What do YOU think a liberal is?

[TimeforMe]

To me when I hear "liberal" what it means is any sex is good (sex w/o love or commitment), welfare help w/o end, rehabilitation for all is possible and only more money is needed to turn anyone around, and no war is ever warranted.

BTW, liberal is as much a curse word as conservative is.

Wow. If this is the definition of liberal, I guess I had better re-think my position. Are you serious?

 

[Charade]

So...the affluent school district should have it dictated to them that they should donate that money to another school district? I don't get it...you seem to be arguing both for and against local control.

Isn't that what you want? I'm just tryin' to help you out!!

 

[MassJester]

I think there ought to be a national curriculum with national standards. The child who goes to school in a rural area is, more than likely, moving out of that area and has to compete globally.

Case in point: How many more times is Kansas going to change their curriculum regarding the teaching of evolution?

In the meantime, the student in Japan is learning higher math and science.

I think our system of federalism makes a national curriculum a tough goal. I can see good arguments for and against, but I think it's a tough row to hoe.

 

[wvrevy]

The nation was founded on the principle of individual liberty, not on the principles of a socialist society, as so many liberals favor.

Again, you're just wrong on this one, Brenda. Yes, the government was very much concerned with protecting individuals from oppression. This is the reason that the wiretapping program - a violation of the fourth amendment - goes against the constitution. But they were much more concerned with the government being a place where this type of issue can be debated without mob rule. They did not trust individuals to solve every problem in society. Hence, a "Democratic Republic" rather than a true democracy.

As for liberals and our socialist tendencies, it goes - yet again - to the argument of black and white vs. shades of gray. Liberals can see the benefit in certain socialist policies - such as socialized medicine - to society as a whole. Yes, those policies somewhat go against the darwinist nature of capitalism. But the benefit to society as a whole outweighs the stigma of being "socialist" in nature. To conservatives, simply putting the label on is enough to discredit the idea. As a liberal, I'm much more concerned with the idea itself.

 

[LuvDuke]

And how do you propose to force states to accept that national curriculum?

States that don't want it can turn down the federal funding, but then it is no longer a national curriculum.

The only way I see to accomplish such a goal would be by Constitutional amendment.

Well, maybe it's time to take a 2nd look. IMO, we will never have a 21st century 1st rate educational system as long as we have thousands of little fiefdoms across this country.

 

[wvrevy]

Well, maybe it's time to take a 2nd look. IMO, we will never have a 21st century 1st rate educational system as long as we have thousands of little fiefdoms across this country.

In the conservatives defense, we'll also never have that so long as the politicians are at the mercy of the teachers unions. Let's face it...things need to change on both sides of this issue before anything positive can really be accomplished.

 

[LuvDuke]

I think our system of federalism makes a national curriculum a tough goal. I can see good arguments for and against, but I think it's a tough row to hoe.

Who said it would be easy?

 

[Fitswimmer]

In the conservatives defense, we'll also never have that so long as the politicians are at the mercy of the teachers unions. Let's face it...things need to change on both sides of this issue before anything positive can really be accomplished.

There we are in complete agreement. I know that the teacher's unions have performed a valuable service getting them the salary packages and benefits that they never would have had without them. In NJ, the mere suggestion that teachers might have to pay a portion of their medical and retirement benefits brought on a work stoppage.

 

[LuvDuke]

In the conservatives defense, we'll also never have that so long as the politicians are at the mercy of the teachers unions. Let's face it...things need to change on both sides of this issue before anything positive can really be accomplished.

Two points here:

1) Even if you got rid of the teachers unions, do you honestly think it would solve the problems we have today?

2) Of course, we're going to need change. The world around us has changed. Our place in this world has changed. We either change or we will be another footnote in history.

Frankly, I think the politicians are the problem and not the teachers unions. For too many years, our politicians have pretended they aren't there to solve the problems, but to break up the public education system because "it's failing". Well, excuse the hell out of me, but fixing the education system is the job of the politicians. Vouchers aren't the solution. Vouchers are a bone to the religious right and a genuflection to the free market. The fantasy world of all these new schools popping and competing with each other is just that a fantasy.

But, that is a subject for another day.

 

[LuvDuke]

There we are in complete agreement. I know that the teacher's unions have performed a valuable service getting them the salary packages and benefits that they never would have had without them. In NJ, the mere suggestion that teachers might have to pay a portion of their medical and retirement benefits brought on a work stoppage.

Well, that's a different problem and that problem is the rising cost of medical care.

We can also add that to our "21st century to-do" list.

 

[MushyMushy]

http://www.ed.gov/about/overview/fed/10facts/index.html

Thanks, that was what I was interested in learning about.

 

[wvrevy]

Two points here:

1) Even if you got rid of the teachers unions, do you honestly think it would solve the problems we have today?

2) Of course, we're going to need change. The world around us has changed. Our place in this world has changed. We either change or we will be another footnote in history.

1 - Of course not. But the union - which has as it's sole purpose the interests of teachers, not the interests of students - needs to be more flexible than they often are.

2 - No argument here. But that rather reinforces my point about teachers unions.

I must confess something...I am not a very big proponent of unions. Yes, they have absolutely served a needed purpose in the past, and they can still serve as a safeguard against corporate greed even today. But that said, too many of them operate on the notion that nothing changes, and that changes to their industries - be it education or the corporate world - should not affect the workers in those industries. To me, that is completely unrealistic. Yet, it is the very nature of a union to do everything it can - including work stoppages - to get the best deal for the workers.

What unions often fail to account for are the very changes in the world that you mention. The simple fact is that changes that negatively affect a part of the workforce are not always driven by corporate greed. Sometimes, they are simply adjustments that are necessary to remain competitive in a global economy. With the importance of education in today's society, I'm not a big fan of a group that places teachers interests above those of students.

 

[DancingBear]

Perhaps the "rich" school districts should give some of their wealth to the "poor" school districts within their own state first before any federal funds get added.

There's been a lot of litigation trying to make just that happen:

http://www.schoolfunding.info/litigation/litigation.php3

 

[SwedishMeatball]

In the conservatives defense, we'll also never have that so long as the politicians are at the mercy of the teachers unions. Let's face it...things need to change on both sides of this issue before anything positive can really be accomplished.

 

[chobie]

1 - Of course not. But the union - which has as it's sole purpose the interests of teachers, not the interests of students - needs to be more flexible than they often are.

2 - No argument here. But that rather reinforces my point about teachers unions.

I must confess something...I am not a very big proponent of unions. Yes, they have absolutely served a needed purpose in the past, and they can still serve as a safeguard against corporate greed even today. But that said, too many of them operate on the notion that nothing changes, and that changes to their industries - be it education or the corporate world - should not affect the workers in those industries. To me, that is completely unrealistic. Yet, it is the very nature of a union to do everything it can - including work stoppages - to get the best deal for the workers.

What unions often fail to account for are the very changes in the world that you mention. The simple fact is that changes that negatively affect a part of the workforce are not always driven by corporate greed. Sometimes, they are simply adjustments that are necessary to remain competitive in a global economy. With the importance of education in today's society, I'm not a big fan of a group that places teachers interests above those of students.

The students have people looking out for their interests, but who other than the union is looking out for the teachers' interests? Do you really think if we get rid of the union, people are suddenly going to stop bashing teachers, and pay them better, give them better working conditions etc?

And the teachers unions do not just look our for the teachers. many of the things they advocate for also benefit the students: smaller class sizes, safer class rooms, money to buy materisals for the classroom etc.

But as for putting the teachers' needs first, well of course they do, they represent teachers not students. The school board, the state, the federal government, parents and YES even the teachers and their evil unions look out for the students interests, but who looks out for the teachers interests other than the union?

And what other unions, besides the teachers' unions, take anyone esle into account besides its own members?

 

[BuckNaked]

1 - Of course not. But the union - which has as it's sole purpose the interests of teachers, not the interests of students - needs to be more flexible than they often are.

2 - No argument here. But that rather reinforces my point about teachers unions.

I must confess something...I am not a very big proponent of unions. Yes, they have absolutely served a needed purpose in the past, and they can still serve as a safeguard against corporate greed even today. But that said, too many of them operate on the notion that nothing changes, and that changes to their industries - be it education or the corporate world - should not affect the workers in those industries. To me, that is completely unrealistic. Yet, it is the very nature of a union to do everything it can - including work stoppages - to get the best deal for the workers.

What unions often fail to account for are the very changes in the world that you mention. The simple fact is that changes that negatively affect a part of the workforce are not always driven by corporate greed. Sometimes, they are simply adjustments that are necessary to remain competitive in a global economy. With the importance of education in today's society, I'm not a big fan of a group that places teachers interests above those of students.

Very well said, and ITA.

Well, maybe it's time to take a 2nd look. IMO, we will never have a 21st century 1st rate educational system as long as we have thousands of little fiefdoms across this country.

By all means, take a second look. Just don't be surprised when you aren't able to get 34 states to agree to give up control of their educational systems.

 

[Oreo Cookie]

1 - Of course not. But the union - which has as it's sole purpose the interests of teachers, not the interests of students - needs to be more flexible than they often are.

2 - No argument here. But that rather reinforces my point about teachers unions.

I must confess something...I am not a very big proponent of unions. Yes, they have absolutely served a needed purpose in the past, and they can still serve as a safeguard against corporate greed even today. But that said, too many of them operate on the notion that nothing changes, and that changes to their industries - be it education or the corporate world - should not affect the workers in those industries. To me, that is completely unrealistic. Yet, it is the very nature of a union to do everything it can - including work stoppages - to get the best deal for the workers.

What unions often fail to account for are the very changes in the world that you mention. The simple fact is that changes that negatively affect a part of the workforce are not always driven by corporate greed. Sometimes, they are simply adjustments that are necessary to remain competitive in a global economy. With the importance of education in today's society, I'm not a big fan of a group that places teachers interests above those of students.

I agree with you. I'm not a proponent of unions. I think at one time in our history they were necessary, but that is no longer the case. I cannot speak for other states regarding the teachers union, but here in NJ they are the most powerful union and lobbying group. I don't think the union benefits education, and I do think it is time for the teachers union to go the way of the dinosaur. IMO, unions weaken standards, not strengthen them.