Quote:
Originally Posted by KSig RC
Without arguing over efficacy or semantics like the above, let's try it this way:
What, exactly, makes you think anybody at all on a local level of government is qualified to dictate educational policy? And I don't even mean "more qualified" than somebody else - I seriously mean, for the average community, what about the dopey, slow, limited, and largely ceremonial governments of most towns and suburbs makes you think THAT is the group who really needs more money and power pushed toward them?
And if you instead want to discuss the state level ... States puked all over themselves trying to spend stimulus funds, then cried when they didn't get more. Many state governments are run by part-time state legislators whose qualifications were "Put Up A Lot Of Signs In Yards." That's your solution? Give them more stuff to do, more money to blow?
Sorry if I'm non-plussed at the concept of removing the DoE in favor of essentially this plan:
1. Move money from idiotic bureaucracy to smaller, less experienced idiotic bureaucracy.
2. ????
3. Profit.
|
This isn't a response about qualification, but I think local governments are at least more responsive and aware of the pressing issues in their communities. I also think officials are more invested in the results. The accountability for problem solving is pretty diffused when you get to the federal level.
I don't have a big problem with national standards or national assessments, but I'd generally like the federal government to deal with things that only the federal level can handle. Education isn't one of those things.
Threaded Mode
