Dept of Education caused problems

So you stand by this statement as factually true?

Quote:

The current form of the Department of Education was started in 1979 by Jimmy Carter. Before that, there was no full fledged Department of Education in its current independant form and virtually everything in regard to schools was run and funded by the local districts and the states

And this one as well is factually true?

Quote:

All of this points out one thing, the Federal Dept of Education was unnecessary. We could save billions and give the schools back to the people in their local communities to run, manage, and pay for. It worked great before.

0 Replies

parados wrote:

So you stand by this statement as factually true?

Quote:

The current form of the Department of Education was started in 1979 by Jimmy Carter. Before that, there was no full fledged Department of Education in its current independant form and virtually everything in regard to schools was run and funded by the local districts and the states

I stand by that statement. If I made a mistake, I failed to mention the federal government did have increasing involvement in the decade or two leading up to 1979, which of course was intimately related to the call for creation of the Department of Education.

Quote:

And this one as well is factually true?

Quote:
All of this points out one thing, the Federal Dept of Education was unnecessary. We could save billions and give the schools back to the people in their local communities to run, manage, and pay for. It worked great before.

Yes, it is factually true. If you wish to split hairs, the schools are still run, managed, and paid for by local and state authorities now, however, the feds have made their claims on their influence of it. I am simply advocating the feds surrender their claims on whatever they are currently influencing in the schools and give it back to the local and state authorities where it belongs. In so doing we could save billions by wiping out a wasteful bureaucracy, something Reagan advocated 20 some years.

0 Replies

So the schools worked great at the same time they didn't work great.

Thanks for clearing that up okie. You obviously aren't going to admit to demagoging the issue even when it is painfully obvious.

Something that is the cause of the problem can't also be a result of the problem. Your arguments are mutually exclusive.

Getting rid of the Dept of Education won't eliminate Fed influence since you have repeatedly argued that the Feds had influence LONG before the Dept of education existed. Then we have examined the facts of Fed spending and seen that before the Dept of education existed the Feds contributed MORE. Your argument is complete nonsense. Eliminating the Dept of Education won't do a damn thing. Your statement is complete BS. I don't know why you are bothering to even try to defend it.

0 Replies

You continue to pull my comments out of context. I have argued that the increased involvement of federal influence in education was instrumental in the political pressure and movement to create the department. The two are inseparable. You do not turn a light on before first installing the wiring. The creation of the department was the visible event, but the development of the bureaucracy took place somewhat before that event, and we continue to see the bureaucracy expand, as it always does.

My contention is that education was working better when under total local control, and I think it would work better now if totally controlled at the local level. At least we would have totally local accountability, whether the system excelled or operated in a substandard way. And we would save alot of wasted federal tax money.

If you eliminate the Department of Defense and its functions, do you think it would have no effect? You contend the creation of the Department of Education had no effect on education. You now contend that if we eliminate the department and its functions, it would have no effect. I think you are nuts, Parados. We might as well eliminate all government bureaucracies because it would not hinder or affect what the government does, while saving tons of money. That is about as logical.

Concerning your assertion that the feds contributed more before 1979, prove they contributed more before the rampup in the 60s and early 70's. What did they contribute in 1953 or 55 or so, for example? Also, you are making your argument on percentage per student, not in constant dollars, which of course would not support your argument as well.

0 Replies

okie wrote:

You continue to pull my comments out of context.

Then give the context of the quote.. I don't think you know what "out of context" means. Post what you said AT THE SAME TIME that I left out that would show context. Stop making up crap after the fact to try to justify its context. It is YOU that is trying to change the context. Not me. There is nothing in context that gives the words different meaning than the way I am interpreting them.

Quote:

I have argued that the increased involvement of federal influence in education was instrumental in the political pressure and movement to create the department. The two are inseparable.

Which directly conflicts with your outlandish statements about BEFORE 1979, schools worked great and were locally run.

Quote:

You do not turn a light on before first installing the wiring. The creation of the department was the visible event, but the development of the bureaucracy took place somewhat before that event, and we continue to see the bureaucracy expand, as it always does.

Gee. and if you have the wiring there, simply removing the light bulb doesn't make the electricity go away. Claiming if you remove the light bulb then the electrical wiring will dissappear is not logical. Yet that is the exact claim you made about the Dept of Education.

Quote:

My contention is that education was working better when under total local control, and I think it would work better now if totally controlled at the local level.

Which directly contradicts your demagogy

Quote:

At least we would have totally local accountability, whether the system excelled or operated in a substandard way.

Total accountability except when it comes to you it seems. You refuse to accept any accountability for your statements. You accuse me of taking them out of context. You change meanings after the fact.

Quote:

And we would save alot of wasted federal tax money.

Simply eliminating the Dept of Education doesn't cause education spending to go away nor did creating the Dept cause spending to come into being. Your statement was demagogy, plain and simple.

Quote:

If you eliminate the Department of Defense and its functions, do you think it would have no effect?

We had defense before the dept of defense. It used to be called the dept of war. Are you contending that the dept of war caused MORE wars?

Quote:

You contend the creation of the Department of Education had no effect on education.

I have said no such thing. Pure BS argument on your part. I have pointed out that your statement about eliminating it would save billions is demagogy.

Quote:

You now contend that if we eliminate the department and its functions, it would have no effect.

I said no such thing. I merely said it wouldn't do what you were claiming in the statement you keep saying I took out of context.

Quote:

I think you are nuts, Parados.

I am not the one arguing that A can cause B at the same time that B causes A.

Quote:

We might as well eliminate all government bureaucracies because it would not hinder or affect what the government does, while saving tons of money. That is about as logical.

That sounds like more demagogy on your part.

Quote:

Concerning your assertion that the feds contributed more before 1979, prove they contributed more before the rampup in the 60s and early 70's.

Are you completely incapable of following the links I provided earlier and reading table 21? Are you arguing that 1960-1978 are not BEFORE 1979? You do know what "before" means. Don't you?

Quote:

What did they contribute in 1953 or 55 or so, for example? Also, you are making your argument on percentage per student, not in constant dollars, which of course would not support your argument as well.

Oh.. your argument is what now? You can't see my numbers but you can tell what numbers I am using?
More BS okie.. Complete and utter BS.

0 Replies

Parados, here is a graph I've put together to illustrate my argument.

I believe the graph illustrates a direct correlation between an increase in bureaucracy, the creation of the federal Department of Education, and increased spending, which does not correlate with better results.

Also, consider the following:

In recent times, home schoolers spend about 1/10 per student, yet score higher on ACT and SAT tests than students in public schools.

In 1996, a congressional committee documented 760 unconstitutional federal education programs located in 39 separate agencies, departments, commissions, and boards, with only 6% of them having their primary function of teaching math, reading, or science.

In 1991, an Ohio survey revealed each district was required to fill out an average of 330 forms, 173 of which were for the federal government, so even though the feds were contributing only 7 to 8% of the funds, it was responsible for more than half of the red tape.

Some of the districts that spend the most per student are the lowest achieving districts, and vice versa.

If education is the key to reducing crime, then our education system is failing, along with all the supposedly preventive safety net programs like headstart and all the rest. Numbers of crimes go from less than 1% of the population in 1933 with the start of our statistical information, and continues under 1% until about 1959, during which the federal government was largely uninvolved in education except for providing lunch subsidies and the like. After 1959, the crime rate climbed to over 5% by the 70's and has tracked in a similar range since that time.

As shown by the graph, high school graduation rates rose to approximately the current levels entirely before any significant federal education involvement, largely due to industrialization and a more technical society. This was achieved almost entirely by the motivation and efforts of local school districts and the states. Graduation rates have actually fallen since about 1970. Federal programs have failed. Increased expenditures have failed.

Parados, case closed.

http://www.amigo.net/~gtrmap/okieseducationgraph.jpg

0 Replies

Thanks for not addressing the issue of your demagogy.

By the way, Your graph makes NO SENSE.. what is the source of your numbers? graduation rate was 65% in 2000? That is complete BULL CRAP. Provide your source. The only case you are closing okie is how foolish you want to make yourself look.

http://www.manhattan-institute.org/html/cr_baeo.htm#04
1998 graduation rate was 71%, revised down from earlier figure of 74%

Find me a source that uses the same methodology to compare 1970 to 2000. Your numbers are bogus. A complete and utter fabrication.

No claim of accuracy.. Gee. no accuracy but you are willing to use them to support your argument? Too funny okie. Way too funny.
By the way okie... even your bogus graph shows that graduation rates increased as Federal spending increased. See 1930-1960

Your argument that it doesn't show any corrleation with better results is complete bunk. The graduation rate goes up as Fed spending goes up. Then dips when Fed spending dips. If you show that graph without any numbers or titles and ask them if there seems to be a correlation between the line for fed spending and the line for graduation. See what you get for an answer.

0 Replies

http://www.bc.edu/research/nbetpp/statements/nbr3.pdf

Table 5 here shows national graduation rates were actually UP from 1981-1996. The graduation rate in 1980 was 75% and it was above that for 15 years following that.

http://www.nsba.org/site/sec_peac.asp?TRACKID=&CID=1235&DID=33218

Quote:

Graduation Rates on the Rise - U.S. a World Leader in Graduation Rates

The United States is first among the world's seven richest countries in the percentage of adults who are high school graduates. (Source: "Report opens window on U.S. education," Associated Press report in Raleigh News & Observer, June 1, 2001)

The high school graduation rate reached a record high, 86.5 percent, in 2001. (Source: U.S. Census Bureau, 2001. The Census Bureau tracks the percentage of 18- to 24-year-olds who graduated from high school or earned an equivalency diploma.)

The percentage of U.S. adults ages 25 or older with a high school diploma (or equivalency diploma) was at an all-time of 83 percent in 1999. By comparison, less than 25 percent of Americans had completed high school in 1940. (Source: "Number of Americans Finishing High School Hits All-Time High," Education Week, Sept. 27, 2000)

Nearly 80 percent of African-Americans over age 25 have a high school diploma today, compared to just 50 percent in 1980 and just 37 percent in 1960. (Source: "Closing the Education Gap," Wall Street Journal, June 2, 2002).

http://nces.ed.gov/pubs2000/2000022.pdf
Figure 3 shows a slight increase in 18-24 year olds with a HS degree from 1972-1998.

You are digging yourself a hole okie.. find me ONE study that shows graduation rates declined in the 1980s like you claimed.

Your graph and your claims are nothing but made up crap to try to defend your position that is indefensible.

0 Replies

okie wrote:

In recent times, home schoolers spend about 1/10 per student, yet score higher on ACT and SAT tests than students in public schools.

Though not being an expert on this topic, I immediately sensed that this was a bogus claim. Five minutes worth of research confirmed my suspicion. There simply is no reliable data to determine the relative failure or success of home-schoolers.

http://ncspe.org/publications_files/PB13.pdf

0 Replies

parados wrote:

http://www.bc.edu/research/nbetpp/statements/nbr3.pdf

Table 5 here shows national graduation rates were actually UP from 1981-1996. The graduation rate in 1980 was 75% and it was above that for 15 years following that.

http://www.nsba.org/site/sec_peac.asp?TRACKID=&CID=1235&DID=33218

Quote:
Graduation Rates on the Rise - U.S. a World Leader in Graduation Rates

The United States is first among the world's seven richest countries in the percentage of adults who are high school graduates. (Source: "Report opens window on U.S. education," Associated Press report in Raleigh News & Observer, June 1, 2001)

The high school graduation rate reached a record high, 86.5 percent, in 2001. (Source: U.S. Census Bureau, 2001. The Census Bureau tracks the percentage of 18- to 24-year-olds who graduated from high school or earned an equivalency diploma.)

The percentage of U.S. adults ages 25 or older with a high school diploma (or equivalency diploma) was at an all-time of 83 percent in 1999. By comparison, less than 25 percent of Americans had completed high school in 1940. (Source: "Number of Americans Finishing High School Hits All-Time High," Education Week, Sept. 27, 2000)

Nearly 80 percent of African-Americans over age 25 have a high school diploma today, compared to just 50 percent in 1980 and just 37 percent in 1960. (Source: "Closing the Education Gap," Wall Street Journal, June 2, 2002).

http://nces.ed.gov/pubs2000/2000022.pdf
Figure 3 shows a slight increase in 18-24 year olds with a HS degree from 1972-1998.

You are digging yourself a hole okie.. find me ONE study that shows graduation rates declined in the 1980s like you claimed.

Your graph and your claims are nothing but made up crap to try to defend your position that is indefensible.

I expected your accusations of "made up crap." Parados, it is not "made up crap" any more than yours is. I am simply an average citizen out here trying to make sense of a maze of data, most of which comes from people with a bias one way or another. I compiled the graph as honestly as I could from the data I uncovered in a relatively short amount of time. The reason I put the disclaimer on it is for the obvious reason that my job or official capacity is not to study this stuff 24/7/365 and therefore it is only a private unofficial compilation based on what I found on the web, and I do not wish anyone to use it as some official reference, however, I have not purposely misrepresented anything. I believe the graph to show the correct general trends, but specific figures might vary depending on where you get them. The 68% figure for graduation rate in 2001 comes from the following:
http://www.urban.org/publications/410936.html
If it is wrong, I am willing to adjust the graph, but I don't think it changes the overall trends. Graduation rates achieved approximately the current levels before the feds became real involved in education.

What else do you disagree with besides everything?

0 Replies

Roxxxanne wrote:

okie wrote:

In recent times, home schoolers spend about 1/10 per student, yet score higher on ACT and SAT tests than students in public schools.

Though not being an expert on this topic, I immediately sensed that this was a bogus claim. Five minutes worth of research confirmed my suspicion. There simply is no reliable data to determine the relative failure or success of home-schoolers.

http://ncspe.org/publications_files/PB13.pdf

The report cited probably has a built in bias against home schooling, but given some of the points might even be credible, there is a monstrous gap in cost of educating home schoolers compared to institutionalized education, I think public school advocates have alot of explaining to do. Have you noticed lately how many national contests, such as spelling bees and geography contests, are being won by home schoolers?

Home schooling has progressed past the imagined scene of some poor isolated kid sitting at the kitchen table with some helpless and clueless parent, with the result being the kid learns little or nothing. Yes, there probably is some of that, but there is now a very good support network among home schoolers with the appropriate learning tools and materials. They also go on field trips and participate in sporting events as groups. They are not isolated and ignorant. I believe most are succeeding and excelling at a very competent level equal to or greater than public schools, and at a very economical cost. After all, learning is available to anyone that wishes to have it. Learning should really be relatively cheap. It is all the other trappings of public schools that are killing us in costs. You could close down all the schools tomorrow and the people are not going to stop learning.

I was not home schooled, and have not generally believed in it as a good thing until in more recent years.

0 Replies

Quote:

In 1996, a congressional committee documented 760 unconstitutional federal education programs located in 39 separate agencies, departments, commissions, and boards, with only 6% of them having their primary function of teaching math, reading, or science.

Which committee? Where can I find this information? Did you make it up like you did graduation rates?

0 Replies

parados wrote:

No claim of accuracy.. Gee. no accuracy but you are willing to use them to support your argument? Too funny okie. Way too funny.
By the way okie... even your bogus graph shows that graduation rates increased as Federal spending increased. See 1930-1960

Correct me Mr. Expert if I am wrong, but my impression is that from 1930 to 1960, the feds involvement was primarily in the way of providing food commodities, school lunch assistance, and the like, and they were not much involved in the actual teaching and curriculum of the schools, so therefore they can take very very little credit in increasing the graduation rates. I think the graduation rate increase had much more to do with the increased industrialization of society and therefore people decided they needed education to succeed. People aren't stupid without the government telling them what they need to do every minute of the day for crying out loud.

0 Replies

parados wrote:

Quote:
In 1996, a congressional committee documented 760 unconstitutional federal education programs located in 39 separate agencies, departments, commissions, and boards, with only 6% of them having their primary function of teaching math, reading, or science.
Which committee? Where can I find this information? Did you make it up like you did graduation rates?

Heres the link as I found by simply searching the web. I don't know who the Home School Legal Defense Association is but I have no reason to doubt their information. It is fully believable and consistent with what we should all know about federal bureaucracy in general.

http://www.hslda.org/docs/nche/000002/00000270.asp

Quit throwing out your accusations of "making it up." Carry on a reasonable debate instead of throwing out unsubstantiated accusations that you cannot support.

0 Replies

okie wrote:

parados wrote:

No claim of accuracy.. Gee. no accuracy but you are willing to use them to support your argument? Too funny okie. Way too funny.
By the way okie... even your bogus graph shows that graduation rates increased as Federal spending increased. See 1930-1960

Correct me Mr. Expert if I am wrong, but my impression is that from 1930 to 1960, the feds involvement was primarily in the way of providing food commodities, school lunch assistance, and the like, and they were not much involved in the actual teaching and curriculum of the schools, so therefore they can take very very little credit in increasing the graduation rates. I think the graduation rate increase had much more to do with the increased industrialization of society and therefore people decided they needed education to succeed. People aren't stupid without the government telling them what they need to do every minute of the day for crying out loud.

Furthermore, graduation rates had tripled from 1910 to 1930 already and were on a steep rise, clearly demonstrating no correlation to federal involvement in education. Further increases would have obviously taken place, not because of government, but because people are not stupid like you apparently think they are Parados.

0 Replies

Your information on 2000 graduation rates? Do you have support for that?
Your information on home schooling? You attacks Rox's source but provided none of your own.

The official House website contains no reference to this report.
thomas.loc.gov
The committee website is here..
http://www.house.gov/ed_workforce/publications/pubindex.htm
29 published reports in 1996 - none that seem to say what you and the home schooling website say.
I can't find any verification anywhere even from published sources at this point.

0 Replies

okie wrote:

okie wrote:
parados wrote:

No claim of accuracy.. Gee. no accuracy but you are willing to use them to support your argument? Too funny okie. Way too funny.
By the way okie... even your bogus graph shows that graduation rates increased as Federal spending increased. See 1930-1960

Correct me Mr. Expert if I am wrong, but my impression is that from 1930 to 1960, the feds involvement was primarily in the way of providing food commodities, school lunch assistance, and the like, and they were not much involved in the actual teaching and curriculum of the schools, so therefore they can take very very little credit in increasing the graduation rates. I think the graduation rate increase had much more to do with the increased industrialization of society and therefore people decided they needed education to succeed. People aren't stupid without the government telling them what they need to do every minute of the day for crying out loud.

Furthermore, graduation rates had tripled from 1910 to 1930 already and were on a steep rise, clearly demonstrating no correlation to federal involvement in education. Further increases would have obviously taken place, not because of government, but because people are not stupid like you apparently think they are Parados.

I think people are stupid? LOL.. nice ad hominem okie.. Too bad you can't provide facts instead.

Your assumptions aren't worth much of anything. You can't provide facts. You make up part of your graph. Then you attack me for thinking people are stupid. I think people are capable of following my links and reading the graphs I cite for themselves. You are the one that made up the graph and posted it here. Who thinks people are stupid? It isn't me.

0 Replies

What part of the graph did I make up? I've answered all your questions with where the information came from.

Parados, forgive my sarcasm in my comment about you thinking people are stupid. Surely you can understand comments like that after you accusing me of presenting "crap" and "making up" stuff.

0 Replies

parados wrote:

Your information on 2000 graduation rates? Do you have support for that?
Your information on home schooling? You attacks Rox's source but provided none of your own.

The official House website contains no reference to this report.
thomas.loc.gov
The committee website is here..
http://www.house.gov/ed_workforce/publications/pubindex.htm
29 published reports in 1996 - none that seem to say what you and the home schooling website say.
I can't find any verification anywhere even from published sources at this point.

My information was from the link I provided you, which I think was from 2001. Did you read it? And you can't find verification from your chosen sources on the link I provided. Why don't you believe the source given?Perhaps call Dick Armey and he would probably remember it.

As far as Roxannes article, I had already provided my evidence, so why not respond to hers? From my analysis of it, it only questioned the validity of the sampling of ACT and SAT testing of home schoolers but I did not read any concrete conflicting evidence, only generalities. I already stated that if the assertion of home schoolers all testing higher, in other words the comparison may be similar to comparing apples and oranges, I maintain there is enough comparison to assert that we are getting far more bang for our buck out of home schoolers than public schools, and therefore public school advocates have some very serious questions to answer for. I've not had time to dig up more information on the subject.

For some reason, I've been unable to find any comparative information concerning achievement of students as a historical graph. I suspect the reason, but I can't prove it. The reason I suspect is that the information would not be very flattering to the educational establishment. My research into education establishment websites and published data shows a paucity of negative information. If the information is negative, it simply is not presented, or it is hidden in the numbers and not discussed. Parados, I used graduation rates in my graph because I could not find any other meaningful measured factor that has been found over time. For education professionals that love tests and measuring learning, I find it rather revealing. If you have any suggestions or information on something in this regard, Parados, I would be happy to learn of it.

0 Replies

I wrote....

parados wrote:

Find me a source that uses the same methodology to compare 1970 to 2000. Your numbers are bogus. A complete and utter fabrication.

You can't create a graph with ONE number.

Where did you get your 1970 number from okie?
You can't compare numbers if they don't use the same methodology. Even your source lists a reported 81% graduation rate for Texas vs their methodology that gives a 65% graduation rate.

Your graph shows a dip in the 1980s in graduation. Where did you get those numbers? Where did you get your 1950 graduation number? Your 1960? You have a LOT of points on your graph that you are now claiming have meaning. Where is the data for those points? You provided one data point. Perhaps your one data point is an abnormality. Perhaps the graduation rate for other years was always 100%. I can't tell a thing from your one number.

The only thing I CAN TELL is 3 sources I cited show your graph to be wrong when it points to a decrease in graduation in the 80s.

0 Replies

Dept of Education caused problems

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know