That's way too long! :wacko:
http://www.nbcnews.com/news/us-news/atlanta-cheating-scandal-n341516
Quote
Throwing the Book: Is Prison Too Harsh for Atlanta School Cheating Scandal?
By Jon Schuppe
Like so many others around the country, Georgia Federation of Teachers President Verdaillia Turner watched what happened in an Atlanta courtroom Tuesday and came away shaking her head.
A day earlier, Fulton Superior Court Judge Jerry Baxter told 10 people convicted of a massive test-cheating scandal that he'd go easy on them if they admitted their guilt, apologized and waived their right to appeal the sentence he imposed.
Only two accepted. The rest he sentenced to prison on Tuesday, some for as long as seven years.
"They should have taken the deal," Turner said. "I have no idea why these folks were so hardheaded."
Turner, who also runs the Atlanta Federation of Teachers, knows the value of taking a deal. She helped dozens of members arrange for lenient punishment in return for admitting their roles early on in the investigation, which found educators had fed answers to students or erased and changed answers on standardized tests, making it look like the troubled 50,000-student city school system had engineered a remarkable turnaround.
Evidence pointed to cheating in 44 schools with nearly 180 educators, involving teachers, principals and administrators. Teachers who tried to report it were threatened with retaliation.
Turner said 48 of her members were "disposed of" before the trial, and most have "landed on their feet," some in education jobs, others out of the industry.
The others got the book thrown at them: seven years in prison for Tamara Cotman, Sharon Davis Williams and Michael Pitts; two years for Tabeeka Jordan; one year for Angela Williamson, Dana Evans, Diane Buckner-Webb and Theresia Copeland. Many plan to appeal.
"All I want for many of these people is to just take some responsibility," Baxter said. "But they refuse."
Even after Baxter's warning, the stiffness of his sentences surprised many in the education industry.
"We thought they were fairly harsh, the sentences," said Tim Callahan, spokesman for the Professional Association of Georgia Educators, which also represents teachers. "But certainly a wrong had been done, and needed to be exposed, and people needed to pay the price."
James Wolfinger, an associate professor of history and education at DePaul University, said it was remarkable to him that cheating had led to racketeering charges, a device typically used against gangsters and drug dealers. The sentences "feel excessive," he said.
But Wolfinger also noted that the case reflects the increased politicization of public school curricula, and state-mandated reforms that punish systems that perform poorly.
The judge, and the justice system, needed to make an example of people, he said.
"I do think it has to do with a move to more of a testing regime in schools — that if we're going to use high-stakes testing, then the stakes should be high for educators as well."
Eventually, 12 defendants went to trial. Eleven were convicted of racketeering. Ten appeared appeared before Baxter on Monday and were given an opportunity for leniency. The two who did, Donald Bullock and Pam Cleveland, avoided jail.
Not too harsh at all. I'm glad they're reaping the fruits of their actions.
That's insane.
Also, a judge blackmailing the defendants into waiving the right to appeal or he will pass a heavy sentence seems like a complete perversion of justice and right to fair trial.
Yeah, this is one of the worst judges ever. I am hoping that some adults will look at the case and reverse.
Quote from: Habbaku on April 15, 2015, 12:24:43 AM
Not too harsh at all. I'm glad they're reaping the fruits of their actions.
Seven years is not harsh?
If I'm not mistaken, they got cash bonuses for the improved test scores.
Quote from: Admiral Yi on April 15, 2015, 07:26:11 AM
If I'm not mistaken, they got cash bonuses for the improved test scores.
Well, that would make it a little more justifiable. Still, this judge seems like a real goofball. But then again, he was probably elected, and that's what you get when you elect judges.
Quote from: Martinus on April 15, 2015, 12:44:49 AM
That's insane.
Also, a judge blackmailing the defendants into waiving the right to appeal or he will pass a heavy sentence seems like a complete perversion of justice and right to fair trial.
My understanding is anyone who accepts a plea deal waives the right to appeal.
Seems ok to me. A massive cheating scandal like this, some of them will deserve heavy punishment, or especially if they don't genuinely show some remorse and own up to what they did. They cheated these kids out of an education in order to make themselves look good and defrauded the school system in a major way. Since when is this kind of action to be taken lightly? Seven years for some of them, they'll be out in half that time.
Quote from: Admiral Yi on April 15, 2015, 08:03:01 AM
Quote from: Martinus on April 15, 2015, 12:44:49 AM
That's insane.
