The article below I believe is miss-titled because the group is not anti-tax but more so they are asking their taxes to be reasonable and fair. It is not unfair to ask our government to keep spending and taxes within the rate of inflation. In fact to spend greater than the rate of inflation is selfish on the part of school and government employees who benefit from taxpayers hard earned dollars. I would hope that both the Croydon school board and the Croydon selectmen elect to put this on the ballot for the next election. To not do so would be putting the interests of the tax-eaters ahead of the taxpayers especially during this recession and with gas prices as high as they are today.
Cathy
Quote of the Day - "We contend that for a nation to try to tax itself into prosperity is like a man standing in a bucket and trying to lift himself up by the handle." -- Winston Churchill
The story below appeared in the Union Leader.
Anti-tax crusaders take on city hall
By SCOTT BROOKS
New Hampshire Union Leader Staff
MANCHESTER – A group of anti-tax crusaders is launching a campaign to block Queen City officials from driving up the city's tax rate.
The conservative New Hampshire Advantage Coalition is leading the drive to put a cap on taxes and spending, tying both to the rate of inflation. Voters would have a chance to approve the proposal when they go to the polls in November.
"This really will help the taxpayers. It will force the government to look at how they're doing business every day," said Mike Biundo, the coalition's president.
The effort got under way in Manchester yesterday afternoon, when coalition leaders filed a petition with the City Clerk's Office. They estimate they'll need to collect about 4,000 signatures to get their question on the November ballot.
Similar petitions will be filed today in Concord, Merrimack and Rochester, Biundo said. All told, the group hopes to put the question to voters in 11 New Hampshire communities.
"The New Hampshire Advantage Coalition is looking to send a message to lawmakers on all levels that the only way to keep our low-tax advantage is to hold the line on spending," Biundo said.
Proponents of a spending cap tried and failed to get a referendum on the ballot in 2005 and 2007. A 2005 petition drive garnered 5,100 signatures, but state agencies struck the proposal off the ballot, saying it was legally flawed.
Mayor Frank Guinta, who was then an aldermen, rewrote the proposal as a non-binding referendum. The other aldermen refused to put the question on the ballot.
The New Hampshire Advantage Coalition's proposal would tie city spending to the consumer price index, as determined by the U.S. Department of Labor. The tax rate would be tied to the same index.
The proposal comes with an escape clause. In any given year, the city could override the cap by a two-thirds vote of the Board of Mayor and Aldermen.
The proposal also gives the aldermen some flexibility in the event of a citywide property revaluation, or when the city issues bonds to pay for capital projects.
Aldermen Ed Osborne, a Democrat, said an escape clause would be crucial if the question were approved.
"As long as you can get out of it, I have no problem with it," he said.
The coalition's drive in Manchester will be led by businessman Karl Beisel, who pushed for spending caps in 2005 and 2007. Members of the committee that will assist him include Tammy Simmons, Barbara Hagan, Keith Murphy and Roger Wilkins.
Beisel predicted the committee would collect more than 5,000 signatures. He said he is confident the group will succeed in putting the question on the ballot, noting the language is similar to spending caps adopted in Dover.
Laconia and Franklin also have caps.
"As far as I know, every city that's put a measure like this to the voters has passed (it)," he said. "I certainly think Manchester would be no exception."
Tuesday, April 29, 2008
Monday, April 28, 2008
Home Schooling
I received the following piece from a homeschooling Mom. What I love about this piece is that this Dad understands that there should be educational freedom. Why is it that people who work in public schools are all for "diversity" but they are not for diversity in thought or diversity when it comes to school choice? School people do not want choice because they are more concerned about money than they are education. The more children they "teach" the more money the schools get.
The following piece appeared on blogsnh.com.
Home Schooling
Submitted by Bill Bunker on March 27, 2008 - 10:53.
Kim Murdoch made valid points in her MY TURN piece, "Homeschooler's Don't Need More Regulation".
Our children are not home schooled and in fact we are extremely pleased with the public education they receive in our local school. However, people home school for many reasons: religion, social teachings, health issues, hardship, convenience and quite honestly a feeling that their public school is just not a great environment for their children. In some cases that may be true.
Over the years I have known many families who home schooled and we have friends who presently do so. My experience is that all of those children have been successful and well adjusted with a thirst to learn and excel. I have also noted that it often strengthens the closeness of families. They also are providing a one on one classroom environment and can focus on many intricacies on subject matter as well as detail. The education system in this country validates the value of that kind of teaching with their concern about class size.
I knew one family that took a vacation and traveled to other countries, visited the Louvre and cathedrals as part of their curriculum. Their children had to write full reports of their trip and analyze the architecture, art and culture of their travels. That does not happen in public schooling.
One of the primary arguments against home schooling has always been ‘socialization’. It is uncertain if that is a valid argument or should even be a consideration. Children who are home schooled develop closer bonds with their families and relatives and do have neighborhood friends. Many go on to join their fellow age group in high school and I have known many who have gone on to college and graduated at the top of their class.
Of course if you subscribe to Hillary Clinton's vision that: "It takes a village" you would probably disagree. But it is the responsibility of families to raise a child; not society.
The attempt by present legislators in Concord to pass SB337, is not grounded solely in concern for the children, but is an attempt to get into citizens homes to dictate and regulate what is taught. It is the first step on a slippery slope the leads to an erosion of parental rights with agenda driven politics. The government has an obligation to ensure that every child receives a basic education but that comes in many forms.
There are many great home schooling programs and many parents who do a great job teaching their children. Stringent regulations already exist leading one to believe that this (SB337) is agenda driven legislation.
The educational system in many places is an organized industry . Schools are taking on more of a social role and usurping the rights of parents, teaching political correctness. One only needs to look at a few examples such are dispensing of birth control to underage girls, providing abortion counseling and abortion without parental notification, health classes that demonstrate how to put a condom on a banana and teaching gender curriculum.
If they pass SB337, I am sure that they will train a key eye on the ‘social’ teachings similar to the slanted agenda being slowly and surreptitiously woven into the curriculum of many public schools.
Continuation on this path does little to strengthen our ability to compete in the world. Perhaps more emphasis ought to be paid to science, mathematics and even expanded languages and less to programs and lessons that push the social engineering dreams of the present educational hierarchy.
There certainly needs to be oversight of children who are home schooled but more regulation is suspect especially by those politico's presently attempting to call the shots in Concord. They have moved swiftly to redefine the status quo with a definite left leaning agenda. Now they are focusing on home schooling which is ludicrous when they have addressed public education poorly and with an expected response of expanded taxes and unbridled spending as the solution.
Next I imagine they will be targeting charter schools. It seems as if school choice under the present regime in Concord means nothing as their true belief is that the State should dictate to the citizens. In reality, government is their to 'serve' the people, not provide political correctness and established political agenda.
Those who home school should be championed by society and maybe instead of knee jerk regulation, the NH Senate should look into the reasons why citizens home school. The answers they come up with might help them improve and streamline the curriculum and administration of the present public system.
To view my blogs by Bill Bunker click here.
Quote of the Day -A tax supported, compulsory educational system is the complete model of the totalitarian state. - Isabel Patterson, The God of the Machine
The following piece appeared on blogsnh.com.
Home Schooling
Submitted by Bill Bunker on March 27, 2008 - 10:53.
Kim Murdoch made valid points in her MY TURN piece, "Homeschooler's Don't Need More Regulation".
Our children are not home schooled and in fact we are extremely pleased with the public education they receive in our local school. However, people home school for many reasons: religion, social teachings, health issues, hardship, convenience and quite honestly a feeling that their public school is just not a great environment for their children. In some cases that may be true.
Over the years I have known many families who home schooled and we have friends who presently do so. My experience is that all of those children have been successful and well adjusted with a thirst to learn and excel. I have also noted that it often strengthens the closeness of families. They also are providing a one on one classroom environment and can focus on many intricacies on subject matter as well as detail. The education system in this country validates the value of that kind of teaching with their concern about class size.
I knew one family that took a vacation and traveled to other countries, visited the Louvre and cathedrals as part of their curriculum. Their children had to write full reports of their trip and analyze the architecture, art and culture of their travels. That does not happen in public schooling.
One of the primary arguments against home schooling has always been ‘socialization’. It is uncertain if that is a valid argument or should even be a consideration. Children who are home schooled develop closer bonds with their families and relatives and do have neighborhood friends. Many go on to join their fellow age group in high school and I have known many who have gone on to college and graduated at the top of their class.
Of course if you subscribe to Hillary Clinton's vision that: "It takes a village" you would probably disagree. But it is the responsibility of families to raise a child; not society.
The attempt by present legislators in Concord to pass SB337, is not grounded solely in concern for the children, but is an attempt to get into citizens homes to dictate and regulate what is taught. It is the first step on a slippery slope the leads to an erosion of parental rights with agenda driven politics. The government has an obligation to ensure that every child receives a basic education but that comes in many forms.
There are many great home schooling programs and many parents who do a great job teaching their children. Stringent regulations already exist leading one to believe that this (SB337) is agenda driven legislation.
The educational system in many places is an organized industry . Schools are taking on more of a social role and usurping the rights of parents, teaching political correctness. One only needs to look at a few examples such are dispensing of birth control to underage girls, providing abortion counseling and abortion without parental notification, health classes that demonstrate how to put a condom on a banana and teaching gender curriculum.
If they pass SB337, I am sure that they will train a key eye on the ‘social’ teachings similar to the slanted agenda being slowly and surreptitiously woven into the curriculum of many public schools.
Continuation on this path does little to strengthen our ability to compete in the world. Perhaps more emphasis ought to be paid to science, mathematics and even expanded languages and less to programs and lessons that push the social engineering dreams of the present educational hierarchy.
There certainly needs to be oversight of children who are home schooled but more regulation is suspect especially by those politico's presently attempting to call the shots in Concord. They have moved swiftly to redefine the status quo with a definite left leaning agenda. Now they are focusing on home schooling which is ludicrous when they have addressed public education poorly and with an expected response of expanded taxes and unbridled spending as the solution.
Next I imagine they will be targeting charter schools. It seems as if school choice under the present regime in Concord means nothing as their true belief is that the State should dictate to the citizens. In reality, government is their to 'serve' the people, not provide political correctness and established political agenda.
Those who home school should be championed by society and maybe instead of knee jerk regulation, the NH Senate should look into the reasons why citizens home school. The answers they come up with might help them improve and streamline the curriculum and administration of the present public system.
To view my blogs by Bill Bunker click here.
Quote of the Day -A tax supported, compulsory educational system is the complete model of the totalitarian state. - Isabel Patterson, The God of the Machine
Sunday, April 27, 2008
Education Lessons We Left Behind
Quote of the Day - If an unfriendly power had attempted to impose on America the mediocre educational performance that exists today, we might well have viewed it as an act of war. -- "A Nation At Risk" (1983)
The following appeared in a number of sources including Real Clear Politics.
Education Lessons We Left Behind
By George Will
If an unfriendly power had attempted to impose on America the mediocre educational performance that exists today, we might well have viewed it as an act of war. -- "A Nation At Risk" (1983)
WASHINGTON -- Let us limp down memory lane to mark this week's melancholy 25th anniversary of a national commission's report that galvanized Americans to vow to do better. Today the nation still ignores what had been learned years before 1983.
Sen. Daniel Patrick Moynihan once puckishly said that data indicated that the leading determinant of the quality of public schools, measured by standardized tests, was the schools' proximity to Canada. He meant that the geographic correlation was stronger than the correlation between high test scores and high per pupil expenditures.
Moynihan also knew that schools cannot compensate for the disintegration of families, and hence communities -- the primary transmitters of social capital. No reform can enable schools to cope with the 36.9 percent of all children and 69.9 percent of black children today born out of wedlock, which means, among many other things, a continually renewed cohort of unruly adolescent males.
Chester Finn, a former Moynihan aide, notes in his splendid new memoir ("Troublemaker: A Personal History of School Reform Since Sputnik") that during the Depression-era job scarcity, high schools were used to keep students out of the job market, shunting many into nonacademic classes. By 1961, those classes had risen to 43 percent of all those taken by students. After 1962, when New York City signed the nation's first collective bargaining contract with teachers, teachers began changing from members of a respected profession into just another muscular faction fighting for more government money. Between 1975 and 1980 there were a thousand strikes involving a million teachers whose salaries rose as students' scores on standardized tests declined.
In 1964, SAT scores among college-bound students peaked. In 1965, the Elementary and Secondary Education Act (ESEA) codified confidence in the correlation between financial inputs and cognitive outputs in education. But in 1966, the Coleman report, the result of the largest social science project in history, reached a conclusion so "seismic" -- Moynihan's description -- that the government almost refused to publish it.
Released quietly on the Fourth of July weekend, the report concluded that the qualities of the families from which children come to school matter much more than money as predictors of schools' effectiveness. The crucial common denominator of problems of race and class -- fractured families -- would have to be faced.
But it wasn't. Instead, shopworn panaceas -- larger teacher salaries, smaller class sizes -- were pursued as colleges were reduced to offering remediation to freshmen.
In 1976, for the first time in its 119-year history, the National Education Association, the teachers union, endorsed a presidential candidate, Jimmy Carter, who repaid it by creating the Education Department, a monument to the premise that money and government programs matter most. At the NEA's behest, the nation has expanded the number of teachers much faster than the number of students has grown. Hiring more, rather than more competent, teachers meant more dues-paying union members. For decades, schools have been treated as laboratories for various equity experiments. Fads incubated in education schools gave us "open" classrooms, teachers as "facilitators of learning" rather than transmitters of knowledge, abandonment of a literary canon in the name of "multiculturalism," and so on, producing a majority of high school juniors who could not locate the Civil War in the proper half-century.
