Should the federal government get out of the education bussiness?

[Rush Limbaugh]

The debate in the ID thread inspired this one. I say yes.

WEBCommentary Contributor
Author: Alan Caruba
Bio: Alan Caruba
Date: January 4, 2005


Federal Control of Education

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Just how complete is the federal control of education? Here's a look at the way the takeover of education continues to degrade the system despite ample evidence it is being transformed in ways no parent would or should accept.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

If your goal were to control people and you were willing to be patient to achieve it, the best way would be to gain control of the schools. The Federal government, aided and abetted by the National Education Association, a teacher’s union, has achieved this. The results, year after year, demonstrate they are successful producing graduates who cannot read and lack other essential, basic skills.

They also cannot begin the day with a prayer and, in a growing number of school districts, they cannot sing traditional Christmas carols. Something is desperately wrong.

What are we doing about it? Nothing. Well, not quite nothing. The Federal government is throwing billions of dollars at programs it knows are failures, while conjuring up new programs that are so frightening it defies the imagination.

Twenty million dollars in Congressional grants will go to the New Freedom Commission to fund, among other things, universal “mental health” screening and treatment of school children that includes prescribing ineffective and dangerous medications. An additional two million in grants was authorized for local educational systems and non-profit entities to treat teenagers judged to be “suffering from mental, emotional or behavior disorders.”

The Department of Education is spending $5 million on “Mental Health Integration in Schools” as well as another million dollars for Sen. Kennedy’s early childhood mental health program called “Foundations for Learning.” All this is a boon to the pharmaceutical industry, but a horror for the children whose mental health is NOT the school’s responsibility. It is just one more effort to wrest control of a parent’s fundamental rights and responsibility over the welfare of their child.

It’s estimated that somewhere between six and seven million school children have been administered mind-altering medications. How many parents have been coerced or seduced into approving this is unknown, but some of these drugs produce suicidal thoughts.

Children in America’s schools are not all suffering from some mental health problem, unless you include the boredom that ensues from being forced by the “teach from the test” requirement in order to pass the many standardized, national tests required by the No Child Left Behind program. In its first term the Bush administration has strengthened Federal control over the schools, neglecting the aspirations of Ronald Reagan to actually rid the nation of the Department of Education.

The fact that the nearly 52 million children in public schools do not all learn at the same rate is ignored. Any information not reflected on the tests tends to get ignored because those test scores are tied to funding. NCLB is as cruel and stupid a program as could have been devised and it cost taxpayers some $50 billion. Not surprisingly, many school districts have opted out of the program to avoid the stifling effect on their curriculums.

The simple unavoidable truth, documented year after year, is that America’s school children continue to perform poorly when compared to most other nations. Recently, a Trends in International Mathematics and Science Study, a test of curriculum taught in all participating countries that includes chemistry, physics, geometry and algebra, revealed that the grades of US fourth graders had remained stagnant and below average yet again. The 2003 test results revealed that eighth graders are just barely keeping up in mathematics compared to 44 other nations.

Recent National Education Assessments continue to demonstrate that only 31% of fourth graders are proficient in reading; only 32% are proficient in mathematics; 29% in science, and 18% in American history. Virtually every scholarly evaluation of history textbooks finds them terribly flawed and inaccurate.

Worse, the Federal government is funding a private group, the Center for Civic Education, that is publishing a national curriculum on the Constitution that undermines a student’s understanding of the Bill of Rights (one lone mention of the Second Amendment) and subtly advocates world citizenship as opposed to being a citizen of a sovereign United States. This standardization of education about the Constitution teaches a government-approved version and nothing could be more un-American than that. The Constitution makes no provision for the Federal government to be involved in education. That is a power that belongs exclusively to the States and local communities.

The United Nations has gained a foothold in our schools with its International Baccalaureate program, underwritten by UNESCO. Writing about the IB program earlier this year, one critic wrote her local newspaper to point out that “Administrators do not tell you that the current IB program for ages three through grade twelve promotes socialism, disarmament, radical environmentalism, and moral relativism, while attempting to undermine Christian religious values and national sovereignty.” And, of course, we all want the UN to be involved in the education of American children, don’t we? NOT!

In 2002, taxpayers spent an estimated $108 billion on education at the federal level and nearly half of this money was distributed by the Department of Education, but other federal departments including Health and Human Services, Agriculture, Labor, Defense and Interior also spent large amounts of money. Fifty-three billion dollars went to elementary and secondary school programs and half of that sum was spent on programs under the Elementary and Secondary Education Act (No Child Left Behind) and on special and vocational education.

And every school day, an estimated 3,000 secondary school students drop out. During the 2003-2004 school year, nearly 54,000 young people left without earning a high school diploma. Not that the diploma means much these days. Colleges and universities routinely provide remedial programs to help students secure skills to master higher education.

Is it because teachers are underpaid? No! The average salary for public elementary and secondary school teachers is $44,367. Salaries in the 100 largest cities range from $25,409 to $84,310. To put it another way, teachers earn more on an hourly basis than accountants, computer programmers, engineers and architects.

Are class sizes too large? The average pupil-teacher ratio at public schools is 15.9 to one. For public elementary schools it’s 21 to one and it’s 23 to one in public secondary schools. Teachers are being encouraged to be “facilitators” as students are organized to teach one another. Apparently the notion of a teacher at the front of the classroom is just passé.

The list of educational deprivations of our nation’s children is a long one, but the message is clear. The Federal government has to get out of the education business! There is, intentionally, no basis for it in the Constitution.

Schools are failing the children and a radical return to tried-and-true pedagogic methods that educated Americans prior to the 1960s must become the standard again. Power over the schools must be returned to States and to local communities.

The National Education Association, a mainstay of the Democrat Party, must answer for its funding and participation in political campaigns and its influence over curriculum must end.

Until and unless this occurs, every student passing through the current educational system is being indoctrinated, not educated.

Alan Caruba writes a weekly column, “Warning Signs”, posted on the Internet site of The National Anxiety Center, www.anxietycenter.com.

Alan Caruba
www.anxietycenter.com


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Biography - Alan Caruba

Alan Caruba is the founder of The National Anxiety Center, a clearinghouse for information about media-driven scare campaigns designed to influence public opinion and policy. A veteran public relations counselor and professional writer, Caruba has emerged as a conservative voice through his weekly column, "Warning Signs", posted on the Center's Internet site (www.anxietycenter.com) and widely excerpted on leading sites including this one.

A member of the Society of Professional Journalists, the American Society of Journalists and Authors, the National Association of Science Writers and a charter member of the National Book Critics Circle, Caruba applies a wide-ranging knowledge of business, science, history and other topics as he examines issues that include protecting our national sovereignty, environment and immigration, education and international affairs.

Residing in New Jersey, Caruba formerly served in the US Army, has been an advisor to corporations, trade associations, universities, and others who continue to utilize his public relations skills. He maintains a business site at www.caruba.com. He is the PR counselor to the American Policy Center and serves on the board of its educational arm, the American Policy Foundation.

As a humorist, Caruba is known, too, for his annual list of "The Most Boring Celebrities of the Year" on behalf of his famed media spoof, The Boring Institute, (www.boringinstitute.com). The Institute is devoted to providing information about boredom's impact on individuals and society, sponsoring National Anti-Boredom Month each July.

Caruba also finds time to offer a monthly review of the best in new fiction and non-fiction via Bookviews.Com, a popular site for news of books of merit that do not necessarily make it to the mainstream bestseller lists.

[GeneralLee]

I dont know about were you live but book banning and protesting evolution is a annual event in my state the last thing we need is more local control.

[Sheep]

Thank you for moving this to a new thread.

I reiterate my point that school districts should have quite a lot, almost all, but not all the power to decide how things are taught to their students. But there does need to be some federal and state oversight. Oversight, not control. As in, setting out the basics of what needs to be taught, and making sure that curricula do not violate federal law or the Constitutional rights of citizens in that district.

In my perfect world, the federal/state governments simply lay out some ground rules while the lion's share of the decisions about how to operate within those rules are made by the local school districts.

So, I think the federal government should have less power than they do now, but should still have some, as proper education is a NATIONAL interest, not just a local one.

[Guderian]

If your goal were to control people and you were willing to be patient to achieve it, the best way would be to gain control of the schools.

I say no for the exact same reason.

"saracsm on" Let's take it out of the hands of the government, of which the people have a good amount of control over and put it in the hands of the private sector, of which the people have no amount of control over. Sure lets give the schools over to religion, Im sure that goes hand in hand with freedom of religion and seperation of church and state. "sarcasm off"

The simple unavoidable truth, documented year after year, is that America’s school children continue to perform poorly when compared to most other nations. Recently, a Trends in International Mathematics and Science Study, a test of curriculum taught in all participating countries that includes chemistry, physics, geometry and algebra, revealed that the grades of US fourth graders had remained stagnant and below average yet again. The 2003 test results revealed that eighth graders are just barely keeping up in mathematics compared to 44 other nations.

Are these other nations doing better because of privatised education? The answer is no.

In 2002, taxpayers spent an estimated $108 billion on education at the federal level and nearly half of this money was distributed by the Department of Education, but other federal departments including Health and Human Services, Agriculture, Labor, Defense and Interior also spent large amounts of money. Fifty-three billion dollars went to elementary and secondary school programs and half of that sum was spent on programs under the Elementary and Secondary Education Act (No Child Left Behind) and on special and vocational education.

And every school day, an estimated 3,000 secondary school students drop out. During the 2003-2004 school year, nearly 54,000 young people left without earning a high school diploma. Not that the diploma means much these days. Colleges and universities routinely provide remedial programs to help students secure skills to master higher education.

Is it because teachers are underpaid? No! The average salary for public elementary and secondary school teachers is $44,367. Salaries in the 100 largest cities range from $25,409 to $84,310. To put it another way, teachers earn more on an hourly basis than accountants, computer programmers, engineers and architects.

Are class sizes too large? The average pupil-teacher ratio at public schools is 15.9 to one. For public elementary schools it’s 21 to one and it’s 23 to one in public secondary schools. Teachers are being encouraged to be “facilitators” as students are organized to teach one another. Apparently the notion of a teacher at the front of the classroom is just passé.

Will private schools do any better than public schools? all studies indicate that they will NOT. The answer is to reform the public school system not to abolish it. Alot of these problems are not caused by the system itself but social factors which influence the students, such as crime and poverty these have to be dealt with first.

How will private schools create a better teacher to student ration when the only solution being proposed by private education advocates is the voucher system, a system that has been proven not to offer significant advantages for the majority of students.

Conclusions
The Chilean experience with a nationwide voucher plan suggests that “marketizing”
education will increase school choice for a certain fraction of parents, but is unlikely to
improve educational delivery for more than a small fraction of the school population.
Chile’s experience also suggests that vouchers increase inequality in the school system,
mainly through peer effects. The Chilean results are generally consistent with much
smaller voucher experiments and other choice plans in the U.S. (Levin, 1998).
Such results should not be surprising. For those who promulgated the Chilean
reform, and for most of the architects of voucher plans in the U.S. and elsewhere, the
main motivation for privatizing education is a profound belief that a public education
monopoly restricts individual choice. For them, expanding choice, in and of itself,
improves public welfare—even if it also produces greater inequality.
20
The main reasons that increased choice seems to lead to greater inequity are that
“better” privately-run alternatives to public schools are more likely to locate in areas
where they can attract “lower cost” students, and that many parents do not realize their
first choice of schools. If schools operate for profit, or even as non-profit private
organizations, it is almost impossible to prevent them from selecting where to locate and
from selecting students. Even in the allegedly strictly controlled Milwaukee experiment,
the private schools involved managed to turn away students with “special problems.”
One way to reduce the disequalizing side effects of vouchers is to target them. By
limiting vouchers to low-income families, as they are now in Milwaukee, Cleveland, and
other cities, it is more likely that some high quality private for –profit or non-profit
providers would enter the inner city market. But to achieve that goal, voucher values will
have to be as high or perhaps higher than current public school costs per student,
especially if the number of vouchers is larger than existing Catholic school excess
capacity.13 The original Friedman idea that private schools would deliver education equal
in quality to current public education at one-half the price has never been realized in
practice. Private providers will demand at least as much as per student costs in local
public schools and will avoid taking special education students. Witness the rise in
voucher values in Milwaukee, and Cleveland’s Hope Schools (the only for-profit
provider in the Cleveland voucher plan) shifting to much higher “vouchers” associated
with charter status. The political question then becomes whether legislators will pass
voucher plans that provide large vouchers to low-income families but not to middle class
families.
21
This still does not solve the problem of improving the quality of education even
for those low-income students able to get into private schools. Our data from Chile
suggest that even in the best of cases, fifteen years of intense competition improved
achievement in public schools by only a small amount. “Value added” in U.S. private
schools is by the most optimistic accounts only slightly higher than in public schools.
Studies comparing voucher or private schools with public schools find no differences or
only small differences in achievement. So privatization solves neither the gap in
achievement between low-income children and higher-income children nor the gap in
access to high quality schools. With vouchers, the vast majority of low-income children
still get less than adequate education, even though some will switch schools. In Chile, the
measure that most effectively addressed the quality of education problem in low
performing public schools was not increased competition from privately-run schools, but
effective Ministry of Education intervention in building capacity—new curriculum
materials and training teachers to use them.

