Sayonara

This will be my last post on this blog. It has been an interesting venture, but I need to invest my time in better things. I will continue writing about education, but on a different site, to which I will NOT provide a link from this site.

I have had a few months to reflect on why I should make this change. Educators consider this a worthwhile practice, reflecting on and crystallizing what we have learned from a given experience. I can summarize what I learned and why I will not continue to blog here in three topics: Those I hoped to speak to; Those who responded; My essential message.

Those I had hoped to speak to

1. Parents who were not certain they were doing the best thing for their chidlren by sending down the street to look for a yellow bus every day, but needed someone with credentials to provoke them to stop and think hard about this.
2. Teachers who still have a glimmer of hope that there is an option for educating children without the bureaucracy, political correctness, and sense of inefficacy which accompany public school teaching.
3. People who have already seen these problems intuitively, but needed someone to help them articulate why they have ambivalent feelings toward public schools in America.

Those who responded

1. The "Choir" (those who already know and agree with the things I am saying).
2. People who have had a bad experience with private education, and have an ax to grind.
3. Folks in need of the eighth grade Formal Logic class I used to teach (with which most eighth graders have no problem).

Since one must assume there are readers who did not post responses, I have no idea whether I reached any of the folks in the three target groups. But I have learned enough over the past year to have a pretty good idea how I can locate them more effectively.

And now, in parting, here is my essential message about education in the United States:

1. Parents are the first and best educators. They should continually be educating themselves so that they may educate their children. If they decide to entrust their children to an outside educational choice, they should investigate it carefully and hold it accountable.

2. The United States Constitution is silent about education, as it should be, since free adults can make these decisions without government control or expense.

3. There are courageous Americans who are providing quality education in their own homes and in schools of choice. These are national treasures.

4. An education is only as valid as the truth assumptions on which it is built. Most public educators are woefully unprepared (through little fault of their own) to confront truth claims and make responsible decisions. No one holds them accountable for faulty thinking, unless they are so unwise as to make politically unacceptable remarks.

5. Educating chldren should not be "rocket science," but every day in this country there are more follies committed in the name of education than one blog can record. What generally results when these follies are exposed is a lot of finger-pointing, and very little personal involvement in helping a child learn - without "dumbing it down."

Picture a wide-eyed child on the threshhold of a world teeming with adventure and excitement. Erase, from that world, all the busses, buildings, and bureaucracy dedicated to "education." Take the child's hand and walk into the world. Welcome the adventure that Aslan has prepared.

"Higher" Education, Part One

Today I'm passing on to you a thoughtful column by a favorite writer on the current state of "higher" education in the U.S. More to come in future days...


Costly Lessons and a Problem that is Getting Worse, not Better

By David L Bahnsen on October 11, 2009

Dr. Richard Vedder is one of the finest economists in America. More specifically, he is an economic historian, a respected academic, and an important contributor to the dialogue on higher education in our country. In the most recent issue of National Review he wrote a crucially important article on the utter disaster that is our under-graduate education system (unfortunately, it is only available online to subscribers of the magazine). A few points need to be made …

Dr. Vedder begins by pointing out that the only other area in American society that have seen the kind of price inflation that college tuition has seen over the last generation is, well, health care. It is no coincidence to this economist that the only two areas that successfully separate the person paying the bill from the person receiving the good or service are the two areas with the highest price inflation. Neither the consumer nor the producer pays the bills, leaving resources to be allocated ever so inefficiently. College universities are “non-profit institutions”, begging them to add to this inefficiency. They have no profit motive to cut costs, and no profit motive to increase revenues. Shockingly, the only criteria available for how well they are doing comes from the U.S. News and World Report, which bases its analysis on how many “customers” they turn away (the alleged selectivity of who gets into various university programs).

Administratively, Vedder frets about the ambiguity as to who it is who runs our universities. Is it the trustees? Administrators? Faculty? Students? Alumni? Donors? (all candidates Vedder wonders out loud about). It would seem to be a problem to a rational person that the average GPA has risen from a 2.5 to a 3.2 in the last generation (do college graduates seem that much smarter to you?). Vedder laments, as any person with any sensory skills whatsoever would, the culture that actually defines today’s academic life: a life completely focused on partying, booze, and sex. This epidemic is not limited to a few hot cities like Tucson, AZ and San Diego, CA, but permeates every major college from Harvard down to Humboldt State. The Presidents are toothless to do anything about it.

Most shockingly, Vedder indicts the “research” capabilities of today’s academic instituions, wondering why 22,000 new articles of Shakespeare have been submitted since 1980 alone. “Are there that many new and insightful thoughts to be had about the Bard?” Economic growth is suffering as a result of our subsidization of this half-ass research; it is not being stimulated.

Vedder’s proposals and solutions include common sense ideas that will absolutely have to be considered, and soon. We need to reduce the federal student loan programs, and allow a market system to work. Develop vocational competence programs – like the CPA exam – and allow students who want to learn a specific niche field to do just that (without the burden of a Sociology 101 class). More than any time in academic history, the benefits of a higher education right now are being shown to be utterly worthless. Allow the private market to change this, and quit cultivating a system that is doing far more harm than good.

I could not agree more with Vedder on every point he makes. If we want to advance a massive system that perfects the art of shooting tequila and participating in abundant one-night-stands, we have that down; the status quo should continue. And if we want to continue disillusioning young people by telling them that the liberal arts education we are pillaging them or the taxpayers or their parents for (in terms of cost) will actually prepare them for a professional career, we seem to have that down pretty well too. If, however, the goal is to study the masters, prepare young people for life in the real world, and to see a generation of balanced young people tap into the resources and tools they need to truly excel, we have a lot of work to do.

Let’s stop by getting the federal government out of this mess. I know this will not solve it all. But it is never, ever a bad place to start.

Success in the semi-public sector

An article entitled “The Instigator,” in the May, 2009, edition of the New Yorker magazine tells the story of a group of charter schools in Los Angeles called Green Dot schools, which were started two years ago by ”Rock the Vote” founder Steve Barr, a (more or less) businessman who had previous success with an unusual charter school in an Latino neighborhood. With no educational background whatsoever, Mr. Barr had to actually call a teacher friend to help him interpret the very test scores which proved that his first school was succeeding.

Now the successes of the Green Dot schools among low-income students from primarily single-parent homes are attracting national attention, starting with Arne Duncan, current Secretary of Education. Pragmatists on both sides of the party lines are hailing their success and clamoring for “more Green Dot schools” to be founded – everywhere.

The article is revealing, but not so much for what it says about how the Green Dot schools succeed – they are remarkably “ordinary” in their teaching methods, and often employ teachers who have (mercifully) not had the traditional teacher college education. “At his schools, the principals lay out firm curricular guidelines, in keeping with California state standards and Green Dot benchmarks, but teachers are free to huddle, and decide what to teach and how to teach it, for the most part, as long as students pass quarterly assessments.” According to charter school entrepreneur Don Shalvey, “There is no secret curriculum-and-instruction sauce at Green Dot at all. Steve just hires good people. They’re just doing old-school schooling.”

