Forwards NOT Backwards

[TheLeviathan]

 

No idea what "lefty parents" have to do with the GOP attack on education....but it is a great distraction.

 

I was directly responding to a comment by Vanimal about NCLB when you decided to plant some  talking point.  There is a common misconception that Bush went rogue on education and implemented some right-wing ideal.  All he did (and Obama has followed suit) is follow a chain of progression in the works for a long time.

 

The in-the-classroom effects have been a bi-partisan effort.  While one party's rhetoric may be more harsh on education on a wider level, but both ideologies are pushing things the way they are now. Both sides are stifling free speech and the free exchange of ideas.  Both parties are full of elites who want to stay that way.  It's just neither side recognizes it in their own house because it's easier to blame the other side.

[Mike Sixel]

I totally recognize that the left is full of elites that want to stifle free speech.....but keep making those statements over and over. It really makes us want to engage with you when you attack people for no reason.

 

Not sure what that has to do with gutting education spending for elementary and HS students, just look at the states the GOP has controlled the last 2 decades vs the other states, are you actually arguing there is no difference in the policies? Is that your actual argument? That the GOP has equally funded and encouraged the value of science, education, and even retraining of older workers? Are you actually arguing there is no delta in education policies, between a group that tweets out Breitbart articles denying science is real, and the other side?

[TheLeviathan]

 

I totally recognize that the left is full of elites that want to stifle free speech.....but keep making those statements over and over. It really makes us want to engage with you when you attack people for no reason.

 

Not sure what that has to do with gutting education spending for elementary and HS students, just look at the states the GOP has controlled the last 2 decades vs the other states, are you actually arguing there is no difference in the policies? Is that your actual argument? That the GOP has equally funded and encouraged the value of science, education, and even retraining of older workers? Are you actually arguing there is no delta in education policies, between a group that tweets out Breitbart articles denying science is real, and the other side?

 

I keep making these statements because most of you are left-wingers that have struggled throughout this campaign to identify your side's issues and your side's role in the problems.  Believe me, I do the same on the other side, but all of you have chased those people away here.  You've made it a comfy like-fest for your own echochamber.  Maybe I'm pushing back too hard, but I'm one of the few left here with even a moderate point of view.  So sorry that you don't like to hear it, but perhaps you should.  It's not like I was wrong during the campaigns, I was calling many of the issues that ultimately came to a head and we ended up with Trump.  I like to think it's much easier to fix the camp you're in.  (And after many holiday conversations with more right-leaning family members of my own, I believe that more than ever)

 

I don't disagree that right-wing controlled states are worse.  I work in one now, believe me, I get it.  I miss Minnesota.  I said, in response to you, that there is not an equivalency.  The right is pushing for things like school choice that I adamantly oppose.  The right demeans the profession more often, as you've stated.  I agree.  But at the same time, even back in Minnesota, the Democrats aren't exactly fighting the right causes either.  They're pushing just a milder version of the same thing.  

 

What I'd like to see the left do is stand up for decoupling education from property taxes, but how many affluent people of any political persuasion, are standing up for that?

[TheLeviathan]

This may also be helpful to show my point.  He's wittier than I am.

[Mike Sixel]

 

I keep making these statements because most of you are left-wingers that have struggled throughout this campaign to identify your side's issues and your side's role in the problems.  Believe me, I do the same on the other side, but all of you have chased those people away here.  You've made it a comfy like-fest for your own echochamber.  Maybe I'm pushing back too hard, but I'm one of the few left here with even a moderate point of view.  So sorry that you don't like to hear it, but perhaps you should.  It's not like I was wrong during the campaigns, I was calling many of the issues that ultimately came to a head and we ended up with Trump.  I like to think it's much easier to fix the camp you're in.  (And after many holiday conversations with more right-leaning family members of my own, I believe that more than ever)

 

I don't disagree that right-wing controlled states are worse.  I work in one now, believe me, I get it.  I miss Minnesota.  I said, in response to you, that there is not an equivalency.  The right is pushing for things like school choice that I adamantly oppose.  The right demeans the profession more often, as you've stated.  I agree.  But at the same time, even back in Minnesota, the Democrats aren't exactly fighting the right causes either.  They're pushing just a milder version of the same thing.  

 

What I'd like to see the left do is stand up for decoupling education from property taxes, but how many affluent people of any political persuasion, are standing up for that?

 

thanks, I think we are talking past each other some.

 

And, I don't think the Dems are liberals, frankly.

 

Other than healthcare, I'm pretty sure I'm about the same moderate that I was in the 80s, the parties have swung to the right, imo.

[TheLeviathan]

You're probably right and I do think we've shifted right of center as well.  I said in the election thread that I thought Clinton was a moderate.  I still do, I wouldn't classify her as "left".

 

Hell, I'm a small government, free choice libertarian.  I feel like a liberal these days.

[TheLeviathan]

On reflection, I think I talk more in terms of ideology and people talk more in terms of party.  I think there is a big distinction there (mostly because both parties are corrupt elitists that really don't represent anyone but themselves), but I think that causes a lot of disconnect.

 

I'll try to talk more in terms of party, but I'm not sure that's always helpful.

[Mike Sixel]

 

On reflection, I think I talk more in terms of ideology and people talk more in terms of party.  I think there is a big distinction there (mostly because both parties are corrupt elitists that really don't represent anyone but themselves), but I think that causes a lot of disconnect.

 

I'll try to talk more in terms of party, but I'm not sure that's always helpful.

 

Well, the parties control the spending and policies, mostly, So, that's more important to me, it's nice that my GOP friends think gays should have equal rights, or we should pay for public schools, but in the end, it matters more what the party does/votes.

[TheLeviathan]

 

Well, the parties control the spending and policies, mostly, So, that's more important to me, it's nice that my GOP friends think gays should have equal rights, or we should pay for public schools, but in the end, it matters more what the party does/votes.

 

You're right and that was part of what I considered.  Big picture the ideologies drive the party.  Clearly right wing ideology, the extreme ends, has been more effective the last few decades.

[Mike Sixel]

 

You're right and that was part of what I considered.  Big picture the ideologies drive the party.  Clearly right wing ideology, the extreme ends, has been more effective the last few decades.

 

The left has really failed the last few years/decades. I mostly blame our worshiping at the alter of "free market capitalism" as if that actually existed....an alter I used to worship at.

[nicksaviking]

 

What I'd like to see the left do is stand up for decoupling education from property taxes, but how many affluent people of any political persuasion, are standing up for that?

 

I'm just curious, how do you want to fund education? Generally the property owners ARE more affluent and they can better afford to fund education as opposed to an income or sales tax which people of all walks of life would fund more equally.

 

Frankly for me how it's funded isn't an issue, not that I don't understand why it is for others. For me, I really hate that so many cities/states have local elected officials that are too cowardly to decide what their area educational needs are and put educational funding to a public vote. Grow a pair, you were elected to make those decisions, not to hide and do nothing until the next election.

[Mike Sixel]

 

I'm just curious, how do you want to fund education? Generally the property owners ARE more affluent and they can better afford to fund education as opposed to an income or sales tax which people of all walks of life would fund more equally.

 

Frankly for me how it's funded isn't an issue, not that I don't understand why it is for others. For me, I really hate that so many cities/states have local elected officials that are too cowardly to decide what their area educational needs are and put educational funding to a public vote. Grow a pair, you were elected to make those decisions, not to hide and do nothing until the next election.

 

In MN, it is not so dependent on property taxes as other states, so poorer neighborhoods can still have good schools. In other states, only the rich hoods have good schools, and even then....

 

[TheLeviathan]

 

I'm just curious, how do you want to fund education? Generally the property owners ARE more affluent and they can better afford to fund education as opposed to an income or sales tax which people of all walks of life would fund more equally.

 

Frankly for me how it's funded isn't an issue, not that I don't understand why it is for others. For me, I really hate that so many cities/states have local elected officials that are too cowardly to decide what their area educational needs are and put educational funding to a public vote. Grow a pair, you were elected to make those decisions, not to hide and do nothing until the next election.

 

I wouldn't have a problem with continuing to fund it through property taxes, but I want to decouple it as such a direct pipeline.  Bad, poor neighborhoods should still have nice schools.  In many places the money collected never leaves the neighborhood, so if you live in an affluent area, your schools are great.  If you don't, your school sucks.  So while state funds are divvied per pupil, the local revenues have no such obligation.  And, in my experience, those revenues are the difference makers.

 

Even in Minnesota, which does pool funds and redistributes them, there is still roughly 30% of school funds that come from local sources.  So your local 30% vs. someone else's 30% can vary wildly.  Nationally about 45% of funding is locally driven.  

 

To piggyback this post with a response to Mike, I do like free market capitalism.  But I don't worship it and i think what that can look like varies wildly.  (Like you, I think some sort of Basic Income idea and I think it is workable with the free market and capitalism)   But one of the central pillars of capitalism is a vibrant, educated, inventive work force.  Education is critical for that.  By allowing many in our society to suffer under poorly funded schools is antithetical to the free market.  At least one that works IMO.

[nicksaviking]

 

I wouldn't have a problem with continuing to fund it through property taxes, but I want to decouple it as such a direct pipeline.  Bad, poor neighborhoods should still have nice schools.  In many places the money collected never leaves the neighborhood, so if you live in an affluent area, your schools are great.  If you don't, your school sucks.  So while state funds are divvied per pupil, the local revenues have no such obligation.  And, in my experience, those revenues are the difference makers.

 

Got it, yeah that's BS. My area has pooled school funding, which is why I'm not upset that my kid is going to a school in a low income neighborhood even though we live in a pretty nice one.

 

I guess I was naïve, I wasn't aware that other areas still funded schools in that bizarro alternate way. How is/was that not considered a practice enabling Redlining? I would have thought the FHA would have stopped that nonsense.

[TheLeviathan]

Education is so state driven it's a major issue.  This may help too:

 

http://www2.ed.gov/about/overview/fed/10facts/expend.gif

[TheLeviathan]

This is well worth the read also.

 

Pretty much says it all:

That $9,794 is how much money the Chicago Ridge School District in Illinois spent per child in 2013 (the number has been adjusted by Education Week to account for regional cost differences). It's well below that year's national average of $11,841.

Ridge's two elementary campuses and one middle school sit along Chicago's southern edge. Roughly two-thirds of its students come from low-income families, and a third are learning English as a second language.

 

It has 22 teachers and 145 students, and spent $28,639 on each one of them.

What does that look like?

Class sizes in Rondout are small, and every student has an individualized learning plan. Nearly all teachers have a decade of experience and earn, on average, more than $90,000. Kids have at least one daily break for "mindful movement," and lunch is cooked on-site, including a daily vegetarian option.