18 October 2010

Why We Don't Need Dept of Ed

Share
In school, I hated it when other classmates would run amock. Often, we would all be punished as a group with our heads down for the outlandish antiques of the few or the one. It wasted time, and I wasn't there to look like I was taking a nap; i was there to learn. I am what I am even though I attended the public school system. Sure, let my high school and alma mater take credit for me if they like, but that does not make it true. They provided me a place and an opportunity to succeed, and my parents and I did the rest (yes, I do give credit to my parents for their help and 'motivational counseling').

Like many government agencies, the Department of Education is a misnomer. Nobody gets educated by the department of education. If a student fails, the DoEd takes no responsibility. They penalize the institution by withholding grant money, which exacerbates the problem for other students who now have fewer resources. All the department of education actually does is shuffle money around.

Until Jimmy Carter took office, we somehow managed to educate children in this nation just fine. Before the Carter Catastrophe, America produced many of the most inventive and bright young minds on the globe. Since then, we have lost momentum and standing, particularly in science and math, and so I would argue that the DoEd is a dud, that it hurts education more than it helps.

The Dept of Education tells me what I can and cannot do. They tell me how much money I can and cannot use. They tell me which students must pass and fail (quotas). They don't participate directly in the education of the students and could, quite frankly, give a flying flapjack about whether instruction is good or instructors are competant. It is more interested in propping up union jobs for the NEA than in providing quality instruction for you and your children.

No comments: