Eternal Vigilance!

[pieces o nine]

New Hampshire Lawmakers Pass Law Allowing Parental Objections To Curriculum

The Tea Party dominated New Hampshire Legislature on Wednesday overrode the governor's veto to enact a new law allowing parents to object to any part of the school curriculum.

The state House voted 255-112 and Senate 17-5 to enact H.B. 542, which will allow parents to request an alternative school curriculum for any subject to which they register an objection. Gov. John Lynch (D) vetoed the measure in July, saying the bill would harm education quality and give parents control over lesson plans.

"For example, under this bill, parents could object to a teacher's plan to: teach the history of France or the history of the civil or women's rights movements," Lynch wrote in his veto message. "Under this bill, a parent could find 'objectionable' how a teacher instructs on the basics of algebra. In each of those cases, the school district would have to develop an alternative educational plan for the student. Even though the law requires the parents to pay the cost of alternative, the school district will still have to bear the burden of helping develop and approve the alternative. Classrooms will be disrupted by students coming and going, and lacking shared knowledge."

The willful stupidity hydra rears another head.     

Living through a social change is always stressful, regardless of which side one backs. From what I've read of past changes, ordinary people fear that the dissension will split the group irrevocably, and I take heart from that. Perhaps we won't  be fissured into The United States of Canada and Jesusland, after all. But I wonder if there will be a worse alternative (from my perspective, at least): Jesusland, period.

[Scriblerus the Philosophe]

This is distinctly unTaddy of me, but this is going to be funny. And honestly, I only see it being an issue in the wealthier school districts (because well, the poorer ones don't have parents who can afford this shit and frankly too busy worrying about keeping a roof over their heads to care), and even then I predict steps will be taken (socially) to stop this because of the effect it'll have on test scores ('cause that ain't gonna change, no way no how) and so much rides on those - reputation, funding, etc. - that they'll do whatever they have to shut it down.

Living through a social change is always stressful, regardless of which side one backs. From what I've read of past changes, ordinary people fear that the dissension will split the group irrevocably, and I take heart from that. Perhaps we won't  be fissured into The United States of Canada and Jesusland, after all. But I wonder if there will be a worse alternative (from my perspective, at least): Jesusland, period.

I think the time window of us being able to cleave together is rapidly closing. And also, there are gonna be places that ARE Jesusland, period, and iirc, you and I both live in places that will be Jesusland.

[Swatopluk]

I doubt it will be about the history of France or Algebra
The former is likely not taught in the first place (beyond "the French are (immoral, hedonistic) cowards* and we always have to rescue their poor behinds from the Germans") and in the latter case it will not be the parents but the state lottery commission (and the local casino league) protesting the teaching of the theory of probability.

More likely it will be about the theories  of intelligent falling and design and the war of forced tentacle intrusion in the first half of the 1860ies.

*the technical term being 'cheese-eating surrender monkeys'

[Sibling DavidH]

Fromageophages inclinés à la capitulation.

[Sibling Zono (anon1mat0)]

Hey! I'm a fromageophage, perfectly willing to capitulate if victory isn't achievable and I'm not French! and I would move there in an split instant if it were feasible...

[Opsa]

I would live in France too because I am a lily-livered coward and damned proud of it! Plus, I love cheese and art.

Those Tea-Baggers sound like they have too much time on their hands.

It has been interesting now that my daughter "th'Opsalette" is in Middle School. I actually got a paper asking if it was okay if she learned sex education in Health class. I appreciated their asking, and said Heck Yes. (She has all ready had a few discussions about it with me, but without visual aids.) They didn't say what kind of sex ed it was, though. I suppose if they taught her that babies come from storks or kissing, then I might raise an objection, but in the end it's up to me to communicate with her about what she's learning and let her know my opinion if I think it's an important alternative to know. She is a shrewd person and has a beautifully functional BS sensor.

Parents will always have a right to object to what's taught. What a waste of time!

[stellinacadente]

I would opt for the option of not paying school taxes to the State (or get a tax refund) if your child is going to private school...

I find my daughter does much better in Montessori and I am paying a tuition that not cheap... why do I have to pay taxes to the State too???

[Aggie]

I don't have kids, and I am happy to have my taxes go to fund public education.  If they didn't, we might end up having to underpay teachers to the point that it's a shameful career choice, and end up with some gawdawful broken-down sham of a school system like.....



_{um, nevermind. pardon the untaddy outburst}

[Griffin NoName]

....the latter case it will not be the parents but the state lottery commission (and the local casino league) protesting the teaching of the theory of probability.

Apply probability to Jesus and one gets a distinct lack of probability.

[Scriblerus the Philosophe]

I would opt for the option of not paying school taxes to the State (or get a tax refund) if your child is going to private school...

I find my daughter does much better in Montessori and I am paying a tuition that not cheap... why do I have to pay taxes to the State too???

Because you still benefit from them. The kids your taxes are paying to educate will be your daughter's friends, neighbors, co-workers, and so on. They'll be the folk who pay for social security into your old age (assuming you can get SS? I have no idea what the situation is with you), they'll teach your grandkids, and so on.

Simply because you and your daughter does not directly benefit from your tax dollars does not mean you and your daughter do not benefit at all.


/super important issue to Scrib.

I don't have kids, and I am happy to have my taxes go to fund public education.  If they didn't, we might end up having to underpay teachers to the point that it's a shameful career choice, and end up with some gawdawful broken-down sham of a school system like.....



_{um, nevermind. pardon the untaddy outburst}

Also this.

[stellinacadente]

I don't have kids, and I am happy to have my taxes go to fund public education.  If they didn't, we might end up having to underpay teachers to the point that it's a shameful career choice, and end up with some gawdawful broken-down sham of a school system like.....



