Yeah I know, how the hell did that happen? I was pretty surprised myself as I usually find Mr. Thomas insufferably right wing. But he made good points and I must give, if you'll pardon the pun, the devil his due. Here is what I agreed with.
The decision by U.S. District Judge John E. Jones III to bar the teaching of "intelligent design" in the Dover, Pennsylvania public school district on grounds it is a thinly veiled effort to introduce a religious view of the world's origins is welcome for at least two reasons.
First, it exposes the sham attempt to take through the back door what proponents have no chance of getting through the front door. Judge Jones rebuked advocates of "intelligent design," saying they repeatedly lied about their true intentions. He noted many of them had said publicly that their intent was to introduce into the schools a biblical account of creation. Judge Jones properly wondered how people who claim to have such strong religious convictions could lie, thus violating prohibitions in the Book they proclaim as their source of truth and standard for living.
Culture has long passed by advocates of intelligent design, school prayer and numerous other beliefs and practices that were once tolerated, even promoted, in public education. People who think they can reclaim the past have been watching too many repeats of "Leave it to Beaver" on cable television. Those days are not coming back anytime soon, if at all.
And then he just starts to babble.
Religious parents should exercise the opportunity that has always been theirs. They should remove their children from state schools with their "instruction manuals" for turning them into secular liberals, and place them in private schools - or home school them - where they will be taught the truth, according to their parents' beliefs. Too many parents who would never send their children to a church on Sunday that taught doctrines they believed to be wrong, have had no problem placing them in state schools five days a week where they are taught conflicting doctrines and ideas.
I am one of those individauls who is not usually a big fan of home school. Especially when the reason for keeping your kids home is to protect them from hearing opinions different then your own. You see I think that is the purpose of education. To expand your knowledge base. My daughter and I have differing viewpoints on many topics but the only time we argue is when she expresses an uninformed opinion and then refuses to educate herself concerning the other information.
But still this is a red letter day for me. It marks the very first time that I can remember ever agreeing with the honorable Cal Thomas. I kind of dig it when I get surprised.
I have absolutely no sympathy for either side on this "debate." The judge is absolutely correct that this is not science. On the other hand, those secularists who gleefully celebrate over this decision are overlooking the obvious: It is a terrible turn of events when we have a judge dictating to a local school board what is and is not science. This is really, really worrying, and I wish liberals would stop rubbing their hands together and think about the ramifications here for a moment.
ReplyDeleteI'm not a fan of Thomas, but he is actually quite right on this issue. The core problem is the government monopoly on education. Without that monopoly, this wouldn't be a problem.
- Alaska Jack
Dang, I knew I felt a cold draft from somewhere.
ReplyDeleteWith you on ID and also on home schooling (yes, even libertarian me opposes home schooling). I'm inclined to give considerable latitude to parents instructing their children, be it in kooky conspiracy theories, religious ritual, or anything inbetween. Realistically, you have to get positively Orwellian to prevent it, anyway. But let them do it on their own time and their own dime. Actual academic education should come from an accredited institution, public or private, of their choice.
Obvious solution:
ReplyDelete1. A proper government role: Not to *provide* education (except as necessary), but to *ensure* education is available to everyone.
2. Govt. figures out amount needed to educate a child, then provides every family with a voucher for that amount.
3. Family can spend voucher at public school, or spend it at private school. At a public school, it would cover entire cost. Private schools could charge whatever they wish, so it would either cover the cost, cover part of the cost, or cover all of the cost, plus some extra that would be put in a trust fund for higher education.
4. Anyone who wants to can start a school. Non-profits, for-profits, groups of teachers, groups of parents, doesn't matter. The government's role is to inspect and grant licenses (the same way it handles every other business) and evaluate the results. Renewal of license is subject to meeting standards -- again, just like any other business.
5. A million different types of schools spring up. They all have to meet basic standards as defined by our elected government, but otherwise are free to experiment and innovate. All girl schools. All boys schools. Schools taught by professional teachers. Schools taught by actual subject matter experts (retired mathematicians, former chemists, authors, etc). Schools that focus on vocational preparation. Schools that focus on astronomy. Schools for juvenile delinquents. Schools taught entirely in Portugese. Schools have to compete against each other for kids. Parents can send their kids to whatever school they want, and if they decide none in the area meets their needs, they can form a group with like-minded parents and start their own school: teaching classes themselves; or chipping in to hire professional teachers; or a combination of the two.
OBJECTIONS:
OBJECTION 1. Some people will start kooky schools; a militant Islamic school, for example.
Rejoinder: That's definitely a concern, no question. But
a) those schools will still have to meet educational standards;
b) people can send their kids to such schools (or after-school places) NOW if they want, or teach their kids such things in the home; and
c) We could probably withhold licensing from schools that actually advocated violence and things like that.
OBJECTION 2. (Ironically, a conservative argument) By not giving everyone (or at least the majority) the same education, we lose a sense of commonality; a cultural sameness that unites us and binds us together.
Rejoinder: Again, a reasonable concern. But do you really think this is happening the way things are?
OBJECTION 3. The teacher's unions would go NUCLEAR before they would ever let this happen.
Rejoinder: None, really. Of course they would; that's why we have the schools we do. Allowing a quasi-government monopoly to exercise near-complete control of our most precious resource -- our children -- is INSANE. The monopoly will try to do what ANY monopoly does: Freeze the status quo and defend it to the death.
(Milt Friedman was on Charlie Rose the other night, and he drew this analogy: The government identifies a proper subsidy -- let's say, food. So does it subsidize the *producer*? That is, does it give money to grocery stores, and tell them to provide food to people who live within a certain geographic area? Of course not -- that would be absurd. It subsidizes *consumers*, by giving them vouchers (we call them "food stamps") that they can use wherever they want. The entire model we have set up for education is terrible, from theory to practice.)
So in sum:
ARE THERE PROBLEMS ASSOCIATED WITH THE SCHOOL CHOICE MODEL? Certainly.
ARE THERE FEWER PROBLEMS ASSOCIATED WITH THE SCHOOL CHOICE MODEL, THAN ARE ASSOCIATED WITH WHAT WE DO NOW? No question about it.
- Alaska Jack
I hate it when Jack argues with himself. And then lets himself win.
ReplyDeleteHm? I didn't realize I was arguing. Actually, I was just trying to articulate something I've been thinking about for a while. If you want to argue with me, heck, fire away.
ReplyDelete- AJ