CE Week #8: “Reclaim education first” Oct. 27th
by Cal Thomas
The Spokesman-Review
“Don’t it always seem to go
That you don’t know what you’ve got
Till it’s gone” – Joni Mitchell, “Big Yellow Taxi”
Some conservatives are prematurely salivating over President Obama’s declining poll numbers. According to a recent Gallup daily tracking poll, “the nine-point drop in the most recent quarter is the largest Gallup has ever measured for an elected president between the second and third quarters of his term, dating back to 1953.” That may comfort some Obama opponents, but three years is a long time until the next presidential election, so conservatives and Republicans (not always the same) had better think of a long-range strategy if they want to save the country from the long-term consequences of what many call “socialism.”
Matthew Spalding, of the Heritage Foundation, offers one component of that strategy in his new book, “We Still Hold These Truths: Rediscovering Our Principles, Reclaiming Our Future.” Spalding believes, “America is unique in that universal principles of liberty are the foundation of its particular system of government and its political culture.” He lists them and explains their history: liberty, private property, consent of the governed, equality, natural rights, religious freedom, rule of law, constitutionalism.
Middle-age and older Americans recall that these subjects were part of their high school and college curricula. Younger Americans may be less familiar with them, as the public schools no longer seem to emphasize what once held us together, preferring to teach “diversity” instead.
Six years ago, Sen. Lamar Alexander, a Tennessee Republican, introduced a bill to require a greater emphasis on American history and civics in public school classrooms. Alexander quoted federal Judge Aleta Trauger, who spoke at a swearing-in ceremony for 77 new citizens in Nashville: “We are Americans because we also share certain fundamental beliefs. We are bound together by the unique set of principles set forth in documents that created and continue to define this nation. We find our heritage and inspiration in the profound words of the Declaration of Independence: ‘All people are created equal and endowed with unalienable right to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness.’ We pledge allegiance to the Republic as one nation under God, indivisible, with liberty and justice for all. But the greatest expression of our national identity is the Constitution of the United States, which established the responsibilities and rights that go with citizenship.”
All true in the past, but what if today’s schools no longer teach those principles and the Constitution is not supreme? What then?
Last week in New York City, the Children’s Scholarship Fund held a dinner in honor of Eva Moskowitz, who runs the Success Charter Network, which operates four charter schools serving about 1,500 students in Harlem. One of the speakers was Jaime Martinez, an eighth-grader who was rescued, along with his sister, Ashley, from a failing public school where he says he experienced bullying and fighting. Jaime’s grades are up at his Catholic private school; he sings in a choir and takes ballroom dancing lessons. (See his remarks at www.scholarshipfund.org.)
Children’s Scholarship Fund President Darla Romfo wants the education conversation to go “beyond arguments about vouchers, charter schools, and test scores into the newer territory of empowering parents and children with real information about how to choose schools and demand excellence, with the ultimate aim of expanding good options for every child.”
It is this objective that should be embraced by those wishing to “reclaim America,” not only for ourselves, but also for future generations.
If conservatives and Republicans support an exodus from public schools as a strategic goal, they will strike at the heart of liberalism, while simultaneously liberating minorities trapped in failed government schools. To free them and teach them about America and its promise of hope will produce everything they are looking for but can’t find in politics. It will also pay political dividends as children and their parents see which party and persuasion cares about them enough to bring real change to their lives.
It’s either this approach, with results, or continuing to put faith in politicians, who have proved themselves unworthy of such faith. If parents fail to act, they won’t know what they had till it’s gone.
Cal Thomas is a columnist for Tribune Media Services.
A.) I honestly didn’t know a lot of the information in this article. I was somewhat surprised to know about the 9 point drop in Obama’s support. I thought that Obama mania was still continuing as firmly as ever. I was also a little surprised to see someone so fervently attacking the public school system and promoting the idea of private schools.
