Federal Money for Local Communities?

That’s what Congressman Tim Ryan (D, OH) wants—and not just for States; he wants Federal dollars for local communities within the States.

I talk to my mayors every day, township trustees, they’re in a world of pain here. There’s no money coming in. There’s gonna be huge layoffs at the local level.
I think that [McConnell’s plan is] a strategy to let these states go bankrupt so that they can renegotiate the pensions and…renegotiate the contracts for the police and fire and get the wages down[.]

This is ignorant on a number of levels. On one level, Ryan obviously slept through his junior high school civics class. In our federal democracy structure, those mayors, township trustees, et al., lead the governments of communities of the State in which they’re resident, not communities under the jurisdiction of the Federal government. John Jay wanted the States to be nothing more than political bodies established for the purpose of enforcing Federal diktats, but fortunately, he lost that debate at our Constitutional Convention all those years ago.

It’s the State governments that are responsible for the communities within them.  Those mayors and trustees should be looking to their State governments for fiscal help, and it’s solely on those State governments to provide it, or to say “No, clean up your spending.”

On another level, Ryan slept deeply through those civics classes. States cannot go bankrupt, not as long as they have taxing authority. They have no need of Federal dollars.  Beyond that, the States that are in fiscal trouble need first to get their budgets in order, to cut their spending to fit within their revenues—to, among other things, fix their irresponsibly profligate public pension programs rather than demand money from the citizens of all the other States—which is what Federal monies are—to pay for their own foolishness.

On yet another level, there’s Ryan’s threat of huge layoffs at the local level. That would simply expose the government bloat that exists as much at the local level as it does at the State and Federal level. Most of those folks would be better off working in the private economy and so would those communities. The police and firemen about whom Ryan shed his crocodile tears would be better off, too: the payroll funds allocated to that bloated work force could be reallocated to the police and fire departments—and at no extra cost to the rest of the citizens of those local communities.

Wuhan Virus and Higher Education

Our colleges and universities are being confronted with “hard choices” as a result of the Wuhan Virus situation.

Every source of funding is in doubt. Schools face tuition shortfalls because of unpredictable enrollment and market-driven endowment losses. Public institutions are digesting steep budget cuts, while families are questioning whether it’s worth paying for a private school if students will have to take classes online, from home.
To brace for the pain, colleges and universities are cutting spending, freezing staff salaries, and halting plans for campus building.

But in bracing for that pain, colleges and universities don’t seem to be considering their curricula. They don’t seem to be considering cutting out the fluff and froo-froo courses that have proliferated—courses like women’s studies, gender studies, sexuality studies. Courses like intersectionality.

Colleges and universities don’t seem to be considering deemphasizing intercollegiate sports—most programs of which lose money and all programs of which have lost the student athlete aspect and, with NCAA approval, have codified their semi-pro athlete aspect.

Colleges and universities don’t seem to be considering focusing their instructional programs on things that will prepare their students for making their way in the real world of post graduation: skills like critical thinking, skills like doing the work the businesses in our economy need done, whether building or programming computers, building or programming or operating factory equipment, business skills associated with operating farms and businesses.

Colleges and universities are failing the challenge.

An Appellate Court Error

The 6th Circuit has this one.  Gary B v Whitmer concerns children in a really poorly performing Detroit public schools: miserable classroom conditions and abysmal test scores.

The appellate court decided, though, that this matter had nothing to do with the quality of the schools, over which the court has no jurisdiction, and everything to due process as delineated in our Constitution’s 14th Amendment, within which the court does have some jurisdiction.

Acting within that capacity, the court manufactured out of whole cloth, a brand, spanking new right: a state-funded education. Whereby this appellate court has also asserted the Federal government’s right and authority to dictate to a State on matters which the court acknowledges to belong to the State and not to the Federal government.

The Wall Street Journal noticed one of the foolishnesses of this ruling [emphasis added]:

The decision…notes there is a history of public education in the US and “a substantial relationship between access to education and access to economic and political power.” Surely the same could be said of home ownership. Does the Constitution command subsidized housing? “Property,” unlike education, is at least mentioned in the Constitution.

Indeed. And [emphasis added here, too]:

When judges invent new rights they can also damage the democratic process. The Supreme Court has warned against the Due Process Clause being “subtly transformed into the policy preferences of the Members of this Court.” Yet that’s what will happen if federal judges are put in charge of state and local education policy. The majority says poor education undermines democracy, and that’s right—but judicial imperialism threatens it even more.

That brings to mind, also, CJ Taft’s remarks in an earlier case:

The good sought in unconstitutional legislation is an insidious feature because it leads citizens and legislators of good purpose to promote it without thought of the serious breach it will make in the ark of our covenant or the harm which will come from breaking down recognized standards.

So it is, too, with extra-Constitutional judicial rulings.

The 6th Circuit’s ruling can be read here.

Teachers Unions and Online Education

Oregon’s public schools are closed down due to the Wuhan Virus situation, as are most of our nation’s school systems.  As a result of that, parents started flocking their children to online charter schools so as to continue their education.  The Oregon Education Association, among others, object to that, though. They’d rather the kids sit around at home (because Oregon, like many States, has instituted a stay-home policy for all the State’s citizens and others living there) twiddling their thumbs, making pests of themselves, and otherwise being bored out of their minds rather than continue their schooling. So:

Under pressure from the unions, the Oregon Department of Education stopped allowing transfers on March 27. At Oregon Connections Academy, this means some 1,600 students who had sought to transfer won’t be able to….

Whatever happened to “It’s for the children?”

Oh, wait–these are teachers unions.

Resistance to Change

Matthew Hennessey, writing in Sunday’s Wall Street Journal commented extensively on the current Wuhan Virus (my term, not his) situation and its impact on education, specifically the forced switch to a measure of home schooling.

Many families have found themselves running pop-up homeschools. Most students will return to traditional classrooms when the crisis passes. But some families—perhaps many—will come away from this involuntary experiment with a new appreciation for home-based education. They may even decide that homeschooling is not only a plausible option, but a superior one.

It’s that last bit, coupled with the article’s subheadline, that drew my attention. That subhead was

Education has long been resistant to change, but it can’t dodge the pandemic.

Education can’t dodge the pandemic any more than any of the rest of us can.  But it isn’t education that’s resistant to change.  The rapidly increasing demand for voucher schools, charter schools, straight-up homeschooling, and other variants to providing education for our K-12 children demonstrates the error of that claim.

It’s the parents who are pushing for those changes, and they’re supported by a few politicians and a few State and local governments who are, if not pushing for these changes, at least are staying out of their way.

It’s many other State governments and especially teachers unions who are actively opposing these changes. It’s the managers of education systems who have been long resistant to change, and remain so. The consumers of education systems, and especially their parents, are clamoring for these and an unfettered expansion of these changes.