Bruno,
You're right about all this. There's a lot of stuff about the religion of public schooling that we don't know about nor have been fully researched. We even have judges ordering schools to teach the pseudo-science of evolution & forcing states not to teach the critical objections to it that modern scientists take seriously. We need a big movement to make government schools unconstitutional.

Hi Mr. Behrend:

We haven't visited for a while.

Again, interesting views on education. Your bolded "change agent" and talk of the priesthood" is obviously again, aimed at me, because I'm a teacher. Again, I'll point out that I don't (nor do most teachers) really want to "indoctrinate sheep" or get them to "do my will" as we've previously discussed. I just want to teach kids the most math and science concepts that I can before they go to college, to work, or to the military.

You'll be happy to know that I'm looking into charter school application processes for my state - not because I feel that I belong to a "priesthood" of "sheep indoctrinators", but because I am sick of my school's administration!

HAVE A HAPPY NEW YEAR, Mr. Behrend. Nothing is truly as bad as you blog it to be. Hope you know that.

Sincerely, Denise

I AM Happy! and I wish you much luck (if it's anything like IL, you'll need it)

I really do appreciate the fact that you feel things aren't as bad as I 'blog it to be' (copyright that before I do), I simply (and respectfully) disagree.

This may be a function of both different outlooks and experience, but the fact remains that, based upon my worldview and experience, things are REALLY bad.

Note that I don't accuse any one individual of wanting to "brainwash" a "nation of sheep."

I merely point out that indoctrination is (or was) a stated a goal of the public education system, even if most members aren't conscious of that fact.

I take great comfort from the fact that you are leaving. The Dark Side only appears more powerful. The Light side always wins in the end. People like me know how it all turns out.

Is that the same Blumenfeld who decided that evolution was crap because no one has ever mated a dog with a donkey and come up with something in between?

J.D.

I don't know for sure exactly what Blumenfeld wrote about evolution, but it is conceivable that such an example was used (though I don't know that I accept your version of it off-hand). Find me the reference, and I'll comment on it.

I don't pretend to know all the answers about life's origins (funny how many teachers with less education and/or studying the issue appear to), but I DO think that the view that the Universe exists for a REASON is a far more REASONABLE and RATIONAL view that the insane notion that it just popped into existence by accident.

I tend to believe God (however one may view the concept) and evolution can exist in the same space. I also find it interesting that for something that calls itself "Science" precludes various causes a priori - simply by calling them "supernatural", when in fact, it may be perfectly "natural", yet unknown.

You may call into question Mr. Blumenfeld's views (and his examples) to your heart's content. This may reflect on his credibility.

I've read numerous books on education, schools, curricula, etc. and Blumenfeld seems to be very accurate in his critiques of America's Public Schools.

Decades of spending growth (in real terms) with declining results (dumbed down and 're-normed' tests that still show flat results) - all encapsulated in numerous "fake" (OBE, etc.) reforms indicate that something is seriously wrong.

I appreciated your thoughts on this topic. I believe you will find that the homosexual agenda is also being "preached" in the public schools. This discussion should also include consideration of the truth of an underlying premise in public education: that it is possible to educate (in the truest sense of the word) children without making a statement or taking a position on God. Refusing to mention God in a science class or history class IS a statement about God. I am a lawyer in Indiana and I would love to see someone take a broad shot at the constitutionality of taking my tax dollars to teach my children that God has nothing to do with our human existence and no place in our daily lives.

I think the right question is "According to the Constitution, can the Federal government be involved in education?" To that I believe the answer is no. I think state and local governments can be involved in education.

Yes, schools do indoctrinate and teach a worldview. The courts have ruled in he past that Atheism is a religion. I believe they will one day do the same with secular humanism. It is a worldview and it is being taught daily in the public schools. It does need to be challenged.

Public schools do not have to be funded by the State. They can be funded by the public like they started out. The sooner we separate the State from the Schools the better off all our kids will be.

If the Constitution prohibits the Federal government from being involved in education, or more appropriately "formation", then it also prohibits state and local governments from being involved. Technically, the First Amendment, by its terms, only applied to Congress ("Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof"). However, the Supreme Court has applied the First Amendment to the states through the 14th Amendment. In addition, most states have constitutions with provisions similar to the Bill of Rights. The question really is whether it is possible to truly have a "values-free" educational system. That notion in retrospect seems flawed. Someone's values are going to be taught (either directly or by omission) in any true education. The notion that education can be stripped of values, and indirectly, religious views is false. One can imagine a compulsory educational system in which the government does not actually provide the education.

Robert,

I think there is a slight flaw in your otherwise reasonable comment - and it was in the last sentence.

Though I don't come right out and say it in Soccer Mom land, the fact is that education simply can't be "cumpulsory" in a free society.

Some may argue that I'm wrong and point out that it is cumpulsory now. I'd argue that you lead a kid to school, but can't make him think.

The "cumpulsory" canard serves Big Ed, in that they then argue that they "have to take everybody." This soundbite is the foundation for all of the run-up in Social Worker/Psychologist bloat, as well as nonsensical mandates.

This is why it is so important to free schools from "Administration" from above, and make every school a charter.

Next, you have to "Fund Children - Not Dsitricts" through individual scholarships.

If some one doesn't want to send their kid to school, what right should government have to force them? They just don't get a scholarship.

In a democracy, I think the government has a legitimate interest in requiring parents to educate their children. That, however, is an entirely different issue from who should do the educating. I would be in favor of a universal voucher program that divides the total dollars available for education by the number of students in a district and makes a check payable to parents who have an obligation to send their kids somewhere (or do it themselves at home) for an education. Those who think Baptist, Catholic, Muslim or non-sectarian schools are a bad idea could start their own school and teach kids whatever values seem appropriate to them. It would seem that the government needs to be involved only to levy the tax because the tax base that supports education is broader than just families with school-aged children.

Provide for the general welfare - it's right there in the Constitution.

That's what education does - provide for the general welfare.

Robert,

Why even use a district? They do nothing. If a locality is rich enough to fund schools, let them give it to the school

(I argue that all schools should be charters and that districts are merely engines of waste.)

Katy,

That is in the Preamble, not the text of the constitution. A court may decide to use it a ground for reasoning, but a dictator could use it for exterminating their enemies just as easily.

Next, our current education system DOES NOT provide for the general welfare. Our schools are underperforming and overfunded. Our kids can't compete with the OECD and we will see dramatic declines in our standard of living if this education system isn't rebuilt (along the lines of choice) from the ground up.

The current system provides for the "Specific Welfare" of a politically powerful protected class, AT THE EXPENSE OF THE GENERAL WELFARE.

Government schools are not only inconsistent with the Establishment Clause, but they are also fundamentally inconsistent with free speech rights. See:

Teens miss the First Amendment's Point at http://www.myshortpencil.com/schooltalk/cgi-bin/show.cgi?tpc=2&post=13130#POST13130

For Their Own Good: Limit Students' Rights at
http://www.myshortpencil.com/schooltalk/cgi-bin/show.cgi?tpc=2&post=13130#POST13130

and

Free speech? at
http://www.myshortpencil.com/schooltalk/cgi-bin/show.cgi?tpc=2&post=8063#POST8063

There is no exception written into the First Amendment that says if government really wants to do something that the First Amendment makes too difficult then the First Amendment may be set aside. In fact, the purpose of the First Amendment was to prevent government from doing exactly that.