Obama's "Race to the Top" is a Race Towards Losing Control of Education

As politicians and news organizations celebrate new federal education grants delivered by President Obama's "Race to the Top" program, it is easy to overlook what these grants really mean.

By joining the Race to the Top program, the states are ceding their ability to establish the standards, curriculum, and evaluation methods used for its students to a nameless, faceless collection of "teachers, school administrators, and experts" polled by an anonymous organization called Common Core State Standards Initiative."

According to the Common Core website, the organization will "provide a consistent, clear understanding of what students are expected to learn, so teachers and parents know what they need to do to help them."

Which means, the states are giving away the ability to continue to establish the high standards required of students, and the teachers and parents in Swampscott will lose the ability to set the curriculum and evaluation methods to meet that criteria.

This program ensures that states and communities cede their ability to establish the type of education they feel is appropriate for their students. Instead, local educators will be required to adhere to a "common understanding of what students are expected to learn... regardless of where they live." Note that many of these standards have yet to be established.

Instead of working to improve education, any state that signs onto Race to the Top has abdicated its responsibility towards its students and parents by preventing us from engaging in how the students are educated. As parents, we will no longer be able to control our children's education, instead leaving the job to a mysterious group of "national organizations representing, but not limited to, teachers, post-secondary educators (including community colleges), civil rights groups, English language learners, and students with disabilities."

Perhaps students could benefit from a set of "effective models from states across the country and countries around the world," by joining Race to the Top, our educators will not be allowed to determine which models are best for our children, forcing our kids to follow models created by people whose credentials -- and identity -- we do not know.

Robert Holland, a senior fellow for education policy with the "conservative think-tank" Heartland Institute, suggests:

the “readiness standards for English largely are a set of 'content-free generic skills.' The standards favor the reading of workplace manuals much more than classic works of literature. The math content may be 'even worse.'

The CCSSI standards, he challenges, 'require only a smattering of math beyond Algebra I. Students in schools adhering to these standards could find themselves ineligible for admission to any half-decent college or university.'

In the end, ask yourself this: If common, national standards would be so beneficial to students across the US, why have more than half of the states refused to sign up for the program? And why has Obama required states to join the compact in order to receive Title I funding?

In an editorial in the Washington Post, Daniel Willingham, a professor at the University of Virginia, described the problem behind the Race to the Top initiative:

The likely failure of the 'Race to the Top' initiative doesn’t depend on whether or not these ideas are any good. Here’s the problem. States are not really committed to the reforms the administration envisions. If they were, they would have implemented them, or at least they would have been making a game attempt to do so.

In other words, if the ideals behind Race to the Top are so sound, states would not need to be extorted to embrace them.

Even the left-leaning Atlantic Monthly sees the extortive nature of this program:

(D)angling money in front of fund-starved school districts is a great way to make them enact changes the federal government would like to see...

The Obama administration is working hard to centralize as many aspects of American life in the federal government. The education of our children should not be one of those things. The states, communities, and parents need to be in charge of what our children learn and how they learn it. Not some anonymous think tank.

Obama: Open-Ended War Serves No One (except maybe our enemies!)

Loved this line from Obama's speech last night on "ending" the war in Iraq:

"...open-ended war serves neither our interests nor the Afghan people's."

Mr. President, Commander-in-Chief, I have news for you: All wars are open-ended! No one starts or responds to war with a time-table. "Hey, Adolph, we'll defend ourselves, all right; but we really need to wrap this up by October."

When one side announces when they will stop fighting by a certain date, the other side can just sit back and wait.

I wish I were as smart as President Obama.

Cash For Clunkers: A Perfect Symbol of the Obama Presidency

The Boston Globe's token conservative, Jeff Jacoby delivers a lovely indictment of Obama's "Cash for Clunkers" debacle in a column today.

Congress and the Obama administration trumpeted Cash for Clunkers as a triumph -- the president pronounced it "successful beyond anybody's imagination." Which it was, if you define success as getting people to take "free" money to make a purchase most of them are going to make anyway, while simultaneously wiping out productive assets that could provide value to many other consumers for years to come. By any rational standard, however, this program was sheer folly.

Jacoby points out the obvious flaw in the program, predicted by so many outside of the administration, that removing thousands of perfectly good cars from the road would only serve to increase the price of used cars:

the supply of used cars is far lower than it would be if your Uncle Sam hadn't decided last year to destroy hundreds of thousands of perfectly good automobiles as part of its hare-brained Car Allowance Rebate System -- or, as most of us called it, Cash for Clunkers.

Oh, but it helped the environment, right, to get all these so-called clunkers off the road? Well, not so much:

Using Department of Transportation figures, meanwhile, the Associated Press calculated that replacing low-mpg "clunkers" with new cars getting higher mileage would reduce CO₂ emissions by around 700,000 tons a year -- less than Americans emit in a single hour. Likewise, the projected reduction in gasoline use amounted to about as much as Americans go through in 4½ hours.

Researchers at the University of California-Davis calculated that the reduction of carbon dioxide attributable to the program (under best-case assumptions) cost at least $237 per ton. That is more than 10 times the going rate on the international market, where carbon emissions credits currently cost about $20 per ton.

So, the program did nothing to help the environment; is now hurting the poor and middle class who buy used cars; did not cause a marked increase in car sales; yet cost you, the tax payer, some $3 Billion.

In the end, Jacoby says it best:

When all is said and done, Cash for Clunkers was a deplorable exercise in budgetary wastefulness, asset destruction, environmental irrelevance, and economic idiocy. Other than that, it was a screaming success.

A perfect symbol of the Obama presidency.

Obama: Will He Say We "Won" the Iraq War or "I" Ended It?

When President Obama addresses the nation from the Oval Office tonight, he will be declaring a "formal" end to a war he stridently opposed and called a "foreign policy disaster" as a Senator and presidential candidate.

Driving home his point, the president said, "The bottom line is this: The war is ending. Like any sovereign, independent nation, Iraq is free to chart its own course. And by the end of next year, all of our troops will be home."

Interesting words from someone who vehemently opposed the troop surge that apparently has allowed Iraq to become a "sovereign, independent nation." Vice President Biden also opposed the surge and introduced a non-binding resolution opposing the surge.

Not to belabor this point; but, as a wordsmith, I am curious to see how he addresses the Iraq war and his role in the war. It seems, as he has in the past, he will take credit for all the good:

"As a candidate for this office, I pledged I would end this war. As president, that is what I am doing," Obama said.

And he will take credit for what President Bush negotiated:

"In the months ahead, our troops will continue to support and train Iraqi forces, partner with Iraqis in counterterrorism missions and protect our civilian and military efforts," Obama said, a day before ending his 10-day Martha's Vineyard vacation...

And he will certainly not remind us that he introduced legislation to bring the troops home from Iraq in March 2008. (Even before he became president, he seemed to have a disdain for the US Constitution).

But, will he say that the United States was victorious in Iraq, or just that combat missions are over. Will Obama say we "won" the war; or, simply that it is over?

What about the families of the service men and women who died in Iraq. What does Obama say to them? You lost your loved ones in the war, but their sacrifice helped us end the war sooner? What about the soldiers in Afghanistan; will the Commander-in-Chief settling for "ending" the war be much of an inspiration to them?

For those of us with a love of language, it should be an interesting speech.

Huffington Post: "Don't Tread on Me" is a "Rediculous" Saying

The illustrious liberal blog shows its true colors in calling one of the more enduring symbols of the American Revolution "ridiculous."

In a bizarre photo essay, the Huffingtonians listed the 20 "most ridiculous messages" displayed at the Restoring Honor Rally, organized by -- Egad! -- Glenn Beck.

Among the "ridiculous" messages:

• A quote from George Washington
• A man saluting
• Two men with a flag emblazoned with September 11, 2001
• T-shirt stating "Restoring Honor" (the theme of the event)
• Two people wearing matching flag shirts

And, of course, the ridiculous message, a message carried by some of the first Marines in US history: Don't Tread On Me.

What more do you need to know about the Huffington Post -- and Liberals in general -- than the fact that they consider flags (that) were widely used during the American Revolution "ridiculous."

While I have great respect for people who have strong political beliefs and are proud to stand for those beliefs, doesn't it make you Liberals even the least bit queasy to see the mainstream voice of the Left so terrified of an opposing movement that they will insult the people of a specific movement and blatantly lie about the number of people at a rally?

Liberals, be very, very afraid. I know you already are.

Obama Too Busy "Buying Shrimp" to Answer Iraq War Question

While on his eighth vacation in a scant 20 months, President Obama seems to have channeled Forest Gump in refusing to answer a question from the crowd about the troop withdrawal from Iraq.

(M)embers of the press yelled out several questions for the president, including one about the war in Iraq. The president's response ? "We're buying shrimp, guys," the president said, smiling. "Come on."

While Obama didn't allow his shrimping excursion to interfere with receiving the adulation of the sparse crowd, he couldn't be bothered with a question about American troops in a war zone.

Perhaps if he did respond, the next question may have been about his taking so many vacations and golf outings while our kids are dying in the Middle East.

While no one can fault a president for taking a holiday or two, refusing to even look in the general direction of someone asking about an on-going war shows that maybe Obama is the real shrimp.

But hey, after all the finely prepared lobster he has indulged in, I guess even he needed a "change."

In WTC Mosque, Obama Finds Religion in Local Control

Would it be too much, Mr. President, to (for once) show some respect towards the concerns of the American people?

President Obama, who has shown no limit to his desires to federalize and centralize everything he can -- be it health care, automobile manufacturers, Wall Street salaries, college financing, public school education standards, -- has suddenly Seen the Light in the wisdom of local control.

On the controversial Ground Zero Mosque proposal, Obama throws his weight behind local laws and the US Constitution.

(Religious freedom) includes the right to build a place of worship and a community center on private property in lower Manhattan, in accordance with local laws and ordinances," he said. "This is America, and our commitment to religious freedom must be unshakable."

If this is so, why are the "local laws" of Arizona being challenged in court by this Administration? Where did this sudden concern for local control come from? And, why does his concern for local control extend to the local people?

Once again, Obama disregards the reported desires of US citizens as reported in most polls. CNN, for one, reports that 70% of the people they polled stand firmly against the mosque. Obama, NYC Mayor Bloomberg, and most others critical of the opposition to the mosque would have you believe that all these people are anti-Muslim. I find it very hard to believe that "54 percent of Democrats, 82 percent of Republicans, and 70 percent of independents" are prejudiced towards Muslims.

These political leaders are working hard to spin the opposition as people who would deny religious freedom. But, as anyone with a modicum of common sense knows, the concerns have little to do with freedom of religion or the enforcement of local laws and ordinances. The opposition is rooted in propriety.

The Washington Post's Charles Krauthammer summarizes the matter well:

America is a free country where you can build whatever you want -- but not anywhere. That's why we have zoning laws. No liquor store near a school, no strip malls where they offend local sensibilities, and, if your house doesn't meet community architectural codes, you cannot build at all.

These restrictions are for reasons of aesthetics. Others are for more profound reasons of common decency and respect for the sacred. No commercial tower over Gettysburg, no convent at Auschwitz -- and no mosque at Ground Zero.

Where was Obama's concern for freedom of religion when he demeaned Americans as people who cling...to their religion? Would he dare criticize those who want to build this mosque as clinging to their religion?

In a blatantly pandering speech on Friday night, celebrating the start of Ramadan, Obama continued to obfuscate and confuse the issue before his Muslim audience, where -- yet again! -- he pointed out the country's past foibles:

This is not unique to our time. Past eras have seen controversies about the construction of synagogues or Catholic churches.

These words eerily echo the bizarre words of Mayor Bloomberg, who tried to compare the concerns over the mosque with religious intolerance in the 1600's and 1700's, well before the US was established.

Spin all you want. This issue is not about religious intolerance, disdain for Muslims, or anything other than propriety and the feelings of those most affected by 9/11.

Where is the tolerance for the families of those killed on 9/11? While Obama manages to mention these folks, he seems to have little interest in their concerns and opinions. Their thoughts on the controversy should carry as much -- if not more -- weight than those who want to build the mosque.

C. Lee Hanson, 77, whose son Peter was killed in the attacks, said he opposed the center not because he was intolerant, but because he believed that building a tribute to Islam so close to the World Trade Center would be insensitive.

“The pain never goes away,” Mr. Hanson said. “When I look over there and I see a mosque, it’s going to hurt. Build it someplace else.”

Do these sound like the words of discrimination?

Would it be too much, Mr. President, to (for once) show some respect towards the concerns of the American people? Concerns that may be well placed. Even if their fears are completely unfounded, shouldn't the President of the United States show some regard for those American citizens making their opinions known?

As the Weekly Standard's Bill Kristol points out:

But Obama (like Bloomberg) doesn't feel he even has to engage the arguments against the mosque--because he regards his fellow citizens as emotionally traumatized victims, not citizens who might have a reasonable point of view.

Debra Burlingame, Co-founder of 9/11 Families for a Safe & Strong America, also said it well:

No one who has lived this history and felt the sting of our country’s loss that day can truly believe that putting our families through more wrenching heartache can be an act of peace.

It is time to introduce some common sense to this debate and stop the name-calling and spin. This is about the loss of loved ones, the loss of innocence for an entire country, and the appreciation of the concerns of the living victims. It is not about the Muslim religion. It is about doing what is right for the people of this country, and not pandering to a special interest with the goal of making us look better to the rest of the world.

As Obama himself said, Ground Zero is, indeed, hallowed ground. Ground Zero is hallowed; and it should be treated that way. Mr Obama, you need to start paying more attention to the words and worries of the local people and less worry about the local laws and ordinances.

I mean, why start the concern over local control now?