No Child Left Behind Act

[Emsworth]

Then why do they have a history of leaving federal funds unspent?

I'll concede the point that not all states are dependent on the federal government for funding, but presumably, some of them are. It would be madness for a state that is facing a budget crisis, for example, to turn down federal funding.

[A18]

Federal education spending is a small percentage of the total, but even in cases of "unfunded mandates," where the schools actually lose money by adopting the standards, there's political pressure to accept, even though the attitude defies plain common sense.

If this sort of thing wasn't effective, there wouldn't be a uniform drinking age of 21.

[David S]

Emsworth is correct.

Sorry, but setting a national level of educational performance in no way "destorys the independence" of individual states . . . unless of course you want more generation of kids who underachieve on the international level.  And if that's the case, then the kids won't learn nearly enough about the Constitution as they should.  But if you're happy with that, by all means, disagree with any attempt by the nation to improve itself.

There is no constitutional authorization for the federal government to be involved in education. They should stay out of it.  

[GOP = Terrorists]

Notice I said 'union-oriented time server teachers' rather than 'teachers.'  I really should have just said the teacher's union.  I didn't mean to attack all teachers.  I'm sorry it was taken that way by you.

Ok so you're fine with the 1% that are anti-labor but the rest can go to hell.  I only hope the GOP attacks teachers in CT as it will have the same result it did in Cali but moreso. =)

[MODU]

Hey, we're making headway.  Thank you for pointing out that guidelines do not destroy anything.

If the government requires you to pray three times a day, that destroys your religious independence. Doesn't matter if you can pray four times a day.

Just like under NCLB, the states are not required to meet the goals.  If the state chooses not to improve its educational standards, the government assumes that the state can provide for their own education, and will decrease the funding level.  Sounds like something you would be for.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Not under the actual Constitution, which you've already admitted. You simply want to ignore it.
[/quote]

Not at all.  I love our Consitution.  I'm just not going to let myself be strangled to death by strict interpretations.  Much like the Bible, you either follow it verbatim (those people are sometimes called Fanatics), or you accept it for what it is, which is a guide to live a Christian life in the hope that there is a God and an afterlife.

[ATFFL]

Then why do they have a history of leaving federal funds unspent?

I'll concede the point that not all states are dependent on the federal government for funding, but presumably, some of them are. It would be madness for a state that is facing a budget crisis, for example, to turn down federal funding.

[quote]Every state has millions of unspent federal education dollars from 2000-2002.[/qoute]

States are getting and not spending federal money left and right. 

[A18]

Hey, we're making headway.  Thank you for pointing out that guidelines do not destroy anything.

If the government requires you to pray three times a day, that destroys your religious independence. Doesn't matter if you can pray four times a day.

Just like under NCLB, the states are not required to meet the goals.  If the state chooses not to improve its educational standards, the government assumes that the state can provide for their own education, and will decrease the funding level.  Sounds like something you would be for.

Okay, you agree with me that they're the same. So you don't think my example destroys your religious independence either.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

It's not about a strict interpretation. You are simply ignoring the Tenth Amendment.

[Emsworth]

Not at all.  I love our Consitution.  I'm just not going to let myself be strangled to death by strict interpretations.  Much like the Bible, you either follow it verbatim (those people are sometimes called Fanatics), or you accept it for what it is, which is a guide to live a Christian life in the hope that there is a God and an afterlife.

In other words, you suggest that some parts of the plain text of the Constitution should be ignored when it is convenient.

States are getting and not spending federal money left and right. 

That is not to say that they are completely unreliant on federal funding.

[A18]

They're not dependent, Emsworth. Federal education spending is very minor. However, states always seem to take what they can get, even if it results in a net loss.

[MODU]

Okay, you agree with me that they're the same. So you don't think my example destroys your religious independence either.

Not at all.  If the state thinks they can do it better, then they don't need federal funding.  NCLB does not force the state to do anything (unlike how you stated in your counter-example).

You must be logged in to read this quote.

It's not about a strict interpretation. You are simply ignoring the Tenth Amendment.
[/quote]

I'm not ignoring anything.  I'm just lot limiting my sight to just one or two sentences, but rather accepting the document as a whole.

[Emsworth]

I'm not ignoring anything.  I'm just lot limiting my sight to just one or two sentences, but rather accepting the document as a whole.

The "document as a whole" does not mean "every part of the document except the Tenth Amendment." That provision is a part of the Constitution, and just like any other, it should not be ignored.

[A18]

The point is the coercion. Let's say the government cuts you off welfare unless you pray three times a day.

The document as a whole does not authorize this.

[MODU]

I'm not ignoring anything.  I'm just lot limiting my sight to just one or two sentences, but rather accepting the document as a whole.

The "document as a whole" does not mean "every part of the document except the Tenth Amendment." That provision is a part of the Constitution, and just like any other, it should not be ignored.

Again, nowhere in the 10th amendment does it state the people and/or the states cannot allocate these powers up to the federal level.

[Emsworth]

Again, nowhere in the 10th amendment does it state the people and/or the states cannot allocate these powers up to the federal level.

Correct, but the only way to do so is by amending the Constitution.

[Jake]

Wow.  Are there any Republicans who actually supported this?  Getting a mostly negative reaction here.  Check this out.

Anyone who does needs a quick trip to the gas chambers.

That comment's based more on personal experience than ideology. I support limited federal standards for receiving federal funds (as well as state and local standards), but the NCLB Act is incredibly horrible, especially in its requirement that all students essentially reach the same minimum level.

[opebo]

Exactly.  Liberals oppose NCLB because they want the money without the standards, as they would have gotten from the Democrats.

Precisely.  To provide the funds is a good and helpful thing, but these arbitrary standards are absurd.  Of course poors will never be able to meet the standards as well as rich, as long as the current heirarchy is in place. 

[Speed of Sound]

NCLB is absolutely horrid. A poorly funded piece of Washington crap.

[ATFFL]

NCLB is absolutely horrid. A poorly funded piece of Washington crap.

Then why are states unable to spend all of their NCLB money?

[MasterJedi]

Anything that makes an real attempt at improving our education standards, I support.  NCLB falls in that category, though it's not perfect.

^^^^^

[Dr. Cynic]

I thought No Child Left Behind would be a good thing. It hasn't been executed correctly in my opinion. Perhaps adding some things would improve it. But yes, I supported it originally.