What is more revealing is one of his critiques of the traditional public schools the students are coming from. “These poor schools, you have an Advanced Placement track, and the teachers only believe in triage, so they put the kids who have a chance in that track,” Barr explains. “It’s built on the back of the other three tracks.”

What can we learn from this?

1. Failing public schools teach the most able and fail the serve the rest effectively.
2. People with no educational background can run successful schools.
3. Teachers with no specific training in education will tend to use tried and true methods, and will tend to be successful with them.
4. It is more important that the teacher know the objective (in this case, state standards and test scores) than teaching methods and the latest philosophies.

It’s not rocket science.

Outcomes of State Coercion

It doesn’t take a very discerning reader to have figured out by now that one of my principal gripes about schooling in America is that we assume it must be controlled by government. This has irked me even more since the hysteria has arisen over the concern that national health care might lead this nation “into” socialism, a place where we have already been, in terms of kindergarten through twelfth grade education, for over a hundred years.

One doesn’t have to be very discerning to realize that I write from the perspective of an unashamed, Biblical Christian. A recent column by Joel McDurmon for American Vision addresses the question of whether socialism is justified in the historical practices of Israel as recorded in the Old Testament or by some of the teachings of Jesus Himself. If this kind of Biblical analysis interests you, you can read the whole article here.

I like this paragraph from near the end of McDurmon’s article:

“God kept the State out of the charity business. There’s a good reason for this. If the power of the sword ever mixed with the power to distribute bread, there would be no end to political corruption: the State would use its powers of distribution to control the people; worse, people who grew dependent upon the State’s bread would also then be dependent upon the State’s sword. Acquiring provisions would no longer be an issue of personal responsibility, but of institutionalized force. It would teach the dependent of all shapes and sizes that deriving food at gunpoint is legitimate. Thus, State socialism would be nothing short of legalized armed robbery.”

With apologies to McDurmon, consider the same paragraph, with just a few alterations:

God kept the State out of the education business. There’s a good reason for this. If the power of the sword ever mixed with the power to form minds, there would be no end to political corruption: the State would use its powers of information to control the people; worse, people who grew dependent upon the State’s thinking would also then be dependent upon the State’s sword. Acquiring knowledge would no longer be an issue of personal responsibility, but of institutionalized force. It would teach the dependent of all shapes and sizes that deriving education at gunpoint is legitimate. Thus, State schooling would be nothing short of legalized armed robbery.

I can’t imagine why this doesn’t concern more people.

Learning by example

A friend called yesterday wondering why I had not weighed in on the current controversy about President Obama addressing school children next Tuesday. I guess some things seem too absurd to even point out. But here goes.

I'm sure those of you who have pegged me as a conservative are expecting me to prop up the protesters who don't want their children exposed to political propaganda on school time. Actually, I am more conservative than any conservative I know. I love liberty.

Propaganda in the government schools? Are you kidding? Have you ever seen the political agenda of the National Education Association? Do you imagine that the President can say anything more liberal in a single address than the day-to-day diet being delivered by Miss Peach? Can anyone possibly imagine that government schools are politically neutral? I dropped my membership in the Association for Supervision and Curriculum Development years ago because I dared to "read the fine print," thereby finding out all the politically liberal causes my dues had been supporting.

And just what political cause are these protesters afraid the President will support in his talk to the children? Socialism? Does socialism refer to a government monopoly over an enterprise that could be conducted better and cheaper, with more consumer input, in the private sector? Then to those parents, I say, don't worry. Children always learn more by example than they can grasp in a short speech. And you have already demonstrated your commitment to socialism by sending your children to government schools.

Where are the menus?

From today's Miami Herald:

Ten years ago Florida enacted the most sweeping school reform measures taken to date by any state. In essence, it rewards schools whose achievement test scores are excelling and punishes schools whose scores are poor and/or not improving. For those who believe government schooling can be reformed, it has been hailed as a huge success. One of the best features is that it has narrowed the achievement gap between minority and majority students. And a signifcant number of really bad schools have been closed down. But not everyone is happy. One complaint is that graduation rates have not improved (maybe that's because you have KNOW SOMETHING in order to graduate now). But a more thoughtful complaint is that teaching to the tests tends to produce a very sterile, unimaginative curriculum which does not engage and stimulate students who easily grasp the basics.

From today's Baltimore Sun:

In the late 1980's and early 90's, one of the panaceas advanced by the reform movement was involving teenagers in community service as a means of getting them outside the sterile walls of the classroom to gain a vision of life beyond their mandatory thirteen years of incarceration in public schools. I'ts not a bad idea, and many good schools in many states have adopted some form of this concept. A few years back, Maryland became the first state to make community service credits mandatory for high school graduation. Now it has come under fire because, in an effort to help students complete the requirement and graduate on time, many schools are creating activities during the school day that fulfill the community service requirement. But complaining parents feel that this takes away academic learning time, and that all community service should be done after regular school hours.

Both of these stories illustrate the foolishness of one-size-fits-all government-controlled school policies. It's like going to a restaurant and being told the legislature is voting on what you will eat for dinner, and as soon as the poll is finished you will be served what they have chosen for you. One can envision a massive complaint department would have to be installed at such an establishment. But complaints are what the public schools have done the best job of generating.

What's wrong with back-to-basics schools that teach to the tests, alongside enrichment schools that teach that which is aesthetically and intellectually stimulating? What's wrong with schools with a high component of built-in community service, alongside schools where all the time is spent on academic learning (and perhaps meet for fewer hours per day)? Or all of those choices, in various combinations, within the same school?

Mandated schooling and legislated curricula have made parents into chronic whiners instead of thoughtful educational consumers. Where are the menus?

Government nannying

The lead editorial in today's Arizona Daily Star bemoans state School Superintendent Tom Horne's initiative to promote new health standards for physical education and health classes in Arizona public schools. The Star's worry, in their own words:

"Horne is churning up a lot of activity - including public hearings next month - that is unlikely to produce anything of substance in Arizona classrooms...(whereas) we believe the state school superintendent should be using his bully pulpit to demand better education for Arizona children...(and) exploring innovative ways to engage students in those crucial STEM (science, technology, engineering, and mathematics) areas of study."

Let me see if I have this straight.

1. Arizona kids are developing unhealthy lifestyles, and the schools need to "fix" this by having "teachers instruct their students on the benefits of physical activity" because...the kids don't have parents? Because...students always respond correctly to such lectures (like "Just say no!")?

2. The state school superintendent can magically turn around Arizona public schools' lousy performance in reading and math by "using his bully pulpit." What will he do? Bang on it and shout, "Now, cut it out! I mean it!"?

And while we're on the subject, does the superintendent teach anybody anything? Could his salary buy four or five more teachers to handle first grade reading?

Clearly academic success is a mystery too difficult for Mr. Horne..or the legislature (and bright ideas like mandating certain curricular "additions") can actually accomplish. All I can say is, it's a good thing all those successful (non-certified) homeschooling moms didn't have him (or the legislature) supervising the excellent education they were (somehow?) able to provide their children.

With apologies to Shakespeare...government-guided, government-funded education is like a "tale told by an idiot, full of sound and fury, signifying nothing."

Bumper Sticker Truth

It's always fun when folks say more than they meant to. Such is often the case with bumper stickers. The two pictured at the right are stickers I have seen first hand here in Tucson within the last couple of months.

In both cases, they are meant to be left-wing, pro-socialist, government-school-mandating, and pro-teacher-union. I know this is true, because these images were found on web sites with products all in line with those advocacies.

So let's have some fun contrasting the designers' intended meaning, with what I would call a "more rational" perspective.

Bumper sticker #1:

I would love to add, "but over-schooled." One of the tricks of the left-wing socialist teacher unions is to couch everything they control as "education," as though no education exists in life outside of their control. Hence, they label certain (conservative) politicians as being "anti-education," just because they won't support throwing more money down the Black Holes these people control. The intent of the bumper sticker is to evoke sympathy toward more spending on government schooling. The irony is that it is true BECAUSE of too much spending on government schooling. If there were free competition in educatin, and all schools competed for students equally on the basis of the effectiveness of their educational efforts, failing schools would go out of business. But they are protected from competition now by a socialist hegemony which funnels more and more funds to useless efforts. Under-educated, indeed, but over-schooled!

Bumper Sticker #2:

It is meant to be an ironic contrast to the "war on terrorism, war on drugs, war on poverty" federal initiatives, which the same liberals who support mandatory government schooling would declare to be failed wastes of resources, both financial and human. The intended meaning is that in funding these other initiatives, we have under-funded government education, and thus have, in effect, waged a war on education (government schooling) by not yielding to all of its whiny demands for more cash. A conservative take on the sticker would be that the continued perpetuation of AND increases in government funding for these schools (which can be documented) have only strengthened the grip of mandatory schooling, thus denying TRUE education to a signifcant portion of the American population. If you're keeping score, the percentage of American children NOT in government schools (who are homeschooled or in private schools) has not changed significatly in the last fifty years: it hovers between eleven to thirteen percent of the school-age population. So the proponents of forced government schooling have not lost much, while the nation is losing more and more minds to poor education (schooling) every year. The war on (valid) education is going well, indeed.

Statism in Sheep's Clothing

A friend who knows my passion for classical education recently asked what I think of the Great Hearts Academies in the Phoenix area. To paraphrase Gollum, "We hates 'em!"

This is a network of six charter schools (they threaten to add five more), that have provided interested families in the Phoenix area a prep school education (and an authentically rigorous one, as their test scores attest) as tuition-free charter schools. Their rhetoric mixes traditional prep school academic values with the heritage of the Great Books schools like St. John's College and the American idealism of places like the Gilder Lehrman Institute and the Free Enterprise Institute. They also incorporate phraseology (truth, beauty, goodness) and reading lists (the Omnibus) that were popularized in the past twenty years by the classical Christian school movement with which I have been associated.

So why shouldn't I welcome them as comrades-in-arms in the quest to halt the academic decline and fall of American education? Well, in a very narrow sense, I do. As a proponent of school choice, I welcome any diversion that forces American parents to make some kind of thoughtful choice for their children's education, as opposed to aimlessly wandering down the street in search of a yellow bus.

But I sincerely hope that as increased choices are forced into the awareness of parents, they will begin to ask more quality questions. I hope they will move from "How much does it cost?" or "Is transportation provided?" or "Are the teachers certified? (whatever that means)?" to "Will my child be taught the fear of the Lord?" or "What is your philosophy of the nature of the child?" or "What do you believe the end goal of education to be?"

It is precisely because of the different possible answers to these questions (which really matter), that I hope sincere Muslims will choose consistent Muslim education; sincere Jews will choose quality Jewish education; sincere Christians will choose authentic Christian education; and naturalistic humanists will choose...oh, maybe the Great Hearts Academies.

All attempts at education must have a means of dealing with fundamental philosophical questions. How those questions are dealt with is more impactful than how the schools actually label themselves. A school labelled "Christian," for example, which provides naturalistic answers to the basic questions above (and there have been some, I'm afraid), is not worth its salt and should be brought down.

In other words, how a school treats learners is more impactful than what is says it believes about the nature of a learner. The logical outcomes toward which the method of education propels the students is more important than what the school says its goals are. What the intructors demonstrate daily about their fear of God (or lack thereof) is more formative than what the school literature says about what it teaches or doesn't teach about fear of God.

However - and this is the real problem - this is not a two-way street. While a Muslim, Jewish, or Christian school may fail at effectively inculcating the worldview espoused by its founders, a state school (public or charter) can never "accidentally" espouse Muslim presuppositions, or inculcate Jewish outlooks, or replicate Christian behavior. All charter school charters incessantly cry out, "Non-sectarian!" But at their roots, those three worldviews have non-negotiable identities grounded in propositional assertions which can be debated, analyzed, or replicated; whole civilizations and cultures have been built on these presuppositions!

When Christian schools fail to faithfully inculcate Christian worldview and practice in our schools, it is usually because our teachers were educated in and by the same presuppositions of naturalistic humanism that most eveyone else in this nation was nurtured in. But students coming out of state-controlled schools don't just "happen" to come out thinking and acting with Christian presuppositions. They may achieve such integration in spite of having been subjected to statist education, but according to pollsters like George Barna, it is an exceedingly rare phenomenon, and according the research of the Nehemiah Institute, it is becoming rarer by the day. But because God is sovereign and Aslan is not a tame lion, when such graduates do exist, the first thing they will do is put their own children in a Christian school or homeschool them.

Ironically, the Great Hearts Academies tout the outstanding "moral formation" of their approach (which means "we can be good without God") and one of them is actually named Veritas (Latin for truth - but which truth?). As for the type of truth taught at Veritas, I can tell you all about it, even though I have never been there. I can guarantee it is a multi-cultural, relativistic, negotiable truth - certainly not the truth revealed in John 14:6. How can I be so sure? Because I know where their money comes from.

Unfortunately many who believe themselves to be Christians will not be so discerning, and will embrace the Great Hearts Academies as their child's educational "savior."

And that's why "we hates 'em."

Charmed Evening # 3

Over a hundred Casa Grandeans gathered on Friday evening, June 5, in the ballroom of The Property Conference Center to celebrate the opening of a new educational alternative in Casa Grande this fall, Logos Academy. The theme for the evening was "A Classic Evening," in recognition of the ambitious classical Christian curriculum which the new school will offer.

Guests enjoyed a delicious Italian buffet while enjoying the strains of live harp music. After-dinner entertainment began with a scene from Shakespeare's "The Tempest," delightfully performed by sixth grade students from Cornerstone Christian Academy of Tucson, a sister classical school. Special speaker for the evening was the Honorable William O'Neil, Pinal County Superior Court Judge. Judge O'Neil challenged those present to support Logos Academy as a local Christian educational resource. Judge O'Neil and his wife, Tammy, spent many years homeschooling their four children, as well as transporting them to a Christian high school in Chandler.

Although those present were from several different churches and businesses in Casa Grande, there was a clear spirit of camaraderie evidenced by how long everyone lingered to visit after the program had ended.

Logos Academy is co-sponsored by a group of Casa Grande churches through an independent school board presided over by Dave Landry, pastor of Calvary Chapel. Offering grades kindergarten through fifth under the direction of head teacher, Mrs. Dorinda Manning, the academy will be located at Cornerstone Community Church, where Harley Faber is pastor.

Deep in the heart of....

The following story was first reported by ESPN’s Rick Reilly on December 23, 2008. Here it is retold by The Truth Project’s Dale Tackett. It represents a national treasure.


As a kid growing up in a small town, I remember the excitement that preceded our high school’s home football games. I recall the sense of “oneness” within our community as all the store owners would display “spirit” banners and posters that said “Go Broncos” or “Beat Bonneville” in their windows urging support for “our team” on Friday night. It seemed the whole town would turn out for the game. I dreamed of what it would be like to be one of the players on the field with the whole town cheering you on. And, I experienced it.
High school football is big in America.

But I suppose there is no place where it is bigger than in Texas. Friday nights there are legend.

The fans scream; the stands are packed; cheerleaders with pom-poms jump and sway to the beat of the school band; parents yell encouragement (mostly); mom’s turn their eyes away when their little boys are crunched by the “bullies on the other team who didn’t really have to hit him that hard, did he?” and everybody joins in the chants and stomps their feet on the metal stands until you are sure they will collapse.
This is the frenzy of Texas high school football.

However, there is a football team in Texas that is a little different. When they play on Friday night, their stands are pretty much empty, no band, no cheerleaders, no mass of parents or townsfolk wearing the school colors and waving banners and flags. They take the field without anyone cheering them on. When they get a first down, there is no deafening surge from the stands. When they score a touchdown, which rarely happens, there is no wild celebration behind them…only the individual shouts of satisfaction that come from the 14 players and their coach and the 20 or so people that are sitting on their side of the field. All of it seems hollow and muffled in contrast to the tidal wave of roars and drums and chants that come from the opposing side.

They are the Tornadoes of the Gainesville State School, a fenced, maximum-security facility of the Texas Youth Commission. The young men who go to Gainesville State are there because they have made some major mistakes in their lives. But the players who are on the team are there because they have worked hard and have disciplined themselves to meet the “criteria” that gives them the privilege to leave the facility and play football on Friday nights—always an away game for them—always a home game for their opponents—and almost always a loss. They don’t have a weight program or training equipment or high-paid coaches and assistants. They don’t have a large pool of players to draw from. The school has 275 boys, but many are too old or too young or can’t or don’t meet the “criteria” to play. And they don’t have the support of a town and a mass of parents and family and reporters and bands and cheerleaders.

That is, until November 7th. Something changed. They played Grapevine Faith Christian School.

The way the Gainesville coach, Mark Williams, recounted it for me, it went something like this: Earlier in the week, he had received a call from Faith Christian coach, Kris Hogan, asking him if it would be okay if Faith formed a “spirit” line for his team when they ran on the field. Mark said, “Sure, that would be a real encouragement to the kids.” He thought that the line would consist of a couple of the JV cheerleaders, but when they took the field, there were a hundred people in it and it stretched to the 40-yard line, filled with Faith parents, fans and varsity cheerleaders, complete with a banner at the end for them to burst through that read “Go Tornadoes!”. And then, those parents and fans sat in the stands behind the Gainesville players and when the Tornadoes broke the huddle and went up to the line they could hear people cheering for them, by name. When they got a first down, “their” fans erupted.

You see, coach Hogan had sent an email out to the Faith Christian family asking them to consider doing something kind for these young men, many who didn’t know what it meant to have a mom and dad who cared, many who felt the world was against them, not for them. Hogan asked that they simply send a message that these boys were “just as valuable as any other person on earth.”

So half of the Faith Christian fans were now sitting on the visitor’s side of the field, cheering for the Gainesville team, and in some cases, against their own sons.
–Cheering for a team decked out in old uniforms and helmets.

–Cheering for boys who wouldn’t go home that night and have a smiling dad slap him on the back and feel his mom put her arms around him and say “I’m so proud of you son!”

–Cheering for the underdog.

Though the score was familiar (down 33-0 at half-time), this was a Friday night like no other for the Tornadoes. In the locker room, the players were confused.

“Why are they cheerin’ for us, coach?”

“Because, men, they want to encourage you. They want you to know that they care about you…that you have value.”

Coach Williams said the boys were stunned. For many of these kids, it may have been the first time that anyone had shown them, so visibly, unconditional love.
Williams then encouraged them to set a goal for the second half: to score a touchdown. And when they took the field again, with their fans cheering them on, they did. Williams said, “Everything started to click in the second half. Our passes started to click. Our sweeps and counters started to click.” And they did score. Two touchdowns.

And the fans went wild.

I asked Coach Williams what the bus ride was like on the way home and he laughed and told me that they were all asleep—their bellies were full. After the game, the parents brought a whole bunch of food over to the guys: hamburgers, fries, candy, sodas…and included in the meal sack was a Bible and a letter of encouragement from a Faith Christian player. But then, he said, they formed a line for us out to the bus. And the parents patted them on the back and said, “Nice game” and “Look forward to seeing you guys next time.”

The phone went dead at this point. I think Coach Williams was choking back some tears. And so was I.

I asked him one final question: “If you could tell other people one thing about your kids, what would it be?” He said, “Don’t be scared of them. Treat them with respect. Yes, they’ve made some mistakes, but they are trying their best to turn their life around. Give ‘em a shot at it.”

As they left the field that night, Coach Williams grabbed Coach Hogan and said to him: “You’ll never know what your people did for these kids tonight. You’ll never, ever know.”

When the world looks at a Christian, the number one thing they should see is what was shown on a high school football field last fall in Texas.
Jesus said: “Let your light shine among men is such a way that they may see your good works and glorify your Father who is in heaven.”

Let us do so.

And I must mention (because it is the mission of this column to point these things out) that Gainesville State plays public schools, too. Please notice what kind of school took the lead in this heart-warming experience. We have those kinds of schools here in Tucson, too.

Who should be expelled?

Last night I revisited the Ben Stein documentary, Expelled. I had seen a pre-release back when it first came out so I could write a review for it on another blog: http://www.wittenberghall.com/holytrinityclassical/

For those unfamiliar with the film, the basic premise is that American academics who question doctrinaire Darwinism in any form are being systematically shoved out of the academic world. Institutions which have expelled scientists who point out that the emperor of natural section is embarrassingly naked (devoid of evidence) include George Mason University, Baylor University, Iowa State University, and the Smithsonian Institute. When confronted by Ben Stein as to their attack on academic freedom, they consistently denied (in the face of facts), trivialized, dissimulated, or dodged the issue. In other words, they all lied. An effective way that this was illustrated in the film was that after each interviewee denied anyone was expelled from their institution for not believing in Darwinism, Stein flashed on the screen the actual documenting letter received by each of the expelled scientists confirming that it was their failure to support evolution (as taught by current popular standards) which had been the cause of their dismissal.

This lack of integrity on the part of the administrations of these institutions would be alarming enough, but what I am really intrigued by was the interview with a scientist in Poland near the end of the film. Stein asked if he had ever been required to teach Darwinian evolution in the university in Poland, and he quickly replied, “NO!” He went on the comment that this is a uniquely American problem, because American academics have to be “politically correct” (his actual words).

I want you to pause a moment to let this sink in. A man who taught for dozens of years during an oppressive communist dictatorship was more academically free to explore both sides of an issue than a scientist in America, because we are more censorial and heavy-handed in demanding everyone think exactly the same way, than their communist society. Is this the America you have always been told you live in? Yet we have socialized (government subsidized, and therefore government-controlled) education in the “land of the free,” and only 13 per cent of the school age population have escaped from it (through homeschooling or private schools).

I say it’s time to expel…the students! Set them free! (Have I made anybody mad yet? I’m sure trying hard…).

Charmed Evening #2

Props to Lamad Preparatory Academy for providing the community with a delightful dinner concert at Tucson High on Saturday, May 30. The delicious dinner was catered by A-Z Eatery (compliments to Chef John) and served by delightful young people from Living Water Ministry, the sponsoring church for Lamad Prep. The dinner speaker was the Honorable Ronald A. Wilson. Judge Wilson spoke of his own private Christian school education, and gave an impassioned advocacy for this unique urban school opportunity in Tucson.

The concert was held in the charming old Tucson High auditorium. Originally built in the 1930's, the auditorium and stage underwent a major restoration effort in 2004. Now it serves as a nostalgic-looking, but technologically well-equipped venue for performing arts. The Voices of Triumph, Dansiea Jones, and Tyrone Williams performed expertly (and inspiredly) to an enthusiastic, highly participatory audience. The artists generously donated their talents free of charge for this benefit concert, but their CD tables were well-patronized by the appreciative attendees after the concert was completed.

An unexpected treat for the audience was a live presentation by the students of Lamad Prepatory, entitled "The True Story of the Big Bad Wolf." Led by their school Director, Mrs. Carolym Anderson, and their teacher, Mrs. Glenda Tigney, the students simulated a mock trial format to review several legendary stories about wolves in children's literature, giving special attention to scrptural principles revealed in these stories, as well as (you haven't heard this before!) the wolf's point of view. Many in attendance commented afterwards how impressed they were with these well-trained young people.

Lamad Preparatory Academy is located at Living Water Ministry, 4343 E. 22nd Street, and serves grades one through three. Living Water is led by Apostle Warren Anderson, Jr. The school may be contacted at 745-5859.

Where's the outrage?

I am determined to keep writing until I make somebody mad. I honestly think that when it comes to the atrocities of modern education, we have been anesthetized or fed “happy” pills that blind us from the foolishness all around us.

Last Friday’s front page story in the Arizona Daily Star was a whiny, hand-wringing, “woe is me” announcement that there will be three large classes held in Centennial Hall this fall. The story went into long digressions about large lecture classes at other universities, what it will cost to outfit the room with wi-fi, how daytime classes might or might not inconvenience the artists’ series there, and the economic woes which necessitate large lecture classes. There were, of course, disclamatory remarks by U of A officials saying (in essence) “it’s really not that bad” and the (scandalaous?) revelation that an administrator who was partly responsible for the decision is on the way out (non-renewal of contract). He was quoted as saying that it’s probably not a good idea after all.

Innocuously buried in a sidebar was information about the three courses that are scheduled for Centennial Hall. Now, our first guess would be “large lecture classes” of a required nature, right? For anyone who matriculated before the twenty-first century, we would expect old standby’s like Western Civ 101, Psych 101, maybe a humanities class, or the like. Take a gander at two of the three course titles being offered there.

Seven hundred students (mostly freshmen) will study “Human and Animal Interrelationships from Domestication to the present … (which) examines the relationship humans have had with animals from evolution to domestication.”

Twelve hundred students will cram the auditorium for “Eroticism and Love in the Middle Ages… (which) examines how courtly love was portrayed in literature, the arts, philosophy and religion during the Middle Ages.”

O, tempore! O, mores!

In order to command these large audiences, these are courses which satisfy core requirements in the social and natural sciences. I’m trying to imagine what possible content the “animals” class can have that is not (1) based entirely on supposition; (2) horribly denigrating toward humans, and (therefore) politically correct; (3) a poor excuse for hard science.
The Middle Ages course is just Freudian, not history. There just isn’t enough sex on television, I guess. The university needs to prove that it’s “cool,” too.

Before you start feeling smug that you got your education “back when,” or feeling thankful that you don’t have a student going to U of A this fall, can you please remember that you are a taxpayer, and this is a government-supported school? Can you remember that this is the education of the future leaders of the state and nation? Does anybody care that the emperor of higher education is stark, raving, streaking, naked? Huh?

Are you ready for the kicker?

There are fifty-three reader comments to the online version of the story: lots of comments on class sizes, economics of higher education, etc. There is no mention of the course descriptions (except one alum who wishes the erotic course had been offered when he was an undergrad).

You are what you were taught (and paid attention to)

I am not a fan of Carrie Prejean, and never expected to comment on this controversy, but I must make a small point about education here. And this is for all those who say that education is neutral, and it doesn’t matter which school your child attends.

One of the favorite tactics of opponents of Christian education is to disqualify it on the basis of the failings of some of its products. There’s a logical inconsistency there (the graduates of non-Christian schools are consistently better?) that I would hope more people would see. But it is the lack of logic in public discourse that is one of the very things I want to rant about here.

Never in a million years when we decided to send two of our sons to San Diego Christian College (small, obscure, conservative, evangelical) did we think that some day one of its students would not only be Miss California, but would also be splashed all over the internet in semi-nude photos. But this current scandal neither negates nor validates the educational experience my sons had there. That is a subject for another time.

The point is that I have a pretty good idea what is taught there, as well as what are the prerequisite teachings any student who matriculates there would probably have been exposed to. In the very public case of Carrie Prejean, she was “present” for these lessons:

the Biblical nature of marriage
exposition of Matthew 10:32-34*

But she must have been physically or mentally “absent” for these lessons:

Biblical modesty for women
exposition of I Thessalonians 4:2-6**

And this tells us nothing about education that we don’t already know. Students will “attend to” and internalize some of the lessons they are taught. They will miss the point or fail to integrate other lessons. Naturally, we hope for the most retention possible. And the obligation is on those of us who plan the curriculum to make sure that the right lessons are being taught in the most effective way possible.

In contrast, I wonder what kind of education Miss California USA Co-executive Director Keith Lewis may have had, based on his statement, "We try to make these women capable of being free thinkers…but when you wear the title that says 'I represent everyone,' you can't then polarize the people you represent."

Aside from the absurdity of the first half of that quote (as though the limited exposure of the pageant organizers in the lives of these girls could “make [them] capable [of anything!]”), let’s think about what it means to ”represent everyone.”

Just betting that Mr. Lewis went to public school somewhere along the way, here are the lessons he was “present” for:

Diversity is good
Political correctness is better

But based on the fact that 52% of the California electorate voted in favor of a traditional view of marriage just last November, he must have been absent for a couple of math lessons:

Greater than and less than
Set theory (an item that is a member of a set can be said to be a representative of that set)

So neither San Diego Christian College nor the California public schools are having 100 per cent success with their students. But please don’t tell me they are teaching the same thing!

*Matthew 10:
32Whosoever therefore shall confess me before men, him will I confess also before my Father which is in heaven.
33But whosoever shall deny me before men, him will I also deny before my Father which is in heaven.
34Think not that I am come to send peace on earth: I came not to send peace, but a sword.

**I Thessalonians 4:
2For ye know what commandments we gave you by the Lord Jesus.
3For this is the will of God, even your sanctification, that ye should abstain from fornication:
4That every one of you should know how to possess his vessel in sanctification and honour;
5Not in the lust of concupiscence, even as the Gentiles which know not God:
6That no man go beyond and defraud his brother in any matter: because that the Lord is the avenger of all such, as we also have forewarned you and testified.

The Winsome Fruit

My first “National Treasure” story comes all the way from Philadelphia. Occasionally those of us in education are reminded that the reall proof of our teaching is not in what our students do in the classroom, but inwhat they do outside the classroom. A friend of mine who teaches at Phil-Mont Christian School in Philadelphia passed along this letter, which his school received after a teacher at a different school overheard two of their students in a bookstore.


Dear Staff and Faculty,

My name is Rebecca Pine, and I am a Theology teacher at Lansdale Catholic High School. I was sitting in Barnes and Noble Booksellers yesterday afternoon grading papers when I had the pleasure of overhearing a conversation between two of your students and two students from Plymouth-Whitemarsh High School. The two girls (both juniors, one full-time and one part-time as she is home-schooled the rest of the time... I wish I had asked their names so I could pass them on to you!) were sitting talking about one of their Bible classes, when the two boys sitting next to them engaged them in what turned out to be an hour-and-half conversation. The boys challenged them on their faith, beginning with the basics and then moving on to more complicated apologetics topics. At first, overhearing them, I silently prayed that the girls would have the grace to defend the Truth well. I quickly discovered that they were perfectly equipped and confident enough to take on the challenge! As the girls clearly, confidently, intelligently, and CHARITABLY defended their faith, I was absolutely stunned and overwhelmingly impressed! I was silently cheering them from the side as they used Scripture, natural law, and logic to BEAUTIFULLY explain and defend the faith. It was awesome to behold. I was praying that the boys would leave so I could go over and affirm the girls without embarrassing the boys, but I had to leave before they did. I walked over and told the girls that I wish my own students could defend the faith as they just had, and they humbly and gracefully accepted the compliment. Wow!!!

I found your addresses on your website, and I write to both the Bible and Physics teachers because I overheard the girls mentioning those two classes most often. I COMMEND you and your staff on all that you are doing at your school. Based on what I witnessed yesterday, you are not only educating and preparing your students for the world they will encounter, but it seems that you are fostering a love of Truth and the ability to explain and defend it. Thank you for your witness, and if you find out who the girls were, please congratulate them once again!

Peace,

Rebecca Pine

More to Come...

If you have read more than one of my posts (that's probably only you, Eddie), you may have noticed the labels "Local Follies" and "Local Treasures." I thought that since this is on TownHall Tucson I would stick to local issues on education. But I'm having so much fun (especially when I rant), that I am going to add several other labels and "go national," proving that Tucsonans are not quite as provincial as some may think.

Right now the additional labels I plan to add are: boosterism (which is what this post is!), national follies, national treasures, quotes of note (from education-related sources), and book reviews.

This will also give me incentive to post more frequently. So check back more often.

Don't Touch the Unimportant Red Button

In the spirit of the late Douglas Adams, I have an important message (see the last line of the blog). But first, I'd like to explain to whom it applies and to whom it does not apply.

The message at the end of this blog does apply to anyone who is aware of the recent decision of the Ninth District Circuit Court that because some Arizona Scholarship Tuition Organizations (STO's) are designed to serve schools of a particular faith group (Catholic, Jewish, Adventist, Lutheran, Christian) that it is unconstitutional for them to get any scholarship monies through the (legal) tax credit because Arizona families NOT from their faith group might not have enough choices of STO's for their scholarship applications (even though there are 55 STO's altogether, and fewer than half are faith-based or faith-related);

The message at the end of this blog does apply to the 2.3% of all Arizona filers (58,000 citizen taxpayers) who took the individual scholarship tax credit in 2008;

The message at the end of this blog does apply to the 28,324 students in 373 private schools (of all kinds of persuasions) who received a scholarship award fron an STO for the 2008 tax year;

The message at the end of this blog does apply to the underpaid teachers and administrators in most private schools who are determined to teach "a better way" with the freedom of conscience to guide them rather than legislation and political correctness;

The message at the end of this blog is made possible by the fact that the decision of the Ninth District Circuit Court will be appealed all the way to the Supreme Court, if necesssary;

The message at the end of this blog is made possible by the fact that freedom-loving souls will find a way to avoid offering their children on the altar of Molech even if the Supreme Court decides to agree with the Ninth District Circuit Court (freedom-loving parents just aren't THAT stupid);

The message at the end of this blog does not apply to the ACLU and its lackeys, who are bent on wasting as much public and private money in court costs as possible by jousting with this windmill, in order to eliminate the dreadful possibility that some child in Arizona might be taught be SOMETHING that the ACLU does not agree with (hmmm, where's the "liberty" in ACLU?).

And here is the message at the end of the blog:

Do Not Push the Panic Button!

Death of a Vision

This will be my first real rant in this blog. If you thought I came close to ranting before, you haven't heard anything yet.

In the spring time when new life is all around us, I witnessed the death of a vision last night, and it didn't have to happen. Five years ago two families whose children could not find space in the private school of their choice, asked a young teacher from that school to tutor their children. That homeschooling cooperative effort became a campus-based day school two years later, with over twenty children. Offering an incredible quality classical Christian education, Alethia Academy has been housed for three years at Rincon Mountain Church (though not sponsored by the church) and has been supported by sacrifical parents and teachers foregoing lots of other choices of what to do with their money. But even small schools need a "critical mass" in order to survive, so last summer the Alethia school board set some reasonable enrollment goals for the 2009-2010 school year in order to maintain viability. When you only have eleven families, and three are moving out of town this summer, that's a big hit on enrollment. Last night the board made the difficult decision to let the dream, at least in its current form, die.

This is in spite of the fact that:
...it has a better than 1:5 teacher student ratio;
...its five teachers include two doctorates and two teachers who have taught internationally, for a combined teaching experience of over sixty years in both public and private schools;
...its students score very well above average on nationally normed achievement tests;
...all the students who are not moving away are very pleased with the school and want to stay there;
...its tuition is in line with other private schools in the area;
...virtually every family who has actually visited the classrooms has decided to enroll their child;
...the school is debt-free; however, the teachers receive very small salaries.

At Open House, the Christmas program, and Grandparents Day, these remarkable students have demonstrated that
...kindergarteners can be taught to read, spell, and memorize engaging poetry;
...second and third graders can recite volumes of facts from the history of Egypt, Greece, and Rome, as well as parse (analyze) sentences grammatically, down to every part of speech and sentence function;
...fifth and sixth graders can translate difficult passages in Latin, recite facts about composers and key events in music history, and answer challenging theological questions.

In spite of all these accomplishments, Alethia will close this May. It is simply dying because of the inability to attract new enrollments, even though new forms of advertising have been budgeted for and undertaken, preschools in its vicinity have been visited, its website has been revamped, Open Houses and informational desserts have been held regularly, and there are no dissatisfied customers.

This rant is not directed at any family who has children EXCEPT

...those who claim to be Christian, claim to have a Christian worldview, live anywhere in the eastern half of Tucson, are not on food stamps, are able to solicit a few relatives and friends to contribute tax credit scholarships for their child's education, and do not already homeschool or send their children to Christian school.

That would be:
...eastern half of Tucson proper, 525,529, = 262,764.5
...times percentage of school age children = 69,369.7
...times those claiming to be Evangelical Christians = 18,244.2
...minus those who homeschool or already send their children to Christian schools = 15,872.5
...times the percentage typcially receiving tution assistance = 13,135.8 potential students.

The number that would have kept Alethia Academy open was twenty-four, and only eleven have enrolled for next year.

Of the families of these 13,124.8 children who fit the demographic but have NOT enrolled at Alethia for next year, what might be the reason? (Here comes the rant).

Do they believe that government schools dedicated to non-supernatural casuality and multi-philosophical relativism really equip their children with the Christian world view they need to make Biblical life choices in the twenty-first century?

Do they believe that entertainment-based children's ministries and culturally ambiguous youth groups can compensate in a couple of hours per week for the thirty plus hours per week their child sits in the hands of strangers who, by law, must deny that the Christian faith has any relevance to the education they need?

Do they believe that the new jet skis, home entertainment system, or extensive vacation is better stewardship of what God has provided them with than Christo-classical education in the hands of trustworthy fellow believers?

I rant, but not because it will save Alethia Academy. I rant because, like all Christians, I believe in redemption and resurrection. These follow repentance. I call on Tucson Christian families to repent of willful ignorance of what their children are being taught as well as ignorance of the available alternatives, to repent of misplaced values, and to repent of gross unconcern for the next generation of the church. When this has happened, good schools like Alethia may be redeemed and resurrected.

Through another’s eyes

Ratna Konka is a high school math teacher at Desert Christian High School here in Tucson. In addition to being a teacher, she is a wife and mother. Since her immigration to the United States a few years ago she has taught in two other schools, both public: a high school and a middle school located elsewhere in Arizona.

In viewing her pre-calculus class recently, it is apparent that she is as at ease with her students as she is competent in her subject matter knowledge. The session was lively, highly engaging, made use of current technology, and students got all their questions answered.

Although my purpose in visiting her classroom was professional in nature, I couldn’t resist asking a question often posed to non-native teachers. “How are students in the U.S. different from the students you taught in India?” I queried.

Pausing to gaze out the window of her classroom on to the pleasant Desert campus, she answered thoughtfully. “Well, I would not say that the students at this school are much different from Indian students in the things that matter most to a teacher. They are serious about their education and very respectful to the teacher. The difference is between these students and the students I taught in public school.” She went on to recount some of the difficulties she faced in two different non-Tucson public schools. Most troubling was her assertion that in a typical fifty minute period, she felt fortunate to get in five to ten minutes of real teaching. Student disruptions, bureaucratic red tape, and a general indifference to learning were chief among her frustrations in those schools. She affirmed how grateful she is to be at Desert Christian, and hopes to make it a long term place of service.
What struck me here is how clearly a stranger to our culture sees the difference between the choices Americans make for their children’s schooling. It would seem that Americans (and curiously, most Christian Americans) routinely pass up great educational opportunities (at least sane educational opportunities) to settle for putting their children in classrooms that make “Welcome Back, Kotter” look like a model of efficiency, erudition, and propriety.

Ratna sees it. Why don’t we?

Public Trust and Sham Journalism

In the beginning...

I was one of those kids who grew up believing everything I read. It was disillusioning to learn that people lie in print, either intentionally or negligently. One of the goals of good schools should be to teach young people to be good “crap detectors.”

Because we can’t all be experts at everything, we do depend on other people to have done some research for us when we read items from sources generally considered to be reputable in areas that we don’t have time to get smart about for ourselves. Major newspaper used to be considered such a source.

When a friend of mine told me that his pejorative comment on a recent Tucson Citizen editorial on private schooling has been denied inclusion in their "Comments" section, I figured he had gone overboard. After reading the article (which you can see here: www.tucsoncitizen/altss/printhistory/113136 ), I realized he had not gone overboard.

Setting the record straight

From the article:

Public schools are held accountable…they constantly have to demonstrate student performance on many subjects in multiple grades.

The truth:

Well, yes and no. “Constantly” is a bit of a stretch there since the AIMS testing is only done once a year. And the bar is pitifully low, so low that I don’t know of any private school here in Tucson that would object to having to meet those low standards, if they thought they were relevant. Speaking for the eleven private Christian schools with which I am affiliated, there is not one which does not give high-quality, nationally-normed standardized achievement tests once per year. I am sure each would be glad to reveal their results to anyone who asks. In fact, some of them even publish the results on their web sites.

The author also assumes that the mere reporting of AIMS testing enacts some consequence against under-performing schools. As recently as last October, there are still 158 “underperforming” schools in Arizona, and twenty that are on the “failing” list (three consecutive years of “underperforming”). The only stated consequence for being on the failing list is that the State of Arizona will "take over" the school or district (whoa – that should change everything!) When asked in October if the state would be taking over the only complete district that is failing – Creighton Elementary School District in Phoenix - State Superintendent of Education Tom Horne said, “We will probably not.” Now that’s what I’m talkin’ about! Accountability!

Of course, this whole discussion assumes that the most important measure of any school would be test score results, but thinking parents,who research private schools and exercise their freedom to choose, actually look for much more than that, as they should. I don’t know of a test that measures hallway fornication, which is what one friend of mine witnessed in a local high school just before withdrawing his daughter to place her in private school.

From the article:

Parochial and other private schools need not divulge a thing – neither test scores or anything about staff or student behavior or misbehavior. Everything’s a secret.

The truth:

What wonderfully naïve writer for the Tucson Citizen has not heard of the "Family Rights and Privacy Act," which has been around since 1974? This repressive bit of heavy-handed Big Brotherism really has made everything about students in public schools a secret. The really amazing thing about this is that it is only binding on schools that receive federal funding – hmmm, in other words, NOT private schools. They are only governed by prudence and good judgment. What a concept!

Let’s examine a root presupposition about accountability here, while we’re at it. The writer presumes that the proper and best place for accountability is in the hands of the government. Those of us in the private educational sector have long known that a paying parent is much more demanding, and scrutinizes even more carefully the full picture of whether a school is performing adequately. The very vouchers which the article demonizes would empower even more parents to have this kind of freedom of choice. There must be a nice gulag somewhere we can ship this writer to, where he or she would be much happier with “accountability.” Or maybe no one reads 1984 in public schools anymore.

From the article:

So why should tax dollars go to clandestine, for-profit schools? They should not.

The truth:

Are you ready for this? The only for-profit schools in Arizona (other than post-secondary schools like University of Phoenix) are some (but not most) charter schools – and guess what? Charter schools are public schools and receive district money, state money, federal money – you name it. The vast majority of private schools, including all of the Christian schools in Tucson, are non-profit, 501 (c) (3) corporations. We’re really gettin’ rich out here. And we want "clandestine" use of more and more of your righteous tax dollars, sucker-citizens!

From the article:

But private schools can admit solely Catholic kids, or only Jewish kids, or only kids with certain academic achievement levels.

The truth:

Well, of course they can. That’s called “freedom.” But most don’t, at least not as exclusively as the author implies. In particular, since he or she picked on Catholic schools, the non-Catholic enrollment of Catholic schools is famously high and well-documented.

What is important, in this respect, is that, as non-profit corporations, they are bound by law not to discriminate on the basis of race, color, national, or ethnic origin. Can’t do it. Now, that’s important.

In (and about) Closing…

Well, I could go on, but you get the point. It is certainly fine for the author to hate private schools if he or she wants, and freedom of the press allows him or her to say so publicly. But printing crap is really a bad practice and some day it will catch up with someone – oh, wait! Isn’t this the newspaper that’s going to shut down soon?

Great day, come soon!

Busting stereotypes

One of the early allegations about Christian schools when they were beginning to proliferate in the 1970’s and 1980’s was that they were covers for segregation academies, and no doubt some of them were. Unfortunately, the stereotype has lingered far beyond the reality.

Recently, I was able to do a professional observation at a local Christian school which is truly a stereotype-buster. To begin with, this fourth grade class had a healthy distribution of Hispanic, Caucasian, and African-American students. All were participatory, and all are getting a great education. Ironically, the history lesson was on the Civil War, and it was being taught by an (excellent!) African-American teacher. After reviewing the role of Lincoln in issuing the Emancipation Proclamation, the teacher went on to discuss the two great generals, Ulysses S. Grant and Robert E. Lee. She was able to name the strengths of each of the generals in a fair and balanced presentation.

Students are always interested in who the “good guys” and “bad guys” are. Although nothing in the teacher’s presentation prompted this, it was clear from the discussion which followed that they identified more with the Union cause. At one point a student asked, “Are we friends with the South, now?” The teacher wisely smiled and answered, “Why, yes. You know, I moved to Arizona from Alabama!” Seeing the students needed some perspective on how long ago all of this took place, the teacher used as an illustration the fact that her great-great-grandmother, who was alive during the teacher’s childhood, was born free, but her mother had been a slave.

Did I mention this was at First Southern (Baptist) Christian School?

A Tale of Two World Views

A couple of education-related demonstrations occurred at the State Capitol in recent weeks. They represent contrasting views of not only education in Arizona, but contrasting world views, as well.

On February 10, a crowd estimated between five and eight hundred gathered on the lawn of the House of Representatives to hear musical presentations from a variety of private schools from Phoenix, Tucson, and outlying areas as they awaited a visit from Governor Jan Brewer and members of the legislature. The occasion was School Choice Day, and hundreds of well-behaved school children sported happy yellow T shirts that declared "Thank you, State Legislature." Some of the shirts were worn over "parochial school plaid" jumpers, and some of the T shirts were worn by head-covered girls from a Muslim school, who also entertained the crowd with Arabic folk songs when it was their turn to be on stage. Sitting near the stage, front and center, were yarmulka-capped boys from a Hebrew academy. Organizations supporting school choice and quality education had display tables with fun activities for the children as they waited for the governor's appearance.

Twice in January and once in March groups numbering from hundreds to, in one case, 4000, have assembled also at the state capitol to protest budget cuts to public schools in the state legislature. In one rally they wore red shirts (for blood, according to one informant) and in another they wore black, for "death" according to an ASU web site. On that same site a video of one of the events show scowling faces, and raised fists as they chant "Save Our Schools" over and over. Many of the participants are identified as teachers.

One group is being thankful that the legislature allows donors to voluntarily redirect their state income tax to school tuition scholarships (and public school extra-curricular activities). The other groups are demanding more and more funds from involuntarily conscripted taxes.

The confusion over numbers of dollars is a complicated subject that I will try to address in a future article. Just remember this: the average scholarship award from tax credit organizations is about half or less than typical private school tuition, which is almost always less (sometimes by half) of what the public schools are getting from publicly taxed funds. This means that the thankful people are paying both taxes and out-of-pocket funds for school tuition. And the ungrateful people are just paying their taxes.

I find that contrast pretty interesting, and thought you would, as well.