B.) I felt pretty strongly about this article. As most of you know, I am fairly (many of you would pontificate “very”) conservative. However, I found that I disagreed with several of the key conservative-based principals. For example, I don’t think that Obama is Socialist. I think that he has some markedly Marxist tendencies, but I certainly don’t believe that he is trying to turn our country in that direction. Also, I am not a huge fan of many public schooling systems. I’ve moved quite a few times so I can honestly say that there are some really bad schools out there. However, “Reclaiming Education” does not and should not require the termination of thousands of teachers nation wide. Obviously, if we were to switch to an entirely private school system, this would be one of the final acts for most teachers. I believe that the author failed to notice this fact. Should schools be reformed to have a less partisan view (and don’t you dare try to tell me that teachers don’t have biases)? Yes. However, this reform can be facilitated with less drastic measures.
C.) Lastly, I want to know a little bit more about the differences between public and private schools in the area of partisanship. I know that Catholics are more likely to vote democrat, so would the author’s idea even work?
Connection- I would connect this idea to other similar very partisan plans. For as long as political parties have existed, there have been plans to “turn the tables”. One such plan was enacted in the 1800’s known as the “Alien and Sedition Acts”. These infamous acts nearly disenfranchised thousands of people. So, to quote about six billion movies, “Why can’t we all just get along?”
1. What I know:
Education in America has been something left almost unscathed with the many recent propositions for reform and alterations in this country, but not without suffering the side-effects. Our system of informing our youth is outdated and often irrelevant. For instance, it is not only my youthful rebelliousness saying that many of our required classes are not applicable to our future. The extent of science and math we take exceeds that necessary of an able mind-but leftover ideologies from the Cold War and its “space race” maintain an overzealous curriculum. I know that, of all my high school years, the class that has made me care most is AP Government and Politics, and I say this not only to butter up Kautzman, rather because it is true. Our schools focus on what we consider the basics which begs the question, are the basics the essentials? Students should learn how to be productive citizens, how to treat one another, how to be functioning human beings-many of which are deprived of them for lack of parenting. If, from a young age, we were instilled with a drive for involvement in our country, it is not a question of who would benefit but who would NOT benefit. I know we need to reprioritize and reestablish the purpose of an educational agenda.
2. What I learned:
Honestly, this article did not result in any epiphany of sorts or sudden realization, rather it was a necessary reminder for this country and myself. And I feel as though what I know about this subject was communicated fairly well in the first section.
3. What I want to know:
Have there been any recent attempts to alter our education system in the last couple years or so, and if so, who initiated these attempts? And where is the nearest mosque where I can declare my devotion and worship them?
4. Extension:
I’ve never hidden my interest in the differences between various political identities such as democratic, republican, conservative, etc. My extension was researching what the term “liberal” means. I found a definition from the Princeton University database: broad: showing or characterized by broad-mindedness; “a broad political stance”; “generous and broad sympathies”; “a liberal newspaper”; “tolerant … having political or social views favoring reform and progress tolerant of change; not bound by authoritarianism, orthodoxy, or tradition a person who favors a political philosophy of progress and reform and the protection of civil liberties. According to this definition, I am almost sure beyond doubt that I am liberal. And so it goes.
P.S. I also listened to the song referenced at the start of the article.
I Know: This article touched on a couple big issues but the one that stood out to me was whether or not to teach our nation’s values along with its history in public schools. I know that in my generation’s current education the statement “[schools are] preferring to teach “diversity” instead,” is untrue. It is true, indeed, that we learn about the “values” that our country was based on and we also learn how those values have proved durable yet flexible (I suppose a certain degree of diversity is included here) as our country has grown. Our parents may remember those standards as being a large part of their curriculum but now, when the phrase “under God” is a hot button issue it might be pushing it to instill ANY type of “morals” into the children under the public school system.
I Think: That while it may be wise to encourage a little patriotism in school, standing for the pledge everyday is pushing it already. I do believe that nationalism is the greatest strength that any country can have and that introducing it to citizens while they are still young is smart but a little too 1984 in my opinion. Our school system isn’t the place to encourage these ethics because our public schools are not supposed to lean any which way when it comes to values, ethics, and morals. And I believe the same thing goes for the values of our ancestors.
I Want to Know: I am confused on how whether or not to teach America’s values in school and the Children’s Scholarship Fund are related. Maybe I just didn’t comprehend the article but I don’t get what the author is inferring here.
