Abolish education
Users browsing this topic:0 Registered, 0 Hidden and 0 Guests Registered Users: None |
|
View previous topic :: View next topic |
Author |
Message |
Tannin
Can't remember
Joined: 06 Aug 2006 Location: Huon Valley Tasmania
|
Post subject: Abolish education | |
|
Former leader of the Liberal Party John Hewson says Abbot should take advantage of his impending cabinet reshuffle and abolish the federal Education Department. Hewson is one of the few remaining honest and decent Liberals, but he got this one wrong. The correct action in this circumstance is not to abolish the Education Department. It is to abolish Christopher Pyne. _________________ �Let's eat Grandma.� Commas save lives! |
|
|
|
|
Wokko
Come and take it.
Joined: 04 Oct 2005
|
Post subject: | |
|
I'm assuming his reasoning is that education is a state issue and the feds should butt out? |
|
|
|
|
David
I dare you to try
Joined: 27 Jul 2003 Location: Andromeda
|
Post subject: | |
|
If so, I'm not necessarily opposed to that idea. For anyone more up on this, what are the arguments for and against decentralisation?
My intuition is that centralisation and streamlining are better, but I don't have a strong opinion on this. Convince me. _________________ All watched over by machines of loving grace |
|
|
|
|
Dave The Man
Joined: 01 Apr 2005 Location: Someville, Victoria, Australia
|
Post subject: | |
|
Why are all Liberals complete and utter Idiots _________________ I am Da Man |
|
|
|
|
Wokko
Come and take it.
Joined: 04 Oct 2005
|
Post subject: | |
|
David wrote: | If so, I'm not necessarily opposed to that idea. For anyone more up on this, what are the arguments for and against decentralisation?
My intuition is that centralisation and streamlining are better, but I don't have a strong opinion on this. Convince me. |
http://theconversation.com/is-education-better-off-in-state-or-federal-hands-27369
Personally I think a model of federal funding, state administration and school board curriculum decisions with little or no influence from the Federal Government is the way to go. I'm a bit tired of constant 'culture wars' in education as well, but when academia, from primary to tertiary level is overwhelmingly leftist I can understand why conservatives try and move the needle back a few notches. Interesting that it's a conservative who is advocating removing most of the federal influence as it's how they've fought those culture wars in the past (national curriculum and funding decisions). |
|
|
|
|
Tannin
Can't remember
Joined: 06 Aug 2006 Location: Huon Valley Tasmania
|
Post subject: | |
|
Dave The Man wrote: | Why are all Liberals complete and utter Idiots |
Not all Liberals, Dave, not nearly all Liberals. There are in fact eight sorts of Liberals.
- (A) Complete and utter idiots.
- (B) Corrupt self-righteous bastards feeding at the public trough.
- (C) Ones who look like complete and utter idiots but are in fact devious bastards using idiocy as camouflage.
- (D) Ones who look like devious bastards but are in fact devious bastards.
- (E) Decent, honest people who accidentally ended up in the wrong party.
- (F) People who were once more-or-less decent and more-or-less honest, but have learned a very great deal about both bastardry and idiocy 'coz without at least one of those two qualities they wouldn't have got past the next pre-selection meeting.
- (G) People who joined the Liberal Party back in the days when it was decent and honest and are now horrified at the way the Tea Party weirdos and the lunatic bigots like Senator Bestiality and George Christensen have taken over the asylum.
Recent studies have demonstrated that some of these sorts are more common than others. At last count, we had:
- (A) 44%
- (B) 79%
- (C) 13%
- (D) 34%
- (E) 3%
- (F) 17%
- (G) 8%
As you can see from these figures, the Liberal Party is not 100% dishonest and stupid. It is in fact 11% honest but stupid, and 186% dishonest and/or stupid. But do not despair! With George Christensen to show them the way, they have a plan to achieve full 200% stupidity before Easter, and are hopeful or going for 300% later in 2015. _________________ �Let's eat Grandma.� Commas save lives! |
|
|
|
|
John Wren
"Look after the game. It means so much to so many."
Joined: 15 Jul 2007
|
Post subject: | |
|
Wokko wrote: | David wrote: | If so, I'm not necessarily opposed to that idea. For anyone more up on this, what are the arguments for and against decentralisation?
My intuition is that centralisation and streamlining are better, but I don't have a strong opinion on this. Convince me. |
http://theconversation.com/is-education-better-off-in-state-or-federal-hands-27369
Personally I think a model of federal funding, state administration and school board curriculum decisions with little or no influence from the Federal Government is the way to go. I'm a bit tired of constant 'culture wars' in education as well, but when academia, from primary to tertiary level is overwhelmingly leftist I can understand why conservatives try and move the needle back a few notches. Interesting that it's a conservative who is advocating removing most of the federal influence as it's how they've fought those culture wars in the past (national curriculum and funding decisions). |
how could you achieve federal funding AND little to no influence from federal government? _________________ Purveyor of sanctimonious twaddle. |
|
|
|
|
Wokko
Come and take it.
Joined: 04 Oct 2005
|
Post subject: | |
|
John Wren wrote: | Wokko wrote: | David wrote: | If so, I'm not necessarily opposed to that idea. For anyone more up on this, what are the arguments for and against decentralisation?
My intuition is that centralisation and streamlining are better, but I don't have a strong opinion on this. Convince me. |
http://theconversation.com/is-education-better-off-in-state-or-federal-hands-27369
Personally I think a model of federal funding, state administration and school board curriculum decisions with little or no influence from the Federal Government is the way to go. I'm a bit tired of constant 'culture wars' in education as well, but when academia, from primary to tertiary level is overwhelmingly leftist I can understand why conservatives try and move the needle back a few notches. Interesting that it's a conservative who is advocating removing most of the federal influence as it's how they've fought those culture wars in the past (national curriculum and funding decisions). |
how could you achieve federal funding AND little to no influence from federal government? |
Have politicians with the interests of the people and not their own power at heart. |
|
|
|
|
Dave The Man
Joined: 01 Apr 2005 Location: Someville, Victoria, Australia
|
Post subject: | |
|
Wokko wrote: | John Wren wrote: | Wokko wrote: | David wrote: | If so, I'm not necessarily opposed to that idea. For anyone more up on this, what are the arguments for and against decentralisation?
My intuition is that centralisation and streamlining are better, but I don't have a strong opinion on this. Convince me. |
http://theconversation.com/is-education-better-off-in-state-or-federal-hands-27369
Personally I think a model of federal funding, state administration and school board curriculum decisions with little or no influence from the Federal Government is the way to go. I'm a bit tired of constant 'culture wars' in education as well, but when academia, from primary to tertiary level is overwhelmingly leftist I can understand why conservatives try and move the needle back a few notches. Interesting that it's a conservative who is advocating removing most of the federal influence as it's how they've fought those culture wars in the past (national curriculum and funding decisions). |
how could you achieve federal funding AND little to no influence from federal government? |
Have politicians with the interests of the people and not their own power at heart. |
Very Well said.
They are only there to look after themselves and there mates and Companies that Pay them off _________________ I am Da Man |
|
|
|
|
stui magpie
Prepare for the worst, hope for the best.
Joined: 03 May 2005 Location: In flagrante delicto
|
Post subject: | |
|
John Wren wrote: | Wokko wrote: | David wrote: | If so, I'm not necessarily opposed to that idea. For anyone more up on this, what are the arguments for and against decentralisation?
My intuition is that centralisation and streamlining are better, but I don't have a strong opinion on this. Convince me. |
http://theconversation.com/is-education-better-off-in-state-or-federal-hands-27369
Personally I think a model of federal funding, state administration and school board curriculum decisions with little or no influence from the Federal Government is the way to go. I'm a bit tired of constant 'culture wars' in education as well, but when academia, from primary to tertiary level is overwhelmingly leftist I can understand why conservatives try and move the needle back a few notches. Interesting that it's a conservative who is advocating removing most of the federal influence as it's how they've fought those culture wars in the past (national curriculum and funding decisions). |
how could you achieve federal funding AND little to no influence from federal government? |
Disconnect Federal funding from specific portfolios.
The Federal government collects the GST and hands it over to the states. It should be portfolio neutral.
The only Federal funding that should have strings is if a state applies specifically for a grant. Otherwise, too many cooks.
I'm personally of the believe that between Federal, State and Local we have seriously way to many bureaucrats. Cut back on the duplication of effort and you can divert the savings to where it's needed.
Does Health need more bureaucrats or more clinicians?
Does Education need more bureaucrats or more and better teachers?
Personally I'd be happy for things like Health, Education and Criminal Law to all be federal issues and the states take a step back and absorb councils. But I fear that the constitution would be a problem. _________________ Every dead body on Mt Everest was once a highly motivated person, so maybe just calm the **** down. |
|
|
|
|
Tannin
Can't remember
Joined: 06 Aug 2006 Location: Huon Valley Tasmania
|
Post subject: | |
|
John Wren wrote: | how could you achieve federal funding AND little to no influence from federal government? |
Why would you want to? The Feds are consistently less worse at education than the states generally are. (Not just education, by the bye, but education is our current topic.)
stui magpie wrote: | Personally I'd be happy for things like Health, Education and Criminal Law to all be federal issues and the states take a step back and absorb councils. But I fear that the constitution would be a problem. |
On that platform, I'll vote 1 Stui Magpie! _________________ �Let's eat Grandma.� Commas save lives! |
|
|
|
|
John Wren
"Look after the game. It means so much to so many."
Joined: 15 Jul 2007
|
Post subject: | |
|
stui magpie wrote: | John Wren wrote: | Wokko wrote: | David wrote: | If so, I'm not necessarily opposed to that idea. For anyone more up on this, what are the arguments for and against decentralisation?
My intuition is that centralisation and streamlining are better, but I don't have a strong opinion on this. Convince me. |
http://theconversation.com/is-education-better-off-in-state-or-federal-hands-27369
Personally I think a model of federal funding, state administration and school board curriculum decisions with little or no influence from the Federal Government is the way to go. I'm a bit tired of constant 'culture wars' in education as well, but when academia, from primary to tertiary level is overwhelmingly leftist I can understand why conservatives try and move the needle back a few notches. Interesting that it's a conservative who is advocating removing most of the federal influence as it's how they've fought those culture wars in the past (national curriculum and funding decisions). |
how could you achieve federal funding AND little to no influence from federal government? |
Disconnect Federal funding from specific portfolios.
The Federal government collects the GST and hands it over to the states. It should be portfolio neutral.
The only Federal funding that should have strings is if a state applies specifically for a grant. Otherwise, too many cooks.
I'm personally of the believe that between Federal, State and Local we have seriously way to many bureaucrats. Cut back on the duplication of effort and you can divert the savings to where it's needed.
Does Health need more bureaucrats or more clinicians?
Does Education need more bureaucrats or more and better teachers?
Personally I'd be happy for things like Health, Education and Criminal Law to all be federal issues and the states take a step back and absorb councils. But I fear that the constitution would be a problem. |
it looks like i might be joining the bureaucracy shortly, the deecd no less. _________________ Purveyor of sanctimonious twaddle. |
|
|
|
|
pietillidie
Joined: 07 Jan 2005
|
Post subject: | |
|
What's the delusional love affair some people have with the states? As if state and local politics are that much more superior lol; on the contrary, less attention means even more unchecked fruitcakes.
The states are always on the edge of becoming divide and conquer chips for deranged capital and nut bags. All that gets you is impoverished slums like the poor US conservative states, which in turn are used to hold back progress and drive down broad-based social investment across the nation, stunting federal productivity and national progress.
No thanks. All "local" thinking does is make even less competent and less worldly people feel more in control of the big bad world. No wonder the far left and far right both love the idea. _________________ In the end the rain comes down, washes clean the streets of a blue sky town.
Help Nick's: http://www.magpies.net/nick/bb/fundraising.htm |
|
|
|
|
David
I dare you to try
Joined: 27 Jul 2003 Location: Andromeda
|
Post subject: | |
|
pietillidie wrote: | No wonder the far left and far right both love the idea. |
Do they? I would have thought the far left would tend to advocate centralisation (well, not the anarchist left, but do they even exist any more?). _________________ All watched over by machines of loving grace |
|
|
|
|
pietillidie
Joined: 07 Jan 2005
|
Post subject: | |
|
David wrote: | pietillidie wrote: | No wonder the far left and far right both love the idea. |
Do they? I would have thought the far left would tend to advocate centralisation (well, not the anarchist left, but do they even exist any more?). |
The complete opposite. Note I used the term "far left" rather than "centre-left". Virtually the entire thinking left is dominated by localisation, with the Marxian theory I first studied at uni but an anachronism confined to a tiny number of dusty, quaint journals.
This is likely one of the reasons why unions haven't been able to recover; it's not that anyone with unpurchased neurons believes conservative rubbish, it's that the poststructuralist left won the intellectual left debate in a canter, leaving behind a politics without a will to power and control (mercifully, they would say, though I personally allow for "necessary political force" as a form of self and Other defense).
The problem is that in the case of your earlier post, devolution to the states does not represent the decrease in power you imagine; it merely represents a decrease in transparency and accountability. Do you really have time to track state bozos as they arrange corrupt deals with union officials and corporate lawyers in the car park of local KFCs? It's hard enough tracking the likes of Hockey, Pyne and Morrison and their debacles.
This sort of error actually comes from the old essentialist thought of religion, imperialist positivism, defunct Marxianism, and fanatical Libertarianism: "larger is less representative and more corrupt"; "free speech must never be constrained"; "the market knows best; "debt is bad"; "inflation is evil", etc.
Instead, independent thought takes into account the many exceptions which exist in a world of competing forces: "larger is often less representative and more corrupt, but..."; "free speech should not be constrained except when..."; "the market usually knows best under conditions of..."; debt is bad when..."; "inflation in certain circumstances is...", etc. _________________ In the end the rain comes down, washes clean the streets of a blue sky town.
Help Nick's: http://www.magpies.net/nick/bb/fundraising.htm |
|
|
|
|
|
|
You cannot post new topics in this forum You cannot reply to topics in this forum You cannot edit your posts in this forum You cannot delete your posts in this forum You cannot vote in polls in this forum You cannot attach files in this forum You cannot download files in this forum
|
|