<p>
As you would see if you read the review from Prof Schwartz, Moyar’s book “[took a] fresh look at the primary sources, as well as exploit[ed] new materials from the American and communist archives”. It takes an open mind to accept a new viewpoint based on new information. Some have one, others don’t and rely on “what they learned while in college”.</p>
<p>Sec Gate’s assessment is hardly surprising for anyone who has followed the political development (or rather lack thereof) - really, what incentives do the Shia have to give up any of their recently acquired power (after all, we continue to help build a “national” Iraqi army and police dominated by Shias)?</p>
<p>Regarding the whole “freedom” thing - one of the most hilarious thing to come out of this administration and other notable figures (Giuliani) is that terrorists want to attack us b/c they hate our “freedoms.”</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>In that case, let me add that the evangelicals’ opposition to public pre-K boils down to 1. fear that if parents are given other options, they won’t find the evangelicals’ product attractive anymore, and the evangelicals will lose revenue and a platform.</p>
<p>Both analyses are equally oversimplified and biased.
Vouchers have not been a panacea for low performing students for a variety of reasons. The case against them has a lot more to do with educational outcomes for low performing students than it does ideology.</p>
<p>Discussing schools without discussing large social influences begs the question. A majority of kids do not believe that high skill levels benefit them. In my very elite school district science was the only really well taught subject, and the only subject the kids were happy to stretch themselves ( We have 3 hospitals and Brookhaven National Labs in striking distance.) During the civil War the letters of 7th grade drop outs are more literate than certain PhD’s I’ve been asked to edit. The King James Bible was a storehouse of literary devises. We don’t spend enough time reading to ensure literacy. I’m sure even many bright, achieving kids would forego a lot of reading and general learning if they were guaranteed $250,000 jobs. I don’t think we can hold the schools accountable for large social trends.</p>
<p>I’m going to raise the question of why parents should have “control” over what children are taught with taxpayer money? </p>
<p>If parents want to dictate the curriculum, shouldn’t parents fund the school and not the public?</p>
<p>The government funds education because it’s in society’s best interests, plain and simple. If the government is going to fund science or math at school XYZ, they should have every right to insist those subjects are taught, even if the parents would prefer not.</p>
<p>The U.S. Supreme Court already decided this issue in Zelman v. Simmons-Harris, 6/27/02. The court ruled that school vouchers did not violate the establishment clause of the first amendment, as long as parents have a choice between private secular and religious schools. Sandra Day O’Connor sided with the majority.</p>
<p>I think you missed the point. I wasn’t saying that school vouchers aren’t happening. My question was whether it’s wise to do what some proponents of vouchers are calling for: use taxpayer money without providing any accountability to anyone but the parents.</p>
<p>Obviously not every proponent of vouchers opposes accountability. It’s the ones who are that trouble me.</p>
<p>No, sorry, you said “why should parents have “control” over what children are taught with taxpayer money.” You said “If parents want to dictate the curriculum, shouldn’t parents fund the school and not the public?”</p>
<p>No mention of accountability.</p>
<p>The Supreme Court ruled that taxpayer money may be used to give parents school choice. The ultimate responsibility of deciding how to educate their children resides with the parents and not with the state.</p>
<p>My son’s school, for example, does an even better job at accountability than our public school, which is one of the reasons we decided to send him there.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Hereshoping, if you can’t see the relationship between what I said and accountability…it rather proves my point.</p>
<hr>
<p>Since you’ve chosen to make your children’s school an issue in this discussion–you chose to pay for a well-regarded Catholic school with known postive outcomes. You wouldn’t waste your money on the K-12 version of Pat Robertson’s law school–why should the taxpayers?</p>
<p>And I seriously doubt that parents were setting the curriculum at your child’s Catholic school. I’ve never heard of a Catholic school run like that. I would bet that the archdiocese and the school administration were.</p>
<p>I got your point:
</p>
<p>Control includes accountability.</p>
<p>For example, my son’s new school may not be accountable to your standards and benchmarks (which just happen to align with the State). Nevertheless, it is accountable–to the Archdiocese of Philadelphia, the parents, and the governing board of the school.</p>
<p>It also has to meet certain state requirements: a certain number of years of each subject (not saying they would meet with your approval), which includes health and PE (one semester each–the bare minimum). No State tests! (Although they do administer a nationally recognized norm-referenced achievement test (the same one our public schools used to administer) each year.) </p>
<p>Oh. It requires a religion course each year. :)</p>
<p>And Oh. You wouldn’t like the way “health” is taught at this school. :)</p>
<p>Edit: As usual, you edited before I posted my reply. :)</p>
<p>To respond to your edit: Yeah, I give people–all people–even evangelicals (gasp) a bit more credit than you do.</p>
<p>P.S. My son’s new school is NOT “well-regarded” by our public schools here. I should know–I work there. 
