We often hear that the word “education” is not included in the U.S. Constitution. That is true, but it does not mean that the Founding Fathers were indifferent to the importance of education. The U.S. Constitution was written and signed in 1787. Before the U.S. Constitution was adopted in 1789, the Congress passed Ordinances that expressed their commitment to the importance of public schools.
Congress enacted the Land Ordinance of 1785 to show how the new lands in the western territories should be settled. This ordinance laid out new townships into 36 sections. Section 16, in the center, was to be set aside in every township in the new Western Territory for the maintenance of public schools. (“There shall be reserved the lot No. 16, of every township, for the maintenance of public schools within the said township.”) The committee that wrote the Land Ordinance included Thomas Jefferson of (Virginia), Hugh Williamson (North Carolina), David Howell (Rhode Island), Elbridge Gerry (Massachusetts) and Jacob Read (South Carolina).
Two years later came the Northwest Ordinance of 1787. This ordinance provided land in the Great Lakes and Ohio Valley regions for settlement. (This region eventually broke into five states: Michigan, Indiana, Wisconsin, Ohio, and Illinois [and a part of Minnesota]).
Of particular interest is Article 3 of the Northwest Ordinance, which reads in part:
Religion, morality, and knowledge being necessary to good government and the happiness of mankind, schools and the means of education shall forever be encouraged.
These two ordinances were written by the Founding Fathers and the earliest Congresses, preceding the adoption of the Constitution. In addition to their central purpose, to lay out the rules for settlement, they were meant to encourage the development and proliferation of public schools in every township in every new state. The ordinances also prohibited the spread of slavery into the new territory and the new states after 1800.
While the Founding Fathers had high regard for religion, they did not want government to establish any religion. They incorporated this view into the First Amendment, which was part of the ten amendments included in the Bill of Rights, adopted on December 15, 1791. Responsility for the development and maintenance of public schools was left to the states, as is implicit in the Tenth Amendment.
The Founding Fathers were well aware of the history of religious warfare that had divided Europe for centuries and plunged the continent into chaos again and again. They wanted this new democracy to be a place of religious freedom, where each person could live in accord with his conscience without the interference or the support of government. In a land of many different forms of Christianity, as well as Judaism, the Founders wanted vigorous and successful public schools that neither favored nor opposed any religion.
It is ironic that four of the five states created under the terms of the Northwest Ordinance–Ohio, Indiana, Michigan, and Wisconsin–have chosen to disregard the clearly stated wishes of our Founding Fathers. The Northwest Ordinance did not set aside a section for religious schools or private schools. Section 16 in every town was for public schools.
Diane Ravitch's blog 
Thank you Dr. Ravitch as this is quite interesting to read – what I do wonder is why the Founding Fathers decided to leave education to the state level as opposed to a national level? That to me is one of the reasons that we had so much inequality in terms of expectations for education over the last few years and of course was one of the reasons (rightly or wrongly) that there was a push for No Child Left Behind. Also I find it interesting that in many of the nations that are succeeding with education (take Finland for example, or even Australia or New Zeland) there is a national curriculum.
One size fits all is never a good idea for any form of child development, including education. The push for one-size-fits-all curriculums has been mostly from publishers of textbooks and standardized tests so they can capitalize on the resulting economy of scale.
Even the term “standards” is meant to muddy the distinction between conformity and excellence.
It’s important to note the the Destroyers of Public Education constantly attempt to centralize control, as per the NCLB and its offspring. Education was never meant to be micromanaged by legislatures as it has come to be today, not by federal or state governments. It was supposed to be controlled by the local townships in which the families of the children attending the schools lived. The push for standards, state and national, goes against the Bill of Rights. Worse, it does not reduce inequality, but is instead the vehicle of shuttering schools, eliminating democratic control, abetting multinational corporate control, promoting segregation, and increasing inequality. Standardization is the ironic enemy of equality.
There is a huge difference between one size fits all and having similar expectations for things like graduation (number of math classes, etc). As for one size fits all – why is it that countries we look to as models have national curriculums and seem to do well around Education ??
I wonder why we’re the only nation, period, that has annual testing. It’s one thing to have a national framework (although it’s an idea directly opposed to the form of republic our Constitution delineates); it’s something else entirely to use standardized tests to enforce strict adherence to a framework.
By the way, there’s a teacher in my department who’s always been very concerned with trying to get the whole department to teach the same way she does. I will never understand why people do that.
Are we the only country in the nation that has standardized testing? Not sure about that. I would also wonder – are we among the only (I will not say the only) that offers compulsory education through the age of 16, enables all to attend public schools for free (including immigrants who may have just come to this country)…
I wonder if some of the reasons as well were that public education looked very different in the early years – in the same way that the founders didn’t include aspects like women voting, or had the 3/5 clause for slaves, they probably dind’t imagine education would look like it does today (and I think that’s a good thing)
As for teaching the same way, the need for freedom – So in some ways I completely agree – I don’t think that everyone should be taught the exact same way – I do believe that everyone should have the same opportunities, and that was NOT happening (nor is still happening) when education is left to the states…I will raise the accountability flag once again (I know Dr. Ravitch will talk about the need for accountability at the top and others will say that teachers can do it themselves) but for years we have shown that this is NOT the case…
Jlsteach,
We are the only nation that tests every child every year from grades 3-8. Most others test once in elementary, once in middle school, once in secondary school.
Diane is the expert who can answer all those questions. I am not. I just know that I am better able to do my job without so much interference from others. Just let me teach.
“Just let me teach.” That, in a nutshell, is what we should be focusing on.
I have two takes on this “debate” above. First, it is not a matter of being the only “nation that has standardized testing.” Even WITHIN our nation, we don’t have standardized testing. I taught at independent schools. For the most part, independent schools do not subject their students to standardized testing at all, with the exception of college entrance SATs and ACTs. Yet their graduates generally get accepted at the best colleges and universities in the country, some through merit, others as legacies or with parents who make substantial contributions. Their teachers are paid less, but are allowed to “just…teach.” Indeed, one piece of evidence that demonstrates the shallowness and uselessness of standardized tests is that we don’t require them after high school.
Secondly, I was peripherally involved in one of the national standards in 1994 that should have been the most controversial and turned out to be the least (which is the one Diane had a role in creating). As Lynne Cheney, from her perch as head of the NEA, gratuitously attacked the history, math, and English standards, she conveniently left out the fact that they were voluntary and envisioned as guidelines, not requirements. They were checklists, if you will, for teachers to compare to their lessons, to see if they covered topics that were listed in national standards. They were aids for teachers, not requirements. We never, ever, approached the French model that required teachers to teach x, y or z on mandated days. This is the myth of national standards that agenda-driven zealots promote.
If standardized testing and national standards take away the ability and discretion of teacher to “just…teach”, then they are counterproductive and useless.
I am all for standards as guidelines. I am personally against scripted curriculums. Yet “just let me teach” makes a huge assumption that all teachers are teaching the right material at the right time. And as I’ve said on this blog before I’ve seen that to personally not be the case.
jls, claiming that “just let me teach” is a “huge assumption that all teachers are teaching the right material at the right time” makes a huge assumption that they are not or are incapable of making reasoned decisions about teaching the students under their care. I would give them the flexibility to do what is right according to their own professionalism and I will err on the side of respecting each teacher’s integrity until proven wrong and not assume that they are incompetent, as you seem to do. And if and when I am proven wrong, I will give the mentorship of principals and master teachers rights of first refusal before making further judgments. That’s how education should work.
Should versus does are two different things…your vision is one that certainly would agree with and yet time and again I’ve seen politics, unions or other factors impact this vision. No I’m not saying all unions etc are bad. And yes there will be cases where politics plays a role in having good teachers kicked out. Dr Ravitch has pointed out to me the work of Edward Deming who not dnthatnif yiunhire the right folks who are motivated, give them training and then get out of the way good things will happen. If you are starting over a school or district that’s all well and good. But what do you do in the meantime? Have all teachers everywhere reapply? Same with principals? What about district policies that just shuffle bad teachers from one school to another? See it’s not so simple is it?
Jls, remember the teacher I mentioned who wants every other teacher in the department to be just like her? I brought her up for a reason. She’s not that great, as a teacher. Nothing special, she’s just okay. Putting down other teachers’ methods is her way of inflating herself. She doesn’t do great things; instead she boldly asserts that everyone else does things badly. It improves nothing. If I were you, I would think twice before judging my colleagues harshly. Take a long look in the mirror first. The fact is teachers do not need to be retrained and reapply for their jobs (unless they are from TFA or New York with its new no credentials needed policy). Respect your fellow teacher.
InService – over my 10 years as a teacher and then as someone who has worked with a university and a district central office, I assure you that I have “looked in the mirror” more than once. I have learned many great things from my colleagues, including some of those un-credentialed TFA teachers that you have called out. I cannot speak for the situation of your colleague – and yes I agree that someone who is so domineering and demands that all teach her way can be an issue. But I also find it interesting that you felt that you were able to judge her as an “okay teacher”…It sounds like this teacher may have some type of confidence or self-esteem issues if she always put her colleagues down. But to assume that I am in the same boat is FAR from the truth – and honestly I find it quite frustrating that if one does judge someone else that that is assumed to be horrible. Of course, that leads to what makes a great teacher -someone who bonds with the students? Someone who passes the knowledge well?
I am not saying that this teacher is right.but at the same time that does not mean that there are teachers out there that are not strong teachers…and are still allowed to teach.
So you work in a central office now? Got it.
It is my belief and understanding that the Founders decided to leave education at the state level for a variety of reasons. Most important was general agreement that the police powers—the power to regulate for the health, safety, morals and general welfare of the people—was to be reserved for the states. And the debate about the proper authority and jurisdiction of the states vs. the national government were still evolving. The federal government would also not have had the capacity, at that time, to have implemented a national plan. Had they had the speed of communications and travel we have today, I would speculate that the national role might have been more dominant.
Implicitly, they understood that education was inextricably linked with the perpetuation of the concepts of freedom and equality as enunciated in the Declaration. There is a great deal of evidence that the Framers linked education to the idea that the Constitution would be a living document, as is evident in the provisions they included to amend it. Education was the vehicle needed to ensure that future generations would both respect precedent and tradition and develop the capacity and judgment to make decisions to add, alter or abandon parts of it as historical experience changed. The Supreme Court was the most important institution to act as arbiter for future generations, which was quickly proven and affirmed in Justice Marshall’s decision in Marbury vs. Madison, which affirmed the power of judicial review, something many Founders and Framers lived to see and did not think of as being contrary to the Constitution. They understood education to be as integral a part of national security as national defense.
I think if you look carefully at the national standards for countries whose ed systems we admire you will not find a “national curriculum” per se — which is a description that better fits Common Core — but rather a framework of expectations. Schools fill in the blanks with curriculum and pedagogy, and the nation has universal exams as checkpoints every few years.
That better describes what we had in the US before NCLB, RTTT, Common Core. Some states had particularly good stds; other states were free to adopt all or some of those stds & adapt them to their own states. That is a system flexible enough to serve a large country with many regional variations.
I would disagree that Common Core is a national curriculum and not a framework. No where does the Common Core tell folks how to teach. Yes, there are CC Mathematical practice standards that are seen as good teaching, but it doesn’t say that you have to teach that way…now, maybe there are some states or districts of even school leaders that interpret it that way, but that doesn’t mean it’s the case.
I do agree that we should not use CCSS as punitive, but rather as suggestive…my issue is what happens when those don’t take the suggestions…then what? have a free for all that anyone can teach whatever they want, whenever they want?
And we have had long enough to see that neither Common Core nor aligned annual testing has done anything but harm our better schools without improving poor ones nor close achievement gaps.
But we also have seen that there was a huge gap that existed in the first place. Yes, I know, this is the point where folks will chime in and discuss the relationship between poverty and poor schools…And yes, I know that relationship and I agree with it. But I wonder, do you all think that by just giviing all school more resources that will suddenly change the teachers in the schools? Is that all we have to do? Or are there other tools. And once we do that – again, should there be any type of accountability?
Did we have a free-for-all before 2010?
I would say definitely. Each state setting its own graduation requirements (math? Who needs math? One math class to graduate is fine!) each teacher setting their own course description and what they taught so that kids from two different teachers in the same school taking the same class may come away with completely different things – how is they good??
Jaw dropping comment there, jls, just jaw dropping. So much—shall we call it stuff?—packed in so few sentences.
Greg – I realize that what I wrote my sarcasm may not have come through…so I want to be a bit more clear. Yes, prior to things like NCLB, states had different requirements for graduation etc. Some may have requirements such as having only one (or two) math classes for graduation, etc. Let’s be clear that I am NOT in favor of this, but certainly some states may have been…this leads to lots of inequality across the nation…thus in my mind the need for some type of consistency.
