The government school monopoly is one of the most important factors undermining the family unit; universal school choice would be a big step toward strengthening it.
I encourage you to read the entire article here.
The government school monopoly is one of the most important factors undermining the family unit; universal school choice would be a big step toward strengthening it.
Meanwhile, a veteran teacher who recently resigned says student conduct at Upper Greystone Elementary School is "worse than ever" because the district is reluctant to issue suspensions.
"When students know they can do anything they want and not be suspended they're going to do it," the ex-teacher said. "We can't fault them for that because kids need parameters and guidance and consequences. I think it's very difficult for them to receive that given the current circumstances at Upper Greystone."
The counselor, Regina Sims, said the incident occurred Wednesday when she was left alone with the boy, who she characterized as violent, in the office of Roosevelt Middle School Principal David Clark. She said Clark had just left to attend to another matter when Sims said the boy swung the metal pole at her.
"To be honest, I was left in an unsafe situation," she said. "I don't want to go back to Roosevelt because what happened to me is very unsettling."
In the other case, the former teacher, who requested anonymity because of fear of retribution, said several Upper Greystone teachers have resigned since school started Aug. 3.
"The class sizes are very large and the behavior is the worst I've ever seen," the ex-teacher said. "There are some people who have worked there a lot longer than (I did) who feel very hopeless and helpless."
The district said two teachers have resigned from Upper Greystone since the first day of school. The former teacher, who has since changed professions, accused Superintendent Rob Neu of "bullying principals into lowering suspension rates."
"The kids know there are no ramifications for their behavior," the ex-teacher said.
Oklahoma City Public Schools spokesman Mark Myers said the allegation made by the ex-teacher "is false."You can read the entire article here.
Photo credit: Albert H. Teich / Shutterstock.com |
Our public schools have grown up in a competition-free zone, surrounded by a very high union wall. Why aren’t we shocked at the results? After all, teachers’ unions are motivated by the same desires that move the rest of us. With more than 85 percent of their soft-money donations going to Democrats, teachers’ unions know they can count on the politician they back to take a strong stand against school choice.
Our public schools are capable of providing a more competitive product than they do today. Look at some of the high school tests from earlier in this century and you’ll wonder if they weren’t college-level tests. And we’ve got to bring on the competition—open the schoolhouse doors and let parents choose the best school for their children.
Education reformers call this school choice, charter schools, vouchers, even opportunity scholarships. I call it competition—the American way. ...
Defenders of the status quo insist that parental choice means the end of public schools. Let’s look at the facts. Right now, nine of 10 children attend public schools. If you look at public education as a business—and with nearly $300 billion spent each year on K-through-12 education, it’s a very big business indeed—it would set off every antitrust alarm bell at the Department of Justice and the Federal Trade Commission. When teachers’ unions say even the most minuscule program allowing school choice is a mortal threat, they’re saying: If we aren’t allowed to keep 90 percent of the market, we can’t survive. When Bell Telephone had 90 percent of the market, a federal judge broke it up.
Who’s better off? The kids who use vouchers to go to the school of their choice, or the ones who choose to stay in public school? All of them. That’s the way it works in a competitive system.
Microcosms of the police state, America’s public schools contain almost every aspect of the militarized, intolerant, senseless, overcriminalized, legalistic, surveillance-riddled, totalitarian landscape that plagues those of us on the “outside.”
From the moment a child enters one of the nation’s 98,000 public schools to the moment she graduates, she will be exposed to a steady diet of draconian zero tolerance policies that criminalize childish behavior, overreaching anti-bullying statutes that criminalize speech, school resource officers (police) tasked with disciplining and/or arresting so-called “disorderly” students, standardized testing that emphasizes rote answers over critical thinking, politically correct mindsets that teach young people to censor themselves and those around them, and extensive biometric and surveillance systems that, coupled with the rest, acclimate young people to a world in which they have no freedom of thought, speech or movement.
If your child is fortunate enough to survive his encounter with the public schools, you should count yourself fortunate.
After one year, a college graduate with a bachelor's degree in education earned $37,511, on average. That was more than a student with a degree in architecture ($29,798), business management and administrative services ($32,744), communications ($22,430), biological sciences ($17,682), mathematics ($26,565) and psychology ($19,443).
Overall, the average first-year salary for those with education degrees was greater than the pay received by individuals in all but five of 32 degree fields. The exceptions were computer and information sciences, engineering, engineering technologies, mechanics and repairers, and health professions.
The regents also found that 95 percent of Oklahoma-resident, education-degree graduates were employed within one year. That was the highest employment rate for all fields reviewed.
In short, the report found Oklahoma graduates with a bachelor's degree in education were more likely to find employment, and immediately paid more money, than many counterparts. That bucks the stereotype, yet this doesn't mean all is well.Read the whole thing here.
Parents are responsible for the education of their children. We do not believe in a one-size-fits-all approach to education and [we] support providing broad education choices to parents and children ...The Oklahoma Republican Party platform also picks up on this theme of family preeminence:
Education is much more than schooling. It is the whole range of activities by which families and communities transmit to a younger generation, not just knowledge and skills, but ethical and behavioral norms and traditions. It is the handing over of a personal and cultural identity. That is why education choice has expanded so vigorously. It is also why American education has, for the last several decades, been the focus of constant controversy, as centralizing forces outside the family and community have sought to remake education in order to remake America. They have not succeeded, but they have done immense damage. …
School choice — whether through charter schools, open enrollment requests, college lab schools, virtual schools, career and technical education programs, vouchers, or tax credits — is important for all children, especially for families with children trapped in failing schools. Getting those youngsters into decent learning environments and helping them to realize their full potential is the greatest civil rights challenge of our time.
A young person’s ability to achieve in school must be based on his or her God-given talent and motivation, not an address, zip code, or economic status.
We believe that the family is the cohesive element that maintains social order and protects individual rights. The duty and privilege of nurturing our young people belongs to parents and the traditional family. We support the sole right and responsibility of parents to rear, educate, discipline, nurture, provide healthcare, and spiritually train their children without government interference.
It is the right and responsibility of parents to direct their children’s upbringing and education — whether public, private, charter, or home school — without interference, regulation, or penalty from the government. … [W]e support the creation of a free-market education system. … We believe all parents should be allowed to use their education tax dollars for the family’s choice of schooling.
So why don't Oklahoma's local school districts just pay more? A recent report from the U.S. Department of Education shows it may be because local school boards have committed a growing percentage of their funding to salaries and benefits for administrative and nonteaching staff.
Between 1992 and 2013, enrollment in Oklahoma schools increased by 14 percent while the number of teachers increased by 11 percent. Administrative and nonteaching staff increased by more than 33 percent. If nonteaching staff had increased at only the same rate as enrollment, Oklahoma schools would have nearly $300 million more available annually to pay teachers higher salaries. ...
Oklahoma taxpayers are doing their part, providing the resources necessary for a quality education system that can competitively attract great teachers and lessen the impact of the national teacher shortage on our children. It's time for the Legislature to ensure school districts get those hard-earned dollars where they are needed.
The single most important overarching political question at the present time is whether we still think there is such a thing as human nature. The core of postmodernism—and many of the campus enthusiasms about how one's gender identity is solely a matter of free choice or will—explicitly denies the idea of human nature, though this often comes disguised in an attack on "objectivity," "social construction" of language and reality, and so forth. The rejection of human nature is catching on slowly in our wider popular culture ...
The problem is that, when read broadly, this language would prevent any use of public property by any religious organization. Scout troops or church groups, for example, couldn’t use public parks. Given the history and pervasive religiosity of our society, this provision cannot reasonably be interpreted to forbid the faithful from benefiting from public facilities or services.
Our court should read this provision so that, while government cannot favor religion, it may treat religion equally, both compared to different faiths and to the secular. When a recipient of publicly funded services, like health care or education, for example, chooses religious providers over secular agencies, compensating the religious provider for providing the service isn’t supporting or benefiting religion. It’s treating religion fairly.