Category Archives: Education

Atlanta Prefers Government Control to Results

Education, Monopolies, Politics

Achieve Academy could be shut down

But Achieve Academy may close, a move that would force Zicuria and the school’s 170 or so other students from grades five through seven back to the traditional public schools they left. Atlanta Superintendent Beverly Hall is recommending against approving Achieve Academy’s charter, citing a weak curriculum, a history of financial mismanagement, low enrollment and other problems. The board is scheduled to vote today on the charter.

…

David Morgan, principal at Achieve Academy, said Atlanta school officials have been “unyielding in their position,” that the charter school must close, despite test scores that met state standards under the federal No Child Left Behind law.

Though Achieve met state testing goals, the school did not meet testing goals spelled out in its charter, district officials said. “The performance in fifth grade was particularly troubling, as 23 out of 41 students did not meet standards on one or both of reading or mathematics tests,” district official Sharron Pitts wrote in a letter to Achieve’s board chair, Dana Thomas.

Morgan said school officials point out weak scores while ignoring high scores. Seventh-graders performed well on the state’s Criterion Referenced Competency Test, with 87 percent passing math and reading. Achieve students generally outperformed schools such as Carson and Kennedy, where half the seventh-graders failed reading and where students will be sent back to if Achieve closes.

I realize that in their first year, fifth graders (who, invariably, were products of Atlanta Public Schools up until that point) were failing. But it certainly looks like they’ve gotten those same failing students up to an 87% pass rate by the time they hit 7th grade. That sounds like positive results.

So the students are happy, the parents are happy, and the kids are leaving with a higher pass rate than they came in. Even the fifth-graders, who didn’t meet the standards the school set for themselves, passed state and NCLB guidelines, which not all Atlanta Public Schools do.

It sounds like the school does have a bit of turmoil, between financial problems, moving every year, some leadership turnover, and losing out on one of their curriculum programs (due to a too-low enrollment number). But despite these problems, they’re getting it done.

And it appears that they’re on the right track, trying to buy a property while working with a new company, Imagine Schools. But apparently that’s not good enough for the local government:

Deputy Superintendent Kathy Augustine said the school had shown “pockets of improvement,” but she stopped short of calling Achieve a success.

She found the school’s plan for a partnership with the nonprofit Imagine Schools void of detail and full of conflicting information about such matters as whether the Saturday program would end at noon or 12:30 and whether students would be allowed a snack time. Augustine was not convinced teachers would cover the state curriculum, nor was she satisfied with the school’s plan to operate in a former church Imagine officials have said they intend to buy.

A half hour on Saturday? Snack time? These are reasons to refuse their charter? And the state curriculum hasn’t exactly made Atlanta Public Schools a success, so maybe they should stick with what actually works. I think Atlanta is searching for any reason to refuse the charter, not looking to determine if this school will actually educate children.

I think we can see through this. This school, despite its problems, is succeeding in its primary goal, educating children. If such a problematic charter school can succeed, I’ll bet the local government schools are quaking in their boots. How can they explain their failure in the face of success like this?

Hat Tip: Jason Pye

Brad Warbiany
https://thelibertypapers.org/

Patrick Henry on the Constitution

Constitution, Education, Individual Rights, Theory and Ideas

I was talking recently about Patrick Henry. When I was looking into some of his history, I found this speech. Patrick Henry was an anti-Federalist, against the Constitution and a centralized consolidated Government.

Perhaps this excerpt will explain why:

You are not to inquire how your trade may be increased, nor how you are to become a great and powerful people, but how your liberties can be secured; for liberty ought to be the direct end of your Government.

. . . . .

