Catholic schools are closing their doors all across America, leaving future generations with nowhere to turn for the high-quality academics and values-based education so many families are seeking. The number of students attending Catholic schools in the US fell from about 5.2 million in 1965 to around two million in 2008.
Pioneer Institute believes these schools are worth preserving. For over a decade, we have raised our voice in support of these excellent academic options, and tools such as tax credit scholarships that would enable more families to attend.
Pioneer has held public forums, published research on the benefits of Catholic education, on successful models such as Cristo Rey, and on policy changes that would stop the Massachusetts education department from depriving religious school students of special needs services and school nurses. The Institute has also convened key stakeholders, appeared in local and national press, filed amicus briefs, produced a feature a documentary film, and much more.
I apologize, but I need to digress from Pioneer’s usual topics of research and commentary.
Though politicians are ultimately responsible for public policy, politics is not something Pioneer usually delves into. That being said, David Runciman’s piece on political hypocrisy in the Ideas section of today’s Globe bothered me.
To begin with, Mr. Runciman never exactly defines what he means by political hypocrisy. In fact, the definition, at least as he conceives it, seems inordinately broad, including, for example, a politician who might change his or her stance on an issue in the face of evidence supporting a contrary position. What is hypocritical about that, I don’t know. I would have thought the hypocrite is the politician who, having considered overwhelming evidence contrary to his or her position, refuses to change it for politically expedient reasons.
Then there is Runciman’s use of the authorial “we”, as in
Perhaps we should ask not what this says about the politicians but what it says about us. We can dress up our dislike of hypocrisy in principled terms, and spout pieties about the importance of trust and integrity. But we need to recognize that along with hating hypocrisy, we love it as well – that is, we love seeing it exposed. Who hasn’t watched with satisfaction as a politician is hoisted by his own petard? But part of the pleasure, if we are honest with ourselves, is schadenfreude, and comes from our relief that we are not subject to the same standards.
I’m always so pleased when an author chooses to tell me what I have or haven’t done, said, thought or felt. I’m glad that Mr. Runciman did such extensive research for his forthcoming book that he polled the question of hypocrisy and determined that 100% of his respondents are always satisfied to see political hypocrisy exposed and that the same percentage of respondents always feel that way because of schadenfreude. For if he hasn’t, he needs to use a different pronoun.
I suspect the authorial “we” is a writer’s last resort to convince his readers of his thesis. Having failed to persuade through the compilation of empirical evidence or the flourish of rhetoric, he simply drafts them to his cause by reverting to the first person plural. Would political persuasion really that easy.
Finally, though, the issue to which I take the greatest objection is Mr. Runciman’s failure to differentiate between strategic and tactical goals. He uses the current Iraq war as an example of consistency’s failure. Of George Bush and Tony Blair, he writes:
Neither was a hypocrite, and both held the course on Iraq with near perfect consistency. But the results, nearly five years later, suggest there are worse things than hypocrisy.
Even if one glibly assumes the results of the President’s and Prime Minister’s decision to invade Iraq have turned out to be, indeed, disastrous (though, in fact, I do), I contend that subsequently holding “the course on Iraq” is a tactical decision, not a strategic one. The strategic goal, as oft-stated by the President, is a free and democratic Iraq. Holding the present military course may not be the best way to achieve that goal, but I don’t know very many people who would disagree that it isn’t, at the very least, a noble one.
Democracy is based on compromise. Without it, democracy cannot function (which is why the increasingly partisan nature of our politics is a threat to our democracy). But a leader must possess clearly stated strategic goals that are based on deeply held principles and from which he or she refuses to waver. Otherwise, he or she wouldn’t be a leader; they’d be a follower.
It is interesting to view from afar what is happening with other governors. If you want to get a taste of the fight to come on pricey new proposals, the appetite for new revenues and dependence on casinos as a cure-all, read a report by Steve Stanek of Budget & Tax News reports on Gov. Rod Blagojevich of Illinois.
The Illinois General Assembly in 2007 was supposed to finish its business in May, but seven months later lawmakers remained in session to wrestle with mass transit funding in Chicago and the surrounding counties.
Political observers say the record overtime session was due at least in part to personal animosities between Gov. Rod Blagojevich (D) and key lawmakers.
As the Italians say, all the world is like the town next door. Want more?
The animosity between House Speaker Michael Madigan (D-Chicago) and the governor has grown so bitter that in early December Madigan boycotted two days of mass transit discussions involving the governor and other legislative leaders.
Proposed transit funding solutions have included a regional sales tax hike, diverting gasoline sales tax money, and a huge expansion of gambling, including putting a casino in Chicago. The additional revenue would fund the Regional Transportation Authority (RTA), which oversees mass transit in the city and suburbs.
Stay tuned for the Massachusetts version?
More on the Patrick administration’s moves to gut education reform. The Patrick proposal creates a Secretary of Education. It gives the Secretary broad budgetary power, reducing the Commissioner of Education to being a department head. It stacks, packs and racks up the members of the Board, so that the power starts from the Governor, flows through the Secretary and leaves the Commissioner and Board to rubber stamp.
Once upon a time, in a not far off time, the current Chairman of the Board, S. Paul Reville, did not think this such a good idea. For the full testimony see here. The testimony was provided in June 2003, when a previous Governor proposed a weak Secretary (no real budgetary power, no changes to the Board). At the time, Mr. Reville testified before the Legislature that:
“The reorganization removes the authority of the Board to hire the Commissioner. This has historically been the Board’s most important responsibility and a key feature of the quasi-independence of the education system. The Commissioner would now be a direct appointee of the Governor, placing the Department under the immediate control of the Executive Branch. Further, the proposal creates the post of Secretary of Education. The Commonwealth has tried an education secretariat twice in recent decades and in both cases, the experience has been so negative that the Legislature has chosen to abolish the position. Notwithstanding the outstanding qualifications of the Administration’s proposed nominee for this post, why go down this road again?”
“I submit that the arm’s length relationship between education and politics has served the Commonwealth and its children well over the years. I would urge you to maintain that relationship, avoid the failures of the past and concentrate on bringing real reforms to our schools and classrooms.”
Indeed, why go down this road again?
In Massachusetts, the Know-Nothing amendments prevent more than 100,000 urban families with children in chronically underperforming school districts from receiving scholarship vouchers that would allow them access to additional educational alternatives. These legal barriers, also known as Blaine amendments, restrict government funding from flowing to religiously affiliated organizations in nearly 40 states and are a violation of the first and fourteenth amendments.
The U.S. Supreme Court will hear a case this year, Espinoza v. Montana Department of Revenue, that could end these amendments. In 2018, Pioneer produced a 30-minute documentary on the impact of the Blaine amendments on families in Massachusetts, Georgia, and Michigan.
“She’s a good girl. She helps me a lot. She has big, big dreams. I don’t have the money, but she has big dreams. I hope she’s going to get everything, but she works so hard. She works so hard in school.”
“Our family is needing to make some really big sacrifices because we believe this is important, and so, we’re basically going to do whatever it takes… Sometimes we look at each other and go ‘I don’t know if I can do it again another month…’”
“A lot of the families have to sacrifice and work multiple jobs… And just scraping together enough money to just make tuition, just the basics.”
“It is discriminatory, that parents who want to choose an alternative to public school for their children, would not in any way receive any compensation for that, whether it be tax credit, whether it be a voucher…”
In the 1840s, nativist movement leaders formed official political parties and local chapters of the national Native American Party (later the American Party), although they continued to be commonly known as the Know-Nothing Party. Politicians sought to insert provisions into state constitutions against Catholics who refused to renounce the pope. The Know-Nothing movement brought bigotry and hatred to a new level of violence and organization.
The party’s legacy endured in the post-Civil War era, with laws and constitutional amendments it supported, still today severely limiting parents’ educational choices. A federal constitutional amendment was proposed by Speaker of the House James Blaine prohibiting money raised by taxation in any State to be under the control of any religious sect; nor shall any money so raised or lands so devoted be divided between religious sects or denominations. These were then named the Blaine Amendments of 1875.
in recent decades, often in response to challenges to school choice programs, the U.S. Supreme Court has demonstrated great interest in examining the issues of educational alternatives and attempts limit parental options. Massachusetts plays a key role in this debate. The Bay State was a key center of the Know-Nothing movement and has the oldest version of Anti-Aid Amendments in the nation, as well as a second such amendment approved in 1917. Two-fifths of Massachusetts residents are Catholic, and its Catholic schools outperform the state’s public schools, which are the best in the nation.
Help families like the Costons in Michigan to end the bigoted Blaine amendments in their state that are blocking tuition scholarships and other types of financial support that would make it possible for families to send their children to high-quality schools that are best suited for their children.
[ytp_video source=”uN8dMHYzofA”]
SHARE THIS STORY ON SOCIAL MEDIA!
I apologize, but I need to digress from Pioneer’s usual topics of research and commentary.
Though politicians are ultimately responsible for public policy, politics is not something Pioneer usually delves into. That being said, David Runciman’s piece on political hypocrisy in the Ideas section of today’s Globe bothered me.
To begin with, Mr. Runciman never exactly defines what he means by political hypocrisy. In fact, the definition, at least as he conceives it, seems inordinately broad, including, for example, a politician who might change his or her stance on an issue in the face of evidence supporting a contrary position. What is hypocritical about that, I don’t know. I would have thought the hypocrite is the politician who, having considered overwhelming evidence contrary to his or her position, refuses to change it for politically expedient reasons.
Then there is Runciman’s use of the authorial “we”, as in
Perhaps we should ask not what this says about the politicians but what it says about us. We can dress up our dislike of hypocrisy in principled terms, and spout pieties about the importance of trust and integrity. But we need to recognize that along with hating hypocrisy, we love it as well – that is, we love seeing it exposed. Who hasn’t watched with satisfaction as a politician is hoisted by his own petard? But part of the pleasure, if we are honest with ourselves, is schadenfreude, and comes from our relief that we are not subject to the same standards.
I’m always so pleased when an author chooses to tell me what I have or haven’t done, said, thought or felt. I’m glad that Mr. Runciman did such extensive research for his forthcoming book that he polled the question of hypocrisy and determined that 100% of his respondents are always satisfied to see political hypocrisy exposed and that the same percentage of respondents always feel that way because of schadenfreude. For if he hasn’t, he needs to use a different pronoun.
I suspect the authorial “we” is a writer’s last resort to convince his readers of his thesis. Having failed to persuade through the compilation of empirical evidence or the flourish of rhetoric, he simply drafts them to his cause by reverting to the first person plural. Would political persuasion really that easy.
Finally, though, the issue to which I take the greatest objection is Mr. Runciman’s failure to differentiate between strategic and tactical goals. He uses the current Iraq war as an example of consistency’s failure. Of George Bush and Tony Blair, he writes:
Neither was a hypocrite, and both held the course on Iraq with near perfect consistency. But the results, nearly five years later, suggest there are worse things than hypocrisy.
Even if one glibly assumes the results of the President’s and Prime Minister’s decision to invade Iraq have turned out to be, indeed, disastrous (though, in fact, I do), I contend that subsequently holding “the course on Iraq” is a tactical decision, not a strategic one. The strategic goal, as oft-stated by the President, is a free and democratic Iraq. Holding the present military course may not be the best way to achieve that goal, but I don’t know very many people who would disagree that it isn’t, at the very least, a noble one.
Democracy is based on compromise. Without it, democracy cannot function (which is why the increasingly partisan nature of our politics is a threat to our democracy). But a leader must possess clearly stated strategic goals that are based on deeply held principles and from which he or she refuses to waver. Otherwise, he or she wouldn’t be a leader; they’d be a follower.
It is interesting to view from afar what is happening with other governors. If you want to get a taste of the fight to come on pricey new proposals, the appetite for new revenues and dependence on casinos as a cure-all, read a report by Steve Stanek of Budget & Tax News reports on Gov. Rod Blagojevich of Illinois.
The Illinois General Assembly in 2007 was supposed to finish its business in May, but seven months later lawmakers remained in session to wrestle with mass transit funding in Chicago and the surrounding counties.
Political observers say the record overtime session was due at least in part to personal animosities between Gov. Rod Blagojevich (D) and key lawmakers.
As the Italians say, all the world is like the town next door. Want more?
The animosity between House Speaker Michael Madigan (D-Chicago) and the governor has grown so bitter that in early December Madigan boycotted two days of mass transit discussions involving the governor and other legislative leaders.
Proposed transit funding solutions have included a regional sales tax hike, diverting gasoline sales tax money, and a huge expansion of gambling, including putting a casino in Chicago. The additional revenue would fund the Regional Transportation Authority (RTA), which oversees mass transit in the city and suburbs.
Stay tuned for the Massachusetts version?
More on the Patrick administration’s moves to gut education reform. The Patrick proposal creates a Secretary of Education. It gives the Secretary broad budgetary power, reducing the Commissioner of Education to being a department head. It stacks, packs and racks up the members of the Board, so that the power starts from the Governor, flows through the Secretary and leaves the Commissioner and Board to rubber stamp.
Once upon a time, in a not far off time, the current Chairman of the Board, S. Paul Reville, did not think this such a good idea. For the full testimony see here. The testimony was provided in June 2003, when a previous Governor proposed a weak Secretary (no real budgetary power, no changes to the Board). At the time, Mr. Reville testified before the Legislature that:
“The reorganization removes the authority of the Board to hire the Commissioner. This has historically been the Board’s most important responsibility and a key feature of the quasi-independence of the education system. The Commissioner would now be a direct appointee of the Governor, placing the Department under the immediate control of the Executive Branch. Further, the proposal creates the post of Secretary of Education. The Commonwealth has tried an education secretariat twice in recent decades and in both cases, the experience has been so negative that the Legislature has chosen to abolish the position. Notwithstanding the outstanding qualifications of the Administration’s proposed nominee for this post, why go down this road again?”
“I submit that the arm’s length relationship between education and politics has served the Commonwealth and its children well over the years. I would urge you to maintain that relationship, avoid the failures of the past and concentrate on bringing real reforms to our schools and classrooms.”
Indeed, why go down this road again?
To lead or follow
/0 Comments/in Blog, News /by Liam DayI apologize, but I need to digress from Pioneer’s usual topics of research and commentary.
Though politicians are ultimately responsible for public policy, politics is not something Pioneer usually delves into. That being said, David Runciman’s piece on political hypocrisy in the Ideas section of today’s Globe bothered me.
To begin with, Mr. Runciman never exactly defines what he means by political hypocrisy. In fact, the definition, at least as he conceives it, seems inordinately broad, including, for example, a politician who might change his or her stance on an issue in the face of evidence supporting a contrary position. What is hypocritical about that, I don’t know. I would have thought the hypocrite is the politician who, having considered overwhelming evidence contrary to his or her position, refuses to change it for politically expedient reasons.
Then there is Runciman’s use of the authorial “we”, as in
I’m always so pleased when an author chooses to tell me what I have or haven’t done, said, thought or felt. I’m glad that Mr. Runciman did such extensive research for his forthcoming book that he polled the question of hypocrisy and determined that 100% of his respondents are always satisfied to see political hypocrisy exposed and that the same percentage of respondents always feel that way because of schadenfreude. For if he hasn’t, he needs to use a different pronoun.
I suspect the authorial “we” is a writer’s last resort to convince his readers of his thesis. Having failed to persuade through the compilation of empirical evidence or the flourish of rhetoric, he simply drafts them to his cause by reverting to the first person plural. Would political persuasion really that easy.
Finally, though, the issue to which I take the greatest objection is Mr. Runciman’s failure to differentiate between strategic and tactical goals. He uses the current Iraq war as an example of consistency’s failure. Of George Bush and Tony Blair, he writes:
Even if one glibly assumes the results of the President’s and Prime Minister’s decision to invade Iraq have turned out to be, indeed, disastrous (though, in fact, I do), I contend that subsequently holding “the course on Iraq” is a tactical decision, not a strategic one. The strategic goal, as oft-stated by the President, is a free and democratic Iraq. Holding the present military course may not be the best way to achieve that goal, but I don’t know very many people who would disagree that it isn’t, at the very least, a noble one.
Democracy is based on compromise. Without it, democracy cannot function (which is why the increasingly partisan nature of our politics is a threat to our democracy). But a leader must possess clearly stated strategic goals that are based on deeply held principles and from which he or she refuses to waver. Otherwise, he or she wouldn’t be a leader; they’d be a follower.
A taste of feuds to come
/0 Comments/in Better Government, Blog, News /byIt is interesting to view from afar what is happening with other governors. If you want to get a taste of the fight to come on pricey new proposals, the appetite for new revenues and dependence on casinos as a cure-all, read a report by Steve Stanek of Budget & Tax News reports on Gov. Rod Blagojevich of Illinois.
As the Italians say, all the world is like the town next door. Want more?
Stay tuned for the Massachusetts version?
Why go down this road again
/0 Comments/in Blog, News, Related Education Blogs /byMore on the Patrick administration’s moves to gut education reform. The Patrick proposal creates a Secretary of Education. It gives the Secretary broad budgetary power, reducing the Commissioner of Education to being a department head. It stacks, packs and racks up the members of the Board, so that the power starts from the Governor, flows through the Secretary and leaves the Commissioner and Board to rubber stamp.
Once upon a time, in a not far off time, the current Chairman of the Board, S. Paul Reville, did not think this such a good idea. For the full testimony see here. The testimony was provided in June 2003, when a previous Governor proposed a weak Secretary (no real budgetary power, no changes to the Board). At the time, Mr. Reville testified before the Legislature that:
Indeed, why go down this road again?