Up for Subsim Debate: Defunding the Department of Education

[CaptainHaplo]

Ok - we all know the US government is running a huge deficit, and it needs to slash its spending. So, I am going to try and start a series of discussions about various areas where spending COULD (but not necessarily should) be cut.

Now in the course of these discussions, I may play some devils advocate on positions I don't necessarily hold, just to get the discusion started.

Lets start with this one:

Defund (partially or in full) the Department of Education.

For 2010, the DoE total budget was $160.5 Billion (http://www2.ed.gov/about/overview/budget/index.html) - which it says accounts for roughly 10.5% of all education spending in the country. The rest comes from local, state and other sources.

The DoE has a mission - and it says it is this:
"to promote student achievement and preparation for global competitiveness by fostering educational excellence and ensuring equal access."
(http://www2.ed.gov/about/overview/fed/role.html)

As the President recently indicated, the quality of education in the US has dropped significantly when compared to the other nations.

"The United States has fallen from top of the class to average in world education rankings, said a report Tuesday that warned of US economic losses from the trend.
The three-yearly OECD Programme for International Student Assessment (PISA) report, which compares the knowledge and skills of 15-year-olds in 70 countries around the world, ranked the United States 14th out of 34 OECD countries for reading skills, 17th for science and a below-average 25th for mathematics"
(http://centerforgloballeadership.wordpress.com/2010/12/08/us-tanks-in-global-education-rankings/)

So, it is fair to say that while the DoE has seen its budget grow tremendously over the 3 decades of its current existence (though its history is far longer), it is now clear that it is failing in its mission. While the intentions of the DoE are very commendable, results show that despite significant additional "investment", its effectiveness has steadily worsened.

Would it not then be in the best interest of the students of today to entirely defund or drastically reduce the funding of this Department? What would be the impacts - negative and positive, of such actions?

One negative would be the elimination of some student aid via Pell Grants. However, that is a very small "slice of the pie" when compared to the wasted billions. Could a drastically reduced and refocused DoE be more effective, allowing more state and local control over the education children recieve?

While some will argue that "local control" is dangerous, since it would allow for one school to push a specific view (whether left or right, God focused or humanistic), if the local populace support such a school, is it the job of the Federal Government to "protect them from their own stupidity"?

Some interesting debate should follow, I hope. Keep it civil, make your points based on fact and not emotional demagogueary.

Why am I doing this? No - its not to start a war. If we truly expect to sit around jabbering about inane stuff while our government solves problems, then this country is already lost. We the people, from all views politically, have a duty to be part of the solution. So lets all get to it. Lets see if putting our heads together can come up with some solutions to fix the problems we face. Hey, and to all you folks from other parts of the world, pull up a chair and give your perspective too.

[nikimcbee]

Fun topic. I have mixed feelings about it. I used to dabble in teaching, so I know a little bit about it.

I like the idea of having a national standard teacher standards, etc, as this varies widey by states.

Do you have more information on things that they are responsible for?

I would start with the head count and salaries.

[nikimcbee]

just thought ot this: wack the school lunch program. I got to see this first hand as a student teacher. The school I was at, tried to get everyone enrolled in this program (so they can get more money:-?)

[Tribesman]

How many of those countries which scored better would consider defunding their dept of education to improve results?

[nikimcbee]

My beef is more at the local-state level. Where I'd neuter the teacher's union.

This is what I have noticed in my experience. Paying more does not get a better result.:-?

See State of Utah. They spend very little per student and have high ACT-SAT scores. Verses Minneapolis School district, which spends more than $10000 per student and has a high drop out rate and low test scores.

Wait, you want national stuff...
must...talk... national... stuff...not...local.

[nikimcbee]

http://www2.ed.gov/about/overview/fed/role.html

okay, so I read that. My thought is the fed could split up the funds between the states, with the only string being that it actually goes to education, and not some other fund, which they often do.

[Task Force]

Cutting school funding... bad idea. really bad.

