The same can be said about government support education. Why should a taxpayer of one area pay for the education expense of children in another area? This would include cross town, let alone from one state to another.
Pooling the money and then redistributing it (with various cuts being taken out along the way) only assures those in charge there will be no real accountability.
Most problems concerning education could be solved if the financial responsibility for education was returned to the local area (where the accountability would follow).
The local School District would collect the money, hire the teachers, buy the books, maintain the schools and set the curricular. If they were not able to educate little Johnny, or were attempting to teach things the parents did not want taught in the schools they would be voted out of office.
As it is now, everyone points to someone else as the cause, or the reason they do what they do. Who do you fire?
Anyway that is what I think -
The same can be said about government support education. Why should a taxpayer of one area pay for the education expense of children in another area? This would include cross town, let alone from one state to another.
Pooling the money and then redistributing it (with various cuts being taken out along the way) only assures those in charge there will be no real accountability.
Most problems concerning education could be solved if the financial responsibility for education was returned to the local area (where the accountability would follow).
The local School District would collect the money, hire the teachers, buy the books, maintain the schools and set the curricular. If they were not able to educate little Johnny, or were attempting to teach things the parents did not want taught in the schools they would be voted out of office.
As it is now, everyone points to someone else as the cause, or the reason they do what they do. Who do you fire?
Anyway that is what I think -
"It is the sense of the Senate that:
(1) good science education should prepare students to distinguish the data or testable theories of science from philosophical or religious claims that are made in the name of science; and
(2) where biological evolution is taught, the curriculum should help students to understand why the subject generates so much continuing controversy, and should prepare the students to be informed participants in public discussions regarding the subject."
This would have been a good thing, people actually learning the difference between science and religion.
The downside would be that none of these crevo threads would exist.