Santorum: Parents should run schools

[Lincoln Republican]

http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-3460_162-57381049/santorum-parents-should-run-schools/?tag=contentBody;cbsCarousel

CBS News Face the Nation Feb 19/12 Santorum talking with Bob Schieffer

Former Pennsylvania Senator Rick Santorum told CBS News' "Face the Nation" host Bob Schieffer that the federal and state government should not be involved in educating children, but rather parents should take on that role.

Yes, because all parents are qualified to teach algebra and calculus to their children.

Oh, I can see it now, children in the poor parts of large inner citiy areas are really going to greatly benefit from home schooling.

How many families in America find it necessary for both parents to work just to make ends meet, let alone one parent being available to home school the children?

Let alone the social interaction that children and youth grow from in attending school.

And who monitors 50,000,000 classrooms spread throughout the nation in private homes?

And just exactly how is all this going to be funded?

Santorum has done Gingrich one better than when he proposed to colonize the moon. 

[Is Totally Not Feeblepizza.]

Technicality:

Aren't many public school teachers already parents?

[Wisconsin+17]

Hey I teach homeschool kids - it's not really hard for homeschool kids to get supplements in areas where their parents are not that strong. I teach history.

As for the social interaction - maybe true in the days before txt messaging, facebook, etc. Not today. The only difference is they get a lot less of the negative interaction - you all know what I mean, and more of the positive. I'd argue they are better socialized.

[Queen Mum Inks.LWC]

Dude, he's not talking about eliminating public education.  Did you even read your article?

Santorum: "Local communities and parents should be the ones who are in control of public education"

...

You must be logged in to read this quote.

now, I think that's a severe overstep for a president to do.  Let the states do what they want to do, and don't throw away the 10th Amendment.  But he's not saying everybody should be homeschooled.

[ajb]

Dude, he's not talking about eliminating public education.  Did you even read your article?

Santorum: "Local communities and parents should be the ones who are in control of public education"

...

You must be logged in to read this quote.

now, I think that's a severe overstep for a president to do.  Let the states do what they want to do, and don't throw away the 10th Amendment.  But he's not saying everybody should be homeschooled.

What I don't get here is why state governments are the villains in all of this. Given that kids can't choose their parents, or their school districts, it would be nice if somebody was trying to ensure consistently high standards, no?

[Fmr President & Senator Polnut]

Any evidence on educational outcomes that that tack actually works?

[Likely Voter]

I think I figured it out

Rick Santorum is a time traveler from the 16th century. It explains everything.

[Queen Mum Inks.LWC]

Dude, he's not talking about eliminating public education.  Did you even read your article?

Santorum: "Local communities and parents should be the ones who are in control of public education"

...

You must be logged in to read this quote.

now, I think that's a severe overstep for a president to do.  Let the states do what they want to do, and don't throw away the 10th Amendment.  But he's not saying everybody should be homeschooled.

What I don't get here is why state governments are the villains in all of this. Given that kids can't choose their parents, or their school districts, it would be nice if somebody was trying to ensure consistently high standards, no?

At times, state regulations can be bad for the system.  A guy in Lansing often doesn't know how to fix a broken system in Detroit.  That being said, at least the guy in Lansing recognizes that the system in Detroit needs fixing.  You need central structure to ensure that things are running smoothly everywhere, but when it comes time to fix things, the best way to fix it is usually at the local level, rather than from that centralized system.

[Torie]

This one, unlike the other Rick "exposees" of Rick thought for the day, is a bum rap.  Here is what Rick said:

You must be logged in to read this quote.

I don't happen to agree, since many local communities are doing a suck job of it, and the parents are largely AWOL, but the comment is pretty mainstream. And oh yes, it is "run," not "teach."  There is a difference.

Winfield just as a suggestion, I would pick your shots more carefully. I try when I launch one, to make sure that I am drawing blood. And Rick is a target rich environment, so that shouldn't be too hard.

[ajb]

Dude, he's not talking about eliminating public education.  Did you even read your article?

Santorum: "Local communities and parents should be the ones who are in control of public education"

...

