Print

Please login or register.
1 Hour 1 Day 1 Week 1 Month Forever
Login with username, password and session length

[Jervill]

Or determine how much funding is passed down to the schools from the top.

[Frumple]

What are the problems with them, exactly?

Shifty as hell tuition and funding shit, not notably improved performance (without functionally doing an educational equivalent of cooking the books, anyway), number of nasty employment decisions and overall corruption, pretty messed up environmental conditions re: student treatment... they're not universal problems with 'em, but it seems pretty bloody common. I'd have to spend some time hunting down articles and crap again to give examples, but suffice it to say I'm a bit leery of the things at the moment. Especially in regards to some of the larger areas down south I've been reading pretty bad things about them over the last couple years.

And again, mind, I'm not saying the public system is puppies crapping rainbows or whatever, but its problems are ones that don't trouble me quite as much. Maybe there's better implementation in other states, I'unno.

[FearfulJesuit]

I suspect once the economy improves education will once again become a political issue.

It is true, however, that the public school system seems to be decentralized in all the wrong places. I'd favor replacing the standardized testings system with a national curriculum, possibly with some local flavor (when I lived in rural Virginia, an Agriculture elective made sense; it doesn't in urban Boston), a graduation exam, and getting rid of dropouts.

We also need to institute tracking. I'll post something in fuller detail later today.

[GreatJustice]

American public schools have a rather big problem largely stemming from unnecessary centralization. Also, the more money they get, generally speaking, the worse of a job they do.

Besides that, it wouldn't be really fair to say just the Republicans are in demographic trouble. True, they have far fewer bases of support than the Democrats and are going to shrink if they continue the way they do, but the Democratic "coalition" is incredibly tenuous and largely dependent on the Republican party views remaining constant. Midwestern union workers, Hispanics/other minorities, women, the youth, and intellectuals really are only all on the same side because the Republicans in power right now have an uncanny tendency to alienate everyone except those with their very narrow subset of views. Obama, at least to some extent, tried to appease all of the wings of his party by not going too far in one direction (for example, pushing gun control or environmentalism as issues), and held the coalition together for the election. Romney, meanwhile, basically took the wholesale "Mainstream Republican" views on every topic and didn't even try to please the different wings or consider what was worth saying and what wasn't. He also had the Paul supporters unceremoniously chucked out of the convention and managed to alienate one of the few "independent" groups that might have ended up supporting him.

[tahujdt]

@dhokarena:
I loved your avatar, but I suppose Toady made you take it down.
Not that I'm comparing Obama and Hitler, there are countless differences. For example, Hitler was a lot more popular.

American public schools have a rather big problem largely stemming from unnecessary centralization. Also, the more money they get, generally speaking, the worse of a job they do.

That is it exactly.

[MetalSlimeHunt]

Besides that, it wouldn't be really fair to say just the Republicans are in demographic trouble. True, they have far fewer bases of support than the Democrats and are going to shrink if they continue the way they do, but the Democratic "coalition" is incredibly tenuous and largely dependent on the Republican party views remaining constant. Midwestern union workers, Hispanics/other minorities, women, the youth, and intellectuals really are only all on the same side because the Republicans in power right now have an uncanny tendency to alienate everyone except those with their very narrow subset of views. Obama, at least to some extent, tried to appease all of the wings of his party by not going too far in one direction (for example, pushing gun control or environmentalism as issues), and held the coalition together for the election. Romney, meanwhile, basically took the wholesale "Mainstream Republican" views on every topic and didn't even try to please the different wings or consider what was worth saying and what wasn't. He also had the Paul supporters unceremoniously chucked out of the convention and managed to alienate one of the few "independent" groups that might have ended up supporting him.

Yes, but the Republican party views are remaining constant. We're talking about people who call George W. Bush a liberal. The party leadership has already issued their response to Romney's loss: they say he wasn't conservative enough. They aren't even staying in a bad position, they're heading towards a worse one constantly.

[SealyStar]

So, did you see where Florida has finally been called for Obama by a .9% margin?

[MetalSlimeHunt]

No one is ever going to trust Florida again, I think.

[misko27]

About freaking time.

[FearfulJesuit]

Nate Silver, you magnificent bastard.

[SealyStar]

No one is ever going to trust Florida again, I think.

It's by more than 100 times the margin of 2k, so I think there's some veracity there.

[Bohandas]

The teacher's union isn't the cause of the problems in public schools. The biggest problems are parental indulgence (many schools make such an effort to include the parents that the school is run as much by the parents as it is by the school officials), zero tolerance policies that take too many decisions away from teachers and school staff, and the obsession with standardized testing.

All of these statements are absolutely correct.

At least the libertarians have policies that I could get behind.

Please, some one explain to me, what is so appealing about chaos and anarchy?

Personally, I like the the Libertarian party because it is in favor of greater legalization and societal acceptance of drugs, pornography, and sexual deviancy. (Although I have been led to understand {and bear in mind that I'm not sure that this is true} that they have sold out and are focusing less on personal rights and more on the spurious and fallacious idea of corporate rights)

As for chaos in general, I have some literature that you could take a look at:

http://www.principiadiscordia.com/book/5.php
http://www.subgenius.com/slaq.htm
http://jubal.westnet.com/hyperdiscordia/starbucks_pebbles.html
http://discordia.loveshade.org/ek-sen-trik-kuh/mythstar.html
http://jubal.westnet.com/hyperdiscordia/hyperdiscordia_map.html

[Zrk2]

GOP party split/fracture/destruction in the near future? Would be neat.

I'd hope the right gets taken up by the libertarians. Not that I like libertarianism, but at least they're logically consistent.

At least the libertarians have policies that I could get behind.

Aww shucks, you guys. You warm my crazy libertarian heart.

Nate Silver, you magnificent bastard.

I READ YOUR BLOG!

But yeah, the Republicans really need to rebrand, or they'll collapse. Personally I hope they collapse. It'd be interesting to watch the political landscape realign.

[Nadaka]

At least the libertarians have policies that I could get behind.

Please, some one explain to me, what is so appealing about chaos and anarchy?

I dont support the whole agenda.

What I like? Legalization of sex drugs and rock and roll. Shutting down the TSA and police state. The re-ndorsement of the 1st, 2nd, 4th, 5th, etc ammendments.

[MetalSlimeHunt]

Legalization of sex drugs and rock and roll.

All of those things are already legal*!

*^{To various degrees and conditions relating to your location within the United States of America.**}

**_{^{Though as far as I'm aware Rock and Roll is totally legal everywhere.}}