Gutting Public Schools, One Bad Bill at a Time

Do the Rich Need the Rest of America? (4.00 / 1)

READ THIS AND ASK YOURSELF WHY THE GOP HATES PUBLIC EDUCATION

http://blogs.wsj.com/wealth/20...

---

by: tchair @ Mon Nov 14, 2011 at 13:20:42 PM UTC

No they do not, not when they can buy from the Chinese (0.00 / 0)

Reagan began the dumbing down, remember Peacekeeper Missiles ? He tried to close or destroy the Dept. of Education,he cut taxes for the rich, he tried to get rid of "Welfare Queens". He also started the rewrite of Trade Laws, followed by Bush the elder, then his changes were signed into law by Bill Clinton. Killing collective bargaining is the latest, now that labor's muscle has been eroded by lower foreign wages. Who needs dumb fat round eyes ? You are under educated and over fed. Why pay for public education anyway. We can get cheap goods elsewhere and don't a working class anymore. (note to close readers: this might be sarcastic so think twice before reading to candidates for use in their attacks on each other)

note to close readers: this might be sarcastic so think twice before reading to candidates for use in their attacks on each other

---

by: JonnyBBad @ Mon Nov 14, 2011 at 14:01:22 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

The Concord Monitor URL in the post doesn't work (0.00 / 0)

cut off everything from the "?" on.
http://www.concordmonitor.com/article/292014/gutting-public-schools-one-bad-bill-at-time

---

by: The Money Magician @ Mon Nov 14, 2011 at 14:25:17 PM UTC

And watch the PBS NewsHour segment on vouchers in Indiana (4.00 / 1)

http://www.pbs.org/newshour/bb...

You see in IN the inevitable course of the debate in NH.  And you see the bland conviction of those selling "choice" - "what can be wrong with giving poor kids a choice of schools?"

It's going to play very well in NH.  

Defend New Hampshire Public Education by going to http://www.dnhpe.org

---

by: Bill Duncan @ Mon Nov 14, 2011 at 15:29:57 PM UTC

Just watched it (0.00 / 0)

and found it despicable.  Essentially "school choice" (another GOP Orwellian phrase) in IN is funneling taxpayer money to religious and military schools.  Sure it's every Republican's wet dream, but it's going to ruin this country's children and our education system.

---

by: Timmy J @ Mon Nov 14, 2011 at 17:46:14 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

Also, for more reporting, see (0.00 / 0)

this in the Portsmouth Herald ( http://www.seacoastonline.com/... ) to see how it will begin to take shape in NH.

Defend New Hampshire Public Education by going to http://www.dnhpe.org

---

by: Bill Duncan @ Mon Nov 14, 2011 at 15:56:32 PM UTC

This is also in the Nashua Telegraph (0.00 / 0)

Nice to read this in the Sunday edition!  

---

by: DianeR @ Mon Nov 14, 2011 at 16:32:26 PM UTC

Thomas Jefferson was *Against* Compulsory Education (1.00 / 2)

The blueprint for our current schooling system can be traced to Horace Mann and the Prussian model, designed to churn out good worker bees for big business.  It is not the model of Jefferson and Adams.

"It is better to tolerate that rare instance of a parent's refusing to let his child be educated, than to shock the common feelings by a forcible transportation and education of the infant against the will of his father." - Thomas Jefferson

---

by: Graham @ Mon Nov 14, 2011 at 18:13:25 PM UTC

Thomas Jefferson was also the owner of slaves. (0.00 / 0)

Parents continue to own their children. It is the cornerstone of an ownership society in which the one and only commandment is obedience.
It is because public schools are failing to produce obedient citizens than they are perceived as not worth while.  And, if the product is not obedient, at least let there be profit on the bottom line.
Elementary education seems prime territory for exploitation by the practitioners of human husbandry.

---

by: hannah @ Mon Nov 14, 2011 at 18:33:14 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

Great man (3.67 / 3)

But not right about everything. But, in response to your quote, which fundamentalist Republicans (yes, it is a religion) love to quote, jefferson also said,  "Every government degenerates when trusted to the rulers of the people alone. The people themselves, therefore, are its only safe depositories. And to render them safe, their minds must be improved to a certain degree."

Also:  "I think by far the most important bill in our whole code is that for the diffusion of knowledge among the people. No other sure foundation can be devised, for the preservation of freedom and happiness...Preach, my dear Sir, a crusade against ignorance; establish & improve the law for educating the common people. Let our countrymen know that the people alone can protect us against these evils [tyranny, oppression, etc.] and that the tax which will be paid for this purpose is not more than the thousandth part of what will be paid to kings, priests and nobles who will rise up among us if we leave the people in ignorance."

And: "Above all things I hope the education of the common people will be attended to ; convinced that on their good sense we may rely with the most security for the preservation of a due degree of liberty."

