Baptists turn from public schools [NC]

Convinced that God has been erased from public schools, Southern Baptists are now working to open their own schools, where Jesus is writ large and Bible study is part of the daily curriculum.

Church leaders are not calling for a wholesale exodus from public schools, which would be a monumental hit, considering that Southern Baptists make up the nation's largest Protestant denomination with 16 million members.

Rather, they talk about alternatives to public schools capable of educating a new generation ready and willing to advocate for biblical principles rather than popular culture.

"In the public schools, you don't just have neutrality, you have hostility toward organized religion," said Daniel Akin, president of Southeastern Baptist Theological Seminary in Wake Forest. "A lot of parents are fed up."

Southeastern is leading the push, sponsoring a Christian School 101 workshop Monday and Tuesday. The program is designed to train church leaders to open private schools.

At Southeastern and elsewhere, Southern Baptists have become convinced that fighting to change the system is futile. They say public schools have long demonstrated a commitment to teaching evolution over creationism, world faiths over Christianity, sex education over abstinence, moral relativism over Christian claims of truth.

The denomination's disenchantment with public schools is not new. It dates to the 1920s, when states debated the teaching of creationism vs. evolution. Evolution increasingly won, despite the famous Scopes Monkey Trial in Tennessee, which gave the victory to creationists. The 1962 and 1963 U.S. Supreme Court decisions banning prayer and devotional readings from public schools only increased Southern Baptists' ire.

Since then, alienation with public schools has grown alongside the nation's culture wars, pitting evangelical Christians against secularists.

"Southern Baptists see the new religious establishment in this country as secularism,"

Exactly. Affordibilty, ease, or convenience are not bad words to people in those situations. I have nothing but admiration (and sometimes pity) for people in situations like your daughter.

My husband and I both feel very comfortable that either of us could be employed and the other stay home with the kids. If something happened to one of us, the other could find help from our families. Other people aren’t as lucky or have to make different choices for other reasons.

The only people who should feel really guilty about their kids are the ones who choose second homes, European vacations, or weekly spa treatments over their kids’ well being.

You missed my point entirely - in fact I was curious how you would take it. You took it as a personal challenge, when I didn't mean it that way. Not every post is an attack, yet you took it way for sure. Is there a reason you though I was attacking you and therefore deserved the attitude I received back?

The answer to my question is - it doesn't matter. All a parent needs to be able to do is to be smart enough to either teach the subject or be smart enough to get them to someone who can.

And FYI most high schools do teach Calc

....and you have the correct answer, which I knew you would. Your mom couldn't do it, but she knew who could and took you there.

However your kids will be fortunate enough that you will be able to walk them through the higher maths, which will be a blessing. I experienced no end of frustration when I realized I was not equipped to help my child through Calc, even though I took it oh so many years ago.

Are there some subjects you will need to farm out? Or do you think that you will be able to handle all of it?

Foreign languages are a real weak spot for me. Plus there I see the advantage of a teacher who really knows the subject, as opposed to a coursebook. Speaking a foreign language requires, well, speaking.

As for other academic subjects, not sure. Playing instruments, definitely, I can barely remember my piano lessons. Art techniques I might farm out, or have my more artistically interested husband take over.

My physics background is weak but there I am looking forward to learning myself, so I’ll keep that one myself.

I actually have no issue with community colleges, in general. I just find it amusing (and illuminating) that you don't consider them to be government schools. They are, and in some cases they are more insidious than other schools. Of course, you're less likely to find those issues in the more technical classes - but that's true in a number of places.

Maybe if I said I was sending my children to a "community school", you would take less umbrage with that statement. Their school certainly has a number of teachers who are both Christians, and professionals with real degrees, as opposed to "education degrees".

I draw a big distinction between K-12 and secondary institutions. First off, the NEA has no influence in community colleges. That’s a big one. Second, they charge tuition to students. Third, they are not mandatory.

I do have a problem with the fact that they take taxpayer money, but it seems they give a better return on investment than do primary schools.

If you called your child’s school a “community school”, I would still ask - why should I pay for your child’s education? You said you pay for them to attend a different school, do you pay the full cost of their attendance there?

>>All that being said, I have almost nothing bad to say about homeschooling, either. Most parents wouldn’t do as bad a job of it as they or other people would fear. Sure, there are bad homeschoolers, but there are bad teachers in private and public schools.<<

I have nothing against home schooling - it should be a choice.

But its not the total solution - there are too many parents who either cannot afford to take 12 years off from work or who are not qualified. We need good schools available.

....why should I pay for your child’s education....

Because you will be the beneficiary of my child one day. That is why you as a citizen have the right to demand excellence in your local school (whether you use them or not). You have the right to demand your tax dollars be spent wisely and with financial integrity.

But make no mistake, the leaders of tomorrow will come from all parts of the educational spectrum. We want and need excellence in schools.

I draw a big distinction between K-12 and secondary institutions.

Clearly, I'm just not sure you're correct to do so.

First off, the NEA has no influence in community colleges. That’s a big one.

That's so untrue, it boggles my mind. Virtually every state has an NEA arm that is heavily involved in the community colleges. Heck, Iowa's NEA arm is right now trumpeting the big funding increase they got for community colleges

Second, they charge tuition to students.

I'm not sure why that matters. So far, it hasn't stopped the left-wing loons from taking their toll on community, state and private colleges. Also - I'm currently paying tuition for public school, so does that exonerate it in your mind? Didn't think so.

Third, they are not mandatory.

What distinction were you making? My mandatory taxes help fund the community college, my mandatory taxes help fund the public school. However, attending the public school is not mandatory. I can choose to homeschool my kids, send them to private school, send them to the local public school, or pay more to send them to a different public school.

If you called your child’s school a “community school”, I would still ask - why should I pay for your child’s education?

Ah...now we're getting into familiar territory. I'm not convinced that you should.

You said you pay for them to attend a different school, do you pay the full cost of their attendance there?

It's costly (before the discount for my wife working there), but I'll bet it's still shy of what the tax money would be. Neither do I get a refund of the tax money I've paid that supports the in-zone school.

If your beef is the educational malaise that has resulted from squandering of taxpayer money on large numbers of NEA-indoctrinated government schools, I'm with you. If you're going to argue specifics over why I've made a poor choice for my kids putting them in the specific school they are in - you proceed at your own risk, because you really don't know that many specifics about me, my kids, or the school in question. If you think your generalized understanding is enough, then good luck.

>><I disagree again, and here’s why.

You assume that all kids must be taught by a person with a specific set of skills. Clearly, you do not believe that a child can do any self-teaching, or that using a textbook or other resources without a teacher to interpret and guide what is read or performed is real learning.

Have you never taught yourself anything outside of a classroom ? Is learning not valid if a teacher doesn’t give it a stamp of approval ? If you read a book about constellations and telescopes and then go join the Amateur Astronomical Society, they will ask you for a reference from a teacher before you can display any of your knowledge ?

You discount the entirety of human invention, because no advance in human thought or the human condition EVER occurred in a classroom.<<

Actually, I used to teach that a major goal of education was to help kids learn how to learn on their own.

But at the high school level they need teachers who can do all the material better than the student to teach, correct and challenge. When I interviewed teachers I would bring them into my classes and the kids would test them by trying to get the perspective teacher to teach whatever problem they were working over several different ways. The teachers who couldn’t do that didn’t get hired.

Can some students be exceptions? Sure. But even those student will benefit from having access to superstar teachers. I’m working now on a program to upgrade the science program at what is perhaps already the best high school in the South East but there is still a lot more that can be done.

Y’know, maybe I’m just really cycnical but the whole “you benefit from educated people / are hurt by uneducated people” argument just doesn’t move me. I don’t work to benefit other people. I work to benefit me and my husband. My company recieves value from my work, which they pay me for, and ideally makes money because of my labor. Society “benefits”, I suppose, because my labor is performed but it seems a short step from saying “society benefits from our labor” to “you should labor at X because society benefits”.

How about: parents benefit when their children do well because the kids move out, get good jobs, and take care of them in their retirement. There’s your motivation for parents to see their kids are educated (assuming just wanting what’s best for their kids isn’t enough). Threatening other people with the “if my kid isn’t educated, he’ll go on welfare and you’ll have to support him” argument is blackmail.

No, if I had a choice to magically make all government schools disappear without an option of a replacement, what would stay my hand, possibly, would be pity for the few kids who would be worse off. But because I feel sorry for them, not because I wonder where they’ll end up.

Sorry, just rambling... still I don’t like that argument at all.

