Why No Amount Of Money Can Fix Public Education: John Kasich and Bill Cunningham ponder the universe
It’s too bad that the two guys in the interview below did not read the popular book Fifty Shades of Grey as I did, because they would understand more about the world. CLICK HERE FOR REVIEW. The interview on 700 WLW between Governor John Kasich and Bill Cunningham was a sad mixed message between a couple of old politicians having a porch swinging discussion believing they are both staunch conservatives but often leaning toward secular progressivism. Kasich in the interview actually comes out in support of the kind of wealth redistribution plans that President Obama must have given him during their recent golf outing—where wealthy school districts are required to increase their local taxes through levies because “they can pay.” It is sad to hear a governor that once had so many good ideas and was willing to take on special interest groups speak on Cunningham’s show sounding like a broken horse that has been dominated by a determined rider. Kasich in 2013 prances about predictably in an obvious run for President in 2016, and is more willing to walk on egg shells politically than to take on the groups representing secular progressivism. Listen to that interview for yourself.
Behind those mixed messages in the interview is a real fear of making women groups angry and catching the negative attention of progressive groups like Progress Ohio and the multiple labor unions. There is no desire by Kasich to address why the teaching profession continuous to dump massive amounts of money into education without getting the results back in the proper education of children. He fears what most public personalities fear—in being called names by women’s groups because most teaching positions are held by women. Cunningham and Kasich specifically spoke about Mason and Lakota—both considered wealthy districts, and when I have brought up in the past the ineffectiveness of teachers making over $60K per year and suggested that Lakota could get the same results from teachers making $45K to $55K per year keeping their budget under control, the information is ignored out of fearful neurosis. The progressive levy supporting neurotic parents who feel tremendous guilt about raising their children in day care and under public education have always gathered together against any opposition to their bottomless pit spending proposals and they attack any sort of management of those resources. They can’t explain why more money in education doesn’t work, they simple suggest that no limit exists because the subject involves children. When they can’t answer the question they go on personal attacks like Laura Sanders did with me at Lakota in the Cincinnati Enquirer saying, “Mr. Hoffman uses misogynistic and vile language when addressing women and mothers because most teachers are in fact, women and mothers. He wants the public to think that he is merely attempting to rein in public school spending, but his underlying mission is really one of hatred and fear of women earning decent salaries. He alone is the destructive force behind the last three levy failures, and I hope this … convinces the women in our community that he is not a rational or credible source for the counterpoint argument.” That is why I say that men who cave into such criticism have not read Fifty Shades of Grey. If they did, they would understand what is behind such comments……..and it has nothing to do with children.
Kasich on the cusp of a run for a second term followed by a run for President does not want such confrontations so he has failed to explain why education in America no matter how much money is spent on it will fail. In fact, Lakota and Mason could spend six figure salaries on all their teachers and pass all their levies for the next twenty years and education will still be bad because the bottom line issues would still be left unresolved. The reason is actually quite simple and is the 1 million pound elephant in the room. The teaching profession has allowed progressive instruction to infest the school curriculums resulting in a very confused society—one that is accurately reflected in the Kasich/Cunningham interview. Education has not fulfilled the ambitious task set out upon the foundation of our country and instead has been infused with political agendas masking themselves as “goodness” and using pure emotion to advance diabolical plans. People like Laura Sanders attacks anyone who criticizes a baby sitting service people like her have come to rely on and politicians like Kasich have no desire to shoulder those criticisms. Politicians avoid a confrontation with irrationality at all cost—which causes the education failures. This is why politicians tend to throw money at education and hope that people will love them for it without ever determining if it is the quality of education itself that is at fault.
The failures in educational quality can be narrowed down to roughly six categories—the instruction of deconstructionism, post structuralism, the discouragement of American Exceptionlism, and the advancement of modernism, minimalism, and academic collectivism. It is within those six basic categories that education will fail no matter how much money is spent on children. If children are instructed in destructive social tendencies—which they are—they will grow up to become unsuccessful adults. So caving into the progressive feminist movement talking points will not help our kids while those same irrational feminists are still flooding the book market reading Fifty Shades of Grey and fantasizing about what they really want in life. Money cannot fix minds that are sick with secular progressivism shaped by many years of exposure to the categories below.
Deconstruction– A philosophical movement and theory of literary criticism that questions traditional assumptions about certainty, identity, and truth; asserts that words can only refer to other words; and attempts to demonstrate how statements about any text subvert their own meanings: “In deconstruction, the critic claims there is no meaning to be found in the actual text, but only in the various, often mutually irreconcilable, ‘virtual texts’ constructed by readers in their search for meaning” (Rebecca Goldstein).
Post-structuralism primarily encompasses the intellectual developments of certain mid-20th-century French and continental philosophers and theorists. The movement is difficult to summarize, but may be broadly understood as a body of distinct responses to structuralism, which argued that human culture may be understood as a series of signs or symbols; or, put differently, that human culture may be understood by means of a structure -— modeled on language —- that is distinct both from the organizations of reality and the organization of ideas and imagination — a “third order.”[1] The precise nature of the revision or critique of structuralism differs with each post-structuralist author, though common themes include the rejection of the self-sufficiency of the structures that structuralism posits and an interrogation of the binary oppositions that constitute those structures.[2] Writers whose work is often characterised as post-structuralist include Jacques Derrida, Michel Foucault, Gilles Deleuze, and Julia Kristeva. The movement is closely related to postmodernism. As with structuralism, anti-humanism, as a rejection of the enlightenment subject, is often a central tenet. Existential phenomenology is a significant influence; one commentator has argued that post-structuralists might just as accurately be called “post-phenomenologists.”[3]
American exceptionalism is the proposition that the United States is different from other countries in that it has a specific world mission to spread liberty and democracy.[1] It is not a notion that the United States is quantitatively better than other countries or that it has a superior culture, but rather that it is “qualitatively different”.[2] In this view, America’s exceptionalism stems from its emergence from a revolution, becoming what political scientist Seymour Martin Lipset called “‘the first new nation,’…other than Iceland, to become independent”,[3] and developing a uniquely American ideology, based on liberty, egalitarianism, individualism, populism and laissez-faire.[4] This observation can be traced to Alexis de Tocqueville, the first writer to describe the United States as “exceptional” in 1831 and 1840.[5]
Modernism, in its broadest definition, is modern thought, character, or practice. More specifically, the term describes the modernist movement in the arts, its set of cultural tendencies and associated cultural movements, originally arising from wide-scale and far-reaching changes to Western society in the late 19th and early 20th centuries. In particular the development of modern industrial societies and the rapid growth of cities, followed then by the horror of World War I, were among the factors that shaped Modernism. Related terms are modern , modernist, contemporary , and postmodern .
Minimalism describes movements in various forms of art and design, especially visual art and music, where the work is set out to expose the essence or identity of a subject through eliminating all non-essential forms, features or concepts. Minimalism is any design or style in which the simplest and fewest elements are used to create the maximum effect. As a specific movement in the arts it is identified with developments in post–World War II Western Art, most strongly with American visual arts in the 1960s and early 1970s. Prominent artists associated with this movement include Donald Judd, John McCracken, Agnes Martin, Dan Flavin, Robert Morris, Anne Truitt, and Frank Stella. It is rooted in the reductive aspects of Modernism, and is often interpreted as a reaction against Abstract expressionism and a bridge to Postminimal art practices.
Academic Collecitivism The fifth and final sophism by the left that undermines realism, truth and historical accuracy, or what David Barton in his new book on Jefferson calls “the five malpractices of modern history,” is Academic Collectivism, “whereby writers and scholars quote each other and those from their peer group rather than consult original sources. This destructive and harmful tendency now dominates the modern academic world, with a heavy reliance on peer review as the almost exclusive standard for historical truth.”
It is a combination of those items being taught to American children that has caused me to no longer support traditional education centralized in public schools. Public schools have failed to teach generations of Americans now how to be good, productive adults and I cannot in good conscience support them with $1 let alone many thousands of dollars as all government schools demand. Secular progressive education is the cause of many of the degrading values that are seen in our current culture and it makes no sense to require ALL of society to fund through extortion the teaching of children secular progressive political agenda points when half of society does not support that political affiliation. Parents like Laura Sanders at Lakota may think the above descriptions have too many big words, and prefers the easy explanation that “more education equals good kids” mode of thinking. But the facts do not match reality. Kasich on the other hand knows that the problem of education is much more complex, but since he feels he lost his authority over the Senate Bill 5 debate and was told on the golf courses of life from personalities like Bill Cunningham that Kasich needs to step away from Tea Party ideas if he has any hopes of a second term as governor, that he needs to change his tune–and he has. Kasich has surrendered logic to the neurosis of angry activists who are living two lives, one of crusading parents lobbying for tax increases to save the lives of their children while secretly locking themselves in their bedrooms for hours reading Fifty Shades of Grey.
Lucky for those confused citizens who are so embedded with secular progressivism that it’s not against the law to be a social menace due to faulty thinking. They confuse conservative ideas with education deconstruction that is more interested in teaching children to have sex out-of-wedlock so they become dependent on government programs early in life, or teaching children about gender equality when it takes strong families to build a proper tax base, than to teach children to be social producers in every sense of the word. Public education teaches dependency, not independence, and that is what makes government schools worthless at any value of tax revenue, and until that issue is dealt with, public education should be replaced with competitive alternatives. The monopoly needs to be broken up so the real cost of education can be discovered, and driven down like costs in the private sector have been.
In the respect of Kasich and his friend Bill Cunningham who are both products of Lyndon B. Johnston’s Great Society they are unable to address the true complexity of the modern problems in education because deep in their hearts, as is in evidence by their discussion on WLW, they are both confused themselves, driven by their own self interests and unable to see the truth fully. They are in essence no different from parents like Laura Sanders who confuses a whole mess of social issues into her support for a school levy. The same duality is present in such levy supporters who socially show one side of themselves, but in their private lives have made Fifty Shades of Grey the most popular novel in the entire history of novels. The cost of education is all about hiding these mixed realities that people try to maintain to avoid addressing the real issues. Public education is rotten with secular progressivism and must be starved out of existence before any intelligent discussion about financing the future of children can be addressed. So long as those six traits are being taught in modern education, no tax money should flow into any education instruction from the tax payer. If progressive advocates want to privately fund such activity, then Laura Sanders can send her children there at her expense. But to force all Americans to pay for such progressive ideas that are destructive not just to the children, but the future of America is insane. Yet the problem is simply too big for Kasich to address during a 15 minute interview with Bill Cunningham on 700 WLW. If they even brought up such a topic, then Kasich might be called a “woman hater” for not wanting to pay teachers infinite amounts of money for being glorified baby sitters. The trouble is with the content that the teachers are teaching, not the teachers themselves that is the big problem in education and has proven to be a worthless product that is bringing students ill prepared to their destinies. Public education has left kids lost and confused living with their parents till thirty years old and jobless. That is why public education isn’t worth another dime, and why it’s a dismal failure in need of a major overhaul which nobody has the courage to address.
Rich Hoffman
“If they attack first………..blast em’!”