I can see it now, Instead of 30 to 40 students per class, it would be 40 to 50. (this seems to be the schools awnser, stuff more in, to help with costs)

The biggest issue are the stupid teachers, I find most of them seem to be long timers, who have been teaching so long they think no one knows better, useing old ideas for subjects to a already full class plan. EX math, The teacher goes over a subject for 2 days, and usualy on day 2 or 3 gives a quiz/test/ ect on it, and moves on. The problem is, you can't learn a new subject that quick, and completly understand it.

A good way to cut down prices... Down with school lunch, and its mystery meat! (I know I can go a day without it, have for years.)

[mookiemookie]

DoE is a drop in the bucket when compared to the entire federal budget. Taking money away from Pell Grants and other student loans when the price of higher education in this country is rising at double and triple the rate of CPI inflation in order to do next to nothing is a tremendously wasteful, not to mention harmful bout of navel gazing.

If you're serious about reforming the DoE, then you start by scrapping garbage like NCLB and enacting a pay for performance system for teachers.

[Kaye T. Bai]

Remember when California teachers were protesting in the streets about a miniscule paycut in their salaries when they're among the highest paid in the entire country? :haha:

[Skybird]

Funding should not be mistaken with structure of curriculum. While more funds can lead to better education, it m7ust not necessarily be so - if the curriculum is badly structured.

For the US, I would assume there are other areas where more money can be saved with less damage being done, while in education it probbaly is mor elikely that more dmamage will be done with less money getting saved.

In the end, the financial problems of America derive from two major variables: the immense structural problems of it's economy, and its behemoth military spendings. Add to this the general consummation habit to not worry about saving for bad times, but to spend more than one can afford.

[mookiemookie]

and its behemoth military spendings.

This.

The Pentagon admits to maintaining 737 bases in 130 countries on every continent except Antarctica.

That is completely wasteful. Talk to me when we get to the proposals that slash 50% of the $663 billion for the Dept of Defense.

[Blood_splat]

I had a government teacher who would never change his curriculum. Everybody would just copy the answers from profiles that he made us keep. He was awarded teacher of the year almost every year. I swear he had the same curriculum for 25+ years. My sister graduated 5 years before me and she had the same worksheets in her profile book as I did.

[CaptainHaplo]

I have to agree with Mookie and NikiMcBee here - returning control to the state and local level would not only save money, but would make education systems more responsive to the needs of the community it serve.

I threw this out there to see what we could come up with, and I like what is coming so far. I do think there needs to be some level of federal standard - but then that has created a "teach to the test" mentality.

A national standard is great, but unfortunately the DoE goes way beyond national standards. Look at the boondoggle that is No Child Left Behind. Bush pushed this through, but its a total setup. No school can ever maintain a "passing" grade, because it has to show continual improvement measured year to year. The laws of diminishing returns apply, but NCLB doesn't account for it. Just one example of where federal interference is a fail.

So what about cutting its budget drastically. Maybe 250 employees, it does nothing more than create a reasonable national standard and administers the Pell Grant program? Probably be able to do all that for around 10 Billion instead of 160+.

Yes, I know its a "drop in the bucket" total, but pretty much everything is - there are just thousands of drops in that bucket, and some of em have to go. If, hypothetically speaking - you cut 150 Billion from the DoE budget, you just got 1/10 of your total deficit slash in one go.If we were to use the "drop in the bucket" logic, nothing will change. We have to start somewhere - and this is one of those places where some good debate - solutions based instead of "left vs right" can take place.

[Takeda Shingen]

Funding or de-funding the DoE accomplishes nothing. Disbanding or further empowering the DoE accomplishes nothing. We have teaching standards. They are strict. We have government-imposed standardized tests. They remain ineffective. You can give power to the local government and it will make no difference. The problem is that it is very difficult to get rid of bad teachers.