Last but not least:   "Now let us see what the present primary schools cost us, on the supposition that all the children of 10. 11. & 12. years old are, as they ought to be, at school: and, if they are not, so much the work is the system; for they will be untaught, and their ignorance & vices will, in future life cost us much dearer in their consequences, than it would have done, in their correction, by a good education."

So, please do not tell us what Thomas Jefferson was thinking on education when there are so many other writings by him about the importance of public education, the need to educate, the necessity for an educated populace in a free society, etc.

Interesting aside: the last time I saw that isolated Jefferson quote of yours, it was in Greg Sorg's inane report on federal grant programs.      



"When you get to the end of your rope, tie a knot and hang on."  Franklin D. Roosevelt    

---

by: Kathy Sullivan 2 @ Mon Nov 14, 2011 at 19:53:57 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

Interpretation of Jefferson's Quotes (1.00 / 2)

"Every government degenerates when trusted to the rulers of the people alone. The people themselves, therefore, are its only safe depositories. And to render them safe, their minds must be improved to a certain degree."

Absolutely.  But isn't entrusting 13 years of education of all students to government-run schools giving way too much power to the "rulers of the people?"  In other words, if you don't trust the rulers of the people 100%, why would you entrust 100% of the educational system to them?

If I was a tyrant and wanted to establish myself for generations to come, wouldn't the most prudent course of action be to "educate" the young people that I am not a tyrant?

"Now let us see what the present primary schools cost us, on the supposition that all the children of 10. 11. & 12. years old are, as they ought to be, at school"

So Jefferson was advocating that the government should provide education for children ages 10-12.  And, if you dig further, scholarships to the top students for continuing their education beyond that.  Not compulsory schooling for all children from 5-18.

Less government control over education (especially at Federal and State levels) does not require a reduction in the amount or quality of education overall.  In fact, the opposite is quite likely.

---

by: Graham @ Mon Nov 14, 2011 at 20:34:44 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

I knew it (4.00 / 3)

"Government run schools" is a dead give away. You are a radical political fundamentalist, concocting an interpretation of the original intent of the founders to support your fundamentalist ideology while ignoring the subsequent 200 plus years of development of political thought and ideas in the United States.  

I bet you are big into "state soverignty", too.  



"When you get to the end of your rope, tie a knot and hang on."  Franklin D. Roosevelt    

---

by: Kathy Sullivan 2 @ Mon Nov 14, 2011 at 20:50:10 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

Are schools not run by the government? (0.00 / 0)

How would you describe public schools?

I seriously doubt Jefferson was predicting the precise trajectory of "200 years of development of political thought" when he wrote those statements you quoted.  It would be one thing to say that those statements no longer apply due to societal and technological changes.  Interpreting them with the assumptions of a fully realized modern society seems anachronistic.

To the question that you avoided:  It seems safe to assume that you do not trust the Republicans currently in charge at the State House with the education of your children (I don't either).  So why do you oppose the attempts to reduce the influence that the Republicans (at the state level) have on the education of your children?

Also, labeling people as fundamentalist upon the slightest sign of disagreement is a most unpleasant way to engage in conversation.  I have a much better understanding of my  own political ideology than you do based on the contents of two blog comments.

---

by: Graham @ Mon Nov 14, 2011 at 22:44:22 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

the government is not a monolith (4.00 / 2)

The government is not some monolithic entity which is totally isolated from the rest of society.  It in fact consists of tens of thousands of different institutions, most of them very small and very local.

Lumping together your local school district and the U.S. Department of Education as "the government" makes about as much sense as lumping together your local gas station and Exxon-Mobil as "the private sector."

---

by: TimothyHorrigan @ Mon Nov 14, 2011 at 23:12:48 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

Wrong (4.00 / 1)

I actually have not started calling tea staters radical political fundamentalists until today.  It took me this long to figure out that you all really are exactly that, all the symptoms are there: the deification of the state as a super soverign entity, the supposed worship at the altar of the founders, and the insistence that your interpretation of the intent of the founders is right and anyone who disagrees with yoiu is betraying the original intent.

In any event, public schools are run by local school districts, with school boards elected by the local voters. They are called public because they are supported by the public through tax dollars. They are critical to the safety,security and future prosperity of the nation.




"When you get to the end of your rope, tie a knot and hang on."  Franklin D. Roosevelt    

---

by: Kathy Sullivan 2 @ Mon Nov 14, 2011 at 23:25:24 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

Public schools are increasingly not local (1.00 / 1)

Local school boards are forced to follow mandates handed down by the state and federal government.

This takes away from the local control of schools and removes the ability of local school boards to operate as they see fit.  Every regulation of the Federal Department of Education is an instance of 49 other states telling local NH schools how to run their business.  Remember No Child Left Behind?  The same is true (albeit to a lesser degree) of the state department of education.

And local school boards are elected and have the power to tax, so they are a government, hence the term "government-run schools".  Your apparent decision to interpret that phrasing as a negative connotation is your choice.

Again, please don't assume to know my politics.  I most assuredly do not deify the State in any way shape or form.  Nor do I worship the founders (or anybody, for that matter).

---

by: Graham @ Mon Nov 14, 2011 at 23:55:56 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

so what? (0.00 / 0)

Thomas Jefferson's been dead a long time. Isn't it bad enough that 2 dead Republicans run our state?  

---

by: susanthe @ Mon Nov 14, 2011 at 22:41:20 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

The article implies that our public education system was designed by Jefferson and Adams (0.00 / 0)

It was not.  Those two advocated a system of public education, but one very different from the one we have.

---

by: Graham @ Mon Nov 14, 2011 at 22:49:55 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

of course you aren't going to mention Adams (4.00 / 2)

who was a big proponent of public education.

Keep your kids home and teach them all the Randian nonsense you want. The rest of us prefer to live in an actual society.  

---

by: susanthe @ Mon Nov 14, 2011 at 23:40:35 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

Again (0.00 / 0)

It is an enormous leap to assume that Adams' support of public education in the early 1800s means he would support an evolution of the Horace Mann / Prussian model of public education we use today (and introduced after Adams' death).

The use of Adams or Jefferson in support of an education model that didn't exist until after their deaths is very presumptuous.

---

by: Graham @ Tue Nov 15, 2011 at 00:17:50 AM UTC

[ Parent ]

We don't need to parse the inner workings of Adams' mind, Graham (4.00 / 2)

Our public education system has proven to be the foundation of our nation's greatness and role in the world.  So the founders got something right.  

The idea that it's a legitimate proposition  to undermine that foundation and replace it with religious and home schools is beyond the pale.

Defend New Hampshire Public Education by going to http://www.dnhpe.org

---

by: Bill Duncan @ Tue Nov 15, 2011 at 02:18:02 AM UTC

[ Parent ]

Which founders are you referring to? (0.00 / 0)

So the founders got something right.

Are you referring to the founders of the country?  Or the founders of the American public education system?  They are not the same.

No state even had a board of education until 1837 (MA), and before that, any public schools were local and uncoordinated.

---

by: Graham @ Tue Nov 15, 2011 at 02:36:31 AM UTC

[ Parent ]

To which time the Republican party would now return, right? (0.00 / 0)

Defend New Hampshire Public Education by going to http://www.dnhpe.org

---

by: Bill Duncan @ Tue Nov 15, 2011 at 03:14:45 AM UTC

[ Parent ]

How would I know? (0.00 / 0)

I'm not a Republican.  I have no idea what the Republican party wants to do.  And I really couldn't care less about party labels or any other labels.

I fail to see the connection to Adams and Jefferson, who had nothing to do with the public education system as it exists today, and were both dead 11 years before there was any state-level education bureaucracy to speak of.

If you want to learn more, I urge you to research the origins of American public schools and how they were modeled after the Prussian school system, which itself was designed to produce obedient industrial workers who would not question the authority of the king.

I would personally prefer a far less rigid education system, one that focuses on creativity, individuality, and critical thinking.

---

by: Graham @ Tue Nov 15, 2011 at 04:14:32 AM UTC

[ Parent ]

On which existing model would you base your less-rigid system? n/t (0.00 / 0)

In the immediate aftermath of Since the start of the financial crisis, the Fed/Treasury lent, spent, or guaranteed $28 $29 trillion to save the banking system.

---

by: StraffordDem @ Tue Nov 15, 2011 at 14:12:57 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

Why must it be based on an existing model? (0.00 / 0)

---

by: Graham @ Tue Nov 15, 2011 at 23:57:23 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

Nothing works? Anywhere in the world? (0.00 / 0)

Do you support a specific plan?  Are you a proponent of a certain type of education?  This is all red herring non-sense without an alternative plan that can be assessed and compared to existing models.  To date, what little research is available indicates slightly lower outcomes across the board for non TPS.  

So far, all I can get from your posts is an opinion that less government in our schools would likely improve outcomes.  This is simply not true according to Stanford's CREDO Institute (supporters of charter schools, btw).  So, lay it out there.  How do we answer the Solomonic question, "Is our children learning?" and design a better method?  Enlighten us with your expertise.  
     

In the immediate aftermath of Since the start of the financial crisis, the Fed/Treasury lent, spent, or guaranteed $28 $29 trillion to save the banking system.

---

by: StraffordDem @ Wed Nov 16, 2011 at 03:12:42 AM UTC

[ Parent ]

that's pretty funny (0.00 / 0)

You seem to feel quite comfortable in making the "leap" that he would be opposed to public education.
In other words - it's not presumptuous when you randsniffers do it.  

---

by: susanthe @ Tue Nov 15, 2011 at 18:36:14 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

When did I say either would be opposed to public education? (0.00 / 0)

Bill Duncan was the one that dropped their names in the op-ed, not me.

There's more than one way to skin a cat.  And the method we're using now didn't exist during Adams' or Jefferson's lifetime.  To use their names in support of maintaining that system at the expense of any other methods is presumptuous.

---

by: Graham @ Tue Nov 15, 2011 at 23:44:44 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

pearl clutching (0.00 / 0)

"It is an enormous leap to assume that Adams' support of public education in the early 1800s means he would support an evolution of the Horace Mann / Prussian model of public education we use today (and introduced after Adams' death)."

This is your statement, Graham. I repeat: you're perfectly comfortable making these sorts of statements. It's when those with whom you disagree take exception (like my bringing up Adams in the first place) that you start clutching at your presumptuous pearls.  

---

by: susanthe @ Wed Nov 16, 2011 at 00:10:20 AM UTC

[ Parent ]

my BS Detector went off (3.50 / 2)

Anytime a Democratic icon is quoted out of context like that, my BS Detector goes off.  Especially when it's a really, really old quote.

---

by: TimothyHorrigan @ Mon Nov 14, 2011 at 23:05:43 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

And another attack. This is the minority blurb, written by Rep Frazer, for CACR 8 (4.00 / 2)

a constitutional amendment the Education Committee thinks "ought to pass."  Here's the link to the page in House Calendar #70:

http://www.gencourt.state.nh.u...

Look for CACR 8, quite a few pages in.  If you can stomach it, read the majority report.

Here's Rep Frazer's minority report.  Says it all!

"Rep. June M Frazer for the Minority of Education:  Objection 1.  State funding of Education.  Article 6 states that the parishes, et al, "have the right of . . .  contracting with them [their teachers] for their support or maintenance, or both."  It does not say that the parishes, et al, have the sole obligation for support or maintenance of their teachers.  The amendment to this passage - adding the word "exclusive" before "the right" - takes the state completely out of funding for support and maintenance of teachers.  A further amendment statement nails this down and expands "support and maintenance" of teachers to support and maintenance of "schools":  ""The several political subdivisions for public education, charter schools, parishes, bodies corporate, shall make adequate provision at their own expense [emphasis mine], for their schools, provided that the legislature may [emphasis mine] supplement that provision in the manner and degree that the Legislature finds most beneficial to the general good.  This amendment takes away all obligation for the state to fund public education.  Objection 2.  State support of religious schools.  The second-to-last sentence of Article 6 states that "no person shall ever be compelled to pay toward the schools of any sect or denomination."  In deleting the word "schools' and substituting the words "religious education," the amendment opens the door to public funding of religious schools, which the constitution emphatically states that no person (i.e., taxpayer) should ever have to do.  This amendment allows for state funding of religious schools."

You can't make this stuff up!  

You have not converted a man because you have silenced him.  (John Morley, 1838-1923)

---

by: Marjorie Porter @ Mon Nov 14, 2011 at 20:21:51 PM UTC

FWIW, (2.00 / 6)

I do not want to see one dime of my tax dollars going to support a religious or private school; nor do I support the concept of homeschooling using tax dollars for support.  If you wish to send your children to such schools, or wish to school them at home, do it at YOUR expense.  

I also think that for those who produce more than two children (their replacements) should be paying more to educate those beyond the two.  Why should community be responsible because you couldn't keep your legs crossed?  I don't hear much from republicans on that idea, though.  It's the same logic as taxpayer dollars being used to pay for abortion.  

---

by: mevansnh @ Mon Nov 14, 2011 at 23:24:38 PM UTC

So now we (4.00 / 4)

are going to blame women for the costs of public education?  "you couldn't keep your legs crossed?"  We all need to stop and minute and think about the language we use, please?!

---

by: Lucy Edwards @ Tue Nov 15, 2011 at 12:50:01 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

I've had my own issues with feet and mouth (0.00 / 0)

while posting (never post while emotional and never, ever, post while drinking!) but I was a bit taken aback by mevansnh's second paragraph.  Although I don't know whether I was stunned more by the statement or that two people gave it their highest recommendation.  

In the immediate aftermath of Since the start of the financial crisis, the Fed/Treasury lent, spent, or guaranteed $28 $29 trillion to save the banking system.

---

by: StraffordDem @ Tue Nov 15, 2011 at 14:22:25 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

two men n/t (0.00 / 0)

---

by: susanthe @ Wed Nov 16, 2011 at 00:11:18 AM UTC

[ Parent ]