To the Editor:
Today’s Progressivism is eerily similar to Nazism. Here is an excerpt from Murr, Charles Theodore, The Godmother: Madre Pascalina, A Feminine Tour de Force (p. 38):
“It was 1938. The Nazis had just announced that ‘all denominational schools’ — and by ‘denomination’ they really meant Catholic schools — would henceforth cease to exist. The buildings and properties now belonged to ‘the German people’ and would be converted into ‘community schools,’ owned and operated by the State, to insure that proper national socialist educational standards and values were taught.
That Sunday, when Munster’s Bishop, Clemens August Graf von Galen ascended the great pulpit in St. Paulus-Dom, he looked out on a standing-room-only congregation and was quick to notice some very hard faces belonging to members of the SS. He knew they were there because already, too loudly and too clearly, he had opposed Nazi positions on euthanasia, concentration camps, Jewish racial inferiority and the purity-of-German-blood theory. Von Galen dedicated his Sunday sermon to the God-given right of parents to educate their children. Parents — not the State, nor any totalitarian government — had that right. Even Catholic schools exist merely to help mothers and fathers with what is their parental, natural right and obligation to educate their own children, rather than to take it away. One thing was for certain, and the Bishop of Munster thunderously proclaimed it: the Nazi State had no right, whatsoever, to expropriate the God-given rights of mothers and fathers to educate their own children.”
-Molly and Rick, Essex Jct.
To the Editor:
Our Reps continue to try to put a positive spin on the school funding mess and divert blame to the executive branch. Spending originates in the legislature, not with the Governor.
H850 will not fix the problem, only delay the inevitable by allowing school districts to ignore town meeting day votes on the school budget or remove the budget from the ballot altogether. Most town ballots have already been printed. Do we vote on school budgets on town meeting day or not? Will it count or not? Nobody knows at this point but we may have to have another vote later. H850 proposes a half million dollars to help cover the expense of voting twice. That’s right, half a million more when we are already spending too much! Representative Holcombe stated, “, the legislature put together a bill that removes the caps and replaces them with a tax discount– basically a reduction in rate based on how much tax capacity a district lost under Act 127.” So, this does nothing to solve the problem, just reshuffle deck chairs. Even Rep Holcombe admits, “. This doesn’t actually reduce spending directly. It just shifts who and how much districts pay.” And, “it does not provide mechanisms for true cost containment nor a funding formula change that ensures we are not in the same situation next year.”
H850 is an attempt to undo the harm Act 127 created. Act 127 did a couple of things. It told school districts, regardless of what you spend, tax rates will not go up more than 5%. Who would have thought that was a green light for school districts to spend? Additionally, a provision I personally find appalling, is the idea not all students are equal.” Pupil weighting” in the funding formula essentially says some students are worth more money than others. On its face I have a problem treating students unequally in the name of equal spending. We have used pupil weighting for a number of years now but Act 127 took it to new heights. A recent Valley News article about the Woodstock school district is a good example. Although there are about 700 students in the Woodstock middle and high school, current pupil weighting treated the school as if there were 925. The article went on to say under Act 127 there are now 1525 “equalized students” The article also confirmed its “the system of “pupil weighting” that determines how much money a district receives from the state.” It is clear to me, and should be to everyone else, Act 127 had nothing to do with equality and everything to do with money. It provided a legal method to funnel money where the legislature wanted to send our tax dollars.
Rep Holcombe stated “at the very least we owe our communities:”
- a commitment to pay down some of the increase this year, to buy a little time for real solutions.”
They are considering taxing candy, clothes, and cloud software purchases to” pay down” the increases.
- “a commitment to end the cost shift to the Education Fund of social service and mental health costs.”
It was the legislature that intentionally added $29 million to ed fund expenses last year by insisting on free school meals regardless of income.
- “a commitment to develop a new formula that puts some rules on how this shared resource is used.”
If we counted heads instead of equalized pupils, the legislature couldn’t manipulate money flows at all to their preferred school systems.
- “a study of the impact of mandatory “mixed delivery,“ including out of state prep schools and schools that are not open enrollment or which do not comply with anti-discrimination laws, as well as non-K12 uses of the education fund:”
There are a number of schools, like Thetford Academy and The Sharon Academy that are essentially private but are also the designated public school. The legislature is desperately trying to find a way to remove public funding from schools that don’t march in lock step with the left’s political ideology. If they succeed, schools like The Sharon Academy and several others that are resisting being told how to run their school, may cease to exist. I don’t see that this is in the best interest of students.
- “a reasonable and coherent school infrastructure plan.”
This is at least a nod to the realization that over the next 2 decades, at least $6 billion, yes that’s a “B”, in needed repairs to existing schools will be needed. Hang on to your hats, the school funding issue is just getting started.
I will agree with Rep Holcombe when she says, “please support and work with your school board members to help support our children and communities.” It won’t benefit anyone to fight amongst ourselves when the root of the problem can mostly be remedied in the voting booth.
-Bill Huff, Thetford
What is an Idiolect?
A long time ago in a galaxy far, far away… I was a sophomore in college studying linguistics and learned the word, “idiolect”. It was a banner day for me because that word and its implications have echoed down the years and affected everything about how I relate with people: how I think about them, how I listen to them and how I speak to them.
So what does it mean, “idiolect”? It is the language spoken by one person. According to Wikipedia: “Idiolect is an individual’s unique use of language, including speech. This unique usage encompasses vocabulary, grammar, and pronunciation. This differs from a dialect, a common set of linguistic characteristics shared among a group of people. The term is etymologically related to the Greek prefix idio- (meaning “own, personal, private, peculiar, separate, distinct”) and -lect, abstracted from dialect and ultimately from Ancient Greek, lego, ‘I speak’.”
Think about this, let it sink in: we each speak our own, unique language. Every single one of us has our own understanding of the meanings of words, and puts them together in our own special way. It doesn’t matter if you have a twin, if you have both always lived together and been educated exactly the same for years and years. You each will still speak a unique language, a different language. Therefore, it always takes some goodwill and work to understand what anyone means by what they say, no matter how well, or how little, you know them. Assuming that you know what they are saying because you both are speaking English is a big mistake, a stumbling block to genuine understanding.
This word has implications, at least it did for me when I thought about it. If everyone speaks their own language, then encountering anyone, everyone, is like going to a foreign country. It doesn’t matter if it is your twin or your coworker or a random person at the supermarket or someone on the news: each of them is a foreign country and they are speaking a foreign language even if you are both speaking English. You are a foreign country to them, too. How do we treat the people we encounter when we are visiting a foreign country and they don’t speak our language? Do we do our best to learn a little of their language, or a lot? Are we extra careful in our choice of words to help them understand us? Do we pay close attention to the words they are saying, to make sure we understand what they mean, even asking for clarification? Maybe we’ll laugh when we can’t figure out what the other person is trying to communicate, we’ll be curious and patient as we figure it out together. But sometimes people visit a foreign country and are frustrated that it is different from home, and instead of observing and appreciating the local language and customs, they speak more and more loudly in their own language and get upset when the other person still doesn’t understand. The latter approach is all too common lately.
We are living through interesting times. Communication is the key to navigating them together. Each of us has something which only we can offer the world. That personal gift and its worldview are reflected in the unique language every one of us speaks. Be curious, be patient and pay close attention when you are listening to someone because they speak a language which has grown out of their life and is therefore inherently different from yours, as yours is different from theirs. Different is good.
-Karen Bufka, St. Johnsbury