By my own observation, about 6 of out every 10 teachers needs to go. These people are in the business for the wrong reasons; summers off, the perception that teaching is a cushy job, etc. However, the NEA and the local teachers unions make it ridiculously difficult to remove these teachers, and make it nearly impossible once they achieve tenure. As such, you can fund and change any number of programs you want, and alter the curriculums and assessments as you please, but as long as you have that same crappy teacher running those programs you might as well have thrown that money and time down a hole.

[nikimcbee]

Funding or de-funding the DoE accomplishes nothing. Disbanding or further empowering the DoE accomplishes nothing. We have teaching standards. They are strict. We have government-imposed standardized tests. They remain ineffective. You can give power to the local government and it will make no difference. The problem is that it is very difficult to get rid of bad teachers.

By my own observation, about 6 of out every 10 teachers needs to go. These people are in the business for the wrong reasons; summers off, the perception that teaching is a cushy job, etc. However, the NEA and the local teachers unions make it ridiculously difficult to remove these teachers, and make it nearly impossible once they achieve tenure. As such, you can fund and change any number of programs you want, and alter the curriculums and assessments as you please, but as long as you have that same crappy teacher running those programs you might as well have thrown that money and time down a hole.

They need to diminish the union's influence at a national level. I don't have a clue how one would do that.

One thing that I noticed doing my pedagogical classes was (is) that the US k-12 system is the laughing stock of the world. I was more impressed with German system (the 3 types of education/schooling. Trade vs University prep)

I think our system is about having fun and catering to the lowest common denominator. I will also add, we are plagued with PCness. The rest of the world, is all business when it comes to school.

Just to stir the hornets nest, I'll add the US system's emphysis on sports.

I'm just trying to keep this on a national level and not local (per thread topic:D).

[Takeda Shingen]

They need to diminish the union's influence at a national level. I don't have a clue how one would do that.

One thing that I noticed doing my pedagogical classes was (is) that the US k-12 system is the laughing stock of the world. I was more impressed with German system (the 3 types of education/schooling. Trade vs University prep)

I think our system is about having fun and catering to the lowest common denominator. I will also add, we are plagued with PCness. The rest of the world, is all business when it comes to school.

Just to stir the hornets nest, I'll add the US system's emphysis on sports.

I'm just trying to keep this on a national level and not local (per thread topic:D).

No, it is the local level that is the problem. It is the local union that sends the lawyers when the administration takes action. It is the local union that holds the academic year hostage when contract negotation comes around. It is the local union that defends the bad teachers.

My priority would be the repair of the American education system. If that can be accomplished by keeping the unions intact and reforming pay and tenure, that is fine with me. If that can be accomplished by completely dismantling the unions, that is also fine. I have no interest in pursuing anyone's boogy man; be it the vilifying of unions, political correctness, school lunch or emphasis on sports. Those are only distractions from the actual problem. Quite simply, no external political solution is possible for the current problem. The problem is internal.

[UnderseaLcpl]

It should come as no surprise to anyone that I'm in favor of de-funding and disbanding the Federal Dept. of Education. My personal belief in the matter is that education should be wholly privatized.....(waits for shocked gasps to subside)

Okay, yes, I know how scary that is and I've seen every argument out there against such a stance. Poor children suffering from lack of access to education and greedy corporate money-whoring acadamies made to brainwash people into consumerism and all that.:o Not that education for the poor sucks anyway, or that they have been harmed by an overabundance of cheap products in other essential sectors, or that the state is capable of brainwashing, but I'm not going to talk about that.

What I really wanted to talk about was this: Funding or de-funding the DoE accomplishes nothing. Disbanding or further empowering the DoE accomplishes nothing. We have teaching standards. They are strict. We have government-imposed standardized tests. They remain ineffective. You can give power to the local government and it will make no difference. The problem is that it is very difficult to get rid of bad teachers.

Tak gets an A+ for ability to deconstruct a problem, imo. Whatever we may think of the levels of education spending at any level, what it comes down to is the ability of teachers to teach. For some reason, our teachers seem unable to do their jobs well.

Unlike Tak, I am going to vilify the unions. I have no problem with unions at all, right up until the point where they obtain state fiat power to exist as institutions, regardless of circumstance, at which point they become special interests. And we all love those, don't we?

