by George Burns
For
some years now our K-12 public education system has been in decline.
There are a number of reasons. This paper explores what I think are some
of the more consequential ones. The facts staring us in the face cannot
be denied or excused away. Failure to implement rational solutions is
not an option.
BACKGROUND. Gary Jason
in an article published in americanthinker.com, 10 September 2011,
provides some disheartening facts. Here are a few:
- 32% of American 8th
graders were proficient in math on the international PISA test. That
placed them 32d on a list of 65 participating countries. Contrast that
with 75% of Shanghai’s students being proficient.
- 31% of American 8th graders were proficient in reading, placing them 17th out of 65 countries. Again Shanghai topped the list with 55% of their students being proficient.
- Of college bound high achieving
American high schoolers taking the 2011 ACT, only 25% were college
ready for all four parts of the test. Yet 80% of those achievers had a
GPA of at least 3.0.
- The consequence, as these ACT
data show, is that many college students must take relevant remedial
courses (high school level) their first year of college before
undertaking actual college level courses. According to the Alliance for
Excellent Education the cost of administering remedial courses was $5.6
billion for academic year 2007-8 alone.
Even though funding levels have
dramatically increased since the 1960s little notable improvement in
student performance has resulted. Between 1973 and 2008 National
Assessment of Education Progress scores in math rose two points (from
304 to 306) while reading scores rose just 1 point (from 285 to 286).
Scores are based on a 500-point scale.
Margaret Weigel, writing for the
30 July 2012 journalistresource.com, summarizes a 2012 Harvard Kennedy
School report entitled “Achievement Growth: International and U.S. State
Trends in Student Performance.” She states that the study “estimated
learning gains in math, science and reading for the United States and 48
developed and transitional countries from 1995 to 2009; the researchers
also analyzed student performance in 41 U.S. states between 1992 and
2011.” Students examined were 4th and 8th graders. Among the findings: "...since 1995 only modest gains have been made, the US ranks 24th of 49 countries, US student performance declined steadily from 4th
grade through high school .” Weigel quotes the report’s authors: “…the
failure of the United States to close the international test-score gap,
despite assiduous public assertions that every effort would be
undertaken to produce that objective, raises questions about the
nation’s overall reform strategy. Educational goal setting in the United
States has often been utopian rather than realistic.“
On he heels of the Harvard study the College Board reported that SAT scores fell to the lowest level ever. Only 43% of the 1.6 million of the class of 2011 students taking the test were ready for college.
DISCUSSION. The
federal government’s involvement in education is long standing. However,
with the establishment of the Department of Education in 1980 its
involvement expanded dramatically. The Department’s mission, according
to its website is to: “...promote student achievement and preparation
for global competitiveness by fostering education excellence and
ensuring equal access.” Given the background summary just covered it has
failed its mission. The Department’s website notes that an estimated
$1.15 trillion will be spent on K-12 schooling for school year
2011-2012, of which 87.7% comes from state, local and private sources.
So, what is it that the Department does? In 1981 former Assistant
Secretary of Education, Donald Senese‘s congressional budget hearings
testimony provided the answer. He said “Federal funds account for
approximately 10 percent of national expenditure on education. The
federal share of educational research and related activities, however,
is 90 percent of the total national investment. To which, Charlotte
Iserbyt, former senior policy advisor in the Department’s Office of
Educational Research and Improvement and author of The Deliberate Dumbing Down of America,
writes “Who cares whether the federal government is not allowed to
extend its long arm down into the choice of curriculum or selection of
resources? The point is that the federal government itself was involved
in the development of that curriculum or those resources, teacher
training, test development, etc., at one of its research labs or
centers, or paid to have it developed by school systems across the
nation.” To reinforce the point; the federal government’s primary
control over K-12 education is mandated curriculum content, testing
requirements, teacher training requirements and student resources rather
than funding. Although, the Department does exercise financial controls
via mandates that exact administrative and other costs born by schools
at the local level. Given its control over curriculum content and the
decline of overall student performance compared with their international
peers, it is not possible to give the US Department of Education
anywhere close to a passing grade. Yet it’s approximately 5,000
personnel and programs cost taxpayers more than $68 billion per year.
What it does is not meaningful in any measurable way in the education of
our children. Our return on investment is no where to be found.
