Illegal for kids to say gun in US

 Imaage: When this guy makes it to preschool he will be in real trouble for this.
Anti gun frantics in the education system seem particularly fond of picking on school children of late, especially the younger ones. 

Recently we have seen kids picked on and bullied by school authorities for a number of ‘gun related’ activities, from having cap guns, drawing guns, eating gun shapes into biscuits, pointing fingers and saying bang, right through to something involving bubble gum that was too bloody stupid to bother reading.  There was even a three year old deaf preschooler who was ordered to change his name from Hunter because the sign used resembled a gun, (Not making this up.)

Now a child has been interrogated and suspended for mentioning the word gun: 

Bruce Henkelman of Huntingtown says his son, a sixth grader at Northern Middle School in Owings, was talking with friends about the Sandy Hook Elementary School massacre when the bus driver hauled him back to school to be questioned by the principal, Darrel Prioleau. 

"The principal told me that with what happened at Sandy Hook if you say the word 'gun' in my school you are going to get suspended for 10 days," Henkelman said in an interview with WMAL.com. 

So what did the boy say?  According to his father, he neither threatened nor bullied anyone. 

"He said, I wish I had a gun to protect everyone. He wanted to defeat the bad guys. That's the context of what he said," Henkelman said. "He wanted to be the hero."

 Image: The origin of a liberal tradition.

The boy was questioned by the principal and a sheriff's deputy, who also wanted to search the family home without a warrant, Henkelman said. "He started asking me questions about if I have firearms, and [the deputy said] he's going to have to search my house.  Search my house?  I just wanted to know what happened." 

No search was performed, and the deputy left Henkelman's home after the father answered questions in a four-page questionnaire issued by the Sheriff's Office. … 

… The ACLU's Kumar said there are too many cases of school officials coming down hard on students for relatively harmless offenses.

How stupid and inadequate is the ACLU in the first place to regard this as an offense? These people have no concept of the rule of law.

These actions are nothing to do with safety, nor solving any perceived problem of gun violence. They are liberal political correctness mixed with an unhealthy dose of histrionics posing as public safety.  These people are child abusers.

Gonski ‘punishment’ a warning against local government recognition

The gillard government in its determination to push the Gonski ‘reforms’ onto the reluctant states has come out with the whips and spurs in order to force them to comply.  States that refuse to sign up to the federal government’s model will be subjected to lower funding to those that (to use a Johism), put their feet on the sticky paper.

Under the federal proposal, all problems with the education system is the same in all states and should be solved by the same solution nationwide, even though some premiers have different solutions. The idea that the feds can play favorites and that funding can be denied to states that want to try different ideas tailored to their own circumstances is outrageous: 

Legislation introduced in parliament yesterday reveals schools in states that fail to adopt the Gonski funding reforms will be locked into a lower rate of increased funding to ensure they do not receive a windfall from the extra spending in other states. 

Amendments to the Australian Education Bill introduced by School Education Minister Peter Garrett also contain the detailed funding formula under the new model, including the base payment per student and the calculations for the loadings based on the disadvantage of individual students. 

By including the formula and the six-year transition arrangements for schools, including the different levels of indexation, the government is attempting to "Abbott-proof" its education reforms. … 

… Western Australia has signalled it will not sign up to the Gonski reforms, while Ms Gillard has become embroiled in a public brawl with Queensland Premier Campbell Newman over the negotiations, calling on him yesterday to follow the lead of NSW. …

 This bodes badly for the recognition of local governments in the constitution which needs to be rejected.  Allowing direct funding of councils will subject them to the same bully-boy tactics being used here.

Councils are already subject to far too much regulation by state governments, effectively taking much of their control out of the hands of ratepayers to the point where they are in danger of becoming little more than local branches of the states they are part of. This will add a higher level of control, further removed from residents.

While the federal government promotes Gonski like NDIS as Labor benevolence to the states, the reality is that it requires massive additional spending by state governments, most of which are still struggling to recover from years of overspending by Labor governments.  It is likely that councils will be subjected to the same conditions requiring greater borrowings or higher rates for projects that are the pipe dreams of federal government, rather than those of local residents.

Competitive federalism where state and local governments are free to do as much or little as needed to meet the requirements of electors, would be better than the current top down model.

Most US college students want less government in their lives

One of the greatest concerns for the future among libertarians and fiscally responsible small government elements of the conservative movement is the way in which students are being propagandised by liberal educators.

A new poll taken by Young America’s Foundation seems to contradict this view with an overwhelming majority holding a negative view of government intervention in their lives.  Many of us have a deep concern as to what the current actions of government will saddle future generations with and students are waking up to what is in store: 

… About 45 percent of 18 to 34-year olds are unemployed according to a recent poll by Demos, a public policy firm. I still know of college classmates who have yet to find meaningful jobs or are severely underemployed almost four years after graduation. However, a recent poll on young people's views of limited government, free markets, and economic liberty suggests some may be waking up to the conclusion that government, over-regulation, and more spending will not turn our futures around. 

In a survey launched by Young America's Foundation and conducted by the polling company, inc., more than 60 percent of college-age students feel that government should not take an active role in their day-to-day-lives, and half of respondents believe that the federal government is mostly hurting economic recovery. 

President Ronald Reagan said, "Entrepreneurs and their small enterprises are responsible for almost all the economic growth in the United States." And, as the poll suggests, young people share this belief: 66 percent of the students polled had a positive opinion of "entrepreneurship," 44 percent found "free markets" positive, and 42 percent believe the federal government is an opponent rather than a partner in the pursuit of the American Dream. 

It seems every time we turn on the TV or visit our favorite news site, the media is telling us what issues should matter to us, such as gun control and abortion. However, in YAF's study, neither of those issues rank in the top five for the respondents, who cited the economy (21 percent), jobs (16 percent), education (16 percent), and the national debt (14 percent). We went to college or received an advanced degree in hopes of bettering our situation and having a productive and fruitful life. Isn't that the goal of every generation? 

The poll seems to indicate that our leaders in Washington are keeping us from doing that. Six-in-ten young people are displeased with the way that their public officials represent young people. That shouldn't surprise many, judging by the approval rating for Congress. The respondents felt that our leaders have bungled the recovery and are out to score points on each other, rather than solve the problem.  

Many in Congress use scare tactics to call for more government spending, higher taxes, and more regulations to "even the playing field." That doesn't sit well with my generation. Seventy-six percent of respondents feel that government spending has to decrease if we are to have any hope of improving our economic situation, nearly 40 percent want less regulation, and nearly 60 percent want lower taxes. …

The future may be in better hands than the present is.

Children of the state

MSNBC host Melissa Harris Perry recites the tired old leftist dogma that children are property of the state, or at this stage, the community:

 

 The statement was made in one of the network’s ‘Lean forward’ promotion pieces. Authoritarians have traditionally taken the view that the state needs to collectivise children and their rearing in order to ensure that they grow up to be unquestioning acolytes of the regime.

 H/t Libertarian Republican

School kicks back at nanny state

Image: Pic: Mark Calleja Source: The Courier-Mail

Those of us who are over 30-40 years old can remember when lunch breaks at school were fun.  They were your time where you could do pretty much whatever you liked, although a teacher was usually out there to ensure that things didn’t get out of hand and to break up the odd fist fight.

Parents kicked in for play equipment such as balls, ropes, nets, cricket and baseball bats, etc, but kids had to supply their own toy guns, marbles, pocketknives and so on.  Scratches, bruises, and abrasions occurred occasionally, but these were treated as part of learning to be smarter next time and hardened us up.

Since then the dead hand of the nanny state has intervened.

Petrie Terrace State School deserves to be congratulated for the outbreak of common sense occurring there: 

… At Petrie Terrace State School, in Brisbane's inner city, cubby houses are tucked away and children are swinging from tyres roped to trees.  Other students are running through a tyre obstacle course fixed to the ground and teachers watch children sometimes stumble, pick themselves up and run on. 

It is a far cry from the school bans on cartwheels, tiggy and red rover amid what principals have dubbed "the litigious age". School principal Eunice Webb said she thought the fear of being sued had been behind an increase in playground crackdowns, but it was getting in the way of learning. 

"What I am more afraid of is children who don't know how to take a risk, that to me is a bigger fear," she said.  She said tight supervision was paramount and this was always in place. 

Parents are also behind the move, helping to build the playground. …

In fairness, litigation is a serious problem these days, especially with vulturous law firms swamping the media with their ubiquitous ‘here to help’ messages.  One of these days a judge will tell a plaintiff, “You are a pathetic sniveling loser and an opportunistic, litigatious grub. Piss off out of my courtroom and learn to harden the f*** up a bit.”

A man can dream.

There is a good critique of the overzealous use of H&S and fear of litigation here, ironically from a Pom:

Judith Hackitt, head of the Health and Safety Executive (HSE), accused schools and councils of using health and safety rules to avoid providing activities that might cost money or expose them to being sued. 

She said children's play and education had been damaged, with some playgrounds becoming joyless no-go areas, while science lessons had been hampered by bans on practical experiments. 

Hackitt warned the HSE would challenge bureaucrats who attribute "daft decisions" to ban innocuous activities to safety rules. 

Warning that "the gloves are off", she said the rules were wrongly blamed for decisions to make children wear goggles when playing conkers and ban running at a pancake race."The creeping culture of risk aversion and fear of litigation ... puts at risk our children's education and preparation for adult life," she told the Telegraph. 

"Children today are denied – often on spurious health and safety grounds – many of the formative experiences that shaped my generation. Playgrounds have become joyless, for fear of a few cuts and bruises."

Victoria adopts school vouchers for disadvantaged

Cartoon: Mark Knight 

The federal government commissioned the Gonski Report after realising that education standards here had slipped in relation to the rest of the world, or part of it.  The report recommended throwing a large increase in funding at the problem, along with a greater degree of central planning.  The result of implementation would be a ‘one size fits all’ system Australia wide.

States with conservative governments are objecting strongly with Victoria taking the lead.  Part of that state’s solution is the use of school vouchers; unfortunately not for all students, but for those seen as disadvantaged.  It seems to offer schools more autonomy with accountability standards included.

Given that the drop in outcomes has come on the back of around a 40% increase in education funding over the last decade, the Victorians make a valid point that there is little difference in outcomes in relation to extra expenditure over a certain level: 

The international literature highlights that, beyond a certain base level of funding, there is no necessary causal link between increased funding and higher educational outcomes.7 The world’s best performing school systems are not necessarily the world’s biggest spenders. For example, South Korea spends much less per student than the OECD average yet outperforms Australia and many other countries by a significant margin. 

Public expenditure on schooling per student in Australia is already slightly above the OECD average.9 Between 2000 and 2009, real expenditure on school education in Australia increased by 44%, yet outcomes measured by the PISA tests showed a statistically significant decrease; a similar phenomenon was observed in the UK. … 

... Merely increasing school funding will not lift the performance of Victorian and Australian schools to the global top tier. Some important reforms will require additional funding. But it is vital that additional funding is invested sensibly and that it is directed to measures that will improve outcomes for students. What is most important is how funding will be spent. High performing schools in Victoria show that much more can be done within existing resources and with modest additional resources.

The commonwealth, bureaucracy, and teachers unions are outraged by these suggestions.  Columnist Henry Ergas though, demolishes many of their claims in The Australian: 

Victoria's proposals, released last week, to provide every low-income family with a voucher redeemable in government and non-government schools, take those changes a dramatic step forward. That they have the teachers' unions in hysterics is unsurprising; but it is startling that the Gillard government, having spouted the rhetoric of choice, has now joined the unions in denouncing policies that would give less well-off parents a real right to choose. 

The battle cry of these enemies of choice is that schools are underfunded; their panacea is throwing yet more taxpayer dollars at education. With those shekels would come shackles: increased centralisation that adds layers of bureaucracy while duplicating existing requirements in the states; and crucially, new limits on entry into teaching and on the opening of non-government schools. 

Australian kids would gain nothing from that agenda. But the teachers' unions would be big winners, in the form of more jobs, higher pay and less demanding working conditions. 

The long-term increase in teacher numbers is telling: school students account for exactly the same proportion of the population today as they did in 1951, but the share of teachers in the population has doubled. Telling too are the cost increases, with teacher wages per student in government schools rising, in real terms, by 33 per cent in the past decade alone. 

Notoriously, what hasn't increased are the outcomes: it is producers, not consumers, who have captured most of the benefits of rapidly rising spending. And with billions more set to be spent, the unions want to capture them every bit as fully as they have in the past. Little wonder then that, like all cartels, they want to increase the barriers to entry into their sector. …

State premiers make a good point in that in coming up with their own solutions, they can better tailor education to their individual states needs and are able to pinch any better ideas coming from the others.