« American Values | Main | ? »
Federalism Reasserts Itself
Eduwonk covers the news that some Chicago-area schools are considering rejecting Title I education funding in order to get out of complying with NCLB mandates as primarily a story about NCLB. For my part, though, the best thing about NCLB was that it heralded conservative acquiescence to slipping further down the slope toward federal control of the school system, an important point of principle in which the Good Guys are consistently hampered by the bothersome US Constitution. Clearly, we need to make the federal "offer you can't refuse" more irrefusable. The obvious suggestion (and it's a good one!) is just to increase the level of contingent federal aid to local school districts to make it harder to turn down. But more insidious approaches could be considered. We could make, for example, federal highway dollars contingent on accepting federal education mandates. Or, better, we could criminalize the interstate shipping of textbooks for the use in non-compliant publicly funding schools.
August 19, 2004 | Permalink
TrackBack
TrackBack URL for this entry:
https://www.typepad.com/services/trackback/6a00d8345160fd69e200d83459ed6269e2
Listed below are links to weblogs that reference Federalism Reasserts Itself:
» Gift Basket
from Tom Jamme's Blog
Sweet Blessings, a new Christian-based online shop featuring cookie bouquets, candy bouquets and gift baskets, opens with a campaign to donate a portion of all profits to Habitat For Humanity. The devastation of hurricanes Katrina and Rita, while not a... [Read More]
Tracked on Oct 6, 2005 11:16:04 PM
Comments
Well, by the very same token, you have the Solomon Amendment, by which conservatives have been able to maintain the (discriminatory) military's presence as a recruiter on university campuses, by conditioning federal $$ on the issue.
Posted by: next big thing | Aug 19, 2004 1:26:54 PM
For my part, though, the best thing about NCLB was that it heralded conservative acquiescence to slipping further down the slope toward federal control of the school system, an important point of principle in which the Good Guys are consistently hampered by the bothersome US Constitution.
That's naive, I think, but why Democrats went along with it, thinking that it would be fully funded and supported. The idea from the beginning I think was to destroy federal education by underfunding mandates and getting states to run away from it.
Of course, I think that the universal militia (something the right usually notes is the Constitutional definition) and the Congress express power to govern training of the militia so long as it is actually directly provided by the states make a major federal education role expressly Constitutional and defensible even from a fairly narrowly strict constructionist viewpoint.
Personally, I think the whole "bribe to do things Congress has no power to regulate" approach is, frankly, just as unconstitutional as Congress directly regulating. The power to reward is the power to direct just as surely as the power to tax is the power to destroy.
Posted by: cmdicely | Aug 19, 2004 1:33:44 PM
"the universal militia * * * and the Congress express power to govern training of the militia so long as it is actually directly provided by the states make a major federal education role expressly Constitutional and defensible"
Wow! I'm pretty liberal, and as an attorney, I occasionally dabble in constitutional law, but even I never thought of conscripting all kindergarteners into the militia! :)
Posted by: rea | Aug 19, 2004 1:45:41 PM
"We could make, for example, federal highway dollars contingent on accepting federal education mandates."
Gee, how did they overlook that one? Federal highway dollars are already contingent on obeying a lot of federal mandates that have little or nothing to do with highways. I'd just sort of assumed the education stuff was done the same way...
Anyway, I doubt that Bush has any nefarious plan, except to get elected. The guy may have to make federalist noises to keep his base from revolting, but he doesn't believe in that stuff himself.
Posted by: Brett Bellmore | Aug 19, 2004 1:45:50 PM
We could make, for example, federal highway dollars contingent on accepting federal education mandates.
We could call it the "Road to Your Child's Future" Bill or something like that.
Yeah, that's the ticket!
Posted by: praktike | Aug 19, 2004 1:49:01 PM
Wow! I'm pretty liberal, and as an attorney, I occasionally dabble in constitutional law, but even I never thought of conscripting all kindergarteners into the militia!
You don't conscript people into the militia. Conscription is the mechanism by which people already in the unorganized militia are called into active service with the federal armed forces.
Posted by: cmdicely | Aug 19, 2004 1:51:15 PM
Anyway, I don't think you could make kindergardeners into militia members, without having to let them own guns...
Posted by: Brett Bellmore | Aug 19, 2004 1:53:05 PM
It may be that the Federal Government cannot make "federal highway dollars contingent on accepting federal education mandates." While I do not recall all of the details of the case the Supreme Court ruled in South Dakota vs. Dole that requirements attached to federal funds must be related to the purpose of the funds. So the implication of this case would be that you can dictate education policy by threatening to withhold federal education funds, but not by threatening to withhold education funds.
Posted by: mike | Aug 19, 2004 2:04:48 PM
er, that last sentence should read: So the implication of this case would be that you can dictate education policy by threatening to withhold federal education funds, but not by threatening to withhold transportation funds.
Posted by: mike | Aug 19, 2004 2:06:17 PM
Matthew, did you attend public schools growing up?
Posted by: Dan | Aug 19, 2004 2:13:22 PM
> Anyway, I don't think you could make
> kindergardeners into militia members,
> without having to let them own guns...
Plenty of kindergarden children out here in my red state home that have their own rifle in the gun rack. Quite a shock to my spouse when she moved here!
So that part is all settled.
Cranky Observer
Posted by: Cranky Observer | Aug 19, 2004 2:18:50 PM
> While I do not recall all of the details of
> the case the Supreme Court ruled in South
> Dakota vs. Dole that requirements attached
> to federal funds must be related to the
> purpose of the funds
The practical effect of which has been to make the drafters of laws more and more clever in how they define relatedness.
Cranky
Posted by: Cranky Observer | Aug 19, 2004 2:22:14 PM
>Anyway, I don't think you could make kindergardeners into militia members, without having to let them own guns
The second amendment says nothing about ownership. It refers to a right to "keep and bear arms", it does not refer to a right to own them.
A nit, perhaps, but textually accurate.
Posted by: raj | Aug 19, 2004 2:41:45 PM
So, what else do you think "keeping" means in that context? "Keep and bear" means "own and carry".
Posted by: Brett Bellmore | Aug 19, 2004 2:49:24 PM
While I do not recall all of the details of the case the Supreme Court ruled in South Dakota vs. Dole that requirements attached to federal funds must be related to the purpose of the funds.
The drinking age being 21 doesn't have much to do with transportation.
Posted by: Kriston | Aug 19, 2004 3:19:32 PM
What a goofy idea.
Posted by: Jeffrey Davis | Aug 19, 2004 3:23:18 PM
Dan, why on earth does it matter what kind of schools MY went to? This is the kind of ridiculous ad hominem argument that has nothing to do with education policy. You could be homeschooled and still care deeply about public education for social justice reasons, or simply b/c you live in a society where your tax dollars support and the economy relies on the products of public schools!
Posted by: flip | Aug 19, 2004 3:39:21 PM
flip,
I think the implication was, denying highway funds because of a state's education policy is such a dumb idea, it could only come from a graduate of our public school system. At least, that's my implication.
Posted by: Steve | Aug 19, 2004 3:46:44 PM
Matt: perhaps here or in TAP, you can at some point put forth some arguments as to why you think Washington would do a better job on education than the states.
I'm open to any ideas for improving public schools, including nationalizing them if it would actually work. I just don't see any evidence that the federal government would handle education better. I'm moreover worried that when the Feds make a mistake, the whole country will suffer. At least with 50 state education departments, there's the possibility that bad ideas get tried out and discarded at the state level, before they're allowed to spread and harm the nation.
Posted by: P.B. Almeida | Aug 19, 2004 3:46:47 PM
Plus, P.B., there's that pesky Constitution.
Posted by: Steve | Aug 19, 2004 3:52:21 PM
As a resident of the state of Alabama, I see no reason to devolve any more responsibility to a state government. There is in fact mountains of evidence that the state of Alabama handles most programs more incompetently than the federal government. Bring on nationalization!
Posted by: catfish | Aug 19, 2004 4:09:34 PM
This is completely unrelated to this post and I'm sorry for the intrusion but can someone send me a link with the quote(s) made by Bush saying Jews would go to hell? Thanks
Posted by: alex | Aug 19, 2004 4:34:36 PM
So, what else do you think "keeping" means in that context? "Keep and bear" means "own and carry".
I think "keep and bear" actually means "possess in the home" and "possess on the person", and neither means "own", but "own and carry" makes sense, too.
Posted by: cmdicely | Aug 19, 2004 4:38:13 PM
Jerry Pournelle has a brief discussion of this issue today:I got this comment: "You must trust your neighbors more than I do."Which, when you come right down to it, is an important comment. Who do you trust? Your neighbors, or someone else. If someone else, who else? Experts? How are the experts to be appointed? By each other ("peer review")? By professors of education, which is another way of saying "peer reviewed" experts.Worth considering.Cranky
Posted by: Cranky Observer | Aug 19, 2004 4:40:02 PM
School teachers, school boards, Congressmen (among others).
Many Americans get this idea in their head that "their" person is just super, without fault, and morally superior. This, in spite of clear evidence is many or most cases that the object of their love is nothing special, or perhaps really inadequate for their job.
So: We LOVE local control of schools, even if the evidence is there that the schools are not performing up to the need of producing graduates that can excel in the worldwide marketplace for jobs.
What makes us think that the school board is qualified to decide on the curriculum?
Or that the people on the state textbook selection committee are more than political hacks?
I really don't like the idea of national control of schools, except maybe for quality standards, because that would make politicizing eduction even worse.
But the US is losing the race in education. One of unremarked outcomes of crappy education is a citizenry that is not able to analyze political choices, sort the true from the false, and decide rationally rather than on the basis of personality or emotional considerations.
Therefore, I'm conflicted: The current system is broken in education below the college level. I'm willing to try more federal involvement (and money) to see what results obtain. Certainly the current Title VII requirement for equal access to sports activity for men and women (in order to get federal funding) has been a great success, IMO.
So, I'll join Matt in saying: "Make the bribe bigger" in NCLB.
Posted by: JimPortlandOR | Aug 19, 2004 4:41:12 PM
The comments to this entry are closed.
