Government in education

My thoughts after reading this:

http://www.edchoice.org/who-we-are/our-founders/the-friedmans-on-school-choice/article/the-role-of-government-in-education/

The first section talks a lot about values. That seems to be more important than STEM or other curriculum, which is not mentioned. They argue that schools are used to create a neighborhood effect and are required for a stable society. "Carried to its extreme, this argument would call not only for governmentally administered schools, but also for compulsory attendance at such schools." Question is about values, then do we trust government to dictate values? It is a popular (and false) notion that we can't legislate morality, yet we are to allow the government to force some unifying values on our children? The other consider is money. Of course, it always come back to who pays. Because whoever pays, gets to decide. That rule works for lunch decisions, as well.

Vocational training is important but the government doesn't need to be involved. There is no government interest here. I believe they have it exactly wrong. "..there is clearly here an imperfection of the market that has led to underinvestment in human capital and that justifies government intervention..." Wrong, wrong. Markets are the collective decisions of millions of people. That power is usually right. Government interference to manipulate people is what causes the problem in the market. People can handle this without being told what to do. Mike Rowe has this area covered perfectly. Listen to him. http://profoundlydisconnected.com/

The government, like a person, acts in its own self interest and expects some results from the massive amounts of money given to education. That is why there is no much money wasted on administration. Someone has to be accountable and make sure all the requirements are met. This is the best proposal I see in this document: "Government, preferably local governmental units, would give each child, through his parents, a specified sum to be used solely in paying for his general education; the parents would be free to spend this sum at a school of their own choice..." Ok, good. freedom reigns. My question is, Why does the government take the money from parents in the first place? Why are we taxed and then given the money back to educate our children?

More marxism in education reform

My rebuttal to an article written by Bill Raden. http://www.psmag.com/…/what-if-education-reform-got-it-all-…

I will try to answer the points in the order of the article. 

War has never been declared on America’s public school, but it is about to be over Common Core. The left has assaulted and taken over public education, any push back is then considered a declaration of war. Stupid premise which I don’t accept. 

The author appears to be a marxist, tying everything back to money. The education argument fails because the author is really only talking about money. $$$

Reformation is declared to be a failure. Truthfully, it hasn’t been tried. Vouchers and charter schools are a type of reformation. I see little else but mandated curriculum. 

Income inequality is just another word for socialism. People don’t like to be called socialists so they talk about income inequality. I don’t care about income inequality. It is a good thing. It is preferred to have those with more that have an opportunity to help those in need. It is also true that there is always some one richer than me. Seeing as I follow the commandment not to covet then it is no concern of mine. Another important point is that the money equates to their personal property to which they have an established right. 

The author says that teachers are assumed to take the blame for the problems. I don’t think that is ever the case. Everyone blames the administrators and the boards and yet they are never held accountable. The problems with government education have nothing to do with dedicated teachers. I disagree with this assumption of blaming teachers and the conclusions based on it. 

Test scores are not the problem. If the test scores bother you then stop testing. The numbers have little value. Just teach the kids what they need to know. Only government statisticians need those numbers and they shouldn’t be involved in education. I believe in a wall of separation between government and schools. 

Raden talks about resources $$$ but this is the system that the education establishment has set up. They made the stupid rules, I don’t see why they are upset that they don’t work. Yes, privileged (marxist word) have more resources. So what? 

One point he gets right is that education can lead to better pay. $$$ Immigrants worked in factories so their children could go to college and be doctors. Unfortunately, it is easy to undo. The children of doctors smoked pot and decided to waste their parents money. The problem isn’t education or finances but morals and virtue. And those subjects are not allowed in government school because it looks too much like religion. 

Primary education is supposed to be set up to improve “life outcomes” for children but all the important factors are left out, like intact families, religious communities and consequences. 

Author complains about California school results but I would be curious to know his position on English language requirements and the ability of schools to review legal status of students. Our current system makes it impossible because they are forced to accept Spanish speaking illegal aliens. The system makes inquiring about citizenship a criminal activity and then complains they need more money. That doesn’t lead me to believe they are concerned about learning. As a side note, it is funny to hear California get beat up for not spending enough on education. $$$ They spend a vast amount. every state seems to be ranked the lowest in spending somehow. 

Ellie Herman complains that there is not enough money for poor schools and that they have no libraries and enrichment activities as a form of apartheid. She must not know what apartheid really is. 

There is an admission from the study that finds “that parenting and home enrichment matter as much as, if not more than, what happens in the K-12 classroom, especially in forming a child’s cognitive ability and personality in the years before children start school.” Then why do you need money? Just go away and leave the children with their parents. What matters most is the home but let’s get those kids in daycare and all day kindergarten as soon as possible. And of course we need more money. 

If you claim that schools are doing their job but society isn’t then solution is not to fix schools but to fix society. That can’t (and shouldn't) be done by government because it would necessarily infringe on freedom, property and virtue. These are the things that government is organized to protect. We need a religious revival, not another budget over ride.

In the last paragraph the author pretty much says it all. The problem is not enough socialism. If only we take over everything, then it will all work great. I will just add a few words to make it clear. “I think fundamentally the problem is that other developed nations have social systems that support families and children in a variety of ways: with [government] childcare, with good [government] health care, with [government] recreational opportunities—with lots of things that support healthy development.” My guess is that they are interested in the development of more productive drones.

Suitable education

I read an opinion by the Arizona School Administrators that was shared on AZcentral.com.  They included this quote from Thomas Jefferson.  "An enlightened citizenry is indispensable for the proper functioning of a republic. Self-government is not possible unless the citizens are educated sufficiently to enable them to exercise oversight. It is therefore imperative that the nation see to it that a suitable education be provided for all its citizens."

Here is my response:

If Thomas Jefferson were leading the country today, he would have many concerns.  If we put aside the obvious disasters (which is everything the progressives are doing) he might note that there are problems with education.  I won’t pretend to guess his thoughts or actions but I will agree that he was in favor of education for all.  President Jefferson might even “vocalize a call to action for the future of American public education”, whatever that means.  

Of course, how and what to teach is debatable.  I have no problem with public education.  I have a problem with government schools.  I don’t like what they teach or how they do it.  That is the cause of the blatant lack of support for public education. If you want to invoke the founding fathers, then you should ask yourself what someone like Jefferson would view as the goal of education.  What does it mean to have an “enlightened citizenry”? One that is indispensable for the proper functioning of a republic?  It does not mean students that fill in bubbles on a standardized test.  It does not mean students who know how to recycle.  The government schools are a waste of time (and a ton of money) because they do not teach what they should.  

What program does your school have that is teaching everyone, not just students, to be self-governing?  The goal of government schools is to create obedient, left-leaning citizens. Workers for the machine of government.  I am interested in a true liberal education, that frees the mind and harnesses the passions.  Instead, schools these days are all about self - expression.  

Thomas Jefferson didn’t go to a public school.  He was taught the wisdom of the ancients.  He didn’t invent any of the ideas that he wrote in the Declaration of Independence.  These were principles that were taught to him by his tutors.  He read and studied and then expressed self evident truths to the world.  However, these are not principles that children study today.  They watch Al Gore movies and cut French words out of magazines.  They sit stoned in class, and the teachers don’t care.  Keeps them quiet.  

How about we teach our children what Thomas Jefferson learned?  Because that is the public education that our children should receive. We need to prepare them to be leaders in our republic.  They can learn to answer questions like: What is justice?  What is the highest good?  Those are questions they should be asking.  Instead we get Common Core.  America’s greatness did not come from beating other nations in math scores, it is based on better principles.  Most of these principles cannot be taught anymore because it would resemble religion, which is now a forbidden subject in school.  The Bible was a part of Thomas Jefferson’s education.

Meanwhile, this silly group called the Arizona School Administrators claims that shared tax money will “undermine the fabric of our democracy”.  Isn’t that a little hysterical?  These bureaucratic types will never have enough money.  There is a current reform proposal in Arizona to allow for voucher-like payments of tax money to schools of the parent’s choice, and that would include private schools.  Perhaps even schools run by a church, heaven forbid.  School Administrators are freaking out.  As if someone is trying to get a piece of their pie.  They own it, right?  They believe that all school money rightfully belongs to government educators.  I wish they could learn how to budget that pie and then maybe stop the constant requests for donations of paper for the local high school.  Money for public education comes from taxes.  From We the People.  It is my money and should be spent how I see fit.  There should be no rule that tax money never be spent on anything but government schools.  We need school choice and less money taken from us to be wasted on poor education.   

This school administrators group wants to use Thomas Jefferson’s quote as a call for support of public education.  I don’t think they understand what he was asking for.  Providing a suitable education does not mean more control, more money and a government monopoly.  They don’t get it. Read the Jefferson quote again.  I think it convicts them as failures to accomplish what he was asking for.  

Oil Conspiracy - price fixing revealed

Powerful groups are working against America. Powermongers and lobbyists have conspired to push up oil prices. They have schemed to prevent new oil from coming to market. They have rallied around oil industry chokepoints and hindered all attempts to build new refineries. They have isolated oil rich areas, keeping them hidden and undeveloped in order to increase power of foreign oil.

But you can fight back against this dark mob.

Vote them out of Congress and elect people who understand economics

FICA Tax

I am sure you have looked at your paycheck and seen a large sum of money taken out as FICA tax. Ever wonder where it goes? Into the lockbox? Ever try to get it back on tax return? I haven't complained about socialism for a few posts so here it is. Social Security and Medicare are a scam. If this money was invested by the owners then they could all retire on their own. Instead it is stolen and then wasted.

-Michael


Comments and article sent to me from a friend.......

Missing from all of this is the concept that all Ponzi schemes mathematically fail given enough time. That is why they are illegal to set up and execute, unless of course you're the government. Then it's called a "program".
The term "trust fund" is also a misnomer, as it implies that there is money sitting in the fund with your name on it. Not until the very last sentence does the real picture begin to emerge - the "trust fund" is nothing more than a stack of government IOU's.
Anyone ever see the movie "Dumb and Dumber"? They found a suitcase full of cash, spent it and filled the suitcase with slips of paper that said IOU $XXX? The crook came back to get his money, and when he had them at gunpoint, the idiots explained, "All the money is there. These slips of paper are as good as money. See, this slip of paper is worth $250,000. You might want to hang onto that one."
It was funny because no one in their right mind would actually believe those slips of paper were money, even though the two idiots in the movie thought they were accounting for it all. But the government can make good in its IOU's. The problem is that when it does so, it hurts the economy either by inflating existing currency, or stealing wealth from the private sector, or both.
To raise the actual cash, the government must:
(1) Print more money - which is just another tax that depreciates the value of already existing dollars, but don't expect the report to say that.
(2) Raise taxes - self explanatory
(3) Cut spending - no necessarily "in other programs". Likely they'll legislate that payouts are less but are distributed over a longer time, though they can't also legislate that you live X years longer.
Most likely a combination of all three will be done. The Feds will also print more money since this is a proven method of bamboozling more money from the public without their knowledge. They will also raise taxes, and likely will cut spending from the program itself as described above.
And oh yeah - the Supreme Court has already ruled that you have no actual claim to this money. Kind of redefines the concept of a "trust fund". The money isn't really there, and it isn't really yours anyway. Ladies and gentlemen, this is "our social safety net".


Social Security, Medicare Trust Funds Sink

By MARTIN CRUTSINGER, AP Economics Writer 57 minutes ago
The trust fund for Social Security will be depleted in 2040, a year before expected, and Medicare will exhaust its trust fund reserves just 12 years from now, trustees for the programs said Monday.
Their annual report showed deterioration in the financial condition of both of the government's two largest benefit programs.
A year ago, the depletion of the Social Security trust fund had been projected to occur in 2041 and the Medicare hospital insurance fund in 2020.
The trustees, who include the head of the Social Security Administration and three members of President Bush's Cabinet, painted a sober assessment of the health of the two programs in advance of the looming retirements of 78 million baby boomers.
"We do not believe the currently projected long-run growth rates of Social Security or Medicare are sustainable under current financing arrangements," the trustees said in this year's report.
Bush's efforts last year to overhaul Social Security went nowhere in Congress. Even members of his own party refused to support the benefit cuts that would have accompanied the establishment of private accounts for younger workers.
Treasury Secretary John Snow, who is the chairman of the trustees' panel, told a news conference that the country faced a "looming fiscal crisis as the baby boom generation moves into retirement." He said the administration stood ready to work with Congress to come up with a solution.
"The serious concerns raised by the trustees' reports demand the attention of America's policymakers and the public," Snow said.
Bush, facing bleak prospects for winning approval for any changes in an election year, called in his State of the Union address for creation of a bipartisan panel to study the issue and come up with recommendations, just the latest in a number of commissions that have examined the programs.
While the depletion of the reserves built up over past years is projected to occur in just 12 years for Medicare and 34 years for Social Security, both programs will face financing issues much sooner at the point that the amount paid out each year exceeds the amount the government collects to fund them.
For Medicare, that occurred for the year of 2004. However, the program is projected to be in the black again before crossing over to paying out more than it takes in again.
For Social Security, the point at which the program will pay out more in benefits than it takes in will occur in 2017, the trustees projected, the same as in last year's report.
The trust funds contain the equivalent of government IOUs. To raise the actual cash to meet obligations, the government must either borrow more money from the public by issuing marketable Treasury securities, raise taxes or cut spending in other programs.
___
Social Security: http://www.socialsecurity.gov
Medicare: http://www.cms.hhs.gov

Gas Price Investigation

Terry Goddard wants to begin investigation into high prices and gouging. Silly man, there is no suh thing as gouging. Price controls mean shortages. If something is cheap than people buy a lot. The cause of shortages is bad legislation. Poor government has created the problem. More ill government will not solve it.

Great column on opinionjournal.com about prices and the messed up republicans
http://www.opinionjournal.com/editorial/feature.html?id=110008286

We need to reduce gas taxes, open more drilling and build more refineries and eliminate the EPA to get rid of high prices.

Religious schools

From comments: The only alternatives are either private or home schooling. Private schools can be cost prohibitive for many families or depending on the community, the majority of the private schools can be of a different faith, which can be uncomfortable for some people. I don't know that I would send my kids to a Catholic or Baptist (or whatever) private school. I don't like home schooling either. So what is a parent like me to do?


See the problem? If someone isn't Catholic then they are not comfortable with idea of sending their kids to a catholic private school. Why then is it okay to send them to school where they are told there is no God? Maybe the obvious contrast is easier to correct and teach than the confusion of slightly different doctrines among churches. My children are young and mostly focused on basics like grammar and multiplication but even now there are getting reading assignments to test their comprehension that include political/moral statements. One involved a thief running away from the scene. Multiple choice answers led reader to conclude that you shouldn’t get involved and let the police handle it. That’s garbage. Another involved global warming and how people are destroying the world. My kids don’t believe that because I have taught them better. Another incident with a cousin: teacher contradicted student who stated belief that Adam and Eve were first people on the earth. It starts early. It can be corrected but why do we allow it to happen? They should be reinforcing Sunday school not opposing it. Education cannot be separated from religious teaching. All the real lessons are the moral ones. Why shouldn’t they cheat on tests? Why shouldn’t the biggest kid be first in line? Why sit quietly and respect the teacher?

What don’t you like about home schooling? Private schools don’t have to be expensive. If people could get their tax money back that goes to schools they could use that to pay tuition.

Government schools not religiously neutral

Should government education continue? Is government education beneficial? Is government education allowed according to powers granted to government in Constitution?
Education is good. Everyone agrees on that. Quote from Washington:

"Promote then as an object of primary importance, Institutions
for the general diffusion of knowledge. In proportion as the
structure of a government gives force to public opinion, it is
essential that public opinion should be enlightened. "

-- George Washington (Farewell Address, 19 September 1796)

I know some people think these organizations are crazy but I agree with stance taken by ExodusMandate.org on education. They say Christians have mandate to leave government schools. They refute argument that children need to be an example to the world. That is more the job of the adults.

Be a light? Salt of the earth? Yes, but only in cases where the children are not in danger. The Christians sending their children to government school are assuming the education they receive is religiously neutral. Something along the lines of the Freedom of Religion or "Let all worship according to the dictates of their own conscience". Government school is not religiously neutral. It is godless, humanistic, pagan by design. Most children not yet ready for that environment and that challenge. Would the same parents send their children to Jehovah’s Witness or Unitarian Sunday school for their religious teaching? That would be spiritually forbidden and morally irresponsible.