(09-08-2020 01:11 PM)CrimsonPhantom Wrote: Quote:President Trump said Sunday that the Department of Education is examining the use of the New York Times Magazine's 1619 Project in schools, and warned that institutions that teach this alternative narrative of American history could lose federal funding.
The project is based on the premise that American history began in 1619 -- cited as the date African slaves arrived in Virginia -- and that everything following this should be viewed through that lens. The Pulitzer Center released a school curriculum based on the project, and Trump responded to a tweet stating that California would be using it.
"Department of Education is looking at this," Trump said. "If so, they will not be funded!"
Trump's tweet echoes the sentiment of a bill Sen. Tom Cotton, R-Ark., introduced in July. That bill proposed denying funds to any school that uses the 1619 Project in its curriculum. At the time, schools in areas including Chicago and Washington, D.C., had already amended their history curricula to reflect the project's messages.
The project, created by Nikole Hannah-Jones, was awarded the 2020 Pulitzer Prize for Commentary. However, multiple historians have criticized the series of articles for multiple inaccuracies, including the argument that the American Revolution was fought not to achieve independence from Britain, but to preserve the institution of slavery.
In a statement, Cotton called the project “a racially divisive, revisionist account of history that denies the noble principles of freedom and equality on which our nation was founded.”
Link
Get federal funds the hell out of schools, period! No Excuse for that ****..
When I was active in our local TEA Party group I volunteered, because it was dear to me, to spearhead our Education Committee.
Public education is controlled at the state level. It just so happened that our local state senator was the chair of the senate education committed. Still is. Retired Marine and GOP. She was one of the first to reach her (our) hand out to Obama for Race To The Top funds which bound TN to Common Core before the standards had even been finalized.
Anyway, I digress. Education is controlled at the state level. In most cases state funding is the largest percentage of district funds with local/municipal funding coming in second. In a few cases local/municipal funding is greater than state funding. In pretty much all cases federal funding is the smallest source of district funding.
Low performing/urban districts typically draw more federal funds than high performing/suburban districts.
And federal funds are earmarked for specific programs. They do not go into general funds to be used in any manner needed. If the grant is designated as English as a Second Language then the funds are used only for that program.
Point is, federal funds account for the smallest percentage of district funding and are earmarked for certain programs; yet, if your district takes federal funds it is bound to implement federal mandates. These can include transgender bathrooms and quotas in sports programs offered, among others.
This article is from 2011, but it makes some interesting assertions.
Role Of Federal Government In Public Education: Historical Perspectives
Quote:From the very beginning of our Republic, a well-educated citizenry was thought to be essential to protect liberty and the general welfare of the people. Even before the Constitution of the United States was established, the Land Ordinance of 1785 and the Northwest Ordinance of 1787 included responsibilities of the nation for an education system.
This is quite true. But it fails to specify the intent of schools.
For example, in the
Northwest Ordinance July 13, 1787 Article 3 explicitly states:
Quote:Art. 3. Religion, morality, and knowledge, being necessary to good government and the happiness of mankind, schools and the means of education shall forever be encouraged.
The previously mentioned article would more accurately reflect the Founders' intent restated as:
Quote:From the very beginning of our Republic, a religious, moral and well-educated citizenry was thought to be essential to protect liberty and the general welfare of the people.
President George Washington reiterated this important fact in his
1796 Farewell Address:
Quote:Of all the dispositions and habits which lead to political prosperity, religion and morality are indispensable supports. In vain would that man claim the tribute of patriotism, who should labor to subvert these great pillars of human happiness, these firmest props of the duties of men and citizens. The mere politician, equally with the pious man, ought to respect and to cherish them. A volume could not trace all their connections with private and public felicity. Let it simply be asked: Where is the security for property, for reputation, for life, if the sense of religious obligation desert the oaths which are the instruments of investigation in courts of justice ? And let us with caution indulge the supposition that morality can be maintained without religion. Whatever may be conceded to the influence of refined education on minds of peculiar structure, reason and experience both forbid us to expect that national morality can prevail in exclusion of religious principle.
It is substantially true that virtue or morality is a necessary spring of popular government. The rule, indeed, extends with more or less force to every species of free government. Who that is a sincere friend to it can look with indifference upon attempts to shake the foundation of the fabric?
Promote then, as an object of primary importance, institutions for the general diffusion of knowledge. In proportion as the structure of a government gives force to public opinion, it is essential that public opinion should be enlightened.
Back to the article
Role Of Federal Government In Public Education: Historical Perspectives.
The following statement supports the point I shared regarding district funding sources.
Quote:Federal funding currently averages about 10 percent of local school budgets.
Ten percent. Some districts receive more, others less. But that small portion of funding gives the federal government primary control of education, even though the Constitution excludes that responsibility and defers to the states.
This is also the PRIMARY reason I am no longer in favor of "School Choice". Let me explain.
At its core, I agree with the idea behind school choice. Parents should have the freedom to choose which form of education is best for their child. However, if state money is granted to the parents to assist with their education choice
and if a case could be made in the courts that state money also includes federal money, then private schools and home schooling could end up falling under the same federal mandates as public schools.
Bottom line: I'm for refusing federal dollars for education. This would allow the states to return to teaching The Three R's and return us to a time when American education was the envy of the world.
/
[NEWS] Trump warns schools teaching 1619 Project 'will not be funded'
