Thursday, May 17, 2007
1964?? Could this be the first instance of use of the term "politically correct"?
I was reading a post by Dr. Sanity about modern "education" versus "indoctrination" today and was struck by a particularly loathed turn of phrase ("politically correct") associated with a particularly early date (1964) in a particularly heinous (here meaning: brutally honest) quote, to whit:
Like, wow, man. I was about to start first grade. This could explain a lot.
This is the idea where we drop subject matter and we drop Carnegie Unites (grading from A-F) and we just let students find their way, keeping them in school until they manifest the politically correct attitudes. You see, one of the effects of self-esteem (Values Clarification) programs is that you are no longer obliged to tell the truth if you don’t feel like it. You don’t have to tell the truth because if the truth you have to tell is about your own failure then your self-esteem will go down and that is unthinkable.”- Dr. William Coulson, explaining Outcome Based Education (OBE)-1964
Like, wow, man. I was about to start first grade. This could explain a lot.
Friday, November 03, 2006
His Indolence's Sister teaches
My little sister is a public school teacher in Raleigh. She sent me a comment today about my "anti-butterfly-chasing" rant of a few months ago; since no one reads this anyway, I thought I'd put it in its own post rather than as a comment on a months-old post. I think she's taking issue with Mamacita's request for more advanced classes for advanced students and slow classes for "slow" students. And, like everyone else, pointing out that no school can make up for poor parenting. Anyway, I'm mostly just surprised: when did sis learn to write complete sentences? Mom and I still laugh every time she mentions that she's teaching math and science. Here's sis:
While teaching math, science, social studies, reading, and writing - MY children are not "sitting motionless all day long, listening to the helpless teacher prat and re-prat the same stuff over and over till the dumbest kid finally gets it." My students are engaged and working with each other. They peer edit writing and peer tutor each other while I work with different children. They know how to work cooperatively in groups and the classwork is presented in a variety of styles (whole group, small group, individual, with texts, with magazines, with newspapers, using art, hands on math and science manipulatives......). I couldn't call myself a "teacher" if I didn't challenge the brightest, the average, and the lowest students in my room to do their individual best. My mom taught me how to push myself and I push my students.
Testing standards need to be raised (as the math scores were this year), if we want these kids to succeed in life. Test them - compare them .... I don't care, because if I have done my job then they will do fine on any test (mine in class are usually harded than the state's anyway). Most teachers I know are doing a great job, now if the parents would step up and enforce homework and studying - the scores would not be in question. Telling teachers that homework is boring is a cop out - - cleaning clothes is boring, but it still has to be done. When only 33% of student's pass the EOG, then blame needs to fall on the students, the parents, and the teachers. Teachers don't have a majic pill that can make kids care when no one at home has taught them to be responsible. Parents who don't care produce kids who don't care. School can't change that. Birth to 5 years is a huge learning time - blow that and your child has already been left behind!!
Thursday, September 28, 2006
His Indolence vs. the Exclusionary Rule
Here's a little something that may be of interest to those following this year's NC Supreme Court elections. Mr. Gregory Lee Nowell is complaining on local Roanoke Rapids bulletin board 27870.com of the consequences (home and all possessions sold off, $40,000 missing) of a conviction for drug dealing in 1999: he blames now-Major Strickland and Sheriff Frazier and the Halifax County Sheriff's office in general for the raid and losses, since the conviction was reversed on appeal (details here) when the warrantless search and seizure were ruled illegal. I am soooo gonna make local attorney (and new Republican) Sammy D. Webb read this:
Mr. Nowell, you may have a case if you can prove your house was seized on the basis of a conviction that was later overturned. And we all have the right to know what became of the $40K. You're absolutely right that we can't call you a felon based on 99 CRS 001922-25 (but you weren't acquitted, just not retried, and the Appeals Court wasn't unanimous in finding the search illegal: Judge John wrote a fine dissent and at least I agree with him, for whatever my non-lawyerly opinion matters. By the way, everyone, the vote would've gone the other way and Mr. Nowell would probably be in jail today if then-Judge Timmons-Goodson had voted with Judge John instead of with Judge Greene. Judge Timmons-Goodson has since been appointed to the NC Supreme Court by Governor Easley, to replace Judge Parker whom he elevated to Chief Justice when Chief Justice I. Beverly Lake retired in January. That means that both Chief Justice Parker and Justice Timmons-Goodson have to stand for election November 7th, 2006. Think your vote doesn't matter? Patriots are still dying to uphold your voice in interpreting the Fourth Amendment.)
It sounds to me -
as if they have Strickland and probably Valles to squeeze for testimony and/or evidence to prove you maintained a dwelling for the purpose of dealing drugs, maybe even for a conspiracy charge. I dunno. Do you have more evidence as to the seizure?
As you can see throughout this thread, you may have a technicality of the law on your side, but precious little sympathy. The exclusionary rule is probably the number one reason for Americans' disgust with their legal system, heck, it is much of what MAKES it a legal system rather than a justice system. Too bad most people don't realize that the exclusionary rule is NOT prescribed by the Constitution, it is only the REMEDY the Miranda court prescribed to prevent illegal searches and seizures, and thus it could be replaced by something like an admonition to Congress that illegal searches were taking place and that such must be PUNISHED directly on law enforcement officers to prevent the practice, or the exclusionary rule would have to be applied as the only remedy available to the Judicial branch. Then we would've punished then-Lt. Stanfield with, say, four hours community service studying search and seizure precedents and giving a speech on the subject, invite deputies from neighboring counties, and so forth, it shouldn't be an embarassment to learn a lesson and show the lesson to others. Only if illegal searches continued to be a problem would stiffer punishments for law enforcement officers or reinstatement of the exclusionary rule be necessary.
That's my Constitutional Law tirade for this month. And GAWSPC or whatever that six-capital-letter handle was a dozen or so posts back: well said! and wear your uniform with pride, people you may never even meet stand a little straighter when we see you in it.
Mr. Nowell, you may have a case if you can prove your house was seized on the basis of a conviction that was later overturned. And we all have the right to know what became of the $40K. You're absolutely right that we can't call you a felon based on 99 CRS 001922-25 (but you weren't acquitted, just not retried, and the Appeals Court wasn't unanimous in finding the search illegal: Judge John wrote a fine dissent and at least I agree with him, for whatever my non-lawyerly opinion matters. By the way, everyone, the vote would've gone the other way and Mr. Nowell would probably be in jail today if then-Judge Timmons-Goodson had voted with Judge John instead of with Judge Greene. Judge Timmons-Goodson has since been appointed to the NC Supreme Court by Governor Easley, to replace Judge Parker whom he elevated to Chief Justice when Chief Justice I. Beverly Lake retired in January. That means that both Chief Justice Parker and Justice Timmons-Goodson have to stand for election November 7th, 2006. Think your vote doesn't matter? Patriots are still dying to uphold your voice in interpreting the Fourth Amendment.)
It sounds to me -
Strickland informed Stanfield that he had had “numerous dealings” with Nowell in the past. As part of those “dealing,” Strickland and Nowell would schedule a delivery of marijuana, and Strickland would transport the marijuana to Nowell's residence. After Strickland arrived at Nowell's residence, Nowell usually “would have to go get the rest of the money and leave [Strickland] there until . . . Nowell would return with the money and the deal would be done in the selling of marijuana."
as if they have Strickland and probably Valles to squeeze for testimony and/or evidence to prove you maintained a dwelling for the purpose of dealing drugs, maybe even for a conspiracy charge. I dunno. Do you have more evidence as to the seizure?
As you can see throughout this thread, you may have a technicality of the law on your side, but precious little sympathy. The exclusionary rule is probably the number one reason for Americans' disgust with their legal system, heck, it is much of what MAKES it a legal system rather than a justice system. Too bad most people don't realize that the exclusionary rule is NOT prescribed by the Constitution, it is only the REMEDY the Miranda court prescribed to prevent illegal searches and seizures, and thus it could be replaced by something like an admonition to Congress that illegal searches were taking place and that such must be PUNISHED directly on law enforcement officers to prevent the practice, or the exclusionary rule would have to be applied as the only remedy available to the Judicial branch. Then we would've punished then-Lt. Stanfield with, say, four hours community service studying search and seizure precedents and giving a speech on the subject, invite deputies from neighboring counties, and so forth, it shouldn't be an embarassment to learn a lesson and show the lesson to others. Only if illegal searches continued to be a problem would stiffer punishments for law enforcement officers or reinstatement of the exclusionary rule be necessary.
That's my Constitutional Law tirade for this month. And GAWSPC or whatever that six-capital-letter handle was a dozen or so posts back: well said! and wear your uniform with pride, people you may never even meet stand a little straighter when we see you in it.
Tuesday, September 26, 2006
The eternal "too few troops" meme
Here's something I wrote as a comment on the Anti-Idotarian Rottweiler (warning: strong language) in response to the (primarily anti-Rumsfeld) criticism of Operation Iraqi Freedom expressed by three former officers (text here).
Those three former officers make some good points, especially on the need for properly engaging the non-DOD parts of the government and nation for the Long War. However, I don't think they understand the Bush approach (not that their approach is necessarily wrong, but...).
The Global War on Terror is not primarily a military conflict. In fact, the lack of long-term planning for expanding the military makes me think the plan may not even include ANY more involvement of ground troops in an offensive role. Shock and Awe wasn't supposed to awe just the Iraqi regime, or even the Iraqi nation, but all pan-Arabia and even all Islam. And it worked, for some time, even as the Left made it increasingly obvious that the West's resolve was not as firm as we could hope. No Arab or even Muslim nation wants to fight our military.
The objective of OIF was not to kill America's enemies. Taking out Saddam was a big part of the public justification for it, but the real goal was to stimulate the formation of an anti-jihadi ideology in the heart of Arab Islam. The GWOT will end when the jihadists are so discredited that even any remaining conservative strain of Islam realizes that resorting to global terrorism is a losing option. Proving that democracy can succeed in Iraq would be a big step toward this goal, as democracy would ensure that there will be at least some public dissent against ANY Islamist ideology. Every little bit of dissent within Islam is a net gain for us at this point; our public affairs officers cheerfully taught electoral politics to the Iraqi COMMUNIST PARTY: for crying out loud, even good Marxists don't think that the dictatorship of the proletariat be established other than via progress to an industrialized state with a corresponding class structure. Iraq stepping up to become an actual military ally in the GWOT would be a bonus, but we can call Iraq a success already just because any amount of freedom there will necessarily engender a pro-democracy fifth column throughout the Arab world. It may be weak. It may not even be able to sustain itself. But OIF was an experiment. On 9/11 we had two clear options: surrender or genocide. Bush is trying to cultivate a third option. Personally, I didn't think it would work the first time, and that we'll have to overthrow multiple Arab regimes before they start to get the idea, so I thought (pretty much still do) that using up all our Cold War military stores and exhausting our ground forces in one enterprise was a bad idea. Now, however, I'm not so sure. It may yet work, and the rest of the military involvement in the GWOT could be some time-gaining bombing raids on Iran and some containment operations in places like Darfur while the Iraqis prosper and laugh at their neighbors.
Sure we didn't send enough troops to fully pacify Iraq. We didn't and still don't have enough troops for that, probably wouldn't even if we had 27 million soldiers so we could have one handcuffed to every Iraqi. We won our part of the Iraqi war long ago. It is now the Iraqis' job to pacify their own country. Even if they don't, we will still have time to think about revoking our adherence to international genocide laws and the parts of the Geneva Convention requiring us to protect human rights in the wake of our overthrowing a government. We had enough troops in Iraq to've turned left and gone right through Syria and Lebanon and brought our troops home from Beirut a few weeks after Saddam's statue came down; then we could've just announced that we'd be back to teach the next lesson whenever we wanted. Our message if our Iraq experiment fails may well be to that Arab that one of the generals quoted, "better 40 years of tyrrany than 40 days of chaos". Our message could be, "we can do worse than make war on you, we can knock down whatever you build as often as we like until you build a functioning society."
Is the opus of IRAQ THE MODEL (really good articles just lately) and giving women the vote worth the lives of 2800 of our best children? I don't know yet, but I think we owe it to our civilized traditions to try. Let's see if the jihadis can put those genies back in their bottles.
Oh, and I agree with the three officers in every hint they gave concerning disconnects in the executive, legislative, judicial, and popular approaches to the GWOT, but it seems to me that the most serious Infowar failures have been those involving Congress and the Supreme Court. We the People, the American Sovereign, get our chance to fire shots in this war only occasionally: choose your targets well on November 7th.
Those three former officers make some good points, especially on the need for properly engaging the non-DOD parts of the government and nation for the Long War. However, I don't think they understand the Bush approach (not that their approach is necessarily wrong, but...).
The Global War on Terror is not primarily a military conflict. In fact, the lack of long-term planning for expanding the military makes me think the plan may not even include ANY more involvement of ground troops in an offensive role. Shock and Awe wasn't supposed to awe just the Iraqi regime, or even the Iraqi nation, but all pan-Arabia and even all Islam. And it worked, for some time, even as the Left made it increasingly obvious that the West's resolve was not as firm as we could hope. No Arab or even Muslim nation wants to fight our military.
The objective of OIF was not to kill America's enemies. Taking out Saddam was a big part of the public justification for it, but the real goal was to stimulate the formation of an anti-jihadi ideology in the heart of Arab Islam. The GWOT will end when the jihadists are so discredited that even any remaining conservative strain of Islam realizes that resorting to global terrorism is a losing option. Proving that democracy can succeed in Iraq would be a big step toward this goal, as democracy would ensure that there will be at least some public dissent against ANY Islamist ideology. Every little bit of dissent within Islam is a net gain for us at this point; our public affairs officers cheerfully taught electoral politics to the Iraqi COMMUNIST PARTY: for crying out loud, even good Marxists don't think that the dictatorship of the proletariat be established other than via progress to an industrialized state with a corresponding class structure. Iraq stepping up to become an actual military ally in the GWOT would be a bonus, but we can call Iraq a success already just because any amount of freedom there will necessarily engender a pro-democracy fifth column throughout the Arab world. It may be weak. It may not even be able to sustain itself. But OIF was an experiment. On 9/11 we had two clear options: surrender or genocide. Bush is trying to cultivate a third option. Personally, I didn't think it would work the first time, and that we'll have to overthrow multiple Arab regimes before they start to get the idea, so I thought (pretty much still do) that using up all our Cold War military stores and exhausting our ground forces in one enterprise was a bad idea. Now, however, I'm not so sure. It may yet work, and the rest of the military involvement in the GWOT could be some time-gaining bombing raids on Iran and some containment operations in places like Darfur while the Iraqis prosper and laugh at their neighbors.
Sure we didn't send enough troops to fully pacify Iraq. We didn't and still don't have enough troops for that, probably wouldn't even if we had 27 million soldiers so we could have one handcuffed to every Iraqi. We won our part of the Iraqi war long ago. It is now the Iraqis' job to pacify their own country. Even if they don't, we will still have time to think about revoking our adherence to international genocide laws and the parts of the Geneva Convention requiring us to protect human rights in the wake of our overthrowing a government. We had enough troops in Iraq to've turned left and gone right through Syria and Lebanon and brought our troops home from Beirut a few weeks after Saddam's statue came down; then we could've just announced that we'd be back to teach the next lesson whenever we wanted. Our message if our Iraq experiment fails may well be to that Arab that one of the generals quoted, "better 40 years of tyrrany than 40 days of chaos". Our message could be, "we can do worse than make war on you, we can knock down whatever you build as often as we like until you build a functioning society."
Is the opus of IRAQ THE MODEL (really good articles just lately) and giving women the vote worth the lives of 2800 of our best children? I don't know yet, but I think we owe it to our civilized traditions to try. Let's see if the jihadis can put those genies back in their bottles.
Oh, and I agree with the three officers in every hint they gave concerning disconnects in the executive, legislative, judicial, and popular approaches to the GWOT, but it seems to me that the most serious Infowar failures have been those involving Congress and the Supreme Court. We the People, the American Sovereign, get our chance to fire shots in this war only occasionally: choose your targets well on November 7th.
Friday, May 26, 2006
25 May Press Release: Sammy D. Webb is now a Republican
Attorney Sammy D. Webb switches to Republican Party - May 25, 2006
FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE
Local attorney Sammy D. Webb joined the Republican Party last night and announced that he would not be pursuing his independent candidacy for Halifax County Commissioner this November, but would instead support the reelection of Commissioner Gene Minton.
It happened at a general membership meeting of the Halifax County Republican Party, which had been called in part to compare and contrast the Party's political plan with Mr. Webb's campaign platform, with a view to assisting in his campaign. Mr. Webb had decided to withdraw from the County Commissioners' race before arriving at the meeting, but it was during an exercise calling on each of the Republican activists present to name one reason they were Republicans that Mr. Webb asked for a voter registration form so he could switch parties. Mr. Webb, a former president of the Halifax County NAACP, explained that he has considered himself a conservative for some time, and found the Democratic Party's leftward drift on social issues disturbing: "I strongly support the Republican Party's stand against same-sex marriage." Mr. Webb wants to thank those who had circulated petitions to get him on the County Commissioners' ballot this year; he has enough signatures but will not continue to run as an independent.
Halifax County Republican Party Chairwoman Pamela Ward welcomed Mr. Webb to the Party and hoped that the days when the big-government Democratic Party is the automatic choice of Blacks like herself in Halifax County are numbered. "We Republicans need to focus on voter education", she said, "people need to be aware of what their party stands for." Vice-chairman Kent Ross chimed in, "Even conservative North Carolina is now by some measures the fourth most heavily-taxed state in the nation, with the sixth-highest gas taxes, by far the highest in the Southeast. Sammy D. Webb is just the first of many who will realize that it is the Republican Party which represents their values, and we believe that Mr. Webb will be a strong candidate for any local office in 2008."
Mr. Dave Harker, Republican candidate for NC House of Representatives in District 49, had also come to address the meeting and pronounced himself pleased to see that the Halifax County Republican Party is effectively reaching out to all disaffected social conservatives. Mr. Harker intends to run his campaign close to the grass roots and needs good volunteer workers. He said, "I went to a candidates' forum in Franklin County and the only accomplishment my opponent, Lucy Allen, had to point to was having brought Carolina Crossroads to Roanoke Rapids. Now, with gas at $3 a gallon I don't think jobs in Roanoke Rapids are going to benefit workers in Franklin County, and who knows how late in the process she planted her flag on that project? We need to keep conservative voters informed about the positives in Republican policies on health care, education, and taxes."
Halifax County Commissioner Gene Minton was unable to attend the meeting, but sent a statement touting his reelection platform. "I hope that the Republican Party can continue to have a platform of tax reform, tax cuts, smaller and better government, and allowing people to take charge of their lives and those of their families (along with the responsibility)... I will continue to work on the Board to lead (yes lead) our county towards fiscal responsibility and good governance."
--------- END RELEASE -----------
FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE
Local attorney Sammy D. Webb joined the Republican Party last night and announced that he would not be pursuing his independent candidacy for Halifax County Commissioner this November, but would instead support the reelection of Commissioner Gene Minton.
It happened at a general membership meeting of the Halifax County Republican Party, which had been called in part to compare and contrast the Party's political plan with Mr. Webb's campaign platform, with a view to assisting in his campaign. Mr. Webb had decided to withdraw from the County Commissioners' race before arriving at the meeting, but it was during an exercise calling on each of the Republican activists present to name one reason they were Republicans that Mr. Webb asked for a voter registration form so he could switch parties. Mr. Webb, a former president of the Halifax County NAACP, explained that he has considered himself a conservative for some time, and found the Democratic Party's leftward drift on social issues disturbing: "I strongly support the Republican Party's stand against same-sex marriage." Mr. Webb wants to thank those who had circulated petitions to get him on the County Commissioners' ballot this year; he has enough signatures but will not continue to run as an independent.
Halifax County Republican Party Chairwoman Pamela Ward welcomed Mr. Webb to the Party and hoped that the days when the big-government Democratic Party is the automatic choice of Blacks like herself in Halifax County are numbered. "We Republicans need to focus on voter education", she said, "people need to be aware of what their party stands for." Vice-chairman Kent Ross chimed in, "Even conservative North Carolina is now by some measures the fourth most heavily-taxed state in the nation, with the sixth-highest gas taxes, by far the highest in the Southeast. Sammy D. Webb is just the first of many who will realize that it is the Republican Party which represents their values, and we believe that Mr. Webb will be a strong candidate for any local office in 2008."
Mr. Dave Harker, Republican candidate for NC House of Representatives in District 49, had also come to address the meeting and pronounced himself pleased to see that the Halifax County Republican Party is effectively reaching out to all disaffected social conservatives. Mr. Harker intends to run his campaign close to the grass roots and needs good volunteer workers. He said, "I went to a candidates' forum in Franklin County and the only accomplishment my opponent, Lucy Allen, had to point to was having brought Carolina Crossroads to Roanoke Rapids. Now, with gas at $3 a gallon I don't think jobs in Roanoke Rapids are going to benefit workers in Franklin County, and who knows how late in the process she planted her flag on that project? We need to keep conservative voters informed about the positives in Republican policies on health care, education, and taxes."
Halifax County Commissioner Gene Minton was unable to attend the meeting, but sent a statement touting his reelection platform. "I hope that the Republican Party can continue to have a platform of tax reform, tax cuts, smaller and better government, and allowing people to take charge of their lives and those of their families (along with the responsibility)... I will continue to work on the Board to lead (yes lead) our county towards fiscal responsibility and good governance."
--------- END RELEASE -----------
Saturday, May 20, 2006
An anti-butterfly-chasing rant
I just wrote a big long rant at a school teacher I thought was going off the deep end over basic skills testing in schools, and standardized testing thereof. I don't know how to do that fancy trackback thing, but you can read her post here. (Be advised that she was writing, to some degree, out of frustration, and so was I. Also, my fellow German speakers should forgive the first word of her blog name. To all my loyal readers, I promise I'll continue to try to keep my active vocabulary smaller than my passive vocabulary, especially when frustrated.)
Anyway, here's what I wrote:
Amy [a previous commenter] quoted Supertramp:
Now watch what you say
Or they´ll be calling you a radical
A liberal, oh fanatical, criminal
Mamacita, I'm pretty sure you're an excellent teacher. Certainly this cri de couer shows that you care deeply for your individual students, which, from where I sit outside the educational establishment, seems to put you head and shoulders above perhaps half of our experienced teachers, and it reflects well on you personally. So take this as coming from a naif in need of your expertise.
Educators railing against standardized testing get my hackles up. I see standardized testing as an attempt to see that students meet the MINIMUM requirements to partake of our modern civilization. If it takes all your classroom time to "teach the test", I would submit that you may not be doing it right (or, more likely, your students were not well served in previous grades). If the tests are truly too hard and force too much regimentation on the classroom to meet MINIMUM standards, make that point, please.
