At the school board meeting this past week two Croydon School Board members authorized more spending in the school budget than was authorized during the town hall meeting. You can guess which two.
In April the three school board members sat down to make the necessary cuts to meet the budget as voted on by the residents at the town hall meeting. Jim suggested a budget that did not cut teachers. Linda and George approved a budget that cut teachers. The teachers and employees of Croydon were not happy with it so at the last two school board meetings they pestered the school board until two caved. Can you guess which two?
Last year by a nearly two to one margin 70 households in Croydon responded to the long term planning committee that they want school choice. Michelle Caccavaro, Marilyn Brannigan, other Newport and SAU employees not happy with this are trying to say the people of Croydon really don't want this and do not know what is best for themselves. Jim was told three times by Newport people and SAU people as well as least once by Carol Marsh and Matt Wittasek that it is his job as a school board member to tell the people of Croydon what they want. Jim said no he represents the people of Croydon. These people clearly appear to not believe in a representative government. So the "we know what is best for you crowd", persuaded George and Linda to have an "information" meeting about how bad leaving Newport will be for Croydon residents. This meeting will probably be nothing but scare tactics, threats, intimidation and propaganda by the "we know what is best for you crowd" because they care more about Croydon tax dollars in their pockets then the desires of all those that expressed they want choice for their families and the residents of Croydon.
Don't think the only care about money. At the school meeting Monday the state representative from the department of ed told us that we could send our children to other schools. A Newport employee questioned even if the child does not go to Newport Schools, Croydon would still have to pay us that child's tuition. See folks Newport only wants our tax dollars they don't care that the majority of residents want choice. They will push until they get what they want unless Croydon residents speak up.
Cathy
Spelling and grammar errors as well as typos are left as an exercise for my readers.
Saturday, June 13, 2009
Friday, June 12, 2009
Diversity of Thought Not in Public Schools
Tim Latham should have bowed to the hammer and sickle. I have heard from a number of teachers over the years who get ostracized from fellow teachers for having conservative views. Those teachers sure cherish diversity in thought...not.
Cathy
Spelling and grammar errors as well as typos are left as an exercise for my readers.
The following piece appeared on FoxNews.com and several other places.
Tim Latham, who has spent the last 19 years teaching students American history and government, spent the past school year at a high school in Lawrence, Kan. — and it appears his first year at the school will be his last.
Latham claims it has nothing to do with his abilities as a teacher and everything to do with his conservative politics.
Latham — who was criticized for not airing President Obama's inaugural address during an American history class — says he first realized during a meeting last September with Assistant Principal Jan Gentry that his personal political views weren't making the grade with the rest of the faculty at the 2,000-student Lawrence High School.
The 44-year-old teacher filed a grievance earlier this month with his district after his contract was not renewed in April. He argues the district didn't follow the proper process.
"It's gross misconduct," he said. "[The district] jumped straight to non-renewal."
Several calls placed to Gentry, Principal Steve Nilhas and District Superintendent Randy Weseman were not returned. Kansas National Education Association Director Bruce Lindskog could not be reached for comment.
David Cunningham, director of human resources for the school district, declined to discuss Latham's allegations in detail.
"All I can say is we have procedures in place to make decisions on employment," Cunningham told FOXNews.com. "All of our procedures were followed correctly."
Latham claims school officials violated his contract by not conducting proper reviews — four 20-minute in-class evaluations throughout the year — and says they were looking for a way to get rid of him due to his personal politics.
During Latham's brief meeting with Gentry, he claims Gentry told him his school-affiliated Web site was "too patriotic." The site has links to the U.S. Military Academy at West Point, the Air Force, the U.S. Army and other military-and history-related sites.
"I mean, I teach American history and government," Latham explained. "We had been in school not even a month."
He claims the critiques took a personal turn in October, when class lessons began focusing on the presidential race between Obama and John McCain. One student, whom Latham declined to identify, complained to Gentry that he had been too critical of Obama.
"I had been called into [Gentry's office] and was told I was picking on Obama in class," Latham said. "But I didn't cover anything else that wasn't already covered by anybody else in the news."
Latham says he supported McCain because of the Arizona senator's military service and lengthy political experience. He admitted to offering students critical viewpoints of Obama due to his lack of experience compared to McCain.
