Idaho ranks #2, not #49!

Some big study ranked Idaho 49th of 50 in money spent per student in public education, for it's spending of $7000 per student. Utah ranked 50th. New York ranked No. 1, with the state spending a whopping $17,000 per student!

Most of Idaho's news media outlets are reporting this as an embarrassment for us, when in reality, shouldn't New York be embarrassed for wasting so much taxpayer dollars on it's failing education program? This is a case in which there is an inverse relationship between spending and results, but news reports fail to make note of it.

Honestly, I can't tell you how Idaho ranks compared to New York in actual results. But I know that I would rather send my kids to school here. There's a reason that thousands of parents are vying for limited spots in charter schools in New York, as depicted in "The Lottery." But for spending the 2nd lowest amount of my involuntary tax donation, I applaud my state!

And another idea...

about how to solve the education problem in America without demanding even more Federal (read: Taxpayer) dollars.

I read about the Cristo Rey Jesuit High School in the WSJ, but the article is locked for subscribers only, so I won't link it (I did link to the high school's web site).  

What it is, is a private school attended largely by students from low-income families who want out of the public school system. The way they pay for it is interesting. From what I understand, kids go to school four days a week, and then work a full day once a week, alternating with other students, so companies who buy into this program will get the equivalent of a full-time worker for the entire week. The school also receives money from donations from philanthropists. Remind you of anything...say, the PEF? It's not exactly the same, but it's a religious organization helping to provide a quality education for kids who contribute to their own education with the help of volunteers.

The Lottery

WSJ previews a documentary opening soon, "The Lottery".

Teacher Lore

One of my education classes at the College of Idaho included one in which we studied teacher lore. Studying teacher lore can be a valuable learning experience, even though it's not quantifiable and measurable--it doesn't have studies and statistics to prove whether or not it's true. Since studies and statistics can be altered and adjusted to fit the goals of those asking for the study, who can say what is true? I've posted arguments for and against charter schools and school choice. Here's an article that is entirely anecdotal, but convincing in its portrayal of charter vs. public schools.

My fun morning

I got an urgent phone call late last night--a ticket to see Sarah Palin had become available. With thoughts of the impossibility of finding a babysitter for an event less than 12 hours away, I almost dismissed the call. I can see Sarah any day on the news if I want to, right? But just in case...I sent an email to a friend who thinks she owes me babysitting (and she doesn't--she's way too nice about watching my kids), and to my utter surprise, she emailed me back, saying she was available!

So this morning, to my surprise, I found myself attending a Vaughn Ward rally, in which Palin was to be the guest speaker. (My husband likes Ward, I've been a supporter of his opponent, Raul Labrador, in case you're wondering.)

Here is a photo of the group I went with:

Dave and Tara Nielson, Suszette Rockwood, and Greg Ogden

Suszette and I have been Palin groupies since McCain picked her to be his VP. Suszette grew up in Wasilla, and has a particular affinity for Alaska and it's former Governor. Greg Ogden there on the right is the one that scored the tickets for us.


At first, this was as close a shot as I could get of Palin:


oops, that's Vaughn Ward! Just kidding--sadly for Ward, I think people were there to see SP more so than support his candidacy. He seems like a good guy, though.

OK, here's Sarah:


But after the rally--look at how much closer I was able to get!


The person holding the other camera you can see in this picture is Suszette, who, with my help (I have to steal credit wherever I can), was able to talk to Sarah, get an autograph, a hug, AND a photo with Sarah! You'll have to hear her side of the story--it's so fun! (She actually asked Todd Palin to take the photo before the security guard grabbed the camera and took it for her!) I knew that other people were there who wanted to see Sarah as much as I did, so I got out of the way after I took some close up photos. But before I left, I wanted to tell Sarah and Todd how grateful I am that they put up with so much garbage to do what they do. I barely squeaked out "Thank you!" before I turned to go, and I doubt they even heard. But my girl Suszette got to hang with her "Sista from Wasilla" so it was a good day!

Taxpayer dollars vs. Federal dollars

When will people realize that there is no difference between "Federal dollars" and "Taxpayer dollars?"

Just saw a quiz asking who will pay for the BP Oil disaster, and the choices were
A. BP
B. Federal Government
C. Taxpayer dollars

I think it's because people think of federal money as something different than taxpayer dollars that Greece is in the mess that it's in, and why the U.S. is headed down the same path.

Happy Guilt Day

A good friend asked why so many Christians were opposed to "Earth Day," when we have been taught to love and take care of God's creations. Good question.

Maybe it's because Earth Day is promoted by people who believe in population control as one of the ways of taking care of the Earth. This is a conflict for those who believe in God's commandment to "multiply and replenish the Earth."

God made the Earth for Mankind. While He commanded us to take care of it, there are some things over which we have no control. Earth's temperatures have been changing since the beginning of it's creation--whether or not it was created in 6 days or through the process of evolution, it's no matter--man's presence on the Earth has had little to no impact on its temperature. Thanks due to "Climate-gate," more people are starting to hear evidence that supports this, and not one-sided, politically-motivated fabricated numbers pointing the finger at us evil humans.

