Posted on 12/15/2001 2:58:23 AM PST by JohnHuang2
House and Senate negotiators reached agreement this week on education legislation that the president is expected to sign quickly. And the House of Representatives, in an overwhelming vote uniting Democrats and Republicans, passed the bill on Thursday. Representatives Tom DeLay and Peter Hoekstra led a small group of the conservative remnant in opposing the $26.5 billion package, which Bush Republicans are trying hard to portray as a prudent implementation of conservative principle. But it is, in fact, the culminating capitulation of the conservative attempt to reform the federal government's role in education.
What I wrote about the bill in September remains true today: Instead of the promised attempt to rein in government domination of education, we have an education bill that ramps-up federal funding, increases federal control and was cooperatively stripped of all elements of support for genuine school choice and local control.
However distracted conservatives may be by the drama of the war against terror, we should not let this moment pass without noticing the comprehensive defeat that Bush education policy, enshrined in the bill, represents.
Apparently ended is the struggle conservatives have waged for decades to head off the nationalization of K-12 education. Constitutional language, American tradition and fundamental principles of self-government all weigh decidedly against any federal involvement in local education. Since the first election of Ronald Reagan, the Republican Party had stood for a rollback of that involvement, even abolition of the Department of Education. Now, at the federal level, we have abandoned the argument with the public about the costs and dangers of federal involvement in K-12 education. The current bill does not artfully advance an incremental version of the principled position of President Reagan. Indeed, it takes us in precisely the opposite direction.
It also utterly and finally reneges on one of the most important of President Bush's education policy campaign promises. Candidate Bush called for cutting funds to failing schools and returning to the parents that money in a limited voucher scheme. The bill about to pass Congress for President Bush's signature will give failing schools more money! And the voucher proposal was jettisoned shortly after the inauguration.
The increase in federal education funding in this bill is staggering – over 40 percent in one year. This is more than the education budgets of an average-sized state, such as Iowa or Colorado. With the money, President Bush has eagerly taken on himself, on behalf of the national government, responsibility for the educational performance of the nation's children. No rhetoric about flexibility and local independence will prevent the inevitable – ongoing torrents of federal money, bilge about federal resolve to "leave no child behind" and ever increasing levels of federal oversight and control.
And what will happen when an extra $8 billion fails to improve our children's learning? And fail it will, because real improvement in government schools is blocked by administrative inertia, obstructionist unions and statist secularism in the professional educational establishment. Sad history and all the data show that these impediments are increased, not diminished, by federal dollars. But still the cry will go up for more money, and a more aggressive federal commitment. What will President Bush say next year when another $8 billion increase, or $12 billion, is demanded to make real reform happen? After all, the federal government can leave no child behind. What next? Shall we pass the "Lake Woebegone Act" and decree that all the children shall be "above average?"
Most discouraging of all is that the new bipartisan federal education initiative is such a distraction from the deepest source of our educational problems – the demise of the two-parent, marriage-based family. The family is the school of character and must be the primary agent in education. No federal spending can effectively energize the real reform we need – reform in which parents get control of their own lives, reassert effective, wise and moral control over the lives of their children, and extend that control finally to the common life of our public schools.
As with most federal welfare, federal education money is a drug that obscures and intensifies underlying problems. The Republican Party used to preach "Just say 'No!'" Now we are increasing the dose and inviting the country to party on. It's a prescription for GOP and national addiction that immeasurably weakens our children's future. Let us pray it does not ultimately cost us our capacity for responsible self-government.
What gave you that idea? He was on the record as recommending something like 4% growth, spread out unevenly. If you thought he was running on shrinking government, you were mistaken. If you thought he would reduce the rate of growth, then you chose wisely, but we will never have an objective measure of that, because we don't know what a Gore Admin with a Dem senate would have spent. My guess would be more.
I'm very disappointed.
I can't imagine why. Our system is run by the will of the people. What made you think the same populace that elected Clinton twice, and very nearly elected Gore (he did get more votes nation-wide, after all) would suddenly demand spending cuts, tax cuts and conservative reforms of education. The very idea is laughable. Maybe you set yourself up to be dissapointed. Abraham Lincoln once said "Public sentiment is everything. With public sentiment, nothing can fail; without it nothing can succeed." That is what we are dealing with here, folks.
The problem with, and the federal government's role in our schools is not one of education, but of bureaucracy. I believe Dr. Keyes is well qualified to speak on the subject.
What then is his executive experience? I am very interested in what Jack Welch has to say about administrative bureaucracy, because he has a proven track record of performance in an environment which demands measurable results. What similar expertise does Dr. Keyes have? He mentions the word "data", but he doesn't provide any. He isn't going to convince anyone who believes in federal involvement that they are wrong, because his argument is not convincing. It is merely a string of assertions.
Therefore, the only ones who will respond to it are the ones who already believe that federal involvement is wrong. So if the purpose of the article is not to convince someone that federal involvement is bad for education (it isn;t), and if the article isn't intended for people who believe in federal involvement (it isn't), then what is its purpose, and who is it for?
I believe Dr. Keyes is well qualified to speak on the subject.
Why?
But when he goes on to say that Laura Bush is the "Whore of Babylon" spoken of in the Bible "It also utterly and finally reneges on one of the most important of President Bush's education policy campaign promises. Candidate Bush called for cutting funds to failing schools and returning to the parents that money in a limited voucher scheme. The bill about to pass Congress for President Bush's signature will give failing schools more money! And the voucher proposal was jettisoned shortly after the inauguration."---well OK, he didn't actually say it, but we all know that's what he meant---that's just going too far!
I used to admire this man for being staunchly pro-life and a defender of the Constitution. But with this vicious article attacking our most holy president and his perfect family, he has lost me. I'm turning in my Alan Keyes membership card and my official Alan Keyes decoder spy ring! And I'll never buy another bottle of Alan Keyes chocolate breakfast drink as long as I live!!!
I believe Dr. Keyes is well qualified to speak on the subject.
Why?
What precisely are your qualifications to state unequivocably that federal involvement isn't bad for education, or for that matter, who this article was intended for?
I believe Dr. Keyes is qulified to speak on the subject because he has served in the government, and has done so outside of the bureaucracy.
I didn't say federal involvment isn't bad for education, I said the purpose of this article is not to make that case. I base that opinion on the fact that there is not one bit of data used to prove the point.
I believe Dr. Keyes is qulified to speak on the subject because he has served in the government, and has done so outside of the bureaucracy.
He was an Ambassador, right? I am unaware of how the functions of an Ambassador provide someone with expertise in the delivery or administration of education. Maybe it does, I am just not aware of it. I would like to here the opinions of people who actually work in the field, especially those whose political self-interest is not served by taking one position or the other. It would make the information more reliabel to a layman like me.
SEC. 8512. SCHOOL PRAYER.`As a condition for receipt of funds under this Act, a local educational agency shall certify in writing to the Secretary that no policy of the agency prevents or otherwise denies participation in constitutionally protected prayer in public schools.
`SEC. 8513. GENERAL PROHIBITIONS.
`(a) PROHIBITION- None of the funds authorized under this Act shall be used--
`(1) to develop or distribute materials, or operate programs or courses of instruction directed at youth that are designed to promote or encourage, sexual activity, whether homosexual or heterosexual;
`(2) to distribute or to aid in the distribution by any organization of legally obscene materials to minors on school grounds;
`(3) to provide sex education or HIV prevention education in schools unless such instruction is age appropriate and emphasizes the health benefits of abstinence; or
`(4) to operate a program of contraceptive distribution in schools.
`(b) LOCAL CONTROL- Nothing in this section shall be construed to--
`(1) authorize an officer or employee of the Federal Government to direct, review, or control a State, local educational agency, or schools' instructional content, curriculum, and related activities;
`(2) limit the application of the General Education Provisions Act (20 U.S.C.A. 1221 et seq.);
`(3) require the distribution of scientifically or medically false or inaccurate materials or to prohibit the distribution of scientifically or medically true or accurate materials; or
`(4) create any legally enforceable right.
`SEC. 8514. PROHIBITION ON FEDERAL MANDATES, DIRECTION, AND CONTROL.
`(a) GENERAL PROHIBITION- Officers and employees of the Federal Government are prohibited from mandating, directing, or controlling a State, local educational agency, or school's curriculum, program of instruction, or allocation of State or local resources, or mandating a State or any subdivision thereof to spend any funds or incur any costs not paid for under this Act.
`(b) PROHIBITION OF FEDERAL MANDATES, DIRECTION, OR CONTROL- Nothing in this Act shall be construed to authorize an officer or employee of the Federal Government to mandate, direct, or control a State, local educational agency, or school's specific instructional content or academic achievement standards and assessments, curriculum, or program of instruction as a condition of eligibility to receive funds under this Act.
`(c) EQUALIZED SPENDING- Nothing in this Act shall be construed to mandate equalized spending per pupil for a State, local educational agency, or school.
`(d) BUILDING STANDARDS- Nothing in this Act shall be construed to mandate national school building standards for a State, local agency, or school.
We all would. I think the reality is that between the NEA and the massive federal bureaucracy that reaches down to every level such a person is going to be difficult to find. The NEA's opposition to anything but publicly funded and government managed education, and their political activism in pursuit of that goal means that political considerations will enter into it even at private institutions and home schooling organizations.
It seems to me there is a moral question to all of this as well, which Dr. Keyes, and perhaps many here don't care to recognize, and it is this:
If you recognize that there will be a public school system for, let's say, at least another 10 years. Can we all agree that that is a 99% liklihood? Then, the moral question becomes what to do about the kids who are going to those schools? It is no exaggeration to say that the rest of their lives will be greatly influenced by the quality of education they receive in K-12.
So, do we leave them for dead? Do we say, in effect, my way or the highway to the Democrats, and to the millions and millions of Americans who support public schools, and who support Federal involvement? If we do that, what happens to the kids who have to go to those schools? Whether or not you like the idea, I believe a case can be made that there is a moral imperative for making the education system that the kids will be using as good as possible. Long term? Go ahead and work to change the paradigm. But short term, there are kids with their fannies in the chairs who need an education. Who will advocate for them?
In that regard, we have two separate debates. One short term debate is how do we make the current system better. Dr. Keyes chooses to opt out of that discussion, arguing pessimistically that improvement is impossible. Then there is the long term debate of how to move the country to a new attitude about how education is delivered. Dr. Keyes chooses to hector his friends, rather than attempt to sway people who disagree, or are uninformed. In my opinion, it is a fine waste of his skills as an orator ( one who talks for a living).
Getting back to the short term debate, I believe the President is on the right track when he says that the system should serve the kids, not the institutions. This was what we called "person-centered services" in social services. It means programs should be individualized, should include choice, and should measure results. The President wants greater accountability. Who can disagree with that?
Will this plan improve education? I hope so. Is there a better way? Probably? Is it feasible in the next 10 years? No. It isn't. So what do we do? Offer nothing to make the current system better? Or choose our battles, and make a moral choice to provide the best possible service to our youngsters?
I hope I am wrong about Bush as in the main I am pleased with his overall leadership and want to trust my perception that he is a man of honor and integrity. But when it is my perception that he is giving away principle for expediency ... well you get my drift.
I do know these days that I can't rely upon posts of Free Republic to give me unbiased information. I can get lazy and making opinions by stuff posted on this forum is, at times a real bad thing to do.
I continue in my great dissapointment of Alan Keyes. Supported and voted for him in the primary process but don't think he can ever win that support back.
---------- Sadly, you are absolutely right. GWB is just another politician. - A series without end it seems.
Since Ike & JFK, the real differences between 'D' presidents & R's is only the amount of money they advocate spending on the same socialist schemes.
I would expect real leaders, principled men, to stick to their avowed standards regardless of political pressures.
Am I naive to want character in a president?
And aren't you being disingenuous to want us all to accept less?
This plan has nothing to do with education. Those who forget history are condemned to repeat it. Every time the feds increase their involvment in areas like medicine, retirement, and now education, the problems get worse, not better. Yes there is a better way, which the republicans once touted. It was called eliminating the Dept of Education.
I will guarantee you one thing though. By every measure, the federal education bureaucrats will "prove" that with their involvement, education will improve according to their standards. They will demonstrate test score improvement across the board when it suits them, by fudging the test scores, or dumbing down the questions, or whatever it takes.
Bad scores will come out only when the feds want to force a school district to bend to the will of the feducrats. Get ready for mandatory federal "diversity" modules, federal "Constitution" modules teaching what feducrats Bill of Rights and Second Amendment means (Yes, Virginia, the Second Amendment is about duck hunting.), etc.
This isn't a federal education bill. Rather, this bill should be known for what it is.
The Republican Nationalization of Education and Indoctrination Act of 2001
I don't know if your conclusions are sound. What I am suggesting is that there are moral implication to strategic choices. That doesn't mean compromise is ALWAYS right, or that better leaders couldn't get more accomplished, but it DOES mean that compromise and character are not mutually exclusive. As for principled leadership, all I ask is that politicians follow through on what they say they will do. I think GWB is doing that, which is why I find it hard to believe someone could be surprised by his performance so far.
And aren't you being disingenuous to want us all to accept less?
-------- Yep. - Your answer that you don't know to my first question is evidence that you should answer the second with a yes. -- Thank you.
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.