<p>Okay so this is pretty random, but does anyone think that the U.S. education system is somewhat moving backwards, especially at the post-secondary level? In most other developed and industrialized countries, the expenses for public universities are minimal compared to what students have to pay in the U.S. </p>
<p>I'm aware that tuition for public universities is rising because of the decrease in state government funding, but don't the tuition hikes also stem from the lack of federal funding of education? I have a feeling that the issue of a deteriorating education system is often overlooked. It certainly wasn't a hot topic during the presidential elections.</p>
<p>I feel pretty much the opposite - our pre-secondary school system is deteriorating, while our university system is improving. Granted that tuitions have gone up, but you have to consider that as time goes on universities also get more private endowments, and if you are in-state your financial needs will be met the vast majority of the time. In fact, many state universities, Virginia most notably, are trying to rely on government aid as little as possible and function more as a private school in terms of financing with public prices. Academically our system is fine, although many public universities could be better served by cutting down class sizes (this, however, is sort of a pipe dream for any place with 30000+ students).</p>
<p>On the other hand, our elementary and high school systems are horribly unbalanced. While many high schools in upper-class areas become prestigious and in some cases almost look like small universities, ones in the inner city are seriously underfunded - a direct result of states being too scared to redistibute wealth among various counties and districts. I could go into more detail, but I'm getting tired.</p>
<p>They should. Even as a Canadian, I think my government should do a lot more. They didn't do anything to implement bilingualism and now they complain about it in editorials (I wrote a letter to the editor today). Not to mention Ontario is suffering from the lack of standardized provincial testing and their public schools are way behind some of the private ones - like UCC or TFS for example. Alberta (where I live), is definetly a bit better, but not much. Our school board recently made a new policy about out of province trips... everything is really tight security-wise. So much for a global education. Post-secondary schools, on the other hand, are doing pretty well, if they are not in Alberta. Klein (uneducated himself) has not given nearly enough funding to our universities... Calgary is ranked #15 in Macleans and Mount Royal College gave 250,000 $ bonuses to their VPs (two of whom are married) and raised tuition. Not looking bright in this province.
As for the States, I think your government needs to reset some of its priorities. No offence to anyone who thinks differently, but I believe you would have been much better off with the Democrats in this respect. More talk, less war.</p>
<p>Edit by Skyhawk:
This thread is more appropriate for the Cafe so I am moving it there.</p>
<p>The federal government should support public school education much more than it currently does. The possibility of attaining a good college education should not be taken from the lower middle class. We should have a national teacher certification in place of the individual state certifications, to allow freedom of mobility from low need areas to those where there are severe teacher shortages.</p>
<p>States should also give greater support to their colleges, public colleges should not imply overcrowed understaffed classrooms.</p>
<p>People should support schools more. In some communities open house is like a ghost town.</p>
<p>i agree....tuition costs are forever soaring..it seems that the gov would want to educate more citizens.....A better educated society will help not only our economy but also our standard of living....come on Bush</p>
<p>No, it's in the benefit to keep the people stupid and therefore school is just a factory of future explotators, philantrophists etc.. to keep the system going.</p>
<p>heck even one of the founders of public education in america admitted it:</p>
<p>DUMB in Amerikkka</p>
<p>The Educational System Was Designed to Keep Us Uneducated and Docile</p>
<p>The funding has been cut drastically and I agree that tuition rates should be curbed or regualted somewhat. You can cut tuition too much or you will have total morons attending college and wasting the government's money. There should be some barriers to entry, but after entry tuition should go down every year for successful students.</p>
<p>That was the stupidest response I've ever gotten Yalebound, are you sure it's Yale you're headed for? The Constitution limits the powers of the government, not personal conduct. I really hope you were joking.</p>
<p>Just because the constitution doesn't explicitly say the federal government can or is supposed to fund education, doesn't mean it's not the federal government's duty to provide people with quality education through funding.</p>
<p>
[quote]
The Constitution limits the powers of the government, not personal conduct.
[/quote]
The Constitution also lets Congress pass laws that are "necessary and proper" to help the common good. Like providing education. You may be against federal funding of colleges, but Congress could do it if they could get the votes.In fact, there is a lot of indirect federal funding, as you know. In my opinion, there isn'y enough to help the squeezed middle class.</p>
<p>"To make all Laws which shall be necessary and proper for carrying into Execution the foregoing Powers, and all other Powers vested by this Constitution in the Government of the United States, or in any Department or Officer thereof."</p>
<p>ieatglue is right. the necessary and proper clause is with regards to the powers assigned before it. the founders would never have put in "necessary and proper for the common good" as it would effectively UNlimit everything the constitution seeks to limit.</p>
<p>and harri, the constitution lists the things the federal government CAN do, not what it can't do. therefore, unless its stated as a power or implied as a power, it cannot be done. the exception to this are the amendments, which do, among other things, say what the government CAN'T do. but thats just the amendments. the 16th amendment is a good example of something not stated in the constitution (income tax) that had to be added through the amendment process to be legal. just because modern jurisprudence treats constructionism as obsolete doesn't mean its any less right.</p>
<p>I don't see why you had to turn this into a needless argument over the constitution, but you're entitled to your own opinion. I'd just like to point out this excerpt from the constitution:</p>
<p>Article I, Section 8, Clause 1:
The Congress shall have Power To lay and collect Taxes, Duties, Imposts and Excises, to pay the Debts and provide for the common Defence and GENERAL WELFARE of the United States; but all Duties, Imposts and Excises shall be uniform throughout the United States;</p>
<p>I'm pretty sure that providing funds for education would be considered in the interest of the general welfare of most Americans. I don't see how you can argue that the constitution doesn't say the government can fund education when there are obvious examples of presidents requesting large sums of money to fund the U.S. Department of Education. Ever heard of the "No Child Left Behind Act?" Does the constitution specifically say that the government can fund space exploration? No, but there's still plenty of federal funding going into NASA. </p>
<p>But let's say my argument about the constitution is flawed and your viewpoint of the constitution is correct. Are you really suggesting that because the constitution doesn't specifically say the federal government can fund education, the federal government is supposed to just sit back and not care about providing Americans with an education?</p>