Jim received this from his friend who is heading up...if I remember correctly research and development at Apple Computers. Yep all those neat things you MAC junkies love he is part of that.
The following is funny, but sad too because there is a lot of truth to it as well.
Cathy
Scenario 1:
Jack goes quail hunting before school and then pulls into the school parking lot with his shotgun in his truck's gun rack.
1958 - Vice Principal comes over, looks at Jack's shotgun, goes to his car and gets his shotgun to show Jack.
2008 - School goes into lock down, FBI called, Jack hauled off to jail and never sees his truck or gun again. Counselors called in for traumatized students and teachers.
Scenario 2:
Johnny and Mark get into a fist fight after school.
1958 - Crowd gathers. Mark wins. Johnny and Mark shake hands and end up buddies.
2008 - Police called and SWAT team arrives -- they arrest both Johnny and Mark. They are both charged with assault and both expelled even though Johnny started it.
Scenario 3:
Jeffrey will not be still in class, he disrupts other students.
1958 - Jeffrey sent to the Principal's office and given a good paddling by the Principal. He then returns to class, sits still and does not disrupt class again.
2008 - Jeffrey is given huge doses of Ritalin. He becomes a zombie. He is then tested for ADD. The school gets extra money from the state because Jeffrey has a disability.
Scenario 4:
Billy breaks a window in his neighbor's car and his Dad gives him a whipping with his belt.
1958 - Billy is more careful next time, grows up normal, goes to college and becomes a successful businessman.
2008 - Billy's dad is arrested for child abuse. Billy is removed to foster care and joins a gang. The state psychologist is told by Billy's sister that she remembers being abused herself and their dad goes to prison. Billy's mom has an affair with the psychologist.
Scenario 5:
Mark gets a headache and takes some aspirin to school.
1958 - Mark shares his aspirin with the Principal out on the smoking dock.
2008 - The police are called and Mark is expelled from school for drug violations. His car is then searched for drugs and weapons.
Scenario 6:
Pedro fails high school English.
1958 - Pedro goes to summer school, passes English and goes to college.
2008 - Pedro's cause is taken up by state. Newspaper articles appear nationally explaining that teaching English as a requirement for graduation is racist. ACLU files class action lawsuit against the state school system and Pedro's English teacher. English is then banned from core curriculum. Pedro is given his diploma anyway but ends up mowing lawns for a living because he cannot speak English.
Scenario 7:
Johnny takes apart leftover firecrackers from the Fourth of July, puts them in a model airplane paint bottle and blows up a red ant bed.
1958 - Ants die.
2008 - ATF, Homeland Security and the FBI are all called. Johnny is charged with domestic terrorism. The FBI investigates his parents -- and all siblings are removed from their home and all computers are confiscated. Johnny's dad is placed on a terror watch list and is never allowed to fly again.
Scenario 8:
Johnny falls while running during recess and scrapes his knee. He is found crying by his teacher, Mary. Mary hugs him to comfort him.
1958 - In a short time, Johnny feels better and goes on playing.
2008 - Mary is accused of being a sexual predator and loses her job. She faces 3 years in State Prison. Johnny undergoes 5 years of therapy.
Saturday, January 24, 2009
Friday, January 23, 2009
CNHT Report - Superintendent apologizes for e-mail sent to parents
When I saw this story on CNHT I had to nab it. Unfortunately this is not an uncommon occurrence; with so much access to parents(voters)via backpacks and the schools computer database teachers and educrats often use this to get communities to pass warrants and tax warrants from which they directly benefit. Parents should be calling educrats out on this unethical behavior.
Cathy
Superintendent apologizes for e-mail sent to parents
By CNHT | January 21, 2009
January 21, 2009
Goffstown News
A Goffstown School District e-mail notice about a meeting backfired when some residents accused the administration of political campaigning on behalf of the School Board.
Superintendent of Schools Stacy Buckley recently apologized for the e-mail, which she sent to parents asking them to show up to a Budget Committee hearing and support the proposed school budget.
The e-mail was sent out Jan. 9, in advance of a hearing on Jan. 13. In the e-mail, Buckley notified parents of the date and location, then asked them to back the School Board’s budget.
“I would encourage all Goffstown residents to attend this hearing to provide support for the School Board’s recommended budget,” Buckley wrote.
At the time, the Budget Committee was recommending a $561,379 cut to the school budget. The e-mail was sent out to a list used to notify parents of school closings, their children’s grades and to make other routine announcements.
More than 80 percent of parents in Goffstown are on the e-mail list, according to School Board Chairman Keith Allard.
At least one parent and one Budget Committee member, Bill Gordon, have protested the email as a misuse of school district resources for political purposes.
“It wouldn’t be so bad if they said just this, ‘There’s a meeting. You may want to attend. This is what it’s about,’” said Bill Wynne, the parent. “Once they said support the budget, the proposed budget of the School Board, that steps over the line.”
Wynne called Buckley and asked her to resign over the matter. She refused. But, at the Jan. 19 meeting of the School Board, she did apologize.
“I sincerely apologize to the public for this e-mail,” Buckley said. “I in no way intended to create mistrust with the public. Please know that I understand the difficulties this has created for some people and I apologize for that. I appreciate the public’s understanding and concerns for the appropriate use of all district resources and information. Please know that in the future you can be certain that this will not happen again.”
Allard also apologized to the public. He said he and Buckley had spoken about issuing a message to parents about the budget hearing, but they did not discuss the wording or how the e-mail would be sent.
Allard was concerned about one sentence in the e-mail, where Buckley asks for the public to support the budget.
“Usually we try to be more generic and encourage parents to come out and be part of the process,” he said in an interview. “That’s been our common past practice in the district.”
Allard said the e-mail did not violate any school district policies or laws of which he was aware. Also, he said Buckley has the authority to send the e-mail without having it proofread or approved by the School Board beforehand. But he is asking School Board to draft a policy establishing guidelines for future communication with parents.
“In order to prevent any future misunderstandings or concerns among the residents of Goffstown, I will request that the HR Committee of the Goffstown School Board investigate either the formation of a new policy or a modification of an existing policy and provide a recommendation back to the board that will establish parameters for future communications,” Allard said.
