Skip to main content


Ok, time for a quick post:

The Doug for President Campaign believes in the dissolution of the Federal Department of Education. The Constitution does not give Congress or the President authority or responsibility to educate. That is reserved to be a matter between the States and the People.

What about the money, you ask? Where will our schools get the money they've been getting from the Federal Government?

From their State Government. You see, large percentages of what you pay in Federal taxes are turned back to the states for the states to spend. What you have is a duplication of the most inefficient part of government, bureaucracy, in areas like Education. No one, for example, disputes that the idea behind No Child Left Behind is bad. After all, the idea was that every high school student in America should be able to read, do basic math, and know enough to survive. The problem with the NCLB act is all of the bureaucracy, the testing, the mandates, where local schools have to prove to states that they are doing well enough to keep the Feds happy.

So, duplicated bureaucracy wastes money. And how much sense does it make for you to pay taxes to the IRS for the IRS to give them to the Department of Education, for the DoE to give them to the state, for the state to give to the local school board? Like we use to say at UPS: TOO MANY TOUCHES! You don't want stuff handled more than necessary, because every touch increases the chance for error, theft, and damage, and every touch costs money. So, by eliminating the redundancy, the Federal Tax rates can come down.

Then, state legislatures can determine what is best for their states, and the states bear the cost, and your local legislator bears the accountability. There is much more need for local input, local influence, because it takes a lot fewer angry voters to get the attention of a state legislator than a Congressional Representative. For example, 1 person represents all of south Arkansas in Congress, but 1 person represents Monticello/Drew County in the Arkansas State Legislature. Who do you think cares more about my opinion? Mike Ross, who has to effectively live in D.C., or Alan Maxwell, who lives in Monticello? So, local influence allows for more accountable decision making.

Which is good, because if you know your local schools are running well, funded well, then you can easily tell someone to leave them alone. And if you know they need help, you know where to go. When your state loses jobs because of a lack of skills or poor education, you know who to go after.

What about problems in schools, like Civil Rights violations? The Department of Justice has a civil rights division. Adequately staff the DoJ to handle it. A school professional or school board that denies civil rights is not deserving to have funding cut off or sanctions, they are committing a criminal act. What do you think bears more weight? We'll equally fund our men's and women's athletics, because we might lose some money, or because the Athelitc Director will go to prison? AD's are fundraisers, they can find rich boosters to make up financial sanctions. They don't want to go to jail. Punish crime as crime, not as slaps on the wrist. And again, local accountability should make a huge difference, because people will know they have to answer.

Is it extreme? Yes, but what we're doing, by most objective measures, isn't really working. True, we have some great schools all over the country, but, by and large, Washington making education decisions doesn't work. The schools that are doing well seem to share some basic characteristics: local involvement, local support, parental involvement, teacher appreciation, local involvement. (did I say that twice? hmm...) I've not seen a story of a school that excelled because US DoE bureaucrats were on top of them. You might point to some that have done well with grants, but again, that money was taxed out of the local area anyway, and could have been provided by local controlled taxes.


Popular posts from this blog

Book Review: The Heart Mender by @andyandrews (Andy Andrews)

The Heart Mender: A Story of Second ChancesEver read a book that you just kind of wish is true?  That's my take on The Heart Mender by Andy Andrews.  It's a charming story of love and forgiveness, and it's woven into the historical setting of World War II America.  For the narrative alone, the book is worth the read, but the message it contains is well worth absorbing as well.However, let's drop back a minute.  This book was originally published under the title Island of Saints.  I read Island of Saints and enjoyed it greatly.  Now, Andrews has released it under a new title, with a few minor changes.  All of this is explained in the Author's Note at the beginning, but should be noted for purchaser's sake.  If you read Island of Saints, you're rereading when you read The Heart Mender.  Now, go ahead and reread it.  It will not hurt you one bit.Overall, the story is well-paced.  There are points where I'd like more detail, both in the history and the geog…

Abraham Lincoln Quoted by Jesus! Mark 3

Mark records a curious event in his third chapter (link). If you look at Mark 3:25, you'll see that Jesus quotes the sixteenth President of the United States, Abraham Lincoln. After all, one of the highlights of the Lincoln years is his famous speech regarding slavery in the United States where he used the phrase that "a house divided against itself cannot stand." This speech was given in 1858 when he accepted the nomination to run against Stephen A. Douglas for Senate, but is still remembered as the defining speech regarding slaveholding in the United States. I recall being taught in school how brilliant and groundbreaking the speech was, how Lincoln had used such wise words to convey his thought. Yet the idea was not original to Lincoln. Rather, it was embedded in Lincoln from his time reading the Bible. Now, I have read varying reports about Lincoln's personal religious beliefs: some place him as a nearly completely committed Christian while others have him somewh…

Book: Vindicating the Vixens

Well, if Vindicating the Vixens doesn’t catch your attention as a book title, I’m not sure what would. This volume, edited by Sandra L. Glahn (PhD), provides a look at some of the women of the Bible who are “Sexualized, Vilified, and Marginalized.” As is frequently the case, I was sent a copy of this book in exchange for my review.Let’s take this a stage at a time. First stage: book setup. This is primarily an academic Biblical Studies book. Be prepared to see discussions of Greek and Hebrew words, as appropriate. You’ll also need a handle on the general flow of Biblical narrative, a willingness to look around at history, and the other tools of someone who is truly studying the text. This is no one-day read. It’s a serious study of women in the Bible, specifically those who either faced sexual violence or who have been considered sexually ‘wrong’ across years of study.A quick note: this book is timely, not opportunistic. The length of time to plan, assign, develop, and publish a multi…