Education

709 Responses




Ron Paul works towards the elimination of the inefficient Department of Education, leaving education decisions to be made at the state, local or personal level. Parents should have the right to spend their money on the school or method of schooling they deem appropriate for their children.

On November 14, 2008 Ron Paul said in a New York Times interview:

“First, the Constitution does not authorize the Department of Education, and the founders never envisioned the federal government dictating those education policies.

Second, it is a huge bureaucracy that squanders our money. We send billions of dollars to Washington and get back less than we sent. The money would be much better off left in states and local communities rather than being squandered in Washington.

Finally, I think that the smallest level of government possible best performs education. Teachers, parents, and local community leaders should be making decisions about exactly how our children should be taught, not Washington bureaucrats.

The Department of Education has given us No Child Left Behind, massive unfunded mandates, indoctrination, and in some cases, forced medication of our children with psychotropic drugs. We should get rid of all of that and get those choices back in the hands of the people.”

Note: This summary of Ron Paul’s position has been determined to be incomplete! Contact us to join RonPaul.com as a voluntary editor. Help us set the record straight and keep this page up-to-date.


709 responses to “Education”

  1. Benjamin

    If you dont have the federal government regulate education some what you will have worse education. Its clear right now! There is no federal mandate for any students to have any type of education. Other than simply go to school and have civics. This has thrown us years behind!
    Look at Europe, look at China they are about 20 years ahead of America in everything when it comes to education.
    Currently in Oklahoma there are students that are in the poor black part of town that graduate not being able to read, while the rich white part of town has the opportunity for honors and AP, and calculus.
    Even within states the education is not level. When one student from Alaska cant read, while another student in California has read all of shakespear’s works there is something wrong.
    Dont say that the parents can move. People who arnt rich, cant move. In all reality your saying either make more money so you can give your children a good education, or move away from your family and all that you know so that your children can have a good education.

    POOR THINKING!
    Federal government needs to have regulations on what students learn and have students with a better eduation. We are so far behind the EU and China that if we dont actully force a little unity with education system, we will be bought up by other countries.

    We have existed for 200 years! Not because we expect people to have good morals and good thoughts. Are you kidding me?? Most people are dumb, because they have not been educated. Most people can not name all 50 states! Your saying stay out of it!?!

    If we get any further away from education than we will end up having to spoon feed our children when they are 35 because they are so brink dumb and lazy that they cant do anything for themselves.

    PUSH FOR REGULATION AND MORE MONEY TO EDUCATION!!!

    Report this comment

    Hotly debated. What do you think? Thumb up 15 Thumb down 39

    1. John C

      Europe (especially Germany) and China have better educated students because they have a strong work ethic in those cultures. This is lacking in the US. If China and Germany had true free market education, they would be even farther ahead of us in this area.

      You are right about the poor. This is a problem. But you have to understand why there are so many poor people. It is largely due to our destructive monetary system that has inflation built into it. Poor people cannot get ahead in this system.

      First we must legalize competition in our monetary system.

      Then we need to let the free markets set interest rates on borrowing money so that savers can make more than 0.5%!

      Then we need to get rid of the Federal Register (executive branch enacted laws) like the FDA, USDA, and so forth. This will allow individuals and small groups to compete again against the big corporations.

      This will shift wealth back to the poor and even out the playing field so that everyone will have access to private education (which will be much cheaper since workers would get paid in an appreciating asset like gold rather than a depreciating paper dollar not to mention from competition in the education marketplace).

      »crosslinked«

      Report this comment

      Like or Dislike: Thumb up 13 Thumb down 5

      1. mark971

        I agree because actually i think the total interest is about 6% and you only see 0.5%. We need the small businesses now more than ever as the price of gas goes up the corporations will add the price to us. With small locally owned businesses can help with some of these cost as they can buy products locally which we haven’t done in about 20 years why because the tax on a small business is a killer. Our government with their political contributions to get them elected cost us not them, how can you have a neutral president is someone hands you $2000000 to get you prestige. We as Americans need to support locally owned and operated businesses as these are going to be what helps local economies, with lower costs and local jobs. We as America need to think and restructure our changing economy, if gas will be too expensive in 2 years then spend the money so in the next 5 years it saves us money. With the government telling our schools what to teach and this no child left behind, how much are they really learning or how challenged are they? We are putting a real burden on our children do we really want them not to have the knowledge to think differently? We have taught our children the worst thing spend without consequences, to the economy and the most important thing our enviroment. I was quit upset at my childs history book with only 2 paragraphs on the constitution, come on if the government chooses to teach my child then they should have 2 chapters on this. As this document is America, it is the sole meaning of America. Other countries sing about there constitution in school, they actual learn what their liberties are, why not mine? Must my child have superb writing skills or should he know how to plant crops, or build bridges or have the math skills needed to figure out how these things are possible. We put a lot of pressure on the teachers but lets not pay them $25,000 yr. but lets pay a sports figure $5000000 yr. What is this teaching our children if you work hard at sports why do need to have a mind. If all men were created equal then why does the person entertaining make more than the person teaching our next generation?

        Report this comment

        Like or Dislike: Thumb up 4 Thumb down 0

        1. John C

          Those are all great points mark971!

          I’ve always wondered about that. Why are we spending public tax dollars on sports in schools? You can learn team work in the classroom, you don’t need sports to do that. And I’m all for the arts, but why are our tax dollars being spent on this when there are kids graduating who can’t read or do math? If kids want to play sports and learn art, they should do it at private institutions after school.

          Bottom line: Government sponsored schools don’t work in America, and it’s not because we need to increase the school’s budgets. Private schools do more and are better in most cases (when it comes to academics), and they achieve this usually on a much smaller budget.

          Again, I recommend all who read this go to mises.org to learn about libertarian and Austrian economic theory before they decide that Federally run schools are our only hope.

          Report this comment

          Like or Dislike: Thumb up 4 Thumb down 0

    2. Captain McNerdius

      Benjamin: It’s kind of ironic how many typos/misspellings are in your post. But y’know… you know what you’re talking about, right ?

      Report this comment

      Like or Dislike: Thumb up 2 Thumb down 3

    3. Rachel

      Benjamin,
      The neighborhood that I grew up in could be classified as middle class. I received a poor education, to say the least. In fact, I could be considered a high school drop out. There was absolutely no positive motivation in school. Now, I continue to choose to educate myself.
      As parents, this is what we need to do for our children. Don’t put the power of schooling in the hands of politicians, who are across the nation. Empower the people! It might be hard work, but that’s what parenting is. I’m raising four children, on my own. It’s hard, but it’s my responsibility.
      “No Child Left Behind” has left more children behind than any other system. My children don’t receive an A for effort, they don’t even receive an A for 100%, every report card looks the same now: 1 at the beginning of the year, meaning the child does not meet end of year standards, 2 as the year progress, a 3 three shortly before the year ends, and then a 4 stating that the child is “satisfactory” for end of year standards. The teachers are evaluated by these tests, and they provide the scores on the tests. EVERY CARD LOOKS THE SAME. Why? Because the focus is on the teacher and the school.
      To further illustrate my point, there is a school in the district which claims it has the highest success rate. They probably do have the highest test scores, for the children they don’t kick out of the school. The teachers were lousy. Any child who struggles, gets sent away. This school is in an upper class neighborhood.
      Don’t put any more money into a failing system! Let’s shape our own schools. If funds are low, share a globe, share math books, share a chalkboard. Teachers can’t be using them all at the same time!!! We don’t need 30 computers per class, pencils and paper will do. Etc.

      Report this comment

      Like or Dislike: Thumb up 2 Thumb down 0

  2. George Washington

    Please, getting rid of the Dept of Edu does not mean no public schools. If states think its important they have the authority to regulate it. Washington/Federal Government does not. It is that simple.

    Quality would increase of education as it would reverse about 20 years of terrible trends where teachers are driven down and out, kind of like what is happening with the doctors from Obamacare.

    Look around people and find the cause of your woes, not just your woes.

    Ron Paul for 2012 Republican Nomination and President Please

    Thank You for your time

    Report this comment

    Highly rated. What do you think? Thumb up 23 Thumb down 1

  3. John

    Morgan, ED is not responsible for accrediting US colleges – ED does spend money to work with ‘reputable accrediting agencies’ in order to provide accountability information, as well as monitor these accrediting agencies. The only thing ED has to do with colleges is that the President’s advisory board on historically black colleges is a part of ED. Most public colleges are accredited by boards like these whose reputation is better established than ED. I believe what Dr. Paul is proposing is to send this ED funding directly into the states that run these colleges… Thus creating more employable citizens and a better foundation – provided that the states choose to spend this money wisely. In light of the abortive record of ED programs I think nixing ED isn’t a bad idea.

    Report this comment

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0

    1. John

      ED also oversees the distribution of financial aid to college students, but this funding is external to ED’s budget. This process would have to remain in order to retain our current public education system

      Report this comment

      Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0

      1. John

        also the ED budget/jobs averages over 6000000/job. The rest of this money gets put into enforcing programs that last, at best, a few years. The funding for the enactment of these programs is handled at the state level in many cases – though ED sometimes receives additional funding to support them. They basically audit public schools.

        Report this comment

        Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0

  4. morgan

    Getting rid of the Dept. of Education will also affect colleges. Without that governing body setting the standards for the accrediting bodies, schools will set their own standards and the public schools in the states with less revenue will suffer greatly. Thats means more dropouts, less employable population, HORRIBLE for the economy all around. We need a strong foundation, the strongest we can, in order to get our future generations afoot. Education is too vital for this country to leave it up to the states.

    Report this comment

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 5 Thumb down 12

    1. John

      Morgan,

      You are probably right about the states. So we shouldn’t leave it up to government at all. It needs to be completely run by the private sector. The problem is that we don’t have free market capitalism in the US right now for several reasons. We need to bring back true free market capitalism in every sector across the board so that competition and entrepreneurship can finally create top notch schools in every locality.

      To get our schools where we need them to be we must first:
      1) Legalize real money like gold and silver and let the people through the markets decide its value.
      2) End the Federal Reserve’s ability to set interest rates, let each lender/borrower decide on the cost to borrow money.
      3) Bring all our troops home and close all bases on foreign soil, and don’t let the President deploy troops abroad without a declaration of War from Congress first.
      4) Don’t allow congress to borrow money or run a budget deficit.
      5) Get rid of the FCC to end news channel monopolies so we have true competition and real news again.
      6) Get rid of the FDA and make all meds over-the-counter so we end Big Pharma monopolies so we have true competition and effective medicine and health care again.
      7) Get rid of the USDA so we end Big Ag monopolies so we have true competition and small local family farms again.
      8) Get rid of the CIA, FBI, and DEA, legalize all drugs and thus let 80% of the prisoners out of jail (for illegal drug related crimes).
      9) Phase out of free government handouts so that only the immigrants who want to be productive will come here (this includes school).
      10) End the income tax. The government can be funded by certain excise taxes on luxury items or better yet, by donations.

      Once these ten things are accomplished, then we will be getting close to true freedom and true prosperity for all. The reason private education is so expensive is due to the inflationary policies of the Federal Reserve Bank. The reason there are so many poor people is that there are so few opportunities to create a small business since government regulations keep small businesses out of most of the real economy: health care, agriculture, mining, media, education, manufacturing, energy production. Unless you start out rich, it is next to impossible to start a business in any of the above major sectors of the economy due to impossibly cumbersome government regulations.

      If we do the above, many poor people will choose to grow food instead of selling illegal drugs. Or if they do sell drugs (to consenting adults) they won’t be punished for it, can save their real money, and one day get their family out of drugs and into more desirable areas of the economy.

      Then we can have good education again, once the government gets completely out of the way across the board.

      Report this comment

      Like or Dislike: Thumb up 14 Thumb down 5

    2. Lucinda Poe

      I agree with morgan. No public education would be a catastrophic move for our country, especially with no compulsory education requirements in place. You’ll see a drastic rise in illiteracy, people who cannot even afford the most basic schooling if it is not free, and there is no guarantee some of the poorer states will be able to afford locally providing public education. With no accreditation standards, what school you go to could and likely would be just as crippling as if you didn’t go at all. It would only worsen our current problem with only the financially stable having access to education and a better future, while the poor are unable to provide a better life for their children through education. If anything, we need a much more federalized and strictly controlled education system. Look at the systems that work, like Japan’s, who have the highest level of education in the world and the lowest level of illiteracy, and modify and adapt that system to fit to ours nation. I thought a lot of Ron Paul’s ideas were very intersting, but you lost me as a supporter on this issue. Extremism towards the one end of the spectrum is no better than extremism towards the other.

      Report this comment

      Like or Dislike: Thumb up 3 Thumb down 8

      1. John C

        Lucinda,

        I suggest you go to mises.org to study some Austrian economics and to learn a bit about libertarian theory. They have both free written texts and free video lectures.

        The Japanese culture has a very strong work ethic, this is why their schools are so good in spite of their central planning. When students are determined to learn, even the worst schools can produce highly educated graduates.

        The US has a very poor work ethic compared to the Japanese. So US teachers and schools need to be diverse to fit students’ individual quirks, and highly engaging to make up for this general lack of student work ethic. Central planning is the opposite of diversity, it is by definition a monopoly. The only hope for US schools to improve is with healthy competition that only true free market capitalism can provide.
        Sorry to burst your bubble, but what you are proposing will make things much worse.

        Also, compulsory schooling is a form of indentured servitude (slavery) and is unconstitutional not to mention wrong and counterproductive since it’s nearly impossible to teach those who don’t want to.

        -Cheers

        Report this comment

        Like or Dislike: Thumb up 4 Thumb down 2

        1. Wonk

          Which begs the question, why do they have a stronger work ethic? This is not a rhetorical question, I am actually curious.

          Report this comment

          Like or Dislike: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 0

          1. John C

            I really don’t know. It’s a question beyond the scope of this topic.
            But if I had to guess, I’d say generally it’s just a random diversity that you find in human cultures around the world.

            Why are there different cultures anyway? For the same reason that different languages and different alphabets and forms of writing developed. I think it’s mainly a function of isolation.

            When groups of people interact, they tend to mimic each other to fit in, thus developing a culture. Culture slowly changes over time. When two groups with the same culture are suddenly separated, then over many hundreds of years, the two groups will develop different cultures as the two groups slowly change independently from the other. I don’t know enough about cultural science to explain why Japan has a strong work ethic.

            I think Japanese immigrants to the US still have a strong work ethic throughout their lives, but their kids might have less, and their grand kids even less, until at some point they tend to lose their high work ethic in exchange for American cultural values.

            American work ethic must be a combination of all the cultures that have immigrated here. Some cultures might have very poor work ethics (certain Latin cultures?) while others have high work ethics (certain Asian cultures?) and some have medium (certain European or Middle Eastern cultures?) and what we have now is something of an average? I really don’t know.

            But I would never want to try to change the culture through government action, no matter how well intentioned.

            Just about every culture imaginable would be the most productive and have the highest standard of living when a true Free Market system is in place (in the Austrian economics tradition, see mises.org).

            Report this comment

            Like or Dislike: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 1

          2. Rachel

            With only my life’s experience and views for guidance, my answer is that we, as a nation, are breeding laziness. Where is the motivation to become something greater? My nostalgic side believes that there was a time that American men took pride in feeding their families, and American women took pride in raising their children. While I disagree with some gender roles…I think we killed morality, work ethics, personal value, etc…with the “American Dream”.

            My theory is that our (perhaps unintentional) decision to no longer take pride in building the family and home has also helped to raise the suicide rate. I imagine (notice the word imagine here, as opposed to know or have seen, etc) that suicides used to be less common with a feeling of personal failure as a leading cause. Now, I imagine, the numbers are up because we less frequently feel accomplished, after feeding our families and cleaning our homes.

            We’re (again, as a generalization) looking for our fast fix, our get rich quick schemes, our easy way out. It’s about instant gratification. Quantity before quality. (Hello corporate America!)

            My thoughts for a possible solution: Instead of pitying ourselves for our comparably low income, while sitting and watching overpaid entertainers live their lives…we could all get up and grow a small garden, start clipping coupons, get a second job, help a neighbor with yard work, spend some quality time with our families. Perhaps, take pride in our lives. Which in turn will teach our children the value of hard work…the gratification isn’t instantaneous, but it’s wonderful. :)

            Report this comment

            Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0

    3. Sara Giannoni

      So maybe the Dept should set standards based on the best educational systems in the world. The Dept could play the role of a facilitator and the states could negotiate a set standard then the states could individually decide how to get there. Still a role for the Dept of Ed, but much smaller role.

      Report this comment

      Like or Dislike: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 0

      1. John C

        That sounds like a good first step!

        Report this comment

        Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0

  5. Tea Party & LIbertarians « Terry M. Day, Jr

    [...] Education – I completely agree with the Ron Paul Standpoint.  A majority of parents have no idea what is being taught in public school and they rely on the [...]

    Report this comment

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 1

  6. fight4freedom

    Government is not educating your kids. You do understand that right? They teach what it will take to pass Government mandate test. That’s it….

    Wake-up America!! Travel to other countries, you’ll be surprised how much those kids know.

    By the way Soda machines in schools DO NOT MAKE KIDS FAT!!
    Seen a tv report last night, a local school is pulling the machines.

    Report this comment

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 3 Thumb down 3

    1. John

      Actually sodas do make kids fat.
      So does fruit juice.
      It’s the fructose.
      Fructose can only be metabolized by the liver, unlike glucose which can be burned by any cell in the body. When concentrated amounts of fructose, like in soda and fruit juice, gets metabolized in the liver it creates certain kinds of free fatty acids which then travel to the muscles and cause insulin resistance (leading to diabetes, a cause of obesity). It also produces byproducts that travel to the brain and turn off the satiety response (the feeling of being full) so that you will tend to eat more calories than your energy needs demand. And the majority of the fructose gets turned into fat that then gets sent to storage along with large amounts of VLDL cholesterol (the worst kind).

      You are missing the point my friend. The battle is not about whether soda makes kids fat. The battle is whether the government should have a monopoly running our schools or whether the competitive nature of the free markets would do a better job.

      As soon as we unfetter free market capitalism, the soda issue will naturally work itself out in the best way possible for all involved.

      For more information on the health effects of fructose go to youtube and watch the video called, “Sugar: the Bitter Truth” with Robert H. Lustig, M.D., UCSF Professor of Pediatrics in the Division of Endocrinology.

      Report this comment

      Like or Dislike: Thumb up 7 Thumb down 5

    2. mark 971

      As an American parent it should be my right to have my child educated the way I feel is the most profitable to my childs future and the path I want him to go. With our growing national debt where do we think the first budget cuts will happen first? Will it be military spending, how about cutting wages on the people in office? Oh I forgot it will be education and medi-care, oops forgot again medi-care has already been hit, but yet we are still dropping bombs where we shouldn’t be. Syria, what are we doing there, besides ruining more world relations? We as Americans want someone who is willing to be responsible for their actions, so many people have been let off the hook it is ridiculous. I pay my “volunitary payments” to the department of revenue each year but yet I have to worry about my social security in 20 years not being there. Why, because we have to spend the excess to get out of debt. I as an American assume the responsibility of the actions of our president by paying for their mistakes, when will they? It is time our government become accountable for their mistakes because as we see they affect the world.

      Report this comment

      Like or Dislike: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 0

    3. mark 971

      This would also be because it takes 2 liter of water to produce 1 liter of soda just ask the farmers of India, who have had their wells drained to produce coca-cola. But lets give Coca-cola credit they spent $500,000 refilling their wells. This is why you do not find Coke machines in most colleges. They also have cases where they would employ children to cut smoldering sugar cane for under a dollar a day.

      Report this comment

      Like or Dislike: Thumb up 2 Thumb down 0

    4. Albedo

      Every year we put more money into public schools and every year the public schools pale in comparison to every other teaching method i.e. charter, private, homeschool, foreign. Homeschool children perform better even when the parent had minimal schooling beyond highschool or even if they only had their hs diploma. Charter schools have more input from the community and therefore parents so they perform better than public schools as well. Private schools can actually fire their teachers and will because they actually have to compete to keep their students’ parents paying. Some of the best schools in the world are in countries that don’t protect bad teachers, but good teachers.

      Also people think that homeschooling is expensive and it takes a long time. Parents that spend 2oo a year on supplies made just as good as parents who spent 500 a year. Public schools spend approximately 5000 per student a year. If a person used a library and the internet, quite a good amount of resources would be available. My cousin was homeschooled and he got up at 7 to start school and stopped at 11. He even started college classes a year early. So classes are flexible as long as the child learns the curriculum.

      Report this comment

      Like or Dislike: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 1

  7. Isai

    Why is the government involved in education at all? The best primary education is supplied by parents. Sure, some don’t care about their child’s education, but they tend to send their children to educators who share the same attitude. Absent government and parents, the church invariably picks up the slack, and does a wonderful job.
    The best secondary education is supplied on the job. Most jobs require continuing education, often at the place of business. A degree is like any other label, it’s for someone who doesn’t know you. Degrees will always be available, but I wish I could quit paying for shiftless 20 somethings to drink their way to a degree they didn’t choose and will never use.

    Report this comment

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 3 Thumb down 7

    1. rachael

      The entire working class, that often works 10-12 hour days to be able to feed and cloth their children, most likely does not have the time, resources, or knowledge to properly educate their children. How do you propose those families take responsibility? Do those born in poverty not need education?
      And I’m a little unclear how we are paying for 20 somethings education? There are student grants and scholarships but the majority of federal money must be payed back by the borrower. Is it your understanding that they don’t use their degree because of choice or because the jobs are unavailable?

      Report this comment

      Like or Dislike: Thumb up 4 Thumb down 1

      1. Tori Alexander

        Dr. Paul is against the Federal government funding education, but he is not against state- and locally-funded education. At least this is what I understand. This might not be bad for education in general. When the Fed gov’t gives money for education, it also enforces requirements, such as the No Child Left Behind program, which is arguable one of the worst things to happen to public education. It forces schools to focus on testing while most studies show that preparing for such tests may actually impact negatively on a child’s ability to learn.

        Report this comment

        Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0

      2. John

        Don’t taxes pay for state run colleges?

        The reason the working class must work so much is because they are working for worthless paper money. If we had a currency backed by gold, people would have more free time to teach their kids if they so chose. The Federal Reserve’s policy is to create a certain level of inflation each year. There would be no inflation if we worked for gold instead of fiat paper bills backed by nothing. Manipulating interest rates and printing money is what causes inflation. So yes, if we get rid of public schools without correcting our monetary fiasco by abolishing the Federal Reserve, going back to a gold standard, and ending fractional reserve banking, then you are right, poor kids would not get educated.

        So it’s a problem of the unintended consequences of central planning throughout our society, not just in education. If we return to competitive free market capitalism in every industry (not crony capitalism or corporatism that we are currently suffering under), then our monetary system would stabilize, inflation would be non-existent, employment rates would rise, and people would once again be able to work less, vacation more, and simply save money for retirement at a reasonable age without needing to invest in risky stocks and bonds.

