The Trump Administration (just Trump) Thread

[Cassity14]

That's fine. But the question was asked as to why some oppose greater control from Washington, the answer was given, and someone chose to debate it. He's now "liked" your post, so I take it that debate is over. Fine.

I understand completely that the left doesn't buy into the educational establishment leaning left. To you guys, the left is really the middle, so you don't see an issue. But we do, and that's why we oppose it.

Huh? I responded at length to you. Me "liking" someone's post after the fact doesn't mean I'm not willing to discuss further.

Regarding the second part of this post, I have no problem admitting I generally lean left, particularly socially. I'm not a radical, and I don't really identify with the 'liberal' identity or the Democratic party, but sure, I lean left and a lot of educators generally do given the nature of the position and field.

That, however, doesn't mean I'm pushing my ideas onto kids, which you have insinuated a few times not with me personally, but with education in general.

Phrases like, "you guys," and, "we," create an unnecessary divide and set of generalizations that insult our professionalism.

 

[col63onel]

That's fine. But the question was asked as to why some oppose greater control from Washington, the answer was given, and someone chose to debate it. He's now "liked" your post, so I take it that debate is over. Fine.

I understand completely that the left doesn't buy into the educational establishment leaning left. To you guys, the left is really the middle, so you don't see an issue. But we do, and that's why we oppose it.

No, we understand that we're left leaning, we just disagree with the assertion that we are so unprofessional that it completely skewers the curriculum.

 

[Cassity14]

And the counting machines, voting supplies, board of official workers, etc. are all running off of donations and volunteers?

How a municipality conducts its elections is up to said municipality, but it is illegal to require some to pay for their inherent right to vote.

To answer your questions, a ton of local election workers are volunteers every year.

 

[CommD]

The U.S Election Assistance Commission, created as part of the Help America Vote Act 2002, provides supplemental funding to state and local elections boards to help with voting machine and procedural upgrades, which can include voter ID systems.

Of course, the House Republicans are trying to kill it.

 

[col63onel]

"Kids are crying over school," like yeah, that's not a newfound thing.

Hell, I just gave a test and at least 2 of my students were crying as they turned it in.

And it sure as hell wasn't a Common Core aligned test, either.

 

[Cassity14]

Hell, I just gave a test and at least 2 of my students were crying as they turned it in.

And it sure as hell wasn't a Common Core aligned test, either.

I dream of the day I get to work in an environment where kids are that motivated. Cutting my teeth and building my resume for the time being, however. Congrats on having such a strong environment!

 

[The Human Q-Tip]

Nowhere did I say that only educators are going to determine what is taught, but rather how it's taught, and that's exactly what they are trained to do.

In terms of what is to be taught, it has to be either 1) politicians, or 2) people who are appointed by politicians (including educators), making these decisions in Washington. There is no door number 3.

How is parental influence at the state level strong?

Depends on the state. In some states, school boards (which may choose textbooks, set curricula, etc.) are directly elected by voters, which means parents. In others they are appointed by Governors, who will be more in tune with the voters of their individual state than would be the federal government.

Exactly what you don't want is already happening, except it's happening solely by politicians at the state level, resulting in 50 separate poorly-run designed frameworks.

Fascinating.

So we have 50 states with "poorly-designed frameworks" for education. From exactly where are we drawing the geniuses at the federal level who are going to fix that, if not from state education systems?

And if they're fucking it up at the state level (which I don't believe), why wouldn't those same incompetents screw it all up at the federal level too?

Honestly, you seem to be hinting at wanting an entirely privatized educational system, which would be a different conversation than the one we're having.

I've hinted at nothing of the sort, nor do I support that.

 

[Randolphkeys]

So that article has some solid points, but the issue is that a lot of the problems it accurately describes were around long before Common Core. The obsession over testing and data collection, for example, really started under No Child Left Behind.

It probably started in 1957 with the Soviet launch of Sputnik. The space race made education an international war. Furthering the push, Ronald Reagan released the Education Department report on problems with schools in 1983, and many initiatives with targeted improvement stems from that initial report. I do believe the educational system needed to see that data collected in 1983 and make changes. Citing groups of parents who are cranky about rigor of classrooms isn't a very compelling argument against alignment and oversight. Cranky people who don't fully understand a discipline... big whoop. Data that reveals demographic groups are being underserved or certain skills are not being developed has more use, if the data is being used diagnostically for the students.

 

[Nathan S]

I realize this is just a small facet of the debate taking place here, but from my own experience, kids who got through high school learning everything by rote memorization struggle to catch up in college-level classes where that approach no longer makes sense. If one aspect of common core is a shift away from rote memorization, I think that's a point in its favor.

 

[Cassity14]

In terms of what is to be taught, it has to be either 1) politicians, or 2) people who are appointed by politicians (including educators), making these decisions in Washington. There is no door number 3.



Depends on the state. In some states, school boards (which may choose textbooks, set curricula, etc.) are directly elected by voters, which means parents. In others they are appointed by Governors, who will be more in tune with the voters of their individual state than would be the federal government.



Fascinating.

So we have 50 states with "poorly-designed frameworks" for education. From exactly where are we drawing the geniuses at the federal level who are going to fix that, if not from state education systems?

And if they're fucking it up at the state level (which I don't believe), why wouldn't those same incompetents screw it all up at the federal level too?



I've hinted at nothing of the sort, nor do I support that.

Why is there no door #3? Why can't there be? If the system is failing, or even not succeeding as well as it could, why are we bound to it? There's no door #3 because it isn't approached with a bi-partisan agenda, and that's a fault of both parties.

If parental influence is maybe the citizens having a chance to vote for a state school board, I wouldn't call that a strong influence. It's negligible, honestly. Governors being in touch with their states' educational concerns is also a firm reach.

Maybe that's the source of this disconnect.

You argued before that we can't trust teachers and politicians to create learning standards nationally, but now you're arguing that the states fine as is (where that happens and results in inconsistencies), but somehow wouldn't be if their people were tabbed to do this at a national level. I'm confused by this.

I think your core disagreement is that as a nation we should be expecting our kids to meet the same basic graduation requirements regardless of what state they receive their education is. I firmly believe that to be a positive, and you see it as a negative. No need to logically bend to address that.

 

[-Akronite-]

Our schools would be fixed in no time if we let God back in.

 

[Cavatt]

I wouldn't want the federal government implementing across the board education milestones and curricula. Fact of the matter is what you teach is almost meaningless and how you teach is everything in the world. Getting away from results based teaching is the goal. Learning how to do go about doing something new is the best thing to teach a child.

There is plenty of research about how people learn at this point and helping schools do that and cater to the kids they have in their school should be the role of the Fed Government. I don't mean money necessarily, although it is probably needed. It would mean sending task forces to schools in trouble and reorganizing their programs and helping with curriculum.

Also, homework needs to be illegal. It is unrealistic and a total waste of time. It is wasting teachers time, and wasting kids time, and an undue burden on overworked parents. Most children do not have the time management skills to deal with it. Now, teaching time management skills, that is a valuable lesson.

 

[Randolphkeys]

Also, homework needs to be illegal. It is unrealistic and a total waste of time. It is wasting teachers time, and wasting kids time, and an undue burden on overworked parents. Most children do not have the time management skills to deal with it. Now, teaching time management skills, that is a valuable lesson.

This is a discussion that has been going on for over 100 years. In the early 1900s, some school districts passed anti- homework regulations. A recent Duke University study analyzed studies and concluded homework has a positive effect on achievement, but too much leads to burnout.

The National Education Association recommends no more than ten minutes a night. That's what I try to stick to.

 

[The Human Q-Tip]

....but sure, I lean left and a lot of educators generally do given the nature of the position and field.

That, however, doesn't mean I'm pushing my ideas onto kids, which you have insinuated a few times not with me personally, but with education in general.

No, we understand that we're left leaning, we just disagree with the assertion that we are so unprofessional that it completely skewers the curriculum.

This is really the same argument, so I am going to address them together.

There are a great many things in the field of social studies that are inherently controversial. World-renowned historians argue over all sorts of things because they don't agree. So to the extent you do not want "different versions of World History" to be taught in different states, you are asking someone at the national level to decide - for the entire country - which views are correct, and which are not. That is inherent in wanting that decision centralized. And that is true in all sorts of other fields as well

How much focus should we put on Europe v. Africa v. Asia v. The Pre-Colombian Americas? Which cultures are we going to study, and how are we going to view colonialism, capitalism, communism, socialism, etc.? Should we focus less on dead white people and more on people of color? Was "Manifest Destiny" good or bad? Should we teach about the "patriarchy"? Is teaching English lit too eurocentric, and should students be required instead to read other things instead? What are we going to teach about gender, and gender roles, etc.?

These are inherently controversial topics, and we know that because parents, school boards and educators fight about that stuff right now, all the time. Those disagreements won't vanish just because the decisions are centralized in Washington and mandated to the states.

That's not accusing left-leaning teachers or educators of trying to deliberately brainwash students politically. They are pushing for the curriculum they honstly believe is the right one to teach, just as are those who disagree.

So, it shouldn't come as much of a surprise, or even as an insult, that does who don't lean left would prefer that those decisions not be made by an admittedly left-leaning educational establishment.

 

[Cavatt]

This is a discussion that has been going on for over 100 years. In the early 1900s, some school districts passed anti- homework regulations. A recent Duke University study analyzed studies and concluded homework has a positive effect on achievement, but too much leads to burnout.

The National Education Association recommends no more than ten minutes a night. That's what I try to stick to.

The biggest problem I have with homework is that it is confusing what exactly is being graded. A lot of times the bad grades come from not turning in the homework, or losing it or other issues sort of unrealted to what you are learning. Now I am not saying those skills of being able to keep track of stuff or time management aren't important, but getting a bad grade means you didn't learn the content, when you might have. Instead of getting a bad grade for losing the homework, the teacher should be helping that kid with these other skills they need to be learning.

In other words the punishment should fit the crime, and the punishment should always be related to fixing the problem instead of just being punitive. How many times have we seen kids getting bad grades on homework lead to them getting better grade on homework? probably never unless they are a good student to begin with. They just resent it and get frustrated with themselves and call themselves stupid. Negative reinforcing loop.