What is the future of the Republican Party?

[commando]

1 minute ago, Archy1221 said:

And therein lies the problem. If that amount doesn’t help, give us more, and more, and more instead of trying to fix the underlying problems.  There is never enough money to spend.  
 

Hell, why not just dissolve the defense department all together, spend an additional $740 billion per year and just imagine how smart everyone would be cause of all that money.   

 

Or we could figure out why the money we do spend on education works in one school district and not another.  

defund the military?   bold concept Archy.   not even the most liberal far left activist has said anything like that.   

[Cdog923]

2 minutes ago, Archy1221 said:

And therein lies the problem. If that amount doesn’t help, give us more, and more, and more instead of trying to fix the underlying problems.  There is never enough money to spend.  

 

That argument would have more merit if over the course of the last 40 years, the federal government took the funding of the public education system in this country as seriously as it should be. As it is, though? That dog don't hunt. 

[Archy1221]

8 minutes ago, commando said:

defund the military?   bold concept Archy.   not even the most liberal far left activist has said anything like that.   

Ya, you forgot the Or.  but you know that, and I understand you are just being silly again.  

[knapplc]

12 minutes ago, Archy1221 said:

And therein lies the problem. If that amount doesn’t help, give us more, and more, and more instead of trying to fix the underlying problems.  There is never enough money to spend.  
 

Hell, why not just dissolve the defense department all together, spend an additional $740 billion per year and just imagine how smart everyone would be cause of all that money.   

 

Or we could figure out why the money we do spend on education works in one school district and not another.  

 

 

Claims we spend too much on public education.

 

Uses the defense budget as a comparison.

 

 

 

 

[Born N Bled Red]

9 minutes ago, Archy1221 said:

And therein lies the problem. If that amount doesn’t help, give us more, and more, and more instead of trying to fix the underlying problems.  There is never enough money to spend.  
 

Hell, why not just dissolve the defense department all together, spend an additional $740 billion per year and just imagine how smart everyone would be cause of all that money.   

 

Or we could figure out why the money we do spend on education works in one school district and not another.  

 

Archy,

 

I think you ask a legitimate question on funding. Here is what I can tell you from a parents perspective. Schools are to the point that they have little budgetary spending left over after paying staff salaries. Year after year parents are being asked to spend more and more on supplies, not just for their students, but for classroom use. Students no longer get text books, but rather get printed copies of text books and worksheets as books are expensive. Teachers are severely underpaid and often take on purchasing items for their classrooms, items that should be supplied by the school, simply because they care that much.

 

The truth of the matter is that we cannot even begin to discuss what level of funding is necessary to raise our schools to the quality of education that they need to be at, due to the fact that we aren't even providing enough to support them at the dismal level they are currently at.  So yes, if you want to argue that the funding of schools is a blackhole issue, you very well could, but only because education has be so woefully underfunded and neglected for so long, that bringing it to where it needs to be will require an immense shift in budgetary priorities. To those that are fiscally conservative, that might be an incredibly hard pill to swallow.

[Archy1221]

4 minutes ago, knapplc said:

 

 

Claims we spend too much on public education.

 

Uses the defense budget as a comparison.

 

 

 

 

Never claimed we spend to much.  I’m gonna need to start a lie tracker soon.  

[Archy1221]

6 minutes ago, Born N Bled Red said:

 

Archy,

 

I think you ask a legitimate question on funding. Here is what I can tell you from a parents perspective. Schools are to the point that they have little budgetary spending left over after paying staff salaries. Year after year parents are being asked to spend more and more on supplies, not just for their students, but for classroom use. Students no longer get text books, but rather get printed copies of text books and worksheets as books are expensive. Teachers are severely underpaid and often take on purchasing items for their classrooms, items that should be supplied by the school, simply because they care that much.

 

The truth of the matter is that we cannot even begin to discuss what level of funding is necessary to raise our schools to the quality of education that they need to be at, due to the fact that we aren't even providing enough to support them at the dismal level they are currently at.  So yes, if you want to argue that the funding of schools is a blackhole issue, you very well could, but only because education has be so woefully underfunded and neglected for so long, that bringing it to where it needs to be will require an immense shift in budgetary priorities. To those that are fiscally conservative, that might be an incredibly hard pill to swallow.

I understand and acknowledge all those points.  
 

Teacher pay, I will leave out at this point.  It can turn into a rabbit hole based on how you approach it. 
 

There still is the fundamental question of why some school districts succeed and others fail miserably while per pupil funding is the same or greater in the failing district.  In my mind, That needs to be explored and dove into.  
Add 33% to the budget of some of those districts and many will still fail and be far behind other districts.  

[knapplc]

 

[Ulty]

13 minutes ago, Archy1221 said:

There still is the fundamental question of why some school districts succeed and others fail miserably while per pupil funding is the same or greater in the failing district.  In my mind, That needs to be explored and dove into.  
Add 33% to the budget of some of those districts and many will still fail and be far behind other districts.  

 

Those are important questions to dive into, I agree. I would hypothesize that in high-poverty areas, it is not just school funding that matters, there are so many other factors in the community that also have a huge impact, things that can be supported with proper funding and administration of other programs. With a lot of poor families, the stressors of life can get in the way of prioritizing the school experience. It's like Maslow's heirarchy of needs: a lot of kids have physical and safety needs that are barely being met, and school is not a place for learning so much as it is a place with a roof, reliable adults, and a hot meal. If families did not have to worry as much about healthcare costs, food, had better means to secure housing and transportation, etc, then we might have healthier and happier kids coming to school to actually learn as opposed to coming to school for safe refuge. To tie this back into the thread topic, the programs that aim to help families in need (healthcare, SNAP, WIC, and other social programs) are primarily supported by Democrats, and maligned by Republicans.

 

I am also a huge supporter of paying teachers more. It is a critical position in our society that we don't seem to value very much. The position needs more respect, and needs to attract more talent. We also need school boards and Depts of Education at the local, state, and federal level to be composed of people who actually have some expertise in their field. Betsy DeVos was a disaster as Sec of Ed.

[Born N Bled Red]

33 minutes ago, Archy1221 said:

I understand and acknowledge all those points.  
 

Teacher pay, I will leave out at this point.  It can turn into a rabbit hole based on how you approach it. 
 

There still is the fundamental question of why some school districts succeed and others fail miserably while per pupil funding is the same or greater in the failing district.  In my mind, That needs to be explored and dove into.  
Add 33% to the budget of some of those districts and many will still fail and be far behind other districts.  

 

Well now, that begs the question as to what you define as success. 

[Enhance]

1 hour ago, Archy1221 said:

I understand and acknowledge all those points.  
 

Teacher pay, I will leave out at this point.  It can turn into a rabbit hole based on how you approach it. 
 

There still is the fundamental question of why some school districts succeed and others fail miserably while per pupil funding is the same or greater in the failing district.  In my mind, That needs to be explored and dove into.  
Add 33% to the budget of some of those districts and many will still fail and be far behind other districts.  

IMO, there's nothing overtly mysterious about it.

 

Using Omaha as an example, there's a reason District 66, Millard and Ekhorn are considered better districts and having higher performing students compared to OPS. OPS has the largest percentage of minority students, as well as the largest percentage of students from low-income families and poverty-ridden neighborhoods. They, like other metropolitan 'public' districts, have mountains of socio-economic challenges they have to address that other districts don't have to worry about to near the same degree.

 

I agree that throwing money at the problem isn't necessarily the fix; however, there's no great mystery unravel to help explain why these things are the way they are.

[RedDenver]

3 hours ago, Enhance said:

IMO, there's nothing overtly mysterious about it.

 

Using Omaha as an example, there's a reason District 66, Millard and Ekhorn are considered better districts and having higher performing students compared to OPS. OPS has the largest percentage of minority students, as well as the largest percentage of students from low-income families and poverty-ridden neighborhoods. They, like other metropolitan 'public' districts, have mountains of socio-economic challenges they have to address that other districts don't have to worry about to near the same degree.

 

I agree that throwing money at the problem isn't necessarily the fix; however, there's no great mystery unravel to help explain why these things are the way they are.

Can we please move the education discussion to another thread?

[Archy1221]

4 hours ago, Ulty said:

To tie this back into the thread topic, the programs that aim to help families in need (healthcare, SNAP, WIC, and other social programs) are primarily supported by Democrats, and maligned by Republicans.

These are programs, that are great safety nets, only allow people to “get by” in life and not change the trajectory of their financial situation and well being.   These aren’t maligned by most Republicans as good safety nets.  They are maligned when used as a way to keep people dependent and in poverty.   
 

Poverty is a key issue to address when looking at education.  The mindset of education in a poverty stricken community needs to change. We need to develop programs that show education as a way out of poverty and throw money there. 

[knapplc]

10 minutes ago, Archy1221 said:

These are programs, that are great safety nets, only allow people to “get by” in life and not change the trajectory of their financial situation and well being.   These aren’t maligned by most Republicans as good safety nets.  They are maligned when used as a way to keep people dependent and in poverty.   
 

Poverty is a key issue to address when looking at education.  The mindset of education in a poverty stricken community needs to change. We need to develop programs that show education as a way out of poverty and throw money there. 

 

 

If this were true Republicans would be providing better resources for these people. Kind of a "repeal and replace" process where they fix bad legislation. 

 

Like they've told us they're going to do with Obamacare for ten years. 

 

I can't wait to see their plans!

[Archy1221]

9 minutes ago, knapplc said:

 

 

If this were true Republicans would be providing better resources for these people. Kind of a "repeal and replace" process where they fix bad legislation. 

 

Like they've told us they're going to do with Obamacare for ten years. 

 

I can't wait to see their plans!

Like opportunity zones