        Report this comment

        Like or Dislike: Thumb up 2 Thumb down 0

        1. mark 971

          I agree John, if we look back in history Germany after WWI owed a great war debt. The German people had to wheelbarrow the German currency to buy a loaf of bread? Our US dollar is valued at $.04 per dollar, do we really want our president to allow the federal reserve to put another $600 billion in circulation? How much more will this cripple our dollar? Will this make China drop more of our treasury bonds putting us further into this abyss of debt? Will we have to all go and buy wheelbarrows? There is some hope we as a nation have a great land to produce agriculturial goods as everyone needs to eat. When Castro took over Cuba the debt of the nation was vast US cut sanctions to them, Castro called on his people to go back to basic and took his country back to farming. They were told to plant wherever they seen soil, put planting boxes on roofs, they eventually turned the economy around. Ron Paul created House Bill 1831, which calls for the production of the plant Hemp, this plant our nation used until 1946, its demise was brought on by nylon which is a petroleum based product. With the production of this plant it yeilds 10 times as much usable biofuel as ethanol per acre. The paper it produces is better quality, heck even Henry Ford used it on the production of automobiles he said it was 10 times stronger than steel. Hemp rope was used during WWII by us, clothing for many centuries were made of hemp. We as a nation in trouble have to think outside of the box that we have been put in. Just because we have been brought up with these beliefs, doesn’t mean that it couldn’t help. With the Industrial Revolution we have forgot about a simple time when we all farmed and didn’t run to McDonalds. We produced what we needed here in our great country not in china so we could save $3 dollars. We have become monkeys who are trained to do one job not many. So fight against the censorship of the internet which our tax dollars all helped with the production of this great tool. As atleast with the internet we can educate ourselves.

          Report this comment

          Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0

      3. mark 971

        But Rachael, how many default on them a year( federal college loans), and we flip the payments. The education system is trying new programs were the child works at home 6 hours a day in front of a lap top and does their school work via the web. The cost of computer, internet bill and books are paid for by the public school system as it saves them and us on bills. With a school system not spending $30,000 a month on heating and electric on their facilities. Now in our economic recession most college grads are starting their own businesses as 500 people are fighting for the corporate $8.50 per hour job. We are becoming a nation that will be headed for ruins if we don’t use our heads and make some right decisions.

        Report this comment

        Like or Dislike: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 0

  8. fight4freedom

    This one simple too:

    We all agree education is a must. We pay property taxes to ensure our kids get schooled. Now, we just have to washout all those in the system whom have bad spending habbits and get back to basics. Why is any school made with brick? Still buildings are cheap, easy and great products to buy. Let’s us the people fix this. Uncle Sam we got this one. Go to school board meeting start asking question with many many many parents standing in the room. Things change you’ll see, oh and invite your local news station they love that..

    Report this comment

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 3

  9. rachael

    Education is a fundamental building block of a democracy. With out universal access to education you cannot have an educated majority voting and making decisions on who should lead this country.
    Otherwise you have the educated few, essentially those with the means to obtain an education, leading the uneducated masses. You essentially end up with the same imbalance of power we already have with money and class leading the way. The constitution says that representatives should be voted “by the people” and it is our responsibility to make sure that those people have the skills to be able to choose, otherwise its not a democracy its a propaganda machine.
    Is Ron Paul for a return to our roots as a democracy or for removing big government to perpetuate a thriving capitalist society where the rich get richer and the poor are left to live like slaves?

    Report this comment

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 9 Thumb down 8

    1. Albedo

      No I’m sure Ron Paul is for turning the education system over from an inefficient and bloated government agency over to the states, counties, local governments, and the parents. The federal government has failed at everything it has tried and it is time to fix the system so kids don’t sit in a classroom all day not learning anything from teachers that spend years in college only to fail at teaching compared to parents who only pass high school spending a tenth of the money or even a 25th of the money that the fed spends on the lower performing students. The better the education, the more likely you aren’t going to be on the public dime. As it is, public schools are unsatisfactory and need to be improved or else the poor will get poorer due to poor education.

      P.S. it is strange how the ones who scream loudest about the poor getting poorer actually don’t help the poor do anything other than depend on the government and pay little if any on charity compared to their “greedy” opponents. Furthermore it is funny and sad how everytime someone attempts to fix something that is broken, a liberal equates that to the abolishing and not replacing it. Like putting education into the more capable hands of states, local, and parental hands must mean he wants to abolish education altogether and make the poor people slaves. Yeah, that was what he meant….

      Report this comment

      Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 1

  10. Elaine Mann

    I was surprised that no one commented on the distorted views Justin came up with. The subjects Justin used against Congressman Paul were totally out of context. That is the problem I see, we have to research comments we hear or see in the media/press. What articles and media conversations leave out do the damage to a Congressman’s issue, half told or just sound bites, this will continue throughout R.Paul’s campaign. We need to set the record straight, with no distortion. Go Ron Paul!

    Report this comment

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 5

    1. John

      I thought I did respond to Justin. Maybe you are misunderstanding his comment. His comment is a little confusing as at first glance because it sounds like he is accusing Dr. Paul of being a socialist, but I think he is actually saying that he (Justin) is a confirmed socialist (he’s not accusing Ron Paul of being one) and Justin is possibly interested in voting for Dr. Paul because he likes his views on promoting personal freedoms.

      Report this comment

      Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0

      1. Justin

        You are correct John. Outside of my strong belief that a redistribution of wealth is necessary for a growing and fair society I find a lot of Dr. Paul’s views intriguing. My main problem with Dr. Paul is that he seems to worship the constitution as if it is something that is correct no matter what. I truly feel that the founders did what was best over 200 years ago but times do change and our society is much more complex therefore we need a more complex and dynamic document in which to govern our society. But again I really think his ideas about personal freedoms are spot on.

        But back to the topic of education. So lets say the department of education is abolished (which I’m not sure is such a great idea but for the sake of argument lets say I’m ok with this for now). If this happens does the constitution then protect children from prayer in the now state or locally funded schools? This question does assume that Dr. Paul (and the libertarian movement as a whole) feels that the government has no right to promote any particular religion (which I would hope anyone who has ever read the constitution can see). This is just an example of an area where I feel I can relate to strict constitutionalists (which I would never claim to be) but is also an area where I feel most conservatives like to point to the constitution but then don’t have the credentials to show that they truly believe in it, and when I say most conservatives I don’t me Dr. Paul as I recognize his fantastic track record as a strict constitutionalist.

        Report this comment

        Like or Dislike: Thumb up 3 Thumb down 3

        1. John

          Hey Justin,

          You are right, the constitution has to change when necessary. But there is a system built into the constitution, called the amendment process, to make the changes when the people deem it needed.

          Dr. Paul has said, on several occasions that I have heard, that he is all for changing the constitution when needed, as long as we go through the correct process and actually make the amendment.
          What it seems he is opposed to is our current system which consists of the President, the Congress, and the Judicial branch making regulations, laws, and judgements that are clearly unconstitutional, without bothering to first amend the document.

          The danger, in not bothering to amend the constitution when needed, is that a small body of politicians and judges are given precedence to act as dictators and tyrants without regard for what the people as a whole may actually want. The constitutional amendment process was put in place to help assure that any updates actually reflect the will of the people and not just those few in federal offices and seats at the time.

          As far as the prayer in school issue, it seems you are asking if the constitution protects school children from being forced to pray or be prayed upon in school? The answer is yes. But it also protects other students from being forced to refrain from praying in school if they want to. If both cases are protected, it may seem an impossible situation. But if we look a little deeper into some of our assumptions, we might find the answer here.

          It seems to me you are assuming that this hypothetical school system is mandatory for children to attend, and perhaps you are assuming that there is only one school system as a realistic option for the child (the free public school system)?

          Firstly, any government program that legally requires an individual to attend, to perform specific duties (like schoolwork), and allows punishment without a proper legal trial (detention) is unconstitutional because it is a form of indentured servitude, or slavery. (Prison is slavery, but it is constitutional if you have been properly convicted of a crime.)

          That being said, child education needs to be voluntary (at least on the parent’s part and possibly on the child’s part too) unless we amend the constitution to allow for slavery again, which hopefully would never happen. If the schooling of children was entirely voluntary, and attending any given school was voluntary, then some schools could have school sponsored prayer, if the community wanted it, since all attendees are voluntarily participating.

          Secondly, one reason there are so few choices for children when it comes to the style of school systems is because of the government sponsored monopoly that exists. I’m not an expert on the public school system, but basically the government has lots of regulations that tell schools and teachers what they can and cannot teach, and which school a child has to attend. These regulations, though well intended, have the unintended consequence of creating a lack of diversity in the available types of schools a child can attend.

