Birmingham – The Alabama Policy Institute released a new independent research study titled, Dollars and “Sense”: How Outsourcing Can Save Money for Alabama’s Schools. Dollars and “Sense” examines the issues surrounding the outsourcing of three key support services in Alabama’s public schools: student transportation, food services, and maintenance. “Alabama’s struggles with proration have left no school district untouched,” said Dr. John Hill, director of research and author of this study. “To help direct more resources to the classroom, some school districts have turned to the private sector for services such as transportation, facilities maintenance, and cafeteria operations.” Among its findings, this report shows: Of the more than $4.04 billion projected for Alabama’s education budget for FY 2001-2002, $807.8 million was spent on non-education services. On average, schools districts in Alabama that fully outsourced their groundskeeping saved a minimum of 25 percent on their overall costs. If every school district in the state saved only half that amount, $2.7 million in savings could be realized. An across-the-board savings of just six percent for student transportation resulting from outsourcing would allow an additional $10.8 million to be redirected to the classroom. Forty percent of the nation’s school districts outsource their transportation and 21 percent outsource food services. A copy of Dollars and “Sense” will be available on the API Web site (https://www.alabamapolicyinstitute.org) by Wednesday, Jan. 8. For more information, please contact Kristin Landers at (205) 870-9900. ”The Alabama Policy Institute is an independent, non-profit research and education organization.”
A Poverty of Reason-Sustainable Development and Economic Growth
The new Information Awareness Office may be the greatest threat to liberty created in the past year, but it is by no means the only threat. In recent years, the “sustainable development” movement has fostered a great expansion of bureaucratic activity at the regional, national and international level. Adherents to the sustainable development doctrine — which seeks to impose laws and restrictions to reduce economic growth to some unspecified “sustainable” level — employ pseudo-scientific claims and green-marketing hype to mask their hostility toward freedom and private-property rights, as Oxford University economist Wilfred Beckerman explains in his new book, A POVERTY OF REASON: Sustainable Development and Economic Growth (The Independent Institute, 2002). “Support for sustainable development,” Beckerman writes, “is based on a confusion about its ethical implications and on a flagrant disregard of the relevant factual evidence.” The sustainable-development movement claims that mankind will soon exhaust all of the Earth’s natural resources and thus bring economic growth to a halt — a claim Beckerman shows is false both on theoretical and empirical grounds. “The true prospects for economic growth over the course of this century are that future generations will be much richer than people alive today,” according to Beckerman. The movement also claims to represent the moral high ground because it places more emphasis on intergenerational equity than do conventional economic principles. However, after Beckerman’s analysis it becomes clear that the campaign for sustainable development has no moral ground to stand on. “The greatest contribution that we can make to the welfare of future generations,” Beckerman argues, “is to bequeath a free and democratic society. And the best means of bequeathing such a society to future generations is to improve respect for human rights and democratic values today. “Because these rights are currently violated in most countries of the world, bequeathing a more decent and just society to future generations in no way conflicts with the interests of people alive today. There is no conflict between generations, therefore, with respect to the most important contribution that can be made to human welfare, and hence no trade-off is necessary between the interests of the present generation and the interests of future generations.” In short, Beckerman shows that the campaign for sustainable-development policies suffers from a poverty of reason. *”To order A POVERTY OF REASON: Sustainable Development and Economic Growth, by Wilfred Beckerman, see” https://www.independent.org/tii/catalog/cat_poverty.html *”Also see, “Why the Earth Summit on Sustainable Development was doomed to failure,” by Wilfred Beckerman (September 16, 2002)” https://www.independent.org/tii/news/020916Beckerman.html ”THE LIGHTHOUSE is edited by Carl P. Close and is made possible by the generous contributions of supporters of The Independent Institute. The Independent Institute can be contacted by phone at 510-632-1366, e-mail at” mailto:info@independent.org ”or snail mail to The Independent Institute, 100 Swan Way, Oakland, CA 94621-1428. For previous issues of THE LIGHTHOUSE, see” https://www.independent.org/tii/lighthouse/Lighthouse.html ”For information on books and other publications from The Independent Institute, see” https://www.independent.org/tii/pubs.html
Should Government Run Churches or Schools?
What if government ran our churches? Imagine the spectacle.
If the government were in charge of religion, there would be just one for everyone. No more competition between differing sects and denominations.