You must be logged in to read this quote.

now, I think that's a severe overstep for a president to do.  Let the states do what they want to do, and don't throw away the 10th Amendment.  But he's not saying everybody should be homeschooled.

What I don't get here is why state governments are the villains in all of this. Given that kids can't choose their parents, or their school districts, it would be nice if somebody was trying to ensure consistently high standards, no?

At times, state regulations can be bad for the system.  A guy in Lansing often doesn't know how to fix a broken system in Detroit.  That being said, at least the guy in Lansing recognizes that the system in Detroit needs fixing.  You need central structure to ensure that things are running smoothly everywhere, but when it comes time to fix things, the best way to fix it is usually at the local level, rather than from that centralized system.

I'll buy that. But there are good reasons for doing some things, like setting curriculum at the state or (dare I say it...) at the national level.

When conservatives start talking about devolving more school control to local levels, I worry about two things:

1) erosion of curricular standards under parental pressure (I'd include under here, for example, some communities changing the way they teach science or history to suit local political or religious agendas)
2) making sure that rich suburbs get to spend more money on schools, and don't have to help subsidize poorer districts.

I get why parents want the best for their kids, and want their local schools to get their tax money, but consistently good public schools are one of the best long-term engines for economic growth.

[Joe Republic]

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Rick Santorum calls something anachronistic.  Without a hint of irony.

[J. J.]

Technicality:

Aren't many public school teachers already parents?

Ah, aren't most school boards elected by parents?

[Torie]

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Rick Santorum calls something anachronistic.  Without a hint of irony.

What's "anachronistic" about home schooling and the one room for all ages and grades school house?   I mean, Lincoln attended a one room school house for a couple of years only, and that was it. And he wrote the Gettysburg address. They must have been fantastic educational venues. Case closed!

[Southern Senator North Carolina Yankee]

They don't already? Especially the rich ones, they seem to always get their way somehow.

[Torie]

They don't already? Especially the rich ones, they seem to always get their way somehow.

Ah, upper middle class to rich suburban school districts I don't think are in play much here.  I suspect the parents are all over the schools in Atherton, CA.  

[Southern Senator North Carolina Yankee]

They don't already? Especially the rich ones, they seem to always get their way somehow.

Ah, upper middle class to rich suburban school districts I don't think are in play much here.  I suspect the parents are all over the schools in Atherton, CA.  

Smithfield-Selma, NC is hardly upper middle class to rich suburbs.

[Queen Mum Inks.LWC]

Dude, he's not talking about eliminating public education.  Did you even read your article?

Santorum: "Local communities and parents should be the ones who are in control of public education"

...

You must be logged in to read this quote.

now, I think that's a severe overstep for a president to do.  Let the states do what they want to do, and don't throw away the 10th Amendment.  But he's not saying everybody should be homeschooled.

What I don't get here is why state governments are the villains in all of this. Given that kids can't choose their parents, or their school districts, it would be nice if somebody was trying to ensure consistently high standards, no?

At times, state regulations can be bad for the system.  A guy in Lansing often doesn't know how to fix a broken system in Detroit.  That being said, at least the guy in Lansing recognizes that the system in Detroit needs fixing.  You need central structure to ensure that things are running smoothly everywhere, but when it comes time to fix things, the best way to fix it is usually at the local level, rather than from that centralized system.

I'll buy that. But there are good reasons for doing some things, like setting curriculum at the state or (dare I say it...) at the national level.

When conservatives start talking about devolving more school control to local levels, I worry about two things:

1) erosion of curricular standards under parental pressure (I'd include under here, for example, some communities changing the way they teach science or history to suit local political or religious agendas)
2) making sure that rich suburbs get to spend more money on schools, and don't have to help subsidize poorer districts.

I get why parents want the best for their kids, and want their local schools to get their tax money, but consistently good public schools are one of the best long-term engines for economic growth.

I agree.  That being said, I disagree that the Department of Education as established is Consitutional.  I don't buy the Commerce Clause argument for that.  That being said, I would support an amendment providing for a Department of Education, but passing such an amendment would be opposed by both sides: GOP because it's pro-union and anti-states' rights and Democrats because they would have to admit that the DoE up until now was unconstitutional, so failure of the amendment to pass would mean an abolition to the DoE.

[True Federalist (진정한 연방 주의자)]

I don't much care for the USDoE myself, but I consider its functions to be constitutional.  It implements its demands not via "you must do this whether you want to or not", but "if you want this money, then you must do this".   Federal spending on education falls squarely under the authority of the general welfare clause.

[🐒Gods of Prosperity🔱🐲💸]

Winfield: abolish PTAs and homeschooling, let feds run children's lives

[BigSkyBob]

Dude, he's not talking about eliminating public education.  Did you even read your article?

Santorum: "Local communities and parents should be the ones who are in control of public education"

...

You must be logged in to read this quote.

now, I think that's a severe overstep for a president to do.  Let the states do what they want to do, and don't throw away the 10th Amendment.  But he's not saying everybody should be homeschooled.

What I don't get here is why state governments are the villains in all of this. Given that kids can't choose their parents, or their school districts, it would be nice if somebody was trying to ensure consistently high standards, no?

This presupposes that the consensus of parents active in their local school district aren't interested in "high standards."

[ajb]

Dude, he's not talking about eliminating public education.  Did you even read your article?

Santorum: "Local communities and parents should be the ones who are in control of public education"

...

You must be logged in to read this quote.

now, I think that's a severe overstep for a president to do.  Let the states do what they want to do, and don't throw away the 10th Amendment.  But he's not saying everybody should be homeschooled.

What I don't get here is why state governments are the villains in all of this. Given that kids can't choose their parents, or their school districts, it would be nice if somebody was trying to ensure consistently high standards, no?

This presupposes that the consensus of parents active in their local school district aren't interested in "high standards."

Actually, mine is the position that presupposes nothing about what parents will be interested in.  I do think that if you have local control over curricula, you'll get some places where parents demand, and get, a rigorous and comprehensive curriculum. You'll have other places where graduation standards, perhaps, get relaxed, so that everyone looks good. You'll have still other places where local school boards get co-opted by a tiny minority of parents who manage to impose their own political or religious views on their children's schools (and, to be sure, some places where those parents do represent the majority).

[BigSkyBob]

Technicality:

Aren't many public school teachers already parents?

Ah, aren't most school boards elected by parents?

But, isn't that why the folks here are suggesting that their decisions be overruled by Washington?

[BigSkyBob]

Dude, he's not talking about eliminating public education.  Did you even read your article?

Santorum: "Local communities and parents should be the ones who are in control of public education"

...

You must be logged in to read this quote.

now, I think that's a severe overstep for a president to do.  Let the states do what they want to do, and don't throw away the 10th Amendment.  But he's not saying everybody should be homeschooled.

What I don't get here is why state governments are the villains in all of this. Given that kids can't choose their parents, or their school districts, it would be nice if somebody was trying to ensure consistently high standards, no?

This presupposes that the consensus of parents active in their local school district aren't interested in "high standards."

Actually, mine is the position that presupposes nothing about what parents will be interested in.  I do think that if you have local control over curricula, you'll get some places where parents demand, and get, a rigorous and comprehensive curriculum. You'll have other places where graduation standards, perhaps, get relaxed, so that everyone looks good. You'll have still other places where local school boards get co-opted by a tiny minority of parents who manage to impose their own political or religious views on their children's schools (and, to be sure, some places where those parents do represent the majority).

One of the possibilities is that Washington mandates "relaxed" graduation standards. Our current national model stresses the performance of the tenth percentile, insisting that the tenth percentile do well enough to graduate. How is that compatible with "a rigorous and comprehensive curriculum?" It isn't really. Nor, is imposing the political and religious views of Washington bureaucrats an attractive alternative local control.

[○∙◄☻¥tπ[╪AV┼cVê└]

But what if you don't actually live in the district and are just milking them for cash for some questionable online school your kids are enrolled at?

[Pingvin]

Winfield: abolish PTAs and homeschooling, let feds run children's lives