Even though it more or less is violating our word, we are going to revisit a subject. Sort of. You may recall that, a few weeks back, we raise the ire of residents of Grosse Pointe Woods and the Grosse Pointe Public Schools over the Schools of Choice question. There were some comments in response to that which we cannot get out of our minds; they demand a response. Not because of how exactly they relate to the issue at hand, but in how they can relate to almost all political questions. It provides, we believe, we hope, a teachable moment.
We will not name the authors of the comments, both out of courtesy and because it really doesn't matter who said them. The ideas hidden within the remarks are instructive enough themselves, as, again, they actually may be applied to many issues totally unrelated to the schools.
One person said: ...the taxpayers in the Grosse Pointe School District (which includes a portion of Harper Woods, as well as all 5 Grosse Pointe communities) have voted time and time again to pay additional taxes to fund our schools. All in all, the generous taxpayers in our district pay approximately $3,000.00 per student above and beyond what the State chips in. Said another: We also spend an additional $3,000 per student each year that comes directly from additional taxes homeowners here pay each year. We don't mind paying the extra taxes to fund our schools. Opined a third: the generosity of gp community members who passed local millages 25% of the district budget is from local funds.
Enough said; the point is pretty plain. It can be restated, essentially, with the old argument that certain areas willingly pay more in taxes for certain things.
But exactly how willingly? Surely none of the millage votes within the Grosse Pointes have been passed unanimously? What is really happening there, and what actually happens anywhere that any millages of any kind are being promoted, is that the majority of the voters who bothered to vote have decided to make everyone pay for what they want. There is, then, and without doubt, a significant number of taxpayers whose generosity is being forced by the hand government. Even local government.
We cannot emphasize enough the importance of phrases such as: We don't mind paying extra taxes for (insert own cause here). The plain fact is that that we is implied as all inclusive when anyone can see, with a moment's reflection, that it clearly isn't the case.
Except for the we who wanted the tax increase.
This is not to say that all millages are unworthy of support by a rational person. Indeed, the converse of what we say is also true: we cannot have a decent society run by the tyranny of the minority either. But merely because a majority, even a significant one, wants something, cannot mean that what they want is morally valid.
We believe it was Abraham Lincoln who said that all democracy ultimately means is that fifty percent of the people plus one can make everyone else do what they want. Regardless, it is a concept which needs to be much closer to the fronts of our minds.
Showing posts with label Grosse Pointe Woods City Council. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Grosse Pointe Woods City Council. Show all posts
Tuesday, September 13, 2011
Sunday, August 21, 2011
Grosse Pointe Schools One (Last?) TIme
We realize that we are running the risk of kicking the proverbial dead horse in returning to one subject for the third time in five days, but feel that we must just the same. As clarity can only help the understanding of a point, we sincerely hope to bring some clarity to the picture today.
Our original intention way back last Thursday, August 17th, was not to criticize or lambaste the citizens of Grosse Pointe Woods or those who live in the district of and participate in the Grosse Pointe Public Schools. That it came out that way is our fault; the headline was certainly inflammatory and we confess we meant it that way. We are trying to attract readers and sensationalism tends to accomplish that. It was a shoot from the lip headline, done in the heat of the moment, and we regret it. It was unfair to the people of the Grosse Pointes, and of Grosse Pointe Woods in particular. We hope that they will accept our sincere apology.
Who we were after last week were the people whom our favorite education writer, Dr. Richard Mitchell, called 'educationists'. Our favorite quote of his is that, in order to really educate yourself, you should: "Seek out the best, wondering minds, and go and sit with them. Remember while you do that, our children sit with facilitators." If with that you understand what he means, then you understand what is wrong with modern American education (generally).
Educationists are, if we understand Mitchell correctly, those who deal in propaganda rather than propagation. The difference is important. Another of our favorite writers, Mr. C. S. Lewis, explains that the difference is that propagation involves instilling within the next generation the understanding of and respect for the truths of the past, while propaganda is merely the conditioning of the pupil for he knows not what, for whatever purposes the propagandist deems important.
It has been our experience that public educators in general (yes, we know there are exceptions) are great propagandists. A great part of their propaganda lies in their supposed care for the pupil. They are for the children; education is all about the children; the children are the focus of education. It all sounds very good...until we come top realize that, again quite often but admittedly not entirely, that what they really want to do with the children they claim to love so much is not to teach them to think for themselves but to convince them to accept certain presuppositions about what society ought to be like, according to their agenda.
Consequently, when we read quotes about property values going down under Schools of Choice legislation we immediately thought of how the educationists always, always, claim to put the child first (for the purposes of what they consider good rather than for what is truly good for the child) and thought we had a chance to make a point about their hypocrisy. We made a hasty generalization in not knowing for sure whether the Grosse Pointe Schools were educators or educationists. Once again, we apologize and regret the presumption.
We still stand by our general thoughts about public education. We still prefer private to public education, in part so that parents can indeed see more directly what happens in the schools where their children are. But we do not want to besmirch anyone wrongly. We hope this explanation helps to clear the air.
Our original intention way back last Thursday, August 17th, was not to criticize or lambaste the citizens of Grosse Pointe Woods or those who live in the district of and participate in the Grosse Pointe Public Schools. That it came out that way is our fault; the headline was certainly inflammatory and we confess we meant it that way. We are trying to attract readers and sensationalism tends to accomplish that. It was a shoot from the lip headline, done in the heat of the moment, and we regret it. It was unfair to the people of the Grosse Pointes, and of Grosse Pointe Woods in particular. We hope that they will accept our sincere apology.
Who we were after last week were the people whom our favorite education writer, Dr. Richard Mitchell, called 'educationists'. Our favorite quote of his is that, in order to really educate yourself, you should: "Seek out the best, wondering minds, and go and sit with them. Remember while you do that, our children sit with facilitators." If with that you understand what he means, then you understand what is wrong with modern American education (generally).
Educationists are, if we understand Mitchell correctly, those who deal in propaganda rather than propagation. The difference is important. Another of our favorite writers, Mr. C. S. Lewis, explains that the difference is that propagation involves instilling within the next generation the understanding of and respect for the truths of the past, while propaganda is merely the conditioning of the pupil for he knows not what, for whatever purposes the propagandist deems important.
It has been our experience that public educators in general (yes, we know there are exceptions) are great propagandists. A great part of their propaganda lies in their supposed care for the pupil. They are for the children; education is all about the children; the children are the focus of education. It all sounds very good...until we come top realize that, again quite often but admittedly not entirely, that what they really want to do with the children they claim to love so much is not to teach them to think for themselves but to convince them to accept certain presuppositions about what society ought to be like, according to their agenda.
Consequently, when we read quotes about property values going down under Schools of Choice legislation we immediately thought of how the educationists always, always, claim to put the child first (for the purposes of what they consider good rather than for what is truly good for the child) and thought we had a chance to make a point about their hypocrisy. We made a hasty generalization in not knowing for sure whether the Grosse Pointe Schools were educators or educationists. Once again, we apologize and regret the presumption.
We still stand by our general thoughts about public education. We still prefer private to public education, in part so that parents can indeed see more directly what happens in the schools where their children are. But we do not want to besmirch anyone wrongly. We hope this explanation helps to clear the air.
Thursday, August 18, 2011
Grosse Pointe Woods Redux
Well, it certainly seems as though we found an audience. The people of Grosse Pointe Woods have spoken loudly in response to our missive of yesterday, and not without making some valid points. We will not be able to address them all, but we do thank those who took the time to pen them.
First off, we referred to a Grosse POinte Woods School District which does not exist. It was a silly mistake which should have been easily overcome, and we apologize for it. But the real issue here is that of local control. So in an attempt to cut to the quick, we'll address that item today.
There is no actual local control of the local schools. We gave up on that when we bought into the whole idea of 'free' public education. As every political unit in the state of Michigan is a subset of the state and therefore subject to it, so too are public schools subject to it. Lansing will have its hand in our public schools, as things are, and that's that. We can debate whether Michigan should do this or that, but we cannot act as thought the state can't, at the end of the day, do what it wants with our schools.
The only real way to effect almost complete local control of the schools (and we say almost because there is a legitimate state oversight function within education) would be to make schools private so far as we can. Education should be overwhelmingly private anyway seeing as education is primarily a parental responsibility, and only secondarily a concern of the broader society. Society has no more business being the primary educator of our children than it has in feeding, clothing, and housing them.
Consider this: if we were to propose that the general society were to present to the taxpaying public a plan to feed, clothe, and house our children; indeed, to, ahem, force upon them national health care, without consideration of parental rights and responsibilities, the plan would be derided as socialist. Yet for some reason we do not apply that point with regard to public education.
If you want to have real and direct control of your children's education, fellow citizens of Grosse Pointe Woods, then take it and send your kids to private schools. Anything short of that is simply divvying up money at the public trough alongside our liberal Democratic friends.
First off, we referred to a Grosse POinte Woods School District which does not exist. It was a silly mistake which should have been easily overcome, and we apologize for it. But the real issue here is that of local control. So in an attempt to cut to the quick, we'll address that item today.
