Thank you, OC.

I hope this message resonates with Conservatives across the state, not just in RUSD where I live.

Disagree. Making schools competitive is already being done with present system. Various degrees of charter schools.
Vouchers is a back door for religions to get their foot in the door. Lawyers welcome that as it will start the ball rolling for all forms of law suites to defend this religious belief of education over another. Example; Now lawyers are debating in courts the validity of creationism as a science!?? Which religion is to get the larger slice of the taxpayers pie? Which lobbyist to hire for their ideologies.
Privatizing just goes back to the arguments of Thomas Jefferson. Simply put the wealthy would build schools for their own use and deny the impoverished to add to the increase of inequality. This is just an old rehash of arguments that have already been resolved and some are still under contest. Vouchers included.
Now another subject of interest.
What if we make the presidential debates in real time fact checking. What is accurate or less than accurate as political opponents spill their rhetoric. Care to join such a movement? Its under way at CNN. Waiting to see if there are enough people interested in manifesting this into reality.
http://ireport.cnn.com/docs/DOC-841994

That is quite a stretch Bernie. What you are ignoring is that many, many, many public schools are failing. Throwing money at the problems, like you Liberals like to do, hasn't done anything for forty years. It's time to make a fundamental change, and thanks in large part to Act 10, many districts are embracing that change!

lol, well, I wouldn't presume their chosen disposition in bed... but thank you Nancy!

Gearhead, we all believe these principles. Please engage your neighbors, co-workers, friends and family and appeal to them with this message. The left is destroying education!

Well, I assume Lyle is too busy filling his "file" with more data about me and others at the moment to write here.

But I look forward to it, since he seems to have a particular interest in me and my childhood "trauma"

Free Trade Markets without regulations has already been proven that they do not work. Great Recession and Great Depression were promoted by lax regulations that failed to protect the middle class which is the engine of our economics. Eccles proved that with FDR’s and their policies. Similar to what Obama is pursuing. Globalization operating under the policies of the present republicans ideologies is being questioned for its promotions of inequality. Some are have adopted strategies of financing that are more aligned with a productive society and laborer’s productivity distributions. USA’s leadership in financing is being scrutinized and is found wanting. IMF and The World Bank are no longer accepted at face value for a progressive society. Capitalism as well as Free Trade Markets will require regulations. Public Schools. Health Care, Pensions, Welfare to Corporations, {subsides} , dispersions of resources and grants will require greater oversight and regulations. To name a few obstacles that contribute to the rise of inequality.
Consider those that would seek less regulations as our various evolutions increase. Perhaps those that seek to take advantage of the less educated to advance their scams and criminal activities. All the while they seek to make illegal, Legal!

Bernie, the socialist... What you said is historically and factually wrong. Many free markets work better without regulations. The real meaning of the word "regulation" and "regulate" was "to make regular." to make it free. The only real and legitimate regulations are those which make the market freer.

And secondly I never advocated for completely free markets with absolutely no protective regulations. So you are arguing against a strawman.

Since you may be obnoxious statement above that public schools are already competing against each other I won't even bother going any further..

Oh and before you get all tied up in me calling you a socialist… you ought to embrace it with pride. You obviously believe in the philosophies you've espoused on this page. What you have described is by definition until about 20 or 30 years ago Socialism. Any alteration of the markets to read disburse wealth or benefit from one class to another. The degree to which it occurs does not matter. It is still socialism. Socialist started using the word progressive about 40 or 50 years ago because it worked in the past and seemed to go over better than the word socialism. ;)

Bernie, there were a number of reasons for the Great Depression. One of them was the excesses of the 20's. When the economic bubble burst, the stock market over compensated (just like the dot-com bubble burst under Bill Clinton and the housing bubble burst caused by Jimmy Carter). By March of 1930, most stock prices had risen back to where they were in March of 1929, not an all time high, but a respectable level. What extended and worsened the depression was the government's failure to instill consumer confidence back into the public. Most of the country had been smacked real hard, and were weary of trusting anything financial.

That is the problem going on right now with the Barack Hussein Obama administration. There is no confidence right now that Barack Hussein Obama is the person to fix the economy!

Wait, increase entropy? lol

Nonetheless, thank you, sir

No one claimed a right to education, Bren.

Stop reading your history books. They're lying to you.

BTW, your comments remind me of an expression: All flash, no substance.

Oh, and P.S..... the greatest Presidents, and the Founders who began our nation were overwhelmingly homeschooled or taught in private education environments. And many became presidents. ;) Just sayin.

"The right to education"? Where did you pick this lie up Bren? In your ALEC for Dummies book from the DNC? Poor Bren, too many years sucking on the teats of the taxpayers.

Of course, the Founders and presidents who did not receive formal education did have other avenues. For example, Lincoln studied Blackstone's Commentaries, loaned to him by friend, mentor, and future law partner Stephen T. Logan, a formally educated and highest ranking attorney in Illinois at the time. Others served apprenticeships, etc. In Europe only the wealthiest could afford education; the idea that everyone should have the right to education is a mainstay of our way of life.

As someone with multiple Founders in the family tree, I'm privileged to be the recipient of generations of progressive thinking in addition to my extensive and hard-learned knowledge of American history. Do you believe this country was founded by spineless special interest puppets and people who embraced tyranny because they were too frightened and unimaginative to envision something better? I don't think so. My ancestors met and planned in secret, hunted by the King's Men, because they saw the abundant resources and potential of this country--they saw a new country, not just a treasure trove to be shipped overseas.

Instead of "Just sayin," you should "say" thank-you. Thank you to the enlightened individuals who adapted best philosophical practices and created the way of life you now enjoy. Instead of trying to keep Americans of your generation from education and successful lives, read the Declaration of Independence (yes, signed by one of my ancestors) for a sense of the Founders' spirit.

Wow, I didn't realize that 'progressive thinking' was an inherited trait! Say Bren, my grandfather was a very successful neurosurgeon, do you think that this qualifies me to be a neurosurgeon? What a lunatic you are Bren, claiming to have multiple founding fathers in your lineage.....

Oh, and "stop reading your history books, they're lying to you?" First, they are "our" history books. Second, one conducts independent research to compare/contrast research. Third, knowledge is power. Hiding from education is regressive. I'm feeling a bit embarrassed for you that you wrote that; perhaps it didn't sound quite so ignorant in your mind, but trust me.

H.E. Pennypacker, what on earth gives you the idea that I "suck from the teat of the taxpayers?" I am a taxpayer. I don't receive any funding, salary, etc. from the government. Like Mr. Willing, perhaps your words didn't sound ignorant in your head as you were writing them down, but trust me.

Projectionism, revisionism, regressivism. How tiresome.

H.E., what a strange idea that parents teach their children, and that ideals are passed from generation to generation. I pity you if that isn't your experience.

I'm a lunatic because a progressive ancestor left England in 1630 to try to make a new life in Massachusetts? I'm sure family and friends back in London thought he was a lunatic.

If social and technological progress relied upon the good opinions of namecallers, we'd still be picking berries off the branches and living in caves. I'm sure the folks who tried to plant seeds in the ground were considered lunatics as well. Or the lunatics in the ancient world who tried baking clay to make it more durable. Or the lunatics who thought of making marks to represent phonemes on clay, papyrus, and silk. Who invented safety pins and buttons. How about those lunatics in ancient Rome who invented cement and created aqueducts and roads that lasted a thousand years? Or the lunatic who had the idea of creating flying buttresses?

Folks, perhaps just like you, thought Copernicus was a warlock, Thomas Edison was a lunatic, etc. I'm of the opinion that "lunatic," in your lexicon, is defined as "someone who has tremendous capacity that I do not comprehend." In which case, thank you for the compliment. ; )

@Bren
Assuming that your are correct that their are founding fathers in your family tree, then they would be be well served to trim off your branch.

"My ancestors met and planned in secret, hunted by the King's Men, because they saw the abundant resources and potential of this country". Which is absolutely accurate. However, it also means they felt the individual was responsible for his own life; rather than overreaching government tyranny prescribing how one was to live their life. Their education was local, religious and absent of government regulation. This is completely opposite what you are trying to sell us.

