Bill to Shut U.S. Education Department Introduced in Congress

originally posted by: Watcher777
a reply to: damwel

Actually the poorest areas should have the best schools. They qualify for the most government money and programs.

And have the lowest property tax values to generate revenue.

The DOE started operating in 1980.

If it is so good, why hasn't it solved all the problems of public schools ?

Especially in the big city failed areas.

originally posted by: xuenchen
The DOE started operating in 1980.

If it is so good, why hasn't it solved all the problems of public schools ?

Especially in the big city failed areas.

Maybe for the same reason that these problems existed for the 200 years prior to 1980? Sometimes solving problems is difficult and requires people to commit to reforms that can take 50-100 years to see results... in a system where the political will to do anything barely lasts for 2 years, and on rare occasion 4.

a reply to: Aazadan

So show us some examples of 200 year old public school problems.

The standard large metro progressive school system started in the early 20th Century.

No one has been able to solve the problems as they increased since then.


Progressive Era

a reply to: xuenchen

Semantics.

Hard problems are hard.

Why just shut down Obamacare? Can't we just liquidate hospitals and doctors too for some fast cash too? Shut down the DoE? Let's just close the schools, both outcomes have identical budget, but one costs more, obviously close down the schools.

What the hell is with these bipartisan proposals? We were promised Republican things...

a reply to: burdman30ott6

The purpose of school is to learn how to learn. Nothing advanced doesn't eventually become independent study.

Parents sending their kids off to be 'reconditioned' miss the purpose more than the children.

a reply to: Aazadan

Population rise is a pretty old problem.

Who benefits from that more again? Public schools right?

This is more college, but the DOE deals with that too. When it comes to tuition arguments, there are options for lower tuition. For example, GA Tech's OMSCS is only about $10k for a Masters degree in Computer Science, and they have a few paths you can take it.

There are options out there for reasonable tuition, the employer side needs to hold up their end of the bargain though and employ people at high enough wages that they can afford to attend.

a reply to: Aazadan

Your school sounds very intriguing.

originally posted by: darkbake
a reply to: Aazadan

Your school sounds very intriguing.

It's a small school, cheapest in the state, among the cheapest in the nation, and randomly a top 10 school in the nation for my program. Every state has inexpensive universities though, they don't come with the prestige of something bigger, or the networking opportunities, but as long as they're accredited and you're willing to put in the work you'll likely learn about whatever field you're in.

Like I said before though (I think I said it in this thread atleast) it's not actually your tuition that's the important number. A few thousand here or there over 4 years isn't a big deal. Cost of living is what matters. Rent costs, food costs, transportation costs, entertainment costs, and so on. Most schools fall into a pretty narrow range in tuition, say 10-20k per year, so 40-80k for your degree. Lets split the difference and say $15k/year. Cost of living varies pretty dramatically though, you could be attending school in NYC and need 30k/year to cover living expenses. Or you could be in a small town like me and need 10k. If you're supporting yourself through loans that's an 80k differential in debt during your education.

I think people get it all wrong when picking a college. They should decide what they can afford to spend on living expenses, and then look at colleges in those areas. Instead, most prospective students, and especially their parents who should really know better look at the school first and living arrangements second. Then they end up spending a lot of unnecessary money.

a reply to: darkbake

Why do you HAVE to get rid of grants?

a reply to: darkbake

Yea, the cons against dismantling is fear mongering nonsense.

There is absolutely no reason to throw out the baby with the bath water. Pell Grants can be administered under some other domestic policy driven department. The same with any oversight for equality and discrimination.

What we gain is restoring the ability to guide children to localities. You restore the constitutionality of that aspect of our federal government. There is nothing to support the Dept of Ed having any positive impact that would not have been had otherwise. There is actually insider allegations claiming that it was created solely to miseducate Americans. If you take those allegations and examine what has actually happened....

If we feel the department needs to stay, then fine. Let them administer their paperwork and shuffle loan applications. But they should have no autority to impact the day to day function of local public schools.

a reply to: bigfatfurrytexan

I keep leaning in that direction myself, but then standardized tests come out which show some states experiencing immense success in education, and other states abject failure. This wouldn't be happening, if the states weren't having some major input in the process. Then there's the issue that schools in better neighborhoods do much better than schools in worse neighborhoods, which leads me to believe localities have quite a bit more input than they realize as well.

I don't think anyone in educaiton is purposefully out to screw over kids, but it seems like a lot of people are doing it unintentionally. The answer I'm being pushed towards more and more, is to further democratize our schools. Get more inputs in, dilute the power of any given group and let swarm intelligence for lack of a better phrase, guide students. That only covers half of it though. There's another problem I've been thinking of for a few months now. While I have several criticism's on classes not taught in grade school like personal finance and business negotiation, I think the biggest is that we don't teach people how to be adults. To be fair, this would probably be better as a college course, but classes that teach people how to be parents, probably hold value. All too often parents don't put in the proper time with their kid, it leads to poor study habits, and the student does worse. At the same time though, study time referesh's a parents knowledge that they may not have learned the first time.

Getting parents involved seems key to me. But that means teaching the parent as you teach the student. That's how we fix education long term. We get people involved, and interested.

originally posted by: windword
a reply to: darkbake

“Unelected bureaucrats in Washington, D.C. should not be in charge of our children’s intellectual and moral development,”

There's your FAKE NEWS, right there. The Department of Education neither imposes "intellectual" nor "morality" tests.

Actually the impose their own moral code on people, and they also fail to impose any real checks or balances upon fraudulent colleges that claim accreditation when they don't have any. Take Univ. of Phoenix for a fine example of that.. They are a mega funding system for lobbying in the interest of corporations over student benefit.

a reply to: NoCorruptionAllowed

Individual try to impose their morality from whatever seat they find themselves in. The DOE has no such mandate.

Take Univ. of Phoenix for a fine example of that..

........or Trump University?

a reply to: Aazadan

Everyone is steeped in their own dogma. I've known folks who've walked away in sheer frustration after dealing with the TEA.

And since this is a woo site, ill throw out what Charlotte Iserbyte claims: its all been subverted from within.

a reply to: Hazardous1408

The States and people are smart enough to adapt. You and the bureaucrats are not the only people that understands the future. There are millions of other people from all over the country. They are smart enough to understand how to stay competitive. The purpose of States is to have competition. The states with the best ideas would be mimicked by others.