Archive for the ‘Education’ Category

Charter schools and teacher bashing – Conservatives take heed!

Tuesday, March 2nd, 2010

Having a family member who teaches in a public school gives one a new perspective on the debate over how to reform public education in America.

Can we agree on the following generalizations regarding how politicians on the left and the right propose to improve our public education system?

  1. We need to make teachers and schools accountable by using scores to measure their effectiveness.
  2. Schools that are not measuring up to these scores need drastic change.

Let us start with the first. How do we measure teacher performance? By looking at scores. There are several different scores by which reformers suggest we make teachers and schools accountable. One is standardized test scores. The other is some sort of composite score (which may include such things as standardized test scores but also attendance and graduation rates). The common assumption is that if a class is not achieving a certain score then that teacher is ineffective. And/or if a school is not achieving a certain score then something is wrong with that school.

Conservatives of all people should know better than to accept uncritically this method for measuring teacher/school performance. Why? Because there is an unspoken and unexamined assumption that if one simply applies the correct methodology then it will produce the desired behavior. Think about that for a moment. That assumption fails to take into account what in my opinion are two principles of conservatism.

  • Human beings have free will.
  • Human beings are flawed.

Children are human beings. They have free will. And they are flawed. So just because one applies the correct stimulus (teaching method) that does not guarantee the desired outcome. One of the great insights of the apostle Paul (which theologically we would say is inspired by God the Holy Spirit) is that the law (and yes I am aware of the problem with interpreting torah as nomos) does not make people good. Too often Christians and conservatives (the two groups overlap but are not necessarily the same) fall into the trap of thinking that people will do the right thing if we just pass the right laws. Or that students will perform if we just employ the right methods. It is not that simple. Ultimately a child has the freedom to say “no I will not cooperate”. And because children are not exempt from human nature there is always the real chance that they will choose not to do the right thing.

Do we really think that good parents always produce good children?

Do we really think that good teachers always produce good students?

One thing I have learned from being married to a dedicated and excellent public school teacher is there are many more factors involved in how a student performs academically.

The principal. The administrative staff. The school district. The families.

Let us say you have a disruptive student. Makes it difficult to teach a lesson. But the principal does not back you up (allows that student to remain in the classroom with no discipline or consequences). (That is not the case where my wife teaches but one hears of this at other schools.)

Let us say you have a child with learning difficulties. You try to get that child extra help. You do all the administrative paperwork and jump through all the bureaucratic hoops. But the administrative staff will not follow through. Or the parents refuse to work with you (and they have the right to refuse special intervention). Then you have a child who drags down the scores of the class and of the school.

Let us say the child comes from a family that is struggling to get by. So the family moves to a new apartment every few months. Which means the child moves to a new school every few months. And if that child has learning difficulties it becomes not difficult but impossible to provide that child extra help.

Let us say the school district has magnet schools which only the best students attend. That will naturally pull down scores in regular schools that now have only average to poor students.

I could continue but you get the idea. There are limits to what the best teacher using the best teaching methods can accomplish. There are several factors involved in student performance over which the best teachers using the best teaching methods have no control. And conservatives of all people should be sensitive to the effect the bureaucracy can have on rank and file teachers!

Do not misunderstand me. I do not deny there are such things as poor teachers who teach poorly. I do not deny that good teachers who employ good methods will generally see better results. Nor am I arguing one should have no standards or no accountability. But it is deeply problematic to impose a score and assume that if a class or a school fails to measure up to that score then there must be something wrong with the teachers or with the school.

Let me address briefly “generally see better results”. During the season of Lent I have been leading a series of Bible studies on the book of Ecclesiastes. Ecclesiastes would have something to say about all this.

Human beings are finite. The ultimate futility of human effort. The ultimate futility of human knowledge. No one knows the future. No one knows what God is doing. Everybody dies.

Which means there are no guarantees. You can have wisdom and live righteously and still lose everything in a moment.

But Ecclesiastes does recognize the relative value of human effort and human knowledge. Wisdom is better than folly. Righteousness is better than wickedness. Perhaps that good teachers are better than bad teachers. And good teaching is better than bad teaching.

It is in light of the above I would address the issue of consequences. Charter schools and school takeovers.

Yesterday I heard on the radio that President Obama is proposing some new efforts to improve public education. The kernel of which is “schools that fail to produce a certain score will be taken over and turned into charter schools”.

Lest it sound like I am picking on President Obama let me point out that this stand is hardly new and hardly the exclusive domain of leftists liberals and/or Democrats. Can you say “No Child Left Behind”? Can you say the state of Louisiana? Governor Jindal? Education Superintendent Paul Pastorek?

For the last several years we have seen many schools declared as “failing” then put on probation then taken over and turned into charter schools. In some cases there has been no improvement. (In New Orleans after Hurricane Katrina there has been although it is fair to ask if the improvement the result of handing control to charter school organizations.) Schools that are taken over and turned into charter schools have a mixed track record.

One middle school here in Baton Rouge was taken over. This year all students at that school were given A’s. Seriously. All students. Why? Because it looks good and encourages nervous parents not to remove their children from a school that has just been taken over.

And now Education Superintendent Paul Pastorek has raised the stakes. Now schools have to have overall passing scores in science and social studies in addition to mathematics and language arts (English). The passing score is now 75. There is no longer a probation period. Failing schools will be taken over and turned into charter schools immediately.

There was a school in Shreveport with a very low score that was not taken over. Because there were “extenuating circumstances” beyond the control of teachers and administrators. Which may be entirely true. But why does this school get a pass and a dozen schools in Baton Rouge do not?

You know what one African-American parent said about the then impending takeover of these Baton Rouge schools? “This is just one more way to keep black people down”. At the time I thought “Oh come on you’re being paranoid”. But then I thought about the pattern of takeovers. About which schools. Where. With what population. And I looked up which state school board members voted for and against this. And even which were white and which were black.

Hmm.

President Obama yesterday mentioned making available $900 million in “turn around grants” including to outside organizations that would take over failing schools and turn them into charter schools. Again lest it sound like I am picking on President Obama the same thing is true within the state of Louisiana. Tens of millions of dollars to school management companies to take over failing schools and turn them into charter schools.

Dare we ask who is making money from this?

I do not deny there are such things as failing schools. That should be taken over. That should be turned into charter schools. By outside organizations. In return for fair and reasonable amounts of money. I am not arguing that “charter schools are (always) bad”. I understand the conservative fondness for consequences and competition. And I recognize that at least in some states teachers’ unions bear large responsibility for problems with public education.

But liberals and conservatives alike are jumping onto this bandwagon too easily. Conservatives of all people should be suspicious of the “politicians give large amounts of taxpayer money to some outside organization to do something locally and not bound by the usual rules”.

Down with colleges and universities?!? (or) Barbecue stands and education reform

Wednesday, January 20th, 2010
Baton Rouge Community College - 15,000+ students

Baton Rouge Community College - 15,000+ students

Okay just trying to get your attention with a provocative title.

Background. Every month or two(?) we have an early release day. Pick up first daughter at at McKinley Middle 11:30 a.m. then drive to pick up second daughter at Baton Rouge High. Along the way there is an empty lot with a small trailer that advertizes barbecue. Normally it is closed when I drive that way in the afternoon. But on early release days I have formed the habit of taking the opportunity to stop and get a barbecue sandwich, side, and drink.

Arguably the best dang barbecue in the city. They have a piece of paper on the window that sez so.

Anyways they are so friendly and so are others who come by. Have been getting to know this guy who comes for lunch – wears Dickie work clothes, long gray hair, glasses. Apparently his kids went to Baton Rouge High. Today asked him about his work. They build “big ass mufflers for boats” – as in tugboats. As in mufflers that are 3 feet diameter and 10 feet long. How is business? Good. Everyone been working full hours without having to go into overtime. He has six employees.

They make $28 an hour.

Wow. That’s good money. Making “big ass mufflers” for boats? That’s more than I make.

He tells me about his two best employees a father-son team. The son is 18 and been going to the vocational school up the road.

“Back in Massachusetts we had that. It was one of your options”.

Yeah but here it is like college – after high school.

He is from Chicago and knows just what I am talking about. They had shop, metalwork, woodworking, automotive, eventually even plastics. Each year they built and sold a house and a fiberglass mold – covered materials for the entire school year. Good stuff.

Here’s my point.

We have too many colleges and universities – or at the very least not enough vocational schools and community colleges.

Several months ago was reading National Review and they had a list of twelve things that would revitalize the middle class. One of them was this very issue – strengthen our non-college non-university educational institutions. I say this as someone who went to university and has three graduate degrees. But not everyone who goes to college will get a good job. How many people four years and tens possibly hundreds of thousands of dollars later are still not able to find work in their field? For some reason we have gotten to the point where it is considered a basic requirement.