Oh, I want to add one thing – I missed Dr. Ravitch’s note that the US is one hf the few states that tests annually from grades 3-8, etc. I would agree with her that we do not have to test SO MUCH. As for “just let us teach” I wonder – if so many teachers were confident in their abilities, then why do so many schools spend so much time on TEST prep? Sure there is a small need to address a testing format, prepare teachers for how to take the test if on a computer. But if you know the material then why the focus on test prep?
I agree we need fewer tests, and certainly less test prep…but at the same time we need some type of accountability.
Sarcasm noted! Went right by me. Sorry. I’m not the sharpest knife in the drawer.
Reblogged this on Crazy Normal – the Classroom Exposé.
Thank you for the history lesson. Sadly, our progenitors understood the collective value of common schools that would play a role in shaping our ideals, values and common history more than so many of the craven ideologues in charge today.
You call yourself a historian? The founders were extremely clear about America NOT being a Democracy, but rather a Republic.
They also did NOT call for “Public School”, the encouraged education and that was a 10th Amendment issue left to The People (aka The Parents) to decide how to accomplish this.
In regards to religion, please reread the 1st Amendment where it says “Congress shall make no law respecting the establishment of religion or the free exercise thereof”
“Congress”, not “government”. The several States and The People were to be free from a central authority when it came to such matters
If you can’t get basic 3rd grade history correct, it’s time give it up and retire to Cuba.
Yes. I do call myself a historian. I have a Ph.D. in the history of American education from Columbia University 1975.
The founders adopted the Northwest Irdinance and set aside a plot of land in every township for the exclusive use of public schools.
What do you call yourself other than rude?
If we were younger, I’d ask you to the prom. My heart just went pit-a-pat. You go, sistah!
I would like to be younger, for sure. Ah, to be 60 again!
Drop it back twenty years from 60 and I could agree.
M. Bohr: Here we go with the libertarian BS nonsense. For pity’s sake, a republic is a form of democracy; we are a representative democracy or a republic. The terms have been used interchangeably by the presidents; Lincoln, Kennedy, Reagan, both Roosevelts and many other American presidents expressed political ideals using small-d democracy. Quote by Eugene Volokh, washingtonpostdotcom: Likewise, James Wilson, one of the main drafters of the Constitution and one of the first Supreme Court justices, defended the Constitution in 1787 by speaking of the three forms of government being the “monarchical, aristocratical, and democratical,” and said that in a democracy the sovereign power is “inherent in the people, and is either exercised by themselves or by their representatives.” Chief Justice John Marshall — who helped lead the fight in the 1788 Virginia Convention for ratifying the U.S. Constitution — likewise defended the Constitution in that convention by describing it as implementing “democracy” (as opposed to “despotism”), and without the need to even add the qualifier “representative.” End quote.
I am so sick of libertarian garbage.
“The founders were extremely clear about America NOT …”
Now that’s an amazing way of staging an argument: just use the word “extremely”, capitalize the word “NOT” a few times, and the opponent is muted. Impressive.
Here we go with the libertarian BS nonsense. For pity’s sake, a republic is a form of democracy; we are a representative democracy or a republic. The terms have been used interchangeably by the presidents; Lincoln, Kennedy, Reagan, both Roosevelts and many other American presidents expressed political ideals using small-d democracy. Quote by Eugene Volokh, washingtonpostdotcom: Likewise, James Wilson, one of the main drafters of the Constitution and one of the first Supreme Court justices, defended the Constitution in 1787 by speaking of the three forms of government being the “monarchical, aristocratical, and democratical,” and said that in a democracy the sovereign power is “inherent in the people, and is either exercised by themselves or by their representatives.” Chief Justice John Marshall — who helped lead the fight in the 1788 Virginia Convention for ratifying the U.S. Constitution — likewise defended the Constitution in that convention by describing it as implementing “democracy” (as opposed to “despotism”), and without the need to even add the qualifier “representative.” End quote.
I am so sick of libertarian garbage.
Reply
Joe, 👍👍
this is to MICHAEL BOHR
Sir… if you wish to make an argument, do so– but in this place, refrain from AD HOMINEM attacks.
You said to JOE
“You call yourself a historian?”
“If you can’t get basic 3rd grade history correct, it’s time give it up and retire to Cuba”.
