4 ms·

To be fair, I don’t think anyone’s trying to eliminate public education. That’s a very unfair characterization. They are just trying to cut down large educati

To be fair, I don’t think anyone’s trying to eliminate public education. That’s a very unfair characterization. They are just trying to cut down large education bureaucracies that don’t appear to be benefiting the students. Generally very large or very small public school systems in America really underperform for the students. It’s not clear that the Federal resources in the Dept of Education are directly benefiting the students. They are trying to give more control over education to parents and local communities especially those in underperforming areas.

deleted 1y ago
[deleted]
giraffe_lady 1y ago
> To be fair, I don’t think anyone’s trying to eliminate public education. That’s a very unfair characterization. It's not unfair at all, that is what they're trying to do. It would be a political career ender to say that so they say things like "trying to cut down large education bureaucracies that don’t appear to be benefiting the students." But there is an influential contingent of republicans that wants to effectively end american universal public education and they're not meaningfully opposed within the party. > It’s not clear that the Federal resources in the Dept of Education are directly benefiting the students. What's your area of experience with education where this is how you've come to see it? Because for what I do, it's extremely obvious that these resources do benefit the students.
4MOAisgoodenuf 1y ago
There are absolutely actors who wish to privatize education. And, depending on the district, those federal resources provide a significant chunk of the funding for schools. In my local district in Kansas, it’s about 13% of public school funding, in the district next door it’s about 44%. Without that funding many public schools in the area would close with no alternative. By cutting off those resources, there is no “choice” or “control” being given to local communities unless you mean a certain family in Wichita…
- daft_pink 1y ago
  I mean that the republican party, the democrat party, the people in charge of the department of education don’t have an explicit goal of eliminating public schools. I’m sure there are some very extreme people who exist. Federal funding is less than 10% of public school education funding and if it were reduced or went away, it doesn’t mean that a bunch of kids would just stop having any school.
  - 4MOAisgoodenuf 1y ago
    > Federal funding is less than 10% of public school education funding As I stated above, this greatly depends on your school district. Some schools receive <5% of their funding from the DoE, others receive as much as 75%. Some of this funding is explicitly for general operations and other funding like that through IDEA is for assisting students with disabilities. Some of these public schools are already hanging on by a thread and having trouble paying high enough wages to fill positions.
    - daft_pink 1y ago
      Again, we are just debating how to actually fund schools. These are just really extreme statements, where the state or local government would need to step up, because schools are a basic service provided by the government and these children aren’t going to be denied access to public education. It’s not a mainstream view that we are privatizing the public education system in the United States. It’s just a choice being offered where schools are severely mismanaged that is essentially political because of teacher’s unions.
Simulacra 1y ago
I agree, and given the current education metrics of America, I don't think a federalized education department has done much good. There's too much language and cultural differences in America to have one-size-fits-all from the federal government. Perhaps I'm wearing rose tinted glasses, but I think schools should be governed on a state or local level. That way you can better match the needs of the students, all of the students, in that area.
- goalieca 1y ago
  Education is a provincial function in Canada and I think the system works great. Some provinces like Ontario struggle more than others but I think it works out well overall.
- jklowden 1y ago
  90% of funding for K-12 public schools comes from state and local taxes. That’s hardly a one-size-fits-all national system. Would you tell me though, please, what language and cultural differences should inflect science or math or literature or history? Are you suggesting evolution not be taught where there are parents who object, or that the civil war be taught differently in the former confederacy, so as not to hurt anyone’s feelings? Those things are happening, of course. I’m just innocent of any defense for them.
  - ajay-b 1y ago
    I can't tell if you're playing devils advocate, but in Texas, many students speak Spanish as their first language, we also have students and other parts of the country whose first language is not English. Some of those make up the majority, if not overwhelming majority, of some of these schools. I think it's naïve to assume that they can be taught the same as the rest of the country. There's also students with attention deficit, hyperactivity disorder, autism, disabilities, and all of that is best handled the local level so they can serve the local students. I get why some people prefer federalism and education, it allows for greater federal control. But clearly it's a disservice to students, or else the testing would show it.
jklowden 1y ago
To be fair, the characterization is entirely accurate. Anyone who speaks of "government schools" advocates their demise. They want an entirely privatized system funded at taxpayer expense: a voucher for every child to be spent as each parent decides. If that means every public school closes, well, voila: the magic of the market. Whoever "they" are in your assertion, they are not cutting down bureaucracy or promoting local control. The federal government has not issued new regulations to cap administrative overhead, for example. It simply abandoned its civil rights enforcement and slashed funding. Agreed, public schools in America do a poor job. Something like 1/3 of graduating seniors are ready for college work, according to the "national report card". But that’s by design: elected school boards and administration determine salaries and standards. No principal wants to explain poor grades to a disappointed parent; no teacher wants to combat a parent’s prejudice by teaching real history or biology. So, the curriculum is mediocre and grades are high. The situation isn’t much better at private schools by the way. Grade inflation is everywhere. Harvard just has the luxury of picking its students. No Child Left Behind and civil-rights enforcement by the department of education did narrow the achievement gap, which has now begun to widen again. So it is clear the department directly benefits student. The complaint is not that; it is that it benefits the "wrong" students, if you get my drift.

