6 ms·

I don't think we should be opposed to nationalizing education. A common curriculum would help mobility when it comes to families moving across state lines. It w

I don't think we should be opposed to nationalizing education. A common curriculum would help mobility when it comes to families moving across state lines. It would also ensure uniform funding and plentiful opportunities to poorer and rural schools.

imgabe 6y ago
Maybe, but it would require a constitutional amendment to enact. The Constitution is explicit about which powers the Federal government has and everything else is delegated to the states. Education is not one of them.
- tyre 6y ago
  A large majority of the current US government is made up of things outside the constitution as written. The underpinning of most government agencies is the commerce clause, and even then there is a question of whether Congress delegating to administrative agencies is constitutional. For example, the FCC, the FDA, the FAA—these powers aren't in the constitution and I'm not saying that because there weren't cell phones or airplanes in 1789.
  - dragonwriter 6y ago
    > For example, the FCC, the FDA, the FAA—these powers aren't in the constitution All three regulate different aspects of interstate commerce.
- Wowfunhappy 6y ago
  "You don't get any federal funding unless you do X Y and Z."
nostromo 6y ago
> common curriculum You mean something like Common Core? We have that.
- dorchadas 6y ago
  Except common core was completely voluntary and the states didn't have to join it.
- karatestomp 6y ago
  It’s not a curriculum, though. States and districts burn a lot of money turning it into one.
verst 6y ago
Even shorter term I'd like us to move away from local property taxes being used for local schools. The state government should have a statewide pool of money they allocate to schools based on enrollment numbers, cost of living. This should be sufficiently funded such that teachers can make a living wage in the local school district. Those who don't like this can still send their kids to private schools.
- dorchadas 6y ago
  I'm a teacher myself, and I think this is very much needed. Right now, good neighborhoods just get better schools, while bad neighborhoods get worse. It's a horribly vicious circle, and shows even in areas where there's only one school (my county, the 5th biggest in the state, only has 25k people and one high school) if there's a huge amount of poverty (something like 65% of our students are on free or reduced lunch; over 80% live with either a single parent, grandparent(s), or other guardian), so it doesn't get the funding that, say, the school in the rich neighboorhood of the nearest big city gets, and it shows (it also doesn't help that our guidance councilor is ignorant and actively trying to make everything easier and less rigorous, but that's a different story). A state wide collection and distribution would help a lot; sadly, you're right and a lot of the parents in those better-off neighborhoods won't like it.
  - blueblisters 6y ago
    When I moved to the US, this was one of the things that surprised me the most. I found it really odd that my coworkers would look for homes based on how good the schools were in that neighborhood. The fact that all kids don't get equal opportunity makes it feel like a very broken society.
    - dorchadas 6y ago
      I agree. I also think it fosters a sense of anti-intellectualism in those schools that are poorer as well. I've noticed the difference in my hometown (where I now teach) in the 10 years since I've graduated. I've talked about it with another teacher who went to school there as well (I will say, that's one thing they're good at; they usually hire locals, for better or worse). My mom was a teacher there for 30 years as well, as she's seen it too. I don't live in the district I teach in, but I've already said that if I'm still teaching there (a big if) and have kids (another big if), I won't send them there if they're academically inclined. The school is routinely trying to gut AP classes in favor of "dual credit" (which is a joke) and they're removing normal accelerated classes for increased 'rigor' in others; which doesn't happen, as you get accelerated kids mixed in with kids in a collaborative class because the guidance doesn't care enough to separate them, and then we're also forced to cater to the lowest common denominator by administration as well... And "differentiated learning" just basically becomes "Oh, you're smart, here's another worksheet". It's, sadly, becoming a race to the bottom, and it's something the more wealthy schools in the area I live at wouldn't have.
wolco 6y ago
One size fits all policy? Where do you draw the line with local parents fundraising to ensure schools in richer areas are always ahead in terms of opportunities? Local education can prepare areas differently. Some states/areas like Texas would benefit from Spanish as a language course others like Hawaii might be better served with Japanese. Gym in Alaska must be different compared to Florida. Nevermind the private schools. You have other school systems like the Amish, Native education or faith based or even home schooled. Uniform models work better in smaller less diverse countries.
- jjeaff 6y ago
  That's why most federal pushes are for a "common core" curriculum. Math is math and federal funding doesn't preclude making local adjustments.
- david38 6y ago
  You will be able to stop parents doing what’s best for their kids, not should you. To do so would be to bring everyone down to the lowest common denominator. We’re not a small homogeneous country like Finland. Local fundraising, usually for arts and music, do very little for “getting ahead”. Private schools operate by mostly weeding out the disruptive/ low performing kids and selecting self motivated students with supportive parents. They don’t usually have amazing teachers that “work magic”. I’ve lived in some very poor areas in my life as both a child and adult. By far the #1 influencing factor is the education of the parents. There are countries that try to ban inequality and the only thing that happens is things go underground and get more unequal. That said, even if things aren’t all the same, there is no excuse for the bottom to be so low. A variety of terrible policies ranging from finances to letting disruptive kids have their way ruin what could be a much better experience.
JackFr 6y ago
That’s an idea that’s popular with no one. People want local control. And if you want local control, you have to pay for it. Utah spends $7k per student and New York spends $22K and that’s the way they want it.
- _emacsomancer_ 6y ago
  NY is more expensive than UT though
- pfranz 6y ago
  Funny you should bring up Utah. I recently heard they don't fund education by county-based property tax. Because of that education state wide is fairly equitable.

imgabe 6y ago

Maybe, but it would require a constitutional amendment to enact. The Constitution is explicit about which powers the Federal government has and everything else is delegated to the states. Education is not one of them.

tyre 6y ago
A large majority of the current US government is made up of things outside the constitution as written. The underpinning of most government agencies is the commerce clause, and even then there is a question of whether Congress delegating to administrative agencies is constitutional. For example, the FCC, the FDA, the FAA—these powers aren't in the constitution and I'm not saying that because there weren't cell phones or airplanes in 1789.
- dragonwriter 6y ago
  > For example, the FCC, the FDA, the FAA—these powers aren't in the constitution All three regulate different aspects of interstate commerce.
Wowfunhappy 6y ago
"You don't get any federal funding unless you do X Y and Z."

nostromo 6y ago

> common curriculum You mean something like Common Core? We have that.

dorchadas 6y ago
Except common core was completely voluntary and the states didn't have to join it.
karatestomp 6y ago
It’s not a curriculum, though. States and districts burn a lot of money turning it into one.

verst 6y ago

Even shorter term I'd like us to move away from local property taxes being used for local schools. The state government should have a statewide pool of money they allocate to schools based on enrollment numbers, cost of living. This should be sufficiently funded such that teachers can make a living wage in the local school district. Those who don't like this can still send their kids to private schools.

dorchadas 6y ago
I'm a teacher myself, and I think this is very much needed. Right now, good neighborhoods just get better schools, while bad neighborhoods get worse. It's a horribly vicious circle, and shows even in areas where there's only one school (my county, the 5th biggest in the state, only has 25k people and one high school) if there's a huge amount of poverty (something like 65% of our students are on free or reduced lunch; over 80% live with either a single parent, grandparent(s), or other guardian), so it doesn't get the funding that, say, the school in the rich neighboorhood of the nearest big city gets, and it shows (it also doesn't help that our guidance councilor is ignorant and actively trying to make everything easier and less rigorous, but that's a different story). A state wide collection and distribution would help a lot; sadly, you're right and a lot of the parents in those better-off neighborhoods won't like it.
- blueblisters 6y ago
  When I moved to the US, this was one of the things that surprised me the most. I found it really odd that my coworkers would look for homes based on how good the schools were in that neighborhood. The fact that all kids don't get equal opportunity makes it feel like a very broken society.
  - dorchadas 6y ago
    I agree. I also think it fosters a sense of anti-intellectualism in those schools that are poorer as well. I've noticed the difference in my hometown (where I now teach) in the 10 years since I've graduated. I've talked about it with another teacher who went to school there as well (I will say, that's one thing they're good at; they usually hire locals, for better or worse). My mom was a teacher there for 30 years as well, as she's seen it too. I don't live in the district I teach in, but I've already said that if I'm still teaching there (a big if) and have kids (another big if), I won't send them there if they're academically inclined. The school is routinely trying to gut AP classes in favor of "dual credit" (which is a joke) and they're removing normal accelerated classes for increased 'rigor' in others; which doesn't happen, as you get accelerated kids mixed in with kids in a collaborative class because the guidance doesn't care enough to separate them, and then we're also forced to cater to the lowest common denominator by administration as well... And "differentiated learning" just basically becomes "Oh, you're smart, here's another worksheet". It's, sadly, becoming a race to the bottom, and it's something the more wealthy schools in the area I live at wouldn't have.

wolco 6y ago

One size fits all policy? Where do you draw the line with local parents fundraising to ensure schools in richer areas are always ahead in terms of opportunities? Local education can prepare areas differently. Some states/areas like Texas would benefit from Spanish as a language course others like Hawaii might be better served with Japanese. Gym in Alaska must be different compared to Florida. Nevermind the private schools. You have other school systems like the Amish, Native education or faith based or even home schooled. Uniform models work better in smaller less diverse countries.

jjeaff 6y ago
That's why most federal pushes are for a "common core" curriculum. Math is math and federal funding doesn't preclude making local adjustments.
david38 6y ago
You will be able to stop parents doing what’s best for their kids, not should you. To do so would be to bring everyone down to the lowest common denominator. We’re not a small homogeneous country like Finland. Local fundraising, usually for arts and music, do very little for “getting ahead”. Private schools operate by mostly weeding out the disruptive/ low performing kids and selecting self motivated students with supportive parents. They don’t usually have amazing teachers that “work magic”. I’ve lived in some very poor areas in my life as both a child and adult. By far the #1 influencing factor is the education of the parents. There are countries that try to ban inequality and the only thing that happens is things go underground and get more unequal. That said, even if things aren’t all the same, there is no excuse for the bottom to be so low. A variety of terrible policies ranging from finances to letting disruptive kids have their way ruin what could be a much better experience.

JackFr 6y ago

That’s an idea that’s popular with no one. People want local control. And if you want local control, you have to pay for it. Utah spends $7k per student and New York spends $22K and that’s the way they want it.

_emacsomancer_ 6y ago
NY is more expensive than UT though
pfranz 6y ago
Funny you should bring up Utah. I recently heard they don't fund education by county-based property tax. Because of that education state wide is fairly equitable.