I work under a union that is very similar to the teachers' union. It is very large, very powerful, and part of a very indispensible industry. It's the Brotherhood of Locomotive Engineers and Trainmen, and it is about as effective as the teachers' union in every way, which is to say that it is horrendously expensive for the customer and woefully incompetent at its professed task. The only real difference is that where teachers are politically essential (Think of the children!), railroads are actually essential; Who else is going to deliver 10,000 tons of product? Don't like our service? Move your factory, then. The other one railroad in the area charges the same amount, and they still have to use our lines so you still end up paying us!:nope:

Railroads and schools find themselves in this unique position for one reason: the state made it so by eliminating competition. Schools have no competition because the government assumed it could run the schools; you have to pay for them whether you have children or not. If you want to attend a private institution, you have to pay for school again. Oh, and it's a law for your children to attend. This is why there are no chains of private schools for the poor or the middle class. No demand.

Railroads have no competition because the government assumed it could run the railroads. It did this to make the railroads charge fair prices and engage in "constructive conduct". What ended up happening was that the railroads simply tore up all the track that was unprofitable because the new rates made it so. No supply.

These actions put the unions in advantageous positions. When the customer is a hostage and the job backed by legislation meant to protect workers from every concievable form of abuse by nasty employers (or parents), there is no reason to do anything other than the absolute minimum, if even that. Many more factors affect the complete lack of competition in these industries this is the crux of the argument.


Privatization, or partial privatization at least is my answer, but I'm also open to voucher systems for students or some kind incentive program for teachers... just anything to break up this stagnant monolith that we generously refer to as a "system". Such measures have been proposed, but the unions always block them. They don't even allow trial systems to see if things could be done better; "It might hurt the children":roll:

Whatever measure is to be taken, I'd only ask that it not include the state as the provider of incentive. State incentives and their preconditions have a notorious habit of being twisted into something completely different from the original intent, usually by the people they are meant to affect.

[CaptainHaplo]

I have to disagree with Takeda and Undersea.

Remember folks, the question is not about how to improve education, but whether or not the DoE is one place where we should be looking to cut funding to resolve the overspending of the federal government.

While I agree that the union has too much power, etc - you are approaching this issue as if its a question of "how do we fix" education.

So, Takeda - if its your position that defunding the DoE "won't matter" in regards to the educational outcome, then I can only conclude that you would be in favor of saving the 160 Billion dollars to help reduce the 1.4 Trillion expected deficit. Is that what your saying?

[nikimcbee]

No, it is the local level that is the problem. It is the local union that sends the lawyers when the administration takes action. It is the local union that holds the academic year hostage when contract negotation comes around. It is the local union that defends the bad teachers.

My priority would be the repair of the American education system. If that can be accomplished by keeping the unions intact and reforming pay and tenure, that is fine with me. If that can be accomplished by completely dismantling the unions, that is also fine. I have no interest in pursuing anyone's boogy man; be it the vilifying of unions, political correctness, school lunch or emphasis on sports. Those are only distractions from the actual problem. Quite simply, no external political solution is possible for the current problem. The problem is internal.

I agree 100%. I meant the NEA as lobbyists. I was just trying to keep my thoughts on the national level, not local. They need to find a better system than tenure, once a teacher hits tenure, they're impossible to get rid of.
I would say our whole learning system needs a priority adjustment. They thing that is great about our system, you can be what you want to be. Even if you aren't the smartest or best student, you can still make something of yourself if you work hard. You're not trapped into a peticular cast, so to speak, but I digress.

[nikimcbee]

@ Haplo, what are the weak points in the DoE? If you were to keep that dept, what kind of role would they have?

[Takeda Shingen]

So, Takeda - if its your position that defunding the DoE "won't matter" in regards to the educational outcome, then I can only conclude that you would be in favor of saving the 160 Billion dollars to help reduce the 1.4 Trillion expected deficit. Is that what your saying?

