Trump will eliminate the department of education. Schools telling history that America was built by slaves on stolen land won't receive money

Dr. Acula

Hail Hydra
Supporter
Joined
Jul 26, 2012
Messages
25,969
Reputation
8,770
Daps
137,895
Breh I appreciate this post and your perspective

but the American education system is worthy of a class action lawsuit, not reform.

Look at your local municipal budget, see how much goes to education? It's likely your top-funded thing so the funding is there already so there's no reason this can be handled locally and parents need more choices, not less
I'll just say, if you have time watch that video. It describes the results of what you are advocating for in detail. The propaganda doesn't match the reality. They show a real current example. Breh, watch it.

We can both agree Education is not up to standard but disagree with the fix. I'll just say, why is it that every other country can do this through the government and more and get a better quality product? Obviously public funded schools work if managed well. It's in countries where this isn't being done that education is worse more times than not. Think about all the countries where the poor can't send kids to school because they have to pay for it and it's not provided by the government through an effective tax system to provide universal education system. The countries at the top on the other hand fund their system thoroughly.

We go down this road, you're more likely end up with a system where the poorest will be priced out of even having the option to send their kids to school. Private industries only care about money and their goal is different than the government. The government is meant to provide a public service. Not worry about shareholders and profit.
 

Adeptus Astartes

Loyal servant of the God-Brehmperor
Supporter
Joined
Sep 15, 2019
Messages
11,302
Reputation
2,778
Daps
69,019
Reppin
Imperium of Man

bnew

Veteran
Joined
Nov 1, 2015
Messages
58,849
Reputation
8,682
Daps
163,075
"OK. Where did the idea come from? Well, when he was running for president in 1976, Jimmy Carter promised the National Education Association that he’d create a federal Department of Education if elected (at the time, federal education programs already existed, but were housed at the then-Department of Health, Education, and Welfare). Carter got Congress to create the new Department of Education in 1979. Running for president in 1980, Ronald Reagan pledged to dissolve it, and the Republican platform adopted that promise. So, Republican calls to end the department have been around about as long as it’s existed. In fact, Trump talked about dissolving it when he was in the White House with a Republican Congress. Yet, you’ll note that the department is still here."

He is promising the same thing Republicans have promised since Reagan ran for office in 1980. So this time around is just an iteration of what they have been saying to their supporters every election cycle.

trump appointed betsy devos whose family makes money with private schools to head of Department of education and she prompted school vouchers which is stage one of their plan to ultimately destroy and get rid of the department of education.




 

Uachet

Superstar
Supporter
Joined
May 25, 2022
Messages
5,458
Reputation
4,297
Daps
31,961
Reppin
Black Self-Sufficiency
trump appointed betsy devos whose family makes money with private schools to head of Department of education and she prompted school vouchers which is stage one of their plan to ultimately destroy and get rid of the department of education.





Yet, they did not remove it. He could have immediately removed it when he had a majority in both houses. They have had plenty of chances to do it, but have not done it. It is a wedge issue, just like Roe V Wade is for Democrats. So making Devos the Secretary of Education was an unnecessary step, since her actions can be over-ridden by the very next Education Secretary that replaces her.
 
Joined
Sep 15, 2015
Messages
22,627
Reputation
8,352
Daps
95,776
Reppin
Chase U
We should be teaching Black kids in private schools instead.
A lot of Black families can't afford expensive private school tuition.

But black democrats conflate that either classism. Remember the school voucher diacussion
What are you talking about? The problem with school vouchers is that they further discriminatory education practices stemming from lax regulation, oversight and accountability. They also shouldn't be paid for using public money.


How bad are school vouchers for students? Far worse than most people imagine. Indeed, according to the analysis conducted by the authors of this report, the use of school vouchers—which provide families with public dollars to spend on private schools—is equivalent to missing out on more than one-third of a year of classroom learning. In other words, this analysis found that the overall effect of the D.C. voucher program on students is the same as missing 68 days of school.

This analysis builds on a large body of voucher program evaluations in Louisiana, Indiana, Ohio, and Washington, D.C., all of which show that students attending participating private schools perform significantly worse than their peers in public schools—especially in math.1 A recent, rigorous evaluation of the D.C. Opportunity Scholarship Program from the U.S. Department of Education reaffirms these findings, reporting that D.C. students attending voucher schools performed significantly worse than they would have in their original public school.2

The analysis is timely given President Donald Trump and Education Secretary Betsy DeVos’ main education priority: to privatize education by creating and expanding voucher programs nationwide. In the Trump budget released in February, the president has suggested doubling investment in vouchers.3* But while President Trump and Secretary DeVos often assert that research backs their proposals, the evidence is lacking.

In order to add necessary context to the recent voucher research—and the debate over the budget—the authors compare the negative outcomes of one of these voucher programs—the D.C. Opportunity Scholarship Program—to other factors that negatively affect student achievement. That analysis also finds that the effect of vouchers on student achievement is larger than the following in-school factors: exposure to violent crime at school, feeling unsafe in school, high teacher turnover, and teacher absenteeism.

