Game changer: Cuccinelli announces education reform proposalEconomicsFeaturedPolicyPoliticsVirginia

Ken Cuccinelli just announced what is arguably the most far-reaching education reform plan since the 1867 Constitution.

On the question of providing competition to government-runs schools versus improving upon them, the Attorney General dramatically answered, “Yes.”

The competition piece is breathtaking, going so far as to knock out impediments in the 1971 Constitution (WaPo – who provided surprisingly even-handed coverage; perhaps they were just starved for something to cover):

His proposed constitutional amendments both aim to broaden the cause of school choice.

The first would remove a provision in the state constitution that bans government aid to sectarian schools. Known as the Blaine Amendment, the measure first appeared about a century ago when the country’s Protestant majority sought to block government support for Catholic schools. It ultimately became law in nearly 40 states. Cuccinelli’s K-12 education plan says that despite a June 2000 decision by U.S. Supreme Court that found school choice programs to be constitutional, the Blaine Amendment in Virginia’s constitution restricts the state’s ability to craft broad-based school choice programs.

The second proposed amendment would address what Cuccinelli’s plan says is “one of the most useless charter school laws in the country.” Although such schools are permitted under existing law, they must be approved by the district.

“This creates a conflict of interest as school districts do not want competition,” the plan says. “It’s like Pepsi having to get permission from the Board of Directors of Coca-Cola to sell a new product.”

Either of these amendments by themselves would strike a powerful blow for competition in schooling. Together, they would infinitely add to competitiveness in education.

However, unlike most conservative efforts at education reform, Cuccinelli did not ignore the public schools themselves, offering reforms such as a “trigger law” empowering parents to reform individual schools their respective children attend, and a rethink of the Standards of Learning “to find ways to emphasize problem-solving and cognitive abilities in testing more than memorization” (WaPo again).

It is easily the most substance-laden proposal on education – or any policy – to come out of the campaign, and Cuccinelli used a dramatic example for its need:

“Try telling folks in Petersburg, where 30 percent of students fail the reading test for Virginia’s SOL’s [standardized tests], that Virginia’s education system is one of the best in the world,” Cuccinelli told a group of students and educators gathered at the school. “Just 59 percent of Petersburg students graduate on time versus 82 percent in the rest of Virginia. That kind of disparity is something that concerns me on behalf of just those children and on behalf of Virginia.”

This may confuse leftists who are convinced that Republicans don’t care about minority-majority cities like Petersburg. More to the point, it shows the AG is serious about making things better for them and all Virginians.

@deejaymcguire | facebook.com/people/Dj-McGuire | DJ’s posts

  • http://www.shaunkenney.com Shaun Kenney

    Killing the Blaine Amendment?! AWESOME.

  • John Fredericks

    Finally, a substantive policy discussion after three months of watching Adams Family reruns. John Fredericks. BTW, the AG will be on my radio show on Thursday @ 8:30 AM.

    • http://www.shaunkenney.com Shaun Kenney

      John — it’s not the first policy position the campaign has put out… but it might be one that the MSM finally takes a peek at.

      http://bearingdrift.com/2013/08/13/virginias-referendum-on-terry-mcauliffe/

      • John Fredericks

        Much better than the ideologically driven bowl of right wing porridge poopycock nonsense the GOP LG candidate served up…

  • Alexis Rose Bank

    This is called “striking at the root”. Good job, Ken.

  • Alexis Rose Bank

    Hello McAuliffe campaign staffer and upvoting sock puppet friends.

    • http://www.brianschoeneman.org/ Brian W. Schoeneman

      Glad to see they care. I thought it was just the Libertarians who cared about the up/down voting. Thanks for the traffic, McAuliffe staff!

      • Britt Howard

        Don’t hate on Libertarians, bro.

        • Mr. Green Jeans

          Libertarians are the dingleberries of the GOPs butthole.

          • Britt Howard

            So much class, there bud.

