Melody's Melodramatic Meltdown on Mitt Romney (Tounge Twister?)

[Taskmage]

Sorry, what? American education is funded partially, but practically uncontrolled by the federal government. There are a lot of shitty schools out there. But most of the problems are in the local community; or arguably, the modern American culture. Not something the government can do a ton about.

That's not a fair representation of the situation either. Many states' school systems receive over 20% of their funding from federal programs, and that money has strings attached. You can cast the funding challenge in terms of local decisions, but as long as that situation persists the school boards have to decide between federal compliance and deep budget cuts that would affect the capacity of their schools and the quality of instruction.

So the federal government does have some real control over the education system. One of the things it's done with that control is impose mandatory standardized testing, with funding penalties for poor performance. The stated goal of these tests is to ensure that all students are acquiring at least a certain basic skillset, which seems noble enough, but the monetary rewards and penalties create perverse incentives for teachers and administrators to teach to the test, prioritizing test-taking skills and narrow rote response over a broader skill set and deeper understanding of the material. It also creates a feedback loop whereby the rich get richer, as it were, while under-performing inner city schools who arguably need the most help get punished with cuts.

So yeah, we could argue about exactly how much of the problem is federal and how much is local, but the federal government absolutely has exercised power over the education system and deserves its share of the blame. The one thing I'll agree on is there's not a ton the government can do about it, but that doesn't stop it from meddling and I'm pessimistic about the results.

[cidbahamut]

There's also the fact that the standardized tests tend to undermine the whole process of actually teaching. The teachers often end up having to teach to the test. So you have students learning how to pass exams rather than learning the material or whatever.

[Malacite]

Aren't teacher salaries funded by taxes? Also I thought that schools were largely funded by local property taxes, or at least that's what I remember reading (kind of an odd way of doing IMO).

Congressional Budget Office (CBO)

Education in the United States is primarily the responsibility of states and localities. However, the federal government annually provides about 10 percent of the funding for K–12 schooling and helps students finance higher education through two major programs—one that makes loans to borrowers and one that provides grants to low-income students. Between 2000 and 2009, the volume of outstanding federal student loans more than quadrupled to reach $630 billion and annual spending for grants more than tripled to stand at $27 billion. The federal tax code also offers favorable taxation treatment to educational institutions. CBO has analyzed the costs and economic impact of these and other policies that affect education.

I was trying to find the exact figures for education spending, but that's proving difficult. But I do know (from the subject being raised on many, many occasions) that you guys spend quite lot on it and aren't getting the returns you should, similar to health care. I maintain that while there are problem schools that really could do with more funding, the bigger problem is in the homes of the kids & the culture - I'm willing to bet that a lot of the nastier issues like drop out rates and kids joining gangs etc. could be curbed if these kids just had a better situation at home & good after-school programs.

[Taskmage]

I had trouble finding good numbers, too. Interesting that the average is around 10%. I found several states at 20%+ so I wonder if there are some states that take no federal money, which states those are and how their schools are doing.

It's certainly true that education doesn't take place in a bubble and there's a lot that plays into it. Glibly laying that turd on Washington's porch as I did was a bit of an overreach.

[Melody]

Sorry, what? American education is funded partially, but practically uncontrolled by the federal government. There are a lot of shitty schools out there. But most of the problems are in the local community; or arguably, the modern American culture. Not something the government can do a ton about.

Mn. I agree completely. Yeah we pay for the schooling, but it's what really happens INSIDE the schools that either give it a red or green flag. Since about 2000 the school's in my area have had an increased average of 12% more bullying issues. I don't think our government is going to send in S.W.A.T to take care of it when it's really the teachers/principal/super attendant/etc etc. It's their jobs to see that the school's are running smoothly. The government can't really keep tabs on certain schools 24/7.

Some people grow up with a silver spoon in their mouth and a black card for crying out loud.

[Firewind]

There's also the fact that the standardized tests tend to undermine the whole process of actually teaching. The teachers often end up having to teach to the test. So you have students learning how to pass exams rather than learning the material or whatever.

This is what schools in the UK have been like since the 1980's. it also doesn't help that the Conservative Government in the 1980's also decided to add in school league tables where exam results would be publicly published and school ranked depending on how many passes and how many A-C grades were achieved.

Political parties have been blaming each other since then and the current government (Conservative again) seems to want to fuck things up even more by "making examinations more difficult" which will change nothing in the big picture as schools will just shift to teaching to those standardised tests. Oh the media has also been heaping on scorn on the education system for making things easier every year when it is the Government's moronic approach to education that is the cause.

Note that the UK is one of the few European countries that does this and is frequently ranked as one of the worst countries in terms of quality and standard of education there is. Any idiot can teach in the UK, you just need to know how to teach to pass the test, that is it. You don't need to know a thing about the subject as long as you know how to show people how to pass a test. Compare to say Finland or Germany where teachers have a mandatory five year long training course before they are even considered to go into teacher training.

[Omgwtfbbqkitten]

So I should blame the community for the school blowing its budgets on sports programs and forcing art, music and theater programs to fund themselves? I should blame the community when the office spends more money on air conditioning the office when kids are still sweating it out in buildings that haven't seen an AC unit since they were built in the late 70s? And I should fault the community for science teachers that teach science through a DVD player and TV and not real effort on their own part?

I think these are problems with the infrastructure of an education system and its skewed priorities. Not all the problems come from communities and state budget cuts.

Does the football team need the same budget every year? Where does all that revenue from drinks and hot dogs go exactly? Do students really have to suffer under artificially created unpleasantness just because people in the main offices can't stand sweating? And why is a fossil that not only can't teach, but won't "teaching" science to students? Cant someone take his job or at least be allowed to compete for it.

I've had teachers that went above and beyond the call of duty to make things better for students because the school honestly would not. I'm thankful for them, but the fact they don't thrive and they're forced to deal with the mediocrity of other staff really does bother me. This is not something a community creates.

The community might encourage an emphasis on sports. Might. But the school does not have to cater to that exclusively at the expense of other student programs. Hell, the whole Penn State fiasco perfectly illustrates how corrupt and inhuman a system can become for the sake of a prestigious position in athletics. I have no pity for them.

Its rather telling the NCAA gave more of a shit about this than the university did.

[Malacite]

>.< they just put out a study showing that SAT scores are at their lowest in 40 years across all groups except for Asians.



Also worth pointing out how Texas used to be mostly Democratic (until Rove came along and reversed everything) and ever since the shift things have been going down hill (he got Bush elected Gov. and stole the election from Gore too lest we forget), what with them setting the standard for the text books and all.

Just saying >_> (For the record, it's not that I have no particular love for the Democrats - it's just that for now, it's either them, or the party that is CLEARLY batshit crazy. Ventura 2016 goddamn it!)

[Taskmage]

Theocratic oligarchy party vs those other guys.

[Icemage]

>.< they just put out a study showing that SAT scores are at their lowest in 40 years across all groups except for Asians.

I don't know what's worse: that we apparently haven't learned a thing about teaching kids in 40 years, or that despite 40 years of "progress" in test preparation, kids are doing even worse than before. It's a sad testament to how broken our education system is. As a country, the USA is failing in its obligation to the next generation. If we really want the nation to prosper, every child should have the opportunity to excel, and that's clearly not happening.

Also worth pointing out how Texas used to be mostly Democratic (until Rove came along and reversed everything) and ever since the shift things have been going down hill (he got Bush elected Gov. and stole the election from Gore too lest we forget), what with them setting the standard for the text books and all.

Eh? Texas turning Republican has nothing to do with Karl Rove. US History lesson commences:

Texas became a swing state after WWII and had basically solidified as a Republican stronghold by the mid-to-late 1960s (Jimmy Carter winning Texas in 1976 hardly counts, considering he was winning on the heels of the Watergate scandal). If you look at the predominant attitudes in Texas, it's not difficult to see why. Texans are a proud bunch (some of whom still yearn for the "glory days" when the state was independent) and staunchly conservative and traditionalist. They take a very different view of social issues than, say, Colorado, where the "frontier" mentality took a much more independent and laissez-faire shape.

Texas Presidential Election Voting History

While there are the seeds of change coming to Texas (a rising Hispanic population, greater influence from more... ah... fair-minded... metropolitans, particularly around Austin), it will be at least a decade before there could be enough demographic shift to even consider Texas coming back to even swing state status. It's not the most conservative state in the nation, but it's not far from it.


Icemage

[Malacite]

I don't know what's worse: that we apparently haven't learned a thing about teaching kids in 40 years, or that despite 40 years of "progress" in test preparation, kids are doing even worse than before. It's a sad testament to how broken our education system is. As a country, the USA is failing in its obligation to the next generation. If we really want the nation to prosper, every child should have the opportunity to excel, and that's clearly not happening.


Eh? Texas turning Republican has nothing to do with Karl Rove. US History lesson commences:

Texas became a swing state after WWII and had basically solidified as a Republican stronghold by the mid-to-late 1960s (Jimmy Carter winning Texas in 1976 hardly counts, considering he was winning on the heels of the Watergate scandal). If you look at the predominant attitudes in Texas, it's not difficult to see why. Texans are a proud bunch (some of whom still yearn for the "glory days" when the state was independent) and staunchly conservative and traditionalist. They take a very different view of social issues than, say, Colorado, where the "frontier" mentality took a much more independent and laissez-faire shape.

Texas Presidential Election Voting History

While there are the seeds of change coming to Texas (a rising Hispanic population, greater influence from more... ah... fair-minded... metropolitans, particularly around Austin), it will be at least a decade before there could be enough demographic shift to even consider Texas coming back to even swing state status. It's not the most conservative state in the nation, but it's not far from it.


Icemage

It has a lot to do with it, actually - like banning critical thinking studies among other "amendments" to the curriculum, because they "challenge social norms and longheld conceptions" or something to that effect (because we wouldn't want our young growing up intelligent & able to think for themselves because it's easier to retain power with a public that is scared, stupid, and unwilling to challenge things.)

No Child Left Behind is a real piece of shit too - it actually takes funding away from under-performing schools as a penalty! How stupid is that?

[Icemage]

It has a lot to do with it, actually - like banning critical thinking studies among other "amendments" to the curriculum, because they "challenge social norms and longheld conceptions" or something to that effect (because we wouldn't want our young growing up intelligent & able to think for themselves because it's easier to retain power with a public that is scared, stupid, and unwilling to challenge things.)

No Child Left Behind is a real piece of shit too - it actually takes funding away from under-performing schools as a penalty! How stupid is that?

I understand your outrage, but if you really want to help be part of the solution, you have to learn how to look at things objectively and not just say things because of what your gut tells you. Karl Rove in specific isn't particularly concerned with education - he has his own agenda and is on his own "team", and damage to the educational system is only a side-effect of what he's trying to do (which is, to my eyes, an attempt to be a power broker). He ruthlessly manipulates constituencies and politicians alike to get to that goal, but he seems unconcerned about the actual policies, per se.

If you can't separate the truth from the sound bites enough to realize that Rove has little to no impact on the degeneration of the situation in Texas, then you're only compounding the problem because what we need is understanding, not more firebrand us-versus-them rhetoric.


Icemage

[Malacite]

Direct involvement in the policies? Probably not. But he's pretty much the guy who sets the agenda, gets the people he wants elected, etc etc. You have a point and I agree, but it's hard to actually do that when the other side is living in a bubble and just to add insult to injury, is sticking their fingers in their ear "nah nah nah I can't hear you! "

Again, not that Liberals aren't guilt of this at times either, but one side shoots down their own ideas so they can make the other look bad and then come in as the conquering heroes... BAH! It's fucking deplorable the way they put their own personal gain ahead of their real responsibilities. And again, and this is why Rove needs to be dealt with, is the fact he quells any and every attempt to voice real conservative positions. I don't always agree with them, but the only folks I ever seem to hear on the right that aren't just mouth-breathing, extremists assholes are folks like David Brooks, Andrew Sulivan, Allan Simpson, Charlie Christ, and up to a point John Hunstman (and then he changed his tune too).

You never hear the kinds of proposals they offer coming out of the Republicans currently in or seeking office though because the moment they do, they get shut down because it doesn't fit in with Rove's plan/ideology. So either Obama needs to use as much force as is legally available at his disposal while the other side gets sorted out, because it's utterly impossible to have a civil and productive discussion until otherwise.

I say again, Ventura 2016. I would love to see the amount of shit he would stir up if elected (assuming no one tries to kill him - there are some people that sadly, you just don't fuck with as the Kennedies found out...)

[Icemage]

Direct involvement in the policies? Probably not. But he's pretty much the guy who sets the agenda, gets the people he wants elected, etc etc. You have a point and I agree, but it's hard to actually do that when the other side is living in a bubble and just to add insult to injury, is sticking their fingers in their ear "nah nah nah I can't hear you! "

You're giving him too much credit. He's powerful, but Barack Obama getting elected in 2008 against Rove's wishes, and Romney getting the nomination from the Republicans this year are both testament that he's not nearly as omnipotent as you seem to believe.

Again, not that Liberals aren't guilt of this at times either, but one side shoots down their own ideas so they can make the other look bad and then come in as the conquering heroes... BAH! It's fucking deplorable the way they put their own personal gain ahead of their real responsibilities. And again, and this is why Rove needs to be dealt with, is the fact he quells any and every attempt to voice real conservative positions. I don't always agree with them, but the only folks I ever seem to hear on the right that aren't just mouth-breathing, extremists assholes are folks like David Brooks, Andrew Sulivan, Allan Simpson, Charlie Christ, and up to a point John Hunstman (and then he changed his tune too).

I think it was a very sad day for the cause of conservatism the day William F. Buckley died. He was amongst the last of the old guard of reasoned conservatism, and in its place we now have a bunch of intentionally ignorant know-nothings who only know the slogans of conservatism but have no inkling of what the foundations are. George H. W. Bush (W's father) is probably the last prominent member of that group, and he has unfortunately chosen not to fight the tide of ignorance which stains almost the entire party.

Andrew Sullivan is a study in contradictions. He's a conservative who sees clearly and has paid the price of his "apostasy"; he is unwelcome in modern conservatism because of his support for Obama since 2008 (and continued support for Obama in this election). Yet many of the firebrand liberals and progressives view him askance because at the core he's still miles away from them in terms of policy (but not intent). Of course, as a moderate myself, I like him immensely for his courage and clarity.

Charlie Crist hails from my home state of Florida, so I know him better than most. I voted for him when he ran for Governor, and still consider him one of the most compassionate and clear-headed politicians today. He lacks the personal magnetism of an Obama, Clinton, or Reagan, but you'd be hard pressed to find a bigger believer in bipartasan compromise - in the interest of getting things done instead of pointless arguing - anywhere.

Probably the only member of the Republican party I still hold respect for is Olympia Snowe from Maine. She's fantastic. Seriously. She stays out of the infighting, votes her conscience, and uses straight talk instead of weasel-speak. If she ever ran for President, I'd vote for her, no matter what party banner she ran under.

You never hear the kinds of proposals they offer coming out of the Republicans currently in or seeking office though because the moment they do, they get shut down because it doesn't fit in with Rove's plan/ideology. So either Obama needs to use as much force as is legally available at his disposal while the other side gets sorted out, because it's utterly impossible to have a civil and productive discussion until otherwise.

That's not Rove. He likes to take credit for the ascendence of neoconservatism, but my read is that he's just being an opportunist taking credit for machinations made decades ago. The problem the Republicans have is that the idiocracy they envisioned controlling is now growing up and has taken control away from them. Rove's not responsible for that.

I say again, Ventura 2016. I would love to see the amount of shit he would stir up if elected (assuming no one tries to kill him - there are some people that sadly, you just don't fuck with as the Kennedies found out...)

I'd vote for Crist or Snow before Ventura. Ventura's a nice guy, but not particularly bright.


Icemage

[Yellow Mage]

I'd just like to note that while Crist more than deserves a national platform, his personal vendetta against Gainesville was not very welcome as Governor . . .