The distinction between a National Government and a Confederacy is not sufficiently discerned. Had the delegates who were sent to Philadelphia a power to propose a Consolidated Government instead of a Confederacy? Were they not deputed by States, and not by the people? The assent of the people in their collective capacity is not necessary to the formation of a Federal Government. The people have no right to enter into leagues, alliances, or confederations: They are not the proper agents for this purpose: States and sovereign powers are the only proper agents for this kind of Government: Shew me an instance where the people have exercised this business: Has it not always gone through the Legislatures? I refer you to the treaties with France, Holland, and other nations: How were they made? Were they not made by the States? Are the people therefore in their aggregate capacity, the proper persons to form a Confederacy? This, therefore, ought to depend on the consent of the Legislatures; the people having never sent delegates to make any proposition of changing the Government. Yet I must say, at the same time, that it was made on grounds the most pure, and perhaps I might have been brought to consent to it so far as to the change of Government; but there is one thing in it which I never would acquiesce in. I mean the changing it into a Consolidated Government; which is so abhorent to my mind. The Honorable Gentleman then went on to the figure we make with foreign nations; the contemptible one we make in France and Holland; which, according to the system of my notes, he attributes to the present feeble Government. An opinion has gone forth, we find, that we are a contemptible people: The time has been when we were thought otherwise: Under this same despised Government, we commanded the respect of all Europe: Wherefore are we now reckoned otherwise? The American spirit has fled from hence: It has gone to regions, where it has never been expected: It has gone to the people of France in search of a splendid Government–a strong energetic Government. Shall we imitate the example of those nations who have gone from a simple to a splendid Government. Are those nations more worthy of our imitation? What can make an adequate satisfaction to them for the loss they suffered in attaining such a Government for the loss of their liberty? If we admit this Consolidated Government it will be because we like a great splendid one. Some way or other we must be a great and mighty empire; we must have an army, and a navy, and a number of things: When the American spirit was in its youth, the language of America was different: Liberty, Sir, was then the primary object. We are descended from a people whose Government was founded on liberty: Our glorious forefathers of Great-Britain, made liberty the foundation of every thing. That country is become a great, mighty, and splendid nation; not because their Government is strong and energetic; but, Sir, because liberty is its direct end and foundation: We drew the spirit of liberty from our British ancestors; by that spirit we have triumphed over every difficulty: But now, Sir, the American spirit, assisted by the ropes and chains of consolidation, is about to convert this country to a powerful and mighty empire: If you make the citizens of this country agree to become the subjects of one great consolidated empire of America, your Government will not have sufficient energy to keep them together: Such a Government is incompatible with the genius of republicanism: There will be no checks, no real balances, in this Government: What can avail your specious imaginary balances, your rope-dancing, chain-rattling, ridiculous ideal checks and contrivances? But, Sir, we are not feared by foreigners: we do not make nations tremble: Would this, Sir, constitute happiness, or secure liberty? I trust, Sir, our political hemisphere will ever direct their operations to the security of those objects. Consider our situation, Sir: Go to the poor man, ask him what he does; he will inform you, that he enjoys the fruits of his labour, under his own fig-tree, with his wife and children around him, in peace and security. Go to every other member of the society, you will find the same tranquil ease and content; you will find no alarms or disturbances: Why then tell us of dangers to terrify us into an adoption of this new Government? and yet who knows the dangers that this new system may produce; they are out of the sight of the common people: They cannot foresee latent consequences: I dread the operation of it on the middling and lower class of people: It is for them I fear the adoption of this system.

Can anyone point out where he has been mistaken? We’ve gone exactly down the road he foretells. It is these excesses of our Constitutional system, excesses that Patrick Henry predicts, that we as classical liberals are railing against. The only difficulty is determining how to reverse the trend. How do we demolish a Splendid government in favor of a simple one?

Brad Warbiany
https://thelibertypapers.org/

Libertarianism: The Problem of Children

Education, Individual Rights, Privacy, Theory and Ideas

Over a year ago, when I was still a new blogger, I posted this entry at The Unrepentant Individual. And I still don’t have an answer for it. Can anyone help me out?

—————————————————————–

My adherence to libertarianism, as much as an “Unrepentant Individual” adheres to any set political party or philosophy, is based upon my belief that libertarianism is a fully consistent, logical, and moral form of government. The reason for this is that I don’t accept that other people should be able to make choices for me, a rational adult, and thus I cannot see that I should find myself so egotistical that I should be making choices for them, so long as we do not violate each other’s rights and liberty.

