Localize Education- get rid of the Department of Education and Common Core

Thanks, Pro- I think we have a pretty good sense for the through-line of Pro's argument, so let's use the two specific cases Pro offers to examine the merits of Pro's case. First up, Pro offered the analogy of snow removal to demonstrate that State Govt is inherently more effective than Federal: "I live in New Hampshire. It snows it the winter. Someone has to plow the roads. The state plows plow the state roads. If DC had to come plow my street, the quality of plowing would be far worse." This analogy serves well enough to demonstrate the typical scope and capability of the Federal Govt and Pro's ignorance of the same. 1. Of course, the Federal Govt. does plow snow all over the country, often in places far more remote and inaccessible than New Hampshire: Yellowstone National Park, for example. Within and around National Forests, hundreds of thousands rely on Federal plowing programs for access to homes, lumber, mining, cattle, skiing- a host of interests. Many of these roads are not paved and require special care to prevent rutting and erosion. So while Pro assumes that the Fed would necessarily do worse than New Hampshire does plowing snow, Con sees no reason to make such an assumption. 2. The National Weather Service (a division of the Dept. of Commerce) provides weather and climate data, forecasts and warnings for the State of New Hampshire. When it comes to deciding when and where to deploy snow plows, how much snow there will be and whether it's safe to drive, New Hampshire relies on the Federal Govt. Without the effective dissemination of reliable NWS forecasts, snow removal in New Hampshire would be far slower and less efficient. 3. Between 2001 and 2012, 64% of the New Hampshire State Transportation Budget was funded by Federal Sources. [1] Overall, over 30% ($1.7 Billion) of New Hamphire's 2017 budget comes from Federal revenue. [2] In a very real sense, DC does, in fact, plow your roads by guaranteeing that States allocate funding to transportation. 4. And when the snows get deep (which happens often enough in New Hampshire), the Governor can declare a major disaster, during which the Fed covers at least 75% of State & Local costs for emergency services,for restoring infrastructure, and yes, for snow removal. In recent years, FEMA paid New Hampshire $4.7 million for a snowstorm in Jan 2015, $6.1 million for one in Feb 2013, $6.4 million for flooding in June 2013, etc [3] The Fed doesn't tell New Hampshire where or when or how to plow Pro's street but it does pay for most of it. This makes sense because snow plowing is a significant necessity for public safety and commerce and States tend to underbudget for things like snow removal (as happened in New Hampshire in 2014 and again in 2015) [4] Contrary to Pro's assumptions, without Federal foresight and Federal financial backing, the quality of snow plowing in New Hampshire would be substantially worse. Now, we could save a lot of money by doing away with the Dept. of Commerce, the Dept of Transportation, the National Weather Service and FEMA, but shouldn't we first understand how those entities work together with State and local governments to provide essential services more effectively, as they do with snow plowing in New Hampshire, before we make those cuts? Similarly, Pro has suggested that we save money by eliminating the Dept. of Education without demonstrating an understanding about what that department does and does not do. Let's move on to the second specific case proferred by Pro: Pro has to take a third year of Algebra. I strongly suspect that this complaint is at the core of Pro's dissatisfaction with the US Education system and that any plan that might allow Pro to transfer out of math into his preferred elective course of study would receive Pro's full endorsement. Not that Pro can be faulted for this outlook; Algebra can be mind-numbingly dull. So, who requires Pro to take a third year of math and why? Since the 1990's, employers have expressed increasing dissatisfaction with the workplace readiness of new employees. This dissatisfaction extends to most skill sets, but let's focus on math- of particular importance to the rapidly expanding markets in science, engineering, and technology. These employers were increasingly hiring employees overseas who were not only cheaper, but demonstrated more advanced math skills than US candidates. Many studies investigated this problem, including studies like the Plymouth State University 2006 report "Making the Transition from High School to College and the Workforce" which found that math proficiency was a key predictor for college graduation, with the tipping point beyond Algebra II. That is, students with only Algebra I, Algebra II, and Geometry were far less likely to graduate than students who continued into Trigonometry, Calculus, or Statistics in their fourth year. New Hampshire community colleges were also finding that students who required even one remedial math course in college were half as likely to graduate as students who required no remedial math instruction. At the same time, New Hampshire High Schools were examining assessment test results that showed that while 68% of New Hamphire students proved proficient at math up to grade 8, the 11th grade results showed only 38% of students remained proficient. A State Task Force on Mathmatics Instruction was convened and in 2012 made a number of recommendations to the New Hampshire State Board of Education. The recommendations included adopting the National Governor's Association Common Core Initiative standards for Mathmatics because, A. Common Core recommended a full four years of math for high school students, B. Common Core standards were mostly in alignment with New Hampshire's existing curriculum, and C. Common Core Assesments would allow the state to evaluate student performance on nation-wide basis. [5] The State Board agreed to implement Common Core standards in Mathmatics for the purpose of assessment testing, but continued to leave it to local school districts how to prepare for those tests and whether or not 4 years of math would be required. Some NH school districts did add more math to their curriculum in response, but manyonly moved from 2 years of math to 3 years. In spite of Common Core recommendations, few NH high schools require 4 years of math. So- Pro blames the Department of Education for his third year of math but that Department not only has no authority in the matter, they are prohibited by law from even recommending how many years of math a New Hampshire High School should have. Pro might blame the State of New Hampshire for adopting the new standards if those new standards prompted his school district to increase its mathmatics curriculum, but we should stress that the State made no such requirement. [6] in the end, the decision was left to Pro's school board and if Pro would prefer to be less ready for college and the workplace than the State recommends, Pro's only means of redress is through that autonomous political entity. In Pro's specific case, Pro's New Hampshire school district retains power over its curriculum including how many years of math Pro must endure. The Fed has no authority. The State has made a recommendation but most school districts have not fully complied. Non-compliant schools have not been penalized, compliant schools have not been rewarded. So far, Con has demonstrated Pro's argument to be based on erroneous assumption and therefore meritless. Con looks forward to Pro's conclusion. [1] http://t4america.org... [2] https://www.nh.gov... [3] https://www.fema.gov... [4] http://www.wmur.com... [5] http://education.nh.gov... [6] http://education.nh.gov...