… the legislators, that is. He makes it here. I’m also wondering how many voters who won’t finance education feel they have a right to it anyhow. There’s probably a subset of the voters who voted “no” on funding, would be horrified at Chris’s suggestion, and think education will happen magically anyhow.
Category: Education
-
Charter School Blocked
I’d like to get some more information on this story about a charter school that would target high school dropouts.
I know we’re all fighting over money right now, but it seems like this is a good place for innovation. It’s always possible that there really is a problem with the way the money will be spent, but off hand I’m concerned about this one.
Any readers from that area have a comment? I might actually have to go to google and do some “work”! 🙂
-
Is it a Homeschooling Case?
By “it” I refer to the the case of Vanessa Mills v. Thomas Mills in Wake County, North Carolina. Timothy Sandefur has written on this, and we also have a short response from Doug on Stones Cry Out. Under a large number of conditions I might agree with Doug, but on reading this ruling, I think the judge did a pretty good job of balancing things out.
Let me note that I was homeschooled 8 out of 12 years before college, and I currently have a granddaughter who is being homeschooled. I do not in any way regret being homeschooled. In fact, I think I would have been something between bored and horrified to have attended public school. Never having actually attended, I’m not in a good position to be certain. I’m terribly proud of my daughter who is homeschooling my granddaughter, and doing very well. So please don’t think I’m against homeschooling.
But having read the judge’s decision, and his findings of fact, I think this is being read wrong by much of the blogosphere. I will comment only that when such an issue comes up in a divorce case, there is almost always much more involved than meets the eye, and that appears to be true in this case.
I would strongly suggest reading the actual ruling [PDF], and Timothy Sandefur’s comments. I think this has little to do with homeschooling, and much to do with the kind of issues that come up in divorce, especially when one party has very controversial religious beliefs.
I think the judge did well, for example, in #3 on page 8 of the ruling, in ordering that the two parents are not allowed to disparage one another in the presence of the children, and they each can practice their religion as they see fit during their portion of the joint custody time.
There are plenty of unreasonable actions taken against homeschoolers. Outrage should be reserved for those, in my view. This case is about a nasty divorce and competing religious beliefs in it, not about homeschooling.
-
Moving Bright Kids Forward
The U. S. News Blog reports that schools in some states, including my home state of Florida, are making it possible for Middle School students to take advanced courses that might normally only be available in High School.
My reaction to this is positive. Anything that improves education is a good thing. As I remember my own education at that age I know I was frequently bored and would have enjoyed some advanced placement. The one objection I would see as reasonable is one of balance. Parents need to make sure their children have a balance of activities and that they are not pursuing such advanced placements when they are really not the best thing for them at that point. But that is a matter for involved parents and observant teachers.
On the other hand, those who object to this type of program have another reason: Minority children might be left behind. Quoting the article: “But some education experts are concerned that this trend in Florida and in other states is leaving minority students behind.” ()
Huh? I really question the “educational” expertise of someone who can make such a claim. This is the type of thinking that will permanently prevent minorities–and majorities–from achievement. These are educators who think that because not everyone goes through the door of opportunity, there must be some discrimination going on. Check out the numbers in the article. Certainly, white students are taking more advantage of these programs, but note also that white students are the minority at some of these schools.
Someone certainly should look into whether there are qualified students who are not pursuing such courses (and the numbers suggest there probably are) and why that should be. They should look into how one would get such students to invest their time and effort in the courses that will prepare them for the future. They should NOT look into ways of holding back the children who are taking advantage of them.
Closing the door will absolutely help nobody. There may be an argument that money is being spent to help the bright kids at the expense of the not-so-bright. Apart from disliking the idea of making that sort of judgment except through actual performance, I think that is a bogus argument.
Many of us don’t seem to realize it, but the world is becoming less and less friendly to those with limited education. We may glorify the people of the soil, construction workers, and manufacturing workers as the sort of salt of the earth. Unfortunately, on the other hand, the educated sometimes to look down at such people as ignorant or stupid. That is not the case. They are rather properly trained and educated for the job they perform. But those jobs are becoming less and less possible without a good education. Simply living in the world is going to require more education as time goes on.
If schools don’t move to provide the opportunity to learn anything for any child who is capable of doing so, then everyone, including those who might be rated as “less bright” is going to pay the cost. I can’t even begin to do the work of someone like Dr. Stephen Hawking, but I am immeasurably enriched by what he has done. I’m certainly not diminished because he demonstrates how much smarter he is than I am.
There’s a nasty tendency today to see education and opportunity as a sort of zero-sum game. If one person has more of it, the next person must necessarily have less. But the fact is that those who have some extra spark increase the opportunities available rather than taking opportunity from others.
I’m an advocate of public education, at least in some form. But I must also advocate private schooling and home schooling. I had some of each. I would not have made it to where I am now without the opportunities provided by teachers who didn’t think that pushing one child ahead was dangerous to other children. I benefited greatly from parents who didn’t say, “We’ll just send him to the nearest school and let him do whatever they think he should.”
Keep the existing doors of opportunity open. Open many more. Holding children back isn’t going to help anyone.
-
How to Keep Religion in the Public Square
Every so often there’s another outburst of complaints about how religion is being suppressed in this country, and how it no longer has its place in the public square. And there are the occasional really silly incidents that actually support such a claim. I note, for example, that our local public library here in Pensacola, Florida refuses to permit religious groups to conduct meetings, which is simply a lawsuit waiting to happen.
On the other hand, many, and I suspect most, of the complaints arise more from inconvenience, and the legitimate requirements that people use some kind of etiquette in the way in which they use the public square. The complaint of suppression is frequently actually a complaint that one is not getting the proper strokes, or that the government is not funding one’s favorite religious cause.
WorldNetDaily has an article complaining that a clause forbidding the use of stimulus money to build buildings whose main use is religious. For example, you can’t build a seminary with the money. (HT: Dispatches.) They do this with the ridiculous headline, Stimulus to ban religious worship. Yeah, right. Either from the church or the state side, I very much do not want the government constructing buildings for religious purposes.
But if we Christians do not have what we think is our proper place in the public square, why is that? Is it because of suppression? Christianity is, after all, the majority religion. I do note, however, that when this is limited to True ChristiansTM, no matter who gets to make the definition, the number drops substantially.
But it seems to me that we’re so busy complaining about the opportunities we don’t have (and I’m not prejudicing the issue of what privileges we should have) that we aren’t really taking advantage of the privileges and opportunities we do have.
If you are a parent who complains that children can’t pray at school, let me ask a couple of questions. Did you take the time to pray with your children before you sent them out to the bus stop? Will you pray with them when they get home? Will you take time out of your schedule today to pray for your children during their time at school? And even more, have you investigated just where and when at school your children can pray? Have you taught them how to pray for themselves?
If you are complaining that our young people aren’t getting enough Biblical education, again let me ask you a few questions. Have you read your Bible today? Have you chosen a passage and really studied it, so that if someone referenced it in literature you’d “get” it? Have you or will you take time with your children to study the Bible or something about your faith? Do you encourage your children to read the Bible? Do you see to it that they know something about their church community?
And more importantly, have you let that life of prayer and Bible study impact the way you act in the public square? When you ask “what would Jesus do?” does it come out to something other than your own inclinations? Do people who meet you know you’re a Christian? If they find out you’re a Christian will their opinion of Christians improve?
If you don’t relate to many of the things I’m suggesting, I think you should reconsider complaints about being restricted in your religious activities. You aren’t taking advantage of the many opportunities that are available.
If you or your children aren’t praying enough or studying the Bible enough, is it the fault of the much maligned ACLU? Or is it a result of your desire to have somebody else take care of your children’s religious education because you don’t actually care enough to take the time to do it yourself?
-
The Freedom to be Dumb
Well, actually you should have the freedom to be dumb, but not on the public school budget. For all those who wonder why I strongly oppose so-called academic freedom bills applying to the High School science curriculum, see this site.
Cool, no?
-
Willful, Crusading Ignorance
I took the title of this post from one of the speakers in the video embedded below. I’ve followed this IUPUI case for some time, mostly via Dispatches from the Culture Wars, but also through the Foundation for Individual Rights in Education (FIRE).
This case is particularly egregious, but political correctness, or the idea that people have the right not to be offended often manifests itself in much less obvious ways. Frequently the label “politically correct” is used as a weapon against simple courtesy, but at the other end, it’s used to suppress freedom of expression, or in this case, simple reading.
I think this deserves the maximum publicity, and the university officials who either carried it out or turned a blind eye to it deserve the maximum ridicule.
-
Academic Freedom and Creationism in SciAm
Glenn Branch and Eugenie Scott have an article in Scientific American titled The Latest Face of Creationism in the Classroom, detailing the latest approach to getting creationism in the classroom.
Since I touched on this briefly in two previous posts, I thought I’d link to this longer article so people can get the context. I really don’t have the patience for detailing these legislative strategies, so I’ll let others do it.
Enjoy!
-
Teaching Evolution in Florida
Brandon Haught of Florida Citizens for Science has started a series of posts on the history of the creation-evolution controversy here in Florida.
In the new year I intend to spend a bit more time on Florida issues and even on county issues (Escambia County in northwest Florida), so you can watch for (and possibly ignore if you’re not from these parts) posts with those tags.
I expect there to be bills on this, probably falsely called academic freedom bills, introduced into the next legislative sessions, and I will comment on them and track them here on this blog.
It’s interesting to note how advocates of creationism in the schools have gone from bills forbidding that evolution be taught to “academic freedom” bills. Evolving strategy, eh?
-
Education and Forced Labor or Public Service
Mark has issued a kind of challenge in his things heard post today on Stones Cry Out, regarding the Obama administration’s intent to require public service in high school and college and improve it everywhere else.
He points to this post by D. A. Ridgeley at Positive Liberty which quotes Change.gov as saying:
The Obama Administration will call on Americans to serve in order to meet the nations challenges. President-Elect Obama will expand national service programs like AmeriCorps and Peace Corps and will create a new Classroom Corps to help teachers in underserved schools, as well as a new Health Corps, Clean Energy Corps, and Veterans Corps. Obama will call on citizens of all ages to serve America, by developing a plan to require 50 hours of community service in middle school and high school and 100 hours of community service in college every year. Obama will encourage retiring Americans to serve by improving programs available for individuals over age 55, while at the same time promoting youth programs such as Youth Build and Head Start.
Having gone to Change.gov itself, I found this:
The Obama Administration will call on Americans to serve in order to meet the nations challenges. President-Elect Obama will expand national service programs like AmeriCorps and Peace Corps and will create a new Classroom Corps to help teachers in underserved schools, as well as a new Health Corps, Clean Energy Corps, and Veterans Corps. Obama will call on citizens of all ages to serve America, by setting a goal that all middle school and high school students do 50 hours of community service a year and by developing a plan so that all college students who conduct 100 hours of community service receive a universal and fully refundable tax credit ensuring that the first $4,000 of their college education is completely free. Obama will encourage retiring Americans to serve by improving programs available for individuals over age 55, while at the same time promoting youth programs such as Youth Build and Head Start. [emphasis mine]
. . . a somewhat different thing.
Now I don’t actually suspect Ridgely of misquoting. I actually suspect Change.gov, and whoever is managing it, of revising. Perhaps a little checking would prove the difference, but since I have no problem with them revising, assuming they did, I’m not going to bother. In fact, I would hope that such proposals would see revision over time.
The two versions serve to illustrate my view. The version as quoted on Positive Liberty is one I would vehemently oppose. Simply requiring college students, for example, to do 100 hours annually of community service would, in my view, be involuntary service. On the other hand, the version I found on Change.gov this morning is one I would almost entirely support.
Here’s what I would support:
- Expanded opportunities for service in areas where it’s needed
- Tuition support (tax credit or provided in some other way) in return for a level of community service
- A stated national goal of community service for students
If the government is paying for your schooling, I have no problem with you being required to serve. In fact, if I had my way all forms of government provided tuition support, including loan guarantees, would have some sort of service requirement attached. If corporate America wants the service of graduates immediately, they can come up with some of the cash required for tuition.
On the other hand, if you are simply attending school (and I think requiring this at any state institution would be much too sneaky), and not asking the government to provide the support, then it is entirely inappropriate to add some sort of national security requirement. I oppose the draft. I would oppose this. On the other hand, I do not oppose (and in fact I used) benefits in education resulting from military service, and I would not object to providing such benefits for civilian type service programs.
Thus I will not provide an apology for the proposal as quoted at Positive Liberty. I would regard that as coloring well outside the lines. But the proposal as currently stated is one I would find acceptable and even positive.