News-Record.com

"note that a Democratic president will almost certainly be able to ensure a progressive Supreme Court majority for decades to come."

Why didn't you just write:

'Schools suck, kids are stupid and bad and it's all because of the Democrats and their damned activist judges!'

Great commentary Mr. Shornack, well said indeed!

Liberalism has infected the public schools beyond repair. Under the cancerous effects of liberalism, the public schools have been transformed into government indoctrination and 'diversity' camps where the inmates are running the asylum.

"note that a Democratic president will almost certainly be able to ensure a progressive Supreme Court majority for decades to come."

With more and more Americans demanding nanny government stateism, I fear a more 'progressive' [read socialist leaning] SC is headed our way regardless of who wins the election...exception to Bob Barr of course.

" ... discipline, safety and traditional curriculum evidently make the difference .."

No, the ability to kick out the assholes makes the difference. Show me a plan for that, and I'll buy.

Simply a terrific letter to the editor. Bravo!

Although a retired public school teacher, I admit to ignorance (until this moment) as to the specific decisions a liberal Supreme Court used to undercut discipline in our government school system.

A left-liberal Supreme Court can completely re-engineer a nation and --- certainly its schools schools --- by using the Constitution's broad language to invent "rights" never envisioned by --- and certainly unimaginable to --- the framers of the original language.

I referenced this tendency in discussing the Supreme Court's 1982 ruling that U. S. taxpayers are obligated by the Constitution to pay for the schooling of children brought illegally to the United States (Plyler v. Doe) in a recent letter to the editor of another paper. Excerpt below:

The major impact of illegal immigration on education is at the K-12 level. In 1977, lawyers for a group of children illegally in Texas sued the state seeking a free public education. The case, Plyler v. Doe, eventually reached the Supreme Court, which in 1982 ruled, 5 to 4, that the children were entitled to free taxpayer-funded schooling.*

The constitutional language on which the decision was based is from the 14th Amendment: "No State shall . . . deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.”

The 14th Amendment, ratified in 1868, was meant to secure the rights of newly freed slaves, that is, American citizens. The Amendment's vague, sweeping language, however, has potential for expansive interpretations of all sorts. That potential was tapped by a liberal court majority in 1982.

Plyler v. Doe has transformed --- is transforming --- neighborhoods and communities across the nation. In the process, it is normalizing illegal immigration.

Chief Justice Warren Burger, writing for the dissenting minority, concluded with a common-sense observation many readers will appreciate:

"The major flaw in the court's reasoning, of course, is that illegal aliens are not, by definition, citizens of the United States. No matter how you parse it, the equal protection clause just does not apply to people who are in this country illegally. They aren't Americans."

Tom Shuford

JDR: "No, the ability to kick out the assholes makes the difference [with Catholic schools superior performance]. Show me a plan for that, and I'll buy."

Challenge accepted.

Give the parents of hard-core defiant students "weighted vouchers" reflective of the challenge of working with their children. Then ask them to choose a schooling option that is a good match for their child. The local neighborhood school is not a good match.

Example: Let's say NC spends about $10,000 per year per student.

For the sort of student every teacher would feel intense inner-joy if the student suddenly moved away, give the parents of that child a voucher of say $15,000 or even $20,000 per year (if the student is a sufficiently bad actor) and say, "Our school cannot meet Johnny's needs. We aren't structured to do so. Take this voucher to a school that is geared to working with students with his needs."

For that level of funding --- double-weighted vouchers --- alternative schools would assuredly come on line.

Footnote: While Catholic schools have the ability to expel students --- and that is important --- they rarely use it.

'Schools suck, kids are stupid and bad and it's all because of the Democrats and their damned activist judges!'

Public schools are indeed next to worthless, made so by the failed policies of liberals who valued social engineering above education. They wanted to turn children away from God and family and toward the all-powerful, all-knowing government and the liberal view of utopia, and they have largely succeeded with those children unable to escape to private or home schools.

Many kids are made "stupid and bad" through a complete lack of proper socialization. If there is nobody home to teach a child how to behave in a civil society, that child, rich or poor, will have no notion of how to function in a school, at a job, or even in a mall. We have rich kids left alone to have drunken parties or build bombs in their garages, and poor kids left alone to join gangs.

And yes, it is those d*** activist judges who destroyed orderly schools. The ordinary people of this nation would never have sued because Johnny got suspended for fighting or sued because the curriculum was too male or too anglocentric. The ordinary people of this nation still largely approve of teachers who are permitted control a classroom and teach actual content. Unfortunately, it takes just one or two idiot parents plus the ACLU to ruin entire school districts.

Very well, rahrah, just as you asked:

(Public) Schools suck, kids are stupid and bad and it's all because of the Democrats and their damned activist judges!

Momma always said that stupid is as stupid does.

Let me see if I have this right:

- Parents who arguably have little interest in their children (otherwise the kids would be better behaved anyway), and being asked to "choose a schooling option that is a good match for their child".

- Students that "act out" are then rewarded by getting the option to move to another school, "better structured".

- I assume of the student still "acts out" he get rewarded by yet another option to move to another school, "mo-better "structured".

- Since a large percentage of kids do not graduate HS ... (what's the national average? I've heard in some inner city schools the number is 50% .. staggering as that may be) ... a large percentage of kids will therefore qualify for double-weighted vouchers. With this added incentive to act out and be transferred - because certainly most kids think their own HS sucks (and the grass is always greener) - If we assume 50% nationwide flock to this new plan, the cost to we-the-people goes up 50%.

Existing
100 Kids @ $10,000 each = $1,000,000

NEW
50 Good Kids @ $10,000 each = $500,000
50 Bad Kids @ $20,000 each = $1,000,000

Jeeze Tom .. is your real name Barack?

==

I'm just trying to understand ..

==

OK I'm not just trying to understand THAT .. What I'm just trying to understand is this Voucher thing because most folks "demanding it" - the "IT" being overt government intervention and a clear redistribution of wealth - are the ones who feign conservative principals including removal of government intervention and a stop to the redistribution of wealth.

==

"While Catholic schools have the ability to expel students --- and that is important --- they rarely use it" ...

Is that because Catholic schools do not fear the law suites cited above .. OR .. because the parents are paying out of their own pocket, and therefore have a more vested interest?

I think it's the latter. So the key is parents having a vested interest .. which the Voucher Program not only does nor address, but arguable discourages.

The other issue is - Parents who just don't care .. and there are a lot of them .. they won't pay for their kids no matter what .. and we are back full circle:

Show me a plan that deals with the assholes kicked out of the system .. I'll buy.

The main argument about removing bad kids from the system is always "what are we going to do with them." That ignores the equally important matter of what we do with the kids who ARE behaving. Priority one is making sure the behaving kids get the education they shoud get, without bad kids messing it all up.

Let the bad kids be bad somewhere besides a regular school where well-behaved kids are trying to get an education. The current system seems to value the troublemakers more than the regular kids. Yes, the troublemakers are human beings who should be helped, but they must be helped without sacrificing the vast majority of kids who don't cause trouble.

I totally agree, Momma Steam.

What do you suggest we do to "help" the "bad kids" (such a PC name).

btw - I'm OK with kicking their ass in public .. but not with Vouchers .. a truly pussy liberal maneuver.

I once calculated that 13 of the past 20 Supreme Court Justices (inclusing the 7 now there) were installed by Republican Presidents .. so I also don’t buy the argument of a Liberal Supreme Court. Perhaps some of those 2-of-3 Bench Sitters have made judgments based on conservative or at least centrist values.

JDR,

That was a thoughtful reply.

First, set your mind at ease. North Carolina is a Democratic Party-controlled state. That means its legislature is wholly owned by the teachers union, which cannot abide letting ANY child escape the schooling monopoly, even those that make life miserable for teachers.

There will be no weighted vouchers for NC's incorrigible students as this might decrease union membership --- which no self-interested Democrat wants or can afford to be seen supporting.

Rest easy. The schooling monopoly is safe.

But back to the idea itself.

The PC language I suggest to use with the parents is just "edspeak," which is language necessary for the smooth operation of the government schooling monoply.

The reality is the "option" given to incorrigible students --- which you make seem attractive to the student --- is to be bussed out of his neighborhood and away from all his friends to a very tightly structured environment.

This is what public schools already do with extreme behavior/special ed problems. But now the "choice" is dictated by the school administration.

I am proposing a modest expansion of what public schools already do with their toughest kids [send them to specialized schools] --- but instead giving parents more of a voice in the matter.

Treating poor parents as ciphers when it comes to decision-making about their children's education --- which Democrats are wont to do --- tends to make them permanent ciphers, which, of course, accrues to Democrats' political benefit.

A good course of action would be to create a another school for the "little darlings". Operate it somewhat like an "Military Academy, Boot Camp or Reform School" as would be needed. Have discipline the main topic of study. At the very least they would be no longer disrupting the class rooms of most public schools,
The ALCU and idiot parents be damned.

Anyone who thinks that republican=conservative and that McCain will appoint a conservative Justice to the USSC is naive and delusional.

Agreed that Republican presidents can appoint crummy liberal judges as well as Democrats can. At least Republicans occasionally nominate a brilliant mind that respects the Constitution and those who wrote it--witness Scalia. Also, Republican nominees are often blocked by a liberal Senate judiciary committee, while Democrat nominees were usually given the professional courtesy of an up or down vote.

Prove it, Momma.

I really don't know .. prove it.

Prove what? That many of Bush's judicial nominees have been languishing in committee for ages? That the Dems deliberately set out to destroy Robert Bork and Clarence Thomas?That Scalia is smarter than the average NC public school student? That Republicans and Democrats have both appointed some lousy judges?

Prove "Democrat nominees were usually given the professional courtesy of an up or down vote".

No proof that would stand in a court of law, but there are plenty of liberal federal judges on the bench. They had to be confirmed. There's my empirical evidence that Democrats generally get their up or down vote.

then you are full of shit.

.. a more thoughtful response:

"yousguys" make these broad statement .. totally unsupportable - I swear they sound like Rush Hannity BS .. and when challanged, you either back off (as you just did) or you are silent (as most other are).

so [the generic] you make up anything you want .. and that becomes "THE TRUTH" as [the generic] you apparently believe .. Jeeze.

Seriously babe .. there was an old MC5 song that started with the cry "Are You Part Of The Problem or Part Of The Solution" That response was SO part of the problem ...

I'm freakin out at your apparent indifference.

I assure you I am not indifferent about the judiciary.

Isn't the fact that there are so many liberal federal judges evidence that liberal judges have been confirmed? Could they have been confirmed without an up or down vote? I am through arguing about this. If you believe Bush's nominees have been given a fair chance for a confirmation vote, then we have a disagreement. This is America, after all, where people can disagree without killing each other.

I'm on board with this incentive idea for the good kids. In my high school county (Cabarrus), they actually removed incentives. They said that competition was making students feel bad. The losers were sad. I graduated first in my class and wasn't honored as valedictorian at graduation--or anywhere else. Some other kid got to give the commencement speech and, essentially, all the glory that I had 'worked for' for years. I put that in little quotes since I didn't really work. I just showed up and listened. Public School is too easy. I did get a gold cord though. OH BOY!

But, you know, we need to get back to rewarding students who do well. Screw all this privacy crap for grades. Post test scores, class grades, GPA's on a billboard at the entrance to the school. There's not really any better award than that feeling you get when you win.

And with these court cases brought up by the letter, I don't really think most parents are like that. I've volunteered at Teen Court and most parents you question say, the kid messed up--give him what he deserves.

And I know that kids don't think, "Man, in 1975 these kids got away with a fight because their principal didn't give them a trial! Let's kick this kid's butt!"

Discipline starts at home and all of you guys know it.

I'm sorry you didn't get to give your valedictorian speech. I'm sure you would have given a good one, from what I've observed in this blog.

Of course, good students do get rewarded eventually--businesses will find a way to attract you smart ones and to retain you as valuable assets. Those who wasted their school years will continue to have their feelings hurt and to resent your success.

Tom Shuford wrote: "That means its legislature is wholly owned by the teachers union..."

You don't know what you are talking about. There is no teachers' union in NC. In fact, teachers in this state are prohibited by law from unionizing.

Get your facts straight.

It'd just be nice if schools recognized scholastic achievement with the same fervor they do athletic.

I was not arguing nor trying to kill you momma .. but you said "Republican nominees are [blocked] ... Democrat nominees [recieve] an up or down vote" ... and you have no basis for saying that other than, I assume, a predetermined partisan attitude. That's why I asked for proof.

Here's some oppositing data:

"More than 130 of President Bush's judicial nominees have been confirmed by the Senate, including most of his original group of nominees. 100 of those judges were confirmed during the time the Democrats controlled the Senate. Only two have been blocked by filibuster.

"The number of vacancies on the federal judiciary is the lowest it has been in 13 years. There are approximately 40 vacancies now -almost a third of the 111 vacancies that were awaiting the Democrats when they took control of the Senate in July 2001."

http://www.saveourcourts.org/real_story/

Now that may or may not be a Code Pink web site - but my guess is the above facts are accurate.

Assuming the facts are accurate, note the word "Crisis" in this link, right nest to the GOP seal:

http://www.rnla.org/2006/06/newly-announced-judicial-nominees.html

The Point is it's all a freaking game .. Hollar "FOUL" when things aren't going your way, selectively twist some data and spread the word that them damm LIEburals are ruining out country.

==

Let's keep looking:

http://www.courtinginfluence.net/inv_findings.php?id=4

Maybe lefty .. but if "President George W. Bush’s nominees to some of the most influential positions on the federal bench during his first term are notable for their close ties to corporate interests, especially the energy and mining industries ... more than a third [having] a history of working as lawyers and lobbyists on behalf of the oil, gas and energy industries [working] where those same industries frequently battle over cases with huge financial interests at stake. These five circuit courts are at the forefront of establishing judicial precedent on matters involving conflicts over natural resources. The placement of the nominees suggests an administration strategy of nominating corporate friendly judges in circuits where they will make the greatest impact. In many cases, these same corporations and industries are also major campaign contributors to the Bush Administration and the Republican Party."

BS? maybe, maybe not .. but I want a President that works for the interests of America not the interests of "major campaign contributors".

btw - if you're "done arguing" that's a shame .. because the discussion of ideas - preferrably with thought and at least one foot in reality - is what created this country. That's a very appropriate thought for this weekend, with both feet firmly planted in reality.

Not that Tom needs the help, MemberName, but I think you've been misinformed. I hope you'll ask why.

Here's the law:
http://www.ncga.state.nc.us/EnactedLegislation/Statutes/HTML/ByArticle/Chapter_95/Article_10.html

(It's the "condition of employment" part that is the key)

Politicians can still court members of, ahem, "associations" for their support. Especially when it comes to their PACs and the money they can spend in endorsements over normal campaign contributions. And teachers in NC appear to have the option to deduct PAC contributions directly from their paychecks. Nice.

http://www.nea.org/newsreleases/2008/nr080703a.html
"Gov. Easley recognizes that when developing and implementing education policies, teachers must have a seat at the table. NEA is proud to present this award to Gov. Easley"

(down near the bottom of that same link)
"Weaver will ask NEA delegates to take a formal vote to endorse Sen. Barack Obama in his bid for president of the U.S."

(and even farther)
"The National Education Association is the nation’s largest professional employee organization, representing 3.2 million"

What N.C.'s law says is that union membership can't be used as a condition of employment. You can't be fired because you won't join the NEA/NCAE. It doesn't mean bones can't be tossed to "associations" in exchange for a demographic's votes.

70,000 votes in N.C. and 3.2 million voters nationwide that are nice and reliable...

http://ncae.blogspot.com/

I especially like the photo of the smiling woman holding the sign that reads "Leadership Recommends No".

So far as the (D) aspect, here's a cached grab from the NC Association of Educators (NCAE) site:
http://tinyurl.com/5bardw

(quote)
"Certain so-called "family-values" groups are using fear and bigotry to try and gut this bill of any real meaning or effect. (Coincidentally, these are the same groups that would like to dismantle public education entirely.)"
(end quote)

Paid in full.

Tom, pardon the intrusion.
--

rahrah, it would be interesting to know the all-factors-involved reason why our schools won't recognize certain achievements. I think it would consistently point back to another of the 5th's letters.

Roger

Roger - I'm curious to see MemberName's Response.

== relatedly (followup to one's posting)

Momma - here's a recent example:

Oak Ridge Runner shoots his mouth - but when requested to back his statement there is silence.

http://blog.news-record.com/opinion/letters/archives/2008/07/darfur_needs_action_not_more_l.shtml

Biting Dog and Tony Baloney are the same - one needs to wonder. Yea Yea it's a free country and they may hold unbased opinions, but does that advance anything? These are the same folks who constantly whine about wacko lefties ..

MemberName: "You don't know what you are talking about. There is no teachers' union in NC. In fact, teachers in this state are prohibited from unionizing."

Press release (Sept. 8, 2000) from the National Education Association, the national teachers union:

"Washington, D.C. -- The National Education Association [NEA] today announced the selection of its new executive director, John I. Wilson. Wilson currently serves as executive director of the North Carolina Association of Educators (NCAE), which represents 72,000 active and retired school employees and is the state affiliate of the NEA . . . "

'John Wilson represents the best and brightest of the emerging new leadership of the National Education Association,' said NEA President Bob Chase. "... he has great vision for the important role the UNION [my all-caps] plays and is committed to serving our more than 2.5 million members. This is a man with a vision for the UNION [my all-caps] and a passion for public education."

SOURCE: "NEA Names John Wilson New Executive Director: NEA's Chase cites Wilson's 'vision for the union, passion for public education'"
http://www.nea.org/nr/nr000908b.html

COMMENT: This is a disagreement over semantics. Membername is saying if a bird looks like a duck, quacks like a duck, swims like a duck --- is considered a member of the family by the head duck --- let's call it a swan.

I'm with the head duck on this one. It's a duck.

R. Bennett: "Tom, pardon the intrusion."

Not at all. Your information helps illustrate that whatever the North Carolina Association of Educators prefers to call itself, it is the functional equivalent of a union.

I remember talking to my NC congressman 25 or so years ago, a Republican. I was seeking his support for a tuition tax credit bill which would bring about some competition in education. He said the day after he announced support for that idea the teachers union --- meaning the NCAE --- "would have 100 letters on my desk."

That's what labor unions do when any measure comes along that might threaten their narrow interests (in this instance, letting parents in on the decision-making process as regards where their children might go to school).

Unions have just about vanished from the private sector because they are such a drag on productivity. But they are a politically powerful presence in monopoly public services such as schooling. This explains decade after decade after decade of stifled innovation. The factory model for compulsory government schooling is essentially unchanged from 1900. It just costs about eight times as much per pupil --- in constant dollars.

LOL!

uh .. membername ... a more informative response would be appreciated. Too many lol's and we'll assume you are our very own conman of the neo variety .. who at least does sprinlke his hardy har hars with occassional albeit rare more-than-opinion.

Tom - I'm not so sure "Unions have just about vanished from the private sector because they are such a drag on productivity" ... so much as other Companies started to offer mo-better pay and benefits to discourage the formation of unions.

As one example, the pay scale offered by Toyota is highly competative for the locations where the plant is located - Toyota simply selected site locations better. They also treat employees fair, but most importantly - they build a product that more Americans desire. Having sales means money which makes many more things possible.

In the 90's, GM (and the industry in general) were building relative junk cars while Toyota and Honda were building a reputation. The Managers at GM - when they had the cash - were the ones who decided to simply signed easy to make deals with the Unions that rather than invest in better made cars .. The Managers at GM - the ones "who took the risk (typical BS) instead need to take a full half of the responsibility .. hold your breath for that.

JDR, I don't claim to be unbiased. My bias is obvious, and I make no apologies for it. I am hopping mad over what the liberal courts have done in my lifetime--particularly Roe v. Wade, in which the liberals achieved through perversion of the constitution what they would have never achieved in the state legislatures and in the congress.

I'm fine with being upset about "liberal" courts .. but to assert that the R's give the D's whatever they ask for and the D's deprive whatever R's ask for .. is just asinine.

... btw - if you want to discuss further - I'd like to know in what way the constitution was perverted in Roe v Wade.

I see it as one of those funny lines where "conservatives" want the g-men out of their lives - except on issues that are meaningful to them. Then "conservatives" want draconian g-men intervention.

Seems to me the true conservative approach would involve working with women to help them make better decisions (men too).