There is a simple reason why education is failing in many districts.  And it's not teachers, governance, testing or any other of the major issues.  It's much simpler and more obvious. That reason is money. 

The truth is, many school districts are funded locally.  Only about 6% of educational funds are provided by the Department of Education.  The rest is left up to the states, and many of them have decided to pass the buck and let the local property taxes fund local schools.  That may seem like the ultimate in giving control to local groups.  But it's probably the most disastrous policy you could imagine.  Let's think about this for a minute.

Wealthier neighborhoods / regions have much richer tax bases.  Obvious, right?  That means that these neighborhoods have lots of money to fund their schools.  Consequently, they can attract the best teachers, have lower student to teacher ratios, have better learning materials and better access to resources.  Conversely, poor neighborhoods, often minority neighborhoods, have a limited tax base, can't afford to spend money on extra teachers, have a higher teacher to student ratio, and sometimes can't afford the basics such as textbooks.

 The results are predictable.  The children from affluent areas have much higher graduation rates, are much more likely to attend college and have higher lifetime earnings.  The children from poorer, minority neighborhoods, tend to have lower graduation rates, lower rates of college attendance, and lower lifetime earnings.  And they tend to live in poorer neighborhoods, where their children will suffer the same fate.

 So much for the land of opportunity.  So much for the land of equality. 

One of the fundamental roles of our government is to provide opportunity.  Not all people will seize that opportunity.  And that is OK.  But under the current system, it flat out doesn't exist.

 So what do we do about it?  Education funding should be national.  There is no other way to manage this fairly.  Otherwise, each state will be working from a different opportunity platform, and more importantly, each region will as well.  Nothing could be less fair.

DEBATE IT  

I was not a proponent of the war.  During the lead up to the war, my girlfriend (now my wife) and I were backpacking around the world.  It was revealing following the escalation and developments from an international perspective.  In the US, the notion was that there was solid moral justification and strong international support for the war.  However, the reality was much different.  Traveling through Central America, South America, India and Southeast Asia, nearly everyone I spoke with was unanimously opposed to the US operation.  Frankly, people were puzzled.  Why did the US want to start a war?  There was no justification in their minds (turns out they were right).  And it was completely clear to me that the US was taking a period of enormous international support post 9/11 and turning it rapidly into a period of enormous international animosity towards the US through faulty policies.  You didn't have to be a scholar to see this .  You just had to walk out on the streets of virtually any country in the world and talk to the citizens.  The Bush administration stated it was crucial to succeeding in the fight against terrorism.  What was clear was that these actions were not only going to unify the terrorists, but very clearly that they would make the terrorists recruiting much stronger. Sadly, almost no-one in the house or Senate opposed him (Robert Byrd and Barack Obama are two notable exceptions)

And here we are.  This all turned out to be true.  Even by the administration's own assessments.  Why did we go to war?   I have no idea.  But the consequences could be easily foreseen.

Let's talk foreign policy.  What basic principals should govern US foreign policy?  Let's debate.

The US occupation of Iraq has turned into a real quagmire.  That's the word that Rumsfeld bristled over repeatedly in the months and years following the initial invasion.  That the US had no justification for initiating this war is now clear.  There were no terrorists nor weapons of mass destruction.  Just a personal vendetta between president Bush and Sadam Hussein. 

Now the question becomes what do we do about it.  The likely outcome of an immediate US withdrawal is civil war, and any catastrophic loss of life would be a direct result of the fualty decision to invade Iraq.  Do we have a moral obligation to see this through?  Are there other solutions?  Have we exhausted all avenues (e.g., despite repeated calls by the independent Iraq Study Group, the Bush administration refuses to engage regional powers to find a solution)?

 Debate these questions and more in the Iraq forums or post directly to this article.

Sick of politics getting in the way of rational policies?  Or just tired of bad policies?  You've come to the right place.  The whole premise of this forum is simple.  As a nation, our domestic and international policies should be guided by one principal: "Do the right thing".  Sounds naive and a little corny.  Well, maybe.  But it's an incredibly powerful concept, as you'll see.

"Do the right thing"?

Simple, right?  Wrong.  

Read More