There is no actual local control of the local schools. We gave up on that when we bought into the whole idea of 'free' public education. As every political unit in the state of Michigan is a subset of the state and therefore subject to it, so too are public schools subject to it. Lansing will have its hand in our public schools, as things are, and that's that. We can debate whether Michigan should do this or that, but we cannot act as thought the state can't, at the end of the day, do what it wants with our schools.
The only real way to effect almost complete local control of the schools (and we say almost because there is a legitimate state oversight function within education) would be to make schools private so far as we can. Education should be overwhelmingly private anyway seeing as education is primarily a parental responsibility, and only secondarily a concern of the broader society. Society has no more business being the primary educator of our children than it has in feeding, clothing, and housing them.
Consider this: if we were to propose that the general society were to present to the taxpaying public a plan to feed, clothe, and house our children; indeed, to, ahem, force upon them national health care, without consideration of parental rights and responsibilities, the plan would be derided as socialist. Yet for some reason we do not apply that point with regard to public education.
If you want to have real and direct control of your children's education, fellow citizens of Grosse Pointe Woods, then take it and send your kids to private schools. Anything short of that is simply divvying up money at the public trough alongside our liberal Democratic friends.
Wednesday, August 17, 2011
Grosse Pointe Woods puts Property Values over Education
The Grosse Pointe Woods City Council has voted to ask that local educational institutions be allowed to opt out of any Schools of Choice legislation which may be introduced into the Michigan Legislature this fall. The intent of such a law, while allowing that local schools take care to fill their seats with pupils from within their respective districts first, would be to make local schools with available space take students from other districts to fill them.
Grosse Pointe Woods doesn't like the idea, It would ruin property values and the quality of life in their community, asserts Mayor Robert Novitke. A group calling itself Michigan Communities for Local Control has been formed, to insist that local communities keep control of their schools local.
Well, the Grosse Pointe Woods Schools certainly seem to like taking state funds for their operating costs. In that light, it becomes fair to ask exactly how local their schools actually are. If you take money from Lansing, then you are in fact under Lansing's umbrella and are subject to Lansing's demands. It's as simple as that.
While we appreciate and support the concept of local control for a quite a few things, it strikes us as inconsistent (to say the least) to claim the right of local control when you take non-local cash. At the end of the day, if local control doesn't mean wholly local support, then your argument, quite frankly, is hollow. When Grosse Pointe Woods Schools begin to support themselves entirely, then Grosse Pointe Woods Schools can legitimately argue for local control. But so long as they take from the coffers of the taxpayers from a broader geographical area, they are subjecting themselves to the will of those persons. If those persons insist on schools of choice, then you gotta take the bitter with the sweet.
Or go your own way completely. As it is, Grosse Pointe Woods Schools and any and all districts who side with them are acting from selfishness rather than in the interests of educating all who are willing. If that strikes you as contrary to the purpose of education as espoused by all those who insist on free public schools, your are struck right and true. GPWS wants the cake. Yet they are unwilling to eat it. Their hypocrisy is glaring, and we do indeed learn a valuable lesson from that.
Grosse Pointe Woods doesn't like the idea, It would ruin property values and the quality of life in their community, asserts Mayor Robert Novitke. A group calling itself Michigan Communities for Local Control has been formed, to insist that local communities keep control of their schools local.
Well, the Grosse Pointe Woods Schools certainly seem to like taking state funds for their operating costs. In that light, it becomes fair to ask exactly how local their schools actually are. If you take money from Lansing, then you are in fact under Lansing's umbrella and are subject to Lansing's demands. It's as simple as that.
While we appreciate and support the concept of local control for a quite a few things, it strikes us as inconsistent (to say the least) to claim the right of local control when you take non-local cash. At the end of the day, if local control doesn't mean wholly local support, then your argument, quite frankly, is hollow. When Grosse Pointe Woods Schools begin to support themselves entirely, then Grosse Pointe Woods Schools can legitimately argue for local control. But so long as they take from the coffers of the taxpayers from a broader geographical area, they are subjecting themselves to the will of those persons. If those persons insist on schools of choice, then you gotta take the bitter with the sweet.
Or go your own way completely. As it is, Grosse Pointe Woods Schools and any and all districts who side with them are acting from selfishness rather than in the interests of educating all who are willing. If that strikes you as contrary to the purpose of education as espoused by all those who insist on free public schools, your are struck right and true. GPWS wants the cake. Yet they are unwilling to eat it. Their hypocrisy is glaring, and we do indeed learn a valuable lesson from that.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
Posts
