This blog is due sunday 11/11 by 7:00 p.m.
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.
Read the following articles about No Child Left Behind. Consider the main arguments of both authors and answer the following question: Does NCLB and federal education policies support or violate the 10th Amendment?
Article A
No Child Left Behind Act: An intrusion on state's rights? By Robert S. Sargent, Jr.web posted March 7, 2005
On January 29 of this year, the Executive Committee of theNational Conference of State Legislatures (NCSL) unanimouslyapproved the Final Report of the Task Force on No Child LeftBehind (The Report). According to their website (www.ncsl.org,where you can download the whole report) the "NCSL is abipartisan organization that…provides research, technicalassistance and opportunities for policymakers to exchange ideason the most pressing state issues." The Report is divided into sixchapters that analyze in detail the problems state legislators havewith mainly two questions: "What do we need to do to make thelaw work and how can we effect improvements to it throughadditional congressional or administrative actions?" According to The Report, the goal of the No Child Left BehindAct that President Bush modeled after his program in Texas is"…to close or dramatically narrow the differences inachievement among American students that cross lines of skincolor, ethnicity, immigrant status and wealth." In this column I willsummarize the problems given in The Report, and then showhow a state is currently dealing with these problems. Starting with Chapter 2 (I will come back to Chapter 1) the firstproblem is how to deal with the Act's standardized testing and"...holding schools accountable for their progress." It seems thatthere is "…an unnecessary level of rigidity and questionablemethodology." For example, "NCLB mandates that schools beevaluated by comparing successive groups of students against astatic, arbitrary standard, not by tracking the progress ofstudents over time." And, "The law improperly identifies schoolsas ‘in need of improvement' by creating too many ways to ‘fail.'"Finally, "The law allows students to transfer from schools foundto be in need of improvement before the school has anopportunity to address specific individual deficiencies." Chapter 3 deals with the fact that certain aspects of NCLB arein conflict with the Disabilities Education Act. Chapter 4addresses the fact that the NCLB "…imposes a uniform set ofrequirements that all schools must meet," while not recognizingthat "Many urban and rural schools face unique challenges ineducating students." Chapter 5 deals with the "highly qualifiedteacher clause" that "…is particularly problematic for hard-to-staff schools." And Chapter 6 deals with the costs of complyingwith the Act. "In the best case scenario, federal fundingmarginally covers the costs of complying with the administrativeprocesses of the law." Now Chapter 1: Is the Act itself constitutional? Past SupremeCourt decisions have held that it is constitutional if Congressblackmails the states by withholding money if states don't complywith a mandate. For example, if North Carolina doesn't pass astate law that meets Federal requirements for legal alcohol levelwhen driving, they will lose federal highway money. However,the federal government cannot coerce a state into complying witha mandate. We will see that last year when Utah asked thequestion, what if we just opt out of the Act? "…the U.S.Department of Education responded that not only would Utahlose its Title I funds, it would forfeit nearly twice that much inother formula and categorical funds…" That's coercion! (A billopting out of the Act was introduced last year by Rep. MargaretDayton. According to Rep. Dayton, the feds contribution toUtah of $105 million is "…about 5 percent of our state budget,but NCLB directs 100 percent of our state education. I didn'tfeel like it was worth that 5 percent." The Utah Senate didn'tagree.) The Report also addresses the other constitutional issue:the 10th Amendment. The Act "…pits the 10th Amendment,which reserves the powers to the states, against the spendingclause of Article I." For us Constitutional Conservatives, this isnonsense. The 10th Amendment couldn't be plainer: Education isnot an area that's delegated to the United States, therefore it isan area reserved to the states. Period. Unlike idealists like me, Isuppose that the NCSL must deal with reality. There actually is aDepartment of Education. Oh, well. Utah (the state that gave Bush his largest margin of victory) injust the last couple of weeks, is again challenging the Act.According to the Salt Lake Tribune, on February 18, "Membersof the Senate Education Committee unanimously passed twoUtah House measures meant to keep the federal No Child LeftBehind Act at bay. One was a resolution…to recognize Utah'sefforts to measure student competency and sustain qualityschools. The other was… (an) effort to mediate the powerstruggle between state priorities and President Bush's federalmandate to reform public schools with imposed standardizedtests." In other words, "state priorities trump NCLB – even if itmeans breaking the federal law." So how has Washington reacted? Tim Bridgewater, Gov. JonHuntsman Jr.'s education deputy said the bill "has been helpful inopening some dialogue with the Department of Education." Soon February 24, the Tribune wrote, "Federal education officialssay Utah's 8,500 veteran elementary school teachers are highlyqualified after all." On