A tragic day

[Symmetry]

Fascinating- Devos, of course, had no knowledge at all about what was and wasn't under federal power. No experience, obviously, but no understanding either.

The question, of course, was a loaded one.

As an unloaded one- do you think she's the right person for the job?

Perhaps Devos didn't understand but certainly the Blue senators also did not understand (nor does the general public). Nevertheless, I think Devos does understand. She clearly thinks the Department of Education should be neutered or eliminated. So, for someone like me, she is a great choice. She wants education to be run at the state and local level, not by the federal government.

As to your unloaded question... I don't really care if she's the right person for the job. The question is irrelevant. Her qualifications are irrelevant. She seems qualified to dole out money and be the administrative leader and face of the department and make high level decisions.

Another fun Devos one - Devos's tweeted something like "First day on the job. Where are the pencils?" And one individual threw some shade tweeting something like "You have to buy your own pencils, like teachers have to do." So before someone comes in here and says "teachers don't have to buy their own supplies," they do have to buy things; they spend on average $500 per year on supplies. In any event, of course people starting saying "awesome" and "that's telling her."

She's been on the job one day. Teachers having to buy their own supplies has occurred for years including under the last administration. Did anyone tweet anything at the last Education Secretary? Of course not because that person wasn't on Team Red.

So when patches says:

Do you really believe the Democrats don't do the same thing?
Silly goose. Your indignation is so quaint.

That's the problem. Team Blue is indignant and hypocritical in their indignation which doesn't help them or anyone else. It's really stupid honestly. You are smarter than that - if you want to bash rent-seeking or corruption or lack of qualifications, understand that this is rampant in both parties.

So, if I'm understanding you correctly, you think she's right for the position because she wants the position to be eliminated? Indeed, that the entire department should be dismantled?

That's a pretty radical point of view. She didn't even appear to know what it was the department she's now leading actually does, but you feel that she's the right choice to dismantle it?

I'm not sure that the general public don't understand though. She seems to have been a remarkably controversial appointee.

(1) Yes
(2) Yes
(3) Not radical. It's both constitutional and the position of a majority of Americans in 1979/1980.
(4) She did and does know what her department does and I do feel she's the right choice to at least take most of the power away for the next X years (where X is the amount of time Donald Trump is actually president which could be as little as 0.5 and as many as 12 if saxitoxin is accurate in his prediction).
(5) The general public does not understand... as I've demonstrated throughout this thread. In fact, the amount of understanding the general public doesn't have is evidence of the failing public school system. She was controversial because she is not a blind faith follower of public schools and, most importantly, public school teacher unions and because she was an appointee of a controversial president - Team Blue mobilized the followers and the Twitterverse (reaching a grand total of about 20% of Americans) to slander her as much as it could. It almost worked.

Oh come on. Bible belt states deserve to pass out textbooks full of lies.

Why do you care? Yes... that's a serious question.

Why do I care? Or why does Hotfire care?

She clearly showed that she doesn't know what her department does during questioning. Controversial Trump nominees have gotten through easily. It's lazy to say that she was simply controversial because of Trump.

[thegreekdog]

Why do I care? Or why does Hotfire care?

She clearly showed that she doesn't know what her department does during questioning. Controversial Trump nominees have gotten through easily. It's lazy to say that she was simply controversial because of Trump.

Why does hotfire care whether kids in Arkansas are learning about evolution?

I'm not saying she was simply controversial merely because of Trump. I put a few different things in there, thank you very much.

[riskllama]

hi, TGD
llama here, long time lurker/first time responder regarding your more "serious" posts. kinda surprised to hear you are in favour of scrapping a national "mandatory" curriculum in favour of state control. I have trouble seeing any positives in letting state schools teach their kids whatever they deem relevant. to use your example of Arkansas and creationism, you can't foresee any long term problems with this? I mean sure, you'll get a lot of army enlistment for the next "holy war" but what about all the people who will end up believing, " oh, climate change - well, that's just a part of god's plan for us. it'll all work out just fine." to cite just one example of potential problems I can see w/your theory. not trying to be a dick or troll you, am just genuinely interested/concerned about why you think this is a sound idea.

[Woodruff]

Oh come on. Bible belt states deserve to pass out textbooks full of lies.

Why do you care? Yes... that's a serious question.

You're suggesting that when Texan students are taught absolute misinformation that their lack of education doesn't significantly impact the rest of the nation. I would say that's being extremely blindered in your assessment. That's why there needs to be SOME oversight of national standards (how much that oversight needs to be is a legitimate argument).

[riskllama]

yes!

[thegreekdog]

hi, TGD
llama here, long time lurker/first time responder regarding your more "serious" posts. kinda surprised to hear you are in favour of scrapping a national "mandatory" curriculum in favour of state control. I have trouble seeing any positives in letting state schools teach their kids whatever they deem relevant. to use your example of Arkansas and creationism, you can't foresee any long term problems with this? I mean sure, you'll get a lot of army enlistment for the next "holy war" but what about all the people who will end up believing, " oh, climate change - well, that's just a part of god's plan for us. it'll all work out just fine." to cite just one example of potential problems I can see w/your theory. not trying to be a dick or troll you, am just genuinely interested/concerned about why you think this is a sound idea.

First, I'm very much pro public education and pro mandatory curricula (despite being a libertarian). I think it's in everyone's best interests to have adequately educated people and therefore paying taxes to support that interest is perfectly reasonable to me. Second, I invite conversation; you're not being dickish or trollish and even if you were, I wouldn't care. With that out of the way...

(1) The Department of Education is largely irrelevant and seems a great example of why we waste lots of money in the federal government. I would refer back to some of my previous posts but basically the United States spends a lot of money per student with very little tangible results. It appears, at least to me, that spending more money per student is not the answer. I don't know what the answer is but history shows more money is not the answer.

(2) Question for you - how has mandatory curriculum helped to curb creationism, climate change deniability, and religiousity generally? Seems like there is still a lot of that stuff going around. To put it another way, since the 1980s we've had mandatory curricula and those ignorant people still exist (in similar numbers, I might add). If you're trying to solve those problems through a national education curriculum, doesn't seem like a good idea (especially when we're spending lots of money doing it). Further, think of it on a purely selfish perspective. Who is better positioned to succeed in a career? The person who gets a quality education or the person who does not? Why would the person who gets a quality education want the person with whom he or she is competing for a job to have a quality education? It's not that I WANT that person to have a bad education; it's that I don't want to pay money to ensure that they get a quality education (note that I don't actually believe that, just saying).

(3) The problem with national education boards and anything else nationally oriented is that when there is a change in the power structure, those departments are now under new control. This gets beyond the field of education but we can see it playing out right now. How does President Trump have the authority (albeit challenged in court) to ban all immigrants from five countries? How does Secretary Devos have the authority to change every public school in the United States? The more power one party puts into the executive branch, the more likely it is that this power will be used by the other party in ways the first party did not anticipate. As a related aside, for the last eight years, lots of Republicans became very concerned with executive powers; they were very much libertarian in that respect. Now, we libertarians have the Democrats on our side. But any time one of those parties is in power, they suddenly become much less libertarian. It's quite frustrating that people are so short-sighted.

Ultimately, my issue with the Department of Education generally is that it places a whole lot of power in the hands of one person who identifies with one particular point of view that affects lots of different people and that it costs taxpayers a whole lot of money for very little, if any, improvement.

[thegreekdog]

Oh come on. Bible belt states deserve to pass out textbooks full of lies.

Why do you care? Yes... that's a serious question.

You're suggesting that when Texan students are taught absolute misinformation that their lack of education doesn't significantly impact the rest of the nation. I would say that's being extremely blindered in your assessment. That's why there needs to be SOME oversight of national standards (how much that oversight needs to be is a legitimate argument).

See above. I would rather compete against someone with a substandard education than someone with a high level of education.

