So Rob Portman voted to confirm Betsy DeVos

[Benton]

(02-09-2017, 07:17 PM)bfine32 Wrote: http://www.npr.org/sections/thetwo-way/2013/12/03/248329823/u-s-high-school-students-slide-in-math-reading-science

We are slipping globally. Now why we're doing worse, that's  subjective. My opinion and yours may vary... but if your starting point is we are doing better globally because more folks are going to college then I'm guessing the 'why' is going to be irrelevant to the discussion as it's an erroneous origin.

You can omit stats — and facts — to take a position. But there's not two sets of reality, where facts mean one thing here, and another thing there. Stats are stats, and we're slipping globally.

The home schooled kid always graduates top of his class

Well, I guess if you're teaching yourself what you want to hear, sure.

I've never said we're doing better globally. I said we've started moving in the right direction locally, which is the first step to improving globally. As with my last post, that's (in my opinion) mostly due to the fact that we're about three decades in to education experts having some education uniformity. Maybe we would've kept up globally if we'd had more uniformed education efforts like the majority of industrialized nations.

Other countries have highly controlled education standards. Schools are expected to teach X because it gets results.

Betsy helped implement a system that has very little control, and results from that have been questionable.

If your concern is our ability to keep up globally, is it be better to go in the direction of what 'successful' countries are doing (more centralization and standards)? Or the opposite (hiring an extremist billionaire to wreck 30ish years of progress so her portfolio increases 2%)?

[Benton]

(02-09-2017, 07:31 PM)bfine32 Wrote: Condescension noted. 


As to the rest: As I said the Home Schooled always graduates at the top of their class. If our education improves nationally, but we continue to slip globally; are we "improving"?

If our education slips nationally, are we going to improve globally?

[*bfine32*]

(02-09-2017, 07:36 PM)Benton Wrote: If our education slips nationally, are we going to improve globally?

IDK, I'd have to see how we compared globally and if we considered "slipping" fewer folks enrolling in college. But fewer folks in college very well could; as going to college has just become "a thing".

I did see you went with the answer a question with a question approach; but I answered yours.

[BmorePat87]

(02-09-2017, 06:52 PM)bfine32 Wrote: As I said: You are happy with the status quo and the best way to keep it is to hire those with similar experiences (qualifications). I on the other hand have no problem seeing what a change agent can do as long as he or she is qualified (legally) to fulfill the position. Especially given our current global bang for the buck. I have seen first hand the benefits that change and diversity have brought to an organization; I doubt the Education game is much different. This lady; as the last 100 before her, is going to be invisible for the next 4-8; it's just something else for congress and society to be divisive about.  


Edit: I fully realize there have not been 100 Secretaries of Education. Used to illustrate a point. 

Like I said, if you don't think measurable growth in our nation is good enough and is just "status quo", I can see how someone with no experience is an acceptable choice. 

I'm just confused why you asked at least 6 times on the first two pages what qualifications the Sec of Edu should have and as soon as someone in education gave you a decent list based on the role of the department and the past secretaries, you're now trying to downplay this and keep suggesting there are no real qualifications. Is it because you're being challenged by someone who knows what they're talking about or were you just asking a trick questions all those times you asked for it?

[Dill]

(02-09-2017, 05:01 PM)bfine32 Wrote: Of course we can make stats reflect whatever we desire. I can point to how much we spend on average per student based on the rest of the world and the bang we are getting for our buck. If the two of you want to say the education system has been overall sucessful and the best way to determine who should head the program is to compare his or her resume to his or her predesessors; that's your opinion and who am I to say it is wrong.

I could raise the High School graduation rate, increase our performance results on internal tests, and get more kids enrolled in college overnight; however, this does nothing if the rest of the world is getting smarter around us.

I don't think Pat and Benton made up stats they "desired." They just know where to find the relevant stats and how to read and assess them.  And the fact that we spend more than other countries hardly means our children are therefore receiving a bad education which could not get any worse.

If the US education performance were on par with Afghanistan, Chad or South Sudan, then a change agent with no professional qualifications might do no harm. 

But if we are performing JUST UNDER countries like Germany, Japan and Finland, still above the average of 1st-world industrialized countries, then your unprofessional, unqualified, and inexperienced change agent could start us on a downward trend towards Chad.

In places where "the rest of the world is getting smarter," it is not because change agents with no professional qualifications have been brought in to "shake things up." It is because professionals are in charge of educational policy, able to set long term goals and fund their achievement.

In places where the world is NOT getting smarter, like Afghanistan, that is because political offices go to people who buy them, to donors and lobbyists.

Why do you support this third-world model for the world's leading economy and superpower, with the world's best universities?

[*Nately120*]

(02-09-2017, 06:54 PM)bfine32 Wrote: Hell, we could all be "super wrong". I'm just giving it a chance; if it doesn't work America will respond. 

You are entitled to that, but Trump has yet to act in a manner leading up to, or now that he is president, that has dispelled the notion that he is exactly who he has been for decades.  The guy is a born-rich hype seller who riles up investors and then leaves them in the red when things go awry.

Maybe the proverbial victory is over the next proverbial hill.

[*TheLeonardLeap*]

(02-09-2017, 07:40 PM)bfine32 Wrote: IDK, I'd have to see how we compared globally and if we considered "slipping" fewer folks enrolling in college. But fewer folks in college very well could; as going to college has just become "a thing".

I did see you went with the answer a question with a question approach; but I answered yours.

I think this is a pretty big problem. Teachers have spent decades telling kids that they need to go to college or else they won't succeed at life. So now it's pretty much just a matter of course. So everyone now goes to college even if it means some random major that they'll never have a job related to, while taking a huge amount of debt on. They then end up working at Starbucks with a degree and $20k in debt.

Meanwhile we're going to run out of Electricians/Plumbers/Carpenters/etc in awhile when the current workforce retires and there's not nearly enough people to replace them because all the people who would have previously went to trade schools instead went to college and got degrees in Underwater Basket Weaving, or Psychology.

[*Nately120*]

(02-09-2017, 09:18 PM)TheLeonardLeap Wrote: I think this is a pretty big problem. Teachers have spent decades telling kids that they need to go to college or else they won't succeed at life. So now it's pretty much just a matter of course. So everyone now goes to college even if it means some random major that they'll never have a job related to, while taking a huge amount of debt on. They then end up working at Starbucks with a degree and $20k in debt.

Meanwhile we're going to run out of Electricians/Plumbers/Carpenters/etc in awhile when the current workforce retires and there's not nearly enough people to replace them because all the people who would have previously went to trade schools instead went to college and got degrees in Underwater Basket Weaving, or Psychology.

I would think there is a cycle to it.  The high paying jobs once required college degrees and people saw getting that as a means to movin' on up.  Now the market is flooded with BAs and people who know trades are the smart ones because they are getting higher-paying jobs because everyone with an IQ over 30 become "college material" which leaves less supply and more demand for tradesmen.

Once people start thinking it's insane to spend 4 years and $100k to get a lower-paying job there will be a glut of trade school grads and the wages will drop.  Our culture seems to be moving towards the notion that higher education is a big waste of time and/or makes you into a giant wimp ala Leapin' Lanny Poffo, so I'm sure we will be up to our armpits in welders wondering why they all can't make 6-figures.

Hell, when I was in college I was told by many people that I was a total idiot to get an education when selling bad mortgages was the instant ticket to living in a golden mansion.

[*bfine32*]

(02-09-2017, 08:41 PM)Dill Wrote: I don't think Pat and Benton made up stats they "desired." They just know where to find the relevant stats and how to read and assess them.  And the fact that we spend more than other countries hardly means our children are therefore receiving a bad education which could not get any worse.

If the US education performance were on par with Afghanistan, Chad or South Sudan, then a change agent with no professional qualifications might do no harm. 

But if we are performing JUST UNDER countries like Germany, Japan and Finland, still above the average of 1st-world industrialized countries, then your unprofessional, unqualified, and inexperienced change agent could start us on a downward trend towards Chad.

In places where "the rest of the world is getting smarter," it is not because change agents with no professional qualifications have been brought in to "shake things up." It is because professionals are in charge of educational policy, able to set long term goals and fund their achievement.

In places where the world is NOT getting smarter, like Afghanistan, that is because political offices go to people who buy them, to donors and lobbyists.

Why do you support this third-world model for the world's leading economy and superpower, with the world's best universities?

I didn't say anyone made up stats they desired, I said we can make stats reflect what we desire. Just as they used increased college enrollment as a supporting stat; I retorted with our global stats. 

As listed Devos has professional qualifications to include chairing businesses and working to improve educational opportunities for the disadvantaged.

You can assume you know why other countries are getting smarter; however, there is no canned answer. Many suggest it is our emphasis on sports in the academic environment, while others come up with reasons such as not allowing students to fail (read higher college enrollment)

I think the disconnect is that I have not said Devos will succeed; I've simply said she is qualified to fulfill the post and her diversity could be beneficial; as I have seen it in business models. Others (and now you) have asserted it will not

I do not support a third-world model. I have said we are not getting our bang for the buck and perhaps a new approach is worth a shot and I'm not willing to be so partisan as to shoot it down before it starts.

[*bfine32*]

(02-09-2017, 08:11 PM)BmorePat87 Wrote: Like I said, if you don't think measurable growth in our nation is good enough and is just "status quo", I can see how someone with no experience is an acceptable choice. 

I'm just confused why you asked at least 6 times on the first two pages what qualifications the Sec of Edu should have and as soon as someone in education gave you a decent list based on the role of the department and the past secretaries, you're now trying to downplay this and keep suggesting there are no real qualifications. Is it because you're being challenged by someone who knows what they're talking about or were you just asking a trick questions all those times you asked for it?

And as I've said: If you think improving be measuring with our own yardstick, while falling behind in the global measurement is improvement. I can see how someone with the traditional experience is the "qualified" choice.

Not sure as to the source of your confusion as I acknowledged your list of qualifications and pointed to Devos' parallel qualifications; perhaps you are just "downplaying" her qualifications.

I do not fear "being challenged by someone who knows what they're talking about", nor have I presented trick questions. I've simply tried to illustrate there may be other approaches as opposed to the traditional one. 

[*bfine32*]

(02-09-2017, 09:18 PM)TheLeonardLeap Wrote: I think this is a pretty big problem. Teachers have spent decades telling kids that they need to go to college or else they won't succeed at life. So now it's pretty much just a matter of course. So everyone now goes to college even if it means some random major that they'll never have a job related to, while taking a huge amount of debt on. They then end up working at Starbucks with a degree and $20k in debt.

Meanwhile we're going to run out of Electricians/Plumbers/Carpenters/etc in awhile when the current workforce retires and there's not nearly enough people to replace them because all the people who would have previously went to trade schools instead went to college and got degrees in Underwater Basket Weaving, or Psychology.

I agree with this 100% and this is why I balked at the "more folks enrolled in college" stat as an indicator of our increased prowess. I look more at our failure in STEM globally and wonder why they hell does someone getting a A in "Elvish, the language of "Lord of the Rings" have to do with our success. 

We are measuring ourselves by an antiquated yardstick. "Just go to college" is no longer the answer. 

[GMDino]

(02-09-2017, 09:29 PM)Nately120 Wrote: I would think there is a cycle to it.  The high paying jobs once required college degrees and people saw getting that as a means to movin' on up.  Now the market is flooded with BAs and people who know trades are the smart ones because they are getting higher-paying jobs because everyone with an IQ over 30 become "college material" which leaves less supply and more demand for tradesmen.

Once people start thinking it's insane to spend 4 years and $100k to get a lower-paying job there will be a glut of trade school grads and the wages will drop.  Our culture seems to be moving towards the notion that higher education is a big waste of time and/or makes you into a giant wimp ala Leapin' Lanny Poffo, so I'm sure we will be up to our armpits in welders wondering why they all can't make 6-figures.

Hell, when I was in college I was told by many people that I was a total idiot to get an education when selling bad mortgages was the instant ticket to living in a golden mansion.

When I started college in 1987 it was beat into us that you HAD to have a degree to get a good paying job.

By the time I graduated in 1991 they were pushing us all to get our masters to get the good paying jobs.

I opted to go to work in my field instead.

26 years late I am nowhere near my field of study and they job I have had for the last 18 years doesn't require a degree at all.

Life is funny.

I told both our kids that college is NOT a requirement if they would rather get a trade skill instead.

My daughter went to the technical school at her high school and graduated and walked right into a job in her field.

My son wants to go to college for electrical engineering.

It is what you make of it.

[BmorePat87]

(02-09-2017, 09:58 PM)bfine32 Wrote: And as I've said: If you think improving be measuring with our own yardstick, while falling behind in the global measurement is improvement. I can see how someone with the traditional experience is the "qualified" choice.

Not sure as to the source of your confusion as I acknowledged your list of qualifications and pointed to Devos' parallel qualifications; perhaps you are just "downplaying" her qualifications.

I do not fear "being challenged by someone who knows what they're talking about", nor have I presented trick questions. I've simply tried to illustrate there may be other approaches as opposed to the traditional one. 

If you want to discuss education policy and why no one in education is shitting bricks over these PISA results that put us in the 20's, we can do so in the K-12 thread. Not accounting for poverty, we're just as good as the top countries, performing better in some areas than countries like Japan. We differ completely from these top countries, however, in the fact that we do not value or support teachers as well, we do not make the same investments in early childhood learning, we do not fully fund all schools, and we believe in a competition based system where the only measure of a successful school is the results of standardize testing. Long story short, that's completely off base if the proposals of this "change agent". We're not as high as many European and Asian nations and we haven't always been, but we have made drastic improvements over the decades, and downplaying that because the other countries are better makes you guilty of what you accused myself and Benton of doing with data. 

Your responses have been 1) merely asking how well schools have done and 2) suggesting that the only qualifications are being nominated and confirmed. If you want to play games, do so with someone who wants to deal with a round of  "that's not what I said".

Also, organizing the donation of money to politicians is not parallel experience to running 600+ schools with 400k students, 50k staff members, and a $6b budget. LOL, no one is downplaying her "experience". Stick with the "change agent" line, don't try to compare them.

As I said in the K-12 thread, there existed candidates whose sole experience was more than advocacy, candidates that actually ran school systems and  want to change the status quo in terms of how public schools operate. Some fully support public schools and praise the progress we've made while handcuffed by legislation that forces testing on students. Others want to see the federal government remove oversight and promote more charter and private schools, determined that competition will cause schools to perform. Trump met with one who had experience running 100 schools. He went with the person who hasn't run a single school. I guess I'm saying that doing is far more than paying others and asking them to do it. 

Jump into that thread and see some of the suggestions some of us made. They often times are similar to what we see in these European schools you want us to beat, but are very different from what your change agent is advocating for. 

[*bfine32*]

(02-09-2017, 11:19 PM)BmorePat87 Wrote: If you want to discuss education policy and why no one in education is shitting bricks over these PISA results that put us in the 20's, we can do so in the K-12 thread. Not accounting for poverty, we're just as good as the top countries, performing better in some areas than countries like Japan. We differ completely from these top countries, however, in the fact that we do not value or support teachers as well, we do not make the same investments in early childhood learning, we do not fully fund all schools, and we believe in a competition based system where the only measure of a successful school is the results of standardize testing. Long story short, that's completely off base if the proposals of this "change agent". We're not as high as many European and Asian nations and we haven't always been, but we have made drastic improvements over the decades, and downplaying that because the other countries are better makes you guilty of what you accused myself and Benton of doing with data. 

Your responses have been 1) merely asking how well schools have done and 2) suggesting that the only qualifications are being nominated and confirmed. If you want to play games, do so with someone who wants to deal with a round of  "that's not what I said".

Also, organizing the donation of money to politicians is not parallel experience to running 600+ schools with 400k students, 50k staff members, and a $6b budget. LOL, no one is downplaying her "experience". Stick with the "change agent" line, don't try to compare them.

As I said in the K-12 thread, there existed candidates whose sole experience was more than advocacy, candidates that actually ran school systems and  want to change the status quo in terms of how public schools operate. Some fully support public schools and praise the progress we've made while handcuffed by legislation that forces testing on students. Others want to see the federal government remove oversight and promote more charter and private schools, determined that competition will cause schools to perform. Trump met with one who had experience running 100 schools. He went with the person who hasn't run a single school. I guess I'm saying that doing is far more than paying others and asking them to do it. 