Before the meeting, Wynne had appealed the issue to state education Commissioner Lyonel Tracy, asking his department to put Buckley on administrative leave while it investigated the matter. Tracy replied that Wynne should take it up with the School Board, which had the purview to determine whether the e-mail was appropriate or not.
###
Tracy is wrong. This is a state issue and here is the law:
659:44-a Electioneering by Public Employees.
_ No public employee, as defined in RSA 273-A:1, IX, shall electioneer while
in the performance of his or her official duties or use government
property, including, but not limited to, telephones, facsimile machines,
vehicles, and computers, for electioneering. For the purposes of this
section, “electioneer” means to act in any way specifically designed to
influence the vote of a voter on any question or office. Any person who
violates this section shall be guilty of a misdemeanor.
RSA 273-A:1, IX and X read as follows:
IX. “Public employee” means any person employed by a public employer
except:
_ (a) Persons elected by popular vote;
_ (b) Persons appointed to office by the chief executive or legislative body
of the public employer;
_ (c) Persons whose duties imply a confidential relationship to the public
employer; or
_ (d) Persons in a probationary or temporary status, or employed
seasonally, irregularly or on call. For the purposes of this chapter,
however, no employee shall be determined to be in a probationary status
who shall have been employed for more than 12 months or who has an
individual contract with his employer, nor shall any employee be
determined to be in a temporary status solely by reason of the source of
funding of the position in which he is employed.
_ X. “Public employer” means the state and any political subdivision
thereof, the judicial branch of the state, any quasi-public corporation,
council, commission, agency or authority, and the state university
system.
Cathy
Superintendent apologizes for e-mail sent to parents
By CNHT | January 21, 2009
January 21, 2009
Goffstown News
A Goffstown School District e-mail notice about a meeting backfired when some residents accused the administration of political campaigning on behalf of the School Board.
Superintendent of Schools Stacy Buckley recently apologized for the e-mail, which she sent to parents asking them to show up to a Budget Committee hearing and support the proposed school budget.
The e-mail was sent out Jan. 9, in advance of a hearing on Jan. 13. In the e-mail, Buckley notified parents of the date and location, then asked them to back the School Board’s budget.
“I would encourage all Goffstown residents to attend this hearing to provide support for the School Board’s recommended budget,” Buckley wrote.
At the time, the Budget Committee was recommending a $561,379 cut to the school budget. The e-mail was sent out to a list used to notify parents of school closings, their children’s grades and to make other routine announcements.
More than 80 percent of parents in Goffstown are on the e-mail list, according to School Board Chairman Keith Allard.
At least one parent and one Budget Committee member, Bill Gordon, have protested the email as a misuse of school district resources for political purposes.
“It wouldn’t be so bad if they said just this, ‘There’s a meeting. You may want to attend. This is what it’s about,’” said Bill Wynne, the parent. “Once they said support the budget, the proposed budget of the School Board, that steps over the line.”
Wynne called Buckley and asked her to resign over the matter. She refused. But, at the Jan. 19 meeting of the School Board, she did apologize.
“I sincerely apologize to the public for this e-mail,” Buckley said. “I in no way intended to create mistrust with the public. Please know that I understand the difficulties this has created for some people and I apologize for that. I appreciate the public’s understanding and concerns for the appropriate use of all district resources and information. Please know that in the future you can be certain that this will not happen again.”
Allard also apologized to the public. He said he and Buckley had spoken about issuing a message to parents about the budget hearing, but they did not discuss the wording or how the e-mail would be sent.
Allard was concerned about one sentence in the e-mail, where Buckley asks for the public to support the budget.
“Usually we try to be more generic and encourage parents to come out and be part of the process,” he said in an interview. “That’s been our common past practice in the district.”
Allard said the e-mail did not violate any school district policies or laws of which he was aware. Also, he said Buckley has the authority to send the e-mail without having it proofread or approved by the School Board beforehand. But he is asking School Board to draft a policy establishing guidelines for future communication with parents.
“In order to prevent any future misunderstandings or concerns among the residents of Goffstown, I will request that the HR Committee of the Goffstown School Board investigate either the formation of a new policy or a modification of an existing policy and provide a recommendation back to the board that will establish parameters for future communications,” Allard said.
Before the meeting, Wynne had appealed the issue to state education Commissioner Lyonel Tracy, asking his department to put Buckley on administrative leave while it investigated the matter. Tracy replied that Wynne should take it up with the School Board, which had the purview to determine whether the e-mail was appropriate or not.
###
Tracy is wrong. This is a state issue and here is the law:
659:44-a Electioneering by Public Employees.
_ No public employee, as defined in RSA 273-A:1, IX, shall electioneer while
in the performance of his or her official duties or use government
property, including, but not limited to, telephones, facsimile machines,
vehicles, and computers, for electioneering. For the purposes of this
section, “electioneer” means to act in any way specifically designed to
influence the vote of a voter on any question or office. Any person who
violates this section shall be guilty of a misdemeanor.
RSA 273-A:1, IX and X read as follows:
IX. “Public employee” means any person employed by a public employer
except:
_ (a) Persons elected by popular vote;
_ (b) Persons appointed to office by the chief executive or legislative body
of the public employer;
_ (c) Persons whose duties imply a confidential relationship to the public
employer; or
_ (d) Persons in a probationary or temporary status, or employed
seasonally, irregularly or on call. For the purposes of this chapter,
however, no employee shall be determined to be in a probationary status
who shall have been employed for more than 12 months or who has an
individual contract with his employer, nor shall any employee be
determined to be in a temporary status solely by reason of the source of
funding of the position in which he is employed.
_ X. “Public employer” means the state and any political subdivision
thereof, the judicial branch of the state, any quasi-public corporation,
council, commission, agency or authority, and the state university
system.
Could some teachers finally be waking up?
Hat Tip Rich Johns the following piece was published on National Right to Work Legal Defense Foundation
Okay before someone gets on me it is not an Obama issue it is a teachers' unions and tax dollar issue. I do not like how millions upon millions of education tax dollars are used against taxpayers and are not in the classroom going directly to our children's education.
Teachers really should be tracking their unions dues more closely because misuse of their unions dues is not an uncommon story.
