Posted on 01/24/2007 3:02:32 PM PST by Tim Long
Evolution battles caused by politically powerful Cato Institute says solution is simple: Allow choice
A new study is blaming the monolithic public school system being used in the United States for the estimated 150 major battles over the course of the last year over religion, evolutionary theory, slogans on T-shirts, the "gay" agenda and other points of contention.
"All across the country, public schools threw Americans' fundamental values into conflict during the 2005-2006 school year – whether over intelligent design, dress codes, controversial school books, or sundry other divisive topics," said the study by Neal McCluskey, policy analyst with the Cato Institute's Center for Educational Freedom.
"This was not an aberration. American history is littered with an endless series of such conflicts, and the problem has only grown worse as public school systems have become more centralized and the nation more diverse," he said. "These conflicts are not only inescapable under our monolithic system of official schools, they are actually caused by it.
(Story continues below)
"Different cultural, ethnic, and religious groups have no choice but to enter the political melee if they want to see their values taught and desires met by the public schools," he said.
The study, titled, "Why We Fight: How Public Schools Cause Social Conflict," also offered a solution:
"So is American education doomed to eternal acrimony? Thankfully, it doesn't have to be. If public education were driven by free parental choice, it could escape the Balkanizing battles that plague our current system, because individual parents could choose schools that comport with their values, and there would be no need to fight over public schools for which all must pay, but only the most politically powerful can control."
The study notes that many Americans believe public schools are the "gentle flame beneath the Great American Melting Pot," and that through them, differing cultures, religions and life choices can meld into a cohesive society.
However, the truth is anything but that, the report said. "Public schooling forces everyone to pay for a single official system that does not – and indeed cannot – reflect the public's diverse and often conflicting views. The inevitable result of this system … is endless social discord over what is taught," the study noted.
"Indeed, rather than bringing people together, public school often forces people of disparate backgrounds and beliefs into political combat. This paper tracks almost 150 such incidents in the 2005-2006 school year alone. Whether over the teaching of evolution, the content of library books, religious expression in the schools, or several other common points of contention, conflict was constant in American public education last year," McCluskey said.
"To end the fighting caused by state-run schooling, we should transform our system from one in which the government establishes and controls schools, to one in which individual parents are empowered to select schools that share their moral values and education goals for children," he said.
In other words, attach the money that now is being allocated by state and local taxing districts to the students, instead of the schools. Schools then could compete for the students, teaching a reflection of the values those students' families hold dear, he said during an online forum on the report.
"Public school does not overcome diversity and somehow make people into one," he said. "It forces diverse people to fight for their values."
The institute, which rejects descriptions for itself such as "conservative" or "liberal," says it pursues the "principles of the American Revolution – individual liberty, limited government, the free market, and the rule of law."
"The Jeffersonian philosophy that animates Cato's work has increasingly come to be called 'libertarianism' or 'market liberalism.' It combines an appreciation for entrepreneurship, the market process, and lower taxes with strict respect for civil liberties and skepticism about the benefits of both the welfare state and foreign military adventurism."
Its study found over the last year only one state – Wyoming – did not have "divisive, values-laden school warfare." Eighteen states had wrestling matches over "intelligent design." In Dover, Pa., the dispute over a plan to have students read a statement that evolution is a theory ended up in federal court. It was not uncommon for townspeople to refuse to speak with those on the other side of the dispute, the report noted.
It found that freedom of expression battles raged, especially over the issue of illegal immigration, and a student in California was penalized for having an American flag in her pocket.
Book-banning fights erupted in eight states, and racial issues hit a boiling point when a black state senator in Nebraska tried to create a school district where blacks would be the majority in population and in control.
Thirteen states battled with themselves over sex education, and another eight had issues with teaching homosexuality. In Massachusetts, one parent objected when a school superintendent allowed second-graders to be taught a book about two "gay" princes kissing and marrying. "They're trying to indoctrinate our children," said parent Robin Wirthlin.
"Imposing government-run schooling on every American – the opposite of freedom and choice – has been the cause of constant social and political conflict, while enabling people to select schools that reflect their own values, use the curricula they desire, and so on, is essential to defusing social conflict," the report found.
McCluskey previously taught high school English and worked at the Center for Education Reform, where he studied subjects ranging from cyber charter schools to class size.
Evolution is not "reality". It's speculation. What you are saying is you want my tax dollars to fund propaganda being shoved down the throats of my children to indoctrinate them to your viewpoint (and many scientists admitedly) because the childs minds are much more pliable when they are young. In other words -- brainwashing.
School reform or choice is really no different from our current system - it's just that different schools will emphasize various "career interests."
The only way to have education freedom is to allow private schools to compete equally with public schools and have vouchers. And please, allow these private schools to actually teach from a christian worldview!
Nah- just lurkin waiting for soem actual relevent discussion questions.
Thanks
Basically yeah- that's the bottom line. Good points.
I'm sure you have all the right answers queued up.
sorry about the run on there are some added comments towards the end that get lost in the runon.. format didn't transfer over well..
mainly secularism fits # 4 definition...
calls its self non-religion based on # 1....
They are still doing well in spite of free market competition and some complaints that they run too much in the foreground.
I understand that. But the argument that secularism and Christianity are both religions is an exercise in sophistry, easily demonstrated by the fact that the same definition of "religion" is not being applied to both.
I work in IT, and it's fairly common among programmers to speak of strict adherance to a particular programming methodology or structure as "religious". That doesn't mean that anyone went out and joined the Church of Python.
actually #4 can be applied to both, christianity and secularism fall under that definition.
you'll have to point where in ANY of the definition, require joining a "church".
So do a great many other things, as demonstrated by the example I provided. Are you prepared to deal with the consequences of making anything that would fit that description a "religion" for the purposes of this debate, including the legal and constitutional issues involving "religion"? Will you submit that all of these things have a legitimate place in, and deserve equal treatment in the Religion forum on this board?
Seclorum actually means "of the ages". Not sure what that has to do with humanism (or black helecopters).
I didn't create this site nor did I title the forum, you will have to ask JR. precisely because of the ambiguity of the term, If it were my site I never have a "religion" forum.
I mean a term that can accurately include such mutually exclusive beliefs, such as belief that man is the highest authority/intellect, and one that God is the highest authority/intellect. hardly gets to the truth of the main premises.
Okay. Now, does every instance of the term "secular" meet that criteria?
Which of these definitions of "secular" are you asserting is the common usage, and implies a denial of God?
Main Entry: 1sec·u·lar
Pronunciation: 'se-ky&-l&r
Function: adjective
Etymology: Middle English, from Anglo-French seculer, from Late Latin saecularis, from saeculum the present world, from Latin, generation, age, century, world; akin to Welsh hoedl lifetime
1 a : of or relating to the worldly or temporal b : not overtly or specifically religious c : not ecclesiastical or clerical
2 : not bound by monastic vows or rules; specifically : of, relating to, or forming clergy not belonging to a religious order or congregation
3 a : occurring once in an age or a century b : existing or continuing through ages or centuries c : of or relating to a long term of indefinite duration
1a, when applied to premises behind politics and policies as I stated
worldly and temporal, man is highest authority/intellect,
religiously following a worldly and temporal premise seems to exclude "heavenly" and infinite.
so as not to distract,
better put "relying on worldly and temporal premise, implies an exclusion of "heavenly" and infinite
worldly and temporal, man is highest authority/intellect,
religiously following a worldly and temporal premise seems to exclude "heavenly" and infinite.
And you submit that in the political arena, when people make reference to "secular government", or describing any particular policy as "secular" they are using that definition and meaning, rather than b : not overtly or specifically religious ?
On what do you base this assertion, and on what basis do you amend the definition to make it explicitly theistic?
by the actions and words of those that claim to be secular, they adhere to a system of belief that preaches the exclution of a heavenly and infinite authority from having any authority over policies and politics..
its been fun must get going.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.