Like most States Oklahoma is having problems funding the bloated DemocRAT controlled State government and there is a teacher union initiative to add to the sales tax to help raise even more money for a failed public school system. I think I would get better results for my education dollars by flushing it down the toilet rather than give it to the schools. I sent the following letter to my local newspaper:Since the government public school systems have failed so badly and throwing more money at it does not seem to improve things the only option left is to privatize it. The school buildings could be leased at first to any private company, parents group, or religious organization who have the resources and desire to set up a private school. Later, if these groups are successful over an agreed upon period of time, school buildings can be sold outright to them.
County school boards would monitor and insure that the private organizations or nonprofit groups are meeting State standards. Tuition and private or public grants would fund these schools and phase out school taxes except for the funding of the school boards and the upkeep of leased facilities. In the transition from public to private schools taxpayers will have the right to designate which schools will receive their school tax payments.
Of course the teacher unions, career administrators, and freedom-stealing leftists (all of whom I think are largely responsible for the mess we are in now) will scream loud and clear about this type of plan. For us "regular" people always remember and remind them that the public schools belong to US and it is OUR TAXES that support them and we are just simply taking back what is ours.
Posted 25 January 2003
"Government schools can't teach reading, writing, and arithmetic -- why should we trust them to teach morality, respect, and character? If public education does for ethics what it's done for learning, we'll end up with a generation of immoral, disrespectful, and characterless students.... More funding has been tried. It failed. Smaller classes have been tried. They failed. Higher-priced teachers have been tried. They failed. More educational bureaucrats have been tried. They failed. In fact, the only thing we haven't tried yet is freedom: The freedom of parents to use their own money to send their children to the nonprofit, religious, or private school of their choice -- non-government schools that effectively teach the values parents want."
--Libertarian Party's Steve Dasbach
The Millwood Public Schools is located in north Oklahoma City area had this nonsense posted at their "MPS Students" website:
THE BLACK PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE
We pledge allegiance of the red, black and green
Our flag, the symbol of our eternal struggle,
and to the land we must obtain.
One nation of Black people,
with one God for us all,
Totally united in the struggle for Black Love,
Black Freedom, and Black determination.
Needless to say this has caused a political stink here and, also needless to say, the usual suspects like the local NAACP does not see anything wrong and skated around the question what if the word "white" was substituted for "black"? They said that was not a realistic possibility.
Well, I know when I hear the gauntlet being thrown down so I wrote the following realistic possibility:
THE CONFEDERATE PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE
We pledge allegiance of the red, white, and blue
Our flag, the Stars and Bars,
the symbol of our eternal struggle,
and to the land we must obtain.
One nation of Confederate people,
with one God for us all,
Totally united in the struggle for Confederate Love,
Confederate Freedom, and Confederate determination.
Posted 12 Feb 2002
When the founders put together the new Republic, it was a federation of sovereign, independent States, in compact joined for common defense, common customs, a judiciary independent of any State for the resolution of interstate cases, and a common postal system.
Congress was a part time affair, meeting for only so long as it took to do the States' business, and the central government was limited in its powers and authority. No one was expected to become a career politician.
The Senate was the body representing the States, its members being appointed by their home States as, in effect, Ambassadors until the 17th Amendment allowed popular election. The House was popularly elected for two year terms, and was to control the appropriations of funds and the approval of any taxes, tariffs, etc. Because of this fiduciary responsibility they were purposely permitted only short terms and two years being decided upon because of the difficulties of travel. It was envisioned that they would be in session, perhaps six months.
The Presidency and the executive departments were merely the agents of the other branches, enforcing the customs laws, administering the navy and army when one was finally allowed, and the postal service.
For a time, there was no national army or navy, so fearful were Americans about strong central authority, that we had only one armed service, the Revenue Service (now Coast Guard).
The founders wrote their Constitution in light of the philosophies abroad at the time, which led to the disaster that was the French Revolution, and they considered their experiences with Royalty and Britain; and being classically educated men; they were conversant with Plato and all the rest.
They could have had a king, but chose not; they could have had a Directorate, but chose not, or they could have had a Dictator, but chose not. Instead, they chose a limited constitutional Republic, with sovereignty held at the lowest level possible - that is, the free man of responsibility; e.g. property owners and taxpayers, for these were they who had greatest interest in good government and from their enlightened self interest, good would flow up and down the social scale.
There were many who wanted a king, and many who wanted to be king; some were infatuated with the Socialist/pre-Communist ideas in France and what would later constitute Germany.
When asked what sort of government they had provided, Benjamin Franklin replied, "A Republic, if you can keep it." So concerned were they that their creation could be lost, they wrote as many defenses as they could into the document itself. Many States refused ratification, in fact, until these protections were included. So came about the Bill of Rights, which is not a separate document, as some would pretend, but part of the contract.
It is in fact, in this context that the Bill of Rights must be read - freedom of speech and of the press; the right to keep and bear arms; the right assemble; and all the rest were provided specifically as guarantees against government!
The flaw they failed to detect was that the whole depended upon an educated an informed electorate. In their experience, men educated their own children as a parental responsibility. It never occurred to them that the public schools intended for the general improvement of the children of the poorer classes would eventually become the instrument of their undoing.
As Lincoln said, "No power on earth; no combination of armies or collection of fleets are sufficient to subdue the American people from without. If America will be destroyed, it will be from within, and in manner insidious."
As the first Dictator in this country, he knew whereof he spoke. Lincoln assumed powers never granted or authorized. He ignored both the courts and the constitution. He denied the expressed will of the people, in lawful election expressed and made war on them. It is a measure of the power of propaganda that he is considered a hero and great president today in spite of known history.
And so it has come to pass, that the monster the founding fathers sought to keep at bay, is on everyone's doorstep. An Imperial government, under an autocratic regime, mindful only of its' own power and privilege. And their control of the schools and the teacher's colleges made it possible because they simply substituted indoctrination for education.
Not being taught or knowing your rights and responsibilities as a member of a free society is the same as not having them. Hitler said something like "Give me the children when they are young and they will be mine forever."
I did not reproduce DG's long letter because I only disagreed with only one part of it, his views on charter or enterprise schools that goes by different names in various states which are public schools relieved of most regulations and controlled by private citizens much like a private school is:
I agree much with what DG wrote about education in his October 23, 1999 letter in the Daily Oklahoman except for his view on charter schools which he claims will create an British type elite school system for the few. There is already many "elite" private/home schools in place that usually beats out public schools hands down. Many parents who can not afford the private school tuition or the time to home school has only the monopolistic and inferior public school system to educate their children.
Charter schools will not create an elitist school system but gives parents in the public school area a choice. It forces all schools, public and private, to compete for students by raising standards and education excellence and cutting costs. This would lead to all public schools becoming specialized charter schools. It is a win-win for everybody in the education arena.
I would also like to see the school choice concept go one step further and allow taxpayers like me, who do not have school age children, to have the option to designate where my school taxes go, charter, private, or public schools at large. Money talks and the only way we can take back our schools and break the political power of the National Education Association (An liberal and very powerful national teachers union that puts a leftist political agenda before education) that keeps standing in the way of true reforms is for we the people to have full empowerment on how and where our children and education funds go.
This is a response to the president of the Oklahoma Education Association, which is part of the NEA national teacher union. In summary, she is supporting an amendment to the Oklahoma State Constitution mandating a proposal to set minimum levels for state funding of education at 62 percent. My response is pretty much a standard one to any thing advocated by the teacher unions as long as they resist real reform in education:
I am writing in response to Carolyn Crowder, president of the Oklahoma Education Association in her "Your Views" letter in the June 27 issue of the Oklahoman. Call me cynical, but when ever I see anything advanced by the Oklahoma Education Association or the parent NEA union claiming they will "improve" public education and it "It's About Kids, Not Political Agendas", I see nothing but warning flags and sirens warning parents to take cover and hold on to their wallets. The main reasons being that the OEA and other large teacher unions have local, state, and national lawmakers in their pocket. The better to resist any real reforms, protect the status quo, and increase our taxes to waste even more money on a failing public education monopoly not accountable to anyone.
If "It's About Kids, Not Political Agendas" then why are these teacher unions against the free market and competition for better education by allowing parents, through vouchers paid for by their taxes, to chose the school they want their children to attend? Until the NEA and their state affiliate unions support school choice, I am not interested in hearing anything else they have to say.
 |
|
|
|
 |
