Well you just never know. Maybe not end them but a few years back Republican Congressman Jack Kingsman said this:
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/12/18/jack-kingston-school-lunch_n_4467711.html
There is so much meanness…
Lots of people say lots of bat guano crazy things. I’m not willing to hang a comment four years ago by a congressman around DeVos’ neck anymore than I would hang any of Maxine Water’s nutty statements around President Obama’s neck.
Historically, there was a lot of opposition to passing the free lunch or many programs from the FDR’s New Deal we now take for granted from some conservatives back in the day.
What’s more ironic specifically about the school lunch program was how it was advocated for and passed sometime at the end of WWII precisely because they found one critical factor in why ~25% of all called up conscripts had to be rejected for service with the 4-F classification because of stunted growth or other cumulative negative effects of childhood malnutrition due to the Great Depression and prevailing regional poverty of the period…especially in the south.
In short, some conservatives like Kingston forgot that the free/reduced school lunch program was implemented in large part to prevent a repeat of what happened during WWII when 25% of all called up draftees had to be rejected as 4-F.
Well in my view only part of the statement is “crazy.” I have no issue at all with and actually support the idea of students cleaning their schools. But if schools want to undertake that activity all students should be involved.
At my S’s small private school every student has a weekly cleaning obligation.
I was a free/reduced lunch kid for awhile. There were plenty of times I didn’t have a nickel or dime for lunch. I think it is also unrealistic to ask kids in such a circumstance to perform chores, because in my experience the only way to and from school was the bus. Staying after to sweep up or whatever would have meant a pretty long walk home. That said, my wife’s private high school had such a program of kind of work study that she and her sisters participated in, or so I have been told. So it can work. Although it doesn’t appear to have increased her love of cleaning any
It’s beyond Randian pseudo-philosophy to complain that children should pull their own weight in life and is a short step from opposition to child labor laws.
No child left behind…except the children left behind to sweep the halls and clean the toilets.
And of course, imagine the outrage when someone suggests that the kid in a wheelchair, or the kid with Down’s Syndrome, has to scrub the chalkboards, too.
@marvin100 - I was going to skip Rand, and instead go back to Swift and his Modest Proposal.
DH made a point of telling our pups that when he went to high school, if a kid got detention they stayed after school and sat in a room. If they got a second detention, they attended Saturday Detention where they had to work with the custodial staff around the building. Not many kids got the second detention.
But one of his friends was always getting the Saturday detention. It wasn’t until senior year that he found out his friend kept going in on Saturdays because they’d get “leftover” or extra food when they deep cleaned the cafe kitchen. The kid got free lunch during the week, but they were so poor they’d often have nothing to eat on the weekends. His friend went on to a successful career as an accountant, and he is now a volunteer on the board of our local food pantry.
I think people are missing the point that DeVos was hired to run, streamline, and perhaps eliminate a huge federal bureaucracy whose responsibilities include research, finance, prioritization of resources, grant evaluation, etc. etc… Having experience as a public school teacher has nothing to do with that job, nor does understanding the various subtleties of pedagogy.
@Ohiodad51 is exactly correct. The current system is broken. Many of us would like to see the DoEd eliminated ; but barring that, it ought to at least provide cost effective services.
Maybe, @TooOld4School , but surely there is some sort of experience that would qualify one to do those things? And surely it’s something other than “I donated hundreds of millions of dollars,” right?
Moreover, part of that job isn’t entirely administrative–there are educational/pedagogical/social philosophies and values at stake.
As for your second point, I’ll repeat myself, since no one has cared to rebut it:
It’s revealing that you say this:
After all, a vanishingly tiny minority of Americans want this, to be clear. Vanishingly tiny. Like, Randian Objectivist tiny. Do you want it to be eliminated against the wishes of the vast majority of Americans?
@marvin100 ,The DoEd is yet another unaffordable, unconstitutional overreach. We are already $20 trillion in debt. Best to return control to the states where it properly belongs. What is the point of sending a dollar to Washington to get $0.70 back?
If you asked the question: Would you rather spend 100% of your education dollar locally on your priorities, or send it all to Washington, have them take 30%, then send 70% back, and spend it on their priorities not yours - I suspect 100% of the people would want the DoEd eliminated.
I’m familiar with such Libertarian arguments, and I’m not going to debate them here. My question was simple: Do you still want to get rid of the Department of Education against the wishes of the vast majority of Americans, who oppose doing so?
You can write poll questions to get whatever answer you want, most likely, but you’re in a tiny minority in your belief that the Department of Education should be dissolved.
Most Americans probably have no idea what the Dept of Ed does. If you asked them, “Do you think education is important, and the federal government should support it?” Of course a majority would say " Yes." But if they were asked if a bunch of Beltway bureaucrats who have never been west of the Appalachians should have influence over the schools in Idaho, I’d bet a majority would say “No.”
Absolutely no one is missing that point.
That actually IS the point.
@marvin100, I believe I have offered a rebuttal to your point, although I am sure you find it tedious. Simply, an organization that limits itself to ideas which emanate from its own caste is definitionally scerotic. If you are unwilling to grant that someone who is not pedagogically grounded has a role in education policy then you are largely shutting down true innovation. And while I agree with you that it is illogical to assume that offering vouchers/charters/magnets/open enrollment will solve all of the problems in our education system, I find it equally illogical to insist that merit pay, lessening tenure protections, seniority systems, alternative certification, etc. have no role to play. In my admittedly unprofessional but minimally informed opinion, there are good things to take from all of these various approaches. We should be spending our time and treasure trying to build on what works rather than engaging in the all or nothing rhetoric that unfortunately permeates this debate.
Just wanted to point out that this has been a Class A derail of the OP, populated by the usual suspects. The reason it’s so important that DeVos understand basic education, and concepts such as IDEA (which she appeared not to understand in her hearing) and why it’s important to have a NATIONAL oversight agency, is that left to state’s or even local districts, you’ll have states which don’t value, say, special education fail to fund it and you’ll have thousands of kids not getting the education that is their right. You’ll have states that value one race over others fail to make sure all get quality educations. You’ll have states that think Christianity should be taught in public schools require it, despite the fact that there are children of many religions in public schools, and more. There are already efforts to do all of these things-at least national policies and laws help keep them in check. But nice derail, guys!
^^^ You also get the common core absurdity and a large wastage of tax money by Federal bureaucrats. It is no coincidence that since the DOE was in 1979, the cost of college has risen at more than twice the rate of inflation.
[quotet is no coincidence that since the DOE was in 1979, the cost of college has risen at more than twice the rate of inflation.
[/quote]
Assuming you meant “founded” - if you are going to make a causal claim there you need to back it up with evidence of causation. Otherwise I call BS.
By that standard, I can claim that it is no coincidence that since the band Led Zeppelin formed in 1968, the cost of Hershey Bars has gone up 20X.
You will probably call BS because it disagrees with your world-view, but there is plenty of evidence that the increased availability of subsidized student loans promoted by the Department of Education is the chief cause of increased tuition. This is known as the “Bennett Hypothesis” from 1987:
http://www.nytimes.com/1987/02/18/opinion/our-greedy-colleges.html
The Bennett Hypothesis has been discussed over the years in the popular press:
https://www.forbes.com/sites/ccap/2015/07/21/the-bennett-hypothesis-confirmed-again/#bda3519794ac
and by Federal Agencies:
https://www.newyorkfed.org/medialibrary/media/research/staff_reports/sr733.pdf
The other great cause of increased college costs if the rampant growth of administrators at colleges and universities. When asked, colleges say they need more administrators to handle to increased amount of regulations and reporting requirements. Who imposes these regulations and reporting requirements? The Department of Education.
Please don’t describe others’ opinions before inquiring what they are. It is a disagreeable habit. I will look at your link and then I will decide.
My first response is the arguments you present in #138 relate only to the relationship of increased financial aid to rising costs. Nothing to do with the founding of the DOE, and certainly not to the date you cited in #136.
Also your quote in #136 is misleading, as college costs did not rise at a much sharper rate than inflation until long after the date you cited.
http://inflationdata.com/articles/wp-content/uploads/2014/05/education.jpg
You can make the case that increased credit causes a cycle of increased demand and thusly increased prices – hard to argue that. That might indicate a flaw in a DOE policy. But your claim that “It is no coincidence that since the DOE was {formed} in 1979, the cost of college has risen at more than twice the rate of inflation.” remains unproven, and in fact the graph linked above indicates there is no relationship between the two. If the information I have provided in that link is flawed, please show me and I will reevaluate it.
Most importantly: I don’t know what a “world-view” is. If you are referring to my opinion or current understanding on an issue, ok, but in the future, if you wish to know what mine is, please ask.