      • Alexis Rose Bank

        Libertarians are so used to being lied to that we’re experts in spotting manipulation and deceit.

        • http://www.brianschoeneman.org/ Brian W. Schoeneman

          You’re so good at it, you see it when it isn’t even there.

          • Alexis Rose Bank

            You mean, we’re so good at it, we can see it while everyone else remains willfully blind.

            Such as, oh, the IRS being used as a political weapon. One candidate proposed in the 2012 primaries to shut down the IRS. He was laughed at. Now you can get an easy majority of Republicans in favor of ending the IRS.

            It’s OK if you don’t feel comfortable acknowledging things until there is a safe crowd to stand with. Those of us who need no one else to do our thinking for us will forge the way so you can follow while remaining in your comfort zone.

          • http://www.brianschoeneman.org/ Brian W. Schoeneman

            I don’t care about having a crowd. I am used to standing by myself. But only when it makes sense to do so.

          • Alexis Rose Bank

            By the way, did you forget the last campaign sock puppet doing
            nefarious deeds we nailed here? Who was it that spotted him again? You
            personally confirmed I was spot on there.

            Doesn’t it strike you as a little odd that a person you regard as crazy ends up being spot on so often?

          • http://www.brianschoeneman.org/ Brian W. Schoeneman

            Come on, Alexis. You might as well take credit for being the first to see the sun come up.

            I give you credit when you get things right. It does happen, although I wouldn’t characterize it as “so often.”

          • Alexis Rose Bank

            Hey, that government secrecy is being abused in every way possible is as obvious as the sun coming up, but you don’t seem to be able to see that, despite the already-huge-and-still-mounting pile of evidence. (Hint: if you’re relying on Obama or his political appointees being trustworthy, wear shark repellent.)

            Let’s have a test of your ability to put two and two together and come out with four. One of the top stories today are the NYTimes’ expose on vast corruption inside the Clinton Global Initiative. Another one is that, for the first time ever, the nytimes.com website was hit with a massive DDOS attack that brought it down.

            So my question is: In your mind, is the suggestion – that the DDOS attack on nytimes.com was ordered by someone with close ties to one or more of the Clintons – plausible? Or would you view it as wild conspiracy theory?

          • http://www.brianschoeneman.org/ Brian W. Schoeneman

            Wild conspiracy theory. If the Clintons didn’t want that story run, they had plenty of better avenues to keep it from being run, none of which would require a DDOS (that would have zero impact on the print version a couple million people already saw).

          • Alexis Rose Bank

            Does the Hillary Clinton’s long record of taking revenge factor into your assessment there?

          • http://www.brianschoeneman.org/ Brian W. Schoeneman

            Which long record are you talking about? If it includes Vince Foster, I’m going to roll my eyes.

          • Alexis Rose Bank

            I’m talking about the long record that anyone who was watching her
            during her husband’s Presidency, or beforehand in Arkansas, is familiar
            with. I presume you are just slightly too young to have been following
            politics during that time. Older folks know exactly what I’m talking about.

          • http://www.brianschoeneman.org/ Brian W. Schoeneman

            I was too young for his governorship, but I do recall the Clinton presidency, and I recall her temper. I don’t recall any specific instances of her taking revenge on an opponent. That’s not to say they didn’t happen, but I don’t know what specifically you’re talking about. I can also think of a few people who did her wrong that she did nothing to, like Monica Lewinsky.

          • Alexis Rose Bank

            OK small problem with the explanation here. nytimes.com went down at approximately 11:30am. Some guy in the obituary section (not in IT) says that IT *thinks* it relates to a scheduled update.

            I’ve spent many many years doing IT operations. There’s no major IT operation ANYWHERE that does scheduled updates during the middle of the business day. That explanation is not plausible. Scheduled updates are done either overnight, or near the end of an IT shift if they need to be monitored. 11:30am is perhaps the worst possible time of day to do a scheduled update.

            This is called public relations management. It is not a truthful public explanation.

          • http://www.brianschoeneman.org/ Brian W. Schoeneman

            I’m not going to debate the IT stuff with you and agree its kind of a stupid explanation. But it’s an explanation that doesn’t require a conspiracy or some kind of cabal.

            Occam’s razor is as useful here as anywhere else.

          • Alexis Rose Bank

            Occam’s razor says a DDOS attack, and covering it up with obfuscation, is a far more likely explanation than a public company whose entire business is managing information making a mistake that 1st-year CS students should know not to make.

            Risk management in any major IT organization should make a midday update to a production system literally impossible. Especially in a public corporation – it is inconceivable that it is a regular part of their operations to do scheduled updates during the day. Having such reckless IT practices would be material investment information and failure to reveal that information beforehand would constitute a felony (due to Sarbanes-Oxley).

            No, it is virtually impossible that there was a scheduled software update on the production servers of the best-known newspaper in the world at 11 AM right in the middle of the business day. Occam’s Razor would definitely not accept that as an explanation, it is a millions-to-one possibility, and if true would have an incredible negative impact on their stock price.

          • http://www.brianschoeneman.org/ Brian W. Schoeneman

            There is nothing simple about a DDOS attack, put into action by the Clintons in response to a relatively mild article in the Times about their foundation. I find it more plausible someone did something stupid and knocked the site offline. Regardless, while the Times might lie about some dumb mistake to keep themselves from embarrassment – your first year CS point is apt – I don’t see any excuse for them to lie about a DDOS. That would be news, and it would be an attempt to silence them, something they could easily spill a few barrels of ink over.

            There is a non conspiracy theory answer to what happened here, even if we aren’t aware of what it is, yet.

          • Alexis Rose Bank

            In analyzing the technical issue, the evidence shows that not only was the main domain unavailable, but also the subdomains and even the alias domain nyti.ms.

            If we start from the assumption that no DDoS attack was involved, then the evidence points to a DNS issue. An IT-focused public company like NY Times would never have a single point of failure for DNS, there will always be a backup/failover, and given the level of reliance of its systems on internal DNS, perhaps a third or even fourth DNS server as well.

            So either all their DNS servers went down at once, or the DNS entries themselves were blanked or corrupted. In normal DNS operations this does not happen. It could happen as a hack of the local DNS registry, which would be a cyber attack, just not necessarily a DDoS one. NYTimes’ official statement says they “believe” it’s an internal issue. The reason they use that word is because if that turns out not to be the case, they can’t get thrown in jail for it. Technically an outside hacker messing with their internal DNS can be construed as an “internal” issue. (Sadly, in the post-Clinton years, every public statement needs to be parsed like this.)

            Here are the plausible scenarios with the evidence at hand:
            1) external DDoS attack
            2) internal DNS corruption/hack
            3) internal DNS primary, backup, and failovers all going down at once
            4) core network failure combined with poor contingency planning
            5) daytime software change in violation of or absence of standard change and risk management processes

            Let me address some of these.

            Scenario 1 is straightforward to understand and requires no blame on anyone at the NY Times – cause external, nothing you can do about that as a network endpoint.

            Scenario 2 could possibly be produced by a hardware failure such as hard disk corruption, although if it happened this way that reveals other serious IT management problems – for an organization that handles so much data they should be working off RAIDed servers, and most likely, SANs. It could also be produced by a malicious attacker changing the entries. The “software update” rumor in this scenario might imply that the DNS updated from an upstream source with the blank entries. But in that case the backup/failover situation is a severe IT failure. Also, given that it’s an internal DNS, the local network entries shouldn’t be coming from an upstream source anyway. So this scenario boils down to SEC-report-worthy deviations from any standard accepted IT practices in hardware management, OR malicious hacker. The first one is incredibly bad for the NY Times stock and perhaps the free man status of its CEO. The second is, in practice, the same overall situation as a DDoS attack, and we’d be back to wondering who and why, and the prime suspect would have to be the folks whose front page story could produce major damage to their overwhelming political ambitions.

            Scenarios 3, 4 and 5 are the same as the non-hacker explanation from Scenario 2. If it happened in one of those ways, then this is something so far from accepted standard IT practices, Risk Management, and Change Management that it has a direct material impact on the value of public stock, and again risks CEO-in-jail under Sarbox.

            In the modern IT world, Risk Management is king. It is the Holy Grail of IT management. Change Management is a subset of Risk Management that governs the modification of hardware and software (including scheduled software updates). There is no public company that I know of which does not have a high priority on Risk Management in IT, if for no other reason than that category also covers information security. Change Management is a subset of Risk Management for the purpose of ensuring the integrity of operations.

            If the NY Times doesn’t have solid Risk Management and Change Management processes in 2013, this in and of itself is headline tech news (and I expect we’ll see some tech mags look at this situation). It is also financial news as the company has public stock. And due to the regulations on public companies, a material omission of this magnitude is more than jail-worthy because of its impact on the stock’s value.

            If I were at the NY Times, I’d be damn well hoping it was in fact a DDoS attack or malicious hack on the internal DNS, because all the alternatives are far far worse for the CEO and everyone down the food chain who put his neck in a noose.

          • http://www.brianschoeneman.org/ Brian W. Schoeneman

            Now that’s a good analysis. And it didn’t involve any Clintonian conspiracy theories.

          • Alexis Rose Bank

            Thanks. Unfortunately what it does say is that “internal IT problems” is not a likely alternative to Clintonian conspiracy theories.

            So we’re back to wondering who would attack the NY Times today and why, and the best answer is Hillary Clinton, to minimize the exposure of the story. One thing she is famous for from her husband’s Presidency is the idea of managing the news cycle. The Clinton campaign was famous for it. This is right in line with damage control management of the news cycle. And we know that she has no problem at all doing illegal things, this is a woman who even stole the White House silverware when she had to leave.

          • http://www.brianschoeneman.org/ Brian W. Schoeneman

            Come on, Alexis. The best answer could be anybody. It could be China. It could be Russia. It could be Anthony Weiner. The article in the Times today about Clinton wasn’t even that big of a deal. Like I said, they could have spiked a story like that much more easily than going through everything you suggest. It’s implausible at best.

          • Alexis Rose Bank

            Humor me and get a second opinion from someone whose point of view you respect and who is old enough to remember voting against her husband in 1992.

          • http://www.brianschoeneman.org/ Brian W. Schoeneman

            Well, I voted against her husband in 1996. I guess I should be able to find one of the 60 million who didn’t vote for Clinton in 1992. What am I supposed to ask them? If Hillary hacked them?

          • Alexis Rose Bank

            Ask them if they believe it is in Hillary’s character to order a
            malicious hack on a website carrying a negative political story about
            her. That’s the hypothesis in question here.

            I’m not sure why that should be at all controversial, after all, we are talking about a woman(?) who
            just months ago told a premeditated lie over the dead bodies of the
            people she was lying about – people who were her own employees.

          • http://www.brianschoeneman.org/ Brian W. Schoeneman

            So I should ask someone who doesn’t know her personally about her character? Why?

          • Alexis Rose Bank

            Let me get this straight. You think that someone who has been in the public eye for over 30 years can only be fairly evaluated for character by a personal contact?

          • http://www.brianschoeneman.org/ Brian W. Schoeneman

            I think the only way you can really evaluate anybody’s character is to know them personally. That’s your problem, Alexis. All of this is a game to you, the people involved just two dimensional personalities on a screen. They aren’t. They’re real people. We only get to see what is shown to us. So no, I don’t think anybody who has been in the public eye, regardless of how long, should only have their character evaluated based on what the public perceives.

