Quake3World

Hannibal wrote:not if what is taught is found to be a blantant infringement on the establishment clause. See Edwards v. Aguillard, 482 U.S. 578 (1987).

Foo wrote:What?

Who's charged with upholding the constitution at the national level?

Your law and government systems are (supposed to be) seperated to facilitate just this level of control.

I should have clarified that this was my personal opinion of the constitutionality of the decision.

There is nothing in the constitution that declares school curriculum should fall under any part of the federal government.

It is my opinion that any federal court should have passed on hearing the case, on the grounds that the decision of local school curricula should be in the hands of locals who are representative of the attending students' parents -- i.e. the school board.

I am a strong advocate that decision-making like this be done at the state and local levels without getting the federal government involved -- even if the majority of the locals make retarded decisions that will put their own children at a disadvantage later in life, it is better than setting precedences for federal intervention.

Fender wrote:...

Posted at the same time.

I'm curious about Cato's stance on this though. I like the ideals they have on the issue, but they seem to be a little vague about the details.

How exactly would they suggest creating a school system that can be everything to everyone? Surely they aren't talking solely about home-schooling?

Or do they mean more of a free-market approach, where like-minded parents band together to create their own schools? This seems like a good idea to me, until I start considering the fact that there wouldn't be any basic standards for the systems in place at all.

R00k wrote:Posted at the same time.

I'm curious about Cato's stance on this though. I like the ideals they have on the issue, but they seem to be a little vague about the details.

How exactly would they suggest creating a school system that can be everything to everyone? Surely they aren't talking solely about home-schooling?

Or do they mean more of a free-market approach, where like-minded parents band together to create their own schools? This seems like a good idea to me, until I start considering the fact that there wouldn't be any basic standards for the systems in place at all.

I really haven't followed Cato in a while. I'd assume they mean a free market system with tax breaks & credits, grants, scholarships and other programs to make it possible for everyone to send their kids to the private school of their choice. Not home schooling or communal type stuff. Personally, I know that if I didn't have to pay property tax (which goes to the schools in Ohio), I could afford to send my daugther to a private school.

And as far as "basic standards" goes, do they really do any good? There are plenty of school systems that don't meet the minimum standards. The current system throws money at the problem and the parents/children still have no viable alternative. If a private school's performance were to drop, parents could simply move to a competitor. Of course measuring performance is difficult.

R00k wrote: I am a strong advocate that decision-making like this be done at the state and local levels without getting the federal government involved -- even if the majority of the locals make retarded decisions that will put their own children at a disadvantage later in life, it is better than setting precedences for federal intervention.

I tend to agree with you....as long as what gets agreed to by local yokels doesn't appear to violate larger common agreements (i.e. the Constitution).

Would there be enough grants and credits for very poor families to send their kids to private schools as well?

I mostly agree with you on the standards and such, but some gut feeling makes me uneasy about the ideas of schools with no set standards.

I tend to think that if a certain state or area have shitty schools, then the parents will start looking elsewhere, forcing them to raise their standards to compete.

But at the same time, that also seems like a recipe for a state that refuses to fund the programs well enough, which leads to the situation of a very destitute area that is uneducated, and with basically an economic class division where the poor have no way to educate themselves and can't afford to move.

I don't even know why you're having this conversation.

Teaching standards set at the national level and in line with the relevant laws + therefore constitution of the country.

Job done.

Leave the smaller less significant details to the individual states and schools. Seems to work fine for most every other western country. Especially since examinations typically happen on a wider scale.

besides, after a certain point any qualifications you might gain from a school becomes absolutely meaningless if they're all teaching a different curriculum. Hence why standardisation is needed.

Foo wrote:

R00k wrote:The fact that the court even accepted the case is wrong.

What is taught in schools is not at the mercy of governmental precedence. Just the idea that the Supreme Court can decide what does and does not get taught in schools runs counter to the ideals of the constitution.

Just because we as people can't reach a consensus doesn't mean that we should ask the courts or government to step in and decide what we "get to" teach in our schools.

What?

Who's charged with upholding the constitution at the national level?

Your law and government systems are (supposed to be) seperated to facilitate just this level of control.

I think he means wrong because the case is ridiculous. No different than a group of parents wanting to incorporate a geocentric model of the universe into an astronomy curriculum or to say that all diseases are caused by evil spirits. Those cases would likely be shot down before they go this far. ID theory is on par, scientifically, with those types of ideas...I think what he's getting at is the fact that this is such a ridiculous notion it should not have even made it this far.

I see. Fair point.

But then even as an agnostic I'd make the observation that it is sorta inevitable that religion will cause these problems. After all, you have swathes of people who's very existances are geared towards arguing for the untenable, that the unprovable is fact.

This is but one case of the general absurdity of it all rising to the surface.