Obama to Propose 2 Years of Community School for 'Free'

Gotta love differences in states.

So what the fuck is Obama doing offering a nationwide solution to state problems?

Surely, if at all, it should be down to the states what they're doing with their colleges.

Like I said on the first page, states were already making steps to do this same thing. Tennessee, an absolute cesspool of ignorance and arrogance, offers to pay two years of tuition for any student who wants to go to [community] college. This isn't a matter of "If the feds don't do this, it never will." Education is already heavily regimented to an indescribable fault, and now they want to ignore the problem and move on to the next institution.

Well, as long as nobody in this thread starts calling for wage and price controls, government works programmes and fiscal stimulus. . .

I think we'll be all right >.>

Department of Education

Last time anything happened there was under Bush. . .

I think we all want to avoid anything like that happening again >.>

You mean NCLB?

Well, that and the fact that the Dept. of Education's funding increased by 165pc.

Whether it fucking even did anything to the education system, I don't even know.

"As part of their support for NCLB, the administration and Congress backed massive increases in funding for elementary and secondary education. Total federal education funding increased from $42.2 billion to $55.7 billion from 2001, the fiscal year before the law's passage, to fiscal year 2004.[72] A new $1 billion Reading First program was created, distributing funds to local schools to improve the teaching of reading, and over $100 million for its companion, Early Reading First.[73] Numerous other formula programs received large increases as well. This was consistent with the administration's position of funding formula programs, which distribute money to local schools for their use, and grant programs, where particular schools or groups apply directly to the federal government for funding. In total, federal funding for education increased 59.8% from 2000 to 2003.[74] The act created a new competitive-grant program called Reading First, funded at $1.02 billion in 2004, to help states and districts set up "scientific, research-based" reading programs for children in grades K-3 (with priority given to high-poverty areas). A smaller early-reading program sought to help states better prepare 3- to 5-year-olds in disadvantaged areas to read. The program's funding was later cut drastically by Congress amid budget talks.[75]

Funding Changes: Through an alteration in the Title I funding formula, the No Child Left Behind Act was expected to better target resources to school districts with high concentrations of poor children. The law also included provisions intended to give states and districts greater flexibility in how they spent a portion of their federal allotments.[75]

Funding for school technology used in classrooms as part of NCLB, is administered by the Enhancing Education Through Technology Program (EETT). Funding sources are used for equipment, professional development and training for educators, and updated research. EETT allocates funds by formula to states. The states in turn reallocate 50% of the funds to local districts by Title I formula and 50% competitively. While districts must reserve a minimum of 25% of all EETT funds for professional development, recent studies indicate that most EETT recipients use far more than 25% of their EETT funds to train teachers to use technology and integrate it into their curricula. In fact, EETT recipients committed more than $159 million in EETT funds towards professional development during the 2004–05 school year alone. Moreover, even though EETT recipients are afforded broad discretion in their use of EETT funds, surveys show that they target EETT dollars towards improving student achievement in reading and mathematics, engaging in data driven decision making, and launching online assessment programs.[76]

In addition, the provisions of NCLB permitted increased flexibility for state and local agencies in the use of federal education money.[77]

The NCLB increases were companions to another massive increase in federal education funding at that time. The Bush administration and congress passed very large increases in funding for the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act (IDEA) at the same time as the NCLB increases. IDEA Part B, a state formula-funding program that distributes money to local districts for the education of students with disabilities, was increased from $6.3 billion in 2001 to $10.1 billion in 2004.[78] Because a district's and state's performance on NCLB measures depended on improved performance by students with disabilities, particularly students with learning disabilities, this 60 percent increase in funding was also an important part of the overall approach to NCLB implementation."

from wikipedia's No Child Left Behind article

I would love it so damn much if we can go back a couple of decades where anybody could be middle-class, have a simple high school diploma, and be a manager at a department store or wherever

People back then also weren't nearly as educated. But sure, go ahead and travel back in time. I'm sure you'd fit in perfectly.

Yep, just 20 years ago people were running around in nothing but a loin cloth and throwing rocks at animals to see what would be a better tool for hunting. Seriously, would it be any harm for you to think for once? If anybody would fit perfectly with cavemen it would be you

Twenty years ago, there was no internet for the general consumer. Phones were still tethered to a wall with a 20ft cable. Hell, have you seen their fashion?

It may only have been 20 years ago, but the world was quite different.

And that matters exactly how?

Because Kinder - you say shit like "Oh, I wish we could go back twenty years to where things were so much better!" - and then say "Oh, what does that matter" when some of the biggest innovations weren't even around.

Guess what - prices of products have gone up, wages for entry level jobs, along with positions like managers, has not significantly changed. Great, in 1995, you could live modestly as a manager. Shit was cheaper then.

I'm saying we should go back to when you don't need a degree in order to become the manager of McDonalds

hey this is kinda relevant to a story i have

first semester of college, i only had class on tuesdays and thursdays. i figured i could do some substitute teaching at the local elementary/middle schools on my offdays to make some extra cash and keep myself busy. guess what? in my state, substitute teachers need four year degrees!

 

Well....yes. I'd prefer my children's substitute teacher to be certified in teaching and be aware, nominally, of what they are teaching.

you dont think that's a bit ridiculous? i can understand a 2 year degree, sure. anyone who has a high school diploma should have a nominal understanding of anything the kids are learning in public school.. even then, it's not really that important to have specific knowledge, because, in my experience, substitute teachers sat in a chair while the kids did pre-assigned work or just ran through pre-planned lectures the regular teacher left for them.

'

Are we talking primary or secondary education?

When it comes to grade school I don't think it should matter that much, unless it's a long term substitute teacher or something. He's right, usually all subs have to do is refer to the stuff that the teacher left behind. The work is completely cut out for them.

Eh, I suppose.

so, it looks like Title I schools and special institutions benefited the most from that extra funding from NCLB

Well, as long as nobody in this thread starts calling for wage and price controls, government works programmes and fiscal stimulus. . .

I think we'll be all right >.>

We should have all of that, and then socialism.

Gotta love differences in states.

So what the fuck is Obama doing offering a nationwide solution to state problems?

Surely, if at all, it should be down to the states what they're doing with their colleges.

Like I said on the first page, states were already making steps to do this same thing. Tennessee, an absolute cesspool of ignorance and arrogance, offers to pay two years of tuition for any student who wants to go to [community] college. This isn't a matter of "If the feds don't do this, it never will." Education is already heavily regimented to an indescribable fault, and now they want to ignore the problem and move on to the next institution.

To be honest, that isn't all that unusual at the federal level.

Good policies are often co-opted by Washington--like Obama's gas mileage standards which were taken from a 2002 Californian law, or even the ACA from Massachusetts--but unfortunately Obama's been strangling that over the course of his presidency by trying to whip the states into line.

Well, this thread took a sharp turn to....something

Well, as long as nobody in this thread starts calling for wage and price controls, government works programmes and fiscal stimulus. . .

I think we'll be all right >.>

Can I call to replace useless PenDOT workers with the people on welfare?

the people on welfare?

Well I was just going to suggest we kill them all and then abolish welfare spending. . .

Gotta love differences in states.

So what the fuck is Obama doing offering a nationwide solution to state problems?

Surely, if at all, it should be down to the states what they're doing with their colleges.

Like I said on the first page, states were already making steps to do this same thing. Tennessee, an absolute cesspool of ignorance and arrogance, offers to pay two years of tuition for any student who wants to go to [community] college. This isn't a matter of "If the feds don't do this, it never will." Education is already heavily regimented to an indescribable fault, and now they want to ignore the problem and move on to the next institution.

To be honest, that isn't all that unusual at the federal level.

Good policies are often co-opted by Washington--like Obama's gas mileage standards which were taken from a 2002 Californian law, or even the ACA from Massachusetts--but unfortunately Obama's been strangling that over the course of his presidency by trying to whip the states into line.

The difference is that gas emissions and mileage don't vary on a county level, much less a state one. Education is not something you can just use a blanket approach for, it requires a much more individualized method than anybody who has a say cares to pay attention to. Why set up a system that will have a great effect in the long term when you can change every couple of years to keep the populous complacent by pretending you care and are listening?

And people who think raising minimum wage to $15 is a good idea have a more narrow point of view than the stereotypical republican.

the people on welfare?

Well I was just going to suggest we kill them all and then abolish welfare spending. . .

Liberals would never allow it.

the people on welfare?

Well I was just going to suggest we kill them all and then abolish welfare spending. . .

Liberals would never allow it.

We'll kill them, too.

the people on welfare?

Well I was just going to suggest we kill them all and then abolish welfare spending. . .

Liberals would never allow it.

We'll kill them, too.

But my liege, isn't that a gross infringement on the fundamental right to one's life that us Libertarians treasure so dearly?

the people on welfare?

Well I was just going to suggest we kill them all and then abolish welfare spending. . .

"The upper class: keeps all of the money, pays none of the taxes.  The middle class: pays all of the taxes, does all of the work.  The poor are there...just to scare the shit out of the middle class."

Off topic, but I just adore Carlin. Hope he got his wish to watch people jack off and watch his descendants make asses out of themselves for all of eternity.

the people on welfare?

Well I was just going to suggest we kill them all and then abolish welfare spending. . .

Liberals would never allow it.

We'll kill them, too.

I'll nuke this forum before I allow you to slaughter me.

But my liege, isn't that a gross infringement on the fundamental right to one's life that us Libertarians treasure so dearly?

One of the guys who could've been responsible for civil liberties in a centre-left government over here once demanded a prison was retaken from rioting prisoners without regard to lives lost--he said they should've "machine-gunned them".

I don't think we value "rights" as much as you Amerifages do.

But my liege, isn't that a gross infringement on the fundamental right to one's life that us Libertarians treasure so dearly?

One of the guys who could've been responsible for civil liberties in a centre-left government over here once demanded a prison was retaken from rioting prisoners without regard to lives lost--he said they should've "machine-gunned them".

I don't think we value "rights" as much as you Amerifages do.

THEN YOU ARE LOST!

the people on welfare?

Well I was just going to suggest we kill them all and then abolish welfare spending. . .

"The upper class: keeps all of the money, pays none of the taxes.  The middle class: pays all of the taxes, does all of the work.  The poor are there...just to scare the shit out of the middle class."

Off topic, but I just adore Carlin. Hope he got his wish to watch people jack off and watch his descendants make asses out of themselves for all of eternity.

our system taxes income in a really weird way. i dont know the specifics, but think about it this way: x% of your first $10k, x% of your first 30k, x% of your first 60k, x% of your first 100k, etc, cumulatively. it's actually fairly lenient to the lower class and painful for those with high incomes.

In all reality is there any chance at all this will get passed?

Absolutely not. Republicans would never let something beneficial like this pass either the House or Senate.

We can't even get them in on a jobs bill for veterans they created.

>Beneficial

That's clearly up for debate, but once again, I love party blaming. It's like a horse with blinders.

Department of Education

Last time anything happened there was under Bush. . .

I think we all want to avoid anything like that happening again >.>

You mean NCLB?

Please don't remind me of that atrocious idea

the people on welfare?

Well I was just going to suggest we kill them all and then abolish welfare spending. . .

"The upper class: keeps all of the money, pays none of the taxes.  The middle class: pays all of the taxes, does all of the work.  The poor are there...just to scare the shit out of the middle class."

Off topic, but I just adore Carlin. Hope he got his wish to watch people jack off and watch his descendants make asses out of themselves for all of eternity.

our system taxes income in a really weird way. i dont know the specifics, but think about it this way: x% of your first $10k, x% of your first 30k, x% of your first 60k, x% of your first 100k, etc, cumulatively. it's actually fairly lenient to the lower class and painful for those with high incomes.

Yeah, but the brackets are so weirdly set that it really fucking sucks for those who just break into a new bracket.
I moved from poorfag to no-quite-as-poorfag last year without realizing it and my withholdings were still set to expect poorfag taxes. That was a disappointing tax filing...

the people on welfare?

Well I was just going to suggest we kill them all and then abolish welfare spending. . .

"The upper class: keeps all of the money, pays none of the taxes.  The middle class: pays all of the taxes, does all of the work.  The poor are there...just to scare the shit out of the middle class."

Off topic, but I just adore Carlin. Hope he got his wish to watch people jack off and watch his descendants make asses out of themselves for all of eternity.

our system taxes income in a really weird way. i dont know the specifics, but think about it this way: x% of your first $10k, x% of your first 30k, x% of your first 60k, x% of your first 100k, etc, cumulatively. it's actually fairly lenient to the lower class and painful for those with high incomes.

Humor, especially standup, usually entails a certain degree of exaggeration. Essentially, the upper-class gets to enjoy the products of a capitalist society, the middle-class gets a taste of it but gets stuck with the lot menial labor, and the lower-class is there to remind the middle-class that tedious but comfortable is preferable to the alternative.

the people on welfare?

Well I was just going to suggest we kill them all and then abolish welfare spending. . .

"The upper class: keeps all of the money, pays none of the taxes.  The middle class: pays all of the taxes, does all of the work.  The poor are there...just to scare the shit out of the middle class."

Off topic, but I just adore Carlin. Hope he got his wish to watch people jack off and watch his descendants make asses out of themselves for all of eternity.

our system taxes income in a really weird way. i dont know the specifics, but think about it this way: x% of your first $10k, x% of your first 30k, x% of your first 60k, x% of your first 100k, etc, cumulatively. it's actually fairly lenient to the lower class and painful for those with high incomes.

Humor, especially standup, usually entails a certain degree of exaggeration. Essentially, the upper-class gets to enjoy the products of a capitalist society, the middle-class gets a taste of it but gets stuck with the lot menial labor, and the lower-class is there to remind the middle-class that tedious but comfortable is preferable to the alternative.

i got the joke. just figured i'd drop that information off is all, since it seemed relevant.

the people on welfare?

Well I was just going to suggest we kill them all and then abolish welfare spending. . .

"The upper class: keeps all of the money, pays none of the taxes.  The middle class: pays all of the taxes, does all of the work.  The poor are there...just to scare the shit out of the middle class."

Off topic, but I just adore Carlin. Hope he got his wish to watch people jack off and watch his descendants make asses out of themselves for all of eternity.

our system taxes income in a really weird way. i dont know the specifics, but think about it this way: x% of your first $10k, x% of your first 30k, x% of your first 60k, x% of your first 100k, etc, cumulatively. it's actually fairly lenient to the lower class and painful for those with high incomes.

Humor, especially standup, usually entails a certain degree of exaggeration. Essentially, the upper-class gets to enjoy the products of a capitalist society, the middle-class gets a taste of it but gets stuck with the lot menial labor, and the lower-class is there to remind the middle-class that tedious but comfortable is preferable to the alternative.

i got the joke. just figured i'd drop that information off is all, since it seemed relevant.

Tax brackets are still really wonky, but I'm not knowledgeable enough of the subject to give an idea of how to fix it.

At least from my perspective in Greece; state-funded enterprises, including schools and universities before the austerity used to be very reliable. However, with the austerity and the lessening money, the state controls all the money that goes into education. Therefore, universities suffer both in quality of the academics offered and the students. Something to keep in mind when aiming for something funded by the state.

This user has been blacklisted from posting on the forums. Until the blacklist is lifted, all posts made by this user have been hidden and require a Sep7agon^® SecondClass Premium Membership to view.

Point is, if people don't intelligently choose a degree, they shouldn't be surprised when they're jobless in the future. And the government shouldn't be helping out people who can't bother to do that.

This is about people who can't afford to go to school in the first place.

Point is, if people don't intelligently choose a degree, they shouldn't be surprised when they're jobless in the future. And the government shouldn't be helping out people who can't bother to do that.

This is about people who can't afford to go to school in the first place.

And if people go to school and get a useless degree, then they're going to be back where they started, minus the two years they could've spent moving up in a company or acquiring experience.

Point is, if people don't intelligently choose a degree, they shouldn't be surprised when they're jobless in the future. And the government shouldn't be helping out people who can't bother to do that.

This is about people who can't afford to go to school in the first place.

I'm sure there are already ways of acquiring financial assistance.