GannonFan wrote:CitadelGrad wrote:
I knew someone would make an idiotic response like this, but I expected it to be kalm. I did not say that socio-economic issues are cause by public schools only. If you can't find anything truly objectionable about what I wrote, then you need only attribute to me statements that I didn't write, right?
CitadelGrad wrote:Did it occur to you that socio-economic problems are largely the result of piss-poor public education
To help you out, I bolded the part you wrote and then bolded the part I wrote. Heck, I even quoted you.
CitadelGrad wrote:
There are certain things we should be able to acknowledge. First, there is not enough emphasis on education in too many households. Most of those households are run by parents who were educated in public schools in the last 20-25 years. That probably isn't just a coincidence. Second, the quality of education in public schools has declined in the last 30 years. The Dept. of Education was established 30 years ago. That probably isn't a coincidence either. The decline may have started before then, but as someone who graduated from high school in 1980, I'm pretty sure the decline has accelerated since I left high school. Third, it isn't possible to point to even one initiative from the Dept. of Education that has come close to reversing the decline in the quality of public school education on a large scale.
The litmus test for measuring the effectiveness of the Dept. of Education is this: Has public education improved in the 30 years since the Dept. of Education was established? If the answer is "no", then what possible reason is there for maintaining it? I don't know anyone who would say that there has been an improvement in the last 30 years. Even the department's own statistics show no improvement.
The Dept. of Education currently employs 4,800 and will have a 2011 budget of $77.8 billions. In 1980 the budget was $13.1 billion and there were 450 employees. During those years test scores in English, math and science have flat-lined even though there is evidence that those tests have been dumbed down. Exactly where is that money going and what are these employees doing? I would think that at $16.2 million per employee, they might be just a little more productive than they are.
Is the answer to the problem even more money? If so, can you tell me why several states that spend among the least per pupil rank among the top ten in test scores while D.C. has the highest per student expenditures but ranks dead last among the states in test scores?
The question remains. Why is there a Dept. of Education?
Hey, I agree, the Federal Dept of Education is not really all that useful in the grand scheme of things. They aren't really responsible for much as education is and has been largely a local affair. But that's the thing, then, I don't see how the federal Dept of Education, which most people will agree has very little to do in terms of cirriculum or teacher work policies, is all of a sudden to blame for the supposed decline of education in America. How can a department that has so little power be so responsible for something like this? I think you can certainly argue that the federal Dept of Education is relatively useless, especially, oddly, where it pertains to education. But I then don't see how that Dept can be seen as the albatross that has dragged down the public education system (if that's actually happened). Get rid of the Dept of Education today and it changes little to nothing in terms of the educational situation in America.
Jesus H. Titty Fucking Christ! There you go again. I didn't say that the DOE has single-handedly brought down public education in America. Did you see the part I wrote about the litmus test? It was, "Has public education improved in the 30 years since the DOE was established"? If the answer is "no" then there is no reason to maintain it. Stop trying to put words into my mouth. I know what I wrote and I'll call that bullshit every time.
My point is that if it isn't helping, then it is hurting public education. If I recall correctly, the average school system receives about 7% of its budget from the federal government, but approximately 60% of paperwork that the average school system generates is mandated by the federal government. Elimination of that 60% would free up resources that could be used more effectively for critical functions.
Again, the DOE's 2011 budget is $77.8 billion. It's pretty clear that money would best be used for deficit reduction or actually helping schools directly rather than being spent on bureaucratic bullshit. Again, $16.2 million per employee. Do you know of a corporation that would allocate $12.6 million of its expenses per employee? That is an astonishingly high number even for organization that generate revenue and attempt to turn profits. The DOE doesn't generate revenue. Where is the accountability for that kind of debacle. The DOE is a useless money pit and should be dismantled immediately.
The tree of liberty must be refreshed from time to time with the blood of patriots and tyrants."
- Thomas Jefferson, in letter to William S. Smith, 1787
