Parsing Beebe on Rural Schools
According to this Doug Thompson article, Attorney General and Gubinatorial candidate Mike Beebe made some remarks recently concerning rural schools and school consolidation.
Since this is Both Ways Beebe, you will need a translator to get to the true essence of what Mr. Beebe really means. Just as his answers with abortion and homosexual foster parenting were hard to follow, so it is with rural schools. It is a difficult tongue to learn, but after much effort, I can translate catfish; the slippery, wriggling language of politicians who know that what they really want to do has little popular support.
When Beebe says, "I do not want any more consolidation. That 350 number that we have now should remain and we should let the schools have school for a while,", it means that rather than using a number( like 350 enrollment) to close down rural schools, we should eliminate the smaller schools by adding so many new courses that are "essential" for a good education that no school smaller than 1500 can offer them under budget. The "for a while" part means "until after the election". The "I do not want any more consolidation" means, "Right before I put the padlock on their doors I will make a remark about how sad it is that these schools could not meet our new and improved standards to offer 168 classes."
Do we really need 38 courses actually taught every year? What if three of them were taught every other year? Is a school that offers 35 courses and does a good job on them all really a worse school than one that offers 38 courses and does a lousy job at it? Let's see a list of these courses. I'll bet we can find a few that are not really essential every year. Yet my best guess it that the General wants to add more after "a while".
Mike Beebe ran a million dollars worth of TV ads that brazenly tried to get him credit for the minimum wage increase that he really had nothing to do with, and portrayed him even more brazenly as a tax cutter, which is the exact opposite of his actual record. Please don't be fooled by any claims that he is a supporter of rural schools.
(continued- click THURSDAY below and scroll down for article, or if sent straight here just scroll down)
Since this is Both Ways Beebe, you will need a translator to get to the true essence of what Mr. Beebe really means. Just as his answers with abortion and homosexual foster parenting were hard to follow, so it is with rural schools. It is a difficult tongue to learn, but after much effort, I can translate catfish; the slippery, wriggling language of politicians who know that what they really want to do has little popular support.
When Beebe says, "I do not want any more consolidation. That 350 number that we have now should remain and we should let the schools have school for a while,", it means that rather than using a number( like 350 enrollment) to close down rural schools, we should eliminate the smaller schools by adding so many new courses that are "essential" for a good education that no school smaller than 1500 can offer them under budget. The "for a while" part means "until after the election". The "I do not want any more consolidation" means, "Right before I put the padlock on their doors I will make a remark about how sad it is that these schools could not meet our new and improved standards to offer 168 classes."
Do we really need 38 courses actually taught every year? What if three of them were taught every other year? Is a school that offers 35 courses and does a good job on them all really a worse school than one that offers 38 courses and does a lousy job at it? Let's see a list of these courses. I'll bet we can find a few that are not really essential every year. Yet my best guess it that the General wants to add more after "a while".
Mike Beebe ran a million dollars worth of TV ads that brazenly tried to get him credit for the minimum wage increase that he really had nothing to do with, and portrayed him even more brazenly as a tax cutter, which is the exact opposite of his actual record. Please don't be fooled by any claims that he is a supporter of rural schools.
(continued- click THURSDAY below and scroll down for article, or if sent straight here just scroll down)
posted by Mark Moore (Moderator) at Thursday, August 31, 2006
3 Comments:
Or, as Hutchinson spokesman David Kincade put it, "Hutchinson spokesman David Kinkade accused Beebe of trying to have it both ways - working to close local schools in rural communities and then denying he is opposed to local schools.
"As attorney general, he lobbied against the Rural Schools Support Act, and just last week he said he was against even giving rural communities a voice on the state Board of Education," Kinkade said. "We should not discriminate against kids living in rural and small towns - especially in a rural state like Arkansas - and whatever Mike Beebe's motivation, the result of his actions is the closing of more and more local schools."
Kincade quotes facts. Beebe wants you to believe his unsupported claim in spite of the facts. In spite of the record.
Beebe actually had the nerve to say "If (Hutchinson) tries to tell you I'm against rural schools, that's not true," at the same event where he said, "The big difference between me and my opponent is the belief that students, wherever they are, should get a quality education."
How is that for brazen nerve? Instead of dealing with the facts that the Hutchinson campaign cites about his actual positions, Beebe all but calls them liars. Then he tells a whopper of his own when he somehow looks into Hutchinson's heart and determines that he does not want all students to get a quality education.
Does anyone really believe that Hutchinson does not think that "students everywhere should get a quality education"? Could it be possible that there is simply a disagreement on how to get the GOAL of giving every child where ever they are a quality education? Not with a liberal. If you disagree with their methods, it has to be because your intentions are bad! Its total self-righteous crap to be perfectly blunt about it.
I don't cast dispersions on either of their motives. Both guys want every child to have a quality education where ever they are, Hutchinson thinks it is best done by helping rural schools adapt and Beebe thinks it is best done by centralizing the schools. One wants flexibility and the other wants bueacratic compliance. Take your pick.
Mike Beebe tries to hog credit on popular measures that he really had little to do with. He downright misrepresents himself and his record on taxes. He won't give straight answers on homosexual foster parenting, abortion, or now, rural education. About all he does is insinuate his opponent is lying about him, at the same event he tells an obvious whopper about his opponent.
Has he just never been scrutinized this closely before? Can he possibly be as bad as he seems from here? How did he wield all that influence in the Senate? How did he manuver so that he was without opposition his whole career (which is the mark of the smartest generals)?
Beats me. If you can explain it, hop on.
7:15 AM
Delete
KTHV poll today shows Senator Jim Holt leading the ticket among all GOP candidates for Gov, Lt Gov, AG, and Sec of State. That should put a sock in the mouth of those who said he would hurt the ticket.
I haven't seen the poll yet, but that's great news! I'm also not buying the fact that Asa is losing ground when both is poll and Both Ways' poll have the race neck and neck and when a poll that Asa's campaign has done has Asa within 1 point of Both Ways.
Post a Comment
<< Home