"When you try to show two sides of an individual, sometimes people don't like that," he said. "They want to hear all of the sunshine, but none of the rain. I aligned more with [McCain's] values than I did with Obama, but I treated Obama with fairness."
Latham also said that Gentry asked him about a "McCain-Palin" bumper sticker on his car.
"She said, 'I don't know how you could support that woman,'" Latham said. "That was the beginning of what was going on. They were trying to find a reason to get rid of me."
The married father of three said the experience hasn’t affected his desire to teach. And support from students and a local conservative group have inspired him to fight for his job.
Chloe Mercer, who graduated Lawrence High School last month, said Latham's class was her favorite and said he was fair despite his decision not to show Obama's inauguration in class.
"He chose not to show it, but he printed out Obama's speech and we read it and discussed what we felt was good about it," Mercer told FOXNews.com. "[Latham] was fair. He listened to all sides of every issue. He actually made print-outs of every candidate and how they felt on certain hot-button issues."
Latham defended his decision not to show Obama's inauguration because he'd opted not to show any similar events.
"I've never shown an inauguration," he said. "I never showed any of Bush's; I wouldn't have shown McCain's. I was not showing any bias towards Obama ... I didn't intend to interrupt the class."
Asked if she felt Latham brought his personal politics into the classroom, Mercer replied, "Not really. He was very good about looking at both candidates. Sometimes his conservative side would show, but my opinion along with anyone else's was always valued."
Mercer, a self-described liberal, said she hopes school officials revisit their decision. She's one of many current and former Lawrence High students supporting Latham on a Facebook page.
"It's really disappointing because he's a really good teacher," she said. "It doesn't seem fair. Why would they let a good teacher go?"
Cathy
Spelling and grammar errors as well as typos are left as an exercise for my readers.
The following piece appeared on FoxNews.com and several other places.
Tim Latham, who has spent the last 19 years teaching students American history and government, spent the past school year at a high school in Lawrence, Kan. — and it appears his first year at the school will be his last.
Latham claims it has nothing to do with his abilities as a teacher and everything to do with his conservative politics.
Latham — who was criticized for not airing President Obama's inaugural address during an American history class — says he first realized during a meeting last September with Assistant Principal Jan Gentry that his personal political views weren't making the grade with the rest of the faculty at the 2,000-student Lawrence High School.
The 44-year-old teacher filed a grievance earlier this month with his district after his contract was not renewed in April. He argues the district didn't follow the proper process.
"It's gross misconduct," he said. "[The district] jumped straight to non-renewal."
Several calls placed to Gentry, Principal Steve Nilhas and District Superintendent Randy Weseman were not returned. Kansas National Education Association Director Bruce Lindskog could not be reached for comment.
David Cunningham, director of human resources for the school district, declined to discuss Latham's allegations in detail.
"All I can say is we have procedures in place to make decisions on employment," Cunningham told FOXNews.com. "All of our procedures were followed correctly."
Latham claims school officials violated his contract by not conducting proper reviews — four 20-minute in-class evaluations throughout the year — and says they were looking for a way to get rid of him due to his personal politics.
During Latham's brief meeting with Gentry, he claims Gentry told him his school-affiliated Web site was "too patriotic." The site has links to the U.S. Military Academy at West Point, the Air Force, the U.S. Army and other military-and history-related sites.
"I mean, I teach American history and government," Latham explained. "We had been in school not even a month."
He claims the critiques took a personal turn in October, when class lessons began focusing on the presidential race between Obama and John McCain. One student, whom Latham declined to identify, complained to Gentry that he had been too critical of Obama.
"I had been called into [Gentry's office] and was told I was picking on Obama in class," Latham said. "But I didn't cover anything else that wasn't already covered by anybody else in the news."
Latham says he supported McCain because of the Arizona senator's military service and lengthy political experience. He admitted to offering students critical viewpoints of Obama due to his lack of experience compared to McCain.
"When you try to show two sides of an individual, sometimes people don't like that," he said. "They want to hear all of the sunshine, but none of the rain. I aligned more with [McCain's] values than I did with Obama, but I treated Obama with fairness."
Latham also said that Gentry asked him about a "McCain-Palin" bumper sticker on his car.
"She said, 'I don't know how you could support that woman,'" Latham said. "That was the beginning of what was going on. They were trying to find a reason to get rid of me."
