Posted on 01/22/2004 7:07:09 AM PST by Wolfstar
Article IV, Section 1.
Full faith and credit shall be given in each state to the public acts, records and judicial proceedings of every other state. and the Congress may by general Laws prescribe the manner in which such acts, records and proceedings shall be proved and the effect thereof.
The granting of a high school diploma is a state act. Congress does have constitutional authority to set minimum standard which that act must meet to be recognized by other states.
So you're saying that if a school doesn't meet some particular preconceived standard, Congress can prohibit states from recognizing its diplomas? That's not what that article states. The purpose of the article is to prevent states from disregarding the acts of other states, not to empower Congress to force states to disregard those acts.
But, still most of these certifications are based on exams and standards established by the states -- and then then states make agreements among themselves whether they will recognize each other's certifications.
Without looking, I don't know if California and New York share reciprocity for medical licensing or not -- but for the sake of argument, let's assume they DON'T.
A doctor moving from New York to California who wished to practice medicine there, would have to take the California State Medical Board Exam to be granted a license.
Nothing in the provision you cited would compel CA to recognize NY state board exams or licenses.
Seems like it would be a stretch to say that it would apply to HS diplomas.
Not so much that Congress would prohibit a state from recognizing a diploma as the reverse requiring a state to recognize a diploma from another state, as the article of the constitution expresses. I am not in anyway saying that such rejections are currently occurring or that they will, but the fact that they can, empowers Congress.
Implementation methodology should be a local or state issue depending on the source of funding. Even the choice of merely meeting or exceeding the minimum standards is a local or state issue. Establishing minimum standards is validly a federal issue because the document (diploma) is expected to be recognized on a national level.
An analogous example would be licensing. Each state currently tests for the CPA license. Passing the CPA test in Texas does not make you a CPA in all the 50 other states. Thus Texas can set the standards for CPA and congress is not empowered. If however the CPA in Texas was valid in all 50 states, Congress would be empowered to set minimum standards or methodology for the CPA license.
The high school diploma is issued by the state. If a job in Florida list a high school diploma or GED as a requirement, can they exclude someone from the job because their diploma was issued in Alaska? That addresses why Congress is constitutionally empowered to set standards. Just because they empowered does not mean the should or need to. However, whether I like it or not, Congress is going to spend a whole pot full of federal dollars on education. I want every single last one of those dollars accounted for. How else are you going to do it?
This is the only part of your post that I take issue with. I don't accept that Congress should be spending money on what is historically a state matter. In fact, such is not authorized by the Constitution.
I take issue with the concept of your not accepting Congress spending the money. What the heck does that mean? They are going to spend money on education. That is the political mindset of the nation. I don't like it, you don't like it. So what? What is either of us going to do to change it? Pounding your head against a brick wall badly damages your head and doesn't hurt the wall at all.
An annual debate over whether the Feds should spend 8 billion or 10 billion changes nothing and serves little purpose. Either way too much money gets spent for too little measurable gain and each year more will be spent. At least if you introduce measures which create accountability it creates an environment where the funds can be directed toward measurable gain. Those areas, and they are many, where money is being wasted or misappropriated stand at least some chance of being identified.
I have a serious problem with conservatives who start and end their argument with, "It's wrong and we shouldn't be doing it." If it is wrong, then identify actions that will start the corrective process. Myself, I think the president has slipped items into the education bill which will slow the momentum of free wheeling spending , create some accountability and with time give us an opportunity to turn things around.
This doesn't sound much different than the testing currently done in Texas and the only change in testing my wife has made me aware of is the expansion of the subjects covered. Since testing creates a disruption in her workload, I would think she would make me aware of any other changes. A curious anomaly.
Bush's plan wants the state to grade the schools using different benchmarks, some of which many people think make no sense at all. Virginia's system has been fine-tuned over several years and has been tailored to specifically suit Virginia, yet Bush thinks he knows better. And of course all of this costs tons of cash.
This sounds like sensationalizing. Harmonizing benchmarks is not that difficult a task, happens all the time in the business world. If someone claims it costs tons of cash, you should take a closer look at their system productivity.
Considering the sum of Federal dollars in play, harmonizing bench marks on a national basis should contribute to a vastly improved accountability system.
I am not claiming to completely understand this one, but this is one of the sections of the bill that has drawn almost universal complaints. As I understand it, adequate yearly progress varies depending on the school. A school that starts out with a sterling record (let's say a very low number of fight per year), and then has a bad year can be found to not be making adequate progress. Meanwhile, a school with much worse record might pass muster because it improved. Still much worse than the first school, but it improved. You can imagine how much school systems are spending on record keeping for this -- money that could be used for educating.
The first problem I have here is the idea that a single year anomaly would negatively impact a schools status. I can't believe the details fall out that way.
The second is the money spent on documentation and record keeping. Since one of my areas of expertise is in process control, defining processes for maximized productivity and effectiveness, my wife and I often discuss the effect of documentation and record keeping in her school (one of the top rated districts in the state) on the process. Basically, they spend dollars to save dimes. Effective documentation does not cost money, it provides the information to save, save, save.
I'm not sure anybody can interpret those results to claim that throwing money at schools solves any issues.
A massive project was undertaken in Kansas City a few years ago to prove that very point, it was a massive failure.
Closer to home, look at the Washington, D.C. schools. Per pupil, they may be the highest funded school system in the country.
Its hard to determine for sure, because they get so much aid for schools from nontraditional (and hard to track) sources.
But, for the sake of argument we'll just say that its per pupil funding is one of the highest in the nation, yet they have the lowest overall test scores, worse than even Arkansas or Mississippi.
I think the better test scores from schools in higher income neighborhoods reflect primarily the more intellectually rich homes these children grow up in - their parents are doctors, lawyers, engineers, successful businessmen, etc., etc.
Children from these neighborhoods are more likely to grow up in two-parent households. And they are exposed to more intellectually enriching experiences via associations with other advantaged children, going on vacations, traveling to Europe, going to summer camp, attending plays, concerts and after school activities such as ballet and music lessons.
For example, children from more affluent families are far more articulate and have much higher reading comprehension scores than can be attributed solely to their school environment. By contrast, many children of the ghetto can barely speak intelligible English.
As long as we are a capitalist society, I don't know how to fix this.
We would have to implement some futuristic Logan's Run program where after children are weaned, they are taken off site to be raised equally by the government.
There really is something to the concept of the silver spoon in one's mouth.
One thing we do need to do, is ensure teachers are considered true professionals and are paid professional wages.
Then, we need to test them and hold them accountable for professional performance too.
And, we need to get these corrupt unions out of the picture.
Bill Bennett has written extensively suggesting what we should do -- we should have meaningful curricula, tough academic standards, stop the agendas of political correctness and outcome based scenarios that focus more on how the child feels than what they learn.
Nothing new here.
There's not too much we can do about their dysfunctional home environments, but we can do a lot to make sure all children have an equal opportunity to receive a quality public education while they're at the schoolhouse.
Pushing for Congress to attach conditions for the money does nothing but encourage them to assume more and more power. We need them to be exercising less power, not more. Probably the worst practice of the federal government today is the way it uses money as mannequin strings over society. That needs to be reversed. Maybe it can't happen all in one day, but as the saying goes, a journey of a thousand miles begins with a single step. But we first need at least be facing in the right direction, not in the direction that will make the problem even worse.
Also, I should remind you that it was only a few years ago that Republicans were advocating eliminating the Department of Education, and they were winning votes on that message.
Yes they were. Unfortunately too many conservatives were single issue or 100% or nothing types. They damaged the unified front and allowed the House Republicans to take a beating over the government shutdown. It's sad, but Republicans are not good winners. If they are not under attack they consume themselves. Even right now when we have the opportunity to give the Dems a whipping they'll never forget, more energy is expended on this forum on negatives than on consolidating what gains we have.
Can you elaborate on this? As I recall, most conservatives very much supported the congressional Republicans vs. Clinton in that contest. It was when they gave in that many of us became disgusted with them.
Even right now when we have the opportunity to give the Dems a whipping they'll never forget, more energy is expended on this forum on negatives than on consolidating what gains we have.
First of all, it makes sense on this forum, where we're all conservatives, to hammer out whatever differences we have here.
In pursuance of that, I prefer to take a realistic look at the situation. I don't consider it a gain to have Congress spend even more money and thereby exercise more control in an area where it's not constitutionally authorized to be involved.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.