deleted 1y ago

[deleted]

giraffe_lady 1y ago

> To be fair, I don’t think anyone’s trying to eliminate public education. That’s a very unfair characterization. It's not unfair at all, that is what they're trying to do. It would be a political career ender to say that so they say things like "trying to cut down large education bureaucracies that don’t appear to be benefiting the students." But there is an influential contingent of republicans that wants to effectively end american universal public education and they're not meaningfully opposed within the party. > It’s not clear that the Federal resources in the Dept of Education are directly benefiting the students. What's your area of experience with education where this is how you've come to see it? Because for what I do, it's extremely obvious that these resources do benefit the students.

4MOAisgoodenuf 1y ago

There are absolutely actors who wish to privatize education. And, depending on the district, those federal resources provide a significant chunk of the funding for schools. In my local district in Kansas, it’s about 13% of public school funding, in the district next door it’s about 44%. Without that funding many public schools in the area would close with no alternative. By cutting off those resources, there is no “choice” or “control” being given to local communities unless you mean a certain family in Wichita…

daft_pink 1y ago
I mean that the republican party, the democrat party, the people in charge of the department of education don’t have an explicit goal of eliminating public schools. I’m sure there are some very extreme people who exist. Federal funding is less than 10% of public school education funding and if it were reduced or went away, it doesn’t mean that a bunch of kids would just stop having any school.
- 4MOAisgoodenuf 1y ago
  > Federal funding is less than 10% of public school education funding As I stated above, this greatly depends on your school district. Some schools receive <5% of their funding from the DoE, others receive as much as 75%. Some of this funding is explicitly for general operations and other funding like that through IDEA is for assisting students with disabilities. Some of these public schools are already hanging on by a thread and having trouble paying high enough wages to fill positions.
  - daft_pink 1y ago
    Again, we are just debating how to actually fund schools. These are just really extreme statements, where the state or local government would need to step up, because schools are a basic service provided by the government and these children aren’t going to be denied access to public education. It’s not a mainstream view that we are privatizing the public education system in the United States. It’s just a choice being offered where schools are severely mismanaged that is essentially political because of teacher’s unions.

Simulacra 1y ago

I agree, and given the current education metrics of America, I don't think a federalized education department has done much good. There's too much language and cultural differences in America to have one-size-fits-all from the federal government. Perhaps I'm wearing rose tinted glasses, but I think schools should be governed on a state or local level. That way you can better match the needs of the students, all of the students, in that area.

goalieca 1y ago
Education is a provincial function in Canada and I think the system works great. Some provinces like Ontario struggle more than others but I think it works out well overall.
jklowden 1y ago
90% of funding for K-12 public schools comes from state and local taxes. That’s hardly a one-size-fits-all national system. Would you tell me though, please, what language and cultural differences should inflect science or math or literature or history? Are you suggesting evolution not be taught where there are parents who object, or that the civil war be taught differently in the former confederacy, so as not to hurt anyone’s feelings? Those things are happening, of course. I’m just innocent of any defense for them.
- ajay-b 1y ago
  I can't tell if you're playing devils advocate, but in Texas, many students speak Spanish as their first language, we also have students and other parts of the country whose first language is not English. Some of those make up the majority, if not overwhelming majority, of some of these schools. I think it's naïve to assume that they can be taught the same as the rest of the country. There's also students with attention deficit, hyperactivity disorder, autism, disabilities, and all of that is best handled the local level so they can serve the local students. I get why some people prefer federalism and education, it allows for greater federal control. But clearly it's a disservice to students, or else the testing would show it.

jklowden 1y ago

To be fair, the characterization is entirely accurate. Anyone who speaks of "government schools" advocates their demise. They want an entirely privatized system funded at taxpayer expense: a voucher for every child to be spent as each parent decides. If that means every public school closes, well, voila: the magic of the market. Whoever "they" are in your assertion, they are not cutting down bureaucracy or promoting local control. The federal government has not issued new regulations to cap administrative overhead, for example. It simply abandoned its civil rights enforcement and slashed funding. Agreed, public schools in America do a poor job. Something like 1/3 of graduating seniors are ready for college work, according to the "national report card". But that’s by design: elected school boards and administration determine salaries and standards. No principal wants to explain poor grades to a disappointed parent; no teacher wants to combat a parent’s prejudice by teaching real history or biology. So, the curriculum is mediocre and grades are high. The situation isn’t much better at private schools by the way. Grade inflation is everywhere. Harvard just has the luxury of picking its students. No Child Left Behind and civil-rights enforcement by the department of education did narrow the achievement gap, which has now begun to widen again. So it is clear the department directly benefits student. The complaint is not that; it is that it benefits the "wrong" students, if you get my drift.