Forget evolution, climate science is the most controversial subject in school

posted at 8:20 pm on March 12, 2012 by Tina Korbe

Little by little, the federal Department of Education appropriates ever more power for itself. (Never mind that the department might very well be unconstitutional in the first place.) Today, most public schools are dependent one way or another on federal funds. Those funds don’t come without strings — and, under the Obama administration, bureaucrats have tightened those strings considerably.

Through the Race to the Top competition, the Ed Department enticed states with reward funds to adopt national standards. (Some state leaders — like Texas Gov. Rick Perry — turned down the funding, but they were the exceptions.) The common core applies to just English and math — relatively straightforward subjects. But it’s probably just a matter of time before the administration bribes states to adopt national science and history standards, as well.

When that happens, the administration will likely turn for inspiration to science standards that have already been developed by several national bodies. These organizations will release a new draft of science education standards in April — and some parents will probably not like what they contain. If you think science should be more straightforward than English, think again. Science hasn’t been noncontroversial since Charles Darwin first forwarded his theory of evolution (and probably before that!). Parents are as outraged today about the way schools teach climate science as they were then about the way schools incorporated evolution into their curriculums.

The Wall Street Journal reports:

The groups preparing the standards include the National Research Council, which is part of the congressionally chartered National Academies. They are working from a document they drew up last year that says climate change is caused in part by manmade events, such as the burning of fossil fuels. The document says rising temperatures could have “large consequences” for the planet. …

While states set their own educational curriculum, many are likely to use the scientific standards as guidelines. But the approach to climate change could be a sticking point for some states. In one, South Dakota, the state House has already passed a resolution saying climate change should be taught as a “theory rather than a proven fact.”

Rose Pugliese, a lawyer in western Colorado who has asked her local school board to prevent teachers from presenting climate change as fact, said schools should encourage students to reach their own conclusions.

“Unless we’ve got conclusive evidence one way or another—and I don’t think we’ll have that for hundreds of years—I think both sides should be taught,” Ms. Pugliese said. “Allow the kids to figure it out for themselves.”

That approach would mislead students, contends Martin Storksdieck, a director at the National Research Council who is helping to develop the new science standards. “What would be conveyed to them is not how science works—it’s how politics works,” Mr. Storksdieck said.

The relevant question here is actually not, “Is the planet warming?” or “Have humans caused global warming?” The relevant question is, “What role should the government play in education?” or “Who should teach children?”

In general, we’re gradually approaching a mentality that says the upbringing of children — of which education is a fundamental part — is best left to the government — and not local or state government, but the federal government. Why? I’m really asking. What is the philosophical basis for that mentality? What natural claim on children does the government have? What is the practical basis for that mentality? What evidence do we have that a child educated by the government is better off than a child educated by his parents or, at the very least, under the auspices of local or state control?

In fact, the evidence is very much to the contrary. As Katie Kieffer writes in her column this week:

It costs taxpayers over $10,000 per year to educate the average public school student. For zero cost to the state and under $1,000 a year to themselves, parents can educate their child at home and the child will probably have better academic test scores. Last month, USA Today analyzed a 2009 National Home Education Research Institute study revealing that homeschooled students score higher than public school students by an of average of 37 percentile points.

So, besides the fact that the Department of Education is unconstitutional, there is no evidence that more money and federal control invariably produce smarter children. My brother is in medical school now and he was homeschooled through sixth grade.

(Note that money for the public school system is an unfair tax on those who make no use of it, whether because they have no children or because they opt to send their children to private or home schools.)

In a state of nature, government doesn’t exist, but the parent-child relationship still does. The decision of the people to form a government does not nor ever can obliterate the parent-child relationship or the obligations it creates. The family exists prior to government and, so, will always be the fundamental unit for organizing society. Parents have the right and responsibility to educate their children. That some parents do not take seriously that responsibility might be a reason for the next-nearest to a child to step in and fulfill the responsibility, but it’s not a reason to deny parental rights.


Related Posts:

Breaking on Hot Air

Blowback

Note from Hot Air management: This section is for comments from Hot Air's community of registered readers. Please don't assume that Hot Air management agrees with or otherwise endorses any particular comment just because we let it stand. A reminder: Anyone who fails to comply with our terms of use may lose their posting privilege.

Trackbacks/Pings

Trackback URL

Comments

Comment pages: 1 2

Bbbbishop~

ted c on March 12, 2012 at 8:24 PM

Al Gore selling text books now?

KOOLAID2 on March 12, 2012 at 8:24 PM

OT…………

There’s some pretty cool stuff going on in the sky tonight.

Skywatching treat: Venus and Jupiter dance together this week

JPeterman on March 12, 2012 at 8:30 PM

Little by little, the federal Department of Education appropriates ever more power for itself. (Never mind that the department might very well be unconstitutional in the first place.)

Might be? Show me in the US Constitution where it is allowed.

CW on March 12, 2012 at 8:31 PM

Nothing new, evolutionists have been doing this for years.

*ducks*

(hey, you all knew someone was gonna say it)

Pattosensei on March 12, 2012 at 8:31 PM

Tina, my poor Marxist indoctrinated child, you understand that the Government should not be involved in education, what you fail to understand is, that the educational system does not exist to educate, but to indoctrinate, that is why Home Schooled student do so profoundly better than public school students.

SWalker on March 12, 2012 at 8:31 PM

In general, we’re gradually approaching a mentality that says the upbringing of children — of which education is a fundamental part — is best left to the government — and not local or state government, but the federal government.

1984 has arrived.

GarandFan on March 12, 2012 at 8:34 PM

No. It’s settled. Now sit down and shut your mouth before another Penguin dies of heat exhaustion.

hawkdriver on March 12, 2012 at 8:36 PM

They still have the spotted moth hoax provided as evidence for evolution in a lot of science textbooks.

Dr. Tesla on March 12, 2012 at 8:36 PM

There all sorts of holes in this post, Tina.

Little by little, the federal Department of Education appropriates ever more power for itself. (Never mind that the department might very well be unconstitutional in the first place.) Today, most public schools are dependent one way or another on federal funds. Those funds don’t come without strings

This section is self refuting. The federal government is funding education, as you admit. Is your argument that they should fund education without applying some kind of standards? “Here’s money for your schools, no questions asked” – that would be incredibly irresponsible.

But it’s probably just a matter of time before the administration bribes states to adopt national science and history standards, as well.

So now “funding” is the same as “bribes”? Are you serious?

These organizations will release a new draft of science education standards in April — and some parents will probably not like what they contain.

Whether or not individual parents “like” science has no bearing on whether or not science is true.

Science hasn’t been noncontroversial since Charles Darwin first forwarded his theory of evolution (and probably before that!).

Yeah, probably!

Rose Pugliese, a lawyer in western Colorado who has asked her local school board to prevent teachers from presenting climate change as fact, said schools should encourage students to reach their own conclusions.

“Unless we’ve got conclusive evidence one way or another—and I don’t think we’ll have that for hundreds of years—I think both sides should be taught,” Ms. Pugliese said. “Allow the kids to figure it out for themselves.”

Granted, this one isn’t Tina. But how is this remotely considered a logical argument? “I’m not a scientist, I’m lawyer. And my opinion is: this situation is awfully complex, but what we should do is just let unqualified kids sort it out for themselves. Obviously they will reach the right conclusion.”

It costs taxpayers over $10,000 per year to educate the average public school student. For zero cost to the state and under $1,000 a year to themselves, parents can educate their child at home and the child will probably have better academic test scores.

This is because the vast majority of home schooled children come from families where the financial situation is such that at least one parent can afford to be home, schooling their children. And family income is a far clearer indicator of student performance than “home schooled or not.”

(Note that money for the public school system is an unfair tax on those who make no use of it, whether because they have no children or because they opt to send their children to private or home schools.)

It is not an unfair tax because everyone benefits from a society with an educated populace, whether they have children or not.

e-pirate on March 12, 2012 at 8:37 PM

JPeterman on March 12, 2012 at 8:30 PM

And Mars to the east as well!

AshleyTKing on March 12, 2012 at 8:37 PM

Peppered moth hoax, I meant to say.

Dr. Tesla on March 12, 2012 at 8:37 PM

It is not an unfair tax because everyone benefits from a society with an educated populace, whether they have children or not.

e-pirate on March 12, 2012 at 8:37 PM

I think you are going to have a hard time selling the idea that we benefit a whole lot from most of the adults were educated in public schools.

Dr. Tesla on March 12, 2012 at 8:39 PM

Parents have the right and responsibility to educate their children. That some parents do not take seriously that responsibility might be a reason for the next-nearest to a child to step in and fulfill the responsibility, but it’s not a reason to deny parental rights.

Well put, Tina.

AshleyTKing on March 12, 2012 at 8:39 PM

I like what Fred had to say.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=izy79xQL4sw

backwoods conservative on March 12, 2012 at 8:40 PM

In a state of nature, government doesn’t exist, but the parent-child relationship still does.

Other things that don’t exist in the state of nature and therefore should be eliminated: air conditioning, automobiles, and plastics.

We should rule our society based upon how bears rear their young, or something.

e-pirate on March 12, 2012 at 8:40 PM

If you send your kids to private school or don’t have kids, I think it’s reasonable you shouldn’t have to pay taxes for public schools.

Dr. Tesla on March 12, 2012 at 8:40 PM

And Mars to the east as well!

AshleyTKing on March 12, 2012 at 8:37 PM

Cool! Thanks!

JPeterman on March 12, 2012 at 8:43 PM

Can we have school choice nationwide now? Please? I’ve had about enough of the arguments on all sides about what and how to teach in public schools. Create vouchers or what-have-you for ALL kids and let their parents/legal guardians decide how best to have their child educated.

JohnAGJ on March 12, 2012 at 8:43 PM

The White House’s Incivility and Contempt for You

They are loathesome creatures.

http://www.whitehousedossier.com/

mountainaires on March 12, 2012 at 8:43 PM

e-pirate on March 12, 2012

Yet the Dept. of Education is still not permitted per our Constitution. Not there. You’re just another tool.

CW on March 12, 2012 at 8:43 PM

Dr. Tesla on March 12, 2012 at 8:40 PM

Gotta disagree, Doc T. Free public education is just as important as a good transportation system: it benefits society as a whole. Now, the fact that we have allowed the Progressives to ruin the education system does not mean that funding should be “voluntary.”

BigAlSouth on March 12, 2012 at 8:44 PM

Good job, Tina!!

Same day-Front page threads on the first 2 federal departments I would like to see eliminated….Energy & Education. I don’t want to just stop there.

Bitter Clinger on March 12, 2012 at 8:45 PM

BigAlSouth on March 12, 2012 at 8:44 P

M

Still not Constitutional. What is it with you people?No wonder were so screwed.

CW on March 12, 2012 at 8:46 PM

From Tina’s posting;

They are working from a document they drew up last year that says climate change is caused in part by manmade events, such as the burning of fossil fuels. The document says rising temperatures could have “large consequences” for the planet. …

climate change is caused in part by manmade events, such as the burning of fossil fuels.

First, they must define what they mean by climate change.

Then, they can offer that it may have, as one possible contributing factor, manmade events.

The document says rising temperatures could have “large consequences” for the planet.

They’ll have to quantify large; but, this statement is the only part of this paragraph that’s acceptable, in that it is conjecture, and is not stated as fact. (It could have “large consequences,” or not.

Their science is unsettled; and, increasingly, their science is scuttled.

massrighty on March 12, 2012 at 8:46 PM

Gotta disagree, Doc T. Free public education is just as important as a good transportation system: it benefits society as a whole. Now, the fact that we have allowed the Progressives to ruin the education system does not mean that funding should be “voluntary.”

BigAlSouth on March 12, 2012 at 8:44 PM

There’s also the little fact that it would be just dandy if we could divorce it from the Feds and leave things to individual states.

MelonCollie on March 12, 2012 at 8:46 PM

Gotta disagree, Doc T. Free public education is just as important as a good transportation system: it benefits society as a whole. Now, the fact that we have allowed the Progressives to ruin the education system does not mean that funding should be “voluntary.”

BigAlSouth on March 12, 2012 at 8:44 PM

Yes, but it should be funded and ran at the state/local level. Not at the federal.

Bitter Clinger on March 12, 2012 at 8:47 PM

Not only is the Constitution absolutely silent on the subject of education, but the U.S. Supreme Court has also refused to recognize any right to a taxpayer-funded education. As Timothy Sandefur, author of Cato’s forthcoming book Cornerstone of Liberty: Property Rights in 21st-Century America, points out, in San Antonio Independent School Distict v. Rodriguez (1973), the Court specifically declared that education, though important, “is not among the rights afforded explicit protection under our Federal Constitution. Nor do we find any basis for saying it is implicitly so protected.” Nine years later, in Plyler v. Doe, the Court held that if a state chooses to give such an education to citizens, it must also offer it to the children of illegal aliens. But it has consistently recognized that taxpayer-funded education is a privilege, and not a right.-CATO.ORG

CW on March 12, 2012 at 8:48 PM

In one, South Dakota, the state House has already passed a resolution saying climate change should be taught as a “theory rather than a proven fact.”

And this is why science education is so important: anthropogenic global warming is a hypothesis, not a theory. Theories are things that have survived rigorous testing, are well known and work for just about all observable cases. None of this applies to AGW. So, it’s a mere hypothesis.

That the South Dakota legislature elevated it to theory is an outrage.

JSchuler on March 12, 2012 at 8:48 PM

The common core applies to just English and math — relatively straightforward subjects. But it’s probably just a matter of time before the administration bribes states to adopt national science and history standards, as well.

But liberals tell us we shouldn’t force English on Hispanic students.

Bitter Clinger on March 12, 2012 at 8:50 PM

Bravo to Tina. This issue is becoming a fundamental divide in our society. The Government As Parent, dictating everything from diet to education development to science. It’s just too much.

mountainaires on March 12, 2012 at 8:50 PM

Bitter Clinger on March 12, 2012 at 8:45 PM

Don’t tell me you can’t remember the third one either?

/kidding…

massrighty on March 12, 2012 at 8:50 PM

This section is self refuting. The federal government American taxpayer is funding education, as you admit.

e-pirate on March 12, 2012 at 8:37 PM

Like a new Fisker, you didn’t even make it through checkin with your argument before it broke down.

What say we get the federal government out of education and move it back to local control then this is entirely a non-issue?

Lost in Jersey on March 12, 2012 at 8:50 PM

There’s also the little fact that it would be just dandy if we could divorce it from the Feds and leave things to individual states.

MelonCollie on March 12, 2012 at 8:46 PM

America will be much better off if the definition of science changes when you cross state lines.

e-pirate on March 12, 2012 at 8:52 PM

What say we get the federal government out of education and move it back to local control then this is entirely a non-issue?

Lost in Jersey on March 12, 2012 at 8:50 PM

Thoughts like that scare the bejeebers out of statists like e-pirate.

CW on March 12, 2012 at 8:52 PM

part of the Gleick scandal (the one that was lightly covered on HA) had to do with teaching CAGW. He had taken a position with ncse, which now is the the cagw business as well as evolution

The National Center for Science Education (NCSE) is a not-for-profit, membership organization providing information and resources for schools, parents and concerned citizens working to keep evolution and climate science in public school science education. We educate the press and public about the scientific and educational aspects of controversies surrounding the teaching of evolution and climate change, and supply needed information and advice to defend good science education at local, state, and national levels. Our 4500 members are scientists, teachers, clergy, and citizens with diverse religious and political affiliations.

http://ncse.com/climate

Heartland is starting up an ‘answer’ to ncse so that people have a choice…which makes them evil which made Gleick/Leftists think they had the moral duty to expose HI

r keller on March 12, 2012 at 8:52 PM

Gotta disagree, Doc T. Free public education is just as important as a good transportation system: it benefits society as a whole. Now, the fact that we have allowed the Progressives to ruin the education system does not mean that funding should be “voluntary.”

BigAlSouth on March 12, 2012 at 8:44 PM

That’s how all big government and taxes are justified. It benefits society as a whole. I’m more of a user fee kind of guy. Amtrack is a fiscal boondoggle and would go out of business if not propped up by tax payers. :)

Dr. Tesla on March 12, 2012 at 8:53 PM

e-pirate on March 12, 2012 at 8:37 PM

Spoken like a good liberal.

Bitter Clinger on March 12, 2012 at 8:53 PM

America will be much better off if the definition of science changes when you cross state lines.

e-pirate on March 12, 2012 at 8:52 PM

Show me where in the Constitution that the Dept of Education is lawful and show me where a tax payer funded education is a right. Good luck statist.

CW on March 12, 2012 at 8:54 PM

They have remedial math and writing courses in colleges now b/c public high schools are so horrible.

Yet we are supposed to buy in to this notion public schools benefit us all.

Dr. Tesla on March 12, 2012 at 8:56 PM

Schools should all be private and there should be a lot of options for parents. If one school isn’t gettting it done, you send little Suzy Q to antoerh one that will. Competition would make all the schools better.

Dr. Tesla on March 12, 2012 at 8:58 PM

Don’t tell me you can’t remember the third one either?

/kidding…

massrighty on March 12, 2012 at 8:50 PM

LOL!!

But since you asked…. let’s get rid of Agriculture, Labor, HHS, EPA (let states set their own environmental standards), and, being that I’m a FairTax guy, the IRS. Then there’s OSHA (states should handle this), FDA (Feds really muck up the prescription drug market)…..etc.

Bitter Clinger on March 12, 2012 at 8:58 PM

America will be much better off if the definition of science changes when you cross state lines.

e-pirate on March 12, 2012 at 8:52 PM

The “definition of science” is rather elastic these days anyway.

Bitter Clinger on March 12, 2012 at 9:00 PM

America will be much better off if the definition of science changes when you cross state lines.

e-pirate on March 12, 2012 at 8:52 PM

The definition of science is a fixed object; it doesn’t vary, nor does it need to.

The mis-application of pseudo-science, used to indoctrinate the youngsters to a particular belief, is the objectionable thing here.

On a local level, I can attend the meetings, and challenge the indoctrinators directly.

That’s why it’s better left locally.

massrighty on March 12, 2012 at 9:00 PM

Most mass transportion requires the government to shake down middle class taxpayers to pay for the transportation choices of other middle class people who could afford to pay for it themselves.

Dr. Tesla on March 12, 2012 at 9:00 PM

Bitter Clinger on March 12, 2012 at 8:58 PM

Agree we much, compadre!

massrighty on March 12, 2012 at 9:02 PM

e-pirate…so quiet.

The Dept. of Education does not fall under the enumerated powers. Sorry to those who were thinking the General Welfare wording applied. In fact the general welfare “clause” is simply a part of the stated goal of the Constitution and not law in itself.

CW on March 12, 2012 at 9:04 PM

e-pirate on March 12, 2012 at 8:52 PM

Spelling and addition are the same all over the country too. Somehow we manage with state and local control. Really states can manage this. The fecal government has enough responsibilities without micromanaging curricula.

Ted Torgerson on March 12, 2012 at 9:04 PM

Regarding the fairness of those without students in the public school system paying for it, the standard argument is that they benefit from the students who are in the school system not being out on the streets.

DominusNovus on March 12, 2012 at 9:04 PM

sb federal government

Ted Torgerson on March 12, 2012 at 9:04 PM

Schools should all be private and there should be a lot of options for parents. If one school isn’t gettting it done, you send little Suzy Q to antoerh one that will. Competition would make all the schools better.

Dr. Tesla on March 12, 2012 at 8:58 PM

Yes, and the children can ride their unicorns to school each morning, through this magical fairy tale land of limitless school choice you’ve envisioned.

Nothing accelerates a child’s learning like shopping around schools every couple of months

e-pirate on March 12, 2012 at 9:05 PM

On a local level, I can attend the meetings, and challenge the indoctrinators directly.

That’s why it’s better left locally.

massrighty on March 12, 2012 at 9:00 PM

Yep good luck doing that on a national level especially when you see the attitudes of the statists. What a scary bunch.

CW on March 12, 2012 at 9:05 PM

Yes, and the children can ride their unicorns to school each morning, through this magical fairy tale land of limitless school choice you’ve envisioned.

Nothing accelerates a child’s learning like shopping around schools every couple of months

e-pirate on March 12, 2012 at 9:05 PM

Pretty lame statist. What a pathetic immature argument.

CW on March 12, 2012 at 9:07 PM

curricula.

Ted Torgerson on March 12, 2012 at 9:04 PM

Extra points in your grade for using the correct form. Not everyone does, these days.

massrighty on March 12, 2012 at 9:07 PM

e-pirate show me in the Constitution where the federal government has a role in education. Why so slow?

CW on March 12, 2012 at 9:07 PM

Agree we much, compadre!

massrighty on March 12, 2012 at 9:02 PM

Indeed!!!

Bitter Clinger on March 12, 2012 at 9:09 PM

The definition of science is a fixed object; it doesn’t vary, nor does it need to.

The mis-application of pseudo-science, used to indoctrinate the youngsters to a particular belief, is the objectionable thing here.

On a local level, I can attend the meetings, and challenge the indoctrinators directly.

That’s why it’s better left locally.

massrighty on March 12, 2012 at 9:00 PM

I’ll grant you that petitioning the standards is a legit concern.

But hypothetically, suppose your school’s curriculum had something like 2+2=5 and you successfully had the standards changed to 2+2=4. What about the neighbors in the next district who aren’t able to get their standards changed?

2+2 is always 4 so we lose nothing to set the standard at the federal level. In the modern airplane travel and internet and townhall age, you have equal reach to your national congressman as you do your local school board. And this keeps everyone on the same playing field, even those who live in pseudo science dominated 2+2=5 communities.

e-pirate on March 12, 2012 at 9:10 PM

I love when Tina tells us something might be unconstitutional, as if she’s known all along. But it’s actually a shift from last time when she scoffed at such a notion…until some commenters set her straight.

Progress. Even if it’s just a tiny step…progress. You may become a conservative yet, Tina.

Dante on March 12, 2012 at 9:10 PM

Pretty lame statist. What a pathetic immature argument.

CW on March 12, 2012 at 9:07 PM

I’m amazed you’re falling all over yourself in dismay that I’m not responding to your taunts.

The FAA and the CIA aren’t independently called out and approved in the constitution either, and yet, America somehow survives.

You’ll probably win this argument and convince me of the error in my ways if you call me a “statist” another dozen times though.

e-pirate on March 12, 2012 at 9:13 PM

On a local level, I can attend the meetings, and challenge the indoctrinators directly.

That’s why it’s better left locally.

massrighty on March 12, 2012 at 9:00 PM

And this applies to virtually all government functions. The Feds should only handle the truly national issues, like defense, diplomacy, disputes between states.

Our Founders were a wise bunch!!!

Bitter Clinger on March 12, 2012 at 9:14 PM

According to the National Center for Education Statistics, DE’s original budget, in 1980, was $13.1 billion (in 2007 dollars), and it employed 450 people. By 2000, it had increased to $34.1 billion, and by 2007 it had more than doubled to $73 billion. The budget request for fiscal 2011 is $77.8 billion, and the department employs 4,800.

All of this spending has done nothing to improve American education. Between 1973 and 2004, a period in which federal spending on education more than quadrupled, mathematics scores on the National Assessment of Educational Progress rose just 1 percent for American 17-year-olds. Between 1971 and 2004, reading scores remained completely flat.-NRO

Thank goodness for them standards….

now e-pirate about that whole constitutional / not constitutional thing…..

CW on March 12, 2012 at 9:14 PM

You’ll probably win this argument and convince me of the error in my ways if you call me a “statist” another dozen times though.

e-pirate on March 12, 2012 at 9:13 PM

I knew you could not answer. Thanks for playing.

CW on March 12, 2012 at 9:15 PM

Yes, and the children can ride their unicorns to school each morning, through this magical fairy tale land of limitless school choice you’ve envisioned.

Nothing accelerates a child’s learning like shopping around schools every couple of months

e-pirate on March 12, 2012 at 9:05 PM

That’s not what I’m saying, and the relaity is you want to force kids to be kept in failing schools.

I don’t.

I win the argument.

Dr. Tesla on March 12, 2012 at 9:17 PM

Why? I’m really asking. What is the philosophical basis for that mentality? What natural claim on children does the government have? What is the practical basis for that mentality?

I think the idea is that educators can draw from the expertise of the whole country in developing a curriculum rather than whoever might be available locally. The laws of nature don’t change from state to state, so it makes sense to adopt a national standard in teach what they are and how they work.

RightOFLeft on March 12, 2012 at 9:17 PM

2+2 is always 4 so we lose nothing to set the standard at the federal level.

We needn’t worry about setting standards for provably true things. 2 + 2 = 4 just is, whether we codify it in the new federal no addend left behind act or not.

In the modern airplane travel and internet and townhall age, you have equal reach to your national congressman as you do your local school board.

Not even close. I can walk to the school board meeting. I see the assistant town manager in Church. I can visit town hall, and walk into the town managers office, without an appointment, and make any comment I want. I cannot see the great high priests of the federal government without an appointment. No one sees the great and powerfull Oz!

And this keeps everyone on the same playing field, even those who live in pseudo science dominated 2+2=5 communities.

e-pirate on March 12, 2012 at 9:10 PM

But on this playing field, we’re not allowed any input into the rules.

massrighty on March 12, 2012 at 9:17 PM

The FAA and the CIA aren’t independently called out and approved in the constitution either, and yet, America somehow survives.

e-pirate on March 12, 2012 at 9:13 PM

I do have to say you are the premier debater. Look at the logic there folks. Congrats!!

Punks like you always have to rely on little games like pointing out that someone called you a name. So predictable.

Now you want to try again? Where in the Constitution is the fed’s involvement in education allowed or enumerated? Convince me.

CW on March 12, 2012 at 9:18 PM

2+2 is always 4 so we lose nothing to set the standard at the federal level.

Inverse subsidiarity – always assign power to the highest level of government that can accomplish it.

Federal Department of crosswalk painting anyone?

Ted Torgerson on March 12, 2012 at 9:18 PM

epirate is no doubt a public school teacher, and it’s all about the $$$$ for him or her.

Dr. Tesla on March 12, 2012 at 9:18 PM

If you want to give your kid the best chance, homeschool.

tom daschle concerned on March 12, 2012 at 9:18 PM

I’ll grant you that petitioning the standards is a legit concern.

But hypothetically, suppose your school’s curriculum had something like 2+2=5 and you successfully had the standards changed to 2+2=4. What about the neighbors in the next district who aren’t able to get their standards changed?

2+2 is always 4 so we lose nothing to set the standard at the federal level. In the modern airplane travel and internet and townhall age, you have equal reach to your national congressman as you do your local school board. And this keeps everyone on the same playing field, even those who live in pseudo science dominated 2+2=5 communities.

e-pirate on March 12, 2012 at 9:10 PM

Major fail!! I know my local Congressman personally and that doesn’t help. He represents roughly 600,000 people. And he is one of 435. See how little influence you really have at the federal level?

Your 2+2=5 argument is also asinine.

Bitter Clinger on March 12, 2012 at 9:18 PM

That’s not what I’m saying,

Dr. Tesla on March 12, 2012 at 9:17

e-pirate will do anything but debate honestly. That is quite obvious.

CW on March 12, 2012 at 9:19 PM

America will be much better off if the definition of science changes when you cross state lines.

e-pirate on March 12, 2012 at 8:52 PM

Well, it’s better than government warmthers forcing their religion on everybody in the name of “science”. This way, some public school children might escape indoctrination.

My personal questions for warmthers are “Is evolution a good thing or a bad thing?”

Unless it’s a bad thing, why would you try to stop it?

Why would you try to stop climate change unless you wanted to stop evolution? (And do you really think cow flatulence has a greater impact on earth’s temperature than the sun?)

I could see drawing up a very interesting curriculum about climate change pseudo-science for gifted high school students looking at the data falsification, the censorship, and the hypocrisy. The errors in the UN reports. The fudge factors. The hyperbole. The hacked e-mails. The blatant disregard for personal carbon footprints among the head warmthers. Asking questions about comparisons between Al Gore and P.T. Barnum. Asking them to follow the money. Asking them whether they think this is really about global warming and stopping evolution or whether its about using this as an excuse for the government to seize more power. The more you know, the worse the climate change theory looks.

talkingpoints on March 12, 2012 at 9:21 PM

Does anyone even read:

According to the National Center for Education Statistics, DE’s original budget, in 1980, was $13.1 billion (in 2007 dollars), and it employed 450 people.

By 2000, it had increased to $34.1 billion, and by 2007 it had more than doubled to $73 billion. The budget request for fiscal 2011 is $77.8 billion, and the department employs 4,800.

All of this spending has done nothing to improve American education. Between 1973 and 2004, a period in which federal spending on education more than quadrupled, mathematics scores on the National Assessment of Educational Progress rose just 1 percent for American 17-year-olds. Between 1971 and 2004, reading scores remained completely flat.-NRO

There is not a strong argument for the fed’s involvement even if someone could prove the Constitutionality of their actions and control.

CW on March 12, 2012 at 9:21 PM

I think the idea is that educators can draw from the expertise of the whole country in developing a curriculum rather than whoever might be available locally. The laws of nature don’t change from state to state, so it makes sense to adopt a national standard in teach what they are and how they work.

RightOFLeft on March 12, 2012 at 9:17 PM

So a national standard that says climate change is man-made is A-OK with you?

Bitter Clinger on March 12, 2012 at 9:21 PM

e-pirate on March 12, 2012 at 9:13 PM

Funny how long you took to even try to come up with something to get me to shut up. Fail. You don’t care what is constitutional and what isn’t . You are a statist and you don’t even deny it.

CW on March 12, 2012 at 9:23 PM

So a national standard that says climate change is man-made is A-OK with you?

Bitter Clinger on March 12, 2012 at 9:21 PM

You have to ask?

CW on March 12, 2012 at 9:23 PM

hawkdriver on March 12, 2012 at 8:36 PM

I thought it was the polar bears… after eating a baby seal who was killed by evil white men and skinned for their fur…

Wait, what year is it?

Bunsin2 on March 12, 2012 at 9:24 PM

Replace the Department of Education with a small office of a dozen or so financial types that take federal money and pass it through to the states according to a per capita formula.

Work with Congress to reduce that amount of money over a reasonable number of years until it zeroes out.

slickwillie2001 on March 12, 2012 at 9:25 PM

2+2=5 communities.

e-pirate on March 12, 2012 at 9:10 PM

The problem here is the government is trying to set the standard as 2+2=5.

talkingpoints on March 12, 2012 at 9:26 PM

In fact, the evidence is very much to the contrary. As Katie Kieffer writes in her column this week:

It costs taxpayers over $10,000 per year to educate the average public school student. For zero cost to the state and under $1,000 a year to themselves, parents can educate their child at home and the child will probably have better academic test scores. Last month, USA Today analyzed a 2009 National Home Education Research Institute study revealing that homeschooled students score higher than public school students by an of average of 37 percentile points.

So, besides the fact that the Department of Education is unconstitutional, there is no evidence that more money and federal control invariably produce smarter children. My brother is in medical school now and he was homeschooled through sixth grade.

There’s a logical fallacy here.

Parents who choose to homeschool their kids don’t represent a random group. There’s a high possibility for selection bias.

Mister Mets on March 12, 2012 at 9:26 PM

The laws of nature don’t change from state to state, so it makes sense to adopt a national standard in teach what they are and how they work.

RightOFLeft on March 12, 2012 at 9:17 PM

True, but only if applied to the few things that are universally observable (gravity, evaporation of liquids, things like this.)

The problem arises when you try to add in things that are not yet proven, in the same set of national standards.

massrighty on March 12, 2012 at 9:29 PM

Mister Mets on March 12, 2012 at 9:26 PM

You are right, hand over the children to the NEA for brainwashing.

How else can we establish utopia on earth?

tom daschle concerned on March 12, 2012 at 9:30 PM

If you send your kids to private school or don’t have kids, I think it’s reasonable you shouldn’t have to pay taxes for public schools.

Dr. Tesla on March 12, 2012 at 8:40 PM

Except you still stand to benefit from their education. Today’s middle school student may be performing surgery on you in twenty years.

Mister Mets on March 12, 2012 at 9:30 PM

Parents who choose to homeschool their kids don’t represent a random group. There’s a high possibility for selection bias.

Mister Mets on March 12, 2012 at 9:26 PM

Sheesh you’re grasping.

CW on March 12, 2012 at 9:31 PM

Why? I’m really asking. What is the philosophical basis for that mentality?

From Neal Boortz:

Why are Americans so damnably ignorant?  Does something like this happen by chance?  When I was doing research for the chapters in “Somebody’s Gotta Say It” about our government education system, I was shocked to learn that some of the people involved in the formation of our present system of government education had a goal of making sure we enough to function, but not enough to be much of a threat to the ruling class.  The details and references are in the book, but let me share a few gems with you.

Let’s go back to 1888 and the Senate Committee on Education.  The committee was addressing local control of education.  Concerned was expressed that local control of the government education process might actually result in our children being taught too much!  The committee report actually says “We believe that education is one of the principal causes of discontent of late years manifesting itself among the laboring classes.”   In other words, the more someone knows the more discontent they become in later years.  Discontent with what?  Their rulers?

I’m trying not to give away too much of my book here, but this dumbing-down of the American people deserves your attention.  You can, after all, click here to get an autographed copy of “Somebody’s Gotta Say It” for your dad for Father’s Day.  So just one more quote.  We go to the Rockefeller Education Board.  This is the group that funded the creation of many of our early government schools around the country.  Direct quote my dear friends … read this and try to absorb it:

In our dreams … people yield themselves with perfect docility to our molding hands.  The present educational conventions (intellectual and character education) fade from our minds, and unhampered by tradition we work our own good will upon a grateful and responsive folk.” 

Come on people!  Do you understand what was being said there?  Was this the goal of those who created our system of government education?  Were our children to be molded into grateful and responsive citizens bowing to the “good will” of the ruling class?  There’s more to the Rockefeller Education Board’s report. 

Dante on March 12, 2012 at 9:32 PM

2+2 is always 4

e-pirate on March 12, 2012 at 9:10 PM

umm in base 3, 2 + 2 = 11 right?

If I remember from some math theory class there were a couple of proofs where in the end 1 = 0

Bunsin2 on March 12, 2012 at 9:33 PM

Replace the Department of Education with a small office of a dozen or so financial types that take federal money and pass it through to the states according to a per capita formula.

Work with Congress to reduce that amount of money over a reasonable number of years until it zeroes out.

slickwillie2001 on March 12, 2012 at 9:25 PM

Or, we could stop sending money to the federal government, which they they return to the state, thence to the local community, until, as Buckley wrote in the late 1950′s, the sky is black with criss-crossing dollars!

The sky is blacker today, than it was then. Are are children better edjumatated?

massrighty on March 12, 2012 at 9:34 PM

Except you still stand to benefit from their education. Today’s middle school student may be performing surgery on you in twenty years.

Mister Mets on March 12, 2012 at 9:30 PM

In Stalinist democrat America, they are 10000x more likely to be sitting on their fat a*#es eating cheetos, playing xbox, all payed for by the productive class of America.

tom daschle concerned on March 12, 2012 at 9:35 PM

So now “funding” is the same as “bribes”? Are you serious?

e-pirate on March 12, 2012 at 8:37 PM

In regards to the federal government? Absolutely. Familiar with how highway funds are used in regards to drinking age limit?

Dante on March 12, 2012 at 9:35 PM

Little by little, the federal Department of Education appropriates ever more power for itself. (Never mind that the department might very well be unconstitutional in the first place.)

Did you know that Ronald Reagan tried to eliminate the Department of Education? He wasn’t successful.

Reagan was also known to say that a government program was the closets thing to eternal life we’ll ever see in this world. I always wondered if he first made that observation after trying to eliminate the Department of Education.

tom on March 12, 2012 at 9:36 PM

Were our children to be molded into grateful and responsive citizens bowing to the “good will” of the ruling class?

Dante on March 12, 2012 at 9:32 PM

Yes. We would not have standards without the federal government.

/

CW on March 12, 2012 at 9:36 PM

Gotta disagree, Doc T. Free public education is just as important as a good transportation system: it benefits society as a whole. Now, the fact that we have allowed the Progressives to ruin the education system does not mean that funding should be “voluntary.”

BigAlSouth on March 12, 2012 at 8:44 PM

You realize “free” public education is one of the tenets of the Communist Manifesto, don’t you?

Dante on March 12, 2012 at 9:38 PM

So now “funding” is the same as “bribes”? Are you serious?

e-pirate on March 12, 2012 at 8:37 PM

In regards to the federal government? Absolutely. Familiar with how highway funds are used in regards to drinking age limit?

Dante on March 12, 2012 at 9:35 PM

You don’t even have to go there. Just look at NCLB. Watch the teachers whine about that one and then demand less federal involvement.

CW on March 12, 2012 at 9:38 PM

I always wondered if he first made that observation after trying to eliminate the Department of Education.

tom on March 12, 2012 at 9:36 PM

In the British public service system, a position was created to scan a particular port with a telescope, in case the French (under Napoleon) attempted a surprise landing in the harbor.

The position was abolished in 1914.

massrighty on March 12, 2012 at 9:39 PM

Yes. We would not have standards without the federal government.

/

CW on March 12, 2012 at 9:36 PM

I think may be confused.

Dante on March 12, 2012 at 9:44 PM

Yes. We would not have standards without the federal government.

/

CW on March 12, 2012 at 9:36 PM

I think may be confused.

Dante on March 12, 2012 at 9:44 PM

Or, sarcastic…

massrighty on March 12, 2012 at 9:48 PM

umm in base 3, 2 + 2 = 11 right?

If I remember from some math theory class there were a couple of proofs where in the end 1 = 0

Bunsin2 on March 12, 2012 at 9:33 PM

In binary, there is no 2+2=4. It’s 10+10=100

Bitter Clinger on March 12, 2012 at 9:49 PM

In regards to the federal government? Absolutely. Familiar with how highway funds are used in regards to drinking age limit?

Dante on March 12, 2012 at 9:35 PM

THIS!!

Bitter Clinger on March 12, 2012 at 9:50 PM

Or, sarcastic…

massrighty on March 12, 2012 at 9:48 PM

Not or. His sarcasm was misdirected, I think. which is why I said he may be confused.

Dante on March 12, 2012 at 9:51 PM

Darwin is pretty much essential to understanding biology in today’s world, whereas Global Warming isn’t essential to anything scientific since it changes none of the basic assumptions scientists need in any field other than climatology and politics, and none of the lesser scientific subjects contradict it. It should probably be left out of public school curriculum entirely, even if it was true.

But that’s assuming, of course, that Liberal Democrats were interested in actually teaching our children useful knowledge with which to get a job and get practical things done, as opposed to teaching them to grow up to be good little socialists that will follow government orders.

Socratease on March 12, 2012 at 9:56 PM

Comment pages: 1 2