Vivek ramaswamy

[DCHawk1]

This is all cheap, largely useless, platitudinous nonsense.

[jfish26]

If schools refocused on education and de-emphasized social indoctrination, the vilification would evaporate in no time. Kids might get smarter, too.

People who complain about everything seem to always find something to complain about. Sorry, but this "de-emphasized social indoctrination" shtick is obscenely overstated.

I have had three kids go through the public schools. I don't know how many you have had, but I found the undermining of the values taught at home to be alarming and disgraceful, as was the lack of time and attention to important matters like reading, spelling, math, and writing. My fourth child will not be in public school, even if I have to home school her myself.

I'm genuinely curious - what values do you teach at home that you perceive to be undermined at public schools?

[twocoach]

If schools refocused on education and de-emphasized social indoctrination, the vilification would evaporate in no time. Kids might get smarter, too.

People who complain about everything seem to always find something to complain about. Sorry, but this "de-emphasized social indoctrination" shtick is obscenely overstated.

I have had three kids go through the public schools. I don't know how many you have had, but I found the undermining of the values taught at home to be alarming and disgraceful, as was the lack of time and attention to important matters like reading, spelling, math, and writing. My fourth child will not be in public school, even if I have to home school her myself.

I have a junior at KU and a 5th grader who both have attended public schools. Not sure what you're teaching at home but I found that our schools taught things such as "be respectful of all people" and "you have no idea what other people are going through outside of school" neither of which I have any problem with. There hasn't been some giant "indoctrination program" other than "think about what you say before you say it".

As to important matters such as reading, spelling and math, I haven't had any issues with what they teach other than a few years ago when they chose a new math program that I thought was sort of crappy. It didn't focus on reps as much as I find is effective for kids and expected them to have a better conceptual understanding of the topics than should be expected at that point in the teachings. And reading, seriously? Your kid should be getting the reading work they need at home.

We do not attend church and I think the Church is the root of many evils in this world so I don't want church-based focus on my social learning for my kids.

[jfish26]

This is all cheap, largely useless, platitudinous nonsense.

That's sort of my point. The talking point corners people go back to are, despite being entirely opposite in some cases, logical and digestible.

It makes sense to say that colleges and employers should be free to select on merit alone.

It also makes sense to say that colleges and employers should be free to select on whatever criteria they want.

It also makes sense for government-supported programs to consider matters of social equity.

It also makes sense for government-supported programs to select on merit alone (because that gets at the efficiency of our tax dollars).

That's all why I come back to, yes, pragmatism. Meritocracy is clearly the goal. So how do we serve that goal, fairly?

Well, we make things fairer.

Instead of rewarding or punishing a kid for being on third base, how do we work on the front end to make it so other kids don't start a mile away from the stadium?

I think there is ENORMOUS bang for the buck - taxpayer efficiency - in programs like free, universal Pre-K, and (yes) student loan forgiveness/breaks for people from disadvantaged backgrounds, and (yes) a basic social safety net to keep people healthy and working/learning.

Money goes SO much further that way than in remedial, backward-looking action.

[JKLivin]

People who complain about everything seem to always find something to complain about. Sorry, but this "de-emphasized social indoctrination" shtick is obscenely overstated.

I have had three kids go through the public schools. I don't know how many you have had, but I found the undermining of the values taught at home to be alarming and disgraceful, as was the lack of time and attention to important matters like reading, spelling, math, and writing. My fourth child will not be in public school, even if I have to home school her myself.

I'm genuinely curious - what values do you teach at home that you perceive to be undermined at public schools?

Two things that I had a problem with:

1.) Teaching sexuality in general. I think it is the prerogative of the parents to decide when and how they will teach their kids about sex. I don't think middle school kids need to be taught about intersectionality, transgenderism, sex change, and the like. My kids came home talking about stuff that was not age-appropriate, which left me to clean up the mess as best I could.

2.) The teacher's politics should not be the central focus of class. I lost track of how many stories my kids told me about teachers spending the class time ranting about Trump or, prior to that, Republicans/Conservatives in general. It sounded a lot like the content of these boreds sometimes. What that has to do with math or science or English, I don't know. In the case of social studies or civics, I can understand having a dispassionate, balanced discussion, but that was never the case.

I taught undergraduate sociology and general psychology for twenty years before transitioning completely to grad classes, and I never once mentioned my opinion or belief about anything. I told my students that, if they could tell what I believed from the content of the course, I had failed as a professor. I don't think that's too much to ask of other professional educators.

[JKLivin]

People who complain about everything seem to always find something to complain about. Sorry, but this "de-emphasized social indoctrination" shtick is obscenely overstated.

I have had three kids go through the public schools. I don't know how many you have had, but I found the undermining of the values taught at home to be alarming and disgraceful, as was the lack of time and attention to important matters like reading, spelling, math, and writing. My fourth child will not be in public school, even if I have to home school her myself.

I have a junior at KU and a 5th grader who both have attended public schools. Not sure what you're teaching at home but I found that our schools taught things such as "be respectful of all people" and "you have no idea what other people are going through outside of school" neither of which I have any problem with. There hasn't been some giant "indoctrination program" other than "think about what you say before you say it".

As to important matters such as reading, spelling and math, I haven't had any issues with what they teach other than a few years ago when they chose a new math program that I thought was sort of crappy. It didn't focus on reps as much as I find is effective for kids and expected them to have a better conceptual understanding of the topics than should be expected at that point in the teachings. And reading, seriously? Your kid should be getting the reading work they need at home.

We do not attend church and I think the Church is the root of many evils in this world so I don't want church-based focus on my social learning for my kids.

I did a LOT of work at home with my older kids, and they came out fine. I think they could have done much better with a decent in-school education.

You have every right not to attend church and I both get and respect your concerns. I would never condone pushing Christian (or any other religious) values in public school. I'm simply advocating for focusing more on the basics. My wife and I have both been shocked by the dropoff in basic reading, writing, and thinking skills in undergrad students over the past decade. That's simply a product of poor teaching at the K-12 level.

[twocoach]

I have had three kids go through the public schools. I don't know how many you have had, but I found the undermining of the values taught at home to be alarming and disgraceful, as was the lack of time and attention to important matters like reading, spelling, math, and writing. My fourth child will not be in public school, even if I have to home school her myself.

I'm genuinely curious - what values do you teach at home that you perceive to be undermined at public schools?

Two things that I had a problem with:

1.) Teaching sexuality in general. I think it is the prerogative of the parents to decide when and how they will teach their kids about sex. I don't think middle school kids need to be taught about intersectionality, transgenderism, sex change, and the like. My kids came home talking about stuff that was not age-appropriate, which left me to clean up the mess as best I could.

2.) The teacher's politics should not be the central focus of class. I lost track of how many stories my kids told me about teachers spending the class time ranting about Trump or, prior to that, Republicans/Conservatives in general. It sounded a lot like the content of these boreds sometimes. What that has to do with math or science or English, I don't know. In the case of social studies or civics, I can understand having a dispassionate, balanced discussion, but that was never the case.

I taught undergraduate sociology and general psychology for twenty years before transitioning completely to grad classes, and I never once mentioned my opinion or belief about anything. I told my students that, if they could tell what I believed from the content of the course, I had failed as a professor. I don't think that's too much to ask of other professional educators.

There are some kids having sex, drinking and doing drugs in middle school. Sorry but there's no unified "age appropriate" age that everyone will agree with. In general, too early is way better than too late. Consider it a compliment that they trust that you as a parent to be able to handle any follow up questions they may have. As for politics from teachers, I doubt your kids provided the full context of the conversation. Inevitably, you'll find these comments usually don't come out of nowhere and are responses to comments or questions from kids. I agree that teachers shouldn't initiate the conversations but it's absurd to think that there won't be any mention of it. Young kids don't behave like college kids in a classroom so expecting the two classrooms to be the same is foolish.

[twocoach]

I have had three kids go through the public schools. I don't know how many you have had, but I found the undermining of the values taught at home to be alarming and disgraceful, as was the lack of time and attention to important matters like reading, spelling, math, and writing. My fourth child will not be in public school, even if I have to home school her myself.

I have a junior at KU and a 5th grader who both have attended public schools. Not sure what you're teaching at home but I found that our schools taught things such as "be respectful of all people" and "you have no idea what other people are going through outside of school" neither of which I have any problem with. There hasn't been some giant "indoctrination program" other than "think about what you say before you say it".

As to important matters such as reading, spelling and math, I haven't had any issues with what they teach other than a few years ago when they chose a new math program that I thought was sort of crappy. It didn't focus on reps as much as I find is effective for kids and expected them to have a better conceptual understanding of the topics than should be expected at that point in the teachings. And reading, seriously? Your kid should be getting the reading work they need at home.

We do not attend church and I think the Church is the root of many evils in this world so I don't want church-based focus on my social learning for my kids.

I did a LOT of work at home with my older kids, and they came out fine. I think they could have done much better with a decent in-school education.

You have every right not to attend church and I both get and respect your concerns. I would never condone pushing Christian (or any other religious) values in public school. I'm simply advocating for focusing more on the basics. My wife and I have both been shocked by the dropoff in basic reading, writing, and thinking skills in undergrad students over the past decade. That's simply a product of poor teaching at the K-12 level.

All the more reason why we should fund primary schools more. Too bad the GOP makes education one of their primary line items to cut in a budget review.

[JKLivin]

I have a junior at KU and a 5th grader who both have attended public schools. Not sure what you're teaching at home but I found that our schools taught things such as "be respectful of all people" and "you have no idea what other people are going through outside of school" neither of which I have any problem with. There hasn't been some giant "indoctrination program" other than "think about what you say before you say it".

As to important matters such as reading, spelling and math, I haven't had any issues with what they teach other than a few years ago when they chose a new math program that I thought was sort of crappy. It didn't focus on reps as much as I find is effective for kids and expected them to have a better conceptual understanding of the topics than should be expected at that point in the teachings. And reading, seriously? Your kid should be getting the reading work they need at home.

We do not attend church and I think the Church is the root of many evils in this world so I don't want church-based focus on my social learning for my kids.

I did a LOT of work at home with my older kids, and they came out fine. I think they could have done much better with a decent in-school education.

You have every right not to attend church and I both get and respect your concerns. I would never condone pushing Christian (or any other religious) values in public school. I'm simply advocating for focusing more on the basics. My wife and I have both been shocked by the dropoff in basic reading, writing, and thinking skills in undergrad students over the past decade. That's simply a product of poor teaching at the K-12 level.

All the more reason why we should fund primary schools more. Too bad the GOP makes education one of their primary line items to cut in a budget review.

I'm all for more funding if it goes to the classroom. My perception is that it usually goes to ever-expanding levels of administration. In my day, there was a Principal, a Vice Principal, and a Counselor. Today, there are multiples of each, all getting paid more than a classroom teacher. I would argue that it is because we are depending on the schools to do the job of the family.

[jfish26]

I have had three kids go through the public schools. I don't know how many you have had, but I found the undermining of the values taught at home to be alarming and disgraceful, as was the lack of time and attention to important matters like reading, spelling, math, and writing. My fourth child will not be in public school, even if I have to home school her myself.

I'm genuinely curious - what values do you teach at home that you perceive to be undermined at public schools?

Two things that I had a problem with:

1.) Teaching sexuality in general. I think it is the prerogative of the parents to decide when and how they will teach their kids about sex. I don't think middle school kids need to be taught about intersectionality, transgenderism, sex change, and the like. My kids came home talking about stuff that was not age-appropriate, which left me to clean up the mess as best I could.

2.) The teacher's politics should not be the central focus of class. I lost track of how many stories my kids told me about teachers spending the class time ranting about Trump or, prior to that, Republicans/Conservatives in general. It sounded a lot like the content of these boreds sometimes. What that has to do with math or science or English, I don't know. In the case of social studies or civics, I can understand having a dispassionate, balanced discussion, but that was never the case.

I taught undergraduate sociology and general psychology for twenty years before transitioning completely to grad classes, and I never once mentioned my opinion or belief about anything. I told my students that, if they could tell what I believed from the content of the course, I had failed as a professor. I don't think that's too much to ask of other professional educators.

I am aligned with you on #2.

On #1, it's a devil-in-the-details situation. I think public school is, as much as anything else, where a kid should learn how to interact with programs and processes and people. In MY worldview, I absolutely think a huge part of that is learning to be respectful of other people and their bodies/thoughts/feelings/choices.

And, within that, abso-fucking-lutely I want my kids to be grounded in tolerance and acceptance.

[twocoach]

I did a LOT of work at home with my older kids, and they came out fine. I think they could have done much better with a decent in-school education.

You have every right not to attend church and I both get and respect your concerns. I would never condone pushing Christian (or any other religious) values in public school. I'm simply advocating for focusing more on the basics. My wife and I have both been shocked by the dropoff in basic reading, writing, and thinking skills in undergrad students over the past decade. That's simply a product of poor teaching at the K-12 level.

All the more reason why we should fund primary schools more. Too bad the GOP makes education one of their primary line items to cut in a budget review.

I'm all for more funding if it goes to the classroom. My perception is that it usually goes to ever-expanding levels of administration. In my day, there was a Principal, a Vice Principal, and a Counselor. Today, there are multiples of each, all getting paid more than a classroom teacher. I would argue that it is because we are depending on the schools to do the job of the family.

Kids spend more time at school than they do awake in their own homes so it's understandable that they have a significant staff to support kids. Adding additional support staff makes it easier for teachers to focus on teaching like you want them to. Sure, it would be awesome if every child had a great environment at home where they are nurtured and all of their physical, mental, emotional and educational needs are met. But that simply is not the case.

[DCHawk1]

This is all cheap, largely useless, platitudinous nonsense.

That's sort of my point. The talking point corners people go back to are, despite being entirely opposite in some cases, logical and digestible.

It makes sense to say that colleges and employers should be free to select on merit alone.

It also makes sense to say that colleges and employers should be free to select on whatever criteria they want.

It also makes sense for government-supported programs to consider matters of social equity.

It also makes sense for government-supported programs to select on merit alone (because that gets at the efficiency of our tax dollars).

That's all why I come back to, yes, pragmatism. Meritocracy is clearly the goal. So how do we serve that goal, fairly?

Well, we make things fairer.

Instead of rewarding or punishing a kid for being on third base, how do we work on the front end to make it so other kids don't start a mile away from the stadium?

I think there is ENORMOUS bang for the buck - taxpayer efficiency - in programs like free, universal Pre-K, and (yes) student loan forgiveness/breaks for people from disadvantaged backgrounds, and (yes) a basic social safety net to keep people healthy and working/learning.

Money goes SO much further that way than in remedial, backward-looking action.

I was thinking mostly of this nonsense:

All the more reason why we should fund primary schools more. Too bad the GOP makes education one of their primary line items to cut in a budget review.

I mean...Luxembourg, Norway, and Iceland spend more than the US (per pupil) on education and primary education (in particular), but we spend more than every other country.

rEpUbLiCaNs iS KiLlInG eDuCaTiOn is tired (and tiresome) boolsheet.

[JKLivin]

I'm genuinely curious - what values do you teach at home that you perceive to be undermined at public schools?

Two things that I had a problem with:

1.) Teaching sexuality in general. I think it is the prerogative of the parents to decide when and how they will teach their kids about sex. I don't think middle school kids need to be taught about intersectionality, transgenderism, sex change, and the like. My kids came home talking about stuff that was not age-appropriate, which left me to clean up the mess as best I could.

2.) The teacher's politics should not be the central focus of class. I lost track of how many stories my kids told me about teachers spending the class time ranting about Trump or, prior to that, Republicans/Conservatives in general. It sounded a lot like the content of these boreds sometimes. What that has to do with math or science or English, I don't know. In the case of social studies or civics, I can understand having a dispassionate, balanced discussion, but that was never the case.

I taught undergraduate sociology and general psychology for twenty years before transitioning completely to grad classes, and I never once mentioned my opinion or belief about anything. I told my students that, if they could tell what I believed from the content of the course, I had failed as a professor. I don't think that's too much to ask of other professional educators.

I am aligned with you on #2.

On #1, it's a devil-in-the-details situation. I think public school is, as much as anything else, where a kid should learn how to interact with programs and processes and people. In MY worldview, I absolutely think a huge part of that is learning to be respectful of other people and their bodies/thoughts/feelings/choices.

And, within that, abso-fucking-lutely I want my kids to be grounded in tolerance and acceptance.

I don't want my kids to be intolerant or disrespectful. I do want them to be confronted with issues at an age-appropriate time and in an age-appropriate manner. I think that is where parents are going to disagree. One parent may think that appropriate age is 8, where another may think it is 16.

[DCHawk1]

Also, even the DoE disagrees on Universal Pre-K...
https://files.eric.ed.gov/fulltext/ED611913.pdf

Progressive politicians, including President Biden, have called for an unprecedented expansion of federal investment in early education, arguing that it would boost women’s participation in the workforce and that the long-run academic benefits for children would yield economic dividends.

The first claim is well supported by existing research. The second does not withstand scrutiny. Although there are some frequently cited studies of early childhood interventions that have shown remarkably positive results, they were conducted based on interventions and in environments that bear little resemblance to the policy proposals currently on the table and hence have limited utility in informing contemporary debates.

Moreover, a deeper look at the most rigorous and representative research on the effects of early education for children provides more cause for alarm than optimism. Expanded child care likely benefits deeply disadvantaged students. For other students, these programs may have no impact, or have a negative effect on cognitive or noncognitive measures.

[jfish26]

Also, even the DoE disagrees on Universal Pre-K...
https://files.eric.ed.gov/fulltext/ED611913.pdf

Progressive politicians, including President Biden, have called for an unprecedented expansion of federal investment in early education, arguing that it would boost women’s participation in the workforce and that the long-run academic benefits for children would yield economic dividends.

The first claim is well supported by existing research. The second does not withstand scrutiny. Although there are some frequently cited studies of early childhood interventions that have shown remarkably positive results, they were conducted based on interventions and in environments that bear little resemblance to the policy proposals currently on the table and hence have limited utility in informing contemporary debates.

Moreover, a deeper look at the most rigorous and representative research on the effects of early education for children provides more cause for alarm than optimism. Expanded child care likely benefits deeply disadvantaged students. For other students, these programs may have no impact, or have a negative effect on cognitive or noncognitive measures.

Seems like this is missing a HUGE part of the equation. Although I'm only reading the portion you excerpted.

[jfish26]

Two things that I had a problem with:

1.) Teaching sexuality in general. I think it is the prerogative of the parents to decide when and how they will teach their kids about sex. I don't think middle school kids need to be taught about intersectionality, transgenderism, sex change, and the like. My kids came home talking about stuff that was not age-appropriate, which left me to clean up the mess as best I could.

2.) The teacher's politics should not be the central focus of class. I lost track of how many stories my kids told me about teachers spending the class time ranting about Trump or, prior to that, Republicans/Conservatives in general. It sounded a lot like the content of these boreds sometimes. What that has to do with math or science or English, I don't know. In the case of social studies or civics, I can understand having a dispassionate, balanced discussion, but that was never the case.

I taught undergraduate sociology and general psychology for twenty years before transitioning completely to grad classes, and I never once mentioned my opinion or belief about anything. I told my students that, if they could tell what I believed from the content of the course, I had failed as a professor. I don't think that's too much to ask of other professional educators.

I am aligned with you on #2.

On #1, it's a devil-in-the-details situation. I think public school is, as much as anything else, where a kid should learn how to interact with programs and processes and people. In MY worldview, I absolutely think a huge part of that is learning to be respectful of other people and their bodies/thoughts/feelings/choices.

And, within that, abso-fucking-lutely I want my kids to be grounded in tolerance and acceptance.

I don't want my kids to be intolerant or disrespectful. I do want them to be confronted with issues at an age-appropriate time and in an age-appropriate manner. I think that is where parents are going to disagree. One parent may think that appropriate age is 8, where another may think it is 16.

It's a continuum, right? I think it's perfectly fine for an 8 year old to be taught that some kids might have two moms. I'd take it further and say that 8 year olds very much should be taught that some kids have two moms.

[DCHawk1]

Also, even the DoE disagrees on Universal Pre-K...
https://files.eric.ed.gov/fulltext/ED611913.pdf

Progressive politicians, including President Biden, have called for an unprecedented expansion of federal investment in early education, arguing that it would boost women’s participation in the workforce and that the long-run academic benefits for children would yield economic dividends.

The first claim is well supported by existing research. The second does not withstand scrutiny. Although there are some frequently cited studies of early childhood interventions that have shown remarkably positive results, they were conducted based on interventions and in environments that bear little resemblance to the policy proposals currently on the table and hence have limited utility in informing contemporary debates.

Moreover, a deeper look at the most rigorous and representative research on the effects of early education for children provides more cause for alarm than optimism. Expanded child care likely benefits deeply disadvantaged students. For other students, these programs may have no impact, or have a negative effect on cognitive or noncognitive measures.

Seems like this is missing a HUGE part of the equation. Although I'm only reading the portion you excerpted.

I'm sure it is, even if you read the entire report. The point, however, is that the "benefits" of universal Pre-K are hardly obvious, in light of the relevant evidence, and, in any case, such a project is not likely to be a panacea.

[jfish26]

Also, even the DoE disagrees on Universal Pre-K...
https://files.eric.ed.gov/fulltext/ED611913.pdf

Progressive politicians, including President Biden, have called for an unprecedented expansion of federal investment in early education, arguing that it would boost women’s participation in the workforce and that the long-run academic benefits for children would yield economic dividends.

The first claim is well supported by existing research. The second does not withstand scrutiny. Although there are some frequently cited studies of early childhood interventions that have shown remarkably positive results, they were conducted based on interventions and in environments that bear little resemblance to the policy proposals currently on the table and hence have limited utility in informing contemporary debates.

Moreover, a deeper look at the most rigorous and representative research on the effects of early education for children provides more cause for alarm than optimism. Expanded child care likely benefits deeply disadvantaged students. For other students, these programs may have no impact, or have a negative effect on cognitive or noncognitive measures.

Seems like this is missing a HUGE part of the equation. Although I'm only reading the portion you excerpted.

I'm sure it is, even if you read the entire report. The point, however, is that the "benefits" of universal Pre-K are hardly obvious, in light of the relevant evidence, and, in any case, such a project is not likely to be a panacea.

But no one should be expecting anything to be a panacea. That's a massive part of our collective problem - inaction because not every fucking problem can be neatly solved in a 46-minute episode.

[JKLivin]

I am aligned with you on #2.

On #1, it's a devil-in-the-details situation. I think public school is, as much as anything else, where a kid should learn how to interact with programs and processes and people. In MY worldview, I absolutely think a huge part of that is learning to be respectful of other people and their bodies/thoughts/feelings/choices.

And, within that, abso-fucking-lutely I want my kids to be grounded in tolerance and acceptance.

I don't want my kids to be intolerant or disrespectful. I do want them to be confronted with issues at an age-appropriate time and in an age-appropriate manner. I think that is where parents are going to disagree. One parent may think that appropriate age is 8, where another may think it is 16.

It's a continuum, right? I think it's perfectly fine for an 8 year old to be taught that some kids might have two moms. I'd take it further and say that 8 year olds very much should be taught that some kids have two moms.

So, when we disagree on subjective matters like these, how is the problem solved? That's the dilemma.

[zsn]

I think a good part of the underlying problem is the disparity between the quality of instruction among the various parts of the country, even various parts of the state. Urban areas are too expensive and thus don’t always attract the enthusiastic young teachers needed to fill retiring ones. Rural areas and areas with especially high proportion of racial minorities don’t seem to attract any teachers. Then there’s the constant politicization of curriculum (cf. Sarah Sanders, Ron DeSantis), and the barriers to teaching basic science concepts such as evolution and climate change. “Local control of education” is, in my opinion, the biggest cause for breakdown in education.

When there was a joke about Indiana mandating that pi would henceforth be 3 because it’s too hard for kids to use the exact value there was an element of plausibility to the joke. The reason the joke was about Indiana (or Kentucky or West Virginia or Florida) and not about Singapore or Denmark says everything one needs to know about the education system in the USA.

In any event, I think beginning with incentivizing teachers to do a stint in underserved areas by forgiving loans in exchange, or providing subsidized housing in urban areas are possible starting points for improving quality of education. And disbanding school boards, which are usually a bunch of unqualified hacks with a political agenda, would also be a great idea. At the very least school boards should have no say on curriculum - leave setting standards at a national level to professional societies. I’m on the advisory boards for a few college/university chemistry departments and in all cases input on curriculum is explicitly excluded from the charter.