No, that is not what I am saying. What I am saying is that attempting to reform, fund, defund or empower the DoE without first addressing the problems inherent to tenure and teacher performance is like worrying about the rigging while there's a gaping hole in the boat. You might be able to get back to the heading that you want, but the ship is still sinking.

In that regard, I disagree with the very premise of your question. Education is always the platform that politicians use to assail their pet peeves. When satisfied they walk away, leaving the system in the very shape that they found it. In this case, education is being used to justify or refute government spending. If the system were reformed, there would not be the sinking feeling that we are throwing money down a hole, and there would be no reason to talk about government spending in education. The problem that the political class has is that this is a problem that cannot be solved from the top down; it must be fixed internally.

[Takeda Shingen]

Privatization, or partial privatization at least is my answer, but I'm also open to voucher systems for students or some kind incentive program for teachers... just anything to break up this stagnant monolith that we generously refer to as a "system". Such measures have been proposed, but the unions always block them. They don't even allow trial systems to see if things could be done better; "It might hurt the children":roll:

Whatever measure is to be taken, I'd only ask that it not include the state as the provider of incentive. State incentives and their preconditions have a notorious habit of being twisted into something completely different from the original intent, usually by the people they are meant to affect.

I use 'system' as simply a convenient term.

I am totally with you on the unions, but disagree on privatization. As an example, the Philadelphia Public School System was privatized about 6 years ago. Student performance remains unchanged. What has happened is that the district is teeming with charter schools, most of which perform just as badly as the non-charter schools, and most of which have a life expectancy of two academic years. It remains a mess because you cannot solve the problems of education from the top down.

However, if we continue it should probably be elsewhere. Haplo has made it clear that this thread is not really about education, but about spending cuts, so I think that we're off topic.

[CaptainHaplo]

Thanks Takeda. Not trying to stifle discussion (and how to improve our educational system is one that needs to be discussed!) but I do want to keep this focused on budgetary thoughts. BTW - thanks for the info on the privatized school system - gotta do some research into that.

what are the weak points in the DoE? If you were to keep that dept, what kind of role would they have?

Well, weak points. Per their own mission statement - they are a failure. The US educational system ratings internationally have plummetted, yet their budget grows. Is total failure not enough of a weak point when it costs 160 Billion in taxpayer funds?

As for what I would do - well thats what this discussion is for. However, I did some checking, it turns out the existing Pell Grant budget is about 18.5 Billion for 2010, and the current administration is requesting to nearly double that - to 35 Billion. While we can also debate whether adding Billions to the program is wise, what about limiting the DoE to administrating the Pell Grant program, add in say another 5 Billion for overhead and development of national standards. That drops them from 160 Billion to 40 Billion. a 120 Billion dollar savings on the 1.4 Trillion debt, while keeping the only effective things they do going.

This would still allow for "additional investment" in education by nearly doubling Pell Grant availability, while still making a dent in the deficit.

Let me ask this another way. Does anyone think we are getting 160 Billion dollars worth of results out of the DoE? If not, why not focus on where it is useful, and cut the rest?

[gimpy117]

As a college student, If i lost my pell grants, I'd have to take out about double the loans i have now.

[UnderseaLcpl]

I have to disagree with Takeda and Undersea.

Remember folks, the question is not about how to improve education, but whether or not the DoE is one place where we should be looking to cut funding to resolve the overspending of the federal government.

Privatization or partial privatization are a funding cuts by their very nature, so I'm topical:O:

Vouchers also promise an effective solution and a funding cut. Even socialist nations manage to make that system work for less than what we spend per student, per year and achieve better results.


Let me ask this another way. Does anyone think we are getting 160 Billion dollars worth of results out of the DoE? If not, why not focus on where it is useful, and cut the rest?

Because that won't fix anything. It doesn't matter what values you plug into an equation for fail, the end result is still fail. No matter where or how you allocate funding, the end result will be that most of the money is wasted and that more funding will be needed as new programs are adopted and the old ones become less efficient through complacency.

