What do YOU think a liberal is?

[BuckNaked]

I don't like the Federal Government getting any bigger or more bloated than it is, but sometimes you have to dance with the Devil to get what you need. Sad but true.

Whereas I believe that dancing with the devil (the federal government) has been the major contributing factor to the sorry state of so many public schools.

 

[Fitswimmer]

If you're of the mindset that the federal government knows more about educating students than the communities in which these students live, then I can see where you would agree with federal funding. I don't subscribe to that belief, so I would rather the federal government stick to its Constitutional mandates and leave the rest to the states.

There's a difference between determining the content of education and helping with the costs. I think the local community should decide curriculums but I can understand that spreading the costs of the lunch program out mean that each individual spends less on them.

 

[wvrevy]

If you're of the mindset that the federal government knows more about educating students than the communities in which these students live, then I can see where you would agree with federal funding. I don't subscribe to that belief, so I would rather the federal government stick to its Constitutional mandates and leave the rest to the states.

So, if the state of Iowa wants to "educate" kids by teaching them christian mythology, you don't think there should be a problem with that? If a school system in southern Alabama in 1950 wanted to teach it's kids that "colored" people were inferior in intelligence to white people, you don't think the federal government should be able to step in and stop them just because that happened to be the belief of people in that region? (Please don't think I'm attacking Alabama...just using that as a hypothetical example.)

Are kids in the richest states in the country entitled to better education than those in the poorest? Should accident of birth be the determining factor for a person's potential to succeed in life?

 

[BuckNaked]

So, if the state of Iowa wants to "educate" kids by teaching them christian mythology, you don't think there should be a problem with that?

That couldn't happen - that would be a violation of the Constitution, so the federal government could step in.

If a school system in southern Alabama in 1950 wanted to teach it's kids that "colored" people were inferior in intelligence to white people, you don't think the federal government should be able to step in and stop them just because that happened to be the belief of people in that region? (Please don't think I'm attacking Alabama...just using that as a hypothetical example.)

Again, that would be a Constitutional violation, so of course the federal government should and would step in.

Are kids in the richest states in the country entitled to better education than those in the poorest?

They're entitled to the best education their community can provide. It may not be fair, but life's not fair.

Should accident of birth be the determining factor for a person's potential to succeed in life?

In a Utopian world no, but we don't live in a Utopian world. Of course the circumstances in which a person is born is a determining factor in their potential to succeed. But to assume that people can't overcome their circumstances is to have a basic disbelief in the human spirit, which I don't have.

 

[wvrevy]

That couldn't happen - that would be a violation of the Constitution, so the federal government could step in.

Tell it to Kansas. I'm fairly certain the intelligent design crowd would disagree with you there. Besides, where does it say in the constitution that you can't teach religious beliefs in school? I thought you were a strict constructionist.

Again, that would be a Constitutional violation, so of course the federal government should and would step in.

Why would it be a constitutional violation? If the community was all white, whose rights are being violated?

But ok...even if I grant that premise for that example...what if it was a small community that was teaching the kids to deny the holocaust? Would you have a problem with that? I don't mean personally, 'cause I know you would. But I mean, would you want the government to step in and stop it? By your comments, it wouldn't appear so.

They're entitled to the best education their community can provide. It may not be fair, but life's not fair.

Ah, but school systems should be as fair as it is possible to make them. Obviously, that's not going to be the case, even with federal intervention. But it does help even the playing field, just a bit. Is that not a worthy enough goal?

In a Utopian world no, but we don't live in a Utopian world. Of course the circumstances in which a person is born is a determining factor in their potential to succeed. But to assume that people can't overcome their circumstances is to have a basic disbelief in the human spirit, which I don't have.

Ah, but I never said that people couldn't overcome their circumstances. All I said was that it should be part of the government's job to ensure that people don't start out with the deck totally stacked against them. Of course accident of birth is a determining factor in potential. But it shouldn't be the only factor. I just don't see the problem with expecting the federal government to help kids that are born into situations that it is nearly impossible to escape from.

 

[LuvDuke]

Why should the federal government have its hand in the school system anyway?

I wish I still had the book to back it up, but I read a good argument as to why schools should only be controlled locally, and that's something I agree with.

Here's a common sense answer as to why schools should not be controlled solely on a local basis. It's called the global economy. We cannot afford to have every piss-ant municipality deciding what's important for their students because those students have to compete globally.

We are not 13 colonies anymore and it's about time the people of the US get their heads out of their butts and understand that the rest of the world treats education as a national treasure and not a local fiefdom.