Jump into that thread and see some of the suggestions some of us made. They often times are similar to what we see in these European schools you want us to beat, but are very different from what your change agent is advocating for. 

You typed a whole lot to say "I support the traditional method; however, I'm opposed to it". We'll just leave it as "I'm playing games". 

[Benton]

(02-09-2017, 07:40 PM)bfine32 Wrote: IDK, I'd have to see how we compared globally and if we considered "slipping" fewer folks enrolling in college. But fewer folks in college very well could; as going to college has just become "a thing".

I did see you went with the answer a question with a question approach; but I answered yours.

I dont see much beneficial between a back and forth on this. Stats across the board have improved in the relatively short time we've adopted the model that made other countries successful, something you seem to value. But I will clarify that I'm not referring to just universities when I say increased enrollment in college is up, I'm also referring technical schools. Getting students ready for what comes next isn't just about getting a BA or a bs. A lot of times its teaching the fundamentals that will help them get an apprenticeship or a technical job.

us schools have come a long way in the last decade about improving college and career readiness. Its disappointing that the "blow it up" approach is probably going to derail that as there's going to be fewer resources to get kids into not just universities, but schools that give them a trade.

[*bfine32*]

I'll end my "contribution" in this discussion with this: Both sides have been relatively civil and presented items and thoughts that have supported his or her position. I'm sure all involved want what is best for America and its youth. Who knows where the next chapter will lead, but I will say that I am heartened by educators such as Pat and administrator(?) such as Benton passionately providing their thoughts and insight. Perhaps if we all pulled on the same side of the rope we'd make progress. The elementary education piece hits me harder than most as they are our responsibility. The adult can go "f" themselves.

[Dill]

(02-09-2017, 09:40 PM)bfine32 Wrote: I didn't say anyone made up stats they desired, I said we can make stats reflect what we desire. Just as they used increased college enrollment as a supporting stat; I retorted with our global stats. 

As listed Devos has professional qualifications to include chairing businesses and working to improve educational opportunities for the disadvantaged.

You can assume you know why other countries are getting smarter; however, there is no canned answer. Many suggest it is our emphasis on sports in the academic environment, while others come up with reasons such as not allowing students to fail (read higher college enrollment)

I think the disconnect is that I have not said Devos will succeed; I've simply said she is qualified to fulfill the post and her diversity could be beneficial; as I have seen it in business models. Others (and now you) have asserted it will not

I do not support a third-world model. I have said we are not getting our bang for the buck and perhaps a new approach is worth a shot and I'm not willing to be so partisan as to shoot it down before it starts.

Sorry to see you end the discussion. Though I disagree with your position, you were making clear and reasonable points.  But that does give me the last word, I guess.

First, you are correct; I misrepresented your statement about "making stats reflect" as opposed to "making up" stats. I'll have to read more carefully next time.  This is doubly my bad since you are that rare Trump defender who takes stats seriously.

Second, I had a question which I suppose will not get answered now, namely I wanted an example of a "change agent" who came from outside a business and, knowing nothing about business, turned it around.

I can think of change agents who, as business professionals, produced disastrous results when brought into universities to downsize or make them efficient.  I cannot think of a single instance where this has worked out well for an organization when the change agent had executive authority.  

Third, another question--what does not allowing students to fail have to do with college enrollment? Did you have a source which made this connection?

Finally, a comment for the rest of the people following this thread. Some of the "cultural differences" which make for better performance in other countries are not necessarily healthy or desirable. I have a Korean acquaintance whose daughters spent 8-hours a day, Saturday and Sunday, in cram courses all the way through high school--rigorous schooling 7 days a week. No sports. No dates. They will perform better on tests than the average American student. I am not sure they are "smarter" though.

[Rotobeast]

(02-10-2017, 01:20 PM)Dill Wrote: Second, I had a question which I suppose will not get answered now, namely I wanted an example of a "change agent" who came from outside a business and, knowing nothing about business, turned it around.

Did they give the "moneyball" guy from Harvard an executive position ?