People will give that same argument about local education; it ensures the rich will have better education, poor areas won't be able to fund, gives the states authority invoke religious ideology. These common arguments are commonly misguided and false, first its unconstitutional for the government to control all of EDUCATION, the naysayers and advocates don't realize the 'dumb down' effect of national education, common core is a failure system, we need to get our kids ready to be productive members of society instead of test bots, it doesn't take algebra 2 to be and artist, it doesn't take space science to be a football player, STUDENTS are not all equal, one student can finish homework in 30 minutes or less while another student could struggle for hours even if he understand the material, the socialist approach to education is not working, senior high dropout rate increases every year. Students can NOT learn the same because they're NOT the same. With local education we can address those issues, get parents more involved in their kids education and go after the students basic needs to help them be ready for life and not that weekly test.
"Red tape" is called "red tape" because it's a bad thing. Local schools can be flexible and focus on the goal of meeting the needs of every child. Federal school policies focus on making politicians look good -- NOT the same thing. I met a boy who had dropped out of school because he was homeless, had rheumatoid arthritis. Punitive attendance laws drove him away, even though local school teachers were trying to help him. He was working at a Dollar General, still under 21, wistfully wondering if there was some way that he could still get an education. That's not what school should be about. Attendance laws drove that boy out of school. Give schools the flexibility to help kids succeed. Attendance laws should be secondary to the main goal, which is to meet the needs of EVERY child, in whatever way we need to do it. We don't need more testing. We need more teachers. And -- harsher graduation requirements are just making more kids give up and not graduate. A high school diploma will never get you a rocket scientist's job. Let's leave high school for a basic education, and save calculus for college.
Who wants the people who have brought us the Post Office, BMV, IRS, etc., determining what is best for our kids? The full plan will envelope private and homeschoolers as well as public schools. Here in Indiana, our state standards are already much higher than those the US gubmint is proposing.
As we all know, each community in the Unites States of America is built by those with vested interest. The moral values, religious convictions, educational imperatives, and cultural ideals of a given area are based on historical events that have shaped that community. Local control of education means that people are granted the freedom to choose the educational targets that they want their schools to reach, while at the same time the schools are shaped by the school boards and local governance that reflects the values of a local community. Would a middle school in Des Moines have the same school improvement goals of one in Manhattan? Of course not! When people are willing to have ALL schools become a rubber stamp of our federal government, I'm worried. As a nation, the diversity of our beliefs unites us as a nation; we are propelled by a plethora of perspectives. Why we have succeeded as a nation thus far is because our founding fathers wrote into the Constitution, and specifically the Bill of Rights, rights and freedoms of the individual that needed to be preserved. Individuality and unique perspectives offered in a local school district cannot be overwhelmed by an overreaching federal government. That would become the first step in creating a STATE RUN school- eventually leading to schools becoming propaganda machines to further the federal government's agenda. NO FEDERAL CONTROL! Local school governance offers unique flavors and characteristics to our educational system- a balance of perspectives shaped by local ideals.
Should government dictate
Americans are also trapped in the mindset that everyone currently pursuing an education in the United States is exactly the same as everyone else. Apart from a couple of accelerated courses, there are really no difficult courses to challenge the minds of the the gifted few. They are also under the pretense that every individual learns at exactly the same pace in exactly the same way, causing some students to rise and prosper as their beloved GPA's become inflated while the true thinkers and innovators are left in the dust, speechless, wondering why nobody has done something pertaining to this issue yet.
Education should be controlled at the local level, because different communities have different needs. Applying a uniform curriculum to all deprives local communities of tailoring their lesson plans to the unique needs of their community. For instance, if testing shows that a particular school is deficient in math, it is impossible to change the focus of a school to meet this deficiency.
Education should be controlled at the local level, because this allows schools the flexibility they need. Different populations of children have different needs and obstacles to learning. We need to recognize this and respond by giving schools much more freedom. This would also reduce wasteful allocations made from afar, which often have little use locally.
I think that to ensure the proper education of our children that should include involvement at the local level. Not only does it have some control over some of the cultural information and education for that area, but it provides a way for conflict resolution much quicker. It is easier for parents to access local officials to get involved, more than at the state or federal level.
I believe that education should be controlled at the local level, because different areas have different demographics. Each school/county/region has different ways of making education work for their schools and their students. If education was controlled on the local level, students would get more attention and would ultimately learn more. This, in turn, would benefit the educational system.
I feel that the basic fundamental start of a first time student should be controlled at the very place it originates. That would be at the first level, the first school. I believe that the first school a child attends is the place that will instill in him the very fundamental idea of what education will be like for the rest of his lie.
I completely disagree that education should be controlled at the local level, especially in terms of funding, curriculum, etc. Don't we have places like Florida, Arizona and others where folks that don't have young children don't want to pay for educating children who live there. Local control and lessening national control would cause poorer areas or areas where older americans live to receive poorer education for their students. Yes, we need more parental involvement. Obviously, but we should not turn our backs on the children who do not have involved parents or $$ in their pockets.
If everyone had a different education, there would be no standard level of competence. We would have people in this country who didn't know how to do basic math, or couldn't speak, read, or write the common language. That level of disorganization would be severely detrimental to the long-term outlook of the United States as a whole. Local governments need to exist in order to handle day-to-day tasks. Education, on the other hand, is an exercise in nation-building.
Federalizing education allows for children to receive the same education no matter what social class they come from. If a nation is to be successful, it must ensure that each child is being offered the same high level of education. The only way to achieve that is to make sure that education is funded, regulated, and controlled on a federal level.
If education is controlled at the national level, students will be able to pay less for private schooling. Also they will have more access to laptops. One more reason is that when people go to college and high school, they will know what they will bw learning about.
Education should be held at a national level so students going to college have a better chance to know what they are learning about. They will also go by the same learning standards, and grading standards. Hitler and Stalin as RayEar had listed is in the past. Something that people need to get over. If its a national level, then the president can take care of it and have a GOOD learning environment.
For education to be uniform and bring out a feeling of tranquility I think that national level education imposition is a must! Managing education at a local level, in my opinion, would not have the same quality and create differences between educational systems make it unfair for some people in less-effective systems, hence making it unacceptable!
Education must be controlled at national level rather than local. Education controlled at national level ensures that same curriculum is being followed all across the country; students are measured at par when it comes to higher education entrance and development revolves around the same parameters. It also helps an individual to move anywhere in the country without getting affected by the local preferences.
Education institutions are better managed at the local level to provide more focus and maintainability rather than at a national level where activities are observed at a macro level rather than at a micro level. National level authorities must continue to overlook the local level authorities.
If education will continue to be controlled by local government, then poorer areas will continue to suffer because they don't have economic advantage to provide for all the needs of their students. Also, there will be discontinuity in curricula. Therefore , students in all parts of the country will be given different level and quality of learning. There will be no educational equity and equality . National control is needed.
How can we guarantee that children are ready to compete at a national and global scale if there are no national standards? Education levels between say, public schools in Louisiana and Vermont, are already drastically different. Wouldn't abolishing the Federal Department of Education just further exacerbate that? This will pretty much guarantee the lower socioeconomic schools in poorer states will continue to decline.