NationStates Jolt Archive

Remember when education came up in the debates? When Bush promised that this was a priority?

To refresh your memory, from the third debate (http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-srv/politics/debatereferee/debate_1013.html)

BUSH: I'd say, Bob, I've got policies to continue to grow our economy and create the jobs of the 21st century. And here's some help for you to go get an education. Here's some help for you to go to a community college.

You know, there's a lot of talk about how to keep the economy growing. We talk about fiscal matters. But perhaps the best way to keep jobs here in America and to keep this economy growing is to make sure our education system works.

...

No, education is how to help the person who's lost a job. Education is how to make sure we've got a workforce that's productive and competitive.

Got four more years, I've got more to do to continue to raise standards, to continue to reward teachers and school districts that are working, to emphasize math and science in the classrooms, to continue to expand Pell Grants to make sure that people have an opportunity to start their career with a college diploma.

...

But we ought to have an aggressive effort to make sure people are educated, to make sure when they get out of high school there's Pell Grants available for them, which is what we've done. We've expanded Pell Grants by a million students.

Do you realize today in America, we spend $73 billion to help 10 million low- and middle-income families better afford college?

That's the access I believe is necessary, is to make sure every child learns to read, write, add and subtract early, to be able to build on that education by going to college so they can start their careers with a college diploma



Funny how things change once the election is over right? (http://www.nytimes.com/2004/11/25/opinion/25thu3.html)

Daunted by soaring costs, as many as a quarter of low-income students with grades and test scores that make them prime college material no longer even apply to college. This is bad news at a time when skilled jobs are moving abroad and a college diploma has become the minimum price of admission to the new economy. The Bush administration, however, could actually make this problem worse by cutting the federal Pell grant program, which was developed to encourage poor and working-class students to pursue higher education.

The pending cut could cause as many as 1.2 million low-income students to have their grants reduced - and as many as 100,000 could lose their grants altogether. That inevitably means that students would either drop out or take longer to finish their degrees.


..Congress agreed to hold off on any changes until it could look at the student aid problem as a whole during reauthorization of the Higher Education Act, which is due to come before the body next year. But with the election behind it, the Republican leadership has advanced a proposal that could slash the program anyway, by roughly $300 million. Eliminating the resources to help needy and qualified students go to college will not even put a dent in the nation's growing deficit, but it will greatly diminish opportunities for upward mobility for the nation's youth.




But what CAN they find the money for? (http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story2&u=/ap/20041126/ap_on_go_pr_wh/second_term_abstinence)


President Bush's re-election insures that more federal money will flow to abstinence education that precludes discussion of birth control, even as the administration awaits evidence that the approach gets kids to refrain from sex.


Congress last weekend included more than $131 million for abstinence programs in a $388 billion spending bill, an increase of $30 million but about $100 million less than Bush requested. Meanwhile, a national evaluation of abstinence programs has been delayed, with a final report not expected until 2006.

"We don't need a study, if I remember my biology correctly, to show us that those people who are sexually abstinent have a zero chance of becoming pregnant or getting someone pregnant or contracting a sexually transmitted disease," said Wade Horn, the assistant secretary of Health and Human Services in charge of federal abstinence funding





That's right. Aparently the Republicans think that it is more important to be teaching kids how NOT to have sex than to allow them to gain access to the education needed to provide them with a prosperous future. and what isn't important is finding out whether spending more money on this initiative is even effective.

I'll call that "fiscal irresponsability for the masses"....

Just curious, but does anyone NOT know how NOT to have sex?



Couldn't even wait a month to start breaking promises.... hell, the recounts aren't all even finished yet. But already the promise to expand Pell grants is heading into the crapper.

*sigh*
Unfortunately I'm too jaded by their torrent of lies to feel shock or be upset over this.
If I wasn't so jaded I'd be shocked at myself for not being shocked.

Hey, it's what the majority of Americans wanted. They're getting what they asked for.

Sad, education helps the poor gain a way to earn real money and stop being stuck in jobs for slave wages. Now, the rich are going to edumicated while the poor are told to have less kids while not being edumicated.

Even a $300 million cut to the 2005 proposal would still mean a $523 million increase from 2004.

Great, cuts in college scholarships while we remain the dumbest industrialized nation. Plus we get abstinance education. That stuff really works. I guess we can look foreward to an abundance of idiots in the future. More bush votes.

Even a $300 million cut to the 2005 proposal would still mean a $523 million increase from 2004.


