Any thoughts?
If true just another reason why big and distant government generally fails.
Ever since The Department of Education was begun education in this nation has declined.
Close it down and let the states have their money back instead of laundering it through D.C. in order to employ useless bureaucrats and let each state offer the kind of education they deem best for their young citizens. (See 1 below.)
===
My candidate for The Senate is picking up endorsements from former opponents and is now leading in the polls for his run-off. Jack Kingston is best suited to run against Michelle Nunn, who is married but chooses not to use her married name. She also danced around the question put to her whether she would have voted for Obamacare and has not been battle tested because she has had a free run. I continue to contend that a vote for her is a vote to keep Harry Reid in his position of Senator Obstructionist!
Again, I am sure she is a lovely young lady but we already have seen what an inexperienced community organizer can do to wreck a nation and she has little to commend her except Chairing former President Bush's Points of Light Organization, which was laughed at by Liberals when he proposed and started it. (See 2 below.)
===
Some information re the Ga. Run-off , July 22: "Because the state of Georgia conducts an “open” primary, voters on Tuesday were able to pick their choice of ballots regardless of any political affiliation. Not so for the runoff. As a voter, you must stick with the party ballot you choose for the main primary (in other words, you can’t cast a Democratic ballot in the main primary and then vote in a Republican runoff). However, if you did not vote in the primary, you may vote in the runoff in the party of your choice."
===
.JPG)
===
Dick
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
1)The following was written by Terry Jeffery May 9, 2014
The public schools in Washington, D.C., spent $29,349 per pupil in the 2010-2011 school year, according to the latest data from National Center for Education Statistics, but in 2013 fully 83 percent of the eighth graders in these schools were not "proficient" in reading and 81 percent were not "proficient" in math.
These are the government schools in our nation's capital city -- where for decades politicians of both parties have obstreperously pushed for more federal involvement in education and more federal spending on education.
Government has manifestly failed the families who must send their children to these schools, and the children who must attend them.
Under the auspices of the National Center for Education Statistics, the federal government periodically tests elementary and high school students in various subjects, including reading and math. These National Assessment of Educational Progress tests are scored on a scale of 500, and student achievement levels are rated as "basic," "proficient" and "advanced."
In 2013, students nationwide took NAEP reading and math tests. When the NCES listed the scores of public-school eighth graders in the 50 states and the District of Columbia, D.C. came in last in both subjects.
D.C. eighth graders scored an average of 248 out of 500 in reading, and Mississippi finished next to last with an average of 253.
Only 17 percent of D.C. 8th graders rated "proficient" or better in reading. In Mississippi, it was 20 percent.
In math, D.C. public-school eighth graders scored an average of 265 out of 500, and only 19 percent were rated "proficient" or better. Alabama placed next to last with an average math score of 269, with 20 percent rated "proficient" or better.
Some might argue it is unfair to compare, Washington, D.C., a single city, with an entire state.
However, D.C. also does not compete well against other big cities.
The Department of Education's Trial Urban District Assessments program compares the test results in 21 large-city school districts, including Washington, D.C.
In these assessments, the scores of students from charter schools were removed and the average reading score for D.C. public school eighth-graders dropped to 245. That was below the national large-city average of 258, and tied D.C. with Fresno for seventeenth place among the 21 big cities in the TUDA.
In math, minus the charter school students, D.C. public-school eighth graders earned an average score of 260. That was below the national large-city average of 276, and put D.C. in a tie for sixteenth place, this time with Fresno and Baltimore.
The NCES database indicates that in the 2010-2011 school year, Washington, D.C. public schools spent a total of $29,349 per pupil, ranking No. 1 in spending per pupil among the 21 large cities in the TUDA.
New York City Public Schools ranked second among these large cities, spending $23,996 per pupil. That was $5,353 -- or about 18 percent -- less than the $29,349 the D.C. public schools spent.
Table 236.75 from the NCES's Digest of Education Statistics compares per pupil spending among the states and the District of Columbia. It indicates that D.C. spent a little bit less per pupil -- $28,403 -- who enrolled in the fall in 2010-2011 school year. But that still ranks D.C. as No. 1, out-spending all the states.
How did the D.C. public schools spend $28,403 per student?
Among other things, they spent $10,584 per pupil on "instruction," which "encompasses all activities dealing directly with the interaction between teachers and students."
Then they spent $5,487 on "capital outlays," which includes "the acquisition of land and buildings; building construction, remodeling," etc.
Then they spent $2,321 on "operation and maintenance," which includes "salary, benefits, supplies, and contractual fees for supervision of operations and maintenance," etc.
Then they spent $2,124 on "interest on school debt."
Then they spent $1,613 on "instructional staff," $1,546 on "school administration," $1,404 on "student transportation," $1,208 on "student support," $866 on "general administration," $761 on "food services," $450 on "other support services."Congress ought to give every family in Washington, D.C., a choice of whether or not they want a government school to spend this money on behalf of their children. The D.C. public school system should be required to provide every family in the district with school-age children with a voucher for each child that is worth every penny the district now spends per pupil in its public schools. Families should be able to use that voucher at any school they want, anywhere they want.
The latest attempt at centralized control of all the country's schools by D.C. and the unions is something called "Common Core", one of the last nails in the educational coffin of our children.
In today's America you can drive at 16 and vote at 18, neither of which requires a high school diploma!
The public schools in Washington, D.C., spent $29,349 per pupil in the 2010-2011 school year, according to the latest data from National Center for Education Statistics, but in 2013 fully 83 percent of the eighth graders in these schools were not "proficient" in reading and 81 percent were not "proficient" in math.
These are the government schools in our nation's capital city -- where for decades politicians of both parties have obstreperously pushed for more federal involvement in education and more federal spending on education.
Government has manifestly failed the families who must send their children to these schools, and the children who must attend them.
Under the auspices of the National Center for Education Statistics, the federal government periodically tests elementary and high school students in various subjects, including reading and math. These National Assessment of Educational Progress tests are scored on a scale of 500, and student achievement levels are rated as "basic," "proficient" and "advanced."
In 2013, students nationwide took NAEP reading and math tests. When the NCES listed the scores of public-school eighth graders in the 50 states and the District of Columbia, D.C. came in last in both subjects.
D.C. eighth graders scored an average of 248 out of 500 in reading, and Mississippi finished next to last with an average of 253.
Only 17 percent of D.C. 8th graders rated "proficient" or better in reading. In Mississippi, it was 20 percent.
In math, D.C. public-school eighth graders scored an average of 265 out of 500, and only 19 percent were rated "proficient" or better. Alabama placed next to last with an average math score of 269, with 20 percent rated "proficient" or better.
Some might argue it is unfair to compare, Washington, D.C., a single city, with an entire state. However, D.C. also does not compete well against other big cities.
The Department of Education's Trial Urban District Assessments program compares the test results in 21 large-city school districts, including Washington, D.C.
In these assessments, the scores of students from charter schools were removed and the average reading score for D.C. public school eighth-graders dropped to 245. That was below the national large-city average of 258, and tied D.C. with Fresno for seventeenth place among the 21 big cities in the TUDA.
In math, minus the charter school students, D.C. public-school eighth graders earned an average score of 260. That was below the national large-city average of 276, and put D.C. in a tie for sixteenth place, this time with Fresno and Baltimore.
The NCES database indicates that in the 2010-2011 school year, Washington, D.C. public schools spent a total of $29,349 per pupil, ranking No. 1 in spending per pupil among the 21 large cities in the TUDA.
New York City Public Schools ranked second among these large cities, spending $23,996 per pupil. That was $5,353 -- or about 18 percent -- less than the $29,349 the D.C. public schools spent.
Table 236.75 from the NCES's Digest of Education Statistics compares per pupil spending among the states and the District of Columbia. It indicates that D.C. spent a little bit less per pupil -- $28,403 -- who enrolled in the fall in 2010-2011 school year. But that still ranks D.C. as No. 1, out-spending all the states.
How did the D.C. public schools spend $28,403 per student?
Among other things, they spent $10,584 per pupil on "instruction," which "encompasses all activities dealing directly with the interaction between teachers and students."
Then they spent $5,487 on "capital outlays," which includes "the acquisition of land and buildings; building construction, remodeling," etc.
Then they spent $2,321 on "operation and maintenance," which includes "salary, benefits, supplies, and contractual fees for supervision of operations and maintenance," etc.
Then they spent $2,124 on "interest on school debt."
Then they spent $1,613 on "instructional staff," $1,546 on "school administration," $1,404 on "student transportation," $1,208 on "student support," $866 on "general administration," $761 on "food services," $450 on "other support services."
Congress ought to give every family in Washington, D.C., a choice of whether or not they want a government school to spend this money on behalf of their children. The D.C. public school system should be required to provide every family in the district with school-age children with a voucher for each child that is worth every penny the district now spends per pupil in its public schools. Families should be able to use that voucher at any school they want, anywhere they want.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
2) Dear Dick and Lynn:
I am thrilled and proud to receive the endorsement of former candidate for Senate, Karen Handel!
Karen Handel has become a leader in the conservative movement and was the first elected Republican Secretary of State in Georgia. In endorsing my campaign, Karen said that I am “the conservative choice for U.S. Senate.”
Like me, Karen is a precinct-level Republican who has never been too good to put out yard signs, stuff envelopes, or make phone calls on behalf of conservative candidates. We have both been in the trenches and voted in Republican primaries long before our names were ever on the ballot.
The Republican primary runoff is only 54 days away and your help is imperative to getting our message to voters in all corners of Georgia. Please click here to chip in today.
Sincerely,
Jack Kingston
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
3) Doubling Down on a Muddled Foreign Policy
The president has somehow managed to combine the worst features of isolationism and multilateralism.
At West Point on Wednesday, President Obama told the graduating seniors that he had discovered a middle way in foreign policy between isolationism and military interventionism. To the White House, this was like "the dawn come up like thunder outer China," in Kipling's phrase.
Others were less impressed, especially since it took five-plus years of on-the-job training to grasp this platitude. Of course the United States has options between war and complete inaction. Not since Nixon has a president so relished uncovering middling alternatives between competing straw men.
US President Barack Obama arrives at the United States Military Academy at West Point, New York to deliver the commencement address to the 2014 graduating class May 28, 2014. Agence France-Presse/Getty Images
When any president speaks, he engages in more than academic analysis. But playing with words, at which Mr. Obama excels, improves nothing in his record. Inattention to foreign threats and challenges as diverse as Islamic terrorism or China's increasing belligerence in the East Asian littoral; inconsistency and ineptitude in pursuing his own policies, as in Syria and Libya; and indecisiveness in confronting threats like Russia's pressure on Ukraine and Iran's nuclear-weapons program all hang like albatrosses around his presidential tenure. Mr. Obama's speech only further muddled the administration's contradictory messages on foreign policy.
The president's "vision" was, as the White House had promised, "both interventionist and internationalist but not isolationist or unilateralist," a formulation as sterile as the speech itself. Unilateralism vs. multilateralism and interventionism vs. noninterventionism are debates over tools, not over broad philosophies or even strategies. It is like arguing abstractly whether one favors eating with spoons or forks. An essential question must be addressed first: What is the objective? The choice of tactics and methods flows from defining the objectives, not the reverse.
The internationalist/isolationist spectrum does, however, touch on fundamental questions. While Mr. Obama has wisely chosen the "internationalist" bumper sticker for his administration, his actual policies have had strong isolationist elements. Mr. Obama has been weak and ineffectual because of his debilitating reluctance to use the wide range of assets available to advance American interests, not just because of his punctiliousness about using military force. Even as he advocated at West Point the uncontroversial notion that diplomacy and "soft power" are the preferred approaches, while holding military force in reserve, Mr. Obama's own record demonstrates neither resolute policies, nor effective diplomacy, nor a credible threat.
Consider Syria, where Mr. Obama clearly hoped to make news with his speech by announcing yet another change in policy: increased U.S. assistance for moderate opposition forces, implicitly including military training. The move comes about three years after such training might actually have made a difference. While momentum in that grinding conflict has shifted too often to be confident that anyone now has the upper hand, the Bashar Assad regime is presently stronger than at any point since hostilities began. Moreover, in today's circumstances, Americans might perversely be training terrorists who have flocked to Syria.
On Tuesday, to avoid stepping on his West Point headline, Mr. Obama announced that he would withdraw all U.S. forces from Afghanistan by the end of 2016, before he leaves office. Resources "saved" thereby will be allocated to counterterrorism training in other countries, as if redistributing scarcity were a virtue. Typically, Mr. Obama made no mention of seeking "victory" in the war against terrorism, a still-foreign concept to him, in a war whose very existence he denies.
What explains Mr. Obama's too-little, too-late Syria policy? Or his determination in Afghanistan to replicate his mistake in exiting Iraq? Or his neglect of Iranian and North Korean nuclear proliferation? Or—as Yul Brynner said in "The King and I"—"et cetera, et cetera, et cetera"?
Mr. Obama has somehow managed to combine the worst features of isolationism and multilateralism.
He is isolationist in rejecting the extensive, muscular projection of American power and influence, not just militarily, but in the broadest sense of active leadership to guard or advance U.S. interests around the world. Even the president's supporters are hard-pressed to name a single piece of geography where America has increased its influence and power, let alone its security, under his leadership. (And, not coincidentally, his personal approval ratings globally are falling.)
Greater American geopolitical clout is not the president's goal. Instead, he and both of his secretaries of state have preferred multilateral agreements on climate change, greater dependence on international law (as Mr. Obama repeatedly emphasized to Vladimir Putin during the Ukraine crisis), or fruitless negotiations over Syria or Iran's nuclear-weapons program in U.N. venues like Geneva and Vienna. These are the emblems by which Mr. Obama establishes his "internationalist" bona fides.
Critically, what Mr. Obama's isolationist strain and his multilateralist strain have in common is that both envisage declining American influence. We have reduced influence because we are most emphatically doing less on our own initiative, visible in the president's propensity for studied inactivity abroad. And we have reduced influence because when we do act, we are too often caught in glacial processes that essentially guarantee that the U.S. will not achieve all its objectives. If not letting America have its own way is Mr. Obama's objective, he is an unparalleled foreign-policy success.
Mr. Bolton is a senior fellow at the American Enterprise Institute and the author of "Surrender Is Not an Option: Defending America at the United Nations and Abroad" (Simon & Schuster, 2007)
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
No comments:
Post a Comment