Jump to content

U.S. education under attack?


Recommended Posts

I tried bringing this up in the politics thread, but (understandably) the focus is on the current Trump Admin. scandal. I think while the focus is on the scandal, we are missing important issues happening in the periphery. Part of what I bring up here are proposals being brought up by Devos and her department, and some of it I suppose I could use some help with clarification--such as how much power does her department have to enact certain policies. So let's look at what is happening.

1. Huge cuts are proposed to education--the link puts them around 10 billion. Gut wrenching. I suppose we knew this was part of Trump's proposed budget--and after school programs for the poor will be targeted. I know this budget will have to go through both houses, but man, I know I was a teacher, and I am still very embedded in education, but how can anyone possibly think this is a good idea? I suppose this is a move toward getting rid of public schools as Devos wants private schools/vouchers? That's speculation and maybe not fair, but it's about all I can figure. Then again, I'm in the minority who thinks reducing our defense budget is a good idea. Or maybe I'm not in the minority?

2. Repealing and replacing of Income Based Repayment programs for government workers/non profit which grants loan forgiveness after 10 years of payments based on your discretionary income. Strangely enough, IBR is a late Bush era initiative (not Obama as I always thought). An IBR would still be put in place and benefit some, but grad students would get shafted big time, which sucks, because some grad programs offer no scholarships if they are in an area that doesn't bring in a lot of traffic for the school. IBR has its issues too--such as the big tax burden that will likely hit at the end of the 10 years, and Republicans are opposed to fixing it. You know, free handouts and all. My question is--does Devos have to get this through both houses too? Or is this the kind of thing her department can just cut?

So, it seems Devos not only wants to hit public ed, but higher ed too. This seems particularly troublesome. Our public schools are not the disgrace the media makes them out to be--as the article notes--middle class and upper class students are doing remarkably well. What we need to focus on is helping our lower-income students catch up (probably not by cutting programs for them). 

I am deeply troubled by what I'm reading about education.

I wonder if Pence would keep Devos on or if he might make new cabinet picks. I mean is that our/my only hope?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

This is very nearly inevitable. Consider:

1) The education sector is massive: Google says $1.3T which is about 7% of GDP.

2) The education sector is partisan. That is, a significant majority of its employees favor a specific party and, to a lesser extent, its resource allocation policies favor groups which are typically associated with that party.

3) The education sector receives a significant amount of its financing from the government.

Sooner or later, this combination will be its downfall. There is already a significant number of people who see it less as a public good and more as a propaganda machine that takes money from them and uses it to deceive and mislead their children. It's only a matter of time before the party that the sector does not favor strikes at it.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

6 minutes ago, DunderMifflin said:

Does government funding always translate into superior education? Is there a provable formula where the more tax dollars thrown in the name of education will always be followed by better educated students?

There are clear examples of the repercussions of lower funding and private funding which lead to lower achievement and less equity across social and economic strata. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

18 minutes ago, DunderMifflin said:

Does government funding always translate into superior education? Is there a provable formula where the more tax dollars thrown in the name of education will always be followed by better educated students?

Better educated students who have the means to pay for better schools when the government does not intervene. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Altherion said:

2) The education sector is partisan.

Not to derail the thread, but I think this is very much of an exaggeration, very comparable to the oft-repeated claim that the mainstream media is "liberal." Sure, there's some truth to it if you look at the humanities in academia, but apart from such a few specific examples, I'm not convinced that the American education sector is really that partisan.

1 hour ago, Altherion said:

That is, a significant majority of its employees favor a specific party and, to a lesser extent, its resource allocation policies favor groups which are typically associated with that party.

Do you have sources on these two claims?

I wouldn't be surprised if the first one was true, but then, given the fact that the Republican Party tends to defund education and look down on teachers, I think it's a bit rich to accuse the teachers or partisanship.
The second I won't buy without a decent source. In fact, I believe I could find a few sources showing the very opposite.

1 hour ago, Altherion said:

There is already a significant number of people who see it less as a public good and more as a propaganda machine that takes money from them and uses it to deceive and mislead their children.

I think those people are themselves the victims of propaganda on some level or the other.

Just take the whole debate about creationism (admittedly a bit old). Can you really accuse teachers of propaganda if they teach evolution rather than creationism?
The same holds true for a great number of issues. What American conservatives see as "propaganda" is deemed completely normal in almost every other developed nation.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, Rippounet said:

Not to derail the thread, but I think this is very much of an exaggeration, very comparable to the oft-repeated claim that the mainstream media is "liberal." Sure, there's some truth to it if you look at the humanities in academia, but apart from such a few specific examples, I'm not convinced that the American education sector is really that partisan.

It is fair to say that the fields of education and journalism, for example, tend to have a greater appeal to people with a liberal world view, just like it's fair to say that a career in law enforcement appeals more to individuals with a conservative world view. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

16 minutes ago, Tywin et al. said:

It is fair to say that the fields of education and journalism, for example, tend to have a greater appeal to people with a liberal world view, just like it's fair to say that a career in law enforcement appeals more to individuals with a conservative world view. 

Possibly. But having a liberal world view and being a registered Democrat are two different things. Is there any evidence that teachers massively register as Democrats nationwide? Google has confirmed that this is what everyone believes ; I'd like to know if there is any actual evidence for this. Because from the best sources I found it seems teachers tend to be about as liberal or as conservative as their environment. For instance, teachers in Oklahoma are more likely to be Republicans than voters at large. As far as academia goes, I know for a fact that it very much depends what field people are in. Thus, my suspicion that saying the education sector as a whole is partisan is a gross exaggeration.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 hours ago, Week said:

There are clear examples of the repercussions of lower funding and private funding which lead to lower achievement and less equity across social and economic strata. 

Do you have citations for this?  I've seen quite a bit of information to the contrary.  That additional investment does not seem to be yielding better academic results, based at least in part  on where the additional investment goes.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Right now, the country with the best educational system is Finland. Teachers are well paid in Finland and expected  to deliver educated students. In the US,  teachers are not well paid in a lot of jurisdictions and the students  are paying the price in terms of getting a crappy education. Creationism is still strongly supported and don't even think about discussing birth control or gun control. 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

34 minutes ago, Swordfish said:

Do you have citations for this?  I've seen quite a bit of information to the contrary.  That additional investment does not seem to be yielding better academic results, based at least in part  on where the additional investment goes.

That's the thing: both seem to be true.
1) Pouring money into a sector does not perform miracles and can be counter-productive.
BUT
2) Lowering funds leads to worse results.

And if you think about it, it kind of makes sense.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 hours ago, Rippounet said:

Not to derail the thread, but I think this is very much of an exaggeration, very comparable to the oft-repeated claim that the mainstream media is "liberal." Sure, there's some truth to it if you look at the humanities in academia, but apart from such a few specific examples, I'm not convinced that the American education sector is really that partisan.

Do you have sources on these two claims?

I wouldn't be surprised if the first one was true, but then, given the fact that the Republican Party tends to defund education and look down on teachers, I think it's a bit rich to accuse the teachers or partisanship.

Here's a Washington Post article. It's not just the humanities: 60% of all college professors (including scientists, engineers, etc.) identify as liberal or far-left while only 13% are conservative or far-right (the rest are moderate). It's even more lopsided in the humanities, yes, but the discrepancy exists everywhere.

Regarding teachers: follow the money. Teachers' unions have contributed overwhelmingly more to Democrats for decades. The position of the Republicans makes this understandable... but it will not save them from the consequences.

3 hours ago, Rippounet said:

The second I won't buy without a decent source. In fact, I believe I could find a few sources showing the very opposite.

It's difficult to trace money through the system, but we do know that, for example, it is the official policy ("affirmative action") of many prestigious universities to give spots to African-American and, to a lesser extent, Hispanic students with lower grades than their white and Asian competitors. The former two groups have preferred Democrats for decades, often by an overwhelming margin (especially African-Americans).

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 minutes ago, Rippounet said:

That's the thing: both seem to be true.
1) Pouring money into a sector does not perform miracles and can be counter-productive.
BUT
2) Lowering funds leads to worse results.

And if you think about it, it kind of makes sense.

Does it?  

it makes sense, i suppose, if you consider that the education sector is enormous, and that outcomes are likely based very specifically on the details of what is being funded.  So you'd expect some funding to have an impact, some would not.

I'm not sure how to make sense of that statement at all at the macro level, though.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

8 minutes ago, Altherion said:

Here's a Washington Post article. It's not just the humanities: 60% of all college professors (including scientists, engineers, etc.) identify as liberal or far-left while only 13% are conservative or far-right (the rest are moderate). It's even more lopsided in the humanities, yes, but the discrepancy exists everywhere.

Fair enough, but that's focusing on academia. What about other teachers?

