Common Core question for proponents

[Anonymous]

^ and NCLB did not improve the schools. We were much better off with local control. Things have gotten worse under NCLB . . . when you take ownership away from people, you make a BIG mistake.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:^ and NCLB did not improve the schools. We were much better off with local control. Things have gotten worse under NCLB . . . when you take ownership away from people, you make a BIG mistake.

No Child Left Behind has not taken control of schools away from the state and local governments. Also it was a reauthorization of the Elementary and Secondary Education Act, which dates back to 1965.

[Anonymous]

The feds have not written and are not writing the standards for all schools in the US. Nor are they requiring states to evaluate teachers using any particular method.

Good! Let's keep it that way. And let's make sure that there aren't any special interests lobbying the feds for "control" either. And let's stop the "waivers" that traded the NCLB punitive measures for evaluation of teachers based on tests (that is what happened).

The fact that people are questioning the CC and how it came about is refreshing and healthy. I love my fellow countrymen---it's good to be among people who believe that people are more than just numbers. The spirit of individualism and ownership is still strong in America. Goodbye to the soul draining, mind numbing "tests".

[Anonymous]

No Child Left Behind has not taken control of schools away from the state and local governments.

But it wasn't the same as the 1965 ESEA---that's for sure. It added; it didn't subtract.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Of course there is a need for reading and math skills in every state. But that does not mean that every state has to have the same written standards. The states are charged with education by the US Constitution. They are totally within their rights to write their own standards and the feds cannot tell them how to do it.

Where?

The tenth amendment. There are other things the states also have control over---marriage laws, adoption laws, liquor license laws, etc.

The Tenth Amendment to the United States Constitution states: "The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people." Since education is not mentioned in the Constitution, it is one of those powers reserved to the states. Of course, the United States Supreme Court can declare that something not mentioned in the Constitution is so closely related to something that is mentioned in the Constitution that the unmentioned power is a fundamental interest, which rises to constitutional protection. So far, the Supreme Court has not declared that education is a fundamental interest. Thus, states have plenary, or absolute, power in the area of education.

The Tenth Amendment does not charge the states with education. As you say, the Constitution doesn't say anything about education at all.

Depends on interpretation - the Constitution does state that it is the responsibility of the federal government to provide for the general welfare of its citizens, which is a pretty broad mandate - stated not once but twice, in the Preamble and Article I Section 8. That's an interpretation that's held up many times in the US Supreme Court on many matters.

[Anonymous]

Depends on interpretation - the Constitution does state that it is the responsibility of the federal government to provide for the general welfare of its citizens, which is a pretty broad mandate - stated not once but twice, in the Preamble and Article I Section 8. That's an interpretation that's held up many times in the US Supreme Court on many matters.

Well, good luck with micromanaging the schools using the interpretation of "general welfare". Many students have not had their "general welfare" improved by the superior federal way---in fact their "general welfare" has been made worse. There is a reason that we have federalism. The "general welfare" interpretation could be so broad as to render the whole idea of federalism meaningless. I am a liberal Democrat and even I think the federal government is overreaching on this. We are soon going to have two groups of people (it's already happening). Those who can move to the high price neighborhoods where the fed mandates can be ignored and those who are dependent on the fed for their "general welfare".

[Anonymous]

Well, good luck with micromanaging the schools using the interpretation of "general welfare". Many students have not had their "general welfare" improved by the superior federal way---in fact their "general welfare" has been made worse.

The feds are ruining the whole idea of community in America. America was built on communities. Good luck having a local person try to talk to the feds about their school when they have a problem. The local school board and the state are in place to take care of the "general welfare" in the schools. LET THEM DO IT.

[Anonymous]

Home schooling and private schools are about to get much more popular. The conservatives are, no doubt, cheering the destruction of the public schools.

Thank you feds.

[Anonymous]

^ Ha, thanks for exposing yourself as the right wing nutjob that you are.

"OMG, it's a GUBMINT TAKEOVER!!!"

That's really your only argument here - that you hate the Black Kenyan Muslin Communist and everything he's associated with.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Home schooling and private schools are about to get much more popular. The conservatives are, no doubt, cheering the destruction of the public schools.

Thank you feds.

Homeschooling is a joke.

The requirements around it are so loose that any moron can homeschool a kid. We've had some enter public, only to leave in a hot second b/c they didn't have the skills to keep up.

a tragedy really

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

The feds have not written and are not writing the standards for all schools in the US. Nor are they requiring states to evaluate teachers using any particular method.

Good! Let's keep it that way. And let's make sure that there aren't any special interests lobbying the feds for "control" either. And let's stop the "waivers" that traded the NCLB punitive measures for evaluation of teachers based on tests (that is what happened).

The fact that people are questioning the CC and how it came about is refreshing and healthy. I love my fellow countrymen---it's good to be among people who believe that people are more than just numbers. The spirit of individualism and ownership is still strong in America. Goodbye to the soul draining, mind numbing "tests".

The "soul-draining, mind-numbing 'tests'" (by the way, why the scare quotes around tests? do you think they're not tests?) are a requirement of the federal No Child Left Behind Act. If the Common Core standards disappeared this morning, the tests (or "tests") would still be required. Indeed, the tests (or "tests") would still be required even if the Common Core standards had never existed at all.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Depends on interpretation - the Constitution does state that it is the responsibility of the federal government to provide for the general welfare of its citizens, which is a pretty broad mandate - stated not once but twice, in the Preamble and Article I Section 8. That's an interpretation that's held up many times in the US Supreme Court on many matters.

Well, good luck with micromanaging the schools using the interpretation of "general welfare". Many students have not had their "general welfare" improved by the superior federal way---in fact their "general welfare" has been made worse. There is a reason that we have federalism. The "general welfare" interpretation could be so broad as to render the whole idea of federalism meaningless. I am a liberal Democrat and even I think the federal government is overreaching on this. We are soon going to have two groups of people (it's already happening). Those who can move to the high price neighborhoods where the fed mandates can be ignored and those who are dependent on the fed for their "general welfare".

Yes, the reason we have federalism is that a bunch of white men, almost all of whom were wealthy, many of whom owned slaves, thought it was a good idea in 1787 to set the US government up that way. They may have been correct -- but that's not the reason we have federalism.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Well, good luck with micromanaging the schools using the interpretation of "general welfare". Many students have not had their "general welfare" improved by the superior federal way---in fact their "general welfare" has been made worse.

The feds are ruining the whole idea of community in America. America was built on communities. Good luck having a local person try to talk to the feds about their school when they have a problem. The local school board and the state are in place to take care of the "general welfare" in the schools. LET THEM DO IT.

America was built on stolen land and stolen labor.

But no, the feds are not "ruining the whole idea of community" in America. States and localities are still running the schools.

[Anonymous]

Ha, thanks for exposing yourself as the right wing nutjob that you are.

"OMG, it's a GUBMINT TAKEOVER!!!"

That's really your only argument here - that you hate the Black Kenyan Muslin Communist and everything he's associated with.

OMG. A radical nutjob!!! I voted for Obama both times. I have a biracial child. I do not hate based on color. I don't believe Obama is a Communist, but I'm starting to wonder about YOU based on the posts you just made.

[Anonymous]

You are getting weird on here. What happened to the rational discussion?

It wasn't Obama who put in NCLB; it was George Bush.