The current controversy surrounding the Texas board of education and their attempts to rewrite history with an extreme right wing evangelical spin brings to mind the words of writer Robert A. Heinlein, who said “It is a truism that almost any sect, cult, or religion will legislate its creed into law if it acquires the political power to do so.” At the center of this controversy is Cynthia Dunbar, an evangelical Christian, lawyer, and author, and a member of the Texas Board of Education. She has proven willing to use her power to force her extreme religious views into the Texas educational curriculum, even when her beliefs do not match with historical accuracy, or to put it bluntly the truth.

Dunbar firmly believes the United States was founded on Christian principles – a belief likely reinforced by her education at Regent University School of Law, Pat Robertson’s university. Her invocation for Friday’s Board of Education meeting began with, ““I believe no one can read the history of our country without realizing that the Good Book and the spirit of the savior have from the beginning been our guiding geniuses.” She also stated the founding fathers had the intent of creating “a Christian land governed by Christian principles.” In her book, One Nation Under God (Onward, 2008), she states the founding fathers created “an emphatically Christian government.”

If the founding fathers were driven to create a Christian government, as Dunbar believes, then why would they have lead a revolution against the prior government? Revolution against the government is against biblical teachings. In Romans 13:1 the apostle Paul wrote “Let every person be subject to the governing authorities; for there is no authority except from God, and those authorities that exist have been instituted by God. Therefore whoever resist authority resists what God has appointed, and those who resist will incur judgment.” Until the American revolution, authority to govern came from God, but the founding fathers saw the authority coming from reason instead.

The founding fathers were men of the Enlightenment – the era of philosophical awakening – a term Dunbar tried to remove whenever possible. They were men of reason not superstition. Quite a few were Deists, not Christian. Deists believe that a supreme being created the universe, that religious truth can be found through reason and observation, and denies the need for faith or organized religion. Reason was the litmus test for government, not that government be held to a “biblical litmus test” as Dunbar holds.

To put the thought of a Christian nation to rest once and for all one need look no further than the Treaty of Tripoli from 1796. Article XI of the treaty states “The government of the United States of America is not in any sense founded on the Christian religion.” There it is plain and simple. Should be enough to convince anyone, but not Dunbar. Even though Thomas Jefferson helped draft it during George Washington’s presidency, and John Adams signed it, that is still not enough for her.

Thomas Jefferson seems to be a problem to Dunbar for several reasons. She would see him marginalized if not outright vilified for coining the term “separation of church and state.” She has claimed the separation of church and state is a myth. To her this is not the intent of the first amendment. Her belief system, outlined in her book, would go to the extreme as to “require that any person desiring to govern have a sincere knowledge and appreciation for the Word of God in order to rightly govern.” This requirement for Christian knowledge would be in direct contradiction to the Constitution which says in Article VI, section 3 that “no religious test shall ever be required as a qualification to any office or public trust under the United States.”

Dunbar also finds fault with the public school system, a system Jefferson helped found, and a system she was elected to serve. She goes so far as to refer to public education system as a “subtly deceptive tool of perversion.” She goes on to call the creation of public schools unconstitutional, even “tyrannical”. She say this is because they threaten the rights of the family, as granted by God in the scriptures, to control the education of their children. Her own children were home schooled and sent to private schools, rather than sending them to public schools which to her would be “throwing them into the enemy’s flames.”

One need only read the first 2 pages of her book to see her inability to separate her beliefs from the reality of a situation. She compares modern America to Nazi Germany before the Holocaust. She then says targeted group, the unfortunate “chosen people”, this time would be “devout, Bible-believing Christians.” She then say they are the only group in the United States it is acceptable to malign. This shows how far her beliefs are out of touch with reality, so far that they border on the paranoid.

Do not write her off as extremist, a radical, or paranoid. She may be all three of these things, but to write her off would ignore the most dangerous thing about her. She has power. Power over the education and futures of 4.8 million Texas schoolchildren. Power over possibly millions more in other states forced to follow the lead of Texas. Power to strike a blow for the extreme evangelical right, far beyond the beliefs of most conservatives. Make no mistake, she is dangerous. Her beliefs make it clear that she supports the idea of an evangelical Christian theocracy. Pretty sure that is not what the founding fathers had in mind.

Teachers at Central Falls High School in Rhode Island have all been fired. The national coverage of this event is a perfect example of stories getting at least a little muddied on the way to the big press outlets. I ended up hearing about it on MSNBC, that lead me to a “Huffington Post” piece, that referenced a short summary on “USAToday”, where I finally found the link to “The Providence Journal”. (To be fair, I didn’t click on every link offered at “Huffington Post”, but I did click on the first one in the story there.) I won’t pretend to guess where MSNBC came up with their source information – there were other issues with them anyway.

So, let’s start with the MSNBC coverage. As usual, they got someone that they felt could be considered an expert of sorts on the issue of across the board firings of teachers in failing schools. I went back to MSNBC today, and searched for the name of their expert on this – Zeph Capo, the government liaison for the Houston Federation of Teachers. (I learned his title from a Houston Press blog. Yes, the link is worth a look as you’ll see!) Either the folks at MSNBC were trying to pull a fast one, or they thought it was highly unlikely that anyone would bother to look up the credentials of Zeph Capo. Whatever their motives, I found it profoundly irresponsible to choose a man who just went through a battle with his own school district to prevent them from making incompetence grounds for dismissing a teacher there.

And that is what this whole situation is about – incompetence. Back to Central Falls High School, and all those teachers and staff that were given their walking papers, what you get when you bother to read the local coverage is a story about greed. The school administration wanted to go another route. They wanted to do a program that would have required a much more pro-active approach to teaching in that school – something that was sorely needed, since under half of the students were graduating. The school district offered the teachers $30 an hour for extra time needed to help the students – bear in mind, this isn’t a good school, in a good neighborhood, with an affluent community supporting its needs. The administration moved to the clean sweep option offered by the Federal government when the teachers demanded $90 an hour for their precious time. Personally, I think it was very kind for the district to offer them a dime for any overtime needed to fix the problems the teachers had created in the first place!

And back to our good friend Zeph Capo, he had a few precious gems to offer about all of this. To paraphrase, since his speech on MSNBC was splattered with “uhs” and “ums” – “It is inappropriate for President to make judgment calls about local school districts…There’s no research to say that these wholesale firings of teachers and staff do anything to improve academic improvement…School districts and school boards can support their teachers, they can support their kids. We can try to get a handle on the testing mania that is taking over our school systems…Teachers and students are more than a test score.”

First of all, it is quite appropriate for the President to make judgment calls of that kind, simply because when we, as a country, slip in the academic rankings worldwide, he takes the heat for it. If the districts won’t fix it, or can’t because they’re hogtied by unions, then the State and Federal governments have to step in. As for no research on wholesale firings, that’s absolutely true for only one reason – until now, it hasn’t been done because the teacher unions have been protecting bad teachers from the axe for years. When you’re looking at under 50% graduation rates in a given school, it’s fair to guess that there aren’t very many teachers in that institution that are managing to actually teach anything. The testing mania is the only game in town to evaluate schools – something we know we need to do because we’re not keeping up in the educational competition worldwide. Students that have problems taking standardized tests have options, but they take time and extra work on the part of the teachers. Oh, I forgot. The teachers’ time is too precious to waste on stupid things like helping students.

But while things are circling the drain in Rhode Island, there’s a ray of hope in Chicago, Illinois. In Englewood, there’s a school where all 107 graduating seniors this year are going on to four-year colleges. At Urban Prep Academy for Young Men, if you buy what the Zeph Capo’s of this world believe about education, they are achieving the impossible. Instead of striving for mediocrity, they are reaching for the stars.

I am the product of Catholic education. In our classrooms, students that did well were also taught to teach. We were encouraged to help our peers when they struggled in class, and were taught the skills to do that. Through that education, I learned that there are two types of teachers – ones that consider teaching a way to make a living, and ones that consider teaching a way of life. The young gentlemen that are privileged to attend Urban Prep Academy for Young Men have the latter. So was I.

Unfortunately, the successful schools don’t get the same amount of press coverage as the failing ones. (I’m guilty of that here.) At the very least, they deserve more so that the administrators of failing schools know where to look for ideas – find solutions to their problems in institutions that are excelling. As for the teachers’ unions, their time is over unless they stop protecting incompetent educators. Not everyone is meant to be teacher – many that are today should leave the profession. Until the unions start encouraging people that really don’t belong in a classroom to move on, they are the enemy to progress in education. While they were busy trying to get better wages and benefits for their members, they forgot why their members were supposed to be there in the first place – to prepare the next generation to take its place in the world. That in itself is failure.

  • Twitter
  • Technorati Favorites
  • StumbleUpon
  • Facebook
  • Delicious
  • Digg
  • Share/Bookmark

Today Obama decided it would be a good idea to make an address about the state of education in the U.S. Yes, I’m starting this as though I were back in high school, writing for the school paper. Yes, the title of this is intentionally similar to a spoof movie. Yes, I’ve done all of this to point out the sophomoric nature of the president’s contentions today – or in more plain English, to point out that I’m neither impressed nor amused.

Moving on to more mundane references to pop culture, this latest situation with education calls to mind P!nk’s “Dear Mr. President” – and is heartily tempting me to toy with those old lyrics to fit Obama, although right now, they already do when it comes to education. The rhetoric is a little more polished, but it’s still more of the same.

I already know that there will be numbers crunchers out there that will cry foul for one reason or another on this one, but at this point, it’s too tempting for me to ignore it. As quoted in the Washington Post, 70% of freshmen today are graduating high school. Now, based on dropout rates listed by the U.S. Department of Education from 2001 (Table 1), that’s down from 86.5%.

Before anyone starts yelling “apples and oranges”, and claiming that it’s an unfair comparison, the only reason I am even mentioning this is the fact that Obama didn’t bother to suggest anything new for education today. There’s some name-changing, and minor adjustments to NCLB standards of practice, but no meaningful differences – like removal of unfunded mandates (or the novel concept of offering Fed dollars for them), or reassessment of educational standards for educators.

Sure, Obama “said” that teaching is an important profession, but it’s lip service, just as it always has been. And my contention that we can’t expect meaningful change in education until we address problems in the system that creates teachers is still as valid as it ever was – still shared by at least a few scholars and researchers in the field. We didn’t need fast-tracking for people wanting to become teachers – one of the “shiny objects” from NCLB that still is ignored, in spite of its complete stupidity. We don’t need colleges and universities treating their Education departments like “cash cows” for the benefit of anyone but their Education departments. But there was no mention of that – apparently Obama thinks it’s enough to just say teachers are important.

It’s also important to keep talking about increasing standards for students, closing down poor-performing schools, or restarting schools in the hope that shutting them down temporarily will somehow magically make them better. Bluntly, a decent sound technician could have dabbled with the audio track today, making it sound like Bush, and I honestly wouldn’t have known the difference if it was on the radio. (I might have thought, “Wow! Bush is really on his game today. He must have practiced this speech for a long time!) But hey, change is about keeping programs that don’t work so well, right?

And yes, the next time someone jumps on me for not being enthusiastic about health care reform, I’m going to mention this one!

  • Twitter
  • Technorati Favorites
  • StumbleUpon
  • Facebook
  • Delicious
  • Digg
  • Share/Bookmark
© 2010 Everything in Its Own Time Suffusion WordPress theme by Sayontan Sinha

Secured for spam by MLW and Associates, LLP's Super CAPTCHASecured by Super-CAPTCHA © 2009-2010 MLW & Associates, LLP. All rights reserved.

Featuring WPMU Bloglist Widget by YD