>>Just about anybody can homeschool through highschool because of the technology and resources now available. As for greatly improving government schools...I think that has been tried over and over again and has failed over and over again. Rather than school reform, it would be more productive to just become a Civil War reenactor specializing in Pickett’s Charge.

I see that the (already dumbed down)national SAT is reporting that averages are down again.<<

Hmmm how do the parents correctly grade AP level literature papers or history essays or math or science they cannot do themselves? How do they conduct the labs?

Its not impossible but its also not feasible for the majority. In the long run we need schools. Doing away with schools is not a solution.

Nope, I argue the general - in general, government schools are a really lousy source for education - and take every parent’s claim that their kid’s school si the exception at face value. After all, I don’t know you or your school, so unless I think you’re a liar or an idiot, I really have to accept your claims.

I have a beef with the schools taking my tax money, when I don’t, never have, and never will use them. I also have a beef with the government requiring that I pay for them and that any child who cannot afford an alternative use them.

Community colleges also should not be supported by taxpayer money but at least people are not forced to go to them or be arrested. I think it’s a shame that the NEA is trying to dabble but at least for now they are a good choice. So many teachers at the community college are actual professionals in the communities, the idiocy can only go so far.

Anyway, I never said you made a poor choice for your children. Just that government schools are in gneral a poor choice. Glad you’ve found one you like.

I see your point - but every person on Social security is benefiting from your excellent education and resultant job. Whether it is comfortable admitting it or not, we are more intertwined than we want to think. Yes, that is a bit more socialistic than I like to think about and then swallow, but it is the state of our society.

I agree though, I don't like the 'threatening' aspect of it all either. Obviously what is 'best' is that every person take responsibility for their family and needs. But in an honest question, no sarcasm meant, has there every been a successful society that maintained that system or do they all evolve into some sort of welfare state?

Don't even start on the cynical - I'll see your cynical and raise you a bitter

>>So you’re not talking about *facts* but *tone*.<<

There are fact problems and tone problems. Frankly the tone of disdain for science is so strong the site seems more about teaching kids to disrupt class than in helping them in any way.

But the the definitions they use of evolution, the fact they separate “macro evolution” - the incorrect description of intermediary fossils as composites, the mischaracterization of the duck bill platypus... and that’s just from a 10 minute spot check. That was plenty to suggest that parents should be cautious in using that web site as a resource.

Well, I looked around Dr. Mohler’s web site. I pray God will use him mightily. Being used, as with any of us, is determined by a biblical criteria, not our own, of course.

I will keep that reference to look at another time. I’m as hesitant to accept the “conservative” label in church movements and figures as I am in political movements and figures. “Conservatism” is defined today on a rapidly sliding scale . . . a declining scale, generally.

Some years ago, I got so sick of what I saw in Christian/Bible book stores that was labeled “conservative,” that, with very rare exception, I no longer purchase books written later than 1940. That is, from commercially published sources. If someone asks me to provide a book report (e.g. my views of a certain book, movement or author) I tell them that they’ll have to spend their money and provide the books for me, or loan me their copies. I won’t spend the money, and I loathe spending the time. I can still find plenty of good books from spiritual, biblicist authors in the 19th century. It seems that virtually everything written since 1940 is either a weak rehash of 19th century writing, or modernistic (or German rational) and worldly altogether. (I’m talking about the standard fare in Christian/Bible bookstores when I say these things)

Occasionally I’ll be in a church, or at a conference, and find an interesting and worthwhile piece of material recently desktop published, or published by small local church-based printers. I’ll pick those up and read them. Not the standard book store stuff, though.

So, I’ll look more through Dr. Mohler’s material, and perhaps listen to a couple of his MP3 recordings and see.

Suspicious of the word “conservative” anymore, that’s all.

You don’t understand what homeschooling is or how it works. We have coops, distance learning, parents helping parents. If I need help, I can get far better instruction for my children in many advanced subjects through Escondido Tutorials, for example, than I ever could through our top-of-the-state high school. There is more, but, to avoid going into any more detail, the issue has long been settled. Colleges across the country - including the very most selective and the military academies - seek out homeschool graduates now. Remember, homeschool parents don’t have to manage 100-150 students a day, and no one is saying that they would be good at doing that.

Schools are fine for those who want to use them. We have a very good Christian classical school nearby, which I wouldn’t hesistate to use if the need arose.

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.