NationStates Jolt Archive

Since the Nixon administration, when "[...]affirmative action was adopted as a federal mandate for companies with federal contracts and for labor unions whose workers were engaged in those projects." (-Wikipedia), it seems Republicans have done little to solve the problems of racism and poverty in the United States. They denounce welfare as "ineffective", but fail to put forth a better option. Is there any conservative or Republican here who has a recommendation concerning what could be done?

Let the free market work, and everyone will have jobs, and we'll live in a utopia of a society.

Oh wait, shit...

Let the free market work, and everyone will have jobs, and we'll live in a utopia of a society.

Oh wait, shit...

Thats pretty much their suggestion. Funny how close it is to the satirization of their opinion, isnt it?:p

For one thing, you could allow school vouchers and charter schools, so the poor aren't trapped in hell holes during their development years.

For one thing, you could allow school vouchers and charter schools, so the poor aren't trapped in hell holes during their development years.

Or we could actually fund education.


That would work too.

For one thing, you could allow school vouchers and charter schools, so the poor aren't trapped in hell holes during their development years.

Or instead of giving more breaks to the wealthy, you could take those vouchers and fund the schools.

For one thing, you could allow school vouchers and charter schools, so the poor aren't trapped in hell holes during their development years.

Or we could actually fund education.


That would work too.

Or instead of giving more breaks to the wealthy, you could take those vouchers and fund the schools.

Vouchers are a form of welfare aren't they?

Vouchers are a form of welfare aren't they?

Why do you hate freedoms?

Vouchers are a form of welfare aren't they?
its not welfare if MY kid gets it.

For one thing, you could allow school vouchers and charter schools, so the poor aren't trapped in hell holes during their development years.

exactly. If the schools are underfunded, we can give some of them vouchers to go to better schools. And we can get the money for these vouchers from the school budge---

Ahh, I see what you did there.

its not welfare if MY kid gets it.

Or you could be in a state of denial!

Or instead of giving more breaks to the wealthy, you could take those vouchers and fund the schools.

Now see, this is what doesn't make sense to me. The US spends more money per secondary school student then every other nation on earth with the exception of Switzerland and Austria (source) (http://www.nationmaster.com/graph/edu_spe_per_sec_sch_stu-spending-per-secondary-school-student). We're obviously doing it rong. The public school system in the US is not only failing its students, its failing the taxpayer. Is the average USian just dumber? lulzpun

Now see, this is what doesn't make sense to me. The US spends more money per secondary school student then every other nation on earth with the exception of Switzerland and Austria (source) (http://www.nationmaster.com/graph/edu_spe_per_sec_sch_stu-spending-per-secondary-school-student). We're obviously doing it rong. The public school system in the US is not only failing its students, its failing the taxpayer. Is the average USian just dumber? lulzpun

You almost got me! :)

You almost got me! :)

I try, I try.

But I think it's legitimate. There is obviously a funding-achievement gap. We're not getting substantially less bang for our educational buck/quid/teuro. Instead of throwing money at the problem ad nauseum, I think we should determine why our money isn't going as far as those in other nations, and attempt to rectify the situation with present resources.

I have an idea (!) of how to accomplish this, but I'm afraid it will be ignored/flamed.

I try, I try.

But I think it's legitimate. There is obviously a funding-achievement gap. We're not getting substantially less bang for our educational buck/quid/teuro. Instead of throwing money at the problem ad nauseum, I think we should determine why our money isn't going as far as those in other nations, and attempt to rectify the situation with present resources.

I have an idea (!) of how to accomplish this, but I'm afraid it will be ignored/flamed.

Blame the way it's all set up. We have like 21 districts in my county, each with their own superintendent, et al. If we had......two, more money would go to the schools.

Blame the way it's all set up. We have like 21 districts in my county, each with their own superintendent, et al. If we had......two, more money would go to the schools.

I agree that administration is a huge and probably unnecessary expense, but I don't think that increasing centralization is the best course of action. I think that increasing centralization makes the educational establishment less flexible and less able to respond to the needs of the community.

Or you could be in a state of denial!
could be.

but luckily in real life my son never got a voucher so im clean.

I agree that administration is a huge and probably unnecessary expense, but I don't think that increasing centralization is the best course of action. I think that increasing centralization makes the educational establishment less flexible and less able to respond to the needs of the community.
It's the only thing I can think of without radically changing what school is (although I would rather radically change what school is!)

It's the only thing I can think of without radically changing what school is (although I would rather radically change what school is!)

