American Politics Discussion Thread

[greenline]

In the most simple terms, the plan would be replacing the department of education with no department of education.

Public schooling is not something required to give children an education. I was a prodigious reader as a child. My parents responded by purchasing me books to read. Parents interested in their children's education already push and fight for access to 'good' (expensive) public school districts. Removing public education would just mean they fight over private schools instead. The main losers would be the few intelligent children born to poor parents who can't afford private school. They are a small minority and it is not worth the enormous burden on spending that public education is. And even then, many private school institutions are eager to offer scholarships or other opportunities to the poor and destitute who are gifted.

There are obviously children who are too young to be left to their own devices. They are primarily ages 1-6 or so. Public education continues far past this age range, into the twenties if you count the whole student loan market for universities. A 'plan' might be to remove the department of education and offer children ages 1-6 free daycare.

[Mjmd]

Its a good thing education isn't a pillar of advanced economies or anything.

Please go look at countries without education systems before believing in this GARBAGE. PLEASE. 

Again, overconfident belief in simple solutions. Don't do it.

[greenline]

Its a good thing education isn't a pillar of advanced economies or anything.

Please go look at countries without education systems before believing in this GARBAGE. PLEASE. 

Again, overconfident belief in simple solutions. Don't do it.

There are countries without education systems that are riddled with poverty, corruption, and violence, most in Africa. There are countries with extensive education systems that are riddled with poverty, corruption, and violence, like India or many countries in Latin America. El Salvador used to be one of the most violent countries in the world, and recently became one of the safest countries in the region. It did not do this through expanding public education. China used to be one of the poorest countries in the world, now it is one of the richest and most powerful. It did not do this by expanding public education.

[Mjmd]

Your positive examples are a police state (and mind you their economy isn't good) and a country that purposeful keeps wages low. Not great examples. It should be noted China has an education system so its not even a good example for you. I'm not sure anyone would argue India has an extensive education system yet either. Give me a high gnp / capita country example with no education system. That would be the counter point that that system CAN work. Mind you even that isn't a guarantee it would work for us or works most of the time, but I don't think you could find even 1 example.

Your whole argument is flawed. Logically fallacy of non sequitar. Our education system is flawed. Get rid of the education system. Education improves??? Are you really saying it would? Or are you admitting education would drop and just not caring? Again, either way most advanced economies rely on educated work forces, so neither of those options seems well thought out.

[T-hawk]

You're all missing this point: This is only talking about the FEDERAL department. It's not talking about ending public schooling. Just leave it to states and localities, let them compete to deliver better systems. There's no need for this department at the federal level, it's only tax-wasting bureaucracy.

Do you know how old the federal department is? Only from 1980. The world wars, moon landing, computers, and all that, all happened without any federally directed education.

[Mjmd]

Removing public education would just mean they fight over private schools instead. 

Greenline actually IS arguing that. I deleted what he wrote after because its horrific.

[greenline]

I may be incorrect in assuming the large amount of state driven public education spending is backed by federal money somewhere in the pipeline.

[Mjmd]

Most public school funding is from local property taxes, which is why a lot of conservatives don't like public schooling. However, there are federal funds as well, which is something that department is in charge of dispersing. So if you eliminated it you would need to either not or move that function. To be fair a lot of that funding goes to low income areas you don't care about. It also does grants. Its also in charge of statistics, so if you want to know how schools are doing. Or you could just not care. If you don't care, then yes it sounds like a great idea. If you want a more educated work force then it sounds stupid.

[Dreylin]

Removing public education would just mean they fight over private schools instead. 

This is actually a huge problem in rural areas where there are no private schools. Incidentally these areas tend to be highly Republican-leaning, which sets up the current war in the Texas Republican party over school vouchers, where rural Republicans see as funneling away resources from their already underserved communities.

It's OK though, Gov. Abbott used his political muscle (AKA Billionaire donor dollars) to Primary out most of the hold-outs so we can look forward to even fewer resources being made available to the Texas Public School System.

[superdeath]

Solutions should only be attempted when one knows what the problem is.

The Department of Education is a problem because it wastes money and produces little of value. There isn't much need to draft a new Department of Education with new stuff in it because there isn't a way to know what problems there would be until one first removes the original department. For example, I called public education a daycare service, but it isn't actually proven that America's children really need a state provided daycare. It could simply be better to let the kids hang out on their own for most of the day. So it would be better governance to gut the DoE, and reserve some percentage of the money saved to address any problems that do crop up in the aftermath, instead of immediately rushing to solve problems that might not even exist.

Do you live in the south?