Posted on Aug 19, 2014
What are your views on children education at the high school level?
10.5K
5
8
0
0
0
Education
Education
Responses: 3
3
3
0
I think you may be misapplying the 10th amendment here. There isn't a clash.
First, the legal justification for the constitutionality of federal education programs is under the Commerce clause, thus making it not in conflict with the 10th Amendment. The reason for that is that the fed sets standards for education and make compliance with them a condition of receiving federal funding. States can decide to go it alone, but they wouldn't be able to afford it. It's the same way that the fed controls highway speeds and the national drinking age by tying it to federal highway funding.
Second, private and home school options are available everywhere. In most jurisdictions, they are held to little standards at all, and in some places no standards at all. Options are out there in droves.
Third, the government (local, state, and fed) has a specific interest in setting education standards and in making said education available to the widest degree possible. There is the inherent benefit of having an educated populace, but also the value to the economy of having a workforce derived from a pool with a good foundation of education. There's also the broadcasting factor that standards allow, which permits a diploma from most public schools to be considered at least roughly on par with each other. And don't forget that, as weak as the standards are (I think they should be much stronger), without them we would be slipping further and faster into international irrelevance in education.
First, the legal justification for the constitutionality of federal education programs is under the Commerce clause, thus making it not in conflict with the 10th Amendment. The reason for that is that the fed sets standards for education and make compliance with them a condition of receiving federal funding. States can decide to go it alone, but they wouldn't be able to afford it. It's the same way that the fed controls highway speeds and the national drinking age by tying it to federal highway funding.
Second, private and home school options are available everywhere. In most jurisdictions, they are held to little standards at all, and in some places no standards at all. Options are out there in droves.
Third, the government (local, state, and fed) has a specific interest in setting education standards and in making said education available to the widest degree possible. There is the inherent benefit of having an educated populace, but also the value to the economy of having a workforce derived from a pool with a good foundation of education. There's also the broadcasting factor that standards allow, which permits a diploma from most public schools to be considered at least roughly on par with each other. And don't forget that, as weak as the standards are (I think they should be much stronger), without them we would be slipping further and faster into international irrelevance in education.
(3)
(0)
MAJ (Join to see)
Personally, I think it doesn't go far enough. Far too many kids are able to attain a diploma, but are woefully under-prepared if they try to go to college.
To illustrate what I mean by that, when I graduated High School, there was a $10k block scholarship in my state provided to any student who attained a diploma with at least a 2.5 GPA, with the condition that it could only be used at accredited, in-state colleges (and was only good for 10 years). During my college years, they smartly advanced the requirements to a 2.75 and later a 3.0 GPA, as well as limiting it to courses toward attaining a degree. The big change, however, was when they restricted it so it could no longer be used on remedial (sub-100-level) courses, a change made only a few months before the start of the school year. Attendance by new freshmen fell dramatically, and has stayed lower since, and the class sizes (and number) of remedial courses offered also fell. Pretty much 100% of the lost students were those not ready to enter college.
Now, in my mind, that means they weren't prepared, and thus the courses needed to get a diploma should be more involved and demanding. It also means that there were a lot of people who squeaked by who (and I hate to say this as a liberal but it is true) should not be going to college, but had it drummed into their heads that they must because there were not nearly enough vocational options available for them to find alternate careers that they could be passionate about and excel in. The lack of good vocational training is a completely separate but equally problematic failing of the system.
To illustrate what I mean by that, when I graduated High School, there was a $10k block scholarship in my state provided to any student who attained a diploma with at least a 2.5 GPA, with the condition that it could only be used at accredited, in-state colleges (and was only good for 10 years). During my college years, they smartly advanced the requirements to a 2.75 and later a 3.0 GPA, as well as limiting it to courses toward attaining a degree. The big change, however, was when they restricted it so it could no longer be used on remedial (sub-100-level) courses, a change made only a few months before the start of the school year. Attendance by new freshmen fell dramatically, and has stayed lower since, and the class sizes (and number) of remedial courses offered also fell. Pretty much 100% of the lost students were those not ready to enter college.
Now, in my mind, that means they weren't prepared, and thus the courses needed to get a diploma should be more involved and demanding. It also means that there were a lot of people who squeaked by who (and I hate to say this as a liberal but it is true) should not be going to college, but had it drummed into their heads that they must because there were not nearly enough vocational options available for them to find alternate careers that they could be passionate about and excel in. The lack of good vocational training is a completely separate but equally problematic failing of the system.
(1)
(0)
PFC (Join to see)
Hmm I see your point, I agree I believe the class should be more indepth. I remember when I was taking high school literature in honors & AP I practically learned nothing, because the classes didn't demand a standerized test and it completely screwed me over when I started college literature. I know in the state of Georgia they have implemented mandatory test for ever class at the high school level to make sure the teachers are doing there part. Which I personally believe it's a great idea , because I noticed the classes I had (including acedmics) that didn't have a mandatory testing the teachers didn't care. So I believe the new mandatory testing for every class including electives is an excellent idea. I believe if they had it while I was taking high school classes I would have been more educated and prepared for college. This is why I started this discussion.
(0)
(0)
MAJ Javier Rivera
I have to agree 100% with your entire statement regarding vocational education MAJ (Join to see). College is not for everyone and for whatever reason, it has been drilled to all of us (yes, I include myself) that it’s a must to succeed in life. False!!!!! Many vocational / trade careers outhere with an exponentially better outlook than a college degree!
(0)
(0)
LTC Jason Mackay
MAJ (Join to see) on the vocational piece, that is the aim of federal Perkins funding for Career and Technical Education. People don’t know about it because it only applies to CTE classes and programs. It’s used for equipment, supplies, and reimbursable costs (like CTE teacher salary). It can not be used for other programs, at all.
(0)
(0)
0
0
0
A large swath of funding in education is federal. The largest piece comes from the state.
The federal dollars are generally intended for programs, not least of which is subsidizing school lunch programs. Without them, school districts can not make ends meet. While federal dollars are dedicated for certain programs it frees up the state dollars to use as they will, like for facilities and compensation. Compensation is the largest expense in a school district.
Have you look at your local school districts annual budget, shortfalls and capital plan? You’ll see where those federal dollars go. I’ve been a District level administrator and now a classroom teacher. The federal “burden” on classroom instruction is hardly perceptible from my foxhole.
The federal dollars are generally intended for programs, not least of which is subsidizing school lunch programs. Without them, school districts can not make ends meet. While federal dollars are dedicated for certain programs it frees up the state dollars to use as they will, like for facilities and compensation. Compensation is the largest expense in a school district.
Have you look at your local school districts annual budget, shortfalls and capital plan? You’ll see where those federal dollars go. I’ve been a District level administrator and now a classroom teacher. The federal “burden” on classroom instruction is hardly perceptible from my foxhole.
(0)
(0)
0
0
0
Government high schools offer better facilities and learning environment for students. They also offer scholarships for high school students on the basis of previous grades. The https://www.rushessay.com/admission-services.php views prove informative for you people.
Top Admission Essay Writing Service | Boost Your Chances
Do you need college admissions essay help? Our pro writers can help you write the perfect application paper. Fast, confidential and plagiarism free.
(0)
(0)
Read This Next
Continue with Facebook 
Continue with Google