Posted on 12/31/2001 1:12:04 PM PST by jennyp
The Elementary and Secondary Education Authorization Act which is headed for the President's signature does not contain the antievolution "Santorum amendment", though there is brief mention of the topic of evolution in explanatory materials appended to the law. The good news for teachers is that they will not have to teach evolution any differently as a result of the new legislation.
The same can be said about government support education. Why should a taxpayer of one area pay for the education expense of children in another area? This would include cross town, let alone from one state to another.
Pooling the money and then redistributing it (with various cuts being taken out along the way) only assures those in charge there will be no real accountability.
Most problems concerning education could be solved if the financial responsibility for education was returned to the local area (where the accountability would follow).
The local School District would collect the money, hire the teachers, buy the books, maintain the schools and set the curricular. If they were not able to educate little Johnny, or were attempting to teach things the parents did not want taught in the schools they would be voted out of office.
As it is now, everyone points to someone else as the cause, or the reason they do what they do. Who do you fire?
Anyway that is what I think -
The same can be said about government support education. Why should a taxpayer of one area pay for the education expense of children in another area? This would include cross town, let alone from one state to another.
Pooling the money and then redistributing it (with various cuts being taken out along the way) only assures those in charge there will be no real accountability.
Most problems concerning education could be solved if the financial responsibility for education was returned to the local area (where the accountability would follow).
The local School District would collect the money, hire the teachers, buy the books, maintain the schools and set the curricular. If they were not able to educate little Johnny, or were attempting to teach things the parents did not want taught in the schools they would be voted out of office.
As it is now, everyone points to someone else as the cause, or the reason they do what they do. Who do you fire?
Anyway that is what I think -
Are you saying that the children from the wrong side of town should not have the same educational opportunities as the rich kids?
"It is the sense of the Senate that:
(1) good science education should prepare students to distinguish the data or testable theories of science from philosophical or religious claims that are made in the name of science; and
(2) where biological evolution is taught, the curriculum should help students to understand why the subject generates so much continuing controversy, and should prepare the students to be informed participants in public discussions regarding the subject."
This would have been a good thing, people actually learning the difference between science and religion.
The downside would be that none of these crevo threads would exist.
This is a silly comment.
In one sense, everyone has the exact same educational opportunities, at least if you are talking about private schools here. The parents of "rich kids" have the right to enroll their children in private schools of their choice in exchange for a sufficient amount of tuition payments.
And guess what? So do the parents of "poor kids"! They have the right to enroll their kids in private schools too! (After all, no one will stop them, right?)
What's that you say? "But poor parents can't afford it"? Well, DUH. That, after all, is what "poor" means. Poor people can't afford things that rich people can afford. Is this a big revelation to you?
You may as well have asked:
"Are you saying that the children from the wrong side of town should not have the same vacation opportunities as the rich kids?"
Or:
"Are you saying that the children from the wrong side of town should not have the same housing opportunities as the rich kids?"
Or:
"Are you saying that the children from the wrong side of town should not have the same recreational opportunities as the rich kids?"
Uh, the answer to all of these questions is "yes". That's what being wealthy means. It is reality, whether you like it or not. Wealthy people can afford more [ fill in the blank ] opportunities. Yes!
You cannot abolish this fact out of existence.
I think the subtext of your question is that, somehow, "education should be different". However, I am not sure why this should be.
Of course, there are numerous scholarship programs and plenty of private schools willing to subsidize tuition and all that. But to insist that society ought to be arranged so that wealthy people are somehow unable to or disallowed from using their wealth to purchase greater opportunities for their children strikes me as a little unrealistic, and naive.
This is already the case. The rich have the opportunity of elite private schools, the middle class have the financial ability to pick up and move to a better school district. The poor? Their kids get stuck in whatever public school they land in. In most cases, they are the worst ones.
You may interpret anyway you wish.
It is my opinion that the Federal government should not do what the States can do. The States should not do what the Countys can do. The Countys should not do what the City or Towns can do. And none of them should do what the individual should do for themselfs.
That includes providing their own shelter, clothes, food, transportation, and medical care.
If someone is not able for some reason to provide any of this for themself, then private charities could assist.
Interpret that anyway you wish, but then it is just my opinion.
Like it or not, the conservative movement is made up of two constituencies: Religious conservatives, who come by their conservatism via their religion, and Objectivists (& fellow-travelers) who come by our conservatism via a secular analysis of human nature & the proper role of government that's most compatible with human nature.Funny that you should celebrate the defeat of a conservative Senator's proposal on a conservative website.
It's a perfect example of the Clintonian strategy, which he really never had the strength to bring off, of using wedge issues to demonstrate to Republican and conservative constituencies, that their representatives did not have the power or will to do things for them, or to prevent bad things from being done to them. Thus the choice of the NRA and pro-life issues to beat up on Republicans for 8 years. Perfect voter suppression strategy--"they can't do anything for us, why get excited about voting?" Not far behind is the "Creationist" constituency for whom Big Media constantly uses to try to heap scorn upon Republican candidates.
Surely the conservative movement is robust enough to survive vigorous internal debate? When a Republican senator pushes thru a piece of stealth creationism into our schools, the GOP is going to get ridiculed whether we right-wing evolutionists keep our mouths shut or not. And rightly so, IMO - which is why I'm glad it got quashed.
And you anoint, of all people, as keepers of the flame of freedom-- the NEA.
NEA??? The article is from the NCSE. Different group entirely, with very different goals.
Your code word of "fabian creationism," I presume, though I choose not to spend time researching it, is "intelligent design."Yes. Good guess! Fabianism was a socialist movement from the early 1900's. The Fabians were the "reasonable", moderate socialists who never came out & mounted a full, honest fight for socialist/communist revolution, but rather tried to nip at the heels of capitalism wherever they could. In the same way, ID is "respectable", moderate, "big-tent" - fabian creationism. They try to nip at the heels of mainstream biology, & try to pass themselves off as the "reasonable" creationists, as opposed to the young-earth creationists, who they always act somewhat embarrassed by.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.