• 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!

Department of Education

Should the Dept of Education Be Returned to the States?

  • Conservative - Yes

    Votes: 12 17.1%
  • Conservative - No

    Votes: 4 5.7%
  • Libertarian - Yes

    Votes: 8 11.4%
  • Libertarian - No

    Votes: 3 4.3%
  • Progressive/Liberal - Yes

    Votes: 0 0.0%
  • Progressive/Liberal - No

    Votes: 17 24.3%
  • Socialist - Yes

    Votes: 0 0.0%
  • Socialist - No

    Votes: 1 1.4%
  • Other - Yes

    Votes: 10 14.3%
  • Other - No

    Votes: 15 21.4%

  • Total voters
    70
  • Poll closed .
Then you have obviously never been to very many meetings at the local public school where parents are voicing their opinions. I cringe every time I go to one at our kid's high school and have to listen to half the parents voice some of the dumbest opinions imaginable. When schools are spending tons of money on uniforms for the damn lacrosse team, when they are banning books in the libraries, when biology teachers are afraid to mention the term evolution, when schools have to devote time and resources to determine a more inclusive way of nominated homecoming queens and so on... Idiocy like that is not due to federal involvement in education, or even state involvement usually, but rather its almost always due to local idiots raising hell until they get their way.
The humorous anecdote of sexism in math was much like radicalism in Math in the 1960s. In Berkeley, some grad students and professors were trying to teach math radically...like somehow out of the box thinking that could complement their bourgeoning neo-Marxism. The funny thing is, there wasn't much they could do with it to make it radical [emoji14]

Sent from my LG-H910 using Tapatalk
 
Whatever Vance. It's not my problem you don't know what you're talking about.

Sent from my LG-H910 using Tapatalk
Riiiiiiiight.

Big fan of Betsy DeVos are you?
 
Riiiiiiiight.

Big fan of Betsy DeVos are you?
Nope. She stepped away from the backbone of the conservative education movements central achievements.

Sent from my LG-H910 using Tapatalk
 
I don't know where you all got the idea that schools have been desegregated by the federal government. Schools are more segregated than ever; except that now they are segregated by district, not at the individual school level. So you have inner city school districts that are 99% minority and everyone on free lunch while the suburban school districts bordering that inner city district are 99% white. Here in Kansas City the white kids that do live within the city limits generally go to private schools. Especially the kids of people whose government jobs (politicians, police, fire, etc.,) require them to live within the city limits. Or they move to the predominately white suburb of Liberty, nicknamed Cop Land, which is technically still within the KCMo city limits.

I also don't know where you get the idea that the Federal DOE insures that everybody teaches the same thing. That's far from the truth. Local schools still retain the majority of control in those areas. If they choose to teach creationism they do so, regardless of what the Fed DOE wants.

And yes, the majority of Fed DOE money goes to Special Ed, Title 9. My oldest son is a public school principal, and he's told me on numerous occasions that after paying Sp Ed expenses, most of the remainder is spent on things like conferences in attractive locations. He gets a notice from the district office saying something like this; "We have ten thousand dollars we haven't spent, so find a way to spend it." The district brass figures that either it gets spent, or they won't get that much next year, or God forbid, they might even want it back. So it's spend it or lose it.

As far as that vaunted Fed DOE standardization; different districts use different national tests. DOE guidelines say they are not to publish test scores of individual schools, because the comparisons make some schools look worse than they are. It's published district by district now; although some schools with outstanding test scores are saying screw that, we're publishing our school scores anyways. So that new DOE guideline is being pretty much ignored. The DOE tried to get everyone on board with Common Core, but no one can agree on what that core should be, so it isn't doing too well. It's dead in the water right now.

At best, what you're saying is that something (ie. Fed DOE) is better than nothing. Problem with that thinking is it gets in the way or making any progress.
 
Nope. She stepped away from the backbone of the conservative education movements central achievements.

Sent from my LG-H910 using Tapatalk
Well dang. The savior of your inept state government is someone you have disdain for. Guess that makes you REALLY screwed.
 
Well dang. The savior of your inept state government is someone you have disdain for. Guess that makes you REALLY screwed.
Tolerating weakness and capitulation to teacher unions for a while longer.

At least the brass within OSEP are good people.



Sent from my LG-H910 using Tapatalk
 
Tolerating weakness and capitulation to teacher unions for a while longer.

At least the brass within OSEP are good people.



Sent from my LG-H910 using Tapatalk
ID suggest maybe a better solution might be for your state to become more responsible for...your state. Barring the inability to do so, I guess it makes sense that you would advocate for capitulation to the fed to solve your problems. We just see things differently.
 
It's not the 1970s anymore there is a legitimate fear that states could get rid of necessary education

CA has already eliminated math at the college level they are chomping at the bit to be free from the dept of education.

As for the constitional justification I'm pretty sure that a baseline education would fall under general welfare.

Could you please quote the clause of the Constitution that covers education or even general welfare? By the way, I wasn't talking about the 1970s. I was a Junior in the 1961 - 1962 school year. As for California, if that is what its citizens want, then they can have it. Why would you want to mandate what their students are taught?
 
Even though I'm a conservative, I voted "Other - Yes" because I don't totally agree with your question.

The Department of Education should be ended...but the taxes levied to pay for it should be returned to the people. Let the states decide if they need to raise their own taxes or not.

I can live with that.
 
ID suggest maybe a better solution might be for your state to become more responsible for...your state. Barring the inability to do so, I guess it makes sense that you would advocate for capitulation to the fed to solve your problems. We just see things differently.

The fundamental problem here is you have faith in the state to innovate out of some idealistic notion of federalism. In reality, federalism is close to meaningless, but quite often a useful cover for sloth-like behavior. Nothing makes Unions hornier than someone, no matter who, making appeals to local control.

There’s nothing inherently superior about federal efforts other than that the only gains we have made in the last half century are because of the feds kicking the states in the ass, and the federal government has a better capability to be the big thinkers while the State DoE is useful at being a reporting agency to the feds. The districts are off-Standish, but still report to the state.


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk Pro
 
Why is it that the only remedy conservatives can think of for problems that exist within a system is to BLOW IT UP? The Charter schools may have a place in society but keep in mind, the public educational system accepts everyone. The poorest to the better off with all the social aspects that go along with that equation. Betsy Devos can't claim that. Indeed, there are many problems with the charter schools in her state. Our constitution guarantees to everyone equal access under forth amendment. If there were only Charter schools and no public education, there is no way there would be equal access for everyone. Why? Because Charter Schools are for profit? Sorry but the bottom line will always get in the way. Corporations always want to mitigate external factors. Those external factors are things like environmental degradation which may arise from their operations. It's very inconvenient to have to clean up your mess, so it's much better to have the tax payer do that. It's called an Externality. In the case of Charter schools, troubled children could possibly fall into that category. So if you have a social conscience then the answer should be no to turning public schools to the states. Because some states will seek to kill them all together. Every person is guaranteed Equal Access constitutionally. If a state kills public education, then they have lost Equal Access.

I would argue that Progressives/Liberals blew up the system when they decided that big brother was smarter about people in Maine to California and from Florida to Alaska and everywhere between. The reason I want this to return to the local communities or the states is due to my finely skilled social conscience.
 
Could you please quote the clause of the Constitution that covers education or even general welfare? By the way, I wasn't talking about the 1970s. I was a Junior in the 1961 - 1962 school year. As for California, if that is what its citizens want, then they can have it. Why would you want to mandate what their students are taught?

:roll:

Article 1 said:
provide for the common Defence and general Welfare of the United States
 
The fundamental problem here is you have faith in the state to innovate out of some idealistic notion of federalism. In reality, federalism is close to meaningless, but quite often a useful cover for sloth-like behavior. Nothing makes Unions hornier than someone, no matter who, making appeals to local control.

There’s nothing inherently superior about federal efforts other than that the only gains we have made in the last half century are because of the feds kicking the states in the ass, and the federal government has a better capability to be the big thinkers while the State DoE is useful at being a reporting agency to the feds. The districts are off-Standish, but still report to the state.


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk Pro
Yeah. Thats about it. I actually believe that if the people werent so foolish as to turn over their lives to a monarchy, they could actually efficiently run their states. But I also see very clear why that will never happen...and why our education system is and will forever be ****ed.
 
Yeah you'll get a real good education in Louisiana. You'll learn all about David Duke. Alabama-mississippi boy you're going to get a great education there without the Department of Education.

Text books are not controlled by the Department of Education. Textbook writers focus on the largest states for education and that is Texas. All those flower right-wingers on the education board get to determine what textbooks are red in Texas. The thing of it is is that all the textbook companies want to sell their books and texts because of texts buyers there books then the rest of the country buys there books. So even if you live in Maine or New Hampshire or Iowa or Alaska it is very lightly that the textbooks your children are reading are coming straight from the neo cons of Texas.

All states rights is is a Hustle. Why not make it County rights or city rights? How about neighborhood rights. It's just a bunch of bullcrap

Wow! You think the South is filled with lovers of David Duke? I seriously doubt that. I would trust the people of Louisiana before I would trust big brother. I have said that I am fine with local communities running the education or the state. Federalism is not a "Hustle." It is part of our Constitution. Madison said in Federalist 45:

"The powers delegated by the proposed Constitution to the federal government, are few and defined. Those which are to remain in the State governments are numerous and indefinite.

The former will be exercised principally on external objects, as war, peace, negotiation, and foreign commerce; with which last the power of taxation will, for the most part, be connected.

The powers reserved to the several States will extend to all the objects which, in the ordinary course of affairs, concern the lives, liberties, and properties of the people, and the internal order, improvement, and prosperity of the State."
 
It's not happening folks. Stop asking this question and move on.

It could happen. We realize that all good ideas have naysayers.
 
Yeah you'll get a real good education in Louisiana. You'll learn all about David Duke. Alabama-mississippi boy you're going to get a great education there without the Department of Education.

Text books are not controlled by the Department of Education. Textbook writers focus on the largest states for education and that is Texas. All those flower right-wingers on the education board get to determine what textbooks are red in Texas. The thing of it is is that all the textbook companies want to sell their books and texts because of texts buyers there books then the rest of the country buys there books. So even if you live in Maine or New Hampshire or Iowa or Alaska it is very lightly that the textbooks your children are reading are coming straight from the neo cons of Texas.

All states rights is is a Hustle. Why not make it County rights or city rights? How about neighborhood rights. It's just a bunch of bullcrap

Wow! You think the South is filled with lovers of David Duke? I seriously doubt that. I would trust the people of Louisiana before I would trust big brother. I have said that I am fine with local communities running the education or the state. Federalism is not a "Hustle." It is part of our Constitution. Madison said in Federalist 45:

"The powers delegated by the proposed Constitution to the federal government, are few and defined. Those which are to remain in the State governments are numerous and indefinite.

The former will be exercised principally on external objects, as war, peace, negotiation, and foreign commerce; with which last the power of taxation will, for the most part, be connected.

The powers reserved to the several States will extend to all the objects which, in the ordinary course of affairs, concern the lives, liberties, and properties of the people, and the internal order, improvement, and prosperity of the State."

That's funny, because the people of the states have previously actively worked to undermine the constitution via Jim Crow laws and other legislation designed to ensure that Americans would be denied their rights.

"States' rights" is a bad joke.
 
I would argue that Progressives/Liberals blew up the system when they decided that big brother was smarter about people in Maine to California and from Florida to Alaska and everywhere between. The reason I want this to return to the local communities or the states is due to my finely skilled social conscience.

And frankly, given how idiotically your average American has acted, I don't blame them one iota.
 
I don't care what the Constitution says. I care what's best for the students and for the future of the nation.

I understand you don't care what the Constitution says. That is very evident. I too care what is best for the students and for the future of our nation.
 
Quote Originally Posted by Article 1, section 8

"provide for the common Defence and general Welfare of the United States"

I thought that is what you meant. There are numerous problems attempting to use that wording from Article I, Section 8. Please allow me to explain what I mean:

1. The Articles of Confederation had a very similar clause and it read, "III.

"The said States hereby severally enter into a firm league of friendship with each other, for their common defense, the security of their liberties, and their mutual and general welfare, binding themselves to assist each other, against all force offered to, or attacks made upon them, or any of them, on account of religion, sovereignty, trade, or any other pretense whatever." The question is whether or not the Continental Congress could take on education for the nation. The answer is no. Since that is not true, then common defense and general welfare may have had another reason for being stated in both documents.

2. After the clause you quoted, what else do we find in Article 1, Section 8:
To borrow Money on the credit of the United States;
To regulate Commerce with foreign Nations, and among the several states, and with the Indian Tribes;
To establish an uniform Rule of Naturalization, and uniform Laws on the subject of Bankruptcies throughout the United States;
To coin Money, regulate the Value thereof, and of foreign Coin, and fix the Standard of Weights and Measures;
To provide for the Punishment of counterfeiting the Securities and current Coin of the United States;
To establish Post Offices and post Roads;
To promote the Progress of Science and useful Arts, by securing for limited Times to Authors and Inventors the exclusive Right to their respective Writings and Discoveries;
To constitute Tribunals inferior to the supreme Court;
To define and punish Piracies and Felonies committed on the high Seas, and Offences against the Law of Nations;
To declare War, grant Letters of Marque and Reprisal, and make Rules concerning Captures on Land and Water;
To raise and support Armies, but no Appropriation of Money to that Use shall be for a longer Term than two Years;
To provide and maintain a Navy;

To make Rules for the Government and Regulation of the land and naval Forces;
To provide for calling forth the Militia to execute the Laws of the Union, suppress Insurrections and repel Invasions;
To provide for organizing, arming, and disciplining, the Militia, and for governing such Part of them as may be employed in the Service of the United States, reserving to the States respectively, the Appointment of the Officers, and the Authority of training the Militia according to the discipline prescribed by Congress;


I put some of the above in bold. They are the ones that deal with defense. If the government is to provide for the common defense, why did the authors of the Constitution add specific clauses dealing with common defense? To establish Post Offices and Post Roads could be considered to be for the general welfare, Right?

3. James Madison was at the Constitutional Convention. I was not there and I am guessing that you weren't either. What did Madison say about this clause? In Federalist 41, he stated the following:

"For what purpose could the enumeration of particular powers be inserted, if these and all others were meant to be included in the preceding general power? Nothing is more natural nor common than first to use a general phrase, and then to explain and qualify it by a recital of particulars. But the idea of an enumeration of particulars which neither explain nor qualify the general meaning, and can have no other effect than to confound and mislead, is an absurdity, which, as we are reduced to the dilemma of charging either on the authors of the objection or on the authors of the Constitution, we must take the liberty of supposing, had not its origin with the latter."

Can we agree that "...provide for the common defense and general welfare of the United States..." does not apply to education?
 
And frankly, given how idiotically your average American has acted, I don't blame them one iota.

The average American is just fine. Your insults do not reflect on average Americans.
 
That's funny, because the people of the states have previously actively worked to undermine the constitution via Jim Crow laws and other legislation designed to ensure that Americans would be denied their rights.

"States' rights" is a bad joke.

Many things have changed over the past 117 years. I find it very sad that you think so lowly of Americans.
 
The average American is just fine. Your insults do not reflect on average Americans.

Frankly, the average American seems to be heading for the lowest common denominator
 
It could happen. We realize that all good ideas have naysayers.

The best opportunity to make that happen was in the early Reagan administration. They tried to do much smaller crawl backs of federal education legislation and it quickly, and unequivocally backfired on the administration. Thereafter the majority of the administration accepted the existence of the Department of Education, but decided to work toward public accountability and increasing expectations. Instead of some silly constitutional dogmatism, the conservative movement moved toward the much more sensible notion of "bang for buck"--accountability for the tax dollars raised, and an investment for America's continued domination of the global economy.

You don't see education policy as education policy. You see it as government and government needs to be shrunk. Nothing else seems to matter. It's all some silly abstraction to you.
 
Last edited:
Frankly, the average American seems to be heading for the lowest common denominator

You really have a hatred towards Americans, don't you?
 
Back
Top Bottom