Paul will dismantle the department of education, sly pundits say

[terlinguatx]

...

[DeadheadForPaul]

This is a point of attack that might work against Paul. I stand firmly behind his beliefs, but the majority of Americans are uninformed and think the Department of Education is responsible for public school funding and quality. And we all know how important everyone views education as these days. Paul needs to stick to his libertarian beliefs but not include the DoE on his platform, as he is not going to touch the benefits current social security recipients are receiving. Those are two things that could hurt: http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2007/10/05/politics/main3336190.shtml?source=mostpop_story

Agreed. It's so easy to misinterpret what Dr. Paul stands for. By saying he wants to get rid of the DoE, people think that he's going to immediately shut down all public education

[SlapItHigh]

It isn't an issue that *he* has been pushing. What do you suggest? He shouldn't deny it. He isn't out there throwing it around. If others point it out, what can he do? I think we should focus on educating the public on why this is a good idea. I understand that it will take a whole paradigm shift but Ron is right on this issue. Dead right.

[ItsTime]

The message will become clear as the herd thins

[SouthernGuy15]

Absolutely not! Ron Paul should NOT compromise his message!

Being true and principled is more important than winning or anything else. That is what makes him different from the other Republicans and Democrats. He states what he believes regardless what other people think!

[terlinguatx]

...

[Kregener]

Do you have any idea just how much of the Federal Behemoth Ron Paul will work tirelessly to dismantle?

It is a BUNCH.

The Department of Education is useless, expensive and actually detrimental to true education in America. Basically, it is a system geared to disseminating the Prussian-style statist indoctrination brought here by Dewey.

[brandon]

This is a point of attack that might work against Paul. I stand firmly behind his beliefs, but the majority of Americans are uninformed and think the Department of Education is responsible for public school funding and quality. And we all know how important everyone views education as these days. Paul needs to stick to his libertarian beliefs but not include the DoE on his platform, as he is not going to touch the benefits current social security recipients are receiving. Those are two things that could hurt: http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2007/10/05/politics/main3336190.shtml?source=mostpop_story

I am firmly against the public school system and can back it up. I dropped out of public school in the 12th grade due to my disagreements with what they viewed as eduaction. Now, 6 years later, I am about to recieve a fellowship to study electrical engineering at the post-grad level.

Public schools are a joke and need to be ended. They are not about education, they are about training people to become obiediant middle class workers who never challenge the status quo.

The free market can do much better at producing schools which actually teach people to think critically.

[terlinguatx]

...

[terlinguatx]

...

[SouthernGuy15]

I know, but there is so much at stake in this election that people will miscontstrue Paul in whatever way possible. He needs to be vocal in his dismissal of the extreme libertarian stances and let people knows he a republican. If necessary, start suing for libel, but most importanlty let people know that more radical stances will not be on his platform (until he's reelected at least :) )

Ron Paul has extreme stances and that is a GOOD thing! It is a GREAT thing! This nation needs EXTREME change!

Quite frankly, that he sticks to his PRINCIPLES is more important than if he wins or loses. That is what the Republicans and Democrats cannot understand. You CANNOT compromise without becoming part of the problem!

[SouthernGuy15]

Yes, but only about 1 out of 100 voters realizes this. I understand the importance of standing firm behind your beliefs, but it's better to get elected so he can make some change instead of none.

Two things.

First, he can get elected without backing down from any of his beliefs.

Secondly, if he backs down from his beliefs to win the election he does not deserve to be in office!

[Spirit of '76]

Here's a true story that happened after the Fox debate:

I went out to where I could get a cell phone signal to text in my vote to Fox. As I was doing it, an acquaintance happened by and asked what I was doing. He's a dean at a local college. It's a small private institution.

I told him I was texting my vote for Ron Paul as the winner of tonight's debate.

"Who?" he asked.

"The next president of the United States," I told him.

He asked what party, and I told him, but quickly said, "Don't let that turn you off, though. He's different."

He told me that the party didn't really matter to him, and that the ideas are more important.

So I took that as a cue to tell him about Ron's stance on the war, the patriot act, and all that. Then I told him, "He also wants to cut the IRS."

"What about the departments?" he asked, and I started to tell him about that Ron wants to cut lots of spending, but he instantly interrupted me with, "What about the Department of Education?"

"Yeah," I told him, "he definitely wants to cut that one."

He smiled and said, "Then he's got my vote!"

[terlinguatx]

...

[SouthernGuy15]

Nothing being accomplished is better than backing down from what you believe in. It is kind of like being sexually assaulted and risking death by fighting back. You may DIE if you fight back, but even if you are murdered you at least died with DIGNITY fighting for what is YOURS!

[DeadheadForPaul]

Absolutely not! Ron Paul should NOT compromise his message!

Being true and principled is more important than winning or anything else. That is what makes him different from the other Republicans and Democrats. He states what he believes regardless what other people think!

:rolleyes: :rolleyes: :rolleyes: :rolleyes: :rolleyes: :rolleyes:

There's a difference between not emphasizing one of your points and changing a position.

Take a page out of the assholes who have been driving our countyr in the ground: they focus on 1 or 2 issues than once they get electd, they do everything they want to. Dr Paul could get elected just by running on "Lower Taxes, End the Iraq war" then he could address the 1000 issues that plague us. But if you hav him representing like 5000 issues pre-election then each voter will find 1 thing they dont like and not vote for him. Generally, the less people know about a politican, the better. If Dr Paul is simply known as "the constitution guy who wants to end the war, lower taxes, end the patriot act, and protect the 2nd amendment", he'd win

[BarryDonegan]

dismantling the Dept of Education is a badge of honor inthe conservative movement. this type of controversial belief will earn him conservative votes, while he has the votes across the aisle nailed down by opposing the war.

basically you can vote for hillary who supports the war and wants to expand the dept of education, or you can support ron paul and get the war ended and lose your dept of education.

i dont really think most voters in the upcoming election will see beyond the major economy, war issues to these more fringe points.

[terlinguatx]

...

[Corydoras]

Nothing being accomplished is better than backing down from what you believe in. It is kind of like being sexually assaulted and risking death by fighting back. You may DIE if you fight back, but even if you are murdered you at least died with DIGNITY fighting for what is YOURS!

Governor Huckabee, is that you?
;)

[terlinguatx]

...

[SouthernGuy15]

Ron Paul has absolute and unrestrained PARDON power once he is elected. That means he can automatically put an end to the income tax, war on drugs, and violations of gun rights. He will be able to accomplish more than anyone realizes!

[F3d]

.........

[SouthernGuy15]

Cory,

No, I am not a politician. I am just a citizen from the Southern part of the United States.

I used to be a die-hard super-conservative Republican until hearing Harry Browne speak on CSPAN changed my life. Now, I am a Libertarian. I'm personally very conservative, but politically I'm Libertarian.

[SlapItHigh]

He needs to be vocal in his dismissal of the extreme libertarian stances and let people knows he a republican.

Abolishing the dept of education is a long held republican position. I realize it is not a neocon position but it will appeal to traditional republicans.

[cjhowe]

I can't support Paul if he's willing to dismantle the whole department. It gives low income people grants, work study, and subsidized loans. How convenient to support someone like Paul after college, and then all of a sudden everyone else gets screwed big time. Reminds me of Hillary's $5000 baby bond. If Paul wants to do something, get rid of that asinine out of state tuition. It's 3 to 8 times (community colleges) more than regular tuition. That's highway robbery. I'm guessing he'll do nothing to change it until the states come up with their aid (transition). If I were him, I would just make higher education free up to a bachelor's degree. Paul supports free public education. Why not higher education? What about those people that dropped out of high school ,got a GED, go to a private school, or finished high school sooner? Why should they pay for the amount it costs everyone else to go to high school? Same argument Paul uses against funding higher education.

Welcome to the forums. Out of state tuition should be higher than in state. The college or university is being supported by the local tax base. But more to the point, where does it say in the Constitution that it is the federal government's responsibility to provide any educational services, much less higher education? If you feel it's the federal government's responsibility propose an ammendment.

[SouthernGuy15]

F3D,

How are people going to pay for education if taxes keep on going sky high?

How are people going to pay for education if this country goes bankrupt?

How are people going to pay for education if they are drafted and forced to fight in unending wars?

Ron Paul is the solution to educational problems in this nation.

[terlinguatx]

...

[SlapItHigh]

Yeah, but we need to pick our fights, and I think there are much more pressing issues facing our country. We shouldn't let enemies distract people from our real message by talking about education.

Well it isn't a fight I would pick but you are saying that other people are picking at it. What do you suggest we do? Or what do you suggest Ron do? He can't back down, he is right. I'm thinking helping others to see the light on this is a good idea if they pick at it.

[apropos]

Dismantling the Department of Education is the point that is convincing many of my teacher friends. Most that I talk to think No Child Left Behind is an ill-conceived program. My family members, who spent 30 years in public education, strongly support a dismantling of the Dept. of Education. The current system rewards the lowest common denominator. We spend more on the future floor-sweepers of America the our future Einsteins.

The argument to use is: teachers should be accountable to parents, not to beauracrats in D.C. For example, who do you call if you have an objection about the curriculum your child is subjected to? Your county and your state are subject to federal policies. I think most everyone would agree that Idahoans should choose the curriculum for Idahoan students, not some guy in Washington. IMO, Paul's stance on this is the most valuable idea of his platform.

As the government has become more involved in public education, we have been seeing decreasing returns on investment.

[specsaregood]

He's already strayed from the strict libertarian platform by saying social security will continue for those receiving it -- because he knows the AARP is the most dominant lobby.

The "strict libertarian platform" supports discontinuing social security payments for people that ALREADY PAYED into the system and are getting their investment back? That don't seem quite right.

[SouthernGuy15]

I believe in "Little House on the Prairie" style education.

[Ron Paul Fan]

I believe in "Little House on the Prairie" style education.

Are you saying that you support having public schools take place in run down one room churches?

[Corydoras]

The "strict libertarian platform" supports discontinuing social security payments for people that ALREADY PAYED into the system and are getting their investment back?

Most people get back what they put into the system very quickly and live many years past that.

[F3d]

........

[itsnobody]

Unfortunately most people are fools when they hear "removing the Dept. of Education" they think "oh no thats horrible, it sounds important, what are we going to do without it?"

If Ron Paul wins the nomination or comes close certainly people will attempt to attack him in this manner, however Ron Paul has done a good job so far in explaining that it only "puts the personal responsibility on the parents and teachers" which obviously would improve education...

[F3d]

.......

[JosephTheLibertarian]

This is a point of attack that might work against Paul. I stand firmly behind his beliefs, but the majority of Americans are uninformed and think the Department of Education is responsible for public school funding and quality. And we all know how important everyone views education as these days. Paul needs to stick to his libertarian beliefs but not include the DoE on his platform, as he is not going to touch the benefits current social security recipients are receiving. Those are two things that could hurt: http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2007/10/05/politics/main3336190.shtml?source=mostpop_story

the funny thing is.. Republicans used to advocate for this only a few years back

[SwordOfShannarah]

Ron Paul is going to do what Ron Paul is going to do. You can try to do his thinking for him but if you ask me that's sort of like pissing in the wind.