LET ME SAY TO YOU, Mr BOHR… if you wish to argue here, do so, but IF YOU DO NOT KNOW HOW TO TALK TO PEOPLE WHO WRITE HERE… GIVE IT UP, AND RETIRE TO SOME SOCIAL BLOG WHERE YOU CAN SPIT OUT NASTY REMARKS…. in the manner of our President.
It just drives me nuts when the libertarians/right wingers fall back on the “it’s not in the Constitution” meme as the ultimate put down and argument killer (so they think). It’s such a lame and ridiculous contention. There are lots of things not in the Constitution, such as the air force, the right to marry, the right to travel, the right to vote (a specifically enunciated amendment), etc. Public schools would be covered by providing for the common good and the general welfare, in my opinion. Right wingers want to leave education to free market forces.
It was “…provide for the common DEFENSE, promote the general welfare and secure the blessings of liberty for ourselves and our posterity…”
I am a conservative (on most issues). The system of government in the USA is divided between the federal government, the state governments, and county/municipal governments. Most people forget that the (13 original) states set up the federal government (first under the Articles of Confederation, and then the constitution of 1789).
Governments in the USA take on all sorts of responsibilities, which are not specifically enumerated in any constitution. “Health care” does not appear in the federal constitution, but the US government operates military hospitals and hospitals on Indian reservations, and the Center for Disease Control. etc.
I cannot speak for all conservatives. But I can say, that education is a vital issue for the people of the USA. It is a national security issue. Without an educated work force, we will cease to be an economic enterprise, and become one of the (expletive) nations mentioned by Pres. Trump.
The great French statesman Clemenceau said “War is too important to be left to the generals”. I would state a corollary – Education is too important to be left to the bureaucrats, union leaders, and school administrators.
Certainly, a healthy injection of free-market forces, could serve to stimulate the education establishment in the USA, into providing a better “product”. Giving parents more direct control over the education of their children, will spur the education providers to be more responsive to their needs.
Charles,
Do you think we should have a free market in the Police, fire, highways, and all other public services? I would like a private security guard for my home, and I think the public should pay for it. Pretty dumb idea.
Q Do you think we should have a free market in the Police, fire, highways, and all other public services? I would like a private security guard for my home, and I think the public should pay for it. Pretty dumb idea. END Q
I believe sincerely, that some (not all) services currently provided by public entities, can be provided more efficiently and cost-effectively, through private contractors.
One example is fire protection. Some (not all) communities in the USA, have found that privatizing their fire protection, results in better fire protection, and lower insurance rates for the citizenry. San Mateo California (and other cities) have already contracted out their fire protection, and more are considering it. Privatization is coming. see
http://www.firehouse.com/article/12106427/can-the-american-fire-service-be-privatized
Even the professional fire fighters can see this.
Canada has privatized their air-traffic control system. The result has been more efficient flying, and increased air safety. The USA is seriously considering privatizing air traffic control. The airline companies, the government, and even the air-traffic controller union are in support. See
http://money.cnn.com/2017/06/05/news/air-traffic-control-private/index.html
Communities all across this land, are privatizing their garbage collection and solid waste disposal. See
http://www.advanceddisposal.com/whywasteblog/exploring-privatizing-waste-services-doing-more-with-less-money/
Communities and the feds are discovering, that many (not all) services performed by government entities can be performed more efficiently, by private contractors.
So the answer to your question, is a definite yes. I believe that many (not all) government services, should be awarded to private contractors. This is happening all over the USA, and is certainly to expand.
As far as local law enforcement, I think that is an exception. There is an economy of scale, and it is more efficient and cost-effective for cities/municipalities to have a unitary, municipal law enforcement system. Nevertheless, some judicial services can be farmed out to private contractors. Many communities provide legal services to the indigent through private attorneys. Some states have turned over their prisons to private operators.
As far as highways, states/municipalities have contracted road building and maintenance to private operators, for many years. The interstate highway system was built almost entirely by private firms, under contract. The Chesapeake Bay Bridge-Tunnel, a masterpiece of engineering, was designed and built entirely without any government money. It is one of the engineering wonders of the world. see
http://www.cbbt.com/
Q I would like a private security guard for my home, and I think the public should pay for it. Pretty dumb idea. END Q
If a person is arrested, and unable to afford an attorney, one is appointed without charge. See the 6th amendment, and Gideon v. Wainwright (1963).
Some communities have paid public defenders. Some communities provide legal services to the indigent, through private attorneys, through the form of a voucher.
Do you think this is a dumb idea, too?
