by A Taxpayer
I have never denied that there was nothing wrong with the facts from the Ct.Dept. of Ed. that I first posted about one year ago. But Snuffy was so lost in defending the status quo, developing straw men, apologizing for the state and the unions, that he never noticed. While these factors (the state, the unions) certainly play a large role in determining educational funding in Woodstock and are worth debating over, we are quite limited in our ability to control them. Therefore, if the majority is concerned about the state of funding in our K-8, the only alternative local actions we can take (or not take)are as Snuffy stated in an earlier post:
1. Reject/Modify Prop 46.
2. Adjust Academy/K-8 Funding allocation.
3. Adjust allocation of Town/K-8 funding.
4. Lower cost of K-8.
Putting all of Snuffy’s rancor aside, he actually added something of intelligence when he stated, “With all of those creative juices flowing, maybe we should make the effort to correct the problem and actually prevent the deterioration of our public schools, rather than just manage them into the ditch – however creatively.”
I was reminded then of the term Creative Destruction. Coined in John Schumpeter’s book Capitalism, Socialism, and Democracy published in 1942, he believed that industrial mutation (as a function of Capitalism) “incessantly revolutionizes the economic structure from within, incessantly destroying the old one, incessantly creating a new one. This process of Creative Destruction is the essential fact about capitalism. It is what capitalism consists in and what every capitalist concern has got to live in. . . .” What are the capitalistic concerns we have in Woodstock and do they not have to live, as we all do, with the need for creative destruction? Read the rest of this entry »
