• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Nationalizing the Education System

Nationalize Schools?

  • Yes

    Votes: 14 18.9%
  • No

    Votes: 53 71.6%
  • Other

    Votes: 7 9.5%

  • Total voters
    74
Except that's the problem, schools should stick with whatever works until there is evidence that something else works better. Back when schools taught the 3 R's, you didn't have many kids getting out of high school functionally illiterate. Then, you had the big liberal social experiment when schools taught kids to feel good about themselves, nobody ever failed and everyone got a trophy just for showing up. That has screwed up our country to no end. Had we just stayed with what worked, we wouldn't be in the mess we're in now.

If the customers (parents) don't like this the way a certain school, they can take their kids elsewhere... That's the beauty of a private system that can't exist in the public system... Someday the exact same argument will be brought up about this universal healthcare, and it'll be just as valid!
 
If the customers (parents) don't like this the way a certain school, they can take their kids elsewhere... That's the beauty of a private system that can't exist in the public system... Someday the exact same argument will be brought up about this universal healthcare, and it'll be just as valid!

No, there are a lot of really stupid parents who, frankly, have no business being parents, who just don't have a grasp on the purpose of education. Education is about teaching facts to children, not about indoctrinating them, not about selectively teaching ideas that the parents have an emotional attachment to, but in educating the next generation. The idea that you can choose not to have your child taught something that is real because it makes you feel bad is absurd. That's a huge argument against private schools, not for them.
 
No, there are a lot of really stupid parents who, frankly, have no business being parents, who just don't have a grasp on the purpose of education. Education is about teaching facts to children, not about indoctrinating them, not about selectively teaching ideas that the parents have an emotional attachment to, but in educating the next generation. The idea that you can choose not to have your child taught something that is real because it makes you feel bad is absurd. That's a huge argument against private schools, not for them.

No, you have no right, whatsoever, to tell me what I can and cannot teach my child. If you even felt like that, why aren't you arguing against homeschooling as well? What parents teach their kids, or the way they decide to raise their kids (barring abuse) is within their rights and nobody else's business.
 
The "assembly line model" has not been around that long. It didn't exist, at least not in the school I went to, at the time I was in school. "Special" education was separated from other school functions. We had skill training in various areas including an auto shop. Our selection of classes ranged from standard to college prep to advanced. At that time, you could also fail and have to repeat the year/classes over and for some rules violation, you could be expelled for the entire year.
.

The grade system by age .... the factory assembly line system..... has been with us for well over a century. The number of people held back or retained was relatively small. And even then it was usually limited to a single year so that the age disparity in a class was not severe. My point is that no student should advance in any lesson in any class until they master it. We have NEVER had that system.
 
The terms used in this thread do not have empty values, to be filled during whatever discussion is being had. The terms have meanings, and you were incorrect.

.

This thread is about FEDERAL takeover of schools. State responsibility by constitution and town and city districts constitute local control in this discussion.

Nonsense, because the local schools could not operate without state and federal dollars.

Again, for the purposes of a discussion about FEDERAL CONTROL OF ALL SCHOOLS a system of state responsibility with local city and town districts is LOCAL CONTROL.

And the amount of federal money in most districts is relatively small as a total percentage of revenue.
 
This thread is about FEDERAL takeover of schools. State responsibility by constitution and town and city districts constitute local control in this discussion.



Again, for the purposes of a discussion about FEDERAL CONTROL OF ALL SCHOOLS a system of state responsibility with local city and town districts is LOCAL CONTROL.

And the amount of federal money in most districts is relatively small as a total percentage of revenue.

Federal control or involvement in state schools violates the tenth amendment
 
Federal control or involvement in state schools violates the tenth amendment

Here, Here!!

Well, there is that little detail. Maybe education is commerce.

... I almost pissed myself! But you have a good point. If the kid learns something and takes that knowledge to another state and uses it to influence the commerce of another state in ANY way, that's commerce clause territory (being completely facetious)!
 
