Should education be left to the states to administer?

LOL!!!! And probably not the verb "drag" either. LOL!!!

 

I went to these public indoctrination camps since I was like 1 and a half until I tunred 19. Then I continued my journey by attending one of their facilities for higher education...And now look at me!

I am a complete mess and should serve as the ultimate proof state-controlled education is horrendously awful and terrifyingly inept.

 

Actually it is not education they are after, that existed before 1850 when the Army was used to round up children for government indoctrination. All the elite want are good little "citizens" with enough smarts to pull the correct lever at the correct moment until the robots can take over. The top of the rote class will be chosen to fill out the paperwork or in today's world, run the scanner over the correct code.

 

And your point would be?

 

So what has changed other than most don't even know what conjugate a verb means?

 

We have the Preussian Empire to thank for this.

 

I agree that the federal government should completely stay out of education. I can see state government involvement but in a very limited way, and certainly see local government involvement.

I disagree that people should not receive a basic, general education. If you want a free society, then you need an educated population.

 

Sweet.

Only reading/writing and basic math. Everything elsr should be left to individual choice. A free society needs specialised people, not over-educated ones. Alot of people today are over-educated.

 

I somewhat agree with you, but it is also a problem that in many schools there is only one teacher who teaches a particular class so you cannot shop around them if they are a zealot. My calculus teacher in HS was the only one who taught it and there was no escaping her. She was horrible. She would assign so much homework that you could spend hours at home doing it and still would be doing in through your other classes before hers because she would also go around grading everybody's homework every single day. She would waste half the class checking to see if we churned out the volume she commanded and whether it was right at the expense of using that classroom time teaching.


Of course it is true in universities too as it is not unusual to run headlong into a power tripping prof whose class you had to have to graduate. I had one who was incensed that I somehow avoided her upper level and still graduated, let alone with honors. She was an infamous C-word I had run-ins with my first year, so I purposefully arranged my schedule one semester to create an unavoidable scheduling conflict so that the registrar would let me take the same class she taught at another nearby university while not having to pay any more to do so as part of a program they had which allowed students to do that.

 

"Over educated" is highly subjective. You believe a general education is "over educated", I believe a general education is essential. Society needs educated people in order to understand concepts such as property rights, to understand history well enough to not repeat past mistakes and to foresee where proposed actions lead, to be able to speak and write in order to understand and communicate ideas, to know an individuals and nations place in society and the world. A person needs basic language and mathematical and critical thinking skills just to function in the world.

Your general education is to allow you to live in a free society, your specialized education/training is for your particular career field.

 

And that's going to be true, no matter who's running the show. So how is that an argument against local control?

 

Today, there is a huge supply of diplomas on the market. People go to university and many of them get several degrees. In the end, they work with something outside their degree.

Education has gecome something people feel they "have to have", many people who should not even be at uni are wandering the campuses today. On top of all this, politiciwn constantly yab about "the children" and about "higher education for all=jobs for all!" This as econimically deluded as one can get.

This what I mean when I sayb"over-education."

In a free society nobody needs anything - Everyone chooses their own path.

 

It mostly is already.

 

It could by done by locals, but many would argue that making sure that kids have basic education is prime example of "promoting / proving general welfare".

Not sure about Sweden, but in Finland teachers are paid about the same as in Sweden, which is less than US, but the results are far better than in US. The Finnish education system is considered the gold standard for education systems.

 

Education IS mostly a local matter.

 

Its not about the grades. Te school that produces more engineers, doctors and scientists over the years will get more students than schools producing dropouts, druggies and failures.

 

That IS a matter of opinion, since it can be done in multiple ways.

The problem is that it leaves us in a place where we have hundreds, if not thousands, different standards, some good and some bad.

 

Parents should control the education of their kids... period.

 

And when they don't. which is often the case, we end up in a society of millions of uneducated people who often resort to crime, substance abuse, unplanned pregnancies, and dependency to welfare.

You can be ideological about things, but sometimes you need think about what is best for the nation as whole. That is why the founders wrote the Constitution. Promoting / providing for general welfare is not about handing out things to individuals, but doing things which benefit the nation as whole, and basic education is one of those things. If all parents provided education for their kids, then there would be no need to do anything, that is not the reality we live in. Educated population is a massive benefit to the nation as whole. If doesn't have to mean the Federal government runs education, it just means they make sure we have a working system, be it at Federal, State, County or whatever level.

 

I agree. I did not mean that the parents should build the schools and hire the teachers. That should be done at the town level. But the CONTENT... the curricula and lesson plans should be in the hands of the parents. The state can provide guidelines and suggestions, but the final decision should be in the hands of the parents. Perhaps a local election could designate a set of parents to do this, with review/approval by the entire parent community... something like that. But when the state/feds do it all... it becomes indoctrination, not education.

 

NO, it is a matter of fact.

 

Explain how it is a matter of fact, don't just insist that is is so because you say so.

 

Which parents, - the liberal, conservative, Christian, Muslim, Jewish, Catholic, Protestant, Mormon, atheist, gay, straight, black, white...who decides, and who submits?

 

The same way any other matter of fact is. In the US, the vast majority of funding and decision making for education is local.

 

Its called a VOTE... VOTE... that's what we do here in he United States...we VOTE Have all the parents in a district or particular school.... VOTE.