Education thread

[1 CAT FAN]

In following this thread it is clear folks feel their public education was very good. I am in the same boat. I suspect most of our public education came before 1979. Hence the point for dismantling the DOE.

What do you think the Department of Education did to harm schools or education in general. Real question. Because they don't control curriculum, they don't control teacher hiring or certification standards. It seems it would be pretty hard to do much damage without controlling those two.

So they're useless. The real question is what they don't do. It's going to be rectified.

[GoCubsGo]

In following this thread it is clear folks feel their public education was very good. I am in the same boat. I suspect most of our public education came before 1979. Hence the point for dismantling the DOE.

What do you think the Department of Education did to harm schools or education in general. Real question. Because they don't control curriculum, they don't control teacher hiring or certification standards. It seems it would be pretty hard to do much damage without controlling those two.

Good luck getting a serious answer on that one.

Yeah, they won't be missed.

The Department of Education has many different and varied responsibilities under its current formation and governs many offices including the Federal Student Aid (FSA), Institute of Education Sciences (IES), Office for Civil Rights (OCR), and the Office of Special Education and Rehabilitative Services (OSERS).

Under the FSA, the Education Department manages the $1.693 trillion outstanding federal student loan balance, as well several student aid programs like the Pell Grant and work study. The department is the largest source of loans for college students.

The department also provides 13.6% of funding for public K-12 education, according to the Education Data Initiative, sending funding streams that include Title I—which describes federal allocation of supplemental financial assistance to school districts/schools with a high percentage of children from low-income families—as well as grants under IDEA (Individuals with Disabilities Education Act), providing money to districts to serve and teach students with disabilities, and grants for things like adult rehabilitation services.

The department collects data on education facilities nationwide, and enforces non-discrimination and civil rights laws in federally funded schools, including Title VI and Title IX.

Collins pointed out that Title I, Title IX, and programs at the federal level create an equalizing factor that helps to cut through education inequalities between states, creating “incentives for continuity.”

“This is the problem of pursuing so much responsibility and discretion at the state level,” he said. “The potential danger [with dismantling the Department] is that you're putting a lot of responsibility on the backs of these education agencies across states that are already strapped when it comes to their capacity, and you're creating an environment where [a person’s] educational experience will become heavily dependent on the state they live in”

[O Really]

Ah, there ya go. I think I understand why they want it gone. "The department collects data on education facilities nationwide, and enforces non-discrimination and civil rights laws in federally funded schools, including Title VI and Title IX."

[O Really]

Sure any administration could transfer things like loan management, etc. somewhere else, but shouldn't a supposedly 1st world country demonstrate its commitment to education of the citizens by having a cabinet-level department? Unless, of course, you "love the uneducated."

[Supsalemgr]

In following this thread it is clear folks feel their public education was very good. I am in the same boat. I suspect most of our public education came before 1979. Hence the point for dismantling the DOE.

What do you think the Department of Education did to harm schools or education in general. Real question. Because they don't control curriculum, they don't control teacher hiring or certification standards. It seems it would be pretty hard to do much damage without controlling those two.

The results since it was formed is indictment enough the tax payers have received little benefit from whatever it does. That is the point. Why fund if we do not see any benefits.

[GoCubsGo]

Sure any administration could transfer things like loan management, etc. somewhere else, but shouldn't a supposedly 1st world country demonstrate its commitment to education of the citizens by having a cabinet-level department? Unless, of course, you "love the uneducated."

[O Really]

In following this thread it is clear folks feel their public education was very good. I am in the same boat. I suspect most of our public education came before 1979. Hence the point for dismantling the DOE.

What do you think the Department of Education did to harm schools or education in general. Real question. Because they don't control curriculum, they don't control teacher hiring or certification standards. It seems it would be pretty hard to do much damage without controlling those two.

The results since it was formed is indictment enough the tax payers have received little benefit from whatever it does. That is the point. Why fund if we do not see any benefits.

Thanks for the answer, but if the DOE doesn't control curriculum or teacher hiring or certification, or selection of students, how is it reasonable to measure their value in classroom performance? That isn't and never was their job. You implied that public education declined after 1979, but as far as I can tell you've drawn no causative line from DOE. I think that's a lot like saying that property losses have increased in the past 10 years and therefore it's the Department of Insurance's fault.

[Supsalemgr]

In following this thread it is clear folks feel their public education was very good. I am in the same boat. I suspect most of our public education came before 1979. Hence the point for dismantling the DOE.

What do you think the Department of Education did to harm schools or education in general. Real question. Because they don't control curriculum, they don't control teacher hiring or certification standards. It seems it would be pretty hard to do much damage without controlling those two.

The results since it was formed is indictment enough the tax payers have received little benefit from whatever it does. That is the point. Why fund if we do not see any benefits.

Thanks for the answer, but if the DOE doesn't control curriculum or teacher hiring or certification, or selection of students, how is it reasonable to measure their value in classroom performance? That isn't and never was their job. You implied that public education declined after 1979, but as far as I can tell you've drawn no causative line from DOE. I think that's a lot like saying that property losses have increased in the past 10 years and therefore it's the Department of Insurance's fault.

Then what was the purpose of the department?

