Guest Post: Bill Ayer’s UD Presentation
Feb 24th, 2010 by Timothy Pancoast
I noticed that the post about the Bill Ayers presentation at the UD generated some conversation. I was unable to attend but a friend and fellow 9-12 Delaware Patriot went. He was good enough to help me out and share some of his thoughts. I hope you enjoy.
Guest Post by Tim Ryan
Today I attended an event at the University of Delaware in Newark, Delaware: Dr. William Ayers, “Urban Schools: Teaching and Learning in and for Democracy”
02/24/2010 – 1:00pm – 2:00pm
Location: 207 Willard Hall
Speaker: Dr. William Ayers
Yes, this William Ayers is the “unrepentant domestic terrorist” and founder of the “Weather Underground”.
The meeting was in a small classroom, about 60 people in all, and it was standing room only when I arrived. Right away, I noticed that about 25% of the folks in attendance were people I know from the First State Patriots in New Castle County, and the 9-12 Delaware Patriots.
He started his presentation with a 30 minute lecture. He never stated his thesis, but in a very roundabout way, his point was that inner city public schools are failing because of lack of funding. Inner city private schools are successful because of money. He mentioned that his children and the Obama children went to private schools and he was very happy with the education they received. Not once did he offer a solution to fix the problem.
After his presentation, he took some questions from the audience. One student asked about standardized testing. His view is that standardized testing has no merit and he presented this example:
One of the standardized testing subjects is vocabulary. The students were shown a picture of people sitting on a porch. The question asked was something similar to
“These people are sitting on a ________.”
This was a multiple choice question and one the choices was the word “porch”. His argument was that although these students were educated and well read, for some reason the word “porch” was not part of their vocabulary!
He went on to state that if the students were presented with an image of tall rectangles and asked what the shapes represented, they would answer “the projects”!
Another point he presented was that firing ineffective teachers was not a solution. He read from several New York Times and Time magazine articles which addressed this topic. He also lamented the fact that teachers unions should not let that happen!
He never addressed the issue of parent involvement or student responsibility.
During the event, I did not ask any questions. Although I had many, I didn’t want to seem antagonistic. I had a goal. After the event, I spoke with “Bill”. I asked him to sign a book which I just happened to have with me, Glenn Beck’s “Arguing With Idiots”. For some reason, he seemed surprised and a bit nervous! Go figure….
He said that he watched Glenn’s CPAC speech. He mentioned the fact that Glenn stated he was self-taught and often went to the library to educate himself.
“Bill” stated, “I would tell Glenn Beck that he used a socialist program to become educated.”
It was very difficult not to respond to that comment…I wanted him to sign the book!
Attached is a copy of the page he signed. If you can’t read his handwriting it says:
“For a world at peace, powered by love”
Strange sentiments from an “unrepentant terrorist”, yes?
The drawing is his characterization of himself. The round thing off to his left is supposed to be a peace sign.
I think it looks more like an IED!
Tim Ryan
Bill Ayer's Signature in Glenn Beck's Arguing With Idiots
his point was that inner city public schools are failing because of lack of funding. Inner city private schools are successful because of money.
Notice he didn’t mention Catholic schools, which in the inner city get better results with a LOT less money …
The same is true about evangelical schools. Most private schools spend less than public schools especially in the inner city. It sounds like they did not get their money’s worth.
” His argument was that although these students were educated and well read, for some reason the word “porch” was not part of their vocabulary!”
Maybe the problem is that English is not part of their vocabulary.
Catholic schools, which in the inner city get better results with a LOT less money …
Catholic school enrollment is dropping every year and schools are failing all over the place, citing lack of money.
I guess the “less money” thing isn’t really working out for them.
The glue is family, not the family of man but family.
Another reason to not donate any Alumni money to U of D.
Typical liberal who rejects freedom and accountability in the search for equality, not equality of opportunity but of outcome.
Mike Protack
Catholic school enrollment is dropping every year and schools are failing all over the place, citing lack of money.
I guess the “less money” thing isn’t really working out for them.
Irrelevant to the issue. When econ. times are tough, people can’t afford to pay Catholic school tuition and the taxes that support public schools.
When econ. times are tough, people can’t afford to pay Catholic school tuition and the taxes that support public schools.
And when times are tough people also can’t afford to buy that giant new truck or go to Disney World.
School taxes aren’t going away, so people have to make choices. Opting out of school taxes isn’t one of them.
Precisely. And that has to do with the issue that Catholic schools get better academic results with less $$ how …?
Better results don’t mean much if you can’t keep the doors open.
If in fact your claim of better results is actually true.
I’m not arguing that, but again that’s besides the issue.
Google is your friend, anon. Or will you insist?
I too was at the talk and would like to address the “porch” question example for standardized testing, because I believe you’ve misunderstood (or perhaps intentionally mis-characterized) what he said.
The point was that the children in question had no concept of what a porch is because they had never seen one – given that they lived in the inner city (or in his own words, the “projects”) where that sort of structure on a house just doesn’t exist. To give a similar example – imagine if you were a kid who grew up in say some part of Arizona or something where you never saw any winter precipitation. Then you get a question on a test that includes the words sleet and snow and hail. Having experienced only maybe one of these three phenomena firsthand, how the hell are you supposed to know the difference? Yeah, maybe you read a definition in a book or saw a picture or something on TV or the internet – but that is not the same as catching snowflakes on your tongue or having sleet drop on your head. Just like sitting on a concrete stoop is not the same thing as sitting on a porch.
Anyway the larger point that you’re missing is that, if they are to be truly useful, standardized tests need to actually test standardized things, not measure whether everyone’s knowledge and experiences fall in line with those of the typical white, upper middle class person. That’s probably a lot easier to do in things like math – it’s hard to think of numbers as carrying any cultural bias. But when you’re testing things like vocabulary, you’ve got to take into account not just whether students know or have seen a word – but whether they have any realistic frame of reference to pull from in truly understanding the meaning of that word.
I love the way a former domestic terrorist puts ‘peace..powered by love’ on his autograph. What a hypocritical, pathetic piece of crap he is.
What is needed in the schools is competition, not money. There is no correlation between money spent and results (see Wash. DC and its $15k per-student). Of course, guys like Ayres consider schools to be propaganda centers, not learning facilities. As is the case for BO and Ayres’ children (and BO and Ayres themselves), the left believes that future leaders must come from private schools.
“Let Them Eat Maya Angelou” (in other words, study idiots).
I personally agree with the shortcomings of standard testing, which often contains questions that could be answered correctly with many diverse responses. There has been much research, over many years which indicates that these tests in a country with such a diverse population, exposed to alternative life-styles, formal educational opportunities, geographic and social-economic experiences do not fairly judge the child’s intelligence nor the level of teaching commitment and ability of the teacher. Often excellent teachers are frustrated by the need to prepare children for testing rather than learning. We need to find alternative means to identify and solve problems within the schools.
On the other hand, ineffectual teachers cannot be tolerated if children are to reach their potential. I strongly believe in the positive contribution of unions, and the sacrifice of those who where brave enough to fight for the rights of workers when unions were established. However, union decisions are human decisions, and should be criticized when we believe they are wrong. I do agree with Mr. Ryan that saving the jobs of poor teachers by sacrificing the education of our children is not appropriate. Maybe we should focus on examining the level of higher education which results in poor teachers, and the licensing process which allows them the privilege of teaching our children. We might provide for additional training for those who are committed to teaching, incentives for good teaching, and enable the teacher an opportunity to do better before such a severe outcome as firing. One must be aware of the political situation of a teacher within the schools, and understand that without the job protection afforded by unions, both good and bad teachers would be at risk, as would academic freedom. Of course parent involvement and student responsibility are positive concepts. Mr. Ryan indicates that Mr. Ayer did not provide any solutions to those issues he found wrong with education. I wonder if Mr. Ryan has a suggestion for increasing parent involvement and student responsibility? Maybe he could be asked to develop his positive thoughts in a future column?
I was impressed by Mr. Ryan’s objective reporting, although it is obvious that his politics differed from that of Mr. Ayer. Both he and the speaker seemed to enjoy their polite yet pointed interchange about signing the book, which was fun to read. I agree that the drawing was difficult to understand. However, I thought that Mr. Ryan left his objectivity behind when he referred to Dr. Ayer as an “unrepented terrorist”.
In conclusion, I applaud the reporting of Mr. Ryan and the opportunity given him by Mr. Pancoast. Citizen involvement and the opportunity to voice your opinion is important in a democracy. Good work Mr. Ryan! Hope to hear from you again.
I love the way a former domestic terrorist puts ‘peace..powered by love’ on his autograph.
Almost as good as putting “Defense” Department on the Pentagon.
A couple other places where my experience at the talk differed from the author of this post:
“Another point he presented was that firing ineffective teachers was not a solution.”
- Ayers openly stated that there are lazy, ineffective teachers and that we should do something about them. His argument wasn’t that getting rid of them was not a solution – but that it was only PART of the solution (i.e. not a silver bullet). His point was that if you fire the entire staff of a school and replace them with new people but don’t change anything else, you can end up with pretty much the same results – and he cited an example in which this sort of thing happened in Chicago (wish I could remember details, I should have brought my little digital audio recorder to the talk).
“He never addressed the issue of parent involvement”
- I call BS on this. Do you not remember the example Ayers gave of how a teacher asked him for information about his own son to help the teacher to better work with / educate the child? He specifically mentioned how parents are the most knowledgeable people about their own children and that teachers need to communicate with them and view them as resources to be drawn upon.
One thing I will agree with you on is that, even as someone who agreed with many of Ayers’ points, I was quite disappointed with the lack of discussion of real solutions. Maybe that is something he addresses in his publications, I don’t know, I honestly haven’t read them.
Good discussion, I would point out the unrepentent terrorism phrase was in quotes. It comes from the alert and another blog. It appears to be a nod at recognizing the opposition not an attack.
Dr. Kaiser – Here is my response to some of what you have mentioned. While you and I are quite close on many things, I believe there are some things we must clairfy.
“I personally agree with the shortcomings of standard testing, which often contains questions that could be answered correctly with many diverse responses.”
I’m not a huge fan of standardized testing either but then again, I went to school in the 80′s and 90′s when we really only had standardized testing in the form of SAT’s and ACT’s. I never thought there was much of a problem with those tests myself but they weren’t used for the same purposes as testing is used today. With that said, I think teachers must be willing (and able) to teach things outside of the classroom. The clasroom is not the only place we learn and I think these days that is largely forgotten in our public schools. Our kids need to EXPERIENCE history, science, nature, etc. They need to be allowed to learn in more ways than just by reading text books. (most of which are filled with revisionist drivel)
“We might provide for additional training for those who are committed to teaching, incentives for good teaching, and enable the teacher an opportunity to do better before such a severe outcome as firing.”
These are all things the teachers unions right here in Delaware are pushing back against in the public school. It’s also yet another reason why private school teachers generally show better results regardless of location. Private school teachers, who aren’t unionized and guaranteed a job for life by tenure as well as a huge pension when they finally do decide to call it quits, are far more likely to desire results from their children and work that much harder to ensure the children achieve.
“However, I thought that Mr. Ryan left his objectivity behind when he referred to Dr. Ayer as an “unrepented terrorist”.”
Perhaps you missed the background substance of why he called Bill Ayers an “unrepented terrorist”. Bill Ayers was a member of the “Weather Underground”, a domestic terrorist group that bombed police stations and government buildings in the 70′s. (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Weather_Underground_(organization) He was interviewed by the New York Times on 9-11-2001 (strange huh?) about his past and he told the reporter “I don’t regret setting bombs, I feel we didn’t do enough.” (http://www.nytimes.com/2001/09/11/books/no-regrets-for-love-explosives-memoir-sorts-war-protester-talks-life-with.html?sec=&spon=&pagewanted=all) This would be enough for me to believe he was an unrepentent terrorist. Is setting bombs and detonating them at government buildings not enough for you to consider someone a Terrorist?
“Citizen involvement and the opportunity to voice your opinion is important in a democracy.”,/i>
Perhaps this is semantics to those in academia but it may also describe the reason why so many of our schools are failing. Dr. Kaiser we do not live in a democracy. We live in a Republic. Actually, we live in a Represenative Republic. We elect our representatives and we send them to the legislature to vote with our interests. A democracy REQUIRES buy in from the public to act. Even by definition we can see the difference between a Democracy and a Republic. A republic is a political unit governed by a charter (like our U.S. Constitution). Even in our individual states we are governed by charters and are in essence “little republics”. A democracy by contrast is a government whose prevailing force is always that of the majority. The ultimate difference betweent he two lies in the source of official power. In the case of a republic, it lies with the charter (in our case the Constitution) which limits and binds the legislature, President and judiciary to certain, enumerated powers. You may remember that the words of the pledge of allegiance are “And to the republic for which it stands, one nation under God, indivisible….” and there is no mention of a democracy. The reason is that a democracy derives its power from the rule of the majority. Our founders SAW how that idea of a pure democracy was a failure in waiting by looking at the Roman Empire whose directions changed on the whims of the Emporer in charge.
We must be careful to clasify our government in the proper terms. To suggest that our government is controlled by the “ruling majority” is to ignore the Constitution and the founders intents for our nation entirely. I am not suggesting that the following is the case with you Dr. Kaiser, however, classifying our system of government as a democracy and not a republic as it truly is, has been a tool of the Marxist progressives for some time. They do it so that people would be more willing to accept that when one party is in power (think FDR, LBJ, BHO) and especially if one party controls the Legislative and Executive branches, that it is the will of the people to go along with them. That is simply not the case. We are a republic for a reason. We are a republic to ensure that individual and states’ rights are respected and honored by the federal government.
Oh…and the picture folks…looks like a guy smoking a joint.
In response to Johnny X’s comments:
“He never addressed the issue of parent involvement”
- I call BS on this. Do you not remember the example Ayers gave of how a teacher asked him for information about his own son to help the teacher to better work with / educate the child? He specifically mentioned how parents are the most knowledgeable people about their own children and that teachers need to communicate with them and view them as resources to be drawn upon.
Yes, Bill did relate that story but if you recall, he was talking about an incident which happened while his son was very young, during the late 60′s or early 70′s. The teacher asked Bill for the information because Bill showed that he was concerned about his child’s education.
I have a child who attends a very large High School, about 1200 students. I regularly attend parent conferences and meetings because I care about the level of education and curriculum. Bill’s presentation had a larger audience than any of the school meetings I attended.
In my opinion, it’s the lack of parental involvement, not a money issue.
Case in point: Paris Hilton!
Dr. Kaiser – I felt there were some points you made that should be clarified
“There has been much research, over many years which indicates that these tests in a country with such a diverse population, exposed to alternative life-styles, formal educational opportunities, geographic and social-economic experiences do not fairly judge the child’s intelligence nor the level of teaching commitment and ability of the teacher. Often excellent teachers are frustrated by the need to prepare children for testing rather than learning. We need to find alternative means to identify and solve problems within the schools.”
I think the definition of a porch is a poor indicator of questions on standardized tests that unfairly judge inner city students differently than suburban kids. With all of the “diversity” in our culture, school choice and city integration (bussing kids in and out of the city for school) you’re as likely to find a child with a porch at his front door as you are to not find that. Also, with access to information being at it’s highest level ever, it’s really unrealistic to suggest that an educator couldn’t simply use the internet in the classroom to describe the definition of a porch. But the larger issue here is that we’re still focusing on learning in the classroom. We must begin to realize that learning takes place through living life and experiencing new things (that doesn’t mean we should necesarily be forced to expose our young children to “alternative lifestyles” mind you). This is a reference to learning by doing. Young children are especially sensitive to this kind of learning. Letting them see, touch and play with history makes it much easier for them to learn about it. The same goes for many other subjects (science, the arts, etc.). It’s up to parents and educators to work TOGETHER to make a better plan. Much of that collaboration is often stifled by an educational profession who has been annointed as “smarter than us”(us being parents).
“On the other hand, ineffectual teachers cannot be tolerated if children are to reach their potential…Maybe we should focus on examining the level of higher education which results in poor teachers, and the licensing process which allows them the privilege of teaching our children. We might provide for additional training for those who are committed to teaching, incentives for good teaching, and enable the teacher an opportunity to do better before such a severe outcome as firing.”
You may not be aware of this Dr. Kaiser but this is precisely what has been suggested right here in Delaware for many years. The teachers unions have fought against these ideas on principle. They’ve sided with “tenured” educators and have made it difficult for new, energetic and well prepared teachers to enter the mix except for in the worst situations. Young teachers are often forced into the toughest jobs (inner city schools which, recieve plenty of funding but simply lack direction and community support) while tenured teachers enjoy some of the easier positions.
“One must be aware of the political situation of a teacher within the schools, and understand that without the job protection afforded by unions, both good and bad teachers would be at risk, as would academic freedom.”
I’d ask you to define how “academic freedom” would be “at risk” without a union to support the teachers. In fact, I believe that the Teachers Unions do more to stifle academic freedom than any other group could. Why? They create these standards and they’ve put teachers into this “teaching to the test” box by giving the people no other way to judge their progress. The unions preclude just about any form of criticism for our teachers and they make it near impossible to help the good teachers and remove the bad ones. The truth is that good teachers would be allowed to stay and would likely be given the choice of their jobs with or without the unions. The only teachers that would be affected by not having union “protections” would be the ones that are subpar and who likely don’t belong in the roles they are in to begin with.
“Of course parent involvement and student responsibility are positive concepts. Mr. Ryan indicates that Mr. Ayer did not provide any solutions to those issues he found wrong with education. I wonder if Mr. Ryan has a suggestion for increasing parent involvement and student responsibility? Maybe he could be asked to develop his positive thoughts in a future column?”
I won’t speak for Time because I know him and he is quite capable of doing that himself. What I will say Dr. Kaiser is that many of us from different groups and even those unaffiliated with any group or organization have written articles, op-eds, voice columns and given speeches with regards to this topic. It falls on deaf ears within the academic community. Teachers, administrators and others within academia simply don’t want to hear from us as parents, as concerned citizens, etc. unless we agree with the status quo. We’ve all suggested ways to increase parental participation and part of that is to look at schools that HAVE high parental participation and find out why they do. Teachers and schools need to actually reach out to the parents, with open ears, broad shoulders and plenty of humility. The schools are failing the students. It’s time they took that responsibility to heart and WANTED to make a change.
“However, I thought that Mr. Ryan left his objectivity behind when he referred to Dr. Ayer as an “unrepented terrorist”.”
Perhaps you are unaware of who William Ayers is. He was a member of a radical group called the “Weather Underground” [ http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Weather_Underground_(organization) ]. They conducted bombing campaigns in the 70′s and detonated bombs in and around government buildings (like the Capitol building, the Pentagon and also NYC Police Headquarters). Not only did Bill ayers participate in the campaigns in the 70′s, but on 9-11-2001 (the day Arab terrorists hijacked 4 planes and killed thousands of Americans) he was asked in a New York Times interview about his role. He said “I don’t regret setting bombs, I feel we didn’t do enough,” ( http://www.nytimes.com/2001/09/11/books/no-regrets-for-love-explosives-memoir-sorts-war-protester-talks-life-with.html?pagewanted=all ). This does not sound like the words of an unrepentant terrorist? What about these words as quoted from the NYT article: “Mr. Ayers, who in 1970 was said to have summed up the Weatherman philosophy as: ”Kill all the rich people. Break up their cars and apartments. Bring the revolution home, kill your parents, that’s where it’s really at,” “. In fact, if you take the time to read the article, you may not only find HIM revolting but also the glowing portrayal of his actions by a journalist who is a citizen of the United States.
“Citizen involvement and the opportunity to voice your opinion is important in a democracy.”
Dr. Kaiser, I hope this does not offend you but I believe this may be a point of contention. It’s often confused in our vernacular and rarely corrected. America is not a democracy. We are a republic. By definition, a republic is a political unit governed by a charter (like our Constitution), while a democracy is a government whose prevailing force is always that of the majority. The difference between a republic and a democracy lies in the ultimate source of official power. In the case of a republic, it lies with a charter. In America, our charter is the United States Constitution which limites and defines the power of our federal government. Each state is of itself a “little republic” because each of our states also has a “charter document” that limits the state government. In a democracy, power lies with the rule of the majority and is typically not checked by a founding document. Consider the words to the United States’ Pledge of Allegiance, “And to the republic for which its stands, one nation under God, indivisible …” which has no mention of democracy.
