brilliant idea to create more tests because all the other tests didn't do what they were supposed to... lol

Education is never a number one priority to politicians... I wonder when everybody is finally going to give a sh*t.

I've met both opinions and variations there. To some extent, teachers will not like the added responsibility and demands it places on them. That is just the way it is in interest group politics and in possibly over-demanding responsibility on one branch of a complicated social need. Many people care, it is just the fact that domestic policy change is rather difficult. The inability to rapidly change an education system for the better makes it difficult to agree on what people need to do.
 
Those are good points Fiddy... but when I talk to the TP people here, they don't just focus on economic issues. They seem to focus more on the Constitution and the founders. Bachmann and Beck (TP supporters) also talk about the constitution and the need to follow it, so it seems they would advocate more constitutional issues involving states rights and constitutional issues with the Patriot Act. The only one they are focused on is repealing Obamacare, or at least the part that gives the federal government the authority to make us buy something.

Well, some of that is going to be filtering the words of a people (the Founding Fathers and the Framers of the Constitution) to look at what they need to do economically, which also happens to be the biggest crisis for the United States political spectrum.
 
I think charter schools would be better. They cost half of what the taxpayers pay for public schools. And in charter there are no unions. So an ambitious principal or teacher can really do great things for the kids. But with public schools.....well they are just crap.

n my state of Michigan, the per pupil allocation for charter schools is about 98% of what it is for public schools but they spend over a thousand dollars less in actual classroom instruction expenses. Half of all charter schools finish in the bottom one quarter in test results.

So the OPPOSITE is true here of your claim.
 
n my state of Michigan, the per pupil allocation for charter schools is about 98% of what it is for public schools but they spend over a thousand dollars less in actual classroom instruction expenses. Half of all charter schools finish in the bottom one quarter in test results.

So the OPPOSITE is true here of your claim.

You live in Michigan. Michigan sucks. Here in Illinois the opposite of your claim is true. Every state is different.
 
You live in Michigan. Michigan sucks. Here in Illinois the opposite of your claim is true. Every state is different.

Every school is different, too, and that goes for traditional and charter schools.
 
Most of the things that would actually help aren't even on this list.

1. More teachers and smaller classes. Why would anyone imagine that one person is capable of educating 30-40 or more students at once. Especially young teenagers. Smaller classes (which requires having more teachers) will help the kids feel more involved, and make them care more about learning. Kids react to personal connection, not being a number in a system. At the same time, these teachers wouldn't be so overworked. This could help out those teachers that don't measure up. Teaching is a hard job, and making it a bit easier on them could allow them to do a better job. Keep in mind, this is reducing the quantity of work, not the quality. No teacher should be permitted to provide a shoddy education, but it would be easier to do the job well if they weren't spread so thin.

As far as I know, most of the empirical evidence has not shown a very strong correlation between class size and student performance. That's not to say that there are no circumstances where this might be a factor, but I do think it's somewhat overhyped. Students in small classes, on average, don't perform THAT much better than students in large classes.

Paschendale said:
2. More vocational training. There is absolutely no reason why a high school graduate should not possess the necessary skills to immediately walk into a technical job. Learning for learning's sake is great, but people need jobs. Instead of making sure that kids can recite some Robert Frost and know all about Ancient Rome, let's teach them about plumbing, or carpentry, or real organizational skills. This way, these kids will have job opportunities open to them beyond working a fryer for minimum wage. Now, this is not to say that more academic education is not important, but if we have limited time to educate someone, let's not skimp on practical skills.

I agree with this, we should have more vocational schools in this country...both for high schoolers and for older people. The "academic" subjects are fine for people who actually want to go to college, but I disagree with the mindset that college is the default thing to do after you finish high school. If we encouraged more vocational training, I think there would be far fewer dropouts.

Paschendale said:
Together, these changes would allow a school system to better prepare a young person for the actual life they will be leading after graduation. School will be viewed as a more important resource to these kids, since the reward at the end (employment and money), will seem like a much more sure thing, instead of a crap shoot. Kids drop out of school and deal drugs because they don't think school will help them. Let's make school REALLY help.

Completely agree.
 
Back
Top Bottom