I'm really not trying to derail this thread, I just don't understand how the output will ever be any better if you don't fix the machine. What's the point?


As an example, the Philadelphia Public School System was privatized about 6 years ago. Student performance remains unchanged. What has happened is that the district is teeming with charter schools, most of which perform just as badly as the non-charter schools, and most of which have a life expectancy of two academic years.

I had to look this one up. Private schools and voucher schools have kind of a bad history when they are tried on an experimental basis, so my natural assumption was that Philly had "privatized" the schools but kept them so strictly regulated as to hobble them. That's usually what happens.

As it turns out, charter schools in Philly are not private schools. Actually, their presence has hurt private schools. They are privately run, but publicly funded, and they charge no tuition. I don't know the specifics of how they are run, but their nature alone makes the results unsurprising to me. Private industry only works where there is an incentive.

If you disagree or have anything to add, I agree that we should discuss it elsewhere because the discussion is likely to go way OT in a hurry. Thanks for making me think, though.

[nikimcbee]

If you disagree or have anything to add, I agree that we should discuss it elsewhere because the discussion is likely to go way OT in a hurry. Thanks for making me think, though.
__________________


I vote paintball field! A duel!

[Aramike]

As a college student, If i lost my pell grants, I'd have to take out about double the loans i have now.Curious - what are you in school for? What is your expected income upon graduation?

[Platapus]

Historically what was the purpose of "tenure"? Was it just academic freedom?

Is the problem that tenure was to solve/mitigate still around in the 21st century? Do we still need tenure is the question.

Would there be a disadvantage if we got rid of tenure?

As a layperson in this area, I have a hard time thinking that tenure is 100% bad and 0% good.

So what are the advantages and disadvantages of tenure?

Is this truly only a union thing?

[gimpy117]

Curious - what are you in school for? What is your expected income upon graduation?

western Michigan University. About 40K starting (getting my certs to work on aircraft)

[CaptainHaplo]

Because that won't fix anything. It doesn't matter what values you plug into an equation for fail, the end result is still fail.

Actually, its not plugging in different values, its changing the equation. 12x14/3+7x0=0
The end is the locked fail. Cut back on the equation....
12x14/3+7≠0

Suddenly we actually get something worthwhile.

In the case of the DoE, I don't oppose Pell Grants. I know many people who have benefited from them. So doing away with something that actually has a positive effect that is reasonable given its funding, I am ok with. However, the rest of the 140+ Billion should go.

So cutting funding drastically, limiting the DoE would save at least 120 Billion, a nice chunk, while not negatively effecting the Pell Grant system. Savings, while increasing overall effectiveness at the DoE.

Where is the fail there?

[Aramike]

western Michigan University. About 40K starting (getting my certs to work on aircraft)So if your loans doubled, and you get a job for $40k a year (which should grow annually), minus the federal tax deduction and any monies you're paying on your own already, how much would you owe monthly after graduation?

(I have a rough idea but I'm curious if you do.)

The reason I ask this is I'm wondering why the taxpayers should foot your bill if you're able to do so yourself?

It may surprise you, but I believe that Pell Grants are good investments, likely even in your case. More or less however, I'm wondering what the logic is for your reasoning behind that, beyond the immediate effect they have upon yourself.

It's nothing personal - I just believe that proponents of policies they directly benefit from at the cost to others should be challenged as to their reasoning.

[UnderseaLcpl]

Actually, its not plugging in different values, its changing the equation. 12x14/3+7x0=0
The end is the locked fail. Cut back on the equation....
12x14/3+7≠0

Suddenly we actually get something worthwhile.

Yeah, but you're not cutting the "0" multiplier out of the equation by reallocating or cutting back, and that's the government part of the equation.

The US government, through various means, has the power to tax, borrow, and print money in what is easily the wealthiest nation in the world, and it still manages to lose money at a staggering rate. It costs them more to print most money than bils than the bills themselves are worth. It costs more than $1 to tax a dollar in most cases of direct taxation.

