Tuesday, May 09, 2006
School Choice
Are “school choice” and “home schooling” simply coded ways of saying “We don’t want our kids taught anything we don’t approve of”? I’ve run into these people over the years, of course, and it seems like there’re more and more of them. It’s tied into the voucher business. And the voucher issue as I’ve pointed out, has been around ever since the forced desegregation of southern schools forty years ago.
The “Bible-based” churches are very very powerful, as we all know. And “Bible-based” really means anti-evolutionary, anti-science, and basically oriented toward the teaching of Bishop Usser, who said the world was made by God just like the Bible says. And it was done only a few thousand years ago. Fossils are simply tests put in place to test our faith in the Bible. Creation happened in seven days. Noah actually took the animals on the ark. You know. I saw a bumper sticker that said “The Bible Says It And I Believe It.”
What’s amazing is how wide-spread the assault is on modern thinking and how much momentum it has. It’s about sex, science, schools, and a lot more. It’s like being encircled by advancing bulldozers driven by robots.
Anyhow, that's all in reference to this, from Simply Appalling
http://www.simplyappalling.blogspot.com/#112504423173343104
School choice
A word about "school choice"—also known as "parental choice." The other day I heard some politician ask rhetorically whether allowing parents to decide where their children should go to school was a good idea. In our "family values" society he knew everyone would be shaking their heads in the affirmative. But this was a coded message. The real question was "Don't you think parents should decide what is taught—and not taught—to their children?"
If we lived in a highly educated society, where parents could point to Iraq on a map or at least indicate the general direction of Canada, I might be inclined to agree. But in fact we live in a benighted, superstition-obsessed culture that resembles nothing so much as the Middle Ages electrified. What the God-swoggled parent wants taught is the Bible and what he/she doesn't want taught is evolution, paleontology, history, archeology, biology and astronomy, to name but a few. Blair and Bush would convert the bulk of the public schools into Christian madrasahs, with special provision made for Torah study.
This society has decided to require teachers to hold a 4-year college degree to teach first-graders. How is it, then, that the parent is viewed as an expert on education when the parent is not an expert on any other discernible topic?
Shouldn't we abandon the degree requirement for teachers? It's obviously not required to make profound decisions about the education of children.
But that is a rhetorical quibble. The struggle over education is ultimately a struggle over political direction and control. Conservatives, by and large, do not fare well among the educated classes. To obtain majorities they require a mass of people who may be led to vote against their own interests.
In the U.S. racism, sexism and religion have been the Three Keys to Success for Republicans. And conservatives need to maintain a body of voters motivated by these "values." Conservatives correctly perceive that a broad public education is not in their interests. Unfortunately the Left has been slow to recognize how essential public education is to the maintenance of any pretense of democracy.
The “Bible-based” churches are very very powerful, as we all know. And “Bible-based” really means anti-evolutionary, anti-science, and basically oriented toward the teaching of Bishop Usser, who said the world was made by God just like the Bible says. And it was done only a few thousand years ago. Fossils are simply tests put in place to test our faith in the Bible. Creation happened in seven days. Noah actually took the animals on the ark. You know. I saw a bumper sticker that said “The Bible Says It And I Believe It.”
What’s amazing is how wide-spread the assault is on modern thinking and how much momentum it has. It’s about sex, science, schools, and a lot more. It’s like being encircled by advancing bulldozers driven by robots.
Anyhow, that's all in reference to this, from Simply Appalling
http://www.simplyappalling.blogspot.com/#112504423173343104
School choice
A word about "school choice"—also known as "parental choice." The other day I heard some politician ask rhetorically whether allowing parents to decide where their children should go to school was a good idea. In our "family values" society he knew everyone would be shaking their heads in the affirmative. But this was a coded message. The real question was "Don't you think parents should decide what is taught—and not taught—to their children?"
If we lived in a highly educated society, where parents could point to Iraq on a map or at least indicate the general direction of Canada, I might be inclined to agree. But in fact we live in a benighted, superstition-obsessed culture that resembles nothing so much as the Middle Ages electrified. What the God-swoggled parent wants taught is the Bible and what he/she doesn't want taught is evolution, paleontology, history, archeology, biology and astronomy, to name but a few. Blair and Bush would convert the bulk of the public schools into Christian madrasahs, with special provision made for Torah study.
This society has decided to require teachers to hold a 4-year college degree to teach first-graders. How is it, then, that the parent is viewed as an expert on education when the parent is not an expert on any other discernible topic?
