An Argument Against the Federal Government’s Involvement in K-12 Education

A One Size School does not Fit All

An Argument Against the Federal Government’s Involvement in K-12 Education

“By the time I was in the fourth grade, I had been held back twice, disliked school, and honestly believed I’d end up a high-school dropout. Instead… I earned a bachelor’s degree from the University of West Florida in interdisciplinary social science with a minor in juvenile justice” (Merriweather). Denisha Merriweather came from a family that never sent anyone to college and in elementary school, she was already starting to struggle, her problem wasn’t that wasn’t smart, it was that she was in a school she could not succeed it. Luckily for Denisha, she lived in Florida, where the first statewide voucher program in the country, was led by governor Jeb Bush. Governor Bush said, “Every family, every child, should have the opportunity to find the school that best fits their needs and receive a great education” (Bush). When the federal government takes over education parents don’t have as much of a choice and children have less of a chance. That is exactly what is happening today and it is resulting in a negative impact on kids in America. The federal government should not be involved in K-12 education, since spending has risen but standards have not improved, national standards have failed to enhance student performance, and parents have little say in their child’s education.

Spending on K-12 education has consistently gone up but standards have not improved. First, the government has continued to spend more and more of it’s fiscally irresponsible budget on education and uniform standards. It is well known that the United States in almost $19 trillion in debt and is now spending about $1 trillion each year. During the 2011-2012 school year the federal government alone spent $124 billion on setting up standards and a more uniform education system (“The Federal Role”). This is more than 10% of the federal government’s budget, and it is being spent on education when they should be working to protect medicare and the defense. The federal government has increased education spending by almost 200% since 1970, and the number of education employees has almost doubled. Despite this, students reading scores have not gone up (Coulson). The town, state, and federal government all fund education. They want different things for education as well. As a result, the federal government, the states, and the cities are spending their money on different things that don’t go together and money is thrown away. States and cities know what is best for their students because they, not bureaucrats in Washington, are actually there with them. Although the government has spent more, the students’ results are not going up. This because they are confused, and they should be: The confusing curriculum the federal government is creating does not necessarily apply to them. Funding, programs, and spending by the federal government is not as effective as it would be by those who are in the state and the community considering standards have not gone up.

Second, it should be noted that the United States spends the most on education in comparison to every other country. Yet it has been found that the students in the United States don’t perform as well on international exams. The average money spent on a student in America is $15,171 per year. This is more than what most private schools spend on a student and is more than what any other country spends on a student. The Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development found that the average country spends $9,131 per student. The United States clearly is spending over $6,000 more than the average country yet the average country has students performing better on international tests (“U.S. Education Spending”). This makes it clear that more spending does not result in better performing students. Unfortunately, The United States is spending more than any other country on education but is not even close to leading the world in student intelligence or performance.

It has been proven that more funding on education does not result in higher proficiency of students. Andrew Coulson from the Cato Institute reveals that from 1972 to 2012, education spending in New Jersey has increased over 150% and since 1972, student’s SAT scores have gone down 1.5%. In the state of New Jersey, Coulson continues, the state has spent more on education every year through increased taxes and funding from the federal government. Despite both of these things taking more money away from tax payers, healthcare for at risk people, and the national defense programs, education has gotten worse in the state not better. If a state is to spend more money, it should at least be improving. Coulson argues that, “There has been essentially no correlation between what [the government has] spent on education and their measured academic outcomes” (Coulson). Andrew Coulson’s point builds upon what has happened in New Jersey. States that have increased spending haven’t necessarily increased their students’ SAT scores, which help them get into college, or lead to a higher percentage of students holding diplomas on graduation day either. Charles Cooke in his book Conservatarian Manifesto argues, “Despite having been lavished with money and increasingly centralized, K-12 public education continues to yield perpetually disappointing results” (77). The federal government decided to get involved in education, fund it, pass the No Child Left Behind Act in the 2000s, then President Obama and the Democrats introduced National Standards and more spending on those standards.

National standards such as the Common Core have failed to fix the education issue. These standards were introduced back in 2009 and six years later have made the education system in America worse not better. In Oklahoma students learn algebra in 8th grade now and only 33% of them are proficient (“Common Core Failure”). These standards have resulted in a third of students meeting the requirements. The standards clearly raised the bar too high if only one out every three students is proficient. Advocates of Common Core claim that the standards will make students in the United States more competitive with students around the globe. Reality is that implementing strict standards don’t result in better performance. In Canada, there is nothing like Common Core but on international tests Canadian students outperform United States students. (Burke and Marshall). This shows that standards such as Common Core are not what is helping students in other countries outperform students in America.

The Common Core Standards are a government system, but are not designed to meet students, parents, and teacher’s best interests. When the Common Core standards were written, the parents, teachers, and especially the students interests were clearly not in mind. Achieve (an education reform agency) quickly compiled data with only two specialists to make national standards. The Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation (who were later given a deal to be part of the Department of Education) spent almost 21 million dollars for the standards. This type of corruption is common in America: big organizations spending money to motivate their own interests, that rarely help the average American. In this case, executive members in The Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation received positions in the Department of Education for investing in Common Core. This is an example of another backdoor deal and the corruption in politics and now it is affecting children. Big time corporations began to waste ad space in places such as the the New York Times to concern the country about “economic collapses” that will occur if the U.S. does not adopt federal rigorous standards. These big time corporations want higher standards because the smartest individuals will be challenged (which is a good thing but they can still be challenged without bringing everyone else down) meaning that they will be able to help the “big time corporations” success to never end (“Common Core Failure”). Corruption turns into a threat for the states. States that would like to continue to receive federal funding, must implement common core standards and only 15% can be standards created by the specific state. Now, states are basically forced into these poor standards because they cannot afford to be a state without funding from the federal government for other necessities. As a result almost every single state has adopted Common Core simply because they do not have a choice (“Federal Government Involved?”).

The Common Core Standards have raised the bar to a point where students cannot catch up, which makes them unable to succeed. If standards are immediately raised, students will all of a sudden be expected to know things that they have not learned yet. That is exactly what happened when Common Core was implemented. This system is flawed because raising the bar right away will fail (as they we not prepared for a higher level) and the brightest students will excel so the government and corporations have more recruiting options (“Common Core Failure”).

Common Core advocates claim that the more Algebra students take the better which is why they claim that algebra needs to be instructed at a younger age. However this is false because algebra at an early age is stressful and is one of the primary reasons students turn away from school and dropout. If students are turned off from school and/or they drop out they will have less options not more options. Spending all of the time and energy in the classroom on algebra and math is pointless. Considering there were 1.7 million bachelor’s degrees awarded last year and only 1% of them were math degrees.