Tuesday, May 07, 2019




Student Loan Forgiveness Is Not the Solution

The latest benefit scheme making the rounds in time for the elections is student loan forgiveness. Given the great debt burden on graduates, candidates are piling on the bandwagon to find a platform from which to show how benevolent they can be with taxpayers’ money.

Student debt now stands at $1.46 trillion with an additional $79 billion registered in 2018. This debt hits young people right at the time when they need money to get started. Thus, many claim that college loans delay adulthood decisions, diminishes home ownership and stifles small business creation.

The liberal solution is to erase the debt. Some proposals now circulating will forgive up to $50,000 of loan obligations affecting tens of millions of Americans. 

There are three reasons why loan forgiveness schemes are wrong and should not be implemented.

Not a Matter of Injustice

First, inside the broken logic of the schemes is the idea that the loans are somehow an injustice that imposes itself upon poor students.  It is not fair that young people, especially poor young people are burdened with such debts. The loans also seem to target poor minorities while the rich are not affected. Big government needs to right this “great wrong.”

This is a Marxist interpretation of student loans. Marxists turn the loans into instruments used by financial institutions to oppress the poor who need education to get ahead. It is a fatalistic vision that equates failure to obtain a loan with poverty and failure. The poor are forced into a situation beyond their control.

The reality is that no one forces students to take out these loans. When the student signs the agreement, they know that they are committing themselves to repayment. There is also a wide world of alternative options (including scholarships and online courses) open to all high school graduates that can minimize the expenses that a college education entails. Students have an obligation to choose the options they can afford without jeopardizing their future.

Thus, there is no injustice committed since students freely agree to repay the loan. The money is due to the lender as a matter of justice. To defraud the lender of repayment–often the taxpayer—is an act of injustice on the part of the student.

A second reason why student loan forgiveness is wrong involves the nature of education. The object of education should not only be the acquisition of knowledge, career advancement or good test results.

Real education forms character and teaches the student about the reality of life with all its limitations, vicissitudes and foibles. The student should develop adult skills to survive in a world that is often cruel and unforgiving.  They should cultivate their God-given talents to help sanctify themselves and those around them.

When students take out loans, they make adult decisions that have serious consequences. When all loans can be forgiven, the loans cease to become loans. They become play-loans made to children who do not wish to assume responsibility. Loan forgiveness is financial divorce that sends a message to borrowers that if they do not like the loans, they can simply walk away from them.

Education fails when students do not become mature adults. It fails when students abandon reality and do not face life’s crosses. To what purpose do students get a diploma if they cannot exercise the responsibilities that it entails?

A Wrong-Headed Vision

Finally, student loan forgiveness perpetuates a wrong-headed vision of government as a provider. Forgiveness advocates claim it will supercharge the economy by freeing up money for home purchases, family projects and small business creation. They forget that the same loans supposedly stimulate the university system in much the same way.

Student loan forgiveness sends a message to all high school graduates that they must attend college to get ahead—and expect government aid in the end. It discourages anyone who pursues more technical or manual skills more suited to their proclivities.

This mistaken concept of an eventually “free” college education encourages students to spend without restraint in anticipation of future relief. It encourages universities to spend at will and build new facilities for expanding enrollments thus increasing tuition costs. At the same time, many universities lower their standards to accommodate the one-size-fits-all education for everyone—even those, now financially enabled, who are not suited for such studies.

Debt forgiveness is not the foundation for better education but a socialistic system of mediocrity. It will not stimulate the economy since real economic growth presupposes responsibility, duty and planning. Above all, student loan forgiveness teaches graduates a wrong vision of life.  

SOURCE 






Unions Keep Deducting Dues Without Consent, Teachers Say

Just a few weeks before school let out last May, unexpected visitors showed up in Bethany Mendez’s classroom.

They didn’t come to discuss the nuts and bolts of education or the work the teacher was doing to assist young students with learning disabilities.

Instead, the visitors wanted to know why she was leaving the teachers union, and if she fully understood the ramifications of resigning her membership.

“This made me very angry and upset to actually have them come to my classroom during instructional time during the day,” Mendez told The Daily Signal in an interview. “I thought the meeting was regarding a student who might have to go into one of my classes. But these were union representatives who showed up in my classroom to question me as to why I was leaving the union.”

Mendez teaches elementary school students with learning disabilities in California’s Fremont Unified School District.

