Conference lgp30::christian-perspective

    I have almost come to the opinion that government run schools should be 
    ruled an unconstitutional break in the separation of church and state
    ideal. I can't imagine a teacher not teaching moral values, implicitly
    if not explicitly. And not assisting people (financially) who choose
    to keep their kids out of government schools discriminates against the
    poor and those who belong to smaller, less well funded, religious and
    political groups.

    But I may be a bit of a radical in the area of education. :-)

    		Alfred

    
    Alfred I think you're absolutely right and I know that there is
    historical precedent that bears you out.  I'm still need to send
    for some literature from an organization that speicific deals 
    with this country's foundation being Christianity, not just 
    religion.  
    
    Anyway...I'm especially concerned too.  My neice came home the 
    last week of school very upset.  A boy in her 2nd grade (!!!!)
    class gave her a note saying "I love you and I want to have
    sex with you."  This scares me.  I had no idea that things were
    that bad down to that level.  I've been more concerned about
    my 7th grade neice and my 4th grade nephew.  I didn't realize
    I should be so concerned about my 2nd grade neices.  It's not
    the same world I grew up in...that's for sure.  
    
    Jill

    Jill - 
    
    I wouldn't panic just yet.  Chances are the little boy doesn't know
    what the phrase "have sex with you" means.  It's likely he's just
    repeating something he heard his parents or an older sibling say.  But 
    if I were your niece's parents I'd find out who the boy is and try to get 
    in touch with his parents to straighten it out.  
    
    Nanci
    

    
    Thanks Nanci, I'm not really panicked but I do think that a certain
    amount of caution would seem wise.  I think my sister will try to get
    in contact with the parents.  I'm sure the little boy doesn't know as
    much as he thinks he knows.  What I'm not sure about is that he just
    picked it up from his family.  TV, music, everything are saturated with
    sex.  It's no wonder this kid thinks he should be having it already.
    
    Jill

    Well, the good thing about this is that the kid is associating "love"
    with "sex" whatever those terms mean or don't mean to him.  :-)
    
    Nanci

Re: .1

>    I have almost come to the opinion that government run schools should be 
>    ruled an unconstitutional break in the separation of church and state
>    ideal. I can't imagine a teacher not teaching moral values, implicitly
>    if not explicitly.

I can't agree with you there, Alfred.  Moral values aren't the same as
religion.  In my opinion teachers *should* teach moral values, such as
good citizenship, respect for the law, respect for other people etc.
Teachers should be neutral on the subject of religion.

The real questions, I think, are: What values are being taught in the
public school, and should a different set of values be taught instead?
The schools don't seem to be doing a very good job at turning out good,
well-educated citizens.  I'm certainly not an expert on education, but it
seems to me that we should be going in the direction of more discipline,
standardized testing, and higher standards.

>    And not assisting people (financially) who choose
>    to keep their kids out of government schools discriminates against the
>    poor and those who belong to smaller, less well funded, religious and
>    political groups.

Well yes, the poor are discriminated against because they can't afford to
send their kids to private schools.  They also can't afford to go to the
Riviera for their vacations, they can't afford to buy expensive homes, and
they can't afford to buy BMWs.  It's called Capitalism.

The question is, to what extent should the government intervene to help
people who can't afford to buy things at the market price?  I think a
model that makes sense is the two-tier approach: the government provides a
basic service, and if you want something better than this basic service
you're free to go out and buy it at the market price.  In this case the
basic service is the public school system.  If you don't want to send your
kids to a public school you're free to send them to a private school at
your own expense.

I'm undecided, though, about the merits of a voucher system, where parents
who opted out of the public school system could use the money that would
have been spent on their kids to help pay for a private school.  It's an
attractive concept from a libertarian point of view because it gives
people more freedom to choose how their children will be educated.  The
danger is that it would weaken the public school system because of a large
number of people deciding to opt out, so that the (largely poor) kids who
remained in the system would get an even worse education than they are
getting now.  A voucher system would encourage people to pull their kids
out of public schools instead of staying and helping to improve the
schools.   Maybe as a compromise the parents could be given a voucher for
some fraction, such as half, of what the government would have spent on
their kids if they had gone to a public school.

				-- Bob

    "Moral values" without reference to a specific religion are being
    litigated all the time as an establishment of religion.

    The American Civil Liberties Union and Planned Parenthood are suing
    school districts across the country for implementing abstinence-based
    sex education without reference to religion under the the establishment
    clause as establishing the moral values of Christianity.

    >I can't agree with you there, Alfred.  Moral values aren't the same as
>religion.  

    	I've had a number of courses in philosophy and ethics over the 
    years. I know in my head that morality can exist without religion and
    that there are moral people who don't follow any religion. However
    in my heart this is so illogical that it's hard for me to fully accept.
    I can not separate religion and moral values. Others can and though I
    do not understand how they can separate the two I understand that they
    do.

>danger is that it would weaken the public school system because of a large
>number of people deciding to opt out, so that the (largely poor) kids who
>remained in the system would get an even worse education than they are
>getting now.  A voucher system would encourage people to pull their kids
>out of public schools instead of staying and helping to improve the
>schools.   Maybe as a compromise the parents could be given a voucher for
>some fraction, such as half, of what the government would have spent on
>their kids if they had gone to a public school.

    A) I don't believe that a significant number of people would pull their
       kids out. Most choice systems do not see a big change.

    B) I do not believe that losing a large number of kids from the public
       schools would hurt them. In fact it may help many of them by cutting
       class sizes and over crowding.

    C) In the unlikely event that most of the students did leave the public
       system it is likely that society as a whole would be a net winner.
       Those who left would likely be able to get a better education by not
       being held back by people who are not interested in an education.

    D) The people who are working to make public schools better will do so
       even if their kids go elsewhere. At least if I am any example. I
       have worked very hard to make the public schools where I live better
       even though we pulled our son years ago. The people who will talk
       the public schools down are already doing it even though their kids
       are there.

    Over all I see a voucher system as a big win for society as a whole. I
    believe that people who oppose it are expressing a serious lack of
    confidence in public schools whether they realize it or not. After all
    if public schools are good few will take advantage of the vouchers. And
    if you believe that hordes of people will use vouchers to escape public
    schools how can you justify keeping kids from a better education?
    
    			Alfred

    I keep hearing that schools cannot address issues that have significant
    moral implications without also imposing moral values upon the
    students.

    If this is true, then that means that social studies classes cannot,
    for example, teach high school students about U.S. policy in Nicaragua
    during the 1980s without also teaching them that it was either morally
    right or morally wrong.  In fact, the implication, if carried to its
    logical conclusion, is that social studies classes are nothing but
    indoctrination machines, since the vast array of historical and
    political questions that these classes necessarily address are fraught
    with moral implications; and since classes supposedly must teach *some*
    sort of values to students, they must therefore be teaching students
    what to think with respect to these social and political questions,
    rather than teaching them *how* to think independently and critically.

    This is not, however, what I remember about most of my high school
    social studies classes, and therefore I suspect that the premise is
    faulty.

    -- Mike

    And why is the focus of evil on the United States?  Isn't what
    Nicaraguans did to other Nicaraguans as relevant?  Isn't what the
    Soviet Union was doing in Central American relevant?  Are the readings
    from "The Nation" balanced by "Mother Jones"?  Is "National Review"
    even in the school library?

    The high schools and colleges are all politicized.  It isn't "morality"
    or the politics that parents are worried about, but the facts the one
    needs to know about Nicaragua in order to be a knowledgeable person.

    >And why is the focus of evil on the United States?

    With respect to the general point I was making, who said that it was? 
    It isn't just a focus on "evil" per se, but on the good as well--in
    other words, the general question of morality, pro *or* con, of the
    policies that one's government carries out.  Since we are talking about
    schools in the United States, then naturally it becomes a crucial
    question of how citizens in the United States will use their value
    system to try influence public policy.  That's a very important part of
    what democracy is all about, after all--citizens being able to freely
    act to influence public policy.  The public policy of one's own
    government often has moral implications.  Therefore, if, as it is
    claimed, schools cannot teach students about issues that have moral
    implications without also indoctrinating them, then it follows that
    social studies classes must necessarily function to indoctrinate their
    students on how to think about public policy issues.