 

[Charade]

Not in the rural community I taught in. Seriously, without federal funding, I doubt those schools would even have had indoor plumbing. It was a very economically depressed area. Where I went to HS in the suburbs of Chicago, the tax base was immense and we had more than some private schools I've seen. Where we live now it has a healthy tax base, although the population is growing faster than the schools can manage to keep up. There will alway be communities which offer better schools, but every child deserves the right and opportunity to be provided with the basic necessities to succeed.

There are many areas in my state that are depressed and many that are well off. I don't think one well off school district needs to spend the kind of money they do when they build 100 million dollar high school. Schools are stewards of our money. They should always strive to spend it wisely. 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.

 

[Charade]

So, if the state of Iowa wants to "educate" kids by teaching them christian mythology, you don't think there should be a problem with that? If a school system in southern Alabama in 1950 wanted to teach it's kids that "colored" people were inferior in intelligence to white people, you don't think the federal government should be able to step in and stop them just because that happened to be the belief of people in that region? (Please don't think I'm attacking Alabama...just using that as a hypothetical example.)

Of course you know this has nothing to do with funding.

Are kids in the richest states in the country entitled to better education than those in the poorest? Should accident of birth be the determining factor for a person's potential to succeed in life?

There's that guilt trip thing again. Nice.


The solution is to level the playing field and get it over with. Mandate that every school district get the same amount of funding per student. No more, no less.

 

[BuckNaked]

Tell it to Kansas. I'm fairly certain the intelligent design crowd would disagree with you there.

I absolutely believe that had that case gone up through the federal court system, the Kansas school board would have received a sharp slap to the hand.

[/quote] Besides, where does it say in the constitution that you can't teach religious beliefs in school? I thought you were a strict constructionist. [/quote]

Against my strong advice the Supreme Court ruled that such teachings would violate the First Amendment. I may not agree with their ruling, but I certainly respect it and want to see it enforced.

But ok...even if I grant that premise for that example...what if it was a small community that was teaching the kids to deny the holocaust? Would you have a problem with that? I don't mean personally, 'cause I know you would. But I mean, would you want the government to step in and stop it? By your comments, it wouldn't appear so.

You're right, I would vehemently disagree with it on a personal level, but no, I don't think that the federal government has a mandate to step in and tell schools what to teach. If it were my school district, I would certainly do everything I could to get them to change the curriculum, but in the end, I believe it should be a local issue.

Ah, but school systems should be as fair as it is possible to make them. Obviously, that's not going to be the case, even with federal intervention. But it does help even the playing field, just a bit. Is that not a worthy enough goal?

To violate the Constitution? No, I don't think it is.

Ah, but I never said that people couldn't overcome their circumstances. All I said was that it should be part of the government's job to ensure that people don't start out with the deck totally stacked against them. Of course accident of birth is a determining factor in potential. But it shouldn't be the only factor. I just don't see the problem with expecting the federal government to help kids that are born into situations that it is nearly impossible to escape from.

To me, the problem is that the federal government is overstepping its Constitutional boundaries.

 

[lovemygoofy]

Of course you know this has nothing to do with funding.



There's that guilt trip thing again. Nice.


The solution is to level the playing field and get it over with. Mandate that every school district get the same amount of funding per student. No more, no less.

But to ensure that every student is getting the same amount of funding, the gov't would have to step in. Someone has to watch over the monies per child. How do you determine the monies per child anyways? Is it by the average spent on a child in MA or a child in AR? Would MA lower property taxes if it's less than they spend now and would AR raise there to try to keep in step with MA?

I agree that playing field needs to be level but I don't know that I agree with this but it's nice to see it suggested.

 

[BuckNaked]

We are not 13 colonies anymore and it's about time the people of the US get their heads out of their butts and understand that the rest of the world treats education as a national treasure and not a local fiefdom.

Correct - instead of 13 colonies, we are now 50 states, but like it or not, the United States is still a federal republic, and the Constitution does limit the power of the federal government when it comes to interfering with states' rights. You are of course free to work on amendments to the Constitution that do away completely with states' rights, but I doubt you'll get very far.

 

[Oreo Cookie]

I have to say Sherri, well done. Years ago I might have disagreed with you on this, but with the ever growing changes happening to our country we really need to focus on better education. The United States has been moving away from a manufacturing/ product producing country for the past decade or so. The days of high paying factory jobs with benefits is quickly becoming a thing of the past in this country. Countries like China are quickly becoming giants in that industry and it's damn near impossible to compete with them, due to brutal, but effective conditions they sadly force upon their workers. America is becoming a much different country than it was even 30 years ago and education is has to be ramped up to much higher levels than it is now. By removing the Federal government from the equation isn't going to help with that goal. How can you teach a person to fish for life, when the lake isn't availible to them? I don't like the Federal Government getting any bigger or more bloated than it is, but sometimes you have to dance with the Devil to get what you need. Sad but true.

