My Beauty Best Teacher

Via memeorandum (and here too) I read this report from The Hill: White House to offer 10 states waivers on No Child Left Behind:

President Obama on Thursday will offer waivers to 10 states that applied for exclusion from some aspects of the No Child Left Behind Law, according to a report in The Associated Press that cited an anonymous White House official...

...The George W. Bush-era legislation requires that all students be proficient in reading and math by 2014, and would penalize those schools where the children failed to reach required standards...

...There is broad support among both parties to reform the legislation, which Obama has called admirable but flawed. However, Congress has been gridlocked over how to do so since it came up for renewal in 2007....

President Obama once more done the wrong thing. As I wrote in my post Obama's Change to NCLB Policy: Violation of Nation's Principles?:

In 2001, George W. Bush proposed a major change to education law called The No Child Left Behind Act. This piece of legislation was supported with extensive bipartisan support in Congress and leading up to its implementation and passage there was extensive debate regarding this bill- people were given an opportunity to discuss it, come to grips with it, and properly weight its merits and problems.

NCLB at its heart was a deal- education would be reformed by putting in place at the federal level higher standards and the establishment of measurable educational goals, and in return Congress would dramatically increase the amount of amount of federal funding for education, increasing it from $42.2 billion in 2001 to $54.4 billion in 2007. In return for states developing assessments in basic skills to be given to all students in certain grades, the federal would expand funding for reading programs and Title I programs which benefit disadvantaged children, and would considerably expand funding for IDEA (Individuals with Disabilities Education) to support education. That was the bargain made, after considerable discussion and debate- money in exchange for accountability.

And now, with no debate and discussion, President Obama has decided without any support from either party in Congress to go ahead and change the deal, and we can only pray that he does not alter it further....

...President Obama is once again demonstrating his unfitness for office by changing the deal, and this is a bad thing- education will continue to receive funding, but now will no longer have to meet the deal that Congress put in place- rather, they will have to meet the deal that Obama puts in place, conditions that he will establish without legislative authority or approval. This sort of action should be causing libertarians and liberals and conservatives to howl, because it is a slap in the face to democracy, elected government, separation of powers, and our Constitution. His time in office can not come to an end quickly enough...

It is time that we change directions as a nation- and thankfully in one short year we can do so. The Republican Party will eventually nominate someone who isn't Obama, and this Republican will not support the 'go it alone', unconstitutional, 'slush fund' methods of Chicago-style gangster-in-chief Barack Obama. Republicans on the House Education and the Workforce Committee have recently released two pieces of draft legislation to overhaul No Child Left Behind, with provisions in them that support state-developed accountability systems and a smaller federal footprint in education. These resolutions will be debated in our legislative branch- our law making branch of government- and funded there, and once the details have been figured out, compromises made, and hearing and testimony taken on the powers of the unintended consequences of the law, then it will become law and be executed by our President.

THAT'S HOW WE DO IT IN AMERICA- this isn't Kenya or Indonesia, where the dictator who runs our nation can just jam through his way, hopefully get Congress to approve it, and fund it all through giant slush funds that were designed to stimulate the economy or bail out failing banks back in 2009.

The ends do not justify the means in this nation- and our President is not smarter than the American public and their elected Representatives and Senators. He is not a King, ordering his advisers and czars and secretaries to implement policies and rules and waiver plans without any Congressional authority to do so simply because HE believes it to be the right policies- our President acts (especially on domestic policies) only with Congressional approval and direction. Imagine how the liberals would have howled had President Bush just decided to go to war in Iraq and Afghanistan without any Congressional direction, using funds designed to pay for healthcare or education, and then laughed off any sort of oversight of his efforts. It would not be right for Bush to do that then, and it is not right for Obama to grant waivers to states for NCLB now.

Race to the Top should have been opposed, and changes to NCLB should be opposed- in America, laws must come from the legislative branch, not the White House, and President Obama's attempt to ignore the separation of powers in our nation in the hopes of jamming his views on the sovereign people of America must be opposed. Vote Republican in 2012 and throw him out of office.

UPDATE: Ace of Spades has a great post up on this subject, and says something that I have been saying to the liberals and progressives who are cheering the Presidents unilateral actions recently:

I don't even want to think like this, but if we're playing Lord of the Flies like this, I can see a Republican president waiving compliance with the National Labor Relations Board too. And the EPA. And unilaterally offering a "waiver" permitting a company to drill in ANWR.

Every month teacher unions from around the nation gather together to pray at the alter of the Democratic Party, offering up the usual sacrifices (unions dues) and saying the usual prayers (another term for Obama). As part of this monthly ritual held in every public school district in the nation, union leaders faithfully repeat the claim that Republicans are anti-education and that President Obama is pro-education. Let's examine this claim in light of the a recent release from the House Education and the Workforce Committee Republicans:

Late last year, the U.S. Secretary of Education took unprecedented action and announced a plan that would allow the administration to unilaterally dictate federal education policy without Congressional input.

Secretary Arne Duncan’s plan to grant waivers for certain requirements under No Child Left Behind in exchange for states adopting the administration’s preferred education agenda has been called “the most sweeping use of executive authority to rewrite federal education law since Washington expanded its involvement in education in the 1960s” by the New York Times. In the Washington Post, George Will likened the plan to “coercive federalism”...

...Already, this conditional waivers plan has generated great uncertainty for state and local education officials. States that opt in to the plan will be forced to dedicate time and limited resources to implement a host of new federal regulations. However, the requirements could be easily changed by Congress, Secretary Duncan, or the next administration, potentially rendering a state’s investment in changing its education system meaningless...

...Making matters worse, the secretary's waiver plan – similar to his ill-fated Race to the Top program – pressures states to adopt common academic standards and tests in reading and math, creating de facto national standards and national tests. This one-size-fits-all approach usurps the power of local superintendents, school boards, and parents who know more about what kids need to learn than bureaucrats in Washington...

...House Education and the Workforce Committee Republicans are determined to fix current education law the right way – with smart legislative policies that will have a lasting impact. Toward that effort, Republicans recently released two pieces of draft legislation to overhaul No Child Left Behind. In addition to provisions that support state-developed accountability systems and a smaller federal footprint in education, the legislation includes four provisions that rein in the authority of the Secretary of Education and preserve state and local control...

...We cannot allow the Obama administration to implement a backdoor education agenda. It’s time to advance real change in our nation’s education system. The Student Success Act and the Encouraging Innovation and Effective Teachers Act provide states and school districts with a clear path forward that will help get more effective teachers in the classroom, enhance accountability, and raise the bar on student achievement.

