The Government's Role in Education: The Case of Grand Canyon University
Recently, Secretary Miguel Cardona of the Department of Education has made a statement about shutting down Grand Canyon University. This Christian non-profit university has sparked debate and controversy, especially within the context of government involvement in education. Let's explore this issue and its implications.
The Controversial Statement
Grand Canyon University (GCU) is a Christian non-profit university that has, according to Secretary Miguel Cardona, caught the attention for potential closure. This move signals a shift in the current education system that also raises questions about government control over educational content and funding.
The statement from the Department of Education suggests that GCU can provide education without government funding. This implies that alternative educational models, such as private and non-profit institutions, can thrive without government oversight. Moreover, it suggests that the government cannot dictate the curriculum or values taught in these institutions, which is a significant shift in the traditional educational paradigm.
The Left's Perspective on Education
The left's objection to such statements and institutions is rooted in their perception of education as a tool for social engineering. They view organizations like GCU as breeding grounds for moral and ethical values that they believe are detrimental to their vision of modern society. The left largely opposes traditional values, character education, and religious instruction, which they believe fosters a sense of responsibility, kindness, and acceptance.
According to some on the left, these values hinder progressive goals such as promoting diversity, inclusivity, and social justice. They argue that instead of teaching these traditional values, education should focus on skills that are less in-demand but more politically correct, such as underwater basket weaving degrees. These programs are often criticized for their lack of job prospects and their high cost, leading graduates to accumulate significant debt without the promised job security.
Proposed Reforms and Their Impact
The potential for government intervention in education raises larger questions about the role of the government in funding and controlling educational institutions. Some propose the abolition of the Department of Education along with the heads of several other federal departments to reduce government control over education. These proposals include eliminating the Secretary of Agriculture, Commerce, Defense, Energy, Health and Human Services, Homeland Security, Housing and Urban Development, Interior, Labor, State, Transportation, and the Treasury.
Proposals also suggest a return to the gold standard for the Treasury, the dismantling of the national bank, and the introduction of a flat tax system. Moreover, a balanced budget requirement for Congress and the elimination of all debt within 10 years are also suggested. These radical changes would shift power back to the states, freeing them to manage their own educational policies and funding.
A Call for Reform and Term Limits
The calls for reform extend beyond the abolition of certain departments. There is a push for a constitutional amendment limiting the terms for elected officials to two terms in Congress. This would ensure that elected officials serve as stewards of the public interest and not as career politicians. The proposal also includes a shift in the retirement and compensation package for elected officials, suggesting a return to a per diem system or limited pay when in session, along with Social Security benefits.
The argument is that the role of elected officials was never intended to be a lifelong career, and term limits would ensure that they focus on their work rather than their potential for extorting public resources. By restoring the balance of power and reducing the influence of the federal government in education, states and local communities can take a more active role in shaping their own educational futures.