The married father of three said the experience hasn’t affected his desire to teach. And support from students and a local conservative group have inspired him to fight for his job.
Chloe Mercer, who graduated Lawrence High School last month, said Latham's class was her favorite and said he was fair despite his decision not to show Obama's inauguration in class.
"He chose not to show it, but he printed out Obama's speech and we read it and discussed what we felt was good about it," Mercer told FOXNews.com. "[Latham] was fair. He listened to all sides of every issue. He actually made print-outs of every candidate and how they felt on certain hot-button issues."
Latham defended his decision not to show Obama's inauguration because he'd opted not to show any similar events.
"I've never shown an inauguration," he said. "I never showed any of Bush's; I wouldn't have shown McCain's. I was not showing any bias towards Obama ... I didn't intend to interrupt the class."
Asked if she felt Latham brought his personal politics into the classroom, Mercer replied, "Not really. He was very good about looking at both candidates. Sometimes his conservative side would show, but my opinion along with anyone else's was always valued."
Mercer, a self-described liberal, said she hopes school officials revisit their decision. She's one of many current and former Lawrence High students supporting Latham on a Facebook page.
"It's really disappointing because he's a really good teacher," she said. "It doesn't seem fair. Why would they let a good teacher go?"
Wednesday, June 10, 2009
School Board Meeting Tonight
Just a reminder there is a school board meeting at Croydon School.
Cathy
An Open Letter to President Obama
I share this man's sentiments.
Cathy
AN OPEN LETTER TO PRESIDENT OBAMA
By Lou Pritchett
Dear President Obama:
You are the thirteenth President under whom I have lived and unlike any of the others, you truly scare me.
You scare me because after months of exposure, I know nothing about you.
You scare me because I do not know how you paid for your expensive Ivy League education and your upscale lifestyle and housing with no visible signs of support.
You scare me because you did not spend the formative years of youth growing up in America and culturally you are not an American.
You scare me because you have never run a company or met a payroll.
You scare me because you have never had military experience, thus don't understand it at its core.
You scare me because you lack humility and 'class', always blaming others.
You scare me because for over half your life you have aligned yourself with radical extremists who hate America and you refuse to publicly denounce these radicals who wish to see America fail.
You scare me because you are a cheerleader for the 'blame America' crowd and deliver this message abroad.
You scare me because you want to change America to a European style country where the government sector dominates instead of the private sector.
You scare me because you want to replace our health care system with a government controlled one.
You scare me because you prefer 'wind mills' to responsibly capitalizing on our own vast oil, coal and shale reserves.
You scare me because you want to kill the American capitalist goose that lays the golden egg which provides the highest standard of living in the world.
You scare me because you have begun to use 'extortion' tactics against certain banks and corporations.
You scare me because your own political party shrinks from challenging you on your wild and irresponsible spending proposals.
You scare me because you will not openly listen to or even consider opposing points of view from intelligent people.
You scare me because you falsely believe that you are both omnipotent and omniscient.
You scare me because the media gives you a free pass on everything you do.
You scare me because you demonize and want to silence the Limbaughs, Hannitys, O'Relllys and Becks who offer opposing, conservative points of view.
You scare me because you prefer controlling over governing.
Finally, you scare me because if you serve a second term I will probably not feel safe in writing a similar letter in 8 years.
Lou Pritchett
Note: Lou Pritchett is a former vice president of Procter & Gamble whose career at that company spanned 36 years before his retirement in 1989, and he is the author of the 1995 business book, Stop Paddling & Start Rocking the Boat.
Cathy
AN OPEN LETTER TO PRESIDENT OBAMA
By Lou Pritchett
Dear President Obama:
You are the thirteenth President under whom I have lived and unlike any of the others, you truly scare me.
You scare me because after months of exposure, I know nothing about you.
You scare me because I do not know how you paid for your expensive Ivy League education and your upscale lifestyle and housing with no visible signs of support.
You scare me because you did not spend the formative years of youth growing up in America and culturally you are not an American.
You scare me because you have never run a company or met a payroll.
You scare me because you have never had military experience, thus don't understand it at its core.
You scare me because you lack humility and 'class', always blaming others.
You scare me because for over half your life you have aligned yourself with radical extremists who hate America and you refuse to publicly denounce these radicals who wish to see America fail.
You scare me because you are a cheerleader for the 'blame America' crowd and deliver this message abroad.
You scare me because you want to change America to a European style country where the government sector dominates instead of the private sector.
You scare me because you want to replace our health care system with a government controlled one.
You scare me because you prefer 'wind mills' to responsibly capitalizing on our own vast oil, coal and shale reserves.
You scare me because you want to kill the American capitalist goose that lays the golden egg which provides the highest standard of living in the world.
You scare me because you have begun to use 'extortion' tactics against certain banks and corporations.
You scare me because your own political party shrinks from challenging you on your wild and irresponsible spending proposals.
You scare me because you will not openly listen to or even consider opposing points of view from intelligent people.
You scare me because you falsely believe that you are both omnipotent and omniscient.
You scare me because the media gives you a free pass on everything you do.
You scare me because you demonize and want to silence the Limbaughs, Hannitys, O'Relllys and Becks who offer opposing, conservative points of view.
You scare me because you prefer controlling over governing.
Finally, you scare me because if you serve a second term I will probably not feel safe in writing a similar letter in 8 years.
Lou Pritchett
Note: Lou Pritchett is a former vice president of Procter & Gamble whose career at that company spanned 36 years before his retirement in 1989, and he is the author of the 1995 business book, Stop Paddling & Start Rocking the Boat.
Tuesday, June 9, 2009
School Meeting - June 8th
Last night I attended the meeting at Town Hall regarding the AREA agreement.
Miscellaneous information and my thoughts from the meeting......
SAU members told Jim three times that it was his job to tell the people of Croydon what they want and what is best for them. Jim responded that we are representatives, not kings. Our job is to do what the people want, not to tell them what they want. The board members either did not understand what Jim was saying or they didn't care. This incident brings to mind a quote:
"The people do not know what they want; they do not know what is the best for them." - Benito Mussolini
I must remind my readers of the Delphi Technique. Delphi is a technique used by educrats to lead the audience into what the educrats want and away from what you want.
Last year a survey of the people of Croydon told the school board by a margin of over two to one that they want choice. Last night's meeting orchestrated by the SAU and not the Croydon School Board seemed intent on informing Croydon that freedom from the Newport monopoly agreement will be nearly impossible and they will do everything in their power to ensure that school choice will never become an option.
The first step is to establish a group to investigate the feasibility of leaving the AREA agreement with Newport. Thanks to the ethically questionable acts of the legislators and educrats the laws are such that you can't just leave the agreement once the contract expires. If the committee recommends leaving the AREA agreement, the town will get to vote on whether to leave the AREA agreement. Once this vote passes, the state must approve the dissolution of the agreement.
This is the twisted world of public education. In a sane world the town would vote at the end of a contract and abide by that vote. The decision would not rest in the hands of some committee or the department of education. Blatant obstructionism at its finest.
When the department of ed representative mentioned the "Best interest of the child" and "Manifest educational hardship", a Newport board member had the gall to suggest that Croydon should remain bound to pay the tuition of any students removed from Newport through these perfectly legal processes. The Croydon crowd groaned and even those who oppose choice were not happy with that comment. I hope my readers can see the greed inherent in such a statement; they simply want our money and don't care about the parents or the taxpayers.
At the meeting Jim Vezina said Croydon was getting a deal on Newport tuition because it is based on the prior years' budget. He also said our tuition is going up a year later because of the raises given at Newport schools. The tax warrant in Newport was not supposed to impact the taxpayers and therefore should not impact Croydon tuition. He stated that the budget is going up 600,000 because of the wage increases but 10 teachers were to be cut to offset those wage increases. So Newport is not going to feel the impact of the wage increases but Croydon is? Either someone is mistaken or Croydon is getting screwed.
Cathy
Spelling and grammar errors as well as typos are left as an exercise for my readers.
Miscellaneous information and my thoughts from the meeting......
SAU members told Jim three times that it was his job to tell the people of Croydon what they want and what is best for them. Jim responded that we are representatives, not kings. Our job is to do what the people want, not to tell them what they want. The board members either did not understand what Jim was saying or they didn't care. This incident brings to mind a quote:
"The people do not know what they want; they do not know what is the best for them." - Benito Mussolini
I must remind my readers of the Delphi Technique. Delphi is a technique used by educrats to lead the audience into what the educrats want and away from what you want.
Last year a survey of the people of Croydon told the school board by a margin of over two to one that they want choice. Last night's meeting orchestrated by the SAU and not the Croydon School Board seemed intent on informing Croydon that freedom from the Newport monopoly agreement will be nearly impossible and they will do everything in their power to ensure that school choice will never become an option.
The first step is to establish a group to investigate the feasibility of leaving the AREA agreement with Newport. Thanks to the ethically questionable acts of the legislators and educrats the laws are such that you can't just leave the agreement once the contract expires. If the committee recommends leaving the AREA agreement, the town will get to vote on whether to leave the AREA agreement. Once this vote passes, the state must approve the dissolution of the agreement.
This is the twisted world of public education. In a sane world the town would vote at the end of a contract and abide by that vote. The decision would not rest in the hands of some committee or the department of education. Blatant obstructionism at its finest.
When the department of ed representative mentioned the "Best interest of the child" and "Manifest educational hardship", a Newport board member had the gall to suggest that Croydon should remain bound to pay the tuition of any students removed from Newport through these perfectly legal processes. The Croydon crowd groaned and even those who oppose choice were not happy with that comment. I hope my readers can see the greed inherent in such a statement; they simply want our money and don't care about the parents or the taxpayers.
At the meeting Jim Vezina said Croydon was getting a deal on Newport tuition because it is based on the prior years' budget. He also said our tuition is going up a year later because of the raises given at Newport schools. The tax warrant in Newport was not supposed to impact the taxpayers and therefore should not impact Croydon tuition. He stated that the budget is going up 600,000 because of the wage increases but 10 teachers were to be cut to offset those wage increases. So Newport is not going to feel the impact of the wage increases but Croydon is? Either someone is mistaken or Croydon is getting screwed.
Cathy
Spelling and grammar errors as well as typos are left as an exercise for my readers.
Sunday, June 7, 2009
Couldn't have said it better myself!
Until we get government out of education we will continue to waste taxpayer dollars and have dismal failure rates in public education.
Cathy
The following piece on WND.com.
Get government out of education
Posted: June 06, 2009
1:00 am Eastern
By Joel Turtel
© 2009
"We" have to give the schools more money. "We" have to pay the teachers more. "We" have to get parents more involved in their children's public schools. "We" have to get parents more involved in their children's homework. "We" have to find a way to close the achievement gap between white children and black or Latino kids. "We" have to demand accountability from our public schools and teachers. "We" have to end the drugs and violence in our public schools. "We" have to improve our teaching methods so our children can read their own diplomas when they graduate high school. "We" have to teach our children environmental propaganda about saving the earth and global warming. "We" have to teach kids to "respect" other people's lifestyles with classes about homosexuality in their sex-ed courses.
And on and on it goes. Every "we" pressure group is at each other's throats about what "we" have to do to improve the congenitally incompetent public schools and our children's education.
Do you notice the one common factor in all these disastrous problems with our children's education in public schools? Right you are – it's the "we" part. Americans have been brainwashed into thinking education is a collective "we" enterprise that must be run by governments
that "we" elect. Since "we" are all taxpayers, and our taxes pay for the public schools, all of us "we" have the right to input our demands, desires, complaints and suggestions about how to "fix" the system. Hence the endless bickering, fighting, backstabbing, grab for "public" tax dollars, power plays and government-induced incompetent education.
With data that will shock the objective observer, "The Harsh Truth About Public Schools" explains why more Americans are yanking their kids from the government system
What's the real solution to finally giving our kids a decent education? Get rid of the "we." Education must be made a private concern of individual parents, NOT a collective "right" of education run by a government monopoly called public schools. Let each parent educate their own children in their own way, paying whatever they can afford, in a quality, low-cost, fiercely competitive, independent school system. Each parent should be responsible for their own children's education in this free-market, private-school system, just as each parent is now responsible for feeding their children with food they buy from private grocery stores and supermarkets.
The problem with public schools is that they are "public" and run by government. The problem is that these government-run public schools exist in the first place. Government is the problem, not the solution to our children's education. Get government out of the education business, and the problem is solved quickly and permanently.
No more "we" pressure groups demanding a say in the government-run education system called public schools. Make it illegal for any local, state or federal government to run, operate or collect taxes for, government schools. Sell off all the public-school buildings to private-school entrepreneurs or teacher unions.
Put an end to the ridiculous notion that "we" all have a "right" to an education, so "we" need tax-supported government schools to enforce that "right." There is no such thing as a "right" to an education. Education doesn't grow free on apple trees. Schools, books and teacher salaries all have to be paid for by someone. That's what tuition is all about in a private school – to pay for these expenses. To claim that your child has a "right" to an education is to claim that you have the right to steal from your neighbor to pay for your child's education through school taxes imposed by your local government.
Ask yourself this. Do you have the right to put a gun to your neighbor's head and demand money from him to pay for your child's sneakers or Wheaties cereal? Do you have the right to steal money from your neighbor to pay for anything your child needs? If you have some moral sense and answered no, then you also don't have the right to steal from your neighbor for your child's education either, no matter how much you love your child, because it's wrong to steal, and two wrongs don't make a right.
Yet, a public "we" school system requires that "we" all steal from each other to pay for our children's education, courtesy of compulsory school taxes. But what about single people, married couples with no children, parents with children in private schools, homeschooling parents and older-retired people with no children in school? All these people, your neighbors, have no need for public schools because they have no school-age children in public schools. Why do your neighbors with no school-age children have to pay school taxes for your children's education in a public school? What if they passed a law saying you have to pay taxes for public golf courses, yet you hate golf and would never set foot on a golf course? (By the way, they do make you pay taxes to support city-owned golf courses).
Public schools need compulsory taxes to stay alive. These taxes let some parents with school-age children steal money from their neighbors who might not have school-age children. The "we" of the public-school system therefore requires massive collective looting on a grand scale, turning us into a nation of education thieves.
So how do we end this moral nightmare that creates congenitally incompetent government (public) schools? Put an end to the "we." Get government out of the education business. Turn education over to parents and the life-giving fresh breath of a fiercely competitive free-market education system, where each parent has complete control only over their own child's education. Then this free-market of education will sharply raise the quality of our children's education, and sharply lower the cost of this education for average parents. The best of both education worlds without having to pay a single dollar in school taxes. Wouldn't that be great?
Cathy
The following piece on WND.com.
Get government out of education
Posted: June 06, 2009
1:00 am Eastern
By Joel Turtel
© 2009
"We" have to give the schools more money. "We" have to pay the teachers more. "We" have to get parents more involved in their children's public schools. "We" have to get parents more involved in their children's homework. "We" have to find a way to close the achievement gap between white children and black or Latino kids. "We" have to demand accountability from our public schools and teachers. "We" have to end the drugs and violence in our public schools. "We" have to improve our teaching methods so our children can read their own diplomas when they graduate high school. "We" have to teach our children environmental propaganda about saving the earth and global warming. "We" have to teach kids to "respect" other people's lifestyles with classes about homosexuality in their sex-ed courses.
And on and on it goes. Every "we" pressure group is at each other's throats about what "we" have to do to improve the congenitally incompetent public schools and our children's education.
Do you notice the one common factor in all these disastrous problems with our children's education in public schools? Right you are – it's the "we" part. Americans have been brainwashed into thinking education is a collective "we" enterprise that must be run by governments
that "we" elect. Since "we" are all taxpayers, and our taxes pay for the public schools, all of us "we" have the right to input our demands, desires, complaints and suggestions about how to "fix" the system. Hence the endless bickering, fighting, backstabbing, grab for "public" tax dollars, power plays and government-induced incompetent education.
With data that will shock the objective observer, "The Harsh Truth About Public Schools" explains why more Americans are yanking their kids from the government system
What's the real solution to finally giving our kids a decent education? Get rid of the "we." Education must be made a private concern of individual parents, NOT a collective "right" of education run by a government monopoly called public schools. Let each parent educate their own children in their own way, paying whatever they can afford, in a quality, low-cost, fiercely competitive, independent school system. Each parent should be responsible for their own children's education in this free-market, private-school system, just as each parent is now responsible for feeding their children with food they buy from private grocery stores and supermarkets.
The problem with public schools is that they are "public" and run by government. The problem is that these government-run public schools exist in the first place. Government is the problem, not the solution to our children's education. Get government out of the education business, and the problem is solved quickly and permanently.
No more "we" pressure groups demanding a say in the government-run education system called public schools. Make it illegal for any local, state or federal government to run, operate or collect taxes for, government schools. Sell off all the public-school buildings to private-school entrepreneurs or teacher unions.
Put an end to the ridiculous notion that "we" all have a "right" to an education, so "we" need tax-supported government schools to enforce that "right." There is no such thing as a "right" to an education. Education doesn't grow free on apple trees. Schools, books and teacher salaries all have to be paid for by someone. That's what tuition is all about in a private school – to pay for these expenses. To claim that your child has a "right" to an education is to claim that you have the right to steal from your neighbor to pay for your child's education through school taxes imposed by your local government.
Ask yourself this. Do you have the right to put a gun to your neighbor's head and demand money from him to pay for your child's sneakers or Wheaties cereal? Do you have the right to steal money from your neighbor to pay for anything your child needs? If you have some moral sense and answered no, then you also don't have the right to steal from your neighbor for your child's education either, no matter how much you love your child, because it's wrong to steal, and two wrongs don't make a right.
Yet, a public "we" school system requires that "we" all steal from each other to pay for our children's education, courtesy of compulsory school taxes. But what about single people, married couples with no children, parents with children in private schools, homeschooling parents and older-retired people with no children in school? All these people, your neighbors, have no need for public schools because they have no school-age children in public schools. Why do your neighbors with no school-age children have to pay school taxes for your children's education in a public school? What if they passed a law saying you have to pay taxes for public golf courses, yet you hate golf and would never set foot on a golf course? (By the way, they do make you pay taxes to support city-owned golf courses).
Public schools need compulsory taxes to stay alive. These taxes let some parents with school-age children steal money from their neighbors who might not have school-age children. The "we" of the public-school system therefore requires massive collective looting on a grand scale, turning us into a nation of education thieves.
So how do we end this moral nightmare that creates congenitally incompetent government (public) schools? Put an end to the "we." Get government out of the education business. Turn education over to parents and the life-giving fresh breath of a fiercely competitive free-market education system, where each parent has complete control only over their own child's education. Then this free-market of education will sharply raise the quality of our children's education, and sharply lower the cost of this education for average parents. The best of both education worlds without having to pay a single dollar in school taxes. Wouldn't that be great?
Greedy Educrats Sue and its about Money, no Surprise There
Governor Mark Sanford did absolutely the right thing when he rejected 700 million dollars in federal stimulus funds. We are in debt in this country to the tune of $200,000 per person. It is irresponsible for any state or city government to accept funds from the federal government when our Country is so far in debt. But greedy educrats sued Governor Mark Sanford and won and now he must take money that he knew was wrong to take.
The only responsible solution to our children and future generations is to cut spending and start paying back our debt now. Our debt level today will take 293 years to payback if no further debt is accumulated. I won't be alive then and I could be like the drunken power hunger Democrats and not care, but I do care as should every responsible American. The stimulus package that Bush approved at the end of his term was not only irresponsible but wrong. The debt that Obama has tacked on is more debt than was accumulated over the last 40 years is wrong. When are sensible Democrats and Republicans going to stand up and say enough is enough? Where are the principles and values being utilized on which this wonderful Country was built?
We must elect people who believe in small government and freedom we must stop electing Democrats and Republicans who believe in big government and the elimination of personal freedom.
Croydon is trying to set itself free from the greed of Newport Schools will the desire for choice by Croydon citizens win over the Greed of some in SAU 43 and some of the Newport School employees? Find out June 8th at 6:00 p.m. in the Croydon Town Hall.
Cathy
Spelling and grammar errors as well as typos are left as an exercise for my readers.
Quote of the Day - "... increased spending will bring an insurmountable debt burden on future generations." Governor Mark Sanford
The following piece appears on CNN.
South Carolina governor trumped, must take stimulus money
(CNN) -- South Carolina's Supreme Court ruled Thursday that Gov. Mark Sanford must accept $700 million in federal stimulus money, ending the only formal effort by a governor to reject funding intended to jump-start an ailing economy.
Gov. Mark Sanford became the conservative face of opposition to the federal stimulus package.
The two-term Republican said he would abide by the court ruling, but called it a bad day for South Carolina and the country.
"This decision is terrible news for every taxpayer in South Carolina, and even more so for future taxpayers who will ultimately bear the responsibility of paying for this so-called 'stimulus' without seeing any benefit from it," he said in a statement.
Considered a potential future Republican presidential candidate, Sanford led the party's resistance to the $787 billion stimulus package. He warned the increased spending will bring an insurmountable debt burden on future generations.
Sanford initially tried to require that any stimulus money pay down the state debt, a stance rejected by the Obama administration.
Sanford had resisted taking the money even when the Republican-controlled legislature passed a budget that included the funds.
On Monday, however, a federal judge rejected that effort, and said that the South Carolina Supreme Court must decide what to do.
In its ruling, the state's highest court said the legislature, not Sanford, has the power to decide whether to accept the federal stimulus money.
"At this stage in the process, the Governor certainly has no discretion to make a contradictory decision on behalf of the State," the ruling said. "We hold the Governor must apply for the ... funds." Watch report on Gov. Sanford's policy defeat »
However, the court distanced itself from any role in setting policy on the issue.
"Our decision today should not be construed as a comment on the policy differences between Governor Sanford and the General Assembly respecting the wisdom or necessity of South Carolina accepting the" money, it said. ... "We discharge our duty to honor the rule of law, nothing more."
The ruling was in response to lawsuits filed by two students and a school administrators' association that sought to force the state to accept the stimulus money, some of which will go for education needs.
The only responsible solution to our children and future generations is to cut spending and start paying back our debt now. Our debt level today will take 293 years to payback if no further debt is accumulated. I won't be alive then and I could be like the drunken power hunger Democrats and not care, but I do care as should every responsible American. The stimulus package that Bush approved at the end of his term was not only irresponsible but wrong. The debt that Obama has tacked on is more debt than was accumulated over the last 40 years is wrong. When are sensible Democrats and Republicans going to stand up and say enough is enough? Where are the principles and values being utilized on which this wonderful Country was built?
We must elect people who believe in small government and freedom we must stop electing Democrats and Republicans who believe in big government and the elimination of personal freedom.
Croydon is trying to set itself free from the greed of Newport Schools will the desire for choice by Croydon citizens win over the Greed of some in SAU 43 and some of the Newport School employees? Find out June 8th at 6:00 p.m. in the Croydon Town Hall.
Cathy
Spelling and grammar errors as well as typos are left as an exercise for my readers.
Quote of the Day - "... increased spending will bring an insurmountable debt burden on future generations." Governor Mark Sanford
The following piece appears on CNN.
South Carolina governor trumped, must take stimulus money
(CNN) -- South Carolina's Supreme Court ruled Thursday that Gov. Mark Sanford must accept $700 million in federal stimulus money, ending the only formal effort by a governor to reject funding intended to jump-start an ailing economy.
Gov. Mark Sanford became the conservative face of opposition to the federal stimulus package.
The two-term Republican said he would abide by the court ruling, but called it a bad day for South Carolina and the country.
"This decision is terrible news for every taxpayer in South Carolina, and even more so for future taxpayers who will ultimately bear the responsibility of paying for this so-called 'stimulus' without seeing any benefit from it," he said in a statement.
Considered a potential future Republican presidential candidate, Sanford led the party's resistance to the $787 billion stimulus package. He warned the increased spending will bring an insurmountable debt burden on future generations.
Sanford initially tried to require that any stimulus money pay down the state debt, a stance rejected by the Obama administration.
Sanford had resisted taking the money even when the Republican-controlled legislature passed a budget that included the funds.
On Monday, however, a federal judge rejected that effort, and said that the South Carolina Supreme Court must decide what to do.
In its ruling, the state's highest court said the legislature, not Sanford, has the power to decide whether to accept the federal stimulus money.
"At this stage in the process, the Governor certainly has no discretion to make a contradictory decision on behalf of the State," the ruling said. "We hold the Governor must apply for the ... funds." Watch report on Gov. Sanford's policy defeat »
However, the court distanced itself from any role in setting policy on the issue.
"Our decision today should not be construed as a comment on the policy differences between Governor Sanford and the General Assembly respecting the wisdom or necessity of South Carolina accepting the" money, it said. ... "We discharge our duty to honor the rule of law, nothing more."
The ruling was in response to lawsuits filed by two students and a school administrators' association that sought to force the state to accept the stimulus money, some of which will go for education needs.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)