8 minutes ago, Altherion said:

Regarding teachers: follow the money. Teachers' unions have contributed overwhelmingly more to Democrats for decades. The position of the Republicans makes this understandable... but it will not save them from the consequences.

That I know, but what unions do doesn't necessarily reflect everyone's ideas.

8 minutes ago, Altherion said:

It's difficult to trace money through the system, but we do know that, for example, it is the official policy ("affirmative action") of many prestigious universities to give spots to African-American and, to a lesser extent, Hispanic students with lower grades than their white and Asian competitors.

Ever since 2003 and the Bollinger Supreme Court decisions that's a rather minor phenomenon. We're really not talking about major resource allocation here.

And again, that's focusing on higher education. When I said I could find sources showing the opposite, I was thinking about primary or secondary education.

7 minutes ago, Swordfish said:

Does it? 

Yes. If you put money in a given public sector, chances are that it's not going to be used to improve core functions (because that requires insane amounts) but that it will be used for experiments or to improve minor functions. On the other hand, when funding is lowered beyond a certain threshold, it will automatically hurt core functions.

I doubt I'm making this up (this kind of paradoxical thinking seems too elaborate to be mine), I've probably read about this somewhere... Sorry I can't give you a source.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The fundamental issue in the US is that schools are funded out of local property taxes. This furthers the income gap between richer and poorer communities. Also take into account red-lining and other types of segregation that created the wealth divide in many cases and continue the institutionalized racism and disparity. This, I think Eurocommies correct me if I'm wrong, is a unique problem that the US developed for itself.

 

http://www.npr.org/2016/04/18/474256366/why-americas-schools-have-a-money-problem
https://www.theatlantic.com/business/archive/2016/08/property-taxes-and-unequal-schools/497333/
http://www.lincolninst.edu/publications/policy-focus-reports/property-tax-school-funding-dilemma

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 minutes ago, Rippounet said:

I doubt I'm making this up (this kind of paradoxical thinking seems too elaborate to be mine), I've probably read about this somewhere... Sorry I can't give you a source.

The Kansas supreme court rejected state spending levels as unconstitutional on education after extreme austerity cuts violated civil rights by not providing an adequate education (supply-side FTW Gov Brownback!).
 

https://www.nytimes.com/2017/03/02/us/kansas-supreme-court-school-spending.html?_r=0
https://www.theatlantic.com/education/archive/2017/03/can-a-court-decision-help-close-the-achievement-gap/518859/
 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

19 minutes ago, Week said:

The fundamental issue in the US is that schools are funded out of local property taxes. This furthers the income gap between richer and poorer communities. Also take into account red-lining and other types of segregation that created the wealth divide in many cases and continue the institutionalized racism and disparity.

Exactly. I've seen quite a few articles showing that the funding of schools in the US is terribly unequal, and that this hurts minorities considerably. In fact... *searches through old notes* yup, that's San Antonio Independent School District v. Rodriguez, 1973: the US Supreme Court considered that basing the financing of schools on local property taxes was not a violation of the 14th amendment. Though several states have implemented policies that make some minimum level of funding mandatory, the 1973 decision still means that schools in poor neighborhoods tend to get less funding throughout the United States.

19 minutes ago, Week said:

This, I think Eurocommies correct me if I'm wrong, is a unique problem that the US developed for itself.

Unfortunately it definitely isn't. Even good ol' socialist France is struggling with comparable issues so I wouldn't be surprised if something similar was happening throughout Europe.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

8 minutes ago, Rippounet said:

 

Yes. If you put money in a given public sector, chances are that it's not going to be used to improve core functions (because that requires insane amounts) but that it will be used for experiments or to improve minor functions. On the other hand, when funding is lowered beyond a certain threshold, it will automatically hurt core functions.

I doubt I'm making this up (this kind of paradoxical thinking seems too elaborate to be mine), I've probably read about this somewhere... Sorry I can't give you a source.

 

I'm still not sure I'm really following you.  There are too many moving pieces here and too many caveats in your explanation for me to draw anything particularly meaningful from it.  I mean, obviously, if you defund anything beyond 'a certain level' there will be impact.

The fact is, an insane amount of money ALREADY goes into education.  The devil is in the details.

The only stuff I've seen at the macro level is that increased spending has basically not resulted in corresponding increases in academic results.  Which DOES make sense at a high level, because how much you spend cannot be decoupled from where you are spending it if you're talking about whether or not there is benefit.

Federal funding has surged over the past few decades, and it's reasonable to ask if we are getting a good return on that investment.

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

×
×
  • Create New...