Santorum: Parents should run schools

[morgieb]

Just  off already Santorum.

[TomC]

The feds have "taken over" accountability in public schools in the last decade? Has it helped? By most measures, no. And at the same time the federal government, state governments, local bureaucracies, and plenty of well-intentioned groups like Bill Gates' and other Chamber of Commerce groups have all gained more power to hold schoolws accountable, parents are left sitting in some office listening to the principal tell them about some rule that somebody made and why he can't do what's best specifically for the kids in that school.

Santorum is absolutely right on this- the feds have no constitutional authority to run public schools.

[memphis]

The feds have "taken over" accountability in public schools in the last decade? Has it helped? By most measures, no. And at the same time the federal government, state governments, local bureaucracies, and plenty of well-intentioned groups like Bill Gates' and other Chamber of Commerce groups have all gained more power to hold schoolws accountable, parents are left sitting in some office listening to the principal tell them about some rule that somebody made and why he can't do what's best specifically for the kids in that school.

Santorum is absolutely right on this- the feds have no constitutional authority to run public schools.

The. Feds. Don't. Run. Schools. They. Are. Run. By. Local. Districts.

[TomC]

The feds have "taken over" accountability in public schools in the last decade? Has it helped? By most measures, no. And at the same time the federal government, state governments, local bureaucracies, and plenty of well-intentioned groups like Bill Gates' and other Chamber of Commerce groups have all gained more power to hold schoolws accountable, parents are left sitting in some office listening to the principal tell them about some rule that somebody made and why he can't do what's best specifically for the kids in that school.

Santorum is absolutely right on this- the feds have no constitutional authority to run public schools.

The. Feds. Don't. Run. Schools. They. Are. Run. By. Local. Districts.

The.Feds.Mandate.Tests.That.Local.Districts.Are.Held.Captive.To

These tests are lowest common denominator- meaning low expectations, that, if your child is above average, will undermine his/her curriculum. Yet schools must perform well on these federally mandated tests and that has become priority one in most schools. Thus, in all the levels of accountability, the mandates by the federal government are supreme to local/community concerns. It does not have to be that way- states could refuse federal money and federal accountability, but they don't.

Are you aware of No Child Left Behind?

[Badger]

When right-wingers like santorum talk about 'leting parents run schools rather than washington', they mean basically two things:

1) let local school districts flout the constitution by imposing their own sectarian religious views as part of public school curiculum ('inteligent design' aka creationism,      group christian prayer in class and school functions, teaching Christianity' supremacy, etc).

2) reduce funding for less affluent districts and re-route it towards parochial instruuction for middle class, upper middle class and wealthy parents.

[memphis]

The feds have "taken over" accountability in public schools in the last decade? Has it helped? By most measures, no. And at the same time the federal government, state governments, local bureaucracies, and plenty of well-intentioned groups like Bill Gates' and other Chamber of Commerce groups have all gained more power to hold schoolws accountable, parents are left sitting in some office listening to the principal tell them about some rule that somebody made and why he can't do what's best specifically for the kids in that school.

Santorum is absolutely right on this- the feds have no constitutional authority to run public schools.

The. Feds. Don't. Run. Schools. They. Are. Run. By. Local. Districts.

The.Feds.Mandate.Tests.That.Local.Districts.Are.Held.Captive.To

These tests are lowest common denominator- meaning low expectations, that, if your child is above average, will undermine his/her curriculum. Yet schools must perform well on these federally mandated tests and that has become priority one in most schools. Thus, in all the levels of accountability, the mandates by the federal government are supreme to local/community concerns. It does not have to be that way- states could refuse federal money and federal accountability, but they don't.

Are you aware of No Child Left Behind?

The states set both the curriculum standards and theshold for what constitutes passing the tests that they select. The federal government plays very little role in schools.

[Okay, maybe Mike Johnson is a competent parliamentarian.]

What Santorum seems to be asking for is already the way public schooling works in Japan (PTAs are some of the most overwhelmingly powerful entities in the entire superstructure of Japanese civilization and in places other than the big cities more often than not run the entire community outright, except when the post office does), and I would defy Santorum to find any public school in Japan that is closer to his ideological specifications than the ones in the United States.

