• 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!

Separation of Education and State

Separation of Education and state

  • Total separation except for cities.

    Votes: 0 0.0%
  • Total separation except for counties.

    Votes: 0 0.0%
  • Total separation except for states.

    Votes: 0 0.0%
  • Separation except for states and cities

    Votes: 0 0.0%
  • Separation except for states and counties

    Votes: 0 0.0%

  • Total voters
    23
Hardly. See, I grew up in all private schools and if you didn't make the grades, if you misbehaved, if you did anything they didn't like, you were out on your ass. Now I can't speak to your particular school, but for pretty much every one I've encountered, they all work the same way. It isn't that they have better teaching methods, they just congregate the best students in the same place.

Nonsense. If you misbehave or do what they don't like in public school what do you think happens? You're expelled. Which means you have to find another school that will take you, and failing that you go to the district's warehouse school. No, private schools do NOT operate in all the same ways as one another. There are a ton of differences, flavors and competencies. That's why we shopped around. And yes, many, at least in our area do indeed have better teaching methods, much smaller class sizes and non union teachers that care deeply about their students' education.

Btw, not even close to wealthy.
 
Excellent. Your state government is the appropriate venue. Congress has no power to enact laws pertaining to how the people of the states educate their children.
We better alert... somebody. Why, once this flagrant abuse has been made known, it'll be stopped immediately.


Nonsense. If you misbehave or do what they don't like in public school what do you think happens? You're expelled. Which means you have to find another school that will take you, and failing that you go to the district's warehouse school. No, private schools do NOT operate in all the same ways as one another. There are a ton of differences, flavors and competencies. That's why we shopped around. And yes, many, at least in our area do indeed have better teaching methods, much smaller class sizes and non union teachers that care deeply about their students' education.

Btw, not even close to wealthy.
It takes a lot to get to that point in a public school.
 
Please demonstrate this assertion with actual facts. Also please explain why you mean by "indoctrination", as I suspect that it's really just a political distinction based on the fact that real history and science don't back up conservative viewpoints.

I really should not have to explain it to you. Two examples are guns and bibles. The zero tolerance policy on guns is insane. If a child points his finger at another student and says: "bang", the child can be suspended or expelled offered mental health counseling. Same if a child bites his pop tart into the shape of a gun...or scribbles a picture of a gun. Most big city public schools also treat the Holy Bible as contraband. That is indoctrination.
 
Excellent. Your state government is the appropriate venue. Congress has no power to enact laws pertaining to how the people of the states educate their children.

I don't know why you say that. They do, and I help advise with some of those federal policies.
 
We better alert... somebody. Why, once this flagrant abuse has been made known, it'll be stopped immediately.

I said that congress has no power to enact laws pertaining to how the people of the states educate their children. Are you saying that the constitution grants congress this power?
 
Perhaps you should do a bit more reading before you try that victory lap.

United States Department of Education - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

That is the modern department of education. Office of Education - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

The Office of Education, at times known as the Department of Education and the Bureau of Education, was a small unit in the Federal Government of the United States within the U.S. Department of the Interior from 1867 to 1972.
 
I said that congress has no power to enact laws pertaining to how the people of the states educate their children. Are you saying that the constitution grants congress this power?

Yup. They do.
 
I don't know why you say that.

I say that because congress has no power to enact laws pertaining to how the people of the states educate their children.
 
I say that because congress has no power to enact laws pertaining to how the people of the states educate their children.

Alright but they have for decades and will continue to do. so what on earth is your point? No one cares and you won't change any minds.
 
Feel free to paste in the text from the constitution that empowers them to do so.

Oh lord internet libertarians are hopeless.

I'm glad you found some pocket guides to classical liberalism and strict constructionism, but please bring yourself back to reality.
 
Alright but they have for decades and will continue to do. so what on earth is your point? No one cares and you won't change any minds.

The fact that they have for decades is irrelevant to the meaning of the constitution.

Congress has no power to enact laws pertaining to how the people of the states educate their children.
 
Oh lord internet libertarians are hopeless.

I'm glad you found some pocket guides to classical liberalism and strict constructionism, but please bring yourself back to reality.

The reality is that, per the constitution for the united states of america, the government of the union was never granted any power to enact laws pertaining to how the people of the several states educate their children.
 
The fact that they have for decades is irrelevant to the meaning of the constitution.

Congress has no power to enact laws pertaining to how the people of the states educate their children.

Your pontificating is meaningless. If the government has in fact violated its governing language (a point of contention) and has almost universal support from both the public and all levels of government, then there should be no contention that they have the power to do so. They may have violated the Constitution, but their actions demonstrate power. Governing language is not power without consent and/or enforcement. Your point has neither.


Now join us back in reality please.
 
Your pontificating is meaningless. If the government has in fact violated its governing language (a point of contention) and has almost universal support from both the public and all levels of government, then there should be no contention that they have the power to do so. They may have violated the Constitution, but their actions demonstrate power. Governing language is not power without consent and/or enforcement. Your point has neither.


Now join us back in reality please.

I see. So you are saying that if the law has been violated for a long time or by the powerful then the law is null and void.

I'm not sure I agree. Per the constitution, the constitution is the supreme law of the land. The fact that the law is violated doesn't repeal the law.

I prefer the rule of law to anarchy.
 
I see. So you are saying that if the law has been violated for a long time or by the powerful then the law is null and void.

In practice, yes. You have to move where the dialogue is in order to say or do anything of worth.

Like I said, I'm glad you have found a couple of books and some online articles, but for those of us actually interested in moving the needle one direction or another, we focus on education policy rather than meaningless blathering.
 
In practice, yes. You have to move where the dialogue is in order to say or do anything of worth.

Like I said, I'm glad you have found a couple of books and some online articles, but for those of us actually interested in moving the needle one direction or another, we focus on education policy rather than meaningless blathering.

So just to be clear, you're saying that the constitution, the supreme law of the land, the glue that hold the several states together, should be ignored?
 
There is a role for all levels of government in providing funding for education. It seems to me that there could be some scales of economy in creating lesson plans, computer based and track self paced learning, etc. on the federal level and make this available to local school districts, public and private.
The best educational systems seem to be in Finland, Denmark, Australia, and New Zealand. In Finland, the Education Minister gives credit to local control of schools. In Denmark, private schools make up a good part of the program, subsidized with vouchers. Both countries have less required years than the US. So, there should be local controls, vouchers to allow more private schools, including religious based ones.
 
I said that congress has no power to enact laws pertaining to how the people of the states educate their children. Are you saying that the constitution grants congress this power?
I agree with you. Congress has no power. Now what? This is a direct question to you, Mr Federalist. Now what? What are you going to do about it to get us back to that point? Lay out your plan. Be as detailed as necessary.
 
So just to be clear, you're saying that the constitution, the supreme law of the land, the glue that hold the several states together, should be ignored?

With *your interpretation* of the Constitution? Morally Yes. I find your interpretation morally repugnant.

Do I believe your ideas have much merit? No. I think you are arguing this on some silly ideological premise no different from a good Marxist. You see policy as merely the extension of your broad framework and be damned if you are confronted with doing anything differently. You just won't do it, because you are hopelessly devoted to ideology over results.

Lastly, when no one is okay with arguing the merits of completely stripping federal oversight of education? Yes. Policy requires finding the arguments of those you haven't convinced and working within their framework.
 
I agree with you. Congress has no power. Now what? This is a direct question to you, Mr Federalist. Now what? What are you going to do about it to get us back to that point? Lay out your plan. Be as detailed as necessary.

I'm glad you agree that congress has no such power.

The "now what" is that the states ignore all unconstitutional federal laws pertaining to how the people of the states educate their children.
 
We better alert... somebody. Why, once this flagrant abuse has been made known, it'll be stopped immediately.



It takes a lot to get to that point in a public school.

On the first point, no. They failed on every other weak lever they had to make it constitutional so they punted and devolved to the busted Commerce Clause argument. Our SCOTUS has long been a broken entity.

And no, it only takes a lot in inner city environs. Everywhere else, well, I'll share a story of district policy with you. Georgetown, a very small, very poor rural community in California. Third grade student finds some needles in the wooded part of the playground, spends most of his recess collecting them, and then runs to the principal's office to turn them in. Was this rewarded? Was he cautioned about handling needles even with good intent? None of the above, he was expelled. No tolerance district policy and he was in possession of needles. He now attends an alternate school, his family had to move down the hill.
 
With *your interpretation* of the Constitution? Morally Yes. I find your interpretation morally repugnant.

It's not "my interpretation" of the constitution. It is the very text of the constitution. Your quarrel is not with me but with the people of the states who created their union.

Do I believe your ideas have much merit? No. I think you are arguing this on some silly ideological premise no different from a good Marxist. You see policy as merely the extension of your broad framework and be damned if you are confronted with doing anything differently. You just won't do it, because you are hopelessly devoted to ideology over results.

Lastly, when no one is okay with arguing the merits of completely stripping federal oversight of education? Yes. Policy requires finding the arguments of those you haven't convinced and working within their framework.

So you are proposing that the federal government act in conflict with the constitution, which is to say act illegally?
 
Back
Top Bottom