The State of Washington has placed public education at the forefront of the States public obligation, but subrogating the curriculum to the Federal Government is not part of that deal. Our State Constitution mandates that we fully fund the public school system, but does not tell us how much to spend or what to spend it on. So, what does the State use to measure if we are adequately funding public education? Is it graduation rates? Is it a cumulative, means rated grade from student test scores? Should it be based on each graduating students ability to get a job after graduation or their ability to find placement in some institute of higher learning? Or, is it simply based on how many students are placed in a classroom with a State Certified Instructor who’s salary grows whether the children are adequately educated or not? This question needs to be fully vetted and answered before we launch into anymore new ventures in publicly funded education.
The last two weeks the SML program covered the looming national implementation of “Common Core State Standards; CCSS” and “International Baccalaureate; IB” curriculum to Washington State Public Schools. Both of these new schools of thought will cost the State of Washington hundreds of millions, if not billions, in additional tax payer expenditures. Both of these new curriculum’s have not been measured for cost benefit and success. What is the driving need to implement these changes? Is it a desire for Federal dollars to help fray the costs of an ever exploding K-12 and Higher-Ed, public school system? Is it due to a system that has turned itself over, and sheltered itself under the Federal and State Departments of Education mandates? Or, possibly due to too much influence from Union’s who only seem to care how much teachers earn and how many students are “too” many in a classroom. In addition to my previously stated concerns; why is the State of Washington and the United States for that matter, focused on putting into place a curricula that has been designed around UNESCO educational development standards?
Charles Murray of the American Enterprise Institution, published an article in the January 2012 edition of Hillsdale Colleges; Imprimus. The article addresses the historical and statistical effect of the Department of Education on public schools since it was created in the 1980’s and whether or not the United States would be better off if we did away with it. Please enjoy Mr. Murray’s article and consider what it will mean once CCS, or IB curricula are fully implemented and used to dumb-down the next generations understanding of what made the United States a super-power in economics, technology and education. With the upcoming 2013 local elections there will be many seats to fill on our School Boards and I for one would like to know what they know and how they will deal with retaining local control of our public schools.
~ Kris Halterman
Do We Need the Department of Education?
Charles Murray – American Enterprise Institute – January 2012
Charles Murray is the W.H. Brady Scholar at the American Enterprise Institute. He received his B.A. in history at Harvard University and his Ph.D. in political science from the Massachusetts Institute of Technology. He has written for numerous newspapers and journals, including the Washington Post, the Wall Street Journal, the New York Times, the Weekly Standard, Commentary, and National Review. His books include Losing Ground: American Social Policy 1950-1980, What It Means to Be a Libertarian, and Real Education: Four Simple Truths for Bringing America’s Schools Back to Reality. His new book, Coming Apart: The State of White America, 1960-2010, will be published at the end of January.
The following is adapted from a speech delivered in Atlanta, Georgia, on October 28, 2011, at a conference on “Markets, Government, and the Common Good,” sponsored by Hillsdale College’s Center for the Study of Monetary Systems and Free Enterprise.
THE CASE FOR the Department of Education could rest on one or more of three legs: its constitutional appropriateness, the existence of serious problems in education that could be solved only at the federal level, and/or its track record since it came into being. Let us consider these in order.
Many States are building resistance to; “Common Core:” Arizona, California, Colorado, Georgia, Iowa, Indiana, Michigan, Missouri, Utah, and Washington