Does the First Amendment Ban Public Schools?

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof.

In the two centuries since it was written, the original language of the First Amendment has been expanded in two directions. The Doctrine of Incorporation holds that the XVth amendment imposes the restrictions of the Bill of Rights on the states. And modern courts expand "establishment" to cover not only established churches-which existed in England and some of the states when the Constitution was drafted--but any violation of religious neutrality, giving us the doctrine of separation of church and state.

The judge who recently held it unconstitutional for public schools to be required to teach the theory of intelligent design correctly argued that doing so would be to support a particular set of religious beliefs-those that reject evolution as an explanation for the apparent design of living creatures. His mistake was not carrying the argument far enough. A school that teaches that evolution is false is taking sides in a religious dispute-but so does a school that teaches that evolution is true.

The problem is broader than evolution. In the process of educating children, one must take positions on what is true or false. Over a wide range of issues, such a claim is either the affirmation of a religious position or the denial of a religious position. Any decent scientific account of geology, paleontology, what we know about the distant past, is also a denial of the beliefs of (among others) fundamentalist Christians. To compel children to go to schools, paid for by taxes, in which they are taught that their religious beliefs are false, is not neutrality.

Or consider history. The spread of Islam in its first few decades is one of the most extraordinary historical events known to us. When Mohammed left Mecca for Medina, the Arabs were bit players in local politics, allies of one or the other of the two great powers of that part of the world. Within a generation, Muslim Arabs had conquered all of the Sassanid empire and much of the Byzantine. It is rather as if, between 1960 and 1980, Guatamala had annexed the U.S. and a considerable chunk of the USSR.

The Moorish political scientist Ibn Khaldun, writing about six hundred years ago, offered a simple explanation: The expansion of Islam was a miracle. Allah put courage in the hearts of the Arabs, fear in the hearts of their enemies. What could be more obvious? A Muslim teaching the relevant history would give that explanation; I would not. He is claiming Islam is true, I am claiming that it is false. Neither of us is, or should be, neutral.

My conclusion is that the existence of public schools is inconsistent with the First Amendment. Their purpose is, or ought to be, to educate-and one cannot, in practice, educate without either supporting or denying a wide variety of religious claims.

Source




BRITAIN STILL STRUGGLING TO ACKNOWLEDGE ABILITY DIFFERENCES

Pupils would be divided into sets according to ability for all classes in state schools under new Conservative education plans unveiled in The Times today. David Willetts, the new Shadow Education Secretary, makes clear that the party has abandoned years of free-market ideology on education, and that he accepts market forces and parental choice are not enough to drive up standards. There was an important role for government in day-to-day classroom activity and in ensuring that teachers used the best methods, Mr Willetts said. He called for a restoration of "setting", saying that classes based on ability should be the norm in every school.

However, a Conservative government would also seek to ensure that there was no return to the 11-plus, with selection limited to a maximum of 10 per cent of pupils. David Cameron, the Tory leader, will set out the new thinking in a speech today in Essex. Mr Willetts said that Conservatives would use the powers of central government more aggressively than Labour to set national standards. "The evidence that setting works is very powerful indeed, and yet you still have got more than half of lessons not taught in sets, where you can target your teaching methods to children with a particular level of skill."

He said that he realised that not every class could be run in sets. "What I will be looking at in the months ahead is how best to spread setting, and I would not rule out using the powers of central government more in this area," he said. Schools can currently set as much as they wish, and attempts by head teachers to introduce more setting by ability are often resisted by teachers. The latest figures show that only 38 per cent of classes are set by ability.

Selection within schools would be accompanied by a national admissions code under a Conservative government, which would ban a return to the 11-plus but extend the powers of specialist schools to select 10 per cent of pupils on aptitude.

Under Labour, schools can specialise in ten subjects, including maths and science. But only schools that specialise in four non-academic subjects - performing arts, sports, modern languages and technology - can select pupils on aptitude. Tony Blair has attempted to make selection a dividing line between Labour and Conservatives to try to shore up support for his plans for trust schools. He will argue that the new Tory policy is still selection, even if it is limited to 10 per cent.

Mr Willetts said that he welcomed Mr Blair's plans for trust schools to become their own admissions authority. He pledged Conservative support as long as he stuck to the key principles - that popular schools should be able to expand, parents have powers to set up new trust schools and that the trusts have control over admissions, subject to the national code.

Source

***************************

For greatest efficiency, lowest cost and maximum choice, ALL schools should be privately owned and run -- with government-paid vouchers for the poor and minimal regulation.

The NEA and similar unions worldwide believe that children should be thoroughly indoctrinated with Green/Left, feminist/homosexual ideology but the "3 R's" are something that kids should just be allowed to "discover"

Comments? Email me here. For times when blogger.com is playing up, there is a mirror of this site (viewable even in China!) here

***************************