<p>I like the sound of what PH describes…it’s what we did in this country for generations prior to the rise of the public school union bureaucracy, and probably the way most of our non-sectarian “private” schools started.</p>
<p>I read this article this morning, and it made me laugh about those who are so concerned that parents might take their portion of the money we all pay into the education fund (taxes) and use it–willingly–to send their kids to a school that taught some form of religious-based values along with the three R’s. It seems that the public schools have no qualms about imposing their values on a captive audience that has no choice in the matter. Madrassas? You decide.</p>
<p>There is no “homosexual agenda”. Utter bilge. It’s called acceptance of ALL families, ALL individuals. THAT is the basis of public education: the fact that it is for ALL. No one is forcing anyone to do anything but accept that there are different kinds of families, and all families have worth. BEcause they do.</p>
<p>And comparing that to madrasses is just plain absurd. Do those schools accept ALL? Hardly.</p>
<p>Lest you drive yet another thread hopelessly off-track–
The phrase “homosexual agenda”–which you place in quotes–was used neither in my post nor in the article. Indeed, the story of Prince Bertie and Prince Lee was secondary to the main thrust of Jacoby’s piece, which is that kids stuck in public schools aren’t necessarily free of the sort of moral “indoctrination” that school choice opponents profess to fear for the children of others…they’re just stuck with whatever morality the public school teachers and administrations choose to impose.</p>
<p>LOL! <em>I</em> have driven threads hopelessly off track? Amusing, to say the least, considering that I am a relatively new member and haven’t been here long enough to have any sort of “reputation”!</p>
<p>The phrase “homosexual agenda” has been used by Jacoby before (I only skim him now, since he is hopelessly repetitive), but my apologies if this was not the thrust of your argument.</p>
<p>However, I do find it curious that you would equate the reading of a book about two mothers being a moral issue, to the threat of federally funded non-secular education. Do you really see a similarity between the issues of faith-based schools (emphasizing the doctrines of a single faith, and thus EXclusive), funded by tax dollars, and public education which attempts to be INclusive?</p>
Evelyn Wood has been the undoing of many would-be intellectuals. I always advise reading for comprehension, rather than speed. For example, your well-trained eye seems to have spotted the name “Heather” in the article, and as you careened through the paragraphs, the words “homosexual” and “lesbian,” leading you to the conclusion that the article was about the children’s book “Heather has Two Mommies.” Prince Bertie and Prince Lee aren’t two mothers–nor are they even two dads. They are princes (as in male royalty) sans children, who meet and marry in a book called “King & King,” read to the class by a teacher named Heather; their story is being used in a special unit on marriage–being taught to Second Graders.
As I understand current proposals, vouchers at the primary and secondary school level would be administered at the state and local level, as is currently the case with public education. We’ve already experienced “the threat of federally funded non-secular education”–it was called the “GI Bill” and so far, seems to have proven no threat to the Republic.</p>
<p>Best to do away with your sanctimonious pontificating, Driver, as that always interferes with a good discussion.</p>
<p>Since you insist upon name-calling, belittling, and so forth, I will leave you, as I have in the past, in the company of like-minded folk who do not challenge your narrow world view.</p>
<p>Liberals claim to want to give a hearing to other views, but then are shocked and offended to discover that there are other views.
William F Buckley Jr.</p>