I began reading your post thinking (I admit, on extremely limited evidence) that good teachers who care about their students must realize that standardized testing and the skills it entails are meant to be only part of a scholastic experience. When you began denouncing testing, I (good Republican that I am) began thinking, "could she be a moonbat?" All this about feelings and crushing the souls of innocent children and creativity... No, I'm not writing you off. I can still read your post as a complaint against school administrations thinking it is EASIER to teach only to the test, and lacking the imagination to allow extraneous elements into the classroom for fear they will detract from time spent teaching measurable skills.
You say, "I have problems with people who see creativity as a threat to order". Well, I have a problem with people who want to let kids chase butterflies until they're 18. And we're both right, it is WE who have the problem. I'll admit I've set up a straw man with my butterfly-chasing argument; will you admit that at least not ALL of us who want to impose minimum standards are doing so because "creativity is a threat to order"? I hope so. I think your essay would be improved by some understanding for school boards: they have many constituencies to deal with. Yes, it is wicked to stunt a child's creativity, yea, I'll go farther: if all a child has to say about school is that it is a boring chore, that is evidence of a nonoptimal school system. But life imposes many boring chores on humanity, and it will always be so, and school must reflect life to at least some degree.
The only nod I saw to my side of the argument was your paragraph which stated, "The ability to love, to be loved, to express love: can it be that these are more important than grammar, or math, or social studies? I think they are. I also believe that a good teacher can do both at once, if ever he/she is allowed to do so again." That is a lot weaker than I would hope for. Not just good teachers, but ALL teachers HAVE TO be able to do both. Has it gotten to the point where they can't? I need to know this.
"Civilizations are judged by the arts they leave behind, not for statistics and varsity letters." Umm... go tell the Spartans. Ruthless efficiency is a form of creativity, too. Plutarch would still have readers if he'd chosen his subjects like Zola did, no doubt, but there's a case to be made that we learn more of human nature from observing the extremes of human behavior.
As for facts being the enemy of truth, well, Don Quixote had a go at creative lunacy. "Romeo and Juliet" was a comedy, not a tragedy. I doubt that Erasmus intended _In Praise of Folly_ to be the last word on human nature. The truth is not in us, nor will ever be. Non-Euclidean geometry and similar "outside the box" thinking really are folly until they turn up demonstrable results. Facts, or paths toward them. I would maintain that facts and truths are both unattainable, and I'm glad I "learned" that before someone challenged me to calculate the last digit of pi.
All right, I read your post again and ran straight into, "I believe in testing. I'm no tree-huggin' earth mother who thinks children should sing and dig clay out of the ground for art and eat granola all day long. I believe in math and science and grammar and spelling and history." Sorry, I must have completely missed that the first time. I'll try not to blame my public school education ;P Belay most of the above.
I'll keep your opinions in mind as I debate my county's Republican Party education platform. I'm sure you're right that we have to demand more than just the basics. But... Umm, I don't know, really, how quickly children learn. Where can I put my foot down? I want to be able to mount my high horse and declaim, "If you are sending a child into the ninth grade who cannot read _Don Quixote_, nay, more, if the child is not confident that he can read _Don Quixote_ and learn something from it on his own (and one thing he should be able to learn from it is that Don Quixote was generally considered insane), your school system has failed that child. Someone has put their opinion of what a child ought to know above that of not only Miguel de Cervantes, but of every literate man since the invention of the clay tablet." I'd like to say, "seventh grade", but I dunno... Help me out, here, I'm not asking for them to read Hegel in German, but am I so wrong to recall that people used to go to UNC-Chapel Hill with only eight years of education behind them, and able to read Latin and Greek?
I know I've gone on too long and too pompously, but this truly is meant as a critique of your post; I think you ought to sprinkle a few more tidbits in to acknowledge the conditio sine qua non: teaching basic skills. If only for us naifs who might otherwise be calling you a radical, a liberal, oooh, fanatical, criminal... BTW, did Socrates die as he did for asking too many questions before ensuring his students could read?
(signed) your loyal opposition
Anyway, here's what I wrote:
Amy [a previous commenter] quoted Supertramp:
Now watch what you say
Or they´ll be calling you a radical
A liberal, oh fanatical, criminal
Mamacita, I'm pretty sure you're an excellent teacher. Certainly this cri de couer shows that you care deeply for your individual students, which, from where I sit outside the educational establishment, seems to put you head and shoulders above perhaps half of our experienced teachers, and it reflects well on you personally. So take this as coming from a naif in need of your expertise.
Educators railing against standardized testing get my hackles up. I see standardized testing as an attempt to see that students meet the MINIMUM requirements to partake of our modern civilization. If it takes all your classroom time to "teach the test", I would submit that you may not be doing it right (or, more likely, your students were not well served in previous grades). If the tests are truly too hard and force too much regimentation on the classroom to meet MINIMUM standards, make that point, please.
I began reading your post thinking (I admit, on extremely limited evidence) that good teachers who care about their students must realize that standardized testing and the skills it entails are meant to be only part of a scholastic experience. When you began denouncing testing, I (good Republican that I am) began thinking, "could she be a moonbat?" All this about feelings and crushing the souls of innocent children and creativity... No, I'm not writing you off. I can still read your post as a complaint against school administrations thinking it is EASIER to teach only to the test, and lacking the imagination to allow extraneous elements into the classroom for fear they will detract from time spent teaching measurable skills.
You say, "I have problems with people who see creativity as a threat to order". Well, I have a problem with people who want to let kids chase butterflies until they're 18. And we're both right, it is WE who have the problem. I'll admit I've set up a straw man with my butterfly-chasing argument; will you admit that at least not ALL of us who want to impose minimum standards are doing so because "creativity is a threat to order"? I hope so. I think your essay would be improved by some understanding for school boards: they have many constituencies to deal with. Yes, it is wicked to stunt a child's creativity, yea, I'll go farther: if all a child has to say about school is that it is a boring chore, that is evidence of a nonoptimal school system. But life imposes many boring chores on humanity, and it will always be so, and school must reflect life to at least some degree.
The only nod I saw to my side of the argument was your paragraph which stated, "The ability to love, to be loved, to express love: can it be that these are more important than grammar, or math, or social studies? I think they are. I also believe that a good teacher can do both at once, if ever he/she is allowed to do so again." That is a lot weaker than I would hope for. Not just good teachers, but ALL teachers HAVE TO be able to do both. Has it gotten to the point where they can't? I need to know this.
"Civilizations are judged by the arts they leave behind, not for statistics and varsity letters." Umm... go tell the Spartans. Ruthless efficiency is a form of creativity, too. Plutarch would still have readers if he'd chosen his subjects like Zola did, no doubt, but there's a case to be made that we learn more of human nature from observing the extremes of human behavior.
As for facts being the enemy of truth, well, Don Quixote had a go at creative lunacy. "Romeo and Juliet" was a comedy, not a tragedy. I doubt that Erasmus intended _In Praise of Folly_ to be the last word on human nature. The truth is not in us, nor will ever be. Non-Euclidean geometry and similar "outside the box" thinking really are folly until they turn up demonstrable results. Facts, or paths toward them. I would maintain that facts and truths are both unattainable, and I'm glad I "learned" that before someone challenged me to calculate the last digit of pi.
All right, I read your post again and ran straight into, "I believe in testing. I'm no tree-huggin' earth mother who thinks children should sing and dig clay out of the ground for art and eat granola all day long. I believe in math and science and grammar and spelling and history." Sorry, I must have completely missed that the first time. I'll try not to blame my public school education ;P Belay most of the above.
I'll keep your opinions in mind as I debate my county's Republican Party education platform. I'm sure you're right that we have to demand more than just the basics. But... Umm, I don't know, really, how quickly children learn. Where can I put my foot down? I want to be able to mount my high horse and declaim, "If you are sending a child into the ninth grade who cannot read _Don Quixote_, nay, more, if the child is not confident that he can read _Don Quixote_ and learn something from it on his own (and one thing he should be able to learn from it is that Don Quixote was generally considered insane), your school system has failed that child. Someone has put their opinion of what a child ought to know above that of not only Miguel de Cervantes, but of every literate man since the invention of the clay tablet." I'd like to say, "seventh grade", but I dunno... Help me out, here, I'm not asking for them to read Hegel in German, but am I so wrong to recall that people used to go to UNC-Chapel Hill with only eight years of education behind them, and able to read Latin and Greek?
I know I've gone on too long and too pompously, but this truly is meant as a critique of your post; I think you ought to sprinkle a few more tidbits in to acknowledge the conditio sine qua non: teaching basic skills. If only for us naifs who might otherwise be calling you a radical, a liberal, oooh, fanatical, criminal... BTW, did Socrates die as he did for asking too many questions before ensuring his students could read?
(signed) your loyal opposition
Friday, April 21, 2006
NC Counties' Medicaid Burden
While working up a political plan for the Halifax County GOP, I was challenged to explain the problem our General Assembly creates for poor counties like Halifax County by passing on 15% of federally and state-mandated Medicaid expenses for the counties to pay. The assignment was to do it in one paragraph. Naturally, being me, I ran a bit long:
"When Medicaid was first implemented in 1965, the federal government began paying 50% of the cost of the program and set standards for its implementation. States are allowed to expand eligibility, include more services than federally mandated, and control reimbursements and deductibles. Federal law also allowed the states to pass up to 15% of the total cost of Medicaid on to counties. Counties, however, have no say in anything related to Medicaid other than administering the program under state and federal laws, and paying up to 15% of the bill. Thus the counties receive an "unfunded mandate" to pay an amount essentially determined by the state laws. All 49 states other than North Carolina are now at least transitioning toward paying the full nonfederal share of Medicaid costs (the other 50%) rather than passing part of it on to the counties. In North Carolina, counties' main adjustable source of revenue is the property tax. Since Medicaid costs (like all medical costs) keep going up faster than the rate of inflation, and since the North Carolina General Assembly has implemented many expansions of Medicaid beyond that which is federally mandated, the counties must adjust their property taxes to cover the 15% share which the General Assembly continues to demand of them. This is not a problem for rich counties; they have large, growing (and younger) populations with large industrial plants, and therefore have a large property tax base relative to their Medicaid expenses. Poorer counties, however, tend to have small, declining, and older populations with few large prosperous companies. So the property tax base, composed mostly of land values, housing values, and companies' fixed capital, is relatively small in proportion to poorer counties' Medicaid-eligible (indigent or handicapped) population. This is why the 17 counties of northeastern North Carolina, with the states' largest Medicaid-eligible populations, also have the highest property tax rates. Companies will tend to locate where taxes are lowest, so jobs go to rich counties, productive young people have to move to where the jobs have gone, and leave an aging population behind. Farmers are also hard hit by property taxes, and they can't move their main asset (land), so they face an increasing tax bill to work the same amount of land. High taxes squeeze out productive enterprises which lowers the tax base which leads to another increase in the property tax rate. No wonder poor counties stay poor, they have to run as fast as they can just to stay in one place! Everyone knows this is a problem, they've known it for years. Phasing out the county share is the #1 legislative priority of the North Carolina Association of County Commissioners. Study groups keep telling the General Assembly that poor counties can't afford continued Medicaid costs. For instance, in 2005, the Blue Ribbon Commission on Medicaid Reform proposed many measures to phase out the county share or at least cap the amount counties must pay ($470 million total last year). Only a $15 million relief measure passed, and the Democrats who control both houses of the General Assembly deleted it in conference. And named another study group. That group of legislators reported out on March 28th, 2006, proposing to spend $65 million in one-time relief this year. We don't need the General Assembly to pay a little more of the bill this year (and probably brag about their generosity), we need them to pay the whole bill, now and for evermore, because they're the only ones who decided how big the bill would be! The North Carolina Republican Party has taken a principled stand in its Party platform renouncing unfunded mandates. If the Democrats who have overwhelmingly represented northeastern North Carolina for over a century can't see that their policies are keeping northeastern North Carolina poor, why not give their opponents a try?"
