• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Is dismantling the department of education good or bad?

Is dismantling the department of education good or bad?


  • Total voters
    83
It would appear they can't maintain the government standards as it is, so yes.
The STATE governments are the ones who make the standards.

There are enough people who care in each state to make this happen.

What's needed is a national minimum standard, with staff to monitor compliance, wit teeth to intervene in failing states.
Not needed. Minimum standards in one area may not be best for another area. Does having the federal DOE help to achieve better results?

Despite that, education is the purview of the states, not federal government.
 
Oh? Did I misread you when you said:

View attachment 67580079



haha. You simply can't resist can you? Do you want to stay on topic or carry on like this?
Even when you quote me, you still lie. Women dying of miscarriages is not about abortion, no matter how much you don't consider the piece of flesh around the fetus.

If you wish for me to continue smacking you around on this, sure. Fire away.
 
The population has grown by 50% since when it was established.

Your defense of dismantling the DoE rests on your hatred of trans people?
The percentage of those falling behind has increased.

The comment about genders had to do with teaching priorities.

Is there ever anything that DOESN'T go over your head?
 
Yes it is. Read the thread again. You said the states already have their own. They do not have their own federal department of education.

No, you. I asked "Are states incapable of running their own school systems?"

Oh great so now I need to explain the difference between the judicial branch and the executive branch to you.

Explain it to yourself, so you at least understand that the judicial branch is part of the federal government, and responsible for upholding the constitution.

Why don’t you do us both a favor and review some 6th grade level school house rock video or something on the subject?

Ironic.

That might help you understand that the federal courts are part of the federal government. I commend your own suggestion to you.
 
WIth the brilliant education of those administering the white house including Trump, JD, Pete, Mrs, McMahon (expertise in covering up pedophile rings) Pam (expertise in covering up Epstein pedophile ring). Kristi, Looty Lootnik, Stevie Wonder Miller, Bessy Bessin, who the hack needs educated people. I mean all the advanced technology that can not be manufactured in the US because of the failure of its education system so what. Magas will take over the jobs. Here are some of them who have the advanced education needed without the need for any assistance its just there in their brains:

1752679483704.webp me make drones!

1752679558302.webp
Pete: as we speak Magas are lining up to pick fruit and vegetables, clean toilets in hotels and then make high tech whatcha muh call its-who needs them Chinese and Koreans anyways....yah baby Trump cell phones made in the US I mean China....

1752679667432.webp
Hi my name is Bubba yah I know yooz thawt I was Big Don...hey now I am manufacturing man bras in the new booming USA....I pay people with ozempic prescriptions. Yeehaw.
 
The percentage of those falling behind has increased.

The comment about genders had to do with teaching priorities.

Is there ever anything that DOESN'T go over your head?
Oh? What teacher said “instead of learning to read, it’s time to teach you about the 50 genders”? Or did you not realize you’re just making this up?
 
No, you. I asked "Are states incapable of running their own school systems?"
Again, the department of education is not a school system.
Explain it to yourself, so you at least understand that the judicial branch is part of the federal government, and responsible for upholding the constitution.



That might help you understand that the federal courts are part of the federal government. I commend your own suggestion to you.
Again, the department of education enforces constitutional rights. You want to dismantle it anyway, to not protect the constitutional rights of innocent children. Naturally, that looks horrible, so you have this argument that the judiciary already does what the department of education does.

So, to sum up, you seem to have absolutely no idea what the department of education does. You think the states already fulfill those functions (they don’t), and at the same time that our judges already fulfill those functions (they don’t), and you haven’t a care in the world about how those two ridiculous claims contradict one another.
 
You talk about saving money after the Big Ugly Bill passed?? **** that. You have no interest in the government's saving money.

lol wut? Where did I say anything about government saving money?
 
