• Hey Guest. Check out your NeoGAF Wrapped 2025 results here!

Can someone explain the Republican plan on K-12 education?

Status
Not open for further replies.
pay teachers more money

What for? I say if they want to get paid more, they need to have their pay based on performance results cause the current system has teachers making a good salary, but kids who fail.

One example is the LAUSD system. It gets approximately $6.95 billion, but the HS graduation rate is only at 55%. The only solution being offered by anyone is that more money has to go into the system. What? More money isn't going to help. There needs to be a fundamental change in the way education is being taught. That starts with the teachers.

This is why I have no problem with the voucher system. Hopefully, that creates more a more competitive educational system that can benefit students.
 
I took advanced classes in my degree field at all three institutions, and they were all relatively equal in terms of difficulty and quality.
.
Schools ranks can be wildly different depending on the major. Can't really answer your question without knowing the schools and program.
 
Private/Public K-12 schools definitely have a problem with obselete teaching practices.

Universities with their vast resources are obviously much better, but still can have some big problems too....

Schools in general...man oh man.
 
I took advanced classes in my degree field at all three institutions, and they were all relatively equal in terms of difficulty and quality.



My argument is not that the university system is flawed (outside of cost, but that's another issue), I'm actually quite satisfied with the education I've received. My point is that universities compete with each other to attract students. According to your argument, the schools that attract the most students will do so because they offer a higher quality of education than their competitors. I'm claiming that that doesn't seem to be the case, that other factors influence a student's choice on what University to attend. The biggest and most successful universities, in my personal experience, don't offer a higher quality of education than smaller ones. I'm asking you what would stop that same thing from happening in primary and secondary education in a voucher system. Schools might do things to market themselves that are cheaper and more successful than improving the quality of education.

What you're arguing... really isn't a big deal. Who cares if they promote themselves?

The best promotion a school gets is from the students that graduate from there. If the school sucks, the community will know. If the school is good, the community will know. Plus when you have a choice in the matter, you are more likely to look into how good the education quality of the school is.

That's all there is to it really.
 
It is all up to the states to deal with.


And they can use vouchers if they want so tax-dollars can teach that Jesus lived with dinosaurs.

n10613712_35758060_9169.jpg

Jesus riding a theropod? Why can't the actual Bible be that cool.
 
You should all read up on the public school system of my home city, Kansas City. The Kansas City MO School District has been one of, if not the worst, school districts in the nation. The DOE head recently singled out the KCMSD as one of the worst. They are about to lose accreditation as well. The mayor is trying to remove power form the school board and setup his own committee to run the district. They recently closed half of their schools, which will up class sizes, because of a lack of money due to lack of enrollment.

Why is the KCMSD failing? It is not because of resources. The district gets money thrown at them. They get more money per pupil then almost any other district. They had class sizes of 12-13:1. They had higher teachers salaries than any other nearby district. They are seriously getting 13k per pupil. Many private schools easily charge less than a third of that. It is insane.

Money isn't the issue. It's the students. The parents. The culture. I don't see how any legislation will fix that.
 
You should all read up on the public school system of my home city, Kansas City. The Kansas City MO School District has been one of, if not the worst, school districts in the nation. The DOE head recently singled out the KCMSD as one of the worst. They are about to lose accreditation as well. The mayor is trying to remove power form the school board and setup his own committee to run the district. They recently closed half of their schools, which will up class sizes, because of a lack of money due to lack of enrollment.

Why is the KCMSD failing? It is not because of resources. The district gets money thrown at them. They get more money per pupil then almost any other district. They had class sizes of 12-13:1. They had higher teachers salaries than any other nearby district. They are seriously getting 13k per pupil. Many private schools easily charge less than a third of that. It is insane.

Money isn't the issue. It's the students. The parents. The culture. I don't see how any legislation will fix that.

What specifically about the culture is causing this? In your opinion, of course.
 
Ideally, I think Republicans want...

