Re: 2016 Election
 

Isnt she the one who feels that parents should have a choice where to send their kids to school and have more options with vouchers so not only rich and upper middle class can send their kids to private schools ?

Re: 2016 Election
 

Anti gay, anti union and a creationist. The rest doesn't matter to me. Oh, and she's a billionaire who said the economic problem in Michigan is that the people are paid too much money.

Re: 2016 Election
 

One of her agendas is to weaken the school teachers unions. If public school teachers lose their rights to representation then pay and benefits will suffer. When pay and benefits suffer then standards fall.

The other thing is that parochial schools shouldn't receive a cent from the government.

The only good thing is doing away with Common Core which has not been popular or succesful

Re: 2016 Election
 

It looks like states' rights will be the big issue over the next four years. Andrew Cuomo has already put the new administration on notice to butt out of New York. Of course, Trump voters & red states are already net recipients and sucking at the teat of big government.

:popcorn:

Re: 2016 Election
 

So with the excellent pension plans and current pay scales have standards risen the last 20 years ? I agree unions are good protection for any workers, at the same time I always have a hard time understanding with declining educational standards why teachers should be paid more.

I disagree about parochial schools, why shouldn't low income and poor people have the choice the better off have in where to send their children to school ? If voucher gives 75% of what it costs in public school it seems parents have more choices and more money left then for public school for the difference, if I understand vouchers correctly.

Re: 2016 Election
 

Perhaps the emphasis should be on raising the educational standards and improving the buildings rather than privatizing for profit education.
More affluent neighborhoods have excellent schools for the most part. The richer the neighborhood the better the schools, just like the UK.
"Why shouldn't low income and poor people have the choice" Why not indeed. There's more ways to skin a cat.
If one what to send a child to a parochial schools, then they should pay for it themselves.

Re: 2016 Election
 

:thumbup:

Re: 2016 Election
 

1. I am unsure what improving the buildings has to do with education. In the area I have been in even the poor counties/cities spend a lot of money on new buildings- while standards keep declining, a third of high school graduates entering the public university system need remedial math and English, and the general buildings around the schools often falling apart.

2. As far as spending more money being the key to raising educational standards I do not think there is a direct correlation. Paying the teachers and administrators more to raise standards I think could be debated whether that is the problem.

3. As for vouchers, and I could be wrong, I thought the theory had two merits :(a) gave the parents a choice to force changes in the dismal performance of many public schools (b) actually would end up with more money per student in the public school since the vouchers would be less than 100% of the per student cost.

I think it shows disdain for lower income people that when such an easy solution is available for them to have the potential of improving their children's education that the ideology of public schools is more important than the children. When I lived in Bay Area if I recall public school cost per child was $6,000 per student, and I paid $3,000 year for a parochial school - better education, better discipline. Recently I had experience with Indiana schools, the vouchers helped a lot of children do better.

4. As far as affluent neighborhoods having better schools than poorer neighborhoods I haven't read any recent studies, but I wonder if that is because teachers are paid more and more gadgets, or whether background of the students more of a factor. I guess also a question of what constitutes an "excellent" school. Maybe some are considered excellent by today's standards.

Re: 2016 Election
 

Just what are these vouchers worth? Can every kid from a poor family living in the inner city attend a private school? I doubt it.

I live in an excellent school district but in many instances voluntary donations are needed to buy equipment and improve school facilities that the budget allotted to the Unified School District cannot cover.

As for parochial schools, kids are not in a classroom to get an education on religious matters. They can get same at Church Sunday school on their own time.

If parents believe that there is a place for religion in general education then by all means enroll their kids in parochial school but keep the government out of it. We have separation of church and state

Re: 2016 Election
 

I can only speak from my observations of public, private non-parochial schools, and private parochial schools in three states, also teaching an online class for first year university students, and experience with private schools in a third world country.

1. Vouchers for Inner City Students : In the city near where I live they began a few years ago rolling out there voucher program. I believe now a high percentage of lower income students now qualify. All the parents I have spoken to are positive about the opportunities for heir children, except those who prefer the greater sports opportunities in some public schools. Again if the theory is implemented the voucher system would result in more funds per public school student.

2. "Excellent" Public Schools : No doubt there are differences between school districts, but I do wonder whether nicer buildings or gadgets is the determining factor in whether a school is "excellent". Considering the low academic standards in the states I have experience in ( California , Idaho, Indiana, Ohio) in both private and public schools, I am unsure whether "excellent" by American standards means much compared to schools in other countries. ( Of course a generalization, some students do well any where). In the Bay Area for example I know of one school district considered "excellent" but the high school students appeared to me quite limited in their education compared to when I went to school, and compared to students I have known from a third world country I have had experience in. In Ohio recently a study of public universities showed 1/3 of high school graduates entering the system had to have remedial English and Math. In the Bay Area there is one very expensive and highly-regarded school where the teachers told me it was less important for students to learn great literature than to develop the proper "ideology" for the modern world; and that getting a math problem correct less important than showing the process they used.

3. Parochial Schools -Isn't the objective what is in the best interests of the children ? The parochial schools I am familiar with had the benefit of better discipline and social environment, more caring teachers, and overall a better academic environment accordingly. Many parents sent their children to such schools for those reasons, and not necessarily because of religious instruction. (Though some evangelical denomination schools religious instruction was more primary for the parents). How on earth is it bad for students to have a safer and more disciplined environment ?

I just do not understand why lower income and working class families should have to accept a failing public education system.

Re: 2016 Election
 

There's no reason that America should not have the best equipped public schools and best teachers in the world. it just needs governments and politicians at all levels to undergo a change of attitude and to make public schools a top priority.

Re: 2016 Election
 

Best, best, best. I am sick to the back teeth of the arrogant US 'best' attitude. The news stations keep saying the US is the best country in the world, has the best justice system in the world, has the best political system in the world...etc, etc etc... blah, blah, blah.

IMO the US needs to take a step back and look at other first world countries...take a spoonful of humble pie and realise that maybe...just maybe...the US isn't the bestest and greatest of everything. :rolleyes:

Re: 2016 Election
 

I guess we can both agree a change in both attitudes and priorities are necessary, though I would add in the teacher unions as well. However the dumbing down of America from the education system I believe will be the Achille's heal of American economic performance in the long term. The government,politicians and unions are all to blame for accepting low educational standards. I doubt much will change though.

Re: 2016 Election
 

The US has never been like other first world countries though. Historically it was the destination for the poor and unwanted first from Europe and later from other parts of the world. It was European slave traders who brought people from Africa to work the cotton tobacco and sugar plantations in the north American colonies and the French and Spanish colonies in the Caribbean. These days it's become the destination for the poor and underprivileged from Mexico and south and central America. Considering the history and the sheer number of people of different languages and cultures who have come to these shores over 250 years the United States has been a success story in so many ways. There have always been the nutters and misfits who have left their dirty fingerprints along the way but at least the country is an example of how we can all live together in peace. Even the latest election with all the verbal abuse and hate was an exercise in democracy at work. Had such rivalries and differences existed in other countries, even in some of the countries of eastern Europe there would have been a shooting war going on,

I'd never claim that the US was the best at everything but there's no harm in a bit of old fashioned patriotism. I know patriotism has generally gone out of style but if people want to boast and brag now and then without causing harm to others what harm does it do,

I think the US has given away far too much of it's wealth to the rest of the world and still gives aid and money to countries who don't like us. We also spend a huge chunk of our tax dollars on the military industrial complex. Our politicians at all levels have lost sight of the importance of good sound education and there have been too many programs introduced to schools initiated by scatter brained, loony pseudo intellectuals. They've gone too far off the straight and narrow in other words. We still have the wealth and the wherewithal to build, equip great school facilities and hire the very best to teach if only the pols would make it a priority and tax dollars used for this purpose instead of being used for other things. School vouchers are just a cop out for trying to rectify indifference and neglect by the people we elect in the fond hope that they'll do the jobs they were elected to do

Re: 2016 Election
 

Patriotism can be a good thing to bind a nation together, especially a relatively new nation like the USA with people coming from all over the world. However when it blinds politicians and the people to reality, as I believe is the situation in the USA, this idea the USA is "best" at everything becomes a sad joke.

Yes education especially in the 21st century important, but money to " build, equip schools and hire the very best teachers" is hardly the main problem. In my area they have wonderful modern school buildings in even the poorest country towns, great equipment etc, yet 1/3 of the graduates who do go to university need remedial Math and English classes. Hiring the "the best teachers" as if paying more money yet teach and administer in the same way will make any difference. Parents who believe since they are in a wealthier area and have "excellent" schools with student performance below many third world countries, are often fairly clueless.

It is the methods and ideology of the public schools and academia in general that present the problem, combined with often out of control costs.

-Vouchers represent a way to force competition and give parents more ability to demand improvement.
- Perhaps a tough national test of Math and English ( at least) to graduate high school and even get student grants or loans, would force the states and local districts to force teachers and administrators to raise standards.

The crazy programs you mention maybe will be less important to academia when students have to get a basic foundation in order to graduate and enter university. And with vouchers schools that don't measure up in the public sector will lose students. You can bet when the teachers and administrators faced with losing jobs their crazy teaching theories will go out the window.

Next would be somehow student loan system to be over-hauled with universities having to show some level of cost control- or simply accept not all students should how to university and get money to waste one or two years. Having national tests may be the answer.

The USA definitely not the best educational system below the Master's level based on the situations I have encountered. Money isn't the main problem.