Why should education be a state controlled issue?

[fredtoast]

I have been surprised about how strong the feelings are in this area. Personally I see education as the biggest single issue in advancing the standard of living of the middle class in the United States. Years ago uneducated people could get high paying jobs, but that has all changed. We are going to have to have better education if we want to maintain a middle class in our country. So basically education is a major national issue.

We have let the states have a lot of control over education for many years and they have failed. U.S. businesses need to know exactly what a high school education means when they are looking to hire someone. They should not have to go look at what state the person came from and find out what areas of knowledge and level of competency is required to get that diploma. It should be the same in every state.

The only real complaint I have ever seen about the federal government controlling education is the basic "Federal Government BAD. Sate government GOOD" but I have never seen any real argument to back this up when it come to education.

[GMDino]

(08-05-2016, 10:22 AM)fredtoast Wrote: I have been surprised about how strong the feelings are in this area.  Personally I see education as the biggest single issue in advancing the standard of living of the middle class in the United States.  Years ago uneducated people could get high paying jobs, but that has all changed.  We are going to have to have better education if we want to maintain a middle class in our country.  So basically education is a major national issue.

We have let the states have a lot of control over education for many years and they have failed.  U.S. businesses need to know exactly what a high school education means when they are looking to hire someone.  They should not have to go look at what state the person came from and find out what areas of knowledge and level of competency is required to get that diploma.  It should be the same in every state.

The only real complaint I have ever seen about the federal government controlling education is the basic "Federal Government BAD.  Sate government GOOD" but I have never seen any real argument to back this up when it come to education.

I've always prefered it be controlled on the local level.  People in my area know better how to serve my area than a sweeping rule state or nationwide.

The problem becomes how to fund schools equally.

[Belsnickel]

Those with money in states with poor public education have their children in private school, and so don't want the feds having their hand in it and taking it over to possibly ruin the thing they have going for them. Those is states with good public education don't want the federal government getting their hand in it and ***** it all up. This leaves, really, the poor people that are suffering in floundering public school systems as the ones that would benefit the most, and we all know that no one cares about them beyond talking points in election cycles.

[Beaker]

To me, the bigger issues than whether curriculum is determined at the state or federal level are funding and parental involvement/expectations. Those are the areas where education is really in trouble when it comes to determining if education is good or bad. Funding via property taxes, and the societal switch from siding with the school and teachers to blaming them is the true root of where education stands today.

I think schools could be fine if either the state or federal governments determined curriculum. Truthfully, the idea behind common core is sound...that schools should be teaching the same things at the same grade levels, etc. Its the implementation of it that has been bad. For example, in Ohio, some districts teach biology in the 9th grade, others in the 10th grade. That causes problems when families move between districts. What happens to the kid who took Bio in 9th grade, then the family moves to a new district and they are expected to take bio in the 10th grade again? Or the kid who was in a district who would have gotten bio in the tenth grade, then after 9th grade moves to a district where it is taught in 9th grade and now has missed Bio or has to take a class with freshmen when they are sophomores? So there is something to be said for all districts being on the same page with curriculum.

[Benton]

one of my issues with having it under the federal government is that makes it harder for districts to respond to local problems. If you've got a district where a large number of kids can't read - but they have to be increasing the number of math and science classes - they aren't serving the purpose.

[fredtoast]

(08-05-2016, 10:35 AM)GMDino Wrote: I've always prefered it be controlled on the local level.  People in my area know better how to serve my area than a sweeping rule state or nationwide.

WHY is education different in your area than the rest of the country?   That is my question.  Why do people in your area need to learn something different than people from other areas?  What is it about the people in your area that makes them learn things differently from people in other areas?

[GMDino]

(08-05-2016, 12:56 PM)fredtoast Wrote: WHY is education different in your area than the rest of the country?   That is my question.  Why do people in your area need to learn something different than people from other areas?  What is it about the people in your area that makes them learn things differently from people in other areas?

We have kids that work on their parents farms before and after school.  We have kids that are poorer. 

Compare that to an area of Pittsburgh like Upper St. Clair.  These kids here are not dumber, but they can't be forced into a system.

Our district cuts back on music and the arts because of funding...others in richer districts do not.

Our district has a wonderful Technical Center because many of the kids want to work, not go to college.  Other's put more emphasis on preparing for college.

[CKwi88]

Kinda like guns.

The 10th amendment says so. End of discussion.

Why do you hate the constitution Fred?

[fredtoast]

(08-05-2016, 01:01 PM)CKwi88 Wrote: Kinda like guns.

The 10th amendment says so. End of discussion.

Why do you hate the constitution Fred?

Section 8 authorizes Congress to pass any laws "necessary and proper" to "provide for the general welfare" of the United States.

Currently no state can meet its education budget without funds from the federal government.  As long as the Federal government pays for the schools they should be able to control them.

[Aquapod770]

(08-05-2016, 10:35 AM)GMDino Wrote: I've always prefered it be controlled on the local level.  People in my area know better how to serve my area than a sweeping rule state or nationwide.

The problem becomes how to fund schools equally.

Funding really isn't the problem. It's how you use those funds. Baltimore City schools are funded very well, yet still under preform. Does increased funding help? Sure, but just throwing money at a problem rarely ever fixes it. 

[Beaker]

(08-05-2016, 01:40 PM)fredtoast Wrote: Section 8 authorizes Congress to pass any laws "necessary and proper" to "provide for the general welfare" of the United States.

Currently no state can meet its education budget without funds from the federal government.  As long as the Federal government pays for the schools they should be able to control them.

Federal govt pays a portion of the schools. If they do not provide the largest percentage of funding, should they still have control?

[Sociopathicsteelerfan]

(08-05-2016, 02:18 PM)Aquapod770 Wrote: Funding really isn't the problem. It's how you use those funds. Baltimore City schools are funded very well, yet still under preform. Does increased funding help? Sure, but just throwing money at a problem rarely ever fixes it. 

I think Bmore will back me up on this, funding only gets you so far.  What really determines the level of education a child gets is the level of parental involvement.  A child that fears no consequences for not paying attention and learning in class will generally prefer not to.  A child who can ditch school without consequences, or with parental permission, tacit or otherwise, will generally indulge in doing so.  The best teacher in the world with the best materials in the world will not be able to reach a group of children who have no incentive to pay attention or dis-insensitive not to.  This is also why teachers deal with such high levels of disciplinary problems in many areas.  Often times the first person in a child's life to impose a set of rules, enforce them and hold the child accountable is a teacher.  If there's no accountability in the home the teacher is at the wrong end of a long, painful struggle and every second spent in that struggle is a second that takes away from their ability to teach.  Not only is it time intensive, it's mentally draining, and being mentally exhausted isn't a recipe for performing at peak levels.

[GMDino]

(08-05-2016, 02:18 PM)Aquapod770 Wrote: Funding really isn't the problem. It's how you use those funds. Baltimore City schools are funded very well, yet still under preform. Does increased funding help? Sure, but just throwing money at a problem rarely ever fixes it. 

Funding is a problem when it is determined by property values.

It gets to be very unequal.

But I agree that how they use it is just as important.  Over the past decade many of our districts have allowed buildings to deteriorate, then they close them and consolidate, then they say the schools are overcrowded and take out loans / bonds to build new ones.

Great scheme while it lasted.

And as SSF said above what students get out of the actual education is reliant a lot on the parents. 

[Beaker]

(08-05-2016, 02:29 PM)Sociopathicsteelerfan Wrote: What really determines the level of education a child gets is the level of parental involvement.  A child that fears no consequences for not paying attention and learning in class will generally prefer not to.  A child who can ditch school without consequences, or with parental permission, tacit or otherwise, will generally indulge in doing so.  The best teacher in the world with the best materials in the world will not be able to reach a group of children who have no incentive to pay attention or dis-insensitive not to.

