Posted on 11/20/2004 2:38:25 PM PST by everitt12
Since his re-election, President Bush has spoken a number of times about domestic reforms designed to create an "Ownership Society." Among the best known of those proposed reforms are personal Social Security accounts and health savings accounts that would give individuals, rather than government, control over their financial futures and health care.
Both of those initiatives are essential reforms, and an Ownership Society itself is desperately needed. But there is a third component that should be included in this agenda: education.
If an Ownership Society means anything, it should mean giving parents control over their children's education. When children are assigned by bureaucrats to a government school, as they are today, parents lose that control, and the government in effect robs parents of their rights and authority.
(Excerpt) Read more at cato.org ...
Schools should be returned to the community level --- let people decide if they will have a school in their community and how much they will pay for it. The federal government should get entirely out of "education".
Worthy bump. V's wife.
Bush makes me uneasy in these areas. Arlen Spector, Spellings, big education: these are the things I don't relish about him. V's wife.
This is a unique idea. Since parents have invested in College annuities, maybe they should begin with 1st thru 12th grade as well. I expect there is an allocation "per student" cost that can be assessed State to State...and probably school district to district.... A set amount should follow the student.which could be used in parochial or public school.
Or get the federal government out of education completely. If communities paid for their own schools with no federal grants or other federal funds or rules, it wouldn't cost $10,000 a year to educate one student.
I couldn't agree more. I homeschool and my particular virtual school is under attack by the Wisconsin Teacher's union. They are suing the school saying that since we parents are not certified teachers, we shouldn't be able to educate our own children . . . .
I don't see Presiudent Bush EVER vetoing a GOP-backed piece of legislation in the House. So I'm not too worried.
In addition, Cognress does not have the power to force school choice on states. But they can, however, offer "transition assistance" to states that undertake fundamental school choice. Another option would be for Congress to enact School Choice in D.C., Guam, and Puerto Rico, territories that fall under federal juristiction. But I'm not even aware of any such proposals in Congress.
Bush's NCLBA was designed to take away the Democrats' monopoly on the issue of education, just at the prescription Medicare legislation was designed to take away the Democrats' monopoly on the issue of health care.
Agree - for every $1 that the Fed. allocates, $.90 is used for the Feds' clerical administration.
Have you seen the daily Federal Register? (www.federalregister.gov) it is absurd the amount of paperwork for controlling paperwork, related to paperwork ad nauseum.
kind thoughts.
In an area where everyone homeschools there should be no need for any kind of government schools. That's not the case now --- but we should go back to what the Constitution decided --- and it limited the scope of the federal government. It was never given the authority over education and should remove itself. Same with health care.
Schools should not exist, except for the children of truly disabled parents, and even then, it would be better to place such children with other homeschooling parents.
People who live in areas with bad school districts are free to take on another job; forgo having another child out of wedlock; forgo taking drugs and other costly illegal pastimes, and move. Last I looked there was nothing chaining the feet of people dissatisfied with their local schools to the pavement.
And how will these "other homeschooling parents" be persuaded to add these children to their own mix?
At least Spellings (new ed. secy) isn't fond of vouchers. All we need is another welfare program, this time launched on the federal level. You'd think Cato Institute, as libertarians, would be opposed to them.
Where is this utopia to be found? At present, homeschooling is about 2% at most of the school-age population. Even with widespread awareness and more lenient state laws (compared to 20 years ago), the numbers are still comparatively small - mostly because homeschooling requires one parent to stay home.
There will still be a need for schools, because there are homeschoolers who do transition to school. One support group I belonged to for awhile had virtually no homeschoolers over 6th or 7th grade - they almost all went to middle school (or more rarely, high school) after being homeschooled as younger kids.
Yes --- there would still be a need for schools. Cooperatives, private schools and if the community decides --- public schools. Public schools were local government controlled and funded. Many neighborhoods would want a good public school because it tends to increase home values. You could purchase your home in an area with no schools and save the tax money but you could decide to live where the schools are good but you'd have to pay.
Probably with their own siblings, cousins, or others with similar needs whose parents homeschool.
Yes --- the Federal Register is amazing to see. Imagine we are the ones who pay for this! Just like the 60,000 page "free-trade" documents that spell out all the many regulations.
I'm on the same page with you here. Keep in mind that *states* generally have compulsory attendance (and the compulsory adoption of school districts) in their state constitutions.
I see that as being within the rights of states, and an expression of state sovereignity. If people don't want to live in a high-tax state, they're free to move to a low-tax state.
I'm also with you that private schools in general should be unregulated, but we do have to deal with the question of militant Islamic schools teaching jihad. That wasn't an issue 20 years ago when many of these private school / homeschooling issues were being hammered out.
Or it might be better if we examined our immigration policies so that only those compatible with our values and rule by the Constitution (versus Koran) be allowed to immigrate here. We don't need those who have no use for our values in the first place --- why allow the free-for-all immigration and then attempt to control them in ways that wouldn't be aligned with the Constitution?
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.