-----------
Here is a lot of blowing smoke.
----------------
Whenever I see the words “government school” I cringe. This blunt rhetorical tool (Yet a quintessentially accurate descriptor.)
is deployed in “school choice” debates to appeal to libertarians who shun all things “government.” (Which libertarians do not do. Libertarians advocate government, that is, constitutionally-limited government. The author either doesn't know what libertarians believe, or she's deliberately misrepresenting them.)
In the U.S., of course, what we call them is public schools, (Yes, people call them "public schools," but there is no approved list of terms.)
like we talk about public land, public infrastructure, public libraries, public health. These are all things the public shares the cost and the benefit of. (Ummm. "Share?" No one has asked the public if they want to share. The money is taken. By force if necessary. And no one is actually sharing anything. A large portion of people pay nothing, while others pay more than their "share.")
It would seem odd to say, “I don’t like Yellowstone, I choose not to recreate on ‘government land.’ I want money from the public coffers to pay for my trip to Hawaii.” (Another head-scratcher. I drive my car using my gas and pay for my hotel as I travel to Yellowstone, and at the gate I'm greeted by a uniformed government employee who will not allow me to travel on this "public" land unless I pony up $30.00.
If I choose to go to Hawaii, that has absolutely nothing to do with the status of Yellowstone. And in fact, I've paid for both, just by different means. But one has a government gatekeeper.
In addition, the author apparently doesn't like the idea of people wanting money from the "public coffers." I'm guessing her outrage is restricted to a very few things, since there are millions of people with their hands in the public coffers for all sorts of reasons.)
By all means, go to Hawaii! But don’t draw down the general fund that all citizens (Some citizens...)
pay into, for the public good, to support your private trip. (A misrepresentation. It is property taxes that pay for schools. No property ownership, no taxes paid. So a homeowner pays for government schools, and then pays again if the homeowner wants to send their kid to private school.
The money that was paid out by the taxpayer first belonged to the taxpayer. The "public" is not paying for the private school, because the money in question does not belong to the "public.")
The public education system has always aimed to create a collective resource that affords our children shared experiences, values and traditions, linked to our common democratic inheritance, which forms the glue that coheres society. (What? The purpose of a school of any kind is to educate students, and to impart skills and competency that will be useful to the student.)
I don’t expect my children to come home from school quoting the Bible, Torah, Koran, Tao De Ching, etc. (Why not? Why should these things be off limits?
And by the way, "private schools" is not synonymous with "religious schools.")
These are excellent value systems, ("Excellent?" So it seems that the author wants "public" schools to censor large amounts of excellent information in order to satisfy the her biases.)
for the particular religious communities that they form and counsel. They are not our shared beliefs and values, ("Our?" This makes no sense. The author just acknowledged a diversity of "excellent" values, apparently shared by numerous people, but these particular values we embrace are not "ours?"
And I note the manipulative nature of terms like "share.")
as a secular, pluralist, democratic society within which liberty meant, first and foremost, freedom from government establishment of and infringement on any particular religion. (Oh, so "our" values are in distinction with other possible values. Did you know you had shared values that are different from your values? And your values are of lower worth?
And can we ask, what are these values based upon? Someone's moral system? Laws? Supreme court decisions? leading ethicists? And how did they become universal and other values become sub optimal?)
Having said that, I deeply appreciate that in a public school setting my kids share a common world with other kids who have a broad range of religious, economic and political beliefs and experiences. (Until those children who are Christian start to "share" their broad range of beliefs and experiences. Then it's not going to be so "deeply appreciated.")
Petra is a great “choice” for those who desire a private, separatist, (It took the author until the last sentence for the hostility she desperately was trying to obscure with her inclusive rhetoric to be revealed.)
Christian educational experience for their children. But do not ask the public to siphon money from the general fund to pay for it. (No, actually, they just want their money back.)
The money that was paid out by the taxpayer first belonged to the taxpayer. The "public" is not paying for the private school, because the money in question does not belong to the "public.")
The public education system has always aimed to create a collective resource that affords our children shared experiences, values and traditions, linked to our common democratic inheritance, which forms the glue that coheres society. (What? The purpose of a school of any kind is to educate students, and to impart skills and competency that will be useful to the student.)
I don’t expect my children to come home from school quoting the Bible, Torah, Koran, Tao De Ching, etc. (Why not? Why should these things be off limits?
And by the way, "private schools" is not synonymous with "religious schools.")
These are excellent value systems, ("Excellent?" So it seems that the author wants "public" schools to censor large amounts of excellent information in order to satisfy the her biases.)
for the particular religious communities that they form and counsel. They are not our shared beliefs and values, ("Our?" This makes no sense. The author just acknowledged a diversity of "excellent" values, apparently shared by numerous people, but these particular values we embrace are not "ours?"
And I note the manipulative nature of terms like "share.")
as a secular, pluralist, democratic society within which liberty meant, first and foremost, freedom from government establishment of and infringement on any particular religion. (Oh, so "our" values are in distinction with other possible values. Did you know you had shared values that are different from your values? And your values are of lower worth?
And can we ask, what are these values based upon? Someone's moral system? Laws? Supreme court decisions? leading ethicists? And how did they become universal and other values become sub optimal?)
Having said that, I deeply appreciate that in a public school setting my kids share a common world with other kids who have a broad range of religious, economic and political beliefs and experiences. (Until those children who are Christian start to "share" their broad range of beliefs and experiences. Then it's not going to be so "deeply appreciated.")
Petra is a great “choice” for those who desire a private, separatist, (It took the author until the last sentence for the hostility she desperately was trying to obscure with her inclusive rhetoric to be revealed.)
Christian educational experience for their children. But do not ask the public to siphon money from the general fund to pay for it. (No, actually, they just want their money back.)
No comments:
Post a Comment