(1000 words)
As I’ve stated before, my wife is a teacher. She is absolutely spectacular at teaching.

She is not so good at understanding ramifications, potential outcomes, and intentionally setting people up for failure.

Back in 2002, she was required to be a member of the teacher’s union. At one of the regular meetings of the faculty and staff, the new government regulations were explained to them.

In particular, under the new government mandates, they could no longer hold students back, they had to be advanced. In addition, it was explained how the new regulations made it almost impossible to expel or even have out of school suspension.

There were also new requirements, from the state, requiring that all students be included. For the most part, marking the end of special education classes for students at need.

This is how it was related to me 20+ years ago, so my memory could have left some things out.

The teacher’s union was incensed that the horrible Republican Congress and President would step in where they didn’t know what they were doing and how this new mandate would destroy the education industry.

Well, they were right, in part. It destroyed our education system. The industry is doing fine.

What was the horrible, horrible legislation that brought down this new mandate from on high?

(vi) in accordance with subparagraph (D), includes graduation rates for public secondary school students (defined as the percentage of students who graduate from secondary school with a regular diploma in the standard number of years) and at least one other academic indicator, as determined by the State for all public elementary school students; and

(vii) in accordance with subparagraph (D), at the State’s discretion, may also include other academic indicators, as determined by the State for all public school students, measured separately for each group described in clause (v), such as achievement on additional State or locally administered assessments, decreases in grade-to-grade retention rates, attendance rates, and changes in the percentages of students completing gifted and talented, advanced placement, and college preparatory courses.
No Child Left Behind Act of 2001, 115 Stat. 1425 1447 (U.S. 2002)

The new law required the states to implement standards and to have objective measurements of those standards. There was funding on the line.

Under the new mandate, a school that did not have enough students graduating from high school with a regular diploma could lose funding.

If you go read through the entire 670 pages of this public law, you will find that the stated purposes were to make sure that disadvantaged students were not being shorted on school resources.

What is not in this public law is any requirement that all students must be advanced.

We have all heard the stories of how standards get lowered to allow “disadvantaged” people to pass and become “elite” members of some group.

compare to:

Standards are there for a reason. When we lower the standards, we get lower quality.

Do you want the firearm that passes all the stringent tests before it arriving in your hands, or just passes the lower bounds?

The teacher’s unions have never been genuinely interested in students, they have always been interested in teachers. Please hear me when I say that there are teachers who are genuinely interested in students, the unions are not the teachers.

Because the union did not want to every look like they were failing, they got new mandates put in place that would protect them.

If a school is being graded on what percentage of students are handed diplomas, then the right thing to do is to make sure you hand out diplomas to every student at the end of their senior year in high-school.

If a school is being downgraded because they don’t advance enough students, then advance them all.

This turned No Child Left Behind into a joke.

So I wanted to focus on something I read yesterday:

… Further, they are obligated under Federal and state law to provide “decent, safe, and sanitary conditions” to their tenants. To that end, Federal law requires PHAs to develop crime prevention plans in conjunction with local law enforcement. …
No. 16: Hunter v. Cortland Housing Authority, No. 5:23-cv-01540, slip op. at 2 (N.D.N.Y.)

42 U.S.C. §13663 denies public housing to people that have demonstrate a pattern of alcohol abuse, engaged in drug related activities, have used illegal drug use, or are registered sex-offenders

The CHA claims that since they can deny that people who are criminals or sex-offenders, they can deny firearms to tenants.

But what does the law say about firearms? Nothing. 42 U.S.C. §13663 deals with the listed set of excluded people, see above.

42 U.S.C. § 1437d deals with the lease agreement.

  1. Leases; terms and conditions; maintenance; termination
    Each public housing agency shall utilize leases which—

    1. have a term of 12 months and shall be automatically renewed for all purposes except for noncompliance with the requirements under section 1437j(c) of this title (relating to community service requirements); except that nothing in this subchapter shall prevent a resident from seeking timely redress in court for failure to renew based on such noncompliance;
    2. do not contain unreasonable terms and conditions;
    3. obligate the public housing agency to maintain the project in a decent, safe, and sanitary condition;
42 U.S. Code § 1437d - Contract provisions and requirements; loans and annual contributions, LII / Legal Information Institute, (last visited Feb. 10, 2024)

In other words, every bit of infringing regulation that the CHA, and all the other public housing authorities, around the country, are imposing on The People comes from these home sovieticus thanking that somehow removing firearms from The People makes their homes safe, decent, and sanitary.

My guns are more sanitary, safer, and more decent than most of these moonbat tyrants’ minds, bodies, and souls.

The only really surprising thing to me, is that this condition on public housing leases seems to extend across the country, but there doesn’t seem to be anything in the CFR or U.S.C.

* There were 5 all women SWAT teams in the competition. None of them made it to the top five. Chili’s team was being talked up before the competition. They didn’t make it past the first obstacle. The other four all women’s teams did make it through the course.
Spread the love

By awa

8 thoughts on “Malicious Compliance and Other Government Malfeasance”
  1. this is what you get when “education” focus is on virtue signaling and numbers…. education is like self defense – YOU are responsible for YOU. think or become a brainwashed minion taught what to think instead of how to think.

  2. Here’s a simple Bruen rebuttal to fed.gov pointing to 42 U.S. Code § 1437d (I) (1); Point to the line DIRECTLY ABOVE IT:
    42 U.S. Code § 1437d (I)

    (2) do not contain unreasonable terms and conditions;

    Seems quite plainly obvious that violating 2A is unreasonable in both term AND condition.

    1. I agree with you. Unfortunately, the petty tyrants do not. They think that stripping The People of their rights is obviously reasonable.

  3. The entire concept behind NCLB was flawed. Putting time and resources into incapable and or unmotivated students takes those away from the students on the other end of the scale who will benefit FAR more and so be of more benefit to society.
    You must stream students by ability/motivation. And provide appropriate training to those unable to do the cerebral stuff. Not everyone needs or is capable of a college degree and to drive them down that track is both a huge disservice to them and saddles them with debt for life.
    Total failure to address reality in the name of “fairness” or suchlike

  4. Choosing not to hire someone because of their skin color, religion, sex, sexual preference, etc…. is wrong. Discrimination in a negative manner, if provable, should be a crime.
    The opposite is not affirmative action, DEI, or ant-racism. It is apathy.
    School standards should be the same. If black kids are not reading at the same level as white kids, ask why, do not alter the curriculum, or grading standards. Giving kids something they have not earned is not benefiting them. it is harming them.

  5. “the unions are not the teachers.” I’m going to take issue with this. The unions are made up of teachers, and until the teachers take control of and fix the unions, I’m going to treat them the same. I don’t hear any teachers standing up against the union. It’s no different than the “good” cops not doing anything about the shitbags in their midst because of the thin blue line. If you turn a blind eye to bad behavior, you are culpable and little better than the bad ones.

    1. I have been exposed to many poor teachers over the years to disagree. Listening to all the females at my son’s IEP tell me that they were going to pull him out of math because it was “too hard”, while it was his easiest subject shocked me.
      Individual teachers care about their students. There are some bad apples out there, but most seem to care about their students. As a group, they do seem to be in lock step, NPC types of people.

      1. I’m not quite sure how you can as an individual care about students, but as a group not do so.

        You mentioned your wife worked in a school that is a closed shop (union membership mandatory). Is that still the case? I could understand that teachers in closed shops are cowed into silence rather than being supporters of the union. In “free to work” settings, I would not apply that excuse.

Comments are closed.