Good. I don’t see why my tax dollars should fund the education of a bunch of children of MAGA. If they believe that their child’s education should focus on Noah’s family incest and Donald’s golf prowess, then they should pay for it on their own dime, not mine. My state can afford science-based education for all children if we don’t need to keep red states float financially,
And most red states could also afford education if they didn't have to spend so much on bureaucracy to keep Federal bureaucrats happy. This expenditure often cancels out the benefits of the Federal money.
 
Then you should let people opt out and give them a voucher.

What do vouchers have to do with student effort or quality education?

Here's the most telling thing about big liberal public education. You look at all the politicians and bureaucrats in a place like Chicago, and they all send their kids to private or parochial schools. I went to Grammar School with the daughter of the congressman (although he was just an alderman at the time.) The High School I went to produced four Chicago Mayors. The teachers in the CPS also send their kids to private schools.

Would you fly on an airline where none of the executives or pilots put their own family members on their planes? Of course you wouldn't.

Irrelevant. The education system is just as good at a public school. Private schools enable good students more focus. Teachers can focus on the student more. The curriculum is essentially the same. It is the lack of students that don't care about education that you are paying for.


.
 
@StillServing. (I cut the quotation of your post due to the character limit, but still wanted to continue the conversation)

Very well stated, but let's dig into this a little bit more.

The machinist who is making a salary between $60k and $115k per year is certainly important and I did not mean to imply that they weren't. The harsh truth is that the US is in competition with much of SE Asian and European countries over who will dominate the rest of this century. All of these countries have scores of machinists, plumbers, etc. These jobs are critical for maintaining our quality of life an infrastructure, but they are unlikely to invent the next basis for American prosperity and competition. That is something that scientists and engineers usually do. We currently live in a country an aging and largely outdated infrastructure. For that infrastructure, we tend to see some costly bill every 6 years or so to fix our crumbling bridges, leaky water systems, etc. At the same time, we are reducing investments in the NIH or other areas that will hurt us in the future.

Bringing this back to basic math and reading scores. I agree that they are important, but again incomplete. The simple truth is that the plumber or the CNC operator will end up learning the necessary reading and mathematical skills to perform their jobs after school. For example, the plumber is likely to learn how to calculate flow rate changes among different ID pipes when joined.
I think we are closer to being in agreement than you think. As I stated, innovation has been, and will always be, important to the American economy. However, the bridges that will be built and the water systems that will be installed — while designed by engineers with college degrees — will not be built or installed by these engineers, however innovative they might be. It will be the construction workers, plumbers, and thousands of tradesmen (a generic term used--there will be plenty of women in the mix as well) who will do this work.

And while the CNC machinist will undoubtedly learn portions of their trade on the job, it will be their K-12 education that will facilitate their ability to be trained in these specialty jobs that are important. In the 1983 Nation at Risk report, the title wasn't just alarmist; the report noted that K-12 education was lacking to the point that new recruits were arriving at their training without the requisite K-12 education, making them difficult to train.

While reading and math scores may be incomplete, they are far more indicative of the nation's education system's ability to continue with this grand experiment. And while ACT/SAT scores may be important (unless universities continue to discount their use), we must realize that reading and writing scores generally measure all students, whereas these college entry exams primarily measure those students who are contemplating attending college. In essence, it measures only the top (presumably) 40% of Americans and doesn't account for those populations that may be in economically distressed communities or educated in poorer-performing schools.
One bright spot in your analysis though is that the red states are recovering from the pandemic lows faster than blue states on most of these kinds of metrics.
And the irony here is I will not take the bait (not that it was offered with any malice). My initial post was to push back (gently) on the idea that there are smarter states and dumber states, and we can see this by who they can vote for. These are arguments that I believe are counterproductive and hinder any substantive conversation.

Which brings me to being able to say something that I nearly never get to say on this forum. Thank you. It's refreshing to have a discussion with someone on this board who may disagree with me, yet finds the ability to have a substantive and respectful conversation.
 
Are states incapable of running their own school systems?
Most red states are.

There are some blue states that have serious issues (Hawaii) that need help.

Getting rid of the Department of Education is a BAD idea. The repukes are doing it because they believe if they get rid of that department, they will be able to force their religious bullshit back into schools.

Those people are not fit morally or mentally to manage education. Those people need to be banned from involvement in education.

If you are wondering which red states I am speaking of, here is a list:

Oklahoma
Alabama
Georgia
Texas
South Carolina
North Carolina
West Virginia
Virginia
South Dakota
North Dakota
Florida
Montana
Idaho

These states are led by corrupt individuals who are only interested in keeping the population ignorant and subservient. They want to force their religious bullshit on school children.

The Department of Education has always been useful in keeping these ignorant assholes checked.
 
What do vouchers have to do with student effort or quality education?
They are being created to allow religious schools to use public money.

Irrelevant. The education system is just as good at a public school. Private schools enable good students more focus. Teachers can focus on the student more. The curriculum is essentially the same. It is the lack of students that don't care about education that you are paying for.


.
My only issue with private schools is that they tend to be religious-based and that is not acceptable. Religion does not belong in schools. In this country, the people that want religion in schools think they should be allowed to use public money to pay for religious indoctrination.

That is not acceptable, and it is an ABSOLUTE violation of the 1st Amendment.
 
They are being created to allow religious schools to use public money.


My only issue with private schools is that they tend to be religious-based and that is not acceptable. Religion does not belong in schools. In this country, the people that want religion in schools think they should be allowed to use public money to pay for religious indoctrination.

That is not acceptable, and it is an ABSOLUTE violation of the 1st Amendment.

/Agreed...
 
Totally illegal. This is the most lawless administration ever. They violate the law on a daily basis, from trying to end Birthright Citizenship, to sending people to Torture Prisons, the unlawful DOGE cuts, and now this bullshit.

The Republicans claim to be the party of law and order. I say they are the party of lawlessness and criminality. Liars. All.

These Trump appointees and Republicans are not fit to hold office.
 
Why do you think the literacy rates in the US are so low? Could it be because of the lack of commitment of our educators? Do you blame the parents? Or do you think the literacy rates are acceptable?
Great question. And let me get to your last question first, no. It's not acceptable.

There are multiple reasons behind this, including immigration (22% of students speak a language other than English at home) and truancy. But these are not the only issues.

You offer two possible reasons: parents and educators. Let's look at parents first.

Certainly, in low-SES areas, there is a problem with parents either choosing not to be engaged or not being able to be engaged. There is a cycle of poverty that is at play, which has a devastating effect on education and subsequent generations. This is compounded by the increase of single-parent households. (I'll pause here to state emphatically that I'm not taking judgment on anyone who is or has been a single parent--I've been a single parent. Only to relate what the research says is an obstacle to literacy and financial status.

In 1960, only 6% of households were headed by a single parent. In 2023, that percentage is about 23%. The good news is that this is down from 2012, when the percentage was 28%. But here we have nearly 1 of 4 families that have a parent who is trying to do it all. Too often, they are not able to be around to assist their kids with schoolwork or make sure their kids are going to school. This, unfortunately, too often results in kids dropping out of school. Students of single-parent families are more likely to drop out of school. The problem becomes when these kids become parents, and we unfortunately see that children from low-income single-parent families are more likely to become single-parents themselves.

The problem is that this is often a societal issue that cannot be remedied by actions in DC or even Albany, Sacramento, Tallahassee, or Austin.

Then there are the teachers. I would humbly encourage you and others to steer away from the idea that our issues with education are with teachers' lack of effort or commitment. The truth is far more complex. Yes. There are bad teachers. I was fortunate enough to teach in a school where I taught with rock stars. But, I also got to know many of the teachers in our district's other schools and there are bad teachers. This is why I prefer merit-based pay versus across-the-board pay raises for teachers.

However, a supermajority of teachers don't want to be bad teachers. Certainly, there are a couple in most schools who see teaching as Plan B and have no passion for teaching. But most teachers enter the classroom with the expectation that they will be effective. In fact, Swan, Wolf, and Cano (2011) found that a teacher's self-efficacy is highest during their student-teaching phase before they become teachers ... and then it crashes. Even after three years, their TSE hadn't recaptured their student-teaching highs. These first four years are what Guskey and Huberman call the "survival stage" of teaching. Here, they are just trying to survive the day. This phase is largely do to pre-service teacher education not sufficiently preparing teachers for what to truly expect. So, they're sorta freaked out for the first few years. At about year 4, they enter a transitional phase where they begin to figure things out, and then around year 7 is a huge fork in the road. They either become excited now that they understand their classroom and experiment with different techniques, or they enter a phase of self-doubt, which can lead to burnout.

The key in navigating the "survival stage" and making the turn away from self-doubt largely comes down to the types of in-service training or Professional Development they receive in their school and district. Some schools have a great PD program where teachers train each other, provide feedback, and there is a sense of camaraderie. I taught in such a school. Others find that the teachers are largely isolated from each other, PD is perfunctory, and teachers feel they are not supported. Here, too, the answer will not be found in DC, Albany, Sacramento, Tallahassee, or Austin. It will be found with the school leadership and the school culture they inspire.

So, to concisely answer your question: it's complicated.
 
lol wut? Where did I say anything about government saving money?

You said:

Once the department is eliminated, its huge budget will be gone as well, and that money will remain in the communities it originally came from.

You support "saving money" from the Dept. of Education, yet you have no problem with skyrocketing the deficit via the Big Ugly Bill. Your position is pure hypocrisy.
 
Irrelevant. The education system is just as good at a public school. Private schools enable good students more focus. Teachers can focus on the student more. The curriculum is essentially the same. It is the lack of students that don't care about education that you are paying for.

Again, if they were, the Politicians would put their kids in the Public Schools

Oddly, they never seem to do that.

I wonder why.
 
Again, if they were, the Politicians would put their kids in the Public Schools

Oddly, they never seem to do that.

I wonder why.

I explained why... it is that there are lots more kids in public school that are not as intelligent, educated nor have educated parents of their own that do not understand the value of education, or care about it. I have taught in both and attended both.

Another thing you are leaving out is that private schools cater far more to the whims of parents... and private school administrators pass kids that are not passing simply due to who their parent is. If a school held private kids really accountable, parents will and do take their kids out of the school which threatens funding.

.
 
I explained why... it is that there are lots more kids in public school that are not as intelligent, educated nor have educated parents of their own that do not understand the value of education, or care about it. I have taught in both and attended both.

Uh, huh. Not sure why that makes it okay for Democratic (and Republicans) to send their kids to private schools while inflicting bad public schools on everyone else.

At least the Republicans are suggesting Charters and Vouchers as alternatives. But the Democrats love them some of that sweet, sweet Teacher Union money.

Another thing you are leaving out is that private schools cater far more to the whims of parents... and private school administrators pass kids that are not passing simply due to who their parent is. If a school held private kids really accountable, parents will and do take their kids out of the school which threatens funding.

You say that like it's a BAD thing.

A school that listens to the parents? Screw that. We need to impose Drag Queen Story Hour and then help your kid get his weiner chopped off!!!

But the reality is, Private Schools aren't passing kids where only 31% of them perform at grade level. That would be the Public Schools.
 
Uh, huh. Not sure why that makes it okay for Democratic (and Republicans) to send their kids to private schools while inflicting bad public schools on everyone else.

Straw Man.

At least the Republicans are suggesting Charters and Vouchers as alternatives. But the Democrats love them some of that sweet, sweet Teacher Union money.

Straw Man.

You say that like it's a BAD thing.

