Different Public Schools for Different Faiths ?

[BCP1928]

People are taught all sorts of incorrect things regardless of their affiliations. If not in the name of religion then in the name of politics and other group memberships. Public schools should generally stick to agreed upon facts and steer away from politically charged positions.

That would require that K-12 kids be sheltered even from age appropriate discussion about what was happening in the adult world and even much of what has happened in the past.

Drag queens and CRT may be interesting and divisive to varying degrees, but they aren't facts. At least not the kind of facts that help kids pass important tests. Global warming has a degree of truth when viewed in the context of climate change, but there's also a lot of emotionally-charged misinformation out there. These are topics for adults to discuss, but they're far from being "just the facts" of the type that kids should be learning in school.

Drag queens exist--that's a fact, and kids know it already. The existence of CRT as an academic analytical tool is also a fact that many kids are aware of.

Global warming is a mixed bag. Evidence indicates that climate change is real and influenced by human activity. However, if the global warming activists when I was growing up were correct, New York City would be submerged by now. Was it a hoax? I suppose some might call it that, although most of them probably meant well. A grain of truth, that we can destroy our planet if we're not careful, buried under a mountain of misguided emotion. I hear echos of this in today's Greta Thunberg types. Do we need a generation of Chicken Littles running around rather than having the facts and thinking with a sober mind? No. Should we nevertheless strive to reduce pollution and conserve our environment? Yes. Absolutely. If you encounter a Christian or Jew who disputes this, tell them that the Bible instructs us to be caretakers of nature. Not to harm it.

Okay, but why shouldn't teachers be able to do the same?

As far as I've seen, most kids get along fine with other races until opinionated adults step in and tell them that they should have animosity toward different ethnic backgrounds. Kids shouldn't be shamed for being white, black, Asian, or even sentient space aliens for all I care (think Star Trek). Kids are kids. Let them play and learn together. When they are old enough, teach them about the history of race relations, but never suggest to them, whether in words or actions, that they are superior or inferior to others based on external things like skin tone. The topic of sexism can be handled similarly.

Again, that seems to be a responsibility you want to deny teachers. Keep in mind that the only ideology which requires us to feel guilt or shame for the sin of an ancestor is Christianity.

If parents want to recruit drag queens from the local drag club to read to their kids at home that's their choice. Much like a Christian, Jew, Muslim, Hindu, and so forth might pray with their families and share religious traditions at home. Public school isn't the place to be pushing personal agendas. It's the place where kids are taught how to read, write, and solve math problems along with play and participate in shared activities. Activities that are appropriate for a mixed audience. Drag queens are a bawdy act intended for adults. They may not "turn kids gay", but they aren't appropriate either. If you want them reading to your kids under your roof, that seems sketchy to me, but it's ultimately your decision. Regardless of what you do in your own home, adult oriented acts do not belong in our public schools.

The public sometimes forgets that public education is intended for a mixed group of children. So they can (at least in theory!) become responsible, educated, adults who are at least literate, can balance a checkbook, and understand how the political system works. Not to turn them into little leftists or little rightwingers. It likewise isn't for converting them to a theistic or atheistic point of view. That's for them to decide for themselves outside of public learning institutions. When handled well enough, separate public schools for different religions shouldn't be necessary.

An excellent ideal. Too bad that the present political climate makes it impossible.

 

[Tuur]

It becomes difficult when what is taught at home in the name of religion is not factual. That global warming is a hoax, that drag queens can turn kids gay by reading to them, that CRT is intended to make kids ashamed of being white, and so on.

Hate to break it to you, but parents always teach their children at home. Doesn't matter if a child attends a public, private, or home school: there is teaching in the home. The only way you can prevent the teaching of information not sanctioned by the Party is to take children from their parents at birth. I wouldn't be surprised if someone hasn't already suggested it.

 

[BCP1928]

Hate to break it to you, but parents always teach their children at home. Doesn't matter if a child attends a public, private, or home school: there is teaching in the home. The only way you can prevent the teaching of information not sanctioned by the Party is to take children from their parents at birth. I wouldn't be surprised if someone hasn't already suggested it.

I don't know--it looks like the Right is making a good try at it.

 

[Margaret3110]

So rather than solve that problem, we should turn to school choice,

School choice might be part of the solution.

 

[Miles]

That would require that K-12 kids be sheltered even from age appropriate discussion about what was happening in the adult world and even much of what has happened in the past.

I'm not sure what you are saying here. Are you suggesting that teachers should teach opinion and politically divisive topics as if they were agreed-upon facts? That's a recipe for disaster.

Kids go to school to public school to learn to read and write. Leave the political partisanship, proselytizing, and opinions to their families and friend circles.

It shouldn't require sheltering the kids. At least not as far as popular conception of the term goes. When I was a kid, I read the news and spent a lot of time in the library reading books above my grade level. My parents even bought me an encyclopedia and there were always newspapers and magazines lying around. I had a pretty good idea of world history and what was happening in the adult world at the time. Including what the adults of the world were bickering about, and in some cases going going to war over. However, the stuff of opinion pieces and partisanship wasn't taught in public school. My friend group talked about everything we could think of, but it would have been strange if teachers taught our varied and changing opinions as part of the curriculum. Thankfully, they didn't. Admittedly, I was sheltered from things like hunger and cold. Likewise, my parents were clear about some of the more harmful adult things that they didn't want me involved with, but it didn't require denying the existence of things that people disagree with and sometimes fight about.

Drag queens exist--that's a fact, and kids know it already. The existence of CRT as an academic analytical tool is also a fact that many kids are aware of.

Of course drag queens exist. So do strippers and adult comedy acts. What of it? We don't need to deny their existence, but that doesn't make them appropriate for the compulsory mixed audience that is the public school classroom.

As far as CRT goes, it seems to breed ignorance from what I've seen. There are now more people walking around thinking that they can't be racist and others thinking that they're inherently racist. Unless one is aware of the fact that anybody has the potential to be a racist, regardless of ethnic background, they're at risk of becoming racists themselves. Systemic racism happens sometimes, among some people, to varying degrees. Sure, but the idea that it's inherent and distributed among populations based on their race or defines a person's inherent value is nonsense. It's also useless compared to the the various strengths, interests, and talents that we possess as individuals. Regardless of race. Schools are supposed to foster the development of those abilities that are part of our shared humanity. That's what it will take to move us toward a better future. Our shared humanity, and what each of us brings to it, is a more productive than seeking to divide.

Okay, but why shouldn't teachers be able to do the same?

I never suggested that they shouldn't. Or maybe I don't understand your question. Public school teachers should teach the facts. Not that the sky is falling or that our actions don't have an impact our environment. The truth is somewhere between the extremes.

Again, that seems to be a responsibility you want to deny teachers. Keep in mind that the only ideology which requires us to feel guilt or shame for the sin of an ancestor is Christianity.

What responsibility am I denying to teachers in what I said? Are you referring to CRT? It's possible to unequivocally oppose racism while not pushing the politically charged package called Critical Race Theory.

Regarding guilt, are you referring to the concept of original sin? I don't feel guilt for shame over the sins of my ancestors, and I don't know any Christians who do. Guilty for own sins, sure, but God is forgiving. Hopefully, we try better next time. There is talk of ancestral guilt in the Bible, but that ended over 2,000 years ago when Christ gave his life for our sins. Christianity is the only religion to offer that.

An excellent ideal. Too bad that the present political climate makes it impossible.

Almost impossible, perhaps. It may not be as feasible now, but I'm hopeful that as the evidence of social media's impact accumulates more people will take a step back and reassess.

 

[Miles]

I don't know--it looks like the Right is making a good try at it.

And to the right, it looks like the left is trying to do the same. All the more reason to be mindful of what's taught in public schools. They don't exist as platforms for parents or teachers to push their personal agendas. They exist for kids to learn the things that they need to succeed in life.

 

[BCP1928]

I'm not sure what you are saying here. Are you suggesting that teachers should teach opinion and politically divisive topics as if they were agreed-upon facts? That's a recipe for disaster.

It would be, but I certainly would not want them to rely on your take on what constitutes "opinion and divisive topics."

Kids go to school to public school to learn to read and write. Leave the political partisanship, proselytizing, and opinions to their families and friend circles.

It shouldn't require sheltering the kids. At least not as far as popular conception of the term goes. When I was a kid, I read the news and spent a lot of time in the library reading books above my grade level. My parents even bought me an encyclopedia and there were always newspapers and magazines lying around. I had a pretty good idea of world history and what was happening in the adult world at the time. Including what the adults of the world were bickering about, and in some cases going going to war over. However, the stuff of opinion pieces and partisanship wasn't taught in public school. My friend group talked about everything we could think of, but it would have been strange if teachers taught our varied and changing opinions as part of the curriculum. Thankfully, they didn't. Admittedly, I was sheltered from things like hunger and cold. Likewise, my parents were clear about some of the more harmful adult things that they didn't want me involved with, but it didn't require denying the existence of things that people disagree with and sometimes fight about

So why do you want to require it now?

Of course drag queens exist. So do strippers and adult comedy acts. What of it? We don't need to deny their existence, but that doesn't make them appropriate for the compulsory mixed audience that is the public school classroom.

As far as CRT goes, it seems to breed ignorance from what I've seen. There are now more people walking around thinking that they can't be racist and others thinking that they're inherently racist. Unless one is aware of the fact that anybody has the potential to be a racist, regardless of ethnic background, they're at risk of becoming racists themselves. Systemic racism happens sometimes, among some people, to varying degrees. Sure, but the idea that it's inherent and distributed among populations based on their race or defines a person's inherent value is nonsense. It's also useless compared to the the various strengths, interests, and talents that we possess as individuals. Regardless of race. Schools are supposed to foster the development of those abilities that are part of our shared humanity. That's what it will take to move us toward a better future. Our shared humanity, and what each of us brings to it, is a more productive than seeking to divide.

You really don't know very much about CRT, do you. That's OK, I don't think anybody outside a few small academic circles actually does and it makes a better straw man that way..

I never suggested that they shouldn't. Or maybe I don't understand your question. Public school teachers should teach the facts. Not that the sky is falling or that our actions don't have an impact our environment. The truth is somewhere between the extremes.

And it's better for the Right's agenda if the kids don't find out where it lies. But you really are fighting a battle that you will lose in the end. Have you ever taught in a public school? Kids are naturally and anxious to learn, and they will learn from other sources facts you are trying to keep from them by calling "opinions and divisive topics." What happens to your credibility as a teacher then?

 

[DaisyDay]

Of course drag queens exist. So do strippers and adult comedy acts. What of it? We don't need to deny their existence, but that doesn't make them appropriate for the compulsory mixed audience that is the public school classroom.

It has never been compulsory.

 

[Miles]

It has never been compulsory.

Where I grew up in the northeastern US, public school was typically viewed as compulsory unless you had another schooling arrangement (private or home) that met certain guidelines. Now that I think of it, however, dropping out was an option. Just not one that I seriously entertained.

 

[Miles]

It would be, but I certainly would not want them to rely on your take on what constitutes "opinion and divisive topics."

Likewise. That's what makes them divisive. We all have views that others disagree with, but public school isn't necessarily the right platform for their expression.

So why do you want to require it now?

Require what now? You've lost me on this one.

You really don't know very much about CRT, do you. That's OK, I don't think anybody outside a few small academic circles actually does and it makes a better straw man that way..

Although I may not have majored in Racial Studies, I've been subjected to enough departmental DEI training sessions and know enough people to form an opinion. For what it's worth, I get along just fine with the people who run those sessions. I try to be charitable and consider peoples' intentions even their methods don't stand up to scrutiny.

And it's better for the Right's agenda if the kids don't find out where it lies. But you really are fighting a battle that you will lose in the end. Have you ever taught in a public school? Kids are naturally and anxious to learn, and they will learn from other sources facts you are trying to keep from them by calling "opinions and divisive topics." What happens to your credibility as a teacher then?

I taught as a grad student in a public university, but not K-12. I've thought about becoming a school teacher someday, and maybe even starting a charter school, but my current career keeps me busy.

My credibility would probably increase because I would refer to actual research publications rather than opinion pieces. If you try talking down to kids they see right through you. I would strive to be one of those "just the facts" kinds of teachers and take an active interest in helping my students succeed. Teachers who did that were always my favorite. Students tended to like them and they weren't activists. For what it's worth, the students might not even figure out what my political and religious affiliations are. The reason being that I'd focus on helping them learn and fostering their creativity rather than losing the plot on things like drag queens and whatnot.

 

[KCfromNC]

I'm not sure what you are saying here. Are you suggesting that teachers should teach opinion and politically divisive topics as if they were agreed-upon facts?