          Also, schools become dependent on the somewhat arbitrary amount of money it is given by the government. There is often little incentive to streamline, simplify, or improve administration or teaching (unless there’s a budget cut). My point is that private schools (which do bring diversity of choice) have to compete within this artificial economy created by government budgets which are not based on real life supply and demand of and for quality service, but on a somewhat arbitrary amount of money sent from the government to the school. (This is partly why there relatively few private schools and why most are prohibitively expensive to attend for most.)

          One alternative idea to increase school types and variety of choice for families so that some can pray in school and others can refrain from praying in school (among other things), might be to lower taxes so that each family kept the money they earned and then chose which school they wanted to attend. The schools would be privately run and each city would have multiple styles of schools to choose from. There would be no districts forcing you to any one school.

          The multitude of schools would compete for your tuition dollars by constantly striving to create a better school with lower tuition rates (just like the cell phone and computer industries do, which are an example of true free market capitalism working at its best, quality of phones and computers doubles while price drops in half practically every 18 months, where now almost the poorest of the poor can afford cell phone service!).

          Some schools would have prayer, others would not. You as the student could choose which to attend. The prices would be competitive and likely low so that most all could afford to attend (especially since taxes have been lowered). There would be private (or government) grants and scholarships for the poorest few who needed help with tuition.

          Another idea would be to maintain local or state government taxes and funding, but to let each local school regulate itself, get rid of districting so schools would have to compete for your child (since schools get paid per child attending), thus raising quality. Schools could have prayer if they chose, but if it caused lower enrollment, they might get rid of the prayer. In other words, schools would supply the needs of each individual communities more effectively.

          There could still be government standards for education, but they wouldn’t be mandatory to follow. More accurate systems of evaluating a school’s effectiveness would likely develop, under a more free system, in order for a school to ensure students and parents that their school is of highest quality and best price value.

          With local communities deciding how to do things, we generally get more variety, more healthy competition, leading to higher quality, lower prices, and better supply of the demands and needs of the individuals.

          With centralized interventionism, we generally get many unintended consequences including, lack of variety, lack of healthy competition, lackluster quality, higher prices (due to the usual inefficiencies and the economic nature of redistributing wealth), and less effective supply of the demands and needs of the individuals.

          And the worst unintended consequence of all, that usually comes from centralized interventionism, is loss of liberty to choose one’s personal lifestyle. In the case of this discussion, it is the religious families who can’t afford private school, but want to study religion at school and have prayer at school who have lost their liberty.

          If we can stand by as a nation while any one person’s liberty is stolen by the government (even if we don’t like their lifestyle choice), then our entire system is a fraud and all of us are at risk for being censored, enslaved, or robbed by the government.

          Report this comment

          Like or Dislike: Thumb up 2 Thumb down 1

  11. Justin

    This is a serious comment from someone who openly considers himself a Socialist. Does Ron Paul feel that a free public education is a right for ALL Americans, no matter what branch of government the funds come from (but for sake of this argument lets say the funds will come from state or local taxes)?

    This is your opportunity to convince a far leftist that Ron Paul is a viable option for president assuming you (his supporters) don’t have insane arguments as some “tea partiers” (ie: Bachman, Palin, Tancredo).

    I’m intrigued by a lot of his ideas especially when it comes to personal freedoms with his proposed reforms when it comes to our policies towards drugs, equal rights for homosexuals. As well as his foreign policy.

    Report this comment

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 2 Thumb down 2

    1. John

      I’m not sure what Ron Paul would think about your question. But my guess is that he would say that education is not a right protected by the U.S. constitution.

      But if society wants to provide education for all, then that is fine, they can choose to do that.

      But the more local the taxes and the more locally controlled and regulated the schools, the better the services will likely be.

      Those who try to eat locally grown food do so for a similar reason. The more local the food was grown, the greater the probability that the food will be high quality by the time you consume it. And the easier time you will have in voicing your opinion about changes that need to be made, you could perhaps even meet the farmer.

      I am certain that Ron Paul will never attempt to make a Federal policy that will make public schools generally illegal, he might just get rid of Federal dictates on how the entire country should run it’s schools. But you can never have Federal monies going to any program without it wanting to regulate how you use the money. Thus, any public school monies should be raised and distributed locally.

      And why not have lots of local variety when it comes to education? Perhaps there could be a healthy competition between states or even counties to create the best school program. Those who do the best job could provide inspiration and a framework for other localities to improve their programs.

      When I think about it, why would anyone claim to have THE best system for education and want to dictate that the entire country do it their way! With more variety we can more quickly find the ways which work and the ways which don’t.

      Report this comment

      Like or Dislike: Thumb up 2 Thumb down 2

  12. Bob

    How many of you educators out there Know you are still teching American children at a third grade level?
    Explain in comparison to when?

    Report this comment

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 1

  13. Bob

    Thomas Jefferson believed that it was the purpose of government and the press. To educate the citizens about the on goings of government. The laws that affect our lives and dangerous products and the like allowing the citizens to make choices.
    Not the government protection racket that exsists today. Which is a double edge sword.
    It builds government beaucauracy and insures electabiliy in the career of the politician in there performance. Job security, The more problems to protect the citizen against the more reason for the job. It is about creating problems, complicating things. So Big govenment has a reason to exsist.
    Here is a quiz which is an example of what I am stating here. Why were the seat belt laws passed? Even after air bags came about why are they still needed?

    Report this comment

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 3

    1. Robert

      I agree with your message, gov’t shouldn’t require citizens to keep themselves safe as a matter of law. But it’s still a good idea to wear a seatbelt even if you have airbags. A crash at only 30 mph generates about the same force as falling off of a three story building, and that’s only if you hit a stationary object.

      Report this comment

      Like or Dislike: Thumb up 3 Thumb down 0

    2. v0ids0ul

      Please do not take anything I am about to say the wrong way, as I do not mean to be a jerk in pointing out the obvious here. My grammar is far from perfect, but dear friend, in this post yours is abysmal. The fact that your post is in the topic of education is proof enough that Ron Paul is right about the system not working.

      “Thomas Jefferson believed that it was the purpose of government and the press.”

      What was the purpose of government, and the press?

      “To educate the citizens about the on goings of government.”

      Are you defining something here, because I have no idea what you’re trying to say.

      “The laws that affect our lives and dangerous products and the like allowing the citizens to make choices.”

      What laws? Where? What products? What choices?

      “Not the government protection racket that exsists today.”

      What about the government protection racket?

      “Which is a double edge sword.”

      Sentences do not form themselves.

      “It builds government beaucauracy and insures electabiliy in the career of the politician in there performance.”

      What builds government “beaucauracy,” and furthermore what is “beaucauracy”?

      “Job security, The more problems to protect the citizen against the more reason for the job.”

      This makes absolutely no sense whatsoever. Please refrain from consuming alcohol when trying to make a point.

      “It is about creating problems, complicating things.”

      What is about creating problems, AND complicating things?

      “So Big govenment has a reason to exsist.”

      What is this “Big govenment” you speak of, and why do they have a reason to “exsist”?

      “Here is a quiz which is an example of what I am stating here.”

      Oh boy a quiz!

      “Why were the seat belt laws passed?”

      So you do not die when you crash into the senior citizens home after a long night of drinking moonshine.

      “Even after air bags came about why are they still needed?”

      This is still part of the first question.

      Report this comment

      Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0

  14. JTR

    The fundamental objection I have to this stance is the effect it would have on certain rural areas. Fundamentalist? Hate evolution? Don’t value math and science? Think you don’t need to encourage your kids to strive for more? Well don’t worry – theres no D.O.E, so you can stay backward.

    Report this comment

    Hotly debated. What do you think? Thumb up 13 Thumb down 8

    1. John

      Good point. Except that your wanting to impose your beliefs onto another is a form of tyranny, even if your beliefs are founded on common sense and good will.
      But the fact of the matter is that the internet brings all views to those who are curious to look at them. Often times the stronger a parent forces a kid to believe a certain way, the more a child rebels and ends up believing the opposite ideas anyway.
      I agree with you that math and science are important to learn, but perhaps there exists a human who only cares about learning skills like farming or fixing broken farm equipment. Under a constitution which protects the rights of individuals to choose their own personal habits and occupations, what right do you and I have to force others to learn what we want them to learn, or force them to value what we want them to value?
      Perhaps if a parent is preventing a child from learning to read even though the child wants to learn, that may actually be a mild form of child abuse from one perspective. But how are we supposed to police such a thing without creating a mild police state subjecting parents, who are encouraging their children to read, to intrusive government bureaucracy?