Quite a mouthful, no? That's my first draft, but note that it is already almost without examples and sourcing, and practically devoid of rhetorical flourishes and partisan invective. But, woe is me: I have to cut it down even more! (And no, this isn't the approach I make to Democrats, this really could be a nonpartisan issue, and the Halifax County Democratic Party was polite enough to me to adopt a resolution unanimously ('cause everyone knows it needs doing, as I said above) approving my proposition that "The nonfederal share of Medicaid program costs should be borne entirely by the North Carolina state government", but this is my Republican take on the issue.) Sadly, the reason I got stuck with the assignment to write a one-paragraph explanation of the county Medicaid share issue was that my letter to the editor of the Roanoke Rapids Daily Herald (published on April 16) went mostly over my fellow Republicans' heads due to the lack of background knowledge I've provided above. Somewhere, my 7th grade English teacher, Mrs. Kennedy, is chuckling, "I told you so!" Since this post is not long enough to really illustrate my dearth of pith, I'm including my letter to the editor here, too:
(headline by RRDH staff:) Solution creation or political posturing?
I read with interest the opinion piece "Needed
Relief" on the subject of the county share in funding
Medicaid in the April 6th edition of the Daily Herald.
The article was accurate in pointing out that North
Carolina is now the last state in the Union which
passes a fixed percentage of the state's Medicaid
costs on to the counties. Analysis of the relief plan
from the General Assembly's House Select Committee on
Health Care, however, was lacking.
The North Carolina Association of County
Commissioners (NCACC) is the best interest group to be
monitoring this issue, and their pleasure with the
Select Committee's plan of February 28th (spending $65
million) is understandable. But it should be noted
that this plan was only for temporary and partial
relief. The NCACC's goal continues to be phasing out
the county share entirely (the latest plan is to phase
it out over a 6-year period, dedicating funds from the
cigarette tax). During last year's General Assembly
session, a $15 million relief package was passed but
deleted from the budget in conference, and Senate
Majority Leader Tony Rand (D-Cumberland) mandated yet
another study group to seek solutions for the problem.
This is reminiscent of the results of the Blue
Ribbon Commission on Medicaid Reform, which delivered
its report to the General Assembly on January 18,
2005. This report spawned various bills, none of which
was enacted. Northampton County Department of Social
Services Director Dr. Al Wentzy, who sat on the Blue
Ribbon Commission, told me that while all the bills
attempted to secure various amounts of state money to
reduce the county share, or cap it, temporarily or
permanently, the clear solution the Commission favored
was to transfer funding responsibility from the
counties to the state once and for all.
With that background, let us examine the plan of
the House Select Committee on Health Care. It provides
$30 million to cap the county share of Medicaid
funding at the 2005-2006 level (that's good, the
unpredictability of the dollar amount counties must
cough up is a serious problem for poor counties'
budgeting process), and $35 million in relief targeted
to the counties with the highest percentages of
Medicaid-eligible people (that's also good, those
counties tend to be the poorest counties in the state,
and to have the lowest property tax bases, relative to
population). This plan, however, is framed as just
another one-time handout from the state surplus,
rather than the permanent fix we need.
Carolyn Johnson, Vice-chairman of the Halifax
County Board of Commissioners, means to bring up a
measure to make permanent relief from the counties'
Medicaid burden a legislative priority, probably at
the Board's meeting at 6:30 PM April 18th in the old
Commissioners' building in Halifax. This is not a
controversial measure, not for North Carolina's
poorest counties. Neither need it be a partisan
measure.
The North Carolina Republican Party already has a
platform plank denouncing unfunded mandates. The
Democratic Party purports to stand up for society's
most vulnerable members; well, North Carolina's
poorest counties here in the northeast have been
overwhelmingly represented by Democrats in the General
Assembly for a century now, and we're still poor. I'm
concerned that the Select Committee's plan of March
28th will either go nowhere, or be hailed as money
bestowed from the General Assembly's largess as a
reward for the local electorates' loyal support for
Democrats. Ken Chandler of Weldon, candidate for the
state Senate in district 4, has promised to make a
permanent solution part of his campaign and a
legislative priority while in office. Will Halifax
county voters step up and demand that General Assembly
incumbents fix this problem, or will it take a change
of party leadership in Raleigh to get this done?
- R. Kent Ross
Vice-chairman, Halifax County Republican Party
"When Medicaid was first implemented in 1965, the federal government began paying 50% of the cost of the program and set standards for its implementation. States are allowed to expand eligibility, include more services than federally mandated, and control reimbursements and deductibles. Federal law also allowed the states to pass up to 15% of the total cost of Medicaid on to counties. Counties, however, have no say in anything related to Medicaid other than administering the program under state and federal laws, and paying up to 15% of the bill. Thus the counties receive an "unfunded mandate" to pay an amount essentially determined by the state laws. All 49 states other than North Carolina are now at least transitioning toward paying the full nonfederal share of Medicaid costs (the other 50%) rather than passing part of it on to the counties. In North Carolina, counties' main adjustable source of revenue is the property tax. Since Medicaid costs (like all medical costs) keep going up faster than the rate of inflation, and since the North Carolina General Assembly has implemented many expansions of Medicaid beyond that which is federally mandated, the counties must adjust their property taxes to cover the 15% share which the General Assembly continues to demand of them. This is not a problem for rich counties; they have large, growing (and younger) populations with large industrial plants, and therefore have a large property tax base relative to their Medicaid expenses. Poorer counties, however, tend to have small, declining, and older populations with few large prosperous companies. So the property tax base, composed mostly of land values, housing values, and companies' fixed capital, is relatively small in proportion to poorer counties' Medicaid-eligible (indigent or handicapped) population. This is why the 17 counties of northeastern North Carolina, with the states' largest Medicaid-eligible populations, also have the highest property tax rates. Companies will tend to locate where taxes are lowest, so jobs go to rich counties, productive young people have to move to where the jobs have gone, and leave an aging population behind. Farmers are also hard hit by property taxes, and they can't move their main asset (land), so they face an increasing tax bill to work the same amount of land. High taxes squeeze out productive enterprises which lowers the tax base which leads to another increase in the property tax rate. No wonder poor counties stay poor, they have to run as fast as they can just to stay in one place! Everyone knows this is a problem, they've known it for years. Phasing out the county share is the #1 legislative priority of the North Carolina Association of County Commissioners. Study groups keep telling the General Assembly that poor counties can't afford continued Medicaid costs. For instance, in 2005, the Blue Ribbon Commission on Medicaid Reform proposed many measures to phase out the county share or at least cap the amount counties must pay ($470 million total last year). Only a $15 million relief measure passed, and the Democrats who control both houses of the General Assembly deleted it in conference. And named another study group. That group of legislators reported out on March 28th, 2006, proposing to spend $65 million in one-time relief this year. We don't need the General Assembly to pay a little more of the bill this year (and probably brag about their generosity), we need them to pay the whole bill, now and for evermore, because they're the only ones who decided how big the bill would be! The North Carolina Republican Party has taken a principled stand in its Party platform renouncing unfunded mandates. If the Democrats who have overwhelmingly represented northeastern North Carolina for over a century can't see that their policies are keeping northeastern North Carolina poor, why not give their opponents a try?"
Quite a mouthful, no? That's my first draft, but note that it is already almost without examples and sourcing, and practically devoid of rhetorical flourishes and partisan invective. But, woe is me: I have to cut it down even more! (And no, this isn't the approach I make to Democrats, this really could be a nonpartisan issue, and the Halifax County Democratic Party was polite enough to me to adopt a resolution unanimously ('cause everyone knows it needs doing, as I said above) approving my proposition that "The nonfederal share of Medicaid program costs should be borne entirely by the North Carolina state government", but this is my Republican take on the issue.) Sadly, the reason I got stuck with the assignment to write a one-paragraph explanation of the county Medicaid share issue was that my letter to the editor of the Roanoke Rapids Daily Herald (published on April 16) went mostly over my fellow Republicans' heads due to the lack of background knowledge I've provided above. Somewhere, my 7th grade English teacher, Mrs. Kennedy, is chuckling, "I told you so!" Since this post is not long enough to really illustrate my dearth of pith, I'm including my letter to the editor here, too:
(headline by RRDH staff:) Solution creation or political posturing?
I read with interest the opinion piece "Needed
Relief" on the subject of the county share in funding
Medicaid in the April 6th edition of the Daily Herald.
The article was accurate in pointing out that North
Carolina is now the last state in the Union which
passes a fixed percentage of the state's Medicaid
costs on to the counties. Analysis of the relief plan
from the General Assembly's House Select Committee on
Health Care, however, was lacking.
The North Carolina Association of County
Commissioners (NCACC) is the best interest group to be
monitoring this issue, and their pleasure with the
Select Committee's plan of February 28th (spending $65
million) is understandable. But it should be noted
that this plan was only for temporary and partial
relief. The NCACC's goal continues to be phasing out
the county share entirely (the latest plan is to phase
it out over a 6-year period, dedicating funds from the
cigarette tax). During last year's General Assembly
session, a $15 million relief package was passed but
deleted from the budget in conference, and Senate
Majority Leader Tony Rand (D-Cumberland) mandated yet
another study group to seek solutions for the problem.
This is reminiscent of the results of the Blue
Ribbon Commission on Medicaid Reform, which delivered
its report to the General Assembly on January 18,
2005. This report spawned various bills, none of which
was enacted. Northampton County Department of Social
Services Director Dr. Al Wentzy, who sat on the Blue
Ribbon Commission, told me that while all the bills
attempted to secure various amounts of state money to
reduce the county share, or cap it, temporarily or
permanently, the clear solution the Commission favored
was to transfer funding responsibility from the
counties to the state once and for all.
With that background, let us examine the plan of
the House Select Committee on Health Care. It provides
$30 million to cap the county share of Medicaid
funding at the 2005-2006 level (that's good, the
unpredictability of the dollar amount counties must
cough up is a serious problem for poor counties'
budgeting process), and $35 million in relief targeted
to the counties with the highest percentages of
Medicaid-eligible people (that's also good, those
counties tend to be the poorest counties in the state,
and to have the lowest property tax bases, relative to
population). This plan, however, is framed as just
another one-time handout from the state surplus,
rather than the permanent fix we need.
Carolyn Johnson, Vice-chairman of the Halifax
County Board of Commissioners, means to bring up a
measure to make permanent relief from the counties'
Medicaid burden a legislative priority, probably at
the Board's meeting at 6:30 PM April 18th in the old
Commissioners' building in Halifax. This is not a
controversial measure, not for North Carolina's
poorest counties. Neither need it be a partisan
measure.
The North Carolina Republican Party already has a
platform plank denouncing unfunded mandates. The
Democratic Party purports to stand up for society's
most vulnerable members; well, North Carolina's
poorest counties here in the northeast have been
overwhelmingly represented by Democrats in the General
Assembly for a century now, and we're still poor. I'm
concerned that the Select Committee's plan of March
28th will either go nowhere, or be hailed as money
bestowed from the General Assembly's largess as a
reward for the local electorates' loyal support for
Democrats. Ken Chandler of Weldon, candidate for the
state Senate in district 4, has promised to make a
permanent solution part of his campaign and a
legislative priority while in office. Will Halifax
county voters step up and demand that General Assembly
incumbents fix this problem, or will it take a change
of party leadership in Raleigh to get this done?
- R. Kent Ross
Vice-chairman, Halifax County Republican Party
