The Best Thread of The Year: We're Keeping This one Going
The best thread of the year has been taking place this week below Irena Goddard’s guest blog. That Blog is working its way off the front page, but those of us involved want to keep it going. With Irena’s family’s permission I’ve cut and pasted it below. 54 comments are here also.
There is a lot to read here, but we touch on issues that have been contentious blood boilers between progressives and libertarians for a long time. For some reason everyone has kept their head, I buttoned down my tongue and the results are encouraging.
If you take the time to just read this you will see some honest and intelligent arguments on both sides. I think we are saying things to each other that have never been said.
Whether or not you agree—I trust that you will see what can be done here in the blogosphere. It’s a lot easier to rant and rave and I’m as guilty as the next guy, but if we continue in this direction we might surprise everyone including outselves!
So here’s the thread in it’s entirety:
(This testimony was delivered April 3 by Concord resident Irena Goddard to the senate
committee considering CACR18)
Honorable members of the Committee,
As you can tell from my accent, I was not born in the United States. I was born in Communist Czechoslovakia. I went to school in a little town of Ostrava. Ostrava is located in the northeasten part of Czechoslovakia, very close to the Polish and German borders. We would address all of our teachers by "Soudruska Ucitelka" (which translates into "Comrade Teacher"). Differentiation and creativity of any kind was discouraged. Economic classlessness and receiving based on “need” was preached. The curriculum that I was taught in the Czechoslovakian elementary school was centrally controlled from Moscow.
The Soviet Union wanted to ensure that every child in Russia, Ukraine, Poland,Romania, Hungary, Czechoslovakia and other satellite counties was getting equal and adequate education. This communist flavor education was dictated from Moscow, and since there was little local control, everyone had to adhere to the powerful bureaucrats in power. We know now the terror that was applied to those to were brave enough to question the Communist Party and we all know why the Communist Soviet Union fell – because the central planners, the bureaucrats in power could not “plan” everything. Central planning and central funding and thus “redistribution of wealth” does not work.
The only proven economic political system that works is Capitalistic-democracy. THAT is the reason I ask you to oppose this “seemingly noble” but “extremely dangerous” amendment!
If you think that we are long off from communism or we are doing this for the children or you are thinking that the State needs to fund education somehow. I have this to say back to you:
1) Gaining central state control of the schools is one of the 45 Planks in the Communist Platform that was issued in 1958. Other goals on that platform included: central standardization and control of the curriculum and getting state control of teachers' associations.
2) If you are thinking that this amendment is needed because it is “for the children”. I answer back to you: Parents have the biggest stake, interest and motivation in their children's education. Parents need to have direct voice in schools. If current local control continues, then the “children will continue to benefit”. If you are going to support this amendment, then you are removing parent and local community control and you are hurting the children.Make no mistake: 50% central funding will take away 100% local parental and community control.
3) If you are thinking that “we need to fund education somehow”, then I answer back. There is no mandate to change how schools are funded. Bringing in centrally distributed money will only enlarge the “education machine” just like we had in Czechoslovakia, meaning everything BUT student performance.
I believe by supporting this amendment, that you will be putting into place the infrastructure that will slowly start controlling all aspects of education by one bureaucratic source. Carefully consider how other elected or non-elected officials 5, 10, 20 years from now, can use this amendment (who may or may not be of different political mindset than yourselves).
I know you intend only the best things, I know that you may think that I am making preposterous comparisons. I askyou: Have you ever lived in a Communist state? Well, I have. And I can see a mile away what you may not recognize right under your nose.
Posted on Monday, April 9, 2007 at 07:04AM by NH INSIDER | 54 Comments
Reader Comments (54)Now that's what I'd call perspective. :)
MAD MAX
April 9, 2007 | MAD MAX
"Bringing in centrally distributed money will only enlarge the “education machine” just like we had in Czechoslovakia, meaning everything BUT student performance."
Ding ding ding! It's happening in Kentucky and the other states which have embraced their own "Claremonts."
MAD MAX
April 9, 2007 | MAD MAX
WOW! Well said!
April 9, 2007 | R Barnes
Irena:
We may have to wait for the voters to change the makeup of the legislature of New Hampshirvokia in 08.
Common sense falls on deaf ears in the House and Senate now.
April 9, 2007 | Ed Naile
I would love to read this Communist Platform of 1958. Is it from the NH CP? The US CP? The Czech CP? I wonder what the other 45 planks are. Civil unions? Seat belt laws?
Please don't tell Ms. Goddard that we already have central funding of education, from both the state and the Feds. It will just make her depressed, and ready to go back to the Czech Republic. I am sure she is well meaning, but I am not yet convinced she has all the answers.
April 9, 2007 | Mike Emm
Max asked me to comment on this so here goes:
Communism failed miserably. We all know that. To make matters even worse, in the Soviet Union and China communism ( a social economic system) was corrupted by the worst totalitarian leaders imaginable.
I can only imagine the traumas that Irena Goddard suffered.
But to conclude that NH is on the verge of a similar fate takes too much imagination to be taken seriously.
Logically, here's the strongest reason why.
Let's look at her statement about Capitalist Democracy.
Now I agree with Irena that Capitalist Democracy is the best system. But if you look at the worst abuses of Capitalist Democracy you come to the same bad ends that the Communists imposed on students.
In our country, before the advent of restrictions on capitalism, we had children working long hours in terrible conditions in factories. I think anyone would prefer a communist classroom to 12 hours in a factory for almost no money.
And we all know what the fascists in Italy and Germany did. Fascism couples industrial interests and a fanatical totalitarian government. Just think Hitler youth if you don't think capitalism can be taken to the same extremes as Soviet Communism. And yes, the Nazi's weren't democratic, but neither were the soviets.
NH is. That changes the whole dynamic.
I respect Ms. Goddard hugely for surviving, but I'm not pursuaded that we are on the brink of totalitarian schools in NH.
April 10, 2007 | Chaz Proulx
Chaz,
Now we're onto something. Wish I didn't have to work today, but I'll start with a few points and hope for a break later.
-- "Nazi" stands for National Socialism. It is totally inaccurate to imply that fascist Germany is somehow the capitalist analog to communist Russia.
-- Irena Goddard lived for many years in the People's Republic of California, so her experience is not limited to Czechoslovakia and NH. As a candidate for school board last year, she visited area schools and did not find them to be organized around democratic principles.
Words like Nazi, fascist, capitalist, and democracy have a tendency to confuse the issue. The real issue is accountability, and whether it comes from the top down (as in the military, or "No Child Left Behind") or the bottom up (as in a free market where consumers make the ultimate choices).
What failed in Czechoslovakia is the same thing that is failing in California and Kentucky: central planning vs. citizen involvement and local control.
Hope we can keep this going...
MAD MAX
April 10, 2007 | MAD MAX
Max:
The fact that the Nazis had the word "Socialist" in their name does not prove anything about their principles. Anyone can call themselves whatever they want. Remember that George Bush called himself a "compassionate conservative".
I think Hitler's Germany is a very good analog to Stalin's Russia, but it was not as bad, althugh Hitler got worse PR because he was an agressor and lost the war.
But back to the main issue, I don't know where the idea comes from that central planning is happening in our schools. This is a canard. Administrations still run the schools. School boards still oversee the administrations. The voters still elect the school boards. The state funding, if it comes, is not going to suddenly come with a bunch of new requirements that don't already exist. Public schools are already required by the state to meet many, many minimum requirements- having school for 180 days being just one. State requirements are mostly common sense and codify best practices and define minimum subject areas. Isn't it reasonable for the state to require schools to teach math and language? The rules still give schools amply freedom and allow individual initiative.
April 10, 2007 | Mike Emm
MAX
I'm busy today too, but will check in this evening to see this to its logical conclusion.
I anticipated your response about National socialism. I have read almost everything ever written about the rise of Hitler.
( Suggestion for William Shirer for starters: The Rise and Fall of the Third Reich. Then read John Toland )
True to form everything about Hitler, Gorbbels and company was based on deception.
That started with the name. The National Socialists were not socialists. Rather,they collaborated very closely with the capitalist industrial leaders of Germany.
Power and money go hand in hand and Hitler knew that. ( that's why markets will never become moral providers of education and health care, but I digress)
The same blueprint worked in Italy.
Unlike pre war Germany and Post war Russia New Hampshire funding remains separated from curriculum to my knowledge. Teachers are not subjected to "loyalty" litmus tests or screened for political world views.
Moscow controlled ideological teaching (along with a heck of a math program for a while!) If that ever happened in this country I would go ballistic regardless of ideology. (Within grassroot organizations I've been a relentless voice agains ideological training by the way--I hate it--that always sets off big time fireworks but I cannot tolerate it. It's bull and always leads away from critical thinking)
I think the alarm bells are ringing to make people fearful of a situation that will never exist.
I remind everyone that Governor Lynch has a serious background in education. He headed up UNH . And I don't think anyone questions his good faith. This is a sincere man addressing a problem that has plagued NH since I graduated from high school.
This has been a long frustrating period for NH citizens. We must get beyond alarmist fears and settle this issue once and for all.
Mo
April 10, 2007 | Chaz Proulx
Why do you all somehow think fascism and Nazism have anything to do with capitalism? Another name for capitalism is free-markets. What is free about government control of the economy?
There is nothing democratic about giving an educational system a monopoly on the future of children. Coming from a student that has been to both public and private institutions, I can say that public schools are sub-par and probably retarded my mental growth.
Chaz,
You say power and money go hand-in-hand. Why, then, do you advocate giving the government more power and more money to continue the educational status quo?
And your assertion that school funding and curriculum are separate is not true. The High-and-Mighty Supreme Court has mandated that the state must define an adequate education (including substantive, costable, criteria) AND fund the entirety. So the entire cost is based on what the state government says the curriculum is.
April 10, 2007 | Thornton
Thornton
I was just trying to use an extreme example-and that was what Soviet System was -- and extreme example. It doesn't apply here and we are not on the slippery slope in the Granite State
Even if you don't accept that example, I think you might agree with the example of turn of the century children in American Factories during the gilded age. Unrestrained capitalism can be taken too far.
I further believe that taking things to far is the nature of the beast to further profits. This gets near to what I consider the "fatal flaw" in believing that without government we will all have more freedom. Just the opposite is true. (History verifies this over and over again )
Take government out of that equation and we loose every freedom we have. As I love to point out, I can walk into the Halls of Government whenever I want to. I sat in the house chamber just yesterday.
Try doing that with say Verizon this afternoon.
( this is a very good thread by the way )
April 10, 2007 | Chaz Proulx
Chaz,
Speaking of the freedom to sit in the house chamber...
Thornton,
I'm very glad you were able to escape your substandard government school. If you were still stuck there, I doubt I would see you so frequently on weekdays at the state house. Your private school obviously allows you to self-direct, to some extent, your own educational processes, and I'm afraid that has become a lost art under our compulsory, one-size-fits-all system. (I hardly think the system is based on common sense, as Mike claims!)
Mike,
If the curriculum is based on common sense, why doesn't it include logic, rhetoric, or philosophy? Those disciplines were widely considered part of an adequate education in the 18th Century. They are not part of our curriculum today because our system was designed by elites and social engineers who were trying to control the population, not teach them to think for themselves.
And yes, I have proof. Later, when I have time...
MAD MAX
April 10, 2007 | MAD MAX
Max:
OK, Max, I would love to hear about the great school curriculum hijacking. Was this a world wide phenomena, or just in NH?
As you say, later.
April 10, 2007 | Mike Emm
I'm talking about the pioneers of regimented schooling, such as Horace Mann, and how their designs served the interests of elites such as the Carnegies and Rockefellers.
The history of education theory is just plain chilling when you really get into it.
MAD MAX
April 10, 2007 | MAD MAX
The bond between school districts and funds is the strongest, without a doubt. School districts are highly motivated to do all things necessary to receive more funds, which means modify curriculum as necessary. Some say, that the adequate curriculum defined is only “best practice”, but in my opinion that depends on who is in power. Some call it this, some call it that. The point is that it is centrally controlled and there is an infrastructure in place to “voluntarily” roll out this anything that is connected to money.
For example, local education administrators must provide student information, address, phone numbers etc. to U.S Military for recruiting purposes. This has been happening since 2002. If they fail, then they jeopardize receiving federal funds. Often parents do not even know this. If parents want to opt-out their child out of this practice, there is a lengthy process that the parents must initiate. This was included in “No child left behind”. This seems almost surreal to me. Mr. Mike Emm, this definitely is an interesting coding of “best practices”! See http://www.ed.gov/policy/gen/guid/fpco/hottopics/ht-10-09-02a.html
April 10, 2007 | Irena Goddard
Ms. Goddard:
That the US government is collecting this information is news to me, but no surprise. I can even guess why they do this- in anticipation of instituting a draft at some point in the future, if the need arises. I believe something similar was required back when I was young and the draft was a reality, not just a plausibility.
But seriously, and with all due respect, what in God's name does some assinine regulation out of the Bush administration have to do with your concerns about CACR18 and the definition of "cherish"? Or my comments that state guidelines for education are designed to codify best practices. There is a world of difference between NH and the Federal government.
I hope you understand that even without additional state funding, as appears to be called for in the amendement you spoke against, the state is actively involved in defining many aspects of school life in NH, through the Office of Accountability in the Dept of Education. This Office sets all sorts of minimum standards and "frameworks". There are literally hundreds of guidelines that cover everything from school safety standards to what a 5th grade student should learn in math.
While I have not been through all of the guidelines, I am pretty confident that knowledge of "The International" and the Glorious History of the October Revolution are not among the requirements. So far.
April 10, 2007 | Mike Emm
Mike,
Her point is that control is always attached to the money. Sorry you missed it.
MAD MAX
April 10, 2007 | MAD MAX
The tragedy here is that the true consumers of education in NH are powerless and choiceless unless they can afford to pay for the same service twice.
MAD MAX
April 10, 2007 | MAD MAX
I think it is important to step in and add some thoughts to help set Mr. Emm and Mr. Proulx straight.
First, those who deal in strict definitions inside political philosophy understand that Hitler's National Socialism and the "Class-based, Worker-based" system Lenin and Stalin established (yes, Lenin killed thousands, it is all available to see), are both brands of socialism that are only distinguishable by their rationales for existence, not operationally. The both require the subsumation of the individual, the eradication of private property and the top-down directive approach to governance which is where NH has already started to go, and where it is headed with vigor under CACR 18. The only difference between Hitler's Fascism and Lenin's Communism was that under Hitler, SOME, not ALL , private industries were not nationalized. In that case, what Hitler and his pals did was simply DIRECT industries through orders backed up by imprisonment or death. In any political philosophy class one will see early on where the system under which Irena lived, and the system under which Hitler ruled lie, and it is clear that the system the politicians in Concord are setting up for us tends in that direction, not in the direction of local control established by the founders of this state and of the US
Next, to try to excuse further encroachments into the Constitutional order of NH, into local control and town to town competition, by claiming the US government already has, or the state already has, certain regulations is to do a disservice to anyone with a logical mind and a sense of ethics and history. The fact is that the federal education programs are COMPLETELY unconstitutional, and the minimum standards set down in Concord (since Claremont One, by the way) are just as unconstitutional, just as offensive to our State Constitution. Please refer to Section ONe, Article Six, which states that the parishes (towns) shall at all times have the right of contracting with their education professionals. Any sensible reading of this clause would indicate to any sensible person that ANY imposition by the state regarding class room size or teacher-student ratios or anything, if it imposes any pressure on the localities in their budgeting, would be, by definition, an infringement on the right reserved under Article Six. Simple enough to read it, but the politicians don't want to because it does not serve their purposes of consolidating decision-making in Concord, where it will be much, much easier for the unions to lobby.
Third. The reliance by the NH Supreme Court on Section TWO, ARTICLE 83 as their bulwark for the rationale that the state has a DUTY to provide a so-called "adequate education" for every child in the state is so laughably preposterous no person in a live debate before a large audience would even try to bring it up. Why?
A. This clause is in the "Form of government" section, not the rights section. There was a reason for that. The founders understood that you only have NEGATIVE rights, not potisitive rights. Negative rights, to inform you who might have forgotten, are the rights that allow you and me to be LEFT alone by each other. Supposedly, we form government to prevent us from taking things from one another, and from harming one another. When the government can begin doing what we could do to one another, namely take each otehr's property for whatever purposes it deems proper, it has ceased performing the function for which it was designed, adn is therefore illegitmate. To claim that because a child needs to be taught there is therefore a positive right to a taxpayer funded education is absurd. If that logic holds, and we can tax person A to provide money for the education of person B's child, we are, in fact, creating a de-facto slave out of person A for however long it takes for him to work and garner the tax money to pay up. If that is the case, and we can essentially enslave A for the dictates of the majority because the majority thinks it is "right", then why don't we simply remove the middle-man and enslave all the teachers and make them work for the dicates of the majority for that amount of time? We would never do that, would we. But this exercise exposes the fallacy of "positive" rights. You don't have the right to the fruits of another person's labor.
B. The NH Founders understood this. In 1968, when a bunch of leftists tried to get the "cherish the interest" clause MOVED into the rights section, the attempt lost, because the bulk of the NH people understood it then as well. Apparently, many people don't get it today.
C. Finally, even if one were to accept the faulty hitoricism and faulty logic of the Court's rulings regarding Section Two, Article 83, all one need do is read the clause in its entirety, and he will see that if the Court's ruling stands as correct, there must also be a "right" to state funded book projects, science and art, for those are also mentioned in the clause. And might I note that it does not only say "cherish", it says "cherish the interest of the arts, science, literature and all seminaries and public schools". One could easily argue that throwing more money into a centralized system of top-down management with less and less input from the people close to the schools in question (um, akin to where? Yeah, the USSR and Nazi Germany) is not the best way to cherish the interest of public education.
Have I spelled this out clearly enough? I hate to sound terse, but Irena's comparison is quite apt, and to miss the political-philosophical lineage of this centralized plan is to miss a great deal.
Thank you for reading.
April 10, 2007 | Gardner Goldsmith
Max,
They do not teach rhetoric, philosophy and the like in public schools. But guess what? In my private schools I just took a class in Ethics and the philosophy thereof. And at this very moment we are working on public speaking in English, or what Aristotle and Plato would have called rhetoric. Amazing what a difference there is!
Gardner,
If one were to look further into the history of Part 1 Article 6 you will see a disturbing turn of events. In 1968 they removed a reference to all towns paying for their own education under the false and misleading pretense that they were removing "obsolete sectarian references". How is a town paying for its own schools an obsolete sectarian reference?
April 10, 2007 | Thornton
Gardener
Hi--we've never met but I recognized your name and googled you.
I'm a little exhausted and your post was very involved but it deserves an answer.
I'll start with my overall impression:
I think that you are forced to go through very complex, tortured arguments to show that NH is going down the slippery slope of totalitarianism. I realize that its your theory, but when theorys get this complex it usually means that there are dozens of competing theories of equal complexity and it is impossible to determine which ( if any) is correct.
I prefer an elegent theory. And as I get older I also prefer to trust my gut (it has become quite accurate.) My gut tells me that NH is not on the road to slavery, servitude and totalitarianism.
On the subject of Nazi's and Communists they were all rotton and all I was trying to do was make a simple point that supported my position that comparing NH to life behind the iron curtain doesn't cut it. That's all I was saying.
You also brought up Constitutional arguments that keep coming up at NH INSIDER because there are web sites that tell people just how to argue these things.
I'm getting constitutional fatigue.
You are a leader so I know you aren't doing the cut and paste bit. I'm certain too that you believe that your interpretation of the constitution is the logical and true interpretation.
But until you can bring the courts to agree with you, the rest of us operate under the rule of law.
To take this to a logical conclusion may I ask you a question?
Where do you stand on an armed action against the emerging totalitarian government. Richard Barnes and I had a heated debate about that a month ago. Richard mounted a Constitutional argument that it was a duty of citizens to actually kill public officials in certain circumstances ( And Richard I know I am paraphrasing, but I'm tired)
Thanks
April 10, 2007 | Chaz Proulx
MAX
I'm pooped but want to discuss what happened to education--especially a well rounded liberal arts education with philosophy Music and so on.
(And what ever happened to civics?)
Anyway -- I'll run down a short history. You might not agree why the changes took place but I saw them up close and personal.
April 10, 2007 | Chaz Proulx
Chaz,
Thanks for your support with HB92 earlier this year.
With respect to Civics, I understand Estabrook and D'Allessandro are finally about to get their dream of a State-mandated Civics course in the school curriculum, and to be frank I'm not all that upset about it, as long as the civics includes true accounts of the American Revolution :)
Anyways, I know what you mean about the "tortured logic" thing. Trust me when I tell you, it's not because the reasoning is complex, but rather because Gard is so scary-smart, he can *only* understand things when he's made them that complex!
A much simpler way to get the same points across should, in my opinion, be ABSOLUTELY REQUIRED as part of any Civics class:
http://isil.org/resources/introduction.swf
April 10, 2007 | Denis Goddard
Chaz,
You misunderstand a number of my points.
First, there is no need to bother referring to websites that give advice on how to frame a constitutional argument against this power-grab*. I've never seen one, and to bring it up in your reply, though you wrote in very friendly terms, is a disservice to any individual who actually has taken the time to read the state constitution. Anyone can do it, and no advice is necessary. Thanks at least for mentioning that I probably don't do the cut and paste thing. That is not the point. The point is that the RULE OF LAW is the NH Constitution and how it divides power between not only the branches in Concord, but also the state, counties and towns. A Supreme Court ruling is not law. That is why the court is not in the "legislative" branch, because it does not make law, and to believe that any appellate body can do so is to totally miss the point of the study of civics. As an appellate body, the court can only rule on a case by case basis, and its rulings do not equate to law. What they do is set up the lower courts to either prosecute or not prosecute certain laws based on the composition of the upper court. If, for example, the S Court ruled on a case in which a man was found guilty of assault, and the court ruled he was to go free because the laws against assault were unconstitutional, the laws would still be on the books. But no lower courts would bother prosecuting anyone else under the laws because, upon appeal, the cases would go to the very same justices on the S Court, and the defendants would be let go. Therefore, based on the original intent of the founders of NH, it is incumbent on the legislators to remove the justices when they rule improperly. THAT is the reason the founders gave the reps the power to impeach.
So, when you have a court which clearly reads into the Constitution something that is not there, and is not philosophically or logically justified, the avenue of proper recourse is to disregard the ruling, carry out regular business, and impeach the justices. This may sound rash to our ears today, but it is exactly what the founders of this rule book we call the NH Constitution intended.
As far as totalitarianism is concerned, and whether references to it are justified, I think one needs to step back and look at the political spectrum, and then ask what I mentioned in my earlier post: "Does this move by the leftists in Concord take us closer to, or further away from, centralized control..." That was what Irena saw in her former home, and it is what she sees coming here: more bureaucracy, less local control, less addressability by the people involved, more political glad-handling. I think it is undeniable that the USSR, Nazi Germany, Pre WWI Prussia, France, and NH if Concord takes control, are on the same side of the spectrum. And while I agree with you that we are not totalitarian, ask someone in a locality in a few years what will happen when his town does not conform to the state standards for what is an "adequate" education.
Better yet, ask some of the families covered twenty years ago in Sam Blumenfeld's book, "Is Public Education Necessary?" -- those home school parents who had their kids taken from them at gunpoint -- if it's near or far from socialism, fascism or totalitarianism of any other form.
There is a precedent being set by the legislature's acquiescence to the court, and it is not a good one.
Sorry we disagree.
* BY the way, there was a website devoted to how to bring education suits, and it was running back about ten years ago. I downloaded it to a disc before they shut it down. It was directed to teacher union members and attorneys who wanted to consolidate decision-making in one place to help facilitate lobbying efforts.
April 11, 2007 | Gardner goldsmith
Chaz,
That's just the way Gard thinks, man. When the rest of us are reading the comics with our morning Cheerios, Gard is starting his day right with a few chapters of Ludwig von Mises' _Human Action_.
Every morning, right Gard? ;)
I hadn't heard the stuff about 1968. That says an awful lot to me about what the NH Constitution was understood even by education socialists to mean for over 200 years, when the meaning suddenly changed. If the NH Constitution is a social contract in any sense of the word "contract," we cannot give five unelected, unaccountable judges unlimited power to interpret it any way they wish.
Reminds me of another case: federal Alcohol Prohibition required a constitutional amendment, as did its repeal. Why? Because in 1920 everybody understood that prohibiting substances was not among the federal government's enumerated powers, and such powers had to be added to the Constitution before they could be exercised. By contrast, the "War on Drugs" required no such constitutional amendment.
There's a process for changing the Constitution. In fact, we were discussing it just now... something about CACR18.
I was just thinking, are they going to also define and fund 50% of an adequate seminary education? Training men and women of the cloth is also to be "cherished," and that means "pay for," right?
I hope you guys didn't miss Gard's first paragraph. That's what I was going to say (or try to say) about the Nazi/commie stuff above.
I expect we will return to this subject again and again in future blogs. Suggested title for one of you: "Why Centralized School Funding Isn't a Step in the Direction of Socialism."
MAD MAX
P.S. Denis will probably wonder if you watched the "Philosophy of Liberty" video. :)
April 11, 2007 | MAD MAX
Gardner,
You are right and you are wrong at the same time. You are right when you say the courts try cases on an individual bases, but ignore "case law." Case law has been around for hundreds of years and gives us all a way to build on prior legal decisions.
It is a foundation of western legal theory-I'm surprised you don't take it into account. That ommission leaves your consitutional arguments hanging badly.
I'm not blowing smoke either. Here's my "standing" on legal issues:
I'm not a lawyer, but I have practiced law in NH. Last year I represented a client in Superior Court. I had power of attorney and the courts allowed me to write and argue the case.
We were the plaintiffs on a Constitutional due process issue. I named the NH Attorney General as a party along with the NH Board of Mental Health Practice.
Like you, I clearly thought we had the constitution on our side. In other words I have actually stood in a courtroom and argued a constitutional issue.
(We were trying to secure an injunction by the way and we lost.The first judge was fair
but the second badgered me for two hours. Well I didn't like it but that's the way it goes sometimgs. I took my concerns to the press and did very well in the court of public opinion in NH and nationally, so there is some justice.)
April 11, 2007 | Chaz Proulx
Gargner,
Statutory Construction also applies here. I notice that many people interpret laws without being aware that there are established ways of doing so.
Wikipedia describe Statutory Constuction like this:
Statutory interpretation is the process of interpreting and applying legislation. Some amount of interpretation is always necessary when a case involves a statute. Sometimes the words of a statute have a plain and straightforward meaning. But in most cases, there is some ambiguity or vagueness in the words of the statute that must be resolved by the judge. To find the meanings of statutes, judges use various tools and methods of statutory interpretation, including traditional canons of statutory interpretation, legislative history, and purpose.
In common law jurisdictions, the judiciary may apply rules of statutory interpretation to legislation enacted by the legislature, or to delegated legislation such as administrative agency regulations.
April 11, 2007 | Chaz Proulx
oops ( another of my daily typos and spelling failures)
Meant to spell your name correctly
Gardner
April 11, 2007 | Chaz Proulx
MAX
I KNOW you are joking with your suggested headline. Why not tie one hand behind my back! LOL
"Why Centralized School Funding Isn't a Step in the Direction of Socialism."
April 11, 2007 | Chaz Proulx
MAX ,
Not to heap it on but I think that you, like Gardner ignore case law and statutory construction each time you go back two hundred years to prove a point.
If we are going to debate legal issues we all have to understand legal therory. The more I've learned about western law the more impressed I am with it. It can be very messy as we all know, but the traditions that started in England have a beautiful logic to it.
Of course that logic is only as good as the people who carry it out, but that's life.
This leads me to conclude that the prevailing Libertarian arguments that half our laws are illegitimate are based on fatally flawed legal thinking.
April 11, 2007 | Chaz Proulx
Mike Emm,
This essay by an award winning "public" schoolteacher should give you some insights into how our school system developed. It includes a very instructive quote by Woodrow Wilson, among others...
MAD MAX
April 11, 2007 | MAD MAX
MAX
The changes ( for the worse ) that happened to education in my lifetime were cultural not legal.
After the Russians put up Sputnick the first satelite, our country went into an out right panic. I remember going outside at night with half the neighborhood to see this soviet thing flying over "our skies."
Anyway -- Americans became obsessed with Soviet education and a huge ( I mean all encompassing) buzz accompanied this. The US concluded that the Russians were so superior to us in math and science that we were doomed if we didn't change our ways.
You wouldn't believe the pressure that was put on boys who had any math aptitude.
( women in those days had a hard time being taken seriously in the sciences!)
Unfortunately for me I tested high in math and was put under school and family pressure to become an engineer.
As this was happening the US entered the space race with the Russians and the rest is history.
As I reached college age a great debate was taking place about the merits of a liberal arts education. That's what I wanted, but was pressured into studying physics instead.
( I flunked out of UNH in three months. physics and LSD didn't mix--lol)
What happened to me was common and the prevailing wisdom was that a liberal arts (classical) education and a quarter would get you a ride on a bus and nothing more.
That was a turnig point in both higher and k through 12 education.
The anti education right then positioned all cultural studies as frivolous lefty stuff. In particular they wanted to cut off the arts at every level of American life. They were very successful.
All they had to do was cut funding. That of course continues to this day and is why we are still battling this out.
April 11, 2007 | Chaz Proulx
Chaz,
I don't disagree with your basic premise. Case law and statutory construction are certainly important, but do you really want to give them absolute importance, even if it means ignoring the plain meaning of the Constitution?
Your system gives five unelected judges absolute power to interpret the Constitution, which in the case of Claremont obviously means they can reinterpret it according to their own whims as long as you agree with their agenda. (I suspect you would be singing a very different tune if you opposed their agenda.)
And besides, we were only going back to 1968 -- the court and legislature obviously understood the Constitution in 1968, according to Gardner's example, and Thornton's.
I will never accept the legitimacy of certain court decisions, as they are obviously motivated more by politics than by law. I might remind you that "separate but equal" was settled law. Should we have just accepted that? I could cite many cases...
Wickard v. Filburn (1942), for example, is one of the most absurdly reasoned SCOTUS decisions in history. I'm sure this had nothing to do with FDR's threats to "pack" the Supreme Court if they did not find a way to remove restrictions on his power by reinterpreting the Constitution. Since 1942, Wickard has served as the phony precedent for numerous anti-liberty court decisions, most recently Gonzalez v. Raich (2005), the medical marijuana case that was used against us in the NH house on HB 774.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wickard_v._Filburn
The lesson is that no matter what judges say, we can't give the government unlimited powers. Government will inevitably use these powers in ways we don't intend, and they will even use them against us in ways justices could have never expected (as with Wickard v. Filburn).
MAD MAX
April 11, 2007 | MAD MAX
MAX
( loading you up with work here)
I still haven't seen you or anyone come forward with am alternate plan to public education that would education millions of school children.
I mean a real plan that will work.
Of course the main question is: Who will pay for it.
As I always point out, most new families don't have the money.
Without alowing an entire generation to be uneducated while a libertarian plan cranks up, I just don't see this happening.
I wouldn't want million of uneducated people trying to deal with Global warming, gas shortages, and Bush's national debt.
That is the scenario I see if we scrap public education.
April 11, 2007 | Chaz Proulx
Chaz,
Wow, we're having two different arguments here. Perhaps you should write a front page blog on either "settled law" and/or education and we'll go from there?
In brief response to your post about education... I'm sorry you were subjected to those pressures. But to my way of thinking, that's the sort of thing which can be expected to happen in a school system administered by bureaucrats and politicians.
I find this mental exercise very stimulating. (But then again, I have a couple of those "useless" liberal arts degrees.)
MAD MAX
April 11, 2007 | MAD MAX
Max,
The underpinings of case law and statutory construction are sound.
The first level of interpretation under statutory constuction says that "plain meaning" is the first consideration if I am correct.
But "plain meaning" to one person is not plain meaning to another. Let me use Richard's interpretation of our constitution to mean that it is a citizens obligation to kill public figures. That's Richard's interpretaion. Mine is different.
So generically, the process makes perfect sense. If you want to change that you have a lifetime of work in front of you.
As a logical person I think that if you took the emotional content out of this and simply looked at the process generically, that you would conclude that it makes a wonderful sense.
April 11, 2007 | Chaz Proulx
Max,
Yes there are some historical ironies about our education system. Sounds like you did pretty well navigating the system.
April 11, 2007 | Chaz Proulx
Chaz,
Ah, another post!
Your plea for a workable, well-articulated plan for NH is well taken. I promise I will work on it...
(We can start by defeating the Governor's mad proposal to compel school attendance until age 18!)
MAD MAX
April 11, 2007 | MAD MAX
Thanks to Irena
I think this is one of the best threads I've ever been invoved in.
April 11, 2007 | Chaz Proulx
The first level of interpretation under statutory constuction says that "plain meaning" is the first consideration if I am correct.
Okay Chaz, then I would ask you to define two very simple terms according to their plain meaning.
(1) interstate (not intra-state)
(2) commerce
MAD MAX
April 11, 2007 | MAD MAX
Chaz, and all --
You are right, this is really a great conversation. I only have but a little time, but Chaz, I have to strongly disagree with you about case law. I intentionally did not include anything about Stare Decisis or case law for the fundamental reason that case law is often wrong and contrary to the Constitution. For legislators, Jurisprudential Precedent means nothing, the wording of the Constitution means all. If one were to go by case law as superseding the prerogatives of the legislature, one would have to accept the Dred Scott decision as valid. One would also have to accept the federalization of abortion under Roe v Wade as valid as well, and that's just out of bounds in a constitutional system with written constitutional laws. The distinction here is between those who will functionally operate on the surface, based on fallacious rulings, and those who will use the proper tools of civics to uphold the separation of powers and the constitution.
Sorry I have to fly, but I thought I would contribute those thoughts. All the best!
April 11, 2007 | Gardner Goldsmith
Max,
Context is everything--both historical and grammatically speaking.
I have nothing to go on as regards the words you mention.
April 11, 2007 | Chaz Proulx
Gardener,
Thanks. I have to fly too and this has been a real mental work out!
April 11, 2007 | Chaz Proulx
This thread is so interesting that I am thinking of cutting and pasting the whole thing and putting it under my column to keep it alive and well on the front page.
Would anyone here object? Irena -- Your thoughts?
April 11, 2007 | Chaz Proulx
"That is the scenario I see if we scrap public education."
Chaz,
I have never suggested that we scrap government education overnight. (I have suggested that, once competition is introduced into the educational sector, independent schools would thoroughly outperform government schools, which would probably result in a merciful end to government schooling as we know it). In the school choice system I would propose, the first step is for government to simply refund some percentage of tuition money to parents who choose to enroll their children in independent schools.
This would...
(1) Make it easier and more possible for lower and middle class parents to choose non-governmental education options for their children.
(2) Immediately increase the demand for such options. Trust me, the free market will jump right in and start to offer appealing new options. These schools won't all be successful -- in fact, the bad ideas are sure to fail in such a system, just as "New Coke" failed. But parents will not continue to choose schools which don't deliver on their promises (like our current govschools, which compel an audience no matter how bad the show -- if educrats decide "whole language"/"New Coke" is better than phonics/Coke Classic, there is no mechanism to reverse the mistake).
(3) Reduce the burden on government schools, and foster their development by exposing them to healthy competition. (You can see right here why the educrats are against such liberating reforms, like all monopolists before them have opposed all reforms that would force them to compete.)
Effects on the teaching profession:
(1) Make it possible for government school teachers to seek employment at schools which are based on more desirable sets of ideas.
(2) Make it possible for educators with new ideas to open their own schools.
(3) Restore the natural marketplace disincentives that force awful teachers out of classrooms.
(4) Restore the natural marketplace incentives that reward excellent teachers for providing such a valuable service to children and their families.
Bottom line, I'm saying we haven't even begun to imagine a system of education that would truly serve the needs of society. And we will never be able to imagine such a system as long as the sector is controlled by powerful monopolists.
MAD MAX
April 11, 2007 | MAD MAX
Chaz,
I withdraw the question about "interstate commerce." Another day...
MAD MAX
April 11, 2007 | MAD MAX
Mike Emm,
Here's the essay I meant to post a link to earlier. I just reviewed the thread and realized my omission.
http://www.spinninglobe.net/againstschool.htm
MAD MAX
April 11, 2007 | MAD MAX
Chaz,
Haven't talked to Irena, but I'm quite sure she would like your excellent idea to cut and paste this discussion into your front page blog.
MAD MAX
April 11, 2007 | MAD MAX
Thanks Max
This is a lot to digest and another reason to keep this thread going. I'm leaning in that direction but would like to hear more as people have a chance to weigh in on the idea.
This would give me a chance to ask "spammers" to really read this thread and only join in with something unique to add or at least a serious attempt.
I like bang for the buck and this might serve a number of good purposes.
( and have you noticed how I've kept a leash on my tongue for once?)
April 11, 2007 | Chaz Proulx
Chaz,
We've all behaved very well in this highly contentious thread, I think. Debating with you is a pleasure.
MAD MAX
April 11, 2007 | MAD MAX
Chaz,
This is indeed all very interesting!
Irena told me yesterday she'd be happy to see this threat "pinned" to the top at NHInsider, so please feel free to do so.
The real question, though, is whether you have yet taken the 8 minutes out of your life to watch this in its entirety. It says eloquently what I cannot type in ASCII:
http://isil.org/resources/introduction.swf
April 11, 2007 | Denis Goddard
So now we know we have a Rep in the House (Mike Marsh) that thinks the Nazis weren't so bad?
Figures!
April 11, 2007 | Horrified
Dear Horrified
Out of this whole thread your take away is that Mike M likes the Nazis?
Wow.
April 11, 2007 | Chaz Proulx
Denis
Keep on me. I get a lot of requests but I'll get to it.
Thanks for the support in keeping this on the front page.
I'll do it!
April 11, 2007 | Chaz Proulx
Chaz Proulx
35 Comments
View Printer Friendly Version
Email Article to Friend
Reader Comments (35)
I'm leaving today on a long planned ski trip to Mt. Washington ( which is avalanche country right now ) This is a yearly trek with someone from out of state so despite the weather I'm off for about four days.
There are a number of issues I want to respond to and questions I want to ask so rest assured we'll keep this thread going.
In the meantime, I'll be able to see responses occasionally through the slowest dial up at a frien's up north. Its too slow though for me to even try to post.
Actually a little time off will allow us all to hone our arguments!
Thanks to everyone. This has been great.
Have fun up north, man. I'm sure the issue will still be here when you return. :)
In the meantime, I'm hoping we get to hear some new voices chime in on this... and Mike Emm may have to hold the fort for advocates of centralized funding and control.
Mike Emm, what do you have to say about extending the advantage of school choice to non-wealthy families? Are you utterly opposed to school choice? (I'd really appreciate one of your honest, thoughtful answers instead of one of your occasional, thoughtless "liberty=Somalia" answers.)
MAD MAX
P.S. I just got back from the state house, where the senate passed CACR18 by a 15-9 vote. I figure it has a good chance to pass a contentious vote in the house, and then I figure NH voters will drive a stake through its heart in November 2008.
"centralized funding and control"
Good Frame--LOL
I'm sure that's where Mike will start!!
On the serious side I will answer your questions about how our laws are interpreted.
No matter how simple the languge, different parties will always disagree on what it means. That is a limitation of language.
I believe that staturoty interpretation is codified. It is NOT DESCRETIONARY for judges. There is a set algorythm system and I think it is in the NH RSA some where.
Again, if you look at the law generically it really is remarkably logical.
If you have time to research this please do.
Its a fact that is very important to this discussion.
Also I am going to re-read your education plan. On first reading I see quite a lot of common ground.
I'm a little confused... when the Supreme Court issues a 5-4 or 6-3 ruling on something, is the minority's opinion to be forever dismissed and disregarded? I prefer to read both sides' arguments and judge them for myself, even in the case of a unanimous decision. I am fairly confident in my ability to read and consider conflicting arguments, but I will never be wishy-washy about the conclusions I reach after studying an issue. (There are actually a lot of issues where I am conflicted between good arguments on both sides, but I've never heard a compelling argument for compulsory government monopoly schooling -- it's a bad deal, regardless of whether or not it's "settled law," and it would be a bad deal even if it was specifically mandated and spelled out in the NH Constitution).
:)
MAD MAX
Max, if that were the case then blacks today would still not be treated as equals since at one time the Supreme Court ruled they were not equal to a whole person in the letter of the law. Fortunately that court ruling was not the be all end all and blacks and whites are now considered equals.
The court voted to make bush president!
Looks like that one stuck ( to our heels)
Do you mean "stuck" or "stunk"? I think it did both.
Seriously, haven't you ever read a dissenting opinion that blew the majority's case out of the water? Didn't you ever think, "Man, this court is gonna be on the wrong side of history!" I know that you have, and I know that you didn't just go home with your tail between your legs and accept the injustice.
There is an important role for public outcry against bad law, and there is an important role for public outcry against bad jurisprudence. I don't think Gandhi or MLK differentiated much between the two, do you? Right is right and wrong is wrong, eh?
I think we should extend the same educational choice to lower and middle class families that is currently available only to wealthy families and families who care so much that they will bite the bullet and pay twice for the same service. Seriously, isn't that more progressive than perpetuating a government-administered monopoly and centralizing authority?
MAD MAX
Forgive me, I don't see any inaccuracy in calling it "centralized funding and control." The similarly court-mandated funding scheme has absolutely meant that in Kentucky. It's sad to watch them spend more and more money as performance continues to decline.
I don't want that for NH. Please look under the hood before you buy this car.
MAD MAX
I think the court erred when it interpreted "cherish" to mean 100% state funding of education. It s hard for me to see a serious argument because "Cherish" has never meant 100% funding. Everyone knows this, so why pretend otherwise?
Having said that, I would like to see the state pay a larger share of education, primarily because I think the property tax is a crazy way to fund something that is 70% or so of the cost of local government. Property taxes made sense in the 18th century, when property was the source of income so a person with more property of necessity had more income. That is not the case today, and a government that relies on an 18th century taxation policy is open to a lot of inequity. We heard several bills this session that sought to correct this by giving greater exemptions to seniors, but this is dealing at the margin. The main problem is that property no longer equals income, and we still tax as if it does. The state has many other ways to raise taxes already, and we could choose one or more of them to replace the property tax. This does not mean more taxes, just a different way of raising taxes, and the tax burden will fall on different people, hopefully on thos better able to pay.
I think a lot of Dems are overlooking the silliness of the courts argument because they agree that we need to replace the property tax. This is not a "bigger government" scheme, or a greater state control plot, but a way to have more equity in financing our government. It is very painful to get a call from a constituent who is asking for help because they cannot afford to pay the taxes on a house they have lived in for 30 years, or because they are out of a job.
State funding does not have to equal state control. Today the state pays one third of all new school construction (I think this is the amount), and yet does not tell the school district what they need to do or how to do it. There is no reason why funding 50% of the cost of education state wide would necessarily lead to state control. To argue otherwise requires a very strange mind set, in my opinion. As it happens, the state is already quite involved in local education through minimum standards and frameworks. Most of this is positive for the local schools, although you hear grousing, because it defines best practices.
Mike Emm,
I would like to see how you'd set it up to prevent state control. In Kentucky "defining and funding adequacy" led straight to a big, centrally controlled mess.
I taught composition at a Community College in Kentucky from 2003-2005. I quickly learned that the schools in eastern Kentucky were disaster zones. With a little research I discovered that there had been a series of lawsuits which had culminated in mandated levels of state funding and a definition of "adequacy" that is continually being reinterpreted by bureaucrats and enforced via shifting state curriculum mandates.
I could go into a lot of detail here about state-mandated writing portfolios and such, and the unintended consequences they brought about in Kentucky, but I'll suffice to say for NH that (1) with money comes power, (2) if we centralize school funding, state curriculum mandates will certainly follow, rapidly eroding local control of schools, and (3) the result will be more expensive schools, a higher overall tax burden, and declining educational performance. There are, of course, well-meaning people who think CACR18 will really be good for the future of education in NH, but I don't think they're looking at the unintended consequences.
Mike, is there a chance I could be right about any of this?
MAD MAX
I'll make you a deal. Agree to use some of that state funding to fund a serious voucher/scholarshp program to help disadvantaged students with aptitude attend schools of their choice. Then I might back off on state funding. (That doesn't mean I agree to an income tax!)
MAD MAX
I recommend that you yake a look at the Department of Educations website, and see all of the rules and requirements already in place. I have no idea if this is more or less than what Kentucky has, and I am not inclined to find out. I do take comfort in knowing that NH is not Kentucky. We are more tolerant, more literate, and I even think on average more intelligent. Plus we have a great legislative system that keeps the Reps close to the people.
MY impression is that the folks who are most for education are against CACR18. At least that's what I hear from the House.
Regarding voucher programs, I haven't thought very hard about it- education isn't my field- but I think in selected areas this is a good idea, as long as they are good at public schools only. I might even be presuaded that they should include private schools.
Income tax? If this was a dollar-for-dollar substitute for personal property tax, who you change your mind, on fairness grounds?
Sadly, Rand moved here just in time to witness that the same philosophy in Russia was beginning to dominate the intellectuals in the U.S. This philosophy can be summed up with one word: altruism. We do not usually hear it called that. Instead we hear arguments for "the common good" under the guide of "Progressivism." Paridoxically, there is no progress in progressivism. The progressive education which dominates public schools was founded by John Dewey. Dewey was an advocate of subordinating individual rights to the majority, the "common good." Well here you have it, an ideology that holds principles contradicting individual rights is being pumped into the minds of America's children with the aid of force.
Is it any coincidence the people seeking to escape the tyranny of socialism by moving to the U.S. are the same individuals who, upon arrival, are discovering that the very same philosophy they escaped from is being cultivated here? Why can't our own citizens see this? Is it because the very existence of government schooling is based on the same moral grounds as communism, i.e., altruism? I think so. The bureaucrats and teachers would not have the same power if they taught individual freedom. If public schools adhered to the principle of freedom, they wouldn't be run by the government, they'd be private. They would not confiscate the wealth of some in order to give to others. Even if you deny that schools have a political agenda (which they do), they still teach it by example; they take from some and give to others, i.e. they redistribute wealth using force. This is wrong in principle, but teaches children that it is right by example. The state does not need more authority over education--it shouldn't have any.
I also take comfort in knowing that NH is not Kentucky. My overall quality of life is much higher here than anywhere else I've lived (despite the fact that I'm living on the cheap).
There are many factors involved which could explain NH's societal development. I happen to believe that New Hampshire's accessible citizen legislature, its traditionally low (and local) tax burdens, and its unique Constitutional structure are a big part of the reason why New Hampshire has avoided some of the messes we see in other states. And yet I'm sure our state isn't immune...
I appreciate your honest answer about vouchers. I don't see how you can be so sure about "best practices" when you're taking a monopolized industry's word for what those "best practices" are. You've read enough about history and economics to know better than to assume that a monopolized industry is operating at maximum efficiency. The thing is, here we aren't talking about who can deliver letters or how we can make phone calls. We're talking about raising a generation of children to become thoughtful, competent adults, and we can't trust government schools to do the whole job.
As a professional educator who took every opportunity to test new ideas and theories in the classroom, all I can say is that anybody who thinks the schooling establishment has a monopoly on good ideas (or "best practices") is experiencing a serious failure of the imagination.
I know you think government schooling is a "natural monopoly" of sorts, but consider this quote from economist James Nelson:
"One of the most unfortunate phrases ever introduced into law or economics was the phrase "natural monopoly." Every monopoly is a product of public policy. No present monopoly, public or private, can be traced back through history in a pure form. "Natural monopolies" in fact originated in response to a belief that some goal, or goals, of public policy would be advanced by encouraging or permitting a monopoly to be formed, and discouraging or forbidding future competition with this monopoly."
Please use your imagination, Mike.
MAD MAX
And no thanks, I don't think I want one.
MAD MAX
------------
Constitutional Questions
Why is the legislature rushing along to define and cost an ‘adequate’ education? Why are they so willing to do the bidding of an unelected five-member court?
The supreme judicial court based its Claremont education funding decisions primarily on Part II, Article 83 of the New Hampshire constitution, which says in the relevant part: “it shall be the duty of the legislators and magistrates, in all future periods of this government, to cherish the interest of literature and the sciences, and all seminaries and public schools, [and] to encourage private and public institutions…”
Do any of you understand how that article “imposes a duty on the State to provide a constitutionally adequate education to every educable child and to guarantee adequate funding”?
The court said in the second Claremont decision that it is the “duty of the legislature to ‘cherish’” public schools. But doesn’t Article 83 say it is the duty of legislators and magistrates, and not the duty of the legislature as a whole, to ‘cherish’ public schools? One might say it is merely semantics. Well, why do the words ‘legislature’ and ‘general court’ (synonym for legislature) appear a combined 78 times in the constitution, while the word ‘legislator’ appears but once (in Article 83). I highly doubt the framers of this wonderful document would change that one word if it meant the same thing as the others.
And why does the court only mention public schools? The constitution also includes ‘seminaries’ and ‘private…institutions’. Of course, that would not help them increase the size of our state government, so they just left that part out.
Apparently there remain some unanswered questions. Please contact your legislators (notice I didn’t say legislature) and ask them to answer those questions. And maybe ask them why the U.S. Chamber of Commerce ranks New Hampshire #3 in the entire nation for quality of education, while the area that spends the most per pupil (Washington D.C.) is dead last in rankings. Could local control and fiscal responsibility have anything to do with it? If they can not give you straight answers, ask them if they still really support the court’s unconstitutional power grab.
To answer your question, "Why is the legislature rushing along to define and cost an ‘adequate’ education? Why are they so willing to do the bidding of an unelected five-member court?", here is my personal answer:
To avoid a constitutional crisis.
Independent judicial oversight of the actions of the 2 political branches is too important to the long term benefit and freedom of the people to be lightly cast aside just because you disagree with what the Court says in a single case.
Like it or not, and agree with them or not, the court is responsible for interpreting the constitution, even when they do it badly, as you (and I) believe they did in this case.
We legislators have 3 choices- go along with the court, amend the constitution in such a way that the court cannot "misinterpret" the sense of Article 83, or ignore the court. For people who believe in constructive government, option 3 is crazy. The Legislature is currently do 1 and 2.
I hope this helps you understand what is at stake.
The point of this education 'crisis' is that they want CONTROL. After all where else would you have a captive audience for complete brainwashing with government propaganda from age 3-18? (This is why they must rip the children from their parents at such a young age, before parents can influence them) Rep. Splaine (leftist) even admitted in a Foster's article that the children will need "proper training with regard to ‘global warming, terrorism, and nuclear proliferation’". These things have certain values attached that may differ from the values of the students and their families. That is the crux of the matter...even before money. Even those posing as libertarians sometimes show how thorough this brainwashing is when they pull out the political correctness card during arguments about who is more anti-government.
Bottom line is, Goddard knows from experience that a stake must be driven through the heart of this issue, and fast, or NH is going to be in trouble because it will not only suffer from educational mediocrity pushed aside for political reasons.
(b) "Some animals are more equal than others."
Remember how the words changed from (a) to (b) on the side of the barn in Orwell's _Animal Farm_? That's the level of deliberate misreading we're talking about here, and Mike, even you admit it is silly...
If the Republicans had any balls they would have impeached these ridiculous justices years ago. The justices are either (a) deliberately turning the NH Constitution on its ear or (b) illiterate, in which case they shouldn't be judges.
Democrats (correctly) criticize Bush and Cheney for "fixing the intelligence around the policy" in the buildup to invading Iraq, but they don't bat an eye when a court "fixes the Constitution around a policy," one which simply can't be imposed by a damn court. I'm gonna go ahead and call that _hypocrisy_. Mike, you're one of the very few I've met who doesn't take a phony position on the Claremont decisions. I commend you for that -- the more I read about them, the angrier I get. We can't hand the state's budget pen over to school administrators and bureaucrats!
MAD MAX
Speaking of college presidents, here's what Princeton University president Woodrow Wilson said in a speech to the New York City School Teachers Association in 1909:
"We want one class of persons to have a liberal education, and we want another class of persons, a very much larger class, of necessity, in every society, to forgo the privileges of a liberal education and fit themselves to perform specific difficult manual tasks."
Our school system was designed when this was the level of thinking. And the essentials haven't changed much... the John Deweys and Horace Manns are still celebrated for their "contributions."
I think we all ought to have a good puke over this before resuming the discussion.
MAD MAX