NO CREDIT: MISSING CONNECTION/EXTENSION
A. I Know: This article touched on a couple big issues but the one that stood out to me was whether or not to teach our nation’s values along with its history in public schools. I know that in my generation’s current education the statement “[schools are] preferring to teach “diversity” instead,” is untrue. It is true, indeed, that we learn about the “values” that our country was based on and we also learn how those values have proved durable yet flexible (I suppose a certain degree of diversity is included here) as our country has grown. Our parents may remember those standards as being a large part of their curriculum but now, when the phrase “under God” is a hot button issue it might be pushing it to instill ANY type of “morals” into the children under the public school system.
B. I Think: That while it may be wise to encourage a little patriotism in school, standing for the pledge everyday is pushing it already. I do believe that nationalism is the greatest strength that any country can have and that introducing it to citizens while they are still young is smart but a little too 1984 in my opinion. Our school system isn’t the place to encourage these ethics because our public schools are not supposed to lean any which way when it comes to values, ethics, and morals. And I believe the same thing goes for the values of our ancestors.
C. I Want to Know: I am confused on how whether or not to teach America’s values in school and the Children’s Scholarship Fund are related. Maybe I just didn’t comprehend the article but I don’t get what the author is inferring here.
D. Connection: My older sister chose not to say the pledge in, like, 7th or 8th grade I think, and I remember how that was the topic of the week in my family. I didn’t really get it, at that time the pledge was still just a string of memorized words void of any meaning but I do remember my mom’s outraged voice, “HE MADE YOU STAND?!?!?!” It was from that experience that I formed my opinion on any type of in school morals or values. They don’t belong coming from a teacher, ever.
A. I had no idea the Children’s Scholarship Fund was or what it did. I’m still not really sure what this has to do with Obama’s declining poll numbers or any of that first paragraph. Unless Cal Thomas is trying to show how the speech Obama gave to school-children a while back was a good thing. Anyway, I’m still not really following that.
B. I think that this is a good idea. Helping children get good educations is what this country needs, especially among minorities. I can’t even imagine not being able to read and write. How different life would be. I also agree that the education system of America is taking a steep decline. Its kind of pathetic what some people call a school. When I lived in Jackson, TN the public schools were so bad that my parents sent me to private school. Not that every family can afford that, and it wasn’t my first choice, but just to make the point that helping schools do their jobs better, and teaching teachers how to affectively teach is important.
C. Extension: We talked in class about how Obama will never again be as popular as he was right after the election.
D. What other programs are going on in the country to support this cause?
A. I did not realize that schools do not emphasize the fundamental teachings of the Constitution anymore. I guess I did not realize this because at our school we do a lot with the Constitution (like how Kautzman even celebrated Constitution Day). I also did not know that there was an actual bill put forward to “require a greater emphasis on American history and civics in public school classrooms.” I suspected that those subjects were already greatly emphasized, but then again I have no perspective of other school teachings.
B. Thomas stated that as a method to reverse a desire for “socialism”, the fundamental beliefs put forward in the Declaration and Constitution should be acknowledged more in education, which I believe. I am not saying that the US is turning socialist, but by emphasizing the individuality and liberties stated in the Declaration and Constitution, children would then be exposed to a greater variety of options that they are being denied now. It seems that today’s culture is stressing the benefits of government aid like welfare, Social Security, and universal health care, which is becoming a one-sided argument without a rebuttal. By expanding the teachings of the Constitution, children will be able to see both sides of the argument and come up with an opinion themselves. However, I do not see the necessity of going to private schools for such education, but instead the public schools themselves should strive to be more thorough in their teachings.
C. Have there been any more attempts, like the one by Sen. Lamar Alexander, to require a greater emphasis of teaching certain subjects in schools? Also, how has the high school class curriculum changed over time? Has it become more lax or strict in what classes are required?
D. Connection: I connected this back to what we learned about John Locke’s philosophy in comparison to the Constitution: natural rights, purpose of government, equality, consent of the governed and limited government.
A. I learned that some people think our public schools are not emphasizing “what once held us together” as a country. Or in my words, nationalism.
B. Judge Aleta Trauger said, “We are Americans because we also share certain fundamental beliefs.” I believe that the only fundamental belief that this country should have is that we have the right to hold different fundamental beliefs. It seems that some people would rather be teaching about the greatness of America than the diversity of the world. For one, America was not started on that great of principles. America was founded on the idea of tricking people (Native Americans) and taking their things (land). Matthew Spalding said that liberty, private property, consent of the governed, equality, natural rights, religious freedom, rule of law, constitutionalism “are the foundation of [this] particular government and political culture.” Although, many of these things didn’t hold true until over 100 years into our government’s existence, and equality still doesn’t hold true because we have failed to pass the ERA (Equal Rights Amendment). How can we be teaching these things as “what held us together” if only recently they were put into existence. We need to be teaching diversity so that one day the world will be able to better get along.
C. Sen. Lamar Alexander of Tennessee passed a bill to teach more about American history. I was wondering whether the people had any say in the passing of this bill, or was it purely in the hands of the politicians?
D. I found out that exodus is a migration of a large number of people.
A. I had no idea that President Obama’s support had dropped so significantly. I knew it had dropped since he began his presidency with such a high approval rating and because he came into office during a huge economic crisis, but this increased disapproval makes me realize just how impatient Americans are. A person is less likely to succeed with decreasing support, so disapproving of Obama’s actions will get us nowhere. He will most likely be in office for at least four years, so the least we can do as citizens is give him our support.
B. The author of this article makes a good point in saying that if today’s generation of young people are not informed about the country’s history and the Constitution, then our country is going to be in trouble when that generation is in control. The trend seems to be that students as a whole have become less educated about politics as time has gone on, so hypothetically, the nation is eventually going to end up completely politically ignorant.
C. If the country recognizes that young people are becoming less and less knowledgeable about politics, why isn’t anything be done to fix that? Shouldn’t there be some sort of new requirements put in place for students to insure that our future governors and senators are well informed and will make the best decisions for the country? Also, what’s a Gallup?
Extension: I looked up Gallup and learned that it is a political poll. I guess that was kind of obvious.
A.Older people remember learning about liberty, private property, consent of the governed, equality, natural rights, religious freedom, rule of law, and constitutionalism. Even I remember learning about those things. Public school will no longer emphasize on those thing, but rather on diversity. Senator Lamar Alexander, a Tennessee Republican, wanted public school classrooms to have greater emphasis on history and civics, so he introduced a bill six years ago.
B.I think it’s sad that they are taking the history out of the curriculum. We live in this country, so we should know about it and how it was started. The world is changing in so many ways, some are good but I think it’s mostly bad at what this world is coming to. For example, at school, some kids just try to get by with the bare minimum and what used to be homework time is now being replaced with television and videogames. Honestly I don’t see how those things help you. How is staring at a television for hours or getting points for killing people going to help someone? It’s not. I’m not saying that this is bad every once in a while, but get your priorities straight. I am actually glad that I get to go to school and get an education and actually make something of myself instead of working at some fast-food restaurant the rest of my life.
C.I would like to know why they are taking these things out of the teaching curriculum.
D.In the last unit I remember learning about liberty, private property, consent of the governed, equality, and natural rights. I actually didn’t really learn about that before this class, well teachers talked about it a little, but not so in depth.
What I knew: I know that in schools there is a lot of controversy about how things are addressed in the classroom (saying “Under God” in the pledge of allegiance, for example). This has led to a lower role of our “unifying bonds” – or the commonality we once had in things such as religion – since Americans are not instilled the same set of values, rather they promote diversity.
What I think: I think we should definitely learn about how our government functions. We need order – that is where teaching the constitution comes in. However, I don’t think that any set of values should be indoctrinated into any child’s mind. Education should ultimately create thinkers – those who solve problems, not those who can simply explain our government and its functions. Education should be a holistic experience; it is one of the things I am looking forward to in college actually. By amalgamating different schools of thought, progress can be made. If we look back our values have changed since our founding fathers and this is no different. It is not always for the worse.
What I want to know: Aside from civics, what other concerns do conservatives have with teaching “diversity”?
Connection: Since a citizen ought to know his or her constitutional rights, he or she must obviously be familiar with the Bills of Rights, which are the first ten amendments to the constitution. They include things such as the right to bear arms to keep a militia and free speech. Every student ought to learn this.
A. What you learned?
This article talks about how we need to have better education in order to have a better nation and control in the government. He mentioned Obama leaning towards socialism, which I personally found odd. He also talked about how if we continue to change laws we are going to be going against the constitution. The main thing I learned about was when he was talking about groups of people using exodus of public schools as a strategic goal to improve education. They have the idea that closing public schools and having kids in private education will improve knowledge about government and politics.
B. What you think?
I found this specific article confusing, it went back and forth skipping topics so much that I had to read it by section to understand his point. I stopped and wanting to read it because of the quote that it began with but now I’m not even sure how it fits in with what he is saying. He talked about changing public schooling so that it wasn’t an option… I believe this would be horrible because it would limit more people in the world. His main point was that people, especially parents, have to do something today about the way the nation is going or it will be too late and they will regret it. I would support that theory because we have already seen the effect people before us have had, look at all the theories of “Global Changing”, all they really know is that it was caused before us and now we will have to deal with it. What this article says is that we will have to deal with what we decide later on so don’t make it regrettable.
C. What you would like to know?
Why can’t the government make a law that requires schools to teach the basics that generations before us were taught about the constitution and everything else? Are we really that lazy of a generation not to be able to work to know how we got to where we are?
D. Connection or Extension?
We have talked in class about how much political knowledge has dropped throughout the years. Come on now, everyone in the class now knows that participation has dropped to 51% at most. There’s a reason we have an Electoral College system, it’s so only a group of people need extreme political knowledge. Yes I think having more political knowledge as a nation would be great but I don’t think it’s going to happen soon.
I) I already knew about the declination of Obama poll numbers, and I had a little knowledge of the idea of making strategic goals for schools curriculum but, I didn’t know they went together.
II) The overall article wasn’t that interesting to me, though the thought of having that connection within schools is something to think about. That idea of each school having the same curricular structure of “liberty, private property, consent of the governed, equality, natural rights, religious freedom, rule of law, constitutionalism” is unifying, rather than diverse. But the diversity of schools curriculum now-a-days is what creates America’s image of freedom.
III) My questions about the idea of making similar a curricular structure is how would that come about, how would we get consent from each state, each school, each teacher? Also, would this be something to amend into the constitution?
And still I’d like to know how the Presidents poll numbers have anything to do with what students are being taught in our schools.
Connection: Sen. Lamar Alexander, was previously the U.S. Secretary of Education from 1991 – 1993. So it’s not surprising that he would introduce a bill to require a greater emphasis on American History and civics in public school classrooms.
A. What I learned: This article was a little confusing to me, because I couldn’t settle on a specific topic that the author was trying to promote. He kind of took a while to relate the article to his title and topic. But, I think the gist of what he was getting at had to do with getting back to a specific prototype of American. What I gathered from the article was that Thomas feels like if we got back to our roots and the principles that our country was founded on it would create more informed political participants as well as more of a national unity. Basically the author was saying that doing away with public school would be the solution so that teachers could include religion in the curriculum.
B. What I think: I am in agreement with some of the points Thomas makes. I also liked the reference to the song at the beginning. I hear that song on the radio often and it makes me laugh, but there is a lot of truth to it. I think that students who know the meanings of documents like the Declaration of Independence, the Pledge of Allegiance, and the Constitution will be more informed citizens, and more apt to care about political issues. I do think that Obama is losing points with many Americans because they’re not seeing or experiencing first hand, the results of his work. Personally I think being the President is the hardest job and he became the leader of a country that was already headed downhill, and Obama is doing the best he can to get the economy back on its feet. I don’t agree with Thomas’ opinion that private school is the only way to give kids a good chance. I have been in both situations and feel that I am becoming an informed voter while still maintaining knowledge of the important principles our nation was founded on. But I also don’t think that every public school in America functions the way Mount Spokane does. And, I think often a private school would provide a better learning environment for kids that are struggling, but I definitely don’t think it’s the only way to produce informed, patriotic young Americans. I don’t really see a whole lot of connection to making the Republicans feel better about themselves or how it is an attack on liberalism though.
C. What I want to know: Is Thomas thinking that everyone should pay for private schooling? Or that public school should operate more like private school but still be government funded? And does this just apply to minority kids?
