Friday, March 16, 2007

Pro-Choice Doesn’t Extend to Education

In his State of the State speech, Ted Strickland announced his intention to eliminate private school vouchers for students in failing schools. In the very same speech, Comrade Ted proposed an increase in state-sponsored health-care for all children. Said state-sponsored health care includes, presumably, abortions. So, in Ted’s world, a prospective parent should have the choice – regardless of economic circumstances – of aborting their child but not the choice – regardless of economic circumstances – of how and where any child they so graciously allow to live should be educated.

The inconvenient facts about Ted’s position on abortion are all too clear. While serving in Congress, the governor voted several times in favor of governmental funding of abortions, and even federal funding of research into the “abortion pill.” He has received unquestioning support from NARAL, and he has promised to veto any pro-life legislation that comes from our state representatives.

In addition, Comrade Ted received a 100% rating from the NEA, and was heartily endorsed by the teachers’ unions. Those unions have a long-standing opposition to private and religious schools, or any competition to a state-sponsored monopoly on education – a monopoly that would insure their jobs regardless of ability. So, political payback required the governor to being quickly to remove the biggest sources of competition to our failing school system – private and religious schools.

I find it interesting that the governor heartily endorses using my taxpayer dollars to fund something I’m against – abortion, but wishes to deny it for something to which liberals object. And before quoting the First Amendment at me, I heartily suggest everyone re-read that one – there is no “wall of separation”, excepting that the government shall mandate no religion on the people. (In fact, this phrase derives from a letter from Jefferson to Danbury, Connecticut, Baptists.) Red Ted also plans on eliminating the ability of for-profit companies to run charter schools. Because we all know that for-profit companies will compete to gain more students (hence profits), and in order to compete they might well provide a superior education at a lower price than their public school counterparts.

My recommendation to our Komissar? Let citizens carry their own tax dollars to the school of their choice. If parents want to take their children to private school, why should they continue to pay double? Introduce more competition to the schools, not less – competition drives excellence, no matter what the self-styled experts at the American Psychological Association (the same folks who published an article claiming adult-child sex isn’t harmful) say. After all, isn’t this all about the children? How can we, in good conscience, deny them the education they deserve – instead of the one that the government has been giving them?

Margaritas ante Porcos,
Right Wing Toledo

8 comments:

Barb said...

Sorry --my comment on this got onto the wrong thread!

Right Wing Toledo said...

Barb's post below:
---------------------------

ditto on your blog post--about Strickland on ed. and abortion. And to think, he went to Asbury Seminary --an evangelical school.

There really is something unAmerican about making us pay top dollar for private (usually parochial) schools PLUS funding the often less functional public system. We did go the public school route with OUR kids because our suburban/rural district was good academically.

Educators believe money is the key ingredient to better public schools when the good private schools do well on less money per capita. So expensive schools are not the key. According to Japanese schools, small classrooms aren't even the key.

Parents, student motivation, discipline and values make parochial schools good --and the ability to kick people out for goofing off and being truant. That's why vouchers are the most American solution to educational choice--so all wanna-be good students can escape disruptive and truant peers, coming and going and never learning, who prevent good teaching.

We want a public system (we have to have one for those who would refuse to attend daily and behave in the private systems) --but every kid should have a chance to escape a bad school. That was the hope behind the charter schools and the vouchers.

March 17, 2007 12:04 PM

-Sepp said...

Barb, I can agree with about 99% of that.
I beginning to think that it's not the schools that are bad and, it's not so simple as "bad" teachers. It's rotten kids!
Kids aren't being taught any forms of respect or, self discipline at home anymore by their parents and show up at school acting like animals. The teacher's hands are tied and, the paddle is a faded memory. I can't blame some teachers who actually go into the profession with good intentions and end up throwing their hands in the air and saying "screw it". They get zero support from lazy-assed parents and get constantly bombarded with union rhetoric that tells them 45 grand for a 8-4 job with 4 weeks vacation for holidays, every weekend and the entire summer off is a lousy deal.

IMHO, vouchers should be made available for kids who wish to escape all that and get educated.

Hooda Thunkit said...

IMO, every child's parents should be able to apply their child's tuition credit towards any school that they (the parents)choose, ANY school and EVERY child.

That's REAL educational reform...

The state should equally subsidize every child, not just those in public education. After all, we all pay taxes, now don't we?

-Sepp said...

Indeed Hooda. Should I send my kids to OLPH, I should be exempt from paying taxes to TPS. I find it strange that with record numbers of people fleeing the city...along with their kids...TPS wants more money for seemingly less return.

SensorG said...

It's not like if suddenly everyone got to go to what ever school they wanted it would just happen. Private schools get to pick and choose who they let in. If not I'd say starting next year we close Nathan Hale and send them to St. Joan of Arcs. We can close Scott H.S. and send the kids to St. Johns and Notre Dame.

Oh yea... except that those private schools are near capacity and wouldn't let 95% of the students in.

Right Wing Toledo said...

Sensorg,

I don't know who you're talking to about the private schools, the Catholic ones in particular. However, I can tell you with certainity that enrollment is down on these schools (particularly the ones in Toledo proper) across the board. In fact, the Diocese is considering consolidating and closing some of the schools in question - and some have closed due to lack of enrollment already.

As far as picking and choosing who goes, I'm not aware of any primary school rejecting students - but removing those who cannot behave is always a possibility. No one is saying close down schools (although Toledo's declining population should require fewer schools), but why should parents have to pay twice for their child's education?

Barb said...

Sensorg --it's ok if 95% of the public students can't get into an elite school --there would be other choices --good ones --and more would develop if parents had the money from the gov't to support them instead of the dysfunctional public system.

The GI bill can be used by our veterans at ANY COLLEGE THEY CAN GET INTO! ---not any school they want. Harvard just doesn't take everybody. nOR WOULD sT. jOHN'S --BUT IF PARENTS WEREN'T PAYING FOR 2 school systems, the elite schools could expand --all the private schools could and would probably be glad to --and because attending all these private schools was a privilege, the kids would have to behave and study --or go elsewhere.