News

Bobby Jindal’s education reform vs Jeb Bush’s big government Common Core

Leave a comment
Louisiana Governor Bobby Jindal
Louisiana Governor Bobby Jindal

The radically leftist National Journal compares and contrasts the education policies of Louisiana Governor Bobby Jindal with former Florida Governor Jeb Bush.

They write:

Louisiana Gov. Bobby Jindal is in Washington Monday to unveil a series of education reforms as part of his 2016 presidential preparations. But his proposals call for scaling back Washington’s role in education while promoting increased parental choice for children’s schools, better measures to assess teacher performance, and more autonomy for individual schools over their own operations.

[…]Through his policy-focused nonprofit AmericaNext, Jindal will be delivering his education proposals at a Christian Science Monitor Breakfast Monday morning, speaking at an educational forum hosted by South Carolina GOP Sen. Tim Scott and meeting with conservative writers to discuss the plan at the Heritage Foundation. He has previously released detailed policy papers on health care, foreign policy, and energy.

Jindal’s education report is a balancing act between calling for higher standards and improved accountability, while limiting the role of the federal government to offer policies to solve the problem. Jindal argues that if parents have more choice in where to send their kids to school—be it local public schools, charter schools, or using vouchers for private or parochial education—the renewed competition will itself force public schools to do a better job. His report calls for less-regimented testing requirements, even as he supports stronger state accountability measures so parents can determine the best schools for their children.

“The federal government should absolutely not be offering incentives, mandates, or coercing states to adopt a national curriculum—whether it’s Common Core or the next iteration of it,” Jindal said. “We don’t think curriculum decisions should be made at the national level. I’m all for rigor, I’m all for standards, but ultimately, I trust parents. I trust choice and competition. I don’t want a top-down, one-size-fits-all approach.” To that end, Jindal said he favors rolling back the mandates in George W. Bush’s No Child Left Behind law.

If he runs for president, Jindal is expected to make education a central part of his message. In the report, he touts the success of the New Orleans school system as a model of his school-choice pitch. After Hurricane Katrina, the city’s educational system was entirely revamped and turned over to the state-run Recovery School District. They allowed schools to be run independently; now more than 90 percent of students in the city attend charter schools. The results have been one of the country’s biggest educational success stories—the graduation rates have skyrocketed and the city’s passing rate on state tests now rival the statewide averages.

Many of Jindal’s school-choice proposals are an extension of the New Orleans experience. He calls for expanding the number charter schools, urges states to remove the caps on the number of charter schools allowed, and argues that principals should play a more active role in their schools’ direction than local school boards.

“Those on the left who believe in government power don’t trust the American people. In terms of education, the best way to drive excellence is to trust the parents. Parents know their kids best, they want what’s best for their children, and if you allow them to vote with their feet, they will then have the chance to give the best education for their kids. And we’ve seen that in New Orleans,” Jindal said.

All told, Jindal’s preferred policies are in line with what many leading educational reformers are arguing. He believes strongly that teacher quality is the strongest school-based factor in a student’s education, and he believes talented teachers should be rewarded for their work. He rails against the seniority system that keeps the most veteran teachers protected from scrutiny. He is dismissive of requiring teachers to hold educational degrees, preferring recruits that have expertise in the areas they teach. And he is bullish about the role technology can play in improving educational outcomes.

[…]But the political red meat of his proposals is directed squarely at Bush. The biggest differences between the two come from the federal role in education and over testing—two areas where the educational establishment is growing disconnected from public opinion. By calling for less testing, Jindal is taking the sides of parents who believe the sheer number of tests is crowding out time for creative endeavors—like art and music—and forcing teachers to drily teach to the test. On that front, Jindal’s critiques echo many liberals on the issue and contrast with the Bush view that progress is best measured through standardized tests.

So it’s ironic that, despite the report’s depth, Jindal’s advisers are hoping to reap the biggest political gain from conservatives by attacking Common Core and calling “the federal government [not to] touch curricula with a 10,000-foot pole.” It’s designed to clearly contrast his version of educational reform with Jeb Bush’s. “Our fundamental disagreement is on who is or should be in control of testing and curriculum. Locals v. federal. And make no mistake, the federal role in education is a huge fault line [between Jindal and Bush],” said a senior Jindal adviser.

If Jeb Bush gets the nomination, it will be like electing a Democrat on education issues – he favors big government control of education, and standardized tests controlled at the federal level. We would be much better off choosing a small-government approach like Bobby Jindal’s approach, an approach that is consistent with conservative principles and is proven to work.

Polemics

Can the secular left rationally ground human rights like freedom of speech?

1 Comment
Cheryle Abatte, Marquette University
Cheryle Abatte, Marquette University

Let’s start this post with an example of the secular left trampling natural rights.

Here’s the story from the College Fix:

It has been a rough three months for Marquette University professor and acerbic blogger John McAdams.

Because McAdams criticized a graduate teaching instructor for silencing an undergraduate owing to his traditional views on marriage, the school informed him last week his tenure is being revoked and he’ll be fired.

Though academic observers debated whether McAdams should have named and shamed now-former Marquette grad student Cheryl Abbate – which led to his temporary banishment from campus and canceled classes – even McAdams’ critics are warning the university it’s setting a terrible precedent.

They didn’t fire the grad student for telling her student that pro-marriage views were not welcome at a Catholic university. They fired the professor who made that threat conversation public. The student is not the victim of discrimination, the administrators said – the real victim is the left-wing fascist grad student.

Like I said before, make sure you have money saved when they come after you, because you might as well trust in the tameness of a wolf than the morality of a leftist university administrator. That’s the real lesson for Christians from stories like this.

So why is it that people on the left don’t respect natural rights like the right to free speech?

Well, it’s because human rights are NOT rationally grounded in the atheistic worldview that dominates the university.

Frank Turek explains in The Stream.

He writes:

Atheist Richard Dawkins has declared, “The universe we observe has precisely the properties we should expect if there is at the bottom, no design, no purpose, no evil and no good. Nothing but blind pitiless indifference. . . . DNA neither knows nor cares. DNA just is, and we dance to its music.”

But Dawkins doesn’t act like he actually believes that. He recently affirmed that a woman has the right to choose an abortion and asserted that it would be “immoral” to give birth to a baby with Down syndrome. According to Dawkins, the “right to choose” is a good thing and giving birth to Down Syndrome children is a bad thing.

Well, which is it? Are there really good and evil, or are we just moist robots dancing to the music of our DNA?

Atheists like Dawkins are often ardent supporters of rights to abortion, same-sex marriage, taxpayer-provided healthcare, welfare, contraceptives, and several other entitlements. But who says those are rights? By what objective standard are abortion, same-sex marriage, same-sex adoption, taxpayer-provided healthcare, and the like, moral rights? There isn’t such a standard in the materialistic universe of atheism. So atheists must steal the grounds for objective moral rights from God while arguing that God doesn’t exist.

[…]Atheists are caught in a dilemma. To simplify a bit, if God doesn’t exist, then everything is a matter of human opinion and objective moral rights don’t exist, including all those that atheists support. If God does exist, then objective moral rights exist. But those rights clearly don’t include cutting up babies in the womb, same-sex marriage, and their other invented absolutes contrary to every major religion and natural law.

Now, an atheist might say, “In our country, we have a constitution that the majority approved. We have no need to appeal to God.” True, you don’t have to appeal to God to write laws, but you do have to appeal to God if you want to ground them in anything other than human opinion. Otherwise, your “rights” are mere preferences that can be voted out of existence at the ballot box or at the whim of an activist judge or dictator. That’s why our Declaration of Independence grounds our rights in the Creator. It recognizes the fact that even if someone changes the law or the political order you still have certain rights because they come from God, not man.

However, my point isn’t about how we should put objective God-given rights into human law. My point is, without God there are no objective human rights. There is no right to abortion or same-sex marriage. Of course, without God there is no right to life or natural marriage either!

In other words, no matter what side of the political aisle you’re on — no matter how passionate you believe in certain causes or rights — without God they would be without foundation. Human rights would amount to no more than your subjective preferences. So atheists can believe in and fight for rights to abortion, same-sex marriage, and taxpayer-provided entitlements, but they can’t justify them as truly being rights.

So although they may be willing to assume natural rights when pushing their own pet causes, those rights are not rationally grounded, and they will disappear when they have to decide what to do with people they don’t like. That’s why atheists like Stalin, Mao and Pol Pot were responsible for killing tens of millions of inconvenient people. That’s why atheists are at the forefront of the abortion cause today. They can’t ground natural rights, and when push comes to shove, they shove them aside in order to get their way. It starts out with the thrusting aside of free speech, and then it goes on to the right to life for the unborn, then the right to life of the born. When stressed, secular leftists will act in line with their own convictions. (Or lack thereof)

News

It’s Sex Week on major university campuses

7 Comments

Time for students to learn all about drunken immoral pre-marital sex, thanks to your tax dollars.

Let’s start with the College Fix‘s report on the “Sex Ed Warrior Queen”.

They write:

When Megan Andelloux comes to campus, no object is off-limits for being sexualized – including a genitalia-themed puppet.

The clinical sexologist and former Planned Parenthood educator, known professionally as “Oh Megan” and a self-described “Sex Ed Warrior Queen,” encouraged Vanderbilt University students to masturbate in their seats even as she spoke during an interactive sex workshop Tuesday on campus.

“Want to Be Brilliant in Bed?” was sponsored by the Margaret Cuninggim Women’s Center…

She led a workshop at the University of Tennessee last year that described an orgasm as a “political act,” as The College Fix reported.

[…]Andelloux did not shy away from graphic details or descriptions of “sexual adventures” throughout her workshop.

[…]Andelloux also expertly demonstrated how to put on a condom using only her mouth, according to a female student who stayed for the entire two-hour workshop and asked not to be named.

Very important to note sexualizing college students is a “political act” sponsored by the Women’s Center. That’s where this stuff comes from – feminists. And this is what universities do with their money – it’s not to teach you how to program in Java or C#, it’s to make you accept the left’s view of sexuality and reproduction.

Next up, Campus Reform reports on feminism at the University of Utah.

They write:

Students at the University of Utah can win a year’s supply of birth control, including pills or a vasectomy, this week during Sex Week events.

According to a promotional flyer from the public school, U of U’s Center for Student Wellness, Students for Choice, and Planned Parenthood have partnered for this year’s Sex Week, beginning on Feb., 9.

“The more events you attend, the more chances you’ll have to win a year’s supply of the birth control or STD protection of your choice,” the flyer reads.

The flyer says that the birth control options are limited to those offered at Planned Parenthood, which are: 365 condoms, a 12-month supply of pills, one Intrauterine Device (IUD), four Depo-Provera shots, one diaphragm, one vasectomy, 12 NuvaRings, 52 OrthoEvra patches, one Implanon, or information on fertility awareness methods.

The events include a wellness fair, panel discussions, and a showing of “ Obvious Child,” a movie about a young woman who chooses to get an abortion.

[…]Katie Stiel, program manager at the Center for Student Wellness, told Fox 13 that Students for Choice “went through the appropriate channels” to get funding for the events and it would not be removed from campus or cancelled.

Note that Christian clubs and pro-life clubs are being de-funded and disbanded by student governments, but using taxpayer dollars for this is no problem!

Last one is actually not about Sex Week, it’s about feminism magazines.

This is from the Federalist:

True confession: Until last week, I had never read Cosmopolitan magazine. I actually kind of like fashion magazines, as a genre: The more spacey-eyed, pouting women in $900 shoes slumping against helicopters parked on yachts the better, I always say! That said, I tend to shrink from those fuschia-flecked, scantily clad drugstore nightmare sheets that screech at me to “HAVE BREAK THE BED SEX!!” when I’m just trying to mind my own business and buy some freaking dental floss.

The genius of Cosmo, of course—and, I suspect, the reason it’s the most popular magazine for young women in America—is that it will breezily suggest 131 creative ways to WEAR NOTHING BUT THAT FREAKING DENTAL FLOSS whilst you DRIVE YOUR MAN BATTY IN THE BOUDOIR. So with Sex Week arriving at the Federalist, I decided to enter uncharted territory. I would not only read Cosmo, but I would try its sex tips!

Here is her conversation with her husband:

ME: Here’s one. [Reads headline aloud.] “I Basted My Boyfriend Like a Sexy Thanksgiving Turkey!”

I did garner some male feedback on Cosmo’s rather earnest and disturbing sex-advice column.

HIM: Um.

ME: “I Took My Boyfriend to A Dominatrix!”

HIM: Nope. [Refrains from making eye contact, which is puzzling, as I did not just order a fancy and intimidating Cotes Du Rhone.]

ME: “I Covered Myself in Food For Sex!”

HIM: [Looking up.] Hey, didn’t George Constanza do that once on “Seinfeld”? No, no, wait. He just wanted to eat a sandwich while having sex.

[LONG PAUSE.]

HIM: This is getting ridiculous.

ME: “I Tried All the Sex From ‘Fifty Shades of Grey’ in 1 Weekend!”

HIM: Who are these people?

That article made me laugh.

If you’re a young marriage-minded man of some means, and your heart is set on marriage and children, you will have to search far and wide to find a young, unmarried woman who desires the same. Young unmarried women don’t want marriage and children, they want free birth control and kinky sex. It’s “adventurous” and marriage with children is “boring”.