Last fall on the campaign trail, Mike Lee, Utah's new Tea-Party-backed senator, boldly asserted that: "...Congress has no business regulating our nation's public education system, and has created problems whenever it has attempted to do so." Other Tea Party candidates picked up this popular refrain. And increasingly other conservatives are raising the question: What -- if any -- should be the federal role in education?
The issue is sure to be debated in upcoming education hearings in Congress. But the answer isn't to eliminate federal involvement in education. That would be a wrong-headed move that ignores our country's history and would contribute to the decline of the United States. It's also a battle that has been fought and lost before because the stakes are simply too high.
Federal involvement began more than 225 years ago, even before George Washington was president, when Congress passed two laws -- the Land Ordinance of 1785 and the Northwest Ordinance of 1787 -- to create and maintain public schools in the expanding United States.
Back then, educational opportunities for most children depended on churches, charities, and paid tutors -- and on gender, race and income levels. The founding fathers recognized this problem and emphasized the need for a more educated citizenry in the new democracy.
Over the next two centuries, these two ordinances led to establishing public schools in the 30 new states created out of the territories west of the original 13 colonies. The specifics of federal land grants were outlined in each of the federal acts for admitting these states.
The national government also encouraged the establishment of state institutions of higher education. During the Civil War, Congress passed the Morrill Act, resulting in the University of Illinois, the University of California, and 74 other institutions. Signed by Abraham Lincoln, this Act used the same land grant policy for higher education as was used for public schools.
But there are many other examples of how federal support has been essential for the expansion and improvement of public schooling over time. They include:
Encouraging basic support for education
In the United States, local property taxes pay for about 48 percent of the costs of public elementary and secondary education in fiscal year 2008. State income and sale taxes covered about 44 percent. The federal government picked up the remaining 8 percent through direct grants. Federal support is much greater, however, when various indirect aids are considered.
Taxpayers deduct local and state taxes from their federal tax obligation, making local taxation more bearable and leading to greater financial support for public education.
In addition, local school districts and universities use tax-free bonds to finance construction and remodeling of school buildings. That work is more affordable because those bonds are attractive to taxpayers seeking tax-free income.
These indirect subsidies of education through the federal tax code total at least $21 billion for post-secondary education, and at least $17 billion for elementary and secondary education. These amounts are almost as significant as the direct grants made by the federal government to support education.
If the federal government were to "get out of education," local taxpayers would pay more in total taxes, school districts would struggle to finance themselves, and college costs would be even greater.
Making college more affordable
At the same time, as parents and students worry about escalating college costs, about three-fourths of all college student aid comes from federal sources, whether through the tax code, direct grants or subsidized loans. Many students would not participate in college or post-secondary training without that federal aid.
But, all this would vanish if the feds "got out of education."
Equity and civil rights
Throughout history, the United States has broadened educational opportunities for the less fortunate. After the Civil War, the federal government helped create public schools for freed slaves. After great waves of immigration of the early 20th century, vocational programs provided job training for newcomers.
In the 1950s, federal courts moved to expand educational opportunity, and in the 1960s, Congress broadened civil rights, economic opportunities, and improvements in schooling. African-American adults and children benefited as did women and girls who gained from Title IX, which opened up educational and sports opportunities.
As a result, the achievement gap narrowed between adolescent white and black students. And the percentage of children with disabilities who attended public school rose from only 20 percent in 1970 to 95 percent in 2007.
"Getting the federal government out of education" would endanger the progress made by --
among others -- children with disabilities, African-American children, and women and girls.
"We're (NOT) Number 1!"
Other countries are overtaking the United States in terms of schooling. As President Obama said:
"In the race for the future, America is in danger of falling behind. ...In a generation we have fallen from 1st place to 9th place in the proportion of young people with college degrees. When it comes to high school graduation rates, we're ranked 18th out of 24 industrialized nations -- 18th."
The achievement gap between U.S. students and their international peers deprived the national
economy of as much as $2.3 trillion in 2008, according to the McKinsey Quarterly.
How can the country raise academic achievement if 14,000 local school districts are each making their own decisions on most key aspects of education?
Four Presidents, numerous state governors of both parties, business leaders, and others have advocated for high state academic standards to bring about broad improvement. Currently, 43 states have adopted common standards and now are collaborating on creating assessments.
Federal assistance has helped this movement, but a flash point has been George W. Bush's No Child Left Behind Act enacted in 2002. Nearly a decade of experience under that law has shown its flaws. Obama, congressional leaders and others have proposed solutions for its defects, while still maintaining the core concept of encouraging states to raise their academic standards. Congressional leaders have signaled that they want to move on that legislation.
"Getting the federal government out of education" would undercut these two decades of efforts to raise academic standards.
To argue for no federal support for public schooling might play well with some voters, but it is foolhardy. Over the course of American history, the national government has aimed to better educate the citizenry as a basis for democracy and economic prosperity. Today, our nation must act with greater, not less, unity to improve schools.
The changing federal role in education | American Education | Find ...
The Evolving Federal Role in Education An Introductory Essay By ...
Reinventing the Federal Role in Education:
Why Should Congress Abolish the Federal Role in Education?HSLDA ...
Transforming the Federal Role in Education
Online NewsHour: Education Backgrounder -- SCHOOL FUNDING
A failing grade for public school funding - Los Angeles Times
Public school funding sees $241 million cut - Chicago Tribune
In the current zeitgeist of "no fed ed", the uninformed aren't considering how much money they get from the federal gov't for education. If the states have to bear the cost alone, education will suffer badly along with the states' budgets.
If the right wingers accomplish their goal you will have an opportunity to see first-hand the answer to your question as the states revert to the prior predicament.
I think everyone who is able should be able to complete basic coursework, but that by no means is to say that I would expect every child in American schools to be able to perform calculus by the end of high school. There obviously should be exceptions. Certain classes of special education students will not be able to complete certain tasks so asking them to do it would be foolish. We do need basic standards, but it needs to make sense based on a given audience.
It doesn't mean it's not a good idea to have a standard set of goals though. It's just a tough sell to the states and the teaparty types' heads would explode at the idea. LOL
Property taxes will double or triple to pay for the lost money.
And standards will be different anywhere. For example:if the state of Montana has lower standards for math then they do for history and a student is required to take less math then history...how will that work out when going to college. the students will either not be able to qualify for the schools they want to attend, or they will be behind the curve when it comes to registering for classes they need. they will have to make up math classes.
This is a confusing example, but the students will be the ones hurting.
There is already a move in some midwestern colleges to have students from Texas take a mandatory history course due to that state changing their texts and teaching of history.
They should all know US history, and world history — straight-up facts, ugly & pretty, not filtered by interest groups. They should know how to Read, Write, correct punctuation, know the difference between your/you're, they're/their, etc. Science: how to forecast weather, how plants grow, how bodies work, nutrition, gravity etc — again, facts not filtered by interest groups. Learn at least one foreign Language, starting in grade school — other countries do that. Studying the structure of another language will improve their English. Stretch reasoning ability through Math, so that they can triple a recipe as well as figure the interest on a credit card/mortgage/car loan. Take Music history, learn an instrument in grade school, which will helps math (learning and predicting note patterns). Learn Art history, do art, so that creative juices are channeled into future innovations/inventions. They should have Gym, but NOT be ridiculed if they can't run fast, throw a ball far, or do a somersault. The goal is to stay healthy, find fun activities to continue for the rest of their lives.
With a knowledge of what came before, skills to move forth, and an open mind to create, Americans will stop the decline into mouth-breathing, lazy, ignorant, xenophobes with excellent thumbs for texting.
Their is a growing world concensus that people shouldn't be forced by government to pay for other people's inability to manage their lives. At the same time government policies encourage those who are on government assistance to have a higher birth rate than the rest of the population.
My conclusion - If I'll pay for ANYTHING for someone underprivileged, I'll pay for them to be sterilized. If you can't afford to take care of yourself then you have no business continuing to have children - much less expecting someone else to continue to subsidize their desire to live off the system. So many women, multiple babies by different dadies - few of them sticking around for very long. And to think that my tax dollars are enabling this. How exciting.
So back to education. Exactly right, let me pay for my own children to get the kind of education I want. I just might want them to go to an all boy or all girl school. Maybe one that specializes in a certain subject, maybe one that teaches my spiritual beliefs.
By the way, technology is making it incredibly easy for a new form of school to arise. The school that admits to being a daycare center (unlike public schools) that provides wi-fi so students can take some very cool stuff online. All of this for much less than
Education is the best investment an individual or a collection of individuals (government) can make. We need to invest and reform education from the bottom up. Universal Pre-k, longer school years, get rid of bad teachers, and make college and grad school more affordable especially for math and science degrees.
the unemployment rate for college grads is around 5%. The more educated someone is the more marketable they are and the more likely they will get a job. Educated people are less of a drain on the government/economy because they make more money, they pay more taxes and they are less likely to be collecting unemployment or consuming other social services. The more educated someone is the less likely they are to commit crime or be in prison. These all benefit society at large. Obama has done more for education through his race to the top than anyone has done in decades, but the problem is that there is still a lot more to be done.
However, don't dumb down the rest of the population.
Grades matter in that if a student racks up enough "F"s at university, they will not be graduating, meaning they can kiss their career prospects good bye.
The end result of rejecting folksy traditional values is being shunned in communities where the average biweekly wage wouldn't cover the cost of a single pair of designer shoes.
if you want to teach your kids religion go for it,don't shove it down everyone else's throat.