Could you please dig through the diaries of your relatives and find one that lamented about lack of centralized government? Maybe dig up a quote questioning why their progressive ways had not led to a one size fits all top heavy education system where the needs of the teacher trump the needs of the student? Lastly, dig up a passage where they were angered by the high amount of religion being taught to students?

Yeah, Bren, who ya gonna believe -- neocon Edward Willing or those lying history books?

@ Edward Willing
11:55 pm on Sunday, September 16, 2012
No one claimed a right to education, Bren.
Stop reading your history books. They're lying to you.
BTW, your comments remind me of an expression: All flash, no substance.
Oh, and P.S..... the greatest Presidents, and the Founders who began our nation were overwhelmingly homeschooled or taught in private education environments. And many became presidents. ;) Just sayin

Bernie replies;
{“Stop reading history they lie.”} “OR” perhaps you do. Yes in the early colony the home educated of the elite by tutors would promote a more intelligent individual. One educated by Ma and Pa pig farmers would not be as intellectually compatible as to the elitist’s education. Which then promotes greater increases to inequality and less diversions in the evolvement of education. It is because we have a system that opens the door to a variety of students that has given us our strengths. Yes even the pig farming boy has a shot if so inclined, to go to Harvard and become president. Presidents have since come from a variety of sources. Why we even had an actor get to the White House. Not just from the few aristocrats. Majority of these Presidents came from our public schools and private schools. Few were home educated.

J.B., it's difficult to take someone who is tripped up by homonyms, punctuation, and grammatical structure seriously. "Assuming that your are correct that their are founding fathers in your family tree, then they would be be well served to trim off your branch." Where to begin? A veritable smorgasbord of errors. Your suggestion that I don't measure up to my family tree is therefore lost. ; )

I would also point out that the country was in its infancy in the late 1700s and early 1800s. The survival of the nation was also of paramount importance, as a POW on the HMS Guerriere during its famous battle with the U.S.S. Constitution, a.k.a. "Old Ironsides," during the War of 1812 would no doubt attest. Your questions are more appropriately asked in a time post-WWII (unfortunately my SeaBee and naval relatives that fought in this war are longer with us to ask). You have interesting and may I say inaccurate ideas about public education. I believe you would be well served to sit in on a MPS class or two for an accurate picture of what transpires in the lives of students and teachers.

The Founders wanted a separation between church and state. This stemmed back to the English Reformation in the 16th Century, whereby the King of England became head of the church.

Curiosity. Research. Knowledge. Good things.

Bren,
Your perspective on history and what constituted education and early America or the typical "farmer" that educated their children is so completely contrived and misguided. And when I say to stop reading your history books I am not talking about our history books. I don't read someone's interpretation of probably someone else's interpretation of the truth. I go to original sources.

That is the way I was raised, and it's what I will teach my son.

I loved the passive, if accidental endorsement of homeschooling that you gave, however. ;)

Actually Bren, the separation of church and state was primarily a financial issue. It's primary architect, Thomas Jefferson, was tired of paying taxes to the official state religion under the king, as well as any tithing he gave to his own church. Jefferson was a confident enough man to trust in his own beliefs even when a majority of his family, friends and neighbors still belonged to the Anglican Church. Fear of being indoctrinated or converted was not an issue.

@ The Anti-Alinsky
3:51 pm on Tuesday, September 18, 2012
Actually Bren, the separation of church and state was primarily a financial issue. It's primary architect, Thomas Jefferson, was tired of paying taxes to the official state religion under the king, as well as any tithing he gave to his own church. Jefferson was a confident enough man to trust in his own beliefs even when a majority of his family, friends and neighbors still belonged to the Anglican Church. Fear of being indoctrinated or converted was not an issue.

