Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

Uncle Sam's dangerous drug
WorldNetDaily.com ^ | Saturday, December 15, 2001 | Ambassador Alan Keyes

Posted on 12/15/2001 2:58:23 AM PST by JohnHuang2

House and Senate negotiators reached agreement this week on education legislation that the president is expected to sign quickly. And the House of Representatives, in an overwhelming vote uniting Democrats and Republicans, passed the bill on Thursday. Representatives Tom DeLay and Peter Hoekstra led a small group of the conservative remnant in opposing the $26.5 billion package, which Bush Republicans are trying hard to portray as a prudent implementation of conservative principle. But it is, in fact, the culminating capitulation of the conservative attempt to reform the federal government's role in education.

What I wrote about the bill in September remains true today: Instead of the promised attempt to rein in government domination of education, we have an education bill that ramps-up federal funding, increases federal control and was cooperatively stripped of all elements of support for genuine school choice and local control.

However distracted conservatives may be by the drama of the war against terror, we should not let this moment pass without noticing the comprehensive defeat that Bush education policy, enshrined in the bill, represents.

Apparently ended is the struggle conservatives have waged for decades to head off the nationalization of K-12 education. Constitutional language, American tradition and fundamental principles of self-government all weigh decidedly against any federal involvement in local education. Since the first election of Ronald Reagan, the Republican Party had stood for a rollback of that involvement, even abolition of the Department of Education. Now, at the federal level, we have abandoned the argument with the public about the costs and dangers of federal involvement in K-12 education. The current bill does not artfully advance an incremental version of the principled position of President Reagan. Indeed, it takes us in precisely the opposite direction.

It also utterly and finally reneges on one of the most important of President Bush's education policy campaign promises. Candidate Bush called for cutting funds to failing schools and returning to the parents that money in a limited voucher scheme. The bill about to pass Congress for President Bush's signature will give failing schools more money! And the voucher proposal was jettisoned shortly after the inauguration.

The increase in federal education funding in this bill is staggering – over 40 percent in one year. This is more than the education budgets of an average-sized state, such as Iowa or Colorado. With the money, President Bush has eagerly taken on himself, on behalf of the national government, responsibility for the educational performance of the nation's children. No rhetoric about flexibility and local independence will prevent the inevitable – ongoing torrents of federal money, bilge about federal resolve to "leave no child behind" and ever increasing levels of federal oversight and control.

And what will happen when an extra $8 billion fails to improve our children's learning? And fail it will, because real improvement in government schools is blocked by administrative inertia, obstructionist unions and statist secularism in the professional educational establishment. Sad history and all the data show that these impediments are increased, not diminished, by federal dollars. But still the cry will go up for more money, and a more aggressive federal commitment. What will President Bush say next year when another $8 billion increase, or $12 billion, is demanded to make real reform happen? After all, the federal government can leave no child behind. What next? Shall we pass the "Lake Woebegone Act" and decree that all the children shall be "above average?"

Most discouraging of all is that the new bipartisan federal education initiative is such a distraction from the deepest source of our educational problems – the demise of the two-parent, marriage-based family. The family is the school of character and must be the primary agent in education. No federal spending can effectively energize the real reform we need – reform in which parents get control of their own lives, reassert effective, wise and moral control over the lives of their children, and extend that control finally to the common life of our public schools.

As with most federal welfare, federal education money is a drug that obscures and intensifies underlying problems. The Republican Party used to preach "Just say 'No!'" Now we are increasing the dose and inviting the country to party on. It's a prescription for GOP and national addiction that immeasurably weakens our children's future. Let us pray it does not ultimately cost us our capacity for responsible self-government.



TOPICS: Editorial; News/Current Events
KEYWORDS: educationnews; govwatch; homeschoollist; keyes; paleolist; rinowatch
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-5051-92 next last
Quote of the Day by Thornwell Simons
1 posted on 12/15/2001 2:58:23 AM PST by JohnHuang2
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | View Replies]

To: mudboy slim
Bump.
2 posted on 12/15/2001 3:03:25 AM PST by Inspector Harry Callahan
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: sheltonmac
Big Government: Held Over Another Four Years
3 posted on 12/15/2001 3:05:50 AM PST by Inspector Harry Callahan
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Uncle Bill
Republican Crypto-Socialism
What do I mean by "crypto-socialist"? It's actually quite simple. I mean hidden socialism. The basic principle of socialism is government control and domination of society. Things which tend in that direction are socialist by nature. Things which tend to return power, responsibility and control to people themselves -- as individuals, in their businesses, and in their families and communities -- are what oppose socialism and promote the agenda of self-government. Many so-called conservatives today put forth policies which, when examined, turn out to contribute to the consolidation of government control and domination of the society. Whether it be targeted tax cuts, educational approaches that emphasize government dictation of standards, or other encroachments on our liberty, these policies are socialist in principle even when "conservatives" or "Republicans" propose them.
4 posted on 12/15/2001 3:09:06 AM PST by Inspector Harry Callahan
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

Comment #5 Removed by Moderator

To: Keyes for president; rdf; clinton's a liar
Conservatives looking more like liberals every day
In the eyes of conservative activists, Bill Clinton is bad and George Bush is good. Thus, by definition, whatever Bill Clinton did was bad and whatever George Bush does is good -- even if they’re doing virtually the same thing.
6 posted on 12/15/2001 3:14:06 AM PST by Inspector Harry Callahan
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4 | View Replies]

To: cdwright
The tenth plank of the Communist Manifesto
"Free education of all children in public schools. Abolition of child factory labor in its present form. Combination of education with industrial production."
7 posted on 12/15/2001 3:18:29 AM PST by Inspector Harry Callahan
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 5 | View Replies]

Comment #8 Removed by Moderator

To: cato; lurker; sandy
Elementary Schoolteacher Seizes Bibles Given as Gifts
The superintendent of a suburban Fort Worth school district said a third-grade teacher confiscated Bibles that were presented as gifts by a student during an Easter party because they weren't approved for distribution. In a statement Friday, Superintendent Edd Bigbee of the Azle school district said Bibles and other materials distributed in a classroom must first be approved by either the principal or the superintendent.
9 posted on 12/15/2001 3:23:51 AM PST by Inspector Harry Callahan
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 7 | View Replies]

To: owk; huck; arator; nunya bidness
The Bush M.O.
Example Number One is the disastrous education bill, which was just passed last week. Authored by Teddy Kennedy – who Bush has assiduously courted and invited to the White House more than most Republicans – this bill expands the role of the federal government in local education practices. And it has none of the "choice" initiatives that Republicans have campaigned on for years and which are a part of the basic GOP platform. In other words, Bush just chucked the entire school voucher aspect of education reform and, instead, happily agreed to the Kennedy plan.
10 posted on 12/15/2001 3:28:01 AM PST by Inspector Harry Callahan
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 9 | View Replies]

To: Inspector Harry Callahan
Bush and the 'Third Way'
11 posted on 12/15/2001 3:35:46 AM PST by Inspector Harry Callahan
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 10 | View Replies]

To: Education News; gov_watch; Homeschool_list; Keyes; paleo_list; RINO_watch;
http://www.freerepublic.com/perl/bump-list
12 posted on 12/15/2001 3:53:43 AM PST by Inspector Harry Callahan
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 11 | View Replies]

To: JohnHuang2
bump
13 posted on 12/15/2001 6:18:33 AM PST by jmp702
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

Comment #14 Removed by Moderator

To: D Joyce
BUMP
15 posted on 12/15/2001 6:27:37 AM PST by Aurelius
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 14 | View Replies]

To: JohnHuang2; LarryLied
Sad...
16 posted on 12/15/2001 6:34:38 AM PST by MadameAxe
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: MadameAxe
Here is a link to a strong piece on the issue last May. the author is Michael Greve, a movement conservative with high credibility.

Article

Best to you and all,

Richard F.

17 posted on 12/15/2001 6:38:49 AM PST by rdf
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 16 | View Replies]

To: Inspector Harry Callahan
It also utterly and finally reneges on one of the most important of President Bush's education policy campaign promises. Candidate Bush called for cutting funds to failing schools and returning to the parents that money in a limited voucher scheme. The bill about to pass Congress for President Bush's signature will give failing schools more money! And the voucher proposal was jettisoned shortly after the inauguration.