    However, this is not what I believe social studies classes necessarily
    do.  It is possible to teach *about* issues that have moral
    implications without indoctrinating students on what to believe;
    certainly at the high school level this is true. If it were not the
    case, then social studies classes would be serving a highly
    *undemocratic* purpose of telling students what to believe on
    ideological questions.  Is that what you think social studies classes
    must do by their very nature?  If not, then clearly the premise I was
    addressing--which was that schools cannot teach *about* issues
    involving moral implications without also teaching values to them--is
    untrue.

    >It isn't "morality" or the politics that parents are worried about, but
    >the facts the one needs to know about Nicaragua in order to be a
    >knowledgeable person.

    Well, I don't understand your point about parents not being concerned
    about morality (I wonder if Pat Robertson, for example, would say that
    he is unconcerned about children developing a sense of morality.)  In
    any case, the point remains that the "facts" about Nicaragua include
    certain historical events involving by various parties, including the
    U.S. government.  Those events have moral implications.  Is it possible
    for schools to teach *about* those events without also telling the
    students which moral evaluation of those events is the proper one?  I
    say that the answer is yes.  My point is that it *is* possible to teach
    students *about* issues with moral implications without telling them
    which morals to believe on the subject, that instead it is is possible
    to encourage students (at the higher levels, anyway) to think
    independently and critically about significant issues.  Thus this
    contradicts the assertion that schools always must be in the business
    of teaching students which values to believe whenever they teach
    students the facts about issues that have value-laden implications.

    -- Mike

        RE: .11 I do not believe it is possible to teach social studies without
    giving a political slant. Intentional or not I believe that all social
    studies have a slant. Sometimes the teacher will present both sides but
    even then some slant will come though. 

    The "great reformers" (Dewey et all) believed that the purpose of
    public schools was to teach a common set of information and a common
    set of understanding. To form society into the "democratic ideal" that
    the reformers believed in. This was the motivation behind the movement
    that created our (US) public school system. I believe that this is in
    fact counter democratic but the intention was good.

    			Alfred

    I often knew where my teachers stood on political issues.  But the good
    ones still encouraged open discussion and knew how to separate their
    own views from the process of evaluating *how* students justified or
    explained their own positions.  When I was in high school, I had
    teachers I agreed with, and teachers I disagreed with.  Actually, I
    think it can a very good thing for students to be exposed to a variety
    of points of view, even from their teachers, as long as those opinions
    are not effectively rammed down their throats; this exposure to various
    positions helps to broaden their horizons, and this too is part of the
    procedure for developing citizens in a democratic society.
    
    I suppose one could argue that encouraging democracy is itself a kind
    of value that you are teaching to the children.  However, this is a
    special kind of value that itself accepts the co-existence of competing
    values, which is really an important foundation of democracy in the
    first place.

    -- Mike

Re: .7  Patrick

>    "Moral values" without reference to a specific religion are being
>    litigated all the time as an establishment of religion.
>
>    The American Civil Liberties Union and Planned Parenthood are suing
>    school districts across the country for implementing abstinence-based
>    sex education without reference to religion under the the establishment
>    clause as establishing the moral values of Christianity.

I don't think they have a valid complaint, at least under the First
Amendment.  There are legitimate reasons why the state might want to teach
abstinence that have nothing to do with religion.

Re: .8  Alfred

>    I know in my head that morality can exist without religion and
>    that there are moral people who don't follow any religion. However
>    in my heart this is so illogical that it's hard for me to fully accept.

Well, since I consider myself to be a moral person and I don't follow any
religion, it seems logical to me. :-)

>    B) I do not believe that losing a large number of kids from the public
>       schools would hurt them. In fact it may help many of them by cutting
>       class sizes and over crowding.

It would hurt the schools to lose the funding for the kids who left
because the schools have fixed costs.  They'd probably have to cut
programs just so they could pay the heating bill, pay the janitors etc.

>    C) In the unlikely event that most of the students did leave the public
>       system it is likely that society as a whole would be a net winner.
>       Those who left would likely be able to get a better education by not
>       being held back by people who are not interested in an education.

But those who were forced to stay (because even with vouchers it would cost
more to send kids to a private school than a public school) would suffer.

>    D) The people who are working to make public schools better will do so
>       even if their kids go elsewhere. At least if I am any example.

You're probably exceptional, Alfred.

>    Over all I see a voucher system as a big win for society as a whole. I
>    believe that people who oppose it are expressing a serious lack of
>    confidence in public schools whether they realize it or not. After all
>    if public schools are good few will take advantage of the vouchers. And
>    if you believe that hordes of people will use vouchers to escape public
>    schools how can you justify keeping kids from a better education?
    
I'm not completely opposed to the voucher idea; as I said, I'm undecided.
The main reason I replied to your earlier note was because you suggested
that public schools might be unconstitutional.

I think the public school system has a lot of problems, but I think those
problems can be fixed.  If under the voucher system hordes of people
pulled their kids out of public schools I think this would pretty much sink
the public school system.  This might help the kids who moved to the
private schools but would hurt the kids who remained in public schools.  If
possible it would be better to fix the problems in the public school
system so that all children, whether in public or private school, would
benefit.

Re: .12 Alfred

>        RE: .11 I do not believe it is possible to teach social studies without
>    giving a political slant. Intentional or not I believe that all social
>    studies have a slant. Sometimes the teacher will present both sides but
>    even then some slant will come though. 

Yes, there will be a slant.  In some cases the slant is desirable from the
standpoint of public policy, e.g. it would be nice if our kids believed in
the value of democracy, respected life, etc.  Nazis might complain that
Naziism and democracy should be given equal time, but so what - they don't
have the votes to get their way.  It's only when religious beliefs are
involved that the state has an obligation to be neutral.

				-- Bob

    Mike, in the context of what I was writing, the concern of the parents
    isn't whether or not Johnny and Jane know that the United States
    government did the politically correct thing or incorrect thing in
    Nicaragua in the 1980's, but where to locate it on the map, know that
    it's not part of Mexico but an independent country, etc.

    As for "critical thinking", gimme a break.  The "right thinking" gets
    an "A" and the "wrong thinking" as poor grade as can be manipulated. 
    This starts in kindergarten and goes all the way to one's application
    for tenure.

>    Mike, in the context of what I was writing, the concern of the parents
>    isn't whether or not Johnny and Jane know that the United States
>    government did the politically correct thing or incorrect thing in
>    Nicaragua in the 1980's, but where to locate it on the map, know that
>    it's not part of Mexico but an independent country, etc.
    
    My point is that it isn't a matter of Johnny and Jane "knowing" that
    the United States did the correct or incorrect thing, since what I am
    arguing is precisely that schools should not be teaching students
    *that* a given public policy is correct or incorrect.  What I envision
    is for Johnny and Jane to function as citizens in a democratic society,
    in effect being able to drive the engine of democracy; this is possible
    only if they have the proper foundation and tools for making those
    kinds of determinations themselves, rather than having a politically
    correct ideology spoon fed to them.  I believe that one of the roles of
    a public education is in providing students with those tools.

    What you describe, on the other hand, is "geography", which is
    certainly very important, and I concur with you that children need to
    learn the subject; but geography is only a subset of social studies--it
    is in no way identical with the discipline.  Social studies is much
    more than just geography.  My high school social studies classes dealt
    with a variety of subjects, many of which inevitably touched on
    questions of public policy.  My social studies education would have
    been seriously wanting, and certainly much more boring, if all it dealt
    with was geography. 

>    As for "critical thinking", gimme a break.  The "right thinking" gets
>    an "A" and the "wrong thinking" as poor grade as can be manipulated. 
>    This starts in kindergarten and goes all the way to one's application
>    for tenure.

    For some teachers--specially the bad ones--that may indeed be true;
    but I had many teachers for who what you describe simply was not the
    case, and that included some individuals with perspectives that were
    quite different from my own.  My senior high school Government teacher
    was on the opposite side of the political spectrum from me, but that
    didn't prevent her from giving me an A.  This Government class didn't
    address geography, but it was still a social studies class; it did
    address important issues concerning the American political system,
    political ideologies, and so forth.  Also as a senior, I also took an
    honors social studies class called "Ideologies", which addressed such
    the concepts of capitalism, socialism, communism, and fascism. 
    Students learn important issues from classes like those, and from those
    classes they have tools that help them evaluate the political questions
    that they will grapple with in facing the democratic process.  There is
    only a year separating a high school senior from a college freshman,
    after all, and college classes regularly address those same issues, so
    it isn't like high school seniors are incapable of learning about and
    dealing with these issues.

    -- Mike

    OK.  There's more agreement here than disagreement.  The welcome of
    discussion of what's right with Reagan agenda (or your favorite villain
    on the political right) is in the 1990's is about the same as what's
    right with Stalin's agenda was in the 1950's on political campi.  So,
    it's payback time, eh?
    
    Something that's been done in my son's fifth grade for homework seems
    appropriate: cut out an article on international or national news from
    the newspaper.  Summarize and write down a opinion on it.

Note 703.17

>   The welcome of
>   discussion of what's right with Reagan agenda (or your favorite villain
>   on the political right) is in the 1990's is about the same as what's
>   right with Stalin's agenda was in the 1950's on political campi.  So,
>   it's payback time, eh?

This sounds roughly the same as saying that 2 wrongs cancel out each other.
I was always taught that 2 wrongs don't make a right.

Richard

        It has come to my attention that Note 149.0, "Values
        Clarification", also touches on this issue.

                Sentinel Delivered by WGS Advanced Development:
        DIGITAL INTERNAL USE ONLY BY INFORMATION PROVIDER AGREEMENT:


  In a bright and airy suburban classroom, second-graders are introduced to 
the concept of coping. "Pretend," says the teacher, "that your pet has died. 
Are you feeling sad?"

  "Now," she says, "let's sing a song to make us feel better." And the 
children join in two rousing choruses of a famous tune: "If you're sad and you 
know it, shed a tear . . ." So goes the art of "coping" with grief and 
separation.

  Scene from a black comedy? No. Just an ordinary exercise as described in a 
so-called "Comprehensive Health Education Curriculum" mandated by the state of 
Connecticut, and taught in hundreds of public school districts throughout the 
country. Through puppetry, song, story, film, drama and games, the "Here's 
Looking at You, 2000" curriculum offers lessons for grade-school children. It 
purports to be about "drug education" and "refusal skills." But its major 
thrust is pure brainwashing.

  As parents, my husband and I first became aware of the 2000 program at the 
dinner table one evening last fall, when our seven-year-old child suddenly 
asked us if we were alcoholics.

  "I beg your pardon?" my husband answered, pouring himself a glass of 
Sancerre.

  "You drink wine," she said, in defense of her question, "and sometimes you 
even yell at me."

  Apparently, earlier that day a cuddly little puppet named Miranda had told 
the second-graders a story about her "Uncle Bud." Like most of us, Uncle Bud 
occasionally loses his patience with the younger generation. But only, claims 
little Miranda, when he has had a bottle of beer.

  Our daughter informed us not to worry that she had noticed our "habit." 
"Lots of people," she said, "can help alcoholics and their families."

  "Surely not children, though," countered my husband, in disbelief.

  "Oh, yes," our daughter replied, confidently. "If a child tells a teacher or 
a friend, they will find someone to help."

  My husband -- as resigned to the puritanical idiosyncracies of elementary 
school teachers as he is convinced of the pleasures of good wine -- let this 
little incident go unremarked. He urged me to exercise the same discretion.

  But even he was annoyed when, as part of a unit on "poison control," our 
daughter exhorted us to comb through every inch of our house, making it 
"safe." That meant inspecting for the presence of alcohol, nicotine and 
caffeine, as well as ammonia and muriatic acid.

  "No doubt those Schnapps bottles in the wet bar will be reported at school," 
my husband commented wryly, after our worried little girl had gone to bed 
reciting the Poison Control 1-800 number. "Pity the poor child whose parents 
smoke as well as drink."

  A few weeks later our child came home with a worksheet that finally sent us 
banging on school doors. Titled "Chase Your Monsters," it presented a list of 
scary thoughts that had been unveiled to her, in an animated film, as the 
major bugaboos of seven-year-olds. Among these: "Grown-ups must be feared"; 
"Your home-life is a war"; "Someday you'll use drugs"; and "People of 
different colors should not work together."

  Now, these are truly ugly suggestions to put into the head of a child. But 
even uglier was a follow-up assignment on the "monster" theme, which 
instructed our daughter to close her eyes, visualize a "monster problem" of 
her own, and then write about it. What, we wondered, could possibly be behind 
such an invasive exercise in negativism?

  What is behind it, we suspect, after having looked further into the 
curriculum, is the desire to harden children -- the better to wean them from 
the potentially insidious influence of their parents.

  Indeed, in the war on drugs launched by the "Here's Looking at You, 2000" 
curriculum, parents -- not pushers -- are the enemy. Parent are purported to 
transmit "positive attitudes" toward drug use and to "involve" their children 
in it. How? According to the teacher's guide, when they request children "to 
bring a beer from the refrigerator."

  And parents are noted in the curriculum to have more destructive 
propensities than simply encouraging chemical dependency. Teachers, in fact, 
are asked to pay close attention to any suspected "family management problems" 
in their classroom; they are coached in the warning signs of family conflict; 
and they are prompted to remind their pupils "to talk to a friend or a teacher 
if they need help with a problem." One exercise in the second-grade lesson 
plan fairly extracts family confessions. It invites children to send "secret 
messages" to their teacher about "problems at home."

  My husband and I have requested that our child be exempted from this 
"health" program, the hygienic benefits of which, we are convinced, only a 
Goebbels could trly appreciate.

  The school authorities have politely acceded to our wishes. Of course, we 
were informed that taking our little girl out of the program might make her 
feel ostracized. But this, apparently, has not happened.

  I asked my daughter only last week whether she feels unhappy about being 
sent out of the room during "health" lessons. "Oh, no," she answered 
emphatically. "I get to go to the library!"

  ---

  Ms. Mack is writing a book on the cultural environment of childhood.
% ====== Internet DOWvision Codes
storyCounter: 1035
Headline: None at Thu Jun 17 21:14:09 1993
transmissionTime: 2100

	Someone tell me again how the right is the threat not the left.

				Alfred

Alfred .21,

	I may be wrong (and I frequently am), but I don't see this as a
matter of right and left, conservative or liberal.

	When my step-daughter (now 18) was in the 2nd grade, there was no way
we could convince her that her school teacher was capable of error or that
something she had been told (or thought she had been told) by her teacher
was just plain wrong.  She learned with maturity that outside sources vary
considerably in reliability.  She learned later to question authority.

	Jennifer did seem particularly concerned when she would see her
mother having a beer on a hot summer's day.  She was, for a while, a self-
appointed guardian and critic of our behavior.

	Jennifer in her teens years did become an outspoken Pro-Lifer
and opponent of Colorado's Amendment 2:  One right-wing and one left-wing
issue.  Go figure.

Richard

    Both the right and the left see the public schools as a laboratory for
    teaching social/behavioral correctness.  Once you get beyond academics
    and move into the area of "making good citizens" you open Pandora's box
    for all points of view.  Whether it was the anti-Catholic leanings in
    the late 19th century, the removal of voluntary prayer in the mid-20th
    century, or the current push toward "multiculturalism", sections of the
    general public have always seen the school system as a conduit for
    promoting their ideals...  
    
    Eric

>	I may be wrong (and I frequently am), but I don't see this as a
>matter of right and left, conservative or liberal.
    
    Teaching values that contradict those of a students parents always 
    strikes me as much more a left wing sort of thing to do. Sure there 
    are fanatic right wingers who do it but it seems to be someting that
    even tending to the middle left wing people want to do.
    
>	Jennifer did seem particularly concerned when she would see her
>mother having a beer on a hot summer's day.  She was, for a while, a self-
>appointed guardian and critic of our behavior.
>
>	Jennifer in her teens years did become an outspoken Pro-Lifer
>and opponent of Colorado's Amendment 2:  One right-wing and one left-wing
>issue.  Go figure.
    
    What was the right wing issue?
    
    				Alfred

    Very Left----------------------------------------------------Very Right
    
    Unlimited Pro-Choice                                  Strictly Pro-Life
    
    Gay-supportive                                         Gay-unsupportive
    

	RE: .25 Read too fast. Saw pro-life and read pro-choice. Mia culpa

			Alfred

    RE: .20
    
    Your tax dollars at work. What a waste!!!
    
    Marc H.