repost, but it’s been a while

  • sfu@lemm.ee
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    2
    arrow-down
    1
    ·
    1 day ago

    Umm, removal of DOE does not remove schools.

    • sowitzer@lemm.ee
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      4
      ·
      1 day ago

      Maybe not yet. But that is the ultimate goal. That’s not even a slippery slope fallacy. Poor people don’t need an education, let them start working when old enough for school. These are goals they are working towards little by little. If you don’t know that you are not paying attention. You are just hearing what is said by known liars and believing it for every little step until the goal is met.

      • sfu@lemm.ee
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        1
        arrow-down
        3
        ·
        22 hours ago

        The removal of the DOE will just allow states to be in charge of their schools, instead of the federal gov. It doesn’t need to be federalized. Most things should be state run, not federal run. The point of having states is so people can more choice in what they want for themselves.

        If you like the way state B operates better than the state F operates, then you have the ability to either move to State F, or to work on convincing those in state B to change the way they operate. But when the fed runs it, you’re stuck with it.

        • Doctor_Satan@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          1
          ·
          14 hours ago

          The problem with this is that there ends up being no national education standard. You take a state like Alabama, which ranks dead last in so many education metrics, and remove those federal standards. Now Alabama can just change their state standards, and suddenly they have a 100% graduation rate with all straight A students. Guess what happens when Cletus the Alabama valedictorian tries to get a job in the medical field or the tech sector.

          And that’s before we ever even talk about funding. States get about 15% of their K-12 funding from the federal government. Where are the states going to make up that difference? Higher state taxes? Higher property taxes? Or are they just going to let already struggling schools go to shit? Guess who that affects the most?

          You really haven’t put a lot of thought into this beyond “federal gubmint bad”.

        • sowitzer@lemm.ee
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          4
          ·
          21 hours ago

          Just move huh? Just change the government? Simple. I’m sure no state will defy the constitution regarding education. And all states will care about all students and listen to local school boards. Local boards are even smaller and not need the state then. It’s great that it’s all about making things better for all and being more efficient. Sure, that’s the only reason for this. Maybe states should just become their own country, or change the federal government if they don’t like it instead of eliminating it.

          I bet you believe abortion is about “states rights” too. I’m sure it’s all decided now and no need to push for a federal ban. Nobody is pushing for that I’m sure. lol. Do you believe that abortion is only about abortion even?

          It’s not even worth typing out all the ways your whole statement Is silly. Anyone with even a partial brain can see what the end goals have always been. And when given a chance, what they have and will do with the power. And yet people like you just push the absolute dumbest narrative you can and somehow believe it.