Are we really supposed to feel sorry for New Jersey teachers?

In a contentious exchange with Gov. Chris Christie, NJ teacher Rita Wilson whined about the governor’s proposed cuts in teacher benefits.  In a word… “Waa.”

by Michael Naragon

After seeing this video, many people are coming out against the statements by Ms. Wilson and, as a corollary, teachers in general.  Teachers are already overpaid, they say.  Teachers only work nine months out of the year, they say.  Teaching isn’t all that tough, they say.  Teachers are controlled by the unions, they say.  Ms. Wilson herself used the ages-old teacher line, “We do it because we love it,” as she complained about her “low” compensation of $86,000 plus benefits.  I’ve perused the blogs and message boards today, and, as the criticisms of Ms. Wilson have been made, invariably someone responds with something poignant like, “Well, you’re not a teacher, so you can’t possibly know what you’re talking about.”  This is where I come in.

I am a teacher.  In my teaching career, which has now spanned eight years, I have taught primarily middle and high school students.  I did teach third grade for two days as an audition for my first position at a charter school in Aurora, CO, and I developed a healthy respect for the patience and skill of elementary teachers.  I felt like Arnold Schwarzenegger in Kindergarten Cop, reading books about bears that go shopping.  But most of my experience has been with older children.

In my teaching career, I’ve never been paid more than $32,000.  This is partly because I’ve only taught for a few years, and partly because I’ve changed schools a couple of times.  I teach in a private school in the metro Atlanta area.  I coach basketball.  I love every… well, almost every minute of it.  Being a Christian, it’s what I felt I was called to do by God, so I try to teach to the best of my ability.  And I have never once complained about my salary.  Ever.  If you’re really doing what you love, and you’re making enough to survive to boot, from where do the complaints come?

Ms. Wilson said she wasn’t being compensated for her education and her time served.  I’ve worked through two graduate programs, one in American history at Clemson University and one in journalism at Indiana University-Bloomington.  This education has helped prepare me for what I do today–which, incidentally, is teach U.S. history, world history, AP World History, and AP Government and Politics (U.S.)–and yet I get no extra compensation for it.  Again, I make no complaint.

Teachers, as some have intimated, really work twelve months out of the school year.  I agree with this to a point.  I work during my breaks, including the summer, to prepare for the coming school year.  I take my basketball team to camp in June.  I have taught summer school in the past.  I do work every month of the year, including nights and weekends during the school year.  But I’m also paid year-round, so it seems fair.

To those who say teaching isn’t tough, I won’t disagree.  There are some teachers who do practically nothing, and test scores are evidence of this.  My wife’s personal experience in one of the government schools in our area was that many of the teachers sat behind their desks and worked on their next advanced degree (and, therefore, their next jump up the pay scale) during the school day while their students sat and performed busy work.  It is very possible for the unskilled to become teachers.  I received my teaching degree alongside some who entered education simply because they saw it as an easy job with great benefits.  I’ve seen my share of teachers who do nothing but pick up their paycheck.  I have, however, seen many that work incredibly hard to give their students what they need.  I leave my house at 5:30 in the morning and return at 5:30 in the evening.  During basketball season, my return time can be past midnight on some nights.  My wife once started to work out my hourly wage and gave up when she realized it would be pennies.  Not to overstate the point, but we have never complained.

Teaching can be a tough job if done right.  It can be tough physically, at times.  It’s almost always a mental challenge, especially when you’re teaching on a particular subject and a student asks a relevant, but unforeseen, question.  In a way, it’s like doing a talk show like Rush, Beck, or Hannity, except that it lasts for eight hours, has no commercial breaks, and, if your audience doesn’t remember the things you told them, you get nasty calls from their parents.  A great deal of paperwork is involved as well, but no more than, say, that tackled by a secretary or an office manager.  It can be an emotional challenge, as well, if you are willing to become someone that the kids actually talk to, bringing you their struggles and their successes.

I’m not trying to make myself out to be special or worthy of some sort of strange sympathy.  There are many, many teachers who do things right and, more importantly, do it for the right reasons.  However, it does seem to me that for every teacher who does things the right way, there are many others who are beholden to the unions and have lost sight of the true reason for the profession in which they engage.  These malcontents, like Ms. Wilson, cry about paying 1.5%–1.5%!–of their health insurance premium while still claiming that they teach because they love it.  My advice, therefore, to Ms. Wilson and all those of her ilk is very similar to the plea I made to Mexico’s president Calderon earlier this week: “Do your job and keep your mouth shut.  You’re making us legitimate teachers look bad.”

Unreal: California school board calls the words of the Declaration “offensive”

How much more fruity and nutty can the Left Coast get?

by Michael Naragon

As a social studies teacher, this one strikes close to home.  On my classroom walls, I have several quotes from figures we study in my various classes.  Among these are phrases attributed to Sun Tzu, Alexander the Great, and, of course, many icons of American history.  Two of my favorites come from Thomas Jefferson and Abraham Lincoln:

God who gave us life gave us liberty. Can the liberties of a nation be secure when we have removed a conviction that these liberties are the gift of God? Indeed I tremble for my country when I reflect that God is just, that his justice cannot sleep forever.  — Thomas Jefferson

Sir, my concern is not whether God is on our side; my greatest concern is to be on God’s side, for God is always right.  — Abraham Lincoln

I consider myself very fortunate to be teaching in a relatively conservative private school that allows me to determine what I will display in my classroom, within reason.  The mindset that apparently permeates the school board in question is the same mindset that infects our nation’s Capitol, that expresses more concern for partisan politics than the Constitution that guarantees our freedom, that sees more danger in the words of our Founding Documents than the destructive results of a society that has forsaken, by federal decree, its moral compass.

A Response to the G.O.P.: Get Back to the Basics Or Get Out

The Republican Party, in an attempt to appear concerned with the opinions of their base, sent out a questionnaire about the Obama agenda.  I would like to offer up my annotated responses.

by Michael Naragon

The G.O.P. has taken a lot of criticism from conservatives over the past several years, first for their mismanagement and overspending as the majority party in Washington, and now for their ineptitude or reluctance to boldly fight the liberal-fascist-socialist takeover of the nation in their role as the voice of opposition.  The frustration with the Republican establishment has been augmented by poor choices of candidates on the local and national levels, with the push for John McCain and the unabashed backing of Dede Scozzafava in New York’s 23rd District.

The climate in the country is beginning to change, however, and it has nothing to do with the myth of man-made global warming.  The citizenry is beginning to demand more from its candidates, and more conservative voters are beginning to take a serious look at third parties for men and women who will truly represent their constituencies.

In light of this, I received a questionnaire from the Republican Party this week.  It was, of course, a fund raising letter disguised as real concern for what I think of the Obama agenda, not surprising considering that it’s been quite some time since the G.O.P. had any interest in the feelings of its conservative base or the Constitution.  However, to humor Mr. Steele–or, failing that, the mailroom clerk who removes the checks and throws out the questionnaire responses–here are my answers.  I decided not to go with the choices of Yes, No, or No Opinion that the G.O.P. provided.

QUESTION 1: Do you agree with Barack Obama’s budget plan that will lead to a $23.1 trillion national debt over the next ten years. A: Obviously not.  Nor did I approve of George Bush’s rampant spending, the bailouts he approved, or the glut of pork barrel spending by Republicans in the years before the Messiah.

QUESTION 2: Do you believe the federal government has gone too far in bailing out failing banks, insurance companies and the auto industry? A: See my response to Question 1.  Remember, this practice of emergency federal bailouts for companies “too big to fail” was begun under Bush, not Obama.

QUESTION 3: Do you support amnesty for illegal immigrants? A: Again… duh.  I believe that an amnesty law would be one of the last dominoes to fall before the country experiences a real revolution.  But why are you asking me this when many in your own party support an amnesty law, and George Bush was nearly given the opportunity to sign one into law.  The secretive attempt was averted only by the quick and passionate response of talk radio and conservatives across the country.  So maybe I’m not the one you should be asking this question.  Or did John McCain also get this questionnaire?

QUESTION 4: Should English be the official language of the United States? A: Yes, but I’m not sure how making this official would change much.  Businesses have apparently committed to becoming bilingual.

