• 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!

Are public schools socialism?

Status
Not open for further replies.
This sums it up nicely.

"A Violation of the 10th Amendment"


"The federal role in education is a violation of the 10th amendment of the United States Constitution which states, “The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.” Nowhere in the Constitution is the federal government delegated the power to regulate or fund elementary or secondary education.


Department of ED: A Bureaucratic Spending Trough


In the face of stiff opposition, the federal government formed the Department of Education (ED) in 1979. Supporters promised that the ED would have a relatively small budget of only $14.5 billion and less than 100 employees. Today, the ED enjoys a hefty budget of over $32 billion and employs 5,100 people (89.4% of whom were deemed nonessential during the November 1995 government shutdown).1 The education spending rate since the department’s founding has risen three times as fast as non-defense discretionary programs (29.5% versus 7.9%).2



Why Should Congress Abolish the Federal Role in Education?HSLDA | National Center Issues Alert
 
sawyerloggingon said:
This sums it up nicely.

"A Violation of the 10th Amendment"


"The federal role in education is a violation of the 10th amendment of the United States Constitution which states, “The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.” Nowhere in the Constitution is the federal government delegated the power to regulate or fund elementary or secondary education.


Department of ED: A Bureaucratic Spending Trough


In the face of stiff opposition, the federal government formed the Department of Education (ED) in 1979. Supporters promised that the ED would have a relatively small budget of only $14.5 billion and less than 100 employees. Today, the ED enjoys a hefty budget of over $32 billion and employs 5,100 people (89.4% of whom were deemed nonessential during the November 1995 government shutdown).1 The education spending rate since the department’s founding has risen three times as fast as non-defense discretionary programs (29.5% versus 7.9%).2



Why Should Congress Abolish the Federal Role in Education?HSLDA | National Center Issues Alert
Click to expand...

But again, you talk about how terrible it is, but you don't mind if the States do it. Socialism is fine on a State by State basis?
 
Helix said:
an educated population is in the national interest. we have to innovate our way through national problems, and we need a large pool of educated individuals to tap into. personally, i'd prefer to see everyone have a right to go to college, as well.
Click to expand...

So?? Why does something being in the public interest warrant the government being involved in that activity? Who cares if an educated population helps the country? That has nothing to do with the job of the government. That is a responsibility of people.

the view that education is just a student buying a service is short sighted. we all benefit when a citizen is properly educated, and we suffer when many aren't. our public education system is far from perfect, but gutting it won't fix it.
Click to expand...

It's a matter of fact. People are interested in having their children educated and go out to make that interest a reality in the market where people are employed to fill this interest these parents have. Public education doesn't even really change this, but instead provides them a place to get this interest realized where other people pay for the service and the government is in charge of the educational process.

I'm honestly not interested in fixing a system where the government is in charge of education, sorry. Mutual benefit of the government acting does not warrant anything.
 
American said:
What your asking is impossible in a bloated system such as public education. It is inevitable that any huge public bureaucracy like this, institutionalization will happen. No large scale institution can customize education for each student, it would cost a gazillion dollars.
Click to expand...

I'm a firm believer in abolishing the Department of Education and letting communities focus on it. I do not believe a large bureaucracy can help educate students.
 
Henrin said:
So?? Why does something being in the public interest warrant the government being involved in that activity? Who cares if an educated population helps the country. That has nothing to do with the job of the government.
Click to expand...

an educated population is critical to America's future; it touches pretty much every major issue, both public and private. it's absolutely a legitimate role of government.



Henrin said:
It's a matter of fact. People are interested in having their children educated and go out to make that interest a reality in the market where people are employed to fill this interest these parents have. Public education doesn't even really change this, but instead provides them a place to get this interest realized where other people pays for the service and the government is in charge of the educational process.

I'm honestly not interested in fixing a system where the government is in charge of education, sorry. Mutual benefit of the government acting does not warrant anything.
Click to expand...

i suppose we'll have to disagree on this one.
 
Government programs exist because Government exist to provide for common needs that cannot effectively be provided by individuals alone. To me, education does fit that. Defense, law enforcement, fire fighting and education are some of those needs. This is not socialism, nor is this using government programs to provide something that people are too stupid to earn on their own. They apply to all citizens and are why governments are formed in the first place. I do recognize that education may be a little on the fringe, but I support it and don't call it socialism.

Being of a more "Federalist" or "Centrist" mindset in some things, I do see the system as grossly inefficient and in need of some serious trimming down. I don't know how Idaho does it, but here in Texas we have "independent" school districts which the state provides money to but has no direct control over. During the economic downturn and following reduced budgets, the education budget of course fell under the chopping block because it is controlled by the state. The state also noted that in the majority of districts, over 50% of funding was being used for "Administrators" and not facilities, teachers, text books, etc. The state however cannot order independent districts to eliminate administration positions. Since it is the administrators that control how the budget is spent, when cuts are made, teachers and other things take the brunt of it, with little or no cuts to administration. This kind of activity is a major source of cost issues and relates, at least some, to the quality issues also.

Quality of education has primarily suffered due to the adoption of anti-discipline ideals, improper focus and many other issues which would require a rather large amount of time to actually type out here, but most of which relate to pushing a pro-liberal education agenda.
 
AreteCourage said:
I'm a firm believer in abolishing the Department of Education and letting communities focus on it. I do not believe a large bureaucracy can help educate students.
Click to expand...

This would result in an institutionalized geographical gettoization of America since only the wealthiest communities could afford the best schools. Born to the wrong parents? Tough! Hope you like working in the coal plant.
 
rocket88 said:
But again, you talk about how terrible it is, but you don't mind if the States do it. Socialism is fine on a State by State basis?
Click to expand...

It is a state right to educate their kids as they see fit and the residents of that state would choose how that was accomplished based on their vote for a specific program or governor whom they chose to run their state. Socialism is a top down system run by faceless bureaucrats and politicians voted in by people in far away states and cities, huge difference and there is that pesky 10th amendment thing.
 
sawyerloggingon said:
Socialism is a top down system run by faceless bureaucrats and politicians voted in by people in far away states and cities,
Click to expand...

My, how socialism has changed in definition since I was a lad.
 
sawyerloggingon said:
Just take a cruise through this site to get a taste of how deep the tentacles of the Federal gov reach into education. Each state should decide how they educate their kids, how much to spend on it AND the books they will use to teach them not to mention the teachers they hire and FIRE and if those teachers have to be in the union. The cost of educating our kids could go way down and the quality of their education could go way up if the feds would stay out of the equation.

U.S. Department of Education
Click to expand...

We tried letting the States control education and we got unsatisfactory results. Why would we ever go back? States have proven unreliable in providing equal education for all and their failures hurt our countries potential. How selfish and short sighted can people get?
 
Socialism or not I will gladly pay my current tax rate, hell even more, to live in an educated society.
 
Helix said:
an educated population is critical to America's future; it touches pretty much every major issue, both public and private. it's absolutely a legitimate role of government.
Click to expand...

So?? That doesn't explain why critical marketable interests of people are a legitimate role of government to be involved in. It's simply saying that this service is important and therefore I feel it is too important to leave to the market. This same logic is being used on healthcare today and in both cases I don't find it very convincing.
 
sawyerloggingon said:
It is a state right to educate their kids as they see fit and the residents of that state would choose how that was accomplished based on their vote for a specific program or governor whom they chose to run their state. Socialism is a top down system run by faceless bureaucrats and politicians voted in by people in far away states and cities, huge difference and there is that pesky 10th amendment thing.
Click to expand...

That's not what socialism is at all.

Even on a state level it's run by faceless bureaucrats and politicians. When you get a geographically large state, it's a far away city. Look at Alaska - Minneapolis is closer to Cleveland than Juneau is to Nome. Buffalo to Albany in New York State is a pretty good hike, all the way to New York is even worse.
 
Wiseone said:
Socialism or not I will gladly pay my current tax rate, hell even more, to live in an educated society.
Click to expand...

Are you assuming we would all be dimwits without it?
 
Henrin said:
There is no roughly about it. Government will always be the leader of the pack and will always be calling all the shots inside and outside the market of education. To call a market where competition can not exist ever and where the government is involved is shear nonsense.
Click to expand...

In that bolded quote I think is a problem with our educational system not only K-12, but also in college. We don't view education as something that can be used to benefit the individual and society, but rather we view it as an arm of the market and that corrupts the value of education. Rather than having us think that education is needed so that we can benefit ourselves, it has become commodified and is viewed as a means rather than an end.
 
Wiseone said:
Socialism or not I will gladly pay my current tax rate, hell even more, to live in an educated society.
Click to expand...

I think the best way to achieve this is for all schools to have equal federal funding. Tying the funding to local property taxes is a disaster (unless you're one of those lucky enough to live in a community with high property taxes).
 
Cardinal said:
This would result in an institutionalized geographical gettoization of America since only the wealthiest communities could afford the best schools. Born to the wrong parents? Tough! Hope you like working in the coal plant.
Click to expand...

Umm...you need to look in the mirror. What you are complaining about exists in your system. :lamo
 
Henrin said:
There is no roughly about it. Government will always be the leader of the pack and will always be calling all the shots inside and outside the market of education. To call a market where competition can not exist ever and where the government is involved is shear nonsense.
Click to expand...

So wherever government is involved, even if there are choices, it still isn't a market? There is still competition, otherwise private schools wouldn't exist. So it is still not socialism.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top Bottom