--Total privatization, so that costs can (theoretically) be lower and we can eliminate all those pesky non-teaching jobs at schools that we apparently don't need

--Community schools, some of which is based on legitimate "good school" philosophy and local control and some of which is probably based on some low-level discrimination

--Little or no government cash going into schools, with almost all schools being receipts-based

--Very little government involvement with schools at all, from administrative policies to educational standards

No I think it is more like:

- Sell anything the government has at rock bottom prices to the private sector.

- Get money

- Snort coke

- Get bitches
 
You should all read up on the public school system of my home city, Kansas City. The Kansas City MO School District has been one of, if not the worst, school districts in the nation. The DOE head recently singled out the KCMSD as one of the worst. They are about to lose accreditation as well. The mayor is trying to remove power form the school board and setup his own committee to run the district. They recently closed half of their schools, which will up class sizes, because of a lack of money due to lack of enrollment.

Why is the KCMSD failing? It is not because of resources. The district gets money thrown at them. They get more money per pupil then almost any other district. They had class sizes of 12-13:1. They had higher teachers salaries than any other nearby district. They are seriously getting 13k per pupil. Many private schools easily charge less than a third of that. It is insane.

Money isn't the issue. It's the students. The parents. The culture. I don't see how any legislation will fix that.

A lot of folks here probably don't care too much for CATO but I thought this was a pretty interesting article.

http://www.cato.org/pubs/pas/pa-298.html
 
A lot of folks here probably don't care too much for CATO but I thought this was a pretty interesting article.

http://www.cato.org/pubs/pas/pa-298.html

Yeah, those stats are pulled from KCstar articles of the past decades. The paper here rips the district to no end.

What specifically about the culture is causing this? In your opinion, of course.
It's a circle. Having parents that dropped out or don't put a high priority on education will likely be passed on to the next generation.There is only so much teachers can do.
 
What specifically about the culture is causing this? In your opinion, of course.

I'll give you an answer in the form of a short essay by John Taylor Gatto titled "I Quit, I Think". He was the Teacher of the Year in New York in 1990. In case you can't tell, he quit.

Government schooling is the most radical adventure in history. It kills the family by monopolizing the best times of childhood and by teaching disrespect for home and parents. The whole blueprint of school procedure is Egyptian, not Greek or Roman. It grows from the theological idea that human value is a scarce thing, represented symbolically by the narrow peak of a pyramid.
That idea passed into American history through the Puritans. It found its "scientific" presentation in the bell curve, along which talent supposedly apportions itself by some Iron Law of Biology. ItÂ’s a religious notion, School is its church. I offer rituals to keep heresy at bay. I provide documentation to justify the heavenly pyramid.

Socrates foresaw if teaching became a formal profession, something like this would happen. Professional interest is served by making what is easy to do seem hard; by subordinating the laity to the priesthood. School is too vital a jobs-project, contract giver and protector of the social order to allow itself to be "re-formed." It has political allies to guard its marches, thatÂ’s why reforms come and go without changing much. Even reformers canÂ’t imagine school much different.

David learns to read at age four; Rachel, at age nine: In normal development, when both are 13, you can’t tell which one learned first—the five-year spread means nothing at all. But in school I label Rachel "learning disabled" and slow David down a bit, too. For a paycheck, I adjust David to depend on me to tell him when to go and stop. He won’t outgrow that dependency. I identify Rachel as discount merchandise, "special education" fodder. She’ll be locked in her place forever.

In 30 years of teaching kids rich and poor I almost never met a learning disabled child; hardly ever met a gifted and talented one either. Like all school categories, these are sacred myths, created by human imagination. They derive from questionable values we never examine because they preserve the temple of schooling.

That’s the secret behind short-answer tests, bells, uniform time blocks, age grading, standardization, and all the rest of the school religion punishing our nation. There isn’t a right way to become educated; there are as many ways as fingerprints. We don’t need state-certified teachers to make education happen—that probably guarantees it won’t.

How much more evidence is necessary? Good schools donÂ’t need more money or a longer year; they need real free-market choices, variety that speaks to every need and runs risks. We donÂ’t need a national curriculum or national testing either. Both initiatives arise from ignorance of how people learn or deliberate indifference to it. I canÂ’t teach this way any longer. If you hear of a job where I donÂ’t have to hurt kids to make a living, let me know. Come fall IÂ’ll be looking for work.
 