          • Alexis Rose Bank

            By those standards, you can never evaluate any political candidate’s moral fitness for office. Which explains your preferences.

          • http://www.brianschoeneman.org/ Brian W. Schoeneman

            Moral fitness and personal character are two different things.

          • Alexis Rose Bank

            OK let’s try this again. I believe the following statement to be completely uncontroversial in terms of the reasonableness and accuracy of its content. If you disagree, please specify what part of this statement precisely should be put to question:

            “A person

            a) who would lie over the corpses of people whose deaths she is in part responsible for by definition, as per her job description as Secretary of State, the deceased worked for her and reported to her in an official capacity;

            b) and whose hands have access to significant levers of power due to being the wife of an ex-President, just past Secretary of State, ex-Senator, and by additional means;

            c) and who has a long history of morally dubious activities going all the way back to her Rose Law Firm days, through the “Bimbo Eruption Squad” era, and continuing to the above cited recent incident;

            d) and who is particularly known for wanting to control the news cycle, as evidenced by her influence in her husband’s Presidential campaigns;

            e) is perfectly capable of ordering a cyberattack to divert attention away from an unfavorable headline story.”

            I think the real problem here is that any idea that requires more than two pieces of information is simply beyond the mortal ken of your average innumerate, marginally literate, and grossly malinformed American.

  • Warmac9999

    Sounds like you never heard of home schooling. Typical leftist sound bite straight from the Huffington Post.

    I don’t think this goes far enough. Ought to be vouchers that follow the child. Let educational choice be as available as abortion.

    • MD Russ

      Alternative schools, like abortion, are not taxpayer funded. Nor should either one be.

      • Warmac9999

        You really need to keep up. Abortions both nationally and internationally receive taxpayer dollars under latest Obama budget.

        So only public schools per your definition should receive public money. I guess New Orleans, through their contract process, was wrong. They should have waited for a bunch of new buildings and just let the kids run wild on the streets. In the end, you have nothing to offer but more misery and destruction.

        • MD Russ

          You are the one who needs to keep up, whatever-you-name-is. Have you ever heard of the Hyde Amendment? Federal funding of abortions is largely illegal, except for cases of rape and incest. Only 17 states provide Medicaid funding for abortion. By comparison, that is about half the number of states who have a Castle Doctrine law for self-defense in your home, including Virginia which does not.

          And exactly how does the latest Obama budget fund abortions in other countries?

          • Warmac9999

            All that is necessary is to google the question “Abortions get Taxpaper Dollars”. There are numerous articles on the subject. Apparently the greatest subterfuge is to give money to Planned Parenthood which then supports the abortion. But our support for foreign countries also includes money for abortion. The Hyde amendment looks to be feel good legislation that is full of sound and fury signifying nothing. Since this appears to be the case, then private schoold could be similarly funded through a planned parenthood type of organization or organizations – just a different mechanism.

          • MD Russ

            Cute. I am afraid that the Heritage Foundation and Christian News Service are not unbiased and reliable sources of information on abortion. As for Planned Parenthood, it is forbidden by the Hyde Amendment to use Federal money for abortion. Family planning, yes; abortion, no.

            BTW PP gets only about $70M of its entire $1B+ operating budget from the Federal government. Given the broad range of health services it provides, from contraception to cancer screenings, it has no incentive to use 7-tenths of one percent of its budget on abortion. But that reality doesn’t stop the anti-abortion extremists from raising false alarms.

            If you would step out of your little echo chamber and do some real research, you would find that Federal taxpayer money is not paying for abortion except in cases of rape or incest.

          • Warmac9999

            You ignored that tax payer funding is being used for international abortion so I’m guessing you admit that point. As far as American tax payer money not being used for abortions I point out that what appears on the books and what is reality are often quite different.

            My original point was about education. You don’t have a single alternative for the horrors of public education and the damage it inflicts, but you resist the very type of choice that you favor with abortion. You love individual choice for abortion but you hate it when it comes to individual choice for kids.

          • MD Russ

            I ignored your assertion that tax payer funding is being used for international abortion because you provided no substantiation of that claim. Sorry, but I am not going to shadow box with you.

            What appears on the books is accurate unless you can demonstrate a different reality with facts from an unbiased source.

            As for the horrors of public education and the damage it inflicts, it is certainly no worse than the brain-washing that goes on in sectarian “Christian” schools.

            Good-bye.

          • Warmac9999

            For some reason, I doubt that you are gone.

          • Britt Howard

            C’mon MD, let’s not pretend there isn’t creative accounting going on with Planned Parenthood. Fairly simple to divert funds that would normally have to go to other health needs to cover abortion costs and have government funds then streamed to cover what you diverted. Pro-choicers will be hard pressed to get past allies to side with them for late term abortion or this issue of publicly funding them. This will be low hanging fruit for Pro-lifers. $70 million going to abortion providers is a LOT of money. How do think that will play in the public?
            If there is no creative accounting and it is self-sustaining, then seperating the entities should be no problem. Take abortion out of Planned Parenthood. At that point, social conservatives will have nothing to say about the matter where those dollars go.

          • MD Russ

            You are pole vaulting over mouse turds, Britt. As I posted earlier, $70M in Federal funding is less than one percent of Planned Parenthood’s $1.1B annual budget.

            Get over it.

  • http://www.brianschoeneman.org/ Brian W. Schoeneman

    Parents absolutely should be able to have input into what their children are being taught. To act as if a parents religious beliefs somehow disqualify them from determining what their children are taught is abhorrent to me.

    This isn’t close to being a trojan horse. If Ken is working to ensure that more parents have a decision making role in their child’s learning, how can anybody be against that?

    • Warmac9999

      The statists do not want the family involved other than through the production of children. The state will raise the children via something equivalent to Mao’s Little red book. One might want to remember that hitler went even further by pairing men and women and then taking the babies away to be raised in sterile conditions. The babies so treated did not fair well..

  • MD Russ

    In defense of Jim, I agree. This is a thinly-disguised attempt to divert taxpayer money from public schools to fundamentalist Wahhabi’s. If parents want to send their children to such schools, fine. But as a taxpayer I’m not going to pay for it. And I say this as someone who was educated in Catholic schools and at a Methodist college. Providing for public education is a taxpayer responsibility. Supporting sectarian schools is not.

    • Warmac9999

      So you are pro-choice just not pro-choice when it doesn’t suit your ideological stance. I am pro-choice even though I don’t like abortion. Competition is necessary if our children are to be better educated. The public education monopoly has failed miserably and you have no alternative to offer. At least I trust a free citizenry to make good decisions for their children. Will such a system be perfect – no, but it has proved itself in post-Katrina New Orleans so it is worth a try in Virginia

      • MD Russ

        Whether I am pro-choice or not is immaterial. Publicly-funded schools, among other things, need to teach respect for the law of the land and Roe v. Wade is black letter law that has survived almost 40 years of Supreme Court review. There is no public school monopoly, just a public school system that is free to all. Anyone wanting to choose an alternative school must pay for it, just as my parents paid tuition for my Catholic schools and private college. The Establishment Clause of the First Amendment is quite clear on taxpayer support of sectarian schools–it is patently unconstitutional.

        Free citizens can be trusted to make good decisions for their children. They just don’t have the right to force other free citizens to pay for their decisions.

        • Warmac9999

          Your last sentence is simply untrue. My taxes pay for all kinds of things that I do not support. George Washington commented on government being a dangerous master and fearful servant because it had the power to take using law.

          Of course there is a public school monopoly. A school board or equivalent government entity picks the school district for the child based on location or some other government criteria. When 98% of children go to such schools, there is no competition for excellence. (It is even worse when the teachers are unionized and collude with democrats regarding curriculum and pay.)

          The public schools in the major cities are horrific. Even in the vaunted public schools of Fairfax, the superintendent of schools admitted that education was secondary to socialization. Undisciplined and unruly students cannot learn and they damage the learning of the other students. It is now to the point that public school teachers in some cities are told that curses and threats directed at them should not lead to a school sanction.

  • dccyclone

    While Cuccinelli’s proposal and this blog’s reaction to it is boilerplate right-wing orthodoxy, the final paragraph of this blog post is a major LOL. Go ahead and campaign in Petersburg and tell them you “care” about them, and see how election day goes. I doubt Cuccinelli or the state GOP will even bother to go there, and in any case the results will be the same as always.

    • http://www.brianschoeneman.org/ Brian W. Schoeneman

      This is racist.

      • Warmac9999

        How can it be racist. After all, it was uttered by a supposed progressive so, by their definition, it can’t be racist. What the Trayvon Martin episode has revealed is the truly ugly side of the democrat party and, unfortunately, too many republican power brokers.

  • DJRippert

    I am no overall fan of Ken Cuccinelli but this is a good platform to frame the debate. I’d like to see the McAuliffe campaign provide a point by point analysis of Cuccinelli’s recommendations along with their support or rebuttal of each point.

    It seems far too early to say whether this is a good plan, a bad plan or a bit of both. That analysis needs to come as we continue to slog toward the election.

    However, education in America is as broken as health care in America. The first attempt to fix either system is bound to have problems. However, both systems must be fixed. So, rather than just pillory Cuccinelli just because I don’t like his overall direction I want to see what the other side has to say about his clear, detailed and substantial suggestions for fixing the education system.

    • John Fredericks

      Brilliant!

  • Edward N Virginia

    Question: How would public money be denied to a sectarian school that teaches that Whites are superior to Blacks?

    Question: How would public money be denied to a sectarian school that teaches that sexual orientation is demonic possession or satanic oppression and can be ‘cleansed’ by exorcism, prayer, or some other rituals?

    Question: How would pubic money be denied to a sectarian school that teaches that their ‘god’ requires them to ‘rule’ others lives, in order to coerce belief?

    Question: How would public money be denied to a sectarian school that teaches sexual experimentation from an early age?

    etc

    • D.j. McGuire

      Ed,
      Can you actually name any schools that apply to your questions? Or is this yet another scare tactic designed to distract?

      • Edward N Virginia

        PARDON, but

        all reasonable and responsible persons ask manifold questions of any proposed law or Amendment.

        That is REASONABLE and RESPONSIBLE (which you guys claim to be).

        Otherwise, we get laws that are Don’t DO what it was said that would do, Make MISCHIEF, Create BURDENS, and Cause HARMS.

        such as:
        tax laws and allow endless loopholes for corporations to pay no taxes, and get tax benefits for sending jobs abroad, and for hiding boundless fortunes off-shore (as with Mr Romney, and as apparently with Mr McAuliffe)

        such as:
        Amendments that harm the children and elderly family members and other dependents of gay and lesbian Virginians

        etc

        Oh, and btw, Mr McAuliffe was only doing what the tax laws allowed, and guided, him to do. So, EACH TIME we see that ad, and EACH TIME we hear, about Mr McAullife’s investments in China, we should hear that Republicans are largely responsible for THOSE TAX LAWS that created those incentives! And, should hear Republicans TAX REFORM PLANS TO ELIMINATE ALL SUCH.

        Correct?!

    • Warmac9999

      You trust an anonymous bureaucrat with an ideological agenda more than a citizen parent who wants the best for his or her child. Your questions are typically leftist pap – and it is easy enough to create opposing questions or, for that matter, law. But let’s get to the bottom line, the Bill of Rights is a threat to you because it empowers personal liberty.

  • Britt Howard

    Jim, Libertarians like me sided with the Left back in the 80′s & 90′s against the right wing Christian groups that wanted to install THEIR Christian prayer. Why? Because we don’t believe in indoctrination against the will of the parents. So, why is it that you support a public school that preaches godlessness, climate change, and that you must accept homosexuality against the will of the child’s parents? And the fact is, a private school can most often educate for less per child and save the public school system money.The Left is full of hypocrites that only want THEIR flavor of indoctrination much like some on the right that want a neo-taliban approach forced on others. Either you want freedom or you want indoctrination. Which is it?

  • Mr. Green Jeans

    I bet the parents of Saudi Academy kids in fairfax co. will LOVE this idea! Thanks Ken!

    • Britt Howard

      So will the big government socialists, communists, and global warming believers when they realize they can raise their own children. Or even the ones that believe that the purpose of government is to raise their children for them.

    • Warmac9999

      The Saudi Academy is a private school. The parents are exercising their right to chose their children’s education. It seems to me that those poor and middle class students stuck in failing public schools ought to be supported in educational choices and competition for education quality rather than imprisoned by educrats in the dystopia of value free socialism.

      • Mr. Green Jeans

        I am fine with parents exercising that right. I just don’t think I should pay for it, especially if my kids don’t attend said private school.

        • Warmac9999

          I am more than willing to pay for your right to send your child to the school of your choice as part of a voucher system. You get choice of school, choice of curriculum, choice of location, choice of change if the school is poorly run, choice of how to help your disadvantaged child, choice of teachers, choice of way information is delivered, freedom from unwanted bias, freedom from teachings that undermine your parenting, freedom to learn in a safe and secure environment, freedom to learn in a minimally disruptive class, small class sizes, teachers who can teach without distraction or threat, etc.

          Keep paying for the destruction of all children because that is what the lack of change in the public school means to far too many – including the teachers who see every day a decline in their schools or parents who have to rescue their kids from druggies and violence. Its time to abandon the ideas of the 1970s. They didn’t work.

        • Britt Howard

          A huge problem is that the government is already violating the seperation of church and state by force feeding a politically correct view on religion, homosexuality, and their preferred faith of “Global Warming” in schools. Since I don’t want a public school to teach my child that gays are evil and should be shunned, I also understand why other families don’t want their children force fed the idea that gays must be accepted and appreciated and that their Christian beliefs are evil. Either we have freedom or we have thought police. Just because the religious right is the victim this time, doesn’t make it right. It was wrong for them to try this in the past and it is wrong now for the opposing side to attempt to indoctrinate with schools.
          In a voucher system, the parents choose to send their children to a religious school or one that “preaches” against religion. Or maybe even one that simply educates and doesn’t address religious belief pro or con. The parent also has the ability to take the voucher to a better education provider or one that does not directly violate the tenets of their family’s faith/non-faith. Therefore, when there is competition and choice with tax dollars that we pay with anyway, there is no respecting of one particular establishment.

  • Guest

    What about godless, climate change loving, forced acceptance of homosexuality against the will of the child’s parents in public schools? Is indoctrination of children bad? ……..or just when it isn’t your flavor of totalitarianism?
    I don’t want a neo-taliban agenda in public schools to be sure, but this Libertarian doesn’t want you forcing your politically correct non-religion on somebody else’s children either.
    Further, private schools can save money since they are able to educate for fewer dollars per student. Saves the public budget by reducing labor and property costs.

  • John Fredericks

    Hi Jim, that’s crazy talk you downloaded from the DNC website. This is about giving parents whose children are locked into to a failing decrepit school a real opportunity for choice. Right now they are in jail with no way out. What is your alternative to Cuccinelli’s plan? John

  • Patrick Bailey

    Could Terry McAuliffe even find Petersburg on a map?

  • Pingback: Quinnipiac to Cuccinelli: Go Positive | Bearing Drift