Considering how bad some school districts are, perhaps radical change is needed.

Or not.

Also, I like pie.

I try, I try.

But I think it's legitimate. There is obviously a funding-achievement gap. We're not getting substantially less bang for our educational buck/quid/teuro. Instead of throwing money at the problem ad nauseum, I think we should determine why our money isn't going as far as those in other nations, and attempt to rectify the situation with present resources.

I have an idea (!) of how to accomplish this, but I'm afraid it will be ignored/flamed.

Just tell us the idea then I promise we'll all rationally review it, before we flame and ignore you.

I try, I try.

But I think it's legitimate. There is obviously a funding-achievement gap. We're not getting substantially less bang for our educational buck/quid/teuro. Instead of throwing money at the problem ad nauseum, I think we should determine why our money isn't going as far as those in other nations, and attempt to rectify the situation with present resources.

I have an idea (!) of how to accomplish this, but I'm afraid it will be ignored/flamed.

Blame the way it's all set up. We have like 21 districts in my county, each with their own superintendent, et al. If we had......two, more money would go to the schools.

I agree that administration is a huge and probably unnecessary expense, but I don't think that increasing centralization is the best course of action. I think that increasing centralization makes the educational establishment less flexible and less able to respond to the needs of the community.

To me this is typical of the type of cognitive dissonance many suffer from on the issue of education. You want efficient and effective administration of our schools and overall high standards of achievement, but you also want "local control and flexibility."

I will fully admit my ignorance of how schools are run in other nations with which the USA must compete, but do many of them make local school districts the primary organizational tool and location of power over education -- let alone using local land taxes as a primary funding source?

To me this is typical of the type of cognitive dissonance many suffer from on the issue of education. You want efficient and effective administration of our schools and overall high standards of achievement, but you also want "local control and flexibility."

I will fully admit my ignorance of how schools are run in other nations with which the USA must compete, but do many of them make local school districts the primary organizational tool and location of power over education -- let alone using local land taxes as a primary funding source?

Yes yes, I am an idiot. We all know this. I pale next to your superior, enlightened intelligence.

Now that we have the obvious out of the way, many states have stopped the direct funding of school districts through local taxes. Many now have all property tax money go to the state, which is then redistributed on a per pupil basis to all school districts.

Yes yes, I am an idiot. We all know this. I pale next to your superior, enlightened intelligence.

:rolleyes:

Now that we have the obvious out of the way, many states have stopped the direct funding of school districts through local taxes. Many now have all property tax money go to the state, which is then redistributed on a per pupil basis to all school districts.

I am aware of this trend, but would be happy to be enlightened as to how many states have actually done this.

Regardless, the problems of local control remain and, unless I misunderstand something, the source of funds is still unpopular property taxes.

:rolleyes:


I just thought I would get the obvious out of the way first. I know that I am just a simple, uneducated country yokel, and nothing I say should be taken seriously by anyone.


I am aware of this trend, but would be happy to be enlightened as to how many states have actually done this.

Regardless, the problems of local control remain and, unless I misunderstand something, the source of funds is still unpopular property taxes.

I do not know. However, it is the most fair to those in the state. Rich kids should not get the best education by virtue of being born wealthy.

Now, on the subject of funding, I could care less. Property taxes are simply a means to and en. Done right, property taxes can progressively fund a school system or help the state fund all school systems.

I do not say that the present districting system is an ideal system or even the best system available. I am simply concerned that putting all schools under an overarching administration that has direct control over all schools would eliminate the benefits of the present districting system whilst not fully compensating in administration savings.

I just thought I would get the obvious out of the way first. I know that I am just a simple, uneducated country yokel, and nothing I say should be taken seriously by anyone.

Are you the former President of the United States?

To me this is typical of the type of cognitive dissonance many suffer from on the issue of education. You want efficient and effective administration of our schools and overall high standards of achievement, but you also want "local control and flexibility."

I will fully admit my ignorance of how schools are run in other nations with which the USA must compete, but do many of them make local school districts the primary organizational tool and location of power over education -- let alone using local land taxes as a primary funding source?

I really couldn't care less about "local control and flexibility", if all the schools had the same curriculum I wouldn't care. My kids don't go to school, so the only really effect it has on me is the idiots that I have to deal with on a daily basis that "graduate" from the school system. If there is a better way to run it, or even a new way that might work.....maybe it's time to try that.

Are you the former President of the United States?

Obviously.

I bet you didn't know Millard Filmore was a regular contributor, did you?

Since the Nixon administration, when "[...]affirmative action was adopted as a federal mandate for companies with federal contracts and for labor unions whose workers were engaged in those projects." (-Wikipedia), it seems Republicans have done little to solve the problems of racism and poverty in the United States. They denounce welfare as "ineffective", but fail to put forth a better option. Is there any conservative or Republican here who has a recommendation concerning what could be done?
Who says that government should combat racism. The way I see it that'd be a form of thought policing since racism is an ideology. It's a belief that race is a serious determining factor in what a person can and can't do. That is protected by the First Amendment to the Constitution of the United States. Freedom and expression of belief is widely held as one of the most basic human rights, to deny a person that right because you don't like what they believe kinda makes you a bigot.

As for welfare, it was actually being reformed under Clinton and though it wasn't much it was still a start.

Who says that government should combat racism. The way I see it that'd be a form of thought policing since racism is an ideology. It's a belief that race is a serious determining factor in what a person can and can't do. That is protected by the First Amendment to the Constitution of the United States. Freedom and expression of belief is widely held as one of the most basic human rights, to deny a person that right because you don't like what they believe kinda makes you a bigot.

So do you denounce Eisenhower calling in federal troops to desegregate the Little Rock, Arkansas school system after Governor Orville Faubus called in the State National Guard to block integration?

Or we could actually fund education.


That would work too.

Yea because Charlotte Mecklenburg School System are the best in the country because the county keeps throwing money at it! Never mind the fact that they have under performing schools and a high drop out rate. Hmm, maybe we need to throw more money at it?

CMS had a $4 million budget in 2007-2008 and he wanted a $28 million increase for 2008-2009. Even though North Carolina overall has seen a decrease in drop out rates, Charlotte Mecklenburg has hit below average on the reduction.

Maybe the problem isn't that the school isn't funded well enough, maybe the problem is elsewhere.

Yea because Charlotte Mecklenburg School System are the best in the country because the county keeps throwing money at it! Never mind the fact that they have under performing schools and a high drop out rate. Hmm, maybe we need to throw more money at it?

CMS had a $4 million budget in 2007-2008 and he wanted a $28 million increase for 2008-2009. Even though North Carolina overall has seen a decrease in drop out rates, Charlotte Mecklenburg has hit below average on the reduction.

Maybe the problem isn't that the school isn't funded well enough, maybe the problem is elsewhere.

corrupt teachers unions and lack of competition.

So do you denounce Eisenhower calling in federal troops to desegregate the Little Rock, Arkansas school system after Governor Orville Faubus called in the State National Guard to block integration?
You're trying (and failing) to twist my words. Racism is an ideology. Segregation is a practice. I'm all for everyone being equal before the law and allowing anyone to use public/government property like schools or city hall but I draw a line at trying to topple an idea because that is thought policing and that is wrong. The First Amendment doesn't just protect people's right to disagree with government, it also protects the most vitriolic Neo-Nazi hate speech and that's the way it should be. If they still have their say then you and I know we aren't in danger of losing ours.

It's the only thing I can think of without radically changing what school is (although I would rather radically change what school is!)

Gotta agree with you about school needing a radical change. The current school systems I am familiar with definately are industrial age institutions in an information age world.

Since the Nixon administration, when "[...]affirmative action was adopted as a federal mandate for companies with federal contracts and for labor unions whose workers were engaged in those projects." (-Wikipedia), it seems Republicans have done little to solve the problems of racism and poverty in the United States. They denounce welfare as "ineffective", but fail to put forth a better option. Is there any conservative or Republican here who has a recommendation concerning what could be done?

You raise two separate issues here, namely, the proper role of government in regards to welfare and racism.

Welfare is a rather broad topic. Public education and the dole are both welfare programs but I am pretty sure that most Republicans and I only object to the dole. Certainly there are other welfare aspects that might need to be changed or ended but these are for practical and not philosophical reasons. For example, there is nothing philosophically wrong with the idea of a taxpayer paying into a social security benefits program and then getting the benefits when they are elderly, but the social security system is inefficient and poorly run.

The dole needs to be ended. If the people want to provide for the subsitance of the poor there are many food banks and other charities like the Salvation Army that they can give their money to. A dole might be ok for handicapped people but it is certainly not appropriate for the able bodied. Instead, business and investment must be encouraged by a comprehensive pro-business policy.

The government should be silent on the issue of race. No law must give anyone any benefit or detriment based on their parentage. The free market will obviously make sure that racial discrimination is not a major problem. For example, lets say that I only want to hire Eskimoes named Nanook. I would have a much smaller talent pool from which to recruit employees than the company down the street that will employ people based on their talent alone. Everytime that a company limits its potential labor pool it gives itself a competetive disadvantage compared to those companies that do not limit their labor pool. Obviously, the same can be said for limiting customers to only members of certain races.

In the event that there is ever any attempt at genocide, this must be met with strong military opposition. There must never again be a genocide. This hould be the limit of governmnetal involvement with race.

corrupt teachers unions and lack of competition.

I'm not sure that all students want an education, nor do I believe that all parents believe that a public school education is valuable.

Compulsory high school education is just that, compulsory. Perhaps we should make it voluntary, and see if the quality of the graduates improves.

I'm not sure that all students want an education, nor do I believe that all parents believe that a public school education is valuable.

Compulsory high school education is just that, compulsory. Perhaps we should make it voluntary, and see if the quality of the graduates improves.

Can we at least drop the whole "You must stay in school till you're 16" crap? If the kid wants the drop out, then they're going to drop out, it doesn't matter if they do it at 14, or 16.

I think you're right, not all students want an education, so why are we forcing them to get one?

You raise two separate issues here, namely, the proper role of government in regards to welfare and racism.

Welfare is a rather broad topic. Public education and the dole are both welfare programs but I am pretty sure that most Republicans and I only object to the dole. Certainly there are other welfare aspects that might need to be changed or ended but these are for practical and not philosophical reasons. For example, there is nothing philosophically wrong with the idea of a taxpayer paying into a social security benefits program and then getting the benefits when they are elderly, but the social security system is inefficient and poorly run.

The dole needs to be ended. If the people want to provide for the subsitance of the poor there are many food banks and other charities like the Salvation Army that they can give their money to. A dole might be ok for handicapped people but it is certainly not appropriate for the able bodied. Instead, business and investment must be encouraged by a comprehensive pro-business policy.

I understand your point, but poverty and discrimination are still major issues in America that need to be resolved; they will not just sort themselves out, as they have had hundreds of years to do so. If the Government does not fix these problems, who will? Slaves were not freed by capitalism; schools were not integrated by capitalism; gaps are not being closed by it.

The government should be silent on the issue of race. No law must give anyone any benefit or detriment based on their parentage. The free market will obviously make sure that racial discrimination is not a major problem. For example, lets say that I only want to hire Eskimoes named Nanook. I would have a much smaller talent pool from which to recruit employees than the company down the street that will employ people based on their talent alone. Everytime that a company limits its potential labor pool it gives itself a competetive disadvantage compared to those companies that do not limit their labor pool. Obviously, the same can be said for limiting customers to only members of certain races.

Capitalism does not correct discrimination.
http://www.forbes.com/forbes/2009/0316/072_terminated_women.html

In the event that there is ever any attempt at genocide, this must be met with strong military opposition. There must never again be a genocide. This hould be the limit of governmnetal involvement with race.

There is a massive racial gap; what should be done about it? You say: "nothing"?

You're trying (and failing) to twist my words. Racism is an ideology. Segregation is a practice. I'm all for everyone being equal before the law and allowing anyone to use public/government property like schools or city hall but I draw a line at trying to topple an idea because that is thought policing and that is wrong. The First Amendment doesn't just protect people's right to disagree with government, it also protects the most vitriolic Neo-Nazi hate speech and that's the way it should be. If they still have their say then you and I know we aren't in danger of losing ours.

Something is preventing minorities from performing as well as whites; how do you suggest we fix the problem?

Something is preventing minorities from performing as well as whites; how do you suggest we fix the problem?

As I understand it, at least part of the problem is a cultural antipathy towards education on the part of some minority groups.

But it doesn't seem that affirmative action is a very good solution.

What's needed is a restructuring and redfinition of education...

Something is preventing minorities from performing as well as whites; how do you suggest we fix the problem?

Let's say it's cultural (just as a possibility). Say for instance that there's something they don't like about education (let's say their culture doesn't value education as highly as another culture).

A good example might be Ashkenazi Jews. Despite being persecuted, driven from country to country, and often killed, they placed a very high value on education, and despite being excluded from many places of higher learning over time, they produce more doctors, lawyers, engineers, and Nobel prize winners than any other ethnic group.

If you prize hip hop culture, then you're not going to be interested in staying in school. You'll want to sell drugs - and who needs a public school education to do that?

Let's say it's cultural (just as a possibility). Say for instance that there's something they don't like about education (let's say their culture doesn't value education as highly as another culture).

