Seems to be a popular opinion right now. Ideologically I'm for it. But I haven't really put much thought into the practicalities of it. I will say, I do have one major hesitation. What exactly would certain localities teach if left to their own devices? Haven't sorted out in my head how all that would work.

State Department's of Education would be stronger and more in control of curriculum. They would drive what is taught at local levels.

It is a tough question, I'm not sure which way I roll with this question. Like FKYW said, ideology wise I agree...but what that would look like does give me pause.

Seems to be a popular opinion right now. Ideologically I'm for it. But I haven't really put much thought into the practicalities of it. I will say, I do have one major hesitation. What exactly would certain localities teach if left to their own devices? Haven't sorted out in my head how all that would work.

 

Yes . The Federal Government should only control what is outlined in the constitution and leave what is left to the states. That is how our system of states was setup to perform. It was not meant for a large central government to control and run most aspects of our lives.

 

Also on your question on localties , it should not be your concern nor should you have a say as a person from KY what Wisconsin wants to teach.

So if a state sponsored school in California wants to teach Sharia law and California is ok with it...everybody else is too?

Yes. The sooner, the better - but I don't expect that it will ever happen. If you believe that people living and working in and around Washington, DC, including those of us who live in the wealthiest suburbs in the country, are more intelligent and more capable of making decisions affecting your children's future than you are, then I can understand why you would want the federal government to consume a large slice of spending on education in this country.

 

I believe that all government functions should be provided at the most local practicable level. My theory is that the difference in the collective IQ for any two large samples of people in this country is statistically insignificant. Factor in the vested interest that parents have in the academic success of their own children and it makes no sense for a federal agency to dictate standards or cafeteria menus for American students.

So if a state sponsored school in California wants to teach Sharia law and California is ok with it...everybody else is too?

That would clearly be unconstitutional. Why do you assume that people who oppose the federalization of public education are also ignorant of constitutional principles?

So if a state sponsored school in California wants to teach Sharia law and California is ok with it...everybody else is too?

 

Sharia law would go agsinst exisiting freedoms guaranteed in the constitution. Try again to spin it.

Yes. The sooner, the better - but I don't expect that it will ever happen. If you believe that people living and working in and around Washington, DC, including those of us who live in the wealthiest suburbs in the country, are more intelligent and more capable of making decisions affecting your children's future than you are, then I can understand why you would want the federal government to consume a large slice of spending on education in this country.

 

I believe that all government functions should be provided at the most local practicable level. My theory is that the difference in the collective IQ for any two large samples of people in this country is statistically insignificant. Factor in the vested interest that parents have in the academic success of their own children and it makes no sense for a federal agency to dictate standards or cafeteria menus for American students.

 

You do realize 80% + of education funding comes from state and local levels.

 

The fed subsidizes districts that may be in areas of poverty or hardship. Without federal funds several aspects of public education would be impossible for many schools: educating students with disabilities, improving technology, school breakfast lunch programs, preschool, etc.

Sharia law would go agsinst exisiting freedoms guaranteed in the constitution. Try again to spin it.

 

In practice but teaching it would not. You said we shouldn't care what anyone across the nation taught.

In practice but teaching it would not. You said we shouldn't care what anyone across the nation taught.

 

There is a seperation of church and state . If they want to teach it in a History class or a World Religion class I have no problem. In fact teaching about Sharia Law would be a good thing because more people would understand how dangerous it is.

 

You are trying to play a got ya game and it is failing. Eliminating the Department of Education does not eliminate exisiting freedoms and principles. It eliminates the inefficiency of the Federal government.

There is a seperation of church and state . If they want to teach it in a History class or a World Religion class I have no problem. In fact teaching about Sharia Law would be a good thing because more people would understand how dangerous it is.

 

You are trying to play a got ya game and it is failing. Eliminating the Department of Education does not eliminate exisiting freedoms and principles. It eliminates the inefficiency of the Federal government.

 

I do agree a responsible education on Sharia Law would be beneficial to students.

 

:lol2: it was an extreme example.

 

The federal govt became heavily involved in public education with the desegregation of schools in the south and was again needed to force schools to meet the needs of students with disabilities.

 

States do not always have the best interest of all students in mind.

I do agree a responsible education on Sharia Law would be beneficial to students.

 

:lol2: it was an extreme example.

 

The federal govt became heavily involved in public education with the desegregation of schools in the south and was again needed to force schools to meet the needs of students with disabilities.

 

States do not always have the best interest of all students in mind.

The examples that you gave did not require a Department of Education.

You do realize 80% + of education funding comes from state and local levels.

 

The fed subsidizes districts that may be in areas of poverty or hardship. Without federal funds several aspects of public education would be impossible for many schools: educating students with disabilities, improving technology, school breakfast lunch programs, preschool, etc.

You do realize that if local school districts do not comply with federal "standards," then they risk losing funding. The funding is not the issue - the issue is the strings attached to that funding. I hope to live long enough to see the Supreme Court begin striking down the unconstitutional control that the federal government exerts over American citizens that was explicitly reserved for the states under the 10th Amendment.

A fact is there is no money for the smaller departments. Treasury and HHS will be increasing their consumption due to interest on increasing debt and increasing bond rates and medicare.

 

I have not looked for a while but at one time the budget numbers at whitehouse.gov had projections that did show material, real decreases in all the smaller departments - education, interior, justice, transportation, etc. And none of them have ever seen a material decrease, ever. Remember a budget cut used to only be a cut in increase.

 

They have even cut military to the bone. Recently all of the carrier strike groups were in home port. I think only one is back out now. Obviously it is a lot less costly to keep a CSG in port that deployed.