Excellent point about home-buying

You heard her right. Too many think this way, though they always seem to trust parents who decide to buy a home "for the schools." https://t.co/OFc1K5jXq5

— EdChoice (@edchoice) October 9, 2017

Paternalistic educators think parents are too stupid to come in out of the rain

Condescending educators have been on a roll lately. A teacher union boss in Tennessee tells PBS: "I don’t think they [parents] have the full understanding and exposure of what a proper, adequate education is for their children…I am saying that some parents are not capable of determining venues that will be most advantageous for their children, and that is a fact."

Meanwhile in Tulsa, school bureaucrat Deb Gist fretted to the Tulsa World that "she was the 'point person' for vouchers when she was state superintendent of the Washington D.C. public schools and that experience left her with the lingering concern that 'you had no way of ensuring the (private) school a family was choosing was better than the one they were leaving.'"

Education bureaucrat: 'I will question parents as I see fit'

"Ohio has hundreds of school districts, several regional education support organizations, many local and state school boards, tens of thousands of homeschooling families—and one especially supercilious public school superintendent," the Home School Legal Defense Association (HSLDA) notes in a recent dispatch.

David Hile, who heads the Licking Valley Local School District, wrote HSLDA recently to say he did not appreciate our request that he limit his oversight of homeschooling students to what the law permits. 

“It is my responsibility under the law,” he insisted, “to ensure that children in my district are receiving an adequate education [and] I take that responsibility very seriously, whether those children are in our schools or homeschooled. I will continue to question parents as I see fit.” 

This exchange, ironically, arose from Hile’s excessive inquisitiveness regarding a homeschooled student’s test score. The student had scored in the 30th percentile on a standardized test taken to fulfill end-of-year assessment requirements. Hile felt the score was too low and asked to see the student’s subtest scores. 

At that point the student’s mother contacted HSLDA. 

Staff Attorney Mike Donnelly, who assists members in Ohio, wrote to Hile, explaining that his request went beyond what he was entitled to ask for by law. Donnelly cited the Ohio Administrative Code, which says, “Any child that has a composite score at or above the twenty-fifth percentile shall be deemed to be performing at a level of reasonable proficiency.” 

Though our member’s issue was resolved soon afterward, Hile still saw fit to fire off his bristling reply. His response further demonstrated a lack of understanding regarding how to interpret a nationally norm-referenced assessment as well as a disconcerting attitude with respect to who is responsible for the education of the child. Hile wrote that he considered a child who scored in the 30th percentile on a standardized test “2–3 years below grade level (as 50th percentile is on grade level on NNRA).” 

As a professional educator, Hile should know percentile scores on a norm-referenced assessment that is standardized nationally, as required by Ohio regulations, reflect how many students performed at or above that level—not what grade level the child is. Perhaps Hile is thinking of the state public tests, which are criterion-referenced rather than nationally normed standardized achievement tests, and which simply show how a child scores compared to others on the same test. A score of the 30th percentile simply means that 30% of the students scored below a particular result on that test. 

“Hile’s response was an over-the-top and overbearing reaction to a simple point of clarification,” Donnelly said. “His attitude reflects an arrogance that implies homeschoolers are not up to the task of educating their children. The facts show that the reverse is true, and I will happily defend our members when they encounter problems with similar public school officials.” 

He added: “Superintendent Hiles’ unnecessarily bristling response to my short letter shows why homeschooling families need HSLDA—who wants to have to deal with someone like this?”

How can parents know?

I've mentioned before that the Oklahoma League of Women Voters is a liberal organization with a bias toward the government school monopoly. It looks like the Florida chapter is no better. "Last week," Jason Bedrick writes, "the president and education chair of the Florida State League of Women Voters (LWV)—which is a party to the Florida teacher union’s lawsuit against the state’s tax-credit scholarship program—argued that some parents are just not well-informed enough to choose a school for their own kids."

Forward-looking superintendent says ‘a one-size-fits-all approach is not effective’

In a recent blog post containing an admirable and honest bit of self-examination (“A Long Gaze in the Mirror”), Sand Springs assistant superintendent Rob Miller made the point that there are many policies and practices in the public school system—“self-inflicted wounds,” some of them—which Mr. Miller believes could be unhealthy. This one caught my eye:

Allowing parents to make choices about placement (gifted/talented pods, magnet schools, selective programs) to keep their child away from “those kids.”

It seems to me there are a few troubling assumptions baked into that statement. First, notice the word “allowing.” School leaders are granting permission to the people who are paying their salaries.

Second, notice that school officials are allowing parents to make choices. It’s well-known that the hireling doesn’t care for the sheep like the shepherd does. And yet the assumption here is that the very people who conceived and bore the children, who love the children more than any government official ever could, shouldn’t be permitted to direct their children’s path.

Third, Mr. Miller appears to assume jurisdiction over some parents’ motives—and to ascribe dishonorable ones. Isn’t it possible that parents could have valid educational reasons—reasons that have nothing to do with “those kids”—for wanting particular educational options for their children? In any case, regardless of the parents' motives, I refer you to the two preceding paragraphs.

Alberto M. Carvalho

In stark contrast, note the actions of another school administrator that very same day. Alberto M. Carvalho, the superintendent of the Miami-Dade County Public Schools, unveiled 53 new choice and magnet program offerings for the new school year—bringing the district’s total number of choice programs to more than 500.

“Students and teachers of Miami-Dade County Public Schools are in for another exciting year of innovative programs and initiatives,” he said. “We understand that a one-size-fits-all approach is not effective. That said, we have once again tailored our educational programs to meet the personalized needs of students and provide them with specialized resources to ensure they have every opportunity to excel academically.”

Mr. Carvalho is the same superintendent who last year said, “Rather than complain about the incoming tsunami of choice, we’re going to ride it.”

Are Oklahoma parents really 'ignorant and stupid 80 percent of the time'?

Jonathan Gruber, an Obamacare booster who has repeatedly mocked the American people for their alleged stupidity, testified before Congress today. Unfortunately, he's not the only Democrat who has evinced contempt for we the sheeple.

I wrote in 2010 about a Democratic state lawmaker in Oklahoma who wants politicians and bureaucrats — not parents — to choose schools for children. As he put it, parents "may think they know what's best, but do they?" And yesterday on Twitter, a Democratic political consultant in Oklahoma was similarly forthright with his antipathy to parental choice.

@brandondutcher because Oklahoma parents are ignorant and stupid 80 percent of the time.
— Michael Carrier (@MDCarrier) December 8, 2014

I disagree. And I continue to believe that Oklahoma parents have the right and the responsibility to choose schools for their children.

Parents 'may not know what actually is best' for their children

During a House Education Committee hearing in Michigan this month, one of the benevolent shepherds in the education establishment inadvertently revealed what many educators think of we the sheeple:

Ms. Squires doubtless would be surprised to learn that parents, in addition to knowing what’s best for their children, in many cases actually educate children better than the educators themselves. As Milton Friedman observed, the explosive growth of homeschooling is "evidence of the failure of our current education system. There is no other complex field in our society in which do-it-yourself beats out factory production or market production. Nobody makes his or her own car. But it still is the case that parents can perform the job of educating their children, in many cases better than our present education system."

Even if parents don’t choose to do the teaching themselves, they are quite capable of choosing good schools for their children. But many education "professionals," especially administrators, tend to look down their noses at parents, who, after all, are mere "amateurs." These professionals have forgotten that the word "amateur" traces to the Latin amāre ("to love"), and that amateurs are people whose actions are motivated by love rather than something else. People motivated by love make it their business to “know what’s best” for the objects of their affection.

Great moments in condescension

In Democracy in America, Tocqueville warned that if despotism were to come to America, it wouldn't be your garden-variety despotism. "It would be more extensive and milder, and it would degrade men without tormenting them." He speaks of a "regulated, mild, and peaceful servitude" which "does not tyrannize, it hinders, compromises, enervates, extinguishes, dazes, and finally reduces each nation to being nothing more than a herd of timid and industrious animals of which the government is the shepherd."

Comes now Mr. Neil Brannon of Arkoma, Oklahoma. A former school principal and superintendent, the avuncular and well-meaning Mr. Brannon represents District 3 in the state House of Representatives. On May 21, Rep. Brannon, a Democrat, argued against legislation which would give more school choices to parents of special-needs students.

Now in some cases, the benevolent solon from LeFlore County magnanimously allowed, mothers and fathers "know what's best for their child." Yes indeed, in some cases, mothers and fathers are actually "very good in making decisions about their child." But in other cases, he warned darkly, "I've seen students with disabilities where the parents had disabilities also. Are they really the ones that ought to be making the decision about where that child goes?"

One can only speculate as to what's going on in Arkoma, what reproductive practices and resultant disorders are fueling this multi-generational cycle of unreliable decision making. I find it difficult to believe it's a widespread problem. And I find it difficult to believe I'm the only Oklahoman who resents the paternalistic impulses of a politician (Tocqueville warned of "an immense tutelary power" which would take charge of watching over us) -- especially a politician who once superintended a school district where the math achievement of the average student is at the 12th percentile relative to an international comparison group. It's altogether possible, Rep. Brannon, that we are grown men and women in a free society and that we can get along just fine, thank you.

The simple truth is that Rep. Brannon wants politicians and bureaucrats -- not parents -- to choose what's best for children. Because given a choice, parents may well head for the exits of their local public school. And "I don't think we need to open the door, to just throw it wide open," he says. After all,

Parents "may think they know what's best, but do they?"

Wow. Gotta admire the candor. Bless his heart for just saying that right out loud on the House floor.

All of which leaves me with a very important question for Rep. Brannon. If the parents of House District 3 aren't capable of choosing a good school for their children, how can they be trusted to choose a competent official to represent them in the Oklahoma House of Representatives?