Nothing you ever put through that labyrinth will ever generate a net gain. Even if you had the best budget reform the DoE had ever seen, and all the money was directed towards the best possible programs, and the reform somehow generated a break-even margin or even a profit, the end result would still be a net loss. Within a few years, the support mechanisms would be cannibalized by ailing programs or new programs, all with goals just as noble as education reform. Or at least goals that sound as noble as education reform.

Even if you tried to add up the economic net benefit to all students who got better jobs and had a better life because of the reform and then taxed it, the end result would still be a loss. Doubly so in the case of our education system.

The fail is in the government, Hap. I'd suggest looking at the question a different way: What you're really asking is how can we reduce the net loss to a level that is acceptable, yes? Well, you have my answer. Break up the monopoly. Break up the state monopoly or the union monopoly or preferably both, but you have to break at least one or all you'll get is more of the same. No amount of money, no matter what it is tasked with, is going to fix this problem. You might as well feed a Picasso to a paper shredder.

In the case of the DoE, I don't oppose Pell Grants. I know many people who have benefited from them. So doing away with something that actually has a positive effect that is reasonable given its funding, I am ok with. However, the rest of the 140+ Billion should go.

Should go to where? Better programs? Taxpayers? States? Some other agenda? A cut like that would hurt the DoE and encourage more state control by eliminating categorical grants, but it doesn't fix anything. There's still a DoE with federal power and a union with federal support, but now we have even less fuel for an already inefiicient machine.


So cutting funding drastically, limiting the DoE would save at least 120 Billion, a nice chunk, while not negatively effecting the Pell Grant system. Savings, while increasing overall effectiveness at the DoE.


And of course, I disagree, as I'm sure you're aware. For the record, I don't like Pell Grants, either. That should be a state matter, not a federal one. Fortunately, the cut would encourage more state-level proctiveness in scholarships and grants.



Where is the fail there?


As I hope to have demonstrated, right where it has always been: In the mind-boggling inefficacy of the system itself.

[mookiemookie]

The reason I ask this is I'm wondering why the taxpayers should foot your bill if you're able to do so yourself?

Because everyone benefits from the higher standard of living that results from an educated workforce.

[gimpy117]

So if your loans doubled, and you get a job for $40k a year (which should grow annually), minus the federal tax deduction and any monies you're paying on your own already, how much would you owe monthly after graduation?

(I have a rough idea but I'm curious if you do.)

The reason I ask this is I'm wondering why the taxpayers should foot your bill if you're able to do so yourself?

It may surprise you, but I believe that Pell Grants are good investments, likely even in your case. More or less however, I'm wondering what the logic is for your reasoning behind that, beyond the immediate effect they have upon yourself.

It's nothing personal - I just believe that proponents of policies they directly benefit from at the cost to others should be challenged as to their reasoning.

I'm at about half and half. it would put me somewhere over $6,000 more a year in dept if you got rid of my SEOG, Pell grant, and grant my school gives me. May I remind you I also payed about $2,000 a year out of pocket for books and left over tuition. I work 40+ hours a week in the summer to pay for this. Without these loans I'd be about 70K in debt instead of 50K (or somewhere around there).

Your generation was lucky to have college as cheap as it was. You guys all say you were broke, sure you were...but you were broke with your college paid for with little debt. My generation is broke with 20K+ of debt over our heads.
http://graphics8.nytimes.com/images/2008/12/03/education/03newcollegesub_large.jpg
Over all, the report found, published college tuition and fees increased 439 percent from 1982 to 2007 while median family income rose 147 percent. Student borrowing has more than doubled in the last decade, and students from lower-income families, on average, get smaller grants from the colleges they attend than students from more affluent families.-New York Times

[Aramike]

I'm at about half and half. it would put me somewhere over $6,000 more a year in dept if you got rid of my SEOG, Pell grant, and grant my school gives me. May I remind you I also payed about $2,000 a year out of pocket for books and left over tuition. I work 40+ hours a week in the summer to pay for this. Without these loans I'd be about 70K in debt instead of 50K (or somewhere around there).

