National Rather than State Schools

[goldengrain]

Originally Posted by mimimomx3

How about local governments dictate what the LOCAL kids should learn? Education was gotten so much worse since the Dept. of Education was created in 1979. Big government is NEVER the answer.

It seems the only recourse when some states want to introduce the myths of one, particular religion into the curriculum. It is when laws governing home schooling vary dramatically from state to state. Some test the kids to make sure they are doing well, some test them not at all. (You don't think pedophiles are not interested in the latter?)

The problem, to me, is that some kids come from troubled homes or parents cannot afford to live in the neighborhoods with the better schools.

New Jersey has about 9mill school kids. Maryland, 7mill. NJ has over 600 school districts, Md has about 20. NJ pays more per capita in taxes per child in school but it seems that much of that is going to superintendents and the administrative people necessary to support all those districts.

That's what local control seems to be doing, just eating away the money. When good people vote for an increase in taxes they think it is to support better teachers. It really seems to go to bureaucrats.

Who is going to control/standardize this mess? The Feds, that's who.

[North Beach Person]

What you quoted as the MD school population of 7M is way overstated. The entire population of MD is only 5.8M or thereabouts.

While MD has only 24 school systems (one for each County plus Baltimore City) you have to also remember that the settlement patterns and history of the various states. MD's system is very "southern". Most, if not all, southern states have school systems based on Counties while the Northeast states have a history and tradition of more local control.

As an employee of one of the largest MD school systems (and growing up in PA which has 501 school districts) I have to say there are advantages and disadvantages to both. An advantage is the larger County system will typically have more resources and there isn't as much duplication. There also is a huge bureaucracy in those systems as compared to those based on localities. Even living in the smallest school system of Metro DC area the bureaucracy is nearly inpenetrable when dealing with school issues.

One problem is that the good schools in a County tend to be consumed by the problems of the County and school system and tarred by the same brush.

[nana053]

Originally Posted by Johnny Vanderburgh

My mistake, then. It sounded to me like you weren't in favor of the Texas version of History, teaching Geometry without proofs, or conceptual Physics classes.

I agree with your last part, but that is what gives me concern about the idea of national schools/standards. I think that getting the right people in place to set the standards is what is unlikely to happen.

I am not in favor of that at all. It is unlikely that this would spread to the rest of the US given that most places want to teach real math and real science and real history.

Of course with history, there is the problem of teaching the version that is white-washed. Look at how Russia taught history for the longest time. Hopefully we are better than that, but right now we are not. Read Lies My Teacher Told Me by James W. Loewen.

[goldengrain]

Originally Posted by North Beach Person

What you quoted as the MD school population of 7M is way overstated. The entire population of MD is only 5.8M or thereabouts.

Those were figures quoted on a late night radio program, Red-Eye something or other.

[LauraC]

Originally Posted by goldengrain

Should we expect uniform quality and coverage of subjects from our schools? Should public schools, at least up until High School, be a Federal responsibility?

Schools are paid for through local taxes.
Some schools have inferior equipment and teachers because there is not enough money.
Some neighborhoods are upper middle class where parents take the time to interact with their children more, go to PTA meetings, help with homework. Perhaps they don't require extra resources.

I know, there are those who get very indignant over too much federal power already, but I am thinking about what is the most effective way to have the best work force possible for the future of the country.

Do you think this would be an overall good change?

Just the opposite. The federal government should stay out of the Education business. The Department of Education has only been a Department since 1979 and the quality of education and our competitiveness with other countries has only gone downhill since.

Also, I believe Washington DC spends the most or second most per student. How's that working out for them?

Then there is California who spends their money on this but comes crying to the American taxpayer that teachers will lose jobs if we (as a country) don't pony up for police, firefighters and teachers?

"The Robert F. Kennedy Community Schools, a K-12 complex built on 23 acres of land, cost $578 million to build. Considering the school will house about 4,200 students, construction cost about $130,000 per pupil. So, what exactly is included in that hefty price tag? An auditorium modeled after the famous Coconut Grove nightclub, a state-of-the-art swimming pool, and a marble memorial for Robert Kennedy, just to name a few of the school's upscale features."

Los Angeles unveils new $578 million public school, the most expensive in the country | syracuse.com


"At RFK, the features include fine art murals and a marble memorial depicting the complex's namesake, a manicured public park, a state-of-the-art swimming pool and preservation of pieces of the original hotel."

LA Unveils $578 Million School, Costliest In The Nation

If Californian's want to waste Californian's money, fine by me. Leave the rest of us out of it. We aren't allowed to vote for the congressmen and senators in other states so I don't get much of a say in how a state like California wastes money.