Pell grants aren't supposed to be a "proposal". IT is a funding formula that provides funds based on need. What this does is set the bar higher to qualify for "need", which will restrict many marginal students from receiving the education they need to succeed.

Raising this bar and refusing to increase allotments at a time when tuition costs spiral up at rates much higher than inflation will only lead to one thing: a less competitive workforce.

Pell grants aren't supposed to be a "proposal". IT is a funding formula that provides funds based on need. What this does is set the bar higher to qualify for "need", which will restrict many marginal students from receiving the education they need to succeed.

Raising this bar and refusing to increase allotments at a time when tuition costs spiral up at rates much higher than inflation will only lead to one thing: a less competitive workforce.
I meant the 2005 Budget proposal. Take it from the DoE itself :
http://www.ed.gov/news/pressreleases/2004/02/02022004.html

President Bush today continued his commitment to America's students and their families by submitting a budget request for 2005 that provides $57.3 billion in discretionary funding for the U.S. Department of Education. The budget request includes an additional $1.7 billion--the largest dollar increase of any domestic agency--representing a 3 percent increase over 2004 and a 35.8-percent gain for education programs since the president took office.

The president's 2005 budget request continues to place a strong priority on assisting the nation's neediest students and includes historic funding increases to help states and school districts implement No Child Left Behind, the president's sweeping education reform law. The budget proposes a $1-billion increase in Title I grants to help the neediest local schools and a $1-billion increase for special education grants to states.

The 2005 request also includes $12.9 billion--an $823-million increase--for Pell Grants, to help an estimated 5.3 million students from low-income families pay for their higher education, which is one million more students than when the president took office. In total, student aid for higher education would increase to more than $73 billion--a $4.2 billion or 6-percent increase over 2004 levels. Almost 10 million students and parents--a 426,000 increase--would receive one or more grants, loans or work-study awards.

I'm not registered on the NYTimes page, but maybe I'm missing something that you haven't posted. All I see is stuff about a spending cut, not raising the need level for such programs.

I have a lecture course this year in electronic systems and design for ease of assembly. The core value of the course is simple: if you learn how to design an electronic product (eg printer) such that a relatively uneducated child can assemble it in a few minutes, you have done very well.

The inherent absence of any ethical standards here are weakly countered by the assertion that assembling such items gradually improves a nation's economy, and makes the people wealthy. Then, the manufacturers can move on to another country and enrich their lives through menial electronic assembly jobs. This generation of wealth has hopped from SE Asia to China and the Indian subcontinent, and will eventually make its way to Africa.

All very nice. To which I asked, but since humans working on those wages can assemble the items more cheaply than automated lines, surely it would be in our interest to maintain an adequate supply of such labour? By permanently witholding the means of education and economic development from one or more region.

To which there was no answer.

My point is, the betterment of humanity is all too easily offset against other goals.

Maybe if we could try explaining to Bush that most people find sex as natural and irrestible as he finds telling lies...

They should just cut education funding all together, except maybe a bit for higher education. I believe firmly that it should be a state's right and responsibility to fund education, not the government.

They should just cut education funding all together, except maybe a bit for higher education. I believe firmly that it should be a state's right and responsibility to fund education, not the government.
What if a particular state is effectively bankrupt and cannot afford it?

I meant the 2005 Budget proposal. Take it from the DoE itself :
http://www.ed.gov/news/pressreleases/2004/02/02022004.html



I'm not registered on the NYTimes page, but maybe I'm missing something that you haven't posted. All I see is stuff about a spending cut, not raising the need level for such programs.

Line-item budget allocations for Pell grants are really estimates of how much they will haev to pay out through that program and not really a direct funding issue. It is an estimate based on how many applicants they expect. Pell Grants are available to all who apply for them and meet the qualification criteria. (http://www.ed.gov/prog_info/SFA/StudentGuide/2002-3/pell.html)

Therefore, and increased budget for Pell grants is really indicative of an acknowledgement that more citizens have fallen to a financial situation where they would qualify for Pell grants than anything else. It is not any largesse by the government.

i.e, an increased amount budgeted for Pell Grants just shows that there are more poor people in the country. It is not normally a discretionary budget amount which is then allocated according to changing criteria.

What the NY Times article details is the fact that because there are more students in need, the Pell Grant program is requiring more funds to satisfy the needs of qualified students, and so to curb costs the Republicans want to change the rules that govern qualification for this program. They want to make it more dificult for people to qualify for help to get a college education and to cut allocations in order to save some money.

NEver mind that more uneducated folks will wind up costing the government far more in the long run.....

