Only the feds would pour money into building a high school on an overseas post that was closing before it would ever be used by American students.

Local level is not nearly as wasteful. I have worked in both places. The problem with the feds is that there is so much paperwork and reporting needed to get the money that it adds layers of workers just to deal with that. There are also so many parameters on how to get the money that the grants are often written to the parameters and not with the actual needs of the local students/schools in mind. The locals might need more teachers, but the fed says the money has to be spent on "technology". So computers that sit around or SmartBoards that aren't used or presentation stations that sit in closets are bought. This is just the beginning. Some of the grants say that "staff development" must be implemented. This leads to presentations that are totally unnecessary and total wastes of time. It does, however, employ people.

Anonymous wrote:

Meanwhile, given well over 13,000 school districts all around the country, each typically managing millions of dollars, fraught with graft, corruption, nepotism, no-show political patronage jobs, multimillion dollar contracts to cronies, and so on, you're easily into tens of billions, if not hundreds of billions being wasted at the local level. And if you think it's "easier to catch" then you are naive. There's actually a lot more oversight and accountability at the federal level than there is at the local level.

You really have no idea how things work, or what goes on under your nose in local government.

There's more waste at the fed level. Believe me. I've seen it.

Multiply whatever waste you think you've seen at the fed level by 13,000 and you might begin to approach what's being wasted at the local level.

Anonymous wrote:

+100 and there's a HUGE amount of corruption and mismanagement of money at the local level, and you want to put all your eggs in that basket?

Peanuts compared to the cost of bureaucracy and skimming down from fed. Think VA.

Truest statement in this thread....

Meanwhile, given well over 13,000 school districts all around the country, each typically managing millions of dollars, fraught with graft, corruption, nepotism, no-show political patronage jobs, multimillion dollar contracts to cronies, and so on, you're easily into tens of billions, if not hundreds of billions being wasted at the local level. And if you think it's "easier to catch" then you are naive. There's actually a lot more oversight and accountability at the federal level than there is at the local level.

You really have no idea how things work, or what goes on under your nose in local government.

There's more waste at the fed level. Believe me. I've seen it.

MOST of Department of Education's budget already goes to schools, to states, and to students. But even that only constitutes a tiny part of school budgets. If we got rid of Dept of Ed and states got to keep the money, schools really wouldn't see any meaningful change.

Meanwhile, given well over 13,000 school districts all around the country, each typically managing millions of dollars, fraught with graft, corruption, nepotism, no-show political patronage jobs, multimillion dollar contracts to cronies, and so on, you're easily into tens of billions, if not hundreds of billions being wasted at the local level. And if you think it's "easier to catch" then you are naive. There's actually a lot more oversight and accountability at the federal level than there is at the local level.

You really have no idea how things work, or what goes on under your nose in local government.

Lots easier to catch it at local level.

+100 and there's a HUGE amount of corruption and mismanagement of money at the local level, and you want to put all your eggs in that basket?

Peanuts compared to the cost of bureaucracy and skimming down from fed. Think VA.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

There are roughly 13,580 school districts in the nation. According to your brilliant logic, evidently we should spend 13,580 times as much money coming up with 13,580 different sets of standards, policies and guidelines for the sole reason of partisan political ideology and mumbo jumbo about "local control" and hatred of the current occupant of the White House.

Riiight. We get that you're a conservative, but you certainly can't call yourself a fiscal conservative, given you don't understand basic concepts of economies of scale.

You think it works that way? NO. The local school districts spend lots of money and effort complying with government regulations in order to get grants. It is counter productive.

Yes, if you want federal grant money, then you have to meet the requirements for the federal grant money. On the other hand, if you don't want the federal grant money, or if you think it's counterproductive to meet the requirements for the federal grant money, then you can ignore the requirements for the federal grant money.

Or do you think that the federal government should just hand out money to the local school districts to do whatever they want with? I wouldn't consider that a fiscally-conservative position.

+100 and there's a HUGE amount of corruption and mismanagement of money at the local level, and you want to put all your eggs in that basket?

Anonymous wrote:I taught Title I waaay back. The demands on the way the money be spent were ridiculous. Especially, money to be spent on equipment.

Do you have any more recent experience? Title I dates back to 1965.

I taught Title I waaay back. The demands on the way the money be spent were ridiculous. Especially, money to be spent on equipment.

Anonymous wrote:
No need to send the money to the Feds in the first place if they're just going to skim some off for the bureaucrats and send the rest back with restrictions.

If you want to talk about federal taxation in general, please do so on the politics forum.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

There are roughly 13,580 school districts in the nation. According to your brilliant logic, evidently we should spend 13,580 times as much money coming up with 13,580 different sets of standards, policies and guidelines for the sole reason of partisan political ideology and mumbo jumbo about "local control" and hatred of the current occupant of the White House.

Riiight. We get that you're a conservative, but you certainly can't call yourself a fiscal conservative, given you don't understand basic concepts of economies of scale.

You think it works that way? NO. The local school districts spend lots of money and effort complying with government regulations in order to get grants. It is counter productive.

Yes, if you want federal grant money, then you have to meet the requirements for the federal grant money. On the other hand, if you don't want the federal grant money, or if you think it's counterproductive to meet the requirements for the federal grant money, then you can ignore the requirements for the federal grant money.

Or do you think that the federal government should just hand out money to the local school districts to do whatever they want with? I wouldn't consider that a fiscally-conservative position.

No need to send the money to the Feds in the first place if they're just going to skim some off for the bureaucrats and send the rest back with restrictions.

Anonymous wrote:

There are roughly 13,580 school districts in the nation. According to your brilliant logic, evidently we should spend 13,580 times as much money coming up with 13,580 different sets of standards, policies and guidelines for the sole reason of partisan political ideology and mumbo jumbo about "local control" and hatred of the current occupant of the White House.

Riiight. We get that you're a conservative, but you certainly can't call yourself a fiscal conservative, given you don't understand basic concepts of economies of scale.

You think it works that way? NO. The local school districts spend lots of money and effort complying with government regulations in order to get grants. It is counter productive.

Yes, if you want federal grant money, then you have to meet the requirements for the federal grant money. On the other hand, if you don't want the federal grant money, or if you think it's counterproductive to meet the requirements for the federal grant money, then you can ignore the requirements for the federal grant money.

Or do you think that the federal government should just hand out money to the local school districts to do whatever they want with? I wouldn't consider that a fiscally-conservative position.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Funny thing is all the "progressives" that hate it are going nuts that the R's are going to kill it....

Schools should be local, not federal.

Schools actually are local, not federal.

yeah
Well, if you were part of the system, you'd know that this idea of "local" is just BS. We are state-controlled. Ask any teacher who's using the "local" curriculum guides where the local autonomy is.

Well, I don't know what the "schools should be local, not federal" PP thinks, but I include "state" in "local". I definitely do not include "state" in "federal".