Back in the 1970s, when the presumed (though not necessarily true) reflections of the 1960s still shined a bit, I was involved in the establishment of an alternative school. We were far from the only teachers (and I use that word intentionally in place of educators) who started such alternative schools. The idea was to provide innovative, compassionate, and challenging opportunities for students, particularly those living in inner-city neighborhoods.

None of these schools was based on religious fundamentalism, in fact none of them referred to religion except in historical terms. They had a spontaneity in which the here and now could trump an established curriculum. If something exciting or of special significance happened on a particular day, the curriculum would be put aside and the moment would be seized. I remember once calling the pope collect to get his full opinion on treatment for woman who was comatose and about to die. Surprisingly, the Vatican did not take the collect call.

We often talked of vouchers because some of us were not thrilled at the idea of working for $3,000 a year. Tuition was $580 a year, and frankly, that just couldn’t pull the freight. Foundations and corporations had little interest in such schools, because the type of critical thinking that was encouraged, combined with a certain anti-establishment philosophy, was a threat to them.

We were aware of the fact that there was this new idea of educational vouchers. It was more than an idea; it was even happening in Milwaukee and a few smaller communities. The idea was that public money could be used to help these schools. Actually, that’s not technically correct. Rather, each family would be given a voucher or coupon to be used for educational purposes. They could use it to pay “tuition” to whatever school they might choose. The idea could even be extended so that the voucher would cover such educational activities as piano lessons or special art classes.

There were a couple of problems with vouchers. What about quality control? Could the money go to a school where the staff merely wanted to pocket the money and do very little for the students? And then there was the church-state issue. Could the money be used for religiously-based schools, known as parochial schools? In Milwaukee,the answer was yes, but other communities would have to wrestle with the issue.

In August 2012,  Missouri passed a state amendment giving students the “right” to opt out of certain classes for religious reasons. If a student was a “creationist,” he or she would not have to attend classes on evolution, even though all respectable scientific evidence concludes that Charles Darwin was correct. Missouri has tried to inject more religion and right-wing thinking into its schools. It also has a prescribed curriculum that takes all the spontaneity out of teaching and learning that existed in 1970s alternative schools. What a loss for both students and teachers.

Religion and misinformation have become so prominent in voucher schools in Louisiana that students are being taught such “facts” as “Slave masters were nice guys,: “The KKK was A-OK,” and “the Great Depression wasn’t as bad as the liberals made it sound.” As scary as this content is, it’s equally frightening to consider that this is a state-sanctioned curriculum allowable for voucher schools.

In many states, religious fundamentalists have been pushing their agendas with great intensity in public schools and charter schools. Keep in mind that charter schools are a distant cousin of voucher-based schools.

Frankly, no matter how much virtue I might see in the idea of vouchers (and I still hold reservations about them under the best of circumstances), I really can’t support them anywhere in America. That’s because of our regression into the state’s rights movement that brought us segregation and the abrogation of human rights in the worst way. In the case of vouchers, as so many other issues, states just can’t be trusted. So while I hold great interest in and even hope of progress through vouchers, the presence of fifty states mucks it up so much that I have to withdraw my support. One alternative idea replaced with another, and who loses? The students.

The post I support vouchers, except in 50 states appeared first on Occasional Planet.

Whether you’re a Republican, Democrat, Independent, or member of any other political party, chances are that you will find at least one member of the crop of the GOP candidates to be lacking in essential qualities to be President of the United States. Among Republicans, the choice “None of the above” or “Someone else” seems to be a rather popular candidate. But who could be the person to fill that void?

One is an announced candidate who is serious about being president. You may not know of him because he has not appeared in any of the debates. His name is Buddy Roemer, and he is a credible candidate.

More importantly, his platform addresses one of the key problems in American politics. He is four-square behind campaign finance reform. His commitment is beyond words. He refuses to take contributions of greater than $100. He sees money as the corrupting influence in politics that it is. Roemer knows of what he speaks, because he has successfully used large donations to win important elections. But that was then, and this is now. In the current era, in which Newt Gingrich can raise five million dollars overnight from one donor for a SuperPAC, Roemer plugs along seeking more $100 donations. This gains him considerable integrity, but still leaves him with a great deal of anonymity.

From 1981-1988, he was a member of Congress from Louisiana. After four terms in the House, he decided to run for governor of Louisiana and won in 1988, serving a four-year term. His background is impressive. He graduated from Harvard in 1964 with a degree in economics and three years later received his MBA in finance, also from Harvard.

While serving in the House of Representatives as well as Governor of Louisiana, Roemer was a Democrat. In March, 1991, he switched to the Republican Party, in part because of the urging of President George H.W. Bush’s chief of staff, John Sununu. His move was not uncommon among conservative southerners, as the region was still in the process of rejecting the Democratic Party because of its strong support for civil rights and economic fairness. But in some ways, particularly with regard to campaign finance, Roemer would probably feel more comfortable today as a Democrat.

Despite all of his credentials, experience, and contacts, Roemer has largely been off the radar screen for Republican candidates for president in 2012. The given reason for why he has not been invited to participate in any of the debates is that he failed to meet the 2% minimum criterion. Roemer asks the obvious question, “How can you receive votes in a poll if you’re not listed among the candidates?”

Clearly the Republican establishment does not want Buddy Roemer competing against the other candidates. Roemer feels that his rejection of large contributions is the reason; he is not playing the game by their rules.

Conspiracy or not, the Republican Party and the American people are at a loss by not having Buddy Roemer as a high profile candidate. The time has come and gone for Roemer to effectively compete with the others. Little is left except for the media to continue to provide forums in which he can speak. Someone with big bucks is going to win the Republican nomination and the same is true for the Democratic Party. But in at least one regard, campaign finance reform, Roemer offers a refreshing and needed change. It will be good to have that in our memory bank as we approach the 2016 election.

You can hear some of his wisdom in the interview below with MSNBC’s Dylan Ratigan.

The post Buddy Roemer: The lost candidate of 2012 appeared first on Occasional Planet.