Bernie replies;
Anti it was an economic issue? Jefferson first tried to separate church and state was in the House of Burgess. That was previous to the revolution. England held Authority. Separation of Church to state was motivated by the abusive control and chaotic polices to support the structure within a government as Europe was demonstrating through the bloodshed and misery that the Churches were responsible for. Disruption of political ideologies further demonstrated the inadequacies in the administrating of a government, with constant turmoil’s within the various religions. Simple deduction; eliminate the Church authority. Note that battle would be finally won by Hamilton’s administration after Jefferson retired from politics.

Contrary to the Progressive philosophy typically exposed on the Patch, more money is not the solution to inner city educational problems or the lack of mobility. No one that is raising their kids by letting them sit in front of the TV until the age of 18 and offering little more than a narrative that tells them they are oppressed is doing their child a service and preparing them for life. Such people are socialized to be poor.

It is a sad thing that even Neanderthals understood that they needed to prepare their children for adulthood, yet a portion of our society is not chastised for not performing that basic function. Sitting around and waiting for the situation to change while blaming others for their plight is not a worldview that enables success.

I can't blame the kids, unless they are neglecting skills they have been taught. Unfortunately, self-discipline is a skill.

I think very few whatever blame the kids. The problems reside mostly within the unions and the parents themselves. If the unions operate the entire system with a sense of entitlement and why wouldn't the parents as well?

*would blame

@Edward Willing When I used the words 'aptitude and attitude' I was referring to the kids. Some kids have a bad attitude towards school period, and all the money in the world is not going to change that. Some kids simply are not capable of excelling in school- they don't have the aptitude in various subjects, and all the money in the world is not going to change that either. This idea of equal results is absurd.

As I have written before there are multiple reasons why many low income students (for example MPS has 80% of students on the federal free/reduced lunch program) struggle in school. Achievement gaps, parental literacy deficits, home situations, etc.

Michael, you bring up an interesting point. Howard Gardner, and Project Zero in the Harvard Graduate School of Education have conducted extensive research into cognitive development and learning processes in children and adults. In his 1983 publication, "Frames of Mind: The Theory of Multiple Intelligences," Gardner presents the idea that each individual possesses 7 distinct intelligences, incorporated in concert to achieve goals, with varying degrees of success. For example, the kinetic learner may not thrive in the lecture hall environment. It's a fascinating concept with extensive research behind it.

Why are you putting the burden on the schools themselves when they are trying to operate in a quasi-socialist system. Usually attendance and revenue caps causes them to make decisions based on the quality of the student alone rather than trying to reach out to disadvantaged students. QEO and other caps also alter what should be a truly free market.

What you're witnessing is a halfhearted attempt by the government to say that they're doing it the way that the political right is suggesting without really doing it.

@ Walker
Bernie replies;
Totally agree. I have had 2 of my children go through similar circumstances. Fotunatly I was expecting it and took steps to circumnavigate around it. Now they are doing very well. One child was not as Handicapped has achieved all of her dreams. Very successful.
Memory serves me, there was a documantory done on exactly what you are commenting on. Inequality of the various educational systems and how they effect communties with their failures.

Both of you are ignoring the truth I just rebutted your arguments with.

At risk students and those with disabilities have plenty of a market if it were truly free. Of course you wouldn't know, and all of your historical evidence is flawed because there is no history for it. Learning disabilities didn't exist as an acknowledged problem, in a public school system that was truly free.

It's time that liberals stop being so ancient with their methods and simply trying to reinvent the same slot machine. Conservatives want to try new things and new ideas.

Keith we can always rely on your callow observations. Oh hum…

Bernard, we can always count on your useless rebuttals. Meh.

Stormy boy, from all of your comments. We could put them all together and place them under and electron micro-scope and still be hard pressed to fine any substance.

I think it's Stormy 'girl', Bernard. But otherwise, you're right on target.

And, Stormy, you might want to take a look at your calendar before crowing about the fact that Lyle hasn't responded.

Stormy, please view my response to J.B.'s structurally imbalanced attempt to put me in my place. I hope he continues, because practice makes for better writing.

As for the "brilliance" of Edward's "rebuttal" to Mr. Ruble, it is a shaky construct of opinion, misinterpretation, and narrow definitions at best which do not provide a logical/factual opposing viewpoint to the original. More research and objective analysis would help a great deal.