As previously noted the total
nationwide costs for the 2011-2012 school year was $1.15 trillion. From
the Department of Education’s own Center for Education Statistics 2012
edition of the Digest of Education Statistics, 2011,
Table 191, Chapter 2 we learn that in 1962 the average per pupil cost
was $2,835. It also shows that the per pupil cost rose from that amount
to $10,694 for the 2008-2009 school year . While per pupil cost was on
the rise overall student performance was flat-lined or in decline.
One of the primary reasons for
cost increases is unfunded mandates imposed on local schools by both
federal and state governments the costs for which land on the backs of
taxpayers. An example is provided by the dilemma local schools face in
New York state. Here is the link: http://www.upstateconservatives.org/Unfunded_Mandates_final_version.pdf
I counted a total of 117 mandates. Managing and reporting to state
and federal agencies on compliance or progress requires overhead not
historically part of the public school infrastructure. Mandates account,
in large part, for increased costs while contributing nothing towards
educating students. Sanctions are levied against schools failing to
comply. Therefore, paid staffs are required to perform the burdensome
administrative tasks state and federal level mandates require.
In Neal McCluskey’s May 2009
article “K-12 Education Subsidies” he notes that “Despite the near
tripling of overall per pupil funding since 1965, national academic
performance has not improved. Math and reading scores have largely gone
flat, graduation rates have stagnated, and researchers have found
serious shortcomings with many federal education programs. Experience
has shown that federal funding and top down intervention are not the way
to create a high-quality K-12 education system in America.” From these
data we are left to conclude that failing scores are not a result of
inadequate funding but from inadequate educating.
Dr. Bruce Baker, co-author of Financing Education Systems and Rutgers University professor, tackles
the question: are teachers unions bad for education. His blog post of
12 November 2012, based on data he summarizes suggests that nothing he
found “…puts to rest the big - unanswerable - questions of the overall
equity and quality effects of teachers unions on our supposed monolithic
American public education system, these analyses do at least raise
serious questions about the notion that teachers unions are the scourge
of the nations cause of all the supposed - also unfounded - ills of
American public schooling.“
A footnote to Baker’s analysis.
While he found no significant relationship between the presence of
strong unions and student performance, it is fair to say that public
unions (teachers, firefighters, policemen, etc.) do impact respective
state budgets, some significantly, some less so. And, a review of Annie
Lowrey’s article in the 6 January 2012 edition of the New York Times details
findings that good teachers have a significant impact on student
performance and offers a not so subtle hint at evidence that teacher
unions' hard stance against eliminating bad teachers not only has a
measurable effect on student performance but also their life long
earnings potential.
Another brief comment about
unions and state budgets. The Collective Bargaining Update posted in the
December 26, 2012 edition of the Bob Williams Report (covering state
budgets, pensions and collective bargaining) notes that “Government
employee salaries and benefits are financially unsustainable in nearly
every state. The Day of Reckoning has arrived, and legislators can no
longer ignore the unfunded pension liabilities and unfunded retiree
health care obligations. These unsustainable cost drivers must be
addressed or thousands of state employees and teachers will have to be
laid off in the next few years. According to the U.S. Department of
Labor‘s Bureau of Labor Statistics, as of December, 2010, state and
local government employees received benefits that were 69 percent higher
than those in the private sector. State and local government employees
earn $13.85 per hour in benefits compared to the private sector workers
who earn an average of $8.20 per hour in benefits.” An elaboration of
the dilemma state budgets face is here:
http://www.realclearpolitics.com/articles/2013/01/07/states_still_walking_the_fiscal_cliff_116595.htmlA few words about teacher unions and some of their more radical views. Kyle Olson, in his 8 January 2013 article in Townhall.com, writes that “The Chicago Teachers Union is not just about looking out for its members’ interests. The union wants to fundamentally change America, too.” He continues: The Chicago Teachers Union “...leaders have been on a victory lap of sorts since the September strike, with union activists seeing themselves as protectors of union power during a time of membership decline and education reform at the state and local level. They’ve also taken on the role of social activities, fighting for causes like the Occupy movement and gay marriage, which have nothing to do with education. Some union leaders have called for violence and other radical tactics to achieve social goals.” Later in the article Olson writes “ As domestic terrorist-turned-professor Bill Ayers acknowledged, leftists have the power in our schools and classrooms, and they’re taking full advantage.” Read the full article here: http://townhall.com/columnists/kyleolson/2013/01/08/crowd-laughs-as-chicago-teachers-union-president-talks-about-killing-the-rich-n1482587?utm_source=thdaily&utm_medium=email&utm_campaign=nl Here is another and more potentially frightening picture of teachers union and their intentions. This one is from Oakland,CA. http://townhall.com/columnists/kyleolson/2013/01/12/oaklands-radical-occupy-teachers-finally-reveal-their-goal-abolish-capitalism-n1487447/page/full/
Other
factors affect student performance. Schools and teachers, of course,
can and do make a difference in student performance and in many cases
external factors prohibit their ability to fix noted problems. Yet some
schools and teachers excel in spite of the obstacles they face. Some of
the measures negatively affecting school/teacher ability include a poor
school environment, poor teacher performance, unruly students, inability
to remove tenured but poor teachers, poor/inaccurate/irrelevant
curriculum content, holding achievers back so poor performers can keep
pace, lack of two parent family involvement, decline of two parent
homes, rising moral relativism across society, rising lack of respect
for self as well as others, poor student attitudes, moral
relativism/propagandizing as part of curriculum content, uncertain
future outlook and social and student socio-economic conditions.
Unethical behavior and actions by teachers and administrators is another
problem (changing student grades/test scores, giving students
undeserved grades, teacher sexual misconduct, teachers/administrations
pushing political agendas, administration and teacher collusion to pass
along failing students, etc.) The Wisconsin Education Association
Council has published an excellent document entitled “Primer: Education
Issues - Variables Affecting Student Performance.“ Here is the link to
the primer: http://www.weac.org/issues_advocacy/resource_pages_on_issues_one/research_materials/primer_variable.aspx
For
a quick look at teacher certification standards and ethics of some
public school administrators and teachers check out this article by
Professor Walter Williams. It chronicles a three state teacher
certification test cheating scandal. Williams notes that “This
test-taking fraud is merely the tip of a much larger iceberg. It
highlights the educational fraud being perpetrated on blacks during
their K-12 education.“ http://lewrockwell.com/williams-w/w-williams152.html
ALTERNATIVES. There are alternatives to public schools. Sufficient evidence exists that they may well offer better choices for students. The www.schoolschoice.org
is a good starting point to explore alternatives. Charter schools,
private schools, home schooling and vouchers are examples. We will touch
on these four.
Charter Schools. Gary
Jason’s 18 January 2012 American Thinker article entitled “Confirmed:
Charter Schools Beat the Daylights Out of Public Schools” notes that
“the most recent New York State Assessment Program test results show
decisive evidence that one of the charter school chains most viciously
attacked by teachers unions is beating the pants off the public
schools.“ His specific example is Harlem Success Academies “...which
provide inner-city minority youths a solid academic prep school
experience.” Sixty percent of New York City public school third through
fifth-graders passed the state math test compared to 94% of Harlem
Success Academies students. Likewise, only 49% of city public school
students passed the language arts test compared to 78% of Harlem Success
students.
The above paragraph needs to be tempered by recognizing that charter school performance varies. According to www.data-first.org
“On average, nationally, students in 17% of charter schools performed
significantly better than if they had attended their neighborhood
traditional public school.” The website adds this caution: “On the flip
side, students in 37 percent of charter schools performed significantly
worse, and students in the remaining 46 percent of charter schools did
not perform significantly better or worse than if they had attended
their neighborhood traditional public school. However, research also
shows that students in charter high schools score higher on college
entrance exams (e.g., the SAT or ACT) and are more likely to graduate
high school and attend college than similar students in traditional
public schools.”
There are a number advantages
usually attributed to charter schools. They are publicly funded but
privately run so they are not subject to government rules, regulations
and statutes applicable to public schools. Instead they are accountable
to student/parent population served and provisions set forth in their
charter. Failing to meet charter provisions result in its termination.
So, charter schools have an incentive to perform well.
Because
studies have found that charter school performance varies from area to
area and state to state, there is need to establish baseline rules
applicable to all charters. Details are found here in the Bloomberg.com
editors article published 9 September 2012. http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2012-09-09/u-s-needs-more-charter-schools-with-better-rules.html
The editors note that two charter school advocacy groups, National
Alliance for Public Charter Schools and StudentsFirst, have laid out
standards which should be established by charter.
Private Schools.
Private schools are just that, private. Consequently they require
private funding from sources such as private grants; fundraising from
parents, alumni and members of the community; and community secular and
religious organizations. Contrasted with free public education, private
schools can pose financial burdens for families because of tuition costs
on top of their requirement to also pay public school taxes even though
their children do not attend them. The National Association of
Independent Schools (NAIS) reports that for the 2008-2009 school year
median tuition was $17,441 for member schools. Nonmember school tuition
was $10,841 or roughly equivalent to the annualized per pupil cost of
public schools. The average parochial school per year cost per student,
according to the National Catholic Education Association, was $2,607 for
elementary school and $6,906 for freshmen entering high school
Private schools have smaller
class sizes than public schools, have a focused and more challenging
curriculum, usually have better books and supplies and more up-to-date
technology, and are not subject to government regulatory controls.
Because private schools do not receive government funding they are not
constrained by government rules and their costly bureaucratic mandates.
As a consequence they are able to offer more challenging curricula than
either public or charter schools as well as religious instruction. In
addition, private schools are not required to accept everyone who
applies. Teachers do not have to meet public school certification
standards but usually possess a bachelor or masters degree in the
subject they teach. The overall school atmosphere is typically better
than public schools.
With respect to how well private
schools compare to public schools on national and international
standardized tests, the jury is still out. Depending on the study
methodologies used some say private school students do better than their
public school counterparts. Others say it is a wash. However, NAEP test
results for 9 year-olds in private schools show their scores to have
been higher than public school counterparts each year from 1990 to 2008.
The differences in diversity between the two school types is typically
cited as being the cause. More details on private schools are at the two
links below.
Home Schooling.
Home schooling has been on a rapid incline since the mid-1980s. There
are many reasons for its popularity. Here are a few: Schedules are
flexible, teaching methods are tailored to learning styles, parental
bonding with children, parents know what their children are learning,
children learn self-reliance, less exposure to corrupting ideologies,
more healthy socialization than in most public schools, home schoolers
typically test higher than their public school counterparts, for
Christians home schooling helps promote morality and the healthy
lifestyles of Christians and home schoolers are less likely to be
exposed to communicable diseases. The most notable cons are the
requirement for parental commitment to the education process (most often
the mother) who should be well educated and driven to do well by her
children. And, depending on household income, it may stress family
finances since they also must pay public school taxes. For a full
discussion of the pros and cons of home schooling check this link: http://www.balancingthesword.com/homeschool/benefits.asp
Estimates for the cost of home schooling vary because there are many innovative ways to avoid costs without degrading education. The estimates depicted in the linked article outlines cost and cost avoidance techniques which help parents keep total annual home schooling costs in the range of $1,000. Compare that with the $10,000 plus per pupil cost of public schools. Here is the link: http://www.balancingthesword.com/homeschool/benefits.asp
As
the chart contained in the below link shows, the average home schooled
student ranks higher for college preparedness, GPA scores once in
college and graduation rates from college than their public school,
parochial school and private schooled counterparts. http://www.intellectualtakeout.org/library/chart-graph/homeschool-college-gpa-and-graduation-rates
Vouchers. This
approach distributes taxpayer funded monetary vouchers valued between
$2,500-$5,000 to parents of school-age kids, usually in troubled
inner-city schools. A matching amount of the voucher is withdrawn from
the public school which the student would have otherwise attended.
Parents then use the vouchers towards the cost of private or parochial
schools of their choice for the purpose of giving their children
improved educational opportunities. The National Teachers Association
and the American Federation of Teachers strongly oppose vouchers because
they divert funds away from public schools. They fear that loss of
these funds will degrade public school education. But, removing their
children from a poor or under performing public school is the very
reason parents seek the vouchers in the first place. The below links
provides a more detailed discussion of voucher comparisons.
Advocates for alternatives to
public schools argue that pitting schools against each other for
resources and students creates competition which fosters better quality
for all concerned.
OBSERVATIONS. This
discussion has by no means covered all things education. It only
applies light brushes across some of the many education concerns
affecting our children and grandchildren. I bring no specific expertise
to the subject. I am just a concerned citizen applying common sense
thinking to the problem. A few of my observations have already been
noted. But the three things that concern me the most are government
oversight of curriculum content development/propagandizing in schools,
denying (even belittling) student expression of religious beliefs and
government intrusion into student physical and mental health (without
parental consent). These, I think, are dangerous trends. Let’s give them
a brief look.
Government oversight of curriculum content.
Vol 44, No 4, November 2010 edition of the Eagle Forum notes that
“Control of public school curriculum is a very desirable prize for those
who seek to control the future. Jimmy Carter’s Secretary of Health,
Education, and Welfare, Joseph Califano, once admitted that ‘national
control of curriculum is a form of national control of ideas.’” This
attitude persists and is alive and well today. The current
administration, like all previous ones since at least President
Carter, is circumventing the Constitution which does not authorize any
federal governmental control over education by “...tying the Common Core
Standards to the granting or denying of federal appropriations, both
the $4 billion Race To The Top money and even Title I funding. That is
an effort to make Common Core Standards compulsory because state
politicians are not likely to turn down billions of dollars.“ The
problem, as the Eagle Forum notes, is that “There is absolutely no
assurance that parents or the public will approve content of the
proposed Common Core Standards. Many so-called education ’experts’
openly advocate imposing curriculum standards on content that parents
find offensive, such as non-phonics in reading instruction and left-wing
and feminist propaganda in literature and social studies, and on
methodology such as deliberately not teaching facts or basic arithmetic
skills in order to emphasize creativity."
To make the point of what is at
play the Eagle Forum cites several examples of inappropriate curriculum
manipulation. We address only one. It comes from the Tucson School
District in Arizona. Regarding courses offered in Mexican-American
studies Arizona’s Superintendent of Public Instruction, Tom Horne, notes
that the basic theme of the program “...is that Latino students ‘were
and continue to be victims of a racist American society driven by the
interests of middle-upper-class whites… Among the goals listed for
Mexican-American Studies are ‘social justice’ and ‘Latino Critical Race
Pedagogy.’ Pictures of the classroom showed the walls decorated with
‘heros’ such as Fidel Castro and Che Guevara.” The Eagle Forum continues
by noting that in a TV interview with Greta van Susteren, former Tucson
high school teacher, John A. Ward, who was removed from teaching the
class for Mexican Americans because he questioned its curriculum.
Although Ward is himself of Mexican heritage he was called a racist and a
sell-out because of his objections to the curriculum content as not
representative of American history, a graduation requirement. During the
interview he said that the course is “...not about American history at
all. It focuses solely on the history of the Aztec people, which is the
group to which Mexican-American activists ascribe their lineage.“ The
textbooks used “...do not recognize the United States as a country, but
claim Arizona is part of ‘Aztlan, Mexico’ (even though the Aztecs never
lived in what is now the United States". To anyone giving the matter any
thought this course of study is pure propaganda and not US history. http://www.eagleforum.org/psr/2010/nov10/psrnov10.html
This propaganda masked as history
is not uncommon. Consider historian Howard Zinn. He authored what is
regarded as the most widely used history text in the country, A People’s History of the United States.
He once said “...if you can control history, what people know about it,
if you can decide what’s in a people’s history and what’s left out, you
can order their thinking. You can order their values. You can, in
effect, organize their brains by controlling their knowledge. The people
who can do that, who control the past, are the people who control the
present.” His text is a master propaganda piece yet is what many of our
children are forced to use in school. Consider these quotes by experts
regarding Zinn and his work. Princeton University professor, Sean
Wilentz, notes that Zinn’s history text contains a “simplified view” of
U.S. history, in which all Zinn did was to take “...the guys in white
hats and put them in black hats, and vice versa.“ Historian Michael
Kazin opines that Zinn’s arguments are “better suited to a
conspiracy-monger’s Web site than to a work of scholarship” The Accuracy
in Media website notes that Zinn, according to the FBI “...was not only
a member of the Moscow-controlled and Soviet-funded Communist Party USA
(CPUSA) but lied about it.” Thomas Sowell writes “That book has sold
millions of copies, poisoning the minds of millions of students in
schools and colleges against their own country. But this book is one of
many things that enable teachers to think of themselves as ‘agents of
change,’ without having the slightest accountability for whether that
change turns out to be for the better or for the worse -- or, indeed,
utterly catastrophic.”
One more brief example (of many) is provided in this article entitled “Lessons in Government Schools Indoctrination”.
To
put a period on this topic it is instructive to note that Abraham
Lincoln once said that “The philosophy of the classroom today will be
the philosophy of government tomorrow.” Does anyone else see or even
care about what’s happening? As already noted this is a small sampling
of the indoctrination going on in our public schools. This
really worries me and should worry you, too.
Denying (even belittling) student expression of religious beliefs.
There have been hundreds, even thousands of examples where this topic
arises and lawsuit after lawsuit are filed denying student expression of
personal religious beliefs. Seemingly the only target for limiting
expression is Christianity. The so called wall of separation between the
state and religion has been twisted to the point where almost no one
knows what the 1st Amendment really means. And, as a society
the incessant attack on religion, primarily Christianity, has caused us
as a nation to lose our moral compass. Public schools have played a big
role in this decline. This brief look seeks to amplify the topic which, I
believe, has been abused by athiests and secular humanists outside and
inside government.
Stephen Mansfield, in his book Ten Tortured Words, focuses on the first ten words of the 1st
Amendment which read “Congress shall make no law respecting an
establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof.” He
writes that the “idea that government and even patriotism are
impossible without religion is offensive to many today, but it was a
pillar of civic thinking in the founding era. One searches in vain to
find a man among the founding fathers who did not believe that religion
in some form was essential to the success of the State.” Speaking of the
Bill of Rights, Alexander Hamilton wrote in Federalist #84 that they
“are not only unnecessary in the proposed constitution but would even be
dangerous…For why declare that things shall not be done which there is
no power to do?” His obvious point was that the base Constitution had
not granted the federal government any powers to infringe individual
liberties in any way, freedom of religion/religious expression included.
Continuing this theme, Mansfield writes that “During the Revolutionary
War, when British troops captured a colonial church they routinely
turned it into a riding stable or a whorehouse. Colonial parsons were
summarily killed and colonial Bibles and hymnbooks were burned as outlaw
literature. Such horrors were not soon forgotten in the postwar years,
and when the framers of the Constitution set about to guard religious
liberties in their new nation, they did not hesitate to ban an
English-style State Church.“ So, the well documented unanimous
understanding the framers had of the first 10 words of the 1st Amendment
was that it prohibited the federal government from imposing on our
nation a national religion such as they had in England. In addition, it
was forbidden to make any laws that even dealt with the establishment of
religion. That’s it, nothing more, nothing less.
However,
the tide was turned by one man in 1947 when Supreme Court Justice Hugo
Black unilaterally wrote into the majority opinion of the Everson vs. Board of Education ruling that the 1st
Amendment erected a wall of separation between church and state. As
Mansfield writes, Black “was rewriting history and stating as law what
had never before been determined by the Court.” Since then atheists and
secular humanists have cemented the meaning of the “wall of separation”
to be what it now means not only in schools but in public places across
the land. The real meaning is lost to history. The strife, discord and
decay that has resulted is there for all to see. It strikes me as odd
that the Black ruling seemingly ignores the principle embodied in the
six words that follow the first ten of the 1st Amendment.
They read “...or abridging the freedom of Speech.” Likewise, it is odd
that today we have forgotten that the founders routinely and freely
attended religious/church services within government buildings and
ignore that even today congress starts its day with prayers. These facts
validate the founders intent as well as government recognition of such
with its continuation of the founders tradition of prayers before each
session. Congress even has a chaplain. Yet, religion (Christianity) is
strictly forbidden in public schools. Why? How is it that one man can
reverse 200 years of law and tradition? http://www.dcbabrief.org/vol241011art2.html
http://www.ewtn.com/library/HUMANITY/RELFREED.TXThttp://chaplain.house.gov/chaplaincy/chaplain_brochure.pdf
That
brings us to today and to our schools. Public schools now prohibit any
expression which in any way includes the words God or Jesus. Students
have been reprimanded and even expelled for doing so. Participation in
graduation exercises have been denied for some students expressing their
Christian beliefs. Students have failed school work if it in any way
contains forbidden Christian words/expression. Elementary school
children are forbidden to draw anything Christian in nature. Christian
symbols are forbidden. Prayers before athletic events are denied.
Prayers, even silent ones, have been/are forbidden. And much more. Tons
of examples exist. Google and you will find. The following link provides
an overview of the tough situation in which schools have been placed
and demonstrates the difficulty they have in dealing with this sensitive
issue. http://www.centerforpubliceducation.org/Main-Menu/Public-education/The-law-and-its-influence-on-public-school-districts-An-overview/Religion-and-Public-Schools.html Why
is it that Christianity is subjected to unbalanced targeting? Here is
one of many articles that depict a double standard administered by the
public school systems across the country. Some religions get a pass. http://www.wnd.com/2006/10/38269/
The discussion could go on endlessly but a clear double standard exists
and when parents challenge on that point their concerns are dismissed
using the manufactured “wall of separation” or "unconstitutional"
arguments while seemingly being completely unaware of how hypocritical
their defense is. To add insult to injury consider this quote from the 9
January 2009 edition of cbnnews.com: “...did you know that Muslims
discovered America? Or that Jerusalem is an Arab city? That’s just some
of the ‘history’ that students in America’s K-12 classrooms have been
taught in recent years--with the help of taxpayer money.” The article
points out that numerous inaccuracies about several religions exist in
school texts. But, the tendency is to be favorably inclined towards
Islam. This reinforces previously expressed concerns about who controls
school curricula. This does not mean that someone from government forced
a school district to use certain texts. Rather what has happened, as
earlier noted, is that government funding of the development of, removal
of historic Christian content and secularization of curriculum/text
content has had the effect of altering the historic purpose of
education. School districts make their text selections from a menu of
those developed by government approved authors/publishing houses. See
these two articles: http://www.cbn.com/cbnnews/460652.aspx
http://highered.mcgraw-hill.com/sites/0072877723/student_view0/chapter7/
An excellent discussion of the role of religion in public education is here: http://www.lurj.org/article.php/vol4n2/religion.xml
Government intrusion into student physical and mental health (without parental consent). In
recent years public schools have attempted to subvert the role of
parents in their children’s lives. This is sinister in the extreme. Here
a just a few examples.
Some
schools have given girls morning after pills without notifying parents.
Since when do they have the right/authority to do that? Answer: when
the government said so. The trite answer provided to this government
overreach is that the kids will do it anyway and besides it helps
prevent unwanted pregnancies. What happened to teaching morals and the
dangers of casual sex instead? This link, and the one that follows, are
examples of the moral decay previously mentioned that pervades society
and is being abetted by public schools. http://www.nypost.com/p/news/local/city_schools_plan_UoW7ke5l2KRwg43nHzt97H and http://observer.com/2012/09/public-students-recieve-plan-b-without-parental-approval-new-york-post-forgets-to-be-outraged/
What
gives government schools the right to administer HPV without parental
consent? They don’t have that right. It was assumed by government
decree. No matter that harm has been done to a number of unsuspecting
girls. Nonetheless it is the parent and child that must deal with the
consequences, not the offending school. http://www.theblaze.com/stories/mother-angry-with-everybody-after-14-year-old-given-hpv-vaccine-without-permission/
What about sterilizing children without parental consent? That is okay because it is part of Obamacare. http://www.catholic.org/health/story.php?id=47274
Yet,
some school policies deny children access to needed drugs (I.e.; for
allergy attacks) unless the proper paper work is provided. Harm may
result but they are not to blame. Parents did not do what they were
suppose to. http://www.westernjournalism.com/schools-hand-out-abortion-pills-without-parental-consent/
And, did you know that parental consent is needed to administer sun screen? http://jonathanturley.org/2012/06/26/burn-baby-burn-school-children-denied-sunscreen-without-parental-consent-while-school-officials-oppose-parental-notice-of-police-interrogations-of-children/ This article also points out that “In the meantime, school officials in the Washington area have successfully blocked a measure to require parental notification of police interrogations of their children, even in cases of serious alleged misconduct.”
What about government schools
probing children with “survey” questions the school has no business
asking? It goes on. Here is an article discussing a Centers for Disease
Control survey that is way out of bounds.
http://www.eagleforum.org/educate/2011/june11/parental-consent.html and here is another example.
What
about administering behavior control drugs to children? This is a much
debated issue. I am personally against administering these drug to
children because schools and society has dealt with such behaviors since
the dawn of time. What makes today’s children any different? I knew a
number of kids growing up that by today’s standards would be put on ADHD
drugs. They muddled through and most have done quite well for
themselves. Drugging students is not the answer. Here is a very good
article dealing with this topic. http://www.forbes.com/sites/emilywillingham/2012/10/09/adhd-drugs-for-children-who-dont-have-adhd-is-it-ok/ Here is another one. http://articles.mercola.com/sites/articles/archive/2012/10/24/children-adhd-drugs.aspx
To assure this paper's contents
were subjected to a reality check I had a retired teacher critique it.
Among her comments were: "...there are some good textbooks out there, but you have to have the right people in there to sort through. Way
too much emphasis is put on being politically correct in curriculum,
and protecting children’s self- esteem. Everything that children do is
not wonderful, and adults continually telling them that mediocre work is
great does them no favors." and "Teacher
Unions should be outlawed. They do nothing but raise the cost of
education and protect teachers who have no business in the classroom." and
"... we do not take advantage of many people who would make terrific
teachers, but may not have a teaching degree. People who have worked in
the scientific field and may be retired or just want to teach a class or
two on a subject they are passionate about would be a wonderful
resource for schools who desperately need math and science teachers." and "As
for public. private, home-school, I’ve been a part of or experienced
all three. I think smaller is better, whether it’s public or private.
Student teacher ratios, opportunities for students to be involved in and
try more things, ability for more interaction between teacher and
students individually are huge plusses."
RECOMMENDATIONS. Given the contents of this paper, I have seven recommendations.
1. Federal government involvement
in education has been a dismal failure. The Department of Education
should either be eliminated or dramatically downsized. If retained in a
much smaller capacity its functions should be limited to data
collection, analysis and report of findings. It should not be involved
in collecting or dispensing taxpayer funds for any educational purposes.
It should not establish nationwide one-size-fits-all performance
requirements. It should not attempt to impose unconstitutional top-down
centralized controls directly or indirectly in the education of our
children.
2. States and local communities
are more attuned to the culture, attitudes and needs of their respective
jurisdictions. They should be the ones who establish appropriate rules
and tax policies without any interference by federal officials. Among
the more important rules needed is giving the schools, not unions,
control over hiring and firing of teachers. The rules should focus on
removing underperforming and miscreant teachers based on verifiable
facts while rewarding high performers. Teachers unions should be
abolished. They work for the taxpayers who pay their salaries.
Government (legislators) to government (unions as government teacher
representatives) negotiations have historically conformed to most union
demands at the expense of the interests of taxpayers and school
children.
3. Alternative schools should be
promoted. They serve as a competitor to public schools and this
competition for students (and associated resources) would likely
maximize costs and enhance performance of all involved. Competition for
resources has that effect. Schools, private or public, will rise and
fall based on how well they perform. Consumers of K-12 education decide
who goes to what school, not the government.
4. Curriculum development should
be de-politicized. Parents not only demand but expect that honest,
unbiased and truthful presentation of all subjects be the product of
both texts and instruction.. All propagandization efforts either obvious
or subtle must be removed/eliminated. Textbooks should be screened by
independent subject-matter experts who certify their compliance with
established guidelines. Money spent on compliance with current federal
mandates should be rerouted to support a more robust and honest
curriculum development process.
6. Religious liberty should be
returned to public schools. It is, as the founders repeatedly pointed
out, a means to teach/reinforce morality and virtue. Equal treatment of
the beliefs and historical traditions of all religions should be the
norm. Those that adhere to a religious belief should be able to voice
it. Athiest/secular humanist should not be able to mandate their
positions over all others. The PC police either need to be removed from
their positions of influence or become tolerant citizens.
7. While not covered in this
paper, research found numerous examples of teacher colleges/training
focused more on items such as social justice instruction, racial
studies, gender studies and the like along with the latest teaching
fads. Teacher training needs to focus on legitimate subject matter to be
taught children and not on promoting social or political agendas.
If you agree with some or all of
the contents of this note please share it with others, take up the
banner in your area and help return our children's education back to
those who most care for them - states, local communities and most of all
parents.
Other Sources:
Mansfield, Stephen. Ten Tortured Words. Nashville, TN: 2007
No comments:
Post a Comment