Abolish the Department of Education?

[Beavah]

Yah, our young fellow BS-87 advocated in the parent thread:

 

This is a whole other argument, but I'm with Ron Paul who would abolish the Federal Dept. of Education and relinquish all control of education to the States. Hopefully the States would have the sense to put more control into the hands of regional administrators overseeing a few counties.

 

That's at least a traditional conservative position, unlike da Bush-era NCLB expansion of the Department.

 

Now BS-87 loses me when he claims that will somehow cause big changes in da states. The states have all of the authority they need right now to make big changes if they want, includin' all of the things he lists. So one wonders why they don't.

 

What do the rest of yeh think? Abolish the Department of Ed? Will that really spur innovation? Or does innovation require a true open market, which means dismantling all government-monopoly schooling as packsaddle suggests? If we allow a true open market, what happens in rural areas where there just ain't much market? Or in urban areas where da needs outstrip the local economy's ability to support the market?

 

Inquirin' minds want to know.

 

Beavah

 

[SR540Beaver]

You are correct that states have the authority to do what they want. Of course if they do so, they risk losing the return of their tax dollars thru federal funding.

 

http://trib.com/news/state-and-regional/govt-and-politics/article_b06ee50d-2c03-5ef6-9d89-4d29d76831cb.html(This message has been edited by sr540beaver)

[perdidochas]

We should abolish the Department of Education on two grounds. The first is that the Constitution doesn't give Congress the power to deal with education. It is properly a state matter. The second is that school performance has dropped since the advent of the Department of Education. Basically, we're not allowed to do it, and it doesn't work. The strings attached to federal money, IMHO, cost more extra bureacracy than they are worth.

[vol_scouter]

For reasons already stated, abolish it and further, stop federal dollars to K-12 education.

[teacher/scout]

I do agree that Department of Education is lacking in simple concepts and something needs to be done, but I don't agree that abolishing the DOE is the best way to go about it. I will agree that it needs some serious reform and common sense but it can be changed if our decided it might be smart to appoint someone there who knows what goes on in a school system and has actually lived it. As NCLB currently stands we are suppose to reach 90% profeciency on our standardized testing by 2014. Here's the major problem-it's not possible. Standardized Tests are "norm based" testing which is designed to spread the results out (like a bell curve) so that each section of the bell curve is relatively equal to the next. By using this form of testing it is mathamatically illogical and impossible to create a 90% proficency.

We do need a way to nationally track our educational level compared to other countries (as of 2006 in science we are ranked 29th out of 40 countries-which is well below the average score expected and in math we are ranked 35 out of 40 countries). The best way to do that is 2 options (in my opinion). 1. schools send in scores of a criteria based testing to the national level because each school has a different curriculum or 2. The government states what criteria is required in all states and create a criteria based test off of that required curriculum.

I may tend to be more liberal but in this case I lean toward the first option I suggested.

[CalicoPenn]

Until No Child Left Behind, the Department of Education was not involved in developing curriculum requirements or testing requirements and had absolutely no control of education in the states.

 

Most people have no idea what the ED does which allows them to believe that the big bad fed is interfering with the states when that wasn't true until President Bush insisted on that stupid No Child Left Unharmed (err, Behind) legislation.

 

The ED sets the policies, administers and coordinates the financial assistance to schools and students for such things as safe and drug free schools, federal student aid, vocational education, migrant education, special education, etc. They don't develop curriculum for any of these programs - just administer the funds. When Congress funds Pell Grants, the ED administers the program.

 

The ED also gathers informational data on schools which Congress has requested. Such data includes things like graduation rates, drop-out rates, funding levels, etc.

 

Finally, the ED enforces laws that Congress has passed regarding student privacy and civil rights.

 

What intereferes with state control is No Child Left Behind. Congress should either immediately eliminate that piece of misbegotten trash or just go ahead and direct that the ED establish federal minimum curriculum standards that all states must meet and let states build on that minimum framework.

 

 

 

 

[skeptic]

Actually, the traditional bell curve was derived from the shape of a bell, where 5% are A's, 15% B's, 60% C's, 15% D's, and 5% F's. A variant has 20% B's and D's, with 50% C's. Of course that actuality has long ago gone by the wayside. The idea that average is normal is not acceptable anymore.(This message has been edited by skeptic)

[packsaddle]

I guess I have to defend my approach since Beavah used it in his setup.

A more careful read of what I have written will show that I advocate keeping a much smaller public school option to cover the indigent. If the population density in rural areas is less than needed to provide the market forces, one argument would be the same as regards a monopoly on, say, tires. Absent the competition, they'd be expensive. So the public option in those cases would tend to provide the opportunity in which even the non-indigent could get a 'better deal' if an alternative existed - or else they could pay the going price for 'premium'. The means-tested indigent, of course, would receive the entitlement.

 

I don't see that the needs necessarily would outstrip an urban economy's ability to support the market unless the economy was crashing or there simply were not enough students to support the market anyway. In that case the public option would be there again.

I guess Beavah has forgotten but I advocated this approach in another thread in which he had championed vouchers. In that thread I rejected vouchers in favor of an even more free-market approach (go to that thread if you want the details).

