Why should education be a state controlled issue?

[Beaker]

(08-05-2016, 03:16 PM)fredtoast Wrote: Okay.  If we say the parents are the problem then what do we do to address this problem.

The parents are not the problem. The problem is more complicated than a single component to blame. My point in addressing the home life was to show how societal expectations had shifted....which is a larger component of the overall problem than most perceive. People want to blame the state, govt, the federal govt, property tax funding, teachers, curriculum, parents....when in reality it is a combination of all. But to me, a foundational problem is the expectations and motivation students have currently about education.  You simply cannot teach someone who does not want to learn and sees no value in doing so. I constantly fight the battle with my own daughter about how she has to take responsibility for her own education. That she is getting an education for her and to make her future better, not for us or her teachers or her friends or anyone else. But in families where education takes a back seat, you get under-performing kids....no matter how good the teachers, curriculum and school system are....plain and simple. We need to change our societal outlook on education to view it as important and something to be taken seriously and worked for, not something that is given to us.

[Belsnickel]

(08-05-2016, 04:09 PM)bfine32 Wrote: 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.

In a lot of cases, that isn't tax money going to those. This is why those clubs have so many fundraisers.

[fredtoast]

(08-05-2016, 06:02 PM)Belsnickel Wrote: In a lot of cases, that isn't tax money going to those. This is why those clubs have so many fundraisers.

And I am not that concerned with extra-curricular activities.  I have no problem with different schools in different areas spending their money on different extra-curricular activities.

[Mike M (the other one)]

(08-05-2016, 04:09 PM)bfine32 Wrote: 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.

Good point. 
Here's one way to address it and it might help with the parents involvement as well.

Kids go to school for 8 1/2 hours.
1/2 hour for lunch.


The 3 core classes are 1 hour long (math, science and English). 

Then the 4th class is reserved for some things that kids need to be taught at an appropriate age. Like how to use a computer in the early years to use the office products, later basic cooking, auto care (oil change, spark plugs), how to balance a check book, history etc.

The 5th class the students choose an elective that lasts 1 semester (so 2 for the year). Would be things like a 2nd language, or agriculture. These would be open to multiple grade levels and could be progressive as well.

The 6th class is straight up study hall and gives the students time to do homework and someone to help them. Athletes would go to practice and they are still responsible for their grades, fall behind and you end up in study hall until caught up.

The whole goal is to keep the work load at a level that can be completed in school. Reduce the parents part from the equation as much as possible.

Of course it wouldn't be perfect, i would need input from teachers as to what is grade level appropriate, but its an outline that could start moving it into a positive direction. 

[SunsetBengal]

(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.

Those States could certainly afford their own educational systems, if that portion of their Federal taxes were reverted back to the State to use for educational budget.

[HarleyDog]

(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.

Go to Deep South. "The Waterboy" was not that far off.

[fredtoast]

(08-06-2016, 12:32 AM)SunsetBengal Wrote: Those States could certainly afford their own educational systems, if that portion of their Federal taxes were reverted back to the State to use for educational budget.

No it wouldn't.  Many poor states receive more federal money than they pay.

[Au165]

You could make this argument about many of the powers we grant to the states. Why do we allow states to set standards for acquiring a drivers license when we allow people to freely move between states? The Federal government can't be over everything. The reason we allowed states to have power is to keep the governing closer to the people being governed.

[fredtoast]

(08-08-2016, 11:23 AM)Au165 Wrote: You could make this argument about many of the powers we grant to the states. Why do we allow states to set standards for acquiring a drivers license when we allow people to freely move between states? The Federal government can't be over everything. The reason we allowed states to have power is to keep the governing closer to the people being governed.

But when it comes to education many states seem to be failing badly, and in my opinion education is the number one issue when it comes to saving the middle class in America.  The good old days of making a great living as unskilled labor are gone.

That is why i would like to see the Federal government step in.  something has to be done.

[Nebuchadnezzar]

Isn't the federal government more of a "One size fits all" type of deal?

In Franklin County Indiana, I think it's eighth graders who take a gun safety class. Who decides if there's money for that class, the county or some schmuck who hates guns in Washington DC who grew up in Chicago?

Will education be better under federal government control or will ideas that work get bogged down in red tape for years in committee meetings, studies and have to wait on congress to vote on it and use it as leverage for other things?

If an idea is great in Indiana but not California, does the idea get scraped because there isn't enough money to fund it since the federal government is "All or none"?

Many questions need to be answered before total control of education is handed over to the federal government.

[Au165]

(08-08-2016, 11:12 PM)Nebuchadnezzar Wrote: Isn't the federal government more of a "One size fits all" type of deal?

In Franklin County Indiana, I think it's eighth graders who take a gun safety class. Who decides if there's money for that class, the county or some schmuck who hates guns in Washington DC who grew up in Chicago?

Will education be better under federal government control or will ideas that work get bogged down in red tape for years in committee meetings, studies and have to wait on congress to vote on it and use it as leverage for other things?

If an idea is great in Indiana but not California, does the idea get scraped because there isn't enough money to fund it since the federal government is "All or none"?

Many questions need to be answered before total control of education is handed over to the federal government.

I can already see evolution vs creation turning into a 4 year standoff if it hit the federal level.

