If you are thinking it will not take down the quality of USA education several notches just coz the Dept. had Education in its name, you don't know what is coming for you. And Don Donny always follows through on all his crazy ideas!
Pretty cool that the EO cites a stat from the National Assessment of Educational Progress as evidence of the department’s failings, without acknowledging of course that the NAEP is administered by the Department of Education. I’m sure the problem will vanish once we no longer have the metrics to track it!
Understandable. Other countries seem to have education figured out, but now it's time to let America try out what it excells at, a free market implementation. I've seen a lot of good ideas on this forum for how it could work so I'm curious to see the results.
He doesn't have the authority to shut it down, this power belongs to congress. Whether or not you agree with eliminating this department, you should want the law to be followed and the enumerated constitutional powers respected.
False on both counts. Supreme Court can hear a case on it and block it if they wish, and congress can fail to impeach, but it doesn't mean he isn't breaking the law. He took an oath to follow the constitution. He is breaking that oath. He is a flagrant criminal and an out of control president. If you agree with this, you are as unamerican as he is.
The President is not some automaton who has to keep departments running because Congress created the department. He has lots of leeway and decision making power. In this case, ED was not completely shut down, its functions were severely reduced. Which the President has authority to do.
I think shutting ED down is good. They overreached by putting their tentacles into how moral and social processes at the local school and college level were run. Good riddance. Let the states run things like the constitution intended. That's what following the constitution is about.
Running departments that congress created is exactly what executive branch's job is! That's the US system of government and very much what the constitution about.
This is an overreach of presidential power and anyone who cares about law and order should oppose it. If you want the ED shut down, then get congress to do it. Republicans control both houses, so why not do it the legal way?
The way the run the departments is up to the President is my point. Here, the President decided it would be best to cut down the ED as much as possible. Doing it via Congress would in all likelihood be impossible, Congress cannot get anything done these days, so the best way to get it done is via executive order.
He's said publicly, more than once, that he intends to shut it down. This is not a case of the president working within the leeway of his office and making small changes. He said he was going to shut it down and then made actions to do just that. It is an overreach of presential power. Congress not working well is not an excuse, any more than robbing someone is ok because you needed cash and the lineup for the bank was too long. The ends don't justify the means.
This is part of what he was directly elected to do, and he is doing what he can with the powers he has to do what he was elected to do. Everyone knows Congress won’t get it done, so good governance would be to route around Congress to do it, and so it’s a good excuse.
Both my children have greatly benefited from the ED due to disabilities. Likely without it they would not be in college right now. Pell grants ensured that I could afford college. But apparently you are unaware of any of these things that the ED does. This is the definition of throwing the baby out with the bathwater. None of this is legal, and I sincerely doubt if people actually knew what ED does they would support this travesty. Either way, do it legally, or get out of my country, you fascist.
The Republican dream for education has been to introduce vouchers so the wealthy can get a big break off their private schooling costs while simultaneously draining tax dollars out of the public education system. Ultimately, it will either force the public school system to start charging fees or close shop in favor of private alternatives, and the vouchers will inevitably fall short of the total cost presented to parents, ensuring the poor lose access to education entirely.
That’s why you make public schools better instead of drain more money from them to give a limited number of people lifeboats. It doesn’t matter if individuals acting in their own interest would choose to use them. Of course they’d use the vouchers for their own kids even if that meant a little less money available for public schools.
The fact that people would use the vouchers is not proof that the vouchers are a good idea or that public schools are not. It is simply the very predictable outcome of pretty much any time you give individuals the choice to act in their own self-interest over the needs of the population as a whole.
Many/most people if given the choice would also opt to skip jury duty, or to not pay taxes, or to cut to the front of busy lines. This is not evidence that those things are bad. It is evidence that you can’t give them the choice
Private schools already exist, why does private enterprise need the government’s help ?
Besides people already pay for public schools all the time by moving to an area with “good schools”. So the answer is to adequately fund public schools.
It’s a distributive effect of the social safety net
Currently, your property tax (well, the property tax of everyone in your administrative district) pays for your local public schools. Consider this as school tuition.
But this disincentives people from sending their kids to private schools since they would then be paying tuition twice, once via property tax to the local public school and second to the private school.
One solution is school vouchers where you use the property tax money for the private school tuition. Makes the public schools compete fairly with the private schools and allows not so well off folks to send their kids to private schools if they want.
Should I as a parent be forced to send my kids to a shitty school because of where I am residing and my lack of wealth?
> But this disincentives people from sending their kids to private schools since they would then be paying tuition twice, once via property tax to the local public school and second to the private school.
Why does the funding-type of the schools matter?
Does a public police force disincentivize people from hiring private security body-guards?
I’m not a criminal I don’t need police to be following me around, checking my speed on the highway
> Does a public police force disincentivize people from hiring private security body-guards?
Yes of course, but you are asking if you need private security for everyone using vouchers. We as a society have decided that having police is better for society instead of private security vouchers due to various reasons.
However, this question for schools remain open.
(Also, did I say the funding type of the schools matter? That’s a different discussion.)
The question remains open because different schools provide different types and quality of education (good schools, bad schools, religious schools, schools focused on science or arts, schools with different teaching methods, schools with gang violence, etc). Therefore, parents should be able to choose the schools they send their kids to despite their circumstances, and we as a society should enable them that choice.
My statement was about incentives for parents. If you want to enable parents the choices, one way to improve the incentives is school vouchers.
> Therefore, parents should be able to choose the schools they send their kids to despite their circumstances, and we as a society should enable them that choice.
I don't think you clearly explained why they can't already choose.
People vote with their wallets and their feet all the time.
At what price should "we as a society" enable parents to send their kids to any school they want ?
They can, if they have the money, which not everyone does. More people can, if they are given school vouchers. The price is less corresponding funding for public schools per student that chooses the school voucher.
So we are looking at more parents being able to choose schools vs less corresponding funding for public schools. I think it’s worth it to go for vouchers, two advantages being it gives parents choice, and it makes schools compete in a market.
What a mess. I have no words at this point.
If you are thinking it will not take down the quality of USA education several notches just coz the Dept. had Education in its name, you don't know what is coming for you. And Don Donny always follows through on all his crazy ideas!
Pretty cool that the EO cites a stat from the National Assessment of Educational Progress as evidence of the department’s failings, without acknowledging of course that the NAEP is administered by the Department of Education. I’m sure the problem will vanish once we no longer have the metrics to track it!
Here’s a small HN discussion on the topic from eight years ago - https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=13600211
An absolute showdown of ridiculousness and stupidity.
“There may be times when we are powerless to prevent injustice, but there must never be a time when we fail to protest.” - Elie Wiesel
Dumb people voted them in, dumb people made them rich and they know it.
This is staring to look more like an assault on the educated. Maybe its time we sharpen our pencils.
> This is staring to look more like an assault on the educated.
The educated already got their education.
[flagged]
[flagged]
Understandable. Other countries seem to have education figured out, but now it's time to let America try out what it excells at, a free market implementation. I've seen a lot of good ideas on this forum for how it could work so I'm curious to see the results.
He doesn't have the authority to shut it down, this power belongs to congress. Whether or not you agree with eliminating this department, you should want the law to be followed and the enumerated constitutional powers respected.
Supreme Court says he can do it and if congress doesn’t agree they have to impeach him. That’s the law.
False on both counts. Supreme Court can hear a case on it and block it if they wish, and congress can fail to impeach, but it doesn't mean he isn't breaking the law. He took an oath to follow the constitution. He is breaking that oath. He is a flagrant criminal and an out of control president. If you agree with this, you are as unamerican as he is.
The President is not some automaton who has to keep departments running because Congress created the department. He has lots of leeway and decision making power. In this case, ED was not completely shut down, its functions were severely reduced. Which the President has authority to do.
I think shutting ED down is good. They overreached by putting their tentacles into how moral and social processes at the local school and college level were run. Good riddance. Let the states run things like the constitution intended. That's what following the constitution is about.
Running departments that congress created is exactly what executive branch's job is! That's the US system of government and very much what the constitution about.
This is an overreach of presidential power and anyone who cares about law and order should oppose it. If you want the ED shut down, then get congress to do it. Republicans control both houses, so why not do it the legal way?
The way the run the departments is up to the President is my point. Here, the President decided it would be best to cut down the ED as much as possible. Doing it via Congress would in all likelihood be impossible, Congress cannot get anything done these days, so the best way to get it done is via executive order.
He's said publicly, more than once, that he intends to shut it down. This is not a case of the president working within the leeway of his office and making small changes. He said he was going to shut it down and then made actions to do just that. It is an overreach of presential power. Congress not working well is not an excuse, any more than robbing someone is ok because you needed cash and the lineup for the bank was too long. The ends don't justify the means.
This is part of what he was directly elected to do, and he is doing what he can with the powers he has to do what he was elected to do. Everyone knows Congress won’t get it done, so good governance would be to route around Congress to do it, and so it’s a good excuse.
Do it legally, or get the fuck out of my country, you fucking fascist.
Both my children have greatly benefited from the ED due to disabilities. Likely without it they would not be in college right now. Pell grants ensured that I could afford college. But apparently you are unaware of any of these things that the ED does. This is the definition of throwing the baby out with the bathwater. None of this is legal, and I sincerely doubt if people actually knew what ED does they would support this travesty. Either way, do it legally, or get out of my country, you fascist.
[flagged]
> now it's time to let America try out what it excells at, a free market implementation
I sure hope it will figure it out better than free-market healthcare, or energy distribution (look Texas).
In all seriousness, how do you see this going down?
The Republican dream for education has been to introduce vouchers so the wealthy can get a big break off their private schooling costs while simultaneously draining tax dollars out of the public education system. Ultimately, it will either force the public school system to start charging fees or close shop in favor of private alternatives, and the vouchers will inevitably fall short of the total cost presented to parents, ensuring the poor lose access to education entirely.
Public schools are so good that nobody would use their vouchers for private school.
Right?
That’s why you make public schools better instead of drain more money from them to give a limited number of people lifeboats. It doesn’t matter if individuals acting in their own interest would choose to use them. Of course they’d use the vouchers for their own kids even if that meant a little less money available for public schools.
The fact that people would use the vouchers is not proof that the vouchers are a good idea or that public schools are not. It is simply the very predictable outcome of pretty much any time you give individuals the choice to act in their own self-interest over the needs of the population as a whole.
Many/most people if given the choice would also opt to skip jury duty, or to not pay taxes, or to cut to the front of busy lines. This is not evidence that those things are bad. It is evidence that you can’t give them the choice
Private schools already exist, why does private enterprise need the government’s help ?
Besides people already pay for public schools all the time by moving to an area with “good schools”. So the answer is to adequately fund public schools.
It’s a distributive effect of the social safety net
Currently, your property tax (well, the property tax of everyone in your administrative district) pays for your local public schools. Consider this as school tuition.
But this disincentives people from sending their kids to private schools since they would then be paying tuition twice, once via property tax to the local public school and second to the private school.
One solution is school vouchers where you use the property tax money for the private school tuition. Makes the public schools compete fairly with the private schools and allows not so well off folks to send their kids to private schools if they want.
Should I as a parent be forced to send my kids to a shitty school because of where I am residing and my lack of wealth?
> But this disincentives people from sending their kids to private schools since they would then be paying tuition twice, once via property tax to the local public school and second to the private school.
Why does the funding-type of the schools matter?
Does a public police force disincentivize people from hiring private security body-guards?
I’m not a criminal I don’t need police to be following me around, checking my speed on the highway
Do I need a private security voucher ?
> Does a public police force disincentivize people from hiring private security body-guards?
Yes of course, but you are asking if you need private security for everyone using vouchers. We as a society have decided that having police is better for society instead of private security vouchers due to various reasons.
However, this question for schools remain open.
(Also, did I say the funding type of the schools matter? That’s a different discussion.)
The question remains open because different schools provide different types and quality of education (good schools, bad schools, religious schools, schools focused on science or arts, schools with different teaching methods, schools with gang violence, etc). Therefore, parents should be able to choose the schools they send their kids to despite their circumstances, and we as a society should enable them that choice.
My statement was about incentives for parents. If you want to enable parents the choices, one way to improve the incentives is school vouchers.
> Therefore, parents should be able to choose the schools they send their kids to despite their circumstances, and we as a society should enable them that choice.
I don't think you clearly explained why they can't already choose.
People vote with their wallets and their feet all the time.
At what price should "we as a society" enable parents to send their kids to any school they want ?
They can, if they have the money, which not everyone does. More people can, if they are given school vouchers. The price is less corresponding funding for public schools per student that chooses the school voucher.
So we are looking at more parents being able to choose schools vs less corresponding funding for public schools. I think it’s worth it to go for vouchers, two advantages being it gives parents choice, and it makes schools compete in a market.