Quantcast

Comments about ‘Dan Liljenquist: Common Core conflicts with federal education statutes’

Return to article »

Published: Thursday, Sept. 4 2014 12:00 a.m. MDT

Updated: Wednesday, Sept. 3 2014 6:34 p.m. MDT

Comments
  • Oldest first
  • Newest first
  • Most recommended
JJSullivan Sandy UT
,

Dan, University of South Carolina Law Professor, Derek Black has written a legal paper that Declares Arne Duncan's Waivers Illegal. I hope you will share it with Utah's lawmakers. Here's an excerpt: "The Secretary invoked the power to impose new conditions on states in exchange for waiving their obligations under NCLB.... As a practical matter, he federalized education in just a few short months."

"The waiver conditions the Secretary imposed go well beyond the scope of NCLB. ...., to treat these particular waiver conditions as falling within the scope of the Secretary's authority would be to extend the Secretary the equivalent of law-making power, which separation of powers doctrines prohibit. The power to unilaterally impose open-ended policy through waiver conditions would be remarkable not just for its transformation of key aspects of education, but for the entire federal administrative state. It would open the door to the spread of a more expansive administrative power than ever seen before."

To read the paper, Google "Huffington Post Waivers Illegal"

JinaYi87
Norman, OK

If Utah voluntarily accepted the standards, that is what we call "local control." Utah made its choice by accepting Common Core. It exercised its 10th amendment right for local control.

Irony Guy
Bountiful, Utah

As an attorney, Dan, you no doubt understand the difference between voluntary compliance and forced compliance. No state is forced to comply with the Common Core as LA has just demonstrated, so your entire argument is based on a straw man. Jindal doesn't have to conform, so now he is just picking a political fight with a straw man, as are you.

I suspect that you had nothing to say about G.W. Bush's NCLB program. Of course, he wasn't the vile Obama...

Vanceone
Provo, UT

That's right: no state is forced to comply. Just if you don't, the Feds pull all your funding. So you either conform or shut down from no money.

Or, you try not to get addicted to the federal crack in the first place. What's that--liberals will scream that you are harming the children by not taking the money? So in essence, the Feds get to run your state, because otherwise "think of the children!!!!"

UtahBlueDevil
Durham, NC

You have to love those in states that love to take Federal dollars - creating an indirect funding mechanism - but don't what the group providing those dollars to have any say how they are used. They just want the revenue - not the responsibility.

The problem is real simple. States that want autonomy should fund their programs autonomously as well. It really is that simple. Same thing for highways... you want complete control, you then fund it all on your own as well. But like anything else in life, once you want to use others money to fund what you want, others have a say. It is the same mortgages - you use the banks money, they will insist you have insurance and are current on your taxes. You don't like those conditions, you self fund your purchase.

I totally agree that the department of education needs to be very narrowly focused on its mission - and states should take ownership of the day to day operations of their schools. But until state legislatures decide to be honest, and fund their schools through direct channels, those other channels will have a say on how those funds are used.

to comment

DeseretNews.com encourages a civil dialogue among its readers. We welcome your thoughtful comments.
About comments