Since she had her own bouts with dyslexia when she was roughly the same age as her students, Mendez explains, she became motivated to become a teacher and devote herself to assisting children who require specialized instruction.

For union officials to interrupt her instructional time, Mendez thought, was inappropriate and overly intrusive.

“I struggled with dyslexia when I was little, and that was due to a vision problem,” Mendez, 35, said. “But I was able to have surgery to fix it. For a lot of these kids, it’s a brain-wiring issue and it involves how their brain interprets visual information. My goal is to help children learn and to avoid the embarrassment of not being able to read in the third and fourth grades. I’m passionate about helping kids to bridge that gap.”

“It would be fine to have a friendly conversation outside of class, but to actually have two people come to my class while I was teaching and ask these questions I thought was a little offensive,” she said. “They asked if I knew what I was doing and if I knew what I would be giving up. My answer is I think everyone should have a choice to either opt in or opt out of joining the union.”

Suit Claims Unions Circumvent High Court

Last June, in a 5-4 ruling, the U.S. Supreme Court struck down mandatory union dues and fees for public sector workers.

In their decision in Janus v. American Federation of State, County, and Municipal Employees, the justices said “agency shop” laws requiring nonunion government workers to pay union fees violate the First Amendment rights of workers who object to the political agenda of public employee unions.

In March, Mendez, joined with four other teachers to file a class-action lawsuit in federal court against the California Teachers Association and several local affiliates, alleging that the teachers unions continued to deduct dues from their paychecks in violation of the Supreme Court’s Janus ruling.

The lawsuit also names the National Education Association, California Attorney General Xavier Becerra, local school districts, and local unions as defendants.

Contrary to what union officials have argued, the teachers who signed union membership cards last year did not provide the California Teachers Association or local affiliates with “affirmative consent” to deduct dues, Mariah Gondeiro, a lawyer with the Freedom Foundation who represents the suing teachers, told The Daily Signal.

“These membership forms don’t include sufficient waiver language as required under Janus,” Gondeiro said, adding:

The unions are arguing they can lock people into these contracts because they signed these forms. But they don’t tell employees that they have an option to not fund the union. They don’t tell people that they are leaving out important facts. The teachers can’t consent to something they didn’t know about, and they did not know their rights.

More HERE 






UK: 'Oliver Twist' school criticised for bread and butter lunches if parents fall behind on payments

Seems reasonable to me

A school has been compared to "something out of a Charles Dickens novel" over a policy of feeding children bread and butter if parents fall behind on lunch payments.

Ravensdale Junior School in Mickleover, Derbyshire, has been criticised by mother Katrina Dakin after her two sons were left hungry.

The 31-year-old mother of six said it was wrong to punish children whose parents owed money.

The care home worker said: ""It's disgusting making them sit in front of their friends and eat bread and butter.

"If I sent my children to school with bread and butter I'd have social services knocking at my door. It's child neglect."

She only discovered she was behind on payments when she woke up from a night shift to a text message from the school. She likened the situation to Oliver Twist begging for more gruel in the Charles Dickens book, adding: "I owed the school £8.80 per child but they know I always pay it. "If the school had confronted me at the start of the day when I took them to school, I would have paid it."

A spokesperson for the school, which has nearly 360 pupils aged seven to 11, said it was policy that once a family owe £10 or over, the children are not given dinners. They said: "At Ravensdale, we pride ourselves on the quality of our freshly-cooked lunches, providing three choices each day for pupils, as well as a salad bar and a piece of fruit with dessert.

"However, we cannot afford to let a child have a free dinner if they are not entitled to one and nor is this fair to our other parents.

"On these occasions (which are rare) governors decided that children would be given bread and butter/jam and a drink instead. This was deemed to be the kindest option, whilst still being fair to all parents.

"Schools receive no extra funding for meals and the food, staffing costs and the running of the kitchen all have to be financed through dinner money payments.

"Parents are always sent a text on the day they go into debt and this will happen on a daily basis when the school is in session, until the debt is paid.

"Any parents who were in debt before the Easter holidays received text messages and our office manager even sent out texts on Sunday morning before we came back to school for the new term.

"If a child is due to be given bread and butter that day, their parents are contacted by phone to give them every opportunity to either pay, or provide a packed lunch. Most parents use our online payment system, making it easy to pay at any time."

SOURCE 



No comments: