Jessica weighs in on the Reynolds dubitum:
Apparently Reynolds is concerned about the use of standardized test and accreditation - the accountability aspects of the legislation. He thinks that these features may prevent schools from teaching students about creation.
Reynolds' concern is not exactly new. The argument begins with the Golden Rule: "He who has the gold makes the rules."
The education "system" in the USA was largely shaped by individuals who were absolutely and completely opposed to religious sentiments, particularly Roman Catholic sentiments. (They allowed religious sentiment, so long as it was NOT Catholic.) That happens to be exactly why the Catholic Church spent scads of money over the years building and maintaining her parochial schools. The point was to foster and preserve the Catholic culture.
Compressing history brings us to today, where we find the mandate of public education to be extremely onerous in cost, and suspect in its results. Further, public education is subject to a morass of indefensible regulations and moronic postulates (the "rules-are-rules/zero tolerance" stuff which Da Godfoddah loves to hate.) All of this was eminently predictable and followed a natural course from the initial charters laid out by Dewey & Co.
(I mean, really: would YOU like to be the "sex-ed" teacher in a public school? Hell, I feel sorry for those poor slobs who get THAT short straw.)
Be that as it may...
There is at least one (and likely there are many other) eminent private school in this State which will NOT, under ANY circumstances, take "choice" dollars. Never. No Way. No How.
Reason?
Exactly what Reynolds' argument is: at some point in time, the Education Establishment will force Choice schools to "toe the line" on whatever garbage the Latest Educational Fad requires.
While it may be better for Reynolds to cave on this one, and come up with better 'enabling' language for the Choice program at a later date, one cannot argue with the principle behind his objection.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
2 comments:
I agree with you on the principle. But I think he should bring it up later because shoehorning a controversial item into the package risks it going down.
Agreed.
Tom would be better off re-writing the Choice funding package (and ensuring absolute freedom in education matters) in another legislative initiative.
Post a Comment