However, in any discussion of libertarianism that I have come across, one issue is typically not handled very well: the issue of children. Libertarianism presupposes that the actors in society are rationally self-interested individuals, and that these people should be given as much leeway to act as possible, so long as they are not infringing on others. Our discussion of rules, morality, governance, all assumes that we treat humans like adults.

But children aren’t adults. What, then, do we do with them? What rules, what guidelines, should we use to protect their rights? What guidelines should be used to protect them from themselves, as they have not gained the maturity to act rationally? And what should be done to protect them from neglectful parents, who do not take the steps necessary to ensure that they grow up to become rational adults? Socialists, fascists, communists, and even nanny-state Republicans don’t have this problem, because they treat everyone like children, under the mismanaged care and semi-watchful eye of an incompetent government. Since they never really expect or desire us to exercise independent, rational thought, they don’t need to be worried about leaving us unprepared to do so. But for us libertarians, we cannot abdicate this responsibility, or our society will cease to be the moral form of government that we believe.
» Read more

Brad Warbiany
https://thelibertypapers.org/

The Founding Fathers

Constitution, Education

A frequent commenter here and at The Unrepentant Individual asked me the below question. Given that today we celebrate the official acceptance of the Declaration of Independence, I thought it might be a good day to explain.

I am curious to find out what you think of Benjamin Franklin. I live in Philadelphia and so many institutions were formed or influenced by Franklin. I hardly ever see him discussed. I see a quote or two every now and then.

I sometime read and comment at The Liberty Papers, and when some arguments are supported by the views of the founding fathers; it seems that too few are mentioned. The purpose of government differed even then. Also, are your beliefs about our government based on how it was created or how it ought to be?

I think my views of Franklin fit well with my views of all the founding fathers. Which is to say that, unfortunately, I don’t know as much about them as I would like. I’m still young, to most people, nearing my 28th birthday. Beyond my AP US History class in high school, and some forays onto the History Channel, which is often World War II and newer content, I hadn’t had a chance to really delve into the history of our founders before the last year or two.

Franklin, though, is one of the easier nuts to crack. More has been written on him than on quite a few others. I’ve been watching some documentaries about him over the last few weeks, and he seems to be a truly interesting guy. He seems to be a genius in all aspects of life. But while most academic geniuses tend to have problems with interpersonal communication, Franklin was able to read and play people like an instrument. He knew what buttons to push and when, and his masterful performance while in France meant the difference between America winning and losing our revolution. I have a lot of respect for Franklin, and the way he’s treated in our history books is well-deserved.

But beyond Franklin, most of our founding fathers don’t get a lot of print unless they also became President. For example, when Eric first set up “The Liberty Papers”, he gave the tagline above “Written by the heirs of Patrick Henry.” But who was Patrick Henry? What did he give us, beyond the “Give me liberty or give me death!” oration? There’s very little “mass” history about Henry. Looking further, one begins to see a clearer picture. He was an anti-federalist at the time of the Constitution, and worried greatly what giving the power in the Constitution to a federal government would mean to the country. He was largely credited with forcing the Federalists to write a Bill of Rights, and was similarly key in ensuring the 9th and 10th Amendment were included, which, although forgotten by most people today, are intended as serious checks on government power. From what I’ve learned since about Patrick Henry, and from what I’ve learned reading Eric’s writings, I can plainly see why Eric used him. Perhaps if I were choosing, I might say “Written by the heirs of Tom Paine”, as the blogger-pamphleteer angle might be more apt.

Looking back at the founding fathers, I am truly intrigued. We hold up this view of them as stuffy academic white men, living in a theoretical world up on a pedastal, and forget their humanity. Franklin was a flirt, drinking enough wine to ensure gout problems. Washington, although he always said he didn’t want power, wore his dress uniform every day to convince the Continental Congress to put him in charge of the Continental army. Jefferson had quite a few interesting elements, including an affair with one of his slaves. These were real human beings, with flaws and character issues everywhere. Yet they came together to change the course of human history, creating the first modern government that was founded on the nature of individual rights being the fountain from which government flows, not the other way around.

Why are there not more quotes by the Founders? I can’t speak for the other writers here, but I can say for myself, I simply don’t know enough yet to quote them effectively. To a large extent, I understand the basics of how and why they set up the government the way they did, but don’t really have a complete feel for who they were as people. I am learning more every day, and every bit I learn makes me more in awe of what these diverse characters were able to accomplish. And as I’ve said before, the realization that these were real humans (I hesitate to use an expression like “ordinary men”), makes me wonder just what I am capable of. At my age, I’m starting to ask myself what I’m going to do with my life, and part of that question is whether that’s going to be remembered by historians 200 years from now.

As to your last question, my beliefs on government are based on how it should be, not how they set it up. Part of the understanding of the founders as real humans means accepting that they can make mistakes. I try, whenever possible, not to appeal to authority, and say that something must be true because Ben Franklin or Thomas Jefferson said so. I think our Constitution is impressive, but I think (as I pointed out last week) that it didn’t do enough work to protect us from the growth of government. I don’t think the founders intended the government to grow to its current size, nor do I like it. Thus, I’m doing everything I can to oppose the current state of government that I believe is unconstitutional, but if you asked me what I would like to see, it would certainly include some changes to the Constitution itself.

Brad Warbiany
https://thelibertypapers.org/

When did they stop?

Constitution, Education, Politics, The Bill Of Rights

When I was a kid, and that isn’t exactly a geological age ago; there was a U.S. Flag in every single classrom. Most were on angled jackstaffs flying on the wall next to the P.A. speaker, over the chlakboard, or maybe over the main door.

This didnt warrant notice, any more than desks or chalkboards would.

A bill has just been introduced in the Arizona state house to require that all educational institutions that recieve public funding display the flag in every classroom. Current regulations (as pursuant to U.S. Flag code) only state that a flag must be flown somewhere on campus while school is in session.

My question is, when did they change? When and why did they stop?

The ed-stablishment is complaining that they don’t have the budget, and that they don’t have the personell trained in U.S. Flag code, to do so.

You have got to be kidding me.

Every day at my school, the teacher or the custodian would go around at night and roll the flags up on their jackstaffs. I (or my wife) do it every night to OUR flag. It’s not all that hard. Not only that, but if a flag is permanently mounted, it is acceptable to leave that flag flying at all times, so long as that flag is “properly illuminated” or so long as that flag is indoors.

The flag code is not difficult. Here’s a well illustrated guide, and the annotated code.

Not only that, but I guarantee you they could ask for and recieve enough donations for a proper flag in every classroom in a heartbeat. A decent small indoor flag, U.S. made, only costs about $20. Even a beautiful embroidered presentation flag is only about $100 for a small classroom size model.

Even better to my mind, an ammendment has been added to the bill that would require the concurrent display of the constitution, bill of rights and other ammendments, and declaration of independence as well.

Again, the ed-stablishment says they don’t have the budget; but I ask why isn’t this done alreayd/ Why hasnt this ALWAYS been done? When I was a kid every general ed classrom and history classroom had all of the above prominently displayed.

And still they protest?

No, I believe they are unwilling, because they do not beleive in our nation, our greatness, our exceptional position in this world as the true bastion of freedom and liberty (however it may now be compromised); and they do not wish to be associated with our symbol.

If this legislation passes, and is funded or volunteers fund it; I can assure you the ed-stablishment will find some other excuse to refuse to display our flag. I can guarnatee you that there will be protests by hispanic and native American groups. I guarantee you there will be teachers who refuse to display the flag in their classrooms, or who refuse to teach or assemble in a room where the flag is displayed.

They do this because they are the enemies of our country, and of our children; no more, no less.

Chris Byrne
I am a cynically romantic optimistic pessimist. I am neither liberal, nor conservative. I am a (somewhat disgruntled) muscular minarchist… something like a constructive anarchist.

Basically what that means, is that I believe, all things being equal, responsible adults should be able to do whatever the hell they want to do, so long as nobody’s getting hurt, who isn’t paying extra

http://anarchangel.blogspot.com
1 … 18 19 20 21