Sounds creepy.
"Come here, little boy. Let's go be libertarian together in my van."
But seriously, no thanks Gary Johnson, I like my radicalism fiscally left, not fiscally right.
Also, get rid of the embedded stuff to make it work.
interesting, and here i thought ol' jonny was out of the running
I've said it before, and I'll say it again. This guy has a shit strategy for education, something I view as one of, if not [B]the[/B] most crucial aspect of a democratic society.
Taken from [URL="http://www.garyjohnson2012.com"]GaryJohnson2012.com[/URL]
[B]#1)[/B] [U]Give Education Back to Parents and Teachers[/U]
[QUOTE]All parents should have an opportunity to choose which school their children attend.[/QUOTE]
Alright, I can agree with that. If I was a parent, I'd like to have a say in which school my kid goes to. I thought this was already the case though since you could always send your kid to a private school. If he means choosing which public school to go to, wouldn't that be bad for bus routes if the school is too far away?
[QUOTE]Putting educational funds in the hands of the people who use them gives parents and students a vote as to which schools are best and which need to improve.[/QUOTE]
Not quite sure what this means. Wouldn't the people who would use the funds be principals, school boards, etc? I'm wondering how this relates to your point on that this is how parents and students decide which schools need to improve if they are not in those boards? I would imagine students in both successful and unsuccessful schools would feel a need for improvement and parents aren't in the classrooms seeing what resources the schools may be short on. Other than making suggestions, how would parents and students influence the spending of school funds if there is only the good judgement of school boards and, to a lesser extent, principals and teachers to rely upon? Furthermore, what is there to prevent/protect against bad spending decisions?
[QUOTE]Our children deserve the chance to succeed educationally, but the same old way of thinking won't cut it. It's time to free individuals and states from burdensome federal mandates and regulations so they can pursue the right educational strategies for their students.[/QUOTE]
Would you mind telling us what these regulations are? Do you mean No Child Left Behind? The chief criticism for that is there is not enough federal funding rather than there is too much federal interference. Also, recently, states have been recieving waivers from NCLB requirements. They are the following: Colorado, Florida, Georgia, Indiana, Kentucky, Massachusetts, Minnesota, New Jersey, Oklahoma, Tennessee, New Mexico, Connecticut, Delaware, Louisiana, Maryland, New York, North Carolina, Ohio and Rhode Island.
It would be best to take note of how these states fare academically in the future and compare them to the states still under the requirements.
[B]#2)[/B] [U]End the Department of Education[/U]
[QUOTE]The Department of Education grants each state 11 cents out of every dollar it spends on education. Unfortunately, every dollar of this money comes with 16 cents of strings attached. States that accept federal funding lose five cents for every dollar spent on education to pay for federal mandates and regulations, taking millions of dollars out of the classroom.[/QUOTE]
Rather than abolishing the Dept. of Education altogether, wouldn't it be much more prudent and beneficial to merely target these "strings attached" and reform them? With only 6 cents (meaning 37.5%) of the "strings attached" (what these exact strings are is never specified) cut, the states then receive 1 cent for every dollar, making 1/5th of the millions he claims are lost, gained.
[QUOTE]Schools should have the authority to decide how best to spend educational dollars. Without federal regulations and mandates, schools could choose to purchase new computers, better lab equipment, and maintain after-school sports and music programs even during times of tight budgets.[/QUOTE]
IDENTIFY these regulations and mandates, PROVE that they do what you say, and then move to REPEAL them. You do not need to abolish the entire Department of Education to do this.
[QUOTE]Once citizens and their local representatives have the freedom to decide how their educational funds will be spent, they can consider innovations that will drive student choice, educational competition, and better results.[/QUOTE]
Define student choice. What is there for students to choose besides their classes and their lunch and how can choice be driven? Educational competition. Can it increase performance? Yes. Does the Department of Education prevent or stifle it? Well, [URL="http://educationnext.org/does-competition-improve-public-schools/"]Florida seems to be doing just fine.[/URL] So this is still no reason to abolish the Dept. of Education.
My turn.
This man makes NO mention of college whatsoever. This is disturbing as college is one of the most important and crucial times in our educational life. It is also the most costly. With tuition fees rising every season, the government should be trying to make college more affordable. Yet he doesn't say anything about it. Nothing. No proposed solutions, just "Get rid of the Department of Education and everything will be better!" which I find ironic because they are one of the biggest distributors of scholarships so arguably getting rid of the Department would make things [B]worse.[/B]
[editline]7th June 2012[/editline]
In fact I think I might send an edited version of this post to the man to see how he responds.
He's really pandering to the anti-war Democrats and fiscal crazies with this one, a shit tactic that might actually draw in some liberals.
Just sent my (edited) commentary to him through the Contact Us feature on his website.
Here's hoping he actually reads and responds.
Sorry, you need to Log In to post a reply to this thread.
