> I think this is where people don't grasp that we didn't always have the kind of overbearing, cabinet-level department of education we have today. This really only goes back to the early 80s. Meaning, opposing the DoE isn't the same as opposing education. The principle of subsidiarity ought to be respected. Decentralization is good. It should be liberating.
You dumped a lot of vague buzzwords but you said nothing of substance. You oppose DoE? Why, exactly? It's not clear. If you cannot even express why exactly you oppose the DoE, what does decentralization mean, and why do you believe that to be liberating?
There seems to be a segment of the US population that was heavily indoctrinated into an irrational belief that having any guidance at the federal level is inherently a major problem.
In the meantime, back in reality, the main responsibility of the DoE is to fund scholarships and schools from districts that are unable to self-fund. That's what you get rid of when you argue for getting rid of the DoE. Why is this liberating?
You dumped a lot of vague buzzwords but you said nothing of substance. You oppose DoE? Why, exactly? It's not clear. If you cannot even express why exactly you oppose the DoE, what does decentralization mean, and why do you believe that to be liberating?
There seems to be a segment of the US population that was heavily indoctrinated into an irrational belief that having any guidance at the federal level is inherently a major problem.
In the meantime, back in reality, the main responsibility of the DoE is to fund scholarships and schools from districts that are unable to self-fund. That's what you get rid of when you argue for getting rid of the DoE. Why is this liberating?