The Instigator
mador96
Pro (for)
Losing
2 Points
The Contender
Newb
Con (against)
Winning
8 Points

The funding of education should be controlled by the state, not the federal government.

Do you like this debate?NoYes+0
Add this debate to Google Add this debate to Delicious Add this debate to FaceBook Add this debate to Digg  
Post Voting Period
The voting period for this debate has ended.
after 2 votes the winner is...
Newb
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 11/4/2012 Category: Education
Updated: 4 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 3,226 times Debate No: 26880
Debate Rounds (4)
Comments (4)
Votes (2)

 

mador96

Pro

**Disclaimer: This is my first time on this site, so I apologize if I do not use the right debate fashion. I'm learning!!**

With the Bush Administration's enactment of "No Child Left Behind", American education has slowly been moving towards a federal, or centralized, education system. This system, however, would prove to be faulty for a series of reasons involving flexibility and the varying demographics across the nation.

Claim: The funding of education should be in control of the state and not the federal government.

Topic 1: When controlled at a local level, there will be a better understanding of the specific needs of children and communities.

Support: It is common knowledge that not every community is the same or equal -- all have different needs. In order for education to more closely meet the needs of those students, one ruling over the education system will not be sufficient. It will only support the demands of the majority, not the minority. If each state were to be in control of their own education system, students would have a greater chance of competing on a national level since they would be given the unique tools they need for success. As an example, take the communities of Cherry Hill and Camden, NJ. Cherry Hill spends over $6,000 on each student, while Camden spends about $4,000. However, the students in both communities are required to take the same level of difficulty of an SAT. {1} The students of Camden have been given much less education-wise-- they are at a disadvantage. Yet, those students are still expected to go up against the privileged children of Cherry Hill. This is completely unjust. If education moved more towards decentralization and released the power to the states, the state of New Jersey would be better able to assess the needs of their communities and be able to meet those needs. These students cannot all be held up to the national standard the way it is now. Wasteful allocations made from afar have little use locally.

Topic 2: The Constitution does not grant the power for federal government to provide education to students. Therefore, education being under the jurisdiction of the federal government would be unconstitutional, and for a good reason.

Support: Centralizing authority at a federal level would be dangerous. Once again, the problem on insensitivity becomes prominent. communities have a better idea of what they need. One ruling for everyone would lead to communities who cannot meet the centralized standard will be left behind by the world of success through education. There will be no focus on those schools who cannot meet the standards. Instead, all focus will be placed on how to improve the most wide-spread issues, which do not relate to all communities. On another note, the atmosphere is constantly changing. A single control and sentence over education will not allow for advancement of local communities and, once again, will not be able to meet their needs.

Topic 3: Those at the scene of action are better suited to make decisions for their communities' education.

Support: To allude to this issue, I bring up King Louis XVI. The King of France during the Revolution, he was tucked away in Versailles; he was not seeing the problems facing the people and how they were suffering. I relate this directly to education being in federal control. It would be very alike. The federal government would not be able to observe how specific communities were, and ARE, suffering under centralized control of education. Did King Louis successfully rule his people? That is another question to be debated, but we can all agree that he did not succeed in keeping everyone happy. Neither are the communities of America. What the states need are people who are, as I mentioned before, at the scene of action. They know and have experienced first-hand the issues facing their communities. If the control of education is given over to the states, these individuals will be better equipped to solve the problems unique to their own state. For example, parents. Parents are the individuals who experience first-hand the effects of education. They see exactly what the students are going through and can see all of the problems that relate directly to the population. The more parents are able to get involved and address these problems, the better communities can solve the issues facing their education. On a national level, how much of a voice would parents be given. I can tell you now -- not much of one.

Conclusion:
If the inequalities facing education are ever going to be solved, we must move towards decentralization and give the control over education to the states. This will result in a more flexible education system that will meet the needs of those under it.

I now hand over the stage to my fellow debater. Good luck :)

Sources:
{1} = "Savage Inequalities" by Jonothan Kozol (page 149)
Newb

Con

Obviously I am to argue that my opponents premises are unjustified. I will begin by first mentioning that my 
opponent has the burden of proving the statement made about the state government relative to education.
I would also like to address my opponent's claim:
"Claim: The funding of education should be in control of the state and not the federal government"
This is off topic as the title of focus is about educational funding not educational control. Read the title you've
made please. :)
Despite this error, I will gladly debate against state control and let my opponent off the hook on this one.
I will here place my statement for federal control on education and then move to rebuttals.
Now that I've cleared some possible misconceptions, I will move on to my case.

I believe it would be more practical to maintain federal control of education. Completely severing federal control
and placing all this power on the state would create problems. Problems:
1. Complete state control means the state would lose federal funding and have to fund education on its own. This
would create an uneven tax burden among the states, creating a set of problems within itself.
2. Complete state control would annihilate a nationwide educational standard. Each state would have its institutions
teach whatever it deemed fitting to its self-created standard. A deviation from one standard of learning would
create an uneven skillset among the workforce that reflects against the expected quality of performance of the
people as a nation.
3. Complete state control does not take into account control by county, city or district. My opponent had argued
specialization by granting all power to a smaller unit of government, but by giving control to this unit, my
opponent has ignored all other units of power. We cannot just expect a trickle-down of influence based on the
initial solution presented. You may say that it will be 'obvious', but this is not the case.
4. Complete state control would, in essence, create a scenario not unlike that face by our American predecessors
nearly sevenscore years ago. This need to have complete control sparked discontent and led, eventually, to a bloody
Civil War that resulted in the loss of hundreds of thousands of lives. Although this case may not be as potentially
dire, the concept of complete state control, which is not unlike an acclamation for autonomy, is similar and easily
comparable.
I believe my opponent would agree that neither the state nor the federal government should have complete control of
education. This is what I will be arguing for. We should have been debating whether the states should have more/less
control than the federal government, but my opponent has set up his argument in such a way that his own parameters
limit what he can contend for within the topic's bounds.

I will now set up a series of rebuttals against my opponent's supporting topics.
"Topic 1: When controlled at a local level, there will be a better understanding of the specific needs of children and communities"
In this topic, my opponent presents a case about two communities: Cherry Hill and Camden. He mentions the severe academic disadvantages faces by financially impaired schools. He also argues that this is not fair. This is quite understandable, but there is one major flaw in this argument. Thankfully, my opponent has posted this flaw and I did not need to do any research to find it. Here is the flaw: Both communities are located in the same state. The allocation of educational funds are done through propositions by the people. Each and ever individual has the power to present a proposition. I do not think I need to explain further. Since decision about funding within is not decided by the federal government, we should be able to conclude that topic 1 is irrelevant in substantiating my opponent's case.

"Topic 2: The Constitution does not grant the power for federal government to provide education to students. Therefore, education being under the jurisdiction of the federal government would be unconstitutional, and for a good reason."
Again, my opponent assumes tyrannical domination of education by the federal government. In retrospect, my opponent's argument for state control falls under this same topic. If the state were given control, the individual counties and districts would face the very same problems specified under topic 2. Thank you sir for helping to destroy your own premise. On a further note, I would like my opponent to make a statement against this constitutional clause that is, apparently, against any and all federal government jurisdiction. I believe there are not clauses that say the the federal government is to have completely and absolutely no part in any and all decisions related to education, but I will leave this to my opponent to prove wrong. In the case that my opponent does try to find something of the abovementioned matter, he will find that I happen to be right and there there is no such clause in the constitution. This inability will help infurther destroying not only my opponent's argument, but also his statement-making credibility.

"Topic 3: Those at the scene of action are better suited to make decisions for their communities' education"
Once again, my opponent repeats his error of making an argument irrelevant to the issue he proposes. Please refer to the two above refutations in relation to this staetment. In any case, I will make a brief assault against this topic. My opponent says that those at the scene of action are in fact better suited to make decisions for their community's education. Under this line of logic, control of education should not fall under the state and should, instead, be places in the hands of individual counties, individual districts, individual schools, or individuals themselves. Doing this would create a set of problems on its own. For example, if a school is given complete control of its own budget (taking into account the fact that the state would need to comply to all claims for funds), the school is more likely to overspend than not as overspending the state budget will improve the school community immensely while draining the state resources. THe state would inadvertantly be harmed by these foolish and unknowing individual units that do not see the picture as a whole as well as the larger governmental body does.

"Conclusion:
If the inequalities facing education are ever going to be solved, we must move towards decentralization and give the control over education to the states. This will result in a more flexible education system that will meet the needs of those under it."
Since my opponent's topical claims are either weak or unrelated, this statement falls unsupported.
I hope my opponent will be able to provide a more substantial case for state control of education in the following round.


Good luck fellow first time debater! :)
Debate Round No. 1
mador96

Pro

mador96 forfeited this round.
Newb

Con

By forfeiting the round, my opponent seems to have conceded all my points. I extend my arguments and give my opponent another chance at rebuttals. Good luck. :)
Debate Round No. 2
mador96

Pro

mador96 forfeited this round.
Newb

Con

My opponent concedes! :) Extended argument.
Debate Round No. 3
mador96

Pro

mador96 forfeited this round.
Newb

Con

Newb forfeited this round.
Debate Round No. 4
4 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 4 records.
Posted by Newb 4 years ago
Newb
I mistook you for a guy because your avatar has a beard :O
Posted by Newb 4 years ago
Newb
I'm sorry if I sound rude, rudeness was not my intent. I just wanted to cover any and all areas that may be of concern.
Once again, if you somehow find whatever I say insulting, I will apologize for what I have said and for what I may say in the future. There will, however, be no profanities or direct personal assaults so I don't think you need to worry :)
Posted by mador96 4 years ago
mador96
You come off as rude in your reply. Is that a debating style, or what?
Posted by Newb 4 years ago
Newb
I lost internet connection and had to type on notepad... .___. Apparently the font changes completely when it goes from notepad to debate.org :'(
2 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 2 records.
Vote Placed by RyuuKyuzo 4 years ago
RyuuKyuzo
mador96NewbTied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Who had better conduct:-Vote Checkmark-1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:Vote Checkmark--1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:14 
Reasons for voting decision: Same reasons that Roy laid out.
Vote Placed by RoyLatham 4 years ago
RoyLatham
mador96NewbTied
Agreed with before the debate:Vote Checkmark--0 points
Agreed with after the debate:Vote Checkmark--0 points
Who had better conduct:-Vote Checkmark-1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:Vote Checkmark--1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:14 
Reasons for voting decision: A good opening round by both debaters. Too bad Pro forfeited (a conduct violation) and left Con's arguments unanswered. I don't know how Con obtained the tiny type font, but it was a bad idea. (Repeating ctrl + enlarges it in the browser.)