Thanks to Michele McNeil, I saw the piece in the National Review whining that McCain has no interest in education.
Of course, it's written by a Fordham guy, Mike Petrilli, so what he really means is, "McCain won't go all crazy for charter schools, which means he must now care about education."
The concern is, then, that if McCain doesn't care about it, then he'll give way to people like Petrilli to act out their radical anti-public schools agenda.
Then Michele goes on to give me heart palpitations by imagining Mike Huckabee as Education Secretary, or in this case, the Preacher to the Teachers. (Thanks, for that, Michele. My heart's almost back to a normal rhythm now. I'll be fine.) Huckabee sounds good with his touchy feely talk about arts education, which I certainly agree with. But that's just window dressing for his radical agenda to redesign public education with vouchers and charters and bible based biology books.
Seriously, if you haven't read Michele's blog you're missing out. Why don't you people ever listen to me?
Monday, February 11, 2008
McCain has no interest in education
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
8 comments:
I listen Dave!!!
Thanks Paddy!
And I appreciate the Miami Herald link on teacher salaries.
Dave,
But at least Huckabee talks about education regularly!! (You're not having more heart palpitations, are you?) Okay, more seriously, I hope John McCain starts talking more about the issue of education. And as for Huckabee, I get your point about the window dressing for his radical agenda, but his record in Arkansas doesn't reflect that. Course, being governor and being president are two completely different things. So you may be right!
I listen, too, Dave. I am actually sitting cross-legged on the floor, looking up at you as you type. You have my undivided attention.
This, of course, cuts into my own blogging time. You are so demanding!
; )
Thanks guys. You have my back!
Re "[Huckabee's] record in Arkansas doesn't reflect that" (that being his campaign rhetoric about education] as being "window dressing for his radical agenda."
I guess it's a moot point that Arkansas' public school system is an absolute disgrace. Just ask any Arkansan, white or black. White Arkansans, even ones who struggle financially, stopped sending their children to public schools as a result of forced integration. Every good little town in Arkansas has a public school system which attempts to educate its black population, and affordable private schools where the whites send their children.
It is "freaky" to think of a Huckabee presidency in many, many ways.
The thing that many progressives respect about Huckabee is his apparent willingness to tell it like it is. However, it's difficult to determine how much of that persona is genuine, and how much is "window dressing for his radical agenda."
Linda
I won't be popular on this one --
Vouchers are a great idea to help the kids in failing schools who really want to learn. they need to escape schools that are failing because of a predominantly disruptive, nearly delinquent, population of students that treats peers and faculty with extreme disrespect.
My friend in the TPS system is at wit's end --she is smart, witty, experienced and qualified and has a strong personality--but says she can't discipline these kids sufficiently to educate them. And she feels sorry for those students who would do better if their peers were not so disruptive, disrespectful, disobedient, uncooperative and going in and out with truancy and suspension all the time.
All students should have vouchers --and try for the private schools or the smaller schools. but if they revert to their old school's typical behavior, they can go right back to public schools. We can't make people succeed if they have no work ethic.
And frankly, I don't see how you change disrespectful and unruly people enough without religious influence. If kids are taught what God expects of them, they have the greatest motivation to improve. Without that, I don't see what can be done in those schools in which anyone who can afford it, will leave --the system in ARkansas you say.
The paddle in the principal's office at the elementary level would also help. There are some schools in Toledo that are so chaotic because there is no disciplinary measure that works --we know a paddle judiciously and fairly and humanely applied, would work, because it did when I was growing up. I don't really think kids have changed; parents and schools have.
Kids test their teachers. As it is now, we use systems of rewards as motivations --but they need to see a little teacherly wrath --Or a paddle --a zero tolerance policy for fooling around. So we suspend them --and they come back with guaranteed F's for absence. So they aren't motivated when they return to class because they have nothing to gain except knowledge--which may be impossible because they've missed too much class to understand what is going on. So they disrupt again and get kicked out again.
I heard that Huckabee improved education in Arkansas?
No evolution believer has anything to fear from people who believe in creation. Darwin's theory must be taught --it doesn't affect most of what is taught in the required bio classes. you can be an excellent scientist and an A plus student with thorough knowledge of Darwin's theory --and still not believe it is true or proven by current findings.
The findings are interpreted to prove Darwin--they can also be interpreted to suggest Intelligent Design in the universe --which suggests a Designer.
but this is not Education according to the Bible. No Creationist OR ID theorist (and they are not necessarily the same thing) is suggesting a Christian school Biblical curriculum in public school.
They are just saying we need to be honest about origins --we are still speculating as to how the first life came to be. No one in science would teach Genesis, that God made Adam out of the dust of the earth and breathed life into him.
But no teacher should tell a 5th grader that it is not a fact that Adam and Eve were the first couple --in a lesson on facts vs. opinions. To a Christian, it is a fact that Adam and Eve were the first couple. It's not a scientific statement that belongs in the science class --except to say that religions do address the issue of how life emerged. The bible says Adam and Eve were the first human couple; Darwin says an amoeba was the first living creature and it "evolved" into all the others by a scientific process we have not yet proven for origins.
We have evidence of the biblical account that "each produced after its own kind." That's what we study in biology today because it's what we observe. What happened to get to the first couple is all speculation/supposition/hypothesis/not observeable today.
Darwin thought the fossils would produce the evidence; they have not done so conclusively to date --though many assertions have been made about fossil finds.
Anyone who wants to be a good scientist can do so without swallowing Darwin whole. there are many leading scientists, successful scientists, who do not believe evolution is the way diversity of life came to be (granted evolution within species.)
All the creation scientists and ID theorists who have science careers, are just as knowledgeable and have the same educations and standards for PhD's and masters' degrees as the Darwinists.
what we are seeing more of these days, is discrimination in higher ed. (and you want that in politics) against anyone who believes God created without Darwin's method. You are so sure science has proven it; I am so sure they have not.
Post a Comment