My Support For Meadows Has Been Validated

[Supsalemgr]

From the BRN Letters To The Editor:

State control
To the editor: I have noticed many Mark Meadows signs all over the county and am concerned that voters do not realize that Meadows does not support public education. His vision that each state control its schools is archaic at best. Does he not know this is a global economy? Does he not know that the other major players in the world regard education as a key component to success?

The United States already lags behind other nations in education. With Meadows’ plan, we can sink even lower and fail our young people and, ultimately, our nation.

Catherine Shields

Hendersonville

If Mark Meadows is for each state being in control of our schools he is my man. The results of what has happened in our public schools since the Department of Education was formed is proof positive federal government control has not been successful.

[Reality]

Typical dem stretch to say Meadows does not support public education because he believes the States should control education and not the Federal Government.

It takes a real idiot to draw that conclusion.

[O Really]

I have no interest in arguing over who/what/whatever is best, but as a minor exercise in logic, maybe somebody could explain this:

There is a wide disparity from place to place in the amounts spent per student as well as the level of academic achievement. If the feds are running the schools, shouldn't there be some parity here? And if the states are so capable, shouldn't there also be some parity - at a high performance level? I mean, does any state really choose to be at the bottom of the list?

Has anybody looked at exactly what responsibility for schools is held by the feds, what part by the states, and what part local? I haven't, but if somebody else has, I'd be interested.

[O Really]

Addendum...I did look to see what the feds do. Looks like not much in regard to actual control of schools or education at all. Mostly funding. But here's what they don't do...

In creating the Department of Education, Congress specified that:

No provision of a program administered by the Secretary or by any other officer of the Department shall be construed to authorize the Secretary or any such officer to exercise any direction, supervision, or control over the curriculum, program of instruction, administration, or personnel of any educational institution, school, or school system, over any accrediting agency or association, or over the selection or content of library resources, textbooks, or other instructional materials by any educational institution or school system, except to the extent authorized by law. (Section 103, Public Law 96-88)

Thus, the Department does not

establish schools and colleges;
develop curricula;
set requirements for enrollment and graduation;
determine state education standards; or
develop or implement testing to measure whether states are meeting their education standards.*
These are responsibilities handled by the various states and districts as well as by public and private organizations of all kinds, not by the U.S. Department of Education.


Maybe those who complain of federal "control of schools" are just making up another boog-a-boo like ZombieCare.

[Supsalemgr]

Addendum...I did look to see what the feds do. Looks like not much in regard to actual control of schools or education at all. Mostly funding. But here's what they don't do...

In creating the Department of Education, Congress specified that:

No provision of a program administered by the Secretary or by any other officer of the Department shall be construed to authorize the Secretary or any such officer to exercise any direction, supervision, or control over the curriculum, program of instruction, administration, or personnel of any educational institution, school, or school system, over any accrediting agency or association, or over the selection or content of library resources, textbooks, or other instructional materials by any educational institution or school system, except to the extent authorized by law. (Section 103, Public Law 96-88)

Thus, the Department does not

establish schools and colleges;
develop curricula;
set requirements for enrollment and graduation;
determine state education standards; or
develop or implement testing to measure whether states are meeting their education standards.*
These are responsibilities handled by the various states and districts as well as by public and private organizations of all kinds, not by the U.S. Department of Education.


Maybe those who complain of federal "control of schools" are just making up another boog-a-boo like ZombieCare.

The reality is they control much of the funding the school districts depend upon. Consequently they develop regulations which are the "strings" tied to the money.

I realize Vrede will not acknowlege this "reality".

[billy.pilgrim]

reckon this is why tag didn't respond to the failing principle of a small fla charter school taking $800,000 plus in income, while the entire budget for all other salaries and materials was around $300,000

[O Really]

The reality is they control much of the funding the school districts depend upon. Consequently they develop regulations which are the "strings" tied to the money.

I realize Vrede will not acknowlege this "reality".

Ah, so a school district can do anything it wants, within reason, as long as it doesn't take federal tax money? So the "strings" are attached to funding with public money, and not absolute dictates? Are there any dispersements of federal tax funds that don't have some "strings?"

[Supsalemgr]

I am crushed that Vrede does not agree with my opinion.

And yes O Really, a local entity has more autonomy if they do not accept the strings with fed money. However, they always want the money.

Now, can our lib fiends explain why private schools have better esults than public schools and they do not take public money?

[Supsalemgr]

ZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZ!!!

Vrede, how many times have I advised I do not get into "tail chasing" sessions with you.

Vrede really does resemble Skin.

[Reality]

Banni, can you set up a kangaroo court for the purpose of removing forum trolls. Vred just cannot make a post without infusing cynicism and sarcasim.

Her disruptive tone brings nothing to the discussion but dissent which we all know is her life's work.

[O Really]

OK, I think I'm getting it. The federal Department of Education offers funding to local schools in exchange for doing certain things that, at least theoretically, are intended to improve the education process. The local school boards can accept the funds and do those things, or can reject the funds and do whatever it wants. So this represents heavy-handed federal control of local education. Got it.

Question for those who like the idea of getting rid of the Department of Education - do you want to also do away with the funding programs the Department runs?

[Guest]

Re-write: "It takes a real idiot like Catherine Shields to draw a conclusion without fully understanding these things."

But then, maybe I'm the idiot here, because I ask:
If the Fed is so gung-ho on education, why are states turning to lotteries to fund education?

Secondly, why aren't the states who initiated lotteries (such as N.C. who was one of the last to do so) for education, putting their monies solidly into education?

Party lines aside, where in the world would someone get an idea that one running for public office does/would not support public education? Are people really that gullible, or as Stinger would say, that hyped up on Kool-Aid?

Or was Catherine Shields writing tongue-in-cheek ??

[O Really]

Why "turning to" lotteries to finance education? That's not what happened. Back in the 80's when state lotteries started getting popular, there was a lot of objection. Anti-gambling people, whatever. Tying the lottery to education funding made it more acceptable and made the difference in winning a vote. But no state actually ever promised that the lottery funds would be in addition to other funding. IRL, lottery income is just another means of revenue to the states' general fund - a voluntary tax, actually. So they "use" the lottery funds "for education" but reduce the non-lottery funding amount.

As to why Catherine - or anybody - might find it reasonable that a right-wing candidate might not support public education, one only has to listen to those who insist on calling them "government schools" and denigrate everything from teachers to administration to leaving lights on the parking lots.

[Guest]

Why "turning to" lotteries to finance education? That's not what happened. Back in the 80's when state lotteries started getting popular, there was a lot of objection. Anti-gambling people, whatever. Tying the lottery to education funding made it more acceptable and made the difference in winning a vote. But no state actually ever promised that the lottery funds would be in addition to other funding. IRL, lottery income is just another means of revenue to the states' general fund - a voluntary tax, actually. So they "use" the lottery funds "for education" but reduce the non-lottery funding amount.

That's what I'm saying. NC & SC both call their lotteries "Education Lotteries", yet you constantly read and hear of school systems being in dire straits financially, and teachers complaining of lack of good pay and/or raises. I will give SC kudos for their education lottery; they have built some monstrous and impressive school buildings since the lottery inception.

I remember when Dorman HS was being built; I didn't know it was going to be a school, and I though at first that, as big as the campus is, that it was going to be a college or a prison! One huge school.

As to why Catherine - or anybody - might find it reasonable that a right-wing candidate might not support public education, one only has to listen to those who insist on calling them "government schools" and denigrate everything from teachers to administration to leaving lights on the parking lots.
I still believe she took the Henny Penny approach.

[Supsalemgr]

I have stated my opinion and Vrede doesn't agree with. Instead of accepting it as a legitimate disagreement of ideas he reverts to his childish behavior in order to have the last word. Have at it.

[O Really]

As to why Catherine - or anybody - might find it reasonable that a right-wing candidate might not support public education, one only has to listen to those who insist on calling them "government schools" and denigrate everything from teachers to administration to leaving lights on the parking lots.
I still believe she took the Henny Penny approach.

Could be - or maybe she read Super-S in another thread...

"I am about results, not about feeling good about something. If throwing money at an effort is not working - STOP IT. Can we say our public school system?"

[Supsalemgr]

ZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZ!!!

[neoplacebo]

The funny thing is that Supsalemgr needs the words of a Dem to validate his inclination. Guess he doesn't trust cons.

I prefer to think his validation derives from my assertion that Meadows is a shithead. Either way, affirmation from the left is what he needed....