Rep. Rick Jore of Ronan may be the most talked about - but least heard from - lawmaker in the 60th Montana Legislature, which convened Wednesday in Helena. House Speaker Scott Sales' appointment of the first and only Constitution Party legislator as chairman of the House Education Committee has provoked some pretty strong criticism outside legislative halls.
“I think when you put someone as chair who is clearly not supportive of public education, it sends a message that that's where the House leadership is on public education,” Linda McCulloch, state superintendent of public instruction, said in the Dec. 8 Missoulian. In that same story, a representative of the Montana Human Rights Network said Jore's appointment is “outright ideological warfare.” Letters to the editor published more recently have described Jore as opposed to public education, predicted education legislation will be the stuff of circus and warned that public-school advocates won't get a fair shake.
So we visited at length with Jore via e-mail recently to learn more about the Education Committee chairman's views on education. What follows is an adaptation of the Missoulian's questions and Jore's answers.
Q: Let's start with some general philosophical thoughts about the importance of education to individuals and society. How important is education? What are the stakes involved?
A: I agree with Thomas Jefferson: “Those who expect to be ignorant and free expect what never was and never will be.” Education is vitally important, and I think individuals benefit from it and that, in turn, benefits society as a whole. There is actually a Bible verse that exhorts us to “seek knowledge.” (Proverbs 18:15, “The heart of the prudent getteth knowledge; and the ear of the wise seeketh knowledge.”)
Much could be said regarding the stakes involved because it depends on who controls the educational process and what the goal is. Freedom - both individual and societal - is at stake in many ways. If schooling becomes strictly monopolistic and centralized with government control, it could be used for social control and manipulation (Hitler-style) in an entirely improper fashion. Not good. That is why I support educational choice and freedom, with families - the foundational institution of society - recognized as the final authority in educational matters.
Q: Do you think education is more a personal matter or a societal one? Do your thoughts on that offer any guidance on who bears responsibility for education?
A: Since I recognize the family institution as the final authority, I view education as more a personal matter. Each family has a right to define education and develop an educational philosophy and this certainly requires that ultimate responsibility lies with the family, i.e. parents and guardians.
This presupposition is why I believe compulsory attendance laws are inappropriate. They turn the authority order upside down because they necessarily assume the state is the final authority. Some refer to them as “compulsory education,” a misnomer. I suppose that if we had “compulsory education,” the compulsion would be on the state schools and they could then be held accountable by some standard. At the least, education would have to be defined by the state, which it currently is not. (We only attempt to define “quality system.”)
Compulsory attendance assumes state authority supercedes parental authority, but places no accountability on the state. The requirement is attendance, not education.
In short, my position is that the authority of the public schools is a delegated authority from parents and guardians, not vice versa. (The essence of the American concept of government is that the people are the masters and the government is the servant. We have to guard against turning that around.)
Thomas Jefferson actually addressed this issue: “Is it a right or a duty in society to take care of their infant members in opposition to the will of the parent? How far does this right and duty extend? - to guard the life of the infant, his property, his instruction, his morals? The Roman father was supreme in all these: We draw a line, but where? Public sentiment does not seem to have traced it precisely. ... It is better to tolerate the rare instance of a parent refusing to let his child be educated than to shock the common feelings and ideas by the forcible asportation and education of the infant against the will of the father...” (Thomas Jefferson: Note to Elementary School Act, 1817. ME 17:423.)
I recognize as well as anyone the tragic and sad disintegration of the traditional family and the argument that many parents are simply irresponsible regarding their children and education. While some argue that government must assume more parental duties because parents won't, my contention is that this strategy actually enables parental irresponsibility and contributes to and compounds the problem. The higher tax burden created by an expanding government trying to take the place of family has a detrimental effect on intact families. The “Catch-22” becomes obvious.
Q: You and your wife have home-schooled your children. What led you to that decision?
A: Two things basically: Our Christian convictions began to develop as we gained an understanding of the fact that our children are a gift from God and that we had a great responsibility insofar as how they were trained. Also, I began to develop a real interest in history, and in my studies I started to see how important the concept of “self-government” was to establishing and maintaining freedom in a nation.
Each of these points could be greatly expanded on, but I will be brief: We ultimately determined to do our best to instill a “biblical worldview” in our children. We wanted our children to understand that since the Bible is the basis for truth, which we believe to be the case, all of life and every area of life, should be viewed through that lens.
Our educational philosophy emphasized nurturing the individual gifts and talents of each of our children in the overall context of teaching “self-government.” We define self-government as governing oneself internally and externally, being fully responsible for one's actions and decisions.
Additionally, we relished the additional time spent with our children. When the children were young, I often worked nights at a lumber mill. They would leave for school before I was awake and I would leave for work before they returned home.
Q: You've also had experience with kids in the public schools. Can you describe the strengths and weaknesses, upside and downside of the two approaches - home schooling vs. public schools - based on your experience and observations?
A: I have noticed that regardless of whether a student is home schooled or attends public or private school, parental involvement and encouragement, along with a strong family ethic, contributes greatly to the educational and life success of that student. That is why I believe it is imperative that we hold the traditional family model in high esteem and that public policy expresses this regard for families.
Plus side for home education: Direct parental involvement and control. Personalized attention and instruction with low student/teacher ratio. Negative socialization minimized. Personal choice of curriculum/philosophy of education. Closer parent/child relationship. Strengthening family institution. Broad choice of opportunity via field trips, apprenticeships. Develop self-motivation in child.
Plus side for public education: Teacher expertise in specific subjects. Access to facilities, technology and extracurricular activities. Broad socialization (can be negative or positive). Help with special-needs students. “Official” grading and testing records that are more broadly accepted by colleges and universities. (Although I see this changing in recent years as home-schooled students are more common and accepted.)
Downside for home education: Sacrifice for parent or parents. May have to forfeit income from job. Extra money spent on curriculum while paying taxes for public schools. Lower opportunity for organized extracurricular activities. Lack of parental expertise in certain subjects.
Downside for public education: Age segregation and standardized curriculum. Peer pressure. Negative socialization. Instruction time minimized during school day because of transportation, organizing, discipline issues, moving class to class, etc. Required secular presuppositions. High student/teacher ratio. Cost to taxpayers. Efforts to implement “politically correct” agenda into curriculum and classes. Tends to disengage parents from duties of parenting.
Q: Would you say the state has usurped parental responsibility for education or parents have delegated or relinquished that responsibility?
A: As long as the state operates within the context of Article X (Education Article) of the Montana Constitution, it is not a usurpation; the authority is constitutionally granted. However, no language in Article X can be logically construed to place state authority as superior to parental authority regarding schooling or education. Therefore, compulsory attendance laws are a usurpation. (Also, because no constitutional authority is granted to the federal government regarding direct involvement in education, federal programs such as the No Child Left Behind Act are usurpations.)
Article X simply establishes that “the legislature shall provide for a basic system of free quality public elementary and secondary schools.” Parents may delegate (or relinquish) authority to this “basic system,” or they may not. As this “basic system” must be primarily accountable to the taxpayers, parents who use it do indeed “relinquish” primary control and responsibility. Parents and guardians who choose not to use it relinquish no authority or responsibility.
This point is important because I think this is where many people begin to misunderstand my position: The right of parents to control the education of their children is an unalienable, God-given right. This is one of the “unenumerated rights” contained in Article II Section 34 of the Montana Constitution, complement to the Ninth Amendment in the U.S. Constitution.
To assume there is any language in Article X that places state authority over parental or guardian authority does one of two things: 1. creates a conflict within these sections of the Constitution; or 2. Necessarily assumes that parents and guardians have no such unalienable, God-given right.
I think this cuts to the chase of the discussion; either we believe this is an unalienable, God-given right or we don't. My presupposition is that it definitely is. I further believe this position is entirely in line with the unique premise of the American view of law and government expressed in the Declaration of Independence: Our rights are “unalienable” because they come from our “Creator” and the purpose of government is to “secure these Rights.”
Q: Is it still a parental responsibility if parents use democratic processes to assign the job to the government?
A: I think my answer to the previous question addressed this to some extent. However, an important point needs to be made: “Unalienable rights” are not subject to a vote of the majority. If they were, obviously they would not be “unalienable.” (This makes for a great discussion on the difference between a “democracy” and a “republic,” but I will leave that alone.) Those parents who choose to delegate or relinquish to government the authority to school their children can only do so for themselves. They cannot delegate the authority of parents and guardians who choose to keep it.
Q: What do you hope to accomplish as House Education Committee chairman?
A: I believe in common decency and civility and will do everything in my power to chair the committee in a fair and just fashion. Everyone will have their say. I will vote according to my oath of office and the principles and convictions I campaigned on. My views may not win the day, but that will not diminish my respect for and actions toward fellow legislators, lobbyists or any others. Neither will it diminish my efforts to speak for what I view as basic principles of freedom, including the rights of parents and guardians.
Q: What do you expect to be the greatest obstacle to accomplishing what you want to accomplish?
A: A politically powerful and entrenched education bureaucracy that has a vested self-interest in maintaining the status quo.
Q: Do you think it's necessary (first for you, then for the Legislature) to reconcile the educational ideals you hold with the reality of public education as it exists in Montana today?
A: This probably gets into the nitty-gritty of my philosophical approach regarding the entire legislative process. I realize I do not fit into the box of political expediency. I know what it is like to be the 1 on a 99-1 vote on the floor of the House.
There may be some things that can't be reconciled. If there are those who disagree that parental and guardian rights, or any other individual rights, are unalienable, then we will never agree. I will not compromise that conviction. I am not a fan of moral relativism. I believe there are absolutes and that we need these absolutes to establish justice, ethics, law. I will make my case and if I lose on the vote, I lose on the vote.
There is nothing wrong with a hearty discussion and debate and then losing on a committee vote. I will not allow that to cause my attitude to become uncivil or offensive.
By running for office and agreeing to take an oath to uphold the Montana Constitution, I have indicated my willingness to work within the context of that document. The oath to uphold both the state and federal constitutions is the commonality among legislators.
In my experience, the Constitution (the rule book for authorized government jurisdiction, if you will) is too often disregarded in judging legislation. Pragmatism and expediency rule the day. I will not compromise my convictions and the principles I campaigned on for the sake of pragmatism or political expediency. What are campaigns for if we give up all that we campaigned on for the sake of compromise, consensus and conciliation? Should I make myself a liar by compromising away all the principles that I hold dear? If I was satisfied with the status quo of politics, I would have never run for office. There are too many other things I would rather do.
I am not comfortable with the notion that “politics is the art of compromise” or the philosophy that “the end justifies the means.” Margaret Thatcher, whom I hold in high regard, said it this way: “Consensus is the process whereby everyone gives up what they believe in ... for something that nobody believes in. What great cause in history would have been fought and won under the banner: ‘I stand for consensus?' Consensus is the absence of leadership.”
Column: Parties may not be as split as it seems
By MIKE DENNISON
HELENA - One week into the politically split 2007 Legislature, and Democrats and Republicans can't even agree on a starting point for our billion-dollar budget debate - but are they really that far apart?
When you peel away the rhetoric and ideological posturing, perhaps not. Both sides want some tax relief. Both sides probably agree public schools need more state money, and that state college tuition should be frozen or reduced, which means more money for the university system.
Both sides must know that corrections and the prison system need more money. They can't ignore the fact that public-employee pension funds need a financial fix.
They also probably like the idea of setting up a “rainy day” budget reserve, which can help insulate the state from tax increases or budget cuts in lean times in the future - or, if lean times are a long time coming, be used for more tax relief.
All of these initiatives cost money, big money. But this time around, Montana has the money: $1 billion extra in tax revenue and counting.
All that money also should make things easy at the 2007 Legislature, and it could. But it doesn't mean there won't be some arguments, which likely will take two paths: How much of the spending is “one time only,” and how much government spending is too much, regardless of how it's spent.
The first one is a numbers game, but an important one, because it may determine which things get funded and which don't. Most Republicans, and many Democrats as well, worry that building up the state budget “base” with too many ongoing commitments will cause fiscal headaches down the road.
If something can be labeled one-time-only spending - such as the $100 million deposit into the Teachers Retirement System proposed by Schweitzer or his $100 million-plus maintenance and construction plan for state buildings - it may have a better chance of gaining legislative approval.
Schweitzer says his budget proposals for the next two years increase ongoing spending no more than $400 million, and that's 12 percent over current levels.
That's not really that much, he says: about 9 percent in the coming year and 3 percent to 4 percent next year.
When you throw in the one-time spending proposed by Schweitzer - another $400 million, not including tax rebates - the increase looks a lot bigger. But the administration says when you look at the percentage increase, these one-time items should be considered separately: a sort of “off-the-books” mentality, because they won't reoccur in the future.
Republican leaders say some of these so-called one-time-only items are anything but, and will cost the state on a permanent basis. That's why the two sides couldn't agree last week on the starting-point “base” for the budget.
Still, the GOP isn't unreceptive to the idea that one-time-only spending is more acceptable.
House Majority Leader Michael Lange, R-Billings, says it might be wise to require certain proposals to expire in two years, thus making them one-time expenses instead of permanent.
For example, he's proposing a state income tax credit Montanans can take for personal health-care expenses. If it's permanent, it would create a multi-million-dollar, long-term commitment for the state. But if it expires in two years, it's a one-time expense.
“It's a great way for the Legislature to be responsible and look at it again in two years,” he says.
The second point of budget contention - whether government spending is good or bad - is where things could lead to a real partisan train wreck.
Democrats, who control the Montana Senate, are entirely comfortable with taking most of the $1 billion surplus and spending it on public needs: schools, colleges, corrections, government buildings, health care.
If we've got the money, why not use it? they argue.
“It's important that when we have (the money), we take care of things that we haven't taken care of in previous sessions,” says Sen. Trudi Schmidt, D-Great Falls, who chairs the Senate Finance and Claims Committee. “That's the responsibility of government: to educate our citizens, to ensure public safety and to take care of the most vulnerable. Who else is going to do it?”
Many Republicans, who control the House, don't see it that way.
House Speaker Scott Sales, R-Bozeman, says too much government spending is a bad idea, no matter what it's spent on.
“I think money that is spent in the private sector is more wisely spent,” he says. “If there is an excess of money in Helena, that means taxes are too high. When you spend someone else's money, you're not as responsible and conscientious as when you're spending your own money. That's the problem with government.”
If the two sides decide to dig in on ideology, the budget debate could be headed for a crash. But a week into the big debate, some see no reason for pessimism.
“I think there's a great opportunity to come together and really do some wonderful things,” says Lange. “When (the budget) leaves the House, it will be a House budget. It won't be a ‘Republican' budget. We're pretty optimistic at this point.”
Mike Dennison is a reporter for the Missoulian's State Bureau in Helena.
Commissioners to hear public on two hot topics
By ROBERT STRUCKMAN, ROB CHANEY and MEA ANDREWS of the Missoulian
The Missoula City Council will hold public hearings on annexations, rezoning requests and a number of interim urgency ordinances about the zoning in the Upper Rattlesnake Valley. The meeting is Monday at 7 p.m. in the Missoula City Council Chambers at 140 W. Pine St.
There is a lot going on this Monday. During committee reports, the council will discuss whether to approve Mayor John Engen to sign a warranty agreement on the reconstruction of the Brooks-South-Russell intersection. The city has been dickering with the Montana Department of Transportation about a problematic audit performed midway through construction on the project. The audit indicated no fraud in the case, and the city has all but resolved all of the accounting problems.
The council will also discuss the Riverfront Triangle and surrounding areas and the boundaries of Urban Renewal District II.
Missoula County Commissioners have two public hearings on two controversial matters this week, one on Tuesday night and the other on Wednesday during the commissioners' weekly meeting.
The Tuesday hearing is on rezoning part of the Dougherty Ranch along Flynn Lane near Mullan Road. Commissioners approved zoning on some of the lots in August, but left six of the most controversial for further discussion. Owners sought commercial zoning on lots where nearby homeowners, based on zoning from the 1970s, expected one home per five acres; the request generated stacks of complaints. Homeowners in the nearby Pleasant View subdivision were among those who opposed the commercial zoning.
Tuesday's public hearing is at 7 p.m. at Hellgate Elementary School, 2385 Flynn Lane.
Wednesday's public hearing is on Clearwater Meadows Ranch, a 200-acre, 119-home subdivision proposed by developer John Richards one mile west of Clearwater Junction at the intersection of Highway 200 and Blanchard Creek Road. The Office of Planning and Grants and the Consolidated Planning Board both cited a host of reasons for recommending turning down the subdivision, including concerns for the environment, water quality and wildlife. Commissioners have the final say.
They meet at 1:30 p.m. Wednesday in Room 201 of the Missoula County Courthouse.
The Missoula County Public Schools Board of Trustees meets Tuesday at 7 p.m. Its agenda includes an update to the high-school student code of conduct. The meeting takes place in the school district Business Building, 915 South Ave. W.
Other meetings this week include:
Bicycle Pedestrian Board: 4 p.m. Monday, Mayor's Conference Room, second floor, City Hall, 435 Ryman St. Information: Phil Smith, 552-6352.
Historical Museum at Fort Missoula Board of Trustees: Noon Monday, Jaker's Restaurant, 3515 Brooks St. Agenda: update on Building T-1, strategic plan, committee meetings, election of board chair. Information: Bob Brown, 728-3476.
Parks and Recreation Board: 12:15 p.m. Tuesday at Currents - Headwaters, 600 Cregg Lane. Information: Parks and Recreation, 552-6260.
Neighborhood Project Funds Pre-Application Workshop: 5:30 p.m. Tuesday, Missoula City Council Chambers, 140 W. Pine St. Information: Office of Neighborhoods, 552-6079.
Missoula Public Art Committee: 5:30 p.m. Wednesday, Mayor's Conference Room, second floor of City Hall, 435 Ryman St. Information: Joan Jonkel: jonkel@bigsky.net.
Southgate Triangle Neighborhood Council Leadership Team Meeting: 7 p.m. Wednesday, Southgate Mall Community Room. Information: Office of Neighborhoods, 552-6079.
Design Review Board: 7:30 p.m. Wednesday, Missoula City Council Chambers, 140 W. Pine St. Information: Ana Aronofsky, 258-4653.
Open Space Advisory Committee: 4 p.m. Thursday at Currents-Headwaters, 600 Cregg Lane. Information: Jacquelyn Corday, 552-6267.
Community Forum Leadership Team Meeting: 6:30 p.m. Thursday, Finnegan's, 700 E. Broadway. Information: Office of Neighborhoods, 552-6079.
Franklin to the Fort Infrastructure and Planning Committee Meeting: 7 p.m. Thursday, Bethel Baptist Church, 1601 S. Sixth St. W. Information: Office of Neighborhoods, 552-6079.
Historic Preservation Commission: 7 p.m. Thursday in the Missoula City Council Chambers, 140 W. Pine St. Information: Philip Maechling, 258-4706.
Missoula County Fair Commission: 9 a.m. Friday, Missoula County Fairgrounds. Agenda: Seminar for board members on fair marketing and sponsorships; no action items. Information: 258-3247.
Lighting Ordinance Subcommittee: 10 a.m. Friday, council conference room, Missoula City Council Chambers, 140 W. Pine St. Information: Kelly Elam, 552-6083.
Partnership Health Center Board: Noon Friday, second floor conference room, Missoula City-County Health Department, 301 Alder St. Information: 258-4183.
|
 |
 |
Add your comment now! Write your comment in the form below.
(Email address is for verification only. If you'd like to email a story, look for the link above)