Make your part in History known. Sign the form that you attended a Tea Party. Pass this on !
Cathy Peschke
Friday, April 17, 2009
To what is America changing?
.jpg)
The above picture appears at Night Right Nation.com.
It is hard to believe that I am a radical right-wing extremist because I believe in the following.
-Support the troops
-Want lower taxes
-Believe in states' rights
-Think the federal government is too big
-Oppose illegal immigration
-Believe abortion is wrong
-Own guns and ammunition, and actually know how to use them
-Have religious values
-Think Barrack Obama was a bad choice for President
I think I am also labeled an extremist because I believe in the principles of personal responsibility and hard work.
Cathy Peschke
Spelling and grammar errors as well as typos are left as an exercise for my readers.
Aaron Aldridge and Daughter Coming Home
On the way to the store I saw the WMUR truck in Newport. I was hoping they were doing a story on Aaron they were. Aaron and his daughter are safe and on their way home. No further information was given but they are safe and that is all that really matters.
Cathy Peschke
Cathy Peschke
Thursday, April 16, 2009
Aaron Aldridge
Aaron Aldridge WNTK radio talk show host and his 19 year old daughter went missing Monday morning. I hope both are found soon and return home safe. My thoughts are with his friends and family.
Cathy Peschke
Cathy Peschke
Feeling Good - I loved all the successful tea parties.
As part of the Tea Party in Concord about 110 people peacefully relieved themselves in a "luxury lavatory" in the state house. This bathroom cost taxpayers 72,000 dollars.
First a hand for the women, I was surprised that they outnumbered the men. Second what a great way to tell the house and senate stop wasting our money we are watching you. Lastly, I wonder if right wing extremist taxpayers relieving themselves in a luxury lavatory was in the Department of Homeland Security report.
Cathy Peschke
Spelling and grammar errors as well as typos are left as an exercise for my readers.
Wednesday, April 15, 2009
April 15th is No Longer Tax Day but Tea Party Day.
Today the children and I went down to Concord for the Tea Party. I was a little hesitant at first because I have been labeled a right wing extremist by the DHLS because of my beliefs. I now kind of know how the Jewish people felt in Nazi Germany and blacks felt during the 50's and 60's particularly when they traveled in the south.
The rally was well attended and I could not stay as long as I would have liked because the children were acting their age. I had an excellent time and was proud to be with so many Americans who share my beliefs.
Feel free to view my complete Concord Tea Party photo album on my facebook page.
Tuesday, April 14, 2009
Interesting Site
Unions and socialism ultimately don't work because of human nature. In theory they may be a good idea but the reality is they just do not work. I found the following two articles on a website called EcoWorld. The first article is titled The Tyranny of Unions by Ed Ring and the second article is Abolish Public Pensions by Ed Ring.
I think if more members of the left and union members truly understood unions they too would oppose unions.
Lately we have seen with budget deficits more often than not when push comes to shove unions members will throw their own members overboard rather than protect them in order to keep their salaries and benefits. If unions really cared about everyone they would take cuts in pay and benefits rather than sacrificing the jobs of fellow union members.
The Socialist Worker reported Bill Maher recently stated , "Teacher's unions--now that's one union we must break." He also said unions "protect bad teachers." If Bill Maher understands how bad teacher unions are, maybe there is still hope for the rest of the people on the far left.
Cathy
Spelling and grammar errors as well as typos are left as an exercise for my readers.
I think if more members of the left and union members truly understood unions they too would oppose unions.
Lately we have seen with budget deficits more often than not when push comes to shove unions members will throw their own members overboard rather than protect them in order to keep their salaries and benefits. If unions really cared about everyone they would take cuts in pay and benefits rather than sacrificing the jobs of fellow union members.
The Socialist Worker reported Bill Maher recently stated , "Teacher's unions--now that's one union we must break." He also said unions "protect bad teachers." If Bill Maher understands how bad teacher unions are, maybe there is still hope for the rest of the people on the far left.
Cathy
Spelling and grammar errors as well as typos are left as an exercise for my readers.
Monday, April 13, 2009
The Old Teachers Are Retiring and Teacher Shortage Propaganda Popped Up in the News Again
The tsunami is not going to be so much the teachers retiring but the pension tsunami that will follow. States across America are going to be facing bankruptcy and I hope they do go bankrupt. If not taxes are going to be out of this world. These pension systems are nothing more than Ponzi Schemes and never should been put into place. You cannot pay 10% of your salary into a system and take out 75-90% of the last three years of salary in return. Any high school math teacher worth the paper their diploma was printed on should know that.
Teachers are retiring at 55 and 60, this is absurd. Especially considering most teachers are women and the high life expectancy of women. Retirement age for teachers should be at least 65 if not 70.
I actually do hope there is a teacher shortage and I realize in some communities there will be, but there does not have to be a teacher shortage. Holding a teaching certificate should not be a prerequisite to teaching. I would much rather have a mathematician teach math, a chemist teaching chemistry, a writer teaching english, a retired athlete teaching PE, etc. Instead we have hacks who have gone from kindergarten to college and back into the classroom, many never working in the real world are now supposedly preparing our children to function in the real world.
The following piece appears at Examiner.com.
Cathy Peschke
Spelling and grammar errors as well as typos are left as an exercise for my readers.
Half of N.H. teachers 50 or older by Paul Briand
April 8, 6:23 AM ·
More than half of New Hampshire's teachers are 50 or older making it and other states vulnerable to a 'tsunami' of retirements in the next several years, according to a new report.
The retirements, coupled with a low retention of new teachers, leaves an inadequate supply of teachers, said the report from the National Commission on Teaching and America's Future.
"... over 1.7 million teachers and principals -- more than half of today’s educators -- are eligible to retire in less than ten years," said an introduction to the commission's white paper.
"On a small scale, retirements can make room for new teachers with fresh ideas, optimism, and enthusiasm. But when the scale is so large and you combine these retirements with the reality that 1/3 of new teachers leave in the first three years, we are pouring water into a bucket with big holes, draining teachers faster than we can replace them."
There are certainly challenges ahead when you put this report in context with a new N.H. Department of Education report that shows 253 schools don't meet targets for reading, math and other areas. It'll be tough to improve public education if it becomes difficult to staff classrooms.
New Hampshire is tied for fifth nationwide as having the most number of teachers 50 and older.
The details of the report show the state with the highest percentage is West Virginia with 68 percent.
Here, in order, are the states with the highest percentage that is most alarming to the commission:
West Virginia - 68 percent
Maine - 56 percent
Vermont - 55 percent
Montana - 55 percent
North Dakota - 54 percent
New Mexico - 54 percent
Indiana - 54 percent
New Hampshire - 53 percent
Massachusetts - 53 percent
Connecticut - 53 percent
Oregon - 53 percent
Wyoming - 53 percent
New Jersey - 53 percent
Washington - 51 percent
District of Columbia - 51 percent
Idaho - 51 percent
Illinois - 51 percent
Rhode Island - 50 percent
The state with the fewest percentage is Kentucky at 40 percent.
The commission is recommending an overhaul of our approach to education to a) better prepare and keep younger teachers and b) harness the numbers and intelligence of Baby Boomer retirees (teachers and non-teachers alike). It wants this report to serve as a catalyst for discussion on how to fundamentally change the approach to education.
Such a plan is already in the works in West Virginia, said the commission, because of its inordinately large number of potential retirees.
"The goal is to integrate learning with community resources and civic participation to build both stronger learning environments and stronger communities. Cross?generational learning teams that pool the knowledge, skill, and experience of multiple generations will be at the heart of efforts to create these true community learning centers," said the commission.
New Hampshire, according to the education department, showed some improvement in its annual report that measures performance standards as part of the federal No Child Left Behind Act.
The report released Monday shows 253 schools and 81 districts did not meet performance standards, which is a slight improvement. The number of schools failing to make progress fell from 282 last year to 253 this year.
Schools that don't make adequate progress two years in a row are added to a list of schools in need of improvement. Seventy-two schools were added to the list and 12 were removed, bringing to 238 the number of schools in the state as in need of improvement; 54 districts are on the list.
Teachers are retiring at 55 and 60, this is absurd. Especially considering most teachers are women and the high life expectancy of women. Retirement age for teachers should be at least 65 if not 70.
I actually do hope there is a teacher shortage and I realize in some communities there will be, but there does not have to be a teacher shortage. Holding a teaching certificate should not be a prerequisite to teaching. I would much rather have a mathematician teach math, a chemist teaching chemistry, a writer teaching english, a retired athlete teaching PE, etc. Instead we have hacks who have gone from kindergarten to college and back into the classroom, many never working in the real world are now supposedly preparing our children to function in the real world.
The following piece appears at Examiner.com.
Cathy Peschke
Spelling and grammar errors as well as typos are left as an exercise for my readers.
Half of N.H. teachers 50 or older by Paul Briand
April 8, 6:23 AM ·
More than half of New Hampshire's teachers are 50 or older making it and other states vulnerable to a 'tsunami' of retirements in the next several years, according to a new report.
The retirements, coupled with a low retention of new teachers, leaves an inadequate supply of teachers, said the report from the National Commission on Teaching and America's Future.
"... over 1.7 million teachers and principals -- more than half of today’s educators -- are eligible to retire in less than ten years," said an introduction to the commission's white paper.
"On a small scale, retirements can make room for new teachers with fresh ideas, optimism, and enthusiasm. But when the scale is so large and you combine these retirements with the reality that 1/3 of new teachers leave in the first three years, we are pouring water into a bucket with big holes, draining teachers faster than we can replace them."
There are certainly challenges ahead when you put this report in context with a new N.H. Department of Education report that shows 253 schools don't meet targets for reading, math and other areas. It'll be tough to improve public education if it becomes difficult to staff classrooms.
New Hampshire is tied for fifth nationwide as having the most number of teachers 50 and older.
The details of the report show the state with the highest percentage is West Virginia with 68 percent.
Here, in order, are the states with the highest percentage that is most alarming to the commission:
West Virginia - 68 percent
Maine - 56 percent
Vermont - 55 percent
Montana - 55 percent
North Dakota - 54 percent
New Mexico - 54 percent
Indiana - 54 percent
New Hampshire - 53 percent
Massachusetts - 53 percent
Connecticut - 53 percent
Oregon - 53 percent
Wyoming - 53 percent
New Jersey - 53 percent
Washington - 51 percent
District of Columbia - 51 percent
Idaho - 51 percent
Illinois - 51 percent
Rhode Island - 50 percent
The state with the fewest percentage is Kentucky at 40 percent.
The commission is recommending an overhaul of our approach to education to a) better prepare and keep younger teachers and b) harness the numbers and intelligence of Baby Boomer retirees (teachers and non-teachers alike). It wants this report to serve as a catalyst for discussion on how to fundamentally change the approach to education.
Such a plan is already in the works in West Virginia, said the commission, because of its inordinately large number of potential retirees.
"The goal is to integrate learning with community resources and civic participation to build both stronger learning environments and stronger communities. Cross?generational learning teams that pool the knowledge, skill, and experience of multiple generations will be at the heart of efforts to create these true community learning centers," said the commission.
New Hampshire, according to the education department, showed some improvement in its annual report that measures performance standards as part of the federal No Child Left Behind Act.
The report released Monday shows 253 schools and 81 districts did not meet performance standards, which is a slight improvement. The number of schools failing to make progress fell from 282 last year to 253 this year.
Schools that don't make adequate progress two years in a row are added to a list of schools in need of improvement. Seventy-two schools were added to the list and 12 were removed, bringing to 238 the number of schools in the state as in need of improvement; 54 districts are on the list.
Sunday, April 12, 2009
Homeschoolers still need to be careful Comrade Day could strike at any minute.
Representative Day and her posse did not vote HB 368 ITL despite over 1000 homeschoolers showing up at the Capitol to express their disdain for the bill. Perhaps Comrade Day needs to read the following oldie but goodie on Lew Rockwell.com by Gary North.
Cathy
Spelling and grammar errors as well as typos are left as an exercise for my readers.
National Education Testing:
The Boomerang Effect
by Gary North
I am opposed to mandatory national educational testing of students. Parents are responsible for their children’s education’s, not the State, at any level. They should mandate the tests, not the State. Mandatory national testing of all school-age children is an invasion of parental liberty. In addition, the Constitution does not authorize the U.S. government’s activities in the field of education. So, what else is new?
Am I worried about this program? Only as a taxpayer.
I am committed to Ludwig on Mises's observation that whatever the civil government does to overcome outcomes in a free market can be expected to produce the opposite effect of whatever the intervention officially is designed to accomplish.
What is the official justification for mandatory national testing of all students? "To improve student performance by increasing the accountability of the schools." I therefore make the following predictions:
Educational performance of a majority of students will decline as a result of the tests, if they are actually implemented.
The test writers will design the tests to relieve political pressure on the teacher unions and the districts that employ them.
Public school students, most of whom will be forced by law to take these tests, will under-perform private school students, whose parents will resist such testing.
The poor performance of the public school students will lead to demands for even more comprehensive testing.
The recommended solution to student failure will be to spend more money on public education.
Bureaucracy 101
When anything doesn’t measure up in the world of tax-funded bureaucracy, senior bureaucrats’ responses are always the same: (1) demand more controls to be placed at their disposal; (2) demand more money to be placed at their disposal; (3) demand more centralization, i.e., more bureaucrats under the existing bureaucrats’ authority (Parkinson’s Law); (4) demand that more papers be filled out, under penalty of law.
This leads to inter-bureaucratic conflict. Those bureaucrats who are under the centralizes fight back with cries of "special local situation." With respect to national testing, teacher unions will initially resist, demanding that their representatives be part of the committee that designs the tests. Testing will make some of their members look bad. This will call into question the competence of the unions’ screening system. But the unions will not resist long if enough money for public education is forthcoming, which is what Bush’s bill proposes. Also, Ted Kennedy is back in the saddle again. There will be more money.
No teacher is allowed to create tests that 50% of his students fail. The same rule will hold for national testing of the results of teachers. The tests will be designed to allow 80% of all students to pass.
Among the 20% who fail, about 10% will then be given second chances: summer school, special tutoring, provisional matriculation to the next grade level, etc. About 5% will be said to be victims of racial or other discrimination, and therefore will be re-tested indefinitely. The final 5% will be said to be within the statistical range of failure. They will be re-enrolled at the same grade level, thereby ensuring an extra year of taxpayer funding for each student who remains in school until graduation. (These percentages are flexible within the overall 20%.)
Tests require negative sanctions if they are to change people’s behavior. What will it mean to fail? Who fails? Students? "Spend more money on our children!" Teachers? "Require additional teacher education in state-certified institutions, at taxpayer expense." School districts? "Replace the district superintendent with someone who has an improved plan." An occasional low-level administrative head will roll, just for publicity’s sake. Tenure protects the teachers.
The only general negative sanction that will be seriously discussed will be on taxpayers. Why should these new tests change 170 years of practice? "Pass-fail" always means that the schools have passed and taxpayers have failed. "We must stop short-changing our children. We must spend more money."
This leads me to a conclusion. The unstated purpose of the proposed national tests is to create opportunities for national politicians to justify to the voters back home an increase in Federal public school spending. Additional Federal money will then justify another round of testing and controls in the name of greater accountability.
"The music goes round and round, oh oh/oh oh [boom, boom], and it comes out here."
Private Education
Another unstated goal of mandatory national testing is to bring private education under the controls. This will not be easy to achieve. The day schools will be divided. Most will conform; a few will resist.
Finally, most private school students will take the national exams. The vast majority will pass, probably about one year above grade level. The teacher unions will complain: "Private schools are unfairly siphoning off the better students. The results of the national tests are not representative of the public schools’ performance." Then everything will go back to normal. The public schools will get worse. Additional parents will pull their children out.
Home schooling parents will be more likely to resist. If they are forced into the testing system, one by one, after years of court cases, their children will score significantly higher on the tests than public school students. The teacher unions will claim that these parents are unfairly siphoning the better students out of the public schools. Then everything will go back to normal. The public schools will get worse. Additional parents will pull their children out.
The Left’s political problem with national testing of all students is that the results will embarrass the public schools. It will become more difficult to persuade voters that private school teachers must meet the formal certification criteria that public school teachers do.
National educational testing will provide additional evidence that tax-funded education is still failing, private education offers a better product, and home schooling is the best deal for the money.
Conclusion
Those people who promote mandatory national educational testing are either inexcusably naive or else self-conscious in their attempt to justify additional controls and follow-up money to subsidize the system that has produced the poorly equipped students.
Public education subsidizes academic failure. The greater the failure, the more money is demanded to remedy it. Adam Smith made this clear in 1776: if the government subsidizes something, the market will respond by producing more of it. Governments subsidize bad educational performance. When the money runs low at one level of government, the call arises for additional funding from the next higher level.
If the United Nations had lots of money to spend on education, we would hear cries for mandatory international educational testing.
May 29, 2001
Cathy
Spelling and grammar errors as well as typos are left as an exercise for my readers.
National Education Testing:
The Boomerang Effect
by Gary North
I am opposed to mandatory national educational testing of students. Parents are responsible for their children’s education’s, not the State, at any level. They should mandate the tests, not the State. Mandatory national testing of all school-age children is an invasion of parental liberty. In addition, the Constitution does not authorize the U.S. government’s activities in the field of education. So, what else is new?
Am I worried about this program? Only as a taxpayer.
I am committed to Ludwig on Mises's observation that whatever the civil government does to overcome outcomes in a free market can be expected to produce the opposite effect of whatever the intervention officially is designed to accomplish.
What is the official justification for mandatory national testing of all students? "To improve student performance by increasing the accountability of the schools." I therefore make the following predictions:
Educational performance of a majority of students will decline as a result of the tests, if they are actually implemented.
The test writers will design the tests to relieve political pressure on the teacher unions and the districts that employ them.
Public school students, most of whom will be forced by law to take these tests, will under-perform private school students, whose parents will resist such testing.
The poor performance of the public school students will lead to demands for even more comprehensive testing.
The recommended solution to student failure will be to spend more money on public education.
Bureaucracy 101
When anything doesn’t measure up in the world of tax-funded bureaucracy, senior bureaucrats’ responses are always the same: (1) demand more controls to be placed at their disposal; (2) demand more money to be placed at their disposal; (3) demand more centralization, i.e., more bureaucrats under the existing bureaucrats’ authority (Parkinson’s Law); (4) demand that more papers be filled out, under penalty of law.
This leads to inter-bureaucratic conflict. Those bureaucrats who are under the centralizes fight back with cries of "special local situation." With respect to national testing, teacher unions will initially resist, demanding that their representatives be part of the committee that designs the tests. Testing will make some of their members look bad. This will call into question the competence of the unions’ screening system. But the unions will not resist long if enough money for public education is forthcoming, which is what Bush’s bill proposes. Also, Ted Kennedy is back in the saddle again. There will be more money.
No teacher is allowed to create tests that 50% of his students fail. The same rule will hold for national testing of the results of teachers. The tests will be designed to allow 80% of all students to pass.
Among the 20% who fail, about 10% will then be given second chances: summer school, special tutoring, provisional matriculation to the next grade level, etc. About 5% will be said to be victims of racial or other discrimination, and therefore will be re-tested indefinitely. The final 5% will be said to be within the statistical range of failure. They will be re-enrolled at the same grade level, thereby ensuring an extra year of taxpayer funding for each student who remains in school until graduation. (These percentages are flexible within the overall 20%.)
Tests require negative sanctions if they are to change people’s behavior. What will it mean to fail? Who fails? Students? "Spend more money on our children!" Teachers? "Require additional teacher education in state-certified institutions, at taxpayer expense." School districts? "Replace the district superintendent with someone who has an improved plan." An occasional low-level administrative head will roll, just for publicity’s sake. Tenure protects the teachers.
The only general negative sanction that will be seriously discussed will be on taxpayers. Why should these new tests change 170 years of practice? "Pass-fail" always means that the schools have passed and taxpayers have failed. "We must stop short-changing our children. We must spend more money."
This leads me to a conclusion. The unstated purpose of the proposed national tests is to create opportunities for national politicians to justify to the voters back home an increase in Federal public school spending. Additional Federal money will then justify another round of testing and controls in the name of greater accountability.
"The music goes round and round, oh oh/oh oh [boom, boom], and it comes out here."
Private Education
Another unstated goal of mandatory national testing is to bring private education under the controls. This will not be easy to achieve. The day schools will be divided. Most will conform; a few will resist.
Finally, most private school students will take the national exams. The vast majority will pass, probably about one year above grade level. The teacher unions will complain: "Private schools are unfairly siphoning off the better students. The results of the national tests are not representative of the public schools’ performance." Then everything will go back to normal. The public schools will get worse. Additional parents will pull their children out.
Home schooling parents will be more likely to resist. If they are forced into the testing system, one by one, after years of court cases, their children will score significantly higher on the tests than public school students. The teacher unions will claim that these parents are unfairly siphoning the better students out of the public schools. Then everything will go back to normal. The public schools will get worse. Additional parents will pull their children out.
The Left’s political problem with national testing of all students is that the results will embarrass the public schools. It will become more difficult to persuade voters that private school teachers must meet the formal certification criteria that public school teachers do.
National educational testing will provide additional evidence that tax-funded education is still failing, private education offers a better product, and home schooling is the best deal for the money.
Conclusion
Those people who promote mandatory national educational testing are either inexcusably naive or else self-conscious in their attempt to justify additional controls and follow-up money to subsidize the system that has produced the poorly equipped students.
Public education subsidizes academic failure. The greater the failure, the more money is demanded to remedy it. Adam Smith made this clear in 1776: if the government subsidizes something, the market will respond by producing more of it. Governments subsidize bad educational performance. When the money runs low at one level of government, the call arises for additional funding from the next higher level.
If the United Nations had lots of money to spend on education, we would hear cries for mandatory international educational testing.
May 29, 2001
Change I Feared
Here a tax, there a tax, everywhere a tax, tax.
No wonder there are so many tea parties coming up on the 15th.
I found the picture at Granite Grok.com.
Cathy
Scientific Method and Correlation does not Imply Causation
Over the past six plus years of fighting for education reform and taxes I have come to find that educrats and the tax and spend crowd simply do not understand the Scientific Method and correlation does not imply causation.
I think taxpayers and parents must understand both of these concepts so that their BS meter will go off when they hear lines like, "If teachers were paid more the students would perform better and spending more on education produces better results." If as a parent or taxpayer you do not understand these concepts please click on the links provided above. By all means share the scientific method link with your children and grandchildren if they have not learned this concept at school.
Okay lets take a look at this "If teachers were paid more the students would perform better and spending more on education produces better results." Homeschooling parents do not get paid for educating their children and they spend pennies on the dollar educating their children yet their children continually out perform their public school peers. This blows the spending more on education produces better results theory out of the water. Vouchers vs. the District with ‘More Money than God’ is another great piece that proves spending more on education does not improve educational performance.
I could give you hundreds of more examples but it is best to do the research yourself. Find more articles but also when you come across an article that does support spending more on education improves performance, look at the research ask yourself did the researchers follow the scientific method or are they simply stating correlation equals causation.
I found the above picture at AntiQuark.
Cathy
Spelling and grammar errors as well as typos are left as an exercise for my readers.
I think taxpayers and parents must understand both of these concepts so that their BS meter will go off when they hear lines like, "If teachers were paid more the students would perform better and spending more on education produces better results." If as a parent or taxpayer you do not understand these concepts please click on the links provided above. By all means share the scientific method link with your children and grandchildren if they have not learned this concept at school.
Okay lets take a look at this "If teachers were paid more the students would perform better and spending more on education produces better results." Homeschooling parents do not get paid for educating their children and they spend pennies on the dollar educating their children yet their children continually out perform their public school peers. This blows the spending more on education produces better results theory out of the water. Vouchers vs. the District with ‘More Money than God’ is another great piece that proves spending more on education does not improve educational performance.
I could give you hundreds of more examples but it is best to do the research yourself. Find more articles but also when you come across an article that does support spending more on education improves performance, look at the research ask yourself did the researchers follow the scientific method or are they simply stating correlation equals causation.
I found the above picture at AntiQuark.
Cathy
Spelling and grammar errors as well as typos are left as an exercise for my readers.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)