Being the product of a Public Education, the best I can do is to let others speak for me:

Academies that are founded at public expense are instituted not so much to cultivate men's natural abilities as to restrain them.
– Baruch Spinoza (1632-1677)

A general State education is a mere contrivance for moulding people to be exactly like one another; and as the mould in which it casts them is that which pleases the dominant power in the government, whether this be a monarch, an aristocracy, or a majority of the existing generation; in proportion as it is efficient and successful, it establishes a despotism over the mind, leading by a natural tendency to one over the body.
– John Stuart Mill, "On Liberty"

Wherever is found what is called a paternal government, there is found state education. It has been discovered that the best way to insure implicit obedience is to commence tyranny in the nursery.
– Benjamin Disraeli, British Prime Minister (1874)

That erroneous assumption is to the effect that the aim of public education is to fill the young of the species with knowledge and awaken their intelligence, and so make them fit to discharge the duties of citizenship in an enlightened and independent manner. Nothing could be further from the truth. The aim of public education is not to spread enlightenment at all, it is simply to reduce as many individuals as possible to the same safe level, to breed and train a standardized citizenry, to put down dissent and originality. That is its aim in the United States, whatever the pretensions of politicians, pedagogues and other such mountebanks, and that is its aim everywhere else.
– H.L. Mencken

A tax supported, compulsory educational system is the complete model of the totalitarian state.
– Isabel Paterson
 
If the customers (parents) don't like this the way a certain school, they can take their kids elsewhere... That's the beauty of a private system that can't exist in the public system... Someday the exact same argument will be brought up about this universal healthcare, and it'll be just as valid!
You can send your kids to any private school that will except them or you can teach them at home. No one is stopping you from making either of those choices.
 
This thread is about FEDERAL takeover of schools. State responsibility by constitution and town and city districts constitute local control in this discussion.
No, no it does not. No matter how much you want to pretend state control is the same as local control, it is not and never will be. 100% local control would mean the local school districts would determine their own curriculum, they would set their own graduation requirements, and they would asses the education level of students in their own way.

Again, for the purposes of a discussion about FEDERAL CONTROL OF ALL SCHOOLS a system of state responsibility with local city and town districts is LOCAL CONTROL.
And, again, you can repeat this to your heart's content, but it is no more true now than it was the first time you said it. State and local control are completely different.

And the amount of federal money in most districts is relatively small as a total percentage of revenue.
Federal dollars bring in significant amounts of revenue. Title 1 monies, especially, have been quite helpful over the last several years at our school. And let's not forget the amount of money for free/reduced lunch, which is vital for so many students to actually get a meal.
 
No, you have no right, whatsoever, to tell me what I can and cannot teach my child. If you even felt like that, why aren't you arguing against homeschooling as well? What parents teach their kids, or the way they decide to raise their kids (barring abuse) is within their rights and nobody else's business.

Who says I'm not against homeschooling? I think they need to same general educational requirements as any other school. I think it is absolutely abusive some of the idiotic things that parents want to teach their kids and/or exclude their kids from learning.
 
Who says I'm not against homeschooling? I think they need to same general educational requirements as any other school. I think it is absolutely abusive some of the idiotic things that parents want to teach their kids and/or exclude their kids from learning.

That doesn't mean you can take my kids and teach them whatever you want. Or that I have to teach them a specific set of lessons.

By the same logic, government should mandate what parents feed their kids, what chores they can and can't do, how much outdoor activities we should make sure they do, and on and on...

Parents are the deciders in everything their kids do.

Still, my point stands, maintaining States' rights with education is the right answer. Hopefully, some States will move away from public education someday and we can see the best system in action.
 
I think they need to same general educational requirements as any other school.

Do they allow not doing that in Cal? Don't they have a curriculum of subjects that must be taught and students have to pass state exams to get a diploma?
 
Do they allow not doing that in Cal? Don't they have a curriculum of subjects that must be taught and students have to pass state exams to get a diploma?

It needs to be nationwide. Actually, only those kids who are going on to college are even required to take any of the tests, which is why homeschools *LOOK* better because it's self-selecting which kids get evaluated.

There actually isn't any state-specified curriculum that I can find, there are lots of prepackaged curriculums but also lots of people who are encouraging parents to just make up their own. I've been unable to find a list of subjects that homeschools are required, by law, to teach. That is what we need.
 
It needs to be nationwide. Actually, only those kids who are going on to college are even required to take any of the tests, which is why homeschools *LOOK* better because it's self-selecting which kids get evaluated.

There actually isn't any state-specified curriculum that I can find, there are lots of prepackaged curriculums but also lots of people who are encouraging parents to just make up their own. I've been unable to find a list of subjects that homeschools are required, by law, to teach. That is what we need.

I was just curious. I know someone who was home schooling her daughter in Texas (she moved to Washington last month) and have heard references to her having to meet a curriculum requirement and provide proof of completion in order to not enroll the child in school. Having no practical need for the information, I haven't actually researched it, just heard it referred to.
 
No, no it does not. No matter how much you want to pretend state control is the same as local control, it is not and never will be. 100% local control would mean the local school districts would determine their own curriculum, they would set their own graduation requirements, and they would asses the education level of students in their own way.

And, again, you can repeat this to your heart's content, but it is no more true now than it was the first time you said it. State and local control are completely different.



Federal dollars bring in significant amounts of revenue. Title 1 monies, especially, have been quite helpful over the last several years at our school. And let's not forget the amount of money for free/reduced lunch, which is vital for so many students to actually get a meal.

This thread is about FEDERAL TAKEOVER of schools. As such, schools operated under State Constitution under the authority of the State and operated by local school districts - the system Michigan and many other states have, constitute local schools for the purposes of this thread.

You can disagree to your hearts content, but that is true just the same.

The term LOCAL CONTROL is used all over America and refers to states in which the system is much like Michigan - the State is given the legal authority over education and then it is passed to towns and cities to actually be carried out. This is known as LOCAL CONTROL. Lets look at a study of this type of system and see what they call it:

http://www.leg.wa.gov/Senate/Committees/WM/Documents/K12 Guide 2012 FINAL5.pdf

How are public schools in Washington organized?
Washington is largely considered a “local control” state. This means that local school districts are generally responsible for delivering the actual instructional programs for the state’s elementary and secondary school-age population. Each district is governed by a locally-elected school board whose members serve staggered four-year terms. Each school board hires a Superintendent who oversees the day-to-day operation of the school district. Currently, there are a total of 295 school districts.

So the term LOCAL CONTROL can and is used to refer to a public education system in which the State has legal authority and then is passed on to cities and towns in districts to actually operate and administer. Michigan has this as I have repeatedly stated. Washington has the same thing. Many other states have the same thing. And that is known as LOCAL CONTROL.

Schools who want federal money have to accept the strings which go along with it. That is how the game is played. That does not change the fact that the schools are still local schools.

In 230 I said this and you then took issue with it

And the amount of federal money in most districts is relatively small as a total percentage of revenue.

How much money does our school district receive from federal, state, and local sources? – Data First

According to National Center for Education Statistics (NCES), the national total revenues in 2008 were broken down as follows:

Local government: 44%
State government: 48%
Federal government: 8%
Note: May not add up to 100% due to rounding.

the above figures validate my statement about federal funds. Here is more evidence supporting my statement

http://www.greatschools.org/improvement/volunteering/101-the-ins-and-outs-of-school-finance.gs


The federal role

Despite all the media attention to federal programs like No Child Left Behind, the federal government does not contribute a large amount to running America's schools. And the federal money that is given to schools often comes with strings attached.

How it all breaks down

On average, schools receive:

About eight percent of their funding from the federal government
Almost 50 percent from the state budget
The rest, about 42 percent, comes from local taxes.

Some studies may put the federal share a tiny bit higher at 9 or 10% - still a relatively small percentage of the total revenues.

The facts are clear and support my initial statement that federal funds only account for a relatively small percentage of school funding.
 
Last edited:
Could you cite a SC ruling which agrees with that statement?

The SC isn't the great decider of all things government! Also, everything doesn't have to be ruled on by the SC in order to be "law". The tenth amendment is very simply worded, and with good reason: if the federal government tries to do anything not specifically enumerated in A1S8, then they are attempting to step on a state's rights.
 
This thread is about FEDERAL TAKEOVER of schools. As such, schools operated under State Constitution under the authority of the State and operated by local school districts - the system Michigan and many other states have, constitute local schools for the purposes of this thread.

You can disagree to your hearts content, but that is true just the same.

The term LOCAL CONTROL is used all over America and refers to states in which the system is much like Michigan - the State is given the legal authority over education and then it is passed to towns and cities to actually be carried out. This is known as LOCAL CONTROL. Lets look at a study of this type of system and see what they call it:

http://www.leg.wa.gov/Senate/Committees/WM/Documents/K12 Guide 2012 FINAL5.pdf

Man, you're a real piece of work... You quoted where the funding coming from using"local, state, and federal", but you're completely unwilling to admit that you're state's system isn't local, but instead primary a state controlled school system... That source you used specifically showed that there's a distinction between local and state, yet you're fighting to have the two mean the same thing...
 
The SC isn't the great decider of all things government! Also, everything doesn't have to be ruled on by the SC in order to be "law". The tenth amendment is very simply worded, and with good reason: if the federal government tries to do anything not specifically enumerated in A1S8, then they are attempting to step on a state's rights.

Really!? Who is empowered to do that if not the Supreme Court?
 
The term LOCAL CONTROL is used all over America and refers to states in which the system is much like Michigan - the State is given the legal authority over education and then it is passed to towns and cities to actually be carried out. This is known as LOCAL CONTROL. Lets look at a study of this type of system and see what they call it:

http://www.leg.wa.gov/Senate/Committees/WM/Documents/K12 Guide 2012 FINAL5.pdf



So the term LOCAL CONTROL can and is used to refer to a public education system in which the State has legal authority and then is passed on to cities and towns in districts to actually operate and administer. Michigan has this as I have repeatedly stated. Washington has the same thing. Many other states have the same thing. And that is known as LOCAL CONTROL.

Even before statehood, Michigan was a leader in public education. In 1809 judicial districts created schools and levied taxes to support them. Twenty years later, The Territorial Council divided the districts into school districts and gave the State the right to supervise schools.

Michigan's first constitution created a Superintendent of Public Instruction in 1835. John D. Pierce, a frontier missionary, was Michigan's first superintendent and the first independent administrator of education appointed under a state constitution in the United States. The State Board of Education's current responsibilities were established by the 1963 State Constitution. The leadership legacy continues as Board members lead the way in improving public education through recommendations and actions that have resulted in key legislative changes.

Michigan is very different from Washington. In '06, Michigan set a state-wide standard for all students to complete before graduation. They've had STATE supervision and administration since before Michigan was even a state. This argument that local and state mean the same thing is just ridiculous; hell, you even proved they aren't the same thing with the quote you made later in the same post:

According to National Center for Education Statistics (NCES), the national total revenues in 2008 were broken down as follows:

Local government: 44%
State government: 48%
Federal government: 8%
Note: May not add up to 100% due to rounding.

Which shows that the majority view local government and state government separately...
 
Man, you're a real piece of work... You quoted where the funding coming from using"local, state, and federal", but you're completely unwilling to admit that you're state's system isn't local, but instead primary a state controlled school system... That source you used specifically showed that there's a distinction between local and state, yet you're fighting to have the two mean the same thing...

I was in public education for 33 years. We used the term LOCAL SCHOOLS and LOCAL CONTROL just the way I have used it here. We used it just he way the evidence I linked to and quoted from uses it. Are they also "a real piece of work" for using the term? :roll:

The State Constitution gives the state the legal authority over schools. The state then empowers the cities and towns and villages across the state to actually run their own schools under the supervision and control of local school boards elected by local people. This system is known as LOCAL CONTROL of LOCAL SCHOOLS.

I provided independent verifiable evidence of this reality.
 
Could you cite a SC ruling which agrees with that statement?

why do you ask silly questions that you know the answer to? The tenth amendment was raped by your beloved saint FDR and the court has been screwed up ever since then
 
Back
Top Bottom