• 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
Oh! I didn't realize you expatriated! Where are you living now? If you were trying to refer to the US, you're so unbelievably laughably wrong about that statement, that I truly worry about you.

I live in Michigan. Our state Constitution makes the state responsiblefor education and the actual administration and running of that function is then passed on to over 500 different school districts. Last time I looked, Michigan was still part of the USA.
 
I live in Michigan. Our state Constitution makes the state responsiblefor education and the actual administration and running of that function is then passed on to over 500 different school districts. Last time I looked, Michigan was still part of the USA.

Sure, bud. Then you should have no problem providing a link showing that Michigan is 100% autonomous and sovereign in all matters of education and has been for the past 100 years.
 
The overall trajectory is to move in that direction. Although conservatives generally discuss the need to solve matters at the local state level, in education matters, the way in which public education is framed is through the national lens. Not even libertarians are immune from such an intellectual adjustment. No Child Left Behind and the subsequent Race to the Top, and the Common Core curriculum reform policies are but a small number of examples of the nationalization of the education. Personally, I have misgivings about all of these, but social, political, and economic reality thrust us to a national stage, and as such, we react. One curriculum issue I see remaining involves disputed academic subjects: history, sociology, evolution in science classrooms, and so forth. Despite previous efforts to nationalize the views of most of the social sciences into social studies for classroom use, these subjects are debated and remain controversial. I do not foresee a time where a rigorous education program for history will be possible without getting over significant political hurdles.
 
Sure, bud. Then you should have no problem providing a link showing that Michigan is 100% autonomous and sovereign in all matters of education and has been for the past 100 years.

The federal government operates not a single school in Michigan. Our state Constitution provides that education is the responsibility of the state and they pass that actual responsibility of establishing and running the schools to over 500 local districts.
 
The federal government operates not a single school in Michigan. Our state Constitution provides that education is the responsibility of the state and they pass that actual responsibility of establishing and running the schools to over 500 local districts.

I didn't say you said the feds don't operate schools in Michigan. You said that education in Michigan was 100% decentralized and under local control.

Here it is again:
We have had 100% decentralized local control education for well over a century now. The only model they have ever adopted is the factory assembly line system. Centralization has nothing to do with that.

I want to see facts that prove the federal government and their DOE has absolutely zero control over any school, in any form in Michigan.
 
I would welcome you demonstrating any evidence of your claims.

I have made no claim that the current system is a good one. I only believe that nationalizing it could make it worse. The problems we see right now are not due to decentralization of education but due to issues in wealth gap/poverty. Those issues need to be resolved in order to fix education.
 
It cannot be proven that less "federal involvement" is needed when the fact is that the countries we are behind have far more federal involvement and are very often accused of being wicked socialist.

They are also have a smaller populations are more homogenous than the US and the political government type is that of some sort of Parlemntary System as opposed to our Divided Branches of government. This works against having the Federal Government being able to do this well.

We could start with parents not texting their kids in class when I'm trying to teach them. 23,000 texts a month?

How will having the Federal Government run things help in this matter?

Yet every issue turns into bash the Feds. What a joke this country's turned into.

This is the subject about the OP and there are people who do not want further Federal involvement.
 
At lunch yesterday, someone was telling me about a relative of theirs who will be graduating with an Associates Degree from a community college a few days before they officially graduate from high school. The dual programs that people have come up with are wonderful. The person can finish up their Bachelor's and be out of college before they are even old enough to drink. Nationalizing education would interfere with these types of programs.

Such programs are indeed great, if you happen to live someplace where they exist. If a student is unfortunate enough to live someplace where they don't, the districting policies, at least here, prevent students from crossing district boundaries to enable them to receive such programs, assuming of course there is a district reasonably near that has it. Under the current system, students only have access to those programs the district can afford or get people for. Even if there is a better district nearby, students are not allowed to cross the boundaries (maybe not in all cases) to seek education better suited to their needs.

Locally, we have severe problems with the boundaries, they are not allowed to cross county lines. As a result, students within a few miles of 3 different schools are forced to ride the bus for up to 5 hours a day or more to go to the school in their district/county. This also occurs, at some level but not that extreme, near state borders.

While independent, decentralized education does allow for the existence of a greater variety of methods of education, it is only a positive if the students are allowed to seek the one that best suites their needs. Otherwise, you get parents staring across the fence at an outstanding school district while be forced to send their kids to a poor/mediocre system. While it is easy to say, well move, this is not always an option. Locally, two pieces of property adjoining each other but on different sides of a county line, the one in the outstanding district has a property value 2-3 times greater than the one in the poor school district.
 
Such programs are indeed great, if you happen to live someplace where they exist. If a student is unfortunate enough to live someplace where they don't, the districting policies, at least here, prevent students from crossing district boundaries to enable them to receive such programs, assuming of course there is a district reasonably near that has it. Under the current system, students only have access to those programs the district can afford or get people for. Even if there is a better district nearby, students are not allowed to cross the boundaries (maybe not in all cases) to seek education better suited to their needs.

