We are less than two months away from the election and have yet to hear a satisfactory amount about either candidate's plan for education. Both candidates share a support for charter schools although Clinton must tread lightly on this subject as not to offend the teachers' unions who are currently backing her. Clinton also supports the Common Core and wants "debt-free" college for all students from low-income families. However she opposes Trump's ideas on vouchers and school choice, fearing the damage it would do to public schools. Trump believes his voucher plan and removal of the Common Core will provide a more effective education to more students.
As a public school student does any part of either candidate's stance leave you feeling dissatisfied or uneasy? Do you want the candidates to elaborate on their stances on education in the upcoming debates?
Tuesday, September 27, 2016
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
In the election I've noticed education is not a big issue being talked about, in fact I haven't heard Trump speak about it before. His ideas on this topic do not seem as outrageous as most of this other key ideas, such as immigration. I have heard Clinton speak on education in the past, but this article did a fantastic job at laying out her views piece by piece.
ReplyDeleteAfter reading about Trump's voucher idea, I fairly certain state resources could be put somewhere else. For example, instead of collecting billions to send kids from disadvantaged households to private schools, the money could be used to better improve the current public schools. It is also unrealistic. The article states kids would receive $12,000 on average to pay for school, which seems nice but isn't actually as good as it seems After doing research I learned that a private school near us, Episcopal Academy, costs $27,300 annually, which is over double what Trump's average child will receive under his program, making it unrealistic and likely to fail.
An idea that stuck out to me was Clinton debt free college plan, not a free college plan. Unlike Jill Stein and Bernie Sander, Clinton has taken a more realistic approach to our university debt crisis. By allowing some, but not all, to receive a free education, and others money based off of their family income, Clinton's plan seems enlightened and generous.
As a student at Penncrest High School, I believe I am receiving a good education and would be hesitant to support a candidate who wanted to take funding away from my school. If funding was cut back 30% at Penncrest, we wouldn't be able to have all the resources that makes Penncrest one of the best public schools in the area.
ReplyDeleteWhile she hasn't offered enough specifics, I think Hillary's debt-free college plan is a decent idea. I agree with Shannah that it is more realistic than Sanders proposal. If you make 3 million a year, you don't need help paying for higher education, but if you are poor, paying for college is very difficult. Hillary really needs to lay out this plan in more detail and calculate the costs associated with it. It isn't good when candidates are vague.
Both candidate's positions are vague. Trump is anti Common Core and national standards, but, according to this article, all that he has said on the subject is "Common Core is out!". Since Common Core is so widely unpopular, I wish that the candidates would elaborate on their ideas to resolve our education system's problems. Clinton hasn't talked much about her position on Common Core because supports it and most people are against it. However, because Clinton hasn't shared her thoughts on the matter, it is hard to say whether or not I agree with her because there isn't a whole lot to agree or disagree with.
ReplyDeleteOne thing I do agree with is making quality childcare, preschool, and primary school available to all children. Clinton supports this idea and has spoken about it, but she has yet to explain how she will implement it.
I believe that all children should have access to quality PreK-12 schooling. However, I don't agree with a debt-free college plan nor free community college. Clinton's plan involves cutting tax deductions for high income Americans which I think is unfair. I don't believe that tax payers should have to pay for other people's education after Highschool.
Trump supports a campaign that would allow colleges and banks to think about a student's potential earnings after college as a factor for whether or not they will give out a college loan. My feelings are mixed about this because I think that this is a smart way for banks and colleges to make sure they get their money back but I think that all students' passions should be supported and that colleges and banks shouldn't be allowed to judge whether or not they think a field of study is a "legitimate" investment. That said, this is the bank's or the college's decision, not the governments.
Overall, both candidates need to speak more about how they plan on implementing their plans so that the public can get a better sense of what their plans would entail and how it would affect the public.
I haven't heard Trump or Clinton talk about education much at all during the campaign except for the Spotify ads where it's basically college students vs. Trump & Clinton vaguely talking about debt-free college programs. This article made things more clear and confirmed what I thought about both candidate's plans for students' education. As a student currently applying to colleges and not being able to go out of state due to costs, Clinton's plan is definitely more ideal to me considering everyone I know who has graduated college is in years of debt just so they could get a decent job. I agree with Shannah entirely, that her plan is definitely more reachable than Bernie's free schooling plan, although his is more favorable it can't be obtainable right now. But in order to have a huge stance on this, I do need both of them to be more specific about what they want and plan on doing about education
ReplyDeleteI'm glad this article was written because, as others have already mentioned, up until now, we haven't really been told a lot about either candidate's education plans. In this day and age where it seems that continuing onto college is pretty much required to get a job, I don't understand why the subject hasn't been more talked about. That being said, this article was still relatively vague, but I think that's because the candidates' plans themselves are quite vague.
ReplyDeleteThe part I most agreed with was Clinton's free, quality k-12 education and child care plan, as well as her idea to implement universal preschool. Giving students free, quality education from the beginning will only make them more equipped to take on higher-education later. I don't think trump's college voucher plan would work out well for a few reasons. One reason is because the rules and restrictions are already to vague, and I feel like he would be one to go back and forth on the matter if this policy were to ever be implemented. But then again, if Trump were to actually be elected, I feel like the plan might never even be implemented. This policy involves a lot of money changing hands, and, though it is different, we should remember that Trump is notorious for not paying his employees, so why should we trust him to pay for our education?
Finally, on the topic of common core, it is obvious that some things have to change in order for us to successfully progress. However, until either candidate gives us more details on exactly how the common core will alter, or exactly what will take its place, I don't think its safe for any of us to assume that its going to change just because neither candidate supports it.
Probably the largest fault of our anti-intellectual system is that candidates do not *need* to give actual plans. This article accentuates this well, noting that Donald Trump's best and only plan is to get rid of Common Core, and as popular of an opinion as that may be, until he says how he might do that, I'm not biting. Secretary Clinton's plan is better, but her favor of charter schools unnerves me. Charter schools, much like privatized prisons, are just an all-around bad idea, no matter how good they seem. I hadn't actually known Ms. Clinton's plan on secondary education, but having heard it, I like it a lot. The rich can afford their college education, but many families are exploited for every last cent in the predatory college loan system. And it's not like we can just say it's not a big deal, our country doesn't look kindly upon those not heavily educated. We don't have a country which allows for the bright but poor to succeed, yet we have a country so staunchly opposed to education, we don't even know what our two candidates think about it. In Donald Trump's case, that's not overly surprising. The highly educated are not those who would vote for him. But in Secretary Clinton's case, this is surprising. Ask her how she'll restore an economy, and she'll tell you her 14 point plan to do so. Ask her what she'd do about education, and you'd probably get a much more dodged answer than you may expect. She clearly has the beginnings of a plan (especially, as I mentioned, for secondary education) but lacks the plan for a Common Core replacement (which, as president, she would need to do, given its immense unpopularity).
ReplyDeleteIt's good that Business Insider put some focus on the education policies of our two presidential candidates, especially since it is currently not a highly discussed topic in the media or in debates. It's important to consider all aspects of a candidates policies. Unfortunately however, as Abby said, the positions Hilary and Trump have taken on education have lacked definition. During any campaign, it's important to be skeptical of candidates policies which lack specificity, especially since a promise made during the campaign period is not legally binding when elected. For example, Hilary gave little specifics about where she would find the money to lower-income families pay for college. Another example is when Trump said "Common Core is out." He gave no reason for its ineffectiveness, or any possible remedy. Although I agree that yes, perhaps Common Core isn't the best system for our public schools, the issue goes beyond that. The root of the issues in our public schooling is most likely in the lack of sufficient funding, something that would suffer further if the money is being spent on school choice. Trump can't possibly place the sole purpose of our schools issues on Common Core. Instead of steering kids away from the public schools that are failing, why not try to fix the public schools themselves? I agree with Clinton; voucher programs are counterproductive and an abusive use of tax-payer money.
ReplyDeleteIt is disturbing at best that Business Insider has to recognize that education is a second tier issue in today's society. Education is the future, and it is horrible to know that the candidates and the media have paid little to no attention to such a vast and important issue. Agreeing with Jay, I believe that both candidates need to come out with comprehensive ways to pay for their plans, not just spit out ideas that look good on paper. Hillary's support of common core makes me feel slightly uneasy, as there obviously needs to be a reform to uniform testing. However, as Jay said, insufficient funding is the root of the problems in the American education system. The Clinton reformation of higher education is a positive step, but neither candidate, according to the article, addresses how they will reform education funding. In upcoming debates and campaigning, I think it is important to address not only their plans for education, but specifically how they will finance their plans, and how they will fix inner city schools and broader education financing. As I mentioned before, education is highly important, because it cultivates the future, and we need to make sure the future is in good hands.
ReplyDeleteLike many people have said, education was not highlighted throughout this election process, which reflects badly on these candidates and the election in general. One of the most talked about education plans was Sanders' plan for free college. Although unrealistic, he at least made a plan and gave education the attention it deserved. So far, I think Hillary's debt free college plan is on the right track, but I'm still waiting for a candidate to propose something realistic and still address the problem in education. Both candidates have briefly mentioned unrealistic education plans and done practically nothing to implement them. I'm wondering if they'll fail their impossible visions and give up, or if they'll never even try to address education. This issue highlights the fact that many see this election as a disappointing one, consisting of two (maybe only one) mediocre candidates.
ReplyDeleteIt's unfortunate that education isn't as much of a priority for Trump and Clinton, and the way they address the subject seems to indicate they treat the subject more as a buzzword to attract specific demographics (school unions in Clinton's case, low income families that would be a fan of Trump's vouchers, and millennials for both). While what has been said is somewhat lacking, the sentiments they have shared are fairly telling of where they want to take their policy. Trump's hope to "allow children living in poverty to attend the school of their choice" is something I didn't expect, and it's an interesting position to take. The average family income and general and general wealth of a school district absolutely affect the quality of education it can offer- compare Harriton or even RTMSD to a lower-income district like Chester. His method for achieving this, however, doesn't seem realistic. I'm not super familiar with our national or state budgets, but $110 billion dollars to support this voucher-based plan is grandiose and unfeasible in a bureaucratic educational climate where budgets are strained paper-thin as it is. Clinton's opinions on Common Core are unsurprising, but it's interesting how she seems to emulate Sanders's goals in this area. The article unfortunately provides only vague details in support of this plan, however. Reducing college debt for those that earn less than $85,000 annually is a noble sentiment, but Clinton doesn't list a procedure or economic evaluation for achieving this, and instead provides remarks trying to feed on/ manipulate peoples' emotions and investment on the issue.
ReplyDeleteAs a current high school student and up-and-coming voter, it truthfully worries me that education isn't as widely discussed during this election as Clinton body doubles or the size of Trump's hands. Both candidates have positions on education that are interesting, to say the least, but overall lack the structure to be considered plans. Sean's use of "buzzwords" was perfect to describe these views. To me, Clinton's idea to reduce college debt for those earning less than $85,000 annually is a compromising position to win the Bernie supporters, and Trump's voucher system appeal towards the low income families. Not to say these views lack legitimacy, both sides have interesting points to make, but what these ideas do lack is structure; both candidates ultimately fail to present an actual plan to accomplish these goals and create these systems. As others have noted, politicians don't need to outline their ideas in a bulleted list, but, at least to me, these claims mean diddly squat without some general strategy that will back up one's plan (this goes double for Trump). Hopefully in the next debate education will become a much more widely discussed topic.
ReplyDeleteAs a current high school student and up-and-coming voter, it truthfully worries me that education isn't as widely discussed during this election as Clinton body doubles or the size of Trump's hands. Both candidates have positions on education that are interesting, to say the least, but overall lack the structure to be considered plans. Sean's use of "buzzwords" was perfect to describe these views. To me, Clinton's idea to reduce college debt for those earning less than $85,000 annually is a compromising position to win the Bernie supporters, and Trump's voucher system appeal towards the low income families. Not to say these views lack legitimacy, both sides have interesting points to make, but what these ideas do lack is structure; both candidates ultimately fail to present an actual plan to accomplish these goals and create these systems. As others have noted, politicians don't need to outline their ideas in a bulleted list, but, at least to me, these claims mean diddly squat without some general strategy that will back up one's plan (this goes double for Trump). Hopefully in the next debate education will become a much more widely discussed topic.
ReplyDeleteEducation should be a highly talked-about topic in the election as it directly impacts the future of the country, and a lot needs to be done to fix our broken education system. However, what the two candidates have briefly mentioned are not enough to solve the problem. Getting rid of the Common Core as Trump proposed would help individualize education for children, but that is just a small part of a much larger problem. Education needs major reform, but I think that the candidates are scared that if they propose a major change, it could seem too extreme and be a turn-off for many voters. Hopefully, they can see past that and mention a comprehensive plan to fix education, but I highly doubt it.
ReplyDeleteI find it troublesome (as does almost everyone else who has commented) that education is not more of a priority for the candidates. Each candidate appeared to have only vague ideas about what they would reform, and both lacked proper structure in the plans they proposed. A topic of great interest to me personally (as a student about to enter the higher education system) is the candidates' stances on college tuition. While in theory Clinton's proposal for debt-free college tuition plans and free community college seems ideal, she has given little information on how she plans to achieve her goals. Likewise, Trump's campaign has done very little to counter her ideas, as Trump himself has said next to nothing about his own plans regarding higher education. Both campaigns seem to be pining for voters from specific demographics rather than creating actual, feasible solutions. Hillary, for example, steers away from addressing charter schools (even though she supports them) for fear of losing the backing of teacher unions. Overall, neither candidate seems to have strong plans regarding education; I personally hope the topic comes up in one of the next debates, as it is a critical issue that needs to be addressed.
ReplyDeleteThis comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeleteThroughout the process, the only information I heard about education was only Hillary's campaign. I heard absolutely nothing from Trump. However, I must commend the website choice for laying out exactly where the candidates stand, and giving arguments on both sides of some of the issues. However, the fact that I am discovering this website now, and not hearing anything from the candidates themselves, is definitely a worrying factor. While I cannot consider myself well versed on the issue of education as a whole, I generally agree with Hillary's stances all over Trump's stances. I don't see the advantage of Trump's voucher system, as it practically abandons easy to access public schools in order to support private schools. These public schools are placed in proximity to large groups of potential students, while private schools can be located anywhere, but not in the same convenient locations that a standard public school might be. If we neglect public schools, we would effectively force these student bases to split apart in order to find a better school that is less convenient and could come with a completely different atmosphere (namely, religious schools) that would hinder students that had no other choice. The logistics required to make Trump's plan work would be too expensive for no guarantee of even a slight improvement, which scares me as it signals to me that he would only be making this plan for separate interests instead. Not to mention, teacher unions (and the job as a whole) desperately require support, and from what I am reading, Trump only plans to... remove it? For what reason? At this point, I'm more distracted in following the money to try and find Trump's motives then what he might actually be doing to improve this system, which is terrifying.
ReplyDelete