John McCain/Republican Party on Education

[thewake]

A lot of you guys don't like the guy(John McCain), and I would prefer someone else over him(namely Bob Barr or Ron Paul).
But I'd just like to point out that the Republican Party has supported school vouchers for quite a while now, which would make the schools better in a competitive, more free market style environment. Without keeping people from actually going to school.
It would give, at least our parents, choice between different schools without having to pay to get into a private school. I know I'd rather have the choice of my education in my mom's hands than in the hands of a random beuraucrat.

The Democrats, and Obama by proxy, support state run schools in, generally, the same manner they are now. They support some good changes(namely better sex education and other more "progressive" policies), but wouldn't your parents be able to choose to go to a school with(at least some of) those attributes if we had a voucher program?

I know that both candidates have other opinions besides these, and maybe you have considered this and decided that McCain has other more dangerous(in your opinion) views that you don't like.

So what are your thoughts on the Republican Party's education plans?

[Rebelnerd]

well, i do like the idea of vouchers. but republicans championed the No Child Left Behind Act which was one of the worst things to hit the school system in ages, so i really don't trust them with the schools any more than the democrats. education's not really one of the issues that i'm going to base my vote on.

[thewake]

No Child Left Behind held schools accountable for performance.
It pissed teachers off too because they had to work harder and actually teach some.

It is lacking in a lot of areas, I agree, and it doesn't address any student's rights issues. It treats us like property of some sort.

Not to mention it only inadequately patched an already broken system. In my opinion schools need to be totally privatised. Maybe then we would see more quality than even vouchers could bring.
And private schools wouldn't put up with behavioral problems that deplete the experience for all of us. THey would just be kicked out.

[Michio-kun]

The truth is nobody actually gives a shit about education. The only reason they will comment on education (in passing) is because that's just "what you do" as a politician. They'll comment on a lot of things and say they're going to do this and that but the truth is everyone only cares about the economy and the war right now and other stupid ass personal issues like Sarah Palin's daughter that I couldn't care less about.

Education will not change. Sorry. I don't care who gets elected.

[Ahab]

The voucher system isnt a horrible idea but the Republican Party wouldnt actually implement it, lol.

[Sunbourn]

Both Osamabama and Mccain are shitheads.

[Rebelnerd]

dogman32 Wrote:No Child Left Behind held schools accountable for performance.
It pissed teachers off too because they had to work harder and actually teach some.

true, and teachers should be held more accountable. but it also resulted in an absurd emphasis on standardized testing that has kids in fucking first grade taking three-hour exams. "learning" was effectively replaced with memorizing enough to spit back out on the answer sheet so the teacher can still afford gas.

Quote:It is lacking in a lot of areas, I agree, and it doesn't address any student's rights issues. It treats us like property of some sort.

i doubt either candidate really cares about this. the only politicions who really talk about youth rights are ones with so little chance of winning that they'll say anything (Dennis Kucinich, anyone?)

Quote:Not to mention it only inadequately patched an already broken system. In my opinion schools need to be totally privatised. Maybe then we would see more quality than even vouchers could bring.
And private schools wouldn't put up with behavioral problems that deplete the experience for all of us. THey would just be kicked out.

i don't know if total privatisation is the answer, but i do like the idea of vouchers. that way even people who normally wouldn't be able to afford education can still pick a good private school. total privatisation might shut out anyone poor. plus, i worry about the potential for corporate advertising if they started funding schools. i don't want my kids going to the Wal-Mart Acadamy or reading a textbook about how how Rupert Murdoch won the Civil War. at least with vouchers a kid could switch schools regardless of socioeconomic status if that particular school ended up being bad.

[thewake]

In this day and age poor people will have big companies sending their kids to school. They need educated people(i.e. people who can read, write, and do math) and will do anything to get them. So if you work for Wal-Mart, you can bet Wal-Mart will do something to make sure that your kid can do the basics in order to educate their next generation of workers.

And, personally, if the Wal-Mart Academy was at half-price since I worked at Wal-Mart, I wouldn' mind sending my kid there.

Of course, education isn't a right. At least I don't think it is. And it shouldn't ever be.

[Rebelnerd]

dogman32 Wrote:In this day and age poor people will have big companies sending their kids to school. They need educated people(i.e. people who can read, write, and do math) and will do anything to get them. So if you work for Wal-Mart, you can bet Wal-Mart will do something to make sure that your kid can do the basics in order to educate their next generation of workers.

well, they'll certainly train them in being good walmart managers. i worry that they'll use this as a way to ensure a future body of labor at the expense of a real education. why bother teaching them anything but the bare minimum of skill necessary to work at walmart, while neglecting everything else (and possibly injecting advertising/corporate propaganda into the curriculum). after all, if you teach them skills that would let them get a better job then they might end up working for a competitor. without vouchers to give them a choice which private school they go to, it seems like the whole generation of poor kids will just become corporate pawns. honestly, that doesn't sound any better than what we have now. just replace the government with a corporation.

Quote:And, personally, if the Wal-Mart Academy was at half-price since I worked at Wal-Mart, I wouldn' mind sending my kid there.

what happens when companies start taking control of family lines and using them as part of marketing schemes? i think you have much more faith in corporations not abusing their power than i do.

Quote:Of course, education isn't a right. At least I don't think it is. And it shouldn't ever be.

learning, and having access to the information necessary to learn, is a right. being taught isn't.

[thewake]

How is it a right? The only rights I recognize are the rights to one's self and one's property.
Unless you own the necessary tools to learn, you have no right to have it.

Of course, I'd be more than happy to let someone read my books as long as they kept them in good shape and didn't steal.

[Rebelnerd]

why shouldn't learning be a right? isn't progress the whole goal of humanity? how can we make progress if people can't improve upon the achievements of the past because they're not allowed to learn about them? i think this falls under freedom of expression. as long as the information isn't someone's personal or private stuff, i think nobody has the right to forcibly deny someone the opportunity to research it.

[thewake]

Oh, I get where you are coming from.

We already have the Internet, public libraries, etc. It is already taken care of.

Just to clarify: In my opinion people only have a right to what they own(theirself, their property), and public stuff if there is a government.

[Rebelnerd]

what about the right to what they need? what if someone doesn't own food/water/shelter and will die without them? don't they have the right to that?

i just think that capitalism should have some sort of bare-bones safeguard at the very bottom, just so people who fail won't have to die. it won't be a great life, but at least they're alive and have a second chance.

[thewake]

Rebelnerd Wrote:what about the right to what they need? what if someone doesn't own food/water/shelter and will die without them? don't they have the right to that?

i just think that capitalism should have some sort of bare-bones safeguard at the very bottom, just so people who fail won't have to die. it won't be a great life, but at least they're alive and have a second chance.

The great thing about capitalism is that it allows voluntary charity. Not taxpayer welfare, but charity.

These things work themselves out without government interference. The rich don't like the really really poor (which are rare in a society with enough food to feed everyone, famine is different) people dieing, so they feel bad and give them some bread. Only the really cold-hearted wouldn't care.

There are some people like that, you have to respect their descisions.

[Rebelnerd]

dogman32 Wrote:The great thing about capitalism is that it allows voluntary charity. Not taxpayer welfare, but charity.

These things work themselves out without government interference. The rich don't like the really really poor (which are rare in a society with enough food to feed everyone, famine is different) people dieing, so they feel bad and give them some bread. Only the really cold-hearted wouldn't care.

There are some people like that, you have to respect their descisions.

I just don't think that's true. Maybe you have more confidence in the human race than I do, but I just can't see these CEO's and billionaires who lie, cheat, and ruin anyone who gets in their way feeling guilty enough to donate enough money to help these people. Sure, there are guys like Bill Gates who are trying to do great things like wiping out malaria, and all the more power to them. But they seem like a minority. In pure capitalism, getting money is all anyone thinks about. Humanity comes in far behind, and when I hear about corporations doing things like sweatshop labor, union suppression, covering up health hazards in workplaces, cheating employees out of retirement while storing billions in offshore accounts, taking out life insurance policies on their employees so that they're worth more dead than alive (true!), and going the Enron route at the expense of all the guys on the bottom, I just can't bring myself to believe that they'd go out of their way to help.

[John Tuttle]

Rebelnerd Wrote:i just think that capitalism should have some sort of bare-bones safeguard at the very bottom, just so people who fail won't have to die. it won't be a great life, but at least they're alive and have a second chance.

Its called the military.

[Rebelnerd]

lol