Most Children Left Behind ( Government schools can NOT be religiously neutral!)

TheNewMediaJournal.us ^ | July 19, 2006 | Tony Rubolotta

[wintertime]

The 1962 Supreme Court decision, Engel v. Vitale, started an irreversible march toward liberal indoctrination, primarily moral relativism. Successive court decisions, even to this day, continue to undermine moral and parental authority. The idea that schools could socialize children to value neutral codes of conduct and ethics is an oxymoronic absurdity. Of course, it was never the intent of liberals to offer value neutral anything. With God out of the way as the source of moral standards, the schools’ only concern was those pesky parents and their held-over religious beliefs. The war against parental authority was on.

"If you want to raise a bunch of amoral, pleasure-seeking, government dependent automatons that can’t figure out why jobs are moving off-shore, then keep them in public schools."

If the only problem were teaching children that two plus two is always four that could be corrected. How do you correct the belief that sex, self-esteem, self-indulgence, consensus and materialism are the most important things in life? How do you counter a belief that lying, cheating and stealing are legitimate means to an end if all ends are relative? How can you expect children to grow into ethical business leaders, politicians and citizens when the ethic has no basis other than the feel-good consensus of the moment?

[RBroadfoot]

BINGO! John Stuart Mills observed that, when the State provides education, the education that it provides will necessarily advance the agenda of those who control the State.

It's really absurd to think otherwise.

It is no coincidence that Marx and Engles included the following in the Ten Planks of Communist Manifesto:

"10. Free education for all children in public schools."

[RBroadfoot]

"What happens for those kids that cannot afford school? "

Ever heard of vouchers? Google Milton Friedman and vouchers for the complete description and argument in their favor. Then read what the opponents say, and decide for yourself.

[RobbyS]

Of course it works. But the public schools recat to vouchers the way the defence department would if the governments started handing out vouchers to private militias. Just as DoD wants a monopoly of violence, DoE wants a monopoly of instruction.

[little jeremiah]

Excellent points on thread too.

[Dumb_Ox]

ALL POOR CHILDREN can be GIVEN a good education for about $30 Billion in voluntary charitable gifts.

For over a century Catholics in particular have been agitating for/whining about getting voucher funds from the government, on the grounds that parochial schoolkids' parents have already paid for public education systems and are now paying again for a real education.

Finally the Catholic archbishop of Denver, realizing the inefficacy of political action, has set up a voucher charity fund. It's at $3 million in its first year, a good start.

[Dumb_Ox]

I wonder how close DoE is to DoD. Military/national security and economic concerns have both been shaping the education system since at least the Sputnik scare. Nationalized education can always win over significant numbers of hawks and people in the commercial sectors, even if the education is only minimally competent.

[wintertime]

Tired of Taxes

I thought you would be interested in this essay.

[wintertime]

Facts are neutral things. If the schools just taught facts, there could be no objection. But not only do the schools teach opinion and propaganda disgused as fact, they do so at the expense of worthwhile subjects entirely!

^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^

It is impossible to educate a child on "facts" alone.

How would they learn to read? What reading materials would solely "facts" based?

In history and civics it is impossible to give equal attention to all the history of every group in humankind. In the finite time allowed choices would need to be made and those choices are not politically, culturally, or religiously neutral.

Whether girls and boys are educated together, the holidays celebrated, the foods offered, the dress worn, the music chosen,,,,,all of these things are politically, culturally, and religiously loaded with profound non-neutral lessons for all the children in the school.

[wintertime]

For over a century Catholics in particular have been agitating for/whining about getting voucher funds from the government, on the grounds that parochial schoolkids' parents have already paid for public education systems and are now paying again for a real education.

^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^

The tuition at my alma mater, St. Joan of Arc in Philadelphia, was a mere $2,383 for the 2002/2003 year.

This is less than the cost of babysitting. If the Catholic parents had a rebate of the taxes they paid toward promoting the religion of secular humanism in the government schools, that rebate would have more than paid St. Joan of Arc's tuition.

[MissEdie]

What about in rural areas where the only schools available are the public ones?

[IronJack]

I didn't say that the environment could be kept values-free. Nor do I think it SHOULD be; the cure would be worse than the illness.

I simply meant that the educational process should be values-neutral, and it can be so if it sticks with facts, not conjecture.

Abraham Lincoln was elected to the presidency in 1860. That is a fact (and let's not quibble over the fact that the election actually took place in 1859). As to whether Abraham Lincoln was a good president or not, there is considerable disagreement on that even here on FR. And that could make for an interesting debate in the academic setting. But the unalterable FACT is that Lincoln was elected.

Waves of immigrants came to this country over the years: the Irish, the Italians, Germans, Chinese, Hmong, Vietnamese, Hispanics, etc.. The numbers of immigrants can be reported without drawing any conclusions about their impact on our economy or our cultural values.

As to reading, I don't know that Alice in Wonderland or Treasure Island or Anne Frank's diary are overtly political. Yes, they can be taken that way if you want to allegorize them, but they can also teach reading without introducing a lot of values-laden baggage into the mix.

I think it's too easy to just forsake value-neutral education as an impossible task. Certainly, withdrawing your children from the public schools is an excellent idea. But at least in theory, I think tighter regulation could trim back some of the weeds in our kinder gartens.

[wintertime]

What about in rural areas where the only schools available are the public ones?

^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^

Give the government schools to the teachers and principals who run them now.

Abolish every educational bureaucracy above the level of principal.

The students would pay tuition to the now privatized teachers and principals. Tax credit donations could pay for the poor.

The county would continue to own all the buildings and playing fields. The now privatized teachers would pay a modest rent for the upkeep of the buildings.

The parks and recreation department would schedule the use of the playing fields, gym, and theater. They would be open to all community groups.

For the very seriously handicapped and mentally retarded the parents should carry private catastrophic education insurance to be purchase before a child's birth. Or, counties could carry these policies.

[wagglebee]

MORAL ABSOLUTES PING

DISCUSSION ABOUT:

Most Children Left Behind ( Government schools can NOT be religiously neutral!)

Wonderful commentary!

---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

To be included in or removed from the MORAL ABSOLUTES PINGLIST, please FReepMail wagglebee.

[Das Outsider]

It is impossible to educate a child without broaching these topics, and these topics are RELIGIOUS in nature.

Yes, because it all comes down to the issue of worldview.

[RobbyS]

The people in Education and those in the military have nada in common, except educationists will take money from any source. There is of course a desire among educationists to "nationalize" schooling, but only so they can control the agenda everywhere.

[Das Outsider]

Certainly, withdrawing your children from the public schools is an excellent idea. But at least in theory, I think tighter regulation could trim back some of the weeds in our kinder gartens.

True enough, but if public school teachers were NFL players, we'd be crying for their heads. ;)

[Das Outsider]

Ever heard of vouchers? Google Milton Friedman and vouchers for the complete description and argument in their favor. Then read what the opponents say, and decide for yourself.

Friedman is an essential in understanding the case for school vouchers and conceptualizing a free-market education system. Strangely, there is quite a bit of sympathy with his points on the college and university level--or such has been my experience. It is the die-hard NEA teachers from elementary to high school that fight the hardest against any allowance of parental choice in education.

[Oberon]

Y'all ought to give this book a read:

You'll find that the push away from the Christian worldview happened long before the 1960's.

[Oberon]

I'm a homeschooler, and I won't touch a voucher system with a ten-foot pole.

You see, once the government starts subsidizing something, it also starts regulating it, and I do NOT want the government dictating how (and what) I teach my children. That's why we homeschool, after all.

I'll gladly pay the property tax and shut up, if that's what it takes to keep the nanny-state types out of my childrens' heads.

[Bernard]

Of course, this will never happen beacsue all the principles, assistant principles, special assistants to the princials, curriculm specialists, assistants to the curriculum specialists, diversity advisers....yada yada yada ... wil no linger be funded from the public tax teat

Other things that need to be built into the equation include the special cost of non-mainstream kids being forced into mainstream schools (MS, Autism, etc.) - the additional cost of educating these kids has to be factored into the process.

And, of course, pensions for people who are no longer actively in the education system, but who are being financed throgh the existing system today, so you don't notice it. And the payback on loans taken out on newer public schools that won't be used under a private voucher system. And all the other layered-in expenses that would crop up under a large change like this proposal.