other issues? Bridgewater said, "We hit abit of an impasse…" Last week, Utah's unanimously passed billcompletely opting out of the Act now had the votes in theSenate, but the Bush administration put pressure on GovernorHuntsman, and the governor convinced the legislature to take nomore action until April 20 so that they would have more time tonegotiate with the feds. What does all this mean? When a state like Utah with legislatorslike Dayton, stands up to the federal government, it can getresults. It can also empower other states to action. Kim Cobb inthe Houston Chronicle wrote: "Fifteen states have introducedlegislation in the first two months of this year challenging the lawat a variety of levels…(and) many state leaders are taking theircue…from Dayton." For us Republicans who say we admire a Joe Liebermanbecause he has principles that he won't compromise, even to hisparty, we have to admire Ms. Dayton for her efforts to defendher state even against her president. And for us constitutionalists,we have to love a legislator who places her state's priorities overthe federal government. High five to the 10th Amendment! (WillUtah opt out in April? Stay tuned.)! Robert S. Sargent, Jr. is a senior writer for Enter Stage Rightand can be reached at rssjr@citcom.net. Enter Stage Right -- http://www.enterstageright.com
Article B
Does Federal Spending Meet "The Tenth Amendment Challenge?" By Steve Lilienthal October 12, 2005
Congressmen. Too few Congressmen take it upon themselves to appear before the debt clock that flashes the size of our mounting debts. The appropriation for the CDGB program is over $4 billion for FY 2005.The National Youth Anti-Drug Media Campaign. Most mature Americans do not promote use of illegal, addictive drugs, particularly by younger Americans. The Office of National Drug Control Policy (ONDCP) advertising and PR campaign urges Americans to talk to their children. It's a useful recommendation.The question needs to be asked: Given the current situation, there is one more reason for parents to talk to their children - to tell them about the bill we are passing on to them - the interest on the national debt -- thanks to our failure to curtail unconstitutional spending on programs like that of the ONDCP. The National Youth Anti-Drug Media Campaign received appropriations of $119,040,000 in FY 2005. Kids may be doing drugs but does ONDCP's media campaign have its own addiction problem?The Legal Services Corporation (LSC). The Constitution assures the accused in a criminal case a right to counsel. Ken Boehm, chairman of the National Legal and Policy Center, and Counsel to the Legal Services Corporation in the George Herbert Walker Bush Administration, points out, "There is no constitutional right to file a lawsuit at government expense."The attorneys funded by this quasi-government agency have the discretion to pick their cases and often they are tilting against businesses, farmers and landlords. A House Budget Committee report from the 1990s emphasized, "A phase-out of federal funding for LSC will not eliminate free legal aid for the poor. State and local governments, bar associations, and other organizations already provide substantial legal aid to the poor." Appropriations in FY 2005: $330,803,705 (after two rescissions).The National Endowment for the Arts (NEA). Americans spend over $25.5 billion on the arts. Other than very limited projects in consonance with portraying our national history, there is no reason for the hundred million or so spent by NEA. It's great work if you can get an NEA grant but providing a subsidy for the arts is simply not a function of the federal government assigned by our Constitution. Artists will not starve without the NEA; they just will have to compete harder for all the other money out there. NEA appropriations for FY 2005, including two modest recissions made by Congress, was $121,263,000.Two ideas that can be of use in attempting to rein in Big Government have been advanced by Rep. John Shadegg (R-AZ) and Sen. Sam Brownback (R-KS).Shadegg is sponsor of The Enumerated Powers Act (H.R. 2458), that would require each bill introduced in Congress to include a statement citing constitutional authority. Shadegg has introduced this bill in several Congresses. He argued in 2001 that the Enumerated Powers Act was needed because:"Our Founding Fathers believed the grant of specific rather than legislative powers to the national government would be one of the central mechanisms for protecting our freedoms while allowing us to achieve the objectives best accomplished through a national government. One of the most important things Congress can do is to honor and abide by the principles embodied in the Constitution -- no more, no less. Respecting the Tenth Amendment is the first way to ensure that the genius of the Constitution and its division of power between the national government,the States, and the people continues to guide our nation."If enacted, Shadeg's Enumerated Powers Act would become the constitutionalist version of Consumer Reports.After extensive research by the Free Congress Foundation, Senator Sam Brownback (R-KS) and Representative Todd Tiahrt (R-KA) have introduced the Commission on the Accountability and Review of Federal Agencies Act (S.1155 and H.R. ), more frequently referred to as "CARFA." Many conservatives, upon hearing the title of Brownback's bill, will instantly say, "The last thing we need is another commission examining the problem. We know what's wrong; what we need