Saturday, August 28, 2004

Polling opinion about school vouchers & the RNC, NYC


Polling opinion about vouchers to send kids to parent-selected schools

Any hope for further educational reform under the next Presidency? If Bush gets in, will he have the courage of his Faith-Based Initiative to take a step beyond his first-term educational policy, No Child Left Behind? On August 20, a foundation made a preemptive strike on polling public opinion to test for different results according to how questions were asked in regard to a future policy of school vouchers. The Friedman Foundation released its tell-tale findings just four days before the professional educatonist fraternity, Phi Delta Kappa, could get results out, from their own, quite biased, polling questions, just before the Republican National Convention opened in New York City.

The question is whether parents and guardians of kids should have "the freedom to choose a school based on its quality, not their address,” says Friedman Foundation's Robert Enlow. “This study reflects the support the Foundation encounters everyday across the country — parents want choice. They want an education that works for their child, regardless of whether the school is public or private."

Note that even Enlow buys into the archaic false distinction here between public and private, when the actual difference largely is between state-directed and nonstate-directed schools that stand in a middle relation between the tax-supporting responsiblity of the state and the parents who associate to educate their kids thru one kind of school or another, schools which should be chosen by them based on their philosophy of education. The idea of a herd philosophy of education is endemic to state-directed education. And a whole ideology must be constructed by teachers groups, like the National Education Association and the professional fraternity Phi Delta Kappa to explain why they should control things and not the actual government or the parents either. As Endlow continues, "Unfortunately, well-funded groups which advocate only for government schools distort the views of the majority.”

"The study, sponsored by the Friedman Foundation, set out to determine, using a sound methodology of split sampling, if the annual Phi Delta Kappa poll, to be released on August 24, used wording that could artificially lower support for school choice.

"Half of the sample was asked the more negative PDK question, 'do you favor or oppose allowing students and parents to choose a private school to attend at public expense?' Only 41 percent supported school vouchers when presented this way.  The other half was asked the more neutral question 'do you favor or oppose allowing students and parents to choose any school, public or private, to attend using public funds?' The support was significantly higher with 63 percent supporting school vouchers." [Italics added–Owlb]

Now, I've got to find out what Phi Delta Kappa's Poll claims, having just been released August 24. Pause.... I'm back, and I found it. It's long and complex, but on one question that I noticed, results were reported in a table. This poll of public opinion by PDK and Gallup asks, "Would knowing that a candidate for national office"–let's say, for President of the USA–supports vouchers for parents to use to pay for [kids to study at nonstate-directed] schools make you more or less likely to vote for that candidate?" I couldn't resist subsituting in a more normative linguo, and also the phrase "pay for private schools" irked me. It's not the schools the government is asked to pay for, it's asked to finanacially support the kids so that they can study elsewhere than in government-directed schools which are bankrupt in educational philosophy and learning results.

Results: Parents with kids in government-directed schools felt by 40% that they'd be "More likely" to vote for the voucher-supporting Presidential candidate. By 44% "Less likely," by 12% "No difference (volunteered),"* and by 4% "Don't know."

*My inserted asterisk poinpoints an interesting deviance. 12% didn't like the choices given them in this question. They didn't want "More likely" vs "Less likely" with a Know-nothing last option. They wanted to say they'd vote for their candidate either way he went on the education question, or for neither candidate no matter his position on vouchers. ... But let's get on with the matter at hand.

Parents with no children in any school were 41% "More likely," 45% "Less likely," 11% "No difference (volunteered)," and 3% "Don't know." I happen to think that 40% of parents with kids in public schools supporting a President who advocates vouchers for them to send their kids to nonstate-directed schools is a very powerful, serious indictment of PDK's statist horizon, of the NEA ideology, and, as to political parties, not just the Democrats, as we shall see in a moment.

But in the meantime, an incredible blow has hit the Republicans in the last couple of days regarding education policy. Some say the devestation has whacked the "conservatives," but this is quite inaccurate. The conservative position in America is anti-pluralization of schooling. And advocates of tax-support for all kinds of schools, the antistatist position that doesn't oppose support for those who want to send their kids to state-directed schools but insists that other schools be supported equally per child, includes some conservatives and some of all sorts of other political, religious, and philosophical views. On this issue, we're all up against a vocabulary skewered idiotically to misname the realities involved.

In any case, back to the Republican National Convention's foreplay around the planks for the Party's 2004 Platform. The Platform Committee's subcommitte on education has met in New York City (which as I write has been placed under seige already by anarchists and hate criminals). But, as I was saying, those Republicans dominating the adoption of the education plank (we can't call them "liberals" either, as they are statists on this issue, to be sure) would have none of anything slightly pluralizing in education. In other words, the very system of educaton-support is to teach the children intolerance. So, the old totalitarianism of the American school system has been re-enforced once again.

Here's what Timothy Carney reports in National Review (a thoroly conservative mag to be sure): "After all was done with the subcommittee, the first sentence [of the new Republican education plank] appeared as: 'Public Education is a foundation of a free and civil society [emphasis added].'" A delegate to the convention, Kelly "Shackelford and others tried in full committee to add other kinds of education to that sentence, but they were defeated again, at the urging of [Rep. Phil] English of Pennsylvania whose work "had the endorsement of the National Education Association." Why couldn't there have been support for both state-directed and nonstate-directed education? We had thot the Republicans at this point would have been more principled and would have more acumen than to produce this statist stance for the education plank of their Party's Platform in 2004. One thing to watch over, in these next few days, is whether this education plank in the Platform will be approved "unanimously," or will there be some brave souls who stand against the tide and contest its adoption from the floor of the convention. I'd bet not.

National study raises question of bias in annual Phi Delta Kappa poll

Polling opinion about vouchers to send kids to parent-selected schools

Any hope for further educational reform under the next Presidency? If Bush gets in, will he have the courage of his Faith-Based Initiative to take a step beyond his educational policy in his first term, No Child Left Behind? On August 20, 2004, a foundation made a preemptive strike on testing public opinion to test for different results according to how questions were asked in regard to vouchers. It's results were released four days before the professional educatonist fraternity, Phi Delta Kappa could get the results to their biased questions out.

Milton & Rose D. Friedman Foundation:

“Parents want the freedom to choose a school based on its quality, not their address,” said Robert Enlow, executive director of the ... Foundation.  “This study reflects the support the Foundation encounters everyday across the country — parents want choice. They want an education that works for their child, regardless of whether the school is public or private. Unfortunately, well-funded groups which advocate only for government schools distort the views of the majority.”

"The study, sponsored by the Friedman Foundation, set out to determine, using a sound methodology of split sampling, if the annual Phi Delta Kappa poll, to be released on August 24, used wording that could artificially lower support for school choice.

"National study raises question of bias in annual Phi Delta Kappa poll: "The study, sponsored by the Friedman Foundation, set out to determine, using a sound methodology of split sampling, if the annual Phi Delta Kappa poll, to be released on August 24, used wording that could artificially lower support for school choice.

"Half of the sample was asked the more negative PDK question, 'do you favor or oppose allowing students and parents to choose a private school to attend at public expense?” Only 41 percent supported school vouchers when presented this way.  The other half was asked the more neutral question “do you favor or oppose allowing students and parents to choose any school, public or private, to attend using public funds?” The support was significantly higher with 63 percent supporting school vouchers."

Now, I've got to find out what Phi Delta Kappa's Poll claims, having just been released August 24,2004. I found it. It's long and complex, but on one question I noticed in a table the Poll of public opinion by PDK and Gallup asks "Would knowing that a candidate for national office supports vouchers for parents to use to pay for private schools make you more or less likely to vote for that candidate?" Results: Parents with kids in government-directed schools felt by 40% "More likely," by 44% "Less likely," by 12% "No difference (volunteerd)," and by 4% "Don't know." Parents with no children in any school were 41% "More likely," 45% "Less likely," 11% "No difference (volunteered)," and 3% "Don't know." I think that 40% of parents with kids in public schools supporting a President who advocates vouchers for them to send their kids to nonstate-directed schools is a powerful, serious indictment of the PDK, the statist National Education Association, and not just the Democratic Party, as we shall see in a moment.

But in the meanintime, an incredible blow has hit the falsely-identified "conservatives" in the Republican Party regarding the Platform Committee of their upcoming national convention in New York City (which has been placed under seige already by anarchists and hate criminals). As I was saying, you don't need to be a conservative to support a pluralization of government support for education at all levels, merely recognizing that all schooling for the different varieties of eudcational choice among the public is worthy of dollar-support from public taxation. Let the money follow the child to the school where the parents choose to send her or him. The Republicans dominating the adoption of the education plank for the 2004 Platform at the upcoming convention, we can't call them "liberals" either, would have none of pluralization. So, the old totalitarianism of the American school system has been re-inforced once again.

Here's what Timothy Carney reports in National Review (a thoroly conservative magazine, to be sure): "After all was done with the subcommittee, the first sentence appeared as, 'Public Education is a foundation of free and civil society [emphasis added].' Shackelford and others tried in full committee to add other kinds of education to that sentence, but they were defeated again, at the urging of [Rep. Phil] English," Republican of Pennsylvania whose work "had the endorsement of the National Education Association." Why couldn't there have been support for both state-directed education and nonstate-directed education? We had thot the Republicans at this point would have more principle and acumen than this statist stance of its subcommittee on Education. One think to watch over the next days is whether this education plank in the Platform will be approved, or at least contested from the floor. I'd bet not.

Blogger Help : What is "BlogThis!" ?


What have I been up to since I got this refWrite blog up and going, after the earlier Lawnch! of the older twin Anaximaximum blog, both here on Blogger, you may ask? Well ...

I finished up the second round of Modal-Scale charting on my pages on Neurons atWeb Crossing (URLs later). Then I went to my co-thinkers on Thinknet who have a taste for Vollenhoven's and Dooyeweerd's philosophies, and many of whom are modal theorists themselves. I posted a request to visit my Neurons' Modal Theory Chart, and I got feedback from several who had no trouble getting thru to view it. Altho no comments were made on the site, I did get Thinknet replies. Thanks to all!

Then, in my daily news scan, I came across an article in Washington Post, more or less pitting Vice President Cheney against Bush. I have a considerably different take on the difference between the two top political officers of the USA, and I have an approach I've derived from Herman Dooyeweerd the philosopoher, his student Andre Troost the ethicisit, and his student James Olthuis the ehticist and psychological counsellor - a derived view of what the state's responsiblity is in regard to different kinds of intimate ethically-qualified unions of two people with the vowed intention of permanence and stablity. So, I opened an account and posted to the Washington Post Forums and went to the Pollitical Talk section thereof and posted on the Cheny article. I remember one reply.

Then I made a big mistake, and strayed over to WP Forum's so-called Front Lounge, where upon surveying its posts, I found myself reacting to all the Hate-Bush blather, and started going after some of the posters. I spent the rest of the day there until I was exhausted and writing more loosely, spelling error prone, snappy, yappy. I may never go back. And then again, I may.

Today, I returned to my Thnknet communcations and stumbled upon the African Gospel Art page of Dr John Boer, who after decades of missionary service to the Tiv People in Nigeria, now concentrates on his massive Islamic study.

My next step was to return to Anaximaximum to see if I could get my webportrait by Abracax, a friend photographer, from my iPhoto app in my iMac, which I had some few days ago transferred over to Flickr where I house Anaximaximumphotographics so that I can supply digiphotos from a Mac to a blog on Blogger. Flickr is the intermediary; but it's more than that. I already have a Thinknet digifriend who has joined me as a contact on Flickr (his moniker is thesisbuster); we can comment on each other's photo's. I don't know what kind of computer he has, but he can probably get his visuals onto a blog at Blogger if he wants, and with ease. If it's a Mac he uses, he's all ready to use the Flickr site's workaround and to enjoy all the other public portfolios of photos by other Flickr users. We're both talking about putting together a page or two of a Rogues Gallery for Thinknetters who want to offer their mugs in a common page.

Just one thawt, if you start an account there, some Google ads will appear on your public page and that can be severely annoying. I didn't offer much of a profile there, but did note I was single and male; so, I imagine, with very little but that data to go on, Google imposed three or four of their little "personals" into my life by targetting my public page at Flickr. Fine and dandy, except there was one for bisexual contacts and another for ... dang! I can't remember the other annoying specifics. But, dang!, I wasn't going to pause and organize a rant to send to Flickr's GoogleAds bureaucrat, altho I did look for an email address and couldn't find it. For them o put such stuff on my personal pages because of Google's insensitive marketing machinery is an affront. Still, I must say Google has much to offer. For instance, the Google search engine will take a brief one or two word topic from you, and send you daily Alerts about the matter you're interested in. I have Google Alerts sent to me daily if there's anything new on the Web regarding two apps - Mail.app and the browser app Safari. I want to keep abreast of problems and new developments regarding both of them. Seems my computer activities are dependent on these apps.

But, speaking of search engines, there's another Apple app that interests me and regarding which I've spent some time today. And that's Sherlock 3. Now much of the work of previous versions of Sherlock in Mac computers has been taken away. On your own Desktop, the Finder is now so organized in the OSX operating system (Panther 3.4) that you can get easily to anything you've got onboard you're HardDrive or related like iDisk and LaCie external USB 2.0 HardDrive. The Finder now does all internal searches for your own immediate system.

And Google is built into your browser. I use it all the time, a little slot into which you write your topic and click. It'll bring up a Google page in your browser and a URL in the browser bar next to Google (a little slot, as I said, on the right).

So, what's Sherlock 3 good for? Google is so massive and so played-upon by rank-obsessed websites, that it's results are distorted, often quite distorted. To side step this problem, one strategy is to use Sherlock 3 by taking advantage of its capacity to house plugins for search purposes specialized to given topics or websites. I have VersionTracker's channel housed in my Sherlock 3 now. Click up Sherlock, go to My Channels, and there's your own private set of special plugins (with .src suffix); I click on the VT plugin and the website is immediately in front of me. I noted today on the VT daily list of new apps for Macintosh that there's a new Sherlock plugin being offered for a search engine named Wedlock. Getting married? Here's your own specialist pllugin which is geared to the priorities of fiancées using the web for their upcoming grand occasion.

That's all for now, my dear digifriends all. Signing off, Owlb. If I can revise this post, I'll be adding URLs later. And maybe making some revisions. - Owlb

Friday, August 27, 2004

Owlbird on the fly

Credit: Abracax.

This is my webportrait by a friend for use on email letterheads. I thawt my blog should have it displayed somewhere as well. My first time posting a visual. Let's try.

Monday, August 23, 2004

Modal-Scale Chart (bottom 1:2)


Modal-Scale Chart (top 1:2)


Modal-Scale Chart (top 1:2)

Seems I've got two blogs going now, originally both of the same name, because one got lost somewhere in Bloggerland's manufactory. So, if I can find the two of them, I've got to change the name of one or the other, and then differentiate their contents, which means .... Tow blogs sitting eyeing me like cats, and demanding another day's write-up each. Well, in any case, I'm lawncht! - no matter how half-assedly. So, will pick up the pieces of all the inadvertancies, make the deletions, change the titles, and vary the text in good pragmatic style. Hold onto your hats, there's an upswing breeze, and I mean to be on it!

- Whatever my name is now ...