Once and for all, to fix the Federal Government. . . .

[idb]

Oh really? Then how do you account for the more than 150 years or so that education was handled almost exclusively at the community level and we had at least one of the best educated, if not THE best educated people in the world?

You're running from the question of course but we'll come back to that later....

How do I account for it?

Easy.

What 150 years are you talking about? Year range please.

If you're talking about the colonial period it's pretty easy actually. The near homogeneous population was one factor; what was deemed "educated" was pretty much agreed on. Today if someone is an expert on the Harlem Renaissance he is considered an expert even though they may be quite aloof on the nation during that time period as a whole. The homogeneous population also was one of some level of entitlement--we didn't import a lot of poor people from Europe on purpose. Sure, some were here but there wasn't as many immigrants skewing the sample you're now talking about. Language barriers are quite prevalent in 2011; in 1911, that wasn't so much of the case. In 1811; it was almost unheard of. Where it did exist, the immigrant populations were damn near forced to learn English which just happened to be the dominant immigrant population. Today, there are entire neighborhoods of Los Angeles where you see no signs in English. In Miami--when I was there--it was quite the same case. You didn't see that in the Northeastern cities during your 150 years. So that is one reason; the idea of what was educated was pretty standard and the common clay of the sample was a cut above what you'd find now on average.


Source please?


Well the 1 to 1 teacher to student ratio is probably one clue there. The fact that teachers are the parents probably injects a sense of urgency on the students, wouldn't you think.

That was a crazy question.



Ahh...so now you're saying the Department of Education is on the out. Can we have a State Department? Or is it just at the district level would you allow this? Or are districts too meddlesome for you as well? Who sets the standards?

Yes, lets have the best educated population in the world. That won't happen with the federal government in control of it.

That wasn't the question; the funding of education was the question...do you want to get rid of Pell grants, GSL's, government funded research at universities, state universities in general, head start.

This is what you seem to be prescribing in your "lets get back to what a bunch of old white guys wanted 224 years ago approach" to solving the problems of 2010.

One other thing. Many states are billions in debt. Billions. B-I-L-L-I-O-N-S.
Now you want them to just take over all schooling without any federal aid? Is that the case?

Federal support, local control. Programs like 'no child left behind' that mandate what is taught and how are the problem.

There was a time when the federal government needed to step in because states were totally busted NOT providing an education that was equal in opportunity or quality for all their citizens, 2011 is a different time. The job of the federal government should be to equalize opportunity with funding and step in if necessary to settle grievances, not micromanage curriculum and squelch competition among the states for quality teachers via laws pandering to the national teachers union.

For all that though, there needs to be some minimum national oversight.

 

[Foxfyre]

You're running from the question of course but we'll come back to that later....

How do I account for it?

Easy.

What 150 years are you talking about? Year range please.

If you're talking about the colonial period it's pretty easy actually. The near homogeneous population was one factor; what was deemed "educated" was pretty much agreed on. Today if someone is an expert on the Harlem Renaissance he is considered an expert even though they may be quite aloof on the nation during that time period as a whole. The homogeneous population also was one of some level of entitlement--we didn't import a lot of poor people from Europe on purpose. Sure, some were here but there wasn't as many immigrants skewing the sample you're now talking about. Language barriers are quite prevalent in 2011; in 1911, that wasn't so much of the case. In 1811; it was almost unheard of. Where it did exist, the immigrant populations were damn near forced to learn English which just happened to be the dominant immigrant population. Today, there are entire neighborhoods of Los Angeles where you see no signs in English. In Miami--when I was there--it was quite the same case. You didn't see that in the Northeastern cities during your 150 years. So that is one reason; the idea of what was educated was pretty standard and the common clay of the sample was a cut above what you'd find now on average.


Source please?


Well the 1 to 1 teacher to student ratio is probably one clue there. The fact that teachers are the parents probably injects a sense of urgency on the students, wouldn't you think.

That was a crazy question.



Ahh...so now you're saying the Department of Education is on the out. Can we have a State Department? Or is it just at the district level would you allow this? Or are districts too meddlesome for you as well? Who sets the standards?



That wasn't the question; the funding of education was the question...do you want to get rid of Pell grants, GSL's, government funded research at universities, state universities in general, head start.

This is what you seem to be prescribing in your "lets get back to what a bunch of old white guys wanted 224 years ago approach" to solving the problems of 2010.

One other thing. Many states are billions in debt. Billions. B-I-L-L-I-O-N-S.
Now you want them to just take over all schooling without any federal aid? Is that the case?

Federal support, local control. Programs like 'no child left behind' that mandate what is taught and how are the problem.

There was a time when the federal government needed to step in because states were totally busted NOT providing an education that was equal in opportunity or quality for all their citizens, 2011 is a different time. The job of the federal government should be to equalize opportunity with funding and step in if necessary to settle grievances, not micromanage curriculum and squelch competition among the states for quality teachers via laws pandering to the national teachers union.

For all that though, there needs to be some minimum national oversight.

Why? When the federal government was not providing oversight--translation: meddling--the USA had some of the best schools in the world if not THE best schools in the world. The more the federal government inserted funding, which of course included oversight and control, the worse the schools got. It should not be the responsibility of the citizens of Vermont to pay taxes to support schools in Louisiana. Vermont should keep their money at home and focus on providing a great education for the children of Vermont.

And anyone with an appreciation for the Constitution and the intent of the Founders understands how dangerous it is for a powerful central government to have control of school curriculum and content.

I do not want the Federal government to have any control over the education of the citizens.

 

[AVG-JOE]

You're running from the question of course but we'll come back to that later....

How do I account for it?

Easy.

What 150 years are you talking about? Year range please.

If you're talking about the colonial period it's pretty easy actually. The near homogeneous population was one factor; what was deemed "educated" was pretty much agreed on. Today if someone is an expert on the Harlem Renaissance he is considered an expert even though they may be quite aloof on the nation during that time period as a whole. The homogeneous population also was one of some level of entitlement--we didn't import a lot of poor people from Europe on purpose. Sure, some were here but there wasn't as many immigrants skewing the sample you're now talking about. Language barriers are quite prevalent in 2011; in 1911, that wasn't so much of the case. In 1811; it was almost unheard of. Where it did exist, the immigrant populations were damn near forced to learn English which just happened to be the dominant immigrant population. Today, there are entire neighborhoods of Los Angeles where you see no signs in English. In Miami--when I was there--it was quite the same case. You didn't see that in the Northeastern cities during your 150 years. So that is one reason; the idea of what was educated was pretty standard and the common clay of the sample was a cut above what you'd find now on average.


Source please?


Well the 1 to 1 teacher to student ratio is probably one clue there. The fact that teachers are the parents probably injects a sense of urgency on the students, wouldn't you think.

That was a crazy question.



Ahh...so now you're saying the Department of Education is on the out. Can we have a State Department? Or is it just at the district level would you allow this? Or are districts too meddlesome for you as well? Who sets the standards?



That wasn't the question; the funding of education was the question...do you want to get rid of Pell grants, GSL's, government funded research at universities, state universities in general, head start.

This is what you seem to be prescribing in your "lets get back to what a bunch of old white guys wanted 224 years ago approach" to solving the problems of 2010.

One other thing. Many states are billions in debt. Billions. B-I-L-L-I-O-N-S.
Now you want them to just take over all schooling without any federal aid? Is that the case?

Federal support, local control. Programs like 'no child left behind' that mandate what is taught and how are the problem.

There was a time when the federal government needed to step in because states were totally busted NOT providing an education that was equal in opportunity or quality for all their citizens, 2011 is a different time. The job of the federal government should be to equalize opportunity with funding and step in if necessary to settle grievances, not micromanage curriculum and squelch competition among the states for quality teachers via laws pandering to the national teachers union.

For all that though, there needs to be some minimum national oversight.

I'll admit that I'm ass-u-me-ing "settle grievances" is all the oversight states and school districts would need in the information rich, microscope up-the-ass environment all public bureaucracies find themselves in today, but hey - the people need to carry something of this load, eh?

 

[candycorn]

Oh really? Then how do you account for the more than 150 years or so that education was handled almost exclusively at the community level and we had at least one of the best educated, if not THE best educated people in the world?

You're running from the question of course but we'll come back to that later....

How do I account for it?

Easy.

What 150 years are you talking about? Year range please.

If you're talking about the colonial period it's pretty easy actually. The near homogeneous population was one factor; what was deemed "educated" was pretty much agreed on. Today if someone is an expert on the Harlem Renaissance he is considered an expert even though they may be quite aloof on the nation during that time period as a whole. The homogeneous population also was one of some level of entitlement--we didn't import a lot of poor people from Europe on purpose. Sure, some were here but there wasn't as many immigrants skewing the sample you're now talking about. Language barriers are quite prevalent in 2011; in 1911, that wasn't so much of the case. In 1811; it was almost unheard of. Where it did exist, the immigrant populations were damn near forced to learn English which just happened to be the dominant immigrant population. Today, there are entire neighborhoods of Los Angeles where you see no signs in English. In Miami--when I was there--it was quite the same case. You didn't see that in the Northeastern cities during your 150 years. So that is one reason; the idea of what was educated was pretty standard and the common clay of the sample was a cut above what you'd find now on average.


Source please?


Well the 1 to 1 teacher to student ratio is probably one clue there. The fact that teachers are the parents probably injects a sense of urgency on the students, wouldn't you think.

That was a crazy question.



Ahh...so now you're saying the Department of Education is on the out. Can we have a State Department? Or is it just at the district level would you allow this? Or are districts too meddlesome for you as well? Who sets the standards?

Yes, lets have the best educated population in the world. That won't happen with the federal government in control of it.

That wasn't the question; the funding of education was the question...do you want to get rid of Pell grants, GSL's, government funded research at universities, state universities in general, head start.

This is what you seem to be prescribing in your "lets get back to what a bunch of old white guys wanted 224 years ago approach" to solving the problems of 2010.

One other thing. Many states are billions in debt. Billions. B-I-L-L-I-O-N-S.
Now you want them to just take over all schooling without any federal aid? Is that the case?

Federal support, local control. Programs like 'no child left behind' that mandate what is taught and how are the problem.

There was a time when the federal government needed to step in because states were totally busted NOT providing an education that was equal in opportunity or quality for all their citizens, 2011 is a different time. The job of the federal government should be to equalize opportunity with funding and step in if necessary to settle grievances, not micromanage curriculum and squelch competition among the states for quality teachers via laws pandering to the national teachers union.

I can agree with some of that but stating that the states are "fair and balanced" is ignoring tons of evidence to the contrary. In no time flat you will see the states teaching their "brand" of education.

I do find it encouraging that, unlike some, you acknowledge the Feds have at least a role. The entire idea of

"Well, sorry Arkansas kids, the price of gas went up--the money we were going to spend to keep the schools open went to pay for gasoline so we won't have school past March 30". See you next fiscal year. And plan on packing a lunch every day, we can't afford cafeterias. If you could bring flashlights to read by as well, that would be sweet...kthxbye"​

deserves to be in the non-sense Hall of Fame.

 

[candycorn]

You're running from the question of course but we'll come back to that later....

How do I account for it?

Easy.

What 150 years are you talking about? Year range please.

If you're talking about the colonial period it's pretty easy actually. The near homogeneous population was one factor; what was deemed "educated" was pretty much agreed on. Today if someone is an expert on the Harlem Renaissance he is considered an expert even though they may be quite aloof on the nation during that time period as a whole. The homogeneous population also was one of some level of entitlement--we didn't import a lot of poor people from Europe on purpose. Sure, some were here but there wasn't as many immigrants skewing the sample you're now talking about. Language barriers are quite prevalent in 2011; in 1911, that wasn't so much of the case. In 1811; it was almost unheard of. Where it did exist, the immigrant populations were damn near forced to learn English which just happened to be the dominant immigrant population. Today, there are entire neighborhoods of Los Angeles where you see no signs in English. In Miami--when I was there--it was quite the same case. You didn't see that in the Northeastern cities during your 150 years. So that is one reason; the idea of what was educated was pretty standard and the common clay of the sample was a cut above what you'd find now on average.


Source please?


Well the 1 to 1 teacher to student ratio is probably one clue there. The fact that teachers are the parents probably injects a sense of urgency on the students, wouldn't you think.

That was a crazy question.



Ahh...so now you're saying the Department of Education is on the out. Can we have a State Department? Or is it just at the district level would you allow this? Or are districts too meddlesome for you as well? Who sets the standards?



That wasn't the question; the funding of education was the question...do you want to get rid of Pell grants, GSL's, government funded research at universities, state universities in general, head start.

This is what you seem to be prescribing in your "lets get back to what a bunch of old white guys wanted 224 years ago approach" to solving the problems of 2010.

One other thing. Many states are billions in debt. Billions. B-I-L-L-I-O-N-S.
Now you want them to just take over all schooling without any federal aid? Is that the case?

Federal support, local control. Programs like 'no child left behind' that mandate what is taught and how are the problem.

There was a time when the federal government needed to step in because states were totally busted NOT providing an education that was equal in opportunity or quality for all their citizens, 2011 is a different time. The job of the federal government should be to equalize opportunity with funding and step in if necessary to settle grievances, not micromanage curriculum and squelch competition among the states for quality teachers via laws pandering to the national teachers union.

For all that though, there needs to be some minimum national oversight.

One would think...

 

[candycorn]

Lets move on from education if we can;

Should there be national standards for anything? For example, I have driven from coast to coast ( not literally but very close to the entire nation) along Interstate 10. What if Mississippi wanted to start using plywood and paint for their road signs along their roadways (whatever designation they have). Alabama wants to use gray signs instead of green ones like everywhere else. Florida decides to stop using any. Is that okay?

What about the FCC...should there be any regulation about what comes on the public airwaves?
What did the founders have to say about that? I'm guessing we can get some interpretation on that and what they thought LOL.

Should we have federal standards for what can become a state? Lets say that the upper peninsula wanted to leave Michigan. Is that okay if they vote for it? Should Michigan be able to enforce the borders drawn by Washington on their people or should they have to? What if they wanted an island that is currently claimed by Ohio?

What about integration? How'd you like what Kennedy did in the 60's in Alabama? Should states be able to institute apartheid?

I'm curious how far down the rabbit hole this goes.

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

Right. Qualified by all the reasons I have already provided. If a state or community isn't doing the job to educate its citizens it is up to the citizens to see that it does. Or the citizens will homeschool. Or they will move to a district with a good school system. Or use private or parochial schools. If the federal government was any good at doing education, the D.C. schools would be the best in the nation. They aren't. And every President, all his staff, and all of Congress send their kids to private schools there.

The States and local communities will do a much better job than the federal government.

And for families that can’t home school because both parents work, or can’t afford to move to another school district, or can’t afford private school…

Either you’re naïve or dishonest – such a paradigm would create a social class structure where only the well-to-do can afford education and the poor will be forced to do without.

But I suspect that’s been the intent of the radical right and libertarians all along.

 

[candycorn]

Right. Qualified by all the reasons I have already provided. If a state or community isn't doing the job to educate its citizens it is up to the citizens to see that it does. Or the citizens will homeschool. Or they will move to a district with a good school system. Or use private or parochial schools. If the federal government was any good at doing education, the D.C. schools would be the best in the nation. They aren't. And every President, all his staff, and all of Congress send their kids to private schools there.

The States and local communities will do a much better job than the federal government.

And for families that can’t home school because both parents work, or can’t afford to move to another school district, or can’t afford private school…

Either you’re naïve or dishonest – such a paradigm would create a social class structure where only the well-to-do can afford education and the poor will be forced to do without.

But I suspect that’s been the intent of the radical right and libertarians all along.

I wouldn't call him/her naive or dishonest but otherwise you're 100% correct. The reason I brought up education was because it most abundantly reveals the lie of the hard right.

I would be for local control of education...I really would...but only to the point to where the Federal Government pays for the absolute basics; 12 years of English (standard, special and advanced), 12 years of Mathematics (standard, special and advanced), 12 years of history/social studies (standard, special and advanced), and 12 years of home economics including real life education.

Beyond that

If the Chandler school district wants to have drama or swimming programs, the citizens of that district have a bond election or special tax in their district to fund it. Lets say that the Scottsdale schools want to have drama, swimming, football, debate, and 10 other programs, the citizens there fund it.

The OP seems to think that any federal dollars are bad ideas and we shouldn't send them there to start with. I disagree; I think it is a national security issue. It is in MY best interest to have educated Nebraskans and educated Idahoans even though I have never been to either place. These are the people, with others, who will be defending our country, inventing the new products, and yes moving here and employing me and my neighbors when they get tired of the bleak lands where they live (LOL..just kidding).

Now, this will lead to class divisions; the richer districts where there is large tax base will have more bells and whistles than the poorer districts. Life isn't fair. But the minimum safety net of an education will not be squandered because some bureaucrat in, lets say, Santa Fe or Carson City decided not to fund the schools at a level that is necessary.

 

[idb]

Federal support, local control. Programs like 'no child left behind' that mandate what is taught and how are the problem.

There was a time when the federal government needed to step in because states were totally busted NOT providing an education that was equal in opportunity or quality for all their citizens, 2011 is a different time. The job of the federal government should be to equalize opportunity with funding and step in if necessary to settle grievances, not micromanage curriculum and squelch competition among the states for quality teachers via laws pandering to the national teachers union.

For all that though, there needs to be some minimum national oversight.

Why? When the federal government was not providing oversight--translation: meddling--the USA had some of the best schools in the world if not THE best schools in the world. The more the federal government inserted funding, which of course included oversight and control, the worse the schools got. It should not be the responsibility of the citizens of Vermont to pay taxes to support schools in Louisiana. Vermont should keep their money at home and focus on providing a great education for the children of Vermont.

And anyone with an appreciation for the Constitution and the intent of the Founders understands how dangerous it is for a powerful central government to have control of school curriculum and content.

I do not want the Federal government to have any control over the education of the citizens.

Well, shouldn't there be a minimum standard of education required?
Shouldn't kids be taught to read for example?

What if you had a state that decided, for the sake of their own prosperity, they just needed to churn kids out to dig up coal or tar sands, and structured their education system accordingly?

 

[Foxfyre]

I really find polls like this, simplistic and idealistic, uncomplicated by the reality of facts, unencumbered by truth, assisted only by "what is my perfect spouse" type of thinking..really kind of shows how many Americans are really afraid of hard mental exercise, afraid of self-education, afraid of honest and prolonged deliberation: Americans who vote in polls like this simply want to vote in a "TAKE A PILL" poll and the pain will be gone!

No wonder our nation is so screwed up with warring factions, constrained by "gotcha" talking heads, influenced by millionaire media-driven political know-it-alls, obsessed with headline-driven half-truths, and allured with two new books about politics every day!

Thank you for your opinion. Perhaps you would like to start your own thread and your own poll for those more suitable for your particular tastes and intellect.

 

[Foxfyre]

For all that though, there needs to be some minimum national oversight.

Why? When the federal government was not providing oversight--translation: meddling--the USA had some of the best schools in the world if not THE best schools in the world. The more the federal government inserted funding, which of course included oversight and control, the worse the schools got. It should not be the responsibility of the citizens of Vermont to pay taxes to support schools in Louisiana. Vermont should keep their money at home and focus on providing a great education for the children of Vermont.

And anyone with an appreciation for the Constitution and the intent of the Founders understands how dangerous it is for a powerful central government to have control of school curriculum and content.

I do not want the Federal government to have any control over the education of the citizens.

Well, shouldn't there be a minimum standard of education required?
Shouldn't kids be taught to read for example?

What if you had a state that decided, for the sake of their own prosperity, they just needed to churn kids out to dig up coal or tar sands, and structured their education system accordingly?

Sure, but it should be the parents, teachers, and local school boards who determine what that minimum standard will be. Those who would tolerate the scenario you suggest are the types who would not see that their children are educated anyway. Otherwise the Founders envisioned a federal government that would secure our rights and then leave us alone to form the society we wished to have. The idea of self governance is alien to those raised and conditioned to believe that the role of the government is to feed, clothe, provide healthcare, educate, and force the people to conform to certain disciplines and standards.

The Founders trusted the people to look to their own interests far more effectively and efficiently than any central government will ever do.

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

The idea of self governance is alien to those raised and conditioned to believe that the role of the government is to feed, clothe, provide healthcare, educate, and force the people to conform to certain disciplines and standards.

There is no one who adheres to any of the criteria noted above; the extreme right and libertarians have created their liberal straw man so well, you actually believe the contrivance exists.

 

[Foxfyre]

The idea of self governance is alien to those raised and conditioned to believe that the role of the government is to feed, clothe, provide healthcare, educate, and force the people to conform to certain disciplines and standards.

There is no one who adheres to any of the criteria noted above; the extreme right and libertarians have created their liberal straw man so well, you actually believe the contrivance exists.

All you have to do is read almost any political thread. Including this one. There are always some who think it is the duty of the federal government to take from the haves for the benefit of the have nots and to make laws designing the sort of society that is deemed suitable for all.

 

[candycorn]

The idea of self governance is alien to those raised and conditioned to believe that the role of the government is to feed, clothe, provide healthcare, educate, and force the people to conform to certain disciplines and standards.

There is no one who adheres to any of the criteria noted above; the extreme right and libertarians have created their liberal straw man so well, you actually believe the contrivance exists.

All you have to do is read almost any political thread. Including this one. There are always some who think it is the duty of the federal government to take from the haves for the benefit of the have nots and to make laws designing the sort of society that is deemed suitable for all.

<sarcasm>

Yeah...if Arkansas can't afford to educate their kids, too bad for the kids right? I'm frankly tired of seeing my tax money going to educate kids that aren't mine. What do I care if my neighbor gets educated or not? Screw them. Its my money, you can't take it from me for any reason other than preventing an armed invasion.

Right!

 

[AVG-JOE]

Lets move on from education if we can;

Should there be national standards for anything? For example, I have driven from coast to coast ( not literally but very close to the entire nation) along Interstate 10. What if Mississippi wanted to start using plywood and paint for their road signs along their roadways (whatever designation they have). Alabama wants to use gray signs instead of green ones like everywhere else. Florida decides to stop using any. Is that okay?

What about the FCC...should there be any regulation about what comes on the public airwaves?
What did the founders have to say about that? I'm guessing we can get some interpretation on that and what they thought LOL.

Should we have federal standards for what can become a state? Lets say that the upper peninsula wanted to leave Michigan. Is that okay if they vote for it? Should Michigan be able to enforce the borders drawn by Washington on their people or should they have to? What if they wanted an island that is currently claimed by Ohio?

What about integration? How'd you like what Kennedy did in the 60's in Alabama? Should states be able to institute apartheid?

I'm curious how far down the rabbit hole this goes.

There is a role for the federal government to assist the states as they coordinate things like roads, and considering the reason for the interstate system and the funding that supports it, federal standards are not unreasonable, especially in things like concrete formulas, bridge construction and consistent markings - but why in the world would the states fight that in the world of today?

The federal government should also have a role in settling any grievance a person has against their state, and if a state is stupid enough to institute discriminatory laws against blacks, gays or even democrats , the federal courts is where decisions should be made about the CONSTITUTIONALITY of those laws.

The system is designed to work, but not if its micromanaged from the top.

 

[AVG-JOE]

For all that though, there needs to be some minimum national oversight.

Why? When the federal government was not providing oversight--translation: meddling--the USA had some of the best schools in the world if not THE best schools in the world. The more the federal government inserted funding, which of course included oversight and control, the worse the schools got. It should not be the responsibility of the citizens of Vermont to pay taxes to support schools in Louisiana. Vermont should keep their money at home and focus on providing a great education for the children of Vermont.

And anyone with an appreciation for the Constitution and the intent of the Founders understands how dangerous it is for a powerful central government to have control of school curriculum and content.

I do not want the Federal government to have any control over the education of the citizens.

Well, shouldn't there be a minimum standard of education required?
Shouldn't kids be taught to read for example?

What if you had a state that decided, for the sake of their own prosperity, they just needed to churn kids out to dig up coal or tar sands, and structured their education system accordingly?

Do you REALLY imagine that that could happen in the world of today?

If it did, do you really imagine people wouldn't move to a state with a better focus, completely undermining the tax base of the offending state?

 

[AVG-JOE]

I really find polls like this, simplistic and idealistic, uncomplicated by the reality of facts, unencumbered by truth, assisted only by "what is my perfect spouse" type of thinking..really kind of shows how many Americans are really afraid of hard mental exercise, afraid of self-education, afraid of honest and prolonged deliberation: Americans who vote in polls like this simply want to vote in a "TAKE A PILL" poll and the pain will be gone!

No wonder our nation is so screwed up with warring factions, constrained by "gotcha" talking heads, influenced by millionaire media-driven political know-it-alls, obsessed with headline-driven half-truths, and allured with two new books about politics every day!

Nice job of letting us all know that the sky is falling, Mr. Little. Do you have anything to contribute or discuss, or do you see your role exclusively as a bitch-meister?

 

[AVG-JOE]

Why? When the federal government was not providing oversight--translation: meddling--the USA had some of the best schools in the world if not THE best schools in the world. The more the federal government inserted funding, which of course included oversight and control, the worse the schools got. It should not be the responsibility of the citizens of Vermont to pay taxes to support schools in Louisiana. Vermont should keep their money at home and focus on providing a great education for the children of Vermont.

And anyone with an appreciation for the Constitution and the intent of the Founders understands how dangerous it is for a powerful central government to have control of school curriculum and content.

I do not want the Federal government to have any control over the education of the citizens.

Well, shouldn't there be a minimum standard of education required?
Shouldn't kids be taught to read for example?

What if you had a state that decided, for the sake of their own prosperity, they just needed to churn kids out to dig up coal or tar sands, and structured their education system accordingly?

Sure, but it should be the parents, teachers, and local school boards who determine what that minimum standard will be. Those who would tolerate the scenario you suggest are the types who would not see that their children are educated anyway. Otherwise the Founders envisioned a federal government that would secure our rights and then leave us alone to form the society we wished to have. The idea of self governance is alien to those raised and conditioned to believe that the role of the government is to feed, clothe, provide healthcare, educate, and force the people to conform to certain disciplines and standards.

The Founders trusted the people to look to their own interests far more effectively and efficiently than any central government will ever do.

Besides, what could possibly be better for the teachers than 50 reasonably independent bureaucracies competing and vying for their services? With the whole thing managed from the top by one central bureaucracy, the resulting contract becomes a nationally homogeneous, 'take it or leave it' affair that many quality teachers are choosing to leave.

Competition among the states is one more factor that will help to keep states focused on their people at large.

 

[AVG-JOE]

The idea of self governance is alien to those raised and conditioned to believe that the role of the government is to feed, clothe, provide healthcare, educate, and force the people to conform to certain disciplines and standards.

There is no one who adheres to any of the criteria noted above; the extreme right and libertarians have created their liberal straw man so well, you actually believe the contrivance exists.

All you have to do is read almost any political thread. Including this one. There are always some who think it is the duty of the federal government to take from the haves for the benefit of the have nots and to make laws designing the sort of society that is deemed suitable for all.

I disagree, Foxfyre... especially in this thread, I don't see any indication of support for the concept of simply transferring wealth from haves to have-nots by way of cash payments.

I see concern for national standards and righteous concern for the US history of corruption in local politics during the 19th & 20th centuries. Both are valid concerns.

I also see valid concerns regarding the everything that the federal government now does, from food & drug safety to air & port traffic control to tracking criminals across state lines. Lord knows it would be a step backwards to have Bonnie & Clyde types crossing state lines to foment an escape.

The constitution is a great place to start and step one is to convince congress to give up some of the power it acquired in the 1860's and a LOT of the power it's acquired since the 1950's, without necessarily giving up the responsibility for standards and education* that SHOULD be the purview of the federal bureaucracy.

* By education, I don't mean primary education, I mean the responsibility the government has to let people know what decisions are being made and the effects of those decisions, as they become proven. Speculation over the decisions and plans should still be the purview of NBC, CBS, FOX, ABC, CNN, et al.

 

[candycorn]

Why? When the federal government was not providing oversight--translation: meddling--the USA had some of the best schools in the world if not THE best schools in the world. The more the federal government inserted funding, which of course included oversight and control, the worse the schools got. It should not be the responsibility of the citizens of Vermont to pay taxes to support schools in Louisiana. Vermont should keep their money at home and focus on providing a great education for the children of Vermont.

And anyone with an appreciation for the Constitution and the intent of the Founders understands how dangerous it is for a powerful central government to have control of school curriculum and content.

I do not want the Federal government to have any control over the education of the citizens.

Well, shouldn't there be a minimum standard of education required?
Shouldn't kids be taught to read for example?

What if you had a state that decided, for the sake of their own prosperity, they just needed to churn kids out to dig up coal or tar sands, and structured their education system accordingly?

Do you REALLY imagine that that could happen in the world of today?

If it did, do you really imagine people wouldn't move to a state with a better focus, completely undermining the tax base of the offending state?

In the world of today? No. That is because we have the federal standards--you know...federal standards; the ones you want to get rid of. Thanks to those standards, there are penalties for the implementation of such draconian measures. Of course, the same federal standards did away with a lot of vocational education that, in my view, was a huge benefit to a great number of non college material kids. I don't thin college is a logical goal for a lot of children and you can make a nice living as a bodyman or an auto mechanic or as an a/c technician.

But the thread's general purpose was to basically get the federal government back to doing what it was in the Constitution; was it not ? And apparently that bastardized view of the role of the government is the goal of many people here. Louisiana's problems require a Louisiana solution in other words. If they can't solve it; the thought is apparently, oh well, that's Louisiana's fault; their population be damned.

What is left out of such moronic stances is that why the State of Texas may be the reddest of all states; the population of about 30 million does not share the values of their governor. Likely less than 20 million do. But since we operate on a majority rules principle, the governor and legislatures only have to appeal to 50.1 percent of the voters. I guess if the other 49.9 percent don't like it...tough tacos?

What is forgotten is that laws are passed to protect minorities be they political, racial, gender, financial or something else altogether. The thought that laws are an instrument of the powerful is where this train of thought seems to have gone off the cliff in my view.