D. Connection: I think this applies to a lot of the discussions that we have been having in class lately about how we want informed voters. In the article the underlying meaning is that a return to these founding principles will create a more unified nation and a more informed one. We want more people to vote but we really only want people who know what they voting for and who care about the issues at hand. Policy voting came to mind when I read this article, because that can only occur when the voters are informed about the issues and the candidates, find a candidate who holds the same opinion and cast a vote for that candidate.
A) What I Know: I’m not quite sure if I understood this article in its entirety. It is no secret that republicans and conservative ideals have taken a hit as a result of the Bush administration but It’s almost as thought the overall gist of this article was that if we start teaching more history then people will become more conservative.
B) What I think: I think that diversity is a great concept that should be continued to be taught for one but I also think that the problem is not that we aren’t teaching history the same, I think that over time it is interpreted differently. Conservative ideals are becoming somewhat dates in a world as modern as today. In my opinion the Republican party needs to be re-energized and more willing to make changed and compromise if they want to be a key player in American politics. Maybe this is a pre-mature evaluation but who know?
C) Question: My question is what are republicans going to do before the next election to regain their ground and support? The Bush administration really dealt a huge blow to their party, but is it temporary?
D) Link: The republican party might need a fresh face to revitalize their part, and it’s not Sarah Palin.
What I Learned:
I could not quite make the connection between the salivating conservatives and Obama’s popularity plummet to our education. I am hypothesizing that Mr. Cal Thomas was trying to connect between the President’s closer leanings with “socialization” and the education system (?). I did not know that in every other high school, besides the three I attended, stray away from the teachings of our Constitution. I do not understand how our nations history (mind you, history cannot be—or at least should not be—altered) would hurt diversity.
What I Think:
Is Cal Thomas saying that Republicans do not support a positive learning environment by suggesting that “children and their parents (will) see which party and persuasion cares about them enough to bring real change to their lives”? Or was he bringing his introduction into relevant light by saying that we need to trust Obama? Either way, I think this was not a clearly organized article. Is it education reform that Mr. Thomas is speaking about, or simply the audacity that our own Constitution is considered “offensive”? Of all things in this world, I could probably care less if someone finds the supremacy of the Constitution offensive. But after all, we do live in a country where the Bank of America was asked to take down the stars and stripes.
What I Want to Know:
Did anyone interpret this article a different way? I see how the “one nation under God” can offend someone, but does that mean we disregard our origin?
Connection:
This week Mr. Kautzman spoke about William Jennings Bryan, a presidential candidate in the 1896 election and a prosecuting attorney for the Scopes Monkey Trial. The connection is to the essential question of the trial; what to teach, or what not to teach in school. I believe all theories like the Big Band, Darwinism, etc. should be taught in school—with the understanding that they are all theories. But where I find the teaching (or lack of) the Constitution baffling, is that it is recorded history and that there is not countless possibilities of “theories” to our government—there is our Constitution. So why should be have a problem with it?
Response to Carly Ross
People have a problem with the constitution because it can be loosely interpreted. Judicial review, various supreme court cases, and I really thing the most horrendous misinterpretation comes from the 1st amendment or right to freedom of expression.
I can understand that it is a theory of government that has been working for quite some time. There are actual many government theories we tried before we finally wrote a constitution. The Articles of Confederation are among them.
I also want to tackle your “under God” question. Our country (America) was NEVER a Christian nation. It never has been.
“Every new and successful example, therefore, of a perfect separation between the ecclesiastical and civil matters, is of importance; and I have no doubt that every new example will succeed, as every past one has done, in showing that religion and Government will both exist in greater purity the less they are mixed together” – James Madison
“In every country and in every age, the priest has been hostile to liberty. He is always in alliance with the despot, abetting his abuses in return for protection to his own” Thomas Jefferson
“I have found Christian dogma unintelligible. Early in life, I absenteed myself from Christian assemblies.” Benjamin Franklin
“The question before the human race is, whether the God of nature shall govern the world by his own laws, or whether priests and kings shall rule it by fictitious miracles.” John Adams
Under God was not in the original pledge it was added quite some time after. Our founding fathers would have been appalled to see religion mix with politics because I believe it was James Madison who basically said the less politics and religion mix the better.
To say we are opting out of our origin is preposterous.