The Federal US government should not
have any control over how public primary and secondary schools are
run.
By Jason G.
Because the US Constitution does not mention education
specifically, the states have plenary (absolute) power to enact
statutes concerning education so long as these statutes do not
violate the provisions of the United States Constitution. In this
age of political pundits and mouthpieces, of grand standing and
politicking, we hear all too often about the evils of a large Federal
Government run amok. The US Department of Education appropriates a
large sum of tax payer money to local public schools every year.
This makes the Department of Education, the DOE, a large target when the talk show hosts need
content for their shows and gives our legislators talking points when
they make speeches. In reality, while the Federal government does
spend nearly $60 billion a year on public education, local and state
governments spend MUCH more. In 2009, all local and state
governments spent $536 BILLION on public education! According to the National Center for Education Statistics, of the $536 Billion,
the State of Georgia and all local governments in Georgia spent $26.5
billion in the same year (http://nces.ed.gov/pubs2011/expenditures/tables/table_01.asp
).Why do we hear so much about the Federal government controlling
schools and only hear about local school systems if they are about to
lose their accreditation?
One reason may be that all Federal US
government education money comes with strings attached. Although
they only contribute around 10% of school funding, the federal
government requires institutions who accept their money to obey their
rules. Standardized testing and forced integration (busing children
from one district to another in order to artificially balance schools
racially) are results of the Federal government's guidelines.
Schools with higher indigent student populations tend to get more
federal resources as a result of Bill Clinton's Improving America's
Schools Act of 1994 and George Bush's No Child Left Behind Act of
2001, both of which are re-certifications of Lyndon Johnson's
Elementary and Secondary Education Act (ESEA) of 1965. Because of
this additional federal money going to poorer schools, the local and
state governments spend their money differently to compensate schools
who don't qualify for need based federal grants. One last item of
note in the NCLB of 2001 was the introduction of satisfactory
performance for schools receiving aid. This means standardized
testing to prove the schools are making progress.
Atlanta, Chicago, Los Angeles, and
Washington DC are a few of the multiple large school systems on trial
for teachers and administrators cheating on standardized tests. Why
would they cheat? Not to help the students, but to help protect the
precious stream of federal dollars flowing into their schools. The
current Federal guidelines encourage improvement at all costs and if
the actual students are not able to perform, the administration and
educators need to cheat to keep the scores up.
If the state and local governments
already provide the vast majority of the resources needed to keep
schools running, why allow any Federal government involvement in the
affairs of the state and local governments. Is the 10% federal money
helping to make our students excel at anything? Federal money and
guidelines are only making problems worse and both should stop.
Standardized Testing is NOT the Problem
Kristin T.
Standardized Testing is NOT the Problem
Kristin T.
The Federal Government has had control over public school systems
since the very beginning of formation of public schools. Today, their control
is based on funding for the strapped for cash public entities. Since the
government provides funds for schools that score well on standardized testing,
the best schools with the brightest students are receiving the most funding.
Many citizens are concerned with what happens to the lower ranking schools with
lower scoring students- perhaps students that know English as a second language
or students that are considered special needs. But because the Federal
Government only funds about ten percent of all public school’s needs, maybe the
schools that score lower on their standardized tests should boycott Federal
Funds and find better ways to make ends meet- bake sales, cheerleader car
washed or increased sporting event fees. If schools don’t want to play by the
rules they must find an alternative.
Studies increasingly find that student testing, INCLUDING
large-scale and high-stakes standardized tests, positively effect student’s
achievement. If standardized tests force students to be more serious about
their academics, why shouldn’t the results be used to reward schools that work
harder in preparing students for these results? George W. Bush was quoted
during a discussion an a local Elementary School in Tennessee about
standardized testing,
"You don't know unless you measure. Listen, I've heard
every excuse in the book about measurement. You know, 'You're testing too
much.' 'You're teaching the test.' And, you know, 'Don't test.' If you don't
test, you have a system that just shuffles the kids through, and that's
unacceptable. It's unacceptable to quit on a kid early and just say, 'Move
through, and hope you learn.' What you've got to do is measure to determine
where they are, and then you can compare districts and compare States. And as a
result of strong accountability measures and good teachers and more funding,
the results are positive.”
(Public
Papers of the Presidents of the United States: George W. Bush, 2004, Volume 1, published in 2007)
The results ARE positive. More funding, better teachers, better
qualified students… and all the schools have to do is prepare their students
for a standard test that everyone should take. Nobody LIKES to be tested, in
fact, most of us hate it. But the results of these standardized tests are
utterly necessary.