Another reason I oppose Earth Day is that I don't like being told what to do by celebrities who have a "Do what I say, not what I do" mentality. Sure, it's fine for them to own mansions and estates, and travel around the world (in planes that use fuel), they've earned that right, who am I to criticize that. But for them to turn around and criticize ME for not using a mercury-filled fluorescent light bulb, or for using toilet-paper and flushing each and every time I use the toilet (tmi!!!) is utterly ridiculous.

more campaigns to watch

Oklahoma Governor Race: Randy Brogdon

He says, "Education is the responsibility of the parents." He is also in favor of protecting the 2nd and 10th amendments.


California Congressional race: Star Parker

She says, "We have a Peter versus Paul dilemma: we have too many Peters willing to rob from Paul. In order for our country to survive, the Peters must get a message about freedom and want to be free."

California Senate Race (against Barbara Boxer): Tom Campbell

A google search reveals that not all conservatives are fully on board. That said, I think he is the best option to beat Barbara Boxer, and to his credit, his previous voting record shows that he is fiscally responsible. According to the Fox news article: "Campbell was rated #1 by the National Taxpayers Union Foundation for frugality with federal dollars."

Someone to watch

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052702303348504575184120546772244.html

Governor Chris Christie of New Jersey is shaking things up! This should be good. Very good.

Two articles on Education Standards

http://biggovernment.com/tmoore/2010/04/04/dressing-up-standards-dumbing-down-schools/#more-91250

http://bigjournalism.com/cderussy/2010/04/04/race-to-the-top-is-great-unless-youre-a-charter-school/#more-43382

Regarding the first article--very interesting. I had not considered the issue of how to teach reading or literature any differently than how I had been taught. But now that I think about it, I can relate exactly to what the author is talking about. Growing up, I loved reading. I wanted to be an author some day. I dutifully filled out my graphs and sentence structure charts, and got good grades, and was led to believe I was on my way to achieving the goal--though it's funny that the disconnect between enjoying reading and the busywork of making charts, which I didn't like, wasn't apparent to me at the time.

When I was accepted into AP English, I struggled a lot. I was not prepared to analyze literature in a meaningful way. I found all of those little connections structurally speaking, and understood grammar and punctuation, but my teacher wanted to hear my voice, for me to have an opinion and to be able to back it up.

Having been a part of a few book clubs since then, I think that those discussions are more valuable than any I had in school. I wonder if a book club format is in actuality the best way to "teach" literature. We pick books we are interested in reading, and then we get together, and freely agree to disagree on the merits of that particular book. I've gained a lot of insights that way, and I've become a lot more vocal in expressing and defending my opinions.

The second article is more about charter schools, and how so many people are blind to the destructive Unions which stifle competition and refuse to think outside the box in order to find solutions to our failing public education system.

Demonizing the "rich"

I heard that Al Sharpton recently used the "S" word referring to President Obama, saying that Americans voted for socialism when they voted for Obama. (While I'm sure that many did, I also think the media did an outstanding job of covering for Obama, and he did a pretty good job of convincing everyone he was "moderate" as well.)

And Max Baucus just came out and said that ObamaCare was about more fixing the "mal-distribution of income" than fixing health care.

This, and imposing limits on bonuses, the progressive tax hikes, the rhetoric about "spreading the wealth," and complaining about people who earn too much money sounds so nice and good, so kind. But let me ask, when did it become right to confiscate something that someone has earned. Think of the definition of "earn." When someone earns something, it means that they've worked for it, they've earned it, they deserve it. Do we really want to say that someone shouldn't keep what they earn? In our new great society, who will want to put in the effort to gain an education, to work hard, if they will be forced to pay for inefficient Government entitlements?

A friend of mine recently lamented that she wished that she had more money, so that she could do more good with it. I wanted to say, "You can still do good without it," which is true. But it is also true that you can do more good if you have more to give. And when you do give, wouldn't you like to know that the money is being spent wisely? That the money is actually going to those in need, and not in the pockets of union leaders, corrupt bureaucrats, that it isn't going to pay for abortions, or Viagra for sexual offenders?

While yes, some are greedy, I believe that people generally are good, even the wealthy ones. Those "evil" rich people are the ones who give employment, who donate thousands upon thousands to humanitarian aid, who create educational foundations and give scholarship money to deserving kids who have earned it.

I actually heard Eleanor Clift say that ObamaCare was a reversal of Reagan era policies. She said that Reagan redistributed the wealth from the bottom up--that he served the evil rich people. First of all, that isn't true, he simply eased the burden of the wealthy to pay taxes for everyone else. And even if it is true, it obviously worked because the 80's were a prosperous time for America! Our current recession is largely due to acts by Congress to give handouts to those who haven't earned anything.

More for my collection on Education

Two articles recently appeared in the Wall Street Journal. One that argued against school choice and charter schools, and one that refutes the first article. Which one is more convincing to you?

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052748704869304575109443305343962.html?KEYWORDS=Diane+Ravitch

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052748703909804575123470465841424.html

Hillsdale college

I've never heard of it before, but this piece in Big Hollywood gives a very nice description.

I don't care so much about its theater arts department (I'm a little irritated by the entire theatrical community at the moment), though it sounds like a place that you could maybe go as a theater major and not have to strip or smoke on stage. What is more interesting to me is the fact that the school does not accept federal or state taxpayer money. I wonder how much tuition is?

Meanwhile, students attending public-run universities are seeing their tuition go up significantly, and their protests have gotten some news coverage lately.