Our Founding Fathers designed our legislative branch to implement and pass policies and to pass the laws which govern our nation- they clearly did not give the President the power to issue directives and orders establishing policies and laws, paid for out a giant slush fund (stimulus dollars, which were supposed to go for shovel ready projects that would put Americans back to work back in 2009). But this is what we have- a President who thinks he is smarter than the American public and their elected Representatives and Senators, and who thinks that he is supposed to be running our nation as a King, ordering his advisers and czars and secretaries to implement policies and rules and waiver plans without any Congressional authority to do so simply because HE believes it to be the right policies. Process and the means matter, and Obama is not going about implementing education policy the right way (with Congressional approval and direction).

Furthermore, by his actions President Obama does not demonstrate that he is any sort of 'friend of education', deserving of one-sided and considerable support by the National Education Association and its various state chapters. Pressuring states to adopt common core standards is the same sort of 'national standards' that the unions opposed so loudly during Bush's administration- the emphasis on national tests is the same sort of 'national testing' that brought howls from unions and magazine articles in education magazines- and the push for merit pay should be met with a storm of opposition by the education labor unions. On these issues and many others, the labor unions have decided to compromise their positions and policy stances so that Barack Obama can remain as President, and by doing so continue to destroy the property tax base and income taxes on which education depends for its funding.

The truth of the matter is that today, perhaps it is the Republican Party which offers the best path forward for public education in America. A rising tide floats all boats, and Republican policies which encourage economic growth- less regulation, more protection of private property, less fees, less red tape and bureaucratic interference, etc- will likely lead to increased tax revenues that will in turn lead to increased funding and money for education. Further, policies designed in the legislative branch and laws passed by our Congress will have more broad consensus and input from more parties and thus be better designed and implemented that dictates issued by an overbearing and close-minded Executive Branch.

Via Big Government, Bill Ayers Apostle Appointed White House Education Initiative Director:

Jose Rico has been named the new director of the White House Initiative on Educational Excellence for Hispanics, a key position that could help close the achievement gap between white and minority students. But if his history is any indication, his influence may do more harm than good.

Perhaps most troubling is Rico’s connection to unrepentant domestic terrorist Bill Ayers and communist radical Mike Klonsky through the Chicago-based “Small Schools Workshop.” The “Small Schools Workshop” was founded by Ayers and Klonsky. According to a U.S. Department of Education biography, Rico worked for the Small Schools Workshop some 6 years... Rico’s CPSalumni.org bio... describes his time in Chicago working as a “community organizer.”

...Does it matter that an apostle of anti-American radicals like Ayers and Klonsky is now in such an influential position? Is it unfair to judge him by the company he kept for six years of his professional life? Perhaps his academic record will show a positive impact on students and could overcome any shocking associations he has?

Sadly, that’s not the case. During Rico’s tenure as principal of the Multicultural Arts High School, student performance was 584th out of 640 high schools in the state. And despite its low teacher-to-student ratio (less than 14-1) and Ayers/Klonsky-inspired “small school” philosophy, Rico’s school managed to produce a paltry 56% graduation rate. The Chicago Tribune reported the school “did not meet federal education standards.”

Why appoint someone with such a dismal track record to such an important position? Apparently Chicago connections (Rico is also a personal friend of Michele Obama) are more important that his professional performance. Being an apostle of Obama’s personal friends Ayers and Klonsky apparently doesn’t hurt, either.

Some of you may know that I have personally met Bill Ayers, and that that experience may have indirectly led to me losing my first job in education. I had a long interview with Larry Elder on this issue last year, and I've posted a briefer version of my experience on my blog (see my post My Experience Meeting Bill Ayers).

Jose Rico, as a community organizer who was immersed for many years in the filth that is Bill Ayers educational philosophy, is a poor choice to lead any sort of national initiative, but he likely shares the same educational ideology of Obama, and that is why he was picked. Bill Ayers, who founded and designed the schools that Jose Rico worked in, felt that teachers should use their classrooms to promote radical, leftist, communist values.

And Ayers vision of education is Obama's vision of education. Obama pushes a radical, leftist, communist vision of education that I talked about on my post Break Down Class System in Education by Moving to the Right, not the Left?:

But being the deeply liberal institutions that they are, schools always arrive at the same and incorrect conclusion of how to break down this class system. Schools and the educational world pushes that all students should be equalized by going through education at the same pace (one grade per year), that every student should graduate at the same exact time with the same exact number and sort of classes, that the pace and level of education that is delivered in the classroom should be directed at the average (or even the least) student in the room, that the curriculum that is taught in schools must be exactly the same, that the funding of the school systems should be exactly the same, that classes must be large groups of students all moving at the same pace, and that teachers should be paid the same (or have pay scales that advance the same for everyone, whether they are an effective teacher or not).

The solution that liberals have devised to break down the class system in the education world is a leftist one that attempts to redistribute and equalize effort from those who have it to those who don't- the leftists in education try to use schools to transfer to those students who don't the natural intelligence, curiosity, industry, effort, leadership, communication, writing skills, the right opinions, the right mindset, or whatever that the others students do have. And the result is predictable- an educational establishment that achieves less results with more resources consumed, that falls further behind when measured against the past or other nations, and that does not give students the knowledge and skills to succeed in the future.

President Obama, Jose Rico, Bill Ayers, Saul Alinsky, and others are radical, leftist, communists who should not be in positions of power over our children's education. Help me remove them from their positions and replace them in 2012 by voting against them.

• Teacher Reboot Camp » Blog Archive » On the Horizon: 20+ Free Professional Development Opportunities for 2012

  20+ Free educational opportunities from Shelly Terrell. not on the list (but yet to be announced.) 10 week flat classroom book club

  tags: education news

• Taxpayer funding of universities 'to drop to 100 year low' - Telegraph

  It is tough all over in education. This study from the UK. ".Research shows that annual public spending on teaching and research in England will drop to just 15 per cent – the lowest in more than a century. The decline in taxpayer funding is being offset by a sharp increase in student tuition fees."

  tags: news education highered

• WealthEngine Releases New Higher Education Fundraising Report - MarketWatch

  Researchers in higher ed looking for fundraising ideas may want to look into this report and their webinar coming up. "Best Practices for Prospect Research in Higher Education Fundraising, Second Edition. Originally released in the fall of 2009, this new edition contains significant updates and research intended to facilitate knowledge sharing and help institutions of education achieve a higher level of fundraising effectiveness.".

  tags: research news education fundraising

• HighBeam Research chooses top 10 blogs for educational research

  High Beam research shares their pick for best education blogs. Some new ones and a few familiar ones too.

  tags: news education blogs inthenews coolcatteacher

• a beautiful mess...: It is supposed to be FREE!

  If you like long listsvof Free educational resources, here is one for you. it starts with sushidog, one I had not heard of.

  tags: education news oer

• Six Flags Offers Free Tickets to Encourage Reading Outside the Classroom | Jackson Township NJ News

  If you live near this New Jersey theme park, you will want to participate in this reading program. ".Six Flags Great Adventure and Discovery Education are partnering together to offer free admission to the New Jersey theme park for K-6 students who participate in Read to Succeed, an online program geared to encourage students to read outside of the classroom."

  tags: news reading literacy

• iPads revolutionizing Flagstaff classrooms

  News article about how Flagstaff schools are using these tablet devices."Flagstaff Unified School District has about 500 new touch-screen mobile devices around the schools. Last spring, the district had one classroom set of Apple iPads for a pilot program. At that time, the tablets had only been on the market for about a year. The first tablets debuted in Nelson's class at Thomas and were purchased with grant money.The students took to them like fish to water, and FUSD bought more devices. Federal funds and grants have allowed the district to assemble its cache. An iPad would retail for at least about $500, and a basic iPod Touch for about $200, at the electronics superstore. Students do not take them home and, at least in Nelson's class, drafted their own user agreement that says they promise to be careful with the valuable computers."

  tags: education news ipad

• Back at It

  I love this reflection from another teacher in the trenches. Somehow, I don't feel alone in my stress when I read blog posts like this one from Patricia. If you want a pick me up to remember why you're in this profession, take a read...Excerpt"Teacher stress is very real but it's not unmanageable. Recognizing that you are experiencing it and acknowledging that it is a normal emotion in this profession is perhaps key to staying sane!"

  tags: education news inspiration

Posted from Diigo. The rest of my favorite links are here.

In 1987, Mrs Margaret Thatcher flew to Moscow to meet the Soviet leader Mikhail Gorbachev. In their famous conversations, Gorbachev rounded on her. As she recalled it, “His view was that the British Conservative Party was the party of the 'haves’ in Britain and that our system of 'bourgeois democracy’ was designed to fool people about who really controlled the levers of power.” But she hit back: “I explained that what I was trying to do was to create a society of 'haves’, not a class of them.” (source)

The greatest problem that I run into when confronting liberalism in schools is the idea that there are haves and have-not's- that some kids have it and that others don't. What they have is debatable- some teachers want kids to have intelligence, others want kids to have effort, and other teachers want kids to have the same opinion as they do about topics- but the educational world clearly believes that there are classes out there.

But being the deeply liberal institutions that they are, schools always arrive at the same and incorrect conclusion of how to break down this class system. Schools and the educational world pushes that all students should be equalized by going through education at the same pace (one grade per year), that every student should graduate at the same exact time with the same exact number and sort of classes, that the pace and level of education that is delivered in the classroom should be directed at the average (or even the least) student in the room, that the curriculum that is taught in schools must be exactly the same, that the funding of the school systems should be exactly the same, that classes must be large groups of students all moving at the same pace, and that teachers should be paid the same (or have pay scales that advance the same for everyone, whether they are an effective teacher or not).

The solution that liberals have devised to break down the class system in the education world is a leftist one that attempts to redistribute and equalize effort from those who have it to those who don't- the leftists in education try to use schools to transfer to those students who don't the natural intelligence, curiosity, industry, effort, leadership, communication, writing skills, the right opinions, the right mindset, or whatever that the others students do have. And the result is predictable- an educational establishment that achieves less results with more resources consumed, that falls further behind when measured against the past or other nations, and that does not give students the knowledge and skills to succeed in the future.

The solution in education is not to get rid of those who have it or transfer the stuff that people have to the others, but to create a society in education of people who do have it- to encourage every student to be successful and achieve all that they can be and to push them upwards, not work to keep them from falling behind.

In this new educational system of the conservative future, students will move through grades based on their achievements and skill level, not based on their age. Students (and parents) are free to have choices on what sorts of classes they should take and when they should take them, and will have input into the curriculum that is taught in them as well. In the education of the future that pushes all students upward to grow the pie of effort, achievement, intelligence, and skills, students will receive more individualized instruction that will push them in their own individualized ways- personalized feedback on writing and essays, one-on-one support for math and science skills, and personal attention to their communication of their views and knowledge on subject matters. Funding for schools will be variable, and teachers pay will be flexible and adjustable based on their performance and effectiveness in the classroom. Classrooms will be able to contain a range of different settings to learn the information, and will have more flexible hours and meeting times to meet the needs of the students.

In the educational world, we need to move away from focusing on a class system or pushing this idea that teachers have the knowledge and power and students are just trying to acquire it, and instead move to a culture and society where learning information and new skills is the goal so that students can successfully win jobs and promotions and be hardworking innovation workers and leaders of enterprise for the future. We need to move away from leftist ideas and more towards the right in education, and in so doing, the pie will be grown and our future will be better.

In spite of being a conservative libertarian Republican who wants to drastically reduce government spending, I've always had a soft spot for NASA- I know, everyone has 'their agency' or 'their sacred cow of spending', and that's why the budget is never cut, but in this case, and NASA is mine, so it does need to have its funding cut and do more with less and all that, but I still think is my favorite agency. And even though it's budget is only about $18 billion/year (out of $3456 billion/year total US spending), it is still able to deliver some amazing results.

From BBC News:

NASA is about to launch its latest Mars rover, nicknamed Curiosity, from Cape Canaveral, Florida. At nearly a tonne, the six-wheeled vehicle dwarfs all previous robots sent to the surface of the planet. The machine carries a suite of sophisticated instruments and tools, including a hammer drill and a laser, to find out whether Mars is, or ever has been, suitable for life....

Lift-off is just the start for what Nasa hopes will be a multi-year campaign at the Red Planet.... The rover is equipped with a plutonium battery and so should have ample power to keep rolling for more than a decade. It is likely the mechanisms on MSL will wear out long before its energy supply.... MSL will use its suite of 10 instruments to study the local rock, soil and atmosphere....

This mission looks very cool, and a description of it doesn't do it justice. Check out an animated video for this mission- it should make you feel very proud to be an American to imagine that in spite of our economic downturn, we can still do things like this (at the relatively bargain cost of $2.5 billion, or 1/1382th of the budget for 2010):

I've written about NASA before- check out my posts Obama's New NASA Policy- Yet More Broken Promises and Lies or Obama too Busy to Appoint Public Officials- but mostly check out my post Nuclear Power and Manned Space Flight: Victims of Democrat's Progress Backwards? where I wrote (in part- read the whole post):

Today I watched the movie Apollo 13 for perhaps that hundredth time. As I watched that wonderful movie, I grew a little emotional, but it wasn't because of the drama of the movie- it was because I am upset and angry and sad that America has abandoned manned spaceflight in my lifetime, and seems to be abandoning the larger future too, a future where man would harness the power of an atom splitting and travel among the stars, a future of dreams and inspiration. America instead is collapsing on the weight of promises made to generations past, ruled over by elitist politicians who seek only to control us, and everyday our nation moves farther away from living a prosperous life in the stars in freedom and liberty, however preposterous or unlikely that future may have been.

The current leadership of our nation speaks of 'progress,' but they are abandoning nuclear power and manned spaceflight in favor of providing healthcare insurance to people who are encouraged not to purchase it and spending money they don't have to support railroads and electric motor carriages and windmills. The future that Obama, Democrats, liberals, and Republicans that go along with them is not a future full of cheap safe energy and man roaming freely in the stars- it is a future with man going backward, remembering that once, long ago, before I was born and before my students were born, man built generators that were powered by the atom splitting and man walked on the moon.

Man once walked on the moon! Nuclear power plants were once built! Say it- and then realize that these are events of the past- that the new normal and likely new future of America and the world is a long, slow slide backwards into tyranny, injustice, and confiscation of property by elites. Oh, I know it is 'nice' to give out healthcare to anyone who asks and that we all want teachers to be paid a million bucks and that no job should be insecure and that energy should be provided from dancing on the suns rays or blowing gently on flowers, but that is not reality! The reality is that the future is slipping away, and much like the greatness of Rome was the standard for centuries or the might of Britain was to be envied for generations, ours is a time that is slipping away, slipping away based on the policies pushed for by Democrats like Obama, Granholm, Stabenow, Levin, Rogers, and others. Modern day liberalism has failed to move man into the future- rather, man has been moved backwards through its policies of standing in the way of human liberty and freedom, by embracing the killing of life and babies, and by stealing other peoples property....

Obama and the Democrats may be intent on making America average and poor- but at least NASA continues to dazzle us with great work like this Curiosity program!

Here are some great NASA products to buy! When We Left Earth: The NASA Missions (Limited Edition), Nasa: The Complete Illustrated History, From the Earth to the Moon - The Signature Edition, The Space Shuttle: Celebrating Thirty Years of NASA's First Space Plane, or America in Space: Nasa's First Fifty Years.

By Candi Peterson

Empower DC, a well respected community grassroots organization hosted a gathering on Thursday evening, November 3 at the Dorothy Height Library to discuss DC's plans to close more traditional public schools. People assembled from all walks of life including Ward 7 residents, parents, teachers, former principals, nurses, representatives of Teamsters-local 639, community activists, ANC representatives and yours truly. Some familiar faces that I saw included: Mary Levy, former DCPS parent and DCPS budget analyst, Mary Melchior, DCPS parent from Capitol Hill Montessori and Richard Patterson, former principal of River Terrace Elementary school.

Daniel del Pielago, organizer and facilitator of the Thursday meeting reminded attendees that Chancellor Kaya Henderson told parents during the spring that the city could not afford to continue to operate more than 40 schools with enrollment figures lower than 300 students. This  summer, a decision was made by Deputy Mayor of Education, De'Shawn Wright to commission an Illinois based firm known as the Illinois Facilities Fund (IFF) to conduct a foundational study which will help determine which schools will be proposed for closure. While IFF has done similar studies in Chicago, Denver, Milwaukee and St Louis, it is interesting that funding for this project was provided by the Walton Family Foundation who owns Wal-Mart. No competitive bidding process occurred. It is expected that the study will be completed by the end of November.

This study will be looking at schools test scores to determine if a school is “performing” or not.  They will not take into consideration other ways that a school is excelling for its students, parents and community. In similar studies, schools were determined to either be performing or not performing based on whether they meet or exceed 75% of the state standard in both reading and math. In DC, that standard would equate to 55% or more proficiency rates on the DC CAS. The numbers below reflect the number of “under performing DCPS schools” by wards: Ward 1 = 8 schools, Ward 2 = 3 schools, Ward 3 = 0 schools, Ward 4 = 11 schools, Ward 5 = 11 schools, Ward 6 = 11 schools, Ward 7 = 20 schools, and Ward 8 = 20 schools. We could potentially face high closure rates in some of our poorest wards.

After closing 23 schools during the Michelle Rhee administration in 2008, DCPS saw a 17 percent drop off rate in enrollment according to Washington Examiner Reporter  Michael Neibauer's September 8, 2008 article: "DC Public Schools Enrollment shows 17 percent drop off." Mary Levy who was quoted in Neibauer's 2008 article stated: "parents want some certainty, and closing schools is pretty much guaranteed to lead to loss of enrollment because we have so many other options." Those at the Empower DC meeting echoed these same concerns that were voiced earlier in 2008.

Many at the meeting saw the goal of another round of school closures as part of an ongoing reform model to privatize public education by closing traditional public schools with plans of replacing them with charter schools. Participants chimed in that DC Public Schools had not been transparent during this process  and that the study had no plans to include focus groups of critical stakeholders. While Deputy Mayor De'Shawn Wright has been quoted as saying there will be public input, it seems that community input will not be considered until after the preliminary analysis.

The meeting concluded with a brainstorming of ideas on next steps to fight school closures of our traditional public schools. Plans are being made for additional meetings to be held throughout the city. Participants were encouraged to spread the word and get members from their school communities actively involved. If you want to become involved in saving our public schools, contact Daniel by email @ daniel@empowerdc.org  or call 202-234-9119 ext. 104.


Stay tuned as more details emerge on upcoming meetings.

Today as I drove home I saw a bumper sticker on the car in front of me that read "Don't Blame Me- I Voted for the Other Guy". It was amusing, but got me thinking- should people be blamed for voting for Obama in 2008? The answer is no- if you or any of your family voted for President Obama in 2008, it was a mistake, but I believe it was an understandable mistake.

Let's look back on President Obama circa 2008 see just what sort of a candidate he was and what sort of campaign he ran using a great resource called Living Room Candidate. Here is how candidate Barack Obama's campaign is described there:

Barack Obama’s campaign created a number of positive ads that emphasize such words as “values” and “work,” portraying him as someone whom working-class voters can feel comfortable with. While Obama’s ads tended to be more positive in tone than McCain’s, there were also a large number of attack ads. Just as President Clinton’s 1996 ads linked Bob Dole with Newt Gingrich, nearly all of Obama’s attack ads linked John McCain with President Bush, whose approval ratings are extremely low. By linking McCain to Bush, the Obama campaign successfully undercut McCain’s image as an independent maverick.

In advertisement after advertisement in 2008, Barack Obama pounded a steady theme- that he was an agent of change that would bring our nation back towards hope by rising above partisanship and embracing every good idea that was proposed. He talked about how he would pull us out of Iraq and that he would sit down an engage in smart diplomacy with our enemies. He pounded on the fact that he would be a smart and savvy leader who would have the sound judgement and wisdom to make the right decisions facing our nation. He linked his opponents in the Democratic Party and in the Republican Party to corruption and special interests and vowed that not only would he be the cleanest, least corrupt politician in the White House, that he would root out special interests and make the White House open and clean and transparent. And he promised to cut the deficit in half and leave our nation with a balanced budget. These were all great goals and promises that a lot of American people could get behind in 2008.

Watch how in this speech he hammers Congress for 'failing to ask the hard questions'- questions about why contracts were awarded to certain groups, why policies were undertaken when the nation clearly didn't have to money to engage on them, and he ripped the Congress a new one for 'giving the President open-ended authority' to make actions and spend money. Obama was right- America doesn't want a President that is unrestricted and making rules up as he goes, playing around with slush funds of cash, and using executive orders to get around the authority of Congress and the people, and he was right to hammer Congress on it.

Take a look at this speech he gave where he laid out his reasons for running for office. In it, he says that we need a new President for 3 reasons- first reason, that we need someone who can bring our nation together and rise above the divisions and partisanship that is dividing our nation, second reason, that we need someone who can 'take on the special interests and win', and third reason, 'telling the truth to the American people even when it's tough.' Back in 2008, and today too, these are good reasons to vote for him and it is understandable that people would support that.

Or watch this one, where Obama lays out the argument to vote for him in the primary in Iowa back in 2008. In it, Obama says that the reasons to vote for him is that he has a track record for reducing the power of lobbyists in DC, that he was opposed to the war in Iraq from the start and will immediately bring our troops home, that he would help out working families and raise their pay and lower the costs of healthcare, that he wouldn't push national programs in education without properly funding those programs, and that we can be 'assured' that he will be who he says he is. He pounds the point that we can trust him- that he is who he says he is and that he isn't going to change once he gets in the White House.

Don't blame yourself for voting for Obama in 2008- in campaign advertisement after campaign ad, he said the right things and talked about doing a lot of good things for our nation. It was understandable if you voted for him based on these ads, and since there was very little background or track record of him, that was pretty much all you had to go on. And McCain wasn't the best choice and ran one of the worst campaigns ever, so don't blame yourself for voting for Obama in 2008.

But look back at all that he ran on in 2008 and compare it to what the results were and who he is today. He did the opposite of everything that he said, he ruined everything he wanted to help, he has presided over divisive and protests like no other- both Tea Parties on the right and Occupiers on the left-, he has piled up debt and put in place structural deficits that will bankrupt America, he took many years to take our troops out of Iraq while expanding troops in Afghanistan and committing our military to many more countries, he has made the White House more opaque, corruption is rampant and massive contracts were awarded to companies with few questions asked- likely due to campaign donations those companies gave him personally-, he throws around his authority without limit, signs executive orders to go around Congress, has blocked fundamental and tough reforms from being put in place, has increased unemployment and the number of people on food stamps, and has made foolish decision and statement after foolish statement and decision.

Most importantly, you shouldn't blame yourself for voting for Obama in 2008 because you trusted him- but if you vote for him in 2012 everyone should blame you because you still trust him. He lied to you- he lied to all of us- he promised us things and pounded on the themes of trust and believing him him, and he did not do those things. He lied, and in 2012, America should hold him accountable for his lies, which are all public record and easily found (follow this link yourself), and he should be thrown out of office and the Republican nominee- whether it is Romney, Perry, Cain, or someone else- should be our next President of the United States.

In 2001, George W. Bush proposed a major change to education law called The No Child Left Behind Act. This piece of legislation was supported with extensive bipartisan support in Congress and leading up to its implementation and passage there was extensive debate regarding this bill- people were given an opportunity to discuss it, come to grips with it, and properly weight its merits and problems.

NCLB at its heart was a deal- education would be reformed by putting in place at the federal level higher standards and the establishment of measurable educational goals, and in return Congress would dramatically increase the amount of amount of federal funding for education, increasing it from $42.2 billion in 2001 to $54.4 billion in 2007. In return for states developing assessments in basic skills to be given to all students in certain grades, the federal would expand funding for reading programs and Title I programs which benefit disadvantaged children, and would considerably expand funding for IDEA (Individuals with Disabilities Education) to support education. That was the bargain made, after considerable discussion and debate- money in exchange for accountability.

And now, with no debate and discussion, President Obama has decided without any support from either party in Congress to go ahead and change the deal, and we can only pray that he does not alter it further.

Via The Heritage Group:

“Congress hasn’t been able to do it, so I will.” With this bold statement, President Obama announced last Friday that he would unilaterally replace the provisions of the No Child Left Behind Act (NCLB) with conditions-based waivers. Obama’s waiver strategy is an alarming misuse of executive power that undermines the separation of powers.

In and of itself, the use of waivers is not unconstitutional. Congress has the authority to create laws with provisions that allow the President to grant exceptions in certain circumstances. NCLB does, for instance, authorize the Secretary of Education to grant waivers to applicants that meet certain criteria. However, waivers are not written as blank checks of authority for the President to bypass Congress and enact new policy.

In this case, the President is using waivers to rewrite the law. The Obama waivers go far beyond the measures allowed by NCLB. To receive a waiver, states must agree to implement a new set of goals and programs determined not by Congress, but by the White House.

For months, President Obama and Congressional Republicans have disagreed on how to reform NCLB. There are major problems with the law’s intrusive regulations. But the Obama administration decided that the “do-nothing Congress” could not be trusted to act and so the President is acting without them.

But co-opting the waiver power to craft a new laws designed in and implemented by the White House is a departure from the constitutional separation of powers. Article 1, Section 8 of the Constitution grants Congress the power to craft the nation’s laws and to reform those laws when they do not work as planned. The executive is authorized to carry out the laws passed by Congress. But this can be quite bothersome for a President if Congress doesn’t see things his way.

The President does have a proper constitutional role to play in the legislative process. The President has the power to veto or sign a bill. Furthermore, as permitted by the recommendation clause of Article 1, Section 3, the President may recommend legislation to Congress. This is does not mean that the President can unilaterally create law as if by royal edict. To become law, legislation (even when recommended by the President) must first pass both houses of Congress and be signed by the President. This process ensures that any law will be subject to deliberation by both the nationally elected President and the Congressmen who are more attuned to the particular interests and concerns of the local communities they represent.

Both congressional Republicans and president Obama acknowledge that NCLB is a flawed law. While it may be tempting to seek a quick fix to this sprawling and unpopular program that avoids a partisan battle, misusing waivers to enact new policy without the consent of the elected representatives in Congress is not the way to address the issue.

President Obama is once again demonstrating his unfitness for office by changing the deal, and this is a bad thing- education will continue to receive funding, but now will no longer have to meet the deal that Congress put in place- rather, they will have to meet the deal that Obama puts in place, conditions that he will establish without legislative authority or approval. This sort of action should be causing libertarians and liberals and conservatives to howl, because it is a slap in the face to democracy, elected government, separation of powers, and our Constitution. His time in office can not come to an end quickly enough.

Micheal Barone, writing for the Washington Examiner, from his article The Unhappy Warrior, best sums up President Barack Obama's much touted speech on jobs yesterday:

Barack Obama looked and sounded angry in his speech to the joint session of Congress. He bitterly assailed one straw man after another and made reference to a grab bag of proposals which would cost something on the order of $450 billion—assuring us on the one hand that they all had been supported by Republicans as well as Democrats in the past and suggesting that somehow they are going to turn the economy around. He called for further cuts in the payroll tax (which if continued indefinitely would undermine the case of Social Security as something people have earned rather than a form of welfare) and for a further extension of unemployment insurance (perhaps justifiable on humanitarian grounds, but sure to at least marginally raise the unemployment rate over what it would otherwise be). He called for a tax credit for hiring the long-term unemployed (unfortunately, these things can be gamed). He gave a veiled plug for his pet project of high-speed rail (a real dud) and for infrastructure spending generally (but didn’t he learn that there aren’t really any shovel-ready projects?). He called for a school modernization program (will it result in more jobs than the Seattle weatherization program that cost $22 million and produced 14 jobs?) and for funding more teacher jobs (a political payoff to the teacher unions which together with other unions gave Democrats $400 million in the 2008 campaign cycle). “We’ll set up an independent fund to attract private dollars and issue loans based on two criteria: how badly a construction project is needed and how much good it would do for the country.” Yeah, sure. Like the screening process that produced that $535,000,000 loan guarantee to now-bankrupt Solyndra. And Congress should pass the free trade agreements with Panama, Colombia and South Korea. Except that Congress can’t, because Obama hasn’t sent them up there yet in his 961 days as president.

Obama assured us that this would all be paid for. But as far as I could gather, he punted that part of it to the supercommittee of 12 members set up under the debt ceiling bill. He now blithely charges it with coming up with more than its current goal of $1.5 trillion in savings by Christmas. Oh, and he’s going to announce “a more ambitious deficit plan” that will “stabilize our debt in the long run”--11 days from now.

In the meantime, he called for higher taxes on “a few of the most affluent citizens”—as if this could pay for all the spending he’s been backing...

...Straw men took a terrible beating from the president. He assailed “tax loopholes” for oil companies, the chief one of which is that they are treated like other companies classified as manufacturers. The administration proposal is that the five largest oil companies shouldn’t be, because—well, because we want to get our hands on more of their money. Today’s Republicans, he gave us to understand, want to “eliminate most government regulations” and “wipe out the basic protections that Americans have counted on for decades.” And, he suggested, they would never have created public health schools or the G.I. Bill or research universities.

When Barack Obama says, “This isn’t political grandstanding,” you have a pretty good clue that that is exactly what it is. Lest anyone doubt that, consider this from the third-to-last paragraph. “You should pass it. And I intend to take that message to every corner of the country.”

In other words, this was a campaign speech...

When I asked my students what they thought of Obama's speech, they said it sounded good but that they wanted to see the details and felt that the price tag for this sort of 'jobs bill' was going to be way too high for our nation to afford. The students also thought that this sort of stuff has already been tried and did nothing to help and only added more debt to our nation- you see, young people frequently are concerned with the amount of debt that older people are dumping on them to live their wonderful lifestyles of leisure and retirement. Hearing comments like these give me hope for our future; on the other hand, my students are being trained to think and reason and look at things critically and are less apt to fall for the straw man and false choice rhetoric that has come to characterize the President's speeches.

Everyone wants them, but I have them- the top secret details on Obama's job plan, with specifics, funding, and proposed legislative language. Here it is:












Ha ha, got you- Obama is all talk and no action. There is no detailed plan to create jobs, just like there was no detailed plan to bring down the debt and just like Pelosi and Reid wrote Obamacare. The only detailed thing he produced in recent memory was a budget that was rejected by everyone, and lots and lots of regulations!

UPDATE: I was wrong- he is going to come out with a detailed plan, that spends money while cutting money from programs that he wants more money spent on; he is going to cut regulations while increasing regulations; he is going to cut loopholes and tax breaks while giving them to other people; basically he is a snake in the grass who speaks out of both sides of his mouth while attacking straw men. Someone throw an egg at him or something.

Last month I wrote an important post called Global Climate Change is Caused by the Sun. That post has received a lot of comments and generated a lot of emails, most of them critical of the post because they didn't feel that I provided enough information to support my points or that I was not a reputable outlet to challenge their faith in climate change. But I want to hammer away at these people and continue to challenge their faith and make people feel more comfortable about the arguments that I made in that post, so I am going to all direct you to an article.

The article is published by the Financial Post and is called Science Getting Settled: New, convincing evidence indicates global warming is caused by cosmic rays and the sun — not humans:

The science is now all-but-settled on global warming, convincing new evidence demonstrates, but Al Gore, the IPCC and other global warming doomsayers won’t be celebrating. The new findings point to cosmic rays and the sun — not human activities — as the dominant controller of climate on Earth.

The research, published with little fanfare this week in the prestigious journal Nature, comes from über-prestigious CERN, the European Organization for Nuclear Research, one of the world’s largest centres for scientific research involving 60 countries and 8,000 scientists at more than 600 universities and national laboratories. CERN is the organization that invented the World Wide Web, that built the multi-billion dollar Large Hadron Collider, and that has now built a pristinely clean stainless steel chamber that precisely recreated the Earth’s atmosphere.

In this chamber, 63 CERN scientists from 17 European and American institutes have done what global warming doomsayers said could never be done — demonstrate that cosmic rays promote the formation of molecules that in Earth’s atmosphere can grow and seed clouds, the cloudier and thus cooler it will be. Because the sun’s magnetic field controls how many cosmic rays reach Earth’s atmosphere (the stronger the sun’s magnetic field, the more it shields Earth from incoming cosmic rays from space), the sun determines the temperature on Earth.

The hypothesis that cosmic rays and the sun hold the key to the global warming debate has been Enemy No. 1 to the global warming establishment ever since it was first proposed by two scientists from the Danish Space Research Institute, at a 1996 scientific conference in the U.K. Within one day, the chairman of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, Bert Bolin, denounced the theory, saying, “I find the move from this pair scientifically extremely naive and irresponsible.” He then set about discrediting the theory, any journalist that gave the theory credence, and most of all the Danes presenting the theory — they soon found themselves vilified, marginalized and starved of funding, despite their impeccable scientific credentials.

The mobilization to rally the press against the Danes worked brilliantly, with one notable exception. Nigel Calder, a former editor of The New Scientist who attended that 1996 conference, would not be cowed. Himself a physicist, Mr. Calder became convinced of the merits of the argument and a year later, following a lecture he gave at a CERN conference, so too did Jasper Kirkby, a CERN scientist in attendance. Mr. Kirkby then convinced the CERN bureaucracy of the theory’s importance and developed a plan to create a cloud chamber — he called it CLOUD, for “Cosmics Leaving OUtdoor Droplets.”

But Mr. Kirkby made the same tactical error that the Danes had — not realizing how politicized the global warming issue was, he candidly shared his views with the scientific community.

“The theory will probably be able to account for somewhere between a half and the whole of the increase in the Earth’s temperature that we have seen in the last century,” Mr. Kirkby told the scientific press in 1998, explaining that global warming may be part of a natural cycle in the Earth’s temperature.

The global warming establishment sprang into action, pressured the Western governments that control CERN, and almost immediately succeeded in suspending CLOUD. It took Mr. Kirkby almost a decade of negotiation with his superiors, and who knows how many compromises and unspoken commitments, to convince the CERN bureaucracy to allow the project to proceed. And years more to create the cloud chamber and convincingly validate the Danes’ groundbreaking theory.

Yet this spectacular success will be largely unrecognized by the general public for years — this column will be the first that most readers have heard of it — because CERN remains too afraid of offending its government masters to admit its success. Weeks ago, CERN formerly decided to muzzle Mr. Kirby and other members of his team to avoid “the highly political arena of the climate change debate,” telling them “to present the results clearly but not interpret them” and to downplay the results by “mak[ing] clear that cosmic radiation is only one of many parameters.” The CERN study and press release is written in bureaucratese and the version of Mr. Kirkby’s study that appears in the print edition of Nature censored the most eye-popping graph — only those who know where to look in an online supplement will see the striking potency of cosmic rays in creating the conditions for seeding clouds.

CERN, and the Danes, have in all likelihood found the path to the Holy Grail of climate science. But the religion of climate science won’t yet permit a celebration of the find.

Hopefully this article has made you feel more comfortable about accepting the fact that I am right- global climate change is driven largely by the sun, not humans, and thus almost every attempt by the government to control our behaviors and energy and production in the name of 'climate change' is misguided and dangerous and wrong.

UPDATE:  Come on people- now I'm getting emails that 'the Financial Post' isn't reputable enough for you- well how about the Wall Street Journal, because it also came out with an article today talking about the role that cosmic rays play in affecting the climate. Read the article The Other Climate Theory for more.

Another school year is approaching, which means of course another year of sitting around lunch rooms listening to teachers complain about all the changes that are taking place in the education world. Let's take a moment to look back at all the changes that have taken place in education policy over the past year. Via the Detroit News:

Tenure law reformed: In a remarkably short amount of time, this Legislature passed long overdue reforms to the state teacher tenure law. It will now be more difficult for new teachers to achieve the protections from tenure. It will take five years and three consecutive effective ratings on annual evaluations before new teachers earn tenure. Under the new law, if a teacher earns three consecutive ineffective ratings on evaluations, districts can fire the teacher. And teachers now must be evaluated largely on how much their students learn, based on tests and other measures. Another important change is the elimination of seniority in determining teacher layoffs.

Proficiency standards raised: The state Board of Education approved raising proficiency levels on standardized tests earlier this year, a move that has created a lot of pushback from teachers unions and other educators. Yet these tougher standards should improve the level of learning in the state. Studies show that students rise to the challenge of higher benchmarks over time. The Michigan Department of Education is planning to set the new cut scores — the level at which a student is considered proficient in a subject area — in September. Scores on the Michigan Educational Assessment Program test and Michigan Merit Exam will surely plummet at first, but state Superintendent Mike Flanagan says these new standards are essential.

Best practices encouraged: When they cut school funding this year, the Legislature and governor offered schools a way to earn back lost funds. Schools meeting four of five specified metrics can gain an additional $100 per student. These best practices include developing a dashboard that measures district effectiveness, requiring districts to make competitive bids for services, ensuring that employees cover more of their health care expenses and producing a consolidation plan with cost reductions. Snyder supported $470 per pupil cuts as a way to balance the budget but also to increase accountability from districts.

New district for failing schools formed: The governor announced in June the creation of the Education Achievement System, a new statewide school district that will eventually operate of all Michigan's poorest-performing schools. Lawmakers are in the process of introducing legislation that will give the system more authority as it gets going. More than 30 failing schools in Detroit Public Schools will enter the new district in the 2012-13 school year. The system holds promise because it directs funds straight into classrooms and gives significant control to principals, teachers and parents.

My local teacher union is pretty good at making sure that school resources are not used to lobby legislators- we are frequently reminded by our local union president that we are not to use school computers for union business and are not to in any way use school resources to lobby legislators.

But many other locals are run differently and our state organization seems to encourage us to act differently, and so it is quite common in the education world that teachers use their work time, their students, and their taxpayer-provided resources to engage in lobbying government officials. This is wrong and needs to be stopped, and I'm happy to say that there is a legislator trying to do just this.

Via MLive:

Facing an onslaught of emails, faxes, letters student-signed petitions and phone calls during a recent school funding debate, a state lawmaker hopes to restrict school districts that use taxpayers dollars to lobby legislators.

Rep. Kenneth B. Horn, R-Frankenmuth, introduced the bill last week that would prevent school districts or their employees from using tax-funded school supplies, equipment, vehicles or school time to lobby or become involved in political activities. He said he wants the same restrictions nonprofits face imposed on school districts and their employees.

One of the biggest signs of our corrupt our modern day government is that government employees frequently use government resources to encourage government officials to give said employees more personal benefits. Teachers are as guilty of doing this as other groups (although the SEIU is probably the most guilty)- they use resources that are given to them for the purposes of being a better teacher- computers, pencils, pens, paper, students, time, copiers, etc- in order to put pressure on government decision makers to give them more money, better benefits, a bigger pension, shorter working hours, less supervision, more job security, etc.

Teachers and union members can still lobby on their own personal time using their own resources- this bill does nothing to restrict that kind of speech. It just reinforces that employees of school districts are public servants and should follow the same sort of rules that other nonprofits face when involved in lobbying. This is exactly the sort of bill that the MEA should be backing and supporting, if it were honest about caring about children and using resources properly and not being unethical with the use of resources.

Gasoline prices are climbing higher and higher, and it's not even summer yet, when gasoline prices traditionally go real high. These high prices cut into discretionary spending in families, and also put increasing inflationary pressure businesses who need to pay more for fuel costs and transportation, and they then pass these higher costs on to consumers as higher prices, further cutting into discretionary spending. High gasoline prices are a threat to our prosperity and will increasingly work to lower economic growth, cause unemployment, and lower real incomes of the lower and middle class who are most affected by rises in gasoline prices.

There are likely many reasons for the rise in gasoline prices, but at the heart of the matter is that there is increasingly demand for the product and yet the supply of the product is not increasing. There is no documented evidence of evil rich millionaires hoarding billions of gallons of gasoline in black-painted tankers that float in the middle of Hades, and there is considerable evidence that the Middle East is growing more unstable, partly due to Obama's policies of throwing allies under the bus and yet supporting enemies to stability and international commerce.

Last week the House of Representatives and the Senate both debated and passed legislation to do something about the rising price of gasoline in our nation. Let's look at what each chamber did:

In the House of Representatives, Republicans shoved through a bill that would force the Interior Department (controlled by Democratic President Barack Obama) to act within 60 days on all applications for offshore drilling permits. You see, under Obama, offshore drilling permits are not being acted on, naturally leading to less discoveries of supplies of oil and natural speculation that oil prices will go higher because of this. Democrats worked to oppose this measure, believing that exploring for and discovering and selling more oil will not provide income, jobs, or cheaper gasoline for the poor citizens of our nation.

For those interested, in Michigan, Congressman Thaddeus McCotter (GOP) voted in favor of lowering gasoline prices and provide jobs and income for our citizens, and Congressman Gary Peters voted against the bill, since he owes green industries a lot for their campaign support over the last several years.

The House then turned to a second Republican-sponsored bill that would open much of the Atlantic, Pacific and Arctic shorelines to new oil and gas exploration- again, working to for real expand the supply of oil, which would lead to a real decrease in the cost of gas. Democrats are expected to oppose this measure as well.

In contrast, the Democrats in the Senate are working to demonize oil companies that are doing well because they are doing well, believing that success in producing a product demands punishment. Specifically, they want to cut off taxpayer subsidies to any firm they don't like, and continue to use the money that they suck off of profitable firms to subsidize unprofitable and inefficient 'green' companies, who kick back massive amounts of campaign funding to Democrats as a thank you for this obvious corruption.

These higher taxes will either be passed on to consumers as higher gasoline prices, or if is not passed on to consumers it will work to reduce the profitability of these firms so that they have less money to invest in improving efficiency and greening their operations, less money to look for new supplies of oil and gas, and less money to pay their employees. Investors will be paid lower dividends, leading to those people on fixed incomes from investments to suffer, and these important stocks will be sold off, leading to a fall in the stock market.

No good will come of the actions of the Democrats in the Senate; instead, many bad things will occur. Supporting this sort of legislation is Michigan Senator Debbie Stabenow, who believes that demonizing and attacking private profitable companies and increasing taxes on them will somehow lower the cost of the product that they produce.

It could not be clearer- the policies of the Democrats in the Senate are making our nation less, and the policies of the Republicans in the House are making our nation more, and more is almost better than less.

Michigan Governor Rick Snyder (Republican) has proposed a budget which would shift revenue from the Michigan School Aid Fund away from K-12 schools to Higher Education and Community colleges, and this is wrong. Currently the Michigan School Aid fund is fully funded and able to pay for K-12 education in Michigan, as it was intended to and designed to do so by voters, but Snyder wants to raid $895.6 million from it and divert that money to higher education and community colleges, the first time in the history of our state that the School Aid Fund is to be used in this manner.

Not everyone has an equal opportunity or desire or obligation to go to college in America. Attending college, is not part of creating a basis of education necessary for us all to be educated voters; it is not about giving everyone in America the same basic broad basis of knowledge to enable us to compete for jobs; it is not a requirement for being successful or making a decent living like passing high school is; it is not a task that everyone is up to mentally or emotionally; and it is not something that everyone can afford to do. Going to college is something that those who want to do can; those who feel that a higher education will benefit them; and is for those who can afford to, either on their own or by winning scholarships or grants or taking out loans or having the military pay for it. So the question I have to ask is why then do taxpayers assume they have an obligation to fund higher education and community colleges in a given state?

Oh, I am sure there are arguments in favor of the desire to fund higher education and community colleges- as a way for a state to stay competitive for jobs, as a community outreach program, as a way to make our state more prestigious or something, etc. Those are all good arguments for the desire to use taxpayer money to support the few with the means and inclination to go to college- but they are not convincing arguments to me of the necessity of diverting money from the K-12 School Aid Fund.

In Michigan, our K-12 school system, which does provide all children of our state with a quality education so that they all will have the same basic chances to compete for jobs and be solid citizens, is funded by state revenues including sales taxes, lottery taxes, property taxes, and other taxes which are all deposited into a fund called 'The School Aid Fund.'

Article IX, Section 11 of the Michigan Constitution of 1963 establishes the State School Aid Fund, which shall be used exclusively for aid to school districts, higher education, and school employee's retirement systems. This fund was considerably adjusted by Proposal A in 1994, which was a very important constitutional amendment in Michigan that considerably changed around the way that school districts are funded.

Although the MI Constitution does include the words 'higher education,' historically the School Aid Fund was used exclusively for K-12 funding, and a search of the records and conversation of the last time that voters addressed this issue revealed to me that there was no conversation in any way of using the school aid fund for anything other that K-12 funding. In fact, the publication Michigan in Brief's seventh edition, which was sponsored by the Michigan Nonprofit Association and the Council of Michigan Foundations and was prepared and published by Public Sector Consultants, Inc., describes the school aid fund this way- "School Aid Fund: A fund into which certain state revenues are deposited and from which funds may be spent only on K–12 education."- note that there is no mention of the school aid fund being used for higher or community college education, as it has never been used for this purpose in the past.

As a conservative, I have always favored this idea that voters would make their wishes known to the government, and the government would implement these wishes to the best of their abilities. Liberals and Democrats are the ones who want to rule over us and make decisions for us, not conservatives, and in this case, based on the long history of our state and the conversation regarding the last time voters looked at the issue of the School Aid Fund, it is clear to me that voters never intended the fund to be used to divert money away from K-12 schools to pay for college for rich smart kids. I am surprised that many Republicans support this idea.

As a conservative, I also believe in paying for services and using dedicated funds to pay for services. For example, I pay into social security, I pull out of the social security fund; or I pay into a gas tax, and then that gas tax is used to maintain roads; or I pay my property taxes, which are used to pay for local police, fire, and library services; etc. I'm not an anarchist or a libertarian- I do believe that government plays an important role in our society, providing order and safe-guarding rights so that we may be free and prosperous, and so I like the idea that voters decide to set aside certain amounts of money to pay for certain budget items, and if they don't like the amount of money or where the money is being spent, they can raise or lower those revenues or spending. Raiding dedicated school aid funds intended for K-12 education to pay for other services that have historically been paid for through the General Fund such as higher education and community education is therefore wrong to me and sounds to me more like a liberal idea of viewing all government money as some sort of slush fund to which to distribute gifts and buy off voters.

As a conservative teacher, I am surprised to find that I support the Michigan Education Association and the Democrats here in Michigan on this issue, and oppose Snyder's plan to divert funding from the one part of our budget that is balanced and working, the School Aid Fund. As a result of Snyder's plan, students in Michigan will face a per pupil cut of $470, which is unnecessary because the School Aid Fund is fully funded and if it is not raided to help pay for rich smart kids who want to go to college, students in Michigan would lose no funding at all. Listen to the voters and vote in favor of conservative values, Republicans, and don't raid the school aid fund.

Written By Candi Peterson