So you agree that I should get a private security guard at public e Penske, just because I want one?
Q So you agree that I should get a private security guard at public e Penske, just because I want one? END Q
I am saying no such thing. I am not saying that ALL government provided services should be replaced by private operators. I am saying the SOME services performed by governments, can better be provided, and at lower cost, by private operators. In Canada, the national air-traffic-control system is entirely private. Even the air traffic controllers union, supports privatizing air traffic control in the USA.
Please see what I wrote (above) about law enforcement. I do not favor abolishing police departments, and providing individuals with vouchers to hire private security guards, please do not go “reduction ad absurdum” (reduce the discussion to an absurd level). Our nation needs an Army, our communities need police departments.
Here it is again:
Q
As far as local law enforcement, I think that is an exception. There is an economy of scale, and it is more efficient and cost-effective for cities/municipalities to have a unitary, municipal law enforcement system. Nevertheless, some judicial services can be farmed out to private contractors. Many communities provide legal services to the indigent through private attorneys. Some states have turned over their prisons to private operators. END Q
Public services should be operated by public entities. Public entities may contract services to private operators, but the private contractors are still private. The risk however is that the private contractors lobby for more money and less oversight and they purchase politicians.
I think that Mr Bohr needs to read how John Stuart Mill Showed Democracy as a Way of Life – in a david Brooks essay in The New York Times
Mill believed that “schooling should be compulsory and that education should elevate the tastes of each generation.” He worried, “that “an ill-educated mass, with little time or inclination for moral musing, would threaten its own advancement if it simply adopted its own collective views, gathered up by the mass media and played back to the originating audience.”
“But Mill is a model for a life of balanced convictions. He had enough conscience to believe that there is moral truth, worth dying for. But he had enough humility to understand that none of us can ever fully know that truth, because it cannot be reduced to a single thing.”
Mr Bohr might pay attention to that, as he believes that he knows the truth
“Mill showed that real citizenship is a life-transforming vocation. It involves, at base, cultivating the ability to discern good from evil, developing the intellectual virtues required to separate the rigorous from the sloppy, living an adventurous life so that you are rooting yourself among and serving those who are completely unlike yourself.”
Not easy! Mill championed the egalitarian belief that the best society allows maximum space for each member to craft his own life, but he had the civilized belief that there are clear distinctions between honor and dishonor, excellence and laziness.”
I like the part about ‘civilized beliefs’ and making “clear distinctions about honor because in this age of Trump-mouth, there are people who express their “sloppy” ‘opinions’ ( on a blog where they are anonymous and unseen) and show very little “rigorous thinking”.
Now, If we could only teach the know-nothings in the present federal architecture this lesson, and other lessons, from our nation’s history, especially those who beat the drum for what the Founding Fathers said.
They’re having a “discussion” on ed reform tomorrow.
They didn’t invite a single advocate for public schools. Not one. Three charter promotion orgs- zero organizations who support public schools.
The echo chamber remains unbreached!
It isn’t a “public education” conference. It’s a conference for charter and voucher schools. If public schools are mentioned at all they’ll be used ONLY as they compare to charter and private schools.
http://www.aei.org/events/bush-obama-school-reform-lessons-learned/?utm_source=paramount&utm_medium=email&utm_campaign=hess&utm_content=invitation
How will they “learn any lessons” on Bush/Obama ed reform if they exclude 90% of the schools who were affected by it? Public schools bore the brunt of the VAST majority of the testing schemes and budget cuts of the Bush/Obama ed reforms. Why aren’t they represented?
“If public schools are mentioned at all they’ll be used ONLY as they compare to charter and private schools.”
And it won’t include any factual evidence, only negative anecdotes.
A further irony in this matter is the language which references “mankind” did not include Native American, African, or female human beings. This was to be proven over the next century as European imperialism took on the world and developed a philosophy of it along the way. In this country, this took the form of genocide, two different trails of tears, and a late foray into some of the world intrusion in Latin America and the Philipines.
And the Kanaka Ma’oli people (Native Hawaiians), too.
Don’t forget they were rampaged and pillaged for land and money.
http://www.history.com/news/hawaiis-monarchy-overthrown-with-u-s-support-120-years-ago
http://www.ushistory.org/us/44b.asp
http://www.nytimes.com/learning/general/onthisday/big/0117.html#article
There’s more, but I will become upset.
Think: Zuckerberg. Think: McAfee.
True that.
The framers were absolutely right in avoiding federal involvement in education. Education is best left up to the states and municipalities, because they are closer to the people. Even in 1789, the framers knew that edicts and directives from a national capital would be a disaster.
Another reason to abolish the federal Department of Education.
The FF prescribe “morality and knowledge”. Both are neglected now, and it’s not just because of NCLB/ESSA curriculum narrowing. Even anti-reform educators don’t think in terms of teaching morality and knowledge. They think they’re teaching something far more important: critical thinking and problem solving skills. Yet I fear they are frauds. I have yet to find a teacher who can convincingly explain to me how they do this. What their response always boils down to is that they elicit and promote the habit of critical thinking and problem solving. These are in-born skills; no one can teach them. Yet teachers dishonestly take credit for them. What’s NOT in-born is knowledge and morality, and these things CAN be taught and they expand the scope and power of our in-born thinking skills. Jefferson and Franklin were far smarter and wiser than the edu-charlatans who presume to guide our teaching force these days.
The founders wanted secular public education and understood how essential it was to our democracy. Some years later, when Republicans were still recognizable as the Party of Lincoln, their leaders agreed. President Grant, for example, proposed a constitutional amendment mandating secular public education across America. In a 1875 speech to Civil War veterans he expressed his views thusly:
“Resolve that neither the state nor nation, nor both combined, shall support institutions of learning other than those sufficient to afford to every child growing up in the land the opportunity of a good common school education, unmixed with sectarian, pagan, or atheistical dogmas,” Grant said. “Leave the matter of religion to the family altar, the church, and the private school, supported entirely by private contributions. Keep the church and state forever separate. With these safeguards, I believe the battles which created the Army of the Tennessee will not have been fought in vain.”
Today, it can certainly be argued that Grant’s Army of the Tennessee did fight in vain as the modern Republican Party, the party of fascists and white nationalists, moves to dismantle public education and our democracy.
It can be argued that the framers saw the benefit of a non-sectarian publicly-sponsored educational system. But, by the time that waves of Irish and Italian immigrants were arriving at our “teeming shores”, that the publicly-financed school system was going to be employed to “protestantize” these new immigrants. see
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anti-Catholicism_in_the_United_States
When roman catholic parents dissented at the attempts of the public schools to protestantize their children, the Catholic church started setting up Catholic schools in the USA.
see
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_Catholic_education_in_the_United_States
When sectarian (mostly catholic) schools started to receive public money, the feds attempted to pass a (federal) constitutional amendment to prohibit this. see
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Blaine_Amendment
When the federal amendment failed, the protestantizers turned to the states, and about 35 or so, passed some form of Blaine amendment.
Now that the Blaine amendments have been nullified by the Supreme Court, you can expect more changes. States are now free to assist families, and sectarian schools, in educating children, according to the desires of the parents.
Freedom of choice. It is coming.
Choice is a failed idea. Even where it is easily available, no more than 2-3% leave public schools.
Choice is a way to destroy the quality of education or monetize it.
Stupid or craven.
I think it is terrific, that the participation in states like Indiana, is so small. This shows, that the parents who decline to leave the public school system, are entirely satisfied with the publicly-operated school systems. (There may be other factors involved).
If the public systems are delivering a quality education to the 97%, this is terrific, and should be supported.
Freedom of choice is coming for the education business–tech companies, other profit-seekers, religious groups, even the KKK can set up shop, choose their students, and deny education to whomever they want. That is the reality.
“Now that the Blaine amendments have been nullified by the Supreme Court, ”
No, those amendments have not been “nullified” by the SC. The Missouri case was a very specific decision that does not “nullify” the Blaine Amendments.
Ay ay ay, Chas!
The exact ramifications of the Trinity v. Pauley case, have yet to be determined. But you can be certain, that public funds, will continue to flow to non-public schools, and will most likely increase.
Supreme Court decisions have cleared the way, for public money to flow to non-public schools for safety equipment, and other non-education related expenses.
The Court has ruled that public money can be used to provide books, maps, and other instructional materials. The Court also ruled that public expenditures are permitted for tuition costs.
Since the court has ruled that states may provide funding for tuition, instructional materials, safety equipment, etc. Is it not, therefore true, that the “Blaine Amendments”, are, in effect, dead?
Home schooling is legal
But not wise.
@ Laura H Chapman: You are quite correct in that religious groups and other organizations can set up schools, and obtain public funds to pay tuition.
A Turkish imam (cleric) has done exactly that, and he operates a chain of 120 schools. see
https://www.theatlantic.com/education/archive/2014/08/120-american-charter-schools-and-one-secretive-turkish-cleric/375923/
Other non-profits, like the Roman Catholic church, and others are also operating schools, and receiving public funds.
POSTED AT http://www.opednews.com/Quicklink/History-Lesson-The-Founde-in-Best_Web_OpEds-Constitutional-Rights_Diane-Ravitch_Education_Founders-Of-America-180115-698.html#comment686225 with this comment with embedded links at the site.:
Thanks to Diane Ravitch who offers a view into what is happening in regards to PUBLIC EDUCATION
Diane Ravitch–FORMER Assistant SECRETARY OF STATE is a research professor of education at New York University and the co-founder of the Network for Public Education, a grassroots advocacy organization.
“While the Founding Fathers had high regard for religion, …”
I wonder why. since also
“The Founding Fathers were well aware of the history of religious warfare ”
Isn’t this a weird contradiction? If religion and other ideologies are so dangerous, since they are the single most important tool to organize people against each other, why didn’t the Founding Fathers introduced some kind of control to prevent such organization?
Here’s the Trump Administration workweek on “K-12 public education”
A “forum” where no one from a public school was invited, and a political rally promoting private and charter schools:
https://www.the74million.org/this-week-in-education-politics-federal-funding-simplifying-college-financial-aid-21st-century-ed-reform-more/?utm_content=buffer10df3&utm_medium=social&utm_source=twitter.com&utm_campaign=buffer
The sum total “result” out of DC since 2010, the “value added” over 7 years for public school families, is to cut funding for public schools. Strip away all the mountains of ed reform rhetoric and that’s what you’re left with.
They inserted the phrase “21st century” in front of “ed reform”, which seems to mean including vouchers since all the other elements are exactly the same as Bush/Obama.
In three years we’ll write Bush/Obama/Trump.
I’m new; just read a couple of your posts. Very interesting and educational. Following!
Not exactly on topic, but here is a terrific article about home-schooling. The phenomenon is taking root with Islamic families, LGBTQ students, students who are bullied, etc.
see
https://www.edweek.org/ew/issues/home-schooling/index.html?cmp=eml-enl-eu-mostpop&M=58342794&U=2306083
Charles,
You must love the home schooling family in California that enslaved its children and starved them. A great ad for the home schooling industry.
Please do not be absurd. I do not “love” those individuals who kept their children chained and slaved. That is disgusting.
Projecting their alleged crimes, onto the over 2 million families, nationwide, who home-school their children, is beneath you. You should be ashamed.
These so-called laws were written before we became a country– had a Constitution. Our Founding fathers knew that education of a few that had power was important (a la Kings an such). You notice they did not apply it to the current States. They probably wanted to have some educated people in the new states.
I am not saying that we should not educate our young. We should but any Federal law concerning education is unconstitutional and therefore should be illegal (removed as a law). We bicker over these laws and it is a waste of time as they should not exist.
Again, the federal govenment’s 3 million or so laws have many that are unconstitutional. The federal government has grabbed power from the States unconstitutionally. This started a long time ago.
You make some interesting comments, and I find myself in general agreement. More people, and especially more federal legislators, should read the 9th and 10th amendments.
Almost everyone agrees, that the states/municipalities are better equipped to administer the publicly-operated schools. The states/municipalities are closer to the people, and more responsive.
The Feds need to get out of the education enterprise altogether.
I support giving DeVos no power to tell states or districts what to do.
The SecEd has very little “power” in the legal or constitutional sense. The SecEd is an executive position, and the Dept of Ed. is only authorized to enforce legislation enacted by congress. Of course, the SecEd can make recommendations, and suggestions, and send proposals up to the Congress. The SecEd does not have the “power” to tell states/districts what to do .
Our nation seemed to survive fairly well without a dept of Ed from 1789 through 1979, when Pres. Carter got the legislation to split the Dept of Ed off from the old Dept of Health, Education, and Welfare.
No Cabinet level department has ever been abolished. Maybe the Dept of Ed should be the first.
Come on, the 21st century way of asserting power is not done in such obvious ways. Instead, states are bribed with money. Just recall how Race to the Top was pushed down to states.