I read it as there are attempts by right wing groups to portray the teaching of certain facts as indoctrination because the reality of those facts disagrees with what the right wing groups are tying to sell to their customers. Hence the examples of manufactured outrage coming from less than factual far right propaganda.

 

[BCP1928]

I read it as there are attempts by right wing groups to portray the teaching of certain facts as indoctrination because the reality of those facts disagrees with what the right wing groups are tying to sell to their customers. Hence the examples of manufactured outrage coming from less than factual far right propaganda.

I think you have summed it up very nicely, thank you. What irks me is when they do it in Christ's name.

 

[sprknjc]

Why should it be restricted to just parents? Shouldn't the discussion of how tax dollars are used include everyone who pays taxes?

Parents who currently have or recently had kids in the schools get a first hand account from their kids, and are more likely to talk more at length about joys or issues their kids experience during the school day and on a daily or weekly basis.

 

[Miles]

I read it as there are attempts by right wing groups to portray the teaching of certain facts as indoctrination because the reality of those facts disagrees with what the right wing groups are tying to sell to their customers. Hence the examples of manufactured outrage coming from less than factual far right propaganda.

Makes sense. That sort of thing happens all too often, unfortunately, and is arguably somewhat inevitable. At least to a degree. We all have personal opinions, and are prone to butting heads from time to time. I support the right for individuals and institutions to hold differing opinions whether I agree with them or not, but I also support the right for people to disagree. It doesn't benefit the students, especially in the early grades, to define their education by hot-button issues. We don't need to deny the existence of controversial topics, but we also don't need to make them part of the curriculum. They might be acceptable topics for middle school and high school students to hone their debating skills on, but faculty and students are less likely to spar with each other over basic geography or whether 2 + 2 = 4. And if they do, it can be an opportunity to address the point of "except for certain values of 2" and how the changing political landscape can redefine national borders. When we instead waste time, energy, and taxpayer dollars on partisanship it's the students who lose.

Thankfully, manufactured outrage rarely happens around the basics of reading, writing, math, or even science for that matter. Views do differ on topics like evolution, but I've seen it successfully taught in an unbiased way (by not turning it into a debate about God's existence or showing partisanship). Likewise for sex education. Our sex ed teachers basically drowned us in a sea of facts regarding human reproduction. If anything, that scared some of the kids away from being sexually active. "There's no such thing as safe sex, just safer sex and here's why." That sort of thing. There wasn't much of a conflict between what was taught in public school and what was taught in Sunday school in this regard. The basic message being that sex isn't something to be reckless about. I do remember a lot of manufactured outrage in the media at the time, but I didn't see much if any of it in person. In retrospect, that makes my teachers look better than I thought they were at the time. Apparently, cooler heads prevailed. That's what I like to see in the classroom.

 

[BCP1928]

Makes sense. That sort of thing happens all too often, unfortunately, and is arguably somewhat inevitable. At least to a degree. We all have personal opinions, and are prone to butting heads from time to time. I support the right for individuals and institutions to hold differing opinions whether I agree with them or not, but I also support the right for people to disagree. It doesn't benefit the students, especially in the early grades, to define their education by hot-button issues. We don't need to deny the existence of controversial topics, but we also don't need to make them part of the curriculum. They might be acceptable topics for middle school and high school students to hone their debating skills on, but faculty and students are less likely to spar with each other over basic geography or whether 2 + 2 = 4. And if they do, it can be an opportunity to address the point of "except for certain values of 2" and how the changing political landscape can redefine national borders. When we instead waste time, energy, and taxpayer dollars on partisanship it's the students who lose.

What in the world do you think is going on in elementary schools??? Where do you get your information?

Thankfully, manufactured outrage rarely happens around the basics of reading, writing, math, or even science for that matter. Views do differ on topics like evolution, but I've seen it successfully taught in an unbiased way (by not turning it into a debate about God's existence or showing partisanship). Likewise for sex education. Our sex ed teachers basically drowned us in a sea of facts regarding human reproduction. If anything, that scared some of the kids away from being sexually active. "There's no such thing as safe sex, just safer sex and here's why." That sort of thing. There wasn't much of a conflict between what was taught in public school and what was taught in Sunday school in this regard. The basic message being that sex isn't something to be reckless about. I do remember a lot of manufactured outrage in the media at the time, but I didn't see much if any of it in person. In retrospect, that makes my teachers look better than I thought they were at the time. Apparently, cooler heads prevailed. That's what I like to see in the classroom.

The outrage I saw was all from the Right, for teaching them too much about sex. If they learn the details of safe sex then they'll all want to "do it" was the cry.

 

[Miles]

I think you have summed it up very nicely, thank you. What irks me is when they do it in Christ's name.

It irks a lot of Christians, too. If you're not aware of this, then you might be in an echo chamber replete with its own manufactured outrage. Maybe you are, or maybe you're not, but it's something to keep an eye on. I try to keep an eye on it myself, checking my own biases from time to time. Especially, considering the current political climate.

What in the world do you think is going on in elementary schools??? Where do you get your information?

You may be asking a rhetorical question, but it's mostly Yahoo news for me these days, and occasionally CNN or MSN. Although I admittedly haven't been paying much attention to the drag queen debate, I'm pretty sure they're not reading to teenagers. That would mean it's happening in the elementary schools. Little kids probably don't care one way or the other, but the parents and educators are apparently fighting about it. Then again, maybe most of the fuss is limited to the media. Rage bait gets clicks, after all.

The outrage I saw was all from the Right, for teaching them too much about sex. If they learn the details of safe sex then they'll all want to "do it" was the cry.

I saw it too. In the media. Rarely in real life, and the sex education that we received was comprehensive. They covered all the forms of birth control, along with the failure rates and symptoms of all known STDs at the time. It didn't seem to pose a problem for my Christian, Jewish, Muslim, or Hindu friends or their families.

 

[BCP1928]

I have to say, that the Dems walked right into it. They had no idea how important these gender conformity issues are for the Right.
They are naturally appalled at how LGBTs have been treated and want to do something about it. They had no idea of the trouble that would cause them. I mean, I don't care if drag queens read stories to my kids because I don't think it would do them any harm, why should anybody else feel so strongly about it? They just didn't take social conserve attitudes about sex seriously. It cost them votes, too. Many minorities are socially conservative and would vote Republican if the Right didn't treat them so badly and this all this sexuality kerfluffle has pushed some of them over the line.

 

[DaisyDay]

Where I grew up in the northeastern US, public school was typically viewed as compulsory unless you had another schooling arrangement (private or home) that met certain guidelines. Now that I think of it, however, dropping out was an option. Just not one that I seriously entertained.

Yes, school is compulsory but drag queen story time is not.

 

[Goldnagel]

Though the First Amendment says the government cannot establish A religion as was in England, here's an idea to reduce cultural friction between people of various faiths and those of anti faith in the public schools, which can happen in larger school districts with dozens of schools. Have separate schools for Christian, possibly for various denominations within, Catholic, Jewish, Muslim, Hindu, Buddhist, not believers of traditional marriage lifestyle, Atheists, etc. and not restricted to skin color, ethnicity, race, or nationality. Parents choose for their children which is cheaper than private school and less time constraining for parents than home schooling. Some interaction between different belief schools in the school districts with sports games and academic competitions. Also so if the Christian kids want to pray or study the Bible in their own Christian publc school, they could do so without offending others, likewise if Muslim, Jewish, or choose to participate in an alternative lifestyle.

Larger school districts have the real estate of many buildings to do this. I do see added school bus transportation costs with this, but reducing cultural friction and lawsuits is priceless. Maybe this idea is being done today in sections of other countries besides the United States, but I don't know. Some districts do have special schools for bad behavior students, gifted academically, or the disabled, so why not of various beliefs?

Thoughts, pro or con?

Mat 10:34 Think not that I am come to send peace on earth: I came not to send peace, but a sword.

 

[Miles]

Yes, school is compulsory but drag queen story time is not.

Perhaps embarrassingly, I'll admit that it didn't cross my mind that drag queen story time would be compulsory for students. Little kids tend to go along with whatever the teachers tell them or what their friends are doing, but I wasn't under the impression that it was part of the required curriculum.

Regardless, I perceive time, energy, and tax dollars being wasted fighting over issues like this. Resources that, in my opinion, would be better invested in teaching the kids academic and practical skills. Or maybe on school supplies and better infrastructure. Parents and teachers even fight about such issues, but there's less manufactured outrage and the potential benefits are more straightforward.