this post was submitted on 19 Mar 2025
296 points (98.4% liked)

politics

22046 readers
4392 users here now

Welcome to the discussion of US Politics!

Rules:

  1. Post only links to articles, Title must fairly describe link contents. If your title differs from the site’s, it should only be to add context or be more descriptive. Do not post entire articles in the body or in the comments.

Links must be to the original source, not an aggregator like Google Amp, MSN, or Yahoo.

Example:

  1. Articles must be relevant to politics. Links must be to quality and original content. Articles should be worth reading. Clickbait, stub articles, and rehosted or stolen content are not allowed. Check your source for Reliability and Bias here.
  2. Be civil, No violations of TOS. It’s OK to say the subject of an article is behaving like a (pejorative, pejorative). It’s NOT OK to say another USER is (pejorative). Strong language is fine, just not directed at other members. Engage in good-faith and with respect! This includes accusing another user of being a bot or paid actor. Trolling is uncivil and is grounds for removal and/or a community ban.
  3. No memes, trolling, or low-effort comments. Reposts, misinformation, off-topic, trolling, or offensive. Similarly, if you see posts along these lines, do not engage. Report them, block them, and live a happier life than they do. We see too many slapfights that boil down to "Mom! He's bugging me!" and "I'm not touching you!" Going forward, slapfights will result in removed comments and temp bans to cool off.
  4. Vote based on comment quality, not agreement. This community aims to foster discussion; please reward people for putting effort into articulating their viewpoint, even if you disagree with it.
  5. No hate speech, slurs, celebrating death, advocating violence, or abusive language. This will result in a ban. Usernames containing racist, or inappropriate slurs will be banned without warning

We ask that the users report any comment or post that violate the rules, to use critical thinking when reading, posting or commenting. Users that post off-topic spam, advocate violence, have multiple comments or posts removed, weaponize reports or violate the code of conduct will be banned.

All posts and comments will be reviewed on a case-by-case basis. This means that some content that violates the rules may be allowed, while other content that does not violate the rules may be removed. The moderators retain the right to remove any content and ban users.

That's all the rules!

Civic Links

Register To Vote

Citizenship Resource Center

Congressional Awards Program

Federal Government Agencies

Library of Congress Legislative Resources

The White House

U.S. House of Representatives

U.S. Senate

Partnered Communities:

News

World News

Business News

Political Discussion

Ask Politics

Military News

Global Politics

Moderate Politics

Progressive Politics

UK Politics

Canadian Politics

Australian Politics

New Zealand Politics

founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] PeripheralGhost@lemmy.world 17 points 1 day ago (2 children)

So increase DoE funding and decouple schools from property tax funding?

[–] ZILtoid1991@lemmy.world 8 points 21 hours ago* (last edited 20 hours ago) (1 children)

But then how would

  • the private sector profit from education,
  • and the churches ~~indoctrinate the young and massively inflate their numbers~~ do their very important charity of education?
[–] taiyang@lemmy.world 7 points 1 day ago (1 children)

Two useful things, but there's no political incentive unfortunately. Education is usually the first thing to defund since you won't deal with ramifications until long after your term ends. Only senetors and judicial last long enough and neither are responsible for budget... you just rarely get anyone trying.

States do even things out on their end, but same issue with terms. California for instance has a budget deficit and are cutting education budgets (albeit mostly with higher ed, iirc). That means more reliance on local funds, which ironically fuck rural voters most, aka Republican districts (funny enough, this distribution of funds to rural schools is a big reason DoE survived Reagan with GOP support).

[–] PeripheralGhost@lemmy.world 2 points 1 day ago (3 children)

Could school vouchers and tax credits work?

[–] qantravon@lemmy.world 11 points 23 hours ago (1 children)

School vouchers are actually terrible. They take funding from already struggling schools and give it to private institutions which already don't have to follow many of the policies outlined above (they can discriminate in a lot of ways that public schools can't). They also mostly end up being a subsidy for the wealthy.

[–] PeripheralGhost@lemmy.world 4 points 23 hours ago* (last edited 19 hours ago)

I assumed. That's just the argument I always hear. If the IRS gets gutted it seems like the revenue wouldn't be there to fund them anyway.

[–] orcrist@lemm.ee 4 points 23 hours ago (2 children)

You should be extra cautious around any suggestion of voucher programs. We've heard them proposed for schools and we've heard them proposed for healthcare expenses. One fundamental problem with vouchers is that they are set to a fixed amount of money, but what happens if quality service requires more than that? Well, people just don't get quality service, right?... And that's the intentional gimmick. That's the goal. In the past the government might provide a service using tax dollars, then it switches to vouchers, but then when the vouchers don't provide enough cash now the service itself gets cut. And somehow it's supposed to be inevitable.

I was reading a study about education reform over the last 20 years and essentially the push for rewarding teachers based on student performance and voucher systems and the idea to make schools compete highly against each other, that's all totally failed to improve the quality of education in multiple countries. If you remember when Bush was pushing NCLB, one of the ideas was the notion that we should make teachers and schools compete just like businesses. But that actually doesn't make sense on a national policy level intuitively, because you don't want one school to be better than another, you want all schools to be better. (Or rather, I want all schools to be better, but some people have really f***** up values.) And then now there's solid data from large international groups that show our intuitions were accurate.

[–] taiyang@lemmy.world 2 points 21 hours ago

NCLB at face value isn't bad, and I wouldn't characterize it as a competition, but it had a few fundamental flaws. The biggest was punishing underperforming schools, which is just... really stupid, like how exactly is that going to make the schools better? The second was teach to the test, since we quantified (poorly) what education is. That enforced rote memory over critical thinking and reasoning skills.

My more personal gripe is statistical, though. Using cutoff scores without actually accounting for covariates (like previous scores) has also gotta be the worst possible way to track success. If a student is reading at a 4th grade level while in 10th grade, a school is punished if they read at an 8th grade level in 11th grade (a four year improvement!). Like, Jesus Christ, I'm so glad Obama admin at least fixed most glaring problems in 2015, cause yikes.

[–] PeripheralGhost@lemmy.world 1 points 21 hours ago

I'm with you. Education, in my opinion, is one of those things that's too important to leave up to private. I don't get the plan here, so really just trying to understand.

[–] taiyang@lemmy.world 3 points 22 hours ago (1 children)

Others already cut to the chase, but yeah. The long short of it is that's just another move to siphon funds to the wealthy at the cost of the needy. I won't say it could never work, but it would likely be less efficient if you managed the same coverage as public school.

You could draw analogies to healthcare. When healthcare is privatized, not only does everyone pay more, it also leaves a ton of people without coverage. Same for education, as every child has to be covered. The voucher system works similar to subsidized healthcare (e.g. Medicare) which kinda works but why convert a perfectly acceptable universal option with a more expensive, more complicated, and more unequal system? You just inflate costs and certain people make money while everyone else suffers... without even improving quality, no less.

That all said, I'm generally open minded. It's frustrating knowing how much better private schools are vs public.... when I attended UCLA, I was frequently surrounded by private school alumns because they had connections. They had counselors, AP courses, tutors, and here I was, a first generation who only got in because of community college. It's very unfair as it is, and I fully understand the wishful thinking some (few) might have in a voucher system. But the research just isn't behind it.

[–] PeripheralGhost@lemmy.world 3 points 21 hours ago* (last edited 21 hours ago) (1 children)

Yeah, I agree. Just trying to explore all viewpoints because I truly don’t get how people think defunding the DoE will fix things. The system has clear issues, but breaking it up and making it more expensive doesn’t seem like the answer either.

[–] taiyang@lemmy.world 2 points 16 hours ago

It's probably mostly propaganda that gets most people, same with USAID. People have a poor grasp of what they do and higher ups know but they likely have an interest in it, like ties to the industry or are anti-science/pro-religion or simply hate a group they want to discriminate against. DoE protects and improves the social mobility of black and brown folk and that was good enough reason in the 80s for GOP to target it, after all.