Your generation was lucky to have college as cheap as it was. You guys all say you were broke, sure you were...but you were broke with your college paid for with little debt. My generation is broke with 20K+ of debt over our heads.
http://graphics8.nytimes.com/images/2008/12/03/education/03newcollegesub_large.jpgI'm not doubting any of that - it's not my point at all (my college education was free, actually).

I have a thing: I dislike it when people justify any expense to society through a gain to themselves. I believe it fouls the debate.

I actually agree with you that the government should help with these things. However, you're seeing it from your own standpoint which is "I need money and government is granting me money, ergo it's good." I agree that under the current system it is necessary.

But, because I'm not tied into that mindset of cost/benefit, I'm asking another question: why should the government have to give you as much money? Why can't it find ways to lower tuition instead?

[Armistead]

We have several depts that could go. Why I believe is some standard federal regulations, control of schools should go back to states and principles.

Pay should be based on performance...not years or status, anywhere this has been tried the results have been great, even in povern ridden cities.

I think high school teaching should be redone. Over 70% in many states don't go to college, but are forced to take the same repetitive courses each year they'll never use. They should offer day courses on skilled trades, not a class here or there. The last two years need to be almost like a trade school.

Little of the subject, but we had one school in our area grow and farm their own veggies working with the local farmers market and trained chefs were brought in to create proper meals.
All the fast food brought in was out, drink machines..no soda. Facts show 90% of canned veggies used were gone to waste, only 30% of garden grown food went to waste.

[CaptainHaplo]

While I agree any time money goes thru the hands of the feds, there is a loss involved, thats why the question was asked.

So Undersea, your in favor of totally defunding the DoE then?

Others who have contributed, what would you like to see the DoE as? What part of what it does do you keep, and to what extent should it be funded? What savings could be gained from this area?

[UnderseaLcpl]

I'm in favor of dismantling it entirely. There's no need for it. Even if we change nothing, there's no reason why education couldn't or shouldn't be a state-level responsibility, and the states could hardly do any worse than the DoE. I daresay it might even improve the situation, since states/districts with lousy schools could no longer lean on the rest of the country to support their continued existence.

[CaptainHaplo]

Hmmmm - seriously I had no inside info on this. Seems Rand Paul agrees with me - keep Pell Grants and thats it.

http://washingtonexaminer.com/blogs/beltway-confidential/2011/01/detailed-look-rand-paul-spending-bill

http://www.randpaul2010.com/wp-content/uploads/2011/01/Overview-500-billion-cuts-2.pdf

[Platapus]

I think high school teaching should be redone. Over 70% in many states don't go to college, but are forced to take the same repetitive courses each year they'll never use. They should offer day courses on skilled trades, not a class here or there. The last two years need to be almost like a trade school.



Here is my wacky idea for the Senior Year in High school. All classes need to be practical.

Math class: Teach how to budget, balance a check book, establish and handle credit. How to apply for loans without being screwed, etc.

English class: How to write a business letter, how to write a resume, etc.

History class: How to read and evaluate a ballot, current events, how to identify biases in news reporting, How to tell when some political party is bull steining you, how to do actual current events research instead of relying on commentators, etc

Science class: How to cook, how to shop for healthy food, understanding food lables, ect

Manual Traning: How common things work and how to fix them, How a car works, how to buy "stuff" and know it is high quality, how not to get killed, etc.

Civics: The local, state and federal laws that have the most affect on our lives. There are many laws that adults are supposed to abide by but we never teach our kids about laws, how to read and understand laws, how to affect changes in laws, Who are their public administrators are and what they do, etc.

That's what I would like to see every senior in highschool to go through. K-11 is academic stuff, 12 is practical education in becoming a functioning adult. It is sad that we get kids with 4.0+ GPAs who don't know how to write a resume or balance a check book. Why don't they? Because no one ever taught them.

Just my wacky idea :doh: