It frightens me that there are ‘educated licensed’ professionals who try to justify this abuse of children. Reasonable sane people would never do this to begin with. Honest ethical people would admit their overreaction and apologize. I can’t write another word… or I think I’ll explode…

Dangerously Irrelevant is one of my favorite blogs. Why? Because its writers think! They are innovative people who are question the system. In a recent post Scott McLeod quotes Roger Shank about math education.

[T]there is no evidence whatsoever, that accumulation of facts and background knowledge are the same thing. In fact, there is plenty of evidence to the contrary. Facts learned out of context and apart from actual real world experience that is repeated over and over are not retained. . . .

[K]ids don’t like math much and it is clear why. They find it boring and irrelevant to anything they care about doing. If you think math is so important, then why not teach it within a meaningful context, like business, or running a school doing the kind of math you had to do to do that – which certainly wasn’t algebra II. There is plenty of evidence that shows that teaching math within a real and meaningful context works a whole lot better than shoving it down their throats and following that with a multiple choice test. . . .

[T]here is no evidence whosoever that says that a nation that is trailing in math test scores will somehow trail in GDP or whatever it is you really care about. This is just plain silly, but we keep repeating the mantra  that we are behind Korea in math as if it has been proven that this matters in some way. . . .

[N]early every grown adult has forgotten whatever algebra he or she ever learned to pass those silly tests, so it is clear that algebra is meaningless for adult life. I ask every important person in public life that I meet to tell me The Quadratic Formula. No one has ever been able to do so.

Most of us have known this our entire lives! I have been quite successful in business, IT, and programming and I haven’t passed a formal math class since the 7th grade. That doesn’t mean I don’t have a math education - passing a class and having an education are two different things. Unfortunately our culture doesn’t allow for that nuance.

I know people who own multiple businesses, live in 6,000 sq ft homes, have millions in net worth, and barely passed “Math for Daily Living.” For most people high level math is a waste of time.

If we don’t get a handle on what is happening to our youth in our public educational system we will have huge crisis with young males. Why do they hate school and what we can do about it? Our educational system creates the underclass, and the answer isn’t pouring more money into an antiquated 19th century system.

*****

The Puget Sound Libertarian sounds off about government protection of private information. Republican Party leadership… pay attention!

our personal information should be secret from government and protected, while government information should be completely open. But the system works the other way unless you happen to be a big political or other celebrity; i.e., someone with power or able to buy power with money.

Why do so many people trust the government with personal information? Aren’t they the most likely to abuse it? Historically?

*****

David Weigel at Reason Hit and Run posts about felons trying to rebuild their lives. I’m sure you have little sympathy for felons, and that is justified. However, we release these people back into society. I’ve done a little work helping people rebuild their addiction and crime ravaged lives. I recently met with a 40-year-old man who was convicted of methamphetamine possession in 2005. He lost his job, his family, his home, all his possessions, and did over a year in prison. Now he is out and he can’t get a job for $8.00 an hour. He’s strong, intelligent, and talented, and he genuinely wants nothing more than to rebuild his life, but his name is in the database of felons. You may say, this was his own choice and he has to live with the consequences. I agree, however, our lack of acceptance and forgiveness will insure he returns to prison because he has no other options available. Is that what we want? Shouldn’t we re-evaluate how we classify and deal with non-violent offenders? A prison guard told me that our current system is manufacturing monsters out of average drunks and potheads. This 40-year-old felon confirmed this, when he described in detail, the gang rape of a suburban father, who was a DUI offender in the Dakota County Jail. Is this what we want? Doesn’t that constitute cruel and unusual punishment? The State of Texas has realized its mistake putting non-violent offenders in the general population and has begun to segregate them. Minnesota is facing the same problem and we should follow suit… quickly.

*****

Steve Palmer explains how the two party system is leading us further left after each election cycle.

The U.S. population in the political realm consists of three main groups: liberals, conservatives, and so-called “moderates,” which are also labeled swing voters. Each political party will always have a definite constituency that can be counted on to vote along party lines, and therefore candidates put relatively little effort into campaigning for the votes of their clearly defined base. Instead, hopeful candidates spend the bulk of their time and efforts catering to the vacillating swing voters.

The result of this is that previously defined party lines and definitions are now obscured and concealed behind ambivalent rhetoric, propaganda, and proposals designed to entice voters from all sides. A perfect example of this is President George Bush’s $400 billion proposal for prescription-drug benefits for seniors, which has traditionally been a key Democratic issue. His obvious strategy was to steal the issue from the Democrats in an attempt to entice both swing votes and Democratic votes, knowing full well that even staunch conservatives will still vote to reelect him.

I am a delegate to the Minnesota Republican Party Minnesota State convention, but Steve Palmer explains why we can no longer afford to support any candidate with the R next to his name. If we do, they have no motivation to change. The RINOs take our support for granted. I for one will not support or vote for them… and that includes John McCain. We go to Rochester not as a patsy enablers, but to intervene and save our beloved GOP from its drunkenness on government largess. We’ll see if the GOP can take the first step, and admit it has a problem.

I want you to read this story about two 4-year-olds handcuffed in a public school for not taking a nap. I don’t want you to read it because I want you to hate public school. I don’t want you to read it because I want you to fear public school.  I want you to read it because it exposes a lie. One of the bigger lies ever told.

The lie:

You and your children are safest when ‘protected’ by government licensed professionals.

Children are abused, raped, attacked, lied to, and neglected by government licensed professionals in public schools all over the United States. In reality, the government bureaucracy and union protection obscures the problem in ways that would never be tolerated from a private enterprise. Licensed professionals are no safer than any other people. They are people who have problems just like everyone else. They just happened to have the patience to work through all the government and union red tape.

The purpose of licensing is not to insure quality. The purpose is to protect the market from competition. If you want safer/better schools you should demand that parents and children are allowed a full array of free-market choices for education services.

Government and ‘big education’ leads us to believe that only licensed professionals can provide a safe quality education. They are selling safety and failing to deliver. Meanwhile millions of talented intelligent people who would love to teach children are barred from teaching under the guise that letting unlicensed people teach is dangerous. We’re not talking about criminals here… A Ph. D in physics working for NASA can’t teach third grade math without a license. A billionaire entrepreneur can’t teach finance or business without years of schooling and loads of red tape.

It is time to demand free markets, so we can decide for ourselves what constitutes quality and safety.

These videos document the chaos in many public school classrooms. As you saw in my last post, Leslie Heimov said, the state’s chief concern isn’t about the quality of education and it shows. No wonder they want to ban cell phones in school buildings. I feel sorry for these teachers. Who could teach in this environment?

Hat Tip to Dangerously Irrelevant where there are five more you can watch. Remember only large government institutions and licensed professionals can deliver service like this.

The State of California believes it owns your children and the teachers union loves it. This week, The California Second District Court of Appeals effectively outlawed homeschooling. Will this wake people up or will it embolden other state governments? or the Federal Government? So far, they are the only state in the union to pull this, so watch out, California is a bellwether State.

Pay close attention to the words of government attorney - Leslie Heimov - who claimed to be representing the children. Her chief concern isn’t education, it is that the children are observed by people (government employees) who can insure their safety. Clearly, the government doesn’t trust parents to insure their children’s safety. Only licensed professionals can insure children are safe? When did we decide it was the government’s job to insure safety? Isn’t our government supposed to insure individual liberty?

Michael Smith, president of the Home School Legal Defense Association, said the ruling would effectively ban homeschooling in the state.

“California is now on the path to being the only state to deny the vast majority of homeschooling parents their fundamental right to teach their own children at home,” he said in a statement.

But Leslie Heimov, executive director of the Children’s Law Center of Los Angeles, which represented the Longs’ two children in the case, said the ruling did not change the law.

“They just affirmed that the current California law, which has been unchanged since the last time it was ruled on in the 1950s, is that children have to be educated in a public school, an accredited private school, or with an accredited tutor,” she said. “If they want to send them to a private Christian school, they can, but they have to actually go to the school and be taught by teachers.”

Heimov said her organization’s chief concern was not the quality of the children’s education, but their “being in a place daily where they would be observed by people who had a duty to ensure their ongoing safety.”

Read more here…