Political Common Ground
POSTED BY: dreamtrove
UPDATED: Wednesday, November 30, 2005 00:16
VIEWED: 5611
PAGE 2 of 5
Education:
Remember please, these positions, even the final ones aren't MY positions, they are my attempt at consensus positions.
Here as the positions as I understand them:
Fletch: govt. get a say in what get's taught.
Okay, fletch, I'm going to temper that, hope this is okay with you. Here's my neo-fletch statement restated:
Govt. gets to say XYZ must be taught.
The reason I stated this is that you can't trust govt. to be wise. It's always possible that govt. will decide that it wants evolution to NOT be taught. This is actually a pretty likely scenario. Since education is state controlled, in both the US and in the RU (since an EU nation is analagous to a US state, roughly both in size and population) And we already have a couple states in the US moving in that direction. There's a wide host of other things that people might want NOT taught. But the children should still have the right to go to a school where that taboo IS taught, so they can learn it. It's one thing to allow Kansas to require Intelligent Design (Creationism) to be taught, it's quite another to allow Kansas to forbid Darwinian Evolution from being taught.
I hope fletch agrees with this and can support this;
Dreamtrove's Neo-fletch point:
Govt. can require ABC must be taught, but can not deny XYZ also be taught.
KJC:
1. Public schools with local freedom to set curriculum, etc.
2. No funding for private schools.
3. Private and home schooling tax exemptions.
4. federal support for vocational, technical and college.
I really need to kibitz one something about KJC's plan before going on. I hate the tax exemptions. Tax exemptions are welfare to the rich. This is helping rich people pay for education, while doing nothing for the poor. Because we, the poor, do not pay taxes, we do not benefit from the exemption. We cannot afford private education now, and you have not helped us, you have furthered the concept of private school as a priveledge for the rich.
ThiefJehat:
1: Take education out of inneficient govt. hands.
2: Increase teachers salaries
3: Spend more time educating.
4: Appreciation. (This isn't a valid platform point, btw, but I'm repeating it for a reason, you'll see later, it might turn in to a valid platform point.)
Citizen: A mixture of public and private solutions.
And lastly, me
Dreamtrove: Equal govt. funding for private schools. Every child not attending public school saves the govt. $15/year. No reason not to spend that money on that child, since you would have to do it anyway.
Before going on, I would like to point out something because it relates to what Citizen said, which reveals a subtle truth:
Here in New York State (which doesn't apply to the City. It did until recently, but Mayor Bloomberg - a republican :) - change it with a new law forcing all schools to get equal per student funding, but alas, he's only a mayor, and so the law doesn't apply to the rest of the state.)
But here in new york state, every white child gets $17,000 per child per year, and every black child gets $10,000 per child per year.
I hope everyone was duly horrified by that. I would imagine the problem is worse in other parts of the country.
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Okay, now for my synthesis solution. Please feel free to post alternate synthesis solutions or to correct my attempt to summarize your position.
My new synthesis education plan:
1. Annual Govt. sponsored tests will guage students learning in a selection of subjects deemed to be the core curriculum. Any accredited school will have to meet a certain acceptable avg. score on this test. (a)
2. Public schools will follow a certain mandate of courses, beyond which local administrators will have freedom to expand. Local Administrators will also have freedom to change structure as long as accreditation requirements are met. (b)
3. Private school meeting accreditation requirements will be allocated an equal or similar amount per student per year as their public counterparts. (c) *
(a) for fletch
(b) for KJC
(c) for citzen, thief and dream
* Right now, a public school gets $15,000 per student per year, and a private one gets $1,500, but only if the parents buy into it with $1,500 of their own, ie. only if the parents are rich)
Please consider points 1,2 and 3 apart from the others. I am aware that these do not address all issues, because two issues: teacher salary and higher education, have not yet been addressed.
4. Additional programs will be considered to boost the desirability of the teaching profession (just for everyone's consideration):
To counter a suggestion that the problem was no career teachers, I think it's just the opposite, someone who teaches for 25 years IS a career teacher, so consider this:
4.1) Temp Teacher gigs for professionals. Maybe working people can come in, and teach classes on a more college like schedule, in a special 'expert' program. This will bring people like stem cell researchers into classes to to introduce kids to this cutting edge field. This pay would of course be much higher, but not a permanent staff position.
Next for consideration, Particularly for performing arts and other high paying professions. This is my teacher appriciation angle (in cash rather than in emotion):
4.2 Royalties. Why not? If you teach Britney Spears how to dance, and she makes over a hundred millions in part because of what you taught her, why shouldn't you get a little bonus? It would be nice to have students who wish to take advanced classes enter into such contracts. It would bring in the most qualified teachers in the world, who would want to train the best students in any area for a chance to cash in on their later success. The royalty could be very small, since teachers have many many students over the years.
4.3 Similar programs could also be made for children who have no talents, but are possible disasters, if you can make them into functional members of society, the govt. could pay you a portion of the taxes received from those kids (think, this would represent a truly minute portion of taxes, like less than a thousandth of a percent or something, but it would turn into serious cash for people who turned otherwise unmotivated future drug dealers or homeless people into hardworking tax payers, and it would make the job of helping such kids very profitable and desireable.
I'm aware these last two are truly radical, but I thought of them as I was chewing this over, new ways to make teaching more attractive. While I'm at it, I might want to suggest a royalty for the school, as well as the teacher. Since this would be based on future earnings, and not parents wealth, there would be a pro-talent slant rather than a pro-rich one.
Also, I have to add here. I don't believe in innate talent. At all. I think it's 100% fiction. I say this as someone with many talents, including, are, music, writing. I was born with none of them, I picked them up in later life with much dilligent effort. Talent is just a measure of time invested. Some people invested that time in their free time from the age of 3 to the age of 7, and the rest of us saw that investment as an innate talent, but it was really just a normal time investment. While it may be true that some people learn faster than
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:
Thiefjehat,
Thanks for your education posts, I would like to hear more on your other positions, for the sake of the game.
Very well. But just when you might have me pegged as a left or right winger, I'll swing back around.
Budget: Balance it. I prayed so hard for the Amendment that would have demanded a balanced budget. The more a nation borrows against itself, the more it devalues it's own currency. I'm a huge fan of Dave Ramsey http://www.daveramsey.com I listen to his radio show on a daily basis between my favorite 2 consevative talk radio shows. Dave is not politically motivated in any way. His lifes mission is to lay out a plan for the average american to become debt free and begin building wealth. I'm a big proponent of this. I believe strongly that every person should take it upon themselves to do for themselves. Dave gets into the federal budget at times on his show and his #1 statement on the subject of the national debt is "Debt is bad, in every form. Some debt is "good" if it leads to profits, but even "good" debt is a risk. The federal debt is the worst of "Bad" debt because it devalues our currency" He goes on to outline what a USA with a completely balanced budget and no debt would be like. In short, it would be the most prosperous nation in human history. The scary thing about increasing debt is that eventually the currency becomes so devauled it looses it's ability to be worth anything to a person. When that happens economic collapse is going to occur and you'll be bartering a can of greenbeans for a gallon of gas. So balance the freaking budget. This is the position of a fiscically conservative REPUBLICIAN.
Business: I'm a big believer in Reganomics. Tax cuts spurn economic growth. I'm not going into detail tonight because I am tired but I can pull down my econ textbook and quote dozens of reasons why. Keep cutting taxes to allow companies to make more $ so they reinvest this $ into business and thus hire more folks and demand more services of the market which in turn employs people and continues the positive synergy. This is the position of the classic regan REPUBICAN
Education: See my above post.
Environment: I'm rather left leaning on environmental issues. One thing that torks me off on a daily basis is listening to conservative talk radio hosts scoff and laugh at environmental issues. A topic of frequent discussion lately has been drilling for oil off the coast of Florida and in alaska. The debates they pose is always in the vein of "Increase oil supply so we can keep prices low and not tie ourselves to arabs who really hate us and would like to cut off our heads with their scimitars after thay take our $$ for a barrel of crude" I just anguish and yell at the radio because they don't get it. They don't understand the "Slinky Principal" What did I just type? Yes, the slinky principal...as it related to the Earth. It goes like this: When I was a kid I had a slinky. It was steel and springy and it was fun to play with. You could make it walk down stairs which when done correctly was ultra cool to watch. One day I wondered what would happen if I pulled on the slinky. I pulled a little bit and let go and the slinky popped back in shape. I pulled a little harder and let go and again it popped back into shape. Each time I did this I observed that the slinky was still much as it was and it still functioned as an interesting toy that walked down stairsteps or whatnot. But something interesting happened one day when I pulled really really hard on the slinky. It deformed. For those of you who have a civil engineering background like me, it passed beyond it's elastic range into it's plastic range. Now all of a sudden the slinky didn't pop back into it's normal shape anymore. Nor would it walk down stars. In Firefly parlance, the slinky was humped. I grew sad that the slinky was now just a piece of garbage and put it where it belonged...IN the garbage. Later in life as I became an engineer and a businessman and a scientist
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
I'm not especially interested in how this continues to develop, you have my opinions feel free to do with them as you want.
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
More clarification on my education plan....
First all the studies and analysis I have read indicates that public services are as efficient, if not more so, than private services. It is a myth that private services are always more efficient, furthermore with public services we have resources from elections, Freedom of Information Act, to lobbying to make changes. Not so much for private entities. Transferring traditional publice services to private enterprise is a lazy and foolhardy approach.
Two examples. There has been a move to privatize prisons across the country, these companies have taken to lobbying to increase the length of sentences for prisoners. Not for any political reason besides the fact that more prisoners means more money.
In terms of private schools, they are not held to the same standards as public schools. For example, in Florida where vouchers have been attempted, all public schools are rated, but no private schools are. Thus we have no benchmark to mark their comparative worth, except that they are supposedly better because they are private (logical fallacy). Furthermore, recent movements by corporations to establish private management of schools have for the most part been failures and unable to turn a profit.
This is due to the simple truth that there is a different in the population of students. Private schools cater to more affluent and better fed students, while private schools have to deal with children that suffer from hunger, poverty, and other disadvantages. To say that there is no differences in ability between students is another logical fallacy that ignores decades of research and experience on the subject.
Furthermore, private school teachers are often paid LESS than public school teachers, furthermore private schools can reject students, such as those who cost private schools so much money, but who need an education. Also private schools by law do not have the same legal obligations as public schools to provide a proper education. This is all part of the private school myth.
Simply put, my plan is simple. The federal government should provide funding to help struggling public school districts. Key to this is reducing class size which has a direct correlation to academic performance. Decisions should be made by the administrators and teachers at site and the folly of standardized testing which proves little but increases competition and frustation among students and teachers needs to end. Public schools is the greatest treasure of this nation and have been ignored for too long.
On a related note I would encourage a return to the study of social studies, art, music, and sports which due to funding cuts are being abandoned across the country.
Americans should still have the choice to attend private schools and a tax exemption is a solid choice. Not all private schools are expensive and many have scholarships and are thus available to not just the wealthy.
Also homeschooling is often the best of all worlds as children will get individual education based on what their parent believes is best. This is a full time job (I know because I home school my urchins) and there should be a tax exemption for families pursuing this option.
Dreamtrove, I do ask this would you give payments directly to parents who are home schooling that you would give to private schools?
NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
I guess the first real problem has reared its ugly head. I guess the question now is:
Is the left capable of compromise?
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
KJW,
Private schools offer choice. Public schools don't.
The reason it hasn't been profitable is that no one can afford education. If parents had to pay the $15,000 a year that it costs on average to educate a child through the public school system, no one would ever buy the product. Everyone would homeschool.
The money would have to be given to the schools, and not the parents, because parents could not be trusted to actually spend the money on education. I support homeschooling as well, but I'd prefer supporting homeschooling programs like the American School. Giving raw money to the people is often a recipe for disaster. If parents take the $15,000 and only spend $7500 on education, then you've reduced the efficiency of the system by half.
Most importantly, you can argue that public schools work and are a good investment and a place to send your kids unti your blue in the face, but that won't ever convince the half of us that have decades of horrid life experience with the system.