It is said teachers must find ways to motivate children to want to learn. While partially true, its not the whole story. I can make my lessons as fun and interesting as possible. But I cannot force a child to learn who has no self motivation to learn. That comes from lessons and expectations from home. Teachers should provide motivation via fun and interesting lessons, but its really more of a team effort with the parent having to provide the expectation that an education is important and that the child should work hard. Very few children have an intrinsic work ethic. I know I didn't. Kids just want to goof off. The parents need to instill in them the value of an education.

Back to the stereotype of asians being better at academics...well, guess what, in most asian families, education is given a very high priority. Sometimes to the point of being detrimental to the child due to so much pressure from the parents to always get top grades. But in many other cultures, education is dismissed as important, and work ethic is replaced with entitlement...everything should be done for them. Too often, both parents work, neither has time, or both are too tired to help the child outside of school. School is seen as child care more than a way for the child to make a better life for themselves. To me, this is the fundamental thing that needs to change for more effective education.

[GMDino]

(08-05-2016, 11:21 AM)Beaker Wrote: To me, the bigger issues than whether curriculum is determined at the state or federal level are funding and parental involvement/expectations. Those are the areas where education is really in trouble when it comes to determining if education is good or bad. Funding via property taxes, and the societal switch from siding with the school and teachers to blaming them is the true root of where education stands today.

I think schools could be fine if either the state or federal governments determined curriculum. Truthfully, the idea behind common core is sound...that schools should be teaching the same things at the same grade levels, etc. Its the implementation of it that has been bad. For example, in Ohio, some districts teach biology in the 9th grade, others in the 10th grade. That causes problems when families move between districts. What happens to the kid who took Bio in 9th grade, then the family moves to a new district and they are expected to take bio in the 10th grade again? Or the kid who was in a district who would have gotten bio in the tenth grade, then after 9th grade moves to a district where it is taught in 9th grade and now has missed Bio or has to take a class with freshmen when they are sophomores? So there is something to be said for all districts being on the same page with curriculum.

This popped up in my FB memories today.  Seemed the right thread to share it:

http://madworldnews.com/angry-mother-destroys-common-core-writing-sons-test/?fb_action_ids=10203456471305145&fb_action_types=og.comments

Quote:Angry Mother Destroys Common Core by Writing This on Her Son’s Test

Posted on March 23, 2014 by 


Staff
One parent let a teacher know how frustrated they were with Common Core math by writing a note on their child’s homework that’s sure to bring a smile to your face.
If you’ve recently helped your child with their homework, you can completely understand what prompted this response. Check it out:






If I had to give this paper a grade, this parent gets an A+ from me.

The reason it was on my FB page was due to the response from a friend of mine who happens to be a teacher also:



All that said I feel students learn their own way.  I always understood the concepts in math but was better at doing the answer in my head than writing each step down.  I know WHY they want you to write it down but it seemed useless to me after the first few times.  Once you have it, as long as you have the right answer that is what matters to me.

That's why I don't like a "one size fits all" curriculum.

[Aquapod770]

(08-05-2016, 02:29 PM)Sociopathicsteelerfan Wrote: I think Bmore will back me up on this, funding only gets you so far.  What really determines the level of education a child gets is the level of parental involvement.  A child that fears no consequences for not paying attention and learning in class will generally prefer not to.  A child who can ditch school without consequences, or with parental permission, tacit or otherwise, will generally indulge in doing so.  The best teacher in the world with the best materials in the world will not be able to reach a group of children who have no incentive to pay attention or dis-insensitive not to.  This is also why teachers deal with such high levels of disciplinary problems in many areas.  Often times the first person in a child's life to impose a set of rules, enforce them and hold the child accountable is a teacher.  If there's no accountability in the home the teacher is at the wrong end of a long, painful struggle and every second spent in that struggle is a second that takes away from their ability to teach.  Not only is it time intensive, it's mentally draining, and being mentally exhausted isn't a recipe for performing at peak levels.

