A recent story from Michigan depicts an egregious attempt by the state to regulate babysitting which leads to an unavoidable question: To what extent will America condone state involvement in parenting?

The victims in this particular scenario seem only to be concerned with the specific limitations of how the state can regulate child care, but the far more important question is, should the state have any say in the matter of private child-care arrangements?

When you fail to argue on principles, in favor of quibbling over superficial details of implementation, then the possibility of any objective determination of where to draw the line is discarded. Once you throw out the map, there’s no telling where you’ll end up – especially when all passengers compete for their turn to steer the car.

This is yet another symptom of America’s suicidal march into the bowels of socialized education. Once the principle (that the state has a right to our children) is conceded, there is no way to decide the proper extent. If it’s proper for Government to establish compulsory education according to their standards, why start at age 5? Why not pre-school? Why not daycare?

If parents are incapable of adequately providing intellectual guidance according to the state, why not regulate all supervision? Why allow any parental involvement? Why not seize the child just after weaning and just have the parents send in a monthly check?

Better yet, socialize it by calling it free and make it a mandatory element of payroll tax for everyone.

This Orwellian nightmare shouldn’t sound far-fetched considering it’s based on the exact premises of public education - only applied consistently. If America continues to tolerate Public Schools in principle, we should expect more and more of the above.

Children are not property of the state. In a free society, individuals properly have the right to enter into voluntary contractual agreements for child care according to their own wishes, and according to their own financial capabilities. Child care providers, like all other market entities, stand to erect or erode a positive reputation for quality care based on objective standards – those of the parent (the customer). That reputation vouches for their service record objectively.

Conversely, when the state oversees and regulates child care, that objective reputation is replaced with the subjective approval of the state, an artificial facade of quality based on subjective standards that are potentially incompatible with those of the parent.

Many parents unwittingly assume that “state approval must vouch for something!” Yes, parents should consider the conditions for childcare diligently regardless of the state, but phony state approval urges them to shortcut the process under the premise that government is looking out for them.

I’m aware of countless horrifying examples of Daycare establishments, which bear the state approved mark of acceptability, where the conditions are such that I wouldn’t leave my dog in their care. Children wander around in waste-soiled clothing, snot running from their nose, essentially unsupervised by mindless sloths chatting on their iPhone is a common sight in supposedly state-regulated facilities. Very few offer security measures which could prevent any motivated scoundrel from walking off with a child. Just like in other markets, the state regulation has destroyed the notion of an objective reputation that only a free-market can provide, and should be considered irrelevant as metrics of quality or value.

This type of intrusion should be opposed on the basis of individual rights - specifically, a parent’s right to control the education, care and upbringing of their children.

By what right can the state tell a parent or caregiver how many children they can manage effectively? Such terms are properly agreed upon by parents and the caregiver. So long as the terms of service are properly disclosed and adhered to, that agreement is sovereign.

An individual has the right to choose who, where, and on what terms their child can be cared for. The state has no moral, logical, or economical base for involvement the matter.

The role of government is to protect individual rights through the enforcement of objectively defined criminal law. In For the state to be involved with any other aspect of childcare, commercial or private, is beyond the proper scope of government.

Lyrics
========
Mmm, mmm, mm!

Barack Hussein Obama
He said that all must lend a hand [?]
To make this country strong again
Mmm, mmm, mm!

Barack Hussein Obama
He said we must be clear today
Equal work means equal pay
Mmm, mmm, mm!

Barack Hussein Obama
He said that we must take a stand
To make sure everyone gets a chance
Mmm, mmm, mm!

Barack Hussein Obama
He said Red, Yellow, Black or White
All are equal in his sight
Mmm, mmm, mm!

Barack Hussein Obama
Yes
Mmm, mmm, mm!

Barack Hussein Obama

Just a harmless class jingle respecting the office of the president? Not if considered in full context.

This type of occurrence is not exclusive to this president, this political party, this country, or even this century. The historical record of every socialized nation reveals that government seizure of the educational apparatus is inevitable. However, America wasn’t founded as a Socialist, Fascist, or Communist nation, it was founded as a Constitutional Republic based on the principles of individual rights - on such principles no justification for socialization of any market can be logically based. There certainly is no justification either morally or practically for Government to involve itself in the field of ideas.

When Government assumes control over a country’s education, it must assume the management of the funding for such a system. If it controls the funding, it must also control the subject matter being taught. When a government controls the subject matter being taught, they are, in effect, dictating ideology by force - a student cannot pass without compliance with the established curriculum. Wrangling the ideological essence of a population by force is a crucial component to directing the herd. This power was precisely why the 10th condition for transition in the Communist Manifesto was “free public education”.

We must take this very seriously.

Progressive, socialized education is not only systematically destroying our youth’s ability to think conceptually across all subject matter, it also effectively facilitates the level of indoctrination necessary to destroy America.

For America to survive, public education should be adamantly opposed on moral and (obvious) practical grounds. So long as the system remains, we don’t have a chance. Public schools will be the death knell of this country. This is not about optimism vs. pessimism - this is a logical fact drawn from just the numbers.

Rational, self-reliant, individualist minded people, the type of individuals who founded America, i.e., Capitalists, will simply be outnumbered by the irrational, collectivist sheep-like types that socialized education breeds. The ideas and cognitive guidance that a child is exposed to in its formative years ingrain ideals that after years of reinforcement are very hard to think out of. Our government has hijacked our children, by force, throughout those crucial years. The ideas being cast on our youth today bear faint resemblance to any of the founding principles of this country. The work and thought of the patriots of the American Revolution, as well as all the scientific, and creative ingenuity of the 19th century is being tactfully undermined by modern (anti) philosophy and by the dysfunction and incompetence of our socialized system of education.

Before any might take offense, let me clarify one notion; there are good people in our schools - I know because I am married to (a former) one and I know many others - but in a bureaucratic system essentially immune to fundamental economic laws (their customers can’t say no), the most competent and passionate educator doesn’t stand a chance in a non-objective system ruled by the whim of political engineering.

The proper role of Government is to protect individual rights - period. There is no rational, logical or economical justification for socialization of education.

The best thing we as parents can do for our children, and the only chance for America is throw aside the yolk of public education to the extent that we can. The very nature of the system is intended (on egalitarian grounds) to prevent citizens from any other options, and for many that is the unfortunate reality. If a man is taxed for education funding beyond his choice, he very well may not be able to afford to fork out even more of his hard-earned money for opting out of the system. This is the hidden sinister nature of public education - it all but eliminates feasible competition for the vast majority of citizens.

Once the moral sanction is granted, they’ve got us. They can take our children, by force… they can bus them across the county for racist social engineering… by force, and they can then proceed to teach (indoctrinate) them any ideals (regardless of how offensive or irrational those ideals may be) by force.

Take a moment to consider the reality of that last paragraph. For those who can, get your children out of public schools and into private (rationally guided) or home based schooling - schooling that enforces the principles and ideals that you hold sacred. Do whatever you can within your means, adjust your finances, move to a different area, consider home-schooling, but don’t sanction the hideous violation of your rights by doing (or saying) nothing.

If nothing else, and more importantly, understand the principles at hand and vocally oppose socialized education at every opportunity. This is a critical time.

When children are exposed to irrational, collectivist ideals from age five to twenty-five, they’re much easier to rouse by any leftist leader to support any collectivist cause. Socialized medicine, environmentalism, progressive taxation, “net-neutrality”, and the perpetuation of all other anti-capitalist, anti-man, anti-life bad ideas, past and present, are now fueled by voters thoroughly brainwashed in public schools. As the indoctrination continues to intensify, the scope of power afforded to our collectivist rulers will approach free-reign - we’re almost already there.

The best thing we can do for ourselves, our children, our country and the entire world is to fight public education in America as passionately, articulately and as loudly as we can, by every means available, on the basis that man has the right to exist for his own sake, and the the proper role of government is to protect individual rights - not violate them by forcing men to pay, neither for himself nor others, into an inherently corrupt system that spreads ideas contrary to his convictions as well as the founding principles of America.

This is the initial charter for my new advocacy group. With Sam now a year old, this cause is amongst my highest priorities. My wife and I are restructuring our lives to provide Sam with the highest quality education that we can afford - and which is rightfully ours to provide. At this point I anticipate his education will be a mixture of home-school and private instruction where it makes sense. He will not (so long as my wife and I are alive) spend one second of his precious life in a Public School.

Now we know first-hand what it feels like to realize that the clock is ticking… ticking towards the day where we must be in the financial and legal position to assume our right to control his development. My goal is to prevent other parents from the anxiety, dread and sense of helplessness associated with the current system.

Our Mission:
To perpetuate abolishment of socialized education through promotion of our core philosophy:

1. Primary stance - The moral argument of an individual’s sovereign right to guide the educational development of their own children.

2. Secondary stance - The practical argument regarding the utter intellectual and financial destruction that results from our current system.

Our Rationale:
The moral case for an individual’s right to guide the educational development of their offspring is basis alone for the end of “public” education, however, some may better relate to practical arguments, which will ultimately lead to acknowledgment of the moral argument. There is no sound moral, practical or constitutional argument that justifies socialized education. Like all instances of socialization, rights are violated, the results are abysmal, and the ends, however noble, do not in any way justify the means. One needn’t look very hard to see the degenerative impact our educational system is inflicting – arguably leading to the demise of our United States.

This is not a crusade against all members of Public Education. It is a movement against the system as a whole, and especially those who condone trumping a parent’s right to educate their children as they see fit in favor of social engineering, social justice, or any other irrational collectivist notion.

Consider the following:
Do children have a right to education?
No. There is no right to be educated, but children as individuals do have a right to their life which is held in trust by their parents until they become independent. Thus, parents are responsible for maintaining the child’s life; and encompassed in that responsibility is the parents’ moral obligation to prepare him for survival by leading a rational and productive life. In the same manner that they must teach their child to eat, walk and communicate, parents should also tech skills that enable him the means to become a productive and happy individual.

To the extent that they value the child’s existence, a parent will better prepare him for survival and happiness. Some parents structure their entire lives around providing for their children. Alternatively, some try to alter their lives as little as possible. In cases where the parents fail to objectively achieve this responsibility, the state should justly intervene – as in all cases where ones right to life is encroached upon. Where the line of negligence is properly drawn is subject to debate but irrelevant in the context to the question at hand, except to say that it should be well in advance of compulsory state indoctrination.

In this context, one could consider being educated in a *very* strict sense as a right courtesy of a parent’s moral obligation.

Conversely, there is most certainly not a right to a free education via Government sanction. Such a scenario requires money seized by gunpoint from one individual to fund the education of another person whom he may or may not be familiar with, regarding subject matter he may or may not approve of, and in a manner he may or may not agree with. Nor is it within the proper role of a free people’s Government to mandate such an arrangement as compulsory.

There can be no right properly held by an individual, or his Government, to initiate force against another individual.

Shouldn’t all citizens share the funding responsibility because Public Education benefits everyone?
No. To condone robbery on the premise that the victim may receive some potential future benefit is a perversion of justice. Even if through some clairvoyant cosmic wrangling the victim could be guaranteed a benefit, condoning theft upon him isn’t morally justified. Before I was a parent, I objected to being forced to fund the education of strangers, and as a parent I adamantly maintain that objection. Parents alone are solely responsible for their child’s education, including the costs.

I also object to the claim that Socialized education benefits everyone. On moral grounds, when one individual’s rights are violated, all should take offense. Whatever perceived benefits to “the public” are grossly offset by the mass encroachment of rights they derive from. On practical grounds, compulsory Socialized education is the primary agent facilitating the intellectual and moral decline of our country. The system sacrifices the brightest in favor of mediocrity as it goes through the motions of education along with whatever hodgepodge of social engineering goals it seeks to achieve. The system assumes the right to introduce children to subject matter regardless of a parents wish.

To put it another way:
At age 5, armed bureaucrats will demand your precious offspring - the one with your eyes, and your spouse’s smile, the one you dreamed of, hoped for, delivered, neglected your body for, rearranged your life for, struggled for, worked for, planned for, would give your life for – to arrive promptly at a specific indoctrination camp of their choosing, regardless of locale, convenience or any other metric of the your consent. They’ll then proceed to retain your child for 6-8 hours a day, 5 days a week, 10 months a year, for a minimum of 13 years. Throughout this time, they reserve the right to introduce your child to topics of their discretion and regardless of yours. Your philosophy, values, morals or views are irrelevant. Virtually all protests to their manner will be either casually dismissed, tangled in bureaucratic stagnation, or if you have the time and money you can take legal action which will be resolved according to the views of one of their fellow employees. Alternatively, you can take on the financial and administrative burdens of removing your child from the system, before which you’ll be required to adequately prove to the state your intent to solicit an expensive private institution (without compensation for your compulsory contribution to the system you’ve refused) or to home-school your child, which will require an additional burden of administrative tedium.

How could anyone suggest that this system benefits everyone, or anyone for that matter?

If schools are privatized, my (husband, wife, mother, father, uncle, aunt, boyfriend, mistress) will lose their job!
Maybe, it depends on their competence, productivity and work ethic. A free-market in education will create an unprecedented demand for quality educators. That demand will stir competition amongst educators and learning institutions. Competition will raise wages and add value to the services offered. Those individuals who are good at what they do will be in demand and rewarded accordingly. Like all other professions, incompetent dead-weight will be discarded. The ultimate winner is the consumer, who’ll enjoy teachers and schools competing for their business.

So, hopefully your (husband, wife, mother, father, uncle, aunt, boyfriend, mistress) is good at what they do and won’t lose their job, but will instead enjoy the benefits of working within a system that objectively rewards ability and punishes incompetence. The current system neither rewards nor punishes objectively and the result is demotivated passivity in the best teachers, and downright mooching in the worst. I’ve seen first hand the draining effect this system has on an intelligent and extremely productive individual who maintains an impeccable work ethic - that’s what Socialized education does to its best. Instead of static pay scales, salaries will vary according to ability and achievement. Exceptional educators could expect to be compensated on par with most other commercial markets. Most public school employees would find the notion of salary negotiation a foreign mystery, but that’s the way it works in the private sector and education would be no different.

Many will point to salaries in private institutions, which are often times lower than those in public schools, as proof that educators would earn lower wages in a private market. This comparison is invalid as it attempts to draw economic metrics from two entities which abide by different revenue contexts. Public institutions don’t have to compete for customers, they are guaranteed. Private schools have to operate from a much smaller customer base since Government forces citizens to consume public educational services. The market is much smaller since only those who have the desire and the economical means to seek educational alternatives make up the customer base for private education. There is less demand for private education and those institutions actually have to be economically viable to exist. In order to pay higher salaries, they can’t just tap into Uncle Sam’s taxpayer piggy bank, they have to actually increase revenue. When the market size is virtually pegged the only other alternative is to raise prices, which also lowers demand. When the overwhelming majority of a market is held by force and with economic immunity, supply and demand for labor are distorted. The coercive monopoly of Public Education drives down wages in the private sector.

What about low-income children – will they be left out of a private system?
Some will. Most will not. There would be a small segment of the population where parents don’t value their child appropriately enough to make education a priority. In these cases, private charity would be on the hook to contribute both financially and intellectually. We should expect those so vehemently concerned with this segment to express their compassion tangibly by leading the cause of such charity in response.

The underlying fallacy in this line of thought is that education should be expensive. This is due to the fact that our current system is grossly negligent with spending, functions entirely beyond the proper scope of a strictly education enterprise, and is immune to virtually all economic reality. As the spouse of a former public school employee, and one who keeps up with even the most generous media coverage of the everyday follies of our schools, I can attest to the consistently blatant examples of each of these facts. I won’t go into details in the effort to stay on topic, but I can sum it up as such:

- The system aims to do way more than impart the fundamentals of learning.
- The system wastes lots of money.
- There is very little incentive to be fiscally responsible because they have guaranteed customers who have no choice with regards to what they are willing to pay.

Because of these facts, there is an extremely high demand for quality private education, and an extremely small supply of it – which economically mean high costs in the pseudo-private sector.

Billion dollar budgets and multi-thousand dollar private school tuitions create the pricey façade associated with education, but the reality is that education would be much cheaper in a private system. Competition works wonders in trimming the fat and demanding fiscal responsibility. If a schools’ syllabus is reduced to the bare minimum, but perfectly adequate, essentials of learning – reading, writing and arithmetic – the costs would be only a fraction of what most would guess based on our current education budgets - which include expenditures such as after-school care, Motorsports training, Anti-Bullying initiatives, Community services, Free-Lunch funding and numerous other social-engineering endeavors.*

Funding for Socialized Education is extremely high because the system is more concerned with attempting to offset parental negligence and conduct social engineering tasks than teach individuals how to think, understand and integrate concepts.

This relates to low-income families because education should, and would be cheaper in a private system focused solely on educating kids. Additionally, the same way that lower income individual acquire credit for items such as automobiles and home appliances, there would be a niche market for educational financing.

If there were indeed a segment that unfortunately ended up foregoing their education, this loss would pale in comparison to the monument sacrifice of the current system, which offers wholesale violation of every parent’s rights to educate, every citizen’s right to property (via taxation to fund the education of strangers) and every student’s potential by wrangling them with a 13-year sentence to entrenched mediocrity - all under the guise of education.

*Per 2008-2009 CMS Budget
http://www.cms.k12.nc.us/boardeducation/OrdinancePackage.pdf

What role should the State assume in a system of private education?
None, other than the role it should assume in all private endeavors – as a protector of rights. The state should enforce objective laws regarding life, liberty and property. Contract enforcement through the court system and emergency response to criminal activity by the police are the only proper involvements by Government in education.

There certainly should be no State prescribed educational guidelines.

Individuals carry a wide variety of philosophical leanings that influence their educational goals. If I choose to educate my child under a particular philosophical filter, I have the right to do so. As a very controversial byproduct of socialized education, the debate regarding Evolution/Creationism being taught in school is a perfect example of why the state has no right to meddle with education. Children are not property of the State, which is what State guidelines imply.

Wouldn’t privatization require schools to be run like businesses?
Yes, and such is the answer to our secondary practical stance. Successful businesses are run by the motive for profit, which is a tremendously motivating factor. Profit is the rightful reward for one’s time, thought and energy. Individuals seeking the reward of profit will achieve monumental goals. A school competing for customers will continually seek for means to offer more value. The school who offers the most value at the lowest price will prosper resulting in happy customers. A school could offer value in a variety of forms including technology, alternate techniques, concentrated studies, acclaimed or renowned instructors, convenient location or logistics, superb athletic or artistic environments, or virtually any other component that would appeal to its customers.

Opponents to privatization make the vague claim that “commercializing” education is bad, but reason, economics and the power of the profit motive indicate otherwise. They claim that once a greedy corporation gets a strangle hold on education that their intent to profit will undermine educational effectiveness, but in a private system individuals aren’t forced to consume from a particular institution. If parents determine they are no longer happy with the services, they take their business elsewhere. Either a school exists to meet their needs, or entrepreneurial savvy will seize the demand and create one. Schools becoming “too commercial” (whatever that means) will suffer the consequences by losing customers. Do those opposed to privatization on such grounds continue to solicit companies that disappoint them? If not, on what basis would they contend that parents would respond to bad schools any differently?

A competitive free-market in education would, in time, redirect the intellectual path of our country to unprecedented growth and achievement. The nature of the profit motive is that of extraordinary motivation to seek reward for ones productivity. A system of education driven on this motive would achieve success on par with that of any other commercial market. Who knows when the educational equivalent of Steve Jobs, Henry Ford or Thomas Edison will make his mark?

This interview with Lisa Van Damme is a must read for parents who value their children’s education.

I’m speaking to those of you with little ones - those who’ve felt the overwhelming boil of instantaneous love for a newborn - those of you who’ve awakened and stared at them for minutes just to confirm their breath - you who’ve had the burden of sleepless nights erased by the joyous first rays of morning light across their face. I’m writing to you.

I’m writing to you regarding a subject of unparalleled importance, your children - the ones that have your undivided attention - the ones that have your ears, your spouses eyes, and your fathers dimples - the ones that you’ve re-prioritized your entire life around - the ones you think about just before bed and when you first rise - the ones you can’t seem to take enough pictures or videos of - the ones you hope you’ll always vividly remember how it felt to hold, the sound of their breath, the magic of their laugh, the life in their smile.

Unfortunately, I write to warn you.

There is a man out to get your children. His mission is to take that precious life you are emotionally and morally bound to protect, to teach, to lead. He only insists, with at first a smile, but if resisted, will take by force, at gunpoint if needed. His reason is that the precious life you’d give yours for is not really yours. The work, the planning, the long nights, the financial adjustment, the pain of labor, the trials of parenting, the genetic bond, the portion of your life dedicated to their existence - means nothing. His claim is that they are only partially yours, and your rights expire at his whim. Consensus has privileged him with the invasive power to take your child, by force, and at the age of five (if not sooner) he’s coming to assume the role of shaping their mind, regardless of your discretion.

He does not value your opinion on the matter. It’s not up for debate. Your morals do not matter. Your philosophy does not matter. Your view of existence, and its roots, its values, its hurdles, its caves, its perils - do not matter. His view, his priorities, his opinion of what is important, what is real - is all that matters.

His goal is to shape your loved one into the form of his vision, as an integral part of his master plan. To him, your child’s aspirations, their goals, their strengths, their weakness, their passions are irrelevant. Their function is to exist as the man sees fit, just as yours.

Not only does he proceed with ignoring our rights to raise our children as we see fit, the man’s additional offense is perpetuating a system rank with incompetency, one infested with economic ignorance, moral decay, gross mismanagement of resources, and in place of true education, a rash of irrational indoctrination. Instead of reading, writing, science and math as a primary tenets, they serve as mere tinsel on a grand decorative of social engineering.

The man operates as if he owns both you and your child. Despite the horrible results conspicuous to all reasonable minds, his grin is a peaceful insistence that despite any claim, his intentions are good, and are all that matter. He simply wants you to ignore the results, and only focus on his intent - for you to concede that the ends justify the means.

There are individuals in the system that are moral, competent and effective. However, even the most competent and able mind can be rendered impotent in a system designed to fail, and driven on immoral premises. We must consider that even if his intents were genuinely good, and his system flawlessly rendered the most intelligent students in the universe, it would still be one erected on the grounds that his wishes trump a parents rights, a premise that is morally wrong - therefore we must not condone it.

The man is Uncle Sam. His role of benevolence has turned on us all. As a young man he stood for freedom, and the sovereignty of the individual. Now he has sunk into the champion of submission in favor of the group. He churns through our youth like cattle being prepped for slaughter. They’re herded in, flushed through the system, sprayed with subjectivist, anti-man, anti-life venom, with only remnants of real knowledge flashed in glimpses before it’s bluntly drilled into their memory not as understanding, but through hours of busywork. They are systematically dumbed down and propped up according to the latest subjective funding metric. Teachers and therapists are consistently compelled, if not forced, to act against their own and students’ best interest, whether it be for lack of funding to provide adequate materials, absurdly tedious paperwork, unmanageable caseloads or class size, or any combination of these. The nature of our current system is a gross injustice - trampling rights, wasting money, and corrupting minds.

I urge any of you who know the explosive joy and emotion that sparked when your little one announced his existence to pause and take a moment, an hour, of genuine reflection on the grim reality we’ve created. As parents we have a moral obligation to prepare our children for a productive and virtuous existence. How they revere life, the degree of which they acknowledge reality, their code of values, their scorn of such that destroys life; all are encompassed by our philosophical imprint on our children. The imprint that is rightfully ours to leave. Guidance in such areas of life are the proper role of parents, not strangers, politicians, activists, counselors, or professors. Education is the exclusive privilege of a child’s legal guardians within objective legal guidelines precluding abuse or neglect.

As rational, moral and free individuals, we must reclaim our inalienable right to shape the minds of our children by abolishing our current compulsory system. Socialized education is immoral, impractical and unconstitutional. It must end if our children are to be appropriately revered as the priority which they are.

Gus Van Horn writes of an alarming example of state sponsored religion in Minnesota. I urge anyone who’s on the fence with regards to supporting public education to read. Also, anyone who doesn’t object to Christianity, or any other religion, creeping into education should realize that the underlying principle is exactly what enables situations described above. In other words, when you give government permission to indoctrinate your kids because you may happen to agree with the particular variant of indoctrination, the permission grants the practice, not the subject matter, which could change at any whim of consensus. In fact, the same risk applies when allowing government sponsorship of any religion in any way.

The point that Gus makes that I think is noteworthy is this:

In a mixed economy, controls breed controls (and not just in the economic realm), making all arrangements inherently unstable. This is partly because of distortions in the economy created by the controls, and partly due to the fact that there are always people willing to take loot when it’s being passed around. In other words, mixed economies foster bad decision-making and dishonesty.
[bold added]

Control breeds control - in every form, every time. Economic laws are absolute and just. As long as there are objective laws pertaining to theft or fraud, the market will operate smoothly. Players seeking reward will always act in their best interest or the market will punish them either immediately, or in time. Unless there is some form of external meddling, some entity forcing a player in the market to act against his better judgment, a free market is self regulating. When there is meddling of any form or degree, the balance is disturbed and reverberative waves will result to the degree of the tinkering. Players react and adjust to the waves, often times acting against their self-interest, which inevitably entices government to further regulate. The cycle of destruction continues until the economy is a wreck. Look no further than our current “housing crisis” for a perfect example where government promotion (via rates, policies and bailout) of subjective, economically ignorant lending and borrowing was a recipe for disaster. Yet another social and economic engineering project attempting to defy reality.

Once again we hear the cause is the “free” market and the remedy is more onerous restrictions which will wreak more havoc, and will leave the central planners calling for more regulation.

while(governmentMeddling==true){
     result = furtherEconomicDestruction;
     if(economicDestruction == true){
        bureaucrats.blameCapitalism();
        bureaucrats.callForEmergencySuperPowers();

        moreBandAidRegulation++;
     }else{
         a!=a;
     }
}

The purpose of this communication is to raise questions regarding your February 21, 2008 article ‘Parents worry as I-SS loses therapists, struggles to hire teachers‘.

I know one of the therapists to whom the article referred. She is my wife of 8 years. She is a wonderful spouse, an excellent mother, and a passionate SLP (Speech Language Pathologist). In addition to her genuine concern for special needs children, she has the crafty intelligence, objective reasoning and tenacious work ethic to be arguably one of the best therapists around.

From all accounts, I’ve heard she’s also rather pleasant to work with – and she’s pretty.

Throughout her 7 years in ISS, she’s consistently gone well beyond the extra mile to be successful in her profession, which is worthy of praise in any work environment, but deserves even more credit in the public school system, a system with the odds stacked against its success and effectiveness.

My wife has given her time and energy during late evenings and weekends for years. She accepted a meager salary well below her potential in the public sector as trade-off for the fulfillment she finds in helping children communicate, and the purpose of the system as a whole.

Throughout 7 years of hassle and headache, she maintained a positive outlook. Her only occasional complaints consistently revolved around the “blocking and tackling” of running any organization successfully – communication, competency and execution.

Whether it was being constantly inundated with excessive and redundant paperwork (still not effectively automated or digitized even in our age of relatively affordable IT solutions), or having to walk to the office to use the office phone for her many daily phone calls despite the fact that there was a functioning phone in her office which the system refused to activate, she kept her attitude positive, and her intent focused.

The amount of paperwork that SLP’s are assaulted with is truly unbelievable. Manual data-entry regarding children and their specifics is often required redundantly amongst and within different departments. And by manual, I mean pen and paper… sometimes even with a specific requirement for ink color. Many times a submitted form will be returned for violation of very subtle technicalities, all in what seems to be an organized attempt to achieve acute progress by means of obtuse labor. If effective therapy were appropriately gauged by the number of forms the therapists complete, this system would be very highly ranked.

The administration mandates new regulations and guidelines so frequently that therapists are always guessing if their latest paperwork will be returned for failure to meet newest specs, specs which were likely not communicated effectively. Shortages in the time or energy required to clearly communicate the purpose and justify the burden of additional red tape can be mitigated by having the therapists keep turning forms in until they are acceptable.

Clunky and inadequate software “solutions” are half implemented, often times not replacing the same data requirement on paper, but in addition to it.

These are just a few of the hurdles I’ve heard mentioned. Yet, despite what seems like every attempt by the system to render her impotent, my wife stayed in the game.

Read the rest of this entry »