retrorepublican
08-15-2007, 10:57 AM
>Hey Mr. -----,
>
>Hope your summer is going well. I came across the following article on
>education at Ron Paul's Texas Straight Talk column and wanted to know
>what your opinion was as a teacher.
Summer's going well, but too quickly.
I don't know enough to have an opinion about a lot of the article, but a
lot of it strikes me as something that could have been written anytime in
the last 100 years. Everybody likes to complain about schools -- not
without cause, unfortunately. At the same time, reading between the
lines, complaining about schools is also a way to complain about young
people. . . something that always appeals to older voters :-)
> "After more than 40 years of massive federal education spending,
>the inescapable conclusion is that federal control is failing. By any
>objective standards, our public schools are worse than ever.
What objective standards is he talking about? It's not obvious to me that
schools are better or worse than when I was a kid. Probably schools in
distressed cities are worse now, but the cities themselves are worse too.
>Policies
>regarding curricula and discipline, once set by local teachers and
>principals working closely with parents, are now established in
>Washington.
I don't know of any discipline policies set in Washington. Perhaps he's
thinking about interrogation techniques?
As far as curriculum, I believe it's state by state. No Child Left Behind
was an attempt to bring some minimum standards. Educators seem to have
mixed opinions of NCLB.
> Politically correct sensitivity training substitutes for rigorous
>coursework in liberal arts or practical vocations. Children learn phony
>self-esteem, rather than the importance of productive achievement.
>Teachers are prohibited from maintaining discipline.
He's blaming this on the government? Is it the government that makes
every kid on every soccer team receive a gigantic trophy every year?
>As a result, our
>high school graduates enter adulthood less educated and less prepared
for
>responsibility than previous generations. Obviously, ever-increasing
>federal control over our schools has failed the nation's children and
>lowered educational standards.
Whenever anyone says "obviously", you need to sit up straight
and listen carefully. One could also argue that federal involvement has
kept the bottom from dropping out completely.
> Yet while the need for new policies in Washington has never been
>greater, the approach unfortunately remains the same: more federal
>spending and more federal control. Last week Congress passed
legislation
>that massively increases funding for failed Education department
>programs. Although the bill was widely hailed as bipartisan, the truth
is
>that it contained mostly liberal measures promoted by Democratic
members
>of Congress. Key Republican provisions such as school vouchers and
>unconditional flexibility for local school districts were not included.
>Regardless of the party stamp, the bill clearly represents a
>big-spending, big government plan that will only serve to further
>entrench the wasteful federal education monopoly.
> The bill increases the Education department budget by a whopping 22
>percent- more than even the liberals had hoped. The $9.2 billion
increase
>brings the total department budget to more than $50 billion. No one
>mentions the high tax rates we all pay to finance this spending. We
must
>remember that every dollar parents send to Washington is a dollar they
>don't have to spend directly on their children's education. Most
>education tax dollars sent to Washington fund the federal bureaucracy;
>far less than half of each dollar is ever returned to local schools.
This appears to be untrue -- at least, it's contradicted by the US Dept of
Ed web site:
http://www.ed.gov/about/overview/fed/role.html
Here's a quote from there:
....... . . while ED's programs and responsibilities have grown
substantially
over the years, the Department itself has not. In fact, with a planned
fiscal year 2007 level of 4,177, ED's staff is nearly 45 percent below the
7,528 employees who administered Federal education programs in several
different agencies in 1980, when the Department was created. These staff
reductions, along with a wide range of management improvements, have
helped limit administrative costs to approximately 2 percent of the
Department's budget. This means that ED delivers about 98 cents on the
dollar in education assistance to States, school districts, postsecondary
institutions, and students.
More
>importantly, federal school dollars come with strings attached. The
more
>money we give to education bureaucrats, the more power they have to
>dictate how local schools are run. When federal spending increases,
local
>schools are forced to do whatever it takes to get their share, even if
>this means adopting one size fits all policies mandated in Washington.
In
>other words, federal money is used as a club to force schools to
>surrender more and more of their decision making authority to
Washington.
> I believe that parents and teachers know what is best for their
>schools at the local level. The key to reforming public education in
>America is returning local control back to our public schools. I have
>introduced three education tax credit bills which keep more tax dollars
>and more decision making power at the local level. The first provides
>parents with a $3,000 per child credit for educational expenses,
>including tuition, books, computers, and tutors. The second allows
>parents or individuals to claim up to $3,000 in tax credits for cash or
>in-kind donations to schools and scholarship programs. The third bill
>grants all teachers a $1,000 tax credit, effectively raising their
>salaries without spending tax dollars.
This really bugs me. A tax credit without a corresponding spending cut is
increasing the deficit. That's spending tax dollars.
>All three of these measures share
>the same goal of insuring that parents, rather than federal education
>bureaucrats, decide how their children are educated.
> Congress never seems to learn that Washington does not know what is
>best for kids. While both parties claim to stand for education, their
>bureaucratic approach should no longer be tolerated by American
education
>consumers. American parents will spend generously on their children's
>education, but Congress must be willing to lower tax burdens and ease
the
>federal stranglehold on education that has destroyed our public
schools."
My overall impression of this is that he's painting the picture that he
thinks his base wants to hear -- not very helpful if you want to actually
improve things. I'd be more impressed with this if he went after the
teacher's unions. . . lots of good targets there!
Cheers,
Mr. ----
How should I respond?
>
>Hope your summer is going well. I came across the following article on
>education at Ron Paul's Texas Straight Talk column and wanted to know
>what your opinion was as a teacher.
Summer's going well, but too quickly.
I don't know enough to have an opinion about a lot of the article, but a
lot of it strikes me as something that could have been written anytime in
the last 100 years. Everybody likes to complain about schools -- not
without cause, unfortunately. At the same time, reading between the
lines, complaining about schools is also a way to complain about young
people. . . something that always appeals to older voters :-)
> "After more than 40 years of massive federal education spending,
>the inescapable conclusion is that federal control is failing. By any
>objective standards, our public schools are worse than ever.
What objective standards is he talking about? It's not obvious to me that
schools are better or worse than when I was a kid. Probably schools in
distressed cities are worse now, but the cities themselves are worse too.
>Policies
>regarding curricula and discipline, once set by local teachers and
>principals working closely with parents, are now established in
>Washington.
I don't know of any discipline policies set in Washington. Perhaps he's
thinking about interrogation techniques?
As far as curriculum, I believe it's state by state. No Child Left Behind
was an attempt to bring some minimum standards. Educators seem to have
mixed opinions of NCLB.
> Politically correct sensitivity training substitutes for rigorous
>coursework in liberal arts or practical vocations. Children learn phony
>self-esteem, rather than the importance of productive achievement.
>Teachers are prohibited from maintaining discipline.
He's blaming this on the government? Is it the government that makes
every kid on every soccer team receive a gigantic trophy every year?
>As a result, our
>high school graduates enter adulthood less educated and less prepared
for
>responsibility than previous generations. Obviously, ever-increasing
>federal control over our schools has failed the nation's children and
>lowered educational standards.
Whenever anyone says "obviously", you need to sit up straight
and listen carefully. One could also argue that federal involvement has
kept the bottom from dropping out completely.
> Yet while the need for new policies in Washington has never been
>greater, the approach unfortunately remains the same: more federal
>spending and more federal control. Last week Congress passed
legislation
>that massively increases funding for failed Education department
>programs. Although the bill was widely hailed as bipartisan, the truth
is
>that it contained mostly liberal measures promoted by Democratic
members
>of Congress. Key Republican provisions such as school vouchers and
>unconditional flexibility for local school districts were not included.
>Regardless of the party stamp, the bill clearly represents a
>big-spending, big government plan that will only serve to further
>entrench the wasteful federal education monopoly.
> The bill increases the Education department budget by a whopping 22
>percent- more than even the liberals had hoped. The $9.2 billion
increase
>brings the total department budget to more than $50 billion. No one
>mentions the high tax rates we all pay to finance this spending. We
must
>remember that every dollar parents send to Washington is a dollar they
>don't have to spend directly on their children's education. Most
>education tax dollars sent to Washington fund the federal bureaucracy;
>far less than half of each dollar is ever returned to local schools.
This appears to be untrue -- at least, it's contradicted by the US Dept of
Ed web site:
http://www.ed.gov/about/overview/fed/role.html
Here's a quote from there:
....... . . while ED's programs and responsibilities have grown
substantially
over the years, the Department itself has not. In fact, with a planned
fiscal year 2007 level of 4,177, ED's staff is nearly 45 percent below the
7,528 employees who administered Federal education programs in several
different agencies in 1980, when the Department was created. These staff
reductions, along with a wide range of management improvements, have
helped limit administrative costs to approximately 2 percent of the
Department's budget. This means that ED delivers about 98 cents on the
dollar in education assistance to States, school districts, postsecondary
institutions, and students.
More
>importantly, federal school dollars come with strings attached. The
more
>money we give to education bureaucrats, the more power they have to
>dictate how local schools are run. When federal spending increases,
local
>schools are forced to do whatever it takes to get their share, even if
>this means adopting one size fits all policies mandated in Washington.
In
>other words, federal money is used as a club to force schools to
>surrender more and more of their decision making authority to
Washington.
> I believe that parents and teachers know what is best for their
>schools at the local level. The key to reforming public education in
>America is returning local control back to our public schools. I have
>introduced three education tax credit bills which keep more tax dollars
>and more decision making power at the local level. The first provides
>parents with a $3,000 per child credit for educational expenses,
>including tuition, books, computers, and tutors. The second allows
>parents or individuals to claim up to $3,000 in tax credits for cash or
>in-kind donations to schools and scholarship programs. The third bill
>grants all teachers a $1,000 tax credit, effectively raising their
>salaries without spending tax dollars.
This really bugs me. A tax credit without a corresponding spending cut is
increasing the deficit. That's spending tax dollars.
>All three of these measures share
>the same goal of insuring that parents, rather than federal education
>bureaucrats, decide how their children are educated.
> Congress never seems to learn that Washington does not know what is
>best for kids. While both parties claim to stand for education, their
>bureaucratic approach should no longer be tolerated by American
education
>consumers. American parents will spend generously on their children's
>education, but Congress must be willing to lower tax burdens and ease
the
>federal stranglehold on education that has destroyed our public
schools."
My overall impression of this is that he's painting the picture that he
thinks his base wants to hear -- not very helpful if you want to actually
improve things. I'd be more impressed with this if he went after the
teacher's unions. . . lots of good targets there!
Cheers,
Mr. ----
How should I respond?