Now Then, John, About Education...

So now that the dust has settled and McCain's path to St. Paul is clear, I decided it was time to take a closer look at the Candidate Presumptive. In particular, I wanted to know what McCain may have said with regards to homeschool. Does he support it? Will he leave it alone? What, exactly, are his views?

Education has been a fairly passive issue throughout this election cycle. It's barely made a ripple in any candidate's pond, Democrat or Republican, and gets only token attention paid to it by the press. McCain's own website (http://www.johnmccain.com) has an "Issues" section, as you would expect, and the section for education seems to be a sort of "No Child Left Behind is working, so let's not rock the boat" blandness. Fine; I'm no fan of NCLB, but I can live with it since it doesn't really affect my kids anyway.

A few short paragraphs down the page I found this statement:

The deplorable status of preparation for our children, particularly in comparison with the rest of the industrialized world, does not allow us the luxury of eliminating options in our educational repertoire. John McCain will fight for the ability of all students to have access to all schools of demonstrated excellence, including their own homes.

Now, on first blush, this appears to be supportive of homeschooling. Indeed, the only other reference I can find on topic is from an interview McCain gave in December where he mentioned that charters, homeschooling and vouchers are "keys to success." Not terribly sure just what he meant by that, but it sounds supportive.

Then I re-read that paragraph on McCain's website one more time, because it really was the only reference to homeschooling I could find that was anything approaching an authoritative statement from the candidate. Then it hit me: "demonstrated excellence."

Now, given the bland nature of the entire education statement, I'd like to believe this was merely staffed out to some communications wank who in turn churned out this bit of pablum. It's phrased in such a way as to be easily digestible for most readers. Great; no changes to NCLB. I guess I can vote for him. McCain's entire senate career has, I believe, avoided any more than token contact with education as an issue, so it's safe to say that he probably doesn't have terribly strong views on the subject beyond the motherhood-and-apple-pie statements about our need for an educated populace.

But that phrase... I dunno.

"Demonstrated excellence" is something I expect from our public schools. Public schools are funded by taxpayer monies. Even though I homeschool, as I've mentioned numerous times before, I still support public education as a taxpayer. It's both my duty and my privilege to do so. The reasons why I homeschool also have been documented (albeit in fragmentary form) throughout this blog. It's no secret that while I feel honor-bound to support public education, I do not trust it. It's really as simple as that. I cannot rest assured that my daughters will either receive the full benefits of highly skilled and trained teachers, or that their safety is guaranteed when I send them to a public school. Anecdotal evidence gets worse by the day. My wife left that profession under a cloud of confusion and resentment; confusion over the state of education, particularly in California, and resentment that her once-noble profession has turned into a circus of new-wave teaching methods that manage to completely obfuscate perfectly simple educational principles. That, and an unhealthy dose of arrogant administrators, pompous parents who abdicate the care and raising of their kids to the schools, and kids who have been raised to flaunt their disdain for authority figures of any kind, but particularly their teachers. I do NOT want my daughters being subjected to this nonsense. So, yes, I think it fair to say that public schools need to demonstrate whatever "excellence" they may possess.

But not my little homeschool. In fact, in what may sound to some like the views of separatist, the United States government is not welcome in the hallowed halls of our small academy. Nor, for that matter, is the Great State of California. The county of Orange should not bother knocking on our door, and the City of Anaheim can keep their noses out of our business as well. I'm sure they're all wonderful people, but if their intent is to dictate to my family in any way, shape or form as to how we may or may not teach our children, then they're not getting their foot in my front door.

Now, that may sound a little testy. Granted. It's also extreme in the sense that such an invasion is not likely ever to happen. We're not some fringe-of-reality family who homeschool in order to hide some institutionalized form of abuse. We are a loving family who enjoy the experience of helping young minds to stretch and grow. We have a wonderful teacher-to-student ratio of 1:2 (1:3 if Daddy gets involved... Mommy still has me to raise!). We go on field trips at the drop of a hat. We recite the Pledge of Allegiance ("under God"). We have a support group that we see once a week and where the girls have made some wonderful friends. We attend church regularly. We live, work, and shop in the same community with all of the public school kids and their families. They get my tax money, and I never ask for any in return. I'm not interested in vouchers; save that money for the kids who need it. I simply want to be left alone to teach my children as I see fit.

Which is why that statement about "demonstrated excellence" is troublesome. I have sent McCain's campaign an email asking for enlargement and explanation. We'll see if I get a response. If it turns out that McCain's views are as bland and passive as the rest of his educational codice, then I have nothing to worry about. But if the senator believes that homeschoolers will, somehow, be accountable to anyone other than themselves, then he's in for the fight of his life.

We will see to that.

Your move, Senator.

While We Stay Wrapped Around the Immigration Axle...

...the realities of everyday business dictate a course of action.

I'm all for this plan. Yeah, okay, there's probably a hit to the taxpayer. Sure, there's still a question about whether non-residents who are here illegally should even be offered this opportunity. But while we continue burning Rome to cinders, at least someone is hedging their bets.

Keep in mind that many Latinos who are here legally still can't communicate in English effectively. I talk to people like that from time to time. I'd much rather see them able to communicate effectively in their adopted country than remain silent in their suffering. Helps to avoid certain problems downstream.

It's a start.

Simon Cowell and American Idol - "Moo"

(H/T: Joanne Jacobs)

Professional educators do, on occasion, get it right. (I kid, of course; I have every respect for professional educators. It's only their unions for which I hold contempt.)

Nancy Flanagan, being a music teacher, understands the full impact of an American Idol society.

Flanagan is one of those souls who understand the value of music in a person's life, even if that person's voice would never make it on Simon Cowell's stage. She writes about music as a gift:

Singing is a great gift—a fun, wholesome activity that builds community, expresses joy, sorrow and humor, entertains and binds us together in life’s transitional moments. There is no human tradition that is not made richer and illuminated by good music.

Of course, in American Idol's world view, therein lies the rub. How does one define "good music?"

American Idol exists for one reason: to make money. Simon Cowell, contrary to whatever altruisms he may spout in interviews, exists only to make money. His recent rantings about being worth more than Bruce Springsteen (just another of today's overrated and overpaid entertainers, as far as Woody is concerned) are far more indicative of how Cowell views his contributions to the entertainment industry. Cowell is a cash cow, and the industry will continue to worship at his feet for as long as he creates revenue.

Thus American Idol is less about "good music," and more about making sure that the industry continues to create revenue generators; talented (if only by Cowell's narrow judgements) people who look good and will sell records. I have long since given up on the popular music industry being able to define "good music" to my own satisfaction. Then again, I ain't in it for the money.

Flanagan continues:

What bothers me is that children watch American Idol, and children are now developing this idea that singing is something that should be attempted only by the “talented.” Some children now believe that judging singers is an amusing spectator activity, and making fun of imperfect singers is perfectly OK. Hilarious and justified, in fact: anyone who dares to sing in front of a camera deserves our scrutiny and scorn. None of this encourages children—or their families—to participate joyfully in group or individual singing. In the American Idol paradigm, singing is now reserved for those who have a “good” voice.

This is not unique to the popular music industry; this is the entire entertainment industry's paradigm. But we must be careful to keep things in their proper perspective. The entertainment industry does not represent the best that music has to offer. Not by a long shot. The best example of this would be classical music. While technically part of the entertainment industrial complex, classical musicians are typically ignored by the industry until the awards are handed out.

Quick: without Googling it, what classical albums scored Grammys this year? Were they even acknowledged in the telecast? I confess to not knowing for two reasons: First, I haven't watched a Grammy telecast in over twenty years. Also, my own tastes in classical music are fairly narrowly defined, and the stuff I tend to like would probably never win an award. But I find it odd to note that, for an industry that owes its very existence to classical music, there is so little appreciation of it among the rank and file.

So what, then, does American Idol represent? The superficial, I'd have to say. The shallow. The self-indulgent. The cash. Nancy Flanagan is quite correct: American Idol teaches our young people that if their voices are not worthy of Simon Cowell, they must be hidden away. American Idol encourages only American Idolators; those who worship at the false altars of pride and self-justification.

Thank goodness Simon Cowell wasn't around thirty seven years ago when a small, wiry boy who didn't know any better first auditioned for a small part in "Oliver!" I'm no American Idol, but I'm no slouch, either. And I'd much rather have someone come up to me after a concert and thank me for singing, than have Simon Cowell berate me for my lack of "presence" any day. What does he know, after all? He's just a cash cow.

Moo.

Truth Worse (NOT Stranger) than Fiction

(H/T: Drudge)

Somehow, socialist educators at a private school in (where else?) Seattle have decided to use Legos® to teach kids about the evils of a capitalist society.

Pardon me while I pause momentarily in stunned silence.

[...]

Thank you.

Here are a few quotes from the article:

According to an article in the winter 2006-07 issue of "Rethinking Schools" magazine, the teachers at the private school wanted their students to learn that private property ownership is evil.

So I'm an evil person for owning my two cars, assorted pieces of furniture, and the clothes on my back. Interesting ideal. (Notice I do not include my home in this list. The bank owns my home, not me. Just wanted to clarify.) I also happen to own [numerous] Legos. That probably makes me twice as evil.

There's more, of course:

According to the article, the students had been building an elaborate "Legotown," but it was accidentally demolished. The teachers decided its destruction was an opportunity to explore "the inequities of private ownership." According to the teachers, "Our intention was to promote a contrasting set of values: collectivity, collaboration, resource-sharing, and full democratic participation."

The children were allegedly incorporating into Legotown "their assumptions about ownership and the social power it conveys." These assumptions "mirrored those of a class-based, capitalist society -- a society that we teachers believe to be unjust and oppressive."

And aren't those teachers just so miserable that they missed out on all the fun they could have had in the Soviet Union? But there's still time. I'm certain North Korea is accepting permanent resident visas.

The key phrase, of course, is "full democratic participation." Ah, yes. The old fall-back position. Fairness can only be achieved when everyone has an equal say in everything. Which means that I should be perfectly happy if I really wanted to buy a Honda (which, by the way, I do) but my neighbors voted me down, insisting that I buy an American-made car so I can support our poor, oppressed unions. They forget that this is precisely why the framers of the Constitution opted for a representative form of government in the first place.

A few days ago, ZeeMeister Bob (or "Step-Dad" to Woody) sent along something he'd gotten in one of those email strings that I tend to regard with suspicion, unless I happen to agree. I happen to agree with this one:

Father- Child Talk

A young woman was about to finish her first year of college. Like so many others her age, she considered herself to be a very liberal Democrat, and was very much in favor of the redistribution of wealth.

She was deeply ashamed that her father was a rather staunch Republican, a feeling she openly expressed. Based on the lectures that she had participated in, and the occasional chat with a professor, she felt that her father had for years harbored an evil, selfish desire to keep what he thought should be his.

One day she was challenging her father on his opposition to higher taxes on the rich and the addition of more government welfare programs. The self-professed objectivity proclaimed by her professors had to be the truth and she indicated so to her father.

He responded by asking how she was doing in school.

Taken aback, she answered rather haughtily that she had a 4.0 GPA, And let him know that it was tough to maintain, insisting that she was taking a very difficult course load and was constantly studying, which left her no time to go out and party like other people she knew. She didn't even have time for a boyfriend, and didn't really have many college friends because she spent all her time studying.

Her father listened and then asked, "How is your friend Audrey doing?"

She replied, "Audrey is barely getting by. All she takes are easy classes, she never studies, and she barely has a 2.0 GPA. She is so popular on campus; college for her is a blast. She's always invited to all the parties, and lots of times she doesn't even show up for classes because she's too hung over."

Her wise father asked his daughter, "Why don't you go to the Dean's office and ask him to deduct a 1.0 off your GPA and give it to your friend who only has a 2.0. That way you will both have a 3.0 GPA and certainly that would be a fair and equal distribution of GPA."

The daughter, visibly shocked by her father's suggestion, angrily fired back, "That wouldn't be fair! I have worked really hard for my grades! I've invested a lot of time, and a lot of hard work! Audrey has done next to nothing toward her degree. She played while I worked my tail off!"

The father slowly smiled, winked and said gently, " Welcome to the Republican party."

Agree or disagree, in my mind her father gives a perfect description of "full democratic participation."

Seattle private schools - reason #1,276 why we homeschool.