Reply With Quote
There's no evidence that completely privatizing education has ever worked out well for a country, yet Republicans can't get enough of the idea
Most of you already know I am for getting rid of the Department of education. Found this of interest:
Do We Need the Department of Education?
In PDF
First few paragraphs:
THE CASE FOR the Department of Education could rest on one or more of three legs: its cons utional appropriateness, the existence of serious problems in education that could be solved only at the federal level, and/or its track record since it came into being. Let us consider these in order.
(1) Is the Department of Education cons utional?
At the time the Cons ution was written, education was not even considered a function of local government, let alone the federal government. But the shakiness of the Department of Education’s cons utionality goes beyond that. Article 1, Section 8 of the Cons ution enumerates the things over which Congress has the power to legislate. Not only does the list not include education, there is no plausible rationale for squeezing education in under the commerce clause. I’m sure the Supreme Court found a rationale, but it cannot have been plausible.
On a more philosophical level, the framers of America’s limited government had a broad allegiance to what Catholics call the principle of subsidiarity. In the secular world, the principle of subsidiarity means that local government should do only those things that individuals cannot do for themselves, state government should do only those things that local governments cannot do, and the federal government should do only those things that the individual states cannot do. Education is something that individuals acting alone and cooperatively can do, let alone something local or state governments can do.
There's no evidence that completely privatizing education has ever worked out well for a country, yet Republicans can't get enough of the idea
But why should the federal government be micromanaging the states? According to the tenth amendment, this is for local or state governments.
OP is an example of where the Dept was a complete failure. With examples like that, you could talk me into it.
No amount of education can cure stupidity.
Howeva, if there was a department of contraception, the OP would be an example of that department failing.
LOL...
... Just snipped everything I wrote here...
Wrong topic for that discussion.
Seriously, the last in thing I'm worried about is whether DOE is cons utional. It is a waste of money, but then again I've never been taught at a Public School and all 5 of my kids will go to private school...so good luck to ya'll dingleberries tryin' to make something of your kids out of what I pay in taxes for their ty schools and mass-educated UT graduate teachers.
Which is really a shame. I graduated in the early 70's and we still got a kick ass education from the public school system...but yeah, I sent my kids to private school through the 8th grade in the 90's-2000's. Crazy how it went to in 30 years...
Good job for the private schooling. I put mine in regular schools, but moved into one of the best school districts in the state. The Portland public schools stink. My kids went graduated out of the Centennial school district. The Portland.
My middle school sucked horibbly but I was satisfied with my public high school education. If you find a public high school with an honors program chances are the honors program is just as good an education as any private school. I was just as prepared for college as my friends who went to private school.
This is true.
Is WC really so ing stupid as to believe that education doesn't affect interstate commerce?
Is VY65 really so stupid that he thinks the Federal Government can make kids want to learn when presented with the opportunity?
Actually, the OP article is much more re ed than that. That's it's not part of the Cons ution doesn't mean it's "uncons utional". If that were the case, all laws would be uncons utional as well. Not surprised this logical fallacy didn't set off the alarms of the OP though.
An argument could easily be made that the department of education is uncons utional. The same argument could be made about 90% of the things the United States government has done since the do ent was ratified. Lawmakers have interpreted the law to fit their schemes since day 1. This has sometimes been good, and sometimes been bad.
The fallacy of those like Ron Paul who want a super strict following of the cons ution is that it was written to govern in a different time. In the late 1700s people were largely self sufficient. Most were farmers. It is extremely naive to believe this country could function with the type of limited government Ron Paul wants.
I disagree. Now they didn't foresee things like modern communications, but the do ent still holds up well since their intent was a limited federal government.
What would be wrong with having 50 different state agencies, not beholden to anyone but their cons uents? 50 experiments, with each watching each other and applying what works best at the lowest price...
States rights is the way to go. Too bad people want to put their faith in Uncle Sam.
Here's a simple question. Do you believe in the 10th amendment?
Yeah, if they want slavery they should just be allowed to experiment.
The do ent holds up reasonably well. The amendment process helped it immensely. The problem with 50 states holding 50 experiments is we end up with arguments in some states over whether evolution should be taught or intelligent design should be taught. This is an idea that is great in theory, but fails in practice. Your assumption that states would apply what works best in other states is a big one. States like Texas with weak education records are constantly making things worse by pushing political agendas in their text books with no regard for how well it works in the classroom.
It has been my experience that government becomes even more corrupt the closer to home you get. State governments are more corrupt than the federal government. City governments are more corrupt than state governments. I've owned small businesses and had to work with city and state governments and I much prefer doing business with Uncle Sam.
As for the 10th amendment, of course I believe in it, but I do not 100% agree with it. I do believe powers not granted to the government should go to the people. I prefer limited state government. Conservatives see all the evils of the federal government but fail to see the follies of state governments. My overall sentiment on government in general is to have as little government as possible, but as much as needed.
You could fix many of the problems with public education really easily and you don't have to get rid of the Dept of Education, but you have to get rid of no child left behind......
The real problem is our one size fits all approach to education.....Kids should be separated at middle school, those which are going to college go to magnet schools and those that aren't will be geared toward trade schools....the first part is already happening..
So you need protection for your ideas? Afraid a state or two will teach something you disagree with?
Why don't we just make you dictator?
And this agenda isn't in other states already?
They are all corrupt. So shouldn't we remove a few layers of corruption?
I don't think you agree 10% with it.
Then why do you wish it to trump state and local rights with schools?
That doesn't agree with you wanting to keep the kids under the thumbs of the feds.
[QUOTE=mercos]
Those that want to and can afford to, can go to a religious school and learn intelligent design and all the fairy tales. Evidently the federal government is doing a terrible job at preventing diversity in education.
Last edited by ElNono; 02-05-2012 at 03:26 AM.
Whoa your talking some crazy socialist, no ''Be anything you want to be''
I agree 100%
WC, extreme right-wing parrot extraordinaire, echoing the "kill public education" strategy of the VRWC.
eg, does anyone think a bag like Murdoch is getting into education because he cares about education?
Wild Cobra, it is not about what I want to be taught in science class. It is about what the experts want. I defer to scientists on what should be taught in science class, not religious zealots. All I am looking for is federal standards that will assure that every student in the country has the compe ive edge they need in competing in the global economy. It is my opinion that this will not happen if students are wasting time in science class studying religious theories instead of scientific theories. As long as states are still setting the agenda that is bound to happen.
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)
Posting Permissions
