Founder Podcast

In this podcast episode, Jacob, Samantha, and Katya discuss whether educational standards should be determined by the state or federal government. Jacob argues that the federal government should set standards to ensure students reach their full potential. Samantha believes that education is a state function and states should have the flexibility to tailor curriculums to their communities' needs. They also discuss constitutional principles, such as the Necessary and Proper Clause and the Tenth Amendment, to support their arguments. They touch on the Commerce Clause and dual federalism as well. Finally, they debate who should set educational standards, with Jacob advocating for federal consistency and Samantha emphasizing the importance of state autonomy. They reference the No Child Left Behind Act and the Every Student Succeeds Act to provide examples of past initiatives. The podcast concludes with an invitation for listeners to share their thoughts on the topic. What's going on everybody, my name is Jacob Burnham, and I'm Samantha O'Brien, I'm Katya Palma, and you're listening to the Edutainment Podcast, and on today's episode, we'll be discussing whether the educational standards should be decided by the state or federal government. The first topic of today's episode, should the education system be determined by the state or federal government? Personally, I think that the federal government should determine how the education system should be run and how it should be laid out. The federal government can use data collected over many years to lay out what is useful in allowing schools to push their students to their fullest potential, and they can set standards for the states to reach, whether that be through test scores, graduation rates, or etc. By giving the federal government the power to regulate education, schools will produce students that will have higher success rates. That was a great point, Sam, but the principle that education is a function of the state is entirely legal in its origin and meaning. Education was conceived as one of the powers of the individual states. Because of this, I think that state governments should oversee the education system. One main reason for this is state demographics. If education is controlled at the local level, states will be better to tailor to the curriculums of the community's needs. For example, a student in rural Kansas may not have the same mindset as a student in the big city of New York. States should be able to accommodate community values and teach based on the community values rather than what the federal government thinks is appropriate. I mean, wow, those are two great points there. Alright, on to the next one. What part of the Constitution supports your guys' claims? The constitutional principle that gives federal government the power to regulate education is the Necessary and Proper Clause, listed in Article I, Section 8, which states that Congress shall have power to make all laws which shall be necessary and proper for carrying into execution the foregone powers, which is referring to implicit powers. If state schools are not reaching the standards that they need to meet in order to properly function and create students that are well-educated and knowledgeable on all that is needed to be successful, then it is necessary and proper for the federal government to step in and make laws that ensure that schools and education as a whole are staying up to the standards. Well, if we take a look at the Bill of Rights, we can find the Tenth Amendment at the very end. The Tenth Amendment gives states reserve powers, or powers that are not explicitly given to Congress in the Constitution. But there is nowhere in Article I that gives Congress the power to decide what is taught in schools and what the graduation requirements should be. That means that states have full control over the education system. Alright, well, Sam, do you have any other pieces of evidence to support? Yes, there is also the Commerce Clause, which is also listed in Article I, Section 8. The Commerce Clause grants Congress the power to regulate commerce among several states. If there are some states that are putting out students with higher knowledge that are more likely to succeed in life, then it creates an unequal balance of commerce with that of the states that are not producing highly successful students. If a student is more skilled, they are more likely to bring in more money and increase the commerce in their community. But unskilled students will do the exact opposite, which is why the federal government should be able to step in and regulate education standards, which will then affect the regulation of commerce. What about you, Kat? Do you have another piece of evidence that you could use to support your claim? Well, another one of my points is dual federalism. Even though it's not stated in the Constitution, the foundation of the United States is federalism, meaning that power is divided between the states and the federal government. Dual federalism states that each level of government has to stay within its own sphere of authority and can't really overlap with the other. One of the powers in the state's sphere is education, meaning it has the right to have control over education, and the federal government has no right to interfere. All right, guys. On to the last topic, which is who should set the educational standards or, like, the passing rates? I think the federal government should set the education standards for schools because keeping it consistent throughout the country will allow students a more likely chance to succeed in their education, therefore allowing them to go further in life and be more successful. The federal involvement in education will keep consistency specifically in core subjects such as math, reading, sciences, and especially history. For example, if there are some states that are essentially banning some important aspects of this country's history, by allowing the federal government to set standards for what should be taught in school will keep students from across the country equal in their knowledge. For example, the No Child Left Behind Act from 2002 was designed to raise standards so that students had equal opportunities to learn, especially for disadvantaged students. The act called for improvements in teaching methods, progress monitoring, and sanctions for underperforming schools. What's your response to her claim? Well, circling back to what I had previously said in the first question, states should be able to set educational standards because of their demographics. States have different cultures and values that don't align with those of other states, meaning that states should be teaching based on what they believe will help their residents succeed. Allowing the federal government to set these standards will inevitably make everything too standardized, taking away from what I believe makes us a United States of America. And also, if we take a look at the statistics for the No Child Left Behind Act, we can see that actually 80% of schools nationwide were unable to keep up with these standards. This led to the Every Student Succeeds Act. You can't expect every child in every state to hold up to the same standards. Well, that's all for today, folks. You have Sam, who thinks the federal government should have the chance or power to have educational standards, and then you have Kat, who is more on the state side. So let me know what you guys think in the comments, and that is it for today. Thank you.