[TomC]

The feds have "taken over" accountability in public schools in the last decade? Has it helped? By most measures, no. And at the same time the federal government, state governments, local bureaucracies, and plenty of well-intentioned groups like Bill Gates' and other Chamber of Commerce groups have all gained more power to hold schoolws accountable, parents are left sitting in some office listening to the principal tell them about some rule that somebody made and why he can't do what's best specifically for the kids in that school.

Santorum is absolutely right on this- the feds have no constitutional authority to run public schools.

The. Feds. Don't. Run. Schools. They. Are. Run. By. Local. Districts.

The.Feds.Mandate.Tests.That.Local.Districts.Are.Held.Captive.To

These tests are lowest common denominator- meaning low expectations, that, if your child is above average, will undermine his/her curriculum. Yet schools must perform well on these federally mandated tests and that has become priority one in most schools. Thus, in all the levels of accountability, the mandates by the federal government are supreme to local/community concerns. It does not have to be that way- states could refuse federal money and federal accountability, but they don't.

Are you aware of No Child Left Behind?

The states set both the curriculum standards and theshold for what constitutes passing the tests that they select. The federal government plays very little role in schools.

The states may set what constitutes proficient for a student on a test, but the federal government sets what constitutes acceptable for a school or school system. If local school districts do not meet these federal guidelines, federal law allows for states to take over schools from the locals. That is not a negligible influence.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

If the locals and states have so much control, why would they need to ask the federal government for any flexibility from the "burdensome mandates of federal education" relating to their standards?

And the argument that this raises standards might hold true for some schools, but for many other schools, these federal mandates LOWER the bar. The goal is to get every student to basic proficiency, so once a student gets to basic proficiency, they are more likely to be ignored while the other students are still trying to master. "No Child Left Behind" means many children are waiting on those who are weak. If parents had more control in schools, many would be demanding higher standards for their kids to prepare them for college instread of these tests while are far from being near a college level.

[Free Palestine]

I find the idea of banning homeschool -- as well as banning certain forms of alternative education, which may come with such a ban -- absolutely repugnant.  But really, it's a dilemma for me -- I don't think parents should have the exclusive sovereignty over the brainwashing of their children, but I don't think the state should have that exclusive right either.

But overall, I hate the idea of all children being forced to learn the same thing, what the state approves, and have ingrained into them the social norms that the state deems appropriate.  Conformity is stupid.

[Tetro Kornbluth]

I think I figured it out

Rick Santorum is a time traveler from the 16th century. It explains everything.

Oh please. That is so pastist. What has the 16th Century ever done to you?

[BigSkyBob]

What Santorum seems to be asking for is already the way public schooling works in Japan (PTAs are some of the most overwhelmingly powerful entities in the entire superstructure of Japanese civilization and in places other than the big cities more often than not run the entire community outright, except when the post office does), and I would defy Santorum to find any public school in Japan that is closer to his ideological specifications than the ones in the United States.

So, how do those school perform relative to American schools?

[BigSkyBob]

When right-wingers like santorum talk about 'leting parents run schools rather than washington', they mean basically two things:

1) let local school districts flout the constitution by imposing their own sectarian religious views as part of public school curiculum ('inteligent design' aka creationism,      group christian prayer in class and school functions, teaching Christianity' supremacy, etc).

Prayer existed in public schools right up the sixties. While the education kids received in the fifties might have been offensive to the Supreme Court, that is not to say that public schools in the fifties produced inferior students. Now, you, like the Supreme Court, might not like prayer in school, or you might despise Christianity, but, banning the J-word from schools is a very weak justification for federal control of education. Surely, you have better reasons for taking away from parents the fundamental right to have a say in the upbringing of their own children?

Nor, do have any answer to the objection that such abuses could be foisted upon the entire nation by federal bureaucrats, the differencing being such horrors would be uniform across the nation rather than sporadic.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

This is nonsense. The per pupil support for public schools will remain the same, or increase. The objection of the teacher's union is that more teachers will be private employees and fewer government employees.

That's the problem with the Democratic position on education in a nutshell: they emphasize what is best for the government employees in the system. The Republican approach emphasizes what is best for children.

[Okay, maybe Mike Johnson is a competent parliamentarian.]

What Santorum seems to be asking for is already the way public schooling works in Japan (PTAs are some of the most overwhelmingly powerful entities in the entire superstructure of Japanese civilization and in places other than the big cities more often than not run the entire community outright, except when the post office does), and I would defy Santorum to find any public school in Japan that is closer to his ideological specifications than the ones in the United States.

So, how do those school perform relative to American schools?

That depends on one's definition of performance. It's generally considered to be better, but it should be pointed out that the Japanese school system is profoundly, profoundly different to the American one in general. It has much more in common with the (old) British system, including emphasis on a series of entirely nationalized tests, taught by an entirely nationalized faculty and staff. The 'T' in 'PTA' has much more direct ties to government policy than in the United States. That's part of why they're so powerful, since they function as fora for direct interaction between parents and agents of state power in education.

[All Along The Watchtower]

When right-wingers like santorum talk about 'leting parents run schools rather than washington', they mean basically two things:

1) let local school districts flout the constitution by imposing their own sectarian religious views as part of public school curiculum ('inteligent design' aka creationism,      group christian prayer in class and school functions, teaching Christianity' supremacy, etc).

Prayer existed in public schools right up the sixties. While the education kids received in the fifties might have been offensive to the Supreme Court, that is not to say that public schools in the fifties produced inferior students. Now, you, like the Supreme Court, might not like prayer in school, or you might despise Christianity, but, banning the J-word from schools is a very weak justification for federal control of education. Surely, you have better reasons for taking away from parents the fundamental right to have a say in the upbringing of their own children?

Nor, do have any answer to the objection that such abuses could be foisted upon the entire nation by federal bureaucrats, the differencing being such horrors would be uniform across the nation rather than sporadic.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

This is nonsense. The per pupil support for public schools will remain the same, or increase. The objection of the teacher's union is that more teachers will be private employees and fewer government employees.

That's the problem with the Democratic position on education in a nutshell: they emphasize what is best for the government employees in the system. The Republican approach emphasizes what is best for children.

Separation of church and state. Look it up, it's in that Constitution you love to talk about.

[BigSkyBob]

When right-wingers like santorum talk about 'leting parents run schools rather than washington', they mean basically two things:

1) let local school districts flout the constitution by imposing their own sectarian religious views as part of public school curiculum ('inteligent design' aka creationism,      group christian prayer in class and school functions, teaching Christianity' supremacy, etc).

Prayer existed in public schools right up the sixties. While the education kids received in the fifties might have been offensive to the Supreme Court, that is not to say that public schools in the fifties produced inferior students. Now, you, like the Supreme Court, might not like prayer in school, or you might despise Christianity, but, banning the J-word from schools is a very weak justification for federal control of education. Surely, you have better reasons for taking away from parents the fundamental right to have a say in the upbringing of their own children?

Nor, do have any answer to the objection that such abuses could be foisted upon the entire nation by federal bureaucrats, the differencing being such horrors would be uniform across the nation rather than sporadic.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

This is nonsense. The per pupil support for public schools will remain the same, or increase. The objection of the teacher's union is that more teachers will be private employees and fewer government employees.

That's the problem with the Democratic position on education in a nutshell: they emphasize what is best for the government employees in the system. The Republican approach emphasizes what is best for children.

Separation of church and state. Look it up, it's in that Constitution you love to talk about.

Whether, or not, prayer in schools is a violation of the first amendment [the prohibition against the government establishing an offical church], is one question. Whether, or not, prayer in school lowers academic performance is another question. If the sole drawback to local control you can cite is that it might lead to some practise that does not harm academic performance then I have to say your case is against local control is quite weak.

[True Federalist (진정한 연방 주의자)]

Separation of church and state. Look it up, it's in that Constitution you love to talk about.

That's actually a point that can be used in favor of vouchers.  By allowing the decision of the type and quantity of religious content, a child receives in their schooling to be up to the parent through their choice of school, there is no Constitutional bar.  As it is now, the public schools are skewed in favor of the viewpoint that religion is unimportant.

[memphis]

Separation of church and state. Look it up, it's in that Constitution you love to talk about.

That's actually a point that can be used in favor of vouchers.  By allowing the decision of the type and quantity of religious content, a child receives in their schooling to be up to the parent through their choice of school, there is no Constitutional bar.  As it is now, the public schools are skewed in favor of the viewpoint that religion is unimportant.

No. The government can't just fund religion and then say it's up to you whether or not to attend. That's not how the first amendment works at all.  And I went to public schools K-12 and nobody there ever said or implied that religion wasn't important. The schools just weren't allowed to indoctrinate.

[BigSkyBob]

Separation of church and state. Look it up, it's in that Constitution you love to talk about.

That's actually a point that can be used in favor of vouchers.  By allowing the decision of the type and quantity of religious content, a child receives in their schooling to be up to the parent through their choice of school, there is no Constitutional bar.  As it is now, the public schools are skewed in favor of the viewpoint that religion is unimportant.

No. The government can't just fund religion and then say it's up to you whether or not to attend. That's not how the first amendment works at all.  And I went to public schools K-12 and nobody there ever said or implied that religion wasn't important. The schools just weren't allowed to indoctrinate.

Isn't federal grant money available to college students at religious universities? Does the First Amendment prohibition of the establishment of religion end at high school graduation? Or, is there a fundamental problem with your formulation?

Education isn't a self-evident enterprise.  It involves making choices about what should or ought be taught to children for reasons that are also chosen. Establishing a curriculum is an inherently moral question. Generally, parents want schools to teach their children to be responsible adults, and, not just folks whom can read, write and calculate arithmetic. Either you believe that religions has something to say about being a responsible adult, or you don't. If you believe education ought to be a-theistic then that is atheistic. If you believe that the teachings of Jesus Christ, or Mohammad, or whomever, help create responsible adults, that is theistic. You can't be agnostic on the question. Either, education is ought to be theistic or atheistic. For the government to opt for atheism is as much an establishment of religion as the converse. That's the beauty of voucher system: parents can equally opt for theistic or atheistic education for their children.

[Politico]

What I find so odd about Santorum's positioning on education is the fact that Santorum was one of the nation's biggest cheerleaders of Ted Kennedy/George W. Bush's "No Child Left Behind." When did Santorum decide to leave behind "No Child Left Behind"? Furthermore, Santorum proposed the "Santorum Amendment" to "No Child Left Behind," which would have forced states/municipalities to ensure creationism was taught in schools instead of evolution. So much for Washington, DC, respecting state/local rights, right?

Santorum can pretend he is a small government conservative, but his record is the epitome of Big Government "Washington Knows What's Best For You" Republicanism.

[All Along The Watchtower]

For the government to opt for atheism is as much an establishment of religion as the converse.

No. No. No.

Nothing is not something. Likewise, no religion is not a religion.

[Okay, maybe Mike Johnson is a competent parliamentarian.]

For the government to opt for atheism is as much an establishment of religion as the converse.

No. No. No.

Nothing is not something. Likewise, no religion is not a religion.

I find it interesting that this, which is arguable, is your problem with Bob's comment, not the inarguable fact that the government has not 'opted for atheism' in public education.

[All Along The Watchtower]

For the government to opt for atheism is as much an establishment of religion as the converse.

No. No. No.

Nothing is not something. Likewise, no religion is not a religion.

I find it interesting that this, which is arguable, is your problem with Bob's comment, not the inarguable fact that the government has not 'opted for atheism' in public education.

Well yeah, that too.

[ingemann]

Would someone explain to me what people mean with including religion in school? Do you mean teaching Genesis in biology, history and physic?

[Okay, maybe Mike Johnson is a competent parliamentarian.]

Would someone explain to me what people mean with including religion in school? Do you mean teaching Genesis in biology, history and physic?

That would be one version. Another version would be to include what one hopes would be relatively anodyne courses in world religions and moral systems, which I would be in favor of in almost any developed country other than this one.

[BigSkyBob]

For the government to opt for atheism is as much an establishment of religion as the converse.

No. No. No.

Nothing is not something. Likewise, no religion is not a religion.

And, the formation and goals of developing a curriculum is something, not nothing. What it means to be a decent, upstanding and responsible adult has generally be considered within the purview of religion. When the state embraces educational goals within the purview of religion it is entangling itself in religion. Opting for atheism as that religion is as wrong as opting for any particular theism.