is action!" Brownback's bill, if enacted into law, would provide just that.CARFA members would be appointed by the President and the Congressional Leadership. They would undertake an extensive study of federal agencies and programs, specifically looking for those that are wasteful, duplicative or simply obsolescent.The bill does not specifically mandate a Tenth Amendment test. Pressure would need to be exerted on those who appoint, particularly those representing the more conservative party, to place commissioners who respect the purpose of the Tenth Amendment and want to see it reflected in Federal Government expenditures. The Commission would issue its recommendations in a report to Congress which then would vote up or down on the whole package.The Executive Branch and Congress have each proven themselves to be careless in recent decades when it comes to exercising appropriate caution in spending taxpayer money. Worse, they have ignored the Constitution and its limits on federal power.The result is mounting deficits, leading to large interest payments on the national debt. That is not the legacy we want to leave to posterity.It's time to start pruning the federal government. (Reforming "third rail" entitlement programs, such as Medicaid and Social Security, is vital but something which Congress and the Executive Branch habitually defer.)The Constitution is clear about what the responsibilities of the federal government are and Members of Congress have taken an oath to uphold the course charted by our Founding Fathers. It's time Congress started to apply "The Tenth Amendment Challenge" to domestic spending.
http://www.aim.org/guest_column/A4091_0_6_0_C/ (Article A link)
http://www.enterstageright.com/archive/articles/0305/0305nclb.htm (Article B link)
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
17 comments:
Teresa Konopka
Block H
AP US
No Child Left Behind Act: An intrusion on State's Rights? by Robert S. Sargent discusses how one state’s idea spreads to others’. Originating in Texas, the No Child Left Behind Act is gaining some popularity. Sargent argues in his article that the act is not supported by the Constitution or the Tenth Amendment. Since both make no address to education, the act should be left to the states respectively, as well as the people. In other words, the No Child Left Behind Act should be limited to certain consenting states, not the executive branch of government. “According to The Report, the goal of the No Child Left Behind Act that President Bush modeled after his program in Texas is‘…to close or dramatically narrow the differences in achievement among American students that cross lines of skin color, ethnicity, immigrant status and wealth.’” Apparently, underprivileged / minority children have an excuse for failing. This exception is very similar to the argument over whether or not Southern States should have voting exceptions. Both the 3/5 slave clause and the No Child Left Behind Act correlate to minorities and their exceptions in society. Meanwhile, Does Federal Spending Meet “The Tenth Amendment Challenge?” by Steve Lilienthal talks about education policies involving anti-drug advertisements. The article mentions how the government and individual advertising factions need to spend less of the nation’s money on campaigning and art. Even though the message of education and straying from drugs is an important message, it is not one that the United States should drain money from. After all, the Constitution makes no direct references to educational policies. Also, according to the Tenth Amendment, advertising should be left up to individuals and individual states to pay for, not the nation as a whole. Overall, fees and acts that are not supported directly by the Constitution should be--as the tenth amendment so eloquently puts it--“reserved to the states respectively, or to the people.”
To AP Students:
Are you for or against the No Child Left Behind Act and other educational policies? If you’re as enthralled as I am about educational debates, check out the ranking debate on www.insidecsi.blogspot.com.
John Harden
Block H
Nov.10, 2007
The article by Robert S. Sargent, “No Child Left behind Act: An intrusion on State's Rights?” clearly indicates how one states decisions are influential to others. The No Child Left behind Act was created and originally enacted in Texas to keep failing and drop out rates lower than they were becoming. The Act was a response to the steadily rising rate of failure and drop outs. Sargent discusses how the Act does not have anything to do with Amendments stated in the Constitution, therefore it should not be an executive decision but instead a state by state decision. However, President Bush has enacted the Act in certain states across America and is currently funneling the countries money into the No Child Left behind Act. In response to Teresa’s question, “Are you for or against the No Child Left behind Act and other educational policies?” The No Child Left Behind Act, although breaking Amendment number 10, had a good idea in mind. I believe the Amendments should be changed to fit today’s current situation. Modern day America is much different from Post-Colonial United States of America. Therefore the laws should be changed to allow a more successful American population. More and more kids are failing and dropping out by getting addicted to drugs and other outside interferences. Laws should be enacted to keep the future on the right track or America will fall very easily.
Read the following articles about No Child Left Behind. Consider the main arguments of both authors and answer the following question: Does NCLB and federal education policies support or violate the 10th Amendment?
The article “No Child Left behind Act: An intrusion on state's rights?” By Robert S. Sargent argues the No Child left Behind Act and federal education policies definitely violate the 10th amendment, and I agree.
NCLB is a United States federal law that reauthorized a number of federal programs aiming to improve the performance of U.S. primary and secondary schools by increasing the standards of accountability for states, school districts and schools, as well as providing parents more flexibility in choosing which schools their children will attend. The act was signed into law on January 8th 2002, forcing all states to follow it, but the federal government never had the power to do this in the first place. “The 10th Amendment couldn't be plainer,” states Sargent. “Education is not an area that's delegated to the United States, therefore it is an area reserved to the states.” It’s hilarious that the federal government doesn’t follow something written by its members many years ago. The intentions to improve the U.S Education system were good, but the Department of Education should improve the flaws in the system, not the federal government. Utah for example made a stand. Two years ago, Utah passed a bill to opt out of the act.
“Does Federal Spending Meet "The Tenth Amendment Challenge?" by Steve Linenthal is about federal government’s domestic spending. The author wants to see the 10th amendment apply to this. The federal government doesn’t really have this power, and he feels the members of federal government and Congress proved for many years that they can’t spend federal money well. He feels states would better spend the money.
“More and more kids are failing and dropping out by getting addicted to drugs and other outside interferences, Harden states. “Laws should be enacted to keep the future on the right track or America will fall very easily.”Sorry John, but I have to disagree with you. One should not force anyone to do anything, even considering learning. The very idea of it is tyrannical and a violation of the first amendment. If someone does not wish to attend school to do drugs instead, that is their loss. If someone wishes to express themselves by doing drugs and not attending school, so be it. I have absolutely no problem with that, and the only reason school is required is because the U.S can’t successfully influence the vast majority that learning is the best thing in the world. Instead of wasting money on kids who don’t want an education, the government should spend it on convincing the young to want it. If one is not convinced, one should not be forced to do whatever, and no laws need to be passed to solve this easily solved problem.
Elizabeth Che
Block H
The Tenth Amendment of the United States Constitution states that if the government does not mandate “it” as a law, “it” is up to the state to decide. But, if the State does not mandate “it” either, the decision is made by the people. (“It” stands for the process that is in question.) As described in the article, “No Child Left Behind Act: An intrusion on state’s rights?” by Robert S. Sargent, this act is a mimic of President Bush’s program in Texas; which is “to close or dramatically narrow the differences in achievement among American students that cross lines of skin color, ethnicity, immigrant status and wealth.” However, Sargent also explains in his article how the NCLB “‘mandates that schools be evaluated by comparing successive groups of students against astatic, arbitrary standard, not by tracking the progress of students over time.’ And, ‘The law improperly identifies schools as ‘in need of improvement’ by creating too many ways to ‘fail.’ Finally, ‘the law allows students to transfer from schools found to be in need of improvement before the school has an opportunity to address specific individual deficiencies.’” In such a manner, no school is properly able to prove their impact on the student since the schools are not judged by the improvement of a student but by what the student has learned. This irrational manner will not help any side as the child will be unable to learn and the school, losing its credit. Ability may not be judged with just arbitrary testing/method since it only measures what the subject knows at the certain time. There is no backup information to support it and if the subject was to not be doing his/her best, the school will be hurt by it. And when suggestions are pointed out to be fixed, there is not enough time to apply the fixing measures as the students have the ability to transfer elsewhere. In this way, the NCLB is lowering the chances schools may obtain and causes more stress to be built upon those affected by the NCLB. Instead of offering a path of improvement, the schools are put onto the path of failure as there are more ways to fail than to succeed. Had the 10th Amendment been followed, the NCLB would not have the authority to strike terror into the minds of schools and students alike but to act as a guide for future embarkment.
On a similar note, “Does Federal Spending Meet ‘The Tenth Amendment Challenge?’” by Steve Lilienthal shares similar negative views as Sargent however on the level of economics instead of the details of the act in general. As stated, “Our Founding Fathers believed the grant of specific rather than legislative powers to the national government would be on of the central mechanisms for protecting our freedoms while allowing us to achieve the objectives best accomplished through a national government. One of the most important things Congress can do is to honor and abide by the principles embodied in the Constitution –- no more, no less.” So, with the efforts to sway children to be “anti-drug”, the ONDCP had spent millions for campaign advertisements to urge parents to advise their children not to use drugs. But, as Marco mentioned in his post, effort for a set decision is futile. It is up to the individual to decide for themselves what they want to do with their life. Even though people don’t make the best decisions, life still continues and so must the individual with the choice he/she makes. Since these organizations are not considerably noted as the “State,” it shouldn’t have the authority to command citizens to follow what they preach. It is up to the people to decide for themselves and so speeches otherwise violates the 10th Amendment. If the regulation is not official, there is no reason to follow it, as Marco continues to mention in his post, “Instead of wasting money on kids who don’t want an education, the government should spend it on convincing the young to want it.” It is better to influence the young while they haven’t been corrupted by negative influence, but the definition of negative influences is opinionated and so depends on the individual. However, if a certain idea is relayed into the thoughts, the younger children would be more likely to follow, and so lowering the costs of advertisement.
Both the NCLB and federal education policies violate the 10the Amendment through their actions on employing processes onto the citizens. Instead of wasting pointless effort to sway the opinions of those who refuse to listen, there is no hope for them but to let them plunder on their own. Money is a necessity in the world and can be used in many other ways than advertisements.
Ashley Aydin.
AP US.
Block H.
The tenth amendment, a highly debated clause in the U.S. Constitution, serves as statement that highlights the failings of our federal government. “No Child Left Behind Act: An intrusion on state's rights?” by Robert S. Sargent and “Does Federal Spending Meet The Tenth Amendment Challenge?" by Steve Lilienthal detail the violation of the 10th Amendment with the downbeat affects it has had on the American populace. In their pieces, Sargent and Lilienthal condemn the federal government for the breakdown of the schooling system. Furthermore, both writers push the idea that federal policy has erratically and strongly influenced American schools.
It has been consistently discussed that the No Child Left Behind act and other federal policies have not been moderately presented or followed. Accordingly, many believe that the states should have the authority on deciding whether or not to abide by the federal government’s standards. In a report published by the White House, “Transforming the Federal Role in Education So That No Child is Left Behind”, similar ideas are acknowledged.
“Although education is primarily a state and local responsibility, the federal government is partly at fault for tolerating these abysmal results. The federal government currently does not do enough to reward success and sanction failure in our education system. Since 1965, when the federal government embarked on its first major elementary-secondary education initiative, federal policy has strongly influenced America's schools. Over the years Congress has created hundreds of programs intended to address problems in education without asking whether or not the programs produce results or knowing their impact on local needs.”
It can be inferred by this information that the federal government’s policies are exceedingly loose and in need of reinforcement. The No Child Left Behind act has been corrupting schools as opposed to aiding them. Thus, the federal government has failed to ensure the security of basic instructing and the learning rates of which are extremely significant in determining on our nation’s educational status.
Even more disappointing, there exists no proof that the No Child Left Behind act and/or other federal government policies have been improving student performance. With extensive research on the schooling matter, the Heritage Foundation, an educational leadership foundation, has made various conclusions.
“Perhaps the costs of the federal government’s “middle man” relationship would be the justified if Congress and the 4,500 workers at the U.S. Department of Education proved that they have a formula for improving student performance in America’s 96,000 public schools. Unfortunately, a forty-year track-record shows this isn’t the case. Rather than travel further down the current road of federal education policy, the Bush Administration and Members of Congress have a responsibility to reassess whether the federal government’s current role in education is justified.”
Wholly, Sargent and Lilienthal have been accurate in their views that the 10th Amendment should be revised and reviewed. Too fluffy an article, the amendment should be rightly determined by the states that choose to put it into affect. Even more so, it should be evaluated by the people, the citizens of our country.