Bren,

What would help you is getting out of history books, and actually studying history.

Glad to see you defend Milwaukee Public School , Dirk, and its D- Average GPA. Good value for the taxpayers of Milwaukee at $15,000 a student.

29 pm on Monday, September 17, 2012
Ed Willing was a campaign worker for Rick Perry. Under Perry's watch, Texas's
— is rife with fraud and abuse of students, promising quick degrees and quality job opportunities at low prices. In reality, they more often leave students with crushing debt and bleak job prospects, ala Everest in Milwaukee making news today in closing its "college" here and leaving town.

Bernie replies;
A small sample of Perry was demonstrated on the national stage. Did not fare well. Presently Texas is #1 for drop outs. Its taxing system is the less you make, the more you pay. Not a favorable system for financing a state never mind an intelligent educational system. He promotes creationism as a science? Imposing his religious preference. What will they do when an Islamic is Governor? Rather then clean up the corruptions within his educational system, he wants to increase the probability of further corruptions through corporation style education. No leadership there but sure smells of corruption himself. Perhaps that’s what turned the voters off of him.. Oh That Smell..
Now for change of pace;
What if we make the debates in real time fact checking. What is accurate or less than accurate as political opponents spill their rhetoric. Care to join such a movement? Its under way at CNN. Waiting to see if there are enough people interested in manifesting this into reality.
http://ireport.cnn.com/docs/DOC-841994

"... ala Everest in Milwaukee making news today in closing its "college" here and leaving town."

Are you suggesting the job prospects coming out of state-run colleges are that much better right now? The difference is if Everest doesn't deliver, the market reacts, they fail and they go away. With public education (both primary and higher non-profits) we just continue to shovel more money at the schools, with the difference being no accountability.

"Under Perry's watch, Texas's
— is rife with fraud and abuse of students, promising quick degrees and quality job opportunities at low prices. In reality, they more often leave students with crushing debt and bleak job prospects, ala Everest in Milwaukee making news today in closing its "college" here and leaving town."

Those are glorified vocational schools, not colleges or universities. They offer 'training' in a specific skill rather than a well-rounded education. Nothing wrong with that, but if that 'degree' becomes obsolete, there is nothing at all to fall back on -- other than to go pay for another.

The market forced Everest out of town, but we are plagued with the inept liberal institution of Milwaukee Public Schools with its D- GPA and 50% graduation rate. Everything a liberal touches turns to sh*t.

The charter schools, voucher schools and the private schools are a result of years and years of liberals running the public school system, giving us D- students who can barely read and add. You are MPS, Dirk, deal with it.

Pennypacker - You are just trying to divert the conversation from Pennypacker being a Perrybacker. That must be a real embarrassment for you and Willing. How could a public buffoon like Perry or his former fanatics know anything about education?

@Dirk: The debate is about how liberal policy and unions have destroyed public education, not your sideshow (changing the subject) over who backs Perry. Who cares? Why not spend precious keyboard time refuting Willing's argument. Oh, right, you can't.

@ GearHead
4:28 pm on Monday, September 17, 2012
@Dirk: The debate is about how liberal policy and unions have destroyed public education, not your sideshow (changing the subject) over who backs Perry. Who cares? Why not spend precious keyboard time refuting Willing's argument. Oh, right, you can't

Bernie replies;
Interesting you should ask. Now do you know what William was saying? “OR” are you just throwing out dribbles of nonsense. In your words; what was William advocating? If you can’t answer your own question then Hmmmmm..
Oh and generalization of liberal policies have been answered and rebutted. Unions giving you a problem? That laborer’s have a voice in their value to their productivity and its distributions, is offensive to you? Are you saying the corporations and governments will take care of everything just fine we can trust them to do right by their laborer’s. Are you really that naive? Now exactly what was William saying? Balls in your court…

Willing is proposing, some in code talk, of handing the schools over to private industry, along with implicit segregation, introducing religion in public schools, and control of curriculum so bad "science" like creationism, intelligent design, denial of global warming, etc. can be taught without restrictions, but at taxpayer expense. The shorthand rebuttal was he supported and was a spokesman for Rick Perry and strange and aberrant beliefs and behavior, including education!!