No longer would there be diverse and numerous places of worship flourishing all over our cities and countryside. No more black churches or white churches, or multicultural churches; small churches; rich or poor churches; churches in your neighborhood; liberal and fundamentalist churches. Such choices would be replaced by one big drab church attended by everyone.
There would be compulsory-attendance laws for church. Imagine: a citizenry that was properly instilled with a solid moral foundation and the basic seeds of goodwill. Naturally, the government would decide what constituted proper religious teaching.
Everyone would be taxed to pay for churches. Atheists would still have to go to church.
Certain allowances would be made for those who wanted something other than the government religion. Those who could afford it would send their kids to private churches or hold Bible classes at home, provided they were of sufficient quality to satisfy government regulators.
Of course, churches run by the government would operate like post offices and DMVs, so parishioners would begin scheming to avoid them. Churches would be constantly demanding more money from taxpayers for upgrades and repairs.
Pastors would be rude and blame parents for kids’ lack of proper scriptural understanding. Unions representing church-related vocations would harangue legislators to expand religious “services” for the public. Churches would be overcrowded; most kids would vow at the age of 18 never to set foot in church again.
Luckily, America has escaped the dreary and inevitable consequences of a government-run religion by erecting and maintaining a solid constitutional wall between church and state. The result is a society where religion has flourished, and there is literally a church for everyone.
Sadly, most people don’t seem to connect the dots where education is concerned, for these catastrophes that we avoid by keeping government out of religion are instead haunting us in the classroom.
In America today, education is one great big political battleground. Important questions are determined in a one-size-fits-all manner imposed by the government monopoly, creating a zero-sum game where no problem can be settled to the satisfaction of everyone. The stultifying combination of political bickering and bureaucratic inefficiencies sets education apart from diverse and effectual fields not hindered by government management.
Which is precisely why we ought to remove government from the equation, just as our ancestors did with religion.
In fact, the best thing Americans could do for education — indeed for the children of America — is to release this important area of our lives from the shackles of government command and control. The public-school leviathan should be dismantled. Government at all levels should cease building, funding, and staffing schools. All educational planning, from textbooks to nationwide testing programs, should be terminated. Government should be thrown out of the education business completely.
But without government, how would children be educated? Education, like cars, computers, shoes, food, books, magazines, clothes, and houses, should be a product of the marketplace. Individual American families would take responsibility for finding the best education for their children, just as they currently feed, clothe, and house them without the aid of the state.
Naturally, the question of standards will arise. Government education isn’t perfect, its defenders will say, but at least it has standards that students must meet. Besides the obvious sophistry in that position, who is to say there will be no standards in free-market education?
The government doesn’t set standards in the computer industry, which is well known for its innovation, flexibility, and steadily falling prices. Shoppers pick from a wide array of options — Apple, MacIntosh, Microsoft, Linux; and they buy cheap, expensive, or somewhere in between. Standards are set by those best positioned to judge — consumers.
And the poor? In America anyone can walk through the doors of any church on any street in any city, donate as much or as little as he wants, and benefit from what is offered. No one asks if you can afford to pay for the sermon. And if you don’t like that particular church, you can take up a pew elsewhere.
Such is the choice we face today: Do we continue to run our failing schools by bureaucratic mandate, or do we embrace the quality and diversity of the free market and the voluntary charity of a free society? It’s time our schools were run like our churches. Our ancestors separated church and state, and everyone benefited. It’s time for us to build on what they accomplished and separate school and state.
”’Scott McPherson is policy advisor at The Future of Freedom Foundation in Fairfax, Virginia. See its Web site at:”’ https://www.fff.org
Should Government Run Churches or Schools?
What if government ran our churches? Imagine the spectacle. If the government were in charge of religion, there would be just one for everyone. No more competition between differing sects and denominations. No longer would there be diverse and numerous places of worship flourishing all over our cities and countryside. No more black churches or white churches, or multicultural churches; small churches; rich or poor churches; churches in your neighborhood; liberal and fundamentalist churches. Such choices would be replaced by one big drab church attended by everyone. There would be compulsory-attendance laws for church. Imagine: a citizenry that was properly instilled with a solid moral foundation and the basic seeds of goodwill. Naturally, the government would decide what constituted proper religious teaching. Everyone would be taxed to pay for churches. Atheists would still have to go to church. Certain allowances would be made for those who wanted something other than the government religion. Those who could afford it would send their kids to private churches or hold Bible classes at home, provided they were of sufficient quality to satisfy government regulators. Of course, churches run by the government would operate like post offices and DMVs, so parishioners would begin scheming to avoid them. Churches would be constantly demanding more money from taxpayers for upgrades and repairs. Pastors would be rude and blame parents for kids’ lack of proper scriptural understanding. Unions representing church-related vocations would harangue legislators to expand religious “services” for the public. Churches would be overcrowded; most kids would vow at the age of 18 never to set foot in church again. Luckily, America has escaped the dreary and inevitable consequences of a government-run religion by erecting and maintaining a solid constitutional wall between church and state. The result is a society where religion has flourished, and there is literally a church for everyone. Sadly, most people don’t seem to connect the dots where education is concerned, for these catastrophes that we avoid by keeping government out of religion are instead haunting us in the classroom. In America today, education is one great big political battleground. Important questions are determined in a one-size-fits-all manner imposed by the government monopoly, creating a zero-sum game where no problem can be settled to the satisfaction of everyone. The stultifying combination of political bickering and bureaucratic inefficiencies sets education apart from diverse and effectual fields not hindered by government management. Which is precisely why we ought to remove government from the equation, just as our ancestors did with religion. In fact, the best thing Americans could do for education — indeed for the children of America — is to release this important area of our lives from the shackles of government command and control. The public-school leviathan should be dismantled. Government at all levels should cease building, funding, and staffing schools. All educational planning, from textbooks to nationwide testing programs, should be terminated. Government should be thrown out of the education business completely. But without government, how would children be educated? Education, like cars, computers, shoes, food, books, magazines, clothes, and houses, should be a product of the marketplace. Individual American families would take responsibility for finding the best education for their children, just as they currently feed, clothe, and house them without the aid of the state. Naturally, the question of standards will arise. Government education isn’t perfect, its defenders will say, but at least it has standards that students must meet. Besides the obvious sophistry in that position, who is to say there will be no standards in free-market education? The government doesn’t set standards in the computer industry, which is well known for its innovation, flexibility, and steadily falling prices. Shoppers pick from a wide array of options — Apple, MacIntosh, Microsoft, Linux; and they buy cheap, expensive, or somewhere in between. Standards are set by those best positioned to judge — consumers. And the poor? In America anyone can walk through the doors of any church on any street in any city, donate as much or as little as he wants, and benefit from what is offered. No one asks if you can afford to pay for the sermon. And if you don’t like that particular church, you can take up a pew elsewhere. Such is the choice we face today: Do we continue to run our failing schools by bureaucratic mandate, or do we embrace the quality and diversity of the free market and the voluntary charity of a free society? It’s time our schools were run like our churches. Our ancestors separated church and state, and everyone benefited. It’s time for us to build on what they accomplished and separate school and state. ”Scott McPherson is policy advisor at The Future of Freedom Foundation in Fairfax, Virginia. See its Web site at:” https://www.fff.org
Grassroot Perspective – Jan. 9, 2003
“Dick Rowland Image”
”Shoots (News, Views and Quotes)”
– Wendy McElroy, Research Fellow at the Independent Institute
(www.independent.org), discusses the paranoia that stole Christmas in a FoxNews.com column (12/17/02). At one point she says: “This is the ‘legacy” of terrorism and the brutal crimes that occur in our society, but it is also the legacy of the media who presents these stories without pause or counter-balancing stories, as though brutality and not decency defined our culture,” McElroy writes. “The media is helping to manufacture what may become a self-fulfilling prophecy: A society prepared to wage war on every issue and every front, including against ourselves.”
GRIH comment: Decency does and must define our culture. To lose that is to lose the “war.”
– The Evergreen Freedom Foundation(EFF) reports that Chile, the first
nation in the western hemisphere to set up a social security system and the first to reform it using individual investment accounts is again a pathfinder. It has become the first to use individual accounts in an unemployment insurance system. Read about it in a Policy Highlighter written by Bill Conerly, PhD
https://www.effwa.org/highlighters/v12-n13.php.
GRIH comment: Great possibilities here for federal and Hawaii
innovations to enhance individual productivity.
– EFF also notes that from September 2001 to September 2002 the severe anti-business climate in Washington state caused a loss of 55,000 private sector jobs, while their government added 4,500.
GRIH comment: And we thought we were the only ones with problems. If our own climate was better maybe we could draw some of that high class talent (Boeing, Microsoft etc.) to our shores.
”Roots (Food for Thought)”
The October issue of Vermont magazine carries a timely article on home schooling by Melissa Pasanen. She reports that home schooling has gone from 100 pupils 1980 to 2,122 at last count. There are numerous reasons for this 20-fold growth over the past two decades.
The most obvious reason is that many parents do not have much respect for academic offerings at their local public school. Another major reason is the purging of moral values from many public schools as a supposed infringement on the First Amendment. Other reasons include lax school discipline and harassment by other students, “medicalizing” children to get Medicaid funds for the school, and the subjection of students to political indoctrination by teachers enamored of non-judgmental diversity, feminism, socialism and other such causes.
The Vermont Department of Education requires that homeschooling families enroll their children with the state, and provide a content outline for the various subject areas studied. One of several varieties of assessment is required after each year’s study. Some homeschooling parents believe that the state jerks them around a bit too much. According to the state, however, over 80 percent of all homeschool programs are found to be adequate on first application, and almost all of the rest qualify with only modest revisions.
Two 1998 laws have also enriched homeschooling opportunities in Vermont. One required public schools to collaborate with homeschooled children by letting them into specialized courses and extracurricular activities. Another allowed the approval of “virtual ” schools like Oak Meadow School in Putney.
The 800 pupils of Oak Meadow are scattered all over the U.S. and abroad. The school provides K-12 curriculum, educational materials, one-on-one pupil mentoring by experienced teachers (also scattered all over the U.S) via phone and emails, progress assessments, and record keeping. The actual learning occurs in the pupils’ homes — the pupils never appear in Putney.
In 1998 Oak Meadow secured the status of an approved independent school, but with one unique proviso: Vermont’s 90 tuition towns are forbidden to pay tuition for pupils enrolled there. It is the only approved non-sectarian independent school in Vermont that labors under this restriction.
The reason for the restriction is perfectly clear. The educational
establishment is terrified that pupils might find distance learning more attractive than attending their local public school, especially now that homeschooled children can participate in basketball, band, drama and advanced placement courses at the public school. If pupils in tuition towns enjoyed a virtual school option, pupils dissatisfied with their public school would soon want the same option. There would be a pupil hemorrhage, and for each departing pupil the public schools would lose Act 60 funding.
The cost of a year’s education through Oak Meadow’s program is around $1,200, plus the one time cost of buying a computer ($800) if the family doesn’t have one. The cost of a year’s education in Vermont’s public schools is now approaching $10,000. If the taxpayers can save $8,000 for every pupil who chooses a virtual school, why not encourage that? Especially when, in Oak Meadows’ case, their pupils on the average perform in the 80th percentile or above on standardized tests, far above the level of public schools?
Remarkable educational technology is now cheaply available. The Internet is awash with text, features, encyclopedias, audio, and video. The Oregon Institute of Science and Medicine, headed by former CalTech biochemist Dr. Arthur Robinson, markets a set of 22 CDs and a course manual. When the nine Saxon math books are added, the pupil has an academically rigorous 12-year education at a total cost of less than $500 (plus, of course, the necessary computer and printer.) And the materials can be used again with other children.
The total cost of a $500 per year tax credit for 6,000 pupils is only $3
million. If 4,000 of these pupils departed public schools for homeschooling, and the state no longer needed to pay the $5,566 block grant on their behalf, the Education Fund would show a $20 million annual net saving.
Now there’s something worth doing both for the kids and for the
taxpayers. While they’re at it, the legislature ought to remove the
restriction on approved distance learning schools, and let them compete like all other independent schools.
Will the public school establishment scream? Of course it will. That’s
because their concern is (public) Schools First! It ought to be
SchoolChildren First!
The above article is quoted from Ethan Allen Institute
https://ethanallen.org/index3.html
”Evergreen (Today’s Quote)”
In December 2002 the staff of the Mackinac Center for Public Policy,
Midland, Michigan was asked: “Which Freedoms mean the most to you and why?” Here is one answer we particularly liked: “The right of self-government. No other freedoms are secure unless government remains subordinate to the consent of the governed. No matter how clumsily we may exercise this right, however burdensome we find the responsibility, no more liberating form of social organization has existed in all human history.” See https://www.mackinac.org/4938
”’See Web site”’ https://www.grassrootinstitute.org ”’for further information. Join its efforts at “Nurturing the rights and responsibilities of the individual in a civil society. …” or email or call Grassroot of Hawaii Institute President Richard O. Rowland at mailto:grassroot@hawaii.rr.com or (808) 487-4959.”’
From Mean Comments to Disgusting Behavior
“Suzanne Gelb Image”
”Too Small to Please — What Should I Do?”
Q: Dear Dr. Gelb:
My husband teases me and tries to encourage me to have breast implants. I am ashamed and embarrassed about my small breasts, and in public my husband hurt my feelings by making a cruel joke in a party with friends that when I put my bra on backwards it fits better. What should I do?
Small
A: Dr. Gelb says . . .
Dear Small:
If I were in your situation, probably the first step I would take would be to confront my husband about why he degrades me in front of our friends. A person who behaves in this way invariably has self shame that they hide by criticizing others. I would also consult closely with my family physician and request a referral for psychotherapy before I would even consider undergoing augmentation because it is a procedure that may not necessarily be positive for everyone.
”Spitting — Why Does it Bother Me?”
Q: Dear Dr. Gelb:
Why do I feel so grossed out when someone spits on the sidewalk or spits out their car window?
16 and growing
A: Dr. Gelb says . . .
Dear 16:
I hope that you never develop such a vulgar and gross habit. I can only encourage parents to teach their children, from a very young age, to respect the environment and the common areas that we all share. One astute individual suggested that the mayor ought to have a slogan painted on sidewalks which could read something along the lines of, “If you expect to rate in this state, do not expectorate.”
”’Suzanne J. Gelb, Ph.D., J.D. authors this daily column, Dr. Gelb Says, which answers questions about daily living and behavior issues. Dr. Gelb is a licensed psychologist in private practice in Honolulu. She holds a Ph.D. in Psychology and a Ph.D. in Human Services. Dr. Gelb is also a published author of a book on Overcoming Addictions and a book on Relationships.”’
”’This column is intended for entertainment use only and is not intended for the purpose of psychological diagnosis, treatment or personalized advice. For more about the column’s purpose, see”’ “An Online Intro to Dr. Gelb Says”
”’Email your questions to mailto:DrGelbSays@hawaiireporter.com More information on Dr. Gelb’s services and related resources available at”’ https://www.DrGelbSays.com
Grassroot Perspective – Jan. 9, 2003
Dick Rowland Image ‘Shoots (News, Views and Quotes)’ – Wendy McElroy, Research Fellow at the Independent Institute (www.independent.org), discusses the paranoia that stole Christmas in a FoxNews.com column (12/17/02). At one point she says: “This is the ‘legacy” of terrorism and the brutal crimes that occur in our society, but it is also the legacy of the media who presents these stories without pause or counter-balancing stories, as though brutality and not decency defined our culture,” McElroy writes. “The media is helping to manufacture what may become a self-fulfilling prophecy: A society prepared to wage war on every issue and every front, including against ourselves.” GRIH comment: Decency does and must define our culture. To lose that is to lose the “war.” – The Evergreen Freedom Foundation(EFF) reports that Chile, the first nation in the western hemisphere to set up a social security system and the first to reform it using individual investment accounts is again a pathfinder. It has become the first to use individual accounts in an unemployment insurance system. Read about it in a Policy Highlighter written by Bill Conerly, PhD https://www.effwa.org/highlighters/v12-n13.php. GRIH comment: Great possibilities here for federal and Hawaii innovations to enhance individual productivity. – EFF also notes that from September 2001 to September 2002 the severe anti-business climate in Washington state caused a loss of 55,000 private sector jobs, while their government added 4,500. GRIH comment: And we thought we were the only ones with problems. If our own climate was better maybe we could draw some of that high class talent (Boeing, Microsoft etc.) to our shores. ‘Roots (Food for Thought)’ The October issue of Vermont magazine carries a timely article on home schooling by Melissa Pasanen. She reports that home schooling has gone from 100 pupils 1980 to 2,122 at last count. There are numerous reasons for this 20-fold growth over the past two decades. The most obvious