*Elizabeth’s opinion about the NCBL and federal education policies deems strong and supported. Capital is extremely significant in educational matters and many seem to disregard the issues of funding and limitations. The federal government should, indeed, provide more money for the educational faults in this country.
LINKS TO OTHER SOURCES:
http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/reports/no-child-left-behind.html
http://www.heritage.org/Research/Education/ednotes58.cfm
Justin Lefkowitz
H Block
AP US History
No Child Left Behind Act: An intrusion on state's rights? by Robert S. Sargent Jr., talks about how the federal government is trying to enforce laws on the state governments. In this article, Mr. Sargent states that the federal government is trying to impose the NCLB, or No Child Left Behind Act, on all the states. When the federal government is trying to do this, they are violating the Tenth Amendment of the Bill Of Rights of the Constitution. The Tenth Amendment states, “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.” In other-words, if the federal government has no law on a certain subject, then, it is up to the states to decide its views on that law and whether they want to accept it or not. Recently, the federal government has been trying to enforce the beliefs of the NCLB Act on all fifty states. This violates the Tenth Amendment because the federal government never passed the NCLB Act. This means that they have no say in whether the states want to follow it or not. The NCLB is just one of many acts, or bills, that the federal government is trying to push on us. Like it is said in the United States Constitutional Tenth Amendment, the federal government does not have any right to do what they are doing. We need more people like Republican Margaret Dayton in Senate. She is a true trendsetter. Ms. Dayton was the first person to take a stand against the Act. She did this by creating a bill to opt out of the NCLB. It takes guts to go against the President of the United States and speak your mind. Since she did this, many other Senators have been joining and agreeing with the actions of her bill. I definitely agree with Ms. Dayton and I would do the same thing. I also agree with Marco when he says that the No Child left Behind Act and federal education policies definitely violate the Tenth Amendment. The federal government did something that they were not supposed to do and they should be punished for it.
Heather Vale.
The articles “No Child Left Behind: An intrusion on States Rights?” by Robert Sargent and “Does Federal Spending Meet “The Tenth Amendment Challenge?” by Steve Lilienthal illustrate the ‘down-low’ violations federal education policies are committing. If the 10th Amendment clearly states “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” then the people of America should clearly respect it. No ‘ifs’ or ‘buts’ should be used, yet pure straight forward truth.
No Child Left Behind is a key example of a federal education policy that depicts the failure to respect the 10th Amendment as if it were created yesterday. The federal government is not directly showing their forceful role in such policy, as they are smarter than so. However, the No Child Left Behind policy was made for all states to give in and accept it. “However, the federal government cannot coerce a state into complying with a mandate. We will see that last year when Utah asked the question, what if we just opt out of the Act? "…the U.S. Department of Education responded that not only would Utah lose its Title I funds, it would forfeit nearly twice that much in other formula and categorical funds…" That's coercion!” In this case, if Utah wanted to opt out of what the DOE was offering, they would lose a handful of money. Sounds like bribery to me!
Both authors feel as if the 10th Amendment is often ignored and disregarded. The purpose of America was to have federal powers and state powers, however slowly and surely the federal government is robbing the states of their powers. In this case, Sargent and Lilienthal indicate how the government is enforcing policies for states to accept, as they really have no other choice than to suffer with the consequences. “Education is not an area that's delegated to the United States, therefore it is an area reserved to the states.” Overall this statement can be fully debated, as the federal government is beginning to hold too much influence and voice in the states.
Justin, I agree that the federal government is attempting to push several acts and bills on us. However, now that we have indicated the federal government is doing this, it’s in the state’s power to oppose the federal government and voice their opinions. Instead of simply giving in to the federal government and their ways, the states should attempt to resist falling under the influence.
The tenth amendment states “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.” Due to this amendment’s word choice, there can be different interpretations. It seems as if it gives individual states the right to laws separate from those of the country as a whole. The first article, “No Child Left Behind Act: An intrusion on state's rights?” by Robert S. Sargent, talks about the two main questions posed to the problems with the “No Child Left Behind” act: "What do we need to do to make the law work and how can we effect improvements to it through additional congressional or administrative actions?" This act’s goal, which President Bush modeled after his program in Texas is, "…to close or dramatically narrow the differences in achievement among American students that cross lines of skin color, ethnicity, immigrant status and wealth." It was interesting that Teresa said “Apparently, underprivileged / minority children have an excuse for failing.” The act does seem to say some children’s grades were excused as a result of their race. The act is supposed to be helping children, but there are still problems with it. For example, the school is held responsible for the child’s failing grades, and they can transfer to a new school before the first school has a chance to address their deficiency.