A school that listens to the parents? Screw that. We need to impose Drag Queen Story Hour and then help your kid get his weiner chopped off!!!

A WTF Straw Man. LOL

But the reality is, Private Schools aren't passing kids where only 31% of them perform at grade level. That would be the Public Schools.

Missed the point.


.
 
Again, if they were, the Politicians would put their kids in the Public Schools

Oddly, they never seem to do that.

I wonder why.
It would make them easy targets for crazy people.

In their case, it's probably not a bad idea.
 
Great question. And let me get to your last question first, no. It's not acceptable.

There are multiple reasons behind this, including immigration (22% of students speak a language other than English at home) and truancy. But these are not the only issues.

You offer two possible reasons: parents and educators. Let's look at parents first.

Certainly, in low-SES areas, there is a problem with parents either choosing not to be engaged or not being able to be engaged. There is a cycle of poverty that is at play, which has a devastating effect on education and subsequent generations. This is compounded by the increase of single-parent households. (I'll pause here to state emphatically that I'm not taking judgment on anyone who is or has been a single parent--I've been a single parent. Only to relate what the research says is an obstacle to literacy and financial status.

In 1960, only 6% of households were headed by a single parent. In 2023, that percentage is about 23%. The good news is that this is down from 2012, when the percentage was 28%. But here we have nearly 1 of 4 families that have a parent who is trying to do it all. Too often, they are not able to be around to assist their kids with schoolwork or make sure their kids are going to school. This, unfortunately, too often results in kids dropping out of school. Students of single-parent families are more likely to drop out of school. The problem becomes when these kids become parents, and we unfortunately see that children from low-income single-parent families are more likely to become single-parents themselves.

The problem is that this is often a societal issue that cannot be remedied by actions in DC or even Albany, Sacramento, Tallahassee, or Austin.

Then there are the teachers. I would humbly encourage you and others to steer away from the idea that our issues with education are with teachers' lack of effort or commitment. The truth is far more complex. Yes. There are bad teachers. I was fortunate enough to teach in a school where I taught with rock stars. But, I also got to know many of the teachers in our district's other schools and there are bad teachers. This is why I prefer merit-based pay versus across-the-board pay raises for teachers.

However, a supermajority of teachers don't want to be bad teachers. Certainly, there are a couple in most schools who see teaching as Plan B and have no passion for teaching. But most teachers enter the classroom with the expectation that they will be effective. In fact, Swan, Wolf, and Cano (2011) found that a teacher's self-efficacy is highest during their student-teaching phase before they become teachers ... and then it crashes. Even after three years, their TSE hadn't recaptured their student-teaching highs. These first four years are what Guskey and Huberman call the "survival stage" of teaching. Here, they are just trying to survive the day. This phase is largely do to pre-service teacher education not sufficiently preparing teachers for what to truly expect. So, they're sorta freaked out for the first few years. At about year 4, they enter a transitional phase where they begin to figure things out, and then around year 7 is a huge fork in the road. They either become excited now that they understand their classroom and experiment with different techniques, or they enter a phase of self-doubt, which can lead to burnout.

The key in navigating the "survival stage" and making the turn away from self-doubt largely comes down to the types of in-service training or Professional Development they receive in their school and district. Some schools have a great PD program where teachers train each other, provide feedback, and there is a sense of camaraderie. I taught in such a school. Others find that the teachers are largely isolated from each other, PD is perfunctory, and teachers feel they are not supported. Here, too, the answer will not be found in DC, Albany, Sacramento, Tallahassee, or Austin. It will be found with the school leadership and the school culture they inspire.

So, to concisely answer your question: it's complicated.
Thanks for your response. I’m sure there are few easy answers.
 
The STATE governments are the ones who make the standards.
This is correct. The department of education simply disburses funding to those states so they can make those standards.
There are enough people who care in each state to make this happen.
If they didn't when there was money, they won't when there isn't.
 
Back
Top Bottom