or don’t take it in the first place…
3 Likes
Assuming federal funding would still be available after Education is returned to the states, the funding should be administered on a child by child basis by the state.
Each child will get an account at the state’s education department. The funding should always follow the child.
Example:
30% allocated to books etc at the start of the school year.
The rest distributed in even monthly payments.
Should a child move from one school to another, the monthly payments will follow the child. The parents of Home schooled children will also count as educators the same as schools and can withdraw funds in the same way.
2 Likes
Less Government! Lets get these Left Ideas out of education so our children will not be indoctrinated and grow up with twisted ideas about life. I am a teacher and I vote for this change. I became a teacher to help fight this and I gave up a lot to do this. I need your help Mr. President. Help me make Education Great again!
6 Likes
Yes, lets give parents say in what happens in their children’s classrooms!
3 Likes
Reduce the size of the Department. 1-3 representatives from each state that reports to a small group. Mandatory development classes surrounding Math, Reading and writing. States can determine classes beyond that. Have accountability for each state for funding. Require personal finance class in high school.
1 Like
there needs to be minimum standards and requirements that each state must adhere to in order to receive Federal money. It may require a NATIONAL standardization test to prove grade level proficiency. Also, there should be curriculum & testing requirements to teach the Constitution, Bill of Rights, American history and general civics to ensure each child is prepared to be a productive American.
Giving the states the money wasted on the Department of Education will allow that state to focus on the needs of their people. Not two states are the same. We shouldn’t be told by some overseeing government agency what is best for the people who make up the fabric of our culture.
3 Likes
- Constitutional Argument:
- Federal Overreach: The U.S. Constitution does not explicitly grant the federal government authority over education. The 10th Amendment reserves powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, to the States or to the people. Education, thus, should be handled by states, which can better cater to local needs and preferences.
- Efficiency and Local Control:
-
Inefficiency of Bureaucracy: The Department of Education adds layers of bureaucracy which can hinder responsiveness and innovation in education. Local communities and states are argued to be better positioned to tailor educational policies to meet specific local needs, leading to potentially more effective and efficient educational systems.
-
Customized Education: With the Department removed, states could develop curricula that reflect local values, cultures, and educational philosophies, potentially leading to a more diverse and competitive educational landscape where different states could experiment with educational models.
- Financial Implications:
-
Redistribution of Funds: Eliminating the Department would redistribute approximately $80 billion yearly back to the states or reduce federal taxes. This could mean either more funds for state education systems or lower taxes for citizens. States could then choose how to best allocate these resources without federal mandates dictating spending.
-
Reduction of Overhead: The argument often includes the notion that cutting out the federal layer would reduce administrative costs, allowing more money to go directly towards education rather than bureaucracy.
- Improvement in Educational Outcomes:
-
Decline in Performance: Critics point out that since the establishment of the Department of Education, U.S. educational rankings have slipped. They argue that this might indicate that the federal approach hasn’t improved education as intended, suggesting that a return to state control might reverse this trend.
-
Innovation Stifled: Federal mandates like No Child Left Behind are criticized for encouraging teaching to the test rather than fostering genuine learning, innovation, or critical thinking. Abolishing the Department could remove these rigid standards, allowing for more creative educational strategies at the local level.
- Ideological and Political Concerns:
-
Political Influence: Some argue that the Department has become a tool for implementing political agendas rather than purely educational ones, especially in areas like civil rights enforcement, transgender policies, or curriculum standards which can be contentious.
-
Parental Rights: There’s a push for returning control to parents and local communities, allowing them to directly influence what is taught in schools, which aligns with the sentiment that education should reflect community values over federal ones.
- Historical Precedent:
- Historical Efforts: Presidents like Ronald Reagan and Donald Trump have expressed desires to dismantle or reduce the Department’s role, suggesting a historical inclination towards reducing federal involvement in education. This provides a precedent for reconsidering its necessity.
Counterarguments to Consider:
-
Loss of Federal Funding: Programs like Pell Grants, Title I funding for disadvantaged schools, and IDEA for special education might be at risk without federal oversight, though these could potentially be managed by other agencies or returned to state control.
-
Uniformity and Standards: There’s concern that without a federal body, there might be a lack of uniform educational standards across states, potentially leading to inequality in educational quality.
4 Likes
DoE is redundant. Education is managed by the states and their respective school districts. We’ve seen no significant improvement in our education since the DoE was first established - it’s actually been the reverse. Money that was once earmarked to pay the salaries of bureaucrats can go to actually fund students and schools - especially in struggling communities.
5 Likes
Absolutely and give the money back to the states, create competition between states. Incorporate private school methods in public schools, Montessori, British primary.
1 Like
It’s redundant, unnecessary and often conflicting with the local board/PTA needs. And save the taxpayers $80 billion a year.
3 Likes
If all we are teaching children is how to do well on the mandated tests so that schools can continue to get money from the government, then we aren’t educating them on the right things. They need to know life skills, balancing bank accounts, actual reading, writing, math skills. How to support themselves without relying on the government or their parents. Teach them science and innovation. Stop holding back those who don’t conform and stop teaching to the lowest common denominator. Stop tying the hands of the teachers to be creative, it is highly unlikely that teachers go to college to become qualified to teach only to be held back by the administration. There are so many things wrong with the system that a complete overhaul is necessary.
5 Likes
Yes. the purpose of the Department of Education is entirely to facilitate political meddling and agendas in education. It serves no Constitutionally prescribed purpose.
I’ll go one step further: All Federal funding for schools shall end, and all financial responsibility for schooling shall go to the states. Money is running everything right now, and that needs to end.
3 Likes
Those “standards” are how they exercise control over the states. It’s legalized blackmail. I’ve been on those standard-setting panels and most of the people have an agenda they’re using the system to push.
3 Likes
Yes! Agreed.
Excellent analysis.
Yes, however, it clearly needs to state that IDEA & Special Education/Civil Rights enforcement is separate from this and those functions WILL BE PRESERVED in other units of the Government.
There are SO MANY educators & parents who are afraid for the lives of disabled children. When politicians say “Eliminate the Department of Education” they hear that IEPs are eliminated and disabled kids are sacrificed. We know that’s not true. But everyone needs to clearly state that these protections still remain and will be enforced.
This is a rumor run rampant on social media, through schools and elsewhere that is perpetrated by Teachers Unions and other lobbying groups.
4 Likes
"Former President and current Republican nominee Donald Trump has been accused of once saying that it may be better for people living with serious disabilities to “just die.”
I wouldn’t hold your breath that this dude is gonna do right by the disabled.
1 Like
federal funding should be abolished to ALL schools … let the states figure it out and give vouchers to those who want to use private, home school education
I think you will get your wish shortly. Trump has indicated his willingness to eliminate this agency. You actually identified a far more insidious problem, however — “The Commerce Clause” and its gross misinterpretation over time. The prime culprit in so many acts of government overreach is our fundamentally flawed court system. The people imposed reasonable restrictions on the power of government when they crafted the Constitution, but we left the door open for government to grant itself permission to ignore those limitations with nothing more than the bang of a gavel. The federal government would become dramatically less invasive with a constitutional amendment defining the limits of “interstate commerce”. Some form of limiting legislation on this issue would be more easily obtained…but the problem with legislation is that the next Congress can erase whatever a prior Congress created. Thank you for raising this critical issue. I’m fully onboard. By sending school funding and regulation back to the states, people can vote with their feet if they dislike the policies of their state.
2 Likes