A Few Good Reasons to Say “NO!” to Goals 2000
April 17, 2010
The following is a letter to the editor from the Executive Assistant to Governor Fob James of Alabama in the Birmingham Post–Herald, Oct. 25, 1995. Gov. James had the courage to refuse the Goals 2000 money. Presumably, he could see it for the blatant federal power grab that it was. Unfortunately, shortly thereafter, the US Department of Education informed the James administration that the governor did not have the power to refuse the money. The Department ruled that only the state’s chief education officer could refuse the money. Alabama, just like every other state in the union, accepted Goals 2000 dollars and launched on the road to federally controlled education restructuring.
Your October 2nd editorial called Turning Down Money indicates that those who oppose participation in Goals 2000 are paranoid and right-wing and that arguments to Goals 2000 are unsupported. That is not true.
On July 27th the Alabama legislature adopted a resolution calling upon the Alabama congressional delegation to repeal Goals 2000 in order to reserve the power it gives to the federal government. Goals 2000 is the Clinton administration’s plan to drastically restructure America’s education system. The danger of Goals 2000 is that the local schools will be extremely vulnerable to federal manipulation and have little, if any, autonomy.
Your editorial assumes Alabama could take the money with no federal strings attached. On November 29, 1994, the Alabama Department of Education submitted an application for Goals 2000 money. The application mandates that “Alabama pledges its support of systematic education reform” and by this application Alabama enters into a contract “to establish a partnership with the US Department of Education.” Also, the Department of Education of Alabama promised to “comply with all federal laws and executive orders and regulations.” While it is typical for a state receiving federal money to comply with federal laws, this argument goes far beyond that to include obeying any future executive orders and regulations.
Incidentally, the actual text of Goals 2000 includes 195 uses of the word “shall”, 63 uses of the word “will”, 43 uses of the word “require”, and 13 uses of the word must, all synonymous with mandatory, not voluntary. The concerns are legitimate and have nothing to do with paranoid, right-wing of the political spectrum. A decisive first step would be the repealing of Goals 2000, which subverts educational reform with more federal regulations and spending.
Tags: goals 2000
The following is a letter to the editor from the Executive Assistant to Governor Fob James of Alabama in the Birmingham Post–Herald, Oct. 25, 1995. Gov. James had the courage to refuse the Goals 2000 money. Presumably, he could see it for the blatant federal power grab that it was. Unfortunately, shortly thereafter, the US Department of Education informed the James administration that the governor did not have the power to refuse the money. The Department ruled that only the state’s chief education officer could refuse the money. Alabama, just like every other state in the union, accepted Goals 2000 dollars and launched on the road to federally controlled education restructuring.
Your October 2nd editorial called Turning Down Money indicates that those who oppose participation in Goals 2000 are paranoid and right-wing and that arguments to Goals 2000 are unsupported. That is not true.
On July 27th the Alabama legislature adopted a resolution calling upon the Alabama congressional delegation to repeal Goals 2000 in order to reserve the power it gives to the federal government. Goals 2000 is the Clinton administration’s plan to drastically restructure America’s education system. The danger of Goals 2000 is that the local schools will be extremely vulnerable to federal manipulation and have little, if any, autonomy.
Your editorial assumes Alabama could take the money with no federal strings attached. On November 29, 1994, the Alabama Department of Education submitted an application for Goals 2000 money. The application mandates that “Alabama pledges its support of systematic education reform” and by this application Alabama enters into a contract “to establish a partnership with the US Department of Education.” Also, the Department of Education of Alabama promised to “comply with all federal laws and executive orders and regulations.” While it is typical for a state receiving federal money to comply with federal laws, this argument goes far beyond that to include obeying any future executive orders and regulations.
Incidentally, the actual text of Goals 2000 includes 195 uses of the word “shall”, 63 uses of the word “will”, 43 uses of the word “require”, and 13 uses of the word must, all synonymous with mandatory, not voluntary. The concerns are legitimate and have nothing to do with paranoid, right-wing of the political spectrum. A decisive first step would be the repealing of Goals 2000, which subverts educational reform with more federal regulations and spending.
Tags: goals 2000