reason is that many parents do not have much respect for academic offerings at their local public school. Another major reason is the purging of moral values from many public schools as a supposed infringement on the First Amendment. Other reasons include lax school discipline and harassment by other students, “medicalizing” children to get Medicaid funds for the school, and the subjection of students to political indoctrination by teachers enamored of non-judgmental diversity, feminism, socialism and other such causes. The Vermont Department of Education requires that homeschooling families enroll their children with the state, and provide a content outline for the various subject areas studied. One of several varieties of assessment is required after each year’s study. Some homeschooling parents believe that the state jerks them around a bit too much. According to the state, however, over 80 percent of all homeschool programs are found to be adequate on first application, and almost all of the rest qualify with only modest revisions. Two 1998 laws have also enriched homeschooling opportunities in Vermont. One required public schools to collaborate with homeschooled children by letting them into specialized courses and extracurricular activities. Another allowed the approval of “virtual ” schools like Oak Meadow School in Putney. The 800 pupils of Oak Meadow are scattered all over the U.S. and abroad. The school provides K-12 curriculum, educational materials, one-on-one pupil mentoring by experienced teachers (also scattered all over the U.S) via phone and emails, progress assessments, and record keeping. The actual learning occurs in the pupils’ homes — the pupils never appear in Putney. In 1998 Oak Meadow secured the status of an approved independent school, but with one unique proviso: Vermont’s 90 tuition towns are forbidden to pay tuition for pupils enrolled there. It is the only approved non-sectarian independent school in Vermont that labors under this restriction. The reason for the restriction is perfectly clear. The educational establishment is terrified that pupils might find distance learning more attractive than attending their local public school, especially now that homeschooled children can participate in basketball, band, drama and advanced placement courses at the public school. If pupils in tuition towns enjoyed a virtual school option, pupils dissatisfied with their public school would soon want the same option. There would be a pupil hemorrhage, and for each departing pupil the public schools would lose Act 60 funding. The cost of a year’s education through Oak Meadow’s program is around $1,200, plus the one time cost of buying a computer ($800) if the family doesn’t have one. The cost of a year’s education in Vermont’s public schools is now approaching $10,000. If the taxpayers can save $8,000 for every pupil who chooses a virtual school, why not encourage that? Especially when, in Oak Meadows’ case, their pupils on the average perform in the 80th percentile or above on standardized tests, far above the level of public schools? Remarkable educational technology is now cheaply available. The Internet is awash with text, features, encyclopedias, audio, and video. The Oregon Institute of Science and Medicine, headed by former CalTech biochemist Dr. Arthur Robinson, markets a set of 22 CDs and a course manual. When the nine Saxon math books are added, the pupil has an academically rigorous 12-year education at a total cost of less than $500 (plus, of course, the necessary computer and printer.) And the materials can be used again with other children. The total cost of a $500 per year tax credit for 6,000 pupils is only $3 million. If 4,000 of these pupils departed public schools for homeschooling, and the state no longer needed to pay the $5,566 block grant on their behalf, the Education Fund would show a $20 million annual net saving. Now there’s something worth doing both for the kids and for the taxpayers. While they’re at it, the legislature ought to remove the restriction on approved distance learning schools, and let them compete like all other independent schools. Will the public school establishment scream? Of course it will. That’s because their concern is (public) Schools First! It ought to be SchoolChildren First! The above article is quoted from Ethan Allen Institute https://ethanallen.org/index3.html ‘Evergreen (Today’s Quote)’ In December 2002 the staff of the Mackinac Center for Public Policy, Midland, Michigan was asked: “Which Freedoms mean the most to you and why?” Here is one answer we particularly liked: “The right of self-government. No other freedoms are secure unless government remains subordinate to the consent of the governed. No matter how clumsily we may exercise this right, however burdensome we find the responsibility, no more liberating form of social organization has existed in all human history.” See https://www.mackinac.org/4938 ”See Web site” https://www.grassrootinstitute.org ”for further information. Join its efforts at “Nurturing the rights and responsibilities of the individual in a civil society. …” or email or call Grassroot of Hawaii Institute President Richard O. Rowland at mailto:grassroot@hawaii.rr.com or (808) 487-4959.”
From Mean Comments to Disgusting Behavior
Suzanne Gelb Image ‘Too Small to Please — What Should I Do?’ Q: Dear Dr. Gelb: My husband teases me and tries to encourage me to have breast implants. I am ashamed and embarrassed about my small breasts, and in public my husband hurt my feelings by making a cruel joke in a party with friends that when I put my bra on backwards it fits better. What should I do? Small A: Dr. Gelb says . . . Dear Small: If I were in your situation, probably the first step I would take would be to confront my husband about why he degrades me in front of our friends. A person who behaves in this way invariably has self shame that they hide by criticizing others. I would also consult closely with my family physician and request a referral for psychotherapy before I would even consider undergoing augmentation because it is a procedure that may not necessarily be positive for everyone. ‘Spitting — Why Does it Bother Me?’ Q: Dear Dr. Gelb: Why do I feel so grossed out when someone spits on the sidewalk or spits out their car window? 16 and growing A: Dr. Gelb says . . . Dear 16: I hope that you never develop such a vulgar and gross habit. I can only encourage parents to teach their children, from a very young age, to respect the environment and the common areas that we all share. One astute individual suggested that the mayor ought to have a slogan painted on sidewalks which could read something along the lines of, “If you expect to rate in this state, do not expectorate.” ”Suzanne J. Gelb, Ph.D., J.D. authors this daily column, Dr. Gelb Says, which answers questions about daily living and behavior issues. Dr. Gelb is a licensed psychologist in private practice in Honolulu. She holds a Ph.D. in Psychology and a Ph.D. in Human Services. Dr. Gelb is also a published author of a book on Overcoming Addictions and a book on Relationships.” ”This column is intended for entertainment use only and is not intended for the purpose of psychological diagnosis, treatment or personalized advice. For more about the column’s purpose, see” “An Online Intro to Dr. Gelb Says” ”Email your questions to mailto:DrGelbSays@hawaiireporter.com More information on Dr. Gelb’s services and related resources available at” https://www.DrGelbSays.com
Special Education Teacher Retaliated Against for Defending Students-State Runs up Big Bills to Keep Teacher Out of Classroom
“Laura Brown Image”
An Oahu special education teacher suffered retaliation and eventual dismissal due to his reporting to Department of Education district administration two separate incidents involving the treatment of special education students in an elementary school. The first incident 3 years ago involved a principal manhandling and shoving an elementary student suffering from childhood psychosis and other learning disabilities. The second incident involved the teacher informing parents of their children’s right to have access to the general curriculum while receiving remedial education under the federal Individuals with Disabilities Education Act (IDEA).
As a probationary teacher, Mr. John Doe — whose real name is omitted due to a pending federal civil suit against a principal, naively believed that by reporting the incident to a district level administrator, the principal would be disciplined. Instead, the district closed ranks behind the principal to assist in retaliation against the teacher.
Although retaliation began as pressure and direct interference in the teacher’s work, a second principal escalated the harassment to culminate in unwarranted discipline. Seeking relief, Mr. Doe submitted a complaint to the DOE Office of Complaints and Resolution. This office of the DOE failed to investigate all charges. Letters to ex-Superintendent Paul LeMahieu, Superintendent Patricia Hamamoto, Special Education Director Deborah Farmer as well as the district superintendent were returned with refusal to investigate the matter. The teacher then sought assistance from the state Ombudsman and was told by that office that they did not have enough knowledge of the law and to return to the DOE Office of Complaints and Resolution.
No independent investigator was assigned to the case by the DOE as required by federal law. The teacher testified at the Board of Education several times and filed a complaint with a federal agency. In February 2001, Mr. Doe was put on administrative leave.
The investigation took over 14 months. The teacher remained on payroll, but was not allowed to teach, with the DOE “forgetting” to renew his contract or assign him to a school. He was finally terminated due to the principal stating that 4 people had filed complaints against him. When Mr. Doe contacted these individuals by phone, they said they had never made any complaints. The principal denied the teacher his right to due process when he did not allow the teacher to interview the complainants.
A federal civil suit is now pending against the principal, but a decision is not due until October 2003. A separate arbitration decision on the teacher’s termination is due on Feb. 21. The decision may mean the teacher is allowed back on the payroll, but does not necessarily mean the teacher will be allowed to resume teaching.
While the labor board found that Mr. Doe had made statements that the DOE was not obeying a federal court order protecting the rights of children with disabilities, his comments are protected under the Whistleblower’s Protection Act.
The costs for this case continue to escalate as two Department of Labor and Department of Education Deputy Attorney Generals attend court proceedings in State Circuit Court and Federal Court.
The lack of accountability for the egregious actions of DOE administrators has resulted in the loss of a skilled special education classroom teacher, depriving students of a desperately needed caring and competent instructor, as well as the loss of livelihood for the teacher.
Meanwhile, the frantic search for mainland special education teachers continues as the state struggles to fill the quota of certified special education teachers required under the Felix Consent Decree. The recruiting company charges more than twice as much for mainland recruits than it costs the DOE to hire and retain qualified teachers locally.
Once special education teachers get a taste of the DOE culture of recrimination and retaliation, as experienced by Mr. Doe, they will leave the state, leaving a vacuum of expertise, leaving children helpless.
”’Laura Brown is the education writer and on the research staff of HawaiiReporter.com. She can be reached via email at”’ mailto:LauraBrown@Hawaii.rr.com
Special Education Teacher Retaliated Against for Defending Students-State Runs up Big Bills to Keep Teacher Out of Classroom
Laura Brown Image An Oahu special education teacher suffered retaliation and eventual dismissal due to his reporting to Department of Education district administration two separate incidents involving the treatment of special education students in an elementary school. The first incident 3 years ago involved a principal manhandling and shoving an elementary student suffering from childhood psychosis and other learning disabilities. The second incident involved the teacher informing parents of their children’s right to have access to the general curriculum while receiving remedial education under the federal Individuals with Disabilities Education Act (IDEA). As a probationary teacher, Mr. John Doe — whose real name is omitted due to a pending federal civil suit against a principal, naively believed that by reporting the incident to a district level administrator, the principal would be disciplined. Instead, the district closed ranks behind the principal to assist in retaliation against the teacher. Although retaliation began as pressure and direct interference in the teacher’s work, a second principal escalated the harassment to culminate in unwarranted discipline. Seeking relief, Mr. Doe submitted a complaint to the DOE Office of Complaints and Resolution. This office of the DOE failed to investigate all charges. Letters to ex-Superintendent Paul LeMahieu, Superintendent Patricia Hamamoto, Special Education Director Deborah Farmer as well as the district superintendent were returned with refusal to investigate the matter. The teacher then sought assistance from the state Ombudsman and was told by that office that they did not have enough knowledge of the law and to return to the DOE Office of Complaints and Resolution. No independent investigator was assigned to the case by the DOE as required by federal law. The teacher testified at the Board of Education several times and filed a complaint with a federal agency. In February 2001, Mr. Doe was put on administrative leave. The investigation took over 14 months. The teacher remained on payroll, but was not allowed to teach, with the DOE “forgetting” to renew his contract or assign him to a school. He was finally terminated due to the principal stating that 4 people had filed complaints against him. When Mr. Doe contacted these individuals by phone, they said they had never made any complaints. The principal denied the teacher his right to due process when he did not allow the teacher to interview the complainants. A federal civil suit is now pending against the principal, but a decision is not due until October 2003. A separate arbitration decision on the teacher’s termination is due on Feb. 21. The decision may mean the teacher is allowed back on the payroll, but does not necessarily mean the teacher will be allowed to resume teaching. While the labor board found that Mr. Doe had made statements that the DOE was not obeying a federal court order protecting the rights of children with disabilities, his comments are protected under the Whistleblower’s Protection Act. The costs for this case continue to escalate as two Department of Labor and Department of Education Deputy Attorney Generals attend court proceedings in State Circuit Court and Federal Court. The lack of accountability for the egregious actions of DOE administrators has resulted in the loss of a skilled special education classroom teacher, depriving students of a desperately needed caring and competent instructor, as well as the loss of livelihood for the teacher. Meanwhile, the frantic search for mainland special education teachers continues as the state struggles to fill the quota of certified special education teachers required under the Felix Consent Decree. The recruiting company charges more than twice as much for mainland recruits than it costs the DOE to hire and retain qualified teachers locally. Once special education teachers get a taste of the DOE culture of recrimination and retaliation, as experienced by Mr. Doe, they will leave the state, leaving a vacuum of expertise, leaving children helpless. ”Laura Brown is the education writer and on the research staff of HawaiiReporter.com. She can be reached via email at” mailto:LauraBrown@Hawaii.rr.com