And if you're going to do that.. "Always remember to bring an extra towel!"

http://keithdevens.com/images/weblog/towlie.gif

Besides- the best part of Ron Paul's campaign is that he is an educator. They try to attack him and in doing so they give him a chance to respond, and that's where he educates the public. It's been working wonders for him so far. Every attack has backfired. This one won't be any different.

[cjhowe]

You can easily stretch the Constitution's 8th amendment to support not taxing out of staters that much. I would think the government would want more people to go to college so you could get taxed more i.e. higher paying job. My microeconomics book says people become 10% more productive also. So what if the Constitution doesn't say anything about it? It neither said anything about slavery or a women's right to vote. Ron Paul supports universal public education but not higher education? Why not? By the way, it's also set up so the richest people get a lot of aid too. Scholarships ring a bell? Those are mostly for the top 15% and that's it.

Who's constitution are you reading? The 8th amendment is in regards to punishment, not fees. The Constitution also specifically discusses slavery (13th Amendment) and women's suffrage (19th Amendment). I don't know where you get the notion of universal public education either. Ron Paul wants to remove all federal control from education.

[F3d]

.....

[Spirit of '76]

......

[r3volution]

i know teachers , most of them would agree that the DOE is making children's dumber than ever (along with no children's left behind) .

[Qiu]

This is a point of attack that might work against Paul. I stand firmly behind his beliefs, but the majority of Americans are uninformed and think the Department of Education is responsible for public school funding and quality. And we all know how important everyone views education as these days. Paul needs to stick to his libertarian beliefs but not include the DoE on his platform, as he is not going to touch the benefits current social security recipients are receiving. Those are two things that could hurt: http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2007/10/05/politics/main3336190.shtml?source=mostpop_story
That's true. I remember watching 20 year old campaign videos in Civics class not too long ago and everybody was aghast that somebody proposed to abolish the department. They all thought that meant no more public education.

[JosephTheLibertarian]

Yeah, this would be the very first thing to dismantle :) I'm not sure how, I guess you make an executive order to: eliminate the dept. of education

???

I guess it's eliminated at that point

[F3d]

......

[SwordOfShannarah]

Yeah, this would be the very first thing to dismantle :) I'm not sure how, I guess you make an executive order to: eliminate the dept. of education

???

I guess it's eliminated at that point

I don't think Ron Paul plans on doing anything too drastic. He has mentioned that first he would legalize competition by cutting educational taxes for those who "opt out" of the public school system. That will immediately pump money back into the private sector, reducing prices and improving results. Word will catch on and it will become a growing trend. But yes he will eventually cut it.

[JosephTheLibertarian]

I don't think Ron Paul plans on doing anything too drastic. He has mentioned that first he would legalize competition by cutting educational taxes for those who "opt out" of the public school system. That will immediately pump money back into the private sector, reducing prices and improving results. Word will catch on and it will become a growing trend. But yes he will eventually cut it.

Drastic? Eliminating the DoE is drastic? LOL! That's what your GOP party used to want. The elimination of the DoE does *not* mean the end of public schools, states would still do whatever they want.

[F3d]

......

[JosephTheLibertarian]

That's drastic for anyone that relies on the subsidized loans, unsubsidized loans, grants, and work study that are handed out each year. You know, the private loans have like 9% interest and aren't given to some students because their parents have bad credit.

A free market doesn't give any entitlements...business or individual, unless it's charity. You're taking people's money that can't get into college and you're giving it to a select few, sounds like theft to me.

[Corydoras]

It can be a hard sell to explain that it isn't right to take money from people and give it to others just so they can reap the advantages of having more education than others... I saw the dumbfounded reaction he got at Google when he explained that... but it's a reasonable outgrowth of believing in the wrongness of taxation and overspending.

[cjhowe]

What kind of punishment? Doesn't say. I can say insane fees are a punishment. Isn't that why we had the American Revolution in the first place?

Well, obviously now the Constitution say it, but before it didn't. So why would it matter what the Constitution says?

Ron Paul wants FREE secondary education for everyone i.e. universal public education.

If you say that, I can say 200 years of appellate case law says otherwise. The 8th amendment speaks precisely to what takes place after and adjucation of guilt. Before those amendments were added to the constitution, those issues were not the federal government's responsibility.

Why would it matter what the Constitution says? You're obviously new to Ron Paul. The Constitution outlines specifically the powers and responsibility that the Federal government has. The 9th and 10th acknowledge all other power and responsibility to the people and to the states.

[F3d]

....

[Corydoras]

People who go to college are 10% more productive

By what measure?
And how is this constitutionally justifiable?

[Spirit of '76]

People who go to college are 10% more productive, less likely to do drugs, and crime.

I must have gone to the wrong college.



There's a big shortage in a lot of college level jobs. Why not get them to go to college to get those jobs? You also can no longer do anything with a high school diploma except work at Mcdonalds.

The answer is not to funnel more and more students into college, even if they aren't really college material, let alone to saddle them with massive amounts of debt to the federal government upon graduation.

[F3d]

.....

[F3d]

....

[JosephTheLibertarian]

I've known Ron Paul before he was even running. I know what the Constitution says. I'm just saying I think I can add things to it to make it better. It isn't perfect. Even Ron Paul thinks it isn't. i.e. prayer amendment.

If that amendment can't be stretched, then how come Ron Paul thinks the 2nd Amendment can? They had guns nothing like what we have now, yet those semi-auto guns, bolt-action, etc. are still protected even though that amendment is outdated.

Why not just let states decide? I support a free market approach, I think these entitlement :

a. waste money
b. fail

[zzzz8]

people think that he's going to immediately shut down all public education

Actually, I think that would be a good idea - if he had the power to do that.

[Corydoras]

You also can no longer do anything with a high school diploma except work at Mcdonalds.

Diplomas are like currency. Dilute their value by creating too many of them through government programs, and their worth drops.

[JosephTheLibertarian]

Actually, I think that would be a good idea - if he had the power to do that.

ohh my.. how will we ever learn anything without the government :confused:

lol

[JosephTheLibertarian]

Diplomas are like currency. Dilute their value by creating too many of them through government programs, and their worth drops.

Yeah, fuck "diplomas" they mean nothing. What we need a wide open education system! Not even a system, just...wide open

[F3d]

......

[F3d]

....

[Spirit of '76]

LOL, private loans are even worse.

No, they're absolutely not. Private loans can be discharged through bankruptcy. Federal student loans cannot.

But that's totally beside the point.

You seem to lament that a high school diploma is now only good for working at McDonald's, yet what you fail to see is that that is only so because the requirements of earning a baccalaureate degree today wouldn't have earned a high school diploma thirty years ago, and in most cases a high school diploma today isn't worth the paper it's printed on.

The solution does not lie in layering on more bureaucracy and federally mandated standardized tests and trying to prep every single student for college matriculation.

The solution is to be found in returning control of education back to the states and localities in which it was invested just a few short decades ago, so that they may return to the rigorous educational standards they once held. Furthermore, we must remove the stigma which has been attached in recent years to not attending college, and return to the understanding that many people simply do not need a college or university education to be happy and productive or provide for themselves and their families.

Why, pray tell, would you ever want to increase federal control over anything? History has shown that ever to be a recipe for disaster.

[JosephTheLibertarian]

Especially since you can get a GED at 16, or do no electives in high school and go straight to college. After 2 years of college, universities don't look at your prior secondary education. I get no credits for high school Spanish 1-3 because I didn't take it at a cc. How stupid.

you don't get it, man. nothing...nadda...no system.. no "diploma" no "ged"... a true free market. Don't even call it elitism, want to see elitism? It's what we have right now.

[cjhowe]

I've known Ron Paul before he was even running. I know what the Constitution says. I'm just saying I think I can add things to it to make it better. It isn't perfect. Even Ron Paul thinks it isn't. i.e. prayer amendment.

If that amendment can't be stretched, then how come Ron Paul thinks the 2nd Amendment can? They had guns nothing like what we have now, yet those semi-auto guns, bolt-action, etc. are still protected even though that amendment is outdated.

The school prayer amendment does not broaden the federal government's responsibility, only performs the necessary check on our judicial branch for legislating from the bench.

You need to reread your 2nd Amendment. It is certainly not outdated. The purpose of the 2nd Amendment is not to protect yourself from trespassers or for hunting. The purpose is so that the people may protect themselves from the government. If the government can have the weapon, the only way that the people can protect their rights from the government is if they have access to the weaponry of equal or superior caliber.

Back to the point of the thread. There currently is no stipulation in the Constitution giving responsibility of education to the federal government. No responsibility for loans, no responsibility for grants (outside of inducements for military compensation). If you would like to propose an amendment, feel free. Until such time that an amendment is ratified, there should be no DoEd.

[OptionsTrader]

Reagan ran on this promise. Abolishing the Dept of Education is not a new idea.

When Ron Paul says that we should go back to the Republican party platform of abolishing the Dept of Education , he just needs to explain why. Sometimes he drops the idea on an audience, without elaboration, and assumes people are informed and remember their history and also realize the obvious benefits of abolishing the department. But, as we know, people are not that bright.

He should elaborate in my opinion.

FYI, we haven't been burdened by the Dept of Education forever. The department has only been around since 1979.

[Richandler]

The public school system has failed. Ron needs talking points. Such as, costs, low test scores, united system with non-united requirements and etc. The he should embelish why he would be better. He needs a whole speech dedicated and should rehearse some talking points for debates.

[Thunderbolt]

What we need to do is to educate people as to what it means to dismantle the DOE. First of all, I don't think that most of us have any idea what that department does. I say that because I haven't really seen any good arguments about why it is bad. So, we need to learn. We need to learn so we can explain to others WHY it is a great idea to dismantle the department.

Here are the few things I do know: Once schools learned that the government was going to give out cheap loans, the prices of school went sky high. I went to a school in 1996 that cost 27k a year. In 1986 it cost 8k. Today it costs 35k. When you hand out "easy" loans to student you are handing them easy debt. That debt does have to get paid back you know.

A lot of students are now essentially forced to work for places the don't like, work more hours than anyone ever dreamed of, just to pay off this debt that hangs like an albatross around their necks. Who made out from this deal? The schools and the banks who are guaranteed that these loans will be paid back so they can make them to the worst credit risks. Who is paying the price? The kids. That is bad for our children. Not good. Kids these days are coming out of school owing 200k - 300k! Hell, keep them home for those years, make them work while they are at home and give you the money to put away for them and if you were going to pay for their school give them the 300k. They will walk away at the age of 25 with around 750K and be ready to retire. (7 years x 50k a year working 60 hours a week waiting tables or something, plus the 300k for the cost of school equals 750k and I am not even counting any interest they could make on the money).

And why do you think it costs so much to go the doctor these days? Increased loans = increased debt. Increased debt = increased need for higher wages. Increased need for higher wages = increased costs to get the brightest students to your hospital. Increased costs to get the brightest students to your hospital = 300 bucks for a band aid! In yet another way, the money is transferred from the general public to the huge banking institutions.

Private loans will always exist and many schools have scholarships. Get the government out of the way and the huge debt load for kids will go down as schools will be forced to lower tuitions to attract students.

The DOE also sets the curriculum and authorizes and edits text books.

If we talked about the press being handed over to the government we would all say that is crazy! How can a free society exist without a free press? That is true.

But no one has any problem with the government taking over the minds of all of our children? That to me is much worse than taking over the press. The U.S. government has a near monopoly on what this country learns and people are clamoring for that "monopoly" to expand?

Are you nuts? How will anyone ever learn that government is to be feared in a government run school? They won't! They don't!

You really want to hand your child's basic development over to the state with a capitol S?

Nothing is more dangerous to our society than government run schools! Nothing!

And yet, that is the one thing that people want more and more of! It blows my mind.

How are we to develop any extraordinary thinkers if all are taught the exact same thing? How are we to free our children from being bred to be "good little citizens"? Why do you think the whole country is so apathetic? We even the DOE taking over the minds of our children with pharmaceuticals! They are drugging our kids by force, the parents have no right to refuse!

From what little I know the DOE is the worst department in the country! We will never have liberty if children are taught that the goal should be democracy (mob rule)! They are taught that the socialism is good! Capitalism is bad. You need to play nice and forget grades! We can't fail anyone, that might hurt their feelings! We are turning out mindless, thoughtless, kids who graduate college without knowing the difference between their, there, and they're. Grade schoolers are given calculators to do addition!

We all need to learn a lot more and then we will have plenty of ammunition to back up Ron Paul instead of hiding under the covers!

[derdy]

This is a point of attack that might work against Paul. I stand firmly behind his beliefs, but the majority of Americans are uninformed and think the Department of Education is responsible for public school funding and quality. And we all know how important everyone views education as these days. Paul needs to stick to his libertarian beliefs but not include the DoE on his platform, as he is not going to touch the benefits current social security recipients are receiving. Those are two things that could hurt: http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2007/10/05/politics/main3336190.shtml?source=mostpop_story

To be honest, if I were a parent that was sending my kid to a public school I'd be embarrassed if someone wasn't talking about abolishing this trash!:rolleyes:

[johngr]

If Paul wants to do something, get rid of that asinine out of state tuition. It's 3 to 8 times (community colleges) more than regular tuition.

US Constitution Amendment 10: The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved for the States respectively, or to the people.

[F3d]

.......

[JosephTheLibertarian]

What's so bad about dropping a grade and moving them all down 1? Japan has 10 grades and Canada has 11. What makes you think none will do better?

How about... let the free market operate? Government out of education? Ron Paul is not advocating all that, he just wants the states to do their own thing.

I know, I know. Sounds bad, huh? But think. Imagine all the possibilities when everyone is in charge of their own educations, imagine the freedom of being able to just simply choose where you want to go in life. Government doesn't need to take care of its people, people are able to take care of themselves, when you let them. Government should, however, be around to protect individual liberty.

[F3d]

..........

[F3d]

.......

[JosephTheLibertarian]

You already have that choice even today. Home schooling.

why limit it to that?

[F3d]

.......

[JosephTheLibertarian]

What else would you want? lol

free market education

[F3d]

.....

[JosephTheLibertarian]

How would you define "free market education"?

where supply meets demand lol

[F3d]

.....

[JosephTheLibertarian]

How would you get ANY states to support this? lol They support 12 grades and exit exams. You would need an amendment.

I'm talking about education at the state level. Let's say I were governor.... close down board of education (if that's possible) put an end to public education, then see what happens.

[F3d]

.....

[TheEvilDetector]

Originally Posted by SouthernGuy15 View Post
Nothing being accomplished is better than backing down from what you believe in. It is kind of like being sexually assaulted and risking death by fighting back. You may DIE if you fight back, but even if you are murdered you at least died with DIGNITY fighting for what is YOURS!



Governor Huckabee, is that you?


There is no honour in being sexually assaulted.

[JosephTheLibertarian]

I know. That's why I said no states support it. Parents want their kids in school 24/7. They wouldn't elect a governor like you. lol A lot of voters are teachers. You would make everyone unemployed. lol

lol. depends on the state. I definitely wouldn't campaign on shutting down the board of education ;) teachers would be able to home school children or even start up their own schools, who knows. However, I would guarantee record surpluses lol The wise thing to do, imo, would be to end public education AFTER you level the "playing field," I wouldn't advise shutting down public education when we live in an elitist society. Meaning, end of "corporate welfare," end of "corporate status," end of permits, property rights reform, tax cuts, government cuts; tax reform, so on, and so forth.

[traviskicks]

This is a point of attack that might work against Paul. I stand firmly behind his beliefs, but the majority of Americans are uninformed and think the Department of Education is responsible for public school funding and quality. And we all know how important everyone views education as these days. Paul needs to stick to his libertarian beliefs but not include the DoE on his platform, as he is not going to touch the benefits current social security recipients are receiving. Those are two things that could hurt: http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2007/10/05/politics/main3336190.shtml?source=mostpop_story

In 1994 the 'contract with america included the abolition of the department of education' and they won big. Paul should stick to his guns, this is the one department true conservatives still want gone.

[F3d]

......

[Taco John]

Privatizing the school system is one of my number one issues. I'm glad that Ron Paul is working to bring competition back into the school system. The government monopoly on education has to be dismantled.

[F3d]

.....

[DaddyO]

I was asked about this the other day. My response was "How many kids did the DOE educate today?"

A lot of people really have no idea how schools are funded.

[Spirit of '76]

Japan tackles calculus in their last grade. Why can't we be as challenging?

Because the federal Department of Education has lowered the standards too far by mandating that schools focus more on meeting ridiculous bureaucratic requirements and trying to make every student "equal".

The solution to improving our educational standards is to take the federal bureaucracy out of the equation. Most educators understand this. I don't see why you continue to belabor the point, as you have demonstrated very little understanding of the reality of the situation.

[F3d]

....

[F3d]

....

[Spirit of '76]

That's the state's problem. DoE has no influence on it. They only do exit exams because of NCLB. It's sad if students can't pass the exit exam. It's easy.

Once again, you are incorrect. Firstly, the testing you refer to as "the exit exam" (erroneously, because there are actually a series of mandated achievement tests throughout a child's educational career) is not a monolithic test that is the same across the board.

The actual choice of tests is left up to the states, but in order to maintain compliance with federal bureaucratic regulations (and thus to keep receiving federal moneys), most of them have taken the easy route and adopted standardized tests which truthfully present a very poor picture of a student's competence in a given field.

Moreover, the desire to ensure success on these standardized tests (and thus to maintain compliance with federal bureaucratic regulations and maintain a steady flow of federal funds) has led to curricular changes in which the schools are 'teaching the test' rather than focusing on imparting a real understanding of the essential skills. The kids might be able to pass the multiple-choice tests that keep federal funding flowing into the school systems, but they are generally lacking in real understanding of the fundamentals.




BUT it's because there's tons of remedial classes, slower education than other countries, and the U.S. holds people back a lot which makes it worse.

Actually, it's because of the factors I just mentioned, coupled with the fact that the federal bureaucracy mandates things like "equal access", LEP, and "improving the academic achievement of the disadvantaged" programs and encourages the preparation of nearly all students for college matriculation.

This also lowers the overall standards and holds back more capable students who are not fortunate enough to be near something like a magnet school.


Just out of curiosity, what are your educational credentials? You seem to have very strong opinions on this, but what qualifications do you have to make such pronouncements?

I'm certainly no expert, myself, but I do have a master's degree in an educational field and have taught courses at my state's largest public university and in private junior college systems. I have also thoroughly discussed these matters with my mother, who after more than 20 years as a public school teacher and principal (of a NCLB 'blue ribbon school') is now the director of elementary education in our state's second largest and most well-funded county school system.

I have found that there is little love for the federal Department of Education among those with actual experience in education, so I'm wondering where your apparent infatuation with it comes from.

[lucius]

Once again, you are incorrect. Firstly, the testing you refer to as "the exit exam" (erroneously, because there are actually a series of mandated achievement tests throughout a child's educational career) is not a monolithic test that is the same across the board.

The actual choice of tests is left up to the states, but in order to maintain compliance with federal bureaucratic regulations (and thus to keep receiving federal moneys), most of them have taken the easy route and adopted standardized tests which truthfully present a very poor picture of a student's competence in a given field.

Moreover, the desire to ensure success on these standardized tests (and thus to maintain compliance with federal bureaucratic regulations and maintain a steady flow of federal funds) has led to curricular changes in which the schools are 'teaching the test' rather than focusing on imparting a real understanding of the essential skills. The kids might be able to pass the multiple-choice tests that keep federal funding flowing into the school systems, but they are generally lacking in real understanding of the fundamentals.





Actually, it's because of the factors I just mentioned, coupled with the fact that the federal bureaucracy mandates things like "equal access", LEP, and "improving the academic achievement of the disadvantaged" programs and encourages the preparation of nearly all students for college matriculation.

This also lowers the overall standards and holds back more capable students who are not fortunate enough to be near something like a magnet school.


Just out of curiosity, what are your educational credentials? You seem to have very strong opinions on this, but what qualifications do you have to make such pronouncements?

I'm certainly no expert, myself, but I do have a master's degree in an educational field and have taught courses at my state's largest public university and in private junior college systems. I have also thoroughly discussed these matters with my mother, who after more than 20 years as a public school teacher and principal (of a NCLB 'blue ribbon school') is now the director of elementary education in our state's second largest and most well-funded county school system.

I have found that there is little love for the federal Department of Education among those with actual experience in education, so I'm wondering where your apparent infatuation with it comes from.

Well put.

[ladyliberty]

I have an MEd and I taught in the public school system for 7 years - I whole heartedly support Ron Paul for the very fact that he wants to dismantle the DoE!

Please read this article if you need to convince yourself and your friends:

http://www.cagw.org/site/PageServer?pagename=policy_Department_of_Education

[F3d]

....

[F3d]

...

[Spirit of '76]

I'm calling it that because the other states like New York and California have exit exams.

Lots of school districts mandate exit exams. Those often have absolutely nothing to do with federally mandated testing to maintain compliance with bureaucratic impositions like NCLB.


In a way it is an exit exam that shows how well the school is doing. Even then, the students who take those NCLB tests don't fail, the school fails. If people want more students to learn, they would fund the school with solutions manuals for math classes but they don't.

You are confused Yes, it is true that if students fail to perform on the standardized tests adopted in order to maintain compliance with federal mandates, then it is the schools who lose -- at least in terms of continued federal funding.

But more importantly, it is the students who lose, and they lose because their schools were more concerned with preparing them for a standardized test than with instilling the fundamentals.




How is it a poor picture? The tests aren't hard yet they fail. A lot of universities do rote learning.

Name some of these many universities who "do rote learning". While you're at it, explain what that has to do with federal mandates for primary and secondary ed, such as NCLB.


Federal funding for schools represents only 9% of what schools get in funding.

9% of a multimillion dollar budget is a substantial amount. 9% is also a significant increase, as it was at ~5% just three years ago.

It is also worth noting that this rise in federal funding, contingent on compliance with federal bureaucratic standards, coincides with worsening educational standards in the public schools.




Before the NCLB, the Southern states had no standards.

This is a statement of ignorance.


I'm a freshman at a cc paying out of state tuition (8 times more)! It's the only way I can actually get an education.

Well, that clearly makes you an expert on the US Department of Education. lol

Look, kid, I admire your tenacity, but you don't have a damned clue what you're talking about.

[mikelovesgod]

People who go to college are 10% more productive, less likely to do drugs, and crime. There's a big shortage in a lot of college level jobs. Why not get them to go to college to get those jobs? You also can no longer do anything with a high school diploma except work at Mcdonalds.

John D. Rockefeller
Bill Gates
Michael Dell

What do these names have in common? They never graduated college, and Rockefeller never finished middle school.

I never went to college, have a great private business that makes a ton more than a "job" and I did it on private initiative. Oh, but I should pay for someone else to go to college on my dime? You're playing the role of thief, not Robin Hood.

[Thunderbolt]

No matter how you slice it, taking money from A by force and giving it to B is theft. Theft is morally wrong.

Worse yet, the feds design the curriculum and edit the textbooks. Do you really think it is a good idea if Big Brother teaches all of our kids? I don't want them teaching any of our kids. Keep everything local. Keep the feds out of it. Keep the tuitions down.

[Nefertiti]

He really fails to communicate his stance in a meaningful way. Instead of saying he will get rid of the DOE he should talk about returning responsibility for education to the states and local communities. I think he really messes up on this issue because he could say it in a way that would be very positive to a lot of people but he just doesn't.

[erowe1]

If getting rid of the D. of Ed. were the only campaign promise Paul ever made, he'd get my vote just for that.

[F3d]

......

[american.swan]

This is why we have to stick to the simple message for the masses.

1. Only one who can beat Clinton
2. He is the Thomas Jefferson of OUR time.

[Spirit of '76]

I think only California and New York had exit exams before NCLB. They didn't have to comply with NCLB because of this.

You're fixated on this notion of "exit exams". I have already explained to you that NCLB mandates a number of different competency tests throughout the period of a child's schooling -- yearly in the primary grades and periodically in the secondary.


What exactly are the fundamentals?

In addition to the 'three R's' and such basics as history, geography, science, literature, civics, music, and art, I would add:

Rhetoric
Greek
Latin
Philosophy

...all wrapped up in a heaping helping of critical thinking skills (which certainly aren't able to be tested in most of the standardized tests the school districts are using).

These things were standard before the advent of federal meddling in education, and in the few years since the implementation of NCLB, many have been almost totally neglected in the drive to 'teach the test' required to maintain compliance and ensure the continued flow of federal funds.


SDSU, UCI, CSULA, etc. Basically any university does this.

How do you know this to be true?


The material though may be harder in colleges like Stanford. They don't have time so they give out multiple choice tests. You said "most of them have taken the easy route and adopted standardized tests which truthfully present a very poor picture of a student's competence in a given field." That's why I brought up rote learning. How is it a poor picture? The problem is that the standards are low.

This may be true of lower level courses with a couple of hundred freshmen all crammed together in an auditorium, but upper level courses generally do not operate in this fashion.

Besides, what you are again failing to acknowledge is that the universities are being forced to teach what the students should have been taught in high school, but weren't because the schools are more concerned with maintaining compliance with federal bureaucratic mandates than with providing their students with a well-rounded education.


Canada spends less, almost every country spends less than the U.S. Even though, they still do better.

So what should that tell you? It should tell you that throwing more federal money at the schools isn't going to solve the problem.


It's definitely true. Why do you think they even came up with NCLB? We were doing poor internationally.

Your generalization that it was the "Southern states" that were maintaining low standards is patently false. Even today we see that fourth graders in Mississippi are more literate than their peers in Massachusetts. Why? Because Massachusetts maintains low standards in order to comply with federal mandates.

For the record, the quotes you were responding to with the below excerpts were not from me.

Why are you comparing someone that lived in the late 1800's-1900's to me? Almost no one went to college during that time.

Untrue. Harvard opened its doors in 1636. William and Mary was founded in 1693. There were numerous colleges throughout America by 1900, mostly in New England and the South.

But the real point, as made by mikelovesgod above, is that not everyone needs to go to college to be successful or to provide for themselves and their families. That was implicitly understood not so very long ago, but these days virtually all students are being prepped for college matriculation, whether they should be or not.


The states design the curriculum and edit the textbooks.

Generally the teachers unions have as great a role in it as the states, especially in the editing of the textbooks.

[Spirit of '76]

Could you pass the 8th grade exam given in the public school in Salina, Kansas in 1895?



Grammar (Time, one hour)

1. Give nine rules for the use of Capital Letters.
2. Name the Parts of Speech and define those that have no modifications.
3. Define Verse, Stanza and Paragraph.
4. What are the Principal Parts of a verb? Give Principal Parts of do, lie, lay and run.
5. Define Case, Illustrate each Case.
6. What is Punctuation? Give rules for principal marks of Punctuation.
7-10. Write a composition of about 150 words and show therein that you understand the practical use of the rules of grammar.

Arithmetic (Time, 1.25 hours)

1. Name and define the Fundamental Rules of Arithmetic.
2. A wagon box is 2 ft. deep, 10 feet long, and 3 ft. wide. How many bushels of wheat will it hold?
3. If a load of wheat weighs 3942 lbs., what is it worth at 50cts. per bu, deducting 1050 lbs. for tare?
4. District No. 33 has a valuation of $35,000. What is the necessary levy to carry on a school seven months at $50 per month, and have $104 for incidentals?
5. Find cost of 6720 lbs. coal at $6.00 per ton.
6. Find the interest of $512.60 for 8 months and 18 days at 7 percent.
7. What is the cost of 40 boards 12 inches wide and 16 ft. long at $.20 per inch?
8. Find bank discount on $300 for 90 days (no grace) at 10 percent.
9. What is the cost of a square farm at $15 per acre, the distance around which is 640 rods?
10.Write a Bank Check, a Promissory Note, and a Receipt.

U.S. History (Time, 45 minutes)

1. Give the epochs into which U.S. History is divided.
2. Give an account of the discovery of America by Columbus.
3. Relate the causes and results of the Revolutionary War.
4. Show the territorial growth of the United States.
5. Tell what you can of the history of Kansas.
6. Describe three of the most prominent battles of the Rebellion.
7. Who were the following: Morse, Whitney, Fulton, Bell, Lincoln, Penn, and Howe?
8. Name events connected with the following dates: 1607, 1620, 1800, 1849, and 1865?

Orthography (Time, one hour)

1. What is meant by the following: Alphabet, phonetic orthography, etymology, syllabication?
2. What are elementary sounds? How classified?
3. What are the following, and give examples of each: Trigraph, subvocals, diphthong, cognate letters, linguals?
4. Give four substitutes for caret 'u'.
5. Give two rules for spelling words with final 'e'. Name two exceptions under each rule.
6. Give two uses of silent letters in spelling. Illustrate each.
7. Define the following prefixes and use in connection with a word: Bi, dis, mis, pre, semi, post, non, inter, mono, super.
8. Mark diacritically and divide into syllables the following, and name the sign that indicates the sound: Card, ball, mercy, sir, odd, cell, rise, blood, fare, last.
9. Use the following correctly in sentences, Cite, site, sight, fane, fain, feign, vane, vain, vein, raze, raise, rays.
10.Write 10 words frequently mispronounced and indicate pronunciation by use of diacritical marks and by syllabication.

Geography (Time, one hour)

1. What is climate? Upon what does climate depend?
2. How do you account for the extremes of climate in Kansas?
3. Of what use are rivers? Of what use is the ocean?
4. Describe the mountains of N.A.
5. Name and describe the following: Monrovia, Odessa, Denver, Manitoba, Hecla, Yukon, St. Helena, Juan Fermandez, Aspinwall and Orinoco.
6. Name and locate the principal trade centers of the U.S.
7. Name all the republics of Europe and give capital of each.
8. Why is the Atlantic Coast colder than the Pacific in the same latitude?
9. Describe the process by which the water of the ocean returns to the sources of rivers.
10.Describe the movements of the earth. Give inclination of the earth.

These were the standards of public education prior to the advent of federal interference in 1953.

Now try to tell me that the federal mandates are helping.

[Bloody Holly]

One of the reasons why I like Ron Paul is that he doesn't treat adult politics as if he's running for class president in elementary school.

I think the Original poster cares too much what people think.

[F3d]

......

[Spirit of '76]

This is tiresome.

Kid, if you are any sort of indicator of what our educational system is producing, we are in bigger trouble than I thought. Hell, I'm starting to wonder if you even can be educated, or if you really think you already have all the answers with all of your nineteen years and a couple of community college credits under your belt.

Just a suggestion:
Less talking. More reading.

[SwordOfShannarah]

People who go to college are 10% more productive, less likely to do drugs, and crime. There's a big shortage in a lot of college level jobs. Why not get them to go to college to get those jobs? You also can no longer do anything with a high school diploma except work at Mcdonalds.


But the free market would help more people go to college for less money. When the government gets involved the quality goes down and the prices go up. So yes your statistic may be true, but it doesn't mean the government is suddenly the best way to get more people into college, the free market is.

[F3d]

....

[F3d]

......

[Spirit of '76]

Metric is a lot better.

We are doomed.


You say in the 1950's there were federal mandates, but the DoE wasn't create until Jimmy Carter was in office.

The Department of Health, Welfare, and Education was created in 1953. In 1979 it was split into two different entities.

You know, a young student interested in getting to the bottom of these matters would serve his interests much better by asking questions than by continuously and belligerently arguing with people more knowledgeable than himself.

[F3d]

.........

[d_goddard]

the states require Spanish courses instead. Why try to learn Greek and Latin though?
Maybe Latin is better. No, Spanish! No, French! No, Tagalog!!
You're falling into the trap Big-Government always sets: pitting one person's values against another, making us fight to determine who has the "right plan".

With the Free Market, it's so simple: you use your money to pay for the education that you feel is most appropriate.

If there is no such educational option on offer at the price-point you can manage, and you think other people fall into the same situation, then you have identified an opportunity to make money by offering it to them. Start thinking like an entrepreneur, and you'll be a lot closer to the values our country was founded on -- and richer, too.



Every state is on NCLB [...] Ron Paul can't do anything about that. The states would have to do something.

Funny you mention it :)
A push has begun in New Hampshire to opt out of the Feds' NCLB, just like we opted out of Real-ID. Legislation has already been submitted for the 2008 session:

2008-H-2410-L directing New Hampshire to withdraw from the No Child Left Behind Act.

[Bob Cochran]

Could you pass the 8th grade exam given in the public school in Salina, Kansas in 1895?

Nope.

But ask one of those 1895 Kansas kids to use Microsoft Windows, put something up for sale on eBay, upload a video to YouTube, use a Blackberry, set up a PayPal account, use a cell phone, make a deposit at an ATM...

Now who seems uneducated?

[F3d]

.....

[Spirit of '76]

Nope.

But ask one of those 1895 Kansas kids to use Microsoft Windows, put something up for sale on eBay, upload a video to YouTube, use a Blackberry, set up a PayPal account, use a cell phone, make a deposit at an ATM...

Now who seems uneducated?

By comparison, modern schoolkids do.

The things you're talking about have little to do with education. Those are just everyday activities -- the modern equivalent of saddling a horse, sewing clothes, sharpening a scythe, or lighting a coal-burning stove.

Those kids is Kansas could likely do those sorts of things and do math, understand the rules of English grammar and orthography, expound on important events in history, locate Europe on a map, etc.

Sure, our schools are turning out kids who can create crappy Myspace pages and send endless streams of text messages to each other, but half of them can't even do it in English.

[F3d]

.....