      The bottom line is that it’s a state issue, it should not be a federal government issue.

      Report this comment

      Like or Dislike: Thumb up 6 Thumb down 3

      1. James Joseph Roper

        First you say “Except that your wanting to impose your beliefs onto another is a form of tyranny” and then you say “The bottom line is that it’s a state issue, it should not be a federal government issue.” Now, is that latter not a form of the former? In other words, it is your belief that it is a state issue.

        I would say that we should oblige all kids to get a good education, and a good education should be obligatory nationwide. Whether the federal government does it or states do it, is a moot point. We should do it the way that makes sure that it get done.

        Thomas Jefferson and others felt that it was absolutely essential that in a democracy, the citizens be very well informed in order to carry out their role as citizens. He knew it was a national issue, but perhaps he didn’t foresee how bad education would become (and, for an illustration, just read in these comments how poorly some people write!).

        Report this comment

        Like or Dislike: Thumb up 4 Thumb down 3

        1. John

          It’s not “my” belief that child education is a state issue, it is the US constitution that says this. Article 1, section 8 details the powers of the US Congress, and education is not there. Then the 10th amendment states that any power not mentioned in the constitution are reserved for people in each state.

          The process set up by the founders is that the citizens of each state decide within that state which laws to write, if any, including laws about education.

          Then if there is question about the law’s constitutionality, it is up to the judicial branch to decide whether that law violates the federal constitution or not.

          If the judiciary decides it to be in violation, that state can take that law off the books, or it can attempt to rally support from Congress and the other states to amend the constitution so that the given law will no longer be in violation.

          So only if you believe the US constitution is tyrannical in nature can you believe that child education being a state issue is tyrannical.

          I am not sure, but I wonder, is compulsory education technically a form of slavery? And for this reason is compulsory education unconstitutional? I don’t know, this issue has never been ruled on by the Judiciary that I am aware of.

          I just know that when I was a child I wished that some adults would stand up for children’s right to choose when it came to education.

          Of course it may ultimately be up to the parents, but if the parents’ hands are tied by certain laws, then some children might be stuck spending much of the formative years of their lives attending a school system that kills their curiosity and creativity.

          Question: Does the constitution and bill of rights apply to children?

          Report this comment

          Like or Dislike: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 3

          1. skpg

            Compulsory education is unconstitutional because it violates the 13th amendment. The 13th amendment says neither slavery nor involuntary servitude, except as a punishment for crime, shall exist within the United States.

            Section 2 of the 13th amendment says: Congress shall have power to enforce this article by appropriate legislation

            If congress wanted they can repeal all mandatory attendance laws. The role of the federal government is to protect liberty, and the states are violating liberty by forcing children into concentration camps, ahem I mean schools.

            Report this comment

            Like or Dislike: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 4

    2. Tori Alexander

      I worry too, but the fact is that we’ve had an educational system with the Federal Department of Education. And science, math, literacy and basic reasoning skills are appalling. We are a nation of citizens who value neither education nor intelligence, but only want our diplomas to get into college to get good jobs in order to become the biggest consumers possible. There is no reason why the State government can’t do just as poor a job at educating the public by itself. I also think the local school board is unnecessary: often corrupt and comprised of non-professionals it could be replaced by parent-teacher committees and public vote. The teachers, their licensing boards and the universities where they get their training, should be the ones who make the decisions about education. Less government, more well-paid, highly trained teachers.

      Report this comment

      Like or Dislike: Thumb up 3 Thumb down 1

  15. Bob

    I suppose there are those who would give liberty and freedom. To a rattle snake in there house. The problem is, on one cold night. The rattle snake. Will crawl into bed with you and bite and kill you.
    To seduce a nation into believig the lie. That the rattle snake is not really red and dangerous and poisnous. Deadly when it bites.

    Report this comment

    Hotly debated. What do you think? Thumb up 0 Thumb down 24

    1. James J. Roper

      I am not exactly sure what Bob really meant by his diatribe, but it certainly showed that education is a very important issue today. Between the grammatical mistakes and the mixing of metaphors, we have a prime example of why our educational system needs improving.

      Report this comment

      Highly rated. What do you think? Thumb up 38 Thumb down 0

      1. John

        Yes, it has finally occurred to me what “Bob” is talking about and you are exactly right. “Bob” is a distraction from the truths Dr. Paul is trying to convey and the discussion that needs to happen in America around it. “Bob” is a set up for the comment you just made. Nice try guys.

        Report this comment

        Like or Dislike: Thumb up 2 Thumb down 2

      2. Bob

        It is all in your desire to be one of the delusi0nal. Expressing your willingness to believe a lie.You are completely aware. Of what was conveyed. Of course the red dragon runs rampant through the American education system. Posing itself as The N.E.A. Which you no doubt are probably a strong supporter of, and member, and if not you are part of the living lie. it is your choice. You can understand that. It is not to much below your great so called educational intelligence? Stupid you are, stupid you do.

        Report this comment

        Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 6

  16. Bob

    Seduction of the innocent. in believing the lie of so called roayltiy.To seduce a nation and distroy the peoples will.

    Report this comment

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 6

  17. Bob

    It truly amazes me how some people want to be subjects and enslaved to another human being who bleeds, lives and dies just like they do. Believing some how these people are grater than all.

    Report this comment

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 5

  18. Bob

    I wonder How accountable the media who think. That they are the great educators of society. who claim that if there is only one sentence of truth. It is all truth, even if it is a whole book.
    How accountable will they be for exempting some of the tornado forcasts. to only show the royal wedding party?

    Report this comment

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 5

  19. Bob

    Who would pay a people billions of dollars.To go around acting arogantly. Looking there noses down at the people who support them. As if they were an insect. Whispering behind ther backs that they are just lowly colonists. Pitiful subjects. Assuming a pseudo roll over them. In the end result accomplishing nothing. Except draining the coffers of a nation like a parasite.
    Having a party they call a wedding thrown in everyones face without regaurd to the life of there nation. As if every one should partake in there socialist scam.
    The very thing that George Washinton and the rest of those who rebelled against England and the so called royal bloods. Once again, is rasing its ugly head disguised and wraped in a false beauty.
    And people are critisizing Donald Trump?

    Report this comment

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 5

  20. Bob

    The department of education and human services and all the zars are uncostitutional.
    They need to be abolished with the EPA. What a savings it would make for us all.

    Report this comment

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 6

  21. Bob

    How disgusting to use a wedding. To re educate and seduce people into beleiving some lie. About a people who think they come from God and have holy blood running in there vains. What absolute tripe. The so called royals of briton need to keep there crap to themselves and stay out of our business.

    Report this comment

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 3

    1. KC

      You do know you don’t have to watch it (or believe it for that matter)…. and how are they in “our business” anyways???

      Report this comment

      Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 2

      1. Bob

        Seek the truth and the truth will set you free. Education is about learning the truth. Those who dont know How much the Queen of england and her bunch are involved in our lives today. Need to educate themselves on the truth. Go seek ask questions and you shall no. Starting with the bank of england

        Report this comment

        Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 4

  22. John

    Even people on welfare have cell phones. So I guess they likely have internet access as well. The best learning comes when the individual becomes curious and takes initiative to find out. The internet offers a great education to those who are curious, for virtually free. And with companies like amazon.com, it’s easy to buy a book, read it, and sell it back so you can then afford to buy another.

    The government nor teachers can force curiosity.

    Starfalls.com is a free website where anyone can learn to read. And visualmathlearning.com is a free site as well. Even many universities now are posting free lecture videos on all their courses on the internet. ucsd.tv has 1000′s of hours of superb educational videos and lectures available for free.

    Since education is now virtually free if you can afford internet access, the underlying question remains, “Why would any of us be so poor that we have no internet access?” The answer to this question lies in our unconstitutional federal monetary system of fiat currency and fractional reserve banking system. Ultimately it causes housing price and rent inflation, food price inflation, and energy inflation so that someone working 40hrs per week at $8/hr cannot ever get ahead. If they do manage to save some money, its value is wiped out due the constant debasement of the currency.

    This education debate is not addressing the real underlying issues of why people cannot afford to educate themselves and their own children.

    Report this comment

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 7 Thumb down 2

    1. James Joseph Roper

      Not ALL people on welfare have cell phones, nor do all people have the same access to the internet. Also, I would never trust a doctor to operate on my liver who got his education online. The internet does not “educate” so much as it “informs.” It is quite possible that a future solution to better education will (should) include access to all the information online, but we will still have the need, and the desire, for an excellent education system – being locally or federally organized. We certainly don’t want to downgrade the education system, just because the internet is available – if anything, we would use the internet to improve education.

      Report this comment

      Like or Dislike: Thumb up 6 Thumb down 2

      1. John

        Right, not all people can afford cell phone service or internet service. Why not? It’s because of what I mentioned in my comment above that you did not address in your reply.

        Inform is all we can do. Only the individual can educate himself/herself. The word educate means to “draw out” of someone. Only curiosity can do this. No one can force others to be curious, it comes from within.

        You are correct that the best way to learn a skill is to be an apprentice under someone with experience. If this is true, then teachers can only teach kids to be teachers. There ought to be more apprenticeships available for kids to learn the skills they are interested in from people who practice those skills daily (police, firefighters, mailcarriers, mechanics, farmers, carpenters, and so on). We certainly don’t need government to set this up apprenticeship programs for us.

        But again this debate is missing the point. The reason there are so many poor people is because of our faulty monetary system that designs inflation as its basis.

        Report this comment

        Like or Dislike: Thumb up 2 Thumb down 1

        1. James J. Roper

          Teachers are not, by definition, those who study teaching. Sure, teachers have to learn how to teach, but many are teaching in subject areas in which they are interested. So, they do not teach teaching, unless teaching is their area of interest.

          Nonetheless, for K-12, almost any adult knows more than the children do, about everything, from life to economics and politics. The more the teachers know, the better they will be at teaching. The better the teachers are, the more equipped the students are with deciding what to do with their own lives as they mature.

          If you read the comments by Bob, you will see that he managed to get to his age without learning to write or express himself well. I would think that we want our children to be well-equipped to become responsible and sensible and THINKING adults.

          Report this comment

          Like or Dislike: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 0

          1. John

            It’s obvious that “Bob” is not a real person, but a distraction to this discussion.

            Teachers K-12 do not help children to know what they want to do as a job when they grow up unless they want to be a teacher. Only by visiting or hanging around or apprenticing with lots of different people in different careers is this possible. This is why many Americans mope around and drag their feet until they are well into adulthood and well out of college not knowing what it is they really want to do. This is why so many constantly change their college majors over and over.

            I have finally realized that not only is the military draft, even for defense of the country, a form of slavery and thus unconstitutional, but so is compulsory education for anyone at any age. It doesn’t matter how well your intentions are for government education, it is unconstitutional if it is compulsory. Let’s at least make school voluntary. A school full of children who want to be there would be so much more successful than one which holds prisoners.

            Just because an adult knows more information on a subject, doesn’t mean that the adult has any real life experience with the subject, nor necessarily accurate opinions about it. And it doesn’t mean that the knowledgeable teacher will be able to force the child to be curious about all this knowledge.

            Again, curiosity is what creates education. You cannot force someone to be curious. Learning is a natural positive feedback loop inherently inborn inside a child. We don’t need to try to force this process to happen. Just like everything else the government does, there are many unintended consequences for trying to create a utopian society even when the intentions are as good as teaching children. Teaching children who want to learn should be done by either the parents or by the private sector, not the government.

            Just like our foreign policy of military force and propping up dictators with foreign aid has backfired on us over and over, so too our public school system has backfired on us by stifling natural curiosity in children, stifling invention and creativity in Americans.

            But, luckily, we will most likely have to come round to my ideas eventually because our country is going bankrupt due to government intervention in too many areas including destroying our once sound money. There will be no choice when the dollar collapses but to shut down the majority of government sponsored programs. At that point hopefully true freedom will be unleashed and we can begin the road to widespread prosperity for all citizens created by each individual, rather than mediocrity being forced on us by the government’s good intentions.

            Report this comment

            Like or Dislike: Thumb up 3 Thumb down 2

  23. Michele Curlee

    Well, let me think…how much education was going on for the general public before the onset of public education? NONE…sure paupers sent their children off to factories, mines, and apprenticeships…great prospects in life if you like a system little better than serfdom. If you believe that people will rise in support of the “greater good”, that everyone will follow the “golden rule”, and parents will do the right and beneficial thing for all children…then go for it! But if you remember Scrooge and how far British society devolved when there were no mandatory laws impeling your average concerned parent and lawmakers to provide for basic tools for education and social advancement…So if you subscribe to< "…let them die and decrease the surplus population…" well go for it and let the fate of all our children depend on the generousity of their local upright citizens! You have more faith in mankind then I do!

    Report this comment

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 5 Thumb down 3

  24. wyatt

    “A popular government without popular information or the means of acquiring it, is but a Prologue to Farce, or a Tragedy, or perhaps both.” – James Madison

    Report this comment

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 3 Thumb down 0

  25. James Joseph Roper

    Unfortunately, until PARENTS are reasonably well educated, we cannot assume that they know what is best for their children. Yes, getting rid of the Federal control over education might help, IF, and only IF, the money were actually transferred to the states and the STATES actually took up the mantle and improved education. We should not get rid of federal control if we find that state control will be just as bad, or worse. The devil that you know is better than the devil that you don’t know. So, rather than just say get rid of federal control, I would like to see how local control WILL, in fact (or even in theory) IMPROVE education.

    Report this comment

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 3 Thumb down 0

  26. TanksofThinkers

    Ok, get rid of the Department of Education. It only maintains of low level of mediocrity anyways.

    However, in a perfect world (after 8 years of Ron Paul being president?) it would be a wonderful place where parents truly care about their children’s education and the communities are able to provide the needed education tools and resources for any US citizen to get a great education so we can compete against the now extremely passionate Asian nations (imagine underclassmen lining up to wish seniors good luck as they walk into college entrance examination rooms – as seen in Korea?).

    Is that where we are today? In many poor communities in America I don’t see much difference between their ability to pull that off as I do in many poor or developing nations. Do we just write off those communities and “hope” they jump on the education bandwagon?

    This is where we are headed anyways because our nation is going broke and education is seen as an easy thing to cut because the results are so far away.

    Since education is the only way to solve most of our problems, I sure hope new, high technology solutions become available for anyone in our country to be able to access via the Internet (who would want to venture outside in some of these communities after the economy collapses?). The question then becomes, will those poor people be able to afford the Internet services and tablets needed? If not, you can kiss progress goodbye.

    So, I can agree with Ron Paul on this and say let’s give it a try. However, if it ends up where the poor are denied these tools and the gap continues to grow, the government needs to step in. Is that fair?

    Report this comment

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 2 Thumb down 1

    1. RJ

      Whatever reform is done to education, it needs to include responsiblity of the parent to follow through with the plan made at school. NOT just on the educator. Homework is essential to the lessons in the classroom. Teacher/Parent meetings are mandatory so both parties stay on the same page, otherwise what occurs during classroom time could by wasted by no follow up at home. If parents are given the choice of moving to other schools, then it follows that they are responsible for that choice and should be required to participate with the educators in seeing the child through the process.

      Report this comment

      Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0

  27. Mark Lakley

    lol at the comments saying education should be handled by the state. Education shouldn’t be handled by neither the federal, state or local government. If the states wants to fund education fine, but they shouldn’t be imposing compulsory education laws on it’s citizens. It’s unconstitutional, it violates the 13th amendment. Americans don’t realize that forcing people into schools is a form of involuntary servitude. The problem in education today (not just the US, but around the world) is this belief that citizens can only be educated if forced by the state.

    What’s the solution to this mess? The 13th amendment says that congress has the right to repeal the mandatory attendance laws imposed by the states, they can also repeal the teacher tenure system as well. The Department of Education needs to be abolished. So many government mandates on education need to be repealed, that is the solution.

    Report this comment

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 2 Thumb down 4

  28. Tricia Johnson

    I agree with Mr. Paul. Education needs to be handled on a local level. The Federal Goverment does not need to be involved. End the Department of Education.

    Report this comment

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 4 Thumb down 0

  29. Jared

    Something I would like to hear more about is what will be done about schools that are underfunded or are present in areas with not enough money, high crime, crumbling school districts. I totally agree with making school decisions on more of a local level. I just don’t like these national standards, or even state standards in a lot of cases. I just fear that with local funding many schools will be left waaaay behind creating more crime and rough neighborhoods and an even larger gap. If we had stuck with local education from the beginning I don’t feel this would have happened. But now that we’ve created this dependent society, education seems really tough to backtrack. I’m looking for some real insight on this from anyone. What do people think? I don’t want anything offensive or hateful, just good ideas.

    Report this comment

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 0

    1. Rob

      His point is that the Federal Government has no business in Education. The ideas to reform education are to made at the state level. This is clearly the intent of the 10th amendment. Health Education and Welfare are three words not to be found in the constitution.

      Report this comment

      Like or Dislike: Thumb up 3 Thumb down 0

      1. Jake

        I agree that the federal government has no business in education. If the people of an individual state decide that they want a higher standard for their students, in order to attract jobs for instance, then they will set those standards. If they don’t care to educate their populace then they will have to accept the consequences of that. The states will end up stronger when they are forced to compete with each other for jobs. When the less educated populations start sliding into poverty they’ll get the message.

        Not to nitpick, but only two of those words aren’t in the Constitution. Welfare is in there twice, including in the first sentence.

        Report this comment

        Like or Dislike: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 0

  30. Grace Ibrahim

    I think we should have a education system like japans but that is probably just me ….

    Report this comment

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0

  31. Justin McNutt

    The future of our nation depends greatly on our public education system. The Founders of our country believed that liberty could only be assured if a liberal arts education was freely available to all American citizens. Education is a necessary prerequisite for the advancement of our stated ideals of life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness for all citizens. It seems today that huge corporations are starting to take over our public education system, not for the good of US citizens, but to better benefit themselves. They are promoting “indoctrination”, not education. Students are being molded into passive future workers for the global corporations that own them, not for the greater good of our nation and its peoples. Obedient students become obedient adults who will deny their God-given faculties of reason, conscience, intuition, experience, and common sense. The public education system is the invention of one of our greatest founding fathers and writer of the Declaration of Independence, Thomas Jefferson. These public institiutions are to support open-mindedness, truth, and progress. America’s founders valued education as the means to protect liberty from forces of coercion and to ensure the continued progress that would contribute to our pursuit of happiness. The goal was that education would be liberal, guarding against the closed-field of over-specialization by providing equal access equal access to information and skills; open-mindedness in allowing for new ideas and creative exploration outside the box. These huge corporations understand that controlling education is a key component in attaining dominion over its citizens. The “No Child Left Behind” campaign launched by the Bush’s Department of Education was a way for the federal government to seize total control of every phase of public education. This plan mandated a reductive, teaching apparatus consisting of focused, simplistic lesson plans that produced specific results that were judged and rewarded sololy on standardized tests. Such a narrow education produces narrow minds. The main objective of Bush’s “No Child Left Behind” is PRIVATIZATION. “Our” corporate-purchased elected officials are transforming our schools into training centers where kids only learn basic skills that make them obedient, productive workers in the competitive global market. This is NOT education, this is indoctrination! Even President Obama seems to agree with this agenda. A broad liberal arts education which produces citizens who are capable of critical thinking skills and are educated in a variety of fields can rebel against the blatant brainwashing and exploition that these huge corporations are doing to America and its people.

    Report this comment

    Highly rated. What do you think? Thumb up 11 Thumb down 1

  32. İndir

    Oldukca guzel bir yazi ben cok begendim. Tessekkurler…

    Report this comment

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 2 Thumb down 2

  33. Rebecca Franco

    My comment and thoughts on the issue of cutting the Education budget by 50 million is ludicrous. Why would the Educated People running the State of Texas even contemplate such a thought. It seems to me that Texas is housing and paying for how many prisoners? It just does not seem logical to not educate our young; but we will feed and free house the prisoners. ???????
    The Prison Reform System does not work. Prisons are a different world and once you go in the ratio of beings coming out reformed is not even worth mentioning. For instance Joe Blow and Jane Doe went to prison for 5 years for having less then 2 ounces of cocaine on their possession. Joe Blow and Jand Doe were both gainfully employed had a mortgage and paid taxes. Joe Blow and Jane Doe were not perfect upstanding citizens but neither were they dependent on government assistance. Joe Blow and Jane Doe are in prison and comes to realize that they either conform to the violent prison life or die. One litterally has to “Do or Die” in prison. So he Joe Blow and Jane Doe come out of prison, after completely thier 5 year term, not reformed but “hard Core” Ex-Cons. What happens when neither can find employment because today nobody hires anybody that has a criminal record. So what are Joe Blow’s and Jane Doe’s options?
    So I ask again why is Texas looking to cut the Education budget? So we can promote ignorance and crime?

    Report this comment

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 9 Thumb down 7

    1. Kevin Mazzio

      I don’t believe the issue is the amount of money that the government spends on education, but rather the inneficient way in which the money is spent. I think an analysis would reveal that our schoos spend needless money on supplies, books, and services due to underhanded contracts and procurement systems. In addition, I don’t think the teachers are there for the kids like they used to by. I have been to the school to see a teacher and can’t even get in the door. If you call…you have to be prepared to wait a couple of days for and appointment. I read a local story where one of the school systems in the area spent 600 thousand in tutoring last year with no evidence of grades getting better. Really?? what happened to teachers staying a little late or other students helping out. Instead, we are outsourcing to a tutoring company for $60/hr or so. I bet if we checked, the company being hired has relations to someone on the school board. It is this way across the board. I think vouchers are the way to go. Let’s bring in the competition and force educators to produce more than just a passing SOL grade.

      Report this comment

      Like or Dislike: Thumb up 6 Thumb down 2

  34. Mark Ockey

    While reading through the comments here, I don’t see why people think that ANY education is truly free, regardless of age group or grade. Someone pays for those books, supplies, buildings, teachers salaries. While a lot of public education is paid for with taxes, the teachers are often expected to pony up their personal money for supplies. This is not right. I think some of the funding needs to come from a variety of sources in the community, including private sector (in the form of grants, endowments, charitable donations from non-profits, fundraisers), as well as from the parents, and funding from the state.

    I agree that Education needs to be run by the states, not by the feds. This was a power granted to the states by the Constitution. As “No Child Left Behind” has taught us, a bureaucrat in Washington really has no clue what a child needs in a classroom to succeed. This archaic system of carrots (funding) and whips (withdrawal of funding and forced closure for schools do not bring scores up) has only served to alienate and hinder educators in their goals. It has done little to nothing to further education.

    Many of the students of today graduate high school knowing how to pass a standardized test but lack critical thinking skills they will need throughout their lives. Ultimately, they are the ones who pay the price when they realize they are at a competitive disadvantage in the workforce and can not find a job.

    Report this comment

    Highly rated. What do you think? Thumb up 12 Thumb down 0

  35. Jason G. Edwards

    It’s wrong how good old school buildings get destroyed and replaced with new modern ugly brick giant expensive ones. In that new Houston school building, we didn’t have books for each of the ghetto students. The class sizes were WAY to large. The money should be spent on teachers and supplies. Let the teachers teach! Over here in Asia, we don’t have the paperwork and legal issues. Our building is old, but in good shape. Some of my classes have fifteen students. We have work schedules that let us golf in the afternoons. It gives me time to figure out how to best take care of the students.

    Report this comment

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 4 Thumb down 0

Leave a Reply