Pence is hell bent on destroying Indiana

[HeadlessRoland]

We keep pumping more and more money into an education industry that turns out a worse product each passing year. The only answer we seem to have is lower the standards periodically to pretend it isn't happening and throw more money at it. At some point, we have to realize this is simply insane (repeating the same behavior and expecting a different result). Our society is simply screwed up too much and there is no coming back. No one believes in any discipline. Everyone thinks their little precious angel is perfect and beyond reproach. We see guys here on INGO all the time, complain about this lack of discipline but then state they would kill or maim the teacher or principal if they ever laid a hand on their kid. So even if a teacher wants to teach, they can't, because they can't get kids attention any more. In my opinion, we are circling the bowl.

There's a difference between discipline and corporal punishment: no teacher should lay their hands on a child. There are ways to earn attention that don't involve abuse. But, again, all of this argument is made moot with homeschooling.

 

[sadclownwp]

And when they can't (as the majority couldn't in generations past) then you end up with a nation of uneducated people suited for nothing other than manual Labor. There are plenty of third world countries just like this around world, I'm glad I don't live in one. I'll be the first to admit that our public education system is in need of a makeover but tossing it entirely would result in Mexico having to create tougher immigration laws within a couple generations as our uneducated masses attempt to flee there for their well established manual labor/factory jobs.

But as of right now, our schools are producing a nation of uneducated people suited for nothing other than manual labor. I'm just saying that instead of me paying for it, only the people with the children pay for it. Then once there kids have graduated, they no longer have to pay unless they have more kids.

 

[sadclownwp]

There's a difference between discipline and corporal punishment: no teacher should lay their hands on a child. There are ways to earn attention that don't involve abuse. But, again, all of this argument is made moot with homeschooling.

But corporal punishment works so well. Worked for many many centuries.

 

[phylodog]

But as of right now, our schools are producing a nation of uneducated people suited for nothing other than manual labor. I'm just saying that instead of me paying for it, only the people with the children pay for it. Then once there kids have graduated, they no longer have to pay unless they have more kids.

I agree that the quality of our education system is lacking but I don't believe a pay to play system is beneficial to this country. We have millions on government assistance as it is and they aren't shy about reproducing. Leave their offspring with no education (their parents sure aren't going to pay for it) and the problem multiplies exponentially.

As far as the quality being produced, again I agree with you but I don't blame the schools. Parents who choose to play an active role and encourage/push their children typically receive a better outcome than those who see school as a free babysitter.

I guess another way to think about it is that you pay for the education you received after you receive it. I went to public schools and I have children who have as well. Even if I didn't, my tax money goes on to continue the system so in essence I'm paying for my education after the fact. Obviously this isn't applicable to everyone, home schooled and those who attended private schools but certainly applies to the majority in this country.

 

[Bunnykid68]

I agree that the quality of our education system is lacking but I don't believe a pay to play system is beneficial to this country. We have millions on government assistance as it is and they aren't shy about reproducing. Leave their offspring with no education (their parents sure aren't going to pay for it) and the problem multiplies exponentially.

As far as the quality being produced, again I agree with you but I don't blame the schools. Parents who choose to play an active role and encourage/push their children typically receive a better outcome than those who see school as a free babysitter.

I guess another way to think about it is that you pay for the education you received after you receive it. I went to public schools and I have children who have as well. Even if I didn't, my tax money goes on to continue the system so in essence I'm paying for my education after the fact. Obviously this isn't applicable to everyone, home schooled and those who attended private schools but certainly applies to the majority in this country.

But a lot of the parents on the government teet are teaching their kids how to suckle that same teet with minimal effort, not teaching them how to be better and prosper on their own.

 

[CTS]

And we would still have all those things if only the parents of the students had to pay for there children to attend. See you still make it mandatory for those under 16 to get an education, you just make the people who chose to bring the children into the world pay for it.

That's a brilliant idea that won't lead to massive insurmountable socio-economic schisms at all.

 

[phylodog]

But a lot of the parents on the government teet are teaching their kids how to suckle that same teet with minimal effort, not teaching them how to be better and prosper on their own.

You are 100% correct and if I were king welfare would be the first in line for a revamp. I'm not a big fan of doing things "for the children" but if their parents can't/won't pay for their education and are too lazy or uneducated themselves to home school, what chances do kids have? The problem certainly does not improve. We end up with commercials in other countries or praying for China's version of Oprah Winfrey to open schools here.

 

[sadclownwp]

I agree that the quality of our education system is lacking but I don't believe a pay to play system is beneficial to this country. We have millions on government assistance as it is and they aren't shy about reproducing. Leave their offspring with no education (their parents sure aren't going to pay for it) and the problem multiplies exponentially.

As far as the quality being produced, again I agree with you but I don't blame the schools. Parents who choose to play an active role and encourage/push their children typically receive a better outcome than those who see school as a free babysitter.

I guess another way to think about it is that you pay for the education you received after you receive it. I went to public schools and I have children who have as well. Even if I didn't, my tax money goes on to continue the system so in essence I'm paying for my education after the fact. Obviously this isn't applicable to everyone, home schooled and those who attended private schools but certainly applies to the majority in this country.

I bet they stop reproducing if they have to pay for it.

 

[phylodog]

I bet they stop reproducing if they have to pay for it.

Unfortunately I'd take that bet, the odds are overwhelmingly in my favor. People still reproduce on this planet when they don't have the food to keep themselves fed.

 

[Kirk Freeman]

Pence has the right idea. I would be far more aggressive.

What's the problem, OP?

 

[kiddchaos]

Should he be proposing new taxes instead? I thought there was a constitutional cap on personal property taxes of 1% now? Is this going to circumvent that?

I believe they (govt) got around the property tax cap to raise funds to redo the wishard hospital downtown Indpls.
the devil is in the details: http://advanceindiana.blogspot.com/2009/09/how-much-will-wishard-bond-issue-raise.html

 

[sadclownwp]

Unfortunately I'd take that bet, the odds are overwhelmingly in my favor. People still reproduce on this planet when they don't have the food to keep themselves fed.

I should have said reproduce less. Even the ones sucking off the systems tit would reproduce less if it became harder to live the more they reproduced.

 

[Tsigos]

I fail to see how I do. It's not like government schools or compulsory attendance actually change the outcome that would result with no government schools and no compulsory attendance.

Please post a list of all of the countries which do not provide public education and rank their economies versus those that do.

 

[phylodog]

I should have said reproduce less. Even the ones sucking off the systems tit would reproduce less if it became harder to live the more they reproduced.

I think that approach would be better served on the welfare reform front than the education.

 

[88GT]

Your grasp of the English language and ability to type proves you're of sufficient intellect to understand the concept. You take advantage of goods and services every day of your existence that exist because people obtained an education somewhere. The overwhelmingly vast majority of them obtained that education through the public schools. So think of any place you go that isn't barren nature and boom...there's your example.

I know exactly what you're trying to do. Your logic is flawed. You think that simply because something good came from somebody that attended government school, I owe my thanks to the government school and not the individual that created said good or service. Furthermore, your argument presumes that said individual had no other means of an education and it was ONLY government education that made the difference.

Are you telling me that you honestly believe that the vast majority of parents who send their kids to government school would let their children go without an education at all if government schools weren't available? If tomorrow somehow all the schools closed their doors, that the millions of parents of government-schooled children would throw up their hands, shrug their shoulders, and say, "Well, darn. I was really concerned about my children's education because I think it's super important, but now that I'm solely responsible for providing it and don't have the benefit of my neighbors subsidizing the cost, to hell with it. I guess my kids will just grow up stupid because there isn't a government school to educate them."

Society doesn't benefit from government schools. Society benefits from an educated populace. We don't need government schools to educate the populace; ergo, there is no inherent benefit to government schools.

I will iterate that requiring children to attend school and providing for that school does not result in an education. There will always be children who fail. A parent who doesn't care doesn't care, whether the government is providing the education or not. A parent who is faced with the choice of finding a way or seeing their children encumbered with a spotty education will find a way if that is his priority. Always.

If you are correct and government education is the source of all that is good in society, how did we ever accomplish anything before government schools and compulsory attendance laws were enacted?

If you can show that none of the good and beneficial things in society would have resulted in the absence of government schools, that there would be no other means of educating the people responsible for those good and beneficial things, I will concede that you are right.

But if you cannot name one inherent unique benefit derived from government schools that cannot be duplicated elsewhere, will you concede that I am right?

 

[IndyDave1776]

OK, popular support for public education came from the largely correct notion that we need a nation of people who are suited to more purposes than being hired from the neck down, but there are some flaws, some from the beginning and some which have appeared later.

First, Horace Mann and Thomas Dewey who were largely responsible for shaping modern public education fell in love with the Prussian school system which was a statist system designed to produce the people the state felt it needed as opposed to teaching to aptitude and allowing students to find their own way in life.

Second, schools have been fiscally irresponsible for a very long time. Originally, Indiana set aside section 16 of each survey township for a school which was to be supported by the 640 acres attached to it. How often do we see this today as the land has long been sold off and the money spent much like Mitch's toll road deal.

Third, in tandem with the fiscal irresponsibility and ego-driven spending, the school administrators and board members appear to have not the smallest modicum of respect for the fact they are spending OUR money, not theirs, all the while screaming up a lung for more. Throwing more money at problems does not solve them. Finding viable solutions does. Also, I have no problem with extracurricular activities so long as I am not expected to pay for the egos of the few. Seriously, why should the cost of new facilities be nearly doubled in order to provide facilities generally used by less than 10% of the student body which do little to nothing to improve education? As Lee Iacocca wisely observed, the main thing is to keep the main thing the main thing (too bad Chrysler failed to do that even after receiving a boost in its position thanks to his efforts).

Fourth, there is little accountability. Federal intrusions mandating that we teach to a test rather than to aptitude are a serious problem and signally fail to address the accountability issue. My recommendation is that we measure teachers by results like anyone else we pay for anything. Hand in hand with this comes the requirement for the understanding that not everyone who darkens the threshold is cut out to be an honor student, and teachers cannot be held responsible for that. At the same time, teachers who consistently underperform relative to their peers working with the same or similar pools of students are a problem and should be dealt with accordingly.

Fifth, there should be aptitude testing on entry to middle school and again on entry to high school. It should not become a mandatory pigeonholing tool but results should be made available to the students as a tool of sorting out what they really want to do which would do much to relieve the burden on the school. Every child needs to learn to read, write, and perform basic arithmetic. Why should someone who, say, wants to become and is studying toward the end of becoming a farmer be required to perform higher math for the test?

Sixth, can someone explain to me a viable justification for a thought my grandfather shared with me, specifically that his father learned more by the time he dropped out at the end of the eighth grade than grandpa had by the time he graduated, which was more than my dad learned after three years of college? The decline had been happening for a long time. Why?

Seventh, why are we allowing schools to teach children what to think rather than how to think?

 

[CTS]

I know exactly what you're trying to do. Your logic is flawed. You think that simply because something good came from somebody that attended government school, I owe my thanks to the government school and not the individual that created said good or service. Furthermore, your argument presumes that said individual had no other means of an education and it was ONLY government education that made the difference.

Are you telling me that you honestly believe that the vast majority of parents who send their kids to government school would let their children go without an education at all if government schools weren't available? If tomorrow somehow all the schools closed their doors, that the millions of parents of government-schooled children would throw up their hands, shrug their shoulders, and say, "Well, darn. I was really concerned about my children's education because I think it's super important, but now that I'm solely responsible for providing it and don't have the benefit of my neighbors subsidizing the cost, to hell with it. I guess my kids will just grow up stupid because there isn't a government school to educate them."

Society doesn't benefit from government schools. Society benefits from an educated populace. We don't need government schools to educate the populace; ergo, there is no inherent benefit to government schools.

I will iterate that requiring children to attend school and providing for that school does not result in an education. There will always be children who fail. A parent who doesn't care doesn't care, whether the government is providing the education or not. A parent who is faced with the choice of finding a way or seeing their children encumbered with a spotty education will find a way if that is his priority. Always.

If you are correct and government education is the source of all that is good in society, how did we ever accomplish anything before government schools and compulsory attendance laws were enacted?

If you can show that none of the good and beneficial things in society would have resulted in the absence of government schools, that there would be no other means of educating the people responsible for those good and beneficial things, I will concede that you are right.

But if you cannot name one inherent unique benefit derived from government schools that cannot be duplicated elsewhere, will you concede that I am right?

Yes yes...let's throw up hypothetical litmus tests you can't prove without a time machine. Go pre-industrial revolution and history is replete with examples of large swaths of the population who never learned how to read let alone pursue an education until there were publicly provided schools. See Appalachia for reference.

 

[Lex Concord]

This is why the only people who should shoulder the tax burden of keeping schools open and teachers employed are people who have children. And the more children you have, the more you need to shoulder the tax burden of keeping schools open and teachers employed. Cities already employ to many people. The shift needs to go back to the private sector for most things.

So long as you don't intend to soak those of us with children who don't use those teachers or schools, I wouldn't fight it. That said, the ideal would be to eliminate government schools.

 

[Lex Concord]

And no longer let children be tax deductions, the government would save billions.

Newsflash. Taking more is not "saving", no matter the reason.

 

[sadclownwp]

So long as you don't intend to soak those of us with children who don't use those teachers or schools, I wouldn't fight it. That said, the ideal would be to eliminate government schools.

No those not using government funded schools should not be affected, that would be morally wrong.

Newsflash. Taking more is not "saving", no matter the reason.

The savings would come from those depending on government deciding to not have children until they could afford to no longer depend on the government.