FERPA Explained to Parents. A Crystal Ball Moment?

Will my child be successful in school?  Look to the data....or maybe not?

The Federal Government believes data is king and wants to track school children from birth through their lives for workforce development.  It's shrouded as education reform, but it is really for the establishment of state longitudinal data systems to connect with various federal agencies and approved private firms to collect data on your child to establish a managed workforce.

Data will set your child's educational/career path and the Federal government believes this data will dictate your child's future.  Don't worry yourself that you/your child will be faced with choices, responsibilities, teenage angst, etc.  By setting up these data systems, the future will be clear and the Federal government will direct your child.

To accomplish this data gathering, FERPA regulations have been relaxed so more entities have access to your student's information.  Worried about data being shared on your child with agencies/companies without your knowledge?  Never fear, taxpayer.  FERPA is soothing your fears and explaining how this data sharing is advantageous and necessary for educational success.  The government has created a document for parents to assure them this data will equip the government to ensure students receive a quality education:

 
It is important to ensure that all students have access to a quality education. Parents should be able to take an active role in their child’s education and know answers to some basic questions about their child’s likely future success.


We take exception to the last sentence when it states "parents should be able to take an active role in their child's education".  It should read "parents have the primary and ultimate responsibility in directing their child's education".  This is the difference between government taking responsibility for your child's learning via data gathering vs parents/children holding themselves responsible for their educational progress or lack of progress.  Since when did it become the prevailing thought that parents "should be able" to take an active role in their child's education?  When did parents need permission to have the primary responsiblity for their child's educational direction?

The document contains questions parents might theoretically ask about their child's future success.  The answers (according to the government) ostensibly can be obtained by computing the data gathered on children from birth.  MEW's editors (Gretchen in red; Anngie in blue) have answered these questions from a  parental/student directed view of education, not a data driven pronouncement of failure or success:



• When my son leaves his early childhood program, will he be prepared for kindergarten? We guess that depends on how willing he is and how able he is to learn.  A more important question is why is he in early childhood in the first place?  Do you want your child tracked from birth for the government's/workforce's interests? Do you even know what being prepared for kindergarten means? Your own past, where begin prepared meant you had on matching shoes  and knew not to eat paste, is not a good starting place. If you want to go on blind faith that some government sponsored program is giving him all he needs you can, but if he turns out to be unprepared, do you think you might have had a role in his unpreparedness?

 
• Does my daughter’s school have large achievement gaps between subgroups of students? Are the gaps closing?  That's a good question.  We (the Federal government) are solely concerned about achievement gaps between subgroups.  If your daughter is in a lower subgroup, we will have standards/assessments that will help her perform better.   

In fact, if your daughter is in Florida and is in a lower performing subgroup, she will not have to attain a high percentage of achievement. 

If your daughter is Asian or Caucasian, we really don't care about her.  Those achievement scores are high enough, we want to spend our resources on the lower groups.  And dear reader, notice we don't really care about individual achievement.  We are only concerned about tracking students as subgroups.  That's imperative for the data.  Forget about individualism.  It's all about the "community" and subgroups now.

 
• What are my daughter’s chances of graduating from high school?  As long as she keeps her grades up, doesn't get pregnant or become a drug/alcohol addict, she'll have a good chance.  And oh, by the way, strong parenting and sense of responsibility might just be a factor in her chances of graduating. Didn't we address this back in kindergarten? Whether she graduates or not depends on how high YOUR motivation for her to graduate is. Seeing as you haven't figured this out in 12 years we must say we have our doubts about your daughter's chances. Still expecting a government bureaucracy to guarantee this for you tells us she is fighting an uphill battle.

• What percentage of children at my son’s high school take the ACT/SAT and what’s the average score? This is important as well.  Don't worry about this.  Many schools are now paying for students to take the ACT/SAT even if the student doesn't want to go to college or is not intellectually equipped for college. Still concerned about average performance? Your children really do have a challenge don't they?

• What courses should my son take if he wants to be prepared for college?  If he wants to be an engineer, math/science.  If he wants to be a writer, literature/English courses.  Why ask such a question? Along with the usual English, math, and science, we would also recommend that he take a course in economics and one in personal finance. If he is going to go to college, he will need to understand the horrific debt he will start his adult life out with thanks to outrageous increases in college tuition over the last two decades. A basic economic course will show how the ready government supply of tuition loans has enabled universities to continuously increase their tuition, by much as a 400% in some cases.  If your son's high school or local community college offers a course in contract law, that would also be helpful so he can understand the terms in the contract he will be asked to sign for these loans which states they will never be forgiven thanks to sections of the 2010 Health Care Act.

• Is my son likely to need to take remedial courses in college to catch-up or will he be prepared?  We guess it depends on him and the school district.  You know, it's really about responsibility here.

 
• When my daughter graduates from college, will she be able to find a job and how much will she earn?  Well, as companies are depleting their workforce due to Obamacare, it is doubtful she will be able to find a job and if she does, it will probably be part time.  We remain optimistic as the current administration has attempted to turn our public school system into a mammoth jobs training program. However, they have also scaled down a full work week to 30 hours and consider any employment a success. As such her ability to earn will be limited. Our entire economy may be filled like Hollywood restaurants with waiters, waitresses and barristas with liberal arts degrees waiting for their chance at the career they really want.

The government still insists it has the ingredient necessary for educational success (I can't refer to it as "educational excellence"):

States have been working to establish longitudinal data systems to help answer these questions, and to determine what works and what doesn’t when it comes to our children’s education.

Leave it to data sets and data systems to determine what works in your child's education.  Take away personal choice, responsibility, inherent ability, family situations, unplanned pregnancy, drug use, recessions/depressions, lack of jobs, etc.  It's all about the data and this data will provide the answers to the questions above.  Don't worry your head (turn in your parent card) about your responsibilities and certainly don't demand responsibility from your student.  Personal responsibility isn't relevant on a data set.  

The Nanny State Demonstration Program

I happened to be in Massachusetts this weekend so I can't help but comment on their newest ban on sweets.

Bake sales, the calorie-laden standby cash-strapped classrooms, PTAs and booster clubs rely on, will be outlawed from public schools as of Aug. 1 as part of new no-nonsense nutrition standards, forcing fundraisers back to the blackboard to cook up alternative ways to raise money for kids. - Boston Herald

The irony of this coming from state where there is a Dunkin Donuts LITERALLY every two blocks should not be lost on your typical Massachussan. The Department of Public Health and Education is even suggesting schools do away with whole milk and white bread to combat an obesity epidemic affecting a third of the state’s 1.5 million students. Dr. Lauren Smith, of the Massachuseets Department of Public Health said,

“We’re not trying to get into anyone’s lunch box. We know that schools need those clubs and resources. We want them to be sure and have them, but to do them a different way. We have some incredibly innovative, talented folks in schools who are already doing some impressive things, who serve as incontrovertible evidence that, yes, you can do this, and be successful at it.”

They're not trying to get into anyone's lunchbox, they're trying to get into their grocery cart. The DPH is pushing schools to expand the ban 24/7 into weekends and evening events as well. There are already limits on the type of foods allowed for WIC purchases. How far behind can a general ban on sugar, fat or salt be?

Massachussetts is a state on the liberal front lines for everything. They are the second largest demonstration program for the nanny state in the country, coming in just behind California. They have banned the following and more:

• Public smoking
• Fall holiday parties in school  (e.g. Thanksgiving, Columbus Day). 
• Credit-based insurance scoring in underwriting private passenger automobile insurance
• Bottled Water
• They are looking to ban the practice of throwing food away.
• They tried to ban handgun ownership, but failed.

Those who think parents are not qualified to raise their children believe that such nanny state bans are the best way to raise children properly. They provide the necessary boundaries that otherwise intelligent parents would not know to establish.  But watching what such suppositions do to the community is disheartening.

I watched a town sponsored soccer league game for 9 year olds, in a well off town of mostly highly educated white collar workers (and quite a few tiger moms).  These parents had been retrained to be observers of those who will actually raise their children. The soccer field became an eerily silent gathering that felt more like a Stephen King novel than a fun family event.  You see, cheering had been banned in this league. 

Initially it was an attempt to quell the pushy parents coaching from the sidelines.  It has morphed into an all out ban on any type of shouting from the sidelines, justified by saying such noise confuses the kids and makes it hard for them to hear the coaches. (These kids will never make it into international football, where the vuvuzela challenges the concentration of even the passive fan.)

Midway through the second half, I watched this ominous exchange. One parent, caught up in the excitement of watching her son play, spoke in a voice just above a conversational tone, "Go Josh." In the next moment a look of panic crossed her face. She turned to the league director who was standing a few feet away and quickly apologized, "I guess I wasn't supposed to say that." He curtly responded, "Nope."  The rest of the parents shrank a little further down in their lawn chairs, pursed their lips a little tighter and kept their silent vigil over the movement on the field. It wasn't even a game, since scoring had also been banned.