What if a particular state is effectively bankrupt and cannot afford it?
Then it is likely that the state government will be dissolved for a new one. There is, however, a chance for getting outta that hole, by raising taxes, and implementing a few cuts. The police force, education, and administration are always considered the essentials of a state budget, so they'd probably be safe, especially the police force. I'd also reccomend that state to float a few bonds. Municipal bonds are tax-free in this country, which makes up for their pitifully low interest rates.

They should just cut education funding all together, except maybe a bit for higher education. I believe firmly that it should be a state's right and responsibility to fund education, not the government.


Well, at that point all you are doing is changing which government funds education, so that wouldn;t change the associated costs much - except you would wind up paying less federal taxes and more state taxes.. It would also potentially limit the ability of students to choose the best college in the country for their area of interest as states would inevitably raise barriers to allow out-of-state students to attend locally financed institutions.

Not to mention that less populated or poorer states would not be in a position to offer the same quality of education as richer states. In the end, this would spell disaster for the opportunities of people born in poorer states, and the inequality gap would just widen as people fled those states for their families sakes.


It would be great for New York and California. But Alabama would just slide into an even worse situation.

Well, at that point all you are doing is changing which government funds education, so that wouldn;t change the associated costs much - except you would wind up paying less federal taxes and more state taxes.. It would also potentially limit the ability of students to choose the best college in the country for their area of interest as states would inevitably raise barriers to allow out-of-state students to attend locally financed institutions.

Not to mention that less populated or poorer states would not be in a position to offer the same quality of education as richer states. In the end, this would spell disaster for the opportunities of people born in poorer states, and the inequality gap would just widen as people fled those states for their families sakes.


It would be great for New York and California. But Alabama would just slide into an even worse situation.
Suggesting that a new government would form was just saying what could happen, not what should happen. Anyhow, it is possible that the poorer states could float bonds to finance their education. However, I do not believe in a cookie-cutter quality of education across the nation, but simply that the education must be better than their parents.
But it is still important to leave the federal government out of education. It limits a state's ability to tailor education to their needs, as well as clamps down on individual liberty.

Suggesting that a new government would form was just saying what could happen, not what should happen. Anyhow, it is possible that the poorer states could float bonds to finance their education. However, I do not believe in a cookie-cutter quality of education across the nation, but simply that the education must be better than their parents.
But it is still important to leave the federal government out of education. It limits a state's ability to tailor education to their needs, as well as clamps down on individual liberty.


Well, I would agree with you if one assumed that education was entirely funded at the Federal level. But it isn't is it?

Correct me if I'm wrong, but the bulk of educational funding still is done at the state and local levels is it not?

It must be given the link posted on the last page which shows a total federal budget of 58 Billion while California alone's costs for 02-3 was 40.9Billion, and that figure doesn't include any college funding. (http://www.cde.ca.gov/ds/fd/ec/documents/costofeducation0203.xls)

The federal programs exist to help ensure a basic level of education can be provided across the country, and to help with issues such as ensuring basic standards are met, that mobility of students is ensured, and to help the poor acheive higher education if they desire it. In that respect this becomes a shared responsability of the country to keep the workforce competitive rather than what you describe which puts the onus on poorer states to mortgage their future to educate their own citizens in the hopes of an economic turnaround that may be largely out of their control depending on the actions of the Federal government.

Just the thing we need--an overpopulated, poor, and, above all, STUPID nation.

Just the thing we need--an overpopulated, poor, and, above all, STUPID nation.
It's an ingenious plan. They're breeding more redneck highschool dropouts. Those translate into Bush votes.

Well, I would agree with you if one assumed that education was entirely funded at the Federal level. But it isn't is it?

Correct me if I'm wrong, but the bulk of educational funding still is done at the state and local levels is it not?

The federal programs exist to help ensure a basic level of education can be provided across the country, and to help with issues such as ensuring basic standards are met, that mobility of students is ensured, and to help the poor acheive higher education if they desire it. In that respect this becomes a shared responsability of the country to keep the workforce competitive rather than what you describe which puts the onus on poorer states to mortgage their future to educate their own citizens in the hopes of an economic turnaround that may be largely out of their control depending on the actions of the Federal government.
But the funding on the federal level has risen by an unnacceptable 50% since the No Child Left Behind act became law. That signals a desire by the federal government to be more involved in education. Education must be returned to state levels, especially with the cirriculum.