To be clear, the far-reaching negative effects of factors such as feeling unsafe in school cannot be overstated. For example, there is a large body of work that discusses the negative impact of exposure to violent crime on children’s well-being, including academic performance.5 Certainly, many of these factors are serious and are known to have a negative impact on multiple areas of child development. However, the comparisons made in this report focus only on how each in-school factor—violence at school, feeling unsafe, teacher turnover, and teacher absenteeism—affects school achievement.

Further, using the Center for Research on Education Outcomes (CREDO) formula, the authors of this report also found that the overall effect of the D.C. voucher program on students is the equivalent of 68 fewer days of schooling than they otherwise would have received had they remained in their traditional public school. In other words, the students who participated in the D.C. voucher program lost more than one-third of a year of learning.6 To be clear, translating this effect into days of learning is an approximation intended to help assess relative impact. In this case, 68 days lost is clearly substantial lost ground for students participating in the D.C. voucher program.


When students participate in a voucher program, the rights that they have in public school do not automatically transfer with them to their private school. Private schools may expel or deny admission to certain students without repercussion and with limited recourse for the aggrieved student. In light of Secretary DeVos’ push to create a federal voucher program, it is crucial that parents and policymakers alike understand the ways that private schools can discriminate against students, even while accepting public funding. Parents want the best education possible for their children, and voucher programs may seem like a path to a better education for children whose families have limited options. However, parents deserve clear and complete information about the risks of using voucher programs, including the loss of procedural safeguards available to students in public schools.
 

Adeptus Astartes

Loyal servant of the God-Brehmperor
Supporter
Joined
Sep 15, 2019
Messages
11,302
Reputation
2,778
Daps
69,019
Reppin
Imperium of Man
Yet, they did not remove it. He could have immediately removed it when he had a majority in both houses. They have had plenty of chances to do it, but have not done it. It is a wedge issue, just like Roe V Wade is for Democrats. So making Devos the Secretary of Education was an unnecessary step, since her actions can be over-ridden by the very next Education Secretary that replaces her.
:mjlol: Anything to downplay the issue. Also, they did get rid of Roe. The fact that they didn't succeed in the past is not evidence they will not succeed in the future.
 

Dr. Acula

Hail Hydra
Supporter
Joined
Jul 26, 2012
Messages
25,969
Reputation
8,770
Daps
137,895
Yet, they did not remove it. He could have immediately removed it when he had a majority in both houses. They have had plenty of chances to do it, but have not done it. It is a wedge issue, just like Roe V Wade is for Democrats. So making Devos the Secretary of Education was an unnecessary step, since her actions can be over-ridden by the very next Education Secretary that replaces her.
This is always a bizarre argument, ignoring the truthfulness of it.

"he said he will do it but won't do it"

Why even elect a person who threatens to do it? It's like playing Russian roulette. Let's just assume the best case that it's lies and hot air, why gamble with that chance if you don't have to? How is this a defense? Not picking on your specifically because it's not the first time I've seen this logic but it honestly doesn't make sense under scrutiny

If someone threatens to be a dictator for example, I rather just not vote for them and wait until the next election comes along where people dont even entertain the idea in case they are not bluffing.
 

MostReal

Bandage Hand Steph
Joined
May 18, 2012
Messages
25,337
Reputation
3,362
Daps
57,257
I really really need Harris to win this thing.
My gosh is this guy dangerous 😳
Do y'all know how many black people would lose jobs because of this idiot?
I'm pissed all over again
 
Last edited:

Uachet

Superstar
Supporter
Joined
May 25, 2022
Messages
5,458
Reputation
4,297
Daps
31,961
Reppin
Black Self-Sufficiency
This is always a bizarre argument, ignoring the truthfulness of it.

"he said he will do it but won't do it"

Why even elect a person who threatens to do it? It's like playing Russian roulette. Let's just assume the best case that it's lies and hot air, why gamble with that chance if you don't have to? How is this a defense? Not picking on your specifically because it's not the first time I've seen this logic but it honestly doesn't make sense under scrutiny

If someone threatens to be a dictator for example, I rather just not vote for them and wait until the next election comes along where people dont even entertain the idea in case they are not bluffing.
Ask the people voting for him on that issue. Like I said before, they have promised this since 1980, yet even when they had the power, they never did it. So I am not going to worry about something they always promise, but never do. Just like Obama ran on codifying Roe V Wade, but refused to do once he was in office. Look it up for yourself.
 
Joined
Sep 15, 2015
Messages
22,627
Reputation
8,352
Daps
95,776
Reppin
Chase U
Yet, they did not remove it. He could have immediately removed it when he had a majority in both houses. They have had plenty of chances to do it, but have not done it. It is a wedge issue, just like Roe V Wade is for Democrats. So making Devos the Secretary of Education was an unnecessary step, since her actions can be over-ridden by the very next Education Secretary that replaces her.
Surely you understand how the back-and-forth nature of this situation can be used to erode public trust, making it easier to discard the institution altogether, right? Trump appointed DeVos, who was a disaster for the department, leaving the next administration to waste time cleaning up the mess, which sets things back even further. He did the same with the NLRB, appointing business-friendly individuals who shifted support from workers to corporations in an effort to harm unionization. While the current administration has worked hard cleaned it up, the damage done has eroded public trust. And even if a new Secretary can reverse some policies, the constant shifts create delays and instability, making it harder to achieve long-term progress, which servers to hurt these institutions in the eyes of the public, thus making it easier to attack them or do away with them all together.
 