My sister just got her degree from Towson University and began teaching at Howard County Public Schools this past year. The state(?) is currently offering a student loan payoff program for new teachers if they go to work in Baltimore City Schools. One of her friends chose to do that and hates it. A couple of students got into a fight one and she had to physically separate them. The kids mom came in the next day screaming at her about laying hands on her kid and threatened to get a lawyer. Didn't even care that her son was assaulting another student. Parenting plays a huge part. Throwing money at a problem very rarely works, yet is often the go to solution. 

(08-05-2016, 02:33 PM)GMDino Wrote: Funding is a problem when it is determined by property values.

It gets to be very unequal.

But I agree that how they use it is just as important.  Over the past decade many of our districts have allowed buildings to deteriorate, then they close them and consolidate, then they say the schools are overcrowded and take out loans / bonds to build new ones.

Great scheme while it lasted.

And as SSF said above what students get out of the actual education is reliant a lot on the parents. 

http://www.newsweek.com/do-baltimore-schools-need-more-money-329085

Pretty good article that compares funding in baltimore city schools to fairfax county. The federal government tends to be on the side of just throwing more money at a problem. This is why I wouldn't be sad if the Department of Education stopped being a thing. As shown in the article when local funding is low the state tends to pick up most of the tab anyway. 

[Sociopathicsteelerfan]

(08-05-2016, 02:52 PM)Aquapod770 Wrote: My sister just got her degree from Towson University and began teaching at Howard County Public Schools this past year. The state(?) is currently offering a student loan payoff program for new teachers if they go to work in Baltimore City Schools. One of her friends chose to do that and hates it. A couple of students got into a fight one and she had to physically separate them. The kids mom came in the next day screaming at her about laying hands on her kid and threatened to get a lawyer. Didn't even care that her son was assaulting another student. Parenting plays a huge part. Throwing money at a problem very rarely works, yet is often the go to solution. 

I worked directly with a heavily juvenile for around ten years prior to my recent promotion.  The parents of these kids are almost always ineffective (i.e. the kid runs everything), exculpatory (my kid is never wrong), doesn't care (doesn't care) or is actively involved in the kids delinquency.  I can't tell you how many people I've told that not addressing bad behavior is giving it a stamp of approval.  A few parents actually listen, their kids are much more likely to not end up in prison.  I have a lot of sympathy for teachers, they deal with these families from a position of deference.  I can't tell you how many times I've gone off on parents or kids in front of teachers and had the teacher later tell me how much they envied my ability to do so.

[Mike M (the other one)]

I think the Fed should oversee the entire Dept of Education.
If the Fed were to set the minimums for each grade requirement, then it would:
Make it easier for teachers to move around in the System (state to state) and do away with state certifications/licenses, just have one certification/license.
This would also help the students who get stuck changing schools.

Basically, teaching needs to be highly scripted and uniform across all levels and subjects.
Teachers would be evaluated based on a student test at the end of the semester/year on the their subject. And of course there would be a national sliding scale (not all kids can pick up certain subjects).

[fredtoast]

Okay.  If we say the parents are the problem then what do we do to address this problem.

I don't see how cutting funding will fix anything.  Just because "throwing money" is not the answer that does not mean "cutting spending" is the answer either.  I don't see anyone complaining about private schools "throwing a lot more money than the governemnt at the problem".

ASnd I still don't understand why people feel that schooling needs to be different in different states.

[*bfine32*]

Admitted ignorance in Education funding, but I'm pretty sure a portion of my taxes go there.

I would say the problem with National programs would be curriculum.

For instance: How much money should be allocated the Future Farmers of America club for a school in NYC compared to one in Hastings Nebraska.