That these children retain any enthusiasm for sports is a testament to natural human competitiveness.

One of the greatest teaching tools we have is feedback and these kids are being systematically deprived of it. Mom and Dad can say, "Good game" after the fact, but it can't help but feel like too little too late.  They learn to seek the approval of the official, their coach, or in school, their teacher. Their parents are being relegated to silence on the sidelines.

They will also learn the double speak of adults. While the kids' legs got exercise in the soccer league, the only muscles their parents used was their eye muscles to provide generous rolls at all the rules: No unhealthy snacks (the kids don't eat the apples and carrots brought), no bottled water (but Gatorade is ok), no cheering a goal (though every kid on the team knows what the final score was).  In the nanny state, life goes on, we just don't talk about it.

An Education in how the Nanny State Operates

 

Guest commentary: Will my child be allowed to work on my farm?

This is a sad and alarming guest commentary from the St. Louis Post-Dispatch on the control the American government wants over your children.  It doesn't stop at the school door.  It's in your home, on your farm,  in the packing of your child's school lunch.

 

What is the belief of the elitists in the government?  The American parent is incompetent.  Leave it to the government to dictate to you how to raise your children.

The Sunday Education Weekly Reader: Visual Soundbites for 02.05.2012

Welcome to the Sunday Education Weekly Reader for 02.05.2012.  The visual soundbites from Twitter for the week:
 

• Federal Officials breaking the law affecting public education students.   Is the Department of Education thumbing its nose at American taxpayers and parents?....Department of Education, So what if we break the law goo.gl/fb/6x9Ss

• Is your child late to school?  In Loudoun, VA, expect a deputy to appear on your doorstep.  “It’s not just trying to meddle in someone’s affairs or dictate how someone raises their child,” said Wayde Byard, spokesman for Loudoun County Public Schools. “It’s a child welfare issue, basically.”  Nanny state gone wild?....VA Parents summoned to court b/c their kids were a few minutes late to school Washington Post - http://goo.gl/vLdob

• If schools adopted these rules from 1898, would we have better schools that wouldn't cost billions of dollars in "reform"?.....Just found this "Good Manners" chart, supplied to schools in 1898 (It's a PDF): http://bit.ly/kPFP7h

• WSJ article on French children vs American children.  Is this what is missing in American education and much of American parenting the key to raising more successful American children?  Maybe if children had more of "this", it wouldn't require billion of dollars in education "reform" either....Why French Parents Are Superior http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052970204740904577196931457473816.html?mod=WSJ_hp_LEFTTopStories

 

 

**************************************************

 

Educational thought of the week picked up from twitter encapsulating what's wrong with public education.  

 

Are schools day care facilities or academies of intellectual pursuit?  Is the reason children are sent to school to give a break to the parents?  Maybe the parents need to read the aforementioned WSJ article.

 

Starting to suspect that the reason why kids have to go to school isn't that they need an education. It's that parents need a break. 

An Economics Professor, the Tooth Fairy and the Little Red Hen

The following is a revealing video clip on Valencia College students' views on "what the American Dream means to them" in an economics class.  These views are a compilation from 180 sophomores in three different classes under Professor Jack Chambless.  The professor had them expand their description of the "American Dream" and they wrote what they wanted the Federal Government to do to help them achieve their dream.  Chambless has made this a yearly assignment and he reported on the results from this year's economic classes.


Ten percent (10%) of the students wrote they wanted the Federal Government to leave them alone, not tax them too much and not saddle them with too many regulations.   Eighty percent (80%) of the students listed what they wanted the Federal Government to provide them so they could achieve the American Dream:

• Free tuition and health care
• Jobs
• Money for a House
• Money for Retirement
• Money for Me (after taxing rich people)

Here is one interesting comment from a student that may perfectly sum up the definition of a nanny state replete with entitlement programs and federal regulations:


"As human beings, we are not really responsible for our own acts, and so we need government to control those who don't care about others." 

Wow.  Reread that quote.  Is it the function of government to control its citizenry, or at least those citizens who "don't care about others"?  Could it be these students know little about economics and even less about the Constitution and the function of government?

It is a fascinating video providing a view into the minds of the entitlement generation.  My advice to these students about economics?  Reread the childhood story The Little Red Hen.  Why should the little red hen be responsible for all the other animals who could help but were too lazy to do so...but then those same animals wanted to reap all the rewards?  

Shouldn't this be one of the first economic lessons children learn?   Do schools even allow the reading of The Little Red Hen or has it been banned because of its message of self-sufficiency and hard work?  Has the Little Red Hen been marginalized because some believe she is uncaring and won't share?    

Professor Chambless believes some of these students think there is a Tooth Fairy in Washington DC to provide them goodies and treats.   Watch the video, hear what the professor thinks is at the root of this entitlement mentality, his lesson on pickpocketing and how the American government is practicing this sleight of hand.

Forget the Rule of Law. The New Rule of Government: "BUT, BUT, WE WANT IT"!

The two lines I found absolutely astounding and did not hear one commentator address from the President's speech were these (the full speech is here):

"What kind of country would this be if this Chamber had voted down Social Security or Medicare just because it violated some rigid idea about what government could or could not do? How many Americans would have suffered as a result? "

What do you think he means by "some rigid idea about what government could or could not do"? Could he possibly mean the laws that govern the land are inconsequential? Maybe even the Constitution shouldn't be followed because it might just get in the way of what we want? Why should we bother with any laws?

It reminds me of children wailing: "But I want it"! The parents know the child cannot learn discipline of saving money and discipline of spirit if all his/her needs are satisfied all the time. The child grows into a miserable, shrill, spoiled and selfish adult. Chaos ensues in relationships as it becomes "all about ME" and there is no framework to reign in impulsive choices and desires.

This is what our nation is evolving into...a President and his administration stating "We're going to implement decisions that we want through mandates, federal grants and regulations. Congress is truly inconsequential".

In education, we see it as...Race to the Top, Common Core standards, mandates to institute trigger options without benefit of legislation, free food and clinics in school through HSS and Dept. of Agriculture...and on and on. We have no way to pay for these programs and many of them are unconstitutional, but apparently that's not a problem.

The administration wants education reform. It doesn't care how it gets it. Laws don't matter. As Van in Blogodidact writes:

But his most telling line, to my mind, was this - in what was said, and the much more meaningful portion that was not said, but was very much implied by it:

"What kind of country would be, this chamber had voted down social security or medicare, just because it violated some rigid idea about what government could, or could not, do."

The easy reply to this is that this nation would be a far more closely knit one, a far wealthier one, one that would be significantly more free, and one with a much sounder rule of law, without those two Article 1, Section 8 shredding programs. Why do you ask? Why did he ask? In hopes of successfully distracting from and ignoring several issues.

• One, that few things are more divisive to society than govt charity; I do not see Social Security or Medicare as kindnesses, but as one of the first measures to begin breaking apart the bonds and responsibilities which had bound us together for so long.
• Two, to point out how annoying, and obstructionist it is having to follow the rule of law is, and how the Constitution should be ignored, so that the President can more easily deliver goodies to his fans.
• Three, he wants very much for the Constitution to be sidelined and ignored, in order to be able to 'do good' for the American people.

Truly we are in a nanny state. " All praise be to the Federal Government for its profound charity and love it is showing to the American people while it takes our money and makes decisions for our lives."

Mama, Don't Let Your Babies Grow up to be Brainwashed.

Here is a recording of "Mama, Don't Let Your Babies Grow up to be Cowboys" by the Highwaymen (Willie Nelson, Waylon Jennings, Johnny Cash and Kris Kristofferon):




With all due respect to these fine musicians and songwriters, I have an idea of changing the song to "Mama, Don't Let Your Babies Grow up to be Brainwashed". With the discovery of Communists lecturing in Labor class through University of Missouri advocating violence and civil disobedience as a means to an end, parents need to be aware of what their children are learning in schools.

But don't think this is contained at the university level:

On Tuesday, across the state of Pennsylvania, unions and other Left-wing organizations will be boarding buses and heading to the state capitol in Harrisburg to engage in a mass rally to fight for economic and social justice and against budget cuts. n Lancaster, PA, concerned parents contacted the local newspaper with their concerns, which caused one school to cancel the “field trip”:

Plans to have Wickersham Elementary School students participate next week in a rally opposing cuts in the state education budget have been canceled in the wake of complaints from parents.

The school Wednesday sent home a permission slip asking parents to allow their children in grades three to five to attend the Rally for a Responsible Budget in Harrisburg Tuesday.

“The fact that they’re taking kids and teachers out of school to attend this rally is just plain wrong,” said Julie Zug, whose son is a fourth-grader at Wickersham.

“I have no idea how many schools or districts in Pennsylvania are participating, but it sounds like an awful expense to prop up the teachers’ union.

“How many parents are unaware their kids are being used in this manner?”

The rally is being sponsored by the Coalition for Labor Engagement and Accountable Revenues, a group that includes the Pennsylvania State Education Association, the American Federation of Teachers and several other public-service unions that are planning to bus hundreds of members to Harrisburg.

In a letter to parents accompanying the permission slip, James said the trip would provide an opportunity to “model the role of good citizenship, free expression, fairness and thoughtful deliberation.”

“Please join us as we … travel to Harrisburg to let our voice be heard for a responsible budget for public education,” he urged parents in the letter.

In addition to the permission slip, the school sent home a sample letter for parents to send to lawmakers opposing education funding cuts, as well as a sample script for parents to read when calling their legislators, according to parents.

It’s unknown how many parents will be having their children be used as a government-union prop. What is also unknown, as referenced above, is the number of parents who may not know that their children are being used as government-union props next Tuesday.

Schools recently celebrated "Earth Day" and a rap song was sung at one school extolling people to save the world and not use plastics (which, by the way, is a legal product and is recyclable). We previously blogged about this brainwashing as "One Word: Plastics. The Gentle Art of Seduction".

As Youtube removed the video, here are the words as recorded. You get the gist:

"The sky is high and the ocean is deep,
But we can't treat the planet like a garbage heap,
Don't wreck it, protect it, keep part of it wild,
And think about the future of your great-grandchild.
Recycle, bicycle, don't you drive by yourself,
Don't buy those plastic products on the supermarket shelf.
Boycott, petition, let the big business know,
That is, we mess it up here, there's nowhere else we can go.
Don't shrug your shoulders, say "what can I do"?
Only one person can do it, and that person is you!"


What do these two instances of a field trip to support unions and a skit at school have in common?

• Your children are being led to believe an important aspect of education is to learn how to boycott and petition.

• Your children are being taught to demand based on their desires.

What happened to teaching children how to be proud of their country, make positive contributions because they are proud of their country and become a good citizen? If the definition of a good citizen today is to petition, boycott, and demand "rights due them" ....heaven help this country.

This is the entitlement society and Nanny State on steroids. This is the government instilling personal values into your children. This is the government deciding appropriate behavior and moral judgments for children, usurping parental authority. Academia isn't waiting until college to snag your kids...it's starting in elementary school now...or earlier.

Parents, don't let your babies grow up to be brainwashed. You have your work cut out for you. I'd much rather our children grow up to be cowboys and cowgirls; they are individuals who are self-sufficient and don't need to boycott or petition or follow someone else's agenda. I propose children SHOULD grow up to be cowboys and cowgirls. THIS should be the primary educational goal for students in Arne Duncan's "Blueprint for America": Children growing up espousing individual liberty and responsibility...imagine that.

Is Your Child Allergic to Tyranny?

Is this an example of the Nanny State once again impinging on individual rights? Lunches from home are banned at a Chicago public school:

Principal Elsa Carmona said her intention is to protect students from their own unhealthful food choices.

How to opt out? Only students with allergies are allowed to bring a homemade lunch to school, the Chicago Tribune reports.

Is this an extension of the mandates present in the Health Care Law? A student MUST buy his/her lunch even though he/she doesn't want what the school is offering. It seems as this is forced participation...does this sound familiar? Perhaps students should bring doctor notes stating: "This student is allergic to tyranny and is allowed to bring his/her lunch from home".

Michelle Obama's Quest for Non-Obese Students.

Soon the Federal Government may have to direct our attention to help the hungry public education students in America based on school food allocation set by the administration. The author makes same rather snarky but important points about current menus introduced by the "Healthy, Hunger-free Kids Act of 2010".

Check out Thursday's menu and the condiment for the      
2-oz. fish nugget.

The administration can't spell Libya correctly either.

Tales of Educational Nanny Legislators and Kindergarten Mandates--Coming Soon to your Community?

Missouri is in danger from the Democratic and Republican educational nanny legislators. Robyn Jones-Wright has pre-filed SB 21 which would lower compulsory school age and require mandatory full day kindergarten for students in public schools. This will fit it quite nicely with the educational agenda of the Missouri Association of School Administrators (MASA) and Missouri School Boards Association (MSBA). It is in the legislative platform of these two lobbying groups to require full day kindergarten, and it is also an important goal in Race to the Top.


This is an attempt to control educational choices for parents. If this bill makes it into legislation, parents will have no choice whether or not to place their child into public kindergarten. What kind of choice is that?


Race to the Top makes no bones about it; it is a cradle to age 20 program. Even though Missouri did not receive Race to the Top funding, the intent is to mandate more and more educational rules for children and take away parental choice. We know that from our commissioner, Chris Nicastro, as she indicated she wants to implement the core goals of Race to the Top even though we have not received funding.


Here is a blog from "Culture Vigilante" which will give you more information about the background of the insistent yoke of control being introduced every year in Missouri restricting parental educational choices for their children. Not only should public school parents be concerned, so should homeschooling parents who currently have the right NOT to place their child into a public kindergarten classroom.


Two questions: Missouri is a state that is vehemently opposed to mandates (71% voted to reject Obamacare) so why would state Republicans join with the mandate happy Democrats for this educational bill as they have in the past (watch Culture Vigilante's video)...AND, if this would pass, how does the Legislature intend to fund all day kindergarten for the districts who cannot afford such a mandate? Isn't that part of the problem of federal mandates? Not only are they unconstitutional, they are also underfunded and will necessitate states to go into further debt (or raise taxes) to fulfill the mandates. Missouri is facing an $800 Million deficit this upcoming year and there is no money available for yet another mandated program.


The legislative nannies in this state are potentially placing their employers (the taxpayers) in serious constitutional and financial distress.

The Seesaw of Educational Theories--Mandates vs Children Setting their Own Educational Agenda

How do some parents respond to the ever increasing standards control and financial expense of the Federal Government in public education? Some parents aren't aware of increasing mandates and spending, some believe more money and national standards mean better education, and still others are pulling their children from an increasing nationalized mode of education into systems with no standards at all.

Here is an article from The Sun Sentinel in Florida about a Sudbury school where curriculum doesn't exist. The students set their own agenda and learning style. It's an interesting concept and an alternative for parents who see a nanny state educational program for their child as stifling and inappropriate. It's a novel idea and is parent/student driven rather than government driven. This is a succinct quote from an article about this approach to learning:

The Sudbury approach appeals to people who reject what they see as "coerced" instruction that occurs when adults set the agenda. Supporters instead trust that children will choose to learn what they need to become successful adults. Detractors see it in much the same way as the inmates taking control of the asylum. Only time will tell.

I wonder if the Sudbury approach will ultimately succeed...after 40 years of the Department of Education's control and increased spending (180% increase during those four decades) and flat-lined scores, it is hardly surprising parents are searching for alternative educational models for their children.

Ray Bonneville's advice to the States--"There's a Price to Pay"

Courtesy of Ray Bonneville, blues/country singer...here is a clip of his song "There's a Price to Pay". Check out the lyrics and images. Perfect analogy for the newest Obama bailout:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3UUpF9I33qw


This is exactly what I've been saying the last few months: MISSOURI DOESN'T HAVE THE MONEY TO DO WHAT THE FEDERAL GOVERNMENT WANTS US TO DO IN EDUCATION.

The question you have to ask is "why does the government want control of our schools, which is constitutionally a STATE right"? Answer:

http://www.americanthinker.com/blog/2010/08/forcing_states_into_debt.html

A convergence on Jefferson City AND YOUR STATE LEGISLATORS AND REPRESENTATIVES is the next step. Our legislature can refuse this money. This money does not get us out of debt (one billion dollars is projected for next year). This is not the answer to our money woes. This puts Missouri further into the red.

Tell our legislators NO. We are tired of paying off special interests. We are tired of giving our teachers raises in a severe recession and overpaying superintendents. WE CAN'T DO IT ANYMORE.

Question: How would they spin this in Economics 101? Perhaps we should audit an Econ course in our high schools. If THIS is what is being taught to our high school students, we are indeed on the road to financial ruin with no return. Teaching our children it's permissible to sell off principles for special interests AND circumvent the Constitution. Go back and listen to Ray Bonneville again. Watch the images. That's the new United States.

New Jersey watchdog draws a line in the sand

Here is a video of a New Jersey watchdog. Laura Wellington, blogger and former educator, describes in this clip what's occuring in her daughter's school. The school had the idea to have children perform household chores, the parents would pay them and a portion ($20.00) would be required to be paid to the school. This watchdog has a problem with being told how to run her household and having to bail out a district operating outside of its means.



Welcome to the nanny state.

This watchdog understands the encroachment of government in our lives. Pay attention to your district's fiscal management. It's our money and our kids.