President Obama’s plan would replace the No Child law’s requirement that every American child reach proficiency in reading and math, which administration officials have called utopian, with a new national target that may be even harder to achieve: that all students should graduate from high school prepared for college and a career.So, where again is the text in the Constitution that authorizes the central government to busy itself in education?
“Under these guidelines, schools that achieve excellence or show real progress will be rewarded,” he said in his weekly radio address, “and local districts will be encouraged to commit to change in schools that are clearly letting their students down.”
I'm sorry, I forgot again. I'll stop asking pointless and futile questions.
10 comments:
We don't agree on much, but we do on this. It does seem futile.
One of the problems with NCLB is that children with certain disabilities cannot achieve the limited goals. As a result, schools try to figure out a way to shed themselves of kids who need their services certainly as much as "normal" children do. Raising the goal makes it even worse.
When I was in high school, I tried to sign up for shop, because I wanted to learn draftsmanship, which would have been useful as an engineer. Nope. They had room for 24 students, and 25 applicants, and since my IQ was high enough to make me "college material", they gave the 24 seats to kids who were not college material. I was POed, but I could see the logic, then and now. Some kids benefit from college, and others can not.
By the way, the text that allows the federal government to intervene in education is in Article 1 Section 8 of the Constitution. But you knew that, didn't you?
Actually, the federal government has been involved in education since the Land Ordinance of 1787 - which was enacted two years before the Constitution became law. I think it's a little late to be complaining about federal involvement in education. It'd be better to complain that it's not doing a particularly good job of it.
My daughter is a good and experienced third-grade teacher in California. The havoc inflicted by these constant and nonsensical "education" mandates falls most heavily on her profession. It seems absolutely insane to somehow blame the teacher, then tweak the sysem this way and that, depending on the current style. Has everybody gone nuts?
"By the way, the text that allows the federal government to intervene in education is in Article 1 Section 8 of the Constitution. But you knew that, didn't you?"
No, Harl, I don't know any such thing. To read section 8 in that way makes nonsense of the rest of the document, amendment 10 in particular. And I frankly don't care what the Supremes have had to say about such matters over the years -- the sophistries of usurpers aren't especially interesting to me.
There is no text in the Constitution but education is/was considered an important public function and the individual states were seen as the chief providers of education through the allocation of federal budgetary resources and regulating the provision of education.
What's so wrong with the President speaking out in favor of education?
itsmecissy, I have no problem with anybody (including the prez) "speaking out" in favor of education. That is admirable to encourage education.
However it's one thing to "speak out" and quite another to mandate and indescriminately hurl gazillions of dollars on said mandates.
The Dept. Of Eduation is an abomination (not to be confused with with Obamanation-yet) that needs to be summarily dismantled.
Let the states and local communities decide.
You're right. The Ordinance of 1787 is patently unconstitutional because it allocated Section 16 of each township for purposes of providing free public education.
Therefore, the Northwest Territory (Ohio, Indiana, Michigan, Illinois, Wisconsin) should revert to the federal government, and the state governments dissolved.
Not a big problem. I'm sure there would be some - perhaps the Chinese - who would be interested in buying the land, and if the residents of the territories want to apply for statehood, they would be on an equal footing with Samoa, Guam, the Virgin Islands, and Puerto Rico.
To Cissy: Of course, nothing is wrong with the president speaking out in favor of -- or against -- anything that's on his mind. It's a free country, more or less, sort-of, kind-of. Even I can speak out in favor of education, as I will now do: "I think education is a good thing. Everyone should be as educated as he or she can become." What I have a problem with is the president (this one or any of his predecessors) launching programs, with the force of law and the public purse, for which there is no constitutional authority.
To Harl: the Northwest Ordinances in general are not so much unconstitutional as pre-constitutional, or extra-constitutional. In fantasy-land, the territory would not "revert" to the feds ... instead, it would revert to the partially-conflicting claims of some of the original thirteen states, and those conflicts would no doubt be settled somehow: perhaps through violence and bloodshed, or perhaps in some better way. However, given the near-complete meaninglessness of state boundaries today as it is, how would I, as a resident of Indiana, know the difference if the feds (formally) took over? Anyway, speaking as at least one "resident of the territories," rather than apply for statehood in the Empire, I'd fight to the death to resist it. "Take your DeeCee and shove it," as the song might be amended.
However, given the near-complete meaninglessness of state boundaries today as it is, how would I, as a resident of Indiana, know the difference if the feds (formally) took over?
No more senators or representatives in congress. No post offices. No state troopers. No county sheriff's office. No police. Corporations chartered in any of the five states would cease to exist, and their assets would belong to whoever organized the biggest ad hoc army. With no local governments to pay for power or labor, the water treatment systems would go dry. With no power to run the pumping stations, sewage would back up. Store owners would need to hire armies to protect their outlets, and given that overhead, they'd probably just hold clearance sales and move operations. Hijacking of semis would result in truckers avoiding the five states. No radio or television as vandals stealing aluminum disable the power lines. No fire departments, but without water, it wouldn't really matter. Most people would flee the NW Territory. How many have enough gasoline to make it all the way to Kentucky or Pennsylvania, or Missouri?
You're right. Without any government in those five states, nobody would notice that anything had changed.
I typed: However, given the near-complete meaninglessness of state boundaries today as it is, how would I, as a resident of Indiana, know the difference if the feds (formally) took over?
How, Harl, do you get from that to You're right. Without any government in those five states, nobody would notice that anything had changed.? God knows that "the feds taking over" isn't a very close approximation to "without any government." Rather the opposite, I'd say. You're an intelligent person, so I'd suggest that you might not have been reading very carefully.
The thing that amazes me about your comment is that you seem to imagine that it's either rule from Washington, or a "Road Warrior"-style dystopian anarchy. No third (or fourth, fifth, etc. way. My word, how do you suppose the Canadians get along, without membership in the US bringing them every good thing in life? I'm sure they'd all be in Pennsylvania by now, if only they had enough gasoline to get there.
Post a Comment