Beware the ‘Conservative’ Who Grows in Office
The maddening problem facing conservatives fighting the growth of Big Government is that much of the growth is fertilized by former conservatives who start growing first. The phenomena is most evident in benighted lands that don’t impose term limits and have legislative bodies that meet year around.
And just as a cancerous growth is no respecter of persons, politician growth isn’t limited to the federal government.
Symptoms are evident on the state and local level. In Virginia we have a politician who initially ran for office as a small–government, conservative and unfortunately failed to resist temptation to meddle and build a ‘legacy’ the longer he stayed in the capital.
Bill Stanley promised to “fight to reduce state spending and the size of state government” in his first race for the Virginia Senate. Two crucial promises that work in tandem. Without increased spending, government can’t grow and expand its interference. Cutting spending also cuts the size of government since the Commonwealth must balance its budget.
Stanley’s first legislative session was promising, considering he’s a defense lawyer. He introduced a bill that would require local courts to try repeat juvenile violent offenders as adults. Choosing the right health insurance policy may be so daunting that it takes 26 years to prepare for the decision, but choosing between right and wrong is binary and consequences should apply at a much earlier age.
Six years later it appears Stanley’s fallen under the influence of Social Justice Warriors. He’s gone from tough–on–crime to touchy–feely.
He’s introduced a bill that would forbid local school districts from suspending any student in preschool through the third grade.
I wanted to ask the senator a number of questions regarding this state government expansion into the affairs of local school boards, but eight days wasn’t long enough to work me into the schedule. I did speak with a staffer and as far as he knew there is no epidemic of pint–sized suspensions in the district.
It might have been useful for Stanley to interview a few teachers before he began meddling. My daughter’s is and teacher’s classroom discipline experiences are instructive. For example, there is the third–grade boy who made an obscene gesture as he exited the bus and entered school. This violation was reported and when the vice principal asked him about it, the boy struck the principal.
That earned him his third suspension for this year. One might be tempted to say that three suspensions prove suspensions don’t work. It’s time to try the gentle Stanley Rule, which would force elementary schools to create an alternative, in–school behavior program.
That ignores the immediate benefit of a suspension: It gives his teacher a break.
When not taking a swing at administrators, this child routinely shouts in class disrupting the room and destroying the learning environment. He bullies other children and exhibits disrespectful behavior that other, easily–led boys imitate.
The prospect of his moving into fourth grade is so foreboding that more than one fourth grade teacher has applied for a transfer to another school.
Taking away suspensions removes the only leverage administrators have these days. (Historical note: When I was in elementary school, discipline problems were solved with a paddle. That’s why there were routinely 35 students in a class. Today, teachers ask for UN Peacekeepers when they have more than 25.)
Suspending this kid doesn’t bother him bit, but it bothers the parents a great deal. It means stay home from work, arrange short–term daycare or dial 1–800–Im–Ur–Jailer. Enough suspensions and parents may finally become engaged and discipline their delinquent. Stanley’s meddling means the punishment is inflicted on the children in the delinquent darling’s classroom who obey the rules and are trying to learn. An impossibility because the teacher’s time and attention is spent trying to deal with Rosemary’s Baby.
Stanley’s staffer contends the outbursts “mean there are other issues going on at home.” Exactly. And a conservative response, that respected the rights of well–behaved children, would have directed school administrators to make a referral to the dreaded Child Protective Services after the second suspension.
Classroom decorum is preserved and conditions in the home are investigated without disrupting the school or creating in–house discipline programs that siphon more money away from the education of the kids who aren’t a constant problem.
Conservative legislation seeks to serve the law–abiding, rule–following majority without imposing new burdens or taking away their ability to act independently.
Stanley’s bill fails that simple test. It’s legislation in search of a problem. It also may put him in search of a new job when the parents of kids who follow the rules learn what he’s done to their child’s classroom.