SoylentNews is people
SoylentNews
The Outdoor School program was groundbreaking when it started more than a half-century ago. Since then, more than 1 million children have enjoyed—or endured—this rite of passage at campsites scattered from Oregon's stormy coast to its towering evergreen forests to its rugged high desert.
At the program's heyday, 90 percent of sixth-graders spent the week testing water samples, studying fungi and digging through topsoil. Today, just half of Oregon's 11- and 12-year-olds take part, mostly through a patchwork of grants, fundraising, parent fees and charitable donations. Caps on property taxes, plus the recent recession, have forced many school districts to scrap the program or whittle it down to just a few days.
Now, backers of a statewide ballot measure want to use a slice of lottery proceeds to guarantee a week of Outdoor School for all children. If it passes, the measure would make Oregon the only state with dedicated funding for outdoor education, including students in charter, private and home schools, said Sarah Bodor, policy director for the North American Association for Environmental Education.
It's more biology camp than Outward Bound.
(Score: 4, Insightful) by Thexalon on Thursday October 27 2016, @09:04PM
Not unreasonable, but there are counterpoints:
1. Absolutely everything government does robs Peter to pay Paul. That argument is the basis for libertarianism as a basic political philosophy, and it can in fact be used to object to any government action whatsoever or indeed the existence of government altogether. The simple counter-argument to this is that sometimes Peter will make use of the resources in question in a way that yields a better outcome for society at large than Paul would have (e.g. paying Peter to maintain a beloved public park versus letting Paul spend the money on hookers and blow). A certain amount of collective decision-making about this seems appropriate.
2. If the legislature isn't forced to fund this program consistently, it won't. And if it isn't funded consistently, that makes it very hard to develop a program that works, rather than a program that looks good for the next round of funding.
3. As you mention, it can be removed exactly as easily as it was implemented, if it sucks. And the pilot trials suggest that it doesn't suck.
The only thing that stops a bad guy with a compiler is a good guy with a compiler.
(Score: 2) by scruffybeard on Friday October 28 2016, @02:50AM
You make good points. Governing means prioritizing some things over others. I would argue that removing a law via a ballot measure is not simple. It is a process that can take years. During that time the legislature's hands are tied. Now one or two measures like this do not pose much of a problem, but too many can cause significant problems. I recall that California is suffering from this right now.