In response to gymgirl's post on page 14 saying the problem in education is not budget cuts and that class sizes are small, etc. (CB is being strange with posts)
If I'm not mistaken you said there is nothing wrong with the
education in low socio-economic schools. Not the teaching. But thank you for clarifying.
There is a problem with the teaching. Low income schools have much higher teacher turnover, usually have younger teachers (who get paid far less) and have less access to educational materials. You claim that there are no problems with textbooks and other materials in poor urban school districts. I know for a fact from teaching in Aurora Public Schools and having friends and colleagues in low-income school districts across my state, this isn't true. I've seen the 80s era textbooks students use with my own eyes. I've seen students have to pay for copies of worksheets, and those who can't, copy by hand. It exists.
You also claim they get the most money. This isn't the case, at least in Colorado. Colorado school districts get very little state funding and mostly get their funding from schools levies in bonds from their district areas. For example, the mountain resort district I teach in now has very high property taxes form tourism, second homes, etc. This gets fed into a school district with a much smaller population of students. Denver Public Schools have far more students and lower property values (but yes, there still in money from wealthy areas in Denver). Aurora Public Schools, directly adjacent to the east of Denver and Adams 5 Star, directly north of Denver in an area with heavy oil commerce, are both very impoverished, high density areas. Their funding per student is extremely low. The federal funding to these school districts is minimal.
Link Removed The average teaching salaries in our state. The starting is much lower. In APS and DPS entry level teachers get paid around $20,000 (sometimes less) while those in suburban areas adjacent that are more wealthy, get paid starting around $35,000. The cost of living is the same.
And to continue, I was in classes with 40+ kids. My son was too in both DC public schools and APS. The school district where I am now has about 30 kids on average at the high school level, 25 at middle and 20 in elementary. I'm a special ed coordinator now and even in my wealthier district, very few integrated students have aids in the classroom. We don't have the budget. I was the sole interpreter in APS before, and it was the district magnet school for Deaf children. Sometimes students went without a terp for certain classes.
And also you pointed out an academic study about Head Start isn't non-partisan. If it were done by Head Start I would agree. But it was done by the University of Chicago, a private, well respected university. If this sort of research isn't valid, very little research is, considering high level universities produce most major research and studies.
OK - so let's get back on topic with actual election topics....
What do you all think are the top three critical issues that need to be addressed in the election and with the new presidential term? Just lists, no debates - just want everyone's opinion and maybe some of the shy lurkers will come out and participate.
1. tax reform (I'm leaning toward the fair / flat / national sales tax )
2. health care, including medicare (less regulation and more competition/choice across state lines)
3. balance the budget and create a plan to pay down the debt (this is actually my #1 priority)
1) I support a national sales tax. Canada has a GST as does Australia and it works fine. It goes back to the people in a variety of social programs. I don't agree with a flat tax, as it affects the middle class proportionately. 10% may be more from someone making $250,000 a year (which whatever people say, is the upper end of the spectrum) but affects their quality of life less than a family making $40,000 a year.
2) I support the private and public option. Obamacare in my opinion, is a great start, not perfect, but a start. No one should be denied coverage for pre-existing conditions and everyone should have access to affordable health care. If that means expanding Medicare and Medicaid, so be it.
I know that news articles aren't the best stories, but this does paint a great picture of the major problem with states having control.
http://www.denverpost.com/nationworld/ci_21313761/anti-medicaid-states-earning-11-000-is-too
3) With a GST, more organized social programs (going back to the health care issue, in essence having more people covered for preventative care and doctors visits would lower the government costs shouldered by people accessing emergency care when health problems become so severe. Preventative care is far cheaper).
I'm not a big fan of the states deciding a lot of things, to limit education spending, health care (as seen in the , taxes, jobs, etc. I know the idea of federal regulation on these issues isn't ideal, but the way certain state governments are going about it isn't right.
Alabama didn't legalize interracial marriage until 2000. So much for states deciding everything. Schools weren't desegregated (including Colorado! which had de facto not like the South but still) until the federal government stepped in. Yes cost of living and other standards should be taken into effect (less money for food stamps will buy you more in Mississippi than Massachusetts for example).
I'm leaning towards the idea states should be required federally to raise more money for public works, such as transportation and education. The federal government pays more per capita to states like Montana and Alaska with very few taxes. And those areas aren't hubs for major businesses, the argument many use to support areas with low taxes to grow the economy. That would relieve the burden of the federal government and allow it to focus financially on the debt and other national financial issues. Also stop with the bailouts of dying industries and instead put money into growing industries that will be sustainable into the future (energy, not auto work, that will provide long term, growing jobs for Americans).
I know some of that might seem a bit extreme, but I'm being idealistic here