A good example might be Ashkenazi Jews. Despite being persecuted, driven from country to country, and often killed, they placed a very high value on education, and despite being excluded from many places of higher learning over time, they produce more doctors, lawyers, engineers, and Nobel prize winners than any other ethnic group.

They also once dominated basketball.

If you prize hip hop culture, then you're not going to be interested in staying in school. You'll want to sell drugs - and who needs a public school education to do that?

If a child is raised in a place where only criminals succeed, and education is discouraged, and he becomes and uneducated criminal, something must be done. Greater problems can arise later--discrimination against minorities due to assumption they come from a "hip hop" culture. Let us not forget that culture is a product of environment.

If a child is raised in a place where only criminals succeed, and education is discouraged, and he becomes and uneducated criminal, something must be done. Greater problems can arise later--discrimination against minorities due to assumption they come from a "hip hop" culture. Let us not forget that culture is a product of environment.

Crime is always a choice.

I think the problem is that compulsory education isn't a solution - if you bring kids who don't want to be educated into the system, they won't succeed in the system.

Other ethnic and cultural groups have forsaken crime over time (by and large). Perhaps it's only a matter of waiting long enough.

Crime is always a choice.

You cannot expect someone who has been taught all his life that crime is good to know it bad. Our morals are given to us by our parents and friends.

I think the problem is that compulsory education isn't a solution - if you bring kids who don't want to be educated into the system, they won't succeed in the system.

I believe completely the opposite. Education is the solution to problems such as illegal immigration and crime.

Other ethnic and cultural groups have forsaken crime over time (by and large). Perhaps it's only a matter of waiting long enough.

We have waited quite long enough: I do not think persons living in our nation should continue to suffer poverty and death while we sit on our hands.

We have waited quite long enough: I do not think persons living in our nation should continue to suffer poverty and death while we sit on our hands.

Most of the "death" seems to come from illicit drug trade. If it were legal, there wouldn't be any "illicit" and "death" component.

Then what would poor people do? Because drugs would then be sold by corporations.

You cannot expect someone who has been taught all his life that crime is good to know it bad. Our morals are given to us by our parents and friends.



I believe completely the opposite. Education is the solution to problems such as illegal immigration and crime.



We have waited quite long enough: I do not think persons living in our nation should continue to suffer poverty and death while we sit on our hands.

Yea, but if those kids go in there, and they don't want to learn. Then they're just going to be disruptive to the rest of the people who do want to learn. They'll just come in, sleep, or play with their phones, talk to their other "homies", etc. Or they'll just skip classes etc. They'll do anything and everything but actually sit down and learn.

It's great to talk about how education will solve all of our problems, but until the students want to learn, education isn't going to do a damn thing.

corrupt teachers unions and lack of competition.

Yes, thats the real problem.

Its all the teacher's fault. Wanting to be paid a living wage and to have health insurance, when all they have to do is deal with other people's brats all day!

And not enough competition! Competetition fixes everything.

Yes, thats the real problem.

Its all the teacher's fault. Wanting to be paid a living wage and to have health insurance, when all they have to do is deal with other people's brats all day!

And not enough competition! Competetition fixes everything.

http://www.wtps.org/wths/imc/images/staff%20picks/pics%20for%20staff%20picks/Jennifer%20Government.bmp

Yea, but if those kids go in there, and they don't want to learn. Then they're just going to be disruptive to the rest of the people who do want to learn. They'll just come in, sleep, or play with their phones, talk to their other "homies", etc. Or they'll just skip classes etc. They'll do anything and everything but actually sit down and learn.

It's great to talk about how education will solve all of our problems, but until the students want to learn, education isn't going to do a damn thing.

It is our responsibility to do everything in our power to make those children want to learn. We should speak with their parents, encourage the children, discover what their problems are and solve them. Education is what separates us from the Dark Ages.

Most of the "death" seems to come from illicit drug trade. If it were legal, there wouldn't be any "illicit" and "death" component.

I fully support the legalization of drugs, but that obviously will not solve the issue. For instance, more African-Americans are still-born than whites.

Then what would poor people do? Because drugs would then be sold by corporations.

Is this sarcastic, or are you recommending drugs as a way of fixing poverty and racial inequality?

By the way, you still have not addressed my point about "choice" in crime.

Yes, thats the real problem.

Its all the teacher's fault. Wanting to be paid a living wage and to have health insurance, when all they have to do is deal with other people's brats all day!

And not enough competition! Competetition fixes everything.

I was thinking more along the lines of making it almost impossible to fire an incompetent teacher.