Hey Harry. Are you sure this is correct? I read that the plan says if schools fail, funding goes directly to parents. And that is based on mandated tests. Federal funding is nothing new though, right? And is anyone suffering under the illusion that Bush wants to govern as if the Constitution were strictly construed? I don't know where they could have gotten the idea. He has promised to nominate judges who are strict contructionists, which is a good thing. What I recall GW promising in education was more accountability and better results. I don't recall him putting any limit on how he would accomplish that.

One more thing: What is Alan Keyes expertise in the area of education? What are his qualifications? I don't have any problem with harsh criticism of the Bush education plan, but it would carrry a lot more weight with me if it came from someone whose profession is education, whose background and training is education, who could reference real data or studies, rather than just hearing rhetoric from someone who clearly has a political agenda. FWIW. So, what is the point, anyway? He was still a better choice than Gore. There is tangible proof of that. But he is not a "true" Conservative, which should suprise no one.

18 posted on 12/15/2001 6:38:50 AM PST by Huck
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: JohnHuang2
I voted for Bush because I thought Government would shrink. I participated in many protests during the post-election with other freepers and have supported him in every way I knew how.

I'm very disappointed. All this guy seems to be able to do is grow government in every way imaginable. Police powers are increasing greatly. Federalization of education and airports. Caving on the "stimulas" package. Government increasing by 14% next year, 200 more "firearms prosecutors".

19 posted on 12/15/2001 6:49:03 AM PST by AAABEST
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Inspector Harry Callahan
I am now looking at Bush's own words on education. Here are excerpts, with emphasis added:

The federal role in education is not to serve the system. It is to serve the children."

Bipartisan education reform will be the cornerstone of my Administration.

my deep belief in our public schools and their mission to build the mind and character of every child, from every background, in every part of America.

I don't think he has changed his tune on this. In my opinion, GW wants Congress to work together to write the legislation, and sees his role as a priority setter. In my opinion, that is not an improper way of viewing the constitutional functions of the two branches. It is even a bit ironic that such a traditionalist as the great Dr. Keyes fails to recognize that if the representatives of the House and the Senate pass a bill, which has been widely reported and anticipated in the press, that pretty much means the people support it. What does he expect the President to do? Dr. Keyes own performance at the polls during the last primary are the final conclusive argument against taking his ideas seriously outside of the ivory tower. GWB is a politician. Anyone feigning surprise at this fact is either being incredibly naiive or disingenuous.

20 posted on 12/15/2001 6:56:06 AM PST by Huck
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 7 | View Replies]

To: AAABEST
I voted for Bush because I thought Government would shrink.

What gave you that idea? He was on the record as recommending something like 4% growth, spread out unevenly. If you thought he was running on shrinking government, you were mistaken. If you thought he would reduce the rate of growth, then you chose wisely, but we will never have an objective measure of that, because we don't know what a Gore Admin with a Dem senate would have spent. My guess would be more.

I'm very disappointed.

I can't imagine why. Our system is run by the will of the people. What made you think the same populace that elected Clinton twice, and very nearly elected Gore (he did get more votes nation-wide, after all) would suddenly demand spending cuts, tax cuts and conservative reforms of education. The very idea is laughable. Maybe you set yourself up to be dissapointed. Abraham Lincoln once said "Public sentiment is everything. With public sentiment, nothing can fail; without it nothing can succeed." That is what we are dealing with here, folks.

21 posted on 12/15/2001 7:03:23 AM PST by Huck
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 19 | View Replies]

To: Huck
One more thing: What is Alan Keyes expertise in the area of education? What are his qualifications?

The problem with, and the federal government's role in our schools is not one of education, but of bureaucracy. I believe Dr. Keyes is well qualified to speak on the subject.

22 posted on 12/15/2001 7:04:07 AM PST by tacticalogic
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 18 | View Replies]

To: tacticalogic
The problem with, and the federal government's role in our schools is not one of education, but of bureaucracy.

What then is his executive experience? I am very interested in what Jack Welch has to say about administrative bureaucracy, because he has a proven track record of performance in an environment which demands measurable results. What similar expertise does Dr. Keyes have? He mentions the word "data", but he doesn't provide any. He isn't going to convince anyone who believes in federal involvement that they are wrong, because his argument is not convincing. It is merely a string of assertions.

Therefore, the only ones who will respond to it are the ones who already believe that federal involvement is wrong. So if the purpose of the article is not to convince someone that federal involvement is bad for education (it isn;t), and if the article isn't intended for people who believe in federal involvement (it isn't), then what is its purpose, and who is it for?

I believe Dr. Keyes is well qualified to speak on the subject.

Why?

23 posted on 12/15/2001 7:12:45 AM PST by Huck
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 22 | View Replies]

To: Inspector Harry Callahan
That does it for me! Implying Bush is worse than Hitler "Representatives Tom DeLay and Peter Hoekstra led a small group of the conservative remnant in opposing the $26.5 billion package, which Bush Republicans are trying hard to portray as a prudent implementation of conservative principle. But it is, in fact, the culminating capitulation of the conservative attempt to reform the federal government's role in education." is bad enough.

But when he goes on to say that Laura Bush is the "Whore of Babylon" spoken of in the Bible "It also utterly and finally reneges on one of the most important of President Bush's education policy campaign promises. Candidate Bush called for cutting funds to failing schools and returning to the parents that money in a limited voucher scheme. The bill about to pass Congress for President Bush's signature will give failing schools more money! And the voucher proposal was jettisoned shortly after the inauguration."---well OK, he didn't actually say it, but we all know that's what he meant---that's just going too far!

I used to admire this man for being staunchly pro-life and a defender of the Constitution. But with this vicious article attacking our most holy president and his perfect family, he has lost me. I'm turning in my Alan Keyes membership card and my official Alan Keyes decoder spy ring! And I'll never buy another bottle of Alan Keyes chocolate breakfast drink as long as I live!!!

24 posted on 12/15/2001 7:27:49 AM PST by Keyes For President
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 6 | View Replies]

To: Huck
So if the purpose of the article is not to convince someone that federal involvement is bad for education (it isn;t), and if the article isn't intended for people who believe in federal involvement (it isn't), then what is its purpose, and who is it for?

I believe Dr. Keyes is well qualified to speak on the subject.

Why?

What precisely are your qualifications to state unequivocably that federal involvement isn't bad for education, or for that matter, who this article was intended for?

I believe Dr. Keyes is qulified to speak on the subject because he has served in the government, and has done so outside of the bureaucracy.

25 posted on 12/15/2001 7:36:37 AM PST by tacticalogic
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 23 | View Replies]

To: tacticalogic
What precisely are your qualifications to state unequivocably that federal involvement isn't bad for education, or for that matter, who this article was intended for?

I didn't say federal involvment isn't bad for education, I said the purpose of this article is not to make that case. I base that opinion on the fact that there is not one bit of data used to prove the point.

I believe Dr. Keyes is qulified to speak on the subject because he has served in the government, and has done so outside of the bureaucracy.

He was an Ambassador, right? I am unaware of how the functions of an Ambassador provide someone with expertise in the delivery or administration of education. Maybe it does, I am just not aware of it. I would like to here the opinions of people who actually work in the field, especially those whose political self-interest is not served by taking one position or the other. It would make the information more reliabel to a layman like me.

26 posted on 12/15/2001 7:45:25 AM PST by Huck
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 25 | View Replies]

To: Inspector Harry Callahan
Big bill. Found this in it:

SEC. 8512. SCHOOL PRAYER.

`As a condition for receipt of funds under this Act, a local educational agency shall certify in writing to the Secretary that no policy of the agency prevents or otherwise denies participation in constitutionally protected prayer in public schools.

`SEC. 8513. GENERAL PROHIBITIONS.

`(a) PROHIBITION- None of the funds authorized under this Act shall be used--

`(1) to develop or distribute materials, or operate programs or courses of instruction directed at youth that are designed to promote or encourage, sexual activity, whether homosexual or heterosexual;

`(2) to distribute or to aid in the distribution by any organization of legally obscene materials to minors on school grounds;

`(3) to provide sex education or HIV prevention education in schools unless such instruction is age appropriate and emphasizes the health benefits of abstinence; or

`(4) to operate a program of contraceptive distribution in schools.

`(b) LOCAL CONTROL- Nothing in this section shall be construed to--

`(1) authorize an officer or employee of the Federal Government to direct, review, or control a State, local educational agency, or schools' instructional content, curriculum, and related activities;

`(2) limit the application of the General Education Provisions Act (20 U.S.C.A. 1221 et seq.);

`(3) require the distribution of scientifically or medically false or inaccurate materials or to prohibit the distribution of scientifically or medically true or accurate materials; or

`(4) create any legally enforceable right.

`SEC. 8514. PROHIBITION ON FEDERAL MANDATES, DIRECTION, AND CONTROL.

`(a) GENERAL PROHIBITION- Officers and employees of the Federal Government are prohibited from mandating, directing, or controlling a State, local educational agency, or school's curriculum, program of instruction, or allocation of State or local resources, or mandating a State or any subdivision thereof to spend any funds or incur any costs not paid for under this Act.

`(b) PROHIBITION OF FEDERAL MANDATES, DIRECTION, OR CONTROL- Nothing in this Act shall be construed to authorize an officer or employee of the Federal Government to mandate, direct, or control a State, local educational agency, or school's specific instructional content or academic achievement standards and assessments, curriculum, or program of instruction as a condition of eligibility to receive funds under this Act.

`(c) EQUALIZED SPENDING- Nothing in this Act shall be construed to mandate equalized spending per pupil for a State, local educational agency, or school.

`(d) BUILDING STANDARDS- Nothing in this Act shall be construed to mandate national school building standards for a State, local agency, or school.


27 posted on 12/15/2001 8:03:58 AM PST by Huck
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: Inspector Harry Callahan
Here is a link to the Bill:

No Child Left Behind Act of 2001 (Reported in the House)

28 posted on 12/15/2001 8:05:28 AM PST by Huck
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: Huck
re: 18, 201, 21

Very well put. I would love to see education privatized, but one must work within the system to gradually change the system---while closely monitoring public sentiment on the issue. Dr. Keyes may be right in what he's saying, but we can't stop and change things on a dime...
29 posted on 12/15/2001 8:10:50 AM PST by motzman
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 21 | View Replies]

To: Huck
I would like to here the opinions of people who actually work in the field, especially those whose political self-interest is not served by taking one position or the other. It would make the information more reliabel to a layman like me.

We all would. I think the reality is that between the NEA and the massive federal bureaucracy that reaches down to every level such a person is going to be difficult to find. The NEA's opposition to anything but publicly funded and government managed education, and their political activism in pursuit of that goal means that political considerations will enter into it even at private institutions and home schooling organizations.

30 posted on 12/15/2001 8:13:43 AM PST by tacticalogic
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 26 | View Replies]

To: motzman
I would love to see education privatized, but one must work within the system to gradually change the system---while closely monitoring public sentiment on the issue. Dr. Keyes may be right in what he's saying, but we can't stop and change things on a dime...

It seems to me there is a moral question to all of this as well, which Dr. Keyes, and perhaps many here don't care to recognize, and it is this:

If you recognize that there will be a public school system for, let's say, at least another 10 years. Can we all agree that that is a 99% liklihood? Then, the moral question becomes what to do about the kids who are going to those schools? It is no exaggeration to say that the rest of their lives will be greatly influenced by the quality of education they receive in K-12.

So, do we leave them for dead? Do we say, in effect, my way or the highway to the Democrats, and to the millions and millions of Americans who support public schools, and who support Federal involvement? If we do that, what happens to the kids who have to go to those schools? Whether or not you like the idea, I believe a case can be made that there is a moral imperative for making the education system that the kids will be using as good as possible. Long term? Go ahead and work to change the paradigm. But short term, there are kids with their fannies in the chairs who need an education. Who will advocate for them?

In that regard, we have two separate debates. One short term debate is how do we make the current system better. Dr. Keyes chooses to opt out of that discussion, arguing pessimistically that improvement is impossible. Then there is the long term debate of how to move the country to a new attitude about how education is delivered. Dr. Keyes chooses to hector his friends, rather than attempt to sway people who disagree, or are uninformed. In my opinion, it is a fine waste of his skills as an orator ( one who talks for a living).

Getting back to the short term debate, I believe the President is on the right track when he says that the system should serve the kids, not the institutions. This was what we called "person-centered services" in social services. It means programs should be individualized, should include choice, and should measure results. The President wants greater accountability. Who can disagree with that?

Will this plan improve education? I hope so. Is there a better way? Probably? Is it feasible in the next 10 years? No. It isn't. So what do we do? Offer nothing to make the current system better? Or choose our battles, and make a moral choice to provide the best possible service to our youngsters?

31 posted on 12/15/2001 8:33:24 AM PST by Huck
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 29 | View Replies]

To: Huck
One short term debate is how do we make the current system better. Dr. Keyes chooses to opt out of that discussion, arguing pessimistically that improvement is impossible. Then there is the long term debate of how to move the country to a new attitude about how education is delivered. Dr. Keyes chooses to hector his friends, rather than attempt to sway people who disagree, or are uninformed. In my opinion, it is a fine waste of his skills as an orator ( one who talks for a living).

Although I believe tinkering with the system will not change things all that much, it must be tried. We can't just give up, opt out, and say "told you so". That will accomplish nothing.
32 posted on 12/15/2001 8:37:49 AM PST by motzman
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 31 | View Replies]

To: Keyes For President
I would appreciate knowing where and when Dr. Keyes called Laura Bush "the whore of Babylon". I too have been growing in my dissapointment of Dr. Keyes, but I must admit I am also dissapointed in the TrentLottian manner is which President Bush is giving into the lefts pressures. It seems that he is buying into the idea that the masses will be pleased if it is perceived that he is doing "something". This falls prey to the Clintonian message of "I care".

I hope I am wrong about Bush as in the main I am pleased with his overall leadership and want to trust my perception that he is a man of honor and integrity. But when it is my perception that he is giving away principle for expediency ... well you get my drift.

I do know these days that I can't rely upon posts of Free Republic to give me unbiased information. I can get lazy and making opinions by stuff posted on this forum is, at times a real bad thing to do.

I continue in my great dissapointment of Alan Keyes. Supported and voted for him in the primary process but don't think he can ever win that support back.

33 posted on 12/15/2001 9:10:17 AM PST by ImpBill
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 24 | View Replies]

To: Inspector Harry Callahan
Great links. Thanks bud. One day at a time.
34 posted on 12/15/2001 9:15:30 AM PST by nunya bidness
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 10 | View Replies]

To: Huck
"What does he expect the President to do? Dr. Keyes own performance at the polls during the last primary are the final conclusive argument against taking his ideas seriously outside of the ivory tower. GWB is a politician. Anyone feigning surprise at this fact is either being incredibly naiive or disingenuous."

---------- Sadly, you are absolutely right. GWB is just another politician. - A series without end it seems.
Since Ike & JFK, the real differences between 'D' presidents & R's is only the amount of money they advocate spending on the same socialist schemes.

I would expect real leaders, principled men, to stick to their avowed standards regardless of political pressures.

Am I naive to want character in a president?
And aren't you being disingenuous to want us all to accept less?

35 posted on 12/15/2001 9:17:01 AM PST by tpaine
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 20 | View Replies]

To: Huck
Will this plan improve education? I hope so. Is there a better way? Probably? Is it feasible in the next 10 years? No. It isn't. So what do we do? Offer nothing to make the current system better? Or choose our battles, and make a moral choice to provide the best possible service to our youngsters?

This plan has nothing to do with education. Those who forget history are condemned to repeat it. Every time the feds increase their involvment in areas like medicine, retirement, and now education, the problems get worse, not better. Yes there is a better way, which the republicans once touted. It was called eliminating the Dept of Education.

I will guarantee you one thing though. By every measure, the federal education bureaucrats will "prove" that with their involvement, education will improve according to their standards. They will demonstrate test score improvement across the board when it suits them, by fudging the test scores, or dumbing down the questions, or whatever it takes.

Bad scores will come out only when the feds want to force a school district to bend to the will of the feducrats. Get ready for mandatory federal "diversity" modules, federal "Constitution" modules teaching what feducrats Bill of Rights and Second Amendment means (Yes, Virginia, the Second Amendment is about duck hunting.), etc.

This isn't a federal education bill. Rather, this bill should be known for what it is.

The Republican Nationalization of Education and Indoctrination Act of 2001

36 posted on 12/15/2001 9:38:51 AM PST by Jesse
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 31 | View Replies]

To: tpaine
I would expect real leaders, principled men, to stick to their avowed standards regardless of political pressures. Am I naive to want character in a president?

I don't know if your conclusions are sound. What I am suggesting is that there are moral implication to strategic choices. That doesn't mean compromise is ALWAYS right, or that better leaders couldn't get more accomplished, but it DOES mean that compromise and character are not mutually exclusive. As for principled leadership, all I ask is that politicians follow through on what they say they will do. I think GWB is doing that, which is why I find it hard to believe someone could be surprised by his performance so far.

37 posted on 12/15/2001 9:59:10 AM PST by Huck
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 35 | View Replies]

To: Jesse
The % of the population that sees the Federal government as an alien indoctrinator of children is probably less than 2%. The other 98% voted for more Federal involvement in the education system. By the way, have you read the bill?
38 posted on 12/15/2001 10:01:46 AM PST by Huck
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 36 | View Replies]

Comment #39 Removed by Moderator

To: Huck
Am I naive to want character in a president?

And aren't you being disingenuous to want us all to accept less?

-------- Yep. - Your answer that you don't know to my first question is evidence that you should answer the second with a yes. -- Thank you.

40 posted on 12/15/2001 10:47:57 AM PST by tpaine
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 37 | View Replies]

To: tpaine
I didn't say I don't know if you are naiive for expecting character. I think you should expect character. What I question is the means by which you are judging it.
41 posted on 12/15/2001 10:52:37 AM PST by Huck
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 40 | View Replies]

To: Huck
And those 'means' are?
42 posted on 12/15/2001 10:54:52 AM PST by tpaine
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 41 | View Replies]

To: Huck
The % of the population that sees the Federal government as an alien indoctrinator of children is probably less than 2%. The other 98% voted for more Federal involvement in the education system.

Patently untrue.

Am overwhelming majority of Republicans oppose federal involvement in educating our children. (The proof? The Republican Platform; adopted by the democratic processes of the Party.)

The passage of this legislation is a monumental sellout of the grassroots of the GOP, by elected Republican 'leaders' who are more afraid of the NEA than they are of Republican rank-and-filers.

Time will tell if their cynicism is warranted.

Unfortunately, if their political gamesmanship fails, which it almost surely will, they will then blame their critics for the failure, as usual.

43 posted on 12/15/2001 10:59:32 AM PST by EternalVigilance
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 38 | View Replies]

To: M1991
I was being sarcastic.
44 posted on 12/15/2001 11:00:41 AM PST by Keyes For President
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 39 | View Replies]

To: Huck
I am tied up in working sessions for the Declaration Foundation today, so I can't give you a satisfactory answer about Keyes' credentials in education. It is not his specialty, as it is for Chester Finn, for instance, but he does have experience and knows what he speaks of.

More later.

Best to you,

Richard F.

45 posted on 12/15/2001 11:57:28 AM PST by rdf
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 26 | View Replies]

To: Huck
No. Have you? What difference does that make? Every time one of these federal programs begins, and the naysayers start pointing out inevitable progressions down the slippery slope, the proponents of the legislation poo-poo them as paranoid.

I don't need to read the legislation. I know what happens when federal bureaucrats are given authority and money by Congress to regulate,because the same thing happens every time. I cannot even think of a single federal program which hasn't expanded, become more intrusive, costly and meddlesome and has led to a deterioration of the service and choices available to people except those few times when the feds deregulated industries, such as the airline industry, but they are even trying to reregulate that.

When Medicare was implemented, critics said that the federal government would insinuate itself in the physician patient relationship and start dictating care. They were disparaged and ridiculed. Guess what happened. Medicare is 100,000 pages plus of dictating care and intimately regulating the physician patient relationship.

I will tell you exactly how they will fudge data. Some, if not all of the coming standardized "performance" tests will contain high proportions of true false questions. So in these sections, 50% correct answers may sound good, but that's exactly what random chance would give you. They will give extra points for "disadvantaged" children because of race, sex, family status, etc. such that standardized performance tests will be outcome based performance tests.

And home schoolers...just wait, the feds will be back for you in a couple of years.

46 posted on 12/15/2001 12:04:23 PM PST by Jesse
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 38 | View Replies]

To: EternalVigilance
Patently untrue. Am overwhelming majority of Republicans oppose federal involvement in educating our children. (The proof? The Republican Platform; adopted by the democratic processes of the Party.)

The 2000 GOP Platform does not call for no federal involvement. It calls for federal grants with strings attached ("shrinking a multitude of federal programs into five flexible grants in exchange for real, measured progress in student achievement"), which is part of the recently passed bill, it calls for increased parental choice of school using federal dollars ("Assist states in closing the achievement gap and empower needy families to escape persistently failing schools by allowing federal dollars to follow their children to the school of their choice.), which is provided for in the bill, though it does not yet apply to priivate schools, and school safety, which is provided for in the bill.

The platform also says "We strongly support voluntary student-initiated prayer in school without governmental interference. ", which is provided for in the bill (I cited that portion in an earlier post.

47 posted on 12/15/2001 12:20:23 PM PST by Huck
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 43 | View Replies]

To: Huck
It also says:

We recognize that under the American constitutional system, education is a state, local, and family responsibility, not a federal obligation.

By the way, if that page you sent me to was the final text of the GOP platform, and not something directly from the Bush campaign, I stand corrected...the plank in its final form was highjacked by the NEA lovers in control of the process.

Doesn't change the truth of my contention that the vast majority of Republicans agree with the above statement in its entirety...i.e. no federal involvement.

48 posted on 12/15/2001 12:40:06 PM PST by EternalVigilance
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 47 | View Replies]

To: EternalVigilance; Jesse
I got the stuff from the RNC website, I think that's the real thing. Not a federal obligation is not the same thing as no federal involvement. Up to now, isn't it true, folks want the money but no accountability? They will still get the money, but there will (supposedly) be accountability. I see that as a positive move, even if it doesn't get the feds out of it altogether. What ought to be reported is what the specifics will be. Jesse posted some legitimate concerns about the validity of the testing which will measure the results. We deserve details on that. Where is the press on this? But then again, are people calling and asking for the info? I doubt it.
49 posted on 12/15/2001 12:45:15 PM PST by Huck
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 48 | View Replies]

To: Huck
I would like to hear the opinions of people who actually work in the field, especially those whose political self-interest is not served by taking one position or the other. It would make the information more reliable to a layman like me.

I've been a teacher for 28 years, an accreditation officer, a member of the Board of the California Association of Scholars, and Higher Education reporter for the California Political Review. For full disclosure, I should add that I am a personal and professional friend of Dr. Keyes.

I can tell you that what he writes is well grounded; extra funding, whether state or federal, correlates poorly to student achievement, and federal funds have always been connected to pressure, whether explicit or implicit, to conform to federal wishes. The "School-to-Work" program is a major case in point.

On your question of whether Keyes has expertise, I can tell you this: he was made interim President of a public university in Alabama for a year, to clean up fiscal and other scandals, and all reports are that he did a good job. He has a Ph.D in American Government from Harvard, and is a voracious reader. Dr. Keyes also did extensive research on the education of Southern Blacks in the post-bellum period for his book, Masters of the Dream.

During the 2000 primary campaign, I kept him up to date on research and press reports on American Education as a voluntary contribution from me to the Keyes 2000 electoral effort. I have also had numerous private talks with him on the issue. He is well informed.

I hope that is responsive ...

Cheers, and for Lincoln and Liberty!

Richard F.

50 posted on 12/15/2001 2:05:12 PM PST by rdf
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 26 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-5051-92 next last

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson