US Congress to spend more on math+science

[Sisyphus]

hmm

 

What does that 'hmm' mean? Do you doubt the truth of the statement? Do you think teaching about evolution is an idealogical agenda?

[jackson33]

the stats i referred to were 06, of course 07 not in...at *ed.org*

 

ed.org, said 56 million, not 75 students which included all grades, pre and post. total dollars just under a trillion. k-12, no kid left behind and most programs are aligned to the k-12 public schools, which is about 3/4 of the total. disregard all the placements, the average payout per student is 20k per year by governments to educate the US student. this means a child who entered the system in pre school in 06, goes through the 12th grade will cost tax payers no less than 260,000.00. that class of 25, then 6.5 million dollars.

since in the past 13 years this figure has increased substantially, the thought is were talking about no less than 10m. think, this is 25 kids with all the trimming and more than many of their parents will ever earn in take home pay.

 

i have already explained why government, IMO, should not ever run any school system. frankly i don't think much of Catholic or Muslim or if other religions running anything but the local Mask or Church, especially where the government already is influenced by such philosophy. at least we have a cushion here, with our constitution. so guess my only solution, would come from the corporate level. to extend this thought would start a riot, so ill just say that....

 

yes, 3k where i live is about the best you can buy. some areas are less others higher, for private schooling, which is home for 1/4th the students. there may be some funding i don't know about, since the classes number about 35 or so...

[Pangloss]

Well I'm certainly no going to let jackson33 fight this one alone, since you guys are touching on some of my favorite hot spots. (grin)

 

First, can we please determine whether we HAVE any "poor people" in this country? Don't get me wrong, I'm sure we HAVE some, but as I've posted in the past the generally-accepted, John Edwards-touted statistics about "people living below the poverty line" are just not a group of people that can be identified as "poor". These people, according to the US Census, on average, live in their own home (admittedly mortgaged, just like everyone else), two cars (admittedly loaned/leased, just like everyone else), several television sets, VCRs and DVRs, DVD players, game boxes, at least one home computer connected to the Internet, a job, children, medical insurance (with an obvious exception for the lower part of the range -- a statistic we DO know and should do something about), access to education and all sorts of opportunities for advancement and betterment.

 

Why do we need to give these people money? Can someone explain that to me, please?

 

Investing in more education spending is about helping society, not taking money from the rich and giving it to the poor.

[Sisyphus]

What? I don't understand how this relates to the number of poor people...?

 

Oh, and Jackson, I was getting my numbers from the department of education and the U.S. Census Bureau:

 

http://www.ed.gov/about/overview/fed/10facts/index.html

http://www.census.gov/Press-Release/www/releases/archives/education/005157.html

[Pangloss]

You're talking about poor people and their particular entitlement to education benefits on the public dole.

[Sisyphus]

I am? Are you saying public education is equivalent to redistribution of wealth? I don't get it.

[jackson33]

I am? Are you saying public education is equivalent to redistribution of wealth? I don't get it.

 

the purchase of a vote, would be more applicable. both redistribution and an idea attempting to make you believe something is for you are the same. education as i described is costly already. do you think the so called 30 million or so poor folks, paid the taxes for their kids education. that 250k or 400k investment comes from someplace, whether local, state or the feds.

that poor woman, with four or five kids, mandated no husband and taught to depend on government is getting a million dollar donation from someplace....

[Saryctos]

What does that 'hmm' mean? Do you doubt the truth of the statement? Do you think teaching about evolution is an idealogical agenda?

 

That hmm was about the notion that a majority stay home from parents' fear of evolution. Implying what the quote said about yourself. Blinded by the anti-creationist movement ideology. That's not a comment about the 'debate' of creationsim, just the attitute of those from your position.

[Sisyphus]

You're right. I give up. Poor kids don't shouldn't be educated. Especially if there mom has no husband! Giving it to them is obviously just shamelessly buying votes...