I’m looked down upon by them about as much as you look down on evangelicals. :)</p>
<p>To give an example of how I see the link between control of the curriculum and accountability:</p>
<p>Some people insist that because there is no such thing as natural selection, it is impossible for overuse or misuse of antibiotics to result in the emergence of drug-resistent strains of bacteria. Their position is that the drug resistent bacteria have been here all along, we just never noticed them till all the others got killed off.</p>
<p>If you want to send your child to a school that teaches that, that’s your right, but my opinion is you should pay for it.* The taxpayers should not be expected to foot the bill for it, because it’s 1. wrong and 2. endangers public health. The taxpayers have a right to expect that when their money is spent, it’s spent wisely.</p>
<p>Again, my question was not whether the Supreme Court said it was legal for the school to teach this or for the taxpayers to fund it. My question is whether the rejection of accountability to the taxpayers is good public policy.</p>
<p>*That’s “you” as a generic, not you personally. I’m quite aware that you wouldn’t pay for this kind of “education” even if you think the taxpayers should be required to, should any parent hold out their hand and ask for it.</p>
<hr>
<p>Hereshoping, I’m quite familiar with Catholic schools. And again, you’ve proved my point, you wouldn’t waste your money on a school unless you had reason to believe the outcomes would be good. It’s not too much to expect the same for the taxpayers.</p>
<p>ETA: Oh dear, now I see you say you do understand why what I posted was about accountability. And you had just posted that my post had “no mention” about accountability…I wonder which statement is true…</p>
<p>Your original post did not mention accountability.</p>
<p>Just because you are comfortable with Catholics does not make your disdain of evangelicals any more palatable.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>No, I didn’t use that exact phrase, but as you pointed out in post #110, you were quite aware that the linkage between control and accountability is obvious, despite what you posted in #108, which we can all go back and read. </p>
<p>
</p>
<p>To answer your handy attempt at making this thread all about insults and character assassination, I don’t have any particular disdain for evangelicals. </p>
<p>The denomination I belong to, and have belonged to for over a decade, is evangelical. I even support their medical and other missions. Not that I owe you any explanations or need to defend myself against your ongoing slurs.</p>
<p>I have been critical of the religious right and the efforts of some of its members to curtail religious freedom and equal rights in this country. Pat Robertson, for example, who says that if he were President he would ignore the Constitution and institute illegal religious tests in hiring for government service. </p>
<p>My opposition to that is hardly the same thing as a generalized disdain for evangelicals–however hard it seems to be for you to fathom the difference.</p>
<p>What bothers me is that I feel like Bush gave very little thought to any of this at all. It seems like he thought he could hotdog his way in there, impose democracy and become an object of praise. Warring factions? Sectarian violence? Restoring order and services? What, me worry? It seems like NOTHING was thought through. Really sad and tragic. And expensive.</p>
<p>A trillion dollars. That’s a LOTTTTTTA zeros.</p>
<p>But then again…no one’s flown a plane into your house.</p>
<p>I think in hindsight he’s going to be evaluated as an American hero.</p>
<p>These are actually wonderful times…enjoy them.</p>
<p>It’s interesting how hard it is for the neocons to give up their dreams of tickertape parades. I guess they have to keep shifting the goalposts on that too.</p>
<p>And it’s unfortunate how many Americans (17% or so) still think that the 9-11 hijackers were Iraqis.</p>
<p>“Warring factions? Sectarian violence? Restoring order and services? What, me worry? It seems like NOTHING was thought through. Really sad and tragic. And expensive.”</p>
<p>Are you talking about Iraq here or the illegal alien situation? More people have ben killed by illegal aliens since the war began than American soldiers in Iraq.</p>
<p>Con person</p>
<p>Enjoy your life. Too many of you and your friends are allowing President Bush to dictate how you live your loves.</p>
<p>Relax. Enjoy. Times are good.</p>
<p>Citation, please? (It’s quite possible, but if so, I’d like to see it. Over the 12 years since Al Gore and Co. sent several million Central Americans scurrying over the U.S. border, until this year, crime rates have dropped consistently throughout the U.S, virtually everywhere.)</p>