Cathy
Teachers File FEC Complaint against NEA for Illegal PAC Money Laundering Scheme
By Nick Cote
Sworn testimony indicates union officials misled educators, diverted union treasury funds into political committee
Location: Washington, DC
Washington, DC (January 13, 2009) – The National Right to Work Legal Defense Foundation announced today it will file a formal complaint with the Federal Election Commission (FEC) asking it to investigate charges made by two Alabama educators who discovered a union scheme to divert their money into the National Education Association’s (NEA) political action committee (PAC).
Claire Waites, the chair of the science department, and Dr. Jeanne Fox, an assistant principal, both work at Daphne Middle School in Bay Minette, Alabama. Waites and Fox are both members of the Baldwin County Education Association (BCEA), Alabama Education Association (AEA), and NEA teacher unions.
In July 2008, Waites and Fox attended the NEA’s annual convention in Washington, DC, as delegates of the BCEA. By telephone, BCEA union president Saadia Hunter informed Waites and Fox that contributions to a “children’s fund” in their names were made from money included in their expense reimbursements for their trip to the convention.
Although Hunter told Waites that these contributions were not political in nature, they actually went to the NEA’s PAC, the NEA Fund for Children and Public Education.
Later, Hunter admitted that the money would be contributed to Barack Obama’s presidential campaign. Sworn statements by Waites and Fox indicate that the AEA union boss also admitted that the PAC contributions were paid with BCEA members’ dues. However, it is illegal for unions to contribute to political candidates using “dues, fees, or other moneys required as a condition of membership in a labor organization.”
Teacher union officials also violated federal law by encouraging and soliciting contributions under false pretenses and without informing Waites or Fox of their right to refuse to contribute without any reprisal. Federal law also forbids campaign contributions made in the name of another person.
“This union money laundering scheme makes a mockery of federal election law,” said Stefan Gleason, vice president of the National Right to Work Foundation, which has joined Waites and Fox as a complainant. “We suspect this scheme was widely used by the NEA union hierarchy and could involve hundreds of thousands of dollars. We urge the FEC to take decisive action.”
Terms of Web Site Use
Copyright © 2008 National Right to Work Legal Defense Foundation
National Right to Work Legal Defense and Education Foundation, Inc.
8001 Braddock Road / Springfield, Virginia 22160
(703) 321-8510 | (800) 336-3600 / (703) 321-9613 fax - general (703) 321-9319 fax - legal department
Okay you have to check out this http://www.blogger.com/img/blank.gif too.
Okay before someone gets on me it is not an Obama issue it is a teachers' unions and tax dollar issue. I do not like how millions upon millions of education tax dollars are used against taxpayers and are not in the classroom going directly to our children's education.
Teachers really should be tracking their unions dues more closely because misuse of their unions dues is not an uncommon story.
Cathy
Teachers File FEC Complaint against NEA for Illegal PAC Money Laundering Scheme
By Nick Cote
Sworn testimony indicates union officials misled educators, diverted union treasury funds into political committee
Location: Washington, DC
Washington, DC (January 13, 2009) – The National Right to Work Legal Defense Foundation announced today it will file a formal complaint with the Federal Election Commission (FEC) asking it to investigate charges made by two Alabama educators who discovered a union scheme to divert their money into the National Education Association’s (NEA) political action committee (PAC).
Claire Waites, the chair of the science department, and Dr. Jeanne Fox, an assistant principal, both work at Daphne Middle School in Bay Minette, Alabama. Waites and Fox are both members of the Baldwin County Education Association (BCEA), Alabama Education Association (AEA), and NEA teacher unions.
In July 2008, Waites and Fox attended the NEA’s annual convention in Washington, DC, as delegates of the BCEA. By telephone, BCEA union president Saadia Hunter informed Waites and Fox that contributions to a “children’s fund” in their names were made from money included in their expense reimbursements for their trip to the convention.
Although Hunter told Waites that these contributions were not political in nature, they actually went to the NEA’s PAC, the NEA Fund for Children and Public Education.
Later, Hunter admitted that the money would be contributed to Barack Obama’s presidential campaign. Sworn statements by Waites and Fox indicate that the AEA union boss also admitted that the PAC contributions were paid with BCEA members’ dues. However, it is illegal for unions to contribute to political candidates using “dues, fees, or other moneys required as a condition of membership in a labor organization.”
Teacher union officials also violated federal law by encouraging and soliciting contributions under false pretenses and without informing Waites or Fox of their right to refuse to contribute without any reprisal. Federal law also forbids campaign contributions made in the name of another person.
“This union money laundering scheme makes a mockery of federal election law,” said Stefan Gleason, vice president of the National Right to Work Foundation, which has joined Waites and Fox as a complainant. “We suspect this scheme was widely used by the NEA union hierarchy and could involve hundreds of thousands of dollars. We urge the FEC to take decisive action.”
Terms of Web Site Use
Copyright © 2008 National Right to Work Legal Defense Foundation
National Right to Work Legal Defense and Education Foundation, Inc.
8001 Braddock Road / Springfield, Virginia 22160
(703) 321-8510 | (800) 336-3600 / (703) 321-9613 fax - general (703) 321-9319 fax - legal department
Okay you have to check out this http://www.blogger.com/img/blank.gif too.
Thursday, January 22, 2009
Action Needed to Oppose Threatening Homeschool Legislation
I received the following from HSLDA. Please contact your reps and let them know New Hampshire homeschoolers save New Hampshire taxpayers around 45 million dollars by homeschooling their children please allow them to homeschool without government interference.
Don't be fooled Rep Day's legislation is about money for taxeaters.
Cathy
Dear HSLDA Members and Friends:
New Hampshire homeschoolers will have to pull together to defeat Representative Judith Day's ill-conceived homeschool bills (H.B. 367 and 368). H.B. 367 is the most significant threat to New Hampshire homeschoolers since New Hampshire's homeschool law was passed in 1990.
If enacted, H.B. 367 would make New Hampshire's homeschool law one of the most restrictive in the country. Because of its scope, the bill would create new burdens on homeschoolers and participating agencies. HSLDA is coordinating with homeschool leaders in New Hampshire and we are asking for your help now to defeat this unnecessary and irrational legislation.
We are asking for your help.
ACTION REQUESTED
1) Please use the alphabetized list at http://www.hslda.org/elink.asp?id=6004 to contact the members of the House Education committee (or contact your own representative if he is on the committee). Please tell them in your own words to oppose this bill and to ask them their position on the bill. Report the legislator's position to NH@hslda.org. If your representative is not on the committee use the alphabetized list at the link.
Please read the bill (see the link on HSLDA's bill page if you haven't yet) and tell the committee in your own words (feel free to add additional arguments --there are certainly many):
"H.B. 367 and 368 should be voted ITL. A majority of last year's homeschool study commission voted not to change the law. RSA 193-A was drafted in 1990 with all stakeholders involved, but it appears that Representative Day has ignored the recommendations of the commission and consulted none of the stakeholders for input about her proposed legislation. This bill is misguided and unnecessary. Twenty years of experience show that the New Hampshire home school law works well--no changes are needed or wanted. A growing body of national research continues to show that homeschooling works and produces superior academic results. Research also shows that there is no positive correlation between increased regulation and performance.
This bill would impose unnecessary and harmful restrictions on homeschoolers in New Hampshire where there is no evidence to suggest any change is needed. For this and other reasons please vote ITL on H.B. 367 and 368."
2) Attend the February 10 meeting of the Home Education Advisory Council ("HEAC"). In attendance will be members of the House Education Committee and Members of the Department of Education. This will be a further opportunity to demonstrate opposition and concern about this unnecessary and radical change to New Hampshire's homeschool law. The meeting will be held in Room 12 at the Department of Education located in the State Office Complex in Concord at 101 Pleasant Street.
Here is what this Bill will do:
Instead of having four methods to comply with the annual assessment requirement, EVERY homeschooler EVERY year will have to submit to BOTH standardized testing AND a portfolio evaluation administered by a "credentialed educator".
Superintendent or non-public school principals would be required to review BOTH test results AND the portfolio evaluation to determine IF a home educated in the opinion of the superintendent or nonpublic school principle" has demonstrated satisfactory "academic growth" and MAY continue without probation.
Following a one year probation the superintendent or non public school principal would be able to terminate a home education program. The program would be able to appeal to the State Board of Education whose decision would be FINAL.
New Hampshire homeschoolers would have to pay for two evaluations instead of just one. Participating agencies would have to use their scarce and valuable time to comply with unnecessary bureaucratic filing requirements for no goo d reason.
Parents would not be allowed to choose the best method of assessment for their student.
Superintendents and principles would have to use their own subjective judgment to determine whether a student has demonstrated "academic growth".
The bill creates undefined terms (Such as "credentialed educator" and "academic growth") that would increase the chances of arbitrary decision making by superintendents or principals who would have to use their own subjective opinion to decide whether home education programs are put on probation or terminated.
BACKGROUND
New Hampshire's homeschool law was passed in 1990 after much deliberation among all stakeholders including homeschoolers, public education officials, and legislators. The next year, in 1991, the New Hampshire legislature amended the home school law to add a statement of purpose.
"The general court recognizes , in the enactment of RSA 193-A...that it is the primary right and obligation of a parent to choose the appropriate educational alternative for a child...The general court further recognizes that home education is more individualized instruction that instruction normally provided in the classroom
setting."
The law has been modified slightly since. Then in 2008 a legislative commission formed by SB 337 to examine to see if changes were needed in the law voted 4-2 with one abstention by the chairman, NOT to make changes to the home school law. In the face of this vote and a lack of substantive data indicating any problem to be solved at all (never mind that the current draft not only does not SOLVE a problem but
would create a host of other problems) Representative Day has proposed
radical changes to the law in the form of H.B. 367 and 368.
In the surrounding states of Vermont, Massachusetts and Maine, the last 20 years have seen great conflict between homeschoolers and the government over how much involvement by the government is appropriate. In Massachusetts there have been two Supreme Court cases and a number of lower level court cases--even today there is constant friction
between homeschoolers and local school officials. In Vermont there are dozens of hearings every year over usually minor issues of administration and paperwork at the State level. In 2003, Maine finally reduced the amount of regulation on homeschoolers and switched its law from approval to a "notice of intent" because of the problems.
In stark contrast, New Hampshire has enjoyed a healthy relationship between homeschoolers and the government because of the respect the law creates options to partner with a non public school and to choose from among four different options to comply with the annual assessment.
In the United States of America only a minority of the states require ANY assessment of home educated students. Of those that do not a single state requires both a standardized test AND a portfolio every year. Only Pennsylvania, one of the most restrictive in the country, requires both a portfolio and test and that only during grade 3, 5 and 8 a total of 3 years of the student's entire educational career.
H.B. 367 and 368 are unnecessary. The bills impose a needless burden on homeschoolers and shift authority to determine whether a child should be homeschooled from parents to others. Parents have a fundamental right under the United States Constitution to direct the upbringing and education of their children, and legislation like Representative Day's undermines this right by going against the presumption that parents act in their children's best interest.
Thank you for your work to support homeschool freedom in New Hampshire and for taking action to defeat this harmful legislation.
Sincerely,
Michael P. Donnelly, Esq.
HSLDA Staff Attorney
Don't be fooled Rep Day's legislation is about money for taxeaters.
Cathy
Dear HSLDA Members and Friends:
New Hampshire homeschoolers will have to pull together to defeat Representative Judith Day's ill-conceived homeschool bills (H.B. 367 and 368). H.B. 367 is the most significant threat to New Hampshire homeschoolers since New Hampshire's homeschool law was passed in 1990.
If enacted, H.B. 367 would make New Hampshire's homeschool law one of the most restrictive in the country. Because of its scope, the bill would create new burdens on homeschoolers and participating agencies. HSLDA is coordinating with homeschool leaders in New Hampshire and we are asking for your help now to defeat this unnecessary and irrational legislation.
We are asking for your help.
ACTION REQUESTED
1) Please use the alphabetized list at http://www.hslda.org/elink.asp?id=6004 to contact the members of the House Education committee (or contact your own representative if he is on the committee). Please tell them in your own words to oppose this bill and to ask them their position on the bill. Report the legislator's position to NH@hslda.org. If your representative is not on the committee use the alphabetized list at the link.
Please read the bill (see the link on HSLDA's bill page if you haven't yet) and tell the committee in your own words (feel free to add additional arguments --there are certainly many):
"H.B. 367 and 368 should be voted ITL. A majority of last year's homeschool study commission voted not to change the law. RSA 193-A was drafted in 1990 with all stakeholders involved, but it appears that Representative Day has ignored the recommendations of the commission and consulted none of the stakeholders for input about her proposed legislation. This bill is misguided and unnecessary. Twenty years of experience show that the New Hampshire home school law works well--no changes are needed or wanted. A growing body of national research continues to show that homeschooling works and produces superior academic results. Research also shows that there is no positive correlation between increased regulation and performance.
This bill would impose unnecessary and harmful restrictions on homeschoolers in New Hampshire where there is no evidence to suggest any change is needed. For this and other reasons please vote ITL on H.B. 367 and 368."
2) Attend the February 10 meeting of the Home Education Advisory Council ("HEAC"). In attendance will be members of the House Education Committee and Members of the Department of Education. This will be a further opportunity to demonstrate opposition and concern about this unnecessary and radical change to New Hampshire's homeschool law. The meeting will be held in Room 12 at the Department of Education located in the State Office Complex in Concord at 101 Pleasant Street.
Here is what this Bill will do:
Instead of having four methods to comply with the annual assessment requirement, EVERY homeschooler EVERY year will have to submit to BOTH standardized testing AND a portfolio evaluation administered by a "credentialed educator".
Superintendent or non-public school principals would be required to review BOTH test results AND the portfolio evaluation to determine IF a home educated in the opinion of the superintendent or nonpublic school principle" has demonstrated satisfactory "academic growth" and MAY continue without probation.
Following a one year probation the superintendent or non public school principal would be able to terminate a home education program. The program would be able to appeal to the State Board of Education whose decision would be FINAL.
New Hampshire homeschoolers would have to pay for two evaluations instead of just one. Participating agencies would have to use their scarce and valuable time to comply with unnecessary bureaucratic filing requirements for no goo d reason.
Parents would not be allowed to choose the best method of assessment for their student.
Superintendents and principles would have to use their own subjective judgment to determine whether a student has demonstrated "academic growth".
The bill creates undefined terms (Such as "credentialed educator" and "academic growth") that would increase the chances of arbitrary decision making by superintendents or principals who would have to use their own subjective opinion to decide whether home education programs are put on probation or terminated.
BACKGROUND
New Hampshire's homeschool law was passed in 1990 after much deliberation among all stakeholders including homeschoolers, public education officials, and legislators. The next year, in 1991, the New Hampshire legislature amended the home school law to add a statement of purpose.
"The general court recognizes , in the enactment of RSA 193-A...that it is the primary right and obligation of a parent to choose the appropriate educational alternative for a child...The general court further recognizes that home education is more individualized instruction that instruction normally provided in the classroom
setting."
The law has been modified slightly since. Then in 2008 a legislative commission formed by SB 337 to examine to see if changes were needed in the law voted 4-2 with one abstention by the chairman, NOT to make changes to the home school law. In the face of this vote and a lack of substantive data indicating any problem to be solved at all (never mind that the current draft not only does not SOLVE a problem but
would create a host of other problems) Representative Day has proposed
radical changes to the law in the form of H.B. 367 and 368.
In the surrounding states of Vermont, Massachusetts and Maine, the last 20 years have seen great conflict between homeschoolers and the government over how much involvement by the government is appropriate. In Massachusetts there have been two Supreme Court cases and a number of lower level court cases--even today there is constant friction
between homeschoolers and local school officials. In Vermont there are dozens of hearings every year over usually minor issues of administration and paperwork at the State level. In 2003, Maine finally reduced the amount of regulation on homeschoolers and switched its law from approval to a "notice of intent" because of the problems.
In stark contrast, New Hampshire has enjoyed a healthy relationship between homeschoolers and the government because of the respect the law creates options to partner with a non public school and to choose from among four different options to comply with the annual assessment.
In the United States of America only a minority of the states require ANY assessment of home educated students. Of those that do not a single state requires both a standardized test AND a portfolio every year. Only Pennsylvania, one of the most restrictive in the country, requires both a portfolio and test and that only during grade 3, 5 and 8 a total of 3 years of the student's entire educational career.
H.B. 367 and 368 are unnecessary. The bills impose a needless burden on homeschoolers and shift authority to determine whether a child should be homeschooled from parents to others. Parents have a fundamental right under the United States Constitution to direct the upbringing and education of their children, and legislation like Representative Day's undermines this right by going against the presumption that parents act in their children's best interest.
Thank you for your work to support homeschool freedom in New Hampshire and for taking action to defeat this harmful legislation.
Sincerely,
Michael P. Donnelly, Esq.
HSLDA Staff Attorney
The Economy Is Going to Get Bad - No duh
At last years town hall meeting I too had painted a grim picture yet all school warrants passed. Maybe Croydon residents did not believe we were going to have four dollar gasoline last summer. Will the educrats fill town hall again and pass tax warrant increases this year? I am sure a certain someone will be by the phone to call people in if a warrant has any chance of failing.
Okay if housing prices went down why did our assessment go up? In reality our assessment should not have gone up as no home has sold in our development since we purchased our property in November of 2006.
Boy do I sound a little cranky today?
The following AP piece appeared on MSNBC.
Cathy
Economists paint grim picture for NH, region
By NORMA LOVE
updated 5:55 p.m. ET, Wed., Jan. 21, 2009
CONCORD, N.H. - One by one a parade of economists — apologetic for bearing bad tidings — painted a grim picture for New Hampshire and the region lasting into next year.
"I've got binoculars on trying to see the light at the end of this housing market tunnel," Russ Thibeault, president of Applied Economic Research in Laconia, told lawmakers Wednesday.
As he left, Thibeault summed up for the others: "Good luck. It's going to be a tough couple of years."
The House budget and tax writing committees had asked the economists to offer their outlooks and any solutions to the state's budget crisis. Dennis Delay of the New Hampshire Center for Public Policy Studies suggested the revenue shortfall — if nothing changes — could be $500 million over the life of the budget for the two years beginning July 1.
