Understanding the Issues: Education
 

This was supposed to continue with the theme of anonymously presenting the candidates and asking you to vote on their policies, without sharing which candidate was tied to each policy. However, we are down to just two candidates now. And on this particular issue, Education, I simply couldn’t gather enough solid information on McCain’s stance to outline his beliefs (other than he’s for vouchers).

So with that in mind, below is Obama’s stance on Education. Do you agree with Obama’s plan?
Granted, you may not agree with everything. So let’s say this. If you agree with more than 75% of what he is saying then vote “Yes”, less than 25% vote no. Anywhere in between, abstain and let’s discuss.


• Teacher Service Scholarships: Cover four years of undergraduate or two years of graduate teacher education, including high-quality alternative programs for mid-career recruits in exchange for teaching for at least four years in a high-need field or location.

• Teacher Residency Program: In these programs, individuals completing coursework for teacher certification could serve as apprentices in the classrooms of veteran teachers, as long as they pledged at least three years of service in the sponsoring district.

• Districts will be able to design programs that reward accomplished educators who serve as a mentor to new teachers with a salary increase. Districts can reward teachers who work in underserved places like rural areas and inner cities. And if teachers consistently excel in the classroom, that work can be valued and rewarded as well.

• Make science and math education a national priority

• Supports charter schools; does not support vouchers, focus should be on investing in our public schools

• Standardized tests drain creativity from schools

• Provide funds for states to implement a broader range of assessments that can evaluate higher-order skills, including students’ abilities to use technology, conduct research, engage in scientific investigation, solve problems, present and defend their ideas

• $4,000 college tuition for 100 hours public service/year

• Provide funding to school districts to invest in intervention strategies in middle school - strategies such as personal academic plans, teaching teams, parent involvement, mentoring, intensive reading and math instruction, and extended learning time.

• Double funding for the main federal support for afterschool programs to serve one million more children.

• Supports summer learning opportunities for disadvantaged children through partnerships between local schools and community organizations.

• Supports outreach programs like GEAR UP, TRIO and Upward Bound to encourage more young people from low-income families to consider and prepare for college.

• Streamline the financial aid process by eliminating the current federal financial aid application and enabling families to apply simply by checking a box on their tax form, authorizing their tax information to be used, and eliminating the need for a separate application.

Re: Understanding the Issues: Education
 

I voted yes because anything is better then what it is now.

Re: Understanding the Issues: Education
 

Hell yes.

If I can get $4,000 for my tuition while only putting forth 100 hours of community service, you damn well better believe I'm on board for that.

That's $4,000 that can stay in my bank account.

Re: Understanding the Issues: Education
 

Yeah, I definitely agree with Obama's stance on education. Part of the reason I didn't go to college out of high school was because I didn't want to pay out the ass for, and I didn't like the options of getting money now to pay for it but then I spend the next 30 years of my life paying it back. But I think you would see a lot of kids doing 100 hours of community service if it meant getting 4 grand for college.

Re: Understanding the Issues: Education
 

I've got a number of issues, and a number of things I like. Overall, I abstained from the vote.

[QUOTE]• Teacher Service Scholarships: Cover four years of undergraduate or two years of graduate teacher education, including high-quality alternative programs for mid-career recruits in exchange for teaching for at least four years in a high-need field or location.[/QUOTE]

Source of funding? That's a big question mark. If you're going to pull the troops home from Iraq, I'd like to see that money go back to the taxpayers, reducing government spending. I don't want to see the Iraq money spent on things like this.

[QUOTE]• Districts will be able to design programs that reward accomplished educators who serve as a mentor to new teachers with a salary increase. Districts can reward teachers who work in underserved places like rural areas and inner cities. And if teachers consistently excel in the classroom, that work can be valued and rewarded as well. [/QUOTE]

How the hell can you measure which teachers "perform well" in the classroom?

[QUOTE]• Make science and math education a national priority[/QUOTE]

I love this idea, we need it. But it's short on details.

[QUOTE]• Standardized tests drain creativity from schools[/QUOTE]

Not sure what this means.

[QUOTE]• Provide funds for states to implement a broader range of assessments that can evaluate higher-order skills, including students’ abilities to use technology, conduct research, engage in scientific investigation, solve problems, present and defend their ideas[/QUOTE]

I like this idea a lot. There are a lot more forms of intelligence than just your traditional reading, writing, and math.

[QUOTE]• $4,000 college tuition for 100 hours public service/year[/QUOTE]

Again, source of funding? American citizens should try actually saving and investing their money for a change.

[QUOTE]• Double funding for the main federal support for afterschool programs to serve one million more children. [/QUOTE]

Parenting should be the answer here, not government funding.

[QUOTE]• Streamline the financial aid process by eliminating the current federal financial aid application and enabling families to apply simply by checking a box on their tax form, authorizing their tax information to be used, and eliminating the need for a separate application.[/QUOTE]

Brilliant idea. This will streamline paperwork and make use of the considerable infrastructure already in place with the IRS. I'm hopeful that there are other politicians who are actually considering improving efficiencies within the government's processes.

Re: Understanding the Issues: Education
 

Yes, Yes, Yes! One thing I really like about his proposal is that it's incentive based and the good kind of incentives.

Re: Understanding the Issues: Education
 

I think the standardized tests thing means that SATs really aren't standardized and varies from community to community. What may mean one thing to community A, may mean something completely different to community B.

(This applies only to the reading/verbal section, because math is universal)

Ergo, schools are limiting itself in teaching because they have to try to teach what correlates to the SAT, thus limiting the creativity within the schools.

I agree with SATs not being standardized but I can't say that I understand how it limits the creativity. Hell, I was just shooting from the hip with that explanation.. But I hope you get the gist of what I'm saying.

Re: Understanding the Issues: Education
 

I think the standardized testing are the SOL's actually. It limits creativity in that teachers have to teach the material that will be on the SOL's. Teaching anything else is moot because the SOL's are all that matter for gauging a school districts academic progress.

Re: Understanding the Issues: Education
 

[quote=DynamiteRave;452252]I think the standardized tests thing means that SATs really aren't standardized and varies from community to community. What may mean one thing to community A, may mean something completely different to community B.

(This applies only to the reading/verbal section, because math is universal)

Ergo, schools are limiting itself in teaching because they have to try to teach what correlates to the SAT, thus limiting the creativity within the schools.

I agree with SATs not being standardized but I can't say that I understand how it limits the creativity. Hell, I was just shooting from the hip with that explanation.. But I hope you get the gist of what I'm saying.[/quote]

Yeah I think I gotcha. You're saying that the SATs force teachers/schools to gear their teaching styles towards the test.

I'm not sure that's a bad thing. I happen to love the SAT and think it's a great measure. It combines good probing questions with the need to perform under pressure (time limit). I think you need a degree of standardization in schools all across the land. After all, all students are headed to the same real world and job market, aren't they?

The SATs are a funny animal though - those who did well on them tend to like them. Those who didn't... not so much.

Re: Understanding the Issues: Education
 

[quote=724Skinsfan;452253]I think the standardized testing are the SOL's actually. It limits creativity in that teachers have to teach the material that will be on the SOL's. Teaching anything else is moot because the SOL's are all that matter for gauging a school districts academic progress.[/quote]

Yeah yous is right. Nobody's forced to take the SAT, that's a college requirement. The SOL or whatever is the standardized test used to measure schools against one another.

Re: Understanding the Issues: Education
 

Hey SS - how about a third option for "Abstain"? Would be interesting to see how many are in the middle...

Re: Understanding the Issues: Education
 

[QUOTE=724Skinsfan;452253]I think the standardized testing are the SOL's actually. It limits creativity in that teachers have to teach the material that will be on the SOL's. Teaching anything else is moot because the SOL's are all that matter for gauging a school districts academic progress.[/QUOTE]

Yeah, I think that's pretty much it. I once dated this girl who was a schoolteacher (I imagine she still is), and she used to complain about how she had to spend so much time preparing her students for a standardized test that they never spent sufficient time on any creative learning/thinking. She didn't feel she was really preparing her students, or allowed to prepare her students, for real life. On a side note, her colleagues were Jenna Bush and Mike Shanahan's daughter. Kinda cool.

Schneed, I think we're basically on the same page about this. I'm glad that Obama at least seems to have some semblance of a plan, while rough around the edges. My biggest question is where will the funding come from for many of these projects to take place. And would we be depending too much on government funding?