Tax exemptions are never a solid choice. Never for anything. Raw cash to the people is better than tax exemptions. Cash to companies that provide the services is best. Think about it. The govt. doesn't support public schools by giving tax emptions to parents or teachers. It funds the institution directly. If the Democratid Party gave up on it's offer of tax exemption it would be one step closer to getting my vote.
Take a look at the exemption:
let's say it's 10,000 tuition, tax exempt.
The Andersons make 200,000 a year and have two kids.
The Beattys make 30,000 a year and have one kid.
The Carrols make 10,000 a year and have two kids.
The Andersons spend $20,000, and their at 50% tax rate, so they get $10,000 back, or $5000/child.
The Beattys pay 10,000, and are taxed at 15% and get $1500 back for their one child. Because they are poor their one child costs almost as much as the Aneersons two.
The Carrols can't afford it at all, unless they borrow, since loans are not taxed, and also since the Carrols pay no tax, the Carrols will never get any assistance.
Finally, we want choice. The goal here is a compromise. If it were up to me in a unilateral shut out, if I were dictator or if I had a shut out majority, the public schools would be spun off as private enterprises or they would close.
This is the point of the compromise position. You don't have to support it as something you would vote for as a first choice. The idea is to see if we can reach a middle ground that is not utterly appalling to everyone.
According to the compromise plan, public schools stay open and govt. run, but it offers public funding of private institutions that meet the Fletch academic standard.
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
I have one idea that's a little different.
Anyone proven guilty of a serious crime (i.e. a crime that 'hurts' another individual/individuals) must spin the 'Wheel of Misfortune'.
Once spun, the wheel might stop on one of the many punishments on the 'life' half of the wheel, or it might stop on the 'death' half. No one knows what punishment their crime will ensure them; people will be less likely to rob (for instance) knowing that it might just get them the maximum penalty.
The wheel must of course be 'rigged' for more violent criminals.
The 'right' side of Chrisisall
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:
Originally posted by dreamtrove:
I guess the first real problem has reared its ugly head. I guess the question now is:
Is the left capable of compromise?
Sure, I would set up every public school as a charter school to be administered under the auspices of its PTA or equivalent organization. Give control to the people running and invested into the school, but ensure that it recieves proper funding and conforms with the law.
The main problem is whether you can acknowledge that private enterprise is not the solution to all ills and the removal of accountablity in no way benefits democracy. When the pursuit of profit trumps the goal of educating then all of us are losers on this issue. I hope you can agree with these two fundamental premises.
Now I do not intend this as an challenge or insult, but Dreamtrove have you ever worked for a large company? I have, a couple in fact and in different fields, and the level of incompetence and inefficiency is astounding. The bigger the company the more the waste, mainly because they can afford it. Sure there are exceptions, but that is not the rule. Privatize education and you will get large companies providing the minimum (if that) quality education needed.
NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Choice trumps accountability, because with choice, the shady can be avoided, whereas with accountability, there is a right to complain, but no guarantee that anything would be done about it.
My local school district is amazingly corrupt. Since it is tied to its corrupt overarching authority, there is an appeal process, but no chance of winning said appeal. We wen through this ad naseum.
But the problems with public school are insoluable, the system is devoid of merit, IMHO, money down the drain. But this isn't about my position or yours, it's about compromise.
I've worked for both private corporations and for the state. I'm aware of corruption and innefficiencies in both. The issue here is private education. Roughly half of us want it, at least as an option.
Consider this. If this were the actual senate, and the right wing posters were the GOP, and the left wing posters were the Democrats, and this came up, consider the options.
1. A compromise of some sort.
2. An all or nothing vote in which one half of the people would lose all, and be shut out.
System 2 is what is happening in govt. right now. I wanted to see if compromise was even possible. It's an experiment.
Consider option 2 for a second. What if you had option 1, both public and private education are available, as a compromise on the table.
The if you had to put it to a vote, you would know that it would be one extreme all public and no private, or the other extreme, all private and no public, that would win.
Would your really take that chance? Wouldn't it be better if there were compromises that would cater at least somewhat to all people's preferences, than a shut out that gave 1/2 the people exactly what they wanted and told the other half to f^&k off? Knowing that at least some of the time that 1/2 would include you?
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME