Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
I'm on board. The Feds have no Constitutional Role in Education anyway. They are ineffective in bettering the educational quality of schools. Way too expensive. Extremely intrusive.
A Hundred Billion Dollars a Year...for what?
. poorly performing schools
. intrusive social programs
I say if we are really trying to trim the budget, let's look here. How many times has the Federal Dept. of Education threatened to cut funding to poorly performing schools. Well, times are tough right now and looking back at the track record of our nation's schools, what improvement have we seen, despite having spent billions of dollars on the Federal Dept. of Education? We still have poorly performing schools. Time to Fire the Feds./Withhold their funding.
I'm on board. The Feds have no Constitutional Role in Education anyway. They are ineffective in bettering the educational quality of schools. Way too expensive. Extremely intrusive.
A Hundred Billion Dollars a Year...for what?
. poorly performing schools
. intrusive social programs
I say if we are really trying to trim the budget, let's look here. How many times has the Federal Dept. of Education threatened to cut funding to poorly performing schools. Well, times are tough right now and looking back at the track record of our nation's schools, what improvement have we seen, despite having spent billions of dollars on the Federal Dept. of Education? We still have poorly performing schools. Time to Fire the Feds./Withhold their funding.
While I agree that the Fed should get out of the education business, I still am concerned about how schools will be properly funded. It placed an amazing burden on the states at that point. Schools need to be public so that anyone, poor or rich, can attend and expect a minimum of education. The problem is that if we take away federal funding for those schools the money needs to be made up somewhere. It may shrink the size of the Federal government, but it increases the size of the state government. It's still big government no matter how you look at it.
Also, the fed needs to have a minimum of involvement in national education. They need to at least set a minimum standard that all public schools should meet for a student to graduate. Otherwise we get states with different levels of requirements for a student to graduate. To have an educated American citizen there needs to be a standard.
While I agree that the Fed should get out of the education business, I still am concerned about how schools will be properly funded. It placed an amazing burden on the states at that point. Schools need to be public so that anyone, poor or rich, can attend and expect a minimum of education. The problem is that if we take away federal funding for those schools the money needs to be made up somewhere. It may shrink the size of the Federal government, but it increases the size of the state government. It's still big government no matter how you look at it.
Also, the fed needs to have a minimum of involvement in national education. They need to at least set a minimum standard that all public schools should meet for a student to graduate. Otherwise we get states with different levels of requirements for a student to graduate. To have an educated American citizen there needs to be a standard.
Willy, do you know how long we have had this DOE? If you check out the whole thing you will find that the state and local governments funded education quite well until Jimmy Carter created the DOE. He was giving the National Education Association what he had promised them when they gave him an unheard of sum to campaign with. The NEA was run by left leaners then and it may be worse now.
Yes, I worked at public education from 1958 - 1986 and think that the first 17 years the funding worked out quite a bit better. The federal government would throw out some special laws and provide money for those states who wanted the "strings attached" money and as it went along it got tougher because state legislatures stopped funding except for federal funds. Locals do very little these days by comparison with what went on before the creation of that most socialist Department. In the good old days the NEA wouldn't have been able to require schools to teach from Alinsky's book without the DOE to push for them.
Wipe out that socialist leaning bunch and see how long it takes for something good to happen with education. It was that bunch that talked for years about "self-esteem" as the most important thing that schools could do for their students. So sad. I remember students who would be classified as Special Education today making at least Ds honestly in the old days. Now they have to be given better grades if they are classified that way and that is purely a crime.
Willy, do you know how long we have had this DOE? If you check out the whole thing you will find that the state and local governments funded education quite well until Jimmy Carter created the DOE. He was giving the National Education Association what he had promised them when they gave him an unheard of sum to campaign with. The NEA was run by left leaners then and it may be worse now.
Yes, I worked at public education from 1958 - 1986 and think that the first 17 years the funding worked out quite a bit better. The federal government would throw out some special laws and provide money for those states who wanted the "strings attached" money and as it went along it got tougher because state legislatures stopped funding except for federal funds. Locals do very little these days by comparison with what went on before the creation of that most socialist Department. In the good old days the NEA wouldn't have been able to require schools to teach from Alinsky's book without the DOE to push for them.
Wipe out that socialist leaning bunch and see how long it takes for something good to happen with education. It was that bunch that talked for years about "self-esteem" as the most important thing that schools could do for their students. So sad. I remember students who would be classified as Special Education today making at least Ds honestly in the old days. Now they have to be given better grades if they are classified that way and that is purely a crime.
I don't know if you actually read what I wrote, but I am not against the Federal government removing itself from education, to a degree. I'm just concerned that a smaller Federal government means a larger State government. Again, we are going for the lesser of two evils.
While I agree that the Fed should get out of the education business, I still am concerned about how schools will be properly funded. It placed an amazing burden on the states at that point. Schools need to be public so that anyone, poor or rich, can attend and expect a minimum of education. The problem is that if we take away federal funding for those schools the money needs to be made up somewhere. It may shrink the size of the Federal government, but it increases the size of the state government. It's still big government no matter how you look at it.
Also, the fed needs to have a minimum of involvement in national education. They need to at least set a minimum standard that all public schools should meet for a student to graduate. Otherwise we get states with different levels of requirements for a student to graduate. To have an educated American citizen there needs to be a standard.
It is a common mistake to assume that the "Education" establishment is involved with education. It is not. It is involved with bestowing credentials. One can get an education in many different ways - self study, for example. But only "officially approved" institutions can bestow credentials.
If you want cost effective education, that's fine. But don't expect government to be cost effective. In fact, the government's agenda is the opposite. It has expended huge resources to degrade public education.
Just chart the rise in expenditures versus the drop in test scores.
Today, more money is spent on administrative overhead than on anything else. That's what "public funding" gets you.
The only government involvement that is tolerable is to provide a public accessible credential bank, where test scores can be found.
Students may learn any way, any where, any method, and gain credentials by examination. The free market will do the rest.
While I agree that the Fed should get out of the education business, I still am concerned about how schools will be properly funded. It placed an amazing burden on the states at that point. Schools need to be public so that anyone, poor or rich, can attend and expect a minimum of education. The problem is that if we take away federal funding for those schools the money needs to be made up somewhere. It may shrink the size of the Federal government, but it increases the size of the state government. It's still big government no matter how you look at it.
Also, the fed needs to have a minimum of involvement in national education. They need to at least set a minimum standard that all public schools should meet for a student to graduate. Otherwise we get states with different levels of requirements for a student to graduate. To have an educated American citizen there needs to be a standard.
What a lot of people fail to realize is every time you take a fed dollar there are strings attached. Get rid of the fed money and you won't need as much money because the strings are removed.
It doesn't taka $100 B a year to come up with federal standards.
I have never seen people as stupid as the new high school grads. They cant read a face clock , or add . The list goes on.
I would let homeschoolers keep some of their property tax . Also its a pension we don't have to pay later. Home school kids are clearly better educated .
..............Also, the fed needs to have a minimum of involvement in national education. They need to at least set a minimum standard that all public schools should meet for a student to graduate. Otherwise we get states with different levels of requirements for a student to graduate. To have an educated American citizen there needs to be a standard.
It seems to me that folks were generally better educated before the Feds started setting "standards" and placing the bar so low and before teachers unions took over the schools.
Let the states do it. Colleges and Universities will set their standards for entrance requirements and schools will meet those standards if they care to be accredited. A voucher system is a must. Parents can vote with their feet to the state and the schools where they want their children to attend.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
