Our liberty depends on the freedom of the press, and that cannot be limited without being lost.

from Cato:
"Today's intelligent design ruling by the U.S. District Court in Harrisburg will be perceived as a victory for supporters of evolutionary theory and a defeat for I.D. advocates and creationists. Such perceptions are shortsighted. The Pennsylvania ruling will do nothing to end the battle over the teaching of human origins that has plagued public schools since the Scopes trial of 1925. It, and all the other cultural and religious 'school wars' that divide our nation, will rage on unless we do something about their root cause: our one-size-fits-all government school system.

As long as every taxpayer is compelled to fund a single official education system, conflicts over its curricula and methods will persist. But there is an alternative: provide tax relief and scholarships that will put independent schooling within reach of every family in America. By allowing parents to obtain the sort of education they value for their own children, without obliging them to foist it on their neighbors, we can eliminate the root cause of the problem -- and bring peace across the entire education front of our nation's culture war."

I can't agree more.

I just got the Cato Dispatch in the mail, and it includes your quote, GM.
http://www.cato.org/dispatch/12-20-05d.html
for those who are interested in seeing the rest of it. I agree, and would love to hear from some who do not.

Man...I feel like a broken record... even if GM beat me to it...

If we separated school and state, this would not be a problem. With private schools offering a variety of choices, this would not be a source of conflict.. some schools would offer one but not the other, others would offer both, and maybe some would offer neither... Parents could then chose for themselves how their kids will be educated.

It's time to separate school and state.

www.sepschool.org

>> If we separated school and state, this would not be a problem.

I don't mean to challenge the merits of privatized schooling; but, is this really one of them?

A perennial war cry among critics of teaching ID in biology class is that science is not a democracy. It seems to me that [the definition of] science shouldn't be market driven either.

Privatized schools should still have to meet certain minimal educational requirements - especially if they are to gain access to public funds (e.g. vouchers). Not the least of which should be that any topic taught under the banner of "science" should have to meet the definition of science.

-jib

[Editor's Note: Jib Halyard is an Atlas Blogged featured writer]

Privatized schools should still have to meet certain minimal educational requirements - especially if they are to gain access to public funds (e.g. vouchers).

Fair enough - though I think private schools do an admirable job of skirting that issue right now, and teaching ID and creationism right along with enough science to pass the state requirements.

Not the least of which should be that any topic taught under the banner of "science" should have to meet the definition of science.

So without the vouchers, you would feel it was okay? I'd like to push on you a little and see exactly where you draw the line, if that's okay with you.

So without the vouchers, you would feel it was okay? I'd like to push on you a little and see exactly where you draw the line, if that's okay with you.

Heh, no problem at all.

Actually, when I first drafted my comments, I had typed something to the effect of, "privatized schools should still have to meet certain requirements if they are to gain access to public funds." After re-reading, I decided to modify my comments to, "especially if they are to gain access," as I thought you might push me on this. :b

My opinion stands whether we're talking about a full blown privatized school system or just an intermediary step like vouchers.

Now, I wholeheartedly agree with the Coulson quote in the Cato dispatch:

The sad truth is that state-run schooling has created a multitude of similarly pointless battles. Nothing is gained, for instance, by compelling conformity on school prayer, random drug testing, the set of religious holidays that are worth observing, or the most appropriate forms of s3x education. Not only are these conflicts unnecessary, they are socially corrosive.

With that said, anything taught AS science needs to BE science; no matter your ideological slant.

Teach ID all day long, but don't paint it as science unless you're demonstrating that it doesn't progress farther, scientifically speaking, than a hypothesis.

-jib

Privatized schools should still have to meet certain minimal educational requirements - especially if they are to gain access to public funds (e.g. vouchers).

When I say "separation of school and state", I mean exactly that - SEPARATION. Vouchers are not separation. They are merely a new welfare program which will do nothing but turn private schools into clones of government schools, and eliminate the (relative) independence they now enjoy, when the money inevitably will start coming with regulatory strings attached.

I agree...schools should have to meet certain standards... But who should decide the standards? Bureaucrats who have one-size-fits-all ideas...or the parents who have the most interest in making sure their children succeed in life?

With that said, anything taught AS science needs to BE science; no matter your ideological slant.

This begs the question...or else what?

If a private school, say religiously based, wanted to teach ID as an alternate scientific theory in their biology classes...what then? Should the proprietors of that establishment then be arrested and locked up?

Libertarian Jason:

This begs the question...or else what?

Well, obviously, they should be beaten severely about the head and neck. :)

Seriously though, I'm not sure how to address this question since were talking about a hypothetical situation (a fully privatised system). With that said, we have truth in advertising & fair practice laws today (e.g. the Federal Trade Commission Act) that govern the private sector... so I see a corollary there when extending to a private school system. If you call something science, it needs to follow our well established guidelines of what science is. (Remember, that Kansas school board changed their definition of science to push their ID agenda - putting physical science, ID, and say, astrology, in the same bucket.) This is radically different from having the option of prayer in school, uniforms, etc... more akin to rounding Pi to 3 in math class.

For now, I'm happy with the courts ruling. ID doesn't meet our definition of science; it's nothing but a repackage of creationism which was already deemed unconstitutional to teach in our schools. But, that's already been said. :)

Too be honest, I'm actually really interested in hearing your opinions on the implementation of a fully privatised school system. I've only really explored/debated vouchers and the like (which, like you, I'm against).

I'd assume it be a pay as you go type thing, where only the parents of a particular child pays their tuition, etc. What would happen to poor children whose parents can't afford to send them to school? Do you envision a support net or are we talking about survival of the fittest here?

Later for now!

I'm not sure how to address this question since were talking about a hypothetical situation (a fully privatised system).
It's not so hypothetical. There are already schools out there that are fully privatized. Plus 1.1 million homeschooled students. What should the government be doing if a student in either of those situations was being taught that ID is more true than evolution, or things like that?

For now, I'm happy with the courts ruling. ID doesn't meet our definition of science; it's nothing but a repackage of creationism which was already deemed unconstitutional to teach in our schools. But, that's already been said. :)

Agreed... But there are plenty of people who don't particularly like this ruling, and as long as government involved in education, they will seek to gain enough political power so that they can force you to accept their (flawed) definition of science. At that point...politics will trump the "correct" meaning of science, and all your arguments in favor of "truth in advertising" will mean squat.

Too be honest, I'm actually really interested in hearing your opinions on the implementation of a fully privatised school system. I've only really explored/debated vouchers and the like (which, like you, I'm against).

Well, Wulf said it very succinctly. But. if you are up for a little research of your own, you may want to find Sheldon Richman's book, "Separating School and State"...it's not that long...maybe 200 pages, and it very well written. You can also visit the Alliance for the Separation of School and State (www.sepschool.org)...although, to be honest, they tend to focus a little bit too much on the religious aspect of schooling...but for the most part, their arguments are sound.

I'd assume it be a pay as you go type thing, where only the parents of a particular child pays their tuition, etc. What would happen to poor children whose parents can't afford to send them to school? Do you envision a support net or are we talking about survival of the fittest here?

For one...in a free market, natural incentives encourage producers to become more efficient with the resources at their disposal. The trend in a free market is always toward lower prices and higher quality. So the fact is, as the market begins to work, financial hardship will be less and less a problem, as parents will have to spend less to get more. Innovation in educational methods would be the norm, instead of mindlessly trying to adhere to an pre-industrial age model created when our society was more agrarian based.

But let's say, for some reason, there are still some parents who cannot afford to educate their children. Here, private charity can step in. There are plenty of community groups, philanthropic organizations, and churches that are devoted to raising money and helping those who cannot help themselves. So, yes, I do envision a support net...albeit one that is based on private and voluntary efforts.

Innovation in educational methods would be the norm, instead of mindlessly trying to adhere to an pre-industrial age model

Agreed. And modern technology makes this easier than ever, as any parent of small children can attest. LeapFrog and other interactive products have made early education in particular much easier than it used to be. My kids can't help learning - it's even better than a speak-n-say of yore. And as students get older, more and more of their education can be automated. There really is no need for the current system of 30 kids in chairs, daydreaming and disinterested, while the pedagogist who is charged with teaching them spends more time documenting their behavior and taking classes on group psychology than on the actual subject matter. I'll be writing more about this throughout the spring semester as I try some new stuff in the classroom.

Thanks for signing in, . Now you can comment. (sign out)

(If you haven't left a comment here before, you may need to be approved by the site owner before your comment will appear. Until then, it won't appear on the entry. Thanks for waiting.)

URL:

Remember This Information? YesNo

Comments: