I understand your arguments for keeping some parts of the Department of Education.
These are essentially the same reasons that industries have standards for screw threads and oil viscosity. Those standards were developed by industry representatives, not government bureaucrats, meeting under the aegis of approved organizations such as SAE and ANSI and IEEE, that allow them to "conspire" without violating anti-trust laws.
I have been involved in developing and maintaining standards for computer programming languages for four decades, serving on both ANSI and ISO committees, so I know the method works. The committees include users as well "vendors" and, by and large, the "vendors" are responsive to users' concerns.
I believe the correct way to achieve the goals you set out for keeping at least some of the Department of Education would be better served by "industry standards committees." The problem is that the present accreditation groups, who arrogate to themselves the decisions about curricula and methods and too many other things, are dominated by the same sort of insiders-only swamp creatures as those who populate government agencies. But I think there might be a better chance to include public "users" of education as well, thereby to change the course using organizations outside of government.
At least were I served, the computer programming language committees were not dominated by vendors. The charters for community education standards organizations should limit the fraction of members who represent government organs at any level, or political organizations, or NGOs, or …. Something like "at least half of the members shall be concerned with the education they and their families receive rather than representatives of organizations that deliver education."
John…good perspective but we disagree on this one. Although your goals are great, you must understand that the Dept of Education tilts to the whims of the President at the time, and its charter and direction would change with each President.
Don: I hear you but I don't believe that. When a major federal department establishes programs, policies, mission, etc. they are not just tossed out when a new President comes along.
I can see that John is committed to a federal hope for an education fix. We all know though, that communities can be made of up children of advantage or disadvantage. Let's not kid ourselves that one size fits all. It never does. This is where the locals must fight to improve education for their particular situation. If you are over 40, you know that education has been dumbed downed. The "gifted" programs where downsized in favor of a multilingual public classroom where few thrive.
Linda: So does a State's rules and regulations be a "one-size fits all" solution? Does a school district's regulations become a "one size fits all" matter?
What I am saying is that the Left has done a great deal of harm through the federal Department of Education — which means that the opposite can be done: the Right doing a great deal of Good through the Department.
If local people are the solution, show me a single school district in the US that has publicly opposed the NGSS — the horifficaly bad Science standards.
I am absolutely no fan of the federal government, but we need to do what is necessary to fix the terrible problem of incompetent curricula. The Department of Education is the best chance we have of doing that — by far!
RH: Because, by-and-large, they have all been infiltrated by Leftist progressives. E.g., NONE of them teach Critical Thinking. E.g., 49 of them adopted the progressive Science standards. E.g., essentially all of them teach SEL, etc.
What is needed is leadership on the federal level to straighten out this mess.
The US public school system does precisely what it is designed to do, and does it better every year.
We need 50 separate, LOCALLY controlled school systems, so that innivation can take place. The states that get things right will be copied by the rest.
Heather: 50 State Boards of Education are currently the primary controllers of K-12 education. There is no evidence that any of them recognize the dire state of their education system, or that any of them are seriously committed to fixing it. For example, I am not aware of a single State that formally teaches students to be Critical Thinkers. Not one! It's easy to demonize the federal government (as they usually deserve it), but absolutely nothing the federal government is doing is preventing this.
Federalism is indeed messy but the US produced the biggest economy in the world with multiple state departments of education in charge (and worse - many of them left things up to local boards of education!). We produced world leading STEM projects (semiconductors, the moon landing, etc.) under that regime. Great art. Great writing. Great films. Great music. Etc. Despite its messiness, federalism means mistakes don't get made on a national scale and allows experimentation to reveal what works best. The federal government is grossly overstretched in what it does - leave education to the states and focus the feds on their core missions.
Andy: I appreciate your historical comparison. The difference then was not the decentralization, but rather the national commitment to a classical education. However, since there was no one leading this effort, the Left picked off one state after another to adopt progressive methodologies — e.g., in math, in writing, in spelling, in history, etc. The worst is in Science (my field). We are in a disastrous situation not due to the federal government, but due to the 50 undisciplined, easily swayed State education departments. What happened with the NGSS is an example of incompetence.
For Barbara: Whenever I confront an anti-parent activist, I ask whether they support and respect the United Nations. They inevitably agree that they do. Then I quote Article 26.3 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights:
"Parents have the prior right to choose the kind of education that shall be given to their children."
Then I am met with stammering or vacant stares. Try it.
Antonio Gramsci was a vile socialist philosopher. He realized that the revolution was not coming to Europe and America by violent overthrow, as it had in Russia. He realized it had to be done by "the long march through the institutions:" Bureaucracy, media, entertainment, and especially education. When Gus Hall realized that his Communist Party of the USA was not getting any traction, as a party, he told his members to infiltrate the Democrat party, which they clearly control today.
If the Department of Education is not completely destroyed and replaced with something entirely new, every Gramsci socialist, especially those who don't realize that's who they are, must be rooted out. The same thing applies to all state and county departments of education (and everything else). Gramscism has had a century to penetrate everything, and it will take decades of herculean effort to clean it out. President Trump and Elon Musk and Vivek Ramaswami and Linda McMahon should repeat what FDR (!) said: Public sector unions constitute two parties negotiating from the same side of the table against the absent taxpayer. Then decertify them, as did Ronald Reagan to PATCO when the Air Traffic Controllers went on strike. Ask Congress to make it illegal for the Federal government to negotiate with any employee organizations. Congress and the Executive and those organizations should be negotiating with the public, not with each other against the absent public.
Mark Levin's Saturday 30 November show had several excellent long-form interviews about this, including with Larry Arnn and Tom Sowell and Victor Davis Hanson. I've urged Prof. Hanson to conspire with John (I couldn't find contact information of the others). A few dozen voices shouting in the wilderness, no matter how brilliantly cogent, cannot compete effectively against the organized entrenchment of tens of thousands of useful idiots. At least one big, vocal, well funded organization, composed of members equally as effective at "community organizing" as the communists have become, might have a chance. An enormous problem is that conservatives are simply not interested in this method. But we must become interested and expert. A few octagenarians might get the ball rolling, but we need strong young blood, such as Charlie Kirk and Scott Presler, to keep it going.
Parents must have a say about the education their children receive. Looking back I see the difference in one city of the teachings going on in one school versus another. One school teachers rule and children must listen without an opportunity to say one word. In the other school the teachers relate to the children; and permit them to share in the learning process. In many instances homeschooled children are better educated, because the parents want their children to succeed. While many teachers are simply into teaching for the paycheck. Good teachers are critical in the field of education. The Department of Education is too massive and involved in running itself. .If the states were in charge, there would be more accountability. We should not depend on a Department of Education in Washington, D.C. It has to be closer to home. Parents must be aware and involved in how their children are being educated. ,
Barbara: Parents indeed shold be more involved and have some say. However, when a State Board of Education determines the curricula, essentially no parent has any say. That is the way it is currently. So the Federal Dept of Education is NOT dictating, curricula, what books are in school libraries, parental rights, etc. In other words, most of the blame for the current public school mess, goes to States. If the federal Dept of Education was radically changed, that could be an exceptional countrywide game-changer, for the better.
FYI, the Department of Education is one of the smallest federal departments.
The federal Dept of Ed only pretends they don't determine curricula. The truth is that schools have to comply with many different regulations and curriculum mandates to access federal funding. Remember how the feds used highway funding to extort the states into enacting seat belt laws and 21 year-old drinking ages back in the 80's? They use the same methods to mandate curriculum
Heather: If what you say is true (IMO it is not), then that is all the more reason to take this unique opportunity to radically reform the Department of Education to be a powerful force for leading States to change the downhill direction they are currently going in.
We should abolish the role of feds in education and return control to parents and local communities. Yes, some will do it better than others, such is freedom. Check out Hillsdale College online course about proper K-12 education. Check out USPIE.org. Some people have thought long and hard on this topic. Your solution is communist top down central planning, full of good ideas, never works in practice.
Melanie: I appreciate your perspective, but it makes zero sense to have 50 different sets of education rules and standards.
The Left has demonstrated that when they take control of federal and state agencies, that they are very effective in imparting their ideology. The same will work for the Right.
John, your comprehensive article is rich in good ideas but I do take issue with not abolishing the federal Dept of Ed. As soon as leftists get back in power - as they inevitably will - they will destroy whatever good has been done and turn it to their point of view again. It is much like Roe - it is up to the people to decide what they want in each state, and actually, the closer to home control resides, the better, as parents have more power to effect change. Otherwise I agree with all of your suggestions, especially addressing the matter of religion, as you are correct that relativism and atheism are religions. As someone wisely observed, everyone worships something!
Nan: I understand that possibility, which of course applies to all state and federal agencies. The difference here is that we have the opportunity for doing unprecedented GOOD. We should take advantage of that opportunity! To pass that up based on a possible future fear seems to be cutting off our nose to spite our face.
Nope. Drive a stake through its heart, if you want improvement in education. The founding fathers REJECTED allocating education to the fedgov in the Constitution--and they were correct to do so
You are a wonderful idealist. But the fact is that even if they make big changes for good thousands of teachers, bureaucrats and schools all the way down the line will thwart them. Shock treatment is necessary.
I think you’re missing the point of having “50 departments of education,” that is accountability to the people. That principle of subsidiarity which states that issue are best dealt with closest to where those who are being served, is the main idea behind eliminating the DoE.
How would your idea make sure elected education officials in states and localities remain accountable to the people?
Yikes, forgive my poor grammar! Subsidiarity: the principle which holds that issues are best addressed closest to those being served. This is the main idea behind abolishing the DoE.
Granny: Your idea sounds good on the surface, but it is not happening now. How many people even know that they have a State School Board? Less than 5%. State School Boards are often not acting in the best interest of their students, parents or State. Consider that 49 State School Boards robotically approved changing their State Science Standards to the progressive and horifically bad NGSS. (See here <https://c19science.info/Education/Fixing_Education.pdf>.) Numerous other examples abound. The answer is that States need positive leadership.
NGSS was instituted everywhere due to FEDERAL Dept of Ed pressure on the states. That is how such things are invariably done. When I was in college (as an elementary ed major, in the early 90's), they were pushing a new set of math standards, requiring that all Ed majors take Environmental Education, and, in that class, pushing lesson plans direct from UN Agenda 21-affiliated agencies
Heather: Please provide the evidence for your opinion. I have researched thie NGSS matter extensively, and that is not what happened. The Progressive authors of the NGSS put together a polished dog & pony show and physically went to every State's Department of Education — who then voted to adopt these Science standards. 49 have done so. Not a single State objected to any of the incompetent contents of the NGSS — e.g., that they scrapped the traditional Scientific Method. Part of the problem is that almost no State Boards have people with the competence to make these decisions — e.g., scientists in this case. Another part is that many State Board members are political appointees. Turning the K-12 school system over to 50 different groups is extremely nonsensical.
What you describe in terms of teaching critical thinking and choosing age appropriate materials were ideas that guided my actions as a professional school librarian between 1972 and 2008. It was clear by the time I retired that both the American Library Association and the American Association of School Librarians were overtaken by progressive politics, bent on promoting an agenda.
Joanne: TY for sharing a connection with your personal experiences. When I went to high school (pre Civil War), things were VERY different, and MUCH better. This also shows that it can be done.
When I was in High school (Parochial) we had a class called" Religions of man". It was great for giving us an appreciation for how others experience worship. We needed to pick a faith and attend a worship service. You have to get out of your pod and see others. We also had to volunteer in our community. Great experiences.
Tim: When I was in my early 20s, for several years I taught CCD classes to public school high school students. It was about other religions — exactly as you describe. It was interesting and educational to understand the beliefs of others.
I understand your arguments for keeping some parts of the Department of Education.
These are essentially the same reasons that industries have standards for screw threads and oil viscosity. Those standards were developed by industry representatives, not government bureaucrats, meeting under the aegis of approved organizations such as SAE and ANSI and IEEE, that allow them to "conspire" without violating anti-trust laws.
I have been involved in developing and maintaining standards for computer programming languages for four decades, serving on both ANSI and ISO committees, so I know the method works. The committees include users as well "vendors" and, by and large, the "vendors" are responsive to users' concerns.
I believe the correct way to achieve the goals you set out for keeping at least some of the Department of Education would be better served by "industry standards committees." The problem is that the present accreditation groups, who arrogate to themselves the decisions about curricula and methods and too many other things, are dominated by the same sort of insiders-only swamp creatures as those who populate government agencies. But I think there might be a better chance to include public "users" of education as well, thereby to change the course using organizations outside of government.
At least were I served, the computer programming language committees were not dominated by vendors. The charters for community education standards organizations should limit the fraction of members who represent government organs at any level, or political organizations, or NGOs, or …. Something like "at least half of the members shall be concerned with the education they and their families receive rather than representatives of organizations that deliver education."
John…good perspective but we disagree on this one. Although your goals are great, you must understand that the Dept of Education tilts to the whims of the President at the time, and its charter and direction would change with each President.
Don: I hear you but I don't believe that. When a major federal department establishes programs, policies, mission, etc. they are not just tossed out when a new President comes along.
I can see that John is committed to a federal hope for an education fix. We all know though, that communities can be made of up children of advantage or disadvantage. Let's not kid ourselves that one size fits all. It never does. This is where the locals must fight to improve education for their particular situation. If you are over 40, you know that education has been dumbed downed. The "gifted" programs where downsized in favor of a multilingual public classroom where few thrive.
Linda: So does a State's rules and regulations be a "one-size fits all" solution? Does a school district's regulations become a "one size fits all" matter?
What I am saying is that the Left has done a great deal of harm through the federal Department of Education — which means that the opposite can be done: the Right doing a great deal of Good through the Department.
If local people are the solution, show me a single school district in the US that has publicly opposed the NGSS — the horifficaly bad Science standards.
I am absolutely no fan of the federal government, but we need to do what is necessary to fix the terrible problem of incompetent curricula. The Department of Education is the best chance we have of doing that — by far!
50 states did fine before 1968. Why are you sure they can’t educate children again?
RH: Because, by-and-large, they have all been infiltrated by Leftist progressives. E.g., NONE of them teach Critical Thinking. E.g., 49 of them adopted the progressive Science standards. E.g., essentially all of them teach SEL, etc.
What is needed is leadership on the federal level to straighten out this mess.
The US public school system does precisely what it is designed to do, and does it better every year.
We need 50 separate, LOCALLY controlled school systems, so that innivation can take place. The states that get things right will be copied by the rest.
Heather: 50 State Boards of Education are currently the primary controllers of K-12 education. There is no evidence that any of them recognize the dire state of their education system, or that any of them are seriously committed to fixing it. For example, I am not aware of a single State that formally teaches students to be Critical Thinkers. Not one! It's easy to demonize the federal government (as they usually deserve it), but absolutely nothing the federal government is doing is preventing this.
Federalism is indeed messy but the US produced the biggest economy in the world with multiple state departments of education in charge (and worse - many of them left things up to local boards of education!). We produced world leading STEM projects (semiconductors, the moon landing, etc.) under that regime. Great art. Great writing. Great films. Great music. Etc. Despite its messiness, federalism means mistakes don't get made on a national scale and allows experimentation to reveal what works best. The federal government is grossly overstretched in what it does - leave education to the states and focus the feds on their core missions.
Andy: I appreciate your historical comparison. The difference then was not the decentralization, but rather the national commitment to a classical education. However, since there was no one leading this effort, the Left picked off one state after another to adopt progressive methodologies — e.g., in math, in writing, in spelling, in history, etc. The worst is in Science (my field). We are in a disastrous situation not due to the federal government, but due to the 50 undisciplined, easily swayed State education departments. What happened with the NGSS is an example of incompetence.
For Barbara: Whenever I confront an anti-parent activist, I ask whether they support and respect the United Nations. They inevitably agree that they do. Then I quote Article 26.3 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights:
"Parents have the prior right to choose the kind of education that shall be given to their children."
Then I am met with stammering or vacant stares. Try it.
Antonio Gramsci was a vile socialist philosopher. He realized that the revolution was not coming to Europe and America by violent overthrow, as it had in Russia. He realized it had to be done by "the long march through the institutions:" Bureaucracy, media, entertainment, and especially education. When Gus Hall realized that his Communist Party of the USA was not getting any traction, as a party, he told his members to infiltrate the Democrat party, which they clearly control today.
If the Department of Education is not completely destroyed and replaced with something entirely new, every Gramsci socialist, especially those who don't realize that's who they are, must be rooted out. The same thing applies to all state and county departments of education (and everything else). Gramscism has had a century to penetrate everything, and it will take decades of herculean effort to clean it out. President Trump and Elon Musk and Vivek Ramaswami and Linda McMahon should repeat what FDR (!) said: Public sector unions constitute two parties negotiating from the same side of the table against the absent taxpayer. Then decertify them, as did Ronald Reagan to PATCO when the Air Traffic Controllers went on strike. Ask Congress to make it illegal for the Federal government to negotiate with any employee organizations. Congress and the Executive and those organizations should be negotiating with the public, not with each other against the absent public.
Mark Levin's Saturday 30 November show had several excellent long-form interviews about this, including with Larry Arnn and Tom Sowell and Victor Davis Hanson. I've urged Prof. Hanson to conspire with John (I couldn't find contact information of the others). A few dozen voices shouting in the wilderness, no matter how brilliantly cogent, cannot compete effectively against the organized entrenchment of tens of thousands of useful idiots. At least one big, vocal, well funded organization, composed of members equally as effective at "community organizing" as the communists have become, might have a chance. An enormous problem is that conservatives are simply not interested in this method. But we must become interested and expert. A few octagenarians might get the ball rolling, but we need strong young blood, such as Charlie Kirk and Scott Presler, to keep it going.
Parents must have a say about the education their children receive. Looking back I see the difference in one city of the teachings going on in one school versus another. One school teachers rule and children must listen without an opportunity to say one word. In the other school the teachers relate to the children; and permit them to share in the learning process. In many instances homeschooled children are better educated, because the parents want their children to succeed. While many teachers are simply into teaching for the paycheck. Good teachers are critical in the field of education. The Department of Education is too massive and involved in running itself. .If the states were in charge, there would be more accountability. We should not depend on a Department of Education in Washington, D.C. It has to be closer to home. Parents must be aware and involved in how their children are being educated. ,
Barbara: Parents indeed shold be more involved and have some say. However, when a State Board of Education determines the curricula, essentially no parent has any say. That is the way it is currently. So the Federal Dept of Education is NOT dictating, curricula, what books are in school libraries, parental rights, etc. In other words, most of the blame for the current public school mess, goes to States. If the federal Dept of Education was radically changed, that could be an exceptional countrywide game-changer, for the better.
FYI, the Department of Education is one of the smallest federal departments.
The federal Dept of Ed only pretends they don't determine curricula. The truth is that schools have to comply with many different regulations and curriculum mandates to access federal funding. Remember how the feds used highway funding to extort the states into enacting seat belt laws and 21 year-old drinking ages back in the 80's? They use the same methods to mandate curriculum
Heather: If what you say is true (IMO it is not), then that is all the more reason to take this unique opportunity to radically reform the Department of Education to be a powerful force for leading States to change the downhill direction they are currently going in.
Interesting!...The Department of Education is one of the smallest federal departments.
Yes
We should abolish the role of feds in education and return control to parents and local communities. Yes, some will do it better than others, such is freedom. Check out Hillsdale College online course about proper K-12 education. Check out USPIE.org. Some people have thought long and hard on this topic. Your solution is communist top down central planning, full of good ideas, never works in practice.
Melanie: I appreciate your perspective, but it makes zero sense to have 50 different sets of education rules and standards.
The Left has demonstrated that when they take control of federal and state agencies, that they are very effective in imparting their ideology. The same will work for the Right.
Did my part to get this in the hands of Trump and DOGE. You have some great ideas that should be considered at the highest levels. Thank you!
Thank you!
John, your comprehensive article is rich in good ideas but I do take issue with not abolishing the federal Dept of Ed. As soon as leftists get back in power - as they inevitably will - they will destroy whatever good has been done and turn it to their point of view again. It is much like Roe - it is up to the people to decide what they want in each state, and actually, the closer to home control resides, the better, as parents have more power to effect change. Otherwise I agree with all of your suggestions, especially addressing the matter of religion, as you are correct that relativism and atheism are religions. As someone wisely observed, everyone worships something!
Nan: I understand that possibility, which of course applies to all state and federal agencies. The difference here is that we have the opportunity for doing unprecedented GOOD. We should take advantage of that opportunity! To pass that up based on a possible future fear seems to be cutting off our nose to spite our face.
Nope. Drive a stake through its heart, if you want improvement in education. The founding fathers REJECTED allocating education to the fedgov in the Constitution--and they were correct to do so
You are a wonderful idealist. But the fact is that even if they make big changes for good thousands of teachers, bureaucrats and schools all the way down the line will thwart them. Shock treatment is necessary.
Nan: I am advocating for a radical change — which will be shock treatment.
I think you’re missing the point of having “50 departments of education,” that is accountability to the people. That principle of subsidiarity which states that issue are best dealt with closest to where those who are being served, is the main idea behind eliminating the DoE.
How would your idea make sure elected education officials in states and localities remain accountable to the people?
Yikes, forgive my poor grammar! Subsidiarity: the principle which holds that issues are best addressed closest to those being served. This is the main idea behind abolishing the DoE.
Granny: Your idea sounds good on the surface, but it is not happening now. How many people even know that they have a State School Board? Less than 5%. State School Boards are often not acting in the best interest of their students, parents or State. Consider that 49 State School Boards robotically approved changing their State Science Standards to the progressive and horifically bad NGSS. (See here <https://c19science.info/Education/Fixing_Education.pdf>.) Numerous other examples abound. The answer is that States need positive leadership.
NGSS was instituted everywhere due to FEDERAL Dept of Ed pressure on the states. That is how such things are invariably done. When I was in college (as an elementary ed major, in the early 90's), they were pushing a new set of math standards, requiring that all Ed majors take Environmental Education, and, in that class, pushing lesson plans direct from UN Agenda 21-affiliated agencies
Heather: Please provide the evidence for your opinion. I have researched thie NGSS matter extensively, and that is not what happened. The Progressive authors of the NGSS put together a polished dog & pony show and physically went to every State's Department of Education — who then voted to adopt these Science standards. 49 have done so. Not a single State objected to any of the incompetent contents of the NGSS — e.g., that they scrapped the traditional Scientific Method. Part of the problem is that almost no State Boards have people with the competence to make these decisions — e.g., scientists in this case. Another part is that many State Board members are political appointees. Turning the K-12 school system over to 50 different groups is extremely nonsensical.
Maybe if there was more of this type of education we might appreciate each other's differences. It makes us all better.
It makes things better only for those who are not so "open-minded" that their brains have fallen out.
Tim: Yes, that is one of many benefits.
What you describe in terms of teaching critical thinking and choosing age appropriate materials were ideas that guided my actions as a professional school librarian between 1972 and 2008. It was clear by the time I retired that both the American Library Association and the American Association of School Librarians were overtaken by progressive politics, bent on promoting an agenda.
Joanne: TY for sharing a connection with your personal experiences. When I went to high school (pre Civil War), things were VERY different, and MUCH better. This also shows that it can be done.
When I was in High school (Parochial) we had a class called" Religions of man". It was great for giving us an appreciation for how others experience worship. We needed to pick a faith and attend a worship service. You have to get out of your pod and see others. We also had to volunteer in our community. Great experiences.
Tim: When I was in my early 20s, for several years I taught CCD classes to public school high school students. It was about other religions — exactly as you describe. It was interesting and educational to understand the beliefs of others.