Our founders deliberately decided that a pure democracy would lead to failure. They looked at the Roman democracy which was a “representative democracy” that relied upon a majority’s whim to control the direction of the country, the liberties the people would hold, etc. Instead, they created a founding charter that specifically enumerated the powers the federal government was to have and limiting them only to THOSE powers. It reserved all other powers to the states or the people to decide for themselves. That may be where people confuse America with a democracy. The founders intended the people to be allowed to retain the MAXIMUM number of rights given to them by God while still allowing the federal government to govern and ensure national defense.
“In my opinion, it’s the lack of parental involvement, not a money issue.”
Scenario:
Kid X and Kid Y both have parents who are not particularly involved in their children’s school experiences.
Kid X’s home feeder pattern sends them to a high school where, in biology class, they use laptops and probeware to measure and graph instantaneous changes in CO2 levels in containers filled with leaves and crickets. They observe differences based on what’s in the containers at any given time, and the temperature. Their teacher helps them correlate their findings to the processes of photosynthesis and cellular respiration, how the two processes feed into one another, and the effects of temperature on the respiration of the organisms involved.
Kid Y’s home feeder pattern sends them to a high school where, in biology class, they read about photosynthesis and cellular respiration in a textbook. Their teacher tells them that, like the book says, the two processes feed into one another and temperature can have an effect as well.
Yeah, it’s totally not a money thing.
Dr. Kaiser – I felt there were some points you made that should be clarified
“There has been much research, over many years which indicates that these tests in a country with such a diverse population, exposed to alternative life-styles, formal educational opportunities, geographic and social-economic experiences do not fairly judge the child’s intelligence nor the level of teaching commitment and ability of the teacher. Often excellent teachers are frustrated by the need to prepare children for testing rather than learning. We need to find alternative means to identify and solve problems within the schools.”
I think the definition of a porch is a poor indicator of questions on standardized tests that unfairly judge inner city students differently than suburban kids. With all of the “diversity” in our culture, school choice and city integration (bussing kids in and out of the city for school) you’re as likely to find a child with a porch at his front door as you are to not find that. Also, with access to information being at it’s highest level ever, it’s really unrealistic to suggest that an educator couldn’t simply use the internet in the classroom to describe the definition of a porch. But the larger issue here is that we’re still focusing on learning in the classroom. We must begin to realize that learning takes place through living life and experiencing new things (that doesn’t mean we should necesarily be forced to expose our young children to “alternative lifestyles” mind you). This is a reference to
learning by doing. Young children are especially sensitive to this kind of learning. Letting them see, touch and play with history makes it much easier for them to learn about it. The same goes for many other subjects (science, the arts, etc.). It’s up to parents and educators to work TOGETHER to make a better plan. Much of that collaboration is often stifled by an educational profession who has been annointed as “smarter than us”(us being parents).
“On the other hand, ineffectual teachers cannot be tolerated if children are to reach their potential…Maybe we should focus on examining the level of higher education which results in poor teachers, and the licensing process which allows them the privilege of teaching our children. We might provide for additional training for those who are committed to teaching, incentives for good teaching, and enable the teacher an opportunity to do better before such a severe outcome as firing.”
You may not be aware of this Dr. Kaiser but this is precisely what has been suggested right here in Delaware for many years. The teachers unions have fought against these ideas on principle. They’ve sided with “tenured” educators and have made it difficult for new, energetic and well prepared teachers
to enter the mix except for in the worst situations. Young teachers are often forced into the toughest jobs (inner city schools which, recieve plenty of funding but simply lack direction and community support) while tenured teachers enjoy some of the easier positions.
“One must be aware of the political situation of a teacher within the schools, and understand that without the job protection afforded by unions, both good and bad teachers would be at risk, as would academic freedom.”
I’d ask you to define how “academic freedom” would be “at risk” without a union to support the teachers. In fact, I believe that the Teachers Unions do more to stifle academic freedom than any other group could. Why? They create these standards and they’ve put teachers into this “teaching to the test” box by giving the people no other way to judge their progress. The unions preclude just about any form of criticism for our teachers and they make it near impossible to help the good teachers and remove the bad ones. The truth is that good teachers would be allowed to stay and would likely be given the choice of their jobs with or without the unions. The only teachers that would be affected by not having union “protections” would be the ones that are
subpar and who likely don’t belong in the roles they are in to begin with.
“Of course parent involvement and student responsibility are positive concepts. Mr. Ryan indicates that Mr. Ayer did not provide any solutions to those issues he found wrong with education. I wonder if Mr. Ryan has a suggestion for increasing parent involvement and student responsibility? Maybe he could be asked to develop his positive thoughts in a future column?”
I won’t speak for Time because I know him and he is quite capable of doing that himself. What I will say Dr. Kaiser is that many of us from different groups and even those unaffiliated with any group or organization have written articles, op-eds, voice columns and given speeches with regards to this topic. It falls on deaf ears within the academic community. Teachers, administrators and others within academia simply don’t want to hear from us as parents, as concerned citizens, etc. unless we agree with the status quo. We’ve all suggested ways to increase parental participation and part of that is to look at schools that HAVE high parental participation and find out why they do. Teachers and schools need to actually reach out to the parents, with open ears, broad shoulders and plenty of humility. The schools are failing the students. It’s time they took that responsibility to heart and WANTED to make a change.
“However, I thought that Mr. Ryan left his objectivity behind when he referred to Dr. Ayer as an “unrepented terrorist”.”
Perhaps you are unaware of who William Ayers is. He was a member of a radical group called the “Weather Underground” [
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Weather_Underground_(organization) ]. They conducted bombing campaigns in the 70′s and detonated bombs in and around government buildings (like the Capitol building, the Pentagon and also NYC Police Headquarters). Not only did Bill ayers participate in the campaigns in the 70′s, but on 9-11-2001 (the day Arab terrorists hijacked 4 planes and killed thousands of Americans) he was asked in a New York Times interview about his role. He said “I don’t regret setting bombs, I feel we didn’t do enough,” (
http://www.nytimes.com/2001/09/11/books/no-regrets-for-love-explosives-memoir-sorts-war-protester-talks-life-with.html?pagewanted=all ). This does not sound like the words of an unrepentant terrorist? What about these words as quoted from the NYT article: “Mr. Ayers, who in 1970 was said to have summed up the Weatherman philosophy as: ”Kill all the rich people. Break up their cars and apartments. Bring the revolution home, kill your parents, that’s where it’s really at,” “. In fact, if you take the time to read the article, you may not only find HIM revolting but also the glowing portrayal of his actions by a journalist who is a citizen of the United States.
“Citizen involvement and the opportunity to voice your opinion is important in a democracy.”
Dr. Kaiser, I hope this does not offend you but I believe this may be a point of contention. It’s often confused in our vernacular and rarely corrected. America is not a democracy. We are a republic. By definition, a republic is a political unit governed by a charter (like our Constitution), while a democracy is a government whose prevailing force is always that of the majority. The difference between a republic and a democracy lies in the ultimate source of official power. In the case of a republic, it lies with a charter. In America, our charter is the United States Constitution which limites and
defines the power of our federal government. Each state is of itself a “little republic” because each of our states also has a “charter document” that limits the state government. In a democracy, power lies with the rule of the majority and is typically not checked by a founding document. Consider the
words to the United States’ Pledge of Allegiance, “And to the republic for which its stands, one nation under God, indivisible …” which has no mention of democracy.
Our founders deliberately decided that a pure democracy would lead to failure. They looked at the Roman democracy which was a “representative democracy” that relied upon a majority’s whim to control the direction of the country, the liberties the people would hold, etc. Instead, they created a founding
charter that specifically enumerated the powers the federal government was to have and limiting them only to THOSE powers. It reserved all other powers to the states or the people to decide for themselves. That may be where people confuse America with a democracy. The founders intended the people to be allowed to retain the MAXIMUM number of rights given to them by God while still allowing the federal government to govern and ensure national defense.
“In my opinion, it’s the lack of parental involvement, not a money issue.”
Of course. Nobody argues with that.
But if the parent’s aren’t involved enough, it does cost a lot to make up the difference.
What do you do – send a trooper out to drag some dysfunctional parent into a PTA meeting or a teacher conference?
Or do you just let the kid hang, and grow up to become another dysfunctional parent, while you congratulate yourself on your theories of personal responsibility?
Ayers’ example of that test question is, well, a poor example because it’s a poor test question. If, OTOH, it was a question based on a reading comprehension passage, that (may) be an entirely different matter.
English/reading/writing sections of tests should be screened carefully for possible ambiguous terminology. (I hesitate to use “cultural bias” as there should be certain aspects of our home language that are universal.)
Or do you just let the kid hang, and grow up to become another dysfunctional parent, while you congratulate yourself on your theories of personal responsibility?
Not at all. But there HAS to be a realization that pie-in-the-sky platitudes like “all kids will graduate” and similar sentiments will never come to pass. As Protack stated up above, this requires equal outcomes, and these are inherently impossible. People are NOT equal. All government (or education, in this case) can and should do is provide equal opportunity. The outcomes are decided by the individuals.
During the American Revolution, how many kids had access to a structured curriculum? I do not have exact numbers, but I think it’s safe to say not many. How many slaves had access to the educational system? Again, I don’t have numbers but I can guess not many.
So how did these kids grow up to create the most productive, generous, and free culture in the history of the world?
I would say it was because most were raised to adhere to the principles and values of our Founders, the US Constitution, and the Bill of Rights.
“Troopers” and government involvement is not the answer and that has been proven by history. The former Soviet Union comes to mind.
Have you had the opportunity to read “The 5000 Year Leap” by W. Cleon Skousen?
(ISBN 10: 0-88080-148-4, ISBN 13: 978-0-88080-148-5)
If not, I ask you to read it. After that, I’d like to get your feedback on this topic.
So how did these kids grow up to create the most productive, generous, and free culture in the history of the world?
They raised great-grandchildren who became Progressives who built the US public school system, and introduced mass literacy and then post-literacy education, financed by property taxes and an individual mandate.
Hube,
I had a bit of a giggle after reading your feedback
“Ayers’ example of that test question is, well, a poor example because it’s a poor test question. If, OTOH, it was a question based on a reading comprehension passage that (may) be an entirely different matter.”
OTOH is an example of how our communication skills have been quickly devolving.
Now it’s ok to use acronyms’ in place of words?
In a few years, will we be using grunts and body gestures rather than acronyms?
Just a mindless rambling…no harm intended!
Anon,
You stated:
So how did these kids grow up to create the most productive, generous, and free culture in the history of the world?
They raised great-grandchildren who became Progressives who built the US public school system, and introduced mass literacy and then post-literacy education, financed by property taxes and an individual mandate.
If that were true, Bill Ayers would not have had any reason to present his ideas!
“OTOH is an example of how our communication skills have been quickly devolving.
Now it’s ok to use acronyms’ in place of words?”
If you ever go deep sea diving I hope you plan to refer to your experience with your Self Contained Underwater Breathing Apparatus gear.
For that matter, if you have bad eyesight, perhaps you might some day ask your doctor about the potential benefits of Light amplification by stimulated emission of radiation vision correction surgery.
If not, surely your communication skills have devolved.
Johnny X,
So your point is that it’s ok to use acronyms’ in place of words when underwater?
No argument here.
Just so that I understand where you’re “coming from”, are you currently submerged?
My point is that acronyms are used for convenience and brevity, and the assertion that their usage in any way reflects some sort of communication deficiency on the part of the user can best be described as a SA (stupid argument).
Again you used an acronym: “SA” (stupid argument).
I thought you made a very valid point about acronyms’ and water.
Did I catch you at an inopportune time?
Are you in the tub?
Your argument in favor of acronyms’, while not submerged, takes us back to Bill Ayers view that the word “porch” is not a part of everyone’s vocabulary and should not be used in standardized testing!
Do you think it’s very presumptuous of you to think that everyone you communicate with understands your code?
Hello Johnny X….
Johnny, are you still there?
Johnny……..?
I hope he wasn’t submerged too long!
Should we call 911?
Ayers view that the word “porch” is not a part of everyone’s vocabulary and should not be used in standardized testing!
Keep in mind, however, that Ayers is a radical and as such believes in such things as cultural bias in testing, and other “progressive” beefs about assessments.
His example was poor, again, because the test question he “used” was lousy. At the very least, it would need to be known that the term “porch” had indeed been previously taught in vocabulary.
Hube,
I understand that many kids in Chicago have a very limited vocabulary due to thier very limited life experiences.
I had that very same problem when Candidate Obama mentioned how the cost of “arugula” had skyrocketed during his campaign.
I’ve never been to Chicago, but I’m guessing that “arugula” would be a lot harder to find than a “porch”.
No argument there, Tim!
Has anyone heard from Johnny X?
I’m getting worried……………..
Of course there is cultral bias in tests that is why iverse group of people should review anystandardized testing.
I’m a trained lifeguard so if you need help Johnny just stick two fingers up – like a peace sign.
Dr. Kaiser, please note that Tim Ryan was right about Professor Bill Ayers being an unrepentant terrorist. He co-founded the Weather Underground, a self-described communist revolutionary group that conducted a campaign of bombing public buildings during the 1960s and 1970s. To this day he still thinks he didn’t do enough. This link will take you to some information about: http://www.discoverthenetworks.org/individualProfile.asp?indid=2169
Before Television (BTV for Johnny X) became popular, blacks and whites from intercities and suburbs were more literate. People read more, talked with friends and family more, wrote letters (not texting using acronyms). Books and storytellers on the radio were replaced with mindless crap on TV (or as Frank Zappa would say “The Slime Oozing Out of your TV Set”). Who needs to read about American History when you can get 200 years condensed into a 5 hour mini-series. I know because I’m guilty of it myself. I remember taking the SAT’s (over 30 years ago) and not knowing what some of the vocabulary words meant. The reason was not because of where I grew up (white subrubia); it was because I didn’t read enough so I never came across those words. A girl from my neighborhood took the test with me earned a 400 (out of 400) on that part, but it didn’t surprise me because she always had her face in a book. Maybe we should have separate tests for people who read and people who don’t. Wouldn’t that be more fair?
I’ve read books and listened to prominent blacks that grew up in the city or poor farming communities (Dr. Thomas Sowell, Dr. Walter Williams, and Chief Justice Clarence Thomas to name a few) that didn’t have all the resources the rich kids did, but they had parents (or grandparents) that made them study because they knew that education was the most important thing and the only way they were going to get ahead in life.
Why do first and second generation American children excel in school while children born to families that have lived in the USA for many generations digress? I think it’s because these new American parents know that anyone can succeed in America as long as the work and study hard. Many of these first generation parents can’t speak English, but they’ll work their butts off extra hours to make sure their children get a tutor to help them learn. The people who have been here for a while want (or expect) others to take care of their children. After all, it takes a village right?
Bottom line is that we’ve become a nation of lazy parents. We expect school teachers to educate our children, clergy to teach them morals, coaches to teach them sportsmanship, and TV to keep them occupied. When was the last time you went to a PTA meeting or teacher conference? Oh can’t go tonight, Dancing with the Stars is on.
Time to get off our butts and HELP the good teachers educate our children. Once you work with a teacher you’ll know if they are good or not. Bad ones need to go and good ones need to be paid more. Unfortunately this is one of the problems with unions (and communism), good workers are treated the same as bad ones. They all get a raise or no one does. We need to get rid of the Federal government dictating what our state and local schools can teach and where the money goes. Let’s elect politicians that aren’t in bed with the teachers union so we can get school vouchers and more alternative schools.
Shawn,
Brilliant!
Shawn,
There are actually quite a number of points in your post that I agree with. I do not in any way discount the importance of parental responsibility. I myself recently became a parent and have every intention of being just as involved in my daughter’s education as my own parents (thankfully) were in mine.
Here is the fundamental problem that I still have. We can rail on and on about lazy, incompetent, shitty parents – and maybe some of them will listen up and actually change the way they are raising their children. But what about those children whose parents either don’t get the message, or even if they do are ill equipped to do much to actually help their kids?
To get back to Ayers’ talk – this is one of the things he said toward the beginning – that most if not all the people in the room were probably there because they were “smart enough to choose good parents.” Considering that a large portion of the crowd were education professors or graduate students (like me) he was probably right. Except, of course, (as he pointed out) none of us get to choose our parents, we either get lucky with good ones, unlucky with bad ones, or something in between.
Vouchers and alternative schools are great ideas for the kids who have parents who care enough / are informed enough to bother to put their children in a better environment. But what about the rest of the kids? We just say “sorry you got stuck with shitty parents, and that your teachers aren’t much better. You’re pretty much screwed but maybe if you work REAL HARD you’ll get like a scholarship or something! Then again maybe not…” How is that ever an acceptable way to treat a child?
You’re pretty much screwed but maybe if you work REAL HARD you’ll get like a scholarship or something! Then again maybe not…” How is that ever an acceptable way to treat a child?
J-
You are talking with people who believe it IS acceptable, although they will deny it to your face. All their talk about choice and competition and vouchers is about giving schools permission to exclude students and kick them into some other school set up to be a dumping ground.
anon and Johnny: What, then, should be done with children whose parents don’t give a sh**? (Although, you’ll find that suddenly these parents give a sh** when their children get disciplined for various infractions … give a sh**, that is, to get in administrators’ and teachers’ faces for daring to address their child’s behavior.) It’s not just the fact that these children will be academically left behind their peers; these children are also frequently very disruptive to the rest of the educational process. That is why many parents want vouchers, charters, etc. because they do not want their children — who WANT an education — to have to deal with that sort of nonsense, all because more and more our schools have their hands tied when it comes to dealing with such behavior issues.
So, what do you suggest? More alternative schools? More specialists? What?
Dr. Kaiser – I felt there were some points you made that should be clarified. Shaun covered most of them but I wanted to make these points yesterday and was unable to do so.
“There has been much research, over many years which indicates that these tests in a country with such a diverse population, exposed to alternative life-styles, formal educational opportunities, geographic and social-economic experiences do not fairly judge the child’s intelligence nor the level of teaching commitment and ability of the teacher. Often excellent teachers are frustrated by the need to prepare children for testing rather than learning. We need to find alternative means to identify and solve problems within the schools.”
I think the definition of a porch is a poor indicator of questions on standardized tests that unfairly judge inner city students differently than suburban kids. With all of the “diversity” in our culture, school choice and city integration (bussing kids in and out of the city for school) you’re as likely to find a child with a porch at his front door as you are to not find that. Also, with access to information being at it’s highest level ever, it’s really unrealistic to suggest that an educator couldn’t simply use the internet in the classroom to describe the definition of a porch. But the larger issue here is that we’re still focusing on learning in the classroom. We must begin to realize that learning takes place through living life and experiencing new things (that doesn’t mean we should necesarily be forced to expose our young children to “alternative lifestyles” mind you). This is a reference to learning by doing. Young children are especially sensitive to this kind of learning. Letting them see, touch and play with history makes it much easier for them to learn about it. The same goes for many other subjects (science, the arts, etc.). It’s up to parents and educators to work TOGETHER to make a better plan. Much of that collaboration is often stifled by an educational profession who has been annointed as “smarter than us”(us being parents).
“On the other hand, ineffectual teachers cannot be tolerated if children are to reach their potential…Maybe we should focus on examining the level of higher education which results in poor teachers, and the licensing process which allows them the privilege of teaching our children. We might provide for additional training for those who are committed to teaching, incentives for good teaching, and enable the teacher an opportunity to do better before such a severe outcome as firing.”
You may not be aware of this Dr. Kaiser but this is precisely what has been suggested right here in Delaware for many years. The teachers unions have fought against these ideas on principle. They’ve sided with “tenured” educators and have made it difficult for new, energetic and well prepared teachers to enter the mix except for in the worst situations. Young teachers are often forced into the toughest jobs (inner city schools which, recieve plenty of funding but simply lack direction and community support) while tenured teachers enjoy some of the easier positions.
“One must be aware of the political situation of a teacher within the schools, and understand that without the job protection afforded by unions, both good and bad teachers would be at risk, as would academic freedom.”
I’d ask you to define how “academic freedom” would be “at risk” without a union to support the teachers. In fact, I believe that the Teachers Unions do more to stifle academic freedom than any other group could. Why? They create these standards and they’ve put teachers into this “teaching to the test” box by giving the people no other way to judge their progress. The unions preclude just about any form of criticism for our teachers and they make it near impossible to help the good teachers and remove the bad ones. The truth is that good teachers would be allowed to stay and would likely be given the choice of their jobs with or without the unions. The only teachers that would be affected by not having union “protections” would be the ones that are subpar and who likely don’t belong in the roles they are in to begin with.
“Of course parent involvement and student responsibility are positive concepts. Mr. Ryan indicates that Mr. Ayer did not provide any solutions to those issues he found wrong with education. I wonder if Mr. Ryan has a suggestion for increasing parent involvement and student responsibility? Maybe he could be asked to develop his positive thoughts in a future column?”
I won’t speak for Time because I know him and he is quite capable of doing that himself. What I will say Dr. Kaiser is that many of us from different groups and even those unaffiliated with any group or organization have written articles, op-eds, voice columns and given speeches with regards to this topic. It falls on deaf ears within the academic community. Teachers, administrators and others within academia simply don’t want to hear from us as parents, as concerned citizens, etc. unless we agree with the status quo. We’ve all suggested ways to increase parental participation and part of that is to look at schools that HAVE high parental participation and find out why they do. Teachers and schools need to actually reach out to the parents, with open ears, broad shoulders and plenty of humility. The schools are failing the students. It’s time they took that responsibility to heart and WANTED to make a change.
“However, I thought that Mr. Ryan left his objectivity behind when he referred to Dr. Ayer as an “unrepented terrorist”.”
Perhaps you are unaware of who William Ayers is. He was a member of a radical group called the “Weather Underground” [
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Weather_Underground_(organization) ]. They conducted bombing campaigns in the 70′s and detonated bombs in and around government buildings (like the Capitol building, the Pentagon and also NYC Police Headquarters). Not only did Bill ayers participate in the campaigns in the 70′s, but on 9-11-2001 (the day Arab terrorists hijacked 4 planes and killed thousands of Americans) he was asked in a New York Times interview about his role. He said “I don’t regret setting bombs, I feel we didn’t do enough,” ( http://www.nytimes.com/2001/09/11/books/no-regrets-for-love-explosives-memoir-sorts-war-protester-talks-life-with.html?pagewanted=all ). This does not sound like the words of an unrepentant terrorist? What about these words as quoted from the NYT article: “Mr. Ayers, who in 1970 was said to have summed up the Weatherman philosophy as: ”Kill all the rich people. Break up their cars and apartments. Bring the revolution home, kill your parents, that’s where it’s really at,” “. In fact, if you take the time to read the article, you may not only find HIM revolting but also the glowing portrayal of his actions by a journalist who is a citizen of the United States.
“Citizen involvement and the opportunity to voice your opinion is important in a democracy.”
Dr. Kaiser, I hope this does not offend you but I believe this may be a point of contention. It’s often confused in our vernacular and rarely corrected.
America is not a democracy. We are a republic. By definition, a republic is a political unit governed by a charter (like our Constitution), while a democracy is a government whose prevailing force is always that of the majority. The difference between a republic and a democracy lies in the ultimate source of official power. In the case of a republic, it lies with a charter. In America, our charter is the United States Constitution which limites and defines the power of our federal government. Each state is of itself a “little republic” because each of our states also has a “charter document” that limits the state government. In a democracy, power lies with the rule of the majority and is typically not checked by a founding document. Consider the words to the United States’ Pledge of Allegiance, “And to the republic for which its stands, one nation under God, indivisible …” which has no mention of democracy.
Our founders deliberately decided that a pure democracy would lead to failure. They looked at the Roman democracy which was a “representative democracy” that relied upon a majority’s whim to control the direction of the country, the liberties the people would hold, etc. Instead, they created a founding charter that specifically enumerated the powers the federal government was to have and limiting them only to THOSE powers. It reserved all other powers to the states or the people to decide for themselves. That may be where people confuse America with a democracy. The founders intended the people to be allowed to retain the MAXIMUM number of rights given to them by God while still allowing the federal government to govern and ensure national defense.
Had to link this post from my own blog since this one not taking my comments for some reason (conspiracy?) ;P j/k
Here is my response to Dr. Kaiser. These are discussions I think we really need to be having in this state and I would be happy to discuss them with the good Dr. or anyone else privately or in a public forum. If you’re interested you can email me at: evanq@foundersvalues.com
http://deconservative.blogtownhall.com/2010/02/26/response_to_dr_virginia_t_kaiser_about_the_bill_ayers_speaking_event_at_u_of_d.thtml
What, then, should be done with children whose parents don’t give a sh**?
Mobilize the school as well as resources outside the school to support those kids. Put a floor under them, not a trap door.
If that requires more staff and more money, than so be it. Civilization and decency requires no less.
But then again, I am trying to explain this to people who jeered at midnight basketball.
(Although, you’ll find that suddenly these parents give a sh** when their children get disciplined for various infractions … give a sh**, that is, to get in administrators’ and teachers’ faces for daring to address their child’s behavior.
Meaning that administrators back down when parents provce they didn’t follow their own documented due process? Damn straight! Once the disciplinary gears start grinding, the parent is the only one left to provide a voice for the child.
Yet, people like Ayers refuse educational equity scholarships like the ones they are trying to kill in D. C.
“Mobilize the school as well as resources outside the school to support those kids. Put a floor under them, not a trap door.
If that requires more staff and more money, than so be it. Civilization and decency requires no less. “
Doesn’t this go back to the heart of the matter? Schools are failing because parents lost control to academia. Parents surrendered far TOO much control to the teachers and thus we have the only answers that progressives know: spend money…spend money. Let me ask you, is there a time when we are spending TOO much money per child on education that is substandard or should we ignore the dollars and keep trying the same crap that isn’t changing anything now? Why is that other states can spend just over half of what we spend per child on education and they are in the top 3 states in education performance while we rank in the bottom 50 percent? It’s not the spending that’s the problem it’s the morality of the communities around the schools that is the problem. Time to address the REAL issues instead of throwing band-aids full of dollars at a sinkhole of failure.
“Meaning that administrators back down when parents provce they didn’t follow their own documented due process? Damn straight! Once the disciplinary gears start grinding, the parent is the only one left to provide a voice for the child.”
No, meaning that the kids who are beating up other kids in school to prove they are tough or who constantly disrupt the classroom generally come from parents who are too busy watching “Dancing with the Stars” to attend the PTA meetings or even show up for parent teacher conferences. Should these kids be allowed to bully other kids in a school learning enviornment? What about the ones who bully even the damn teachers or that bring weapons to school especially with the intent to harm someone (and I’m not talking about a damn Tiger Scout who’s proud to show off his Swiss Army knife or a 9 year old girl who brings a cake knife to school with a birthday cake)? Should these kids be allowed to get away with disruptive and ignorant behavior?
With that said, there are good parents out there who have difficult schedules and who would LOVE to be involved. I think schools MUST be more accomodating and really have to begin leveraging technology to involve more parents. I mean look, if I can meet with 3 dozen other IT technicians from across the company via webcam on GoToMeeting, there is no reason that a PTA meeting couldn’t be broadcast via the same service and using a star phone (every school appears to have at least one conference phone).
Of course, I’m trying to explain this to people who support midnight basketball (hey wasn’t there a shooting at a William Penn basketball game last year?) Most of us would also probably jeer at the brilliant minds who decided to host a “Rap Battle Contest” at Prices Lanes. We all know how that ended (most of us knew how it was going to end before it started)…shots fired, people hit in the leg and mass chaos. Oh yea, and that bowling alley is 50 FEET FROM A POLICE STATION! We’re looking for common sense anon..and you seem to have none of it for us.
High quality preschool, early identification and intervention for LD issues like ADHD and dyslexia, expansion of school lunch and breakfast subsidies, solving the digital divide, constructive extracurricular activities to build social skills, expanded curriculums, better use of technology in schools and in parent communication, and a bunch of other stuff I can’t think of right now.
And above all – reduced class size.
Some lucky kids are going to be all right whether they have all this support or not. But lots of kids will NOT be all right without it. Those are the ones we are talking about in this thread.
So, if you can figure out how to provide this extra support without spending more money for the population we are talking about – not just the lucky ones- go for it.
But if not – then tell us which services you think are not needed. Tell us how your trap door will be designed.
One thing that seems to have disappeared is the old-fashioned study hall. Instead of sending kids home to their chaotic homes and wondering why they don’t do their homework – why not just put them in a study hall for an hour and make them get the homework done, with plenty of help, books, and resources available? I don’t even care if they steal class time to do it during the school day.
anon – As the father of a child with ADHD and Dysgaphia (look it up if you don’t know what it is) I can tell you that there is a disconnect between the schools on how they treat/diagnose and support these disorders. I know first hand what it’s like to deal with these issues and it’s a function of the schools being proactive and has little to do with the dollars spent. How do I know that? My son has attended two elementary schools in the last couple of years that are less than 1 mile apart. In fact, most of the kids from last years classes moved to the new school this year. What’s the difference? Parental involvement at the new school, in the same district is much higher and much more effective. Last year’s school recieves more money per student because it serves a higher percentage of Title I dollars and yet it continues to fail the students that need the help.
At any rate, none of the suggestions you made are unreasonable (though I would ask when you would STOP giving away free/reduced lunches…as it is I know folks making money very close to what I make qualify for reduced lunch and yet I’m able to provide lunch for my children paying full price). They’re also doable using the dollars we currently us, just using them wisely. We could start by eliminating some of the exorbitant salaries that we pay to the hundreds of administrators (many unnecessary) in our system. We could also shift dollars away from wasteful programs that aren’t showing results and instead fund programs that increase the focus and scope of technology. I’m not against a capital investment in the schools either. I think we should rewire the schools but I also think that local SD referendums would be good vehicles to address this need to gain some short term capital funding. Consolidating services would save us money as well. In fact, I applaud the Markell administration for finally taking action on Transportation. I hope they will also take action on contracting for capital projects, initial HR actions and other expenditures that could be consolidated to save money without taking away district sovereignty.
“One thing that seems to have disappeared is the old-fashioned study hall. Instead of sending kids home to their chaotic homes and wondering why they don’t do their homework – why not just put them in a study hall for an hour and make them get the homework done, with plenty of help, books, and resources available? I don’t even care if they steal class time to do it during the school day.”
Or maybe, instead of wasting part of the day in study hall, we could work on fixing the communities where these “chaotic homes” occur. Maybe we could put some focus into creating a sense of personal responsibility and moral compass into the communities and individuals instead of making the government daddy to every child.
Anon, I can say that, at least in the Capital School District, the study hall is still alive and well. However, what students accomplish with that time may have changed. When I was in High School I often found the study halls to be just as chaotic as being at home. It is still up to the individual students what they do with the time.
I think study hall would be easier. It could take a generation to do the other. It is not either or. I favor a longer school day so we can have time to help students individually. It is wrong headed to keep including more and more subjects to study, but not increase the school day.
Increasing the school day would also have a social good. In normal economic times, most parents work. The children get home two hours before the parents. That is one of the highest time for property crimes, illicit sex, drugs, and mischief. Is that a coincidence? An idle mind is the devil’s workshop. That is an old fashion concept, but it is shown true everyday. Lengthen the school day.
“It’s not just the fact that these children will be academically left behind their peers; these children are also frequently very disruptive to the rest of the educational process. That is why many parents want vouchers, charters, etc. because they do not want their children — who WANT an education — to have to deal with that sort of nonsense, all because more and more our schools have their hands tied when it comes to dealing with such behavior issues.
So, what do you suggest? More alternative schools? More specialists? What?”
Hube – I completely understand this stuff, please don’t think that I don’t. I taught high school for a few years and ran into quite a few of these disruptive students.
I think we need, among other things, more disciplinary consistency and to use punishments that actually deter poor behavior. At the school where I taught, kids were literally allowed to choose the day of their detention (which incidentally could only be Tue-Thu) within a two week window. Some of them told me they enjoyed In School Suspension because they were given really easy work to do there which they could complete pretty quickly and then surf the internet the rest of the day. These were reasons why I hardly ever wrote students up, because it seemed like a waste of time anyway. I understand some of the stuff that my fellow liberals talk about like the need to understand different cultural norms and not punish students for behaviors that may be foreign to you but are not necessarily disrespectful or disruptive (white teachers who are quick to write up students for “acting black” is a classic, well documented example). At the same time there are certainly standards of behavior that NEED to be universal (i.e. respect the teacher and other students by not talking OVER them, not physically assaulting other students or sexually harassing them, and many others).
As far as specialists go – what schools need are people that are actually qualified to do their jobs, and more of them. As I recall I think there was 1 educational psychologist for the entire district in which I taught but 3 guidance counselors at the high school alone (the high school had approximately 1000 kids). I’m sorry but most guidance counselors are virtually useless outside of coordinating class schedules. They certainly don’t and shouldn’t take the place of someone with some real training in childhood or adolescent psychology. Most of the time when students were written up, their behavioral issue was discussed with an assistant principal – in my experience a person who got sick of the classroom and wanted to get paid more so they took some “leadership” classes, often again ill-prepared to really get to the root cause of the behavior.
I’m not sure how I feel about alternative schools, some of what I’ve read / heard seems to indicate that they tend to make things worse because the students sort of develop solidarity and trade tips and stories on getting away with stuff. I honestly feel like I need to read more research in that area to make a good suggestion. Though I can say if there are alternative schools they certainly need to have both qualified personnel and high standards of behavior.
Mobilize the school as well as resources outside the school to support those kids. Put a floor under them, not a trap door.
Right. No wonder you dig Ayers — b/c that’s not a concrete solution, they’re just pie-in-the-sky words.
But then again, I am trying to explain this to people who jeered at midnight basketball.
A total non-sequitir, but regardless it shows your ridiculous mind-set again. As if that program was actually some kind of solution to the problem [supposedly] being addressed here.
Meaning that administrators back down when parents provce they didn’t follow their own documented due process? Damn straight! Once the disciplinary gears start grinding, the parent is the only one left to provide a voice for the child.
Bullshit. That’s what you’d like it to be, I’m sure. The fact of the matter is that in the vast majority of discipline cases, the procedures ARE followed. To the letter. But that is STILL the only time these “parents” are seen or heard from — to cry that their poor babies “haven’t done a thing.”
High quality preschool, early identification and intervention for LD issues like ADHD and dyslexia, expansion of school lunch and breakfast subsidies, solving the digital divide, constructive extracurricular activities to build social skills, expanded curriculums, better use of technology in schools and in parent communication, and a bunch of other stuff I can’t think of right now.
Those last words are key — “can’t think.” Because all that stuff is being done — RIGHT NOW.
The problem you’re not realizing is that no matter what you do or invest in, that so-called trap door will always be there. Schools cannot “save” every child. Sure, they should do all they can to minimize those numbers, and they are — again, as ALL those things are being done now (locally, as I know firsthand, but nationally too).
I understand some of the stuff that my fellow liberals talk about like the need to understand different cultural norms and not punish students for behaviors that may be foreign to you but are not necessarily disrespectful or disruptive (white teachers who are quick to write up students for “acting black” is a classic, well documented example).
Can you give an example?
“I personally agree with the shortcomings of standard testing..”…der Kaiser
And I’ll glad you’re not in charge of commercial airline pilot qualifications.
“Almost as good as putting “Defense” Department on the Pentagon.”..anon, anon, anon…
They haven’t defended us?
By-the-Way, anon, anon, anon…, why are you so obsessed with defending a domestic terrorist like Ayres? Is he your hero?
They raised great-grandchildren who became Progressives who built the US public school system…..anon, anon, anon…
The ‘US public school system?’
Uh, I hate to tell you, anon, but the states had compulsory education, particularly in New England, long before federal involvement and long before the term ‘progressive’ was coined, and, particularly in rural New England, with a curriculum designed by conservative Methodists.
Maybe you should change your handle to Rachael Maddow.
Lets go, anon, anon, anon…“Four Legs Good, Two Legs Bad…”
I like this handle better. I’ll try it for a while.
Rick, you would be kicked out of any private school for verbal taunting and bullying. Go see if the Methodists want you. I doubt it.
Yes, the US has a public school system, as much as that disturbs you. The state constitutions are where the requirements for a free public education are found. They were written in around the time of Reconstruction.
I don’t give a rat’s ass about Ayers. His educational thinking isn’t that original. However he is articulating some stuff that is mostly correct. I don’t mind defending the parts that are correct.
Let’s go Rick, Rick, Rick, Rick… Are there no prisons? Are there no workhouses?
They raised great-grandchildren who became Progressives who built the US public school system…..anon, anon, anon…
The ‘US public school system?’
You could’ve stopped here…because if he’s proud of our public school system under progressive control…that shows his low standards with regards to education. Before progressive control of the schools we were the innovation and invention envy of the entire world. Since Carter and the other progressives got a hold of the public education system…we’re the laughing stock of the planet. AWESOME TRACK RECORD!!
Before progressive control of the schools we were the innovation and invention envy of the entire world.
Alexis de Tocqueville, Democracy in America. 1840.
The United States of America is the world’s technology leader. You have to blind not to see it how much more intelligent we are than generations ago. Not just smarter, complex thinking smarter. The world runs on American innovation. Intel microprocessors, Microsoft software power 90% of the world’s computers. The world Googles to Amazon and iTunes on networks by Cisco Systems with Sun Microsystems and Java. All the video on the internet is Adobe flash Apple Quicktime, world music is at iTunes on iPods and iPhones. How does this new world find it’s way? GPS, another American innovation.
SAS business software runs 45,000 of the largest businesses in 100 different countries, including 92 of the Fortune Global 100. SAS is the product of two thinkers from a State University in NC.
How did all that American smart come to be? More Americans make it to higher education than at anytime in our history. I am not even sure what the hell a progressive is, but if it has something to do with progress, progressive should be very very proud. 3D movies anybody? Avatar? NetFlix? The world even flocks to our movies. American public schoolers. These guys are good!
PS: Apple Computer founder Steve Jobs says he was inspired at age 14 by electronic lab at Homestead Public High.
“More Americans make it to higher education than at anytime in our history.”
Think123, it is unfortunate, but I have to bring it up. There are some reasons why more Americans make it to (mind you the word is to no through) higher education than ever before.
1. There are more colleges and opportunities to go to college than ever before.
2. The population has grown.
3. The standard for entry into many institutions of higher learning have been reduced. (i.e. college students that don’t know basic math and can’t read can still get in) Thus some college students spend a year or two in remedial, or to be more PC prerequisite courses, to cover what they should have learned in grade school before they can take credit courses. Since colleges are now doing the work of grade schools of couse more people are able to make it to higher education. Is what colleges are doing to increase enrollment a good thing? Perhaps, but it is not an indication of strength in our public schools, rather an indication of weakness.
Timothy, plenty of room for better in public education, always. I was responding to America’s getting dumber. That pubic education is something less than an American miracle. An enabler of Liberty for all. We’re way smarter. Test all you want, but the proof is the USA leads the world in everything smart. From military smart, technology smart, commercial smart, artistically smart, entrepreneur smart. The whole world loves American smart enterprise – Home Depot, MacDonalds, Starbucks, IBM. We let foreigner ride the Space Shuttle. Neil Armstrong graduated from public high school. Most of the brain in America is from Public Education.
Sure, higher education was limited to a much smaller privileged class prior to GI Bill etc. You are buying into an excessively negative view that’s not supported by our success as a Nation. The main thing is more people have more opportunity. The 140 IQ and the 92 IQ. Everybody gets a chance as they can. My daughter was special education. When I see her smile reading the paper I thank God for Miss Gallagher the special ed teacher at the public school.
So it may look dumber today, but it just that more folks have access.
The first Boston public school was established in 1634 – notables like Samuel Adams, Benjamin Franklin, John Hancock, and Cotton Mather studied there. The original federal Office Of Education came in 1867. The USA has maintained intellectual supremacy from Industrial Revolution, a stop on the Moon, right into this Digital Revolution. How dumb can we be?
This looks like a rockin’ post. I will have to come back tomorrow to read the thread.
HOLY SH+T, did I start all this?
Lots of ideas, but I don’t see any solutions!
Here’s a very inexpensive solution that can be used in any school:
Get parents, students, and teachers back to the basic principles and values of our Founders.
Scrap the social studies classes that teach about how great Europe is.
How many Europeans are trying be become Americans as compared to the number of Americans trying to become Europeans?
How many of you have friends who immigrated to America?
Now compare that to the number of friends who immigrated to Europe!
Why is the diference so dramatic?
Because America is the land of oppurtunity, while
Europe is the land of the welfare state!
I lived in Europe, I’m talking from experience!
How about bringing back “real” American history, not the “progressive” version.
Where can you find “real” American history?
The US Constitution, the Bill of Rights, and the 5000 Year Leap!
Tim, do they really overdo how great Europe is? Can say what you’re talking about? I thought a very conservative board in Texas was the major force in what textbooks say?
Can somebody please explain what a progressive is? How do you spot one? I kind of envision, like dowsing for water, hunting for progressives with a divining rod.
“How dumb can we be?”
Think123, I really don’t know, but I’d imagine both a lot dumber than you would like to believe and smarter than you might imagine.
Old Arabian Proverb.
He who knows not and knows not that he knows not
He is a fool-shun him;
He who knows not and knows he knows not,
He is simple-teach him;
He who knows and knows not he knows,
He is asleep-wake him;
He who knows and knows he knows,
He is wise; follow him.
To me this is a basic riddle of education. It establishes four general classifications for where people stand in their attitude towards learning. On a micro-level it is interesting and informative to guage where one fits in this spectrum. Macroscopically, to the extent that a system of education is able to answer the riddle it will find success.
Now I know why Old Arabic movies do not offer sub-text!
Think123,
To answer your questions:
“Do they really overdo how great Europe is? Can say what you’re talking about?”
While I lived in Europe, the currency changed to the Euro.
Many countries lost their identities and the value of their sovereign currency.
The less solvent countries were raised to a higher level while the more productive countries standard of living dropped dramatically.
That was/is a socialist agenda.
How can I make this claim with any credibility?
I was in the US military, stationed in Belgium when the Euro went into effect. If you know anything about the military pay system, you are aware of the “COLA” allowance.
This is an allowance which is designed to help military members afford goods and services in the country in which they are stationed. When the Euro became the monetary standard (in every country except Switzerland….”what did they know and when did they know it?”). Belgium was/is not famous for their support of the capitalist system!
But as bad as their economic system was, the COLA rate in Belgium dropped by almost 25%!
About your text book question:
To the best of my knowledge, the “conservative” board in Texas you speak of is not responsible for writing text books.
They warehouse textbooks.
Text’s are purchased (using tax dollars) from this business based on each state education boards chosen curriculum.
If a state like California decides American values and principles are outdated and irrelevant, students will be reading “Jennifer Has Two Daddies” rather than Aesop’s Fables.
Is that wrong?
No, it’s not, but only if the “people” of California choose the text, and not the educational “elitists” who know what’s best for your child’s development.
Can somebody please explain what a progressive is? How do you spot one? I kind of envision, like dowsing for water, hunting for progressives with a divining rod.
You pegged it Think123! The big question is “What is a progressive?”
My definition of progressives:
Progressives are what they want to be whenever they need to be. You can’t spot one because when you do, they change the debate! Look at the current administrations pre-election promises and the current 180 degree change when the “polls” are an issue.
My definition of conservatives:
Conservatives are what they want to be whenever they need to be. You can’t spot one because when you do, they change the debate! Look at the current administrations pre-election promises and the current 180 degree change when the “polls” are an issue.
Now do you see the difference?
Neither do I.
Tim, I wasn’t asking what’s wrong with Europe. We all have opinions on that. I was asking about what you meant when you said
“Scrap the social studies classes that teach about how great Europe is.” The question was: Do we really overdo that in Public School? What evidence do you have to support that assertion. You may be right, I just like to know what schools, what classes, what books, what exactly is being said in our schools that Europe is so great?
The Texas school board is always in the news because it seem like they are real influential with the biggest textbook publishers and a lot of what Texas wants, many other schools outside Texas get too. Last year their was a big news item where this conservative got voted off the board because he was going a little nuts demanding creationism, the earth is 5000 years old be added as an alternative reality. Maybe I’m wrong but Texas is big player in what lots of kids get in textbooks.
“I like this handle better. I’ll try it for a while.…anon, anon, anon aka ‘Ricky’
“I’ll show you, Rick. I’ll call myself ‘Ricky.’ That’ll get you! Then I’ll hold my breath and count to fifty!”
Idiot.
I see I struck a nerve. Rick can dish out the taunting but he can’t take it. Guess what, your high school called, they said don’t bother coming to the reunion, you are still kicked out.
I think you are probably smart enough to debate with facts instead of ad hominem. Too bad you don’t have the character for it though.
I see I struck a nerve. Rick can dish out the taunting but he can’t take it.
You ‘struck a nerve?’ That’s why you childishly responded to my post with ‘from now on I’ll call myself ‘Ricky?’
Guess what, your high school called, they said don’t bother coming to the reunion, you are still kicked out.
Really? What ‘high school?’ What ‘reunion?’
Hey anon, since you brought-up ‘high school’ (why?), maybe instead of ‘Ricky,’ you should resuscitate your old nickname…remember? What was it? Oh yeah…’Weenie.’ Remember, ‘Weenie?’
I think you are probably smart enough to debate with facts..
Really? Gee, thanks, ‘Ricky.’ The question is- are you?
Let’s go Rick, Rick, Rick, Rick…
‘Rick, Rick, Rick?’
I appreciate the flattery (imitation), but ‘Rick, Rick, Rick…’ doesn’t have the subtlety of ‘anon, anon, anon….’. as in your endless, know-it-all droning. Get it? Anon, anon, anon…
I’ll Show that Rick…I’ll Call Myself ‘Ricky’
Okay, ‘Weenie.’
Rick, Ricky, Anon,
Please stop holding your breath!
You could hurt yourself!
Now, “Can’t we all just get along?”
Bickering is not the answer to any opinion.
OK, so now why don’t you two give each other a big internet hug and return to the issue!
Tim R.-
Unlike pedantic ‘Ricky,’ I am a hit-quick poster. No long, drawn-out ramblings, no condescending proselytizing.
My purpose was to take ‘Ricky’ off his game, to change his focus. I did so. Liberals are all the same- humorless, predictable and manipulable.
Rick, most comedians are Democrats.
Tink123,
I think you are a bit off topic, but you stated that most comedians are Democrats.
Do you have credible research to support your claim?
If so, please post it here so that the Jeff Foxworthy fans have a reason to stop laughing at his jokes and supporting his American values.
Tim, I did not say only Democrats are comedians. Most is a safe bet, you know how those Hollywood types are. I’ll have one of my people research it. Foxworthy is funny, one of the funniest. Not sure what his American values. Here’s a riddle: One American says to another American that his American values are more American than the other American’s values. Who wins?
One American says to another American that his American values are more American than the other American’s values. Who wins?
The terrorists, of course.
think123,
Not much of a riddle…
All win when we are FREE to have and voice our opinions.
Thank the United States Founders for that ideal.
“Most is a safe bet, you know how those Hollywood types are. I’ll have one of my people research it. ” – think123
Al Goreacle has to have someone ELSE do the research because he’s FAR too busy posting (no offense to DelPol authors) at Delawarepolitics.net to research it himself. ROFL…
Anyway, you can pretty much bet that the entire comedic staff of the Blue Collar Comedy Tour are Republicans or Blue Dogs. Besides the argument here isn’t Republican vs. Democrat….it’s Conservative/Libertarian vs. Progressive. Once again, you miss the point entirely with your drivel.
All Republicans are comedians. I still smile every time I see the Laffer Curve.
and all Progressives are living in another universe…I still scratch my head everytime I look at The New Deal and The Great Society programs that aren’t just losing money…but destroying our economy and killing freedom.
I think progressives just like the color red….
I didn’t say they were funny comedians… get some new jokes.
Sure it’s progressives conservatives libertarians, but there’s also the new lowinformationists movement that needs to be considered. New riddle: If one group gets 67 million votes on election day and a competing group has a Tea Party, who wins the election?
Depends, what kind of tea are we talking?
What relevance does winning an election have? Oh…I get it…you’re a progressive so you don’t understand the difference between a “democracy” and a “republic”. I have detailed this above but will repost an excerpt here:
” It’s often confused in our vernacular and rarely corrected.
America is not a democracy. We are a republic. By definition, a republic is a political unit governed by a charter (like our Constitution), while a democracy is a government whose prevailing force is always that of the majority. The difference between a republic and a democracy lies in the ultimate source of official power. In the case of a republic, it lies with a charter. In America, our charter is the United States Constitution which limites and defines the power of our federal government. Each state is of itself a “little republic” because each of our states also has a “charter document” that limits the state government. In a democracy, power lies with the rule of the majority and is typically not checked by a founding document. Consider the words to the United States’ Pledge of Allegiance, “And to the republic for which its stands, one nation under God, indivisible …” which has no mention of democracy.
Our founders deliberately decided that a pure democracy would lead to failure. They looked at the Roman democracy which was a “representative democracy” that relied upon a majority’s whim to control the direction of the country, the liberties the people would hold, etc. Instead, they created a founding charter that specifically enumerated the powers the federal government was to have and limiting them only to THOSE powers. It reserved all other powers to the states or the people to decide for themselves. That may be where people confuse America with a democracy. The founders intended the people to be allowed to retain the MAXIMUM number of rights given to them by God while still allowing the federal government to govern and ensure national defense.”
Winning an election does not give even a VAST majority cart blanche to do whatever it wants whenever it wants in a republic (America’s form of government). There are limits placed by the Constitution on the government. There are limits to what bills Congress can even suggest. In fact, I would much prefer a return to the original way Congress was made up with the people choosing the House and the state legislatures appointing the Senators. The idea behind this was that the Senators would be more experienced and would be able to swat away many unconstitutional suggestions made by the idealist but unfocused House of Representatives. Of course, with our current makeup, half of the House has been in place longer than some of the Senators have been old enough to vote so this is not something achievable as we speak. The point is that the Congress can’t pass a bill for something unconstitutional, it’s SUPPOSED to strike it down before it passes and if they do not the President is SUPPOSED to VETO it…if all of that fails the Supreme Court (and I hold out hope that they will live up to this) is intended to strike that law down. If the people believe (as many in Congress think they do) that the Federal Government ought to have a power not enumerated specifically by the Constitution of our republic, the President and Congress may ask the states to ratify an AMENDMENT to the Consitution (this has been done a few times). You can’t ignore the document or the process just because your guy won. I don’t care if he got 350 million votes. There is still a process and none of you progressives are following it. Not the Republican progressives and not the Democrat progressives.
Of course Congress can pass a bill that some people think is unconstitutional.
Who exactly do you think should be granted the power to prevent Congress from passing a bill it wants to pass? Is there some kind of “overlord” clause I missed? A committee of teabaggers perhaps?
True, your belief that the bill is unconstitutional might guide you to vote No. But nobody knows if it is unconstitutional until the Court rules on it. And the Court can only rule on laws, not bills.
“Who exactly do you think should be granted the power to prevent Congress from passing a bill it wants to pass? Is there some kind of “overlord” clause I missed? A committee of teabaggers perhaps? ” – anon
It’s called the Constitution dummy…there are limits that we KNOW we shouldn’t be crossing and Congress is obligated to KNOW those limits. The court was intended to be used only in extremely CLOSE cases. Don’t you people ever bother to read John Jay? It’s like a bunch of 10 yr olds…PLEASE learn about the structure and foundation of our government and the views of the founders before you come in here and waste our time.
EvanQ, recall you thought the Constitution did not cover non-citizens in the USA. Then you said foreigners were prohibited from owning property in the USA? You are wrong again regarding what our republic is and what power are Granted to Congress by the Constitution.
The basic fallacy in what you say has to do with your false belief in “absolutes”. There’s no absolute definition of a republic. Just a wide range of opinion. The United States is referred to as a republic because we have a representative democracy not a direct democracy. People don’t vote directly on everything, we vote for representatives to vote for us. Beginning in 1817 the Supreme Court has ruled on what powers the Constitution grants to Congress. Every program, every expansion of Federal power by Congress has been carefully ruled Constitutional carefully following the procedures set out in the Constitution.
The best thing the Tea Party can do it to offer substance. We all know you don’t like the New Deal, you think freedom is in trouble, that the Constitution needs to be followed – trouble is you never say what you want, only what you don’t want. Take just two New Deal programs:
1. FDIC insured bank accounts. What would you like to do about that?
2. Social Security. What would you like to do about that?
Until you tell people what you want to do, what’s the point?
That elections don’t mean anything? What’s really important is what they say on Glen Beck and Rush Limbaugh?
Here is another riddle: If somebody said, a candidate for President owned the Company that owns the Company that pays Rush Limbaugh, and the CEO of that Company is an Israeli national who served in the Israeli Intelligence Service, would that be true or false?
Anon and Evan,
Let’s keep opinions factually based, not personal attacks.
Anon stated this about laws:
“But nobody knows if it is unconstitutional until the (Supreme) Court rules on it. And the (Supreme) Court can only rule on laws, not bills.”
This is true.
Let’s look at “Eminent Domain” laws.
It’s ok for any government, local, state or federal, to take your private property?
The US Constitution protects this right.
If a local, state, or federal agency passes any law, it must go all the way to the Supreme Court for a decision?
What happens to the property owner in the mean time?
Do you know anyone who has been affected by this law?
The Constitution was written by principled and virtuous people for principled and virtuous people.
Did the Founders anticipate that lawyers would spend 225+ years trying to find “loop holes” in their writings?
I think not….but that is an opinion.
Tim,
The fact is that (don’t believe me? Pick up a book called “A Catechism of the United States Constitution”) the founders intended for Congress to check itself long before the Supreme Court did. The House would of course create ridiculous bills but the Senate was supposed to be the check on that by having more experienced legislators who knew the laws of the land better. The President was meant to be yet another check on this and if for some reason after these two checks, a valid Constitutional argument arose the Supreme Court was designed to adjudicate those matters. The founders expected that if future generations wanted the federal government to have more powers, that they would use the Amendment process. It’s there for a reason. Universal Healthcare isn’t close to being in the Constitution. It’s not even TECHNICALLY able to be lumped into one of the clauses (at least if you take the founding fathers words for it). It’s a brand new power that should go through the Amendment process.
These are things discussed by John Jay, Thomas Jefferson, Alexander Hamilton and James Madison over many years. They didn’t throw this thing together in 10 minutes folks. They thought long and hard and made all the arguments they could consider. I contend, based on the words of Adams, Franklin, Washington, Jefferson and Madison WARNING us that future generations would attack the Constitution, that they absolutely anticipated it. That’s why we have their letters, the Federalist Papers and more that they left for us, intact. So we could see their intent and carry it forward.
The fact that we ALLOW the government to usurp power over us and engage in things like “eminent domain” is a totally different matter all together. The progressives (like the subject of this post) have succeeded in dring us AWAY from the Constitution and have weakened our knowledge and appreciation of the founders and their intents and of the Constitution which is the backbone of our republic.
the founders intended for Congress to check itself
Congress has checked itself, and found itself good.
(That’s what all those pesky ‘roll calls’ are for.)
Once again Anon…you’re using TODAY’S Congress as the yardstick. That’s why you’re bothering to argue with the facts and the truth despite it’s prominence in front of you.
In order to understand the founders, you have to unlearn the BS quasi-socialist current congressional makeup. Remember that in 1787 only the United States House of Representatives was voted on by the people. The Senators were appointed by the state and electors chose the President and VP (these were the top two vote getters for president until, I believe it was 1820 when they changed it to separate votes for Pres and VP).
EvanQ,
Great info. I remember reading something similar to your statements in “Don’t Know Much About History” by
Kenneth C. Davis.
Anon,
I’ll send you my copy if you promise to read it.
The Constitution was written by principled and virtuous people for principled and virtuous people.
Are the American people not virtuous and principled?
The Constitution addresses those times when your virtue and principle conflicts with my virtue and principle.
anon – according to numerous founders, the Constitution is intended to be understood using the opinions of the people who wrote it. That is, the founders made clear that the Constitution is intended to be read as it would have been read by them despite the changes in the meaning of words. I’ll dig up some quotes on this if you would like. The bottom line is though, we may not LIKE the fact that we can’t just make the document flow with us…without amending it. But we simply cannot.
If only we had some kind of panel that could rule on whether we were following the Constitution correctly.
Gee anon…I think you’ve caught on to something…of course, when the court is stacked with people who disregard the opinions of the founders and rule on the “currently socially acceptable” merits of the case there by using CASE LAW instead of CONSTITUTIONAL LAW…it becomes an extension of the progressive agenda. Besides, there’s no reason that our elected officals shouldn’t ALSO know a little something about the views of the founders.
So your whole beef is that we have the wrong people on the Supreme Court?
My “beef” is many fold….
1.) We’re not following the PROCESS laid out by the Constitution for pretty much ANYTHING.
2.) We’ve got judges on the Supreme Court that simply ignore what their job is supposed to be in favor of the way they and Woodrow Wilson WISH their job was.
3.) We’ve got people in Congress who either A.) Don’t have the foggiest CLUE about what the Constitution says or B.) Simply don’t care and are ready to usurp power and “fundamentally change America”
4.) We’ve got a fundamental problem with our citizens and our legislators. They don’t understand the form of government we have here. It’s incumbent and CRITICAL that anyone involved in our political structure remember that we are a REPUBLIC and not the DEMOCRACY that people seem to think we are. Our leaders must understand the Constitution the way it was originally interpreted (and we have PLENTY of letters from nearly all of the founders to relay that intent) and remember that the document gives them a process to change it. That process is not simply Congress passing a law. It required buy in from the states. If that changes the Constitution, by going through the process I am SO behind it…100% (unless it violates some moral fiber in me)
5.) We’ve got a loss of morality issue in America. Religion aside…right and wrong is IGNORED in today’s culture. It’s about live it till you die or get caught…REALLY?! There’s no reason to think things through? There are no consequenses anymore…at least until you do ENOUGH wrong that they can send you to prison for. We get 800 chances to clean up and never pay a penalty.
There’s more but these are the major issues…if we clean these 5 things up…policy will be much easier to work out.
Anon,
Your post (#99) is a bit perplexing.
You asked
“Are the American people not virtuous and principled?”
My answer is YES!
The AMERICAN people are virtuous and principled!
In my OPINION, which I am currently allowed to voice, the term “AMERICAN” represents an ideal rather than a specific characteristic or person.
The United States Constitution and the Bill of Rights detail those “AMERICAN” ideals.
I could be wrong, but it seems to me that you are a person who enjoys electronics and technology.
When you purchase a new “toy”, do you plug it in and start fiddling around until you “think” you know how it works?
Or are you someone who reads the operators manual before even attempting to turn the gadget on?
Do you power up an MP3 player and expect it to do the dishes?
Probably not, because that is not what an MP3 player is designed to do!
You can try to reprogram the MP3, but it will never be able to perform any task it was not designed to do no matter how earnestly you wish it.
The United States Constitution and the Bill of Rights are the “Owners Manuals” for FREEDOM. These documents enumerate the tasks that the United States government was designed to do.
Nothing more, and nothing less.
It’s just that simple!
I enjoy reading your feedback on this site, but I’m starting to think that you have very conservative views. I think you might be using this forum to reinforce your “AMERICAN” ideals in case you are confronted by folks who do not believe as you do.
Anon, the first step is recognizing that the United States of America is a gift from GOD.
Go ahead, say it out loud…”The United States of America is a GIFT from GOD!”
Now, doesn’t that make you feel content?
I knew that it would!
I hope this helps settle the issue:
“As Mankind becomes more liberal, they will be more apt to allow that all those who conduct themselves as worthy members of the community are equally entitled to the protections of civil government. I hope ever to see America among the foremost nations of justice and liberality.”
— George Washington
I cannot believe inventive minds, the likes of Franklin and Jefferson, would, for even a fleeting second, imagine the United States of America a hidebound nation. So restricted by the Constitution, unable to transform as the progress of people requires . The Founders were worldly future minded men, most unlikely to envision a Government rigid in form, static in function. They rebelled against the rigid static order of the Old World. They left us a Constitution distinguished by brilliant clarity as well as poetic ambiguity. We amend it. We argue it. It really is amazing something so old seems forever new. Those guys were good!
Modern opponents of the Founders enlightenment, wish us to see the Constitution as an iron shackle rather than an instrument of human progress. Not gonna happen.