Fostering Self Reliance

What kinds of choices would people make if we assured them that if they failed at something there would always be an escape hatch or a safety net for them? Would they properly weigh the risks of their decisions? If we told everyone who wanted to start a business, "If it doesn't work out, we'll pay off your debts, put food on your table, and give you a little extra until you get back on your feet again," how many of them would really consider the seriousness of the risk they are taking by quitting their job and trying to make millions with an invention they cooked up in their basement? If we say to every hormonal teenager that if they become pregnant there will always be food on the table, clothes on your back, and a roof over your head--and if you have more kids we'll give you even more benefits--would they choose to carefully weigh the risk of having unprotected sex? Is it wise as a society to make everyone feel so secure that they can take risks that burden all of the non-risk takers? Of course it isn't wise! How can we expect to be free from the bad or ill-advised choices of others with such systems in place?

We see this scenario play out in families everyday. Over-indulgent parents give their children everything they want without teaching them to work for it or value it. Then when their children make mistakes and get into trouble, the parents bail them out. These parents often have children (and grandchildren or even great-grandchildren) living off of them for decades beyond what is reasonable. Many of them go bankrupt trying to "help" their children out of their inevitable messes. And most of these children are ungrateful and feel that they world owes them a living and all of the recreational time they want.

So what is the solution to this problem? For a parent in this situation, the answer is some tough love. Take responsibility for the fact that they have enabled their child by coming up with a plan for a transitional period where they give a limited amount of resources to the child, with an absolute end date after which there will be no more "help." They must also take some time during this period to truly teach their child what they should have already been taught, how to provide and be responsible for yourself and your choices. It would be unfair to toss the child out on the street without teaching them the skills to survive--that is what parents are for--but it is equally unfair to not teach them anything and allow them to mooch off of someone else for their entire existence.

We must do the same thing with those in our society who see the government (and those who provide their property and labor to the government) as a back-up plan in case they make bad decisions. It is a chronic problem in American society, not just for those on government assistance, but in families, in business, in classrooms, everywhere. What those of us who provide the "bail-outs" to these people need to do is recognize our part in it, and then DO something about it. We can reform welfare, unemployment, and other programs to be more beneficial and less detrimental to society.

1. Providing one time services to families who have a sudden and unexpected crisis (like a major medical issue that causes a sudden, but temporary financial strain) regardless of previous income. Programs that help people before they are in foreclosure, or have ruined credit will improve their ability to help themselves out of a crisis situation without becoming a long-term burden.
2. Providing longer-term services with strings attached. If you are going to take assistance provided by the fruits of someone else's labor, you must feel a sense of responsibility to use that assistance wisely. I knew a family once, who took assistance from the government and their church for years, while the husband attended school and during the same time period they had 3 children on state assistance. Once he graduated from college, she told me that because there wasn't a job available in the immediate area at the time, they would continue to take the assistance they had been receiving and wait for an opening, instead of looking outside of the area for work. This is not what government and church welfare services should be used for at all. When on government assistance, it should be a requirement to take financial counseling, and all of their expenditures should be accounted for each month. This will prevent wasteful spending (on things like TVs and video games) as well as teaching them how to budget and make the most out of their income. The need for assistance should be re-evaluated on a regular basis, and should be done in a face to face meeting where the recipient will have to convince their benefactor's of their on-going need, and that they are improving their ability to be on their own.
3. Having children while on government assistance should be strongly discouraged. Giving more benefits to single-parent households over two-parent households should be discouraged. All government assistance programs should encourage self reliance and independence and family structure. Family counseling may be an important factor in some cases, providing parents with the information an skills to teach self reliance and a strong work ethic to their children.
4. Time limits. Generational poverty is a serious problem. Not just for those who are living through it, but for those of us who are paying for it. In a system that rewards unwed teen mothers for having more babies, and then never expects them or their children to learn the skills to take care of themselves is a burden that cannot be sustained over time. If a 15-year-old girl has a baby, her mother is only 31, and her grandmother is only 47, and they all live on welfare their entire lives and each of them has several children, the population growth in that family is astronomical compared to other more typical families. We cannot continue to treat people stuck in generational poverty like second-class citizens. They are intelligent and resourceful people who have never been taught the skills to be responsible for themselves.
5. Tax benefits for families who care for family members who cannot care for themselves. We are one of very few modern societies where mothers routinely refuse to abort their babies when a disability is discovered during pregnancy. We are a society of caring people, with the resources to care for our disabled and elderly loved ones. We should reward such generous and selfless behavior. However, there are many families who feel over-burdened, or cannot otherwise care for needy family members. There are also those who are given up, abandoned, or have not family. In these cases I don't know anyone who would not contribute to such a cause. These types of programs should be locally controlled and funded in order to foster a feeling of responsibility to care for those who are our neighbors. Instead of outsourcing our compassion to the government, we should be taking an active part in caring for those who cannot care for themselves.
6. When someone is just completely unwilling to accept responsibility for themselves, we need to have the courage to simply say, "we have done all that is possible to prepare you for this, you knew it was coming, and so you are now on your own."
7. Your voting rights should be suspended while you are receiving government assistance. we cannot expect those who contribute nothing, and receive the most to be able to make good voting decisions. This in effect gives the recipients of assistance programs the power of the government to take money from those who are self reliant and give it to themselves. If you want to be a voter in this country, it is all up to you, don't commit a felony, and do your best to provide for yourself.

By changing the basic framework of our welfare state, we can limit it, then reduce it, and eventually we should be able to eliminate it. Once eliminated, there will be more people working, producing, and taking responsibility for themselves. We will all enjoy a much lighter tax burden, which will in turn lead us to more prosperity. The biggest hurdle in our way is the government itself. Politicians love to feel needed, that's how they get re-elected. We have to take the power away from those who benefit from using the government as a source of personal income and a continuous safety net for their bad choices.

School Budgets Wasted on Political Correctness

I have worked for a school district in Oregon that says it has one of the smallest budgets (lowest paid teachers, least spent per pupil, etc) in the state. Oregon in general pays their teachers fairly well compared to the national average and the surrounding states. School funding is an issue every year, which is why we are voting on yet ANOTHER tax increase (Measures 66/67).

Under these conditions, I would have expected to see frugality in the school I worked for. That was absolutely not the case. I was working as a classroom aid and after school program aid. Though my job was to work with students, often the teachers would send me to the copy room. One teacher, who is a great teacher, was especially guilty of wasteful practices. She once had me copy 'reading packets' for all 26 of her students. the packets were more than 60 pages each. By the end of the school year, they had not once used these packets. They just sat on a shelf and were 'saved' for next year if she found the time to use them.

That same year, the school received a federal grant (because it had been classified as a Title 1 school, and due to the apparent impoverishes, it needed more money for special programs). This grant had to be used within a certain amount of time, and only for certain purposes--such as books. They wisely invested it in a huge collection of books that could be used by all of the teachers as they needed them. The collection was intended for reading groups (approximately 12 copies of 6 books, each with a manual containing all of the accompanying teacher's materials and worksheets for the 6 different books). This collection had hundreds of books, it took up an entire wall. It was a great addition to the school's resources. Then came the waste. For weeks and weeks there were at least 3-4 teachers aids taken from the classrooms to help copy, laminate, and organize the manuals for these books. Because each manual contained teacher's materials for 6 books, we copied the entire manual, and then the appropriate worksheets for each book, then laminated, cut them out, reorganized them into zip lock bags, and then put the now individual manuals with the books they accompanied.

Why did we do this? I have no idea. There were only 13 teachers at this school, only 2 classes for each grade. Why couldn't we coordinate the use of the manuals? What a waste of not only paper, ink, laminator sheets and other materials, but think about the waste in labor. I was a 1st year, part-time aid and I had already received a raise (thank you teachers union) and was making more than $11/hour. Everyone else made more than me. Four aids at $12/hour for 6 hours per day for about 6 weeks adds up to $8640!!!! This money should have been spent in the classroom where it was intended. What a great way to spend our tax money on schools that are servicing the poor.

Knowing how wasteful schools can be, I later was working as a substitute in another school district. This district is in a rural/agricultural area and though it is in the northwest, at least one elementary school in this small district was more than 50% Hispanic with a large majority of them receiving ESL services. As a substitute for one of the two middle schools, I saw how this dynamic had destroyed the educational opportunity of most of its students. The immigrant children would be enrolled in the fall, leave for approximately 2 months in the winter to return with their families to Mexico, then return to school having missed 2 months of instruction. The school system had no way to properly accommodate the instructional needs of these children because they are forced to mainstream them with the year-round residents. The result is that 8th graders don't know what 5 X 5 equals, or any other simple times table. They can barely add and subtract without a calculator, and they are behind in reading, grammar, and subsequently all other subjects as well. Because they are mainstreamed, and the state expects the schools to help those at the bottom the schools/teachers are forced to teach to the dumbest kids in class in order to not 'discriminate' against the Hispanic children. They also cannot keep them all back, they don't have the resources to deal with that many students in grade school. What kind of nonsense is this!?!?!

Perhaps instead of trying to be politically correct in education, we should be focused on academics. I have a few suggestions to make:

1. Classes should be segregated by academics, not by age or any other factor, especially in grade school. A 3 grader who is reading at a 5th grade level, will attend reading with all of the 3rd, 4th, 5th, and 6th grade students who are reading at that level. Likewise, a 5th grader reading at a 2nd grade level will attend reading with all other 2nd grade level readers. The same children may end up in the same or different math classes. The curriculum will be geared around time tested methods of teaching and testing. Levels will be flexible, so a child who starts 5th grade reading at a 3rd grade level, can by the end of the year be reading at a 5th grade level. Other subjects, where skill level is less of a concern (like PE and Music) can be divided by age, and free time would be spent with children of a similar age. In middle and high school, you cannot graduate until you have achieved an appropriate level of academic performance, and you can graduate early or pursue college credit if you achieve that level at an earlier age. This model would keep most children at grade level, while compensating for those who are behind or ahead providing opportunity for all students to obtain a valuable education.
2. Children who need ESL services would be required to attend ESL classrooms, and would enter mainstream classrooms only after proving adequate English proficiency. These services would only be available to a student for a limited number of years, (perhaps 2-3 years) so as not to encourage them not to learn English. If they do not achieve English proficiency in a timely manner, the family will have to supply someone who can translate for their child in class--not at the expense of the school. ESL classes would also be divided by academic performance. When leaving the ESL program, they would enter school at whatever academic level they had achieved. This will provide a way for them to learn the fundamentals that they miss when they are not attending school without taking away from the education of others. Our public school should not be servicing illegal immigrants. If they want to use our school system, they must provide proof that they are here legally. American children should not suffer so that illegal immigrants can have free education and day care.
3. Since special ed students bring more funding with them than they usually need, their placements should be according to their skills and social needs. Since the purpose of mainstreaming disabled students is to help them thrive in society, they should be given as much access to a normal school day as possible. We should also give special ed students more school choice. Some schools are more accommodating than others. Some schools want to keep their special ed kids for the money, but refuse to make accommodations for their needs. We need to keep a child focused view for all students. Having children with disabilities in the classroom has proven to help typical children learn that people with disabilities are not to be feared, and become more compassionate adults.
4. It should NEVER matter what race, socio-economic group, or any other demographic when it comes to academic performance. Teachers should teach the basics, then teach children how to use those fundamentals to expand their knowledge of the world around them for whatever purpose they want to pursue. We should never try to pigeon-hole children. We cannot afford to teach to a certain culture, race, religion (or lack thereof), or economic class. No Child Left Behind has made it impossible for schools receiving those federal funds to look at children without seeing their race and economic class. This is discrimination above and beyond what already existed.
5. No more waste! Because public education is run like all other government beaurocracies, teachers are not compelled to be efficient like those working in the private sector are. Imagine if an employee used company resources for a training that required 26 copies of a 60+ page report, and then never did the training? I would expect that if that kind of waste continued they would be out of a job, not protected by tenure.

We need to eliminate waste and political correctness from our schools. School choice, performance based pay and employment for teachers, and more local control for parents and communities will improve all of these problems. Each school and district should have the ability to tailor their system to the challenges that they face. Whether it is high drop-out rates, overwhelming ESL needs, low budgets, poor family involvement, or any other problem, allowing the locals to sort through the problems will give them more control and make them take more responsibility for the outcome of the public education their children receive.

Rights and Responsibilities

As with all great gifts and power, there comes a cost. The cost of having our rights in tact are our responsibilities that come with them. Ronald Reagan once said, "Freedom is never more than one generation away from extinction. We didn't pass it to our children in the bloodstream. It must be fought for, protected, and handed on for them to do the same." That is our first great responsibility--to preserve the rights we enjoy for the next generation. The choices that we make today, with our votes, with our finances, with our attitudes toward our countrymen we determine what the next generation of Americans will enjoy or endure.

We cannot separate our choices and their natural consequences. Though many today try to do just that, it is impossible. We cannot enslave one portion of the population to provide for another without consequences. We cannot envy the wealth and good fortune of another person without suffering the consequences of what envy does to the soul. We cannot spend beyond our means, and then expect those who have been wise with their money to pick up the tab when we are unable to pay. We cannot expect those who are taken advantage of to just sit by and wait for all that they have earned to be taken and given to someone not of their choosing. Those who have become the provider class in our country will soon leave, and then what will the dependant class do?

There is a story that illustrates this perfectly. 10 friends go out to dinner once a week. One day, one of the men is unable to go because he is having financial trouble, so the others offer to pitch in and pay for his dinner. Soon another is unable to come because of a lack of money, and the other 8 pitch in for his dinner, also. Soon there are others who feel that there are others in the group could can afford to pick up their tabs as well. As time goes on, all but one of the friends have found one excuse or another not to pay for their meal. The day of their weekly dinner arrives, and the one who was supposed to pay the tab doesn't show up, and everyone goes hungry.

When will we take notice when we make a decision like this? Most of us are guilty of taking advantage of available 'programs' from time to time. How many of us have considered the cost? What do these 'free' programs do to those who are forced to pay for them? If someone who has an abundance of food wants to share it with others, it is called charity. If someone who has an abundance of food is forced at the point of a gun to give it to someone not of their choosing, that is theft. And yet we perpetrate this crime of legal theft on a massive scale in this country. We have dulled our sensibilities in order to overlook the reality of it. How could I vote to take something I have not earned away from someone who earned it without also being a theif? It defies logic, and yet there are millions of Americans who applaud this kind of crime.

The next time you are discussing a government program with someone, think of this. The next time someone suggests that what we need is to tax the 'greedy' and 'rich' to pay for state programs, remember this. By voting to take from some to give to others, we are not only stealing their property, we are also violating their rights and making them essentially slaves to the subsequent and never-ending programs we rely on them to support. As Americans, their liberty and freedoms are just as important as anyone else's. Where will the line be drawn between those who can enjoy their legal theft, and those who must surrender their property for it? This is a slippery slope, and it seems that the entire system will need to collapse before Americans will be able to break their addiction to practice legal theft. When will the last man stop showing up for dinner?