Never do you hear that "teachers are well compensated", "we are spending enough on public education", "teachers have light schedules", "class sizes are small enough". My challenge to readers is to find at least 10 documented sources to the above statements by educrats that benefit from the public education gravy train. My guess is that it can not be done teachers unions would not exist if they told the truth.
Cathy
"If you tell a lie big enough and keep repeating it,
people will eventually come to believe it." Joseph Goebbels
The following piece appeared in the Union Leader.
Bookbag bullying: Weston PTO turns up the heat
Tuesday, Apr. 22, 2008
USING ELEMENTARY school students as couriers to deliver an inflammatory political letter about the city budget is not only against city school policy, but common decency as well.
Last week, Weston Elementary School PTO President Kathleen Epperson wrote a letter (with an all-caps headline and full of underlined phrases) calling Mayor Frank Guinta's budget "completely unacceptable," proclaiming that it would raise class sizes by five students per class, and urging parents to contact their aldermen and oppose the mayor's budget.
Oh, and the letter was unsigned, giving the impression that it was an official document from the school administration.
Although Acting Superintendent Henry Aliberti contacted the mayor to assure him that this was not an official school act, Weston principal Lizabeth MacDonald did approve the letter for distribution to the students -- again, in violation of district policy.
This is all a piece with the district's policy of opposing tooth-and-nail any reduction in school spending by claiming that budget cuts will destroy the schools' ability to teach your children.
Just once, we'd like to see a principal, PTO president or the superintendent put the green eyeshades on and work to find savings instead of scream that the sky is falling every time a mayor proposes trimming the school budget.
We'd like to see someone -- anyone -- in the city school system acknowledge that the public schools are not models of bureaucratic efficiency and that maybe, just maybe, a better way to manage the school budget could be found if only the people in charge looked hard enough.
Alas, all taxpayers and parents hear is incessant squawking by a flock of Chicken Littles running around with their eyes shut and mouths wide open.
Saturday, April 26, 2008
Friday, April 25, 2008
On public education: Cutting out the middle man
Croydon's contract with Newport will expire in a couple of years. For the past several months there has been a Long Term Planning committee working on a solutions for the future education of Croydon's students. At various times throughout the meetings school board members, members of the community and a teacher from Newport have attended these meetings. Some members felt that Newport Schools were better, some felt that Sunapee and Grantham schools were better. Jim's solution was to allow choice, including choice to the private schools. One of the board members said and I am summarizing not quoting that public school dollars could not be spent on private schools and the public school teacher from Newport felt it was important to protect the institution of public schools. I ask is either of the statements in the best interest of the students and/or taxpayers and are they true?
In my research I have found that many school districts in New Hampshire allow choice and the New Hampshire statutes do not disallow choice. Further research showed that some public schools send their children to private schools as a cost savings on educating special education students. Teachers and public school employees should not fear choice if they are as good as they say they are, allow choice and parents will choose you if you are best for their children.
Will the Croydon school board put the interests of parents, students and taxpayers ahead of those who benefit from our hard earned tax dollars?
Quote of the Day "We as a society have agreed that government should fund education, but there is no good reason for government to provide it."
Cathy
The following piece appeared in the Union Leader and also confirms that choice is an option.
On public education: Cutting out the middle man
WHAT IS THE point of having a public school system? The question is trickier than it sounds.
The point, of course, is to ensure that all citizens, regardless of income, have enough education to function as adult citizens of our republic. The point is not for the state to operate schools, but for the state to provide for an education for all citizens.
That is why New Hampshire allows public schools to tuition their students out to private schools. It's not important that the children are educated by the government, but that there is some collective source of funding to provide for everyone's education.
Enter the debate over public kindergarten. The state Senate has passed a plan for funding public kindergarten in the few remaining school districts that don't provide it. But the House is considering an alternative that would allow these districts to contract with private kindergartens instead of building their own public kindergartens.
This is a terrific idea. And it raises another question.
If school districts are allowed to tuition their students to private schools and contract with private kindergartens, then why are parents still forbidden from doing that contracting themselves?
It is already established precedent in New Hampshire that public funding of privately provided education is OK. Why not cut out the middle man -- the local public school district -- and finally empower parents to decide what school best fits their children's needs?
We as a society have agreed that government should fund education, but there is no good reason for government to provide it.