I'll give you an answer in the form of a short essay by John Taylor Gatto titled "I Quit, I Think". He was the Teacher of the Year in New York in 1990. In case you can't tell, he quit.

His constant "Schools are replacing The Jesus as our religion!" fear mongering is a pretty clear indicator this man doesn't know anything about anything.
 
His constant "Schools are replacing The Jesus as our religion!" fear mongering is a pretty clear indicator this man doesn't know anything about anything.

He was only a teacher for three decades. And I'm sure you don't literally think that he said schools are replacing Christianity, but rather is saying that schools as they exist now create a lot of unproven beliefs that have become integrated into our culture.
 
He was only a teacher for three decades. And I'm sure you don't literally think that he said schools are replacing Christianity, but rather is saying that schools as they exist now create a lot of unproven beliefs that have become integrated into our culture.

Then perhaps he should have wrote that instead of the "secularism is anti Jesus and you should hate it" message that made up the bulk of what you posted.
 
Then perhaps he should have wrote that instead of the "secularism is anti Jesus and you should hate it" message that made up the bulk of what you posted.

lol seriously are you bat shit? where are you getting what you're reading out of this? u mad?

really though you all are right about the republicans, who don't want anyone but the rich white kids to be educated. you only need to look to the shining beacon of california for a perfect example of the utopian democrat education policy. where billions are poured into the education system as the state flounders in insolvency! but it's worth it because we're ranked something like 48th in the union regarding education. i mean if the republicans ran the show here we'd definitely by 50th!!
 
lol seriously are you bat shit? where are you getting what you're reading out of this? u mad?

He repeatedly refers to government schools as religious institutes. Given that secular organizations, by definition, do not have (or at least should not have) religious preferences, the only logical conclusion to his writing is that the man thinks secularism is a religion that goes against his preferred values, which are most likely religious. Free Market when used by religious types is usually code for "Christian dominated" as well.
 
He repeatedly refers to government schools as religious institutes. Given that secular organizations, by definition, do not have (or at least should not have) religious preferences, the only logical conclusion to his writing is that the man thinks secularism is a religion that goes against his preferred values, which are most likely religious. Free Market when used by religious types is usually code for "Christian dominated" as well.
...uh what? Try reading it again this time with a mind a bit more open than "He used the word church. EV!L!!!

Honest question is this thread going to devolve into some anti-market, religion, whatever pet peeve people have thread or is this an actual discussion because I just don't want to waste my time, and this thread is kinda hard to tell where's it going?
 
...uh what? Try reading it again this time with a mind a bit more open than "He used the word church. EV!L!!!

Honest question is this thread going to devolve into some anti-market, religion, whatever pet peeve people have thread or is that an actual discussion because I just don't wan't to waste my time, and this thread is kinda hard to tell where's it going?

If that is the case, he should suck less at writing.
 
If that is the case, he should suck less at writing.

The next time someone asks me why schools are failing I'll skip on posting articles and point them to your reading comprehension.

I kid, I kid. But seriously, take another look at the article and realize that there's more to it than that.

Honest question is this thread going to devolve into some anti-market, religion, whatever pet peeve people have thread or is this an actual discussion because I just don't want to waste my time, and this thread is kinda hard to tell where's it going?

I think it's going in a good direction. If I can get anyone to question the numerous generic school reform approaches (higher teacher salaries, more money, longer years, less unions, more testing) and convince them that there is something deeply wrong with the way that schools generally teach, and that it opposes human nature and stunts personal development by any definition, well, I call that a win.
 
What for? I say if they want to get paid more, they need to have their pay based on performance results cause the current system has teachers making a good salary, but kids who fail.

This is why I have no problem with the voucher system. Hopefully, that creates more a more competitive educational system that can benefit students.

I won't.

Chances are it is politics that messed up the school system and privatization will lead to class warfare and a gap in education because of where you live.

I used to work for one of the school boards in south florida. And while normally I would be up to call out a political party, I have no problem pointing fingers at who messed up schooling there and how they simply are making it worse.

I could start at funding issues which created overcrowding in the 80's and the creation of pointless experiments like "pre 1st" (went away real quick) but I am going to lay big fat blame on the FCAT (Florida Comprehensive Assessment Test).

I noticed some people mentioned above about teachers being graded on performance. That is exactly what happened with FCAT's. These tests were use to guage students abilities but also provided a way to grade schools. If the school graded to low or failed it would affect funding and if it failed to many times, it would cause a purge creating most of the staff to be replaced.

It sounds reasonable at first.... until you sit and watch it happen in action. FCAT stopped teachers from teaching creatively. It stopped them from trying to adapt to students to help them "learn". Because it would affect their Jobs, they had to teach their kids FCAT taking skills. Structure their classes in a manner that would help the students get the knowledge that would most likely appear on the test and teach them in a manner that hopefully most will memorize even if they don't actually learn. After awhile the big dudes sitting on the chair decided to use these test in place of SAT's.

All this time now, it becomes painfully obvious that there is a gap in critical thinking and problem solving in the classes before FCAT and those afterwards. It gave education in south fl a black eye. Add that to the financial problems the entire country has been having and then some schools started removing art programs and sports (except for the most popular types). There was a rise in large number of youths on the side of the road collecting for school programs or having car washes in certain areas.

Then we had Rick Scott campaigning. I am not going to go into detail but I will just say many people in school board were laid off. And After working in the SB I can assure you that it cost more money to hire contractors to perform certain tasks and creating the jobs inhouse saved the district money. We have numbers, newspaper articles and more showing how much was saved by internalizing alot of work but somehow people were convinced into believing the opposite and politics as usual took an axe to the institution and Jobs. Now again, when inexplicably (meaning they are going to pretend like the didn't see this coming) the cost of maintaining the district at the quality we had before start to skyrocket. Again the will push the idea of privatizing education. At that point in time, it most likely won't change the amount of money distributed (since it is tax based) but it will change who receives it and who can profit off of it.

Now as far as whether or not people can attain a better education, the issue is seeing what crap people can pull in private education institutions. From what little I have seen I can only expect a very uneven and broken experience that will be dependent on where you live.
 
He repeatedly refers to government schools as religious institutes. Given that secular organizations, by definition, do not have (or at least should not have) religious preferences, the only logical conclusion to his writing is that the man thinks secularism is a religion that goes against his preferred values, which are most likely religious. Free Market when used by religious types is usually code for "Christian dominated" as well.

He claims he's never seen a learning disabled child or a gifted one, and he claims that the bell curve is an absurd idea. If it wasn't for the bit at the end about the free market, I would have thought he was an intellectual on the radical left, since they tend to be the people who believe that everyone is a blank slate and that intelligence doesn't have any genetic component.
 
He claims he's never seen a learning disabled child or a gifted one, and he claims that the bell curve is an absurd idea. If it wasn't for the bit at the end about the free market, I would have thought he was an intellectual on the radical left, since they tend to be the people who believe that everyone is a blank slate and that intelligence doesn't have any genetic component.

Bell Curves are not because of the students inability to understand the subject at hand but can be seen as a reflection of the teachers ability to teach. Normally the bell curve is set by those who simply have better problem solving and critical thinking skills and that may have been fostered "outside" of the classroom.
 
He claims he's never seen a learning disabled child or a gifted one, and he claims that the bell curve is an absurd idea. If it wasn't for the bit at the end about the free market, I would have thought he was an intellectual on the radical left, since they tend to be the people who believe that everyone is a blank slate and that intelligence doesn't have any genetic component.

I interpreted that as a criticism of the system. He faced pressure to equalize students, meaning he couldn't acknowledge the exceptional students and had to pass the poor students along to the next level regardless of whether they were ready for it.
 
Bell Curves are not because of the students inability to understand the subject at hand but can be seen as a reflection of the teachers ability to teach. Normally the bell curve is set by those who simply have better problem solving and critical thinking skills and that may have been fostered "outside" of the classroom.

I interpreted that as a criticism of the system. He faced pressure to equalize students, meaning he couldn't acknowledge the exceptional students and had to pass the poor students along to the next level regardless of whether they were ready for it.

Maybe I read it wrong. But he seemed to be saying that the school system forced him to identify some kids as "special education fodder" because they learned to read later than other kids, even though they were just as smart, and that labeling these kids as needing special education trapped them in that label forever. But it seems like that article is getting interpreted in a lot of different ways, so who knows.
 
He claims he's never seen a learning disabled child or a gifted one, and he claims that the bell curve is an absurd idea. If it wasn't for the bit at the end about the free market, I would have thought he was an intellectual on the radical left, since they tend to be the people who believe that everyone is a blank slate and that intelligence doesn't have any genetic component.

I often take a position that can appear like this... but it's not really.

It's more like this; Most people have sufficient genetic potential to be successful and meaningfully contributing members of society, and that it behooves us to provide an environment that allows all of us to optimize our genetic potential, whatever that may be.

That said, I'm firmly of the belief that environment and opportunities have a higher and more significant contributing factor to success then any genetic differences that exist in most of the population.

There are of course developmentally challenged people whose genetics will limit their capacity in the world to operate - but for the most part, the idea that people are where they are because of something innate... heavily suggesting that the world is just as is... is extremely detrimental towards progress of many forms.
 
I often take a position that can appear like this... but it's not really.

It's more like this; Most people have sufficient genetic potential to be successful and meaningfully contributing members of society, and that it behooves us to provide an environment that allows all of us to optimize our genetic potential, whatever that may be.

That said, I'm firmly of the belief that environment and opportunities have a higher and more significant contributing factor to success then any genetic differences that exist in most of the population.

There are of course developmentally challenged people whose genetics will limit their capacity in the world to operate - but for the most part, the idea that people are where they are because of something innate... heavily suggesting that the world is just as is... is extremely detrimental towards progress of many forms.

The idea that the offspring of the rich tend to succeed in life more than the offspring of the poor due to innate genetics and not environment/ease of oppurtunity is literally laughable.

This is an argument that has been going on since the introduction of the idea for a public school system.
 
The idea that the offspring of the rich tend to succeed in life more than the offspring of the poor due to innate genetics and not environment/ease of oppurtunity is literally laughable.

This is an argument that has been going on since the introduction of the idea for a public school system.

This is true, of course. But I don't think there are many, if any, people today who would make that claim.


I often take a position that can appear like this... but it's not really.

It's more like this; Most people have sufficient genetic potential to be successful and meaningfully contributing members of society, and that it behooves us to provide an environment that allows all of us to optimize our genetic potential, whatever that may be.

That said, I'm firmly of the belief that environment and opportunities have a higher and more significant contributing factor to success then any genetic differences that exist in most of the population.

There are of course developmentally challenged people whose genetics will limit their capacity in the world to operate - but for the most part, the idea that people are where they are because of something innate... heavily suggesting that the world is just as is... is extremely detrimental towards progress of many forms.

Yeah, I pretty much agree. But it seems like there's something here I want to argue, but I'm too foggy headed and inarticulate at the moment to do it...something, something, that passage in 1984 where the main bad guy tells the hero that "we create human nature. Men are infinitely malleable."...something, something....
 
On paper that sounds like an incredible idea considering my city's public school district is so far down the shitter that they've been stripped of college accreditation.
 
To be honest, I don't think we're going to ever solve this problem until we improve the living conditions and opportunities available to lower-income households.
 
The entire US education system needs to be redone but the lobbying powers that be are are too influential to ever see improvement.
 
This is true, of course. But I don't think there are many, if any, people today who would make that claim.
It's one of those implicit things... people aren't so much Neo-Nazi or KKK style outwardly racist nowadays...

but the effects of that sort of thinking still linger on in a big way... and if you attack the idea in a very explicit manner, some people will more than happily jump to its defense, while not exactly going so far as to be explicit about what they're saying.
 
It's one of those implicit things... people aren't so much Neo-Nazi or KKK style outwardly racist nowadays...

but the effects of that sort of thinking still linger on in a big way... and if you attack the idea in a very explicit manner, some people will more than happily jump to its defense, while not exactly going so far as to be explicit about what they're saying.

It's the same as the people who will definitely imply that society should not bother to use any resources to treat the medical needs of the people who lack the means to pay for it, but usually won't come out and directly say that certain people aren't valuable enough to save.

Disgusting attitude in either case, and I really don't understand how such an attitude develops.
 
If people are given the option to take the tax dollars that would have gone to public schools to private schools, wouldn't that further deplete funds for public schools, and make them even worse? I would think they would find it hard for them compete.
 
It's the same as the people who will definitely imply that society should not bother to use any resources to treat the medical needs of the people who lack the means to pay for it, but usually won't come out and directly say that certain people aren't valuable enough to save.

Disgusting attitude in either case, and I really don't understand how such an attitude develops.

It easily develops when people think they're better than others... without appreciating that they're the beneficiaries of their social environment in a big way.
 
So the little I understand about the Republican side is that they would like a system where a family is given a voucher for each child so that they can send them to a private school if they wished . . . . And consdering these are Republicans, it's hard to imagine they would be 1) sufficient and 2) generous enough for every K-12 kid in the country, and if it did, I'm sure it would come with a MASSIVE catch. And where would the money from the vouchers come from?

Just a silly thought for the moment...

I pulled annual cost per student from the California Dept of Education's website. (http://www.cde.ca.gov/ds/fd/ec/currentexpense.asp) I COULD be misreading this, but I think it refers to the annual amount of per pupil spending. If I am reading this correctly, it appears that the statewide annual expense/spending per pupil for 2009-2010 was $8,452.

A brief skimming of various Catholic Diocese school pages showed many annual tuition rates for a single child ranging between $3,500 and $5,500 per year. (I'm assuming that the Catholic schools represent the largest "group" of private schools in the country, at least with regards to elementary, and it seemed like a fair way to estimate possible costs for parents trying to get their kids into a private school.)

One idea I've heard before was to give parents a voucher for up to 50% of the the local district's funding. This would result in the parent getting 70-100% of their child's tuition covered, with the public school district retaining half the income with none of the expense associated with that child.

I could see that idea working for the public schools, at least, in as much as it would effectively increase their real levels of per-pupil funding by reducing their student populations while only partially reducing their funding. Now, granted, it would necessarily result in the loss of jobs in the public school systems, but it would theoretically increase the "raw" funding per pupil.

Again, this is merely one idea I've heard about in the past.
 
It's one of those implicit things... people aren't so much Neo-Nazi or KKK style outwardly racist nowadays...

but the effects of that sort of thinking still linger on in a big way... and if you attack the idea in a very explicit manner, some people will more than happily jump to its defense, while not exactly going so far as to be explicit about what they're saying.

There's even more I want to argue here, even though I pretty much agree with what you're saying, but I"m too faded to do it. Damn my feeble brain. Just read "The Blank Slate" by Steven Pinker, I think it's pretty applicable here, or not, I could be way off. I should stop posting. Either way, read The Blank Slate anyway.
 
Theoretically the voucher system could save us money. Private schooling does tend to be more efficient at the K-12 level.

You have to take into consideration the fact that private schools can and do filter out problem students very easily, and that students at private schools come from homes that place a higher importance on education. It's easier to run a school efficiently when all your students are above-average and don't have behavioral issues.

I was nearly expelled from my public school before joining a private one in grade 4. For the next few years in that school, I teetered on the edge of being expelled as well, due to multiple incidents.

Years later, when I graduated high school I had the highest academic average of my graduating class, and was one of the least troublesome students. The past had been forgotten; I was a model student. Some private schools really can work miracles. Though, my father was probably as much to thank as the school. He poured a lot of work into convincing them not to expel me, and into helping to teach me to be a better person.

I agree, though. The most valuable asset a private school has is that their parents actually care about the education of their children. If they didn't care, they wouldn't bother paying to send them to a private school.
 
If people are given the option to take the tax dollars that would have gone to public schools to private schools, wouldn't that further deplete funds for public schools, and make them even worse? I would think they would find it hard for them compete.

Bingo. All this is, is the GOP wanting to kill public education and let private/religious/Jesus schools benefit from public tax dollars.

I bet if the GOP could get away with the voucher thing nationwide they would all of a sudden be FOR school funding.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Top Bottom