I agree with Sherri too, and I wanted to touch upon your mention of China. Right now the USA is the #1 economic Super Power, and I think many people are under the impression that it will always be this way. However, if you begin to study economics, and especially the growth of countries such as China and India you will quickly see that in the next 30 to 40 years these two countries are going to surpass the USA as the two leading super economic powers. It is estimated that in about 40 years, China's middle class will be larger in size than the entire population os the US.

The frightening thing about China, is that with all of its growth economically, they have an alarming number of human rights violations occuring in their country, child labor just to name one.

The world is becoming more and more advanced technologically, and we need to keep pace. Computers and Internet in the classroom is vital for teaching nowadays. It wasn't when I went to school, but the world has changed tremendously since I graduated HS in 1984.

I don't agree with putting the entire burden of education on the states, as this would create an even larger disparity in the quality of education in our country than currently exists today. Kids in rich school districts have a lot of advantages over kids in poor school districts already, so we do need to even the playing field. As a side note, I don't even have kids, but I do believe it is a necessity that we investin education for the continued growth and success of our country.

 

[wvrevy]

Of course you know this has nothing to do with funding.

Of course it does. By controlling the purse strings, the federal government can absolutely influence curriculum.

There's that guilt trip thing again. Nice.

Don't blame me for your feelings of guilt. I was simply asking a question. One which you refused to answer, I notice.

The solution is to level the playing field and get it over with. Mandate that every school district get the same amount of funding per student. No more, no less.

I wouldn't have a major problem with that, so long as the number was high enough. The problem is, a dollar goes a good deal further in rural WV than it does in Los Angeles or New York City. While this type of program would work great in rural areas, you are then going to be completely hosing kids in more expensive districts.

Hmmm...that kind of speaks to my point about "simple answers", come to think of it. Thanks for the example, John.

 

[Fitswimmer]

There are many areas in my state that are depressed and many that are well off. I don't think one well off school district needs to spend the kind of money they do when they build 100 million dollar high school. Schools are stewards of our money. They should always strive to spend it wisely. 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.

We do that already in NJ and that's why our property taxes are the highest in the nation-and that's with federal funding.

 

[alldiz]

So, if the state of Iowa wants to "educate" kids by teaching them christian mythology, you don't think there should be a problem with that? If a school system in southern Alabama in 1950 wanted to teach it's kids that "colored" people were inferior in intelligence to white people, you don't think the federal government should be able to step in and stop them just because that happened to be the belief of people in that region? (Please don't think I'm attacking Alabama...just using that as a hypothetical example.)

Are kids in the richest states in the country entitled to better education than those in the poorest? Should accident of birth be the determining factor for a person's potential to succeed in life?

Your last statement.....
Unfortunately.....I think some People....really believe that
Kerri

 

[SwedishMeatball]

How do you figure? This whole thread is about discussing generalities, which is how I approached the question. I'm sorry, but most people that call themselves "liberal" or "conservative" hold the beliefs that I outlined. Was there anything in them that you disagree with, or did you just want to attack me in a more general sense?

I don't know why you would consider that statement an attack. Obviously you haven't bothered to take the time to read people's opinions on this thread or you'd be very much aware why I don't agree with those blanket statements and exactly what I think of generalizing, but don't let me stop you.

 

[alldiz]

Here's a common sense answer as to why schools should not be controlled solely on a local basis. It's called the global economy. We cannot afford to have every piss-ant municipality deciding what's important for their students because those students have to compete globally.

We are not 13 colonies anymore and it's about time the people of the US get their heads out of their butts and understand that the rest of the world treats education as a national treasure and not a local fiefdom.

Well said
Kerri

 

[LuvDuke]

Correct - instead of 13 colonies, we are now 50 states, but like it or not, the United States is still a federal republic, and the Constitution does limit the power of the federal government when it comes to interfering with states' rights. You are of course free to work on amendments to the Constitution that do away completely with states' rights, but I doubt you'll get very far.

Show me in the Constitution where it says education is strictly a function of local governments and any interference is a violation of "states rights. Take your time.

 

[BuckNaked]

Well said
Kerri

In other words, is it just as someone pointed out earlier - liberals think that the government knows better what's best for people than the people themselves?

 

[lovemygoofy]

In other words, is it just as someone pointed out earlier - liberals think that the government knows better what's best for people than the people themselves?

No, my thought is that liberals believe that the gov't is by the people for the people and it's supposed to help those people that voted them into that position.