And btw, I do think the government should subsidize it to some extent. But as for the students, they must qualify for Pell Grants only if they can't qualify for massive amounts of financial aid, and they need to still cover some of the costs themselves. Maybe they can take out a student loan, which I think would be a great activity in fiscal responsibility. Americans have far too much debt, so why not teach them how to save?

But the funding on the federal level has risen by an unnacceptable 50% since the No Child Left Behind act became law. That signals a desire by the federal government to be more involved in education. Education must be returned to state levels, especially with the cirriculum.

And btw, I do think the government should subsidize it to some extent. But as for the students, they must qualify for Pell Grants only if they can't qualify for massive amounts of financial aid, and they need to still cover some of the costs themselves. Maybe they can take out a student loan, which I think would be a great activity in fiscal responsibility. Americans have far too much debt, so why not teach them how to save?

Well, that is a diferent issue than your initial statement that the Fed had no place of funding at all. And I agree that some lessons in fiscal responsibility are good. Indeed, the Pell Grants alone will never mitigate the need for loans since they max out at $4,000 per year. But they DO help lower the bar to allow some people to consider school who otherwise might not.

After all, expecting a high school kid to also work so hard as to save enough for college while also doing the work to get the good marks to get into a top school is unreasonable at today's tuition prices. How much can they save at minimum wage? And how much will their marks suffer? Yes, they and their families should be encouraged to save (perhaps a matching funds program? We do that upp here where Registered Education Savings Plans get matching Federal funds up to 1200/year per kid), but don't forget that these programs are targetted at the poor - not those who are choosing between the Beemer and the LExus while forgetting to put aside money in advance for the kids college.

But if all you do is tell a kid "sure, we'll loan you the money" and have tuition and living costs showing that they will graduate with a six-figure debt, many will not take that obligation on.

Well, that is a diferent issue than your initial statement that the Fed had no place of funding at all. And I agree that some lessons in fiscal responsibility are good. Indeed, the Pell Grants alone will never mitigate the need for loans since they max out at $4,000 per year. But they DO help lower the bar to allow some people to consider school who otherwise might not.
I actually said that the Feds should fund higher education to an extent. But let's not degenerate this into a he said/she said arguement.
After all, expecting a high school kid to also work so hard as to save enough for college while also doing the work to get the good marks to get into a top school is unreasonable at today's tuition prices. How much can they save at minimum wage? And how much will their marks suffer? Yes, they and their families should be encouraged to save (perhaps a matching funds program? We do that upp here where Registered Education Savings Plans get matching Federal funds up to 1200/year per kid), but don't forget that these programs are targetted at the poor - not those who are choosing between the Beemer and the LExus while forgetting to put aside money in advance for the kids college.
They get what they can afford, and that is probably more than what their parents had. After all, in the US, the average working baby boomer has only a high school diploma, with little or no post-graduate work. And matching funds sound like a nice idea on the surface, but it is the welfare state rearing its head. And we have rejected the welfare state long ago.

Remember when education came up in the debates? When Bush promised that this was a priority?

To refresh your memory, from the third debate (http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-srv/politics/debatereferee/debate_1013.html)

Funny how things change once the election is over right? (http://www.nytimes.com/2004/11/25/opinion/25thu3.html)

But what CAN they find the money for? (http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story2&u=/ap/20041126/ap_on_go_pr_wh/second_term_abstinence)

That's right. Aparently the Republicans think that it is more important to be teaching kids how NOT to have sex than to allow them to gain access to the education needed to provide them with a prosperous future. and what isn't important is finding out whether spending more money on this initiative is even effective.

I'll call that "fiscal irresponsability for the masses"....

Just curious, but does anyone NOT know how NOT to have sex?

Couldn't even wait a month to start breaking promises.... hell, the recounts aren't all even finished yet. But already the promise to expand Pell grants is heading into the crapper.
Sigh. Well, I guess the proof will show.

It's an ingenious plan. They're breeding more redneck highschool dropouts. Those translate into Bush votes.

Sorry but dropouts vote for democrats!

Hey Zepp, why do you care about the US education system? You live in Canada for pete's sake.

BTW-Nice grading scale you have their in Canadian schools. Also how nice that you have to close schools because you just can't afford them.

Sorry but dropouts vote for democrats!
Not the redneck ones.

They get what they can afford, and that is probably more than what their parents had. After all, in the US, the average working baby boomer has only a high school diploma, with little or no post-graduate work. And matching funds sound like a nice idea on the surface, but it is the welfare state rearing its head. And we have rejected the welfare state long ago.


The baby boomers are the last generation that will manage success with that as the average education level. Look at people in their 30s and 40s now to see the future. And in that demographic having more education makes a HUGE diference.

And I don't think that a matching funds education savings plan equates to the welfare state. It is the hand up rather than a hand out, and helps people do what you suggest: save for education.

Up here it works like this:

You open the saving plan named for a given child (self-directed as to the type of investment with some rules as to what types are allowed). The Feds match up to 1200/year of your deposits. If your child chooses not to further their education you can withdraw your funds and the government gets theirs back too. In that case, you have saved for yourself.

So, if a poor family could just find a way to put aside $5 per week for a kid, by the time the kid was 18 with matching funds and a lowly 3% interest, the familly would have over $12,500 towards puting the kid into school. If they could take advantage of the full 1200/year, they would have over 60K saved.


You can call it welfare if you like, but it is programs like this that are the reasons why a higher percentage of Canadians pursue higher education than Americans. And in the long run, this will cost us less by having a better educated workforce.

I wonder what Orwell would say about this.
He'd probably kill himself, come to think of it.

I still don't know why the Federal Government needs to give funding for education. Last time I checked, the Constitution said nothing of Federal Funding. States should be responsible. Heck if they don't have enough money, open up gambling, and have lottery funded schools. The money would pour into even the poorest schools as everyone likes to gamble. ;)

Hey Zepp, why do you care about the US education system? You live in Canada for pete's sake.

BTW-Nice grading scale you have their in Canadian schools. Also how nice that you have to close schools because you just can't afford them.


Why do I care if our largest trading partner is putting in what I feel are policies detrimental to their future?

Gee.... I wonder.

Now how could that effect me....????


But I'm glad that you like our Canadian schools systems so much. After all, they are so poorly ranked around the world.

I mean, the most recent Unicef rankings have them all the way down... in fourth place in the world. (http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/education/2520303.stm#table)

Oh woe is us.

Not like that amazing ranking of 18th like the US managed.

As to school closures, please feel free to actually learn about an issue before you try to spout off about it.

YEs, some schools have been closed. As some communities change, and the trend towards smaller famillies continues, the need for as many schools in older neighbourhoods has declined. It makes no sense to cover operating costs for three partially-full schools when you could instead have two full schools and sell off a prime piece of real estate to also upgrade the other other two.

Why do I care if our largest trading partner is putting in what I feel are policies detrimental to their future?

Gee.... I wonder.

Now how could that effect me....????


But I'm glad that you like our Canadian schools systems so much. After all, they are so poorly ranked around the world.

I mean, the most recent Unicef rankings have them all the way down... in fourth place. (http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/education/2520303.stm#table)

Oh woe is us.

Not like that amazing ranking of 18th like the US managed.

As to school closures, please feel free to actually learn about an issue before you try to spout off about it.

YEs, some schools have been closed. As some communities change, and the trend towards smaller famillies continues, the need for as many schools in older neighbourhoods has declined. It makes no sense to cover operating costs for three partially-full schools when you could instead have two full schools and sell off a prime piece of real estate to also upgrade the other other two.

Just how do you know they are detrimental? Are you Miss Cleo?

School rankings!! Haha give me a break. Does every country on that list test a broad section of the school enrollments? Nope. The US tests a wider range of students, because of our huge diversity. Some students speak English as their second language, so they would already be at a disadvantage.

As to schools being closed down: I guess you have never visited some northern communities, esp North BC area. I was hunting up there last year, and noticied that some of the schools were vacant during the school day. I asked my guide what was going on. He said some of these schools (including brand new ones) didn't have the money to operate, so they let some teachers go first, then closed them. Now all of the kids are crammed into bigger classrooms. Now why would new schools have to be shut down?

Game, Set, Match! You lose. Good day.

Hey Zepp, nice grading scale you have there:


Grades

Letter grades at McGill are equivalent to Richmond letter grades (ie A= A). However the grading scale may be different. The standard McGill grading scale is listed below. There may be slight variations by department, so students should be sure to understand the grading scale for each course at the beginning of the semester.


A (85-100%)
A- (80-84%)
B+ (75-79%)
B (70-74%)
B- (65-69%)
C+ (60-64%)
C (55-59%)
D (50-54%) - Does not transfer
F (0-49%) - Does not transfer[/B]


I should have gone to Canadian Schools. Maybe then mother would have been pleased.

Just how do you know they are detrimental? Are you Miss Cleo?

School rankings!! Haha give me a break. Does every country on that list test a broad section of the school enrollments? Nope. The US tests a wider range of students, because of our huge diversity. Some students speak English as their second language, so they would already be at a disadvantage.

As to schools being closed down: I guess you have never visited some northern communities, esp North BC area. I was hunting up there last year, and noticied that some of the schools were vacant during the school day. I asked my guide what was going on. He said some of these schools (including brand new ones) didn't have the money to operate, so they let some teachers go first, then closed them. Now all of the kids are crammed into bigger classrooms. Now why would new schools have to be shut down?

Game, Set, Match! You lose. Good day.

So, you propose some personal annectodal evidence with no documented support, and dismiss international rankings without even looking at the criteria and call the game?

Hilarious!

Regarding diversity, aparently you missed the comment in the text that specifically noted:

Another factor identified by the survey was the differing levels of educational achievement in immigrant communities.

Canada, which ranked fourth overall, was seen to have a good record of educating immigrant families.

In comparison, in countries such as Germany, Denmark and Austria, immigrant children were seen to have suffered from an educational disadvantage.


and this was a BBC news item which, needless to say, has no need to boost Canada.

Oh yes, and for the record - Canada currently has 17.4% of it's population being foreign-born. Compare that to 10.4% in the US (http://www.nationmaster.com/graph-T/imm_for_pop)

So much for your "Huge diversity" advantage.....nor are these rankings based on letter grades. If you took the time to actually read them, perhaps you would be aware of that fact. But clearly that is too much to ask of you.



Thanks for playing. Better luck next time.....

Game, Set, Match! You lose. Good day.
OMFG!!!!!!
godmodding!!!

Here Zepp. This is why you shouldn't trust such results:

One popular approach for reporting student performance results in cross-national studies is to rank countries using total scores, or selected sub-scores, on tests presumed to measure student achievement in various subject areas. The process is simple. Batteries of test items are administered to carefully selected samples of students in selected grade or age levels and in selected countries. Then, subject-matter proficiency is estimated by producing a score (e.g, percent of items passed, sum of items, scale scores based on a Rasch single-parameter IRT model - such as was used in TIMSS). Countries are then ranked according to these "scores," and although actual performance results are reported along with the rankings, it is the rankings that seem to have the most inherent meaning. The common interpretation of these rankings is that students in nations ranking at or near the "top" are achieving, or have learned, more than students in nations ranking lower. The implication is that the nations at the top have more effective educational systems, at least in particular subject areas, than do the nations at the bottom.

An example of this comes from the Third International Mathematics and Science Study. A portion of the data from this study was recently released. Despite many efforts to de-emphasize a focus on rankings in these results, country rankings were reported and have been widely discussed in the press, among policy makers, and among researchers. The important messages in TIMSS, like those messages from many previous cross-national studies, are in danger of being lost in what has become an "international horse race."

You have to remember Zepp that what is taught in a US school is not always the same thing being taught in Canada land. Just like your grading scale is different then ours. How could you honestly rely on international rankings to "prove" that the US Student is nothing more then a blundering idiot?

OMFG!!!!!!
godmodding!!!

"OMFG", chill little buddy.

Here Zepp. This is why you shouldn't trust such results:

One popular approach for reporting student performance results in cross-national studies is to rank countries using total scores, or selected sub-scores, on tests presumed to measure student achievement in various subject areas. The process is simple. Batteries of test items are administered to carefully selected samples of students in selected grade or age levels and in selected countries. Then, subject-matter proficiency is estimated by producing a score (e.g, percent of items passed, sum of items, scale scores based on a Rasch single-parameter IRT model - such as was used in TIMSS). Countries are then ranked according to these "scores," and although actual performance results are reported along with the rankings, it is the rankings that seem to have the most inherent meaning. The common interpretation of these rankings is that students in nations ranking at or near the "top" are achieving, or have learned, more than students in nations ranking lower. The implication is that the nations at the top have more effective educational systems, at least in particular subject areas, than do the nations at the bottom.

An example of this comes from the Third International Mathematics and Science Study. A portion of the data from this study was recently released. Despite many efforts to de-emphasize a focus on rankings in these results, country rankings were reported and have been widely discussed in the press, among policy makers, and among researchers. The important messages in TIMSS, like those messages from many previous cross-national studies, are in danger of being lost in what has become an "international horse race."

You have to remember Zepp that what is taught in a US school is not always the same thing being taught in Canada land. Just like your grading scale is different then ours. How could you honestly rely on international rankings to "prove" that the US Student is nothing more then a blundering idiot?