The second article, “Does Federal Spending Meet ‘The Tenth Amendment Challenge?’” by Steve Lilienthal also addresses negative views towards the education system. This author, however, talks more about the money issue, rather than the actual act. There was an estimated $4 billion spent in 2005 by the National Youth Anti-Drug Media Campaign. “Most mature Americans do not promote use of illegal, addictive drugs, particularly by younger Americans. The Office of National Drug Control Policy (ONDCP) advertising and PR campaign urges Americans to talk to their children. It's a useful recommendation.” Although it’s always a good idea to encourage parents to talk to their children, it’s a ridiculous amount of money to spend, just to get the message across. The campaign is a good idea, and if it is displayed enough children may actually listen. However, there must be some way to lower the cost of the advertisements to use it on something like getting children who have done drugs help or something along those lines.
Sarah Berfond
Block H
No Child Left Behind is like a bad mother in law, trying to impose her opinions on a situation she knows nothing about. There were intelligent and logical reasons for the founding fathers to reserve powers to the states which were not enumerated in the constitution. The reasoning is obvious. States’ have a better understanding of their citizens and the needs which they need to fulfill. The constitution does not provide for the federal government to have power or jurisdiction over local education. In the absence of specific authority the states should have the unrestricted ability to determine the way schools are run. The two authors are absolutely correct that the federal government constantly overreaches and imposes their positions on the states. The No Child Left Behind Act is surprising because the Bush administration is known to be strongly conservative. It is well known that conservative republicans fight for reducing federal government control of society.
Not only is education an issue for the state it really is an issue that should be dealt with at the local level, either county or city. It is impossible to impose national standards and restrictions on education. Each school and school district has unique students and facilities. The standards for a school in a wealthy suburban, district cannot be the same as those in a poor, urban environment.
Response to Jaclyn’s comment- I agree with many of your statements, especially your opinion regarding federal government spending. Sometimes the government wastes so much money while people suffer around the world. I hope when our generation states to run things, we can do a better job.
Michelle Shed
Block H
AP US History
Does Federal Spending Meet "The Tenth Amendment Challenge?" By Steve Lilienthal exhibits the fact that Congress has an extreme problem with Domestic Spending. The tenth amendment states "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." Basically, this means that the rights in the Constitution that are not addressed to the federal government belong to the state government. The job of the federal government is to collect our taxes, provide our defense, and our currency. The federal government does not have the right to fuel deficit spending by spending twenty four billion dollars on advertisements, such as those for children who smoke or take drugs.
Our federal government is growing bigger and bigger each day. At this rate, there is no use for state governments. The issue is that as the federal government grows, they begin to spend more and in the future, America will " be presented with a giant bill."
In order to solve this issue, Representatives and Senators should apply a simple to legislation, especially if they are authorizing spending programs. It was stated in the Constitution that certain powers were entitled to the state. Congress has no means to interfere in these types of proceedings.
No Child Left Behind (NCLB). Education always had been considered to be a local and State responsibility. "The increasing turn of the National Education Association (NEA) from a professional association to a union with a big purse for political contributions helped spur the federalization of lower education."
If education is left as a responsibility to the state governments, then Congress should allow the state governments to manage domestic spending. Congress spent $119,040,000 on The National Youth Anti-Media Drug Campaign. Congress should be trying to lower taxes not create deficit spending.
The article "No Child Left Behind Act: An intrusion on State's Rights?" by Robert S. Sargent is about how a state's decision can influence another states decision on a hot topic. The act originated in Texas and was created to help the rising percentage of dropouts. Utah, a state that disagreed with the act asked if they could opt out of the act. Congress said that if they did they would lose all of their money. In this case it is billions of dollars. Here, Congress has violated Utah's tenth amendment because the tenth amendment states that if Congress doesn't make something a law it is up to the state to decide and they have the freedom to do as they please. Our constitution should be upgraded as it doesn't quite fit or make the United States better. We are at a stand still with important issues and most of these issues are so important due to out original Constitution. As the three fifths rule, the NCLB today has created debates similar to those of the Madison debates. "The Tenth Amendment Challenge?” by Steve Lilienthal is about drugs, education and advertisement. I agree with John when he stats “Laws should be enacted to keep the future on the right track or America will fall very easily.” because sometimes a person abuses their freedom. If America wants to become full of uneducated morons then it does have the right to do that. But the government, as most European governments should force the people to do important things, like education. If this is broken then harsh penalties are involved. Education has suffered dearly in America due to many factors. However, drugs and outside of school interferences are the major problem. In my opinion most of the failure that education has suffered has to do with things that go on inside of school. Either way the United States' Constitution is too old school and they should, as Beyonce puts it, upgrade it.
Teresa: I am for the NCLB and other educational policies only if the United States upgrades it Constitution. Although I am an old school man (preferring old school movies and music, for example, over modern entertainment) it is time for a change.
Liana Inzerillo
I believe Teresa Konopka says it best when she says that the No Child Left Behind Act should be limited to the government of the state, not the executive branch of our government. In his article Sargent discusses how the act is contradictory to the Constitution and the 10th Amendment. The 10th Amendment is similar to a clause in the Articles of Confederation (The articles that preceded the constitution.) the clause states "Each state retains its sovereignty, freedom, and independence, and every power, jurisdiction, and right, which is not by this Confederation expressly delegated to the United States, in Congress assembled." The No Child Left Behind act is a clear violation of the 10th amendment. What's best for one state, isn't essentially beneficial to the others “Education is not an area that's delegated to the United States, therefore it is an area reserved to the states.” This quote is exactly right, the educational standards and procedures must vary stately, would school be fun, if everyone was learning the exact same thing at the exact same time? I certainly don't think so.
In response to Teresa's question, I am against the No Child Left Behind Act, what NCLB should promise is an education for every student. It should not juristic whether a not a school is deemed as needing improvement based on a national, not to mention unfair standard.
LEEINZ.
While it may seem to be trivial to have such a large debate over a bill such as the No Child Left Behind Act, the act is merely the top of the iceberg that is State versus Federal power. While it is agreed by many that the State government should have jurisdiction inside its borders in matters that concern only the state, many politicians in the Federal branch of government feel that the central government should have more power. As Liana said, the bill's effects should be decided by each state individually, as the effects are only within the state's boundaries. It is the state government that keeps America from being a dictatorship, and this bill, while it does seem trivial, could be the first step in a singularly powerful government that controls all affairs in every state, I.E. a tyrannical government. Now, the federal government is attack states such as Utah that do not do its bidding- this should be recognized by more Americans in the first step toward a monarchy. How ever, Michelle's statement on the State governments becoming obsolete is easy to sympathize with- after all, if there are less governmental branches, there is less bureaucracy and more is done to solve problems more quickly. However, the individual's freedom is at risk, and America needs to stop and think about what is best for the people of America.
Robert S. Sargent, Jr.’s “No Child Left Behind Act: An intrusion on state's rights?” and Steve Lilienthal’s “Does Federal Spending Meet "The Tenth Amendment Challenge?"“ clearly demonstrate violations of the Tenth Amendment to the United States Constitution. The No Child Left Behind Act seems more like an attempt of the federal government to simply dictate the regulations and standards of the education systems of each individual state in America. Although it might be helpful if every school in the nation were on the same page with education and following the same standards, the government is still infringing on the individual rights of the state governments. Because of the difference of environments from state to state, one set standard cannot be placed upon every single state. In his article, Sargent says, “"Many urban and rural schools face unique challenges in educating students."“ Different locations offer different resources. It couldn’t possibly be fair for one school to be punished because it’s location doesn’t permit the same advantages as another. Also, the Tenth Amendment states, “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.” The United States Constitution does not delegate any powers in regard to education; therefore, it is in the hands of the individual state governments, rather than the federal government, to dictate the education regulations and policies within their jurisdiction. John Harden pointed out that the Constitution was written a very long time ago, and thus the laws should be subject to change because of the differences between the United States then and now. However, in this case it isn’t really necessary. There’s no reason why each state shouldn’t be entrusted with the power to control their state’s education system.
Rachel G-
Theresa - E
John - G
Marco - E
Elizabeth E-
Ashley - E
Heather E-
Jaclyn - E-
Sarah - G+
Michele - E-
Jakub - E-
Liana - G+
Sam - G+
Post a Comment