_{um, nevermind. pardon the untaddy outburst}

that's already here... where only kids that are having difficulties are given attention and the other need to fend for themselves (no child left behind passed under GW Bush)

where a public school allows the first amendment to be trashed and set on fire when they let bible trumpeters on the ground and have my daughter come home with a bracelet that says "Go to Church or go to Hell"...

sorry, we will have to agree o disagree on schools

[Scriblerus the Philosophe]

You're welcome to your opinion, of course, but that doesn't excuse the system break down (and imo, excuse your taxes). And again, you still benefit from it, if indirectly. Also, your choice to educate your daughter elsewhere is *your* choice, which imo does not mean you get to not pay taxes that fund local schools. Just because you choose to send your girl to a private school doesn't mean the kids in your neighborhood should suffer.

[stellinacadente]

You're welcome to your opinion, of course, but that doesn't excuse the system break down (and imo, excuse your taxes). And again, you still benefit from it, if indirectly. Also, your choice to educate your daughter elsewhere is *your* choice, which imo does not mean you get to not pay taxes that fund local schools. Just because you choose to send your girl to a private school doesn't mean the kids in your neighborhood should suffer.

Scribe,

people move in and out of neighborhoods, cities and states all the time...

I don't see schools closing down because of that...

Taxes are imposed for services to the public...
example: you do not have to pay for city sewer taxes if you have a property outside of city limits that is not hooked into the city systems.

you do not pay for services you do not use... this is the only case you do

[pieces o nine]

people move in and out of neighborhoods, cities and states all the time...

I don't see schools closing down because of that...

Taxes are imposed for services to the public...
example: you do not have to pay for city sewer taxes if you have a property outside of city limits that is not hooked into the city systems.

you do not pay for services you do not use... this is the only case you do

Well, actually, you do, because the US is not a 'pure' Capitalist or Xtreme!Libertarian system; there is lots of Socialism to keep the wheels turning (even if not always at the optimum speed or efficiency).

Three off-the-top-of-the-head examples:

1.  Some taxes maintain the city's street system -- not just the ones I choose to drive on. Even when I didn't drive, the public transport I took used streets throughout the whole city (and there were plenty of upper class people with at least one -- or sometimes several -- personal vehicles, complaining *bitterly* and perpetually in city council meetings against public transport, justifying their objections as "it's *only* for the poor, the elderly, the mentally unstable, the immigrants and the indigent, and why should we have to foot the bill because those people are too lazy to buy cars?").  Again, even when I didn't drive, the products I bought when I bicycled (or took the public transport! ) over to the local market were delivered on the national interstate system and then locally on our public streets. I was benefitting. Had I needed emergency services, they would have traveled public streets to get to me. City snowplows didn't skip my block because I didn't drive, and city sanitation (garbage pickup) traveled public streets and kept them looking nice, regardless of how little garbage I generated. I kinda liked that. Much later on, I sometimes opted to pay to drive the turnpikes in Denver; I didn't expect some sort of remuneration for not using the regular street system on those outings.

2.  Emergency services, themselves. I fervently hope to *never* need the police, the fire department, or an EMT. But I'm grateful that my community hasn't gone the way of others in the news: with subscription service for those services, and as for those who haven't kept up their personal payments, well, too bad for them...

3.  Public schools. My parents opted to put  three children into a parochial school -- and to pay tuition for the privilege -- for several years. They still paid the same taxes, some of which supported the public schools which we had attended prior to private school, and to which we returned after that experiment. Public school systems don't just poof into and out of existence based on an individual's attendance or interest in them. Those schools were educating the rest of the community, and my parents interacted with many public-school educated persons on a daily basis. They expected those people to have a basic level of education, even if their parents did not wish to (or were not able to) fork over extra money for private schooling. Before we were old enough to attend any school, public school educated people interacted with my public school educated parents; long after we graduated from college, public school educated people have continued to interact with my parents. If you look at it as only paying for what one personally benefits from, then my parents are continuing to pay for continuing to interact with educated people in their community. (Whether they are counting back change at the markets, or driving snowplows, or are police, firefighters, EMTs, pharmacists, business owners -- or public school teachers, themselves.)

Sadly, many school systems are suffering from budget cutbacks (we never seem to lack for moneys to prosecute wars forever, but I digress...) due to economic woes in those communities; should all children whose parents cannot pay for private school be left uneducated in strained economic times? How can an economy improve if its citizens turn out generation after generation of children whose education is systematically curtailed in the interest of economic comfort and convenience for those better off?

Sadly, many school systems are also suffering from deliberate --- and at this stage -- *open* sabotage from the very wealthy and powerful, who claim to want to hire the best educated workers that [the least] money can buy, but damned if they are willing to contribute to the educational system which they intend to exploit to maximum -- personal -- profit...



Civilization is all about living with other people, and generally for mutual benefit. An inescapable element of mutual benefit is not always coming out as the clear 'winner' in every interaction. Sometimes you give (whether obviously or not so obviously) and sometimes you get (whether obviously or not so obviously).  But those who are always on the take (<--- and that one is *not* directed at you, dear stelli!) are predators, not fellow citizens.

[Griffin NoName]

Pensioners* pay tax and some of that tax goes to schools, even though pensioners never have children. State schools could not exist if only funded by people with children currently in state education. State education is a service just like health services (here we all fund the  NHS). It's no different. There's lots of services we pay for in our taxes, but inidividually choose to purchase "privately" and none of them that fall into that category can we opt out of being taxed on the public variety.

The only way education could ever be left out of taxes would be a government which did not believe education matters. Regress to the 1700's? or early 1800's ? Seems unlikely.

* _{in fact pensioners taxes pay for loads of stuff they cannot make any use of........}