Nice job copying and pasting an argument from somebody elses work without having the decency to properly attribute it (http://timss.msu.edu/aera97.htm)

Do they teach plagiarism in school these days? Or is it just a hobby for you?

Nor, if you went back to the start of this thread, did I ever call US students "blundering idiots"?

Nope.

All I suggested was that the Republicans were failing to deliver on GWs promised increases to Pell grant availablity that he repeatedly stressed during the debates. And mentioning that making such grants harder to get would have a detrimental effect on the availability of college education to many citizens, which was not - to my mind - in the best interests in the country.

The person who tried to turn this into a "my country is better than your country" pissing contest.... was YOU.

The baby boomers are the last generation that will manage success with that as the average education level. Look at people in their 30s and 40s now to see the future. And in that demographic having more education makes a HUGE diference.

And I don't think that a matching funds education savings plan equates to the welfare state. It is the hand up rather than a hand out, and helps people do what you suggest: save for education.

Up here it works like this:

You open the saving plan named for a given child (self-directed as to the type of investment with some rules as to what types are allowed). The Feds match up to 1200/year of your deposits. If your child chooses not to further their education you can withdraw your funds and the government gets theirs back too. In that case, you have saved for yourself.

So, if a poor family could just find a way to put aside $5 per week for a kid, by the time the kid was 18 with matching funds and a lowly 3% interest, the familly would have over $12,500 towards puting the kid into school. If they could take advantage of the full 1200/year, they would have over 60K saved.


You can call it welfare if you like, but it is programs like this that are the reasons why a higher percentage of Canadians pursue higher education than Americans. And in the long run, this will cost us less by having a better educated workforce.

I like the idea of ED IRAs myself. It's the same idea as a regular IRA, only that it is geared toward education. Besides, tuition usually costs less than retirement.

I like the idea of ED IRAs myself. It's the same idea as a regular IRA, only that it is geared toward education. Besides, tuition usually costs less than retirement.


Exactlty. Plus after this contribution to a child's future, hopefully they will then manage to embark on a career that keeps them requiring minimal (or no) dependance on other social programs throughout their lives. If this small early investment means a lifetime without ever needing a welfare cheque - then it more than pays for itself. And if it gets people used to the idea of saving for the future, then hopefully that will also carry over into their taking advantage of tax-sheltered retirement savings programs as well to lessen the community burdens down the road.

This is the type of program that is a hand up rather than a hand out - which is why I don't really consider it to be part of a "welfare state".

It's an ingenious plan. They're breeding more redneck highschool dropouts. Those translate into Bush votes.

It's even more ingenious then that.

If we expand the poor base then we can have a cheap labor force and thus increase the jobs.

Exactlty. Plus after this contribution to a child's future, hopefully they will then manage to embark on a career that keeps them requiring minimal (or no) dependance on other social programs throughout their lives. If this small early investment means a lifetime without ever needing a welfare cheque - then it more than pays for itself. And if it gets people used to the idea of saving for the future, then hopefully that will also carry over into their taking advantage of tax-sheltered retirement savings programs as well to lessen the community burdens down the road.

This is the type of program that is a hand up rather than a hand out - which is why I don't really consider it to be part of a "welfare state".
Well, the ED IRA is not matching funds, but it does tax exempt any contributions, to a point, of course. It's currently only $500/year, but I think that's a bit low. However, there is a drive to make all IRAs like Roth IRAs, designed for those that can contribute much, and are unlimited. Let's hope ED IRAs go the same way.

Well, the ED IRA is not matching funds, but it does tax exempt any contributions, to a point, of course. It's currently only $500/year, but I think that's a bit low. However, there is a drive to make all IRAs like Roth IRAs, designed for those that can contribute much, and are unlimited. Let's hope ED IRAs go the same way.

We have tax exempt retirement saving also, although we call them RSPs rather than IRAs. RESP (Registered Education Savings Plans) contributions are NOT tax-deductable due to the funds added by the government, but income earned by the investment is sheltered from taxation until withdrawn. At that point it is deemed income for the child, but given most college kids don't earn enough to pay taxes, and given that tuition and some other school expenses are tax-deductable anyway, it generally does not impose a tax burden on the child. So it really becomes an incentivized way to help citizens plan for their children's education.

And if your child does not go to college, then the principle you put in can be withdrawn without tax penalty (it was taxed when you earned it). The earned income gets taxed at a flat 20% but if you shift it into an RSP then this tax burden is almost entirely removed. And the government only takes back the contributions it put in. All the income earned on it remains yours.

It's even more ingenious then that.

If we expand the poor base then we can have a cheap labor force and thus increase the jobs.
Unfortunately the jobs don't pay enough to raise a family on. This gives people an incentive to join the militrary. You can get that GI bill and afford college, or join the reserves to supplement your pay. Then when the neocons want a war they have plenty of people to send.

You Are Not entitled To A College Education At Taxpayer Expense! Period.

You Are Not entitled To A College Education At Taxpayer Expense! Period.
Yeah, but if the taxpayers would provide college educations for everyone who is qualified we could have a richer and more productive society. Smart people create wealth. It's in everyone's best interest to have a better educated population.

Yeah, but if the taxpayers would provide college educations for everyone who is qualified we could have a richer and more productive society. Smart people create wealth. It's in everyone's best interest to have a better educated population.
You should have stopped at "Yeah." "But" just means "ignore everything I've said up to this point, and listen to what I'm going to say now, because it's what I really mean to say."

When were you appointed arbiter of what is in everyone's best interest? How many of these "marginalized" persons don't even want to go to college anyway? What gives anyone the right to stick their hand in my wallet and take my money, that I worked for, and give it to someone who may not even deserve it? Half the time a Pell Grant is just throwing money down the toilet, because the "student" ends up pissing away their chance at an education. Or ends up a brainwashed leftist.

You should have stopped at "Yeah." "But" just means "ignore everything I've said up to this point, and listen to what I'm going to say now, because it's what I really mean to say."

When were you appointed arbiter of what is in everyone's best interest? How many of these "marginalized" persons don't even want to go to college anyway? What gives anyone the right to stick their hand in my wallet and take my money, that I worked for, and give it to someone who may not even deserve it? Half the time a Pell Grant is just throwing money down the toilet, because the "student" ends up pissing away their chance at an education. Or ends up a brainwashed leftist.
Deserve's got nothing to do with it. Most people want certain government services. Fire dept., hospital, police, public education, etc. Most people are willing to pay taxes for these services. Since these people vote, and there's nothing in the constitution prohibiting taxation or government services they get their way.

Deserve's got nothing to do with it. Most people want certain government services. Fire dept., hospital, police, public education, etc. Most people are willing to pay taxes for these services. Since these people vote, and there's nothing in the constitution prohibiting taxation or government services they get their way.
You have GOT to be kidding! So now I'm just supposed to give money to any shit-head panhandler, just because he/she demands it? ROFLMAO! No f'ing way, dude. Get a job, and (gasp!) pay for your own education. If I can do it, anyone can, provided they have the intelligence and motivation required for getting a college education in the first place. If they don't, they certainly don't deserve to go on my dime; it's just a waste.

You have GOT to be kidding! So now I'm just supposed to give money to any shit-head panhandler, just because he/she demands it? ROFLMAO! No f'ing way, dude. Get a job, and (gasp!) pay for your own education. If I can do it, anyone can, provided they have the intelligence and motivation required for getting a college education in the first place. If they don't, they certainly don't deserve to go on my dime; it's just a waste.


Well, clearly becoming a brainwashed leftist isn't going to be a problem for you.....

Indeed, the thought of you becoming a compassionate human being seems a stretch.


However, if you WERE qualified for such programs - as your description of your circumstance would tend to indicate - and you turned down a Pell Grant or failed to apply, then frankly I question your vaunted "intelligence". After all - as you point out - it IS coming from your tax dollars.


However, I find it odd. Did you also complain that your high school was funded by tax dollars? Or your elementary school?

Why this notion that at a certain point education no longer becomes a service that should be deemed to be for the betterment of all and a shared responsibility?

Or do you think that this should start from the beginning and that if Kindergarden kids were really smart enough and motivated enough that they would go out and get jobs too?

A better educated society is a society better equiped to enrich the nation. Putting up barriers becomes a shared burden that you will pay for in the long run.

You have GOT to be kidding! So now I'm just supposed to give money to any shit-head panhandler, just because he/she demands it? ROFLMAO! No f'ing way, dude. Get a job, and (gasp!) pay for your own education. If I can do it, anyone can, provided they have the intelligence and motivation required for getting a college education in the first place. If they don't, they certainly don't deserve to go on my dime; it's just a waste.
Nobody said you have to give money to panhandlers. Unless your are a christian, but I digress. You DO have to pay your taxes, and you have little say beyond your vote as to how those taxes are spent.