Modesto Bee editorialist stung by Reagan

n. a. (1970, July 22). Delayed reaction of budget cuts. The Modesto Bee, p. A12.

In this editorial The Modesto Bee warned against dire future consequences that could fall upon California like a biblical plague due to: wait for it...Reagan-led budget cuts!  That's right.  Future Californians could look forward to rampant ignorance, not due to bad pedagogies and educational philsophies, but rather as a direct result of the fact that in 1970 the eeeevil Ronald Reagan championed a budget that refused "cost of living raises" to the university professoriate (elementary and secondary school teachers, by the way, received raises).

Similarly, the roads of California were doomed to be littered with bodies like some post-apocalyptic Mad Max horrorscape, as the direct consequence of Darth Reagan's cutting of $1.4 million from the budget of a conspicuously unnamed, "long-standing improvement program for negligent drivers."  To bolster it's case, the Bee cited a report in the wholly-unpartisan-utterly-objective-and-disinterested L.A. Times that this short-sighted budget-hawkery:

...could result in about 35,000 negligent drivers remaining on the road this year who otherwise would have been removed...[I]n producing a budget cut, the public's interest in improving the safety of drivers on the state's crowded highways is damaged.

Update: 7/ 28/2013  -- It seems that many of the Modesto Bee issues heretofore available through Google News have disappeared.  I have tried to locate another digital copy of the original editorial, but have been unable to do so. 

Reagan and the 1970-1971 California budget battle

n. a. (1970, July 6). Reagan signs record high state budget. Lodi News-Sentinel, p. 2.

This article reports on how a small group of California Senate Democrats finally cracked to pass the state budget for 1970-1971.  Prior to this, Assembly Democrats had successfully blocked the legislation and were essentially forcing a state government shut down unless Reagan acquiesced to their demands for an additional $180 million dollars in state aid to local schools.  While the article--somewhat suspiciously--noted that the approved budget "included $15,000 in rent for Reagan's private leased residence in Sacramento" [emphasis added], the piece did acknowledge that Reagan's refusal to sign off on yet another expansion of state aid to schools came after he had, in fact, caved to Democratic demands for more school funding in the previous budget year (1969). 

Though acknowledging that seven senate Democrats ultimately voted for passage, the article makes special note of the "pressure" applied to Sens. Larry Walsh and Walter W. Stiern.  It is unclear why these two legislators merited this "special" journalistic treatment.

Again on Reagan and education: A California academic speaks

Initially, I had planned to write on the media response to Reagan's primary victory over George Christopher.  Unfortunately, nothing I found was really sparking my interest.  In the meantime, I ran across some interesting material related to last week's post on Reagan impact upon education.

I've been reading an obscure little paper back authored by Reagan's former personal secretary Helen Von Damm--Sincerely, Ronald Reagan.  The book is largely composed of correspondence Reagan engaged in while governor of California.  Unfortunately, Von Damm sought to organize the material more as chapters in an overview of Reagan and his political philosophy, and often omitted information that would be of great interest to the historian (i.e., specifically who the correspondence was addressed to, the date, background occasioning the letter, etc.)  Nevertheless, I found the following statement by Reagan on the purpose of education quite interesting:

Education is not the means of showing people how to get what they want.  Education is an exercise by means of which enough men, it is hoped, will learn to want what is worth having. -- Ronald Reagan (Von Damm, 1976, p. 88)

Clearly this is the not the perspective of the troglodyte anti-intellectual that Reagan was so often pilloried as being. Indeed, even some liberal educators of California came to recognize that truth over the course of Reagan's governorship.  Today's post closes with Von Damm's account of a letter sent to Governor Reagan by a California academic.

Another unexpected letter came from a state university administrator.  "Well," began the letter, "I guess I need to say that, in my judgment and after eight years of your administration, you've been a damn good governor.

"There is of course the fiction that you've destroyed either the University of California or the California State University and Colleges, or both, but you know and I know--and every thoughtful, analytic person knows--that is not true.  Indeed, in my judgment, while you might have been from time to time too tight on the reins your overall support for higher education, and especially the CSUC, has been adequate and beneficial.

"But your contribution has been in another direction, really:  forcing us in higher education to reexamine our beliefs, our values, our directions, our policies, and procedures.  In a certain sense your very early 'cut, squeeze, and trim' proposal (remember the 10 percent across-the-board cutback in early 1967?) got our attention in the same way the mule-master gets the attention of the mule--you sure got my attention, and in the last seven years I've come to see that a great deal, most if not all, of what you were trying to say to my colleagues and me surely makes sense, academically and fiscally.

My 'conversion' started, but did not finish, during the year...of greatest activism:  the moratoria [sic], the Cambodian incursion, and the actual use of violence.  I think, until that year, I really didn't believe in my heart that faculty members could be so irresponsible, that their 'liberal principles' were so damn flexible as not to be principles but mere prejudices and whims.  I learned; and you do not know it, but you helped teach me--you went to most [of] the CSUC board meetings then, and spoke, and I tried to listen and understand.  Finally, I did.

Hence this letter, which is an awkward attempt to express a kind of belated appreciation.  You've been a good governor, and equally important, a good educator in the lessons you've taught.  I only wish it were you, and not the governor-elect, who'd occupy your office for the next four years. (Von Damm, 1976, pp. 64-65)

Reagan and the shift toward choice in American education

While researching Ronald Reagan's role in the emigration of a group of Russian Pentecostals, I was interested to learn that one of the central religious freedoms being demanded by the Chmykhalov family was the right to home-school their children.  The AP reported that this had resulted in Peter Chmykhalov being jailed "several times" and his some of children being "forcibly brought to government-run schools." (Russian Pentecostals given roaring welcome)


In light of recent assaults on parental rights originating from within the American education system, I thought it might be interesting to explore what kept us from reaching the point of school Food Police decades ago.  Specifically, I was interested to discover whether Reagan played any role in the American home schooling movement.

I was quite surprised to read in the Economist that when Reagan became president, it was actually illegal for parents teach their own kids in most of the U.S.!  (George Bush’s secret army) While Reagan was involved in fighting for some educational reforms, I could not find any evidence that the former president actually spear-headed the homeschooling movement.  It seems home schooling really came of age in the early 1990s behind the political power of the Religious Right.

One thing that is clear, however, is that Reagan unambiguously campaigned in 1980 on shaking up the educational establishment.  Specifically, he had pledged during that campaign to abolish the Carter-created Department of Education--a pledge which, regrettably, was rather quickly backed away from.  (York congressman possible education chief for Reagan) Advisers at the time said (and I am inclined to believe) that the Dept. of Education lingered on not because Reagan was insincere in his desire, but rather that he realized that as a practical matter if he tried to pursue everything he wanted, he'd end up with nothing.  Reagan found the DOE had the support not only of the Democrats, but of an entrenched special interest group (i.e., the NEA).  He simply felt there were more pressing matters that had to be dealt with first. 

Reagan's softening on the issue of department abolition seems to have represented a tactical adjustment, not a strategic flip-flop.  According to one 1980 editorial:

The advisers say the Reagan people plan to move quickly to rewrite controversial federal regulations on bilingual education, sex discrimination, affirmative action and education of the handicapped to make them less costly and more flexible.

Reagan is also expected to revive the campaign for tax credits for parents  who send their youngsters to private and parochial schools, an idea that was defeated two years ago by the Democrat-controlled Congress, and even to establish some form of national “voucher” system.  Under the system each parent would receive a voucher equal to the value of a public school education, which they could use as they saw fit.(Editorials: Department of Education)

Further proof of Reagan's attempts to shake up the national educational policy, were evidenced in his first choice for Secretary of Education, Terrell Bell, who believed,“the desires of parents should always take precedent in the education process.” (Bell outspoken on school issues)

Indeed, the Democrats of his day recognized just how much of a threat Reagan's policies were to their ideological domination of the educational system.  Sen. Ted Kennedy charged that Reagan was unwilling to offer "real solutions" (i.e., he was unwilling to give Teddy and his NEA pals as much money as they wanted to do whatever they wanted with it) and instead presented the American public with:

a witches’ brew of tax breaks for segregated schools, tuition tax credits for private schools, education vouchers, school prayer, and unremitting attacks on public school teachers’ unions. (Fritchey, Reagan’s education stand pleases foes)

The NEA's board of directors gave Democratic Senator Alan Cranston a standing ovation for hyperbolic demagoguery that would've made Barack Obama proud.  Cranston lamented Reagan's attempt to "slash" aid to public schools and college students.

Just now, when we need a renewed effort to do even more in education, unfortunately we find ourselves facing a Ronald Reagan who is seeking to reverse the commitment of our country to doing what must be done in public education,” he charged.  For the first time that I ever know of, we face the possibility that only the children of well-to-do parents will be assured an opportunity for a higher education in our society. (Reagan education policy opposed by NEA leaders)