*crickets*

All 1,753 of them

ie, failed business man Nick Poulos cannot continue to suck at the trough of the taxpayers if Romney wins.

While we wait 1-2 generations for the silly liberal utopian vision to hit or most emphatically miss the mark, another 20 years is wasted. Cling to your cave paintings, continue to exert control over your fellow cave dwellers. We'll be just fine moving forward.

@C. Sanders -- Define 'silly liberal utopian vision' vision, please. And how does the conservative vision plan to change the system. Yes, I know, get rid of the teachers' unions, but then what? You think uniforms and prayer will magically teach every child to read?

It doesn't matter who was in charge Bernie. Throwing more money at the problem hasn't solved it. It fact it has made it worse. Conservatives have now realized that fact and understand that more money isn't the problem, education must go through a fundamental change so that all kids can benefit from it.

You Liberals have yet to realize that one simple fact!

Yes Bernard, we have been throwing more and more money into public education.

http://www2.ed.gov/about/overview/fed/10facts/edlite-chart.html

As far as your claims about Republican cuts, the page states:
"Under the president's proposed budget for fiscal year (FY) 2006, 65 percent of the U.S. Department of Education's elementary and secondary school funds would go to help schools with economically disadvantaged students (ESEA, Title I) and to support children with disabilities (Individuals with Disabilities Education Act [IDEA], Part B, Grants to States). If the president's FY 2006 request is enacted, the increases in these programs over the past five years will have substantially exceeded any previous increases over a similar period since the programs were created."

@Anti-Alinski -- What is this 'fundamental change' you propose? It sounds like you want a form of educational triage -- decide some children simply aren't educable, chuck them out of the boat, and let them sink.

Gee Randy, there a number of things that could help:

How about less "busy" time where the kids are doing activities that are just meant to keep them out of trouble. I would rather have my kid out playing the re-learning something a different way that they already know.

How about making student's less bored by letting students learn at their own pace. Right now instructors teach to the main part of the class, the smarter ones are bored and ones who need more help aren't getting it.

How about integrating more technology into the classroom. By integrating I don't mean adding MORE, but utilizing it more effectively. At my job we test prospective employees with computerized test that adjust the test to the taker's knowledge level. By the end, we know where exactly their skill level lies.

How about tying required curriculum in with the student's interests. If a student enjoys building things, a math class could be designed around applied engineering principles. Some biology is done in the field, but why not more?

There are a couple ideas, and I'm not even an educator!

So you're suggesting that education be more individualized. I'm right there with you. However, that approach might require smaller class sizes, because one teacher can't be in thirty places at once.

Kids love video games. I'm sure an innovative person could come up with games that teach reading and math and made it fun. But that costs money.

@ William PAGE TWO
Bernie replies;
Liberal defined; lib·er·al
1. broad-minded: tolerant of different views and standards of behavior in others
2. progressive politically or socially: favoring gradual reform, especially political reforms that extend democracy, distribute wealth more evenly, and protect the personal freedom of the individual
3. generous: freely giving money, time, or some other asset
My great-aunt was liberal in her bequests.
4. generous in quantity: large in size or amount a liberal helping
5. not literal: not limited to the literal meaning in translation or interpretation
a liberal interpretation of the rules
6. culturally oriented: concerned with general cultural matters and broadening of the mind rather than professional or technical study a liberal education
7. of political liberalism: relating to a political ideology of liberalism
liberal person: somebody who favors tolerance or open-mindedness
[14th century. Via French < Latin liberalis < liber "free"]
Synonyms; See generous.
Encarta ® World English Dictionary © & (P) 1998-2005 Microsoft Corporation. All rights reserved.
Now does that sound familiar? No wonder I was having difficulty trying to comprehend the paradoxes of your blog. Definitions in error. Premise is incorrect. Blog is rendered moot.
Advice learn to read books. Try if you can to seek quality books. Try some Noble Prize authors for a start. World is a tad bigger than your man cave.