Tuesday, June 07, 2011

The Elephant in the "Choice" Schoolroom

It's kind of fun to watch all the grenade-tossing between WEAC, DPI (but I repeat myself), Fuller, Sykes, the Pubbies (and others) over the question of school choice.

Even Bruce Murphy weighed in, with a fatuous objection that the underpaid Choice-school teachers are a threat to the Republic, or something, due to "turnover.

Oh, yah.

The real reason that parents send their darlings to Choice schools is NOT that they obtain a 'better education,' --albeit that they often do. It is NOT because little Johnny gets more attention from the teacher--that happens in the public skrewels, too.

The real reason?

Choice schools, in MOST (not all) cases, teach something the publics will not teach: values. They are orderly by design; discipline is administered, and the foundation of education is (dare we say it) religion.

Moms and Dads get it.

13 comments:

Badger Catholic said...

Yep. It's not some big libertarian scheme to undermine public works, it's the r word.

neomom said...

Yup. Especially when your "would require an IEP" child also happens to be a bully magnet. You want to go to a school where they have control of the situation.

jimspice said...

I don't see it as an elephant. I have long said I'd support a limited, well monitored voucher program as long as tax dollars were not used to support religious instruction. I think small, experimental schools provide a great test tube of innovation.

Would you support tax dollars going to a private Muslim school?

John Foust said...

I don't think public dolalrs should be funneled to religious schools.

Anonymous said...

All schools, even public, are religious. A founding principle of public schools is to inculate a common set of values into the students. Those common values, however codified, is a belief system, a religion.

So the real Q is which religion to teach with public money.

Indeed, public money comes from Christians, too. Why must they not have a say into where it goes?

Dad29 said...

Spice raises an interesting question of public policy; in brief, 'shall tax dollars be expended to further beliefs which are incompatible with the Judeao-Christian tradition'?

....phrased that way because, in fact, Mohammedanism IS incompatible with the J-C tradition.

So my answer: yes, Choice should do so.

Hell, we fund anti-Christian/atheist ranting in the public schools. Can't get much worse with madrassas, can it?

John Foust said...

Before we were born, the public saw the value in non-religious, uniform education.

You truly want the State, your local School Board, deciding which religion and sect are taught?

Anonmyous, your logic is quite incredible. "Any belief system is a religion." Bizarre.

Anonymous said...

Mr John Faust,
Before we were born the public did indeed see the value in such non-sectarian uniform education. It was for the reasons I stated earlier. There are plenty of references to this topic for the curious, and these need not be repeated here.

It doesn't exempt these common values, which amount to a creed, from being called a religion. One man's censorship is another man exercising editorial judgement...

That a gov't. has decided to spend public monies on children's education implies wishing to teach them something important to the government. Not just literacy, but what to believe. For example, in my Milwaukee schooling (Boy's Tech!) I learned about slavery and about business monopolies. My teacher and my books put values on them. That is values, and comes from some sort of religion.

As far as being bizarre, read wikipedia:
Religion is a cultural system that establishes symbols that relate humanity to spirituality and moral values.

or dictionary.com:
religion (2): a specific fundamental set of beliefs and practices generally agreed upon by a number of persons or sects

It seems my statement isn't "quite incredible" at all.

John, what would you rather die for, than abandon? Contrary to your opinion, religion is *everywhere*. You're just looking for a non-sectarian place.

Other Side of My Mouth said...
This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.
neomom said...

I see nothing wrong if a parent selects a parochial school with their vouchure.

The entire separation of church and state argument (not actually in the constitution) is false especially in this case. The parent chooses the religious affiliation via school choice. That in and of itself preventst "establishing" a religion by the government. It does however, affirm the first amendment and the free excercise thereof.

Sorry if you don't like that a voucher can be used for a religious school... The supreme court agrees with us.

neomom said...

But as long as we are discussing government paying for a religion that we don't agree with....

http://www1.eere.energy.gov/education/pdfs/environment_energyawarenessquiz.pdf

John Foust said...

Is it only about the money? Or was the goal of taxes for education - the education? If our ancestors hoped for a public good a uniform education for all, then giving someone the cash for a religious education isn't fulfilling that goal.

neomom said...

But keeping every child in a failing school is OK because it sucks for all of them Foust?

Is that your goal? Nobody escapes unless they are wealthy enough?