And lack of competition has done wonders for our education system thus far.
look at the #1 rated school system in the world Finland they got their by competition. And the school funding per student is significantly less then ours.

I was thinking more along the lines of making it almost impossible to fire an incompetent teacher.

And lack of competition has done wonders for our education system thus far.
look at the #1 rated school system in the world Finland they got their by competition. And the school funding per student is significantly less then ours.

If you are going to mention Finland, you might want to look at their pay scales.

Teachers are paid WAY more then ours.

You aren't going to convince many people to leave industry and go to teaching simply because da ebul union is dead.

I understand your point, but poverty and discrimination are still major issues in America that need to be resolved; they will not just sort themselves out, as they have had hundreds of years to do so. If the Government does not fix these problems, who will? Slaves were not freed by capitalism; schools were not integrated by capitalism; gaps are not being closed by it.

Capitalism does not correct discrimination.
http://www.forbes.com/forbes/2009/0316/072_terminated_women.html

There is a massive racial gap; what should be done about it? You say: "nothing"?

There might be plenty of room for improving education across the country so that every child can have the opportunity to get a good education. I agree on that.

Capitalism can fix racial discrimination. If racial discrimination is permitted firms that do not discriminate will have an edge on those that do not. Do you agree with me that this is reasonable? If I hired people based on who was best for the job I would have the best people. If I sold to anybody who could buy my products without worrying about their skin color, I would sell more products than if I limited my customer base. Does this make sense to you? Sure we would have racial and other discrimination but the non-dicriminatory firms, all other things being equal, should prevail over those that discriminate.

Although I do not have any sources to cite I recall from my history education several discussions about how the Industrial Revolution would have eventually made slavery obsolete.

There are many gaps in our society. There are poor areas and there are wealthy areas. Should poor areas get some more federal funding for schools and infrastructure? Yes, they should. Should people get governmental benefits or detriments based upon their race? No way!

There might be plenty of room for improving education across the country so that every child can have the opportunity to get a good education. I agree on that.

Jolly fine!

Capitalism can fix racial discrimination. If racial discrimination is permitted firms that do not discriminate will have an edge on those that do not. Do you agree with me that this is reasonable? If I hired people based on who was best for the job I would have the best people. If I sold to anybody who could buy my products without worrying about their skin color, I would sell more products than if I limited my customer base. Does this make sense to you? Sure we would have racial and other discrimination but the non-dicriminatory firms, all other things being equal, should prevail over those that discriminate.

Supposing you are right, and this will all work-out in the future: do you not agree that if discrimination will persist another hundred years (as it has since the beginning of this nation) something should be done about it right now, so as to minimize the victims?

Although I do not have any sources to cite I recall from my history education several discussions about how the Industrial Revolution would have eventually made slavery obsolete.

Certainly. But I still believe making slavery illegal was good idea; we cannot be idle while innocent men, women, and children, are bred and whipped like animals.

There are many gaps in our society. There are poor areas and there are wealthy areas. Should poor areas get some more federal funding for schools and infrastructure? Yes, they should. Should people get governmental benefits or detriments based upon their race? No way!

This is all dandy, but you still have failed to put forth a better option, even if you believe the liberal one is nonsense.

If you are going to mention Finland, you might want to look at their pay scales.

Teachers are paid WAY more then ours.

You aren't going to convince many people to leave industry and go to teaching simply because da ebul union is dead.

I am not against giving the teachers money. that would be one of the benefits of the competition that good teachers get paid more.

The teachers unions have been against competition largely because they fear the change.

Look at private schools they also pay their teachers more and still spend less per student.
Per student the Us education system is funded. where the funding goes is the issue. with competition these things work themselves out. Or you can try and keep the old system and micro manage every detail.

It is our responsibility to do everything in our power to make those children want to learn. We should speak with their parents, encourage the children, discover what their problems are and solve them. Education is what separates us from the Dark Ages.

I have spent time as a college student in the education system, and honestly, the kids that don't want to learn are dead weight. They're bringing down the school average, they're bringing down the quality of education, teachers spend time disciplining them that could've been used to teach the other kids. Honestly, apathy has set in for me, so I say cut the the dead weight loose.

I am not against giving the teachers money. that would be one of the benefits of the competition that good teachers get paid more.

The teachers unions have been against competition largely because they fear the change.

Look at private schools they also pay their teachers more and still spend less per student.
Per student the Us education system is funded. where the funding goes is the issue. with competition these things work themselves out. Or you can try and keep the old system and micro manage every detail.

