This is a post from my old blog "HaveABadDay" on JournalSpace.

Posted: 02/25/07

You might think that this is a normal story about people taking their kids to school right? Wrong! This is a story about how people are so helpless that they can’t make sure that their kids even go to school, much less a good one. Now these people are freaking out because they have choice and there is no government nanny system to tell them what to do. I wonder if any of these people drive cars. Did they not buy an automobile because there was so much choice, they didn’t know what to do?

But Liam’s mother, Elana Seaman, a psychotherapist, said she found little funny about middle school admissions. “It has just been incredibly stressful and confusing,” she said. “I have seen a couple of mothers break down crying.”

That is a good thing, at least they are trying, and are concerned for their kids!

Then you have the side of the educators. Government educators always have a problem with anything that involves change. I like this quote, perfect example.

...some educators say greater school choice primarily benefits students with savvy, motivated parents who are able to spend time figuring out the best schools to list on applications, and puts at a further disadvantage the children with little support at home.

They mention “parents who are able to spend time” what it should say is parents who “MAKE TIME” Making time is what you do when you have a priority. I consider a kid to be a TOP priority. They claim that school choice benefits primarily “savvy, motivated parents.” Savvy motivated parents will do the best in any circumstance. If you refuse to take the time required to get your kid into a nice school, then you might end up with your kid at a low ranked school. Besides if the kids have parents that can’t get them into government school then those kids are already in serious trouble, no school is likely to save them. So the belief is that we need to dumb down the process so that the people who could excel now can’t, and are knocked off the top. We need all kids equally ignorant! Sorry, but you don’t achieve a higher level of education by striving towards the lowest level of accomplishment. That is a ridiculous thought process!

And while some parents said that the local elementary and middle schools in their neighborhoods were good enough that there was no need to get involved in the admissions race, others said they only wished that were the case.

Well there is an admitted problem with the schools. People see this. Why then is their opposition to the choice system? Now these people have the freedom to send their kids to a school that ranks higher. I don’t see the problem here.
Look what happens at the end of the article though. They try hard to make it look bad, but there is some light at the end of the tunnel. The editor had better have his eyes peeled, looking for a new job.

“The application process is overwhelming,” said Marcia Lalla, who lives in the Bronx but whose daughter attends one of the new, small high schools in Manhattan. “However, if you and your child do the research, you will be pleased with your choices.”

I’m sorry though, Marcia Lalla must be one of those “savvy” parents. We can’t use her example until the very end of the article.

Note: You DO NOT need to register to leave a comment.

Over the next couple of days I'm going to put in my two cents on the Florida ballot.

Florida Constitutional Amendment Number 8 as written on a sample ballot:

NO. 8
CONSTITUTIONAL AMENDMENT
ARTICLE IX, SECTION 1
ARTICLE XII, SECTION 31

Revision Of The Class Size Requirements For Public Schools

The Florida Constitution currently limits the maximum number of students assigned to each teacher in public school classrooms in the following grade groupings: for prekindergarten through grade 3, 18 students; for grades 4 through 8, 22 students; and for grades 9 through 12, 25 students. Under this amendment, the current limits on the maximum number of students assigned to each teacher in public school classrooms would become limits on the average number of students assigned per class to each teacher, by specified grade grouping, in each public school. This amendment also adopts new limits on the maximum number of students assigned to each teacher in an individual classroom as follows: for prekindergarten through grade 3, 21 students; for grades 4 through 8, 27 students; and for grades 9 through 12, 30 students. This amendment specifies that class size limits do not apply to virtual classes, requires the Legislature to provide sufficient funds to maintain the average number of students required by this amendment, and schedules these revisions to take effect upon approval by the electors of this state and to operate retroactively to the beginning of the 2010-2011 school year.

This amendment represents a retraction of the class size limits enacted back in 2002. Obviously the legislature underestimated the cost of implementing the class reduction plan, now they want a way out.

I would consider releasing some control at the state level to be a good thing. History has proven that when control of a complex system is centralized its efficiency and quality decrease. I'm sure that more teaching jobs would be filled if the class size limits were left as they are now, but that doesn't necessarily mean that the level of education will increase.