QUESTION 5: Are you in favor of granting retroactive Social Security eligibility to illegal immigrants who gain U.S. citizenship through an amnesty program? A: Wait, does this mean you’re willing to capitulate to those who want to shove through amnesty?  If we oppose amnesty, wouldn’t that by definition imply that I’m against this?  Or are you setting us up for the fact that you’ll accept amnesty, but, by crikey, you won’t allow those newly legalized aliens to receive retroactive Social Security benefits?  Get a spine and demand that the law of the land be followed and illegals be removed from the country.  Period.

QUESTION 6: Are you in favor of the expanded welfare benefits and unlimited eligibility (no time, education, or work requirements) that Democrats in Congress are pushing to pass? A: Who would be in favor of this besides those who look to benefit from it?  Why aren’t you asking me if I’m in favor of abolishing welfare programs in their entirety?  Are we accepting the premise that welfare is here to stay?  What does this say about the chances of repealing health care in the future?

QUESTION 7: Do you believe that Barack Obama’s nominees for federal courts should be immediately and unquestionably approved for their lifetime appointments by the U.S. Senate? A: Constitutionally, the Senate is only to advise the President on his appointees, not nitpick over every belief and decision.  However, since the Democrats have politicized the debate, then I believe the Republicans should do likewise.  Unfortunately, if Sonia Sotomayor’s confirmation hearings are any indication, then all Obama will need to do in the future is pick a potential justice from some sort of minority group.  Republicans, possessing as much backbone as a chocolate eclair, will refuse to offend, and the candidate will pass easily.

QUESTION 8: Do you believe that the best way to increase the quality and effectiveness of public education in the U.S. is to rapidly expand federal funding while eliminating performance standards and accountability? A:  The Department of Education should be abolished.  State and local governments should be encouraged to adopt voucher programs that promote school choice.  Students should be allowed to fail or misbehave their way out of school.  Government schools should produce or close.  Oh wait, you were asking if the current system should be expanded.  In that case, no.

QUESTION 9: Do you support the creation of a national health insurance plan that would be administered by bureaucrats in Washington, D.C.? A: No.  Nor do I support any sort of government involvement in the health care industry, short of reducing regulations and encouraging state and local governments to place limits on the fees of trial lawyers in medical malpractice suits.

QUESTION 10: Do you believe that the quality and availability of health care will increase if the federal government dictates pricing to doctors and hospitals? A: Again, government should stay out.  Period.  Do I need to say it in Spanish?!

QUESTION 11: Are you confident that new medicines and medical treatments will continue to be developed if the federal government controls prescription drug prices and sets profit margins for research and pharmaceutical companies? A: Obviously not.  Did you ask this of George Bush when he expanded prescription drug coverage under Medicare, further expanding the role of government health care and helping to lead us to the day when the Congress of the United States would simply take over the whole industry?

QUESTION 12: Are you in favor of creating a government-funded “Citizen Volunteer Corps” that would pay young people to do work done by churches and charities, earning Corps members the same pay and benefits given to military veterans? A: Again, the answer is no, but what have the Republicans done in the recent past to limit the reach of government entitlement programs of any sort?  The federal government already does many of the jobs that used to be performed much more efficiently by charities and churches.  Before we begin to worry about the Obama Youth (or, in German, the Obamajugend), let’s worry about the ideology behind such a program and cut it from the federal government like the malignant tumor that it has become.

QUESTION 13: Are you in favor of reinstituting the military draft, as Democrats in Congress have proposed? A: Why would we need a draft?  Has not our Fuhrer promised that we would be out of Iraq and Afghanistan within 18 months?

QUESTION 14: Do you believe that the federal government should allow the unionization of Department of Homeland Security employees who serve in positions critical to the safety and security of our nation? A: Rather than focus on this particular issue, can we expand this discussion to discuss why any government employees are unionized?  Were they working with unsafe machinery?  Were children being forced to labor for the government?  Were they, like Congress, being forced to work more than two or three hours in a single day?  What exactly are the unions protecting, other than the right to make more money and log more vacation time at the expense of the American taxpayer?

QUESTION 15: Do you support Democrats’ drive to eliminate workers’ right to a private ballot when considering unionization of their place of employment? A: No.  In fact, the right of workers to unionize should be left up to the states.  States that like the high wages and high prices that unions provide could be workers’ havens, while the states that want their economies to thrive could allow the individual businesses to decide for themselves.  Again, let’s get back to the ideology.  Republicans purport themselves to be the party of individual rights.  If that’s so, why would you even have to ask a question like this?

Mr. Steele, I await your response.  I have the feeling that I may be waiting a long time…

Government educated and clueless… is that a redundancy in 2009?

As yet another exhibit in the ongoing argument against government education, I offer this video which was sent to me by one of my students.

by Michael Naragon

Two points.  First, this partially explains why California is bankrupt.  Second, you want to turn over your healthcare to the government that produced this girl’s worldview?  It’s no wonder Obama won…

“Nationalized Education”: The Next Battlefield?

If the government’s push to nationalize health care is successful, Congress and the administration will soon turn to one of their other stated priorities: education.

by Michael Naragon

Although–or, perhaps, because–liberalism has dominated public education since the 1960s, test results and competency in general continue to decline, much to the stated chagrin of officials in the school system and local, state, and federal governments.  Barack Obama has made reforming the education system in America one of his highest priorities.

“[Education reform] will require a willingness to break free from the same debates that Washington has been engaged in for decades – Democrat versus Republican; vouchers versus the status quo; more money versus more accountability,” Obama has said.  “And most of all, it will take a president who is honest about the challenges we face – who doesn’t just tell everyone what they want to hear, but what they need to hear.”

For sake of argument, what if the administration approached education in the same way they have approached health care?

The president has used very dire rhetoric in describing the health care “crisis,” even going so far as to claim that health care expenses are the primary cause of the current economic catastrophe/recession/depression/slowdown.  To solve this problem, the government would, if the bill is passed, introduce “competition” to the marketplace.  Private health insurance companies would have much stricter regulation, and any private insurance benefits given by employers would be eligible to be taxed as income.  The government’s plan, therefore, would become increasingly attractive.

It is easy to picture the president making the same arguments about education.  Indeed, on the president’s web site, he has already made similar statements.

“At this defining moment in our history, preparing our children to compete in the global economy is one of the most urgent challenges we face,” reads Obama’s statement on education.  “We need to stop paying lip service to public education, and start holding communities, administrators, teachers, parents and students accountable. We will prepare the next generation for success in college and the workforce, ensuring that American children lead the world once again in creativity and achievement.”  Throw in the word “crisis” or “catastrophe” somewhere, and it begins to sound very much like the stimulus, cap-and-trade, and health care debates.

How might the administration go about meeting such challenges?  By “telling [Americans] what they need to hear,” Obama could propose a federal takeover of state school systems.  Many states, like California, are already running far into the red, and education costs more than nearly every other social program provided by the state.  In some Southern states, the cost of busing alone makes up more than half of all educational expense.  A federal offer to take up such expense, or to more completely assist with such expense, would be attractive to many of the states.  States that refused to comply could be threatened with sanctions or withholding of other federal benefits.

Such action would then put the nation’s public school systems more completely under federal control.  The government’s focus would then be to eliminate the competition.  Homeschooling would be effectively curtailed by requiring homeschooling parents to possess a teaching license, master’s degree in education, or both.  A few families would commit to jumping through the hoops, but, as any educator knows, state certification boards can be very friendly or very obstructive places.  Homeschooling parents would undoubtedly encounter the latter.

Private schools would then be the target.  The government could attack them in the same way they will attack private insurance: by forcing them to provide all services provided by public schools, and to do so without raising tuition to compensate.  Private schools could be forced to take in any student, regardless of behavioral background, ability, transcript, learning disability, or physical challenge.  Washington would not be so crass as to issue an edict closing the doors of every private school (except, of course, for the ones attended by children of government officials).  They would, in the name of “competition,” ensure that most private schools could not compete.

Government schools, with their taxpayer-supplied budgets, purchase new textbooks every year, in most cases.  Private schools, particularly religious-based schools, rarely do this in order to save money, opting instead to purchase new books every few years.  Those schools could now be forced to purchase new books at the same frequency as the public schools without raising tuition.

Many employees of private schools work there in order to obtain a discount for their children to attend that school.  The Internal Revenue Service could easily begin to look at the tuition discount as taxable income, in much the same way that insurance benefits will be counted as taxable income to help pay for the president’s health care plan.  The difference in taxable income would be enough to force many employees–and their students–from the private schools and into the government network, thereby strengthening the budgets of the public schools.

Obama’s commitment has been squarely behind the public schools and the teachers’ unions that populate them.  “We need to invest in our public schools and strengthen them, not drain their fiscal support,” he has said. “In the end, vouchers would reduce the options available to children in need. I fear these children would truly be left behind in a private market system.”  He has failed to explain what was served by his comrades in Congress allowing the voucher system in the District of Columbia to expire, effectively removing low-income students from the private school attended by the Obama children, even though the low-income students had the ability and desire–but not the income–to attend that school.

In the end, this is, of course, an exercise in speculation, but the parallels exist.  One of the greatest battlefields for the hearts and minds of America has taken place in the schools, and it has been overwhelmingly won by the liberal establishment thus far.  By nationalizing education and removing the last bastions of free thought and achievement from the system, the battle will have been effectively ended.

Study: Students aren’t being taught civics. Surprised?

The Goldwater Institute hired an independent firm to conduct a survey among Arizona eighth graders.  The results are sad, but expected.  The next wave of liberal voters is on the way.

by Michael Naragon

Among the questions asked by the Goldwater survey were such puzzlers as “What are the two parts of the U.S. Congress?” and “Who was the first president of the United States?”

The full report will be released shortly, but here are ten of the questions asked, along with the percentage of students who answered them correctly.  To pass, the students had only to correctly answer six of the ten questions, pulled at random from a pool of questions from the U.S. citizenship exam.  Only 3.5% of the students, all from government schools, passed the test.  That’s about 40 out of a total of 1,134.  Please save your disgust until you read all ten.

1. What is the supreme law of the land?  Answer: The Constitution (29.5% answered correctly)
2. What do we call the first 10 amendments to the Constitution?  Answer: The Bill of Rights (25%)
3. What are the two parts of the U.S. Congress?  Answer: Senate and House (23%)
4. How many Justices are on the Supreme Court?  Answer: Nine (9.4%)
5. Who wrote the Declaration of Independence?  Answer: Jefferson (25.3%)
6. What ocean is on the East Coast of the United States?  Answer: Atlantic (58.8%)
7. What are the two major political parties in the United States?  Answer: Democrat and Republican (49.6%)
8. We elect a U.S. Senator for how many years?  Answer: Six (14.5%)
9. Who was the first President of the United States?  Answer: Washington (26.5%)
10. Who is in charge of the Executive Branch?  Answer: The President (26%)

These findings are not surprising to anyone who has seen the yearly results from the Intercollegiate Studies Institute’s civics survey, given to seniors at the nation’s most prestigious universities.  The average score on this year’s ISI exam among all Americans?  49%.  Among college educators?  55%!  The questions asked?  “What are the three branches of government?”  “What is one freedom guaranteed by the First Amendment?”

You can take the quiz yourself here.  And when you pass the exam and scoff at those who did not, just remember… they are likely to be registered voters or ACORN activists.  Their pitifully ignorant brains will stand in the same voting booth as you and pull the lever for the ones they’ve been told to support (i.e., Democrats).  Education is the most important battlefield in the war for American Constitutionalism, and we must commit ourselves to the fight, lest we be washed away in a tidal wave of idiocy.

You can also take the 2007-2008 quiz (average score among college seniors: 53.2%).

The Five Greatest Americans? You might be surprised…

In 2008, two thousand high school students across the country were asked to name the greatest Americans, excluding presidents and presidents’ wives.  Their selections reflect our educational system’s priority on minority and women’s studies.

by Michael Naragon

While sitting in the Advanced Placement institute a week ago, the instructor posed a question to the history educators in the room.

“Not counting presidents or their wives,” he began, “who would you consider the five greatest, most influential Americans in history?”  My mind began to cycle through the most important figures to grace the stage.

My first choice was John Marshall.  As the first significant Chief Justice of the Supreme Court, he established the principle of judicial review, greatly expanding the power of the Court and making the Constitution, according to Jefferson, “a mere thing of wax in the hands of the judiciary, which they may twist and shape into any form they please.”