As with scouting, I think that customers who pay a fair price (and the entire amount of it) tend to better appreciate a good product and reject an inferior product. Purely public and even voucher-based systems (or subsidized like summer camp) do not allow this. For this reason I think, depending on their means, every family should pay the full costs of educating their children as if they are in private school. [summer camp too, same principle]

 

I do agree with teacher/scout's comment about statistics. I note that the original Department of Education which lasted for about one year back in 1867, was created largely to collect such information. In 1868 it was reduced to an Office of Education for political reasons not unlike those I hear these days. Sure, take the department designation away. Fine.

I suppose the states could make individual comparisons to nations in the world. We can do that already if you take the time to dig those statistics out of the database. I'd say that some states probably compare favorably with Sudan, others might compare well to Peru or perhaps Cuba. A few might be right there with Germany or Austria. It would be an interesting exercise.

 

So I'd say go ahead, might as well make the deed complete, what the heck. Abolish that department. I'm sure that the corporate minds who created those resounding successes at GM, Chrysler, BOA, Lehman Bros, etc. will lend their genius to the task of managing education for our children. They'll be in good hands for sure.

[JoeBob]

Oh please! Oh please!?

 

Without the fed being top dog, states could develope their own programs. Having 50 states would give parents fifty choices of public sytems to choose from for their kids. States would compete.

 

Right now you have three choices:

1- Public - fed factored failure

2- Private - pay twice for your kids' education

3- Leave the country.

[Beavah]

JoeBob, I'm a proponent of free market education, but I just don't get your claim about the federal government above.

 

Every state, and every local school district (if the state law permits) is free to develop their own program right now. Every state and every local district can compete right now. If you're in a state that allows charter schools, they can compete as well. The Feds do a lot of things, but they don't stop states and districts from developin' their own programs.

 

People can and do make district choices when they can, eh? Any real estate agent will tell yeh that. But by and large it's employment not education that determines da state or area of the state folks live in. especially in da current economy with lots of homes under water, folks are pretty locked in in terms of where they live. So they need local, not state-by-state competition.

 

Packsaddle, comparing individual states to nations worldwide on educational achievement would be great! . You'd get all kinds of media play too, eh? Do yeh have the stats to do it?

 

Beavah

[RememberSchiff]

Could someone explain to me why the Dept of Ed. continues to partially fund Howard University as a budget line item to the tune of over $250mil annually?

 

I would put that money to pre-K or SPED programs in a heartbeat.

 

My $0.02

[CalicoPenn]

"Could someone explain to me why the Dept of Ed. continues to partially fund Howard University as a budget line item to the tune of over $250mil annually?"

 

Because it's one of the very few colleges that were chartered by Congress, it's located in Washington DC, it's alumni listing reads like a who's who of Black American Politics, and it has powerful friends in Congress who continue to put forth an appropriation for the school. It isn't the Dept. of Ed. that is funding the school - it is Congress - the Dept. of Ed. only administers the funds - they're Congresses pipeline of the funds to the school.

[Oak Tree]

I would definitely get rid of NCLB.

 

As for the department, I have so little contact with it that I don't really care. From the description that Calico gives, it sounds like it could be merged in with some other department (education might be considered a Human Service, I guess). It won't be, because no one wants to be known as the anti-education President. I don't really think it matters much, since it won't happen, and even if it did, the functions that it performs would just get moved somewhere else.

 

Now, I'm a big fan of market forces and freedom of choice. I think that would be the best step we could take towards improving our schools. Even little steps in that direction are good. Let students choose which public school they attend. Let there be charter schools. Telling people they have to attend School X because they live in Area Y sounds like something straight out of Soviet planning. "You all will buy your food from the Giant Eagle on Jackson because you live near it." It seems like the provision of food is an even more basic requirement than education. How can we leave that provisioning to market forces?

[packsaddle]

Oak Tree, I'm thinking you already have those little steps in NC. Charter schools for sure. Ability to put your children in private schools, absolutely. Ability to go to another school, not in your neighborhood, that one depends on them having space for you and some other factors, but in this area, if you're willing to pay the price you can get that too. The price is usually something along the lines of fees equivalent to some level of property tax support that they didn't collect from you, something like that.

What else did you have in mind?

 

Beavah, I'm working on it. The data exist but it might require a little mining.

 

Edit: Found this: http://www.economist.com/blogs/dailychart/2011/01/comparing_us_states_countries

 

Beavah, I know you can see this online, maybe not non-subscribers, though. I think this is what we're interested in except for educational effectiveness. It might take some work.(This message has been edited by packsaddle)

[Oak Tree]

Pack,

 

We have some of what you say. NC does have charter schools, but there is currently a cap of 100 statewide. I can't imagine any meaningful justification for this cap. Republicans are newly in charge of the state legislature and are now working to repeal the cap.

 

http://www.wral.com/news/state/nccapitol/story/9401994/

 

As for choice of schools, there is a little bit, but not a lot. There are a few reasons why they might grant a request - the easiest one is if you're wanting to transfer from a crowded school to a less crowded one (but this is often equivalent to asking to transfer from a better school to a worse one). You can also transfer if you actually move, if your parent is employed at a school, if you have a serious disability, or if the school offers some classes you can't get at your own school (and those classes aren't already full). Essentially, they tell you where you're going, and then you have 10 days to try to change it.

 

"Applications for transfer that would contravene the intent of the Board of Educations current Growth Management Plan will be denied."

 

What I'd like to see would be some type of lottery application process for all of the schools for anyone in the county. As it is now, we get all kinds of stories - two siblings who are sent to different high schools and are denied transfers, families where one kid is on a traditional schedule and another is on a year-round schedule, etc.