Kansas School Board Redefines Stupidity

Setanta wrote:

real life wrote:
Setanta wrote:
real life wrote:
Perhaps they would favor abolishing the Federal Department of Education altogether and returning that money to the local districts where it originated. This is a move I would personally support also because it complies with the Bill of Rights.

Big Bird sure nailed you when he observed that your knowledge of the polity is equivalent to your knowledge of science--which is to say, not to damned deep or broad. Here, i'll give you a chance to cobble together an excuse for this silly, silly statement. The "Bill of Rights" is a term used to refer to the first ten amendents to the constitution, which you will find below. My bet is that you'll attempt to use the ninth or tenth amendments in your contortions, since taxation and revenues are nowhere mentioned in these amendments. But it ain'ta gonna work . . .

Amendment X

The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.
(emphasis mine)

It is pretty obvious that the 10th applies. The Founders, not without exception, envisioned a limited central government with powers few and enumerated. Very unfashionable now, but that was the plan.

Yeah, i figured you'd go for that one. Having displayed such ignorance, you compound it by attempting to tell people with a thorough knowledge of the constitution and the circumstances in which it was framed and adopted what the intent of the founders was.

Executive departments are established by law--in the case of the Department of Education, it was established by H.R. 2444, in the 96th Congress (the Senate's version, S 210, was reconciled to the House version in conference committee). Therefore, President Carter, in pursuance of the Department of Education Organization Act, established the Deparment in May, 1980. The power to created executive departments is delegated to the United States by the constitution, so the tenth amendment does not in any way preclude the existence of the Department of Education, which was established by law.

Your contention about "returning that money to the local districts where it originated."--is bootless, because school district revenues are not collected and redistributed by the Federal government. The Department of Education is funded by congressional appropriation, just as is every other department of government. The sources of the monies so appropriated are the revenues and taxes lawfully collected under the provisions of the legislation which, by constitutional directive, originates in the House of Represenatives. There is nothing in the tenth amendment which prejudices the procedure of the origination of money bills in the House, nor the distribution of goverment revenues by appropriation legislation to departments established by law.

In short, you have no case, and you don't know what the hell you're ranting about.

Does the federal government have the authority to establish a Department to issue driver's licenses? Dozens of other state and local governmental functions could be put in the same question.

The answer is no. The federal government does not have authority under the Constitution to establish bureaucracies to do whatever the President and Congress wish done.

We have a system with separation of powers. Some are specifically delegated to the federal government. Other powers are divided among the States, counties, municipalities, etc.

Our system was designed this way to prevent an all powerful central government. (You are well aware of this. You simply cannot resist taking the opposite part in anything that I address, it seems. So be it.)

The 10th Amendment specifically refers to this, else it has no meaning at all. If the Federal government has the authority to establish a Department to do whatever it wishes, the wording of the 10th Amendment is meaningless nonsense. (Hint: It's not. Your view is incorrect. But fashionable.)

0 Replies

rl, The Federal Government is charged with seeing to the overall interest, safety, and security of The Nation; that is its design function, and specifically its charter. Nowhere in The Constitution nor any of its Ammendments is there any requirement that The Federal Government provide funding for education. Public Law establishes the Federal Government's responsibilities in that matter, and provides the Federal Government with the resources necessary to administer and discharge those responsibilities in accordance with relevant Public Law.

The question of national education achievement standards goes directly to the issues of the overal interest, safety, and security of The Nation. There is no Constitutional impediment to The Federal Government establishing certain minimum National Standards upon which would be contingent the participation of States in particular Federal funding programs. Any State would retain the right to participate or not in such a Standards-Dependent program, as the voters and legislatures of the individual States saw fit.

The Federal Government may only collect and disburse such funds as authorized by and in the manner prescribed by law. Its a matter of law, law as legislated and enacted by the elected representatives of The People, pursuant to the provisions of The Constitution. Thats the Law of The Land.

0 Replies

Word's with which "real life" is apparently unfamiliar:

. . . in Order to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defense, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity . . .

"Fashion" has nothing to do with the right of the Congress, exercised since the First Congress sat in 1789, to pass the enabling legislation to establish departments of government. "Fashion" has nothing to do with the origination of money bills in the House, which provide the funds for the operations of those departments.