In my research I have found that many school districts in New Hampshire allow choice and the New Hampshire statutes do not disallow choice. Further research showed that some public schools send their children to private schools as a cost savings on educating special education students. Teachers and public school employees should not fear choice if they are as good as they say they are, allow choice and parents will choose you if you are best for their children.
Will the Croydon school board put the interests of parents, students and taxpayers ahead of those who benefit from our hard earned tax dollars?
Quote of the Day "We as a society have agreed that government should fund education, but there is no good reason for government to provide it."
Cathy
The following piece appeared in the Union Leader and also confirms that choice is an option.
On public education: Cutting out the middle man
WHAT IS THE point of having a public school system? The question is trickier than it sounds.
The point, of course, is to ensure that all citizens, regardless of income, have enough education to function as adult citizens of our republic. The point is not for the state to operate schools, but for the state to provide for an education for all citizens.
That is why New Hampshire allows public schools to tuition their students out to private schools. It's not important that the children are educated by the government, but that there is some collective source of funding to provide for everyone's education.
Enter the debate over public kindergarten. The state Senate has passed a plan for funding public kindergarten in the few remaining school districts that don't provide it. But the House is considering an alternative that would allow these districts to contract with private kindergartens instead of building their own public kindergartens.
This is a terrific idea. And it raises another question.
If school districts are allowed to tuition their students to private schools and contract with private kindergartens, then why are parents still forbidden from doing that contracting themselves?
It is already established precedent in New Hampshire that public funding of privately provided education is OK. Why not cut out the middle man -- the local public school district -- and finally empower parents to decide what school best fits their children's needs?
We as a society have agreed that government should fund education, but there is no good reason for government to provide it.
While listening to WNTK
Last November I was extremely disappointed to hear that Brian Bulldog Tilton and Konrad Kayne were taken off the air on WNTK. I stopped listening at that point out of loyalty to the two and I thought the new guys stunk. About a month or two ago when I heard Brian Bulldog Tilton on WTPL 93.9 I started listening to WNTK again. I have been delighted to listen to the two new hosts especially since they have been talking about topics of interest to me including problems with our education system and homeschooling the past several weeks.
This morning they were talking to Skip Murphy of Granite Grok and made reference to the follow blog entry.
And then they wonder why conservatives distrust the Academy...
Most people believe that the public school system exists to educate their children: reading, writing, 'rithmatic, science, and the like. They also expect that biases of any type would not enter into that process, right? If only that part were true.
As a conservative, I would like to believe the first sentence. What we have seen, however, is that there is a real problem in that standardized testing has shown great problems in demonstrating that educational staffs have done their jobs (or are even up to doing so). Educational staffs decry the use of these tests; yet, they show that the educational system has many holes that have gone unfilled for years and those same educationalists put up all kinds of excuses as to why it is not their fault.
If not their fault, then whose? And I do not accept the premise that it is the kids (at least, the vast majority of the time).
Especially when I see that biases of that same staff are not tamped down. In fact, most parents would be irate if they really knew how their kids' teachers were actually trained:
Perhaps the judge should consider that the aim of public education is to interfere with the beliefs of children. Here is the proof:
Chester Pierce, for example, is a professor in the Department of Educational Psychiatry at Harvard University, and a major architect of the development of the "new" American citizen for the global village. Professor Pierce told 2,000 teachers attending the Childhood International Education Seminar in Denver, Colorado in 1973: "Every child in America entering school at the age of five is insane because he comes to school with certain allegiances toward our Founding Fathers, toward his parents, toward our elected officials, toward a belief in a supernatural being, and toward the sovereignty of this nation as a separate entity.
It's up to you, teachers, to make all of these sick children well by creating the international child of the future." Could his intentions have been more clear?
To read Skip Murphy's entire Blog entry click here .
This morning they were talking to Skip Murphy of Granite Grok and made reference to the follow blog entry.
And then they wonder why conservatives distrust the Academy...
Most people believe that the public school system exists to educate their children: reading, writing, 'rithmatic, science, and the like. They also expect that biases of any type would not enter into that process, right? If only that part were true.
As a conservative, I would like to believe the first sentence. What we have seen, however, is that there is a real problem in that standardized testing has shown great problems in demonstrating that educational staffs have done their jobs (or are even up to doing so). Educational staffs decry the use of these tests; yet, they show that the educational system has many holes that have gone unfilled for years and those same educationalists put up all kinds of excuses as to why it is not their fault.
If not their fault, then whose? And I do not accept the premise that it is the kids (at least, the vast majority of the time).
Especially when I see that biases of that same staff are not tamped down. In fact, most parents would be irate if they really knew how their kids' teachers were actually trained:
Perhaps the judge should consider that the aim of public education is to interfere with the beliefs of children. Here is the proof:
Chester Pierce, for example, is a professor in the Department of Educational Psychiatry at Harvard University, and a major architect of the development of the "new" American citizen for the global village. Professor Pierce told 2,000 teachers attending the Childhood International Education Seminar in Denver, Colorado in 1973: "Every child in America entering school at the age of five is insane because he comes to school with certain allegiances toward our Founding Fathers, toward his parents, toward our elected officials, toward a belief in a supernatural being, and toward the sovereignty of this nation as a separate entity.
It's up to you, teachers, to make all of these sick children well by creating the international child of the future." Could his intentions have been more clear?
To read Skip Murphy's entire Blog entry click here .
Thursday, April 24, 2008
THE 545 PEOPLE RESPONSIBLE FOR AMERICA'S WOES
I received the following from a fellow education reform fighter in Illinois. I met her when we went to help fight an education referendum (like a tax warrant)in a neighboring community. If I remember correctly she was a typical soccer Mom who supported the referendum by the end of the meeting she was on our side and ready to fight the referendum. She did her homework getting teacher contracts, administrator contracts and budgets together from her school district. She reviewed all the material and then she and a small group set out to educate the community. The referendum was defeated soundly 79/21.
They were able to defeat the referendum using our how to fight a referendum steps
and our Boston Tea Party steps.
The woes we feel in all levels of government from school boards to the federal government are do to the waste, corruption, uncontrolled spending, patronage and nepotism within these forms of government. We need term limits, fiscal responsibility, fiscal transparency and to do away with archaic legislation that permits the woes within this levels of government to continue.
THE 545 PEOPLE RESPONSIBLE FOR AMERICA'S WOES
BY CHARLEY REESE:
Politicians are the only people in the world who create problems and then campaign against them. Have you ever wondered why, if both the Democrats and the Republicans are against deficits, we have deficits? Have you ever wondered why, if all the politicians are against inflation and high taxes, we have inflation and high taxes? You and I don't propose a federal budget. The president does. You and I don't have the Constitutional authority to vote on appropriations. The House of Representatives does. You and I don't write the tax code. Congress does. You and I don't set fiscal policy. Congress does. You and I don't control monetary policy. The Federal Reserve Bank does.
One hundred senators, 435 congressmen, one president and nine Supreme Court justices - 545 human beings out of the 300 million - are directly, legally, morally and individually responsible for the domestic problems that plague this country. I excluded the members of the Federal Reserve Board because that problem was created by the Congress. In 1913, Congress delegated its Constitutional duty to provide a sound currency to a federally chartered but private central bank. I excluded all the special interests and lobbyists for a sound reason, they have no legal authority. They have no ability to coerce a senator, a congressman or a president to do one cotton- picking thing. I don't care if they offer a politician $1 million dollars in cash. The politician has the power to accept or reject it. No matter what the lobbyist promises, it is the legislator's responsibility to determine how he votes.
A CONFIDENCE CONSPIRACY
Those 545 human beings spend much of their energy convincing you that what they did is not their fault. They cooperate in this common con regardless of party. What separates a politician from a normal human being is an excessive amount of gall. No normal human being would have the gall of a SPEAKER, who stood up and criticized G. W. BUSH for creating deficits. The president can only propose a budget. He cannot force the Congress to accept it. The Constitution, which is the supreme law of the land, gives sole responsibility to the House of Representatives for originating and approving appropriations and taxes. Who is the speaker of the House? She is the leader of the majority party. She and fellow Democrats, not the president, can approve any budget they want. If the president vetoes it, they can pass it over his veto.
REPLACE THE SCOUNDRELS
It seems inconceivable to me that a nation of 300 million cannot replace 545 people who stand convicted -- by present facts - of incompetence and irresponsibility. I can't think of a single domestic problem, from an unfair tax code to defense overruns, that is not traceable directly to those 545 people. When you fully grasp the plain truth that 545 people exercise power of the federal government, then it must follow that what exists is what they want to exist. If the tax code is unfair, it's because they want it unfair. If the budget is in the red, it's because they want it in the red. If the Marines are in IRAQ, it's because they want them in IRAQ.
There are no insoluble government problems. Do not let these 545 people shift the blame to bureaucrats, whom they hire and whose jobs they can abolish; to lobbyists, whose gifts and advice they can reject; to regulators, to whom they give the power to regulate and from whom they can take this power. Above all, do not let them con you into the belief that there exist disembodied mystical forces like 'the economy,' 'inflation' or 'politics' that prevent them from doing what they take an oath to do. Those 545 people, and they alone, are responsible. They, and they alone, have the power. They, and they alone, should be held accountable by the people who are their bosses - provided the voters have the gumption to manage their own employees. We should vote all of them out of office and clean up their mess.
They were able to defeat the referendum using our how to fight a referendum steps
and our Boston Tea Party steps.
The woes we feel in all levels of government from school boards to the federal government are do to the waste, corruption, uncontrolled spending, patronage and nepotism within these forms of government. We need term limits, fiscal responsibility, fiscal transparency and to do away with archaic legislation that permits the woes within this levels of government to continue.
THE 545 PEOPLE RESPONSIBLE FOR AMERICA'S WOES
BY CHARLEY REESE:
Politicians are the only people in the world who create problems and then campaign against them. Have you ever wondered why, if both the Democrats and the Republicans are against deficits, we have deficits? Have you ever wondered why, if all the politicians are against inflation and high taxes, we have inflation and high taxes? You and I don't propose a federal budget. The president does. You and I don't have the Constitutional authority to vote on appropriations. The House of Representatives does. You and I don't write the tax code. Congress does. You and I don't set fiscal policy. Congress does. You and I don't control monetary policy. The Federal Reserve Bank does.
One hundred senators, 435 congressmen, one president and nine Supreme Court justices - 545 human beings out of the 300 million - are directly, legally, morally and individually responsible for the domestic problems that plague this country. I excluded the members of the Federal Reserve Board because that problem was created by the Congress. In 1913, Congress delegated its Constitutional duty to provide a sound currency to a federally chartered but private central bank. I excluded all the special interests and lobbyists for a sound reason, they have no legal authority. They have no ability to coerce a senator, a congressman or a president to do one cotton- picking thing. I don't care if they offer a politician $1 million dollars in cash. The politician has the power to accept or reject it. No matter what the lobbyist promises, it is the legislator's responsibility to determine how he votes.
A CONFIDENCE CONSPIRACY
Those 545 human beings spend much of their energy convincing you that what they did is not their fault. They cooperate in this common con regardless of party. What separates a politician from a normal human being is an excessive amount of gall. No normal human being would have the gall of a SPEAKER, who stood up and criticized G. W. BUSH for creating deficits. The president can only propose a budget. He cannot force the Congress to accept it. The Constitution, which is the supreme law of the land, gives sole responsibility to the House of Representatives for originating and approving appropriations and taxes. Who is the speaker of the House? She is the leader of the majority party. She and fellow Democrats, not the president, can approve any budget they want. If the president vetoes it, they can pass it over his veto.
REPLACE THE SCOUNDRELS
It seems inconceivable to me that a nation of 300 million cannot replace 545 people who stand convicted -- by present facts - of incompetence and irresponsibility. I can't think of a single domestic problem, from an unfair tax code to defense overruns, that is not traceable directly to those 545 people. When you fully grasp the plain truth that 545 people exercise power of the federal government, then it must follow that what exists is what they want to exist. If the tax code is unfair, it's because they want it unfair. If the budget is in the red, it's because they want it in the red. If the Marines are in IRAQ, it's because they want them in IRAQ.
There are no insoluble government problems. Do not let these 545 people shift the blame to bureaucrats, whom they hire and whose jobs they can abolish; to lobbyists, whose gifts and advice they can reject; to regulators, to whom they give the power to regulate and from whom they can take this power. Above all, do not let them con you into the belief that there exist disembodied mystical forces like 'the economy,' 'inflation' or 'politics' that prevent them from doing what they take an oath to do. Those 545 people, and they alone, are responsible. They, and they alone, have the power. They, and they alone, should be held accountable by the people who are their bosses - provided the voters have the gumption to manage their own employees. We should vote all of them out of office and clean up their mess.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)