To all of you who fought OBE (Outcomes Based Education) with me in Harrisburg, you know that we were really fighting the Federal Department of Education, not the bureaucrats at 333 Market Street, Harrisburg PA. Back in about 1994, in Mars PA, Helen D. Wise, Deputy Chief of Staff for programs for Governor Casey, said/wrote - and I paraphrase from my memory -
If there were no Federal Department of Education handing out millions of dollars, our state bureaucrats would not have fought so hard for OBE. I have personally spent tens of thousands of dollars and thousands of hours fighting OBE. Just take a look at the archive of my old 1999 web page. I will not vote for any candidate for President that does not favor the Elimination of the FEDERAL Department of Education. So, it is so nice to see this idea making a comeback thanks to Ron Paul.
I gave Rick Sanrorum $250 back in 1992 when he ran for Congress promising to shrink the Federal government.
Santorum started out good and voted against -
H.R. 1804 [103rd]: Goals 2000: Educate America Act
But, then he started voting to increase the size of the Federal Department of Education by voting for these 3 big bad bills -
H.R. 2884 [103rd]: School-to-Work Opportunities Act of 1994
H.R. 1385 [105th]: Workforce Investment Partnership Act of 1998
H.R. 1 No Child Left Behind Act of 2001
Santorum talks about small government, but votes for big government.
In 2000, I supported NH Senator Bob Smith for President. Smith pledged to Abolish the Department of Education - see his 2000 flyer.
Then in 2002, Santorum helped knock Smith out of the Senate by endorsing his opponent in the primary election - this violates the rule that you endorse your party's incumbent in the primary (ie. Arlen Specter excuse).
My one complaint with Ron Paul is his wording, he says he wants to "Eliminate the Department of Education".
I think he should say "There are 51 Departments of Education, I want to eliminate the FEDERAL Department of Education in Washington, and leave the other 50 State Departments of Education free to work without interference from the Federal Government."
Frank Huchrowski
http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2011/09/23/eliminating-education-department-still-option-but-unlikely-one/
Abolish the Education Department? Abandoned Idea Gets New Life
Published September 23, 2011 | FoxNews.com
Like many Republicans, Atlanta's Stella Lohmann -- a blogger, teacher and former journalist -- is fed up with mandates, funding requests, lawsuit avoidance and a one-size-fits-all approach to education and says the federal government has undertaken a massive overreach.
Now, her question on what Republicans are going to do about it – asked during the Fox News/Google debate on Thursday night -- has re-ignited a once-novel debate over eliminating the U.S. Education Department. And judging by the GOP candidates' reaction, the option may come back in vogue, if not into reality.
"I am going to promise to advocate the abolishment of the federal Department of Education," said former New Mexico Gov. Gary Johnson.
"What I would do as president of the United States is pass the mother of all repeal bills on education," said Minnesota Rep. Michele Bachmann. "Then I would go over to the Department of Education, I'd turn off the lights, I would lock the door and I would spend all the money back to the states and localities."
"You need to dramatically shrink the federal Department of Education, get rid of virtually all of its regulations," former House Speaker Newt Gingrich chimed in.
Indeed, all of the GOP candidates said they would either get rid of the department -- created in 1980 under President Jimmy Carter -- or seriously diminish its function. Their uniform responses earned wild applause during the debate.
But the idea isn't new, Rep. Ron Paul, R-Texas, pointed out, and Republicans haven't met words with actions.
"In 1980, when the Republican Party ran, part of the platform was to get rid of the Department of Education. By the year 2000, (that issue) was eliminated, and we fed on to it," Paul said. "Then ... Republicans added No Child Left Behind."
Indeed, every year from 1980-2000, Republicans included in their platform the plank: "The federal government has no constitutional authority to be involved in school curricula or to control jobs in the market place. This is why we will abolish the Department of Education," read the 1996 platform that accompanied the presidential nomination of then-Senate Minority Leader Bob Dole.
But by the mid-1990s, abolition was no longer a priority, recalled Bill Wilson, president of Americans for Limited Government. "I don't think they saw it as a big winner as such. They were looking for political talking points not policy."
Whatever the reason the plank has slipped from the platform – whether because Republicans have moved onto other agenda items, or because Americans did not find it palatable, prudent or possible -- the department continues to grow from its statistical collections and college loan processing.
By 2002, it had added a massive new mandate with the blessing of President George W. Bush. Aimed at increasing performance through testing, the bipartisan No Child Left Behind is in part responsible for exploding the education budget.
President Obama's 2012 spending request for the department is $77.4 billion for discretionary spending – up from $46.2 billion 10 years earlier. The department itself notes it has the third largest budget despite having the smallest staff of 15 Cabinet agencies.
The spending has conservatives shouting mad in the era of debt and deficit. But liberals, too, complain No Child Left Behind is too burdensome on teachers and school districts.
On Friday, Obama announced that he was going to propose an opt-out.
"We're going to let states, schools and teachers come up with innovative ways to give our children the skills they need to compete for the jobs of the future. Because what works in Rhode Island may not be the same thing that works in Tennessee -- but every student should have the same opportunity to learn and grow, no matter what state they live in," Obama said.
Despite distaste for the program, the president's move brought criticism from both sides.
"Advancing a controversial waivers plan will not only hamper efforts to chart a new course, but will prolong the failed policies of the past," wrote Rep. John Kline, R-Minn., chairman of the House Education and Workforce Committee in an op-ed in The Washington Examiner.
"In the absence of congressional reauthorization, we understand why the Obama administration is taking this action; we are keenly aware of the calls from parents, teachers and administrators for change -- sooner rather than later. Waivers are an imperfect answer to the stalemate in Congress and, at best, can provide only a temporary salve," said Randi Weingarten, president of the American Federation of Teachers.
Though the union and many Democrats are unlikely to sway from supporting the Education Department, Wilson said getting rid of No Child Left Behind may be the avenue to abolishing a major bureaucracy.
"Any law that has automatic waivers you gotta question why it was passed in the first place," he said.
Wilson suggested that Congress could eliminate the department through an evolutionary process adopted by a bipartisan committee tasked with choosing which programs are worth retaining and where they would be placed. He proposed a three-to-five-year dissolution plan that gives everybody time to adjust programs on the state and local level and to give federal workers at the department time to find their next job.
The odds are long, he admits, though they could go up "substantially" in 2013.
"Anything in this town is going to be less than 50-50," Wilson said. But, there is an "increasing ideological convergence from both the left and the right that there's a real problem that has to be addressed. … Given where we're going and all the indications, by 2013 the finances are going to be in such dire situation that they're going to have to look at bold moves."
Circles
Hangouts
Sparks
Posts