Also see above - Jimmy in Texas getting accurate information in school is apparently not more likely to believe what you want him to believe. See, e.g., the last election and what's going on right now. I don't know how to put this any plainer... Let's spend $15,000 per student per year with a standard curriculum. How much do you think that has affected education levels in our country? We still suck despite spending a shit ton of money and teaching kids that creationism is not real and global warming is. Maybe what we've been doing doesn't work and we need to save that money for something else.

[hotfire]

Oh come on. Bible belt states deserve to pass out textbooks full of lies.

Why do you care? Yes... that's a serious question.

You're suggesting that when Texan students are taught absolute misinformation that their lack of education doesn't significantly impact the rest of the nation. I would say that's being extremely blindered in your assessment. That's why there needs to be SOME oversight of national standards (how much that oversight needs to be is a legitimate argument).

See above. I would rather compete against someone with a substandard education than someone with a high level of education.

Okay. Now lets imagine you are forced to work with several people daily with substandard education (your bosses orders), but are not in any competition for potential promotions (different departments or companies). Do you still make the same argument now with the frustration they will cause for you?

Or you are in a nursing home or hospital fully at the mercy of a substandardly educated workforce?

[TA1LGUNN3R]

Oh come on. Bible belt states deserve to pass out textbooks full of lies.

Why do you care? Yes... that's a serious question.

You're suggesting that when Texan students are taught absolute misinformation that their lack of education doesn't significantly impact the rest of the nation. I would say that's being extremely blindered in your assessment. That's why there needs to be SOME oversight of national standards (how much that oversight needs to be is a legitimate argument).

See above. I would rather compete against someone with a substandard education than someone with a high level of education.

Okay. Now lets imagine you are forced to work with several people daily with substandard education (your bosses orders), but are not in any competition for potential promotions (different departments or companies). Do you still make the same argument now with the frustration they will cause for you?

Or you are in a nursing home or hospital fully at the mercy of a substandardly educated workforce?

I believe medical licensing boards are not under the jurisdiction of the department of education. If they're substandardly educated, they won't pass a licensing process. In theory.

Regardless, there are plenty of people who shouldn't be practicing, yet they still got there despite the department of education, which reinforces greekdog's point.

-TG

[hotfire]

Oh come on. Bible belt states deserve to pass out textbooks full of lies.

Why do you care? Yes... that's a serious question.

You're suggesting that when Texan students are taught absolute misinformation that their lack of education doesn't significantly impact the rest of the nation. I would say that's being extremely blindered in your assessment. That's why there needs to be SOME oversight of national standards (how much that oversight needs to be is a legitimate argument).

See above. I would rather compete against someone with a substandard education than someone with a high level of education.

Okay. Now lets imagine you are forced to work with several people daily with substandard education (your bosses orders), but are not in any competition for potential promotions (different departments or companies). Do you still make the same argument now with the frustration they will cause for you?

Or you are in a nursing home or hospital fully at the mercy of a substandardly educated workforce?

I believe medical licensing boards are not under the jurisdiction of the department of education. If they're substandardly educated, they won't pass a licensing process. In theory.

Regardless, there are plenty of people who shouldn't be practicing, yet they still got there despite the department of education, which reinforces greekdog's point.

-TG

The only point I argued was a reach to be included as a sub-point of his second point. It really had nothing to do with it and shouldn't be argued at all. His selfish interests may have been different in the past (when he was being educated) and may differ in the future (when he relies more on the education of others) from the current selfish interest he has (competition). Does this mean when his selfish interests change throughout his life he should reassess his stance with the education department; probably not. It is not a valid point to his argument which is why it should not be included in it and I argued against it.

[hotfire]

Especially since it goes completely against I am pro education line he gave earlier to be pro substandard education in this instance. Unless that is what he originally meant?

[thegreekdog]

Especially since it goes completely against I am pro education line he gave earlier to be pro substandard education in this instance. Unless that is what he originally meant?

I think picking specific issues (e.g. creationism) and saying "we need people to be more educated" is absurd. There are plenty of well-educated and intelligence people who are creationists.

In terms of your weird nursing home question, my particular company has done a good job hiring people who are qualified to do a certain job, regardless of whether those people are creationists or global warming deniers.