Political Common Ground
POSTED BY: dreamtrove
UPDATED: Wednesday, November 30, 2005 00:16
VIEWED: 5611
PAGE 4 of 5
Now that is a fresh approach. Just because you're destitute doesn't mean you can't run for office. God only knows this country can use some politicians with integrity and new ideas instead of the same old brand of crap spewing liars we have on both sides of the House and Senate nowadays. I'm much more inclined to lean in another direction entirely. Thomas Jefferson was quoted as saying, "A little revolution now and then is a healthy thing". Maybe it's time for American Revolution: The Sequel coming soon to a House and Senate near you.
Jaytee
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:
Originally posted by dreamtrove:
I basically agree to what you have, let me enumerate the final changes I'd make.
1) The public oversight is the state accreditation board, not the local school board. The local school board can have some input, like if they want to complain, there should be a process, but the local schoolboard in my experience is the most likely part to be corrupt, and so it can't have full power. State accreditation board would be more visible and accountable, statewide.
2) Funds would be in voucher form, and the amount of the voucher could be variable. It should cover the full cost of education, but I can see reducing it for higher income groups. There's no need for the state to pay $10,000 or $15,000 for a family already earning a million a year.
3) All schools would have a free right to compete, level playing field, and funds through voucher would be on a per enrolled student basis.
4) Previously stated standards would of course still apply.
Public oversight has to be local, because that is where the school with be located and where problems will develop. Perhaps a two-tier system, with accreditation at the state level, but a local schoolboard can initiate procedure to repeal a charter.
I just have a problem with vouchers, because it will end up taking money from public schools. Its like the lotteries that were meant to improve school funding, but actually reduced funding. I agree with choice, but our first priority has to be public schools. Public schools have to deal with all manner of special needs, which is one of the reasons their costs are so much higher than private schools. Private schools simply don't have the resources to deal with these students. If money is shifted away per capita for a non-special needs student then the special needs students will suffer in public schools. But I am still thinking about the idea and open to counter arguments.
I agree tax deductions only help the middle and upper classes, but I think encouraging spending on a child's education is good policy. Maybe a system in which the poor get vouchers and the middle and upper class get deductions, not committing just tossing out an idea.
JayTee, I agree with your analysis on the state of the Union. The fact is that politics have changed and liberal thought is on the fringe, but things will change it always is a pendulum. This thread though does show that opposite views can reach some sort of compromise and that is what is best for this nation.
NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
1. Sure, the local school board can begin such a process, but since it would stand to benefit financially from the process, it can't gave control over the final decision. Our local school board here considered a proposal to merge with the neighboring district. The citizenship was overwhelmingly opposed to the idea, but the measure went through, and two school board members pocketed a good deal of the $15M allocated by budgeting 'transitional administrative tasks' and hiring themselves. Then, when seeking a site, they selected land owned by one schoolboard member's husband, who then refused to sell, and the state was forced to seize the land, and then reimburse the husband ten times the going market rate. Then another school board member was given the new job of joint superintendent with a quarter million dollar salary. Local corruption doth abound.
You need to not look at money in the public school system as a total dollar amount. It is the 'money per child' amount that matters, and that will not go down if children leave the system. The public school system does not have a divine right to that money. If children leave the system, its budget should go down.
Your first priority is the public schools. Mine is the private schools. Our first priority is to education. I am absolutely convinced that that goal is best served by private schools. You are equally convinced that that goal is best served by public schools. We are not going to change each other's mind by this compromise. If we did, we'd defeat its purpose, because we know that we're never going to change everyone in America's mind. The compromise is about making a solution we all can live with, rather than forcing one side to force the other side out.
Re: Special needs students, I have a couple of things to say. I think you're making some assumptions I don't share.
1. Special needs students are a priotity. They may be your priotity, but again, they are not mine. My priority is to those who are most likely to be most useful to the overall productivity of the nation.
2. That special needs students will all remain in the public school system. When equal public funding is available for all students, private special needs schools will spring up because there will be just as much money in it as there will be for gifted and talented schools or for special interest schools such as performing arts schools.
Okay, as long as everyone is covered. While we're at it, forcing the rich to pay for education, why not make them pay regardless? I mean, back on my welfare for the rich rant, we're paying $17,000 for white children, who the rich are, so if a rich family has four kids, we're giving them $68,000 a year in free public education. They could also pay for this. On some graduated scale. Anyway, my goal here wasn't to create a voucher program for millionaires. It's to create equal funding for children everywhere, something we don't have as it stands now.
BTW, I don't believe in the pendulum. I believe in the Juggernaut. Many political trends move steadily in one direction. Like the issue of federal control. Definitely been on the increase in this country since its founding. Patriot Act etc. scare me because I see in other countries how this sort of thing has started and never stopped.
So, to review final changes, I am basically accepting all of your final points here:
local school board can initiate a repeal request, but can't make the final decision, that rests on an accreditation board.
vouchers will be need based.
money will not be shifted away per capita, only the capita itself will have the freedom to shift to private sector providers, or back if it chooses.
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:This brings up a deep philosophical question. Apparently, your goal is to improve productivity, the nation's "bottom line", as it were.
Special needs students are a priotity. They may be your priotity, but again, they are not mine. My priority is to those who are most likely to be most useful to the overall productivity of the nation
So- why do you want to improve the bottom line? In other words, what is the purpose of all that extra productivity?
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Productivity feeds progess, progess is why we exist, if not for progress humanity is just another dumb animal, and a rather destructive one at that.
I think we got to a decent compromise on education and I'm ready to tackle another platform point. Someone else want to choose one from the list?
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Personally, I believe all American citizens can add to the productivity of our nation and that every citizen denied a proper education (which may be a more vocationaly-based education) will likely be a drain on our society. The fact that any child can get a free education is one of the wonders of the U.S. and one of the things that unites us.
As for the compromise I think we have something that would likely be workable with some tweaking so we can move on.
What about the environment? It is one of those issues that I have found that more reasonable people relatively agree upon.
NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:What is progress? Technological? Spiritual? Scientific? Economic? Social?
Productivity feeds progess, progess is why we exist, if not for progress humanity is just another dumb animal, and a rather destructive one at that.
---------------------------------
Please don't think they give a shit.
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
I would say progress is movement in the direction of an unstate ideal society. I suspect that different people have a different idea of this idea, but most people would probably agree that is accorded a certain amount of individual freedom, a minimal impact on the environment and moment towards curing the common ails and ills of the current society order, disease, famine, etc. Science is obviously a part of this.
Now on to the environment, because that was the first one posted for next topic.
My principle environmental concerns are related to preservation of biodiversity. This probably means applying some pressure internationally, because the biggest threats to biodiversity are attacks on first growth rainforest and overfishing by asian fishing concerns, particularly China.
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Interesting view of a future world, not one I believe in, but interesting one nonetheless. For me all I want is a wiser humanity, which all things considered is happening. Take for example the environment.
Well I don't think we have any disagreement on the environment, but to play devil's advocate how do you reconcile your devotion to the capitalistic free market system and restrictions on that system for environmental reasons? This is the classic conflict and I am curious how you reconcile it.
NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
To me, there's no conflict. Good healthy world is good for business, end of the world, bad for business. There are a few exceptions:
A few rather small insignificant industries such as the clearcut logging and the ocean trawling industries are causing most of the damage while generating a tiny tiny fraction of the world's profit. Since I can easily and rightfully blame over 99% of the earth's destruction on a small group of companies that account for less than a thousandth of a percent of the worlds profit.
By contrast, ecological preservation concerns and principally, more than anything other single industry, rainforest derivative scientific research for medical applications, dwarf these profits to a staggering degree. The combined environmental industries out-earn their destructive counterparts over 100 to 1, and are sustainable industries, unlike the desert making cretins.
The idea that somehow environment has to be balanced against profit is a total myth. It's a fabrication of a handful of braindead thugs with their hands deep in the pie of a very stone age industry. Anyone living in the now could see that the potential economic value of the remaining biodiversity is so staggering that it makes evne the oil industry insignificant by comparison.
It's roughly analagous to setting your house on fire because you need the heat.
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME