The Trump Presidency

[nobodythank you]

But if that's the argument, why have states at all if the Federal government knows best?

As Devildoc pointed out earlier, Dept of Education wasn't formed until 1979. How did we possibly progress prior to that?! We certainly weren't faltering as a nation.

So, disbanding it is not something that will lead to a cataclysmic event for the nation. Standardization is only good to a point; sometimes the bureaucracy stifles innovation. We still need to be competitive at a global level, that helps serve as a free market check.

I never said the Federal government knows best. However, I do know that states are at times incapable of doing whats best for everyone. I provided several general examples of where that has proven true in the past. I am all for avoiding the pitfalls of standardization, but understand that not having a standard for everyone to work towards creates differing levels of quality. You wouldn't run a manufacturing business with varying levels of quality. You would have all your products meet the same level of quality control. Being competitive involves basic levels of intelligence and competence.

I respectfully disagree. Set the standard: grade 1 must have these component, grade 2, etc. Then anything above and beyond can be up to the state in the form of...electives, whatever.

Whatever reason they invented the DOE in 1979, it really hasn't worked. Kill it, distribute the tax money that would have supported it to the states DOEs.

The cabinets were established to set, enforce, and promulgate national policy. To dictate to a state how to run a state-mandated program is crazy. Or, do this: get rid of all the states' DOEs, and just federalize it (no, please don't). But the animal they created does not work.

I think when one looks at any program that is supposed to be results-oriented, you have to ask: "are we getting the results we desire?" Outcome-based education is nothing new, but in it's current form, does not work.

That's kinda what I said isn't it? Set a standard and let the states figure out how to get there. The concept of a DOE makes logical sense. Just because it has been mismanaged for several decades doesn't mean it cannot be put to good use.

The fact that the DOE was created on a specific date, and had not been used before is a weak one. We didn't mandate vaccinations for school children until the early 1900s. Since we didn't have them before then did we need them? Just look at the mess California got into with allowing for religious exemption for basic childhood vaccinations. I realize the original topics are different in that one saves lives and the other does not, but the intent is to show that states cannot always agree on what needs to be done.

Think about it. Our nation, as a whole, needs to make sure we all can compete with each other, and the world. How can we be expected to compete when the west teaches revisionist history, the south teaches hell fire and damnation, the north teaches....well, no one really knows what they teach (other than being assholes :troll:). The states cannot have all the power and decision making authority. Nor can the Federal government have that sole power over the states to dictate everything. The Feds are there for when the states cannot agree.

 

[nobodythank you]

I think that education is a national defense priority, as such it should be regulated by the federal government.

Damn, that was a better reason than mine. Had not considered it a critical infrastructure item, but it makes sense.

 

[Blizzard]

I think that education is a national defense priority, as such it should be regulated by the federal government.

By that logic, virtually everything could be argued as a national defense priority, right? So, why have states powers at all? Was our national defense at risk prior to 1979? Were we uneducated prior to having federal intervention?

Just curious to hear more about this argument because I hear it often. It makes for a good superficial argument, I guess, but it doesn't seem to hold up under scrutiny. No U.S. Department of Education does not mean no education.

 

[nobodythank you]

By that logic, virtually everything could be argued as a national defense priority, right? So, why have states powers at all? Was our national defense at risk prior to 1979? Were we uneducated prior to having federal intervention?

Just curious to hear more about this argument because I hear it often. It makes for a good superficial argument, I guess, but it doesn't seem to hold up under scrutiny. No U.S. Department of Education does not mean no education.

How so? It absolutely stands up to scrutiny. National defense is not a static priority, it changes and must be seen within a long term context. How can you assure security without well educated people? Using your logic, how are power, water, and agriculture national defense priorities or critical infrastructure? They are because they help to keep civilized society functioning.

We didn't have laws prohibiting discrimination based on race, color, religion, sex, and national origin by federal and state governments as well as some public places prior to 1964. Does that mean that it wasn't needed? Obviously it was. Same holds true with the Dept of Ed. It is needed. It also needs to be completely retooled with less waste, fraud, and abuse :-"

 

[CDG]

Unprofessional behavior on both sides. POTUS needs to realize he can't make those kinds of remarks, and the Senator acted like a child throwing a temper tantrum.

‘Come after me’: Pennsylvania pol goes off on ‘gibbon’ Trump in profanity-laced Facebook post

 

[Il Duce]

I'm definitely not an expert in the department of education but I think it's responsibilities are not as significant as @DA SWO and @Devildoc are describing. Would love to understand better if someone has more resources to post. These were the best summary resources I saw on a quick search: Federal Role in Education What Does the U.S. Department of Education Do?

It looks to me like the department of education is primarily a national source to track education progress and standards and to allocate/manage federal resources. Considering federal money is approximately 8% of the education budget it's a useful stick but by no means the last word on anybody's education. I definitely think we would want a federal agency to manage federal resources - and I would think having federal tracking data to judge effectiveness, resource management, and achievement standards is far superior to having a mish-mash of state standards (or lack thereof).

Also, at least going by the education department website, they became a cabinet organization in 1979 but the responsibilities they execute are traced back to the 19th century.

 

[Devildoc]

I never said the Federal government knows best. However, I do know that states are at times incapable of doing whats best for everyone. I provided several general examples of where that has proven true in the past. I am all for avoiding the pitfalls of standardization, but understand that not having a standard for everyone to work towards creates differing levels of quality. You wouldn't run a manufacturing business with varying levels of quality. You would have all your products meet the same level of quality control. Being competitive involves basic levels of intelligence and competence.

That's kinda what I said isn't it? Set a standard and let the states figure out how to get there. The concept of a DOE makes logical sense. Just because it has been mismanaged for several decades doesn't mean it cannot be put to good use.

The fact that the DOE was created on a specific date, and had not been used before is a weak one. We didn't mandate vaccinations for school children until the early 1900s. Since we didn't have them before then did we need them? Just look at the mess California got into with allowing for religious exemption for basic childhood vaccinations. I realize the original topics are different in that one saves lives and the other does not, but the intent is to show that states cannot always agree on what needs to be done.

Think about it. Our nation, as a whole, needs to make sure we all can compete with each other, and the world. How can we be expected to compete when the west teaches revisionist history, the south teaches hell fire and damnation, the north teaches....well, no one really knows what they teach (other than being assholes :troll:). The states cannot have all the power and decision making authority. Nor can the Federal government have that sole power over the states to dictate everything. The Feds are there for when the states cannot agree.

I see your points; I just disagree. To me, the concept of a DOE in not logical. It is redundant; and worse, if we say we measure by outcomes, the product has sucked. As for my argument regarding when it was invented, I do not see it as weak. Your analogy to immunizations isn't quite right because not all school require all immunizations, and if you look at the outcomes, rates of disease have gone down since immunizations started being mandated in public schools. With regard to DOE, the outcomes have actually got worse, not better. If the DOE would normalize quality control and educational outcomes, then all states would be roughly the same.

We'll have to declare a modus vivendi on this one and agree where we can.

 

[TLDR20]

By that logic, virtually everything could be argued as a national defense priority, right? So, why have states powers at all? Was our national defense at risk prior to 1979? Were we uneducated prior to having federal intervention?

Just curious to hear more about this argument because I hear it often. It makes for a good superficial argument, I guess, but it doesn't seem to hold up under scrutiny. No U.S. Department of Education does not mean no education.

If there is not a National standard that is enforced at a national level, and there are no federal funds reaching some of the lowest levels, we may have many people who are too undereducated to do the most basic of jobs.

In my opinion, our country's defense rests on a few things. A strong educated base from which to pull men and women to fight, a highly educated research and development group that can out engineer our present and future enemies.

Part of what makes American soldiers, and many western ones, good is that we can think on our feet. We can understand what we are taught in basic training. We aren't just given a rifle and told advance or die.

 

[AWP]

I liken the DoEd to what many of us learned in some form of SOF role: Tell me the desired end state or goal, let me determine how to arrive at that point.

 

[ThunderHorse]

In regards to the Dept of Ed, the states DOEs and the Federal Dept Of Ed do not accredit schools. Standards are truly set by the accrediting agencies. So in California, Hawaii and our Island Territories in the Pacific all seek accreditation through WASC and WASC Senior. Specialty schools are different the higher you go.

Point being is that the California Department of Education has a budget of 53.2 Billion...not sure how many employees but I'm sure it is significant. The Budget for the Department of Education seems stupidly high when they should have maybe, and I mean maybe a quarter of their work force. The damn thing has 4400 employees and a budget of over 120 billion, half of the funding is coming from the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act. Set standards for the states and accrediting agencies and then be done.

 

[nobodythank you]

I see your points; I just disagree. To me, the concept of a DOE in not logical. It is redundant; and worse, if we say we measure by outcomes, the product has sucked. As for my argument regarding when it was invented, I do not see it as weak. Your analogy to immunizations isn't quite right because not all school require all immunizations, and if you look at the outcomes, rates of disease have gone down since immunizations started being mandated in public schools. With regard to DOE, the outcomes have actually got worse, not better. If the DOE would normalize quality control and educational outcomes, then all states would be roughly the same.

We'll have to declare a modus vivendi on this one and agree where we can.

Fair enough. I did acknowledge that the analogy wasn't perfect, but it does showcase how states cannot be left to their own devices on some issues. Even though not all schools require all immunizations, are there not a basic set of standard immunizations that are required? By the same token, not all schools are required to teach all subjects. Only the basic ones that are required (math, science, english, social studies, etc..). In any event, I completely agree with eliminating redundancy where it is not needed.

 

[Blizzard]

Set a standard and let the states figure out how to get there.

No Child Left Behind, Race to the Top, Common Core, etc. have all worked like a charm and were embraced, right? How is Every Student Succeeds doing?

The fact that the DOE was created on a specific date, and had not been used before is a weak one. We didn't mandate vaccinations for school children until the early 1900s. Since we didn't have them before then did we need them? Just look at the mess California got into with allowing for religious exemption for basic childhood vaccinations. I realize the original topics are different in that one saves lives and the other does not, but the intent is to show that states cannot always agree on what needs to be done.

It's not at all weak. If the argument is that education needs to be improved (something I think we all agree on), the question becomes whether education improved, declined, or remained stagnant since the creation of this federal department. There seems to be rather strong evidence that it has remained stagnant or declined. Education has become diluted and throwing more money and policy is not a solution (this is also in partial response to @TLDR20 's earlier post as well). Consider this opinion piece:
http://www.usnews.com/opinion/econo...l-more-education-money-hasnt-improved-results

Think about it. Our nation, as a whole, needs to make sure we all can compete with each other, and the world. How can we be expected to compete when the west teaches revisionist history, the south teaches hell fire and damnation, the north teaches....well, no one really knows what they teach (other than being assholes :troll:). The states cannot have all the power and decision making authority. Nor can the Federal government have that sole power over the states to dictate everything. The Feds are there for when the states cannot agree.

Think about that even a bit more...if particular schools/states are not producing a competitive product, what will happen? People will make changes locally or they will go elsewhere. That's how free markets work. And what works for Alabama, may not work for California...and vice versa. This is also where accreditation comes into play, which seems to be at the core of at least part of your argument.

 

[nobodythank you]

No Child Left Behind, Race to the Top, Common Core, etc. have all worked like a charm and were embraced, right? How is Every Student Succeeds doing?

It's not at all weak. If the argument is that education needs to be improved (something I think we all agree on), the question becomes whether education improved, declined, or remained stagnant since the creation of this federal department. There seems to be rather strong evidence that it has remained stagnant or declined. Education has become diluted and throwing more money and policy is not a solution. Consider this opinion piece:
http://www.usnews.com/opinion/econo...l-more-education-money-hasnt-improved-results


Think about that even a bit more...if particular schools/states are not producing a competitive product, what will happen? People will make changes locally or they will go elsewhere. That's how free markets work. And what works for Alabama, may not work for California...and vice versa. That's also were accreditation comes into play.

Education is not a free market. Most families cannot go shopping for education where they like. If a school does not preform it gets left behind, in a sense. It is unrealistic for most families to uproot themselves, and their lives, to move somewhere else in order to get a better education. You can decline business services and still be fine, you cannot decline an education and still be fine. Accreditation only works at the college level. If you make it there, you still are likely to have to take the college's own courses that ensure your mastery of the basic subjects you should have learned in your first 12 years (and spend more money).

You're still not reading everything I said. I never said the answer was to throw more money, keep the DoE in its current form, or to dictate how the states should accomplish their goals. I have said in at least two posts that the standard should be set by the Feds with the states figuring out how to get there. That takes into account the argument as to what works in one state may not work in another. That does not mean that Alabama gets to teach the virtues of the Confederacy, Jesus, and the Earth was created in seven days; while California gets to teach the failings and failures of American democracy according to Hollywood.

The programs you mentioned are examples of something not working. They are also examples of politics getting involved in places it does not belong. If a circuit breaker in your house isn't working, you don't burn the whole house and say "fuck it". You fix it and try to get the whole system working again.

 

[Il Duce]

Thought this was a very interesting article related to the school system, though in this case the federal program dealing with school lunches is the USDA: She Outsmarted Jamie Oliver — And Figured Out The Future Of School Lunch

The article is very pro-CEP and school lunch on principle but even if you take a different view of the philosophy behind welfare and school lunch I think it's a great detailed insight in how government can be effective - but is most often not. In that sense I think it relates very well to concerns on both sides about the department of education - and maybe government in general.

 

[AWP]

There's a reason my wife and I call the FCAT the "Florida Universal Comprehensive Test"...

 

[ThunderHorse]

Staying on Education...so I did some digging, the first cabinet level agency was in 1867, they were then scuttled and were a part of the Dept of Interior in 1868, then in 1939 became an office under the Federal Security Agency, 1953 FSA because Dept of Health, Ed, Welfare, and then in 1979 split the Dept HEW into Departments of Health and Human Services and Department of Education. Needless to say we've had a federal education office of some kind since 1867.

It seems Trump and Richard Blumenthal are in a spat over Gorsuch.

 

[Blizzard]

Education is not a free market. Most families cannot go shopping for education where they like. If a school does not preform it gets left behind, in a sense. It is unrealistic for most families to uproot themselves, and their lives, to move somewhere else in order to get a better education. You can decline business services and still be fine, you cannot decline an education and still be fine.

But it is many respects and could be even more so. A free market doesn't ensure you can afford everything (I have car options due to free market competition, that doesn't mean I can afford to buy a Porsche 918); it just allows competition to exist. That's why private schools (to include Montessoris, etc.) and supplemental education business, such as Mathnasium, etc. continue to grow. There may also be alternative public schools, such as charter schools, etc. Perhaps not in your area, but in many places, vouchers and open enrollment are also allowed; it's a local decision. To that point, you vote in your local school boards and have tremendous say in what happens locally. If the community doesn't like the education their receiving, the have a strong ability to influence it locally.

No one here is suggesting no education; quite the contrary. Unfortunately for many, when the discussion about eliminating the U.S. Dept of Education, the argument gets framed up that way (not suggesting that's your view). To me, the argument is how to deliver the best education and the role, if any, the federal government plays in doing so.

The programs you mentioned are examples of something not working. They are also examples of politics getting involved in places it does not belong.

Sadly, politics cannot be separated from the equation, especially at the federal level.

 

[nobodythank you]

But it is many respects and could be even more so. A free market doesn't ensure you can afford everything (I have car options due to free market competition, that doesn't mean I can afford to buy a Porsche 918); it just allows competition to exist. That's why private schools (to include Montessoris, etc.) and supplemental education business, such as Mathnasium, etc. continue to grow. There may also be alternative public schools, such as charter schools, etc. Perhaps not in your area, but in many places, vouchers and open enrollment are also allowed; it's a local decision. To that point, you vote in your local school boards and have tremendous say in what happens locally. If the community doesn't like the education their receiving, the have a strong ability to influence it locally.

No one here is suggesting no education; quite the contrary. Unfortunately for many, when the discussion about eliminating the U.S. Dept of Education, the argument gets framed up that way (not suggesting that's your view). To me, the argument is how to deliver the best education and the role, if any, the federal government plays in doing so.


Sadly, politics cannot be separated from the equation, especially at the federal level.

It is a free market IF the parents choose to forego public schooling in favor of private or charter schooling. Typically, charter or public schools try to surpass education standards in order to improve profits. Which is ok. The entire point about public education however, is to provide a standard of education for everybody in society, regardless of socioeconomic status, that allows them to survive, compete, and thrive if they avail themselves. In that respect, public education is not a free market. Again, a free market is for incidental luxury items or services that are not needed to survive. To survive in this society you need an education. Which is a basic service provided by all of our tax dollars.

ETA: Using your ballot to change the local school board is all well and good, but it does nothing to solve an immediate problem. It could take years, or decades to effect a significant change in a local population's school board. Which is useless to me as a parent when my child is in school right now. Being taught things that he needs to know in order to succeed later. As many of us with children know, raising a child is an early and ongoing process. It does me no good for changes made a decade form now when my child is supposed to be learning now.

 

[Blizzard]

It is a free market IF the parents choose to forego public schooling in favor of private or charter schooling. Typically, charter or public schools try to surpass education standards in order to improve profits. Which is ok. The entire point about public education however, is to provide a standard of education for everybody in society, regardless of socioeconomic status, that allows them to survive, compete, and thrive if they avail themselves. In that respect, public education is not a free market. Again, a free market is for incidental luxury items or services that are not needed to survive. To survive in this society you need an education. Which is a basic service provided by all of our tax dollars.

ETA: Using your ballot to change the local school board is all well and good, but it does nothing to solve an immediate problem. It could take years, or decades to effect a significant change in a local population's school board. Which is useless to me as a parent when my child is in school right now. Being taught things that he needs to know in order to succeed later. As many of us with children know, raising a child is an early and ongoing process. It does me no good for changes made a decade form now when my child is supposed to be learning now.

Curious, does your school system allow open enrollment in public schools? ie. if you prefer another district for whatever reason, open enroll in that district (space restrictions may exist for receiving school); it's still comparison shopping.

 

[nobodythank you]

Curious, does your school system allow open enrollment in public schools? If you prefer another district for whatever reason, open enroll in that district (space restrictions may exist for receiving school) and it's still comparison shopping.

No, it does not. However, there are magnet programs that each school specializes in (law, aerospace, military, biology, medical, etc...), and you can request to go to one of those magnet schools depending on the racial makeup of the school/zone. You can also request a special assignment for various reasons (special programs, hardships, family employee benefit). The special assignment has to be approved by the administration of the school you are assigned. On the whole though, you are confined to the school district you reside in and the schools assigned to that district. Your only other choice is to attend a private or charter school that has a tuition. Which is not an option, even with vouchers, for many families. While many of those private/charter schools offer scholarships, there are not enough to allow everyone a free choice.