More
9

12 comments

[–] PhunkyPlatypus 4 points (+4|-0) Edited

Adult literacy rates are a statistic that we all benefit from. It not only improves the quality of life for the individual but as well as everyone that person interacts with.

As a country that prides itself as being the best in the world at everything. It baffles me that education is so neglected.
[–] CDanger 1 points (+1|-0)

From the right you have those who want to cut school funding because of poor results and wasteful bureaucracy. On the left you have those who want to throw more funding at the problem and while defending unions and administration against reforms that would help the students. Both sides benefit from the contention and easy political points that can score with their supporters.
[–] cyclops1771 2 points (+2|-0)

I disagree. The right doesn't want to "cut school funding". They want to cut DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION funding, which does nothing (in my opinion) but add cost to the schools through mandates and bureaucratic red tape/requirements.

In 1998-1999 education spending was roughly $5-6k per student. Baltimore was the most expensive school district with a cost per student of roughly $12k. Now, we are approaching $13k as the average, with the highs in the lower $20ks.

A large portion of this spending increase is in Administration, not in teachers, pensions, books, etc. Yes, some is due to technology over materials - laptops and projectors instead of mimoegrpahs and overheads, but the larger is in the increase in compliance offices, to make sure schools fill out and maintain the mandated activities from the D of Ed.

[–] CDanger 2 points (+2|-0)

Agree with everything you said about the DoE and bloated administration being large drivers of the problem. But I stick to the original assertion that the right does want to cut school and education funding.

Republicans in North Carolina cut funding https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/answer-sheet/wp/2017/05/14/republicans-in-n-c-senate-cut-education-funding-but-only-in-democratic-districts-really/

Look at what happened in Kansas. Governor Brownback completely gutted the education system https://www.kansas.com/news/politics-government/article9351788.html

And then there are Republicans seeking to cut school lunches.

Now this does not mean everyone on the right supports defunding schools and education, but my point is that this is far from a fringe position amongst Republicans. Personally I wouldn't want to be associated with such poor policy, so I openly criticize it. There are undoubtedly very useful reforms and vouchers that could be made to create competetion between schools and drive improvement, but I wouldn't trust Republicans to do that given their record of gutting education at any chance they have.
[–] Justintoxicated 2 points (+2|-0)

The lawsuit even mentions one eighth grade student who "taught" a seventh and eighth grade math class for a month because no teacher could be found.

This shit bothers me, people are basically just telling these kids they don't care enough about them to even hire a sub or even a random adult. Politics aside, I feel like it would just suck to be a kid there that was told "if you work hard in school you can get out of this shithole".

[–] ScorpioGlitch 1 points (+2|-1)

It's right there next to the "shall not be infringed" clause.

No, you don't have a right to education. You don't have a right to health care. You don't have a right to home ownership. You don't have a right to phones. You don't have a right to cars.

This is what happens when society becomes used to getting everything from a government.

[–] CDanger 0 points (+1|-1) Edited

Agree that the government shouldn't provide phones or cars. But children are forced to go to school. If students aren't receiving an education, what justifies removing their freedom and forcing them there every day? How would somebody defend the constitutionality of schools when viewing them as having no requirement to educate?
[–] ScorpioGlitch 0 points (+1|-1) Edited

But children are forced to go to school

No they're not. Children are required to have an education expoerience, not a school experience. You can homeschool or send them to a private institution or to another country for education, etc etc etc.

what justifies removing their freedom and forcing them there every day

It's not about education. It's about training them to do something they don't want to do for roughly 8 hours a day. It's work training.

How would somebody defend the constitutionality of schools

There's nothing in the Constitution about schools however a SCOTUS judge might be able to make a case that in order to adaquately avail yourself of Constitutionally provided rights you must have a basic education.

It is not the government's responsibility to provide an education but it is the parent's responsibility to ensure that they have one.

[–] CDanger 1 points (+2|-1)

Children are required to have an education expoerience, not a school experience

That seems to be nearly the exact opposite conclusion from this case, viz the state must provide a school experience but it doesn't have to be an education experience.

I get what you're saying about parental reponsibility and how the parents need to provide instruction in addition to what happens in school--whether at home or in the public schools. However, that's not even close to practical to expect minimum wage workers to give their kids necessary and adequate instruction, nevermind willfully neglectful or abusive parents. Leaving kids at the complete mercy of having good parents would produce even more dysfunctional illiterates than we have today, and that would be disastrous for both the economy and society. Since we're using schools are day care facilities and warehousing kids 9 months of the year there, they might as well gain useful skills and literacy during that time.
©2016-2022 Phuks LLC. All Rights Reserved.
ToS | Privacy | Changelog | Canary | Donate | Bugs | License
Served by c7693d2284ae