Shouldn't we abandon the degree requirement for teachers? It's obviously not required to make profound decisions about the education of children.
But that is a rhetorical quibble. The struggle over education is ultimately a struggle over political direction and control. Conservatives, by and large, do not fare well among the educated classes. To obtain majorities they require a mass of people who may be led to vote against their own interests.
In the U.S. racism, sexism and religion have been the Three Keys to Success for Republicans. And conservatives need to maintain a body of voters motivated by these "values." Conservatives correctly perceive that a broad public education is not in their interests. Unfortunately the Left has been slow to recognize how essential public education is to the maintenance of any pretense of democracy.
Comments:
<< Home
//he real question was "Don't you think parents should decide what is taught—and not taught—to their children?"//
So your argument is that the government is a better arbitrator than parents of what should be taught? By advancing that position you essentially give GW Bush dominion over kids right now.
Is that really the point you are trying to make?
98% of the people that can't find Iraq on a map, or point their way to Canada, spent 12 years in a government run school. How exactly is more of the same going to make anything better? Our democracy flourished all the way up until 1920 without forced government schooling.
Educated voters are what's required for democracy to work - and the public school system as currently implemented is not turning out educated voters. Actually it's turned out most of the Republican voters that you seem to hold in such low regard.
So your argument is that the government is a better arbitrator than parents of what should be taught? By advancing that position you essentially give GW Bush dominion over kids right now.
Is that really the point you are trying to make?
98% of the people that can't find Iraq on a map, or point their way to Canada, spent 12 years in a government run school. How exactly is more of the same going to make anything better? Our democracy flourished all the way up until 1920 without forced government schooling.
Educated voters are what's required for democracy to work - and the public school system as currently implemented is not turning out educated voters. Actually it's turned out most of the Republican voters that you seem to hold in such low regard.
Thanks for linking my post.
A word in reply to Cod's remarks:
The government is a better arbitrator than parents of what should be taught? By advancing that position you essentially give GW Bush dominion over kids right now.
Most of what is taught in public schools is determined at the state level. Bush's "No Child Left Behind" program upset conservatives for its raised level of federal involvement. Nevertheless, it does not determine curriculum, which is typically set by a state board of education. One of the difficulties is in keeping the know-nothings off these boards.
98% of the people that can't find Iraq on a map, or point their way to Canada, spent 12 years in a government run school. How exactly is more of the same going to make anything better?
I suggest you check the drop-out rate for Texas, if you can get hold of honest statistics, that is.
Our democracy flourished all the way up until 1920 without forced government schooling.
Yes, it "flourished" without the votes of blacks, women and persons without property. As it happened, the 19th Amendment (women's suffrage) was ratified in 1920.
Educated voters are what's required for democracy to work
Agreed.
- and the public school system as currently implemented is not turning out educated voters.
You seem to think that almost everyone completes highschool. The dropout rate, depending upon the source, appears to be somewhere in the range of from 29% to 33%. And of those, 50% have dropped out by the 10th grade. Plenty of Republican voters there.
The public school system can stand improvement, but dismantling it will not improve the overall level of education in the U.S. To the contrary, it may sink it to pre-1920s levels. But perhaps that's the point.
It should also be noted that the many countries that currently exceed the educational attainments of the U.S. population have systems of public education.
A word in reply to Cod's remarks:
The government is a better arbitrator than parents of what should be taught? By advancing that position you essentially give GW Bush dominion over kids right now.
Most of what is taught in public schools is determined at the state level. Bush's "No Child Left Behind" program upset conservatives for its raised level of federal involvement. Nevertheless, it does not determine curriculum, which is typically set by a state board of education. One of the difficulties is in keeping the know-nothings off these boards.
98% of the people that can't find Iraq on a map, or point their way to Canada, spent 12 years in a government run school. How exactly is more of the same going to make anything better?
I suggest you check the drop-out rate for Texas, if you can get hold of honest statistics, that is.
Our democracy flourished all the way up until 1920 without forced government schooling.
Yes, it "flourished" without the votes of blacks, women and persons without property. As it happened, the 19th Amendment (women's suffrage) was ratified in 1920.
Educated voters are what's required for democracy to work
Agreed.
- and the public school system as currently implemented is not turning out educated voters.
You seem to think that almost everyone completes highschool. The dropout rate, depending upon the source, appears to be somewhere in the range of from 29% to 33%. And of those, 50% have dropped out by the 10th grade. Plenty of Republican voters there.
The public school system can stand improvement, but dismantling it will not improve the overall level of education in the U.S. To the contrary, it may sink it to pre-1920s levels. But perhaps that's the point.
It should also be noted that the many countries that currently exceed the educational attainments of the U.S. population have systems of public education.
cod says: - and the public school system as currently implemented is not turning out educated voters.
handyfuse says: You seem to think that almost everyone completes highschool.
You seem to think that completing high school implies that one is educated. Five of my nieces and nephews have completed high school in the last 5 years. All 5 are in college. To be frank, 4 of them are intellectual dullards. They can't carry a conversation with anyone more than 2 years different in age. They view college as a vocational school rather than an opportunity to expand their minds. I would wager that these 4 haven't read 10 non-textbooks in the last 5 years - their intellectual curiosity has been snuffed out.
I would guess, though, that each of them could find Iraq on a map - if you gave them 10 minutes. I just asked my 11 year old homeschooled daughter to show me Iraq on the globe. It took her 8 seconds to get out of her chair and point it out (she then argued that it would only take her 4 seconds if she'd had the globe to begin with.)
I have encountered a number of intellectually stimulating kids who were conventionally schooled, but they are not the norm.
handyfuse says: You seem to think that almost everyone completes highschool.
You seem to think that completing high school implies that one is educated. Five of my nieces and nephews have completed high school in the last 5 years. All 5 are in college. To be frank, 4 of them are intellectual dullards. They can't carry a conversation with anyone more than 2 years different in age. They view college as a vocational school rather than an opportunity to expand their minds. I would wager that these 4 haven't read 10 non-textbooks in the last 5 years - their intellectual curiosity has been snuffed out.
I would guess, though, that each of them could find Iraq on a map - if you gave them 10 minutes. I just asked my 11 year old homeschooled daughter to show me Iraq on the globe. It took her 8 seconds to get out of her chair and point it out (she then argued that it would only take her 4 seconds if she'd had the globe to begin with.)
I have encountered a number of intellectually stimulating kids who were conventionally schooled, but they are not the norm.
# posted by 
: 6:30 PM
: 6:30 PM
With so many students dropping out of high school, isn't it a bit silly to worry so much about a very small percentage of students (1-2%) homeschooling? Oh, that's right, they're in the Republican vanguard of evil.
By demonizing those who want some sort of school choice, you come off sounding ridiculous. One would think you'd be glad to see the children of the rabidly Republican and the fanatically religious educated away from the rest of society. But the truth is that you're really the one who wants to keep all kids around in order to indoctrinate them to your way of thinking (if your string of cliches can be called thinking).
By demonizing those who want some sort of school choice, you come off sounding ridiculous. One would think you'd be glad to see the children of the rabidly Republican and the fanatically religious educated away from the rest of society. But the truth is that you're really the one who wants to keep all kids around in order to indoctrinate them to your way of thinking (if your string of cliches can be called thinking).
# posted by : 4:57 PM
: 4:57 PM
11/10/06
I'm glad to see that the debate is still raging.
To "sim" and "jrgilliamfanboy" I would note that I did not mention home schooling in my original post, since that it is not what is normally meant by "school choice," so you are tilting at windmills.
Rules for home-schooling vary from state to state, but typically there must be someone involved with an advanced education and in most cases that is the parent.
Who can doubt that one-on-one instruction has many advantages over the one-to-many classroom experience? Whether it results in a broad education or a narrow one depends upon the ideology of the parent/teacher.
Unfortunately, home schooling is used primarily by parents of the "Religious Right" to ensure that their children are properly indoctrinated and spared from the knowledge of a number of scientific disciplines, so in that sense many home-schooling parents are in league with the "school choice" Republicans. But so far there is little if any demand for money to be taken from the public schools and turned over to home-schoolers.
Post a Comment
I'm glad to see that the debate is still raging.
To "sim" and "jrgilliamfanboy" I would note that I did not mention home schooling in my original post, since that it is not what is normally meant by "school choice," so you are tilting at windmills.
Rules for home-schooling vary from state to state, but typically there must be someone involved with an advanced education and in most cases that is the parent.
Who can doubt that one-on-one instruction has many advantages over the one-to-many classroom experience? Whether it results in a broad education or a narrow one depends upon the ideology of the parent/teacher.
Unfortunately, home schooling is used primarily by parents of the "Religious Right" to ensure that their children are properly indoctrinated and spared from the knowledge of a number of scientific disciplines, so in that sense many home-schooling parents are in league with the "school choice" Republicans. But so far there is little if any demand for money to be taken from the public schools and turned over to home-schoolers.
<< Home
