Stop diverting public funds to faith-based private schools

by  Edd Doer

Wall St Journal on Jan 8 ran a piece titled “Letting Education and Religion Overlap”, by Robert Maranto and Dirk  van Raemdonck, pushing school vouchers. Below is my response. The best way to obtain the article is by Googling to its title. It appears that  2015 will see renewed efforts in Congress and the states to divert public funds to private schools. The address for letters to the WSJ is wsj.letters@wsj.com. – Edd Doerr

Robert Maranto and Dirk van Raemdonck (“Letting Education and Religion Overlap”,  Jan 8) are wrong about diverting public funds to faith-based private schools for at least the following reasons:

1.      In 28 state referendum elections between 1966 and 2014 many millions of voters, of all faiths,  from Florida to Alaska and from Massachusetts to California have voted against vouchers, tax credits and all similar gimmicks by an average margin of 2 to 1, most recently in Florida in 2012 and Hawaii in 2014.

2.      As faith-based schools are pervasively sectarian institutions that tend to  separate children along religious, ideological, ethnic, socioeconomic status and other lines, tax support for them would fragment our student population and greatly worsen our social divisions.

3.       Three fourths of our state constitutions clearly forbid taxing citizens to support religious institutions.

4.      Our religiously neutral public schools, serving 90% of our kids, operate to protect America’s enormous religious diversity and religious liberty.

The Maranto/Van Raemdonck article is a simplistic screed that seeks to undermine two important pillars of American democracy,  religious freedom and public schools.

Edd Doerr President

Americans for Religious Liberty

Box 6656

Silver Spring, MD 20916

Among the tiny few bits of good news in the Nov 4 elections were these

Edd Doerr, President of  Americans for Religious Liberty, notes that Among the tiny few bits of good news in the Nov 4 elections were these ----

Hawaii voters defeated Amendment 4 by 55% to 45%. It would have diverted public funds to  faith-based private pre-K schools. That makes 28 state referenda between 1966 and 2014 in which voters throughout the US have rejected the diversion of public funds to special interest private schools by substantial margins. (With its limited resources, ARL was involved in  this victory.)

California voters re-elected state school super Tom Torkalson by 52% to 48%. His opponent had been generously supported by Walton, Broad and other fat cat money. Professional educators supported Torkalson.

Missouri voters rejected 75% to 25% a proposed state constitutional amendment that would have ended teacher tenure and tied teachers to student test scores.

Colorado and North Dakota voters defeated “personhood at conception” anti-choice amendments by 64% to 36%. However, Tennessee voters by 53% to 47% upheld an amendment to allow the state legislature to tamper all it likes with  abortion rights, a slap at Ro v Wade. The amendment was defeated in the major cities but won in the rural areas.

A Glimpse of the Conservative Vision out of Texas?

By Gary Berg-Cross
The Texas Republicans have been meeting in convention at Fort Worth. They are approving their 2012 platform which has some strong conservative notes.  They are sour ones to me. One Texas commentator (Richard Whittaker,in the Austin Chronicle) bulleted them as follow:
-Abstinence-only sex ed (yeah, because that's worked so well so far.)
– Trying juveniles as adults
– Faith-based drug rehab should be emphasized (Scientology front operation NarcAnon should be rubbing its hands at that one)
– Oppose the United Nations Convention on the Rights of the Child (Yeah! Who's the UN to tell us we should ban child slavery?)
– Flat rate income tax (go Team 1%!)
– Repealing the minimum wage (suck it, wage slaves!)
– Opposing homosexuality in the military (don't ask, don't tell, and don't do that!)
– Opposition to red light cameras (because if you run a red, kill someone, and there's no witnesses, was the light ever really red?)
– Oppose the Employment Non-Discrimination Act, because firms should be able to fire people for what they consider "sinful and sexually immoral behavior." Like, say, growing a beard?
– Continued opposition to ACORN (even though it has not existed since 2010)
– Opposing statehood or even Congressional voting rights for the citizens of the District of Columbia (who writes this crap, Rand Paul?)
– And no-questions-asked support for Israel because, and this is another direct quote:

   "Our policy is based on God’s biblical promise to bless those who bless Israel and curse those who curse Israel and we further invite other nations and organizations to enjoy the benefits of that promise." 

I noted that they insist that school principles need to be citizens but the item that is getting national attention such as at HuffPo is in the section titled "Educating Our Children," . Include in here the statement that that "corporal punishment is effective" and recommends teachers be given "more authority" to deal with disciplinary problems. It goes on to opposes mandatory pre-school and kindergarten, saying tht parents are "best suited to train their children in their early development."

But the position that has stirred the most controversy is the one stating that:

“We oppose the teaching of Higher Order Thinking Skills (HOTS) (values clarification), critical thinking skills and similar programs that are simply a relabeling of Outcome-Based Education (OBE) (mastery learning) which focus on behavior modification and have the purpose of challenging the student’s fixed beliefs and undermining parental authority.”

What the argument? It’s straight out Chris Mooney’s Republican Brain and Lakoff’s writings on Moral Authority. They worry that it might challenge "student's fixed beliefs. " Fixed by group decision and closed minds with no discussion allowed.
The language of undermining "parental authority" can be understood from Lakoff's discussion of the Strict Father model:

This model posits a traditional nuclear family, with the father having primary responsibility for supporting and protecting the family as well as the authority to set overall policy, to set strict rules for the behavior of children, and to enforce the rules. The mother has the day-to-day responsibility for the care of the house, raising the children, and upholding the father's authority. Children must respect and obey their parents; by doing so they build character, that is, self-discipline and self-reliance. Love and nurturance are, of course, a vital part of family life but can never outweigh parental authority, which is itself an expression of love and nurturance—tough love. Self-discipline, self-reliance, and respect for legitimate authority are the crucial things that children must learn.

I imagine it is sad for quite a few Texas parents critically contemplating the long-tern implications.