Re: Understanding the Issues: Education
 

[QUOTE=onlydarksets;452257]Hey SS - how about a third option for "Abstain"? Would be interesting to see how many are in the middle...[/QUOTE]

Done

Re: Understanding the Issues: Education
 

[quote=DynamiteRave;452238]Hell yes.

If I can get $4,000 for my tuition while only putting forth 100 hours of community service, you damn well better believe I'm on board for that.

That's $4,000 that can stay in my bank account.[/quote]
But thats also a new tax that you will be paying your entire life to support.

Re: Understanding the Issues: Education
 

Obama's Education Plan will cost about 18 billion annually which means we're not exactly breaking the bank. It's short on details as far as how he will pay for it but giving it's cost estimates and the fact that it's an investment with attachments I am more inclined to be in favor of it even at 30 Billion dollars a year. Lord knows "Rarely is the question asked, Is our children learning?"

Re: Understanding the Issues: Education
 

[quote=Schneed10;452242]
[quote]Double funding for the main federal support for afterschool programs to serve one million more children. [/quote]Parenting should be the answer here, not government funding.
[/quote]
I'm guessing that your wife stays at home with your kid(s)? I'm not knocking the stay-at-home mom, but those in that situation tend not to have an understanding of the realities of a family where both parents work. For many families, it's not an option to have a stay at home parent, and after-school care is essential to allowing some parents to provide all of the material necessities for their kids.

Obviously, there is a funding issue, but this is one that I think is critical in today's world.

Re: Understanding the Issues: Education
 

Well if you cannot pass a SOL then why would the teacher be teaching them anything else to start with. Remember this is basic skills not rocket science they have to pass. Maybe he could make it easier for a school to fire a teacher who has over 5 years in the system who is not performing. We allready spend how much on a failing system so lets just throw more money at a failing system. Until we take control over the schools and get parent involvement there is nothing that the fed goverment can do to improve schools. Maybe make it manditory that parents attend parents night or other things or they get fined.

Re: Understanding the Issues: Education
 

[quote=Schneed10;452255]Yeah I think I gotcha. You're saying that the SATs force teachers/schools to gear their teaching styles towards the test.

[B] I'm not sure that's a bad thing.[/B] I happen to love the SAT and think it's a great measure. It combines good probing questions with the need to perform under pressure (time limit). I think you need a degree of standardization in schools all across the land. After all, all students are headed to the same real world and job market, aren't they?

The SATs are a funny animal though - those who did well on them tend to like them. Those who didn't... not so much.[/quote]

It's definitely a bad thing if you talk to teachers. I had the opportunity to speak with a middle school teacher/principle a few weeks ago and he said they're just training the children to take the test. No critical think necessary. When teachers don't believe in what they are doing how can they possibly do a good job?

SAT is a total different beast, it's a collage aptitude test. Teachers can do some prep-work to prepare students for the test but they don't base their curriculum on the test.

Re: Understanding the Issues: Education
 

[quote=saden1;452267]It's definitely a bad thing if you talk to teachers. I had the opportunity to speak with a middle school teacher/principle a few weeks ago and he said they're just training the children to take the test. No critical think necessary. When teachers don't believe in what they are doing how can they possibly do a good job?

SAT is a total different beast, it's a collage aptitude test. Teachers can do some prep-work to prepare students for the test but they don't base their curriculum on the test.[/quote]
While I agree teachers get stuck teaching to the test isn't it the basic stuff kids nee to know?

Re: Understanding the Issues: Education
 

Smoot one quick search McCain's stance.

[url=http://glassbooth.org/explore/index/john-mccain/10/education/14/]John McCain on Education[/url]

Re: Understanding the Issues: Education
 

Thanks, this is a bit more detailed than what I had found. I'll probably keep the poll as is, but we can/should certainly add McCain's position to the discussion. I think we sort of have been already.

Re: Understanding the Issues: Education
 

[quote=firstdown;452269]Smoot one quick search McCain's stance.

[URL="http://glassbooth.org/explore/index/john-mccain/10/education/14/"]John McCain on Education[/URL][/quote]


That's the platform he ran on back in 2000. Folks, this ain't the same McCain that even I wanted in the white house back in 2000 (yes, I was a McCain supporter back then).

Re: Understanding the Issues: Education
 

i absolutely will not vote for obama (too much tax and spend), but on education, i see nothing to disagree with... as far as pledging years for education, that's what the military does, and it works really well there (at least for the technical jobs, and they do 50 college credits in 6 months and throw on the GI bill and 100% tuition assistance, and offer to pay the full ride if you go officer or take certain jobs (nurse, etc)).

updating testing standards wouldn't be a bad idea either. charter schools are really hit or miss... post katrina is the best place to observe charters on a massive scale, and so far, while some are WAY above average, others really aren't doing anything better than public schools.

honestly, energy and education are the biggest long term problems facing america (and both affect the economy greatly). mccain has a very good plan on energy (lots of nuclear - one of the cheapest and cleanest, and SAFEST sources of energy, among other things), and he's really not running on education (he may steal some ideas, but i just don't see that as a focus of his beyond a quick press for vouchers, which aren't terrible, but don't really fix the problem either).

obama's education stance looks well researched and workable, though i would like to know the real cost estimates and how it's getting paid for... old newt agreed back in the late 90s that education is terribly out of date and needs to be overhauled to keep the future economy running like a freight train. while the ideas aren't new (most aren't) they'd definitely help.

Re: Understanding the Issues: Education
 

[quote=firstdown;452268]While I agree teachers get stuck teaching to the test isn't it the basic stuff kids nee to know?[/quote]
Not really. Teaching to the test is helping the kids figure out how to pick the right answer, as opposed to teaching them the fundamentals that allow them to understand [U]why[/U] the answer they chose was correct. The former skill becomes useless when the test is over, while the latter is a base for the next year's education. Skipping the base leaves you with pretty much nothing.

Watch season 4 of the Wire. It may be hyperbole (or maybe not), but it highlights the problem.

Re: Understanding the Issues: Education
 

[quote=onlydarksets;452265]I'm guessing that your wife stays at home with your kid(s)? I'm not knocking the stay-at-home mom, but those in that situation tend not to have an understanding of the realities of a family where both parents work. For many families, it's not an option to have a stay at home parent, and after-school care is essential to allowing some parents to provide all of the material necessities for their kids.

Obviously, there is a funding issue, but this is one that I think is critical in today's world.[/quote]

No, both myself and my wife work. Our one-year old is in daycare.

When I said parenting, it's not a matter of parental oversight and constantly being home to keep them out of trouble. It's a matter of raising your kids right so that by the time they get to be teenagers, they're capable of making the right decisions in compromising situations. Raising them right means more than just bringing them up with good moral compasses, it means making sure they're kept busy with activities throughout childhood so they build a network of friends in multiple activities, making it more likely they'll continue to participate in school athletics, music, dance, school newspaper, science club, anything to keep them busy in their teenage years. Idle hands...

Ideally every family would have the stay at home parent to provide even more support. But I know it's still possible to keep kids on the right track with two working parents.

Re: Understanding the Issues: Education
 

[quote=Schneed10;452327]No, both myself and my wife work. Our one-year old is in daycare.

When I said parenting, it's not a matter of parental oversight and constantly being home to keep them out of trouble. It's a matter of raising your kids right so that by the time they get to be teenagers, they're capable of making the right decisions in compromising situations. Raising them right means more than just bringing them up with good moral compasses, it means making sure they're kept busy with activities throughout childhood so they build a network of friends in multiple activities, making it more likely they'll continue to participate in school athletics, music, dance, school newspaper, science club, anything to keep them busy in their teenage years. Idle hands...

Ideally every family would have the stay at home parent to provide even more support. But I know it's still possible to keep kids on the right track with two working parents.[/quote]

Then maybe I'm misunderstanding after-school care - I thought it referred to pre-high school kids. That is, kids whom it is illegal to leave unsupervised (in most states). Is it primarily for kids 14 and over?

Re: Understanding the Issues: Education
 

[quote=onlydarksets;452319]Not really. Teaching to the test is helping the kids figure out how to pick the right answer, as opposed to teaching them the fundamentals that allow them to understand [U]why[/U] the answer they chose was correct. The former skill becomes useless when the test is over, while the latter is a base for the next year's education. Skipping the base leaves you with pretty much nothing.

Watch season 4 of the Wire. It may be hyperbole (or maybe not), but it highlights the problem.[/quote]

I agree that the emphasis placed on the standardized testing probably, to a degree, distracts from the subject matter that should be the main focus of teachers and students. But teaching to the test still has value. It teaches kids how to analyze the question, how to logically think through the possibilities and use process of elimination to narrow it down, to understand when they're overthinking vs when they're trusting their instincts, etcetera.