[fredtoast]

(08-08-2016, 11:12 PM)Nebuchadnezzar Wrote: In Franklin County Indiana, I think it's eighth graders who take a gun safety class. Who decides if there's money for that class, the county or some schmuck who hates guns in Washington DC who grew up in Chicago?

The NRA folks are the ones who oppose requiring gun safety classes for gun owners.  So the "gun haters" in Washington are probably more in favor of gun safety classes than the NRA nuts is some backwoods county.

BTW how in the hell do they spend an entire class on gun safety.  It should be able to be taught in just a couple of hours.  I can't imagine devoting an entire school class to it.  And how much funds are required to teach gun safety?

[fredtoast]

(08-08-2016, 11:12 PM)Nebuchadnezzar Wrote: Isn't the federal government more of a "One size fits all" type of deal?

No more than the commercial business world that will be hiring high school graduates.

When an employer sees that an applicant graduated from high school that business should not have to go look up and see what was taught in the school that gave out the diploma.

[Au165]

(08-09-2016, 10:03 AM)fredtoast Wrote: When an employer sees that an applicant graduated from high school that business should not have to go look up and see what was taught in the school that gave out the diploma.

...they do this for college grads every day.

[fredtoast]

(08-09-2016, 01:06 PM)Au165 Wrote: ...they do this for college grads every day.

But college rankings are easily available.  There are thousands of times as many high schools as colleges and there are no major rating services for them.

But the bigger issue isn that people get to choose their college.  Most high school students have very limited options regarding what school they attend.  Some states are clearly failing their students and something has to be done about it.  Poor education will destroy the middle class if something is not corrected.

[Rotobeast]

(08-09-2016, 09:56 AM)fredtoast Wrote: BTW how in the hell do they spend an entire class on gun safety.  It should be able to be taught in just a couple of hours.  I can't imagine devoting an entire school class to it.  And how much funds are required to teach gun safety?

You can never have enough firearms safety training.
That being said, our high school had it as hunting/fishing/camping safety.

As far as funds, we only had pellet guns, but a one time expense for a non-firing handgun, rifle and shotgun (all for disassembly/assembly/cleaning lessons) would not be expensive.
I'm not sure of the expense for an instructor's certificate, but I'd wager it isn't much and the business who does certification may even allow teachers to be certified, free of charge.

The NRA is against mandatory training, in order to obtain a firearm.
I'm all for it, but who am I ?
However, I'm sure the NRA would be more than willing to send a representative to indoctrin..... errr.... teach a class on safety.


Sent from my SM-S820L using Tapatalk

[fredtoast]

(08-09-2016, 02:03 PM)Rotobeast Wrote: You can never have enough firearms safety training.
That being said, our high school had it as hunting/fishing/camping safety.

As far as funds, we only had  pellet guns, but a one time expense for a non-firing  handgun, rifle and shotgun (all for disassembly/assembly/cleaning lessons) would not be expensive.
I'm not sure of the expense for an instructor's certificate, but I'd wager it isn't much and the business who does certification may even allow teachers to be certified, free of charge.

The NRA is against mandatory training, in order to obtain a firearm.
I'm all for it, but who am I ?
However, I'm sure the NRA would be more than willing to send a representative to indoctrin..... errr.... teach a class on safety.


Sent from my SM-S820L using Tapatalk

Was this an entire semester course or just a couple of days?

[Rotobeast]

(08-09-2016, 02:32 PM)fredtoast Wrote: Was this an entire semester course or just a couple of days?

It was less than a semester.
It was worked into the choices at P.E.
I want to say it was 6 weeks.
It's been a long time since I've been in school though and my daughter won't be to that level for almost 10 years.
If I can remember, I'll ask a buddy of mine, who is a teacher there.

Sent from my SM-S820L using Tapatalk

[BmorePat87]

(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.

Are you discussing funding, certification, curriculum, all of the above?

I find your last line to be disingenuous. The biggest argument I have heard is that the education needs vary from state to state. Even within states, they vary from locality to locality. Even within locality, they vary from school to school. Even within schools, they vary from student to student.

The last thing I want is to have to change what I teach every two years when a new party gets into Congress. I'm fortunate. I teach in the 5th richest county which happens to be in the state with the best schools. We value education and we fund it. We also give a lot of control to local school boards that understand the specific needs of each county. At such a lower level, those controlling education tend to have a background in education. 

Our current make up: of the 7 members, 3 are former teachers, one was a professor of education, one a community liaison with the school system, one a pediatrician, and one worked with zoning in the county. 

As much as I'd love to be overpaid by the federal government (holy shit would I make a ton of money if I got paid on their scales), I prefer that what I teach be mostly influenced by 7 board members with a background in education or children. 

Not to mention most of what the federal government has given us has been bipartisan garbage these last 15 years. NCLB and race to the top. Sorry, I need to teach content and skills, not how to pass standardize tests. 

[fredtoast]

(08-10-2016, 11:52 AM)BmorePat87 Wrote:  Sorry, I need to teach content and skills, not how to pass standardize tests. 

Who wants a bunch of people who have the knowledge to give correct answers to questions.

It is much better for them to know "content" and give wrong answers, right?