The Motley Fool Discussion Boards
Religion & Culture / Atheist Fools
|Subject: Re: smaller government, DrB?||Date: 5/17/2013 9:43 AM|
|Author: DrBob2||Number: 423131 of 439270|
But the "positives" you mention are not negated by having the feds set (and enforce) standards and distribute funding. And the negatives ARE negated. There are no negatives with my proposal...
Well, that is an interesting position to take. There are positives, but of course there are negatives. The obvious one is the extra cost of another layer of bureaucracy, this one nationwide. Money is going to harder and harder to come by as the elephant of social entitlement programs expands. Another is reduced flexibility. Have you noticed how difficult it is to get things accomplished in Washington? Thirdly, a lot of people complained about Bush's education policies which were about setting national standards. (How would the good burghers of San Francisco, say, feel about eight years of their school system run by George Bush?) Many community groups are still complaining that Obama is doing more of the same Bush policies. For example:
Our Communities Left Behind
Communities for Excellent Public Schools, a new national coalition of community-base organizations composed of parents and student in low-income communities, is entering the debate. For too long, our communities have been the targets of top-down school improvement efforts....
The SIG program strictly limits how states and districts use turnaround funds....Many education experts and advocates have expressed concern over the narrow range of options for school turnaround....Although we wholeheartedly agree with the need for dramatic and meaningful improvements, we believe there are several reasons why the Administration's limited, top-down mandates are both bad policy and bad educational strategy....
Alliance for Quality Education
Alliance of Californians for Community Empowerment
|Copyright 1996-2014 trademark and the "Fool" logo is a trademark of The Motley Fool, Inc. Contact Us|