Also, a judge blackmailing the defendants into waiving the right to appeal or he will pass a heavy sentence seems like a complete perversion of justice and right to fair trial.
My understanding is anyone who accepts a plea deal waives the right to appeal.
I don't know how this looks like in the US, but in Poland the deal is made between the prosecutor and the defendant
and then reviewed by the judge to make sure it is equitable, the defendant is not acting under duress and is not being misled etc. The last element is crucial to a proper plea bargain in my view (and, I assume, under most civilized systems). This is obviously not the case when the "plea bargain" is offered by the judge and there is no oversight.
Juking the stats. :glare:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_ogxZxu6cjM
Quote from: jimmy olsen on April 15, 2015, 06:26:09 AM
Quote from: Habbaku on April 15, 2015, 12:24:43 AM
Not too harsh at all. I'm glad they're reaping the fruits of their actions.
Seven years is not harsh?
I don't think seven years is too harsh, no. Is it harsh? Yes.
As others have intimated, however, I am not particularly enamored of the judge involved. I am uncertain of the legality of Judge Baxter's intimidation tactics with regards to a plea deal, but it would seem to me that that is against the rules.
Quote from: KRonn on April 15, 2015, 08:57:44 AM
Seems ok to me. A massive cheating scandal like this, some of them will deserve heavy punishment, or especially if they don't genuinely show some remorse and own up to what they did. They cheated these kids out of an education in order to make themselves look good and defrauded the school system in a major way. Since when is this kind of action to be taken lightly? Seven years for some of them, they'll be out in half that time.
The kids didn't get cheated of anything. If anything, the kids got the benefit of thinking that they could succeed in the world. This case was about cheating on bullshit tests, not about education.
As far as how much they "cheated" the system of in bonuses, the argument is a joke. Bankers who cheated the US taxpayers of a hundred times as much in the sub-prime frauds got no punishment at all; these people were charged with racketeering (in the most egregious case of over-charging in recent memory) and got hammered because a test-crazed Federal government essentially forced the Atlanta school system to cheat or lose funding the students desperately needed.
The irony is that the supposed ringleader of this "crime against children" was the winner of a national award for best school administrator, based oin criteria that essentially ignored standardized test scores. In essence, the prosecution of this case that has harmed the kids far more than the cheating ever did.
They were sentenced to 25 years, so the seven years
is the reduced time for good behavior.
Quote from: Admiral Yi on April 15, 2015, 07:26:11 AM
If I'm not mistaken, they got cash bonuses for the improved test scores.
They also got not fired, which was apparently the primary motivator. The scandal is a direct result of No Child Left Alive and the braindead performance targets it forces on schools. Once you get into the pattern of committing fraud to save your job, it isn't too hard to go a little further and get some bonuses too.
Quote from: Habbaku on April 15, 2015, 09:57:41 AM
I don't think seven years is too harsh, no.
is there any felony for which you
would think it too harsh? This is about as low-grade a felony as I can think of (it's not quite victimless, but it's close) and seven years of actual time is a lot for a crime that, it turns out, is only punished by some weekend service if you kiss the judge's ass.
Not sure how the system of funding works in the US. Is it true that schools where the kids test high on the standardized tests get more funding? Because that seems nuts to me.
Quote from: Malthus on April 15, 2015, 10:06:14 AM
Not sure how the system of funding works in the US. Is it true that schools where the kids test high on the standardized tests get more funding? Because that seems nuts to me.
Not quite, but schools that perform poorly over a long enough period of time lose their federal aid. Teachers get fired (but find other jobs) and students get screwed over (but can't get another education). It's insane. Thanks, Obama!
Quote from: Baron von Schtinkenbutt on April 15, 2015, 10:04:00 AM
They also got not fired, which was apparently the primary motivator. The scandal is a direct result of No Child Left Alive and the braindead performance targets it forces on schools. Once you get into the pattern of committing fraud to save your job, it isn't too hard to go a little further and get some bonuses too.
I was unaware that NCLB had a teacher performance aspect. I thought it was all at the school level.
Which of course begs the question of how any system that rewards good teacher performance and punishes poor performance can be made impervious to gaming/cheating.
Quote from: grumbler on April 15, 2015, 10:05:39 AM
Quote from: Habbaku on April 15, 2015, 09:57:41 AM
I don't think seven years is too harsh, no.
is there any felony for which you would think it too harsh? This is about as low-grade a felony as I can think of (it's not quite victimless, but it's close) and seven years of actual time is a lot for a crime that, it turns out, is only punished by some weekend service if you kiss the judge's ass.
Well, Habbaku is a gun-totting redneck idiot as he has consistently proven. What did you expect?
Quote from: Baron von Schtinkenbutt on April 15, 2015, 10:04:00 AM
They also got not fired, which was apparently the primary motivator. The scandal is a direct result of No Child Left Alive and the braindead performance targets it forces on schools. Once you get into the pattern of committing fraud to save your job, it isn't too hard to go a little further and get some bonuses too.
Yep. there was some greed involved on the part of some of the defendants, but they all started to cheat after trying, and failing, for years to do it the "right way." One of the ironies of the case was that the scores for students of teachers in those same schools who refused to cheat ALSO went up; once the bogus school scores convinced the kids they
could do well on the tests, they actually
did do well on the tests.
Aww, Martinus' checks to his boyfriends must have bounced this week.
Quote from: Admiral Yi on April 15, 2015, 10:09:02 AM
I was unaware that NCLB had a teacher performance aspect. I thought it was all at the school level.
Which of course begs the question of how any system that rewards good teacher performance and punishes poor performance can be made impervious to gaming/cheating.
The schools were to be closed and all the teachers and administrators in them fired. Atlanta School Board FTW!
Jail time for racketeering doesn't sound too harsh.
Quote from: Admiral Yi on April 15, 2015, 10:09:02 AM
Quote from: Baron von Schtinkenbutt on April 15, 2015, 10:04:00 AM
They also got not fired, which was apparently the primary motivator. The scandal is a direct result of No Child Left Alive and the braindead performance targets it forces on schools. Once you get into the pattern of committing fraud to save your job, it isn't too hard to go a little further and get some bonuses too.
I was unaware that NCLB had a teacher performance aspect. I thought it was all at the school level.
Which of course begs the question of how any system that rewards good teacher performance and punishes poor performance can be made impervious to gaming/cheating.
I'm certainly no expert, but from what I've gleaned from this thread the problem seems to lie in the fact that the same system is used to both reward/punish teacher performance *and* to make decisions concerning school funding. This seems to me leads to all sorts of problems, particularly if the source of kids performance on the tests is not totally linked to teacher performance in teaching.
For example, assume a teacher cares deeply about the community of kids he or she is teaching, and they do poorly on the tests; the teacher may be convinced (rightly or wrongly) that (1) they are not themselves the source of the poor performance; and (2) if the poor test results continue, the kids will lose funding.
Add to that the issue that they will potentially lose their jobs, this creates a strong incentive to cheat.
If you're willing to commit crimes to keep your job then you shouldn't have your job in the first place.
The solution is centralised exam by a third party authority :bowler:
Is it possible for a Court to require a party to waive their right to appeal?
Quote from: Monoriu on April 15, 2015, 10:27:31 AM
The solution is centralised exam by a third party authority :bowler:
NCLB tests are developed by each state.
I want to know which genius thought it was a good idea to have the teachers proctor their own students.
Quote from: Admiral Yi on April 15, 2015, 10:49:53 AM
I want to know which genius thought it was a good idea to have the teachers proctor their own students.
Probably the same genius who decided it was a good idea to ascribe importance to this sort of test ;)
Quote from: Admiral Yi on April 15, 2015, 10:49:53 AM
Quote from: Monoriu on April 15, 2015, 10:27:31 AM
The solution is centralised exam by a third party authority :bowler:
NCLB tests are developed by each state.
I want to know which genius thought it was a good idea to have the teachers proctor their own students.
Some skinflint genius who thought it would be too expensive to hire outside proctors.
Quote from: Malthus on April 15, 2015, 10:21:52 AM
Quote from: Admiral Yi on April 15, 2015, 10:09:02 AM
Quote from: Baron von Schtinkenbutt on April 15, 2015, 10:04:00 AM
They also got not fired, which was apparently the primary motivator. The scandal is a direct result of No Child Left Alive and the braindead performance targets it forces on schools. Once you get into the pattern of committing fraud to save your job, it isn't too hard to go a little further and get some bonuses too.
I was unaware that NCLB had a teacher performance aspect. I thought it was all at the school level.
Which of course begs the question of how any system that rewards good teacher performance and punishes poor performance can be made impervious to gaming/cheating.
I'm certainly no expert, but from what I've gleaned from this thread the problem seems to lie in the fact that the same system is used to both reward/punish teacher performance *and* to make decisions concerning school funding. This seems to me leads to all sorts of problems, particularly if the source of kids performance on the tests is not totally linked to teacher performance in teaching.
For example, assume a teacher cares deeply about the community of kids he or she is teaching, and they do poorly on the tests; the teacher may be convinced (rightly or wrongly) that (1) they are not themselves the source of the poor performance; and (2) if the poor test results continue, the kids will lose funding.
Add to that the issue that they will potentially lose their jobs, this creates a strong incentive to cheat.
Agreed. I also wonder the extent to which this system is analogous to high level athletes being tempted to take performance enhancing drugs - that they will be doing their schools a disservice by not cheating because, given the system, it is highly likely that others are cheating as well.
Quoteit was remarkable to him that cheating had led to racketeering charges
State RICO statutes, there's part of the problem right there.
Quote from: Martinus on April 15, 2015, 09:19:16 AM
Quote from: Admiral Yi on April 15, 2015, 08:03:01 AM
Quote from: Martinus on April 15, 2015, 12:44:49 AM
That's insane.
Also, a judge blackmailing the defendants into waiving the right to appeal or he will pass a heavy sentence seems like a complete perversion of justice and right to fair trial.
My understanding is anyone who accepts a plea deal waives the right to appeal.
I don't know how this looks like in the US, but in Poland the deal is made between the prosecutor and the defendant and then reviewed by the judge to make sure it is equitable, the defendant is not acting under duress and is not being misled etc. The last element is crucial to a proper plea bargain in my view (and, I assume, under most civilized systems). This is obviously not the case when the "plea bargain" is offered by the judge and there is no oversight.
Yeah something odd here, whether it is a judicial or journalistic problem remains to be seen.
Quote from: The Minsky Moment on April 15, 2015, 12:24:53 PM
Yeah something odd here, whether it is a judicial or journalistic problem remains to be seen.
I've heard what is purported to be the judge railing against the defendants on the radio for failing to show enough remorse.
This is just insane. There shouldn't be an offense that carries any jail time--you should just lose your job and pay a fine.
But then NCLB is fucking insane anyway. There's no legitimate Federal role in education in the first place.
Quote from: dps on April 15, 2015, 10:30:52 PM
This is just insane. There shouldn't be an offense that carries any jail time--you should just lose your job and pay a fine.
But then NCLB is fucking insane anyway. There's no legitimate Federal role in education in the first place.
Of course there is. Without federal oversite Mississippi will be teaching it's kids that the Flintstones is a documentary.
Quote from: Razgovory on April 15, 2015, 10:32:55 PM
Quote from: dps on April 15, 2015, 10:30:52 PM
This is just insane. There shouldn't be an offense that carries any jail time--you should just lose your job and pay a fine.
But then NCLB is fucking insane anyway. There's no legitimate Federal role in education in the first place.
Of course there is. Without federal oversite Mississippi will be teaching it's kids that the Flintstones is a documentary.
To start with, that's bullshit, and you know it. And it doesn't address the fact that the Constitution doesn't give the Federal government the authority to exercise oversight of state education systems.
Quote from: dps on April 15, 2015, 10:42:05 PMTo start with, that's bullshit, and you know it. And it doesn't address the fact that the Constitution doesn't give the Federal government the authority to exercise oversight of state education systems.
why, of course. no state education system is required to follow the federal government. :P
Quote from: Razgovory on April 15, 2015, 10:32:55 PM
Quote from: dps on April 15, 2015, 10:30:52 PM
This is just insane. There shouldn't be an offense that carries any jail time--you should just lose your job and pay a fine.
But then NCLB is fucking insane anyway. There's no legitimate Federal role in education in the first place.
Of course there is. Without federal oversite Mississippi will be teaching it's kids that the Flintstones is a documentary.
Are you saying it isn't!? :o
Quote from: dps on April 15, 2015, 10:42:05 PM
Quote from: Razgovory on April 15, 2015, 10:32:55 PM
Quote from: dps on April 15, 2015, 10:30:52 PM
This is just insane. There shouldn't be an offense that carries any jail time--you should just lose your job and pay a fine.
But then NCLB is fucking insane anyway. There's no legitimate Federal role in education in the first place.
Of course there is. Without federal oversite Mississippi will be teaching it's kids that the Flintstones is a documentary.
To start with, that's bullshit, and you know it. And it doesn't address the fact that the Constitution doesn't give the Federal government the authority to exercise oversight of state education systems.
Except that it isn't bullshit - the number of examples of local school oversite pushing insanely stupid shit is legion.
And the Feds don't have any authority over state education - they can just not give them funding. If they don't want the cash, they don't have to take it, and can do whatever they like.
Seven years for racketeering is probably not extreme...but calling cheating on a exam racketeering is just fucking stupid.
Quote from: dps on April 15, 2015, 10:30:52 PM
But then NCLB is fucking insane anyway. There's no legitimate Federal role in education in the first place.
Wow, that went from 100 to 0 in a hurry.
Quote from: dps on April 15, 2015, 10:30:52 PM
There's no legitimate Federal role in education in the first place.
Not sure if I understand you correctly, but are you saying there is no legitimate public interest in having education centralised at the federal rather than state level?
If so, this is quite wrong. In the modern day and age what you want to achieve is the possibly highest level of educational convergence and possibility of comparing education obtained from different schools - even in the EU, which after all is made up of countries that are much more different from each other than the US states are, there is this drive, to make sure degrees, grades and test scores are more and more interchangeable - whether you went to school in Poland or in France, for example (of course this is still at an early stage).
Obviously, none of this can be achieved if different schools in different states have discretion as to what they can put on the curriculum. So to say that this should not be an issue within a single nation (even if it is a federal nation) is just mindboggling.
Quote from: DGuller on April 16, 2015, 09:10:46 AM
Quote from: dps on April 15, 2015, 10:30:52 PM
But then NCLB is fucking insane anyway. There's no legitimate Federal role in education in the first place.
Wow, that went from 100 to 0 in a hurry.
I don't disagree with him, in theory.
Of course, if you want the feds to have no role, then the feds have to provide no funding, and you make it up elsewhere.
But as long as the feds (or the state for that matter) is providing funds, then of course they are going to provide controls as well. In fact, it would be terrible otherwise. The worst way to do it would be to have different people providing the funds from the people running the schools. No accountability in that case to see that the funds are allocated properly, and you have a system ripe for corruption where you have weak local structures to prevent it.
You can't have your cake and eat it as well, right?
Quote from: Berkut on April 16, 2015, 10:00:59 AM
Quote from: DGuller on April 16, 2015, 09:10:46 AM
Quote from: dps on April 15, 2015, 10:30:52 PM
But then NCLB is fucking insane anyway. There's no legitimate Federal role in education in the first place.
Wow, that went from 100 to 0 in a hurry.
I don't disagree with him, in theory.
Of course, if you want the feds to have no role, then the feds have to provide no funding, and you make it up elsewhere.
But as long as the feds (or the state for that matter) is providing funds, then of course they are going to provide controls as well. In fact, it would be terrible otherwise. The worst way to do it would be to have different people providing the funds from the people running the schools. No accountability in that case to see that the funds are allocated properly, and you have a system ripe for corruption where you have weak local structures to prevent it.
You can't have your cake and eat it as well, right?
Again I am not sure I understand the point - but federal funding or not, I think it is in the public interest that, say, an A grade from biology on a high school diploma from Tennesee means, roughly speaking, the same training and knowledge as an A grade from biology on a high school diploma from New York.
I don't see how you can achieve that unless curriculum standards are set up at the federal level.
Quote from: Martinus on April 16, 2015, 10:45:55 AM
Quote from: Berkut on April 16, 2015, 10:00:59 AM
Quote from: DGuller on April 16, 2015, 09:10:46 AM
Quote from: dps on April 15, 2015, 10:30:52 PM
But then NCLB is fucking insane anyway. There's no legitimate Federal role in education in the first place.
Wow, that went from 100 to 0 in a hurry.
I don't disagree with him, in theory.
Of course, if you want the feds to have no role, then the feds have to provide no funding, and you make it up elsewhere.
But as long as the feds (or the state for that matter) is providing funds, then of course they are going to provide controls as well. In fact, it would be terrible otherwise. The worst way to do it would be to have different people providing the funds from the people running the schools. No accountability in that case to see that the funds are allocated properly, and you have a system ripe for corruption where you have weak local structures to prevent it.
You can't have your cake and eat it as well, right?
Again I am not sure I understand the point - but federal funding or not, I think it is in the public interest that, say, an A grade from biology on a high school diploma from Tennesee means, roughly speaking, the same training and knowledge as an A grade from biology on a high school diploma from New York.
