I had planned to write a review of an article by an economist from the New York Fed on the most efficient way to implement a voucher program for K-12 education, but then I remembered that rational analysis in not in vogue in Virginia — the Republicans are in charge.
The last several days in Richmond have been very instructive. Several days ago a group calling itself “The Sons of Confederate Veterans” held a rally in the “Fan” district. Residents of this section of Richmond are used to reenacters and although some find this activity offensive. The famous case of a group of neo-Nazis marching through Skokie Ill. firmly established the right of extreme groups to express their awful views in public.
This group marched around screaming, “Kill the Yankees-Kill all of them.” This is hate speech of the worst kind. Republican Governor Jim Gilmore has endorsed this group by enabling them to have a vanity plate provided by the State of Virginia. The silence concerning this is as troubling as it is instructive. No Republican leader in the state has moved to have this plate discontinued. What a great way to attract venture capital from New York and Chicago. I guess I missed that lesson in economic development in grad school.
The gun nut wing of the Republican party has managed to re-establish Virginia as the source of weapons for every gang from Washington D.C. to Portland, Maine. The repeal of Doug Wilder’s “one gun a month ” law will make law enforcement more difficult throughout the East coast. I guess those Constitution-reading Republicans haven’t learned the difference between a drug gang and a militia , as stated in the Second Amendment, something that the lobby for the NRA seems to forget. I can hardly wait when those beer-drenched frat boys at the KA house in Charlottesville can pack heat when Ken Cuccinelli has his way.
Those Republicans who are truly interested in reforming education showed their stuff when they passed a bill to evaluate teachers by using test scores but refused to move the school year to increase the number of instructional days before the tests are given. Perhaps the Redskins would win more games if the quarterback took fewer snaps at practice
The Republicans demonstrated their interest in promoting economic growth by spending recent days discussing a policy that has shown its stimulative effect in world capitals from Kabul to Tehran — restricting a woman’s “access” to abortion. All like-minded theocrats agree that state-sponsored sodomy aka trans-vaginal ultra sound does wonders in increasing Gross Domestic Product. One of these students of the finer points of this type of economic stimulus was so pleased with himself he treated his legislative buddies to a song about his intimate relations with his wife while his Republican mates chortled like a middle school group of boys who have just seen their first edition of Playboy.
These Republicans really know how to bring press attention to Virginia. Rumor has it that most late-night TV hosts have furloughed their teams of comedy writers until this session of the General Assembly ends.
The Republicans of Virginia certainly have some interesting ways to deal with the economic woes of the new century–maybe the Reformation and The Enlightenment won’t get in the way of their agenda this time.
– Les Schreiber
I’m frustrated with both sides but my best mockery is reserved for the GOP Idiots.
I’d have ZERO issues with any kind of non-public school system(s) as long as they all have to meet the same mission and abide by the same testing and accountability regimes.
Let’s have the competition but lets make sure that the players are not scams.
What the GOP is really after is the destruction of the public school system concept and to return responsibility for education to parents.
Oh they’ll cry big crocodile tears that they are being misunderstood but in their ranks in serious numbers are those who basically want to disassemble the public schools system.
And I would say, not without some justification given the abject failures and refusals of the existing institutional hierarchy to focus on the changes needed to put us back on a competitive footing with other countries.
The basic problem is this. For one segment of society, the public schools are everything that college-educated parents want for their kids – not just te core academics but the electives, the amenities and the extra-curricular – all paid for by taxpayers.
For the other segment of society, we have parents who themselves did not come from families that aspired to higher education and as a result they just do not have the cultural motivation to be involved with the education of their kids.
These families are often at the margins economically, struggling just to be able to afford shelter and food and their kids are behind from the first day they attend school.
We call them “at risk” and the need a different kind of teaching that the kids who have “good” parents.
These kids CAN learn – but they cannot learn from the conventional instruction regimes for kids who have more parental support.
Mr. Bush and many others said that these were the kids who were getting “left behind” …ergo the No child left behind law.
easier said than done though because when schools have limited budgets – the resources and the priorities go to the areas where the parents are most vocal.
They (rightly) object to diverse classes that have at-risk kids mixed in with on-grade level kids because the instruction is a terrible compromise – “dumbed down” ..that in reality meets neither child’s needs.
you need separate classes and the at risk kids need specialists – that cost money… but those specialists are competing against the “good” parents advocacy for higher level classes for their kids.
In most schools – the kids with parental advocates win the day and the at-risk kids get what is left over (plus Federal funds earmarked ONLY for at-risk kids – so-called “Chapter” teachers).
Okay..so let’s cut to the chase.
We have a voucher system and the parents of the at-risk kids send their kid to a non-public school with their voucher money.
what happens?
if you are an advocate of vouchers and you do not have a good answer for this question – then I question whether or not you are serious in your avowed advocacy that vouchers will improve education.
they won’t.
they will merely – institutionalize the harsh realities of children “left behind”.
Why is this something that we should take responsibility for?
two reasons. moral and economic.
it’s immoral to know what the problem is and refuse to provide the resources that ordinary IQ kids.. innocent kids who do not have the best parental support – through absolutely no fault of their own – AND who DESERVE A CHANCE at the American Dream – a core ethic of America.
economically – people who grow up without educations – need entitlements.
LOTs of entitlements. Any conservative worth his/her salt should see the cost-effective disaster than accrues from citizens with good IQs not becoming adults with a education sufficient for them to support themselves and their families.
Confederate soldiers were in battle for only one reason: Invasion. If Federal forces had not entered the South, there would have been no war; over 600,000 young men would have lived. The Confederacy had no vision of conquest, no desire to destroy the cities of the North, no strategy for cultural cleansing, no plan to remove the Federal government of Washington (though it must be said that Mr. Lincoln developed and enacted all of these plans for the South). The Confederacy, to quote Jefferson Davis, wanted to be left alone. The philosophy of local rule rather than big government was the foundational principle for the Confederate States of America. The young men serving in Confederate forces were defending their homes. They died for their states. They died to defend their states. Would it not be the greatest of tragedies for those very states for which they died to forget or dishonor them? They gave the last measure of sacrifice. The Sons of Confederate Veterans honor the heroic service of these young defenders of Southern Independence.
” The Confederacy had no vision of conquest, no desire to destroy the cities of the North, no strategy for cultural cleansing, no plan to remove the Federal government of Washington (though it must be said that Mr. Lincoln developed and enacted all of these plans for the South).”
the Confederacy DID, however, have a plan for enslavement.
A check of the Constitution reveals that the United States of America protected slavery. This, of course, predates the Confederacy.
A check of the historical record reveals that it was New England merchants that brought human cargo to sale in the United States. No slave ship ever sailed under the Confederate flag. They did sail under the flag of the United States of America.
Federal forces did not invade the South in 1861 to free anyone. Abraham Lincoln said on October 13, 1858, “I am not, nor ever have been in favor of bringing about in any way the social and political equality of the white and black races.” In August of 1862 Mr. Lincoln told Editor Horace Greeley that his objective in the war was to save the Union and not to either save or destroy slavery. He went on to say that if he could save the Union without freeing a single slave he would do it. To lift Federal invasion of the South to a holy cause overlooks historical statements. The invasion was to bring free states at the point of a bayonet under control of big government — and the government has grown ever since.
Slavery is unjust and should never have happened. All people should be allowed to remain with their families and in their loved countries. Certainly our world would be a better place if slavery had never taken place. Yet, to glorify the Union invasion of the South as a march to freedom for all is to ignore the historical documents.
and the slaves that were mutilated and whipped for leaving the plantations?
Please re-read the last paragraph of my March 12 post. Slavery should never have happened. The New England merchants should never have pulled individuals from their homes; they should have been allowed to remain. Slavery is a moral injustice. However, to lift the Federal invasion of the South to the status of a holy war does not stand the test of historical record. Federal troops were sent to hold by force free states that had chosen by decision of their people to follow the example of 1776. Federal troops did not march South in 1861 to free anyone. We must look, I believe, with historical clarity at the struggle of 1861 to 1865. To look at the South’s desire for independence only through the spectacles of slavery is to be manipulated by political correctness and cultural spin.
Woodrow Wilson wrote, “It was necessary to put the South at a moral disadvantage by transforming the contest from a war waged against States fighting for their independence into a war waged against States fighting for the maintenance and extension of slavery.” This is the spin created and continued by the war’s victors.