----------------------
Typical leftist equations, that government funding equals solving the problem, that intentions equal results, and that cutting a government program means being against the stated goal of the program.
If your child struggles to read, is diagnosed with ADHD, or in any other way requires special attention in school, you should be deeply concerned. (Indeed. But what does a federal department have to do with this?)
When the president cuts half the staff of the Department of Education and then seeks to dismantle the Department altogether, the aim isn’t culling waste or streamlining for efficiency, ambitions any taxpayer would appreciate.
No, the aim is destruction. (Oh, so it's a matter of what motivates the action? So if the president has the right way of thinking it's ok to cut it?)
And the Department of Education plays a central role in helping our children and future citizens to do their best as learners. (This is the central premise assumed by the authors, but never demonstrated. We would assert the opposite, that the department of education has had zero positive effect and provides no benefit to students whatsoever.)
One of the many programs the Department of Education oversees is Title 1. This program offers resources and services to ensure that all students, especially those in schools with high populations of low-income families, can access the tools they need to succeed. According to the National Center for Education Statistics, this is more than 60% of schools.
More specifically, Title 1 directs reading and math support to children at risk of failing. If your son or daughter receives reading or math help beyond standard programming, perhaps with a specialist, the support received is likely funded by Title 1.
Well, gutting the Department of Education means your child’s school is at risk of losing Title 1 funding, and your child is at risk of losing targeted reading and math support. (So, funding is the issue, is it? How about results?
One of the many programs the Department of Education oversees is Title 1. This program offers resources and services to ensure that all students, especially those in schools with high populations of low-income families, can access the tools they need to succeed. According to the National Center for Education Statistics, this is more than 60% of schools.
More specifically, Title 1 directs reading and math support to children at risk of failing. If your son or daughter receives reading or math help beyond standard programming, perhaps with a specialist, the support received is likely funded by Title 1.
Well, gutting the Department of Education means your child’s school is at risk of losing Title 1 funding, and your child is at risk of losing targeted reading and math support. (So, funding is the issue, is it? How about results?
"A new report has found that Illinois has 60 public schools at which zero students reported grade-level proficiency in either reading or math, in a troubling sign for the state's education system."The department has been around since the late 70s. If it's so crucial, surely we should be seeing stellar results from our public schools? Surely things should not be getting worse, right? Money = education, doesn't it?)
The Department of Education also works with 504 plans. These plans, named after Section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act of 1973, passed by Congress, create individualized accommodations for students with needs that limit their learning ability.
Suppose your child is diagnosed with ADHD or an anxiety disorder, for instance. In that case, 504 plans ensure that teachers provide personalized learning accommodations in the classroom that match your child’s needs. (In other words, schools are required to accommodate special needs children with as many staff and resources as needed. A single student might need three different staff, one of which might be a teacher spending months attempting to show a heavily disabled child how to use a doorknob.
In the name of education the law forces public schools to shoulder the responsibility for, and expense of, what is basically maintenance care for a child who will never be a functioning member of society.
This is premised on the idea that it is somehow unfair or even damaging to send a disabled person to another institution that can provide effective care. Instead, we pretend that we are educating them.
Of course, this is an extreme example. But that's what we're dealing with when every child is entitled by law to get as much attention and staff as needed to get them through the day, yet a "normal" child can slip through 12 years of education without ever learning to read or do basic math.
Ironically, the result for the disabled student is exactly the same as the non-special needs student: Neither can perform the basic functions of life.)
Examples of accommodations include adjustments to seating, testing format, or access to technology. Students diagnosed with ADHD might be allowed to use fidget spinners or to walk around the room occasionally. Students with anxiety disorders might be allotted extra time to finish high-pressure assignments. Students with fine motor limitations might be allowed to dictate writing rather than use a keyboard or a pen. (We need a federal department for this.)
The Department of Education provides civil rights protections to students with 504s. These legal protections ensure that your child’s teacher and school stay true to the accommodations included in their 504 plan. These accommodations, and ultimately, your children, are protected. (And only the department of education can make this happen.
Examples of accommodations include adjustments to seating, testing format, or access to technology. Students diagnosed with ADHD might be allowed to use fidget spinners or to walk around the room occasionally. Students with anxiety disorders might be allotted extra time to finish high-pressure assignments. Students with fine motor limitations might be allowed to dictate writing rather than use a keyboard or a pen. (We need a federal department for this.)
The Department of Education provides civil rights protections to students with 504s. These legal protections ensure that your child’s teacher and school stay true to the accommodations included in their 504 plan. These accommodations, and ultimately, your children, are protected. (And only the department of education can make this happen.
By the way, didn't Congress pass a law quite a long time ago? Something like the Civil Rights Act?)
On a related note, the Department of Education enforces the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act, which guarantees that millions of children with disabilities receive a “free appropriate public education.” This law ensures that students with recognized disabilities are provided with Individual Education Programs (IEPs) to access meaningful learning opportunities regardless. (Ah, so they aren't facilitating education, they're policing agents enforcing federal law.
On a related note, the Department of Education enforces the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act, which guarantees that millions of children with disabilities receive a “free appropriate public education.” This law ensures that students with recognized disabilities are provided with Individual Education Programs (IEPs) to access meaningful learning opportunities regardless. (Ah, so they aren't facilitating education, they're policing agents enforcing federal law.
And why can't individual states and even individual school districts set their own polices? We need a multi-billion dollar bureau to enforce laws created by government that create mandates for local schools for which more money is needed?
Welcome to the vicious circle.)
Gutting the Department of Education means your child is at risk of losing 504 or IEP protections. Adding to the trouble is that seventeen states, including ours, are engaged in a lawsuit, Texas v. Becerra, which challenges the constitutionality of Section 504. You read that right: Our attorney general, Austen Knudsen, signed onto a case that seeks to eradicate 504 protections for our children. (Yes, we did read that right, but the authors wrote it wrong. They are lying.
Gutting the Department of Education means your child is at risk of losing 504 or IEP protections. Adding to the trouble is that seventeen states, including ours, are engaged in a lawsuit, Texas v. Becerra, which challenges the constitutionality of Section 504. You read that right: Our attorney general, Austen Knudsen, signed onto a case that seeks to eradicate 504 protections for our children. (Yes, we did read that right, but the authors wrote it wrong. They are lying.
The authors are hoping the average reader will not look it up. The lawsuit is mainly regarding the fact that the Biden administration added "gender dysphoria" as a protected class.)
The Department of Education invests $200 million in Montana schools annually. (Out of a department of education budget of $200 billion, about 70% goes to higher education students in the form of grants and student loans. Which explains why college is so expensive. In essence it's subsdized.
The Department of Education invests $200 million in Montana schools annually. (Out of a department of education budget of $200 billion, about 70% goes to higher education students in the form of grants and student loans. Which explains why college is so expensive. In essence it's subsdized.
So that leaves 30% for K-12, or $60 billion. There are about 50 million K-12 students, which is an average of $1224 per student.
There's about 150,000 K-12 students in Montana, or about $1333 per student. Under the 504 scenario, the required "individualized accommodations" means this money is not equitably applied to every student. A large share of this money is funneled into what amounts to an expensive daycare when it comes to the severely disabled.
Since a school district typically spends about $12,000 per student per year, federal money amounts to about 10% of the total cost of educating a student.
But more to the point, where does the department of education get its $200 billion? If you answered "the taxpayer," go to the head of the class. That means what school districts can afford to do is based on government money paid to it to be able to afford the government's mandates. It all comes from the taxpayer, which means it doesn't make a difference if the source is federal tax dollars or state tax dollars. We still pay.
Eliminating the department of education doesn't mean education will suffer, it will only change the avenue by which the school district receives its money.)
Yes, that is a lot of money. Personalized support is expensive. (Ah, the cat slips out of the bag.)
And finding this kind of support anywhere other than in the public schools is exceptionally difficult.
In the Montana Legislature, there is an odd fascination with pulling more and more resources from our public schools. The result is that, even without erasing the Department of Education, our schools receive less and less money annually relative to exploding costs. (Um, why exactly are costs exploding? Could it have anything to do with mandates like 504 plans and other federal hoops schools have to jump through to get funding? Might be because schools are administration-heavy? How about accommodating furries, building humongous arts centers and stadiums? DEI training?
In the Montana Legislature, there is an odd fascination with pulling more and more resources from our public schools. The result is that, even without erasing the Department of Education, our schools receive less and less money annually relative to exploding costs. (Um, why exactly are costs exploding? Could it have anything to do with mandates like 504 plans and other federal hoops schools have to jump through to get funding? Might be because schools are administration-heavy? How about accommodating furries, building humongous arts centers and stadiums? DEI training?
Again, what are the results of that $200 billion? Are students better educated? Why are SAT tests being watered down? Why is math being called racist? What about leftist political indoctrination and bias?
The authors really are unable to understand why the department of education, a failed institution, is on the chopping block?)
And now we face losing as much as $200 million from the federal government?
When you read about politicians in Washington, D.C., shutting down the Department of Education, you aren’t reading about abstract, far-away attacks on bureaucracy. Instead, you are reading about attacks on our very children.
And let’s be honest. If we aren’t standing up for our children, we’re failing them. (Indeed, we are failing them, and the department of education has done nothing to stem the bleeding. In fact, a case could well be made that the department is adding to the problem.)
When you read about politicians in Washington, D.C., shutting down the Department of Education, you aren’t reading about abstract, far-away attacks on bureaucracy. Instead, you are reading about attacks on our very children.
And let’s be honest. If we aren’t standing up for our children, we’re failing them. (Indeed, we are failing them, and the department of education has done nothing to stem the bleeding. In fact, a case could well be made that the department is adding to the problem.)
No comments:
Post a Comment