Is it? What about trades? skills?

The director of Teach for America for this region – who grew up in this church – mentioned that Louisiana with its population size really only needs two universities. We have several state and several private. The courses/credits do not always transfer smoothly between community colleges and universities or even between different universities in the state system. Louisiana greatly needs to strengthen its network of vocational schools and community colleges – and coordinate them better with the state university system.

So that a kid with mediocre grades and almost no money can start at a community college… knock out his core requirements… transfer to a university… and eventually get a PhD.

Think I am exaggerating?

My grandfather Edwin Warner was for much of his career the dean of Mohawk Valley Community College which was the first community college in the state of New York. His great achievement was to visit big universities around the state and ask “what do you require – in terms of your core courses and basic course requirements?” So he went back and made sure that students at Mohawk Valley got what the universities expected – so they could transfer to those universities and all their courses and credits would transfer with them.

And he did not have a PhD. Although people often addressed him as “Doctor” Warner.

He used to get letters from people decades later – people with PhDs, CEOs of companies, professors, doctors, engineers – thanking my grandfather for the start they got at Mohawk Valley Community College.

And what if someone does not go any farther? What is wrong with an Associates degree in a useful trade that leads to a solid job?

Just thinking out loud.

With my two master’s degrees and a doctorate – I make less than experienced skilled high school graduates who build “big ass mufflers” for boats. Not that I need to change careers. So much as to emphasize that if we want to help Americans get a good education that leads to good job…

It does not necessarily mean we need to work on getting everyone a college education.

The politics of salvation (or) "You are not merely wrong but evil"

Tuesday, December 15th, 2009

Friedrich von Hayek

A post about overheated rhetoric against “conservatives”. Link to a new post at Gay Patriot about “Why Do Some on Left Demonize Dissent”? A comment to that post by the author of the exceptional essay “Hayekian ignorance as cognitive affront” by Thinking Out Loud.

If one is engaged in the politics of salvation, then a sense of being a member of a cognitive elite, one with clearly greater moral and intellectual understanding is also a natural part of the package. The politics of salvation have a long history, and not a happy one. Hardly surprising, since the cause is so “obviously” so morally urgent, so morally trumping, that no dispute of its fundamental premises can be permitted. Indeed, to do so turns you into an enemy of salvation.

It is, after all, quite noticeable that the adherents of “conspicuous compassion” and “social tolerance” can be very uncompassionate, and very intolerant, towards those of the “wrong” opinions; that the adherents of “the Gospel of Love” can be quite keen on the rhetoric of hate; and that the adherents of “Allah the merciful and compassionate” can be quite merciless. But if one possesses the realm of righteousness up to the boundaries of morality, then the intensity of one’s rejection of those beyond those boundaries displays one’s commitment to righteousness by one’s damning of its enemies. Expressing cathartic hatred becomes a moral act—but not one that is a comfortable conjunction with Hayekian cognitive humility.

Lest I suggest the false impression that the author advocates what some consider “conservatism” – clearly a warning is in store for everybody on all points along the social-political spectrum. Including for Christian conservatives yes?

Hayek’s analysis enjoins a certain causal humility. What its supporters would regard as social realism. Though there are perfectly legitimate debates about what can be done effectively in any instance, Hayek’s analysis is a powerful support to a somewhat limited view of what is possible in public policy. This can sit badly with a strong sense of moral urgency about the ordering of society. [emphasis added]

Read the whole thing at Thinking Out Loud (Lorenzo Warby). H/T Gay Patriot.

Why I removed a 2 year old post from this site (or) Pressured into censoring myself

Wednesday, December 2nd, 2009

Well well well.

Two years ago – read that again – I attended a youth rally in Baton Rouge sponsored by our local Baptist association. During that youth rally someone came on stage and promoted a Christian rally/youth event which would be held during a school day. He offered an argument for (1) why the event could and should be held during a school day and (2) why public schools have to allow this.

I wrote a post which critiqued the youth rally – and during that post critiqued the rally/youth event that was being promoted. I thought it entirely inappropriate (a) to schedule such an event during a school day and (b) to insist public schools must allow this because “we can call it a religious holiday and the government cannot say what is or is not a religious holiday”. I did not critique the person who heads up the ministry that organizes the event nor did I critique the event itself.

Let me share with you the exchange – with names/details removed.

Dear Rick,

I assume your a great guy that is not into bashing denominations,or against soulwinner’s . However after reviewing a blog about “how not to plan a <removed> rally” i was very concerned about the misinformation that was put out. I also believe that you probably did not know the info is not factual that was put out…I am the founder of <removed> of which is mulicultural and interacts with multiple denominations to host an event in different cities . The event itself is determined by a committee formed in that city.
Every event all citywide ministries are invited to join together for a common cause. Please understand we have never hosted an evening event anywhere. Along with other non – facts this blog is not becoming of a christian whoever wrote it.
I am asking that it be removed . It is unlawful to post inaccurate info.. please respond with your decision.

Sincerely ,
Xxxxx Xxxxxxxx Xx
Xxxx xxx Xxxxx Xxx.
xxx-xxx-xxxx

My reply:

With respect – I suggest you read it again and more carefully. Focus particularly on the second sentence.

What misinformation? Everything in it is eyewitness account. I was not describing a <removed> rally. I was describing the youth rally (Citywide Youth Rally) sponsored by local Baptist association – at which someone appeared and promoted the <removed> rally which would be later in the year.

At no point does it claim <removed> is an evening event. Therefore it does not contain misinformation and is not inaccurate and so I do not see the need to remove it. Do feel free to leave a comment if you wish.

What came back was:

I would suggest as a brother in Christ.The title is using our trade marked name and as a brother in Christ you would recognize the title tries to imply our organizational tie. It is clear its slanted by some denominationalism. One thing you might of overlooked was many attended the through the field trip aspect of which was not accurately
Reported. Call me if you want more info. We are however requesting the removal

Sent via BlackBerry by AT&T

My final reply was:

This has been an unfortunate exchange and I am struggling to understand what your objections are. I think I have explained myself quite clearly and that the post does not lend itself to the sort of deliberate or accidental misunderstandings you suggest.

I could be wrong but my best effort to understand what motivates this is:

a) “<removed>” is indeed in the title of the post (even though the post is mostly about something else at which <removed> was mentioned and described and promoted)
b) which means people searching for information might come across this 2 year old post
c) which does indeed offer a critique of the “excused absence” argument

So here is what I am going to do. I am going to remove the post simple because I do not care to deal with this any further. I have work to do and a congregation to serve and do not need the stress even though I am entirely unpersuaded that your objections are valid. I will not call you. And I request that you do not attempt to call or contact me in any way whatsoever.

One wonders how someone could (legally) express disagreement with some aspect of <removed> (namely the “excused school absence” argument) without being accused of some sort of “inaccurate information” upon which one bases a request for removal.

I have rather strong opinions about this exchange. It is possible that I am not entirely or even mostly in right – that maybe this person has a point somewhere somehow.

What do you think?

The anti-poverty forum – spoken insights and the unspoken question

Friday, November 13th, 2009

Back in March of this year several members of University Baptist Church attended a Poverty Forum held at Shiloh Missionary Baptist Church and sponsored by the Interfaith Federation of Baton Rouge. I was not planning to attend until someone pressured me into going. One key argument is that people wanted to find out about our ministry efforts with the homeless along with several other “social and community justice” ministries such as To Highland With Love. The organizers explained that the gathering would be divided into smaller groups in which we could talk about and share what our various faith and community organizations were doing.

And there sort of is a reason why I am bringing this up months after the event.

Overall it was very good. When we entered the building we were given colored dots which indicated which table we would sit at. Each table constituted a small group that would discuss together questions provided on sheets of paper. There would be several presentations on different topics and after two or three presentations we would discuss. Each table was asked to select a “moderator” to guide discussion and a “secretary” to take notes. I write by hand much faster than most people and offered to take notes.

The presentations were generally excellent. Although it has been a while they were by professors of social work, heads of community service organizations, even a member of the board of directors for Capital Area Transit – our public bus transportation system. They addressed the causes of poverty. The effects of poverty. The importance of public transportation systems – what I thought was especially valuable. And finally how to engage in political advocacy relating to poverty.

The last presentation was the only one I had any real trouble with. It was highly critical of Governor Jindal particularly for taking stands with which I happened to agree strongly. It is one of the chief reasons I became less involved in the Interfaith Federation over the last five years – got tired of the casual assumption that we are all good liberal Democrats who think all religions are basically the same.

Overall the discussion at my table was good. Two members of our discussion group were social workers. One is the regional director for Teach for American whom I have known since first coming to this church in 1999 – one presenter did not show and he was asked to give an impromptu presentation about education which was excellent. And we had pretty good ethnic and religious diversity.

One mild frustration was that the reason I was pressured into going – so that I could “represent University Baptist and tell other people about our ministries among the poor and the homeless – turned out to be a bust. We never had a chance to share what our various churches and organizations were doing. The focus and format of the forum did not allow for it.

There was much that “conservatives” need to hear and appreciate about the causes dynamics and effects of poverty. The one that grabbed my attention the most is the importance of public transportation. We want people to work right? People cannot work if they do not have regular reliable transportation. And when people are already poor and have a low paying job – frankly it is mighty difficult to own and maintain a car.

(My third year of graduate school my car had so many problems that basically every dollar I earned that summer went for car repairs. In other words my net income became zero. While I was working.)

But this is what I wanted to bring up.

There was a great deal of discussion about what the government can and should do to address poverty. Fair enough. And for the most part when talking about the “causes dynamimcs and effects” of poverty there was a great deal of agreement and consensus at our table. Anyone care to guess what the number one factor was? Education.

But there was one question no one asked. Not in any presentation. Not at our table during the entire two to three hours. Not even hinted on the discussion sheets.

To what extent does government policy create encourage and exacerbate poverty and its effects?

One would think that after spending hundreds of billions of dollars since the 1960’s we would have made significant inroads in eliminating poverty. Tell me – which cities are the most ruined with the highest rates of poverty? And is there a correlation between poverty and style of government?

No one at the forum seemed to ask these sorts of questions.

(And no it is not that simple. In Baton Rouge there is a painfully obvious gulf between the average socio-economic status of blacks versus whites. And it cannot all be blamed on misguided government policies. Much of it has to do with education – and education in this city for decades had much to do with race/ethnicity. Fortunately that is starting to improve dramatically.)

Let us be more specific. Greg Mankiw who is an economist at Harvard University directs our attention to the “dead zone”:

Notice that as earned income rises from about $15,000 to $30,000, income after taxes and transfers is roughly flat. Indeed, it could even fall. The bottom line: If you are poor, the government is inadvertently ensuring that you have little incentive to try to improve your condition.

With a chart that illustrates earned income versus(?) net income after taxes and transfers.

We can give presentations and have discussions and engage in all sort of ministries to “help the poor”. Frankly we should. But too often in public social and political discourse we confuse good intentions with good results.

“We want to help the poor. Therefore we want the government to do x y and z. You do not want the government to do those things. Therefore you do not care about the poor”.

And yet where we have implemented x y and z we sometimes get more poverty and poverty more permanent.

Excellent speech by President Obama – seriously

Sunday, September 13th, 2009

Ah yes the controversial address to the schoolchildren of America by President Barack Obama on September 9. Yes we can complain legitimately about the “teaching materials” that the Department of Education first planned to use – and then did not. And yes there have been several attempts to deconstruct dissect and analyze the speech that the president actually gave – many of which argue that the speech still contains a high degree of political propaganda.

My wife teaches third grade. She thought it was exceptional. She thinks it should be repeated at the beginning of every school year.

I am not at liberty to describe what she thinks about the president or about politics because of what the current climate for public discourse has become. *cough if you say anything critical about the president at all you are labeled a racist cough* But I am at liberty to say I respect her opinion. And she watched it. Oh – and she thinks people who deconstruct it and conclude it is full of political propaganda are wrong (my word not hers – her words was much less polite).

By the way – several conservative commentators (who had been leery of the address) ended up thinking very highly of it.

I have reached a point where I have such a low opinion of this presidential administration and its policies that frankly I do not trust just about anything it says or does at this point. Hence my extreme skepticism cynicism and distrust of the address to schoolchildren when it was announced. But we should not hesitate to give credit when credit is due. And this occasion the president deserves credit.

One conservative commentator noted that the president did give an excellent speech. It was so full of conservative ideas. (I thought it was at Townhall or National Review but I cannot find the article.)

"Being Theologically Conservative"

Monday, April 13th, 2009

My friend Joshua (whom I get to visit when in Atlanta for Catalyst Conference) is a self-described “Socially Liberal, Theologically Conservative, Protestant” whose political views are “Very Liberal”. My intent here is not to debate or quibble with the “socially/politically liberal” part but rather to celebrate one of the most brilliant and concise descriptions of “theologically conservative” Christian faith.

He is also a great guy with an excellent family (he is a better parent than I by far) and his collection of science-fiction and fantasy books will make you cry.

(And yes he gave me permission to quote him.)

A key paragraph might be:

Also, the value of history becomes clear. “Christian” isn’t just defined by Scripture. It is defined by the people who died for the gospel in the first few centuries of the Church’s development. It is defined by the people who, 350 years after the time of Christ, selected, compiled, and edited the Scriptures that would become the Bible. It is defined, in short, by the historical identity of the Church.

Other might use the term “tradition” (or more precisely Tradition) in place of “historical identity”.

“Being Theologically Conservative” by Joshua Villines

The first point that I should probably clear up is that being theologically conservative is not the same thing as being socially conservative. Despite what Focus on the Family and other fringe groups on the axis of intolerance want you to think, Christian views on social issues have changed from generation to generation – and they’ve changed dramatically from era to era. If Christianity is defined by a particular social agenda, then there have been almost no Christians since the third century.Likewise, trying to use some form of convoluted logic to make the words of the Christian scriptures “inerrant” is not being a theological conservative. Clearly the people who wrote, compiled, and edited the Jewish and Christian scriptures didn’t think they were creating an inerrant collection of documents. They would have made them more homogeneous if they had. People who talk about biblical “inerrancy” are really just using a code word for their desire to subordinate Scripture to their social agenda; and they typically do so with people who don’t have the scholarly background to appreciate how ludicrous their claims really are (or to realize that the “inerrantists” aren’t conserving anything, they’re creating a new doctrine).

The reason that I began with the negatives, defining what “theologically conservative” is not, is that – for me – paring Christian identity down to the essentials was part of the process of defining my own role as a pastor. Through ordination, the Church entrusts to its clergy the custodianship of the Chruch’s identity; and so understanding what is “Christian” and what is not is part of a pastor’s role. Consequently, when I was ordained I realized it was important to try have a working definition of the word “Christian” if I was going to be able to do my job well.
If one takes this exercise seriously, it’s harder than it seems. On one side, there are the shrill voices of the fundamentalists. In order to place their counter-cultural assertions beyond critique, fundamentalists insist that even the most minute component of their doctrine, no matter how scant the biblical or historical support for it might be, is an essential part of being “Christian.”

On the other side are the real liberals. They claim the label Christian, while ignoring, denying, or contradicting nearly everything that Christians have historically believed – be it the deity of Christ or even the authority of God.Both extremes have kept the label “Christian” because they have positive associations with it or because it gives greater credibility to their belief systems; but in neither case is the label helpful. “Being a ‘Christian’ means understanding the world exactly the way I do, even if I don’t realize that the way I understand the world is very different from how Christians have historically understood it!” is not a useful definition. Nor is, “Being a ‘Christian’ can really mean anything as long as you include the word ‘Jesus’ in there somewhere.”

But with so many groups offering so many different, and contradictory, understandings of what it means to be a Christian, where can one turn? For me, the logical answer was (and is): Scripture and History.

(more…)

Charles Krauthammer coins and explains "Obamaism"

Friday, February 27th, 2009

Obamaism.

Now we have a word to describe the agenda which Krauthammer able summarizes. He begins by noting the significance of his recent speech to the Congress:

If Barack Obama succeeds, his joint address to Congress will be seen as historic — indeed as the foundational document of Obamaism. As it stands, it constitutes the boldest social democratic manifesto ever issued by a U.S. president. [emphasis added]

“Social democratic manifesto”. Which according to Krauthammer has three main features:

  1. Universal health care. Granted not all at once or directly but a “half way step” which is a government sponsored plan so attractive it will starve out the private sector. Readers of this blog may know that I do not oppose the idea of “universal health care” as much as most conservatives. I am sympathetic to the idea. But I of course have grave concerns about its cost implications and quality.
  2. Government funded entitlement of education all the way through college.
  3. Green energy. Readers of this blog again will realize I am not against green energy – in fact I support it strongly. But how shall we get there? With massive government spending and regulation? Is this really about the environment – or is this about expanding vastly the size and control of government over our no-longer-very-free market economy?

Krauthammer adds:

These revolutions in health care, education and energy are not just abstract hopes. They have already taken life in Obama’s massive $787 billion stimulus package, a huge expansion of social spending constituting a down payment on Obama’s plan for remaking the American social contract.

Obama sees the current economic crisis as an opportunity. He has said so openly. And now we know what opportunity he wants to seize. Just as the Depression created the political and psychological conditions for Franklin Roosevelt’s transformation of America from laissez-faireism to the beginnings of the welfare state, the current crisis gives Obama the political space to move the still (relatively) modest American welfare state toward European-style social democracy.

Read the whole thing at Townhall.Com. You do not have to register.

How many of us warned (a) what kind of person Barack Obama really is and (b) the radical left/liberal nature of his agenda. But many – who otherwise would not vote for democratic socialism and/or a man of such radical political leanings driven by an ego emboldened by a degree of hubris that would make Creon (“Antigone”) blush – said “he inspires hope” and represents “change” and we should “give him a chance”.

So how is that working for you so far?

Thanks a lot.

Are you willing now to face the truth and join the resistance?

Lousiana Science (mis-)Education Act passes

Friday, June 13th, 2008

Well – they did it. SB733 passes 94-3. Now it goes to the Louisiana state Senate to consider an amendment.

Backers contend that the proposal would give science teachers more freedom to hold freewheeling classroom discussions, including arguments that challenge Charles Darwin’s theory of evolution.

Read the whole thing at the Baton Rouge Advocate. You do not need to register.

Or the article at the Washington Times. You might need to register.

To be fair the Advocate article has some flaws. For example,

Christian creationists believe that life began about 6,000 years ago in a process described in the Bible’s Book of Genesis.

Well hang on a second. Not all creationists are young earthers. Not all young earthers go with the six thousand figure. And not all Intelligent Design proponents are – strictly speaking – creationists. This is a simplistic over-generalization.

I can handle that there might be some controversy about the details of Darwinian Evolutionary Theory. Maybe the mutations were not gradual. Maybe the pressures generating said mutations were not precisely as Darwin described. There is Newtonian physics and then there is post-Newtonian physics. Okay.

But here is my big question. What exactly would the “other view” in these controversial subjects be? Are teachers going to introduce evidence that suggests – so they say – evolutionary change could not have happened by chance or natural pressures? If not that then what?

“Hi kids. You know, I have some stuff here that suggests that the energy metabolism process that occurs within mitochondria is just so amazingly complex and improbable it could not have evolved by chance”.

“So Mr Richard – if it did not evolve by chance then where did it come from?”

“Oh uh – we’re not allowed to talk about that. But go home and think about it”. *cough* God *cough*

To my knowledge no supporter of this bill has yet to address this basic question that I asked in my letter to the editor. “What other explanations could there possibly be that are non-religious?”

Letter to the Editor – Why Public Schools (Do Not) Need Religion

Wednesday, June 11th, 2008

Here we go again. I hate it when Christians sound like fools in public.

To the editor, Baton Rouge Advocate:

Wright’s First Rule of Rhetoric states, When people are in error they will not only contradict but even refute themselves. As evidence I submit letters to the editor in support of the Louisiana Science Education Act (SB 733 or however it is packaged now).

The bill – we are told – neither intends nor permits teaching religious beliefs in the public (science) classroom. Interestingly the day it came before the House Education Committee (May 21, 2008) appeared a letter from Harold Daigle about Intelligent Design and how “mixing religion and science” could improve how Louisiana ranks in public education. Hey look at the quality of religious schools on Baton Rouge.

Then and recently (June 11, 2008) Daigle suggests the reason Louisiana public education lags by comparison is precisely because those who support the teaching of evolutionary theory and/or oppose the teaching of Intelligent Design are in charge. But then writes, “Intelligent Design is a pimple on the face of a school system dying of cancer. The cancer is not coming from intelligent design but from within. It is the people who are in charge of the curriculum and implementing that curriculum who are killing the patient.”

Being a graduate student in biology Daigle should know good science also involves (1) alternative explanations and (2) experimental controls. By what experimental evidence do we know that the current (science) curriculum is why Louisiana public education ranks so low? And therefore “mixing religion and science” is the solution? By what controls do we exclude a host of other possible explanations?

Of the 46 states that rank higher in public education how many reject the approach that Daigle and SB 733 supporters advocate?

Finally – so if Episcopal High does not teach Intelligent Design it is “secular” and not “religious”? Setting aside the illogic of the implied insult Daigle would have us believe secular (non-religious) schools do not teach Intelligent Design.

Presicely.

Yours most sincerely,

Richard M. Wright
pastor, adjunct faculty (Old Testament)