In 1994, Congress grandly decreed that by 2000 the high school graduation rate would be "at least" 90 percent and that American students would be "first in the world in mathematics and science achievement." Moynihan, likening such goals to Soviet grain quotas -- solemnly avowed, never fulfilled -- said: "That will not happen." It did not.
Moynihan was a neoconservative before neoconservatism became a doctrine of foreign policy hubris. Originally, it taught domestic policy humility. Moynihan, a social scientist, understood that social science tells us not what to do but what is not working, which today includes No Child Left Behind. Finn thinks NCLB got things backward: "The law should have set uniform standards and measures for the nation, then freed states, districts and schools to produce those results as they think best." Instead, it left standards up to the states, which have an incentive to dumb them down to make compliance easier.
A nation at risk? Now more than ever.
georgewill@washpost.com
The following appeared in a number of sources including Real Clear Politics.
Education Lessons We Left Behind
By George Will
If an unfriendly power had attempted to impose on America the mediocre educational performance that exists today, we might well have viewed it as an act of war. -- "A Nation At Risk" (1983)
WASHINGTON -- Let us limp down memory lane to mark this week's melancholy 25th anniversary of a national commission's report that galvanized Americans to vow to do better. Today the nation still ignores what had been learned years before 1983.
Sen. Daniel Patrick Moynihan once puckishly said that data indicated that the leading determinant of the quality of public schools, measured by standardized tests, was the schools' proximity to Canada. He meant that the geographic correlation was stronger than the correlation between high test scores and high per pupil expenditures.
Moynihan also knew that schools cannot compensate for the disintegration of families, and hence communities -- the primary transmitters of social capital. No reform can enable schools to cope with the 36.9 percent of all children and 69.9 percent of black children today born out of wedlock, which means, among many other things, a continually renewed cohort of unruly adolescent males.
Chester Finn, a former Moynihan aide, notes in his splendid new memoir ("Troublemaker: A Personal History of School Reform Since Sputnik") that during the Depression-era job scarcity, high schools were used to keep students out of the job market, shunting many into nonacademic classes. By 1961, those classes had risen to 43 percent of all those taken by students. After 1962, when New York City signed the nation's first collective bargaining contract with teachers, teachers began changing from members of a respected profession into just another muscular faction fighting for more government money. Between 1975 and 1980 there were a thousand strikes involving a million teachers whose salaries rose as students' scores on standardized tests declined.
In 1964, SAT scores among college-bound students peaked. In 1965, the Elementary and Secondary Education Act (ESEA) codified confidence in the correlation between financial inputs and cognitive outputs in education. But in 1966, the Coleman report, the result of the largest social science project in history, reached a conclusion so "seismic" -- Moynihan's description -- that the government almost refused to publish it.
Released quietly on the Fourth of July weekend, the report concluded that the qualities of the families from which children come to school matter much more than money as predictors of schools' effectiveness. The crucial common denominator of problems of race and class -- fractured families -- would have to be faced.
But it wasn't. Instead, shopworn panaceas -- larger teacher salaries, smaller class sizes -- were pursued as colleges were reduced to offering remediation to freshmen.
In 1976, for the first time in its 119-year history, the National Education Association, the teachers union, endorsed a presidential candidate, Jimmy Carter, who repaid it by creating the Education Department, a monument to the premise that money and government programs matter most. At the NEA's behest, the nation has expanded the number of teachers much faster than the number of students has grown. Hiring more, rather than more competent, teachers meant more dues-paying union members. For decades, schools have been treated as laboratories for various equity experiments. Fads incubated in education schools gave us "open" classrooms, teachers as "facilitators of learning" rather than transmitters of knowledge, abandonment of a literary canon in the name of "multiculturalism," and so on, producing a majority of high school juniors who could not locate the Civil War in the proper half-century.
In 1994, Congress grandly decreed that by 2000 the high school graduation rate would be "at least" 90 percent and that American students would be "first in the world in mathematics and science achievement." Moynihan, likening such goals to Soviet grain quotas -- solemnly avowed, never fulfilled -- said: "That will not happen." It did not.
Moynihan was a neoconservative before neoconservatism became a doctrine of foreign policy hubris. Originally, it taught domestic policy humility. Moynihan, a social scientist, understood that social science tells us not what to do but what is not working, which today includes No Child Left Behind. Finn thinks NCLB got things backward: "The law should have set uniform standards and measures for the nation, then freed states, districts and schools to produce those results as they think best." Instead, it left standards up to the states, which have an incentive to dumb them down to make compliance easier.
A nation at risk? Now more than ever.
georgewill@washpost.com
Saturday, April 26, 2008
Bookbag bullying: Weston PTO turns up the heat
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.
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.
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)