"I don't really know where revenues are going to be in 2010 and 2011," he began before offering his qualified assessment.
Ross Gittell, a professor at the University of New Hampshire and forecast manager for New England Economic Partnership, offered a bit of cheer. New Hampshire's jobless rate is expected to remain below the national rate even if the state rate hits 7.4 percent as projected.
"We're going to come out of this relatively strong," he said.
But Gittell and the others also cautioned that the recovery will be very slow.
Gittell estimated New Hampshire will lose 16,000 jobs due to the recession and though hiring will win out over layoffs by the end of next year, the state won't recover all the jobs it loses until 2012.
Gittell said the forecast is for New Hampshire's housing prices to drop 23 percent before a slow recovery.
Economists say the current recession is similar to one New Hampshire experienced in 1990. Thibeault said it took nine years for home prices to reach the prices they were in 1989 after they dropped in the 1990 recession and a similar, slow recovery is likely with this recession.
"It's a steep drop and it's going to be a gradual recovery," he said. "Hopefully we will bottom out in 2009."
Buyers aren't getting into the market despite low interest rates because they're afraid they'll be laid off, Thibeault said.
"It really is confidence in jobs, confidence in the economy that are the missing ingredients," he said.
He said he's hopeful federal incentives will help stabilize the market by the end of this year.
Shawn Warren of auditing firm KPMG said other states are doing everything from not paying bills to tapping rainy day savings accounts to deal with budget shortfalls from declining revenues.
Warren said short-term fixes may take care of immediate budget problems without resolving the underlying problems. For example, across-the-board cuts may appear attractive, but would exempt fixed spending that can't be cut — such as debt payments — and lead to deeper cuts in other areas of government without examining whether the right cuts were made.
Warren said the same applies to layoffs since government needs the right people in place to be effective.
"It is not a sustainable way to balance a budget in the long-run," he said.
He also cautioned against selling state assets to plug ongoing spending holes. Once the cash is gone, the state no longer has the asset and still has the spending problem, he said.
Copyright 2009 The Associated Press. All rights reserved.
Thought of the Day - I am not really a fashion maven I am all for comfort and I have not been a fan of Bush as of late, but you have to give him credit for respecting the office. A major Bush rule gets scrapped by Obama.
Wednesday, January 21, 2009
This was a shocker.
I found this on a Progressive Website of all places. It sure would be nice if Obama lead from the center and not the left. If nothing else I wish he had the Cahoonas to fight the educational establishment and fight for real education reform. Over the last four decades millions of children have been left behind and those devastated most are black and African American children. It would be great if he would step up to the plate for the children of America.
Cathy
EDU REFORMERS CELEBRATE INAUGURATION WITH FIGHTING WORDS.
Even as official Washington came together to celebrate Martin Luther King Day and Barack Obama's inauguration, fault lines were deepening in an intra-Democratic Party policy debate that the incoming president hopes to avoid -- but may not be able to.
On Monday at Cardozo High School in the Columbia Heights neighborhood of D.C., the Rev. Al Sharpton and New York City schools Chancellor Joel Klein hosted a bipartisan group of civil rights leaders and educators focused on addressing the achievement gap, in part through advancing policies opposed by teachers' unions, including test score based performance pay and private school voucher programs. Other speakers included incoming secretary of education Arne Duncan; Sen. John McCain; outgoing education secretary Margaret Spellings; Newark mayor Cory Booker; New York City mayor Mike Bloomberg; former
speaker of the House Newt Gingrich; D.C. mayor Adrian Fenty; and controversial D.C. schools chancellor Michelle Rhee.
In front of an audience of enthusiastic African American families and District community activists, speaker after speaker came to the podium and attacked the "status quo" in Democratic education policy. To the trained ear, these were thinly veiled fighting words addressed toward the leadership of urban teachers' unions. "As a Democrat, there are forces in our party that hold us back from doing the right thing for children," said Cory Booker, who has been targeted by Newark's teachers' union because of his support for a voucher program. "So I am no longer concerned with right or left. I just want to move forward."
But proving that fiery rhetoric about education reform might be more popular with parents than actual change in their children's classrooms, local schools leader Michelle Rhee -- the embodiment of this movement -- was tepidly received. When Rhee said, "There are a lot of people who benefit from our system being dysfunctional," a few voices raised in the crowd, booing. "That's not true!" a woman shouted. But Rhee continued, referring obliquely to her long-running contract dispute with the Washington Teachers' Union over merit pay and tenure. "People who keep their jobs. People who keep their contract."
--Dana Goldstein
Okay Talk About Stating the Obvious.
Seriously who voted for him and did not realize this was coming. He made it perfectly clear to Joe the Plumber.
Cathy
The Obama presidency: Here comes socialism
By Dick Morris
Posted: 01/20/09 06:12 PM [ET]
2009-2010 will rank with 1913-14, 1933-36, 1964-65 and 1981-82 as years that will permanently change our government, politics and lives. Just as the stars were aligned for Wilson, Roosevelt, Johnson and Reagan, they are aligned for Obama. Simply put, we enter his administration as free-enterprise, market-dominated, laissez-faire America. We will shortly become like Germany, France, the United Kingdom, or Sweden — a socialist democracy in which the government dominates the economy, determines private-sector priorities and offers a vastly expanded range of services to many more people at much higher taxes.
Obama will accomplish his agenda of “reform” under the rubric of “recovery.” Using the electoral mandate bestowed on a Democratic Congress by restless voters and the economic power given his administration by terrified Americans, he will change our country fundamentally in the name of lifting the depression. His stimulus packages won’t do much to shorten the downturn — although they will make it less painful — but they will do a great deal to change our nation.
In implementing his agenda, Barack Obama will emulate the example of Franklin D. Roosevelt. (Not the liberal mythology of the New Deal, but the actuality of what it accomplished.) When FDR took office, he was enormously successful in averting a total collapse of the banking system and the economy. But his New Deal measures only succeeded in lowering the unemployment rate from 23 percent in 1933, when he took office, to 13 percent in the summer of 1937. It never went lower. And his policies of over-regulation generated such business uncertainty that they triggered a second-term recession. Unemployment in 1938 rose to 17 percent and, in 1940, on the verge of the war-driven recovery, stood at 15 percent. (These data and the real story of Hoover’s and Roosevelt’s missteps, uncolored by ideology, are available in The Forgotten Man by Amity Shlaes, copyright 2007.)
But in the name of a largely unsuccessful effort to end the Depression, Roosevelt passed crucial and permanent reforms that have dominated our lives ever since, including Social Security, the creation of the Securities and Exchange Commission, unionization under the Wagner Act, the federal minimum wage and a host of other fundamental changes.
Obama’s record will be similar, although less wise and more destructive. He will begin by passing every program for which liberals have lusted for decades, from alternative-energy sources to school renovations, infrastructure repairs and technology enhancements. These are all good programs, but they normally would be stretched out for years. But freed of any constraint on the deficit — indeed, empowered by a mandate to raise it as high as possible — Obama will do them all rather quickly.
But it is not his spending that will transform our political system, it is his tax and welfare policies. In the name of short-term stimulus, he will give every American family (who makes less than $200,000) a welfare check of $1,000 euphemistically called a refundable tax credit. And he will so sharply cut taxes on the middle class and the poor that the number of Americans who pay no federal income tax will rise from the current one-third of all households to more than half. In the process, he will create a permanent electoral majority that does not pay taxes, but counts on ever-expanding welfare checks from the government. The dependency on the dole, formerly limited in pre-Clinton days to 14 million women and children on Aid to Families with Dependent Children, will now grow to a clear majority of the American population.
Will he raise taxes? Why should he? With a congressional mandate to run the deficit up as high as need be, there is no reason to raise taxes now and risk aggravating the depression. Instead, Obama will follow the opposite of the Reagan strategy. Reagan cut taxes and increased the deficit so that liberals could not increase spending. Obama will raise spending and increase the deficit so that conservatives cannot cut taxes. And, when the economy is restored, he will raise taxes with impunity, since the only people who will have to pay them would be rich Republicans.
In the name of stabilizing the banking system, Obama will nationalize it. Using Troubled Asset Relief Program funds to write generous checks to needy financial institutions, his administration will demand preferred stock in exchange. Preferred stock gets dividends before common stockholders do. With the massive debt these companies will owe to the government, they will only be able to afford dividends for preferred stockholders — the government, not private investors. So who will buy common stock? And the government will demand that its bills be paid before any profits that might materialize are reinvested in the financial institution, so how will the value of the stocks ever grow? Devoid of private investors, these institutions will fall ever more under government control.
Obama will begin the process by limiting executive compensation. Then he will urge restructuring and lowering of home mortgages in danger of default (as the feds have already done with Citibank).
Then will come guidance on the loans to make and government instructions on the types of enterprises to favor. God grant that some Blagojevich type is not in charge of the program, using his power to line his pockets. The United States will find itself with an economic system comparable to that of Japan, where the all-powerful bureaucracy at MITI (Ministry of International Trade and Industry) manages the economy, often making mistakes like giving mainframe computers priority over the development of laptops.
But it is the healthcare system that will experience the most dramatic and traumatic of changes. The current debate between erecting a Medicare-like governmental single payer or channeling coverage through private insurance misses the essential point. Without a lot more doctors, nurses, clinics, equipment and hospital beds, health resources will be strained to the breaking point. The people and equipment that now serve 250 million Americans and largely neglect all but the emergency needs of the other 50 million will now have to serve everyone. And, as government imposes ever more Draconian price controls and income limits on doctors, the supply of practitioners and equipment will decline as the demand escalates. Price increases will be out of the question, so the government will impose healthcare rationing, denying the older and sicker among us the care they need and even barring them from paying for it themselves. (Rationing based on income and price will be seen as immoral.)
And Obama will move to change permanently the partisan balance in America. He will move quickly to legalize all those who have been in America for five years, albeit illegally, and to smooth their paths to citizenship and voting. He will weaken border controls in an attempt to hike the Latino vote as high as he can in order to make red states like Texas into blue states like California. By the time he is finished, Latinos and African-Americans will cast a combined 30 percent of the vote. If they go by top-heavy margins for the Democrats, as they did in 2008, it will assure Democratic domination (until they move up the economic ladder and become good Republicans).
And he will enact the check-off card system for determining labor union representation, repealing the secret ballot in union elections. The result will be to raise the proportion of the labor force in unions up to the high teens from the current level of about 12 percent.
Finally, he will use the expansive powers of the Federal Communications Commission to impose “local” control and ownership of radio stations and to impose the “fairness doctrine” on talk radio. The effect will be to drive talk radio to the Internet, fundamentally change its economics, and retard its growth for years hence.
But none of these changes will cure the depression. It will end when the private sector works through the high debt levels that triggered the collapse in the first place. And, then, the large stimulus package deficits will likely lead to rapid inflation, probably necessitating a second recession to cure it.
So Obama’s name will be mud by 2012 and probably by 2010 as well. And the Republican Party will make big gains and regain much of its lost power.
But it will be too late to reverse the socialism of much of the economy, the demographic change in the electorate, the rationing of healthcare by the government, the surge of unionization and the crippling of talk radio.
Morris, a former adviser to Sen. Trent Lott (R-Miss.) and President Bill Clinton, is the author of Outrage. To get all of Dick Morris’s and Eileen McGann’s columns for free by email, go to www.dickmorris.com. To order a signed copy of their new best-selling book, Fleeced, go to dickmorris.com.
Cathy
The Obama presidency: Here comes socialism
By Dick Morris
Posted: 01/20/09 06:12 PM [ET]
2009-2010 will rank with 1913-14, 1933-36, 1964-65 and 1981-82 as years that will permanently change our government, politics and lives. Just as the stars were aligned for Wilson, Roosevelt, Johnson and Reagan, they are aligned for Obama. Simply put, we enter his administration as free-enterprise, market-dominated, laissez-faire America. We will shortly become like Germany, France, the United Kingdom, or Sweden — a socialist democracy in which the government dominates the economy, determines private-sector priorities and offers a vastly expanded range of services to many more people at much higher taxes.