[1 CAT FAN]

Sure any administration could transfer things like loan management, etc. somewhere else, but shouldn't a supposedly 1st world country demonstrate its commitment to education of the citizens by having a cabinet-level department? Unless, of course, you "love the uneducated."

That's evident of today's kids education and you had the gall to laugh about it. Unless you were laughing about liberal shit, that's been pushed on them. It's going to be removed.

[Vrede too]

Ah, there ya go. I think I understand why they want it gone. "The department collects data on education facilities nationwide, and enforces non-discrimination and civil rights laws in federally funded schools, including Title VI and Title IX."

Hardcore White supremacy shows up in so much of what they're doing.

[Vrede too]

Thanks for the answer, but if the DOE doesn't control curriculum or teacher hiring or certification, or selection of students, how is it reasonable to measure their value in classroom performance? That isn't and never was their job. You implied that public education declined after 1979, but as far as I can tell you've drawn no causative line from DOE. I think that's a lot like saying that property losses have increased in the past 10 years and therefore it's the Department of Insurance's fault.

There's a more direct causative line from the RW's philosophic opposition to public education because it's socialist and egalitarian. They have steadily picked apart at it with caps on funding, shifting of public money to xtian madrassas, restrictions on teachers, transfer of wealth from the middle and working classes to the uber-rich, and now the so-called "parents' rights" movement that is really just thinly disguised xtian White supremacy. When was the last time you heard a RWer talk about improving public education instead of tearing it down?

[Supsalemgr]

Thanks for the answer, but if the DOE doesn't control curriculum or teacher hiring or certification, or selection of students, how is it reasonable to measure their value in classroom performance? That isn't and never was their job. You implied that public education declined after 1979, but as far as I can tell you've drawn no causative line from DOE. I think that's a lot like saying that property losses have increased in the past 10 years and therefore it's the Department of Insurance's fault.

There's a more direct causative line from the RW's philosophic opposition to public education because it's socialist and egalitarian. They have steadily picked apart at it with caps on funding, shifting of public money to xtian madrassas, restrictions on teachers, transfer of wealth from the middle and working classes to the uber-rich, and now the so-called "parents' rights" movement that is really just thinly disguised xtian White supremacy. When was the last time you heard a RWer talk about improving public education instead of tearing it down?

Moving responsibility more to the states is an opportunity to begin improvement. Parental involvement is also a big piece of improvement.

[1 CAT FAN]

When was the last time you heard a RWer talk about improving public education instead of tearing it down?

When conservatives won the election. Now they're gonna throw out the liberal trash, no need to collect data on that.

[Vrede too]

Sure any administration could transfer things like loan management, etc. somewhere else, but shouldn't a supposedly 1st world country demonstrate its commitment to education of the citizens by having a cabinet-level department? Unless, of course, you "love the uneducated."

Ditto

[1 CAT FAN]

Choose another, that one has been taken, compassionate nurse.

Sure any administration could transfer things like loan management, etc. somewhere else, but shouldn't a supposedly 1st world country demonstrate its commitment to education of the citizens by having a cabinet-level department? Unless, of course, you "love the uneducated."

That's evident of today's kids education and you had the gall to laugh about it. Unless you were laughing about liberal shit, that's been pushed on them. It's going to be removed.

[GoCubsGo]

Sure any administration could transfer things like loan management, etc. somewhere else, but shouldn't a supposedly 1st world country demonstrate its commitment to education of the citizens by having a cabinet-level department? Unless, of course, you "love the uneducated."

Ditto

There's some numbnuts around here that seem to think school age kids are voting.

[O Really]

Moving responsibility more to the states is an opportunity to begin improvement. Parental involvement is also a big piece of improvement.

Responsibility for what that they don't have now? Raising the 15% of so of their budget that is now federal? And most would agree that it depends on the parent as to whether more involvement would be an improvement.

[Vrede too]

Responsibility for what that they don't have now? Raising the 15% of so of their budget that is now federal? And most would agree that it depends on the parent as to whether more involvement would be an improvement.

Right now the narrative has been captured by the bigoted xtian extremist parents, but they are a fringe. Parental involvement has never been discouraged and parents are aching to participate. However, that's made difficult by an economy and culture that forces most parents to work long hours, all so the fat cats can concentrate ever more wealth.

Then, red states have no intention to begin improvement of our "socialist" public schools. Rather, they want to divert more of our money to xtian madrassas and predatory corporate "educators". Privatization without restraint is their dogmatic goal.

[Supsalemgr]

Moving responsibility more to the states is an opportunity to begin improvement. Parental involvement is also a big piece of improvement.

Responsibility for what that they don't have now? Raising the 15% of so of their budget that is now federal? And most would agree that it depends on the parent as to whether more involvement would be an improvement.

I am still awaiting a response to my question of "What does the DOE do?".

[Whack9]

Moving responsibility more to the states is an opportunity to begin improvement. Parental involvement is also a big piece of improvement.

Responsibility for what that they don't have now? Raising the 15% of so of their budget that is now federal? And most would agree that it depends on the parent as to whether more involvement would be an improvement.

I am still awaiting a response to my question of "What does the DOE do?".

viewtopic.php?p=210762#p210762

I am going to completely blow your mind. Check this out. It's a website you can go to search for information. You type in the question, then press the button that says "search". It'll return pages upon pages of results which can be used to help find answers to questions you may have. It's the wildest thing.

http://www.google.com