Faith Based Social Welfare

[Coyote]

Okay, one thing I've learned while studying the Islamic movement is that the religious groups tend to work their tendrils into government by offering cheap and high-quality alternatives to government social programs. That is because religiously motivated people, who feel that they are doing good works for the good of their eternal souls, will frequently work either cheaply or for free.

This is how the Muslim Brotherhood got their toehold in world affairs. The Arab governments would engage in vast amounts of wasteful spending (palaces, Swiss banks, flashy defense items, etc) and there would be precious little left to distribute to schools and medical clinics.

Enter the Muslim Brotherhood, a nice collection of religious fellows who would travel village to village and sponsor schools and medical care for the poor, frequently free of charge. The government, eager to be unburdened of these unglamorous projects, let the Brotherhood take over.

Naturally you end up with people who have no marketable skills and their only exposure to reading is from a holy scripture. What little they know they've learned from the MB, and owe everythingt o them. When they go to the Imam for advice on what to do, the Imam steers them to Jihad against the unbelievers in government.

The government, eager to get rid of these malcontents, thinks up an outside enemy that is easy to demonize (in this case, Israel) and says "go forth and Jihad against those infidels instead."

Now... the Ultra-Conservative Bible-Thumping Right is pushing for more and more Faith-Based schools and other social initiatives... In the Scott Peterson trial, Scott was convicted of murder against both Laci and the fetus, thus giving the unborn child status as a full human being. Partial-birth abortion, while rare, is already banned. Creationism is being taught in a few schools as the primary theory to explain the existence of the Earth and life on it.

So-- my question is-- how far will this go, and will the US end up like a Third World shithole where people are taught mostly the Lords Prayer and "Crusade" is the only alternative to a life of jobless welfare? What will the opposition do to prevent this? Or will the rats leave the sinking ship? Or am I blowing the whole thing out of proportion?

[Spice Runner]

In the U.S there is a well established secular and progressive culture. I don't think it can be overturned by a group of extreme fundies. While fundies may have loud voices, I don't believe most people really support them. I suppose the only way to combat this fundie ignorance will be through education. Through the school system.

[General Zod]

In the U.S there is a well established secular and progressive culture. I don't think it can be overturned by a group of extreme fundies. While fundies may have loud voices, I don't believe most people really support them. I suppose the only way to combat this fundie ignorance will be through education. Through the school system.

you have actually been paying attention to the latest elections, haven't you?

[Einhander Sn0m4n]

The school system, particularly in the inner cities, is a lost cause and a joke. I'm also seeing evidence of a concerted effort to deliberately sabotage the education system by all sides for various reasons: Local politicians skimming education money for their own personal gain, and Bush's Anti-Science initiatives at the top level.

They want us to be stupid uneducated cowed sheep. They would think themselves our Lord and Shepherd. Then they would think to march us straight into Hell with their bullshit Crusades of unbridled aggression for their own selfish ends. They think nothing of selling us to the highest bidder and training us to hate on command anyone who gets in their way. We must remind them that they govern only with our consent.

We need to withdraw our consent and rebuild the government to be fair, logical, and not subject to these flights of murderous jingoistic Jihads and Crusades.

[Darth Wong]

In the U.S there is a well established secular and progressive culture. I don't think it can be overturned by a group of extreme fundies. While fundies may have loud voices, I don't believe most people really support them. I suppose the only way to combat this fundie ignorance will be through education. Through the school system.

Didn't you notice how familiar that phrase "faith-based charity" sounded? It was one of Bush's major campaign planks in both 2000 and 2004, after all. Add to that "home schooling" and "religious private schools", and you're looking at a similar phenomenon; people who are being educated by the church, not by the secular state. The question is how far this trend will go and how destructive it will be, not whether the trend exists. Like it or not, the trend does exist, thanks to (and accelerated by) all of the people who voted for George W. Bush.

[Lilith]

In the U.S there is a well established secular and progressive culture. I don't think it can be overturned by a group of extreme fundies. While fundies may have loud voices, I don't believe most people really support them. I suppose the only way to combat this fundie ignorance will be through education. Through the school system.

Schools are under the control and jurisdiction of the local school boards. The federal government cannot control the minutia of curriculum. Aside from the "no child left behind" nonsense, the Bush administration has supported local control over education.

Since schools are "independent," local school councils and boards can vote to have Creationism taught on "equal" footing with Evolution or abandon sex education for abstinance, and so on.

A lot of local school boards in various regions throughout the country are controlled or dominated by fundies. Secular education is under attack. Schools may not be the best outlet for combatting "fundie" ignorance.

[The Duchess of Zeon]

Schools are under the control and jurisdiction of the local school boards. The federal government cannot control the minutia of curriculum. Aside from the "no child left behind" nonsense, the Bush administration has supported local control over education.

Since schools are "independent," local school councils and boards can vote to have Creationism taught on "equal" footing with Evolution or abandon sex education for abstinance, and so on.

A lot of local school boards in various regions throughout the country are controlled or dominated by fundies. Secular education is under attack. Schools may not be the best outlet for combatting "fundie" ignorance.

If I may, Lilith, I am of the opinion that the school system in the United States needs to be centralized for it to become effective again. All the evidence I have seen suggests our schools are less than useless, to put it mildly, and the system needs to be taken under government control and the influence of both extreme right and extreme left groups over the curricula stamped out. There is a tendency, as I see it, for the extreme right to attack hard science education and the extreme left to attack social science education. Textbook manufacturers proceed to oblige them by removing all offensive references. Since between the two sides nothing is found acceptable, the result is textbooks which teach essentially nothing at all. This can only really be solved by centralizing the education system, and moreover, creating a professional civil service bureaucracy for the education system, so that some idiot cannot be appointed as Secretary of Education and then proceed to destroy the system.

Not like I expect any of this to happen anytime soon, but between creationism and our math tests for 8th grade being equivalent to Singapore's for the 2nd grade, oh, and such things like teaching that the Indians before Columbus were absolutely peaceful (Hmm, why did Cahokia have a defensive pallisade again?), it comes down to the fact that the only reason children in school are learning anything at all is thanks to the teachers. We could burn every textbook in the country and we might be better off educationally, the pressure groups have just made the things absolutely worthless.

In general it seems that the successful students go onto college, take lots and lots of remedial courses, and eventually succeed because they're placed in an enviroment where that is possible. Everyone else fails.

[Lusankya]

In the U.S there is a well established secular and progressive culture. I don't think it can be overturned by a group of extreme fundies. While fundies may have loud voices, I don't believe most people really support them. I suppose the only way to combat this fundie ignorance will be through education. Through the school system.

Didn't you notice how familiar that phrase "faith-based charity" sounded? It was one of Bush's major campaign planks in both 2000 and 2004, after all. Add to that "home schooling" and "religious private schools", and you're looking at a similar phenomenon; people who are being educated by the church, not by the secular state. The question is how far this trend will go and how destructive it will be, not whether the trend exists. Like it or not, the trend does exist, thanks to (and accelerated by) all of the people who voted for George W. Bush.

*

Religious private schools doesn't necessarily mean that the schools will enforce their own doctrine on the students. Here, 32% of students attend non-government schools, with that number expected to increase to over 50% of students in the next four years, and I'd say that over 90% of private schools are church-run (the only exceptions I can think of are my school, which was a non-denominational "christian" school, and the two in the city which catered for only years 11 and 12, and were more bridges for university), and I've never seen any evidence of religion dominating the curriculum.

Of course, the culture in Australia is different to that in the US, and while the education systems aren't nationally centralised, the states enforce their own curricula on every school, so religion (if it is taught) tends to be more of a general overview of different religions (at least that's how it was at my cousins' anglican schools). There are also standardised tests that are made at regular intervals, which help the government to find areas of the curriculum which need to be improved. They can also be used to find out which schools are teaching their students rubbish, though I don't think that really happens.

Catholic schools are somewhat different, but since you generally have to already be Catholic to attend them, it's not such a big deal, and in any case they don't go around teaching bigotry or creationism, so there's not too much to worry about there.


* Please note: the impression I get from down here in SA is that not much of this applies to Queensland, but I could be wrong about that.

[Xon]

Of course, the culture in Australia is different to that in the US, and while the education systems aren't nationally centralised, the states enforce their own curricula on every school, so religion (if it is taught) tends to be more of a general overview of different religions (at least that's how it was at my cousins' anglican schools). There are also standardised tests that are made at regular intervals, which help the government to find areas of the curriculum which need to be improved. They can also be used to find out which schools are teaching their students rubbish, though I don't think that really happens.

Education in Australia is centralised to a relatively large degree however. the Federal government does fund the school systems and gets a say into exactly what gets included into the curriculum, but leaves the details to the states.

And standardised tests are compulsory, dont sit them dont pass the courses which require them. Which is a good thing.

For example the end of year highschool exams are all standardised tests, while there are seperate organizations for each state controlling them, the results for any of them are transferable across state lines.

[Broomstick]

So-- my question is-- how far will this go, and will the US end up like a Third World shithole where people are taught mostly the Lords Prayer and "Crusade" is the only alternative to a life of jobless welfare? What will the opposition do to prevent this? Or will the rats leave the sinking ship? Or am I blowing the whole thing out of proportion?

Hmm... Just this week I was discussing how in both California and Michigan two faith-based schools were established that had the Fundies shitting bricks ... the faith in question being "Neo-Paganism". The same laws and lobbying that lead to the Fundies getting their charter schools and home schooling allowed the evil Pagans to get a foot in the door as well.

Of course, one could argue that Pagan fanatics are just as bad and irrational as Christian or Muslim or Jewish or anything else fanatics. But my point is that Fundies aren't the only faithful. Likewise, there is nothing to prevent an organization of atheists from setting up schools or providing charity work, either.

Having been through a time in my life when I survived by eating in soup kitchens and got chartiable donations, I can say that while many such organizations are, indeed, faith-based they do not make being a member of their faith a requirement for their services. Although there are exceptions - I remember one occassion where a church was adamant that I had to provide a baptismal certificate or other proof of being "saved" before receiving one of their charity boxes of food and and clothing. The idea being that you used misfortune to pressure people into coverting, or some such, but like I said, they were very much the exception and I simply went down the road to the next church, who imposed no such requirements.

Then again, we're talking about a pluralistic society where there are many competing faiths. Quite a different situation where there is only ONE faith in the area, and stern pressures are applied to force people to join.

Which makes a theocracy less likely (although not impossible) in the US - too many factions that can compete with each other.

[Broomstick]

Catholic schools are somewhat different, but since you generally have to already be Catholic to attend them, it's not such a big deal, and in any case they don't go around teaching bigotry or creationism, so there's not too much to worry about there.

Not in the US.

Here in the US the Catholic church will happily enroll non-Catholics in their schools. Non-Catholics are not excused from religious studies which, of course, have a Catholic bias. However, in speaking with a dozen or so non-Catholics I've known who have attended Catholic learning institutions this did not automatically mean stifling of the "opposition" and in at least one Catholic college in the Chicago area (Loyola) non-Catholics were able to satisfy their religious study requirements in comparative religion classes as opposed to classes geared more to the devout Catholic.

Of course, they're hoping the non-Catholics will convert....

[salm]

So-- my question is-- how far will this go, and will the US end up like a Third World shithole where people are taught mostly the Lords Prayer and "Crusade" is the only alternative to a life of jobless welfare? What will the opposition do to prevent this? Or will the rats leave the sinking ship? Or am I blowing the whole thing out of proportion?

Hmm... Just this week I was discussing how in both California and Michigan two faith-based schools were established that had the Fundies shitting bricks ... the faith in question being "Neo-Paganism". The same laws and lobbying that lead to the Fundies getting their charter schools and home schooling allowed the evil Pagans to get a foot in the door as well.

the problem i see is that this development sucks just as much. in an extreme example all faiths would have their own schools. there wouldn´t be that much exchange between different faiths anymore and the different religious groups could become quite segregated.

[Lilith]

If I may, Lilith, I am of the opinion that the school system in the United States needs to be centralized for it to become effective again. All the evidence I have seen suggests our schools are less than useless, to put it mildly, and the system needs to be taken under government control and the influence of both extreme right and extreme left groups over the curricula stamped out. There is a tendency, as I see it, for the extreme right to attack hard science education and the extreme left to attack social science education. Textbook manufacturers proceed to oblige them by removing all offensive references. Since between the two sides nothing is found acceptable, the result is textbooks which teach essentially nothing at all. This can only really be solved by centralizing the education system, and moreover, creating a professional civil service bureaucracy for the education system, so that some idiot cannot be appointed as Secretary of Education and then proceed to destroy the system.

I agree with you Marina (and hello to you!) that some type of a centralized education curriculum would be a positive move forward and it will only work if politics is taken out of the equation. I think we desperately need a national dialogue on what it is that we want in regards to education. That actually could be a fun debate--pop some popcorn and watch the fanatics on both sides go at it. After, those left standing may have some constructive thing to say.

In this light, I can't see how more publicly funded faith based education will help in the matter of improving the education system. At the same time, I can't envision communities allowing for greater centralized control over their local education system...too much is at stake.

A few weeks ago, the Texas board of education passed a requirement for all Biology textbooks have a disclaimer sticker about evolution. Since Texas is the second largest school district it will be cheaper for the manufacturer to simply put that sticker on all textbooks it sells in the region rather than only for the Texas textbooks.

Is any of this a move towards a theocracy? I don't know. But there is an increased blurring of the line between state and religion.

[Gil Hamilton]

A centralized education system would be nice if executed right, but it fails largely due to the fact that no one would go along with it. Both the far right and the extreme far left are already paranoid about the state trying to brainwash their kids with the other peoples ideology, trying to bring schools under the federal wing would cause a riot.

[Coyote]

But Faith-Based social systems will probably move ahead-- for two major reasopns. One, the Fundies intend to push the political angle on Faith-Based education to the hilt. They see this election as an endorsement by "the Majority" of this agenda. (That it is a paper-thin majority seems not to phase them).

The second reason will be because it is cheaper, and that will affect a lot of people's descisions, especially in rural areas where the alternative is no education at all. Or, a local government can spend $10-mil on a school, or, go 50-50 with a church and pay only $5-mil.

And unfortunately this will attract a lot of people who are not necessarily agenda-minded, but asimply like the idea of their kid learning "good ol' fashioned values" at school.

If half your teachers are willing to work "for the good of the Lord" and little more, how can a cash-strapped school turn that away?

[Enforcer Talen]

if they value their education and the teachers arent teaching, easily

[sketerpot]

If I may, Lilith, I am of the opinion that the school system in the United States needs to be centralized for it to become effective again. All the evidence I have seen suggests our schools are less than useless, to put it mildly, and the system needs to be taken under government control and the influence of both extreme right and extreme left groups over the curricula stamped out.

I'm in one of the better high schools, so my experience may not be typical. That said, I've thought that a lot of individual classes were worthless---but there are some good classes, too. I have one truly pathetic "job skills" class where I have to covertly read my Calculus textbok to avoid keeling over from boredom, but it's more than balanced out by my excellent physiology, math, and Spanish classes. It's wrong to lump everything in our schools together (unless there are lots of schools that really are totally worthless, in which case I think I'll just lie in the fetal position for a while).

There is a tendency, as I see it, for the extreme right to attack hard science education and the extreme left to attack social science education. Textbook manufacturers proceed to oblige them by removing all offensive references. Since between the two sides nothing is found acceptable, the result is textbooks which teach essentially nothing at all.

Fortunately, I haven't seen textbooks like that in a while. In a biology textbook, you do learn biology (although for some reason nobody told us anything about evolution until high school biology---I can see how that could have been a big problem if it we didn't have a good high school science teacher). In the social studies books... well, history textbooks generally suck for some reason (why the hell do they waste so much time on their Noble Savage fixation?), but I had a pretty solid American Government textbook. I'm not seeing an abundance of worthless textbooks except in history. Does anybody have examples?

I do remember that for a long time, the schools seemed determined to indoctrinate us with environmentalist made-up scary bullshit. I actually got the impression that Greenpeace folks were not raving lunatics. I also got a bit worried about some "fact" about how all the landfills were due to fill up in the year 2000.

This can only really be solved by centralizing the education system, and moreover, creating a professional civil service bureaucracy for the education system, so that some idiot cannot be appointed as Secretary of Education and then proceed to destroy the system.

Agreed.

Not like I expect any of this to happen anytime soon, but between creationism and our math tests for 8th grade being equivalent to Singapore's for the 2nd grade

What level is that? I'm particularly interested in this one because I always got the feeling that at least two years of elementary and middle school math education could be cut out and leave us all better off. As far as I'm concerned, algebra is math level 2.

oh, and such things like teaching that the Indians before Columbus were absolutely peaceful (Hmm, why did Cahokia have a defensive pallisade again?), it comes down to the fact that the only reason children in school are learning anything at all is thanks to the teachers. We could burn every textbook in the country and we might be better off educationally, the pressure groups have just made the things absolutely worthless.

There are lots of quite worthwhile textbooks. Or were you just using hyperbole?

In general it seems that the successful students go onto college, take lots and lots of remedial courses, and eventually succeed because they're placed in an enviroment where that is possible. Everyone else fails.

Alright, your Grace (and anybody else), here's a fun idea: describe your ideal education system.

My ideal education system would make it possible for people to be placed in classes paced to their abilities, rather than going for about the lower 1/3 of the class and screwing everybody else. And it would have your bureaucracy behind it making sure that the extreme left and right don't mess up the curriculum.

[Boyish-Tigerlilly]

We need to withdraw our consent and rebuild the government to be fair, logical, and not subject to these flights of murderous jingoistic Jihads and Crusades.

That might be hard with the death grip christians have on the congress and executive branch and slowly, education.

I think I have an article, quite scary, that shows over like 40 million fundamentalists in the US.

[frigidmagi]

You realize that there are over 260 million Americans right? Yes they're a large block, but they're not about to swarm us under if we get out shit togather.

[The Duchess of Zeon]

I'm in one of the better high schools, so my experience may not be typical. That said, I've thought that a lot of individual classes were worthless---but there are some good classes, too. I have one truly pathetic "job skills" class where I have to covertly read my Calculus textbok to avoid keeling over from boredom, but it's more than balanced out by my excellent physiology, math, and Spanish classes. It's wrong to lump everything in our schools together (unless there are lots of schools that really are totally worthless, in which case I think I'll just lie in the fetal position for a while).

Your experience is indeed better than average. I have seen with my own eyes, problems from maths tests, shown to me by a friend who is an English teacher at a high school, which do not require any math to solve. There was also a national study done by an independent organization--I don't have the link now but will post it when I can get it--that demonstrated that 40% of math problems on American standardized tests for the 8th grade are comparable to 1st and 2nd grade math problems in Singapore. Or in otherwords, perhaps up to half of the material children are being tested on is between six and seven years behind that of some Asian countries in mathematics.

Fortunately, I haven't seen textbooks like that in a while. In a biology textbook, you do learn biology (although for some reason nobody told us anything about evolution until high school biology---I can see how that could have been a big problem if it we didn't have a good high school science teacher).

You're lucky, then. I'm trying to track down a copy of this book that goes in detail into what's being done by interest groups to our textbooks and I'll post excerpts if I find it anytime soon (I know it exists, I just forgot the title), or start a new thread if not. Perhaps someone else knows of it.

In the social studies books... well, history textbooks generally suck for some reason (why the hell do they waste so much time on their Noble Savage fixation?), but I had a pretty solid American Government textbook. I'm not seeing an abundance of worthless textbooks except in history. Does anybody have examples?

It's largely for political reasons that they're fixated with the Noble Savage. Extreme liberals want to believe that "whitie" is responsible for every wrong in the world and that the only atonement possible is to make white males hate themselves for being the cause of all atrocious things that have ever happened. Extreme conservatives, on the other hand, don't want people to know that God has motivated people to kill, so they ascribe the crusades to economic reasons. The later ones were, but the First Crusade was a Mass Movement if I ever saw one.

I do remember that for a long time, the schools seemed determined to indoctrinate us with environmentalist made-up scary bullshit. I actually got the impression that Greenpeace folks were not raving lunatics. I also got a bit worried about some "fact" about how all the landfills were due to fill up in the year 2000.

Oh yes, that's quite common, along with, of course, scare-teaching about nuclear waste which is completely false, and the destructiveness of nuclear war; both of those actually undermine science--as does a fair amount of the other enviromentalist claims--and thus ironically support the fundamentalists.

What level is that? I'm particularly interested in this one because I always got the feeling that at least two years of elementary and middle school math education could be cut out and leave us all better off. As far as I'm concerned, algebra is math level 2.

Oops, sorry, I cheerfully tossed in that statistic above.

There are lots of quite worthwhile textbooks. Or were you just using hyperbole?

The trend is so large that it's possible generalize.

Alright, your Grace (and anybody else), here's a fun idea: describe your ideal education system.

Teaching should focus on hard science and mathematics from middle school onwards. By the time of middle school you should have a firm grounding in basic mathematics so that the first math class in middle schoo in the first yearl is pre-algebra. You should be able to compose papers easily for those classes by the time you leave elementary school, and easily read novels with good comprehension. Most everything else is irrelevant, the real learning will happen in middle school and high school (which would consist of sixth to twelfth grade in my plan), and first to fifth grade would exist for making sure you're damn good at basic mathematics, competent writing, and reading comprehension. Anything else that is taught to you then is just going to be a watered down propaganda version to begin with, so just toss it out.

The school year would be organized into four quarters, each ten weeks long plus a finals week, in a style that would hopefully naturally get one used to college. There would be no extended summer break; studies have proven that just causes some students to fall behind. Instead, between each quarter there would be a break about exactly two weeks long (for a total of four such two week breaks). That would be combined with a reduced workload per quarter to spread out the learning and prevent a practice of, essentially, class-cramming that goes on today.

Once middle school begins the hard-science focus would be almost complete, but would be critically levelled out by the falling classical instruction: Education in great works of literature (and I don't mean reading the same bloody book over and over, I mean things like Plato's Republic and works of Mill and Macauley, that sort of thing) would be complimented with instruction in latin and greek to gain a better understand of english grammar and the founding principles of our Republic. Works of the great authors of those languages would be heavily emphasized; English authors come next followed by those of Germany, French, Italian, and Russian origin and at some point I'd want to make everyone read The Romance of the Three Kingdoms to give them an idea of the historical influences in China and the Sinicized regions, along with several works of the relevant philosophers.

In general there would be three classes a quarter for a total of twelve a year but these would be relatively intense. You could expect to have one class be of mathematics, one of a hard science, and one of a "classical" or "liberal arts" nature each quarter. Gradually Oratory would be taught as part of the relevant classical education, and the focus would narrow in to influences on our government. Students would be taught how it works by reading the works that inspired the Framers to make the constitution the way it is, along with their own writings (Federalist papers, etc). Computers would not be introduced into the classroom until highschool at least and no mathematics class would allow calculators, period (though just before graduation you perhaps might take a class instructing you in how to properly use a graphing calculator and certain other programmable mathematics aspects). People need to learn how to do things without the aide of computers and calculators before they do them with their aide. A foreign language would be taught in addition to the mandatory latin and greek, and they would be practical languages for the modern world--Hindi, the far eastern tongues, perhaps Arabic. Only Spanish and Portuguese of the European languages is really worth learning if you have a firm grounding in the classical languages to begin with.

Hard science classes would be exactly that. You would approach biology from the perspective of a the interaction of chemicals and study into genetics. There would be no political interference here--you would learn exactly how things work and why they work and that is that. Engineering and physics would have the first priority; computer science would be relatively secondary as more and more students are quite capable in that area at home from their private use of computers.

In arts classes you would not be taught how to do any of the arts; if you want to do that you would go to college. Instead they would be integrated into the liberal arts education in the form of the appreciation of proper artistic form and distinguishing real art from improper art; education would include teaching the meaning of particular artwork and the theme they are intended to focus upon. Music would largely be in the same category. Later on music would be an optional additional class for those committed enough to learn an instrument whilst maintaining all the other demands of school.

Another key component is health. There must be a healthy mind--and a healthy body. In addition to your three classes a quarter you would also have daily exercise. This period would last for at least one hour and feature intensive physical exertion, ranging from running to weightlifting training. The goal would be to keep children active and prevent the unhealthiness of the modern obesity epidemic from gaining to great of a grip. The beginnings of this process, focusing lots of running and stretching, would be very young to prevent difficulties later on. Any sports taken on would again be in addition to this, not a substitute to it. School meals of course would be quite rigorous in their healthiness and outside food would be banned.

To conclude, I'd also use this as a convenient way to eliminate concerns about firearms. I'd have a class series (mandatory for graduation) that would teach proper handling, maintainence, safety procedures, and discipline when using firearms, along with aiming and fire-discipline, etc. If everyone knows how to properly use a firearm, most of the concerns about their widespread circulation in this country would vanish; since we can't make it a mandate for people to learn how to use them before they buy them, why not just teach it to them and school and make it mandatory for graduation?

[The Duchess of Zeon]

I agree with you Marina (and hello to you!)

You need to sign on AIM more so we can talk more! Glad to see you, though, regardless!

that some type of a centralized education curriculum would be a positive move forward and it will only work if politics is taken out of the equation. I think we desperately need a national dialogue on what it is that we want in regards to education. That actually could be a fun debate--pop some popcorn and watch the fanatics on both sides go at it. After, those left standing may have some constructive thing to say.

The problem is I think they never run out of air! I am not sure that anything is going to change anytime soon, frankly. The problem with No Child Left Behind, for instance, is that though I don't have a problem with more testing, it's not addressing what is making people flunk it in the first place. It's just a test, without any support in the curriculum to help people pass it. Which doesn't mean I think that the testing standards should be ditched--they're a step forward. They're just worthless unless people are actually being taught material which will allow them to pass those tests.

I just outlined my ideal education system for that matter, but I strongly suspect that nobody would do anything approaching that, and even the people who might are largely oddball longshots for the President (Arnold, for instance, is certainly inventive enough and has a tendency to run roughshod over liberals and conservatives alike).

In this light, I can't see how more publicly funded faith based education will help in the matter of improving the education system. At the same time, I can't envision communities allowing for greater centralized control over their local education system...too much is at stake.

Don't give them a choice? Sometimes you just really have to beat people over their heads to do what's right for them, the problem being that Congress standards for election, the House in particular, and they might worry about the fallout. The positive side is that with so many safe seats these days, in the future that very corrupt nature of gerrymandering districts might actually turn out to have a positive effect.

A few weeks ago, the Texas board of education passed a requirement for all Biology textbooks have a disclaimer sticker about evolution. Since Texas is the second largest school district it will be cheaper for the manufacturer to simply put that sticker on all textbooks it sells in the region rather than only for the Texas textbooks.

Is any of this a move towards a theocracy? I don't know. But there is an increased blurring of the line between state and religion.

I don't think it's theocratic on the simple grounds that a theocracy is directly controlled by religious leaders. On the other hand, the Church ran the education system in France for the longest time, even after the revolution there were church schools, right up until the 1890s or so. So this isn't unprecedented in a western and industrialized state, just a large step backward for one--but not remotely medieval or somesuch.

[Illuminatus Primus]

Where did the civics and history education come in? I missed any sort of focus in those areas, Marina, and while I agree your proposal would produce much more generally healthy citizens, I do not see specific preparation for participation as part of the electorate.

[Gil Hamilton]

You realize that there are over 260 million Americans right? Yes they're a large block, but they're not about to swarm us under if we get out shit togather.

Fundie Zerg Rush! Kekekekekeke!

[The Duchess of Zeon]

Where did the civics and history education come in? I missed any sort of focus in those areas, Marina, and while I agree your proposal would produce much more generally healthy citizens, I do not see specific preparation for participation as part of the electorate.

Between the classical works of those who wrote in Latin and Greek, and the classic works of those who wrote in English, there is no part of history which is uncovered. The job of the teacher would be to provide a counterbalance to the biases which sometimes creep up in those works but generally they're good enough to stand on their own. Gibbon, for example, critiques the events around the death of Christ in a better way than anyone before or since. Civics education is a part of learning proper Oratory skills since Oratory is, properly, a political skill, for example. But moreover studying the works of those authors who inspired our founding fathers--Cicero, Montesquieu, and Locke--is what provides the true core of such an education and an appreciation for the mechanisms of the government of a Republic.

[Illuminatus Primus]

Another thing; banning the use of calculators once one has achieved pre-calculus or basic calculus seems needlessly time-consuming. Someone forced to trudge through all algebra, geometry Euclidian and otherwise, and trigonometry has achieved competence at plotting graphs of most types, all forms of arithmetic and algebraic work with only their mind, paper, and pencil. Aside from requiring at least introductory lessons to be done without a calculator and ensuring the students remain competent at plotting graphs and algebra, it seems to me at that stage continued banning of calculators will just slow the progress of class and reduce the volume and rate of work the students can reasonably absorb, and thus learn.

Also, I feel that enforcing a pair lenguas francas such as Latin and Greek seems wasteful. As a student of Spanish is able to read professional texts, I have never found a translated text that would not suffice for the purposes of classical education, be it history or literature. That time can be invested in further science and math education, as well as further education in more modern theories and events. For example there is a drought of organic chemistry education at the high school level which is part of the reason that the class has become such a contrived litmus test for prospective medical students.

I simply do not think better understanding of English grammar and perhaps a somewhat more clear perception of the classic histories is an effective profit considering the amount of time invested in effectively teaching both Latin and Greek to students.