Obama will accomplish his agenda of “reform” under the rubric of “recovery.” Using the electoral mandate bestowed on a Democratic Congress by restless voters and the economic power given his administration by terrified Americans, he will change our country fundamentally in the name of lifting the depression. His stimulus packages won’t do much to shorten the downturn — although they will make it less painful — but they will do a great deal to change our nation.
In implementing his agenda, Barack Obama will emulate the example of Franklin D. Roosevelt. (Not the liberal mythology of the New Deal, but the actuality of what it accomplished.) When FDR took office, he was enormously successful in averting a total collapse of the banking system and the economy. But his New Deal measures only succeeded in lowering the unemployment rate from 23 percent in 1933, when he took office, to 13 percent in the summer of 1937. It never went lower. And his policies of over-regulation generated such business uncertainty that they triggered a second-term recession. Unemployment in 1938 rose to 17 percent and, in 1940, on the verge of the war-driven recovery, stood at 15 percent. (These data and the real story of Hoover’s and Roosevelt’s missteps, uncolored by ideology, are available in The Forgotten Man by Amity Shlaes, copyright 2007.)
But in the name of a largely unsuccessful effort to end the Depression, Roosevelt passed crucial and permanent reforms that have dominated our lives ever since, including Social Security, the creation of the Securities and Exchange Commission, unionization under the Wagner Act, the federal minimum wage and a host of other fundamental changes.
Obama’s record will be similar, although less wise and more destructive. He will begin by passing every program for which liberals have lusted for decades, from alternative-energy sources to school renovations, infrastructure repairs and technology enhancements. These are all good programs, but they normally would be stretched out for years. But freed of any constraint on the deficit — indeed, empowered by a mandate to raise it as high as possible — Obama will do them all rather quickly.
But it is not his spending that will transform our political system, it is his tax and welfare policies. In the name of short-term stimulus, he will give every American family (who makes less than $200,000) a welfare check of $1,000 euphemistically called a refundable tax credit. And he will so sharply cut taxes on the middle class and the poor that the number of Americans who pay no federal income tax will rise from the current one-third of all households to more than half. In the process, he will create a permanent electoral majority that does not pay taxes, but counts on ever-expanding welfare checks from the government. The dependency on the dole, formerly limited in pre-Clinton days to 14 million women and children on Aid to Families with Dependent Children, will now grow to a clear majority of the American population.
Will he raise taxes? Why should he? With a congressional mandate to run the deficit up as high as need be, there is no reason to raise taxes now and risk aggravating the depression. Instead, Obama will follow the opposite of the Reagan strategy. Reagan cut taxes and increased the deficit so that liberals could not increase spending. Obama will raise spending and increase the deficit so that conservatives cannot cut taxes. And, when the economy is restored, he will raise taxes with impunity, since the only people who will have to pay them would be rich Republicans.
In the name of stabilizing the banking system, Obama will nationalize it. Using Troubled Asset Relief Program funds to write generous checks to needy financial institutions, his administration will demand preferred stock in exchange. Preferred stock gets dividends before common stockholders do. With the massive debt these companies will owe to the government, they will only be able to afford dividends for preferred stockholders — the government, not private investors. So who will buy common stock? And the government will demand that its bills be paid before any profits that might materialize are reinvested in the financial institution, so how will the value of the stocks ever grow? Devoid of private investors, these institutions will fall ever more under government control.
Obama will begin the process by limiting executive compensation. Then he will urge restructuring and lowering of home mortgages in danger of default (as the feds have already done with Citibank).
Then will come guidance on the loans to make and government instructions on the types of enterprises to favor. God grant that some Blagojevich type is not in charge of the program, using his power to line his pockets. The United States will find itself with an economic system comparable to that of Japan, where the all-powerful bureaucracy at MITI (Ministry of International Trade and Industry) manages the economy, often making mistakes like giving mainframe computers priority over the development of laptops.
But it is the healthcare system that will experience the most dramatic and traumatic of changes. The current debate between erecting a Medicare-like governmental single payer or channeling coverage through private insurance misses the essential point. Without a lot more doctors, nurses, clinics, equipment and hospital beds, health resources will be strained to the breaking point. The people and equipment that now serve 250 million Americans and largely neglect all but the emergency needs of the other 50 million will now have to serve everyone. And, as government imposes ever more Draconian price controls and income limits on doctors, the supply of practitioners and equipment will decline as the demand escalates. Price increases will be out of the question, so the government will impose healthcare rationing, denying the older and sicker among us the care they need and even barring them from paying for it themselves. (Rationing based on income and price will be seen as immoral.)
And Obama will move to change permanently the partisan balance in America. He will move quickly to legalize all those who have been in America for five years, albeit illegally, and to smooth their paths to citizenship and voting. He will weaken border controls in an attempt to hike the Latino vote as high as he can in order to make red states like Texas into blue states like California. By the time he is finished, Latinos and African-Americans will cast a combined 30 percent of the vote. If they go by top-heavy margins for the Democrats, as they did in 2008, it will assure Democratic domination (until they move up the economic ladder and become good Republicans).
And he will enact the check-off card system for determining labor union representation, repealing the secret ballot in union elections. The result will be to raise the proportion of the labor force in unions up to the high teens from the current level of about 12 percent.
Finally, he will use the expansive powers of the Federal Communications Commission to impose “local” control and ownership of radio stations and to impose the “fairness doctrine” on talk radio. The effect will be to drive talk radio to the Internet, fundamentally change its economics, and retard its growth for years hence.
But none of these changes will cure the depression. It will end when the private sector works through the high debt levels that triggered the collapse in the first place. And, then, the large stimulus package deficits will likely lead to rapid inflation, probably necessitating a second recession to cure it.
So Obama’s name will be mud by 2012 and probably by 2010 as well. And the Republican Party will make big gains and regain much of its lost power.
But it will be too late to reverse the socialism of much of the economy, the demographic change in the electorate, the rationing of healthcare by the government, the surge of unionization and the crippling of talk radio.
Morris, a former adviser to Sen. Trent Lott (R-Miss.) and President Bill Clinton, is the author of Outrage. To get all of Dick Morris’s and Eileen McGann’s columns for free by email, go to www.dickmorris.com. To order a signed copy of their new best-selling book, Fleeced, go to dickmorris.com.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)