The Peregrin Falcon

As I do from time to time, I find other sites that are worthy of re-posting. This is one of them.

The Mount Vernon Statement

The Mount Vernon Statement

Constitutional Conservatism: A Statement for the 21st Century
We recommit ourselves to the ideas of the American Founding. Through the Constitution, the Founders created an enduring framework of limited government based on the rule of law. They sought to secure national independence, provide for economic opportunity, establish true religious liberty and maintain a flourishing society of republican self-government.

These principles define us as a country and inspire us as a people. They are responsible for a prosperous, just nation unlike any other in the world. They are our highest achievements, serving not only as powerful beacons to all who strive for freedom and seek self-government, but as warnings to tyrants and despots everywhere.

Each one of these founding ideas is presently under sustained attack. In recent decades, America’s principles have been undermined and redefined in our culture, our universities and our politics. The selfevident truths of 1776 have been supplanted by the notion that no such truths exist. The federal government today ignores the limits of the Constitution, which is increasingly dismissed as obsolete and irrelevant.

Some insist that America must change, cast off the old and put on the new. But where would this lead — forward or backward, up or down? Isn’t this idea of change an empty promise or even a dangerous deception?

The change we urgently need, a change consistent with the American ideal, is not movement away from but toward our founding principles. At this important time, we need a restatement of Constitutional conservatism grounded in the priceless principle of ordered liberty articulated in the Declaration of Independence and the Constitution.

The conservatism of the Declaration asserts self-evident truths based on the laws of nature and nature’s God. It defends life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness. It traces authority to the consent of the governed. It recognizes man’s self-interest but also his capacity for virtue.

The conservatism of the Constitution limits government’s powers but ensures that government performs its proper job effectively. It refines popular will through the filter of representation. It provides checks and balances through the several branches of government and a federal republic.

A Constitutional conservatism unites all conservatives through the natural fusion provided by American principles. It reminds economic conservatives that morality is essential to limited government, social conservatives that unlimited government is a threat to moral self-government, and national security conservatives that energetic but responsible government is the key to America’s safety and leadership role in the world.

A Constitutional conservatism based on first principles provides the framework for a consistent and meaningful policy agenda.

» It applies the principle of limited government based on the
rule of law to every proposal.
» It honors the central place of individual liberty in American
politics and life.
» It encourages free enterprise, the individual entrepreneur, and
economic reforms grounded in market solutions.
» It supports America’s national interest in advancing freedom
and opposing tyranny in the world and prudently considers what we can and should do to that
end.
» It informs conservatism’s firm defense of family, neighborhood,
community, and faith.

If we are to succeed in the critical political and policy battles ahead, we must be certain of our purpose.

We must begin by retaking and resolutely defending the high ground of America’s founding principles.

© 2010 The Mount Vernon Statement is Proudly Powered By WordPress | Theme by The Cloisters

The current state of our economy and what seems like an endless amount of government hands in our pockets on an increasing scale has prompted me to write this post. In conjunction with the obvious problems on a national scale my local school district is joining with the state to propose a state amendment that would prohibit the state from taking money from education.

In an economic downturn that means that the rest of the state suffers, but education is ok. I have to ask my self “Really,? Is education more important than say Highway Patrol? or Transportation? or Water/Sewer Maintenance? or Commerce?” Do we really think that when times are tough that everything else is second to Education? So, I wanted to take one slice of the premise for the amendment and dissect it a little further. It is the contention of many in power today that more money equals more high school graduates. Having more high school graduates is supposed to equal more success in the market and more business, etc.

The question for me is “Does more money equal more graduates?” To answer the question, I didn’t have to look very far. In fact with some help from the U.S. Census Bureau and the pro everything education EdWeek.org I was able to see quite clearly that simply putting more money into the system will not necessarily produce more graduations. That’s right, it is terribly difficult to find ANY report that lists costs per student next to graduation rates for a simply, flat comparison. So, I made one.

The following report lists the graduation rates for each state in 2006 and the U.S. Census data of spending for US elementary and Secondary schools during the 2006-2007 fiscal year.

CostPerStudentComparison

You may notice something that became very clear to me. Initially, it looked as if what had been said was true. Of the schools performing under the average (less than average graduation rates) 72% had under spent the average and only 28% had over spent. Right out of the box this would be a great case for spending more to get more.

However, upon further looking, I found that of the schools that over performed compared to the average 58% had under spent, leaving 42% as the over spenders. In case you missed it, let me rephrase. Out of 51 states (including DC, I know it is not a state) 19 of them spent under the average and out performed the average graduation rate; while 13 under spent and under performed.

Clearly there is not a direct correlation between spending (i.e. Money) and results (i.e. Graduates) and so like most things in life it is more complex than a cursory glance would suggest.

I know that this will not be popular with the NEA leadership. I know that someone will say the teachers in the under spend out perform bracket are low balling tests and thus getting more results; or just passing bad students.

If that were so, why is it such a small percent of the majority that are over spending and getting over average results? Wouldn’t the teachers want to hold back the kids to the numbers would play out in their favor? I think the teachers are trying and are not short changing to get more money or pass more students.

What it all boils down to is this simple fact; more money does not necessarily equal more graduations. In the coming months, many school districts will call for more money, as they have done annually for nearly a hundred years. In this time of economic hardship, let’s stop using children as political capital and start taking real-factual consideration of the situation and be able to say no, not this year. We need more graduations, and that will not come from more money each and every year.

The answer to getting more graduations is a long and complex set of discussions; so for now, I am saying enough is enough.