Should the US Federal Government have any control over public schools?

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.

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.