Should the U.S Abolish the Department of Education?

[TitanShen]

Yes! Give the states more power!

[Divair]

Yes! Give the states more power!

No.

[The United Soviet Socialist Republic]

As a person who was born in the US and experienced the American education system, I can tell you that whoever runs it needs to be fired or the entire Department abolished.

[The Kangaroo Republic]

i) You could choose schools that embrace your values without all schools having the same values.

Ya know. Balkanisation of opinions -- like when people send their children to schools that embrace the values they specifically want -- is not the right way to prepare children for a world where people have a diverse set of interests and values.

[The Peoples Republic of Minnesota]

It shouldn't. There needs to be some kind of academic standard across the board and you do not achieve that with 50 states going their seperate ways..

We actually don't have that now. Academic standards are de-facto decided by places like California and Texas, because they buy the most textbooks.

[Khadgar]

What precisely would be the benefit? I can envision a lot of problems, and no benefits. So it's little wonder this is a constant right wing talking point.

[Conscentia]

No, abolishing the Department of Education would be a terrible idea.

[Frisivisia]

To solve Global Warming, let's abolish the Department of Energy!

[Conscentia]

As a person who was born in the US and experienced the American education system, I can tell you that whoever runs it needs to be fired or the entire Department abolished.

Abolishing the Department would make the system even worse.

[Mushet]

Please, tell us some of these-benefits-of which you speak.

Well,
i) You could choose schools that embrace your values without all schools having the same values.
ii) Competition would make education cheaper, and lower taxes would make it easier to afford.
iii) Moar freedom.
iv) Smaller workload for government allows for focus on other areas.

EDIT: Plus, all the economic benifits of teachers' wages remaining in the private sector, and the fact that the education industry would be more efficient.

III) Not for the students, schools would be given free reign to just expel a kid that's not performing up to their standards or conforming to their standards or simply not going to the mandated sponsor events like "everyone spend money at McDonald's day"

[Sarkhaan]

So ever since I've been getting into a more Capitalist, Right Wing community over both my life and the internet, a few things have come up that I simply can't agree with. The one that I can't agree with the most is probably the Department of Education thing, specifically abolishing it and giving full power to the States.

So what does the NS General community think about this? After all, the Department of Education did do some stupid [REDACTED] like pass No Child Left Behind or focus on the Self-Esteem movement a decade ago. But on the other hand, the Department of Education does facilitate education on a federal level.

Learn about the DOE.
It has no power over curriculum. It has no ability to force any state, district, school, teacher, or student to do anything. Ever. That is not in the realm of the federal government, as spelled out by the Constitution.

[Conscentia]

i) People have a right to be idiots.

They do not.

iii) Moar freedom.

Legalising murder and theft would also increase freedom.

[Zottistan]

i) People have a right to be idiots.

They do not.

iii) Moar freedom.

Legalising murder and theft would also increase freedom.

It would. At the cost of the direct violation of rights of others, which outweighs freedom

[Sarkhaan]

Why'd you be in favor then?

Far as I'm concerned, private education is a lot better than public. The transition from public to private would be expensive and difficult, and would put a lot of people out of work, but the country'd get over it. On the long run, the benifits of private education would outweigh the cost of the short-term economic damage done.

I'm glad that is your opinion. It is wrong, mind you, but I'm glad none the less.

Research out of Chile and New Zealand (and now, the US) has demonstrated that the way in which schools receive their funding or student rosters has nothing to do with academic achievement. Schools with good administration, high socioeconomic groups, groups with political and social capital, with a strong ethos, and consistent application of fair and just rules end up being successful.

Private schools are in no way required to serve any student. This means special needs students (IEP, 504, and behavioral cases) can be flat out denied an education. They are not required to serve rural areas. They are able to kick out students that are failing to artificially improve standing and ranking.


I support a strong public system to ensure every student has an equitable opportunity at a quality education, with a private counterpart (including homeschooling) for those that choose.

[Sarkhaan]

No. Businesses benefit from uniform education standards across the country.

...we don't have that. Not even close.

Dodd and Kennedy were going to propose a voluntary (read: tied to funding) national curriculum. That's about the closest we've ever gotten.

[Sarkhaan]

Nice in principle, but it would result in Creationism being taught in some places, and other silly things. So, it's a no-no.

Which...currently happens. Under the DoE. Because the federal DoE doesn't dictate curriculum.

[Sarkhaan]

No. What happens to children who move from state to state and are taught different things? Also, I don't think that children from certain states should be taught "creation science" because their representatives trust the bible over science.

The DoE has nothing to do with that. You can tell because we have the DoE and the things you mention are standard.

[Sarkhaan]

Please, tell us some of these-benefits-of which you speak.

Well,
i) You could choose schools that embrace your values without all schools having the same values.

I can do that now. It isn't like public schools function under a hivemind. There is no Great and Powerful Oz dictating what every public school must value.

ii) Competition would make education cheaper, and lower taxes would make it easier to afford.

Nope. Because education doesn't function in that kind of marketplace. Results are not observable until potentially decades after the student has completed their education. By having schools funded by all tax payers, it becomes cheaper for each person. By going private, those without school-aged children will no longer be paying into the system, resulting in a larger burden for each student a family must educate. This burden would multiply based on how many kids a family has (with low SES families being most likely to have large families).
Your system would make education more expensive for those most in need.

iii) Moar freedom.

How so? Are you able to transport to any private school you want? There are still significant barriers: how many schools can the average town actually support? What happens when a town has too small of a population to make a school profitable?

And yes. That is what needs to happen. Private schools must turn a profit. They might do that by increasing outcomes, allowing them to increase tuition and pull more students. Or they might do it by not buying paper.

iv) Smaller workload for government allows for focus on other areas.

Not really, as the "Government" is more like a conglomerate corporation with thousands of small corporations running actual operations. Cutting the funding for welfare doesn't mean that we can suddenly focus on winning Iraq.

EDIT: Plus, all the economic benifits of teachers' wages remaining in the private sector, and the fact that the education industry would be more efficient.

Teachers in the private sector make less, in terms of wages as well as benefits, than their public counterparts.

And I fail to see how this would make education "more efficient". Or even why efficiency should be a top priority in education. We aren't an industry. We aren't manufacturing Weebles that all need to fall within tolerances. We are educating people. And sometimes, that just isn't "efficient".

[Sarkhaan]

Yes! Give the states more power!

The states already have total power. They just get money from the DoE (if they comply with the requirements for that money). Every state is more than welcome to walk away from that money and ignore the DoE completely.

[Grave_n_idle]

America is a very large country

Doesn't matter.

with many distinct cultural views and customs.

No, it's not.

Claiming that 'the South is gonna rise again' and eating grits isn't a culture.

[Threlizdun]

Clearly all power should be handed over to the states, so that way we can get rid of those pesky things like "science" and get some more Jesus and "Merica in there.

[Aardenland]

No. If it screws up, then reform.

[The United Soviet Socialist Republic]

As a person who was born in the US and experienced the American education system, I can tell you that whoever runs it needs to be fired or the entire Department abolished.

Abolishing the Department would make the system even worse.

If even possible.

[Olthar]

No. Abolishing the Department of Education is a terrible idea.

[Abatael]

It should.