Locally, we have severe problems with the boundaries, they are not allowed to cross county lines. As a result, students within a few miles of 3 different schools are forced to ride the bus for up to 5 hours a day or more to go to the school in their district/county. This also occurs, at some level but not that extreme, near state borders.

While independent, decentralized education does allow for the existence of a greater variety of methods of education, it is only a positive if the students are allowed to seek the one that best suites their needs. Otherwise, you get parents staring across the fence at an outstanding school district while be forced to send their kids to a poor/mediocre system. While it is easy to say, well move, this is not always an option. Locally, two pieces of property adjoining each other but on different sides of a county line, the one in the outstanding district has a property value 2-3 times greater than the one in the poor school district.

We have that issue too, but the tuition you have to pay to come into the city from the county districts or to go to the schools you want out of district in the county are pretty small compared to private school--I think I heard somewhere it is about $800 per year which isn't horrid though certainly unattainable for some. Within the city itself, you can move around schools but we are not some huge LA, New York type village.
 
The states and local districts have totally failed, so I'm for trying something else.

Yes, but putting yet another layer (the Federal) on the existing education cake will not help the situation.
 
It isn't a failre of the states or local districts. It's a failure of families and culture. You can lead a horse to water..........


And yet when the parents want a better education for their children they run up against a roadblock of districting and an affective monopoly of government education.
 
I didn't say you said the feds don't operate schools in Michigan. You said that education in Michigan was 100% decentralized and under local control.

Here it is again:


I want to see facts that prove the federal government and their DOE has absolutely zero control over any school, in any form in Michigan.

100% of all schools in Michigan are operated by local school districts. The one exception would be where emergency fiancial managers have been put in by the state but even then the schools are still in local districts.
 
And yet when the parents want a better education for their children they run up against a roadblock of districting and an affective monopoly of government education.

Is that how it is in your state? Because in my state of Michigan parents have lots of choices including crossing district boundaries to other public schools and going to charter schools and having it paid for by the State.
 
I have made no claim that the current system is a good one. I only believe that nationalizing it could make it worse. The problems we see right now are not due to decentralization of education but due to issues in wealth gap/poverty. Those issues need to be resolved in order to fix education.

The way to change education is to change it all over the nation by eliminating the factory assembly line model that we have used all over all 50 states for the last century or more.
 
We have that issue too, but the tuition you have to pay to come into the city from the county districts or to go to the schools you want out of district in the county are pretty small compared to private school--I think I heard somewhere it is about $800 per year which isn't horrid though certainly unattainable for some. Within the city itself, you can move around schools but we are not some huge LA, New York type village.

Our local school district ended tuitioning recently. Although, here, it was those in the Urban schools seeking refuge in the Rural schools since, in at least two instances, the rural schools greatly out perform the urban ones. The problem came in that the tuition, though not particularly high, was not equal to school taxes in the district. If I have to pay $1500 a year in school taxes, then why should someone be allowed to go to the school for only $800 a year. Same school, cost to parents should be the same for every student attending. The problem was further exacerbated by performance and discipline problems by the students that were being tuitioned in.
 
The way to change education is to change it all over the nation by eliminating the factory assembly line model that we have used all over all 50 states for the last century or more.

No, the solution is to get rid of government involvement, because the government doesn't innovate. They don't experiment. They stick with whatever works. Alternatively, a private school system would mean companies giving new software and hardware to schools to test out their systems, or as incentive to get school systems to buy their product. School systems would have their own research to see what ways they could teach better with less money (competition). Businesses will do everything to teach every kid, because they want the business.

Also, there would be a LOT of non profit school systems, like there are medical facilities. Possibly religious institutions, etc.
 
Our local school district ended tuitioning recently. Although, here, it was those in the Urban schools seeking refuge in the Rural schools since, in at least two instances, the rural schools greatly out perform the urban ones. The problem came in that the tuition, though not particularly high, was not equal to school taxes in the district. If I have to pay $1500 a year in school taxes, then why should someone be allowed to go to the school for only $800 a year. Same school, cost to parents should be the same for every student attending. The problem was further exacerbated by performance and discipline problems by the students that were being tuitioned in.

IDK about your school system but ours gets lots of federal and state money and not all the property tax goes to the schools directly--it just goes into the general budget with all the rest. We do not have a separate school tax, though my parents own some property in another state where "school tax" is part of the breakdown on their property tax.
 
No, the solution is to get rid of government involvement, because the government doesn't innovate. They don't experiment. They stick with whatever works. Alternatively, a private school system would mean companies giving new software and hardware to schools to test out their systems, or as incentive to get school systems to buy their product. School systems would have their own research to see what ways they could teach better with less money (competition). Businesses will do everything to teach every kid, because they want the business.

Also, there would be a LOT of non profit school systems, like there are medical facilities. Possibly religious institutions, etc.

Private schools with the same factory assembly line system are still schools with the factory assembly line system. And that is the key problem.
 
The way to change education is to change it all over the nation by eliminating the factory assembly line model that we have used all over all 50 states for the last century or more.

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.

It was in the 80's and later that lawsuits about emotional/psychological damage for "failing" a student was brought up. Teachers/systems were no longer allowed to "damage" students who didn't meet standards by saying the failed and making them repeat their failures.

It was after that time period that lawsuits about unequal education and unequal availability were pursued. Following such lawsuits and some Laws, the "special needs" students were to be allowed in normal classrooms, no matter how disruptive they become. Schools were, for a time, prevented from offering "unequal" education in the form of placing students in advanced and college prep tracks. Even today, locally at least, there is no official distinction between classes. However, all the brighter students seem to end up in Mrs. X's class while the more "normal" or "less bright" students all end up in Mr. Y's class, but on paper at least, they are the same class, just different teachers.

It was after that time period that the "right to education" was considered to be overriding of the need for discipline and total expulsion were declared "wrong" as a result of lawsuits. The nearby Urban schools, that have the greater need and can afford it, actually have what is basically law enforcement monitored "prison" areas for students that in the past would of just been kicked off the property and not allowed to return. The local school also still has corporal punishment with parental consent, the nearest urban ones do not, maybe this is why the local school is rated outstanding while most of the urban ones only rank as marginal to adequate.

Since these factors were not present in all schools in the 1970's and early 1980's, I don't see how you can claim that an "assembly line" approach was being used prior to that time period.
 
Private schools with the same factory assembly line system are still schools with the factory assembly line system. And that is the key problem.

Ah, but one school has an assembly line for highly motivated students and high standards and turns out college students that go on to advanced degrees. Another has an assembly line for students to will enter non-college based skilled careers. Etc, etc. The difference is that while they may have an "assembly line" approach, in your opinion, they are more limited to what product they produce instead of just a general use product.
 
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 assembly line model still largely holds up as a framework to understand public education historically and currently. Secondly, special education is still separated from other school functions.



It was after that time period that lawsuits about unequal education and unequal availability were pursued. Following such lawsuits and some Laws, the "special needs" students were to be allowed in normal classrooms, no matter how disruptive they become. Schools were, for a time, prevented from offering "unequal" education in the form of placing students in advanced and college prep tracks. Even today, locally at least, there is no official distinction between classes. However, all the brighter students seem to end up in Mrs. X's class while the more "normal" or "less bright" students all end up in Mr. Y's class, but on paper at least, they are the same class, just different teachers.

Not really. There were some issues with placing students in the general education classroom, much of the time it was an exaggeration to the changes that were coming. Most kinks in desegregation were addressed with flexibility of placement and additional educator training & supports.
 
Last edited:
No, the solution is to get rid of government involvement, because the government doesn't innovate. They don't experiment. They stick with whatever works. Alternatively, a private school system would mean companies giving new software and hardware to schools to test out their systems, or as incentive to get school systems to buy their product. School systems would have their own research to see what ways they could teach better with less money (competition). Businesses will do everything to teach every kid, because they want the business.

Also, there would be a LOT of non profit school systems, like there are medical facilities. Possibly religious institutions, etc.

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.
 
My statement - that we have local control is true as the term is used in this thread discussion.
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.

The topic is turning over control of education to the Federal Government.
That very well may be, but your statement that we have 100% decentralized education was false.

I made it very clear that in my state of Michigan, the state has the constitutional responsibility of education and that is then passed on to smaller communities like cities and towns in over 500 districts across the state. Contrast that with FEDERAL CONTROL of education and that system is indeed LOCAL CONTROL.
No...it's state control. Your state has graduation requirements. It has content requirements. It has proficiency on standardized test requirements.

In no way can that be consider local control.

For you to pretend that it is not is simply a denail of reality.
Denying your falsehoods are not denying reality. I don't give a rat's rear end about the argument you're having on whether or not we should put more control in the hands of the federal government (though I think it's a terrible idea, for many reasons), but what I do care about is you made an incredibly false statement and because you seem to think admitting you were wrong about anything means you are wrong about everything, you are arguing something you are clearly incorrect about. This isn't even a debate any more. You are wrong. You've been proven wrong, in every way possible.

Just admit you are wrong, then turn that into your argument that we need more federal control. But as long as you cling to your obviously erroneous argument, it undermines any other argument you make.

States and local governments want federal dollars and those dollars come attached with strings. Surprise surprise. That does ot equate to destroying the local system already in place.
Nonsense, because the local schools could not operate without state and federal dollars.

And the fact you're still trying to claim that state control is equal to local control is so far beyond absurd I don't know why you continue to argue it.
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.
That's such a ridiculous myth, it never ceases to amaze me how many people actually believe it. Quite frankly, your comment is nonsense.
 
And yet when the parents want a better education for their children they run up against a roadblock of districting and an affective monopoly of government education.

I don't disagree, but it's still not the schools/admins who are the problem.
 
I don't disagree, but it's still not the schools/admins who are the problem.

Yup, it's the school boards which are made up of parents who don't have a clue what they're doing. Today, the Los Angeles school board passed a rule that disruptive students can no longer be suspended. Parents were thrilled. Exactly how are the schools supposed to discipline bad kids now? Who knows.
 
Back
Top Bottom