Next, I chose Benjamin Franklin.  The exclusion of presidents ruled out many of the Founding Fathers I would have chosen, but Franklin fit the bill.  Many historians credit Franklin as the architect of the American ideal–a merge of the Puritan work ethic and moral compass with the tolerance and reason of Enlightenment philosophy.  He served as ambassador to France, securing French support for the Revolution effort, and Postmaster General.  Not to mention, he was an accomplished inventor, and many of his creations are still used today in one form or another.

Another name I could not leave off the list was Thomas Edison.  Of all the great inventors in American history, no one individual had the impact of Edison.  Among his inventions were the light bulb, motion picture camera, phonograph, and the alkaline storage battery, among hundreds of others.  He also participated in many projects for the government, including the detection of submarines and the use of sound to determine the range of enemy guns.

I also included Martin Luther King, Jr. in my top five.  King was instrumental in the civil rights movement of the 1960s, bringing attention and voice to the segregation present in many parts of the country.  His “Letter from a Birmingham Jail” in 1963 cemented his fame.  His “I Have A Dream” speech in Washington in August of that same year created his legend.

I was torn with my last choice, so I made none.  Leaving out the presidents made it difficult to decide on a fifth person.

I was pleased to hear that my choices were in line with those made by historians across the country.  On the historians’ list, in sequential order:

1. Alexander Hamilton – I felt silly that I hadn’t come up with Hamilton.

2. Benjamin Franklin

3. John Marshall

4. Martin Luther King, Jr.

5. Thomas Edison

As you may have guessed, the list provided by the 2,000 high school students did not match mine.  Here is the students’ list, in order:

1. Martin Luther King, Jr.

2. Rosa Parks

3. Harriet Tubman

4. Susan B. Anthony

5. Benjamin Franklin

6. Amelia Earhart

7. Oprah Winfrey

8. Marilyn Monroe

9. Thomas Edison

10. Albert Einstein

I’m not going to write that Harriet Tubman was not a great American, or that Rosa Parks wasn’t courageous.  You could make the case that Parks, not King, should be considered the most important figure of the civil rights movement.

But for those of you who believe that the education system in America is rolling along nicely and our children are being given a well-rounded education, I present this survey as Exhibit A for the contrary argument.

Advanced Placement? Try Affirmative Action.

AP courses are offered at nearly every major high school in the country, giving students a chance to earn college credit.  What the students do not realize is that they’re being prepped for life in a politically correct America.

by Michael Naragon

I believe most of you would agree that the major ideological battle in the United States is being fought in the educational system.  Conservatives are losing.  Period.  As an educator and a conservative, I have not conceded defeat, but the situation looks bleak.  Liberal philosophy has pervaded the system, diminishing exceptionalism and marginalizing traditional values upon which this country was based.

Before I became involved with the Advanced Placement program, I had believed that AP was in some way the last bastion of purely merit-based education.  Success in an AP course is achieved by gaining entrance into the class and passing an objective exam.  There is no room for social experimentation, right?

How wrong I was.

The College Board, the creators of the AP program, have issued an “Equity Policy Statement,” presumably to ensure that students are treated fairly.

“AP Access and Equity Initiatives

The College Board and the Advanced Placement Program encourage teachers, AP Coordinators, and school administrators to make equitable access a guiding principle for their AP programs.  The College Board is committed to the principle that all students deserve an opportunity to participate in rigorous and academically challenging courses and programs.  All students who are willing to accept the challenge of a rigorous academic curriculum should be considered for admission to AP courses.  The Board encourages the elimination of barriers that restrict access to AP courses for students from ethnic, racial, and socioeconomic groups that have been traditionally underrepresented in the AP Program.  Schools should make every effort to ensure that their AP classes reflect the diversity of their student population.”

Please re-read the last sentence of the statement.  I am in agreement with everything written up to that point.  I believe any student who wants to participate in an AP class and has the skills necessary to do so should not be denied that opportunity.  I don’t believe that any student should be discriminated against because of race, background, or ethnicity, provided they have the ability to be successful in an AP course.

What I take issue with is the last sentence.  The College Board is not making an official demand of schools.  It does not threaten or cajole.  Still, the message is clearly sent: your AP classes should reflect the racial population of your school in general.  This is done to introduce “traditionally non-represented” students into the AP Program.  One of the groups that is being encouraged to participate, according to one AP instructor, is “immigrants,” or children of “immigrants.”  Translation = illegals.

So not only do illegal immigrants have access to free public education at the expense of the citizen, they also have access to the AP program and the elite instructors that teach those classes.  In the state of Florida, AP students, including illegals, who are successful on the final exam are given cash, also courtesy of the taxpayer.

Essentially, what the College Board is asking schools to do is to look at demographics before merit.  Before I became personally involved with the program, I would have assumed the opposite to be the case.  As another AP educator commented, “We’re not looking for [high] scores.”  Instead, the program is evidently seeking to assimilate itself into the public school culture and become a source of social experimentation and racial justice, a far cry from the achievement-based system it was intended to be.

The real misfortune is not that certain groups may or may not be adequately represented in the AP program to the satisfaction of those who concern themselves with such things.  The true tragedy is that, given the College Board’s motivations, every student in the program may now have cause to question if it was their skills that gave them access, or their skin.

Obama’s “New Foundation” is already crumbling.

Obama seeks to recreate the slogan-based, far-reaching national programs of Franklin Roosevelt and Lyndon Johnson with his “New Foundation.”  God, help us.

by Michael Naragon

“The state of our economy calls for action, bold and swift,” the president stated in his inaugural address in January, “and we will act not only to create new jobs but to lay a new foundation for growth.”

Obama seems determined to label his tax, borrow, and spend programs the “New Foundation.”  In his speech delivered at Georgetown University in April, the president compared his programs to Christ’s parable of the two men who build houses, one on sand and the other on a rock.

How Obama believes that borrowing billions upon billions of dollars and printing the rest out of thin air represents building on a “rock” is question enough, but I also find it terribly ironic that the president would cite the Bible after requesting the name of Christ be removed from sight in the chapel in which he spoke that day.

The president’s sacrilege aside, however, it appears as though Obama’s program is based on three issues: health, energy, and education.  The administration has repeatedly claimed already that health care and energy reform are necessary to solve the current economic malaise, using the financial crisis as justification for Marxism.

If the Democrats and their president attack these issues in the order they were presented by the White House chief-of-staff, then the health care debate, which is already heating up, will be closely followed by an attempt at energy “reform,” commonly called cap-and-trade.

It will be interesting to hear the president eventually address education reform, as his party destroyed the successful Washington, D.C. voucher program that allowed intelligent, underprivileged students to go to upscale private schools, such as the one Obama’s own children attend.

A Democratic pollster interviewed by The New York Times for a May 15 article was excited about the new phraseology.

“It is making a values critique and values offer,” said pundit Stanley Greenberg, “[to] a country whose leaders were irresponsible, greedy, hiding from big problems and thinking only of the short term without accountability.  ‘New Foundation’ captures the idea of acting with seriousness of purpose with responsibility and for country.”

Allow me a question, please.  The administration is talking about irresponsible leaders in business, right?  Because the statement concerning leaders who were “irresponsible, greedy, hiding from big problems and thinking only of the short term without accountability” could be easily, and much more appropriately, applied to our current stewards of government.

Who has advocated only short term solutions to the nation’s problems, if not government?  Who has been greedy, irresponsible, and hiding from the big issues, if not government?  (For more information on greed and irresponsibility, see: Barney Frank, Chris Dodd.)

Obama’s solution for Chrysler and General Motors has already contributed to the eventual loss of millions of jobs–how will his solutions for our health, education, and energy cultivate freedom and help Americans?  How will his lack of a plan in regard to national security build a solid base for growth?

While the president’s “solutions” to our nation’s difficulties will no doubt be dressed in the finest clothing by our complicit media, the fact is that the current policies espoused by Obama build no such solid foundation as that claimed by the president and his lackeys.

Instead, we as a country are teetering on what’s left of our real foundation, the Constitution of the United States, and the waves of socialism have nearly eroded it away.

Full text of the NYT piece: http://www.nytimes.com/2009/05/16/us/politics/16foundation.html?ref=politics