It is fashionable, however, for ill-educated loud-mouths to spout off about what powers the government does and does not have. I rather suspect that i did "real life" too much of a favor in providing the text of the Bill of Rights. Had i not done, i suspect he just would have foundered along with his specious rhetoric, and not have had the raft of the tenth amendment to cling to.

You have failed to demonstrate, "real life," how the tenth amendment prevents government from establishing a department of education. You have not demonstrated your ludicrous proposition that local school board money is collected and redistributed by the Feds. As usual, you're long on scorn for others, and short on or completely devoid of fact.

0 Replies

timberlandko wrote:

The question of national education achievement standards goes directly to the issues of the overal interest, safety, and security of The Nation.

I can see how education standards might be in the interest of the nation. But safety and security? Surely the federal government could promote them by outlawing fanatic Koran schools that preach the violent overthrow of democratic government in America. But this kind of involvment is about crime control more than it is about education. Beyond it, I don't see how education standards would contribute to the nation's safety and security. Could you please elaborate?

0 Replies

That's disingenuous, Thomas--Timber is simply saying the constitution does not impede the Federal government from requiring the several states to meet a performance standard in order to receive a distribution of federal funds. This is has been common for quite some time, and was a particular favorite of the Reagan administration.

So, Thomas, can you tell us which portion of the constitute would impede the Federal government from establishing performance standards for the receipt of distributed revenues?

0 Replies

First, I haven't changed my mind a bit just wanna get that out front right up top.

Now, to address your other concerns - a populace not educated to a standard which would enable that populace successfully to compete in the global arena would be inimical to the safety, security, and prosperity of the nation comprising that populace.

Next, the limited and enumerated powers of The Federal Government clearly are established and defined. Within that construct is the provision that The Federal Government be subject to and governed by Public Law. The Occupational Health and Safety Act - OSHA - and the Americans With Disabilities Act come immediately to mind as sort of examples of what I'm talking about. Nothing in The Constitution says anything at all about steel-toed boots or wheelchair-accessible places of business. Never the less, there are laws pertaining to same.

0 Replies

Setanta wrote:

So, Thomas, can you tell us which portion of the constitute would impede the Federal government from establishing performance standards for the receipt of distributed revenues?

No. That's why I pulled the part of my post about limited and enumerated powers before you and Timber answered.

The general welfare clause of the constitution (article I, section 8) authorises Congress to spend money to provide for the general welfare. There has been a conflict about the interpretation of that clause, going back to Hamilton and Madison. Madison argued that the spending power is only instrumental to the other powers enumerated in that article. Hamilton argued it is an independent grant of power. The Supreme Court, in United States v. Butler (1936), settled the conflict in favor of Hamilton's interpretation. I happen to like Madison's approach better, and I still think it would be good policy to close down the department of education. But as a matter of law, Congress has the power to spend money on education, and to set the terms on which it does so.

0 Replies

Honestly, I'm not unconvinced it wouldn't be a good idea to shut down a whole buncha departments and programs. That's another deal entirely, though, and not particularly germane to this discussion.

"The government is constantly expanding to meet the ever-growing needs of a constantly expanding government"
Will Rogers

0 Replies

timberlandko wrote:

Honestly, I'm not unconvinced it wouldn't be a good idea to shut down a whole buncha departments and programs. That's another deal entirely, though, and not particularly germane to this discussion.

Fair enough. Back to the post that started this sub-thread then, which was germane to this discussion.

A long time ago on a page far, far away, Timber wrote:

An unintended consequence of the religionists' campaign to inflict their fantasy on the public education system well could be a move to a Federally-established K-12 curriculum - National Interest overriding States Rights - could happen, and the harder the religionists push, the fewer obstacles remain in the path of such a development.

I agree with Dys, this is an interesting aspect of it. But I also agree with username's point about putting too much faith in such standards. The United States being a democracy, education standards will tend to have the schools teach what the majority of the population believes. The majority of Americans believes in some form of creationism, according to pollingreport.com. Given that, what are the chances that those standards wouldn't tell schools to "teach the controversy"? I'd say they are depressingly slim. Therefore I don't see national education standards as something a scientist should look forward to -- or that a religiously motivated junk science salesman would have to fear.

0 Replies

I don't mean to imply I have any level of faith in standards on the order of those at discussion. One thing the Federal Government excells at is unintended consequences, and its pretty good at going deep into the realm of diminishing returns, too. Objective cost/benefit comparison and Federal Government Practice are concepts that don't belong in the same sentence. I don't say it would work, I say it could happen.

As for your assessment of the chances of such standards, should they come to be, incorporating "teach the controversy", I suspect you underestimate The American Electorate - but don't feel bad, that's a not-uncommon thing for folks to do; even experienced American politicians do it - all the time Laughing

0 Replies

I know that you consider historical perspective to be mere curiousity, Thomas, but you might find this interesting, nonetheless. The enabling act for a Department of Education was first mooted in the 95th Congress in 1977. It went down in flames, and a revised version was defeated in 1978. In the 96th Congress, revised yet again, HR 2444 only passed by a very narrow margin, four or five votes. (I can't be arsed to go look up the actual vote.) The Senate version, S 210, which was reconciled in conference committee, had far fewer provisions than HR 2444, and one issue upon which the enabling act threatened to founder once again was the issue of curriculum standards. The reconciled version from conference committee passed only narrowly once again, because the "offending" provisions removed garnered more votes, but lost votes of those who felt the act did not go far enough. One portion of the standards issue was the suspicion that it would prove the "thin end of the wedge" for "evolutionists." (I will once again take the opportunity to point out that a theory of evolution is not an ideology, and that "evolutionist" is a meaningless term.) It is ironic that the Department of Education under the current administration is busily enaged in setting standards upon which basis funds will be disbursed, as one can research at the Deparment of Education's site. In fact, under William Bennett, the arch-conservative, Reagan's appointee to the secretaryship of that Department in 1985, the Department began a program of disbursements to the states, as a part of Reagan's program of "revenue sharing." It is rather difficult to conceive of any administration of any political character which would not tie revenue disbursement to performance.

At all events, the point of this little history lesson is that it was only by a very narrow margin that the Congress disagreed with your opinion that a Department of Education is unnecessary.

0 Replies

Setanta wrote:

At all events, the point of this little history lesson is that it was only by a very narrow margin that the Congress disagreed with your opinion that a Department of Education is unnecessary.

That's one of the things I like about America. My side lost by a narrow margin -- but in Germany there wouldn't have even been a contest. Thanks for the historical perspective. It was a mere curiosity, but a nice one.

0 Replies

Back to topic for a moment here ( which really hasn't seen much discussion in this thread, due to side issues)..............

The Kansas State Board of Education, in defining science wrote:

Science is a systematic method of continuing investigation that uses observation, hypothesis testing, measurement, experimentation, logical argument, and theory building to lead to more adequate explanations of natural phenomena.

This seems fairly even handed and does not favor creation/ID or evolution.

So what is the problem that some folks seem to have with this definition?

0 Replies

Your quote RL, although an apparent correct one, is one that has a mAJOR FLaw. "logical argument" must have a base in fact . This thread , and a few other threads are perfect examples where there are examples of logical arguments about lots of things that are totally non-science.

I dont have any real problems with the rest, except , of course, I would add the word "evidence" in there, but I suppose it can be implied with "observation". I like succinct definitions.

0 Replies

rl wrote:

... So what is the problem that some folks seem to have with this definition?

For one thing, that a State Board of Education might undertake to "Redefine Science" is a proposition beyond ludicrious ... a few steps further into absurdity than legislating a "more convenient" value for pi. The removal of the words " ... natural explanations for what we observe in the world around us" from the "Official Kansas Definition of Science", and the usupportable mischaracterization of the theory of evolution as an "unguided process" with no "discernible direction or goal" defies and denies the ethos of Science, betrays ignorance of staggering proportion amplified by arrogance beyond comprehension, and vaults religious agenda over logic, reason, and the process of acquiring and disseminating knowledge. The Kansas Board of Education 6-4 "Decision" is a travesty, an insult to the intellect, a pillage of academic integrity, a repudiation of logic, a monument to fear, stupidity, myth, and superstition.

Moving on, the unconscionable votes of 6 fools stuck in the 16th Century dismisses the past half milleneum of humankind's scientific advancement, ignores the recommendations of The American Association for the Advancement of Science, rejects the advice of a panel composed of 38 Nobel Laureates - including 32 Laureates from the fields of Chemistry, Physics, and Medicine (which recommendation specifically stated " ... intelligent design is fundamentally unscientific; it cannot be tested as scientific theory because its central conclusion is based on belief in the intervention of a supernatural agent ... ), dismisses the admonitions of the Chancellor and the Provost of The University of Kansas, disregards the recommendations of the National Academy of Sciences and the National Science Teachers Association (under whos' combined aegis are published almost all accreditted K-12 science texts, and which groups have withdrawn authorization from the State of Kansas to use any of their copyrighted materials in conjunction with any curriculum derived under the Board-proposed rule), defies the Governor of Kansas (who stated " ... This is just the latest in a series of troubling decisions by the Board of Education ... ), and flies in the face of the 16-3 vote of the very committee established for and charged with the development of Statewide science teaching standards, which committee unambiguously denounced the State Board of Education's proposed bowdlerization, and noted for the record that the State Board was not following the established process for developing such statewide standards, that the proposed changes had been reviewed and resoundingly rejected by the committee authorized to undertake and charged with the development of those standards, and stated that the Board majority's strategy of selectively calling for "critical analysis" of evolution not only was " ... confusing and inappropriate" but also clearly was intended to " ... provide a pretext for 'alternative' theories to evolution" to be introduced in the science classroom." In the words of Dr. Marvalee Wake, President of The American Institute for Biological Sciences, "Unfortunately the Kansas State Board of Education is determined to disregard advice from the scientific community."

Finally, were there any valid "alternative theories" eligible to "compete" with Evolution for science classroom time, that might be all well and good. The simple fact is there is no valid alternative to Evolution. Creationism/ID fails consideration as a scientific theory in that it is not testable, is subject to no external verification, by definition is not falsifiable; it is a conceptual fraud, an absurd circular, illogocal, counter-intuitive, self-enclosed tautology, a "theory" devoid of foundation, research, finding, or credence, the sole holding of which is that gaps in the assembled knowledge of Science are to be filled by a "Creator", an undisguised euphemism for the Fundamentalist Christian God.

Apart from that, I suppose there isn't all that much to object to.

0 Replies

timberlandko wrote:

Finally, were there any valid "alternative theories" eligible to "compete" with Evolution for science classroom time, that might be all well and good. The simple fact is there is no valid alternative to Evolution. Creationism/ID fails consideration as a scientific theory in that it is not testable, is subject to no external verification, by definition is not falsifiable; it is a conceptual fraud, an absurd circular, illogocal, counter-intuitive, self-enclosed tautology, a "theory" devoid of foundation, research, finding, or credence, the sole holding of which is that gaps in the assembled knowledge of Science are to be filled by a "Creator", an undisguised euphemism for the Fundamentalist Christian God.

I've repeated this several times, yet people still can't get it through their head that ID isn't science.

Unless you count the Kansas School Board, which had to redefine science in order to get ID accepted. Didn't they realise that by redefining science so that ID can be classed as such, they were admitting that ID wasn't science in the first place?

0 Replies

yeh, but were dealing with the definition as it stands, "it is what it is" and really,there really isnt anything that flames my kruschikis except that lone phrase of "logical argument' Thats just so much of a giant purposely worded loophole to drive all sorts of hokum into the debate.

Id like to see what the Kansas geological survey has to say about it. I know some of the people there and they are , not the least, concerned with their newly acquired status as the Forrest Gump of the ASBOG crowd. (American states boards of geologists)

0 Replies

Big Bird wrote:

The Kansas Board of Education 6-4 "Decision" is a travesty, an insult to the intellect, a pillage of academic integrity, a repudiation of logic, a monument to fear, stupidity, myth, and superstition.

Don't hold it in, Boss, don't stiffle yerself--tell us how you really feel . . .

0 Replies

Below is an excerpt from a recent Lawrence Journal news story that suggests what happened in Dover may happen in Kansas:

Quote:

0 Replies

farmerman wrote:

Your quote RL, although an apparent correct one, is one that has a mAJOR FLaw. "logical argument" must have a base in fact . This thread , and a few other threads are perfect examples where there are examples of logical arguments about lots of things that are totally non-science.

I dont have any real problems with the rest, except , of course, I would add the word "evidence" in there, but I suppose it can be implied with "observation". I like succinct definitions.

Hi Farmerman,

I think that the words 'observation' as well as 'measurement' and 'experimentation' all are referring to the evidentiary basis on which science proceeds.

0 Replies

Kansas School Board Redefines Stupidity

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know