I don't see how you can achieve that unless curriculum standards are set up at the federal level.
I think that consistent meaning is useful, and I agree that if you want to have that there must be some kind of consistent curriculum. But it just one desirable thing, it isn't necessarily the only desirable thing.
As someone whose kids go to a high performing school, for example, I don't want anyone coming along and screwing with them. They know what they are doing, and I am not at all confident that it would serve my local school children's interests to have higher level "standards" imposed. How do you balance those competing interests?
Quote from: dps on April 15, 2015, 10:42:05 PM
Quote from: Razgovory on April 15, 2015, 10:32:55 PM
Quote from: dps on April 15, 2015, 10:30:52 PM
This is just insane. There shouldn't be an offense that carries any jail time--you should just lose your job and pay a fine.
But then NCLB is fucking insane anyway. There's no legitimate Federal role in education in the first place.
Of course there is. Without federal oversite Mississippi will be teaching it's kids that the Flintstones is a documentary.
To start with, that's bullshit, and you know it. And it doesn't address the fact that the Constitution doesn't give the Federal government the authority to exercise oversight of state education systems.
Not Bullshit. Let me ask you, who what ended mandatory prayer in schools in Mississippi? What ended Segregation in Mississippi schools? What ever that power is, should probably be given some influence over the schools in Mississippi.
Quote from: Martinus on April 16, 2015, 10:45:55 AM
Again I am not sure I understand the point - but federal funding or not, I think it is in the public interest that, say, an A grade from biology on a high school diploma from Tennesee means, roughly speaking, the same training and knowledge as an A grade from biology on a high school diploma from New York.
I don't see how you can achieve that unless curriculum standards are set up at the federal level.
In reality, students in Tennessee have a different curriculum than students in New York, and not only the content but the actual classes taken will be different, as will graduation standards.
Further, public universities are state institutions. So in general, a student from Tennessee will be heavily subsidized to go to a public university in Tennessee, but will pay through the nose to go to a university in New York (and vice versa).
Quote from: Berkut on April 16, 2015, 07:58:12 AM
Seven years for racketeering is probably not extreme...but calling cheating on a exam racketeering is just fucking stupid.
Beating the drum again - there's RICO for you. It can be employed as expansively as a judge will let a creative prosecutor get away with. Put that all power into a local DA's hands, and sooner or later some kind of over-reaching will occur.
Quote from: Martinus on April 16, 2015, 10:45:55 AM
Quote from: Berkut on April 16, 2015, 10:00:59 AM
Quote from: DGuller on April 16, 2015, 09:10:46 AM
Quote from: dps on April 15, 2015, 10:30:52 PM
But then NCLB is fucking insane anyway. There's no legitimate Federal role in education in the first place.
Wow, that went from 100 to 0 in a hurry.
I don't disagree with him, in theory.
Of course, if you want the feds to have no role, then the feds have to provide no funding, and you make it up elsewhere.
But as long as the feds (or the state for that matter) is providing funds, then of course they are going to provide controls as well. In fact, it would be terrible otherwise. The worst way to do it would be to have different people providing the funds from the people running the schools. No accountability in that case to see that the funds are allocated properly, and you have a system ripe for corruption where you have weak local structures to prevent it.
You can't have your cake and eat it as well, right?
Again I am not sure I understand the point - but federal funding or not, I think it is in the public interest that, say, an A grade from biology on a high school diploma from Tennesee means, roughly speaking, the same training and knowledge as an A grade from biology on a high school diploma from New York.
I don't see how you can achieve that unless curriculum standards are set up at the federal level.
The point is that in our system, the Federal government is only supposed to have those powers granted to it by the Constitution, and there's nothing in the Constitution that gives it any authority whatsoever over education. Each state has its own education system.
Over the last 50 years or so, the Federal government has
de facto taken on authority in a lot of areas, not just education, over which the Constitution gives it no authority, by what amounts to bribery. State and local governments now get a significant portion of their operating funds from the Feds, and that allows the Feds to determine policy on things it doesn't actually have authority over (the states have to do it the Feds' way, or the Feds take away the Federal funding).
And even with the Federal government worming its way into things it's not supposed to have power over, even now school curriculums aren't set by the Feds--there is no nation-wide standardized curriculum.
On one hand, they committed crimes that subverted the State. On the other, the State is defending what I am assured is a failed and stupid policy. So I'm really conflicted, which manifests as indifference.