Hmmm Could it be the union came into being simply because teachers were underpaid and tossed when they became to expensive(ie experienced).

You want to solve teaching, start paying them more. Many people in industry would take on teaching if it paid a living wage.

Problem is it means more taxes.

Repubs like to talk about education until is requires taxes.

Hmmm Could it be the union came into being simply because teachers were underpaid and tossed when they became to expensive(ie experienced).

You want to solve teaching, start paying them more. Many people in industry would take on teaching if it paid a living wage.

Problem is it means more taxes.

Repubs like to talk about education until is requires taxes.

or we could just stop buying all the unnecessary crap. My math class room had 5 internet connected computers (back in 1997). this was not needed for a class room whose sole purpose was to teach algebra 2 to freshman.
there is no need to raise taxes, we fund our schools more then anyone. All we got to do is stop funding stupid programs like no child left behind and shift it into funding teachers and providing incentives based on performance.

And don't mistake me for a republican that I am not.


on to the living wage issue
http://www.aft.org/salary/

I didn't realize that 51,000 dollars a year was not a living wage. seems to be just a tad above the average wage in the US don't ya think?

Supposing you are right, and this will all work-out in the future: do you not agree that if discrimination will persist another hundred years (as it has since the beginning of this nation) something should be done about it right now, so as to minimize the victims?

This is all dandy, but you still have failed to put forth a better option, even if you believe the liberal one is nonsense.

I think that a hand off approach is the best (of course we need to make sure that there is equal protection of the laws regardless of race and that there are no genocides throughout the world). I do not see any need to regulate the economy. Let companies be racist. It does not mean that you have to work there, invest in that company, or buy their products.

We need more economic opportunity. This should fix poverty. If there are plenty of jobs and plenty of entrepeneurial opportunitues there should be less poverty. A strong economy can do more to fight poverty than a million regulations. There must be greater access to capital for entrepeneurs and more support for businesses and education.

My plan to achieve this is greater school funding to poor areas from the federal government, the lowest taxes in the world to encourage foreign and domestic investment in the economy, no dole entitlements (except for the handicapped) and no public debt so we do not need to have huge budgets to service the debt.

I would also like to see other steps taken to make our economy more efficient. I would like an end to the war on drugs so we do not have that problem to worry about anymore. I would like all prisoners who can work to be bid out to private businesses as cheap labor. I would like protective tariffs that will guaranty that the goods in our country have a cost that internalizes the environmental costs of the production of that good. I also would like all children from bad homes taken out of bad situations and placed in good homes or if that is impossible then boarding schools.

or we could just stop buying all the unnecessary crap. My math class room had 5 internet connected computers (back in 1997). this was not needed for a class room whose sole purpose was to teach algebra 2 to freshman.
there is no need to raise taxes, we fund our schools more then anyone. All we got to do is stop funding stupid programs like no child left behind and shift it into funding teachers and providing incentives based on performance.

And don't mistake me for a republican that I am not.


on to the living wage issue
http://www.aft.org/salary/

I didn't realize that 51,000 dollars a year was not a living wage. seems to be just a tad above the average wage in the US don't ya think?

You think there is a great deal of money on No child? :) I will let one of our teachers tell you.

Hmmm many teachers I know don't make that.

Look at Finland wages. That number is still less then the starting wage of a teacher there. They have waiting lists to teach.

It is our responsibility to do everything in our power to make those children want to learn. We should speak with their parents, encourage the children, discover what their problems are and solve them. Education is what separates us from the Dark Ages.

No it is not. If children do not want to learn, that is a shame but it is their right. Education comes from the Greek word "educare" which means to lead out of ignorance. If children do not want to be led out of ignorance they blew their opportunity. I am worried about the children that want to learn. If they want to learn they should be able to learn. It should not matter if they are rich or poor or black or white or live in the city or the country.

Let the free market work, and everyone will have jobs, and we'll live in a utopia of a society.
Well, yeah.

And it's true.

Let the free market work, and everyone will have jobs, and we'll live in a utopia of a society.

Gallo-dono, optimistic?:eek2:

Well, yeah.

And it's true.

We will never live in a utopia but free markets will cause a lot of progress because it promotes innovation.

For example, there is nothing philosophically wrong with the idea of a taxpayer paying into a social security benefits program and then getting the benefits when they are elderly
There is when he's forced to participate in it whether he wants to or not.

Not to mention, you know, that's not how Social Security actually works. That's how it was sold to the public, but given that the first recipient of a Social Security check paid about $25 into the system and got back over $22,000, it's quite obvious that it was sold with a bald-faced lie.

