5 ms·

Agreed. Which is why public education wasn't supposed to be enacted at the federal level. It is a state concern, or, more appropriately, a private one. Edit: U

Agreed. Which is why public education wasn't supposed to be enacted at the federal level. It is a state concern, or, more appropriately, a private one. Edit: US perspective

jonny_eh 5y ago
Public education is administered at the provincial level in Canada.
- dmix 5y ago
  And is administratively split between two major institutions here in Ontario. The public school system and the catholic school board.
  - nfgrep 5y ago
    And I believe the public system is divided further still by region. Near-north district school board, Toronto district school board, etc. (Though I’m unsure how much autonomy each board has.)
    - whitexn--g28h 5y ago
      None in terms of curriculum
nfgrep 5y ago
By “private” do you mean entirely un-subsidized? i.e parents pay for their child’s education?
- hellojesus 5y ago
  Yes, exactly. With respect to the US: Don't get me wrong. States can enact a public education and directly tax residents to fund it, but the federal government was not enumerated that power in the Constitution.
tomrod 5y ago
Can you help me understand what part of mathematics, science, language arts, music, or most other extracurriculars change across state lines? I don't understand the argument that States vs. Federal, and we know that private education doesn't help but does exacerbate gaps in opportunity (which, as a minarchist libertarian, I oppose privatization of education due to equity/Rawlsian veil concerns). For this particular argument, I fail to see why non-standardized curriculum is better. History as a subject I can understand localized curriculum. Or are you arguing that funding can't be moved through central vehicles? Is this because if an area is better off (NY, CA, WA, IL) in their funding shouldn't help to fund ensure states worse off (MS, TX, OK, etc.)? I mean, I get the "F-u-i-got-mine" crowd but certainly there are national security/defense reasons to ensure a base level of education, such as science and finance, if only to ensure people aren't gullible to populism or, if financially irresponsible, open to manipulation by foreign states.
- hellojesus 5y ago
  It's not so much that federally funded public education wouldn't be valuable or beneficial, it's more that the Constitution enumerates powers to the Federal government (Article 1 Section 8), and any power not enumerated to the Federal government is left to the states (10th ammendment). Accepting funds from the federal government tends to come with strings attached, and such attachments tend not to work well over the generalization of the entire population (see the OP's about standards being added/dropped for everyone when it probably should have been considered from a local or hyperlocal perspective). The strings-attached conditionality shifts power to the federal government, which is something to be avoided at all costs. Edit: to enunerate to the Federal government the power of education, the constitution would have to be amended. Totally doable, but a requirement nonetheless.
  - tomrod 5y ago
    Ah, I see. Your argument derives from an ideological reading of the US Constitution in lieu of a focus on impact, benefit, legality/precedent, ethics, and need.
    - 5y ago

Agreed. Which is why public education wasn't supposed to be enacted at the federal level. It is a state concern, or, more appropriately, a private one. Edit: US perspective

jonny_eh 5y ago

Public education is administered at the provincial level in Canada.

dmix 5y ago
And is administratively split between two major institutions here in Ontario. The public school system and the catholic school board.
- nfgrep 5y ago
  And I believe the public system is divided further still by region. Near-north district school board, Toronto district school board, etc. (Though I’m unsure how much autonomy each board has.)
  - whitexn--g28h 5y ago
    None in terms of curriculum

nfgrep 5y ago

By “private” do you mean entirely un-subsidized? i.e parents pay for their child’s education?

hellojesus 5y ago
Yes, exactly. With respect to the US: Don't get me wrong. States can enact a public education and directly tax residents to fund it, but the federal government was not enumerated that power in the Constitution.

tomrod 5y ago

Can you help me understand what part of mathematics, science, language arts, music, or most other extracurriculars change across state lines? I don't understand the argument that States vs. Federal, and we know that private education doesn't help but does exacerbate gaps in opportunity (which, as a minarchist libertarian, I oppose privatization of education due to equity/Rawlsian veil concerns). For this particular argument, I fail to see why non-standardized curriculum is better. History as a subject I can understand localized curriculum. Or are you arguing that funding can't be moved through central vehicles? Is this because if an area is better off (NY, CA, WA, IL) in their funding shouldn't help to fund ensure states worse off (MS, TX, OK, etc.)? I mean, I get the "F-u-i-got-mine" crowd but certainly there are national security/defense reasons to ensure a base level of education, such as science and finance, if only to ensure people aren't gullible to populism or, if financially irresponsible, open to manipulation by foreign states.

hellojesus 5y ago
It's not so much that federally funded public education wouldn't be valuable or beneficial, it's more that the Constitution enumerates powers to the Federal government (Article 1 Section 8), and any power not enumerated to the Federal government is left to the states (10th ammendment). Accepting funds from the federal government tends to come with strings attached, and such attachments tend not to work well over the generalization of the entire population (see the OP's about standards being added/dropped for everyone when it probably should have been considered from a local or hyperlocal perspective). The strings-attached conditionality shifts power to the federal government, which is something to be avoided at all costs. Edit: to enunerate to the Federal government the power of education, the constitution would have to be amended. Totally doable, but a requirement nonetheless.
- tomrod 5y ago
  Ah, I see. Your argument derives from an ideological reading of the US Constitution in lieu of a focus on impact, benefit, legality/precedent, ethics, and need.
  - 5y ago