The general lack of quality public/government education throughout the entire country is a direct result of the centralization of power within the school system. When a standard is set, what do most people do? They meet the standard. Since there is no incentive to surpass the standard; you end up with a large bloated system devoid of improvement. Or in the case of Florida you end up with teachers who teach kids how to take tests, not subject matter.

In other words; the entire government school system is poorly structured and inefficient. Class sizes, outside of extremes, will have no effect on this whatsoever.

Note: You DO NOT need to register to leave a comment.

Over the next couple of days I'm going to put in my two cents on the Florida ballot.

Florida Constitutional Amendment Number 5 as written on a sample ballot:

NO. 5
CONSTITUTIONAL AMENDMENT
ARTICLE III, SECTION 21

Standards For Legislature To Follow In Legislative Redistricting

Legislative districts or districting plans may not be drawn to favor or disfavor an incumbent or political party. Districts shall not be drawn to deny racial or language minorities the equal opportunity to participate in the political process and elect representatives of their choice. Districts must be contiguous. Unless otherwise required, districts must be compact, as equal in population as feasible, and where feasible must make use of existing city, county and geographical boundaries. The fiscal impact cannot be determined precisely. State government and state courts may incur additional costs if litigation increases beyond the number or complexity of cases which would have occurred in the amendment’s absence.

There are a few key words here that should make anyone questions this. Such as; "Unless otherwise required, districts must be compact, as equal in population as feasible, and where feasible must make use of existing city, county and geographical boundaries."

Let me ask a few questions. Is it true that metro areas often tend to have higher populations than urban areas? Is it not true that metro areas often attract more liberal individuals? So, under this proposal, would it be safe to assume that the metro areas will end up with more legislative representation than more urban areas?

Florida Constitutional Amendment Number 5 as written on a sample ballot:

NO. 6
CONSTITUTIONAL AMENDMENT
ARTICLE III, SECTION 20

Standards For Legislature To Follow In Congressional Redistricting

Congressional districts or districting plans may not be drawn to favor or disfavor an incumbent or political party. Districts shall not be drawn to deny racial or language minorities the equal opportunity to participate in the political process and elect representatives of their choice. Districts must be contiguous. Unless otherwise required, districts must be compact, as equal in population as feasible, and where feasible must make use of existing city, county and geographical boundaries. The fiscal impact cannot be determined precisely. State government and state courts may incur additional costs if litigation increases beyond the number or complexity of cases which would have occurred in the amendment’s absence.

Again we have the same wording as in amendment 5 only this time concerning congressional districts. "Unless otherwise required, districts must be compact, as equal in population as feasible, and where feasible must make use of existing city, county and geographical boundaries." This time congressional redistricting is the goal. And once again you have the same criteria by which the redistricting is to occur.

Either one of these amendments, if passed, will result in legislative districts being drawn on ideological boundaries. These boundaries are already set based on where people have decided to live. This could not be any more transparent.

Note: You DO NOT need to register to leave a comment.

Over the next couple of days I'm going to put in my two cents on the Florida ballot.

Florida Constitutional Amendment Number 4 as written on a sample ballot:

NO. 4
CONSTITUTIONAL AMENDMENT
ARTICLE II, SECTION 7

Referenda Required For Adoption And Amendment Of Local Government
Comprehensive Land Use Plans

Establishes that before a local government may adopt a new comprehensive land use plan, or amend a comprehensive land use plan, the proposed plan or amendment shall be subject to vote of the electors of the local government by referendum, following preparation by the local planning agency, consideration by the governing body and notice. Provides definitions. The amendment’s impact on local government expenditures cannot be estimated precisely. Local governments will incur additional costs due to the requirement to conduct referenda in order to adopt comprehensive plans or amendments thereto. The amount of such costs depends upon the frequency, timing and method of the referenda, and includes the costs of ballot preparation, election administration, and associated expenses. The impact on state government expenditures will be insignificant.

Take a peek at what land use requirements are all about.

Adopted by the 1985 Legislature, The Local Government Comprehensive Planning and Land Development Regulation Act (see Chapter 163, Part II, Florida Statutes) - also known as Florida's Growth Management Act - requires all of Florida's 67 counties and 410 municipalities to adopt Local Government Comprehensive Plans that guide future growth and development. Comprehensive plans contain chapters or "elements" that address future land use, housing, transportation, infrastructure, coastal management, conservation, recreation and open space, intergovernmental coordination, and capital improvements. A key component of the Act is its "concurrency" provision that requires facilities and services to be available concurrent with the impacts of development.

The pros and cons of this are debatable depending on who you are and how your local government is effecting you in relation to your property.

I'm going to break this down to extremely an extremely simple level. I have seen where most of the proponents of this amendment are sighting the housing market issues as a reason for slowing growth through amendment 4. I don't find this argument valid considering that nearly every state had housing problems. I also don't think that over development is the real reason behind the push for this amendment. Let me explain.

In Florida there have been quite a few issues with imminent domain, where people who didn't want to sell their property were forced to because their city or county claimed it would benefit the "common good" through an increase in tax revenue. This increase would be due to either property value increases, because of development, or local sales taxes if turned into a shopping area. What actually happened was that the government seized the land and reassigned its "use" as commercial or residential. The government then sold the land to a private entity, business or developer, claiming the increase in tax revenue was a benefit to the common good. Of course this is not the intent of the laws surrounding the use of imminent domain. But here in good-ole Florida judges have ruled almost every time in favor of the government. Amendment 4 would put a stop to this. The city or county would not be able to reassign the land's "use" without a vote by the public. This would keep land from being seized because there would be a much greater possibility that the land's "use" would remain unchanged. Even if it were changed it could take years.

While fighting imminent domain abuse is a good thing, it does not outweigh the negative aspects of this proposed legislation. What if someone wants to sell their land to a developer? Amendment 4 will restrict the rights of the land owner by making future development solely a public matter. Amendment 4 will result in slower development in all areas. Florida will no longer be seen as a business friendly state because of the red tape and time delays required to build. Could you imagine purchasing a plot of land without knowing what you can do with it or when? Now imagine you own a business; would that level of uncertainty make you feel good about land purchases?

A better idea would be to get rid of the liberal judges who purposely misconstrue the meaning of select laws.

Note: You DO NOT need to register to leave a comment.

Over the next couple of days I'm going to put in my two cents on the Florida ballot.

Florida Constitutional Amendment Number 2 as written on a sample ballot:

NO. 2
CONSTITUTIONAL AMENDMENT
ARTICLE VII, SECTION 3
ARTICLE XII, SECTION 31

Homestead Ad Valorem Tax Credit For Deployed Military Personnel

Proposing an amendment to the State Constitution to require the Legislature to provide an additional homestead property tax exemption by law for members of the United States military or military reserves, the United States Coast Guard or its reserves, or the Florida National
Guard who receive a homestead exemption and were deployed in the previous year on active duty outside the continental United States, Alaska, or Hawaii in support of military operations designated by the Legislature. The exempt amount will be based upon the number of days in the previous calendar year that the person was deployed on active duty outside the continental United States, Alaska, or Hawaii in support of military operations designated by the Legislature. The amendment is scheduled to take effect January 1, 2011.

You can see the full text of the amendment here, just filter for 2010.

This portion of the Florida Constitution is a little lengthy so here is a link.

The amendment would add the following part (g) to ARTICLE VII, SECTION 3.

(g) By general law and subject to the conditions specified therein, each person who receives a homestead exemption as provided in section 6 of this article; who was a member of the United States military or military reserves, the United States Coast Guard or its reserves, or the Florida National Guard; and who was deployed during the preceding calendar year on active duty outside the continental United States, Alaska, or Hawaii in support of military operations designated by the legislature shall receive an additional exemption equal to a percentage of the taxable value of his or her homestead property. The applicable percentage shall be calculated as the number of days during the preceding calendar year the person was deployed on active duty outside the continental United States, Alaska, or Hawaii in support of military operations designated by the legislature divided by the number of days in that year.

But wait there's more...

There would also be this addition to ARTICLE XII.

ARTICLE XII SCHEDULE SECTION 31. Additional ad valorem tax exemption for certain members of the armed forces deployed on active duty outside of the United States.--The amendment to Section 3 of Article VII providing for an additional ad valorem tax exemption for members of the United States military or military reserves, the United States Coast Guard or its reserves, or the Florida National Guard deployed on active duty outside of the United States in support of military operations designated by the legislature and this section shall take effect January 1, 2011.

As far as I can tell this is a good deal for active duty military stationed outside of the continental U.S.

Note: You DO NOT need to register to leave a comment.