Capitalism does not correct discrimination.


So what if it doesn't?

If people want to discriminate in their private business or social affairs based on criteria you and I think are ridiculous, that's their business. Freedom of association and all that...

You think there is a great deal of money on No child? :) I will let one of our teachers tell you.

Hmmm many teachers I know don't make that.

Look at Finland wages. That number is still less then the starting wage of a teacher there. They have waiting lists to teach.

No child is more or less just a waste. Good intentions but by and large a poorly written law that is a waste of the paper it was written on.


Its an Average depending on where you live and the cost of living. Cost of living I suspect is part of the reason Finnish teachers get paid more.
Another issue with teachers is inflexibility of the labor market. Each state has different requirements to teach. So if state A suffers a population boom and raises its wages, teachers in state B have a hard time getting credentials to teach over there. We need one set of credentials to teach anywhere with in the US. So Teachers can go where the money is.

Gallo-dono, optimistic?:eek2:

Sarcastic is more likely.

We need one set of credentials to teach anywhere with in the US. So Teachers can go where the money is.

Eliminate "credentialing." Those who can demonstrate, to the satisfaction of the school, that they know the material inside and out and can teach it well get the job, regardless of what pieces of paper they have.

Eliminate "credentialing." Those who can demonstrate, to the satisfaction of the school, that they know the material inside and out and can teach it well get the job, regardless of what pieces of paper they have.

id still require college degrees.
otherwise lets eliminate medical credentialing, if the patient thinks i am good enough to operate on him who is to stop me?

id still require college degrees.
otherwise lets eliminate medical credentialing, if the patient thinks i am good enough to operate on him who is to stop me?

Did you wash your hands?

Did you wash your hands?

yep and sterilized them with vodka

id still require college degrees.
otherwise lets eliminate medical credentialing, if the patient thinks i am good enough to operate on him who is to stop me?

Well, exactly.

It's my own business, after all. If I want to take that risk, that's my prerogative.

Well, exactly.

It's my own business, after all. If I want to take that risk, that's my prerogative.

but kids only get one shot at education. also an important part of the credentialing is the back ground check, unless you want your kids taught by Mr. Pedo.

Sarcastic is more likely.

<.<

Yeah. I read between the lines.:tongue:

I'd advocate doing sweet FA, and allow the issue to organically solve itself.

There is when he's forced to participate in it whether he wants to or not.

Not to mention, you know, that's not how Social Security actually works. That's how it was sold to the public, but given that the first recipient of a Social Security check paid about $25 into the system and got back over $22,000, it's quite obvious that it was sold with a bald-faced lie.

SS needs reformed or even scrapped but at least the beneficiary contributed something toward the benefits.

I'd advocate doing sweet FA, and allow the issue to organically solve itself.

What is sweet FA?

What is sweet FA?

Take a guess.

Free agency?

Because it's worked wonders for the NFL...

Take a guess.

I do not know. Does it stand for some slang term?

I do not know. Does it stand for some slang term?

Were it "slang", it would simply be "slang", it wouldn't "stand for" "slang". Really though, you cannot be that obtuse.

Were it "slang", it would simply be "slang", it wouldn't "stand for" "slang". Really though, you cannot be that obtuse.

The context seems to mean "doing nothing at all". Yet your reluctance to tell me what it means makes me think it is something nasty. Now I am even more curious:confused:

The context seems to mean "doing nothing at all". Yet your reluctance to tell me what it means makes me think it is something nasty. Now I am even more curious:confused:

Well quite, I'm simply aghast at the thought you might discover what I meant to express anyway, and what I should imagine anybody born on my sceptred isle would know at the least. Hence why I used the expression.

Well quite, I'm simply aghast at the thought you might discover what I meant to express anyway, and what I should imagine anybody born on my sceptred isle would know at the least. Hence why I used the expression.

Ok, now I suspect that you might be British. Is "fuck all" a British slang term for "nothing"? I am an American and only know about uniquely British language from TV.

Ok, now I suspect that you might be British. Is "fuck all" a British slang term for "nothing"? I am an American and only know about uniquely British language from TV.

Slightly British.

Indeed, I would so nothing to rectify such discrimination as exists by favouring ethnic candidates over others unless they are better qualified.

Slightly British.

Indeed, I would so nothing to rectify such discrimination as exists by favouring ethnic candidates over others unless they are better qualified.

This is threadjack but how can you be slightly British? Isn't that like being slightly pregnant?