These tests, and teaching to them, certainly results in downtick in creative thinking. But logical and analytical thinking gets a lot of focus. I don't see it as a bad thing for kids on the whole.

Besides, you can use process of elimination all you want on a multiple choice standardized test, but in the end if you can't eliminate more than a couple answers, you don't know the underlying material well enough anyway. I do think there's an appropriate balance being struck.

Re: Understanding the Issues: Education
 

Fair enough, but if your entire curriculum for English focuses on logical thinking, have you formed the foundation for English that is necessary to learn writing skills over the 12 years of school (vocabulary, grammar, etc)? Same for any other subject.

Re: Understanding the Issues: Education
 

[quote=onlydarksets;452328]Then maybe I'm misunderstanding after-school care - I thought it referred to pre-high school kids. That is, kids whom it is illegal to leave unsupervised (in most states). Is it primarily for kids 14 and over?[/quote]

Good question. I assumed it was for high-school aged kids, similar to programs run by PAL and YMCA, designed to keep them out of trouble.

If it's for little kids, and both parents work, I'm not sure why parents would need funding for after-care? Seems like two working parents can handle the cost of those programs, they're only a couple hundred a month.

Which of course brings up a whole other issue... single parents. That's a group that needs the after-care help. But I've got a personal moral issue with lending support to single parents when most of them are single parents as a result of their own misjudgments. Of course their kids can't help being born into a shitty situation, so in that sense I can see the logic in helping them. But still, it doesn't taste good because their parents (most, not all) should have to struggle.

(sorry for the opinionated opinion)

Re: Understanding the Issues: Education
 

[quote=onlydarksets;452331]Fair enough, but if your entire curriculum for English focuses on logical thinking, have you formed the foundation for English that is necessary to learn writing skills over the 12 years of school (vocabulary, grammar, etc)? Same for any other subject.[/quote]

As long as your school/teachers are striking the appropriate balance between teaching the core material and teaching how to analyze the questions, then I think the kids are in good shape. Remember, kids don't take these tests every year. They take them in like 1st grade, then 4th, then 7th, then 11th. Or something like that (I don't know the exact years). But my point is there are like 3 or 4 years between tests. In all that time, kids are not spending an inordinate amount of time on the test analysis. They're getting the building blocks over time, then when they come to the year for test time, then they get the analysis stuff.

I'll bet if you ask 4th grade teachers (or whatever year they administer the test), they're probably the ones most aggravated and affected. The other teachers probably don't care much, as they get to focus on core curriculum.

Re: Understanding the Issues: Education
 

[quote=Schneed10;452332]Good question. I assumed it was for high-school aged kids, similar to programs run by PAL and YMCA, designed to keep them out of trouble.

If it's for little kids, and both parents work, I'm not sure why parents would need funding for after-care? Seems like two working parents can handle the cost of those programs, they're only a couple hundred a month.

Which of course brings up a whole other issue... single parents. That's a group that needs the after-care help. But I've got a personal moral issue with lending support to single parents when most of them are single parents as a result of their own misjudgments. Of course their kids can't help being born into a shitty situation, so in that sense I can see the logic in helping them. But still, it doesn't taste good because their parents (most, not all) should have to struggle.

(sorry for the opinionated opinion)[/quote]
I couldn't disagree more on single-parents - who deserves help more than a full-time working mother or father? What does the reason why they are doing it alone matter? Now, if they aren't working full-time then, of course, I would agree. I think that criteria would weed out a lot of the bad apples. (one opinionated opinion deserves another, right?)

As for families with two parents, $200/kid (which is not the uniform cost, of course) can be prohibitive if you have a household income of $20k (which accounts for 20% of the US households). Now, I would agree it's a murky area if you have 8 kids. But for those with even 2 kids, there just isn't $4800/year for the care they need.

Re: Understanding the Issues: Education
 

Just curious, has anyone's opinion changed or been affected on who they will vote for based on these Understanding The Issues threads I've started?

Re: Understanding the Issues: Education
 

[quote=SmootSmack;452337]Just curious, has anyone's opinion changed or been affected on who they will vote for based on these Understanding The Issues threads I've started?[/quote]

not really, since obama is so willing to really jack up tax rates and his foreign policy statements overall haven't been very good (and prove a lack of experience with how the world works). I still don't think the "aura of change" is going to matter much once congress opens if he's in charge. It might help him push through a few issues early, but i don't think it'll hold up too well unless he can flip the economy into a strong boom within 18 months due to his policies, which i REALLY don't see happening.

either candidate will be better on science than bush though, so false "studies" with badly tainted/wrong "scientific results" should decrease either way, which i'm really looking forward to. both will probably do a little work on lobbyists reform or whatnot, which will be welcome, though minor.

Re: Understanding the Issues: Education
 

[QUOTE=SmootSmack;452337]Just curious, has anyone's opinion changed or been affected on who they will vote for based on these Understanding The Issues threads I've started?[/QUOTE]

These threads are good summations of where each candidate stands on the issues... I don't have to dig too far when everything is listed here in one place.

In terms of standardized testing, general tests like the SATs and GREs are not predictors of future success (however, specialized entrance exams, like the MCATs and LSATs, are legitimate tests for their programs). I knew kids who killed at these general tests, but they didn't match high scores with an inherent motivation to succeed at the next level. The SAT is only an indicator of how well you take that particular test.

There's a reason why students can increase their scores a few hundred points after taking an SAT class. These courses teach you how to take the test in the most efficient manner- in addition to brushing up your pre-trig math, they mostly offer tricks to beat it. For example, plugging in the answers to figure out the solution (backwards-solving), scanning for major points on reading comp., bettering your odds, etc. These tricks have nothing to do with IQ or high levels of problem-solving. It's also a reason why many universities are placing less weight on these tests for entrance.

In regards to high school learning, teaching to the test does place a crutch on effective teaching styles. Schneed, you actually bring up a good point re: how logic is important when taking these exit exams. The only problem is that teachers can't sharpen these analytical skills when they teach to the test.

Give instructors the ability to teach in ways that get through to an ever-changing student body and you'll find a rise in critical-thinking skills and problem-solving ability. You do this by providing kids a hands-on approach to content learning via authentic activities. Apply the way high school chemistry is taught to all areas of teaching. What would work better? A strict state-mandated curriculum for a history class that has teachers assigning text, interspersed with quizzes and finals? Or a teacher who teaches outside the box? For example, providing activities that compare past events with current ones, allowing students a more interactive way to analyze historical events (because they're provided a relevant parallel).

Because funding for CA public schools is heavily reliant on these test scores, there is absolutely no time in the semester for teachers to do anything outside of the mandated curriculum. I think most of my generation went through the rote memorization method of learning. I memorized what I needed to, aced the test and then forgot it the next day. One thing I like from Obama's educational platform is his commitment to innovation. Let's change the educational paradigm, so kids are better equipped to learn the basics (math, English and science) via higher levels of critical thinking and problem solving abilities (and not through paint-by-numbers memorization words/numbers).

Re: Understanding the Issues: Education
 

[quote=That Guy;452348]not really,[B] since obama is so willing to really jack up tax rates and his foreign policy statements overall haven't been very good (and prove a lack of experience with how the world works)[/B]. I still don't think the "aura of change" is going to matter much once congress opens if he's in charge. It might help him push through a few issues early, but i don't think it'll hold up too well unless he can flip the economy into a strong boom within 18 months due to his policies, which i REALLY don't see happening.

either candidate will be better on science than bush though, so false "studies" with badly tainted/wrong "scientific results" should decrease either way, which i'm really looking forward to. both will probably do a little work on lobbyists reform or whatnot, which will be welcome, though minor.[/quote]

Unless I am not privy to some information you are my understanding is that he is going to "jack up" the tax rate on the top 2% of income earners. These are the same people who hardly pay the same tax rate as middle class Americans.

As for his foreign policy statements, what exactly rubs you the wrong way? I mean, seriously, should we continue to plug a square peg in a round hole? Whatever we're currently doing isn't working so shouldn't we try something difference? Talking to people isn't naive, it's the most sensible thing to do. Even if you don't get anywhere by talking it doesn't mean you shouldn't try. "Bomb bomb bomb" doesn't work.

I don't get all the experience talk either. I mean, no one in their right mind hires someone based on experience alone. You can have all the experience in the world and still be a worthless POS. It's policy, policy, policy!

p.s. Greg Brown has experience...I would throw that mother f*cker under the bus, over the bridge, and if possible, in the lion's den at the zoo.

Re: Understanding the Issues: Education
 

[QUOTE=SmootSmack;452337]Just curious, has anyone's opinion changed or been affected on who they will vote for based on these Understanding The Issues threads I've started?[/QUOTE]

Not really because I am philosophically opposed to much of the democratic platform that Obama adhere's to.

Look, I think what almost everyone, and I do mean everyone, wants is a change in the way this whole damn thing works. I am not talking about WHAT our government is doing but more about HOW it is doing it. We all pretty much feel our elected officials have done a shit job. Really they have. Democrats and Republicans alike. Neither more than the other. What we want, crave really, is some magical solution to the cluster f*ck that is our Federal Government. Well I've got news for everyone (news I think we all know deep down inside already)...not a single candidate we currently have or have disposed of in the past 18 months really has or had any chance to fix this deal. Obama can TALK about change all he wants but lord help me if I can figure out how he alone can possibly fix it. Remember, the problems we face aren't born out of bad policy couched in the politics of two parties more than they are based on a system that is broken. A system that is a self prepetuating organism of power seeking and money making fueled by about 2000-3000 DC politicans that either don't have the stones to stand in its way(at best) or who jump on board the train and ride it until they die(at worst). Oh at times they all get together and either sign some legislation that inevitably goes awry or bicker back and forth on some issue and end up doing nothing at all. It appears they are working for us but in the end they don't run the show: special interests do. Special interets, everything from big dick oil to big flaming gays have one hand in the cookie jar and the other in the pockets of various politicians. We can't directly do much about special interests but we can fire the ones who have given them their power. If we want REAL change it is going to take a hell of a lot more than one candidate for President or even one elected President to make it happen. We have to stop voting for people because of what party they are in or because of one single issue. Hell skip the issues altogether. Let's vote for people who we believe CAN fight the culture. Let's fight to get the same old crap politicians OFF OF BALLOTS so we can have a fighter's chance at getting real honest people in there. That could be all it takes. Seriously, I think a cross section of this board, maybe 20-30 people of varying opinions, could adequately govern this nation and that is a hell of a lot better than the current jackasses are doing. So my question is this. How the hell do we do this? I am not talking about electing Obama or McCain, no magical and unrealistic solution. I am asking what is the game plan here? We have a bunch of smart people in this country, even have one or two here on this board :), so why the hell are we stuck with the shitpile we've got now?

Re: Understanding the Issues: Education
 

As for education:

The standardized tests suck. They do. They destroy the way our teachers teach and kids suffer. But ultimately we have to have some way to figure out which teachers are doing good jobs and which aren't. Not to burst any bubbles but seeing as my wife went to a college focused on educating future teachers and my father in law is a local school board member I know rather well how a good amount of our teachers are simply bad at their jobs. I'd say roughly ALL of her college friends were education majors and many struggled with basic studies in some form or another. Even in college we always said if we ever had kids she only had two friends she'd let teach them. And many of these same people graduated with decent grades and appeared to be able bodied teachers ready to conquer the world. Most were numbskulls. The teaching profession in this country attracts much of the worst. It does. Can't figure out what you want to do with life? Try teaching. There are always jobs and you can't get fired. Perfect job for the unmotivated and/or dumb. There certainly are a few good teachers out there and then there is a decent amount of adequate teachers but there are a lot of bad teachers and we need a way to find them and make them better or fire them.

Teachers need to get paid more by a lot and need to be rewarded for doing a good job. How we measure that I don't know honestly but the current way isn't much better than not knwoing.

The ones not doing a good job have to go.

Re: Understanding the Issues: Education
 

[quote=saden1;452350]Unless I am not privy to some information you are my understanding is that he is going to "jack up" the tax rate on the top 2% of income earners. These are the same people who hardly pay the same tax rate as middle class Americans. [/quote]
[quote]Every Democrat running for President wants to raise taxes on "the rich," but they will have to do something miraculous to outtax President Bush. Based on the latest available tax data, no Administration in modern history has done more to pry tax revenue from the wealthy.[/quote]
The rich pay a higher rate than middle class Americans. The top 1% earns 21% of the income, but pays 39% percent of the taxes. That means they are paying a higher rate than the people below them. Bush did lower the tax rates for these people, but the amount of taxes they paid has increased. Raising taxes does not raise tax revenue. When the taxes are lower, the economy does much better and there is more total income. The rich people are the ones creating the jobs. The more you tax them, the more it will hurt the economy.
[quote]Last week the Congressional Budget Office joined the IRS in releasing tax numbers for 2005, and part of the news is that the richest 1% paid about 39% of all income taxes that year. The richest 5% paid a tad less than 60%, and the richest 10% paid 70%. These tax shares are all up substantially since 1990, and even somewhat since 2000. Meanwhile, Americans with an income below the median -- half of all households -- paid a mere 3% of all income taxes in 2005. The richest 1.3 million tax-filers -- those Americans with adjusted gross incomes of more than $365,000 in 2005 -- paid more income tax than all of the 66 million American tax filers below the median in income. Ten times more
[IMG]http://s.wsj.net/public/resources/images/ED-AG822_1taxri_20071216193247.gif[/IMG]
[/quote]
Obama also wants to raise the capital gains tax, even though more tax revenue comes from it when the tax rate is lower.
[quote][B]The amount of capital gains declared on tax forms has doubled since the tax rate was cut to 15% from 20% in 2003,[/B] which has also contributed to more Americans being "rich." Dividend income has also increased by at least 50% since that rate was cut to 15% from nearly 40% in 2003.[/quote]

This is a very good article about taxes.
[URL="http://online.wsj.com/article/SB119786208643933077.html"]Taxes and Income - WSJ.com[/URL]


...sorry about this being off-topic.

Re: Understanding the Issues: Education
 

[quote=Schneed10;452333]As long as your school/teachers are striking the appropriate balance between teaching the core material and teaching how to analyze the questions, then I think the kids are in good shape. Remember, kids don't take these tests every year. They take them in like 1st grade, then 4th, then 7th, then 11th. Or something like that (I don't know the exact years). But my point is there are like 3 or 4 years between tests. In all that time, kids are not spending an inordinate amount of time on the test analysis. They're getting the building blocks over time, then when they come to the year for test time, then they get the analysis stuff.

I'll bet if you ask 4th grade teachers (or whatever year they administer the test), they're probably the ones most aggravated and affected. The other teachers probably don't care much, as they get to focus on core curriculum.[/quote]
I remember I had big standardized tests in 4th, 8th, and 11th grade and there was very little review for all of them. We would get a little bit of practice with them in the couple weeks before the tests and that was about it. There was very little standardized test review throughout the whole time I was in school. And I just graduated high school a year ago, so this was not very long ago.

Re: Understanding the Issues: Education
 

[quote=saden1;452350]Unless I am not privy to some information you are my understanding is that he is going to "jack up" the tax rate on the top 2% of income earners. These are the same people who hardly pay the same tax rate as middle class Americans.

As for his foreign policy statements, what exactly rubs you the wrong way? I mean, seriously, should we continue to plug a square peg in a round hole? Whatever we're currently doing isn't working so shouldn't we try something difference? Talking to people isn't naive, it's the most sensible thing to do. Even if you don't get anywhere by talking it doesn't mean you shouldn't try. "Bomb bomb bomb" doesn't work.

I don't get all the experience talk either. I mean, no one in their right mind hires someone based on experience alone. You can have all the experience in the world and still be a worthless POS. It's policy, policy, policy!

p.s. Greg Brown has experience...I would throw that mother f*cker under the bus, over the bridge, and if possible, in the lion's den at the zoo.[/quote]

talking to our enemies while bombing our allies (iran/pakistan) then later pulling back on talking to iran. his foreign policy outside of a massively oversped pull out (another bad idea) seems very haphazard, and he's had to re-state and change his opinion on an awful lot of ideas.

I only brought up his inexperience (and only in the context of foreign policy) because it's very obvious and it's made him look stupid a number of times.

as far as tax rates, it's not just the top 2% and it's not just a minor deal. he wants f'ing socialized medicine - do you have any idea what that costs? either its insanely expensive or it's worthlessly bad (ask the swedes or brits about it). the japanese have a sorta decent idea (you pay 100% upfront, the gov pays you 80% back - so if you try to defraud them, you can get yourself royally screwed and it limits exposure to the million dollar a day cases) but it'll never be cheap or paid for solely by minor tax hikes on the top 2%.

it seems like you like obama a whole lot, but he has flaws, and using strawman to try and cover them up is pretty weak.