Uachet

Superstar
Supporter
Joined
May 25, 2022
Messages
5,458
Reputation
4,297
Daps
31,961
Reppin
Black Self-Sufficiency
:mjlol: Anything to downplay the issue. Also, they did get rid of Roe. The fact that they didn't succeed in the past is not evidence they will not succeed in the future.
They could not get rid of Roe V Wade until the Supreme Court overturned it. They have had the power to remove the Department of Education multiple times since 1980. Just like the Democrats had the power to codify Roe V Wade over multiple presidencies.

Trump claimed he would remove it when he was in office last time and did not when he had the power to do it. In each election, since 1980, they pull out that promise for their supporters, and each Republican presidency forgets that promise.
 

Adeptus Astartes

Loyal servant of the God-Brehmperor
Supporter
Joined
Sep 15, 2019
Messages
11,302
Reputation
2,778
Daps
69,019
Reppin
Imperium of Man
They could not get rid of Roe V Wade until the Supreme Court overturned it. They have had the power to remove the Department of Education multiple times since 1980. Just like the Democrats had the power to codify Roe V Wade over multiple presidencies.

Trump claimed he would remove it when he was in office last time and did not when he had the power to do it. In each election, since 1980, they pull out that promise for their supporters, and each Republican presidency forgets that promise.
So what, we should wait for them to pull the trigger instead of putting people into power that are explicitly against ending the DoE?

There are a handful of GOP holdouts that would not vote to dissolve the DoE, and that's why it hasn't gotten done.

Threats are still threats, acted on or not.
 

Uachet

Superstar
Supporter
Joined
May 25, 2022
Messages
5,458
Reputation
4,297
Daps
31,961
Reppin
Black Self-Sufficiency
Surely you understand how the back-and-forth nature of this situation can be used to erode public trust, making it easier to discard the institution altogether, right? Trump appointed DeVos, who was a disaster for the department, leaving the next administration to waste time cleaning up the mess, which sets things back even further. He did the same with the NLRB, appointing business-friendly individuals who shifted support from workers to corporations in an effort to harm unionization. While the current administration has worked hard cleaned it up, the damage done has eroded public trust. And even if a new Secretary can reverse some policies, the constant shifts create delays and instability, making it harder to achieve long-term progress, which servers to hurt these institutions in the eyes of the public, thus making it easier to attack them or do away with them all together.
"Education Department spokesperson Angela Morabito, however, noted that DeVos’ Title IX sexual misconduct rule has withstood legal challenges. The rule codifies sexual harassment “as the sex-based discrimination that it is” and legally requires K-12 schools to respond when any employee has notice of sexual misconduct, she said."


That is her lasting legacy, that will require effort to overturn. The rest was reverted pretty much as soon as she was out of office. She is considered the worst Education secretary, but that does not change the fact that they could have removed the department and placed it back under its original umbrella department plenty of times. They choose not to when the opportunity is there.

I am not going to get all rhilled up by something they have demonstrated in the past they will not do. I prefer to concern myself with issues they have shown a history of actually enacting. Like choosing conservative judges. They have done that every time they have had the chance, and I expect Kamala to do the same since Democrats have done it every chance available (but Obama). I want her to do that, so I am voting for her. I expect nothing else from her, but her constant word-salad talking points.
 
Joined
Sep 15, 2015
Messages
22,627
Reputation
8,352
Daps
95,776
Reppin
Chase U
Ask the people voting for him on that issue. Like I said before, they have promised this since 1980, yet even when they had the power, they never did it. So I am not going to worry about something they always promise, but never do. Just like Obama ran on codifying Roe V Wade, but refused to do once he was in office. Look it up for yourself.
How is this even the same thing? Y'all are way to busy trying to "both sides" everything that you are missing the bigger picture.

The framing that he refused to do it is extremely misleading. At the time, Roe was firmly established precedent, especially after decades of Supreme Court rulings that reaffirmed it. He likely looked at the Court's makeup during his first term and saw it as relatively stable, with Roe considered settled law. This perception likely gave him reason to believe that abortion rights were not in immediate danger. Given that perception, codifying Roe into law wasn't seen as an urgent fight, given the protections already in place under the judicial precedent. Instead, Obama used his political capital on the central issue of his campaign - healthcare reform. He expended his influence and legislative resources, particularly when navigating through Congress.

Codifying Roe would likely have sparked an immediate and intense partisan fight, potentially undermining efforts to secure healthcare reform, which was already facing strong opposition from Republicans and Blue Dog Democrats.

In hindsight, it's clear that he underestimated the long-term threat to Roe posed by changes in the Supreme Court. However, his decision was shaped by the political realities of the time, where he made the calculation that getting healthcare done would have a more immediate impact.
 
Top