http://www.stanford.edu/dept/SUSE/IC...Chilepaper.pdf

Written by Micheal Carnoy, his bio:

Martin Carnoy is a Professor of Education and Economics at Stanford University, where he chairs the International and Comparative Education program in the School of Education. For the past eight years, he has researched educational policy and practice in the United States as part of the Consortium for Policy Research in Education (CPRE). He is the editor of the International Encyclopedia of the Economics of Education. Currently, he heads Stanford's effort in a joint project with the Harvard Graduate School of Education studying accountability in U.S. schools. His most recent works are Sustainable Flexibility: Work, Family, and Community in the Information Age, to be published by Harvard University Press and Russell Sage in Spring, 2000, and Urban and Suburban Schools, written with Jane Hannaway.

Worse, the Federal government is funding a private group, the Center for Civic Education, that is publishing a national curriculum on the Constitution that undermines a student’s understanding of the Bill of Rights (one lone mention of the Second Amendment) and subtly advocates world citizenship as opposed to being a citizen of a sovereign United States. This standardization of education about the Constitution teaches a government-approved version and nothing could be more un-American than that. The Constitution makes no provision for the Federal government to be involved in education. That is a power that belongs exclusively to the States and local communities.

The United Nations has gained a foothold in our schools with its International Baccalaureate program, underwritten by UNESCO. Writing about the IB program earlier this year, one critic wrote her local newspaper to point out that “Administrators do not tell you that the current IB program for ages three through grade twelve promotes socialism, disarmament, radical environmentalism, and moral relativism, while attempting to undermine Christian religious values and national sovereignty.” And, of course, we all want the UN to be involved in the education of American children, don’t we? NOT!

And why should we abolish public education for the masses based on the rantings of this guy?

Sorry if I was bit brief but Ive wasted all my energy replying to trackjacket on the same issue in the "Hunt for leftists" threads.

[GeneralLee]

Funding should be decided locally (as long as it's fair) I'll concede that, but locals should have no voice on what is taught.

[Sheep]

Funding should be decided locally (as long as it's fair) I'll concede that, but locals should have no voice on what is taught.

I disagree with the second part. Local authorities should decide what is taught beyond the basics needed to provide a decent education. For instance, what languages should be taught, what electives to teach, what literature to use in English class, etc. Choosing textbooks is also a good way for local districts to control some aspects of what they are teaching, as different books will present the material in slightly different ways, using different examples.

[Tiwaz]

I disagree with the second part. Local authorities should decide what is taught beyond the basics needed to provide a decent education. For instance, what languages should be taught, what electives to teach, what literature to use in English class, etc. Choosing textbooks is also a good way for local districts to control some aspects of what they are teaching, as different books will present the material in slightly different ways, using different examples.

Oh like rewriting history in japanese style where textbooks may show material in "slightly" different way resulting in whitewash of Rape of Nanking?

Perhaps sciencebook where information is presented in slightly different way resulting it trying to downplay scientifically accepted information?

Those are exact reasons why local powers should NEVER have power over education. It creates inequality in quality. Others learn skills which improve their chances for future while others do not.

Only thing which should be made locally decided should be language. And even that should be made so that students have right to choose what foreign language they want to learn. Or make for example spanish as mandatory second language for everyone. But overall american students should be made learn at least one freely elected language beyond english (if spanish is not made mandatory) and it is up to local schools to provide teachers for every language which reaches enough willing students.

[Sheep]

Those are exact reasons why local powers should NEVER have power over education. It creates inequality in quality. Others learn skills which improve their chances for future while others do not.

Yes, but it also allows for more innovation. If one school district figures out a way to teach that works really well, others will be able to copy those ideas for their own students... a temporary inequality which leads to a better situation for everyone. But if every district uses the exact same model, there will be no possibility of innovation, or at least not as much.

Also, different strategies may work better for different regions. You can't say that what works for a poor inner-city school in Atlanta will work as well for a wealthy suburban school in Rancho Cucamonga, or vice versa. They need to be allowed a great deal of flexibility in order to provide an adequate education to different kinds of students from different backgrounds.

I am not saying school districts will not try to bend the rules and get away with things... of course they will, they do that now. But with some federal and state oversight requiring that certain basics be taught, this can be defended against.

[Tiwaz]

Yes, but it also allows for more innovation. If one school district figures out a way to teach that works really well, others will be able to copy those ideas for their own students... a temporary inequality which leads to a better situation for everyone. But if every district uses the exact same model, there will be no possibility of innovation, or at least not as much.

Also, different strategies may work better for different regions. You can't say that what works for a poor inner-city school in Atlanta will work as well for a wealthy suburban school in Rancho Cucamonga, or vice versa. They need to be allowed a great deal of flexibility in order to provide an adequate education to different kinds of students from different backgrounds.

I am not saying school districts will not try to bend the rules and get away with things... of course they will, they do that now. But with some federal and state oversight requiring that certain basics be taught, this can be defended against.

Actually, the whole thing is not about HOW to teach but WHAT to teach. If teacher thinks he/she can teach physics more efficiently with singing and dancing they usually are able to do this. But stuff like ID should not be permitted anywhere inside science class like some proponents are trying to do.

[Guderian]

I have nothing against state funded public schools, I only oppose the privatisation of education.

[Last Roman]

no, simple as that. I think we need state funded schools

[Irishman]

Yes, the government should not have to fund schools, Social Security, welfare, or any of that period. It only leads to a crappy school system with an in debt country.

[Last Roman]

Yes, the government should not have to fund schools, Social Security, welfare, or any of that period. It only leads to a crappy school system with an in debt country.

you can have all those things and still have a surplus. slick willy managed to do it

[Rush Limbaugh]

you can have all those things and still have a surplus. slick willy managed to do it

They didnt call him slick willy for nothing. He got you too believe that.

[Last Roman]

They didnt call him slick willy for nothing. He got you too believe that.

well, either way, we werent in nearly deep of debt as we are now (granted we weren't fighting two wars)

[Kanaric]

They didnt call him slick willy for nothing. He got you too believe that.

Then who REALLY did it? George Bush with his tax increase?

[Guderian]

Most countries spend much more on welfare (as a percentage of the budget) than the US does, and none of them are as heavily in debt as the US is, so yet again welfare is the scapegoat for the problems of the US economy.

[Kino]

Deleted by user.

[Dirty Harry]

Goverment should definitly get out of public education. Private schools would still be highly regulated for content obviously, and the goverment would still pick up the cheque for people's education, but by giving people credit which they then turn around and enroll their kid in private schools with. They would deliver a much better product than today's failing public systems through efficiency and competition. Don't see how anyone can object to this other than on the basis of failed socialist/statist ideology, and ideology alone should not be guiding our decisions on the prosperity of future generations, doing what's best should.

[Rush Limbaugh]

I never said anything about the dems.

Oh I forgot slick willy was a republican.

But the way the republican congress is spending now, I was just a bit surpised

This is the problem when one party controls everything. Its also endimic in our system of government. You get elected by giving things away.

And I thought the republicans generally favored deficit spending

No they dont . In fact Bush has actully cut much discressionary spending. The republuicans are supposed to be for smaller government. This is one of the biggest problems most conservatives have with Bush. He is in reality a moderate. Not the far rightwing kook hes made out to be.