 

Anyway, I'd like an answer from Pangloss. Your original post seemed to imply that public education was an act of giving people money who don't actually need it. But if they have money then surely they pay taxes and we're not "giving them" anything? And if they don't have money, isn't providing an education they couldn't otherwise have a good thing? Or do you disagree?

 

Saryctos, I said a large percentage, not a majority, and I'd love to know how I'm "blinded." Please, show me the light.

[Pangloss]

I don't have a problem with public education as an investment. If people are too stupid or lazy to figure out a way to educate their children, I'm more than happy to rip that responsibility right out of their hands and shove it down their throats so that my children will have someone with a modicum of intelligence to exploi--... I mean employ.

 

What I have a problem with is waste and inefficiency, and people who refuse to acknowledge the fact that we do everything BUT ignore "the poor".

[Sisyphus]

So where do we disagree, then?

[Cap'n Refsmmat]

What I don't understand is how some people think that throwing more money at the problem will solve it.

[jackson33]

You're right. I give up. Poor kids don't shouldn't be educated. Especially if there mom has no husband! Giving it to them is obviously just shamelessly buying votes...

 

Anyway, I'd like an answer from Pangloss. Your original post seemed to imply that public education was an act of giving people money who don't actually need it. But if they have money then surely they pay taxes and we're not "giving them" anything? And if they don't have money, isn't providing an education they couldn't otherwise have a good thing? Or do you disagree?

 

Saryctos, I said a large percentage, not a majority, and I'd love to know how I'm "blinded." Please, show me the light.

 

why do you think no one promotes taxes on mid or low income people, even thought we all pay 15% of our wages in SS and Medicaid tax. if they did their going to be voted out. most people in voting for programs, think they will not be effected. so if government says we need to do this or that, its perceived as all good stuff.

 

by mandate, government in the US, has taken state rights and applied equal rights mean education as well. in voting, housing, job or pay scales, the issue, has lost choice. they actually failed in concept, as it fuels the very thing supposedly designed to cure. rich kids with 2 parent families, just dropped public schooling, the middle class has no choice and the poor kids learned there was another class of student. to fix that all this nonsense of no grades, no F's, sports with no scores and any suggestion that life was hard for every one has been dropped. the problem is society doesn't operate that way, the best do achieve, the best do win and an effort should be made for all endeavors and the poor just continue to depend on government.

 

i am not going to pretend to know the answer or even a possible solution. i do feel the Federal Government, especially in a Nation that has 50 separate State governments, has no business in most affairs of the total. Education, the very foundation of any modern society is the one least likely issue to have any influence in. i do feel the free market, even the private school system as is could do a much better or handle more, if the fed and unions just got out of the way.

[CPL.Luke]

hmm like the US higher educaion system? look how that turned out.

 

$50,000 a year for some of the schools that run on a free market system.

[Pangloss]

hmm like the US higher educaion system? look how that turned out.

 

$50,000 a year for some of the schools that run on a free market system.

 

In fact in some cases it's twice that. But so what? You're talking about a hair over the average annual income, and most of it financable at below prime, not to mention grants and scholarships. Quite a bargain, really.

[CPL.Luke]

hmm I can't tell if thats sarcasm or not, but assuming its not a years salary for an education that will effectively prohibit you from working that year will of course be good for society in the long run.

[jackson33]

actually there are a good many Universities, Colleges, along with two year

specialized schools and a number of Internet programs, which can provide an education for less than 10k per year, all of which can be accessed through some form or public grant or financing. not every one could go to Harvard, Yale or any major unit. there is just so much room in any one, and they are all full...more today attend higher education, than ever, even considering growth in population. this signals some success, i would think. think you will find, the student chooses all the subjects...

[ParanoiA]

actually there are a good many Universities, Colleges, along with two year

specialized schools and a number of Internet programs, which can provide an education for less than 10k per year, all of which can be accessed through some form or public grant or financing. not every one could go to Harvard, Yale or any major unit. there is just so much room in any one, and they are all full...more today attend higher education, than ever, even considering growth in population. this signals some success, i would think. think you will find, the student chooses all the subjects...

 

Not to mention, there is no market for "economy schooling" in the lower grade levels. Economy education is public schools at the moment. Existing private schools are going to be geared for higher level education, discipline or whatever.

 

In other words, I don't see anyone directly competing with what public school offers. They're competing in quality and prestige.

[geoguy]

I'm not an American so not biased. But I am amused how the world beats up the Americans on their education system or, more importantly how the Americans beat themselves up when it comes to science and education.

 

Of the 6 Nobel science winners or co-winners last year ALL are American. 1 out of 20 humans are American but 6 out of 6 winners American in the sciences. The odds of that (if random) would be 20x20x20x20x20x20...you get the idea.

 

Don't beat yourselves up. there is a creative spark in U.S. science that dwarfs anything elsewhere. Microsoft..Google..Yahooo....the silicon chip...NASA... and all types of fledgling future Nobel winners .

 

The US education system may not produce robotic humans but it does produce creative thinkers.

[CPL.Luke]

jackson the net generation of american workers is going to be less educated than the previous. Fewer people (per capita) are going to college.

[jackson33]

Luke; really don't understand the logic. the net jobs requiring educations have dropped so much in recent years it hard to figure. something like 30 million jobs have been transported abroad or done by migrant workers. technology and related fields in science, along with even employment by many and certainly advancements require college degrees, in all industry, sales or service oriented operations.

 

i would agree this degree has been deluded to an equivalent of 1960's high school level, but people involved in a field tend to go on learning in that field well into life.

 

near 50% of HS graduates go on to higher education in some manner. here you might suggest to many drop from HS, which i cannot argue.

 

all in all, i still feel the person is responsible for his/her education. HS drop outs can change attitude, often do and go on to great careers. there is an impressive list for such people, many on the Forbes Best, Richest list or head major companies today or in the past.

 

on the other side, there is a growing divide, between educated and non educated folks in the US. the service industry however picks up the bulk of these folks, giving time for them to change attitudes. if 30-40 and still bagging groceries or on some government program the problems generally lay on government, parenting and/or lack of responsibility.

[CPL.Luke]

I didn't say that there was a logic behind it, just that fewer people per capita are going to college. Which indicates that there is a serious flaw in the system.

 

although I would disagree that the degree has been diluted to the equivalent of a highschool degree in the 60's

[jackson33]

the students graduating in the 50-60's, were 99.5% literate. the current figure for HS graduates is about 65%, to the fourth grade reading level. many subjects that were taught in the 50-60's were extensive or deep into the material. today history, economics, science among others are elective after a certain point or non-existent. since i am one that feels, understanding how to find material is equal to actually knowing it is of importance, the problems could be in process for self correction.

 

your point was our workforce was less educated. my reply this could not be.

to work at most any level of business, even the military you have to have a HS diploma or its equivalent. for the most part management now requires degrees from higher level education.

[ParanoiA]

the students graduating in the 50-60's, were 99.5% literate. the current figure for HS graduates is about 65%, to the fourth grade reading level.

 

Ok, stupid questions follow...

 

Do you mean 99.5 % of them were literate?

 

Can someone really graduate from high school and not be able to read?

[jackson33]

Ok, stupid questions follow...

 

Do you mean 99.5 % of them were literate?

 

Can someone really graduate from high school and not be able to read?

 

 

my comments were somewhat gratuitous, since i didn't want to research the problem.

 

google *illiteracy of High school graduates* where there are several articles and in particular an article by Alvin Toffler.

 

i used the 4th grade level reading ability, only to compare the two groups.

50-60's and current. although its unlikely any got through HS, reading at that level in the 60's, the fact is 700,000 in 1995 could not read at all but received diplomas. at a 4th grade level, i have heard figures up to 50% of todays graduates cannot do this. there are many who feel the college level degree today is equal to a HS diploma of the 50's. i wouldn't go quite that far, but in making a point, Public Schools, have been a total failure...IMO.